1. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    09 Oct '10 14:37
    The Structure of Infinity - Part II
    The following essay is an analysis of the modern, western, atheistic cosmology.


    There is a Controller

    At night the stars come out, and overhead are 100 billion stars in our galaxy. Beyond them are 1 trillion galaxies, each with 100 billion stars, planets and other flying balls. That is a total of 10^23 stars planets, moons etc. There are many star clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions of stars, each star has its own orbit. And in each star-cluster there is a precisely balanced spinning and orbiting of planets and stars.

    The usual shape of the galaxies is that of a saucer with a central sphere. Island universes could not have their highly coordinated, inter-orbiting structure arrangement by a “big bang”. The stars should all fly apart. Each galaxy is like a carefully organized city in the sky.

    Dark Theories

    In an attempt to explain this pattern, theorists declare that there must be "dark matter" pressing the galaxies together! But there is no evidence that such fanciful stuff exists. It takes a lot of imagination to hold the evolutionary theory together. Theorists declare that "97% of the universe is missing." They are speaking of dark matter ("exotic matter"😉 which they cannot find.

    Why are galaxies shaped like a disk? Astronomers say there is no explanation for what could place stars into a galactic structural pattern. It surely is beautiful, with the globular clusters outside the disk, hanging in space like chandeliers, but how could random motions produce such balanced, artistic harmony?

    Globular clusters are extremely stable, yet they ought to be the most unstable objects in the universe. By circling and spinning all should be flying apart. The stars within globular clusters should be crashing sometimes into one another. The organization of stars within clusters is fabulous. Any non-thinking force capable of bringing these tens of thousands of stars into the globular cluster would have crushed them all together.

    Globular clusters rotate separately, and even pass through the plane-without colliding with any stars! Evolution cannot explain this! These clusters are fantastic balls of stars, each one scattered above and below the galactic plane of island universes.
    How could all those stars get into a cluster, with absolutely nothing outside the cluster for many light-years? How could they all be there without crashing into one another or flying out from the cluster? Even super clusters have a definite order and arrangement.

    One or two giant, elliptical galaxies are usually in the center of each cluster.
    Stars never get closer than a certain distance from one another (3.5 light-years apart). More than one half of all stars that we can individually examine through our telescopes are binary or multiple star systems.

    Bangs Only Create Chaos

    It is said that after the Big Bang there were nebulas, gas-clouds. But how will gas get into stars and planets Gas can get into solids and solids transform into functioning structures or organized complexities like galaxies, solar systems, flora and fauna by guided forces or intelligent design.
    Gamow, a well-known scientist and science fiction writer originated the "Big Bang" theory. Science fiction is all it is.

    Everything in Material Nature is Very Precisely Set Up

    If the nuclear force were only one part in a hundred stronger or weaker than it now is, carbon could not exist, and carbon is the basic element in every living thing. It would be impossible for evolution to produce the delicate balances of these forces. They were planned

    Why would matter that is ever expanding outward toward infinity, suddenly stop and reverse its direction? If all matter had finally moved into the outer perimeter of the universe, that is where the center of gravity would be.

    Why would matter want to reverse and move back away from the gravitational field? The universe could not collapse inward unless there were ten times as much matter in the universe as there now is. This is the "missing mass" problem. Evolutionists try to solve it by theorizing that 97% of the mass in the universe is "dark matter" which cannot be located, seen, or identified with any scientific instruments.

    All the matter, shooting back inward, is supposed to collide in one miniature point. In reality, speed would carry everything past that central stopping point.

    Guided motions

    If the nuclear force were only one part in a hundred stronger or weaker than it now is, carbon could not exist, and carbon is the basic element in every living thing. It would be impossible for evolution to produce the delicate balances of these forces. They were planned

    Why would matter that is ever expanding outward toward infinity, suddenly stop and reverse its direction? If all matter had finally moved into the outer perimeter of the universe, that is where the center of gravity would be.

    Why would matter want to reverse and move back away from the gravitational field? The universe could not collapse inward unless there were ten times as much matter in the universe as there now is. This is the "missing mass" problem. Evolutionists try to solve it by theorizing that 97% of the mass in the universe is "dark matter" which cannot be located, seen, or identified with any scientific instruments.

    All the matter, shooting back inward, is supposed to collide in one miniature point. In reality, speed would carry everything past that central stopping point.

