If you faked them once why would you NOT fake them 6 times? No real danger to astro-nots.
Doesn't matter if you're a cold/unfriendly person. When you go to the fucking moon it's kind of a big deal, you don't act like someone just killed your dog.
Don't you think that you would be excited that you just accomplished the biggest achievement of all of mankind? I don't buy your story for half a second.
It's not about being a people person versus a pilot it's about acting like a human being acts given the circumstances. He's clearly being deceptive.
The Mandela Effect, is, just like the Flat Earth Theory a PSY-OP
IT Server and Storage technology, together with A.I. processing technology has gotten to such point that ALL our webtraffic now goes through what is called the "Holo-Web". Think of this as a FORCED TRANSPARENT PROXY. It caches stuff. It modifies stuff. The A.I. systems can then modify images and texts and cache these. You're not going to know.
What happens here is that with these systems, "History" recorded in the digital sphere is altered and changed. We're being mind-fucked literally by a very evil group of people in order to dis-orient our global consciousness in an attempt to scatter us mentally.
Do not doubt your MEMORIES. It's history (both textual and graphical) in the digitally stored sphere that's being altered. And that, my friends is a CRIME of EXTREME levels.
Jesus Fucking Christ. I went down the "Mandela Effect Rabbit Hole" a couple of months back. I watched 1 video on youtube. Thought, "OK, that's pretty interesting for a really stupid conspiracy theory. I'll close this book and not concern myself with this nonsense any more"...
Holy shit was I in for it. For some reason Youtube assumed I was more interested than I was. For the next month all of my recommended videos on the side bar were nothing but Mandela Effect videos with some flat-earth bullshit thrown in.
They're just trying to go smaller and smaller. When you get down to the nucleus of an atom you have neutrons, then you can go smaller, and I assume this is either them going smaller or just finding more things like quarks and stuff. What does this mean to the average person? Jack shit, until we can find a way to use them, or use the theory of them to open a wormhole or harvest darkmatter or something. But we'll be dead by then.
I think there will continue to be more insight had from LHC on dark matter from this. Personally i cant imagine it being anything innovative, just more insight on possible particles that coexist between these states of matter. But what if theres existential meaning behind these discoveries? Did i smoke too much weed again?
By a third party with an LHC, yeah. Given the size of the project, it's probably more like the type of thing you buy time on to run an experiment. Like a radio telescope.
IIRC, the LHC has several detectors, and they're each run by different groups. Additionally, they show their findings to other similar installations, and through those 2 methods, they're able to verify their findings. I remember a recent event where some group (Not CERN, I think) had some anomalous results regarding the speed of light being broken, and after being unable to falsify the results themselves, they released their data to the scientific community, basically asking for more eyes to proof their work. It was eventually found to be a glitch in some clock or another a loose connection (Thanks kneo24!), giving a bad reading. But yes, I understand that particle physicists working at installations like these work closely together to confirm (or reject!) each others' findings.
I heard CERN is actually not doing particle physics at all. What they are doing is opening gates to parallel dimensions and stealing the people from it. 100% undeniable proof here
But, of course, the Illuminati at CERN can't ever disclose any of that, so they fake "scientific" research papers to make people think they are searching for Large Hadrons.
Well, that starts treading into conspiracy territory very quickly, but to give an honest answer... I suppose at some point you need to determine for yourself a means to filter truth from fiction, and that's for everything, not just interesting science articles. Regarding physics discoveries, I'd strongly suggest hunting down the actual published papers, and reading them. Now, if you're anything like me, the math gets complicated quickly. In that instance, I have a Physicist friend from college who I'll regularly call to explain such esoteric topics.
Buuuut, to reject the "Just an illusion" hypothesis, or that they may just be actors? Well, if they're actors, they publish very impressive physics papers! If they were lying, others in the community would quickly debunk their findings. You see that all the time, science works by examining the world, suggesting hypothetical explanations on "what's going on," performing experiments, observing the results, adjusting the hypothesis, and repeating. Sometimes you spend silly amounts of money on a super stable measuring device floating on a pool of mercury only to find the thing you're looking for, the thing physics (at the time) thinks MUST exist... doesn't. And then you can watch as the physicist community goes into a frenzy trying to create a new model that takes into account the new findings until a patent clerk worked with a mathematician on some thought experiments regarding the speed of light (This anecdote revolves around the "crisis in physics" after the Michaelson-Morely experiment demonstrated the non-existence of the luminiferous ether, and Einstein's work on relativity that resolved the crisis).
