Leaderboard

So first off, it's probably the WORST way to power your cell phone. But... Cows do produce a significant amount of methane: Cows wear BACKPACKS to capture methane emissions | Daily Mail Online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2606956/Now-THATS-wind-power-Cows-wear-BACKPACKS-capture-emissions-miniature-power-stations.html So instead of a cumbersome backpack, a small accumulator, generator and battery combo could harvest this energy. When the cows come in for milking, they can help power the farm! It also reduces GHG by converting methane to CO2 and offsetting some power generation emissions.

I notice several respondants assert that targeted ads save the recipient (target) time, that might be so in some cases. But I am now having to waste my time filtering and deleting at least 50 Emails per day of targeted advertising. Most is this is downright counterproductive since it merely repeats what I have just bought. How many copies of War & Peace does a bear need or want? At Sensei's comment in particular about perfume. Many these days do online shopping and have their supermarket 'weekly run' delivered. They may well include perfume, and presumably know what they ordering. So there is nothing wrong with buying your perfume online per se. However I do object if the supermarket company then harvests the data that I bought something and sees it as an additional income stream thus moving from the business of selling supermarket products to the business of selling supermarket customers to other businesses. Particularly if it does it on the sly without first seeking my express permission.

I agree with you there. I will try to get this across to him. I have been trying to emphasize that I can never disprove the idea, through experiment, that God intervened in the primordial soup to make the first prokaryotic cell, but he's having none of that. I think knowledge is valuable and useful in itself, which is why I regard it as also being a useful methodology. However I agree it does not exhibit physical usefulness: it doesn't improve health, wealth, and standard of living like science does :). Friend, you should check out my thread in the philosophy section here - there I have provided a more detailed account of this person's arguments (sadly I haven't gotten any responses yet). He said exactly this: he claims that we can't reproduce the Big Bang, so the criterion of reproducibility does not hold. He even linked me to an article he wrote about it. The thing as, as someone said earlier, reproducibility operates IN PRINCIPLE - since the Big Bang is a physical event, it can hypothetically be reproduced. We could hypothetically, with very advanced technological capabilities, reproduce this even if at a smaller scale. But we cannot, IN PRINCIPLE, reproduce a divine act. No don't give up, I am interested in the discussion.

Exactly. Otherwise we get into ridiculous arguments like “well if you can’t reproduce the Big Bang [or abiogenesis] I’m a lab then it isn’t science.” which we occasionally get from anti-science types.

Hm...let me think about that. I could be wrong, but I think that's just playing with words. For one, that doesn't seem to be applicable because it isn't science as I understand it (I see it as an artistic question. Tell me if I am way off). But anyway, it seems that it IS a picture of a star. What you showed there. That's the case. The larger picture is not of a star, because it isn't the same picture in the first place

That doesn’t make sense though. Everthing we know about dark matter is completely based on evidence. It is entirely empirical. There are various hypotheses for what dark matter is, all are consistent to some degree with the evidence. There is, as far as I know, no objective, quantitative evidence that is consistent with god. But who cares? People don’t believe in god because of objective, quantitative evidence. Aargh. Auto correct - should have been dark matter! I would suggest starting with the Wikipedia page. The ONLY reason we know something labelled “dark matter” (got it right that time) exist is because we see evidence of it. Measurable, quantifiable, objective evidence. I struggle to see how anyone can say it is non-empirical. I guess he has learnt a little bit in his way hilosophy course about how to challenge arguments and is over stretching his reach. (A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and all that) What does he mean by “correct”? That is the standard (if simplistic) definition of the scientific method that you can find in many sources. The trouble is, there has been a lot of debate (among philosophers) about that definition since then. And practical science doesn’t always fit that pattern. So I suspect he is just trying to pull you out of your depth, hoping to confuse you and push you under.

See my comment above about models and prediction. The problem with "god-did-it" is that there is no predictive power and no falsifiability.

