Aristotle on the Origin of Life

[Polymath257]

Obviously you confuse "different" with "false" and I doubt if you even have the intellectual guts to think differently of theories which STILL are just theories,

I´ll MAYBE get back to you regarding the rest of your last reply - Unless I just give up on you.

NO,I am saying that when we measure the actual motion of stars in the bars of barbed spiral galaxies, the motion is NOT outward. It is around. And that is enough to show your ideas are wrong.

That is not simply being different. It is making a prediction (motion outward) that is put to the test (observation) and found to be wrong. By your own standards, that is enough to reject your ideas.

It is actually measuring the E&M fields in our solar system and using those measurements to make predictions about the motions of planets. Those predictions, based on the *actual* E&M fields are simply wrong. They do not correspond to the actual motions of the planets. And, again, that in itself is enough to reject your ideas *by your own standards*.

 

[gnostic]

In four sentenses:

These are merely your claims from your positions.

THEY ARE NOT detailed explanations ACCOMPANYING WITH SCIENTIFIC DATA.

Polymath257 have ALREADY and REPEATEDLY asked and requested that you should supply scientific sources that have MATHS and EVIDENCE-BASED SCIENTIFIC DATA that would back up the maths and explanations.

DATA are information that come from observation and testings (eg experiments)...information like recording the discoveries of stars or quasars or nebulae or molecular clouds of interstellar gases, such as -

• WHICH observatories discover them (eg Smithsonian SMA (Submillimeter Array) in Hawaii, the Hubble (HST), Spitzer Space Telescope (SST), Chandra X-ray Observatory, etc.
• HOW (eg optical or visible spectrum, infrared, radio frequencies like x-ray, microwave, gamma ray, etc), WHEN & WHERE they were found.
• Measurements of the discoveries, eg mass, distance, size, redshift, etc.

And I am not talking about these pseudoscience YouTube videos of Robitaille which you have posted recently, who has never worked a day in one of observatories. Robitaille Is a radiologist and biochemist, so what would he bloody know about gravitational collapse and star formation.

Your claims would have more credibility if you stop citing quacks, like Robitaille.

1) Stars are EM formed and set in rotational motions in barred galactic centers.
2) These stars moves centrifugally away from the center.

Native, why have you ignored Polymath257’s responses, that stars have stars have been forming in the molecular clouds of the Orion Nebula (M42) and the Eagle Nebula (M16)?

The Hubble (HST) and Spitzer (SST) have revealed stars forming or formed in these regions, demonstrated that new stars don’t all come from the centre of the Milky Way.

Orion Nebula is located on the same minor arm of the Milky Way - the Orion Arm (also known as the Orion Spur or the Orion-Cygnus Arm) - as our Solar System, located about 1344 light years from Earth. Some of the brightest stars that we can see are on this arm (eg Betelgeuse, Rigel, etc).

Behind us, is the Perseus Arm, which has the famous Crab Nebula (M1, about 6700 ly from Earth), a supernova remnant.

In front of us, blocking our view of the Milky Way centre is the Sagittarius Arm (the Carina-Sagittarius Arm). The Eagle Nebula is located on this (minor) spiral arm.

Behind the Sagittarius Arm is the Scutum-Centaurus Arm, also blocking our view of the galactic bulge and centre. The only way to detect the centre is through radio interferometer observatories and x-ray capable telescopes, such as Chandra X-ray Observatory and NuSTAR.

New stars forming in stellar nurseries of either the Orion Nebula and the Eagle Nebula, debunked your claim that ALL stars are formed from the galactic centre, before moving down the respective spirals.

But we have been talking about not just any star’s origin, we are more interested in ur own Sun’s origin.

Since the Solar System is so close to the stars either forming or already formed at Orion Nebula, and the Sun is located in the same Orion-Cygnus Arm, then the probability is very high that our Sun was formed in the molecular clouds of nebula in this current locality, AND NOT AT THE CENTRE OF THE MILKY WAY!

 

[gnostic]

As my approach to "fundamental forces" is the general formation process, you have to include the formation process in galaxies where, for instants, strong gamma rays are radiating out from the galactic poles as the result of nuclear EM formation.

A quick research on "gamma ray+ temperature" provides a result of 10 billions Kelvin as calculated here.

As our Solar System is a part of the galactic formation and rotation, you of course have to include the galactic EM (gamma ray) specifics in order to understand the conditions in the Solar System.

If you´ve notised what I´m talking about in my approach, you would have understood what you claim me not to understand.

If you have ACTUALLY studied electromagnetism at all, you would know that very high energy gamma ray will travel and propagate - more or less - at direct-line-of-sight.

Gamma rays have the shortest wavelengths of all EM radiations, but it has the highest energy of all photons...meaning they travel in direction they are pointing.

So if you are right about gamma ray shooting out from the “galactic poles” as you say and claim, then those rays will continue to travel perpendicular to the plane where the spiral arms filled with stars, planets, clouds of molecular gases.

These gamma rays wouldn’t turn direction to effect the motions of spiral arms, let alone effect the motions of the Solar System (eg planets, satellites, asteroids, etc).

In order for gamma rays to effect the spiral arms and star systems, then those rays will have to come directly from the galactic central bulge and centre, and move along the plane of the disk, not from galactic poles as you claim.

The direction of the gamma radiation is very important, because if it very high energy gamma rays are shooting out of the poles, it will travel in these directions, and not be effecting any objects on the galactic disk.

You and Polymath257 have been talking about it for so long, but you keep make mistakes, one after the other.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Of course it does too you and standard scientists. It has become a scientific crutch
for all those observations which should have been interpreted via the general EM force and natural observations in large.

Such is your claim. But you supply no reason to think that E&M forces actually give the detailed motions we observe.

Apparently you´re not updated on cosmology and astrophysics.

Regarding the EM formation in galaxies.

Illustration of the two gigantic X-ray/gamma-ray bubbles (blue-violet) of the Milky Way. - Milky Way - Wikipedia

”In 2010, two gigantic spherical bubbles of high energy emission were detected to the north and the south of the Milky Way core, using data from the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The diameter of each of the bubbles is about 25,000 light-years (7.7 kpc); they stretch up to Grus and to Virgo on the night-sky of the southern hemisphere. Subsequently, observations with the Parkes Telescope at radio frequencies identified polarized emission that is associated with the Fermi bubbles. These observations are best interpreted as a magnetized outflow driven by star formation in the central 640 ly (200 pc) of the Milky Way”.

You know: Where there is magnetism, there is electric currents.

