derikgsthreesixs23
New member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2014
- Messages
- 0
Someone on here said that the bug bang was christianity in disguise. What is everyone's opinion on this? And is there proof?
Latest News
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Big Bang
- Thread starter derikgsthreesixs23
- Start date
Samuel Martin
New member
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1
Though I'm more than happy for someone with higher knowledge to show me different. Now, the theory in how the big bang came about was described by a particle physicist(I'll search my history and find out who if you'd like) as not of nothing exploding into something, but rather a universe being torn in half! Or that of two universes colliding!
This, to me, is an amazing idea and I had long since given up trying to wrap my head around it before I came to the Truth and found Satanism. However, seeing the message placed brought up my old interest in this, though it was during my atheist years that I studied this so my interest was that of opposing filthy xians rather than that of seeking truth!
In case you guy don't want to read the long message: The Big Bang basically says there was this super powerful god who willed the universe into existence. So to believe in the big bang you must believe in a "supreme higher power"
Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat!
Hail Lord Enki
Hail Enlil
Hail Astaroth
Hail Azazel
Hail Marchosias
Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes!
This, to me, is an amazing idea and I had long since given up trying to wrap my head around it before I came to the Truth and found Satanism. However, seeing the message placed brought up my old interest in this, though it was during my atheist years that I studied this so my interest was that of opposing filthy xians rather than that of seeking truth!
In case you guy don't want to read the long message: The Big Bang basically says there was this super powerful god who willed the universe into existence. So to believe in the big bang you must believe in a "supreme higher power"
Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat!
Hail Lord Enki
Hail Enlil
Hail Astaroth
Hail Azazel
Hail Marchosias
Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes!
Samuel Martin
New member
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1
Hi, that was me who said that and here is why:
Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was this guy named Aristotle. Pretty sharp fellow; he thought up a lot of good things. But, occasionally he made a mistake.
One mistake he made was to toss an orange up in the air and watch it come straight back down to his hand. Aristotle reasoned that if he was moving, the orange would have flown off to one side as soon as it left his hand. Because the orange did not do so, Aristotle concluded he was not moving. On the basis of this one observed fact, and the assumption that there was no other explanation for what he observed, Aristotle concluded that the Earth does not move and that therefore the rest of the universe had to move around it.
Aristotle was a very sharp guy, but the fact is that there was another explanation for why the orange fell back into his hand, and it would wait about another 2000 years before another smart man, Sir Isaac Newton, explained just what it was Aristotle had overlooked, set forth in Newton's laws of motion.
But for the early church, Aristotle's conclusions fit in rather well with their theology, which had the Earth created as the center of the universe, unmoving, with the rest of the cosmos spinning about it.
Of course, there was empirical evidence available to all that cast doubt on the church-approved version of the Cosmos. One could see during eclipses that the Earth was not flat. The curved shape of the Earth's shadow as it crossed the moon was the same no matter which place in the sky the eclipse took place. A spherical Earth was the only shape that could produce such a result. Ships sailing over the horizon clearly vanished over a subtle curve ( an observation which eventually inspired Columbus' voyages). Nobody could explain the behavior of a Foucault's Pendulum other than by the Earth spinning beneath it.
But by far the most troubling problem for the geocentric (earth centered) universe was the strange behavior of the planets. In an age before TV, or even books, the night sky was something every person was quite familiar with, even those who were not sailors or fortune tellers. Watching the night sky over time, the paths of the planets were easily seen to occasionally pause, move in reverse for a time, then proceed forward. This behavior was called retrograde motion. Ah, but this was a problem. The church did not have an explanation for this behavior. Indeed in the King James Version of the Bible, the word "planet" appears only once, and then only as an object to be sacrificed to.
There is a very simple explanation for retrograde motion. As the Earth, moving in its inner orbit, overtakes an outer planet, it will appear to hesitate, reverse its path across the sky, then resume its normal path. But the idea that the Earth moved was contrary to Church Dogma and to Aristotle. What education was tolerated by the church was "encouraged" to find some way to explain retrograde motion in a way that did not conflict with the religious needs for a universe centered on an unmoving Earth. Rather than re-examine Aristotle's basic claim, the learned men of the day grabbed onto a suggestion made by Claudius Ptolemy called "epicycles". This theory explained retrograde motion around a motionless Earth by suggesting that the planets moved in large orbits called deferents, upon which were superimposed smaller orbits called epicycles which produced a "wobble" as seen from Earth.
Epicycles were extremely popular with the church, and scholars at universities with religious affiliations were "encouraged" to refine this theory. And it needed refinement, badly, because the epicycle theory did not accurately predict what was being seen in the sky. Generations of effort was expended trying to figure out why the models did not predict the actual motions of the planets. At one point, it was even suggested that the epicycles had epicycles. No matter how many times the observed results did not match the predictions, the approved course of action was to refine the theory, but never to question the basic assumption. Those who dared point to the evidence suggesting that Aristotle (and by extension the church) were in error in postulating a geocentric universe were "discouraged". Galileo was tortured into recanting his conclusions that the Earth moved. Giordano Bruno was burned alive at the stake for suggesting that the sun was really just another star, only close up, and that the other stars had their own planets.
In recent times, our expanding technology has confirmed that Galileo and Bruno were right, and Aristotle and the church were flat out wrong. The Earth does move. There are no deferents or epicycles, or even epicycles on the epicycles. The models of the universe which are based on a moving Earth are quite accurate and able to predict the behaviors of the planets as evidence by the fact that we send spacecraft to those planets on a regular basis.
The theory of a geocentric universe and the theory of epicycles were not science. It was religious doctrine masked as science.
The church has never really dealt with the reality of the universe very well. They only apologized for their treatment of Galileo recently and still refuse to discuss Bruno. The Bible, presumed to be the perfect word of a perfect God, still teaches that the Earth is flat, rests on pillars (Job 26:11), and does not move (Psalms 19:5-6 93:1 96:10 104:5).
It seems that some mistakes are destined to be repeated again, despite our technological prowess.
In 1929, a Cal-Tech astronomer named Edwin Hubble observed that objects which appeared to be much further away showed a more pronounced shift towards the red end of the spectrum. Scientists building on Hubble's discovery concluded that the farther an object was away from Earth, the faster it was receding, and calculated the relationship between distance and velocity, called the "Hubble Constant" and concluded on the basis of this one observed fact and the assumption that there was no other explanation for that observed fact that the universe was expanding.
Religious circles embraced the idea of an expanding universe because for the universe to be expanding, then at some point in the past it had to originate from a single point, called the "Big Bang". Indeed, the concept of the Big Bang did not originate with Edwin Hubble himself but was proposed by a Catholic Monk, Georges Lema'tre in 1927, two years before Hubble published his observations of the Red Shift. The "Big Bang" coincided nicely with religious doctrine and just as had been the case with epicycles (and despite the embarrassment thereof) religious institutions sought to encourage this new model of the universe over all others, including the then prevalent "steady state" theory.
Then history repeated itself. Evidence surfaced that the "Big Bang" might not really be a workable theory in the form of General Relativity, and its postulation that super massive objects would have gravity fields so strong that even light could not escape, nor would matter be able to differentiate. Since the entire universe existing in just one spot would be the most super massive object of all, the universe could not be born.
Needless to say, this suggestion that the Big Bang could not happen provoked the same exact reaction as the suggestion that the Earth might not be the center of everything. Instead of questioning the basic assumption, great effort was made to find a way to evolve the new data in terms acceptable to the assumption of a universe spawned in a single moment of creation. A complex Cosmology theory sprang up, encouraged by those invested in the "Big Bang" to explain why the basic foundational principles of physics behaved differently in the first few milliseconds of time. The math work is impressive, as impressive as that which supported the theory of the epicycles, but it is really just a polite way of saying "The rules just didn't apply when we need them not to apply".
An attempt was made to prove the Big Bang by searching for the "Cosmic Background Radiation", the presumed energy echo from the primordial explosion. and indeed a radio noise signal was picked up. Like Aristotle, and like Hubble, the discoverers of the Cosmic Background Radiation assumed the signal meant what they thought it did and could have no alternative explanation. The discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation was then heralded as final proof of the Big Bang theory, and those institutions invested in that theory celebrated.
But just as the theory of epicycles did not accurately predict the observed motion of the planets, the Big Bang Theory turned out to be less than accurate about the radiation signal detected in space.
For one thing, there is the "Horizon Problem". At present, the known universe spans 28 billion light years and is assumed to be 14 billion years old. (Obviously unless we actually ARE the center of the universe, it may be assumed that the universe probably extends even further in at least one direction). Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have traveled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.
When the satellite COBE was sent up to analyze the Cosmic Background Radiation, it discovered instead of the smooth featureless glow predicted by the cosmologists a highly complex and detailed structure. Yet again, rather than question the prime assumption that the signal being analyzed was actually from a supposed "Big Bang", research was encouraged to find a way to fit the data into the existing theory, again on the assumption that the signal detected could not be from any other source. And yet, an alternative explanation for the signal was right at hand, indeed literally on all sides.
Our Solar System and planets have heavy elements (without which you would not be here) because at some time prior to the creation of our Solar System another star in the immediate vicinity exploded, creating the heavy elements and scattering them into the universe. Every star that explodes creates a planetary nebula, such as the one easily seen with amateur telescopes in the constellation Lyra. A planetary nebula is a bubble of debris in space, and given the presence of heavy elements in our own Solar System, then somewhere out in space there must be the tenuous remains of a billions of years old planetary nebula, the result of the not-so-very-big bang, viewable from our unique point of view near the center. This model of Earth lying at the center of the remains of a supernova predicts exactly the sort of structure that COBE found in the presumed Cosmic Background Radiation. But as was the case with Galileo and Bruno, challengers to the "approved" creation myths face a tough time, albeit funding cuts have replaced torture and being burned alive at the stake.
