2012? False.We are actually living in the year 2000

page: 21
16
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by diamondsmith
 



None of you have ever ask why the year is 2000(2012).

That is a falsehood.

Many people including me have asked for your reasoning and you have refused.


Thats because the OP is a troll




posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
No he is not because he never lie,hard to believe,isn't it?..Yes it is...breathtaking..because what we don't understand we destroy.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Spiratio
 



There is no proof that it has had a 360 day year or less (this does not mean that it hasn't).... the notion that it is slowing down is based solely on data that has been collected in recent history.


There is evidence from hundreds of millions of years that the number of days is decreasing.

Here is a link to a fascinating fossil deposit in Canada I recommend everyone to visit. It describes the methods that shows that in Devonian times the day was 22 hours long.
miguasha.ca...

Here is another site that even has audio to describe how the Earth is slowing.

www.scienceandthesea.org...

This article talks about other issues such as 620Ma sedimentary processes showing that the Earth is slowing down.
www.scientificamerican.com...

My quick search did not find an article about shells also showing similar effects seen in coral fossils.



Thats all very well and good research and data but unless there is continuous evidence of progression over the periods of recorded history in ratio increments that reflect conformity over such large counts of time then there is no way to tell if a 22 hour day was not occurring due to a previous cycle of increase which has since decreased and repeated many times before arriving where we are... The data shows that the day was 22 hours that long ago...it doesn't tell one for how long 22 hour days were in swing. It also doesn't tell one if there are other variables that may have cause acute extremities in yearly turnovers in the near or ancient past...such as large astrological bodies asteroids and such.

Its not about the data but about the discrepancy of possibility that it implies both advertently and inadvertently .. its always easier to see things the way is expected due to contemporary thinking but there is always other variables to consider which will lean toward alternate interpretations. Its easy to assume the most convenient interpretation for an argument or scientific assumption for experiments etc but there are always other possible abstractions that can render the same data in different light



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiratio
 



Thats all very well and good research and data but unless there is continuous evidence of progression over the periods of recorded history in ratio increments that reflect conformity over such large counts of time then there is no way to tell if a 22 hour day was not occurring due to a previous cycle of increase which has since decreased and repeated many times before arriving where we are... The data shows that the day was 22 hours that long ago...it doesn't tell one for how long 22 hour days were in swing. It also doesn't tell one if there are other variables that may have cause acute extremities in yearly turnovers in the near or ancient past...such as large astrological bodies asteroids and such.

1. There are graphs showing a continuous decrease
2. There is no way to dramatically alter the Earth's rotation

The length of the day is always changing. leap seconds are added to atomic clocks to keep those extremely accurate devices in synch with the Earth.

Our Moon is very close and large. Yet it has a subtle effect on the Earth. How are really small objects such as asteroids going to affect the Earth.

BTW, they are not astrological objects. They are astronomical objects, or celestial objects. Astrology is a pseudoscience.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
No he is not because he never lie,hard to believe,isn't it?..Yes it is...breathtaking..because what we don't understand we destroy.


Hello Diamondsmith, still on the Harmonics, I see. What took place, 2000 years ago, apart from what we have been taught and conditioned into believing?



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


1. They don't deal with far in the past prehistory tho (that is what I'm getting at there is room for unknown variables) the data and graphs that use prehistoric fossils and such are estimates defined by assumption that its been slowing at continuous and increasing pace and that there have been no variables so it is very much estimation and speculation in favour of logical probability... however logic is sometimes fallible

2. There is no know way to dramatically alter the Earths rotation (except ---->).... you assume that there haven't been asteriods with mass equal to or greater than the moon -- this also does not require them to be monsterous in size comparably... tho its a possibility.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Just going to copy and paste a few of this guys replies. No edits. Simply copy and pasted what his post said. After reading these... and seeing this thread is up to page 15... you are all just as retarded as the guy who started the whole thread. Just leave this guy be.... seriously... I can't stand to see morons like this get threads up to 15 pages.



I thought to some support to proof that but as always.......

If you want a scientific explanation you won't find one,but if you do, then once more my theory will be proved.

you understand very well the phenomena,I think that we are...ahead of the behind!

I am sure that you wouldn't understand but I will give you a clue and that's all because I presented to much proof and that was to much contested.

My friend it's a question of interpretation,you wan't everything crystal clear I am afraid that is not possible,if everything it would be crystal clear in this world then the evil never existed.

It matters in order to understand why the events will take place this year,2012 is not a number,it's the number.

the important thing related to the year 2012 is that we are in 2000 and the year 2000 in the Bible is the year when the end is coming,or not.

Of course not ,why should we be interested in our future.

nineix,if I'm wrong then,that must be proved,you can either proof I'm right nor wrong as long you have neither proof of each.

We have defined point zero,the year 0.

as about your question I cannot give an answer,if we have this answer there will be now end.

at list I will not get insulted again so I am glad you did that

No I am saying that the year 2000 is in between 2102 and 2000( "not will come nor will go"),meaning the year 2012 which is 2000.

Define lose in your sentence,from theoretical point and from physical point

You must feel in a way in order to do that...sorry I mean feel nothing in order to do that.
(no edit...just doesnt know how to backspace i guess)

This is an endless fight,to make understanding everything when everything I explained over and over again.

