Then getting BS like your hypothesis for free is a bargain. In fact, you should pay us for listening, which is the logical path of anti-knowledge.
And “Bruce’s Stuph?” I assume you are the Bruce. That’s just sad. Scientists (usually) don’t name things after themselves.
But first - a demonstration that forces of equal evolution act upon forces of equal evolution.
Find some tree pitch. Try wiping it off the skin with toilet paper. Now flick at this sticky mess with thumb and for-finger (ten or so times). This causes a chaotic reaction between molecules (forces, chips) of the skin and tree pitch, now instead of attracting they are repelling making it real easy to wipe clean.
Our Planet spews a very violent force, fortunately for us is that in exiting it has not matured to interact with matter and the majority is deposited out into space as dark matter.
TORNADO
Centrifugal or magnetic force in its evolution becomes a size to interact with the force gravity at the elevation of visible water. If it is clear with no cloud, temperature did not allow centrifugal force with all its nasty forces to mutate and most of these are on their way to other worlds.
Interactions of forces within a cloud produce chaotic air cells that cause the nuclei of the cells to repel each other (chips) producing, from their poles, the temperature cold. These many molecules (chips) are contained within the cell membrane producing an expanded, large air cell. An atomic reaction ignites the oxygen of these expanded cells (lightning) and the air cell then has nuclei or chips attracting. It’s the collapse of these air cells that produces the sound thunder. The cold produced changes the air cell to a water cell that can crystallize as hail.
While the air cell is expanded its nuclei are of a size that does not interact with the sun’s radiation and little light is produced leaving a dark cloud (black).
The vortex of energy released from the earth has now mutated to a size as to interact with gravity and air, returning to earth as a destructive tornado.
How does one measure anti-knowledge in order to determine its purity? Presumably as anti-knowledge approaches complete inaccuracy it approaches 100% purity.
Yet, the statement you describe as “pure anti-knowledge” contains the following: “When you stand back from a fire you no longer feel its heat”. Which is pretty darn accurate.
I think if **Bruce **was selling his posts as “anti-knowledge” they would have to carry a warning label saying “warning, may contain traces of knowledge”.
This thread got really trippy all of a sudden. Like, I literally have no idea how to even interact with that post. It’s a bizarre combination of complete self-assuredness, conspiracy theories, and word salad. Kinda neat in its own right, mind you.
None of the concepts of “distance” are all that counterintuitive, taken each by itself, and they all converge with the local concept of distance on a small scale. The counterintuitive part is that these intuitive notions don’t all agree.
I mentioned to a friend that there was no such thing as a straight line. In discussion his interpretation of this statement was that a micro particle would be subjected to the mountains, hills and valleys of the line.
What I had meant in this statement was if you could, in a horizontal or level position expel a beam of energy, and that beam of energy was so fast as to be instant, it would complete a circle around the Earth. Vertically it would also complete a circle, a much, much larger circle. (figure eight)
The reality is that time exists and time would influence the trueness of these circles.
What is known as the Big Bang Theory is in fact theory and the simplicity of this phenomenon is common Cell division.
It is assumed that the universe is expanding in a straight line away from the Big Bang but since there is no such thing as a straight line nor a Big Bang!
Did You Know about CERN discovering the G particle (Higgs Boson particle theory) pay attention to up coming large hadron collider news. For now though;
Without the howl of wind and dogs, I have (in the High Arctic) many times witnessed the sound (snapping), color and speed of the earths AURA.
Very simply the AURA borealis is the suns radiation interacting with immature gas produced (as a force) from the earths magnetic poles. It is these gasses that produce the primary colors red, yellow and blue.
It is this phenomenon that allows us to actually see what has been named Dark Matter.
Earths longitudinal erratic tipping periodically allows some in the south to witness this northern lights phenomenon.
Forces that are cork screwing their way to each of earths poles, exit the planet as an immature air cell. These cells are in evolution and must first evolve or mutate to other gasses (OZONE) etc. Ozone at this point is still an immature (force) and will not be detected by infrared. This will be incorrectly interpreted by people that are not knowledgeable in this new technology as to be a Hole in the Ozone!
The word is Aurora, mate.
I’m confused. If education and science don’t understand this stuph, how do you?
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/esp_tierra_hueca_2d.htm
Been there done it!
Hey Bruce, I’d like to show you this fascinating website. I think it might really interest you. It goes by the name of “Time Cube”. It seems right up your alley.
No, it’s not that at all. But Cecil is wrong, but you can’t blame him on this, almost everyone is wrong about Olber’s paradox.
So, are you planning to come back and enlighten us, or are you waiting for us to beg?
Powers &8^]
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1356/why-is-the-night-sky-dark
Forget the “most distant stars”, our own galaxy, as well as nearby Andromeda, both those areas of the sky also look dark at night, when they should be much brighter than the moon.
It’s dust blocking out all the starlight, and it doesn’t ever glow as bright as a star. New discoveries about the amount of dust outside the central disk of galaxies confirms there is much more dust than anyone thought back in the days of Olber.
The dust would shine as bright as a star if the universe were infinite and eternal; but it is not.
There are places where the dust is very thin, and we can see the intergalactic medium; there is relatively little dust between us and the most distant galaxies, such as those observed in the Hubble Deep Field.
No matter how much starlight space dust absorbs, it does not emit the energy in the same wavelength, but as infrared, which we can indeed measure.
Indeed; but if the universe were eternal and infinite (and had no redshift) then the dust would be warmed to the average temperature of all the stars in the universe, which would be about 2000K - easily visible.
Ooops- of course the stars would heat each other as well so the end result would be much, much hotter.
Google “Bruce Voigt science” to read more of this man’s intriguing thoughts and insights. He once named a planet after himself.
He also claims to have discovered a cure for all diseases, including cancer.