I suppose, assuming you're serious about this line of inquiry, that the best way to be certain would be to get a PHD and join the physics community. But I certainly agree that such a method of verifying truth is time consuming at best. After you've spent a decade on your PHD, finally getting to a point where you can verify these findings, only to now wonder how to be sure, say, doctors are correct about correct about the use of chemotherapy for certain types of cancer. Time to goto med school!
I think a better solution would be to trust the community-regarded "experts" when dealing with information outside your area of expertise, and do your best to expand your area of expertise into areas you find interesting. This way, you'll always be expanding your knowledge, and you'll be able to tell more easily for yourself, simply from your vast and diverse experience, what "truth" and "untruth" looks like. I'm firmly of the opinion that, if you watch people for long enough, you start to get a taste for how they sound when they're lying or otherwise trying to deceive, and when they're honest.
But maybe not. In the end, whom to trust and whom to distrust are very personal decisions you can only make for yourself.
Good luck!
I don't deny the physics papers are good, I just don't think the ones that play the part (stephen hawking for example) are really the person writing the paper. For instance, in mathematics, the name escapes me, but many top mathematicians got together and wrote a book under one name. They eventually came out and admitted there was no single author, but it was a group of them writing under one name.Now-a-days they could easily concoct up an actor to play the part of such a group of top physicists.
I just don't believe 'the experts'. Who gets to select 'the experts'. You can't just go get your PhD and do your own fringe research. It is all filtered through the system. Academia is very political. I have personal experience.
The ones who 'become' the top of the field are selected, in my opinion. They are not organic. They are fairy tale stories they tell us in order to obscure the truth. I don't think that all of science is bogus, I just believe what ((they)) tell us is nothing but a bunch of half-truths anyways, so we are better off sticking to things we can verify ourselves, or for which there exists overwhelming proof that anyone can look at and see for themselves, and if we can establish the proof is genuine and not fabricated.
The problem about a lot of these claims is that we just cannot very for ourselves if they are bullshitting everything. It would be really easy to restrict access to the top physics instruments to a select few who are a part of a system meant to function as gatekeepers.
When you say this,
I'm firmly of the opinion that, if you watch people for long enough, you start to get a taste for how they sound when they're lying or otherwise trying to deceive, and when they're honest.
I can't tell from your history what your professional experience may be, you seem to run in conspiracy circles, so I'll just be quick since I don't think you and I will change our minds much here. But I come from an environment where truth is vital to the continuing functioning of the system. If people lie to me, I can't do my job, and neither can they. So I suppose I'm predisposed to assume the best from people in general, and I understand that I may be outside the norm there. From your posts, I assume you come from a quite different environment.
For me, I trust "scientists" in general (there can be a great discussion around specific individuals, I'm sure) because it works. Sure, you can make the argument that experiments like this are merely "stamp collecting," but as we learn more about the environment around us, we're able to do such fascinating things. Like go to the moon. But this is where I think I'll end, because it appears that you don't think we even accomplished that feat. So... Not sure there's much more we would have in common. Ships passing in the night, I suppose.
Mitchell and Webb have a sketch that mirrors my response to moon hoaxers. Enjoy.
I don't believe we went to the moon. That's bullshit. Watch this conference and tell me what you think. It's only 3 and a half minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro.
FYI, just because something is a 'conspiracy' doesn't make it false. Newsflash, people do conspire, especially those at the top. There's a reason when you think 'conspiracy theory' you assume false immediately. You've been brainwashed.
You can make the same argument about any scientific project more complex than what you can do in a classroom, fundamentally there is a certain point where you can't do the project yourself and you're trusting the work of scientists. I mean for all I know nuclear energy isn't real and they're just using wood stoves to boil water, nobody outside the physicists and plant operators would know the difference.
Not the person you replied to, but, you and I can't. Because we don't understand particle physics and don't have Large Hardon Colliders.
