Illogicallylogical

Members
  • Content count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-1 Poor

About Illogicallylogical

  • Rank
    Lepton

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Aerospace tech, and then some
  1. What I mean to say is, humans can't find the nutrition to sustain them in life from a single source such as a cow or horse can from grass, or like fish that eat other fish. Humans need vitamins and proteins from several different sources to maintain their health. And I have not found a single source of nutrition that comes close to meeting that criteria for humans. Honey being the closest I think. I'm not saying that animals don't derive their nutrition from different sources, I'm just saying that if pinned down to one source everything but humans have a choice that will keep them healthy. The cuneiform carvings that are the oldest known written language are the accounts of which I was referring. My statement was referring to the process of natural selection. If we have evolved from simpler beings that had more readily available source of nutrition, it stands to reason that the evolutionary process would not deny humans of the simplicity in gaining nutritional sustenance in place of a more complex and difficult manner than their evolutionary predecessors had. Rapid changes in fossil records only reflect an adaptation of simplicity. To evolve into a more complex creature that in turn needs more to survive takes ,as Strange says, millions of years. Not to mention the conditions that require it do so. There is no evidence in the fossil records that humans had to evolve in such ways. And if there was some underlying condition that might have existed to initiate such a change, then why aren't there evidence of other creatures adapting to those conditions? ... and maybe there are and I just don't know about them. Bower birds are not telling a story or divulging information in the way that those quote unquote primitive people were.
  2. If a pressure is built and contained. That container is awaiting the transfer of it's built up energy, right? Well does the container contain a pressure inside it as the pressure changes on its outside? And supposing that pressure were released into nothing, no matterial anything, and devoid of a resistance of any kind. Would that energy transfer to its contain without a resistant conduit in which to transfer. It seems that Newt's 3rd needs a possitive/resistant bearing source to act as the fulcrum needed to propell the container in the equal and opposite direction of release. Why does this not make sense? Another question( and feel free to move this pne whee it belongs) is why does centrifugal force applied at a certain pitch and speed give a gravitational effect when applied with the subjects at the center of the centrifuge? A subject situated on the outside of a centrifuge would not feel the gravitational effect, but multiple times the opposite. Yet flipping the outcome again is the very same thing the earth is applying to we subjects at tje outset of its centrifuge. Yet we feel the opposite effect. Is it possible that a force as weak as gravity is that much more powerful than the force applied by a centrifuge with earth's size and rotation?
  3. is it possible that we are the only specie on the planet that contrive all of its nutrition it needs to survive from a single source of food. I didn't think that evolution made sustaining life more difficult to achieve from ones natural habitat. Hence " natural selection". And is it likely that our species evolved into an intelect so rapidly. I don't recall any other specie that has evisenced such a rate of change of any kind as quickly as it is thought humans evolved from neandeothol. One minute cavemen with no language known, the next minute we are a civilized population with asolid founsation in mathematics, cosmology, and structural engineering. Samarian accounts were chalked up as being mythological, but without understanding the background of events that happened among an also unknown cultural belief structure, there is no way any written /carved word should be dismissed as just storytellin'. A carving takes a lot of effort and a lot of effort isn't takin on something that means nothing valueable to the author. So I ponder these things I may wander...
  4. Can anybody tell me who is responsible for the chemtrails? Why they're spraying? And what? The closest answer I have been able to get is combatting climate change And have only ran across some who've takin soil samples in succession before and after days of heavy chemtrailing. Someone is paying millions, if not billions, to fuel those planes to spray what samples have shown to be metal particulates rich in aluminum, zinc, among other metals. To have so heavy of a bombardment that is layed out over most of the world on a daily basis is costing someone,( I.e.probably us) alot of time, money and effort. It strikes me as more than a little paculiar that not many people have raised a fuss, let alone barely questioned the fact that planes are laying out chemicals in the air they breathe on a regular basis. I feel that all the public outcries of every newly thought of crisis are just falSe flags that direct our attention away from what is going on right over our heads. I recall a senator attatched a protection affording private companies the right to eject matter into the atmosphere without any type of disclosure. That seems rather underhanded. whoever is backing this worldwide coordinated effort has a huge reason that they aren't disclosing to the masses, which implies alarm should be felt. Surely a combat in global warming would be more widely known due to oppositional debate. They regulate what we ingest to a degree hardly sustainable yet we say nothing of dowsing the air we breathe. Plus I doubt climate reasons due to the fact that it's been happening since around 1967 vietnam. So whatever yhe big idea. they've had it sine then and have since spread the habit across the globe. If anyone knows some info then color me interested. Id like to know.
  5. "What is the "advent of gravity"? The evidence of gravity is that things fall, planets orbit, etc." When describing how things fall you don't need a force called gravity. Weight, buoyancy, density and trajectory are enough to explain how things fall, float, or fly. So the mere observation of something falling does nothing to prove or describe a gravitational force. And if Einstein believed that the ether had no physical properties then how could he also believe that the very same non-physical provision is physically warped by Gravity when explaining light curvature? And the evidence of an electromagnetic field is in the different ways it can be detected and produced, i.e. antennas and electric motors. What is used to detect the force of gravity and has anyone ever reproduced a gravitational force? I can think of any that aren't achieved using some type of centrifugal or G force which could also predict and describe using weight, density, buoyancy and trajectory. "The medium for the propagation of light is irrelevant to gravity." The medium (or the conduit in which it travels) is very relevant to gravity when it is said to warp/bend that conduit, change the direction and range of propagation. i.e. light curvature. " This depends on what you mean by the words "physical" and "medium". (And "space". And "is". And ...) " By space I mean the distance in between to points of reference.
  6. In the explanation for this theory it suggests that the angle at which an event is viewed changes the time at which the events are viewed. The problem with this theory is that it leaves out important perspectives that can't be left out of the equation. In the wiki link it gives the example of a car in New York crashing (event A), and a car crashing in London (event B) at the the same time. Okay, so we can imagine for arguments sake that both cars have a clock that reads the same. Then there are two observers. One on the ground who sees the events, as they happened, in their own time and his own time. (since he sees it as both events saw it) -and there's the rub. All the explanations for the relativity theory fail to factor in all variables of the equation. The theory states that an observer from a plane flying between London and New York perceives the two events as not being simultaneous, as seen by both, the events and the earth bound observer. It doesn't make sense. I mean just pretend that you can view events A and B at the perspective of something like google earth instead of a plane. If you paused the crashing events at the moment of impact (which at this moment are simultaneous to three of the four factors in this equatative scenario). No matter who is watching, from what angle, the fact still stands that once paused in that moment, you could zoom in, out and all around, from all angles and distances, (as you might do navigating around google earth), the picture would show the moment of impact simultaneously. If you used this model. pausing the world at the moment of impact, that picture would show one event at the moment of impact while the other event not at that moment of impact to the observer of a spacial deference. That would not only be a matter for perspective but a matter of having different events happening altogether. The event's perspective would change as the location of the observer changed. The perspective of the event itself is a part of the scenario that has to be accounted for. Unless a multitude of realities exist concurrently. Now we're getting a little out of scope. The only way I could see this theory having any validity would be is if the event happened at such a distance from the observers that the light from the events reached the observers at two different intervals. And still should see the events as happening simultaneously. In this case the observers would have to be at great distances from one another. And that is supposing that light propagation is such that it's pictoral reflection is even able to travel beyond the life of it's source. As is widely accepted of the light of most stars we observe. Which I kind of doubt if someone really far away could be seeing the 2 year old ME running around. From my way of thinking, space and time (or the interval of motion from one point in space to another point in space) is relative to itself whether the speed of light is an invariant speed or not. The only way I could see light or it's speed being of any consequence would be itin some way physical impacting the event or observation. At that point I could agree that it is a factor that would effect the way something is observed. As of now the speed of light© is the equivalent of a yard stick. All be it the biggest yard stick, but a yard stick none the less.And when I think about the distance of a light year as one big yard stick, I don't see that yard stick dictating how or what's observed. It would be like changing from that yard stick to a meter stick depending upon who is looking. It seems illogical. Ah but you have to remember that it is only when accelerating from one extreme to another that the acceleration is felt. And in reality both the rocket and the earth are in motion at an equal rate from the perspective of the other. That is what makes the clocks being different for either of them illogical. And I suggest that one thing has to effect another physically to be relative at all. This is why time as measured by the speed of light© is just that only a measure and has no physical bearing on observable reality. But I am stunned at how little we know about the reality we live in. You are right about being aware of the true nature of things. I just wonder at how much we could gain by paying attention to what is rather than what we make believe it is.
  7. An analogy used to describe relativity doesn't make sense to me. The clock analogy. Where you have a man, at rest, holding a clock on earth. And you have another man holding a clock in a rocket blasting away from the earth at ?thousand Mph. From the perspective of the man on earth, the rocketman's clock would slow down in comparison with his own clock, at rest on earth.??? Isn't it true that there would be no change in time due to the perspective of the man on the rocket? To himself he is the one at rest and it is the clock wielding earthman, who is blasting away from him at ?thousand Mph. Taking in the perspectives of both men, wouldn't the supposed change in the eachother's clocks cancel out the time change event as being no change at all? If correct wouldn't this suggest that rate of motion and/or the speed of light© has no observable effect on the propagation of time? Another question is what observable evidence is/was there to support the advent of gravity. Why was weight, mass and buoyancy coupled with the energy fields not enough? Couldn't any discrepancies in the math be found in a missing anomaly of an already existing force. It seems that Einstein dismisses the ether as being non-existant or non-consequential, only to turn around and say the density of a massive object warps that very thing(space/ether) he had dismissed as being a medium to factor into calculation. Space/ether is either a physical medium or it isn't. Right?