pop morality

[Drich]

quotation???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole

http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxies...130227.htm

Connect the dots, dipshit.

Seriously, how intellectually lazy are you?

I'm done playing with you.  I have better things to do with my time than continually prove you wrong.

No Moron I am asking for a quotation that 'spins Hawkin's theory" into the crap you just posted. Or again did you not read Hawkin's theory that changes the crap understood in the two 'references' you just made?

Which again points to the fact that your 'theory' is contested. that means what has been observed is also contested or rather the interpretation of what has been observed is contested when filtered through the current black hole theories has YOU know them.

[downbeatplumb]

So Drich is all against things that are proven to exist with a high level of certainty, black holes the Higgs etc, but is all for a character which has been found to a high level of certainty to NOT exist.

[drfuzzy]

Yeah, Dripshit (who proves with every sentence he posts that he is NOT smarter than a 5th-grader) thinks he knows more than Einstein, Hawking, and all of the scientists at CERN. Of course, he sounds a lot like the preechur that told me that any scientist who disagreed with the buy-bull was actually a demon in disguise.  Scientists are Satan's Army, you know.  So he attacks things like "theories" when he doesn't know how they work, why we have them, or that scientists are actually HAPPY when new data disproves a theory.  

[GUBU]

Did Drippy Doodle ACTUALLY call the LHC a POS???  Did I read that correctly?  The largest machine in the world, possibly the most respected scientific institution in the world, a globally interconnected group of scientists responsible for some of the most impactful and impressive new discoveries in particle physics - - he called it a piece of shit?   Just . . . how . . . ignorant . . . and . . . deluded . . .           

Oh.  Waitaminnit.  It's Drippy. He's one o' dem preechurs who tells folks not to go to college because then they'll think they're smarter than gawd. (I actually had a preacher tell me this, when I was going off to college.)

A brain is a terrible thing to waste.   



I had a preacher tell me this too.  He said that we should use "thee" and "thou" when we prayed because that's the way Jesus spoke.  

The sign on the church double jobbing for Rockstar Games was written by a Pratchett fan, methinks. Though the phrase was written as a warning about uncritically accepting gobbledygook, something churches expect you to do.

[Drich]

So Drich is all against things that are proven to exist with a high level of certainty, black holes the Higgs etc, but is all for a character which has been found to a high level of certainty to NOT exist.

Nuupe.

Drich is against those who blindly (on faith) accept things exist simply because they can not differentiate science fiction from scientific fact.

Again DBP if Black holes exist as you understand them, then why did Steven Hawking just publish a paper that clearly states they do not work as you think they do? Why is their conflicting data in the scientific community if Black holes have indeed been proven to exist?

Again If the Higgs Boson was conclusively found, then why are the Cern scientists not able to record or identify that specific partical? Why can they only look at what it supposedly leaves behind and claim it to be the particle? Do they not understand that someone else (like the team in denmark) could say those reminates are from another particles destruction??? Why did the team from denmark (who's research paper and concerns I posted) contradict the conclusions that the Cern scientist found? why is their ANY conflict of the Higgs data if infact their is conclusive proof the higgs exist?

Fact of the matter is they went looking for a chupacraba and found a flattened (beyond recognition) animal on the side of the road and claimed it to be a Chupacraba, and you by faith in 'science' now believe in the Chupacraba because some Paid scientists were pressured to produce results after working 2 years with a multi billion Euro POS and they tried to 'top shelf' (meaning they tried to put data out that only them and a handfull of other people on the planet could decipher) as being the particle they were looking for.

A honest man would look at what I just showed you and ask himself what else do i believe, just because my god of science says so? But not you huh? you like any man of strictly 'faith' (on either side of God/science) is going to bury his head in the sand at all of the conflicting evidence he is presented and pretend the person doing the presenting is dumb, so you can feel good about your ignorance.

