we have been using traditional maps for many years and arguing over the names of seas it is time to make a new "standard" and update the names in study textbooks in a way that we do not call water by any 'country" name of any government.
for example a human moves in a oat in the river named rhine and reaches the salty water... that huge ocean extends very far north and south and is fed by a giant river named amazon therfore the ocean should be named amazon ocean the ocean all the way south to the south continent [which should be named "south" as in previous posts] and all the way north to the icy north pole.
certainly a sea like north sea is not "seperate and is part of this ocean and what would two ships in danger say "help us we are in "the north sea" that doesnot tell us where they are they must use navigational details so better amazon ocean for that ocean.
and the narrow channel near the rhine river why do the british get to claim it? no name should be any ghovernment neither british nor chinese nor any government. if the river thames watered the channel the thames river and thames channel and why is ther an h? too late stipid brits.
the boat moved acrooss the amazon ocean westward to a peninsula which extends south from the mountains named "appalachian" mountains that water is a gulf...
it should not be named for any country instead a major river waters it named mississippi so the gulf should be named gulf of mississippi.
the boat moves through the canal [between the continents amazon continent and mississippi continent which was once one mass before dug the canal] into the next large ocean.
in the farnorth there is a "bering" strait so the ocean should be named bering ocean and by the way it is stormy too not calm. from the canal and west the water iosnot separated it is all bering ocean we ned to update the study textbooks and remove all names related to any country "even sea of japan" which is separated by long island named honshu and deserves a separate name but not by any government name as i explained in post
http://thinkforyourselfn8.blogspot.co.il/2017/12/the-pacific-seas.html
and equally no "philipine sea nor japan nor china" china situation is espopecialy stiupid what is south and what is east and either way the water isnot separated and either way boats must say coordinates like latutude precisely so one water is one ocean.
the boat moves west and near the equator mid point passes south of a peninsula called malayan peninsula the water there can be a third ocean anmd again we should update not named ofr any country instead a makor river named euphrates feeds a gulf which waters this ocean hence euphrates ruiver and euphrates gulf again not by any country nor language and euphrates ocea extending south until the south continent and west until the amazon ocean already named.
what about in the bnorth?
the water north of amazon is still amazon and the water north of bering straitis ice what should we name that water? the two oceans touch all around the northern borderof greenland 2.1 million square kilometers which is less than a thrid the area of australia, that we can preserve th traditional name arctic circle starting from the arctic circle arctic ocean. all other water not separated needs precise latitude anyway and is not sepaerated and should not be named separate and certainly not any government name and same for gulfs and channels never a counrty name we need ot fix this.
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
japan in world war 2
we know japan fought china in 1931 and again in 1937 many websites name the 1937 the second and that name matches the facts. at that time it did not involve the "world". soviets assisted china with supplies. in 1940 planes based on plane carriers small around 30 planes middle around 60 planes and large around 90 planes. on each plane carrier. planes from plane-carriers assisted the land forces so i do not understand the result that so little of china was controlled by japan in 1940 and 1941. and if china was so strong then use more planes before sending them east.
if i were a japanese general in 1940-1942 i would use bombers to bomb china airfields and hangars and factories and weapon storage and military stuff and advance the soldiers city by city with air support at least until the line of the 105 degree east longitude to connect to the troops on the nan river region and control the entire coast along the pacific ocean. i would move the men of north cities to south to build roads and other agriculture dig water irrigation and replace them with men from south to do same type of work. too busy and with no guns to rebel. all this before sending planes east to add a new adversary while failing in china regions.
i am surprised only in 1945 the japanese troops made a push to the moved capital city and... obviously then they lost. it was the last offensive of japanese in "china territory" ending around may 1945. japan had so few aircraft it stopped repairing the aircraft carries in fact the us did not sink all the japanese plane carriers but japan needed planes for land and stopped using the plane carriers in early 1945.
if i were a japanese general in december 1944 that is the time to end the war. i would surrender and order the troops to lay the weapons and go to prisoner exchange. the only major japanese actions in asia was the offensive mentioned and the defensive loss of the nan river region.
then the soviets violated the treaty in august 9 what would i do? soviets broke the treaty and outnumbered japanese aircraft. what would i do n that place? i would say i am outnumbered i surrender. some officers did that but the japanese culture is different they said we must defend but the issue of the emperors showa desire to end the war so some officers put down the weapons while others fough because it was defensive hmm. what would i do? the facts are outnumbered planes and troops put down the gun and uniform and hide. yet that is shameful in japanese culture i would not be a "decent" japanese would i.
well in the rest of asia the only offense was near the coast so the japanese knew they were weak if they would end the war in december 1944 based on the decision not to repair aircraft carriers it would be before soviets could move troops from germany. the navy knew it was done the airforce knew it was not enough to be effective even the land troops in xi river region were almost emtirely inactive... and in nan river region only defended and lost... if the offensive for the moved capital failed earlier it is time to end the war that is what i would do if i were a japanese genral in 1944 i would surrender to the allies because i know no aircraft. go to a pow camp if enough did that the war in china would have ended for japanese before yet the leadership ignored these obvious facts not enough planes.
after the first mushroom bomb japan proceeded to fly its jet plane instead of put down the gun they have different values and thinking methods then westerners. the samurai were happy to die for a cause. even when there was no equipment...
note i called the coast of china pacific coast which is true the pacific waters surround the rounded coast not 2 seas which idiot said i rule two seas? they are not separate seas and truly are ocean pacific sea next post.
finally in 1941 japan had around seven 7 aircraft carriers besides small ones they were all sent to hawaii and as above should have first assisted the china failures. also USA had around seven not counting small ones.
battleships have many guns yet we see they are failures even as planes come near to bomb them ineffective despite many guns.
so us and japan about balanced in number of aircraft carrier ships. the japanese had much more battleships but as above bs are barely effective and even ac are only useful if there are planes to use them by the end of 1944 japan only used planes on land and didnot even repair the carrier ships which for me is reason to put down the gun immediately in 1944. as soon as those decisions were made that is the time to end the war and put down the guns... and shed the uniform and proceed in orderly fashion to the prisoner exchange.
yet even after the second mushroom bomb the generals did not put down the guns.
the midnight after the second mushroom bombs soviets "revoked" the treaty with japan japan had strong defenses near amur river but soviets out numbered them. what would you in that place? the generals of japan surrendered after the soviets had landed troops in wnat we call north korean peninsula.
in hindsight japan could have focussed on chinese aircraft and gradualy spread but by 1944 they had enuf data to put down the guns yet the ideas of culture were different.
some complain the decision to use the mushroom bomb was bad because "the japanese would surrender anway" that is not understanding the japanese culture.
in fact even after they saw the power and knew it they did not put down the guns. and even after the second mushroom bomb they did not surrender until september 2 indicating that a third mushroom bomb although evil was needed even a third or fourth as august dragged into september.
if i were a japanese general in 1940-1942 i would use bombers to bomb china airfields and hangars and factories and weapon storage and military stuff and advance the soldiers city by city with air support at least until the line of the 105 degree east longitude to connect to the troops on the nan river region and control the entire coast along the pacific ocean. i would move the men of north cities to south to build roads and other agriculture dig water irrigation and replace them with men from south to do same type of work. too busy and with no guns to rebel. all this before sending planes east to add a new adversary while failing in china regions.
i am surprised only in 1945 the japanese troops made a push to the moved capital city and... obviously then they lost. it was the last offensive of japanese in "china territory" ending around may 1945. japan had so few aircraft it stopped repairing the aircraft carries in fact the us did not sink all the japanese plane carriers but japan needed planes for land and stopped using the plane carriers in early 1945.
if i were a japanese general in december 1944 that is the time to end the war. i would surrender and order the troops to lay the weapons and go to prisoner exchange. the only major japanese actions in asia was the offensive mentioned and the defensive loss of the nan river region.
then the soviets violated the treaty in august 9 what would i do? soviets broke the treaty and outnumbered japanese aircraft. what would i do n that place? i would say i am outnumbered i surrender. some officers did that but the japanese culture is different they said we must defend but the issue of the emperors showa desire to end the war so some officers put down the weapons while others fough because it was defensive hmm. what would i do? the facts are outnumbered planes and troops put down the gun and uniform and hide. yet that is shameful in japanese culture i would not be a "decent" japanese would i.
well in the rest of asia the only offense was near the coast so the japanese knew they were weak if they would end the war in december 1944 based on the decision not to repair aircraft carriers it would be before soviets could move troops from germany. the navy knew it was done the airforce knew it was not enough to be effective even the land troops in xi river region were almost emtirely inactive... and in nan river region only defended and lost... if the offensive for the moved capital failed earlier it is time to end the war that is what i would do if i were a japanese genral in 1944 i would surrender to the allies because i know no aircraft. go to a pow camp if enough did that the war in china would have ended for japanese before yet the leadership ignored these obvious facts not enough planes.
after the first mushroom bomb japan proceeded to fly its jet plane instead of put down the gun they have different values and thinking methods then westerners. the samurai were happy to die for a cause. even when there was no equipment...
note i called the coast of china pacific coast which is true the pacific waters surround the rounded coast not 2 seas which idiot said i rule two seas? they are not separate seas and truly are ocean pacific sea next post.
finally in 1941 japan had around seven 7 aircraft carriers besides small ones they were all sent to hawaii and as above should have first assisted the china failures. also USA had around seven not counting small ones.
battleships have many guns yet we see they are failures even as planes come near to bomb them ineffective despite many guns.
so us and japan about balanced in number of aircraft carrier ships. the japanese had much more battleships but as above bs are barely effective and even ac are only useful if there are planes to use them by the end of 1944 japan only used planes on land and didnot even repair the carrier ships which for me is reason to put down the gun immediately in 1944. as soon as those decisions were made that is the time to end the war and put down the guns... and shed the uniform and proceed in orderly fashion to the prisoner exchange.
yet even after the second mushroom bomb the generals did not put down the guns.
the midnight after the second mushroom bombs soviets "revoked" the treaty with japan japan had strong defenses near amur river but soviets out numbered them. what would you in that place? the generals of japan surrendered after the soviets had landed troops in wnat we call north korean peninsula.
in hindsight japan could have focussed on chinese aircraft and gradualy spread but by 1944 they had enuf data to put down the guns yet the ideas of culture were different.
some complain the decision to use the mushroom bomb was bad because "the japanese would surrender anway" that is not understanding the japanese culture.
in fact even after they saw the power and knew it they did not put down the guns. and even after the second mushroom bomb they did not surrender until september 2 indicating that a third mushroom bomb although evil was needed even a third or fourth as august dragged into september.
Monday, December 11, 2017
the pacific seas?
we were born into a world where maps are unjustly named time for an update! innovation.
take the water near 'tartary" i never heard of it either however if we move our boat from the country named japan north there is water named tartary that is justly separate from pacific and the sea which connects to it should be named tartary too because it connects... admittedly honshu island separated that sea from pacific and still it is unjustly named japan sea considering only in the past history japan controlled both sides of sea in those lands but today and since 1945 we must update that water must be shared by every nation including japan and korea.
so the water named tartary strait should be named that good and similarly the sea separate from pacific deserves a name yet an updated name the same name hence "tartary sea" and we can identify tartary sea only if "near japan or near korea" but calling it sea of japan is unjustly named and needs updating altho admittedly good to separate this from pacific as above. so separate but not sea of "japan" that is not updated and unjustly named.
we look south to the water between korea and china that too is separate from pacific but what to name it? it is a gulf like gulf of thailand so name it "yellow gulf" the gulf near yellow river which feeds the gulf but not yellow sea.
what about the water east of china? that is not separated from pacific it is truly ocean pacific and can be identified only when near coast pacific "near china coast or near japan coast" but not east china sea the name china is unjustly on shared water between japan and china which in contrast to tartary is truly pacific. not separated.
similarly eps philipine sea and 2 more delete "seas" in names these 3 are truly ocean pacific each south china bad delete and erase like delete name "east china" those are not separate from pacific and truly are ocean pacific like pacific near east philipines or pacific near west philipines or pacific near china coast those are not seas because they differ from the water separated by honshu island. all 3 names are unjustly named and need fixing for pacific because they are not separated only celebes sea is justified and should not be named for any country so celebes is good.
so summarize sea good by honshu but not japan so tartary
and yellow good but GULF formation and other water not seas not separate and shared only near coast is each countries coast so delete 3 eps. pleas update. especialy bad is coast of vietnam that water is unjustly named china yet it is neieher china nor vietnam nor philipines that is the worst name because it is coast of vietnam or philipines even near china coast is tiny because of vietnam and NOT truly not separated from pacific it is truly ocean pacific.
take the water near 'tartary" i never heard of it either however if we move our boat from the country named japan north there is water named tartary that is justly separate from pacific and the sea which connects to it should be named tartary too because it connects... admittedly honshu island separated that sea from pacific and still it is unjustly named japan sea considering only in the past history japan controlled both sides of sea in those lands but today and since 1945 we must update that water must be shared by every nation including japan and korea.
so the water named tartary strait should be named that good and similarly the sea separate from pacific deserves a name yet an updated name the same name hence "tartary sea" and we can identify tartary sea only if "near japan or near korea" but calling it sea of japan is unjustly named and needs updating altho admittedly good to separate this from pacific as above. so separate but not sea of "japan" that is not updated and unjustly named.
we look south to the water between korea and china that too is separate from pacific but what to name it? it is a gulf like gulf of thailand so name it "yellow gulf" the gulf near yellow river which feeds the gulf but not yellow sea.
what about the water east of china? that is not separated from pacific it is truly ocean pacific and can be identified only when near coast pacific "near china coast or near japan coast" but not east china sea the name china is unjustly on shared water between japan and china which in contrast to tartary is truly pacific. not separated.
similarly eps philipine sea and 2 more delete "seas" in names these 3 are truly ocean pacific each south china bad delete and erase like delete name "east china" those are not separate from pacific and truly are ocean pacific like pacific near east philipines or pacific near west philipines or pacific near china coast those are not seas because they differ from the water separated by honshu island. all 3 names are unjustly named and need fixing for pacific because they are not separated only celebes sea is justified and should not be named for any country so celebes is good.
so summarize sea good by honshu but not japan so tartary
and yellow good but GULF formation and other water not seas not separate and shared only near coast is each countries coast so delete 3 eps. pleas update. especialy bad is coast of vietnam that water is unjustly named china yet it is neieher china nor vietnam nor philipines that is the worst name because it is coast of vietnam or philipines even near china coast is tiny because of vietnam and NOT truly not separated from pacific it is truly ocean pacific.
Saturday, December 9, 2017
refreshing an old myth
intro: i was very inspired by the video "happily n'ever after 2" taking an old snow white story and changing it in a very good way with much more of those "worn out" outdated characters refreshed with a really believable experience... the apple loses snow white her friends... that is real and believable so time to do the same thing for a certain jewish myth so old even 1500 years ago it was already worn out and only "cherished" by religious people who were compelled by religion to believe and speak as if it were truth
the myth as is critical details: "there was one small jug of oil" if you/a child believe that then the result "burned long" proves god miracle. well... if you tell me to believe small oil then personally i wouldn't/will not believe "long burn". so they say "many witnesses saw long burn that is truth" the lamp was visible to many witnesses. those who are not blind will respond "and how many witnesses saw no oil?" is it even possible to see and witness "no oil" they saw one jug was it the "only" jug"?
certainly if we believe that people witnessed long burn the only way is...
if they used the bad oil [pig fat etc.] and to hide their shame they lied that "we only used one small jug and that god did a miracle... and even the youngsters who do not doubt that god did a miracle and as a miracle it is "special" it cannot compete with flying reindeer and anyway even children know despite god "could" do a miracle still if it "burned long they must have lied about the amount or source of oil" there TRULY WAS MORE oil good or bad or pig fat. which adds to the rationale to eat ham on hanuka... besides the letters "ha" in hanuka and ham.
back to refreshing the outdated ugly stuff...
i can use the refresh style [demonstrated in the video mentioned "n'ever] to change the background... so here goes.
chapter one
in the year 1756 "College of New Jersey moved from Newark to Princeton NJ" many students studied there. later, one student there proved time-traveling. his name is Kurt. the field equations of general relativity "do permit travel into the past." see https://brieferhistoryoftime.com/chapters/10.
In 1948, Kurt Godel demonstrated that the "field equations of General Relativity" proved travel which returns to the starting place in space at an earlier time.
much later somebody stumbled across the reality of "negative distance" something consistently denied by mainstream scientists.
using negative distance hank could now move a defined amount of time. the equation which truly exists today 2017, in theoretical physics, is time=distance/rate... when distance is negative integer.
who will deny the truth of the equation 5=15/3 and the same truth (-5)=(-15/3) is the rate 3 possible? certainly a horse runs 3 times faster 11 m\s speed and we can have a slow speed to move to a point in time-space all we need is instead of move in length dimension move in space-time continuum. so that is the equation for precise time travel [parenthetically i believe all stars are rotating in our universe which matches godel's solution and have been rotating around each other falling around each other] in other words, to move 500 seconds in time [around 8 minutes] is (-500) time=(-150)distance [150 meters of negative distance] /0.3 [rate meters per second] so therefore slowing the rate of speed "fits lots more into" the distance. try it on your calculator=it is true even 2017 today...
first type "15" and press "negative" [the button marked +/- makes it negative, not the minus button] next press divide button / 0.03 and finally press =
the truth is (-500) that is a point in space-time 500 seconds earlier and it can be shown on a space-time graph. so (-500) seconds around 8 minutes earlier in space-time. we have increased the time travel by ten times by SLOWING the rate of speed so go [moving in negative space] even slower! that will increase the negative time. now obviously this equation informs us "was" the history where a moving object was 500 seconds ago [in two dimensions of space] and also theoreticly in space-time, the movement to a time 500 seconds ago.
no need to increase distance and no need to imagine fast speeds because fast speeds "large rate" will only fit in the distance LESS times... the formula for PRECISE traveling to a past time is low rate of speed in negative distance as above. our generation insists negative distance is "problematic" closing their eyes to the evidence but only the detail of negative-square root is artificial while true negative distance is reality. also why struggle against godel who showed that the field equations proved traveling to a time in the past.
parenthetically [even today there is problematic function "distance= v1v2t/|v1-v2|" at a physics website, this means distance, with positive and negative velocities as opposite directions when the problem is 1 dimensional, we "get a negative distance after a time t." Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/negative-distance-can-it-be-real.587348/
note altho this website truly said it is negative time another physicist showed to "derive" it positive]
regardless, negative space truly can be shown in a different formula the length in space-time d=x-cy can be and is often negative distance in space time.
back to the story.
+
well once a guy identified negative distance and calibrated the slow rate of speed he decided to use the device to change the world. but first he must test it on something simple.
hank traveled to the time beofre the jewish war against the romans and bough a cheap bottle of oil. it wasnot expensive at peace time then he traveled to war time and sold it for a profit to the priests called hasmoneans. now they had a flask to light the seven branched temple lights.
the priests asked him to bring more because they needed for many days but he only had one flask for the minor experiment.
hank returned to his future and discovered it was very different from how he remembered before his trip to the past. the jews were now killing animals to burn them and hank wanted to preserve what he remembered.
this surprised him because he had returned with precision to the same moment he had left. except the door of his lab was now broken.
the jewish society for offerings had sent a theif to do what they believeed was jsutified... to go back to the time of the temple and gauruntee that the theme of sacrifices was the main theme of the holiday. supported by donations from christians who desired to emphasize the bloof in the old testament so they would notice they need blood of jesus when there are no offerings they hired a thief to break into the lab and go to the time of hanuka and remove all the oil. the only other item to mark was the renewal of killing animals. and since then hanuka had never been about the oil because they failed to light the lamp... ever since then the offering was emphsized and the jews had built a temple to burn offerings.
hank thought this was immorally wasteful we should only kill animals for food but not to burn. [hank did not know but that is precisely what the jewish prophet jeremia brought from god in jeremia chapter 7 silly jews refuse to respect the message in jeremia seven and add words to the translation to conceal the message] hank acted on his feelings and returned to the peaceful times and this time purchased much oil. then he returned again to the time of hasmoneans and did not sell the oil to the hasmoneans because that would be stolen by the jewish future theif of the kill-animals foundation instead he came at night when the temple was empty except temple gaurds and hired the gaurd named ezra to escort him and secretly light the lamp and if he kept the secret he would get more gold the next day.
the following morning people entered the temple and saw the lamps lit. they announced it was a miracle from god that with no oil the lamp was lit.
for the next seven weeks hank brought oil from the remote past to the hasmonean time until the locals had their own oil. finally he returned to his era of time and found the world was not killing animals to burn them because the emphasis on januka had succcessfully been switched to the way it always had been thhe emphasis on oil not on killing animals and that night he destroyed the device because although he wanted to change other things he could not risk the animal-kill society stealing his device again and that is why the bad things of history are not fixed beacause of the jews who want to kill animals specifically to burn them.
the happy ending is that after breaking the device jehova appeared to hank in a dream and repeated the same message jehova told to jeremia and added you can find this message in the jewish books and from that day the jews finally started respecting the message in jeremia chapter seven the end.
the myth as is critical details: "there was one small jug of oil" if you/a child believe that then the result "burned long" proves god miracle. well... if you tell me to believe small oil then personally i wouldn't/will not believe "long burn". so they say "many witnesses saw long burn that is truth" the lamp was visible to many witnesses. those who are not blind will respond "and how many witnesses saw no oil?" is it even possible to see and witness "no oil" they saw one jug was it the "only" jug"?
certainly if we believe that people witnessed long burn the only way is...
if they used the bad oil [pig fat etc.] and to hide their shame they lied that "we only used one small jug and that god did a miracle... and even the youngsters who do not doubt that god did a miracle and as a miracle it is "special" it cannot compete with flying reindeer and anyway even children know despite god "could" do a miracle still if it "burned long they must have lied about the amount or source of oil" there TRULY WAS MORE oil good or bad or pig fat. which adds to the rationale to eat ham on hanuka... besides the letters "ha" in hanuka and ham.
back to refreshing the outdated ugly stuff...
i can use the refresh style [demonstrated in the video mentioned "n'ever] to change the background... so here goes.
chapter one
in the year 1756 "College of New Jersey moved from Newark to Princeton NJ" many students studied there. later, one student there proved time-traveling. his name is Kurt. the field equations of general relativity "do permit travel into the past." see https://brieferhistoryoftime.com/chapters/10.
In 1948, Kurt Godel demonstrated that the "field equations of General Relativity" proved travel which returns to the starting place in space at an earlier time.
much later somebody stumbled across the reality of "negative distance" something consistently denied by mainstream scientists.
using negative distance hank could now move a defined amount of time. the equation which truly exists today 2017, in theoretical physics, is time=distance/rate... when distance is negative integer.
who will deny the truth of the equation 5=15/3 and the same truth (-5)=(-15/3) is the rate 3 possible? certainly a horse runs 3 times faster 11 m\s speed and we can have a slow speed to move to a point in time-space all we need is instead of move in length dimension move in space-time continuum. so that is the equation for precise time travel [parenthetically i believe all stars are rotating in our universe which matches godel's solution and have been rotating around each other falling around each other] in other words, to move 500 seconds in time [around 8 minutes] is (-500) time=(-150)distance [150 meters of negative distance] /0.3 [rate meters per second] so therefore slowing the rate of speed "fits lots more into" the distance. try it on your calculator=it is true even 2017 today...
first type "15" and press "negative" [the button marked +/- makes it negative, not the minus button] next press divide button / 0.03 and finally press =
the truth is (-500) that is a point in space-time 500 seconds earlier and it can be shown on a space-time graph. so (-500) seconds around 8 minutes earlier in space-time. we have increased the time travel by ten times by SLOWING the rate of speed so go [moving in negative space] even slower! that will increase the negative time. now obviously this equation informs us "was" the history where a moving object was 500 seconds ago [in two dimensions of space] and also theoreticly in space-time, the movement to a time 500 seconds ago.
no need to increase distance and no need to imagine fast speeds because fast speeds "large rate" will only fit in the distance LESS times... the formula for PRECISE traveling to a past time is low rate of speed in negative distance as above. our generation insists negative distance is "problematic" closing their eyes to the evidence but only the detail of negative-square root is artificial while true negative distance is reality. also why struggle against godel who showed that the field equations proved traveling to a time in the past.
parenthetically [even today there is problematic function "distance= v1v2t/|v1-v2|" at a physics website, this means distance, with positive and negative velocities as opposite directions when the problem is 1 dimensional, we "get a negative distance after a time t." Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/negative-distance-can-it-be-real.587348/
note altho this website truly said it is negative time another physicist showed to "derive" it positive]
regardless, negative space truly can be shown in a different formula the length in space-time d=x-cy can be and is often negative distance in space time.
back to the story.
well once a guy identified negative distance and calibrated the slow rate of speed he decided to use the device to change the world. but first he must test it on something simple.
hank traveled to the time beofre the jewish war against the romans and bough a cheap bottle of oil. it wasnot expensive at peace time then he traveled to war time and sold it for a profit to the priests called hasmoneans. now they had a flask to light the seven branched temple lights.
the priests asked him to bring more because they needed for many days but he only had one flask for the minor experiment.
hank returned to his future and discovered it was very different from how he remembered before his trip to the past. the jews were now killing animals to burn them and hank wanted to preserve what he remembered.
this surprised him because he had returned with precision to the same moment he had left. except the door of his lab was now broken.
the jewish society for offerings had sent a theif to do what they believeed was jsutified... to go back to the time of the temple and gauruntee that the theme of sacrifices was the main theme of the holiday. supported by donations from christians who desired to emphasize the bloof in the old testament so they would notice they need blood of jesus when there are no offerings they hired a thief to break into the lab and go to the time of hanuka and remove all the oil. the only other item to mark was the renewal of killing animals. and since then hanuka had never been about the oil because they failed to light the lamp... ever since then the offering was emphsized and the jews had built a temple to burn offerings.
hank thought this was immorally wasteful we should only kill animals for food but not to burn. [hank did not know but that is precisely what the jewish prophet jeremia brought from god in jeremia chapter 7 silly jews refuse to respect the message in jeremia seven and add words to the translation to conceal the message] hank acted on his feelings and returned to the peaceful times and this time purchased much oil. then he returned again to the time of hasmoneans and did not sell the oil to the hasmoneans because that would be stolen by the jewish future theif of the kill-animals foundation instead he came at night when the temple was empty except temple gaurds and hired the gaurd named ezra to escort him and secretly light the lamp and if he kept the secret he would get more gold the next day.
the following morning people entered the temple and saw the lamps lit. they announced it was a miracle from god that with no oil the lamp was lit.
for the next seven weeks hank brought oil from the remote past to the hasmonean time until the locals had their own oil. finally he returned to his era of time and found the world was not killing animals to burn them because the emphasis on januka had succcessfully been switched to the way it always had been thhe emphasis on oil not on killing animals and that night he destroyed the device because although he wanted to change other things he could not risk the animal-kill society stealing his device again and that is why the bad things of history are not fixed beacause of the jews who want to kill animals specifically to burn them.
the happy ending is that after breaking the device jehova appeared to hank in a dream and repeated the same message jehova told to jeremia and added you can find this message in the jewish books and from that day the jews finally started respecting the message in jeremia chapter seven the end.
Friday, December 8, 2017
prologue to snow white 1937
altho the connection between "snow white" and her enemy queen is discussed in the video "Happily N'Ever After 2 (2009)" in a different way than my post still mine was a prologue to video "snow white 1937" so differen world.
http://thinkforyourselfn8.blogspot.co.il/2017/11/my-prologue-to-snow-white-1937-video.html
http://thinkforyourselfn8.blogspot.co.il/2017/11/my-prologue-to-snow-white-1937-video.html
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
jesus said "should tithe"?
christians believe in the new-testament group of books, and do not practice the law-of-moses so what about when jesus said "you should seperate the tithe on spices"? why did he not teach the new testament of jeremiah which describes itself as "inside" fulfills so do not say need more, not practices of the hands?
there are several possibilities.
my opinion first- the covenant of jeremia called the "new covenant" which is described in jeremia as inside meaning it is fulfilled by inside knowing... begins as a "covenant" which we know from exodus that covenants begin with blood so before the crucifixion is before blood and before covenant began. the only section to examine is AFTER the blood if jesus said "practice the law" after the blood then we can know it is not the covenant described in jeremia and since after the blood he said teach... that is ideas and not ceremony so it matches jeremia. and fulfills the prophecy from jehova.
in fact we must not forget the jesus did teach even before the blood "not old wine skins" in mathew 9.17, which matches jermia and paul so it is supported, indicating he taught the law would end because he said so... but tithe idea is in 23.23 that was before the blood on cross.
others say considering jesus also said "not old wine skins" in mat. 9, this section is "not literal but a strategem" to convince the listeners.
another clue is the context of mathew 23.2 seat of moses... the pharisees used physical punishments to compel the people and bully them to practice the law so you "must" because they bully and threaten and compel you... like the beatings decribed in deuteronomy "forty not more" was that merciful? relative to the era yes. jesus specified moses to indicate "only because moses" not because you are truly required but because the romans permit the rabbis to hit you.
others say, altho mathew was written after the blood [soon after the blood as indicated by the end of the book the same proof used to define the book acts 52 ad so Mathew 35 ad] he wanted those who rejected jesus "you" who are not inside grace are still inside law so "do not be hypocrites" instead "you" obey law emphasizing the important while you tithe, "you" but not myself nor students who are inside grace of belief as god spoke thru jeremia because the time matthew wrote after the blood those who believe were like paul who said "i am free from the law" about himself... I the one born inside jews who teach to obey laws and ceremonies of moses even I myself was freed by grace in romans 8 and similarly "even the words carved in stone passed away" meaning the sabath and ten commandments carved in stone passed away so certainly the rest of the law of moses not in stone passed away and free from the law.
if jews would respect jeremia and that can be expected becasue they say oyt os a good bokk... then they should know that "inside" fulfills and no need t practice actions and ceremonies because veen before jesus jeremia said that god wants "inside" and that fiulfills so inside without ceremoiny not only fulfills but is the descriprtion of the new covenant of jeremia it may have begun as sson as jeremia said it oir as soon as god showed he sdid not save the temple of practices. that is the indication to stop ceremonies but the jews continued the ceremonies until jesus.
in fact jesus sent a guy to sacrifce... why? because it was before th eblood or as a strategy you are freefrom all law but go offer the sacrifice to get their attention and telll them about the christ msessia as a strategy and after truly entering the new covenant the old passe away choosing one or two is not a problem to reject most because it all passed away.
anothe roption challenges christian doctrine ywte t is possible.
we know from gospel of john that the day "for offering the passover" jesus was brought before pilate indicating he was killed that day... so we know after the decision john is good that matthew is not totaly reliable source because mathew claims he was brought to pilate a day later... after the day of the passover not the same day since matthew is not reliable we cannot trust that jesus realy said "should tithe spices and not neglect the law" only the messages which match the idea of jeremia and paul can be trusted as consistent with gods revealed will so beleibe" not old wineskins" as confirnming jeremia bit the practice law cannot be trusted because in general matthew is not reliable.
admittedly the same flaw can be said regardin g joghn since jesus [prepared the passover on the day of preparation and the following day was before pilate then john is not reliable either so whether the gospeklls conflict john or matthew they are not reliable and for that reason all four should be removed from the group of "new testament" books at least the majoritu of content before the blood should be removed and only the four version of the blood story beginning after he left pilate and without the contradictory of when are worth preservinhg and most importantly the teachings AFTER hgthe blood but teachings befoe the bolld were from the era befre and need not be preserved.
sinmilarly acts is a problem because altho it tells the storuy christian think "we must practuce what the original christians did; and performed asdescribed in acts when intruth "simon never said so you are out" jesus only said what he said between the blood and the ascension but the rest of acts is not jesus teaching for examp;lte keeping foru in acts fpr gentiles when jesus said "not in old wineskins" which may mean when he taught or as above from the era of blood either way gentiles do not need even four... even jewish followers of jesus should not use "old wineskins" anymore from the era of blood so acts is not good because it budens four when the law awas only for the family called israelites and not for tothers general and even the law odf iosraelites ashad a limit in jeremia which beganm at the lates t when jesus died. sio even jews should respect the messag jeremia brought that a new era came where inside fulfills and teaching also practice is a rebellion against jehova.
there are several possibilities.
my opinion first- the covenant of jeremia called the "new covenant" which is described in jeremia as inside meaning it is fulfilled by inside knowing... begins as a "covenant" which we know from exodus that covenants begin with blood so before the crucifixion is before blood and before covenant began. the only section to examine is AFTER the blood if jesus said "practice the law" after the blood then we can know it is not the covenant described in jeremia and since after the blood he said teach... that is ideas and not ceremony so it matches jeremia. and fulfills the prophecy from jehova.
in fact we must not forget the jesus did teach even before the blood "not old wine skins" in mathew 9.17, which matches jermia and paul so it is supported, indicating he taught the law would end because he said so... but tithe idea is in 23.23 that was before the blood on cross.
others say considering jesus also said "not old wine skins" in mat. 9, this section is "not literal but a strategem" to convince the listeners.
another clue is the context of mathew 23.2 seat of moses... the pharisees used physical punishments to compel the people and bully them to practice the law so you "must" because they bully and threaten and compel you... like the beatings decribed in deuteronomy "forty not more" was that merciful? relative to the era yes. jesus specified moses to indicate "only because moses" not because you are truly required but because the romans permit the rabbis to hit you.
others say, altho mathew was written after the blood [soon after the blood as indicated by the end of the book the same proof used to define the book acts 52 ad so Mathew 35 ad] he wanted those who rejected jesus "you" who are not inside grace are still inside law so "do not be hypocrites" instead "you" obey law emphasizing the important while you tithe, "you" but not myself nor students who are inside grace of belief as god spoke thru jeremia because the time matthew wrote after the blood those who believe were like paul who said "i am free from the law" about himself... I the one born inside jews who teach to obey laws and ceremonies of moses even I myself was freed by grace in romans 8 and similarly "even the words carved in stone passed away" meaning the sabath and ten commandments carved in stone passed away so certainly the rest of the law of moses not in stone passed away and free from the law.
if jews would respect jeremia and that can be expected becasue they say oyt os a good bokk... then they should know that "inside" fulfills and no need t practice actions and ceremonies because veen before jesus jeremia said that god wants "inside" and that fiulfills so inside without ceremoiny not only fulfills but is the descriprtion of the new covenant of jeremia it may have begun as sson as jeremia said it oir as soon as god showed he sdid not save the temple of practices. that is the indication to stop ceremonies but the jews continued the ceremonies until jesus.
in fact jesus sent a guy to sacrifce... why? because it was before th eblood or as a strategy you are freefrom all law but go offer the sacrifice to get their attention and telll them about the christ msessia as a strategy and after truly entering the new covenant the old passe away choosing one or two is not a problem to reject most because it all passed away.
anothe roption challenges christian doctrine ywte t is possible.
we know from gospel of john that the day "for offering the passover" jesus was brought before pilate indicating he was killed that day... so we know after the decision john is good that matthew is not totaly reliable source because mathew claims he was brought to pilate a day later... after the day of the passover not the same day since matthew is not reliable we cannot trust that jesus realy said "should tithe spices and not neglect the law" only the messages which match the idea of jeremia and paul can be trusted as consistent with gods revealed will so beleibe" not old wineskins" as confirnming jeremia bit the practice law cannot be trusted because in general matthew is not reliable.
admittedly the same flaw can be said regardin g joghn since jesus [prepared the passover on the day of preparation and the following day was before pilate then john is not reliable either so whether the gospeklls conflict john or matthew they are not reliable and for that reason all four should be removed from the group of "new testament" books at least the majoritu of content before the blood should be removed and only the four version of the blood story beginning after he left pilate and without the contradictory of when are worth preservinhg and most importantly the teachings AFTER hgthe blood but teachings befoe the bolld were from the era befre and need not be preserved.
sinmilarly acts is a problem because altho it tells the storuy christian think "we must practuce what the original christians did; and performed asdescribed in acts when intruth "simon never said so you are out" jesus only said what he said between the blood and the ascension but the rest of acts is not jesus teaching for examp;lte keeping foru in acts fpr gentiles when jesus said "not in old wineskins" which may mean when he taught or as above from the era of blood either way gentiles do not need even four... even jewish followers of jesus should not use "old wineskins" anymore from the era of blood so acts is not good because it budens four when the law awas only for the family called israelites and not for tothers general and even the law odf iosraelites ashad a limit in jeremia which beganm at the lates t when jesus died. sio even jews should respect the messag jeremia brought that a new era came where inside fulfills and teaching also practice is a rebellion against jehova.
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
update correction to article "continents"
we were born into a world that teaches to identify lands with "names such as africa" and to call africa a continent because all of "africa" is connected and the word "cont"+inent is like "contin"+ue and "cont"+act and all the land in africa contacts.
that causes some problems because before people dug the man-made suez canal the land continued around the sea named mediteranean as i will explain several problems.
imagine the situation in the time of roman empire. a roman enters boarding a ship in the land we call italy that means by the north edge of the water we call mediteranean sea which means "mid-land" because it is in the middle of land and on the north edge of the med a roman enters a boat and moves going south to the edge of the sea and calls that land africa... yet today we know that africa contacts and "continues" beyond past the nile river and connects to land continuing all the way around that sea water to rome it is one "mass" of connected land. the land "continues and is truly one continent" and even after the artificial change dug, the natural division has no separation but instead the land continued and traditional was one continuous land=one true continent.
so the physical division should be taught not "three continents" named africa etc. because the land called africa has always continued around the med sea, and continuous land is one continent.
so if we use the name continent like "contin"+ue then the land all around the sea is one continuous land mass. unless...
we separate by the natural river nile a long natural river and say the river separates if so the west side can be named africa and the other side where the sun appears in the morning can be a different name yet the nile is long and east of the nile the land narrows... so that river is not a good division.
even narrow land still continues and is not a separate continent.because land continues until recent centuries after dug canal named suez canal.
if we divide based on narrow land the word continent is bad because land continues and only 2 true continents separated by ocean. the continent with amazon river and the continent with nile river 2. now after the canals were dug we can have five 5 a number like the natural fingers of the easily seen hand the five largest land masses divided by canals=5.
*
the mass of land is physically divided by narrow land and the word "continent" is bad to use because the land "continues" and contacts around the sea unless we make some innovation.
the word continent which truly there is only one around med sea, which can be called URAL for the mountains to include both sides of the major mountains called ural, or by river see below either name is good, and similarly the land we call america "continues" on both sides of the narrow part we call panama only two true "continents" which continue. if we use the word continent then both sides of the narrow land we call panama "contin"+ue and are one continent and that is so large that as my wise friend pointed out "even antarctica" is too small to be a continent and anyway nobody truly lives in that too-cold for human region unless we use the number five like natural fingers the five largest.
the only way to divide continents is the ocean between what we call america and what we call africa which do not connect but the narrow land in america does connect and continue if not for the water of the human built "panama canal".
the other land continues around the med sea and is one "continent" unless now after the "suez canal was built" that water separates the land of the "nile river" from the land of the "jordan river" which continues in one land mass
so in conclusion after the building of the dug canals we can see the country called panama is on two continents where the continents "BOTH NARROW AND water caused NO CONTINUE" by panama canal i do not like honoring amerigo who should have noticed immediately that the land extends further south than the land called india by the equator known by sailing navigation so instead of person name replace name with the major river amazon that should be the name of one "continent" and it continues until the narrow land where the water separates so land does "not continue" what name?
north of panama where major river is "missississippi" did i spell that right? looks good.
i hope we will update the study textbooks to show that the word continent is like the word continues and even narrow land continues and touches contacts and only after the humans built the dug canals can we say the land does not continue by the narrow land and water so mississippi continent in north and 2 amazon near equator that is two continents now that people dug canal and if so antarctica is near the size of amazon continent and is fifth largest like natural number of fingers so that continent can be considered FIFTH but with name "south" not a name based on "the opposite side arctic" but the name of the region for itself the south continent however the land called australia is barely half of the south continent and is too small to be a continent not only because it is not five largest but also barely half area...
this reveals the bias and inaccurate pride of the british to say 'we are great we rule an entire continent called australia" when it is barely half of the size of antarctica the unjustified pride is revealed is stipid boastfulness. [note needed second attempt this accusation must have angered people coincidently my internet had trouble at time this post]
similarly only after dug suez canal the land does not continue around the med sea... now we should teach the narrow land with the water separation, called suez canal separates. so the land does not continue and the continent should be named nile because it is the continent with the major river named nile that is the 4 continent which does not continue because water of canal separates. so the land does not continue and the other side where the next river is jordan river should name the continent which like the word continent=contin+ues to the distant oceans east and west one continent named jordan river region because that is the river near the border near the canal. an that avoids choosing a river in germany over china and vice versa objectively near the physical separation.
we should update and fix the "bad glory-chaasing mongering of the european" who made up the word continent in a way that they have "their own two continents" when truly the size of australia is barely half of the southern continents and the land they call europe "continued" around the med sea until man dug a separation which barely counts unless combined the land narrows and with water separates not continue.
altho the dictionary said the word continent "as used by europeans" is "seven largest land masses" which is bad for several reasons seven? choose five largest like natural fingers and especially considering australiia is "so much smaller" than even the smallest of the big five... it is a different scale.
we need to recognize the "unjustified honor chasing europeans" and correct the trick to count seven africa asia australia because australia area is too small barely half of antarctica and why seven? that is bad relative to area size. the number was chosen by europeans who wanted to chase honor even when the land continues=continent continues not separate asia, so in conclusion 5 like nature five 5 fingers on hand the five largest AFTER the canals were dug, and teach history only 2 true continent land continued until man divided and then 2/2=4 plus southern continent named south like place and now after division similar area to amazon therefore in similar class scale like amazon continent.
largest name "jordan" for jordan river near edge of continent which continues from ocean in east called pacific to continued land reaching the west ocean called atlantic, one continuous continent and 2 the nile continent continuing from the "narrow land plus water" separation called suez canal 2 and in the south the south continent third after dividing the amazon one it is similar area scale.
and then further west:
the mississippi continent named for majo river extending from the north to the "narrow land pluis separated by water" called panama canal as above same idea as suez canal divides not "continuous land" that continent called amazon continent we should update the study textbooks to show the five largest why five like natural five fingers on hand and this coincides with the similar area size too.
five largest includes the south continent [ they call it anatarctica]
what europeans called "europe" continues and is not a separate continent so not an additional continent because it is the same continuous land and we must fix the "honor chasing of the europeans" to claim they control two continents when the land truly continues from the suez canal around the med sea and "not six or 7 largest" to unjustly include the land called australia because five is the natural number and the five largest do not include australia and adding more than five is not like natural fingers especcialy considering that australia is much smaller barely half the area of the south continent revealing the honor chasing of the europeans we should fix and make corrected in the study textbooks.
that causes some problems because before people dug the man-made suez canal the land continued around the sea named mediteranean as i will explain several problems.
imagine the situation in the time of roman empire. a roman enters boarding a ship in the land we call italy that means by the north edge of the water we call mediteranean sea which means "mid-land" because it is in the middle of land and on the north edge of the med a roman enters a boat and moves going south to the edge of the sea and calls that land africa... yet today we know that africa contacts and "continues" beyond past the nile river and connects to land continuing all the way around that sea water to rome it is one "mass" of connected land. the land "continues and is truly one continent" and even after the artificial change dug, the natural division has no separation but instead the land continued and traditional was one continuous land=one true continent.
so the physical division should be taught not "three continents" named africa etc. because the land called africa has always continued around the med sea, and continuous land is one continent.
so if we use the name continent like "contin"+ue then the land all around the sea is one continuous land mass. unless...
we separate by the natural river nile a long natural river and say the river separates if so the west side can be named africa and the other side where the sun appears in the morning can be a different name yet the nile is long and east of the nile the land narrows... so that river is not a good division.
even narrow land still continues and is not a separate continent.because land continues until recent centuries after dug canal named suez canal.
if we divide based on narrow land the word continent is bad because land continues and only 2 true continents separated by ocean. the continent with amazon river and the continent with nile river 2. now after the canals were dug we can have five 5 a number like the natural fingers of the easily seen hand the five largest land masses divided by canals=5.
*
the mass of land is physically divided by narrow land and the word "continent" is bad to use because the land "continues" and contacts around the sea unless we make some innovation.
the word continent which truly there is only one around med sea, which can be called URAL for the mountains to include both sides of the major mountains called ural, or by river see below either name is good, and similarly the land we call america "continues" on both sides of the narrow part we call panama only two true "continents" which continue. if we use the word continent then both sides of the narrow land we call panama "contin"+ue and are one continent and that is so large that as my wise friend pointed out "even antarctica" is too small to be a continent and anyway nobody truly lives in that too-cold for human region unless we use the number five like natural fingers the five largest.
the only way to divide continents is the ocean between what we call america and what we call africa which do not connect but the narrow land in america does connect and continue if not for the water of the human built "panama canal".
the other land continues around the med sea and is one "continent" unless now after the "suez canal was built" that water separates the land of the "nile river" from the land of the "jordan river" which continues in one land mass
so in conclusion after the building of the dug canals we can see the country called panama is on two continents where the continents "BOTH NARROW AND water caused NO CONTINUE" by panama canal i do not like honoring amerigo who should have noticed immediately that the land extends further south than the land called india by the equator known by sailing navigation so instead of person name replace name with the major river amazon that should be the name of one "continent" and it continues until the narrow land where the water separates so land does "not continue" what name?
north of panama where major river is "missississippi" did i spell that right? looks good.
i hope we will update the study textbooks to show that the word continent is like the word continues and even narrow land continues and touches contacts and only after the humans built the dug canals can we say the land does not continue by the narrow land and water so mississippi continent in north and 2 amazon near equator that is two continents now that people dug canal and if so antarctica is near the size of amazon continent and is fifth largest like natural number of fingers so that continent can be considered FIFTH but with name "south" not a name based on "the opposite side arctic" but the name of the region for itself the south continent however the land called australia is barely half of the south continent and is too small to be a continent not only because it is not five largest but also barely half area...
this reveals the bias and inaccurate pride of the british to say 'we are great we rule an entire continent called australia" when it is barely half of the size of antarctica the unjustified pride is revealed is stipid boastfulness. [note needed second attempt this accusation must have angered people coincidently my internet had trouble at time this post]
similarly only after dug suez canal the land does not continue around the med sea... now we should teach the narrow land with the water separation, called suez canal separates. so the land does not continue and the continent should be named nile because it is the continent with the major river named nile that is the 4 continent which does not continue because water of canal separates. so the land does not continue and the other side where the next river is jordan river should name the continent which like the word continent=contin+ues to the distant oceans east and west one continent named jordan river region because that is the river near the border near the canal. an that avoids choosing a river in germany over china and vice versa objectively near the physical separation.
we should update and fix the "bad glory-chaasing mongering of the european" who made up the word continent in a way that they have "their own two continents" when truly the size of australia is barely half of the southern continents and the land they call europe "continued" around the med sea until man dug a separation which barely counts unless combined the land narrows and with water separates not continue.
altho the dictionary said the word continent "as used by europeans" is "seven largest land masses" which is bad for several reasons seven? choose five largest like natural fingers and especially considering australiia is "so much smaller" than even the smallest of the big five... it is a different scale.
we need to recognize the "unjustified honor chasing europeans" and correct the trick to count seven africa asia australia because australia area is too small barely half of antarctica and why seven? that is bad relative to area size. the number was chosen by europeans who wanted to chase honor even when the land continues=continent continues not separate asia, so in conclusion 5 like nature five 5 fingers on hand the five largest AFTER the canals were dug, and teach history only 2 true continent land continued until man divided and then 2/2=4 plus southern continent named south like place and now after division similar area to amazon therefore in similar class scale like amazon continent.
largest name "jordan" for jordan river near edge of continent which continues from ocean in east called pacific to continued land reaching the west ocean called atlantic, one continuous continent and 2 the nile continent continuing from the "narrow land plus water" separation called suez canal 2 and in the south the south continent third after dividing the amazon one it is similar area scale.
and then further west:
the mississippi continent named for majo river extending from the north to the "narrow land pluis separated by water" called panama canal as above same idea as suez canal divides not "continuous land" that continent called amazon continent we should update the study textbooks to show the five largest why five like natural five fingers on hand and this coincides with the similar area size too.
five largest includes the south continent [ they call it anatarctica]
what europeans called "europe" continues and is not a separate continent so not an additional continent because it is the same continuous land and we must fix the "honor chasing of the europeans" to claim they control two continents when the land truly continues from the suez canal around the med sea and "not six or 7 largest" to unjustly include the land called australia because five is the natural number and the five largest do not include australia and adding more than five is not like natural fingers especcialy considering that australia is much smaller barely half the area of the south continent revealing the honor chasing of the europeans we should fix and make corrected in the study textbooks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)