The Illuminati and other Conspiracy Theories thread

[r0llinlacs]

Cheap get out. If a theory has no evidence it remains a theory. No evidence or proof = just a theory.

I personally believe that the universe had no set beginning, but I have no proof so it remains a theory.

Cheap get out? You mean just like how everyone here requires proof of a theory that is unproven? Isn't that a cheap get out? Opens the door for endless bashing because you know it can't be proven so you bash and discredit people trying to prove the unproven. Trolling is the only thing this thread accomplishes.

 

[Exorcet]

Are they not a similar thing though?

Technically in lay terms they are, but specifically a hypothesis is an unproven explanation while a theory is a working explanation that hasn't been contradicted yet even after testing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Gravity is a theory, so is aerodynamics.

Cheap get out? You mean just like how everyone here requires proof of a theory that is unproven? Isn't that a cheap get out?

That's not what's happening. People are asking for proof for something that some are claiming is real. Admitting that something is unproven ends the debate.

Opens the door for endless bashing because you know it can't be proven so you bash and discredit people trying to prove the unproven. Trolling is the only thing this thread accomplishes.

Except that you made a claim. Now you're back tracking.

 

[Furinkazen]

Cheap get out? You mean just like how everyone here requires proof of a theory that is unproven? Isn't that a cheap get out? Opens the door for endless bashing because you know it can't be proven so you bash and discredit people trying to prove the unproven. Trolling is the only thing this thread accomplishes.

If it isn't proven, then it isn't there to exist. You just pretty much nullified your entire argument.

 

[r0llinlacs]

If it isn't proven, then it isn't there to exist. You just pretty much nullified your entire argument.

The theory of gravity isn't proven either. So it must not exist either. You pretty much just nullified your entire argument as well.

 

[Joel]

What is this I don't even

 

[Furinkazen]

The theory of gravity isn't proven either. So it must not exist either. You pretty much just nullified your entire argument as well.

Ok, errr, jump in the air. You don't float away. You come back to the ground. Basics of science right there.

 

[Ryanswannell]

The theory of gravity isn't proven either. So it must not exist either. You pretty much just nullified your entire argument as well.

But at the end of the day, there is SOME eviednce that gravity DOES exist, in that we aren't floating around. You havent shown ANY evidence of the existence of the Illuminati other than some random links a few hours ago.

 

[r0llinlacs]

Ok, errr, jump in the air. You don't float away. You come back to the ground. Basics of science right there.

Gravity is a theory. Seriously, if you attempt to claim anything otherwise, you should speak for yourself when you post subtle personal attacks

"It is hypothesized that the gravitational force is mediated by a massless spin-2 particle called the graviton."

See that? Hypothesized.

 

[r0llinlacs]

But at the end of the day, there is SOME eviednce that gravity DOES exist, in that we aren't floating around. You havent shown ANY evidence of the existence of the Illuminati other than some random links a few hours ago.

You won't accept, read, research, or investigate the evidence. That is your problem.

 

[Furinkazen]

Gravity is a theory. Seriously, if you attempt to claim anything otherwise, you should speak for yourself when you post subtle personal attacks

"It is hypothesized that the gravitational force is mediated by a massless spin-2 particle called the graviton."

See that? Hypothesized.

Personal attacks?

Ok, did you come back to ground? Err yeah. proof it exists.

You won't accept, read, research, or investigate the evidence. That is your problem.

Practise what you preach.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.weathermodification.com/cloud-seeding-aerial.php

Here is a website that ought to be considered adequate evidence for this or any science oriented website that aerial weather modification exists in the form of seeding agents at the cloud top or cloud base.

We can all see by visual inspection that aircraft contrails over our cities will hang around and sometimes coalesce into clouds.

More controversial are claims that chemicals are dispersed by aircraft to actually nucleate clouds. These would be your "chem trails".

If "global warming" is a fact that government takes seriously, it would make sense that government would attempt something to mitigate its adverse effects. There is no doubt at all that more clouds will in net effect help to cool the planet. Clearly aircraft contrails help to form clouds.

What is lacking is any credible evidence presented here that government is attempting to nucleate clouds. I don't think you can find it.

