Humanity came from Mars

Are you the same fag from earlier who thought that the earth went around Saturn?

File: 1477067220306.gif (3MB, 540x513px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 540x513px

i read some post here that said the circadian rhythm of white people is like 26 hours?

i find all this stuff fascinating

i bet each race with the exception of pure native americans and abbos are alien in origin

i dont think anyone would be able to talk about this stuff without sounding super racist and nazi-esq

what a shame

Hoagland has some interesting videos, but I wonder if he is looking into photos way too much. I remember a tiny spec in the background of one lunar photo, he zooms in 100x or something and starts messing with filters in Photoshop like "see? a tower!"

He should fund a small rocket project to blast a camera out there.

>>18273302
Cherokee mythology claims the Cherokee came from the Pleiades.

Hoagland's show finally got cancelled.

>>18273362
>Pleiades
That's pretty cool. I'm Cherokee too

>>18273434
do you guys remember when we all called it and the guy who gets through just says "we have to remove kebab" a couple times and hangs up

>>18273465
Do you remember when he refused to wish Sandra a happy birthday? Two years later she's still mad.

Considering the difference in gravity, a person born on mars would be crushed here on earth. their spine would fuse together within a year or two, so yeah, dude's a fucking moron.

>>18273509

what if the gravity has changed over time tho

>>18273246
That's bullshit and Richard is a moron

>>18273246

Slightly inaccurate. The ancient Martian people weren't capable of space travel. A great number of entities have transferred to Earth, but by means of reincarnation, not physical delivery of matter.

>>18273246
I think there are more to that then what you believe but i don't believe in all of it.

i wonder how all this relates to the planet that used to be between mars and jupiter (marduk) which got BTFO and is now the asteroid belt

this has some truth im not an expert but i remember a video explaining something like before earth was habitable mars had water and formed simple prokaryotes and then some meteors hit mars and caused chunks of rock with prokaryotes in them to be hurled into space which eventually hit earth. and thus those prokaryotes that landed on earth started to develop when the environment of the earth started to change and become more habitable and eventually formed life.

>>18274279
Marduk was destroyed then everybody was blasted here.

>>18273246
You came to the wrong board anon. Post this to /sci/ and see what the brains and brainelts have to say with their superior science.

/x/ is where you go for hippies who believe in chakaras and shit like that.

>>18273246
I really hoped that we would have found fossils on mars.

>>18275118
paranormal= not reasonable explainable. Thats why I'm here.

>>18275138
have you seen the documentary angry red planet. This was the original mission in the 50s.

>>18275148
Stop pretending to be me.

>>18275148
oh.
okay.

I still feel like /sci/ would have been a better board.

>>18273458
>>18273362
Aren't the Pleidians the aryan race though?

>>18275283
Nope. There is no connection between the two. Pleidians being 'nordic' is pure headcanon.

>>18275115

The planet was called Maldek.

>>18274279
Souls are matter

File: ProfBee.png (3KB, 144x142px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 144x142px

I don't know about humanity, but there is a theory that life came from Mars

Ancient amino acids, at some point, must have configured themselves into a structure that self-replicates
One theory is that this structure was adopted by overlaying with nickel or magnesium. Elements that were not abundant on ancient Earth, but were abundant on Mars.

self-replicating amino acids could have developed there, then get shot out of the atmosphere after an event like a meteor strike.

>>18273362
Hoagland is a charlatan

>>18275441
I've never heard of Marduk or Maldek. I've always heard the planet being referred to as Tiamat. I see now it has also been called Phaeton.

>>18275566
Old planet
Many Men
Many names
Many scopes
Many charts
Alive today

>>18275566
Phaeton, son of Helios, partaker of the chariot, he who flew too close to earth and was struck down by Zeus to save his creation.

Marduk, son of Ea and Damkina
Heir to Anu
Lover of Sarpanit
God of Magic
Slayer of Tiamat, the defeat of the Annukai revolt
Creator of Man with the tablets of destiny

File: 0a904dab657764dfb83801af7404919f.jpg (72KB, 564x799px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 564x799px

>>18273246
Mars was clearly nuked. that's the whole point of the "We need to be at Mars by 3030" meme, we need those weapons from the ancient library before things destabilize here

I believe that infinity became self aware and became intelligent infinity.
It fragmented itself infinitely to explore infinity.
That is why we are all one, because we are all a piece of Intelligent Infinity and will meet with it again to share our unique experiences on blind Earth. Then we dive back in and pick a new scenario, like trying different carnival rides.

Mars suffered a Great War that killed a large percentage of their people and ruined their atmosphere.
Earth was used as a refugee spot for the displaced souls.

Go to Gaia.com and look at the Cosmic Disclosure series.
Season 5 has an hour long special that summarizes the previous seasons.

