Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: The theory of blocking the truth

  1. #1 The theory of blocking the truth 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    11
    In these threads I started a topic named "The Nature of Time".

    Since I started to post information about how invalid are some current accepted theories of science relater to time, I have had to register again because my password of my former nickname was validated to enter in the site but was not recognized to post.

    I continued posting in the topic "The Nature of Time", and somehow lots of irregularities started to happen again. After posting #144, a reply was made, but somehow the system started to work bad.

    Notice that the last post number was 144 but in the main menu appeared to be #140.

    I returned to the main page, started all over again, and any other topic can be opened without problem as you will see in the video, but the topic "The nature of Time" has flashings by lots.

    I don't know for how long the flashing images will last, but surely you can't read or post on this thread "The Nature of Time" right now, August 15, 2014 2.22pm.

    I even replied twice a posting of another participant, because my former reply didn't show up.

    No idea who is doing it, but surely the statements in "The nature of Time" are exposing the reality about time and the ridiculous idea of a possible time dilatation.

    My theory, based in this experience, is that someone is not happy when another person challenges and proves incorrect the accepted theories of science and shows them as false. And instead of giving a more solid evidence supporting the theories in question, this someone has decided to block the new information, an information that must be given to the rest, so people will judge by themselves.

    The idea is not to impose any theory or challenge, the idea is to present both sides and people to decide what side to take as credible, based in the required steps of the scientific method.


    Here is the video made on 8/15/2014 after 1:00 pm. The video comes from photobucket.com, a trusted website.

    You judge what is going on.

    http://vid45.photobucket.com/albums/...ps7d55d59e.mp4


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Ritchieritchiethefirst View Post
    My theory, based in this experience, is that someone is not happy when another person challenges and proves incorrect the accepted theories of science and shows them as false. And instead of giving a more solid evidence supporting the theories in question, this someone has decided to block the new information
    Oh look.
    Not only blindly stupid but paranoid as well.
    Because, of course, it couldn't be a glitch anywhere in the system, from your PC or the 'net itself, down to the forum software.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Ritchieritchiethefirst View Post
    In these threads I started a topic named "The Nature of Time".

    Since I started to post information about how invalid are some current accepted theories of science relater to time, I have had to register again because my password of my former nickname was validated to enter in the site but was not recognized to post.

    I continued posting in the topic "The Nature of Time", and somehow lots of irregularities started to happen again. After posting #144, a reply was made, but somehow the system started to work bad.

    Notice that the last post number was 144 but in the main menu appeared to be #140.

    I returned to the main page, started all over again, and any other topic can be opened without problem as you will see in the video, but the topic "The nature of Time" has flashings by lots.

    I don't know for how long the flashing images will last, but surely you can't read or post on this thread "The Nature of Time" right now, August 15, 2014 2.22pm.

    I even replied twice a posting of another participant, because my former reply didn't show up.

    No idea who is doing it, but surely the statements in "The nature of Time" are exposing the reality about time and the ridiculous idea of a possible time dilatation.

    My theory, based in this experience, is that someone is not happy when another person challenges and proves incorrect the accepted theories of science and shows them as false. And instead of giving a more solid evidence supporting the theories in question, this someone has decided to block the new information, an information that must be given to the rest, so people will judge by themselves.

    The idea is not to impose any theory or challenge, the idea is to present both sides and people to decide what side to take as credible, based in the required steps of the scientific method.


    Here is the video made on 8/15/2014 after 1:00 pm. The video comes from photobucket.com, a trusted website.

    You judge what is going on.

    http://vid45.photobucket.com/albums/...ps7d55d59e.mp4
    Hi - No, i think it is just systems and traffic problems. Sometimes I try to post something two or three times, and it doesn't come up. I try several hours later and it posts straight away. That, and maybe your computer. Sites like this can be full of glitches.

    Example - I'm no longer getting any email notifications on threads I'm subscribed to - have tried to work it out but can't - but I don't think it's a conspiracy against me.

    I think you are reading way too much into it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    272
    RR, see .. last line intended for you.

    All Motion is Relative?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    11
    something fishing happens when an accepted but invalid theory of science is challenged, there is a huge machine ready to stop the new discoveries and ideas which will expose the theory in question as false.

    In 2003, SPACE.COM posted an article named New Theory of Time Rattles Halls of Science.

    The article is about a young theorist who is challenging the idea "time can be thought of in physical definable quantities. motion can be considered in frozen moments, or instants, time flows on."

