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,....
Jack said:The concept of distance is invalid in space, since the universe is eternal, meaning its infinite. It cannot be measured.
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.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,....
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Now that is fascinating, that is. Especially when I just pictured a visual example in the form of pictographs and fractals.Jack said:
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.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.
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.
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.
"It is my desire that all my followers unite in a bond of unity, lest those who are without prevail against them." - Satan