Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

I have read this post and it is, for a thinking person, a refreshing alternative to the modern paradigm.

However, I think it attempts to make up for centuries of oppressive thought with a kind of intellectual violence against the modern paradigm. Much more information needs to be presented before we can come at it with such a dismissive attitude to modern scientific thought.

First off, the Atlantean Conspiracy site is more heavy-handed that you even warned us about. Here are its main points - and my contentions:
Q. Why does the Earth seem motionless? A. Because it is.
I would not take purchase in the soil of the premise. To me, the Earth does not "seem motionless". Indeed, it seems to be filled with motion, air, gravity, shifts, and instabilities.
[The implausible heliocentric explanation is that i]t only seems motionless because it's spinning at a perfectly uniform speed with no acceleration or deceleration ever and the atmosphere is magically velcroed to it.
The "mostly empty" explanation of atomic science accounts for a lack of acceleration or deceleration. The atomic physics theories include the idea that nothing will speed up or slow down in space unless something is there to stop it. Since nothing is stopping all the air (or the Earth) from floating through space, it can. What is there to stop it? The aether? If so, more science needs to explain what the aether is.

As for gravity being a "magic velcro", I can hardly disagree. Yet gravity does affect us all, and everything effects every other thing.

---
Q. Why do the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size? A. Because they are.
This is the worst unscientific thinking. Appearances do not make it so. "Why does an airplane appear to have crashed into the world trade center? Because it did." Fuck that.

Furthermore, it's historically evident that eclipses may have once taken place in complete darkness from Earthling observations, due to the moon's nearer orbit. The circles are not the same size, let alone circles. They are nearly the same size and nearly the same shape. Similarities do not mean equivalences.

---

There is much more to argue against, but I will come back to it soon.
Frost
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:42 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by Frost »

I agree that we shouldn't do any statements at this stage, because the subject is very delicate. I describe it so, because it's the last thing I would like to share with people around even if everything would point that heliocentric model is false. You can't do more crazy claim for average person then saying that the Earth is not spinning. To me the sudden knowledge of that kind is useless or even harmful. However I've read some about the heliocentric model and there are several things that puzzle me:

1. If the Eath's orbiting the Sun we should see movement of the stars on the sky on a deferent stages of its journey. Instead we see always North Star fixed on the sky on the same position and the rest moving around it. The explanation of this fact is: The stars are very far away. This claim was never proved in any way until 1839 when three astronomers detected very tiny bit of movement. To me this can only proof that Earth slightly moves. My imagination tells me that stars should move a lot no matter how far they are, but obviously I can't argue about it. What is I don't like is that very often I'm told that science is to difficult for average person to understand and later it shows that these complicated bits were just fake science supporting the hoax.

2. Let's say the helicopter is launching on the equator. Obviously the Earth doesn't speed under it over 1080 mph. In fact doesn't move at all against the chopper. It means that it's been drag by Earth with its speed of rotation. What powerful force can do it ? Gravity? ( this science is too difficult) We have to assume it does exist. There is a deference between gripping the air and gripping the helicopter. In this case we would expect some huge deference for planes to fly with or against the rotation of Earth, but it doesn't take place. Instead we hear about Coriolis effect which is a very slight almost unnoticeable part of what we should really observe. I don't feel any movement and it is easier to me to imagine that Earth is fixed rather then spinning. When I observe the clouds I see static lazy puffs. If they speed so much why doesn't it look hectic with a lot of movement in the cloud structure?, but again: what do I know about the science?

3. The geocentric model is still used for celestial navigation as the alternative method. Apparently you can't determine your position using the heliocentric one without help of computer. So it's false model, but good enough for simple, practical things.

4. The Church officially condemned Heliocentricity, but, especially on this forum, we know how many layers of conspiracy there can be. The fact is that Church was very powerful back then, being the only serious medium (could gather the biggest crowds systematically) and also was responsible for most of the education. How come that things happened against its will? Also astronomy and astrology were since very ancient times a powerful tools in hands of ruling group and teaching it in a wrong way would take those tools away from masses and reduce astrology to pseudo science. I know that some members will state that it is pseudo science and I can only say my intuition tells me it's not suppose to be.

5. The Morley and Michelson experiments couldn't prove anything so Einstein came along and his theory of relativity which had to be accepted if Earth is spinning however it has opinion of ununderstandable. Have you noticed how often Einstein is involved when the fraud or very suspicious actions take place? Nukes are obvious ones,but I've also heard that GPS use theory of relativity for some correction of positioning. We know that it is very often practice of perps to support fraud with another fraud.

There is some more arguments from Maat's material, but anyone can read it for himself. I don't like The Atlantean Conspiracy site. It use same cheeky style of presenting thoughts as Zeitgeist does plus it has ''conspiracy'' in its name like it doesn't want to be treated seriously from the start. Same as Zeitgeist it has some good points, but in general I think It's made for manipulation of some kind. Some people say that while things are relative it's hard to say whether we move or universe does and it is only philosophical matter, but I don't agree. Spinning of Earth should be detectable with simple observation or experiment and I would expect something more spactacular then Foucault pendulum.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Thank you, Frost. Please do a spell check on your post and make grammar corrections, if possible. Your bit about Einstein is slightly unreadable. But I do appreciate the gist of your posts.

Next:
Q. Why do we never see the rotation of the Moon? A: Because it doesn't rotate.
The idea that the Earth has no spin is different from the idea that the Earth does not orbit the Sun. If the Earth had no spin, as contended at least a couple times on these geocentric sites, the moon would still need to rotate to continually face the Earth with its consistently observed face, as we assume it does now. Indeed, the spin of the Earth is one of the first things we could argue has points for it in all models, whereas the orbit of the Earth around the sun is less obvious to an immediate observation without some good work in mathematics and geometry and physics.

So if we are starting with the premise that the Earth does indeed rotate, you are still contending with your own inability to understand how the laws work. The helicopter problem is still not a problem at all. The helicopter launches from a certain accelerated position on the Earth, into an airspace filled with the gases of our lowest atmosphere, also accelerated by Earth's rotation. Everything has spent millions of years (or if you must doubt that, thousands of years) at a certain velocity. Ergo, nothing has significantly slowed it down and nothing will. What is misunderstood about this? Do you expect your helicopter to be suddenly stopped by the aether and rammed into gusts of wind behind it? The observable effects of things that aren't so physical do not have strong effects. Earth's physical form and its gravity are immediately noticeable and extremely strong. There is nothing to slow them down. This is a story that sits very comfortably in my understanding of the cosmos. I fail to see the problem with it.
Q. Why do the stars appear to be fixed along a celestial sphere? A. Because they are.
Again, to delve into this question is to delve into the very limits of human perception, but with technological aid we can see that the stars do indeed seem to change position over time, albeit very very slowly.

There are many slow effects in our cosmos; there is the slowly increasing length of a year, the slowly increasing distance of the moon from the Earth, the slowly increasing procession of the sun around the galactic plane, and if you believe the latest observations, the slow absorption of the Saggitarius Brown Dwarf galaxy into our new home in the Milky Way, which in turn will be absorbed by the Andromeda Galaxy. Since light does have an observable limit in absolute velocity from repeated experiments, it is safe enough to guess that it takes a very very long time for an energy as low as observable light to move from a distance of - say - 6 trillion miles. Perhaps a year. Why not?