At some point you have to trust someone, I suppose. Trust that the number of particle physicists out there would be make it tough for all of them to work together to make one big lie.
Particle physicists love proving each other wrong, breaking previously assumed "laws". Would be a difficult conspiracy.
We can't feed and clothe and get fresh water and stop killing one another on earth but I'm supposed to care about 5 'particles' that are completely unverifiable unless you're a part of the system, and who's effect on the day to day lives of us here on earth is 0?
Frankly, I don't believe them. I don't believe NASA, I don't believe our government, why would I believe what the people from these giant 'science' projects tell me? It's just more garbage being fed to us to keep us satisfied and obedient.
We can't feed and clothe and get fresh water and stop killing one another on earth but I'm supposed to care about 5 'particles' that are completely unverifiable unless you're a part of the system, and who's effect on the day to day lives of us here on earth is 0?
In 5 billion years the Sun is going to become a Red Giant and engulf the Earth. Those 5 particles you don't care about are probably going to be the key to getting our asses over to the next star system before we all get cooked.
Meanwhile, the people without food and clothes are doing absolutely nothing to help the situation.
There is no reason to wait that long. We can start now.
why don't we reduce the suffering of the people on the earth in the present?
Because we don't need 90% of the population anyway. Suffering is a personal problem which can be solved with personal responsibility. Do we really want people who are not willing to take personal responsibility for their own lives?
And you have FAITH that's what they're doing with their 'research'.
Look at it this way. The first ape who made fire by rubbing two sticks together probably had some ignorant conspiracy theorist ape buddies who couldn't comprehend what the fuck he was doing. Either you can be anti-fire or you can say "Hey, let's find out what this fire thing is useful for".
Research has gotten us this far. There's no point in halting it just because a few people can't get off their asses and grow a garden to feed themselves.
At least the ape had fire to show for his achievement. We don't get anything but stories.
Do us all a favor and go stick your head in the LHC while it's turned on. Tell us what you find out.
Also your world view seems.... Ill-informed.
What are you, some kind of ideological SJW or something? Nobody gives a fuck about you dude. Go become important and maybe we'll care about your opinion.
Just apply for a job as a janitor at the LHC dude. I mean, with your level of reasoning, I'm assuming that's what you are anyway.
Just say, "Hey guys! I'm going to go mop the tubes! I'll be done in half an hour!". I mean, you probably wont even need to ask they'll keep an eye out for you wait until you step inside and turn it on especially for you.
Make yourself useful and maybe you'll be worth more than an insult. I mean, fuck it. Even a $5 hooker is worth more than you are. She get's $5 and here you are getting paid in insults. Maybe you should think about that for a while.
We can't feed and clothe and get fresh water and stop killing one another on earth but I'm supposed to care about 5 'particles' that are completely unverifiable unless you're a part of the system, and who's effect on the day to day lives of us here on earth is 0?
This means nothing today, agreed. But such is the nature of "scientific progress". The guy who first had a nail from his sandal stick to a rock he found in his sheep field didn't benefit from that discovery at all. But without it, our world would be very different.
Frankly, I don't believe them.
Which is fine. But you have to ask... what WOULD make you believe them?
It's just more garbage being fed to us to keep us satisfied and obedient.
Yes. Theoretical physicists basically "mathematically" determine how a thing might happen. Based on an observation, they make guesses as to why a given thing was observed. They apply those guesses to other expectations. They work with "real" physicists to design experiments to test these expectations.
For the ol' theory of gravity... An example might be...
"Real" experimental physicists drop various objects with various masses in a vacuum and record how fast they fall. The experiment creates data.
The theoretical physicists would say "Gravity causes objects to accelerate towards the ground at 32 feet per second, per second. Any time anything is dropped it should accelerate at 32 feet per second."
Experimental physicists find an opportunity to do the same test on the moon. They find that the 32 ft/s^2 theory is wrong! On the moon they measured 5.3 ft/s^2! Back to the drawing board.
Theoretical physicists try to figure out what other factors might come into play. By comparing observations of orbital mechanics, data gathered from experiments in free space, noting the slight variability of the experiment depending on where on Earth it is performed, they come up with: F = G(m1m2/r2).
