Let's build a conspiracy theory!

Gil223 said:

Gravity is a law on this planet, and you have no choice but to obey it (if you wish to test that law, step off the roof of a tall building). Pax...

P.S. And time moves forward primarily by general acceptance via the observation of "progress". One would have to achieve a speed of 186,000mph to pause time ("they" say).

Click to expand...

The theory of stable or even gravity. It can be observed and defeated. Stable or even gravity can be disproved. With any of these 'laws' of physics if you can have one anomaly that cannot be explained by it then the law is false.

According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, light traveling in a vacuum is the universal speed limit.

Click to expand...

Since space is NOT a vacuum and because you can never truly have a vacuum Einstein's theory can not ever be proven because it relies on something that can never truly be created.

As for time, it's never really been proven to exist anywhere except in our minds, besides there is the theory in quantum physics that says that nothing exists until it's been observed by a higher consciousness. If that is true that would deny the theory of forward only time.

Then you have the "laws" thermal dynamics that contradict each other.

So can you PROVE that time does not ever flow in reverse? Can you prove that time flows at all? Can you prove that movement thru time is only in one direction? If you cannot then monodirectional time movement is still only a theory.

Can you prove that gravity works the same everywhere? No, you cannot not. Magnets create conditions that seem to defy gravity. A theory is being tested that superfluid motion can nullify gravity. It's talked about in some ancient texts.



-------------

So for a 'government' sponsored conspiracy theory, let's look at physics as it's taught even at the college level.

Newtonian physics is still being taught which does not put an equation for the spin of an object when calculating speeds and Y movement. This is why Russia almost got to the moon before we did. Our Nazi scientists kept missing their targets in space by over shooting by at least 10% over projected energy carried. (The thing being launched went 10% farther than predicted based on Newtonian physics calculations). If you want the cite then read "DARK MISSION THE SECRET HISTORY OF NASA."

The theory is that the government wants to keep us dumbed down so we cannot discover sources of unregulated free energy.

------------

Another sponsored conspiracy theory.

The government wants us to believe that comets are nothing but dirty "snow ball" and that the tails of the comets are a plume of snow and ice being ejected into space. Part of this theory is that the government wants you to believe that it would take a comet impacting the earth for it to cause total devastation when if using the whole gravity equations you can find that it would not have to hit earth to destroy it and that the governments would rather start WW3 than have use looking to the heavens to see what might destroy us if our fellow man fails at their attempt.

-----------------

The moon is a artificial satellite.

IF the moon has been a liquid ejecta that cooled like we are told then it would be spinning because liquids are noted to spin while in a zero g environment. IF the moon was in liquid state and then cooled into a solid the spin would have been imparted into the solid object thus creating a spinning body. However the moon is maintaining a same side toward earth state much like that of the communication satellites that we use. Also the estimated mass is wrong based on the density that would result from a cooled liquid ejecta theory. Thus making the moon an artificial satellite that the governments don't want you to realize because that would mean that not only are there other races "out there" but that we might not even be from earth ourselves.

----------------------------

sudden valley gunner said:

Wouldn't that be per second?

I remember reading somewhere that they found that even at Jet speeds time changes....I have to go find that again.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct - mps not mph. Habit, I guess. I'm not used to talking/typing about speed in miles per second! Pax...

Time, Speed, Distance...

eye95 said:

The alteration of the passage of time based upon speed has been demonstrated. Identical, incredibly precise clocks have been compared after one was sent winging around the Earth at over 17,000 mph while the other remained (relatively) "stationary" on the ground. The clock on the spacecraft measured the passage of less time than the one on the ground--and to an extent that verified the theory about time stopping altogether at the speed of light in a vacuum.