    This young theorist, Peter Lynds, claimed that he is not Einstein, and so far, I agree with him, I totally think that anyone who is a person with great thinking based in physical reality in the branch of physics, is practically insulted when is named as "an Einstein", because this individual Einstein was indeed probably a good philosopher, but as a scientist he surely was a loony.

    Lynds presented his papers Foundations of Physics Letters and these papers were practically rejected without the proper analysis, evaluation, and testing when is required. This is to say, the right thing to be done it wasn't done.

    Instead of that, the reactions were totally different. For example, as it was supposed to happen, John Wheeler (the lunatic who idealized a huge worm hole made by humans that will require the mass of thousands of suns, and that might be possible to be built by "future generations") said about Lynds, that he "had pushed the frontiers of physics forward in the past."

    A very ironic comment here Wheeler plays with past and future.

    Another comment made by one anonymous referee, it says. "I have only read the first two sections as it is clear that the author's arguments are based on profound ignorance or misunderstanding of basic analysis and calculus".

    The article continues explaining how hard if for Lynds to be accepted, because his ideas brake everything that was accepted about time. We must remember, that still is in charge the conventional idea that time flows. We can read about it in the comic books written by Stephen Hawking, he even drew illustrations showing "the arrow of time."

    From the Victoria University, a retired mathematical physicist sais about Lynds' papers, "I must say I thought the idea was hard to understand...he is theorizing in an area that most people think is settled. Most people believe there are a succession of moments and that objects in motion have determined positions."

    The theory of Lynds has been ignored, even when Lynds main assertion that time doesn't flow, that there is nothing objective with time in the physical world, both statements are true but are blocked by scientists who control the media in what it concerns to physics.

    Unfortunately, the article published by SPACE.COM is not online, or is not easy to find online, the cause perhaps is because is too old (2003).

    I myself, can't find lots of former forums from 1999, 2000 and forward making exactly the same claims, not using calculus and similar, but just by researching the origins of the concept of time.

    One of the best articles exposing how invalidated are theories assuming time dilatation is from Emilio Lopez Medina, a Spaniard philosopher, who wrote On the Inconsequence of the Hypothesis of the Relativity of Time.

    Several excellent studies with solid ground to demonstrate the current ideas in several accepted theories as invalid and false, are blocked from public access.

    On the other hand, a well studied releasing of propaganda praising individuals or their theories that are accepted by this "scientific inquisition" are shown from time to time in order to brainwash people's minds.

    A sad situation but a crude reality, there is a campaign to discredit at all cost more accurate findings in order to make survive obsolete theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    idiot
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Ritchieritchiethefirst View Post
    We must remember, that still is in charge the conventional idea that time flows.
    I hate to break this to you, but this is not at all how time is modelled in contemporary physics. You would do well to at least make an attempt at understanding first what you so vigorously oppose.

    This young theorist, Peter Lynds
    You probably mean this one : http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/peterlynds.html

    An entertaining story, if little else. Have you read his original publication ? I presume not, because if you had you would have realised that his argument boils down to "Zeno's motion paradox"; you can always test this out for yourself in your back garden.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; August 16th, 2014 at 12:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,180
    MODERATOR NOTE : This is not a personal theory or an alternative idea, it is just another rant about alleged conspiracies. Moved to pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    Very generous, "Trash" would be more appropriate
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    MODERATOR NOTE : This is not a personal theory or an alternative idea, it is just another rant about alleged conspiracies. Moved to pseudoscience.
    Ha!
    The secret lizard master makes an appearance.
    And stop injecting those awful messages into my head via moonbeams. (Especially during the day time). Thank you.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    The secret lizard master makes an appearance.


    Resistance is futile, earthlings !

    Sorry, I could not help myself
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Ritchieritchiethefirst View Post
    something fishing happens when an accepted but invalid theory of science is challenged, there is a huge machine ready to stop the new discoveries and ideas which will expose the theory in question as false.

    In 2003, SPACE.COM posted an article named New Theory of Time Rattles Halls of Science.

    The article is about a young theorist who is challenging the idea "time can be thought of in physical definable quantities. motion can be considered in frozen moments, or instants, time flows on."

    This young theorist, Peter Lynds, claimed that he is not Einstein, and so far, I agree with him, I totally think that anyone who is a person with great thinking based in physical reality in the branch of physics, is practically insulted when is named as "an Einstein", because this individual Einstein was indeed probably a good philosopher, but as a scientist he surely was a loony.

