PDA

View Full Version : Dimensions


Pages : [1] 2 3

rodin
18-07-2009, 11:12 PM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax.

The New Age movement is just Blatavsky multiplied.

The spiritual world does not exist in another 'dimension'. It exists in another field.

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Special relativity another hoax.

Gravity is a lightspeed force, and the Earth expanded when superdense hydrogen was released from the core. First to about 1.5 today's diameter when dinosaurs roamed, subsequently relaxing to today's size. Old Earth was all continents minus oceans.

Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Global warming is a hoax

All of above JMHO

Hi :p

geewhizz
18-07-2009, 11:36 PM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax.

The New Age movement is just Blatavsky multiplied.

The spiritual world does not exist in another 'dimension'. It exists in another field.

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Special relativity another hoax.

Gravity is a lightspeed force, and the Earth expanded when superdense hydrogen was released from the core. First to about 1.5 today's diameter when dinosaurs roamed, subsequently relaxing to today's size. Old Earth was all continents minus oceans.

Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Global warming is a hoax

All of above JMHO

Hi :p

There was a time not that long ago, where Gravity was theorised to be the force that glued matter together.
This was shown not to be the case when man set foot into space.

tabea_blumenschein
19-07-2009, 04:48 AM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax.

The New Age movement is just Blatavsky multiplied.

The spiritual world does not exist in another 'dimension'. It exists in another field.

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Special relativity another hoax.

Gravity is a lightspeed force, and the Earth expanded when superdense hydrogen was released from the core. First to about 1.5 today's diameter when dinosaurs roamed, subsequently relaxing to today's size. Old Earth was all continents minus oceans.

Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Global warming is a hoax

All of above JMHO

Hi :p


All of the above are unsupported assertions posted by someone with no real understanding of the subjects s/he is talking about.

Just my humble opinion.

tabea_blumenschein
19-07-2009, 04:49 AM
There was a time not that long ago, where Gravity was theorised to be the force that glued matter together.
This was shown not to be the case when man set foot into space.

Strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force.

Ever heard of them?

kappy0405
19-07-2009, 05:03 AM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax. . . The spiritual world does not exist in another 'dimension'. It exists in another field.


field, dimension.. does the terminology matter?

What is your definition of 'field'?

rodin
19-07-2009, 12:40 PM
field, dimension.. does the terminology matter?

What is your definition of 'field'?

Something which permeates space and has no mass.

For instance space we know is riddled with gravity fields, electromagnetic fields, electrostatic fields. All detectable, measurable.

Terminology must be precise if the deceivers are to be kept at bay. Eric Blair knew this more than most.

If I find signs of intelligent life here I will expand upon each item alluded to in the OP and invite informed criticism/comment.

This forum is getting Jew-wise, time it got Jew-science wise also. Start with the industrial killer Alfred Nobel, whose Peace Prizes adorn mass murderers everywhere and Albert 'the bomb' Einstein, the patent clerk who was given media credit for an equation that was never his in the first place, much as the Jews were given Palestine. Big Bang Space Time is a hoax to hide the real reason for high red shifts of large bodies and measured gravitational anomalies like the variation on orbit speed of Earth etc (look up 'ephemeral time' for a real laugh at irrationality posing as logic), because these shifts and anomalies show a separation of inertial and static gravity, exactly the same as the acknowledged separation of inertial and static charge. The difference being a FIELD is created that is much more powerful than the source when the source moves. However it is a high order short range field not obeying the usual inverse square law.

Shall I go on?

relax
19-07-2009, 02:38 PM
Something which permeates space and has no mass.

For instance space we know is riddled with gravity fields, electromagnetic fields, electrostatic fields. All detectable, measurable.

Terminology must be precise if the deceivers are to be kept at bay. Eric Blair knew this more than most.

If I find signs of intelligent life here I will expand upon each item alluded to in the OP and invite informed criticism/comment.

This forum is getting Jew-wise, time it got Jew-science wise also. Start with the industrial killer Alfred Nobel, whose Peace Prizes adorn mass murderers everywhere and Albert 'the bomb' Einstein, the patent clerk who was given media credit for an equation that was never his in the first place, much as the Jews were given Palestine. Big Bang Space Time is a hoax to hide the real reason for high red shifts of large bodies and measured gravitational anomalies like the variation on orbit speed of Earth etc (look up 'ephemeral time' for a real laugh at irrationality posing as logic), because these shifts and anomalies show a separation of inertial and static gravity, exactly the same as the acknowledged separation of inertial and static charge. The difference being a FIELD is created that is much more powerful than the source when the source moves. However it is a high order short range field not obeying the usual inverse square law.

Shall I go on?

Please no aready enough garbage posts here, no offense.

curtaincat
19-07-2009, 03:13 PM
Something which permeates space and has no mass.

For instance space we know is riddled with gravity fields, electromagnetic fields, electrostatic fields. All detectable, measurable.

Terminology must be precise if the deceivers are to be kept at bay. Eric Blair knew this more than most.

If I find signs of intelligent life here I will expand upon each item alluded to in the OP and invite informed criticism/comment.

This forum is getting Jew-wise, time it got Jew-science wise also. Start with the industrial killer Alfred Nobel, whose Peace Prizes adorn mass murderers everywhere and Albert 'the bomb' Einstein, the patent clerk who was given media credit for an equation that was never his in the first place, much as the Jews were given Palestine. Big Bang Space Time is a hoax to hide the real reason for high red shifts of large bodies and measured gravitational anomalies like the variation on orbit speed of Earth etc (look up 'ephemeral time' for a real laugh at irrationality posing as logic), because these shifts and anomalies show a separation of inertial and static gravity, exactly the same as the acknowledged separation of inertial and static charge. The difference being a FIELD is created that is much more powerful than the source when the source moves. However it is a high order short range field not obeying the usual inverse square law.

Shall I go on?


Yes,
you go guy/gal

you referring to 'george orwell" , when u say eric blair?

and well , i think Nobel did regret what he did, but ... too late, he cried!


There are posts on here about Einstein being a wanker, lol.. E =MC2, ha! , he ripped that off.
Everyone who is on the top, the Cream of the Milk, so to speak, that is just what they do , it is natural to them.



Have a ciggie and relax... ( home made rolled is better , of course )

I tell ya what, you are giving too much information at once...

it is a good thing, but pace yourself.

Do a post at a time...

I like your post today , what i just read, :cool:


How about, if you broke it down into about 3 or 4 subjects, since some just cant keep up with so much information.

I like it, You go guy/girl :) ;)

hank_scorpio
19-07-2009, 03:19 PM
sorry but your wrong oil takes millions of years for the organic soup to be oil it does not regenerate

trepidation
19-07-2009, 03:48 PM
There was a time not that long ago, where Gravity was theorised to be the force that glued matter together.
This was shown not to be the case when man set foot into space.

Well in a way it is. If I remember my physics class correctly(horrible teacher), the weak and strong gravitational forces within each atom are what ultimately glue matter together. Polarization of these forces creates magnets and such.

veritasvoice
19-07-2009, 04:53 PM
Something which permeates space and has no mass.

For instance space we know is riddled with gravity fields, electromagnetic fields, electrostatic fields. All detectable, measurable.

Terminology must be precise if the deceivers are to be kept at bay. Eric Blair knew this more than most.

If I find signs of intelligent life here I will expand upon each item alluded to in the OP and invite informed criticism/comment.

This forum is getting Jew-wise, time it got Jew-science wise also. Start with the industrial killer Alfred Nobel, whose Peace Prizes adorn mass murderers everywhere and Albert 'the bomb' Einstein, the patent clerk who was given media credit for an equation that was never his in the first place, much as the Jews were given Palestine. Big Bang Space Time is a hoax to hide the real reason for high red shifts of large bodies and measured gravitational anomalies like the variation on orbit speed of Earth etc (look up 'ephemeral time' for a real laugh at irrationality posing as logic), because these shifts and anomalies show a separation of inertial and static gravity, exactly the same as the acknowledged separation of inertial and static charge. The difference being a FIELD is created that is much more powerful than the source when the source moves. However it is a high order short range field not obeying the usual inverse square law.

Shall I go on?

Yes, but please include layman's terms and explanations so that people can understand the significance of what you're telling them. Start from the basis of assuming someone knows nothing, and work from there.

jamesc
19-07-2009, 07:44 PM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax.

The New Age movement is just Blatavsky multiplied.

The spiritual world does not exist in another 'dimension'. It exists in another field.

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Special relativity another hoax.

Gravity is a lightspeed force, and the Earth expanded when superdense hydrogen was released from the core. First to about 1.5 today's diameter when dinosaurs roamed, subsequently relaxing to today's size. Old Earth was all continents minus oceans.

Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Global warming is a hoax

All of above JMHO

Hi :p



Not pretending here to know all about your information but on the subject of ,"the spiritual world" or plane have you studied the subject on Astral projection and the different Astral planes of existence.There are different sub "vibrational" planes of habitation , lower astral,(etheric), middle or ,(mental) and higher,(pure spiritual) and planes of pure oneness,(formless,non vibrational). What's your views on all life or all forms , physical or spiritual being at and having their different "vibrational" vibrations attributed to them??

woodelf
20-07-2009, 07:09 AM
astral plane, singular, with higher and lower realms. it's like, physical plane, then astral plane, then causal, then mental, then intuition or etheric, then the ocean of love and mercy, then the higher planes or worlds, 12 total...

rodin
20-07-2009, 09:06 AM
astral plane, singular, with higher and lower realms. it's like, physical plane, then astral plane, then causal, then mental, then intuition or etheric, then the ocean of love and mercy, then the higher planes or worlds, 12 total...

I will have to eventually get on to this also since I am constructing a Unified theory of Everything - and informed, logical, sourced contribution will be invited. Of course it's just a theory (in places) and may well be wrong in certain hypotheses, since I do not have access to the best research teams and equipment, but it is based on a few underlying principles.

1. Everything must check out. If there are apparent contradictions they are assumed to show error until shown otherwise.

2. If you cannot visualise a system, forget it. Mathematical trickery cannot replace logic.

3. Belief is the Enemy of Truth.

Now before we get into the nitty gritty let me ask you to consider the following observations


The Talmud's scattered portrait of Jesus unapologetically mocks Christian doctrines including the virgin birth and the resurrection. Which isn't to say that the rabbinic invective is meant simply to insult. In his book, the author calls the Talmud's assault on Christian claims "devastating."

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6411679.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/TGWWT.jpg

:)

rodin
20-07-2009, 09:37 AM
Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Some asked if I had ever heard of the 'Strong Force' and I guess I can't criticise them for asking since unless you have been around other forums you know little or nothing about me.

The Strong force is that which holds baryons together in the nucleus of the atom. It is called 'strong' because it must overcome the incredible electrostatic repulsive force that must exist between closely packed protons. In larger nuclei, protons are interspersed with neutrons, which has the effect of increasing the distance between protons. Since static fields like gravity and electrostatic obey the inverse square law this has quite a significant effect. (separation by 2x distance reduces force x4). The question is - what is the strong force?

Strong forces exist in the macro world too, for example in the case of magnetism. The requirement of a strong force is that it operates at shorter range than normal 'static' inverse square forces. When first I learned that magnetism produces a force better described as inverse cube in distance:force ratio, the penny dropped. Actually, you can experience the strong force of magnetism yourself, for it really takes hold as the fridge magnet closely approaches the door, not before.

(Note to mods - is it possible to upload image files from a computer to a post?)

The magnetic strong force is a derivative of electric charge. If a current flows in a wire a magnetic FIELD is created. There is another kind of motion and that is rotational spin. Fridge magnets are created by aligning magnetic DIPOLES in certain metals. These dipoles are created by orbital electrons being oriented in an non-random way so that so some extent the magnetic field generated by the spin sums in the a macro scale.

Consider

In magnetic materials, the most important sources of magnetization are, more specifically, the electrons' orbital angular motion around the nucleus, and the electrons' intrinsic magnetic moment (see Electron magnetic dipole moment). The other potential sources of magnetism are much less important: For example, the nuclear magnetic moments of the nuclei in the material are typically thousands of times smaller than the electrons' magnetic moments, so they are negligible in the context of the magnetization of materials. (Nuclear magnetic moments are important in other contexts, particularly in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).)

Magnetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This makes sense, since although both electrons and nuclei are inertial (moving) the radius through which the electron ranges is many orders of magnitude greater than that of the proton, and therefore the field is also much greater. This suggests that the strong force is not magnetic in nature, since magnetic field is measured to be relatively very weak in the nucleus

Before we go any further, therefore, consider

inertial charge produces a short-range high-order field called magnetism

rodin
20-07-2009, 10:37 AM
Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Matter has two main easily measurable properties - mass and charge. We know inertial charge produces a strong force. Is there any evidence of a similar effect from inertial mass?

Einsteinian physics requires that inertial mass = rest mass. Ie there is NO strong force produced by moving mass. However this is not true according to the UTE (Unified Theory of Everything).

Measuring an inertial gravity field in a laboratory presents problems, since under normal conditions this field is practically non-existent. Therefore it has been possible to deny its existence. According to the UTE this has been done in order to give the elite group control over technologies derived from this 'denied' force when subjected to Hoax Benefit Analysis (HBA). Nevertheless successful experiments showing just this have been carried out by careful scientists going to extraordinary lengths to eliminate errors. These experiments have never been built upon, since the prevailing scientific view has been there is nothing to measure so don't bother looking.

There are discrepancies in the orbit of planets, moons etc not accounted for under conditions of inertial mass gravity = rest mass gravity. In order to pretend these are equivalent a fudge factor had to be introduced, and the man apparently chosen to front this particular hoax was Einstein who was plucked from obscurity and thrust onto the world stage.

You can follow some of the argument and examples here

http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/81506-g-bismuth-2.html#post1531548

Like so many lawyers, the HRU (Hoaxes R Us) aka TIE (The Invisible Empire) science community lobby vigorously supported the cause. It was said only very few people were intelligent enough to understand general relativity. I was not in that group - 'understanding' it was blocked by my logic circuits. However, as we can see with 911 is very hard to get truth accepted versus the combined global power of HRU aka TIE. So it was with General Relativity deniers.

Since there are gravitational anomalies to account for, could in fact they be due inertial gravity?

Being a fudge the General Relativity Hoax (GRH) only fits under certain conditions. Variations are found in the rotation of the Earth not explained by relativity. Einstein tried to explain this away by tidal action, and was instantly shown to be in error. So much for the great mind.

see The expanding worlds of general relativity By Hubert Goenner page 34 10:Einstein's Mistake

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5mGZno8CvnQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=Potter++experiment+gravity+bismuth&ots=Fb5KL7XMwt&sig=hpMoQplmwCq9jINGNf1JjNO1vAY#PPP76,M1

Choosing to deny principle 1 as defined in my previous post the 'scientific community' (run and funded by HRU) finally 'solved' the problem.

the fluctuations of the Moon disappeared by definition

see The expanding worlds of general relativity By Hubert Goenner page 36 11:Final explanation of lunar fluctuations.

The measurement of time was changed to fit the observed. Incredible but true.

The above link is a mine of interesting information from a mainstream source. Not some New Age or Conspiracy nonsense site. Read the entire chapter 'The Search for Gravitational Absorption' through the lens of 911.

Interesting perhaps is that the name of the scientist who debunked the work of Charles Brush (who measured small variations in g according to the nuclear spin of materials) was one Harry Potter.

Which brings us to Edinburgh my home town and the coffee-shop bosom buddies the mysteriously and suddenly fabulously successful J K Rowling and Sarah Brown, which connects to the cultish make-up of the UK cabinet, shadow cabinet and speaker which connects to the early death of Douglas Adams via the medium of publishing...

rodin
21-07-2009, 01:28 PM
Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.


In astronomy, superluminal motion is the apparently faster-than-light motion seen in some radio galaxies, quasars and recently also in some galactic sources called microquasars. All of these sources are thought to contain a black hole, responsible for the ejection of mass at high velocities.

When first observed in the early 1970s, superluminal motion was taken to be a piece of evidence against quasars having cosmological distances. Although a few astrophysicists still argue for this view, most believe that apparent velocities greater than the velocity of light are optical illusions

Superluminal motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/M87_jet.jpg/574px-M87_jet.jpg

Active galactic nucleus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/40/Galaxies_AGN_Inner-Structure-of.jpg

Relativistic jet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are there any actual photographs that support the idea Quasars eject material from both poles?

http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/90631-looking-quasar-photos.html

So what has this to to with Sarah Brown?

decim
21-07-2009, 07:06 PM
Encore!

So what has this to to with Sarah Brown?

kingmob
21-07-2009, 08:00 PM
Somebody watched Rodin's videos on youtube and now thinks he knows the secrets of the universe :rolleyes:

rodin
21-07-2009, 08:21 PM
Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

To recap - quasars, black holes and the like are composed of collapsed matter - essentially massive nuclear conglomerates without the density-reducing effects of atomic electron shells. My old chemistry teacher told me that if all the space were removed from Earth, it would be the size of a cherry stone.

The term 'Flying Saucer' was coined after

the first highly publicized sighting by Kenneth Arnold on June 24, 1947, resulted in the creation of the term by U.S. newspapers. Although Arnold never specifically used the term "flying saucer", he was quoted at the time saying the shape of the objects he saw was like a "saucer", "disc", or "pie-plate", and several years later added he had also said "the objects moved like saucers skipping across the water." (The Arnold article has a selection of newspaper quotes.) Both the terms "flying saucer" and "flying disc" were used commonly and interchangeably in the media until the early 1950s.

In addition to the extraterrestrial hypothesis, a variety of possible explanations for flying saucers have been put forward. One of the most common states that most photos of saucers were hoaxes; cylindrical metal objects such as pie tins, hubcaps and dustbin lids were easy to obtain, and the poor focus seen in UFO images makes the true scale of the object difficult to ascertain.[1] However, some photos and movies were deemed authentic after intensive study. An example was the saucer-like object photographed by farmer Paul Trent near Portland, Oregon in 1950, which passed all tests when studied by the Condon Committee in the 1960s. [7]

Flying saucer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quasars presented the Big Bangers with a Big Problem - some so-called cosmological redshifts indicated that certain quasars were older than the Big Bang allowed.

One great topic of debate during the 1960s was whether quasars were nearby objects or distant objects as implied by their redshift. It was suggested, for example, that the redshift of quasars was not due to the expansion of space but rather to light escaping a deep gravitational well. However a star of sufficient mass to form such a well would be unstable and in excess of the Hayashi limit.[6]

Quasar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eventually the prevailing (ie funded) wisdom settled for space itself is expanding. Now I think space is space, and I cannot imagine there is a boundary, for if there is, what lies beyond it? (Similar argument is who created God).

Furthermore I smell several rats.

While all photographs of quasars - black hole-type supermassive bodies - that I have managed to source, show a beam emerging in a single direction, the popular depiction of the quasar is one where beams emerge equally from both poles.

http://www.urania.be/sterrenkunde/images/quasar.jpg

Why the promotion of dual-beam quasars? Well, if the idea got out that quasars were essentially single-ended entities, this would imply that the material and energy was being ejected one-way along the axis of a rotating supergravitational body. Then people might get to thinking about all those gravitational anomalies closer to home like variation the Moon's orbit (for which 'ephemeral time' was invented, as 'expanding space' had to be for quasars) and wonder if another mechanism was not in play.

more later

rodin
21-07-2009, 08:27 PM
Somebody watched Rodin's videos on youtube and now thinks he knows the secrets of the universe :rolleyes:

What are Rodin's videos :confused:

rodin
21-07-2009, 09:01 PM
Encore!

Brown Nosing

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73934 ;)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/02/article-0-04B6EBD6000005DC-890_468x320.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1176666/SUZANNE-MOORE-Gordon-Brown-election-today.html

After leaving university, she worked at the brand consultancy Wolff Olins. When she was 30, she went into partnership with her old school friend, Julia Hobsbawm, starting the Hobsbawm Macaulay public relations firm together. The firm landed contracts with the New Statesman, owned by Geoffrey Robinson.[2]

Brown is also a close friend of writer J.K. Rowling (who donated £1 million to the Labour Party in 2008),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Brown_(spouse)

Julia Hobsbawm's new company 'Editorial Intelligence' specialises in analysing and exploiting comment and opinion in both print and online media. In simple terms, 'Editorial Intelligence' helps realise the potential of controlling the shape and fabric of public opinion and (d)ebate by controlling what is published in comment areas, forum areas, letters pages and message boards. They have even coined a new word for the online/published briTish public; they call it the 'Commentariat' (a play upon the word 'Proletariat' - orginally coined to describe the lower or working classes).

JULIA HOBSBAWN, GERRY, JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTRE, PHILIP GREEN (Julia Hobsbawm is also a trustee of the Jewish Community Centre for London

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-9716.html

New ‘Harry Potter’ Is a Holocaust Allegory

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/10914/new-%E2%80%98harry-potter%E2%80%99-is-a-holocaust-allegory/

Remember - Harry Potter rubbished devout Christian Charles Brush's spin gravity experimental results, never to be re-examined.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C04EFDC1631EF33A25750C2A9629C94 6095D6CF

Biographies don't mention this

http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/brush.html

Shades of Tesla his contemporary

storm knight
21-07-2009, 09:06 PM
Has anyone thought about different types of dimensions for example Time.

Surely there is an ability to move through time.

It comes from the hypothesis that Dreams come true (when you sleep)

I've spoken to someone who correlated data and she came to the conclusion dreams do come true or it's just coincidence.

Either way theres more from David Wilcock who goes onto explain about it better than I will. He's on youtube if you type in 2012 enigma.

So if it's true you can dream and they come true, then your spirit (projected into the body to make a soul) must be on a higher dimension looking through time. Therefore we can say theres more than one dimension of time.

rodin
21-07-2009, 09:26 PM
Has anyone thought about different types of dimensions for example Time.

Surely there is an ability to move through time.

It comes from the hypothesis that Dreams come true (when you sleep)

I've spoken to someone who correlated data and she came to the conclusion dreams do come true or it's just coincidence.

Either way theres more from David Wilcock who goes onto explain about it better than I will. He's on youtube if you type in 2012 enigma.

So if it's true you can dream and they come true, then your spirit (projected into the body to make a soul) must be on a higher dimension looking through time. Therefore we can say theres more than one dimension of time.

Wilcox is 100% charlatan and time travel is impossible, otherwise horse racing would have become extinct

storm knight
23-07-2009, 09:09 PM
Wilcox is 100% charlatan and time travel is impossible, otherwise horse racing would have become extinct
It would be nice if you would elbaborate on charlatan? I never said time travel is possible, alls I said is the aspect of looking through time from our current dimension.

rodin
24-07-2009, 10:36 AM
It would be nice if you would elbaborate on charlatan? I never said time travel is possible, alls I said is the aspect of looking through time from our current dimension.

