Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Scris de **sandokhan** Mar 15 Dec 2009, 12:25

Rezumarea primului mesaj :

Cele mai recente mesaje publicate de mine pe acest subiect:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg854193#msg854193
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg854648#msg854648
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg855840#msg855840

Pana acum, cea mai importanta dintre toate conspiratiile (modificarea cronologiei istoriei) a ramas un subiect de care nu am avut timp sa ma ocup prea mult, data fiind dezbaterea legata de forma pamantului.

Noua cronologie (propusa de A. Fomenko) unde vechimea istoriei este de doar 1000 de ani, nu merge deloc prea departe; asa cum vom vedea din dovezile prezentate mai sus, istoria noastra nu are mai mult de 364 de ani vechime.

O mica incursiune in acele mesaje; eruptia vulcanului Vezuviu care a distrul orasul Pompei a avut loc la sfarsitul secolului XVIII, si nicidecum in anul 79 e.n. Dovezile prezentate de A. Fomenko (si alti autori) arata clar ca Grecia antica, Roma antica, Egiptul antic si Babilonul antic au fost inventate in sec. XV (cronologia lui Fomenko) si de fapt in a doua parte a sec. XVIII (cronologia propusa de mine).

Meritul lui Fomenko este acela ca a fost primul mare cercetator care a descoperit ca Iisus Christos a fost de fapt crucificat la Constantinopole (Troia; vezi cartile sale pentru detalii); in cronologia sa, in anul 1185 e.n., in noua cronologie in perioada 1770 e.n., vezi explicatiile oferite in linkurile de mai sus.

Puteti gasi cartile lui A. Fomenko pe www.scribd.com sau pe www.books.google.com History: Science or Fiction?, volumele 1 si 2, multe alte lucrari pe linkurile de pe flatearthsociety.org/forum.

Potopul a avut loc in anul 1700 e.n.; exodul lui Moses fiind de fapt exilul lui Akhenaten (adoratorul planetelor Marte si Venus, si fiul lui Nimrod) petrecut cam prin 1790 e.n. Troia era de fapt Constantinopole, iar Hagia Sophia (construita de Nimrod), templul lui Solomon (care nu a existat niciodata la Ur-Shulim, sau Ierusalim, locul unde se dezvoltase cultul lunar si planetar, Saturn si Marte).

Primul fiu al lui Noe a fost Pelasg si nicidecum Shem (nume inventat ulterior); Misraim a fost Osiris, ucis de fratele sau Kush (Seth); despre marele zid chinezesc (construit dupa 1900), Versailles, Escorial, Ermitaj si celelalte vestigii istorice vezi linkurile de mai sus.

Aisus era trac si nicidecum evreu, evenimentele care au avut loc la Constantinopole fiind mutate ulterior din punct de vedere cronologic si istoric la Ierusalim, de catre iezuiti (urmasii lui Misraim, cultul Soarelui, care au avut conflicte cu urmasii lui Kush/Nimrod/Akhenaten, templierii, cultul lunar si al planetelor Saturn - hexagrama, si Marte - pentagrama), care au falsificat toata istoria antica incepand cu 1770 e.n.

Vom arata ca Sinodul de la Niceea nu putea sa aiba loc inainte de anul 876-877 e.n., ca manastirile de la Cozia, Putna, si Voronet nu puteau fi construite decat dupa anul 1750 e.n., ca N. Copernic, G. Galilei, J. Kepler si I. Newton sunt personaje fictive inventate dupa anul 1780 e.n., ca Almagest atribuita lui Ptolemeu este o lucrare din perioada Renasterii, ca Parthenon si Pantheon au fost construite pe timpul Renasterii, ca inainte de anul 1700 e.n. pe teritoriul actual al Elvetiei nu exista prezenta umana, si multe alte detalii.

Scris de **sandokhan** Mar 16 Mar 2010, 21:44

Cuprinsul de la Mystery of Egyptian Zodiacs de A. Fomenko (linkul de mai devreme):

Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime - Pagina 3 Fom11

Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime - Pagina 3 Fom22

Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime - Pagina 3 Fom33

Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime - Pagina 3 Fom44

Concluziile despre cronologia oficiala a dinastiilor antice egiptene aici:
https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime-t124-30.htm#1843

Se pare ca recordul pentru cea mai buna analiza in legatura cu noua cronologie radicala o are pana acum inginerul german Andreas Tschurilow, cu informatiile despre eruptia vulcanului Vezuviu care a distrus Pompei/Herculane, site-urile de mai devreme:

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejidt.htm
http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejigallerydt.htm

Atat instrumentele medicale care conforma cronologiei oficiale nu puteau sa existe decat dupa anul 1666 (lucrarile lui Fabritius Hildanus), cat si geamurile care ar fi necesitat tehnologia inventata abia in 1688 la Saint Gobain (ca sa nu mai vorbim despre pahare, robinete, instrumente muzicale, si The Three Graces de Raphael) ne arata ca atat J. Scaliger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Justus_Scaliger) cat si D. Petavius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petavius) au trait CEL PUTIN un secol mai tarziu (abia dupa 1720); cronologia din lucrarile lor prezinta eruptia care a distrus Pompei ca pe un eveniment DEJA produs, fapt imposibil insa, avand in vedere artefactele descoperite acolo.

Scris de mm Sam 20 Mar 2010, 12:29

O cu totul neasteptata confirmare, a teoriilor pe care le sustii aici, gasesc in lucrarea unui student teolog. Reproduc cate ceva.
Soarele, se pare ca el nu este chiar asa de "batran".
"Astronomii au fost surprinsi, iar oamenii de rand au ramas uimiti, cand, in 1979, Jack Eddy a pretins ca Soarele se contracta cu o asa viteza incat, daca declinul nu se opreste,.... va dispare intr-o perioada de pana la o suta de mii de ani ... diametrul Soarelui descreste intr-un ritm de 1,8 m/h"
N-am auzit de asa ceva si nici de Eddy. Poate o fi pe net...
Surse:
-Dr. Henry M. Morris, Creationismul stiintific, Ed. Societatea Misionara Romana, 1992
-Joe White, op. cit. p. 69
Nu reproduc in extenso, deocamdata, ideea este extrem de legata de notiunea timp, se neaga astfel cele 5 miliarde de ani ai Soarelui, nici vorba de sutele de milioane de ani de evolutie a vietii pe Pamant, toata istoria e in max. cateva sute de mii de ani.
Legat de acest aspect vreau sa specific ca din perspectiva "curgerii timpului" actual pentru noi, -biotopul-enclava Pamant-, ce-a fost inainte "se vede" ca si cand ar fi durat miliarde de ani. E vorba aici de un "segment" (= o ZI) de traire istorica a unui -i-am zis- biotop "prelevat" de undeva (Rai -cuvantul obisnuit) si adus apoi in alt context temporal unde a fost "dilatat temporal" de miliarde de ori, astfel ca, in consecinta, o zi din contextul nou se cuprinde de miliarde de ori in intervalul de o ZI, (putem sa-i spunem ZI Divina). Pentru ca noi, cei aflati zilnic in acest "biotop", avem de reper zi-ua -si nu ZIua- atunci cand incercam sa masuram (arheologic, geologic, etc.) "ce-a fost inainte", ne ies miliarde de ani. Daca vom considera ca etalon (mai greu) ziua-ZI, atunci zilele noastre sunt nanosecunde. Si chestia asta ne cam blocheaza inteligenta.
In ceea ce am zis pana aici am incercat sa sustin ca "dilatarea timpului" (de fapt dilatarea evolutiei) propriu unui biotop poate fi o realitate din laboratorul Cuiva. Esential pentru teoria ta este ca "se poate".

Scris de **sandokhan** Sam 20 Mar 2010, 15:44

Paradoxul soarelui timpuriu (faint young sun paradox) ne arata ca Soarele nu poate avea DECAT cateva mii de ani vechime, cel mult:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28196.msg681102#msg681102

Datele de aici, sirul prezent de discutii, indica clar ca perioada 700 i.e.n. - 1300 e.n. este una inventata recent, vezi paradoxul acceleratiei elongatiei lunare, si putem extinde acest interval si la 1300 e.n. - 1700 e.n. prin datarea artefactele descoperite la Pompei/Herculane.

Scris de mm Dum 21 Mar 2010, 12:42

Nu mi-ai spus parerea ta despre "dilatarea timpului propriu ala unui biotop" -in exprimarea mea aproximativa- din mesajul meu anterior.

Scris de **sandokhan** Dum 21 Mar 2010, 14:58

Ca sa-ti raspund, ar trebui sa intram in subiectul Gradina din Eden, unde este localizata de fapt, ce s-a intamplat cu modificarea arhitecturii creierului lui Adam/Eva odata ce au consumat din Arborele Imaginatiei...poate altadata...

In lumea astrala nu exista conceptul de timp; vezi explicatiile lui N. Tesla despre timp/spatiu la Minkowski Space Time Hoax.

Scris de **sandokhan** Dum 21 Mar 2010, 19:50

Daca se schimba regulamentul, si renuntam la restrictia privind limba engleza (cine isi doreste, poate accesa site-uri specializate in traducere), vin aici cu Arborele Imaginatiei (Garden of Eden, Sea of Marmara, Book of Jubilees chapter 8, descifrarea exacta a citatelor).

Scris de mm Mier 07 Apr 2010, 20:08

Referitor la subiectul "Podului lui Traian", sau al "lui Apollodor din Damasc", iata un link la alt site, unde e o discutie interesanta ce complecteaza bine ce discutam noi:
http://www.rufon.org/forum/index.php?topic=161.msg48683;topicseen#msg48683

Scris de **sandokhan** Lun 12 Iul 2010, 11:42

Scris de **sandokhan** Sam 17 Iul 2010, 19:52

Parametrul D": acceleratia elongatiei lunare

Din History: Science or Fiction? volumul 1, pg. 93 si 94

Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime - Pagina 3 Moon1v

Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime - Pagina 3 Moon2i

R. Newton is one of the most prestigious astrophysicists of the 20th century, here is the impecable analysis of the ancient astronomical records:

http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton1.htm
http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/atext/newton2.htm

Citate ample din lucrarile lui R. Newton:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime-t124-20.htm#1488

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime-t124-20.htm#1494

In urma acestei lucrari, publicata la inceputul anilor 70 si care a creat senzatie la acea vreme, atat R.R. Newton cat si alti astrofizicieni au incercat sa modifice legea gravitatiei (fie ea de presiune sau de atractie) astfel incat datele istorice sa poata fi validate.

