![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6.gif)
The more I read, the more confused I get. Could someone please just tell me where the coin slot to this universe is located so I can play the danged thing?
The more I read, the more confused I get. Could someone please just tell me where the coin slot to this universe is located so I can play the danged thing?
"Trust those who seek the truth, but doubt those who say they found it."
Ok, JohnQPublic, I looked at those websites and the only one that had even a hint of anything specific was the third one:
https://medium.com/we-are-in-a-speci...e/26f88f17a732
in which they claim that the distribution of background radiation detected shows an "alignment" that "correlates" to the ecliptic (the orbital plane of the planets around the sun). Big fucking deal!
They don't specify in any detail what this "alignment" is, nor what the "correlation" is. Can we visualize what is bothering them?
Faced with an uneven distribution of background radiation, wouldn't one try to look for influences of our nearest star (the sun) as to how it might be affecting the readings?
How far away from the Sun was that Plank satellite - far enough to dampen any of the Sun's influence?
This sounds to me like a phoney baloney jewish snake oil trick show from the back of a gypsy wagon to an easily bamboozled audience - using the "awe" of scientific boogaboo ("alignment/correlation") that no one bothers to spell out in enough detail to even know what the hell they are so worried about.
Common sense, by ordinary farmers, can suggest that the Sun's influence on all things we can detect is enough to blur what you might find from a great distance from any star - especially if all you are doing is measuring radiation. Isn't the Sun spewing out radiation all the time, varying amounts and bursts and flares, and varying frequencies and even some not fully understood here on earth? Why would these scientists not be working their models to account for the Sun's influence on their measurements, instead of trying to make some philosophical end-of-the-world mambo jumbo talk to the common folks out here? I smell some kind of cheap-jew-trickery bamboozlement in the air here.
still cannot wrap my mind about a theory asserting that earth is the center or the universe, unless this can be applied to any celestial objects. I explained why earlier. If not, sorry this is just another "earth is flat" delusion. Additionally, there is a multiverse... center of what?
a center also would imply that planets/stars move and spin at the same speed... impossible, only the galaxy is. All objects within it, have various motions.
The Universe within 50000 Light Years
All the money that exists cannot buy Earth, and the evidence is that we destroy our habitat as a result, thinking that we can just seize and pillage as we see fit. If crowds endorse the pursuit of wealth at their own level, they cannot prevent multinationals from doing exactly the same. The “dystopian endless growth paradigm” is going to end with a bang but will open the door to a premise endorsing that Earth is the only wealth we truly have while journeying through life.
They need to keep the Pope alive until such time as after the great leveling of heads,Originally Posted by Jerrylynnb
so he can then tell all males Not to wear a condom again.
It is a wholly unnatural thought, and only notional to possible alien that everything in the universe spins while the Earth does not.
Weak gravity force alone would tear our condom that is Earth to ribbons.
This is coming from mainstream scientists, and believe me they have been trying for years to make it go away, but it does not. Take a look at this:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huter...MB_Huterer.pdf
I think some here do not fully know what the thesis of this film is.
From what I know so far, with the entire movie not being released yet, they never claim that the "earth is at the center" of the universe. I used that term loosely but they do not specifically claim the "center" idea.
I do not know much at all about cosmology, but their thesis seems plausible to me and I respect them for having the courage to put it forward. The authors of the film are being persecuted by the Zionist establishment including the Catholic Zionist establishment. The only thing I do not understand is the real reason Dr. Sungenis and Mr. Delano went to Hollywood and sought the expertise of the mainly Zionist film makers there. I can understand their wanting the material made into a very high-quality professionally directed movie, but it seems that is obtainable elsewhere.
Nothing good comes out of Hollywood.
See this, too: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huter...cmb_review.pdf
"(i) the four area vectors of the quadrupole and octopole
are mutually close (i.e., the quadrupole and octopole
planes are aligned) at the 99.6% C.L.;
(ii) the quadrupole and octopole planes are orthogonal
to the ecliptic at the 95.9% C.L.; this alignment was at 98.5% C.L.
in our analysis of the WMAP 1 year maps.
The reduction of alignment was due to WMAP’s
adaption of a new radiometer gain model for the 3
year data analysis, that took seasonal variations of the
receiver box temperature into account—a systematic
that is indeed correlated with the ecliptic plane. We
regard that as clear evidence that multipole vectors
are a sensitive probe of alignments;
(iii) the normals to these four planes are aligned with
the direction of the cosmological dipole (and with
the equinoxes) at a level inconsistent with Gaussian
random, statistically isotropic skies at 99.7% C.L.;
(iv) the ecliptic threads between a hot and a cold spot
of the combined quadrupole and octopole map,
following a node line across about 1/3ofthe sk yand
separating the three strong extrema from the three
weak extrema of the map; this is unlikely at about the
95% C.L."
You are making assumptions. You are assuming isotropy. This is what mainstream science also assumes, but they look for evidence to support the assumption. The CMB data actually hurts that assumption. From Hawking, A Brief History of Time (illustrating mainstream science's understanding of the assumption):
...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.
He does provide and alternative view, though:
There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.
As for the multiverse, that is really out there. It is an untestable assumption. The beauty of the CMB observations is that they are viewable and testable. Their interpretation is very open, but the CMB signal is clearly correlated to us.
Scientists can only begin to understand very small pieces of larger puzzle. Until they can answer the ultimate questions, they know nothing and their theories about the universe are worthless.
The ultimate questions are:
Why does the universe exist?
How can the universe be infinate?
How can something exist with no beginning?
How can something be created without a creator?
Oh, and Stephan Hawking is a shithead and a liar that has many people fooled.
DON'T TAKE THE VACCINE!
THE SHIT HAS HIT THE FAN!
Why isn't anyone giving us a link to where we can view it from a pre-release Chinese dup recording?
Or is it still in audience capture mode?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
