Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist

[crimethink]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2769156/Black-holes-NOT-exist-Big-Bang-Theory-wrong-claims-scientist-maths-prove-it.html

[JohnQPublic]

Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests (http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html)

[Horn]

The only thing that made it possible to begin with was well rounded math.

Ever so slowly they cling into the electric universe.

[EE_]

Now can we shove that fraud Stephen Hawking off a cliff?

http://i.imgur.com/PlH9tq5.gif

[JohnQPublic]

That is pretty mean, EE_. At least he landed in water, but I hope there is someone below to rescue him.

[mick silver]

so if there no black holes does this mean there also no moon ?

[Santa]

so if there no black holes does this mean there also no moon ?

The moon is really just God poking his finger into the fabric of the universe from the other side. Stars are pinhole lights escaping through the fabric from heaven where God lives. One day soon God will lift the dark cloth of the universe and we will all be bathed in heavens light. Most will fry in a burst of flame.

Not you though, mick, because you now know the Truth.

[Horn]

That is pretty mean, EE_. .

Its just gravity, imagine if he were hit wit h a bolt of lightning.

[Shami-Amourae]

I knew The Big Band Theory was BS the second I heard about "Dark Matter". At that point it was obvious the theory was wrong since they were literally just making shit up to keep the institutions and infrastructure they built up around their bullshit idea up.

I hate the scientific community more than the religious community. The scientific community are just as religious than the religious community, and yet they claim to be based on fact and reason.

[Ponce]

Why we are not "sucked" into a afroamerican hole right away? simple........put some water in your bath tube, the throw in one of those ice cream sticks, then pull out the plug..........as the water drains into the hole you will see the wooden stick going around and around and you will see pieces of dirt and other matters also going around but, thanks to the stick, not into the hole........I don't know how it works but is there.

Hummmmm maybe I should wire a book about this with the tittle of......."The Affect Of A Ice Cream Stick In The Black Hole" hahahahahahahahahaha.

[EE_]

Now can we shove that fraud Stephen Hawking off a cliff?



Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God

http://i.imgur.com/PlH9tq5.gif

The physicist explains that science now offers more convincing explanations for existence. He is therefore an atheist.

by Chris Matyszczyk
September 26, 2014 9:33 AM PDT

Stephen Hawking comes right out and says it. He is an atheist.

If I were a scientist, I'd stick to the Goldman Sachs principle: bet on both sides.

"Believe in science, believe in God" seems to cover all the possibilities and gives you the best chance for a cheery afterlife.

For a time, it was thought that astrophysicist Stephen Hawking had also left a tiny gap in his credo window for a magical deity. However, he has now come out and declared that there is no God.

He gave an interview to Spain's El Mundo in which he expressed his firm belief that el mundo was the work of scientifically explainable phenomena, not of a supreme being.

Hawking said: "Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

I'm not sure whether there was a specific moment in which science overtook the deistic explanation of existence. However, El Mundo pressed him on the suggestion in "A Brief History of Time" that a unifying theory of science would help mankind "know the mind of God."

Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."

He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

Perhaps. But some look at, for example, the human eye and wonder how that exciting ball of jelly could have come about scientifically.

Hawking's been tending toward such an absolute pronouncement for a while. In a speech last year, he offered an explanation of how the world came to being without God. He mused: "What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions?"
More Technically Incorrect

I do worry, though, about Hawking's sweetly divine faith in humanity. He told El Mundo: "In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind."

If that's true, the human mind still has to develop exponentially to explain everyday phenomena, such as social networking. And then there's Hawking's insistence that his speech synthesizer, which gives him a curiously American accent, has had this consequence: "With the American accent, I've had far more success with women."

We definitely need some serious research to explain that.
http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/#ftag=YHF65cbda0

[Buddha]

That is pretty mean, EE_. At least he landed in water, but I hope there is someone below to rescue him.

Hehe, God is there for him :)

Edit, nvm I got it

[Shami-Amourae]

Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God

http://i.imgur.com/PlH9tq5.gif

Mac and Me.
:D

For the lulz:
blip.tv/phelous/phelous-and-me-mac-and-me-review-1424488 (http://blip.tv/phelous/phelous-and-me-mac-and-me-review-1424488)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5le9sYdYkM

[Horn]

If anyone is really interested, I though this post was entertaining.

Look into the comments below, the article gives a good grazing to the head, but the author is neutered in the end comments section.

Mainstream "scientific community" is rapidly searching "vays" and artificial means to combat the onslaught. "Advanced" Neutrino detectors, "peeling" away the Sun's layers with telescopes... all at one time or another disproved by older test equipment's results being swept under the carpet.