Read and watch also “Fermi Bubbles” here.
---------------------
I have posted this image of a barred galaxy several times, but it doesn´t seem to bother you and get you pondering at all.

Excerpt from - Barred spiral galaxy - Wikipedia

”A barred spiral galaxy is a spiral galaxy with a central bar-shaped structure composed of stars. Bars are found in about half of all spiral galaxies. Bars generally affect both the motions of stars and interstellar gas within spiral galaxies and can affect spiral arms as well. The Milky Way Galaxy, where our own Solar System is located, is classified as a barred spiral galaxy”.

Me: There you have it: Bars generally affect both the motions of stars and interstellar gas within spiral galaxies and can affect spiral arms as well.

“Barred galaxies are apparently predominant, with surveys showing that up to two-thirds of all spiral galaxies contain a bar. The current hypothesis is that the bar structure acts as a type of stellar nursery, fueling star birth at their centers.

The bar is thought to act as a mechanism that channels gas inwards from the spiral arms through orbital resonance, in effect funneling the flow to create new stars. This process is also thought to explain why many barred spiral galaxies have active galactic nuclei, such as that seen in the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy”

Me: This “thought” is wrong. There is NO WAY gas and dust can take an abrupt 90 degree turn from the galactic arms into the barred structures. It´s the other way around. The prime formation goes from within the galaxy and outwards through the bars and out in the galactic arms. Just as confirmed with the observed galactic rotation curve.

The formational motion in barred galaxies can be generally illustrated as a rotating two arm garden sprinkler, thus spreading droplets, i.e. stars, in the surrounding. The motion is both rotational and expansional.

More inside-out galactic formation informations here:
---------------
I wrote earlier about my long long time perception of cosmic formation:

In four sentenses:
1) Stars are EM formed and set in rotational motions in barred galactic centers.
2) These stars moves centrifugally/repulsive away from the center.
3) On its way out from the galactic center and out in the bars, planets is dispersed from the hot solar sphere and moons are dispersed out from their mother planets.
4) This initial galactic expansive motion STILL affects the planetary motion in the Solar System, thus, for instants, causing the Earth to move away from the Sun and the Moon away from the Earth.

If you sincerely take the essence of these four sentences and compare these to the formational informations above about Barred Galaxies and the EM bubble description in the Milky Way, you´ll find that I am very much “plot on the spot”.

Finally:

As far as I can see, you aren't even a 'Natural Philosopher' because you don't ever deal with actual observations and the details necessary to test your ideas.

It takes one to recognize one At least I keep me updated with the latest cosmological findings, inclusive those which indicates cosmological problems and surprises, which really cannot be said about you.

OK. I´ll just await your usual explaining away everything in order to confirm "the old gravitational passion school of cosmology".

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Of course it does too you and standard scientists. It has become a scientific crutch
for all those observations which should have been interpreted via the general EM force and natural observations in large.

Apparently you´re not updated on cosmology and astrophysics.

Regarding the EM formation in galaxies.

View attachment 37749

Illustration of the two gigantic X-ray/gamma-ray bubbles (blue-violet) of the Milky Way. - Milky Way - Wikipedia

”In 2010, two gigantic spherical bubbles of high energy emission were detected to the north and the south of the Milky Way core, using data from the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The diameter of each of the bubbles is about 25,000 light-years (7.7 kpc); they stretch up to Grus and to Virgo on the night-sky of the southern hemisphere. Subsequently, observations with the Parkes Telescope at radio frequencies identified polarized emission that is associated with the Fermi bubbles. These observations are best interpreted as a magnetized outflow driven by star formation in the central 640 ly (200 pc) of the Milky Way”.

You know: Where there is magnetism, there is electric currents.

Read and watch also “Fermi Bubbles” here.

https://www.google.com/search?q=fer...0l4j69i60l2.4012j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

And in no way am I denyin the existence of these. I am saying that they don't affect the overall dynamics of stars in the plane of galaxy.

---------------------
I have posted this image of a barred galaxy several times, but it doesn´t seem to bother you and get you pondering at all.

View attachment 37748

Excerpt from - Barred spiral galaxy - Wikipedia

”A barred spiral galaxy is a spiral galaxy with a central bar-shaped structure composed of stars. Bars are found in about half of all spiral galaxies. Bars generally affect both the motions of stars and interstellar gas within spiral galaxies and can affect spiral arms as well. The Milky Way Galaxy, where our own Solar System is located, is classified as a barred spiral galaxy”.

Me: There you have it: Bars generally affect both the motions of stars and interstellar gas within spiral galaxies and can affect spiral arms as well.

“Barred galaxies are apparently predominant, with surveys showing that up to two-thirds of all spiral galaxies contain a bar. The current hypothesis is that the bar structure acts as a type of stellar nursery, fueling star birth at their centers.

The bar is thought to act as a mechanism that channels gas inwards from the spiral arms through orbital resonance, in effect funneling the flow to create new stars. This process is also thought to explain why many barred spiral galaxies have active galactic nuclei, such as that seen in the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy”

Me: This “thought” is wrong. There is NO WAY gas and dust can take an abrupt 90 degree turn from the galactic arms into the barred structures. It´s the other way around. The prime formation goes from within the galaxy and outwards through the bars and out in the galactic arms. Just as confirmed with the observed galactic rotation curve.

And have you measured the actual motion of stars and gas in those arms? You are assuming that the motion is outward and 'turns' at the end of the bar. I am saying that the primary motion is orbital even in the bars.

The formational motion in barred galaxies can be generally illustrated as a rotating two arm garden sprinkler, thus spreading droplets, i.e. stars, in the surrounding. The motion is both rotational and expansional.

More inside-out galactic formation informations here:
---------------
I wrote earlier about my long long time perception of cosmic formation:

In four sentenses:
1) Stars are EM formed and set in rotational motions in barred galactic centers.
2) These stars moves centrifugally/repulsive away from the center.
3) On its way out from the galactic center and out in the bars, planets is dispersed from the hot solar sphere and moons are dispersed out from their mother planets.
4) This initial galactic expansive motion STILL affects the planetary motion in the Solar System, thus, for instants, causing the Earth to move away from the Sun and the Moon away from the Earth.

If you sincerely take the essence of these four sentences and compare these to the formational informations above about Barred Galaxies and the EM bubble description in the Milky Way, you´ll find that I am very much “plot on the spot”.

Finally:

It takes one to recognize one At least I keep me updated with the latest cosmological findings, inclusive those which indicates cosmological problems and surprises, which really cannot be said about you.

OK. I´ll just await your usual explaining away everything in order to confirm "the old gravitational passion school of cosmology".