---

Finally, we get to the scientific measurements, the meat of the geocentric theories.
How do Heliocentricist's account for the Allais effect, and the results of Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy's Failure, Sagnac and Kantors experiments proving the aether and a fixed Earth?
Now those are good questions that should be explored.
nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by nonhocapito »

While trying to rewrite this science from scratch (I am certainly not up to this task), I would also try to reason a little bit on the alleged reasons behind all this.

What would be the purpose of inventing and spreading a bogus science like this? For centuries? What is the profit here?

Let's not forget that all the progress of the XX century especially has been immensely attractive to entire generations of humans, who decided to study long and hard just to understand a little better what was being discovered.

All these scientists, for decades and centuries. They were not all criminals and crooks, you know. And their discoveries certainly were not all crooked either. Think of chemistry, electricity, biology etcetera. Are atoms fake? How chemistry is even possible then? And if they are not, who is drawing the line? Why would goodwilling scientists and scholars even stop at this imaginary line?

It is one thing to imagine a circle of secrecy surrounding the feasibility of the atomic bomb and the research on nuclear power, or a circle drawn by big pharma and governments around the reality of AIDS and its invented HI virus. But the science is large and wide and cannot always be compartmentalized and controlled. Any of us with the money and time can enroll in an university, study physics, learn the formulas, watch the experiments.
You may not have the requirements to be enrolled into the masonic circles that open you the doors of CERN or NASA, but you won't be denied the essence of that science either. And not all thinkers are imitative or slavish.

It seems absurd and possibly arrogant to think that all the people that decided to study fields such as astronomy or physics were part of some scam. Just like all paleontologists, I suppose, must be part of the fossils scam. I have a hard time following this "conspiratorial" idea about science and history, without even trying to solve the problem of how this have been accomplished.

I know that the power of academy is very strong, and I know that secrets can be kept for a long time. But before starting to pontificate on the science without ever stopping to make actual experiments or calculations, I would try to reason on the feasibility of it all, and the opportunity, and the ultimate goal. At least to do this we would not have to pretend that the science is incredibly easy in order to handle it.
Frost
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:42 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by Frost »

Ok hoi.polloi. So you didn't find any problem with the helicopter. It looks like I have to try harder. When chopper sits on the ground its speed is 1667 km/h. When it leaves the ground there is no more friction of earth, only the friction of accelerated gases as you named it. I'm not sure what did you try to achieve by mentioning the age of the Earth. I hope you didn't mean that the longer something travels with the same speed the longer it takes to slow it down if some of the force stop occurring. I assume It would be a few seconds after helicopter would fully ''realize'' that there is no friction of the ground any more, but we know that it can hover in the air(with the vertical speed zero)very long and it's still not gonna move. So you telling me that the friction of accelerating gases is identical to the friction of accelerating ground. Paradoxically it looks it's even bigger, since the chopper above the ground travels longer distance then the point on the Earth and even more paradoxically the higher it gets the more it speeds ignoring the fact that the air gets thinner. If you want to say there is no connection between air and accelerated gases and instead you'll say that the hole thing is caused by aether I'll give up. I don't understand aether.

Talking about the Moon. Yes, I also think that it must spin and I don't believe that geocentrists claim it's not. I shared my opinion about this site (The Atlantean Conspiracy) and I wouldn't bother to polemize with it. Another interesting thing about the Moon and scientific methods of determining the age of celestial objects I found on the article about a year ago. Namely scientist discovered that the Moon may be 200 mln years younger than they though before. You see, as long as they don't try to tell me it's a few thousands years I don't care about they billion-trillion estimations like anyone could prove it. Just google:''moon younger''
scud
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by scud »

Hi chaps.

Apologies for not responding earlier to your observations, questions and kind remarks but I accidentally went and put my back out which has forced my regression down the ‘evolutionary ladder’ toward pissed off silverback territory!...Grrr.

Anyway...hope the following maybe of some use:-


Gauging wrote:

“Is the "Earth is insignificant" meme being maintained in order to discourage earthlings from improving our lot here?”

The original idea of the Heliocentric model most certainly came from Rome (today’s Vatican) during their ‘counter-reformation’ against ‘Protestantism‘ which saw nations breaking away from the corrupt, tyrannical and all encompassing power of the ‘church’. As a result, these now independent countries began to flourish and flourishing was / is not the desired objective of ‘the society of Jesus‘ (Jesuits) spearheading the counter-reformation.
So yeah, in short, the demotion of Earth from being the ‘biblical...centre’, to utterly insignificant by way of the RC Heliocentric model is (in my view at least) a key tool to suppress progress and at the same time, serving to undermine peoples belief in the scriptures.

John Gault wrote:

“The corresponding “movement of the sun”-- “rising “in the east and then moving north/northwest until noon, then moving south/southwest until it “sets” in the west. This is a path—sun arcing to the north –that is NEVER observed in the “northern hemisphere”.

Another excellent and irrefutable observation John. Nobody needs a patched elbow professor and a blackboard covered in unintelligible equations when one has a pair of eyes!!

waterwitch wrote:

“If true, does heliocentricity get the prize for the greatest hoax of all time?”

Well it’s certainly one of the longest running (getting on for 500 years) and with the advent of the ‘space race’ gotta be up there with 9/11 as one of the most audacious (which, IMOH was / is perpetrated by the exact same pond sucking excrement in their ridiculous quest for world dominance).

Cosmicdrum wrote:

“I have read about 80 books on cosmology, quantum physics etc and am hugely embarassed for myself as I have been blinkered. Thanks again, even if your assumptions turn out to be rubbish, it gets you thinking, that is critical.”

Indeed. I can only be as sure as to the truthfulness of ‘Geocentricism’ as the next man. However, when you look at what we are taught, together with the known facts of the subjects history (Jesuit, from inception to present day) anyone who know’s anything about these pillocks will know that there is an agenda at play and that there is something to hide. I am not a physicist and pretty bloody poor with figures so I wouldn’t have a hope of understanding quantum physics / mechanics...but my gut feeling is that all of these ‘far out’ mathematical theories (certainly including the daddy, ‘special relativity’) are there primarily to shore up their equally ‘far out’ Universe.
Here’s Robert Sungenis Ph.D speaking plain English and locking horns with a Dr. Norton on the speed of light and all the bizarre things that are supposed to happen when this speed is approached.. http://www.catholicintl.com/images/stor ... tivity.pdf ...makes it all sound like total gumpf does he not?

fbenario wrote:

“Maybe you could extract the portion proving true the geocentric model, so some dullard folks like me could more easily digest this material.”

He he. I’d told the misses that I’d finally finished and posted up my diatribe. To which she appeared relieved and said...
‘Thank God for that...maybe you can get back to lending a bit more of a hand in the kitchen then?’
(Looks at her grumpily)
Next evening, after roasting up and scoffing a beautiful brace of partridge with all the trimmings, splashed with a delicious white wine sauce (don’t mind saying so myself) she say’s..
‘Got any response to whatever the hell it was you’ve been writing about all this time?’
‘Ahh...dunno, let’s have a look’.
(flips open ipad, excited to see ‘one reply’ from much admired, long time contributor ‘fbenario’)
‘Ooh, ooh yeah. I do I do!’
‘Well go on then...read it out’.
‘That is the longest post of all 34,000 on the forum. I doubt if any reader, even with the most empty life, could make it to the end.’
To which the good misses and I went into howling fits of hysterics! (guess you had to be there...it was the timing)

Absolutely no offense taken fb, I certainly do NOT for one second take you as a ‘dullard’ and thank you for eventually reading it! Anyway, back to your question in hand. For me (and I feel everyone should start from the same standpoint) is to first try and discard what we’ve all been told and just ask ourselves whether we think that the Earth is spinning or stationary. Just your senses should tell you that it is the latter. If our senses do not deceive us, then this non-rotation means that we cannot be circling the Sun and that the complete reverse of everything we have been told must be the true scenario (just as it was before the machinations of the counter-reformation began to make itself felt). Personally, I find the quandary of Earth’s atmosphere the greatest give-away. Air is a gas. Gases do not ‘stick‘ to solids, though of course they can easily be moved by solids. Gravity explains its increasing density toward the surface but certainly not its supposed synchronous rotation at all latitudes and altitudes.

Find out how fast you’re supposed to be slicing through the air!.. http://www.thevlecks.net/rmj/earth.html

Here’s a typical ‘Geocentric‘ graphic..


Image

This ‘celestial sphere’ may look ridiculously simplistic or perhaps even far-fetched but is in fact exactly what we observe as shown in time lapse photography, which remains the same...no matter the time of year. i.e if I took a time lapse of the heavens thus...


Image

...in six months time (when, according to the Heliocentric model we should be approx’ 188,000,000 miles from whence we took our original picture) the resulting image will be precisely the same! The Pole star (top dead centre of the sphere above and centre of the photograph) and every other star will not have shifted apparent position one iota.

This argument is of course countered by the supposedly mind bending distances involved. That the diameter of our orbit around the Sun is so tiny in comparison, that no ‘stellar parallax’ will be observed to which one can only respond by asking... ‘How do you know how far away they are? Watchya use? Trig’, radar...a tape measure?’ Nah. All this ‘billions of light years’ malarkey is the only thing that makes it work and it’s no better than guess work!
One other point (carrying the risk of rambling here so I’ll let you do a bit of research...if compelled of course) is that relatively recently a tiny, tiny bit of parallax has been detected between certain stars (can’t remember which though). Parallax, (just in case your wondering) is best understood by holding both hands up, one in front of the other square to your face then moving your head from side to side...it’s just a fancy term for the visual results of movement.
Dutch astronomer Tycho Brahe was perhaps the last of his profession whose work could be said to be categorically unsullied by subversive politics, though later on in his career he was to make the mistake of hiring the services of Johannes Kepler as an assistant.
Kepler (of planetary motion fame but also an ‘occultist’) ultimately stole the works of Brahe and handed them over to jesuit, Galileo. Anyway...to cut a very long story short, The Tychonian solar system still had Earth at the centre of things but had the planets orbiting the Sun, as it in turn orbited us which many ‘Geocentrists‘ believe is the real reason for this observed parallax (I’m still collating information so I can’t say at the mo’ if I’m with this theory or not). Whatever, the Tycho story sure is an interesting one...the ‘trailer’ if you like of what was to come.
Here’s a quote from this rather ‘light-weight‘ link... http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... brahe.html

“He (Tycho) made the best measurements that had yet been made in the search for stellar parallax. Upon finding no parallax for the stars, he (correctly) concluded that either

the earth was motionless at the center of the Universe, or
the stars were so far away that their parallax was too small to measure.

Not for the only time in human thought, a great thinker formulated a pivotal question correctly, but then made the wrong choice of possible answers: Brahe did not believe that the stars could possibly be so far away and so concluded that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that Copernicus was wrong.”
Of course, you’ll find very little of the real shenanigans that went on from Siki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe ...“Tycho jealously guarded his large body of celestial measurements, which Kepler took under his care following Tycho's death”... Ha harr!! Yeah, I suppose murdered, then stolen doesn’t really hold Kepler up to the required, holier than thou, scientific genius that everyone takes this fraudster for today.

Maat

Thanks for the excellent link to Andrew Mauro: very interesting (though must be most frustrating for him RE: 9/11 :unsure: ) and many thanks for the compliments Maat! That genuinely meant something to me as I’ve been a long time admirer of the truly astonishing research and detective work carried out by your good-self and so many others here at Simon’s SC!

Heiwa wrote:

“However, the Universe is mainly empty vacuum with not even a little atom flying around in that space for the Sun to heat up. I hope you agree! So cool off.”

What are ‘asstronots’ their ‘suits’ and ‘spacecraft’ made of if they are not made of atoms? As I said, ‘the vacuum bit has got absolutely fuck all to do with it’ (not in the best Queen’s though, admittedly).
Imagine yourself in a vacuum chamber (yeah, I know your eyes will be wanting to leave your cranium as will every other organ that relies on equal pressure to stay put, but try to ignore these discomforts and present yourself In front of this ‘double bar’ electric heater... Image

are you warm yet? If not, what sort of temperature would you imagine yourself experiencing?

Nonhocapito wrote:

“However, if I had to pick from my imagination a picture of the universe of some credibility I think that I would discard the fixed, flat earth pretty quickly.
The old question is still valid: What keeps the earth "in place"? If not movement?”

Yes Nonho’...a ‘flat earth’ is...err...‘plainly’ ridiculous :lol: :lol: but I don’t believe that I ever mentioned such a thing. Weirdly though, there is indeed a ‘Flat Earth Society’ where they do actually appear to take themselves seriously.
Could my own pickled walnut be tainted with enough cynicism as to believe that such groups are deliberately created to discredit other, more legitimate alternate theories to the mainstream? For example, you might remember the UK’s previous, magnificently ruinous and corrupt Prime Minister Gordon Mc Fukwit Brown insulting those that didn’t buy into the laughable Jezzy tax raising scam of ‘Global warming’ as ‘Flat Earthers’ .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPpkMe8Z_Qc

As to what keeps the Earth ‘in place‘ well, my guess would be electromagnetism as it is interesting to note that the subject of electrical forces do not feature at all in the study of modern astrophysics yet there is plenty of empirical evidence that ‘space‘ is literally crackling with the stuff (and why I also believe that certain works of Nikola Tesla were probably much more than just science fiction).

There is a rapidly expanding following to the works of a small contingent of scientists who believe that that the Universe is essentially electrical in nature, that stupendous currents are constantly being transported about the cosmos by a provable and observable phenomena known as ‘plasma‘ or the ‘fourth state of matter’. That the Sun, is not ‘nuclear‘ but in fact the gigantic equivalent to an ‘anode‘ receiving its electrical energy externally rather than generating it internally (which very neatly explains for example, why the Sun’s Corona is in order of magnitude hotter than its surface and why sunspots are dark rather than standard model logic that would suggest they should be the brightest).
It’s kind of a tandem subject to ‘Geocentricism‘ but unfortunately there has not to date been any serious attempt to link the two and I’ll wager a bet that NASA has a great deal to do with this, since the eggheads of electric cosmos theory seem a little pre-occupied with analysis of all these ‘wondrous images’ constantly being beamed back to Earth, apparently without once questioning their authenticity...bit like ‘Architects and Engineers’ getting their knickers in a right old twist over the 9/11 footage!!!
Still, if you have an hour to spare I would recommend this film... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1316220374 as there are undeniable links to the geocentric model with particular relevance as to what our ancient ancestors witnessed of the heavens. Just 3000 years ago, it would very much appear as if the solar system was still in its early stages of formation or at least looked very different than it does today!!

hoi.polloi wrote:

“...the Atlantean Conspiracy site is more heavy-handed that you even warned us about.”

Yes agreed, apologies Hoi. It was just that this was the shortest, least rambling and blunt Helio Vs Geo page that I’ve found to date (though I think I did mention that the Moon and Sun size equivalence had to be bunk). Point taken...it’s a jump into the deep end aided with a pair of concrete boots.

Frost Wrote:

“You can't do more crazy claim for average person then saying that the Earth is not spinning. To me the sudden knowledge of that kind is useless or even harmful.”

“The Church officially condemned Heliocentricity, but, especially on this forum, we know how many layers of conspiracy there can be. The fact is that Church was very powerful back then, being the only serious medium (could gather the biggest crowds systematically) and also was responsible for most of the education. How come that things happened against its will?”


Ha haar! Yeah Frost, I’ll vouch for that one! A fEw weeks ago I was in the good company of a dozen or so long time friends (all blokes) and during a rather posh dinner and copious quantities of wine, for some reason or other the subject of NASA’s latest triumph to Mars cropped up. After much mutual admiration for this astounding feat of engineering and daring-do I just had to go and open my mouth and declare the whole thing a stupid hoax with the added mistake of arrogantly declaring that anyone who believed in such stories ought to go get his faculties checked.
So, now in full, alcohol fueled rant mode (being aided and abetted by certain professional wind up merchants) I finish up by announcing that all space travel was impossible because the world wasn’t moving and everything that we thought we knew about cosmology was nothing but an ‘educated’ fantasy. After a couple of seconds of studious silence the room bursts into hysterics, I get told to ‘shut up’ ‘piss off’ etc etc then bits of buttered bread come flying my way. So yeah...its harmful alright, my dry-cleaning bill was bloody enormous!

Now, the ‘church’. Mercifully I’m not going to go into any detail here other than to remind once again of ‘The Reformation’. This was the largely peaceful break-away of Nations from the then all encompassing, ruthless and horrific tyranny exerted by the Roman Catholic power structure of which you correctly point out was responsible for just about everything. It was the ‘order’ of the times and naturally they didn’t much care for this insubordinate behaviour as it systematically began stripping away a good proportion of control and proceeds from extortion. The Roman response was (as said above) to return fire with what was known as the ‘Counter-Reformation’ with the Jesuit order used to infiltrate ‘Protestant’ (Protestantism...protest) lands (and others) to undermine, disrupt, murder, instigate civil unrest, wars...you name it, in an effort to win back lost ground and ‘fleeceable flock’.

Before the Reformation a geocentric solar system was indeed taught but as far as I understand it, certain members of the TPTB within the Roman church have never been all that fond of the bible, partly because there isn’t a reference to man having to pay homage and servitude to another, so they were keen to corrupt the meaning of the scriptures in any way they could...and the ultimate corruption came with their ideas of Heliocentricity that would ultimately pave the way to eradicating any personal notion of a superior being above and beyond themselves.

Unfortunately, this ‘Counter- Reformation’ is still going on to this very day with these nasty little creep’s boney fingers in so many pies it utterly beggars belief. In fact, people refer to today’s hideous crimes against humanity as the New world order in action...I think that this is perhaps not quite right but rather an attempt to return to the Old world order, you know, that jolly time when people were regularly burned at the stake for looking a bit wrong, eyes gouged out for speaking out of place...a world of fear and servitude designed specifically to exert total control, all ‘legitimised’ behind the most perfect of perfect covers.

I realise that many readers will themselves be Catholic. Hey! My wife’s a Catholic! so I’m not by any means attempting to denigrate all innocent followers of their faith or indeed all practitioners within, it’s just that one should realise that there is most defiantly another ‘face’ of the Roman church that they naturally do not want you to know anything about.

Just for a bit of ‘WTFuckery!’ here’s the Jesuit seal whose lettering can be interpreted (amongst others) as representing the Latin words...In Hoc Signo Vinces or...'By this sign you will conquer’

Image


...and here’s the front door to whatever ‘official’ buttwipe of the time resides over the United Kingdom. Do you see it?

Image


That is not a coincidence is it.

At the risk of facing admin’ wrath for pasting up some ‘conspiracy’ links that are really not in the spirit of September Clues I’m gonna do it anyway. Of course, some of it, or perhaps even the majority of it may well be utter crap but we can be absolutely sure that this organization has been around for a hell* of a long time, that it certainly still exists and that its ambitions remain unchanged. It has halls of learning all over the place, 28 in the US alone.. http://www.ajcunet.edu/Map and their extremely sinister, blood curdling and very, very counter-reformative sounding ‘oath‘.. http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=jesuit to the best of my knowledge is verbatim and has never been denied.

It is also interesting to note that the likes of well known ‘disinfo’ agents such as Alex Jones and Alan Watt refuse to touch the subject (just as they ignore the findings of September Clues). All in all, there seems to be great deal of evidence that ordinary, peaceful citizens of the world are being duped time and time again by a bunch of preposterous, yet extremely dangerous ‘Luciferians’ aided and abetted by their legions of corrupt ‘coadjutants’ (governments, major corporates etc).
Isn’t it about time that this sorry arsed state of affairs was put a stop to, enabling us to get on with a peaceably productive life, comfortable and mutually respectful in the knowledge that we are most certainly not the result of evolutionised moss?!!

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/ha ... ckpope.htm

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=jesuits

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread381276/pg1

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/jesuit-ruled-cfr/

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatic ... ican37.htm


Right, I’m off to visit the Spanish inquisition, also known as the local chiropractor for my deserved session on the rack... Gawd help me!! Also, I’m going to be away for a number of weeks (just like the surface of Mars, with no means of communication...less I take the equivalent of a 7GW coal fired power station with me!) so, if there are any further questions / what the bloody hell are you talking about? etc...please don’t think me rude for not getting back till then.
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by fbenario »

Scud, while I'm not actually entirely certain whether or not you insulted me in your extremely long post of today, I did quite happily read every single word. I know no science, so all I can do is think logically on this, as on all forum matters.

I think your posts on this thread are among the very most important of all 34,000 posts here on the forum. You darn well better be acting in good faith. Please keep posting here.
alex_ro
Banned
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by alex_ro »

Hi, all. Glad to be here. My first post, other than the required self-presentation.

By the way, is there any way to quote a single sentence from a previous post? Or must I delete manually what I don’t need?

Also, how do I double-quote? For example, if someone replies to my post, how do I quote both my initial post and his reply?

Thank you.


john gault wrote:Logically, there is no need or requirement to “prove true the geocentric model” to disprove the heliocentric.
Correct. The geocentric model is actually a WYSIWYG model.

Of course I refer to the tychonic model, where the planets orbits the Sun and the Sun orbits Earth, and the stars either orbit Sun (neo-tychonic, thus explaining parallax) or directly Earth (general tychonic model; parallax is explained differently).


john gault wrote: “The corresponding “movement of the sun”-- “rising “in the east and then moving north/northwest until noon, then moving south/southwest until it “sets” in the west. This is a path—sun arcing to the north –that is NEVER observed in the “northern hemisphere”.
I am too tired right now to imagine anything. You guys are actually keeping me from sleep. Sounds interesting though.

But you should know that geocentrism has its own problem: since all planets in the solar system are coplanar (in the ecliptic), if geocentrism is true, we should observe the outer planets (from Mars outward) when passing in front of the Sun. Another instance when I wish I was an astronomer.


Heiwa wrote:However, the Universe is mainly empty vacuum with not even a little atom flying around in that space
Wrong. The so-called vacuum is not vacuum at all. Just that nobody teaches this in their classes.

Not only it’s full of particles, but it apparently behaves as a whole.


fbenario wrote:Blueshifts, I hope - not redshifts.
Actually, redshifts have several interpretations, not only the mainstream one (i.e. expansion). But personally I will stick with expansion (but not with Big Bang), simply because it’s in the Bible.


fbenario wrote:I've always been bothered by the idea of a constantly expanding, at breath-taking speed, universe.
It’s not breath-taking. Not even with the recent detection of the acceleration.

