Remember me
▼ Content

Is The Moon Toxic?



Page 2 of 2<12
26-04-2022 23:23
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:

Distant cosmic rays are the source of the observed gamma rays, unless Bill Bixby is involved


I call B.S.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRGAaZS5jS-WqpADprYO0gI54u31QxCc89-ahxmqOZDR7cc6FI&usqp=CAc


How does the Moon produce gamma rays?

When cosmic rays strike the moon, they interact with the powdery surface of the Moon, called the regolith, to produce gamma-ray emission. The Moon absorbs most of these gamma rays, but some of them escape.

You cannot trap light.


How does the Moon produce gamma rays?

When cosmic rays strike the moon, they interact with the powdery surface of the Moon, called the regolith, to produce gamma-ray emission. The Moon absorbs most of these gamma rays, but some of them escape.
26-04-2022 23:26
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1034)
ITN wrote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GTgzAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wrong book. Try again.

The atmosphere blocks all incoming gamma radiation.

Electrolysis of water does not produce gamma radiation and is not fusion.


Scroll down you lazy ass. After the life of Braveheart, comes Arago's astronomy lecture.

The toxicity I'm talking about is how the Moon rips off the Earth. Gamma radiation doesn't happen until the particles are closer to the moon.

The entire process is best considered by viewing the video of cold fusion which is not just about electrolysis of water.

https://youtu.be/f6d2q-YxVvk



Edited on 26-04-2022 23:39
26-04-2022 23:32
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1034)
Into the Night wrote:

Nah. They don't have to be distant.


And by cosmic ray, I mean, The Earth.

https://youtu.be/E3Pj2N8cVZ4


27-04-2022 01:19
James_
★★★☆☆
(888)
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN wrote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GTgzAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wrong book. Try again.

The atmosphere blocks all incoming gamma radiation.

Electrolysis of water does not produce gamma radiation and is not fusion.


Scroll down you lazy ass. After the life of Braveheart, comes Arago's astronomy lecture.

The toxicity I'm talking about is how the Moon rips off the Earth. Gamma radiation doesn't happen until the particles are closer to the moon.

The entire process is best considered by viewing the video of cold fusion which is not just about electrolysis of water.

https://youtu.be/f6d2q-YxVvk



The Moon actually causes the Earth to have earthquakes. And in the inverse function, the Moon has fractures caused by the Earth's gravitational pull.
A further discussion of this would ask why did the periodicity of Ice Ages change from before 1 million years ago to after 800,000 years ago? It's said that there is also a distant event from around 3 billion years or so ago.
What are we really talking about here?

The accepted theory since the 1980s is that the Moon arose as a result of a collision between the Earth and Theia 4.5 billion years ago.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27688511
What if that is only 1/2 right? That might show that time is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYj2hex99gY
Edited on 27-04-2022 01:34
27-04-2022 02:26
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1034)
James_ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN wrote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GTgzAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wrong book. Try again.

The atmosphere blocks all incoming gamma radiation.

Electrolysis of water does not produce gamma radiation and is not fusion.


Scroll down you lazy ass. After the life of Braveheart, comes Arago's astronomy lecture.

The toxicity I'm talking about is how the Moon rips off the Earth. Gamma radiation doesn't happen until the particles are closer to the moon.

The entire process is best considered by viewing the video of cold fusion which is not just about electrolysis of water.

https://youtu.be/f6d2q-YxVvk



The Moon actually causes the Earth to have earthquakes. And in the inverse function, the Moon has fractures caused by the Earth's gravitational pull.
A further discussion of this would ask why did the periodicity of Ice Ages change from before 1 million years ago to after 800,000 years ago? It's said that there is also a distant event from around 3 billion years or so ago.
What are we really talking about here?

The accepted theory since the 1980s is that the Moon arose as a result of a collision between the Earth and Theia 4.5 billion years ago.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27688511
What if that is only 1/2 right? That might show that time is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYj2hex99gY


Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating is a technique which is used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed. The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a "known constant rate of decay."

The problem with that, is we can rest assured, the rate of decay has not been constant.

Maybe about 4126 years ago, for 40 days and 40 nights , the rate of decay was so severely increased that it killed all life on land. And the "waters" prevailed 150 days in total.

So we must throw our assumption of a "known constant rate of decay." out the window.

