Not joking. Science has been aware of parallel universes for years - http://manyuniverses.com/. The material of parallel universes exists in the empty spaces between the protons and electrons of our atoms, as well as any other empty space in our universe. The reason that we don't observe or feel the parallel universes is that they are "out of phase" dimensionally, with our universe. Yet there are places where we almost become "in phase" with some of these universes. The points of in-phase are the areas where two or more of the other universes touch, thereby actually creating the subatomic particles of our universe. And when ours touches andother, we create some subatomic particles of some other universe. Now, what does this have to do with matter and antimatter? It all lies in the facts of vibrations in the ether. The whole mega-universe is an elastic solid - the ether - made up of all the parallel universes acting in conjunction with all the others, controlled according to dimensional laws. The materials of all the universes are simply vibrations - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2013/08/the-good-vibrations-of-quantum-field-theories/. They are vibrations that come together in ways that give us a thing that we call matter. What scientists have known for years is that antimatter is simply other vibrations that act somewhat opposite from our matter vibrations. There may be many different forms of matter and antimatter throughout the parallel universes. This, folks, is how you take just a few pieces of scientific fact to make it sound believable, and mix it into scientific bullshit. Parallel universes don't exist in empty spaces of this universe, they are parallel to this universe. And there's no such thing as the ether. We thought there was when we couldn't figure out what light waves traveled through, as all waves need to vibrate through something, but thanks to quantum mechanics we now know things like light can be both a wave and a particle. No need for ether since particles can travel through vacuum. P.S. stop making shit up based on some scientific things you've overheard that you obviously don't understand the first thing about. |
|
|
|
Just to answer your question, google rite of mithras  Type masonic afterwards and find the 64.000 year masonic claim Google didn't find anything. On the other hand, there is overwhelming archeological and recorded at the time evidence that it was built 3000 years ago. Stuff like actual records of its construction as it was happening. |
|
|
|
Matter and anti-matter are simply some infantile thinkings that scientists will grow out of if people happen to last for another 500 years.  Are you joking? We have antimatter. We have been able to make it and collect it, in actual physical form. |
|
|
|
Atheistic materialism? You mean like the church refusing to pay taxes?
I am talking about the internationalist bankers (money-changers) who set up the tax-slavery system in the first place. Are you making the connection? That's not materialism, that's theft! |
|
|
|
you know, i think you are right all along. sorry we ever questioned your wisdom. i hope in years time you'll look back to this and rethink everything that has been happening.
See? Cognitive dissonance. How can you both think that I am right, AND hope that I rethink everything? meanwhile, your country is under attack by russian military and chechen terrorists
It's not my country. I don't live there. My friends and some of my family live there. - are you doing anything about it?
Yes I am. Bitcoin isn't being banned in Ukraine. |
|
|
|
I just read an interesting tidbit and I assume Peter knows this:
Wharton's Jeremy Siegel found that from January 1802 through June 2013 gold returned 0.6%.
So after Peter's cut, there's not much there for his investors speculators.
I won't question his ethics, who am I to judge?
Gold doesn't pay dividends. It returns 0%. Gold protects against inflation, plain and simple. Returning 0% as compared to an inflationary currency doesn't protect against inflation. It goes right along with it. It protects against sudden hyperinflation maybe. |
|
|
|
The "law of free will" simply states that you will get what you search for, and that you cannot be given something you are not looking for.
Pretty sure there is evidence daily that contradicts that. |
|
|
|
is themoscowtimes.com a parallel world to you or not? Nobody forbids the Internet in Russia. Nobody forbids Skype in Russia. Nobody forbids cryptocurrencys in Russia. Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Crimeans are happy. Then why is Kremlin threatening to limit internet access, Russian newspapers write articles about Russia wanting to limit Skype, Russian Ministry of Finance is drafting a bill to ban Bitcoin by 2015, Russian soldiers are posting photos of themselves fighting in Ukraine on social media sites, and Crimean Tatars are publishing articles about being mugged, searched, or prevented from traveling to UN conferences? Sounds like you are the one living in a parallel world. Since this is a bitcoin forum, something more on topic: Deputy Head of Russia’s Ministry of Finance Alexei Moiseev has said Russia is likely to pass its digital currency ban in the spring of 2015, according to a report by Russian business news agency Prime. |
|
|
|
Really sorry to say this BADecker, but the pyramid is over 64.000 years old.
Where the heck do you get this from? There's only one thing that can't be explained, and that's the origin of the universe itself. That's why I believe in an all encompassing being, "God", but definitely not the god of any religions known today, and they've all been proved wrong.
Actually, it can, and has. We theorized that it popped into existence spontaneously. But then, how can you have something out of nothing? So we theorized that there must have been just as much matter as antimatter in the universe, so that if you sum it all together, it would still equal zero. The sum of the universe is nothing, we are just living on one part of it. Then by observing through telescopes, we found that, yep, there's about as much matter as antimatter in the universe. But then how can such a pop into existence just happen spontaneously? Is that even possible. Turns out, yep. when we were doing Large Hadron Collider experiments, we observed just those exact spontaneous pops into existence on a quantum level. Apparently these types of pops, and even black holes, are spontaneously popping into existence all around us constantly. It's just that since there is already a universe here, they quickly react with their surroundings and fizzle out. So pretty much everything about the origin of the universe was already deduced, and evidence for it observed, making the idea of "god" not even necessary for the universe's creation. Universe has all the mechanisms necessary to just create itself. |
|
|
|
^^^ That's called Cognitive Dissonance, when your head hurts from trying to force yourself to try to believe two opposing things at once  |
|
|
|
This is common knowledge, Christians always deny it though, by saying "Oh but that's the Old Testament. Read the latest edition by God."
Which is where you come in and quote Jesus at them: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Matthew 5, 17-18 |
|
|
|
From what I see, this is based on median income for those working. And not taking into account employment rate, for example. Or cost of living. Which the article does list for each state discussed. Richest 1.Maryland 72,483 http://money.msn.com/investing/americas-richest-and-poorest-states-1The wealthiest state in the U.S. last year boasted a median income of $72,483, compared to a median income of just $37,963 in America's poorest state. Much of that comes from the fact that Maryland is right next to Washington DC, and where most of the companies that do government contracting reside. Potomac and Bethesda are the wealthiest areas of Maryland, bordering the DC beltway. So you can look at Maryland being #1 as being analogous to Maryland being most supported by US tax dollars. |
|
|
|
Why Ukraine crisis has China in a bindAt Sunday night's emergency U.N. Security Council meeting, Western countries denounced Russian efforts to destabilize eastern Ukraine. Depending on your reading of its statement, China either refused to do the same, or refused to back Russia. Either way, the meeting was just the latest example of how the Ukraine crisis has put China in a bind.
Still, China is very unlikely to come down unequivocally in Russia's camp on Ukraine.
Why? To begin with, Russia's use of a referendum to break Crimea away from Ukraine contradicts one of the core tenets of Chinese foreign policy: mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty and non-aggression and non-interference in another country's internal affairs.
More fundamentally, the Crimea referendum could be viewed as a protest against the established order and Beijing may well worry that Russian actions will encourage challenges to the Chinese Communist Party's authority at home. Beijing may also be wary that the Crimea or any future referendums in Ukraine could be used as a precedent for similar votes in Taiwan, Xinjiang, and Tibet – any of which would amount to a crisis for Beijing. In other words, China likely sees the Crimea referendum more from the perspective of Kiev than Moscow.
Chinese military strategists have prided themselves on never occupying foreign territory or invading other countries for purposes other than self-defense. China opposes countries that attempt to use force or intimidation to challenge the sovereignty of other independent states. Importantly, China did not support Russia in its invasion of Georgia in 2008.
Russia's claim that it will seek a closer relationship with China in the event the West isolates it is likely to continue to meet with a very cautious response from Beijing. As much as China may wish to lean on Russia should Beijing find itself at odds with the United States, Xi seeks a new type of great power relationship with the United States that calls for mutual respect, no confrontation, and cooperation. China wants – and some even argue needs – to have good relations with the United States and the international community as it continues to grow. The United States and the European Union are also China's largest trade partners. An embrace of Russia at this time could cost China much global goodwill.
Finally, Xi has also made combating corruption a key domestic agenda. Given that cronyism was a key factor in Yanukovych's demise, it would not be easy for Xi to appear to side with him without negative domestic blowback.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/15/why-ukraine-crisis-has-china-in-a-bind/
|
|
|
|
Even Germans know that it the was separatists who shot down the plane
There is no one single solid evidence that rebels shot down the plane. Apparently, you are way ahead of the professional investigators working on this case. I wonder what your sources are. Probably same those who taught you that Russians and Belarussians have nothing to do with the Kievan Rus' ancestry and that it was Ukraine and Ukrainians all along, even if they themselves weren't aware of that  Except for those pictures of a Russian BUC driving towards Ukraine, pictures of it driving around in Ukraine, pictures of it being in the area where the plane was shot down, pictures of it being driven across the border back into Russia, and the audio recording of the people who shot down the plane confirming it with Moscow. ...and supporting Syria and ISIS.
Supporting ISIS? You mate really need to lay off that pipe... Yes. Read this: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/assad-moscow-tehran-condemn-obama-isis-air-strike-planRussia is one of three countries that is opposing taking out ISIS targets, for a ridiculous reason that going into the country without the country's agreement would violate international law, which is EXACTLY what they did in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. |
|
|
|
They are suing Ukraine for negligence, not because they are claiming Ukraine shot the plane down. They want Ukraine to take responsibility for not stopping flights over that area when there was a conflict going on. Ukraine's defense will have to be either - We would have never expected Russia to do something as crazy as drive a BUC into Ukrainian territory and shoot down a civilian plane
- or We would have never expected the Russians to do something as crazy as give a BUC to russian trained separatists, and have them shoot at anything that flies overhead
They will probably win, because NO ONE expected Russia to do something that crazy. |
|
|
|
PS: Funny how the NATO-trolls feel compelled to spam the thread with multiple messages, so that a message they don't like rolls over to the previous page and gets out from their sight. One of them called that trick "red herring". LOL, desperate moves by desperate trolls. I'm not a NATO troll, since I don't support NATO either (AnarchoCapitalist, remember), so I don't really know who Nemo is talking about here, but when I called what you said "red herring," I wasn't talking about you reposting the same thing over and over Lenin style. Since you're being an idiot, I'll explain what that means to you: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.htmlA Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
So, for example, you posting over and over about how the US dollar is going to collapse, is a "red herring," because it has NOTHING to do with Russia invading Ukraine, or Ukraine wanting to depose a corrupt oligarch, and moreover, it has NOTHING to do with the people who are opposing you, because those people use Bitcoin, and hope for Bitcoin to become the dominant currency, and thus don't give a shit about the dollar collapsing. Do you understand now? |
|
|
|
Which is really weird, considering that Turkish Tatars were attacking Ukraine, but now Russia annexed that part of Ukraine and is attacking them, now that Ukraine and Tatars are at peace. Why is Russia trying to start another fight with Tatars? |
|
|
|
With the new version coming up has there been any considerations to include tipping (or allowing multiple "recipients" transations)?
Not yet. Though we have received this request a few times from a couple of people, at this point we think adding multiple recipients may make the wallet more confusing for normal users. For instance, if you scanned a wrong address, and wish to scan the right one, are you replacing the old one, or adding a new recipient? Also, since it's already possible to send transactions over and over to multiple people, even with 0 confirmations, we don't think it's very necessary, aside from extra convenience. |
|
|
|
Why Ukraine crisis has China in a bindAt Sunday night's emergency U.N. Security Council meeting, Western countries denounced Russian efforts to destabilize eastern Ukraine. Depending on your reading of its statement, China either refused to do the same, or refused to back Russia. Either way, the meeting was just the latest example of how the Ukraine crisis has put China in a bind.
Still, China is very unlikely to come down unequivocally in Russia's camp on Ukraine.
Why? To begin with, Russia's use of a referendum to break Crimea away from Ukraine contradicts one of the core tenets of Chinese foreign policy: mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty and non-aggression and non-interference in another country's internal affairs.
More fundamentally, the Crimea referendum could be viewed as a protest against the established order and Beijing may well worry that Russian actions will encourage challenges to the Chinese Communist Party's authority at home. Beijing may also be wary that the Crimea or any future referendums in Ukraine could be used as a precedent for similar votes in Taiwan, Xinjiang, and Tibet – any of which would amount to a crisis for Beijing. In other words, China likely sees the Crimea referendum more from the perspective of Kiev than Moscow.
Chinese military strategists have prided themselves on never occupying foreign territory or invading other countries for purposes other than self-defense. China opposes countries that attempt to use force or intimidation to challenge the sovereignty of other independent states. Importantly, China did not support Russia in its invasion of Georgia in 2008.
Russia's claim that it will seek a closer relationship with China in the event the West isolates it is likely to continue to meet with a very cautious response from Beijing. As much as China may wish to lean on Russia should Beijing find itself at odds with the United States, Xi seeks a new type of great power relationship with the United States that calls for mutual respect, no confrontation, and cooperation. China wants – and some even argue needs – to have good relations with the United States and the international community as it continues to grow. The United States and the European Union are also China's largest trade partners. An embrace of Russia at this time could cost China much global goodwill.
Finally, Xi has also made combating corruption a key domestic agenda. Given that cronyism was a key factor in Yanukovych's demise, it would not be easy for Xi to appear to side with him without negative domestic blowback.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/15/why-ukraine-crisis-has-china-in-a-bind/
|
|
|
|
So the US backs rebels/terrorists to destabilise Syria, then when the the Syrian government is no longer in control of that area it gives the US the legitimacy to invade. By the same token then Russia has the right to invade Eastern Ukraine.  If Russia invades Eastern Ukraine to bomb and destroy the separatists, Ukraine would only be grateful. Your analogy only works if US were to continue to support ISIS, and invaded to help them take over the rest of Syria. Remember the US first tried to attack syria directly but was blocked, so they arm some terrorists to destabilise the area, Now they then claim are out of control and this the UN says it gives them legitimacy to intervene directly. This was just a way for the US to get access to Syria, during this suppression of IS, the US knows the situation will deteriorate till they get to attack the Syrian Gov as they had planned to all along. This IS confrontation is just a workaround to get legitimacy to topple Syria. Is supporting the rebels, versus bombing the rebels, irrelevant in this case? Another big difference is that a lot of those ISIS members aren't actually from the US military. US armed and trained them, not sent a few thousand troops to reinforce them. I guess if the separatists in Eaten Ukraine turn insane and start shooting at Russia, then Russia will be forced to go in and fight them, while Ukrainians will be laughing at them, in which case the scenario will be similar. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
