cm127

5 ms·

1.
by cm127 9y ago
Solar radiation? Probably why burrowing would be the way to go.
2.
by cm127 10y ago
What's the point? It's about understanding the universe! If the ether exists then it could mean an open-system exists in the universe, i.e. the big bang is still happening, -- or the laws of thermodynamics, i.e. entropy, are not s
3.
by cm127 10y ago
That's like saying computers and laptops are so great -- we'll never need smart phones. Sure, classical devices / models are great and proven true, -- but that's still a limited view based on previous biases. I know that
4.
by cm127 10y ago
Is that where they explain particle-wave duality, or is that where they pretend it's not an issue?
5.
by cm127 10y ago
The point is so much of our conclusions are based off of these null hypothesis. It's like saying the iPhone will never succeed because so many other "smart" devices at the time were terrible.
6.
by cm127 10y ago
I'm starting to become skeptical of our understanding of quantum mechanics because we completely discredited a common theory with only one experiment over a hundred years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelso
7.
by cm127 10y ago
He kinda mentions it in passing at a TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUXNiVW3oc4 He literally suggests vaccines will help with depopulation.
8.
by cm127 10y ago
It looks like part of the section is missing. It starts at Winter B.S. 1960 -- Tucson, AZ.
9.
by cm127 10y ago
How do you know you're not being taught 2+2=5. No one is close to figuring out a unifying field theory based on "The Standard Model" and Relativity, so in many ways it doesn't really make sense to obsess over these old m
10.
by cm127 10y ago
Look: I'll just state what is bothering me about your comments: you're trying to assert your opinion as scientific fact / proof without a scientific explanation; you're trying to force me to blindly believe whatever you
11.
by cm127 10y ago
Let's take a step even further back: why am I defending this theory? I only brought up what I was reading: a new theory that challenges quantum mechanics. Why did I bring this up? To add to the discussion. The responses I got weren&#x2
12.
by cm127 10y ago
Complaining about linguistic specifications is not arguing rational thoughts; it's arguing laziness. Seriously, concede that you don't understand the theory and therefore can't make certain judgements (because you arguably ca
13.
by cm127 10y ago
Eh, I don't think it's unfair: this person is openly attacking me for giving attention to a form of untested science -- declaring it "crockpottery". I honestly feel proud of myself for how much I held back on this lazy p
14.
by cm127 10y ago
What specifically makes the theory drivel? Exactly, what is scientifically not matching? Take your time because I'm pretty sure you don't have the mental capacity to think for yourself. You depend on a government or an academy to
15.
by cm127 10y ago
Seriously? Bringing up a researched subject is trolling because I don't know all the answers you're postulating as if I've studied this extensively for years..? Is this how "scientists" treat new theories? Unless th
16.
by cm127 10y ago
Jesus Christ, I'm not your professor. Do your own research. You have the skills to read about this stuff. Why do you need me? I'm not trying to convince you to believe in anything. I just wanted to have a conversation about how an
17.
by cm127 10y ago
I'm still researching this, but it's happening at a quantum level, so I expect it to be slow. But like you said, it will have an aggregate affect over time. Also, it sounds like you're interested. Why not read the book or wat
18.
by cm127 10y ago
Here's another form of crazy: trying to force Relativity into a unified field for over a hundred years and getting nowhere. Yeah, you'll "probably" get it one day... What did Einstein use to say? "Insanity: doing th
19.
by cm127 10y ago
It theoretically happens very slowly, so it probably does escape detection.
20.
by cm127 10y ago
You can't use a hypothetical to disprove a theory. Your entire comment is completely baseless: "These people don't follow my school of thought, so they must be wrong!" No offense, but using your ego to make an argument i
21.
by cm127 10y ago
It's from the Model G theory in Subquantum Kinetics, -- and it seems more believable than a finite amount of matter being made from a single blast of energy billions of years ago.
22.
by cm127 10y ago
Think of it this way: the Universe is continuously expanding, -- so in a way, it's like we're still experiencing the Big Bang. So... does that mean matter is still being produced? Yes, from the Ether. Completely agree that it does
23.
by cm127 10y ago
You're not really proving or disproving anything. You're just complaining he's using another mathematical model. So what? The worst part is you have no basis for any of your arguments, yet somehow you feel authorized to compl
24.
by cm127 10y ago
I think you're proving Dr. Paul LaViolette's point why the theory is not getting attention: emotional, knee-jerk reactions like this. Seems like I have to agree with everything you say in order to have a conversation about physics
25.
by cm127 10y ago
Yeah, no kidding... because that would also challenge the "Laws" of Thermodynamics, too: Free Energy from the Ether. *I have to put that in quotes because it's not actually a law, right? You shouldn't go to jail for brea
26.
by cm127 10y ago
I just ran into an interesting theory for Gravity: Subquantum Kinetics It's featured in Dr. Paul LaViolette's book The Secrets of Anti-gravity Propulsion, and there's a really interesting section that challenges the Standard
27.
by cm127 10y ago
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ~ William Casey, CIA Director
28.
by cm127 10y ago
I see it analogous with respect to limited resources and interests, but it gets completely distorted when debt can be created from nothing and used as currency. What's going to happen when debt exceeds all resources in the world? I gue
29.
by cm127 10y ago
Ironically, I find that tree format unnecessarily complicated.
30.
by cm127 10y ago
"Gotta have patents and profits, or there's no reason to fund it." All testing, research, and funding has to be private for some reason.

More ›