Just the Facts Posted January 5, 2011 Author Posted January 5, 2011 Is light matter? Does it matter that light is matter wrapped in a small body, such as photon? We may be as far away from the final answer to this question as Amen Hotep was to what rocket science is today. But "Gravitational lensing" gives Einstein and his gang, a one uppance on anything we may find differently over the next century. Good question. Light is not a substance such as water that continues to add more to the stream from a source. Light is a reaction to electrical heated stimulus in the plasma which fills the entire universe. The stimulus continues to activate the plasma next to it and light effect continues depending on the strength of the source. The hotter the source, the stronger the light, and length of distance the light travels. Very simple physic at work. Fire is Plasma reacting to heat and creating different colors. My 50” Plasma TV makes every color in the spectrum with plasma. Plasma is the fundamental state of energy. So.. Light is basically energy stimulating more energy, in a perfect straight line. If it gets too hot.. things will start to burn. Like the Sun is now. -1
D H Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Good Day to all you fellow free thinkers. You are free from thought? That is most certainly how it appears. Wallace Thornhill has made several Predictions that have all been accurate. No, he hasn't. He has made some very vague predictions, some of which, if you twist the words and look at them squinty-eyed enough, just might appear to be correct. They are no different than Nostradamus "predictions". There is nothing of substance there. This is just regurgitated Velikovsky nonsense. 1
Janus Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Hi. BTW… Light does NOT bend in any way. That is simply Impossible. Light travels perfectly straight. It only Reflects, but never bends. IF light could bend… we would see only a blur of light when we looked out into the sky. We can see light from incredible distances only because light travels straight and never bends, even over light years of time. Claiming that light bends is absurd and ridiculous. Sorry Mr. Einstein. Sorry if that offends anyone else. On the same note… IF there was any so called “Dark Matter”, we could not see anything at all in space. All the light would be blocked by the matter. Statements like these simply betray ignorance on your part and only serve to undermine your credibility.
Just the Facts Posted January 5, 2011 Author Posted January 5, 2011 There remains a lot left to learn, by a lot of people. Never stop seeking the truth. Never turn your back on reasonable thoughts and ideas. We will all be amazed at how simple the physics are that rule the universe. You all have spent time and money gaining your insight. You formed your opinions from what you’ve been exposed to. I hope you’ll accept the realities when they are validated as true. I’m not here to say.. I Told You So. Don’t abandon your currant beliefs, validate them by examining all the other options first. I know you are all avid readers. I offer this article for your entertainment. Faster Than Light: Part Two May 15, 2009 If distance calculations based on redshift are inaccurate, what does that mean for the consensus opinion about the age or the size of the Universe? In the 1960s astronomers discovered quasi-stellar objects, better known as quasars. They have extremely large redshifts, implying that they are located near the farthest edge of the observable Universe. Quasars are referred to as "quasi-stellar" because they are relatively small, often little more than a light-year in apparent diameter, at their assumed distance, yet emit so much energy that they are thought to be the most powerful continuously radiant objects in the Universe. The only other active energy sources detectable at such vast distances are gamma ray bursters (GRB). However, GRBs last for mere minutes, whereas quasars shine continuously in output. They remain as bright as when then were first discovered. Some astronomers soon found that many quasars are associated with spiral galaxies (like M82) and appear to be near the galaxy instead of billions of light-years distant. Based on other data, such as quasars' anomalous apparent brightness when compared with their redshifts, Hubble's expanding Universe theory was called into question. Long before the quasar problem arose, though, Edwin Hubble himself was moved to suggest that inflation might not have taken place in the "early" Universe. He thought that new observational data was necessary in order to decide whether it was definitive. In 1947, he was waiting for the new 200-inch telescope at Mt. Palomar to be built: "It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination... We may predict with confidence that the 200-inch will tell us whether the red-shifts must be accepted