Originally posted by htapath
Originally posted by Insomniac
Originally posted by htapath
I don't turn a blind eye to science, but I do question all the answers. For instance, if everything in the known universe is expanding, then why do the constellations remain the same?
The moon with its positioning and size relative to earth and our sun is just a tad of too much of a coincidence. Throw in the lack of rotation and this creates an elephant of a different color for the critical thinker.
Then we have the work of one Mr. Percivel Lowell to consider. This is a man who proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that a highly advanced civilization existed/exists on Mars... in 1895!
The constellations are slowly changing over time. This is due to the relative motions of the stars. Although this is not evidence of an expanding universe - just that the constellations are not permanant. Incidentally, the constellations are created from line of sight effects. Very few (if any) stars in any given constellation have any physical connection.
The Moon does rotate. It appears not to from Earth because it is tidally locked. That means that its period of rotation matches one orbit around Earth. Tidal locking is quite common.
The Moon's positioning with regard to the Sun - I'm guessing you're talking about how the Moon's apparent size matchs that of the Sun. Well this is only temporary. The Moon is moving away from us so, in time there will be no more total eclipses of the Sun.
You're right about Lowell though... Despite being a highly competent and respected astronomer, he really dropped the ball with his life on Mars. The problem there was he really did see canals... But he failed to realise that they were optical illusions.
Back on topic... The OP lost me completely once he started going on about those of us who are part of the terrestrial evolutionary stream... Unlike the OP I suppose - Oh Dear!
edit on 21/3/13 by Insomniac because: typo
I'm asking questions. The way it looks from here you think you have all the answers. Congratulations for parroting mainstream science. Unfortunately you're 0-3 because it's all theory and conjecture. I like how you dismiss Lowell's work as optical illusion. That's actually pretty comical. Thanks for the laugh kitty kitty.
I get my information through 5th kind contact. I make no claim to discovering any of it. I am only the interpreter for what I am shown. I receiving massive barrages of information in my head that I have to decipher. These relate to Cosmology models, origins and purpose of religion, advanced particle physics and diagrams/blueprints for things such as plastic which can block electromagnetic forces, zero-point energy, and most recently a blueprint for creation of a temporal distortion field.
Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by eriktheawful
I'm flawed with an extremely low tolerance for the willful and often militantly hostile rejection of not only 'mainstream science', but also education as well.
I've come up with a working method for alignment in monomer resins to make plastic which blocks electromagnetic forces. My understanding of particle physics is more than sufficient considering nobody on Earth had figured this out yet.
Originally posted by Unity_99
The Dark Rift, of the Mayans, and the whole gravity thing. Well, Gravity is an outcome of magnetism and
Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by BornOfSin
If this were happening, we'd be seeing a doppler shift with the known stars and constellations, as well as experiencing relativistic events as we got closer to the event horizon.
We would also be witnessing the death of stars closer to the event horizon in a flood of infrared and ultraviolet, and we aren't.
Add to that fact that the Earth is 27,000 light years (and bear in mind a single light year is 6 trillion miles approx) from the Centre of the Milky Way. How do you propose the planet gets there in 50 years?
Ignore mainstream science? You are forgetting the very obvious truth that most of 'mainstream science' was not that long ago considered to the ravings of madmen when they were first proposed. The Earth was flat, etc.
The fundamental thing to remember is that when mainstream sciences 'theories' can't offer explanations that fit all the 'facts' about what is going on, the logical conclusion is that there must be another explanation. This is the premise of the pursuit of truth.
My theory incorporates most of the changes we are seeing at a global level and is plausible. If you believe I am crazy, prove me to be wrong in what I am saying, don't just discount it in the fashion that people did when it was proposed the Earth was round.