    There are no crashes in the turning and whirling of 10^23 stars, moons and planets.

    If you read official explanations, you will see a preoccupation with the DEATH of stars and descriptions of COLLIDING and MERGING and CANABALISING galaxies that are SMASHING together. In what we are seeing most often is the birth of galaxies and quasars not their deaths. And, instead of collision, the separation of parent and offspring.

    So, modern mainstream astronomy is full of "illusions" and "mirages"(their explanation of why we should not believe our eyes) and "strange and dark" energy, matter, "neutron stars" and "black holes", none of which have ever been seen or photographed but whose existence they continually invoke in order to save their otherwise failed theories.

    One argument of the "Big Bangers" is that the background radiation in the universe is from the Big Bang, but the background radiation is omni-directional. Background radiation comes from every direction instead of one. Background radiation" is actually a slight amount of heat given off by stars throughout the universe. Would they not be expected to emit a very faint amount of heat into outer space? Background radiation is too smooth. The theory requires that it be much more irregular and "lumpy" (with "density fluctuations"😉 in order for it to explain how stars could be formed from the Big Bang explosion.

    Angular momentum is another serious problem. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could the super-fast linear (straight-line) motion, started by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)? How could angular momentum exist-and in such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like stars, planets and moons. There is an intelligent controller.

    Push marbles in toward a common center, the marbles would not begin rotating or circling after they reached it. Matter-origin theories cannot explain why stars spin. The theorists tell us that stars somehow started spinning; but, with age, they slow down. Yet some stars spin faster than either "younger" or "older" stars. Some spin once in less than an earth-day. The fastest, Hz 1883, has a spin period of only 6 hours.

    Some stars orbit backward to that of other stars. The theorists cannot explain this. Saturn has 17 moons, yet none of them ever collide with the rings. The farthest is Phoebe, which revolves in a motion opposite to Saturn and its rings. There are three co-orbital moon sets; that is, each set shares the same orbit and chases its one or two companions around Saturn endlessly. Some of the moons travel clockwise, and others counterclockwise. How could all these moons and their movements originate by chance? In fact, every moon of the different planets is located at the precise distance to keep it from flying into or away from its planet. How could all this originate from a single explosion or collision?

    Another magic of the creator; the moon.

    To have such a huge body as the moon circling so close to us- without falling into the earth- is simply astounding. Scientists cannot keep their satellites orbiting the earth without occasional adjustments. Lacking such adjustments, the orbits decay and the satellites eventually fall and crash. Yet, century after century, our moon maintains an exquisitely perfect orbit around the earth. They should crash into one another or fly apart. Try circling two magnets with another; will they orbit one another or smash together?

    The sun's energy source is not material

    Western scientists say the sun shine because of hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion). The amount of mass/energy our sun would have to lose daily amounts to 4 million tons [3.6 million mt] a second. The problem is the fusion process should produce lots of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, and each square inch of earth's surface should be hit each second by a trillion neutrinos. Scientists have neutrino detectors in place and have searched for them since the mid-1970s, but hardly any arrive from the sun. This fact alone would appear to disprove the hydr...
  2. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    09 Oct '10 16:33
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    The Structure of Infinity - Part II
    The following essay is an analysis of the modern, western, atheistic cosmology.


    There is a Controller

    At night the stars come out, and overhead are 100 billion stars in our galaxy. Beyond them are 1 trillion galaxies, each with 100 billion stars, planets and other flying balls. That is a total of 10^23 stars pl ...[text shortened]... sun. This fact alone would appear to disprove the hydr...
    Amusing. A mish-mash of cut and paste from several sources (some outdated such as citing the solar neutrino problem which was resolved 10 years ago)

    But this is my favourite:
    Another magic of the creator; the moon.

    To have such a huge body as the moon circling so close to us- without falling into the earth- is simply astounding.


    Isnt it more astounding that the moon just doesnt fly away? Or maybe the two astoundings balance eachother! You really need to read more Vish.
  3. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    09 Oct '10 23:49
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    The Structure of Infinity - Part II
    The following essay is an analysis of the modern, western, atheistic cosmology.


    There is a Controller

    At night the stars come out, and overhead are 100 billion stars in our galaxy. Beyond them are 1 trillion galaxies, each with 100 billion stars, planets and other flying balls. That is a total of 10^23 stars pl ...[text shortened]... sun. This fact alone would appear to disprove the hydr...
    Do you have a question?
  4. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    10 Oct '10 01:16
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Amusing. A mish-mash of cut and paste from several sources (some outdated such as citing the solar neutrino problem which was resolved 10 years ago)

    But this is my favourite:
    [b] Another magic of the creator; the moon.