And even it if would have been, you would have no reference frame, so again, not breath-taking.


fbenario wrote:As others here have questioned, with all this speedy expansion occurring, along with earth's supposedly fast rotation AND orbiting speed, we might expect to feel more wind all the time.
No, we wouldn’t. Space itself is expanding (although there are theories that it expands with or without objects in it; evidence still elusive to either side, to my knowledge).

And what kind of wind would you expect? Solar? Stellar? No offence, please, but I think you are confusing atmosphere with what’s beyond.


nonhocapito wrote:The old question is still valid: What keeps the earth "in place"? If not movement?
The recent geocentric models claim that Earth is the barycentre of the entire Universe.


nonhocapito wrote:Many of them, such as Galileo's observations, can be verified and have been verified by scores not only of scientists but of amateur astronomers.
Sorry to deflate you but actually there was NO EVIDENCE for heliocentrism until stellar parallax in 1838. So not only Galileo had no proof, but the situation remained like that for 2 centuries. And with the parallax there is the HUGE problem with negative parallaxes (which simply cannot be) LARGER than the positive ones.

The parallax is explained in neo-tychonic model by shifting the cause, and in all other geocentric models by claiming stars are in concentric shells around Earth, and they turn around the Earth daily with a slight delay from one to another (instead of a unison turn), thus producing parallax. I am not aware of any evidence towards individual stars (closest to Earth) being in concentric shells around Earth, however, there is STRONG evidence that galaxies are in fact positioned in concentric shells with their individual centres located on Earth.

As for the text you quoted from that geocentric site, you must become aware that not all geocentrists (actually, very few) know their science. So you proving THEM wrong doesn’t mean you proving geocentrism wrong.

And here’s your mistake: you forgot that in GSC (geostaticentrism) the Earth not only doesn’t revolve, but also doesn’t rotate (nor tilt, for that matter). So this claim of yours in unwarranted:
“Without gravity, not just air, but oceans and people would fly away as the earth rotates.”

However, the quoted text from that geocentric site is also wrong, because in heliocentrism (where Earth does rotate), the atmosphere and Earth are a single system, not 2. So their claim that “we [should] experience no 1,038 mph winds as a result of this rotation” is unwarranted.


hoi.polloi wrote:Much more information needs to be presented before we can come at it with such a dismissive attitude to modern scientific thought.
How about this, as a general rule: Earth is in the middle of pretty much all celestial things: universal expansion, galaxies, quasar polarization vectors, Gamma Ray Bursts, Bl Lac objects, X ray sources, etc.

CMB low poles also speak loudly about the special place of Earth.

Links available if required.


hoi.polloi wrote:First off, the Atlantean Conspiracy site is more heavy-handed that you even warned us about. Here are its main points - and my contentions
You miss the point - and all the fun. You are not addressing the right stuff, you’re addressing a text written to make you laugh. But also to think, when comparing the simplicity of geocentrism with the complicated language of appearance in heliocentrism.


hoi.polloi wrote:To me, the Earth does not "seem motionless".
Of course it does. How exactly it does not?


hoi.polloi wrote:Indeed, it seems to be filled with motion, air, gravity, shifts, and instabilities.
??


hoi.polloi wrote:The atomic physics theories include the idea that nothing will speed up or slow down in space unless something is there to stop it.
No offence, but the atomic physics? What exactly are you talking about?

Perhaps bordering quantum? Are you aware that, in quantum, particles don't exist (in any specific state) until observed? And that’s not the funniest thing they state.

And no, space is not empty. It’s towards the other extreme of vacuum.


Frost wrote:Instead we see always North Star fixed on the sky on the same position and the rest moving around it.
Actually, it moves slightly. Heliocentrism puts that on behalf of Earth wobble (precession), while geocentrism explains that by claiming that the Universe is wobbling, with a precession cycle of a year (instead of 26,000 years in heliocentrism).

For once, I wish I was an astronomer to finally decide between the two models. However, there is so much evidence on behalf of geocentrism that it simply cannot be ignored.


Frost wrote:My imagination tells me that stars should move a lot no matter how far they are, but obviously I can't argue about it.
No. If they are closer they would obviously appear to move more. If more distant, they would appear to move less. Won’t take very far (in formal cosmic distances) until they won’t appear to move at all.


Frost wrote:Instead we hear about Coriolis effect which is a very slight almost unnoticeable part of what we should really observe.
Actually, in heliocentrism Coriolis is responsible for hurricanes, so it’s not “unnoticeable”. In geocentrism the same effect is due to Universe rotating around Earth, rather than Earth within Universe.


Frost wrote:The geocentric model is still used for celestial navigation as the alternative method.
Correct. NASA and others use ECI (Earth Central Inertial) and ECEF (Earth Central Earth Fixed). The former is geocentric. The latter is also geostatic.

However, geocentrism has some troubles explaining LaGrange points. In general, geocentrists have problems explaining ether (or aether), since the mainstream science banished the concept once Einstein published his special relativity theory.

Strangely enough, the ether returned with a vengeance. From within mainstream science. There is no cosmologist who doesn’t include it, however they do not dare to speak its name.


Frost wrote:but I've also heard that GPS use theory of relativity for some correction of positioning.
There are quite many people who are against relativity. They usually claim that uncle Albert did nothing for the applied science (i.e. nothing useful for the mankind). The other side always brings one (and one alone) piece of evidence to the contrary: GPS. Actually, GPS (that correction of position that you mentioned) is evidence that both special and general relativity theories (SR and GR) are wrong. It was proven almost 2 decades ago by the most renowned expert in satellites. But accepting his evidence would mean that you admit that those satellites (at least GPS) are there.

But relativity is also under assault from within (i.e. mainstream science). Some of the famed relativists, like Magueijo, are claiming VSL (variable speed of light) as an alternate explanation (compared with inflation) for some of the huge problems that Big Bang has, like the horizon problem. VSL obviously led him to work, along with other famed physicists, on a modified SR, called doubly special relativity.


Frost wrote:I don't like The Atlantean Conspiracy site.
It’s very funny and also a bit instructive, once you learn how to discern between funny things and real arguments.


Frost wrote:Spinning of Earth should be detectable with simple observation or experiment
Under GR, one can never tell what’s exactly moving (Earth in heliocentrism, or the Universe in geocentrism).


Frost wrote:and I would expect something more spactacular then Foucault pendulum.
Foucault’s pendulum is no proof that the Earth is moving. Unless one would claim a significant change in Earth’s rotation (during eclipses).


hoi.polloi wrote:Indeed, the spin of the Earth is one of the first things we could argue has points for it in all models
To my knowledge, there is no geocentric model in which the Earth spins. This obviously means that in geocentrism the Moon doesn’t spin either.


hoi.polloi wrote: The helicopter problem is still not a problem at all. The helicopter launches from a certain accelerated position on the Earth, into an airspace filled with the gases of our lowest atmosphere, also accelerated by Earth's rotation. Everything has spent millions of years (or if you must doubt that, thousands of years) at a certain velocity. Ergo, nothing has significantly slowed it down and nothing will.
Correct. However you must be aware that the problem with the atmosphere is not that simple. Would you be surprised to find out that the mainstream science is so much in the corner when pressed to explain things like reversed spinning of celestial objects (incl. in our solar system), that recently had to put the guilt on atmosphere itself?

