You are 100% wrong! Deny Ignorance

reply to post by whoshotJR

very good, my friend; star for you. as mature, somewhat rational adults we should be able to quietly examine all aspects of whatever is presented without the shouting and insults; however , there will always be those that demand proof of a subjective experience, that will attempt to brow-beat anf impueghn the intelligence or mental ability of anyone that doesn't fit into their perception of reality.

as they say, you say toe-may-toes and I say ta-ma-tas. sometimes we may agree, sometimes we may agree to disagree, but let's all do it in a kind and courteous manner consistent with the spirit of open minds and inquistive thought.

seeker

reply to post by whoshotJR


Yeah, well that is true. Although most people don't really put much thought into what doesn't present itself for examination through fault or incidence.

Take for example the belief by a lot of people that Alien visitors routinely or have in the past made the voyage to Earth, and have been captured or crash landed...

Although this can't really be proved or disproved, it is pretty unlikely that this event has occurred at one time or another... The Universe is just too big and we are too small to be found out about.

Now we exist and can leave our Planet true, but only on a limited basis. The technological and scientific prowess needed to have a living Alien being make it successfully to Earth from some vast distance is about 1% out of 100%.

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso

Originally posted by TheRealDonPedros
reply to post by C.H.U.D.

 

Thats a pretty big stretch to say a steam locomotive is "running" on water. Its inefficiently burning coal to heat the water which in turn creates steam that pumps the pistons.

So if the steam runs the engine and steam is a gaseous property of water..... ok I don't understand your logic, please explain.

In a steam engine, water is the working fluid not the energy source. In a modern power plant, the water is condensed and reboiled by external combustion of a fuel or other heat source. We could substitute other working fluids and modify our power plants to allow for their different properties. We would still make electricity; all we need is a temperature difference.

Hydroelectric turbines and old grist mills may be called "water powered" but the argument can get more complex when one considers that they are solar powered. Water, evaporated by the effect of sunlight, condensed in higher elevations and flowed due to the effects of gravity.

The hope of engines burning water is just that. Water cannot not provide any chemical energy because it will not combust in our atmosphere. There are many schemes that convert water to hydrogen and oxygen and then burn the hydrogen for propulsion. This is about 70% efficient; you get out about 70% of the energy that you put in to make the hydrogen. Sometimes, you might be willing to lose some efficiency for convenience of storing energy. This might be true if you had solar power making hydrogen that you could burn for energy when the sun was not visible. Batteries, ultracapacitors, flywheels, compressed air and other methods also store energy from intermittent power sources. Burning water for transportation is a non starter. So is burning CO2; consider both of them to be as "burnt as you can get them."

Starred.

Well... my opinion bout ATS, and you can see I dont post much and mostly log in anon because I keep forgetting my username (:lol, is... the irony feeling I have when I see more skepticals in here than in any other forum.

While that is not the problem, the problem is when ppl post "BS! PICTURE OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN" or "YOU'RE FULL OF IT". That I dont agree.

As said, if you see a thread, and read it and you dont agree or dont believe it, if the subject doesnt interest you or the thread is "stupid" according to your beliefs, well, just dont reply.

I've been around ATS for AGES with different usernames and mostly anon and if for instance I see a thread called "Reptilian Girlfriend" "Yesterday I dreamed I was being kidnapped by reptians and one used a metal thing in my genitals to extract my semen for study, then when I woke up I had MARKS and when I checked them they seemed like teethmarks and went to compare it and they were my girlfriends teeth, so I broke up with that reptian btch" ok... so I laugh alone, but I dont bother to post, most of all out of respect for the person that posted because I dont really know if he really believes in it, and second because I really dont feel the need to post something like "OMG YOU'RE SO FULL OF IT".

Respect other ppl and other's beliefs - it doesnt hurt, really.

I struggle to answer this post because the OP has worded it to a degree where any critisizm makes one sound like an ass.

But since I have never shied away from being an ass.. here goes.

Denying Ignorance is a two way street, it means not only to pull your head out of the sand and look at the world around you with open eyes but also to realize physical and scientific limitations of what you are seeing.

Getting your panties in a bunch because someone says an engine cannot run on water is being ignorant to the world around you.
(just an example, I am not focusing on this)

It is easy to say one cannot know all the possibilities so one should not be quick to judge. Like maybe someday an engine will run on water.

But using that logic can also give rise to complete ignorance of science and rampant disinformation. if there were no one to counter the unfounded and unscientific arguments on ATS and it grew and grew as unchallenged fact we would all be living in a world where nothing was ever proven.

Sometimes skeptics act like children, but more often it is the other way around, with non sceintists claiming things or believing in things based on nothing more than hope and faith and when they canot back up their claims they get upset that someone calls them out.

Can you say someday an engine might be able to run on water?
Yes, you can say it... but you'd be ignorant to todays sceince and beholden to an unproven faith. Wouldn't I be just as justified under that logic that engines could someday run on dirt and day dreams?

not wanting to persist on this angle but its a such a good one...

If someone posts a thread here about running an engine on water, there will be naysayers and rightfully so, because every single time someone makes the claim, the claimant either lacks any evidence, or is an outright fraud. This goes for many of the topics where people get all flustered and call each other names.