    To have such a huge body as the moon circling so close to us- without falling into the earth- is simply astounding.


    I ...[text shortened]... snt fly away? Or maybe the two astoundings balance eachother! You really need to read more Vish.[/b]
    You have completely missed the point....the point is that, isnt it astounding that we have this mysterious force that scientists call gravity.

    Gravity is a enregy/force created by God to allow the functionallity of universe as we observe it.

    But the cheating scientists say its just there, whithout cause or design, and this is their nonsense.
  5. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14510
    10 Oct '10 05:47
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    You have completely missed the point....the point is that, isnt it astounding that we have this mysterious force that scientists call gravity.

    Gravity is a enregy/force created by God to allow the functionallity of universe as we observe it.

    But the cheating scientists say its just there, whithout cause or design, and this is their nonsense.
    Edit: "Gravity is a enregy/force created by God to allow the functionallity of universe as we observe it."

    Prove it😵
  6. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    10 Oct '10 07:52
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    You have completely missed the point....the point is that, isnt it astounding that we have this mysterious force that scientists call gravity.

    Gravity is a enregy/force created by God to allow the functionallity of universe as we observe it.

    But the cheating scientists say its just there, whithout cause or design, and this is their nonsense.
    No. Read your own post.
    You said it was astounding that the moon didnt fall to the ground.
    Gravity is not responsible for the moon [b[not[/b] falling to the ground.

    Gravity is a force (just to clear that up for you)

    But thanks for the tip that God created gravity. I didnt know that. 😀
  7. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86321
    10 Oct '10 08:54
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    You have completely missed the point....the point is that, isnt it astounding that we have this mysterious force that scientists call gravity.

    Gravity is a enregy/force created by God to allow the functionallity of universe as we observe it.

    But the cheating scientists say its just there, whithout cause or design, and this is their nonsense.
    Newton proved that apples fall to the ground and that gravity was responsible.

    The moon is not an apple and did not even grow on a tree.

    Therefore the moon must be made of gods favourite cheese.
  8. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    10 Oct '10 08:57
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Therefore the moon must be made of gods favourite cheese.
    The ultimate wisdom. Is it vedanta wisdom?
  9. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86321
    10 Oct '10 09:27
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    The ultimate wisdom. Is it vedanta wisdom?
    I'm afraid it "cannot be explained with words", however if your read all the BS on my web-links you may find your bald patch gets smaller...
  10. Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    69617
    10 Oct '10 13:34
    Isn't it also astonishing that artificial satellites do not fall to the ground?
  11. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    10 Oct '10 13:452 edits
    Originally posted by lausey
    Isn't it also astonishing that artificial satellites do not fall to the ground?
    No, it isn't.

    Satellites are designed to not fall down. As the Moon is not designed, it is very astonishing it doesn't fall down on the ground, nor escape the non-designed Earth grqavitational field to fly out into the void.

    Read the Vedanta scriptures to find confirmations of this.
  12. Standard memberDaemon Sin
    I'm A Mighty Pirate™
    PaTROLLING the forum
    Joined
    01 Dec '04
    Moves
    36332
    10 Oct '10 15:49
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    ... nor escape the non-designed Earth grqavitational field to fly out into the void...
    Actually it is. The radius of the moon's orbit is increasing by about 3.8cm per year.
  13. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    10 Oct '10 20:44
    Originally posted by Daemon Sin
    Actually it is. The radius of the moon's orbit is increasing by about 3.8cm per year.
    But only for a limited period of time. Then it will nearer itself to Earth again until it braks apart and craches on the surface. If not the Sun goes nova first.
  14. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    10 Oct '10 21:01
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    But only for a limited period of time. Then it will nearer itself to Earth again until it braks apart and craches on the surface. If not the Sun goes nova first.
    Really? What will cause the moon to get closer to the Earth?
  15. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    10 Oct '10 21:141 edit
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    Really? What will cause the moon to get closer to the Earth?
    Now the Moon loses its orbital energy due to mutual tide forces. When Earth and Moon mutually are in geo-synchronous rotation, the Moon will gradually sink back in orbit and eventually fall on Earth.
Back to Top