Leaderboard

Velocity does not factor into the gravitational field equations, because it is irrelevant to the geometry of spacetime - or, to put it differently, relative motion is not a source of gravity. Where velocity does play a role is in determining which of the possible geodesics a test particle in free fall will follow. The geodesic equation is a system of partial differential equations - so, in order to find a particular solution, you need to supply boundary conditions. Initial velocity - as a vector - is usually one of these. It’s like selecting the correct geodesic out of all the possible ones. However, which ones are possible, and how exactly these look, is determined by the metric and the connection - ie the geometry of spacetime. And this has nothing to do with any velocities. Lack of education isn’t an obstacle, as it can be remedied easily - these days, you can learn any topic you like using freely available resources online. This is especially true for maths and physics. What is an obstacle is thinking you can simply dismiss a well-established model that you know little to nothing about, and replace it with an idea of your own based solely on it making sense to you. Surely you can see the problem yourself. You cannot visualise gravity in all its degrees of freedom - even I can’t do that, after spending many years on this. To this day I sometimes get surprised by totally unexpected and counterintuitive results, which one can only find using the maths. That’s how it is.

I'd say quite the opposite; accurate predictions about rate of decay can be made regardless of movement. Decay is stochastic, you need a sample that is large enough to make predictions, not movement. Movement does not add accuracy. ( We can't predict when one specific particle will decay, nuclei half-life allows for good approximations for large samples on average. I think a detailed explanation is off topic.)

Your assumption is refuted quite simply. If the stars in our galaxy are inside the event horizon of our galaxy, then the stars in other galaxies would be inside the event horizon of their galaxy and we could not see them. However, this is not the case, with a powerful telescope we can see stars in other galaxies.

If the 'down' quark contributed 'excess' mass to the neutronium in neutron stars, you would expect ordinary matter, with an excess of neutrons to be heavier. He4 has two protons and two neutrons for a mass ( isotope ) of 4.0026 Da. Li4, an unstable isotope of lithium, has three protons and one neutron, for a mass of 4.037 Da. The Helium nucleus contains 6 'down' quarks,while the Lithium nucleus has 5 'down' quarks. Yet, the Lithium is heavier. The explanation is simple. Most of the mass in a nucleus is binding energy, and the individual quarks ( if you could isolate one ) although of slightly differing masses, only contribute a couple of percent of the masses of protons and neutrons. Don't get me wrong, an imagination is invaluable, but temper it with some education of accepted knowledge.

Not as such, but there are a number of instincts that have the effect of leading to reproduction, the most obvious being the mating instinct that is the basis of sexual attraction. Another is the instinct to form partnerships with a member of the opposite sex, which is helpful for child-rearing. But of course, as we are sentient beings, there is a host of other factors that consciously or unconsciously modify our instincts, and may override them. Now that, in most societies, we can control our fertility, conscious calculations about having children play a predominant role.

Where can I get something reflective that's cheap?... (Shh! I'm thinking!) How's aluminum foil?

But I have learned from the non-math aspects of scientific research. I am a dummy and could never have come up with these things completely on my own. You have not attempted to visualize gravity and is why you have been mislead substantially by not doing that. These are not my ideas really. But if they are then they most certainly are wrong. My answer is that I put it down to a God thing. That is anyone trying to prevent the destruction of mankind is someone doing good. And if the outcome is positive it will be conducive of what I do. I get told quite often I am a good person. But I correct those saying this in that I'm only trying to meet my obligations (in relation to the circumstances that bring about the approvals). I see myself fighting in a war that can't be won. As an adult male my obligation to defend humankind, respectful of the millions before me that have gone into battle, win or lose. I believe I've got through this precious weeks lost but some credentials established. Everything you say above is correct if the product of misunderstanding.

Sure, philosophy under the guise of a science experiment is what it is. And is the only way I'd figured I could get 'thinking' people to consider the prediction I make. But that said I've arrived here at this particular forum because of the realization that the difficulties involved in doing this might relate to the supposed event actually being a real outcome, and consequently being something impossible to stop. So, the experiment still has a basis in physics, I believe, and will continue: Suppose you were a time traveler that had come from the future and traveled back 100 years to now. You could be aware of a particular event calculated to happen in 95 years. If so you would realize nothing could possibly be done to prevent that thing from occurring. So, for example we can be reasonably certain the next Transit of Venus will take place. As something that is effectively set to happen in the future we can be sure we can't change it. And that's because even though it is a very physical event, philosophically there would be no logical reason to try and stop it anyhow. It's those two things that combine now to make it a certainty. And suppose we make a prediction of another event we believe is set to happen in 100 years time then we would also expect this outcome to be unpreventable now or in the preceding future. That's if the concept of a future is also valid in reality. This is logic. I submit as evidence to this outcome being inevitable, and of the future being real, and consequently Time itself being real, the fact that this prediction, a philosophical one, and as such requiring minimal physical energy to prevent, then needs to be protected in other ways. And that these need to be in the form of (non physical) barriers being set in place. An example: I've set about to conduct a time experiment using a relatively simple prediction, yet despite this that has so far proved impossible to make as I've been obliged to reply to all responses relating to a topic I know so little of (physics) and that it has taken time and thought to make, let's face it, not a lot of difference. Next example: I've calculated that as at the time of the opening post we had only around 9 months to the point of no return on this that's if anything can be done, 2 weeks of that time have since elapsed. Another example would be if you're successful in dismissing my thread as being only philosophical (when it is not). These things and the many more easily predicted present themselves as barriers, a chronological protection series. As such evidence of a future catastrophe in this instance, and if so of the evil (negative activity) that is needed to ensure it happening.

After doing 3 years of professional photography and also avid research into astronomy I am convinced with the technology that we have that we can finally debunk the conspiracy of whether or not we actually landed on the moon. This means no offense to the families of astronauts that have claimed to make the trip, however this monolithic task of being on the moon within the decade (according to JFK) was literally unbelievable. We have access to photos and videos of this event. We can then process those images to see if it was fallacy or reality. Note: I was born in the 90’s therefore I was unable to witness this event in person. However I have accumulated as many videos and pictures as possible as well as the position of the stars for lighting at the time. I am also very curious as to how the flag could wave back and forth in the vacuum atmosphere of space. This oddly enough resembles wind on the surface of the moon. Or perhaps the more insidious reasoning for this exploration to the moon was because of the tension between two powerhouse nations during the Cold War. I have friends who give valid points on both sides to this argument. We are nerds however our group does enjoy conspiracy theories from time to time and we attempt to debunk them. P.S. Was alien tech involved?