Gravity is a phenomenon that we all observe and accept. However, any "laws" on the subject attempt to explain how it works, and all have flaws. Newton was wrong. Einstein was wrong. However, both explanations have enough utility in certain circumstances that we continue to use them with great efficacy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, I recall reading about that experiment a couple of decades ago... and, as I recall it, you are right on target. You, SVG and F1Man all make some excellent points. All measurements are man-made constructs, and, because we are imperfect, those things that we do are rarely flawless. Our measurement constructs are (more-or-less) globally accepted, the primary difference being the means of recording - km-miles, inches-mm, etc. There are, by necessity, defined methods to convert measurements from one system to another that have been accepted by acclamation. Without the evolution of measurement systems we would still be using things like the "cubit", which was as inconsistent as was the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Time is flexible, yes... but we have neither the practical means of, nor reasons to engage in, modifying time... yet. Right now, doing so is an exercise in scientific mental masturbation - "Well, we learned something today Fred.", "Yes we did, George... what the hell are we going to do with that knowledge?", "BTS outta me today, Fred. Maybe tomorrow."

That which we call a banana, is only a "banana" in English-speaking countries. In Germany it is "banane", in Russia "banun"(sp), etc. My point here being, that systems of measurement and identification, concepts and constructs, are influenced by cultural, social and linguistic variables. However, we have the practical means (translation) by which to bridge those variables. Although it may be fun, the ability to modify time by a few (man-designated) "seconds" has no practical purpose at this point. Time is what we have determined it to be by general, global consensus. (I realize that in times past I would be considered either a nut case or a heretic, and the services of Tomas Torquemada would be called down upon me for even having such odd opinions.) Pax...

Here's mine: katsung is actually an anti-firearms advocate who comes here to post crazy conspiracy theory BS in order to get people to associate people who carry for self defense with craziness.

Tawnos said:

Here's mine: katsung is actually an anti-firearms advocate who comes here to post crazy conspiracy theory BS in order to get people to associate people who carry for self defense with craziness.

Click to expand...

I conspire with you about this conspiracy.

Tawnos said:

Here's mine: katsung is actually an anti-firearms advocate who comes here to post crazy conspiracy theory BS in order to get people to associate people who carry for self defense with craziness.

Click to expand...

Takes one to know one. Though, more broadly, I subscribe anti-gun to anti-liberty and thus anti-citizen. You being a liberal are anti-liberty and thus anti-citizen.....so, you are anti-gun for any citizen who is liberty centric. Because liberals vote for liberals who infringe upon our RKBA.

Sadly this is no theory but rather undeniable truth.....scientific fact.

OC for ME said:

Takes one to know one. Though, more broadly, I subscribe anti-gun to anti-liberty and thus anti-citizen. You being a liberal are anti-liberty and thus anti-citizen.....so, you are anti-gun for any citizen who is liberty centric. Because liberals vote for liberals who infringe upon our RKBA.

Sadly this is no theory but rather undeniable truth.....scientific fact.

Click to expand...

Your crystal ball is cloudy and your facts are skewed. Could you enlighten me on who I voted for that would infringe on our right to keep and bear arms?

I suspect that you voted for Gary Johnson. No conservative is he.

OC for ME said:

I suspect that you voted for Gary Johnson. No conservative is he.

Click to expand...

Moving those goalposts, much? By what stretch of the imagination is the US "conservative" pro-liberty?

Johnson, if you voted for him, which i guess you did, supports the elimination of the IRS (good) but the retention of income taxes (bad). He supports a individual right determination for the 2A (good), but ignores states rights on this issue. He also does not clarify his position on carry, he just states own" on his web site.

I could go on re his public position on issues. He own "words" lead me to conclude that he is no conservative. Libertarians are more a "feel good" approach to public policy and rarely consider the affects that their misguided understanding of the Founding Document and what the true intent of that document is.

Liber-tarianism is a slightly less repugnant for of liber-alism. So, Johnson is no conservative in my view.

OC for ME said:

SNIP

I could go on re his public position on issues. He own "words" lead me to conclude that he is no conservative. Libertarians are more a "feel good" approach to public policy and rarely consider the affects that their misguided understanding of the Founding Document and what the true intent of that document is.

Liber-tarianism is a slightly less repugnant for of liber-alism. So, Johnson is no conservative in my view.

Click to expand...

I see what you did here... you might want to include the "/sarcasm" so people recognize your intent.

You got a good laugh from me this morning though. Thanks

OC for ME said:

Johnson, if you voted for him, which i guess you did, supports the elimination of the IRS (good) but the retention of income taxes (bad). He supports a individual right determination for the 2A (good), but ignores states rights on this issue. He also does not clarify his position on carry, he just states own" on his web site.