Like for example here (sorry, I don’t have the link to the actual scientific paper on this, but an article should suffice for now):
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... n-on-venus
Quote: ”Correia and Laskar calculated that chaotic behaviour in the atmosphere of Venus could have slowed and then reversed the rotation of Venus“.

So if atmosphere can do that (reverse a planet’s rotation), the obvious question is why wasn’t Earth affected when a claimed asteroid led to the disappearance of dinosaurs? Why wasn’t atmosphere affected by the Tunguska event, and in turn affect Earth’s rotation? And so on.


hoi.polloi wrote: Q. Why do the stars appear to be fixed along a celestial sphere? A. Because they are.
Like Frost, you seem unable to discern between a really funny story and arguments. And you miss a lot. As for me, I laughed about an hour reading all that, about 2 years ago.


hoi.polloi wrote:Since light does have an observable limit in absolute velocity from repeated experiments
Actually, they always measure round trip. And they usually measure it with the atomic clocks, which in turn are adjusted with the speed of light (are you laughing already?).

However, it seems that the Sun (and possibly other celestial objects) has a much stronger grip on all things than previously thought.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augu ... 82310.html
http://home.t01.itscom.net/allais/black ... zhou-2.pdf

Since radioactive elements are observed to have been affected by Sun, this, besides an uncertainty regarding the actual speed of light, also says goodbye to biological evolution (which uses decay rates to date things).


nonhocapito wrote:What would be the purpose of inventing and spreading a bogus science like this? For centuries?
To send people away from the Bible, I would guess. Have you heard of algeny?


nonhocapito wrote:All these scientists, for decades and centuries. They were not all criminals and crooks, you know.
Of course they were not. Even today. I could link you, without breaking a sweat, to tens of scientific papers from WITHIN mainstream science heavily criticising fundamentals of mainstream science. And all in the past 5 years. Extend the time range, extend the number. And it doesn’t mean I am aware of all of them. Of course I’m not.

More and more scientists are signing petitions against the stupid thing called Big Bang.

And there are MANY alternative cosmological models, beyond the closest competitor: the (quasi) steady state universe.

For example, would you be surprised to find out that the Universe might be electric? Because gravity certainly doesn’t work out there. They have to invent 5 times more matter to make gravity work (dark matter), and then they would have to invent other stuff (like WIMPs) to make dark matter work. It’s a laugh throughout.

Even NASA talks from time to time about the plasmic (electric) universe, for example here:
http://archive.org/details/ThePlasmaUniversenasaTalk

One thing for sure: electromagnetism is stronger than gravity. But they don’t want to throw Einstein in the trash bin (for metaphysical reasons).

Nevertheless, what NASA claims about the universe (what you learned in school) is apparently NOT why they use for space travel.


nonhocapito wrote:It seems absurd and possibly arrogant to think that all the people that decided to study fields such as astronomy or physics were part of some scam.
Except Creationists, AND those who really took the time to check how things are, instead of just ingesting. All the formal cosmology is a house of cards built on one thing and one thing alone: the stellar parallax.

If you take that away (and there is strong indication that the parallax is faulty: the negative ones, even larger than the positive ones), the whole castle falls apart. All those billions of light years claimed for the most distant stars suddenly become less than 2 million light years.

If instead of the claimed (but never proven) radius of the observable universe of 46.6 billion light years, you just take the distance to the farthest observed object (formally), which is 13.2 bn. ly, that means you have a radius for the Universe of about 600,000 light years.

If you further divide that by an expansion rate of 70, you obtain a figure less than 10,000 years as age for the Universe. Pretty much what the Bible says. How interesting, isn’t it? Especially since it obviously says farewell to evolution.

(hopefully everybody here uses the short scale, so nobody is confused with all those zeroes)


nonhocapito wrote: Just like all paleontologists, I suppose, must be part of the fossils scam.
Again, except the Creationist ones.

But you must be aware that the evolution theory has shifted views considerably.

For example, geologists no longer embrace uniformitarianism. Sooner or later in their presentations (or books or courses) they will call in catastrophism.

And most biologists also dropped gradualism (uniformitarianism), and embraced punctuated equilibria (since they were sick of waiting for the proof for transitory evolution). Of course, by doing that they plainly admitted they had no proof for evolution, all this time.

The obvious question is: if the mother of all assumptions (uniformitarianism), the very first thing that led them to the evolution theory a century and a half ago, was dropped, why not drop the entire theory?

And the answer is, as in cosmology, one alone: for metaphysical reasons. They really have nothing else up their sleeve to counter Creation.


scud wrote:I can only be as sure as to the truthfulness of ‘Geocentricism’ as the next man.
Actually, you can be much more sure than that.



scud wrote:Here’s Robert Sungenis Ph.D speaking plain English and locking horns
Sungenis’ doctoral title is heavily contested by the heliocentrists. If you want to do any good for the geocentrism cause, I suggest you don’t mention that. You should proclaim geocentrism, not its supporters.

The co-author (Bennett) is also heavily contested - not directly his Ph.D. title, but his science, especially relativity.

However, this doesn’t mean that they are wrong. But to any objective observer it doesn’t mean that they are right, either.

What I noticed is that while both Sungenis and Bennett lack much in argumentation on forums (they “tested” their book before publishing it), their book (I read a chapter or two) is MUCH more consistent. It could be that the book is actually the work of many people, who chose to stay anonymous.


scud wrote: Gases do not ‘stick‘ to solids, though of course they can easily be moved by solids.
Actually, other planets (and not only: other moons) have atmosphere too. And even you would admit that they rotate. So unless you state all NASA claims as bogus, your argument is faulty.


scud wrote:This ‘celestial sphere’ may look ridiculously simplistic or perhaps even far-fetched but is in fact exactly what we observe as shown in time lapse photography, which remains the same...no matter the time of year. i.e if I took a time lapse of the heavens thus...
...in six months time (when, according to the Heliocentric model we should be approx’ 188,000,000 miles from whence we took our original picture) the resulting image will be precisely the same! The Pole star (top dead centre of the sphere above and centre of the photograph) and every other star will not have shifted apparent position one iota.
Actually, it will. Polaris wobbles. And therefore the entire (apparent of actual) celestial sphere.


scud wrote:How do you know how far away they are? Watchya use? Trig’, radar...a tape measure? Nah. All this ‘billions of light years’ malarkey is the only thing that makes it work and it’s no better than guess work!
Actually, they use trig. For stellar parallax. And close stars. Then they use this methodology for more distant stellar distances: colour vs. brightness vs. apparent brightness.



scud wrote:One other point (carrying the risk of rambling here so I’ll let you do a bit of research...if compelled of course) is that relatively recently a tiny, tiny bit of parallax has been detected between certain stars (can’t remember which though).
Would you call 1838 as “relatively recent”? It’s about halfway from Galileo to us.

Regarding your tone (and perhaps I speak for others here too), I think you’re doing a huge disservice to geocentrism (and to yourself) with your poor choice of words and your superior (all-knowing) tone. Perhaps you could calm down and present arguments in a rational manner. Thank you.


Thanks to all.
alex_ro
Banned
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by alex_ro »

Reading back what I wrote, I found a few minor grammar mistakes. Hopefully you would all excuse me for that, I am rather tired right now.

I also made a big mistake:
Instead of Polaris wobbles, I wanted to say: Polaris moves around a bit.


