You have cited the single most misquoted passage on all of Scored. It actually only says, in a nonbinding joke format similar to a political cartoon of Muhammad, that an anonymous stock character Yeshu speaks of a punishment of boiling excrement; people add their own ideas to the picture (namely that it was Jesus of Nazareth, that there is a vat, that he is in the vat, and that it's eternal). Please do not take echoes of echoes of Talmudic passages when the real Talmud is easy to find on Sefaria.

TOI graphic was a Purim satire as its date shows:

Editor’s Note: This blog post is a work of satire. It was published in 2014 on the eve of Purim, a Jewish holiday that is celebrated with wild merrimaking and raucous comedy – with a particular emphasis on poking fun at antisemitism and ignorance.

Second link is just an Albert Pike quote. Being a satanist himself (i.e. a Mason), he is not trustworthy for stating the desires of Jews. Two fails, sorry, not clicking the third.

It's not that I don't like the behaviors, it's that they reflect really horridly on you and you're self-unaware of that.

I appreciate you honestly explaining that you don't know how to ban prior to contribution. That's a feature that you can access in the older interface by going to communities.win and then your forum, and then clicking Ban Management and supplying the exact username desired. That explains one oddity in the behavior.

One oddity is that you banned me for proselytizing before making the "no proselytizing" rule. (I didn't knowingly break a rule at any time; I asked questions in two, posted positive links in two, and got one discretionary ban for doing nothing.)

One oddity is that you basically define asking sincere questions as proselytizing, suggesting that you don't want to answer sincere questions.

One oddity is that you state upfront that you will not necessarily answer every sincere question, but you also intend to expose extremism, when extremism includes failing to explain sincerely questioned aspects of your beliefs.

One oddity is that you permaban for contributions that I intend to further the goals of the forum as stated (i.e. my neutral comment linking FFRF and my neutral link to ABC's report on extremism).

One oddity is that you treat my desire to interact with you on the level that you permit as bad faith. (If I have true things to share, they should be permitted, and, if I have false things to share, they should be easy to debunk rather than to ignore.)

One oddity is your reference to "the past" that may indicate your overlap with one or more similarly situated accounts that you don't want to admit. (I respect that but if you and I have a "past" beyond this current account then it would probably heal damage to admit it.)

One oddity is that you treat a neutral statement about the transparency and unintended consequences of your behavior as a threat. The fact is that when you put something on the net, even thinking you can delete it later, you give license to everyone on earth to point out what you've put out and its inconsistency with itself. As a mod I know cold that, the instant I even use what another might regard as chilling speech, I am at risk of being defamed anywhere else on the forum, or in the same place by a different account, or anywhere else on the net. My calling your attention to these facts, as a service to you, is not a threat. I have a right and interest to report neutral facts about my interaction with another if that interaction might be misunderstood.

One oddity is that you invite interaction and then you treat interaction as "manipulation" when it can reasonably be regarded as responsive to your invitation.

One oddity is that you "hope" I would stay away but you continue to issue open public invitations and to interact with me. A person who hopes another will stay away takes a few steps: (1) politely requests the other not interact; (2) avoids general invitations that contravene one's request (e.g., modifies invitations with language like "Christians not welcome"); (3) avoids pinging or replying to the other, as those are taken as invitations to reply; (4) avoids speaking about the other directly or colorably, as that is taken as an opportunity to allow the other to have equal time. These are common sense and so I share them with you in case you're one of the many here who didn't major in common sense.

One oddity is that you use a "discretion" rule, ostensibly to prevent circumvention of other rules, but which has the logical effect of permitting any ("unchecked) mod behavior you can rationalize. I respect your desire to justify that your behavior toward me was entirely rule-based, even retroactively, but it may be useful to admit that the existence of a tyrannical discretion rule indicates that you do make mistakes and that you are tempted to the same extremism you hope to expose.