Numai A. Fomenko si-a dat seama ca acele date au fost inventate ulterior, impreuna cu relatarile istorice la care se refereau.

Parametrul D" ne arata, clar si sigur, ca datele istorice/astronomice obtinute din diverse documente medievale/antice, perioada 500 i.e.n. - 1200 e.n., sunt absolut false, si au fost inventate mult mai tarziu, asa cum am vazut aici, cel putin dupa anul 1700 e.n.

Articolul original al lui A. Fomenko, THE JUMP OF THE SECOND DERIVATIVE OF THE MOON'S ELONGATION:

http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/dsec.htm

Scris de **sandokhan** Lun 24 Ian 2011, 13:44

In primul rand, doresc sa-l felicit pe sadang pentru traducerea exceptionala la sectiunea cu experimentul lui G.B. Airy https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t132-experimentul-lui-gb-airy-1871-documentatie#3018 ; nu mai exista scuze pentru nici un astronom (fie amator, ca pe astronomy.ro, fie profesionist) ca sa nu inteleaga ca pamantul nu se roteste deloc in jurul propriei axe...experimentul lui Airy din 1871 a fost ocultat si eliminat din tratatele de astronomie tocmai pentru a ascunde faptul ca sistemul heliocentric este doar o pura inventie si nascocire fara nici un fel de baza stiintifica.

G. NOSOVSKY, DATING THE NICAEA COUNCIL

Demonstratia superba a colegului lui A. Fomenko, Gleb Nosovsky, pe baza celor mai exigente si clare dovezi astronomice, ca datarea conciliului de la Niceea (cronologia oficiala, anul 325 e.n.) nu putea avea loc INAINTE DE ANUL 875 E.N.

http://www.google.com/base/a/1562225/D7146657310909970098

Sa urmarim cu atentie argumentele...

Despite the fact that no original Easter edicts of the Nicaean council remain, it is said that the Council issued its edicts in the alleged year 325 AD, when the “the actual methods of calculating the Easter dates had already been well developed”, and the Easter date table “that had been used for centuries” had been compiled. The latter is quite natural, since “every 532 years, the Christian Easter cycle repeats from the very start… the Paschalian tables for each year of 532 were in existence”.

THE NICAEAN COUNCIL OF 325 AD CONTRADICTS THE PASCHALIA

There is a traditional consensual opinion according to which the Paschalia church calendar was canonized during the first Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. Nobody seem to be aware, however, that all of this blatantly contradicts Scaliger’s dating of the Nicaean council – 325 AD, and the epoch of the IV century AD in general.

The matter here is that the Paschalia consists of a number of calendarian and astronomical tables. The time of their compilation can be calculated from their contents qv below. In other words, the Paschalia can be dated by its astronomical contents. We see that the resulting dating of the Paschalia contradicts the dating of the Nicaean Council as the IV century AD.

The contradiction had been discovered a long time ago, and it was mentioned in the beginning of the XX century by Easter table specialists. However, to this day, there has been no comprehensive explanation of this phenomenon given.

Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:

“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”.

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

This means that we can hope for Matthew Vlastar’s text to give us a precise enough account of the opinions held by the Constantinople scientists of the XIV century, in regard to the Easter issue. As we can see, Matthew Vlastar tells us the following:

In addition to the two Apostolic Easter rules, namely:

1) Not celebrating Easter together with the Judaists.

2) Only celebrating Easter after the spring equinox.

The Elders of the Council that introduced the Paschalia added two more rules for certainty, since the previous two do not define Easter day explicitly enough:

3) Only celebrating Easter after the first full moon in a given spring. That is, after the Passover that is often called “Lawful Easter” in Christian clerical literature – that is, Easter celebrated in accordance with the Law of Moses – or, alternatively, that of “the 14th Moon”.

4) Easter cannot be celebrated on any weekday; the celebration is to occur on the first Sunday following this full moon, or the Passover.

THE FOURTH RULE BROKEN

The first three rules of four were still quite valid in the XIV century, according to Vlastar, whereas the 4th rule of Easter Sunday being the first Sunday after the full moon was already broken.

Furthermore, Matthew Vlastar gives a perfectly valid astronomical explanation of why the rule was broken. The reason is that the Circle for Moon (Methon’s Cycle) isn’t completely precise. There is a very slow shift of real full moon dates in relation to the ones stated by the Circle for Moon that the Elders of the Council may have been unaware of. However, in the age of Matthew Vlastar, knowledge of the shift already existed. Vlastar was aware of it and gave its correct value – about 24 hours in 300 years.

This is why no less than two days should pass between the full moon and Easter (according to Vlastar, and applicable to his age). The matter is that the calculations of the Christian Easter are based on the calendar with its Circle for Moon values, as opposed to real full moon dates given by astronomy.

When, over the passage of time, a two-day discrepancy between the Paschalian Circle for Moon and the real full moon schedule had evolved, this could not fail to impact the distance between the astronomical spring equinox and Easter Sunday. If the previous distance equalled “zero or more” (so that Easter could not come before the full moon), it became “equalling two or more” so that the Easter could not come earlier than two days after the full moon.

However, most often the amount of days separating the full moon and Easter Sunday, exceeded two, anyway, since the rules have it so that one had to wait for the Easter’s advent from the vernal full moon and until the closest Sunday, that is, about three days (half a week) in average, and more than two days in most cases.

So the two-day gap that had accumulated by the age of Vlastar did not always manifest, and no rules were broken in the years when several days had to pass between the full moon and Easter.

However, in certain years, when the distance proved less than two days, the 4th Easter rule was broken, namely, Easter Sunday fell on the second Sunday after the vernal full moon. For example, if the Passover falls on a Saturday, Easter has to be celebrated the next day, on Sunday.

Thus, we know a lot, almost everything, about the Paschalia. So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.

The conclusion we came to:

FIRST STATEMENT:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

A satisfactory coincidence of calendarian Passover full moons with the astronomical ones had only existed between 700 AD and 1000 AD (by which we mean their occurrence within the range of 24 hours from each other). Prior to that, the calendarian full moons have always taken place after the Passover ones, and after 1000 AD, the opposite started to happen. The beginning of the 13th Great Indiction (877 AD) falls on the period of ideal coincidence of Passover and astronomical full moons.

This means the Paschalia could only have been compiled in the period between the IX and XI centuries AD.

Propter hoc, the dating of the Nicaean Council (as the Council that had introduced the Paschalia) is only possible, within the timeframe of the VII-XI centuries, the most probable one being the epoch of the X-XI centuries, after the year 877 AD.

SUMMING UP THE DATINGS OF THE NICAEAN COUNCIL

The Paschalia could have been compiled in the following timeframe:

- not any earlier than 784 AD by the actual definition of Easter;
- not any earlier than 700 AD by the coincidence of Paschalian and astronomical full moons;
- not any earlier than 700 AD by the Palm of Damascenus;
- not any earlier than 743 AD according to Matthew Vlastar;

Hence, the Paschalia was first compiled earliest around the second half of the VIII century AD. The Paschalia was canonized at the Nicaean Council that took place in the XI-XIV centuries. The Paschalia might well have contained certain astronomical concepts of the VII-XI centuries that had already been a part of the ecclesial tradition by that time.

Mai mult, in articolul sau "The Dating of the First Oecumenical Council of Nicaea and the Beginning of the Christian Era", G. Nosovsky arata ca reforma calendarului propusa de pontiful Grigore XIII (1582 - desi acum stim ca evenimentele din sec. XVI - XVIII au fost falsificate la sfarsit de secol XVIII) este una incorecta...iarasi folosind numai argumente astronomice...

Deci, ierarhia bisericilor catolice/ortodoxe NU CUNOASTE ACESTE DETALII extrem de importante; de vreme ce conciliul de la Niceea a avut loc CEL PUTIN DUPA ANUL 875 E.N., se alege praful de toata cronologia oficiala in perioada 100 - 1100 e.n.

Nu uitati de cea mai formidabila carte scrisa vreodata pe tema cronologiei radicale: The Pauline Epistles, de marele istoric britanic E. Johnson; demonstreaza la modul cel mai clar si exceptional ca inainte de anul 1520 NU EXISTAU cele patru evanghelii, epistolele lui Pavel, Torah sau primele 5 carti din Vechiul Testament:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm

Scris de **nic** Mar 25 Ian 2011, 01:58

Salut,
Eu iți spun, sincer, bine ai revenit...sandokhan

Scris de **sandokhan** Mar 25 Ian 2011, 10:43

Pentru a face un rezumat in limba romana a mesajului meu precedent: regulile pentru combinarea calendarelor solar si lunar de cand biserica sarbatoreste Pastele sunt date in Cartea Pastelui, conditiile fiind descrise in lucrarea Colectie de Reguli ale Sfintilor Parinti ai Bisericii scrisa de carturarul medieval Matei Vlastar (sec. XIV), vezi mesajul anterior pentru descriere.

Deci, pana in aproximativ 1330 e.n., ultima conditie a Pastelui fusese incalcata, iar eroarea de care Vlastar era constient, este de 24 de ore in 304 ani. Daca Vlastar ar fi stiut ca si Cartea Pastelui a fost canonizata in 325 e.n., el ar fi observat decalajul de trei zile care se acumulase intre luna plina calculata si cea reala in mai mult de o mie de ani.

G. Nosovsky a comparat formula Pastelui derivata de K.F. Gauss in sec. XIX (pentru secolele I - XVIII) cu datele Pastelui obtinute din Cartea Pastelui: trei din patru conditii impuse de Sinodul de la Niceea au fost incalcate pana in anul 784 e.n.

Asa cum se poate observa, biserica ortodoxa (si cea catolica) NU CUNOSC aceste detalii si anume demonstratia absoluta a faptului ca Sinodul de la Niceea TREBUIE sa fi avut loc CEL PUTIN dupa anul 875 e.n.: http://www.crestinortodox.ro/forum/showthread.php?t=3786

Scris de **sandokhan** Joi 03 Feb 2011, 10:50

Cea mai proeminenta figura istorica/politica din "istoria" Indiei, imparatul Ashoka, nu a existat NICIODATA:

http://www.zimbio.com/Ghandi+quotes/articles/53/Ashoka+exist+composite+figure+created+Pandit
http://madhesi.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/did-ashoka-exist/

Mai devreme am vazut cum Buddha din tribul lui Kush (Sakya) a ajuns in Kushmir (Kashmir) din Africa, dupa 1730 e.n.; Mithra, Zoroastru, Krishna sunt inventii istorice ale sec. XVIII, ULTERIOARE aparitiei crestinismului (dupa crucificarea lui Aisus la Troia/Constantinopole in 1715 e.n.)...

Cateva articole interesante pe tema finantelor oculte (e clar ca un eveniment care poate cauza o depresiune economica va avea legatura cu Arabia Saudita):

http://thecomingdepression.blogspot.com/2010/07/niall-ferguson-warns-of-sudden-collapse.html
http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/british-financial-warfare-1929-1931-33-how-the-city-of-london-created-the-great-depression/

Scris de **sandokhan** Mar 08 Feb 2011, 15:53

Harti medievale care infatiseaza orasul Pompei in perioada 1570-1631 e.n. (cronologia oficiala):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45731.msg1131078#msg1131078

UN ALT ARGUMENT EXTRAORDINAR DIN ASTRONOMIE, eclipsa de soare documentata, ni se spune, de catre istoricul bizantin Leo Diaconus, in anul 968, pe 22 Decembrie, exact la solstitiul de iarna:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1131770#msg1131770

Numai ca solstitiul de iarna, in anul 968 e.n., AR FI TREBUIT SA AIBA LOC PE 16 DECEMBRIE, date fiind cele 10 zile suprimate de catre Grigore XIII in anul 1582 e.n., cititi demonstratia care ne arata, inca o data, ca Sinodul de la Niceea trebuie sa se intample, sa fie tinut, cel putin dupa anul 876-877 e.n. (vezi si cealalta argumentare de mai sus, mesajul anteprecedent).

Scris de **sandokhan** Mier 09 Feb 2011, 14:53

Dovezile clare de tot (o multime), care ne arata ca eruptia vulcanului Vezuviu care a distrus orasele Pompei si Herculane a avut loc CEL PUTIN dupa anul 1700 e.n., au si anumite consecinte din punct de vedere cronologic, o parte din ele au fost deja examinate aici...iata si altele...

Intre anii 1530 si 1680 e.n. au fost publicate/concepute (asa ni se spune, conform cronologiei oficiale) mai multe lucrari despre cronologia antica, de catre J. Scaliger, D. Petavius, M. Luther, G. Mercator, P. Crusius, I. Newton, S. Calvisius si J. Kepler, TOATE aceste carti insa prezinta distrugerea oraselor Pompei si Herculane ca fiind ceva de domeniul trecutului indepartat, ceea ce era imposibil inainte de anul 1700 e.n...

Sinodul de la Niceea nu ar fi avut cum sa fie tinut INAINTE DE ANUL 876-877 E.N., si acest lucru implica existenta lui Constantin cel Mare, Maxentiu, Eusebiu din Cesarea, precum si alte figuri istorice; si ar trebui eliminata perioada istorica 325 - 870 e.n., de asemenea batalia de la Manzikert (1071 e.n.; http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/manzikert.html ) nu ar fi avut cum sa aiba loc, daca crestinismul abia ar fi inceput sa se dezvolte din punct de vedere istoric...unul dintre putinii istorici care si-au dat seama ca arabii nu au invadat niciodata Spania a fost Ignacio Olague, in cartea "The Arabs never invaded Spain".

Scris de **sandokhan** Joi 10 Feb 2011, 10:53

Cea mai extraordinara si interesanta concluzie pe care o putem deduce din aceste dovezi astronomice senzationale, este faptul ca nu exista nici un fel de marturii istorice despre fenomenul precesiei (directia axei pamantului prin poli care nu ar fi fixa, conform teoriei heliocentrice, si care se roteste foarte incet, o astfel de rotatie in 26.000 de ani).

De vreme ce Sinodul de la Niceea trebuie sa fi avut loc cel putin dupa anul 876-877 e.n., si in acea vreme solstitiul de iarna cadea pe 22 Decembrie, corectia impusa de Grigore XIII (scopul fiind sa elimine eroarea ce se acumulase din 325 e.n.) in 1582 este un falsa si care nu a avut loc niciodata (in 1582, solstitiul de iarna s-ar fi intamplat pe 11 Decembrie).

Leo Diaconus nu exista din punct de vedere istoric; cum sa fi existat un istoric bizantin la doar 90 de ani dupa Sinodul de la Niceea? Cum sa fi existat un pontif pe nume Grigore XIII la doar 600 de ani dupa acel Sinod? Cum ramane cu Conciliile de la Laodiceea (363), Cartagina (419), si Constantinopole (692)?

E. Johnson a demonstrat clar ca si Sinodul de la Trent (1546) nu a avut loc niciodata:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54460003

Here the absurd assumption is made (as Bellarmine explains) that this "old Vulgate," so-called, which has been in use so many ages, is to be preferred to "recent, and, so to speak, crude editions." How came they to be crude, if this "old Vulgate" was everywhere in the hands of the faithful!' The idea is nonsensical, and the whole story falls to the ground.

And then, after all, this "old Vulgate" proves to be mythical, and not forthcoming at all! "The want of a standard text of the Vulgate," says Westcott, "practically left the question as unsettled as before"! Another enigma of history! How could the Fathers of Trent venture, the reader may ask, to refer thus pointedly to a Latin book which did not exist at the time? In spite of every desire to find an historical landmark on which we may firmly rest, it is impossible to resist the suspicions which gather about these alleged decrees themselves. Are they too an afterthought?

A large body of bishops and doctors could never have met, and have passed and published to the world a decree referring to a book which had been "many ages in existence," yet could not be found! These decrees, which are simply stultified by the latter facts, and the discovery of the Vulgate by Sixtus V., would seem to be a fiction, I suppose, of Sixtus' time. There are curious things in connection with Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent which may favour such an opinion.

Atat A. Fomenko cat si G. Nosovsky s-au ferit sa ajunga la aceasta concluzie, care ar fi dus controversa mult mai departe; nu exista nici un fel de marturii istorice (stiintifice/astronomice) despre existenta vreunui fenomen de precesie a echinoctiilor.

Si asa cum am vazut si mai devreme https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t84-galactic-safari deplasarea sistemului nostru planetar catre Steaua Vega, miscare rezultanta tridimensionala, in care traiectoriile planetelor sunt curbe elicoidale, situate pe suprafetele laterale ale unor cilindri eliptici (acesta fiind punctul de vedere oficial actual al astronomiei moderne), este IMPOSIBILA din punct de vedere stiintific/astronomic (ar fi incalcata prima lege a lui Kepler).

Este clar ca acesti conspiratori (destul de inteligenti) nu aveau cum sa potriveasca toate aceste detalii in sec. XVIII, si nici nu si-au dat interesul prea mult sa o faca cum trebuie; contradictiile din diversele relatari istorice despre precesie devin evidente atunci cand le cercetam din punct de vedere stiintific (vezi lucrarea lui G. Nosovsky si relatarea lui Leo Diaconus).

Scris de **sandokhan** Lun 14 Feb 2011, 10:43

Pentru specialişti, istoria veche a românilor se aseamănă cu un joc de puzzle. Piesele lipsesc sau au contururi înceţoşate, nu se îmbină, iar imaginea de ansamblu se creionează cu greu.

Drept urmare, s-a vorbit de un adevărat gol de aproape 1000 de ani în istoria românilor, între secolele IV-XIII. Situaţia s-a complicat şi mai mult când toată această poveste a căpătat un substrat politic, în perioada afirmării naţionalismului european, iar argumentul “tăcerii izvoarelor” a devenit coloana vertebrală a teoriei ce susţinea că românii au venit din sudul Dunării. De atunci, teoriile despre formarea poporului român au tot curs, unele de-a dreptul fanteziste.

În toată istoriografia europeană şi chiar în cea românească, se recunoaşte că e un fel de mileniu întunecat, unde sunt prea puţine informaţii, şi de acest lucru au profitat unii din vecinii noştri. Pentru unguri, Dacia era complet evacuată şi nu mai era nimeni când au venit ei, pentru ruşi sau ucrainieni nu era nimeni în Moldova, erau ei, şi acuma se întreabă cum sunt atâţia români.

Informaţiile privind o eventuală organizare a românilor într-o formaţiune politică sunt şi mai rare: cu excepţia voievodatului lui Gelu din Transilvania, nu mai ştim nimic despre vreo formă de organizare a vlahilor până în secolul XIII.

Acest vid politic i-a făcut pe mulţi români să se simtă scoşi din istorie: „Simpla perpetuare a unui element românesc amorf, supus diverselor stăpâniri străine, nu pare o soluţie convenabilă. Mărturisit sau nu, ceea ce îi complexează pe români este lipsa, timp de 1000 de ani, a unui stat românesc, este lipsa unei tradiţii politice adânc înrădăcinate în timp, comparabilă cu a naţiunilor vecine”, scrie Lucian Boia, în cartea sa „Istorie şi mit în conştiinţa românească”.

Numai noua cronologie radicala, bazata pe cele mai precise dovezi, poate umple acel gol de care vorbesc istoricii nostri.

