.....

  • 916 Replies
  • 269716 Views
?

sevenhills

  • 219
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #810 on: March 09, 2013, 09:53:26 AM »
Septic isnt a Flat-Earther, he is one of the tin-foil hat wearers that see a conspiracy everywhere - Im not sure we should laugh really cos its a form of mental illness that needs help, not derision.....but its hard not to laugh atsuch an open show of idiocy.

?

robertotrevor

  • 694
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #811 on: March 09, 2013, 09:59:29 AM »
Septic isnt a Flat-Earther, he is one of the tin-foil hat wearers that see a conspiracy everywhere - Im not sure we should laugh really cos its a form of mental illness that needs help, not derision.....but its hard not to laugh atsuch an open show of idiocy.

I also noticed the similarities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder#Indicators_of_a_delusion I think he said he has a wife and a daughther. I wonder if they are worried about him.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 10:01:23 AM by robertotrevor »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #812 on: March 09, 2013, 11:55:17 AM »
but you claim atoms dont exist, and what are electrons part of? Or Is that some different sort of atom?

You really are going to have to make your mind up one way or the other
Show me a real life atom. Not a drawing.  A real life atom.
Have you ever seen an electron?  Please, show me a picture of electricity.
I can't show you a picture of electricity. But my argument isn't about electricity directly, it's about the process that happens in nuclear reactors that is my argument.
Ah, so you're willing to accept electrons that you can't see but you refuse to accept atom, even though they are both studied by the same "Pinocchio scientists"?  That makes sense.  ::)
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #813 on: March 09, 2013, 12:23:09 PM »
but you claim atoms dont exist, and what are electrons part of? Or Is that some different sort of atom?

You really are going to have to make your mind up one way or the other
Show me a real life atom. Not a drawing.  A real life atom.
Have you ever seen an electron?  Please, show me a picture of electricity.
I can't show you a picture of electricity. But my argument isn't about electricity directly, it's about the process that happens in nuclear reactors that is my argument.
Ah, so you're willing to accept electrons that you can't see but you refuse to accept atom, even though they are both studied by the same "Pinocchio scientists"?  That makes sense.  ::)
I refuse to accept atoms that smash into other atoms, releasing neutrons which smash into more atoms, releasing neutrons that somehow make bombs glow like the Sun and destroy cities all because a few chunks of metal are slammed together at speed started by a cordite explosion.
Yeah, I'd say I have a massive problem believing all that hokus pokus.

I'll accept electrons doing what they do as we can see the end result of  what they do, yet they need "energy" to be able to do what they do.

Too bad you can't cherry pick the parts of the theory you don't like.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • +0/-0
  • Literally a dog
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #814 on: March 09, 2013, 12:52:08 PM »
but you claim atoms dont exist, and what are electrons part of? Or Is that some different sort of atom?

You really are going to have to make your mind up one way or the other
Show me a real life atom. Not a drawing.  A real life atom.
Have you ever seen an electron?  Please, show me a picture of electricity.
I can't show you a picture of electricity. But my argument isn't about electricity directly, it's about the process that happens in nuclear reactors that is my argument.
Ah, so you're willing to accept electrons that you can't see but you refuse to accept atom, even though they are both studied by the same "Pinocchio scientists"?  That makes sense.  ::)
I refuse to accept atoms that smash into other atoms, releasing neutrons which smash into more atoms, releasing neutrons that somehow make bombs glow like the Sun and destroy cities all because a few chunks of metal are slammed together at speed started by a cordite explosion.
Yeah, I'd say I have a massive problem believing all that hokus pokus.

I'll accept electrons doing what they do as we can see the end result of  what they do, yet they need "energy" to be able to do what they do.

By observing your thoughts on the matter you seem to have a problem with the amount of energy released, claiming there is no outside energy coming in, right?

*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #815 on: March 09, 2013, 12:56:42 PM »
but you claim atoms dont exist, and what are electrons part of? Or Is that some different sort of atom?

You really are going to have to make your mind up one way or the other
Show me a real life atom. Not a drawing.  A real life atom.
Have you ever seen an electron?  Please, show me a picture of electricity.
I can't show you a picture of electricity. But my argument isn't about electricity directly, it's about the process that happens in nuclear reactors that is my argument.
Ah, so you're willing to accept electrons that you can't see but you refuse to accept atom, even though they are both studied by the same "Pinocchio scientists"?  That makes sense.  ::)
I refuse to accept atoms that smash into other atoms, releasing neutrons which smash into more atoms, releasing neutrons that somehow make bombs glow like the Sun and destroy cities all because a few chunks of metal are slammed together at speed started by a cordite explosion.
Yeah, I'd say I have a massive problem believing all that hokus pokus.