This is you. If you want to continue to harbor such oddities it hurts your aura. That's not a threat, it's a law. Out of charity, I make some recommendations.

1. If you want a person not to interact with you, (a) say so clearly, (b) do not issue general invitations, (c) do not ping or reply to the person, and (d) do not talk about the person directly or colorably.

2. Give thought to your ways as they are not always The Way: (a) commit to the truth at all costs, (b) recognize that you can make mistakes and that you have, (c) when you find a mistake, admit it, cease it, and heal it, (d) when you criticize something (like extremism) consider first whether you are innocent of the same criticism.

3. Consider answering honest questions about your position such as (a) if Jesus is at least a Christ in the same way you and I are Christs, and (b) the difficulties with transmigration and the fewer difficulties with gilgul. It's okay to admit that the question will take time, that your answer is tentative, or even that you don't know all about it.

I could make more but let's see how you do with this much.

Welcome to Conspiracies, and merry Christmas!

Some of the Scored forums, like this one, don't show your contribs to others until you've established a little karma on other sites. For instance you can ask questions at c/AskScored or c/Meta, or you can talk religion at c/Faith, c/Christianity, c/catholic, etc. When you've made a few contribs your content will also appear at Conspiracies, and other forums.

The public logs appear at URLs like c/Conspiracies/logs to show what has been deleted. I see that the link above you intended to present was:

https://qboro.substack.com/p/the-epstein-suicide-video-that-went

Wow, if it's true that you had the viral Epstein video 6 years ago, that is big news. I don't know what the karma limits are so I'd say start contributing simple material first (even c/Cats pictures) so that you can get into the boards that have karma limits (I don't know what the actual limits are because they vary).

In my experience, which includes extensive review of Obama's COLB, I came to realize that items that do get leaked are heavily redacted but still plausibly the "same" as the original files in gov possession. This allows a number of features, (1) plausible deniability if they want to claim the release is a fake, (2) obfuscation of the actual sources and methods of original data by overlaying them with easily debunked layers of data that get everyone's attention instead as if the easy debunk is the only layer, (3) "revelation of method" in that the bare minimum of release of "honest" information is achieved so as to remain in nominal compliance with law. Once people understand that these features are in use they stop handwaving about the cover story. Same is true for the Epstein "redactions", they wanted us to discover the easy hack and knew that we would. For this reason all the 9/11 hijackers and all mass shooters have grainy photos to prevent anyone from finding where the original photos were taken (or why the feds would have them ready in the first place).

The method of the cover story being easily falsifiable and intended to be so, such that the facts cannot be determined, is very old but gets a big boost in the 19th century and has been in continuous use since then. The cover story for Lincoln's assassination is one of the clearest examples. Also, Chester Arthur circulated rumors he was born in Canada so that he could debunk them by proving his Vermont birth so nobody would find out his real disqualification (he had Irish citizenship at birth). Biarritz and The Protocols follow the same pattern, as does the entire Reconstruction, Revised Statues, and Organic Act process.

So in this case you're definitely onto something that needs wider exposure, and you're among friends (and a couple feds, use your judgment which). The gov is currently committed, as Patel shows, to the suicide narrative, but they release a fake suicide video that still shows what the real footage looks like. This allows them to retain the option of claiming "no suicide" later (they usually don't exercise such options, which I think is a strategic weakness), but also allows them to stick to the narrative and then stonewall for "security" reasons. It's probable the hidden layers are well-hidden in what is actually released. However, we have an asymmetrical weapon, cosmic knowledge (aka God's knowledge for us Christians). Sooner or later someone "accidentally" hits upon the actual smoking gun and begins to tell the truth of it, whether this is by prophetic revelation, ordinary diligence, or random circumstance. The truth always outs at the right time. So continue your diligence, it will be rewarded when due.

Touche!

You and u/JosephGoebbel5 would do well to remember that in 1914 even the Germans and British were able to have a Christmas truce and stop trying to kill each other.

