Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Polymath257]

There you go again displaying your restricted consensus perceptions. But maybe you think it´s your belowed asserted gravity which forms new babies too?

Weell if you think so, is it also your belowed asserted gravity force which makes the tail of a spermcell to rotate?

How does this relate to nucleosynthesis?

 

[Polymath257]

Fine. You can take off predicting and testing Big Bang.

THE BB theory is well tested.

 

[Native]

How does this relate to nucleosynthesis?

Wake up your philosophical skills and then you´ll know yourself.

THE BB theory is well tested.

And the prediction was?

 

[Polymath257]

Wake up your philosophical skills and then you´ll know yourself.

Again, I suspect you don't understand what 'nucleosynthesis' is. It is *completely* irrelevant to biology.

And the prediction was?

Cosmological red shifts, background radiation, deviations from the Planck law in the blackbody radiation, abundances of light elements.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

 

[Native]

Again, I suspect you don't understand what 'nucleosynthesis' is. It is *completely* irrelevant to biology.

I cant help if you restrict formations in large to deal with just 1 definition.

I asked:
And the prediction (of the Big Bang) was?

Cosmological red shifts, background radiation, deviations from the Planck law in the blackbody radiation, abundances of light elements.

All you come up with here has nothing to do with the prediction of how a BB began or what happens next = predictive issues. You´re just referring to biased assertions to an asserted Big Bang.

 

[Native]

I´m jumping off this thread. Thanks for everything and nothing

 

[gnostic]

Newton had the title of Natural Philosopher, but he did a really bad job when asserting "gravity" from a falling apple, as he forgot to ask WHY and HOW. He forgot to investigate the reason of an apple being created up on the tree branch (biological E&M nucleosynthesis) and then all went wrong in the following cosmology. I reckognize his calculations of celestial motions but NOT for the reasons of "gravity between objects".

WHAT on Earth are you talking about???!!!


There is no such thing as “biological E&M nucleosynthesis”.

Clearly you don’t know what nucleosynthesis is, otherwise you wouldn’t be making up string of words, out of pure ignorance.

Nucleosynthesis have to do with the nucleus of the atom, and how they form atoms.

In the Primordial Nucleosynthesis or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), it is a period when nucleus first formed around hadron particle or particles (hadrons are protons and neutrons), but during BBN, the universe was still too hot for electrons to bond with these earliest atoms, hence these atom were ionized.

So this type of nucleosynthesis, is where ionized hydrogen nuclei, deuterium nuclei, helium nuclei and lithium nuclei were all formed when the universe was still very young - atoms without electrons.

It was only when the universe cooled down considerably, during the Recombination Epoch (started around 379,000 years after the Big Bang that electrons for the first time, bonded with these ionized atoms, that they became neutral stable atoms.

This bonding of electrons with nuclei, also cause the universe to be transparent for the first time, and photons that decoupled from nuclei, photons were able to travel to freely through space. And the world know these photons, the earliest detectable EM radiations, which astrophysicists called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

This CMBR was first detected and measured in 1964, by radio antenna built by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, but were first predicted by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948 (Alpher also co-predicted BB Nucleosynthesis with George Gamow in 1948).

The Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is a different type of nucleosynthesis than other types -

1. Stellar Nucleosynthesis
2. Supernova Nucleosynthesis

Both of these types of nucleosynthesis related to how a star will fuse light atoms (hydrogen atoms) to form into heavier atoms.

There are many types of Stellar Nucleosynthesis, but two of these are common:

1. proton-proton chain reaction nucleosynthesis, and
2. CNO cycle nucleosynthesis

The proton-proton is where it take about 6 hydrogen nuclei to fuse into one helium nuclei.

The “CNO” stand for carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, where more massive and hotter stars hydrogen nuclei will fuse each of these heavier atomic nuclei in succession, and recycle again. This type of nucleosynthesis is more complex to understand, so I would suggest that you look up CNO Cycle, to better understand this type of Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

The hydrogen into helium nucleosynthesis (proton-proton chain reaction) occur in our star’s core - the Sun.

It doesn’t matter which of these two or other Stellar Nucleosynthesis occurred, but it take both gravity and pressure to cause thermonuclear fusion.