Unless one has a model for a deity or a spiritual soul, it's not the same thing. One needs to be able — at least in principle — to falsify a claim. Prediction from a model, for example. Dark matter is inferred because we have a well-tested model.

No no. Reproducibility doesn't mean testing the exact same object twice. You obtain an object of the same dimensions, molecular composition, density, etc (shouldn't be too hard in a laboratory setting) and test that to reproduce your results. If you test two objects that are physically identical, you are meeting the criterion of reproducibility.

If it's easy to do then by all means go ahead and try. But as long as you perform the experiment in air i think you will have no evidence that gravity generation is involved. The machine just acts as some sort of fan or similar, I would prefer to discuss the setup in vacuum. But lets try this idea as a way to find out what your setup is doing: Use a vacuum cleaner, start it and let it run. Air flows out from it somewhere. Now stick a paper to the inlet. The paper will get stuck and stay there even if no air is allowed to pass into the vacuum cleaner. No air will flow out from the vacuum cleaner. Does the vacuum cleaner generate gravity? Does the behaviour of the vacuum cleaner now look very similar to the phenomenon in your video?

Thx for the info, yeah I forgot how it was.

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-ice-moon-poles.html Ice confirmed at the Moon's poles August 21, 2018, Jet Propulsion Laboratory: In the darkest and coldest parts of its polar regions, a team of scientists has directly observed definitive evidence of water ice on the Moon's surface. These ice deposits are patchily distributed and could possibly be ancient. At the southern pole, most of the ice is concentrated at lunar craters, while the northern pole's ice is more widely, but sparsely spread. A team of scientists, led by Shuai Li of the University of Hawaii and Brown University and including Richard Elphic from NASA's Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley, used data from NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) instrument to identify three specific signatures that definitively prove there is water ice at the surface of the Moon. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-ice-moon-poles.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/08/14/1802345115 Direct evidence of surface exposed water ice in the lunar polar regions: Significance We found direct and definitive evidence for surface-exposed water ice in the lunar polar regions. The abundance and distribution of ice on the Moon are distinct from those on other airless bodies in the inner solar system such as Mercury and Ceres, which may be associated with the unique formation and evolution process of our Moon. These ice deposits might be utilized as an in situ resource in future exploration of the Moon. Abstract Water ice may be allowed to accumulate in permanently shaded regions on airless bodies in the inner solar system such as Mercury, the Moon, and Ceres [Watson K, et al. (1961) J Geophys Res66:3033–3045]. Unlike Mercury and Ceres, direct evidence for water ice exposed at the lunar surface has remained elusive. We utilize indirect lighting in regions of permanent shadow to report the detection of diagnostic near-infrared absorption features of water ice in reflectance spectra acquired by the Moon Mineralogy Mapper [M (3)] instrument. Several thousand M (3) pixels (∼280 × 280 m) with signatures of water ice at the optical surface (depth of less than a few millimeters) are identified within 20° latitude of both poles, including locations where independent measurements have suggested that water ice may be present. Most ice locations detected in M (3) data also exhibit lunar orbiter laser altimeter reflectance values and Lyman Alpha Mapping Project instrument UV ratio values consistent with the presence of water ice and also exhibit annual maximum temperatures below 110 K. However, only ∼3.5% of cold traps exhibit ice exposures. Spectral modeling shows that some ice-bearing pixels may contain ∼30 wt % ice that is intimately mixed with dry regolith. The patchy distribution and low abundance of lunar surface-exposed water ice might be associated with the true polar wander and impact gardening. The observation of spectral features of H2O confirms that water ice is trapped and accumulates in permanently shadowed regions of the Moon, and in some locations, it is exposed at the modern optical surface. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Lunar outpost although obviously difficult to undertake in the first instance, can have tremendous impetus in facilitating and undertaking manned planetary landings further afield , obviously to Mars. An International Lunar outpost would spread the costs, and share many skills and knowledge around that can make this project easier. Asteroid and Lunar mining would probably be required and desirable. Thoughts? Also from memory, water has been evidenced on the Moon at least two decades ago when they crashed a probe called Clementine into one of the polar regions, and the resultant ejecting stuff contained traces of water.

I see it now with people at work going on about Tommy Robinson and the Muslims that were jailed for being part of a paedophile ring. There were white local people jailed a decade ago for running a daughter swap paedophile ring just up the road from here. There was a guy who worked in there very department who went to jail for grooming a 13 year old girl. That was disgusting. It is disgusting whatever your race or religion - many humans ARE disgusting... but I see them solely blaming all the countries problems on immigrants. Half our workers here are Polish... I don't care - they are all fine humans to me. Some here hate them for 'taking all our jobs'. If they weren't such c**ts they wouldn't be loosing their jobs to these very respectable, very polite hard working and obedient people. I used to be more right wing but I have changed a lot over the years. I learnt and worked out that most of the things that I was angry about weren't even true and were lies and propaganda propagated to make people angry so they would join the political cause. It is very difficult getting this across to right wingers though - they really don't care about facts or people - they just want some righteous anger to direct towards some group or another. If I explain that they are looking at the world with polarized glasses on they will say I am brainwashed by education or will simply not believe me. I despair. At least people are talking about such things now - the last couple of decades have not allowed conversation to take place and anyone who mentioned immigration was immediately branded a racist and the conversations were shut down. That is why we now have this brexit debacle imo - people are fed up with not being allowed to talk about their fears and grievances and they let that out in the vote. Sorry - this might be off of the topic of the OP now... but it is all along the same line of conversation and is related by the fact the topic has lead us here.

! Moderator Note Don't post ignorance like this here anymore. This is a science discussions site. If you don't know something, ask questions so you can learn. Ignorance is NOT banished by making stuff up.

It has nothing to do with mathematics. This is all too silly. Time for the moderation queue perhaps.

You may have noticed I have been away on holiday.I went down last evening to observe progress and took some more photos. The investigation has not yet revealed the cause. During the last couple of weeks, they have completed the cofferdam and knocked a small hole into the crack. What can be seen is that the weir and the sound section of wall is sat on a concrete bench, now dry in the first new picture, taken across the river. The failed section is at the back and left of the picture. No movement is evident in this part of the structure. The end of this bench is shown in the new closeup of the failure. This also shows that coursing lines of the failed section suggest it has rotated anticlockwise relative to the section on the bench, which has horizontal coursing. However the coursing in the triangular counterfort section of wall is still horizontal. The wall is constructed from blue lias blocks. A few of these that have been broken out are lying in the bench, not shown in the picture. The lias appears sound. Removal of the blocks makes the crack appear wider (perhaps it has also been cleaned out). The removed blocks came from the upper part of the wall, so I'm not sure what information was gained there as there is no subsidence behind the wall. There is no evidence of investigation in the river bed yet.

You need to understand what gravity is, have you done the reading I asked you to? When you understand what gravity is and how it works, you will realise how ridiculous the idea of „creating gravity” with a contraption on your desk is. Our 3 spacial dimentions and time are connected together in a single construct called spacetime. The reason for this connection is that both time and space react to mass and energy...when you are in empty space where there are no planets, stars or moon’s close to you, spacetime is „flat”, if you are close to a body of mass in space, spacetime gets „curved” and that curvature is gravity. Space gets curved and we perceive that as gravity, time is affected to, it runs at a different rate for you when you find yourself in that curved space. Earth has mass and that mass generates the spacetime curvature which we perceive as me and you weighing a certain amount of pounds on our scales when in fact it is the spacial dimentions that are changed due to earths mass. Spacetime is curved on earth and its flat when you go to the earths orbit. The reason for that curvature is always mass or energy, and its a lot of mass and energy that can change the shape of spacetime, its literally hundreds of billions of tonnes of mass that is needed to curve spacetime enough so you can feel it. Its all about geometry when you try to figure out how gravity affects things...everything you know including light is affected by that curvature and you feel it as gravity. What I wrote is sloppy physics wise and theres still a lot more to it. I tried to put things into as simple words as possibe for you, I suggest you start asking questions instead of arguing, I promise things will get clearer and very interesting when you do that.