There are no other dimensions than those listed in the OP. A charlatan is a disinformation agent in this case pushing pseudo scientific claptrap. Quantum consciousness - well what does that mean exactly? Of course it has a ring of truth about it and so you respond positively. The best disinfo after all is mostly truth. Balavsky is a source for this agenda but it goes right back to HRU/TIE.

We will be exploring the idea of an information field later in Dimensions.

the mark
24-07-2009, 09:26 PM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth.


Maybe we are wrong?. :confused:

tjohn
24-07-2009, 11:06 PM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax.

The New Age movement is just Blatavsky multiplied.

The spiritual world does not exist in another 'dimension'. It exists in another field.

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Special relativity another hoax.

Gravity is a lightspeed force, and the Earth expanded when superdense hydrogen was released from the core. First to about 1.5 today's diameter when dinosaurs roamed, subsequently relaxing to today's size. Old Earth was all continents minus oceans.

Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Global warming is a hoax

All of above JMHO

Hi :pDon't know what JMHO means but I think that rodin is deluded! :p

rodin
25-07-2009, 12:44 PM
Maybe we are wrong?. :confused:

Three dimension got us thru the pre-Blatavsky millenia. As recent as the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is this need to have higher dimensions.

What is this higher dimension? Where is it? How do we measure it, describe it, access it?

Or do we just have to take it on trust that beings 'come from higher dimensions'? It is as illogical as curved space-time. Hoaxes R Us @ work

rodin
25-07-2009, 12:45 PM
Don't know what JMHO means but I think that rodin is deluded! :p

In that case argue against the arguments as I develop them.

rodin
25-07-2009, 01:38 PM
sorry but your wrong oil takes millions of years for the organic soup to be oil it does not regenerate

Evidence of hydrocarbon lakes on Titan
Scientists have found giant lakes on one of Saturn's moons

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14029488/

rodin
25-07-2009, 03:44 PM
Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

1. There is a strong force binding the electrostatically repulsive protons in the nucleus, and also adhering neutrons to the single proton in hydrogen, to form deuterium and tritium, the radioactive isotopes of hydrogen.

2. There is also some kind of strong force sufficient to overcome the incredible gravity of supermassive bodies known as quasars. The evidence for this is jets that emerge from these quasars, jets that should not be possible according to the conventional wisdom of a black hole having gravity that nothing can escape from.

3. These same quasars exhibit massive redshifts that are too big to be accounted for by the cosmological redshift theory. As a consequence the idea of expanding space had to be invented

4. There is ample evidence of many Hoaxes pulled by Hoaxes R Us, including Scientific. A look at 911 illustrates this, and readers may be interested as to how Hoaxes can be denied ad infinitum

5. There are gravitational anomalies that cannot be accounted for by Newtonian physics.

I look for a unifying principle that can account for all of the above observations simultaneously. It seems to me a likely candidate is inertial gravity. Let us suppose that moving mass generates a field just as moving charge generates magnetism. How would this field manifest?

Here is what a magnetic field 'looks' like

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Magnet0873.png

I suggest a spinning mass creates a similar field. The magnetic field's polarity is defined as North and South. These are not the same as +ve and -ve charges, and are instead a function of the way spinning charge interacts with what we call space.

Current (I) through a wire produces a magnetic field (B) around the wire. The field is oriented according to the right hand grip rule. Current carrying wires generate magnetic field lines that form concentric circles around the wire. The direction of the magnetic field in these loops is determined by the right hand grip rule.

The right hand grip rule always fascinated me - why is the orthogonal movement of a wire in a magnetic field always in the same direction with respect to current flow? I do not think this has been explained, merely observed and taken to be true (which it is).

A similar odd force is apparent when one holds a spinning gyroscope and attempts to re-orient it. Always you will feel an orthogonal force resisting free movement of the gyroscope frame. I suggest you buy a toy gyroscope and try this if you have never experienced it, just to get a 'feel' for the power and sense of this force.

Once again inertial mass and inertial charge appear to show similar phenomena.

If we are to have a field generated by spinning mass, how would it appear? Well there are two possibilities, and one possible orientation of this field.

Since the mass is spinning, the strength of the field should depend on the angle from the axis. Co-incident with the spin axis we would expect an extreme condition in the field, while equatorially we might expect another extreme condition. Through the poles of a spinning body there is a unique line, running though the axis, along which the spinning mass experiences no centrifugal force. (We can draw analogy with the centre of the earth, where normal gravity would be zero. Though there is no gravity at the centre of the Earth, the pressure is immense.)

Professor Eric Laithwaite lectured on Gyroscopes @ The Royal Institution’s 1974-75 Christmas Lecture.

Here is a later review of what happened, showing the remarkable 'heavy gyroscope' experiment

http://www.gyroscopes.org/heretic.asp

woodelf
29-07-2009, 03:44 AM
all this science stuff is fine, exploring the physical universe is fine. is it actually going to help you on your evolution path yourself? when the math balances out right you know its a correct piece of data, but, most everyones info is a confused mix of watered down and fouled up truth. like, someone saying the spiritual worlds are in a different field is a contradictory und unknowing statement, spirit(soul)worlds exist in a different STATE. the term 'field' refers to something of science.
i just had to throw that in, thank you...:)

rodin
29-07-2009, 12:29 PM
all this science stuff is fine, exploring the physical universe is fine. is it actually going to help you on your evolution path yourself? when the math balances out right you know its a correct piece of data, but, most everyones info is a confused mix of watered down and fouled up truth. like, someone saying the spiritual worlds are in a different field is a contradictory und unknowing statement, spirit(soul)worlds exist in a different STATE. the term 'field' refers to something of science.
i just had to throw that in, thank you...:)

There are Fields and States. I can live with that. Just as long as we don't have to add dimensions to reality.

rodin
29-07-2009, 02:08 PM
Now then, a little intermission.

I know from observation and experience that on forums there are cointelpro agents, and that these people operate of behalf of the entity identified on this thread as The Invisible Empire.

Needless to say I would have gradually added those I thought I had identified to my ignore list in the thread linked below. However this degree of openness seems to be beyond the pale hence the familiar 'thread closed'

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=75179

In time this may have helped expose and disrupt the operation.

Of course, telling the truth in an age of universal deceit is a revolutionary act

I observed the fraud of the Republican nomination in US where votes were deeply rigged to marginalise Ron Paul and realised that this would not be possible but for the fact that ballots are secret.

Secret anything is bad, bad news people. Get everything out in the open. Lies hate light and the truth will indeed set you free.

pegcityevolve
30-07-2009, 07:20 PM
I thought the 4th dimension was the astral plane/field? And time was an illusion? I thought there were 5 or 11 dimensions, or infinite.

But it's all a hoax?

rodin
30-07-2009, 10:38 PM
I thought the 4th dimension was the astral plane/field? And time was an illusion? I thought there were 5 or 11 dimensions, or infinite.

But it's all a hoax?

Yes

3 dimensions define space and all that sails in her

Time may be considered a 4th since everything moves through time

If time+space moves thru another dimension there may be a 5th. No evidence for. As for 'rolled up dimensions' pass the joint

rodin
01-08-2009, 10:34 AM
Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Now where was I - oh yes. Inertial mass.

When time and funds allow I plan on conducting my own experiments with gyroscopes. However, a great way to get a mental picture of the problem is to watch these videos

Eric Laithwaite's lecture on gyroscopes part 1/7 - YouTube

Eric Laithwaite's lecture on gyroscopes part 2/7 - YouTube

Eric Laithwaite's lecture on gyroscopes part 3/7 - YouTube

Eric Laithwaite's lecture on gyroscopes part 4/7 - YouTube

Eric Laithwaite's lecture on gyroscopes part 5/7 - YouTube

Eric Laithwaite's lecture on gyroscopes part 6/7 - YouTube

Eric Laithwaite's lecture on gyroscopes part 7/7 - YouTube

jamesc
01-08-2009, 02:26 PM
I thought the 4th dimension was the astral plane/field? And time was an illusion? I thought there were 5 or 11 dimensions, or infinite.

But it's all a hoax?

This is were we enter the Occult and the writings of Occultism and practising Occultists .There are lower astral planes and upper astral planes acording to those Occultists who have experienced them and received communications or direct communication with entities that inhabit their upper or lower astral planes.The writings of Crowley on the sub divisions and planes of the astral planes is invaluable.Like every thing in this or the next vibrations or planes it has to be experienced to fully understand its true meanings. From the ethric plane that lies just beyond our earth vibration it gradually gets less dense so to speak untill it reaches formlessness or pure spirit and exists of pure being.So in a way physical science will never truly understand because it sees only outcomes or realities in can measure by its physical science and
apparatus.One has to experience and visit these planes to fully understand its true significance and connections to the subconscious dimensions of the subdivisions of the astral planes.:cool:;)

rodin
01-08-2009, 04:16 PM
Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

If you have observed the above videos you will see something pretty weird is going on. In particular the toy gyro on the lightweight plastic tower. As the gyro precesses about the tower the centre of mass of the system (by convention) lies approximately in the centre of the gyroscope, since the tower is so lightweight. Nevertheless the tower itself is not displaced during the rotation. The system behaves as though the centre of mass has been shifted to the tower from the gyroscope.

How can this be? Let us look at the equations for momentum

From Wikipedia (Momentum)

The amount of momentum that an object has depends on two physical quantities: the mass and the velocity of the moving object in the frame of reference. In physics, the usual symbol for momentum is a uppercase[8] bold P (bold because it is a vector, uppercase to avoid confusion with pressure); so this can be written

P = mv

Momentum = Mass x Velocity

For a spinning (as opposed to turning a corner) object

Angular Momentum varies as Mass x Rate of Spin (for any given object in a fixed orientation)

(The equation is further complicated by the radial distribution of mass - consider the ice skater spinning with arms outstretched or folded - spin rate changes, angular momentum does not but for simplicity, since we are dealing with gyroscopes, nucleons and astronomical bodies with fixed 'shape' we can use the simple relationship as an excellent approximation)

If no external force acts then momentum is conserved (Isaac Newton).

(True. Newton was always right far as I can see including his Shell Theorem of gravity, which he spent years considering before publishing. Gravity geeks know what this is :))

In fact a rotation counter-intuitively produces a force operating along the axis of rotation. This obeys a right-hand rule, just like that used to define the mechanical movement produced by a moving charge in a magnetic field.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Torque_animation.gif

Now, according to Newton, to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, in the animation above there must be an equal negative force being applied along the opposite pole of the axis. T

In other words a spinning object produces a force field aligned with and centred on the axis.

This axial force should produce motion along the axis. But it apparently does not.

Now the odd thing is that even although this axial force is real, there appears to be no net reduction in weight of a spinning object, since a spinning gyro weighs the same as a static one when placed on a balance (at least on average - fluctuations have been observed)

A black hole/quasar is a spinning object, and something is certainly happening at the axis

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:cVGcdosrDABrDM:http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0109/3c175_vla.jpg

Now remember - the object you are observing is supermassive superdense and should be trapping everything inside its gravity well according to 'standard' (HRU) physics. But we see clearly that matter/energy/plasma whatever is shooting out from the core.

Let me now return to the problem of the axial force that produces no weight loss. How can this be that a force directed upwards does this? (Vice verse, a force directed downwards produces no weight gain)

Are you with me so far?

I propose that what is actually happening is we are producing an inertial gravity field, analogous to the magnetic field produced by a spinning charge.

I propose that in order to conserve energy the axial force must in fact be a closed loop force field, just as we have in the bar magnet. Now no energy is escaping the system. Instead we have an inertial gravity field, which, although it acts in one direction along the rotation axis, produces no large increase or decrease in gravity, since the system is closed. In effect, while we have a force along the axis, this is balanced by a force field that returns to the opposite pole through space, and NO NET FORCE DISPLACEMENT IS OBSERVED by standard measurement techniques.

However LOCALLY there is force displacement, ie locally there is antigravity and enhanced gravity - it is just that the SUM of all these forces balances out. Hence no appreciable weight loss is observed ON AVERAGE with a spinning object weighed on a balance.

Consider now a large isolated object spinning in space. The lines of force will close around this object except at the poles themselves, where a linear force of infinitesmal cross section can extend to infinity.

The gyroscope is a very tame device yet it can produce exxtraordinary effects. Consider now the possibility of objects with a density many, many orders of magnitude greater than the gyro (gazillions). The angular momentum here will be of biblical proportions compared to the size of the object. Intuitively the effects are sure to be ultraprofound.

Where would such conditions exist?

The answer is in quasars, black holes, whatever you want to label these gravity wells where electrons do not escape neutrons and matter is packed in such a density that the Earth would rattle about inside a Smarties tube, and in the nuclei of atoms.

I propose that a closed loop inertial gravity field is a candidate for the strong forces binding nuclei against their electrostatic repulsion. Indeed it is this field that may force electrons out of the neutron in the first place - the decay of neutron > proton + electron is accompanied by a mysterious LOSS IN WEIGHT - attributed to a mystery particle called a neutrino/antineutrino. This decay, by the way, is by no means instantaneous.

Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 885.7±0.8 s (about 15 minutes), decaying by emission of a negative electron and antineutrino to become a proton:[4]

I doubt the existence of antiparticles altogether including the much vaunted 'antimatter'

I also propose that the Inertial gravity field surrounding quasars is responsible for the superluminal redshifts observed, and that in fact this field is responsible for the high redshifts currently called 'cosmological' I call them 'cosmoillogical' unless we take account of the inertial gravity field.

I also propose that for this i cannot ever get a Nobel Prize, since TPTB know all this shit already, and have placed their agents in the way of you knowing also.

I also propose that application of this field may lead to machines able to locally act against the gravity of a large body like Earth. The logical shape for such a device would be circular - orb or disc shaped.

Interesting, no?

More later as we develop the Unified Theory of Everything

decim
01-08-2009, 05:25 PM
Great info.
Intelligence upgrade pending......

Brown Nosing

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73934 ;)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/02/article-0-04B6EBD6000005DC-890_468x320.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1176666/SUZANNE-MOORE-Gordon-Brown-election-today.html





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Brown_(spouse)





http://www.davidicke.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-9716.html



http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/10914/new-%E2%80%98harry-potter%E2%80%99-is-a-holocaust-allegory/

Remember - Harry Potter rubbished devout Christian Charles Brush's spin gravity experimental results, never to be re-examined.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C04EFDC1631EF33A25750C2A9629C94 6095D6CF

Biographies don't mention this

http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/brush.html

Shades of Tesla his contemporary

rodin
01-08-2009, 08:33 PM
Well I am asking for it here

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/91495-inertial-gravity-field.html

rodin
01-08-2009, 10:34 PM
http://i31.tinypic.com/2b5s3d.png

I say that is a leaf up against the split stone

Note

1/ symmetrical shape
2/ symmetrical leaf varigations
3/ shadow corresponds to a thin object

rodin
02-08-2009, 08:55 PM
Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Enough of this levity

I am working on the equations for Inertial Gravity and this will take time. I have already outlined the basis for the theory that large red shifts do not support the Big Bang, and later we will investigate the alternative - that the Universe is in fact Infinite in every way any also what we may call Steady State. A complete proof will have to show Entropy is not after all always increasing, but that's for quite a bit later.

The Universe may not be expanding, but here's something else for all you Lost Altantis believers to think about...

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

Please study the above video clips. To be continued

rodin
03-08-2009, 09:17 PM
Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Earth has expanded in size in the past. It is not just that the land masses all fit together - the geology and mineral deposits match across the Pacific as well as Atlantic. Crazy though it seems, Earth has undergone dramatic size change.

Expanding Earth - YouTube

The visible ocean floors are much younger than the crust, mostly less than 100 million years. (The continents are billions of years old)

http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/Earth1.jpg
http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/thatthing.jpg

In my previous post there is a link to animations showing that many if not all bodies in the solar system have undergone a similar transformation

Dinosaurs and giantism flourished 150 million years ago and many are the explanations for how such could have happened in Earth's gravity.

http://dinosaurtheory.com/gravity_graph04.jpg

This article argues that the atmosphere was far denser.

http://dinosaurtheory.com/solution.html

The trouble with the expanding Earth theory is that gravity for a smaller planet would be much higher than today, unless mass has been created causing the expansion. No mechanism for this is known, although it has been postulated by some.

Hydrocarbons are supposed to be fossil fuel, but there is abundant hydrocarbon on other planets and moons in the solar system. Is this evidence of abundant life there?

Titan's Surface Organics Surpass Oil Reserves On Earth

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/02/080220200045-large.jpg

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080220200045.htm

Even Mars shows hydrocarbon emanating onto the surface

Jan. 15, 2008 -- Scientists have discovered rich plumes of methane on Mars that not only disappear quickly, but are replenished by unknown sources that could be biological or geochemical in origin.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/15/mars-methane-life.html

The Unified Theory of Everything seeks to provide a mechanism that fits all the above observations.

rodin
05-08-2009, 03:32 PM
Oil is Abiotic and in Unlimited Supply

In 1979 the noted sex therapists Masters and Johnson published their findings that 72% of dissatisfied homosexuals who entered their program converted to satisfied heterosexuals, based on follow-up five years later. Immediately the APA attack hounds condemned their methodology and claimed the men weren't really homosexuals. The careers of the sex
therapists went into eclipse.

Only in a Masonic Communist system like our own is science determined by politics.

http://www.henrymakow.com/002004.html

Why is the elite denying the proof that the Earth has expanded in size? All mineral and gological deposits match across the missing pieces of the jigsaw, across every Ocean. No other hypothesis can support this observation.

The establishment has adopted a view than the continents were previously as one, but separated. Before that, they were joined up in some other way. The hypothetical Pangaea can perhaps account for some of the matching continental features, but not for the matches across the Pacific Ocean.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Pangea_animation_03.gif

A main objection to the Expanding Earth hypothesis is - what can possibly have caused it? It turns out there is a very strong candidate for the driving force behind an Earth expansion - and that it can also account for much more besides, including why an Expanding Earth is being officially denied.

rodin
06-08-2009, 06:02 PM
Oil is Abiotic and in Unlimited Supply

The universe is 75% hydrogen, about 24% helium and one per cent everything else. Therefore if suns planets and moons are formed from condensed matter, there should be a hell of a lot of these elements present in the initial vortex. Obviously less light elements will be retained than heavy, particlularly for the lighter planets, because there will be gravitational fractionation competing with centrifugal force. Obviously gravity wins, or planet will not form.

Helium is 2x heavier than hydrogen gas H2, yet there is almost none on Earth, because most has escaped into space. However hydrogen is plentiful in all sorts of compounds. How come if it is lighter? It turns out that hydrogen is ultrasoluble in iron at high temperature and pressure. In fact, I think it can perhaps lose a shell electron into the metal. Know what happens when hydrogen loses a shell electron? It becomes a solitary proton.

Another possibility is that at high temp and pressure the nuclear reaction can take place e + p > n.

Therefore there are at least 2 possible mechanisms whereby the cores of moons and planets can accomodate vast amounts of superdense hydrogen. We could be talking anything up to 99% of the core. More likely the % hydrogen trapped this way is dependent on the mass of the body.

Now what would happen as this planet cools as it must due to black body radiation? Since solubility depends on temperature the core cannot hold as much hydrogen as initially. Released hydrogen re-forms in atomic form, greatly expanding the volume of the planet. Here we have the true mechanism for the expanding Earth. By studying the OP in this section, you can see expansion on Mars the Moon and other planets. It seems all of these release hydrogen.

Hydrogen coming up through the hot mantle will reduce (chemical term) rocks in the mantle to form hydrogen compounds. Excess hydrogen will outgas into the atmosphere and even under todays gravity can escape into space. Today we still have methane, hydrogen sulphide and ammonia exhaling from volcanoes and geothermal vents. Water too is a hydrogen compound, covering 2/3 of the planet.

There have been huge Earth changes, and these have come from the core.

Once hydrogen is released in quantity from the core, not only does the Earth begin to expand, but the compounds needed for life are formed. Now we see why there is so much natural gas around. Now we see how we can have hydrocarbon lakes on Titan, and methane releases on Mars.

Please review the evidence showing expansion all over the Solar System, then we will try to account for the dinosaurs

rodin
11-08-2009, 12:25 AM
intermission

(cue musak)

I never see anyone here over at the Bad Astronomy forum. There you can argue alternative views of the universe versus some of the best minds in the mainstream. Nope. It's tough over there - you have to know what you are talking about.

Anyway a minor victory for the team today. I doubt anyone here has the concentration or inclination to read all the posts. Be an education if you did. Usually you get run into the ground over there, today the goalposts were moved to save the team.

By invitation I started to produce evidence of a global conspiracy

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/90839-strongest-forensic-evidence-proving-apollo-mission-8.html#post1548428

and so the argument progressed, from

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/90839-strongest-forensic-evidence-proving-apollo-mission-8.html#post1548618

to

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/90839-strongest-forensic-evidence-proving-apollo-mission-8.html#post1548823

through

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/90839-strongest-forensic-evidence-proving-apollo-mission-8.html#post1548868

until finally

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/90839-strongest-forensic-evidence-proving-apollo-mission-9.html#post1548893

Anyone claiming we did not go to the Moon - challenge this lot. If you can get past the trial by fire with your analysis intact I would have the utmost respect for you.

Full thread in question

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/90839-strongest-forensic-evidence-proving-apollo-mission.html

Work in Progress

Now, about those Antlantis myths and all other ancient Earth events you all go on about, looks they have to fit with an Earth that has changed its size substantially. How's that for an Earth Change?

rodin
12-08-2009, 11:37 AM
The Zeta Hoax

Zeta Beta Tau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "Book of Enoch" from the Dead Sea scrolls says how these men married Earth women, who bore 'giants 3000 cubits high'. (Note, a cubit is 1 Sacred Jewish inch, so 3000 cubits would be about 250 feet.). These people may have helped build the pyramids.

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/alienraces.html

In the spring of 1947, Bedouin shepherds from the Ta'amira tribe, who were searching for their lost goats in the desolate ravines near the shore of the Dead Sea, stumbled upon a cave containing pottery jars filled with ancient scrolls.

http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/TheDeadSeaScrolls.html

Very convieniently adjacent to the putsch for the State of Israel

Betty and Barney Hill abduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Flintstones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Budd Hopkins

http://www.levisfineart.com/html/ArtistResults.asp?artist=32

I may add to this 'linked linked' post if I feel like it

j35p3r4d0
12-08-2009, 12:37 PM
this thread is shaky at best.