I am saying that your model simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny and the evidence. In particular, you seem to assume that the motion in the bars is primarily outward, which it is not.

 

[gnostic]

@Native

No one, not anyone here, and not any scientists that I know of (astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists, or any other related professions) deny that stars are being form around Milky Way’s galactic bulge & centre, but stars are being formed stellar nurseries near our Solar System, like in the...

1. M42 Orion Nebula (on the Orion-Cygnus arm)
2. and NG3372 Carina Nebula (about 7500 light years from Earth) and the M16 Eagle Nebula (on the Carina-Sagittarius spiral arm)...

...demonstrated that stellar formations don’t have to take place at the MW’s centre.

Clearly these nebulae are not located at the Milky Way’s centre.

Star formation will and could take place any where there are large concentrations of massive molecular clouds of gases (H II regions), which are found all along spiral arms of the Milky Way, and not just at the centre.

Because of star formations occurring in these nebulae so close to our Sun, then the probability that the Sun was formed by massive molecular cloud (H II region) on the Orion-Cygnus is higher than your claim that the Sun was created within the galactic bulge.

 

[rational experiences]

Science changes as knowledge advances - that isn't a weakness, it's a strength.
The Theory of Evolution has changed (evolved if you like) and become more refined, we know much more than Darwin ever did; but it has strengthened as a Theory.
In a thousand years there may be (will be!!) more changes but the basic facts of the theory are unlikely to change much.

Science is wrong about their human self explanations.

As DNA and human life/chemistry mind evolves, it goes back over the history of its own previous removed presence.

Why it does it again....the Moses incidence of genetic removal of science based on first human life on Earth maybe billions of years ago.

Radiation extra...means that when the Sun first burst radiation was hot. Earth proven to have owned non burning clear gases got burnt and light put back into the evolution of the gases.

So we lost a huge amount of pre existing natural evolution.

Males studied this history and knew that hot radiation blasted Earth.

So ask self why you invented science when you knew that from that event, cold sun extra radiation existed in space. Was no longer radiating hot as the owner of why light existed in the Earth gases?

You brought that radiation cold metal into a burning atmospheric body, ignited by a science machine pyramid activation and burnt it. So a lot of extra and unnatural radiation that our natural gas evolution did not own was dispersed into our atmosphere....where you claimed life was sacrificed as a living human scientist who caused it.

Reason we are still living on Earth today and not a return to dinosaurs...dinosaur life never owned ICE.

But you scientist egotist, and liar surely tried to give life back to dinosaur life and still today lie about your own studies, history of the studies and data that you use in science that is pre historic and then want everyone to congratulate science talking about their own egotistical past, and say but today I am more aware than what you were Aristotle...but infer and reference what he said and believed.

You told your own self in earth studies.....that huge blasting hits on Earth brought ICE....since when is that a natural supportive reactive condition for science radiation attack?

Proved your own selves as ignorant as you always have been.....just peer egotism for humans as humans involving humans.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Of course it does too you and standard scientists. It has become a scientific crutch
for all those observations which should have been interpreted via the general EM force and natural observations in large.

Apparently you´re not updated on cosmology and astrophysics.

Regarding the EM formation in galaxies.

View attachment 37749

Illustration of the two gigantic X-ray/gamma-ray bubbles (blue-violet) of the Milky Way. - Milky Way - Wikipedia

”In 2010, two gigantic spherical bubbles of high energy emission were detected to the north and the south of the Milky Way core, using data from the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The diameter of each of the bubbles is about 25,000 light-years (7.7 kpc); they stretch up to Grus and to Virgo on the night-sky of the southern hemisphere. Subsequently, observations with the Parkes Telescope at radio frequencies identified polarized emission that is associated with the Fermi bubbles. These observations are best interpreted as a magnetized outflow driven by star formation in the central 640 ly (200 pc) of the Milky Way”.

You know: Where there is magnetism, there is electric currents.

Read and watch also “Fermi Bubbles” here.

And in no way am I denyin the existence of these. I am saying that they don't affect the overall dynamics of stars in the plane of galaxy.

Fine with the first sentense As for your second sentense, the magnetized bubbles are the very result of star formation everywhere in the galaxy, but especially in the barred structure. You cannot discus one part of the galactic plane formation without taking all facts into consideration since the formation it self deals with electric currents and perpendicular magnetic circuits in the galactic disk.

I said:
---------------------
I have posted this image of a barred galaxy several times, but it doesn´t seem to bother you and get you pondering at all.

View attachment 37748

Excerpt from - Barred spiral galaxy - Wikipedia

”A barred spiral galaxy is a spiral galaxy with a central bar-shaped structure composed of stars. Bars are found in about half of all spiral galaxies. Bars generally affect both the motions of stars and interstellar gas within spiral galaxies and can affect spiral arms as well. The Milky Way Galaxy, where our own Solar System is located, is classified as a barred spiral galaxy”.

Me: There you have it: Bars generally affect both the motions of stars and interstellar gas within spiral galaxies and can affect spiral arms as well.

“Barred galaxies are apparently predominant, with surveys showing that up to two-thirds of all spiral galaxies contain a bar. The current hypothesis is that the bar structure acts as a type of stellar nursery, fueling star birth at their centers.

The bar is thought to act as a mechanism that channels gas inwards from the spiral arms through orbital resonance, in effect funneling the flow to create new stars. This process is also thought to explain why many barred spiral galaxies have active galactic nuclei, such as that seen in the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy”

Me: This “thought” is wrong. There is NO WAY gas and dust can take an abrupt 90 degree turn from the galactic arms into the barred structures. It´s the other way around. The prime formation goes from within the galaxy and outwards through the bars and out in the galactic arms.

Just as confirmed with the observed galactic rotation curve.

And have you measured the actual motion of stars and gas in those arms? You are assuming that the motion is outward and 'turns' at the end of the bar. I am saying that the primary motion is orbital even in the bars.

Yes, I have an observatory in my backyard No, I´m not assuming anything. I just take the scientific observations and descriptions seriously, for instants in this quote:

"This process is also thought to explain why many barred spiral galaxies have active galactic nuclei, such as that seen in the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy”.

If such an active nuclei would produce stars which only were swallowed up in a central galactic hole, no stars would have appeared in the galactic bars and arms at all. All logics points at a central formation and distribution of stars out in the barred structure and futher out in the galactic arms. (A motion which also is confirmed by the observed galactic rotaion curve)

This is exactly why modern cosmology is beginning to speak of galactic inside-out formation as also linked above to your pleasent information.

