Just a thought...Does SpaceX exist to "confirm" all the standard Einsteinian cosmology and other hokum?
People are growing increasingly (and deservedly so) wary of ANYTHING the government says. So...I just had this thought about another one of those mysterious "titans-from-nothing" companies that have just seemingly sprung up, fully formed, onto the world stage and the public consciousness the past few years.
(A recent SpaceX failure...courtesy of theverge.com.)
What if the real purpose of these massive "private" "space exploration" efforts is simply to act as a front routine for NASA to push the ludicrous Eisteinian view of cosmology and the "endless universe"(red shift, black hole, dark energy, 14-billion years-and-no-Creator idiocy) without the baggage of being government-sponsored, openly?"
Whenever I see articles like this one:
...I have to wonder where these guys get their "expertise" and more importantly, THEIR SEED MONEY.
Now, for the record, I am not a "moon landings" denier in the classical sense. I don't personally know where, exactly, the moon is located, except that it is DEFINITELY "in the firmament." I don't know if the astronauts even had to be exposed to dangerous interstellar radiation to reach the moon in their tiny aluminum-skinned "space ship," guided by 1969-era 64k RAM "computers."
Maybe they did go and come back, and all the obvious photographic fakery was simply a results of NASA wanting to give the people "something" due to their lack of transmission capabilities from the moon's surface.
BUT...I definitely have doubts about the "Theory of Relativity" in that it is totally necessary to overcome Michaelson-Morley, to disprove the ether, and to provide a context in which the Earth can be said to be moving in six different directions all at once. I don't believe in the "big bang" except as God spoke everything into existence, and I don't believe in billions of years, trillions of light years, or ENORMOUS stars (that will all "fall to earth" one day...ahem...)
(Image courtesy of scienceworld.wolfram.com.)
SO, I am back to wondering the same things about SpaceX that I've always wondered about Google and Facebook and all these other sudden (DARPA-supported) startups. They all seem to have equally anti-democratic, anti-Bible and anti-truth agendas ...
SpaceX is probably U.S. government, or deep-state swamp (in other words.) Pretty much the same thing, of course.
Don't bet against it...
100% agree. looks like you have 75% of this jigsaw completed already. if you believe the bible is the word of God (and i'm assuming you do by what you write,) then genesis 1 gives you the truth about our cosmology.
earth was brought forth on day three. the sun, moon and stars on day four. all on the same day, and after the earth. it also clearly states the luminaries are to give light upon the earth, not in some distant fuzzy way 'oh yes we can see them' but as in, the earth is the big, main thing, and the lights are above it, small, local and very likely plasma.
dan dimension has done some great work on the atmosphere/ daylight/ the sun, also great videos on high alt balloon flights.
for myself, i have done a number of live presentations in front of an audience on why the moon landings are fake, why heliocentrism is fake, and the earth is fixed and gently undulating:
I'm open to a variety of possible Biblical interpretations, and did my own "best guesstimate" articles a few days ago.
I'm away right now on a small, old laptop that doesn't play videos well. I'll try to check that out tomorrow. Thanks for sharing!
just looked down your timeline and didn't see them? got a link bud?
NP...Here ya be:
https://steemit.com/informationwar/@mepatriot/what-i-ve-learned-from-a-close-examination-of-flat-earth-theory
cool. left you a note :-)
It's dangerous for me to read your stuff, Steve. You always get me questioning my National Geographicized childhood. LOL.
LOL... Obviously, I don't have all the answers, but I am certainly acquainted with the goals of the enemy... and I can read the Biblical cosmology...
I can get behind being suspicious of sources, like the USG, that are notorious liars. It is the only reasonable way to proceed with known liars.
However, I can't get behind dismissing science that is simply not understood, or because it conflicts with dogma or ideology. I don't dismiss your personal faith, and indeed account it a good - even if I don't share it. I strongly support your right to speak your mind. I don't recommend speaking your mind on matters that you aren't confident (superably) you fully comprehend, at least insofar as it reveals your statements are due to your incomprehension, and to be contrary to reason. It's not because we may disagree, but because it reduces confidence in your veracity and reliability.
I follow you for a reason, and that is because I consider you a reliable source. You have demonstrable integrity, and even if we disagree I have a high level of confidence you are saying only what you believe is true. I don't expect flawless grasp of complex issues from anyone (least of all me), but there is a limit to the utility of integrity, and that limit is closely linked to reason. If you are aware you don't understand something, the only reasonable comment is to acknowledge that lack of understanding, or point to those whose understanding you resonate with.
Some of your statements in this post are very misleading. Science cannot address God, for example. Scientists have personal opinions, but conflating those opinions with science is extremely prejudicial, and grossly wrong. Science is only a method for proving something cannot be true. Accordingly, there being no means of empirically testing God to ascertain whether God exists or not, much less whether any particular dogma or faith based belief regarding God is true or not, ascribing to science itself any support for atheism is just plain false.
Science is inherently agnostic, not just regarding religion, but all questions. Science can never prove anything at all. In fact, science can never actually disprove anything either, but merely provide consistent and convincing evidence that something is not the case. Our physical universe demonstrates consistent features, and experiment has revealed that many theories about the universe cannot be true (all such claims are necessarily moderated natively by the caveat that more information, and better understanding of that information, can change that), and leaves only those theories that MIGHT be true left standing.
Accordingly, despite misconstruing the Big Bang theory as proven in our public school indoctrinations here in the US, the propagandists have not proved anything. There may be many good reasons to believe the Big Bang theory is true, but there are also good reasons to suspect it is not, and I'm speaking scientifically, not from dogma or a religious faith perspective. In the opinion of some scientists (bad scientists IMHO) the Big Bang theory is a fact. They cannot prove that to be so. Honest scientists will correctly state that the best evidence indicates the Big Bang is the best theory (except for those who accord other evidence and theories primacy), and few will state it is disproven. There's a great deal we presently cannot know about the origin of the universe, and claims any particular theory is proven are hostile assaults on truth.
Indeed, this is the primary proof that climate alarmism is nothing more than propaganda. It is the very claims that it is proven, that 'the science is settled' that completely disprove it has any scientific validity whatsoever. I believe you understand and have commented on exactly that principle before on that topic.
Also, the origin and evolution of SpaceX is public information. If you don't know it, that's on you. Not knowing it, and claiming SpaceX sprang up out of nowhere is disingenuous, and making such statements colors all your other statements with the doubt definite falsehoods must - just as do the USG's claims about the Moon landing.
Don't do that my friend. Calling something 'anti-bible' because it is pro-truth and religious faith is not something science can confirm or deny is logically false. There are real statements that are anti-bible, anti-koran, and anti-good altogether, and conflating mere science with any of them casts you in a bad, and insuperable, light. I think you are actually pro-science. Where your personal faith depends on statements of positive fact, knowing that science is nothing but theories experiment indicates are more or less likely makes denying science unnecessary - and counterproductive.
It is better to be forthright and point out that one does not know a thing, than to deny something because one does not know. Science does not know anything, and although many people, including many scientists themselves, misunderstand what science is and can do, and make irrational statements as a result, that true fact means you do not ever have to feel that where some scientific theory conflicts with your faith you must deny the validity of scientific inquiry.
That is a basic tenet of Islam. It is that tenet that has destroyed the scientific community of Muslim culture, from it's position of being on the cutting edge in Arabia to being practically non-existent today. The difference between Islam and your faith only became relevant after the Inquisition ended, because that denial of facts, or even inquiry into facts, prevents new knowledge from being understood and learned. Islam, and the Church of the Inquisition, maintain that all knowledge permissible is contained in religion.
Don't fall for that lie. I know you are more honest and intelligent than that.
This article is titled as speculation, and is clearly present in that vein, V-C. There is nothing much at all about Elon Musk and his ventures, IMO, that is not murky and getting murkier all the time. In fact, the explosion onto the scene of this character is equally as suspicious as is that of the founders of Facebook, Google, et al.
My views on cosmology are mine and no one else's (necessarily) and I do not present them as fact.
Anything that I state in my blog posts is my opinion, or when I do make factual assertions it is either because I have researched it well, or thought it through carefully as anyone might ( and I usually take care to present them either with documentation, or with reasons why I believe them to be factual.) Whether or not in means anything to you, I also bathe all of my writing in prayer and I employ my Creator to not let me ever be willfully or accidentally deceptive.
I am not asking you to accept that He has fully granted that request, or that I have never been in error, just letting you know that I do take the ATTEMPT at being truthful seriously.
It is clear we are not going to agree on much, cosmologically speaking, and that's OK too. My views on scientism, orogeny, modern psychiatry, and a host of other fields might strike you wrong as well...
Peace and Cheers, my friend...
I appreciate your measured and substantive response to my comment, which I note bears an insufferable tone I did not intend. Scientism we are likely to be quite agreed on, amongst many other things, in particular psychiatry. I also am confident that if you were willing to consider it, Einsteinian relativity is not only reasonable, but I do not see any reason a Bible believer couldn't be comfortable with it - but that's my own opinion, and of no consequence.
I agree that Musk's origins are shrouded in potential complicity with nefarious actors, being formerly partnered with Peter Thiel is a good example, but his creation of Paypal and subsequent businesses since aren't particularly cryptic. Zuckerberg and Schmidt of Google aren't cryptic either, just associated with bad company IMHO.
I value your personal views, and my intention was to seek to enable you to not present them as factual when they were possibly more merely unconvinced of the factual. What is clear to me upon rereading my comment is that my advice in that regard would best be taken by me, for I failed utterly to express that sentiment, and instead sound to me like I am sure of my own subjective grasp. This is not only a great personal lapse, but insulting to you, and I apologize.
I wasn't insulted, and no need to apologize, bro. We're all good.
If everyone had to agree with me on everything to be my friend, I wouldn't have many friends...in fact, probably NONE...lol...
It's all good...
"As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17
I can clearly see that understand only a few of the terms you are naming. Otherwise you would know that all those concepts are not purely based on Einstein's Theories of Relativity: For example red shift can be explained using the classical doppler effect which you literally heard to be true. Red shift of galaxies can be measured → the universe is expanding. So even though you may be afraid of relativity the universe still expands without it.
Where did you get those six different directions? In the science I learned earth is moving only along one 4-dimensional vector.
It's always a good way to confuse those readers who don't know science with a totally unrelated picture(you didn't even mention gravitational waves in the text and it has definitely nothing to do with SpaceX).
Yes there are big stars, but what's the problem about that? Is it just because humanity and earth isn't the center of the world anymore and you don't accept that feeling of being nothing?
So you say the universe is finite(And I don't think you mean something like the universe is there surface of a 4d-hypersphere or similar). Consider this: If the universe is finite, then there must be a border somewhere. If there is border, then you should be able to break it or go to the other side some other way. What is on the other side of the border? Either infinite space or a finite space. In case of infinity then your supposed to be finite universe is in reality infinite. In case of a finite space you can apply the same logic again and again…
And now about god. If god created the world, then god was there before there was a world. So tell me how was god created? Did he just appear? No I don't think so, an overly powerful and intelligent entity couldn't just appear out of nowhere. If there was a god(and I doubt) he could only be created in a universe similar(at least in some degrees) to ours by something called evolution, and he would be a programmer. Why don't you learn programming? It would please your god!
If you don't understand the logic of the last 2 paragraphs, you should really doubt your intelligence. Maybe you should learn the art of logic then.