Since we have no useful scientific model to date the start of Time, we must rely on the Hebrew calendar, which dates the beginning of Time as ~ 5782 years ago.

https://youtu.be/u3VTKvdAuIY


27-04-2022 03:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
Spongy Iris wrote:Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating is a technique which is used to date materials such as rocks or carbon,

The problem with radiometric dating (kudos for using the correct term!) is that it is only an upper limit to age, and not the age.

The "date" established by radiometric dating is what the age would be if there had been zero decay material present at formation. Of course, nobody knows how much decay material was there at formation and thus, nobody knows how much younger the actual age is than the upper limit.

Spongy Iris wrote:The problem with that, is we can rest assured, the rate of decay has not been constant.

Nope. Radioactive decay remains constant despite changes in temperature and pressure. Nobody has ever observed any deviation from a constant half-life.

Spongy Iris wrote:Maybe about 4126 years ago, for 40 days and 40 nights , the rate of decay was so severely increased that it killed all life on land. And the "waters" prevailed 150 days in total.

This is a fascinating speculation about the past, and it is fascinatingly discarded.

Spongy Iris wrote:So we must throw our assumption of a "known constant rate of decay." out the window.

Nope. I think I'll keep mine.

Spongy Iris wrote:Since we have no useful scientific model to date the start of Time, we must rely on the Hebrew calendar, which dates the beginning of Time as ~ 5782 years ago.

Unfortunately, that 5,782-year figure was the result of neglected maintenance. Last year, they recalibrated the Hebrew calendar and now it's reading much more accurately ... showing 12,424,511,609 years, 77 days, 4 hours and now about ... 13 minutes.

The problem with the Hebrew calendar was that the clutch wasn't engaging properly. The flywheel was really worn, but once they replaced it, the clutch started working fine. That's all it needed. Yes, they probably should have checked that long ago among the first things they examined.
27-04-2022 04:56
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1034)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James_ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN wrote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GTgzAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wrong book. Try again.

The atmosphere blocks all incoming gamma radiation.

Electrolysis of water does not produce gamma radiation and is not fusion.


Scroll down you lazy ass. After the life of Braveheart, comes Arago's astronomy lecture.

The toxicity I'm talking about is how the Moon rips off the Earth. Gamma radiation doesn't happen until the particles are closer to the moon.

The entire process is best considered by viewing the video of cold fusion which is not just about electrolysis of water.

https://youtu.be/f6d2q-YxVvk



The Moon actually causes the Earth to have earthquakes. And in the inverse function, the Moon has fractures caused by the Earth's gravitational pull.
A further discussion of this would ask why did the periodicity of Ice Ages change from before 1 million years ago to after 800,000 years ago? It's said that there is also a distant event from around 3 billion years or so ago.
What are we really talking about here?

The accepted theory since the 1980s is that the Moon arose as a result of a collision between the Earth and Theia 4.5 billion years ago.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27688511
What if that is only 1/2 right? That might show that time is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYj2hex99gY


Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating is a technique which is used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed. The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a "known constant rate of decay."

The problem with that, is we can rest assured, the rate of decay has not been constant.

Maybe about 4126 years ago, for 40 days and 40 nights , the rate of decay was so severely increased that it killed all life on land. And the "waters" prevailed 150 days in total.

So we must throw our assumption of a "known constant rate of decay." out the window.

Since we have no useful scientific model to date the start of Time, we must rely on the Hebrew calendar, which dates the beginning of Time as ~ 5782 years ago.

https://youtu.be/u3VTKvdAuIY


James how ignorant of me... The beginning of Time wasn't just when Man came onto the scene.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

2 Peter 3:8

So add ~ 6000 years to 5782. If I recall correctly, from a video you shared a while ago, isn't that how old Niagara falls is?


27-04-2022 06:33
James_
★★★☆☆
(888)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James_ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN wrote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GTgzAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wrong book. Try again.

The atmosphere blocks all incoming gamma radiation.

Electrolysis of water does not produce gamma radiation and is not fusion.


Scroll down you lazy ass. After the life of Braveheart, comes Arago's astronomy lecture.

The toxicity I'm talking about is how the Moon rips off the Earth. Gamma radiation doesn't happen until the particles are closer to the moon.

The entire process is best considered by viewing the video of cold fusion which is not just about electrolysis of water.

https://youtu.be/f6d2q-YxVvk



The Moon actually causes the Earth to have earthquakes. And in the inverse function, the Moon has fractures caused by the Earth's gravitational pull.
A further discussion of this would ask why did the periodicity of Ice Ages change from before 1 million years ago to after 800,000 years ago? It's said that there is also a distant event from around 3 billion years or so ago.
What are we really talking about here?

The accepted theory since the 1980s is that the Moon arose as a result of a collision between the Earth and Theia 4.5 billion years ago.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27688511
What if that is only 1/2 right? That might show that time is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYj2hex99gY


Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating is a technique which is used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed. The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a "known constant rate of decay."

The problem with that, is we can rest assured, the rate of decay has not been constant.

Maybe about 4126 years ago, for 40 days and 40 nights , the rate of decay was so severely increased that it killed all life on land. And the "waters" prevailed 150 days in total.

So we must throw our assumption of a "known constant rate of decay." out the window.

Since we have no useful scientific model to date the start of Time, we must rely on the Hebrew calendar, which dates the beginning of Time as ~ 5782 years ago.

https://youtu.be/u3VTKvdAuIY


James how ignorant of me... The beginning of Time wasn't just when Man came onto the scene.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

2 Peter 3:8

So add ~ 6000 years to 5782. If I recall correctly, from a video you shared a while ago, isn't that how old Niagara falls is?



Farming started about 6,000 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAnOGPXUlHQ

The Egyptian calendar is actually 2 different calendars. One is is the Lunar calendar and the other is the solar calendar. Your birthday and any religious event is is solar.
The planting of crops is lunar. The spring rains over the African continent occur with the Moon. It is known that the Lake Victoria floods in the spring in Ethiopia.
And now I am stating basic information everyone knows.
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

And a thousand times a thousand is a million years or so. So when God created the first 6 days before he rested, they were what?
6 Billion years might be closer to the truth and not 6 million years.
Edited on 27-04-2022 06:34
27-04-2022 07:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
James_ wrote: Farming started about 6,000 years ago.

You might be surprised but it happened a full two months earlier!


James_ wrote: The Egyptian calendar is actually 2 different calendars.

I presume you meant to write "The Egyptian calendars are actually two different calendars ... and not two copies of the same calendar."

James_ wrote: And a thousand times a thousand is a million years or so. So when God created the first 6 days before he rested, they were what?
6 Billion years might be closer to the truth and not 6 million years.

You forgot to include the extra days for leap years.
Attached image:

27-04-2022 17:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:

Distant cosmic rays are the source of the observed gamma rays, unless Bill Bixby is involved


I call B.S.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRGAaZS5jS-WqpADprYO0gI54u31QxCc89-ahxmqOZDR7cc6FI&usqp=CAc


How does the Moon produce gamma rays?

When cosmic rays strike the moon, they interact with the powdery surface of the Moon, called the regolith, to produce gamma-ray emission. The Moon absorbs most of these gamma rays, but some of them escape.

You cannot trap light.


How does the Moon produce gamma rays?

When cosmic rays strike the moon, they interact with the powdery surface of the Moon, called the regolith, to produce gamma-ray emission. The Moon absorbs most of these gamma rays, but some of them escape.

You cannot trap light.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-04-2022 17:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN wrote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GTgzAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wrong book. Try again.

The atmosphere blocks all incoming gamma radiation.

Electrolysis of water does not produce gamma radiation and is not fusion.


Scroll down you lazy ass. After the life of Braveheart, comes Arago's astronomy lecture.

The toxicity I'm talking about is how the Moon rips off the Earth. Gamma radiation doesn't happen until the particles are closer to the moon.

The entire process is best considered by viewing the video of cold fusion which is not just about electrolysis of water.

https://youtu.be/f6d2q-YxVvk

Sorry dude, but this animation combined with images of electrolysis of water is just electrolysis of water. No fusion.

Animation is not real life.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-04-2022 17:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Nah. They don't have to be distant.


And by cosmic ray, I mean, The Earth.

The Earth is not a cosmic ray.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-04-2022 18:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James_ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN wrote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GTgzAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wrong book. Try again.

The atmosphere blocks all incoming gamma radiation.

Electrolysis of water does not produce gamma radiation and is not fusion.


Scroll down you lazy ass. After the life of Braveheart, comes Arago's astronomy lecture.

The toxicity I'm talking about is how the Moon rips off the Earth. Gamma radiation doesn't happen until the particles are closer to the moon.

The entire process is best considered by viewing the video of cold fusion which is not just about electrolysis of water.

https://youtu.be/f6d2q-YxVvk



The Moon actually causes the Earth to have earthquakes. And in the inverse function, the Moon has fractures caused by the Earth's gravitational pull.
A further discussion of this would ask why did the periodicity of Ice Ages change from before 1 million years ago to after 800,000 years ago? It's said that there is also a distant event from around 3 billion years or so ago.
What are we really talking about here?

The accepted theory since the 1980s is that the Moon arose as a result of a collision between the Earth and Theia 4.5 billion years ago.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27688511
What if that is only 1/2 right? That might show that time is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYj2hex99gY


Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating is a technique which is used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed.

Void reference fallacy. Rocks form with different levels of isotopes in them.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a "known constant rate of decay."

Decay is based on probability math, which you discard.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The problem with that, is we can rest assured, the rate of decay has not been constant.

Maybe about 4126 years ago, for 40 days and 40 nights , the rate of decay was so severely increased that it killed all life on land. And the "waters" prevailed 150 days in total.

Nope. Decay is constantly decreasing of the isotope. It follows a probability curve.
Spongy Iris wrote:
So we must throw our assumption of a "known constant rate of decay." out the window.

Since we have no useful scientific model to date the start of Time, we must rely on the Hebrew calendar, which dates the beginning of Time as ~ 5782 years ago.

The Hebrew calendar does not specify a beginning of time.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-04-2022 01:20
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
James_ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James_ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN wrote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GTgzAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wrong book. Try again.

The atmosphere blocks all incoming gamma radiation.

Electrolysis of water does not produce gamma radiation and is not fusion.


Scroll down you lazy ass. After the life of Braveheart, comes Arago's astronomy lecture.

The toxicity I'm talking about is how the Moon rips off the Earth. Gamma radiation doesn't happen until the particles are closer to the moon.

The entire process is best considered by viewing the video of cold fusion which is not just about electrolysis of water.

https://youtu.be/f6d2q-YxVvk



The Moon actually causes the Earth to have earthquakes. And in the inverse function, the Moon has fractures caused by the Earth's gravitational pull.
A further discussion of this would ask why did the periodicity of Ice Ages change from before 1 million years ago to after 800,000 years ago? It's said that there is also a distant event from around 3 billion years or so ago.
What are we really talking about here?

The accepted theory since the 1980s is that the Moon arose as a result of a collision between the Earth and Theia 4.5 billion years ago.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27688511
What if that is only 1/2 right? That might show that time is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYj2hex99gY


Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating is a technique which is used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed. The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a "known constant rate of decay."

The problem with that, is we can rest assured, the rate of decay has not been constant.

Maybe about 4126 years ago, for 40 days and 40 nights , the rate of decay was so severely increased that it killed all life on land. And the "waters" prevailed 150 days in total.

So we must throw our assumption of a "known constant rate of decay." out the window.

Since we have no useful scientific model to date the start of Time, we must rely on the Hebrew calendar, which dates the beginning of Time as ~ 5782 years ago.

https://youtu.be/u3VTKvdAuIY


James how ignorant of me... The beginning of Time wasn't just when Man came onto the scene.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

2 Peter 3:8

So add ~ 6000 years to 5782. If I recall correctly, from a video you shared a while ago, isn't that how old Niagara falls is?



Farming started about 6,000 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAnOGPXUlHQ

The Egyptian calendar is actually 2 different calendars. One is is the Lunar calendar and the other is the solar calendar. Your birthday and any religious event is is solar.
The planting of crops is lunar. The spring rains over the African continent occur with the Moon. It is known that the Lake Victoria floods in the spring in Ethiopia.
And now I am stating basic information everyone knows.
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

And a thousand times a thousand is a million years or so. So when God created the first 6 days before he rested, they were what?
6 Billion years might be closer to the truth and not 6 million years.


Human agriculture began in 10,000 BC or 12,000 years ago.
28-04-2022 05:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Swan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James_ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN wrote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GTgzAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wrong book. Try again.

The atmosphere blocks all incoming gamma radiation.

Electrolysis of water does not produce gamma radiation and is not fusion.


Scroll down you lazy ass. After the life of Braveheart, comes Arago's astronomy lecture.

The toxicity I'm talking about is how the Moon rips off the Earth. Gamma radiation doesn't happen until the particles are closer to the moon.

The entire process is best considered by viewing the video of cold fusion which is not just about electrolysis of water.

https://youtu.be/f6d2q-YxVvk



The Moon actually causes the Earth to have earthquakes. And in the inverse function, the Moon has fractures caused by the Earth's gravitational pull.
A further discussion of this would ask why did the periodicity of Ice Ages change from before 1 million years ago to after 800,000 years ago? It's said that there is also a distant event from around 3 billion years or so ago.
What are we really talking about here?

The accepted theory since the 1980s is that the Moon arose as a result of a collision between the Earth and Theia 4.5 billion years ago.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27688511
What if that is only 1/2 right? That might show that time is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYj2hex99gY


Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating is a technique which is used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed. The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a "known constant rate of decay."

The problem with that, is we can rest assured, the rate of decay has not been constant.

Maybe about 4126 years ago, for 40 days and 40 nights , the rate of decay was so severely increased that it killed all life on land. And the "waters" prevailed 150 days in total.

So we must throw our assumption of a "known constant rate of decay." out the window.

Since we have no useful scientific model to date the start of Time, we must rely on the Hebrew calendar, which dates the beginning of Time as ~ 5782 years ago.

https://youtu.be/u3VTKvdAuIY


James how ignorant of me... The beginning of Time wasn't just when Man came onto the scene.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

2 Peter 3:8

So add ~ 6000 years to 5782. If I recall correctly, from a video you shared a while ago, isn't that how old Niagara falls is?



Farming started about 6,000 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAnOGPXUlHQ

The Egyptian calendar is actually 2 different calendars. One is is the Lunar calendar and the other is the solar calendar. Your birthday and any religious event is is solar.
The planting of crops is lunar. The spring rains over the African continent occur with the Moon. It is known that the Lake Victoria floods in the spring in Ethiopia.
And now I am stating basic information everyone knows.
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

And a thousand times a thousand is a million years or so. So when God created the first 6 days before he rested, they were what?
6 Billion years might be closer to the truth and not 6 million years.


Human agriculture began in 10,000 BC or 12,000 years ago.

How do you know? Were you there?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-04-2022 13:08
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James_ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN wrote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GTgzAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Wrong book. Try again.

The atmosphere blocks all incoming gamma radiation.

Electrolysis of water does not produce gamma radiation and is not fusion.


Scroll down you lazy ass. After the life of Braveheart, comes Arago's astronomy lecture.

The toxicity I'm talking about is how the Moon rips off the Earth. Gamma radiation doesn't happen until the particles are closer to the moon.

The entire process is best considered by viewing the video of cold fusion which is not just about electrolysis of water.

https://youtu.be/f6d2q-YxVvk



The Moon actually causes the Earth to have earthquakes. And in the inverse function, the Moon has fractures caused by the Earth's gravitational pull.
A further discussion of this would ask why did the periodicity of Ice Ages change from before 1 million years ago to after 800,000 years ago? It's said that there is also a distant event from around 3 billion years or so ago.
What are we really talking about here?

The accepted theory since the 1980s is that the Moon arose as a result of a collision between the Earth and Theia 4.5 billion years ago.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27688511
What if that is only 1/2 right? That might show that time is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYj2hex99gY


Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating is a technique which is used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed. The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a "known constant rate of decay."

The problem with that, is we can rest assured, the rate of decay has not been constant.

Maybe about 4126 years ago, for 40 days and 40 nights , the rate of decay was so severely increased that it killed all life on land. And the "waters" prevailed 150 days in total.

So we must throw our assumption of a "known constant rate of decay." out the window.

Since we have no useful scientific model to date the start of Time, we must rely on the Hebrew calendar, which dates the beginning of Time as ~ 5782 years ago.

https://youtu.be/u3VTKvdAuIY


James how ignorant of me... The beginning of Time wasn't just when Man came onto the scene.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

2 Peter 3:8

So add ~ 6000 years to 5782. If I recall correctly, from a video you shared a while ago, isn't that how old Niagara falls is?



Farming started about 6,000 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAnOGPXUlHQ

The Egyptian calendar is actually 2 different calendars. One is is the Lunar calendar and the other is the solar calendar. Your birthday and any religious event is is solar.
The planting of crops is lunar. The spring rains over the African continent occur with the Moon. It is known that the Lake Victoria floods in the spring in Ethiopia.
And now I am stating basic information everyone knows.
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

And a thousand times a thousand is a million years or so. So when God created the first 6 days before he rested, they were what?
6 Billion years might be closer to the truth and not 6 million years.


Human agriculture began in 10,000 BC or 12,000 years ago.

How do you know? Were you there?


Was I there at your birth?

No.

Yet still I know that you are real.

Your persistence that nothing that was not seen happen in the first hand, can not be real, is evidence of your mental illness
29-04-2022 15:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
Swan wrote:Was I there at your birth? No. Yet still I know that you are real.

You don't know anything about the person behind the avatar in an anonymous forum, which is as real as any character in any book.

Your argument seems to be that because you were not present at a speculative event, that whatever you choose to speculate is what others must consider to be "known."

Swan wrote:Your persistence that nothing that was not seen happen in the first hand, can not be real,

That's not his position. Your English comprehension could use a little work.

His position is that you really don't know those things you merely speculate.

Your position is that if you merely imagine some speculation, it's transforms into being real and therefore "what you know."

Hmmmm, I wonder who is correct.
29-04-2022 16:20
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Was I there at your birth? No. Yet still I know that you are real.

You don't know anything about the person behind the avatar in an anonymous forum, which is as real as any character in any book.

Your argument seems to be that because you were not present at a speculative event, that whatever you choose to speculate is what others must consider to be "known."

Swan wrote:Your persistence that nothing that was not seen happen in the first hand, can not be real,

That's not his position. Your English comprehension could use a little work.

His position is that you really don't know those things you merely speculate.

Your position is that if you merely imagine some speculation, it's transforms into being real and therefore "what you know."

Hmmmm, I wonder who is correct.


So you are claiming that I do not know that you were born. LOL you were born, I also know that you are on a government payroll and that you have the minimum skill to converse in the English language. I also know that you think that you are important and that this is a function of delusions of grandeur that you refuse to have treated.

Now smile in your official cube
29-04-2022 18:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
Swan wrote:So you are claiming that I do not know that you were born.

I am claiming that no IBDaMann was ever known to be born, yet here you are claiming that this fictitious character's birth is "what you know."

LOL LOL LOL yawn LOL LOL

Swan wrote: LOL you were born,

I am an online personality, an avatar, an anonymous fiction. I was never born. I am authored.

Besides, pointing to a tautology (a statement that is necessarily true, e.g. "You are reading this right now") does not somehow transform your speculations into knowledge.

Swan wrote:I also know that you are on a government payroll

This, too, you do not know,. You speculate such. However IBDaMann is a fictional character who cannot be on any non-fictional payroll.

You know nothing of my author.

Swan wrote:and that you have the minimum skill to converse in the English language.

I have nothing that my author does not give me, and my author might very well have an editor, or might not, and might have an illustrator/graphic artist assisting, or might not. Your lack of knowledge, however, cannot prevent you from speculating.

Swan wrote: I also know that you think that you are important

I don't think that I am merely important. I am necessary, crucial, essential and paramount, exactly as my author determines.

Swan wrote:and that this is a function of delusions of grandeur that you refuse to have treated.

I am a character. My author has created me to be dynamic and amazing without any need for delusions.

Swan wrote:Now smile in your official cube

I can be anywhere in the world.

Pick a place.

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-04-2022 20:01
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:So you are claiming that I do not know that you were born.

I am claiming that no IBDaMann was ever known to be born, yet here you are claiming that this fictitious character's birth is "what you know."

LOL LOL LOL yawn LOL LOL

Swan wrote: LOL you were born,

I am an online personality, an avatar, an anonymous fiction. I was never born. I am authored.

Besides, pointing to a tautology (a statement that is necessarily true, e.g. "You are reading this right now") does not somehow transform your speculations into knowledge.

Swan wrote:I also know that you are on a government payroll

This, too, you do not know,. You speculate such. However IBDaMann is a fictional character who cannot be on any non-fictional payroll.

You know nothing of my author.

Swan wrote:and that you have the minimum skill to converse in the English language.

I have nothing that my author does not give me, and my author might very well have an editor, or might not, and might have an illustrator/graphic artist assisting, or might not. Your lack of knowledge, however, cannot prevent you from speculating.

Swan wrote: I also know that you think that you are important

I don't think that I am merely important. I am necessary, crucial, essential and paramount, exactly as my author determines.

Swan wrote:and that this is a function of delusions of grandeur that you refuse to have treated.

I am a character. My author has created me to be dynamic and amazing without any need for delusions.

Swan wrote:Now smile in your official cube

I can be anywhere in the world.

Pick a place.

.


Actually you were born no matter what you choose to call yourself

Do you really enjoy mocking yourself in public?
29-04-2022 22:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:So you are claiming that I do not know that you were born.

I am claiming that no IBDaMann was ever known to be born, yet here you are claiming that this fictitious character's birth is "what you know."

LOL LOL LOL yawn LOL LOL

Swan wrote: LOL you were born,

I am an online personality, an avatar, an anonymous fiction. I was never born. I am authored.

Besides, pointing to a tautology (a statement that is necessarily true, e.g. "You are reading this right now") does not somehow transform your speculations into knowledge.

Swan wrote:I also know that you are on a government payroll

This, too, you do not know,. You speculate such. However IBDaMann is a fictional character who cannot be on any non-fictional payroll.

You know nothing of my author.

Swan wrote:and that you have the minimum skill to converse in the English language.

I have nothing that my author does not give me, and my author might very well have an editor, or might not, and might have an illustrator/graphic artist assisting, or might not. Your lack of knowledge, however, cannot prevent you from speculating.

Swan wrote: I also know that you think that you are important

I don't think that I am merely important. I am necessary, crucial, essential and paramount, exactly as my author determines.

Swan wrote:and that this is a function of delusions of grandeur that you refuse to have treated.

I am a character. My author has created me to be dynamic and amazing without any need for delusions.

Swan wrote:Now smile in your official cube

I can be anywhere in the world.

Pick a place.

.


Actually you were born no matter what you choose to call yourself

Do you really enjoy mocking yourself in public?

He's not mocking himself.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-04-2022 23:16
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:So you are claiming that I do not know that you were born.

I am claiming that no IBDaMann was ever known to be born, yet here you are claiming that this fictitious character's birth is "what you know."

LOL LOL LOL yawn LOL LOL

Swan wrote: LOL you were born,

I am an online personality, an avatar, an anonymous fiction. I was never born. I am authored.

Besides, pointing to a tautology (a statement that is necessarily true, e.g. "You are reading this right now") does not somehow transform your speculations into knowledge.

Swan wrote:I also know that you are on a government payroll

This, too, you do not know,. You speculate such. However IBDaMann is a fictional character who cannot be on any non-fictional payroll.

You know nothing of my author.

Swan wrote:and that you have the minimum skill to converse in the English language.

I have nothing that my author does not give me, and my author might very well have an editor, or might not, and might have an illustrator/graphic artist assisting, or might not. Your lack of knowledge, however, cannot prevent you from speculating.

Swan wrote: I also know that you think that you are important

I don't think that I am merely important. I am necessary, crucial, essential and paramount, exactly as my author determines.

Swan wrote:and that this is a function of delusions of grandeur that you refuse to have treated.

I am a character. My author has created me to be dynamic and amazing without any need for delusions.

Swan wrote:Now smile in your official cube

I can be anywhere in the world.

Pick a place.

.


Actually you were born no matter what you choose to call yourself

Do you really enjoy mocking yourself in public?

He's not mocking himself.


Now that was profound
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Is The Moon Toxic?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Corona Virus NCOV Is Harmless If You Body Is Clean Healthy But Dangerous If Your Body Is Dirty Toxic031-07-2020 12:09
Why did Obama EPA classify CO2 as toxic?128-05-2019 20:24
Climate change is creating toxic crops and poisoning some of world's poorest people, scientists warn022-03-2019 17:30
Calculating the surface temperature of the moon2016-02-2018 00:51
Even the moon HAS a GHE1601-12-2017 02:00
Articles
Ban Ki-Moon: Address to the UN Climate Change Conference
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact