Jump to content
  • Sign Up
Sign Up To Remove Ads! | Purchase An Ad Slot!

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies. Want this topic removed from the archive?

Guest

Five Simple Questions Science Can't Answer

Recommended Posts

Guest
28 minutes ago, Challenger said:

We are, and I'll drop out. But why did you just take a snipe at me?

You are great.

But a little too defensive.

We all pick and choose our "proofs".

And I like the ones taught to me in Kindergarten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VonLud said:

You are great.

But a little too defensive.

We all pick and choose our "proofs".

And I like the ones taught to me in Kindergarten.

And some people aren't satisfied with those answers. The brainwashing begins early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
39 minutes ago, VonLud said:

You are great.

But a little too defensive.

We all pick and choose our "proofs".

And I like the ones taught to me in Kindergarten.

I just asked you a question.

39 minutes ago, VonLud said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lilly said:

1. Why do we sleep?
2. What's at the bottom of the ocean?
3. Why do we laugh?
4. How does riding a bike work?
5. How many planets are there in the Solar System?

You know I know the answers lol

1. To dream. Even animals dream, and those dreams help us in our day to day as well as inspire us to do something more, or atleast, diffrent, from where we are.

2. The sea floor. It's pretty volcanic down there. Someone got pretty deep, so while I'm typing this, I gotta see if I can find it on the google. Back, and I chose this one : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/120325-james-cameron-mariana-trench-challenger-deep-deepest-science-sub/

3. Same reason everyone frowns for the same reasons. Because we are all part of the same species weither popular opinion or not, and that's how we communicate. God laughs at funny stuff. We're in his image, so so do we. 

4. Gyroscopics.

5. That depends on your defination of planet and solar system. But from what NASA tells us, alot. From what we can observe, about 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
8 minutes ago, Challenger said:

I just asked you a question.

 

Ok.

The fact is, you use science to defend your positions.

Until it doesn't fit the narrative.

Then you become a disbeliever.

Edit: That goes for everyone here.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, VonLud said:

Ok.

The fact is, you use science to defend your positions.

Until it doesn't fit the narrative.

Then you become a disbeliever.

 

Can you give an example of when I did that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, Last1oftheJedi said:

This one will get me a warning.

Every!

Don't gang up.

It's not nice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
6 minutes ago, Challenger said:

Can you give an example of when I did that?

I can search through all the threads for a gotcha but, meh.

It's like when you believe it's hot in the upper atmosphere because science said so,

but don't believe in how it can be countered.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
7 minutes ago, VonLud said:

I can search through all the threads for a gotcha but, meh.

It's like when you believe it's hot in the upper atmosphere because science said so,

but don't believe in how it can be countered.

 

As I recall, you never responded when I said that once radiation reaches an object, the whole object gets warmer by conduction. I think I also added that the object would have to keep turning to avoid burning one side that happens to face the sun.

As to your statement here, in this particular case we can experiment here on earth to verify the effect. We have much observational science to support the idea that heat can indeed be radiated in a vacuum. This is empirical science, as opposed to the complete lack of hard evidence that there are in fact functioning satellites or a manned space station in the thermosphere.

Do you see the key difference?

Also, I'm holding NASA to their own standards, so of course I use their own claims against them. You're confused if you think I'd rely on NASA for any bit of information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Just now, Challenger said:

As I recall, you never responded when I said that once radiation reaches an object, the whole object gets warmer by conduction. I think I also added that the object would have to keep turning to avoid burning one side that happens to face the sun.

As to your statement here, in this particular case we can experiment here on earth to verify the effect. We have much observational science to support the idea that heat can indeed be radiated in a vacuum. This is empirical science, as opposed to the complete lack of hard evidence that there are in fact functioning satellites or a manned space station in the thermosphere.

Do you see the key difference?

No.

The temperatures inside an internal combustion engine could quickly melt the cylinder/piston.

It does not usually happen because of the cooling system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
5 minutes ago, VonLud said:

No.

The temperatures inside an internal combustion engine could quickly melt the cylinder/piston.

It does not usually happen because of the cooling system.

Does an engine's cooling system work in the direct radiation of the sun in a vacuum?

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I'm using NASA's own "science" against them. IF the thermosphere is as hot as they say, and IF there are satellites in that area, and SINCE we know that heat can be due to radiation rather than conduction or convection and thus the lack of air is irrelevant, THEN their claim of satellites in the thermosphere is false by their own standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×