SNIP

Click to expand...

Getting rid of the IRS is BAD.

Why should be get rid of the Income tax? Please show me how it affects you at all. Unless you've been a "withholding agent" you've never paid the Income Tax.

Getting rid of all Social(ist) (In)Security would be good.

Freedom1Man said:

Getting rid of the IRS is BAD.

Why should be get rid of the Income tax? Please show me how it affects you at all. Unless you've been a "withholding agent" you've never paid the Income Tax.

Getting rid of all Social(ist) (In)Security would be good.

Click to expand...

This is a rerun of a show that some may have found interesting in the past. Now, not so much. Besides, it is OT re my post to Tawnos.

Conservative=not wanting to go outside the established way of doing things....so I feel both R's and D's are conservative.

Libertarianism is not related at all to the "liberal" who twist that meaning from one rooted in freedom to a more socialist agenda. They would prefer you be as free as possible. If people truly believed in voting for the lesser of two evils, Tawnos picked the definite less evil one Romney and Obama are miles ahead in evilness.

I do wish Libertarians would pick a more libertarian Candidate though. I have met Johnson, OC'd with him, was attracted to his down to earthness and his willingness to be open about his foibles. And his track record in New Mexico is pretty good.

sudden valley gunner said:

Conservative=not wanting to go outside the established way of doing things....so I feel both R's and D's are conservative.

Libertarianism is not related at all to the "liberal" who twist that meaning from one rooted in freedom to a more socialist agenda. They would prefer you be as free as possible. If people truly believed in voting for the lesser of two evils, Tawnos picked the definite less evil one Romney and Obama are miles ahead in evilness.

I do wish Libertarians would pick a more libertarian Candidate though. I have met Johnson, OC'd with him, was attracted to his down to earthness and his willingness to be open about his foibles. And his track record in New Mexico is pretty good.

Click to expand...

So what is the theory.

Freedom1Man said:

So what is the theory.

Click to expand...

On conservatives?

I feel that even many conservatives use the term wrong just like most liberals use the word liberal wrong.

I was struggling with that term and had thought it equated to "conserving" as in fiscally.

Studying the history of politics I realized it is the "pro government" party. It was the conservative tories, who were against, American colonies declaring independence, it was "radical" liberals who were for it.

It was then these same conservatives seeing how the tide was flowing that became the misnamed "federalist" and pushed for strong central control much like what was prior to independence. It was the liberal radicals the "anti-federalist" who insisted on enumerating the powers of government and giving us a bill of rights.

If you had politicians who are intent on keeping a constitutionally limited government and they are in power they could also be "conservative" if they move to keep these limitations in place. This has rarely happened. Although we did have some "conservative" judges of the Lochner era, who were reluctant to have a more intrusive government and who fought FDR in his "new deals". Yet now that all that has passed, the conservatives keep it up. Why guys like Gingrich can say FDR is a great man.

Even in my life I seen politicians fight against the implementation of government intrusions yet once they are passed accept it and move on, they are intent on conserving the in place government.

So when I look at it in this light there are no "liberal" major party, the two major parties are both conservative parties and they are conserving a system of an ever growing, ever intrusive and ever unconstitutional government. Why the only change we see between Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama....is a more burdensome government.

P.S. my bad I just realized Freedomman was asking what my conspiracy theory was.......I feel this isn't a conspiracy but more of a hypothesis on what is and has been happening since the dawn of government.

SVG, while that was well written and educational and, in my opinion, very accurate I am glad to see you put that note at the end.

So if you will humor me while I turn that in to a Con.Theo.

Given what you said is true then the Conspiracy would be that those who are elected are not the ones in power but rather there is a group pulling their strings from behind the scenes. This group has selected candidates that will only work to further their personal agenda. This same group must also be "counting" the votes because to believe that the American public is so stupid that they would elect basically the same person time after time over a period of 50 + years is ridiculous.

In short, this proves that there is a small handful of people controlling our government from behind the scenes.

Skull & Bones

Trilateral Commission

Freemasons

The Illuminati

The Bilderberg Group