Pi is a constant. Your equatin for pi is not constant. It varies with the size of the circle and even the units (eg feet or metres) used to measure the circle. Therefore your equation seems to be wrong. Please justify this.

I've not thought about the deeper ethics at play here. I suspect there are quality arguments I've not heard and which may change my mind. I also acknowledge that FB is a bit unique in its place in our society and economy right now. All that said, my immediate reply is that FB is a technology platform and is trying to maximize revenue. I don't see a problem with this approach they've taken. In fact, it makes great sense to me from a business perspective. I, for example, would find it wasteful and silly if they targeted ads at me for your friend who specializes in hard to treat black womens hair. I'm not a black woman with hard to treat hair last time I checked. Targeting that ad at me is wasting her money. I'm not the client they are seeking and they want to get in front of the clients they know have the highest probability of coming in to sit in that chair. In short, if building owners are discriminating or if employers are using FB to filter out people based on race, sex, religion, etc., then you need attack them for doing so, not FB. It's not a 1:1 analogy, but it's close enough... It's hardly the fault of the local newspaper if the person who placed the ad chooses not to accept the calls or applications from some protected class who happens to respond to that ad.

Why some people think they can solve a physics mystery with only popular science study instead of mainstream coursework in actual physics.

I don't think so. You can easily check this with your current configuration (without the tube blocked/sealed) if you put something that creates smoke (a cigar maybe) instead of that paper. The smoke would enter the tube in the center, along the rotation axis, where the air has a low presure, and exit near the walls, were the air/smoke is pushed by the centrifugal force (the rotation creates a vortex). Still, I recommend the wooden board I mentioned above, in order to block both air and electrostatic forces (if any). Gravity is not blocked by wood.

I don't know what this means. Different days? This isn't true. They're not "saturated" with hydrogen atoms, but that doesn't mean they have none. Fat doesn't get converted to glucose. It gets converted to triglycerides and stored. It appears you may have some fundamental misunderstandings of how these processes work. If you wish to learn more, suggest exploring terms like ketosis and lipolysis in more detail.

I feel like I've been here before ...

This pressure on labour is part of a modern conspiracy. I'm not usually into conspiracy theories, but this one is out in the open for anyone to see. People supporting Israel have got together recently, and agreed to use any chance that arises, to portray ANY criticism of Israel as antisemitism. It's a powerful weapon, and the media are giving them full rein, and not picking up on it at all. As far as I'm concerned, antisemitism is restricted to prejudice against Jews for being Jews. And it stops there. Criticism or prejudice against Israel is definitely NOT antisemitism. It's a legitimate point of view. And as far as I'm concerned, that includes zionism, and the so-called "right" of Israel to exist. That's what they are trying to deter, by falsely labelling people who have strong anti-zionist opinions as antisemitic. As far as Hamas or Hezbollah are concerned, they have been CREATED by the establishment of Israel. I don't like Corbyn at all, but I have no problem with any support he gives to either of those organisations. They are no more terrorist than the State of Israel. They use terror to fight terror. Big deal. They didn't ask to have their land stolen. Winston Churchill in his most famous speech said "we will fight them on the beaches....... etc etc etc, and everyone said "what a guy, what a speech" when if fact he was just a lying bullshitter, it would never have happened. Hamas and Hezbollah on the other hand ARE fighting them on the beaches, etc etc. and get labelled terrorists by the Israel-loving media. What obnoxious double standards.

Would it make sense to put a different wheel in that does not support my theory like a perfect sphere? Would that still create static electricity? Also my other question would be if I were keep everything the same and run it with a different wheel that does not support my theory and it does not pull the paper towel to it, would that mean that the force is relative to my wheel?

I would like you guys to take a serious look at the mathematics, instead of attacking the semantics. Is it really that difficult for you to comprehend what the paper is trying to state?

Youll need to read a book or two...

You are most likely generating stupidity. Quit the experiment it will lead you no where.

Mine Yours if no attraction from the outside if no attration from the outside then it confirms what I haven't then not gravity even said yet. if both statements are true then how can any be false not just because They are in fact both true is the point and this one is not made to be able to do that even if yours says it cant be made. This is what im challenging. I cant until the other easy stuff is out of the way. Is that too much to ask

The stupidity is what your gravity generator is producing and that is what creates the suction power which is causing the paper to go in towards your gravity generator. It is like how a fart is produces from the rectum, the fart creates a sound wave and pushes the air outwards. In your fart generator you are sucking in the fart power and that pushes the paper towel inwards with fart power.

Sort of. On earth it does. That why I want to do a vacuum tube one. Air defined in my theory is actually a state of density in comparison to all things existing. Picture solid at the top being positive and below vacuum being negative. It goes solid liquid gas 0 vacuum neg. Most dense to least. What I figured this from is that in space if you opened an airlock chamber that is 1k cubic foot and, just for easy of calculation, it took space 1 second to balance the chamber. it would be 1k cubic ft per second. Hold that thought A venturi will cause a drag and pull effect correct? I wondered what would happened if you moved that chamber in a manner to create a venturi. Does it just whistle was what I asked. No its doesn't. I made one and it did whistle then it exploded. So I thought I should make one from metal just to be sure its not going to come apart. What I had trouble with was what shape it should be to do this. That's when I started looking for similarities between planets and trying to determine what would happen to the matter that is in the chamber. Wouldn't it just keep expanding to a point to where it becomes a depression is what I thought. Keep in mind I was one day just kidding in saying I wish I could solve gravity. I was working on something else when it dawned on me. Semi trailer drafting. A straight line can be curved correct? So if a semi can draft us a 60 what could a bunch of mountains and air and buildings and water and people do at 1k mph? How is it sounding so far? isn't this speculations. its not like your the one to qualify anyone for it anyways. I dont even know what that is because it doesn't matter to me

It is not irrelevant and new age ? the principals you are using in your science was also at one time refereed to or considered new age. Eye--dna--evolution (extremely limited perception)You cannot grasp beyond the atom or matter string or material (coarse matter realm ) and that is your limit. you are 4000 years away from ever answering to me any of those questions correctly. One can only simplify to a certain degree something nature created to some so called scientists . You are focused on evidence which is good. I have given you the patterns go and OBSERVE NATURE THAT IS THE EVIDENCE. Energy travels in spirals. If you still don't get it, then know where you stand with your knowledge of NATURE....

did you want me to use the paper instead of smoke because it would still mean the same thing if it pulls either the paper or the smoke within a vacuum chamber even if it doesn't have a tube on it. according to your theory of gravity should have tracked every possible molecule that's involved in that vacuum chamber so if this does that then it proves both correct because that's the whole point of gravity it attracts matter. Unless you can disprove that gravity attracts matter or prove to me what my wheel inside the tube is creating when I used demonstrable physics that has been proven by the basic laws of physics like Newton's third law that I referenced earlier and debunked their entire logic with basic physics. That fact that I linked that someone used cannot debunk Newton's third law just because they explain something. Newton's third law is able to be demonstrated. If that link that I sent you is true then Newton's third law is not. Talk your way out of that

Not Gravity, the existence of a gravitational field is not scientifically proven. The evidence for gravitational field is based on mathematical logic. We don't know enough about gravity to assume there is a gravitational field. The fact that we can't explain star-dynamics (dark matter) shows our understanding of gravity lacks to know there is a gravitational field. A while back someone created a new Gravity theory. "In 2010, Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon. In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime."https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html

I think you mean gravitons is not scientifically proven. The gravitational field is well established. I think you maybe have to much time watching happy feet and playing with yourself instead of learning English in Belgium.

I am going to get a wheel made that doesn't vibrate one of these days to eliminate the vibrations? Are you claiming that there's no gaseous matter past 62 miles above our head? This is what I refer to as air so what I mean is gaseous matter it doesn't matter what it's made of.

No I don't mean gravitons. It is established but it's not scientifically proven. If it was, then it would be a scientific theory, but it's not, it's a model.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field I don't watch movies since my concentration is messed up. I don't play with myself since it doesn't give me a nice feeling and costs me a lot of energy. I have a neuromuscular disease. Thanks for reminding me.

Which theories? I just posted a link to a new theory in 'Astronomy and Cosmology'.

It gets quite boring reminding those that profess to know about science, that scientific theories do not align with "proof" It depends what you consider to be 'proof'. Our Gravity theory can't explain stardynamics. We our made of 'Stardust'. So our Gravity theory lacks to explain our natural world.

No NO and No again. I want (to know) the exact breaking stength of that piece of wood. Not another similar one. No two pieces of wood have the exact same breaking strength. Engineers address this issue every day by using testing to what is called proof strength.

Great!! And then come back here and inform the forum how you were totally wrong in your hypothetical.

I meant to answer the vacuum question. What I hope to see is that it will lift the smoke up into is field. To continue So I thought if I spun that chamber that I was discussing with the hole to the outside of the rotation. 1 rotation per second would be considered 1k cubic ft displacement calculated like a pump.1 in 1 out. But the only thing about it is that it would not pump because there's nothing going in. That's not very useful to use so it would get ignored. I wondered how far I could expand what was in the space that is moving before it becomes a depression due to the venturi that is happening at the opening. It whistle with a hole shaped like a circle at first. With this wheel since I had to try to make that same effect but with metal it became a money thing. It was either make it by hand just to see if its worth going any further to answer my questions. Yes mine has a lot to do with the air at first but again as you can tell this is not a high quality piece of crap. Its a rough cut. That what I mean by the start of it all. Im not going to take this to the bank until something actually comes from it. Not that its going to but still. The wheel is doing what I thought it would. Yes the air will be squeezed in there. Yes it will stop accumulating air once the strength of the wheels design and environmental variable allow it to. I dont know if you caught that last video but the full sheet of paper weighs more then the paper towel. My thought is that inside the bigger diameter tube is a larger airspace. With that airspace comes matter. If that matter gets attracted to the wheel as it spins and begins to move with it, it would now become part of the field. What I mean there is that the air would move perpendicular to the tube causing a draft like effect between the surface of the tube and the air since the air is rotating with the wheel at this time. Thus making the field bigger. Just like our planet is doing on the edge of our atmosphere. It looks like our planet is sling shotting around the sun without any other forces effectively interrupting it. Another part would be like the core of the planet. Its assumed for the most part but the best that mankind has. If it was spinning very fast like a star or something observed in space moving all that gas inside there it would hold our crust together like a vacuum seal once solid began to form around it during its creation. The gravity part in the core would be along the solid part of mantle because all the gas and loose liquid matter would be creating and atmosphere not unlike how ours is but made up of hot gasses and other stuff. And at higher pressures due to the temps and speed. Now it has 2 fields in a planet. one in the core and one from the surface. If the material in the crust is a conductor and or magnets which there is. The liquid matter, including metals, from the mantle and possible core would be passing by it at a high rate of speed. Now its generating a magnetic field I dont know if the basic are even being tested. Just maybe the perception of it. The surface of the equator is moving faster the poles as to generate more centrifugal force. Since for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction, the increase in the centrifugal force would require gravity to increase to compensate in order for you to weight even close to the same. The force at the pole is measure at a speed of 1 rotation per day. That's not a lot of force. Our planet is oblate. It shows that the centrifugal force is much larger then the poles at the equator. So doesn't it make sense that if you increase one you would have to increase another in order to keep the almost exact same value. nature is not perfect. its natural. That tiny difference from the north pole to the equator cannot explain or quantify the immense difference in centrifugal force at the equator without gravity increase to compensate. This is what was presented to me. https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11511.html How can newtons third law not apply in that case?

or maybe let someone interested challenge new ideas like respectable people ought to do. while you can be in another topic. you are here by yourself.

