The sausage slice was for fun, to troll a bunch of self-important academics that the astronomer wanted to expose as know-nothings. Just like the famous false studies that a group of pranksters snuck into SJW journals. Lying about disease is an entirely different matter.
Lying might be a bit strong but scientists can certainly be economical with the truth. Like politicians, they like to maintain some plausible deniability. Scientists will state their assumptions and those assumptions could well be flawed or one-sided. In any event, if the conclusions are wrong it is not their fault.
If anyone has followed the climate debate it will have been noticed that most adverse events will not happen for about 30 years. That gives enough time for the current band of scientists top have retired. I don't think that happens by accident.
Money talks as well. Remember when Rockefeller re-wrote the medical textbooks to include his new drugs and awarded money to medical schools that would use them? Now, doctors don't know anything about the cures and remedies that existed before the drug era.
University funding of scientists is also controlled. You might want to research the sex life of South American tree frogs but that is not likely to be a funding priority. However, if you changed your project to how climate change adversely affects the sex life of South American tree frogs you would be placed much nearer to the top of the list.
You just need to add a couple of paragraphs to your paper. One will imply that climate change "could" be adversely affecting things and the other will say more research is required. Job done.
Either look at the picture or stuff it. Unless you can prove the contrary, you have nothing to say. You can't spend your life going around saying "You're a liar!" to everyone, even if you have a low opinion of them. "But I have a low opinion because they lie!" "And why do you think they lie?" "Because they're liars!" Circular logic. Prove the lie without invoking prejudice. Most of what you think it their lie is really your ignorance.
I'm saying you are talking through your hat. There is no possibility you can prove NASA has lied about the space program, since you are not familiar enough with the science. (If you were, you would realize how foolish you are.)
NASA is in conformance with all the science we know, which largely existed before NASA was formed. Your focus on NASA just demonstrates that you have no grasp of the history of science, particularly astronomy and geophysics.
As for the Van Allen belt: Metal shielding in the spacecraft. They were shooting off as fast as a bullet from a gun. It's not like they were spending ALL DAY in there.
So, I guess, for you, nothing on Earth exists that you haven't seen personally. You have no use for travel agencies...to go places you don't believe exist. Makes one wonder to where all the airplanes, ships, buses, trains, and automobiles are going. Maps are useless works of fiction. Mapquest and Google Earth are frauds. And somehow, you know all this...because you figured it out for yourself. It is to prevent that degree of ignorance that we normally have schools.
I meant to say nothing is real except for the science that claims it's all a holographic illusion of course, and the occasional dweebtard playing adult designer of people zappers...kno wut I mean?
No...but neither do you have any idea what a hologram is. Read Gabor's book and find out. (If you don't know about Denis Gabor---yep, you don't have any idea of what a hologram is.)
Very good! Gabor is the hologram man,...but not the "Holographic Universe" man. That honor falls to theoretical tards like Suskind, Hawking, and string-thing Kako. It's kind of an inside joke in astro-physics circles. The halo (3-D) is a projection from a 2-d plane of a universe,...in theory...which makes Suskind, Hawkings, and string-thing "Flat Earthers". (you get invited to leave the lecture if you point this out) Trust the science! As an aside, those 45 cal lead balls don't qualify as "rays". :)
To be candid, I think the talk of a "hologram universe" is somewhere between frivolous and...frivolous. It explains nothing and adds a needless complexity.
As for the .45 caliber bullet, my point was to establish that it doesn't qualify as an illusion! (My graduate lab director in the 1970s derogated the idea of death rays. "Hell, we already have death rays. They're called machine guns! You point them at someone, pull the trigger, and they die!")
You shouldn't,...but if you believe everything came from nothing than you already believe nothing must be real. Personally, I'm fond of the computer-generated hologram theory. Curious wither they will discover it's a globe one or a flat one though.
Wither you subscribe to BiggaBang or creation theory everything clearly came from nothing. Judging from how big it got, musta been a whole lotta nothing!
The sausage slice was for fun, to troll a bunch of self-important academics that the astronomer wanted to expose as know-nothings. Just like the famous false studies that a group of pranksters snuck into SJW journals. Lying about disease is an entirely different matter.
Matter is matter...that whole E = mc2 thing
Right. That high-energy content piece of meat identifies as a fusion source.
Lying might be a bit strong but scientists can certainly be economical with the truth. Like politicians, they like to maintain some plausible deniability. Scientists will state their assumptions and those assumptions could well be flawed or one-sided. In any event, if the conclusions are wrong it is not their fault.
