Benefits

Sep 3, 2020
5
0
30
Can I get anything more than just a good discussion like a lab, apparatuses, intensive review, or sponsorship from good inovation or idea?
 
Jan 1, 2020
183
35
630
It has to be scientfic of some sort or another .Im not sure if non science topics are allowed on a science forum - you ll have to check with the admin if you are new here. From what Ive seen of previous messages theyve all been about various sciences
 
Sep 3, 2020
5
0
30
It has to be scientfic of some sort or another .Im not sure if non science topics are allowed on a science forum - you ll have to check with the admin if you are new here. From what Ive seen of previous messages theyve all been about various sciences
I mean anything in science... lets say I had a good discussion here... would it end up getting somewhere or just nothing. I really wish to have more than just discussion.
 

CParsons

Administrator
Staff member
Dec 4, 2019
20
20
535
I mean anything in science... lets say I had a good discussion here... would it end up getting somewhere or just nothing. I really wish to have more than just discussion.
Anything is possible. I started in a forum 10 years ago and became Editor in Chief of the site after a few years. Not saying that will happen here at Live Science but you're being rather vague in your desires. Hang out, chat, network, and see what happens. Just conversing with people can open many doors.....or it could be a percieved 'waste of time'
 
Mar 4, 2020
356
46
730
The simplest and yet the most difficult field of study is motion. And it's all wrong. People spend all their lives studying a false concept. And that concept is the constant velocity of light. All motion, whether mass or not, has a relative velocity. Man just doesn't know how to measure it.

Man believes that EM radiation is a continuous dynamic, like a tone from a speaker. But EM emission is not like media waves. It's intermittent and discreet. This is the only aspect of motion that Einstein got right.......but of course his math for it was all wrong. If you want to understand motion, dump Maxwell and Einstein and study Ampere, Weber and Parson's Magneton.

The motion and dynamic of light is the perfect yardstick for cosmos study, because once you understand it, one may determine the relative velocity of any star. AND, AND which portion of that RV is the star's and what portion is us. Light is asymmetric, allowing this. Do you think anyone could use such a tool?

Man's understanding and explanation of light is false, just like the explanation of mass. All of the periodic table measurements and properties can be explained with just an electron and a proton. These particles are the only physical entities in the cosmos. And their energy levels have been restricted and constant for 13 billion years. That eliminates randomness and probability. These are solid firm structures. And the only structures in existence. All other structures are combos of these.

And with man's permission to change time and length.........we now have the silliest of them all.....space-time. This is because man can not explain gravity. Space has always been here and it is a ZERO. Nothingness is the only thing that can fill infinity. The static or quantum foam is just passing thru, it's not a part of space. The static comes from mass, not space. And life, is the only singularity that has ever been detected. No black holes. Gravity can not converge. Gravity does not seek a center.

And of course we have the most studied, the electric and the magnetic. Many fallacies here too. Current is very mis-understood. Charge alignment, is the dynamic, not flow. It's an intermittent flux, like light. That's why light is the worse possible thing one could use to measure it's velocity. Use one radio emission to study EM velocity.

And last but the most dangerous........math. Our application of math is very mis-guided. We have two major problems. Linear V transform to angular V is wrong. And rotations in nature do not use pi. This is why math is a false argument and is a false evidence. Observation and measurement can be VERY mis-leading. Hundreds of years of observation and measurement says planets are elliptical. That's false and the dynamic is false. Planetary orbits are helical. Surprise! A completely different dynamic. And all gravitational theories must show a elliptic dynamic.......it's one way they use to affirm the theory. But the actual planetary orbit has two rotations, one within another. The ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a rotation can be larger than 3.14(pi) and can be variable. Surprise!

So, we have the electromagnetic, light, mass, and gravity........which would you like to discuss?

Or would you like an experiment to show EM intermittence? Understanding light is the key, for once you see it, you know modern science is silly. A one hundred year stupor.