Nucleation of clouds is a scientific subject and there are peer reviewed papers on it. In fact big money has been spent on cloud chamber studies. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51188502/PLA22068.pdf

 

[TenEightyOne]

The theory of gravity isn't proven either. So it must not exist either. You pretty much just nullified your entire argument as well.

But the evidence for its existence and action is massive. The theories for exactly which atomic interactions cause massive gravity are all unproven but the results out of which those hypotheses are formed are not.

You've provide a hypotheses with no evidence to support your theory. Gravity has evidence to support the as-yet-physically-unprovable theory. Try hovering your laptop outside a 3rd-floor window if you don't believe me.

 

[Exorcet]

Gravity is a theory. Seriously, if you attempt to claim anything otherwise, you should speak for yourself when you post subtle personal attacks

"It is hypothesized that the gravitational force is mediated by a massless spin-2 particle called the graviton."

See that? Hypothesized.

A theory can't be a hypothesis. Gravity is a theory. Gravitons are a hypothesis.

http://www.weathermodification.com/cloud-seeding-aerial.php

Here is a website that ought to be considered adequate evidence for this or any science oriented website that aerial weather modification exists in the form of seeding agents at the cloud top or cloud base.

We can all see by visual inspection that aircraft contrails over our cities will hang around and sometimes coalesce into clouds.

Yes.

More controversial are claims that chemicals are dispersed by aircraft to actually nucleate clouds. These would be your "chem trails".

If "global warming" is a fact that government takes seriously, it would make sense that government would attempt something to mitigate its adverse effects. There is no doubt at all that more clouds will in net effect help to cool the planet. Clearly aircraft contrails help to form clouds.

What is lacking is any credible evidence presented here that government is attempting to nucleate clouds. I don't think you can find it.

Nucleation of clouds is a scientific subject and there are peer reviewed papers on it. In fact big money has been spent on cloud chamber studies. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51188502/PLA22068.pdf

Why would anti global warming be secret? Why wouldn't someone be trying to take credit for it when it comes to reelection or something?

 

[r0llinlacs]

But the evidence for its existence and action is massive. The theories for exactly which atomic interactions cause massive gravity are all unproven but the results out of which those hypotheses are formed are not.

You've provide a hypotheses with no evidence to support your theory. Gravity has evidence to support the as-yet-physically-unprovable theory. Try hovering your laptop outside a 3rd-floor window if you don't believe me.

You reject any evidence presented as not credible. Sounds like a typical case of denial. Or government shillism.

 

[Enemem]

So let me get this straight, and I'm grateful for the learning, a theory is the next step from hypothesis. Start with hypothesis and then how much do you need to prove it before it becomes a theory? And then it becomes a theory, then how many more proofs do you need before it becomes fact?

Does this not mean that, that there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory, but there is such a thing as a conspiracy hypothesis?

 

[Furinkazen]

You reject any evidence presented as not credible. Sounds like a typical case of denial. Or government shillism.

You simply have to resort to conspiracy theories to back up the inaccuracies in your postings.

 

[Dotini]

Why would anti global warming be secret? Why wouldn't someone be trying to take credit for it when it comes to reelection or something?

I don't know. What do you think?
Note: "Why" is not a scientific question. That's in the arena of motives, always a tricky question. More usual is "how".

 

[TenEightyOne]

You reject any evidence presented as not credible. Sounds like a typical case of denial. Or government shillism.

Please, treat me as very stupid because I've missed something. In a single post could you collate your evidence without any external links? All I seem to have seen is attacks on the scepticism that some of us have felt about what we perceived to be a lack of source data...

 

[r0llinlacs]

You simply have to resort to conspiracy theories to back up the inaccuracies in your postings.

Keep pulling words out of your ass buddy. They hold no merit because I have not posted any inaccuracies. The only inaccuracy is your arrogant inability to investigate evidence presented to you.

 

[Furinkazen]

So let me get this straight, and I'm grateful for the learning, a theory is the next step from hypothesis. Start with hypothesis and then how much do you need to prove it before it becomes a theory? And then it becomes a theory, then how many more proofs do you need before it becomes fact?

Does this not mean that, that there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory, but there is such a thing as a conspiracy hypothesis?