File: how high.png (80KB, 339x296px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 339x296px

>>18276432
>I believe that infinity became self aware and became intelligent infinity.
>It fragmented itself infinitely to explore infinity.

>>18273246
mars was only habitable for a short time. its smaller than earth and has a smaller core. less molten material to fuel the dynamo

if any life was on mars it probably didnt have enough time to evolve into complex life.

on a unrelated not the oort cloud is a ancient accident site. some drunk aaayyylmaos crashed into a astroid. all the fluid that makes commits is from the crew and their water tanks. methane hydrate is in commits. where is that shit forming in space and how? we have it in the oceans because of decaying organic matter

File: Don+t+thank+me+thank+agitating+skeleton+_cb71766991169c874cce2731e462240f.png (18KB, 155x200px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 155x200px

>>18276432
>Go to Gaia.com and look at the Cosmic Disclosure series

File: saturn hex.jpg (89KB, 890x650px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 890x650px

hebrews came from mars after destroying their own planet, 'lucifer experiment' destroyed mars.
they came to earth thru synthetic merkabah, basically astral projected themselves.
the hebrews ended up at atlantis and they were pissed cause the hebrews were left brained logical dicks who had no spirituality.
a meteor was headed toward earth (detected by the atlanteans) so the hebrews told them to destroy it. but atlantis was like no its the destiny of earth. the meteor hit and pieces flew and landed on hebrew land and almost wiped the population. they said screw u atlantis were taking over the world by creating another synthetic merkabah. they forgot exactly how to, but they built it anyway. they activated it and it ripped open portals to lower dimensions...yada yada.... the gods said 'humanity ur fuckin stupid' so they literally restarted us and said 'you got 13,000 years to collectively as a world reach a certain lvl of consciousness or yer fucked again'
yada yada... we passed and now earths kundalini has shifted to usher a new golden age. exciting times we live in.
but no humans arnt from mars. hebrews are.

>>18276439
I find it interesting that you are on a board about the paranormal, in a thread about mars souls, and you think this view in particular is laughable.

>>18276469
thanks spirit science

>>18276475
Infinity isn't a thing. There is nothing to become self aware.

>>18273362
Apparently the Pleiades is like the China of our known universe, because all of our space stuff is made there.

>>18276432
>I believe that infinity became self aware and became intelligent infinity.
It fragmented itself infinitely to explore infinity.
That is why we are all one, because we are all a piece of Intelligent Infinity and will meet with it again to share our unique experiences on blind Earth. Then we dive back in and pick a new scenario, like trying different carnival rides.

My, my, would you look at what we have here?

P.S: Infinity is a numerical concept, not an entity with the ability to think. The numerical concept of infinity was designed by man to explain a mathematical paradox.
> If you actually think infinity is cognisant, or that we are a part of this all go or whatever you think it is, then you are the pinnacle of New Age retardation.

>>18276488
Energy is infinite, can only be transferred not destroyed.
Souls are vibrating energy, and so is everything else.
If we are intelligent we are infinite, we just forgot how to tap into our mass consciousness.

>>18276469
This is why I don't come to /x/.

Also. Ever heard of that bizarre phenomena where when wind gets really fast, it can create hexagonally-shaped cyclones?

Try using Occam's razor you new-age-fag.
>It is more reasonable to assume that you cars flat tire is due to it being old, than to a crazy tire-slasher mad-man puncturing peoples tires.

>>18276503
>energy is infinite
nope.
You see, my new-age-faggot... Energy can neither be Created or Destroyed. If energy is infinite, then it is always being created.

The correct knowledge would be that there is an immersuably large amount of finite energy, dispersed acroust all of space-time. It comes in the form of underlying quantum fields, which oscillate to generate quarks, leptons, bosons, and the likes.
For more info on this scientific theory, look up quantum physics and stop tying spirit with science, they are a dichotomy.

>>18276432
>>18276432

>going to war on a planet smaller than the Moon
>displacing refugees on what basically amounts to be the Garden of Eden
>thanking the god of infinity for not settling on our solar system's bbw wrecked bitch Venus
>cause no one wants that sort of pressure in a relationship......

>>18276495
You should meditate and find the root of your anger.
Use your rational brain to discover the tricks it plays on you, how it masks your spiritual potential.
Focus on smiling and being positive, helping others.
You will notice small returns at first and then more the more genuinely positive and happy you become. It is the opposite of the cycle of negativity that just drags you further down into anger and hate.
Try to be happy, and others will be as well.

>>18276528
I'm not a NNEw-age person, man. I am a Christian, and I know full well that the religion you are following is hollow, hypocritical, and unfulfilling.

I have bore witness to the holy spirit, and it is definitely not present in New-Ageism.

>>18276528
>>18276533
Also, I am calm as can be, I just think New-Ageism is retarded.

>>18276533
I'm not quite sure what you mean.
I don't follow a religion.
I just try to spread positivity. If you are constantly putting negativity into the mass consciousness then that is what will happen.
Life is literally what you make it.

