Einstein's theory failed. The world is entering a new reality.

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot
Or, Gravity is an electromagnetic field occurring at the atomic/subatomic level, not a universal force governed by mass.

Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity.

Gravity would be strongest at it's "poles", and the areas in between would have weakening gravity to the farthest point along the hemispheres...

So basically, celestial bodies would be locked to each other at the gravitational field poles, and traveling between those poles you would experience varying degrees of gravity based on the distance from the poles/hemisphere.

goverend by the speed of mass emitting visible light against an expanding universe with point a being the center or beginning of creation and light being a way to measure its speed/time...yes light is a constant but that constant goes away when measured in time ...lightyears etc...maybe ?I dunno its all non sense we are meant to question with no answers......kinna like what are these trophies and lightning bolt icons for and how or who calculates them...or kinda like politics as well

a reply to: FaeDedAgain

The eyes just being water and phlegm they reflect but who would I know that if not reflecting on what has already been reflected? An ancient state of blindness is represented by exactly that which relates to not knowing or ignorance.

I can't answer any "we" questions as that would assume there was a collusion in nearly all of the individual experience being the same... Even in studies of twins they see the world very differently from each other as personal philosophy and experience goes.

The easiest way I can say is what is agreed as existing is for the sake of cohabitation with other life to whatever end that is light enters the head gets stuck as an inner light that can be experienced separate and exactly like the outer light but the view between both is 100% different. Externally just as vibrant and colorful as the internal... Such as that can be experienced without sleep/dream but for the most part of peoples experience? They call it sleep/dreaming.

What bothered me was that difference and I spent a lot of time to where both the inner and outer appear exactly the same.

originally posted by: crowf00t
a reply to: FaeDedAgain

The eyes just being water and phlegm they reflect but who would I know that if not reflecting on what has already been reflected? An ancient state of blindness is represented by exactly that which relates to not knowing or ignorance.

I can't answer any "we" questions as that would assume there was a collusion in nearly all of the individual experience being the same... Even in studies of twins they see the world very differently from each other as personal philosophy and experience goes.

The easiest way I can say is what is agreed as existing is for the sake of cohabitation with other life to whatever end that is light enters the head gets stuck as an inner light that can be experienced separate and exactly like the outer light but the view between both is 100% different. Externally just as vibrant and colorful as the internal... Such as that can be experienced without sleep/dream but for the most part of peoples experience? They call it sleep/dreaming.

What bothered me was that difference and I spent a lot of time to where both the inner and outer appear exactly the same.

we do not need eyes to see..we have many options..still our vision has its limits in the face of god or the unknown for the faithless

Maybe planetary physics is slightly different to solar system physics and solar system physics isn’t quite galaxy physics. Slight differences due to scale of something I have no idea about.

The simplest answer for dark matter is that it does not exist and is only a band aid for the equations that don’t quite work.

We get locked in to dogma and Einstein is treated with religious fervour, probably because it is too daunting to consider he was wrong about some things. I dunno, I find that quite exciting.

a reply to: FaeDedAgain

Don't you think that since birth you've been in what was already "created" and what was created and what oneself is existing in has no foreseeable beginning or end and it a good idea to un-create all of that to see that there is no creator.. More like impermanent sentient sustainers of what was previously said to exist like an echo but not really the source?

Seeing how such a thing as I mentioned is infinite? There is no real fault in doing that... All those attached to calling something a something that isnt what it really is? Will still exist 10000 names later due to that echoing of attachment?

Here's why... seeing has no ears

originally posted by: ARM19688
Maybe planetary physics is slightly different to solar system physics and solar system physics isn’t quite galaxy physics. Slight differences due to scale of something I have no idea about.

The simplest answer for dark matter is that it does not exist and is only a band aid for the equations that don’t quite work.

We get locked in to dogma and Einstein is treated with religious fervour, probably because it is too daunting to consider he was wrong about some things. I dunno, I find that quite exciting.

Yeah, I sometimes think that too, you know, physics within physics because of different situations, causes and effects...and dark matter?, dark energy? ... maybe...strands



It stands to reason that if we just discovered these strands or filaments at the center of the milky way shows how little we know.

a reply to: crowf00t

pay attention now
there are many common sense lyrics in this little ditty of a tune

a reply to: FaeDedAgain

That's a pretty good reason for Black Sabbath to have gotten back together.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Interestingly, no-one seems to be making comment of the fact that this data was all collected through the same satellite observatory.

Perhaps the satellite is busted and coloring the apparent data in some unexpected and unanticipated way?

Also, 0.1 of a nanometer per second squared is a very tiny acceleration. I would wonder about the resolution of the instrument in being able to discern that with confidence. I am assuming, therefore, that the acceleration was calculated from the orbital mechanics and assumptions about the orbits (such as their plane relative to observation and the absence of other hidden sources of local gravitation).

However, if true, this is really interesting. Not sure if it actually negates relativity or Newtonian physics, but is more of a conditional modifier?

You know, I read this and it compelled me to join the board so that I can respond. Makes perfect sense if you can visualize the gravity and how its bending away from the matter. This creates a curvature of sorts if you use lines to see it, and like a paper bending in this manner there are strong points and weak points along the curve. Its so simple and fits so perfectly well I was very excited. The missing piece to find the other pieces. Congrats and thank you.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Perhaps the satellite is busted and coloring the apparent data in some unexpected and unanticipated way?

