Bufofrog

No.

This like the rest of your posts is wrong. Cl- has 18 electrons and Na+ has 10 electrons. So you are just playing a silly semantics game. You could just as easily say there are no positively charged bodies, just more positive than previously. Quite disingenuous in my opinion. You're wasting every ones time.

This does not make sense to me. Could you write this with normal mathematical symbols? Because you certainly don't mean this: \(\frac{1}{Action} + \frac{2}{Reaction} = Retrodynamic\) , do you?

No. It could be that God doesn't want to be sensed, that would be easy for an omnipotent being. It could be that God went some where else and is just not available right now. It could be God doesn't exist.

I think you are in the wrong section of the forum. This should be in the religion section or new theories. I also think that we are our bodies and that's it, no soul.

Alexander Graham Bell transmitted sound using light in the late 1800's.

Our bodies produce electricity. We do not 'store' electricity like a battery or a capacitor so there is no need to take a shock. When you receive a shock no electricity is stored or used. An electric eel can deliver a shock that can be lethal, but of course it produces it's own electricity there is no "feeding" of electricity that is needed. So the bottom line is we product electricity in our bodies we do not get it from the outside.

It is clear that electrical shocks are not needed for life. Animals do not receive shocks and they do fine. Modern humans have been around for about 200,000 years without receiving shocks to live. Life evolved without electric shocks so it would be very surprising if electric shocks were necessary for life.

I would try if I knew what a 'raw meta Physical element' was. Is your second sentence saying we come from a supernatural source of some sort? If that is what you are saying then we are no longer having a science discussion.

That is one of the most absurd things I have read one this forum. Congratulations?

I speculate this thread will be closed, my evidence is forthcoming.

Gee, what a great source! They have a lot of great information on aliens, the pharaohs flying in planes and bigfoot.

And the members have pointed out your idea wouldn't work, so the size of the stones is irrelevant.

The big bang is about the beginning of the universe, are you suggesting that black holes go back in time? Stellar black holes don't exist until a star collapses so how could they be part of a singularity from the beginning of the universe? That doesn't make sense to me. If there are any I would be flabbergasted.

First of all let me state for the record that loath your font. You can't eat electricity. On the other hand we regularly eat material that have charges, such as Na+ and Cl-.

Oh, yes I do think that is far fetched. History and archeology. Seriously? We far more advanced.

No, energy does not give mass to a photon. You are making a lot of unsupported claims.

That seems reasonable, I don't see any way to test the idea but I don't think that is a big concern for your belief. The creationist that believe that T. rex, Adam and Eve sat around together eating plants is when the creation idea runs completely off the rails.

It seems like your experiment was to act like an anti-science troll and see if you are treated like an anti-science troll. The outcome was easily predictable IMO.

It is much more than a possibility, it is a theory that matches observation. Newtons theory of gravity is not false, the theory that has limited applicability compared to GR, it is certainly not false.

It seems that you are missing the point, theories are the highest level of confidence in science. There is no 'proven' explanations of phenomena in science.

What is that suppose to show, besides b does not equal b?

Do you now also realize that your statement that "every theory violates physical laws" is wrong.

My comment was directed at J.Merrill's question, which was why does mass warp space. IMO physics tries to answer how and philosophy would try to answer why.

So now you see that your comment was not correct, so that's good. This more general statement you made is also obviously incorrect.