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

page: 9
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by voyger2
 



how do we loose 2,19 in year
Define lose in your sentence,from theoretical point and from physical point.



Could it be like this :

Originally posted by diamondsmith
That is the truth,we are in the year 2000.

2.19 days that we have lost during 2000 years,every year, (...)





posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by nineix
reply to post by diamondsmith
 


You obviously didn't understand what I meant by taking into account the basic Zoaraster, which further proves that your calculations are wrong.





Exactly.

It's all right there, in the hydrofancotic transquolification of the second order polyglottalisms!



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   
So, contemporary math does not support your claim, even slightly...but what we need to do is use some sort of harmonic creative math.
The bible states what you are saying, but not actually states it..rather, you have to interpret it based on...whatever you decide

I am of the opinion that if you can't even get the murkiness of the bible to sort of prop up your claims, and math simply laughs at you..then you sort of lost both sorts of mindsets (skeptics and gullible).

So, either you are a seer that can see something beyond our simple brained human comprehension, or your a bit bonkers..or a third option is your simply trolling for fun to see how many people you can get to think is 2012.

But, lets say your right...and it is indeed the year 2000. I am still disappointed...we were supposed to have flying cars and hover cities made of crystal by now!!!



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



I am still disappointed...we were supposed to have flying cars and hover cities made of crystal by now
Maybe we dream to much about a future that will never come.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



or a third option is your simply trolling for fun
You must feel in a way in order to do that...sorry I mean feel nothing in order to do that.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by nineix
reply to post by diamondsmith
 


You obviously didn't understand what I meant by taking into account the basic Zoaraster, which further proves that your calculations are wrong.





Exactly.

It's all right there, in the hydrofancotic transquolification of the second order polyglottalisms!


i loved this one



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
So Mr Diamond Sir can you explain the loss of 2.19 days a year from a theoretical point and from physical point ?




Originally posted by voyger2

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by voyger2
 



how do we loose 2,19 in year
Define lose in your sentence,from theoretical point and from physical point.



Could it be like this :

Originally posted by diamondsmith
That is the truth,we are in the year 2000.

2.19 days that we have lost during 2000 years,every year, (...)




posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



or a third option is your simply trolling for fun
You must feel in a way in order to do that...sorry I mean feel nothing in order to do that.



Your still slightly new to ATS...so let me fill you in

Every say..week or so, we have some random newb coming in saying something to profoundly outlandish, often using the bible to back up whatever they are saying (the x-ians rip them apart also on that matter).
So...yep, another person saying something that makes no sense to either the sensible mathheads, nor the erm..more open religious minded..hell, even the normal crazys that will believe in anything at all are becoming a bit skeptical about these claims as it isn't really making enough sense to be considered "crackpot".

So, how about this then...lets say for a moment you are actually trying to make a point

Pretend your teaching it to a class of slow learning 10 year olds. Now, with pictures, simple words we all can understand, and stuff that doesn't require a vast knowledge of some mythical iranian prophet from the year 6000bc whom may or may not have lead on to some strange theory about harmonic numbers..

and...go.

And if you say no, can't be bothered, etc...then why did you even make the thread? Explain this hypothesis of yours clearly..or, well...stop making threads I guess.

ADD: Lets start with the "easy" part.
Please copy/paste at least the part in the bible that can sort of be interpreted as the year 2000. aka, Rev 1:9 KJV or something...at least make sense in one department
edit on 10-1-2012 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



often using the bible to back up whatever they are saying (
I try to refer to the bible not to much,but I was provoked,the whole idea is in my opening post.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by diamondsmith
 


This thread is ridiculous dude,

As woogle has already pointed out - the seasons would have changed round time and time again. How to you explain this not happening?



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by voyger2
 



So Mr Diamond Sir can you explain the loss of 2.19 days a year from a theoretical point and from physical point ?
This is an endless fight,to make understanding everything when everything I explained over and over again.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
If it's not a physical state of loss, then how is the year 2000?

I don't see how, if you don't physically lose the certain days per year, you come to the conclusion that we're really in 2000...



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Thundersmurf
 



This thread is ridiculous
It's a thread for everybody.......



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   
.
Are you Sheldon by any chance?
.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by nineix
reply to post by diamondsmith
 


You obviously didn't understand what I meant by taking into account the basic Zoaraster, which further proves that your calculations are wrong.


Exactly.

It's all right there, in the hydrofancotic transquolification of the second order polyglottalisms!



No,no,no.
The answer is of course reciprocating the energy phenomenon by changing the spatial thermal energy pattern, thereby reducing the red-shift curve, which of course de-stabilizes the argument so it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Then again, there might have been some Eddies in the space-time continuum



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by voyger2
 



So Mr Diamond Sir can you explain the loss of 2.19 days a year from a theoretical point and from physical point ?
This is an endless fight,to make understanding everything when everything I explained over and over again.



men you asked me a question "Define lose in your sentence,from theoretical point and from physical point." that i answered with your own words "Originally posted by diamondsmith: 2.19 days that we have lost during 2000 years,every year, (...) "

so there is no fight here.. only ridiculous interaction and unsustainable conversation because of your lack of courage to assume and justify what you wright



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by voyger2

Originally posted by nenothtu

Exactly.

It's all right there, in the hydrofancotic transquolification of the second order polyglottalisms!


i loved this one


I'm sorry. I erred in two places there. First, "hydrofancotic" is actually spelled "hydrophancotic", I believe. The "f" is spelled like the "f" in "enough". No, wait - I mean it's spelled like the "f" in "elephant".

Or something like that.

Second, the answer is actually in the REDUCTION of the hydroghancotic transquolifiction of the second order polyglottalisms, rather than the hydrofancotic transquolification of the second order polyglottalisms itself.

Did I spell it all right this time?

Oh bother!



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by diamondsmith
reply to post by voyger2
 



So Mr Diamond Sir can you explain the loss of 2.19 days a year from a theoretical point and from physical point ?
This is an endless fight,to make understanding everything when everything I explained over and over again.



Let's make it easy, then. Just link back to a post - ANY post - where you already explained any part of it.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Believe me I am not afraid of what I stated,It's your problem if you believe it or not,insulting doesn't contribute.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I have issues with our common 'modern' understanding of time and calendars. So I think I should contribute here.

The kind of insult to the intelligence of consciousness that is this thread is exactly why we wound up with such a hopeless calendar (centered on the work week) in the first place.

OP, if you want to be clued in to calendars and time, check out aboriginal cultures throughout Earth and history and quit messing around with this silly game of diversion invented to keep you from doing so. It is folly, but you don't have to be.





 
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def