Oil is not produced via some natural composition of the earth, it requires a LOT of complex organic matter to rot in sedimentary deposits for MILLIONS OF YEARS.

It doesn't come from nowhere, Buddy, there's just a lot of it. The earth hasn't just been alive for the last 10,000 years.

as for expanding earth.. The universe is expanding, why not the earth?

but i must say, the following is a horribly dense statement...

There was a time not that long ago, where Gravity was theorised to be the force that glued matter together.
This was shown not to be the case when man set foot into space.

if gravity (centrifugal cohesive inertia) did NOT hold all matter together, there would be no astronauts to fly into space.

The fact that the cumulative mass of the earth can be superseded by technology isn't so hard to imagine, especially for a few men.

And hell, all they use is chemical rockets. It's called engineering, dude... they figured it out. It's the opposite of terminal velocity: the speed needed to exit the gravitational pull of the earth.

Your extrapolation that gravity is disproven by men exiting the atmosphere is Ridiculous.

rodin
12-08-2009, 02:26 PM
this thread is shaky at best.

Oil is not produced via some natural composition of the earth, it requires a LOT of complex organic matter to rot in sedimentary deposits for MILLIONS OF YEARS.

It doesn't come from nowhere, Buddy, there's just a lot of it. The earth hasn't just been alive for the last 10,000 years.

as for expanding earth.. The universe is expanding, why not the earth?

but i must say, the following is a horribly dense statement...



if gravity (centrifugal cohesive inertia) did NOT hold all matter together, there would be no astronauts to fly into space.

The fact that the cumulative mass of the earth can be superseded by technology isn't so hard to imagine, especially for a few men.

And hell, all they use is chemical rockets. It's called engineering, dude... they figured it out. It's the opposite of terminal velocity: the speed needed to exit the gravitational pull of the earth.

Your extrapolation that gravity is disproven by men exiting the atmosphere is Ridiculous.

re bold

Which post are you referring to? edit - I see it was not one of mine. Dishonest of you to mislead readers. I am only responsible for my own posts.

re oil

How come so much on Titan etc?

rodin
13-08-2009, 07:09 PM
Some interesting tidbits

The Theory Of Relativity predicts that length shortens towards zero in the direction of travel as we theoretically approach the speed of light.

I wondered how such a concept would apply to mass rotating at close to light speed.

That stirred things up

http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/91812-rotation-light-speed.html#post1549000

Interesting video

Russian Rattleback - Video

kasalt
15-08-2009, 02:22 AM
Link to Youtube video
What are Dimensions? - YouTube

rodin
15-08-2009, 10:20 AM
Link to Youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgwcCgF3BwI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgwcCgF3BwI

After 55 seconds I paused. It was when the narrator said 'we each create our own reality'

Bollox

This notion is one of the roots of the current malaise in society. We may add or subtract from reality, but we do not each create our own.

There is only one reality and it is 3 dimensional space, which appears to move though time.

Had to get that out, will watch the rest now

rodin
15-08-2009, 10:33 AM
Now this is interesting, tying in aliens, Roswell, hyperdimensionality, 'Einstein's equations for speed of light, second rank tensors and i

Because I am starting to think EVERY ONE OF THESE is a hoax

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/attachments/foyer/61988d1250327402-moonshot-corso-dosclosure.png

The above images were captured from this video

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-5980990221766439646

The Disclosure Project deconstructed

Listen to the testimony of the woman about Von Braun - starting at 1.12.50

She says that the real reason for space-based weapons was for use against terrorist, rogue states, incoming asteriod and finally alien invasion - and that it would all be a hoax

That is the real disclosure IMO

Sort of Protocols of Zion updated, we see that Von Braun's statements have come to pass. Fake terror and rogue states already in play, Planet X still to come, and then of course the aliens...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76467

rodin
16-08-2009, 09:54 AM
The word adulterate comes from the Latin adultere (to poison)

The 'Thou' present tense is adulteri

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adulterare

The commandment 'Thou shall not commit adultery' was a powerful prohibition of adulteration. Somewhere along the line adultery was changed to mean sex, the idea being that the stupid goyim would associate 'adult' with 'consenting behaviour'. Now there is one commandment for every other mortal sin, but two for shagging a MILF. For there is also the commandment 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife'.

This is of course another nonsense.

We can see where the deliberate transition was made. Wiktionary - the dictionary component of the occult 'Free' online database (al qaeda) - somewhat ironically founded by a Jewish porn merchant - shows us the relevant source for this corruption of the language, and it is none other than Shakespeare.

Quote:
adulterate (comparative more adulterate, superlative most adulterate)

Tending to commit adultery.

1594, William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, I.v.

Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast,
With witchcraft of his wit, with traitorous gifts-
O wicked wit and gifts, that have the power
So to seduce!- won to his shameful lust
The will of my most seeming-virtuous queen.

Corrupted; impure; adulterated.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adulterate

Tending to commit adultery on the meaning of the very word is the coded message hidden in this pornbroker's online publication.

The true meaning of adulterate means to corrupt, but Shakespeare gave some clever scribe the idea that the commandment be changed in meaning. Subtle perhaps, but suddenly deception was no longer a crime under Mosaic Law.

And so it is with the sciences, that, like everything else, have been defamed, twisted, corrupted, false trails laid and false hopes raised.

Enough of this. Let us continue to unpick the deceptions, and reveal the truth.

rodin
16-08-2009, 01:02 PM
With that in mind - David Wilcox - latest in a long line of prophets and founts of spiritual knowledge.

The 2012 Enigma by David Wilcock Pt. 01 - YouTube

2.00 - It was a divine miracle (that we fitted the audience into the room)

(Nothing like the miracles I performed getting a 5-way 3KW PA into a transit van after every PA hire)

2.30 - uncomfortable link into 'Many people are awakening to cosmic consciousness...' Reincarnation of Cayce... 'Sacred geometry' (actually platonic solids are simply stable energy formations and structures - totally expected and natural, not mystical)

5.55 - 'the background radiation from when the universe was created has arranged itself into this odd geometric pattern - and that's been proven'

http://crd.lbl.gov/~borrill/cmb/planck/CMB_I_217-all.jpg (actual 'pattern' - think any of his audience bothered to check?)

By showing crop circles are man-made you pull the rug out from under the New Age movement.

6.57 - To use that piece of sh*t Wilcox own made up word - Hoaxes R Us are 'SELF-REFERENTIAL'

Masters of Deception

Edward Bernays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nihil
16-08-2009, 06:16 PM
Oil comes from huge deposits of carbon-based material that undergoes a chemical and phisical transformation that lasts long time and gives what we put inside our cars engines, in exchange for $, to move' em...

Here's my weirdos theory : If these huge deposits of, let's say, plants were originated by some catastrofic - unnatural - accident, caused by some alien race, as the so called ones-who-came-from-the-sky, could this support the fact that we strive for oil, we base great part of our economy on it and We do Not give a S**T about Free Solar and Wind Energy Whatsoever ?

Could this deal with some karmic power, where burn is indeed, a way to consume the power of the Earth ?

rodin
16-08-2009, 08:06 PM
Oil comes from huge deposits of carbon-based material that undergoes a chemical and phisical transformation that lasts long time and gives what we put inside our cars engines, in exchange for $, to move' em...

Here's my weirdos theory : If these huge deposits of, let's say, plants were originated by some catastrofic - unnatural - accident, caused by some alien race, as the so called ones-who-came-from-the-sky, could this support the fact that we strive for oil, we base great part of our economy on it and We do Not give a S**T about Free Solar and Wind Energy Whatsoever ?

Could this deal with some karmic power, where burn is indeed, a way to consume the power of the Earth ?

Titan has hydrocarbon lakes

Mars is seeping hydrocarbons onto the surface. In fact hydrocarbons are a normal product of planet/moon evolution.

Already we have compelling evidence for Earth Expansion - another poster also brought this up. Read the entire thread - the mechanism by which hydrogen 'blew up' the Earth is explained. Also how hydrogen compounds were created during this expansion. I wont go over it all again. However, maybe time to move the narrative along...

nihil
16-08-2009, 08:12 PM
I should nominate my own self as Troll for this .

rodin
29-08-2009, 11:09 PM
Moving on

The story so far - go read the thread you shortcutter.

Once the Earth started expanding, we have a runaway situation where hydrogen is being produced, hydrides formed, the chemicals for aerobic life generated. But what about giantism - dinosaurs, huge dragonflies, supertall ferns and the like? If these could evolve on today's Earth they would. Whales are a remnant of giantism - but these are supported by water. But what if Earth blew up BIGGER than today. What would be the results?

Well, we would have lower gravity, and a slower rate of rotation ie a longer day. Hydrogen, which even today if left unreacted has enough thermal energy to slowly escape into space, would boil off quite quickly. The atmosphere would have a much stronger hydrogen flux flowing through it than today.

So what evidence should we look for to see if Earth was once bigger?

Is anyone reading this :confused:

runciter
31-08-2009, 09:08 AM
what do you make of this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

more info here

http://www.thunderbolts.info/

rodin
31-08-2009, 10:16 AM
I will comment on the Electric Universe later today. To continue from my previous post, there is I think evidence for an Earth that was once larger than today. If we accept that at some stage Earth the surface of the Earth was once defined by the present land masses plus the continental shelves, and that the oceans were created by a process of expansion, then we have at least opened up the possibility that the reason for giantism on Earth was that after an expansion beyond today's present diameter there can also have been a contraction. If the core consisted of Hydrogen supercondensed in such a way that the 1S electron shell collapsed we have a driving mechanism that would create the pressure to cause this expansion. Once unreacted hydrogen reached the surface it would escape into space, in effect releasing some of the inflating pressure. Once all of the hydrogen at the core is expressed as atomic hydrogen. and internal pressure ceases to build, it is logical that the release of this pressure would cause a subsequent shrinkage of the Earth diameter as it is released into space.

http://www.bautforum.com/attachments/against-mainstream/9012d1226242981-ancient-earth-rotation-period-section.png

Evidence for expansion is profound since all continents fit in a physical spherical jigsaw, and also the geological nature of coastlines match not only across the Atlantic, but across all matching pieces of the 3D jigsaw.

I have evidence that I think is indicative of subsequent contraction.

First off, the dinosaurs and giantism logically points to a lower gravity on Earth, and this can only be the case if Earth had much less mass (and there is no evidence for mass creation at the centre of the Earth nor a physical explanation for how this can happen without completely overturning laws of physics that have served us well for centuries) or if the diameter was greater.

Secondly, while there is evidence of expansion from examining the ocean floors, in particular the young mid ocean ridges, and how the Earth has grown by ocean spread from these, there is also evidence that the process of expansion has to some extent been reversed. The mid Pacific ridge for example is no longer where one would expect - in the middle of the ocean. In fact the North American land mass now covers a large part of an older and larger Pacific, as can be seen if the following annotated geological map of the world.

http://www.bautforum.com/attachments/against-mainstream/9011d1226242981-ancient-earth-rotation-period-contraction.jpg

Indeed some puzzling large-scale deformations of the old continents can be explained by a shrinking Earth. Also a shrinking Earth would show the so-called subduction that appears at the edge of continental shelves for which the convection theory was invented to explain.

rodin
31-08-2009, 10:29 AM
One of the requirement of an expanded Earth would be a longer day and slower rotation speed. The analogy here is the ice skater who controls spin speed by outstretching arms, slowing down the rate of rotation. This is a simple expression of the Law of Conservation of (Angular) Momentum.

Evidence for old Earth's rotation speed is gleaned by examining 'fossils' of tidal action. Today tides occur twice a day, and the height of these tides depends on the reationship between the Sun, the Moon, and Earth. Obviously the Moon always pulls the oceans 'towards' it, creating high tides wherever it is above. But there are two tides per day - because of the wave function low tides occur when the Moon is on the horizon, ie at right angles to the observer, and high tides occur when then the Earth-Moon path is orthogonal to the observer.

The above is an approximation, since there is also tidal drag, but it does give a clear qualitative description of the process, and why the number of tides = 2 times the number of Earth rotations.

The highest tides similarly occur when the Sun-Earth-Moon are aligned. Highest of all is when the Moon and Sun are both in the sky and closer the better. But the other 'high' is when the Earth lies BETWEEN the Sun and the Moon. This is counterintuitive at first, since the gravitational pull of the Moon and Sun are opposing each other. Nevertheless there is a maximum there because of the nature of the wave function. The lowest 'high' tides occur when the Moon and Sun are at right angles viewed from the Earth - the half Moon phase. So new Moons and full Moons produce the biggest - 'Spring' - tides. Conversely half Moons produce 'Neap' tides.

With me so far?

Silt washed down by rivers settles on the estuary bed. This is how the Nile delta was formed, for example. The depth of deposit depends on the competing tidal/river action, and sedimentary rocks can actually show the tell-tale signs of daily deposits. From this we can actually calculate the length of day in ancient times, since not only are their DAILY variations in depth of deposit, but there are LUNAR variations also, corresponding to neep and spring tides. We expect to see a progession from high to low and back to high levels of deposit as we go from neep - spring - neep tides.

Today we have approximately 14 days between each 'Spring tide'. Now let us look at ancient sedimentary rocks and see how many 'days' lay between spring tides back then. Fortunately for us the authors of the paper analysis the following sample of sedimentary rock have identified the neap tides for us

http://www.bautforum.com/attachments/against-mainstream/8952d1225409037-ancient-earth-rotation-period-slide2.jpg

Now you must remember that scientists are not looking for a huge variation from today, since they do not realise that the Earth may have contracted from a larger diameter hence have no model to explain a much longer day. They are looking for a slow slowing down over time. But looking at the above it is abundantly clear to me that there are only about 8 or so daily bands between the N or neap tides.

rodin
31-08-2009, 10:57 AM
The above post refers to evidence from rocks known as 'tidal rhythmites'. The floor of the Eastuary has subsequently folded. This folding could be caused by a number of reasons. Folding might be expected however if the Earth had indeed contracted.

The next example illustrates the progression of tidal deposit with phases of the Moon. I applied this to a random sample produced by a geology fan at the BAUT forum

http://www.bautforum.com/attachments/against-mainstream/8951d1225408720-ancient-earth-rotation-period-slide3.jpg

A perfect example of the progression of tides is afforded by this next example. The weather must have been still calm during this period to have produced such a smooth progression from neap to spring tide

http://www.bautforum.com/attachments/against-mainstream/8991d1225921848-ancient-earth-rotation-period-rhythmites-7.jpg

Sources and critical discussion

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/80157-ancient-earth-rotation-period.html

remember there are two tides per day. There are 7 days between neap tides in the above example. Earth days must have been twice as long. If so, Earth was bigger than now by about 50%, and surface gravity about a half. Remember - the MASS of the Earth is not much changed - apart from the evaportaion of atmospheric hydrogen into space. Next we consider extinction events based on our Hydrogen-expanded earth model, another day.

Please note - in the above illustration I marked subordinate 'spring' tide at the narrowest band. Convention says the narrowest band is the subordinate 'neap' tide. Therefore I am afraid I got the annotation arse about. Sorry bout that. The counting process is unaffected though

kasalt
01-09-2009, 03:56 PM
New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327231.200-dimensions-the-grand-tour.html#bx272312B1) article on dimensions:

http://www.newscientist.com/special/beyond-space-and-time

decim
01-09-2009, 10:13 PM
Very interesting, carry on.


Is anyone reading this :confused:

rodin
01-09-2009, 11:20 PM
New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327231.200-dimensions-the-grand-tour.html#bx272312B1) article on dimensions:

http://www.newscientist.com/special/beyond-space-and-time

reply

Hidden dimensions are very common in Nature. For example, the hydrogen bonds or repulsive forces between atoms are manifestation of short distance forces operating in very high number of dimensions. Nested planetary systems are examples of extradimensions.

Hidden dimensions manifests itself by violation of Lorentz symmetry, separation of time arrows and by violation of inverse square law for forces.

Tripe there are 3 dimensions the rest are just mathematical constructs

You can say anything with maths does not mean it has to be real

reading this guys stuff for now

http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/index.html

kasalt
02-09-2009, 12:09 AM
http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-2-arent-there-really-only-3-or-4.html

Aren't there really only 3 (or 4) dimensions and the rest is unproven?

The traditional viewpoint has been that there are three dimensions of space, and that time is not a full dimension but rather a quality which gets overlaid upon our 3D space. Some accept that spacetime can be thought of as four dimensional but that is far as they will go, there are no dimensions beyond spacetime.

Books like Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics" have stated that the study of string theory (and its higher dimensions) became so prevalent that it was at the expense of other avenues of study that didn't require the existence of higher dimensions. In the past year, with Smolin's book and Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong" catching the imagination of the mainstream press, it became fashionable to dismiss any higher dimensional theories as being nothing more than mathematical self-indulgence. That pendulum is swinging more to the center where it should be now.

Which is not to say that the idea of extra dimensions being unnecessary has gone away, but rather that areas of research that do and do not require their existence are now being pursued somewhat more equitably. While thinking of spacetime as being fourth-dimensional (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071229094053AAXgwGX) has support within the scientific community, the hunt currently continues for incontrovertible proof of any higher dimensions beyond four. One of the more interesting possibilities is the recent discovery of a void 1 billion light years across (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12546-biggest-void-in-space-is-1-billion-light-years-across.html) that contains almost no stars, galaxies, or dark matter: some scientists are proposing this could be the evidence of our universe colliding with another, an event which could be proof of extra dimensions, which also ties to the string theory idea that there could be ten to the power of five hundred universes within the multiverse.

For the general public, it's easy to understand why extra dimensions are questioned - we can't see them, they don't affect us, why should we believe they exist? Here are some of the blog entries discussing extra dimensions and their possible existence:

Time is a Direction (http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2008/04/time-is-direction.html)
Hypercubes and Plato's Cave (http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2008/03/hypercubes-and-platos-cave-full.html)
Why Do We Need More Than 3 Dimensions? (http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-do-we-need-more-than-3-dimensions.html)
Dr. Mel's 4D Glasses (http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2008/10/dr-mels-4d-glasses.html)
Information Equals Reality (http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2007/11/information-equals-reality.html)
Scrambled Eggs (http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2008/10/scrambled-eggs.html)
The Multiverse and Dark Matter (http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2007/05/multiverse-and-dark-matter_17.html)
Evidence of Parallel Universes (http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2007/09/evidence-of-parallel-universes.html)

mind1universe
02-09-2009, 03:20 PM
http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-2-arent-there-really-only-3-or-4.html

Aren't there really only 3 (or 4) dimensions and the rest is unproven?

The traditional viewpoint has been that there are three dimensions of space, and that time is not a full dimension but rather a quality which gets overlaid upon our 3D space. Some accept that spacetime can be thought of as four dimensional but that is far as they will go, there are no dimensions beyond spacetime.

OMG. That hurt my head.


Oh god. Please don't use the word proof and dimensions in the same line.


Just please do some actual interdimensional channelling before you talk about this topic.


It's like you rabbiting on about France and you were never there. Just stop it will you. ffs.

rodin
02-09-2009, 03:36 PM
OMG. That hurt my head.


Oh god. Please don't use the word proof and dimensions in the same line.


Just please do some actual interdimensional channelling before you talk about this topic.


It's like you rabbiting on about France and you were never there. Just stop it will you. ffs.

How do you know channeling is interdimensional? Pure gibberish. Is it not more likely to be more like receiving a signal, the analogy of this is the radio wave

mind1universe
02-09-2009, 03:48 PM
How do you know channeling is interdimensional? Pure gibberish. Is it not more likely to be more like receiving a signal, the analogy of this is the radio wave

Oh dear god.

kasalt
02-09-2009, 04:28 PM
Oh god. Please don't use the word proof and dimensions in the same line.


Just please do some actual interdimensional channelling before you talk about this topic.


It's like you rabbiting on about France and you were never there. Just stop it will you. ffs.

Why don't you do some "actual interdimensional channelling" and come up with an intelligent, informative post on the subject that would actually be worth reading?

mind1universe
02-09-2009, 05:12 PM
Because you have to do it yourself.


A child has to learn how to swim in the deep end. It's tough luck if you can't see it like this. This is your journey. One can show you the way but you have to do it.

jamesc
02-09-2009, 06:21 PM
Beyond space and time: Fractals, hyperspace and more



(Image: Ryan Wills)
TO THE NTH DIMENSION

We don't have any trouble coping with three dimensions – or four at a pinch. The 3D world of solid objects and limitless space is something we accept with scarcely a second thought. Time, the fourth dimension, gets a little trickier. But it's when we start to explore worlds that embody more – or indeed fewer – dimensions that things get really tough.

These exotic worlds might be daunting, but they matter. String theory, our best guess yet at a theory of everything, doesn't seem to work with fewer than 10 dimensions. Some strange and useful properties of solids, such as superconductivity, are best explained using theories in two, one or even no dimensions at all.

Prepare your mind for boggling as we explore the how, why and where of dimensions.
0D

On the dot

Surely, with no dimensions there's no room for anything, so a 0D space must amount to nothing at all – mustn't it?
1D
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20327231.300/mg20327231.300-1_220.jpg
Walk the line

Add one dimension, and physics starts to look a little familiar
1½D
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20327231.400/mg20327231.400-1_220.jpg
Fractal landscapes

Welcome to the irregular landscapes between the familiar worlds of one, two and three dimensions
2D
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20327231.500/mg20327231.500-1_220.jpg
Vistas of flatland

Physics in one dimension is too simple to be satisfying, and three dimensions are complicated and messy. Two-dimensional "flatland" is just right
3D
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20327231.600/mg20327231.600-1_220.jpg
We're here because we're here?
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20327231.700/mg20327231.700-1_220.jpg
Flatland and multi-dimensional hyperspace make fine playgrounds for the mind, but our bodies seem stuck in a space of three dimensions
4D
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20327231.800/mg20327231.800-1_220.jpg
Time, the great deceiver

Space consists of three dimensions. Time, we are told, is also a dimension. So how come it is so different to the others?
5D
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20327231.900/mg20327231.900-1_220.jpg
Into the unseen

By adding a fifth dimension to space-time, it is possible to show that gravity and electromagnetism are two aspects of one and the same force
6D
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20327232.000/mg20327232.000-1_220.jpg
Two-timing

Whenever physicists invoke extra dimensions, they always seem to mean the space kind. Why can't we have more time?
8D
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20327232.100/mg20327232.100-2_220.jpg
Surfer's paradise

Eight dimensions is a rarefied space that is home to the octonions - "the crazy old uncle nobody lets out of the attic"
10D

String country
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20327232.200/mg20327232.200-1_220.jpg
Ten dimensions, and we finally reach the fabled land of string theory.