Experimental physicists try to design an experiment where they can tweak m1 and m2 (the masses of the two interacting bodies) and move them at different distances to each other (r). Then they measure the gravitational force and find... It matches what the theoretical physicists predicted.
Case closed right? Nope... The theoretical physicists aren't quite happy... the "G" in their equation is the "gravitational constant". It's a really tiny number that you randomly have to stick into their otherwise neat equation to make it work. This number is currently "6.674×10−8 cm3·g−1·s−2" (with quite a bit of "uncertainty" due to how weak gravity is). Theoretical physicists want to know where the hell that number comes from... what causes it... can it be changed... does it work regardless of scale... between planets, or between particles? So they're off to the drawing boards again.
Edit: i thought it was obvious, but we definitely had the equation for gravity figured out before space travel / the moon. I was construting an example of the difference between theoretical physics and experimental physics. Not history.
That wasnt an argument. It was an example of the difference between theoretical and experimental physicists. That is not how the gravitational force equation was determined, and we knew this equation well before space travel was a thing, or not a thing.
Your acceptance of a moon landing is irrelevnt to the comparison.
I think they do shit like this to keep plebs interested in quote-unquote science while they're actually not learning any new truths about the universe.
Claims like this are always 100% faith-based if people believe them but people don't realize that. The religion of science is a really really bad one.
Large Hadron Collider turns up five new particles • The Register
"Image: CERNBoffins poring over data from the Large Hadron Collider's “Beauty” experiment are blinking in surprise, having turned up five new particles in one hit."
'In its announcement, CERN says the next step will be to get the quantum numbers of the new particles. '
'Particles identified as pions, kaon, etc. are shown in different colours. ', "LHCb scientists Dr Greig Cowan of the UK's University of Edinburgh told the BBC the discovery “will shed light on how quarks bind together.", "Ever since Ω 0 was first observed in 1994, scientists have predicted states like the five now spotted by CERN, but they needed LHCb's sensitivity to watch their brief life."
NeoGoat ago
They should run their vacuum more; whenever I see particles, I grab my Hoover.
GoProOnAYoYo ago
When you admit to only reading the title, you sound just as dumb as the people you're bitching about.
SaveTheChildren ago
If you faked them once why would you NOT fake them 6 times? No real danger to astro-nots.
Doesn't matter if you're a cold/unfriendly person. When you go to the fucking moon it's kind of a big deal, you don't act like someone just killed your dog.
SaveTheChildren ago
Don't you think that you would be excited that you just accomplished the biggest achievement of all of mankind? I don't buy your story for half a second.
It's not about being a people person versus a pilot it's about acting like a human being acts given the circumstances. He's clearly being deceptive.
1Sorry_SOB ago
That sounds painful.
Oh, I read that Large hardon collider
dropthedeepstate ago
Which of these particles will make gold?
heroinwinsagain ago
great, unfake the moonlandings, fucking cocksuckers.
5 new particles to bomb third world brown people, it will make our lives, worth losing.
badneighbor ago
Oh fanfuckingtastic, yet more reality to be unwound by Mandela Effect. What will change this time? Are they gonna fuck with our beer next?
Edit: guys it was a fucking shitpost jesus christ.
ArtificalDuality ago
The Mandela Effect, is, just like the Flat Earth Theory a PSY-OP
IT Server and Storage technology, together with A.I. processing technology has gotten to such point that ALL our webtraffic now goes through what is called the "Holo-Web". Think of this as a FORCED TRANSPARENT PROXY. It caches stuff. It modifies stuff. The A.I. systems can then modify images and texts and cache these. You're not going to know.
What happens here is that with these systems, "History" recorded in the digital sphere is altered and changed. We're being mind-fucked literally by a very evil group of people in order to dis-orient our global consciousness in an attempt to scatter us mentally.
An example here: 3-CPO from Starwars never had a Silver Leg. The updating of images with the droid to a silver leg only partially completed There's not a single physical real-world toy having a silver leg.
Do not doubt your MEMORIES. It's history (both textual and graphical) in the digitally stored sphere that's being altered. And that, my friends is a CRIME of EXTREME levels.
http://www.jimstone.is has articles on this.