Do you have any radio experience? A radio lab? If starlight were 1 MHz, we could plot all the stars velocities now.......but for it to work with starlight, we need faster hardware switches. They will come.

Look at all of our modern theories. The only sure thing they know is c. And they believe it is constant. AND they make everything else probable......to keep c constant. It's silly. e is the only constant. And emission keeps e constant.
 
Jan 1, 2020
183
35
630
Anything is possible. I started in a forum 10 years ago and became Editor in Chief of the site after a few years. Not saying that will happen here at Live Science but you're being rather vague in your desires. Hang out, chat, network, and see what happens. Just conversing with people can open many doors.....or it could be a percieved 'waste of time'
I only talk about stuff scientific on this forum -If your comment is a hint about meeting someone who shares the same interest as you then maybe a dating site is what you need lol?? I have to say I have a girlfriend & am happy -

Maybe we should get back to the science

What do you know about the periodic table
 
Sep 3, 2020
5
0
30
The simplest and yet the most difficult field of study is motion. And it's all wrong. People spend all their lives studying a false concept. And that concept is the constant velocity of light. All motion, whether mass or not, has a relative velocity. Man just doesn't know how to measure it.

Man believes that EM radiation is a continuous dynamic, like a tone from a speaker. But EM emission is not like media waves. It's intermittent and discreet. This is the only aspect of motion that Einstein got right.......but of course his math for it was all wrong. If you want to understand motion, dump Maxwell and Einstein and study Ampere, Weber and Parson's Magneton.

The motion and dynamic of light is the perfect yardstick for cosmos study, because once you understand it, one may determine the relative velocity of any star. AND, AND which portion of that RV is the star's and what portion is us. Light is asymmetric, allowing this. Do you think anyone could use such a tool?

Man's understanding and explanation of light is false, just like the explanation of mass. All of the periodic table measurements and properties can be explained with just an electron and a proton. These particles are the only physical entities in the cosmos. And their energy levels have been restricted and constant for 13 billion years. That eliminates randomness and probability. These are solid firm structures. And the only structures in existence. All other structures are combos of these.

And with man's permission to change time and length.........we now have the silliest of them all.....space-time. This is because man can not explain gravity. Space has always been here and it is a ZERO. Nothingness is the only thing that can fill infinity. The static or quantum foam is just passing thru, it's not a part of space. The static comes from mass, not space. And life, is the only singularity that has ever been detected. No black holes. Gravity can not converge. Gravity does not seek a center.

And of course we have the most studied, the electric and the magnetic. Many fallacies here too. Current is very mis-understood. Charge alignment, is the dynamic, not flow. It's an intermittent flux, like light. That's why light is the worse possible thing one could use to measure it's velocity. Use one radio emission to study EM velocity.

And last but the most dangerous........math. Our application of math is very mis-guided. We have two major problems. Linear V transform to angular V is wrong. And rotations in nature do not use pi. This is why math is a false argument and is a false evidence. Observation and measurement can be VERY mis-leading. Hundreds of years of observation and measurement says planets are elliptical. That's false and the dynamic is false. Planetary orbits are helical. Surprise! A completely different dynamic. And all gravitational theories must show a elliptic dynamic.......it's one way they use to affirm the theory. But the actual planetary orbit has two rotations, one within another. The ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a rotation can be larger than 3.14(pi) and can be variable. Surprise!

So, we have the electromagnetic, light, mass, and gravity........which would you like to discuss?

Or would you like an experiment to show EM intermittence? Understanding light is the key, for once you see it, you know modern science is silly. A one hundred year stupor.

Do you have any radio experience? A radio lab? If starlight were 1 MHz, we could plot all the stars velocities now.......but for it to work with starlight, we need faster hardware switches. They will come.

Look at all of our modern theories. The only sure thing they know is c. And they believe it is constant. AND they make everything else probable......to keep c constant. It's silly. e is the only constant. And emission keeps e constant.
I cant reply to all of them. Why dont you focus one topic at a time? Anyway c is'nt constant. I knew it all along. There are hidden-mechanisms behind it.
 
Sep 3, 2020
5
0
30
Anything is possible. I started in a forum 10 years ago and became Editor in Chief of the site after a few years. Not saying that will happen here at Live Science but you're being rather vague in your desires. Hang out, chat, network, and see what happens. Just conversing with people can open many doors.....or it could be a percieved 'waste of time'
But most people's conversations are based on mainstream science. You need a model, an empirical proof and math to stand a chance. That's Why I do experiment.
 
Aug 29, 2020
8
0
30
The simplest and yet the most difficult field of study is motion. And it's all wrong. People spend all their lives studying a false concept. And that concept is the constant velocity of light. All motion, whether mass or not, has a relative velocity. Man just doesn't know how to measure it.

Man believes that EM radiation is a continuous dynamic, like a tone from a speaker. But EM emission is not like media waves. It's intermittent and discreet. This is the only aspect of motion that Einstein got right.......but of course his math for it was all wrong. If you want to understand motion, dump Maxwell and Einstein and study Ampere, Weber and Parson's Magneton.

The motion and dynamic of light is the perfect yardstick for cosmos study, because once you understand it, one may determine the relative velocity of any star. AND, AND which portion of that RV is the star's and what portion is us. Light is asymmetric, allowing this. Do you think anyone could use such a tool?

Man's understanding and explanation of light is false, just like the explanation of mass. All of the periodic table measurements and properties can be explained with just an electron and a proton. These particles are the only physical entities in the cosmos. And their energy levels have been restricted and constant for 13 billion years. That eliminates randomness and probability. These are solid firm structures. And the only structures in existence. All other structures are combos of these.

And with man's permission to change time and length.........we now have the silliest of them all.....space-time. This is because man can not explain gravity. Space has always been here and it is a ZERO. Nothingness is the only thing that can fill infinity. The static or quantum foam is just passing thru, it's not a part of space. The static comes from mass, not space. And life, is the only singularity that has ever been detected. No black holes. Gravity can not converge. Gravity does not seek a center.

And of course we have the most studied, the electric and the magnetic. Many fallacies here too. Current is very mis-understood. Charge alignment, is the dynamic, not flow. It's an intermittent flux, like light. That's why light is the worse possible thing one could use to measure it's velocity. Use one radio emission to study EM velocity.

And last but the most dangerous........math. Our application of math is very mis-guided. We have two major problems. Linear V transform to angular V is wrong. And rotations in nature do not use pi. This is why math is a false argument and is a false evidence. Observation and measurement can be VERY mis-leading. Hundreds of years of observation and measurement says planets are elliptical. That's false and the dynamic is false. Planetary orbits are helical. Surprise! A completely different dynamic. And all gravitational theories must show a elliptic dynamic.......it's one way they use to affirm the theory. But the actual planetary orbit has two rotations, one within another. The ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a rotation can be larger than 3.14(pi) and can be variable. Surprise!

So, we have the electromagnetic, light, mass, and gravity........which would you like to discuss?

Or would you like an experiment to show EM intermittence? Understanding light is the key, for once you see it, you know modern science is silly. A one hundred year stupor.

Do you have any radio experience? A radio lab? If starlight were 1 MHz, we could plot all the stars velocities now.......but for it to work with starlight, we need faster hardware switches. They will come.

Look at all of our modern theories. The only sure thing they know is c. And they believe it is constant. AND they make everything else probable......to keep c constant. It's silly. e is the only constant. And emission keeps e constant.
Well, well, well! Hayseed obviously had something to say. And what a surprise it has to do with us being completely wrong! Honestly, I don't know enough about motion to be wrong. If I saying except, I enjoy it, I'm lying cause I hated physics and was never good in science class!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY