Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Kami

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32
1
Expressing gravity as Newtons per kilogram (N/kg) is equivalent to an acceleration  (m/s2) and is often less confusing.
And Newtons per kilogram are the preferred units for the magnitude and direction of a gravitational field.
Perhaps to professional physicists and uber-nerds, but not to mere mortals.  Gravity and acceleration are equivalent, so using g or m/s2 is less confusing to most normal people.

If you believe in general relativity you also believe in the Einstein equivalence principle which states that it is impossible to physically distinguish gravitational acceleration from acceleration due to external forces.

2
Just out of curiosity: If the sun stood still for an entire day, how did the people tell when one day has passed?

3
Heiwa, all your statements start with the phrase 'I think'.

Why should anyone believe what you 'think'?

4

Seriously?  Don't pretend you have the first clue about theoretical physics and quantum mechanics because nobody's buying it.

You really have to study my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#BH about Black Holes! It is written for twerps like you!

The LIGO experts talk about small, mini Black Holes with masses 5-10 times the Sun's and then about a little larger Black Holes with masses 20-30 times the Sun's that ... collide ... 1.3 billion light years away from Earth rippling spacetime.

Then there is the Milky Way Black Hole only 26 000 light years away from Earth or 50 000 times closer with a mass of 4 150 000 Suns or >100 000 times heavier than the LIGO Black Holes. It's mass was determined last week by studying heavenly objects around it and photons ejected from them.

I don't believe in Black Holes at all but, if they exist, it seems that the Black Hole in the Milky Way should have bigger influence on Earth than the LIGO Black holes 50 000 times further away and >100 000 times smaller in the Universe.

According LIGO a photon can travel 1.3 billion light years after a collision of two Black Holes, while rippling the spacetime during all that time. The ripple moves at the speed of light and has a height less than the diameter of a proton, which LIGO has measured ... three times.

I was asleep every time and missed the ripples.

What the big Black Hole in the middle of the Milky Way is doing during that time is beyond me.

Mike, did you or your wife notice these ripples?
What does the black hole in the center of our galaxy have to do with that? Are you familiar with Birkhoff's theorem?

5
I'm not sure why you expected to sense something that extremely sensitive instruments were designed for the express purpose of detecting  ???

Well LIGO thinks a typical Black Hole , which collides, has finite mass of 20-40 Suns, while Messrs. M. Parsa, A. Eckart, B. Shahzamanian, V. Karas, M. Zajaček, J. A. Zensus, and C. Straubmeier has just found one that is 4 150 000 times heavier than the Sun. I really wonder what the mass of a Black Hole is. I think it is 0!

Black holes only have lower limits on mass. There are BHs which are created in supernovae of massive stars (the ones LIGO detected) and supermassive black holes in the center of galaxies.

But of course everything you do not understand is either fake or pseudoscience. It has to be that way.

LIGO is permanently recording and there are colliding black holes everywhere in the universe. Record long enough and you will measure one. I do not know what that has to do with luck, to be honest.

6
You haven't explained why you think they are pseudoscience. Please do, it will be hilarious. Let me guess: something to do with poop.

Yes, you are right.

Our asstrophysicist experts that invent what is in the universe have found out that space is not vacuum but full of 26 000 000 galaxies and plenty of dark, shitty matter (poop?) and dark energy.

Dark matters and energies can’t apparently be seen! Every night I look at the Moon and the stars … but I see no dark matters or energies. My eyes are too weak. Or are the photons not there? Died on the way to me?

But The Dark Energy Survey - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Energy_Survey – came to my help.

The Dark Energy Survey investigates the dynamics and large scale structure of the Universe using four probes: Type Ia supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), the number of galaxy clusters, and weak gravitational lensing.

Imagine that!

I have never heard about so much shit (poop) in universe.  What do you think?

I think it is just fun. A stupid joke. Baryon acoustic oscillations sound like Elon Musk space sex or pornography.

Which part do you not understand? I would be happy to explain.