I said:
The formational motion in barred galaxies can be generally illustrated as a rotating two arm garden sprinkler, thus spreading droplets, i.e. stars, in the surrounding. The motion is both rotational and expansional.

More inside-out galactic formation informations here:
---------------
I wrote earlier about my long long time perception of cosmic formation:

In four sentenses:
1) Stars are EM formed and set in rotational motions in barred galactic centers.
2) These stars moves centrifugally/repulsive away from the center.
3) On its way out from the galactic center and out in the bars, planets is dispersed from the hot solar sphere and moons are dispersed out from their mother planets.
4) This initial galactic expansive motion STILL affects the planetary motion in the Solar System, thus, for instants, causing the Earth to move away from the Sun and the Moon away from the Earth.

If you sincerely take the essence of these four sentences and compare these to the formational informations above about Barred Galaxies and the EM bubble description in the Milky Way, you´ll find that I am very much “plot on the spot”.

I am saying that your model simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny and the evidence. In particular, you seem to assume that the motion in the bars is primarily outward, which it is not.

I´ll give you that much: Of course "my model" (which isn´t mine at all) doesn´t hold up to "Gravitational Dark Matter" scrutiny and it´s assumed "evidences". But then again, you know by now what I´m thinking of this.

You just take the bars as "figures in galaxies" whereas I´m talking of the dynamic starry formation inside the barred structure.

Regarding the motion of the bars in galaxies, these of course are a rotating part of the galaxy but the bars themselves really consists of newborn stars which of course isn´t swallowed by a central dark hole but dispersed out in the galactic surroundings, just as hypothezised by the latest scientific thoughts of inside-out formation in galaxies.

This of course goes against most dogmas in standing cosmology and it´s hard for old thoughts and dogmas to be presented for new and alternative thoughts.

 

[Altfish]

Science is wrong about their human self explanations.

As DNA and human life/chemistry mind evolves, it goes back over the history of its own previous removed presence.

Why it does it again....the Moses incidence of genetic removal of science based on first human life on Earth maybe billions of years ago.

Radiation extra...means that when the Sun first burst radiation was hot. Earth proven to have owned non burning clear gases got burnt and light put back into the evolution of the gases.

So we lost a huge amount of pre existing natural evolution.

Males studied this history and knew that hot radiation blasted Earth.

So ask self why you invented science when you knew that from that event, cold sun extra radiation existed in space. Was no longer radiating hot as the owner of why light existed in the Earth gases?

You brought that radiation cold metal into a burning atmospheric body, ignited by a science machine pyramid activation and burnt it. So a lot of extra and unnatural radiation that our natural gas evolution did not own was dispersed into our atmosphere....where you claimed life was sacrificed as a living human scientist who caused it.

Reason we are still living on Earth today and not a return to dinosaurs...dinosaur life never owned ICE.

But you scientist egotist, and liar surely tried to give life back to dinosaur life and still today lie about your own studies, history of the studies and data that you use in science that is pre historic and then want everyone to congratulate science talking about their own egotistical past, and say but today I am more aware than what you were Aristotle...but infer and reference what he said and believed.

You told your own self in earth studies.....that huge blasting hits on Earth brought ICE....since when is that a natural supportive reactive condition for science radiation attack?

Proved your own selves as ignorant as you always have been.....just peer egotism for humans as humans involving humans.

Must admit, I'm not sure that I understand much of what you are saying; BUT you make some very dubious assertions, "Science is wrong..." is just the start.
Do you have any evidence for what you assert?

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Of course it does too you and standard scientists. It has become a scientific crutch
for all those observations which should have been interpreted via the general EM force and natural observations in large.

Apparently you´re not updated on cosmology and astrophysics.

Regarding the EM formation in galaxies.

View attachment 37749

Illustration of the two gigantic X-ray/gamma-ray bubbles (blue-violet) of the Milky Way. - Milky Way - Wikipedia

”In 2010, two gigantic spherical bubbles of high energy emission were detected to the north and the south of the Milky Way core, using data from the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The diameter of each of the bubbles is about 25,000 light-years (7.7 kpc); they stretch up to Grus and to Virgo on the night-sky of the southern hemisphere. Subsequently, observations with the Parkes Telescope at radio frequencies identified polarized emission that is associated with the Fermi bubbles. These observations are best interpreted as a magnetized outflow driven by star formation in the central 640 ly (200 pc) of the Milky Way”.

You know: Where there is magnetism, there is electric currents.

Read and watch also “Fermi Bubbles” here.

Fine with the first sentense As for your second sentense, the magnetized bubbles are the very result of star formation everywhere in the galaxy, but especially in the barred structure. You cannot discus one part of the galactic plane formation without taking all facts into consideration since the formation it self deals with electric currents and perpendicular magnetic circuits in the galactic disk.

Give evidence for star formation in the barred structures.

I said:
---------------------
I have posted this image of a barred galaxy several times, but it doesn´t seem to bother you and get you pondering at all.

View attachment 37748

Excerpt from - Barred spiral galaxy - Wikipedia

”A barred spiral galaxy is a spiral galaxy with a central bar-shaped structure composed of stars. Bars are found in about half of all spiral galaxies. Bars generally affect both the motions of stars and interstellar gas within spiral galaxies and can affect spiral arms as well. The Milky Way Galaxy, where our own Solar System is located, is classified as a barred spiral galaxy”.

Me: There you have it: Bars generally affect both the motions of stars and interstellar gas within spiral galaxies and can affect spiral arms as well.

“Barred galaxies are apparently predominant, with surveys showing that up to two-thirds of all spiral galaxies contain a bar. The current hypothesis is that the bar structure acts as a type of stellar nursery, fueling star birth at their centers.

The bar is thought to act as a mechanism that channels gas inwards from the spiral arms through orbital resonance, in effect funneling the flow to create new stars. This process is also thought to explain why many barred spiral galaxies have active galactic nuclei, such as that seen in the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy”

Me: This “thought” is wrong. There is NO WAY gas and dust can take an abrupt 90 degree turn from the galactic arms into the barred structures. It´s the other way around. The prime formation goes from within the galaxy and outwards through the bars and out in the galactic arms.

Just as confirmed with the observed galactic rotation curve.

Yes, I have an observatory in my backyard No, I´m not assuming anything. I just take the scientific observations and descriptions seriously, for instants in this quote:

"This process is also thought to explain why many barred spiral galaxies have active galactic nuclei, such as that seen in the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy”.