So pervasive is this bias to see the universe as created in a Biblical-consistent "Big Bang" that when William G. Tifft submitted his first article on the quantization of the observed Red Shift to Astrophysical Journal, the Journal published it because they could not find errors in it, yet still felt compelled to editorially distance themselves from the conclusions.
The conclusions derived from quantized red shift are devastating to the conventional view of the universe created in a single Big Bang, as devastating as Galileo's first telescope was to the theory that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Georges Lemaître (like Aristotle) assumed there was no other explanation for the red shift he observed than the motion of the observed objects relative to Earth. But given the theory that the universe is expanding uniformly, the amount of red shifts would have to be uniformly and randomly distributed.
But they aren't.
The observed red shifts in the sky are quantized, falling into discreet intervals. This is not explained by the theory that the red shift is produced solely by relative velocity. Some other effect is at work. And that means that the assumption that the universe is expanding based solely on the red shift is invalidated. Some other effect IS at work that explains the observations, quite possibly one that triggers a quantized red shift over vast distances without respect to relative velocity.
Which means the universe is not expanding. Which means there was no moment of creation, no "Big Bang" with an epicycle-esque cosmology to explain why the greatest black hole of all didn't behave like a black hole. Which means that the background radiation mapped by COBE which didn't quite fit the Big Bang model is probably the remnant of the stellar explosion that created the heavy elements making up that computer you are reading this on.
But the lesson for our time of just how much our society remains dominated by religious superstitions is revealed by the fact that the quantized red-shift is NOT a new discovery. The first article regarding the observed data appeared in 1976, a quarter of a century ago. Since then, scientists as much in the service of superstition as were those scientists who "studied" epicycles have repeatedly tried to disprove the observations of Tifft and Cocke, only to confirm and re-confirm the truth, that there is a quantized red-shift, which casts doubt on the theory of an expanding universe and a "Big bang" creation.
Yet even though hard evidence exists to warrant a full re-examination of the basic assumption of the expanding universe, our science classes and TV programs still promote the "Big Bang" view, just as the erroneous theory of Aristotle continued to be promoted even after Galileo proved it wrong, because one theory fits into a theology, and the other does not.
Man's progress is not measured by the reaches of his science but by the limits of his superstition. The truth is known. But the truth is unpopular.
The assumption that there must be a beginning to the universe is merely a human invention. We believe that we see things have beginnings and ends before us, but in truth we are seeing matter change form. A particular configuration may have a beginning and an end, but that the actual matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed is an axiom of physics. Charlotte Grant may be only 16 years old, but the atoms in her heavenly body are indeed heavenly bodies, being the remains of ancient exploded stars, and in THAT form for billions of years.
Ancients believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. But while we grudgingly admit that Earth orbits the sun and that our sun is nowhere near the center of the milky way, the idea that Earth is the center of all remains at the heart of the assumptions of the Big Bang theory. The "Bangers" describe the furthest objects we can detect (currently 13 billion light years) and from that calculate the age of the universe (currently set at 14 billion years).
But that only works if we ASSUME that the Earth is the center for all the cosmos that we can see. It is true that we are seeing objects out to the edge of our technological limits
and we are seeing them in all directions. We do not see an obvious end to the universe. Logically, the odds are far greater than what we can actually see is really just a tiny bubble in a far larger universe, rather than we just happen to be that one in googleplex worlds that wound up at the exact center for the expanding field of debris from the Big Bang (i.e. the location of the original singlularity). And if we abandon the assumption that we see most of the the universe from a fortunate position near the location of the original singlularity, then we cannot really know how large the universe really is, and the mathematics by which we claim to know the age based on the size break down completely. We truly are trying to calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN
Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is the question of the singularity. The "primordial egg" had to be a super-massive black hole. Therefore no amount of "bang", no matter how big, is going to thrust the universe out into, well, the universe.
Cosmologists eager to promote the Big Bang Theory have hit upon the "explanation" that the laws of physics, gravity., etc. simply did not apply in those first few moments of the universe. The present Cosmology theory is that the universe enjoyed a period of "rulelessness" of about 3 seconds, after which the elements formed and the fundamental forces of the universe, gravity included, were functioning as we see them today.
Ah, but there is a problem. The singularity formed by the primordial egg turns out to be rather large.
Estimates of the total mass of the universe vary wildly, given that the ends of the universe have not yet been determined. One estimate is found at http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_11.html of 2.6*1060.
From the mass, you can calculate the diameter of the event horizon by finding the distance from a point mass that will have an escape velocity of c. Use sqrt(2GM/r) where M is the mass of the hole (the entire universe in this case) and r is the radius (classical), and G is the gravitational constant. Work it backward starting at c and you get c^2=2GM/r.
This works out to an event horizon light years across!
In short, at the moment in time when the Big Bang theorists claim the universe was functioning as it does today, complete with all fundamental forces, the entirety of the universe's mass was still well within the event horizon of its own gravity well. That the well was not the product of a true singularity is irrelevant, Newton's equation provides an equivalent gravity field for a singularity or a super dense mass in a localized region.
Therefore the Big Bang, as currently described, could not have produced the universe as we see it today. At three seconds, the time the theorists claim the universe started operating as we know it, it would have come under the influence of its own gravity and unable to reach an escape velocity exceeding that of light, collapsed back into itself.
The "Bangers" get around this paradox with the theory that when the universe was created, it had no mass at all. Therefore, so the theory goes, there was no gravity and no reason the the bang matter (or "batter") not to escape the bang into the universe. Then, after the matter was conveniently far away from the singularity, it interacted with a particle named the Higgs Boson. Like the two tubes that come with epoxy, the Higgs Boson blended with the massless "batter" and produced normal matter with mass. How all the matter in the universe knew just when to mix the tubes together is still open to speculation, but usually the proponents of this theory start whispering about God under their breath at this point.
With the exception of one false alarm out of Fermilab, there has been no evidence that the Higgs Boson exists. The Large Hadron Collider was built specifically to look for the Higgs Boson, nicknamed "The God Particle", thereby revealing the religious agenda that is actually behind what may be history's most expensive church. It must be pointed out that even if the LHC, in the unimaginable fury of the high energy collisions it generates, succeeds in producing a particle that matches the description of the Higgs Boson (absent a piece of "massless matter" to test it with, how will we know?) that does not prove such a particle ever existed before, nor does it prove the Big Bang. The scientist-priests at the LHC will not be able to prove that their new particle is not itself a creation of the LHC rather than a part of nature.
Particle physicists like to joke that studying matter with colliders is like smashing two mechanical clocks together and trying to guess what the clocks looked like based on the springs, gears, and levers that fly out. Let us take that analogy one step further and speculate that given enough speed at the moment of collision, individual teeth from the clock gears will come flying out as seperate distinct pieces. But clearly, prior to that moment of collision, they never did exist as seperate distinct pieces. Their separateness is created by the collision at that very moment. The same may well be true of the ultra-tiny particles generated by the collisions of the LHC, including whatever we may be asked to accept on faith as the "God Particle." They may be artifacts of the collision, and not of natural processes.
ANOTHER PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN
For the purposes of this thought experiment, let us assume that God waved a magic wand and the universe popped into existence from a Big Bang, and that "somehow" the universe escaped from it's own gravity well. With the entire 2.6*1060 mass/energy of the universe confined to that small region, the temperatures and pressures amount to a super-supernova. We already know that in the cataclysm of a supernova, the heavier elements are created. That is where all the heavy elements in your body were created; inside an exploding star. Therefore, in that moment of super-creation called the Big Bang, as the universe started to operate by the rules we know today, the expanding universe should be creating all the known heavy elements.
So, how to explain the Population II stars?
Population II stars are stars with no heavy elements in them. When they explode at the end of their life cycles, heavy elements are created. These are swept up by stars that form afterwards creating Population I stars, usually with planets around them. Population I stars have heavy elements. Population II stars do not.
If the Big Bang had happened, the universe would be filled with heavy elements created in those first few moments the universe started to operate under the rules of physics we know today. There should not be any stars in existence devoid of those heavy elements. And yet there are.
The existence of Population II stars, devoid of heavy elements, directly contradicts the theory of the Big Bang.
YET ANOTHER PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN
The Big Bang is currently imagined to have occurred 14 billion years ago.
The farthest object seen in the sky by the Hubble and Keck Telescopes is 13 billion light-years distant, and is assumed to have been created when the universe was just 750 million years old. It would take at least that long (if not longer) for the material from the theorized Big Bang to coalesce into stars and for those stars to form a rotating galaxy.
But here is the problem. We are seeing that object 13 billion light-years distant not as it is today and where it is today but as it was and where it was, 13 billion years ago, 13 billion light-years distant from earth.
In other words, for this galaxy to lie 13 billion light-years away from Earth only 750 million years after the Big Bang, it would have had to travel 13 billion light years in just 750 million years' time. That requires the galaxy in question to travel more than 17 times faster than the speed of light, a speed limit which according to the Big Bang supporters was in effect from the moment the universe was 3 seconds old.
AN INTRIGUING QUESTION
We see in the night sky that all galaxies rotate. Stars rotate. Planets rotate. Bodies orbit around other bodies. A dimensionless singularity posited by the Big Bang cannot have rotation. So where did all this angular momentum come from if the universe emerged from the Big Bang singularity? For that matter, how do we get a variation in velocity or density emerging from a singularity
UPDATES: In 2011, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN was finally switched on in the experiment it was built to carry out; to prove the existance of the Higgs Boson, the hypothetical particle necessary to reconcile the Big Bang with Special Relativity. CERN concluded that the Higgs particle does not in fact exist. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics went to three American scientists who demonstrated that the rate of expansion in the expanding universe is accelerating. Even taken at face value, this means some other force is at work other than the initial impetus of the supposed moment of creation. Something else is being seen and possibly misinterpreted! It is time to question the prime assumption that the observed red shift in the sky is attributable only to relative velocity.
