"Off-the-Wall" Hall of Fame

I am not a student and have little to no knowledge of this subject .still after reading some on dark matter I was compelled to to fitnd someone who'd know the answer to my question about that 20% . So my question is this . In caculating earth's mass . When determining the 20% discrepancy that we believe to be dark matter . Was human and an animal mass also included ? However if my last question was with out any sense since the missing 20% (dark matter) Is within the solar system and not in the mass of earth alone. Still earth's mass I would believe must contain the living mass as well . This missing 20% may pertain to the mass of unknown living mass throughout out the solar system . Supporting to what of angels and demons also called aliens , spirits , god's , etc. I do hope that my questions are not completely idiotic . I just felt that for some reason this was something that was not considered when determining mass of earth since living mass is always changing due to population . How ever when u consider all life come from the father and he always was and always will be . Then his mass would be likewise . In that in which he breathed into the living . True ?

So...if im at the center of a gyroscope...free of my own orientation...and say this gyroscope is creating an electrical spere around me...and the center of this electrical spere the charge is zero...thus not effecting me...motuon has no effect...no g forces are felt upon motion...no natter the speed...would i not then be able to coordinate a lat and long destination...griund my electrical charge to that destination...and shoot my gyro like abolt...having a gold ball on a spike on one side and a non conducive ball at the other...traveling at the speed of light by my gyro generating such a great electrical charge from the motion of its rings...make since?

is the earth spinng because the sun is a negative charge resting on the circumference of the earth and that space is a positive energy source also pushing on the other pole ? much like a metal ball being suspended and stabilized with positive negative charges? if so then would or could the earth be spinning much like a top does in a circular motion as if it will always spin in the same spin motion of earth because it to is affected by the magnetic pushes and pulls....right? could we measure whether the earth is spinning at the same rate of speed as it was 10,15, 25, or even 50 years ago? if it is slowing does that mean that if earth loses momentum this will cause the Spheres to be slowly deteriorated mime-ing global warming ? could we feasibly measure the rate at which earth would stop rotating if at all? does it mimmick the pi equation at all? I am sorry I have only a couple of years of college and I have been bothered buy these questions ....I am fifty years old and an introvert I look forward to your answer D

(This is a continuation of an earlier question which you might read first.)

QUESTIONER: These are my calculations applied as I was taught in Physics first year university:
A 50g marble is attached to a 1m string wrapping itself around your finger held above your head at a rate of one revolution every second until it reaches 5cm from your finger. Let s do the math:

Initial scenario:
mass m = 0.05 kg
radius r = 1 m
angular velocity w = 6.28 r/s
velocity v = w/r = 6.28/1 = 6.28 m/s
momentum p = mv = 0.05*6.28 = 0.314 kg.m/s
angular momentum L = rp = 1*0.314 = 0.314 kg.m^2/s

Final scenario:
r = 0.05 m
L =0.314 kg.m^2/s (using conservation of angular momentum)
v = L/rm= 0.314/0.05 = 125.6 m/s

If we calculate the centrifugal force generated by the final scenario:
F = mv^2/r = 0.05*125.6*125.6/.05 = 15775.36 N
Which is about the equivalent of the force of gravity on 1600 kg This is a classic example given as proof of conservation of angular momentum in first year university physics lectures. It is the same principle applied to the other example when an ice skaters arms are pulled in when in fact angular momentum is also not conserved. You have a choice - conserve angular momentum or conserve linear momentum. Linear momentum wins - always. Conservation of angular momentum is an fact a fallacy. Even you yourself have answered a question regarding a spinning skater using conservation of angular momentum - you answer to that question is false. Your suggestion regarding torque also applies in that example. There is no such thing as conservation of angular momentum unless nothing changes and if nothing changes then there is nothing interesting happening and the law cannot be applied. As the radius reduces, so does the angular momentum linearly whilst the angular velocity increases linearly. Why is that so difficult to accept ? If I am wrong, then please give me an example where conservation of angular momentum can actually be applied ?

ME: Did you even bother to read my answer? Angular momentum is not conserved in this situation and so your calculation is meaningless.

QUESTIONER: I did read your answer, and your answer is bs. There is no torque being applied to the marble by the string because the force is perpendicular to the motion. You are correct in that conservation of angular momentum is not conserved in this situation because conservation of angular momentum is not conserved in any situation. Clearly you have not bothered to read my email. I am tired of trying to explain this to people who consider themselves physicists because their heads are buried so deep in Newtons ass that they cannot see reality anymore. He was just a human and he made a mistake.

