correction someone noticed that the later theorum, called general relativity contains the idea of expanding univers- the one i criticized in the previous psot please see and there i mistakenly called it special relativity but this detail is the wrong theorum so now I correct
in contrast tpo religion where they insist on no change and do not permit correcting any error. bad religion.
Monday, June 5, 2017
Sunday, June 4, 2017
mystery of history- truly happened occurred.
I spent many years in the school my parents chose, many many hours, studying religion. the more religion I studied, the more lies I noticed.
rabbis often lacked explanations and some explanations refuted/denied the text in other words admitting the "holy" book had a lie. one rabbi even tricked me "prefer one detail over the other" while insisting the "truth" was every detail was true and insisting for me "if you see a problem prefer one detail over the other." as a child i lacked the words to express the problem of lack of purity and untrustworthy. as a child I lacked the words to say "this is not pure" and not a holy message from god.
as a child i studied very little science, but the bit i studied I scored high, while the rabbis taught me to deny science books written by liars who want me to follow satan and the devil.
the more details of religion, which I discovered were bad, the more i realized i need to know the version of science for those same issues of the "beginning" so i studied science and it is not logical either.
not just that science teaches an old universe, thousands of millions of years while religious books "beginning with a number of years" totalling thousands, a faith which even religious deny=which even religious admit is a lie and insist the bible "submits" to science, adding to the text what the text never said, but also the details of creation and the history as I will explain.
some religious people challenge scientific claims, an effort to remove the threat on their personal faith. the same as rabbis deny the details of science which are a theat to their personal faith. in contrast scientists are not denying details of religion but are observing. that is a key difference.
in science the issue is: what is observed? this method removes almost every detail of religion, for example religion teaches "correct behavior" is for a man not to have "the relations" with a man. that such a sinful act is immoral. how can we test if that is correct behavior or not? so they direct to a book romans or leviticus but how do we test if "the idea in the book" is true?
**a test exists the conditional word if in the bible: "if you do not obey then god will stop rain" well there is rain RAIN COMES despite a majority of "sinners" who either deny catholic or deny protestant and all certainly do not obey the "law of jews" so that test shows religion is a lie but that does not mean that deductively science is true. science is a search. which does not mean religious books are true in fact my studies show numerous examples of impurities and lies in religious books claimed to from god yet certainly not from god.
if we examine the idea in special relativity called "expanding universe"
consider:
that would mean that 1 the universe is "expanding" and therefore previously BEFORE the expanding ALLthe mass matter was in one point. note all. why? because the state is before expansion- science is fact, no? expanding universe- see, so must be a state before expansion. we proceed. after rejecting religious books.
now we can picture the "race competition" between the two contestants 1 light traveling as photons at the speed of light from the "bang" of the event, when the age of the universe began, in directions of three dimensions [of space 3D] in contrast to the second contestant 2 matter with mass, which is moving/going less than the speed of light because mass is differet from photons and mass cannot go faster than the speed of light in fact it is probably moving at the speed that mars orbits the sun and certainly less than "c" the speed of light.
after a unit of time we call a year, light moved, at the speed of light called c, fast and far=millions of units more, units called kilometers or miles more than the distance which the mattter such as hydrogen or stars, traveled. "speed times time equals distance" while speed is less than c, so distance-traveled is less than "tc" while science and especialy "expanding universe" have set and defined the value of time as a certain number of years and the speed of light a defined rate with a number.
*we now can picture a universe at that state at age one year, as explained, with a center area with matter, and around it, an area with only light but no matter with mass and beyond that there must be "space" for the light to go or the "space" of the universe expands.
clearly matter is "not infinite" because the time is known and has been calculated [based on red shift speed] and speed no faster than light and even light has traveled for a defined time, in this excercise, at a defined speed c and within light range there is empty space without the matter with mass, as explained above.
so the matter has moved a certain amount and beyond the fastest matter with mass [although certainly no faster than c] there is no matter with mass.
i can imagine an infinite space [which, if infinite from the start didnot truly expand] with finite matter with mass in its center only, which is moving.
we could have faith this is true or doubt it but luckily science has observed galaxies passing THROUGH each other this means they are not moving away and challenges the idea of "expanding" universe because the galaxies passed through each other, differ from "never near" and always further and further.
similarly to what we observed, galkaxies passing through each other that could also occur at the state that science claims was the start of expansion.