I will grant that given enough money and electrical power, something may eventually pop out of the LHC that looks close enough to the theoretical Higgs Boson to make Pope Benny the Rat dance the happy dance, but that will not actually prove that the particle ever existed before that moment. And here is why. Particle physicists like to explain the basic principle of how a collider works as slamming two mechanical clocks together and then deducing the structure of the clock from the gears and springs that fly out. Yet common sense suggests that if the clocks are slammed together hard enough (and we are talking near light speed at the LHC) that individual teeth may be broken off from the gears and appear as distinct parts emerging from the collision, yet we know they were not separate and distinct parts within the original clock. In other words, those tiny bits of quanta flying out of the LHC might not be part of the natural world at all, but creations of the scientists themselves and irrelevant to the discussion of whether the universe had a divine beginning or not.
do the findings of Tifft and Cocke undermine the redshift-distance relationship? The answer might be YES
Report on confirmations of the observations. Note the reluctance to follow the data through to a conclusion.
Discovery By UCSD Astronomers Poses A Cosmic Puzzle: Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?
Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat!
Hail Lord Enki
Hail Enlil
Hail Astaroth
Hail Azazel
Hail Marchosias
Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes!
Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was this guy named Aristotle. Pretty sharp fellow; he thought up a lot of good things. But, occasionally he made a mistake.
One mistake he made was to toss an orange up in the air and watch it come straight back down to his hand. Aristotle reasoned that if he was moving, the orange would have flown off to one side as soon as it left his hand. Because the orange did not do so, Aristotle concluded he was not moving. On the basis of this one observed fact, and the assumption that there was no other explanation for what he observed, Aristotle concluded that the Earth does not move and that therefore the rest of the universe had to move around it.
Aristotle was a very sharp guy, but the fact is that there was another explanation for why the orange fell back into his hand, and it would wait about another 2000 years before another smart man, Sir Isaac Newton, explained just what it was Aristotle had overlooked, set forth in Newton's laws of motion.
But for the early church, Aristotle's conclusions fit in rather well with their theology, which had the Earth created as the center of the universe, unmoving, with the rest of the cosmos spinning about it.
Of course, there was empirical evidence available to all that cast doubt on the church-approved version of the Cosmos. One could see during eclipses that the Earth was not flat. The curved shape of the Earth's shadow as it crossed the moon was the same no matter which place in the sky the eclipse took place. A spherical Earth was the only shape that could produce such a result. Ships sailing over the horizon clearly vanished over a subtle curve ( an observation which eventually inspired Columbus' voyages). Nobody could explain the behavior of a Foucault's Pendulum other than by the Earth spinning beneath it.
But by far the most troubling problem for the geocentric (earth centered) universe was the strange behavior of the planets. In an age before TV, or even books, the night sky was something every person was quite familiar with, even those who were not sailors or fortune tellers. Watching the night sky over time, the paths of the planets were easily seen to occasionally pause, move in reverse for a time, then proceed forward. This behavior was called retrograde motion. Ah, but this was a problem. The church did not have an explanation for this behavior. Indeed in the King James Version of the Bible, the word "planet" appears only once, and then only as an object to be sacrificed to.
There is a very simple explanation for retrograde motion. As the Earth, moving in its inner orbit, overtakes an outer planet, it will appear to hesitate, reverse its path across the sky, then resume its normal path. But the idea that the Earth moved was contrary to Church Dogma and to Aristotle. What education was tolerated by the church was "encouraged" to find some way to explain retrograde motion in a way that did not conflict with the religious needs for a universe centered on an unmoving Earth. Rather than re-examine Aristotle's basic claim, the learned men of the day grabbed onto a suggestion made by Claudius Ptolemy called "epicycles". This theory explained retrograde motion around a motionless Earth by suggesting that the planets moved in large orbits called deferents, upon which were superimposed smaller orbits called epicycles which produced a "wobble" as seen from Earth.
Epicycles were extremely popular with the church, and scholars at universities with religious affiliations were "encouraged" to refine this theory. And it needed refinement, badly, because the epicycle theory did not accurately predict what was being seen in the sky. Generations of effort was expended trying to figure out why the models did not predict the actual motions of the planets. At one point, it was even suggested that the epicycles had epicycles. No matter how many times the observed results did not match the predictions, the approved course of action was to refine the theory, but never to question the basic assumption. Those who dared point to the evidence suggesting that Aristotle (and by extension the church) were in error in postulating a geocentric universe were "discouraged". Galileo was tortured into recanting his conclusions that the Earth moved. Giordano Bruno was burned alive at the stake for suggesting that the sun was really just another star, only close up, and that the other stars had their own planets.
In recent times, our expanding technology has confirmed that Galileo and Bruno were right, and Aristotle and the church were flat out wrong. The Earth does move. There are no deferents or epicycles, or even epicycles on the epicycles. The models of the universe which are based on a moving Earth are quite accurate and able to predict the behaviors of the planets as evidence by the fact that we send spacecraft to those planets on a regular basis.
The theory of a geocentric universe and the theory of epicycles were not science. It was religious doctrine masked as science.
The church has never really dealt with the reality of the universe very well. They only apologized for their treatment of Galileo recently and still refuse to discuss Bruno. The Bible, presumed to be the perfect word of a perfect God, still teaches that the Earth is flat, rests on pillars (Job 26:11), and does not move (Psalms 19:5-6 93:1 96:10 104:5).
It seems that some mistakes are destined to be repeated again, despite our technological prowess.
In 1929, a Cal-Tech astronomer named Edwin Hubble observed that objects which appeared to be much further away showed a more pronounced shift towards the red end of the spectrum. Scientists building on Hubble's discovery concluded that the farther an object was away from Earth, the faster it was receding, and calculated the relationship between distance and velocity, called the "Hubble Constant" and concluded on the basis of this one observed fact and the assumption that there was no other explanation for that observed fact that the universe was expanding.
Religious circles embraced the idea of an expanding universe because for the universe to be expanding, then at some point in the past it had to originate from a single point, called the "Big Bang". Indeed, the concept of the Big Bang did not originate with Edwin Hubble himself but was proposed by a Catholic Monk, Georges Lema'tre in 1927, two years before Hubble published his observations of the Red Shift. The "Big Bang" coincided nicely with religious doctrine and just as had been the case with epicycles (and despite the embarrassment thereof) religious institutions sought to encourage this new model of the universe over all others, including the then prevalent "steady state" theory.
Then history repeated itself. Evidence surfaced that the "Big Bang" might not really be a workable theory in the form of General Relativity, and its postulation that super massive objects would have gravity fields so strong that even light could not escape, nor would matter be able to differentiate. Since the entire universe existing in just one spot would be the most super massive object of all, the universe could not be born.
Needless to say, this suggestion that the Big Bang could not happen provoked the same exact reaction as the suggestion that the Earth might not be the center of everything. Instead of questioning the basic assumption, great effort was made to find a way to evolve the new data in terms acceptable to the assumption of a universe spawned in a single moment of creation. A complex Cosmology theory sprang up, encouraged by those invested in the "Big Bang" to explain why the basic foundational principles of physics behaved differently in the first few milliseconds of time. The math work is impressive, as impressive as that which supported the theory of the epicycles, but it is really just a polite way of saying "The rules just didn't apply when we need them not to apply".
An attempt was made to prove the Big Bang by searching for the "Cosmic Background Radiation", the presumed energy echo from the primordial explosion. and indeed a radio noise signal was picked up. Like Aristotle, and like Hubble, the discoverers of the Cosmic Background Radiation assumed the signal meant what they thought it did and could have no alternative explanation. The discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation was then heralded as final proof of the Big Bang theory, and those institutions invested in that theory celebrated.
But just as the theory of epicycles did not accurately predict the observed motion of the planets, the Big Bang Theory turned out to be less than accurate about the radiation signal detected in space.
For one thing, there is the "Horizon Problem". At present, the known universe spans 28 billion light years and is assumed to be 14 billion years old. (Obviously unless we actually ARE the center of the universe, it may be assumed that the universe probably extends even further in at least one direction). Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have traveled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.
When the satellite COBE was sent up to analyze the Cosmic Background Radiation, it discovered instead of the smooth featureless glow predicted by the cosmologists a highly complex and detailed structure. Yet again, rather than question the prime assumption that the signal being analyzed was actually from a supposed "Big Bang", research was encouraged to find a way to fit the data into the existing theory, again on the assumption that the signal detected could not be from any other source. And yet, an alternative explanation for the signal was right at hand, indeed literally on all sides.
Our Solar System and planets have heavy elements (without which you would not be here) because at some time prior to the creation of our Solar System another star in the immediate vicinity exploded, creating the heavy elements and scattering them into the universe. Every star that explodes creates a planetary nebula, such as the one easily seen with amateur telescopes in the constellation Lyra. A planetary nebula is a bubble of debris in space, and given the presence of heavy elements in our own Solar System, then somewhere out in space there must be the tenuous remains of a billions of years old planetary nebula, the result of the not-so-very-big bang, viewable from our unique point of view near the center. This model of Earth lying at the center of the remains of a supernova predicts exactly the sort of structure that COBE found in the presumed Cosmic Background Radiation. But as was the case with Galileo and Bruno, challengers to the "approved" creation myths face a tough time, albeit funding cuts have replaced torture and being burned alive at the stake.
So pervasive is this bias to see the universe as created in a Biblical-consistent "Big Bang" that when William G. Tifft submitted his first article on the quantization of the observed Red Shift to Astrophysical Journal, the Journal published it because they could not find errors in it, yet still felt compelled to editorially distance themselves from the conclusions.
The conclusions derived from quantized red shift are devastating to the conventional view of the universe created in a single Big Bang, as devastating as Galileo's first telescope was to the theory that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Georges Lemaître (like Aristotle) assumed there was no other explanation for the red shift he observed than the motion of the observed objects relative to Earth. But given the theory that the universe is expanding uniformly, the amount of red shifts would have to be uniformly and randomly distributed.
But they aren't.
The observed red shifts in the sky are quantized, falling into discreet intervals. This is not explained by the theory that the red shift is produced solely by relative velocity. Some other effect is at work. And that means that the assumption that the universe is expanding based solely on the red shift is invalidated. Some other effect IS at work that explains the observations, quite possibly one that triggers a quantized red shift over vast distances without respect to relative velocity.
Which means the universe is not expanding. Which means there was no moment of creation, no "Big Bang" with an epicycle-esque cosmology to explain why the greatest black hole of all didn't behave like a black hole. Which means that the background radiation mapped by COBE which didn't quite fit the Big Bang model is probably the remnant of the stellar explosion that created the heavy elements making up that computer you are reading this on.
But the lesson for our time of just how much our society remains dominated by religious superstitions is revealed by the fact that the quantized red-shift is NOT a new discovery. The first article regarding the observed data appeared in 1976, a quarter of a century ago. Since then, scientists as much in the service of superstition as were those scientists who "studied" epicycles have repeatedly tried to disprove the observations of Tifft and Cocke, only to confirm and re-confirm the truth, that there is a quantized red-shift, which casts doubt on the theory of an expanding universe and a "Big bang" creation.
Yet even though hard evidence exists to warrant a full re-examination of the basic assumption of the expanding universe, our science classes and TV programs still promote the "Big Bang" view, just as the erroneous theory of Aristotle continued to be promoted even after Galileo proved it wrong, because one theory fits into a theology, and the other does not.
Man's progress is not measured by the reaches of his science but by the limits of his superstition. The truth is known. But the truth is unpopular.
The assumption that there must be a beginning to the universe is merely a human invention. We believe that we see things have beginnings and ends before us, but in truth we are seeing matter change form. A particular configuration may have a beginning and an end, but that the actual matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed is an axiom of physics. Charlotte Grant may be only 16 years old, but the atoms in her heavenly body are indeed heavenly bodies, being the remains of ancient exploded stars, and in THAT form for billions of years.
Ancients believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. But while we grudgingly admit that Earth orbits the sun and that our sun is nowhere near the center of the milky way, the idea that Earth is the center of all remains at the heart of the assumptions of the Big Bang theory. The "Bangers" describe the furthest objects we can detect (currently 13 billion light years) and from that calculate the age of the universe (currently set at 14 billion years).
But that only works if we ASSUME that the Earth is the center for all the cosmos that we can see. It is true that we are seeing objects out to the edge of our technological limits
and we are seeing them in all directions. We do not see an obvious end to the universe. Logically, the odds are far greater than what we can actually see is really just a tiny bubble in a far larger universe, rather than we just happen to be that one in googleplex worlds that wound up at the exact center for the expanding field of debris from the Big Bang (i.e. the location of the original singlularity). And if we abandon the assumption that we see most of the the universe from a fortunate position near the location of the original singlularity, then we cannot really know how large the universe really is, and the mathematics by which we claim to know the age based on the size break down completely. We truly are trying to calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN
Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is the question of the singularity. The "primordial egg" had to be a super-massive black hole. Therefore no amount of "bang", no matter how big, is going to thrust the universe out into, well, the universe.
Cosmologists eager to promote the Big Bang Theory have hit upon the "explanation" that the laws of physics, gravity., etc. simply did not apply in those first few moments of the universe. The present Cosmology theory is that the universe enjoyed a period of "rulelessness" of about 3 seconds, after which the elements formed and the fundamental forces of the universe, gravity included, were functioning as we see them today.
Ah, but there is a problem. The singularity formed by the primordial egg turns out to be rather large.
Estimates of the total mass of the universe vary wildly, given that the ends of the universe have not yet been determined. One estimate is found at http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_11.html of 2.6*1060.
From the mass, you can calculate the diameter of the event horizon by finding the distance from a point mass that will have an escape velocity of c. Use sqrt(2GM/r) where M is the mass of the hole (the entire universe in this case) and r is the radius (classical), and G is the gravitational constant. Work it backward starting at c and you get c^2=2GM/r.
This works out to an event horizon light years across!
In short, at the moment in time when the Big Bang theorists claim the universe was functioning as it does today, complete with all fundamental forces, the entirety of the universe's mass was still well within the event horizon of its own gravity well. That the well was not the product of a true singularity is irrelevant, Newton's equation provides an equivalent gravity field for a singularity or a super dense mass in a localized region.
Therefore the Big Bang, as currently described, could not have produced the universe as we see it today. At three seconds, the time the theorists claim the universe started operating as we know it, it would have come under the influence of its own gravity and unable to reach an escape velocity exceeding that of light, collapsed back into itself.
The "Bangers" get around this paradox with the theory that when the universe was created, it had no mass at all. Therefore, so the theory goes, there was no gravity and no reason the the bang matter (or "batter") not to escape the bang into the universe. Then, after the matter was conveniently far away from the singularity, it interacted with a particle named the Higgs Boson. Like the two tubes that come with epoxy, the Higgs Boson blended with the massless "batter" and produced normal matter with mass. How all the matter in the universe knew just when to mix the tubes together is still open to speculation, but usually the proponents of this theory start whispering about God under their breath at this point.
With the exception of one false alarm out of Fermilab, there has been no evidence that the Higgs Boson exists. The Large Hadron Collider was built specifically to look for the Higgs Boson, nicknamed "The God Particle", thereby revealing the religious agenda that is actually behind what may be history's most expensive church. It must be pointed out that even if the LHC, in the unimaginable fury of the high energy collisions it generates, succeeds in producing a particle that matches the description of the Higgs Boson (absent a piece of "massless matter" to test it with, how will we know?) that does not prove such a particle ever existed before, nor does it prove the Big Bang. The scientist-priests at the LHC will not be able to prove that their new particle is not itself a creation of the LHC rather than a part of nature.
Particle physicists like to joke that studying matter with colliders is like smashing two mechanical clocks together and trying to guess what the clocks looked like based on the springs, gears, and levers that fly out. Let us take that analogy one step further and speculate that given enough speed at the moment of collision, individual teeth from the clock gears will come flying out as seperate distinct pieces. But clearly, prior to that moment of collision, they never did exist as seperate distinct pieces. Their separateness is created by the collision at that very moment. The same may well be true of the ultra-tiny particles generated by the collisions of the LHC, including whatever we may be asked to accept on faith as the "God Particle." They may be artifacts of the collision, and not of natural processes.
ANOTHER PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN
For the purposes of this thought experiment, let us assume that God waved a magic wand and the universe popped into existence from a Big Bang, and that "somehow" the universe escaped from it's own gravity well. With the entire 2.6*1060 mass/energy of the universe confined to that small region, the temperatures and pressures amount to a super-supernova. We already know that in the cataclysm of a supernova, the heavier elements are created. That is where all the heavy elements in your body were created; inside an exploding star. Therefore, in that moment of super-creation called the Big Bang, as the universe started to operate by the rules we know today, the expanding universe should be creating all the known heavy elements.
So, how to explain the Population II stars?
Population II stars are stars with no heavy elements in them. When they explode at the end of their life cycles, heavy elements are created. These are swept up by stars that form afterwards creating Population I stars, usually with planets around them. Population I stars have heavy elements. Population II stars do not.
If the Big Bang had happened, the universe would be filled with heavy elements created in those first few moments the universe started to operate under the rules of physics we know today. There should not be any stars in existence devoid of those heavy elements. And yet there are.
The existence of Population II stars, devoid of heavy elements, directly contradicts the theory of the Big Bang.
YET ANOTHER PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN
The Big Bang is currently imagined to have occurred 14 billion years ago.
The farthest object seen in the sky by the Hubble and Keck Telescopes is 13 billion light-years distant, and is assumed to have been created when the universe was just 750 million years old. It would take at least that long (if not longer) for the material from the theorized Big Bang to coalesce into stars and for those stars to form a rotating galaxy.
But here is the problem. We are seeing that object 13 billion light-years distant not as it is today and where it is today but as it was and where it was, 13 billion years ago, 13 billion light-years distant from earth.
In other words, for this galaxy to lie 13 billion light-years away from Earth only 750 million years after the Big Bang, it would have had to travel 13 billion light years in just 750 million years' time. That requires the galaxy in question to travel more than 17 times faster than the speed of light, a speed limit which according to the Big Bang supporters was in effect from the moment the universe was 3 seconds old.
AN INTRIGUING QUESTION
We see in the night sky that all galaxies rotate. Stars rotate. Planets rotate. Bodies orbit around other bodies. A dimensionless singularity posited by the Big Bang cannot have rotation. So where did all this angular momentum come from if the universe emerged from the Big Bang singularity? For that matter, how do we get a variation in velocity or density emerging from a singularity
UPDATES: In 2011, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN was finally switched on in the experiment it was built to carry out; to prove the existance of the Higgs Boson, the hypothetical particle necessary to reconcile the Big Bang with Special Relativity. CERN concluded that the Higgs particle does not in fact exist. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics went to three American scientists who demonstrated that the rate of expansion in the expanding universe is accelerating. Even taken at face value, this means some other force is at work other than the initial impetus of the supposed moment of creation. Something else is being seen and possibly misinterpreted! It is time to question the prime assumption that the observed red shift in the sky is attributable only to relative velocity.
I will grant that given enough money and electrical power, something may eventually pop out of the LHC that looks close enough to the theoretical Higgs Boson to make Pope Benny the Rat dance the happy dance, but that will not actually prove that the particle ever existed before that moment. And here is why. Particle physicists like to explain the basic principle of how a collider works as slamming two mechanical clocks together and then deducing the structure of the clock from the gears and springs that fly out. Yet common sense suggests that if the clocks are slammed together hard enough (and we are talking near light speed at the LHC) that individual teeth may be broken off from the gears and appear as distinct parts emerging from the collision, yet we know they were not separate and distinct parts within the original clock. In other words, those tiny bits of quanta flying out of the LHC might not be part of the natural world at all, but creations of the scientists themselves and irrelevant to the discussion of whether the universe had a divine beginning or not.
do the findings of Tifft and Cocke undermine the redshift-distance relationship? The answer might be YES
Report on confirmations of the observations. Note the reluctance to follow the data through to a conclusion.