Hm, I explain it and why I do not believe in quazars and Black Holes  at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . They are just pseudoscientific fantasies of asstrophysicists. Like a-bombs 1945, Americans on the Moon 1969 and Arabs 911 destroying WTC 2001, etc, etc.  Politicians and experts can invent anything to promote their own interests.

Are you sure? You seemed to be very confused concerning baryonic acoustic oscillations etc.

If not black holes, what caused the gravitational waves measured by LIGO?

This is exciting. Heiwa is about to display his ignorance of astrophysics and his obsession with poop again.

Don't get excited. I also explain the space poop (Apollo/ISS) productions and removals at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . It is disgusting.

The Apollo/ISS asstronuts attach themselves to some space craft poop reception devices, piss and shit into them and, then, open some valves, so the piss/shit enter vacuum space as pollution.



Even on your favorite topic you are wrong. The feces are not sent into space. They did that with the MIR, it ruined their solar cells, so they stopped doing it.

7
You haven't explained why you think they are pseudoscience. Please do, it will be hilarious. Let me guess: something to do with poop.

Yes, you are right.

Our asstrophysicist experts that invent what is in the universe have found out that space is not vacuum but full of 26 000 000 galaxies and plenty of dark, shitty matter (poop?) and dark energy.

Dark matters and energies can’t apparently be seen! Every night I look at the Moon and the stars … but I see no dark matters or energies. My eyes are too weak. Or are the photons not there? Died on the way to me?

But The Dark Energy Survey - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Energy_Survey – came to my help.

The Dark Energy Survey investigates the dynamics and large scale structure of the Universe using four probes: Type Ia supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), the number of galaxy clusters, and weak gravitational lensing.

Imagine that!

I have never heard about so much shit (poop) in universe.  What do you think?

I think it is just fun. A stupid joke. Baryon acoustic oscillations sound like Elon Musk space sex or pornography.

Which part do you not understand? I would be happy to explain.

8
But it is all fantasy. No evidence of anything.
If you actually read the paper, there is a lot of evidence...
Quote
I also explain what quasar are there. The experts say a quasar (/ˈkweɪzɑːr/) (also quasi-stellar object or QSO) is an active galactic nucleus of very high luminosity. A quasar consists of a supermassive Black Hole surrounded by an orbiting accretion disk of gas, bla, bla.
So where does it state that every black hole is part of a quasar?

Quote

But they are also jokes that accompany Black Holes, IMO

As you can see I consider most astrophysics as pseudoscience, i.e. pure inventions to suit some twerps, incl. Stephen Hawkings.
Your opinion means very little to me.

9
Re photons it seems they are slowed down by colliding Black Holes, a common occurence, and also bend around masses in space when flying around, so their trajectories cannot be predicted either. Do you believe in  colliding Black Holes?

The fact that photons bend around masses does not mean that their path can not be predicted.  On the contrary. The deflection of photons can be used to measure extragalactic masses.

I do believe in black holes, whether they are colliding or not. Okay, let me tell you a little:

People said 10 August 2017 (!) they have discovered a Black Hole - Sgr A* - at the centre of our Milky Way galaxy universe with a finite mass 4.15 × 106 greater than the mass of our Sun.
The knowledge that Sgr A* is a black hole is MUCH older than 2017. I do not know what your source is (as usual, you cite none) but probably this is a more accurate mass (or distance) estimate or something like this.

Quote
It is only 26 000 light years away from Earth but no quasar was reported close by.
Heiwa, you have no idea what a quasar is, and what the difference between a quasar and a black hole is. This sentence just does not make any sense at all.

Quote
How this Black Hole can collide with anything and where it came from are not clear either!
What are you trying to say here? The formation of black holes in the centers of galaxies is not well understood? If yes then you are right.
That does not mean it does not exist, though. Planet formation is also still ongoing research and we still exist...

Quote
It is photons from the surrounding of the Black Hole that tell us all this. So a photon can travel at least 26 000 light years.
Congratulations. Two correct sentences in a row. I am proud.

