Bufofrog

The image clearly shows that the positive charges would repel each other and fly apart. More to the point there is no way that these charges as you drew them would ever form that configuration. I still would like you to address my earlier questions:

The only reason they stop moving apart is the friction from the paper there is no friction in space the particles would fly apart from each other and continue to move away from each other. How does a particle gain mass because it lost energy? How can a particle lose 'most' of it's charge when it loses energy. None of this makes any sense.

Yep, it is all very exciting. However, I'll bet you a dollar that he turns out to be a loony toon and his stories are just that; stories. It would be neat if there really were ETs here but the whole idea of the governments of the world hiding the truth seems silly to me.

How could particles form a volume of space? The observations of dark matter indicate that it does not form an uniform mass and energy density, so that sort of sinks your idea. I assume when you say 'a weak mass', you mean a weak gravitational attraction. How weak is the gravitational attraction? How weak is the positive charge? If all the Rytons are positively charged why don't they repel each other and flying apart?

Your inability to follow the logic and math of relativity makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you.

How could this 'purposeful evolution' possibly work? Does an animal think, "I need eyes" and then the animal just develops eyes and then somehow also changes it's DNA to pass on it's eyes to it's offspring? Or does the animal think, "I need eyes" so it changes it's DNA so that it's offspring will develop eyes?

That would be a miracle or at least a helluva coincidence if your statement was accurate. So lets explore this: We know for a fact that relativity does make accurate predictions, as a matter of fact every test we have done shows relativity gives the correct prediction. Since miracles are probably not at play here the only logical and reasonable explanation is that your beliefs about the errors must be incorrect.

Oops, you did it again!

Just point out these internal errors that are obvious! You are getting down votes because you are saying in essence is that SR is wrong but you won't tell us why you think that.

Assuming this isn't MJ kihara, I'm sure he appreciated that. It is important to note however that it is not an insult to say that MJ kihara is using science term he doesn't understand to make statements that make no sense, because that is what he is doing.

Don't worry you're safe; not that many people will see this thread and I am quite sure none of them will repeat what they saw here.

Another 1000 yrs? What are you talking about? You are clearly just making up things that sound like science to you. That is not science however, that is more like idle guessing based on nothing.

Agreed. Isn't about time to send this thread to the Trash Can or close it? The author of the thread certainly has not met the requirements of the speculation section. I would like to see the mathematics describing the consciousness field, but I don't think that is going to happen...

I think you mean kinetic energy, there is no such thing as a kinetic charge.

Carbon 14 is produced from thermal neutrons interacting with nitrogen. During the age of above ground nuke testing it was noted that the amount of C14 in carbon dioxide rose but there was no decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The other thing is the half life of carbon 14 is 5700 years so even if your idea was right it would not be any sort of fix that could be accomplished in the short term.

You stated, "I chose virtual because they are Soo tiny that being virtual is the correct to discribe them." How did I shift goal post if I am responding to something you wrote? Do you not know what shifting goal posts mean? Semantics is not the problem, what you stated is wrong - that's the problem.

Please show me where any of your sources discuss 'spacetime particles' or that if particles are really tiny they are called virtual particles. I would also like to see some reference supporting this statement:

So you do not understand what a virtual particle is nor do you know what the uncertainty principle is - got it.

I dismiss your ideas because they are just made up statements with no evidence. You introduce things like 'spacetime particles' without a shred of evidence to back it up. You go on to say that these made up 'space time particles' are virtual particles because they are really small, which is nonsensical. In short I dismiss your ideas, not because they challenge the status quo, but because you have absolutely nothing to back up your ideas other than hand waving mumbo jumbo.

There is no such thing as spacetime particles. Virtual particles are not defined as 'tiny' particles. You should not make up new definitions for terms that are already defined. Word salad.

I'm not sure what you mean by gravitational generator. I suppose you mean any mass is a gravitational generator? What abnormalities in a mass would cause gravitational pulsation waves? What is a gravitational pulsation wave?

Unless blackhole is the name of your cat or something, it ain't observing nothing.

Word salad.

Congratulations on having the highest IQ in the world! It is odd that this incredible intellect cannot be detected in your posts.

Simple but wrong is not helpful. Several members have pointed out to you that this simple explanation of yours is full of errors.