    Lynds presented his papers Foundations of Physics Letters and these papers were practically rejected without the proper analysis, evaluation, and testing when is required. This is to say, the right thing to be done it wasn't done.

    Instead of that, the reactions were totally different. For example, as it was supposed to happen, John Wheeler (the lunatic who idealized a huge worm hole made by humans that will require the mass of thousands of suns, and that might be possible to be built by "future generations") said about Lynds, that he "had pushed the frontiers of physics forward in the past."

    A very ironic comment here Wheeler plays with past and future.

    Another comment made by one anonymous referee, it says. "I have only read the first two sections as it is clear that the author's arguments are based on profound ignorance or misunderstanding of basic analysis and calculus".

    The article continues explaining how hard if for Lynds to be accepted, because his ideas brake everything that was accepted about time. We must remember, that still is in charge the conventional idea that time flows. We can read about it in the comic books written by Stephen Hawking, he even drew illustrations showing "the arrow of time."

    From the Victoria University, a retired mathematical physicist sais about Lynds' papers, "I must say I thought the idea was hard to understand...he is theorizing in an area that most people think is settled. Most people believe there are a succession of moments and that objects in motion have determined positions."

    The theory of Lynds has been ignored, even when Lynds main assertion that time doesn't flow, that there is nothing objective with time in the physical world, both statements are true but are blocked by scientists who control the media in what it concerns to physics.

    Unfortunately, the article published by SPACE.COM is not online, or is not easy to find online, the cause perhaps is because is too old (2003).

    I myself, can't find lots of former forums from 1999, 2000 and forward making exactly the same claims, not using calculus and similar, but just by researching the origins of the concept of time.

    One of the best articles exposing how invalidated are theories assuming time dilatation is from Emilio Lopez Medina, a Spaniard philosopher, who wrote On the Inconsequence of the Hypothesis of the Relativity of Time.

    Several excellent studies with solid ground to demonstrate the current ideas in several accepted theories as invalid and false, are blocked from public access.

    On the other hand, a well studied releasing of propaganda praising individuals or their theories that are accepted by this "scientific inquisition" are shown from time to time in order to brainwash people's minds.

    A sad situation but a crude reality, there is a campaign to discredit at all cost more accurate findings in order to make survive obsolete theories.
    Here's the thing. Do you suppose you have a more clear, precise version of reality ? If so, it is incumbent on you to crystalise it and present it in a clear form, not just to hint of it. And then be prepared to defend it.

    Lot's of people critisise Einstein for instance - there are some quite horrible things about him and his theories. Yet I would say he was not much different from others, see ..

    Newton's Tyranny: The Suppressed Scientific Discoveries of Stephen Gray and John Flamsteed - Mark Silverman

    And pick any other famous scientist or personage and you will find a similar balance of what you would consider to be good and bad. I'm afraid that's the way the world works.

    What really IS the truth ? About time or space or anything else ? Do you have the answer ? If you have, SAY it. Or just put up with what is really, just the human condition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,830
    Quote Originally Posted by marcbo View Post
    It may have been better if you'd actually read that article (rather than just the title), since it clearly says:
    Newton ... certainly did not - and could not - have prevented Gray from communicating his observations in letters to other natural philosophers, which was the usual manner of the day.
    And:
    the claim in the subtitle of the book that Newton suppressed his antagonists' scientific discoveries [is not justified] Quite the contrary in the case of Flamsteed.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,180
    Quote Originally Posted by marcbo View Post
    What really IS the truth ?
    "The truth" is not something physics concerns itself with, that's the domain of philosophy - physics only describes the world around us, much like a language does. Hence, don't search for the truth, just drop your opinions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marcbo View Post
    It may have been better if you'd actually read that article (rather than just the title), since it clearly says:
    Newton ... certainly did not - and could not - have prevented Gray from communicating his observations in letters to other natural philosophers, which was the usual manner of the day.
    And:
    the claim in the subtitle of the book that Newton suppressed his antagonists' scientific discoveries [is not justified] Quite the contrary in the case of Flamsteed.
    It may have been even better if you hadnít assumed that I havenít read the article, or the book, or many like it concerning Newton and other famous scientists and personages.

    I think you missed the point of my post, that being, that I was saying to Einstein bashers, that all people, famous scientists and personages included (or rather, especially), have their .. Ďotherí side.

    Look at you - you have the alterego of a DUCK !!! (though I hope you don't assume I'm saying youíre a famous scientist or personage because of that).