>>18276432

I find it immensely interesting the story of Infinity being born from a war like race of beings from Mars.

What is interesting is the story involves fighting a dangerous race of nasty aliens from a planet that is roughly from the position of Planet 9.

The hostile alien race and their home world (planet 9) was obliterated, but at a loss of Mars biosphere.

It had something to do with a pyrrhic campaign of sorts but the victors had survivors whereas the aggressors didn't.

>>18276544
I know that life is what you make it.
But I don't believe that we are pieces of infinity's consciousness or whatever. So I'm pretty sure you are an agnostic New-ageist as the least.

>>18276506
saturn hex is new-age? its been worshiped for thousands of years.... its the key stone to 3 religions..
this info isnt some tin foil hat shit. this is the stuff socrates, pythagoras and king solomon studied. the true story of our creation. but i guess they were all paranoid schizos to you.

File: gondola drugs.png (24KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 640x480px

>>18276551
>infinity being born

It's like this thread isn't in English anymore.

I just want all of you to look up the news clips of highly respected people coming forward in all countries to talk about the fact that aliens have been here for hundreds of thousands of years, and that most of the craft we see is our own people trying to wake us from the government control.
We are amongst the stars you guys, you'll see soon enough.

>>18276567

>the story of Infinity being born from a warlike race
>the story of Infinity being born
>the story of Infinity

Yeah homeschooling isn't working out for ya kid

>>18276566
>but I guess they were all paranoid schizos to you
don't get so butt-hurt you faggot.

Allow me to explain:
Judaism has the star of David, which is not a hexagonal but rather 2 equilateral triangles that are overlapping and which are 1pi radian out of phase.
If Judaism was one of the ones you though was hexagonal, then that's one point for me, but I digress.
Neither Saturn nor the hexagon has been the foundation of any religion. If you think it has, provide me evidence and I will admit to my fault (has to be scientifically/historically credible though).

There is also the fact that Neither Socretes, Pythagoras, or King Solomon were studying Saturn or hexagons. Yet you claim that they were studying it. If this were true, they would have written books about it. If your excuse for the lack of such books is that someone doesn't want us to know, then I'm sorry but you are a tin-foil hat.

The fact that you guys are making leaps of logic and that you guys only do whatever everyone else says is good, is the reason that I think of you as tin-foil-fedoras.

>Check and Mate.

File: IMG_5816.jpg (133KB, 1264x892px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1264x892px

>>18276628

>Your reply makes me sad

>>18276658
>your reply leaves me unsatisfied.

File: IMG_5756.jpg (48KB, 480x311px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 480x311px

>>18276723

>your reply leaves something to be desired

>>18276591
>posting again

>>18276733
>your reply leaves me yearning for more

>>18276767

>missing out on obtaining an education in life

File: IMG_5674.jpg (83KB, 500x321px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x321px

>>18276787

>leaves me feeling empty inside

>>18274063
Gravity is directly proportionate to mass. So unless it had a significant size decrease, the gravity has not changed.

>>18273246
If humans came from mars then why have we found evidence millions of years old of life on earth, but we have found no evidence of life on mars?

>>18276876

>the Illuminati

>>18276931
>your mom

>>18276933

>I'm vanquished

>>18276454
They are spelled "comets" you illiterate asshole.

>>18276517

You can't even explain dark energy, yet you're preaching people about "correct knowledge" on a chinese cartoon image board?

>>18276873

what if the planetary core composition changed due to some kind of advanced space mining operation tho

>>18273509
What planet born in would give extra strength if I came to live in earth?

>>18276506
GET THE FUCK OUT!

>>18277181
> [I] cant even explain dark energy...
you are right about that. Then again, most scientists can't yet.
>...yet you're preaching people about "correct knowledge" ...
Yes. What is wrong with preaching science and scientifically proven knowledge? Most scientists know that, at the most fundamental level, everything is oscillations in an underlying quantum field.
>on a chinese cartoon image board?
what relevance does this have to do with the argument?

Gravity cannot explain how gravity is caused either, doesn't mean scientists are wrong about how it works.

If you were looking to disprove my position, then you could have torn my argument apart at the weakest link:

>energy is infinite
>there is an immersuably large amount of finite energy
These two statements are in essence, the same thing being said in two different ways. You could have thus responded by pointing out this and that energy is still infinite (relative to the hypothetically infinite size of the universe)
Another way you could have dismantled my argument is with the quantum physics I had suggested. Matter and energy, on a quantum scale, can be created and destroyed. However, it does not remain that way for longer than a femto-second at the most.

>>18277311
if this is a hyperbole:
I know right.
if this is a serious statement:
Make me.

I love Hoagland but he's out of his fucking mind, but you're probably the same way so I'm wasting my time here.

>>18276403
Tell me more.