It gets deeper for me every year, every year you look into it, it will for you too.

Historically, Mary would've known the Julian date of the annunciation and she is reported to have treasured the details. The linked historical data that demonstrate that Simeon had to have been conscious of his references back to Haggai 2 indicate that he found out the conception date too, given that it was, by Mosaic law, known to be Jesus's 40th day. Then the fact that you have multiple streams by which 25 Dec is recalled later, that they are actually free of solstitial influence (the new detail I got recently), and that they are earlier than one would expect from the naysayers suggests that they may contribute to the same testimony strain. When combined with the many lines of evidence indicating Jesus's birth on 6 Oct of 4 BC, there is a very solid historical case here, much more than I realized when first writing the chronology.

I should note, I found a source that demonstrates that Josephus's reference to relatives of Herod who plotted against a king of their own people are solid evidence that the slaughter of the innocents was carried out on Herod's orders by his cousin Joseph. That also came up new this month.

Thanks 3I! I've said shepherds don't watch flocks by night in winter for up to 30 years, so I'm on the antisolar team. But if you don't mind my telling my own "Christmas story" as it happened to me, it takes an interesting twist!

Obviously Two Babylons and Fossilized Customs and the like were very big on the early intake. My best friend (now my wife) and I compiled plenty of reasons Jesus wasn't born in winter, and we recognized that both historical and typological data suggested he was born in fall, 4 BC. John was born and dedicated for the 8 days of Passover, and Jesus was born and dedicated for the 8 days of Tabernacles, when there would be enrollments, and no room in Jerusalem inns. The spirit of Elijah was expected at Passover (John), and the tabernacling of God with man was expected at Tabernacles (Jesus), and a manger is in Greek a tabernacle.

And so he was conceived 9 months earlier. We realized this would be fitting as the first of Dedication in winter, again with the historicity matching (the Magi's star was documented in China in spring, 5 BC, preceding their journey), and with the typology well-supporting (the light entering the temple). So we resolved to recognize the winter solstice the way God does: First, celebrating Noah's covenant by which the winter solstice shall never cease; second, celebrating Haggai's prediction that from the 24th of Kislev God would bless his people with seed in the barn; third, celebrating the covenant reclamation of the temple in winter 165 BC. It was clear to us that Haggai 2 prophesied that the first night of light in the temple would be the 25th of Kislev, later called Hanukkah and Dedication and celebrated by Jesus (John 10:22-23). That meant it was okay to celebrate winter as the time of the annunciation and conception even while pulling people back from the extremes of xylolatry and solarianism.

When I arrived at Win Communities in 2021 and committed to finish my chronology of the world (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9), I had my first shock to realize that the first night of Hanukkah in 5 BC was not just 25 Kislev but also 25 December on the then-current Julian calendar.

But it got worse. It took me time to realize that I could propose to Christians in general that we could recast 25 December as the Annunciation and Conception and also his more literal Genesis and Nativity, and it would be amazing if that actually were picked up as a tradition. Each year as I revisited the data they got more interesting.

• In the 4th century Jesus's nativity is given as "VIII Kal. ian. d. ven. luna XV", literally Fri 25 Dec, 15th of moon. Even if we regard the "25 Dec" as solstice-influenced, we still get the confirm that Tabernacles puts his birth on the 15th of the moon and on the night of Fri-Sat, suggesting that there is older valid tradition to it. This is from the consul lists, with the Philocalian Calendar of 354 similarly.

• Clement of Alexandria c. 200 compiled guesses as April 19 or 20 or May 20, but that was because both were the 25th on Egyptian calendars. So there's another echo of that number 25. I'd thought this could be discounted because it echoed the solstice being on the 21st, but it didn't say 21.