Seems to open the door on an open minded approach to these possibilities.

http://www.newscientist.com/special/beyond-space-and-time

rodin
03-09-2009, 02:08 PM
what do you make of this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

more info here

http://www.thunderbolts.info/

I got some way thru this (most) before I had to move on. Actually I have seen it before. It does not explain mass-mass attraction - something that can be shown to be dependent on atomic weight, number of molecules, and the inverse square of separation distance.

The later link I posted attempts to explain mass itself as bound energy.

Their strongest point is the fact that the Sun's corona is so much hotter than the surface. Standard science has no explanation for this.

Coronal heating problem

The coronal heating problem in solar physics relates to the question of why the temperature of the Sun's corona is millions of kelvins higher than that of the surface. The high temperatures require energy to be carried from the solar interior to the corona by non-thermal processes, because the second law of thermodynamics prevents heat from flowing directly from the solar photosphere, or surface, at about 5800 kelvin, to the much hotter corona at about 1 to 3 MK (parts of the corona can even reach 10 MK). The amount of power required to heat the solar corona can easily be calculated. It is about 1 kilowatt for every square meter of surface area on the Sun, or 1/40000 of the amount of light energy that escapes the Sun.

Corona - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sunspots too are a strange phenomenon, suggesting that the real surface may be cooler (4000C), and that what we see is a 'fire in the sky' effect (5800C). However, sunspots are also sites of large downdrafts, suggesting that the observed depression is pressure-related.

Sunspot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These areas requires further research.

I am sure that fusion and fission are both possible. We know fission is possible from radioactive decay. In order create heavy elements we also need fusion.

Standard Model

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Sun_parts_big.jpg

rodin
03-09-2009, 02:23 PM
If the Sun was connected to some galactic electromegnetic force field from which it is absorbing energy, would you expect closed magnetic loops?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/171879main_LimbFlareJan12_lg.jpg/350px-171879main_LimbFlareJan12_lg.jpg

jamesc
03-09-2009, 03:59 PM
If the Sun was connected to some galactic electromegnetic force field from which it is absorbing energy, would you expect closed magnetic loops?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/171879main_LimbFlareJan12_lg.jpg/350px-171879main_LimbFlareJan12_lg.jpg

The sun could have a inner undetectable energy source like the human soul.Physical materialistic sciences will be hard pushed to detect it though.

rodin
05-09-2009, 08:43 PM
Expanding Earth - abiotic oil and gas - how will the Rothschild Jew Crime Gang keep a lid on the price of an unlimited commodity? Climate change hoax of course. After oil peaks at >$300 a barrel expect a precipitous fall as population dies off and carbon ban is implemented 'for the children'. Not paying the remotest attention to the fact that...

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.

Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Bellingham, WA. He has published extensively on issues pertaining to global climate change. For further details see his list of publications

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

Then what are they going to do with the NatGas pressure building? After all methane is far more efficient greenhouse gas. Wait - we will need it to release direct into the atmosphere to prevent cooling. Cant sell it cheap.

pi3141
06-09-2009, 03:48 PM
2. If you cannot visualise a system, forget it. Mathematical trickery cannot replace logic.

Can you prove this? I like the idea but its seems too simple. I understand trickery is by nature deceptive but abstract mathmatical models surely can't be discounted by a persons sense of logic?

pi3141
06-09-2009, 03:51 PM
Eventually the prevailing (ie funded) wisdom settled for space itself is expanding. Now I think space is space, and I cannot imagine there is a boundary, for if there is, what lies beyond it? (Similar argument is who created God).


Exactly. Whats it expanding in to! This ties in with your visualising quote above and my feelings on Stephen hawkings Big Bang conclusion theory. Also, in the school playground we used to say - If at the end of the universe there is a brick wall, whats the other side. Hence space must be infinite (you get the idea) In the beginning before the Big Bang space and time did not exist. So what was here before that then. What was in this space? And for how long did the universe not exist before the Big Bang. 5 minutes, 5 years, 5 billion years - oh I forgot time did not exist?!?? Mathematical trickery cannot replace logic.

rwederfoort
06-09-2009, 03:55 PM
(Also called Frequency Band)

Dimensions are fixed groupings of energy within a specific, geometrically arranged form, build upon crystallized, conscious units, of sound and light called Morphogenetic Fields (MF) or Manifestation Template.

Each MF's of Dimensions are composed of stationary points of the vibration of sound and light which together form a fabric of tones, into which smaller MFs are woven

From each fixed point of sound vibration, within each Dimension of MF, an electrical current of consciousness emerges.

Cosmic morphogenetic structure is ordered into sets of systems, each one comprising 15 dimensions and referred to as a "15 dimensional matrices" grouped in sets of 3, forming a morphogenetic blueprint of five, 3 dimensional reality systems, in each dimensional matrix. Each reality system is called a Harmonic Universe (HU).

(The Tangible Structure of the Soul - Lecture Transcripts -Page 3)

A Dimension is a full Frequency Band or repeated sequence of "flashing on and off" of scalar standing-wave points within a morphogenetic field.


A Planet moves from one dimensional frequency band to the next, and from one Time Continuum to the next, by magnetically drawing into its morphogenetic field, particles from the Unified Field of energy for each dimension.

When a planet has pulled in all the frequency bands of one dimension into its morphogenetic field, it then moves upward into the next dimensional field to complete the same process.


Each of the 15 rhythms of Partiki Phasing creates one Dimension.

A Dimension is a set pattern of "Flash Line Sequences", or a singular Partiki Phasing rhythms that contains within it 12 smaller rhythms of Partiki Phasing.

Each Dimension represents one Scalar Frequency Band containing 12 smaller Sub-frequency Bands.

To create the Universal Manifestation Template (MF) upon which external space, time and matter experience can be known, Dimensions are ordered in sets of 15, forming the blueprint for a 15-Dimensional Time Matrix.

(The Kathara Bio-Spiritual Healing System Course - Page 19)

A Dimension represents a full Frequency Band, or repeating, cyclic sequence of "flashing on and off" scalar-wave points within a morphogenetic field.

The morphogenetic field scalar grid structure of dimensions takes the form of sets of 15-Dimensional Matrices, grouped in sets of 3 dimensions each, forming 5 sets of 3-dimensinal Reality Fields called Harmonic Universes.

The 15-Dimensions composing 5 Harmonic Universes together represent one Time Matrix system.

(The Kathara Bio-Spiritual Healing System Course - Page 20)

Each Dimension of frequency is composed of 12 Sub-frequency bands, or shorter cycles of the "flashing on and off" of scalar-wave points, which exist as part of the longer cycle of the full Dimensional Frequency Band.

Particles having varying vibratory-oscillation rates and angles of spin (ARPS) allow multiple dimensional reality fields to coexist within the same space while remaining perceptually invisible to each other.

The relationship between wave strata within the dimensional frequency bands create the holographic refraction of light, sound and scalar waves that allows consciousness to perceive the illusions of matter solidity, space, time and externalization of reality while it is ensconced within the structures of dimensionalization.

(The Kathara Bio-Spiritual Healing System Course - Page 21)

pi3141
06-09-2009, 03:56 PM
sorry but your wrong oil takes millions of years for the organic soup to be oil it does not regenerate

There are other theories about the formation of oil such as those of Astrophysicist Thomas Gold. Gold speculates that oil was created during creation of the planet itself and may prove a tremendously abundant resource though not infinite. Gold cites findings of oil and gas on other planets now proven by NASA where there is no evidence of dinosaurs on those planets. Gold speculates that because of this, oil and gas are essential constituents of undetermined frequency throughout created systems. Gold feels that wells run dry but are eventually refilled through upward pressure of deeper oil reserves though it was acknowledged in the segment that some wells have been dry for very long periods of time.

pi3141
06-09-2009, 03:59 PM
Fridge magnets are created by aligning magnetic DIPOLES in certain metals. These dipoles are created by orbital electrons being oriented in an non-random way so that so some extent the magnetic field generated by the spin sums in the a macro scale.


Is this in any way analagous or supportive of the free energy idea that only the potential exists and once a dipole is created energy can be freely extracted? I mean a fridge magnet will stick to the fridge without any energy input into it. It peforms real work in a magnetic way by defying the force of gravity and sticking to the fridge. Hence if a magnet extrudes magnetism through its dipoles for sustained period of time without applying external energy, why can't an electrical dipole do the same as per the Tom Bearden / Bedini model.

pi3141
06-09-2009, 04:35 PM
Well I am asking for it here

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/91495-inertial-gravity-field.html

Thanks for the link - I found out about the Gyrobus from Switzerland which I had never heard of and I've read quite extensively on early alternative transport systems like steam, electric cars and gyroscopic cars.

I found the Gyrobus interesting as it closely resembles an Idea I have for extending the range of an electric car. The difference is in my idea the car is the flywheel i.e tapping back the stored enegy in the momentum of the car itself. But it is just a variation of the Bedini idea.

rodin
06-09-2009, 11:15 PM
Can you prove this? I like the idea but its seems too simple. I understand trickery is by nature deceptive but abstract mathmatical models surely can't be discounted by a persons sense of logic?

A model with no physical expression is not representative of the real world of matter, space, time. You can have abstract models that represent movement, but even these can be plotted in space + time.

rodin
06-09-2009, 11:19 PM
(Also called Frequency Band)

Dimensions are fixed groupings of energy within a specific, geometrically arranged form, build upon crystallized, conscious units, of sound and light called Morphogenetic Fields (MF) or Manifestation Template.

Each MF's of Dimensions are composed of stationary points of the vibration of sound and light which together form a fabric of tones, into which smaller MFs are woven

From each fixed point of sound vibration, within each Dimension of MF, an electrical current of consciousness emerges.

Cosmic morphogenetic structure is ordered into sets of systems, each one comprising 15 dimensions and referred to as a "15 dimensional matrices" grouped in sets of 3, forming a morphogenetic blueprint of five, 3 dimensional reality systems, in each dimensional matrix. Each reality system is called a Harmonic Universe (HU).

(The Tangible Structure of the Soul - Lecture Transcripts -Page 3)

A Dimension is a full Frequency Band or repeated sequence of "flashing on and off" of scalar standing-wave points within a morphogenetic field.


A Planet moves from one dimensional frequency band to the next, and from one Time Continuum to the next, by magnetically drawing into its morphogenetic field, particles from the Unified Field of energy for each dimension.

When a planet has pulled in all the frequency bands of one dimension into its morphogenetic field, it then moves upward into the next dimensional field to complete the same process.


Each of the 15 rhythms of Partiki Phasing creates one Dimension.

A Dimension is a set pattern of "Flash Line Sequences", or a singular Partiki Phasing rhythms that contains within it 12 smaller rhythms of Partiki Phasing.

Each Dimension represents one Scalar Frequency Band containing 12 smaller Sub-frequency Bands.

To create the Universal Manifestation Template (MF) upon which external space, time and matter experience can be known, Dimensions are ordered in sets of 15, forming the blueprint for a 15-Dimensional Time Matrix.

(The Kathara Bio-Spiritual Healing System Course - Page 19)

A Dimension represents a full Frequency Band, or repeating, cyclic sequence of "flashing on and off" scalar-wave points within a morphogenetic field.

The morphogenetic field scalar grid structure of dimensions takes the form of sets of 15-Dimensional Matrices, grouped in sets of 3 dimensions each, forming 5 sets of 3-dimensinal Reality Fields called Harmonic Universes.

The 15-Dimensions composing 5 Harmonic Universes together represent one Time Matrix system.

(The Kathara Bio-Spiritual Healing System Course - Page 20)

Each Dimension of frequency is composed of 12 Sub-frequency bands, or shorter cycles of the "flashing on and off" of scalar-wave points, which exist as part of the longer cycle of the full Dimensional Frequency Band.

Particles having varying vibratory-oscillation rates and angles of spin (ARPS) allow multiple dimensional reality fields to coexist within the same space while remaining perceptually invisible to each other.

The relationship between wave strata within the dimensional frequency bands create the holographic refraction of light, sound and scalar waves that allows consciousness to perceive the illusions of matter solidity, space, time and externalization of reality while it is ensconced within the structures of dimensionalization.

(The Kathara Bio-Spiritual Healing System Course - Page 21)

Nope. Vibrations have symmetries and patterns - all exist within 3D plus time.

I relate quantisation to harmonic wave series.

rodin
06-09-2009, 11:24 PM
There are other theories about the formation of oil such as those of Astrophysicist Thomas Gold. Gold speculates that oil was created during creation of the planet itself and may prove a tremendously abundant resource though not infinite. Gold cites findings of oil and gas on other planets now proven by NASA where there is no evidence of dinosaurs on those planets. Gold speculates that because of this, oil and gas are essential constituents of undetermined frequency throughout created systems. Gold feels that wells run dry but are eventually refilled through upward pressure of deeper oil reserves though it was acknowledged in the segment that some wells have been dry for very long periods of time.

Gold cannot account for Earth expansion. I can.

rodin
06-09-2009, 11:26 PM
Is this in any way analagous or supportive of the free energy idea that only the potential exists and once a dipole is created energy can be freely extracted? I mean a fridge magnet will stick to the fridge without any energy input into it. It peforms real work in a magnetic way by defying the force of gravity and sticking to the fridge. Hence if a magnet extrudes magnetism through its dipoles for sustained period of time without applying external energy, why can't an electrical dipole do the same as per the Tom Bearden / Bedini model.

It performs no work sticking to the fridge any more than a bottle on milk on a shelf in the fridge does

rodin
06-09-2009, 11:30 PM
Thanks for the link - I found out about the Gyrobus from Switzerland which I had never heard of and I've read quite extensively on early alternative transport systems like steam, electric cars and gyroscopic cars.

I found the Gyrobus interesting as it closely resembles an Idea I have for extending the range of an electric car. The difference is in my idea the car is the flywheel i.e tapping back the stored enegy in the momentum of the car itself. But it is just a variation of the Bedini idea.

In the Gyrobus kinetic energy is transferred into potential energy (flywheel) and back to kinetic as the bus goes down then up hills. Obviously the bus itself gains potential energy from climbing a hill. It is an efficient way of maintaining total potential energy of the system (obviously there are friction/transfer losses but overall much more energy efficient than using conventional motive power alone)

rodin
10-09-2009, 11:56 PM
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES....penthouse.wmv

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/attachments/metals/60410d1247524138-gold-calls-long-term-medium-term-intraday-calls-gold-here-slide1.png
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/attachments/metals/60412d1247524138-gold-calls-long-term-medium-term-intraday-calls-gold-here-slide2.png
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/attachments/metals/60414d1247524138-gold-calls-long-term-medium-term-intraday-calls-gold-here-slide3.png
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/attachments/metals/60416d1247524138-gold-calls-long-term-medium-term-intraday-calls-gold-here-slide4.png
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/attachments/metals/60418d1247524138-gold-calls-long-term-medium-term-intraday-calls-gold-here-slide5.png

http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5367

rodin
15-09-2009, 10:22 PM
A team of scientists based at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden have made a "revolutionary" discovery about how hydrocarbon is formed, learning that animal and plant fossils are not necessary to form crude oil.
The discovery, the scientists say, means that the world will never run out of crude oil. Currently, theory states that crude oil is formed very slowly - over millions of years - from the remains of dead plants and animals. Buried under rock, over time the pressure and temperature of natural earth processes results in the creation of crude oil. But that theory is now old news, as the scientists, led by Vladimir Kutcherov, say they have proven that fossilized plants and animals are not needed to create hydrocarbons.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279153

rodin
19-09-2009, 02:29 PM
Top 30 problems with the Big Bang

Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. Even the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of the universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpretations with credible alternative explanations. One must wonder why, in this circumstance, that four good alternative models are not even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers.

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

"...there were four quasars with the 10 meter telescope at Keck and they reported a redshift for this quasar, and nobody said anything, and then somebody said to Margaret Burbridge, 'you know, I was looking at that spectrum and I think there's another spectrum in there with that object', and so, we looked at it, and sure enough, there were two redshifts, much different, 0.30 and 0.7 - something like that - ... vastly different. So, there just happened to be a good HST photograph of it which split the two, I mean, they're only a quarter of an arc-second apart -- it's just incredible -- and then we -- another lucky stroke -- there was a high resolution radio map of the thing, and you could see the radio contours joining these two objects together and you could see the radio contours showing you that the quasar was being ejected along... in a certain direction; you could see the motion in the contours, and we figured out the probability of that being an accident -- or that probability of that being a coincidence -- and it came out 10^-14. Well, you know 10^-9 is one chance in a billion, 10^-5 is a hundred thousand so a one thousand billion to one chance it was an accident. We had a hell of a time getting it published. It finally did get published in a professional journal, but it's been absolutely ignored since then." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, June 2007

"Astronomer Halton Arp has played a pivotal role in bringing redshift anomalies and galaxy ejection processes to light – and he has paid a very heavy price in his professional career. Arp’s own colleagues at the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatories became so disturbed and disbelieving of the results he was getting that in the early 1980s they recommended that he should not be allowed to make any further use of these telescopes to pursue his ‘worthless’ observing programme. This recommendation was implemented, and after taking early retirement, Arp moved to Germany, and now works at the Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik. One leading astronomer objected that if Arp’s results were correct, we would have no explanation for the redshift. Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar comment: In other words, if no known theory is able to explain the observations, it is the observations that must be in error! ... Thus, Arp was the subject of one of the most clear cut and successful attempts in modern times to block research which it was felt, correctly, would be revolutionary in its impact if it were to be accepted." -- David Pratt, natural philosopher, 2005

"The disproof of the Big Bang is already nearly 40 years old. Halton Arp's first major paper on discordant redshifts was submitted to the The Astrophysical Journal in 1966, at a time when he had just finished his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies and was listed by the Association of Astronomical Professionals as 'most outstanding young astronomer' and among the top 20 astronomers in the world. The editor, Chandrasekhar, rejected that paper because of its subject, without even being submitted to peer review." -- Amy Acheson, physicist, 2003

"There is nevertheless a nagging suspicion among some astronomers, that all may not be right with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect, that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts...." -- Carl Sagan, professor, 1985

"If Arp is right, the exotic mechanisms proposed to explain the energy source of distant quasars—supernova chain reactions, supermassive black holes and the like —would prove unnecessary. Quasars need not then be very distant. But some other exotic mechanism will be required to explain the redshift. In either case, something very strange is going on in the depths of space." -- Carl Sagan, professor, 1985

"... it seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination." -- Edwin P. Hubble, astronomer, 1947

"... red-shifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature." -- Edwin P. Hubble, astronomer, 1947

"The assumption that red shifts are not velocity shifts but represent some hitherto unknown principle operating in space between the nebulae leads to a very simple, consistent picture of a universe so vast that the observable region must be regarded as an insignificant sample." -- Edwin P. Hubble, astronomer, 1942

"... if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions." -- Edwin P. Hubble, astronomer, 1937

http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html

rodin
19-09-2009, 03:21 PM
Even Reptiles get a mention in this thread :D

As we know, there is a direct relationship between the power of a circulatory (blood) system of an animal and its size. In animals, the heart tends to push the blood towards the top of the body where the head is located while gravity force pulls the blood down and tries to prevent it from rising. Thus the heart must overcome the force of gravity in order to push the blood towards the top of the body. The more it is successful, the more the blood rises and the height of the animal is allowed to increase.

Mammals are the largest animals because they have the most developed circulatory system and, more than other animals, their 4-chambered heart can overcome the force of gravity and send the blood upwards towards the head where the brain is located. For this reason, mammals have the longest necks and legs. After mammals, birds have the most developed circulatory system. Their heart is also 4-chambered and, to a large extent, it can overcome the force of gravity and also send the blood upwards towards the top of the body, where the head of an ostrich, for example, and other tall birds is located. This is the reason why the birds' necks and legs are also rather long. The blood circulation system, both in mammals and birds, are perfectly segragated and the bright blood is separated from the dark.

The reptiles are in the class lower than mammals and birds. Their circulatory system is imperfect and their dark blood is mixed together with the bright one, because their heart is 3-chambered. The 3-chambered heart can send blood forward and this is the reason why reptiles can not hold their head upward, and have to creep on the ground in the lying positio,n and have shorter legs, and we call this action creeping, and the animals are called reptiles. So we observe that because of lack of a strong heart, they have to creep on the ground, for their heart cannot transmit much more blood from the body and send it upwards. However, reptiles' heart, contrary to amphibian's, is much more effective because they have an incomplete wall between their ventricle, although it cannot send the blood upwards, at least it can make it move forward horizontally, and because of this, the reptile's body, such as Lizards, Crocodiles and Snakes, grow horizontally.

Understanding the relationship of the strength of the heart and the body size and design of animals is easier when we study, in depth, the living animals we have on the earth today.

But in the past, there were animals on the Earth, as well as the present animals, which do not exist today, and we discover them by their fossil traces. Such as with today's animals, was there any relationship between the strength of blood circulation system of animals in the past and the size of their body?

Dinosaurs are the primary animals of the past that one might consider, because their huge body is intriguing and holds an interest for everyone. The dinosaurs belonged to the reptile class and had a 3-chambered heart. Thus, the old reptiles, with a 3-chambered heart, and an incomplete blood circulation system, could grow so large and hold their heads upward, and have long necks and legs. Where as today's reptiles cannot even raise their head even slightly, and have very short legs, or do not have any legs at all, and must creep upon the ground completely. Isn't this strange?

Isn't the relation of strength of the heart and the size and design of an animal's body also supposed to be true for the dinosaurs? It's thus perhaps better to study about other old animals and compare them, in terms of strength of the heart and body size, in that period, to find the reason why dinosaurs, having an incomplete circulatory system, could grow so large. If we study more carefully, different animal species in the past, we can perhaps arrive at the following results:

1. Observing this phenomenon, from past to the present, the body size of all animals has been gradually decreased.

3. The third observation is that as we close to the present time, from past to today, animals need stronger hearts to create larger bodies. In the Carbonipher period, the heart of an amphibian could allow an animal to reach 4.5m long, but the same heart today only allows an animal to become a few centimeters high. In the past 200 million years, a 3-chambered heart of a reptile could create a dinosaur, but now it can only create animals as large as Snakes and Lizards. In the past 20 million years, a 4-chambered heart of a mammal could allow for a Baluchithere and other large mammals, but today the same heart can only create animals as large as elephants and giraffes. (Although the Whale is larger than the elephant and giraffe, but this characteristic is because of it being aquatic and because its body grows in a horizontal state, and if tge whale lived on land like the elephant and tried to raise its body vertically and stand, it wouldn't be larger than the elephant and giraffe.) In the past 250 million years, the blood circulation system in insects, could create dragonfiles 71cm long, but now it can only allow for 15cm ones.