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/

[Neuro]

Now can we shove that fraud Stephen Hawking off a cliff?

http://i.imgur.com/PlH9tq5.gif
Could the wheelchair be salvaged?

[Neuro]

Red shifts are most easily explained with gravity effects of supermassive objects. Generally speaking the further away an object the greater it has to be to be observed, thus greater gravity, thus greater red shift. I think all puzzle pieces would fall into place if photons were seen as particles with wave characteristics instead of waves with particle characteristics. Gravity clearly bends light, according to mainstream cosmology this could only happen because gravity bends time, but it's blatantly false it pulls on photones because they have mass, which doesn't affect the propagation speed of the wave which is constant at 300,000 km/s, it affects the frequency of the wave though. Time can't be warped! The minds of mainstream cosmologists are evidently though!

[Horn]

I think all puzzle pieces would fall into place if photons were seen as particles with wave characteristics instead of waves with particle characteristics. Gravity clearly bends light,

Does gravity bend light, or light bend around objects, what makes you assume the weak force in gravity could bend time?

I mean besides the fantasy numbers.

[Neuro]

Does gravity bend light, or light bend around objects, what makes you assume the weak force in gravity could bend time?

I mean besides the fantasy numbers.
I just argued that gravity doesn't bend time, but that is what mainstream cosmologists claim. However it bends light. There is experimental and astronomical evidence to that effect. Mainstream cosmologists and phycisists claim it is because it bends the time-space continuum. I just think gravity pulls photones like it pulls other matter...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

[Horn]

I just argued that gravity doesn't bend time, but that is what mainstream cosmologists claim. However it bends light there is experimental and astronomical evidence to that effect. Mainstream cosmologists and phycisists claim it is because it bends the time-space continuum. I just think gravity pulls photones like it pulls other matter...

I posted those series of plasma creation videos, I forget where now.

The thesis of which shows the photos creating a drag when clipping a solid object. Yes particle based, but the more active force is not the weak gravity, but resultant forces of power in light itself in drag.

[Neuro]

I posted those series of plasma creation videos, I forget where now.

The thesis of which shows the photos creating a drag when clipping a solid object. Yes particle based, but the more active force is not the weak gravity, but resultant forces of power in light itself in drag.
I don't think gravity in super massive objects such as galaxies and stars is a weak force... Further even if it is It takes the light photones some 100,000 years to pass through its gravitational field so even a miniscule force over that time frame would influence the really small mass of the photone!

[Horn]

I don't think gravity in super massive objects such as galaxies and stars is a weak force... Further even if it is It takes the light photones some 100,000 years to pass through its gravitational field so even a miniscule force over that time frame would influence the really small mass of the photone!

Look it is all very necessary that we see gravity clearly as more a mass effectual force than a strong force.

If we are to click along from here in metronome fashion with my plan to conquer the Earth, you and and any gravity contained in your effect becoming a puddy plaything in my magnetic strong force paws. You should becoming very sleepy as the light fades currently. :)

[Neuro]

Look it is all very necessary that we see gravity clearly as more a mass effectual force than a strong force.

If we are to click along from here in metronome fashion with my plan to conquer the Earth, you and and any gravity contained in your effect becoming a puddy plaything in my magnetic strong force paws. You should becoming very sleepy as the light fades currently. :)
Yes, beer...

[Horn]

Yes, beer...

Beer is an interfering force and by-product for Vodka shots. Though still a very necessary evil.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI

[JohnQPublic]

Red shifts are most easily explained with gravity effects of supermassive objects. Generally speaking the further away an object the greater it has to be to be observed, thus greater gravity, thus greater red shift. I think all puzzle pieces would fall into place if photons were seen as particles with wave characteristics instead of waves with particle characteristics. Gravity clearly bends light, according to mainstream cosmology this could only happen because gravity bends time, but it's blatantly false it pulls on photones because they have mass, which doesn't affect the propagation speed of the wave which is constant at 300,000 km/s, it affects the frequency of the wave though. Time can't be warped! The minds of mainstream cosmologists are evidently though!

Paul Davies, Nature magazine, 1978

Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look.

These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own.

[Horn]

Imo, redshift should remain as trivial to us as butter is to an ant.

While "the many's" conclusion to the above statement is that I am a Godless mis-directed fellow throwing out the baby with the bath water, our individual relationship to God is what provides direction.

Following God's orders directly (if given so), is an insult to his creation in any instance. While also supposing that we are somehow elevated and blessed begotten is a cursed detriment that only bears witness by thousand of years of this "right" thinking in absolutes, left inherently and most evidently wrong.