Did Moses Predict the Big Bang Theory?

[russ_watters]

Pretty easy TO...

..make baseless claims. Substantiating them is tough (the more baseless, the tougher to substantiate them), but sorry - that's how science works.

Lets start with one: give us one universal constant or scientific formula that can be found in the scriptures and show us where it is.

 

[oscar]

Russ_watters: scripture never intended to be a scientific book explaining formulas. The very question is so absurd that it doesn't even an extended answer. In fact, I'm telling you several times what you just can't understand. I have said the Mayas, Egyptians, Incas, Sumerians NEVER INVENTED ANY FORMULAS COS THEY THEMSELVES ADMITED IT WAS A GIFTED FROM THE GODS. That's why you won't wind any formulas and that's why it was so easy to be forgotten the technologies of the past. If you ask the offspring of Mayas and Incas or Egyptians how did they build pyramids, Sacsayhuamán, Machu Picchu, Teotihuacan they don't know and there's no archeologists or historians reasonable explantions about that forgetfullness. Therefore your question is absurd to quantum level and IF I CONTINUE TO TEACH YOU HISTORY I would really be off the theme. That I won't want. And I'm not pushing anyone to accept anything at all nor pretend to "demonstrate" anything at all. Why would you require this to me? The whole forum is full of contradictory theories, people write about gravitons and I could well turn your arguments against you tired of giving explanations. The guy failed to give a proper answer about Cydonia in Mars, so I won't give more details until he does his research about the chosen name which is not translated. So, before I keep on answering to satisfy your curiosity, you have to tell me why do you believe in the things you believe, let's say Big Bang, gravitons or gravity as a suspected "force", the speed of light, etc. Do you think you know? Do you think you have investigated every sort of contradictory theory? I could ask if you believe in expansion of the universe and then quote from someone using math and more theories to say that is an illusion of the curvature of the space, I could say Michelson-Morley experimental tests is just a hoax, I can say the paralex use of trigonometry shouldn't be applied to far away stars but only to the ones which are close and then conclude all your estimated "light years" are just speculation. Do you think I'm just an eventual reader of New Age books? I'm a big eater of everything you can imagine with the advantage that I have written down every detail, the books, the name of the pages, the name of the author who wrote and so on.
If you say "baseless claims" is because you're an extremely talented person knowing everything I posted. Now, CAN I ASK YOU QUESTIONS to examine if you're that intelligent and prepared to believe your words? Everyone who dislike something usually says the same repetitive and general statement "that's baseless", so you are merely repeating what Moderator said "that's nothing". So, I re-responded him.

 

[oscar]

It's not baseless The Mayas predicted eclipses with 1000 years anticipation neither the fact of their exact to the second Venusian calendar. What is baseless is your ignorant comment without knowing neither history nor what modern astronomers have openly recognized about them! In insist, do homework and URGENTLY search your local library or buy a book in bookstores.Until then...

 

[quantumdude]

He means Stephen Hawkings.

And who the heck is "Hawkings"?

(I know who he means, I'm just goofing around).

 

[DrChinese]

Oscar,

Is your premise essentially that there were scientific predictions made a long time ago which are now being re-discovered?

 

[oscar]