inother words, before expansion when galaxies were near each other the galaxies could pass through each other as we observed imagine the center pre-expansion point, after the start, some matter to the two sides but not truly a start because they had switched places and the matter on each side had been on the pther side
in fact they were not particles but galaxies "relative to the so-called" pre-expansion point, was not at starting point but were on both sides of that so-called starting point of the expansion fact.
based on this logic i not only reject "the beginning" described in religious books, for many numerous reasons, [for example "god created" how would i test if earth was created by god or not? if god exists or not?] but also reject that "expanding universe" in special relativity of 1905, because the universe is infinite and always was infinite [so not truly expanding space besides space between galaxies, but not space beyond matter as described above] and even the matter with mass:
I doubt "all" was in the "pre-expansion" place which existed if there was expansion.
an alien told me that rocks in space have been moving for forever [not the number of years science calculated nor the number which appears in the bible which most religious admit is not the truth] and the aliebn added that the earth only had life for around 9 units of time each one hundred thousand orbits [called earth year]
although this differs frojm both science and religion, what science claims was history one day both religion and science will have the tools to see that this is the true history.
the "mystery of history" is infinite time and and infinite space and finite amount of matter for example rocks etc moving for infinite time and this indeed differs from both the history acccording to religion "with a beginning and less than ten thousand years" and also differs from the history "millions of year" of life claimed by science which cannot carbon date more than twenty thousand years while some scientists lie to connect carbon dating to dinosaurs which is just as bad as the lies of religious humans.
the alien told me life for nine units as above, and rocks [molecules of mixed elements] for forever in an infinite universe that always was infinite space in three dimension that means not truly expanding.
one day we humans will be "able to test" and discover that aliens knew and that the alien i quote described the truth of history.
rabbis often lacked explanations and some explanations refuted/denied the text in other words admitting the "holy" book had a lie. one rabbi even tricked me "prefer one detail over the other" while insisting the "truth" was every detail was true and insisting for me "if you see a problem prefer one detail over the other." as a child i lacked the words to express the problem of lack of purity and untrustworthy. as a child I lacked the words to say "this is not pure" and not a holy message from god.
as a child i studied very little science, but the bit i studied I scored high, while the rabbis taught me to deny science books written by liars who want me to follow satan and the devil.
the more details of religion, which I discovered were bad, the more i realized i need to know the version of science for those same issues of the "beginning" so i studied science and it is not logical either.
not just that science teaches an old universe, thousands of millions of years while religious books "beginning with a number of years" totalling thousands, a faith which even religious deny=which even religious admit is a lie and insist the bible "submits" to science, adding to the text what the text never said, but also the details of creation and the history as I will explain.
some religious people challenge scientific claims, an effort to remove the threat on their personal faith. the same as rabbis deny the details of science which are a theat to their personal faith. in contrast scientists are not denying details of religion but are observing. that is a key difference.
in science the issue is: what is observed? this method removes almost every detail of religion, for example religion teaches "correct behavior" is for a man not to have "the relations" with a man. that such a sinful act is immoral. how can we test if that is correct behavior or not? so they direct to a book romans or leviticus but how do we test if "the idea in the book" is true?
**a test exists the conditional word if in the bible: "if you do not obey then god will stop rain" well there is rain RAIN COMES despite a majority of "sinners" who either deny catholic or deny protestant and all certainly do not obey the "law of jews" so that test shows religion is a lie but that does not mean that deductively science is true. science is a search. which does not mean religious books are true in fact my studies show numerous examples of impurities and lies in religious books claimed to from god yet certainly not from god.
if we examine the idea in special relativity called "expanding universe"
consider:
that would mean that 1 the universe is "expanding" and therefore previously BEFORE the expanding ALLthe mass matter was in one point. note all. why? because the state is before expansion- science is fact, no? expanding universe- see, so must be a state before expansion. we proceed. after rejecting religious books.
now we can picture the "race competition" between the two contestants 1 light traveling as photons at the speed of light from the "bang" of the event, when the age of the universe began, in directions of three dimensions [of space 3D] in contrast to the second contestant 2 matter with mass, which is moving/going less than the speed of light because mass is differet from photons and mass cannot go faster than the speed of light in fact it is probably moving at the speed that mars orbits the sun and certainly less than "c" the speed of light.
after a unit of time we call a year, light moved, at the speed of light called c, fast and far=millions of units more, units called kilometers or miles more than the distance which the mattter such as hydrogen or stars, traveled. "speed times time equals distance" while speed is less than c, so distance-traveled is less than "tc" while science and especialy "expanding universe" have set and defined the value of time as a certain number of years and the speed of light a defined rate with a number.
*we now can picture a universe at that state at age one year, as explained, with a center area with matter, and around it, an area with only light but no matter with mass and beyond that there must be "space" for the light to go or the "space" of the universe expands.
clearly matter is "not infinite" because the time is known and has been calculated [based on red shift speed] and speed no faster than light and even light has traveled for a defined time, in this excercise, at a defined speed c and within light range there is empty space without the matter with mass, as explained above.
so the matter has moved a certain amount and beyond the fastest matter with mass [although certainly no faster than c] there is no matter with mass.
i can imagine an infinite space [which, if infinite from the start didnot truly expand] with finite matter with mass in its center only, which is moving.
we could have faith this is true or doubt it but luckily science has observed galaxies passing THROUGH each other this means they are not moving away and challenges the idea of "expanding" universe because the galaxies passed through each other, differ from "never near" and always further and further.
similarly to what we observed, galkaxies passing through each other that could also occur at the state that science claims was the start of expansion.
inother words, before expansion when galaxies were near each other the galaxies could pass through each other as we observed imagine the center pre-expansion point, after the start, some matter to the two sides but not truly a start because they had switched places and the matter on each side had been on the pther side
in fact they were not particles but galaxies "relative to the so-called" pre-expansion point, was not at starting point but were on both sides of that so-called starting point of the expansion fact.
based on this logic i not only reject "the beginning" described in religious books, for many numerous reasons, [for example "god created" how would i test if earth was created by god or not? if god exists or not?] but also reject that "expanding universe" in special relativity of 1905, because the universe is infinite and always was infinite [so not truly expanding space besides space between galaxies, but not space beyond matter as described above] and even the matter with mass:
I doubt "all" was in the "pre-expansion" place which existed if there was expansion.
an alien told me that rocks in space have been moving for forever [not the number of years science calculated nor the number which appears in the bible which most religious admit is not the truth] and the aliebn added that the earth only had life for around 9 units of time each one hundred thousand orbits [called earth year]
although this differs frojm both science and religion, what science claims was history one day both religion and science will have the tools to see that this is the true history.
the "mystery of history" is infinite time and and infinite space and finite amount of matter for example rocks etc moving for infinite time and this indeed differs from both the history acccording to religion "with a beginning and less than ten thousand years" and also differs from the history "millions of year" of life claimed by science which cannot carbon date more than twenty thousand years while some scientists lie to connect carbon dating to dinosaurs which is just as bad as the lies of religious humans.
the alien told me life for nine units as above, and rocks [molecules of mixed elements] for forever in an infinite universe that always was infinite space in three dimension that means not truly expanding.
one day we humans will be "able to test" and discover that aliens knew and that the alien i quote described the truth of history.
Saturday, June 3, 2017
size of universe
before today I barely knew any physics so I imagined an infinite space in the dimensions of space with finite mass. others would say the other combinations a closed universe or infinite mass in the infinite space universe.
however I now have two new doubts that I want to share.
we know the equation of speed speeed is usualy written in notation i.but for purposes of english i will use different letters for variables as follows
d=distance, s=speed, t=time.
science has discovered the time of the existence of the universe somehow 1.38*10^10 of the unit we call years.
if we have blind faith in science then s<c meaning speed is less than the speed of life. a star or galaxy could move at sevral possible velocities but all less than the speed of light so s<c.
since the maximum speed is c, we can no the maximum value of d as a
product of 1.38*10^10*s<c=<tc. so d can be a total less than tc because the time is known.
that means that stars do exist at a distance that we can observe them because we observe themn and this indicates the distance is less than 1.38*10^10 ligh- years distant away, allowing the light to travel the differing distances each less than T and arrive.
since d is a productive thereis more distance in which we do not observe stars and which may be empty because we do not klnow OR which may have stars yet because not enough years passed the light has not yet arrived. maybe yes maybe no so we cannot claim there is. it is like god that we do not know so we will not write there is a god nor a distance star.
between the distance s and the poroduct of sc is more distance which can be empty or with stars we did not yet receive their light.
