fafalone

What you talk about is not science. Your observations are not even accurate to begin with. You do not follow the scienfitic method. You are NOT a scientist.

The sky is red. I have observed this. All my evidence suggested this is true, and despite the sky really looking blue, it's really red. This is what your arguments sounds like to someone well versed in physics and biology. You can't do basic algebra. You can't spell well. You don't know basic biology. -These contradict the very way you claim to have arrived at your conclusions. None of your evidence has come from reputable sources. You refuse to address the many flaws I and other have pointed out. You presume all the laws that contradict you are wrong. Your observations are not only taken in the wrong way, some of them are flat out wrong. You refuse to acknowledge all obseravable phenonemons that violate your theories. Your theories are WRONG. There's no need to debate this any more.

Don't confuse simple biochemical reactions of a single neuron such as this principle with the kind of counting in a language.

They're supposedly going to be able to measure the speed of gravity this weekend. http://www.nature.com/nsu/020902/020902-13.html

This knowledge is precisely why I know your theories are unfounded gibberish that defy how things work. Of course spin produces a force, but anyone with any grasp whatsoever of physics know it's not the only force there is. Anyone familiar with interferometers, Maxwell's equations, and basic electromagnetic theory knows there's no "magnetic ether" that somehow has gone undetected and unsuggested by any solid evidence.

My arguments are based on research I've been following in journals such as Nature and Physical Review Letters for years, as well as a solid foundation of physics and quantum mechanics, and everything I said I could prove, but it would take a while to explain, especially to someone like Zarkov who hasn't even mastered algebra so, never think i'm ignorant about topics in this area

It would take me hours to explain how many flaws are in the paper. I'll just go over a few ones: -Not published in a reputable journal, -only 2 references, -gravity is not static field (as demonstrated by countless mathematical proofs and observations of the movement of stars), elementary particles can also be leptons or mesons, - ". And if the fermionic mass carrier exists each mass is a multiple of the fermion mass. Otherwise, mass cannot be quantized because without a fermionic mass carrier there cannot be mass currents." No. - ".. When particles change mass in a high energ y collision there should exist suchfermion currents." No. -They continually apply non-Euclidean principles to Euclidean systems and vice-versa. -The entire "masson" thing in incoherent babbling. -"This leads us to say that the gravitational field is always a static field which is in line with the null results of gravitational waves." You could say that, and you could be talking out your ass.

Quantum gravity explains effects on a sub-atomic level. It does not violate existing data and theories shown to be true numerous times. Furthermore, it doesn't defy logic (assuming you understand the concept of things working different on those kinds of scales)

I never said it was stable, but I did imply that is was stable relative to our time frame. An interesting point about the motion of the galaxy as a whole... a newly discovered galaxy spins in the opposite direction as all other spiral ones. And of course not every galaxy is a spiral to begin with.

Personally I find it very hard to believe that even the simplest forms of life could come from chemicals randomly combining. There simply isn't enough evidence to say if you mix a bunch of chemicals together and add some electricity you'll suddenly get life. The simplest known forms of life are still so complex that if you really think about it from a evolutionary point of view, it's hard to say you could go from organic molecules to self-replicating systems in only a few billion years. I'd like to hear about evidence firmly suggesting otherwise, but I sure can't find it.

And as towards the expansion of the universe, again, is on the scale of billions of years.

You know damn well I never said it was 100% stable. I just said the rate of deterioration is not significant enough to be noticed anytime in the next couple billion years. Now stop pissing me off by not actually understanding what I say.

Orbits do deteriorate, but short of extraplanetary or extrasolar collisions or extremely close calls, the orbits are not deteriorating at a rate that would break orbit before the sun died.

Yeah. one day it will just keep going. that will be the day when the sun explodes so theres no more central mass.

and further more i worked out that :inf: :lsum:1/F2nF2n+2 = :lcphi:-2 n=1

:inf: :lsum: Fn/Fn-1 = :lcphi:, the Golden Ratio n=1 and another way a similar series equals :lcphi:: :inf: :llb::lsum: ((-1)n+1)/(FnFn+1):lrb:+1 = :lcphi: n=1

Pluto has a highly eccentric orbit, and right now it's heading towards the farthest point in that orbit. It's just following the course it has for quite a while, and there's nothing to suggest for some reason it would just change course from where it is right now and leave. There are no indications its velocity right now will allow it to break the orbit. That ranks right up there with the most ignorant things you've said. and look up 'eccentric' in the mathematical context, since i'm sure you don't understand mathematics enough to know what it means here.

Again,

Those compounds aren't particularly useful for a wide range of applications, and there's no shortage. Couldn't the electricity your computer is using be used for more useful things than wasting energy talking about wasting?

Dirt couldn't be melted under normal conditions. Because of it's density, it would burn at extremely high temperatures. To melt it, you would have to increase the pressure greatly.

In general, oxygen, silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, potassium, sodium, and other elements in smaller amounts. This varies by location. A large part of topsoil is organic matter (so alot of carbon, etc), from dead plants and animals accumulating over a great period of time.

The big fireworks you see in the air have 4 parts, the container, stars, a bursting charge, and a fuse. The stars are what you see... they're made of mostly of Na, CaCl, SrCl, SrOH, BaCl, and CuCl, which burn with different colors. Some explode loudly, other whistle. Patterns are made by the different arrangements of the explosives, often with a container with multiple parts.

Ok and this relates to a unproven force which violates the Dirac equation in what way? What you are talking about are parts of well established classical mechanics, not "spin gravity" as the only force there is.

In this article, neuroscientists have found lumbar spinothalamic cells with neurokinin-1 receptors that relay ejaculation signals to the brain. First paragraph of the article