ME: At this point I usually give up trying to reason. For the benefit of whoever is reading this question (and unlike the questioner, willing to think) here is a brief explanation of torque and angular momentum. He is right that there is no torque about an axis passing through the point where the string is unwinding from his finger; but it is meaningless to calculate the angular momentum about this axis because that point moves around the circle and is therefore not an inertial frame. But the axis passing through the center of his finger is in an inertial frame (at rest) and there is a torque about that axis because T has a component perpendicular to r. and therefore τ=rxT≠0. I should also add that linear momentum does not "win" in this situation; because there is a force on the marble (T) linear momentum is not conserved and any fool can see that because it is a vector and constantly changing its direction. Oh, never mind, I am just a physicist with my head "buried deep in Newton's ass".

QUESTIONER: You are truly a closed minded idiot. Soon to be proven so. The world of physics has been deluded for centuries and you stand here in the face of clear evidence exposing it and point your finger at the messenger saying whatever comes to mind to protect your delusion. Good luck with that. As far as your little wall of fame is concerned, the road to give a f#$* is the other direction.

QUESTIONER: I apologise for my behaviour. You are doing great things for physics education in general with your fantastic web site. I was also impressed with your quick response. I believe that I have found a huge flaw in physics which has ramifications ranging from astronomy to quantum mechanics in which they are applying the law of conservation of angular momentum and it is incorrect. I am extremely frustrated because it seems impossible to get this through to anyone. I do not agree with your answer because my question is a classic example used in physics classes to demonstrate conservation of angular momentum. I still maintain that your previous answer to another question posed by somebody on your web site regarding the skater pulling in her arms is false. But you do not deserve to be insulted and I would like to take back the insulting things I have said. Please accept my apology.

ME: Thank you for your remarks; we all get a little hot-headed sometimes, particularly when we are passionate about something. I would ask you to think more carefully about the particular problem we have been arguing about. I assure you that you will not find the "tetherball problem" cited in any reputable text as an angular momentum conservation example; if it appears at all it will be as an example of just the opposite. If you had an instructor who presented it as such, he/she was incompetent. I will tell you an amusing anecdote from my own teaching career. I once had to miss a couple of classes I was teaching because of a research trip and had a graduate student teach my classes and administer an exam I had written. He taught the class that angular momentum was conserved in the tetherball problem; subsequently, nearly every student in the class missed that problem on the test. I had to readjust my grades for that test by taking that problem out. Finally, I should tell you the "classic" angular momentum conservation example you are probably remembering from your student days. It is very like the problem we have been arguing about with one small difference: instead of the string getting shorter as it wraps around a cylinder, it gets shorter by pulling it through a small hole. In this case, there is truly no torque on the mass because the tension is directed toward the axis which passes through the hole. So, in this case mv₁r₁= mv₂r₂. Since the velocity increases as you pull it in, energy is not conserved. So, v₂=v₁(r₁/r₂)=125.6 m/s as you calculated for the other case. Any real string would break before getting in to 5 cm. (I see that I used 5 g instead of your 50 g in my earlier calculation, but the mass does not matter in the velocity calculation. I have corrected that.) Finally, I appeal to the overwhelming evidence from experiments and observations. Kepler's second law would not be true if angular momentum is a "fallacy"; but think of all the observations which have verified this law. Angular momentum is absolutely crucial in all quantum mechanical calculations of atomic and nuclear properties; in a century of quantum physics, calculations have never failed to correctly describe nature.

QUESTIONER: Your assertion that moving the centre of the radius of the turn slightly to one side because it is wrapping around a finger will impart a force any other direction than perpendicular to the movement of the marble is simply false. At any instantaneous moment, the tension on the string will be imparting a force perpendicular to the motion of the marble and the diameter of the finger will be of no consequence. No torque will be applied to the system. Pulling the string through a small hole will not produce the result that you are advocating. In fact, I have proven this not to be the case with a very simple marble drop apparatus which has two channels, one which has the marble go through a fixed radius 90 degree bend and the other which goes through a reducing radius 90 degree bend. I assure you that the velocity is not affected. If the velocity were to increase then the linear momentum would not be conserved. If Keppler’s second law is based upon angular momentum, then I can assure you that it is also false. Any calculation which applies the conservation of angular momentum cannot possibly correctly describe nature. Just because everyone thinks it is so does not make it so. This is the type of thinking that lead to this fallacy being undiscovered for centuries. Mark my words, because a lot of people are going to be eating theirs. The reality of the tethered object scenario is that the angular momentum decreases along with the radius. The angular velocity increases simply because the object has a shorter path to traverse and therefore does it faster. 300 years of science is simply wrong. The overwhelming evidence that you appeal to is all false. I am sure that some inexplicable paradoxes have arisen within quantum mechanics because their calculations are based on an invalid law. These can now be explained. Science is about reality. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. The truth is that once you realise and accept what I am saying, you will no longer understand how you believed otherwise because it is so obvious. Which of course makes it more difficult to explain to someone who is still suffering under the delusion. Respectfully, it is you sir who needs to think more carefully.