/more

rodin
19-09-2009, 03:45 PM
Only in one case this is possible and that is if we suppose the strength of gravity at these two times is different. We can thus justify why it is in the past that an animal with an identical heart to today's animals is larger than its modern counterpart. Such as it is, that the large animals did not extinct suddenly, but rather gradually, so it must be that the increase of gravity from past to present has also occurred gradually.

When a Molluscan Endocras, that had an open blood circulation system, in the past 500 million years, could reach 4.5m in diameter, and move its large shell and keep on living, certainly the gravity must has been lower in order to allow for such a result. From that time to the present, no shell has been created because the gravity has increased and this animal could not grow it in these conditions. In the past 330 million years, when an amphibian, 4.5m long, lexisted, its 3-chambered heart and incomplete blood circulation system could easily overcome the gravity and send its blood upwards to its head. Surely at that time, the force of gravity must have been lower than it is today. Since then, no amphibian has become so large because the gravity increased and the amphibian's heart could no longer overcome the force of gravity, which caused their bodies to become small.

We can thus cite a primary reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs, if we accept that gravity has increased from the past to the present. It is interesting that the dinosaurs themselves did not become extinct suddenly, and that their extinction has come about gradually, throughout millions years. An additional, most important issue is that their extinction began from the larger animals, because the gravity increased gradually, and prevented their blood from reaching their head, and as a result, the animals had to gradually decrease in height and body size.

In other words, the larger animals became extinct and the smaller ones survived, and only counterparts who are small and who creep on the ground were amongst the survivors. The animals in the mammal class have also lost many of their largest types, such as Mammoths, because of gravity increase. An interesting point is that presently, the larger types of this class are in danger of extinction; that is, the elephants and the rhinoceroses. From this we might conclude that the continuing increase in gravity persists and that it is bringing an end to the taller and larger animals. We may not be able to perceive this so clearly today, because this increase in gravity occurs very slowly, and its effects only become evident through much longer time spans, such as thousands and millions of years.

http://michaelnetzer.com/gu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=63

The above deductive logic is persuasive. If correct, only two mechanisms can explain.

The first is the main hypothesis of the Expanding Earth people. That the Earth is creating mass, and hence increasing gravity.

(There is a group who think that the hydridic Earth theory is correct - basically something like the n > p + e decay I suggest - but of itself this would actually predict a reduction in gravity going forward)

The second is that the mass is constant but the Earth is shrinking. I subscribe to the latter. That the Earth was about half today's diameter, expanded to about double, then shrank back to present. Evidence produced is above, plus the tidal rhythmite observations, plus the obvious subduction of the mid Pacific ridge by North America.

Interesting new discovery

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82685

limelady
21-09-2009, 10:01 PM
(Note to mods - is it possible to upload image files from a computer to a post?)



Sorry for the late response to this question rodin.....I only just found it buried in one of your earlier posts.

The answer is "No" unless you are a DI Premier subscriber. PS's are able to upload files/attachments to their posts directly from their computers.

LL

rodin
25-09-2009, 04:13 PM
Sorry for the late response to this question rodin.....I only just found it buried in one of your earlier posts.

The answer is "No" unless you are a DI Premier subscriber. PS's are able to upload files/attachments to their posts directly from their computers.

LL

OK no worries I can post elsewhere and link to

rodin
04-10-2009, 05:21 PM
Earlier I described the hypothetical inertial gravity field and suggested it was responsible for ejecta at the poles of quasars. I will now extend this hypothesis and say quasars just nascent galaxies, and that the most common galaxies in the universe - spiral galaxies - are created by inertial gravity operating to push neutrons out of the spinning core into space. The spiral arms come FROM the core, they are not collapsing INTO it.

I used Wikipedia as my information source...

Spiral galaxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Barred spiral galaxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/attachments/foyer/64976d1254670384-moonshot-galaxy-formation-2.png

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/attachments/foyer/64978d1254670384-moonshot-galaxy-formation-3.png

rodin
08-10-2009, 05:15 PM
Can you prove this? I like the idea but its seems too simple. I understand trickery is by nature deceptive but abstract mathmatical models surely can't be discounted by a persons sense of logic?

Every real algebraic function has a geometrical equivalent. On 2D cartesian co-ordinates y=x is a 45 degree line from the origin. y=x<squared> is a parabola

etc

rodin
08-10-2009, 05:25 PM
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1167025&postcount=45

Some stuff not appearing in this post? Without the additional material we lose the narrative

If they don't appear I will rebuild the material here

OK here is the new link to the expanding Earth and Moons and Planets videos...

http://www.continuitystudios.net/nmu.html

...you need this information around post 55 in the narrative

rodin
14-10-2009, 11:19 AM
Thanks to Decim for flagging up this blog. I like it

http://spacecollective.org/dmitri

rodin
07-11-2009, 09:09 AM
All of the above are unsupported assertions posted by someone with no real understanding of the subjects s/he is talking about.

Just my humble opinion.

Now that I know more about you I find your rapid intervention @ the commencement of this thread interesting

rodin
05-01-2010, 09:40 AM
Can you prove this? I like the idea but its seems too simple. I understand trickery is by nature deceptive but abstract mathmatical models surely can't be discounted by a persons sense of logic?

Abstract mathematical models must match reality otherwise they are mind games

pi3141
13-01-2010, 05:34 PM
Yeah I get it - I think. My maths is appalling. An engineer I work with took a strip of paper, twisted it and joined the ends together in a circle (with twist) and declared it to be a one sided object! I wasn't convinced, but I guess there is a mathematical formula for such an object which convinces some people. Its just when you see it in reality (if you can model it), it doesn't make sense. So i said to him, lets take another strip of paper, paint one side green and the other side orange, then when you twist it and create your one sided object, either the green side or orange side should disapear!

sygyt
14-01-2010, 03:26 PM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax.

The New Age movement is just Blatavsky multiplied.

The spiritual world does not exist in another 'dimension'. It exists in another field.

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Special relativity another hoax.

Gravity is a lightspeed force, and the Earth expanded when superdense hydrogen was released from the core. First to about 1.5 today's diameter when dinosaurs roamed, subsequently relaxing to today's size. Old Earth was all continents minus oceans.

Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Global warming is a hoax

All of above JMHO

Hi :p

Prove that special relativity is a hoax.

sygyt
14-01-2010, 03:30 PM
Yeah I get it - I think. My maths is appalling. An engineer I work with took a strip of paper, twisted it and joined the ends together in a circle (with twist) and declared it to be a one sided object! I wasn't convinced, but I guess there is a mathematical formula for such an object which convinces some people. Its just when you see it in reality (if you can model it), it doesn't make sense. So i said to him, lets take another strip of paper, paint one side green and the other side orange, then when you twist it and create your one sided object, either the green side or orange side should disapear!

It's called a Moebius strip and the green and yellow sides join together after the half twist to make an endless but bounded surface,think of going around the surface of a sphere,you never come to an end.Why would the colours disappear?

rodin
14-01-2010, 03:47 PM
Prove that special relativity is a hoax.

Consider a star

It shines light in all directions at the speed of light

In opposing directions the wavefronts (according to relativity) would each see the other (if they could) moving away at the speed of light, yet a side-on observer would 'see' a difference of 2xc

I am with the real observation not the mind game

Newton predicted gravity deflected light

pi3141
14-01-2010, 05:30 PM
It's called a Moebius strip and the green and yellow sides join together after the half twist to make an endless but bounded surface,think of going around the surface of a sphere,you never come to an end.Why would the colours disappear?

A colour would disapear because there was a different colour on each side of a two sided object, hence if the object transformed into a true one sided object then one side must disapear and hence one colour disapears

If I think of walking around a sphere, then (if the sphere was hollow) wouldn't the inside be another side?

Or have I completely misunderstood a one sided object?

rodin
14-01-2010, 10:37 PM
There have been tests done to prove time dilation in particular taking an atomic clock into orbit. Atomic clocks run a smidgeon faster the farther away from Earth ie the less they feel the effect of the gravitational field

Does that prove time tuns faster, or that gravity affects atomic quantum energy level spacing?

Lay people cannot check relativity. We have to take it on trust from the same scientific authorities that fail to notice the collapses of 911 were physically impossible without using controlled demolition

The science of special relativity and the perpetrators of 911 come from Hoaxes R Us

As for the even smaller discrepancy allegedly caused by taking caesium clocks for a trip in a plane - one would want to know more details of this experiment. Were the planes going around the equator, over the poles etc.

Has anyone dared to check kinemassic time dilation by sending a clock for a long journey in space and back again - like maybe around the Moon - to check how the kinemassic component worked out absent a gravitational field?

Thought not. Would not give the wanted answer.

GPS satellites are not a good test since they are always in Earth's gravity field. The only real test of the idea that velocity produces a change in the elapsed time of the moving object would be to conduct measurements away from strong local gravity ie in deeper space

IMO any small discrepancies caused by moving clocks are caused by a gravitomagnetic field interaction which the spacetime concept was designed to conceal from general science

rodin
14-01-2010, 10:44 PM
Consider the fact that objects are supposed to elongate as they approach relativistic velocity, in addition to becoming superdense. Now apply this to a rotating object - say a ring. Accelerate the rotational speed to relativistic. How can a ring stretch?

Above light speed thought experiment...

Consider a perfectly rigid rod of length one light second. Apply an accelerating force to one end. How long before the other end feels the force?

Superluminal transmission

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2810

iwkya
15-01-2010, 03:23 AM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax.

The New Age movement is just Blatavsky multiplied.

The spiritual world does not exist in another 'dimension'. It exists in another field.

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Special relativity another hoax.

Gravity is a lightspeed force, and the Earth expanded when superdense hydrogen was released from the core. First to about 1.5 today's diameter when dinosaurs roamed, subsequently relaxing to today's size. Old Earth was all continents minus oceans.

Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Global warming is a hoax

All of above JMHO

Hi :p

Its easy to post and state that this and that is a hoax, if you don't claims up then its mearly speculative.
I slipped on the ice today, but it was a hoax, i really slipped on my own foot :).

Don't post opinions as if they are fact. Plus, your "opinions" are waaaaay off.

rodin
15-01-2010, 11:07 PM
Its easy to post and state that this and that is a hoax, if you don't claims up then its mearly speculative.
I slipped on the ice today, but it was a hoax, i really slipped on my own foot :).

Don't post opinions as if they are fact. Plus, your "opinions" are waaaaay off.

What does IMHO mean do you think?

Challenges welcome, have you read the thread or just the OP?

sativa
15-01-2010, 11:11 PM
i've come across that there are 9 dimensions we have access to as humans.
only 3 dimensions have been acknowledged by science.
i would think that they would rather keep us at that level of knowing. ;)
actually.....
scrap that, as 4 dimensions have been acknowledged, with quantum
physics, and all!:D

rodin
16-01-2010, 12:53 AM
i've come across that there are 9 dimensions we have access to as humans.
only 3 dimensions have been acknowledged by science.
i would think that they would rather keep us at that level of knowing. ;)
actually.....
scrap that, as 4 dimensions have been acknowledged, with quantum
physics, and all!:D

More than 3 orthogonal spatial dimensions is an absolute nonsense.

You could call time the 4th

Guve me a description of the 5th - like what it is - before we advance to 9

rikk
09-02-2010, 06:04 PM
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=45_ ... sublevel=0

Dr. Meyl lays out a reasoned explanation about the basics of how our planet and all other celestial objects are growing in size and the mechanisms that bring this about.

This is a duplicate of the link at the bottom of the quote:
http://www.achieveradio.com/archplayer. ... nology.mp3

a clip from the bottom of his webpage:

Bill's returning guest this week is Scalar Wave Researcher, Professor Dr. Konstantin Meyl.

Prof. Dr. Konstantin Meyl teaches the subjects of power electronics and alternative energy technology at the University of Applied Sciences in Furtwangen.

Being a 15-year-old pupil he already carried out the first measurements on eddy current brakes. His dissertation at the Technical University of Munich (1979), as well as his doctoral theses at the University of Stuttgart (1984) were dedicated to the three-dimensional calculation of eddy currents.

Bill first met Dr. Meyl's at Tesla Tech 2007:
http://intalek.com/Index/Projects/Tesla ... 7/Show.htm

Dr. Meyl presented a fascinating theory about the Expanding Earth Theory, which will be the subject of our discussion. Its interesting to note that the recent disaster movie, "2012" used as a premise strong neutrino emissions from the Sun causing massive Earth changes.

Its interesting to note that Nikola Tesla wrote about a similar theory in 1935 involving something Tesla called, “a primary substance”. Tesla wrote in the New York Herald Tribune: "Condensation of the primary substance is going on continuously, this being in a measure proved, for I have established by experiments which admit of no doubt that the sun and other celestial bodies steadily increase in mass and energy and ultimately must explode, reverting to the primary substance."

Link: http://www.achieveradio.com/archplayer. ... nology.mp3
Mainlink: http://www.achieveradio.com/vortex-prog ... /index.php

rodin
09-02-2010, 07:57 PM
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=45_ ... sublevel=0

Dr. Meyl lays out a reasoned explanation about the basics of how our planet and all other celestial objects are growing in size and the mechanisms that bring this about.

This is a duplicate of the link at the bottom of the quote:
http://www.achieveradio.com/archplayer. ... nology.mp3

a clip from the bottom of his webpage:

I did wonder if neutrino bombardment may have had something to do with a neutron core being activated into hydrogen - and indeed if this was why surface neutrons decay in the first place.

Some researchers measured radioactive decay was faster during the daytime

As for alternative theories for Earth etc growing - sceptical unless it involves a new understanding of the rational. I see no evidence of baryon flux thru deep space, nor a way to create baryons from pure energy except perhaps in a black hole collapsed matter furnace.

As I have argued earlier IMO spinning black holes use the gravitomagnetic aka inertial gravitic field to eject material along the spin axis.

The Earth shows evidence of a nonlinear expansion event, not steady growth. This HAS to be a phase change

tinyint
09-02-2010, 08:05 PM
Rodin, I basically agree that New Age is rooted in Blavatsky and people.
However, I think 'dimension' is just another word for what some physicians call eg 'parallel universe'.
We have a nice word in german, the 'jenseits' -- the 'after/other world' :cool:

lyricusmagna
09-02-2010, 09:38 PM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax.

How about you drop the mathematical perception of dimensions? Dimension is a wrong term to be used here. Try densities. Cosmic densities. Each demanding a different level of Consciousness. And there are 12 of these.

The New Age movement is just Blatavsky multiplied.

Can you please explain why you think this way?

Global warming is a hoax

I agree :D.

subl1minal
09-02-2010, 10:40 PM
There is no such thing as time.

rodin
23-02-2010, 11:39 PM
Here is a drawing of my unified conspiracy science theory

The cause of superluminal red shifts and why the Big Bang is wrong

The real nature of the mysterious Strong Force that binds nuclei

The reason flying saucers are the shape they are

The Gravitomagnetic field

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv9/ContrarianThinker/InertialGravityFieldofQuasar.png?t=1266967472

And here is a Quasar

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0109/3c175_vla.jpg

Lobes collect where the gravitomagnetic field balances the gravity field

And here's what happens over time - the black hole precesses and diminishes in power as it loses mass...

http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/fastfacts/graphics/milkyway.jpg

and that's how spiral galaxies are formed - above is our Milky Way

rodin
12-03-2010, 10:38 PM
I have recently entered into correspondence with a French researcher - an avionics flight engineer called Joseph Nduriri. He sent me this paper...

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12752c81f8177893&mt=application/pdf&url=https://

The salient observation he made about the perihelion of mercury is here

We notice the perihelion advance δθ is proportional to masses(masse MT of the Sun and
m small masse) , inversely proportional to the cube of the gravitation interaction speed
c3 and inversely proportional to the minimum distance r3. It is also inversely
proportional to the maximum speed Vmax.

Bold is exactly what I postulated in my theory of inertial gravity

rodin
12-03-2010, 10:43 PM
Quasar

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0109/3c175_vla.jpg

Lobes collect where the gravitomagnetic field balances the gravity field

And here's what happens over time - the black hole precesses and diminishes in power as it loses mass...

http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/fastfacts/graphics/milkyway.jpg

and that's how spiral galaxies are formed - above is our Milky Way

Now if my rather far-fetched and radical theory about the galactic core spinning IN THE PLANE of the galaxy (as opposed to orthogonal to it as would be expected by analogy to a solar system) stands any chance of being correct, one would expect some sort of accretion equatorial to the spin, ie orthogonal to the galactic plane.

Could this be it?

http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag1cann.jpg

http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/sag-deg.htm

edit

Moved to this section @ my request - seems more appropriate

rodin
18-03-2010, 10:19 AM
I have an important piece of new evidence

So-called Time Dilation is where time slows down under the influence an accelerating force - or is it also a moving vehicle?

Referencing the above post about the way I think galaxies form from Quasars

Quasars in the standard model

Quasars put out about 1,000 times the amount of energy of an entire galaxy, in a region of space 100,000 times smaller.

Problem with the Standard Model

(Stephen) Hawkins

“We find that the timescale of quasar variation does not increase with redshift as required by time dilation. Possible explanations of this result all conflict with widely held consensus in the scientific community.”

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0105073

Suggested Solution

In fact the observation is what is expected if quasars are local.

Jerry has argued that time dilation has been incorrectly interpreted and has not actually been observed in supernova. If so, then the supernova could also be local or the universe is not expanding.

In effect supporting a major foundation of this thread, and very possibly the spiral galaxy evolution I have put forwards since now Quasars and Spiral Galaxies can be of the same scale and mass.

Earlier I took some of my ideas to BAUT forum, and no-one admitted to this finding. I did not know about it at the time.

Also the current rules at BAUT state that an ATM (Against the Mainstream) thread can run for one month before it is closed. This was 2002. Thread lasted less than a week...

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/11559-time-dilation-quasars.html



Q. So how can Hawkins conclude that quasar variations do not exhibit time dilation?

A. Nobody has shown time dilation in quasars.

Q. What causes quasar variability?

A. I don't think this is very well understood.....

No fine tuning is necessary if the quasars are local. We would not expect to see time dilation in that case.


http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0310336

rodin
18-03-2010, 09:40 PM
Concise List of best Apollo Hoax Evidence from http://engforum.pravda.ru/member.php?u=36186 on the Pravda forum

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showpost.php?p=3008591&postcount=5425

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=232.msg280389#msg280389

http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/?action=view&current=Roverplantsreflector.flv

pi3141
20-03-2010, 02:09 AM
During the Apollo 11 mission a strange object accompanied the spacecraft whilst it was in space. Thinking that the object could be the S4B, a part of the rocket that had been unattached 2 days previously, they contacted Houston asking for the whereabouts of the rocket part. Buzz Aldrin: ‘Obviously, the three of us weren’t going to blurt out, ‘Hey Houston, we got something moving along side us and we don’t know what it is, can you tell us what it is? We weren’t about to do that, uhh, cos we know that those transmissions would be heard by all sorts of people and, uh, who knows what someone would have demanded that we turn back because of aliens or whatever the reason is…’ Houston, not knowing the situation reported back that the S4B was 6,000 nautical miles away from the Apollo craft. To this day, NASA have refused an official explanation for the object.

Link - http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Aww, so you mean we didn't see alien ships accompanying Apollo, we didn't photograph crystal towers and structures on the moon. The footage of ufo's taken from Apollo was actually fake NASA footage, with fake ufo's that NASA then had to debunk. That conversation with Armstrong and mission control about the 'bright lights' that mission control said 'we know about that, go the other way' was some kind of red herring. The 'dong' sound the astronauts heard when they landed proving the moon to be hollow was a fabricated story. The aliens that were 'watching us from huge ships' was made up. All those airbrushed photos are fake photos with fake anomolies that NASA then airbrushed out and denied airbrushing?

I've seen the videos, read the books and devoured just about all there is to find on faked moon landings and I still can't make my mind up!!

I want to believe we went, saw aliens and came home and Neil Armstrong is a recluse because he's not allowed to talk about it, but I can't figure out why there are the myriad anomolies present in the photo's, video's and science that we've been presented with. I can't believe that to this day the only footage we have seen was the original TV footage being recorded off a rear projection screen by low res NTSC cameras and I still can't believe NASA 'mislaid' the original footage, I can't believe the quality of some photos and yet no-one thought to take a photo of the stars and constellations. I can't believe they thought to take a car up there but nobody thought to take a telescope to view the stars, something that only hubble would do with the same clarity 20 odd years later!

Its all rather perplexing.

My guess is Armstrong and Aldrin were poster boys for NASA sent into low earth orbit or to some film studio's somewhere while unknown others actually tried to get to the moon and probably died somewhere on the way there or on the way back. Plus NASA had pre faked virtually all of the expected footage just in case anything unexpected happened. Neil Armstrong is so pissed NASA robbed him of the glory he's gone reclusive. Maybe all the astronauts now coming out saying they saw ufo's is just more disinfo to back up the case that they went to the moon.

But then again, I'll probably change my mind about it all again tomorrow!

rodin
24-03-2010, 08:22 AM
Tom Bearden explains interferometry

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Do I believe him?

rodin
24-03-2010, 09:22 AM
http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv9/ContrarianThinker/UFOvPop2-1.png?t=1269422468

rodin
24-03-2010, 09:37 AM
Tom Bearden explains interferometry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MovpYUD7fTY&feature=related

Do I believe him?

Because Scalars and Tensors cannot be explained satisfactorily I think both are hoaxes from Hoaxes R Us

Vectors, values, parameters, wave equations are all you need

I could come up with a new field - a 'Parameter' Field - 'Value Field' or even better - an 'Algorithm Field'

Be honest - would you know whether it was New or Jew Science?

Quantum Field? You don't know what you are talking about

rodin
24-03-2010, 11:06 PM
A truly remarkable experiment - so simple and yet so profound....

Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment. English version - YouTube

http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/102333-questions-new-michelson-morley-experiment.html

rodin
29-03-2010, 02:52 PM
Dimensions (part of a series - worth checking out)

04 Debunking space-time - YouTube

rodin
29-03-2010, 03:08 PM
Because Scalars and Tensors cannot be explained satisfactorily I think both are hoaxes from Hoaxes R Us

Vectors, values, parameters, wave equations are all you need

I could come up with a new field - a 'Parameter' Field - 'Value Field' or even better - an 'Algorithm Field'

Be honest - would you know whether it was New or Jew Science?

