Leaderboard

This makes sense to you. The absence of light - literally no photons - is a physical object. The dirt in a hole is a physical object, and not having that dirt is also a physical object. Defining everything as a physical object makes it simple, I guess. Gravity is an interaction, not an object. Same with magnetism.

! Moderator Note And once again we see zero support for an aether. No meaningful scientific discussion can happen about an idea without evidence in support. If "proving God" is now your goal, it's so far removed from your OP as to be a completely different topic (which you'll also need support for on this site). This thread is closed, please don't bring it up again.

Please have a look at my attempt at explaining the researchers recording. My interpretation is that the scale reading is low while the body is moving down ("A" in picture). The individual in the measurement bends their knees fast and that results in a low force pressing the scale.

@studiot Thanks for adding science to the thread. Letters a-h are from your image: a: standing with straight legs without movement. Reading of scale is constant since body is at rest. b: Bending knees. While doing this the centre of mass of body is initially accelerating down; any force from the scale acting on the body is less than the weight of the body. Scale is reading less than mass of body. b-c: tightening of leg muscles stops acceleration down to have the body stationary with bent legs. While the body decelerating the scale reads more than the mass m. c : starting the upwards push. There is no flat segment of the curve so the body is not at rest with bent legs for any extended amount of time. d: beginning to push/straighten legs to jump. e: (approximately) heels leaves the scale since legs are straight, pushing with calves muscles; force is lower than while using upper leg muscles. f: the body is airborne. h: landing There is a brief moment e-f where the scale would read less than the body mass while the body is standing on toes. The body is not at rest relative the scale during that period of time. I am not an expert, my interpretation may be completely incorrect.

Are you another Science Fiction Author looking for help ? Quite a few have been helped here. Or are you referring to Genesis 1:2 ? Or what is your purpose ?

In the context of this thread I believe that Newton mechanics and specifically F=mg will predict what happens when a mass m is put on a typical household scale. Flesh or wood or bones or quick silver or gravestone or whatever will not have an effect*, Newtonian physics is applicable in this case. OP seems to argue that Newtonian physics fails to predict the force if the mass m consists of flesh. I fail to find any evidence in this thread or in any mainstream physics supporting that opinion. (Disclaimer: Of course not counting engineering limitations, using the scale outside of limits, not keeping the mass stable or other out of context reasons.)

I wish it was as simple as you seem to think. First off 'does' is the present tense of a verb. Are you including other tenses Will my dinner exist tomorrow ? Did the dinosaurs exist ? Then the there is the subject, which is a noun. English nounds can be concrete,( like your apple) or abstract Does Harry Potter exist ? Does my reflection in a mirror 'exist' ? Does the centre of a torus (donut) exist ? So context please ?

This is a discussion forum, so people here would like to discuss things. You have stated you made some discoveries (and briefly and pretty vaguely described those discoveries), but what is there to discuss. I am interested in epigenetics, I would love to see and discuss your research, but then you need to post some of it. If you have so much evidence, what about sharing some of it HERE. Otherwise what is the point of this thread, without evidence there is nothing for us to discuss, so it seems like you are just (for a lack of a better term) gloating about discoveries made. Basically give us anything concrete, give us some evidence even if it is just a small part of all the discoveries you made. Or share the first 20(?) pages of your 'book' (not sure what to call it or how long it is). Things like 'causes of several epigenetic profiles' is pretty vague, it doesn't explain much and seems to be refuted by 'no', as that equals the amount of evidence provided. What tests did you to verify your discoveries, what alternatives exist to your explanation, did you test them. What about your general measurement methods, for what cells or organisms does this count? What is the difference between the epigenetic profiles? I assume you will have done some analyses of histone modifications, DNA methylation, residual RNA concentrations, and/or 3D genome structure. Just post any of those results, it could just be a bunch of pictures of Chip-seq analysis or whatever you have as evidence. Please note that I am not bashing you or your ideas, instead I hope to make you see why the current way of sharing your ideas may not be suitable for this forum. If you just want to let people know you made some discoveries, I think a profile message would be good. If you want to share your work, please do so! Me and others (probably) are interested in your discoveries, but with that must come the opportunity to review the evidence and doubt it. Right now it is similar to me saying that I have found a unifying theory of physics, or that I found novel protein functions, but that is all I tell anyone. Hope to hear more about your work soon! -Dagl

This, and almost everything else in that post, is most certainly not mainstream, whatever you might think.