Leaderboard

Censorship is a fine line, but surly even the most ardent advocate of free speech, would object to lies being told about them?

Not conceivable by a man's mind ???? Maybe you should apply scientific methodology, before making such nonsensical statements; are they magic ? Been locked in the house with Covid-19 for 5 days. No shortness of breath or fever, but aches and pains all over. The amount of laughing, while reading this thread, made those aches worse. It was well worth it

Thanks for your reply. Since your description deviates from the predictions of Newton's law of universal gravitation (and also general relativity) can you provide the mathematical equations used in your model that predicts the results you claim? What scientific method did you use? I know about models for gravity and a few things about applying such models. As an engineer I find Newton useful for low relative velocities and masses. Einsteins model predicts bending of light and is supported by experiments. What experiments and observations support your idea?

The Hill Sphere is not about or much to due to the shape of the body. It is the region of space around the body where gravity is controlled by that body. As such the region is subject to purturbation by other bodies, so the Moon purturbes the Hill Region (Hill was an astronmer) and the Earth purturbes the Sund's region etc. Within this region a smaller orbiting body will remain orbiting and not escape. It is said to be locked or gravitationally locked or tidally locked to the larger one. It may be noted that there is a small region round the Moon where the Moon has greater influence than the Earth and so a satellite could potentially orbit there.

Disagree. Logic and critical thinking, in the context of an open debate, is the only viable solution. The alternative is censorship, which simply doesn't work. Censorship is an attempt to expunge incorrect ideas (or those that are perceived to be incorrect), from an "intellectual ecosystem" (society, a political discourse, etc). The arbiter responsible for the censorship believes that it purifies the ecosystem and upholds its integrity. But this is an illusory process, and serves only to strengthen the views that have been censored - be they right or wrong. Take Trump, for example. Throughout his presidency, Trump repeatedly made false statements about numerous issues. For most of his presidency he was not censored by the media. He was able to publicize his views on Twitter, through press conferences, etc. Only late in his presidency did certain media outlets begin to make editorial decisions about how to censor Trump (cutting away from his speeches, informing the public about erroneous statements, etc). Ultimately, after he left office, Trump was banned from Twitter, his primary means of direct communication with the American public. The question is: did this censorship of Trump, this "purge", change anything regarding the views he promulgated? I highly doubt that it did. Those supporting Trump are now increasingly compartmentalized into their own self-reinforcing echo chamber (all 70 million of them). Most have sought out alternative channels of communication to discuss their views - be it on Parler (which was removed from Apple's App store, but will be back soon) and other platforms. So censorship will have had little effect on Trump supporters: they believe even more fervently than before, and feel justified in their perception of the mainstream media as a repressive liberal machine. The next step after censorship would be arresting people that don't hold the correct views, but of course we don't do that in a free society. So in short, censorship is counterproductive. It excludes people from a dialogue that might otherwise have changed their minds. Even if their minds aren't changed right away, being included in a group with different views has an effect on such people over time, such that they are become less extreme in their thinking and become more open to other possibilities.

I created this schema to better understand the problem. Reforming the police would require dismantling the main nodes in this system thus eliminating the secondary and tertiary consequences.

I am of the school that standard means a correct way of doing something that most or all will follow by an agreed-upon successful demonstration of it being correct, sustainable, and good for the whole. Sabotage better describes what colleges did to electricity. As I had mentioned, they threw out Du Fay's two-particle theory of electricity 300 years ago, and for a good reason, it held electricity in the dark ages. Electricity works exactly like pneumatic, hydronic, or hydraulic pressure; no difference, which is how Benjamin Franklin described and demonstrated it. And colleges for money brought back Du Fay like Frankenstein. What we have done to the terminology of the electrical industry is similar to changing the terminology in the elevator business to Raise it down and Lower it up instead of raise and lower it. As far as having to follow the Universal Scientific methods order, you must. But I believe most are not aware of what it takes to do an experiment for presentation as fact. As I had mentioned, you may have been doing experiments and found something amazing. But at that point, it is just an amazing thing that is unexplained. If you feel you know what it is and have a hypothesis of what causes it, you are at step two. You must, at this point, demonstrate your hypothesis with words, hand or body gestures, or objects. If you cannot easily go through the demonstration of what will happen or has happened in the experiment you have done, you do not have a hypothesis, and you do not even know what you did during your experiment or will do during your experiment; you have nothing. The Universal Scientists scientific method was a test to ensure accuracy; it was truly an amazing set of rules to do so if you were interested in truth, something that has fallen out of favor in what I call the dark ages. I understand they couldn't get past cohesion with the original Scientific Method. But that is no reason to keep it from young people; they need it more than you know. As far as why the earth is "attracted" to the sun, it is the same as all apparent attraction forces, a force of repulsion. Rays are moving through all matter from all directions in the universe. They are just particles of electricity traveling at a velocity not conceivable by a man's mind. When slowed, they create gravity, x-rays, UV, light, heat, and any other effects in our universe. They stabilize matter; matter is particles of electricity stuck in spherical shapes hydrogen protons. Higher elements are just numerical increments of hydrogen protons trapped by ambient radiation in a new structure. Matter is a filter for ambient radiation. Matter cannot exist without the bombardment of ambient radiation, and radiation cannot travel without matter to travel through. If a perfect vacuum was created, the surrounding matter would be repulsed into the void at speeds far faster than light. Matter and particles of electricity have no actual mass, which explains my previous statement; it is all an electrical effect, an illusion of sorts. We see particles carrying information about a surface they have left. But we do not see the object. Particles of electricity are trapped in spherical shapes by the ratio of surface area to volume of a sphere. If you take the area of a sphere Pi times diameter squared and the volume of a sphere Pi times diameter cubed divided by six and look at the ratio created between them for a small sphere and a large sphere, you will see that the surface area of a small sphere compared to its volume is enormous compared to a large sphere's surface area to volume ratio. This ratio limits the size of living cells; the cell membrane of a large cell, like some cancer cells, cannot absorb enough food and expel enough waste when forced to metabolize faster or become contaminated with poison. Well, this same ratio is how particles of electricity become trapped in spherical containers we call matter. There is such a huge surface area compared to the volume inside a hydrogen proton that it is all surface; the bombardment of ambient radiation becomes all-encompassing and traps the particles in those spheres. The matter without bombardment would dissipate into particles of electricity. The matter has no stored energy. It acts only as a sail in the wind of ambient radiation. A bomb is just ambient radiation dispersing an area too high in voltage for ambient radiation to pass through. A bomb causes a bottleneck to ambient radiation and is removed/dispersed, or it would consume the universe. A planet and a sun both slow incoming ambient radiation to a tune similar to the rate we calculate or approximate gravity now. Like in an electrical circuit, if you create resistance, the whole circuit is instantly slowed, you get a voltage drop, you get work done, heat is produced. Well, that is what happens when ambient radiation nears a planet; it is slowed and starts delivering power. Repulsive power that pins you to the surface with a form of electrical repulsion. I have been warning people in the chemical industry for years about the ratio of surface area to volume of a small and large sphere. The imaginary spherical shape in a cubical tank often creates a barrier that heat in a chemical reaction cannot pass through. So, although the walls of the cubical tank are big enough to absorb the heat, the imaginary spherical shape will not allow the heat to get to the walls. I have been to the site of a few runway chemical reactions; I can assure you they were not aware of this until after the accident. And these were highly educated individuals. Excuse some of my gramatical errors; I really cannot read this repeatedly to find them all.

I have a limited amount of time; I didn’t overlook your points; I was doing many things. Proximity and the angle of the radiation bombarding the object are why a small object creating a lot of gravity does not affect distant objects with the same force. When you are standing on the planet, just about all ambient radiation hitting you from above will also pass through the planet that will slow it, and cause it to impart gravity force upon you. As you move away from the planet, some of the rays striking you from above are not going to strike the planet, so they will not slow, and they will not impart a repulsive force upon you towards the planet. Subsequently, causing less repulsive force/gravity, the original definition of gravity. Not the new and incorrect light-bending definition of gravity. Once you realize what gravity is, you know it will not and cannot bend light. Light passing nearby to planets bends from the ramping density gases around the planet, not the gravity. The hydrogen gas that fills space is at extremely low pressure. Near planets, there is a ramping density of gas that creates a spherical lens that will cause refraction of light passing through it. There is even ramping density gas around a galaxy because it is a structure that slows ambient radiation heading to it. So a tiny object creating a lot of gravity will only affect objects very close to it. As bomb cores get larger, they can create a rather large amount of gravity towards the bomb before the bomb detonates and creates the pressure wave. About “government” I was speaking of my American government but we know that other governments follow what America does with education for the most part. If we re-released Universal Science other countries would have to follow and the world would be a better place. People tend to suffer from strong reproductive impulses when they are under duress, stress, overworked have no future, it is a natural body survival instinct. That is why countries that suffer under socialism or communism usually have massive over population problems.