Quote
According Newton's Second law about an object with mass in uniform motion, that will stay in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force, I am happy to inform that this Black Hole applies a force on you (and me) and will suck us all up in due course (if you believe it), but you will not notice it.

Uhm.... no. Why would it? Do you have any evidence for your statement? Just the slightest?

Quote
The quasar will get you first, I am sorry to say. You don't argue with a quasar!
You really have no Idea what a quasar is, right?




What a bunch of nonsense. The sun also applies force on us, but we are orbiting it and thus it doesn't suck us up. And you claim to understand orbital mechanics! Lol.

You have to read the whole lot. I don't believe in Black Holes but some experts have just found one only 26 000 light years away from Earth with a finite mass of 4 150 000 Suns, which I joke about. This big Black Hole does not eject any photons like our Sun but will suck up everything in the Milky Way due to some magic force.
The black hole (or its immediate surroundings) do emit photons, else we would not be able to see it. The 'magical force' is gravity, and it will not 'suck up everything in the Milky Way'. I do not know where you get that impression from (maybe some children's book?) but it is completely wrong.

Quote
It is the will of God! The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not "a magician with a magic wand", Pope Francis has declared October 2014 at his Pontifical Academy of Sciences in the Vatican City. I wonder what Donald Trump has to say about it.

Uhm. Okay. I do not understand what that has to do with anything but whatever.

10
Heiwa, as someone with a background in astrophysics: For the love of god, please shut up. I can not even begin to tell where one mistake ends and the next one begins in your huge pile of crap.

11
Does the number really matter? The law is correct.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moonbounce.
« on: August 04, 2017, 04:28:43 AM »
Let me get this straight, the earth is traveling around the sun at 30 km/s, and the sun is traveling around the galaxy at tremendous speeds and a radio signal bounced back after 42 years and just so happend for us to line up to receive the signal back?

Since radio travels at the speed of light, then the place would be 21 light years away? But in 21 years, how are have we moved, on a spherical earth model? Also on a fixed Flat Earth Model, how far would we moved?

Now, which model make more sense for the radio waves to come back, a spherical Earth that is moving at 30 kilometers per second and has moved 6.6226E+08 km in those 21 years time or a fixed Flat Earth

Speaking of Moon bounce.... This is just Nucking FUTS

http://abriluno.com/hindenburg-disaster-other-1930s-radio-broadcasts-bouncing-back-to-earth/
BS, that story returns every few years on the internet.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Polaris Question
« on: August 02, 2017, 04:03:18 AM »
Seeing you are back, InFlatEarth, have you tried out stellarium? I can really recommend it!

Also, care to adress the southern celestial pole?

14
Yeah, those pesky little details between harmless and deadly radiation. People confuse them all the time.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Big Bang Fair-tail
« on: August 02, 2017, 04:01:00 AM »
As to your reply, this article debunks it.

Not really. Gravity is a fairly weak force, we don't actually know what force drives expansion (dark matter? space aliens? who knows). We also don't know how big the universe is, so there's no real way to tell what speed it's going at. I agree with you in that science has no clear answer, and is still looking for one. I would be really interested to hear what your answer is?

NO, I'm hear to learn from you. I ask the questions since I admit that I'm a total idiot when it comes to the Big Bang Fair-tail.

Let's start with the basics, you said that "we don't actually know what force drives expansion".

Can you please prove to us that their is an expansion in the first place. What are the facts to support this claim?
Existence of cosmic microwave background radiation proves the universe was very hot and dense about 14 billion years ago.

Redshift of galaxies proves that they are moving away from us.

Assumption: We are not special, so if everything moves away from us it also moves away from each other, therefore the universe is expanding.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Big Bang Fair-tail
« on: August 02, 2017, 03:59:28 AM »
Quote
Quote
2)   Was the mass spinning really fast before the explosion, as we were told in grade school or has this changed?
But of course, there was no mass spinning before the explosion, because there was no mass before the explosion.

If their was no mass, before the explosion, then
1) How did the mass form?
2) Why would the mass be spinning once it formed?
3) Why did the mass form in the first place?

Please provide citation for your answer.
As I already said, there are no answers to these questions. Only speculations.

You need to get your mind away from the name big bang. It was not an explosion. The name is misleading. It is simply the start of spacetime.

The universe expands isotropically, so there is no origin or something like that.

The universe might have an internal angular momentum, but that has nothing to do with the big bang being an incredibly dense and fastly rotating ball that was torn away by centrifugal forces. The first one is possible, the latter is absolute bogus.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Big Bang Fair-tail
« on: August 02, 2017, 03:04:18 AM »
Every few years, the Big Bang Fair-tail gets changed in order for it to appear to be correct. Since I admit that I’m ignorant of the latest version of this fair-tail, let’s talk some basic "facts" and I hope the Heliocentric High Priest will answer my questions, but first we must set one ground rule.

“The difference between religion and science is that in a religion, we believe something because we like to believe in it, where as in science, we can test and measure a result from our statements.”

I would like for the Heliocentric High Priest to back up their answers with how do you know the answer and what evidence do they have to support your claim?

Questions:

1)   How many years ago did the Big Bang happen?
Depends on your cosmological model, but about 14 billion years ago.

Quote
2)   Was the mass spinning really fast before the explosion, as we were told in grade school or has this changed?
Your grade school teacher got that wrong. There was never a theory like this, nor will there ever be one. This is complete nonsense
Quote
3)   What is the location of the origin of the explosion of the Big Bang? Do we know the spot (x, y, z) of the explosion?

4)   How far away is the Earth located today from the original explosion spot?
All these questions can be answered at once: The big bang is the origin of spacetime itself. After that, spacetime itself expanded, taking the mass inside with it. Think of it this way: You are in a space where the coordinates change with x_t(x)=t*x. At t=0 everything was at the origin. So the proper answer to 3) would be everywhere. The big bang is not an explosion that happened somewhere in space and time, it is the creation of space and time.

Quote
5)   How fast was the mass travelling after the explosion? Was it at the speed of light? Slower, faster?
Again, it was not mass that travelled through space, but space itself expanding. There is a theory of inflation, where spacetime expanded incredibly fast (way faster than the speed of light) in the first fractions of a second. While there is nothing speaking against it and it explains a few observations, it is only a posterior theory (i.e. it has not yet made predictions that were independently verified), therefore it is questioned.

Quote
6)   When did time start to be in effect? Was there such a thing as time, before the Big Bang or was it a product of the explosion?
This is a bit philosophical, I think the consensus is that both time and space begin with the big bang but I am not sure about this. According to GR space and time can not exist independently of each other, but wheter there was something before the big bang we can not know. We do know that everything in OUR universe was created in the big bang.

Quote
7)   When did the physical laws start to be in effect, before the bang or after the bang? Conservation of Energy, Momentum, F=ma...
At the moment of the big bang. Unfortunately, for the first fraction of a second, the energies are so high that we can not reproduce the physics and thus can not derive the respecitve laws. After the first second or so it is normal, well-understood physics. Conservation of Energy is only a local law, by the way, it does not hold globally.

Quote
8)   How much mass is there in the Universe?

9)   How big is the Universe? How many light years, is the furthest object from the center of the explosion.
We do not know. We only know that the observable universe is spanning 14 billion lightyears. It might extend past that infinitely, it might end somewhere, it might form a giant loop and end in itself. We do not know and can not know.

Quote
10)   Where did all this mass come from? Since everything has a beginning and an end, how did it become into existence in order for the Big Bang to happen?
That is the probably most important question of physics since generations. Why are we here? How did it begin?
Answer: Noone knows.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eventual commercial space travel and FE.
« on: July 29, 2017, 10:30:51 AM »
Are you an electron?
Are space ships electrons?

Last time I checked, they were not.

It is obvious that you have never baked in your life, because if you did, you would know that when you skim the flower, only the particles that are smaller than the hole can pass by.

No, I'm bigger than an electron, so if the size of an electron can penetrate, what makes you think that something bigger can get passed by

What makes you think the Van Allen belt is a FLOUR sifter?

Geez, your English is horrible!

What proof do you have that it is not, and don't tell me about the fake Moon landings, because that is bull.

Very soon, they will have cameras with great zooms, right now it's at 83X the Nikon P900. In 10 years time, they will reach 830 X, then what are you going to say, Oh, maybe a metiers hit all the spots of the moon landings.

Nope. They are diffraction limited, which has been explained to you in another thread.

The van allen belts are a 'barrier' caused by magnetic fields, which is why they repel and/or trap charged particles. A spaceship is not a charged particle.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Prof that we went to the moon
« on: July 29, 2017, 09:58:20 AM »
It's not a matter of zoom but resolution.  You won't find a backyard telescope that will have enough resolution.

The resolution in arcseconds is a simple calculation.
R = 11.6 / D

There are 3600 arcseconds to a degree and the moon is about 0.5 degrees across the sky or about 1800 arcseconds.  Not to mention the wave length of light.

The descent stage is about 4m across which will work out to about .002 arcseconds.  By comparison, the Hubble has a resolution of about 0.1 arcseconds.  The Hubble can't resolve the Apollo equipment on the moon. 

A quick calculation shows you'd need telescope with a mirror 60ish meters across to have the necessary resolution to see Apollo on the moon.  It would be more like 100m if you want to see the smallest objects.  There are commercial telescopes that will work but you certainly are not going to get something sub $2000.

The cost of a telescope goes up exponentially as diameter goes up.  Add in the fact that most telescopes are blue shifted because it's easier to resolve the shorter wave lengths.  All this considered and you'd be lucky to get something for under $2,000,000.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has the resolution to see something about half a meter across but you're not likely to believe those pictures.

Mike

The biggest optical telescope so far is the VLT, the biggest one in the near future is the E-ELT with a diameter of 39 meters. But the really bad thing is the atmosphere: Atmospheric turbulences and blurring restrict the seeing of a telescope (no matter how good) even in the best places (atacama desert/south pole) to about 0.8 arcseconds. There is no chance to see the lunar landing sites with a ground-based telescope, no matter how much money you put into it.

A telescope with a resolution a hundred times better than hubble, for $2,000. That is a nice, but quite naive dream.

EDIT: I made a mistake, the E-ELT will have adaptive optics that try to counter atmospheric turbulence, significantly reducing the effects. The seeing will still not be good enough to clearly depict the moon landing sites.
I believe Gran Telescopio Canarias is the largest at 10.4m.  Although, the VLT and operate in interferometric mode they can combine the 8.2m telescopes electronically to create a larger effective telescope...very cool. 

The telescope he wants is impossible.

Mike

My bad. It is not the largest, but IMO the best currently available ground based telescope

20
If the 'never' would be taken out of the last option, I would choose both this and 100.000$.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Prof that we went to the moon
« on: July 29, 2017, 09:11:23 AM »
It's not a matter of zoom but resolution.  You won't find a backyard telescope that will have enough resolution.

The resolution in arcseconds is a simple calculation.
R = 11.6 / D

There are 3600 arcseconds to a degree and the moon is about 0.5 degrees across the sky or about 1800 arcseconds.  Not to mention the wave length of light.

The descent stage is about 4m across which will work out to about .002 arcseconds.  By comparison, the Hubble has a resolution of about 0.1 arcseconds.  The Hubble can't resolve the Apollo equipment on the moon. 

A quick calculation shows you'd need telescope with a mirror 60ish meters across to have the necessary resolution to see Apollo on the moon.  It would be more like 100m if you want to see the smallest objects.  There are commercial telescopes that will work but you certainly are not going to get something sub $2000.

The cost of a telescope goes up exponentially as diameter goes up.  Add in the fact that most telescopes are blue shifted because it's easier to resolve the shorter wave lengths.  All this considered and you'd be lucky to get something for under $2,000,000.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has the resolution to see something about half a meter across but you're not likely to believe those pictures.

Mike

The biggest optical telescope so far is the VLT, the biggest one in the near future is the E-ELT with a diameter of 39 meters. But the really bad thing is the atmosphere: Atmospheric turbulences and blurring restrict the seeing of a telescope (no matter how good) even in the best places (atacama desert/south pole) to about 0.8 arcseconds. There is no chance to see the lunar landing sites with a ground-based telescope, no matter how much money you put into it.

A telescope with a resolution a hundred times better than hubble, for $2,000. That is a nice, but quite naive dream.

EDIT: I made a mistake, the E-ELT will have adaptive optics that try to counter atmospheric turbulence, significantly reducing the effects. The seeing will still not be good enough to clearly depict the moon landing sites.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Polaris Question
« on: July 29, 2017, 09:09:04 AM »
1: From the lower plane you would still be able to see the entire upper plane, just under a different angle.
2: The stars in the southern hemisphere rotate around the southern cross. In your plane model it is impossible to have two centers of rotation
3: Have you checked stellarium (or any other software, as DNO suggested)?

When you go on top of the empire state building, 381 meters up in the sky, do you see the 400 miles do to curvature or do you just see 50 miles away?

On a clear night I can see stars all the way down to the horizon.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conservation of angular Momentum
« on: July 29, 2017, 09:02:29 AM »
We simply do not know what caused the big bang or what exactly it is. Our physical understanding can pretty well reconstruct the events up to a fraction of a second after the big bang, but everything before that is just an educated guess.

As for the physics behind tidal friction: click.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eventual commercial space travel and FE.
« on: July 29, 2017, 07:14:08 AM »
So meteorites are god's tears?

The charge-mass relation in an electron is as high as it can get (i doubt any other particle has a higher one, but there you might ask a particle physicist). Magnetic fields care about charge. So electrons are the particles that are most influenced by magnetic fields.

You are pretty neutral. You are thus not influenced by magnetic fields.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Polaris Question
« on: July 29, 2017, 07:08:07 AM »
1: From the lower plane you would still be able to see the entire upper plane, just under a different angle.
2: The stars in the southern hemisphere rotate around the southern cross. In your plane model it is impossible to have two centers of rotation
3: Have you checked stellarium (or any other software, as DNO suggested)?

26
No.

I have volunteered in a children's hospital which collaborated with a hospice. Saw some heartbreaking things there. Some incredibly joyful children that were just too young to understand that they would not celebrate another birthday.

If god exists, he does not love us. He probably does not care.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Polaris Question
« on: July 29, 2017, 03:28:06 AM »
InFlatEarth, here are 4 simple steps I would like you to perform:

1. Download Stellarium (the PC version is free, I really recommend the app but that costs about 3€). It is an open source program that simulates the night sky.
2. Insert your location, a date and a time.
3. Check if the night sky you see at this location, time and date corresponds to the one predicted by stellarium.
4. Verify that stellarium is an open source program that calculates the position of stars using a star chart and a round earth model.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« on: July 26, 2017, 11:11:05 PM »
Guys, the OP already admitted that this was just a joke and that he faked the entire data. :)

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Where do babies come from?
« on: July 26, 2017, 05:59:24 AM »
Dude you may be onto something.  I think it gets really suspicious in college--we frequently hear of young people going out to bars or parties, then waking up the next morning in bed with some complete stranger and not even remembering how they got there!  The conspiracy has them so brainwashed, they always assume that they had "sex", but do they really know?

What really happens during those lost hours?  Why erase an entire night from someone's memory?

Good point. I have also heard that those people, besides memory losses, feel sick, nauseated and have a headache for the rest of their day. Probably some sort of side-effect..

