What is CERN?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yea iam kind of new here lol so.i got confused on where to post my topic in the right place.
But cern is the last and final effort at opening dimensional portals,only this time without so many incantations just raw power, atoms colliding at high speeds to force a portal open

What makes you think colliding particles at high power will fore a portal open?

 

[Green Sun]

That was not my point. It is really not important how they try to justify their decision. Lame excuses are not going to stand up before God.

Ok, so I'm looking back through the thread to see what is going on.
If I'm correct, the proof of the demons over the internet (Demons over Internet Protocol as I would call them) is the potentially objectionable content (such as pornography) that exists online. In order for someone to see the proof, they would have to disable the blockers such as Google's Safe Search or something like Parental Filters on most browsers. The blockers you are talking about are like Parental Filters and Safe Search.

However...

All browsers are required by the supreme court to block objectionable material. They give everyone the option to turn the blocker off so all that filth and scrum can flood their computer.

This isn't correct.
If you're talking about the Supreme Court case with browser blockers, that was about public libraries and public schools. The Supreme Court rules in United States v. American Library Ass'n that Congress has the authority to require public schools and require public schools and library receiving federal funds related to internet access to install filtering devices to prevent children from seeing obscene or pornographic images as per the Children's Online Protection Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._American_Library_Ass'n#Conclusion

A browser is not required to come with filtering software, most websites will pornography or otherwise adult content will ask if you are over 18 before letting you visit however. This is to limit legal liability to the owner of the site. If a minor went on the site and did say 'yes', the owner would not be liable as they did make a reasonable effort to block a minor from entering the site, and the minor lied about their age/the parents were not supervising the minor's browsing. Similarly, Google enables safe-search automatically, to give themselves limited liability as it must be disabled and the button to disabled has a warning it might result in viewing adult content.

In China I think they ban objectionable material so the students have to install a different browser to receive material that is banned by the Government. So that no one can stumble across it by accident.

China meanwhile has censors in place to block quite a lot of things, such as information about The Tienanmen Square Riots and other political dissent. However, this involves things like preventing IP addresses from being routed through to the censored site using the servers the browser is attempting to hop through to reach it's goal. Almost all of the censoring is not browser-based, rather it is server based, and thus in greater control by the government as it cannot be edited on the user's machine. The ways of getting around this are a bit more difficult than simply using a different browser. This would involve using proxy servers and using a VPN or SSH to a computer outside of China. The government there has been trying to crack down on this and has blocked many of the free or popular VPN services have been blocked.

So no, it is not required by law in the United States for browsers to filter out content. The closest thing to what you state is that sites with potentially dangerous to minors material must make a reasonable effort to prevent minors from accessing it.

I still would like a bit of clarification on the contradictions you presented. You first stated:

All browsers are required by the supreme court to block objectionable material. They give everyone the option to turn the blocker off so all that filth and scrum can flood their computer.

You said it was required by the government to filter.

You then said that it was up to the parents:

If parents want they can install software that blocks their children from having access to questionable material. I think most parents never give it any thought. I just checked my son's computer and I did not find anything objectionable.

You then said that the Supreme Court was openly allowing pornography into the hands of minors.

What do I care what their lame reason or supposed justification was. The result is still the same. The supreme court struck down the laws designed to protect children from being exposed to pornography and other internet filth and debauchery. They failed to do their job of protecting our youth from defilement.

How do you reconcile the contradiction between:
"Blocking objectionable material is required by the Supreme Court"
and
"The Supreme Court has struck down laws that blocked objectionable material from minors"

 

[joshua 1 9]

Ok, so I'm looking back through the thread to see what is going on.
If I'm correct, the proof of the demons over the internet (Demons over Internet Protocol as I would call them) is the potentially objectionable content (such as pornography) that exists online. In order for someone to see the proof, they would have to disable the blockers such as Google's Safe Search or something like Parental Filters on most browsers. The blockers you are talking about are like Parental Filters and Safe Search.

However...

This isn't correct.
If you're talking about the Supreme Court case with browser blockers, that was about public libraries and public schools. The Supreme Court rules in United States v. American Library Ass'n that Congress has the authority to require public schools and require public schools and library receiving federal funds related to internet access to install filtering devices to prevent children from seeing obscene or pornographic images as per the Children's Online Protection Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._American_Library_Ass'n#Conclusion

A browser is not required to come with filtering software, most websites will pornography or otherwise adult content will ask if you are over 18 before letting you visit however. This is to limit legal liability to the owner of the site. If a minor went on the site and did say 'yes', the owner would not be liable as they did make a reasonable effort to block a minor from entering the site, and the minor lied about their age/the parents were not supervising the minor's browsing. Similarly, Google enables safe-search automatically, to give themselves limited liability as it must be disabled and the button to disabled has a warning it might result in viewing adult content.



China meanwhile has censors in place to block quite a lot of things, such as information about The Tienanmen Square Riots and other political dissent. However, this involves things like preventing IP addresses from being routed through to the censored site using the servers the browser is attempting to hop through to reach it's goal. Almost all of the censoring is not browser-based, rather it is server based, and thus in greater control by the government as it cannot be edited on the user's machine. The ways of getting around this are a bit more difficult than simply using a different browser. This would involve using proxy servers and using a VPN or SSH to a computer outside of China. The government there has been trying to crack down on this and has blocked many of the free or popular VPN services have been blocked.

So no, it is not required by law in the United States for browsers to filter out content. The closest thing to what you state is that sites with potentially dangerous to minors material must make a reasonable effort to prevent minors from accessing it.

I still would like a bit of clarification on the contradictions you presented. You first stated:
You said it was required by the government to filter.

You then said that it was up to the parents:

You then said that the Supreme Court was openly allowing pornography into the hands of minors.


How do you reconcile the contradiction between:
"Blocking objectionable material is required by the Supreme Court"
and
"The Supreme Court has struck down laws that blocked objectionable material from minors"

You already present lots of information on the subject. I do not feel any need to prove anything. It is what it. Like you people can do their own research.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There are many tapestries that hang in ancient churches that depict the second coming of Christ. In these tapestries the heavenly host arrive in a whirlwind that opens up a dimensional doorway the tapestries show Christ returning in what appears to be a dimensional door or stargate. Well now we know that they will use this to usher in the counterfeit return of Jesus Christ the antichrist whom will come impersonating Jesus Christ this will be the biggest deception of all time

Lol. No.

You seem to be thinking of images such as these:

There are many iconic works showing the Last Judgment, Christ is shown encircled in glory (that's what you are seeing as circles here, not dimensional vortexes or stargates). In the above is a particular example that is clearly influenced by the text of the Apocalypse where Christ rides upon a white horse with a sword protruding from His mouth--though in most cases it is like the second. Which is a near identical mirror of what icons of the Ascension show:

So notice how in both icons of the Last Judgment and the Ascension show Christ encircled in glory, in the Ascension accompanied by angels upward, in the Last Judgment coming downward (and often showing the saints, such as in the one I posted second with the Virgin Mary on one hand and John the Baptist on the other). In the Acts of the Apostles when Christ ascends the angels tell His followers that in the same way they see Him ascending He shall return, so it shouldn't be shocking that images of Christ's ascension and images of Christ's parousia would contain a similar motif.

Christ is depicted in His heavenly glory, as the Risen Lord who in the Ascension takes up His seat at the right hand of God the Father to reign as King of kings and Lord of lords; in the Last Judgment Christ is depicted as the Lord of Glory, the Great Judge before whom all must stand and give an account on the last day.

It's a good idea to learn how to read religious icons and art before interjecting modern science fiction themes. Because, really, do you think Christians a thousand years ago or before were imagining stargates or wormholes? Or think maybe they were more familiar with using certain forms of imagery to depict things such as halos of light as metaphorical depictions of divinity and glory? My guess is the latter.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Arcangl86]

Though I kinda like the idea of Christ as one of the Goa'uld.

 

[tulc]

You already present lots of information on the subject. I do not feel any need to prove anything. It is what it. Like you people can do their own research.

That is the usual response from people who make claims but can't support them. Usually followed by a declaration of "If you knew what I knew you'd agree with me!!" (tm) and sometimes a flounce!
tulc(does love a well timed flounce)

 

[Green Sun]

You already present lots of information on the subject. I do not feel any need to prove anything. It is what it. Like you people can do their own research.

Glad you see that I did do the research. I take it that the facts have been made clear now.

 

[morningstar2651]

There are accounts of ancient Sumer SPEAKING about so called gods(fallen angels) coming through a double pillard stargate and there have been carvings that represented such

[citation needed]

 

[morningstar2651]

I am not quite sure what the connection is with the claim that cern is opening portals.

It makes as much sense as counting to potato; I like chocolate pudding.

 

[morningstar2651]

I do have proof. But you will need to turn off or disable the blocker they have on your internet browser, if you want to see what I am talking about.

I know enough programming that I can browse without a graphical browser. Where is your proof?

 

[morningstar2651]

All browsers are required by the supreme court to block objectionable material. They give everyone the option to turn the blocker off so all that filth and scrum can flood their computer. In China I think they ban objectionable material so the students have to install a different browser to receive material that is banned by the Government. So that no one can stumble across it by accident.

Someone has never been on 4chan.

 

[morningstar2651]

Otherwise the porn is blocked by default so that you have to click on a button to view material that results in the ruin of many people.

I've never had to unblock porn to view it. Maybe you're browsing the wrong sites.

 

[morningstar2651]

You already present lots of information on the subject. I do not feel any need to prove anything. It is what it. Like you people can do their own research.

Or we can simply dismiss your posts as unfounded claims pulled out of the usual place.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I didnt know what this Cern in Switzerland thing is or (even after looking into it this evening) what it has to do with computers. So I am lost on any of that.

However, I will agree there definately seems to be something real big going on with this thing even as Steven Hawkins and another brilliant scientist are issuing HUGE warnings on this thing (and on whats going on with them experimenting with this right now).

Now I am no scientist, so what do I know? Not too much. So, I cant even articulate what it is they are doing, but Steven Hawkins is one of the most respected scientists on this planet (in the eyes of most men), and the warnings Hawkins is issuing in respects to playing in this area of things the way they are is above and beyond what I would expect, which warnings pertain to blowing up the universe type of warnings (and he is an athiest). Not that that should matter on one level of things but it might get the point across that he has no apocalytic sort of mentally (being more of the athiestic scientific genious) who is warning them in doing this.

I spent most this evening combing through what I could learn over at youtube on it but this does seem to be a big thing and the scientist as they dig further are apparently running into paranormal ativity and thats all I will say.

So I was combing through vids and saw this CERN in a video title showing a pulpit, and thought, cool, let me see what one of the pastors in one of the churches is saying (just to get an idea) from a less scientific viewpoint and hear a christians viewpoint (or whether he could make sense of it a tad better) even though he knows he cannot speak as a scientist (or use their terms) but you can sense the same alarm in him (as is in Steven Hawkins). They are agreeing together, even though one is a believer in God and the other an athiest (who obviously does not) and these agree. This meaning, one coming from a scientific point of view (and the other from the spiritual) while these other scientists are experiencing the paranormal in this thing (and these are not believers).

But if you want something that gives you a quicker overall of what is going on (simply put, with God in it) but who agrees with Hawkins and yet have someone who can fill you in, I believe this guy can (then go off and check it out yourself).

I dont know who he is, I could have spun a bottle and just landed on his vid, that is unimportant, he was just conveying what I was searching out in the same way I was sorta catching it as I was cominbing through these things.

I have never looked up this CERN thing before (ever) and I still have no clue as to how the OP wants to work the whole computer deal thing into it, THAT would be the least of anyones worries in this thing.

There are other lengthy scientific vids, I would say look them up

This man doesnt speak unagreeably with them, it might be more understandable to a christian (as by a christian) in why this might be important for them to understand what is going on with it, so I am posting it

 

[joshua 1 9]

Or we can simply dismiss your posts as unfounded claims pulled out of the usual place.

You can if you want, that is fine with me. Only problem with your logic is that I am not making any claims. I have no interest in making any claims. So that pretty much just leaves you to having to deal with your own shadow. No reason to get me involved in it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I've never had to unblock porn to view it. Maybe you're browsing the wrong sites.

The brower requires you to set your preferences when you first use it. It is little more then clicking on a button that is no different then any other button your clicking on. So your actually making my point for me that the supreme court is not providing adequate protection for our youth, here in this country and around the world.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That is the usual response from people who make claims but can't support them.

You want me to make a claim? Ok my claim is that Cern will not blow up the universe. So far I am right in the claim I am making because we are still here having this conversation. You can claim that Cern will blow up the universe if you want. Only if that were to happen we would no longer be having this conversation and you would not be able to say I was right.

 

[Oafman]

Steven Hawkins is one of the most respected scientists on this planet (in the eyes of most men), and the warnings Hawkins is issuing in respects to playing in this area of things the way they are is above and beyond what I would expect, which warnings pertain to blowing up the universe type of warnings (and he is an athiest).

Hawking. Stephen Hawking. I see this misspelling a lot, and always wonder if people are conflating him with Richard Dawkins (hence Hawkins), seeing as they're both godless science types...

Anyway, did your extensive research actually lead you to read exactly what Hawking said on this subject? Or did it simply lead you to a handful of wacky and clueless interpretations of what he said?

The potential of a universe-destroying expanding vacuum bubble which Hawking referred to is a property of the Higgs field. Mathematically, it is possible that collisions of sufficient energy could generate this destructive bubble. Hawking being the clever chap he is, can calculate how much energy would be required for this (about 100bn giga-electron-volts, GeV), and can calculate how large a collider you would need to make it happen. Which is why he said:

A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would be larger than Earth

So the question you have to ask yourself is, how big is the collider at CERN? Is it bigger than the Earth? Now, we know the LHC has a circumference of 17 miles. So, if you think that's bigger than the Earth, then maybe this is quite a risky thing for particle physicists to be doing. But if you think the LHC is smaller than the Earth, then you can relax, as there is no possibility of it generating anything close to sufficienty energy to create instability in the Higgs field.

the scientist as they dig further are apparently running into paranormal ativity and thats all I will say.

Please say more. Please let us know where you read that 'paranormal activity' has been observed. You can't just throw in a claim like that with no extrapolation or links to back it up. It's obviously nonsense, but I would quite like to see the source of such nonsense.

I managed to watch about 10 minutes of this tripe. I can't work out whether this guy is more of a liar than he is an idiot, or the other way around.

I had to stop it at the point that, after misquoting and grossly misunderstanding statements from both Hawking and Neil Degrasse-Tyson, he made the claim that 'both of them are against what scientists are doing at CERN'. The opposite of this is true; like all physicists, they are hugely excited abvout the work going on at CERN, because it is pushing the barrier of our knowledge about how the universe works. To state that they are against it has to be a lie, as he cannnot have found a statement by either of them suggesting anything of the sort, so he must be lying. Isn't there something in Christianity about not bearing false witness?

So actually, it's not that both sciencists and pastors are warning against the activities at CERN, as you claimed. Scientists are saying it's fine, and some pastors are warning against it. If you wouldn't listen to a scientist talking about scripture, then don't listen to a pastor talking about science.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I had to stop it at the point that, after misquoting and grossly misunderstanding statements from both Hawking and Neil Degrasse-Tyson,

According to Tyson if you want to blow up the earth, or the universe, then all you would need is to insert more energy then what is currently holding them together. I will do one better then Tyson, just turn off the energy holding them together and they will "explode" or begin to expand all by themselves.

 

[Armoured]

According to Tyson if you want to blow up the earth, or the universe, then all you would need is to insert more energy then what is currently holding them together. I will do one better then Tyson, just turn off the energy holding them together and they will "explode" or begin to expand all by themselves.

"Just".