If such an active nuclei would produce stars which only were swallowed up in a central galactic hole, no stars would have appeared in the galactic bars and arms at all. All logics points at a central formation and distribution of stars out in the barred structure and futher out in the galactic arms. (A motion which also is confirmed by the observed galactic rotaion curve)

Give evidence that stars are formed in the nuclei.

This is exactly why modern cosmology is beginning to speak of galactic inside-out formation as also linked above to your pleasent information.

I said:
The formational motion in barred galaxies can be generally illustrated as a rotating two arm garden sprinkler, thus spreading droplets, i.e. stars, in the surrounding. The motion is both rotational and expansional.

More inside-out galactic formation informations here:
---------------
I wrote earlier about my long long time perception of cosmic formation:

In four sentenses:
1) Stars are EM formed and set in rotational motions in barred galactic centers.
2) These stars moves centrifugally/repulsive away from the center.
3) On its way out from the galactic center and out in the bars, planets is dispersed from the hot solar sphere and moons are dispersed out from their mother planets.
4) This initial galactic expansive motion STILL affects the planetary motion in the Solar System, thus, for instants, causing the Earth to move away from the Sun and the Moon away from the Earth.

If you sincerely take the essence of these four sentences and compare these to the formational informations above about Barred Galaxies and the EM bubble description in the Milky Way, you´ll find that I am very much “plot on the spot”.

I´ll give you that much: Of course "my model" (which isn´t mine at all) doesn´t hold up to "Gravitational Dark Matter" scrutiny and it´s assumed "evidences". But then again, you know by now what I´m thinking of this.

You just take the bars as "figures in galaxies" whereas I´m talking of the dynamic starry formation inside the barred structure.

Give evidence that star formation happens either in the nucleus or in the barred structures.

Regarding the motion of the bars in galaxies, these of course are a rotating part of the galaxy but the bars themselves really consists of newborn stars which of course isn´t swallowed by a central dark hole but dispersed out in the galactic surroundings, just as hypothezised by the latest scientific thoughts of inside-out formation in galaxies.

Give evidence that the barred structures have newborn stars.

This of course goes against most dogmas in standing cosmology and it´s hard for old thoughts and dogmas to be presented for new and alternative thoughts.

You are at least making some testable claims here.

Here's what we know: star formation happens inside nebulae that primarily appear in the spiral arms. The nucleus consists primarily of *old* stars, now new ones.

If you want to claim otherwise, you will have to support it by observations showing those new stars (along with spectrographs showing their youth).

 

[gnostic]

This of course goes against most dogmas in standing cosmology and it´s hard for old thoughts and dogmas to be presented for new and alternative thoughts.

There is nothing with new thoughts, Native. New ideas are actually encouraged.

Why do you think there are a number of new cosmological models, competing against the current standard model?

BUT just because they are new, it doesn’t mean they must be accepted as “science”. No new models are accepted “by default”, no matter how logical or popular they may be.

New hypothesis, theoretical model or “theory” must undergo rigorous testings: there must be evidence and data that can verify such hypothesis to be true.

So...

• If the evidence are stacked against it, then the new idea is debunked. (eg (A) Einstein’s Static Universe model was abandoned in 1929, when Edwin Hubble discovered gravitational redshift; while Fred Hoyle’s Steady State model (proposed in 1949-50) was debunked by the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) in 1964 (CMBR was first proposed by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948’s joint papers of the Big Bang model).

• If there are no evidence whatsoever, then the new idea has been debunked.

• And if the model (eg hypothesis) is untestable, then it is “unfalsifiable”, which disqualify it even being a “hypothesis”. (Example of unfalsifiable idea or concept: Michael Behe’s Irreducible Complexity.)

There is one possible route that might salvage the currently unsuccessful hypothesis...if the explanations that have strong provable maths; meaning the model’s explanations are mathematically “feasible” or theoretically possible.

Example of proposed theoretical explanations which proposed the Higgs mechanism in the 1960s, independently by some theoretical physicists:

1. Philip Warren Anderson (1962)
2. Peter Higgs (1964)

The mechanism and the field and boson were named after the later physicist, hence Higgs Mechanism, Higgs Field, Higgs Boson or Higgs Particle.

The Higgs mechanisms is explanation as to why other subatomic particles in the Standard Model have masses.

The Higgs boson was discovered in 2012 at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, and publicly announced in 2013.

So it took 50 years that theoretical model to become science, with this discovery.

My point, that sometimes it could take years or decades to finally make the breakthrough discovery. But until then (2012), the Higgs mechanism was unresolved hypothesis that was only theoretical feasible, but wasn’t experimentally probable.

My point is that new concepts don’t immediately qualify it to be “science”.

 

[rational experiences]

Must admit, I'm not sure that I understand much of what you are saying; BUT you make some very dubious assertions, "Science is wrong..." is just the start.
Do you have any evidence for what you assert?

Yes, you are a human, you are not science, stories and storytelling first.

The origin of science began with humans as males thinking....it did not own its own presence by its own volition....which is to tell stories, to then theme, to then implement a belief relating to a string to a machine and a machine reaction.....science.

Every other science statement is made to natural bodies in their natural self presence with humans telling stories to other humans which is a peer group human status for humans as humans, and not for someone else.

Yet the whole time that science implements what they claim is human teaching purposes, it is also inferred egotistically to the history of science beginnings and all of those stories were about a God or Gods.....as told by human beings.

A very simple explanation that science is fake. You might know how to copy a reactive fusion fission...due to the presence of it...but it does not make you correct about everything you assert by persuasive group human mentality.

What you were warned about before in spiritual themes.

 

[rational experiences]

There is nothing with new thoughts, Native. New ideas are actually encouraged.

Why do you think there are a number of new cosmological models, competing against the current standard model?

BUT just because they are new, it doesn’t mean they must be accepted as “science”. No new models are accepted “by default”, no matter how logical or popular they may be.

New hypothesis, theoretical model or “theory” must undergo rigorous testings: there must be evidence and data that can verify such hypothesis to be true.

So...

• If the evidence are stacked against it, then the new idea is debunked. (eg (A) Einstein’s Static Universe model was abandoned in 1929, when Edwin Hubble discovered gravitational redshift; while Fred Hoyle’s Steady State model (proposed in 1949-50) was debunked by the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) in 1964 (CMBR was first proposed by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948’s joint papers of the Big Bang model).

• If there are no evidence whatsoever, then the new idea has been debunked.

• And if the model (eg hypothesis) is untestable, then it is “unfalsifiable”, which disqualify it even being a “hypothesis”. (Example of unfalsifiable idea or concept: Michael Behe’s Irreducible Complexity.)

There is one possible route that might salvage the currently unsuccessful hypothesis...if the explanations that have strong provable maths; meaning the model’s explanations are mathematically “feasible” or theoretically possible.

Example of proposed theoretical explanations which proposed the Higgs mechanism in the 1960s, independently by some theoretical physicists:

1. Philip Warren Anderson (1962)
2. Peter Higgs (1964)

The mechanism and the field and boson were named after the later physicist, hence Higgs Mechanism, Higgs Field, Higgs Boson or Higgs Particle.

The Higgs mechanisms is explanation as to why other subatomic particles in the Standard Model have masses.

The Higgs boson was discovered in 2012 at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, and publicly announced in 2013.

So it took 50 years that theoretical model to become science, with this discovery.

My point, that sometimes it could take years or decades to finally make the breakthrough discovery. But until then (2012), the Higgs mechanism was unresolved hypothesis that was only theoretical feasible, but wasn’t experimentally probable.

My point is that new concepts don’t immediately qualify it to be “science”.

In this sort of male theme, a male as a human living only on a stone planet inside of a gas mass alight atmosphere is virtually claiming that he is the Creator inventor of the bodies he discusses by his human consciousness and factually believes it is real.

How could you believe that what you say is reality when it is all natural, it is sitting in the exact same spatial body that all of the other natural bodies are.

Only you shift time in your own conscious concept aspect in your human bio chemical aging natural form.

Yet as a non scientist I truly wonder at your egotism claiming that you are rationalising what all those bodies are in their natural forms...for what purpose?

Do you really believe that you are God, all the powers of any theme as to why any body exists?

 

[Native]

Give evidence that star formation happens either in the nucleus or in the barred structures.

Here's what we know: star formation happens inside nebulae that primarily appear in the spiral arms. The nucleus consists primarily of *old* stars, now new ones.

If you want to claim otherwise, you will have to support it by observations showing those new stars (along with spectrographs showing their youth).

You don´t give up ancient ideas and dogmas that easily do you

I understand why you try to hold onto the “old time” ideas of the random “nebular hypothesis” but modern observatory observations shows up a much larger and composed picture of the star formation in galaxies.

So, once again

From - Barred spiral galaxy - Wikipedia
“A barred spiral galaxy is a spiral galaxy with a central bar-shaped structure composed of stars. Bars are found in about half of all spiral galaxies. Bars generally affect both the motions of stars and interstellar gas within spiral galaxies and can affect spiral arms as well. The Milky Way Galaxy, where our own Solar System is located, is classified as a barred spiral galaxy”.

Especially this from - Barred spiral galaxy - Wikipedia

“Barred galaxies are apparently predominant, with surveys showing that up to two-thirds of all spiral galaxies contain a bar. The current hypothesis is that the bar structure acts as a type of stellar nursery, fueling star birth at their centers”.

Me: These barred structures have no “centers”. They are elongated and whirling tubes, propelled by EM. Of course “stellar nursery” is the important significance here.

“The creation of the bar is generally thought to be the result of a density wave radiating from the center of the galaxy whose effects reshape the orbits of the inner stars. This effect builds over time to stars orbiting further out, which creates a self-perpetuating bar structure”.

Me: “Density wave” or repulsive EM energy is the very same here. It´s an energy which affects stars to orbits further OUT from the center in barred galaxies - as said all over the places by me.

“Bars are thought to be temporary phenomena in the lives of spiral galaxies; the bar structures decay over time, transforming galaxies from barred spirals to more "regular" spiral patterns. Past a certain size the accumulated mass of the bar compromises the stability of the overall bar structure. Barred spiral galaxies with high mass accumulated in their center tend to have short, stubby bars. Since so many spiral galaxies have bar structures, it is likely that they are recurring phenomena in spiral galaxy development”.

Me: In scientific cosmology there is a tendency to differ between observations and interpretations of galaxies, but in fact galaxies have a formative cycle of formation which shows up all kinds of formative stages between spiral galaxies with or without a barred structure, as also said below here:

“The oscillating evolutionary cycle from spiral galaxy to barred spiral galaxy is thought to take on the average about two billion years”.

Me: Never mind the time cycle. The principle and cyclic formation in galaxies can be initially described with a spiral galaxy without bars where gas and dust is EM attracted into the galactic center where the gas and dust are sorted out and assembled into very hot starry spheres – and then this galaxy turns into a barred galaxy when these starry spheres are repulsively send out in the bars and further out into the galactic arms.

That is: The formative motion in cosmos (and everywhere else you can imagine) have both an ATTRACTIVE and REPULSIVE circuitally connected motion, which logically cannot be explained dynamically by "gravity". Only the general EM can do that.

As the general EM in galactic center induces perpendicular magnetic fields and all over in the galaxy, minor formations of stars of course can take place outside the galactic center in barred galaxies. But it all depends on the general and overall galactic EM circuit.
-----------------------
Excerpt from - Galactic magnetic fields - Scholarpedia

"Galactic (EM) fields are sufficiently strong to be dynamically important: they drive mass inflow into the centers of galaxies, they modify the formation of spiral arms and they can affect the rotation of gas in the outer regions of galaxies. Magnetic fields provide the transport of angular momentum required for the "collapse" of gas clouds and hence the formation of new stars".

Almost on the very spot of my now two decades old explanations.

Read of more scientific specifics regarding the EM and it´s galactic importance in this link.

Enjoy

 

[Native]

I wrote earlier that:

Me: In scientific cosmology there is a tendency to differ between observations and interpretations of galaxies, but in fact galaxies have a formative cycle of formation which shows up all kinds of formative stages between spiral galaxies with or without a barred structure, as also said below here:

“The oscillating evolutionary cycle from spiral galaxy to barred spiral galaxy is thought to take on the average about two billion years”.

In this sense, I have to precise my former and seemingly general claim of "galaxies are forming inside-out".

As the subject above is a formative cycle of galactic formation, galaxies initially of course ALSO forms OUTSIDE-IN in galactic spirals without BARS, tight spindled arms and a high luminous center and secondarily changing to an INSIDE-OUT formation in barred galaxies.

BTW: Regarding the human world perspective in this OP, studying "large-scale cosmic structures" provides a huge connected network/web of filaments where galaxies are formed along these strings in between cosmic voids. Read more of this here.

 

[wellwisher]

*sigh*

I understand the spirit of your comparison, but it is a fallacious one. The Four Elements are a teaching of natural philosophy, which is not science. If you read up on the Four Elements, you will come to understand that Air, Fire, Earth, and Water don't actually refer to literal, physical substances - they represent abstract principles. And no, the natural philosophy of the Four Elements isn't ridiculous. It's very elegant for those who bother to take the time to study it.

Water had a direct role in evolution, even before life appeared on earth. Water is part of all modern life process, and water was there from the very beginning. Water is the only constant that did not change from day one, yet this is not part of the evolutionary theory.

The Miller experiments of the 1950's, which created the precursors of life in the lab, such as amino acids, used water, gases and an electric spark to simulate lightning; water, air and fire. Other experiments, which built upon the Miller experiments, used clay to make protein from amino acids; earth. In terms of abiogenesis, Aristotle was literally correct.

Modern science; evolution actually uses a type of creationist approach, in that they start evolution at replicators, as though these magically appear one day. They cannot make the connection to the original water, gases, heat, and minerals of the Miller experts and the replicators. There is a gap where a God of Random intercedes with a creationists gesture, to create the Evolutionary Religion.

Science then builds upon a foundation, they cannot create from scratch, that stems from a God of Random, all without any hard evidence of this original. How does this differ from God of Hosts creating Adam and Eve and then using this to define the subsequent progression of humanity? This parallel may explain why evolution is so insecure with Creationism. It is the pot calling the kettle black. Was the first replicator of evolution also called Adam? Was the second replicator called Eve?

Another conceptual problem created is crested by fossil evidence,. This problem is connected to the tiny fraction of earth life, that fossils represent. The modern earth has 5 million species with 7 billion units in just one species; human. Humans, alone, come in all sizes and colors. If you only had human fossils from Japan, would science inferred that all humans once looked this way?

Multiple this by a billion years with millions of species and trillions of units changing in time and going extinct. It is impossible for fossil evidence to tell the whole story seeing it represents less than 0.0001%, as a conservative estimate.

As an analogy, say we create a mural on the ground using popcorn. The picture is a large organized scene. We leave the popcorn mural and return after a few years. Over that time, birds, animals, insects will eat popcorn. Others kernels are blown by the wind. Some decompose due to rain and snow. What is left over is not the original mural. In fact, the odds are, it would look more random instead of as an organized scene.

Science can only make claims based on the hard data that is available. It will draw the wrong conclusions from fossil data, by default, due to its own philosophy. There is not enough data and natural data organization to claim the original mural. Instead we will need to create a dogma of random change. If any competition appears it is nipped in the bud, If you think outside that box, you are socially suspect. When politics enters science you know it is wrong and protecting itself. What was the name of the first created replicator according to the Book of Evolution?

 

[Native]

Science then builds upon a foundation, they cannot create from scratch, that uses a God of Random and Casinos. How does this differ from God of Hosts creating Adam and Eve and then using this to define the subsequent progression of humanity? This parallel may explain why evolution is so insecure with Creationism. It is the pot calling the kettle black. Was the first replicator of evolution also called Adam? Was the second replicate called Eve?

The telling of Adam and Eve is directly connected to the Story of Creation and as such, it is the first replicator of evolution telling of how everything living is created by two genders/qualities.

If taking these two qualities as a "scientific force of formation", these qualities can describe/resemble Electromagnetic polarities and energies which works in everything.

Water had had a direct role in evolution even before life appeared on earth. Water is part of all modern life process, and water was there from the very beginning. Water is the only constant that did not change from day one, yet this is not part of the evolutionary theory.

Water also appeared in Story of Creations as the basic and eternal concept of "Primeval Waters" from where everything was/is created, and even in the myth of The Flood", which in fact resembles the cloudy looking Milky Way River in the night Sky above the Earth and NOT a concrete flood running as a divine revenge on humans on the Earth.

The mythical term of "primeval waters" can easily be interpreted and compared to the modern term of "cosmic clouds of gas and dust" from where the Solar System is thought to be formed - as with the entire Milky Way as well.

Even the scientific term of the Cosmic Microwave Background which is constituted mostly by the gaseous hydrogen and helium, can be interpreted into the mythical term of "Primeval Waters"

In several cultures, their religious/mythical Stories of Creation states everything to be eternal, but also eternally changes between creation, dissolution and re-creation. As such they have no beginning and no end, thus also no Big Bang speculations.

For instants in the Norse Mythology, "Ragnarok", is generally thought by scholars and laymen to be the end of everything, but in fact "new worlds and new deities" is created. This Ragnarok story just underline the "eternal concept and principle of creation", geniously described in the myth as "battles between different deities/forces of life and death".

 

[rational experiences]

The telling of Adam and Eve is directly connected to the Story of Creation and as such, it is the first replicator of evolution telling of how everything living is created by two genders/qualities.

If taking these two qualities as a "scientific force of formation", these qualities can describe/resemble Electromagnetic polarities and energies which works in everything.

Water also appeared in Story of Creations as the basic and eternal concept of "Primeval Waters" from where everything was/is created, and even in the myth of The Flood", which in fact resembles the cloudy looking Milky Way River in the night Sky above the Earth and NOT a concrete flood running as a divine revenge on humans on the Earth.

The mythical term of "primeval waters" can easily be interpreted and compared to the modern term of "cosmic clouds of gas and dust" from where the Solar System is thought to be formed - as with the entire Milky Way as well.

Even the scientific term of the Cosmic Microwave Background which is constituted mostly by the gaseous hydrogen and helium, can be interpreted into the mythical term of "Primeval Waters"

In several cultures, their religious/mythical Stories of Creation states everything to be eternal, but also eternally changes between creation, dissolution and re-creation. As such they have no beginning and no end, thus also no Big Bang speculations.

For instants in the Norse Mythology, "Ragnarok", is generally thought by scholars and laymen to be the end of everything, but in fact "new worlds and new deities" is created. This Ragnarok story just underline the "eternal concept and principle of creation", geniously described in the myth as "battles between different deities/forces of life and death".

But you are a male in a natural life that owned a review the Nature of the Garden to make claims about gender when it never owned gender.

You would have to question your own moral ethics as the first male to quantify that you owned some personally specific circumstance to claim that just Eve, relating to human sex was the fault of a female...yet you do.

And then look at science, a state of male choice. To infer God as a God not yet conceived in his own thinking as O pi. When God he said was the philosophy of the stone upon which he stood.

I think you male science self are proven wrong.....seeing the theme about who was against the existence and holiness of God was those who sought the destruction of God....and inferred to self as that God....a human full of hatred and full of the feelings of power.

God never expressed the state of power, a living human male did as a human review watching the natural ancient angel of God being destroyed amongst his own fall. O stone and evolved angel....and O Suns rebelling self consuming and destructive angels.

How it was taught as spiritual philosophy, about reasons why we humans were it witness.

So then you would say, well brother once and for all do you believe that you came from spirit after it all existed formed...and you were forced to witness mistake, and change and cause and effect?

All teachings against Satanism.....the reason that the angels of O God burnt.

And that state was oblivion, the formation of the presence of space.

You would ask why you first stated God O the planet was a male...and said that space was Holy Mother of God the presence of stone formation. As Holy Mother?

Then suddenly you thought about the mass within, a hell burning mass...so then you decided to change the deism and said it Mother Earth....for how could you claim self was unholy, male?

Yet making all of the thoughts made you unholy and against natural, and spiritual.

So then when you decide you wanted to force a God that existed to be removed secretly you said a God that yet did not exist. Yet you would have had to know it was about the forming of holes...seeing the atmosphere, not a flat top mountain came out of a volcano...a mountain with a hole.

You consciously are proven to have known...your secret.

It is in that moment that you then decided to infer to the history cold space and presence stone.....to your want of an invisible God not yet formed as O pi.

You then took God converted it by O pi numbers and then made it irradiate fall out, into Phi crop circles as the beginning of opening the seal of God fusion into SIN removal/holes.

You always knew, why you said SOPHIA was the maths...for always you take the holiness of self representation, male Satanist, lie about female holiness and then give her an evil quotation, knowing the whole time it was your male choice to do evil.

That is the sort of brother we have had to contend with ever since you decided to apply Satanism...to bring cold UFO womb radiation held holy by the Mother Creator theme...and you burnt it by passing through a sacrifice of burning Earth gases.

And you lied ever since.

 

[Native]

But you are a male in a natural life that owned a review the Nature of the Garden to make claims about gender when it never owned gender.

Yes I´m a male and so what?

I wrote:

The telling of Adam and Eve is directly connected to the Story of Creation and as such, it is the first replicator of evolution telling of how everything living is created by two genders/qualities.

I just underlined how the TWO GENDERS in the Bible is a description of the principle qualities in the creation.

You would have to question your own moral ethics as the first male to quantify that you owned some personally specific circumstance to claim that just Eve, relating to human sex was the fault of a female...yet you do.

What? Where did I make such a statement? I think your own strawmen gets the better of you

 

[rational experiences]

Yes I´m a male and so what?

I wrote:

I just underlined how the TWO GENDERS in the Bible is a description of the principle qualities in the creation.

What? Where did I make such a statement? I think your own strawmen gets the better of you

2 genders exist first rationally in animal life.....not science.

You first claim I am a human male as God the male. Then you make references to causing the creation and presence animals and human being equal life...a male and a female.

So if you were a spiritual being as a God self...a spirit first and were a male...then obviously you were.

The Nature Garden owns no gender, and you do not talk as if you are studying and theorising about what each species in the nature of that Garden was enacting, as a multi diverse huge body.

Yet science in modern days claims, I have it al documented and in order.

Which would first of all say to a scientist so, you are a liar then.

Now if a male existed as a God and a male.

And then he did science, by his own invention by claiming as a scientist does that God at first does not exist....when he cannot exist as a male unless God the stone planet with an atmosphere existed......then he lied.

Because he does lie in science. For when nothing existed it also includes your own self….so there would be no discussion.

But that actual self informed status is totally ignored by you, in egotism of self explanation.

Now you say such claims as a male living on Earth inside of a gas mass about the fabric of space as if you personally know it.

So Earth owns day light in gases...night time Eve ning owns clear light gases..and you can see dark space.

What would you claim about yourself today that I can see, that you cannot scientist about your history of male lying?

You know self inference to being Satan, the male angel who defied God?

If you said.....before sex, I was not a sexual self....then as I changed the nature of my human being....then I had sex because I burnt the night time even balances evening, and said I did it male, said I cursed my own spirit by animals appearing, when they never did....and the female appeared.

And it then related to feelings of sharing a sexual relationship....then what everyone says about life having come out of a pre living spiritual body is true.

Only after the eternal burnt body, replaced half of it back into space...as gases.

Now if you said to a male self....so the other half of eternal that is now missing for space to be owned inside of a gas mass, as the conscious version a fabric in space....you claimed that the other half, burnt and gone was the bio nature.

Didn't you?

You never talk about the gas bodies as origin cooling of the spirit burnt gases.

Your claim is always about how gases are the Immaculate spirit and then self was the burnt other half spirit.

Yet in the Immaculate cold spirit gases, the other half was never burnt...our life.

So we are not the missing space body you know brother liar Satanist.

We came out of eternal, only because the origin mass was sung up into God, and exploded/burst and burnt...and gases were what were left afterwards.

Gases cannot evolve past their own status...to be named.

How come gases took up half of space and yet the other half of space is present to allow us, to walk through it?

So your mind says, and seems to say it all wrong, that we are walking through space...yet we walk through the gas space.

Satanists tried to claim that a human walked through space and then came into Earth from out of space dimensionally.

When 2 are the same, then we are both human. You cannot say a human is adam and eve as both. For you don't in this reading. You claim adam is a male and eve a female.

You never preached that Eve was a male.

Your science theorising said that Holy Mother of God, being stone was cold zero empty out of space...the coldest body.

The Mother in science is space......and it is not a human inference.

Therefore as Evening means what I can see at night time.....you told everyone that science burnt the night time sky, of the Holy cold womb of space, where clear gases were. And then claimed self damned as the nations, meaning the fusion of every holy land converted the life in Nature.

A you said is alpha.
AD you said is after 0 zero was changed
AM you said is inheritance of the light in the morning.

If your claim is that you science male self in a God inferred science burnt the womb of cold space, then the Morning light would have changed also.

So you then said I changed the Alpha state into the state of self dam nation.

Stating, the male self did it...as the term reference Adam.

And told everyone and so we were evicted from the original Earth Nature Garden and said it was by secret meaning ^ gar the nose point and out of a den O a hole theory.

And it is why you related that context to the Nature and taught everyone about what science caused to natural life.

The reason that the story was taught about human Genetics returning, was proven in a male prophecy. That when DNA evolved, then the males who had committed the act of evil against life and mutated it....regain their mind identification to that hole theory. For they lost their life because the hole or sink hole formed in God...and then when they get it returned they remember all about that HOLE.

So they said it is the Destroyer mentality. Proved from the Moses effect to the return of DNA that science did it again.....from the Jesus effect to modern day effect, new sink holes...science did it again.

And then you want to claim that you are a rational thinker and argue non stop about relativity of natural life on Earth?