So many sixes it’s making my head spin

Earth’s orbital plane is known as the ecliptic plane, and Earth’s tilt is known to astronomers as the obliquity of the ecliptic, being the angle between the ecliptic and the celestial equator on the celestial sphere. Earth currently has an axial tilt of about 23.4°.

tilt

An axial plane is based on the 90° pivot. With that in mind I find it rather strange to consider that the opposing tilt of the earth equates to a rather interesting number. What I mean by that is this; if we were to subtract 23.4° from 90°, we get exactly 66.6°.

Hhmmm…

What a wonderful coincidence.

But, it doesn’t stop there. According to Live Science, we are also carrying a velocity of roughly 66,600 MPH as we fly through space around the sun.

1200px-North_season

Hhmmm….

What another wonderful coincidence.

Or even better… what about the fact that the curvature of the earth for one mile squared equates to exactly 0.666 ft. If you don’t believe me you can do the math yourself using this program.

I bet, if you decided to not stop there and continued to look at the math behind how the secular world describes their godless creation, the coincidences wouldn’t stop here.

But then again, who are we kidding… right? I clearly am just ignorant.

If you want to believe you are flying through space at 66,600 miles per hour around the sun while on an opposing tilt of 66.6° with a radial drop of 0.666 ft per mile squared under your feet, you go right head.

I think I’ll put my feet on the bible instead of the wisdom of secular men, thank you very much.

1 Chr. 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Ps. 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”

Ps. 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”

1858a9e

Now, don’t get me wrong… I do realize that there are plenty of verses that suggest the world does move. For example:

Ps. 99:1: “The Lord reigneth … let the earth be moved.”

Job 26:7: “He … hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Is. 24:19: “the earth is moved exceedingly.”

With that in mind I am neither arguing for or against the motion of the earth. All I am getting at here is the simple fact that we are so quick to settle on the side of the secular world when it comes to Biblical creation. If we are so quick to stand up against things like the theory of evolution, why then would describing the creation of earth and the celestial bodies above be any different? Rather than standing on the truth of God’s word, we have given the Biblical attributes of cosmology over to the wisdom of men, diminishing that portion of the Bible to allegory rather than truth.

Just think about it.

If Satan really is in charge right now, and his goal is to deceive men into believing that God does not exist, the quickest way to do something like that would be to distort their view on creation itself.

But… I digress.

I’m clearly just ignorant. All of those numbers above are clearly just a coincidence.

And somehow people still think we can’t fake space!!!

yep.png

2002-blue-marble-anomalies.png

Whatever… if you want to be asleep, at this point you are doing it by choice. The great deception is at hand.

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Revelation 12:9

Please note that it doesn’t say he will deceive some, or just the unbelievers. No… it says all.

Anyway, I’m ignorant.

Talk to you later.

My Visit the the McDonald Observatory

Well, today is my birthday. And to celebrate my birthday, Sarah and I went all the way out to the McDonald Observatory in West Texas. This place is in the middle of nowhere up on top of some pretty epic mountains. Today, while we were there we not only got to visit the actual telescopes (one of which I had the pleasure of personally controlling manually), but we also observed the sun.

ob1.jpg

It was a pretty cool experience and I have to admit, the scenery on the way there was breathtaking.

But, I will say… there is one thing that today’s trip got me thinking about. First off, the Polaris Star (also known as the North Star) is stationary in the night sky. I asked the tour guide how it was possible for the North Star to be stationary in the night sky while we traverse the void of space in four directions at once. He managed to not grasp what I was actually asking, and instead mentioned a 5th motion that he posed does change the North Star dramatically. Not only has this motion of Polaris never been observed in the last 6,000 years of recorded cosmology, but it apparently happens every 27,000 years. Again, something that can’t be observed. Makes sense to me.

ob2.jpg

How can we state a fact like that without the ability to actually observe it? Seems like science… lol.

But, anyway… that isn’t what this blog is about. This blog is about the sun… because, at the end of the day that was what the main part of the tour was about.

So… according to modern day astronomy the sun is a star. Not only that, but it is one of the smallest stars. According to this same modern day teaching of the cosmos the sun was formed prior to the earth and is currently 93 million miles away.

So then… why is it that everything we are taught about the cosmos today is absolutely backwards from what the bible says? According to the bible the earth was made first (not the sun). The Sun and moon were made separate from the stars (meaning the sun is not a star). The sun and moon are both called great lights (according to the Copernican Principle our sun is not great when compared to other stars). The bible also says that the sun, moon, and stars all exist inside of the firmament. And that this firmament is where the birds fly.

So then, which is true?

Are we to believe as Christians that the bible is the inerrant truth (except when it talks about science, which makes it no longer inerrant)? Or, are we going to believe the cabalistic indoctrinations of the Copernican Principle of Heliocentric Cosmological Evolution?

Rather than being long winder, trying to make a lot of points (which I feel I could easily do) I want to just leave you with this thought.

Why is it that literally everything we are told about the cosmos is the exact opposite of what the bible says?

snake.jpg

Anyway, my birthday trip was fun. Space exploration is fake. The sun, moon, and stars are close and small. Satellites do not exist beyond the stratosphere (all we are ever shown is CGI and cartoons).

The earth is motionless. I know this to be true because that is what my senses tell me and that is what my bible tells me.

The earth was made first. The one way speed of light is assumed. With that said, everything you have been told about the cosmos is an assumption.

m1.jpg

Have a good day, and thanks for reading. For my birthday, my challenge to you is to go back and read what the bible says about the cosmos. What it has to say is very clear… very clear indeed.

Subtle signs that hint to the truth

I have a lot of friends both Christian and non-Christian alike that love NASA. They love science and space exploration. They love learning about black holes, gas giants, and all the cool things NASA constantly puts out. I used to be like that too. But, the one thing that these two groups of people will disagree on is creation. The idea of God creating all things against the idea that it all started from nothing is a big debate. And today, many Christians side with the nothingness theory as if it were proven true, but still insist that God inspired the nothingness to create everything regardless of the fact that this concept goes against scripture.

And the pioneer of these epic discoveries just so happens to have no agenda at all. NASA is neither secular or Christian. Their agenda is clearly just one of science and the pursuit of knowledge… nothing more. Nothing less. That is one thing that both sides of the NASA fandom will agree on. NASA doesn’t have an agenda toward or against spiritual matters.

I am sorry, but I disagree with that entirely.

If they are known for being so none bias, then why is every single mission that they do related to pagan gods, Gnosticism, the occult, or outright luciferian concepts? And as of yesterday, we have yet again another example of this very thing to pile atop the countless other examples.

Meet Lucy, the mission that is apparently sending us to the Trojan Asteroids of Jupiter.

NASA-Lucy-spacecraft-studying-Jupiter-Trojan-asteroids-image-credit-Southwest-Research-Institute

Let’s totally set aside the fact that once again we are presented with nothing more than fake CGI junk rather than something tangible and real. Let’s stop and take a look the subliminal meanings behind this mission. And, in turn consider how NASA truly is none bias… or not.

The first thing to consider is the destination. We are sending a probe to a cluster of rocks known as Trojans. A Trojan by definition is a tool used to mislead large groups of people against the devices true intent. Secondly, we should stop and look at how and why the project was given its name; Lucy.

The name Lucy is derived from a Latin word, Lucius, meaning light. This explains why Satan is also known as Lucifer… also meaning light. And since the promises of Satan were transcendence and illumination, it is no wonder the movie Lucy was given such a name when evaluating what it was about (transcendence).

lucy_final_logosv

This patch symbolizes exactly the stance that NASA has on spiritual matters. With that in mind, I do not understand how so many Christians can so quickly rally behind this organization. Here, in this patch we have Lucy, the monkey skeleton… which stand on the bases of the evolution of mankind from primates to humans. Secondly, we have the rocks next to the probe. When compared to the ape bones to the probe we can see that it implies our evolutionary transcendence via the promises of Lucifer through knowledge and technology… who just so happens to hold the exact same meaning in his name as the word Lucy on the patch.

To make things even more interesting, the name of this NASA probe project was derived from the Beatles and a song called “Lucy in the sky with diamonds“. I could honestly rant on this fact forever. With that in mind I will simply point out that the album that this song appears on is heavily tied to LSD and Alice in Wonderland… which implies higher states of copiousness (Lucy being a great title since it means what it means).  Enough said.

So… why the diamond? Could it possibly be because it ties so well with the rest of the theme? I bet that could be the case. The diamond shape symbolizes ascension, clarity, and wisdom in many cultures.

With that said, here we have NASA propagating evolution to the masses, honoring Lucifer for his light of promising ascension, clarity, and wisdom through a band that is heavily associated with the occult. While at the same time admitting to your face that it is nothing more than a Trojan meant to mislead the masses, which is exactly what it is doing.

You want to keep believing in their fake CGI nonsense, you go right ahead.

As for myself, I will stick with the scriptures and the true scientific method. I don’t know. I guess I’m just ignorant, but a $19 billion dollar budget doesn’t automatically make your NASA cartoon truth. It is still just a cartoon.

And at the end of the day, I don’t care what you believe in… one thing is clear. NASA does promote a spiritual agenda weather you admit it or not. Just go back and look at the names of all their past missions.

There is a point when you could consider it all to be coincidence. But, let’s face it. We have been beyond that point for quite some time now.

Pseudoscience, and the age of the universe

Speed of Light may not be constant, physicists Say. Einstein’s theory of special relativity sets of the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second (300 million meters per second). But some scientists are exploring the possibility that this cosmic speed limit changes. The speed of light is constant, or so textbooks say.

Now, I read this and thought to myself about something regarding how old the universe is, and how far away the distant stars are. Everything we know about the cosmos in regards to time and distance is completely dependent upon the speed of light.

For example: we have been taught that the universe is millions of billions of years old due to the fact that the constant speed of light takes time to reach us from those distant stars (hypothetically, if the speed of light is one mile per hour and the light takes three hours to reach you, you can then infer that the star is three miles away).

Here is the thing; guys like Neil deGrasse Tyson love words like, infer, conclude, and deduce… because they are fancier ways of saying “assume“.

So, how do we know how far away, or how old, the stars are in the universe? Let’s ask Neil. According to Neil, we know for a fact based on a measurement technique that is assumed to be constant (speed of light).

Now, Albert Einstein said in his Relativity paper that “light requires the same time to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity“. In short, assumptions are made. A fact based on assumption is what we call blind faith. We don’t know the speed from point A to point B, or the speed from point B to point C. We only know the total speed from point A to C and “assume” the round trip is the same.

So, what exactly am I getting at then? Rather than typing up a long drawn out explanation, I found a video that does a great job at describing the assumption that Albert Einstein was referring to in his Relativity paper. The fact that this physicist is a young creation Christian is coincidental and beside the point. The point is, we don’t know… and assumptions have to be made in order to arrive to a conclusion about the age of stars and the universe.

So, what am I getting at here… what is the point?

Here is the thing; determining the distance of a star requires the speed of light to be the same in both directions at all times throughout the history or the cosmos. Not only does light appear to be slowing down according to the article linked above, but we do not know that the speed of light is the same through release and reflection.

Example: If I throw a ball at one hundred miles an hour and it slows down slightly before hitting a wall and bouncing back to me, wouldn’t it be a fact that the ball is no longer going the same speed when it gets back to me, and that if it slowed down on the way there that it is probably slowing down on the way back as well?  To only count the total speed there and back and dividing them in half to determine the actual speed of the object is based on assumption.

The truth is, the age and distance of stars is completely based on inference. And since this assumption of a star’s age is presented as truth, we use the age of the star to age the universe. This is called pseudoscience, people. A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Now, am I arguing that the world is only 6,000 years old and that all the stars are super close? No, not at all. What I am arguing is that you can’t make an assumption while parading it as fact to the entire planet. The entire doctrine of cosmology with the Big Bang Theory and the age of the commons is built on an evolutionary assumption, not fact. I don’t know what your bible says, but mine says that the earth was made first, before the sun. And this is contrary to what the scientific community it parading as truth.

Am I going to believe in the assumptions of men, or am I going to stand firm on the word of God? We are in a time when man is being tested. We are in a time where what you put your faith in matters more than ever. Dusk is fading, and night draws near.

Until you can actually measure the one way speed of light, the entire cosmological doctrine of time and distance is standing on faith in something they “believe” to be true. And if this is the case, why is it being taught as fact in the public school system?

Who are we kidding though. Let’s leave the real thinking for the men and women in the lab coats. I’m just ignorant and don’t know any better.

The age of the universe truly is 13.8 billion years old. And all the stars out there are billions of light years away. The constant speed of light told us so…

What a joke.

If anyone tells you that we know for a fact that the universe is such and such old and that a star is such and such distance away, they are either ignorantly being led or they are lying. Truth is we have no clue, because no one knows the one way speed of light which is how science is claiming to make the measurement!

 

Directional momentum in the vacuum; you say

Common physics will tell you one very simple fact. In order for an object to begin, or increase a directional momentum, force needs to be generated against an external object. To better clarify what I am talking about here are a few basic examples of what I mean.

jumping

In order for a dog to gain momentum in an upward motion force is generated in the dog’s legs as the animal propels itself upward as a result of pushing off of the ground beneath it. The same can be said about a bird in flight or a fish as it swims. In order for the bird to gain and or maintain momentum as if flies, it must use its wings as it generates force against another, all be it, outside force generating object. In the case of the bird that outside object is the air. For a fish, the forward momentum is clearly derived from its fins as the fish generates force through the water that engulfs the creature. The dog pushes off of the earth. The bird pushes off of the air. The fish pushes off of the water. Seems simple enough, right? In order for an object to generate momentum it needs to generate force with the assistance of another object.

So… what about the vacuum of space?

propoltion.png

Let’s actually set aside for a moment the fact that I could not find a “real” photo of a satellite, and take note of the propulsion method being used by each object as it transverses the vast expanse of the cosmic void.

Something doesn’t seem to add up, and I have to ask myself… what are these objects pushing off of in order to generate the momentum they need to travel through the vacuum? The one on the right shows multiple short range burst of energy that allows the object to twist and pivot in any direction it desires. How is it possible for an object in space to generate momentum in any direction without the aid of an outside object to generate force? Because, if the vacuum is exactly that… a void (nothingness), then when a satellite attempted to use a propulsion system such as this it would do absolutely nothing. The compressed energy as it is dispensed will be released into the vacuum and with nothing for that energy to press against, the object would not gain or reduce any existing momentum.

With that in mind let us think then about the possibility of space exploration. If we went to the Moon, and if we plan to visit Mars, then how did/can an object traveling through the vacuum slow down its momentum with this style of propulsion system in an attempt to establish orbit? Whatever speed and direction you were traveling when you left the surface of the earth would be all there is. No changing direction. No speeding up. No slowing down.

An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. And since the vacuum is nothingness… any attempts at generating an “outside force” would result in nothingness. Pushing against nothing will generate nothing.

Space travel is fake. But what do I know, right? I’m just ignorant.

The Cavendish Experiment compromised by the pendulum effect?

I have a new question for the “scientists of today”. This question is in relationship to the Cavendish Experiment. For those of you that don’t know anything about this experiment, it’s a really big deal for physics and how we measure the known universe both in lengths and relative mass. How big is the earth? How massive is the moon? If the two objects are said to be such and such density, then they must be thus far apart for relative rotation to occur. And so on and so on. This experiment essentially weighed the earth giving us the gravitational constant. This constant is used to measure everything we know about the known universe. So, for me as a fan of space, this is the backbone of this field of science. For those of you that don’t know how the test works, here is a video of what the test was.

The thing that I find most odd about this test is the following. No one has actually successfully replicated this experiment, at least not that I have found. If you do a test and yielded a positive result, wouldn’t you want to test and retest the result to insure that you have it correct. Or better yet, change some variables to insure that the test isn’t being compromised by some outside force? Here is a video of s science professor expressing his admiration for the experiment despite having never gotten the experiment to work, himself. I find this odd.

Now, I have done enough digging that I have come across quite a few people who have attempted this experiment to varying degrees. And at that, with a few factors that in my opinion actually compromise the results. If you will note, the first two videos suggested two things. One, a closed system; so that no wind current would alter the results. And two; that the observer couldn’t be in the same room because their mass would alter the state of the experiment. And yet, if you look you will find countless attempts in open space with the observer present, no real control on the fixed points for observation, and air conditioning being factored into the process. All the tests you will find are relatively the same, and in my eyes inconclusive.

The idea behind the test is simple. The large mass of balls will gravitationally attract the smaller mass of balls toward themselves inward, twisting the pendulum or torsion rod toward the larger masses, thus giving us the gravitational constant when factoring the arch of the changes. When it comes to all of these tests, all I see is a free spinning shaft with two balls eventually touching against a resistance point. And because they touched the experiment essentially worked.

I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it. And here’s why. How many of you have heard of a foucault pendulum? For those of you who don’t know what that is, here it is.

So, here is my issue with how the most recent Cavendish Experiments have been done. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that a freestanding object on a cord hanging down from a fixed point would be compromised by the rotation of the earth? And if that is true, as the foucault pendulum clearly shows us, then wouldn’t the Cavendish Experiment be successful every time based on the pendulum effect alone? Eventually the rotational momentum would force the rods in a direction causing the smaller masses to find themselves resting against the larger objects?

With that in mind I propose an experiment (one of which I have yet to see done). The only way to determine for sure that the pendulum effect does not in any way neutralize the test results of the Cavendish Experiment we must do the test in three distinctly different ways. One, we set it up as shown by all the other endless attempts you will find online. The result will be the same as always. The smaller masses turn and connect with the larger ones. The second test would be to raise the smaller masses up directly above the larger masses by mere meters so that they don’t actually make contact. After doing this we set the masses 90 degrees from one another or at a 15 as shown in the first video and leave it alone. Over the course of 48 hours or more one of three things will have occurred. One, the smaller masses will do nothing. Two, they will find themselves fixed above the larger masses as the Experiment would suggest (attraction working as it should). Or three, the pendulum effect will make itself known and we will see the smaller masses rotate above the larger masses with no added resistance over a very long period of time. Then, let’s assume that the attraction does occur as we would expect/hope. If that is the case, the third and final test would be to start the test over and do it this time with the larger masses removed. If the smaller masses find themselves eventually resting in the same parallel point as the previous two tests eliminating the pendulum effect as a possiblye veritable, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that there are other variables we need to be considering that may be affecting the result (ie; Northern Pole. Large objects in or around the experiment that may alter its result)?

With this in mind, I find it hard to believe we found Big G from this experiment with no real re-verification of any kind taking place. Before we can truly say that this test works we need to 100 percent insure that the pendulum effect does not play a role in any way toward altering the results of this experiment. And so far, from what I have seen, no one has done this.

Why is that?

Please note I am not one of those people with some silly hidden agenda. I am just an honest guy seeking honest answers about science and how we understand the world around us.

So, why is it important to insure that we remove the pendulum affect from this experiment? Everything you know about the size, distance, and gravitational attraction of our known solar system is resting on the results of this one test (results I might add that were given to use in the 1800’s and have yet to be precisely duplicated since).