>>18277227

What if they're mining earth's core right now and it's why we're seeing these earthquakes and other changes

File: 1455119246486.jpg (71KB, 564x563px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 564x563px

>>18273246
Mars came to earth.

Thats where we get rome from.

>>18275566
Marduk is wormwood.
wormwood is mars.

check etymology

>>18275293
Cherokee myth states nothing about them being from the Pleiades. There is a myth about some children who wished to run away from home and rose up to the sky to become the dots we now know as the Plediades.

k the pointless memes and bs that people keep going on about is annoying so let me give a link that somewhat explains what i was trying to tell you earlier about the actual reason some people think we may be from mars http:// www.space.com/22577-earth-life-from-mars-theory.html

>>18273246
A friend of mine loaned me RH's book about his theories. He uses a *lot* of imagination, with pretty much nothing in terms of fact or evidence to go with it. This was 25 years ago, so I can't remember specifics, but along the lines of, "There's a boulder here. Must've been placed by giants."

>>18278688
Give ur address punk ass nigga! I'll fuck ur shit up!

>>18273246
Go to bed Matt, your conspiracies aren't true.

>>18279881
Still cant tell if you are being ironic or serious.

Ill assume serious and give my address.

>Your house, your mothers room, having her ride it.

>>18277301
Krypton

>>18279940
So why not fuck off back to that shithole?

>>18279548
Nice broken link there, dumbass.

>>18280113
Shithole haha
Ever been there? It pisses all over /x/, anally rapes it and leaves it with a gaping asshole.
I check /x/ from time to time as maybe 1 in a 100 threads is actually okay.
The rest is divination, dmt, tulpas, flat earth, conspiracy tards etc.
Anyway back to a decent paranormal board. Laters my derpy newfriend.

>>18279459
Yeah, you can expect to be totally ignored as it doesn't fit in with their Ancient Aliums narrative.

>>18280140
reported your earlier post for advertising
also, i browse /x/ every day and haven't seen a single dmt thread :(

>>18279940

>/r/paranormal is better
>front page is just ghost stories

Yea, nah.

>>18273246
Read some story about how they did these past life regressions. And a common scenario seems rather repetitive, a spaceship from the stars, arrives on earth. Lands in a crater. The people inside the ships evacuate the vessel. They seem sedated/drugged and perplexed. They wander out of the crater looking for nourishments some seem alone and others are remembered as being clique-ish. Very similar to scientology.

>>18280247
The idea here is that tribes/groups arise out of the need for information and security from the self. And in introspection to fill in a gap of lost information, when the conscious identity is absent.

>>18278677

There's no meaning in talking about your "arguments", I just came to point out you're an idiot because you don't seem to be aware.

>>18280118
... just take out the spaces....

>>18278677
>These two statements are in essence, the same thing being said in two different ways
No. finite and infinite are completely different things with different implications

>>18280118
>dumbass
oh the irony

File: hqdefault.jpg (27KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x360px

>>18279975
kryptonians are real. they bioengineered earth humans as a weaker version of themselves by embedding traces of kryptonite in our DNA.

kryptonians might not be their real name but the message is the same.

watch man of steel and BvS, they imply all this really subtly in both movies.

>>18280545
Immeasurably finite is an oxymoron, moron
Infinity is an immeasurably large number, unfathomably large. Same goes for Immeasurably finite, its unfathomably large

>>18280361
For a New-Ager who talks about love and acceptance, you sure can be an asshole.

I thought your entire reasoning was that we are fragments of infinity. So if that is true then by all right I am correct in saying that infinity is not a concept. Thus I have created a paradox within your own philosophy.

>>18280916
>Immeasurably finite is an oxymoron
it isnt. Those terms dont contradict each other.

>Infinity is an immeasurably large number
it isnt. Infinity isnt a number and it has nothing to do with measurability

>>18281047
>Immeasurable
>finite
>finite is measurable
>immeasurable is not finite

File: Aerospaceplane.jpg (54KB, 800x482px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 800x482px

All of these theories about humans coming from a different planet forget to account for us humans devolving and forgetting all our knowledge

>>18275549
All souls matter

>>18281062
Things can be finite while bein unmeasurably large. Whats your point?

>>18281496
Well shit. It looks like my argument is solid and has no weaker link.

>>18281521
it being refuted is its weakness

>>18281662
Not exactly refutable when it is based in hard facts and science though.

>>18281669
Well, you said that finite energy and infinite energy are the same thing. No scientiest would agree with that. Maybe you could ellaborate how it is based in hard facts and science?

>>18281674
Quantum Field Theory:
>Itzykson, Claude, and Jean-Bernard Zuber. Quantum field theory. Courier Corporation, 2006.

Simplified for the layman:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

Do Note how it says THEORETICAL, as opposed to the public understanding of theory (that being something that is not true) the scientific definition is "a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject." Which in layman's terms can be defined as a hypothesis which has evidence to support it, based around observations that are made.