We even have the technology of producing hydrogen-into-helium fusion, through thermonuclear explosion, eg the hydrogen bomb.

Supernova Nucleosynthesis occurred when stars explode in supernova event, which can create atoms heavier than helium, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen atoms, from everything up to iron.

It is these Supernova Nucleosynthesis that produce all the materials needed to create planets, planetesimals, asteroids, meteors, comets, etc.

There are high probability that were couple of supernova explosions near here that were responsible for leaving materials behind that allow our Solar System to form.

There are no such thing as “biological nucleosynthesis” or “biological E&M nucleosynthesis”. You are making up things that make no sense.

You have demonstrated that nucleosynthesis is another thing of whole list of other things that you don’t understand.

 

[Native]

WHAT on Earth are you talking about???!!!

Don´t you read what is posted in the thread? I wrote

I´m jumping off this thread. Thanks for everything and nothing

It WAS my intention to take a breake in this thread, by I got a mail notion of your post.

All the following is probably wasted on you, but as a polite and responsive person, I´ll try anyway.
--------------------
Native said: ↑
Newton had the title of Natural Philosopher, but he did a really bad job when asserting "gravity" from a falling apple, as he forgot to ask WHY and HOW. He forgot to investigate the reason of an apple being created up on the tree branch (biological E&M nucleosynthesis) and then all went wrong in the following cosmology. I reckognize his calculations of celestial motions but NOT for the reasons of "gravity between objects".

Use your logical and analythic senses

If you ponders why an apple is falling from a tree and by which natural forces it does so, you also have to ponder over how and by which natural forces it is made up in the tree.

You have to make a full circle of observations and investigations before you can descide what is going on and making mathematical calculations and equations of the entire scenario.

Newton just made a "half circle investigation" and theorized his gravitational ideas from the assumption, that the Earth is pulling the apple to the ground. He then transferred this assumption to the celestial matters of the Solar System of which he knew that planets orbits the Sun which "holds the planets in their orbits" and by studying the empirical known velocities of the planets, he made his "laws of celestial motion"

These Newtonian made celestial calculations are of course fine enough and works OK - but NOT OK from the basic assumption of an falling apple gravity. As in the case of the falling apple, Newton should have made "a full circle investigation" of HOW the Solar System was made in the first place,

Newton was called a *Natural Philosopher* in his days and as such, I certainly would study ancient philosophical thinking from several cultures, included thougths and myths of the creation, but I don´t know if Newton did that.

If not, he wouldn´t have any clues of such formation, hence also no clues of which forces caused the motions in the Solar System. It later turned out that his gravitational laws of celestial motion in the Solar System motions didn´t fit in the Milky Way. in which our Solar System is an orbital and formational (nucloesynthetical ) integrated part.

BTW:
Apparently Newton was a *crank*, *crackpot* and a *idiot*, who didn´t understand *consensus science* and the *scientific method* in his days.
Quote:
"Newton's postulate of an invisible force able to act over vast distances led to him being criticised for introducing "occult agencies" into science".

This is of course no news to me at all, as I too today could name Newton as a crank, crackpot and idiot in the case of his gravitational assumptions.

Surprisingly and evidently, the entire cosmological society of theorists and all the indoctrinated followers STILL uncritically believes on Newtons "occult agensies" everywhere - which per the fameous standing *Forum mocking definition*, indirectly makes themselves all *occult* *cranks*; *crackpots* and *idiots*.

Just think of what the implications of Newton´s occult agency assumptions have lead to in modern time of cosmology and astrophysics:
1) Dark matter. 2) Heavy dark hole objects in galaxies and otherwhere. 3) Dark energy. 4) Even the assumption that *gravity* is a *fundamental force*. 5) Lots of other theories, in which Newton´s occult assumption are involved all over the places in modern astrophysics and cosmology.

All based on Newton´s "occult agensies". If you believe in Newton, you per definition all back to Newton´s own time and to the present time, you de facto believe in occult powers.

And now to the *nucleosynthesis* questions.

Clearly you don’t know what nucleosynthesis is, otherwise you wouldn’t be making up string of words, out of pure ignorance. Nucleosynthesis have to do with the nucleus of the atom, and how they form atoms.

