Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Reverted edits by GlennBeckRox (talk) to last revision by FCapra
Line 14: Line 14:  
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by Jesus, described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].
 
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by Jesus, described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].
 
#Newly observed data reveal that a fundamental constant of physics, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref>For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
 
#Newly observed data reveal that a fundamental constant of physics, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref>For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
−
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]].  So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref> Various liberal-biased scientists have explained that this is due to the explosive force due to nuclear fusion. However, fusion requires the false theory of relativity to be true, such scientists have obviously failed against the might of the Holy One.
+
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]].  So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>
 
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights (other than the prediction of the deflection of starlight during the 1919 total solar eclipse, gravitational lensing of distant galaxies, and gravitational microlensing), contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights (other than the prediction of the deflection of starlight during the 1919 total solar eclipse, gravitational lensing of distant galaxies, and gravitational microlensing), contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
 
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,015

edits

Navigation menu