JohnStu

Hmm, in my paper I wrote gravity is a wave phonomonem, but a super high frequency wave that it can be treated as waveless. It is like how if something has super ultra high frequency, those things can be treated as if going straight line. Also, excellent discovery, what are your backgrounds. I speak full mandarin

You bring up a very good point Original Poster. It is the geniuses that push science and technology to a higher level, not the average joes. The average joes just ride along the ship the geniuses drive for them. If it weren't for the geniuses, people would still be in stone age, never ever able to figure out how to move out of stone age. Yes, technology is becoming increasingly difficult, acutually not mainly due to technology itself getting harder, but people sometimes puropsely make it more complex, so it seems like they've done more work. Many coo-coo heads in society also put a damp on science progress, they actually diss science in many ways such as mocking Einstein. They also call people nerds when they are just jokeheads.

Because females' job in sexual reproduction is about reponding to incoming attacks; feel the damage and provide reports to the males. In sexual reproduction, it is male's job to visually examine the target (female) and execute the airbombing sequence. Porn is made for male side, females don't really look at the male and say, okay, I wanna do this or I wanna do this assault. Instead, they make housesand open their castle door wide and let the calvary come in to pillage.

Velocity is not a force, but result of force. So only when space is accelerating (as oppose to moving at a constant speed) do we ask is there another force as its counterpart.

Has any experiments varified that light speed cannot increase or decrease that it is constant, no matter where you go? I've Googled around this topic and only bumped into experiments that are about Einstein's relativity. Experts please help

The Ultra Deep Space Field is actually 13 something billion years + light years old. I believe it said that on the NASA website which I read 3 months ago.

The drawings are quite well done, and they do make sense. I see the connections/line of thought here.

Good hypothesis. You hit the right track here on many topics mentioned. I have a science paper to publish soon, wish me luck, thanks.

I'd say time is memory. Without memory, we wouldn't know time. We wouldn't know what we remembered, nor what is what was before.

It will never end. The universe will never end. From a scientific perspective that is. From a human persective, universe ends when humans end.

Not everything will end up getting sucked into a single point as while matters try to crunch into the Big Crunch, they always explode and interact with others and some will manage to forever not get caught up by the gravity of Big Crunch. it's like this, this atom gains whatever force, and starts to move at 3 mm per second toward west. Big Crunch is far away from that atom on the East, its currenty gravity on that atom is 0.000000033mm per second. As the atom goes further and further, the gravitational pull becomes less and less, which will never catch up to the 3mm per second velocity. So that atom escapes eternally from that Big Crunch unless something else happens. The universe one day will get really inhabitable as I foresee matters get colder and colder. More and more metals start to appear, but that's on a huge scale though, billions of years scale.

No one will be able to look and see outside once inside a blackhole because eye balls won't exist by then.

Very nice. This could start a religion.

Photosynthesis creates oxygen not electricity lol. They are good for air filtering

They aren't using any sensors to search for life directly, like seeing their "capital city". But rather searching for signs of life. They can tell some planets might have life by knowing that the outer layer atmosphere has high level of oxygen and ozone.

Yes, I was on another account for 2 years.

I see gravity as a mechanical reaction, rather than some kind of mystical force.

Light gets affected by gravity as well, so yes.

I wish it was just a simple group where their roots could be traced.

How do you slow gravitons to such a low speed level is my question? Super Black holes?

Well, US is one of the asset of the conspiracy group. So is Israel.

Well, yes I know what you are thinking in mind. You are thinking of the 1/x^2 graph where as x increases, y never reaches 0. As person ages on, he never becomes weak enough to die (reach 0). But, an organ has default amount of work to do, such as keeping its components in the minimum structure. Once a person's organs become super weak, even without lethal interference, the structure will fall on its own and the person dies.

I believe parts of the Big Bang Theory. I still don't see how there could a sudden initial force out of no where. What for? Was every particle too together that they had to bounce out? It does not make sense to me for the facts that if particles are too close together, they do not move away, they actually fuse. Even if they aren't photons to begin with, they'd not bounce out. Matters don't bounce each other out once together in close proximity next to each other due to the gravity law is largely controlled by 1/d squared, which means something right next to it would mean tremendous attraction force. The attraction force would be so large that everything just collapse and continue to collapse in this tiny ball that has all the matter continueing to collapse on each other but never actually end, unless they radiate energy away of course, then that'd lead to different results. Atoms, if they were together, they'd already be fused or some other activity, not wanting to seperate. A counter-point to this some might say is that then how come balls bounce off the wall? Well that is because the atoms of the wall and atoms of the ball's nucleaus actually never touched each other. The ball never really touched the wall in that case. If there really was a beginning like the big bang, then what was before the big bang? Right? That would lead to another unanswerable question. My theory is that there was no beginning, nor end. The universe is infinately large and infinately divisible, will always be there no matter what. Humans have this idea of "beginning" because we began, our DNA at a certain time, but the universe itself has always been there I solidly believe. The universe is infinate in size and divisibility of particles. In addition, I somehow get this sense that even though universe is infinate, it is an odd infinate number, as oppose to even.

I guess observing the movement of galaxies could lead to a better estimation of universal frame of reference. Trace back the route of nebula that gave birth to the solar system, then trace back which star gave birth to the nebula. That star should be the frame of refence as it had much lesser speed (relative to universal frame of refence) than solar system. Also, leaving radioactive substance onto various astroids of different regions. Leave them for a few years. Retrieve the substance and see which one decayed the fastest. Take gravity and speed history of their life into calculation, then the astroid whose radioactive substance decayed the fastest is the better universal frame of refence. *shrugs* Keep doing that thousands of times on different astroids. The frame of refence can be estimated better. It can never be exact, but will be more and more accurate. But, really, one does not need a universal frame of reference. Just use sea level of Earth at some location as frame of refence for things around Earth. Use centre of sun as frame of reference for things around the sun. And so on. Plus, much beyond the Earth is utter estimation, so the universal frame of refence doesn't need to be much more precise.

Advancement in atom by atom synthesis would be something nano technology could benefit, right. The cons I see with atom by atom synthesis is that they need to be done in mass production - having thousands of same chemicals alinged all together attached with the same new atom at the same spot, and then the next batch of chemicals come to be done the samething. Then this method could excel the synthesis methods they currently widely use. The advantage of atom by atom synthesis over regular synthesis methods would be it could be really precise and flawless in the near future. It could also allow creation of atomic processors perhaps someday.