What evil am I talking about? Take a look here:
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1740208
And here:
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate
All here on VOAT. These links will red-pill you all.
Chimaira92 ago
Yes, they will change the name or logo to be slightly different! OH HAIL THE LEAKING ALTERNATE DIMENSIONS!!!!
/s
Master_Foo ago
Jesus Fucking Christ. I went down the "Mandela Effect Rabbit Hole" a couple of months back. I watched 1 video on youtube. Thought, "OK, that's pretty interesting for a really stupid conspiracy theory. I'll close this book and not concern myself with this nonsense any more"...
Holy shit was I in for it. For some reason Youtube assumed I was more interested than I was. For the next month all of my recommended videos on the side bar were nothing but Mandela Effect videos with some flat-earth bullshit thrown in.
Chimaira92 ago
Ahahaha im not the only one, I got sucked into their way of thinking for maybe 30 mins tops before I snapped out of it.
The way these people act lead me to believe it's a social experiment set on producing fake memories on a large population.
Which is actually what MKULTRA was set in motion to do in the early 50s.....
TestForScience ago
I'm not 100% sure, but if you open up a science book and go to the periodic table, isn't there already like, seven or so man-made elements?
weezkitty ago
Sub atomic particles are different than elements. Manmade elements are still made out of regular ol' protons and neutrons.
TestForScience ago
That's right, sorry, brain fart.
What exactly would a new particle be then?
Motoko ago
They're just trying to go smaller and smaller. When you get down to the nucleus of an atom you have neutrons, then you can go smaller, and I assume this is either them going smaller or just finding more things like quarks and stuff. What does this mean to the average person? Jack shit, until we can find a way to use them, or use the theory of them to open a wormhole or harvest darkmatter or something. But we'll be dead by then.
Bigbensbathroomstall ago
I think there will continue to be more insight had from LHC on dark matter from this. Personally i cant imagine it being anything innovative, just more insight on possible particles that coexist between these states of matter. But what if theres existential meaning behind these discoveries? Did i smoke too much weed again?
Motoko ago
yes
SaveTheChildren ago
K then who cares? How do we even know that machine works like they tell us. We give 100% faith in their claims.
ZYX321 ago
What would constitute proof, in your mind, that the machine works like they say?
SaveTheChildren ago
Are their results verifiable by a third party?
ZYX321 ago
By a third party with an LHC, yeah. Given the size of the project, it's probably more like the type of thing you buy time on to run an experiment. Like a radio telescope.
Stadred ago
IIRC, the LHC has several detectors, and they're each run by different groups. Additionally, they show their findings to other similar installations, and through those 2 methods, they're able to verify their findings. I remember a recent event where some group (Not CERN, I think) had some anomalous results regarding the speed of light being broken, and after being unable to falsify the results themselves, they released their data to the scientific community, basically asking for more eyes to proof their work. It was eventually found to be
a glitch in some clock or anothera loose connection (Thanks kneo24!), giving a bad reading. But yes, I understand that particle physicists working at installations like these work closely together to confirm (or reject!) each others' findings.kneo24 ago
The issue was a loose connection some cable had. Not a "glitch in some clock". It was a physical connection not properly tightened.
Stadred ago
Ah, thanks for setting that straight!
SaveTheChildren ago
How can you be for certain that That's Not Just an Illusion though and that those aren't just actors playing top particle physicists?
How can we confirm the machine works like they tell us?
Master_Foo ago
I heard CERN is actually not doing particle physics at all. What they are doing is opening gates to parallel dimensions and stealing the people from it. 100% undeniable proof here
But, of course, the Illuminati at CERN can't ever disclose any of that, so they fake "scientific" research papers to make people think they are searching for Large Hadrons.
Stadred ago
Well, that starts treading into conspiracy territory very quickly, but to give an honest answer... I suppose at some point you need to determine for yourself a means to filter truth from fiction, and that's for everything, not just interesting science articles. Regarding physics discoveries, I'd strongly suggest hunting down the actual published papers, and reading them. Now, if you're anything like me, the math gets complicated quickly. In that instance, I have a Physicist friend from college who I'll regularly call to explain such esoteric topics.