Of course I´m not that stupid not to know of the consensus definition of Nucleosynthesis.

And I´m also not that studpidly restricted to exclude the definition from what is formed all over in the Universe, including your good self and all other living creatures and vegetable matters - apropos Newton´s falling apple

I´m just extending the very definition to everything included the biological formation of bodies where all cells are working via E&M chemical processes and where the brain is working via chemically produced electric impulses = *bio-electromagnetic nucleosynthetic formation* all together.

And then to your usual svada based on Newton´s *occult agency*

In the Primordial Nucleosynthesis or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), it is a period when nucleus first formed around hadron particle or particles (hadrons are protons and neutrons), but during BBN, the universe was still too hot for electrons to bond with these earliest atoms, hence these atom were ionized.

So this type of nucleosynthesis, is where ionized hydrogen nuclei, deuterium nuclei, helium nuclei and lithium nuclei were all formed when the universe was still very young - atoms without electrons.

It was only when the universe cooled down considerably, during the Recombination Epoch (started around 379,000 years after the Big Bang that electrons for the first time, bonded with these ionized atoms, that they became neutral stable atoms.

This bonding of electrons with nuclei, also cause the universe to be transparent for the first time, and photons that decoupled from nuclei, photons were able to travel to freely through space. And the world know these photons, the earliest detectable EM radiations, which astrophysicists called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

This CMBR was first detected and measured in 1964, by radio antenna built by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, but were first predicted by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948 (Alpher also co-predicted BB Nucleosynthesis with George Gamow in 1948).

The Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is a different type of nucleosynthesis than other types -

1. Stellar Nucleosynthesis
2. Supernova Nucleosynthesis

Both of these types of nucleosynthesis related to how a star will fuse light atoms (hydrogen atoms) to form into heavier atoms.

There are many types of Stellar Nucleosynthesis, but two of these are common:

1. proton-proton chain reaction nucleosynthesis, and
2. CNO cycle nucleosynthesis

The proton-proton is where it take about 6 hydrogen nuclei to fuse into one helium nuclei.

The “CNO” stand for carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, where more massive and hotter stars hydrogen nuclei will fuse each of these heavier atomic nuclei in succession, and recycle again. This type of nucleosynthesis is more complex to understand, so I would suggest that you look up CNO Cycle, to better understand this type of Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

The hydrogen into helium nucleosynthesis (proton-proton chain reaction) occur in our star’s core - the Sun.

It doesn’t matter which of these two or other Stellar Nucleosynthesis occurred, but it take both gravity and pressure to cause thermonuclear fusion.

We even have the technology of producing hydrogen-into-helium fusion, through thermonuclear explosion, eg the hydrogen bomb.

Supernova Nucleosynthesis occurred when stars explode in supernova event, which can create atoms heavier than helium, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen atoms, from everything up to iron.

It is these Supernova Nucleosynthesis that produce all the materials needed to create planets, planetesimals, asteroids, meteors, comets, etc.

There are high probability that were couple of supernova explosions near here that were responsible for leaving materials behind that allow our Solar System to form.

I don´t believe in a Big Bang, so this is illogical nonsens to me. And as already in Newton´s present days, critical scientist took Newton´s ideas as *occult agency of gravity*, and so do I today as I don´t believe in metaphysical or *occult powers*

So, your usual indoctrinated copy-paste svada is all in all just "occult fairy tales* and *science fictions*.

You have demonstrated that nucleosynthesis is another thing of whole list of other things that you don’t understand.

Conclusion:
1) I´ve demonstrated how the concept of nucleosynthesis connects logically to "everything what is formed"
2) You´ve demonstrated that you cannot make such an universal connection.
3) You´ve furthermore and frequently demonstrated that you belive in occult power agensies.
4) As I don´t belive in such powers and ideas, I of course cannot take it serious that those persons who do belive in *occult power agencies*, assess me not to understand anything in cosmology.
5) And that also goes for remarks from debaters who unconsiously judge the scientific fundamental E&M forces on the basis of the assertion that occult agency powers rules the entire Universe.

