Is this just a jewish lie? Or are objects in the universe actually moving farther and farther away from each other.

The concept of distance is invalid in space, since the universe is eternal, meaning its infinite. It cannot be measured. Which is the vedic perspective. And btw ,the Big bang never happened and there's no observable evidence to prove it happened. So there's no way to know if the paradigm we're thinking (planets moving apart) holds true in the universe. It might be an abstract concept which we haven't understood yet due to our spiritual progress and we cover that by making unprovable "theories" like the big bang and relying on "Theoretical science" which is actually "ends justify the means(theory justifies the assumption because it happens although we can't find any correlation or observable evidence of any correlation. )The Jew said it,you better believe it. That settles it." Making up equations and calculations with nothing to show for it in reality or observable evidence and focusing on the "how" that is the end product, but never the "why" that is what actually caused it has kept us back in science. Theoritical science is basically like this,....

Jack said:

The concept of distance is invalid in space, since the universe is eternal, meaning its infinite. It cannot be measured. Which is the vedic perspective. And btw ,the Big bang never happened and there's no observable evidence to prove it happened. So there's no way to know if the paradigm we're thinking (planets moving apart) holds true in the universe. It might be an abstract concept which we haven't understood yet due to our spiritual progress and we cover that by making unprovable "theories" like the big bang and relying on "Theoretical science" which is actually "ends justify the means(theory justifies the assumption because it happens although we can't find any correlation or observable evidence of any correlation. )The Jew said it,you better believe it. That settles it." Making up equations and calculations with nothing to show for it in reality or observable evidence and focusing on the "how" that is the end product, but never the "why" that is what actually caused it has kept us back in science. Theoritical science is basically like this,....

Click to expand...

They always act like it's irrefutably true as well, hypotheses like the Big Bang. They'll give a contrite little "well we don't know for certain, sure" but the rest of their demeanor indicates they believe it to be solid fact and it's ludicrous that anyone could believe otherwise.

It's like that one Jew astrophysicist Sutter, who claims to be open in science and, to use his words, would "never, ever tell someone they're wrong," whilst declaring that other Jew's idea that that big ass space object could be some sort of alien technology an insult to science.

For as many scientific ideas we've had throughout history that we eventually disproved through continued investigation and research, you'd think they'd at least feign humility a bit more effectively, but I suppose that's beyond them.

I imagine the universe acts in cycles of expansion followed by recession. However I also believe this cycle to be so damn long that it is irrelevant to us.

The reason they claim it to be true is because space is not absolute 0 so they assume an explosion had to occur and that the temperature is still dropping.

They also claim the space between particles is increasing, and apply the "as above so below" principle to generalize this observation to the rest of the universe.

Whether these observations indicate the big bang or something else is still up for debate

The big bang is an impossibility as its a theory about an explosion "creating" the universe from a singularity point. The planets, galaxies, and solar systems within the universe can be created and destroyed but the Universe in of itself cannot for it always existed. The Universe is eternal and therefore cannot be created nor destroyed. Just as natural laws such as gravity and electromagnetic force always existed so did the Universe.

Jack said:

The concept of distance is invalid in space, since the universe is eternal, meaning its infinite. It cannot be measured.

Click to expand...

The size of the Universe may not be measurable but the concept of distance in space is not invalid. There is a distance between the Moon and the Earth and we can measure that. There is a distance between the Earth and the sun and we can measure it too. Measuring distance is merely take the space between point a and point b and making a system based off it. Hence why a meter is a meter. There are probably deeper reasons behind why the amount is what it is but I wouldn't know.

As for objects moving farther away from each other, there is honestly no reason why they wouldn't. The earth and the moon occasionally get closer and farther apart. The earth and the other objects in our solar system revolve around the sun and are at times closer or farther apart from the sun. Galaxies are massive and have their own gravitational pull. It would make sense that the gravitation pull of one galaxy affects another and would cause a sort of revolution much like the planets revolving around the sun. So its a possibility that we could be closer or farther away from other galaxies at any given time.

Everything I wrote is based off my line of thinking. Feel free to correct me if I made a mistake.

Powstanie Pogańskie said:

Jack said:

The concept of distance is invalid in space, since the universe is eternal, meaning its infinite. It cannot be measured. Which is the vedic perspective. And btw ,the Big bang never happened and there's no observable evidence to prove it happened. So there's no way to know if the paradigm we're thinking (planets moving apart) holds true in the universe. It might be an abstract concept which we haven't understood yet due to our spiritual progress and we cover that by making unprovable "theories" like the big bang and relying on "Theoretical science" which is actually "ends justify the means(theory justifies the assumption because it happens although we can't find any correlation or observable evidence of any correlation. )The Jew said it,you better believe it. That settles it." Making up equations and calculations with nothing to show for it in reality or observable evidence and focusing on the "how" that is the end product, but never the "why" that is what actually caused it has kept us back in science. Theoritical science is basically like this,....