Based on the science we know today and the rules of physics and nature an engine cannot run on water (unchanged and by itself).

The believers really ned to either grow a pair or start posting some evidence to back up certain claims at the same time some skeptics need to just chill a bit.

Along with this something else that I think is incorrect is the statement "Let's stop this once and for all"... If anything can be done once it's likely it can be undone or redone...multiple times!

Unfortunatly 'Beauty' like 'Truth' is in the eye of the beholder.

Thanks for the post.

Yes, quite right, but i have seen things i thought were impossible and as a result have to look at everything in a new light.
'Impossible' is no longer a part of my dictionary.
However, knowing how easy it is to be fooled, i also seek a rational
explanation for what i see.
Some things cannot be explained and so have to be accepted in blind faith,
coupled with logic, and make an informed guess.
For instance, my informed guess is that 9/11 was a set up, maybe i do not
have all the facts, but i know what a Squib is, and i know that i saw (just as YOU did)-molten steel running from the building. Kerosene in any amount cannot melt steel like that, only Thermite, or more likely it's military equivalent, Thermate.
-Technocrat-
(awaiting password)

reply to post by whoshotJR


there are people that are paid to spread disinfo and to do other negative tactics...

i have spoken to one such person on another forum..both funny and sad at the same time..lol

There is a huge gap between philosophically possible, theoretically possible, technically possible, and actually possible.

philosophically, the person behind me isn't there because I can't perceive him, technically, through quantum uncertainty, he may not be behind me becuase I am not observing him. Actually, he is behind me becuase he just shot me in the back.

Theoretically, there is a single right root size 12 1/2 nike air jordan floating somewhere in space. actually? there most likely isn't.

Its also the usual logical folly that people fall into that things exist until they do not. To say they do not until they can be proven they do is the same folly. There is a mix in between which is where the uncertainty principle comes in, but jus tbecuase there is a 0.0000000000000000000000001% chance it _may_ happen, doesn't mean it will, ever, during the entire existence of this universe.

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
There is a huge gap between philosophically possible, theoretically possible, technically possible, and actually possible.

actually possible?
where do aliens fall in?
either way I think this thread was more towards proving impossibility rather than proving possibility. Its the arrogance of so many members to denounce possibility (i'm guilty of it).

I agree hole-heartedly with the OP. Personally, I have nevver insulted or flamed anyone for a comment. At most I would ask for a further expanation on a point, or ofer a counter point. ATS members as a whole need to straiten out.

reply to post by gormly

But using that logic can also give rise to complete ignorance of science and rampant disinformation. if there were no one to counter the unfounded and unscientific arguments on ATS and it grew and grew as unchallenged fact we would all be living in a world where nothing was ever proven.

Agree'd. Alot of people say to keep an open mind, and use a window as their metaphor. This is true, to a degree. However, like a window, a mind that is too open is susceptible to all sorts of unwanted nasties and junk coming in too. Most windows that open come with some sort of a screen to keep this stuff out. Your mind should have a screen, or a filtering system as well. This is called reason.

Reason is a wonderful gift, and I only wished that more people would exercise it when making judgment calls on whether or not to believe claims presented to them.

I'll be a tad bit honest with you all. I've also been reading this website for a while now and I see nothing but intense forms of ignorance here.

Your main matter of topics are conspiracy theories. Theories that have been reproduced, sent around, and shot out many times. Theories like this are scare tactics sent forth to scare the people, as is the only reason people here keep sending them out.

I'm sorry the world seems like it is unfair. I'm sorry everything seems to not be going your way so you must make a lackluster conspiracy theory. "OMG THE GOVERNMENT'S GONNA KILL US!" I bet I could send some crazy theory out that says that somehow the dressers in our room have been laced with RFID tags, and it will one day shoot a mega-laser out to annihilate about 5.5 trillion of us.

Seriously please. I do enjoy some posts here. The posts that rebuke every theory here with substantiated evidence. However, I know everything seems bad in the government. I know everything just doesn't seem to fit. This is not a goddamn utopia! Everything will seem bad sometimes, and other times it will be great! The world is fine. There is no NWO. We're not about to be annihilated.

Bush sucks, yeah, but his presidency is no different from all other presidents. Everyone says, "OH GOD, HE'S THE ANTICHRIST!" or "He's planning to annihilate the world!" for every president!



I will be flamed. I might be agreed upon. However this post is seen, will not effect me. I just wanted to say this, because this website's lackluster theories have become absolutely annoying and unoriginal.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by Kiltedninja]

A post about other posts whose posters post ignorant things.
I like it.

Well. Here's my coffee cup's worth:

As a very skeptical person, I generally require proof. If you cannot offer proof I won't immediately be like " F* you and your lack of proof"
I'll keep an open mind about it, wait for some sort of evidence (for or against) to appear, and go by said evidence.

I BELIEVE that all people should do that, many people I have seen do that, but others are on either side of the extremes, People who will not believe you unless you off 128435435 pieces of evidence, all from reliable sources, none of which are even living in the same city. Then you have the people who will believe you if you simply claim something.