ME: At this point, it is fruitless to carry on! No point in arguing with someone who is unable to calculate torque.

QUESTIONER: Your suggestion that there is a torque on the marble as it unwinds from the finger is on two counts incorrect. Firstly, the marble is winding up on my finger and therefore the torque which you assert is applied would further increase the angular momentum. Secondly there is no torque. If you would care to think about it a little, you would realise this. Also if your were to actually try a little experiment - which I have tried - you would find that there is little difference from the marble wrapping up on your finger or being pulled through a small hole. I assure you that there is no snapping of the string, or anywhere near the kind of force which conservation of angular momentum predicts. I have discovered something which changes everything about science and the world does not care to listen. It will soon be realised though because the truth has eventually to come out. Conservation of angular momentum is false. The fact that you choose to ridicule the person that points it out to you does not change the fact.

QUESTIONER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_D9srQh1Sw

ME: (I am such a fool to continue debating this guy who keeps sending me nonsense messages, but the teacher in me just cannot resist.)

The notion that because the force is perpendicular to the velocity says nothing whatever about the torque which the force exerts. You are right, the tension T is perpendicular to the velocity v, but this says (as I said before that T does no work and so v remains constant (energy conserved). (Note that the speed v, not the velocity v, remains constant so linear momentum is not conserved; that is to be expected since the criterion for linear momentum to be conserved is that there be no external force and T is a force on the marble.) Now the most important thing is to discuss angular momentum, since you insist that angular momentum is "a fallacy". Newton's first law for rotational motion is that the angular momentum of a system remains constant if there are no external torques on the system. Since there is only one force here, we have to determine if T exerts a torque on the marble. In order to calculate angular momentum or torque, you must specify an axis about which to calculate these quantities. Now you seem to want to choose point A in my figure as that axis, and, indeed, the torque about that point at this instant is zero. But that point is not where it was a second ago and is not where it will be a second from now; that point is moving around in a circle. But, that would mean that the point A is in a noninertial frame of reference (accelerating) and any beginning student in physics knows that Newton's laws of motion work only in an inertial frame. So you must choose some other axis if you want to determine whether angular momentum is conserved as predicted. You can choose any axis which is fixed in space, but far-and-away the simplest calculation results from choosing the center of your finger (point C) as the axis about which to calculate. So, in order for T to exert a torque about C you need to determine if it has a component perpendicular to the moment arm r; as my figure clearly shows, there is such a component labeled as T_t, the component of T tangential to the radius r. The net torque is therefore T_tr. There is a torque and therefore angular momentum is not conserved. Note that the direction of the torque is such that the angular momentum will decrease as the string wraps around your finger.

QUESTIONER: I met a fellow I want say his name. He told me he was almost certain that the earth formed itself via two black dwarf stars. He said they were still there. I ask how and he began to speak about how gases from those stars were produced at that age of those two stars and he said they didnt have enough energy to burn the gases so some turned to water. He said the sun wasn't shining at that time and those two stars inside our planet is where gravity comes from. He kept speaking about another force which he called ANTAVITY. He said antavity was the reason the suns gravity didnt pull all planets via gravity into itself. As he spoke I ask about what did he think caused mars to go out of its ecliptic as it lined up with earth and he said all planets dont have the same type stars because of there atomic makeup. My question is "is that possible ?

ME: Why would you ever think such nonsense could have any truth to it? Don't even waste time thinking about it.

QUESTIONER: Dear Mr Physicist , Due to a better answer from the science community concerning earths gravity and its origins I have no choice but to believe this gentleman's answers. Hydrogen and oxygen make water . Its very possible those dark stars do supply earth with gravity and in their origins its very possible that is the origin of earths water. I have learned one thing and that is science does not have all the answers and sometimes when a answer is needed they make one up. Gravitational waves are now detectable is that myth or TRUTH where is the proof.

ME: Ha, ha, that's a good one! You're that 'fellow', aren't you? Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and oxygen is produced in massive quantities in dying stars. Hydrogen burns very easily. No mystery where water comes from. 'Supply earth with gravity'? What does that even mean? Gravity is not something you can carry in a cup.