• Hippolytus on Daniel, c. 202-211, was the one who calculated a date for Passover as the "genesis" (conception) of Christ and added 9 months to get 25 Dec. This was the attempt to reconcile the tradition of winter birth with the (unnecessary) idea that he was conceived and died on the same day of the year. Six of seven manuscripts of Hippolytus, and one of two early quotations of him, say 25 Dec.

• Digging deeper, Luke 2 makes ten references back to Haggai 2, suggesting that Simeon could've calculated from Jesus's 40-day presentation and his published lineage that Haggai 2 was being invoked and he prophesied as an explication of that whole passage. This confirms textually (not just typologically) that Jesus was indeed conceived the night of 25 Kislev.

• Haggai 2 also refers to 24 Kislev 520 BC as the last day of the desolation of Jerusalem as if the 25th marks the beginning of the second temple. Counting from the beginning of the desolation on 10 Tevet 589 (2 Kings 25:1) we get exactly 70 x 360 days.

(For completion, I should note Clement's odd calculation from the death of Commodus in 193 AD that would put Jesus's birth in mid-Nov of 2 BC, and Hippolytus's Canon suggesting 2 Apr of 2 BC, but which was known to need correction to Passover of 4 BC which would change the Julian date. Clement's data doesn't appear to track to anything; Hippolytus's appears to have been corrected by himself to a silently calculated date like 25 Mar of 4 BC "genesis" or conception. It's possible that Hippolytus was using a relatively accurate new moon table, with the Hillel moons of the evenings of 2 Apr 2 BC and 26 Mar 4 BC supplying his dates even though they are not full moons.)

And what's really troubling me is that all the connection to solstice talk that I can currently find appears to be my own and others' echo chambers after the fact. The first-century solstice was on the Julian 23rd, and the third-century solstice on the Julian and Gregorian 21st, and those dates simply don't enter into the extant calculations of Jesus's nativity. From what I can tell right now (and I could be wrong), every accusation that Jesus's dating mimicked the solstice comes from arguments that it was proximate and never the exact solstice. That's pretty significant. We might argue that the Julian 23rd was the exact seventh day of Saturnalia in the 1st century as OP does, but that doesn't inform where the data of the 25th comes from. And for many years I had assumed it did but I never had anyone say this to me both accurately and provably.

So now, for the first time, I'm putting forth the theory that the early reference to 25 Dec, namely Hippolytus by 211 AD, is genuine and refers to Jesus's nativity as his conception. The sequence is as follows.

(1) God establishes the general winter solstice as a time of renewal, 2336 BC, Gen. 8. (2) God establishes the lunar 24th and 25th near the solstice as founding the second temple and ensuring seed (and producing many upheavals), 520 BC, Hag. 2. (3) God establishes the same lunar 24th and 25th as rededicating the second temple, 165 BC, Maccabees. (4) God visits Mary with an angel on the lunar 24th and with his Spirit on the lunar 25th, then called 25 Dec Julian, tying the Julian number to the Hillel number that year, making both a Julian "Christmas" and a Hanukkah on the same date (though it is proleptic Gregorian 23 Dec). This is deliberately two days after the solstice and the end of Saturnalia, 5 BC, Matt. 1. (5) Mary treasures these things, including the Hanukkah date, in her heart, and next year goes for Jesus's temple presentation on his 40th day, 14 Nov 4 BC; and Simeon recognizes the reference to 25 Kislev (and possibly 25 Dec) and repeatedly quotes Hag. 2, Luke 2, 4 BC. (6) The tradition of 25 Dec remains alive and is noted by Hippolytus (along with others), who mistakes it for the birth of Christ rather than his conception. He does not rely on solstice or equinox data because his calculations (though incomplete) demonstrate lunar and not solar reliance, 211 AD; by this time it's four days after the solstice, which it returns to with the Gregorian reform. (7) Clement echoes the 25th but calculates it on the Egyptian calendar instead; the consul lists echo Dec 25 but combine it with a separate tradition putting Jesus's birth on Fri on the 15th of the lunar month (accurate and agreeing with his death on Fri on the 14th of the lunar month), cf. the Philocalian Calendar, 354 AD.

Mary is reported to have lived beyond 68 AD. That puts the eyewitness data less than 150 years from the first written data in Hippolytus, but supported by both the prophetic tradition, the implicit confirmation by Simeon and Luke with ten allusions, and the rationale of the earliest church chronographers without reference to the solstice. I guess I've begun to celebrate the Nativity (Genesis, Annunciation, and Conception) of Jesus on 25 Dec again. It's his 2,029th anniversary. Coming home to where I grew up but by a completely different route.

Thank you! I had to read your comment twice, first as if you were sincere and pointing out that even despite the inroads of QM there is still validity to relativity, and only second in the sarcastic sense in which you appear to actually have meant it.

Yeah, I'm still in the defiant Einstein camp. QM works because its math is accidentally right but its explanations of reality are lousy and this has been pointed out from within the mainstream a number of times. Someday we'll get the best of both worlds.

It's not my fault if scientists want two words that mean the same thing to be strictly limited to two different processes and I don't recognize the distinction.

I told you I don't have the math ready at hand, and I gave three possible explanations, the third being that I might be wrong (but don't think I am). There are enough inferences that the conclusion is unsettled, and that's what scientists say because they either tentatively accept the one conclusion or they propose alternatives that are then labeled by someone as nonmainstream. If you wish to refer to specific observations I'll interact with them, but don't ask me to disprove "evolution" without any reference to the specific observations you are referring to.

I didn't say there is zero expansion, I said expansion is in doubt and especially accelerating expansion. So if you want to give data about expansion or accelerating expansion, I'll look at it.

What judaism teaches

Those are misquotes, medieval opinions, and distortions. This was the first source I used to get accurate Talmud quotes so its debunks appear in the main post and the actual text appears in those sources that have "1" within the [brackets].

jews believe they are to attain world domination over the goyim

In exactly the same way Christians and Muslims "believe" they are to attain world domination over unbelievers.

jewish law says only jewish women can be raped

Semantic in that Israelis think sexual assault of a noncitizen is a lesser crime than rape of a citizen. While there is a strong moral precedent that all rape is equally horrendous, there is also a valid point that practical prosecution might focus more on the same act being perpetrated against citizens than against noncitizens, and reflecting that in punishment lengths. The fact that the legal semantic sounds incorrect because its language is unhelpful is no different than the practice of any other statutory construction anywhere else.

talmud quotes (you can rape a girl as long as she is under 3; goyim are slave cattle and you can kill them, etc.)

The post is from Pranaitis, who is a decent source but who here is not quoting the Talmud but medieval sources. It looks like I didn't even include Zohar 1:38b-39a because it was so weak, just an ordinary speech against idolatry that is never said specifically to include or exclude Christianity (Jews are left to judge Christianity for themselves without direct guidance). Similarly, the second source, which is more properly called "Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10", is only against idolatry and is regarded as more egregious for its advice of not putting one's own life at risk to save a known idolator's life. There is no Talmudic passage where Christianity is directly judged by majority rule (as opposed to an individual opinion).

The Talmud passages that state that rape of a girl 3 or under is not publicly prosecuted the same way as for older girls so as to protect her marital status (e.g. Ketubot 11b), that Gentiles are called animals in Scripture (e.g. Yevamot 61a), and that murder of a Gentile is prosecuted under Noah's laws and not Moses's (e.g. Sanhedrin 57a), are handled with accurate quotes.

wars are the jewish harvest of Christian souls

That is a hoax (#8), there was never a "Reichorn" as chief rabbi of France. The ultimate source is a fictional novel, Biarritz by Hermann Goedsche (pen name John Retcliffe), 1868, indicating what Goedsche wanted people to believe Jews were plotting.

This quick review doesn't comment on the links I didn't check.

I trust you're willing to remove hoax misquotations from your boilerplates and replace them with verified quotations, and to modify characterizations of Talmud and of medieval sources to indicate their proper place in comparative religion. There is plenty of criticism of the Talmud to go around without resorting to misquotation and distortion that doesn't account for the actual historical status of Jewish, Christian, or Roman culture.

Arnold Fruchtenbaum uncovered that Emperor Justinian first gave the title "tsar" or "caesar" to outsiders by awarding it to the Bulgarian khans in 705. With the weakening of the Empire, Bulgarian Simeon I in 913 was the first to take the title as hereditary for his dynasty, which was long before Ivan III was the first Russian to call himself tsar in 1472. This is meaningful because both czars and kaisers have represented the continuation of the Roman power in the same name: both America and Russia now declare themselves lords of czars. Thus there has long been an east-west balance of power that inherits the mantle of the Roman empire and which the devil is trying to infiltrate for his globalist empire.

u/SmithW1984

constants declared as constants in modern theory are not really constants at all

This is brilliant! One issue is that quantum theory itself abandoned Einstein's later work in the 20s and 30s and became "Bohr-Heisenberg always right" so what's being defended is not so much Einstein anymore as a false structure built upon him. (Even when Heisenberg took a wrong turn in his mountaineering and couldn't build the bomb that Oppenheimer could.) But you've got the core dogmatism of the movement absolutely right. Thank you for reading and understanding all that is written here, and I appreciate your comments on other issues as well even when I don't say so.

We observe an accelerating expansion as far as we can see, a distance which increases as our tech improves.

No, the current theory is that expansion was orders of magnitude higher in the Big Bang, slowed down dramatically, and then began accelerating again 4-5 billion years ago ("Expansion of the universe"):

The very earliest expansion, called inflation saw the universe suddenly expand by a factor of at least 10^26 in every direction about 10^−32 of a second after the Big Bang. Cosmic expansion subsequently decelerated to much slower rates, until around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so. Physicists have postulated the existence of dark energy, appearing as a cosmological constant in the simplest gravitational models, as a way to explain this late-time acceleration which is predicted to be dominant in the future.

The redshift is the evidence for the Big Bang expansion. Onetime expansion makes everything redshifted, the further away the more so. Comparing models shows that the acceleration hypothesis puts the origin the furthest back in the past, while a simple flat universe (critical density ratio of one) puts it much closer to the present, and the Big Crunch theory (which is still viable) puts it even closer. A fraction of the dot of "today" is all the data we actually have, the rest is theoretical. Last I heard, the critical ratio was so close to one that people can't tell if it's over or under, which makes a big difference in models; the claim of adding recent acceleration to the redshift, as you can see in the graph, is a patch onto a patch. When you actually see the limited amount of data these things are guessed from you marvel that any of them is taken as an established theory.

What you probably mean to say is that the redshift increases with distance, not that its acceleration increases with distance (which is the theoretical part).

I don't have an immediate answer for whether the proposed change in redshift at 4-5 bya is due to an assumption change at that point in the observational distance, or due to an actual change in the stretching that might be explained in a Biblical epoch, or whether it actually does (against my expectations and predictions from data) constitute serious evidence against my current model. But knowing how many other things have been faked I'm pretty confident the actual math will once again align when I have time to get it together.

I do agree that expansion explains redshift. Coincidentally, God tells me that he stretched out the heavens, so that's in agreement with the observations. Then this expansion slowed down dramatically.

What's in question is whether it's expanding right now, how much, and whether the expansion is accelerating or decelerating, and that part isn't measured by redshift but by a longer chain of inferences.

recursion

Not at all, it's joots. Since I can't be perfect, it's not on me to be perfect, so I've gone all in on someone else being perfect. That doesn't stop the possibility of me being wrong, but nothing does.

I suspect you are one

I'm accused of being a lot of things, but what I am is a Messianic Gentile, a covenantal Christian who learned the Hebrew roots of the faith. Christians use Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek when they're more accurate than English; the satan is the (lead) adversary of God. You act like OT and NT are opposed to each other, but that's not a Christian teaching.

But using critical thinking, and using other techniques like reasoning from first principles, I am able to navigate through the web of their lies. And eventually I manage to connect the dots.

Excellent! Two users of critical thinking and reason should come to the same conclusions on any point sooner or later. The primary reason folks today don't know that Enoch and Jasher were primary sources for Bible writers (with Jubilees a bit more of a parallel source) is that we promote the protocanon so much that people cease to ask questions about anything else. Over time the covenant people had many books (we still do) and only the books of the protocanon bubbled up to be recognized as having a level of inspiration that the "apocrypha" never got recognized as having, and that's primarily due to qualitative differences it the books that can be demonstrated. But that means people lost the apocryphal background that had informed people earlier in the covenants. We might also argue that beyond attrition there was suppression of spiritual warfare tactics shown therein, but in time we're recovering those too.

Based on the information found in these three books left out of the Bible, the ones I mentioned above, I’ll say again it doesn’t matter “to learn the rules of Truth and apply them to getting history right “. It’s not important for our fight.

Not sure why that follows. The rules of Truth are primarily about critical thinking and reason. I'd expect an Enoch reader to be more demanding of absolute Truth, such as in history. But if you want to trust Enoch above its usual level today (and we know Peter and Jude deferred to him), be my guest. I'm not sure why that changes much. The enemy is still the satans and watchers and their minions, the spirits by their nature, and the humans sometimes by genetics but always by voluntary relationship.

So yes it's got Babylonian roots in part, but if you act like a race of humans is automatically guilty from birth, or like a meme about 109 nations is as good as Enoch, I might ask you to apply critical thinking and reason.

Well, since nobody has explained the disconnect I'll just make a guess. The redshift says that the universe expanded in the past, but Einstein thought the cosmological constant (which is now used to argue for accelerating expansion in the present) was his biggest blunder. So I'm not convinced of any value of (or for!) the cosmological constant. But to be able to lay out a preferred CDK math for the past and present rates that I could commit to would take more work. I usually cite Joao Magueijo but his math is not the only model out there; that would indicate that the actual power of the ZPE is 10^60 greater than what we observe and accounts for the disconnect at the executive level without going into the elbow grease. So that might be enough for your question for now.

Dark energy is also held to slow down movement in the universe as well as dark matter, but I neglected that it had a second purpose, to support an accelerating expansion model with faulty calculations. The problem is that we know there's some kind of zero-point energy out there but then scientists just said let's make dark energy a category of it so we can get our math to work even though there's no experimental evidence of dark energy otherwise. Until all the math agrees, though, any theory can be entertained.

a lot of folks would want to say "energy is conserved" .... There’s nothing incorrect about that way of thinking about it; it’s a choice that one can make or not, as long as you’re clear on what your definitions are. I personally think it’s better to forget about the so-called “energy of the gravitational field” and just admit that energy is not conserved, for two reasons.

So I understand you may be looking for an article saying "energy is not conserved" but what you found was an article about how both can be true depending on definitions. His preferred language is:

"in general relativity spacetime can give energy to matter, or absorb it from matter, so that the total energy simply isn’t conserved"

but this is giving/absorbing spacetime identical to according a ZPE field to spacetime that receives energy (such as from redshift) and releases energy (such as to the background field). Which is conservation.

The problem he cites at the beginning is a biggie, across the field, not something that qualifies his view as better or another as worse. More simply it's the idea that some observation suggests there's a giant energy field holding everything together and other observation suggests this field is excessively generally uninterested in working with things, which seem to be contradictory behaviors for the same energy, which can be quantified as many orders of magnitude apart.

My basic solution, though I don't have all of it and am still studying, is that the variability of certain "constants" changes the timescale and removes the calculation errors that lead to the discrepancy. (This also removes the need for imagining dark energy out of nowhere.)

His proposal doesn't solve the problem either, though, it merely attempts to improve the description so that we can get around to solving the problem of why the zero-point energy appears massive.

Now, cutting to the chase, what everyone wants to know is how miracles get done. The answer is that they arise by tapping the hidden energy of the universe, not by breaking laws of conservation but by opening up yet-unexplained phenomena that access that energy. Scientists and theologians are scrambling over each other trying to get control of that phenomenon, but it's elusive for a reason and knowledge will proceed according to plan. Whether we define miracles as conservative (as I do) or as nonconservative (as OP does) won't matter as long as the definition accords with the data.

And my point has been that all scientific observations have problems that don't complete the explanation of the data, and that this proves the universe is not closed but instead contained. And for that purpose we'd conclude that there is something that doesn't follow conservation somewhere in the system until we define it better. For Big Bang Theory, that lack of following, that connection to the container, is found in the first Planck instant. Maybe Carroll is defining other connections to the container (which theologians would call "providence") but he still follows the general rule of leaving the universe open to a Creator.

Dark energy is peculiar because it's a deceitful epicycle attached to a failed theory to attempt to patch a hole in the theory. Specifically, dark energy has no function except that it keeps cosmic structures together for as long as materialists say they existed because otherwise we'd have to admit they didn't exist that long. But they forget ....

I'll just get that out of the way before reading the article.

Over ~2 years of my watching him he's made very few changes to MO, which is pretty good proof of unwillingness to be reasonable. All the regular trolls at Conspiracies make more changes to MO with a few nudges than this guy has.

The admin is either unwilling or unable to prevent him from returning (an asymmetrical attack cannot be answered without greater risk to the innocent than they wish to permit). They could devote special resources to trapping his content faster, but I don't think they wish to engage that either as that could be troll-feeding. He's not one of the top 10 OpSec threats here. But concrete authority has its ways of working on the soul, and leaving the account active without discipline causes more indirect community strife than dealing with it consistently.

So talk to him when you see him, but recognize admin's carefully staked position on it too.

Yeah, (assuming identity of these accounts) he has testified that he is titillated by the thought of controlling others, especially the weaker, either by forcible sex or by murder. At this point any quotes are not retained and are also relatively unnecessary (though we trust admin is keeping a good record for posterity anyway).

If he asks sincere questions, he might get answers, but if he manifests the same antisocial, violative behavior he gets the same penalty each time, even if he gets a question answered in the lobby. However, I agree that Don't Feed The Trolls should be used by me and others a lot more here in times to come.

Welcome to c/Conspiracies, what a fun place you chose to jump in.

So you mean Odin, the one who hung on Yggdrasil for nine days pierced and sacrificing himself to himself?

Since we all come from Odin in Adam, we all have spark of divinity in us. If there's any hybrid it is simply a different reflection of the spark that has it own purpose. Children are not punished for the crimes of their parents.

Of course, didn't you see the water damage on the sphinx?

Compare Antiquities 2.1.3 against the Lemuria post here.

Whiston thought Josephus was conflating a narrative of Seth with one of Sesostris I of the 12th dynasty (probably the pharaoh that welcomed Abraham). But there is no such structure for Sesostris and so it is more probably a tradition that reflects prediluvian structures.

The Atlantis date is given by only one source, Plato, who puts it at 9600 BC (12000 BC is modified from that so actually has zero sources). There is no prehistoric, humans have always had history. Atlantis had larger structures but they were not traditional pyramidal or else we would have found them by now. There were no 13 cataclysms (those are invented by lying geologists), I showed the paucity of the evidence separately, there was just one at the 4.2kya event and everything else echoes that or echoes primordial creation.

Let's focus on the organic tech that is awakened by tech-assisted telepathy instead and not worry so much about claiming great antiquity or power for our enemies. They are defeated now and we need not quote their own lying stories to prove it.