Quantum Field? You don't know what you are talking about

I am liking this guy

06 Did you ever take Math? - YouTube

rodin
29-03-2010, 06:41 PM
Excellent and essential viewing - The Big Bang never happened

Top astronomers including Fred Hoyle

The Big Bang Never Happened Part 1 - YouTube

The Big Bang Never Happened Part 2 - YouTube

The Big Bang Never Happened Part 3 - YouTube

The Big Bang Never Happened Part 4 - YouTube

The Big Bang Never Happened Part 5 - YouTube

The Big Bang Never Happened Part 6 - YouTube

The Big Bang Never Happened Part 7 - YouTube

The Big Bang Never Happened Part 8 - YouTube

The Big Bang Never Happened Part 9 - YouTube

rodin
04-04-2010, 08:54 AM
A truly remarkable experiment - so simple and yet so profound....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E

http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/102333-questions-new-michelson-morley-experiment.html

quoted to show

edit

By Frank Pearce on December 22, 2009 11:19 PM
Many have now claimed that Mr. Grusenick's experiment confirms an "aether" or gravitational gradient that affects the laser beam as the interferometer is rotated in the vertical orientation. Yet, the same effect can be induced by introducing a very small amount of strain or stress into the base of the interferometer. I have confirmed this in my recent interferometry experiments in which the fringe lines move in one direction when strain is slowly added and in the opposite direction when this strain is relieved. You will note that the noted effect in Mr. Grusenick's apparatus begins just as the heavier parts, the flat mirrors and their housings, induce the most strain. I would and will suggest to Mr. Grusenick to add counterweights to the apparatus and to record the results. I predict that the starting and ending points of the fringes "marching" across the screen will shift, thereby confirming the true cause of this result.

Sincerely,

Frank G. Pearce
Richardson, Texas

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2009/09/extended_michelsonmorley_inter.html#more

The above is an excellent suggestion

large sarge
05-04-2010, 03:30 PM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax.

The New Age movement is just Blatavsky multiplied.

The spiritual world does not exist in another 'dimension'. It exists in another field.

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Special relativity another hoax.

Gravity is a lightspeed force, and the Earth expanded when superdense hydrogen was released from the core. First to about 1.5 today's diameter when dinosaurs roamed, subsequently relaxing to today's size. Old Earth was all continents minus oceans.

Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Global warming is a hoax

All of above JMHO

Hi :p

Hi M8

be great to see you over at a new site, GIM was destroyed

http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.php

all the refugees fled here

Best,
Sarge

rodin
21-04-2010, 11:42 AM
DeBroglie Wavelengths

Wavelength = Plancks constant h/momentum p

If you explore the wavelength values for ordinary macroscopic objects like baseballs, you will find that their DeBroglie wavelengths are ridiculously small. Comparison of the power of ten for the wavelength will show what the wavelengths of ordinary objects are much smaller than a nucleus. The implication is that for ordinary objects, you will never see any evidence of their wave nature, and they can be considered to be particles for all practical purposes.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/debrog.html#c4

The hyperphysics site I highly recommend for navigation of the standard model of physics BTW

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/hph.html

Macroscopic objects have stupidly high 'quantum' wavelengths impossible for eyes to detect or instrumentation made out of atoms and molecules and electricity to detect.

Who is to say that large objects themselves cannot detect these stupidly high frequency quantum waves? I would use the analogy of the radar array...

If so we have a possible mechanism for the generation of EM radiation with frequencies beyond that which can be generated by atomic or nuclear processes - opening up the possibility of what the muddle-headed might think of as parallel universe....

mattzadak
13-07-2010, 12:34 PM
Consider the fact that objects are supposed to elongate as they approach relativistic velocity, in addition to becoming superdense. Now apply this to a rotating object - say a ring. Accelerate the rotational speed to relativistic. How can a ring stretch?

Above light speed thought experiment...

Consider a perfectly rigid rod of length one light second. Apply an accelerating force to one end. How long before the other end feels the force?

Superluminal transmission

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2810

i always wonder why when you have diagrams of the em spectrum and people are like nothing can travel ftl

umm what about uv rays? gamma waves have people ever heard of those?

mekon
16-07-2010, 12:10 AM
rodin can i just ask why you are posting your theories on david icke's forum as opposed to via peer review?

rodin
18-07-2010, 10:05 AM
rodin can i just ask why you are posting your theories on david icke's forum as opposed to via peer review?

Are you Dan Dare-ing me?

Show me a proper science site where this evidence is admissable...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73423&page=10

...and I will.

I have tested out some aspects of my ideas at BAUT FWIW and may again sometime, but open frank debate is impossible where truth is censored.

mauviene
19-07-2010, 02:11 AM
The fourth dimension is that of vibratory frequency..

As for unified field theories..they have yet to be unveiled.. but it is ancient knowledge well known that reality is in constant influx and is always subject to change..

Science itself is something that is constantly modified..it is never in completion..always subject to change..

rodin
19-07-2010, 01:20 PM
The fourth dimension is that of vibratory frequency..

As for unified field theories..they have yet to be unveiled.. but it is ancient knowledge well known that reality is in constant influx and is always subject to change..

Science itself is something that is constantly modified..it is never in completion..always subject to change..

No. Vibrations can be defined in terms of 3D space and time. No other dimension required. i know a lot about vibrations by the way

freeyourmind85
19-07-2010, 01:27 PM
The fourth dimension is that of vibratory frequency..

As for unified field theories..they have yet to be unveiled.. but it is ancient knowledge well known that reality is in constant influx and is always subject to change..

Science itself is something that is constantly modified..it is never in completion..always subject to change..

Yup, totally agree!

rodin
19-07-2010, 02:47 PM
Yup, totally agree!

Sound obeys the inverse square law - just like gravity - as the vibrations spread out in 3D space (provided it is not a vacuum)

Vibrating string - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are totally agreeing with a falsehood. I try to teach, you know, by showing not stating...

In any case this is not a thread for discussing you notions of how the world works. Respect the content and add sequiters please. I bet you have neither read not understood any of it...??? try it - from the start...

Science itself is something that is constantly modified..it is never in completion..always subject to change..

This is the only thing I agree with

ufochick
20-07-2010, 11:41 AM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax.

The New Age movement is just Blatavsky multiplied.

The spiritual world does not exist in another 'dimension'. It exists in another field.

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Special relativity another hoax.

Gravity is a lightspeed force, and the Earth expanded when superdense hydrogen was released from the core. First to about 1.5 today's diameter when dinosaurs roamed, subsequently relaxing to today's size. Old Earth was all continents minus oceans.

Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Global warming is a hoax

All of above JMHO

Hi :p

Well I KNOW this, entities from other dimensions/fields whatever can physically effect us where we are physically.

himitsunomiko
20-07-2010, 06:15 PM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax.

The New Age movement is just Blatavsky multiplied.

The spiritual world does not exist in another 'dimension'. It exists in another field.

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Special relativity another hoax.

Gravity is a lightspeed force, and the Earth expanded when superdense hydrogen was released from the core. First to about 1.5 today's diameter when dinosaurs roamed, subsequently relaxing to today's size. Old Earth was all continents minus oceans.

Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Global warming is a hoax

All of above JMHO

Hi :p

There are infinite dimensions as far as I beleive. The human mind has the capability to create any scenario, and until those begin to coincide and we see each other knowingly, then the logical explanation is that they are each seperate.

rodin
21-07-2010, 11:38 AM
Well I KNOW this, entities from other dimensions/fields whatever can physically effect us where we are physically.

They are not from other dimensions

If anything they are from subatomic intelligence existing in a subatomic ether - it is easy to imagine another order of material existence similar to that of our atomic/molecular scale - perhaps with its own periodic table of sub-subatomic particles. We could not interact with this domain directly since we have not the detecting equipment - much as our ears cannot hear a dog whistle - this frequency domain would appear to offer no resistance to atomic matter. It does however offer a medium for light and other high frequency electromagnetic waves and a possible scientific basis for the supernatural.

Ghosts chill the air - right?

Tesla discovered that by using a low frequency beam-directed pulse, he could cause, at the quarter wavelength, the eruption of a large electromagnetic pulse which could, by carrying a much higher exciting wave, excite the atmospheric gases in a region, to explosively expand them, followed by a tremendous implosion and the absorption of a great amount of heat in the area, causing immediate freezing.

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=occult+ether+preface+freezing&d=4660280148362056&mkt=en-GB&setlang=en-GB&w=8e68d15f,8f3895d0

citation needed - rodin

rodin
21-07-2010, 11:39 AM
There are infinite dimensions as far as I beleive. The human mind has the capability to create any scenario, and until those begin to coincide and we see each other knowingly, then the logical explanation is that they are each seperate.

You can believe as far as you like

Belief is the enemy of truth

himitsunomiko
21-07-2010, 07:55 PM
You can believe as far as you like

Belief is the enemy of truth

until the truth is proven then my own personal proof will do.

rodin
22-07-2010, 08:57 PM
until the truth is proven then my own personal proof will do.

you then are not a seeker but a waiter

rodin
22-07-2010, 08:59 PM
I am liking this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFu5BlJClYI&feature=related

quoted to show - otherwise the quoted post reads self-congratulatory

rodin
22-07-2010, 09:00 PM
Tom Bearden explains interferometry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MovpYUD7fTY&feature=related

Do I believe him?

come on forum techs...

rodin
22-07-2010, 09:00 PM
Excellent and essential viewing - The Big Bang never happened

Top astronomers including Fred Hoyle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deMPlC1rc7U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kePDAAEZ_s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf49V9QYU-k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILIRSsGyXKM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0KBzipGK4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L01PU3r6fmA&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_8webbsiB4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH6XAacQuRs&feature=related

this bug is getting...

rodin
22-07-2010, 09:02 PM
Dimensions (part of a series - worth checking out)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q9IePuHut4

...out of hand.

himitsunomiko
23-07-2010, 05:16 PM
you then are not a seeker but a waiter

No, I dont wait tables for a living :P

See, the way I reason it, is that thoughts are infinite, so thus dimensions are infinite too as you can think it, it exists.

rodin
23-07-2010, 11:26 PM
Excellent and essential viewing - The Big Bang never happened

Top astronomers including Fred Hoyle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deMPlC1rc7U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kePDAAEZ_s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf49V9QYU-k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILIRSsGyXKM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0KBzipGK4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L01PU3r6fmA&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_8webbsiB4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH6XAacQuRs&feature=related

there are videos

himitsunomiko
24-07-2010, 12:13 AM
there are videos

yes there are LOL

torch_bearer
09-08-2010, 04:39 AM
Just abit of food for thought
1st dimension : purely position of an exact fixed point,
because this dimension exists as a fixed point it has no comprehension of nor can it mesure the 2nd dimension

2nd dimension : purely a planar dimension, capable of measuring distances on the 2 dimesional plane and giving planar coordinates of 1ts dimensional points on the same plane.

3rd dimension ; adds the z axis, inthis dimension objecst can exist, as the third dimension can exist in position, planar coordinates and depth, but as we have seen earlier lower dimensions are in capable of measuring higher dimensions, ergo can not be aware truly of their true existence appart from the effect they have on them.

4th dimension? or as you prefer field is a movement of previous dimensions through existence, it allows these other dimensions to change, how ever as our bodies and brains are third dimensional we can never truly measure time as it is a dimension above ours, if time speeds up or slows down, 3 dimensional clocks which we use would speed up or slow down also.

But to play the advocate, peoples consciousness over the years seem to notice that time is speeding up, years seem to pass quiker as do the months and seasons

My hypothesis then is that consciesnous could possibly be a fifth dimension, not because of new agey nut jobs, but because of a logical conclusion.

Feedback is welcome

lyricusmagna
09-08-2010, 04:53 AM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax.

There are many more dimensions. Math and physics prove it.

Gravity is a lightspeed force,

Its a product of Sun's atypical radiation surge situated between the infra-red and radar spectrum.

and the Earth expanded when superdense hydrogen was released from the core. First to about 1.5 today's diameter when dinosaurs roamed, subsequently relaxing to today's size. Old Earth was all continents minus oceans.

Actually, the Earth is still expanding mate.

Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Its going to be unlimited if we know how to use it well. One hint would be cyclical usage. That way we might never run out of oil.

Global warming is a hoax

Agreed here.

torch_bearer
09-08-2010, 09:34 AM
what are the consequencences of a gardening green house?

and then think..... what are the consequences of increasin co2 in the atmosphere?

1 is that co2 disolves into water to form an acid, hence sea acidity levels rise

2 if you can't figure this one out think of a planet with a dense atmosphere

and if you say my brain..... i know you are, but i have no idea what I am!

rodin
09-08-2010, 12:34 PM
There are many more dimensions. Math and physics prove it.

maths invents higher dimensions that are abstractions. cite where Physics has ever 'proved' it. Relativity is a Jewish hoax

Its a product of Sun's atypical radiation surge situated between the infra-red and radar spectrum.

Gravity is not Sun-specific. the same law (approx) applies between all matter and it is a MASS dependent force. IMO it is also inertial movement dependent for very close proximities and high velocities.

Actually, the Earth is still expanding mate.

I am not so sure. Some subduction (as in the Pacific floor sliding under the North American continent) is now taking place, possibly indicating shrinkage from a larger diameter. Tidal Rhythmite evidence seems to suggest this also, as dos the existence of dinosaurs and giantism. Read the thread for more.

Its going to be unlimited if we know how to use it well. One hint would be cyclical usage. That way we might never run out of oil.

We never will anyway. but if we burn more and more the oceans could lower pH so it would be a good idea to recycle. I like wood burning stoves for this reason yet I know the global warming police will say that i cannot do it because it is selfish. After all already some places rainwater is taxed

torch_bearer
10-08-2010, 01:22 AM
after viewing the first videos i found some flaws,

1. quasars near galaxys were less intense
2. quasars not near galaxys were more intense

if this is so it is possible that quasars do not come from galaxies, but the other way around

and if this is true it opens us up to the possibility that, maybe in the begining the universe was created by a super quasar, spitting out smaller ones which created galaxies.

of course we still come back to the only real fact of the enigma, if we find out what caused one thing, what then caused that? supposedly something scientist will allways ignore

torch_bearer
15-08-2010, 12:58 AM
LOL somebody's anti-semetic

rodin
19-08-2010, 10:31 PM
LOL somebody's anti-semetic

educate UR self

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130876

rodin
19-08-2010, 10:32 PM
after viewing the first videos i found some flaws,

1. quasars near galaxys were less intense
2. quasars not near galaxys were more intense

if this is so it is possible that quasars do not come from galaxies, but the other way around

and if this is true it opens us up to the possibility that, maybe in the begining the universe was created by a super quasar, spitting out smaller ones which created galaxies.

of course we still come back to the only real fact of the enigma, if we find out what caused one thing, what then caused that? supposedly something scientist will allways ignore

Interesting

That's what I argue in this thread

jhon
22-08-2010, 11:29 PM
l did not understand

What is written here?

rodin
25-08-2010, 09:12 AM
l did not understand

What is written here?

Where? The entire thread? How much have you read of it?

david6suns
29-08-2010, 02:12 PM
To day The Holy Trilogy will try and put defined dimentions into a organised catalogue.Firstly Their is a Well Defined Dimention,The 3rd Density,In other word's Space /Time are coordinated into Three catagories.#1 Mass#2 order and#3 Time/Space is the place where Densitys Collide.

rodin
30-08-2010, 10:52 AM
To day The Holy Trilogy will try and put defined dimentions into a organised catalogue.Firstly Their is a Well Defined Dimention,The 3rd Density,In other word's Space /Time are coordinated into Three catagories.#1 Mass#2 order and#3 Time/Space is the place where Densitys Collide.

Look pal your shite is not welcome on this serious alternative science thread. Got your own ideas? Start your own thread.

meanwhile anyone dropping by I urge you to read

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059194978&postcount=42

lyricusmagna
30-08-2010, 10:55 AM
Look pal your shite is not welcome on this serious alternative science thread. Got your own ideas? Start your own thread.

meanwhile anyone dropping by I urge you to read

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059194978&postcount=42

He can have a say, you can't chase him off like that just because you don't like what he says.

rodin
30-08-2010, 12:06 PM
He can have a say, you can't chase him off like that just because you don't like what he says.

This is my thread about alternative science. He can come and debate any issues I raise. If he wants to raise totally different issues another thread would be appropriate.

How come you were so quick to defend him? I had only just posted in this obscure backwater of DIF. Normally I get a response every week not virtually instantaneously.

lyricusmagna
30-08-2010, 07:27 PM
This is my thread about alternative science. He can come and debate any issues I raise. If he wants to raise totally different issues another thread would be appropriate.

How come you were so quick to defend him? I had only just posted in this obscure backwater of DIF. Normally I get a response every week not virtually instantaneously.

Sorry. If he went off topic I would understand. But he mentioned densities which has to with these dimensions you mentioned. Its his opinion.

You and I on the other hand, without a few minor things, agree on the points you made in your OP here. So I don't see why I should debate the issues. Unless you want to? :rolleyes:

loveoverhate
30-08-2010, 07:52 PM
Dimensions, densities, frequencies, bandwidths, planes, spheres, alternate realities, etc. Who cares how many there are. This is basically a semantic debate.

rodin
09-09-2010, 04:06 PM
Stephen the motorneuron is Hawking his latest book

He says there are 10 to the power 50 universes

What a pile of crap

rodin
09-09-2010, 04:08 PM
Sorry. If he went off topic I would understand. But he mentioned densities which has to with these dimensions you mentioned. Its his opinion.

You and I on the other hand, without a few minor things, agree on the points you made in your OP here. So I don't see why I should debate the issues. Unless you want to? :rolleyes:

Here is what he wrote

To day The Holy Trilogy will try and put defined dimentions into a organised catalogue.Firstly Their is a Well Defined Dimention,The 3rd Density,In other word's Space /Time are coordinated into Three catagories.#1 Mass#2 order and#3 Time/Space is the place where Densitys Collide.

Gobshite

truegroup
11-09-2010, 11:34 PM
Stephen the motorneuron is Hawking his latest book

He says there are 10 to the power 50 universes

What a pile of crap

Speculation at best. I would say infinite is the more likely number, since space and time and everything we perceive is infinite.

Anyway, I don't particularly want to debunk this ,so quoting you back in this thread for your to elaborate:

Microwave background is blotchy not totally even but then so is the Universe. The background temp 3K (3 above absolute zero) of deep space dust/atoms/molecules seems perfectly reasonable for an infinite universe whose long-term steady state is a cycle of fusion and fission.

'They' say entropy is always increasing and that's why the universe is on a one-way journey to homogeneity. I will dispute that properly if I live long enough and don't go gaga. However my thinking is along the lines of memes - when a billion people learn something the universe becomes MORE ordered. Where is the increase in entropy there?

Since the 'blotchy' CMB is isotropic to one part in a thousand, that argument is not entirely accurate.

How do actually account for the CMB?

theoriginalmurph
12-09-2010, 04:05 AM
To day The Holy Trilogy will try and put defined dimentions into a organised catalogue.Firstly Their is a Well Defined Dimention,The 3rd Density,In other word's Space /Time are coordinated into Three catagories.#1 Mass#2 order and#3 Time/Space is the place where Densitys Collide.

I don't understand what you are saying, could you please elaborate?

theoriginalmurph
12-09-2010, 04:13 AM
I see space as an energy, a form of light, or a "field" as Rabbi Rodin would say, and not as an emptiness or a place where objects exist. Actually, without endorsing Luciferhorus's politics or religion, his explanation of what light actually happens to be is very insightful:

The Unified Theory. The Secrets of Light.

...

The Holographic model of the universe suggested by proponents of a holographic interpretation of Physics seems to suggest that we exist in a universe of Light from a singular Light source.

The “photon” is very mysterious. She springs to life from what seems to be “nowhere” and can be amplified. A prevailing theory is that the origin of the photon is from another dimension, which is not accessible to the world of the 5 senses.

...

Light seems to obey the universal law of a Grand Tyrant of Physics.

We are essentially creatures of Light. One Light. One Universal Light which fills our multidimensional cosmos.

There are of course the materialists and “energy-ists” to consider.

But they are simply wrong and have very complicated theorem. Matter cannot be made of matter, and it is anyway transformable into Energy; thus making materialism impossible. And if Mass can become Energy and Energy can become Mass, this becomes a cycle of infinite causal regression, just like the question of god's great, great (ad infinitum) grandmother.

...

There are many mansions; many universes of Light, all from One singular Light source.

...

EDIT: Here is a diagram of what I mean (pardon my crude drawing):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ygeTyG0dCGY/TGBfoXexk7I/AAAAAAAAAd4/s0P9mFjyhBw/s400/DejaVuSerif.JPG

rodin
12-09-2010, 06:31 PM
Speculation at best. I would say infinite is the more likely number, since space and time and everything we perceive is infinite.

Anyway, I don't particularly want to debunk this ,so quoting you back in this thread for your to elaborate:



Since the 'blotchy' CMB is isotropic to one part in a thousand, that argument is not entirely accurate.

How do actually account for the CMB?

Like I said it is simply radiation-in-passing. Emitted but not yet absorbed. The equilibrium value.

rodin
12-09-2010, 06:41 PM
I see space as an energy, a form of light, or a "field" as Rabbi Rodin would say, and not as an emptiness or a place where objects exist. Actually, without endorsing Luciferhorus's politics or religion, his explanation of what light actually happens to be is very insightful:



EDIT: Here is a diagram of what I mean (pardon my crude drawing):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ygeTyG0dCGY/TGBfoXexk7I/AAAAAAAAAd4/s0P9mFjyhBw/s400/DejaVuSerif.JPG

The “photon” is very mysterious. She springs to life from what seems to be “nowhere” and can be amplified. A prevailing theory is that the origin of the photon is from another dimension, which is not accessible to the world of the 5 senses.

Because the Hidden Hand ie Organised Jewry have corrupted everything so as to thwart God's plan we have to be very careful when assessing any concept or theory of the 20th C and beyond. In particular this talk of 'other dimensions' as though height length and breadth were not enough.

Within the known universe our 5 senses perceive a limited amount. We cannot hear a dog whistle.

Above gamma rays what happens? Nothing? Because we cannot detect anything beyond?

Imagine we can see Duplo bricks but not Lego. How could we be made to see Lego?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/2_duplo_lego_bricks.jpg/600px-2_duplo_lego_bricks.jpg

Perhaps by making an array of them same size as a Duplo brick. Hence an intelligence that can manipulate the Lego could communicate with the intelligence that manipulates Duplo - but - and this has profound implications for spirituality, religions etc - NOT VICE VERSE

truegroup
12-09-2010, 08:03 PM
Like I said it is simply radiation-in-passing. Emitted but not yet absorbed. The equilibrium value.

Conveniently matching the exact doppler effect frequency and time frame of 13.7 billion years of expansion?

chrisadam2
13-09-2010, 08:04 AM
the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it.

___________________________________________

Want to get-on Google's first page and loads of traffic to our website? Hire a SEO Specialist from Ocean Groups seo specialist (http://oceangroups.org/)

theoriginalmurph
13-09-2010, 10:56 AM
the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it.

But, two points are needed to draw a line.

rodin
13-09-2010, 01:49 PM
Conveniently matching the exact doppler effect frequency and time frame of 13.7 billion years of expansion?

Show your working as to how you arrive at that conclusion

rodin
13-09-2010, 01:54 PM
But, two points are needed to draw a line.


A point has zero dimensions

a line is an extruded point = 1 dimension

a plane is an extruded line = 2 dimensions

a solid is an extruded plane = 3 dimensions

the 4th dimension would be created by extruding solid matter. Since it can't do this in space we sometimes say TIME is the 4th dimension.

A 5th dimension would have to be an extrusion of the entire Universe for as long as it exists.

And many universes? What a crock

truegroup
13-09-2010, 02:51 PM
Show your working as to how you arrive at that conclusion

You know as well as I do that my working is based on scientific concensus. If you ask by way of probing my knowledge level, it is not sufficient to argue this.

I want you to tell me why you think what you do, and all these other scientists are somehow COMPLETELY wrong.

But to summarise: The temperature at 400,000 years would be bright orange 3000k. Doppler effect stretch of 1million times alters the wavelength to 1mm putting the first visible part of a big bang into the microwave frequency range.

The CMB was predicted in advance of being found, and the theoretical thermal spectrum that was calculated on it matched up with the data from the COBE satellite.

The TTC Cosmology lectures are pretty good - and that is where I get my interest in this.

rodin
14-09-2010, 01:08 AM
You know as well as I do that my working is based on scientific concensus. If you ask by way of probing my knowledge level, it is not sufficient to argue this.

I want you to tell me why you think what you do, and all these other scientists are somehow COMPLETELY wrong.

But to summarise: The temperature at 400,000 years would be bright orange 3000k. Doppler effect stretch of 1million times alters the wavelength to 1mm putting the first visible part of a big bang into the microwave frequency range.

The CMB was predicted in advance of being found, and the theoretical thermal spectrum that was calculated on it matched up with the data from the COBE satellite.

The TTC Cosmology lectures are pretty good - and that is where I get my interest in this.

CMB radiation is on the largest scale of the following form...

http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/cmbr.gif

...which matches the spectrum expected for black body radiation

http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s5.htm

When Googling steady state theory

In cosmology, the Steady State theory (also known as the Infinite Universe theory or continuous creation) is a model developed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi and others as an alternative to the Big Bang theory (known, usually, as the standard cosmological model). In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands, so that the perfect cosmological principle is adhered to.


Theoretical calculations showed that a static universe was impossible under general relativity, and observations by Edwin Hubble had shown that the universe was expanding.

Steady State theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not considered at all is that relativity is a hoax since time does NOT slow down at 'speed', redshifts are NOT cosmological, and the universe is infinite not expanding. Under these conditions isotropic black body radiation would be homogeneous since the universe has been around forever and the radiation bouncing around will have evened out.

The Bing bangers have no answer for this

Astronomers have stumbled upon a tremendous hole in the universe. That’s got them scratching their heads about what’s just not there. The cosmic blank spot has no stray stars, no galaxies, no sucking black holes, not even mysterious dark matter. It is 1 billion light years across of nothing. That’s an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles of emptiness, a University of Minnesota team announced Thursday.

Astronomers have known for many years that there are patches in the universe where nobody’s home. In fact, one such place is practically a neighbor, a mere 2 million light years away. But what the Minnesota team discovered, using two different types of astronomical observations, is a void that’s far bigger than scientists ever imagined.

“This is 1,000 times the volume of what we sort of expected to see in terms of a typical void,” said Minnesota astronomy professor Lawrence Rudnick, author of the paper that will be published in Astrophysical Journal. “It’s not clear that we have the right word yet ... This is too much of a surprise.”

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewthread/5080/

View in full screen - I will discuss one of the images later

The Big Bang Is A Hoax - YouTube

j35p3r4d0
14-09-2010, 11:38 AM
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax.

The New Age movement is just Blatavsky multiplied.

The spiritual world does not exist in another 'dimension'. It exists in another field.

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Special relativity another hoax.

Gravity is a lightspeed force, and the Earth expanded when superdense hydrogen was released from the core. First to about 1.5 today's diameter when dinosaurs roamed, subsequently relaxing to today's size. Old Earth was all continents minus oceans.

Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Global warming is a hoax

All of above JMHO




there are 26 dimensions, halved, 13 reconciled. Time is the action occurring within the three spatial dimensions, it's not outside physical space, it's just not dependent on physical space to transpose.

anything less thoroughly thought out is worse than a hoax; and is bullshit.

the new age movement is the call to accept the higher interpositioned causal variations cascading through the archetypal field in their more total applications, coupled with science and physical liberation through realization of transience in physical being.

not cold war paranoia.

the 'other field(s)' comprising what you call spiritual reality exist within the spiritual, physical and mental subdivisions of perceptual reality, which exist within infinite variations of the overall norm, a hyper-spatial multiversal balance of scalar fields, accessible to consciousness, and mathematical integration. they are within and around all things, not in a separate field.

your field is what changes, not the logic, or the spirit, or the idea



I would drop the oil malarkey, if i were you. It's not clean or efficient.

truegroup
14-09-2010, 01:17 PM
Not considered at all is that relativity is a hoax since time does NOT slow down at 'speed'
Atomic clock experiments prove it does though.

redshifts are NOT cosmological
Please elaborate as I don't understand. Doppler effects are visible all over the universe.

and the universe is infinite not expanding.

Infinite -it must be. It's a massive concept to get the head around though. Inevitably there would be areas of nothingness? Big bang says they would be where the universe hasn't expanded into yet, I would suppose?

Under these conditions isotropic black body radiation would be homogeneous since the universe has been around forever and the radiation bouncing around will have evened out.

It doesn't account for the temperature variances (tiny though they may be) - so not strictly homogeneous.


Very interesting video, are you suggesting the world's scientist are also hoaxing the world? Or just misguided?

rodin
14-09-2010, 04:10 PM
there are 26 dimensions, halved, 13 reconciled. Time is the action occurring within the three spatial dimensions, it's not outside physical space, it's just not dependent on physical space to transpose.

anything less thoroughly thought out is worse than a hoax; and is bullshit.

the new age movement is the call to accept the higher interpositioned causal variations cascading through the archetypal field in their more total applications, coupled with science and physical liberation through realization of transience in physical being.

not cold war paranoia.

the 'other field(s)' comprising what you call spiritual reality exist within the spiritual, physical and mental subdivisions of perceptual reality, which exist within infinite variations of the overall norm, a hyper-spatial multiversal balance of scalar fields, accessible to consciousness, and mathematical integration. they are within and around all things, not in a separate field.

your field is what changes, not the logic, or the spirit, or the idea

I would drop the oil malarkey, if i were you. It's not clean or efficient.

What is this New Age bullshit doing on my thread?

The bold is particularly fine example of mauve and turquoise tinted gobbledegook

rodin
14-09-2010, 04:19 PM
Atomic clock experiments prove it does though.

No

Atomic clocks prove that energy levels are slightly different in electronic orbits under different gravitational or acceleration conditions. Same as would happen if you took a pendulum clock into space (it would stop) only not as drastic.

You could say time stands still in zero gravity coz pendulum clocks stop. Makes as much logical sense - ie none

Please elaborate as I don't understand. Doppler effects are visible all over the universe.

Yes where real motion is observed but there are massive red shifts many times the speed of light being 'measured'. But most telling are the binary systems where one side has a massively different z from the other

The dominant cause of redshift is something else - I proposed inertial gravity field if you read back in the thread

Infinite -it must be. It's a massive concept to get the head around though. Inevitably there would be areas of nothingness? Big bang says they would be where the universe hasn't expanded into yet, I would suppose?

infinite leads us to God. Makes more sense than some edge to an expanding universe. Before they thought there was and edge to the Earth...

It doesn't account for the temperature variances (tiny though they may be) - so not strictly homogeneous.


Yes it does. Any infinitely old universe will clump due to gravitational accretion. Plus there are ways to blow massive objects back into space as plasma. Its a beautiful recycling system

Very interesting video, are you suggesting the world's scientist are also hoaxing the world? Or just misguided?

Both, mostly the latter probably

j35p3r4d0
24-09-2010, 06:24 AM
What is this New Age bullshit doing on my thread?

Bringing a sense of post-rational spiritual freedom to your harshly differentiating self identity?

Definition to determinism, identity to integrity, and communicability to logical ability?

Do the colourwheel-hyperphasic-expandotastic!!!

ps: sounding smart was better fun than being overly possessive in task of logical acuity; this is why scientists don't pilot, unless they're the super-cool alternate superhero version.

pps: are you marko rodin?

rodin
25-09-2010, 11:25 AM
Bringing a sense of post-rational spiritual freedom to your harshly differentiating self identity?

Definition to determinism, identity to integrity, and communicability to logical ability?

Do the colourwheel-hyperphasic-expandotastic!!!

ps: sounding smart was better fun than being overly possessive in task of logical acuity; this is why scientists don't pilot, unless they're the super-cool alternate superhero version.

pps: are you marko rodin?

Does this sound remotely like me?

Marko studied all the world's great religions. He decided to take The Most Great Name of Bahaullah (prophet of the Bahai Faith) which is Abha and convert it into numbers. He did this in an effort to discover the true precise mystical intonation of The Most Great Name of God. Since the Bahai sacred scripture was originally written in Persian and Arabic, Marko used the Abjad numerical notation system for this letter to number translation. This was a sacred system of allocating a unique numerical value to each letter of the 27 letters of the alphabet so that secret quantum mechanic physics could be encoded into words. What Marko discovered was that (A=1, b=2, h=5, a=1) = 9. The fact that The Most Great Name of God equaled 9 seemed very important to him as everything he had read in both the Bahai scriptures and other religious text spoke of nine being the omni-potent number. So next he drew out a circle with nine on top and 1 through 8 going around the circle clockwise. Then he discovered a very intriguing number system within this circle. Marko knew he had stumbled upon something very profound. This circle with its hidden number sequence was the "Symbol of Enlightenment." This is the MATHEMATICAL FINGER PRINT OF GOD.

http://www.markorodin.com/content/view/7/26/

j35p3r4d0
26-09-2010, 02:06 PM
No, considering i have no context to match between a username, avatar, and somewhat correct aural diagnosis. Heck, you can have it. Green as the grinch.

No i will not be stealing Christmas, but if it was you with the toroid thing, i dig your numbers. Mechanistic hyperverse for the win.

As for the fingerprint, sounds like you went to more effort than you needed, too, and it sucks you haven't gotten your pay, buddy.

Well done on the whole public education thing though; Invaluable. Respect where it's due.

rodin
27-09-2010, 10:55 AM
No, considering i have no context to match between a username, avatar, and somewhat correct aural diagnosis. Heck, you can have it. Green as the grinch.

No i will not be stealing Christmas, but if it was you with the toroid thing, i dig your numbers. Mechanistic hyperverse for the win.

As for the fingerprint, sounds like you went to more effort than you needed, too, and it sucks you haven't gotten your pay, buddy.

Well done on the whole public education thing though; Invaluable. Respect where it's due.

Have you read thru this thread?

rodin
27-09-2010, 11:18 PM
Techs - there are maybe 20 vids not showing on this thread. Very frustrating - plus even after I quoted to show

j35p3r4d0
01-10-2010, 07:34 AM
Dimensions
There are only three.

Yeah, I am overly gullible, and the above proves my ignorance.

You would probably be cooler if you were actually Marko Rodin.

Anticlimax much.

rodin
01-10-2010, 09:04 AM
Yeah, I am overly gullible, and the above proves my ignorance.

You would probably be cooler if you were actually Marko Rodin.

Anticlimax much.

Noun before verb placing Star Wars is so

j35p3r4d0
04-10-2010, 01:09 PM
Omit brandishing verbally predictable strategies when ignoring Star-trek.

Ding-hole wants maths justification of e-peener, aka: You're a weener.

I will Spock you, with 4X strength, ftw


this isn't inspirational enough to give a fuck, Relevant amusingly occupational reverso-quips aside.

rodin
04-10-2010, 03:11 PM
Omit brandishing verbally predictable strategies when ignoring Star-trek.

Ding-hole wants maths justification of e-peener, aka: You're a weener.

I will Spock you, with 4X strength, ftw


this isn't inspirational enough to give a fuck, Relevant amusingly occupational reverso-quips aside.

Trek and Roddenberry both came to prominence in the mid-1960s, a decade where the rules--social, philosophical, and religious--were being rewritten. When Star Trek started, it was popularly labeled as an escapist fantasy, though it quickly developed a cult following. Roddenberry and its stars molded the show, in both subtle and explicit ways, with their beliefs.

Leonard Nimoy, the actor who played Spock, hailed from a religious Jewish background. His parents, first-generation immigrants from Ukraine, moved to Boston and continued following their Orthodox traditions. Nimoy based several aspects of his character on his Jewish upbringing. Most notably is the Vulcan finger-salute, which Nimoy adapted from the blessing of the High Priests or kohanim. In the second volume of his memoirs, I Am Spock, Nimoy recalls when he first discovered the gesture:

"The special moment when the Kohanim blessed the assembly moved me deeply, for it possessed a great sense of magic and theatricality... I had heard that this indwelling Spirit of God was too powerful, too beautiful, too awesome for any mortal to look upon and survive, and so I obediently covered my face with my hands. But of course, I had to peek."

William Shatner, who portrayed Kirk, was also the child of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. He grew up as a Conservative Jew, going to Hebrew School, and attending Jewish summer camps, although he told the New York Jewish Week in a 2008 interview: "Leonard was much richer in that regard than I was."

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/hot_topics/ht/Star_Trek.shtml

truegroup
04-10-2010, 09:05 PM
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/hot_topics/ht/Star_Trek.shtml

Going off topic in your own thread? How quaint.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2567/jeanlucx.jpg

rodin
04-10-2010, 09:16 PM
Going off topic in your own thread? How quaint.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2567/jeanlucx.jpg

Sometimes you have to work with the material you are given

Have you looked at the barred galaxy problem yet?

truegroup
05-10-2010, 09:54 PM
Sometimes you have to work with the material you are given

Have you looked at the barred galaxy problem yet?

No, refresh my memory.

Looking at it from interested neutrality btw. Not arguing about it.

rodin
06-10-2010, 09:10 AM
No, refresh my memory.

Looking at it from interested neutrality btw. Not arguing about it.

Spiral galaxies, barred galaxies, quasars - all have 2 arms

Why?

Is there a connection? I think so.

How else can we form this shape unless the 2 arms are related to the poles of an object spinning @ the centre? They are diametrically opposed, on the gross scale, whatever the fine structure says.

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/n1300biess.jpg

I propose a theory that the spiral formed as material was being ejected from the poles of the mass at the centre, with the spiral forming due to precession of the axis. Furthermore as the centre lost mass, the distance material was ejected decreased.

This theory replaces relativity which is a hoax

truegroup
06-10-2010, 12:54 PM
Spiral galaxies, barred galaxies, quasars - all have 2 arms

Why?

Is there a connection? I think so.

How else can we form this shape unless the 2 arms are related to the poles of an object spinning @ the centre? They are diametrically opposed, on the gross scale, whatever the fine structure says.

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/n1300biess.jpg

I propose a theory that the spiral formed as material was being ejected from the poles of the mass at the centre, with the spiral forming due to precession of the axis. Furthermore as the centre lost mass, the distance material was ejected decreased.

This theory replaces relativity which is a hoax

Spiral galaxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical theory of Lin and Shu
The first acceptable theory for the spiral structure was devised by C. C. Lin and Frank Shu in 1964.

They suggested that the spiral arms were manifestations of spiral density waves.
They assumed that the stars travel in slightly elliptical orbits and that the orientations of their orbits is correlated i.e. the ellipses vary in their orientation (one to another) in a smooth way with increasing distance from the galactic centre. This is illustrated in the diagram. It is clear that the elliptical orbits come close together in certain areas to give the effect of arms. Stars therefore do not remain forever in the position that we now see them in, but pass through the arms as they travel in their orbits.

Star formation caused by density waves
The following hypotheses exist for star formation caused by density waves:

As gas clouds move into the density wave, the local mass density increases. Since the criteria for cloud collapse (the Jeans instability) depends on density, a higher density makes it more likely for clouds to collapse and form stars.
As the compression wave goes through, it triggers star formation on the leading edge of the spiral arms.
As clouds get swept up by the spiral arms, they collide with one another and drive shock waves through the gas, which in turn causes the gas to collapse and form stars.

Barred spiral galaxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What about the ones that are not barred?

rodin
06-10-2010, 01:29 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy

Historical theory of Lin and Shu
The first acceptable theory for the spiral structure was devised by C. C. Lin and Frank Shu in 1964.

They suggested that the spiral arms were manifestations of spiral density waves.
They assumed that the stars travel in slightly elliptical orbits and that the orientations of their orbits is correlated i.e. the ellipses vary in their orientation (one to another) in a smooth way with increasing distance from the galactic centre. This is illustrated in the diagram. It is clear that the elliptical orbits come close together in certain areas to give the effect of arms. Stars therefore do not remain forever in the position that we now see them in, but pass through the arms as they travel in their orbits.

Star formation caused by density waves
The following hypotheses exist for star formation caused by density waves:

As gas clouds move into the density wave, the local mass density increases. Since the criteria for cloud collapse (the Jeans instability) depends on density, a higher density makes it more likely for clouds to collapse and form stars.
As the compression wave goes through, it triggers star formation on the leading edge of the spiral arms.
As clouds get swept up by the spiral arms, they collide with one another and drive shock waves through the gas, which in turn causes the gas to collapse and form...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barred_spiral_galaxy
What about the ones that are not barred?

Well they had to come up with something

But then what about this. Look @ the ring around the equator core. It is orthogonal to the galactic plane

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv9/ContrarianThinker/GalaxyGravity.png?t=1286369836

rodin
06-10-2010, 01:35 PM
Here is an unbarred galaxy

http://www.galacticimages.com/catalog/popup_image.php?pID=52

still 2 arms

always 2 arms until and if the galaxy matures into a more complex shape - but even then you can trace the C2 symmetry in every spiral galaxy

This is the Whirlpool

truegroup
06-10-2010, 02:07 PM
Well they had to come up with something

But then what about this. Look @ the ring around the equator core. It is orthogonal to the galactic plane

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv9/ContrarianThinker/GalaxyGravity.png?t=1286369836

Doesn't the black hole at the centre have that very effect? It could also be an optical illusion. The light has come along way.

rodin
07-10-2010, 08:03 AM
Einstein's theory of relativity requires that gravity be a lightspeed force

Newton said it was instantaneous action at a distance

An attempt was made to prove Einstein correct by measuring the deflections of light from a distant Quasar as it passed behind Jupiter.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3232-first-speed-of-gravity-measurement-revealed.html

This got big coverage in the scientific press as proving lightspeed gravity.

The Speed of Gravity: Einstein Was Right!

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php

Not so well covered was the rebuttal just a week later

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gravity_speed_030116.html

Here a very cogent argument is put forward for gravity indeed being an instantaneous force

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

The above article is number 2 on a wiki search for speed of gravity

Of course number one is the Wiki article itself

It was not until the 19th century that an anomaly in astronomical observations which could not be reconciled with the Newtonian gravitational model of instantaneous action was noted: the French astronomer Leverier determined in 1847 that the elliptical orbit of Mercury precesses at a significantly different rate than is predicted by Newtonian theory.

The above has been shown to have other possible causes - I suggest the inverse cube gravitomagnetic field - since Mercury is closest to the Sun it has most chance of being measurably affected by this out of all the planets.

It is important to understand that none of the participants in this controversy are claiming that general relativity is "wrong". Rather, the debate concerns whether or not Kopeikin and Fomalont have really provided yet another verification of one of its fundamental predictions

What Wiki us saying here is if you get your paycheck from our tribe via academic funding (see what the Protocols have to say about control of education) don't dare attack Einstein our man.

Speed of gravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Einstein is part of the massive scientific fraud and is at least as sacrosanct as the Holocaust.

rodin
07-10-2010, 08:05 AM
Doesn't the black hole at the centre have that very effect? It could also be an optical illusion. The light has come along way.

If all the Hubble could do was produce optical illusions why bother with it?

Yes the light has come a long way. But in a straight line.

truegroup
07-10-2010, 10:26 AM
If all the Hubble could do was produce optical illusions why bother with it?
I didn't say all images are optical illusions.

Yes the light has come a long way. But in a straight line.

Straight line, you sure about that? Hubble captures what is in front of it, the raised nature of the outside could well be an optical illusion. I didn't see you deny the possibility. Anyway, we are getting into debate territory.

Elaborate on your theory about E=MC^2 being flawed. Which part of the maths sequence does it start being wrong. I am interested, but extremely skeptical.

rodin
07-10-2010, 11:44 AM
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/qsomile_hst.gif

A Milestone Quasar
Credit: C. Steidel (Caltech), HST, NASA

Explanation: Here is a rather typical quasar. But since quasars are so unusual it is quite atypical of most familiar objects. Of the two bright objects in the center of this photo, the quasar is on the left. The bright image to quasar's right is a star, the faint object just above the quasar is an elliptical galaxy, with an apparently interacting pair of spiral galaxies near the top. Quasars appear as unresolved points of light, as do stars, and hence quasars were thought to be a type of star until the 1960s. We now know that the brightest quasars lie far across the visible universe from us, and include the most distant objects known. Quasars may occupy the centers of galaxies and may even be much brighter than their host galaxies. In fact, the centers of many nearby galaxies have similarities to quasars - including the center of our own Milky Way Galaxy. The exact mechanism responsible for a quasar's extreme brightness is unknown, but thought to involve supermassive black holes. This picture represents a milestone for the six-year-old Hubble Space Telescope as it was picture number 100,000, taken on June 22, 1996.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960818.html

Read the bold in the context of what I say about the genesis of galaxies

rodin
07-10-2010, 11:56 AM
I didn't say all images are optical illusions.

Straight line, you sure about that? Hubble captures what is in front of it, the raised nature of the outside could well be an optical illusion. I didn't see you deny the possibility. Anyway, we are getting into debate territory.

Elaborate on your theory about E=MC^2 being flawed. Which part of the maths sequence does it start being wrong. I am interested, but extremely skeptical.

To answer

The picture shows two distinct features - the ellipse (spiral) and ring of fire (core)

We cannot be sure about the 3D aspect - which lobe of the galaxy is nearest - but we can be sure that the spiral is essentially in a plane, one way or the other. This is clearly NOT the same plane as the material rotating about the core

E = mc squared is simply a version of the expression for kinetic energy E = 1/2 mv squared. No one came up with the idea of converting mass into energy based on THAT. So why now?

Q. Can mass REALLY be converted into energy? Or are nuclear explosions caused by the nuclear equivalent of chemical explosions - ie basically a release of binding energy? If so mass is not being converted into energy, rather energy is being released that was already there.

But what about the difference in mass between the proton + electron and neutron? That can be accounted for if there are additional mass particles involved, smaller scale, observed or as yet unobserved. Already we have the neutrino.

I have said before that matter can be organised on scales as far removed from the atomic as are galaxies - but in the opposite direction
I have also shown how such matter can manifest in our scale universe - but how this entire reality (or multiplicity of realities - infinite???) would be imperceptible by us. I also think this could well be the scientific basis for any supernatural that goes beyond hoax.

rodin
07-10-2010, 04:46 PM
Well now

Doing a lot of reading today, and a couple interesting facts about the Sun turned up.

First off - we know the Sun and Moon are pretty much the same size in the sky when viewed from Earth.

http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/img/total_lg.gif

That is some coincidence....

However I learned today that the Sun'a rotation as viewed from Earth is 28 Days.

The period of this actual rotation is approximately 25.6 days at the equator and 33.5 days at the poles. However, due to our constantly changing vantage point from the Earth as it orbits the Sun, the apparent rotation of the star at its equator is about 28 days.[25]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_magnetic_field#Magnetic_field

About the same period as a sidereal lunar month :eek:

(The Moon rotates on its axis every 27+ days)

Second fact deserves its own post

rodin
07-10-2010, 06:01 PM
Solar magnetic Field

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Heliospheric-current-sheet.gif/768px-Heliospheric-current-sheet.gif

The Parker spiral is the shape of the Sun's magnetic field as it extends through the solar system. Unlike the familiar shape of the field from a bar magnet, the Sun's extended field is twisted into an arithmetic spiral by the magnetohydrodynamic influence of the solar wind. The shape is named after Eugene Parker,[2] who predicted the solar wind and many of its associated phenomena in the 1950s.

The heliospheric current sheet extends to the outer reaches of the Solar System, and results from the influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium.[60]

Parker spiral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does the above remind you of?

Hannes Alfven

In 1937, Alfvén argued that if plasma pervaded the universe, it could then carry electric currents capable of generating a galactic magnetic field.[1] After winning the Nobel Prize for his works in magnetohydrodynamics, he emphasized that:

In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents. Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure.[2]
His theoretical work on field-aligned electric currents in the aurora (based on earlier work by Kristian Birkeland) was confirmed by satellite observations, in 1974, resulting in the discovery of Birkeland currents.

Alfvén believed the problem with the Big Bang was that astrophysicists tried to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard, rather than starting from known observable phenomena. He also considered the Big Bang to be a scientific myth devised to explain creation.[7]

Alfvén and colleagues proposed the Alfvén-Klein model as an alternative cosmological theory to both the Big Bang and steady state theory cosmologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfven

In other words are spiral galaxies organised by the galactic Parker field? Sill does not explain barring.

On Quasars - there are quasars with two lobes but only one jet showing. Then there are quasars with a double jet. The double jet suggests ejection is simultaneous from both ends hence is not dependent on spin direction (unlike how Fleming's left hand rule works for charged particles and magnetic fields). But how to explain the single jets yet double lobes (always double lobes)?

Well if we move from inertial gravity to a magnetic force driving the jets, then we can propose that the quasar's magnetic poles can flip as per the Sun, Earth etc. In fact the larger the body the more frequently the pole shift it seems - at least comparing the Earth (millennia) with the Sun (eleven years).

to be contd.

truegroup
07-10-2010, 06:44 PM
E = mc squared is simply a version of the expression for kinetic energy E = 1/2 mv squared. No one came up with the idea of converting mass into energy based on THAT. So why now?

Q. Can mass REALLY be converted into energy? Or are nuclear explosions caused by the nuclear equivalent of chemical explosions - ie basically a release of binding energy? If so mass is not being converted into energy, rather energy is being released that was already there.

But what about the difference in mass between the proton + electron and neutron? That can be accounted for if there are additional mass particles involved, smaller scale, observed or as yet unobserved. Already we have the neutrino.


Going off on a slight tangent. The 'mass' argument is odd to my mind for the reason that it is all about movement.
Every single detectable particle and sub-atomic particle are just movement of something. That something is movement of something else and on and on(I guess?)smaller and smaller.
Nothing can be 'solid', since it must be made of something, the analysis of the something is always movement.

THAT is why I believe E=MC^2 is correct. It is not converting mass into energy, so much as converting the movement and the force that binds the movement, into energy.

truegroup
07-10-2010, 07:25 PM
Well now

Doing a lot of reading today, and a couple interesting facts about the Sun turned up.

First off - we know the Sun and Moon are pretty much the same size in the sky when viewed from Earth.

That is some coincidence....

However I learned today that the Sun'a rotation as viewed from Earth is 28 Days.

About the same period as a sidereal lunar month :eek:

(The Moon rotates on its axis every 27+ days)

Second fact deserves its own post

A few million years ago that Moon would have been a whole lot closer.
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2195

tabea_blumenschein
08-10-2010, 06:24 AM
Hey rodin, are you familiar with the Lorenz factor?

y = sqrt(1 + (v/c)^2)^-1/2

Watch what happens when we do a binomial expansion: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_expansion#Statement_of_the_theorem)

sqrt(1 + (v/c)^2)^-1/2 = 1 + 1/2*(v/c)^2 + 3/8*(v/c)^4 + ...

If we multiply through by the rest mass m we get:

m*sqrt(1 + (v/c)^2)^-1/2 = m + 1/2*m*(v/c)^2 + 3/8*m*(v/c)^4 + ...

The part on the left of the equals sign is the formula for the relativistic mass, which we'll call m(rel). Make that substitution and then multiply through by c^2 and you arrive at:

m(rel)c^2 = mc^2 + (1/2)mv^2 + (3/8)mv^4/c^2 + ...

See those first two terms on the right? They look familiar, don't they? The first one is Einstein's famous E = mc^2, which tells you the equivalent energy of a given amount of mass m, regardless of whether or not that mass is in motion. The second term tells you how much additional energy is present due to the motion of that mass. It's just the formula for kinetic energy in classical mechanics: KE = (1/2)mv^2. There is an endless number of additional terms, of which I've only shown the first one. Those are minor corrections which you'd only need to take into account for very large velocities.

What that all boils down to is that the equation tells you the total amount of energy present for any given quantity of mass moving at any given velocity. Applying some simple mathematics to the Lorenz factor allows us to arrive at both one of the great formulas of special relativity AND one of the great formulas of classical mechanics in the SAME equation.

Now tell me, rodin, does any of that look "flawed" to you? :p

rodin
09-10-2010, 11:08 AM
A few million years ago that Moon would have been a whole lot closer.
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2195

We're not losing it that fast

the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year.

Maybe Moon and Sun were created with exactly the same rotation and apparent arc and we have drifted a little since then :eek:

:cool:

rodin
09-10-2010, 11:28 AM
Hey rodin, are you familiar with the Lorenz factor?

y = sqrt(1 + (v/c)^2)^-1/2

Watch what happens when we do a binomial expansion: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_expansion#Statement_of_the_theorem)

sqrt(1 + (v/c)^2)^-1/2 = 1 + 1/2*(v/c)^2 + 3/8*(v/c)^4 + ...

If we multiply through by the rest mass m we get:

m*sqrt(1 + (v/c)^2)^-1/2 = m + 1/2*m*(v/c)^2 + 3/8*m*(v/c)^4 + ...

The part on the left of the equals sign is the formula for the relativistic mass, which we'll call m(rel). Make that substitution and then multiply through by c^2 and you arrive at:

m(rel)c^2 = mc^2 + (1/2)mv^2 + (3/8)mv^4/c^2 + ...

See those first two terms on the right? They look familiar, don't they? The first one is Einstein's famous E = mc^2, which tells you the equivalent energy of a given amount of mass m, regardless of whether or not that mass is in motion. The second term tells you how much additional energy is present due to the motion of that mass. It's just the formula for kinetic energy in classical mechanics: KE = (1/2)mv^2. There is an endless number of additional terms, of which I've only shown the first one. Those are minor corrections which you'd only need to take into account for very large velocities.

What that all boils down to is that the equation tells you the total amount of energy present for any given quantity of mass moving at any given velocity. Applying some simple mathematics to the Lorenz factor allows us to arrive at both one of the great formulas of special relativity AND one of the great formulas of classical mechanics in the SAME equation.

Now tell me, rodin, does any of that look "flawed" to you? :p

I point out in the thread that E=mc^^2 is related to E=1/2mv^^2 the kinetic energy equation. One does not need to go into Lorentz transforms to show this. One does wonder what happened to the half term - oh I get it - there IS no equal and opposite reaction when mass goes poof into energy.

My point is - the media is encouraged to place the idea that this equation implicitly means we can convert mass into energy.

The "two great discoveries" to which Tesla referred, were:

1. The Dynamic Theory of Gravity - which assumed a field of force which accounts for the motions of bodies in space; assumption of this field of force dispenses with the concept of space curvature (ala Einstein); the ether has an indispensable function in the phenomena (of universal gravity, inertia, momentum, and movement of heavenly bodies, as well as all atomic and molecular matter); and,

2. Environmental Energy - the Discovery of a new physical Truth: there is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.

...on his 79th birthday (1935) - Tesla made a brief reference to the theory saying it applies to molecules and atoms as well as to the largest heavenly bodies, and to "...all matter in the universe in any phase of its existence from its very formation to its ultimate disintegration".

Over such musing of the great man the author of the piece linked below goes on to say

Tesla was referring to unlimited energy, derived from the environment. Several of his major free energy discoveries have been the exclusive stolen property of our Secret Government. The conversion of energy to a stronger force - electropulsion - used to control the much weaker gravity force, would accomplish more work in the same amount of time, and produce "over unity" results.

there is of course no free energy

Some of Telsa's unusual conceptualization of the ether had been nonetheless expounded piecemeal, in his preceding 1890's lectures. He later railed against the limited and erroneous theories of Maxwell, Hertz, Lorentz, and Einstein.

Tesla's ether was neither the "solid" ether with the "tenuity of steel" of Maxwell and Hertz, nor the half-hearted, entrained, gaseous ether of Lorentz. Tesla's ether consisted of "carriers immersed in an insulating fluid", which filled all space. Its properties varied according to relative movement, the presence of mass, and the electric and magnetic environment.

My bold. Very interesting

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Tesla+Lorentz&src={referrer:source?**

And while we are at it I consider the Tensor, unlike the Vector, to be a meaningless formulation with no bearing on reality

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Torque_animation.gif

Angular momentum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no 'force' acting in any direction out of the rotational plane here (according to standard model of inertial mass). But the Tensor alleges to show a direction along the axis

I think the gyroscope is much better understood by considering the inertial gravity field effect

rodin
09-10-2010, 11:53 AM
In a particle accelerator it is found to be increasingly hard to accelerate as we approach lightspeed.

Relativity says this is because mass hence inertia is increasing - according to the Lorentz Factor

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Lorentz_factor.svg/220px-Lorentz_factor.svg.png

However what is accelerating the particles?

A particle accelerator[1] is a device that uses electromagnetic fields to propel charged particles to high speeds and to contain them in well-defined beams.

And what is the limiting speed of EM radiation?

In essence we have mass being blown by an electomagnetic wind travelling at the sped of light. No wonder that mass can never exceed it!!!!

Then we claim time slows down when we take atomic clocks into orbit. As I said before - take a grandfather clock into orbit and time would stop altogether!

sbjet
11-10-2010, 06:24 PM
Fascinating stuff. I talked to a guy who worked with nukes, I asked him in a nuke explosion how much matter actually gets destroyed. He said about a pound. Thoughts?

tabea_blumenschein
12-10-2010, 04:20 AM
Fascinating stuff. I talked to a guy who worked with nukes, I asked him in a nuke explosion how much matter actually gets destroyed. He said about a pound. Thoughts?

Well, it isn't matter being destroyed, it's mass converted to energy. Checking with Einstein's E=mc^2, I get that one megaton of energy requires about 1.64 ounces of mass, so I'd say the guy you talked to was right on the money for a 10 megaton bomb. :)

What happens is, when a uranium atom fissions, if you weigh the atoms/particles produced you'll find that they have less mass than the original uranium atom you started with. This mass deficit is where all that energy comes from. Same with nuclear fusion with a hydrogen bomb. When hydrogen atoms fuse to become helium, the helium atom has less mass than the original hydrogen atoms did. Once again, mass deficit = energy.

rodin
12-10-2010, 02:27 PM
Well, it isn't matter being destroyed, it's mass converted to energy. Checking with Einstein's E=mc^2, I get that one megaton of energy requires about 1.64 ounces of mass, so I'd say the guy you talked to was right on the money for a 10 megaton bomb. :)

What happens is, when a uranium atom fissions, if you weigh the atoms/particles produced you'll find that they have less mass than the original uranium atom you started with. This mass deficit is where all that energy comes from. Same with nuclear fusion with a hydrogen bomb. When hydrogen atoms fuse to become helium, the helium atom has less mass than the original hydrogen atoms did. Once again, mass deficit = energy.

Who collects all the bits and weighs them after a nuclear event?

apollo_gnomon
12-10-2010, 09:25 PM
They performed very small controlled fission events in the lab. Not all fission is a nuclear bomb.

Nuclear bombs are not 100% efficient - the "critical mass" required to initiate the chain reaction does not all convert to energy.

Experts think the North Korean nuke tests were below designed yield (based on seismo data, they determined the size of the actual explosion) because the fission blew apart the material before the chain reaction completed.

rodin
14-10-2010, 10:34 AM
They performed very small controlled fission events in the lab. Not all fission is a nuclear bomb.

Nuclear bombs are not 100% efficient - the "critical mass" required to initiate the chain reaction does not all convert to energy.

Experts think the North Korean nuke tests were below designed yield (based on seismo data, they determined the size of the actual explosion) because the fission blew apart the material before the chain reaction completed.

And they could weigh the mass before and after with sgnificance?

And even if they did who is to say any lost or gained mass is not simply due to subatomic particles escaping or entering the closed experiment? Try holding back neutrinos for example

apollo_gnomon
16-10-2010, 04:00 AM
And they could weigh the mass before and after with sgnificance?
Yes. Yes they can. These mass measurements were instrumental in the development of modern nuclear physics.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/basics/what-is-fission.htm

And even if they did who is to say any lost or gained mass is not simply due to subatomic particles escaping or entering the closed experiment? Try holding back neutrinos for example

Neutrinos have very little mass -- similar to an electron, but with no electrical charge. They weigh so little that evidence of non-zero mass was only published in 1998.
http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html
http://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino/nd-mass.html

Neutrons, on the other hand, weigh quite a bit - slightly more than protons.

one666
16-10-2010, 05:26 AM
In a particle accelerator it is found to be increasingly hard to accelerate as we approach lightspeed.

Relativity says this is because mass hence inertia is increasing - according to the Lorentz Factor

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Lorentz_factor.svg/220px-Lorentz_factor.svg.png

However what is accelerating the particles?



And what is the limiting speed of EM radiation?

In essence we have mass being blown by an electomagnetic wind travelling at the sped of light. No wonder that mass can never exceed it!!!!

Then we claim time slows down when we take atomic clocks into orbit. As I said before - take a grandfather clock into orbit and time would stop altogether!

You wrote belief is the enemy of truth. How could this be? Without belief no one would believe the truth.

rodin
16-10-2010, 08:06 PM
Yes. Yes they can. These mass measurements were instrumental in the development of modern nuclear physics.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/basics/what-is-fission.htm



Neutrinos have very little mass -- similar to an electron, but with no electrical charge. They weigh so little that evidence of non-zero mass was only published in 1998.
http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html
http://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino/nd-mass.html

Neutrons, on the other hand, weigh quite a bit - slightly more than protons.

yes but neutrons become protons and vice verse they don't become energy

to be continued

rodin
16-10-2010, 08:07 PM
You wrote belief is the enemy of truth. How could this be? Without belief no one would believe the truth.

exactly

truegroup
17-10-2010, 09:31 PM
exactly

Should we believe you?

apollo_gnomon
17-10-2010, 11:34 PM
yes but neutrons become protons and vice verse they don't become energy


Honestly, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html

http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/The%20proton%20and%20neutron.htm

rodin
18-10-2010, 08:12 AM
Honestly, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html

http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/The%20proton%20and%20neutron.htm

Excuse me but a neutron will decay into a proton - somehow charge separation will occur - however on an atomic time scale the rate of 'decay' is astronomically long - measured in minutes not picoseconds. Neutrons become protons slowly. This can be one of 3 things

There is a high activation barrier to the transition
There is a low energy difference between the neutron and proton+electron
Something else

I go for something else

Now rather than clutter this thread up with notes in the margin, I started a debunking thread where peeps can come and try to tear my (admittedly outlandish) theories to shreds

If we are going to have a good ding dong (something you will have gathered by now I enjoy) here is the place to do it

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131868

rodin
18-10-2010, 08:13 AM
Should we believe you?

Belief is the Enemy of Truth

truegroup
18-10-2010, 12:04 PM
Belief is the Enemy of Truth

Do you really believe that?:D

rodin
18-10-2010, 01:38 PM
Do you really believe that?:D

lol I liked that

rodin
22-10-2010, 11:27 AM
911

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv9/ContrarianThinker/911.jpg?t=1287739268

Evidence that a plane did not do this damage

truegroup
22-10-2010, 03:12 PM
911

Evidence that a plane did not do this damage

Are you a no planer?

rodin
22-10-2010, 03:30 PM
Are you a no planer?

agnostic on that sub issue

The above does look like forensic evidence for a demolition though - and a staged explosion even during impact (if such there was). What do you think?

Unless there was a weakness running across the building - but what building would be thus designed?

I smell Gelitin. Wonder if they eat gelfite fish?

The B-Thing (Bomb-thing - ed?)

World Trade Center, New York, USA
2000
soloshow

"And then the surgical intervention in the World Trade Center in New York City. Everything top secret and illegal of course. In days of conspiratorial work, somewhere on the 148th floor and using building site refuse they had tediously smuggled into the building under their pullovers, they constructed a functioning load-bearing balcony. In a long complicated process they scratched putty from the tall heavy window, which couldn't be opened. Then they extracted it using suction pads, shunted the balcony out, posed on it at 6 in the morning and had themselves photographed there from a helicopter for their nearest and dearest back home. They kept very mum about it all, because if word had crept out about their coup they could have been fined very heavily for sabotaging a national treasure. Even if it was built by the Japanese. Incidentally, as proof that they were there, there is now a piece of old chewing gum stuck to the outside of the building at a dizzy height.", by Tex Rubinowitz, in "The B-Thing"

http://www.gelitin.net/mambo/index.php?set_albumName=album03&option=com_gallery_proj144&Itemid=91&include=view_album.php

truegroup
22-10-2010, 05:27 PM
agnostic on that sub issue

The above does look like forensic evidence for a demolition though - and a staged explosion even during impact (if such there was). What do you think?
I'd like to see the whole picture in context (they could just be weld points). The possibility has always existed that some sort of explosive device was taken on board, but difficult to prove.

I am absolutely not a no-planer. It makes 911 truthers look like fruitloops as people lump them all in together.

rodin
22-10-2010, 10:55 PM
I'd like to see the whole picture in context (they could just be weld points). The possibility has always existed that some sort of explosive device was taken on board, but difficult to prove.
.

And how would they get this explosive device thru customs?

And do you mean WTC explosions scale device?

truegroup
22-10-2010, 11:45 PM
And how would they get this explosive device thru customs?

And do you mean WTC explosions scale device?

It was hypothetical. Explosive device? Any number of ways, hence the restrictions now on liquid and electricals. Plus it was an internal flight. Maybe as a means to augment the impact, who knows.

Where's the full photograph?

foobar
23-10-2010, 01:07 AM
2. If you cannot visualise a system, forget it. Mathematical trickery cannot replace logic.

This is an arrogant and silly way of saying 'I don't know much about mathematics and I reject anything I don't understand'.

exford
23-10-2010, 01:14 AM
This is an arrogant and silly way of saying 'I don't know much about mathematics and I reject anything I don't understand'.

I would say it perhaps suggests, he understands more about mathematics than you give him credit for.
The language(grammar) of mathematics can be as fallacious as any other area of study!

tabea_blumenschein
23-10-2010, 05:38 AM
I would say it perhaps suggests, he understands more about mathematics than you give him credit for.
The language(grammar) of mathematics can be as fallacious as any other area of study!

Really! :rolleyes:

exford
23-10-2010, 11:56 AM
Really! :rolleyes:

Meaning :confused:

tabea_blumenschein
24-10-2010, 05:13 AM
Meaning :confused:

Meaning, the hell you say!

Would you like to explain what you meant by this statement? An example would be nice as well.

The language(grammar) of mathematics can be as fallacious as any other area of study!

exford
24-10-2010, 03:02 PM
Meaning, the hell you say!

Would you like to explain what you meant by this statement? An example would be nice as well.

The language(grammar) of mathematics can be as fallacious as any other area of study!

I give up.....

WHATS THE POINT!!!!

01 What's the point? - YouTube

foobar
25-10-2010, 12:30 AM
I would say it perhaps suggests, he understands more about mathematics than you give him credit for.
The language(grammar) of mathematics can be as fallacious as any other area of study!

That's not a reason to reject anything you can't easily visualise.

rodin
25-10-2010, 08:39 PM
That's not a reason to reject anything you can't easily visualise.

I say reject anything that cannot be related to observable 3D reality

And suspect a lot that can

rodin
28-10-2010, 11:00 AM
Jews are getting the rights from fellow Jews to own the abiogenic oil under the continents. US is no exception

http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/23701

China one day will find she also has oil no doubt.

apollo_gnomon
28-10-2010, 06:38 PM
Jews are getting the rights from fellow Jews to own the abiogenic oil under the continents. US is no exception

http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/23701

China one day will find she also has oil no doubt.


Your link is to a company trying to get money from gullible people. They are not taken seriously by the professional investment community.
The "investment" they're "selling" is in shale oil (http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/), which has nothing to do with abiogenic oil.
Abiogenic oil (http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/400230-vinod-dar/47079-abiotic-oil-and-gas-a-theory-that-refuses-to-vanish) is one of the stupidest ideas ever to come out of Russian self-delusional "science".
This has nothing to do with your pathological fear/hatred of Jews.