Water on Mars

HIAG will claim that physicists have conspired to claim that boiling water creates steam.

 

You okay, Pix?

I seem to have rattled you without actually trying or intending to.

 

please log in to view this image

 

This is very Skiddy-like behaviour.

 

please log in to view this image

 

The Macho Man used to kick your ass you ****ing Pussy...

please log in to view this image

 

I'm fine mate thanks. Just pointing out where you got caught out denying something you'd already been quoted as saying.
Next time I'll give you a chance to edit your posts again if it helps ?

 

Ouch

 

Shouldn’t that be a Greggs?

 

I've read some stuff about the Electric universe theory if this is what you mean ? This would explain why you think gravitational waves don't exist and why you were trying to scoff at the idea that nuclear fusion creates the energy within stars. Presumably you think, like the EU theory that stars glow because they are essentially big light bulbs?

Do you go along with their other tenants of 'science' ?

Einstien was wrong
General relativity is wrong
The universe is not expanding
Craters on the moon were not created by impact, but by electrical discharge

 

He is so far out of his depth on this subject it’s almost as tragic as his knowledge of football.

 

There are thousands of respected physicists working around the world, with a wealth of credible evidence and understanding of the cosmos. They have based their theories on hundreds of years of research, dedication, testing and proving their theories are sound.

Yet a few individuals come along, usually because they have failed in their relative disciplines and purport to have a theory that rubbishes the work of Einstein etc and instead promotes some half baked pseudo science so that they can flog a few books.

 

****ing hell, you lot most be really bored to indulge in all this ****e

roll on the new season.

@Spurlock i am keeping this avatar as this bitch is sooooooo horny.

 

I was posting on my iPhone earlier. Back on my computer, now.

Pix, I cannot open your eyes for you; you have to do that for yourself.

Eric Lerner's book, which I read a while back, opened my eyes and sent me on a much deeper journey, ending devouring the works of Don Scott and Wal Thornhill, as well as many others.

Whether or not you accept the conclusions reached by these people, I guarantee that you will reject the Standard Cosmological Model as being fake. Whether or not there is an agenda behind that, I don't know and don't care; but I do know that modern astrophysics is not real science, and I do know that there is real science out there that can explain our Universe and what stars really are, without recourse to evermore elaborate inventions such as Black Holes, String Theory, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, God Particles, Neutron Stars, Pulsars, and a myriad other suspense account quick-fixes that continue to be plastered over the increasing number of holes in the Established paradigm.

 

A deeper journey up your own rabbit hole? Stick to third rate wummery as you’re embarrassing yourself now.

 

Great Googling, Pix.

However, you need to put in a couple of years of decent studying before you can come across with any credibility in these matters, including understanding the historical background from which the current paradigm sprang, and how Einstein's critics were silenced.

It is now recognised, even among die-hard conventionalist astronomers, that there are electrical currents in space. Not so long ago, such a notion was held as being absurd, since it was "universally" understood that space is a vacuum devoid of anything that could conduct electricity.

Events that we observe in the Universe have been replicated in the lab. Wal Thornhill and Don Scott have made predictions (considered "wild" at the time, by NASA scientists) about what would be observed when certain events were planned in space, whilst NASA scientists were left "surprised" at what was found.

It is far too detailed to list here, and a proper study is going to take you a good 6 months merely to grasp the basics.

Either you study it, or you will continue to sneer.

That is your choice.

Yes, he was.

It remains nothing more than a theory.

It explains very little, if anything, about what we actually observe in the Universe.

No one knows if it is or not.

The theory for it expanding is based on Hubble's "red shift" idea, that the greater degree of red shift in the most distant objects in the Universe is proof that they are moving away from us at a faster rate than objects closers to us. Unfortunately for this theory, there has been a lot of recent studies that have shown that red shift is a natural consequence of sequences in the birth of a proto-galaxy, and a couple of recent papers have completely undermined the whole notion. It is merely one of countless studies and papers that have been picking at the threads of Big Bang Theory over the past few decades.

The fact is, that no one knows if the Universe is expanding or not. Electric Universe theorists admit that, but the Stephen Hawkings of this World will never admit to it, even though the "proof" is lying in tatters at their feet.

Also, there have been recent papers to show that the models proposed by astrophysicists themselves simply do not work, and that there is not enough matter in the Universe to stop galaxies hurling themselves apart, based on their mathematical models.

There is so much evidence out there. Go and find it, read it, think about it, and have your eyes opened.

Not just the Moon, Pix.

Every moon and every planet in our Solar System.

The exact same scarring that we observe on planets like Mars and Venus have been created in the laboratory.

All of the studies are out there for you to go and read.

Everything you were taught in school - and I mean absolutely everything - is a lie.

 

Eh, up, lads!

The brains of the outfit has turned up.

 

I’m thinking there is life on other planets somewheres. All the years I was fishing and looking at the beautifuls night sky with the billions of stars. I also seen thinks I can not explaning.