as evidence of a rapidly expanding Universe, or attributed to some new principle of nature." (Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific Vol. 59, No. 349). Unfortunately, nothing definitive has resulted from astronomers working with the Hale telescope or the many space-borne telescopes that have been launched since then. Instead, redshift and inflation have become something of a dogma among the astronomical community and new, ever more arcane mathematical excursions have been added to the mix, as was discussed in part one. Although many observations contradict the consensus view, and have been doing so for 40 years or more, those data are ignored or marginalized. High redshift quasars, as previously mentioned, are found in axial alignment with galaxies that possess substantially lower redshift. Indeed, they are sometimes connected to those lower redshift galaxies by "bridges" of luminous material. Halton Arp was the lone voice among a crowd of scientists who conformed to the standard Big Bang model when he began to publish papers that did not demonstrate that inflation—or the Big Bang hypothesis—was valid. As Edwin Hubble predicted, Arp's research using the 200-inch Hale reflector demonstrated "some new principle of nature." One of the more interesting images that substantiates the need for a revised cosmology is NGC 4319 and its companion quasar, Markarian 205. Arp called attention to the fact that the lower redshift galaxy is physically connected to the higher redshift quasar. A filament between the two objects violates the measured distances because no such connection should be possible. After all, NGC 4319 (from redshift calculations) is said to be about 600 million light-years from Earth, while Markarian 205 is around a billion light-years away. If these objects are physically connected they must reside locally with each other at the same distance from Earth. The discrepancy in their redshifts has to be from some other factor not related to their distances—there must be something intrinsic to their makeup that leads to the deviation. Arp assembled a Catalog of Discrepant Redshift Associations that describes anomalous structure or physical links among objects with radically different redshifts. Some of the observations show quasar pairs being ejected in opposite directions from active galaxies. This led to the so-called ejection model of galaxy formation. In brief, high redshift quasars around galaxies, such as the aforementioned M82, are the "daughters" of the mature galaxy. Their various redshifts do not indicate distance, but age from the time of ejection. Arp speculates that the redshift measurement of quasars is composed not of a velocity value alone, but also depends on what he calls "intrinsic redshift." Intrinsic redshift is a property of matter, like mass or charge, and can change over time. According to his theory, when quasars are ejected from a parent galaxy they possess a high intrinsic redshift, z = 2 or greater. As the quasars move away from their origin within the galactic nucleus, their redshift properties begin to decrease until they reach somewhere near z = 0.3. At that point, the quasar resembles a galaxy, albeit a small one. The inertial moment of ejection is eventually overcome and the mass of the quasar increases while the speed of ejection decreases, until it may become a companion galaxy. It is in that way that galaxies form and age, evolving from highly redshifted quasars, to small irregular galaxies, and then into larger barred spirals. Other examples of fast-moving quasars in front of slower moving galaxies, or connected to them with luminous filaments, have been observed. NGC 7603, for instance, a distorted spiral galaxy with a single arm, is joined by that arm to a smaller companion with a much higher redshift. Within the bright material of the arm are two other objects, each with redshifts different from the galaxy pair. There is nothing conclusive in the mainstream scientific journals about Arp's data as of this writing. His telescope time was cut off many years ago by the decision makers who allot that time to various research groups. His revelations concerning problems with consensus dogma were considered too intolerable, so he was summarily censured by his peers. However, the evidence he continues to gather and promote ought to make us stop and think: is the Big Bang dead? How big and how old is the Universe if redshift readings are not reliable indicators of distance? Stephen Smith The so called Mainstream Astronuts claim that all the light we can see in the universe comes from “Friction Heat” or Nuclear Fusion process. Neither is correct. Electricity is the only cause for all the light we see. "It's all to do with nuclear decays and then photon propagation..." is wrong