30
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Where do babies come from?
« on: July 26, 2017, 04:41:52 AM »
Dear members of this forum:

Inspired by the threads about the existence of airplanes and the morality of oral sex I, too, decided to do some research, and I might have stumbled upon a conspiracy of an extent noone will believe.

As everyone on this forum by now probably ‘knows’, a baby is sometimes created during sex and then born by the mother 9 months later. Everyone learnt this ‘fact’ at some point in their life, either by their parents or in school. You all accept it and have probably never questioned it in your life. So what if I tell you now that sex itself is the biggest conspiracy that was ever created?

Yes, it is debated in school, in some schools there are even special classes (‘sex ed’), but this is all a huge conspiracy planted by the government and the freemasons!

Of course, there are thousands of pictures and videos showing sexual acts on the internet (I refuse to post links but I am sure most of you have seen at least some). I have studied many of those extensively, sometimes several times a day. After all this research, I can conclude that the videos are an utter fake! First of all, the story ranges from hard to believe to ridiculous (why do you get into a taxi when you know that you can not pay?). That is when I started to dig around. Dr. Brendan Zietsch states here that the average duration of a sexual act is about 7 minutes. This time was beaten in every movie I have seen, often lasting about 45 minutes.

But with this huge amout of pictures and videos on the internet, there must have been some leaks, you might say. Guess what: there are!
There are several leaked lists (see i.e. here) of members participating in this movies that actually are hollywood actors! Think about that! Hollywood involved in the creation of those movies! How can we ever believe them?

But the rabbit hole goes even deeper. I have asked around, and most of my friends claim to have had sex at least once, many even claimed to do it on a regular basis. Out of all the people I have asked, many close friends of mine, no one, not a single one agreed to let me personally verify their claims. On the contrary, I earned extremely confusing looks and the person quickly tried to change the topic. So how far does this conspiracy span, when even my closest friends are part of it?

I read a study where 13-year old male students were interviewed about their ‘sex life’ in front of their friends. All of them claimed to ‘have sex all the time’, but when asked again with their friends absent most admitted that they had lied. The government has played a very tricky game with us, my friends: By dictating social status partly by sexual activity they have forced us to lie in front of and to our friends and thus, unknowingly and unwillingly, be part of the conspiracy and help to keep it running.

But, if all the tales are false, where do babies come from? In many cultures, originating from the ancient greeks, a stork bringing babies is a powerful myth, recently even a movie was created touching this topic. While this story does not completely convince me, there has to be a true core to that.

‘But why?’ you might ask. Why plant a giant conspiracy? First of all, there is some money involved. Every teenager has condoms lying around that he will never use, for example. But the real reason goes deeper. It is control, absolute control.
Think about it: We have convinced women to daily ingest pills that, as a fact, alter their body and change their moods. And these are just the effects we know of, who knows what else they do? All of this out of fear to get a baby through sex. And this is just the tip of the iceberg!
In our teenage years, most (if not all) thoughts about decisions are ‘will this help me get laid?’. This focus on sexual activeness is certainly most present there, but it spans throughout all ages. Think about it: ‘Virgin’ is a huge insult, sexual activeness is related to success and high social status. Some scientists even argue that the final reason behind every of our decisions is the wish to get laid (those scientists are mostly male, by the way). Instead of working towards a better future for all of us, we hunt an ideal that is nonexistent! How convenient for the freemasons!

I think they are on to me. A few days ago, in a bar, I was approached by a girl that clearly hinted that she wanted to have sex with me. As soon as I asked her if she was paid by the government to do so, she became very uncomforable and immediately left. If I stop posting in the next few days, you know they have me.

I do not expect to fully convince you with a single post. I just want you to ask yourselfes: How many hours of your life have you done something hoping you will get rewarded with sex? Could you not have spent these hours in working towards a better future for all of us? Have you ever personally seen two people having sex? Just do your research and you will find out the truth!

PS: There are probably even many paid shills here who will now claim to have had sex many times. DO NOT TRUST THEM!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32