@Exorcet might be able to say if i'm right here, but as I understand it, A hypothesis as I understand is an idea that has not been tested. Once the hypothesis is tested and found to have substantial concepts that can be applied and make sense, then it is a theory. Once a theory is substantiated enough to be proven or be demonstrated factually with 100% conclusive proof., it becomes a fact. The Theory Of General Relativity started as a hypothesis, and then was worked into a theory for example. However it is not fact as no stone hard proof exists to say that this was the absolute case, thus it remains a theory.

Keep pulling words out of your ass buddy. They hold no merit because I have not posted any inaccuracies. The only inaccuracy is your arrogant inability to investigate evidence presented to you.

What was that about personal insults?

 

[r0llinlacs]

Please, treat me as very stupid because I've missed something. In a single post could you collate your evidence without any external links? All I seem to have seen is attacks on the scepticism that some of us have felt about what we perceived to be a lack of source data...

No, you read the information and base your opinion on the information you read, just like I did. I'm not doing the work for you, sorry.

 

[Dotini]

I really wish moderators would delete offensive posts and ban those that make them.

Argument and debate should be conducted respectfully and politely, or not at all.

 

[Exorcet]

So let me get this straight, and I'm grateful for the learning, a theory is the next step from hypothesis. Start with hypothesis and then how much do you need to prove it before it becomes a theory? And then it becomes a theory, then how many more proofs do you need before it becomes fact?

Does this not mean that, that there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory, but there is such a thing as a conspiracy hypothesis?

A hypothesis leads to a theory when you have a valid explanation. Example, apples fall to Earth, but people don't fall at each other.

Hypothesis: More mass = more gravity

Test: Measure gravity on planets of different mass

If you discover a relation between mass and gravity, that relationship is added to gravity theory.

And yes a conspiracy theory is a hypothesis, but words can have different meanings. A conspiracy is a flock of ravens. A conspiracy theory isn't about birds.

I don't know. What do you think?
Note: "Why" is not a scientific question. That's in the arena of motives, always a tricky question. More usual is "how".

It is the motivation that I'm looking for. A lot of times, people say the chemtrails would be secret. I don't think that can be assumed off the bat.

 

[r0llinlacs]

I really wish moderators would delete offensive posts and ban those that make them.

Argument and debate sold be conducted respectfully and politely, or not at all.

If that were the case, moderators would be banned as well.

 

[Scaff]

Gravity is a theory. Seriously, if you attempt to claim anything otherwise, you should speak for yourself when you post subtle personal attacks

"It is hypothesized that the gravitational force is mediated by a massless spin-2 particle called the graviton."

See that? Hypothesized.

A theory and a hypothesis are not the same at all. You would do well to actually understand the difference between the two, given that the information on both has been provided I would suggest you use that information.

Actually don't bother. I've just seen your latest post and its seems the message about personal insults didn't get through, your gone.

 

[Enemem]

Would there be anyone left in the thread?

 

[Scaff]

So let me get this straight, and I'm grateful for the learning, a theory is the next step from hypothesis. Start with hypothesis and then how much do you need to prove it before it becomes a theory? And then it becomes a theory, then how many more proofs do you need before it becomes fact?

Does this not mean that, that there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory, but there is such a thing as a conspiracy hypothesis?

A theory is the collected understanding of all the facts on a subject, theories exist above facts.

As such you are quite right that conspiracy theories would be better called hypothesis at best, due to the almost total lack of evidence to support them.

 

[Ryanswannell]

No, you read the information and base your opinion on the information you read, just like I did. I'm not doing the work for you, sorry.

And I suppose that is why you aren't a scientist or a lawyer?

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, you read the information and base your opinion on the information you read, just like I did. I'm not doing the work for you, sorry.

I tried, r0llinlacs, I really did, I couldn't find anything, just a few links to sites that weren't really that relevant. I was hoping you could summarise in a paragraph, so far your replies have not really offered anything.

 

[Furinkazen]

And I suppose that is why you aren't a scientist or a lawyer?

I tried, r0llinlacs, I really did, I couldn't find anything, just a few links to sites that weren't really that relevant. I was hoping you could summarise in a paragraph, so far your replies have not really offered anything.

He's just got banned.