According to Quantum Physics, all matter exists in a state of superposition, propagating throughout the universe until it contacts a point it is most likely to be found in, though it will exist at other point in space-time simultaneously despite having a lower probability to be found there. Upon being observed, the quantum wave function collapses into the place it is most likely to be found. The double slit experiment, as well as others I don't remember the name of, have proven time and time again that our universe is not as exact or defined as we would hope.
Due to the factuality of the discoveries in quantum physics, computer scientists, materials engineers and the likes have all already begun to use quantum physical phenomena for their respective industries. An example in the computer science industry: The quantum transistor, a incredibly small transistor only a few nanometers across, uses the quantum physical phenomena of quantum tunnelling for transmittance of electrons across a barrier, thus reducing the required voltage for the circuit to work, and increasing the number of transistors that can be fit upon a single CPU chip.

This part of my statement is based in solid science that has been proven repeatedly.

As for the infinite energy = finite energy statement, that was me being retarded and trying to tear down my own argument with a perceived weak link.

tl;dr - quantum physics

>>18281751
>As for the infinite energy = finite energy statement, that was me being retarded
exactly my point. I have no idea why you brought up qm. I know already about the quantum field theory and superposition. Those things dont support your statements about infinite/finite amounts of energy

>>18281669
>Not exactly refutable when it is based in hard facts and science though.
>>18281751
>This part of my statement is based in solid science that has been proven repeatedly.
You realize how fucking dumb you sound when you say this, right?

1. It's literally impossible to prove any scientific theory
2. Every scientific theory has to be refutable

Fuck off with your pseudo-science and quantum voodoo when you don't know jackshit about the words you're using

>>18273246

Theia, actually.

>>18273289
Um ... yeah ... thats me ... :(

>>18282069
I know that theories are not solid facts, and can be refuted. However, as fur as understanding goes, the current paradigm on quantum physics has no shifted for the past 50ish years, just like Einstein's theorem.

> 1. It's literally impossible to prove any scientific theory
Heres some that have been proven to the point where they should be called laws:
- Darwins theory of evolution
- Newtons theory of gravitation
- Einsteins theory of relativity

I explained that a theory is a hypothesis that has been proven after repeated experimentation. Further experimentation is required for it to become a law, but it is still very objective and well documented. To simply dismiss it based off the fact that it is a theory is to dismiss its objectivity or the experiment that prove it to be true.

> 2. Every scientific theory has to be refutable
I will have to disagree with you there. Some scientific theories are discovered to be so concise and well proven, that they inevitably become laws. For example, Newtonian gravitation has become the "law of gravity" even though it is still technically a theory, due to it having no evidence that contradicts it.
If you want to prove these theorem I call facts wrong, then please, provide me with peer-reviewed academic articles that show objective proof of contradictions in these theorem I presented. Please make sure to cite them in MLA format.

> Fuck off with your pseudo-science and quantum voodoo when you don't know jackshit about the words you're using
I will break this down into two separate pieces to comment on.
1. > Fuck off with your pseudo-science and quantum voodoo
Pseudo science would be things claiming to be scientific, yet lacking any evidence that has been tested and reviewed using the scientific method that was proposed by sir Francis bacon. An example would be snake-oil salesmen, who claim that their product is a muricle cure-all, yet which lack any scientific evidence to back it up; only their word.
>>>Continued...

>>18282185
>>>Continued
>Quantum Voodoo
Quantum physics has been proven to be irrefutable as a science. Unlike voodoo, it is not based on unprovable magic, but is instead based in the scientific method. If you had read my entire post carefully, you would have realised that.

>when you don't know jackshit about the words you're using
I can see you are either confused about the terms I am using, or are just furious that I would oppose your ideas. Either way I have definitely done more research than you considering that I actually cited an academic article explaining the "quantum voodoo" I was hammering on about. I also provided an abridged and simplified version so that you would not have to go through more than 100 pages if you didn't feel like it. I have done extensive research in the field because it interests me, like most physics. You can be assured I know what I'm talking about when I mention the double slit experiment, or quantum tunneling.

I have a suggestion for you. Calm your tits and argue with me rationally and academically. Get on my level and stop making a fool of yourself.

>>18282185

> 2. Every scientific theory has to be refutable
>I will have to disagree with you there.

I think he's saying that anything scientific has to be falsifiable, and he's right.

If somebody found some magic planet where gravity doesn't exist, despite its mass. That would falsify gravity. We dont' have to worry about that since it's absurd, and gravity is still true. But hypothetically it is still falsifiable.

Furthermore, if we find a four billion year old fossil of a human, that would falsify evolution. We don't have to worry about that either since it's never going to happen. But hypothetically it could, so again, evolution is falsifiable.

This is as opposed to non-scientific claims, like "there's a magic invisible wizard who lives in the sky, and I love him." There's no test that could falsify that claim.