Maybe I should take a science class so I can learn to ignore suggestions in a speculations forum

That is not great news. God loves us all and he wants us to be with him. Turn back to God!

your understanding of an atom or matter string is limiting you. feet /meters cannot be used in trying to collectively understand the quantum realms and beyond. that is where you all are not understanding. You try to attribute extreme complex natural phenomena with words and they just don't work. when you grasp the sequence of patterns in nature then you will find that within an atom exists all the information in the universe and all other universes in the trillion folds. but im made of cells which are made of atoms ? Humans today cannot begin to imagine just how complex the mechanics behind their awareness truly is. How far and long it takes for a consciousness to develop in a sun/planetary system, let alone galaxy. why are you here how im aware? where or what is responsible for this constant set of laws? cognition, awareness, emotion movement experience growth cycles ORIGIN??? This questions remained unanswered because scientists today sway from nature and rely on unfinished or outdated theories and principles. ONE MANS RUBBISH IS ANOTHER MANS TREASURE. This is very important information PRICELESS.

I'm claiming that the 300 miles of air above our heads is whats holding us down due to the effect that is happening at the edge of our atmosphere. take this mountain for example. see how the air is appearing as if the mountain is moving. That's because it is. if that mountain passed you at the speed that it is traveling right now and you were standing still. By still I mean not moving with the surface. The speed differential would be 1kmph or more depending on the speed of the surface where the mountain is. You can feel a semi pass you at 60mph. Why wouldn't you feel the mountain in that same case? Electro magnetism is invisible. We can create it. So why not go down this road and see. The differential from space to our atmosphere is where this is happening. I do have calculations. You just wont accept them so I'm not going to show them. If you cant answer my questions explaining why instead of just saying its not possible then you dont have an answer is what I'm getting at. I dont want whatever math you are doing. This is purely basic. If the math is something that I can use not to only reason it but actionable information then I will use that. I'm not that far into developing a theory yet to try and use equations to explain. I have to have something concrete to go off of to use my calculations. Not just an assumption . If this is so simply not gravity then tell me why with demonstrable evidence. I'm going to bring demonstrable evidence. Documents that clearly demonstrate what your saying or video of examples. You can use things like what I just used. I'm still developing this theory so I dont have all the answers. I came here to try to find some other logic that I can use to try to eliminate things. Like the static charge that I'm going to test. As far as my theory goes this is what I'm going to call it till I'm shown otherwise because by my theory's definition this would be considered gravity. This does not mean that I'm saying its fact. Its a Theory. Can you solve math without even understanding the equation? How can you solve this without even understand the equation? simply dismissing it is not solving it. You dont have to solve it. I just wanted to know what you think it might be. Not what you think it isnt

This should assist anyone in trying to understand that there is a very big error in the PI formula present on convectional and mainstream science. I, through observing nature figured out that there is a certain pattern present in Trees, Plants, animals, humans. look at the eyes , eggs, water ripples sound vibrations and flow patterns, city structures and buildings from the center outward. leaf membranes and their respective colors in relation to weather climate and location. The shapes and lines in the Alphabet have to do with the radiation of energy as it travels from nuclei or origin. Begin to ask yourself what is time and space and begin deriving certain conclusions based on nature and NATURE ALONE. Theories then practice. Existence THIS UNIVERSE/others within and beyond DOES NOT HAVE A FIXED POINT so it is only logical to derive a reasonable and accurate pattern from nature to correspond with mathematical principals. There is just so much that i cannot explain by words for some concepts i grasp without words because one will run out of words if they try and attribute every single integer of relative change. this is a new and advanced type of science and i am sharing it with each and everyone human being. For a bright future...