Posted by: graemebird | April 18, 2013

Jew Kids Having Rejected Logos……

….. Sure can be a pain in the ass. Watch the faith-based evidence-free way they attempt to defend the ludicrous and wrong ideas of the carpet-bagger Einstein and his like-minded parasitical science-ruining synagogue-buddies. The key to all of this is the quote I lifted from Hans Hermann Hoppe.  It pays to read that one a number of time. Its an example where there is no Conman-Albert trick of taking a concept from one area and grafting it on where it clearly does not belong. But the Christian bloke is brilliant.  Yes he has some articles of faith. But he has not rejected the Logos. Science, reason, evidence. He hasn’t rejected these things like these Judaized nincompoops. The people who just do not know what it is like to have a healthy scientific community.

 

Here is the rosetta-stone to the whole controversy:

  • GMBCATASTROPHE 21 hours ago

    See how in the statements below there is no Einsteinian hucksterism of trying to steal a feature from one entity and arbitrarily impose it on another!!!!! This feature-stealing is about half the trickery that the zionist had up his sleeve. The rest of the story was relentless Jew-promotion of other Jews and the entire media behind him. They set up a cult of personality and no-one can fight that sort of mental pressure. But below is real REASON whereas Einsteins gear is rubbish.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 21 hours ago

    “No material thing can be at two places at once. No two objects can occupy the same place. A straight line is the shortest line between two points. No two straight lines can enclose a space. Whatever object is red all over cannot be green (blue, yellow, etc.) all over. Whatever object is colored is also extended. Whatever object has shape has also size. If A is a part of B and B is a part of C, then A is a part of C. 4 = 3 +1. 6 = 2 (33 – 30). “

    Okay now you should read through this a few times

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 21 hours ago

    Lets try again and I will give you an example of a fellow using features of a concept, that are appropriate to that concept. Whereas by comparison we should see that the conman Einstein and the con-artists in contemporary cosmology who follow him are taking a feature that belongs in one concept and simply moving it to another concept and one which is entirely inappropriate. Okay. The next box you will see a quote.

     

  • GMBCATASTROPHE 12 minutes ago

    What is disturbing is that almost no Jews and few young people these days have any real understanding of what evidence is and have even less understanding of what the scientific method consists of. This is what Jewish emancipation has brought us. The domination then destruction of the public understanding of science.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 13 hours ago

    An engine miss does not mean that it has a bad spark plug. There’s a whole list of other things that could cause the same problem. The universe is a lot more technical than a car. Science has a lot of theories that are not true. The reason I know is because I have studied the Bible and know the answers to a lot of the mysteries of the universe. … However,… Believe what you desire, .. that why we are here to see who will believe God. I will stick with the Bible.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • dwkjo 

    dwkjo 8 hours ago

    Could you give me an example of a universally accepted scientific theory or a technology that was derived from Bible text?

    Reply · 2 Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • eatmylogic 

    eatmylogic 6 hours ago

    QUOTE: “There’s a lot of people that doesn’t accept the Bib Bang theory. Are they crackpots too? “

    Yes, they are. The number of physicists who doen’t accept the Big Bang theory is so small as to be neglible and that should tell you something about the strength of the theory, which has been tested against observations from a number of different fields, all of which are in agreement about the Big Bang. If you don’t know this, you are too ignorant to be making claims about the subject.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 45 minutes ago

    It doesn’t make any difference. This is just like you dropkicks and science-haters when it comes to the global warming fraud.

    The big bang never happened. And it would not matter if ALL of these charlatans and tax-eaters signed up for it. It didn’t happen and no evidence has ever emerged for it. Not once. Jew science doesn’t even know what evidence is or what it requires to be different from data.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to eatmylogic (Show the comment)
  • btcminer808a 

    btcminer808a 20 hours ago

    Oh crikey back here again. Higher dimensional spaces are a deliberate postulation. To put it simply, whether they exist or not, they provide an incredibly useful tool for understanding the nature up to a point of applicability. Do you believe the square root of -1 is a useful number for instance? It too is a tool from an abstract higher dim space called the complex plane that, while disputable in existential terms, has yielded insight into every bit of physics, especially waves at all scales.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 17 hours ago

    They are an absolutely useless postulations. They are of no use except for zionist buddies to rip the public off. What is useful is not lying and reasoning clearly. This will produce results. The scientific method works. Fairy tales don’t work. There is no square root of -1 and this esoteric mathematics may have some uses but not an whole lot. Still if it turns out to be useful in some encryption system or some serendipitous use still it does not represent the universe in any shape or form.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 17 hours ago

    These people and ideas get in the way of science. They are an active menace.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • e102ewan 

    e102ewan 16 hours ago

    The number 0 as well, don’t forget about that.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 16 hours ago

    That certainly relates directly to reality.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to e102ewan (Show the comment)
  • e102ewan 

    e102ewan 16 hours ago

    and negative numbers

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    I’m just noticing how brilliantly the chubby kid pulled off the demonstration of the expanding earth with his balloons. Of course the dogmatic potholer could not handle the strength of that demonstration. Prefers dogma over evidence and reason.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • e102ewan 

    e102ewan 18 hours ago

    wtf are you talking about… Who would actually believe the Earth is expanding?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • michael delaney 

    michael delaney 17 hours ago

    anyone with an IQ Higher then yours

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to e102ewan (Show the comment)
  • e102ewan 

    e102ewan 17 hours ago

    why?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to michael delaney (Show the comment)
  • ginckgo 

    ginckgo 8 hours ago

    *than*

    Reply · 2 Vote UpVote Down in reply to michael delaney (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 17 hours ago

    We know for a fact that it is expanding. And were it not expanding we would have to be surprised since then philosophically we would say “Where the hell did all this matter come from?”

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to e102ewan (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    Notice the tone of this asshat? They are all the same. They all sound exactly like potholer. Dogmatists of unreason.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    You have not a skerrit of evidence for this accusation that some mischief has been happening with time!!!!! In any experiment conducted ever or at any time in the future. The people who conduct these experiments are not fit to even put together such a demonstration. They have to rule out all possible causes for the data they see, and even ones they have not thought of yet.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 21 hours ago

    See how in the statements below there is no Einsteinian hucksterism of trying to steal a feature from one entity and arbitrarily impose it on another!!!!! This feature-stealing is about half the trickery that the zionist had up his sleeve. The rest of the story was relentless Jew-promotion of other Jews and the entire media behind him. They set up a cult of personality and no-one can fight that sort of mental pressure. But below is real REASON whereas Einsteins gear is rubbish.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 21 hours ago

    “No material thing can be at two places at once. No two objects can occupy the same place. A straight line is the shortest line between two points. No two straight lines can enclose a space. Whatever object is red all over cannot be green (blue, yellow, etc.) all over. Whatever object is colored is also extended. Whatever object has shape has also size. If A is a part of B and B is a part of C, then A is a part of C. 4 = 3 +1. 6 = 2 (33 – 30). “

    Okay now you should read through this a few times

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 21 hours ago

    Lets try again and I will give you an example of a fellow using features of a concept, that are appropriate to that concept. Whereas by comparison we should see that the conman Einstein and the con-artists in contemporary cosmology who follow him are taking a feature that belongs in one concept and simply moving it to another concept and one which is entirely inappropriate. Okay. The next box you will see a quote.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • btcminer808a 

    btcminer808a 1 day ago

    There are some Christians out there with lots of money (despite the Jesus’ advice to give it up) and if you find some new thing in the Bible that tells you how to get fusion working, or colonize other worlds, or do anything really remarkable, be my guest and approach a rich creationist for investment. Scientists will keep on at things, figuring it all out the difficult way. I genuinely offer this challenge. Science is hard and a simple solution from the Bible would be extremely helpful.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 day ago

    What scientists are you talking about? You have to be out of your fucking mind mate. There is no science going on in the subject of cosmology. Science is specifically outlawed by the Jew gate-keepers in cosmology. You didn’t think the big bang was science did you?

    Show me the scientific method operating in mainstream theoretical physics? You’d have to be a madman to imagine this was the case. This hasn’t been the case since around 1913.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • btcminer808a 

    btcminer808a 23 hours ago

    Ummm. . . Ok here are some examples, Bell Burnell – she discovered pulsars in 1967. In ’65, the 2.7 K microwave background radiation was discovered. In addition to your point about theoretical physics, in 1968 the Stanford Linear Accelerator discovered the up-quark experimentally, but it was successfully theorized long before. But forget about all that, what have the Jews got to do with this … I’m sort of at a loss as to how they come into it? Please, kindly explain – I’m a bit confused.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 23 hours ago

    You are an idiot mate. Pulsars aren’t evidence for the big bang. The microwave background isn’t evidence for the big bang (what do you think the stars do all day and all night dropkick) And no they haven’t discovered any quarks. These aren’t discoveries, they are dreams. We have good evidence for the proton, the electron and the neutrino and thats really about it. The neutron appears to be just a proton with one or more electrons somewhere around it. There is no such thing as a photon for eg.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • btcminer808a 

    btcminer808a 23 hours ago

    OK, thanks for clearing that one up. I’ll have to quote you on this later on. But never mind that. Please divulge your theory on these so called “Jew gate-keepers” you mentioned earlier. I’m genuinely interested.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 23 hours ago

    Since the Jewish bankers pulled off the 1913 Federal Reserve heist, their power to be the control freaks that their religion asks of them has been basically unlimited. So they started promoting unscientists and dropkicks like Einstein, who wasn’t engaged in science, but rather just put about idiotic Jew fairy tales. The iron law of these people is that when they get a stupid idea they lock it in as dogma.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • btcminer808a 

    btcminer808a 22 hours ago

    Well, you ARE right about the Federal Reserve. Well I guess that just about wraps it up for science then.. we’re all totally screwed by the Rothschilds and the Illuminati. Thanks man for clearing it up. I can only hope you’ll be successful in publicly exposing the whole thing. Good luck – I’m counting on you.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 22 hours ago

    The Unilluminati I sez. Actually it was the case of Einstein that finally made me feel it is okay to oversimplify and blame the Jews as shorthand. I mean its pretty apparent that Jews are over-represented in our persecutors. But in the past one would say that this was irrelevant and it was fractional reserve and unrestricted usury which was the problem. But the Jew dominated character of the parasites is implied by the Einstein story.

    What happened is that Einstein was a zionist, and ….

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 22 hours ago

    … and he and his friends conspired to make a cult personality of him. They did so to promote zionism, and also to make profits writing books and giving town hall lectures on this idiocy, and they sometimes made out like bandits.

    The Jew leadership makes strategic cult heroes of people. Like Roosevelt and Churchill. Rotten war criminals in sober reality. So we see the same pattern here. They made a cult of Einstein, and it couldn’t have just merely been the unforeseen result of his …..

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 22 hours ago

    ….. It couldn’t have just merely been the unforeseen result of this band of rip-off artists. The entire international media was running protection for him. When his detractors would get the better of him in Germany he’d do a runner to the US in a hail of media adoration. He refused to debate his critics publicly, as was the norm in those days. Read all about it in the Chris Bjerknes book. Free online. The letters these parasites would write to each-other were scandalous.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 23 hours ago

    But where oh where is your evidence for the big bang. No-one ever claimed that the space between stars had to be zero degrees Kelvin. The big bang propagandists were notorious for being way wrong on their predictions of what that temperature was to be. Plus they cannot measure it, they are jumping to conclusions. We have to get outside our solar system to get a better idea of whether the “background” is just surrounding stars more locally.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • btcminer808a 

    btcminer808a 23 hours ago

    Also, I agree to some extent, that the big-bang theory is not as much “science” as I would like it to be. It has good evidence from the Red-shifts observed by hubble, the microwave background, and many measurements. I don’t like a lot of things, like how they say the universe is only 13.8bn years old. But I can only go on the evidence. Also plenty of crackpots & theorists who are just armchair layabouts, speculating. I still want explanation for the “Jew” thing though. So please, make your case.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 22 hours ago

    It doesn’t have any evidence from Red Shift. They are treating red shift as a proxy for both speed and distance. Their model puts us back in the centre of the universe, despite the idiotic denials of this point.

    Further to this if there was a big bang and we “looked back in time” at it, or into the distance at it, then our galaxy would be somewhere on a bugle, or a cornucopia and we would look backwards not quite seeing the bugle’s mouthpiece. But when we look out (lets say) 12 billion …..

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 22 hours ago

    …. But when we look out (lets say) “12 billion years” (in reality they aren’t nearly that far away) we can do so 360 degrees and in all directions. These people are utter morons. There is no denying this. How could they get something so basic so wrong.

    Red shift is only a proxy. Its a bad and useless proxy, because if you wanted to prove it was okay the procedure is to find at least two more proxies. You have NOTHING (no evidence at all) without three proven proxies.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 22 hours ago

    There is no question that the process of testing proxies to see if they are valid proxies requires you to get at least two more proxies. If you like I can prove this TOTALLY by way of example.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • btcminer808a 

    btcminer808a 1 day ago

    The so called “laws of nature” are macroscopically observed properties. Imagine this. You’re an entity in a basic computer simulation. Eventually you work out your position in the world is discretized, i.e you can’t move continuously from place to place without “jumping” at intervals over a mesh. Now suppose you conclude you’re living in a computer sim. This provides no evidence on how the computer achieves this, but it’s more than enough to apply to helping you get by in your world.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • btcminer808a 

    btcminer808a 1 day ago

    My point then, is that simply knowing the laws of nature doesn’t say enough about why we are here. But I really don’t care why. Knowing them in depth and finding more about the behaviours as a side effect of whatever underlying process is driving it all turns out to be enough to make progress… which is why science is great and correctly avoids questions that are unanswerable.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 1 day ago

    The laws of nature had to be first in order in the universe. Without the laws of physics, nothing could even move. (Movement is a part of physics). The laws of nature are TRUTH, The Bible says that God is Truth. If they are both Truth, then they are are both the same. Every Truth in the universe makes up the perfect mind of God. I wonder why that is so hard to grasp for some people. Thank God I am not one of them.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • eatmylogic 

    eatmylogic 1 day ago

    If the earth is “expanding” because of material falling on it from space, the continents would not be getting farther apart as if on the surface of a balloon that was being inflated from within, they would be buried by debris. And where would all that debris come from now that the accretion disc that originally formed the planets has already gone into making them?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • Ian Milligan 

    Ian Milligan 2 days ago

    You spoiled it! I was desperate to see Joe’s face when his ‘earth’ exploded.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • beliachick 

    beliachick 3 days ago

    lol study the bible to see what science has right. after all the bronze age is the place to start right? they were so smart then

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 3 days ago

    Right. That would seem a strange way to proceed from my point of view as well. But these creationists, after locking a few things in by faith, and heavily biasing a few other matters, they do usually seem to progress from there in reasonable fashion. Even if buying into Hebrew myth. What I find harder to take are those who have bought into modern Khazar myths. They too lock in articles of faith. But the difference is that they actively hate reason logic and the scientific method.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to beliachick (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 3 days ago

    I don’t know if this might interest any one here, but I have a structure that contains all the chemical elements with the same atomic number and the same atomic weight as chemistry teaches. The structure is infinite with a pyramid inside a pyramid inside a pyramid. I’ve had it since 1990 but never really studied it till here lately. I don’t know exactly what it is yet, but I do know that it”s something real and might have something to do with the structure of the universe.(explained on Youtube)

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 3 days ago

    I’ll certainly be interested in taking a look at that. My view is somehow we have to get from random flux, to a form of matter with that helps convert other random flux to matter before we can have the logos, or the ordered universe, or reality as we know it. It is almost as though we need “reproductive matter” for want of a more appropriate phrase. And it would seem intuitively sound that this matter might build inward even as it built outward.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • conspiracymedia 

    conspiracymedia 3 days ago

    You think only what you have read.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 4 days ago

    One thing that no one ever talks about is, the crust of the young earth might not have been 20 miles thick, it could have been a lot thinner. In the young earth model, it covered the iron core because there was no mantle. The asteroid impacts was against a thin crust over a ball of warm iron. Once the crust cracked, then different laws of physics could take over. The rings that made up the mantle were lighter elements than the heavy metal that made up the core. The conditions were different.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • ginckgo 

    ginckgo 3 days ago

    And where does the matter come from that grew the mantel? Remember that the mantle is largely composed of minerals containing Oxygen (atomic number 8), Silicon (14), Magnesium (12), as well as Iron (26), Aluminium (13), Calcium (20) and Sodium (11) – not exactly simple atoms like Hydrogen (1). And these elements must be generated at a massive rate to grow the earth to double it’s original radius, and thus 8-fold volume.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 3 days ago

    Well firstly the mantle would thicken as the planet cooled. Secondarily you would have, under the right circumstance, new matter creation coming in in molten form. We know that this must be the case ongoing or we would be stumped as to what all this matter was doing here.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ginckgo (Show the comment)
  • ginckgo 

    ginckgo 2 days ago

    No, cooling and solidifying would generally make the material denser and not thicken the mantle. There can be phase transitions when one mineral converts to another, and some of these do cause a slight volume increase, but this would decrease the average density of the earth (reducing surface gravity), and nowhere near enough to expand the earth significantly.

    You’re the only one stumped about all this matter, because you start with the assumption that it wasn’t there before.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 2 days ago

    Look dopey. Obviously, if you start off completely molten, then at first you’ll wind up with a thin solid crust and mantle, and as you cool the solid part of the planet will get thicker, and the molten part will get less substantial.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ginckgo (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 2 days ago

    Obviously the average density of the earth is not necessarily going to decrease with new matter creation going on all the time. And we know that new matter creation must go on all the time or we would wonder how all this matter could have gotten here in the first place.

    Good Lord man you are as thick as two planks. This basic, fundamental philosophical point has been put at you maybe twenty fucking times and you still cannot fucking grasp it

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ginckgo (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 1 day ago

    The protoplanetary nebula came from the second generation quasar jets. Matter spewed from one side and antimatter spewed from the other. The antimatter moved away at the speed of light and is still moving. The matter filled our universe in the form of zillions of large clouds that flattened out into flat disks that formed our galaxies. Protoplanetary disks formed inside the giant disks that formed our solar system. The disks of the sun was broken up into rings for every planet.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ginckgo (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 1 day ago

    The heavy elements were pulled to the inboard side of the rings to form the core of the earth, The mantle was the last of the 4 rings that formed the mantle of lighter elements. All the elements you named were present in the mantle rings and like you said it doubled the size of the earth and in a very short time, (Like 600 million years are so.) Our solar system was made from the disk of protoplanetary nebula.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 4 days ago

    Wrong ! … The cratons came from the rings of protoplanetary nebula around the sun. The whole solar system evolved from it wall to wall. The reason the cratons are different ages is because the older ones were the only surface on the small earth.. The younger ones had not evolved yet. They are part of the evidence of the growing earth.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ginckgo (Show the comment)
  • ginckgo 

    ginckgo 3 days ago

    If you believe that, it means you have no knowledge of reality. The accretion of the planetary bodies from the nebula released enough kinetic energy to keep the resultant planets fully molten for a long time; no structures from that time survive, especially not the cratons. The oldest rock formations in the cratons are all of volcanic or sedimentary origin, then heavily metamorphosed. Sedimentary also implies that there was something else to erode from, which is no longer there.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 3 days ago

    Impossible. Accretion has never explained how sufficient heat could be generated and we know that your particular crude fusion model is wrong, this has already been established. Clearly you are the knew horas a problem with reality. There has to be zero tolerance for your anti-science bullshit-artistry.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ginckgo (Show the comment)
  • ginckgo 

    ginckgo 2 days ago

    do you have to clean your keyboard often after such masturbatory trolling?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 3 days ago

    That is to say; clearly you are the one who has a problem with reality.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ginckgo (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 1 day ago

    Think of the protoplanetary nebula as a big fat hamberger that someone dropped on the sidewalk. Along comes Big Foot and steps on it and flattened it out into a flat pancake. The meat would remain in the middle (spread out flat) and the bread would end up being a thin layer above and below the hamburger meat. The lighter elements on the outside so every set of rings for every planet would have a crust for every craton. There was a craton from every ring. (Ur,Artica, Atlantica, Baltica)

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ginckgo (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 4 days ago

    One gets so sick of immensely stupid people like dwkjo who simply will not absorb evidence or reason. I’ve gone over some of the reasons why the crude high pressure hydrogen fusion model of the sun is definitely wrong yet the anti-science twat still keeps trotting it out. What for? If we want to know what the idiots are attempting to lock in politically its all there in the Wikipedia. But we know for a fact it’s wrong and cannot be right.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 4 days ago

    You need to wonder how the writer of Genesis got his info. He lived thousand of years ago with no microscopes or telescopes. If you study the Hebrew text, you will find a modern day space age story there. It went right over the heads of the KJV translators. Not only him but Solomon too. then you have the book of John in the new testament. It’s not that hard to understand if you consider that they got the knowledge from the creator. You think it’s a myth but I take it as 100% Truth.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to dwkjo (Show the comment)
  • dwkjo 

    dwkjo 4 days ago

    You wouldn’t be the first to read into ancient myth and attempt to draw science out of it. Some Muslims draw similar conclusions from the Qur’an. Either way, it’s a major stretch and involves far more imagination than went into the original writing. Furthermore, the earliest estimate for the writing of Genesis is the time of Solomon and ranges as late as the Babylonian exile. Modern scholars tend more toward the latter, indicating Babylonian and Persian influences on Judaic myth and theology.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 3 days ago

    Looks like you have been on the Web… :) … There is a book call the Strong’s concordance and it gives the definitions of the Hebrew and Greek words in English. If you are trying to understand the Bible from the King James translation while dealing with the evolution of the universe, .. forget it. Try looking up each word in the Hebrew and Greek text and see what the definitions are for yourself. It takes a while, but if you do, you will find a modern day story that fits with what we see.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to dwkjo (Show the comment)
  • dwkjo 

    dwkjo 3 days ago

    I have found various websites with literal translations and even found one that provides direct translations of the individual Hebrew words. Once again, none of this provides any support for the Genesis tale as a record of the development of the universe. Furthermore, no translation refutes the authorship of Genesis as is accepted amongst Biblical scholars.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 14 hours ago

    If everyone in a class at school all missed the same question, would that make the question wrong? … No… It would show that just because they all agreed that it was wrong made them all wrong. The truth is the truth and it has reasons to show it’s truth. Agreement among the ignorant does not have a thing to do with what’s true. Thank God for the Bible.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to dwkjo (Show the comment)
  • dwkjo 

    dwkjo 8 hours ago

    The Bible was written not by any god, but by men using the knowledge and imagination they had at the time. Genesis is pure mythology and demonstrably so. It not only has life before a shining Sun and stars, but massive inbreeding without consequences, an impossible technique of selective breeding, and more. Later books, like Samuel and Kings, are historical, though severely embellished and biased. Job is pure theological fiction.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 13 hours ago

    Yea,… right… Everyone on the Discovery scientific forum in 1995 got a big laugh out of my explanation that the protoplanetary nebula was called the waters in Genesis. Now, that’s common knowledge. They all got a laugh from telling them the sun had rings like Saturn, now that’s common knowledge. They all had high tech explanations that ended up being a lot of hot air. Looks like nothing has changed since 1995.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to dwkjo (Show the comment)
  • jameson32

    Comment removed

    Author withheld

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • jameson32

    jameson32 11 hours ago

    This has been flagged as spam show • Not Spam

  • dwkjo 

    dwkjo 8 hours ago

    None of that is common knowledge. It is just as fictitious now as it was then.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 4 days ago

    It takes about an hour to explain the evolution of the universe and the earth. There’s no way you can explain it in this box with limited text. That’s why I put it on Youtube.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MegaMDAT (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 4 days ago

    Exactly. … That’s my point. … But not 30 million.. More like 4.5 billion. … From a small earth to a large earth. The mantle formed in 600 million years, but the inter core took billions and it formed first. That’s how the earth got it’s heat before the sun was a star, it was a small reactor and radiated it’s own heat. The light came from static charges from the rings it formed from. Science is so far out in left field on the evolution of the earth and the universe (life too) its funny.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MegaMDAT (Show the comment)
  • dwkjo 

    dwkjo 4 days ago

    Earth’s internal heat is a result of a combination of gravitational compression during accretion and of the decay of radioactive isotopes. According to modern theory, the Sun started shining as a result of nuclear fusion around fifty-million years after its formation started. The warped version of the Biblical story to which you hold has no bearing in reality.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 4 days ago

    We know for a fact that this model is entirely wrong. Foundation less and ass-backwards. It came about simply because someone bagged the model once crude hydrogen fusion was understood. Since the corona is hotter then the photosphere which is hotter then inside the photosphere obviously the model is wrong. Just like your useless brain. You really are a dumb flat-earth retard aren’t you? Yes you are.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to dwkjo (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 4 days ago

    Gravitational compression during accretion. What sort of a stupid creation theory is that? So in this make believe you’ve got all this dust. Whereas in the real world dust disperses, in this fucking idiotic fantasy you’ve got the dust coming together and forming these highly differentiated moons, planets rocks and the sun. Such utter bullshit and explains nothing we see. More fairy tales dogmatically locked in and you, you retard, you bought it.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to dwkjo (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 3 days ago

    According to a scientific THEORY of when the sun reached fusion, you might be right. But according to logic and the Bible, … no way. The sun had to grow from an eddy current to a planet, to a brown dwarf, to a star and that took billions of years. How did science decide WHEN the sun reached fusion. I have not found anything that says WHEN. … The Bible is reality but you have to read it first. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. The Translations are only what men THINK.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to dwkjo (Show the comment)
  • dwkjo 

    dwkjo 3 days ago

    Do some reading on topics like stellar evolution and the formation of the Solar system and you’ll learn why scientists think as they do. In short, they base their theories on logic and physics. The theories are also supported by models and simulations, and by observations of other stars in varying stages of development. The Bible’s tale and your interpretation of it is in fact not supported by any physical laws.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 3 days ago

    What good would that do anyone when we already know mainstream theory is wrong? Not only is it wrong it’s suicidally harmful bullshit. Because it implies that only a tired old star can go supernova. Which desperately underplays the scope for serious disasters averaging in thousands of years. Our real estate norms, our attitude to space exploration and all our social norms are catastrophic in view of authentic science as opposed to mainstream bullshitartistry.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to dwkjo (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 1 day ago

    Have you ever researched the Hebrew and Greek text. That’s the Bible. When it comes to reading anything about the evolution of the universe and life, stick with the original text. The translators of King James did not understand what the writer was saying, but we can. By using other definitions of the same Hebrew words, there is a modern day story explaining the evolution. The Bible was written for every generation but we can understand it thanks to science.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to dwkjo (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 1 day ago

    If you think that science has all the right answers, I feel sorry for you. That’s one good think about scientific theories, if you will wait a year or so, they will change.. LOL. … The Bible never changes because it’s right. … But you have to read it first and study what you read. You also have to realize that it’s just a short outline of the evolution of the universe and life.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • btcminer808a 

    btcminer808a 1 day ago

    I’m not really sure about that but even if it were totally true, why just evolution? Evolution is certainly useful in certain aspects of medicine for example, like understanding antibiotic resistance but there are many other things I can think of that are even more helpful. For instance, does this bible’s tale give any hints of how to make anything useful like telescopes or computers? Because that would certainly be impressive

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 day ago

    Now while I think some version of evolutionary theory is going to ultimately prevail you really aren’t talking sense here. We don’t have to sign on to mainstream evolutionary dogma just to explain how antibiotic resistance works. This is like claiming that we needed Einstein to tell us how Mercury revolved around the sun. We already knew before the Huckster was even born.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • btcminer808a 

    btcminer808a 23 hours ago

    No we don’t, I never said we needed it, I just said it was useful. My comment was asking Mr. Rhodes if the Bible, which he believed contained a description of evolution, gave any other more useful insights into the the physical means to make life on earth easier.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 22 hours ago

    Not in your example its not useful. Maybe you could think of better examples I suppose.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 3 days ago

    That is an interesting biblical interpretation. I was most worried that you would turn out to be a gentleman that thought the planet formed less than 7000 years ago. But there is no way he’s got a viable scientific theory on the fly. That sort of fusion cannot ignite just from a dust cloud falling in on itself. Also that sort of fusion doesn’t appear to be a main driver in the way or sun works.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 4 days ago

    So to you, all the continents fitting together on a smaller ball is not evidence? Then some say that the continental shelves do not fit with the small earth theory. Common sense will tell you that when the earth grew the continents took on a different curve. That means that they wrinkled up in some places and spread out in others. over 95% of all the continents fit on a smaller earth. … That’s not evidence to you? …You just said that you admit when you don’t know the answer … LOL

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to dwkjo (Show the comment)
  • dwkjo 

    dwkjo 4 days ago

    I have yet to see any convincing model of the continents fitting together in the Pacific.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 4 days ago

    That is simply because you are one of these immensely stupid people who imagine that if they refuse to look at the evidence it will go away. On a smaller globe its a near perfect fit with all the land mass. Obviously this cannot be a coincidence. Only a confirmed cretin would say otherwise. Plus we’re this not the case we would be philosophically stymied as to how the mass of the universe ever got here.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to dwkjo (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 3 days ago

    I have a model on Youtube but I don’t know if you can make out the continents. I traced them off the globe and traced them on to a smaller ball about 1/3 the size of the globe. Pangaea as a small earth. You have to keep in mind that the continents took on a different curve as the earth grew, so they had to stretch and and compress. No one knows the conditions so no one can actually tell in detail. It’s close enough to see that they all fit unless you don’t want to accept it.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to dwkjo (Show the comment)
  • dwkjo 

    dwkjo 3 days ago

    In other words, you were not able to fit the continents together with the same ease as they do in the Atlantic. Like Neal Adams, you had to skew the shapes to make it fit your hypothesis, rather than formulating a hypothesis to predict the observed behaviour. This backwards approach is not scientific in the least.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 3 days ago

    Not you don’t have to skew the shapes. Complete nonsense. The exercise has been repeated by many people. Even the fat kid that potholer refused to take into consideration has done it.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to dwkjo (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 14 hours ago

    I din’t have to do anything. What happened, happened. I just had enough understanding to recognize it ans put it together on a model to show how simple it is. When you have all the continents on a small ball and put them on a larger ball, the shape will change a little in order to fit the surface. I suppose some people don’t know that because they sure do have a hard time accepting it. The approach is scientific because it is a search for the Truth (accept the Truth) and that’s what science is.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to dwkjo (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 4 days ago

    These kids can get nothing right since they have no rational understanding of what evidence is. With them evidence is to do with brand names of institutions, published peer reviewed papers, and somehow convincing the media, usually by a lot of bullying and whining, that ones view is the consensus. This dildo really imagines that one can make a sphere out of any random shapes.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 4 days ago

    Hey has anyone got a mechanism for new space creation? Like instead of running from a gang of hoodlums out comes your new space machine. Immediately you’ve pushed them 200 away. But wait for it. Under Khazars idiocy you’ve effortlessly pushed both sides of the universe aside. No energy expended. Any compromise with these Jew idiots is simply unacceptable.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 4 days ago

    Ha ha ha ha ha. The idiot Mike Gibson has bought into the fairy-tale that space expands!!!!!! The fucking retard thinks that space is like lotus123 or Excel. If any of you others have bought into this “inflation” excuse imbedded in the Big Bang creation myth for the love of intelligent blondes with big tits have a bit of pride. If these ass-clown Khazars affecting to be scientists can stooge you on this matter there is simply nothing they cannot force into your brain.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • londonting1 

    londonting1 6 days ago

    O.k so, Space is expanding, the Milky Way is expanding, our solar system is expanding, our sun is expanding and so on But the Earth is not? Sometimes experts can miss what could be obvious. Im not an expert and we dont all have to be!

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • eatmylogic 

    eatmylogic 6 days ago

    The Milky Way is NOTexpanding, our solar system is NOT expanding, our sun is NOT expanding and the Earth is NOT EITHER. Oly the space between clusters of galaxies is expanding. You ought to read some introductory astronomy before you spout off.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to londonting1 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 6 days ago

    Sorry. Wrong on all points dummy. Not only are they expanding. But if there wasn’t a mechanism for matter to be the catalyst for new matter there would be no way to explain how the matter got here in the first place.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to eatmylogic (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 3 days ago

    From what I found in the Bible, God created an infinite structure that generated the elementary particles that produced the first generation quasars that produced hydrogen. The universe filled with hydrogen then the hydrogen produced the second generation quasars that produced neutrons that the other elements were formed with. The Spitzler saw the first and second generation quasars and saw particles being spewed from their jets so that’s evidence for the Bible.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 3 days ago

    That is interesting, because there have been computer models that show how a galaxy can be built out of two quasars. But I probably have a different idea of what Quasars are than you.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 6 days ago

    Space cannot expand dopey. Its not Lotus 123.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to eatmylogic (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 6 days ago

    Imagine the Chutzpah involved in making the claim that space is being created like it was a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. This is the calamity of Jews getting into science. They fill the place with all sorts of mysticism.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to eatmylogic (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 3 days ago

    I doubt if anyone knows how God created the sub atomic particles and solid elements. The Bible gives an outline and I use that to fit with what science has discovered. We do know that it’s way too deep to understand as humans but we can get an idea with what we see. I’m not a Jew but anyone has the right to wonder. The book of John says it was a computation.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 3 days ago

    But the structure of space is only expanding a microscopic measurement. It’s over billions light years that make it appear red shifted. All of those microscopic measurements add up to make a red shift appear. The universe was not much smaller than it is now in the beginning. Science has blown it way out of reality and said it started out smaller than an atom… LOL.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to eatmylogic (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 6 days ago

    Space cannot expand. Thats another fairy tale. Its matter that gets created into space. If space isn’t infinite then one needs to try and figure out what is outside the proposed limited space. So the whole thing is just an invention of mystics pretending to be scientists.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to londonting1 (Show the comment)
  • MikeGibsonSG 

    MikeGibsonSG 5 days ago

    The denial of this irrefutable fact is just a fantasy of religious maniacs feigning an understanding of science. Go back to the burger flipping you were destined for.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • michael delaney

    michael delaney 5 days ago

    This has been flagged as spam show • Not Spam

  • michael delaney 

    michael delaney 5 days ago

    let me ask you, what contained the seed of the BB?

    What confined it so that it would have compressed all of the known universe to a pinpoint in space less- time less existence?

    What existed outside of this realm to allow for such an expression of creation?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MikeGibsonSG (Show the comment)
  • MikeGibsonSG 

    MikeGibsonSG 5 days ago

    The seed? Learn some language for grownups or go back to kindergarten.

    The universe known by whom? I have a sneaking suspicion you have no idea what you’re talking about. So specify what you mean by “the known universe”.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to michael delaney (Show the comment)
  • michael delaney 

    michael delaney 5 days ago

    “Learn some language for grownups or go back to kindergarten.”

    seed is not a grown up word? Its in the grown up dictionary

    Your world spawned my world grows

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MikeGibsonSG (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 3 days ago

    Michael, .. If you really want to see something funny, ask them to explain it to you step by step. … and give reasons for each action. The big bang theory is on it’s way out, (Thank God). There was a big bang (Solomon called it a Roar) But it happened throughout the universe all at one time and the sub atomic particles were generated not exploding out of a microscopic b-b.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to michael delaney (Show the comment)
  • ginckgo 

    ginckgo 2 days ago

    Check out Lawrence Krauss’ “Universe from Nothing” and you’ll see that the Big Bang theory is stronger than it ever was.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 2 days ago

    No its not. Its a totally baseless fairy tale. There has never been any evidence in its favour. Its a Jew banker theory. A manufacturing man knows that it takes time to make anything. Manufacturing requires many tasks in parallel and many in series. It is cyclical in nature and for this reason it must be ongoing. But a Jew banker just claps his hands and all the gear appears before him. Nothing has ever been manufactured instantaneously. Its obviously impossible. What a dumb cunt you are.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ginckgo (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 1 day ago

    Expansion of space indicates an originating point; simple as that really. If you disagree then I assume you are going to provide evidence which demonstrates that this is explained by another hypothesis?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 day ago

    There is no expansion of space. The idea is idiotic. For things to stretch, warp, compress et al, these phrases all denote a change in shape. Objects have shape. That which has shape is an OBJECT or some other entity which outlines a three-dimensional region. But since space has no shape, and time has no shape, neither of these two things change shape, and no-one has ever developed evidence for new space creation. Whereas the evidence for new matter creation is there every waking moment.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • btcminer808a 

    btcminer808a 23 hours ago

    Expansion of space is a tricky topic as it needs a study of both the local and global differential geometries – the main ideas of manifolds were set by Bernhard Riemann and worked upon considerably all the way to Einstein who used them in Gen-Relativity. Alot of it is speculation- e.g what if space is curved? do angles in a triangle on this curved space sum to 180*? Evidence overwhelmingly space expands, but you may well be right, and we are actually immersed in a wider everyday Euclidean space.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 22 hours ago

    No its not a tricky topic. Space doesn’t expand, has never expanded and no evidence has ever surfaced for such a ridiculous context-robbing piece of idiocy. A piece of elastic can expand because its an object. But the space doesn’t expand. The elastic expands not the space. In all of history there has been no example where the elastic didn’t expand but the space did.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to btcminer808a (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 21 hours ago

    Actually, spatio-temporal dimensions DO have a shape. One of the questions facing cosmologists relates to the curvature of space, as this will determine its boundary conditions and, as a result, its extent.

    Your claims that these entities do not have shape is nothing more than a manifestation of your lack of imagination and intelligence.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 21 hours ago

    There is no such thing as a spacio-temporal DIMENSION. Its a Jew fairy tale. Time is NOT a dimension. We describe space with three dimensions for convenience only. But time has not this feature.

    It cannot have shape if it doesn’t exist you fucking idiot. Never has there been evidence for space-time. Never. Not once. Space yes. All your waking hours testified to space. Not space-time. Got it you retard?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 20 hours ago

    Then explain why giving particles extra spatial velocity results in a reduction of their temporal velocity. This is perfectly accounted for if they are limited in their dimensional velocity, but not so easy for your racism. Sorry, claims.

    The above also demonstrates the existence of space-time as an antity. Feel free to actually provide some refuting evidence for the observed temporal deceleration of particles with increasing spatial acceleration.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    All velocity is relative. There is no such thing as giving anything EXTRA velocity in this strict sense. And only an idiot would say extra “spacial-velocity.” And no. Nothing happens to time. You are just full of shit. Time is a derived concept based on regular motion, memory and simultaneity. So you cannot give time extra velocity. This doesn’t happen ever.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 20 hours ago

    CERN accelerate muons in order to make them last for longer (in time) by increasing the rate at which they travel through spatial dimensions. This allows more of their universally constant velocity to be expended on spatial motion, reducing that available for temporal motion. This has been measured innumerable times: every time the LHC switches on, for example.

    If you dispute this then offer up a better explanation for the observed effects.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    No they don’t. They haven’t even proven that an entity called a Muon exists. We have good evidence for protons and electrons. For molecules and atoms, and I think we have good evidence for neutrinos.

    Prove that a muon exists.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 17 hours ago

    New Evidence for the Existence of a Particle Intermediate Between the Proton and Electron”, Phys. Rev. 52, 1003 (1937).

    experimental observation of muons. More? Okay:

    Rossi, B.; Hall, D. B. (1941). “Variation of the Rate of Decay of Mesotrons with Momentum”. Physical Review 59 (3): 223–228.

    That one was muons from the sun passing through the atmosphere.

    Will that do?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 16 hours ago

    Right. Well they advertise a lot, but they haven’t come up with much in the last sixty years despite the hype. The electron and the proton are known. Their precise nature is disputed over. Even the neutrino, which has good evidence in its favour, may be just these guys getting mixed up with the aether. Who knows. They are proven incompetents, so its not really possible to find out what it is that they are actually looking at.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 15 hours ago

    Then check the raw data yourself: they make it freely available when they publish their work. Either provide some explanations backed up by evidence or give this crap a rest. Pick one.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 14 hours ago

    You check the raw data. But you are not competent to find out if they are full of shit. I already know they are. They have rejected reason.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 17 hours ago

    I hope you’ll note the date of those two papers: both are over sixty years old. These particles have been known about for over half a century, and had been predicted prior to that, but you have never heard of these reports. Your scholarship is non-existent, as is your hypothesied aether.

    By the way, the latter paper also proves time dilation showing, empirically, that time is a dimension. Enjoy.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 16 hours ago

    No. No photon has ever been detected, and anything detected is not a photon, as advertised by Jew science. The wave nature of light rules out any such thing as a photon.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 15 hours ago

    Yet they exist, proving the wave/particle duality that many people know of. Maybe you should make some effort to understand phenomena instead of dismissing those which may be beyond your abilities. You’d look less of a cretinous fuckwit.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 14 hours ago

    There is no such thing as wave-particle duality. Light moves in waves, hence there are no photons as advertised. Light moves through an aether.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    There is no such thing as a universally constant velocity. Velocity is an entirely relative concept despite what the incestuous charlatan zionist tried on. His theory of relativity is really a theory of velocity absolutism.

    But by its nature velocity is entirely relative.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 17 hours ago

    Awww, bless! Now you’re having to resort to pathetic insults to cover for your chronic lack of supporting evidence.

    Explain the time dilation effects I have linked you to, as these are demonstrative of a four-dimensional space-time. Explain why you think otherwise. Don’t forget the references.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • michael delaney 

    michael delaney 17 hours ago

    what dimension existed prior to the Big Bang, allowing for the Big Bang?

    Is it a void that has infinite space to accommodate infinite universes?

    What I find hilarious is that not one scientist can explainwhy Earth has rotation and a planet like Venus does not

    How can one ignore all the surrounding planets when assuming to understand the under pinning of creation?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 17 hours ago

    Why did there have to be a dimension? The big bang was an expansion of space-time, not an effect in a pre-existing space.

    Venus does have rotation: it is much slower as it is almost tidally locked to the sun. Earths moon prevents this at the cost of momentum.

    The planets were not extant when the universe began. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are referring to. Or how it is relevant to time dilation.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to michael delaney (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 17 hours ago

    No you retard. There was no such thing as space-time and never once any evidence for such a thing as space-time. There was never a big bang, nor once any evidence for such a thing. And we divide reality up into three dimensions simply for convenience. Now is your claim that there are 5 dimensions now? That is your lying claim is it not? You cannot make the assumption that you can say “when the universe began.” There has never been time dilation nor evidence for time dilation.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 16 hours ago

    You can’t even answer my responses to YOUR posts, so don’t bother jumping into other threads.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • michael delaney 

    michael delaney 16 hours ago

    what medium allowed for expansion? What container was ruptured to allow for such an outward expression?

    Venus rotates at 5mph because external effects acting on the planet such as the surrounding planets & Sun

    However, Earth & Mars have an internal twine which gives both planets a rotation period of 24 hours,

    Venus & Mercury do not display internal rotation what caused the breakdown, or is this coincidence?

    To better understand our surroundings will improve our perceived reality

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to michael delaney (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 15 hours ago

    You are still assuming that the expansion took place WITHIN a pre-existing space. This is not accurate.

    The rest of your post is not relevant and you have yet to explain exactly why you are suddenyl invoking selectively biased rotations to exemplify something. Elucidate, please.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to michael delaney (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 17 hours ago

    There has never been a time dilation effect and there has never been any evidence for such an effect. Nor could there be any evidence for such an effect, because time doesn’t have velocity or shape. Time isn’t an entity. Its a concept. A derived concept at that.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 15 hours ago

    The experiment I cited you is an example of time dilation. Read it or shut the fuck up, because you clearly have no idea how any aspect of physics actually works.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 14 hours ago

    No you are lying. The experiment you cited did not show an example of time dilation and no experiment ever has. This is impossible since velocity is a relative concept and we are not entitled to say that one object is at rest and the other is moving.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 13 hours ago

    Have you even read them?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 38 minutes ago

    I’ve certainly read many like them. And I ran out of hoping that they would come up with some sort of killer factoid. They are charlatans and anti-scientists. They are basically cult members. The cult of post-1913 secular-Jew theology.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 32 minutes ago

    You have not offered evidence. You are lying. Your beliefs are entirely faith-based. Okay you make the argument for these guys hey dopey? The argument they will be making will be by analogy to some unconnected problem. I”ve seen it all before. They will have no evidence. They will simply say that the idea COULD WORK and then they will come up with an analogy but no evidence. Then they will rest their case.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 31 minutes ago

    The idea of push-gravity has been postulated, which is an idea that is going nowhere. However trained physicists seldom make mathematical errors. Push-Gravity is a particle-based theory of Gravity. To work the calculations say that the particles would have to move at 20 billion times the speed of light. So gravity propagates essentially instantaneously. Or all our orbits would unravel.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 29 minutes ago

    Science is not Talmudic Judaism. A citation from the Talmud or a link to Peer Reviewed work IS NOT EVIDENCE. Evidence is data, BROADLY considered, brought to bare on an hypothesis NARROWLY considered, by way of logic and human reason. A citation might cut it in a Rabbi steam-room but that is not science.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 25 minutes ago

    See the characteristics of evidence as below. Evidence has at least about five characteristics as listed. A proxy series standing in for hard data IS NOT EVIDENCE if only one proxy is used. I can prove this totally, so the Big Bang’s reliance on red shift still leaves it as a baseless theory ……. baseless quite apart from it being idiotic and the greatest embarrassment in the history of science.

    You would agree that without red shift the BB is baseless? Or is that a little bit too hard?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 16 hours ago

    There has never been time dilation recorded and no evidence for time dilation has ever surfaced or will ever surface.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 15 hours ago

    I cited you an example of it. Explain why their findings don’t count.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 14 hours ago

    You have never once come up with evidence for time dilation and none of your wild goose chases have that evidence either. Get yourself a macro example.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 13 hours ago

    Rossi, B.; Hall, D. B. (1941). “Variation of the Rate of Decay of Mesotrons with Momentum”. Physical Review 59 (3): 223–228

    Frisch, D. H.; Smith, J. H. (1963). “Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using μ-Mesons”. American Journal of Physics 31 (5): 342–355.

    Time dilation observed with moving particles in both cases. If you don’t think they demonstrate time dilation then EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHY NOT. The latter one is free to access online.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 9 minutes ago

    These guys are so without evidence their plan is to show time dilation in entities which they have yet to prove even exist. This is really scraping at the bottom of the scum barrel. Stop being a fucking idiot and give me something verifiable. A COMPETENTLY staged example of evidence involving macro objects. Proven objects.

    Is that too much to fucking ask? It sure is if you take the Jew-town faith-based approach.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    “The above also demonstrates the existence of space-time as an antity. ” It doesn’t demonstrate anything because its never happened. Its just a follow up to your idiocy that space is increased as opposed to the elastic band within the space.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 18 hours ago

    CERN, and other particle colliders like Tevatron, accelerate particles to close to the universal constant. This means that when they collide their products are moving at speed and have proven to last longer than they do at lower speeds. This is because their spatial velocity comes at the expense of their temporal velocity, showing that time is a dimension in the process. Got it yet?

    I expect evidence if you insist on arguing, as these effects are readily seen in any press release from the LHC.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 16 hours ago

    They don’t always know what they are accelerating. There is no such thing as temporal velocity. Time is not an entity its a concept, and a derived concept at that. This is not what is happening, and the people at Cern aren’t competent to figure out what is really going on. You aren’t able to check their logic, nor do you have the capacity to do so if you had their co-operation.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 15 hours ago

    These experiments EXPLICITLY prove that there is a temporal velocity. I am asking you to explain these effects if they are NOT the result of a decrease in velocity through a temporal dimension. The facts: particles have known, and repeatably established lifespans: these are extended with increased spatial velocity: increased spatial velocity decreases temporal velocity, showing that time is a dimension. Use their publically-available raw data to explain this if time is not a dimension.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 15 hours ago

    No none of these experiments have proved time dilation. Temporal velocity as a phrase is like “unicorn submarine” or something idiotic like that where features of two different concepts are mixed up. Time is a concept based on regular motion in the first place. It cannot be dilated because it doesn’t exist. No evidence has ever surfaced for time dilation. The existence of the particles themselves are not proven. Get yourself a life-sized experiment.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 13 hours ago

    Your lack of understanding is not contradictory evidence. If you disagree with the findings from these experiments then ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION. If time dilation was not responsible for, for example, the extended lifespan of the muon, then what was?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 8 minutes ago

    You impudent little cunt. Its YOUR failure to understand what evidence IS that does not constitute evidence. Get your act together you fucking cretin.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 7 minutes ago

    If you haven’t fucking proved the existence of an object you cannot fucking use that fucking object in a time fucking dilation experiment and call it evidence.

    Do you not understand that you logic-deprived degenerate? Is it the fluoride in the water you moron?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 5 minutes ago

    Now what is wrong with a fucking large proven object? What is wrong with that? Why can you not find a proven object, in a competently run experiment to prove your Jew fairy tale if you are right and I am wrong ?????? He asked the stupid kid knowingly?????????? Stage Whisper.

    For the love of stupid Jew chicks with huge tits. The reason you cannot find a competently run experiment with proven entities to make your case IS THAT THERER ARE NONE? Or did this not occur to you you stupid twat?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 14 hours ago

    No the experiments do not show EVEN THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE for any mischief to do with time itself. No such evidence has ever emerged. Nor could it since velocity is a purely relative concept and no two objects at different velocities can be said to be ever still or moving. Plus no object ever moves in a straight line in this galaxy.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 13 hours ago

    Everything you just said is demonstrably incorrect. There IS evidence; those citations provide it; objects ONLY move in straight lines.

    You velocity comment is self-contradictory: If it is relative then one observer would ALWAYS consider themselves at rest compared to another. It is only if velocity is independent of both observers that they could definitively be said to equally mobile. You haven’t got a clue, have you?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • e102ewan 

    e102ewan 12 hours ago

    He thinks there is no such thing as time dilation and he doesn’t believe something can exist as both wave and particle. It’s like he has no understanding of physics. He also says that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community to believe in everything Einstein said without question even though Einstein lost the quantum mechanics debate and spent the rest of his life unsuccessfully trying to prove it wrong.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • blitter blit 

    blitter blit 7 hours ago

    it also seems he’s a holocaust denier, a Jew hater and conspiracy theorist, he doesn’t believe we landed on the moon and is generally just a total whacked out paranoid cunt from australia. all you trying to argue with him is a waste of time i’m afraid, just look up his name in google

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to e102ewan (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 42 minutes ago

    There was no Jew holocaust. We must have zero tolerance for these baseless Jew lies. There was a German holocaust. There was a Japanese holocaust. There was a non-Russian Soviet holocaust. There was another non-Russian Soviet REFUGEE holocaust. There was NEVER a Jew holocaust.

    ….Except……

    …. There was mass-death of Jew slaves from Typhus. There was also mass-murder of the Jew slaves by the allies in the last few weeks and months of the war, when all food supplies were cut off.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to blitter blit (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 16 minutes ago

    We may well have landed on the moon. I don’t claim that at all. We didn’t do it with a Fritz Lang movie plot and we didn’t do it under Apollo. That is the only claim being made here, and the evidence is very clear on this matter.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to blitter blit (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 13 minutes ago

    I’m not denying the holocaust of German innocents!!!! Are you a filthy holocaust denier on this matter? I’m not denying the burnt offering of crispy Japanese war victims? Are you in denial of this matter? I’m not denying the mass-murder of the Operation Keelhaul victims? Are you in denial of this program.

    But there was no Jew Holocaust. Effectively there was a period of Jew slavery. Conscripted labour in effect. Which is bad enough I’ll admit that much. Hey its only science but I like it.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to blitter blit (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 1 hour ago

    I know. I’m trying to force him to read some of this stuff so he’ll see that his claims are entirely indefensible. We’ll see what happens then.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to e102ewan (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 17 minutes ago

    There isn’t any time dilation. This is a charlatans claim since it ignores the specific nature of time. Its status as a CONCEPT and not an entity. Its status as a DERIVED and not a primary concept. Einstein was either a conman or he just wasn’t very bright.

    Here I ignore the total lack of evidence for time dilation. So missing is the evidence people try to make us take their word for it on the basis of hypothetical unknown sub-atomic entities. Why never a COMPETENT macro experiment?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to e102ewan (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 40 minutes ago

    No you are lying. Every mainstream claim you make is totally baseless, and entirely without evidence for the claim. Everything. This is not science this is post-1913 Jewish mysticism posing as science.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 21 hours ago

    There is no curvature of space. Space has no shape so it cannot be curved. Capiche? So no ……… scientists don’t face such a question. Only idiot cult members do.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 day ago

    That space does not get created is a fact quite regardless of any 1000′s of correct or incorrect hypotheses invented or still in the future. This is Just Jews spinning shit. This is what they do.

    Entities have their own characteristics. Colours don’t have smell for example. All these fuckwits are doing is stealing a characteristic from one entity and putting it in a place where it doesn’t belong.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 21 hours ago

    Still no supporting evidence, I note. Do you think you could abstain from your racism for long enough to do a little research?

    You have just defined space as something which cannot be created, making it a physical part of reality, yet your previous comment stated that it has no physical properties, such as shape: do you realise you are contradicting yourself, or is it irrelevant to you as you seek only a way to vent your innate anti-semitism?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 21 hours ago

    What the fuck are you talking about.

    Its manifest that space doesn’t have shape you twat. This is not an entity that has that feature. Just as colour doesn’t have smell. Right? Fucking moron. What is wrong with you?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 21 hours ago

    Its not a definitional problem you twat. Its just that space is not an object and it has no shape. If you imagine that it has shape and then you draw that shape, what the fuck are you claiming is outside of that shape if not more space.

    Fuck we are dealing with retards here.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 20 hours ago

    The CMB radiation shows that spce is flat with anerror margin, according to NASA, of less than 1%. If it has curvature it is on a scale so large it is almost impossible to detect. This agrees perfectly with the predictions of someone you think was a con.

    It also demonstrates that space has a shape; probably a flat one. I accept that some people have difficulty in imagining a four-dimensional flat surface, but this doesn’t make it not exist. You are wrong, plain and simple.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 20 hours ago

    If you are going to continue in this bullshit, Dunning-Kruger-proving, ignorant mindset then you can start providing some evidence to support your claims. I consider your own opinion on this matter of no value, so cite some real work which supports you or fuck off and spout your ignorant, bigoted bollocks to someone who gives a fuck.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    You are the one that is bullshitting mate. Space isn’t flat you fucking liar. It doesn’t have a shape. It goes out in all directions, three-dimensionally, galaxies are seen on all sides as far as we can see refuting the big bang utterly.

    You are just a charlatan mate. Everything you say is not only wrong but self-evidently wrong like that chuckle-head that Dawkins introduced in the video I watched yesterday.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 20 hours ago

    Why would galaxies be constrained to one area of space?

    You are STILL unable to tell the difference between a two-dimensional shape WITHIN a four dimensional universe and the shape of the four-dimensional universe itself. That you are repeatedly making this mistake leads me to believe you are in no tenable position to be making these assertions. What are your qualifications? My physical experience is limited to electrical phenomena, but I suspect that makes me more of an authority than you.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    You are being a charlatan and trying to pass off the big bang lie. But you claim that we can look back to under a billion years of this make-believe big bang. Which means that when we look back we ought to know which direction the big bang was in.

    When you look at a star which you presume is 10 billion light years away, you say you are looking at something that happened 10 billion years ago. You should be able to point me in the direction of the big bang. And all the galaxies that are ……

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 17 hours ago

    You are now assuming that space pre-dates the big bang, which nobody has claimed. Your assertion that space existed to host what I suspect you believe was an “explosion” belies your ignorance. You are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 17 hours ago

    You idiot. There is no such entity as space-time, nor has there ever been any evidence for space-time ever. Nor has there been any evidence for a start-date for the universe. Nor is there such an entity as “time” it is rather a derived concept. You are a moron.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    …. And all the galaxies that are that age or thereabouts ought to be in that one direction. But supposing I point the equipment in the other direction. The distance I can see far back or far away is only dependent on the equipment. I can always see more galaxies just as much as my equipment will allow. If the big bang were true when we got say 12.8 billion light years away it would be all in one direction and we would locate where we are in the scheme of things. That we cannot do this…..

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 17 hours ago

    Whoever claimed that the big bang happened at a particular place? It was an EXPANSION of space (and time) and happened to every part of space(time). There was no originating spot from which everything is forever receding.

    If you feel that there is some reason for expecting this then state exactly why, citing evidence as you go. Otherwise, leave the poor Straw-Man alone.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 17 hours ago

    You idiot. How can I look in one direction 12 billion years ago, and then look at 180 degrees 12 billion years ago, and then tell myself that the universe is less then 14 billion years old. A child wouldn’t do this but a Jew can and a liar can try it on. Obviously if we can look back 13 billion years we would see the expansion after the bang and it would all HAVE TO BE in one direction that far back. Only a cretin cannot see this.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 16 hours ago

    Because ALL OF space has expanded: space expanded in EVERY direction. This is why you can see for 12 billion light years in ANY direction: space has receded from this point in every direction. The same is true of ANY point in space you choose to observe from.

    We can actually see further than 14 billion light years due to the accelerating expansion of space. Look it up. Unless you already know it inherently, of course.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 14 hours ago

    Space has never expanded. No example of space expanding has ever come to light. Space cannot expand. Space has no shape. Expanding is changing shape in some way. Space is an entity without shape and so cannot change shape. No evidence has emerged for an end to space in any direction. No explanation has ever been given for what would be outside of this region. We are only talking about Jew lies here.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 13 hours ago

    Prove it.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 14 hours ago

    Distance isn’t in proportion to velocity, and neither can be ascertained by red shift. But if these assumptions were true it would itself refute the big bang, and it would definitely have us at the dead centre of the universe despite all lying denials to the contrary.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 13 hours ago

    Prove this too. With references.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 40 minutes ago

    Fuck you chosen one, you don’t tell me what to do. You’ve got nothing. Your beliefs are purely faith-based.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 16 hours ago

    There has never been any expansion of space. The entire notion is more Jew mysticism. No expansion of space has ever been recorded, no evidence has ever surfaced for the expansion of space ever. Space is without shape and therefore is unchanging as to shape, since it had no shape yesterday and will have no shape tomorrow.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 15 hours ago

    Repeating your beliefs ad nauseum will not make them correct. Try citing some evuidence to support you as I have done.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 14 hours ago

    Stop doing it then. Stop repeating the phrases “time dilation” when none exists and no evidence exists for it and when it is impossible since time has no velocity or shape to dilate. Stop repeating the word “photon” when photons are ruled out by wave motion of light. Stop repeating the phrase “space-time” when not such entity exists nor any evidence for it.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 13 hours ago

    I have offered evidence and you have ignored it. You failed to address a single point and are refusing to cite evidence which supports you. My assumption is that you do this because you are unable to properly analyse an academic paper and are also unable to provide confirmatory data to support your hypothesis. As I have provided evidence for a temporal dimension I shall continue referring to it. If you insist on your repetitions then I suggest you do likewise and find some evidence.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 23 minutes ago

    No you have not offered evidence you are lying. Don’t hide behind a citation. If you think these morons have evidence … they don’t …. but if you are deluded that they have evidence …. they have none … but if you are so stupid as to imagine that they have evidence, lets have you put this evidence in your own words.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    …. That we cannot do this proves this hoax wrong and obviously so and even a child can see this. So the theory is held aloft by bullying and relentless lying.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    There is no two-dimensional shape. There is no four dimensional shape. The only objects in this universe are three dimensional. Nothing that lacks three dimensions exists at all.

    And I repeat. We only divide reality up into three dimensions for mathematical convenience.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 17 hours ago

    You might want to avoid telling that to string theorists.

    Feel free to actually answer the previous question.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 17 hours ago

    String theorists are just more loony toons. But the problem of just talking straight nonsense in terms of taking features from entities and transferring them where they don’t belong …. this came about with Einstein and his zionist buddies and the way that Jews make cult figures out of eachother.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 16 hours ago

    You are, yet again, avoiding the question I asked you. Here it is again:

    Why would galaxies be constrained to one area of space/one specific direction?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    The universe manifestly is not four dimensional. It is three dimensional. We are not like the stars on the outside of an expanding balloon. Even if the universe was contained within a giant balloon, it is manifest that we WOULD BE INSIDE that balloon, on not on its outside surface. You were lying that time was a dimension, now you are lying and claiming that there is a fourth dimension of SPACE. I make it then that you are now claiming five dimensions. 3+1+1 =5. So why did you never say 5?…

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    …. So why did you never say 5? You only talk about 4 dimensions. Then you say space is a dimension but its always 4 dimensions and now you are claiming another dimension of space just to try and pull off your big bang hoax. Well I know why its always 4 and its never 5 because these are conman tricks.

    Jews cannot even get simple maths right. In this story 3+1+1 still equals 4. And in their holocaust hoax 6 million minus 3 million still equals 6 million.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 17 hours ago

    The balloon – see if you can follow this – is a TWO-DIMENSIONAL representation of what happens to THREE-DIMENSIONAL space. Just because you have trouble telling the difference doesn’t make it any less accurate or correct. I’m hoping you’re trolling, otherwise you may be the first human to have a negative IQ.

    Incidentally, I included time as a dimension because it, in fact IS. There are four dimensions and time is one of them and these are the four to which I referred. Try to keep up.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 17 hours ago

    No it not. In three-dimensional space you are ON THE INSIDE OF THE BALLOON. The usual charlatan fraud that the usual suspects try on is they try to stooge the public that the stars are on the outside surface of the balloon. Whereas all evidence points to the setup being in three-dimensional space (which would be akin to the stars being inside the balloon) and no evidence ever surfaced otherwise.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 day ago

    I”m still listening to this idiot and he has absolutely no fucking idea about the scientific method at all. Dawkins used to have a lot of cache 20 years ago. It has to be admitted that he is still very fast on his feet. Of course I’d have to still admit that he’s a very intelligent man. But this boneheaded acceptance of the big bang and all this really bad science surely has tarnished him image so severely. I used to think he was so much smarter then me. Now I perceive him as less smart.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ginckgo (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 day ago

    I watched it all and its just embarrassing. Yes he is a great public speaker “The Woody Allen Of Cosmology” as one tarnished intellectual put it. But he’s not got any evidence for any of his mainstream crapola. I’m happy he opposed string theory. I guess he’s got his revenue stream, he’s got his history of acne and no future if he fucks with his gravy-train, so he couldn’t be a scientist no matter what.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to ginckgo (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 1 day ago

    Why do you assume that ANYTHING existed? Your implication that the big bang was an effect is misplaced, as there was no temporal dimension in which a “cause” could be said to precede it.

    Interestingly, the latest map of the CMBR shows a cool patch which is wholly consistent with the effects of a collision with another universe. Won’t this be fun to examine?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to michael delaney (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 day ago

    There was no big bang you dickhead. Nor any evidence for a big bang. You are supposed to be talking science. Should you wish to talk Jew fantasy talk Jew fantasy but there was never a big bang nor the shadow of a skerritt of a scintilla of evidence for it.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 21 hours ago

    The I assume you have a valid explanation for the CMB, which is looking a little more detailed these days. Then you can explain why galaxies are receding at a greater rate the further away they are. Off you go…

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 21 hours ago

    What the fuck do you think stars do all day? Are you claiming that space has to be zero degrees Kelvin? Why? People always knew there would be background warmth because back before the big bang lockdown, people weren’t insane. The big bang advocates were noted for being way wrong in their estimates. Plus the idea that this background is everywhere simply is not proven. We would have to get out of our solar system then check again.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 20 hours ago

    Since we have moved through space since the first time it was measured, and the measurements – at the same resolution – are identical then YOU are required to demonstrate why this would not be so in other locations.

    Space is not at 0K because temperature is a measure of particle velocity, so the fact that space has a small amount of travelling particles means it will have a temperature above 0. Note that the CMB does not match modern star locations.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    “Space is not at 0K because temperature is a measure of particle velocity, so the fact that space has a small amount of travelling particles means it will have a temperature above 0. Note that the CMB does not match modern star locations”

    That was never the assumption. No scientist prior to the big bang being locked in as dogma ever assumed that. Why would they? Presumably background warmth is retained in the aether. The existence of the aether is proven by the nature of light and gravity.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 20 hours ago

    “The existence of the aether is proven by the nature of light and gravity.”

    EVIDENCE you fucking retard. Where is it? What data confirms the existence of a substance which has been soundly disproven?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    We’ll go one at a time. I’ve got total proof. Light moves in waves. Q.E.D you stupid cunt. You cannot wave NOTHING.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 20 hours ago

    It doesn’t “move in waves”. Each photon has a given wavelength but that is NOT THE SAME THING. You are confusing waves of particles with the dualitf fundamental particles and this is something which anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of this subject would no do.

    Are you simply misunderstanding this subject or have you assumed that you already knew it all and did not need to learn it? You sound exactly like the latter, but I’m willing to accept the former.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    No light moves in waves. Don’t lie. Therefore there are no photons as advertised. Whereas most particles the charlatans talk about are hypothetical the photon is proven wrong. It categorically cannot exist or light wouldn’t move in waves.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 17 hours ago

    Photons have been detected innumerable times. Are you trying to claim that reality works in one particular way simply because you are unable to comprehend what ACTUALLY happens. That may be the most pathetic thing I have ever encountered: Look up the Photoelectric Effect and admit you are wrong. Either that or a large number of scientists have been lying over the last century or so; in which case, prove them wrong.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 17 hours ago

    Photons have never been detected you are lying. And they are explicitly ruled out as advertised by the wave nature of light. A child can see this. And yes the scientists who have followed the mainstream cult of Einstein, as they have had to do to be employed, are indeed full of shit. No photon has ever been detected.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • e102ewan 

    e102ewan 17 hours ago

    The photon thing is just a model so it is very unclear what point you’re trying to make.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 16 hours ago

    Well tell dopey that its just a model?????? Why bring me that news? Thats what I say as well and its a bad model that gets in the way. But they are a matter of dogmatic faith to the Jew RedChris05. So you agree that they don’t exist? Yes or no?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to e102ewan (Show the comment)
  • e102ewan 

    e102ewan 16 hours ago

    Yes

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 17 hours ago

    It doesn’t “move” in waves though, does it? The wave aspect of light is not the same as a wave of particles because there is no particulate matter through which it can travel. Electromagnetic waves are not mechanical in nature.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 16 hours ago

    Well clearly there is an aether. And no I would not suggest that the aether is particles in its nature. That gravity propagates instantaneously proves that all nucleons are connected directly or indirectly to every other. Hence while in comparison to a proton the aether may be tiny, still there aren’t individual and distinct particles in the strictest sense. Well actually there probably is. But being in the gravity network proves continual connection.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 15 hours ago

    And now we resort to changing the subject to disguise our lack of both knowledge and a sufficient response. Bravo.

    Gravity does NOT propagate instantly; it travels at the same universal constant as light:

    Taylor, Edwin F. and Wheeler, John Archibald, Spacetime Physics, 2nd edition, 1991, p. 12.

    Feel free to state why this analysis is incorrect, assuming you can read it.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 14 hours ago

    NO gravity DOES NOT propagate at light speed. This is a lie. It propagates instantly for all practical purposes. Don’t confuse reality with Jew lies. The study is without evidence that gravity propagates at c.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    Can we move on from the aether yet? The behaviour of light already has that one proven. Can we move on?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 17 hours ago

    Why reply to the same comment twice when what you said 1) had no valid contribution and 2) could have been said in a single text box?

    Do you know what evidence means?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    We don’t have a sensor out there. We simply cannot verify this matter from a sensor on earth. We need to be out there well away from our own star and its pent-up electrical capacitance.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 20 hours ago

    We’ve measured it for years and the earth has orbited the sun, while the solar system has continued to orbit the galaxy. If this radiation was due to a particular arrangement of stars it would have changed in the interim. Explain.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    No it wouldn’t have. You are not entitled to reach such a dogmatic conclusion. This is Jew talk. Trying to lock in the dogma without ever coming up with evidence.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 20 hours ago

    The stars have moved in relation to the earth, so it SHOULD have changed if your claims were true. Thus, they are not.

    Why don’t you try being specific about something for a change. Stop dodgin whenever you contradict yourself and actually try to clarify your hypothesis. Then we can show you exactly how incorrect it is.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 20 hours ago

    What should have changed? The speed of light? Yes I imagine that can change according to aether conditions and we would never know. We don’t have experiments going on in the territory between two galaxies. We can only clock light-speed under the conditions we find ourselves in.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 17 hours ago

    The CMB image should be different as we are seeing the supposed cause of it differently. If stars are the cause then it would have changed since we first mapped it. On the other hane, if it was the afterglow of the big bang then it would simply have lost a fractional amount of intensity as the photons became more stretched by expanding space. It should thus appear the same, but marginally cooler. Guess which is right?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 17 hours ago

    You don’t get to dictate to the universe. We don’t know how the CMB “should be” or even how it is. We need to have sensors outside the solar system to ascertain this. What we do know is that we cannot have zero Kelvin space since the stars are at work 24/7 and no pre-banger declared otherwise. There are no such thing as photons. This is explicitly ruled out by the wave nature of light. Stop lying about photons. Zero tolerance for Jew lies.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 17 hours ago

    If it was due to the stars then the fact that their relative positions have cxhanged in the measurement time means that the radiation should have altered too. Why is this incorrect reasoning? Try actually explaining something, as opposed to simply saying “NO!. ..dogmatic…Jews…cunt…dog­matic…dogmatic…dogmatic” incessantly. Why should the CMBR remain the same when the cause has changed?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 16 hours ago

    We don’t have a bloke at Alpha Centauri with a stopwatch and a sensor to test this sort of thing out. But I do imagine that light-speed changes with conditions, and in fact we know this to be true in experiments.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • redchris05 

    redchris05 15 hours ago

    Well measurements actually show that it is constant in any given substance: it’s veocity does not vary in identical environments. Since we are measuring its velocity through a vacuum, again, why should it vary when travelling through the same medium (empty space)?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 14 hours ago

    Right but its a vacuum with an aether. And aether conditions could vary far from earth. Like between galaxies for example. The aethers existence is proven by the wave nature of light.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to redchris05 (Show the comment)
  • michael delaney 

    michael delaney 5 days ago

    If the Earth loses its Moon it would be like clipping the wings of a bird in flight

    Or like pulling the fat out of a whale and just leaving muscle and bone

    The Moon moves away from Earth and it has been doing so for some time because of the nature of its composition

    Earth, Venus and Mercury all have average densities in the 5 range but the Moon should orbit around Jupiter or Saturn

    The only reason the moon is this close to the sun is because it is the wings of our planet

    Venus lost its wings

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MikeGibsonSG (Show the comment)
  • MikeGibsonSG 

    MikeGibsonSG 5 days ago

    This is your universe? Never mind then. I don’t live there.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to michael delaney (Show the comment)
  • michael delaney

    Comment removed

    Author withheld

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MikeGibsonSG (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 4 days ago

    What exactly are you in denial of? That the global warming fraud is a clear top down science fraud? That special relativity is the childish ravings of idiots? It doesn’t matter what trade the traditional enemies of truth dominate. They will systematically corrupt that trade every time.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MikeGibsonSG (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 4 days ago

    I’m an atheist you moron. Quite different from you chosen sand-nigger.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MikeGibsonSG (Show the comment)
  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 3 days ago

    Einstein was a clerk. … Science is not all wrong but we have to study the Bible to see what they have right. What science has right is very interesting.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MikeGibsonSG (Show the comment)
  • MikeGibsonSG

    MikeGibsonSG 2 days ago

    This has been flagged as spam show • Not Spam

  • Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 

    Herman (Dusty) Rhodes 3 days ago

    If you line up a string of tooth picks end to end for 5 miles, and expand each one, 1/1000th of an inch, the end tooth pick will actually move ahead 16 feet in the same amount of time it took the tooth picks to expand. So if there was an invisible structure throughout the universe and each leg of the structure expanded a microscopic measurement, you would see exactly what we see. The farther away you look, the faster everything would be moving away in all directions. The structure=laws of nature

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 3 days ago

    Right. But toothpicks are matter. And in your example it’s the toothpicks that have expanded and not space. I see all matter as being in constant direct or indirect contact with all other matter. It has to be that way or gravity could not propagate instantaneously. I think most orbits tend to grow and I think this is because new matter comes into play with the velocity of the matter around it, adding to total momentum. So I see a slowly expanding universe.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to Herman (Dusty) Rhodes (Show the comment)
  • PossibleNerd

    PossibleNerd 6 days ago

    This has been flagged as spam show • Not Spam

  • michael delaney 

    michael delaney 1 week ago

    what happened?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • VCubestudios 

    VCubestudios 1 week ago

    8:58

    The earth, much like the theory, blew up in his face.

    I believe the word is PWND

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • MegaMDAT 

    MegaMDAT 1 week ago

    If a red giant has insufficient core temperatures to fuse carbon,carbon and oxygen will build up inside of it.Helium-4 fuses to carbon and oxygen,and after the outer layers of the star are shed,this core remains.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 week ago

    No this is all refuted nonsense. Stars don’t work by way of this high pressure fusion.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MegaMDAT (Show the comment)
  • Andrew Lohbihler 

    Andrew Lohbihler 1 week ago

    The science of Plate Tectonics has become like a political party. Where as if you are not part of the party caucus of PT theory then you are branded as an outsider. PT theory does not explain a lot, and there are many holes in the theory, so in effect the party caucus is wrong, but the members still want the party to survive. Science is not a democracy, so party votes do not count.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • MegaMDAT 

    MegaMDAT 1 week ago

    This argument was interesting,and I hope you do well in the future.You can very well change physics,but only if you provide observational evidence,hard facts and back up your theories.But nothing has proven plate tectonics wrong,and that is a theory that is not wrong.Goodbye,and do well in the future.I will go for for now,and I leave you with my questions.Bye.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 week ago

    Plate tectonics was always wrong since it was physically impossible.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MegaMDAT (Show the comment)
  • sathearn 

    sathearn 1 week ago

    In case you missed them last night, I refer you to my rsponse to ginckgo’s response to your query about accreted terranes on an expanding Earth – already burried about 1/3 down the all-comments-view page. But fare thee well.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MegaMDAT (Show the comment)
  • MegaMDAT 

    MegaMDAT 1 week ago

    Can you post them again?

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to sathearn (Show the comment)
  • sathearn

    sathearn 1 week ago

    This has been flagged as spam show • Not Spam

  • sathearn

    sathearn 1 week ago

    This has been flagged as spam show • Not Spam

  • sathearn

    sathearn 1 week ago

    This has been flagged as spam show • Not Spam

  • sathearn

    sathearn 1 week ago

    This has been flagged as spam show • Not Spam

  • sathearn

    sathearn 1 week ago

    This has been flagged as spam show • Not Spam

  • MegaMDAT 

    MegaMDAT 1 week ago

    But data and real evidence is not what nealadams provides.Plate tectonics has not been refuted,and there is also no evidence that features on earth were made by expansion.Nor in the solar system.I hope you do well,but Plate tectonics is supported by topological,satellite,geophysi­cal and geological evidence.I leave you with that.Good day.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 week ago

    You are talking nonsense. Adams provides convergent evidence amounting to total proof. If you cannot get it right after his clear demonstrations you aren’t getting anything right in a century of Sundays. The problem is one of epistemology. Yours.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MegaMDAT (Show the comment)
  • michael delaney 

    michael delaney 1 week ago

    you leave me with nothing, well I didnt expect anything if that makes you feel better about yourself

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MegaMDAT (Show the comment)
  • MegaMDAT 

    MegaMDAT 1 week ago

    I just came here out of boredom.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to michael delaney (Show the comment)
  • MegaMDAT 

    MegaMDAT 1 week ago

    Well,this has gone off topic.Unless I see some evidence,by observation or some peer reviewed papers then I cannot believe a single thing you are saying.I know you want to change physics,and that is possible,but nobody will take your words without skepticism if you can convince them so.Hard facts are the best weapon you have,and you won’t get them without observable science.Expanding earth is not one of them.I cannot argue with you unless you present more than conjecture.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 week ago

    Peer review and citations. This is what the traditional enemies of Logos have done. They’ve turned science into a centrally controlled rabbinical debating society. What matters is evidence and reasons. Not peer review and citations. You know the broad facts about physics, the broad facts about dinosaurs, and the observational facts about the universe, implying that matter has to be made on location. Maxlow’s pHd thesis qualifies but it won’t help you in your error if you have rejected science

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MegaMDAT (Show the comment)
  • MegaMDAT 

    MegaMDAT 1 week ago

    Metals can easily survive such temperatures.Lava is 2100 Fahrenheit.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • michael delaney

    Comment removed

    Author withheld

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MegaMDAT (Show the comment)
  • MegaMDAT 

    MegaMDAT 1 week ago

    In the case of the earth,it is convection in the iron core that makes the magnetic field.Rotation does not actually play a part in a dynamo.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • GMBCATASTROPHE 

    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 week ago

    How do you know that this is the case for large spherical bodies? Where does the electrical flow wind up? Electricity usually goes around in a cycle. Which is why I don’t get anywhere wiring up the positive end of one battery to the negative of another. How is it that in the case of the earth the electricity seems to just flow to earth and disappear? If all large spherical bodies that have a magnetic field also have at least one moon and are rotating I’m going to suspect that this is necessary

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MegaMDAT (Show the comment)
  • MegaMDAT 

    MegaMDAT 1 week ago

    The core does not lose heat.A core must convect to lose heat.

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down
  • michael delaney 

    michael delaney 1 week ago

    if you are running and you stop running heat rises and one perspires, stop the BS

    Reply · Vote UpVote Down in reply to MegaMDAT (Show the comment)
  • MegaMDAT 

Responses

  1. [...] uncensored on “Jew Kids Having Rejected Logos……“ @ A Better World: Graeme Bird For High [...]

  2. GMBCATASTROPHE 1 second ago
    Check out the Christian gentleman in comparison to your own logic-deprived asses. His ideas are consistently interesting, I’ve made a mental note to check some of these intriguing ideas out. He knows his twin subjects. His ideas are original and come about through a process. The process starts with a few assumptions biases and assumptions that almost no-one here accepts? Is this reason for dis-respect? I don’t think so. From there its the Logos. Pure human reason. But with ……..
    Reply ·

    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 second ago
    ….. But with the rest of you where do the religiously held assumptions end? When does the logos start? See with the mainstreamers the faith-based beliefs never ends and the logos never begins. This is why the Christian era of science was the greatest era of science:
    To a Christian its Gods world. The Christian is interested to know the reality that God of the logos has created. And the Christian will be happy with whatever it is that God has made. He just wants to find out as much as ….
    Reply · in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)

    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 second ago
    ….. as much about God’s (not his) creation as he can. The modern Jew however has two concerns. He is a chosen one and really part of the antinomian heresy in some sense. He would be AS GOD. The Jew sticks up for members of his tribe, because his God is a vicious racist. And the Jew also triea to CREATE REALITY, not being content to be a normal human and simply bare witness to Gods creation. In the book of John Christ is made to be the personification of the Greek concept of the Logos.
    Reply · in reply to GMBCATASTROPHE (Show the comment)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: