Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

You gotta try and most likely fail a hundred or a thousand times before you're good at anything. I've published the same book over 10 times, only sold 7 copies, and I still feel like I'm on the right track.

0 0 1 0 0

View Details

Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

8 years ago

@4tis @CharlieCanFly As for experimental surveying, I'm finding a 75% discrepancy as to what should be concealed by the curve of the earth at 50 miles horizontal. That is, we shouldn't be able to see the Willis tower from the opposite side of lake Michigan, but we can see 75% of it

2 0 0 0 0

View Details

Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

8 years ago

@4tis @CharlieCanFly whatever it may be, it is the attraction between protons and electrons that keep planets and the moon suspended in space.

2 0 0 0 0

View Details

Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

8 years ago

@4tis @CharlieCanFly I could make an educated guess; I'd say perhaps the strong nuclear forces are actually entanglement of these springs and the manner in which it is entangled is what determines such quantities.

2 0 0 0 0

View Details

Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

8 years ago

@4tis @CharlieCanFly The middle of the atom, except the atom is as big as the Universe. I can prove there's a spring of aether connecting the proton to the electron and that causes everything to be inside out. All the mass is centrifuged and all the electrons want to go to the middle.

2 0 0 0 0

View Details

Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

8 years ago

@4tis @CharlieCanFly plain and simply, the popular assumption that mass attracts mass is wrong. Protons (want to) repel Protons, so if anything mass wants to get away from mass. The new model suggests that all the electrons are in the middle and mass is centrifuged. Gravity is a centrifuge + magnets

2 0 0 0 0

View Details

Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

8 years ago

@4tis @CharlieCanFly Yes, but gravitational force isn't conservative. Gravitational potential is defined by the potential gravity stored at some maximum distance. Since the universe is expanding according to the current model, then the potential is also growing.

2 0 0 0 0

View Details

Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

8 years ago

@avary2018 @FEcourious why is "inside out" not an option?

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

8 years ago

@4tis @CharlieCanFly If two objects are at rest then the each have zero kinetic energy. Both Einstein and Newton support the idea that these two objects will move towards each other suggesting the kinetic energy of both masses has increased. The mystery is where does the energy to do so come from?

1 0 0 0 0

View Details

Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

8 years ago

@4tis @CharlieCanFly Perhaps if gravity was a real force existing in nature, but the claim that two masses experience a force pulling them together violates the law of conservation of energy and therefore cannot be an accurate description of nature. If the Earth is concave and spinning, no need for G

2 0 0 0 0

View Details

Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

8 years ago

@4tis @CharlieCanFly "c is a constant" is a interpretation by Einstein when the original (level to the Earth's surface) interferometer (which is simply a light-based motion detector) told us the Earth was stationary back in 1922. The vertical experiment makes Einsteins space-time model unnecessary

0 1 3 0 0

View Details

Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

8 years ago

@4tis @CharlieCanFly Since both quantities give us the identity of a color, both would have to change at the same rate; otherwise colors would have an identity-contradiction. The vertical interferometer proves that light is not constant along the z axis, which coincides nicley with clock experiments.

1 0 0 0 0

View Details

Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

8 years ago

@4tis @CharlieCanFly It's debatable but generally accepted that Maxwell first discovered this relationship. But yeah, it is essentially common knowledge. Now just consider the implication if dc/dz is indeed true. Astronauts would shrink and hear live feeds from Earth in fast forward!

1 0 0 0 0

View Details

Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

8 years ago

@Flying_Emeralds So what, then, is the accepted explanation for objects accelerating to Earth at 9.8m/s^2?

0 0 0 0 0

View Details

Follow the Arrows @BibleofScience

8 years ago

@4tis @CharlieCanFly Maxwell taught us that length*frequency=speed. So if the speed of light is half, then the first 3 dimensions shrink and time ticks by slower at a factor of (the square-root of a half) 70.711% their normal size.