Jump to content

astrocat5

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by astrocat5

  1. You're not alone. Many of these gnostic gospels have been interfered with. That's why they had a 'synod' long ago and decided that the present four gospel writers were the most original. Thanks for telling me about the Nag Hammadi Library - I didn't know about it. Nice to chat w. you, Justin W. And yet it'sthe eye-witness account that interests not just the Police, but the courts too. Perhaps I'm replying to the wrong post, here. I'ts rreally Faith alone that makes one believe in the gospels. I like the stories, however - they do seem pretty real to me. I don't know what's tr
  2. Fascinating. So you have read the Gnostic Gospels? Me too. They had a conference once,somewhere and decided that the Gospels of Mathew Mark etc. were the most reliable. I kind of agree with this, so they are really the only Gospels I stick to as real.That bit about the truth - I think the Truth is kind of dangerous, as so many people believe differently. Nice to hear from you, Justin W. Where did you get this about Jesus advocating murder? I'm interested. Is this out of the Gnostic Gospels too? I think God is a jealous God, 'Thou shalt put no other God before me etc.' and vengef
  3. [Name=astrocat5' timestamp='1328491789' post='656299]
  4. Hi Now, this 'flood' thing, the deluve, as it's sometimes called - is pretty common in many religions. But you're right, it was probably fiction. I guess you don't believe in unicorns either?It's just that God is a jealous God and also vengeful. Jesus said, 'You cannot know the Father, but I and the Father are the same.' I don't think Jesus was the jealous kind, nor do I see him as being vengeful. Interesting to talk with you, 'iNow.'
  5. Jesus said, 'I am the truth, the light and the way.' I think God is a part of the old Jewish religion, and does not apply. Jesus never said he was the son of God - others said that about him. Jesus called himself 'The Son of Man,' just to let us know. His prayer, The Our Father that he taught us, is not a prayer to God, but to Our Heavenly Father. There was a time when everybody in the world turned against God. This is in the bible, I'm not making it up. That's right, everybody in the world turned against God - except for one man, Noah. Now you remember. I thought you would. Anyway
  6. I am very sorry for not having replied to this post before, Questionposer. Let me answer it now.If you were out there in Space, and you were in free-falling into a very distant black hole that you couldn't see (they're invsible anyway) you wouldn't know it. It would seem to you that all forces acting on you were equal. And they would be. So it is with the Observable Universe (OU). We're in free-fall, speeding up as you'd expect (Newton) and losing pressure (Bernoulli) expanding (Boyle) and Cooling Down (the Joule-Thomson Effect). We are in obeyance of all the Laws of Physics, includi
  7. No, Justin - actually it was Boyle who (perhaps not the first) discovered Volume and Pressure were related - inversly. That means if you increase Pressure you diminish Volume, and vice-versa. Daniel Bernoulli was, I think - the first to associate speeding up with a loss of pressure. The Observable Universe is expanding - I thought you had accepted that. Now, if I want to say that the Observable Universe (OU) is also losing pressure that's because I like to compare the behaviour of the OU to the behaviour of Earthly things, the better to demonstrate the point I am trying to make. Are you
  8. Yes, I agree. When things are close together, that would override the expansion.What I'm saying is that we are falling into the Supercluster in Hydra-Centaurus, but that we can never reach it because the Hyrdra-Centaurus Supercluster is moving away from us even faster, on its way to the Great Attractor, discovered by an international group of astronomers called the Seven Samurai in the early eighties. Certain 'Alumni' of these Seven Samurai discovered that the Great Attractor itself is falling into the Shapley Concentration but, of course, the Shapley Concentration is moving away from the Gr
  9. This would be true if there wasn't a force acting to accelerate. This is where the man-made part comes into play. There needed to be a reason that explained the acceleration, so poof. . . you have dark energy. Man made, yes. Likely to have another explanation, yes. But that theory holds more water than yours does so far, and until you have some documented evidence that can be observed, no one will be obligated to agree with you. As a matter of fact I do. Not everything that orbits around a mass has a trajectory which pulls things into it. Some are pulled into the object, others ste
  10. If, as I say, the Observable Universe is falling into a black hole, it would be like falling into a celestial vacuum cleaner (both are vortices) or an Earthly one. As we fall into a vacuum cleaner, we'd be speeding up, losing pressure, expanding and cooling down - all the things happening to the Observable Universe. The a) slow start of the air and b) speeding up 'Expansion' and c) the 'Inward' direction qualify this event as an Inward Expansion. In Nature, all 'Expansions' that speed up are 'Inward.' The expansion of the Observable Universe is speeding up. In Nature (I don't know abo
  11. This is a conundrum. Nothing expands inward. To go in would be to contract. And just because your theory is new to me, also doesn't make you right. You state everything without a shred of evidence to support you other than laws of physics that apply to gravity. You have said yourself that we are expanding in the observable field of view. But you also say we are falling in the bigger picture. How do you know? You are just guessing as far as I can tell, and basing your assumption on what a snowball does on earth because of gravity. Show me some real evidence of where you draw your conclusions. G
  12. There is a constant - the perfect vacuum, or 30 inches of mercury (g) or the vacuum of outer space. A vacuum means there is nothing there, which is absolutely the case in outer space. Take the center of a void. It's called a void because there is nothing there. Of course, in your Man-Made Universe, the vacuum of outer space is full of Man-Made 'Dark Energy,' and a load of Virtual Particles etc. all of it made up (fabricated) none of it real. At the center of a void is the perfect vacuum you seek - that's in Nature, anyway. And no, it doesn't change. Yes, it is a constant - you cannot
  13. If you fall, you speed up because of gravity. You have to prove that there is something dense enough out there for its gravity to affect the whole universe. You haven't. The part about losing pressure you haven't given information for either. You just say we're losing pressure. Where do I find the information or study on that. It seems that the expansion part is general consensus. At what rate is the universe cooling? Where is the info and study on that too? Just out of curiousity. I have no idea of the rate at which the Observable Universe is cooling down, only that it is
  14. Oh, Justin. Now you're talking about a perfect vacuum. I thought Outer Space offered a perfect vacuum. That's 30 inches of mercury (g). Why are we even having this problem?I forgot to say last time - In Nature, we're speeding up because of Gravity, and it would take a black hole to cause an increasing Rate of Acceleration. We're falling into the black hole at the center of the Universe. That's in Nature. In Nature Justin W, Gravity (King Gravity) assembled the Universe as it started out - a loose, humungous Hydrogen cloud. The center of this gas-cloud where pressures and temperatures w
  15. By Losing Pressure, I mean, becoming less dense. As we expand we become less dense. It's further now, between bodies. But there's an 'average' pressure of our Solar System, including the pressure inside the sun (Sol) and Jupiter etc. There has to be, throughout the Observable Universe (OU) an average pressure, whatever it is. Anyway, you can't change the volume of anything in Nature, without affecting the pressure. As for your vacuum getting stronger - what is a vacuum? It's 30 inches of mercury. A tube, 30 inches high, will be filled. Virtually. Can your vacuum pull more than that
  16. I don't understand why an excelerated expansion of space would mean the universe is imploding as apposed to exploding ( or "going in/going out" as u put it) - surely the evidence ( type 1A supernovae, microwave background ,etc) shows the universe is expanding. It would however be possible to conceive of our universe as the inside of a blackhole that has/is expanded/ing. - in thinking on what u said, pehaps the effects of mass(blackholes) distorting/stretching space between us and our observed data could make us "see" dark energy - ie the light has been curved and appears further away
  17. Hi, I'm happy to be here in Science Forums and I hope Science Forums is happy to have me here. I'm Canadian, tho' I have spent much of my life in UK. I have toured the USA a few times - last time I was in Belingham, WA and that was last summer. I have spent a few years out west, but Oakville, ON is my home town. I believe that Modern Cosmology is out of step with Nature.
  18. That article (about COBE) came from the Globe and Mail of January 10, 1998 - in an article called 'Infra-red readings shed new light on Big-Bang - Early Universe better understood,' by Steven Strauss. I'm sorry, I should have said. That's my fault, not yours. Well, you see, because of all the fuss caused by COBE's Infra-Red picture, all representations of the CBR must come with the necessawry7 marks, and that's why the WMap has the marks it has. I'm a scientist, and I have to go with the evidence. Can you not see that? The evidence points to a perfectly smooth CBR, that just sits there,
  19. There's no such thing as an Outward Expansion that speeds up. Not in Nature, there isn't. All Inward Expansions speed up. Put the Nozzle of a working Central-Vac in the middle of a room, and the Nozzle will evacuate the air nearest to the Nozzle. The remaining air in the room will Expand Inwardly, slowly at first, but then faster and faster-yet-again, in order to replace the evacuated air. As the experiment runs, even air from across the room will eventually begin to move, slowly at first, but then faster and faster-yet-again toward the Central Point of the Nozzle. (from here on in, an
  20. Justin W, you can't have a vacuum greater than a vacuum. A vacuum can't increase. A vacuum means there is nothing there - nothing. Empty Space is truly empty, believe me. Everyone in 1998 was expecting the expansion to be slowing down, and it came as a surprise to Modern Scientists that it was speeding up. They promptly made up a new force, an Anti-Gravity they called Dark Energy (a 'cooler' sounding name and much easier to sell.) Anti-Gravity doesn't exist and they say it's running the Universe. They've got it backwards, it's not Anti-Gravity running the Universe, but Gravity.
  21. I'm glad you mention COBE, NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer satellite. COBE returned an infra-red photograph of the background radiation that was mounted on an easel as an oval, pink picture - unveiled to select NASA scientists by NASA's Eli Dwek. The picture showed a perfectly smooth CBR without any marks whatsoever. This could not be allowed to stand by the scientists gathered. They seized the picture ans enlarged and enhanced a small section of the photograph over and over until eventually some faint marks emerged. The meeting will always be famous for the Big-Banger who, seeing t
  22. It's not the vacuum of Space that's expanding, but the distance between various celestial bodies in the Observable Universe that is increasing. And yes, if you view a Galaxy head on, the part leaving you will be red-shifted, and the part approaching you will be blue shifted. As for tha acceleration, we're accelerating because we're falling. It's that simple. As matter has become more and more spread out, it has had less and less of a cohesive effect, therefore, the force of the vacuum at some point overcame the force of gravity and expansion has sped up, to a degree. And there i
  23. The redshift of distant gallaxies shows clearly that the Observable Universe is expanding. There is a ton of evidence to show the Observable Universe is expanding, however, there is no actual evidence the Universe is expanding. This (the expansion of the Universe) is something that has never been observed, so without evidence I do not think you can say the Universe is expanding. Anyway, it's not - and I'm going with the evidence, so excuse me, Kloaynos. I'm a scientist and I have to go with the evidence. Sorry. Hi, Reality Check. You, like everybody else in the world say the Unive
  24. There was no Big-Bang. We're not going out - we're going in. That's not me - that's the evidence. We're falling into a central black hole. Again, that's the evidence. Why can't you see that? I don't know, Rasebo. I believe in Black Holes - I guess it's a matter of choice... I won't dispute that, Klaynos, I'm sorry I messed up your first quote. I know better, now.
  25. Sure, but the rocket that launched this satellite was launched using Newton's equations.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.