Ulterior motives of "Pseudoscience" against "craterchains"

Avatar, do you have something important or interesting to post other than character assassination and displaying your ignorance?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

oh yes, I'm ignorant of an army of aliens fighting a great war and craterchaining whole solar system. I feel so left behind

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Avatar in your fantacy world your deck of cards would not be a full 52.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Norval, Fiery.

I've been tip toeing around you guys for a long time, trying not to scorn your absolute wrath because I felt that perhaps if you discussed your topic enough you might actually iron out your reasoning in regards to the evidence/responses people gave.

Originally I attempted to keep people in line and asked them to try to be more evidence producing in their arguements and they did this. They produced statements by many accredited individuals in the field, Scientific and Physics explainations direct from the NASA sites. (To which both of you hold an Unruly biase towards NASA as a whole)

You've suggested multiple times that scientists have backed up your findings yet have never mentioned the scientists, so people can not hear their proposals from them or even check those scientists credentials or even if those scientists actually exist.

Since this has been going on for months, and the futility of such discussion of such theorums has caused an overwhelming response from the users of Sciforums.com (and other forums) to respond to you disrespect (Usually in regards to your own contempt.)

I shall be from this point hereon closing Craterchains related threads, This doesn't mean that true discussion of the Physics, Mathematics or Modelling of Comet/Asteroid/Meteor and geological Pit chains can't be discussed in the Astronomy section to the forum, However discussion should be kept to what Science knows rather than stepping on a tree limb and then sawing off the branch your standing on.

"Does a tree fall in the forest?"-Unknown

<TABLE WIDTH="600" BORDER="1" VSPACE="0" HSPACE="0" CELLPADDING="10" CELLSPACING="0" ALIGN="CENTER">
<TR>
<TD>
In String theory, On instance of thought can generate the foundations for another, like a house of cards (pyramid) being built. The strength of the overall structure is defined by these foundations with the overall Axiom of truth being the destination which exists at the pinnacle of the top of the pyramid build upon the strength of each of its individual atoms (cards).

You could suggest that Craterchains and their existance through Causality is the top most peak, and the cards below build up the picture of how they arrived there.

A scientist would approach creating a conclusion by attempting to both build the pyramid up (Bottom-Up) and the pyramid down (Top-Down), in an understanding that building it both directions will cause the truths to be learnt from the fuzzylogic of "card placement".

The Strongest of theorums built in this bidirection manner, will stand up to the force of scrutiny. (This being the table shaking or someone "blowing" at your card structure)

If your card structure has remittant flaws, then you should be aware that the pyramids structure is unstable and no matter how you might hold onto the understand of how your structured that pyramid (even if you emotionally defend that it's a "good pyramid and shouldn't be failing"), the flaws will eventually cause that pyramid to come crashing down with no regards to your emotional attachment.

The nature of String theory is that every atom of it's foundation has to have an ascerted axiom of truth, so the overall foundation is strong enough to build on. In real science this means that a theorum has to be broken down into it's sub-components and each of those analysed and scrutinised one by one.

This will either mean that you will regenerate your foundation to be more solid through the accreditation of finds and evidence, or you will realise that your foundations aren't as strong as you first thought and put the gaunlet down.

At this point you either admit your wrong, or you give up and find something thats more useful to do with your time rather than "Flogging a dead horse".
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>

I suggest the closure of this and other threads like it, is due to the lack of the testing of each atoms foundations, the lack of research and evidence accreditation for each of those atoms and the lack of bidirectionally testing the theorums logic.

My conclusion is that their theorum involved just a Top-Down method of creation, which means they started with "Aliens made these Craters?", not "How were these craters formed?".

Please do not waste my, and others time by posting more of these threads.