swansont Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 BTW… Light does NOT bend in any way. That is simply Impossible. Light travels perfectly straight. It only Reflects, but never bends. I have a prism that says you are wrong. My lenses say you're wrong, too. Diffraction? Ever heard of that? Single-mode fiber? Then there's the whole gravity bending thing, confirmed about 90 years ago. 2
lemur Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 All your questions can be answered at a forum located at the home site of the Thunderbolts Team. They have several people there that can set you on the right track. Go to the site I linked and then go to their forums. Ask away any questions you have. They have the answers. Sorry but this sounds like you are promoting this other website. If you take informtion from a site in a discussion, you should cite it. You shouldn't, however, be using websites to promote other websites, imo. BTW… Light does NOT bend in any way. That is simply Impossible. Light travels perfectly straight. It only Reflects, but never bends. IF light could bend… we would see only a blur of light when we looked out into the sky. We can see light from incredible distances only because light travels straight and never bends, even over light years of time. Claiming that light bends is absurd and ridiculous. Sorry Mr. Einstein. Sorry if that offends anyone else. Doesn't light only scatter when there are numerous density-changes within the medium? If gravity-fields were abrupt, like magnetic fields, I would expect more scattering of light within or among galaxies. If gravity just curves space in gradual curves, the light would not diffract in a way like the scattering of clouds or the atmosphere generally. What do you say about the experimental evidence for Einstein's theory in which stars were observed to shift positions as they pass behind the sun? What caused the light to bend but remain coherent enough to recognize the stars instead of scattering their light?
rigney Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Good question. Light is not a substance such as water that continues to add more to the stream from a source. Light is a reaction to electrical heated stimulus in the plasma which fills the entire universe. The stimulus continues to activate the plasma next to it and light effect continues depending on the strength of the source. The hotter the source, the stronger the light, and length of distance the light travels. Very simple physic at work. Fire is Plasma reacting to heat and creating different colors. My 50” Plasma TV makes every color in the spectrum with plasma. Plasma is the fundamental state of energy. So.. Light is basically energy stimulating more energy, in a perfect straight line. If it gets too hot.. things will start to burn. Like the Sun is now. Being ignorant of the facts, I can't postulate a specific answer. But, is light matter? Are photons not like water, iron or lead when defining matter? I think not. Light is substance no matter how distasteful the thought of it may be. We look out into space perhaps a billion or two light years distance and try reconvening a universe we have only recently began to understand. Education is not in taking a blind stand on an insoluble issue, but linking that which you know to what others have found to be as truth.
Just the Facts Posted January 5, 2011 Author Posted January 5, 2011 Being ignorant of the facts, I can't postulate a specific answer. But, is light matter? Are photons not like water, iron or lead when defining matter? I think not. Light is substance no matter how distasteful the thought of it may be. We look out into space perhaps a billion or two light years distance and try reconvening a universe we have only recently began to understand. Education is not in taking a blind stand on an insoluble issue, but linking that which you know to what others have found to be as truth. After considering all the various theories on “Light”, I believe light is a plasma phenomenon where the plasma is stimulated by a source of energy generated heat. The Sun is a perfect example. Or my plasma TV. The heat causes the plasma particles to change the state it is in and it results in what we see as light. The light continues to radiate from the source in all directions. (like a filament light bulb) If some of the light strikes an object the light will reflect off the object. Light reflect differently off of different materials and colors. Because the light is a plasma based condition, it loses it’s radiance as it gets farther from the source. Plasma is the most fundamental state of energy and matter. Plasma is Everywhere. We are all breathing it in right now. It makes up the great majority of Earth’s atmosphere. Plasma is where all energy comes from. Without the energy in plasma… we all die within seconds. Consider this… if the entire universe is filled with plasma, it can’t be stopped from having a huge influence on everything in the universe. As some of us realize.
