Ashtar Command Crew - The Awakening Movement

Comments

• 

  Drekx Omega March 15, 2023 at 3:42pm

  Blatant buffoonery of bogus banking, baloney......🤣
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdB-cjcabvs
• 

  AlternateEarth March 15, 2023 at 1:49pm

  

  Light Workers-Hold the Line while arrests begin! Next possible nonsense from the cabal-fake mother ship releasing smaller light ships-holograms from Project Bluebeam;
  https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2023/03/09/...

  

  Pentagon UFO chief says alien mothership in our solar system possible

  The yet-published research paper discusses the possibility that visitors from other galaxies may already be trekking across our solar system.
• 

  Drekx Omega March 15, 2023 at 10:23am

  

  LET'S OBLITERATE THE DEEP STATE.......!! ✍️The biggest sting operation the world has ever seen, in modern times...It is happening....🛸👏🏻👏🏿👏👏🏽WWG1WGA
  
  https://rumble.com/v2d5i3q-ep.-3020b-trump-promises-to-totally-obli...

  

  Ep. 3020b-Trump Promises To “Totally Obliterate The [DS]”,We Are In The Final Battle, Stage Is Set
• 

  Roaring Lovely March 14, 2023 at 4:44pm

  

  just to elucidate a bit on 'relating effect to its alleged cause', Consider Newt's law of gravity. We can write is as F=GmM/r^2. In other words it relates a force, F on a matter of mass m, to its alleged cause, which is a matter of mass M, at distance r away. A very good work! Newts verbal claim that the earth exerts a force on moon tallies with what the equation he spat out says!
  
  Not so with Einstein's GR!! In GR the claim that 'the earth curves the space where the moon is' has no corresponding statement in Einstein's Field Equations (EFE)! The 'curved space' mathematics donnot even allow us to relate a vector on earth to a vector in moon! Instead, EFE only tells us how matter curves space in situ!! To allegedly describe 'curvature at a distance', we use the equation describing curvature in situ albeit with mass=0!! Its nonsense!!
  
  Note that to relate the curvature at a region r away, the GR equations should have contained both M and r, just like in Newt's law. It should say 'at distance r from a matter of mass M, the spacetime should be curved by such and such amount'. Such a statement raises the question as to how we can determine a distance r within a curved space! We must know how the space is curving in order to know how the space curves!! Its an impossibility!
• 

  Roaring Lovely March 14, 2023 at 4:11pm

  

  The 'curved space' nonsense is a red herring. The 'empty space' cannot contain gravitational energy and yet it is such energy that must be quantized as E=hf in 'quantization of gravity'. In Quantum Field Theory, the forces are due to 'exchange of momentum' between bosons and fermions. As we quantize a classic theory then, we take into consideration the classic momentum and then we quantize it. But in GR, gravity is not a force, and so is not a momentum. The whatever they are trying to quantize then is not GR. It is their own concoction!
  
  GR does not even relate effect to its alleged cause! This is to say it doesn't relate 'curvature in moon' to the earth, let alone explain how the earth can perform such a magic of 'bending the spoon'! In the so called Schwarzchild solution, they just say 'the matter is
  zero', and then goes on to merely calculate a type of 'curvature' in Riemannian geometry without telling us what it is that is causing such a 'curvature'. The space is merely ALLOWED to curve that way in the vicinity of a massive object, or even a completely empty universe for that matter! It isn't specifically bent so by the matter!
• 

  AlternateEarth March 14, 2023 at 12:45pm

  still don't know what gravity is except when an apple falls from a tree it can hit your head
• 

  Roaring Lovely March 14, 2023 at 9:19am

  Remember that the whole idea of fusion energy began with Eddington fantasizing about the source of the sun's energy! Somewhere, he convinced his peers than a nuclear fusion is 'the only possible source' of such a huge energy output. So he didn't 'prove' in the usual scientific manner. Everyone just jumped into the bandwagon of 'the only possible' theory. This is dangerous way of 'discovering'. What if it is simply our imagination that is not up to the task of figuring out how the nature might actually be working?
  
  Nevertheless, they, somewhere attribute to gravity some source of energy that is so huge that it is greater than the sum of all energies from all the stars in a galaxy!! This is the cosmic jets! So if gravitational energy can release all that energy, why can't it power the sun?
  
  It can!!
  https://scitechdaily.com/images/Spiral-Galaxy-Spin.gif

  
• 

  Roaring Lovely March 14, 2023 at 8:57am

  

  As for what hypotheticaly goes on in the sun, take note of their sloppiness and/or oversimplifications. They say that the sun exerts enough pressure on the plasma. Thus they think only obout pressure. But this cannot be the only thing going on in the sun. The sun's gravity does not only 'put pressure' on the gas. It keeps shrinking it. This shrinking adds in a tremendous gravitational energy to the soup, the likes of which, cannot be attained on earth. So if there is fusion in the sun, it is only because the sun converts gravitational energy to nuclear energy!
  
  If you calculate the gravitational energy due to the sun shrinking a tad, you find that it is enough to give out the sunlight we see! Thanks to the sun's immense gravity!
• 

  Roaring Lovely March 14, 2023 at 8:50am

  

  So I might say that they are downplaying the fact that they always use more energy than they get from the fusion. Remember that they actually offer two explanations for their failures, one of them hiding under the sleeve. They tell you that plasma is unstable, and then reluctantly say that 'so far we use more energy to ignite fusion'. So you might think that it is plasma's instability that contributes to a too high input of the energy for ignition. From there, you probably don't think much more, and this is the problem!
  
  If the problem of unleashing the fusion energy was only due to instability of plasma, then you expect the fusion to keep outputting a significant energy, albeit briefly. The problem will not necessarily be 'inputting more energy than the output'.The problem will solely be 'getting steady energy output'. It will be like trying to light fire outside in a windy day. Though the flame keeps burning out, it is clear that there is some energy coming out of the fuel.
  
  So the only way to link their 'instability' explanation to the 'more ignition energy' explanation is to say that some of the energy that they input is used to 'stabilize' the plasma. This makes some sense became they are trying to 'hold plasma in the mid air'. Since it is gaseous, they are trying to exert some pressure on it to prevent the gas from expanding away. Then 'instability' will be what causes the plasma to expand out requiring more energy to hold it together within a given volume.
  
  From this, you can now note that saying that 'the plasma is more unstable than we thought' is an indirect way of saying 'it requires more energy to hold the plasma than we thought'. This in the end means they downplay the energy needed to 'press' the plasma together for them to fuse. The 'instability' is just due to expansion of the hot plasm. Expansion, in turn, is due to coulumbic repulsion. So it is true that more energy is needed to overcome the coulumb forces, hence to 'stabilize' the plasma.
• 

  Roaring Lovely March 14, 2023 at 5:55am

  Quote:
  "Again RL-they have results claiming fusion energy-what else could it have been?"
  
  It could have been the likes of what they say Fleishmann and Pons 'discovered', or the 'E-cat' or whatever. They like dismissing non-mainstream researchers on an arm chair. But why should we think they are different? It is themselves who gauge themselves, anyway. They are both players and referees all at once!
  
  But let me explain what I really think it could have been. If you force two magnets together, they will bounce off, re delivering the energy you fed in. Likewise when the scientists measure the energy from fusion, they don't subtract the energy they usef to force the particles against their earlier, electrostatic repulsion. They assume that this energy they feed it does not go into performing the work against the electrostatic force!
  
  the thing is that there is definitely a fusion energy. Every force, including gravity, has s corresponding energy, eg hydroelectricity in the case of gravity. But like in hydroelectricity, we need to 'lift up' the water in order to unleash the energy. If we ignore the sun's task in heating the water upwards, dubing it 'ignition', we can amuse ourselves that hydroelectricity is a 'free energy'.Likewise these scientists can be erroneously doing work in the particles, which is released as fusion energy once the particles reaches the critical point where nuclear force is stronger.