Looks like my skepticism that you were going to stop posting was well-founded.
The following users thanked this post: atbsphotography
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
What? For a colouring in book?I am not giving it all away, that would be stupid and nobody will give me a book offer.I can correct this and they ignore this. Space is not expanding, field density increase is happening ...No, it's not OK, not last because you never managed to explain what you mean by "field density increase is happening".
You were unable to say what "field density " is.
Had you forgotten?
To be honest, I'm not even sure many of you do understand just yet what is neuromodulation and how precisely ultrasonic side channels in mobile devices could be exploited or compromised specifically for this purpose/function
3. You seem to forget the evidences that mobile devices and brain-computer interfaces share many common features, including the possibility to inject commands to the host using ultrasounds.
normal representation of high frequency means what? Can you explain the concept in simple terms? If not how is somebody going to help you otherwise? Why do you think you need maths to explain a theory? By trying to blag it you will not get anybody to take you seriously because it makes it patently obvious that you do not know what you are talking about.This is known as trying to blag it.Of course, I am trying to blag it and be a fake scientist, however I do understand in my own head what the maths stands for. Hf is the normal representation of high frequency and S is normally entropy , the surface/volume of a sphere is standard maths and the greater than and less than signs are standard.
I had already worked out before that :
Kmax = at the speed of light c.
So by blagging it, I am just hoping to impress somebody such as a scientist who might give me a hand with my notions and help correct my maths if they are at error to begin with.
Is that the answer you wanted?
There are many possibilities, and that is one. I would say that within our own Big Bang arena, that is expanding and filling with galactic structure, black holes are quite common. There is one at the center of most galaxies, there are black holes left after supernovae, there are black holes left after two other black holes swirl into a violent merger, as recently detected by LIGO.
The same spongey effect could also be an attribute to black holes and the wider universe as a whole, therefore a black hole would absorb energy and matter and possibly spit it back out as a flash on the event horizon, I need to think more about that idea but it could work in theory.
For the sake of hypothetical theory, there were multiple big bangs, then shouldn't we have been able to detect these other big bangs? More specifically if each happened at a different time throughout the early universe then logic would dictate we would be able to observe these other big bangs?Yes, there should be evidence that we can detect of the “parent” arenas that I speculate intersected and overlapped, to form the Big Crunch, out of which our Big Bang arena emerged as a hot dense ball of wave energy.
Or as is my preferred analogy their was one big bang but made of 2 different entities that collided. We would only be able to observe just the one big bang.Do you have any speculation about the origin of the two different entities that collided, much like the Barnes theory suggests, because the question of “infinite regression”, meaning what came before, continually comes up. It keeps coming up unless you get to something that is eternal, an infinite past, like my axiom that the universe has always existed, and big bangs are occurring with the same preconditions, two or more existing parent arenas making each new “infant” arena, and thata process, called arena action, has been going on throughout the infinite past.
Another question would be if the prerequisites for the big bangs happened to be overlapping energy and matter coming together in the centre of gravity then would this still be happening now?Yes, in my ISU model, it is a continual process. There is an infinite landscape, composed of a potentially infinite number of active Big Bang arenas at all times.
If so then how long till the next one?There is one going to happen right now, somewhere out there in the infinite Big Bang arena landscape of the greater universe. The concept of infinity, and an infinite arena landscape is hard to get your arms around, but I am still waiting for another way to avoid infinite regression.
And could we detect these bangs as a gravitational wave?Yes, with some stipulations. The imprint of the previous big bangs is out there in the gravitational wave energy profile of space, as discussed in replies #82 and #83 linked above. Also, refer back to reply #136 for a description of the profile of space.
I realise the above poses more than one question but they flow together so I didn't feel the need to change it.Ask as many questions as you need to, to come to your own conclusions as to if you see any merit in my model.
Let me restate you scenario using a clock at rest and a clock traveling a 1200 mph relative to the rest clock. It could be said that the clock in motion relative to the rest clock experiences time dilation, and the amount of dilation would equal the difference in the amount of time that is recorded to have passed by each clock.Quote“However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation.”
Could it be said, for example, an F35B ( UK military jet) traveling at its maximum speed of 1,199mph would experience time dilation? For example traveling at that speed with respect to someone walking on a pavement, they would experience time in a different way to the person walking on the pavement, despite both clocks running uniform and at the same time? I may be wrong, but that is the simplest example I could think of. More specifically the jet would be seen as defying gravity, with a respect to the fact something in the air must always be seen to fall if not in the constraints of directional velocity.
UFO's are such a broad spectrum of objects, in a sense UFO's are real, just not in the way most people think. For example, someone seeing a silhouette of a helium balloon could interpret that as a UFO in nature, purely because they cannot fully make out what they are seeing, so in essence we know it is a helium balloon because we can see it in the light but a person viewing the aforementioned balloon from a mile away wouldn't know what it is if they saw it as a silhouette. So person A, who knows it is nothing more than a helium balloon can state that as a fact, but person B who is a mile away would believe it is an unidentified flying object and that would also be a fact. The two people who can see the same object but from a mile apart are both right if one only looks at it logically. Therefore the existence of UFO's is a reality but the jury is out if they are Alien in nature.Good answer atb, like I have being trying to explain to the opp.