Dimensions

[rodin]

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

[geewhizz]

Originally Posted by rodin

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

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]

Originally Posted by rodin

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

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]

Originally Posted by geewhizz

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]

Originally Posted by rodin

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]

Originally Posted by kappy0405

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]

Originally Posted by rodin

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]

Originally Posted by rodin

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,


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]

sorry but your wrong oil takes millions of years for the organic soup to be oil it does not regenerate

[trepidation]

Originally Posted by geewhizz

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]

Originally Posted by rodin

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]

Originally Posted by rodin

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

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]

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]

Originally Posted by woodelf

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

[rodin]

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

Magnetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

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-astro...ml#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=...O1vAY#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]

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

Superluminal motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Superluminal motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Active galactic nucleus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Active galactic nucleus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Active galactic nucleus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relativistic jet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relativistic jet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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-astro...ar-photos.html

So what has this to to with Sarah Brown?

[decim]

Encore!

So what has this to to with Sarah Brown?

[kingmob]

Somebody watched Rodin's videos on youtube and now thinks he knows the secrets of the universe

[rodin]

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

Flying saucer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

Quasar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.



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