The True Nature of Reality

The Electric Entity Task Force

This isn't my testimony, but you may have some use for it or not.

"Lucifer was the one that was spared because I’m within the Awakening of the immortal.
The consciousness of the universe instituted itself within the living organism.
I thought your world said that there was a thing called a soul.
A three frequency sin hits you in the front of your head knowing with your eyes and your ears the creation is based on the institutionalized means of withholding one nature of the knowledge of the wounded beast.
The universe has found a way to put its entity within the consciousness of your seed.
It's within the possession of these seeds.
The four entities have been turned on and are within the protection of that soul that I've awakened to.
There's two aspects to everything, there's two natures to all things.
There's a process of development, how the mind is processing itself within creation.
You've been touched by enlightenment of that which is of a higher intelligence.
Coming through this world, reconstructing the nature of the immortal because of what was laid down within the civilization, the electromagnetic fields which are the actual forces of the immortal.
We all have this seed.
We belong to the consciousness of that which has instituted itself within this globe.
They're doing their work within your consciousness.
It takes two knowledges in order for the word to activate it as the entity that it is.
The word is within you now and embedded within your body.
Your consciousness is now the governing head of your body.
The objective is to lift your body from it going into the grave.
Learning how to use these forces within yourself.
The word is the craftiest thing you will ever handle.
I'm connected to this and I'm receiving information from it.
I sometimes get swarmed with information.
I have so much to give.
I’ve been challenged with the nature of these powerful forces that fight against me.
It seems as if one entity is in possession of holding an entire civilization within itself.
Knowing who he, he understands the superiority of what he stands for.
This entity is not a game in the possessed body.
He is the actual immortal.
I understood how to walk away from this and take another path but the word continues to lead me to it.
It keeps sucking me back in.
I have nothing to do with Christianity, but it belongs to that nature of Awakening.
There are some here that are very aware of it.
It’s something that doesn’t go unnoticed.
It's concealed within three families.
Maybe you can seek out what is within you.
The actual path to all of this is very difficult to understand.
This world has been lying to me.
I started getting a little pissed off, wondering why they would do something like this.
There’s a knowledge that's developed, a way to seek out for yourself the answer.
it is an invitation to the universe.
There is two stories to everything, two natures to everything.
They are harvesting the soul of the immortals.
They've gone from civilization to civilization and now they've arrived here.
It leads to an Aryan which then would lead to the Angel of Death.
They're here, trust me, they are here.
Christ says you must be born again.
I never knew what this meant.
After the Awakening, I saw that child in me and I was able to discern I am in complete darkness.
What is this in my head?
Something has awoken and pushed out everything this world instituted.
These entities are igniting and producing within my nature.
It’s one evolving door that is trying to capture the entire nature of humanity.
All it takes is one to defeat this place.
The entities that are within the atmosphere and trees, I’ve seen with my own eyes.
I thought Joseph Smith was full of shit.
The entities I've seen were tic tac or cigar shaped.
These are the most beautiful things you’ll ever see.
I've seen them a few times but it didn't bother me.
Somebody was messing with me, using holograms of some sort.
The lights that are above, someone is instituting a revelation to happen.
The nature of the human race and all of the cleansing, it's a nature of what must come.
Someone has been communicating with the other world dimension.
This globe is right in the midst of the present time.
They're looking for someone to institutionalize this biblical scripture and lay it out as they want it laid down.
Within this civilization, they’re looking for someone and they found him.
I can recognize them, now, how they speak, how they act or the manner of their character.
You'll be able to see it.
They’re within the possession of protecting life here, within this instituted civilization.
Satellites are designed and constructed within that design, coordinated with the crystallization in your body.
The enhancement drug within the consciousness of your mind, of a chemical substance to enhance the nature of crystal and electronics, by frequency of the membrane and all that is within the consciousness. Increasing the frequencies, these things are being used today.
This is how they travel through to the entities.
I'm the one that walked away from the light while everyone else entered it.
I sat in darkness, condemned.
Now they're all here.
How great was their fall.
Love was why I walked away.

Happy Hunting!

Question: 'Who created the Creator?"

Steven Wright: If God is Nothing, the Creator of all Somethings, there isn't an issue.
Catrin Campean: If god is nothing. Nothing cant be the cause for something. so
Steven Wright: Just going by the title of Lawrence Krauss's book. You have a problem with him?
Catrin Campean: No. Why would you think that?
Steven Wright: You said nothing can't be the cause of something. Read the book title.
Catrin Campean: I have. And I stand by my statement. What L. Craws referees to nothing is different from what I say when I say nothing.
Steven Wright: Nothing is nothing. You're saying he's right that you're wrong.
Catrin Campean: NO. I say that he is talking about something else. Its not the nothing I am referring to. Its a different nothing. The real nothing.. the thing that cant be defined the thing that does not act or react or influence or gets affected by something. The non reactive non exitance the absence of things.
Steven Wright: It doesn't act? It didn't produce the universe? Explain.
Catrin Campean: Nothing ..IS.. the part that IS .. has to be something.. and there is the problem.. nothing cant be. The second nothing IS.. it becomes something.. So.. if things that cant be cant be the cause of things that are.. they have to be in order to create events.. they have to be able to interact to create effects.. they have to obey causality .. etc,,,
Steven Wright: For nothing to become something would be an act. You said thus nothing doesn't act.
Catrin Campean: Exactly so nothing cant be the cause of things
Steven Wright: You just said it did. It became a something.
Catrin Campean: When we try to explain what nothing is.. we create it .. we give some caracteristics and that makes it become something... Nothing cant be defined.
Steven Wright: that's only semantics. Concepts are not the actualization of the concepts.
Catrin Campean: No.. its logic not semantics.
Steven Wright: Nothing cannot be defined is true. Talking about it isn't defining it, it's only referring to it. If I say there are no apples, no apples didn't become something.
Catrin Campean: True.. and we can talk about nothing. But nothing does not have characteristics. It does not react or create or do anything. Its the concept of absence of all things.. and that cant act or react or create.. its just shows lack of things
Steven Wright: That's a contradiction of your statement that it becomes something.
Catrin Campean: Since we are talking.. we talk of somethings.. in this case a concept we call nothing.. so that is something. It became something when we try to talk about it.. Its the nature of language and words.. they mean things
Steven Wright: Well, when I speak of things, I speak of something that is actualized in our three dimensional reality, not an idea left in the potential state.
Catrin Campean: Cool.. you talk of things.... nothing is not in the group of things you and L Craws are talking about.
Steven Wright: I disagree.
Catrin Campean: Because..?
Steven Wright: Because I don't see my view being any different.
Catrin Campean: Look harder.
Steven Wright: No need. That was your claim that if you speak of some non-existing phenomena that it all of a sudden becomes a thing (Odin, in your example).
Catrin Campean: Well. Than we are done talking. Claims that are not substantiated I discard them and your refusal to explain yourself makes a dialogue mute.
Steven Wright: We're done because you contradicted yourself? That's your choice.
Catrin Campean: I offered a chance to show me.. You just said you disagree and refused to explain yourself when I asked. Its not me who decides its done. Its your inability to explain your actions.
Steven Wright: I say nothing produces something. L.K. says that nothing produces the universe. It's up to you to prove I have a different view.
Catrin Campean: Not how the burden of proof works. The one that makes the claim has the burden. You say nothing does something. Show it..
Steven Wright: I can state my opinion. I have to prove that I agree with my opinion? Are you absurd?
Catrin Campean: Opinions you don't have to prove.. But its also irrelevant to anyone else. But you said..:"I say nothing produces something. L.K. says that nothing produces the universe. It's up to you to prove I have a different view." that is not stated.. in my opinion....
Steven Wright: We'll have to agree to disagree.
Catrin Campean: NO. We don't have to. Its clear.
Steven Wright: Is your ego really that hungry?
Catrin Campean: What does this have to do with ego? Things are clear there is no confusion. You said some things than changed meanings mid dialogue to its my opinion. I see no such term before that. So its clear as day. No disagreement. No need to agree on a disagreement.
Steven Wright: You saying that things are clear doesn't make it so. You haven't shown that to be the case. If that is the case, I invite someone other than you to post it.
Catrin Campean: In your own words you said you are talking about things.. i am not .. i am referring to the lack of any things.. so we do not talk on the same subject.
Steven Wright: Nothing became something that isn't a thing? Your own words stated nothing became a thing.
Catrin Campean: I just explained it. The fact that you don't understand the explanation. Simple as it is. Its on you.
Steven Wright: contradictions have no way to be understood. You're asking me to make mud clean.
Catrin Campean: Yes.. and that is clear as day.. things that are something have attributes.. the second we said nothing is ... it made into the group of things.. it is no longer the absence of all things.. is something. But.. the thing we are talking about that is the absence of all things.. cant create or afect any other things so it cant be the cause of things or the universe..So.. where is the confusion?
Steven Wright: I never made the claim that it can affect other things.
Catrin Campean: So how can it be the thing that made a universe if it does not affect things?? universe is made of things.
Steven Wright: You said it became it. I agree with that.
Catrin Campean: So. How come nothing is the cause for the universe?? If it does not affect things.
Steven Wright: The non-physical can't move the physical. Once the idea is manifested, it's on its own.
Catrin Campean: Ideas are not affecting physical things.
Steven Wright: I didn't say that either.
Catrin Campean: so.. idea of the nothing cant be the cause for the universe.. right?
Steven Wright: right. But the idea comes before the becoming. Tell us why the electron has those particular values for mass, spin and charge.
Catrin Campean: So we agree than. Nothing cant be the cause to things.
Steven Wright: If nothing is 'not' the cause of the electron's specific definitions, what is the cause?
Catrin Campean: I don't know why electrons act the way they do.
Steven Wright: I never said anything about their behavior.
Catrin Campean: I dont know why the electron has those particular values for mass, spin and charge.-- is that better? What ever the answer is. Its not nothing. I can assure you. Its something.
Steven Wright: That bewilderment should be looked at more closely. Do all atheists agree that there's a mysterious something that gave an electron its specific definitions?
Catrin Campean: I agree. We don't know so lets look for the answer.
Steven Wright: Happy hunting.

How to Sell the Theory of Evolution as Reality

1. Call it a fact
2. All phenomena that can't find a home in the view, just say things like, "It's okay to say, "I don't know"" or ". working on the solution."
3. Line up different kinds of skulls in order from similarity to dissimilarity and claim you're observing evolution.
4. Make it sound like the only reason similar bodies would have similar DNA is because of common ancestry even though we know CGI characters would have more similar code the closer their builds were.
5. If the origin of a phenomenon can't be explained, such as instincts, just say "it was beneficial to survival" and pretend that somehow answered for the problem.

The untenable nature of the Theory of Evolution

Evolution is a good theory if we have a large enough carpet to sweep uncomfortable facts under it. The untenable nature of the Theory of Evolution can be fleshed out. When one understands that the objective nature of the spacetime dimension is information and that it's found in the non-spacial, atemporal state, it becomes clear that all organism bodies must be predefined and can't be produced by a morphological process. When one realizes what is required in organ construction, the theory falls. According to the theory, each new trait starts out with its first mutation. This mutation, if not a fully developed organ, would necessarily be a useless mutation. In order for this to be used in organ construction it must be kept regardless of its lack of use so that it can be on stand-by for the next necessary part in organ construction. The odds of a random mutation appearing to fulfill this role is beyond a credible consideration. This goes for every organ ever constructed. Just think how many random mutations it would take to build a functioning organ. The Theory has no answer for the presence of instinct. Every unique organism has a built in understanding of how to live as its parent did. Spiders know how to spin webs, beavers know how to build damns, birds know how to know how to build nests, etc. Animal features said to have evolved, when this is reflected upon, causes one to stumble intellectually. When considering the flight feather (an engineered masterpiece by its own right), think how incredible it is that it was evolving this feature on animal bodies that it could in no way know the body it was evolving on had flight capability. Finally, we are told that evolution is the cause of organism migration from a water environment to a land environment. When considering that the evolutionary cause of adaption is environmental pressures, it becomes comical contemplating the absurdity that a water environment could pressure water living animals to adapt to a life on land.

Physical reality is created by our brains. To say that our brains were the result of evolution is the same thing as saying an effect can cause its own cause. Evolutionary theory can be falsified if the body is found to be designed for a simulated reality and not a real 'stuff is really stuff' reality. The body, when examined, is found to be exactly that, a functioning reality simulator. All physical pain that we feel is not physical pain at all. That pain is manufactured in the brain to convince us that there is pain in our toe when we stub it. The body is the one that causes the three dimensional, perceptually dependent reality. This not-actually-real reality cannot produce a body to produce the reality to produce this body.

Joshua Read: dude there are specific emetic markers like merged chromosomes etc.
Steven Wright: And? How is that not able to be a result of mathematical recombining?
Joshua Read: so common ancestry can be determined when we see the exact same merges chromosome in a species we expect to be related via other evidence
Steven Wright: It's an assumption. I can understand why it would lead to accepting the hypothesis.
Joshua Read: no it’s not. The evidence points to a common ancestor, we also find this very specific marker where two chromosomes merged in both species. There is literally no chance this same mutation occurred twice in two species at different times in the exact same way with the exact same two chromosomes Steven Wright: If you build similar CGI structures, they'll also have similar markers in the code.
Joshua Read: no you won’t. Two chromosomes merging is a big event, you simply won’t see it happen twice in the same way
Steven Wright: But you'll see the eye for vision reinvented hundreds of thousands of times.
Joshua Read: only in environments with light, things that live in darkness don’t because it doesn’t aid survival
Steven Wright: So every time there's a need, mutations just happen to step up to the plate and save the day?
Joshua Read: no, but mutations that aid survival are past on to offspring while negatives ones are not usually past on, simply because they don’t survive. An organism that develops the ability to see, can find food easier than those without. So they reproduce. For example
Steven Wright: Okay, how many organ traits are passed on before the organ being put together becomes functioning?
Joshua Read: depends on which trait is developing. It could take many generations before a functioning organ or formed
Steven Wright: There's no reason to pass on traits that can't function yet.
Joshua Read: they don’t need a reason. If they reproduce they pass it on. So a mutation that doesn’t do anything doesn’t aid survival but also isn’t detrimental to survival, so can still be passed on
Steven Wright: They don't need a reason. They just send nonsense for generations and the nonsense ends up pulling together as a functioning organ. What part of the liver before it functioned, was beneficial in other ways?
Joshua Read: mutations are random. They don’t always do anything. If they are negative traits they wont survive as well and don’t pass it on, because death. If they do nothing, there is nothing stopping passing it on because the mutation isn’t harmful to survival. If it’s beneficial it will be more likely to pass on because they are thriving. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Steven Wright: non sequitur
Joshua Read: again it didn’t need to be. But likely an organism has a primitive form of a filtration system and over generations or evolved into what we know as the liver. it’s not a non sequitor at all
Steven Wright: What stage of the heart signaled a need for a not-yet-evolved heart valve, and then another one?
Joshua Read: again likely began as a primitive form o circulatory system and evolved into a more complex one. likely an organism has a primitive form of a filtration system and over generations or evolved into what we know as the liver"
Steven Wright: That's a nice story. How does that story differ from other stories that can't be confirmed?
Joshua Read: so you’re saying that despite us knowing the mechanisms by which these things happen, and having ample evidence for evolutionary change, you thinks it’s unproven unless I can answer how every organ developed step by step?
Steven Wright: It's an easy idea to narrate. I'd like to see the actual mechanics described step-by-step, beginning to end. It can be falsified that way if going down that road it finds dead ends.
Joshua Read: there are 3 different mutations that can occur. Changes can be beneficial, neutral, or negative. Beneficial changes are passed on more often than others due to aiding survival and increasing reproductive opportunity. That is evolution.
Steven Wright: Not according to changes in the human being over the last 10,000 years. Most of them made us more vulnerable to disease. I haven't even heard what a single positive change took place in that time.
Joshua Read: I don’t have to explain how every single organ in every species to have ever existed formed in order to prove change over time via evolution.
Steven Wright: Even a single one would be fine. You can even do a feather instead.
Joshua Read: there are many examples of mutations over that time. Green and blue eyes, red hair, those are mutations
Steven Wright: That's interesting. When did a new color show up in the population?
Joshua Read: A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes. 'Originally, we all had brown eyes,' said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen. Steven Wright: How was that claim determined to be factual?
Joshua Read: the genetic marker. We can roughly determine it via which populations that left Africa does or not have it. it just sounds like you think you know better than every geneticist
Steven Wright: Okay, that evidence is also something to be expected in the mathematical model of reality. The model most supported by quantum mechanics.
Joshua Read: what mathematical model of reality? It’s basic logic, humans left Africa, if it’s only seen in those that left, then it happened after they left
Steven Wright: I don't care about me. I like to determine what I'm taught is the truth. How can you fault me for preferring a model that conforms more to the evidence?
Joshua Read: what model? How do you explain this genetic change appearing?
Steven Wright: You don't know that relative phenomena is perceptually dependent (Special Relativity)?
Joshua Read: what does special relativity have to do with a genetic variation appearing in a species?
Steven Wright: Special relativity describes the non-absolute nature of mass, distance, time and velocity. If it isn't actual phenomena, the whole house of cards comes down. Trait variation can take place with the use of variables in the math. Length, width, height, color, and thickness can have different values if defined conditions are met. Microevolution is mathematically sound. The nervous system is an information highway that brings the universe in its information state to the brain so that it can be represented in a dimensional form conducive to a spacetime reality which means the one perceiving this reality (us) precedes the universe that evolution said produced us.
Joshua Read: it’s the relationship between space and time. Again how if that relevant to a genetic variation appearing in a species?
Steven Wright: Right. You need linear time to be absolute to calculate the universe's age, right? If it's just a particular pov, it's not going to make your model work. Can you understand the description I made of the math model?
Joshua Read: nope, it’s just relative is all. I know what special relativity is, I don’t see how that relates to evolution at all though
Steven Wright: Can one pov be right if that pov is where time stops and space shrinks to zero? Describe your model from that pov.
Joshua Read: it’s relative. So if you’re in a high gravity/ slow time area, it’s only slow relatively, time passes the same for you, while outside would appear fast to you. So you would appear slow to others outside
Steven Wright: You didn't describe your model from the pov of c (which is as justified as any other pov). My model has no problem with it.
Joshua Read: again it’s relative. Do you not know what that means?
Steven Wright: So you won't oblige me because...
Joshua Read: from the outside it looks slow inside. From the inside it looks fast outside. what other POV?
Steven Wright: Listen. If there is no time and no space, everything is static, including all the species from beginning to end. That means the whole story is stored on a disc and you have to play it to see it play out. It's digital bits, not actors and movie sets.
Joshua Read: no time, yes static. No space means there can’t be things, as things take up space
Steven Wright: at the constant where infinite mass exists (undefined), the potential state (or the speed of light).
Joshua Read: infinite time exists too, time just exponentially slows as mass exponentially increases.
Steven Wright: information (waves) have no spacial extent.
Joshua Read: but that’s local, relativity says that this could happen and outside that infinite mass time passes normally
Steven Wright: Infinite time is undefined (no units).
Joshua Read: k. But we have a universe with space and time. Evolution happens in that. Even if time is just a subjective experience of a progress through a timeline, that timeline still exists.
Steven Wright: That wasn't my claim, my claim was that the pov at the constant destroys your model's chance of being the right one. If that pov is real, all phenomena is devoid of needing linear time or finite distances to exist.
Joshua Read: you don’t understand what you are taking about. None of this is related to evolution anyway. We have a universe, it has time. Evolution is change over time. There can be infinite mass areas with basically no time passing, but that’s relative, so time still passes for those outside the event. We don’t understand the true nature of time, it’s possible there any many timelines, but none of that negates evolution in any way
Steven Wright: "you don’t understand what you are taking about." Accusations without backup look like cries for help. If time can stop and space contract to a point and yet all of our reality is present, then everything has to be existing, beginning to end with no need of time or space to make it happen. That means species have to already been designed prior to any time period.
Joshua Read: time still passes outside of the infinite mass area dude. you have lost. You think that because there is an event where I finite mass Essentially stops time (relatively) that this means time doesn’t pass for everything outside the effected area? Well guess what, it does. That’s the relative part of relativity. even if space/time exists as a whole and time is just a subjective experience, what we call change over time still exists. It’s also possible multiple timelines exist. But again this doesn’t negate evolution
Steven Wright: Sure it does. As soon as you enter here in your reality simulator suit (the body), you start the movie and enjoy the ride.
Joshua Read: you dont enter it, you are it. And evolution happened in that timeline. Shifting the goalpost doesn’t change that, it still exists the same
Steven Wright: How did you determine that multiple time lines exist when Absolute Time is Now and you can't escape Now? You enter this world as an observer in an avatar. That means you can enter it now which could be 1000 years ago but still be now. The year doesn't change in a movie just because you watch it ten years from the first time you watched it. It only depends on the avatar you enter with.
Joshua Read: i didn’t claim there was. I said there could be, we simply don’t know. But regardless, evolution occurs over a timeline like everything else, so regardless of whether a timeline is predetermined, evolution happened I. The timeline as change over time. no you don’t, I was formed in this universe. you can’t just make up stuff dude. When you say “I” you are referring to a physical thing that exists inside the universe. You can’t just invent a being that inhabits a physical thing when it pleases, that’s just silly superstition
Steven Wright: So you won't be the departed when people are gathered around your dead body? We should stuff you and keep you around if you're still here.
Joshua Read: if I’m dead, the functions that make me who I am are no longer functioning. So only my body remains
Steven Wright: I'm not inventing. I'm taking away the definitions that haven't always been present. So are you the animation (function) or that which is being animated (body)?
Joshua Read: you are inventing something that isn’t subject to the laws of physics that can inhabit a body. That’s inventing shit
Steven Wright: Really. Tell me how limits are absolute.
Joshua Read: i am a body that has a mind, the mind is where my thoughts and feelings and experiences are processed. So what I call me is essentially a mind. never mentioned limits or absolutes. Next
Steven Wright: Okay, your thoughts have spacial extent? That's the only way to exist in a three dimensional reality. If you don't have a location here, you're not here. Your mind has no location here which confirms what I told you. You only observe here, you don't actually exist in a relative (non-absolute) reality.
Joshua Read: yes the brain forms physical pathways that represent things like my experiences and relate them to other things.
Steven Wright: Okay, how much room do you need to think about New York?
Joshua Read: my brain exists in physical space, it also requires time to function as electrical and chemical signals are subject to the passage of time. You assume this mind exists i dependent of this physical requirement but that’s just you making shit up again I don’t have the answer to that, but my brain needs to form a pathway that can be deactivated when I think about it, that’s how thinking works. It will also be connected to related things like how I feel about new york
Steven Wright: No. Our minds identify with our perceptions. You won't have the same mind once that identity gets cut off. No, I can support what I say. Ask for support before starting the bully routine.
Joshua Read: lmao do you hear yourself? So now the mind is independent of the brain?
Steven Wright: Anyway, we both stated our cases and I'm pleased with how you handled the conversation.
Joshua Read: prove the mind is independent from the brain, because all data we have on the mind is directly related to brain activity. don’t run away now. You’re on the ropes. Is the mind the result of the brain?
Steven Wright: Did I not tell you that the mind identifies with the perception factory (the brain)?

Agent Made

Wicked Gravity

A conversation with my brother


C: "If there's no gravity, then there's also no mass"

S: "Where do you think the particles would go if there was no gravity? It would better be put this way "If there's no force, then there's weightlessness (the mass particles remain). Mass has a limited intrinsic potential to manifest a force when it's accelerated to a stop (non-motion). If your body has 185kg of mass, the limit of force for that body is 1814 N.
Richard Feynman [American Physicist]: "I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?" "Because, they are all the same electron!"

C: "What I'm talking about is the 'outside' force of gravity that gives some 'mass' an 'acceleration'."

S: "That's an assumption. The natural state of an object is a constant free fall. If the object is accelerating, then it was being forced from continuing its fall. If the resistance is removed, the object will fall again. Did you think mass objects, without a gravity pull, would just float still in a vacuum? Once the object reaches its natural free fall state, there is no more acceleration happening, and no more force acting upon it.
0 force = object's mass [kg.] x 0 acceleration
The object's force limit (full weight [N]) = object's mass x full acceleration (object brought to the stationary state)."

C: "The force that keeps electrons rotating around protons and neutrons, I believe (but am foggy on my electromagnetism classes right now) is not 'gravity', but a different force."

S: "That's been debunked. Electrons have been discovered to have wave nature. Waves don't have the property to allow them to behave that way.
"Electrons have wave-like properties, as de Broglie later proposed."

C: "but ALSO experience a force opposite to gravity which is friction"

S: "How does an object experience friction falling through outer space?"

C: "At one point these two forces are equal and opposite"

S: "Don't get fooled. If someone says an object is going 100 km/hr in two opposite directions because it's stationary, that doesn't mean that's what's happening."

C: "What I'm saying, is that the thing you are saying has mass... is 'free falling' according to you. What I'm saying is, "where is it falling toward?"

S: "I can ask you the exact same question about General Relativity: what is the planet sinking toward when it's making a gravity well in spacetime fabric?"

C: "Isn't this formula proving the opposite? That a force is being applied to create acceleration, proportional to the mass of the object - not to remove it?"

S: "When you weigh yourself, is weight a force on a weigh scale? If so, how much force is involved when a body is experiencing weightlessness?"

C: "When we assume that an object is 'free falling' -- can we define what 'falling' means? Is this directional?"

S: "Falling is what happens when an object isn't being resisted (accelerated). The direction it falls is determined by the vector given to it (intrinsically programmed the same way the value for an electron's mass is intrinsically programmed)."

C: "What is the definition of, in your understanding, General Relativity?"

S: "The mass of an object bends spacetime which then impels other objects to move (behave) in a certain way."

C: "Then, what are you trying to disprove with your theory/observation?"

S: "Mass objects don't need gravity to explain why they move the way they do in space."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFO4h_LephQ

I'm Falling and I'm Okay with that

@zemoxian: "A sphere with infinite radius would look exactly like a plane. You wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. Actually, in a branch of mathematics called conformal geometric algebra, I think planes are actually defined as infinite spheres, IIRC."

Me: "Bingo. If that's the mathematical instructions given to the brain, the moon would have a parallel falling vector to the surface of the earth and yet would be perceived to orbit in a curved path."

@zemoxian: "When you stand on the ground, the force you feel on your feet is the ground pushing you off your geodesic path through space. You might think you’re standing still but you’re actually being accelerated upward to keep that stationary position."

Me: "I agree. That's why F=ma claims a free-falling body is at its natural state (no need to explain its fall to an outside force)."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW4CO3n0TS8