Also, 0.1 of a nanometer per second squared is a very tiny acceleration. I would wonder about the resolution of the instrument in being able to discern that with confidence.

As I already explained, different studies of binaries from the same GAIA database gave completely opposite results; this one supporting MOND and others contradicting that saying there's no support for MOND, so I would say that doesn't point to the observatory coloring the results. The authors of the studies did pick different subsets of the data to study so that sampling might bias different studies in different directions.

The very tiny accelerations I think have a lot to do with how different studies yielded completely opposite conclusions, and I would say no, they have not discerned the precise orbits of the wide binaries with confidence yet. Not a single one, because those have very long orbital periods, far longer than the short time we've made observations. Eventually, confidence will improve, but that could take a long time.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
Can these findings be trusted?.

Well, what a lot of people don't know is that this idea of Dark Matter is based on flawed Science.

They used Einstein's equations to try to measure the mass of the universe and found that according to those equations, 70% of the mass in the universe is missing. And they said: "Einstein couldn't be wrong, the universe must be wrong" and came up with the idea of Dark Matter.

But that's not how Science works.

And Einstein could have been wrong. Einstein couldn't go to another star system and test his equations, so his equations are based on the mass and gravitational effects of our sun. And if the total mass of our sun and any star of equal or less mass is about 30% of the mass in the universe, there's the problem.

And they ignored this because they didn't want to believe that Einstein was wrong.

There used to be something called the 'Cult of Einstein' which treated everything Einstein said or did as Gospel.

www.inverse.com...

SPAM removed

originally posted by: GotterDameron23
And Einstein could have been wrong. Einstein couldn't go to another star system and test his equations, so his equations are based on the mass and gravitational effects of our sun.

The science of spectroscopy allows us to determine lots of things about distant stars without actually going there:

Spectra and What They Can Tell Us

Each element in the periodic table can appear in gaseous form and will produce a series of bright lines unique to that element. Hydrogen will not look like helium which will not look like carbon which will not look like iron... and so on. Thus, astronomers can identify what kinds of stuff are in stars from the lines they find in the star's spectrum. This type of study is called spectroscopy.

The science of spectroscopy is quite sophisticated. From spectral lines astronomers can determine not only the element, but the temperature and density of that element in the star.

And if the total mass of our sun and any star of equal or less mass is about 30% of the mass in the universe, there's the problem.

I think you know very little or nothing about spectroscopy, but it's an interesting topic worth studying.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think you know very little or nothing about spectroscopy, but it's an interesting topic worth studying.

So are you light is a particle or a wave? I am in the wave camp. It can be measured as a particle, as for how it really works with the interference pattern on the double slit experiment has wave all over it. A photon has no mass. Neither does a wave traveling through an ocean. The sea I see light travelling trough is the sea of electrons. Spectroscopy is cool, have not cracked the code myself, know it has a lot to say.

double post

Triple post, really bad lag today?

In the binaries many of those could be a reflection off of those space bubbles that were discovered if the system is in one of them and appears to reflect not only inner and outer as a binary... or as other call them a parallel.

What I've experienced in doing the parallel thought experiment... is it would be like ones own nose touching ones own nose against a mirror but it sees what others have said is there instead of the mirror. So it is more of one being two as a direct reflection looking infinitely around each other due to not seeing any other reflection than what others have said as real or existent.

The more recent theories where the math works sort of back that up when they say that nothing at all exists... meaning the reflection aspect of another instead of taking time and seeing into oneself and coming out the other side as if one bent over backwards and crawled through ones own legs then stood up... At which point? Then would be real or a firmament since that "self" that didn't exist and that "other" wanting it to exist as said ceases and direct experience of the world results.

originally posted by: RussianTroll

The work of the Korean researcher was publishedin the most authoritative The Astrophysical Journal, that is, it has passed all possible checks and does not contain the slightest inaccuracy. There are few scientific publications in the world that you can trust unconditionally. If we are talking about astronomy, then you can trust this magazine.

Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said Dr. Drummond Rennie, senior editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

“For high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-​review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.”

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.” The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare . . . And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”

The chairman of one of the congressional investigating committees, John Dingell, at one time said to scientists: “I will tell you that I find your enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly inadequate and that rascality seems to be triumphing over virtue in many incidences in a fashion that I find totally unacceptable. I hope you do too.”

Dr. Drummond Rennie, previously quoted, also said: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-​serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”

So that something ends up in print, being published in a prestigious journal, really doesn't tell us all that much about its accuracy/correctness. No matter how prestigious the journal is, it still doesn't warrant trusting it "unconditionally", as you suggested we can concerning this journal. Did they ever publish any papers on the multiverse, M-theory or string theory? Cause that would automatically disqualify them for me (for trusting them unconditionally or for automatically assuming that any paper published in it "does not contain the slightest inaccuracy", just because it's published in this journal).

a reply to: whereislogic

When whatever it is is no longer a passion the pay check suffices and at which point society starts to suffer a long slow collapse failing to see it.