Thank you.
scud
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by scud »

Ok Al, I do Geocentricism and myself a massive disservice, I apologise most humbly to ‘Geocentrists’ everywhere and slap myself round the chops repeatedly with a fillet of frozen fucking haddock for poor choice of words :D But since you seemed to have agreed with virtually everything that I have said, perhaps we can expect to see the facts presented in this ‘calm and rational manner’ that you speak of from your good-self.
With this, I would be intrigued to hear your thoughts on just how interplanetary travel could be possible from a believer in a stationary Earth. You’ve said that you accept both to be true...now tell us, for example, how NASA might be expected to safely land an object on Mars since we’re static and the red planet is reckoned to be scorching through space at 58,000 Mp/h. Not forgetting the standard procedure of launch and the problems of escaping the effects of Earth’s gravity. All mused over here.. http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... &start=240 but unfortunately delivered in a superior and all-knowing tone.

fbenario my man. I would not dream of insulting you fella or anyone else on this forum and I can assure you that I’m acting in the best faith that I know how. Maybe ‘Alex’ has a point though...that my prose come across as all smarty pants and too dismissive / arrogant...obviously I’d have hoped that it wouldn’t be read this way, it’s just that I enjoy writing and love splashing it about a bit with subjects that fascinate me and boy does this one fascinate!

Well anyway I’ll be off, computer less for a good few weeks but hoping that in the mean time we receive a satisfactory (and beautifully eloquent :) ) answer from Alex. If a geocentric Universe is correct then every single achievement announced by NASA (and others) must be a lie as we do not have a method of matching, let alone surpassing any of our Planets or Moon’s orbital speeds.
Q_prime
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:29 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by Q_prime »

alex_ro wrote: For example, would you be surprised to find out that the Universe might be electric? Because gravity certainly doesn’t work out there. They have to invent 5 times more matter to make gravity work (dark matter), and then they would have to invent other stuff (like WIMPs) to make dark matter work. It’s a laugh throughout.

Even NASA talks from time to time about the plasmic (electric) universe, for example here:
http://archive.org/details/ThePlasmaUniversenasaTalk

One thing for sure: electromagnetism is stronger than gravity. But they don’t want to throw Einstein in the trash bin (for metaphysical reasons).

Nevertheless, what NASA claims about the universe (what you learned in school) is apparently NOT why they use for space travel.
Nikola Tesla figured out that Universe is electric which his numerous demonstration like coil, electric car (modified 1931 Pierce-Arrow). I continue to read more about him and can see why mainstream sciences kept avoiding to mention him. In fact, Einstein did not fully trust his own theory of relativity. alex_ro, thank you for your posts. You inspired me a lot.
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by Heiwa »

Q_prime wrote:
Nikola Tesla figured out that Universe is electric which his numerous demonstration like coil, electric car (modified 1931 Pierce-Arrow). I continue to read more about him and can see why mainstream sciences kept avoiding to mention him. In fact, Einstein did not fully trust his own theory of relativity. alex_ro, thank you for your posts. You inspired me a lot.
Yes, yes, Tesla and his electric Universe without gravity forces is really amazingly fantastic. :P :P An electric flying saucer, UFO + slimy pilots, runs on electricity and can stop in notime and land anywhere ... due to free electricity anywhere ... that EXXON and CHEVRON and BP and SHELL do not like. Yes, Universe is fantastic ... fantasy. :o :rolleyes: B)
nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by nonhocapito »

Heiwa wrote:This is a fantastic thread. :wub: Now I finally understand that the moons of Jupiter in fact orbit planet Earth at a far distance, while also orbiting planet Jupiter that doesn't orbit the Sun but orbits planet Earth that is not really a planet but something flat that we walk on or swim in except the Aussis that hangs on to it someway or another like taking a shower down under while NASA sends it fireworks upwards into a very hot sky and the aussies downwards also into a hot sky except at night when the sky is not hot and all this stuff was created by G in six days. :wub:
Here it is, the flat earth as Professor Orlando Ferguson envisioned in 1893:

Image
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

It's a pity the picture does not include the giant coffee table the earth is sitting on.
alex_ro
Banned
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by alex_ro »

fbenario wrote:I'm so glad you joined us here.
Thank you.


fbenario wrote:I particularly love that you think God's Creation may actually be what happened.
No, I don't think that it MAY be what happened. There is one thing (and one alone) that I am absolutely certain (beyond 100% if that would be possible): the Bible. And that includes the Literal Bible (i.e. when addressing literal, not spiritual, things).

Science has come closer to what the Bible tells us. The universe was thought to be eternal, then cyclic. Now, it has a beginning and an ending, as the Bible has said all along. Moreover, the expansion of the Universe is repeatedly mentioned in the Bible.

And how about the Book of Job? Only recently did science discover that the Pleiades move together, while the Orion stars are farther apart.

And how many stars did mankind believe there are, a century or two ago? While the Bible has told us that they are as many as the sand of the sea.

Also: mountains under the seas, ocean currents (“paths of the seas”), air has weight (atmospheric pressure; Job 28:25), air currents, winds don’t blow straight (Ecclesiastes 1:6), the hydrologic cycle, seas contain springs (Job 38:16; science admits now springs of the deep, while previously considered the seas and oceans are replenished only by rain and rivers), source of health - blood (Leviticus 17:11; instead, science until 2 centuries or so ago used to bleed sick people), etc.

Also, the Bible warns that hands and clothes should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13) when dealing with disease or dead bodies. Instead, science, until Pasteur, disagreed that disease could be transmitted by invisible organisms.

The Bible also says to bury human waste outside of camp (Numbers, Deut., etc.). And to burn the waste of animals.

Also, the Hebrews were, for thousands of years, the only people in the world to actually practice quarantine.

The current main guidelines started to encourage high fiber and low fat diet, catching up with the Hebrews who have used that for millennia.

Genetic studies indicate that all men have a common father. And all women have a common mother.

Of course, mainstream scientists try to make this to fit the evolution theory:
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-11-24/ ... n-ancestor
but if you think about that, it cannot happen within evolution. Thus, those studies are much disputed (obviously!).

Science also now accepts that all human “races” are of common blood (Acts 17:26).

And how about that we can actually understand (to some degree) the Universe? (“the ordinances of heaven and earth”)

And Joshua telling the Sun to stop in its way also becomes literal in a geocentric model.


fbenario wrote:Keep posting here, please.
As a matter of fact, yesterday I really thought that I made a mistake registering. And I was about to quit.
[by the way, how does one un-register? and how to quote doubly (my initial statement, and the reply of another)?]

I thought that everybody here is sleeping. Is it already off season?


Heiwa wrote:Now I finally understand that the moons of Jupiter in fact orbit planet Earth at a far distance
No, they don't. In neither models (geo or helio).


Heiwa wrote:while also orbiting planet Jupiter
while ONLY orbiting Jupiter


Heiwa wrote:that doesn't orbit the Sun but orbits planet Earth
that orbits the Sun and doesn't orbit Earth (which is NOT a planet in geocentrism)


Heiwa wrote:that is not really a planet but something flat
?? What exactly "flat" refers to?


Heiwa wrote:that we walk on or swim in except the Aussis that hangs on to it someway or another like taking a shower down under
Oh, I see, you are confused to think that geocentrism claims a flat Earth. It doesn't. Nor does the Bible (to the contrary, actually).


Heiwa wrote:and all this stuff was created by G in six days
Not the stuff that you fantasised about in the latter part. But all the real stuff - indeed.


Heiwa wrote:wub
I don't know what that means, so can't comment on it.

However, it is obvious to me that you DON'T KNOW what you're talking about.

You endlessly repeating what was programmed into your brain doesn't make you right. It only makes you an ignorant.

