Everything We Have Been Taught About Our Origins Is A Lie!!

page: 6
32
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ploutonas
a reply to: Hanslune

even dinosaurs, prove that earth had more than 1 moons at that time... Personal opinions and references, are not here to convince everybody or anybody at all...


No Dinosaurs don't prove the world had additional moons nor does a lack of a moon lessen (significantly) gravity to allow giant animals and men.

Why do you think this?




posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: tizza2k
I was sent this and I thought it would interest alot of you guys :-)

Sorry in advance if this has already been posted.


In June 1936 Max Hahn and his wife Emma were on a walk beside a waterfall near to London, Texas, when they noticed a rock with wood protruding from its core. They decided to take the oddity home and later cracked it open with a hammer and a chisel. What they found within shocked the archaeological and scientific community. Embedded in the rock was what appeared to be some type of ancient man made hammer.

A team of archaeologists analysed and dated it. The rock encasing the hammer was dated to more than 400 million years old. The hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old. Additionally, a section of the wooden handle had begun the metamorphosis into coal. The hammer’s head, made of more than 96% iron, is far more pure than anything nature could have achieved without assistance from relatively modern smelting methods.

Pictures and more are via this link :-

www.maltanow.com.mt...



Looking at the picture that rock is a concreation. Meaning trying to date it is silly. What they needed to test was the wood on the hammer theage of the rock cannot be dated.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
We come from mars.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: jamie6737
We come from mars.


Call it Barsoom and I'll give you a smile like a Cheshire Cat.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Ploutonas
a reply to: Hanslune

even dinosaurs, prove that earth had more than 1 moons at that time... Personal opinions and references, are not here to convince everybody or anybody at all...


No Dinosaurs don't prove the world had additional moons nor does a lack of a moon lessen (significantly) gravity to allow giant animals and men.

Why do you think this?


I think it's guessed that it was a high level of oxygen in the atmosphere at the time that lead to huge animals.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ArtemisE

I had read the same thing enough times that I believed it myself until I stopped being lazy and did a little research. Turns out that 245 MYA during the early Triassic, O2 levels were at an all time low. By the end of the Mesozoic O2 levels had risen to around 18% with another spike up to 23% during e Eocene(55-38 MYA). This correlates strongly with the rise of mammals/warm blooded creatures as well as mass extinction at the end of the Permian.


The rapid decline in oxygen levels at the end of the Permian and the beginning of the Triassic was a major factor in contributing to the extinction of many land animals, mostly reptiles.




Between 100 million and 65 million years ago, the fossil record reveals, there was a significant flourishing of placental mammals—species that develop in the womb.Placental reproduction requires high ambient oxygen concentrations, and the spread of these species coincided with a period of high and stable levels of oxygen in the atmosphere. The requirement persists today: Because they need significant concentrations of oxygen, few living mammals can live and reproduce at elevations greater than about 14,800 feet (4,500 meters).


news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
The high levels of oxygen = big animals happened before the dinosaurs and affected insects, not reptiles.

Harte



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
just to point out there would of had to of been a world wide flood for an iceage to occure.

The great lakes in north america didn't spawn themselves.



What are we really arguing about when we talk about the great flood.
Was it really just an event that took place where people misinterprited what was happening?
What God former of the universe and the begining of everything ( all powerful blah blah basically a spirit encompassing everything in existance)
Or was the earth attacked by aliens and people just interprited these deitiest battling in the sky as gods.

Anyways, If the root of this argument about humanities origins? If we held together before the flood and the incoming ice-age?

Polar shifts are enough to cause all this as discussed in doom porn.

I don't personally believe in *god* persay in the terms that people believe is a single consious universally huge being or some sort that created humans as the epicenter of creation with angels and demons and fire and heaven just because he was bored one day and wanted to watch an ongoing movie.

The only difference with modern education is they deducted the God figure. That's pretty much all they did.
Humans are still by large thought to be the only life in our galaxy and if there is life. Its just bacteria.
Because by human logic there was a big bang and i guess were the first to win the arms race.
So screw everything else.

The world is just energy and matter and if you fear dying well to bad. Because that's all just superstitious mombojumbo.

I'm sure the scientific comunity would be deathly afraid if they found out that the universe is infinite in age and in distance.

Because then they would have to entertain the idea of advanced life. Far beyond comprehension of age.
When you are dealing with Infinity. Mass and energy exhibit entropy ( sound vibrations and particle emissions)
In order for the universe to exist and not burn out. It would require a system of replenishment.

So there must be a system which is constantly replacing destroyed and decaying mass and energy. Otherwise the universe wouldn't be able to *fuel* a new big bang.

Also the impute of energy would need to be greater than all the galaxies in space combined.
Good luck extracting that from stars when its not even possible.
The big bang theory is bunk because it contradicts the laws of therodynamics and the laws of Energy and mass conversion E=Mc2.

When we delve deeper into the mysteries of black holes and high compression points.
We will draw these conclusions in an academic fasion.
Science is still struggling to grip the simple idea that if you have a vortex being fed energy like a fire. As long as the food *fuel* keeps coming the draw from the initial begining implosion will sustain velocity. Meaning the size of the relative objects before implosion would contain the same atomspheric pressures (Even if there is no atmosphere it acts the same way because masses of particles are being drawn in)

Anything that can smash atoms and compress the initial 'explosion' along with other different shards 'exploding' but imploding on the single point. In theory it should create a jet effect. Where a stream is shot out the other side and can be audible as emmision waves from the rhythmic explosions and the implosions send the vibrations through space.
Likewise, the mass that is compressed would contain neutral charge because of improper pairing of shards.
When an atom is smashed it breaks apart into shards that rapidly combine with its closest charged cousin. When you mesh everything together into one particle it really can't contain those functions if the mesh creates *random*

Well in a neutral state the charges lay dorment replenishing lost energy. Since this is an ongoing process. Where its very likely that atomics can be smashed and under extreme pressures the explosion can be compressed. By logic it dictates that the particles created would still exist in the known universe. We would call it black matter or black energy as it ripples around like waves. Scientists are trying to explain where it call came from with answers that it fromed during the big bang.

How is it possible to have the universe folded 1/9 with out having the power to 10 to fuel the initial explosion so that the outcome of matter and *empty space* was exactly 1/9.

I'm no scientist. But im hypothisizing that the universe is folded, and by folded i mean that the matter and energy that is compressed through funneling pressures greater than atomic explosive energy. What ever you throw in that funnel will be combined, Weither it the particles will react with each other or not.

If you want specific stuff that will react with physical mass or energy you need to throw specific particles and mass in there in purity or the impurities will make a neutral particle that can not *for now* be detected because it lacks the ability to carry or exaust charges.

All the compressed stuff this way tho eventually returns to matter and when it does the charges that eventually break off from them reform back into the basic building blocks such as axions en.wikipedia.org...
Or anything really that forms back into atoms later on.

anyways i believe that the universe is infinite in age and in length. The universe has to be full in order to be properly pressurized. And if its full, wheres all the excess energy coming from? But not from itself?
I can't really find a scientific theory for this anywhere.
So sorry if i can't make to many links. Like i said science is not at that level of understand yet.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
just to point out there would of had to of been a world wide flood for an iceage to occure.

What are we really arguing about when we talk about the great flood.


There is nothing in the geologic record to suggest a world wide flood.


originally posted by: AnuTyr
I'm sure the scientific comunity would be deathly afraid if they found out that the universe is infinite in age and in distance.

Because then they would have to entertain the idea of advanced life.


I'm not sure how the two correspond, but i can assure you that scientists would not be deathly afraid and that they already entertain the idea of advanced life.


originally posted by: AnuTyr
When an atom is smashed it breaks apart into shards


Shards, you say?


originally posted by: AnuTyr
I'm no scientist.


Clearly.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr




AnuTyr wrote: I'm sure the scientific comunity would be deathly afraid if they found out that the universe is infinite in age and in distance. Because then they would have to entertain the idea of advanced life.


Having been a scientist I can clearly state that that wouldn't frighten me a bit and I hold that there is a distinct possibility of advanced life somewhere in Universe.






top topics



 
32
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join