Discovery By UCSD Astronomers Poses A Cosmic Puzzle: Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?
Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat!
Hail Lord Enki
Hail Enlil
Hail Astaroth
Hail Azazel
Hail Marchosias
Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes!
Yeah it seems to be bullshit, like most bogus theories put out by the jooz sqauting over all major fields. When they can't figure something out they just chalk up to the big bang. Like a xian up to their gawd. Science is not some open minded field in the west. Its actually closed minded, theological and fundimentally hostile to thinking outside its weak dogmas.
From: Samuel Martin <firstblood@...
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:05:01 PM
Subject: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
Though I'm more than happy for someone with higher knowledge to show me different. Now, the theory in how the big bang came about was described by a particle physicist(I'll search my history and find out who if you'd like) as not of nothing exploding into something, but rather a universe being torn in half! Or that of two universes colliding!
This, to me, is an amazing idea and I had long since given up trying to wrap my head around it before I came to the Truth and found Satanism. However, seeing the message placed brought up my old interest in this, though it was during my atheist years that I studied this so my interest was that of opposing filthy xians rather than that of seeking truth!
In case you guy don't want to read the long message: The Big Bang basically says there was this super powerful god who willed the universe into existence. So to believe in the big bang you must believe in a "supreme higher power"
Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat!
Hail Lord Enki
Hail Enlil
Hail Astaroth
Hail Azazel
Hail Marchosias
Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes!
From: Samuel Martin <firstblood@...
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:05:01 PM
Subject: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
Though I'm more than happy for someone with higher knowledge to show me different. Now, the theory in how the big bang came about was described by a particle physicist(I'll search my history and find out who if you'd like) as not of nothing exploding into something, but rather a universe being torn in half! Or that of two universes colliding!
This, to me, is an amazing idea and I had long since given up trying to wrap my head around it before I came to the Truth and found Satanism. However, seeing the message placed brought up my old interest in this, though it was during my atheist years that I studied this so my interest was that of opposing filthy xians rather than that of seeking truth!
In case you guy don't want to read the long message: The Big Bang basically says there was this super powerful god who willed the universe into existence. So to believe in the big bang you must believe in a "supreme higher power"
Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat!
Hail Lord Enki
Hail Enlil
Hail Astaroth
Hail Azazel
Hail Marchosias
Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes!
Quick SILVER
New member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 0
In my opinion, I believe the big bang as people call it to be the working of true genius minds and that in reality, the "big bang" is simply a much larger version of particle accelerator or a Way more Advance version of a LHC (Large Hadron Collider).. Seriously though one or someone can not create something out of nothing, there always goin to be some sort of atom particle left. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Those are just my thoughts. HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 12:12 PM, "Don Danko" <mageson6666@... wrote:
Yeah it seems to be bullshit, like most bogus theories put out by the jooz sqauting over all major fields. When they can't figure something out they just chalk up to the big bang. Like a xian up to their gawd. Science is not some open minded field in the west. Its actually closed minded, theological and fundimentally hostile to thinking outside its weak dogmas.
From: Samuel Martin <firstblood@...
To: "[url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]" <[url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:05:01 PM
Subject: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
Though I'm more than happy for someone with higher knowledge to show me different. Now, the theory in how the big bang came about was described by a particle physicist(I'll search my history and find out who if you'd like) as not of nothing exploding into something, but rather a universe being torn in half! Or that of two universes colliding!
This, to me, is an amazing idea and I had long since given up trying to wrap my head around it before I came to the Truth and found Satanism. However, seeing the message placed brought up my old interest in this, though it was during my atheist years that I studied this so my interest was that of opposing filthy xians rather than that of seeking truth!
In case you guy don't want to read the long message: The Big Bang basically says there was this super powerful god who willed the universe into existence. So to believe in the big bang you must believe in a "supreme higher power"
Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat!
Hail Lord Enki
Hail Enlil
Hail Astaroth
Hail Azazel
Hail Marchosias
Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes!
hoodedcobra666
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2006
- Messages
- 674
The theory behind the big bang is just bunk, IMO. Gievn it says that particles that exist in a physical universe, collided and created the one we are living in now. When, how and why these collided in a non physical universe that existed before this one, is just pointing to the xian stereotypeof gawd, since there is no logic in it.
If we said that the particles colliding were physcial particles, then the physical universe existed before. Therefore it was not created. It existed. Anyways, this seem to follow, like all western science the 'born, will live, will die' scheme. With Humans we see Immortality and this by definition shows that other things in the umiverse can too be immortal. That the creation, existence destructuon circle may have some exceptions.
I think western science is just too jewdized and they on purpose destroyed people like Tesla, who preached not about an end but about an abudant universe. The enemy philosophies, always point out to this same repeated Saturnian pattern, Satanism is me of a higher understanding of immortality, abudance etc. Something western science is not. Also its to be kept in mind that scientist just live on the physical realm and are not aware of other relities, they are always seeing only one side of the coin, many times disregarding a Soul. They can be very knowledgeable and intelligent, but their explanations would never be enough. A Satanist Scientist would be really, something else.
HAIL SATAN!!!!!
If we said that the particles colliding were physcial particles, then the physical universe existed before. Therefore it was not created. It existed. Anyways, this seem to follow, like all western science the 'born, will live, will die' scheme. With Humans we see Immortality and this by definition shows that other things in the umiverse can too be immortal. That the creation, existence destructuon circle may have some exceptions.
I think western science is just too jewdized and they on purpose destroyed people like Tesla, who preached not about an end but about an abudant universe. The enemy philosophies, always point out to this same repeated Saturnian pattern, Satanism is me of a higher understanding of immortality, abudance etc. Something western science is not. Also its to be kept in mind that scientist just live on the physical realm and are not aware of other relities, they are always seeing only one side of the coin, many times disregarding a Soul. They can be very knowledgeable and intelligent, but their explanations would never be enough. A Satanist Scientist would be really, something else.
HAIL SATAN!!!!!
--- In [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url], Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@... wrote:
In my opinion, I believe the big bang as people call it to be the working
of true genius minds and that in reality, the "big bang" is simply a much
larger version of particle accelerator or a Way more Advance version of a
LHC (Large Hadron Collider).. Seriously though one or someone can not
create something out of nothing, there always goin to be some sort of atom
particle left. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Those are just my thoughts.
HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 12:12 PM, "Don Danko" <mageson6666@... wrote:
**
Yeah it seems to be bullshit, like most bogus theories put out by the jooz
sqauting over all major fields. When they can't figure something out they
just chalk up to the big bang. Like a xian up to their gawd. Science is not
some open minded field in the west. Its actually closed minded, theological
and fundimentally hostile to thinking outside its weak dogmas.
*From:* Samuel Martin <firstblood@...
*To:* "[url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]" <[url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:05:01 PM
*Subject:* [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
**
Though I'm more than happy for someone with higher knowledge to show me
different. Now, the theory in how the big bang came about was described by
a particle physicist(I'll search my history and find out who if you'd like)
as not of nothing exploding into something, but rather a universe being
torn in half! Or that of two universes colliding!
This, to me, is an amazing idea and I had long since given up trying to
wrap my head around it before I came to the Truth and found Satanism.
However, seeing the message placed brought up my old interest in this,
though it was during my atheist years that I studied this so my interest
was that of opposing filthy xians rather than that of seeking truth!
In case you guy don't want to read the long message: The Big Bang
basically says there was this super powerful god who willed the universe
into existence. So to believe in the big bang you must believe in a
"supreme higher power"
Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat!
Hail Lord Enki
Hail Enlil
Hail Astaroth
Hail Azazel
Hail Marchosias
Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes!
****
Maybe the problem is in perception. Maybe there actually is something where believed to be nothing. Maybe nothing in this sense simply does not exist.
From: Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:37:25 PM
Subject: Re: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
In my opinion, I believe the big bang as people call it to be the working of true genius minds and that in reality, the "big bang" is simply a much larger version of particle accelerator or a Way more Advance version of a LHC (Large Hadron Collider).. Seriously though one or someone can not create something out of nothing, there always goin to be some sort of atom particle left. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Those are just my thoughts. HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
From: Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:37:25 PM
Subject: Re: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
In my opinion, I believe the big bang as people call it to be the working of true genius minds and that in reality, the "big bang" is simply a much larger version of particle accelerator or a Way more Advance version of a LHC (Large Hadron Collider).. Seriously though one or someone can not create something out of nothing, there always goin to be some sort of atom particle left. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Those are just my thoughts. HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 12:12 PM, "Don Danko" <mageson6666@... wrote:Yeah it seems to be bullshit, like most bogus theories put out by the jooz sqauting over all major fields. When they can't figure something out they just chalk up to the big bang. Like a xian up to their gawd. Science is not some open minded field in the west. Its actually closed minded, theological and fundimentally hostile to thinking outside its weak dogmas.
From: Samuel Martin <firstblood@...
To: "[url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]" <[url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:05:01 PM
Subject: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
Though I'm more than happy for someone with higher knowledge to show me different. Now, the theory in how the big bang came about was described by a particle physicist(I'll search my history and find out who if you'd like) as not of nothing exploding into something, but rather a universe being torn in half! Or that of two universes colliding! This, to me, is an amazing idea and I had long since given up trying to wrap my head around it before I came to the Truth and found Satanism. However, seeing the message placed brought up my old interest in this, though it was during my atheist years that I studied this so my interest was that of opposing filthy xians rather than that of seeking truth! In case you guy don't want to read the long message: The Big Bang basically says there was this super powerful god who willed the universe into existence. So to believe in the big bang you must believe in a "supreme higher power" Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat! Hail Lord Enki Hail Enlil Hail Astaroth Hail Azazel Hail Marchosias Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes!
Its been found the old model of the atom is out the window. The like pool balls buzzing around each other. Its actually a round pulse wave like a bulls eye target. As the outdated materialistic model is replaced more by the quantum model. Things are really getting found out. This is the Dawkin's types cling to the Newtonian model, because their entire belief materialistic liberal world view is built within it. Dawkin's is like an artifact from 1799. Its this model that holds up Jew Communism on every level. You can see in Hitchens how materialistic, Liberal humanism. Is infact just plain fucking Communism. As Bitchens was an open Marxist his entire life and his general rants are the mainstream world view of our society. And one can see the snide, hypocrisy of the left in him. Darwinism is another piece of shit. From: hoodedcobra666 <hoodedcobra666@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:48:42 PM
Subject: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
The theory behind the big bang is just bunk, IMO. Gievn it says that particles that exist in a physical universe, collided and created the one we are living in now. When, how and why these collided in a non physical universe that existed before this one, is just pointing to the xian stereotypeof gawd, since there is no logic in it.
If we said that the particles colliding were physcial particles, then the physical universe existed before. Therefore it was not created. It existed. Anyways, this seem to follow, like all western science the 'born, will live, will die' scheme. With Humans we see Immortality and this by definition shows that other things in the umiverse can too be immortal. That the creation, existence destructuon circle may have some exceptions.
I think western science is just too jewdized and they on purpose destroyed people like Tesla, who preached not about an end but about an abudant universe. The enemy philosophies, always point out to this same repeated Saturnian pattern, Satanism is me of a higher understanding of immortality, abudance etc. Something western science is not. Also its to be kept in mind that scientist just live on the physical realm and are not aware of other relities, they are always seeing only one side of the coin, many times disregarding a Soul. They can be very knowledgeable and intelligent, but their explanations would never be enough. A Satanist Scientist would be really, something else.
HAIL SATAN!!!!!
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:48:42 PM
Subject: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
The theory behind the big bang is just bunk, IMO. Gievn it says that particles that exist in a physical universe, collided and created the one we are living in now. When, how and why these collided in a non physical universe that existed before this one, is just pointing to the xian stereotypeof gawd, since there is no logic in it.
If we said that the particles colliding were physcial particles, then the physical universe existed before. Therefore it was not created. It existed. Anyways, this seem to follow, like all western science the 'born, will live, will die' scheme. With Humans we see Immortality and this by definition shows that other things in the umiverse can too be immortal. That the creation, existence destructuon circle may have some exceptions.
I think western science is just too jewdized and they on purpose destroyed people like Tesla, who preached not about an end but about an abudant universe. The enemy philosophies, always point out to this same repeated Saturnian pattern, Satanism is me of a higher understanding of immortality, abudance etc. Something western science is not. Also its to be kept in mind that scientist just live on the physical realm and are not aware of other relities, they are always seeing only one side of the coin, many times disregarding a Soul. They can be very knowledgeable and intelligent, but their explanations would never be enough. A Satanist Scientist would be really, something else.
HAIL SATAN!!!!!
--- In mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com, Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@... wrote:
In my opinion, I believe the big bang as people call it to be the working
of true genius minds and that in reality, the "big bang" is simply a much
larger version of particle accelerator or a Way more Advance version of a
LHC (Large Hadron Collider).. Seriously though one or someone can not
create something out of nothing, there always goin to be some sort of atom
particle left. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Those are just my thoughts.
HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 12:12 PM, "Don Danko" <mageson6666@... wrote:
**
Yeah it seems to be bullshit, like most bogus theories put out by the jooz
sqauting over all major fields. When they can't figure something out they
just chalk up to the big bang. Like a xian up to their gawd. Science is not
some open minded field in the west. Its actually closed minded, theological
and fundimentally hostile to thinking outside its weak dogmas.
*From:* Samuel Martin <firstblood@...
*To:* "mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:05:01 PM
*Subject:* [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
**
Though I'm more than happy for someone with higher knowledge to show me
different. Now, the theory in how the big bang came about was described by
a particle physicist(I'll search my history and find out who if you'd like)
as not of nothing exploding into something, but rather a universe being
torn in half! Or that of two universes colliding!
This, to me, is an amazing idea and I had long since given up trying to
wrap my head around it before I came to the Truth and found Satanism.
However, seeing the message placed brought up my old interest in this,
though it was during my atheist years that I studied this so my interest
was that of opposing filthy xians rather than that of seeking truth!
In case you guy don't want to read the long message: The Big Bang
basically says there was this super powerful god who willed the universe
into existence. So to believe in the big bang you must believe in a
"supreme higher power"
Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat!
Hail Lord Enki
Hail Enlil
Hail Astaroth
Hail Azazel
Hail Marchosias
Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes!
****
Quick SILVER
New member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 0
Ok I agree with you Don, but there's nothing wrong with having material items that one has worked hard to get or purchase, cause none the less we still live and have to "thrive" on the material "realm" until we become Godlike and push our physical vibrations to the next realm and even then there's be material item (example in on of the jos links there's this art work called "paradise lost" and Father Satan had an entire palace") I would define that to be a material item.. HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 4:10 PM, "Don Danko" <mageson6666@... wrote:
Its been found the old model of the atom is out the window. The like pool balls buzzing around each other. Its actually a round pulse wave like a bulls eye target. As the outdated materialistic model is replaced more by the quantum model. Things are really getting found out. This is the Dawkin's types cling to the Newtonian model, because their entire belief materialistic liberal world view is built within it. Dawkin's is like an artifact from 1799. Its this model that holds up Jew Communism on every level. You can see in Hitchens how materialistic, Liberal humanism. Is infact just plain fucking Communism. As Bitchens was an open Marxist his entire life and his general rants are the mainstream world view of our society. And one can see the snide, hypocrisy of the left in him. Darwinism is another piece of shit. From: hoodedcobra666 <hoodedcobra666@...
To: [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:48:42 PM
Subject: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
The theory behind the big bang is just bunk, IMO. Gievn it says that particles that exist in a physical universe, collided and created the one we are living in now. When, how and why these collided in a non physical universe that existed before this one, is just pointing to the xian stereotypeof gawd, since there is no logic in it.
If we said that the particles colliding were physcial particles, then the physical universe existed before. Therefore it was not created. It existed. Anyways, this seem to follow, like all western science the 'born, will live, will die' scheme. With Humans we see Immortality and this by definition shows that other things in the umiverse can too be immortal. That the creation, existence destructuon circle may have some exceptions.
I think western science is just too jewdized and they on purpose destroyed people like Tesla, who preached not about an end but about an abudant universe. The enemy philosophies, always point out to this same repeated Saturnian pattern, Satanism is me of a higher understanding of immortality, abudance etc. Something western science is not. Also its to be kept in mind that scientist just live on the physical realm and are not aware of other relities, they are always seeing only one side of the coin, many times disregarding a Soul. They can be very knowledgeable and intelligent, but their explanations would never be enough. A Satanist Scientist would be really, something else.
HAIL SATAN!!!!!
--- In mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com, Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@... wrote:
In my opinion, I believe the big bang as people call it to be the working
of true genius minds and that in reality, the "big bang" is simply a much
larger version of particle accelerator or a Way more Advance version of a
LHC (Large Hadron Collider).. Seriously though one or someone can not
create something out of nothing, there always goin to be some sort of atom
particle left. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Those are just my thoughts.
HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 12:12 PM, "Don Danko" <mageson6666@... wrote:
**
Yeah it seems to be bullshit, like most bogus theories put out by the jooz
sqauting over all major fields. When they can't figure something out they
just chalk up to the big bang. Like a xian up to their gawd. Science is not
some open minded field in the west. Its actually closed minded, theological
and fundimentally hostile to thinking outside its weak dogmas.
*From:* Samuel Martin <firstblood@...
*To:* "mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:05:01 PM
*Subject:* [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
**
Though I'm more than happy for someone with higher knowledge to show me
different. Now, the theory in how the big bang came about was described by
a particle physicist(I'll search my history and find out who if you'd like)
as not of nothing exploding into something, but rather a universe being
torn in half! Or that of two universes colliding!
This, to me, is an amazing idea and I had long since given up trying to
wrap my head around it before I came to the Truth and found Satanism.
However, seeing the message placed brought up my old interest in this,
though it was during my atheist years that I studied this so my interest
was that of opposing filthy xians rather than that of seeking truth!
In case you guy don't want to read the long message: The Big Bang
basically says there was this super powerful god who willed the universe
into existence. So to believe in the big bang you must believe in a
"supreme higher power"
Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat!
Hail Lord Enki
Hail Enlil
Hail Astaroth
Hail Azazel
Hail Marchosias
Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes!
****
Your turning one into the other.
From: Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:20:56 PM
Subject: Re: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
Ok I agree with you Don, but there's nothing wrong with having material items that one has worked hard to get or purchase, cause none the less we still live and have to "thrive" on the material "realm" until we become Godlike and push our physical vibrations to the next realm and even then there's be material item (example in on of the jos links there's this art work called "paradise lost" and Father Satan had an entire palace") I would define that to be a material item.. HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
From: Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:20:56 PM
Subject: Re: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
Ok I agree with you Don, but there's nothing wrong with having material items that one has worked hard to get or purchase, cause none the less we still live and have to "thrive" on the material "realm" until we become Godlike and push our physical vibrations to the next realm and even then there's be material item (example in on of the jos links there's this art work called "paradise lost" and Father Satan had an entire palace") I would define that to be a material item.. HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 4:10 PM, "Don Danko" <mageson6666@... wrote:Its been found the old model of the atom is out the window. The like pool balls buzzing around each other. Its actually a round pulse wave like a bulls eye target. As the outdated materialistic model is replaced more by the quantum model. Things are really getting found out. This is the Dawkin's types cling to the Newtonian model, because their entire belief materialistic liberal world view is built within it. Dawkin's is like an artifact from 1799. Its this model that holds up Jew Communism on every level. You can see in Hitchens how materialistic, Liberal humanism. Is infact just plain fucking Communism. As Bitchens was an open Marxist his entire life and his general rants are the mainstream world view of our society. And one can see the snide, hypocrisy of the left in him. Darwinism is another piece of shit. From: hoodedcobra666 <hoodedcobra666@...