End of this reply:
As it is your usual practice to copy-paste anything, I suggest you do the same with this reply and save it on your desk so you easily can find and read it before you think of further replies to me concerning *the Newtonian occultism* and *scientific testing*; *theories of scientific theories and it´s methodology*, which even Newton didn´t followed and obeyed with his cranky *occult force agency*.

Which all STILL isn´t obeyed about 350 years after in modern cosmology by scientists who incredibly just inserts all kind of further occult dark matters and energies because of the occult gravity invention of Newton himself.

 

[gnostic]

As it is your usual practice to copy-paste anything, I suggest you do the same with this reply and save it on your deskboard and read it before you think of further replies to me concerning *the Newtonian occultism* and *theories of scientific theories and it´s methodology*, which even Newton didn´t followed and obeyed with his cranky *occult force agency*.

Which all STILL isn´t obeyed by modern scientist who incredibly just inserts all kind of further occult dark matters and energies because of the occult gravity invention of Newton himself.

It is funny how you resorting to dishonest strawman argument, when you repeatedly accuse me of using “dark matters” or “dark energy”, when I rarely use them as my points.

I brought up BBN and the Recombination Epoch (atoms plus CMBR), which are both 2 periods which explain the formation of the earliest ordinary matters - the 3 lightest elements in the Periodic Table - hydrogen, helium and lithium.

The BBN & CMBR were first brought up and predicted by Gamow, Alpher and Herman in 1948, and since 1964, it was verified matters as we know it, have their origin started at these points, hundreds of millions of years before stars first formed. Hydrogen was and still is the most abundant elements in the universe.

Without these hydrogen, there would be no stars, no stars would mean no galaxies, no planets and no life.

Not once did I assume dark matters or dark energy in this earliest phases of the universe timeline, because I wanted to make a very clear points of when atoms started before there were stars and galaxies. Only you have bring them (dark matters or dark energy) up.

Second, I did bring up gravity’s role in Stellar Nucleosynthesis, but I didn’t write anything about Newton, since he knew nothing about how stars form, let alone about Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

So, this is just more made up BS from you, using another strawman argument. You are attacking another thing I didn’t write about.

How can you look yourself in the mirror, when you repeatedly use dishonest tactics - making up things that I didn’t write about?

 

[Native]

It is funny how you resorting to dishonest strawman argument, when you repeatedly accuse me of using “dark matters” or “dark energy”, when I rarely use them as my points.

It´s all just a partial mindstuff and result of your belowed Newtonian *occult power agency*. If you don´t believe in dark matter you´ll have to discard your entire cosmological plot which is connected to Newton.

I brought up BBN and the Recombination Epoch (atoms plus CMBR), which are both 2 periods which explain the formation of the earliest ordinary matters - the 3 lightest elements in the Periodic Table - hydrogen, helium and lithium.

The BBN & CMBR were first brought up and predicted by Gamow, Alpher and Herman in 1948, and since 1964, it was verified matters as we know it, have their origin started at these points, hundreds of millions of years before stars first formed. Hydrogen was and still is the most abundant elements in the universe.

Without these hydrogen, there would be no stars, no stars would mean no galaxies, no planets and no life.

I don´t believe in this disconnected Big Bang nonsense or on the consensus understanding of nucleosynthesis by Newtonian occult forces, so just forget it.

How can you look yourself in the mirror, when you repeatedly use dishonest tactics - making up things that I didn’t write about?

If you were able to make similar cosmological connections as me, you wouldn´t see any strawmen or dishonest tactics in my replies - and you´ll look just nice in your own mirror.

 

[gnostic]

I don´t believe in this disconnected Big Bang nonsense or on the consensus understanding of nucleosynthesis by Newtonian occult forces, so just forget it.

I don’t care what you believe or don’t believe. It is the evidence that verify a explanatory/predictive model that important, not your belief.

And the Big Bang model is based on Einstein’s theory of gravitation (eg General Relativity), which largely replace the Newtonian gravitation, WHEN concerning observations outside of the Milky Way to the other parts of universe.

Newtonian astronomy is still valid within the confine of the Sun and planetary bodies of the Solar System, and the universal laws are still adequate to mathematically explain orbits and motions of planets...but the Solar System is only tiny fraction of the universe.

Your Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe don’t fully explain everything, particularly not the rotation and orbital motions of astronomical bodies, nor explain the source of energy output for any stars.