>>18282211
Okay. Tahnks anon.

Aloow me to explain what I meant by my implying unfalsifiability.

Much like you mentioned about how finding a gravity-free planet would be absurd, I intend to say that scientifically proven subjects tend to be proven by some basis in objective reality; as opposed to the claim that "there's a magic invisible wizard who lives in the sky, and I love him."

I suppose I did not convey my meaning too well. You seem to have conveyed it better than I, while explaining it in a way that expands my understanding of the difference.

Thank you senpai.

Is it autism?

>>18282237
The problem is you don't truly understand the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law in scientific terms.

File: classified.jpg (27KB, 327x254px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 327x254px

yes skulls spiders guitars metal shells fossils

>>18282486
Don't be silly anon, those are just dust on the probe camera.

>>18282444
I generally know them to be as follows:
A hypothesis: an educated guess
A Theory: an experimentally proven hypothesis
A law: a theory that has no known contradictory findings

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Personally, I feel that my fault is more that I see science as a set of cold facts that relies on no presuppositions, I'm likely wrong on that front.

>>18278858

:O

>>18282185
>- Newtons theory of gravitation
This has been falsified over and over again (by einstein's theory of relativity, for example)

Einsten's theory of relativity is also very incomplete, and fails to explain many things. So much for it being a “proven law” when most of the theoretical physicists worldwide are trying to find a better theory to replace it.

>>18282185
>If you want to prove these theorem I call facts wrong, then please, provide me with peer-reviewed academic articles that show objective proof of contradictions in these theorem I presented. Please make sure to cite them in MLA format.
Go read einstein's papers on general relativity, you might learn a thing or two

>>18282746
>Correct me if I'm wrong.
Some errors:

1. A hypothesis isn't just an educated guess. You can't make a hypothesis about the existence of god, for example. For a hypothesis to be legal, it has to be testable. It's also more concrete than simply being a guess - a hypothesis requires a well-defined form which has clear and unambiguous implications that it can be checked against. (A simple guess would be a conjecture, not a hypothesis)

2. A theory isn't “proven”. If it was provable, it wouldn't be a theory. You might be confusing terms here with mathematics, in which a *theorem* is a proven statement, but that has nothing to do with a scientific theory as used in empirical sciences, which are based on evidence rather than axioms

A theory is merely something that seems to survive the test of trying to disprove it for a substantial amount of time. That does not make it infallible. Some theories have survived for thousands of years until modern observations have falsified them.

3. A ‘law’ is a special form of a theory, usually very simple (e.g. a single equation), which seems to be universally true and is generally accepted as such.

At the bottom of things, there's very little formal distinction between a hypothesis, a theory and a law - they're all distinguish pretty much arbitrarily based on how robust they seem to be against attacks to try and disprove it. There's no formal way of saying “okay, now this theory is a law” or “okay, now this hypothesis is a theory”. It just sort of reaches consensus over time.

But what you are doing is thinking any sort of theorem or law holds special “proven” semantics which somehow imply they are infallible or infalsible, which is just complete and utter bunk. It's imposible to prove an observation which is based on empirical evidence, because all you've proven is that you haven't seen evidence to the contrary yet - not that it doesn't exist. Look harder and you might find it.

>>18282185
>Pseudo science would be things claiming to be scientific, yet lacking any evidence that has been tested and reviewed using the scientific method that was proposed by sir Francis bacon.
Amusing for you to name-drop the scientific method if you don't understand jackshit about it.

>Quantum physics has been proven to be irrefutable as a science.
Bull fucking shit. Why do you think thousands of theoretical physicists worldwide are trying to fix all the problems with it if it was infallible and irrefutable? Open your eyes and a physics journal for once, please.

>I can see you are either confused about the terms I am using
Funny coming from the one who doesn't understand what a theory is

>You can be assured I know what I'm talking about when I mention the double slit experiment, or quantum tunneling.
Oh good, so you went to high-school in the past decade? That's a relief

>I have a suggestion for you. Calm your tits and argue with me rationally and academically. Get on my level and stop making a fool of yourself.
Fuck you, I refuse to drop down to the level of a pigeon that's knocking over my pieces. Either learn the basics about what the fuck you're bullshitting about or fuck off.

File: kyoukai-3-19-mitsuki-look-of-disgust.jpg (25KB, 680x383px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 680x383px

>>18283424
1. A hypothesis isn't just an educated guess. You can't make a hypothesis about the existence of god, for example. For a hypothesis to be legal, it has to be testable. It's also more concrete than simply being a guess - a hypothesis requires a well-defined form which has clear and unambiguous implications that it can be checked against. (A simple guess would be a conjecture, not a hypothesis)

False. A hypothesis is an if then statement. It forgoes the proving of a premise, and continues to explore what the conclusion WOULD be, if the premise were true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_syllogism

Incidentally, all known knowledge in the natural sciences is hypothetical. Only lay people like you treat hypotheticals with less validity than non-hypotheticals. Hypothesis is our word--logicians words. Now, you can borrow it if you like.