Buuuut, to reject the "Just an illusion" hypothesis, or that they may just be actors? Well, if they're actors, they publish very impressive physics papers! If they were lying, others in the community would quickly debunk their findings. You see that all the time, science works by examining the world, suggesting hypothetical explanations on "what's going on," performing experiments, observing the results, adjusting the hypothesis, and repeating. Sometimes you spend silly amounts of money on a super stable measuring device floating on a pool of mercury only to find the thing you're looking for, the thing physics (at the time) thinks MUST exist... doesn't. And then you can watch as the physicist community goes into a frenzy trying to create a new model that takes into account the new findings until a patent clerk worked with a mathematician on some thought experiments regarding the speed of light (This anecdote revolves around the "crisis in physics" after the Michaelson-Morely experiment demonstrated the non-existence of the luminiferous ether, and Einstein's work on relativity that resolved the crisis).
I suppose, assuming you're serious about this line of inquiry, that the best way to be certain would be to get a PHD and join the physics community. But I certainly agree that such a method of verifying truth is time consuming at best. After you've spent a decade on your PHD, finally getting to a point where you can verify these findings, only to now wonder how to be sure, say, doctors are correct about correct about the use of chemotherapy for certain types of cancer. Time to goto med school!
I think a better solution would be to trust the community-regarded "experts" when dealing with information outside your area of expertise, and do your best to expand your area of expertise into areas you find interesting. This way, you'll always be expanding your knowledge, and you'll be able to tell more easily for yourself, simply from your vast and diverse experience, what "truth" and "untruth" looks like. I'm firmly of the opinion that, if you watch people for long enough, you start to get a taste for how they sound when they're lying or otherwise trying to deceive, and when they're honest.
But maybe not. In the end, whom to trust and whom to distrust are very personal decisions you can only make for yourself.
Good luck!
SaveTheChildren ago
I don't deny the physics papers are good, I just don't think the ones that play the part (stephen hawking for example) are really the person writing the paper. For instance, in mathematics, the name escapes me, but many top mathematicians got together and wrote a book under one name. They eventually came out and admitted there was no single author, but it was a group of them writing under one name.Now-a-days they could easily concoct up an actor to play the part of such a group of top physicists.
I just don't believe 'the experts'. Who gets to select 'the experts'. You can't just go get your PhD and do your own fringe research. It is all filtered through the system. Academia is very political. I have personal experience.
The ones who 'become' the top of the field are selected, in my opinion. They are not organic. They are fairy tale stories they tell us in order to obscure the truth. I don't think that all of science is bogus, I just believe what ((they)) tell us is nothing but a bunch of half-truths anyways, so we are better off sticking to things we can verify ourselves, or for which there exists overwhelming proof that anyone can look at and see for themselves, and if we can establish the proof is genuine and not fabricated.
The problem about a lot of these claims is that we just cannot very for ourselves if they are bullshitting everything. It would be really easy to restrict access to the top physics instruments to a select few who are a part of a system meant to function as gatekeepers.
When you say this,
I suggest you go watch the appolo 11 conference video and tell me if you think they are lying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro
Stadred ago
I can't tell from your history what your professional experience may be, you seem to run in conspiracy circles, so I'll just be quick since I don't think you and I will change our minds much here. But I come from an environment where truth is vital to the continuing functioning of the system. If people lie to me, I can't do my job, and neither can they. So I suppose I'm predisposed to assume the best from people in general, and I understand that I may be outside the norm there. From your posts, I assume you come from a quite different environment.
For me, I trust "scientists" in general (there can be a great discussion around specific individuals, I'm sure) because it works. Sure, you can make the argument that experiments like this are merely "stamp collecting," but as we learn more about the environment around us, we're able to do such fascinating things. Like go to the moon. But this is where I think I'll end, because it appears that you don't think we even accomplished that feat. So... Not sure there's much more we would have in common. Ships passing in the night, I suppose.
Mitchell and Webb have a sketch that mirrors my response to moon hoaxers. Enjoy.
SaveTheChildren ago
That's called an appeal to authority.
I don't believe we went to the moon. That's bullshit. Watch this conference and tell me what you think. It's only 3 and a half minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro.
FYI, just because something is a 'conspiracy' doesn't make it false. Newsflash, people do conspire, especially those at the top. There's a reason when you think 'conspiracy theory' you assume false immediately. You've been brainwashed.
goat2017 ago
You can make the same argument about any scientific project more complex than what you can do in a classroom, fundamentally there is a certain point where you can't do the project yourself and you're trusting the work of scientists. I mean for all I know nuclear energy isn't real and they're just using wood stoves to boil water, nobody outside the physicists and plant operators would know the difference.
ZYX321 ago
Not the person you replied to, but, you and I can't. Because we don't understand particle physics and don't have Large Hardon Colliders.
At some point you have to trust someone, I suppose. Trust that the number of particle physicists out there would be make it tough for all of them to work together to make one big lie.
Particle physicists love proving each other wrong, breaking previously assumed "laws". Would be a difficult conspiracy.
SaveTheChildren ago
if you and I can't then who cares?
We can't feed and clothe and get fresh water and stop killing one another on earth but I'm supposed to care about 5 'particles' that are completely unverifiable unless you're a part of the system, and who's effect on the day to day lives of us here on earth is 0?
Frankly, I don't believe them. I don't believe NASA, I don't believe our government, why would I believe what the people from these giant 'science' projects tell me? It's just more garbage being fed to us to keep us satisfied and obedient.
Master_Foo ago
In 5 billion years the Sun is going to become a Red Giant and engulf the Earth. Those 5 particles you don't care about are probably going to be the key to getting our asses over to the next star system before we all get cooked.
Meanwhile, the people without food and clothes are doing absolutely nothing to help the situation.
SaveTheChildren ago
5 billion years is a long time, why don't we reduce the suffering of the people on the earth in the present?
And you have FAITH that's what they're doing with their 'research'.
Master_Foo ago
There is no reason to wait that long. We can start now.
Because we don't need 90% of the population anyway. Suffering is a personal problem which can be solved with personal responsibility. Do we really want people who are not willing to take personal responsibility for their own lives?
Look at it this way. The first ape who made fire by rubbing two sticks together probably had some ignorant conspiracy theorist ape buddies who couldn't comprehend what the fuck he was doing. Either you can be anti-fire or you can say "Hey, let's find out what this fire thing is useful for".
Research has gotten us this far. There's no point in halting it just because a few people can't get off their asses and grow a garden to feed themselves.
SaveTheChildren ago
At least the ape had fire to show for his achievement. We don't get anything but stories.
Also your world view seems.... Ill-informed.
Master_Foo ago
Do us all a favor and go stick your head in the LHC while it's turned on. Tell us what you find out.
What are you, some kind of ideological SJW or something? Nobody gives a fuck about you dude. Go become important and maybe we'll care about your opinion.
SaveTheChildren ago
As if they would let us see that thing up close and turned on and such.
Master_Foo ago
Just apply for a job as a janitor at the LHC dude. I mean, with your level of reasoning, I'm assuming that's what you are anyway.
Just say, "Hey guys! I'm going to go mop the tubes! I'll be done in half an hour!". I mean, you probably wont even need to ask they'll keep an eye out for you wait until you step inside and turn it on especially for you.
SaveTheChildren ago
And all you can do is throw insults...
Master_Foo ago
Make yourself useful and maybe you'll be worth more than an insult. I mean, fuck it. Even a $5 hooker is worth more than you are. She get's $5 and here you are getting paid in insults. Maybe you should think about that for a while.
SaveTheChildren ago
Ouch
ZYX321 ago
Not you, obviously. And that's fine!
This means nothing today, agreed. But such is the nature of "scientific progress". The guy who first had a nail from his sandal stick to a rock he found in his sheep field didn't benefit from that discovery at all. But without it, our world would be very different.
Which is fine. But you have to ask... what WOULD make you believe them?
Man, what do you think of pop culture then?
SaveTheChildren ago
Pop culture is a bunch of trannies turning everyone into supreme faggots, degenerates, tranny abominations!
/v/Transvestigation
Antiracist10 ago
You could go to school and then become of the in-group.
@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh
Grifter42 ago
Fuck you, nigger-lover.
SaveTheChildren ago
You won't get in 'the group' unless you're jewish or trannify yourself and worship satan, or both.
Antiracist10 ago
Well, how bad do you want it?
@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh
SaveTheChildren ago
I still have all of my penis, and I'll be keeping all of it. So that's a big NO THANKYOU
Antiracist10 ago
It's takes one patriot to cut off his penis to expose NASA.
@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh
SaveTheChildren ago
Maybe someone the jews already mutilated can offer the rest of their dong to them.
fuckinghell ago
Get a theoratical physics degree.
Grifter42 ago
I don't need to. I already theoretically have a degree in physics.
SaveTheChildren ago
theoretical physics, rather than real physics.
ZYX321 ago
Yes. Theoretical physicists basically "mathematically" determine how a thing might happen. Based on an observation, they make guesses as to why a given thing was observed. They apply those guesses to other expectations. They work with "real" physicists to design experiments to test these expectations.
For the ol' theory of gravity... An example might be...
"Real" experimental physicists drop various objects with various masses in a vacuum and record how fast they fall. The experiment creates data.
The theoretical physicists would say "Gravity causes objects to accelerate towards the ground at 32 feet per second, per second. Any time anything is dropped it should accelerate at 32 feet per second."
Experimental physicists find an opportunity to do the same test on the moon. They find that the 32 ft/s^2 theory is wrong! On the moon they measured 5.3 ft/s^2! Back to the drawing board.
Theoretical physicists try to figure out what other factors might come into play. By comparing observations of orbital mechanics, data gathered from experiments in free space, noting the slight variability of the experiment depending on where on Earth it is performed, they come up with: F = G(m1m2/r2).
Experimental physicists try to design an experiment where they can tweak m1 and m2 (the masses of the two interacting bodies) and move them at different distances to each other (r). Then they measure the gravitational force and find... It matches what the theoretical physicists predicted.
Case closed right? Nope... The theoretical physicists aren't quite happy... the "G" in their equation is the "gravitational constant". It's a really tiny number that you randomly have to stick into their otherwise neat equation to make it work. This number is currently "6.674×10−8 cm3·g−1·s−2" (with quite a bit of "uncertainty" due to how weak gravity is). Theoretical physicists want to know where the hell that number comes from... what causes it... can it be changed... does it work regardless of scale... between planets, or between particles? So they're off to the drawing boards again.
Edit: i thought it was obvious, but we definitely had the equation for gravity figured out before space travel / the moon. I was construting an example of the difference between theoretical physics and experimental physics. Not history.
FuckReddit69 ago
Moon? I stopped reading at that point. We never went to the moon so your argument is moot.
ZYX321 ago
That wasnt an argument. It was an example of the difference between theoretical and experimental physicists. That is not how the gravitational force equation was determined, and we knew this equation well before space travel was a thing, or not a thing.
Your acceptance of a moon landing is irrelevnt to the comparison.
Chipcer ago
Fermi-Lab ...possible ...that's if the US or Congress funded upgrades
knightwarrior41 ago
this the key right here.
SaveTheChildren ago
I'm so sick of 'science' these days I could just SCREAM!
knightwarrior41 ago
yeah i dont believe it either
SaveTheChildren ago
I think they do shit like this to keep plebs interested in quote-unquote science while they're actually not learning any new truths about the universe.
Claims like this are always 100% faith-based if people believe them but people don't realize that. The religion of science is a really really bad one.
Antiracist10 ago
Expert testimony is evidence.
@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh
SaveTheChildren ago
Just go watch the bride-of-frankenstein hair they pass for 'being on the iss' and get back to me.
derram ago
https://archive.is/mklfW | https://vgy.me/S5uh9B.png :
"Image: CERNBoffins poring over data from the Large Hadron Collider's “Beauty” experiment are blinking in surprise, having turned up five new particles in one hit."
'In its announcement, CERN says the next step will be to get the quantum numbers of the new particles. '
'Particles identified as pions, kaon, etc. are shown in different colours. ', "LHCb scientists Dr Greig Cowan of the UK's University of Edinburgh told the BBC the discovery “will shed light on how quarks bind together.", "Ever since Ω 0 was first observed in 1994, scientists have predicted states like the five now spotted by CERN, but they needed LHCb's sensitivity to watch their brief life."
This has been an automated message.