I'll accept electrons doing what they do as we can see the end result of  what they do, yet they need "energy" to be able to do what they do.

Too bad you can't cherry pick the parts of the theory you don't like.
We would all like to know everything about everything in life but it's just not possible with our life span.
What is even more impossible is being able to sort out truth from fiction in everything, so we either go with truth and have an attitude of accepting it and believing it as long as it comes from official sources, or we can waste time questioning everything and believing nothing until it becomes a fact in our own eyes.

Unfortunately for me , I go with the latter, which I admit is a pain, because I'd like to believe everything we are told is true, yet we all know this is not the case...but it is easier to just accept things as they are and blank out what we "may" attempt to question.

I wish I could just block stuff out and go with the flow but I have this problem of, when I see something blatant and in your face, I feel the need to question it and question it and better question it, to the point that some people may think I'm nuts.
Not that anyone on here thinks that. (cough)

I'd prefer to walk up to the brains of this world and say, " hey! is this earth spinning in space and can atoms smash into each other and blow up the world in a massive Sun light flash" and it would be nice for them to stand there and say, " you know Scepti, we wish we knew the answer to that but, in truth, we haven't got a clue how any of that would work."


Ah well, maybe in the next life, if there is one eh?

Electromagnetism and nuclear fission (or fusion since you seem to like suns in your explosions) are all inevitable consequences of The Standard Model. You can't say you like electricity but not atom smashing because it all is derived from the same thing.

Also-You are selectively skeptical. You dent a round earth because the evidence is not compelling but you accept a global conspiracy with no evidence whatsoever. Where is your questioning on that front.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #816 on: March 09, 2013, 01:25:18 PM »
but you claim atoms dont exist, and what are electrons part of? Or Is that some different sort of atom?

You really are going to have to make your mind up one way or the other
Show me a real life atom. Not a drawing.  A real life atom.
Have you ever seen an electron?  Please, show me a picture of electricity.
I can't show you a picture of electricity. But my argument isn't about electricity directly, it's about the process that happens in nuclear reactors that is my argument.
Ah, so you're willing to accept electrons that you can't see but you refuse to accept atom, even though they are both studied by the same "Pinocchio scientists"?  That makes sense.  ::)
I refuse to accept atoms that smash into other atoms, releasing neutrons which smash into more atoms, releasing neutrons that somehow make bombs glow like the Sun and destroy cities all because a few chunks of metal are slammed together at speed started by a cordite explosion.
Yeah, I'd say I have a massive problem believing all that hokus pokus.

I'll accept electrons doing what they do as we can see the end result of  what they do, yet they need "energy" to be able to do what they do.

Too bad you can't cherry pick the parts of the theory you don't like.
We would all like to know everything about everything in life but it's just not possible with our life span.
What is even more impossible is being able to sort out truth from fiction in everything, so we either go with truth and have an attitude of accepting it and believing it as long as it comes from official sources, or we can waste time questioning everything and believing nothing until it becomes a fact in our own eyes.

Unfortunately for me , I go with the latter, which I admit is a pain, because I'd like to believe everything we are told is true, yet we all know this is not the case...but it is easier to just accept things as they are and blank out what we "may" attempt to question.

I wish I could just block stuff out and go with the flow but I have this problem of, when I see something blatant and in your face, I feel the need to question it and question it and better question it, to the point that some people may think I'm nuts.
Not that anyone on here thinks that. (cough)

I'd prefer to walk up to the brains of this world and say, " hey! is this earth spinning in space and can atoms smash into each other and blow up the world in a massive Sun light flash" and it would be nice for them to stand there and say, " you know Scepti, we wish we knew the answer to that but, in truth, we haven't got a clue how any of that would work."


Ah well, maybe in the next life, if there is one eh?

Electromagnetism and nuclear fission (or fusion since you seem to like suns in your explosions) are all inevitable consequences of The Standard Model. You can't say you like electricity but not atom smashing because it all is derived from the same thing.

Also-You are selectively skeptical. You dent a round earth because the evidence is not compelling but you accept a global conspiracy with no evidence whatsoever. Where is your questioning on that front.
I take every single thing on how I perceive it. That's just the way I am.

You claim to question everything but you accept claims of a global conspiracy with no evidence whatsoever. Not a shred.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

kevinagain

  • 527
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #817 on: March 09, 2013, 02:27:00 PM »
North Korea is going to be really embrassed when their bluff is called. Wait, I've never seen North Korea, does it even exist?

not according to any first-hand knowledge that you have.
true wisdom is always concise

*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #818 on: March 09, 2013, 02:44:51 PM »
North Korea is going to be really embrassed when their bluff is called. Wait, I've never seen North Korea, does it even exist?

not according to any first-hand knowledge that you have.