If anyone has followed the climate debate it will have been noticed that most adverse events will not happen for about 30 years. That gives enough time for the current band of scientists top have retired. I don't think that happens by accident.
Money talks as well. Remember when Rockefeller re-wrote the medical textbooks to include his new drugs and awarded money to medical schools that would use them? Now, doctors don't know anything about the cures and remedies that existed before the drug era.
University funding of scientists is also controlled. You might want to research the sex life of South American tree frogs but that is not likely to be a funding priority. However, if you changed your project to how climate change adversely affects the sex life of South American tree frogs you would be placed much nearer to the top of the list.
You just need to add a couple of paragraphs to your paper. One will imply that climate change "could" be adversely affecting things and the other will say more research is required. Job done.
Congratulations, you just earned your Masters degree.
He was making a prank. Space is real.
Either look at the picture or stuff it. Unless you can prove the contrary, you have nothing to say. You can't spend your life going around saying "You're a liar!" to everyone, even if you have a low opinion of them. "But I have a low opinion because they lie!" "And why do you think they lie?" "Because they're liars!" Circular logic. Prove the lie without invoking prejudice. Most of what you think it their lie is really your ignorance.
I'm saying you are talking through your hat. There is no possibility you can prove NASA has lied about the space program, since you are not familiar enough with the science. (If you were, you would realize how foolish you are.)
NASA is in conformance with all the science we know, which largely existed before NASA was formed. Your focus on NASA just demonstrates that you have no grasp of the history of science, particularly astronomy and geophysics.
Your shoulders must be so strong from moving those goalposts.
In June, a Vtuber's fans sent something to space for her birthday and saw the curvature of the Earth.
If THEY can do this...
By the way, you completely ignored the link. Interdasting.
"I don't see any evidence because my back is to it"
Two stars, sonny. Put on the glasses.
You didn't even read or watch.
You just said "Lies!"
As for the Van Allen belt: Metal shielding in the spacecraft. They were shooting off as fast as a bullet from a gun. It's not like they were spending ALL DAY in there.
Two stars, sonny. Two stars. That's all you need.
Science has shown definitively that it's all an illusion... nothing is real.
Tell that to the .45 caliber bullet coming at your head at 1000 feet per second.
A lot of people out there in cemeteries thanks to "illusions." Give up the sophomoric bullshit and become an adult.
So, I guess, for you, nothing on Earth exists that you haven't seen personally. You have no use for travel agencies...to go places you don't believe exist. Makes one wonder to where all the airplanes, ships, buses, trains, and automobiles are going. Maps are useless works of fiction. Mapquest and Google Earth are frauds. And somehow, you know all this...because you figured it out for yourself. It is to prevent that degree of ignorance that we normally have schools.
I meant to say nothing is real except for the science that claims it's all a holographic illusion of course, and the occasional dweebtard playing adult designer of people zappers...kno wut I mean?
No...but neither do you have any idea what a hologram is. Read Gabor's book and find out. (If you don't know about Denis Gabor---yep, you don't have any idea of what a hologram is.)
Very good! Gabor is the hologram man,...but not the "Holographic Universe" man. That honor falls to theoretical tards like Suskind, Hawking, and string-thing Kako. It's kind of an inside joke in astro-physics circles. The halo (3-D) is a projection from a 2-d plane of a universe,...in theory...which makes Suskind, Hawkings, and string-thing "Flat Earthers". (you get invited to leave the lecture if you point this out) Trust the science! As an aside, those 45 cal lead balls don't qualify as "rays". :)
To be candid, I think the talk of a "hologram universe" is somewhere between frivolous and...frivolous. It explains nothing and adds a needless complexity.
As for the .45 caliber bullet, my point was to establish that it doesn't qualify as an illusion! (My graduate lab director in the 1970s derogated the idea of death rays. "Hell, we already have death rays. They're called machine guns! You point them at someone, pull the trigger, and they die!")
Why should I believe your statement? It's not real.
You shouldn't,...but if you believe everything came from nothing than you already believe nothing must be real. Personally, I'm fond of the computer-generated hologram theory. Curious wither they will discover it's a globe one or a flat one though.
Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could.
Wither you subscribe to BiggaBang or creation theory everything clearly came from nothing. Judging from how big it got, musta been a whole lotta nothing!
Except quantum fluctuations. A necessary outcome.
"Nothing is real." Is that statement real?
Doesn't meet its own standard, thus is self-defeating. No.
Are trying to say it is as it seems?