Well I really don't know who I am or where I am...to be on your taste

Thank you for your kind replies,I cannot answer you because you are very educated and intelligent person,thank you again



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Athin
 


its sad that im even posting on this, i cant agree with you more this shouldn't be 15 pages

people make topics all the time about things that actually hold merit or make people think but this is niether

to the OP, bro lay off the mushsrooms every once and a while they don't always help



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiratio
 



1. They don't deal with far in the past prehistory tho (that is what I'm getting at there is room for unknown variables) the data and graphs that use prehistoric fossils and such are estimates defined by assumption that its been slowing at continuous and increasing pace and that there have been no variables so it is very much estimation and speculation in favour of logical probability... however logic is sometimes fallible

2. There is no know way to dramatically alter the Earths rotation (except ---->).... you assume that there haven't been asteriods with mass equal to or greater than the moon -- this also does not require them to be monsterous in size comparably... tho its a possibility.

1. Actually the oldest information is 600 million years old. I'd call that pretty far back. The information shows that the Earth is slowing down at a rate predicted by the tidal interaction with the Moon. If there were other forces speeding up and slowing down the Earth's rotation then they would have to magically balance.

2. The largest asteroid is tiny compared to the Moon. There isn't enough mass in all of the asteroid belt to even form a planet. Even if a large mass were to pass close to the Earth it would have to be in orbit for millions of years to speed up the Earth or slow it down noticeably.

Think out the problem and read about the issues and figure out how your suggestion is a dead end.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Or we can look at it this way: numbers are abstract. Words are abstract
I can call this year 1912 if I so choose... or any other number!



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Well ,for just one truth I gave you,you make so much noise.

Let's break a little your laws......

The Revolving Universe,the only way to keep matter together,if the Universe is not revolving then everything will collapse.An Universe revolving at speed of light keeping the matter together in equilibrium through his synapses,the black holes.That's why the speed of light is the limit.


We live in time, everything has a beginning and an end. We feel how time elapses and with it go our lives.
Universe is finite,has edges even if we can see that,but out of no time, there is only light.

The light outside universe has no space.Light outside the universe is static it does not have space, is light that does not move, she lives on forever.

Big Bang.What if the universe does not expand, maybe we can see only the light travelling to create the illusion of expansion while the Universe is revolving around his axis and we see as an expansion .


The static light is the one to give the energy to Universe to revolve and also give the Time itself as a measure of material world.It's the exchange of light that make us grow old.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
As for the title of this thread and as for the post Above:

The prophecies are fulfilling

as

2012? False.We are actually living in the year 2000

and for that I say

"Let's break a little your laws......"

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass,than one tittle of the law to fail."

and also I say

Well ,for just one truth I gave you,you make so much noise.

in and with

"An instructor of the foolish(ATS), a teacher of babes(ATS), which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law."

goes along with

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass"

as in

The static light is the one to give the energy to Universe to revolve and also give the Time itself as a measure of material world.It's the exchange of light that make us grow old.


The Revolving Universe,the only way to keep matter together,if the Universe is not revolving then everything will collapse.An Universe revolving at speed of light keeping the matter together in equilibrium through his synapses,the black holes.That's why the speed of light is the limit.

diamondsmith







edit on 24-2-2012 by diamondsmith because: Nothing from this post were prepared before,This post came into my mind after few hours after previous post.So,I am telling the truth,Because I never lie.
edit on 24-2-2012 by diamondsmith because: second
edit on 24-2-2012 by diamondsmith because: n



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 

what does winter and summer occurring simultaneously (in different areas of the world) have to do with the length of the year being potentially between either a. 355 - 360 days or b. 360 - 365 1/4 at any point in the past...



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


This is just a cop out response to actually acknowledging the merit of what was offered as food for thought...Your reasoning is very narrow minded and ignores the variables... by the notion of the last sentence in your post the very words you used apply to yourself. You refuse to acknowledge that you really know practically nothing of the astronomical events of the ancient past.. no one does! your argumentative stance is moot.

I'm not debating, simply offering food for thought which if read with an open mind that thinks about what is said and imagines all the possibilities rather than responding to defend assumptions, will reveal to anyone the fallacy in assuming such absolutes.

I'm not going to respond to any more of your augmentative posts because there is no argument there is no solid evidence to disprove what was notioned only data which assumes a linear progression of the most convenient interpretatiobns...



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiratio
 



This is just a cop out response to actually acknowledging the merit of what was offered as food for thought...Your reasoning is very narrow minded and ignores the variables..

Since the OP does not want to address the issue maybe you can tell me why you have offered nothing useful to say. Tell me why simply counting of years is narrow minded.


You refuse to acknowledge that you really know practically nothing of the astronomical events of the ancient past.. no one does!

These are vacuous words. Please tell us something. Your claim that we cannot know about astronomical events of the ancient past reveals that you do not understand astronomy.


I'm not debating, simply offering food for thought which if read with an open mind that thinks about what is said and imagines all the possibilities rather than responding to defend assumptions, will reveal to anyone the fallacy in assuming such absolutes.

An open mind is not the same as accepting every whimsical idea tossed out. That is being gullible.


I'm not going to respond to any more of your augmentative posts because there is no argument there is no solid evidence to disprove what was notioned only data which assumes a linear progression of the most convenient interpretatiobns...

The obvious reason for not providing anything other than an ornery post is that you had nothing to offer other than anger.

Years are independent of days. Years can be measured in days, but other than that they are independent.

The year is 2012 and that is based on simple counting.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondsmith
 



The moon never lies, never, never misses a rise or a set.
Planet alignment never misses rotation they are predictable
All the calenders match up.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by diamondsmith
 

"prove" not "proof"

verb not noun

can not focus



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BrentExcaliber
 


I think, that for our OP, English is not his first language, so we should give a little leeway on his grammar.

....and to the OP.....I still dont get this thread at all, you havent explained anything properly



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by GAOTU789
The joke has gone far enough.

Thread closed.
I am sorry...I don't understand...can you explain this.....Please.....



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 



You're lying about a quote from the Bible that does not exist
Ni I am not lying because I only can tell the Truth.





top topics
 
16
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join