Yap, I started goofing around with Hawking unreasonable argument about "monkeys writing sonets" against all odd (something he ignored although he perfectly knows is wrong argument, that's why is unforgivable knowing the statement was made by a mathematician and not a moron). In the same atitude he rejected Thorne's wormholes to believe in his self-constructed more fantastic idea about wormholes.
I started mentioning some things known in the past and evidently causing discomfort. But why? I am not denying science, we all benefit from the progress of science. I just ridicule some scientists logic and do say some things were already known. But here comes Oscar crucifiction demanding ridiculous formulas in religious books, turning blind eye on regarding things they don't know and don't even want to invest time to investigate, but the quick answer is "that's nothing" or echoing "that's baseless" even without checking nor searching the information and underestimating the work of people in different areas. That is EGO problem, you think cos you like your math formulas you're a bit ahead of others who are also using math and other aspects of science.
Only since this 20th with the help of Gravity Sond B we're going to test in space what Einstein thought about deformity of space altering the light like a ball of iron in a bed and smaller objects atraceted by the curvature created by the weigh of the ball. That would help us to understand better what was thought by Enstein's brain and checked in 1919 in Brazilian city, Sobral. We'll know better if the spinning of an object with big mass can actually DRAG space-time like milkshake after spinning the straw. We'll check the giroscopes if they alter while the telescope aims IM Pegasi. But why feeling so touchy about modern science? So confident?
We don't know for sure if there's time, if the universe is flat or trumpet-like, like Crisp chip potatoe or a saddle, a donut. Almost 80% of the universe is UNKNOWN NOTHINGNESS and BLACKNESS, we don't know if particles would have mass enough to collapse into a Big Crunch or if we have to believe a Big Rip in endless sea of space, the Big Bang theory in fact has more holes than original superhole singularity ; it's been discussed if there is actually a misunderstanding of the redshift and there's no expansion at all but an illusion of curved space, if mass is moving or light, if light can or can't be accelerated, Einstein himself has been under attack, we're not sure if we have to separate space and time;the number of dimensions are available like menu dishes for all kind of taste; subparticles continue to appear at the same rate we're creating new devices to extend our "vision" proyections and YOU CALL ME I'M SPECULATING? You got to be pulling my legs or kidding!
The whole forum is just an speculating thing mounting upon the fame of Dr. Michio Kaku like Argentinian people mounting upon Evita, Maradona and Carlos Gardel fame! Gimme a break! I better withdraw cos I don't want to repeat myself and see Aristophanic chit chat rather than the subject. In fact, I don't come here to fight with anybody...unless you want to struggle with me for free.

 

[oscar]

Dr. Chinese: Not exactly and I do thank that before making a critic you really want to know what's in the mind of the one who's writing and then after you can agree or disagree with me and we could extend our conversation. What I'm trying to say is the ancient people never learned by themselves many things neither admited to future generations they invented any predictions. What I'm saying is they got the information as a revelation from hyperdimensional creatures...not humanoid creatures to the image of Erik Von Däniken or J.J.Benítez. They called them gods and the mediator of these people were always the shamans who had contact with the beings through specific mediumic ways. In Egyptian, Mayas, Incas and even Hebrew temple there was always a sacred dark temple and the use of hallucinogenic substances like blue Lilly, opium, coca and nicotine, ayahuasca, mescalito, etc.
Everything learned entered into the realms of those civilizations in different times but it wasn't a natural progressive knowledge by their own, hence it was easily forgotten by the offspring. The very similarities of many things don't require the idea of traces of those ancient cultures in different countries though we can't elminate the possibility as examined several times. Therefore, the entities always depicted as half human half animal entities in universal legends (that's important to distinguish between isolated myths) knew for sure things Sumerian and Egyptian couldn't possible know without the mediums available at the time. That's why the exactitude even in seconds in Venusian calendar of the Mayas, or the expression of strings in the Bible or Earth hanging on "nothing" or even the rotation compared like the clay under the hands of artisan, or the reference to Draco and Milky Way or the emphasis in special constelations and stars like Orion, Pleiads compared with others. It's easy from our modern perspective to talk about equinox and precesion when we already have a better idea of the things or after Newton and Copernicus checked ancient documents. But the people in the past couldn't actually witness those things even to IMAGINE long number of years about those cosmic laws. All what we discuss here is based upon ancient works, we still use 60 seconds for 1 minute and 60 minutes in 1 hour, 12 months in a 365 days year, a week with 7 days. We didn't create a more sophisticated an better way to tick our Earth events, we're using the same leftover though with better devices and indeed more details. But details like "gluons" or messon-mu or Higgs or God's particle haven't erased really what was known in the past. The proof of what I said is the continue use of Joshua's account of Sun and Moon stopped during a day to BELIEVE the Bible was saying Earth was the center of the Universe ignoring completely what is Jewish knowledge and confusing that with Catholic stupid INTERPRETATION in those days. The critics just repeat the same old crap like parrots cos THEY NEVER INVESTIGATED for the same pre-conceived ideas. Shame on them, I pity them.

 

[oscar]

Oh yes, we have computers know, a Pentium using chips, chips made out of jewels with silicium. But if I say the Mayas used quartz or the granite used in Egyptian Great Pyramid is related to quartz and they used esmerald umphallos, or copper rather than iron to provoke a short circuit and link the whole temple made of stone with the ground, or they purposely golden copper with "empiric" electricity procedures or if I say not even Egyptologist and Archeologists can explain how come stones were transported through river, valleys, sometimes high altitude carrying huge stones weighing tons to distances as far as 160 km, that means nothing to them cos they don't like the issue. Our neo-Babylonian culture isolated the "specialization" so you can talk with a math genius who's a complete as...hole in other areas. You check tv cable and witness the archeologist and historians trying to reveal the secrets of the past get themselves into ridiculous position cos not even their small mock ups or miniatures work! Or you see the rivalry between geologists "interfering" with the power of Dr. Hawass who is the great Egyptian Egyptologist authority in his own country! Therefore, everyone who wants to use Helmotz devices or infrared cameras have to agree with Mr. Hawass in first place. And yet, the results are beginning to unravel now, unwrapping the secrets beyond decades of science Inquisitors. Moderator's attitude hiding the numbers of the people reading this theme or "censuring" what I post with magnified lens he doesn't use with others of his preference is a method I reckon very well in science and even in Medical Congress as I know first hand with Oncologists.

 

[Nigel]

The problem with Hawking's radiation formula is that it's derivation assumes large masses compared to the mass of an electron. So it doesn't tell us anything about the black hole model of an electron, which explains Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/)

 

[oscar]

Wanna be nailed to the cross? Very simple, ask your Rabbi what was the golden powder used by Moses and Egyptian "shamana" (mana) which was found in Egyptian temple (50 tons)? Exodus 32:20. It wasn't a baker but a metalurgist Besaleel who did the "sacred bread" known in Egypt (Exodus 37:10-29). They don't want to know, they don't want to search where was that substance set or why or in what circumstances and when. So, why wasting more time? If Mahabarata or Zechariah 14:12-14, Genesis 19:22-30 describes a possible nuclear catastrophe, they won't even investigate the POSSIBILITY of such accounts were not myths but actual facts. It's going to be considered nonsense because of their pride, they wouldn't suspect archeological evidence of people burned and holding hands exactly like Hindu descriptions told with thousands of years anticipation in the exact location expected. Everything is labled "myth", superstition. Why? Because it satisfies our self estime to think "WE DID IT , WE DID IT BETTER", WE DID IN OUR TIMES, NOBODY KNEW ANYTHING BUT ME...ONLY ME. Ancient civilizations were not always like this, they sometimes admited they did some things, but astonishing is, the most fantastic works they didn't explain the know-how and the experts don't even have an explanation of WHY NOT! I told you why not. Some things they learned but the most important were revealed as they themselves explained. Modern ego going to stratosphere wants even to deny what theh humbly admited! That's shameless attitude.

 

[Nereid]

Even more, people who have study the Avenue of the Dead have actually concrete data information (measurable) about planets like Uranus and Neptune that were "discovered" in recent times, very common 3D temples representing what is on heavens.

And what 'data' might this be? Are we talking about the mass of Neptune, to 25 significant digits perhaps?

 

[Nereid]

*SNIP
I have said the Mayas, Egyptians, Incas, Sumerians NEVER INVENTED ANY FORMULAS COS THEY THEMSELVES ADMITED IT WAS A GIFTED FROM THE GODS. That's why you won't wind any formulas and that's why it was so easy to be forgotten the technologies of the past.

Without formulae, numbers, specific, concrete predictions, how can we test your ideas? Aren't we all then reduced to "I say {text} means a detailed description of an anti-gravity drive!" and "No, you've got it all wrong! I say {text} means an idiosyncratic description of how delightful last night's repast was!"

If you ask the offspring of Mayas and Incas or Egyptians how did they build pyramids, Sacsayhuamán, Machu Picchu, Teotihuacan they don't know and there's no archeologists or historians reasonable explantions about that forgetfullness.

And if you ask me about why Qinshihuang-di burned scholars and buried books (or was it the other way round?), or why the builders of Stonehenge didn't use wood instead, I can't tell you either. However, there are some pretty good ideas on how the various pyramids were built.

The guy failed to give a proper answer about Cydonia in Mars, so I won't give more details until he does his research about the chosen name which is not translated.

Perhaps you're referring to Nereid? What makes you think I'm a guy? Since this is the internet, why can't I be a dog?

Re Cydonia: your question was "WHY DID NASA CHOOSE THE NAME OF MARTIAN LOCAL 'CYDONIA'?", to which my answer was: "NASA does not, and CANNOT, name features on the planets and their moons; that's the role of the IAU." Perhaps you meant: "Why did NASA recommend the name 'Cydonia' to the IAU for adoption?" But that would imply that there was, in 1957 or earlier, a formal process within NASA for selecting, discussing, agreeing and then recommending names ... and that would only take us back one more step ...

Just out of curiosity though, does the name Cydonia help you to make specific, concrete, testable predictions?

So, before I keep on answering to satisfy your curiosity, you have to tell me why do you believe in the things you believe, let's say Big Bang, gravitons or gravity as a suspected "force", the speed of light, etc.

Leaving aside the word 'believe' for a moment, this is very easy to answer ... if you take the trouble to read some of the posts I have made in Physics Forums, you will find many answers. In a nutshell, specific, concrete results from theories which are consistent with observations and experiments. In the case of General Relativity, *no* observation or experiment has a result inconsistent with the predictions from the theory (within its domain of applicability)

I could ask if you believe in expansion of the universe and then quote from someone using math and more theories to say that is an illusion of the curvature of the space, I could say Michelson-Morley experimental tests is just a hoax, I can say the paralex use of trigonometry shouldn't be applied to far away stars but only to the ones which are close and then conclude all your estimated "light years" are just speculation.

You could say all that. To which I would reply "I'm from Missouri, show me." with specific, concrete, testable predictions (or experimental results, or observational data).

Now, CAN I ASK YOU QUESTIONS to examine if you're that intelligent and prepared to believe your words? Everyone who dislike something usually says the same repetitive and general statement "that's baseless", so you are merely repeating what Moderator said "that's nothing". So, I re-responded him.

Ask away! Please be sure to mention specific, concrete, testable predictions.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ_watters: scripture never intended to be a scientific book explaining formulas. The very question is so absurd that it doesn't even an extended answer.

Fair enough, we're in agreement: Religion (including ancient mythology) has nothing at all to say about science. So what is the point of this thread then...?

 

[Severian596]

Hello, long time listener, first time caller.

oscar your extremely aggressive nature has made your writings entertaining, but also informative. I personally think there's no doubt to the fact that you are indeed learned. You hit on a lot of different topics and had a lot of interesting factoids (although your presentation was less than reader-friendly). I admit that I only wish I had credible information about a lot of the topics you discussed.

Shouldn't you be careful when you conclude that because a given description was used in the past (let's use the Job 38:31 explanation of "string theory" as the example), that the current idea of modern string theory is implied? Taken in context the passage seems to refer to lines you might draw between stars, OR Orion's belt (and this is from www.bibleontheweb.com because I admit, I'm at work):

Job Chapter 38
"31 Canst thou fasten the bands of the Pleiades, or loosen the cords of Orion? 32 Dost thou bring forth the constellations each in its season? or dost thou guide the Bear with her sons?"

It's not talking about string theory or the existence or composition of matter...it's talking about stars up in the sky. At least that would be my immediate interpretation based on the context of the sentence and this particular translation.

I guess I'm wondering if you aren't, yourself, falling victim to the same idea. Vague references are just that, and they can serve the purposes of anyone who excersizes them. For example:

"Kimono, kimono, kimono. Ah! Kimono is come from the Greek word kimona, which is mean winter. What do you wear in the winter? A robe! So, there you go!" - Gus Portokalos:, My Big Fat Greek Wedding

Furthermore I wonder where we go from here. If we learn only in retrospect that the ancients knew about string theory before us...what does that mean? We (and I guess I mean we as humans) still had to develop the theories...the bible didn't lecture on specific string theory or dark matter/energy topics, right?

 

[krab]

He means Stephen Hawkings.

Shoot. I was hoping it was about Screamin Jay Hawkins.

 

[oscar]

I agree with you the Bible doesn't lecture about science. Yet Hebrew language does have many layers and you could well interpret the bands, cords in many ways and also about the nothingness regarding the Earth hanging upon that or the rotation of the planet as clay transformed by the artist or the mention of the word "hugg" meaning circle in all directions, a sphere. That is scientific data though coming from a religious book. Readers can keep on asking themselves why continue with that, yet they are here discussing the subject. And I can return the ball to them, why discuss math theories which have no evidence whatsoever? Because the pleasure of knowing. Russ_waters should recommend Odenwald astronomer, Michio Kaku and even Newton not to write philosophy and Greek myths or religion with science either. Yet they have done precisely that whether he likes it or hates it tooth and nail.

 

[oscar]

Pretty good ideas about pyramids. Yap, not reality, just theories. Why would I be interested in searching what Mr. said in the forums if he can't give a proper simple answer about the choosing of a name on planet Mars, that's modern knowledge! Worst would be asking about history! Mr. , first, I have said and you KEEP ON NOT UNDERSTANDING Mayas and ancient civilizations won't provide formulas to you. If you want to learn about their codes I already gave you specific information about numbers used by them but don't expect me to get you out of misery explaining every single detail about the existence of Neptune, Uranus which was a recent "discovery". You maybe think the author of Gulliver by chance mentioned the moons of Mars centuries before the discovery do you think I will give you MORE information if you didn't even read all the sites I gave you? This is not a conversation of someone really interested in knowing something about them. You're just answering to have ping pong argument with me. I said and repeat you haven't got the right to deserve further information. So, you can keep on saying whatever you want and your speculations about pyramids not even archeologist Lehner knows for sure.
You keep asking for religious formulas and yet your math theories and measures are not a universal law, just check the forum and different ideas. So, why wasting MY TIME in such crap? I let real physicist and theorist and astronomers keep on arguing and contra-argument among themselves and keep the files of what is written and after a while I accept a "relative truth" just like relative relativity, how do you like it? HA-HA-HA!
I could've told you more and more but you haven't given a simple answer about why Sumerians and Mayas chose those numbers and Egyptians and Hebrew codes. So, if you can't answer something related to MATH which is the subject you think you know, how on Earth would you understand the history field and other things that you vaguely know? NO WAY, MAN (or woman)!

 

[oscar]

Severian: I agree with you the scientific mind doesn't have to stop. I'm not saying scientists should stop. I'm just sharing some things from the past and it's up to a fistful of scientists to search about the past and keep on using their brain and skill. In this kind of forum, you won't read many times (if ever) about Nikolai Tesla or Oppenheimer, both of them swallowing a lot of information about Hindu ancient manuscripts. The latter even learning Sanscrit to understand the religious myths better. That's a real scientific mind. Newton wrote more about religion than science and Leonardo Da Vinci was religious person. Einstein wrote personal letters to his friend with the name of his God and Ramanujan didn't hide the name of the goddess who inspired him. That's religion, for Christ sake! But some people stone me here cos they have the math god disguised as not religion but "science". If you want to convince me that is not faith, I won't be convinced. You will keep on fighting just like Hawking rejected Thorne because of personal belief. In that sense the ones who grab to science faith have too much to lose cos they believe so firmly. That's not my problem, I'm not a Maya worshipper, neither Inca. You know nothing about me. The path of science is not limited. There's no universal truth applying for many years, after a while a new theory replaces others. Yet, no important scientific information has denied what ancient knowledge described and is pretty evident the ones who ignore all about them have absolute silence regarding them. In this forum we rarely see scientific genius, if they were they should've behave like the ones I mentioned.

 

[oscar]

Severian: when we talk about language, we need to search the orginal source. What you say about "kimono" and then apply to Greek is just an irony that doesn't reflect what I posted. If I mention a book in the Bible I need to know not the translation picked because of my liking but the real Hebrew source. You can still have time to re-read my previous postings and you will check the DATES of the interpretation of Hebrew by Maimonides reading what Moses wrote thousands of years ago. So anyone can go to the library and check by himself (herself) if wants to do that. Science now is just discovering what they have already said in simple form. It's not a new interpretation according to my preference. In fact, I had the GUTS to say something science hasn't discover yet,that there was God's Big Crunch before Big Bang and there will be dramatic changes in the Sun in 2012/2013.

 

[oscar]

And if Einstein and Kaku or Hawking mentioned the title "god" (in Hebrew "elohim" and in Greek "theos") WHO THE HECK IS MR.MODERATOR OR A BUNCH OF UNKNOWN WRITERS TO SAY I CAN'T MENTION THE TITLE?

 

[oscar]

www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=197443#post197443
Something really bad is happening with Mr. Moderator, he's hiding the # of pages of this thread, he's hiding how many people are reading the subject, though the forum is filled with references to God & philosophy he sends me private messages warning me not to write about those things and also doesn't want me to make references to other things I posted here, a privilege he allows to other participants. That's a fair scientific approach?

 

[Nereid]

*SNIP
... and there will be dramatic changes in the Sun in 2012/2013.

This looks like it might become a specific, concrete, and testable prediction. Would you care to elaborate please?

 

[Nereid]

Pretty good ideas about pyramids. Yap, not reality, just theories. Why would I be interested in searching what Mr. said in the forums if he can't give a proper simple answer about the choosing of a name on planet Mars, that's modern knowledge! Worst would be asking about history! Mr. , first, I have said and you KEEP ON NOT UNDERSTANDING Mayas and ancient civilizations won't provide formulas to you. If you want to learn about their codes I already gave you specific information about numbers used by them but don't expect me to get you out of misery explaining every single detail about the existence of Neptune, Uranus which was a recent "discovery". You maybe think the author of Gulliver by chance mentioned the moons of Mars centuries before the discovery do you think I will give you MORE information if you didn't even read all the sites I gave you? This is not a conversation of someone really interested in knowing something about them. You're just answering to have ping pong argument with me. I said and repeat you haven't got the right to deserve further information. So, you can keep on saying whatever you want and your speculations about pyramids not even archeologist Lehner knows for sure.
You keep asking for religious formulas and yet your math theories and measures are not a universal law, just check the forum and different ideas. So, why wasting MY TIME in such crap? I let real physicist and theorist and astronomers keep on arguing and contra-argument among themselves and keep the files of what is written and after a while I accept a "relative truth" just like relative relativity, how do you like it? HA-HA-HA!
I could've told you more and more but you haven't given a simple answer about why Sumerians and Mayas chose those numbers and Egyptians and Hebrew codes. So, if you can't answer something related to MATH which is the subject you think you know, how on Earth would you understand the history field and other things that you vaguely know? NO WAY, MAN (or woman)!

Let's see if I undertstand what you're saying oscar.

1) You claim there is deep knowledge of how the universe works within ancient writings.

2) You claim that these ancient texts show that 'gods' gave some select groups of our ancestors some kind of intuitive understanding of the nature of the universe, but not any details that fit within the framework of what we call 'science' today.

3) Specifically, you explicitly state that *none* of the ancient texts, and the 'gods-given understanding' of the universe they contain, can be used to make specific, concrete, testable predictions.

How am I doing?

On a somewhat unrelated topic, what's your opinion of Joseph Needham's https://booktrade.cambridge.org/series.asp?series=NCSC ?

 

[oscar]

No, I'm not saying that. The hyperdimensional gods didn't provide the written formulas but gave many answers with details and instructed them to follow them. That means they gave all formulas already done. In the case of the Sumerian the Annunaki gods gave the use of 6 something I will try to explain in more detail, the same happens with number 52 in Maya and Egyptian calendars. Please notice a humble astronomer Anthoni Aveni from Colgate University, STUDIES Maya culture ans it's admited they had SOPHISTICATED calendar. What a difference from Moderator's attitude saying "that means nothing"!
www./chron.com/cs/CDA/ssitory.mpl/space/2472608[/URL]
This is saying a bit about Venus importance. The Russian Velikovsky -though attacked by Carl Sagan- was not completely wrong in his ideas and in fact one of the confusions was mistaken Venus with Mercury. Not only Mayas gave importance to 2012/2013, in fact observing the events not from any place but from Egypt, Leo constelation (a sphinx is a lion with the face of a man, in other times the tail was like a bull and Egyptians iluminated the lateral sides to give the impression of falcon wings) will position in front of the sphinx. They ancient people received a lot of information even the specialists are puzzled but they have been learning the 5th Sun will be the end of a cycle in that year. In armony with this knowledge the astronomers are detecting changes not only in Venus but in Jupiter and the whole Milky Way:
[PLAIN]www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_928596.html?menu=news.scienceanddiscovery[/URL]

 

[oscar]

Check the site now:
www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2472608

 

[oscar]

The Sun itself has increased its magnetic field 230 degrees since 1901. Sunspots are more often and bigger ust like magnetic storms,glowing plasma increased 1000%. I think you can have more information in Rutherford Appleton National Labs in California. On Earth it's forming H0 gas that was not like before in the same amount and it's not related to greenhouse effect or fluocarbon emisors. Venus is getting brighter; Jupiter has energetic charge visible like a tube of ionizing radiation. Magnetic fields in Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune are stronger and the planets are getting brighter. Uranus and Neptune had recent pole shifts, 40, 50 % offset original rotational pole. Volcanic activity increased 500% since 1875 on Earth and earthquakes 400% since 1973 (if I mention the Bible prophecies regarding all this increasing in the world at the same time, Mr. Moderator will be upset with me, so why teasing him? I'll better not!). Natural disasters increased 410% between 1963 and 1993 (hurricanes, typhoons, mudslides, tidal waves) like THE DAY AFTER film about to come. We got to check natrium in selenic surface and if atmosphere on Mars is getting thicker. The Earth itself is getting flatter on the poles and increasing the belly Equator and it seems the whole galaxy is moving towards a magnetic zone transforming all planets like spinning the milkshake of SPACE AND TIME with the straw. Hence, the sensation of everything moving so fast (even in the county) perhaps it's not psycological as Nobel Prize winner, Alexis Carrel thought...with all do respect. Of course, if you send a telescope in the outskirts of our own Earthy neighborhood which ain't reaching the "center" of the universe neither the Milky Way even, we wouldn't know, we're too close like watching a baseball game from the corner of the stadium with a single tiny micro-camera compared with the size of the field! Absurd! Something is about to come in the following years and that's not a prediction of the end of the world. Not even in the Bible with people who don't even know the difference between the Greek world "kosmos" (world) with the word "aion" meaning "system of things" or "era" so it always meant a change of order and circumstances, even in the Bible.

 

[oscar]

Nereid: I have to confess Chinese civilization achieved a lot of things and now it seems by the time of Christopher Columbus and even prior their ships went far away but they kept many things inside their border and now we're only beginning to understand all what they achieved. I'm not familiar with many things regarding to China though I wanted to study Chinese but as I said before their 50.000 ideograms are related -as well as Sumerian scripture- to a knowledge coming from the gods and directly to the brain, as a program. Their scripture in fact has to be written from the top to the bottom and the scientists know the use of Mandarine language allows the use of the other brain hemisphere better than other languages. The scripture has been compared to Frank Rampsey's math glyphs.

 

[oscar]

I ask you to re-read the sites I quoted in page 3 before I procede.

 

[oscar]

Then you can click on these:
www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/5thsun.htm[/URL]
[url]www.levity.com/eschaton/Why2012.html[/url]
[URL]http://2012.netfirms.com/english/tmc/part3.html[/URL]
[url]www.siloam.net/jenkins/appendx2.html[/url]

 

[oscar]

When I say "formulas", you don't have to imagine math symbols, that's why you need to understand their symbols, not Pitagorian or Euclidian.

 

[oscar]

I know, I know, I know you're asking yourselves "what the heck of information about the Sun", "can we trust Oscar's delusions?" Don't trust me, do your homework! Shall I help thee, my dearrr frrriends?
www.ras.org.uk/html/meetings/2001/010309.html[/URL]
Even the experts are puzzled and worried.

 

[Andre]

Somebody said Venus, here, that's my cue.

The Russian Velikovsky -though attacked by Carl Sagan- was not completely wrong in his ideas and in fact one of the confusions was mistaken Venus with Mercury

Would that mean that it was Mercury, "starring" in Worlds in Collision?

I take it that Velikovski was right about a possible relationship between unfossilised hippo remains in the Thames UK and Venus. He may have been, but in a way that nobody could have foreseen, except of course the Kabbalists

 

[oscar]

Yap, your assumption is correct.

 

[Andre]

Well, if Mercury was ejected from Jupiter, it's kindda hard to visualize where all it's dynamic energy went. You would expect the orbit of Mercury being highly eliptical with its apogee close to the orbit of Jupiter.

 

[oscar]

I haven't investigated the issue with detail cos everything is so relative. The scientists do follow a premise which is uniformitarianism idea, that the events or circumstances now are the keys to understand what happened in the past. The fact is even our own planet Earth is issue of discussion, if it's expanding, if did it have the shape of an egg in the past, if it's getting flatter on the poles and wider in Equator's belly, if it spinned faster in ancient times altering the ticking in a shorter day and in fact altering the very year, we discuss about the origin of the very planet and the Moon, so the Mercury you see now in it's position and the current circumstances we see in space has absolutely nothing to do with what happened in the past, so there will follow an hypothetical measurement of the dynamic energy in the past? Even the measures we have about light-years is because of the use of paralax trigonometry. That math shouldn't be applied to far away stars but onlu to closer stars! Put a finger in front of your nose and watch it with the left eye and then with the right eye, the position of the angle of variation of the finger will change related to the objects which are at the back of your visual field. If you do the same thing with stretched arm,the finger will look like moving a bit less related to the objects at the back. A celestial body will move more related to fixed constelations NEAR TO US when observed by 2 distant points upon the surface of the Earth. The less angle we could check naked eye is just a minute of an arc or 1/60 of 1 degree. Applying those math formulas to distant stars as if they were near is an illusion. And even if that was accurate (and I'm skeptical), that's all! You can't rewind Mercury or Venus history (even our Earth) like Superman spinning around the Earth in order to witness what was going on. We can only speculate and that is not science realms, that's just speculation disguised with the mask of science.
www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/Jonsson