THIS IS CERN'S SCHEDULE

[bhsmte]

This is CERN - THEY
DANCE TO AND WORSHIP THE GOD OF THE ABYSS
View attachment 165575

This confirms, this should be in conspiracy section.

 

[Oafman]

This is CERN - THEY
DANCE TO AND WORSHIP THE GOD OF THE ABYSS

That's not the 'GOD OF THE ABYSS', it's the God of dancing!

Seriously, it's Nataraj, Hindu God of dance. It was a gift from the Indian Dept of Atomic Energy. Quite nice isn't it?

 

[malvina]

This is CERN - THEY
DANCE TO AND WORSHIP THE GOD OF THE ABYSS
View attachment 165575

Conspiracy Lol. Here is the official opening of the Abyss by the EU New World Order. displayed at the World Games. It's all in your face.

 

[malvina]

Conspiracy Lol. Here is the official opening of the Abyss by the EU New World Order. displayed at the World Games. It's all in you face.

and here's the completion with GIANTS coming out of the underworld

 

[sfs]

WAKE UP, man!!!! Do you not even know what Revelation 9 says? You honestly think its just some weird coincidence that CERN sits on top of a Roman town with a temple dedicated to Apollyon?

No, I don't think it's a coincidence, because I don't think it's even true. Why would a Roman town have a temple dedicated to a Greek-named entity that wasn't even a deity. Or anything else, for that matter -- Apollyon wasn't even a name in Greek.

 

[crjmurray]

Have we been poed?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hi,

The purpose is to learn what the component parts are, that cannot be seen now. The hope is that we will see more component parts than we have ever seen before.

And you would be starting a controversy to say that, We will never know how an atom is put together, unless you actually know how an atom is put together, know God, and know that it is beyond our capabilities, because God told you or showed you that information.

CERN is just to try and learn one more thing about, What God has Done, as God Commanded us to do, in Genesis 1:28. If God Wills it,mHe will show us a way to make atoms, but. But I don't see why or how, in this lifetime.

LOVE,

Which I agree with - we are trying to see the component parts - AFTER the smashup. I just reject their belief that we see a new functioning automobile when those two automobiles are smashed together. In that case we see nothing but a smashed up blob that decays into it's component parts.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hi,

144,000. Ah! You are a Jehovah's Witness then, or at least in that respect you believe or follow what they believe.

Why would that imply I am a Jehovah Witness? Does the Bible say or not say that 144,000 will rule as Kings and priests??? Anything else is just pure conjecture on man's part. If that's what the JW's believe - then they believe correctly.

However, this is about CERN, and the fears also that it brings up to many, that somehow this is being done by and for evil purposes.

Since I and others worked in that field of science, and I am also very Christian, initially I was only interested in the particle part, that of usuing lead because it is the last of the stable atoms by weight and therefore the easiest to shatter in a collision with other lead atoms, but when I looked at the fear of the unknown this was generating Spiritually, I looked harder.

So, far I see God's pleasure at following His Commands with CERN, not therfore His displeasure. So, since humans are Subing the earth with CERN, which is in that Blessing that is also a Command by God, as stated in Genesis 1:28, thus following the law of God in that way, it is hardly likely this is a Spiritual matter, rather it is fear of the unknown, and the new.

LOVE,

Of course science has nothing to do with evil - it is people that turn science to evil ends. And of course we are to look into the very substance of matter to disCERN His will.

Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

It's the study of what has been made that will eventually do away with all excuses for rejecting God and bring about the Revelation of His will. Mankind will bring about his own destruction when he advances enough scientifically to do away with all his excuses for rejecting God.

 

[katerinah1947]

Which I agree with - we are trying to see the component parts - AFTER the smashup. I just reject their belief that we see a new functioning automobile when those two automobiles are smashed together. In that case we see nothing but a smashed up blob that decays into it's component parts.

Hi,

All analogies, are not real world events. The car analogy ended when the concept of a car putting it self back together again, became reality based. The idea was that any Nuetrons or Protons which hopefully will be exposed to us briefly by a collision, as far as I know, would rather soon, reform into Protons or Neutrons again, but. But, I am not certain if that normally happens, rather I thought that did as so few people talk about the particles making up protons and neutrons, being separate particles, except in collisions and then existing only briefly.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Why would that imply I am a Jehovah Witness? Does the Bible say or not say that 144,000 will rule as Kings and priests??? Anything else is just pure conjecture on man's part. If that's what the JW's believe - then they believe correctly.



Of course science has nothing to do with evil - it is people that turn science to evil ends. And of course we are to look into the very substance of matter to disCERN His will.

Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

It's the study of what has been made that will eventually do away with all excuses for rejecting God and bring about the Revelation of His will. Mankind will bring about his own destruction when he advances enough scientifically to do away with all his excuses for rejecting God.

Hi,

Since the JW's were such a bad experience for me, I just reacted in fear and concern, with anyone who used anything that they said. They are actually really big on the use of that 144,000 idea.

It took me more than 10 years as they word-smithed around me, and actually later I found out, the use cult-speak, when talking to me also. My reaction, even if you are totally correct, is rather fear, and not logical yet.

I can speak JW, cult speak, and it was not until I understood that language, that I actually knew what they were telling eveyone, and. And, the Rosetta stone equivalent of Normal Language to JW cult speak is their description of them being a prophet, published by them, and verified by one of their members, that thier description of prophet, is exactly the definition of prophet to them, and it is totally what they mean, thus exonerating them of lies, but only if it is read in cult speak by non JW's.

Non JW's do not know, they speak in code to non JW's.

So, if you are not of that faith, really I just got scared and nervous as I thought till now that only JW's ever thought the 144,000 was proper to use in the way you used it.

So again, since you are not a JW, I am sorry, and the 144,00 is an area of Scripture that so far has not interested me, nor been important to me.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Conspiracy Lol. Here is the official opening of the Abyss by the EU New World Order. displayed at the World Games. It's all in your face.

Hi,

Oh. I just watched the video. Oh. The commentatory was amazing. He is so wrong. Not a single thing that he commented on, with that dance was correct. I saw nothing, other than him trying to distort a normal expectation, that of finding out things from lead, from, the very small, an atom, to being able to see, from that, which is representative in science and normal to science, to that which is not even remotely comparable to 666, or cubes, or any of his other points, in the religious, spiritual, or world of God.

The commentator is totally wrong to me. I can see none of his ideas, and I am as Christian as can be, and have no barriers to anything, that is truly Biblical. None.

I am sorry. I am. It seems as though a Theologian, or a preacher is just guessing and afraid, and trying to morph over normal science into evil concepts, that are not there.

Scientists are unknowingly working for God. Scientists are unknowingly working for God. The dance was an artists view of learning more of "What God has done" by having two lead atoms hit each other at high speeds, which is actually in a way how lead is made in the first place.

Atoms are crunched together by exploding suns, to make heavy atoms, some of them are heavier than lead. If energy, in the form of an explsion only produces heavier atoms, many of which form planets, then how do you think putting energy into lead, is not going to be stored by lead potentially, as just a heavier atom? How? The normal process is put energy into particles, get heavier atoms out.

I don't see it, with both backgrounds not at all. I don't see it with my combined science and God background, where God actually trumps any errors is science, if they are there, and. And there was nothing, that I thought needed or even suggested trumping by God.

I wish I could agree with that guy. In fact in a moderated section, where he would be limited to the Bible, and to science and to no unproven Biblical statements, and no unproven science statements, he would not do well, if his rather styleistic and fear speech were curtailed. He would lose, but. But normally people like that, just out talk, or outshout, or out insult those who are not right. I fear that, if I took him on. And, I would take him on, but. But I would want a little help from a Physicist and a Bible Scholar, in the areas that I am not presently up on.

I cannot see, any place and any correct words. Rather, I see massive distortions of reality by that man. Massive.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Conspiracy Lol. Here is the official opening of the Abyss by the EU New World Order. displayed at the World Games. It's all in your face.

Hi,

Sorry. Dave Ackman is not right here either. He is merely an Apocalyptic making predicitons, and he is not right in what he is saying, scientifically nor conspiratorially.

LOVE

 

[katerinah1947]

and here's the completion with GIANTS coming out of the underworld

Hi,

I am not qualified to talk about Sports analogies, however. However in the brief things I did see that hopefully I did understand the symbolisms of, again it looks like massive propaganda like distortions of what is really there, to this man's personal words, for whatever reason he is doing that.

I am not even a rugby nor soccer fan, as we had neiter in America, and I am not also knowledgeable about sports other than those that I have attempted to be good at in America. I think even with that rather poor background, this man's attempts to give alternate explanations to what might really be going on, are not correct.

LOVE,

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hi,

All analogies, are not real world events. The car analogy ended when the concept of a car putting it self back together again, became reality based. The idea was that any Nuetrons or Protons which hopefully will be exposed to us briefly by a collision, as far as I know, would rather soon, reform into Protons or Neutrons again, but. But, I am not certain if that normally happens, rather I thought that did as so few people talk about the particles making up protons and neutrons, being separate particles, except in collisions and then existing only briefly.

LOVE,

My biggest problem is with being told for example that a neutron consists of three quarks - yet when it decays it makes a proton > electron > electron anti-neutrino.

Now since a proton consists supposedly of also 3 quarks - we can see that possibility from neutron to proton. But an electron has no quarks so from proton to electron we loose 3 quarks. And when we decay into an electron anti-neutrino???? Somehow we just gained 3 quarks in the decay process.

Now protons, which have supposedly 3 quarks just like a neutron - must capture an electron to convert into a neutron. Which means a neutron must possess an electron to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

"However, protons are known to transform into neutrons through the process of electron capture (also called inverse beta decay)."

But we are told under a neutron - that a neutron possesses no electrons.

 

[bhsmte]

Have we been poed?

I think this is a different animal.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hi,

Since the JW's were such a bad experience for me, I just reacted in fear and concern, with anyone who used anything that they said. They are actually really big on the use of that 144,000 idea.

Probably because the only time people are mentioned in the Bible as going to heaven - besides Jesus - is in relation to those 144,000.

It took me more than 10 years as they word-smithed around me, and actually later I found out, the use cult-speak, when talking to me also. My reaction, even if you are totally correct, is rather fear, and not logical yet.

I can speak JW, cult speak, and it was not until I understood that language, that I actually knew what they were telling eveyone, and. And, the Rosetta stone equivalent of Normal Language to JW cult speak is their description of them being a prophet, published by them, and verified by one of their members, that thier description of prophet, is exactly the definition of prophet to them, and it is totally what they mean, thus exonerating them of lies, but only if it is read in cult speak by non JW's.

Non JW's do not know, they speak in code to non JW's.

So, if you are not of that faith, really I just got scared and nervous as I thought till now that only JW's ever thought the 144,000 was proper to use in the way you used it.

So again, since you are not a JW, I am sorry, and the 144,00 is an area of Scripture that so far has not interested me, nor been important to me.

LOVE,

Personally I see nothing much wrong with their beliefs - they fit closer to the Bible than any other religious sect. But I don't follow religion - I have none. I am simply a believer. Religion is man-made. Every single religion out there has some truth and some error. So I follow none, but hear what all have to say - then go back to the only source that matters.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hi,

Oh. I just watched the video. Oh. The commentatory was amazing. He is so wrong. Not a single thing that he commented on, with that dance was correct. I saw nothing, other than him trying to distort a normal expectation, that of finding out things from lead, from, the very small, an atom, to being able to see, from that, which is representative in science and normal to science, to that which is not even remotely comparable to 666, or cubes, or any of his other points, in the religious, spiritual, or world of God.

The commentator is totally wrong to me. I can see none of his ideas, and I am as Christian as can be, and have no barriers to anything, that is truly Biblical. None.

I am sorry. I am. It seems as though a Theologian, or a preacher is just guessing and afraid, and trying to morph over normal science into evil concepts, that are not there.

Scientists are unknowingly working for God. Scientists are unknowingly working for God. The dance was an artists view of learning more of "What God has done" by having two lead atoms hit each other at high speeds, which is actually in a way how lead is made in the first place.

Atoms are crunched together by exploding suns, to make heavy atoms, some of them are heavier than lead. If energy, in the form of an explsion only produces heavier atoms, many of which form planets, then how do you think putting energy into lead, is not going to be stored by lead potentially, as just a heavier atom? How? The normal process is put energy into particles, get heavier atoms out.

I don't see it, with both backgrounds not at all. I don't see it with my combined science and God background, where God actually trumps any errors is science, if they are there, and. And there was nothing, that I thought needed or even suggested trumping by God.

I wish I could agree with that guy. In fact in a moderated section, where he would be limited to the Bible, and to science and to no unproven Biblical statements, and no unproven science statements, he would not do well, if his rather styleistic and fear speech were curtailed. He would lose, but. But normally people like that, just out talk, or outshout, or out insult those who are not right. I fear that, if I took him on. And, I would take him on, but. But I would want a little help from a Physicist and a Bible Scholar, in the areas that I am not presently up on.

I cannot see, any place and any correct words. Rather, I see massive distortions of reality by that man. Massive.

LOVE,

It is fear that science will somehow disprove God, when the only thing science can do is take away all excuses for ignoring God. That fear exists because some people claim science backs their theory (we wont mention which one) when science actually rejects their theory. Some have come to believe science supports certain views because told it does so often - they have come to believe it - instead of recognizing it is an actual avoidance of science which leads those others to their incorrect interpretations of the science.

A true believer need never fear science - for both the Word and the Works were penned by the same author. If one seems to be in disagreement with the other - it is simply mistakes in translation of one or the other. Only when both are interpreted correctly so that their is harmony will the ultimate truth be discovered.

 

[katerinah1947]

My biggest problem is with being told for example that a neutron consists of three quarks - yet when it decays it makes a proton > electron > electron anti-neutrino.

Now since a proton consists supposedly of also 3 quarks - we can see that possibility from neutron to proton. But an electron has no quarks so from proton to electron we loose 3 quarks. And when we decay into an electron anti-neutrino???? Somehow we just gained 3 quarks in the decay process.

Now protons, which have supposedly 3 quarks just like a neutron - must capture an electron to convert into a neutron. Which means a neutron must possess an electron to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

"However, protons are known to transform into neutrons through the process of electron capture (also called inverse beta decay)."

But we are told under a neutron - that a neutron possesses no electrons.

Hi,

A Neutron according to what I just read is a two downers and one upper quark.

A Protin according to what I just read, is a two uppers and one downer quark.

I had once said what you said, that a Nutron is nothing more than a proton, two up quarks and one downer quark, with and electron. Years ago, when I made that guess, it turned out to be wrong.

Decay I don't know yet. I will look at that. (Great Quantum Mechanics. I am supposed to know it, but missed it somehow)

LOVE,

 

[sfs]

Hi,

A Neutron according to what I just read is a two downers and one upper quark.

A Protin according to what I just read, is a two uppers and one downer quark.

I had once said what you said, that a Nutron is nothing more than a proton, two up quarks and one downer quark, with and electron. Years ago, when I made that guess, it turned out to be wrong.

Decay I don't know yet. I will look at that. (Great Quantum Mechanics. I am supposed to know it, but missed it somehow)

LOVE,

Yes, a proton is uud and a neutron is udd. When a neutron decays into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino, what's actually happening is that one of the down quarks decays into an up quark + electron + antineutrino.

 

[florida2]

My biggest problem is with being told for example that a neutron consists of three quarks - yet when it decays it makes a proton > electron > electron anti-neutrino.

Now since a proton consists supposedly of also 3 quarks - we can see that possibility from neutron to proton. But an electron has no quarks so from proton to electron we loose 3 quarks. And when we decay into an electron anti-neutrino???? Somehow we just gained 3 quarks in the decay process.

Now protons, which have supposedly 3 quarks just like a neutron - must capture an electron to convert into a neutron. Which means a neutron must possess an electron to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

"However, protons are known to transform into neutrons through the process of electron capture (also called inverse beta decay)."

But we are told under a neutron - that a neutron possesses no electrons.

Hmmm, I think you've got a bit confused along the way. By the way, quarks are a very well accepted theory.

Neutron decay (also called beta minus decay) is mediated by the weak nuclear force. Weird things happen.

A neutron has slightly more mass than a proton (which is why it readily decays outside the nucleus but protons don't). Protons have a mass of 938.256 MeV whilst neutrons are 939.550 MeV. This is crucial to the process and the explanation for the emission of the electron and electron antineutrino.

A neutron consists of two Up and one Down quarks equalling zero charge. When it decays one of the Down quarks becomes an Up quark through the weak nuclear force.

The means that we now have a proton and we've gone from charge of 0 to charge of +1. However, overall charge must be maintained so there must be a negative charge somewhere. The process of the decay is mediated by a virtual W- boson which is emitted and then incredibly quickly decays into an electron (charge of -1) and an electron antineutrino (neutral charge).

So now we have conserved charge, mass also has to be conserved. We've gone from a neutron (938.256 MeV) to a proton (939.550 MeV) so that difference has to go somewhere. That energy goes into the electron and the electron antineutrino. When you run the calculations (way to complicated for me!) both charge and mass are conserved.

Nice little diagram here: http://www.particleadventure.org/npe.html

I hope this helps explain it better - I'm not sure what you meant by quarks being lost or gained.

I'll do some reading about electron capture - sounds interesting but I'm no expert.