Anyway, since it appears you are an atheistic evolutionist:

A few decades ago, Gould et al. dropped the gradualism and proclaimed punctuated equilibria, THUS OPENLY ADMITTING THAT FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY THERE HAS BEEN NO PROOF OF EVOLUTION.

So tell me, since they dropped the uniformitarianism (the mother of all assumptions), why didn't they drop THE ENTIRE THEORY of evolution?

And not only the biologists dropped the uniformitarianism, but also the geologists (and embraced catastrophism).

Now tell me, which one do you believe in? The gradualism or the equilibrium? If the former, why don't you help Gould et al. (among the most famous evolutionary biologists in the world) find the evidence that they couldn't (the transitorial forms, i.e. the missing links).

If the latter, why are you still an evolutionist? Or you just claim logic, and don't actually use it?

And what was the rock that you came from? Because evolutionists claim that all life came from a rock upon which it rained for millions of years. This, however, really upset Richard Dawkins, one of the most known atheistic evolutionists. Because he likes elegance. (Just look how he dresses.) So it wasn't an ordinary rock anymore. Instead, it became a crystal...

And coming the topic up, have you seen the 2008 documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” ? It is about how supporters of intelligent design are consistently removed from mainstream scientific positions.

In that movie, Dawkins claimed another thing altogether. He takes the scientific position that he doesn't know (!).
For the ones here that didn't see it, I present the pertinent part:

Ben Stein:
Then who did create the heavens and the earth?

Richard Dawkins:
Why do you use the word "who?" You see, you immediately beg the question, by using the word "who".

Ben Stein:
Then how did it get created?

Richard Dawkins:
Well... By a very slow process.

Ben Stein:
Well, how did it start?

Richard Dawkins:
Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must've been.
We know the sort of event that must've happened - for the origin of life.

Ben Stein:
What was that?

Richard Dawkins:
It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

Ben Stein:
Right, and how did that happen?

Richard Dawkins:
I've told you, we don't know.

Ben Stein:
So you have no idea how it started?

Richard Dawkins:
No, no. Nor has anybody. Nor has anyone else.

Ben Stein:
What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

Richard Dawkins:
It could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility,
And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that. If you look at the detail--
details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Ben Stein (thinking):
Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?

Richard Dawkins:
And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.
- but that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

Ben Stein (thinking):
So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers, such as God.


If you didn't get it, here it is:
Dawkins admits that “the first self-replicating molecule” on Earth was indeed very complex, and as such he is ready to contemplate other possibilities for the beginning of life on Earth, and he mentions more evolved ETs, who, instead, must have evolved according to Darwin.

So: humans require additional cause for their “appearance” into life, as they are too complex to have evolved, but more evolved ETs are not !!

Logical indeed. And this guy travels the world to tell thousands of young people how scientific the evolution is. He even has a Ph.D. degree in biology...

No surprise that in Hollywood (where they usually don't have any significant amount of brains) they already bought Dawkins' idea (in actuality an old idea, even older than Erik von Daniken) and have started to make movies like "Prometheus". By the way, the level of science in that movie (which claims a scientific hypothesis) is close to ZERO. For example, they retract the protective shield of the front of the spaceship prior to entering the atmosphere (i.e. exactly when needed most!).

So, Heiwa, if you think you are only a bunch of chemicals (and a certain amount of energy), how can you trust your own thoughts?

You are only a lifeform which accidentally speciated from a life form that accidentally appeared from non-life which accidentally appeared on a planet which accidentally formed itself in a solar system that accidentally formed itself in a galaxy which accidentally formed itself in a universe that accidentally formed itself.

Now, if you claim you figured it all out, I’m listening, but at times I would rightly remind you that, in such a universe, your voice is an accidental opinion physically based on an accidental piece of rock which flies (accidentally perfectly, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking) through an accidental space in a universe which obeys accidental laws.

No offense, it is not me claiming all this, it is you. I am only reminding it to you.

So keep dreaming your (evolutionary) dreams...


Q_prime wrote:Nikola Tesla figured out that Universe is electric which his numerous demonstration like coil, electric car (modified 1931 Pierce-Arrow).
Too bad that Tesla couldn't in the end publish his cosmological model. He died too son. But even more than that I would have been interested in his free energy.


Q_prime wrote:I continue to read more about him and can see why mainstream sciences kept avoiding to mention him.
Perhaps it has to do with him claiming to had figured out how to capture free energy from ether wind.

I heard about a guy (Russian or Ukrainian, I think) who invented such a device that provides free energy. It would cost you only the price of the device (I think it was about 20000 USD). But it was some time ago, and I don't remember the details (if it had anything to do with the ether). I just tried to find the link, but lost 20 mins. to no avail. So, sorry.

Regardless, Tesla was indeed much ahead of his time. A true scientist. Putting theories into practice. Not just staying comfortable in an armchair, puffing a cigar, enjoying a brandy and telling the entire world how the universe is and is not.

Instead, we take our science from schools where they consistently brainwash us, and not many succeed in either continually questioning things (thus keeping their brain running) or freeing their mind afterwards. Look at how confused Heiwa is. And it's strange, since he apparently doesn't believe in NASA (the flagship of mainstream "science").


Q_prime wrote:In fact, Einstein did not fully trust his own theory of relativity.
He really shivered when Miller was doing his interferometry experiments.


Q_prime wrote:alex_ro, thank you for your posts.
Thank you.
alex_ro
Banned
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.

Unread post by alex_ro »

Heiwa wrote: Yes, yes, Tesla and his electric Universe without gravity forces is really amazingly fantastic.
Gravity? What gravity, dreamer boy? The one that doesn’t work? The one that you must magically invent dark matter (i.e. 5 times more matter) to make it work? That gravity?

Have you even heard of Hannes Alfven, on whose work all current electric cosmological models are based?


nonhocapito wrote:Here it is, the flat earth as Professor Orlando Ferguson envisioned in 1893
nonhocapito wrote:It's a pity the picture does not include the giant coffee table the earth is sitting on
That was completely uncalled for. Like Heiwa, you only show your ignorance.

People believing in the flatness of the Earth were always a minority. But you were brainwashed by atheists to think that science have always made progress. So that the ancients were fools and you are smart.

So in your view, Socrates and Plato SHOULDN'T be studied. And Euclid's geometry should be trashed away. Along with Pythagoras et al. Right?

Of course, you would have to also trash away ALL THE THINGS IN THE WORLD (incl. your iPod and iPhone and your home), but you wouldn’t mind, would you?

After all, those ancient guys were so primitive. We should finally get rid of them, right?

So unevolved… Enough to make pyramids that no one today can replicate.

So unevolved that they couldn’t fly properly. So they invented planes. Like this one:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_a ... olom02.htm
or this one:
http://www.philipcoppens.com/bbl_plane.html
(unfortunately so far we only found the toys)

and many other things. Check this page and then search the internet for each item separately:
http://www.beforeus.com/some_original.html

And there are so many others such pages. Within evolution theory, there can be no answer other than aliens. Well, we already established how well they fit in (read the Dawkins story that I previously posted).

However, you should understand that within mainstream model “the idea that ancient astronauts actually existed is not taken seriously by most academics, and has received little or no credible attention in peer reviewed studies”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts

So be consistent with mainstream science (your science) and explain all those examples I gave WITHOUT calling in the aliens.

You are so deep in Plato’s cave that you don’t even realise…

Of course, as admin, you have the capability to ban me. But that wouldn’t make you right. That would only prove you wrong.

Regards.
Post Reply