Sunday, 23 October 2016


The Consensus Science Industry puts out stories to keep us perceiving our reality as something really outside of our bodies. They turn light into something that takes years to get from one place to another. They give us magic gravity forces that swing our moon on an invisible string that connects it to our earth. They have space that expands when space is nothing at all. They tell us of double-slit experiments to make us believe our observation can manipulate matter when nothing goes out of our eyes, information goes into them. They tell us they can accelerate particles and smash them when particles don't have any dimensional size. "According to modern understanding, the electron is a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent."

Is evolution mathematically possible? The only changes that can happen from a mathematical stand-point are values for trait variation to traits present. Using variables, conditions can be defined for a variety of values.
Someone is confirming my suspicions for ocean tidal changes (nothing to do with magic moon gravity forces). Kevin Johnson: "It's electro-magnetic and the salt in the oceans make it highly conductive, which causes the high and low tides." Those who want us to accept the results of the Double-slit experiment are telling us that we are active in this spacetime movie when we're merely passive to the immersive movie our brains are presenting to us. We could no more influence the outside world than we can influence a scene in a movie we're watching with our friends. We get the information first before we get a chance to be conscious of it. What that experiment is saying is that we are conscious of the information first before it gets presented to us: not a logical possibility. Why is there a problem with promoting a theory such as a Big Bang taking place 13.8 billion years ago? There is no beginning event in an event causal chain (universe). A Big Bang event is falsely labeling an event in the chain as a first event. I'm questioning the idea that an earth with no bottom can have a center. A center is found by being half way from the top and half way from the bottom. How can a center that isn't there be the place that we're all gravitating to? So, it seems that we have a center with infinite location because mass objects in space fall uni-directionally. To find CENTER, we have to find the top of another mass object falling in the same direction.

When considering the mass objects we call human bodies, we'll noticed that they are falling all over the surface of a sphere making the falling direction omni-directional, not unidirectional. Omni-direction is the same as Infinite direction and Infinite is the same as zero. So we have a planet with mass objects falling in zero direction. Zero direction isn't going to get you to a particular location (center of the earth), right?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Time To Observer Size Ratio

Time moves slower the LARGER you get..  We’re moving a lot slower from a fly’s pov so it can easily (usually) escape our attempts to ...