Semjase

Discuss any alternate theories to any role dark matter is theorized to be responsible in this universe. There's another possible explanation for the missing gravity besides dark matter is the fact that the magnetic field of the galaxy has been mapped and the galaxy resembles a low height large diameter cylindrical magnet with the super massive black hole at the center of the galaxy setting up the entire magnetic of the galaxy.This binds together all celestial objects with magnetic fields together in the galaxy, and this could account for the missing gravity. Here's a magnetic field map of the Galaxy http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/scientists-chart-high-precision-map-of-milky-ways-magnetic-fields

There's another possible explanation for the missing gravity besides dark matter is the fact that the magnetic field of the galaxy has been mapped and the galaxy resembles a low height large diameter cylindrical magnet with the super massive black hole at the center of the galaxy setting up the entire magnetic of the galaxy.This binds together all celestial objects with magnetic fields together in the galaxy, and this could account for the missing gravity. Here's a map of the magnetic field of the galaxy http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/scientists-chart-high-precision-map-of-milky-ways-magnetic-fields

This is the most interesting video I've seen of the meteor mind blowing if true but most likely fake http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXdJ7wm4Opk

A credible scientific explanation for the Russian meteor will be difficult NASA says it weighed 10,000 tons before it entered the Earth's atmosphere, Russian scientist say it was 10 tons that mean 99.9% of the meteor would have to evaporated before it got close to Earth looking at work done by gravity on the meteor and slowing due to air resistance would have to account for the evaporation energy of almost the entire meteor. Also the meteor did not travel far from being a smaller glowing object to a massive glowing object followed by a large explosion, the energy numbers have to make sense for this whole event. The composition of the meteor fragments would also have to justify the blinding white light from the meteor. For the Tunguska event of 1908 there was never a credible scientific explanation given for it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9874662/Russian-meteor-exploded-with-force-of-30-Hiroshima-bombs.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9874790/Russian-meteor-lack-of-fragments-sparks-conspiracy-theories.html http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-other-meteor-crash-mysterious-1908-tunguska-event-1088770

Here's a more scientific take on the universe being part of a computer simulation. http://www.etdaily.com/categories/space/item/1013-is-the-universe-a-computer-simulation?-german-university-study-suggests-so

That an interesting point but it brings up a myriad of other questions,it's like discovering your maker it turns out to be a possibility, maybe there's a reason.

Are scientists on to something that we are all part of a computer simulation? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/24/universe-computer-simulation_n_2339109.html

Cardinal Peter Turkson will be chosen as the new pope to fulfill St. Malachy's prophecy of the last pope "Peter the Roman" shown above and Nostradamus's prophecy that seems to be referring to an election of a young red black one and the church in ruinous trouble "Of the great fisherman in ruinous trouble The young red black one will seize the hierarchy " information on cardinal Peter Turkson below http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9866227/Pope-resigns-Peter-Turkson-reveals-vision-for-the-Church-and-alternative-lifestyles.html

It's a tough question. I'm not a big believer in faith, just because someone says something not backed up with substance is leaving yourself open for real trouble. Even the church backs up faith with documented miracles. I look for evidence for a God, a creator or higher intelligence overseeing things and I've found plenty that satisfies me that a higher power exists it but may not satisfy other people, which is another question. Faith is a question if you chose to believe in the actions of a higher power even if you have no real evidence of it's existence or what it really is. Just like you put faith or confidence in a person you know something about, but your not entirely sure.

The buck has to stop somewhere, I guess the truth is the only answer.

Science, it is the nature of the profession not to accept anything without evidence, when it comes to God the same rule applies. Fence sitting is a safe bet when it comes to anything uncertain therefore science should also look into the value of faith. The concept of God being is probably the oldest and well known concepts there is deserves a full scientific investigation, people want the facts on God not the fiction. Confusion around this concept has caused much misery and strife throughout history and in the world today. Does that tell you anything about the nature of his being.

It's an old prophecy that was discovered and been published, and it will be interesting to see if an error will be found in the known value of pi.

I agree but since a and b are both real a is negative and b is positive maybe you could show me an example under these conditions where (a*b)^x is not equal to a^x*b^x to settle any doubt in me for good.

I derived the equation as follows assuming e^(i*pi)=-1 (-1)*e^(i*pi)=1 ((-1)*e^(i*pi))^(1/pi)=1^(1/pi) which gives (-1)^(1/pi)*e^i=1

I can't make that claim, I made a false assumption that it should be correct when breaking no algebraic rules deriving the equation. This is a significant problem mathematics.

e^i isn't real but the right side of the equation has to be. Is Euler's formula wrong? Or could it be a problem with i mathematics?

Manipulating Euler's equation I got this equation (-1)^(1/pi)*e^i=1^(1/pi) To the best of my knowledge this equation is correct. If it is, why would Google calculator give a complex value for for the left side of the equation when the actual value should be 1.

I told my son he'd be accountable in the afterlife life, I think it made some key differences in to his viewpoint on life and actions. Same with president Reagan who knew he was accountable to God so he didn't anything that stupid. This goes hand in hand with having an accurate perspective on God.

People in this life know they may or may not be accountable, but in the afterlife concept you know you will be accountable to a superior intelligence and there's no way out of it.

I'll rephrase that, if they actually use the known value of pi at all in that calculation which therefore would of have to been to be derived from part of an infinite series for the pi value. There's a prediction that one day an error will be found in the longest calculated value of pi.Would this be a calculating error or an equation error or would this error occur be in all known equations for pi, for the pi value calculated to many decimal places? Here's part of the Enoch prophecy pertaining to pi "the exposure and rectification of an error in the Pi-number calculation." e also could be expressed this way e=i^(2/(i*pi))

Common sense dictates as far as the video is concerned , but if all the people who have committed serious criminal acts throughout history that could of been avoided had of listened to Pascal's wager and respected the idea of accountability in the afterlife, think of all the suffering that could of been avoided.

Here's an exact equation for e in terms of pi e=1/i^(i*2/pi) I was wondering on Google calculator when entering this equation if it used an infinite series value for pi to determine the value of e. If you compared the infinite series value for e and compared it to the value of e generated by this equation and they weren't equal then there would have to be an error somewhere either in the value for e, pi or the i calculation.

I'm not completely stupid If you change the value for e and/or pi in the equation it alters the value for pi from the equation, you have to have 100% accurate values for e and pi in the equation to get the 100% accurate value for pi out of the equation. So if both sides of the equation are equal then the values for e and pi are 100% accurate. Such is not the case in that equation if you change the value of pi on one side of the equation you get the same value for pi on the other side of the equation. In my equation if you keep the value for e constant and change the value for pi in the equation you get a different value for pi on the other side of the equation. I apologize it's wrong I tested on a Microsoft calculator program it gave me a different value double checking it's the same value.

I discovered this equation with a proof through mathematical trial and error. Here's the equation pi=e^(2*(((ln(pi))^2+2*ln(pi)+1)/(2*ln(pi)+2))-1) Using ttmath's online calculator with 1024 bit mantissa the equation gave me the exact same value for pi as the constant value provided for pi by the calculator. When using the calculator with a 2048 bit mantissa the 2 values of pi were different, the last least significant digit there was a difference in 1 between the the 2 digits. If someone has access to a calculator that can calculate too more precision I am curious to find out if the discrepancy is due to calculating error or either the current value of e or pi is incorrect.

Since science can't disprove the existence of God, then he should be constructive and should operate under proven concepts that remain correct forever and not a God who is destructive and operates under false principles. Why should anyone who's intelligence is sound be under a God who's isn't? That's like saying the most advanced intelligence would operate under the God's teachings for humans written in ancient texts that a lot of people today feel are inhumane and out of date.