But don't go trying to change it's meaning. A hypothesis never had anything to do with the testability

>At the bottom of things, there's very little formal distinction between a hypothesis, a theory and a law - they're all distinguish pretty much arbitrarily based on how robust they seem to be against attacks to try and disprove it. There's no formal way of saying “okay, now this theory is a law” or “okay, now this hypothesis is a theory”. It just sort of reaches consensus over time.

This is the sloppiest mentality I've ever encountered. You sound like a fan boy arguing over Star Trek science fiction. Please keep your nonsense out of the sciences. A hypothesis has a very specific formal definitions.

Your tiered system of supposing that theories are just more certain versions of hypotheses, and that laws are just more certain versions of laws is pure, unadulterated crap. If you want to use a probability distribution, use a decimal value to assign the level of confidence to a statement.

Don't.. fuckin' play word games. People like you are ruining the sciences, and the reputation of those who came before.

>>18283458
Oh, finally I understand the error of your ways! You read a book about mathematics and are confusing the terms with those of natural sciences.

Now I at least know where your high-level retardation comes from, although it does not explain why you seem to be too dumb to grasp the difference.

>>18283466
The moment the natural sciences departed from the field of mathematics, it was doomed.

Go P-hack some statistics about it. Tell people their statements are "only hypothesis" when you disagree with them, but assert that your statements are law.

>>18283458
If we're in the habit of name-dropping random wikipedia articles,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
>Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
>As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g., Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light).

>A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:
>- It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
>[...]
>Both theories and laws could potentially be falsified by countervailing evidence.[32]

Thread derailed again due to two asshats measuring their dicks

>>18283471
>The moment the natural sciences departed from the field of mathematics, it was doomed.
Haha, okay. Whatever then. Feel free to stop using your car, take off your clothes and go back to living in the caves if you think chemistry, physics, biology, astronomy, etc. are all “doomed” sciences. Why are you still relying on them to make your life comfortable?

>Tell people their statements are "only hypothesis" when you disagree with them, but assert that your statements are law.
I don't care what kind of extreme fucking straw-man game you are trying to play here, all I care about is telling you that your genuine belief in scientific theories being infalsibiable and infallibly proven is the most fucking egoistic, naive and idiotic thing I have read all day.

If all scientists thought like you we would be stuck in the dark ages because nobody would be questioning the status quo. Good thing most of them are actually intelligent.

>>18283458
lol, get a load of this guy.

Please stay in school, dunning-kruger

>>18283458
>Your tiered system of supposing that theories are just more certain versions of hypotheses, and that laws are just more certain versions of laws is pure, unadulterated crap. If you want to use a probability distribution, use a decimal value to assign the level of confidence to a statement.
Wow. You genuinely think people are going to use decimal values of probabilities to decide what to name things, and that people are going to do this thousands of years ago when such naming conventions arose?

Okay then, feel free to go on a crusade against mankind and rigorously change every english word to conform to your autistic requirements.

Meanwhile I'll be over here wondering what words you will use to define the words you're using to define said words.

>>18283393
declares gravity isn't real
-doesn't provide any links or evidence

>>18283865
>declares gravity isn't real
I have no fucking clue what kind of insane mental troll logic it took you to arrive at this conclusion. There's a difference between superseding a lacking theory by a better one and saying “hurrrrrr gravity doesn't exist”

But if you want examples of why newton's theory of gravity is false, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Observations_conflicting_with_Newton.27s_formula
e.g.
>The predicted angular deflection of light rays by gravity that is calculated by using Newton's Theory is only one-half of the deflection that is actually observed by astronomers. Calculations using General Relativity are in much closer agreement with the astronomical observations.

If you knew anything about the history of astronomy, you'd know about the event where Eddington famously disproved newton's theory of gravity by demonstrating gravitational lensing effects (which were predicted by einstein's theory of general relativity):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_May_29,_1919
>A famous example in the 20th century of an experimentum crucis was the expedition led by Arthur Eddington to Principe Island in Africa in 1919 to record the positions of stars around the Sun during a solar eclipse. The observation of star positions confirmed predictions of gravitational lensing made by Albert Einstein in the general theory of relativity published in 1915. Eddington's observations were considered to be the first solid evidence in favor of Einstein's theory.

>>18273246

>The cherub which guards Eden holding a flaming sword is really the sun

Makes total sense and I always suspected we had origins on Mars or other planets.

>>18283871
>>18283393
Newton's Theory of gravity was not falsified, it was taken from a different RELATIVISTIC frame of reference, in which its presupposition are incorrect.

Newtonian physics works according to a Galilean frame of reference. Einstein still uses Newtonian physics, except he included space-time dilation/contraction and relativity into the mix.

Newtonian gravitation is still correct in a Galilean frame of reference; From a relativistic one it is incorrect.

>>18283398
I asked you to cite articles disproving what I have stated. Don't try and put the burden of proof on me.

>>18283393
>Einsten's theory of relativity is also very incomplete, and fails to explain many things. So much for it being a “proven law” when most of the theoretical physicists worldwide are trying to find a better theory to replace it.

Please provide evidence instead of extrapolating lies from thin air.

>>18283440
please. explain if you understand these things so much better than me.

>>18284146
What the actual fuck am I reading? This post gives flat earth truthers a run for their money

The laws of physics do not suddenly change because you decided to live in a different century. But feel free to regress back to “muh galilean frame of reference” and blindly ignore all of quantum mechanics, special relativity, the standard model, etc.

Oh, and stop using GPS, because that would require being a different frame of reference, amirite?

>>18284150
I did, multiple times

>>18283871
>>18283476

I included direct quotes supporting my claims (“all theories are falsifiable” and “newtonian gravity has been disproved”). I'm not sure how more fucking blind you want to be to the evidence lying straight in front of you

in b4 “muh theory about the world cannot be disproved by your evidence, because it is a theory! you are just living in a different frame of reference!” bullshit

>>18284156
>Please provide evidence instead of extrapolating lies from thin air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#Quantum_gravity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

A consistent theory of quantum gravity is the current endgame of pretty much all particle physics, CERN etc. General relativity simply falls apart on quantum scales, meaning it's incomplete/wrong.

>>18284167
I did, multiple times. >>18283424 >>18283476


This is the last reply you're getting out of me. Either start reading and stop assuming or just shut the fuck up and go back to your flat earth circlejerk where other people whose brains are incapable of processing logic and evidence hang out.

>>18284146
Nevermind. I looked at the cited wiki pages and am persuaded to change my mind.

>>18284169
I changed my mind after I actually did the reading. I regret having posted my reply before doing research. That was not academic of me.

>>18284178

Ok. I will admit I was wrong. and that I got heated in the argument like a faggot.

I forgot about quantum gravity. Which you are right to say does cause huge problems in relations to general relativity.

Sorry for being an ass-face, anon.

>>18284184
>>18284189
That's not the problem, the problem is that you still think we can prove anything about the world a round us. We can't, because we don't know the ultimate true form of the universe. We can only observe it and make conclusions based on that.

Trying to prove a law of physics by observing the universe is like trying to prove the Riemann-Zeta hypothesis by only looking at the function graph.

Based on all the evidence we've seen, riemann-zeta appears to be true. We've evaluated it up to values of billions and billions, we've done all sorts of statistical analysis, we've even proved weaker versions. We have all the reason to believe it true, and in fact many working-day mathematicians produce useful results by assuming it *is* true.

But even though all that may be the case, it still isn't proven. It's only a well-confirmed, well-educated guess. As soon as we find *one* counterexample, the hypothesis would be demonstrably false. A true proof would need to consistently constructed based on first principles / axioms. That is possible in mathematics because we've defined the underlying axioms of arithmetic (or ZFC or whatever) that we're basing the proof on.

But we don't know the axioms of the universe. At best, we can make educated guesses that seem to hold for all of the numbers we've tried so far. But no matter how many you test, you can never extend this result to “it's true for *all* numbers” because there could still be a counter-example lurking somewhere.

This is the state that all natural science is stuck in. Even if we believe a law to be true for hundreds of years, once you upgrade your microscopes to reveal new scales (analogous to upgrading your computers so you can try out bigger numbers) it might be the case that a counterexample is exposed which was invisible before, such as in the famous case of newtonian gravity vs general relativity

>>18273246
I find that fascinating as fuck but I don't think it's really important. It's just 'inquiring egos'.

>>18284216

Nice to see you've taken my advice and tried to expand on your ideas. Some issues though:

he exact same post that responded to this the FIRST time. Obtuse because you don't comprehend what you read. Stubborn because you keep referring to what has already been responded to.

Thus, same obtuse stubbornness as last time.

>>18273302
No, but the circadian rhythm of an astronaut becomes the same length as a martian day after some time in space.

>>18283478

distraction means no one talks about mars :o

>>18280140
Too bad I've been here longer than you.

Too bad I've been to that retarded website and saw how garbage it is.

>>18280557
Well that's how you spell it, you retard.

If you mean the part where I could have taken out the spaces, maybe you shouldn't post links that need spaces in the first fucking place.

It's like you get more retarded as time goes on.

Just play Doom 3, it tell you everything.

File: mars_of_destruction_head.gif (869KB, 500x323px) Image search: [Google]

869KB, 500x323px

>>18287111
And watch "Mars of Destruction". It's very informative.

>>18286616
i didnt say anything about the spelling dumbass