And, there is still no such thing as “biological E&M nucleosynthesis”.

You simply don’t understand what Nucleosynthesis is, and refusing to admit your mistake.

And nucleosynthesis isn’t occult or magic. The description of Stellar Nucleosynthesis and Supernova Nucleosynthesis used the same basic physics principles as that of thermonuclear fusion reaction (eg H-bomb), but this nuclear fusion or nucleosynthesis occurred within the stars’ interiors - the core.

Understanding nucleosynthesis (of the stars or supernova) is easy to understand once you understand nuclear fusion how work.

Ever single models concerning Nucleosynthesis have been explained, predicted and tested in the 20th century, not the Newtonian 17th century.

You keep look foolish with ignorance. I don’t care what you believe or don’t believe, because the natural reality don’t center around you and your make believe fantasies.

 

[rational experiences]

Statements science male human invented whilst he lived.

Asteroids came to earth carrying first life. I research and impose a string of thoughts claiming it is linked to where it came from.

Space. Spatial conditions. He wants space contacts.

Satanic science AI self possessed thoughts.

Science never existed. Consciousness ours only inside cooled gas state.

Consciousness expressed by living human inside atmosphere.

Information from wandering star now actually owned by earth inside atmosphere. Not anywhere else.

False prostelizing.

Says is a Saviour. Asteroid star gases wandering put gases back into space.

He links the thoughts as if it is linked.

Water always owned microbes.

Microbes not light condition burning gas..our cells use energy food. Our life taught sustained by food. Water life...holy life.

Is no science resource about cold gases researched in space.

When God cold history is stone. One holy body.

Why he burnt us to death before. Plainly stated he is an egotist and a liar.

As burning gases to become stone and asteroid gases did not own microbes.

Burning kills our bio energy food used for cells.

What human biologist scientist healer quoted about planetary references.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So let's look at ZPE, is it omnipresent in time-space, both at the macro level and the micro? If my question is not clear, please say so and I will try again.

 

[rational experiences]

Spatial expansion.

What was once a higher state activated change converts into heat.

As pressure changed meaning movement is involved.

We once taught that statement eternal.

No space existed.
Energy did not exist. Agreed by scientist who quotes I can invent energy.

Yet it is looking back to past. Just a memory and not actual. As it is just thinking.

Eternal changed.

Part eternal gone.

Other part still exists.

Part gone is space empty. Activated change burst burn. Expansion then cold equalled spatial creation.

Space was formed.
Material mass cooled held.

Two states instead of one.

One original.
Two inherited.

We all as humans were two selves. Not comparable......yet science compares.

Not a sane comparison.

 

[Native]

I don’t care what you believe or don’t believe. It is the evidence that verify a explanatory/predictive model that important, not your belief.

Then let me rephrase the "believe" to a conclusion via logical analysis which refuses some of the nonsense in modern cosmological assertions.

And the Big Bang model is based on Einstein’s theory of gravitation (eg General Relativity), which largely replace the Newtonian gravitation, WHEN concerning observations outside of the Milky Way to the other parts of universe.

A Big Bang is speculative nonsense in itself, which never can apply to the requirements of your belowed *scientific methodology*.

Your *largely replace" is nonsens too.
Einstein´s speculative *rubber sheet" model of *curved space* is based on *the Newtonian gravity* from the very start. And in ALL standing cosmological model the Newtonian *occult gravity agency* evidently plays a main role in all theories. Your largely *Einsteinian replace* don´t comply at all.

Regarding the Milky Way and all around in the Universe it´s STILL Newtons *occult agency power" which haunts as a ghost in all theories, leading to the speculative idea of "dark matter" and "heavy dark holes* nonsense.

Newtonian astronomy is still valid within the confine of the Sun and planetary bodies of the Solar System, and the universal laws are still adequate to mathematically explain orbits and motions of planets.

I completely agree with you here - but the planetary MOTIONS are not caused by the Newtonian *occult agency force* which is non sense.

Your Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe don’t fully explain everything, particularly not the rotation and orbital motions of astronomical bodies, nor explain the source of energy output for any stars.

Go to the very basics of electricity and magnetic field and you´ll get the very principles. An electric current consist of two twisted *strands* which are working as a re-combinding media. Electric currents induces swirling perpendicular magnetic fields of more recombinding electric currents etc. etc.

When you insert this swirling and perpendicular E&M force into your cosmological model, you´ll get the logics of all rotations and orbital motions in space. This also provides and confirm the scientific term of *angular momentum*.

And, there is still no such thing as “biological E&M nucleosynthesis”.

Don´t you research and investigate before you descide what to think or mean in a discussion? Read this consensus quotation from the same E&M link as provided above:

Exerpt:
"The electromagnetic attraction between atomic nuclei and their orbital electrons holds atoms together. Electromagnetic forces are responsible for the chemical bonds between atoms which create molecules, and intermolecular forces. The electromagnetic force governs all chemical processes, which arise from interactions between the electrons of neighboring atoms".

# 1 - Note this especially for a start:
"The electromagnetic attraction between atomic nuclei and their orbital electrons holds atoms together".

Does that ring a bell? *Holding atoms together* as in the Newtonian *occult agency force* theory of "accreation* and *the Sun holding planets in their orbits*? Well it really should give you a high ringing bell!

Here you have the real cause and explanation for the *Newtonian occult power agency* of the *accreation* terminology and it also complies in all different nucleosynthetic theories in cosmology. Accreation don´t happend via a *Newtonian occult attraction agency* but via the E&M forces working on the atoms.

# 2 - Then we have the last sentense of the quote:
"Electromagnetic forces are responsible for the chemical bonds between atoms which create molecules, and intermolecular forces. The electromagnetic force governs all chemical processes, which arise from interactions between the electrons of neighboring atoms".

I certainly hope you to agree in the fact that your body consists of atoms and of molecules which forms cells!? This is nucleosynthesis on the chemical and biological scales.

Without the sufficient amount of electric currents and magnetic fields in you body and mind, your body and brain will have decreased functions; you´ll get more and more sick and more and more unconscious - until the E&M force leaves your body and leave this to decade.

Understanding nucleosynthesis (of the stars or supernova) is easy to understand once you understand nuclear fusion how work.

Do you really understand how it works? Have you done your research and relevant investigations? Are your nucleosynthesis investigations of stellar matters consistent and connected to the galactic nucleosynhesis?

Quote:
"Nuclear fusion is a reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei are combined to form one or more different atomic nuclei and subatomic particles (neutrons or protons)". Compare this to the noted paragraphs # 1 and # 2 above.

Cosmological fusion and nucleosynthesis are all connected with gaseous and *metallic* atoms, molecules and the logical governing E&M force. It has nothing to do with the *occult Newtonian gravity accreation agency* or to do with *attraction between two or more celestial objects* at all.

Compared to the Sun, much stronger nuclear (synthetic) gamma and x-rays are beaming out of the galactic poles far out beyond the Solar System position. Stars and Supernovas are formed by this strong galactic force, and you cannot refer to *Stellar Nucleosynthesis* without including the *Galactic E&M Nucleosynthesis*

Ever single models concerning Nucleosynthesis have been explained, predicted and tested in the 20th century, not the Newtonian 17th century.

It doesn´t matter as the basic Newtonian *occult gravity agency force* derives from 17th century without ever have been explained dynamically then or now. It´s STILL an *occult worshipping* all over in the cosmological and astrophysical places.

You keep look foolish with ignorance. I don’t care what you believe or don’t believe, because the natural reality don’t center around you and your make believe fantasies.

As long as you don´t accept the electromagnetic influence on atoms as quoted from consensus links above, I can´t take your foolish personal remarks seriously at all.

It´s NOT me who worship *fantastic occult Newtonian fairy agency forces", but you.

 

[Native]

So let's look at ZPE, is it omnipresent in time-space, both at the macro level and the micro? If my question is not clear, please say so and I will try again.

When reading this quote:
"Yet according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, any such energy would gravitate and the experimental evidence from both the expansion of the universe, dark energy and the Casimir effect shows any such energy to be exceptionally weak".

IMO it is a weakness in itself to refer to a *dark energy* or to the definition of "gravitate", i.e. "gravitation", which both are *occult assertions* which cannot be explained scientifically.

 

[rational experiences]

When science discusses it first pre chooses the subject. And know what themes they discuss involve machine mass involved in design to go beyond that design to react.

React however does not exist. The actual answer.

Mass what is discussed relative to its presence a scientist quotes is design.

The reaction is not the design. The model is based on attacking the mass by their theory introduced force. Reaction beyond all highest forms.

Science quotes to change the law of stone. Cold vacuum...highest cold.

The quote is then big bang blast what is thought conferred to be heated change. A past thought...memory is not the thought.

A thought.

Heated gas radiating change to cold gas his psyche advice.

Cold gas first change second. Cold gas keeps light present not a third state.

Nothing at all like his thought inside his bio chemical brain change. Big bang reasoning quoting it thought connected.

Brain natural.
Brain highest cell function.
Not functioning brain..not conscious. Brain still exists formed. Status brain.

Discussing conscious in science is brain relative.

Knowing no ape father in string talks or uses brain like a human does.

Inferring string reasoning.

Stone is not any big bang.
Stone existed as hot mass releasing gases. Not original blast inference.

Blast memory for a human in reality...not a thought was a cooling sun mass. Also not stone

Visionary thought a want to claim I know.

Versus formed natural vision formed to idealised information.

CH gases. Written as a CH inferred angle shaped design.

Alien with O on ground proven anti design.

Designer scientist human male.

Anti not machine design as built machine is the design.

What you never thought upon.

 

[gnostic]

"Electromagnetic forces are responsible for the chemical bonds between atoms which create molecules, and intermolecular forces. The electromagnetic force governs all chemical processes, which arise from interactions between the electrons of neighboring atoms".

I certainly hope you to agree in the fact that your body consists of atoms and of molecules which forms cells!? This is nucleosynthesis on the chemical and biological scales.

The first part is a chemical reaction. When two or more molecules bond, in chemical reaction, the original will change, but it doesn’t affect the atomic nuclei in any way.

The paragraph is completely wrong.

Biology and biochemistry still work on the molecular levels, not at the nuclear levels, there are no nuclear reactions.

Nucleosynthesis works at the nuclear level, changing the nuclei, from lighter atomic level in he case where nuclear reaction is one of fusion.

There are no nucleosynthesis involved in biology, because for nuclear fusion to happen, it will require extreme heat for reaction to occur.

Chemical reactions between two or more molecules, don’t require extreme heat.

What you don’t seem to understand, for nucleosynthesis to occur in the sun’s core, we talking about temperature at around 15 million K (K as in kelvin). Such extreme heat would kill all cells of any organisms.

So you still don’t understand what nucleosynthesis is, because you are confusing nuclear reactions with normal chemical reactions.

Not only you don’t understand nucleosynthesis, you also don’t understand clearly need to work on biology.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When reading this quote:
"Yet according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, any such energy would gravitate and the experimental evidence from both the expansion of the universe, dark energy and the Casimir effect shows any such energy to be exceptionally weak".

IMO it is a weakness in itself to refer to a *dark energy* or to the definition of "gravitate", i.e. "gravitation", which both are *occult assertions* which cannot be explained scientifically.

The problem is in the energy density disparity (understatement ) between dark energy and ZPE.

Also wrt ZPE, I want to know what it looks like at the infinitesimal level of energy wavelengths, is there a cut off?

 

[rational experiences]

Fact of advice to a converter theist I want to react a reaction that does not even EXIST.

Machine design sits idle.

Designs.

Electricity knowledge. Cold fused mass held a long time in space he attacks. Converts. Takes mass as God O stone body back in time.

Says electricity was created a long time ago even before natural mass existed. As science human controlled.

Father quotes in memory the son baby adult self who lies.

Storyteller still living after brother died.

Father ever y male babies memory's told you from his memory God stories.

Our father spiritual unlike the minds today.
Our father completely loved us.

The memory you encounter before any God O the planet before any life thesis.

Father said science became self possession by AI caused encoded science machine feedback. Your mind belief never the same since.

What your science mind quoted today.

Electricity exists functional a very long time ago as a function...even before mass. Seeing you removed mother cold conscious support in psyche inability to tell the truth.