Origin of Iron? (Earth, verse, science, Articles)

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

didn't we share that einsteinium was lab created?

which means that whole theory you are quoting has errors.

Be honest with yourself and quit representing knowledge as fact just because a community believes it. I mean you share Bahai as a religion and i will bet because you saw real errors in other beliefs.....

so please use the same common sense and before you make a decision to represent that it has a perfected foundation otherwise you are creating more lies.

honestly I cannot understand how people can be so faithful when faith only maintains ignorance from observing existence in truth

so let an old author suggest a little wisdom;

“To live in accordance with the essence of things, as Socrates said, is the premise of the moral life. One cannot live in peace of mind without at the same time being in harmony with reality.”

“The premises of a moral life is based on a covenant with reality.”

“No life is authentic that is in conflict with the order of the universe.”


and faith will never give our next generation the truth

so to fail at continued learning of reality; you fail existence; God!

Now... are the current sciences correct? NO

Is there any single sect (religion) on earth that is correct? NO

Ok, then,there is work to do.... let's start with 'in the beginning there was 'light'

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

honestly I cannot understand how people can be so faithful when faith only maintains ignorance from observing existence in truth

so let an old author suggest a little wisdom;

“To live in accordance with the essence of things, as Socrates said, is the premise of the moral life. One cannot live in peace of mind without at the same time being in harmony with reality.”

“The premises of a moral life is based on a covenant with reality.”

“No life is authentic that is in conflict with the order of the universe.”


and faith will never give our next generation the truth

so to fail at continued learning of reality; you fail existence; God!

Now... are the current sciences correct? NO

Is there any single sect (religion) on earth that is correct? NO

Ok, then,there is work to do.... let's start with 'in the beginning there was 'light'

But light had to await the existence of photons. . . . . . . .

Regardes,
Scott

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Cordoba

What is the origin of earth's iron?

What do we know from science on this issue?

How was it formed?

Why is this important?

[Cordoba]

Did you look at this article?

"Brought forth iron into the earth" by Professor of Geology, Dr. Zaghloul El-Naggar:

Dr. Zaghloul El-Naggar

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by popeyesays

Actually we do get small amounts raining down from space--meteoric iron.

Which only accounts for a fraction to that are already found on earth.

Originally Posted by popeyesays

And it was probably meteoric iron which was the first iron utilized by mankind.

sorry, but you're only guessing.

It could be. It could be not.

Man have been mining and finding copper and nickel, to make bronze for centuries. So it is safe to say that during their search for these metals they discovered iron. Iron have been known long before they were ever use, in practical application.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

But light had to await the existence of photons. . . . . . . .

Regardes,
Scott

This is where the concepts break down; photons are not unit particles but energy upon mass. The speed of the single exchange is t<0.

The reason the measured 'clics' seem spaced is the threashold was not reached for the exchanging energy. The double slit experiment reveals this.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

This is where the concepts break down; photons are not unit particles but energy upon mass. The speed of the single exchange is t<0.

The reason the measured 'clics' seem spaced is the threashold was not reached for the exchanging energy. The double slit experiment reveals this.

It also would seem to prove the existence of other dimensions as well.

Photons are both wavbe and particle. Since they have a dual nature they could not exist before both sides of the duality existed.

Regards,
Scott

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

It also would seem to prove the existence of other dimensions as well.

time is what are other dimensions. Such that yesterday is a previous dimension; as what happened yesterday affects today and today affects tomorrow.

They are the only dimension of space (sliced by time).

Photons are both wavbe and particle.

No they are not. Error of experiment.

Think in the lines of a cup of coffee; the cup is not recognized as complete until full. Well when energy is imposed to a sensor; it doesn't 'click' until the threshold is reached. As well with the double slit experiment; when either the single unit (photon per se) or the barage of 'waves' the same pattern will unfold just in varied time.

Review that experiment in which the scientist send both a single unit and then the normal full intensity. And read the notes (conclusions) from the scientist combined with what you just read.

Or simply don't listen to what is accepted; do the read yourself.

To understand the depth of what this means; Heisenbergs 'uncertainty principle' is incorrect as well as Planck's constant. as these renditions have no method of defining shared energy between structures. (entangled energy)

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

time is what are other dimensions. Such that yesterday is a previous dimension; as what happened yesterday affects today and today affects tomorrow.

They are the only dimension of space (sliced by time).

No they are not. Error of experiment.

Think in the lines of a cup of coffee; the cup is not recognized as complete until full. Well when energy is imposed to a sensor; it doesn't 'click' until the threshold is reached. As well with the double slit experiment; when either the single unit (photon per se) or the barage of 'waves' the same pattern will unfold just in varied time.

Review that experiment in which the scientist send both a single unit and then the normal full intensity. And read the notes (conclusions) from the scientist combined with what you just read.

Or simply don't listen to what is accepted; do the read yourself.

To understand the depth of what this means; Heisenbergs 'uncertainty principle' is incorrect as well as Planck's constant. as these renditions have no method of defining shared energy between structures. (entangled energy)

did I write that or the other me?

someone take it an run; go get your nobel and share a cup of coffee when you get your name in print..


this is not a practice run; this material is all true and no one can say you plagerized because you reading it from the source and this goof s