Category: Space
Youtube Videos
The reason it has been claimed for years that the speed of light is constant is because this idea supports the deep time required to make Big Bang and Evolution work. Without it it’s less proof that there is evidence for this. So science hid for the longest that they knew the speed of light was not constant and never was.
Reference: New Scientist
Click image to read more
Physicist stop light for one whole minute
Click image to read more
Speed of light slowed
Click image to read more
Speed of light may not be constant.
This makes light years wrong, the distant of stars and planets base on the speed of light wrong. Every theory and paper written using this idea that the speed of light is constant wrong.
In Oct 2010, NASA claims to find water on Mars, or did they? Here’s the story: Discovery news (link). Notice the wording: Mar Rover Spirit finds “evidence” of water on Mars.
Next claim: Mars rover finds “puddles” on the planet’s surface (New Scientist Link). Then there is an update on the page that says: Update: The researchers have retracted their claim about the possibility of standing water on Mars after readers pointed out the terrain lies on the sloped wall of a crater. It takes readers from a blog to point out NASA’s mistake? Or maybe attempted deception? Why deception? Well there is about a trillion dollars involved in sending a manned space ship. That much money can corrupt most people.
No oceans, flowing streams, waterfalls? NASA is ready to commit to anything as evidence for water on mars, and here’s why:
They have already committed to oceans of water being on mars. Spent money to animate it, and they want to spend a trillion dollars to send a manned spaceship there. So there is a lot of grant money involved in selling the idea to the public and to the government. But selling is not proving. Anyone can animate an idea to sell the idea, but only finding evidence of what could have been on mars, is not proving what has been on mars.
Video
Video
Also, when you make claims better not forget the laws of physics. To sustain water a planet has to have certain conditions. Mars does not have this.
1) The right barometric pressures aka atmospheric pressures. Mars has 1/32 the pressure of earth. That means water boils at 50 degrees F. or less. And mars gets as high as 70 degrees.
2) Mars has to have the right molecules (H2O) on the air to make water. But mars atmosphere is 98% CO2. Which means there is only enough hydrogen in the atnosphere to make a pond of water not a ocean.
3) Water boiling means if there were evidence of water it would be in the atmosphere. 98% CO2 = no evidence, ZERO!
4) As far as life goes. There is no ozone layer so full rays of the sun would strike the surface. UV rays not being filtered at all would sterilize the planet. And that’s what we see since there has been no soil microbes found anywhere on the planet.
5) What about the ice? A atmosphere that has 98% CO2, and if it gets cold enough at the poles and it does. Will freeze CO2 in mid air and it will fall to the ground like snow and look like H2O ice when it’s not.
6) What NASA fails to tell people because they are trying to sell life on other planets. And that planets can have 2 different types of ice. H2O and CO2 ice. The ice you see on mars is 100% CO2, and that’s provable by the atmosphere having 98% CO2 and not enough hydrogen to even mention. Google it if you do not believe me.
NASA Lies.
CO2 aka Dry ice, looks just like regular ice.
So what would be more feasible type ice on mars with a 98% CO2 atmosphere?
1) H2O ice?
2) CO2 ice?
If you choose #1, I have to ask: Where did the 2 parts hydrogen come from to make enough water to create oceans of water when there is only a trace of hydrogen?
Example: If I tell you there is a suitcase in a cave with a million bucks in it, and all you have to do is go get it. But upon entering you find a bear with her cubs. And as the mother bear mauls you, you holler out why did you not tell me? I holler back: It was not important. But it was wasn’t it? Same thing here. They want you to make the step towards believing that life exists on other planets, and probably exists on the one they found. But leave out what is required for life to exist which goes way beyond a planet just being in the goldilocks zone.
Video
If you watch the video above, you would have heard that NASA believes they have found another planet to support life. My question is: They can barely see the planet Pluto, how do they see this one enough to make this claim?
Most evolutionists will tell you that evolution is about life that “adapts to it’s ever changing surroundings”. But what if there were a life form that could change it’s surroundings to suite it’s needs? One that could actually control the weather so that the heat from the sun in the summer time won’t kill it. Is this possible? Yes it is. Meet plankton.
What clouds look like made by what plankton do. They are much whiter therefore reflecting more of the sun's rays back into space cooling the planet.
It’s almost hard to believe, but new NASA-funded research confirms an old theory that plankton can indirectly create clouds that block some of the Sun’s harmful rays. The study was conducted by Dierdre Toole of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and David Siegel of the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB).
The study finds that in summer when the Sun beats down on the top layer of ocean where plankton live, harmful rays in the form of ultraviolet (UV) radiation bother the little plants. When they are bothered, or stressed, plankton try to protect themselves by producing a compound called dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP). Though no one knows for sure, some scientists believe DMSP helps strengthen the plankton’s cell walls. This chemical gets broken down in the water by bacteria, and it changes into another substance called dimethylsulfide (DMS).
DMS then filters from the ocean into the air, where it reacts with oxygen, to form different sulfur compounds. Sulfur in the DMS sticks together in the air and creates tiny dust-like particles. These particles are just the right size for water to condense on, which is the beginning of how clouds are formed. So, indirectly, plankton help create more clouds, and more clouds mean less direct light reaches the ocean surface. This relieves the stress put on plankton by the Sun’s harmful UV rays.
For years now scientists have been studying related processes in the lab, but this is the first time scientists have shown how variations in light impact plankton in a natural environment. The research was done in the Sargasso Sea, off the coast of Bermuda.
Previous research also found that the cloud producing compound peaks in the summer in the ocean, when UV rays are high, but plankton numbers are at their lowest.
“Plankton levels are at a minimum in the summer but DMS is at its peak,” said Toole.
In the warmest months, the top layer of the ocean warms as well. This heating of the top 25 meters (around 80 feet) creates a contrast with cooler deeper layers. The deeper layers hold many of the nutrients that plankton need to live on. Like how oil separates from water, the warmer upper layer creates almost a barrier from the cooler lower layers and less mixing occurs. Also, the shallow upper layer exposes the plankton to more UV light. Under conditions where there are low nutrients in the water and levels of UV light are high, plankton create more DMS.
DMS levels peak from June through the end of September. During the season, the study found that a whopping 77 percent of the changes in amounts of DMS were due to exposure to UV radiation. The researchers found it amazing that a single factor could have such a big affect on this process.
“For someone studying marine biology and ecology, this type of variation is absolutely incredible,” Siegel said.
The researchers were also surprised to find that the DMS molecules completely refresh themselves after only three to five days. That means the plankton may react to UV rays quickly enough to impact their own weather. Toole and Siegel were surprised by the lightning-fast rate of turnover for DMS. To give an example for comparison, when carbon dioxide gets into the atmosphere where it acts as a greenhouse gas and traps heat, it may last for decades. Toole adds that the cycles that break down DMS scream along at these very fast rates, even though overall amounts over the course of the year remain pretty stable with a slow increase over summer and a gradual decline over winter.
The next step for the researchers will be to see how much the added clouds from plankton actually impact climate. By figuring out how plankton react to light, scientists now have the information they need to use computer models to recreate the impacts of plankton on cloud cover. Since the white clouds can reflect sunlight back out to space, the researchers believe the plankton-made clouds may have some affect on global temperatures.
This is important in light of man-made greenhouse gas production that warms the planet, and ozone depletion that allows more life-threatening UV radiation to strike Earth.
“There is the potential that this cycle could slow global warming,” said Siegel. “But right now we have no idea of the size of it or even what it means.”
In order to measure how much plankton may alter the climate, computer models would need to simulate different scenarios. One scenario would show our climate without clouds due to plankton, and another would show the climate with the increased cloud cover. Then researchers could begin to compare the differences between each scenario.
The researchers add that this effect may help to slow or lessen climate change, but would in no way reverse the trend or stop it altogether.
The research took place in the Sargasso Sea, where a wide range ocean data has been collected since the 1950s. A 1998 study relying on data from this area contained a 1992 to 1994 time series that focused on the cycling of organic sulfur from DMS in the ocean. Siegel has also been collecting data of changes in sea surface temperatures over seasons, variations in both visible light and UV light in the water, and the relationships between these solar variations and DMS levels. All of these measurements have been taken from research vessels and buoys in the Sargasso Sea.
In the future, the paper’s
authors look forward to incorporating satellite data from NASA’s Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) mission into this line of research. SeaWIFS will provide comprehensive data on shifts in visible light reaching the ocean’s surface.
The study was funded by NASA. Studies of DMS have been funded by the National Science Foundation. The study appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters.
References:
NASA
Space Daily
Questions:
1) How does such an ability evolve?
2) What is the process of this type of so called evolution?
Also, is this the answer to Global Warming? According to link below, because of the ability of Plankton to make clouds, that we should grow it to cool the earth.
MSNBC
Why is plankton important? Click image to play Video.
5 reasons plankton is important to all life. Click image to play Video.
There also have been several failed missions to Mars:
In 1964, NASAs Mariner 3 was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. In space, its solar panels failed to open and the batteries went flat. Now its orbiting the Sun, dead. In 1965, Russian controllers lost contact with Zond 2 after it lost one of its solar panels. It lifelessly floated past Mars in the August of that year, only 1,500 km away from the planet. In March and April, 1969, the twin probes in the Soviet Mars 1969 program both suffered launch failure, 1969A exploded minutes after launch and 1969B took a U-turn and crashed to earth. More recently, NASAs Mars Climate Orbiter crashed into the Red Planet in 1999 after an embarrassing measurement unit mix-up caused the satellite to enter the atmosphere too low. On Christmas 2003, the world waited for a signal from the UK Mars lander, Beagle 2, after it separated from ESAs Mars Express. To this day, theres been no word.
Reference: Mars failed missions (link).
In the big bang theory, it’s basically something from nothing. Science does not know where the matter came from, or the energy that made it expand (inflate or blow apart). In fact if you ask 10 different people, you will get at least 3 different stories about how the origins of everything happened. So what is believed is that matter and energy come from nothing. Why believe something they cannot even begin to prove empirically? It is because the alternative points to an intelligent being. But since most everyone knows about the big bang, let’s see how many answers the intelligent creation can answer that big bang does not and cannot.
1) Because God is eternal, He lives in a eternal dimension. Using matter and energy from that dimension to form this dimension answers many questions.
a) Where did the matter and energy come from? It always existed because it came from a dimension that has always existed.
b) How do laws come into being fully balanced to create order and not chaos? An intelligent being from an eternal dimension created them and balanced them.
etc…
When using deductive logic and reasoning, and you remove all that will not work. What is left is creation by an intelligent being. Science is supposed to follow the evidence where ever it leads, yet it is taboo to follow any evidence that points to the supernatural. Basically that rule makes science more about conformism, in the effect that all evidence has to conform to the naturalistic view of evolution or be rejected. Science cannot find the Creator because their own rules won’t allow it.
In the something from nothing argument below, both Krauss and Dawkins only prove they can B.S. with the best of them. Why do I say that? With all that talk there is zero evidence and a whole lot of assuming going on. Which by the way does not even qualify this as a hypothesis aka educated guess. That is because it’s more about opinions and a worldview then it is about science.
When something takes over 2 hours to explain and yet no one can observe this. It becomes more of selling it then proving it. And there is a big difference between the two.
Video
And if you do not think this is about worldviews, then explain why most atheists cannot leave out trying to discredit God?
Video
My response to Aron Ra is that even your side’s beliefs existed before you claimed them to be science. The belief that man came from animals existed back in Egyptians times and by the way, was called science. They even had an abiogenesis type belief where they thought all life came from the slime that existed around the water’s edge of the Nile River. Hence the reason it was often referred to as the life giver as often worshiped as a deity of sorts.
Darwin having zero scientific degrees but one degree in theology, where do you think his theory came from anyway? He just took one of the pagan beliefs that he read about, repackaged it as science, and you guys bought it.