Nu au existat nici un fel de Selgiuk, Osman, Baiazid, Murad, Mehmet I si II, sau Suleiman Magnificul, cum nu au existat nici Mircea cel Batran, Vlad Tepes, Stefan cel Mare, Mihai Viteazul, sau pentru prietenii nostri maghiari, Arpad, Ladislau, Andrei II, Bela IV, sau Sigismund Bathory.

Intre epoca in care au trait dacii (1600 - 1720 e.n.) si epoca fanariota nu exista decat un rastimp de cateva decenii.

Manastirile Curtea de Arges/Putna/Voronet, Cetatea Alba, si toate celelalte manastiri au fost construite in secolul XVIII. Cel putin in cazul manastirii Putna, arheologii romani si-au dat seama ca Stema Moldovei nu a fost deloc conceputa si realizata in 1481, ci chiar in secolul XVIII. (vezi http://www.putna.ro/Stema-Moldovei-s3-ss6-c2-cc1.php pentru dovezi)
Manastirea Putna nu a fost restaurata in secolul XVIII, ci chiar atunci a fost construita. Pfister a descoperit ca toate "restaurarile masive", vezi catedrala din Berna, erau de fapt un joc de cuvinte menit sa ascunda faptul ca tocmai atunci erau construite pentru prima data.

Arhiva Christoph Pfister, istoricul elvetian care a descoperit ca INAINTE DE ANUL 1700 E.N. NU EXISTA PREZENTA UMANA PE TERITORIUL ACTUAL AL ELVETIEI:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#2328

Conciliul de la Niceea a avut loc cel putin dupa anul 876-877 e.n., iar dovezile sunt extrem de clare, vezi mesajul de mai devreme...istoricii de profesie TREBUIE sa inteleaga aceste chestiuni pentru a detecta cum a fost falsificata istoria oficiala (in secolul XVIII).

Scris de **sandokhan** Mar 15 Feb 2011, 10:51

Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime - Pagina 3 3083142584_35c9f5fae0

Cel de-al treilea registru este Etimasia Sfântului Duh, simbolizat în forma unui porumbel, Sfânta Evanghelie şi Protopărinţii neamului românesc - având spre nord un grup de credincioşi călăuziţi de Sfântul Apostol Pavel...(Manastirea Voronet)

Este imposibil ca fresca interioara care infatiseaza pe "apostolul" Pavel sa fi fost pictata inainte de anul 1600 e.n., si asta conform cronologiei oficiale.

Demonstratia extraordinara a istoricului britanic, Edwin Johnson, care ne arata ca nu exista nici un fel de documentatie in Anglia inainte de anul 1533 despre vreo epistola "semnata" Pavel...cele mai importante surse istorice, Polydore Vergil si John Leland:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm

In aceeasi lucrare, citate ample din Historia Ecclesiastica de Eusebius, care ne arata ca aceasta scriere a fost inventata cu mult inainte de epistolele lui Pavel, cel putin dupa anul 1500 e.n., multe alte detalii formidabile care detaliaza cum a fost falsificata istoria secolelor XVI-XVII.

Scris de **sandokhan** Mier 16 Feb 2011, 11:52

The Pauline Epistles de E. Johnson explica cum a fost falsificata istoria oficiala a secolelor XVI - XVII, cu dovezi de exceptie, putin cunoscute istoricilor de la noi, si asta tocmai in contextul cronologiei oficiale. Sa examinam acum aceste dovezi.

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459891 (biografia lui Polydore Vergil, unul dintre primii mari istorici moderni, si citatul care demonstreaza ca inainte de anul 1520 e.n. NU EXISTAU NICI UN FEL DE EPISTOLE ALE LUI PAVEL CARE SA FI FOST CUNOSCUTE, SUB ORICE FORMA, IN ANGLIA)

Let me now call attention to some salient points in the evidence which tends to prove that, whatever may have been the previous fate of books in ages more remote, very few could have been extant in any part of Europe 400 years ago.

Let me render from the Latin a passage from a writer who says that he was studying and writing in London during the reign of King Henry the Eighth. Of the early Tudor period (1485-1603) he expressly says:

"In those times Perfect Letters, both Latin and Greek, shut out from Italy by nefarious wars, exterminated, expelled, poured over the Alps, through all Germany, Gaul, England, and Scotland. The Germans first introduced them into their towns, and, having been the most illiterate of all in former times, are now the most learned...

Having studied the Perfect Letters some years in Italy, he returned home, and was the first Englishman to teach them in England to his countrymen. Before him Cornelio Vitellio, an Italian, of Corneto, in Tuscany, of a noble stock, was the first of all to teach good letters to the boys at Oxon.

E. Johnson:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459892

I might leave this striking passage to speak for itself, were it not that its teaching and that of kindred passages have been so much neglected. I am bound to infer from them: (1) That there was practically no literature in England before the Tudor period (1485-1603) -- no teaching, reading, or writing class; (2) that letters did gradually come to us from Italy during that period, but that no exact date, not even of the foundation of St. Paul's school, is ascertainable that we must consequently content ourselves with the vague date, "about 400 years ago," of the epoch when literary culture was beginning in England.

I shall now have to assume, with my readers' goodwill, that letters of any kind, and consequently Biblical letters in particular, were only beginning to be cultivated here during the Tudor period -- very slightly even then; that the evidence for this statement is quite massive; and that for a contrary opinion no scintilla of evidence exists, or ever has existed. It is false dates, it is the superficial study of the books which were coming to light during the Tudor period itself, which have caused the great prevailing deception in this important matter.

Tot in aceasta sectiune, Johnson discuta despre Bede, Gildas, King Alfred si King Beauclerc, documentele falsificate de aceeasi calugari benedictini care au inventat atat cele patru evanghelii cat si epistolele lui Pavel.

Not to confuse my readers with too many details, I would beg them to keep in mind the date 1533 as one of the best landmarks in chronology I am able at present to point out. In that year Polydore is stated to have addressed Henry the Eighth., pointing out that next to nothing was known of English history, and disparaging the few monkish writings on the subject which had come into his hands. The same year Leland is alleged to have set out on his literary tour through the monasteries, which occupied him till 1539. If these dates be trustworthy, the results of his investigations show that the whole scheme of Church history must have been laid down and brought, as it were, to a short first edition during about the period 1500-1533.

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459893

I must return to the question of the Pauline Epistles. It is impossible to determine what form they had assumed in Colet's time, or what his exact teaching may have been. In fact, I hold it impossible to suppose that the full Pauline Epistles, as we have them, could have been taught in England at the time to which Polydore refers. There can have been extant, in my opinion, only the little book of Sentences, called "The Apostle," which is so frequently alluded to in Church books, out of which the larger Pauline Epistles were gradually evolved.

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459900 (citatele din Historia Ecclesiastica care ne arata ca aceasta lucrare a fost scrisa INAINTE DE crearea epistolelor lui Pavel)

I must now deal with the references to Paul in the Eusebian literature -- that is, the Church History and the list of "Illustrious Men." And here a series of literary falsehoods must be sharply contradicted. It is in the Latin List of Illustrious Men, or Catholic writers, that the name of Eusebius occurs. This list was published during the Age of Publication, commonly called the "sixteenth century;" and there is absolutely no vestige of proof that this key book to Church literature (for such it evidently is) was composed, or could have been composed, long before that age. It is certain that in its present form it was not in the hands of Polydore. It is alleged that Eusebius was bishop of Caesarea, and was connected with literary men in that city 1,200 years before Polydore's time. That is sheer invention and falsehood. The real authors of the Eusebian books were the literary monks of the West, and the city to which they were related was, above all, Paris.

Acum, citatele...

H.E. 3:24:

One of these passages is to the effect that Paul, the most able of all in literary discipline, and the most sufficient in opinions, "committed no more than the briefest epistles to writing, though he had a multitude of matters -- yea, unutterable things to say, as he had attained to the visions of the third heaven, had been snatched up to the very paradise of God, and had been deemed worthy to listen to the unutterable words thence." (H. E. 3:24)

Poate ca ati crezut ca aceste afirmatii apartin sau au fost scoase din Epistola catre Corinteni (II, cap. 12), NICIDECUM!

I must entreat my readers not to fall in with the false notion that this passage is an echo of a passage in the Epistles as we have them. That is the reverse of the fact. I must repeat, every chapter of this Church History proves that it is written as an introduction to romantic books not yet fully written, or more than in their inception, and which had not yet been designated by the name of the New Testament, though a similar term is employed.

Now, everyone knows that a similar passage to the above is found inserted in our second Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 12 -- a passage shockingly written in point of grammar, and every principle of good taste, even as the passage in the Church History. But it will be found, on comparison, that the one passage is not copied from the other, though both are evidently from the same mind. It is impossible to draw any other conclusion than that the two passages, substantially one in meaning, though variant in form, are from the same workshop of monastic fiction.

Eusebius nu avea cunostinta de vreo Epistola catre Corinteni la acea data (sec. IV e.n., conform cronologiei oficiale).

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459904

Epistle to the Romans -- "According to my Gospel." The Church historian ascribes this phrase to Paul in order to allege that when he used it he alluded to Luke's Gospel. Accordingly we find the phrase thrice inserted in the New Testament: Romans 2:16, 16:25, and 2 Timothy 2:8.

"The sufferings of the present season are not worthy to be compared with the glory to. be revealed unto us." This passage occurs in the Church History in connection with a tale of persecution under Verus. It is not quoted from Paul, nor alleged to be. But we find something very like it in our Romans 8:18.

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459907

But my present business is to impress upon the reader that this first Church historian most certainly knew nothing but a few lines of the Pauline Epistles, or of any of the "testamentary" books. He calls Paul to witness that, "after the resurrection, the Saviour was seen by Kephas first, then by the Twelve, and, after them, by more than five hundred brethren at the same time; of whom some had fallen asleep, but the greater part were still living at the time he composed these things. Then he was seen by James, who was one of those called brothers of the Savour." He adds that, besides these, Paul, as if in imitation of the Twelve Apostles, he being also an apostle, continues: "Afterwards he was seen by all the Apostles."

The ordinary reader, abetted in the delusion by clerical apologists, supposes that this must be quoted from 1 Corinthians xv. 5. It is absolutely not so! The Epistle is not named, and the comparison of the two passages again excludes any other opinion than that 1 Corinthians has been built up around this slight fabric of personal names, and primarily in order to imbed and preserve those names.

In the last book of the History we find the saying, "Eye hath not seen nor ear heard," and so on, referred to as a martyr hymn. It is not quoted from any source whatever. We find it inserted in 1 Corinthians 2:9. There is something like the expression, "coveting earnestly the best gifts," in a passage in the historian; but again no allusion to any Epistle.

Mai multe exemple despre faptul ca Eusebius nu citeaza din nici un fel de epistole atribuite lui Pavel, si ca folosea aceleasi cuvinte:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459908
http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459910

I come to the Epistle to the Philippians. The remarkable theological sentence occurs twice in tales of martyrs, "Christ, who, being in the form of God, did not think equality with God a thing of rapine (H. E. 5:2; 8:10) (again most crude Greek); but there is no allusion to Paul's authorship; on the contrary, it is assigned to other writers. We find it repeated under the name of Paul, Philippians 2:6. It is simply a blunder, due to ignorance of the facts, not to see that the passage is original in the Church History -- that is, in the mind of the monastic theologians. (H. E. 3:4 and 15)

Din nou E. Johnson:

There is no older Christian book that I can discover than the Church History. But the nature of the book has hitherto been misconceived, though it has been again and again in part discredited. It is the foundation-stone of the whole system. The New Testament has been written upon its lines. It is the proper introduction to the New Testament.

Structura oculta (portavoce pentru biserica catolica) a epistolelor lui Pavel (informatii senzationale):

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459924

But the Post-Apostolic Men Do Not Know Their Alleged Apostolic Masters, Which Is Absurd!

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459974

It is, however, part of the mistaken view of the subject, arising from the acceptance of the false chronology, to suppose that the alleged "Apostolic Fathers" quote from and build upon the Apostles. The discovery of this it was which led me first to see the enormous fictions that had been at work in the Christian literature, for it is absurd to suppose that Paul, after making a vast reputation as a literary man in the first century, was afterwards almost lost in oblivion in the second century. And the like applies to the deeds and sufferings of Christ himself, and to the whole fable of the origins. After all, these mythologists have made some great blunders in their system.

Take the richest theological Epistle ascribed to Paul: that to the Romans. Positively these so-called post-Apostolic men do not know it. They have merely some faint echoes of its contents; which is a very different thing. And it is the merest sophistry to confound them, or to talk of "Reminiscences," where there is no proof of anything of the kind. I must distinctly warn my readers against this fallacy of the handbooks and introductions to the New Testament, the only thorough cure for which is to read these "post-Apostolic" men for themselves. They will then discover that these writers, assumed to be following in the steps of their forerunners, and to be diligently perusing their writings as we have them, are doing nothing of the kind. They are dreaming, rambling, and raving; but they do not know that romantic figure of Paul that is known to us, nor yet his alleged writings as we have them. `

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459982

I might rest my case on Luther alone; but a mass of facts can be adduced in proof of the statement that the Pauline Epistles (in common with the whole of the Scriptures) are novel to the learned world in the early sixteenth century (1500-1550), and that opinion is forming about them during the whole of that age.

Demonstratia faptului ca TOATE manuscrisele atribuite sec. XV-XVI, traducerea in latina a Bibliei, APARTIN DE FAPT SFARSITULUI DE SECOL XVI (DUPA 1590):

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459986
http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459999

It seems, notwithstanding all the tales told us about the Revival Biblical scholars, Erasmus, or Luther, or Polydore, the Alcalŕ editors, the Fathers and Doctors of the Council of Trent (1546), there is nowhere to be found a Latin manuscript of the Bible of the complete Pauline Epistles that one can, with fair certainty, assume to have been in use before or during the Council of Trent.

I wish I could give the reader a precise account, or anything like it, of the number of copies of the Pauline Epistles in any crudest form during the reign of Henry the Eighth, for beyond that reign it is impossible to ascend. I would beg the reader to dismiss from his mind the tales about Wicliff and about Tyndal: there is absolutely no evidence from the writers of the time, Polydore and Leland, that any translation of the Bible had been put forth under the name of "Wicliff", "Tyndal", or any name.

Falsificarea marturiilor istorice din Anglia (de asemenea demonstratia faptului ca Povestile din Canterbury a fost scrisa cel putin dupa anul 1550 e.n.):

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54459991

Luther si Pavel (analiza senzationala):

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54460011

Vechiul Testament inventat dupa anul 1600 e.n.:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm#_Toc54460029

Frescele care infatiseaza pe apostolul Pavel de la Manastirea Voronet au fost pictate CEL PUTIN DUPA ANUL 1600; cronica lui I. Neculce este una COMPLET FALSA, nu au existat nici Stefan cel Mare si nici Petru Rares sub domnia carora sa fi fost cladita aceasta Manastire.

SI Manastirea de la Cozia a fost construita cel putin dupa anul 1600 (infatisarea "Viziunea Sf. Ierarh Petru"), si nicidecum sub domnia lui Mircea cel Batran...toate documentele atribuite secolului XVII au fost scrise/publicate cel putin dupa anul 1750 e.n.

Iata si demonstratia bazata pe cele mai clare dovezi din astronomie:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3323
https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3329
https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3354

Despre datarea cu radiocarbon:

http://www.creationism.info.ro/pagini/cs/cs9.html
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg967986#msg967986 (cea mai formidabila bibliografie despre falsitatea datarii cu izotopul C14 si multe alte forme de datare)

Isotopic dating: science or fiction?

http://www.atenizo.org/evolution-c14-kar.htm (must read)

Ice core dating: science or fiction?

http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html (must read)

EDIT Aisus (Iisus) in Troia (Constantinopole), Pilat Troianul (cu turban pe cap), citatul original (din limba greaca) din Epistola catre Galateni (eroarea facuta de catre cei care au inventat aceasta epistola, unde indica faptul ca ei, galatenii, au fost MARTORII CRUCIFICARII lui Iisus): http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45731.msg1131078#msg1131078

Scris de **sandokhan** Vin 18 Feb 2011, 10:49

Bolnita se afla pe partea cealalta a soselei, avand hramul ”Sfintii Apostoli” si a fost zidita intre anii 1542-1543 de Petre Voievod (Petru de la Arges – 1535-1545) numit si Radu Paisie.

Aceasta parte a Manastirii de la Cozia nu ar fi avut cum sa fie construita decat dupa anul 1600 e.n. (vezi mesajul precedent).

Sinoadele - ecumenice si locale sau particulare - constituie unul din capitolele cele mai interesante si mai bogate din viata spirituala a Bisericii. Intre acestea, Sinoadele ecumenice - sapte la numar - au jalonat si framantat o epoca de circa 460 de ani (325-787), promovand si reliefand istoria crestina ca putine alte evenimente.

Sinoadele ecumenice si-au exercitat si isi exercita, incepand cu primul dintre ele, autoritatea si influenta, neintrerupt, de mai bine de 16 veacuri, in Biserica si in cultura crestina. Scopul lor principal a fost pastrarea unitatii de credinta si a disciplinei sub aceeasi cupola a Ortodoxiei si mentinerea sau restaurarea climatului de intelegere si dragoste intre conducatorii diferitelor Biserici, pe de o parte, si intre crestinii in ansamblu, pe de alta.

Importanta hotararilor acestor sinoade, unanim apreciata si recunoscuta in istoria crestinismului ortodox, a facut ca Biserica sa imortalizeze, pentru totdeauna, atat in cultul, cat si in iconografia ei, amintirea lor, atat de binefacatoare pentru doctrina, morala si disciplina ei.

Sinoadele in iconografia Bisericii Ortodoxe

O alta forma de cinstire a sinoadelor este si zugravirea lor in iconografia bisericeasca. Arta crestina, in diferitele ei manifestari, printre care se numara si iconografia, a reprezentat inca de timpuriu, in biserici si palate episcopale ori domnesti, imagini ale sinoadelor ecumenice ori locale, ca o recunoastere, din partea Bisericii crestine, a importantei deosebite a acestora pentru viata si activitatea ei ulterioara.

Trecand acum la monumentele bisericesti din tara noastra, vom preciza ca la multe dintre acestea se gasesc pictate unul sau mai multe sinoade ecumenice.

a) Monumentele din Tara Romaneasca

1. La Manastirea Cozia in naos, sunt reprezentate toate cele sapte Sinoade Ecumenice, repartizate astfel: doua la est, doua la nord si trei la sud. Sunt picturi originale, datand din secolul al XIV-lea. Figurile sinodalilor sunt inalte, cu chipuri foarte diferentiate unul de celalalt si de un caracter particular, care nu se mai gaseste in nici o alta parte a Tarii Romanesti.

http://www.crestinortodox.ro/diverse/sinoadele-cultul-iconografia-bisericii-ortodoxe-69455.html

Deci O NOUA DOVADA ca ar fi fost imposibil, la sfarsit de secol XIV, ca Sinodul de la Niceea sa fi fost reprezentat in vreo fresca, dat fiind faptul ca a avut loc cel putin dupa anul 876-877 e.n.:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3323
https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3329
https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3354

http://www.google.com/base/a/1562225/D7146657310909970098 (Easter Issue de G. Nosovsky, cercetator principal la Laboratorul de Metode Numerice al Stiintelor Naturale si Umaniste al Universitatii din Moscova)

La doar cinci sute de ani de la Conciliul de la Niceea, crestinismul nu ar fi avut CUM sa fie cunoscut si sa se fi dezvoltat astfel incat sa fie reprezentat in diverse fresce bisericesti (vezi si mesajul precedent, epistolele lui Pavel NU ERAU cunoscute in Europa inainte de anul 1530 e.n.).

Scris de **sandokhan** Vin 25 Feb 2011, 13:09

Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime - Pagina 3 Immagine1

Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime - Pagina 3 Immagine3

The fragments above are from the map "Regnum Neapolitanum", which appeared in 1570, according to the official chronology, in the famous Ortelius atlas "Theatrum Orbis Terrarum". The map shows an existing, "alive" town with the name "Pompeia" near Vesuvius.

Aceste harti au fost alcatuite in perioada 1730 - 1750, INAINTE de marea eruptie a vulcanului Vezuviu care a distrus atat Pompeii cat si Herculane...

http://books.google.ro/books?id=E1iLqLmbHVwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Features+of+the+Domenico&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false (fotografia cu inscriptia care dovedeste ca, chiar si in contextul cronologiei oficiale, Pompeii si Herculane erau orase in plina activitate, pagina 2)

Alte detalii aici:

http://bloggingpompeii.blogspot.com/search/label/Domenico%20Fontana
http://www.archemail.it/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=456

Superarticolul lui Andreas Tschurilow (se pot traduce si celelalte pasaje din germana in engleza cu ajutorul google translate http://translate.google.com/# ):

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilya.it%2Fchrono%2Fpages%2Fpompejidt.htm&sl=de&tl=en

Translation from German to English:

In the window of the museum you can see many products made of glass, including bottles, bottles for perfumes, a lot of colored glass with different shades. Particularly noteworthy are absolutely transparent thin-walled glass vases. The same glass vases are also presented on Pompeian frescoes.

Therefore, it should be noted that the first transparent glass from the mid-15th Century in Venice and is produced on the island of glassblowers of Murano, Angelo Barovir. His secret has been kept strictly secret for a long time thereafter before the competitors.

In Herculaneum, the window glasses were allegedly even a standard size of 45x44 cm and found 80х80 сm (Fig. 15.16). About the way the production of flat glass is not known. In Europe, the first window glass of murky, were called "crown glass" for the stained glass windows around 1330 in the north-west of France, produced in the spinning process. Louis Lucas de Memorial Center, lodge manager at Saint-Gobain has developed from 1688 a new process for the manufacture of flat glass. In this so-called Tischwalzverfahren the molten glass is poured onto flat Gie?tischen, then smoothly rolled with heavy rollers, and finally polished with sand. Previously, flat glass has been obtained mostly by heating, cutting and flat rolling of cylindrical glass.

The window glass from Herculaneum fact is cloudy. The turbidity is probably caused by the effect of the high temperature of the pyroclastic tower. The thickness of the window glass is absolutely evenly! As if it had come from the table, rolls of Saint-Gobain.

At Pompeii, we know now, there existed a large Colosseum; since the destruction of Pompeii must have taken place well after 1688 (official chronology), or after 1780 (radical revised new chronology), the technology for building the Rome Colosseum does belong to the same interval of time. Then, the official chronology which tells of Vespasian, Titus, the siege of Jerusalem, never took place, as the Colosseum was built in the 17th century (official chronology), and as we see here, actually in the end of the 18th century.

HERCULANEUM WINDOW GLASS:

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejigallerydt.htm&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhiTvOymZiRyKVsDGRQBrehOYDKiyQ#15

google translate http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejigallerydt.htm#15

CELE DOUA FOTOGRAFII CU GEAMURILE DESCOPERITE LA POMPEII/HERCULANE:

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom15.jpg
http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom16.jpg

TEHNOLOGIA PENTRU GEAMURI PERFECT NETEDE A FOST INVENTATA DOAR IN ANUL 1688 E.N., dupa cronologia oficiala:

http://www.vetrotech.com/us/eng/SAINT__1580.asp

The first historical records of the glass rolling process in Saint Gobain date back to 1688.

This process involves pouring molten glass onto the rolling table, spreading it out and rolling it. It produces flat glass of an even thickness. Another advantage is that this process enables the production of glass sheets with the dimensions of 40 x 60 inches, which is ideal for mirror making.

Deci cronologia lui Martin Luther, datata 1541, Supputatio Annorum Mundi, precum si lucrarile lui Scaliger (1583-1606), D. Petavius (inceput de secol XVII) au fost falsificate/inventate CEL PUTIN DUPA ANUL 1700 E.N. In toate aceste lucrari Pompeii si Herculane au fost distruse de eruptia vulcanului Vezuviu in anul 79 e.n.

Din cronologia/istoria COMPLET FALSA bizantina:

Prima reprezentare a sinoadelor ecumenice, cunoscuta in istoria crestinismului este semnalata la Constantinopol, in anul 711, chiar de la venirea pe tronul imperial a armeanului Vartan, devenit imparat sub sumele de Philippikos Bardanes-Monotelitut. (711-713), urmasul imparatului Justinian al II-lea. Noul suveran n-a vrut sa paseasca pragul palatului imperial inainte de a fi inlaturat din el tabloul lui Augusteon, reprezentand Sinodul al saselea Ecumenic, care condamnase erezia monotelita. Dimpotriva, sub arcada lui Million din palatul imparatesc, el a incuviintat sa fie pictat in picioare, cu patriarhul Serghie, in centrul celorlalte cinci sinoade ecumenice.

Diaconul Agathon, un contemporan, de la care detinem aceste amanunte, precizeaza ca acest tablou al Sinodului al VI-lea ecumenic se gasea "de multi ani, fixat acolo, in vestibulul palatului imperial".

Frescele celor sase sinoade ecumenice au ramas la Million pana in anul 764, pentru ca Viata Sfantului Stefan cel Tanar ( 28 noiembrie 764) semnaleaza ca atunci - la 766 sau 767 - Constantin Copronimul (740-775) le-a acoperit cu var si le-a sters. Acest text este interesant deoarece el prezinta aceste picturi ca pe o expunere-populara a doctrinei ortodoxe, pusa la indemana tuturor in acest loc public. Tiranul iconoclast le-a inlocuit cu un tablou de circ. Se pare ca tabloul de care s-a amintit, reprezentand Sinodul al VI-lea Ecumenic, a fost asezat, in locul respectiv, putin dupa; anul 681 - anul tinerii Sinodului al VI-lea Ecumenic de la Constantinopol.

La 3 iunie 713, Philippikos Bardanes a fost detronat. I-a urmat la tron Atanasie II Artemios (713-715) si cu el Ortodoxia s-a intarit. Una dintre primele sale actiuni a fost restabilirea tabloului Sinodului al VI-lea Ecumenic. Diaconul. Agathon vorbeste clar despre acest lucru, pentru ca, imediat dupa mentionarea suirii pe tron a lui Anastasie, el semnaleaza faptul restabilirii tabloului Sinodului al VI-lea Ecumenic, ca un simbol al pacii Bisericii.

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3323
https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3329
https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t124p60-istoria-lumii-500-de-ani-vechime#3354

http://www.google.com/base/a/1562225/D7146657310909970098 (Easter Issue de G. Nosovsky, cercetator principal la Laboratorul de Metode Numerice al Stiintelor Naturale si Umaniste al Universitatii din Moscova)

Scris de **sandokhan** Lun 28 Feb 2011, 12:51

Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte de R. Whately

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Historic_Doubts_Relative_to_Napoleon_Buonaparte (despre tesatura de contradictii/absurditati din legenda lui N. Bonaparte, o analiza de exceptie)

C. Pfister despre asemanarile surprinzatoare (chiar uimitoare) dintre datele biografice ale lui Napoleon si Napoleon III:

http://www.dillum.ch/html/napoleon_maystre_uebersetzung_09.htm (traducere germana - engleza pe http://translate.google.com/# )

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillum.ch%2Fhtml%2Fnapoleon_maystre_uebersetzung_09.htm

Printre cei mai vehementi critici ai lui J. Scaliger (1583 De Emendatione Temporum/1606 Thesaurus Temporum) si D. Petavius (1627 De Doctrina Temporum) s-au numarat, ni se spune, nimeni altii decat J. Kepler si I. Newton, insa asa cum am vazut, aceste lucrari semnate Scaliger si Petavius nu ar fi avut cum sa fie alcatuite decat DUPA anul 1700 e.n. (chiar 1720 e.n.), ceea ce inseamna ca si operele semnate Kepler/Newton (si "contemporanii" Brahe/Fludd/Boyle/Leibniz/fratii Bernoulli si nu numai) au fost inventate/falsificate in secolul XVIII.

Falsificarea biografiei/operei lui Albrecht Haller (contemporan cu L. Euler si cu lucrari la fel de voluminoase):

http://www.dillum.ch/html/albrecht_von-haller_universalgenie_kritik.htm

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillum.ch%2Fhtml%2Falbrecht_von-haller_universalgenie_kritik.htm

Scris de **sandokhan** Sam 05 Mar 2011, 18:59

Chiar si evenimente istorice mult mai recente (explozia "nucleara" de la Hiroshima) au fost falsificate:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t59p30-here-comes-the-sun#2726

American Civil War hidden history:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_rulebysecrecy3.htm

Incursiunea mea in domeniul cronologiei istorice a inceput in 2009, cand am citit prima data History: Fiction or Science? de A. Fomenko; insa mi-am dat seama repede ca Fomenko nu a studiat intervalul 1500 - 1700 e.n. cu aceeasi rigurozitate. Ceea ce matematicianul rus demonstreaza, fara nici un fel de dubii, in cartile sale, este faptul ca istoria adevarata nu are mai mult de 1000 de ani vechime, insa s-a oprit mult prea devreme din cercetarile sale. C. Pfister este istoricul care si-a dat seama ca inainte de anul 1700 e.n. NU EXISTA prezenta umana pe teritoriul actual al Elvetiei (cel mai fascinant site, in opinia mea, de pe intreg internet-ul: http://www.dillum.ch/ , vezi si C. Pfister archive postata mai devreme), dar nu a putut sa explice ce s-a intamplat inainte de acest an, 1700 e.n., sau cum au fost construite monumentele megalitice (Baalbek, Sacsahuaman, Podul Uriasilor de la Mehedinti, sau chiar Podul de la Drobeta).

Ceea ce noi am facut aici, este sa reconstruim pentru prima data cu exactitate tocmai perioada 1550 - 1720 e.n., in contextul noii cronologii radicale, si de a imbina aceste rezultate cu istoria tarii noastre, care lamureste golul inexplicabil din perioada 300 - 1200 e.n.

Pentru a construi catedralele de la St. Reims, Chartres, Notre Dame, templele de la Karnac si Luxor, Hagia Sophia din Troia/Constantinopole, monumentul megalitic de la Baalbek, precum si podul de la Drobeta, descendentii lui Khem (Kush - Hermes si fiul sau Nimrod, pe de o parte, si Misraim - Osiris / Horus pe de alta) au folosit tehnica fulgerului globular; un simplu toiag echipat cu diapazon, inele de cupru, si un ankh putea genera cel putin 1 Megawatt de energie, aducand inelul de cupru care constituie ankh-ul propriu zis in starea prakriti. Doar recent, Kiril Chukanov ( http://www.rexresearch.com/chukanov/chukanov.htm ) a reusit sa produca fulgere globulare artificiale cu un output de aproximativ 500 de kilowatti (input de 100 de kilowatti, aparatul costand peste 100000 de dolari), insa toiagul lui Ptah (Noah, si liniile descendente Nimrod, Osiris) producea 1 megawatt doar aducand atomii de cupru in starea prakriti prin sunet (pentru explicatiile detaliate despre starea prakriti a atomului vezi sirul Here Comes the Sun).

Avem cele trei stari obisnuite ale materiei: solida, gazoasa si lichida; un atom de hidrogen este alcatuit din 18 tahioni: http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter.htm

Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime - Pagina 3 Image003

Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime - Pagina 3 Image003

E5 = materia obisnuita, cel mai mic atom avand 18 tahioni in componenta
E4 = protonii separati, starea prakriti, cu 9 tahioni, atunci apare fenomenul de antigravitatie
E3 = apas, sau mezonii, cu 6 tahioni
E2 = tejas, quarks, compusi din 3 tahioni
E1 = vayu, tahionii propriu zisi, sau anu/subquarks/omegani
Akasha = intermediul prin care sunt transmise toate combinatiile de tahioni; spatiul latent care poate fi activat ca in cymatics, shakti/shekinah cu cele patru vortex-uri (ida, pingala, sarasvati, lakshmi); un UFO german devine de fapt un tahion gigantic activand akasha prin intermediul vortex-urile din atomii de mercur care sunt adusi in starea tejas/vayu, astfel va putea levita in orice directie dorita fara a fi influentat de vreo alta forta fizica din exterior.

Un bloc de piatra care intra in starea prakriti (prin sunet sau prin aplicarea fulgerului globular) va levita imediat, nemafiind constrans de gravitatie; gravitatia este un fenomen de PRESIUNE al curentilor telurici, cel mai elocvent exemplu fiind domeniile izomeriei optice si a chiralitatii:

The best place to start in explaining what gravity actually is, and how this is related to the vorticular physics approach which describes the atom, is one of the greatest mysteries of modern science.

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms:

It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature. For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids. Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.

Living tissue (with the exception of some bacteria) contains only L-amino acids (laevorotatory-left handed); dead tissue only D-amino acids (dextrorotatory-right handed).

Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms, bacteria, molds, even viruses are found to have been made of L-amino acids.

http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c03.htm

Aceste afirmaţii nu sunt doar simple deducţii şi speculaţii, ele reprezintă observaţiile unor interesante studii ştiinţifice şi experimente, prezentate în mod închegat, pentru prima dată, de prof. LINUS PAULING (care a luat, de altfel, premiul Nobel în 1954, pentru teoria legăturii chimice şi a structurii moleculare).

Acestea au fost confirmate de diverşi cercetători ai lumii ştiinţifice, printre care trebuie amintiţi şi Prof. dr. doc. I. Baciu, dar şi Dr. D. Ionescu-Pantelimon, Dr. O. Costăchescu (fost director al „Institutului Oncologic Bucureşti”) etc.:

Un fapt cu totul extraordinar este că în proteinele plantelor şi animalelor apare numai un singur tip de enantiomeri ai fiecărui aminoacid şi că acest enantiomer are aceeaşi configuraţie pentru toţi aminoacizii.

Această configuraţie este denumită configuraţie L (levogiră) .

Aceasta este o mare enigmă. Nimeni nu ştie de ce suntem alcătuiţi numai din molecule de L-aminoacizi şi nu din molecule de dextroaminoacizi.

Absorbţia aminoacizilor se face prin mecanismul de transport activ. Viteza de absorbţie a izomerilor L este mult mai mare decât a izomerilor D.

Kogl şi Erxleben (1939) au constatat că toţi aminoacizii din proteinele normale sunt levoaminoacizi.

A.N. Kozyrev's celebrated gyroscope experiments also show that there are two vorticular forces at work in the universe:

http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36 (also contains an account of Bruce DePalma's spinning ball experiment)

More facts which do show the real nature of gravity...

http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal%20lanterns.htm

ELECTRIC ROCK, GROUND ENERGY, SPACE RAYS, PHOTONUCLEAR REACTORS, SEA OF ENERGY, RADIOACTIVE IMPULSES SECTIONS

Cosmic rays are nothing but telluric currents; these telluric currents are torsion waves, consisting of dextrorotatory strings (gravity), and laevorotatory strings (electricity)...

PSEUDOSTIINTA = ipotezele subiective lansate de A. Michelson, E. Rutherford, N. Bohr, A. Einstein, H. Minkowsky fara nici un fel de dovezi stiintifice, care ne sunt prezentate in manualele de fizica.

Scris de **cris** Dum 06 Mar 2011, 07:43

Daca pseudostiinta sta la baza echipamentelor pe care le folosim zi de zi pe cand stiinta ta nu produce nimic,atunci prefer pseudostiinta.

Scris de **sandokhan** Lun 07 Mar 2011, 12:48

cris, nu ti-ai facut temele...si trebuie sa o faci daca doresti sa descifrezi misterele universului...asa cum ai vazut conceptul de spatiu-timp este doar o fictiune, modelul atomic orbital nu exista nicidecum...stiinta adevarata, bazata pe teoria eterului, produce totul si explica totul, vezi biografia lui N. Tesla, de exemplu.

Ai aici suficiente dovezi, vezi sirurile Eterul si Maxwell, Here Comes the Sun, ca sa intelegi ca, ceea ce intelegi tu prin stiinta, este egal cu zero barat. Echipamentele la care te referi functioneaza TOCMAI pe baza teoriei eterului...te asteapta mult studiu, zeci de carti, linkuri, pe care le ai aici deja la dispozitie, ca sa vezi ca am dreptate...

Eruptia vulcanului Vezuvius care a distrus Pompei si Herculane a avut loc cel putin dupa anul 1700 e.n., dovezi clare; Sinodul de la Niceea nu putea avea loc decat dupa anul 876-877 e.n., vezi calculele extrem de precise ale lui G. Nosovsky.

Lasa frustrarea si supararea, si pune mana si studiaza cris...in momentul de fata poate ca tu cunosti cam vreo 5% din ce ar trebui sa stii si sa cunosti...ai marele noroc insa sa citesti mesajele mele, cele mai bine documentate in acest moment...studiaza teoria eterului, de la experimentul lui Airy la rezultatele obtinute de Tesla, si ai sa descoperi o lume noua, fascinanta...

PS Daca iti doresti un dialog doar pe baza dovezilor stiintifice, daca ai nelamuriri, te astept, cris, la sirul de discutii Teoria Eterului...aici discutam doar despre noua cronologie...

EDIT

cris, pentru tine, sper sa citesti cu placere si sa descoperi stiinta adevarata, cea obiectiva, bazata pe dovezi clare:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t47-experiments-of-f-nipher-c-brush-biefeld-brown-effect#386 (cele mai exceptionale experimente facute vreodata, modificarea greutatii unui obiect prin aplicarea tensiunii electrice, profesorul F. Nipher)

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t47-experiments-of-f-nipher-c-brush-biefeld-brown-effect#406 (experimentele lui Dr. T. Sandulescu, prezentate si la Congresul de Medicina de la Viena)

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t40-minkowsky-space-time-concept-hoax#428 (greselile catastrofale, pseudostiinta lui Minkowsky si a lui Einstein)

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t59p30-here-comes-the-sun#2897 (lucrarea originala al lui J.C. Maxwell, teoria eterului, cea adevarata, greselile lui H. Lorentz, A. Michelson)

DEMOLAREA COMPLETA A FICTIUNII NUMITA TEORIA RELATIVITATII:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/eterul-i-maxwell-t113.htm#1287

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/eterul-i-maxwell-t113.htm#1310

Despre experimentul Pound-Rebka:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1020&p=34129&hilit=pound+rebka#p34120

Vezi si discutia de pe:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html

Scris de **CAdi** Sam 19 Mar 2011, 11:39

500 de ani sau 5000 de ani?

Scris de **CAdi** Mar 22 Mar 2011, 09:36

.....Sau 50.000 de ani daca tinem cont de Potop sau de Civilizatia Atlantica bazata pe tehnologia cristalului.
.....S-au mai descoperit si niste Mamuti, in gheata, avand o gaura perfect rotunda in mijlocul craniului....si multe,multe altele pe care nu le mai descriu ,deoarece nu vreau sa fac o polemica aici.
P.S.
Istoria Antica este falsa? S-a descoperit chiar si Troia acolo unde a localizat-o Homer!
Pana si Biblia mentioneaza ceva.... daca citesti relatarea lui Enoh.
Mai este vorba si de aşa numitele Vimana, menţionate şi in scrierile indiene, precum Mahabharata şi Ramayana.
Acolo se spune ca foloseau proprietatile ,,eterului'' ...
La mijlocul anilor '50 Charles Hapgood susţine pentru prima oară "teoria deplasamentului scoarţei terestre", prefaţată şi sprijinită teoretic de însăşi Albert Einstein la acea vreme, care demonstrează că la fiecare cca 47000 de ani greutatea calotelor polare distribuite neuniform faţa de axa de rotaţie a Pământului face ca întreaga litosferă (asezată pe miezul lichid) să se repoziţioneze în funcţie de noul centru de greutate ....Cred ca istoria lumii este cu mult ,mult ...mai veche!

Scris de **sandokhan** Mar 22 Mar 2011, 11:21

Atlantis = Thule = Antarctica

Iata demonstratia:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33509#p33520

(stim de muntele lui Atlas, Hiperboreea, si Portile de Fier, dar totul se bazeaza pe informatiile unui personaj care nu a existat niciodata, Plato)

Mamutii traiau si inainte de marele potop si dupa...iar tehnologia avansata (fulger globular, levitatie, transmutarea metalelor (piatra filosofala fiind starea prakriti/apas a etherului)) exista inainte de acel potop...

Nu, cadi, Troia nu a fost descoperita acolo unde zici tu...te rog sa citesti capitolul despre Troia/Constantinopole din cartea lui Fomenko, volumul 1 (History: Fiction or Science? volume 1, si pe books.google.com).

Vimana erau UFO-urile utilizate inainte de marele potop, si acum 60 de ani de germani (si pe care le vor folosi din nou curand).

Despre teoria lui Hapgood, complet falsa:

http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Bible-anomaliesparst-1-2

Un mare mister este reprezentat de calendarul maya...cand a inceput de fapt? Si de ce acea legatura permanenta cu Venus, si cei 52 de ani dintre cele doua mari catastrofe cauzate dupa marele potop (exodul lui Kush/Seth in Canaan, copiat in Exodul din Biblie, si apoi cel al lui Akhenaton)? Ce asteapta de fapt germanii in Antarctica de mai bine de 65 de ani?

WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45731.msg1130692#msg1130692 (cea mai buna cercetare facuta vreodata)

Scris de **CAdi** Mar 22 Mar 2011, 17:43

Sandokhan tu chiar crezi in ceea ce scrii si afirmi?
Pentru ca ....daca continui asa ai sa-i depasesti pe Isaac Asimov si Frank Herbert !
Deci hotarastete:
500, 5000 sau 50.000 de ani ?

Scris de **sandokhan** Mier 23 Mar 2011, 10:45

Eu nu cred in ceva, sunt absolut sigur de ceea ce scriu; si am pe ce sa ma bazez, de la calculele lui G. Nosovsky, la descoperirile arheologice de la Pompei/Herculane, precum si multe alte dovezi clare.

Tu, [...], nu ai de ce sa-ti faci griji in privinta cifrelor de 500, 5000 sau chiar 50000 de ani; daca ai avea in fata un manual cu foi complet albe, dar cu o stampila pe care sa scrie "oficial" pe coperta, ai crede si in asa ceva...

PS La mesajul precedent veti avea nevoie de: http://www.flem-ath.com/favourites/atlantis-in-antarctica/ (linkul original de pe flatearth.net nu se mai poate accesa)

Scris de **CAdi** Mier 23 Mar 2011, 11:14

Nu mai am nimic de zis!
Totusi (avand in vedere denumirea topicului pe care ai postat) iti dau un sfat (pentru tine... te rog sa nu mi-o iei in nume de rau ...nu cred ca faci parte dintre ,,nihilisti'')
Nu ti-ai ales bine lectura.....

Scris de **sandokhan** Vin 25 Mar 2011, 10:35

Distinsul nostru administrator de site nu cunoaste limba engleza: Caddyshack este numele unui film celebru din 1982...daca vroiam sa jignesc foloseam alta apelare.

S-a descoperit chiar si Troia acolo unde a localizat-o Homer!

Ruinele de la Hissarlic si dispunerea straturilor arheologice nu indica vreo corespondenta semnificativa cu istoria legendara a Troiei antice. S-ar putea spune chiar ca razboiul cu Troia nu a avut niciodata loc.

Poti citi despre Troia = Constantinopole aici:

History: Science or Fiction? table of contents, chapters 1 and 2, volume I

Chapter 1
The problems of historical chronology
1. Roman chronology as the foundation of European chronology
2. Scaliger, Petavius, and other clerical chronologers. The creation of contemporary
chronology of the ancient times in the XVI-XVII century a.d.
3. The veracity of the Scaliger-Petavius chronology was questioned as early as the XVI century
3.1. Who criticized Scaliger's chronology and where.
3.1.1. De Arcilla, Robert Baldauf, Jean Hardouin, Edwin Johnson, Wilhelm Kammeyer
3.1.2. Sir Isaac Newton
3.1.3. Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov
3.1.4. Recent publications of German scientists containing criticisms of Scaliger's chronology.
3.2. The questionable veracity of the Roman chronology and history. The hypercritical school of the XIX century
4. The problems in establishing a correct chronology of "ancient" Egypt
5. The problem in dating the "ancient" sources. Tacitus and Poggio. Cicero and Barzizza. Vitruvius and Alberti
6. Timekeeping in the Middle Ages. Historians discuss the "chaos reigning in the mediaeval datings." Peculiar mediaeval anachronisms
7. The chronology and the dating of Biblical texts
8. Difficulties and contradictions arising from the reading of old texts
8.1. How does one read a text written in consonants exclusively? The vocalization problem
9. Problems in the Scaligerian geography of Biblical events
9.1. Archaeology and the Old Testament
9.2. Archaeology and the New Testament
10. Ancient historical events: geographic localization issues
10.1. The locations of Troy and Babylon. 10.2. The geography of Herodotus is at odds with the Scaligerian version
10.3. The inverted maps of the Middle Ages
11. A modern analysis of Biblical geography
12. The mysterious Renaissance epoch as a product of the Scaligerian chronology
13. The foundations of archaeological methods have been based on the Scaligerian
chronology from the very beginning
13.3. The alleged acceleration of the destruction of the "ancient" monuments
13.4. When did the construction of the Cologne Cathedral really begin?
13.5. Archaeological methods are most often based on Scaliger's datings
13.6. One of the numerous problems of the Scaligerian history - the problem of bronze manufacture before the discovery of tin.
14. The problems and deficiencies of dendrochronology and several other dating methods
14.1. The consequent scale of dendrochronological datings does not extend further back in time than the X century a.d.
14.2. Sedimentary layer datings. The methods of radium-uranium and radium-actinium analysis
15. Are radiocarbon datings to be trusted?
15.1. The radiocarbon datings of ancient, mediaeval, and modern specimens are scattered chaotically
15.1.1. Libby's initial idea. The first failures
15.1.2. A criticism of the application of the radiocarbon method to historical specimens
15.2. The dating of the Shroud of Turin
15.3 Modern radiocarbon analysis of Egyptian artifacts demonstrates serious contradictions
16. Critical analysis of the hypotheses on which the radiocarbon method is based. By A. S. Mishchenko
16.1. W. F. Libby's initial idea
16.2. Physical basics of the radiocarbon method
16.3. The hypotheses that the radiocarbon method is based upon
16.4. The moment of the object's departure from the exchange reservoir
16.5. Radiocarbon content variations in the exchange reservoir
16.6. Variations in radiocarbon content of living bodies
18. Numismatic datings

Chapter 2
Astronomical datings
1. The strange leap of parameter D" in the Theory of Lunar Motion
2. Are the "ancient" and mediaeval eclipses dated correctly?
2.1. Some astronomical data
2.2. The discovery of an interesting effect: an unprejudiced astronomical dating
shifts the dates of the "ancient" eclipses to the Middle Ages
2.3. Three eclipses described by the "ancient" Thucydides
2.4. The eclipses described by the "ancient" Titus Livy
3. Transferring the dates of the "ancient" eclipses forward in time into the Middle Ages eliminates the enigmatic behavior of the parameter D".
4. Astronomy moves the "ancient" horoscopes into the Middle Ages
4.1. The mediaeval astronomy
4.2. The method of unprejudiced astronomical dating
4.3. Many "ancient astronomical observations" may have been theoretically calculated by late mediaeval astronomers and then included into the "ancient" chronicles as "real observations"
4.4. Which astronomical "observations of the ancients" could have been a result of late mediaeval theoretic calculations?
5. A brief account of several examples of Egyptian Zodiacs
5.1. Some general observations
5.2. The Dendera Zodiacs
5.3. The horoscopes of Brugsch and Flinders Petrie
5.4. Finite datings of the Egyptian Zodiacs based on their complete deciphering, as obtained by A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskiy in 2001
5.5. On the errors of E. S. Goloubtsova and Y. A. Zavenyagin
6. Astronomy in the New Testament

http://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+fiction+or+science&hl=ro&ei=hU-MTYGtFsrpOfOvjKEC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=fSvlaZYbcwUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+fiction+or+science&hl=ro&ei=0lGMTf6IGMrpOfWvjKEC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Iar titlul acestui sir de discutii ar trebui sa fie Istoria Lumii: 468 de ani vechime.

468 = 9 x 52 cicluri venusiene

1544 data nasterii lui Enoh (adevaratul fiu al lui Adam si Eva)
1564 se naste Noe
1584 se naste Pelasg primul fiu al lui Noe
1596 are loc Marele Potop

1648 incepe calendarul Maya, 7 x 52 cicluri venusiene (pana la 2012)
1700 exodul lui Akhenaton din Egipt catre Canaan

Nibiru/Soarele Negru (vezi fotografiile din Antarctica postate la Here Comes the Sun) este corpul ceresc care va cauza eclipsa solara care va dura cam vreo 3 zile, un cataclism cosmic global care va arata tuturor ca pamantul nu se roteste in jurul vreunui soare; asta asteapta germanii din Thule de peste 65 de ani, pentru a reveni.

50000 sau 5000 de ani vechime? IN NICI UN CAZ...

Despre datarea cu radiocarbon:

http://www.creationism.info.ro/pagini/cs/cs9.html
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg967986#msg967986 (cea mai formidabila bibliografie despre falsitatea datarii cu izotopul C14 si multe alte forme de datare)

Isotopic dating: science or fiction?

http://www.atenizo.org/evolution-c14-kar.htm (must read)

Ice core dating: science or fiction?

http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html (must read)

Scris de Continut sponsorizat

Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime

Re: Istoria lumii - 364 de ani vechime