[Drich]

Yeah, Dripshit (who proves with every sentence he posts that he is NOT smarter than a 5th-grader) thinks he knows more than Einstein, Hawking, and all of the scientists at CERN. Of course, he sounds a lot like the preechur that told me that any scientist who disagreed with the buy-bull was actually a demon in disguise.  Scientists are Satan's Army, you know.  So he attacks things like "theories" when he doesn't know how they work, why we have them, or that scientists are actually HAPPY when new data disproves a theory.  

Maybe that's why i back everything up I claim with primary source data sport. or did you forget to mention any of that on purpose?

I am in this conversation representing the findings a collective of particle physicists, and Steven Hawking's latest work on the subject. what have you brought to this discussion? oh, that's right you have a Sci fi based understanding of the subject, AND  you are name calling with a weak minded attempt at a general dismissal, via an ad Hom attack. (an attempt to kill the messenger by discrediting me.) oh, yeah don't let me forget the closing cartoon you posted the one that sealed my fate.

Douche bag

[drfuzzy]

So Drich is all against things that are proven to exist with a high level of certainty, black holes the Higgs etc, but is all for a character which has been found to a high level of certainty to NOT exist.

Nuupe.

Drich is against those who blindly (on faith) accept things exist simply because they can not differentiate science fiction from scientific fact.

Again DBP if Black holes exist as you understand them, then why did Steven Hawking just publish a paper that clearly states they do not work as you think they do? Why is their conflicting data in the scientific community if Black holes have indeed been proven to exist?

Again If the Higgs Boson was conclusively found, then why are the Cern scientists not able to record or identify that specific partical? Why can they only look at what it supposedly leaves behind and claim it to be the particle? Do they not understand that someone else (like the team in denmark) could say those reminates are from another particles destruction??? Why did the team from denmark (who's research paper and concerns I posted) contradict the conclusions that the Cern scientist found? why is their ANY conflict of the Higgs data if infact their is conclusive proof the higgs exist?

Fact of the matter is they went looking for a chupacraba and found a flattened (beyond recognition) animal on the side of the road and claimed it to be a Chupacraba, and you by faith in 'science' now believe in the Chupacraba because some Paid scientists were pressured to produce results after working 2 years with a multi billion Euro POS and they tried to 'top shelf' (meaning they tried to put data out that only them and a handfull of other people on the planet could decipher) as being the particle they were looking for.

A honest man would look at what I just showed you and ask himself what else do i believe, just because my god of science says so? But not you huh? you like any man of strictly 'faith' (on either side of God/science) is going to bury his head in the sand at all of the conflicting evidence he is presented and pretend the person doing the presenting is dumb, so you can feel good about your ignorance.

Green = mind-boggling ignorance, including a misunderstanding of scientific method.  Red = misspellings. 

[Drich]

Nuupe.

Drich is against those who blindly (on faith) accept things exist simply because they can not differentiate science fiction from scientific fact.

Again DBP if Black holes exist as you understand them, then why did Steven Hawking just publish a paper that clearly states they do not work as you think they do? Why is their conflicting data in the scientific community if Black holes have indeed been proven to exist?

Again If the Higgs Boson was conclusively found, then why are the Cern scientists not able to record or identify that specific partical? Why can they only look at what it supposedly leaves behind and claim it to be the particle? Do they not understand that someone else (like the team in denmark) could say those reminates are from another particles destruction??? Why did the team from denmark (who's research paper and concerns I posted) contradict the conclusions that the Cern scientist found? why is their ANY conflict of the Higgs data if infact their is conclusive proof the higgs exist?

Fact of the matter is they went looking for a chupacraba and found a flattened (beyond recognition) animal on the side of the road and claimed it to be a Chupacraba, and you by faith in 'science' now believe in the Chupacraba because some Paid scientists were pressured to produce results after working 2 years with a multi billion Euro POS and they tried to 'top shelf' (meaning they tried to put data out that only them and a handfull of other people on the planet could decipher) as being the particle they were looking for.

A honest man would look at what I just showed you and ask himself what else do i believe, just because my god of science says so? But not you huh? you like any man of strictly 'faith' (on either side of God/science) is going to bury his head in the sand at all of the conflicting evidence he is presented and pretend the person doing the presenting is dumb, so you can feel good about your ignorance.

Green = mind-boggling ignorance, including a misunderstanding of scientific method.  Red = misspellings. 

So you are doubling down.. Bold when you know your right, very very foolish when you thing the other person is just bluffing.

So lets see who is bluffing. Please use the link I provided that transcribes professor hawking's new black hole theory, or take the posted paper from the denmark team and show me where what I have said is not consistent with their findings (which again contradict or creates a conflict with your understanding of these two subjects.)

[drfuzzy]

Green = mind-boggling ignorance, including a misunderstanding of scientific method.  Red = misspellings. 

So you are doubling down.. Bold when you know your right, very very foolish when you thing the other person is just bluffing.

So lets see who is bluffing. Please use the link I provided that transcribes professor hawking's new black hole theory, or take the posted paper from the denmark team and show me where what I have said is not consistent with their findings (which again contradict or creates a conflict with your understanding of these two subjects.)

Do you not understand that research questioning CERN's findings is a GOOD thing?  This is how science works.  If a theory is disproved, it's great, because new knowledge has been added.  It's unlikely that the Higgs will be disproved, because it showed up as  ≈125 GeV, which was in expected parameters.  Science was delighted to find it.  IF it is proven to be something else, scientists will also be delighted.  It's just more data. The same with black holes.  They've been identified and mapped through gravitational effects and radiation (and - - what else - - physicists help, I'm forgetting something).  If they turn out to be something else entirely, cool!!  More data.

[downbeatplumb]

So Drich is all against things that are proven to exist with a high level of certainty, black holes the Higgs etc, but is all for a character which has been found to a high level of certainty to NOT exist.

Nuupe.

Drich is against those who blindly (on faith) accept things exist simply because they can not differentiate science fiction from scientific fact.

Again DBP if Black holes exist as you understand them, then why did Steven Hawking just publish a paper that clearly states they do not work as you think they do? Why is their conflicting data in the scientific community if Black holes have indeed been proven to exist?

You see what you've done there is not actually understand what Stephen Hawking said. He said that things could escape from the "black hole" over time not that the thing itself did not exist. What he means is the idea that things cannot escape the event horizon is not true but the THING ITSELF IS THERE. all the science supports it so. So black hole real but not as black as thought.
http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawki...es-1.14583

Again If the Higgs Boson was conclusively found, then why are the Cern scientists not able to record or identify that specific partical? Why can they only look at what it supposedly leaves behind and claim it to be the particle? Do they not understand that someone else (like the team in denmark) could say those reminates are from another particles destruction??? Why did the team from denmark (who's research paper and concerns I posted) contradict the conclusions that the Cern scientist found? why is their ANY conflict of the Higgs data if infact their is conclusive proof the higgs exist?

What you are showing here is your ignorance on particle physics. I too am ignorant on particle physics so I tend to trust particle physicists to tell me things related to that field because they've put in the years of study and have the big machines. If they say they've found the higgs I am forced to accept that because I am unqualified to argue the point and so Drich are you.

Fact of the matter is they went looking for a chupacraba and found a flattened (beyond recognition) animal on the side of the road and claimed it to be a Chupacraba, and you by faith in 'science' now believe in the Chupacraba because some Paid scientists were pressured to produce results after working 2 years with a multi billion Euro POS and they tried to 'top shelf' (meaning they tried to put data out that only them and a handfull of other people on the planet could decipher) as being the particle they were looking for.

No that's how religion works, it tries to confirm what it looks for science tries to disprove things. What else could have done this thing?

A honest man would look at what I just showed you and ask himself what else do i believe, just because my god of science says so? But not you huh? you like any man of strictly 'faith' (on either side of God/science) is going to bury his head in the sand at all of the conflicting evidence he is presented and pretend the person doing the presenting is dumb, so you can feel good about your ignorance.

[/quote]

You seem to not understand simple facts and have misinterpreted some simple facts because you wrongly thought they supported your point. nothing you have pointed to has made me thing any more highly of your abilities, exactly the opposite.