D H Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) So, in synopsis, you are claiming that Kepler was wrong. Not just wrong, but never right in any domain wrong. Newton's theory of universal gravitation is similarly completely wrong. Special relativity is similarly completely wrong. General relativity is similarly completely wrong. Cosmology is similarly completely wrong. Astronomy is similarly completely wrong. Quantum mechanics is similarly completely wrong. And that is not all. Geology is similarly completely wrong. Those stupid geologists are completely wrong about the age of the Earth. In particular, plate tectonics is completely wrong. Biology is completely wrong. There are no fossils, for one thing. In particular, Darwin is completely wrong. Despite all of the (oops) mathematics behind those theories, despite the scrutiny of the best minds of the centuries, and despite the immense amount of confirming evidence in favor of those theories, those theories are somehow completely wrong. In their favor, you want us to adopt an ill-specified and untestable concept that throws out all, and I mean all, of science. If you were anything close to the free thinker you claim to be you would know exactly where the stinking pile of nonsense lies. Edited January 5, 2011 by D H 4
Just the Facts Posted January 5, 2011 Author Posted January 5, 2011 So, in synopsis, you are claiming that Kepler was wrong. Not just wrong, but never right in any domain wrong. Newton's theory of universal gravitation is similarly completely wrong. Special relativity is similarly completely wrong. General relativity is similarly completely wrong. Cosmology is similarly completely wrong. Astronomy is similarly completely wrong. Quantum mechanics is similarly completely wrong. And that is not all. Geology is similarly completely wrong. Those stupid geologists are completely wrong about the age of the Earth. In particular, plate tectonics is completely wrong. Biology is completely wrong. There are no fossils, for one thing. In particular, Darwin is completely wrong. Despite all of the (oops) mathematics behind those theories, despite the scrutiny of the best minds of the centuries, and despite the immense amount of confirming evidence in favor of those theories, those theories are somehow completely wrong. In their favor, you want us to adopt an ill-specified and untestable concept that throws out all, and I mean all, of science. If you were anything close to the free thinker you claim to be you would know exactly where the stinking pile of nonsense lies. Well.. You’re not the friendliest fellow on the block are you. Don’t put words in my mouth and assume anything. I never said anything about the issues in your second column. DARWIN IS GOD. EVOLUTION IS A FACT. The age of the planet is questionable but I won’t argue that. I know it was once in a state of electric charge and is now cooling down from it. I never mentioned Biology. Have you actually read anything I have posted? Or do you make up my words for me? As far as Plate Tectonics go… after this planet started to cool due to a reduction in electric activity, the planet was at one time covered completely with a crust. Due to the burning of carbons, a discharge of C02 in the Atmosphere formed, with many other gases, this caused the life we see as vegetation to spring up everywhere, like a blanket of biomass. This caused a change in the atmosphere due to the biomass absorbing the C02 and converting into a different and new gas we call oxygen. The massive amount of this new gas caused the natural and unique blend of Hydrogen and Oxygen to produce water. The creation of water on the planet caused the crust to split up and drift apart. The planet continues to produce new C02/Oxygen/Water every moment. It can’t be stopped. If this planet were not nicely between 32 degrees (Frozen) and boiling point, we would not be here at all. And in case you haven’t noticed… fossils are everywhere. As far as throwing out anything.. You’re throwing out electricity, even as you use it to make your misguided comments. Don’t feel bad, the Great Einstein did the same thing. As for the top items on gravity... YES that is what I am saying. I am certainly not alone. There is an army of thinkers going the same direction. The church hated hearing the Earth was not flat. You'll get over it. -1
Klaynos Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Hi my friend If you want predictions that all have been correct... go here http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm These guys... GOT IT RIGHT Have a Great Day I read that page before posting. If you re-read my post you will notice that none of those "predictions" fall within what I requested. On reading several of your posts I suggest you go and read about the basic workings of modern science, how it is conducted, the foundations it is based on and the scientific method in general. Reality always trumps everything else. Our current physical theories predict (accurately and mathematically) reality exceptionally well... We continue to work on the areas where our predictions fail and continue to test our predictions to find new and exciting ways in which they fail. Any new idea MUST also make as accurate predictions of these measurements of reality or the idea can be safely thrown out. After considering all the various theories on “Light”, I believe light is a plasma phenomenon where the plasma is stimulated by a source of energy generated heat. The Sun is a perfect example. Or my plasma TV. The heat causes the plasma particles to change the state it is in and it results in what we see as light. The light continues to radiate from the source in all directions. (like a filament light bulb) If some of the light strikes an object the light will reflect off the object. Light reflect differently off of different materials and colors. Because the light is a plasma based condition, it loses it’s radiance as it gets farther from the source. Plasma is the most fundamental state of energy and matter. Plasma is Everywhere. We are all breathing it in right now. It makes up the great majority of Earth’s atmosphere. Plasma is where all energy comes from. Without the energy in plasma… we all die within seconds. Consider this… if the entire universe is filled with plasma, it can’t be stopped from having a huge influence on everything in the universe. As some of us realize. So... this plasma... is it moving relative to us? What do you mean by plasma, that word has a very specific meaning in physics? What are the properties of this plasma? If it is not moving relative to us why is there no evidence of a universal rest frame when we look at the rest of the universe? If it is moving relative to us how are the results of the Michelson Morley experiment reconciled with that?