    PS - hereís some more interesting links on Sir Isaac Newton. Please resist the temptation to assume that Iím trying to besmirch him. In truth, I rather like much of his Ďotherí side, and now that it has piqued my interest again, hope to do some further reading up on him, as time permits.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies

    https://www.rosicrucian.org/publications/digest/...newton/10_newton.pdf

    http://www.academia.edu/1842210/Isaac_Newtons_Magical_Enlightenment
    In a manuscript now held in the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem Isaac Newton determined a date for the end of the world Ė the year 2060. His prophecy was based on a careful exegesis of the Bible, particularly the books of Daniel and Revelations, and on the history of the Christian church, which fascinated Newton all his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marcbo View Post
    What really IS the truth ?
    "The truth" is not something physics concerns itself with, that's the domain of philosophy - physics only describes the world around us, much like a language does. Hence, don't search for the truth, just drop your opinions.
    I agree. I especially like what you said ..

    - much like a language does

    I continually try to have things translated to me in common English - as all things of science and mathematics should be so capabble of, right ?

    - just drop your opinions

    I do that too - constantly :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,830
    Quote Originally Posted by marcbo View Post
    I think you missed the point of my post, that being, that I was saying to Einstein bashers, that all people, famous scientists and personages included (or rather, especially), have their .. ‘other’ side.
    My apologies, I misread the intent of your post.

    (though I hope you don't assume I'm saying you’re a famous scientist or personage because of that).
    Why would you assume I'm NOT a famous personage?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Why would you assume I'm NOT a famous personage?
    So what is your claim to fame?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marcbo View Post
    I think you missed the point of my post, that being, that I was saying to Einstein bashers, that all people, famous scientists and personages included (or rather, especially), have their .. ‘other’ side.
    My apologies, I misread the intent of your post.

    (though I hope you don't assume I'm saying you’re a famous scientist or personage because of that).
    Why would you assume I'm NOT a famous personage?
    Hmmm, you have a point .. sorry, beak .. :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Why would you assume I'm NOT a famous personage?
    So what is your claim to fame?
    I'm a (reasonably) famous (in the right circles) military technology geek/ analyst.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Why would you assume I'm NOT a famous personage?
    So what is your claim to fame?
    I'm a (reasonably) famous (in the right circles) military technology geek/ analyst.
    'Famous in the right circles' is an oxymoron!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    272
    Ritchier .. you went to all that trouble to take those shots of your screen, post them .. do you still believe there's a conspiracy against you, in light of more recent posts, above ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,830
    Quote Originally Posted by marcbo View Post
    'Famous in the right circles' is an oxymoron!
    Is it really?
    All the word means is "known by many people".
    Is your claim that famous implies "known by everyone"?
    (In which case the number of so-called "famous people" shrinks drastically).

    Fame depends on who you're talking to, surely.
    If some mentions a "famous" sports person - (and, increasingly these days, a "famous" pop artist) to me the reply is likely to be "Never heard of him".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marcbo View Post
    'Famous in the right circles' is an oxymoron!
    Is it really?
    All the word means is "known by many people".
    Is your claim that famous implies "known by everyone"?
    (In which case the number of so-called "famous people" shrinks drastically).

    Fame depends on who you're talking to, surely.
    If some mentions a "famous" sports person - (and, increasingly these days, a "famous" pop artist) to me the reply is likely to be "Never heard of him".
    'Widely known and esteemed' is the definition of the word I have in my dictionary. No matter.

    Waiting for your reply on the 'all motion is relative' thread so we can have another go at resolving this, bottom up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,830
    Quote Originally Posted by marcbo View Post
    'Widely known and esteemed' is the definition of the word I have in my dictionary.
    Exactly.
    And how wide is "widely"?
    Oh wait, does it depend on which circles you look at?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marcbo View Post
    'Widely known and esteemed' is the definition of the word I have in my dictionary.
    Exactly.
    And how wide is "widely"?
    Oh wait, does it depend on which circles you look at?
    Well he is famous in his own eyes, which is a start.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 23
    Last Post: July 13th, 2012, 06:00 PM
  2. blocking magnetism
    By Squib in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 10th, 2009, 06:25 PM
  3. Need help blocking proxies.
    By lixluke in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: December 21st, 2008, 01:48 PM
  4. Seek truth and you shall find truth
    By Dlrow in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: August 28th, 2008, 06:57 AM
  5. Is religion blocking scientific achievement?
    By mhibiki in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 9th, 2006, 01:42 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •