have you ever compared?
we must group all humans into one species when we say the genus of humanity is homo and includes only EXTINCT species so all living humans are the "same species" what if there are different species of human? and we could not talk that way in western countries... but what if it were true?
i am no expert on flowres but whenb it comes to plants and animals we easily split categories...
when i compare the sepcies of a genuss of flowers they are all related... i know enuf enough to count the number of petals and color of petals...
yet almost all of 200 species of a certain genus of iris look the same all have six petals and all but two are blus... even the ones wuith white petals and the other with yellow petals are related and one blue one has blue center oinstead of light color are those tru;ly seperate species?
many species are separated based on name of PLACES... this reveals two bad biases... the desire for recognition i want to be the one to name a species... regardless of truth... revealed by comparing "homo californicu," species and homo-tokyo species...
and what about the idea of species extinct or near extinct... unjustly dividing species which are really the same provides an excuse to chase funding to save the endangered species of plant or animal when truly the difference is so mnor if that one would truly be extincyt the species is not becase so many others related are truly the same blue flower petals of difffering shafedes and six petals configuration
so the same way humans con interbereed and birthing children with diffferent colored eyes than each other and that does not mean mom slept with a different man... yet all one species so how can we claim 26000 or more speicies of iris and more thoiusands of other genus genera? the comparison showsthe rapid destruction of truth...
]when truly most soecies are the samne one species relted by family as revealed by contrast to human when in truth human contain different species with different charecteristics. all the names are artificial and are suspect of greedy moeny chasing... but whe we compare we see the truth is between almost all species of flower areethe same species with few differing species and equaly exist a few differing species of humans among us now... may truth be important amen.,
Saturday, January 27, 2018
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
when was jesus born?
jesus was born when "herod the king" gospel matthew 2.1 that is 37 bc, after herod the governor. this is after julius ceasar died in 44 bc [senators killed him but died] so anything before herod is tooo far to bother with outside of college history degree.
ROMAN senate appointed herod king of judea and he conquered it in 37 bc. he died in 4 bc and jesus was born before his death if gospel is true.
if number count is true year 2018, then gospel lied because herod died 4 bc so after herod and say in days of herod would be a lie or gospel true and more than 2018 years ago at latest 4 bc but maybe earlier in past before 4 bc when we know herod died. then his son ar. took over=archelaus mat. 2.22, reigned in judea between 4 BC and 6= (-4)-(6). but not galilee in 4 bc
philip ruled... "Herod Phillip Antipas Tetrarch of Galilee" from 4 bc, brother of archeluas both sons of herod and in this detail he gospel of luke is inaccurate because herod was the title for many and philip in galilee but luke wrote inaccurately cut herod philip into 2 oops.
not "brother philip" but philip brother of archelaus the name in matthew 2.22 later see
https://www.geni.com/people/Herod-Tetrarch-of-Galilee-and-Perea/6000000002187718440
at least the emperor is good luke 2.1 "augustus ceasar" perhaps month august named for him? from year -27 named augustus. ruled 31 bc until 14 around 45 years=44 cuz january 1 bc until january 2 ad is only 24 months.
+luke 3.1 "tiberius ceasar" ruled years 14-37. so 15 of t. means year 29 when jesus was at least 33 when jesus "around 30 in that chapter 3.23"
another emperor mentioned is claudius 41-54 in acts 18.2
from the end of book chronicles until first ceasar mentioned in gospel luke 2, were empires
first babylonian empire nebuchadnezer ruled from city babylon ruling jerusalem occupation, empire was strong from "The Babylonian Empire was the most powerful state in the ancient world after the fall of the Assyrian empire (612 BCE). Its capital Babylon was beautifully adorned by king Nebuchadnezzar, who erected several famous buildings. Even after the Babylonian Empire had been overthrown by the Persian king Cyrus the Great (539)" so 612 bc until -539 sometime in between captured jerusalem and year numbers in bible certainly false we know about mesa and neb. so false numbers.
source
http://www.livius.org/articles/place/babylonian-empire
persian empire from 539 v as above ruling until macedonia greek empire 332 bc
persian strong -539 until -330
greek strong -332 until -164 hasmonean dynasty self-rule of jews until -63 roman. as above too far to elaborate and roman ruled until emperor augustus as above.
which books tell the story of that era?
josephus and the ancient jews had books called "macabees" included in septuagint and hence in catholic bible later jews and protestants removed the books which the jews once included as preserved in josephus.
ferguson wrote about jewish culture
under rome pages 527-582.backgrounds of early christianity 1993 and 2003
also pfeiffer between the testaments 1959 and bickerman from ezra to last macabee 1962
the dead sea scrolls were translated to english vermes 1987.
other books describing this era but too early for christians unless they want to fill the gap from nebucadnezer, jagersma from alexander to bar kokba 1985
tcherikover hellinistic 1959 or hebrew title jews under greek and rome 1961 old same author 1982
later regarding herod perowne herod 1956 or stern hebrew title herod kingdom 1992, and before herod if you want h=juda hasmonean 1995
ROMAN senate appointed herod king of judea and he conquered it in 37 bc. he died in 4 bc and jesus was born before his death if gospel is true.
if number count is true year 2018, then gospel lied because herod died 4 bc so after herod and say in days of herod would be a lie or gospel true and more than 2018 years ago at latest 4 bc but maybe earlier in past before 4 bc when we know herod died. then his son ar. took over=archelaus mat. 2.22, reigned in judea between 4 BC and 6= (-4)-(6). but not galilee in 4 bc
philip ruled... "Herod Phillip Antipas Tetrarch of Galilee" from 4 bc, brother of archeluas both sons of herod and in this detail he gospel of luke is inaccurate because herod was the title for many and philip in galilee but luke wrote inaccurately cut herod philip into 2 oops.
not "brother philip" but philip brother of archelaus the name in matthew 2.22 later see
https://www.geni.com/people/Herod-Tetrarch-of-Galilee-and-Perea/6000000002187718440
at least the emperor is good luke 2.1 "augustus ceasar" perhaps month august named for him? from year -27 named augustus. ruled 31 bc until 14 around 45 years=44 cuz january 1 bc until january 2 ad is only 24 months.
+luke 3.1 "tiberius ceasar" ruled years 14-37. so 15 of t. means year 29 when jesus was at least 33 when jesus "around 30 in that chapter 3.23"
another emperor mentioned is claudius 41-54 in acts 18.2
from the end of book chronicles until first ceasar mentioned in gospel luke 2, were empires
first babylonian empire nebuchadnezer ruled from city babylon ruling jerusalem occupation, empire was strong from "The Babylonian Empire was the most powerful state in the ancient world after the fall of the Assyrian empire (612 BCE). Its capital Babylon was beautifully adorned by king Nebuchadnezzar, who erected several famous buildings. Even after the Babylonian Empire had been overthrown by the Persian king Cyrus the Great (539)" so 612 bc until -539 sometime in between captured jerusalem and year numbers in bible certainly false we know about mesa and neb. so false numbers.
source
http://www.livius.org/articles/place/babylonian-empire
persian empire from 539 v as above ruling until macedonia greek empire 332 bc
persian strong -539 until -330
greek strong -332 until -164 hasmonean dynasty self-rule of jews until -63 roman. as above too far to elaborate and roman ruled until emperor augustus as above.
which books tell the story of that era?
josephus and the ancient jews had books called "macabees" included in septuagint and hence in catholic bible later jews and protestants removed the books which the jews once included as preserved in josephus.
ferguson wrote about jewish culture
under rome pages 527-582.backgrounds of early christianity 1993 and 2003
also pfeiffer between the testaments 1959 and bickerman from ezra to last macabee 1962
the dead sea scrolls were translated to english vermes 1987.
other books describing this era but too early for christians unless they want to fill the gap from nebucadnezer, jagersma from alexander to bar kokba 1985
tcherikover hellinistic 1959 or hebrew title jews under greek and rome 1961 old same author 1982
later regarding herod perowne herod 1956 or stern hebrew title herod kingdom 1992, and before herod if you want h=juda hasmonean 1995
Sunday, January 21, 2018
song: cold winter remember warmth of summer
song
"Hot Days"
on hot days i wear a thin shirt
but my ewe must be very sad
she constantly grows a wool coat
i asked her, "are you hot?"- she baaed.
my room lacks air-conditioning
if it had, then i could have led
my hot ewe into my cool home
or i can shear her wool instead.
"Hot Days"
on hot days i wear a thin shirt
but my ewe must be very sad
she constantly grows a wool coat
i asked her, "are you hot?"- she baaed.
my room lacks air-conditioning
if it had, then i could have led
my hot ewe into my cool home
or i can shear her wool instead.
global warming and greenhouse gas
if we feel truth is important we will bother to check and see that every night the temperature drops SIGNIFICANTLY no difference whether winter cold day and colder nights or hot summer and colder nights.
the fact is the heat is NOT RETAINED by greenhouse gasses but instead went and goes away at night and the nights are always colder than day.and the green house gasses which we have are needed to keep some heat in or the nights on our planet would be like the moon....
adding more would just mean that the nights are more like the day.
polution like poison to our breath is the only gas we need to limit but so-called- bad greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide are not bad because they feed the trees which supply you with oxygen if anything is bad it is the bad whales.... which eat the algea which makes oxygen you and your children need.follow the results... we need oxygen so we need more algea to produce oxygen so we need less whales... even extinct whales as long as we take a full video all around first, then make the whales food which is not only food but leads to more oxygen... which you and your children need so stop "saving the whales" they are against humans because the whales eat algea which makes the oxygen we need.
almost every mammal we should be using for food look at the many many dogs and cats not adopted those could be cheap food for poor families... is that "humane" to deny a poor family cheap ground meat?
whenever the dog pound is full or any dog or cat has not been adopted in a week they should be cheap meat to feed poor families and make room for the found ones in the dog pound.
certainly not saving the whales which are against humans as above because we need oxygen.
the fact is the heat is NOT RETAINED by greenhouse gasses but instead went and goes away at night and the nights are always colder than day.and the green house gasses which we have are needed to keep some heat in or the nights on our planet would be like the moon....
adding more would just mean that the nights are more like the day.
polution like poison to our breath is the only gas we need to limit but so-called- bad greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide are not bad because they feed the trees which supply you with oxygen if anything is bad it is the bad whales.... which eat the algea which makes oxygen you and your children need.follow the results... we need oxygen so we need more algea to produce oxygen so we need less whales... even extinct whales as long as we take a full video all around first, then make the whales food which is not only food but leads to more oxygen... which you and your children need so stop "saving the whales" they are against humans because the whales eat algea which makes the oxygen we need.
almost every mammal we should be using for food look at the many many dogs and cats not adopted those could be cheap food for poor families... is that "humane" to deny a poor family cheap ground meat?
whenever the dog pound is full or any dog or cat has not been adopted in a week they should be cheap meat to feed poor families and make room for the found ones in the dog pound.
certainly not saving the whales which are against humans as above because we need oxygen.
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
moon speed relates to gravity
we know the moon moves around our planet at a certain rate of speed. if it would move at the same rate around the planet with the red pimple named jupiter [which must be the jew favorite planet jew-piter] it would "drop and fall out of orbit" fall down because of jupiters mass called gravity. perhaps gravity caused an increase in speed? or the opposite.... only the fastest do not drop out of orbit and so the moons around jupiter do move faster than our moon or else they would fall.
we can predict logically that our planet must be moving "very fast" and faster than the planet with the red pimple because our planet is nearer to the mass of our star or it would fall out of orbit and fall into the sun.
science claims to know that jupiter moves around the sun in much longer time compounded by the known "slower rate" s above and the longer distance around... similarly the motion of stars around the center of our galaxy must have different rates unless stars equidistant to the center could differ they could do they?? god could do miracles but did he do a certain one? he could... that did not answer the question.
certainly any star "3 light years" distance nearer to the center of the galaxy than our star or 3 light-years distance further from the center of our galaxy must have a different speed and different relative motion the same as the science claimed to know about the speed rate of planets orbiting our sun.
we can predict logically that our planet must be moving "very fast" and faster than the planet with the red pimple because our planet is nearer to the mass of our star or it would fall out of orbit and fall into the sun.
science claims to know that jupiter moves around the sun in much longer time compounded by the known "slower rate" s above and the longer distance around... similarly the motion of stars around the center of our galaxy must have different rates unless stars equidistant to the center could differ they could do they?? god could do miracles but did he do a certain one? he could... that did not answer the question.
certainly any star "3 light years" distance nearer to the center of the galaxy than our star or 3 light-years distance further from the center of our galaxy must have a different speed and different relative motion the same as the science claimed to know about the speed rate of planets orbiting our sun.
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
galactic and planetary motion
science books claim to know the rate of speed of our neighboring planets.
somehow they claim that the rate of our planet is 66 thousand kilometers per hour moving a length of around 500 million kilometers per cycle around our star, which DEFINES a year because what we call a year that time is the time of one orbit
in contrast science claims that the large planet with the red pimple area named jupiter moves at a SLOWER rate 47 thousand kilometers per hour along a much longer distance completing in one of its years one orbit in the time which our planet moved around our star more than ten times
if we believe these claims then we can predict that our star which is located at a certain distance from the center of the galaxy when compared to a star BETWEEN and nearer the center of the galaxy then that inner star must be moving FASTER than our sun's relative motion, around the center of the galaxy for a significantly less length of distance so our star is like jupiter in two factors slower than and farther than an inner star nearer to the center of our galaxy which moves relatively FASTER and completes a smaller circumference the ratio that our planet moves faster than the pimple planet
we can also predict that stars further from the center of our galaxy are relatively slower and longer circumference compounding the time between completion of cycles
therefore when we look at the nearest stars... we must define the relative position to the center of our galaxy and there must be motion within the galaxy and must be a consistent change in distance depending on the factor if it is "between" the center of the galaxy and our star the sun or at an equidistant ratio like our star the sun or "beyond" it
somehow they claim that the rate of our planet is 66 thousand kilometers per hour moving a length of around 500 million kilometers per cycle around our star, which DEFINES a year because what we call a year that time is the time of one orbit
in contrast science claims that the large planet with the red pimple area named jupiter moves at a SLOWER rate 47 thousand kilometers per hour along a much longer distance completing in one of its years one orbit in the time which our planet moved around our star more than ten times
if we believe these claims then we can predict that our star which is located at a certain distance from the center of the galaxy when compared to a star BETWEEN and nearer the center of the galaxy then that inner star must be moving FASTER than our sun's relative motion, around the center of the galaxy for a significantly less length of distance so our star is like jupiter in two factors slower than and farther than an inner star nearer to the center of our galaxy which moves relatively FASTER and completes a smaller circumference the ratio that our planet moves faster than the pimple planet
we can also predict that stars further from the center of our galaxy are relatively slower and longer circumference compounding the time between completion of cycles
therefore when we look at the nearest stars... we must define the relative position to the center of our galaxy and there must be motion within the galaxy and must be a consistent change in distance depending on the factor if it is "between" the center of the galaxy and our star the sun or at an equidistant ratio like our star the sun or "beyond" it
Friday, January 12, 2018
the first human ever born in our past
when science studied skeletons it found skeletons of apes which they call pithicus and other skeletons like humans but not in older earlier times. before a certain point in time they find only pithicus skeletons and not humans which leads to the question how was the first human born? on one hand a small-brain super-smart ape possibly could make human decisions and uniquely human thinking in an ape skull... or not... so i can only ask about the unique skeleton considering the ape may have been smarter or less smart. altho that is unknown what is obvious: if humans were born from human mothers who were themselves born from human mother=infinitely then we would find such skeletons with earlier species unless they were not on this our planet so that is obvious. s
i already published several ideas one which i saw in a dream several years ago and published the next day on my hebrew blog in the hopes i was translating a transmission about our past: a male mammal called dolphin which usually mates with other dolphins but once mated with a mermaid [you know the fish that has a human head/skull] combined the "half fish with" mammal producing the first mer+mammals with almost no hair like dolphins and they breathed only air so climbed out of the water since this is true it rejects the idea of humans born from apes we were born from dolphins and that caused less hair like dolphins despite needing hair on land like other land mammals... after all apes have ape babies of the same species not a different species such as non-hairy baby... specifically on land where land mammals need fur... unless.... s
i had an idea a few weeks ago and found that family guy 2011 published ALMOST THE IDENTICAL IDEA
we all know that in comedy series "family guy first season one" showed a time machine published in april 1999 almost two decades ago. we all know the idea is truth because after all we observe that we can move through space and since space time is one unity we must be able to move through space-time to a different point in time... m
my idea is not a time "machine" but similar story and i was reminded today that family guy published almost the same idea as mine, but six 6 years before mine in May 2011 first there idea: the baby named stewie moves with the time machine and caused the expansion of the universe commonly called the big bang see link below. w
a second element in that episode from may 2011 is that stewie garrunteed his own birth by injecting his dna into his ancestors female and this is essentially the same idea which explains the first human skeleton ever born, as i will explain first in our past and then in our future
FIRSTLY** in our human past ALREADY a human injected their dna into an ancient ape and this blend led to the common ancestor of human and apes which later adapted into two species and this garrunteed the birth of the first human=around 90 ninety thousand bc . when in the past? as i published a few months ago [before opening this blog] from an earlier alien transmission [published june 2017 the first life on earth was around 900,000 years or orbits ago 9*10^5 and i also detailed based on alien transmission the order of the life-forms but cannot find the link now.
the first human [i mean ever born from a female non-human a mammal as above either way] was similar to the idea in 2011 baby in family guy garrunteed his own birth and as a result also garrunteed the cause of the big bang similarly... one human already garrunteed the birth of the first human. this ALREADY OCCURRED and the proof is... the human skeletons which proves it already happened also
my idea from a few weeks ago was not based on that episode it was a response to the flying reindeer of christmas... what could be cooler sounding than fast reindeer that can also fly? only one thing: travel through space-time to another time... that would be the christmas miracle on a different date... but that idea we have seen in old books and many videos and tv my idea was similar to the idea in "star trek" where the ship called enterprise loops around the sun to bend space time and arrive at a time in the past to save some important whale of course the suns gravity waves are not enough to warp time so instead i made a human fly TO THE CENTER OF OUR GALAXY similar to a different star trek video but instead of finding a planet WITH AN ANGRY BEING THAT CALLS ITSELF GOD they find the thing which IS TRULY in the center of our galaxy and other galaxies=a black hole as taught by cosmology
this human is a male who wants to observe the first humans born, as he believes=from apes and calculates his stellar-vehicle to loop near the black hole at the center of our galaxy not near enough to fall in but near enough that the powerful gravity waves bend space time and at the correct trajectory he will move in space-time to a point in space time where he calculates our planet named earth is in the year of the first humans
the problem is double his calculations are not precise and the year of the first human is also not known precisely so he moved to a point in space time near a giant planet with orange stripes and must jet towards earth [moving only in space] arriving precisely 100,000 time units of, as in the alien transmission, one orbit so the most recent tenth of time of life which was as in the previous transmission 9*10^5 this is 1*10^5 around 99000 years ago
this male saw no humans which proved as wrong, the history which he had believed in, it was false there are no humans in that year only furry apes at 99k bc and humans as he believed should have existed already... as he was taught so he chased away some male apes and when the female apes were in heat they slept with him and this ALREADY OCCURRED in our past as evident from the existence of different human skeletons which were wrongly dated older than 99000 bc
so in summary in our past 99kbc 99000 years ago, a male human chased away male apes and when the female apes were in heat they slept with him receiving human dna which garrunteed the birth of the "first human ever born in the past" as above around ten thousand years later but how this male got there was as above, by a trajectory near the black hole in the center of our galaxy arriving as above in that year to inject the human dna at that point in time when there were no humans yet and those parents were the ancestors of the two species born later. this is the alien transmission which they knew and which we will find is true when we have the tools, and which as you know differs from both religion and so-called science but is the only true record of the first humans amen
i already published several ideas one which i saw in a dream several years ago and published the next day on my hebrew blog in the hopes i was translating a transmission about our past: a male mammal called dolphin which usually mates with other dolphins but once mated with a mermaid [you know the fish that has a human head/skull] combined the "half fish with" mammal producing the first mer+mammals with almost no hair like dolphins and they breathed only air so climbed out of the water since this is true it rejects the idea of humans born from apes we were born from dolphins and that caused less hair like dolphins despite needing hair on land like other land mammals... after all apes have ape babies of the same species not a different species such as non-hairy baby... specifically on land where land mammals need fur... unless.... s
i had an idea a few weeks ago and found that family guy 2011 published ALMOST THE IDENTICAL IDEA
we all know that in comedy series "family guy first season one" showed a time machine published in april 1999 almost two decades ago. we all know the idea is truth because after all we observe that we can move through space and since space time is one unity we must be able to move through space-time to a different point in time... m
my idea is not a time "machine" but similar story and i was reminded today that family guy published almost the same idea as mine, but six 6 years before mine in May 2011 first there idea: the baby named stewie moves with the time machine and caused the expansion of the universe commonly called the big bang see link below. w
a second element in that episode from may 2011 is that stewie garrunteed his own birth by injecting his dna into his ancestors female and this is essentially the same idea which explains the first human skeleton ever born, as i will explain first in our past and then in our future
FIRSTLY** in our human past ALREADY a human injected their dna into an ancient ape and this blend led to the common ancestor of human and apes which later adapted into two species and this garrunteed the birth of the first human=around 90 ninety thousand bc . when in the past? as i published a few months ago [before opening this blog] from an earlier alien transmission [published june 2017 the first life on earth was around 900,000 years or orbits ago 9*10^5 and i also detailed based on alien transmission the order of the life-forms but cannot find the link now.
the first human [i mean ever born from a female non-human a mammal as above either way] was similar to the idea in 2011 baby in family guy garrunteed his own birth and as a result also garrunteed the cause of the big bang similarly... one human already garrunteed the birth of the first human. this ALREADY OCCURRED and the proof is... the human skeletons which proves it already happened also
my idea from a few weeks ago was not based on that episode it was a response to the flying reindeer of christmas... what could be cooler sounding than fast reindeer that can also fly? only one thing: travel through space-time to another time... that would be the christmas miracle on a different date... but that idea we have seen in old books and many videos and tv my idea was similar to the idea in "star trek" where the ship called enterprise loops around the sun to bend space time and arrive at a time in the past to save some important whale of course the suns gravity waves are not enough to warp time so instead i made a human fly TO THE CENTER OF OUR GALAXY similar to a different star trek video but instead of finding a planet WITH AN ANGRY BEING THAT CALLS ITSELF GOD they find the thing which IS TRULY in the center of our galaxy and other galaxies=a black hole as taught by cosmology
this human is a male who wants to observe the first humans born, as he believes=from apes and calculates his stellar-vehicle to loop near the black hole at the center of our galaxy not near enough to fall in but near enough that the powerful gravity waves bend space time and at the correct trajectory he will move in space-time to a point in space time where he calculates our planet named earth is in the year of the first humans
the problem is double his calculations are not precise and the year of the first human is also not known precisely so he moved to a point in space time near a giant planet with orange stripes and must jet towards earth [moving only in space] arriving precisely 100,000 time units of, as in the alien transmission, one orbit so the most recent tenth of time of life which was as in the previous transmission 9*10^5 this is 1*10^5 around 99000 years ago
this male saw no humans which proved as wrong, the history which he had believed in, it was false there are no humans in that year only furry apes at 99k bc and humans as he believed should have existed already... as he was taught so he chased away some male apes and when the female apes were in heat they slept with him and this ALREADY OCCURRED in our past as evident from the existence of different human skeletons which were wrongly dated older than 99000 bc
so in summary in our past 99kbc 99000 years ago, a male human chased away male apes and when the female apes were in heat they slept with him receiving human dna which garrunteed the birth of the "first human ever born in the past" as above around ten thousand years later but how this male got there was as above, by a trajectory near the black hole in the center of our galaxy arriving as above in that year to inject the human dna at that point in time when there were no humans yet and those parents were the ancestors of the two species born later. this is the alien transmission which they knew and which we will find is true when we have the tools, and which as you know differs from both religion and so-called science but is the only true record of the first humans amen
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
the same speed is not the same
we observe the motion of the earth "spin" relative to the north pole the direction is what we call counter-clockwise as explained and certainly not clockwise spin
think of night. the room is dark and we stand facing a candle i can turn my right arm away from the candle so it is dark=that is what we call clockwise or we can move my right arm nearer to the candle called counterclockwise and continue the same motion until it is dark on the other side.
as we move my right arm nearer to the candle the arm sees the candle moving "rightward" and as i continue to spin in the same movement now the same right arm is moving away from the candle in the same movement called counterclockwise. so eventualy my right arm is dark facing away from the candle... and obviously my eyes see the candle moving rightward when my arm moves as described. at that time when the arm reaches the point where it is dark a point west of the arm is still lit by the shine of the candle and that defines the spin of our planet relative to the north pole as counterclockwise
i could have spun the earth in the opposite direction but we observe the spin is as described above whcih leads to two questions
i predict that the motion of the moon is the same motion as the spin described that means that at one point in the month we see the side of the moon which is lit and we know that the relative position is the earth is between the moon and sun so at night when we face away from the candle source called sun we see the moon side which faces the sun while later what we call a half month later we face at night away from the sun and not see the moon because the moon is not there it is in the position relative to the sun between the sun and this planert we call earth our planet so the questionis does the mooon orbit the earth frm those points to points in the same deined spin as the earths spin? i predict the samemotion called counterclockwise and we can test this by observing which side is light later if the motion is the same as the earths observed spin as above then as we face the side of the moon that is less olight we will see the left side of the mooon light before the right side light... if the order would be reversed we would know the motion is the opposite motion relative to the north pole called clockwise.
similarly we should ask regarding our planets orbit... at a point in th eyear we cann choose the point when at night we face away from the candle and we certain dertain stars perhaps three 3 stars in a short straight line called orions belt and then later what we call half year later at night we face away from the sun and face different stars... the ones opposite from the row of 3... is the motion to that point the same as the earhs spin as above countyerclockwise and if so all 3 motions are the same or is the motion the other way around the orbit...
we observe the moons motion is "right sid e light lite after we face the dark side so we know the relative motion of th emooon si counterclockwiseorbit around the earth and not clockwise and similarly i predict that the motion rlative to the borth pole of our planet orbit around the sun is the same motion counterclockwise and not clockwise.
finally w can define the difference in relative speed of the moon motion...
the moon alone moves in orbit around our planet as above counterclockwise moving the distance of the orbit length at a steady rate of o length in time we call around 29.5 days each divided into 24 hours so around 720 hours each orbit length while relative to the sun... the speed rate changes as the earth moves in orbit counterclockwise around the sun and the moon is moving counterclockwiese around the earth the mooon appears faster passing our planet relative to the sun and then later swings around our planet between our planet and the earth which we observe we face the dark side of the mooon and then the lit right side of th emoon whihc is observed as counter clockwise the speed around the sun is less as it moves in the opposite direction of our planets orbit yet the relative motion of the moon around the sun is much greater... yet less than the relative motion around the sun earlier in th emonth... when the moon moved around the earth faster than our planets relative motion around thesun while the second part of th emonth as the lit right sid of th emoon is observable the relative speed of th emmoon is less as it moves around the sun while moving at the same rate o/720 as above in th edirection opposite oif the motion of our planet orbitting the sun.
]and this has been revealed to me at night while we face away from the sun by an alien life who observed from above the northppole and observed for a month as the relative speed of th emoon around the earyth was stead y and therefpre th espped of the moons orbit around the sun was SLOWER half the month and FASTER the other half of the month. while moving at obviously the same rate.
think of night. the room is dark and we stand facing a candle i can turn my right arm away from the candle so it is dark=that is what we call clockwise or we can move my right arm nearer to the candle called counterclockwise and continue the same motion until it is dark on the other side.
as we move my right arm nearer to the candle the arm sees the candle moving "rightward" and as i continue to spin in the same movement now the same right arm is moving away from the candle in the same movement called counterclockwise. so eventualy my right arm is dark facing away from the candle... and obviously my eyes see the candle moving rightward when my arm moves as described. at that time when the arm reaches the point where it is dark a point west of the arm is still lit by the shine of the candle and that defines the spin of our planet relative to the north pole as counterclockwise
i could have spun the earth in the opposite direction but we observe the spin is as described above whcih leads to two questions
i predict that the motion of the moon is the same motion as the spin described that means that at one point in the month we see the side of the moon which is lit and we know that the relative position is the earth is between the moon and sun so at night when we face away from the candle source called sun we see the moon side which faces the sun while later what we call a half month later we face at night away from the sun and not see the moon because the moon is not there it is in the position relative to the sun between the sun and this planert we call earth our planet so the questionis does the mooon orbit the earth frm those points to points in the same deined spin as the earths spin? i predict the samemotion called counterclockwise and we can test this by observing which side is light later if the motion is the same as the earths observed spin as above then as we face the side of the moon that is less olight we will see the left side of the mooon light before the right side light... if the order would be reversed we would know the motion is the opposite motion relative to the north pole called clockwise.
similarly we should ask regarding our planets orbit... at a point in th eyear we cann choose the point when at night we face away from the candle and we certain dertain stars perhaps three 3 stars in a short straight line called orions belt and then later what we call half year later at night we face away from the sun and face different stars... the ones opposite from the row of 3... is the motion to that point the same as the earhs spin as above countyerclockwise and if so all 3 motions are the same or is the motion the other way around the orbit...
we observe the moons motion is "right sid e light lite after we face the dark side so we know the relative motion of th emooon si counterclockwiseorbit around the earth and not clockwise and similarly i predict that the motion rlative to the borth pole of our planet orbit around the sun is the same motion counterclockwise and not clockwise.
finally w can define the difference in relative speed of the moon motion...
the moon alone moves in orbit around our planet as above counterclockwise moving the distance of the orbit length at a steady rate of o length in time we call around 29.5 days each divided into 24 hours so around 720 hours each orbit length while relative to the sun... the speed rate changes as the earth moves in orbit counterclockwise around the sun and the moon is moving counterclockwiese around the earth the mooon appears faster passing our planet relative to the sun and then later swings around our planet between our planet and the earth which we observe we face the dark side of the mooon and then the lit right side of th emoon whihc is observed as counter clockwise the speed around the sun is less as it moves in the opposite direction of our planets orbit yet the relative motion of the moon around the sun is much greater... yet less than the relative motion around the sun earlier in th emonth... when the moon moved around the earth faster than our planets relative motion around thesun while the second part of th emonth as the lit right sid of th emoon is observable the relative speed of th emmoon is less as it moves around the sun while moving at the same rate o/720 as above in th edirection opposite oif the motion of our planet orbitting the sun.
]and this has been revealed to me at night while we face away from the sun by an alien life who observed from above the northppole and observed for a month as the relative speed of th emoon around the earyth was stead y and therefpre th espped of the moons orbit around the sun was SLOWER half the month and FASTER the other half of the month. while moving at obviously the same rate.
Saturday, January 6, 2018
how many books from god?
the catholic bible has 73 books and the catholics quote epistle letter of paul to timothy that "all" 73 are good for studying etc.
yet the protestants removed books which traditionally and for hundreds of years were considered holy.
so the protestant bible has less than 73 books and FAMOUS PROTESTANT LEADER IN REFORMATION martin luther criticized the decision to include certain books for example
O’Hare P.F. The Facts About Luther, 1916–1987 reprint ed., p. 202-203
1 “Ecclesiastes... is too much incoherent matter in it”+2“The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe [river]."+3"Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (as quoted in O’Hare, p. 202). these three in addition to the ones protestants "print without" removed from the traditional printing until then 73-66=7+3 above.
similarly like paul wrote second cor. 3.14-15 about the "vail/veil" when reading moses=“We have no wish either to see or hear Moses” (Ibid, p. 202). same as holy spirit through apostle paul in epistle letter to corinthians.
+
you know god cannot make mistakes therefore such books as genesis and exodus and leviticus cannot be from god... and when jesus "quoted" as it is WRITTEN, he never referred to any NAME book "never said as "written in genesis" so we would not think those were good books instead he was not quoting from bad genesis but from a different good book which the rabbis did not preserve. this is most clear when jesus said "the two will be one flesh" different wording than the jewish old testament and also "worship and serve god" most clearly a different book [not the jewish ones] which the rabbis failed to preserve but replaced with bad books with errors, these examples reveal even quotes "which also appear in the jewish" he was quoting from a different good book not the jewish bad ones with errors.
similarly "love your god with FOUR all... not from jewish old testament but a different good one which the rabbis failed to preserve and only jesus preserved the best bits... because the jewish books of old testament have mistakes... real mistakes i do not mean "if we assume atheist is true than a book about god is a lie" but real mistakes and errors and cannot be from god.
not 36 but instead only five of old testament books are from god...
1 ruth, 2jeremia 3 isaia and two more... which ones do you think are the two?
if i could put this on the door of the protestant church as luther "put on the door" i would...
yet the protestants removed books which traditionally and for hundreds of years were considered holy.
so the protestant bible has less than 73 books and FAMOUS PROTESTANT LEADER IN REFORMATION martin luther criticized the decision to include certain books for example
O’Hare P.F. The Facts About Luther, 1916–1987 reprint ed., p. 202-203
1 “Ecclesiastes... is too much incoherent matter in it”+2“The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe [river]."+3"Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (as quoted in O’Hare, p. 202). these three in addition to the ones protestants "print without" removed from the traditional printing until then 73-66=7+3 above.
similarly like paul wrote second cor. 3.14-15 about the "vail/veil" when reading moses=“We have no wish either to see or hear Moses” (Ibid, p. 202). same as holy spirit through apostle paul in epistle letter to corinthians.
+
you know god cannot make mistakes therefore such books as genesis and exodus and leviticus cannot be from god... and when jesus "quoted" as it is WRITTEN, he never referred to any NAME book "never said as "written in genesis" so we would not think those were good books instead he was not quoting from bad genesis but from a different good book which the rabbis did not preserve. this is most clear when jesus said "the two will be one flesh" different wording than the jewish old testament and also "worship and serve god" most clearly a different book [not the jewish ones] which the rabbis failed to preserve but replaced with bad books with errors, these examples reveal even quotes "which also appear in the jewish" he was quoting from a different good book not the jewish bad ones with errors.
similarly "love your god with FOUR all... not from jewish old testament but a different good one which the rabbis failed to preserve and only jesus preserved the best bits... because the jewish books of old testament have mistakes... real mistakes i do not mean "if we assume atheist is true than a book about god is a lie" but real mistakes and errors and cannot be from god.
not 36 but instead only five of old testament books are from god...
1 ruth, 2jeremia 3 isaia and two more... which ones do you think are the two?
if i could put this on the door of the protestant church as luther "put on the door" i would...
"star wars" confusion
my first confusion about star-wars was
1 "why is the story both long ago and also far away"
when i was a young nerd this question troubled me.
i mean think about it: we have fiction that could happen "now" most series on tv, and if we have a desire to separate either "far" away or "long ago" separates, so why attach them "both long ago and far away"?
what do you think?
1a i will not discuss but complain that the hebrew name for star wars is ruined "war of stars" with war singular wrong and star plural... just stupid and wrong translation, nothing to discuss...
only this year i thought of a solution... for first and i will write it at the bottom, what do you think?
2
were there 2 darth mal?
we all know how darth mal died... obi wan [OB1] as a student/padwan killed darth maul... it is famous in the star wars videos yet...
another version in series "rebels" has darth mal living until OB1 is old like white hair old... and at that different time and a different place killed d.m? does that mean 2 dart mal? or you heard or thought of a different solution?
if the videos are true "canon" then ob1 killed d.m when "future vader was a child" and killed d.m on the planet of amadela [actress portman i think?] in the castle of amedela?
yet according to the series ob1 killed darth maul on the planet of luke skywalker when luke was young... then vader an adult... so could there be two darth mauls? or a different explanation...
my suggestion for long ago and far away...
if the wars [plural duh] of the empire would be "near" and "only distant time" then the absence of evidence in our solar system would refute the story...
similarly if the empire would be "only far away" and now then the light from that distant galaxy would still be moving from there... we could not see those stars yet and would not know now until the light moved those many parsecs or light-year lengths... the only way "we now know" the story is because the the empire happened long ago... more= long long ago and the light moved from far far away so we could now see what happened there= the way we observe stars now the way they "were" many years ago...
scientists believe galaxies are hundreds of parsecs away from us, and even fast light would take long long time so we can only know what happened far far away "now' if it happened long long ago... so both factors.
1 "why is the story both long ago and also far away"
when i was a young nerd this question troubled me.
i mean think about it: we have fiction that could happen "now" most series on tv, and if we have a desire to separate either "far" away or "long ago" separates, so why attach them "both long ago and far away"?
what do you think?
1a i will not discuss but complain that the hebrew name for star wars is ruined "war of stars" with war singular wrong and star plural... just stupid and wrong translation, nothing to discuss...
only this year i thought of a solution... for first and i will write it at the bottom, what do you think?
2
were there 2 darth mal?
we all know how darth mal died... obi wan [OB1] as a student/padwan killed darth maul... it is famous in the star wars videos yet...
another version in series "rebels" has darth mal living until OB1 is old like white hair old... and at that different time and a different place killed d.m? does that mean 2 dart mal? or you heard or thought of a different solution?
if the videos are true "canon" then ob1 killed d.m when "future vader was a child" and killed d.m on the planet of amadela [actress portman i think?] in the castle of amedela?
yet according to the series ob1 killed darth maul on the planet of luke skywalker when luke was young... then vader an adult... so could there be two darth mauls? or a different explanation...
my suggestion for long ago and far away...
if the wars [plural duh] of the empire would be "near" and "only distant time" then the absence of evidence in our solar system would refute the story...
similarly if the empire would be "only far away" and now then the light from that distant galaxy would still be moving from there... we could not see those stars yet and would not know now until the light moved those many parsecs or light-year lengths... the only way "we now know" the story is because the the empire happened long ago... more= long long ago and the light moved from far far away so we could now see what happened there= the way we observe stars now the way they "were" many years ago...
scientists believe galaxies are hundreds of parsecs away from us, and even fast light would take long long time so we can only know what happened far far away "now' if it happened long long ago... so both factors.
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
religions agree do not circumcise genitals
i wish there were a way to publish the fact that the books of religion actualy teach not to circumcise when learning this issue "people should learn" that the christian holy bible instructed a commandment "do not circumcise" in first cor. chapter 7. and even the jewish bible does not truly say the word "cut" in hebrew nor does it say, neither in genesis by abraham nor in leviticus "any body part where" to do the "circumcision" until defining in the book deuteronomy "circumcise the heart"... not a cut and not genital. like trying to wear a suit that does not fit... a custom was wrongly attached to the words which do not match the ceremony. y
largest islands and smallest continents
when we see the big picture and the scale there is a big problem. fifth largest area to fourth named baffin and mada. can be same "scale" because the increase in area is around 16% 1.16 and even 4<3 despite the large "jump" in area is still less than 16*2 at 27% more area and we must also consider it has a similar area island [the shared islands named until now borneo and new guinea which i recommend "updating" the name of the "island" based on a major local river because different government share each] whereas the "largest" is so far out of the scale 840 thousand square miles =2131 thousand square kilometers is almost triple area that is a different scale... and altho some do say australia is too big to be an island that same issue applies to greenland it is so much larger area to be a different scale yet too small to be among the scale of continents and the same issue australia too with around 7 million square kilometers area is so much less than the smallest continents named antarctica and south america [with amazon river] aus. is a different scale than continents hence drawing the "line" between categories separating aus. from gr. is the same problem of separating between aus. from ant. so no justification to have many continents. unless to serve the boasting of ancient U.K "we control a continent."... t
yet in truth aus. is so much smaller than the other continents even significantly smaller area than the 2 smallest ones barely half of the small ones. so aus. should be a different scale from continents and gre. a different scale than islands as above. so what would be better? admit not black and white and allow gray... i recommend based on the "big picture" of relative-areas to define based on relative area the following: 1 "contin-uous" continent "ural continent" for both sides of the ural mountains [named until now europe and asia] then narrowing land connecting 2 "nile continent" until now named africa which has major river nile. 3 mississippi continent where major river mis. is 4 amazon continent where amazon river is and fifth same scale antarctica. in contrast to australia significantly smaller so not same "scale" of continents and so it and greenland are "grey" exceptions like "super-islands" significantly bigger than the 3 largest islands by far as above yet significantly smaller than the 2 smallest continents. we should innovate our education to accurately describe the world as observable and by relative area. and also update names of shared islands and continents by physical features such as major rivers or mountains as demonstrated above for both continents and shared islands. s
yet in truth aus. is so much smaller than the other continents even significantly smaller area than the 2 smallest ones barely half of the small ones. so aus. should be a different scale from continents and gre. a different scale than islands as above. so what would be better? admit not black and white and allow gray... i recommend based on the "big picture" of relative-areas to define based on relative area the following: 1 "contin-uous" continent "ural continent" for both sides of the ural mountains [named until now europe and asia] then narrowing land connecting 2 "nile continent" until now named africa which has major river nile. 3 mississippi continent where major river mis. is 4 amazon continent where amazon river is and fifth same scale antarctica. in contrast to australia significantly smaller so not same "scale" of continents and so it and greenland are "grey" exceptions like "super-islands" significantly bigger than the 3 largest islands by far as above yet significantly smaller than the 2 smallest continents. we should innovate our education to accurately describe the world as observable and by relative area. and also update names of shared islands and continents by physical features such as major rivers or mountains as demonstrated above for both continents and shared islands. s
Tuesday, January 2, 2018
bob's toy a poem
Bob wanted me to buy a certain toy
i said i will check if the price is high
bob wanted me to promise i would buy
after he heard no he began to cry
"for yourself you got an expensive car"
"the car is for our family of four"
i said to avoid another word-war
i feared in my core from the fight before
"he replied "you truly do not love me
i said that is not the meaning of love
loyalty and caring that is true luv
you have boots to protect you like a glove
i want the radio controlled toy car
much more than the boots which i got from you
he shouted. i replied if that is true
bad judgement showed me if your wisdom grew
also the money for rent is well spent
bob argued "what about moms fancy jewels
"those were not necessary you are fools
"but for you to be born those are the rules"
in my heart i knew my son bob was right
marriage is the same as a whore for fun
pay the woman for s-ex to have a son
now things became clear same as the bright sun/son.
i said i will check if the price is high
bob wanted me to promise i would buy
after he heard no he began to cry
"for yourself you got an expensive car"
"the car is for our family of four"
i said to avoid another word-war
i feared in my core from the fight before
"he replied "you truly do not love me
i said that is not the meaning of love
loyalty and caring that is true luv
you have boots to protect you like a glove
i want the radio controlled toy car
much more than the boots which i got from you
he shouted. i replied if that is true
bad judgement showed me if your wisdom grew
also the money for rent is well spent
bob argued "what about moms fancy jewels
"those were not necessary you are fools
"but for you to be born those are the rules"
in my heart i knew my son bob was right
marriage is the same as a whore for fun
pay the woman for s-ex to have a son
now things became clear same as the bright sun/son.
the harm of religions
one of the most dreadful problems related to RELIGIONS is that it prevents honest thinking. from harmless belief in whichever god, a thought that does not hurt anybody... to the horrible actions resulting from such belief... religion causes regular caring parents to attack their healthy child's genitals in the name of religion... christians who think about abraham circumcision [however see below] and jews and muslims dont they know? muslim group "muslims against circumcision of children"; based on quran not to alter the child's body and christian "holy bible first cor. 7" from holy spirit instructs a commandment "do not circumcise" and for jews abraham was before "the giving of the tora" meaning not required to do as specified in "mishna" [section passover psahim.]
now belief alone does not hurt anybody but it does lead to hurting children in circumcision.
also at the young age when kids DO BELIEVE santa claus is real and the tooth fairy we tell them to also believe god is real. and stuff about god.... and they will believe same as santa [even if deny then we adults shout at them "how dare you call me a liar"... then when they are older we say in truth santa is not real... but the idea of god remains undoubted unverified for years age 20-30-40-70 all because the idea was inserted when they believed in santa claus... and the prejudice...
whenever we read any book we begin without prejudice we read and "evaluate" if we enjoy the book and are free to criticize the degree of quality... and often say a book is bad because of the story or other problems but religion prevents such honest thinking for religious books. this prejudice to claim it is true and good prevents honest thinking and causes making claims that do not match the story nor the wording in the book... since religion prevents honesty that is also bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)