D H Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) Well.. You're not the friendliest fellow on the block are you. I do have a personality defect in that I have very hard problem suffering a certain class of people gladly. Don't put words in my mouth and assume anything. I never said anything about the issues in your second column. You may not have, but that nonsense is all over that web site you are touting. As far as Plate Tectonics go… after this planet started to cool due to a reduction in electric activity, the planet was at one time covered completely with a crust. Due to the burning of carbons, a discharge of C02 in the Atmosphere formed, with many other gases, this caused the life we see as vegetation to spring up everywhere, like a blanket of biomass. This caused a change in the atmosphere due to the biomass absorbing the C02 and converting into a different and new gas we call oxygen. The massive amount of this new gas caused the natural and unique blend of Hydrogen and Oxygen to produce water. The creation of water on the planet caused the crust to split up and drift apart. The planet continues to produce new C02/Oxygen/Water every moment. It can't be stopped. If this planet were not nicely between 32 degrees (Frozen) and boiling point, we would not be here at all. Okay then. I'm glad your mythology has an origin of the Earth legend. It is of course completely in contradiction of geological evidence, but what the hey -- its a nice story. I have asked before, and I'll ask again, how does your theory explain the fact the planets have moons? Edited January 6, 2011 by D H
Just the Facts Posted January 6, 2011 Author Posted January 6, 2011 I read that page before posting. If you re-read my post you will notice that none of those "predictions" fall within what I requested. On reading several of your posts I suggest you go and read about the basic workings of modern science, how it is conducted, the foundations it is based on and the scientific method in general. Reality always trumps everything else. Our current physical theories predict (accurately and mathematically) reality exceptionally well... We continue to work on the areas where our predictions fail and continue to test our predictions to find new and exciting ways in which they fail. Any new idea MUST also make as accurate predictions of these measurements of reality or the idea can be safely thrown out. So... this plasma... is it moving relative to us? What do you mean by plasma, that word has a very specific meaning in physics? What are the properties of this plasma? If it is not moving relative to us why is there no evidence of a universal rest frame when we look at the rest of the universe? If it is moving relative to us how are the results of the Michelson Morley experiment reconciled with that? “For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Until something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination, we learned to talk”…”Keep Talking”…[Pink Floyd] Plasma has many different descriptions because it changes form with every slight stimulus. It is what fills the entire universe. As if we were in the middle of the ocean 300 feet down, we would be entirely incased in water. All the planets and suns are surrounded with plasma. Only when a planet emits it’s own atmosphere is the plasma displaced. The plasma mixes with all the other gases and creates a unique atmosphere to each planet. Most planets have no C02 being created from within, and no life forms creating a variety of different gasses such as Oxygen. IF Earth stopped producing these various gases, the plasma would fill in and replace our entire atmosphere. It is the plasma that contains all the energy that produces all life, all electric currents and magnetic fields. We are alive only because of this energy in the plasma. Our bodies breath it in and processes it. Most of you had no clue that is happening… but it’s true. Remove the plasma, and all life dies. The following is from our friends at wiki... It is a close enough definition. In physics and chemistry, plasma is a state of matter similar to gas in which a certain portion of the particles are ionized. The basic premise is that heating a gas dissociates its molecular bonds, rendering it into its constituent atoms. Further heating leads to ionization (a loss of electrons), turning it into a plasma: containing charged particles, positive ions and negative electrons.[1] The presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. Plasma, therefore, has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids, or gases and is considered to be a distinct state of matter. Like gas, plasma does not have a definite shape or a definite volume unless enclosed in a container; unlike gas, under the influence of a magnetic field, it may form structures such as filaments, beams and double layers. Some common plasmas are stars and neon signs. The following are all NOT REAL The Big Bang The Big Crunch Time and Space "Foam“ Worm Holes Time Bending Time Travel Black Holes Parallel Universes Dark Matter Dark Energy String Theory. 10 or more Dimensions Space warping or bending Some kind of Fabric is some part of the Universe Light bending due to gravitational pulls Any Suns burning from the inside. The existence of an Intelligent Designer. Any Creator Gods Peter Pan and Tinkerbell Superman Pure Silliness. All we call life comes from..…Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen with just the right amount of Electricity to bring it all to life. The best friends that ever met each other.
Klaynos Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 You've not addressed all my points. Please do so. But you answered the "what do you mean by plasma" as I expected, therefore we have an ionised gas, we have charges, some of these would be accelerating, they would radiate. We would certainly be able to measure if we were in a plasma very very easily, charges are staggeringly easy to detect. We do not. You are disproved by observable evidence, reality wins, again. 1
Equilibrium Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 You said that light cannot bend, i don't have the time do dig up your reply though. So back on topic. My 8th grade science teacher can prove you wrong on that with his prism. LIGHT DOES BEND. Also explain fiber optics, if light can not bend.
mississippichem Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 What kind of plasma? H, He? Funny that it doesn't show up on my mass spectrometer when I run a blank samples. If space were full of plasma then astronomers probably couldn't conduct any stellar spectroscopy as the signal would be all background noise from accelerating charged particles radiating all over the place. Please produce one shred of spectroscopic evidence that the universe is full of plasma.
A Tripolation Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) The following are all NOT REAL ... Any Creator Gods ... I think my irreducibly-complex-omnipotent-deity makes more sense than the ideas you are espousing. Edited January 6, 2011 by A Tripolation 1
Just the Facts Posted January 6, 2011 Author Posted January 6, 2011 You said that light cannot bend, i don't have the time do dig up your reply though. So back on topic. My 8th grade science teacher can prove you wrong on that with his prism. LIGHT DOES BEND. Also explain fiber optics, if light can not bend. The light going through a prism or fiber optics does not actually bend per say. It is merely reflecting in a more controlled or directed manner due to the glass. It is more of an illusion of bending, but not the real thing.
D H Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 from here (link from your link) "In the Electric Universe model, gravity itself is simply an electrostatic dipolar force." Is this statement part of your theory? Yes, it is a part of the "theory", and it is compete nonsense. Suppose all of the supposed dipole moments in the Sun line up. This will make the supposed gravitation force normal to the dipole moment fall off as a 1/r3 force. This is contrary to the well-observed fact (since Kepler) that gravitation is a 1/r2 force. Worse, gravitation is not isotropic. It is zero along the dipole moment. Now suppose the supposed dipole moments are oriented randomly. At least gravitation is isotropic in this case: It is zero everywhere. BTW… Light does NOT bend in any way. That is simply Impossible. Light travels perfectly straight. Of course it does. Its just that your idea of straight and the universe's idea are two different things. Rather than ramble on for another thousand words, I'll just present those thousand words graphically.
Just the Facts Posted January 6, 2011 Author Posted January 6, 2011 Yes, it is a part of the "theory", and it is compete nonsense. Suppose all of the supposed dipole moments in the Sun line up. This will make the supposed gravitation force normal to the dipole moment fall off as a 1/r3 force. This is contrary to the well-observed fact (since Kepler) that gravitation is a 1/r2 force. Worse, gravitation is not isotropic. It is zero along the dipole moment. Now suppose the supposed dipole moments are oriented randomly. At least gravitation is isotropic in this case: It is zero everywhere. Of course it does. Its just that your idea of straight and the universe's idea are two different things. Rather than ramble on for another thousand words, I'll just present those thousand words graphically. The top quote in your post is NOT from me. I don’t know where you got it. The photo shows absolutely NO sign of any light bending. It shows massive amounts of Electric stimulus happening everywhere and lighting up the universe. No Black Holes can be seen anywhere. The photo also reviels the fact that there is NO Intelligent Design anywhere in the universe. Simply random electric activity. So much for gods omnipotence. Electricity is the Unconscious God. Your Math can't explain it. What kind of plasma? H, He? Funny that it doesn't show up on my mass spectrometer when I run a blank samples. If space were full of plasma then astronomers probably couldn't conduct any stellar spectroscopy as the signal would be all background noise from accelerating charged particles radiating all over the place. Please produce one shred of spectroscopic evidence that the universe is full of plasma. Let me ask you this…. If the dark empty space we see is NOT Plasma, what is it? Dark Matter?, Dark Energy? The best Mainstreamers can’t adequately explain or find either of those failed theories. It is simply transparent plasma in a neutral state unless stimulated by some electric activity. Not all the particles are moving around as you suggested. You can call it whatever you like. It is still the most fundamental form of energy and matter. It is everywhere. I think my irreducibly-complex-omnipotent-deity makes more sense than the ideas you are espousing. If you believe your fabricated conceptual god is responsible for what we can see in the photo above… well that’s just plain Crazy. If that amounts to Intelligent Design… your god is an Idiot.. Buffoon. As for this.... Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why? Why do you do it? Why? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you’re fighting for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for love? Illusions Mr. Anderson, vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. The Meaning of life can be summed up with just one word... Opportunity. You have the opportunity to make your life mean anything you like. Have fun. Life is a Once In a Lifetime Opportunity.
A Tripolation Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 If you believe your fabricated conceptual god is responsible for what we can see in the photo above… well that’s just plain Crazy. If that amounts to Intelligent Design… your god is an Idiot.. Buffoon. As for this.... Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why? Why do you do it? Why? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you’re fighting for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for love? Illusions Mr. Anderson, vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. The Meaning of life can be summed up with just one word... Opportunity. You have the opportunity to make your life mean anything you like. Have fun. Life is a Once In a Lifetime Opportunity. I don't see how anyone that could create a universe, even one with flaws, could be classified as a buffoon. If you only inhabit that creation, what does that make you? And thanks for that meaning of life thing. I take it you've never seen The Matrix.
Just the Facts Posted January 6, 2011 Author Posted January 6, 2011 I don't see how anyone that could create a universe, even one with flaws, could be classified as a buffoon. If you only inhabit that creation, what does that make you? And thanks for that meaning of life thing. I take it you've never seen The Matrix. Your god shares something in common with Einstein. Your god fails to use the electricity he created in his universe in a commonsense manner. Einstein failed the commonsense to even consider electricity in the universe. Not too bright I’d say. Us humans learned how to make electricity dance for us. We use it for most everything in our lives. What does that make us? Thank You Mr. Tesla. You're welcome on the meaning of life thing. That's an easy one. Have a Splendid Godless Day There are many things that billions of people claim is true and real. It is a case of the minds imagination taking a place in front of rational thought. The most notable of these creations are gods, ghosts, Satan, angels, heaven, hell, alien life forms abducting humans, black holes. They all share one thing in common… one is as real as the next one is. Life goes on.
zapatos Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 For someone who doesn't believe in God you sound a lot like a bible thumping preacher. 2
swansont Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 ! Moderator Note OK. That's enough. Seeing as there's been a failure to comply with Speculations rule #1, we're done here.
Recommended Posts