Click to expand...

They always act like it's irrefutably true as well, hypotheses like the Big Bang. They'll give a contrite little "well we don't know for certain, sure" but the rest of their demeanor indicates they believe it to be solid fact and it's ludicrous that anyone could believe otherwise.

It's like that one Jew astrophysicist Sutter, who claims to be open in science and, to use his words, would "never, ever tell someone they're wrong," whilst declaring that other Jew's idea that that big ass space object could be some sort of alien technology an insult to science.

For as many scientific ideas we've had throughout history that we eventually disproved through continued investigation and research, you'd think they'd at least feign humility a bit more effectively, but I suppose that's beyond them.

Click to expand...

The hypothesis is based on the assumption that there was a blast and therefore the particles are moving apart. However what if the paradigm that they are thinking does not hold true in reality ? Length and distance were created for microcosmic purposes on a small scale for our civilization building needs ,but what if the reason the planets are moving apart is not because of a blast but some other abstract phenomenon that we cannot measure or understand because we haven't progressed yet ? There has yet to be any observable evidence supporting the big bang and no matter how many "calculations" and "scientific papers" written on the subject, they still cannot prove or even make a correlation that can be proven in reality. Therefore the application of microcosmic "science" that is theoretical and calculation based many a times does not hold true in reality. And we are calculating the end result of the action and not the reason for the action itself. For example we've calculated g=9.8 so we now understand what happens when an apple falls from a tree. But why does it happen ? Why are electrons attracted to protons why is there Dual polarity ,why is there a universal gravitational constant, why do phenomenon happen the way they do ? These all can be only answered if we look within, as the body is the reflection of the universe. If we only calculate the end result and the numerical value of things, we won't get towards the new aeon soon.

Btw, HPMageson had a topic related to this so check it out,
https://www.ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=4168

Zeffie of the Wind said:

The big bang is an impossibility as its a theory about an explosion "creating" the universe from a singularity point. The planets, galaxies, and solar systems within the universe can be created and destroyed but the Universe in of itself cannot for it always existed. The Universe is eternal and therefore cannot be created nor destroyed. Just as natural laws such as gravity and electromagnetic force always existed so did the Universe.

Jack said:

The concept of distance is invalid in space, since the universe is eternal, meaning its infinite. It cannot be measured.

Click to expand...

The size of the Universe may not be measurable but the concept of distance in space is not invalid. There is a distance between the Moon and the Earth and we can measure that. There is a distance between the Earth and the sun and we can measure it too. Measuring distance is merely take the space between point a and point b and making a system based off it. Hence why a meter is a meter. There are probably deeper reasons behind why the amount is what it is but I wouldn't know.

As for objects moving farther away from each other, there is honestly no reason why they wouldn't. The earth and the moon occasionally get closer and farther apart. The earth and the other objects in our solar system revolve around the sun and are at times closer or farther apart from the sun. Galaxies are massive and have their own gravitational pull. It would make sense that the gravitation pull of one galaxy affects another and would cause a sort of revolution much like the planets revolving around the sun. So its a possibility that we could be closer or farther away from other galaxies at any given time.

Everything I wrote is based off my line of thinking. Feel free to correct me if I made a mistake.

Click to expand...

Obviously I didn't mean it in that way. I just stated to the other guy, that microcosmic science works for our "civilizational" purposes such as the phenomenon of "distance". What I mean by distance being invalid is as you said, the Universe is eternal and therefore doesn't really exist except for our paradigm of calculation.

Either the Universe was created by a jew called "god" or by pure accident from which order was made out of the chaos known as "the big bang".

A lot of "science" is just imaginations running amok and billions and billions wasted on a tick box "correct" or "incorrect" which the laymen have zero ability to prove or disprove. "The idiots can't hold us to account nor question our...'findings'...so this amazing imaginative idea will wow them and make them forget the science and force them to focus on the wonder and magic; therefore and thereby accepting it as truth. They'll say, 'They're the scientists, the clever ones. It must be true, and I believe it! Woooooooowwwww!'." Also many months ago I was told about "scientists" having wasted something like 10k on how to make "the perfect cup of tea", ignoring opinion and preference.

A...I'm not certain if they are actually a christian or just entertaining the nonsense, going to church, etc...told me that they consider a tiny, tiny particle (I forgot what - a quark or some sort of subatomic whatjamajigger) to be "god", regardless of what any of the many "the" bibleses say. It could have been something along the lines of "the god particle".

There is an important point about "universe" and/versus "space" - and then there is space which any layman can understand, and then another 'space' which needs some suspending of disbelief, along with christian thinking and blind faith with illogic...to accept/understand. Is the Universe is filling a (or the) space (or simply filling space/Space) or is space/Space "expanding" into the Universe? Then "multi-verses"?! Then why not - multi-multi-verses... Yep, we are just in a locker in a giant hall in an alien society...inside an alien's marble...being tossed around like a toy...

As for Earth and Moon getting further apart allegedly, we have to realise, and consider, one or both of (at least) two things - 1) if Moon is artificial, given to us by our Gods/Goddesses due to Phaeton having been destroyed; and 2) the after-effects of Phaeton having been destroyed.

Earth is tilted by about 23.5°; Mars's atmosphere has been stripped and is titled by about 25°; Uranus is about 98° tilted; Neptune is tilted by about 28.32°; Earth wobbles (also an alleged discovery attempts, and claims, to explain why) - the effects of a cataclysmic event in the Solar System would last for quite a while. I would think that an amount of tilt would have been natural already, though. Moon, either natural or artificial, has effects upon it. If artificial, then it's not 100% perfect; if natural then the effects from the planet-explosion of Phaeton. (If Moon was created after the destruction of Phaeton, then we can infer that there are 'ripples' or 'tidal effects/forces' still occurring.) Perhaps the Giant Red Spot on Jupiter was a burning bit of Phaeton having scarred Jupiter, creating a storm, as well...

Say for example if, on such a large and very long scale, a star going past us, even at a great distance, it would have some gravitational effects. I once read that someone asked a question about being able to escape Earth's gravity. The answer was that you never do; it just becomes weaker and weaker, less and less the further away from Earth you go. (With the Pyramid, shape of the Chakras, helping to create gravity, this may be an indicator of some sort, in a Spiritual concept, along with Quantum Physics/Mechanics (the instantaneous interaction between extremely distant objects), perhaps.)

If the Universe is expanding, then why? Well, consider this - if the Empire of Orion, the Gods and Goddesses of Du'at, Us, We, continue to have Children and Grandchildren, etc..., and live forever, increase in number exponentially, ad infinitum... then all the space would soon ("soon"!) be full-up! I might be being a bit silly, but why not? One day, each Individual would be more powerful than a Star, than a Black Hole... Where would all of the extra energy come from to help continual, perpetual growth, advancement, empowerment? Surely the Universe is infinite and eternal.

The matter of micro-sizes and massive-sizes, the "sciences" to allege to "explain" and "define" them, is also interesting. Why is there a different model for the very big than there is for the very small? We here at JoSM claim that we each are, in a sense, a Universe within Ourselves - the micro or macrocosm of us = the Universe itself. That's probably an oversimplification, though, but my point is that mainstream science, AKA "science" AKA (((science))) claims that they are very different and not compatible, unable to be explained likewise, with the same models and tools; yet both exist inescapably with each other. Interesting, no? Don't get funding nor a grant for "the model"; instead, earn/make a lot of money and fund your own projects - keeping yourself safe and secure, of course! Don't let the jew marry-in to your business nor family, and don't let the jew catch you and make you disappear! In other words - if you want anything doing right, do it yourself. Don't rely on a jew faerie tale story book character in the sky to "create" existence either by Word or by destructive force of explosion (or by farting existence into being).


No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
http://archive.is/TzR13

Big Bang Didn’t Happen? New Theory Suggests Universe Has No Beginning, No End
http://archive.is/vTUz2

Another Quantum Theory Emerges Suggesting Creation Didn’t Start With The ‘Big Bang’
http://archive.is/ULxzX

Big Bang not the start? Quantum theory suggests universe has existed forever
http://archive.is/LpnP6

The universe has no beginning and no end
http://archive.is/1itfn

How much is this known? If this becomes too well-known, I'm sure (((they))) will make up some new bullshit that no layman can question nor hold to account nor waste trillions on to prove or disprove.

Planet of Liberty said:

This discussion of the universe is really interesting. As we already know, unfortunately science is manipulated by the Jews.
The main information and theories are not reliable.
If the big bang is false ... how was the universe created?
A question that perhaps, we will never know ....
And the multiverse? Is it true or false? It is reliable?
For lack of knowledge, we can only make theories about theories that will never be useful because studies and experiments, we must observe them and study and understand the functioning well. There are so many things to discover about science! When the Jews are destroyed, I would like to see if we can find other planets like the earth.

Click to expand...

The universe was never created nor can it ever be destroyed ,however according to vedic cosmology it will undergo cycles of expansion and recession I.e creation in destruction according to one day of Brahma and one night of Brahma. Which is of no consequence to us as it is in trillions of years. Within these cycles are big cycles within big cycles. Very big numbers. Nothing of concern to us, one can transmute the soul and suspend it in the astral and come back when creation has happened with all of his memories intact. There are many other ways to interpret this, as in allegorical ways.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_units_of_time

Zeffie of the Wind said:

The big bang is an impossibility as its a theory about an explosion "creating" the universe from a singularity point. The planets, galaxies, and solar systems within the universe can be created and destroyed but the Universe in of itself cannot for it always existed. The Universe is eternal and therefore cannot be created nor destroyed. Just as natural laws such as gravity and electromagnetic force always existed so did the Universe.

Jack said:

The concept of distance is invalid in space, since the universe is eternal, meaning its infinite. It cannot be measured.

Click to expand...

The size of the Universe may not be measurable but the concept of distance in space is not invalid. There is a distance between the Moon and the Earth and we can measure that. There is a distance between the Earth and the sun and we can measure it too. Measuring distance is merely take the space between point a and point b and making a system based off it. Hence why a meter is a meter. There are probably deeper reasons behind why the amount is what it is but I wouldn't know.

As for objects moving farther away from each other, there is honestly no reason why they wouldn't. The earth and the moon occasionally get closer and farther apart. The earth and the other objects in our solar system revolve around the sun and are at times closer or farther apart from the sun. Galaxies are massive and have their own gravitational pull. It would make sense that the gravitation pull of one galaxy affects another and would cause a sort of revolution much like the planets revolving around the sun. So its a possibility that we could be closer or farther away from other galaxies at any given time.

Everything I wrote is based off my line of thinking. Feel free to correct me if I made a mistake.

Click to expand...

This logic draws on the idea that the big bang started the universe. What if the big bang is a part of the universe's cycle of expansion and recession and during this cycle we mistake the beginning of the expansion to be the beginning of the universe? We cant just "nope big bang is wrong". The theory is based on observations so perhaps they drew the wrong conclusion, but is the observation invalid? Perhaps we should consider the big bang having happened but it not necessarily being the birth of the universe, since the universe is eternal, instead lets consider it to be a part of a cycle.

Jack said:

...

Click to expand...

Now that is fascinating, that is. Especially when I just pictured a visual example in the form of pictographs and fractals.






This also reminds me of the very, very large and the very, very small, as well, that both are together.

In various levels, in various heights and depths, we can see so many different things in so many different perspectives. If we, in the sense of riding the waves of trillions of years, are very, very tiny within it, then we surely will adapt with possibly no notice, not realising (perhaps) that things are changing, different. (Of course, by trillions of years, we'd both have records of events and also we'd have much, much greater conscience and awareness and knowledge.) If we were much bigger than it, say the ones generating the waves of trillions of years, then the minutiae might be missed by us (again, we'd have more advancement and records to refer to by then, though).

If we were an ant travelling from the tip of South Africa all along the physical land borders to (if I'm not mistaken) South America, via Europe and Asia, then we might never encounter rivers, streams, oceans...and we know that, noticing the many peaks and troughs, the many stones to climb over, blades of grass to crawl through, many predators to avoid... If, however, we were driving a vehicle with large tires, we'd bump and judder over stones (not noticing them at all) and hills and dips... If we are a migratory bird, we'd fly over land and sea, skipping much, much of it, taking a heck of a lot less time - we'd notice different things in different ways.

According to other science, or "science" AKA (((science))), the smallest measured, or worthy-of-being-measured, unit of time, the smallest meaningful unit of time, is a Planck time, which says that since (((the big bang 13.8 billion years ago))), there are more Planck times in 1 second than there are seconds in 13.8 billion years. 1 Planck time = 10^−44 whereas 1 microsecond = 10^−6, 1-millionth of a second.

If time is cyclical and repeats itself forever, then some would argue that we could just wait and then "go back in time", but if we look at the current events on the Karma Wheel, the larger circles or wheels (i.e. wheels within wheels) are now similar; the smaller details are not quite, so I think there is a risk of taking that "cyclical, repeating itself forever" description too literally. Unless, in the very off-chance, everything is 100% precisely the same with zero deviation, then 1) this must be the nonsense of "multi-verse", and 2) we can escape this larger 'Karma Wheel', as well. One of the smaller wheels (within the wheels within the wheels...) is a person going to work in a dead-end job, doing the same old mundane tasks repeatedly and seemingly endlessly, day in, day out... Outside of work, though, not everything is 100% the exact same, and while perhaps >95% of work is the same-old same-old, the tiny bits and pieces are not quite. e.g. you'd go to the toilet at a different time or there aren't any free or they are out-of-order; the water fountain is broke or that horrible thing you regret saying to your colleague the other day is there so you don't go and have a drink; the printer has run out of ink and no-one knows where the Tech department is...Your car engine dies on the way to work, so you have to grovel to your boss... You might wake up a couple of minutes earlier or later which may have a good or bad impact on your day... You decide to go speed dating and meet someone who helps you realise you can get a better job... the usual events from any film or programme...

Would all of these exact, precise, 100%-same events be unchangeable in the next so-many-trillions-of-years cycle? Would there be "another you", despite our Souls being unique?... Hmmm... Too literal, or actual? Even if the jew "what has been before will be again; there is nothing new under the sun" phrase is true, in accordance with Vedic time - another angela murky murkel and ilk raping Europe, it wouldn't be here again. Perhaps a less-than-carbon-copy on another planet somewhere. This should also be the jew's promotion that being immortal would be mundane, repetitive, boring...so ending life is the best option. Dirty jew. By trillions of years, though, we'd be much stronger and better able to defend Ours, though. If the point of Spiritual Satanism is to better Yourself and the Universe, then the parasitic pest would be gone one day...or one cycle. Then it would never return in any other cycle... We have the ability to throw a spanner in the works, stick a stick in the spokes of that larger or smaller Wheel.

I would encourage any person to view these pictographs and fractals and consider them in this very context. It might just stimulate and inspire some ideas and understandings of Spiritual concepts to help you in your travels.

The very large and the very small.
https://i.imgur.com/sD6NUp5.gif
I am not wrapping the img tags around this one because it might be a bit dizzying for some people.

SeekerofK said:

Zeffie of the Wind said:

The big bang is an impossibility as its a theory about an explosion "creating" the universe from a singularity point. The planets, galaxies, and solar systems within the universe can be created and destroyed but the Universe in of itself cannot for it always existed. The Universe is eternal and therefore cannot be created nor destroyed. Just as natural laws such as gravity and electromagnetic force always existed so did the Universe.

Jack said:

The concept of distance is invalid in space, since the universe is eternal, meaning its infinite. It cannot be measured.

Click to expand...

The size of the Universe may not be measurable but the concept of distance in space is not invalid. There is a distance between the Moon and the Earth and we can measure that. There is a distance between the Earth and the sun and we can measure it too. Measuring distance is merely take the space between point a and point b and making a system based off it. Hence why a meter is a meter. There are probably deeper reasons behind why the amount is what it is but I wouldn't know.

As for objects moving farther away from each other, there is honestly no reason why they wouldn't. The earth and the moon occasionally get closer and farther apart. The earth and the other objects in our solar system revolve around the sun and are at times closer or farther apart from the sun. Galaxies are massive and have their own gravitational pull. It would make sense that the gravitation pull of one galaxy affects another and would cause a sort of revolution much like the planets revolving around the sun. So its a possibility that we could be closer or farther away from other galaxies at any given time.

Everything I wrote is based off my line of thinking. Feel free to correct me if I made a mistake.

Click to expand...

This logic draws on the idea that the big bang started the universe. What if the big bang is a part of the universe's cycle of expansion and recession and during this cycle we mistake the beginning of the expansion to be the beginning of the universe? We cant just "nope big bang is wrong". The theory is based on observations so perhaps they drew the wrong conclusion, but is the observation invalid? Perhaps we should consider the big bang having happened but it not necessarily being the birth of the universe, since the universe is eternal, instead lets consider it to be a part of a cycle.

Click to expand...

As I said this is a model or a mental paradigm of things. Because we have observed collisions and blasts in our microcosmic reality we have assumed that such things might be happening in the macrocosmic reality too. But the real mindfuck is that nothing is true until we have observable evidence. What we are observing I.e the planets moving apart might not be due to a big bang but due to some force we've yet to understand or something that do not have the current capacity to understand due to our spiritual progress. To fuel our ego the scientists say we've got it all figured out however that's not true. The bottom line is there was no big bang as our Gods know better and have knowledge of the greater sciences. If our scientists we're to study under the daemons, we would be light years ahead.