however if we believe that matter cannot travel faster than light then speed must be less than c written s<c so the product d must be less than 1.38*10^10 imes more than the speed of light meaning the maximum distance is less than sc because it is less than speed of light. in other words the distance in the universe must be finite because it is impossible to have a distance - as well as matter such as a star but impossible distance greter than tc NOT GREATER THaN tc because t is known according to science and c is known as well and both are not only finite but defuined.because
in conclusion space exists only as far as tc because no matter can travel faster than c and the time is limited this means that even space is finite because there is no value of d that can be greater than the product of tc.
only as tim epasses the d increases- describing an expanding universe and still the matter cannot exist because no matter can go faster than c. distant stars are going faster then nearer stars but no star can go faster than c and cannot exist meaning both the matter in the universe as well as the distance in the universe d are finite with the exception that d increases constantly as time increases and this is what some call a closed universe. so space is finite and not infinite and no unioverse can be outside or the distance could not expand.
the only way to beleive in more matter than the product of tc is because c is a maximmum is if t is not 1.38*10^10 and if the universe existed less as i believe as around nine hundred units each the time of onethousand earth orbits around the sun called years then the size of the universe is even smaller with even less matter and only the distance will increase as time increases which supports expanding universe but only closed universe.
an alien told me the distance and space [of outer space] is infinite distance, and if so, which variable is error?
is T error? or C error? if c is error so the speed of light is not what we were taught, then special relativity has a flaw. i have blind faith that c is correct. yet if d is infinite than t must be infinite as a product of tc because the maximum speed is c it can be any speed less than c.
OR the distance is less than both possibilities. i have blind faith that d is changing and "expanding universe " is true for space only but matter is not added relative to the new space in distance and yet time is less than what relativity claims. not more than 9000 units as described. until we measure differently or someone helps me with the equation.
however I now have two new doubts that I want to share.
we know the equation of speed speeed is usualy written in notation i.but for purposes of english i will use different letters for variables as follows
d=distance, s=speed, t=time.
science has discovered the time of the existence of the universe somehow 1.38*10^10 of the unit we call years.
if we have blind faith in science then s<c meaning speed is less than the speed of life. a star or galaxy could move at sevral possible velocities but all less than the speed of light so s<c.
since the maximum speed is c, we can no the maximum value of d as a
product of 1.38*10^10*s<c=<tc. so d can be a total less than tc because the time is known.
that means that stars do exist at a distance that we can observe them because we observe themn and this indicates the distance is less than 1.38*10^10 ligh- years distant away, allowing the light to travel the differing distances each less than T and arrive.
since d is a productive thereis more distance in which we do not observe stars and which may be empty because we do not klnow OR which may have stars yet because not enough years passed the light has not yet arrived. maybe yes maybe no so we cannot claim there is. it is like god that we do not know so we will not write there is a god nor a distance star.
between the distance s and the poroduct of sc is more distance which can be empty or with stars we did not yet receive their light.
however if we believe that matter cannot travel faster than light then speed must be less than c written s<c so the product d must be less than 1.38*10^10 imes more than the speed of light meaning the maximum distance is less than sc because it is less than speed of light. in other words the distance in the universe must be finite because it is impossible to have a distance - as well as matter such as a star but impossible distance greter than tc NOT GREATER THaN tc because t is known according to science and c is known as well and both are not only finite but defuined.because
in conclusion space exists only as far as tc because no matter can travel faster than c and the time is limited this means that even space is finite because there is no value of d that can be greater than the product of tc.
only as tim epasses the d increases- describing an expanding universe and still the matter cannot exist because no matter can go faster than c. distant stars are going faster then nearer stars but no star can go faster than c and cannot exist meaning both the matter in the universe as well as the distance in the universe d are finite with the exception that d increases constantly as time increases and this is what some call a closed universe. so space is finite and not infinite and no unioverse can be outside or the distance could not expand.
the only way to beleive in more matter than the product of tc is because c is a maximmum is if t is not 1.38*10^10 and if the universe existed less as i believe as around nine hundred units each the time of onethousand earth orbits around the sun called years then the size of the universe is even smaller with even less matter and only the distance will increase as time increases which supports expanding universe but only closed universe.
an alien told me the distance and space [of outer space] is infinite distance, and if so, which variable is error?
is T error? or C error? if c is error so the speed of light is not what we were taught, then special relativity has a flaw. i have blind faith that c is correct. yet if d is infinite than t must be infinite as a product of tc because the maximum speed is c it can be any speed less than c.
OR the distance is less than both possibilities. i have blind faith that d is changing and "expanding universe " is true for space only but matter is not added relative to the new space in distance and yet time is less than what relativity claims. not more than 9000 units as described. until we measure differently or someone helps me with the equation.
Einstein bias
i do not claim to be a physicist but i feel that einstein was biassed when looking for "one" uni-explanation.
he over-equate the relationship in equation of speed. distance=space=d divided by speed or d/s=time. this true relationship was over-equated as if there was unity of space and time. time multiplied by speed equals distance traveled, to link together three different issues but in his bias he used his brilliance in a wicked untruthful way, to link them. the evidence of his deception increases as ten years later the general relativity "incorporated" gravity showing the bias to reach a prejudiced conclusion. his results were more like re-sluts.
edit+ one website uses the word obssesive for unity see
http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2013/04/28/stuff-from-shape-kaluza-klein-theory/
one theory fr everything, this bias may have influenced the conclusions.
admittedly some details were useful but the idea of one is a bias and although he was a genius it was used for his bias not for truth so i am confident that physicists, who must study and write based on einstein in universities, if later ignore this "unity bias" can get better results [resluts cute typo! and later added to previous paragraph] of observing the universe, by observation, not just by IMAGINATION of a space craft moving half the speed of light which is not realistic anyway. was he a genius "dangerously smart" but truth should have been more important than bias.
he over-equate the relationship in equation of speed. distance=space=d divided by speed or d/s=time. this true relationship was over-equated as if there was unity of space and time. time multiplied by speed equals distance traveled, to link together three different issues but in his bias he used his brilliance in a wicked untruthful way, to link them. the evidence of his deception increases as ten years later the general relativity "incorporated" gravity showing the bias to reach a prejudiced conclusion. his results were more like re-sluts.
edit+ one website uses the word obssesive for unity see
http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2013/04/28/stuff-from-shape-kaluza-klein-theory/
one theory fr everything, this bias may have influenced the conclusions.
admittedly some details were useful but the idea of one is a bias and although he was a genius it was used for his bias not for truth so i am confident that physicists, who must study and write based on einstein in universities, if later ignore this "unity bias" can get better results [resluts cute typo! and later added to previous paragraph] of observing the universe, by observation, not just by IMAGINATION of a space craft moving half the speed of light which is not realistic anyway. was he a genius "dangerously smart" but truth should have been more important than bias.
a plea to the pregnant, nutrition
a plea to the pregnant, nutrition
this will focus on eating habits with a plea begging pregnant women for example in week 7 and 8 and later to regularly eat, at regular intervals, full balanced meals at consistent regular intervals.
many women see pregnant ladies with swollen bodies and feel worried so when they know that "I am pregnant" perhaps in week 5 and 6, are tempted to to "battle" the future swelling by dieting and limiting calories etc. instead eat regularly as I will explain.
some will skip bread because of the rumors of "starch" and later feeling hungry eat a bag of chips or a pastry- the focus in the message is a plea to think of the needs of the growing future baby. the baby can be "trained" to store nutrients for example if mom skips meals or:
eats very little for whatever reason perhaps to "battle" the swelling of the baby which by the way is not six pounds of fat! then the baby will be TRAINED and practice month after month storing and storing=the consequence will be months of training to store and when the baby is born out and eats, then the baby will already be trained to store and that leads to overweight obese third graders
OBESE THIRD GRADERS
because every time the child will eat, they store and store and what caused it? the formed habit of storing month after month before birth. it is up to you!
please eat at regular intervals or the results will be habitual storing leading to obese third graders like we see in the US.
one other factor is what we call the "full feeling" when i first learnt that there was a sensation of full, i noticed that, even after a portion i DID NOT feel that sensation nor any sensation unless i ate enough to feel my stomach stretch, this teaches a lesson.
parents fill their own plate and the child's plate and for many different reasons insist "finish eat everything on the plate" and say the kid wants to play- that ignores the fact that the body signals when it is satisfied!
please when your four year old says the are full- move the plate to the refrigerator.
the consequence of saying "you must eat" everything on the plate anyway, trains the body to ignore the full sensation and then at age 7 and 8 after months of training-to-ignore the full sensation, the acquired habit is they do not feel "satisfied" until they feel the stomach stretch. ***this is another avoidable cause to obesity.
to summarise my plea briefly: please parents eat during the weeks of pregnancy at regular intervals and balanced meals- imagine in your mind an obese third grader to motivate you to provide the future baby with frequent nutrients and the body will not need, nor acquire a habit to store and store.
this relates to the future for pregnant.
admittedly this idea reveals the cause of youth fat storage=inconsiderate mothers some for selfish reasons to appear thin or other reasons, pregnant who dieted and coincidentally have obese children, however this is not the purpose of this article, and not blame because they did not think about a result
baby storing- the title is constructive planning:
***this is a plea to the pregnant mothers to eat at regular intervals and balanced meals, for the reasons demonstrated, so the baby does not acquire the habit to store and store and store more and more.
this will focus on eating habits with a plea begging pregnant women for example in week 7 and 8 and later to regularly eat, at regular intervals, full balanced meals at consistent regular intervals.
many women see pregnant ladies with swollen bodies and feel worried so when they know that "I am pregnant" perhaps in week 5 and 6, are tempted to to "battle" the future swelling by dieting and limiting calories etc. instead eat regularly as I will explain.
some will skip bread because of the rumors of "starch" and later feeling hungry eat a bag of chips or a pastry- the focus in the message is a plea to think of the needs of the growing future baby. the baby can be "trained" to store nutrients for example if mom skips meals or:
eats very little for whatever reason perhaps to "battle" the swelling of the baby which by the way is not six pounds of fat! then the baby will be TRAINED and practice month after month storing and storing=the consequence will be months of training to store and when the baby is born out and eats, then the baby will already be trained to store and that leads to overweight obese third graders
OBESE THIRD GRADERS
because every time the child will eat, they store and store and what caused it? the formed habit of storing month after month before birth. it is up to you!
please eat at regular intervals or the results will be habitual storing leading to obese third graders like we see in the US.
one other factor is what we call the "full feeling" when i first learnt that there was a sensation of full, i noticed that, even after a portion i DID NOT feel that sensation nor any sensation unless i ate enough to feel my stomach stretch, this teaches a lesson.
parents fill their own plate and the child's plate and for many different reasons insist "finish eat everything on the plate" and say the kid wants to play- that ignores the fact that the body signals when it is satisfied!
please when your four year old says the are full- move the plate to the refrigerator.
the consequence of saying "you must eat" everything on the plate anyway, trains the body to ignore the full sensation and then at age 7 and 8 after months of training-to-ignore the full sensation, the acquired habit is they do not feel "satisfied" until they feel the stomach stretch. ***this is another avoidable cause to obesity.
to summarise my plea briefly: please parents eat during the weeks of pregnancy at regular intervals and balanced meals- imagine in your mind an obese third grader to motivate you to provide the future baby with frequent nutrients and the body will not need, nor acquire a habit to store and store.
this relates to the future for pregnant.
admittedly this idea reveals the cause of youth fat storage=inconsiderate mothers some for selfish reasons to appear thin or other reasons, pregnant who dieted and coincidentally have obese children, however this is not the purpose of this article, and not blame because they did not think about a result
baby storing- the title is constructive planning:
***this is a plea to the pregnant mothers to eat at regular intervals and balanced meals, for the reasons demonstrated, so the baby does not acquire the habit to store and store and store more and more.
do people know the future?
recently I watched a video [second terminator] and there are several useful ideas in the video which deserve note.
"john oconner" does not live with his mother because-
she is in a mental facility. this teaches us that if people claim to know the future we treat them as "crazy" for many reasons. the future has not happened yet,+ plus:
it depends on many choices.
when someone claims they know the future and that the visions they saw are real and true, we know that the future has not happened yet, and that they have a bad problem. significantly, when john's mother tries to convince them that she is describing something real:
she insists that she knows dates.- this is a key to unraveling religions because the so-called-prophetic books do not say dates
if they claim god knows the future and revealed it to me god would know a date.
when. for example moses said "in the end of days" that is not a date and it is easy to lie when you know that nobody can check.
next the adherents say now is the "end" like in the 1960's [and earlier] fooling many then, and when they were wrong and now it is fifty years later the religious try the same filthy trick.
if a prophet wants to be taken seriously they would say I really know and god told me the date but **isiaha and jeremia never said dates because they were only TRICKING the primitive people.
***similarly children, who believe their parents about santa claus and the tooth fairy believe prophets such as isaia and imagine god, too, because that is the level of skepticism that does not reject santa claus- and when realizing no santa, often do not rid the other imaginary ones like god and prophets.
well how do you test if they exist you can only imagine because god is imaginary.
however if we would think about religious books, they do not have dates whether christian book revelation or jewish isaia and even daniel only a bit has dates with a warning "these are secrets" so they cannot be tested. that is worth the same as me saying "the US will have a woman president" when? i never said a date and you can wait and wait and wait more that is not real prophecy and similarly religions are baseless.
can a prophet be tested if not- then we can ignore them let us assemble three bits of evidence 1 moses said the hornets would come and the enemies would flee 2book of numbers reports that is not what happened. but before the excuses- we assemble three bits of evidence: third a prophet can be tested if he says something will happen and it does not source deuteronomy, now apply to moses in exodus 23 he is not a prophet but instead a false prophet and claiming from god is a liar who cannot be trusted. there is no basis to judea-christian religion, including revelation which said "soon" and since john long has passed he was not only a bad message but proven a liar not holy and not godly.
so i guess that leaves hindu? we need not choose "from the list of religions" instead we neeed to think for ourselves
so we must search within ourselves.
"john oconner" does not live with his mother because-
she is in a mental facility. this teaches us that if people claim to know the future we treat them as "crazy" for many reasons. the future has not happened yet,+ plus:
it depends on many choices.
when someone claims they know the future and that the visions they saw are real and true, we know that the future has not happened yet, and that they have a bad problem. significantly, when john's mother tries to convince them that she is describing something real:
she insists that she knows dates.- this is a key to unraveling religions because the so-called-prophetic books do not say dates
if they claim god knows the future and revealed it to me god would know a date.
when. for example moses said "in the end of days" that is not a date and it is easy to lie when you know that nobody can check.
next the adherents say now is the "end" like in the 1960's [and earlier] fooling many then, and when they were wrong and now it is fifty years later the religious try the same filthy trick.
if a prophet wants to be taken seriously they would say I really know and god told me the date but **isiaha and jeremia never said dates because they were only TRICKING the primitive people.
***similarly children, who believe their parents about santa claus and the tooth fairy believe prophets such as isaia and imagine god, too, because that is the level of skepticism that does not reject santa claus- and when realizing no santa, often do not rid the other imaginary ones like god and prophets.
well how do you test if they exist you can only imagine because god is imaginary.
however if we would think about religious books, they do not have dates whether christian book revelation or jewish isaia and even daniel only a bit has dates with a warning "these are secrets" so they cannot be tested. that is worth the same as me saying "the US will have a woman president" when? i never said a date and you can wait and wait and wait more that is not real prophecy and similarly religions are baseless.
can a prophet be tested if not- then we can ignore them let us assemble three bits of evidence 1 moses said the hornets would come and the enemies would flee 2book of numbers reports that is not what happened. but before the excuses- we assemble three bits of evidence: third a prophet can be tested if he says something will happen and it does not source deuteronomy, now apply to moses in exodus 23 he is not a prophet but instead a false prophet and claiming from god is a liar who cannot be trusted. there is no basis to judea-christian religion, including revelation which said "soon" and since john long has passed he was not only a bad message but proven a liar not holy and not godly.
so i guess that leaves hindu? we need not choose "from the list of religions" instead we neeed to think for ourselves
so we must search within ourselves.
Thursday, June 1, 2017
the mystery of tiny
when we go to school we see pictures of atoms. those are "sketches" of what we understand about atoms.. did anyone truly see that is what an atom looks like? when we read about eletron microscopes they make it sound like "an electron passes through" the thing the way light passes between the solid parts of cells so we can see cells enlarged by lenses using a microscope. in contrast a difference is that light passes through clear stuff and we see around the cell in contrast to an electron stream which would not "go through an atom" but between the atoms so the resulting "pictures" from a n electron microscope of "white balls" are not reasonable.
luckily for me there are a few HONEST PHYSICISTS THAT ADMIT THESE PICTURES ARE NOT WHAT AN ATOM LOOKS LIKE see link
http://www.askamathematician.com/2016/06/q-what-are-actual-pictures-of-atoms-actually-pictures-of/
so the picture of atoms what do they claim we are seeing? a stream of electrons would pass between the atoms and we would not see the "electrons" which we are told circle [verb] the atom and the electrons hitting the atom would be reflected back the way a ball bounces of a ball.
i emphasize "stream of electron through" because that is how encyclopedia describes electron microscope not reflect as one liar responded to the above criticsm just guessing with ignorance like most human how have difficulty sticking to the truth.
so when we see a white ball are we seeing the electrons? i doubt it my guess is we are seeing the reverse of the stream of electrons around the atom. the fact that electrons exist is indicated by static such as rubbing a glass surface and papers have beeen observed rising to the glass until the electroons ove and similar in electric current but what an atom actually is? that is theory.
so they say an atom has mass with a positive charge called a proton and the proton is made of parts with electric charge and the total chargse is positive. that would be based on mathemeatics but what is fact?
is it a tiny short "string" of electricity that vibrates and 9is perceived as matter? i recently raed about string theory how to add more spacedimensions called small dimensins but if there is a "curled" small dimension its in the same place as the up dimension relative to the plane it curls at.
so what is tiny?
if we take pure hydrogen gas and make it cold it changes to liquid for our appearance going down but spreading the shape of its container but smaller we are supposed to believe lttle solids. each moleculre with two hydrogen atoms each with one proton.
so these tiny solids can act like aliquid when cold and as they warm boil at what we consider cold temperature and act liek hydrigen gas. but what truly is it.
i will tell you and in the future you will have tehnology to see i am correct [or not]
take a drop of water which is made of water molecules we can separate or attach two kinds of atoms one called oxygen to the other called hydrogen to amake the molecule so the water drop has many molecules.
each time we divide the drop there are less molecules and keep dividing until only one molecule remains.
if we split that it is not water anymore so the "atom" meaning smallest is a molecule of a substance. the water molecule is made of what we call atoms but the atom is made from mass with apositive charge meaning more positive charge than negative charge but solid masslike a speck of dirt but what it truly is? i will wait for an alien to describe because id doubt what the scince book ssay
luckily for me there are a few HONEST PHYSICISTS THAT ADMIT THESE PICTURES ARE NOT WHAT AN ATOM LOOKS LIKE see link
http://www.askamathematician.com/2016/06/q-what-are-actual-pictures-of-atoms-actually-pictures-of/
so the picture of atoms what do they claim we are seeing? a stream of electrons would pass between the atoms and we would not see the "electrons" which we are told circle [verb] the atom and the electrons hitting the atom would be reflected back the way a ball bounces of a ball.
i emphasize "stream of electron through" because that is how encyclopedia describes electron microscope not reflect as one liar responded to the above criticsm just guessing with ignorance like most human how have difficulty sticking to the truth.
so when we see a white ball are we seeing the electrons? i doubt it my guess is we are seeing the reverse of the stream of electrons around the atom. the fact that electrons exist is indicated by static such as rubbing a glass surface and papers have beeen observed rising to the glass until the electroons ove and similar in electric current but what an atom actually is? that is theory.
so they say an atom has mass with a positive charge called a proton and the proton is made of parts with electric charge and the total chargse is positive. that would be based on mathemeatics but what is fact?
is it a tiny short "string" of electricity that vibrates and 9is perceived as matter? i recently raed about string theory how to add more spacedimensions called small dimensins but if there is a "curled" small dimension its in the same place as the up dimension relative to the plane it curls at.
so what is tiny?
if we take pure hydrogen gas and make it cold it changes to liquid for our appearance going down but spreading the shape of its container but smaller we are supposed to believe lttle solids. each moleculre with two hydrogen atoms each with one proton.
so these tiny solids can act like aliquid when cold and as they warm boil at what we consider cold temperature and act liek hydrigen gas. but what truly is it.
i will tell you and in the future you will have tehnology to see i am correct [or not]
take a drop of water which is made of water molecules we can separate or attach two kinds of atoms one called oxygen to the other called hydrogen to amake the molecule so the water drop has many molecules.
each time we divide the drop there are less molecules and keep dividing until only one molecule remains.
if we split that it is not water anymore so the "atom" meaning smallest is a molecule of a substance. the water molecule is made of what we call atoms but the atom is made from mass with apositive charge meaning more positive charge than negative charge but solid masslike a speck of dirt but what it truly is? i will wait for an alien to describe because id doubt what the scince book ssay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)