To: [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:48:42 PM
Subject: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
The theory behind the big bang is just bunk, IMO. Gievn it says that particles that exist in a physical universe, collided and created the one we are living in now. When, how and why these collided in a non physical universe that existed before this one, is just pointing to the xian stereotypeof gawd, since there is no logic in it. If we said that the particles colliding were physcial particles, then the physical universe existed before. Therefore it was not created. It existed. Anyways, this seem to follow, like all western science the 'born, will live, will die' scheme. With Humans we see Immortality and this by definition shows that other things in the umiverse can too be immortal. That the creation, existence destructuon circle may have some exceptions. I think western science is just too jewdized and they on purpose destroyed people like Tesla, who preached not about an end but about an abudant universe. The enemy philosophies, always point out to this same repeated Saturnian pattern, Satanism is me of a higher understanding of immortality, abudance etc. Something western science is not. Also its to be kept in mind that scientist just live on the physical realm and are not aware of other relities, they are always seeing only one side of the coin, many times disregarding a Soul. They can be very knowledgeable and intelligent, but their explanations would never be enough. A Satanist Scientist would be really, something else. HAIL SATAN!!!!! --- In mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com, Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@... wrote: In my opinion, I believe the big bang as people call it to be the working of true genius minds and that in reality, the "big bang" is simply a much larger version of particle accelerator or a Way more Advance version of a LHC (Large Hadron Collider).. Seriously though one or someone can not create something out of nothing, there always goin to be some sort of atom particle left. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Those are just my thoughts. HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!! On Apr 11, 2013 12:12 PM, "Don Danko" <mageson6666@... wrote: ** Yeah it seems to be bullshit, like most bogus theories put out by the jooz sqauting over all major fields. When they can't figure something out they just chalk up to the big bang. Like a xian up to their gawd. Science is not some open minded field in the west. Its actually closed minded, theological and fundimentally hostile to thinking outside its weak dogmas. *From:* Samuel Martin <firstblood@... *To:* "mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:05:01 PM *Subject:* [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang ** Though I'm more than happy for someone with higher knowledge to show me different. Now, the theory in how the big bang came about was described by a particle physicist(I'll search my history and find out who if you'd like) as not of nothing exploding into something, but rather a universe being torn in half! Or that of two universes colliding! This, to me, is an amazing idea and I had long since given up trying to wrap my head around it before I came to the Truth and found Satanism. However, seeing the message placed brought up my old interest in this, though it was during my atheist years that I studied this so my interest was that of opposing filthy xians rather than that of seeking truth! In case you guy don't want to read the long message: The Big Bang basically says there was this super powerful god who willed the universe into existence. So to believe in the big bang you must believe in a "supreme higher power" Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat! Hail Lord Enki Hail Enlil Hail Astaroth Hail Azazel Hail Marchosias Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes! ****
Quick SILVER
New member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 0
@Don
What do you refer by saying "You turn one into another"?? As in once you become Godlike you can have all the material item you want in the realm??? HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
What do you refer by saying "You turn one into another"?? As in once you become Godlike you can have all the material item you want in the realm??? HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
You should read my article on materialism.
From: Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:37:34 PM
Subject: Re: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
@Don
What do you refer by saying "You turn one into another"?? As in once you become Godlike you can have all the material item you want in the realm??? HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
From: Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:37:34 PM
Subject: Re: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
@Don
What do you refer by saying "You turn one into another"?? As in once you become Godlike you can have all the material item you want in the realm??? HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
So Darwin's natural selection theories are false, then? I don't get
that...what he says about natural selection and species do seem to
make sense, but...meh. i'm no scientist, and I've not studied Darwin
closely enough to see the flaws.
that...what he says about natural selection and species do seem to
make sense, but...meh. i'm no scientist, and I've not studied Darwin
closely enough to see the flaws.
On 4/11/13, Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@... wrote:
Ok I agree with you Don, but there's nothing wrong with having material
items that one has worked hard to get or purchase, cause none the less we
still live and have to "thrive" on the material "realm" until we become
Godlike and push our physical vibrations to the next realm and even then
there's be material item (example in on of the jos links there's this art
work called "paradise lost" and Father Satan had an entire palace") I would
define that to be a material item..
HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 4:10 PM, "Don Danko" <mageson6666@... wrote:
**
Its been found the old model of the atom is out the window. The like pool
balls buzzing around each other. Its actually a round pulse wave like a
bulls eye target.
As the outdated materialistic model is replaced more by the quantum
model.
Things are really getting found out. This is the Dawkin's types cling to
the Newtonian model, because their entire belief materialistic liberal
world view is built within it. Dawkin's is like an artifact from 1799.
Its this model that holds up Jew Communism on every level. You can see in
Hitchens how materialistic, Liberal humanism. Is infact just plain
fucking
Communism. As Bitchens was an open Marxist his entire life and his
general
rants are the mainstream world view of our society. And one can see the
snide, hypocrisy of the left in him.
Darwinism is another piece of shit.
*From:* hoodedcobra666 <hoodedcobra666@...
*To:* [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]
*Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:48:42 PM
*Subject:* [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
**
The theory behind the big bang is just bunk, IMO. Gievn it says that
particles that exist in a physical universe, collided and created the one
we are living in now. When, how and why these collided in a non physical
universe that existed before this one, is just pointing to the xian
stereotypeof gawd, since there is no logic in it.
If we said that the particles colliding were physcial particles, then the
physical universe existed before. Therefore it was not created. It
existed.
Anyways, this seem to follow, like all western science the 'born, will
live, will die' scheme. With Humans we see Immortality and this by
definition shows that other things in the umiverse can too be immortal.
That the creation, existence destructuon circle may have some exceptions.
I think western science is just too jewdized and they on purpose
destroyed
people like Tesla, who preached not about an end but about an abudant
universe. The enemy philosophies, always point out to this same repeated
Saturnian pattern, Satanism is me of a higher understanding of
immortality,
abudance etc. Something western science is not. Also its to be kept in
mind
that scientist just live on the physical realm and are not aware of other
relities, they are always seeing only one side of the coin, many times
disregarding a Soul. They can be very knowledgeable and intelligent, but
their explanations would never be enough. A Satanist Scientist would be
really, something else.
HAIL SATAN!!!!!
--- In
mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com<JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com,
Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@... wrote:
In my opinion, I believe the big bang as people call it to be the
working
of true genius minds and that in reality, the "big bang" is simply a
much
larger version of particle accelerator or a Way more Advance version of
a
LHC (Large Hadron Collider).. Seriously though one or someone can not
create something out of nothing, there always goin to be some sort of
atom
particle left. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Those are just my
thoughts.
HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 12:12 PM, "Don Danko" <mageson6666@... wrote:
**
Yeah it seems to be bullshit, like most bogus theories put out by the
jooz
sqauting over all major fields. When they can't figure something out
they
just chalk up to the big bang. Like a xian up to their gawd. Science
is not
some open minded field in the west. Its actually closed minded,
theological
and fundimentally hostile to thinking outside its weak dogmas.
*From:* Samuel Martin <firstblood@...
*To:*
"mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com<JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com
<JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:05:01 PM
*Subject:* [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
**
Though I'm more than happy for someone with higher knowledge to show
me
different. Now, the theory in how the big bang came about was
described by
a particle physicist(I'll search my history and find out who if you'd
like)
as not of nothing exploding into something, but rather a universe
being
torn in half! Or that of two universes colliding!
This, to me, is an amazing idea and I had long since given up trying
to
wrap my head around it before I came to the Truth and found Satanism.
However, seeing the message placed brought up my old interest in
this,
though it was during my atheist years that I studied this so my
interest
was that of opposing filthy xians rather than that of seeking truth!
In case you guy don't want to read the long message: The Big Bang
basically says there was this super powerful god who willed the
universe
into existence. So to believe in the big bang you must believe in a
"supreme higher power"
Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat!
Hail Lord Enki
Hail Enlil
Hail Astaroth
Hail Azazel
Hail Marchosias
Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes!
****
****
Quick SILVER
New member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 0
Is that on the JoS site, or another link? Can I get it please? HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 4:43 PM, "Don Danko" <mageson6666@... wrote:
You should read my article on materialism.
From: Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@...
To: [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:37:34 PM
Subject: Re: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
@Don
What do you refer by saying "You turn one into another"?? As in once you become Godlike you can have all the material item you want in the realm??? HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
Quick SILVER
New member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 0
You're making me think of the film "Chronicle" with this whole natural selection stuff. And I quote "we as human being are stronger than this because of weapons and stuff therefore animals can't really feed on us" or however Andrew says that part.. HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 4:48 PM, "Allison P" <apocalypseofjon@... wrote:
So Darwin's natural selection theories are false, then? I don't get
that...what he says about natural selection and species do seem to
make sense, but...meh. i'm no scientist, and I've not studied Darwin
closely enough to see the flaws.
On 4/11/13, Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@... wrote:
Ok I agree with you Don, but there's nothing wrong with having material
items that one has worked hard to get or purchase, cause none the less we
still live and have to "thrive" on the material "realm" until we become
Godlike and push our physical vibrations to the next realm and even then
there's be material item (example in on of the jos links there's this art
work called "paradise lost" and Father Satan had an entire palace") I would
define that to be a material item..
HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 4:10 PM, "Don Danko" <mageson6666@... wrote:
**
Its been found the old model of the atom is out the window. The like pool
balls buzzing around each other. Its actually a round pulse wave like a
bulls eye target.
As the outdated materialistic model is replaced more by the quantum
model.
