'Mars was earthlike for a few hours a day'

[DONTEATUS]

What happened to the Earth like Mars thread ?

Marvin is gonna be might mad If we try to esplane it like this !

Anywho Im going to Mars ASAP. Just Gotta Fire up Sweetie again ! Just peel over to U/M Party And See !

[qxcontinuum]

Mr. Z, do you purposely set me up for jokes? If so, thank you!

After waiting a minute for qxcontinuum's link to load, I found these other articles mostly written by some nobody named Chuck Missler (no I did not make up that name) that are certainly the quality you would find in a peer-reviewed scientific journal:

If you wanted to make a Creationist satire web site, you would only have copy these articles.

That was probably a poor choice of a website I picked, the same documentation about the European Geo 600 experiment can be seen read about everywhere online. It involves studies and readings performed by the world acclaimed Nobel priced Craig Hogan http://en.wikipedia....iki/Craig_Hogan

You can find more information and quantum physics results online freely. If you don't like the link sent you cold also read briefly on wikipedia about

http://en.wikipedia....lographic_noise

Refering to energetic beings and their reality in our existence, as Romanin I have once met the writer and his conclusions written in a book called The terra Experiment.

A brief translation/ Description can be read below

http://translate.goo...w=2262&bih=1246

Edited December 4, 2013 by qxcontinuum

[psyche101]

Universe is not infinite as known science is telling us , in fact is very much finite. It is hugely imense yes , there are billion os stars yes, like billion of planet combinations and exoplanets, yes but not infinite nor in continuous expansions. Universe is a large sphere and its endings are just projections of existent galaxies making it looking even bigger like a maze game in a room full of mirrors. This reflection is caused by vaste quantities of dust gas. The project Geo 600 has been finding some results that is reinforcing very much the holography in cosmos.

http://www.khouse.or...icles/2009/839/

How do you step outside the Universe then?

Each step you take expands the Universe, because you are part of the Universe, so you cannot actually find an end, you are the end.

In the same time it has not been created by what is called a big bang. It is hard to believe that such imensity started just from a grain by the size of a molecule with a huge quantity of energy stored. We know energy is requiring large bodies and kinetic processes in order to be produced. In the same time science is contradicting all known physical facts claiming that universe is omnidirectional expanding in just one direction ( lenticular universe). That couldn't have happened in a big bang scenario.

It did not start from something the size of a grain of sand, something the grain of sand might be something we can fathom and is still much much larger than the initial components which began the reaction. Anti Matter Matter collision. From there you have expansion in every direction, I have no idea what you mean by omnidirectional direction being in one direction either.

[qxcontinuum]

How do you step outside the Universe then?

Each step you take expands the Universe, because you are part of the Universe, so you cannot actually find an end, you are the end.

It did not start from something the size of a grain of sand, something the grain of sand might be something we can fathom and is still much much larger than the initial components which began the reaction. Anti Matter Matter collision. From there you have expansion in every direction, I have no idea what you mean by omnidirectional direction being in one direction either.

Here is according to science how everything started;

It is difficult enough to imagine a time, roughly 13.7 billion years ago, when the entire universe existed as a singularity. According to the big bang theory, one of the main contenders vying to explain how the universe came to be, all the matter in the cosmos -- all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle.

Edited December 4, 2013 by qxcontinuum

[psyche101]

Here is according to science how everything started;

It is difficult enough to imagine a time, roughly 13.7 billion years ago, when the entire universe existed as a singularity. According to the big bang theory, one of the main contenders vying to explain how the universe came to be, all the matter in the cosmos -- all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle.

I believe you are taking it too literally.

Were you created in the big bang? Or did you form from elements created by the Universe well after the big bang? Are you part of the Universe?

ETA Hang on, you do not think a singularity means one direction do you?

Edited December 4, 2013 by psyche101

[qxcontinuum]

No i don't ...

Science is telling us that the universe is expanding unidirectional, continuously, like time, but in fact according to numerous readings and observations i 've done this is highly inaccurate. Universe is contracting as well. In fact galaxies that are far away from each other can either go away more up to a point then the distance is shrinking coming closer. This has noting to due with gravitational forces . The entire universe is rotating in a spiral like pulsatory movement following some universal kinetic rules. Identical to our solar system i can say. There are points in which circling the sun Earth can be Closest to Mars at a point,but as well the most distant in another. Since distance relatively smaller in our case comparing to the universal huge figure we could easy see again / identify the principles.During the revolution of the universe on its own axis, this movement can brings closer or moving farther two random points lets a and b say located in the extremities, equal distance radius from the centre. But if you ad another point c , somewhere random but not to an equal distance from the centre as point a and b, to this point c both a and b will appear to expand. Now ad billion of galaxies in the entire mixture and you'll get the picture.

[scowl]

No i don't ...

Science is telling us that the universe is expanding unidirectional, continuously, like time, but in fact according to numerous readings and observations i 've done this is highly inaccurate.

What journal did you publish these readings and observations in so they could be reviewed by your scientific peers?

[qxcontinuum]

My poor english is barely alowing me to express my own basic feelings. No publishing as of yet, sorry.

[scowl]

My poor english is barely alowing me to express my own basic feelings. No publishing as of yet, sorry.

Many articles published in Nature have been written by scientists who are not known for their mastery of English. They have proofreaders for that. Surely your groundbreaking observations have gotten you a research position somewhere.

[JesseCuster]

What journal did you publish these readings and observations in so they could be reviewed by your scientific peers?

I think I remember from a previous post of his that he's claimed to be working on a book of some sort he plans to publish in the future. I've come across people like him before who say they're working on a book while posting on web forums. All talk and no book. I remember a guy who said he was going to post a book about philosophy and religion and would be publishing it soon and it would overturn our view of this and that and the other. For years he kept making the same claim on the same web forum despite being reminded and poked fun about the fact that he had not any book and couldn't provide details about the publication despite its continual inevitableness.

So qxcontinuum, how is your preparation into publishing a book going? I might be able to help as I've just helped my father publish his second book. His research was effectively done August 2012 and he wanted to publish his work in a book. The book has been designed, laid out, illustrated with photos he'd collected, packed with tables of stats and data and was sent to the printers by October 2013 and has since been printed, officially launched and is now available in local bookshops.

How's your book coming on? Are you actually writing a book or is it just bluster and nonsense designed to make you look important?

[qxcontinuum]

How's your book coming on? Are you actually writing a book or is it just bluster and nonsense designed to make you look important?

To look important in the eyes of whom, and to what cost ? I am just an "entity in equilibrium understanding humanity". Don't you think if i want to be important i will write a blog and hang my name and picture on it so that everyone can applaud me like in a freak show?

My book is coming slowly. Extremely slowly. FYI.

Edited December 6, 2013 by qxcontinuum

[JesseCuster]

To look important in the eyes of whom, and to what cost ?

To look important in the eyes of the people who view the forum(s) you post on. At the cost of nothing but the time it takes you to compose your posts.

I am just an "entity in equilibrium understanding humanity".

Good luck with that. Your history of trying to interpret pics of Mars doesn't make me think well of your future of producing a publishable book about astronomy and aliens and stuff, but good luck. P.S. I am just the quintessence of the internal universe contemplating itself in a post-retrograde motion.

Don't you think if i want to be important i will write a blog and hang my name and picture on it so that everyone can applaud me like in a freak show?

No, I don't think that. I've seen plenty of oddballs posting their "theories" on forums who think they're doubly super important when it comes to science and stuff, but don't have their own websites or forums or blogs or whatever.

My book is coming slowly. Extremely slowly. FYI.

Slowly as in it will never exist I think. Are you actually writing a book or just talking about it in Internet posts? There are a LOT of internet posters who claim to be writing books about this, that and the other, but I've yet to come across one who posted back about an actual book being published. Are you actively managing the project of producing a book or just thinking about it and blabbing about it on the Internet? Edited December 6, 2013 by JesseCuster

[qxcontinuum]

I am none of the mentioned above. Sorry you are wrong.... Again!

Edited December 6, 2013 by qxcontinuum

[zoser]

To look important in the eyes of the people who view the forum(s) you post on. At the cost of nothing but the time it takes you to compose your posts.

Good luck with that. Your history of trying to interpret pics of Mars doesn't make me think well of your future of producing a publishable book about astronomy and aliens and stuff, but good luck. P.S. I am just the quintessence of the internal universe contemplating itself in a post-retrograde motion.

No, I don't think that. I've seen plenty of oddballs posting their "theories" on forums who think they're doubly super important when it comes to science and stuff, but don't have their own websites or forums or blogs or whatever.

Slowly as in it will never exist I think. Are you actually writing a book or just talking about it in Internet posts? There are a LOT of internet posters who claim to be writing books about this, that and the other, but I've yet to come across one who posted back about an actual book being published. Are you actively managing the project of producing a book or just thinking about it and blabbing about it on the Internet?

Ufology is one of those rare subjects that defies one attempts at one line explanations. That's what makes it exciting and why this particular forum is the most popular on UM.

Any theory about ET or UFO's is a good one as I see it. It needs off the wall thinking and every bit of originality that can me mustered.

I refrain from judging people with new theories for this reason. The field is still very much an open one.

[scowl]

Any theory about ET or UFO's is a good one as I see it. It needs off the wall thinking and every bit of originality that can me mustered.

That sure sums it up. UFOlogy is a conclusion with no evidence to support it, therefore all evidence that doesn't support the conclusion must be belittled, discarded, or ignored. Hoax? Discard it. Possible mundane explanation? Ignore it. No physical evidence? Pretend you don't need it. Any off the wall theory that supports ET? Assume it's a good one.

This is the kind of thinking that keeps cults in business.

[qxcontinuum]

But Jesse...what are you doing on teh forums , what is your motivation for spending time here ? Do you have any personal ideas or opinions that are you exposing regarding subjects other than sharing everyones discoveries or reacting and contradicting some of us?

UFO-logy is like religion, you're either believing in or you don't. Same as religion was sparked by something. Saying that everyone is a fool ignoring facts is same like ignoring the back yard smoke w/o looking for a fire causing it. It is the perfect time to question or to settle our own opinions and this forum is a blessing helping achieving it.

Edited December 6, 2013 by qxcontinuum

[zoser]

That sure sums it up. UFOlogy is a conclusion with no evidence to support it, therefore all evidence that doesn't support the conclusion must be belittled, discarded, or ignored. Hoax? Discard it. Possible mundane explanation? Ignore it. No physical evidence? Pretend you don't need it. Any off the wall theory that supports ET? Assume it's a good one.

This is the kind of thinking that keeps cults in business.

That thinking is not going to work Mr S. Try and apply hard classic science and I guarantee that you and the others will just bounce off the subject.

There are many reasons for that to do with the fact that our science only a keyhole view of the total reality. in no way is it a final criteria of how things work. It is far too limited. If it were otherwise we woulld be able to do what the saucers can do and as you know we cannot.

So you can trot out the science books as much as you like. It won't amount to a hill of beans in this vast unknown subject.

Thank God for that too. When the scientists show a little more open mindedness and originality then maybe they can play a role; alas don't expect that any time soon.

[Spacenut56]

That thinking is not going to work Mr S. Try and apply hard classic science and I guarantee that you and the others will just bounce off the subject.

There are many reasons for that to do with the fact that our science only a keyhole view of the total reality. in no way is it a final criteria of how things work. It is far too limited. If it were otherwise we woulld be able to do what the saucers can do and as you know we cannot.

So you can trot out the science books as much as you like. It won't amount to a hill of beans in this vast unknown subject.

Thank God for that too. When the scientists show a little more open mindedness and originality then maybe they can play a role; alas don't expect that any time soon.

Well if believing in "UFOligy" is a "cult" then there are an awful lot of distinguished members then, including astronauts, scientists, police officers, government officials, and so on and so on and so on. Your opinion though not mine or many others.

[scowl]

That thinking is not going to work Mr S.

It does work. You just don't like it proving you wrong, over and over.

Try and apply hard classic science and I guarantee that you and the others will just bounce off the subject.

By "hard classic science" I assume you mean "actual science as practiced by millions of scientists around the world for over two hundred years which has led to the most important discoveries in the history of mankind which have improved and extended our lives and has revealed how the universe works". Yeah, why would you want to use that? Oh, yeah, because it hasn't led to the discovery of extraterrestrial life which you are convinced must exist.

When we apply science to the study of UFO's we do not "bounce of the subject" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. Instead we either come to plausible conclusions or no conclusions. UFOlogy on the other hand starts with a conclusion then forms the evidence to support that conclusion. We know from history that this kind of thinking has led to countless human disasters. Fortunately UFO's are so unimportant we let people play in their little hobby and make money off their silly books. If UFO's really did exist, you wouldn't have amateurs studying them.

So you can trot out the science books as much as you like. It won't amount to a hill of beans in this vast unknown subject.

It's not a vast unknown subject. For the past sixty years UFO phenomena have been studied and everyone outside of UFOlogy has learned a lot about how people can be fooled by what they see. Unfortunately UFOlogy never learns from its mistakes. Whenever it has been fooled by a hoax or misidentification, it's just as likely to be fooled by the very same thing the next time. It collects no new knowledge.

Thank God for that too. When the scientists show a little more open mindedness and originality then maybe they can play a role; alas don't expect that any time soon.

Science is completely open minded. The thing you don't like is that it doesn't support the existence of your beloved make-believe alien creatures and their science fiction technology.

[scowl]

Well if believing in "UFOligy" is a "cult"

I never said that. I said that believing in unsupported nonsense has led to cults. UFOlogy is far too disorganized and scatterbrained to be considered a cult.

[Spacenut56]

Your opinion which is fine. I can't and won't change your opinion, and I can't be made to and will not change my opinion. Fair is fair.

[psyche101]

Your opinion which is fine. I can't and won't change your opinion, and I can't be made to and will not change my opinion. Fair is fair.

Nobody gives a rodents rectum about opinions, all that matters is fact, and UFOlogy is decidedly lacking these.

ETH'ers make up their own facts to suit each case as it comes along, and holes are poked in it. It's that simple. No real ones exist to support the ETH.

Again, which RADAR track shows a UFO heading into space? You know, where spaceships are supposed to go?

[psyche101]

Ufology is one of those rare subjects that defies one attempts at one line explanations.

That is why the parts that have been explained to date have some rather varied fields associated with them. From Black Ops to Meteorology to plasmas, to light refractions properties as discussed on Professor Jack Pettigrews paper on Min Mins, temperature anomalies, to new things we learn each day at Hessdalen.

Every answer that has become available to us has been very terrestrial in explanation. Just like when the Greek Gods of Thunder and Lightning were demystified by science. No idea what some people think that growing list is definitely going to expand to alien life.

That's what makes it exciting and why this particular forum is the most popular on UM.

There are sensible conversations here too that attract many. Just Jim Obergs presence alone is worth Joining UM for. People like Him ,Bade, Peri, Drunken Parrot, S2F, Lost Shaman,heck, just too many to mention really make this forum special, they teach people real world items that matter, they do not make crap up and expect people to be mystified with junk musings like you do, it has all aspects of knowledge covered and can even resolve cases, unlike the horrible ATS forum, where the more credulous a person is, the more popular they are, Not sure how you are not a permanent there to be frank. All you have done is lower the bar.

Any theory about ET or UFO's is a good one as I see it. It needs off the wall thinking and every bit of originality that can me mustered.

Nope, imagining childish movie style crap is not actually resolving anything more than establishing the depth of your credulity. Method is required, and actual investigation that does not rely on imagination. "As you see it" would satisfy the requirements of very few people, and lets face it, the people who did swallow that tripe are the type of people who buy bridges.

I refrain from judging people with new theories for this reason. The field is still very much an open one.

You mean you like to make stuff up, and encourage others to stop thinking about what can actually work, and just let your mind run free right? And that you do not want to feel alone with your very own special University where you make up facts? Or simply allow your brain to vomit directly onto your keyboard might be another way of putting it?

That is why you tell people to throw away textbooks and not accept what you call "College mind conditioning" isn't it? You want people dumb enough to swallow this imaginative crap. I wonder where that leaves you huh? But you have no agenda do you?

[psyche101]

Your opinion which is fine. I can't and won't change your opinion, and I can't be made to and will not change my opinion. Fair is fair.

Yeah yeah, the Heavens Gate people were really quite certain that a spaceship sat in the tail of Hale Bopp too.

Imagine of one of them had listen to a skeptic, and had a look through a telescope.........

But are people who are so ready to swallow such garbage capable of thinking that hard, or even initiating the checking of a doubt? If not, who is to blame for their deaths?

[Argus]

I just saw the famous picture of Mars in the National Geographic magazine of Sept 1955 , volume CVIII, number Three. Very strange. A large part of Mars is dark green in springtime, " The polar cap dwindles in spring and summer, and from it spreads a great 'wave of darkness' as the patches intensify in hue". Funny how that picture is nowhere to be found on internet. Copyright?