I know right?  But then I don't think first hand knowledge is as important as its made out to be in some cases.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 02:49:19 PM by Rama Set »
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

kevinagain

  • 527
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #819 on: March 09, 2013, 03:14:01 PM »
it's a philosophical issue, rama, and it bears some consideration.

for example, are you religious? many religious claims are made by people whose evidence is this:

 "intelligent people i respect tell me that such-and-such is true, and i believe them."

if i have a belief in god because someone tells me it is true, and it provides reasonable explanations for things that i cannot personally question, how is that different from someone who says the earth goes around the sun, assuming that theory also has reasonable explanations that i cannot personally question?

we accept things on faith and trust all through our lives, and saying "my faith is more trustworthy than your faith" is not a compelling argument.
true wisdom is always concise

*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #820 on: March 09, 2013, 03:25:17 PM »
it's a philosophical issue, rama, and it bears some consideration.

for example, are you religious? many religious claims are made by people whose evidence is this:

 "intelligent people i respect tell me that such-and-such is true, and i believe them."

if i have a belief in god because someone tells me it is true, and it provides reasonable explanations for things that i cannot personally question, how is that different from someone who says the earth goes around the sun, assuming that theory also has reasonable explanations that i cannot personally question?

we accept things on faith and trust all through our lives, and saying "my faith is more trustworthy than your faith" is not a compelling argument.

I completely agree. My comment about North Korea was somewhat tongue in cheek, so the need for first hand knowledge is not important I think. But where is the line?  If you hold first hand knowledge to be of primary importance you can no longer deem the study of history to be valuable, you cannot say that your parents are your biological parents with any certainty unless you learn how to perform a DNA test. How do I know Russia exists. I guess I don't, I have no first hand experience of it after all. Is this really how you want to evaluate the validity of a claim?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

kevinagain

  • 527
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #821 on: March 09, 2013, 03:42:09 PM »
well, it's certainly easiest to believe whatever someone tells you than it is to go through life testing everything on your own. the risk in doing that is that you end up believing nonsense just because it's easy. you're right-- you have to draw a line.

i think the line is drawn using use common sense and judgment. for example, i personally believe that russia exists, because there is a vast body of circumstantial evidence that points to it as being true, things such as history, neighbors with russian accents, newspapers, textbooks, media transmissions and so on. so while i have no personal experience with russia, i would say that assuming i can trust other people is a good strategy.

but as for who my parents are? that's pretty iffy. lots of adopted people in this world discover that their parents really aren't biologically related to them at all. so i would say that who my parents are is less reliable than the existence of russia, based on common sense. if someone tells me, i know for a fact that the people claiming to be my parents really are my parents, because they say so, then i tend not to trust his conclusions.

this relates to the flat earth discussion, when someone substitutes faith for facts. too many times people think that just saying lots of people believe something is proof that it is true. if that's the case, then spontaneous generation was true for a long time, and so was the idea that the oceans were full of sea monsters.

i read lots of posts here where the arguments in favor of a round earth consist of nothing more than appeals to authority and appeals to common belief. that's not an argument that has any validity.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 03:43:46 PM by kevinagain »
true wisdom is always concise

*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #822 on: March 09, 2013, 04:52:36 PM »
I agree to pretty much everything you said.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

kevinagain

  • 527
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #823 on: March 09, 2013, 05:00:55 PM »
I agree to pretty much everything you said.

you are very wise.

 8)
true wisdom is always concise

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11852
  • +10/-5
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #824 on: March 09, 2013, 05:27:17 PM »
Septic isnt a Flat-Earther, he is one of the tin-foil hat wearers that see a conspiracy everywhere - Im not sure we should laugh really cos its a form of mental illness that needs help, not derision.....but its hard not to laugh atsuch an open show of idiocy.
Scepti has overcome the mental illness of believing everything the news blurts out hour after hour. He has reached an independent state of awareness. He looks carefully at all issues, and has seen some of the lies for what they are. Claiming people who don't agree with you are mentally ill is not very wise. Scepti is fighting a tough battle against all of you nay sayers. He is much wiser and stronger than you.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

sevenhills

  • 219
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #825 on: March 09, 2013, 06:01:41 PM »
you believe the bible is not the work of a few Levantine scholars in the late bronze age....why should i belive anythnig else you say?

*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #826 on: March 09, 2013, 06:08:35 PM »
Septic isnt a Flat-Earther, he is one of the tin-foil hat wearers that see a conspiracy everywhere - Im not sure we should laugh really cos its a form of mental illness that needs help, not derision.....but its hard not to laugh atsuch an open show of idiocy.
Scepti has overcome the mental illness of believing everything the news blurts out hour after hour. He has reached an independent state of awareness. He looks carefully at all issues, and has seen some of the lies for what they are. Claiming people who don't agree with you are mentally ill is not very wise. Scepti is fighting a tough battle against all of you nay sayers. He is much wiser and stronger than you.

I agree with a lot if that except the careful part. He does not seem very careful from where I am. The wiser and stronger is just the other side of the coin from those who think he is mentally ill. An assessment based on very little experience, unless you know him personally of course, and all those you were thinking of when making the comparison.

I should say that debating on this forum ranks fairly low on the courage front. It is anonymous and impersonal, there is not much at stake. Really courageous would be sacrificing your personal stability financial, personal or otherwise to convince the world of the truth of FET. That is what I would be very impressed with. Maybe he is, I can't say.

I don't mean this in denigration of FES, I am grateful for all I have learned while participating in these forums.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • +0/-0
  • Literally a dog
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #827 on: March 10, 2013, 01:08:30 AM »
Scepti has overcome the mental illness of believing everything the news blurts out hour after hour. He has reached an independent state of awareness. He looks carefully at all issues, and has seen some of the lies for what they are. Claiming people who don't agree with you are mentally ill is not very wise. Scepti is fighting a tough battle against all of you nay sayers. He is much wiser and stronger than you.


?

A Doubter

  • 308
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #828 on: March 10, 2013, 06:46:16 AM »
Scepti has overcome the mental illness of believing everything the news blurts out hour after hour. He has reached an independent state of awareness. He looks carefully at all issues, and has seen some of the lies for what they are. Claiming people who don't agree with you are mentally ill is not very wise. Scepti is fighting a tough battle against all of you nay sayers. He is much wiser and stronger than you.


The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

?

lolzy

  • 85
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #829 on: March 21, 2013, 08:59:44 PM »
but you claim atoms dont exist, and what are electrons part of? Or Is that some different sort of atom?

You really are going to have to make your mind up one way or the other
Show me a real life atom. Not a drawing.  A real life atom.

Here's a picture of a molecule, taken with an atomic force microscope (textbook drawing on top, actual image on bottom):



This is a picture of an atom's electron clouds, taken with a field-emission electron microscope:

« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 09:01:26 PM by lolzy »

?

True Myth

  • 280
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #830 on: March 22, 2013, 04:37:23 AM »
This bugs me.

I went along in life being told about planets and stars and all things about space, as we all did and being a young age at the time, I had no reason to doubt it.
 After all, why would a kid doubt a professor in a white overall or a teacher that has been taught to teach you the very same things he/she was taught.

I don't discount everything I've been taught but at the same time I'm becoming extremely sceptical each day from what I have been taught over time and one of them is stars and light years.

As we all know...stars are supposedly calculated in light years for distance as mileage would involve ridiculous maths.
So we are told that a star that is 600 light years away would take us 600 years travelling at the speed of light to reach it and also that we are looking at that star as it was 600 years ago as we see the 600 year old light.

I honestly cannot get my head around it and think it's absolute BS, yet my simple answer could be construed as kid like and discounted by scientists, coupled with ridicule, so here goes.

When we view a star, we are viewing that star as it is "now" not as it was X amount of years ago.

Why do I think this?

Think about going out on a night with a torch and a friend, then telling that friend to walk 100 yards, then turn on his torch to shine at you.

You are going to see the small light of that torch in his hand...not the beam from the torch to your face as the beam would be spread out the further it gets.

A torch spans out like a funnel and it would be like anyone looking into a funnel and seeing the light at the end because that's what takes your focus.

I could be way out in my thinking here and I don't profess to say it's 100% correct but it does seem more logical to me of us seeing stars as they are, not as they were, meaning stars are a hell of a lot closer than we are told.

What do you all think?


Yes, its foolish for atheists to say stars are 600 light years away and that they DONT EVEN EXIST. Did they arrive there and turned back?

Thanks. People like you help me understand what crazy things I used to believe without proof.

Dont pay attention to their teasing, theyre all  a bunch of enducated slaves who think theyre so so wise. Masons laugh with them

?

lolzy

  • 85
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #831 on: March 22, 2013, 08:40:38 AM »
An atomic force microscope.  ::)
With pictures like these, it's no wonder I think there's some lies going on.

Why do you say that? What exactly about these pictures do you not agree with?

*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #832 on: March 22, 2013, 08:55:49 AM »
that's not an answer its a cop out. try again. you asked for a photo, you got a photo. you said you could not see them he showed you one. so whats your problem?

?

lolzy

  • 85
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #833 on: March 22, 2013, 09:05:59 AM »
An atomic force microscope.  ::)
With pictures like these, it's no wonder I think there's some lies going on.

Why do you say that? What exactly about these pictures do you not agree with?
All of it.

Okay so what's wrong with it?

*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #834 on: March 22, 2013, 09:07:29 AM »
why did you even ask for a photo when as soon as it was provided you would just dismiss it out of hand? should have done your research before asking for one because you obviously assumed that photos where not possible.

oh and il post what i like and coward? im not the one sitting behind a screen saying 3000 people did not in fact get murdered and all those grieving family's are liars.

?

lolzy

  • 85
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #835 on: March 22, 2013, 09:24:21 AM »
An atomic force microscope.  ::)
With pictures like these, it's no wonder I think there's some lies going on.

Why do you say that? What exactly about these pictures do you not agree with?
All of it.

Okay so what's wrong with it?
Nothing, if that's what you believe atoms are, you go with it.

Has nothing to do with belief at this point, we have actual pictures of them. Those are ACTUAL PICTURES of a molecule, and an atom. Now again, what do you find disagreeable about them? What leads you to believe they aren't real?

?

lolzy

  • 85
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #836 on: March 22, 2013, 09:58:50 AM »
An atomic force microscope.  ::)
With pictures like these, it's no wonder I think there's some lies going on.

Why do you say that? What exactly about these pictures do you not agree with?
All of it.

Okay so what's wrong with it?
Nothing, if that's what you believe atoms are, you go with it.

Has nothing to do with belief at this point, we have actual pictures of them. Those are ACTUAL PICTURES of a molecule, and an atom. Now again, what do you find disagreeable about them? What leads you to believe they aren't real?
Let's call it a hunch.
I can show you pictures of lots of things that look real that aren't.
You show me a blue blob then 2 blue blobs and this is what blows up cities and boils water into super steam.
I'd rather believe in unicorns.

If you know nothing about atoms why do you expect to know what they look like? I'm a chemist, and it looks perfectly reasonable to me.

?

lolzy

  • 85
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #837 on: March 22, 2013, 10:06:31 AM »
An atomic force microscope.  ::)
With pictures like these, it's no wonder I think there's some lies going on.

Why do you say that? What exactly about these pictures do you not agree with?
All of it.

Okay so what's wrong with it?
Nothing, if that's what you believe atoms are, you go with it.

Has nothing to do with belief at this point, we have actual pictures of them. Those are ACTUAL PICTURES of a molecule, and an atom. Now again, what do you find disagreeable about them? What leads you to believe they aren't real?
Let's call it a hunch.
I can show you pictures of lots of things that look real that aren't.
You show me a blue blob then 2 blue blobs and this is what blows up cities and boils water into super steam.
I'd rather believe in unicorns.

If you know nothing about atoms why do you expect to know what they look like? I'm a chemist, and it looks perfectly reasonable to me.
Have you personally seen an atom?

Nope, but I've personally seen electron microscopes, so I know the quality of pictures they can take. Atomic force microscopes are better. Why should I doubt these pictures? And you've never personally seen an atom either, so how can you say this is wrong?

*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #838 on: March 22, 2013, 10:08:24 AM »
it takes specilised equipment. how can you expect everyone to personally see one? that's what photos are for and peer reviewed scientific papers

?

lolzy

  • 85
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #839 on: March 22, 2013, 10:16:31 AM »
Like I say Lolzy, I cannot prove they don't exists or haven't been seen, I accept that. You are only going on the word of whoever has seen these, so in reality, you are no more clued up than I am, so the only difference here is, you accept them and I don't.

Okay, look, let me simplify this for you. I am an analytical chemist. From what I have seen with my own eyes, the things that I was taught about chemistry in school all work. I have verified many equations, I've run countless experiments and analyzed tons of data in my field. So I have seen a lot with my own eyes, and I wasn't ever lied to in school.

So what you're telling me is that I'm supposed to believe that either a) science is a lie, and all the instruments and analytical equipment that I use has all been rigged to give the results as they should be with an unlimited number of analytes, or b) since I've confirmed things in my field, all -other- science is a lie, and only my field is correct. The random field that I chose to work in just happens to be the only honest, data-crunching field in all of science, and all other fields are a ruse.

I think a more likely explanation is that science isn't rigged, it's not a conspiracy, and much like me, there are scientists in all other fields that do good research and try very hard to advance their studies about the way the world actually works. Occam's razor agrees with me.