Things are really getting found out. This is the Dawkin's types cling to
the Newtonian model, because their entire belief materialistic liberal
world view is built within it. Dawkin's is like an artifact from 1799.
Its this model that holds up Jew Communism on every level. You can see in
Hitchens how materialistic, Liberal humanism. Is infact just plain
fucking
Communism. As Bitchens was an open Marxist his entire life and his
general
rants are the mainstream world view of our society. And one can see the
snide, hypocrisy of the left in him.
Darwinism is another piece of shit.
*From:* hoodedcobra666 <hoodedcobra666@...
*To:* [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]
*Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:48:42 PM
*Subject:* [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
**
The theory behind the big bang is just bunk, IMO. Gievn it says that
particles that exist in a physical universe, collided and created the one
we are living in now. When, how and why these collided in a non physical
universe that existed before this one, is just pointing to the xian
stereotypeof gawd, since there is no logic in it.
If we said that the particles colliding were physcial particles, then the
physical universe existed before. Therefore it was not created. It
existed.
Anyways, this seem to follow, like all western science the 'born, will
live, will die' scheme. With Humans we see Immortality and this by
definition shows that other things in the umiverse can too be immortal.
That the creation, existence destructuon circle may have some exceptions.
I think western science is just too jewdized and they on purpose
destroyed
people like Tesla, who preached not about an end but about an abudant
universe. The enemy philosophies, always point out to this same repeated
Saturnian pattern, Satanism is me of a higher understanding of
immortality,
abudance etc. Something western science is not. Also its to be kept in
mind
that scientist just live on the physical realm and are not aware of other
relities, they are always seeing only one side of the coin, many times
disregarding a Soul. They can be very knowledgeable and intelligent, but
their explanations would never be enough. A Satanist Scientist would be
really, something else.
HAIL SATAN!!!!!
--- In
mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com<JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com,
Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@... wrote:
In my opinion, I believe the big bang as people call it to be the
working
of true genius minds and that in reality, the "big bang" is simply a
much
larger version of particle accelerator or a Way more Advance version of
a
LHC (Large Hadron Collider).. Seriously though one or someone can not
create something out of nothing, there always goin to be some sort of
atom
particle left. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Those are just my
thoughts.
HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 12:12 PM, "Don Danko" <mageson6666@... wrote:
**
Yeah it seems to be bullshit, like most bogus theories put out by the
jooz
sqauting over all major fields. When they can't figure something out
they
just chalk up to the big bang. Like a xian up to their gawd. Science
is not
some open minded field in the west. Its actually closed minded,
theological
and fundimentally hostile to thinking outside its weak dogmas.
*From:* Samuel Martin <firstblood@...
*To:*
"mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com<JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com
<JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:05:01 PM
*Subject:* [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
**
Though I'm more than happy for someone with higher knowledge to show
me
different. Now, the theory in how the big bang came about was
described by
a particle physicist(I'll search my history and find out who if you'd
like)
as not of nothing exploding into something, but rather a universe
being
torn in half! Or that of two universes colliding!
This, to me, is an amazing idea and I had long since given up trying
to
wrap my head around it before I came to the Truth and found Satanism.
However, seeing the message placed brought up my old interest in
this,
though it was during my atheist years that I studied this so my
interest
was that of opposing filthy xians rather than that of seeking truth!
In case you guy don't want to read the long message: The Big Bang
basically says there was this super powerful god who willed the
universe
into existence. So to believe in the big bang you must believe in a
"supreme higher power"
Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat!
Hail Lord Enki
Hail Enlil
Hail Astaroth
Hail Azazel
Hail Marchosias
Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes!
****
****
enemyofjezzuz
New member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 8
The Big Bang: What happens to kikestein's theories. Anything that uses
kikestein's work as a foundation is subject to being totally
busted--that scumbag succeeded in holding science back, and no wonder
there is so much that contradicts kikestein's theories just now being
found at the outer edge. Sort of like what Galileo did when he found
moons on Jupiter--but the cat lick scum still insisted that the earth
was flat and at the center of the universe.
Until we are able to give kikestein's work the Big Bang and discredit it
once for all time, we are going to be stuck in the 19th century.
--- In [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url], Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@...
wrote:
"
kikestein's work as a foundation is subject to being totally
busted--that scumbag succeeded in holding science back, and no wonder
there is so much that contradicts kikestein's theories just now being
found at the outer edge. Sort of like what Galileo did when he found
moons on Jupiter--but the cat lick scum still insisted that the earth
was flat and at the center of the universe.
Until we are able to give kikestein's work the Big Bang and discredit it
once for all time, we are going to be stuck in the 19th century.
--- In [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url], Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@...
wrote:
materialOk I agree with you Don, but there's nothing wrong with having
weitems that one has worked hard to get or purchase, cause none the less
becomestill live and have to "thrive" on the material "realm" until we
thenGodlike and push our physical vibrations to the next realm and even
artthere's be material item (example in on of the jos links there's this
wouldwork called "paradise lost" and Father Satan had an entire palace") I
pooldefine that to be a material item..
HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 4:10 PM, "Don Danko" mageson6666@... wrote:
**
Its been found the old model of the atom is out the window. The like
like aballs buzzing around each other. Its actually a round pulse wave
model.bulls eye target.
As the outdated materialistic model is replaced more by the quantum
cling toThings are really getting found out. This is the Dawkin's types
liberalthe Newtonian model, because their entire belief materialistic
1799.world view is built within it. Dawkin's is like an artifact from
see inIts this model that holds up Jew Communism on every level. You can
fuckingHitchens how materialistic, Liberal humanism. Is infact just plain
generalCommunism. As Bitchens was an open Marxist his entire life and his
therants are the mainstream world view of our society. And one can see
the onesnide, hypocrisy of the left in him.
Darwinism is another piece of shit.
*From:* hoodedcobra666 hoodedcobra666@...
*To:* [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]
*Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:48:42 PM
*Subject:* [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
**
The theory behind the big bang is just bunk, IMO. Gievn it says that
particles that exist in a physical universe, collided and created
physicalwe are living in now. When, how and why these collided in a non
then theuniverse that existed before this one, is just pointing to the xian
stereotypeof gawd, since there is no logic in it.
If we said that the particles colliding were physcial particles,
existed.physical universe existed before. Therefore it was not created. It
willAnyways, this seem to follow, like all western science the 'born,
immortal.live, will die' scheme. With Humans we see Immortality and this by
definition shows that other things in the umiverse can too be
exceptions.That the creation, existence destructuon circle may have some
destroyedI think western science is just too jewdized and they on purpose
abudantpeople like Tesla, who preached not about an end but about an
repeateduniverse. The enemy philosophies, always point out to this same
immortality,Saturnian pattern, Satanism is me of a higher understanding of
in mindabudance etc. Something western science is not. Also its to be kept
otherthat scientist just live on the physical realm and are not aware of
timesrelities, they are always seeing only one side of the coin, many
butdisregarding a Soul. They can be very knowledgeable and intelligent,
betheir explanations would never be enough. A Satanist Scientist would
mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com<JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com,really, something else.
HAIL SATAN!!!!!
--- In
workingQuick SILVER tenlisyruf2024@ wrote:
In my opinion, I believe the big bang as people call it to be the
a muchof true genius minds and that in reality, the "big bang" is simply
version of alarger version of particle accelerator or a Way more Advance
notLHC (Large Hadron Collider).. Seriously though one or someone can
ofcreate something out of nothing, there always goin to be some sort
by theatom
particle left. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Those are just my
thoughts.
HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 12:12 PM, "Don Danko" mageson6666@ wrote:
**
Yeah it seems to be bullshit, like most bogus theories put out
outjooz
sqauting over all major fields. When they can't figure something
Sciencethey
just chalk up to the big bang. Like a xian up to their gawd.
"mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com<JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com\is not
some open minded field in the west. Its actually closed minded,
theological
and fundimentally hostile to thinking outside its weak dogmas.
*From:* Samuel Martin firstblood@
*To:*
"
<JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:JoyofSatan666%40yahoogroups.com
show me*Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:05:01 PM
*Subject:* [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
**
Though I'm more than happy for someone with higher knowledge to
you'ddifferent. Now, the theory in how the big bang came about was
described by
a particle physicist(I'll search my history and find out who if
universe beinglike)
as not of nothing exploding into something, but rather a
trying totorn in half! Or that of two universes colliding!
This, to me, is an amazing idea and I had long since given up
Satanism.wrap my head around it before I came to the Truth and found
this,However, seeing the message placed brought up my old interest in
truth!though it was during my atheist years that I studied this so my
interest
was that of opposing filthy xians rather than that of seeking
BangIn case you guy don't want to read the long message: The Big
in abasically says there was this super powerful god who willed the
universe
into existence. So to believe in the big bang you must believe
"supreme higher power"
Hail Father Satan and the Mighty Gods of Duat!
Hail Lord Enki
Hail Enlil
Hail Astaroth
Hail Azazel
Hail Marchosias
Heil Hitler and all Nazi Heroes!
****
****
hailazazel
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2002
- Messages
- 129
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JoSNewsletter/message/384
--- In [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url], Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@... wrote:
Is that on the JoS site, or another link? Can I get it please?
HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
On Apr 11, 2013 4:43 PM, "Don Danko" <mageson6666@... wrote:
**
You should read my article on materialism.
*From:* Quick SILVER <tenlisyruf2024@...
*To:* [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]
*Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:37:34 PM
*Subject:* Re: [JoyofSatan666] Re: The Big Bang
**
@Don
What do you refer by saying "You turn one into another"?? As in once you
become Godlike you can have all the material item you want in the realm???
HAIL LORD SATAN 4EVER!!
****
Similar threads
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 583
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 640
![Blitzkreig [SG]](/data/avatars/s/21/21286.jpg?1738971726){kind=avatar}
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 1K
Al Jilwah: Chapter IV
"It is my desire that all my followers unite in a bond of unity, lest those who are without prevail against them." - Shaitan