QUESTIONER: Intellectual humility isn't very popular in the physicist neighborhoods. I am certain of this. America and special interest groups support it like it were truth. Hahaha. Other then the above thank you for you time..

QUESTIONER: Oh and ah P.S. that same man is telling me to pay careful attention to our sun. He says its about to take its last and final breath. I told him I have read about the red giant. He said the sun would turn multiple folds brighter before it ever turns to a red GIANT. I guess you will see if I am that same man because a human would have no way of knowing this because we look to you fellows to inform us. He also speaks of planet displacement due to ANTAVITY. Later dude I had to P.S. YOU

Doesn't the very simple matter that we can see fire disprove the widely believed theory that light travels as a wave and not some yet unknown form of matter or such. The reason I ask this is because if light is a wave there shouldn't be any way we can see fire which is caused only by the extreme speed of particles, that at slower speeds we cannot see as surely if after the particles boiling point for example oxygen is reached the atom begin to split up and move at a speed we as humans cannot see with the naked eye thus asking the question why do we see fire as a single "object" if you will as if these particles are being fired off from one another surely fire would spread out instead of being confined to its space also if once a particle does reach a high enough speed we can see it then why can we not see matter such as nutrinos forgive me for straying of topic but if from heat there is no alpha beta or gamma radiation what causes the wave we know as light and what class of radiation is a light wave and again does this not disprove the theory of light being a wave. Doesn't the very simple matter that we can see fire disprove the widely believed theory that light travels as a wave and not some yet unknown form of matter or such. The reason I ask this is because if light is a wave there shouldn't be any way we can see fire which is caused only by the extreme speed of particles, that at slower speeds we cannot see as surely if after the particles boiling point for example oxygen is reached the atom begin to split up and move at a speed we as humans cannot see with the naked eye thus asking the question why do we see fire as a single "object" if you will as if these particles are being fired off from one another surely fire would spread out instead of being confined to its space also if once a particle does reach a high enough speed we can see it then why can we not see matter such as nutrinos forgive me for straying of topic but if from heat there is no alpha beta or gamma radiation what causes the wave we know as light and what class of radiation is a light wave and again does this not disprove the theory of light being a wave

Hello, I have a question about protons vs electrons. Our electrical technology and computers are based on selective control and manipulation of the flow of electrons. We know the electron cloud surrounds the atomic nucleus, which is made of protons and neutrons, and neutrons are a compressed proton and electron. My question has to do with the protons. How can we as in the human science learn to directly manipulate and control the flow of protons like we do with electrons/electronics? I know mitochondria inside living cells do something along these lines. What would be necessary for us to do this? If we could directly control the flow of protons like we do electrons, we could probably do alot of new technological things. We could assemble matter directly by combining electrons and protons, and we could have an analog of electricity made with protons: Proticity. What are your thoughts on this? Thank you!

how we can connect relativity with our feeling? Einstien say when a person speak with a girl feel timelessness.it is possible when we consider frame with relativistic speed connecting to brain. but it is possible?

in fullmetal alchemist alchemy is a scinace of understading mater then bracking it down and recontucting it why cant a black hole do that just in a difrent part of the universe. i firlmy beliove that black holes are cheat cuts to difrent parts of space. i just dont have the brain to prove it it in a sctaic eqation but i qam will to work with those who have the resorces and mind to do so. i would like to be apart of a group to do this.

i have a love for physics and understanding how everthing is linked its just dissapointing when alot of the answers they teach in physics is wrong . my main questions is why are they wasting time trying to find the particle the give weight aka the god particle , that is bound by time and what every we see is not what we see mass works on the same principle as everyting else on the elcromagnectic spectrum is the pass of time that cancels mass out to create much in the same way light works it baffles me , and i know my thinking is right cause what i have theorised has taken many accomplised people a long time to figure out , i figured out a thoery of everything that makes sense i just need some one to do the equations or atleast help me , i was wondering do you have any recommendations , my way of thinking has solved magnetism, gravity and other important factors by which we are shaped .

I have a very interesting theory for you, I am just a college student being curious. I wrote notes down in a notebook and I am just going to retype it all and see if you can make any sense of it. "I think we are living in a four dimensional world, not three dimensions. Our universe expanding expresses the fourth dimension of time and time is what the universe creates by expanding. This is what we are after proving now. That axis of time represents the fourth dimension. We say light and time do not exist in black holes. I think this is because they are a way to the fourth dimension although we would probably be crushed by known theories of physicists. Just like the BLACK hole we see the ends of the universe as well as the area between protons and electrons as BLACK because they are channels to the fourth dimension but we cannot get inside them yet because we are not developed enough. We can think that the other dimensions exist when we peak into the smallest areas possible, inside a proton. Stephen Hawking proposes that other dimension "strings" exist at those microscopic levels. Our universe is viewed being flat in the fourth dimension because that is the way that we perceive two dimensions in our three dimensional world. Aliens were advanced enough to jump to our dimension and stay here temporarily and abduct people to bring them into their dimension because they just developed the ability to stay here for longer periods of time. While people are in the fourth dimension they have no feeling of time because, as seen in the youtube video with the four men who are camping get abducted. The men thought that they were only gone for like a minute or something. I don't remember the exact times, but they were gone for a very long time, maybe a day? Dreams can peak into the future of our dimension because they enter the fourth dimension where we cannot perceive time, but that's why dreams often come true because our brains have developed to see into that dimension. I also believe that there are ghosts that exist in that fourth dimension as well, maybe even a fifth dimension coming to see us because they are teaching the aliens to reach us. That was just a quick note, wan't sure if that made much sense at all. But I do believe that my theory has some scientific thought due to the shows about Stephen Hawking on the t.v.

Earth is the first atom of the new universe , we are the big bang our history has traced back to the beginning of our entire universe now, re happening itself again, hopefully to possibly get it right again, but this time in a new pattern that does not stay the same as long as this one has, yet also remembering the atom in the sound expression of every change in a new pattern, complex forms of snow flakes are nothing but the new patterns of your dna structure from the atom individually, that right now being planet earth, connecting to another atom that is an entirely different pattern, that being planet, with an entirely different atom, that being meaning accepting the same kind of air that trees do, yet all falls together the snow to the ground, what happened to the song that the snow used to sound, if planet earth can breathe in space, why can not her many little different expressions of atoms, expressive themselves like she can, so freely in space and time, turning in dance while keeping her balance perfectly throughout all the darkness, well mother earth is the one astraunut with the biggest mask on her face any living breathing human being as ever imagined, for she has to protect herself from her own space and time, until the atoms inside of her can sound like she has been doing before her mask was created, this being the ozone layer, that being nothing but a mask to get the planet earth to stop breathing, which it will do, but in an instant of sound, all those who are in tuned to the earth, will release there ozone layers in thought, creating a frecuency in sound, that causes a change in the pattern at which the atom spins, that being the dance of the spirit, translating into the beat of the heart, representing a change in the expression of the atom as it branches out from its source, that which is smaller, that causes its internal organs of the atom to rotate, meaning heart beat, at a synchronisticly sound balance of rotation completely coppied exactly as it is expressed from the expression of the atom, and what makes up its creations creator, which means looking deeper into the entire body of the atom, for the atoms pattern has know longer rotated at a speed to change its entire pattern in harmony with that which created all the atoms insides, not physically, but soundly, for we have reached perfection in matter, the life of soundness, is now beating to a rhythm in your heart, that your mind is able to understand through feeling communication through the word of the mind, creating sound dna change, complex patterns themselves in form felt through the eyes, by the mind can be felt in sound, activating a complete copy of sound in the mind, represented perfectly felt through the ears, in the soundness of pattern change presented through visual change scene by the eyes, expressing a new pattern change starting with the mask of the release of the atom I can communicate with patterns that change, which make up the atom of a human being

I was wondering about the propagation of our AC/DC electricity and I was blessed with the thoughts of an electrostatic vortex that could be created by properly encasing the wires and putting them closer to the ground, if not underground, to allow the power a conduit that does not have to work against gravity any harder. I considered what is the best conduit for static electricity and I thought wool! We can create a fluffed wool mesh that can encase power lines and that will be encased with a mirrored lining and non conducive rubberized plastic casings to reflect free falling electrons (power loss) that will magnetically charge the wool as they pass back and forth through it until they begin to cling to the mesh and create an electromagnetic vortex surrounding the whole of the current propagated so that there will be no loss and discharge of electrons and power can begin to flow without power loss. It would be simple to configure and design an electrostatic alternator and diodes to change electromagnetic static electricity back into AC/DC current. The current that comes through the lines to household will be an even more pure sine wave and it will get the atrocious power lines, and buzz, out of the air. What do you think? Do you understand what I mean? I think it was where Tesla was headed but he thought just to remove static electricity from the air. The fact that we release our static electricity into the air, creating a surplus of it, may be detrimental to environmental health and it may also affect the orbit of the earth. Statically charged radio frequencies can create electromagnetic vortexes in the atmosphere that can affect synaptic flow and electrical equipment failure and malfunction. We need to secure this invisible enemy and begin to get our moneys� worth from it.

I have a unit that I did not design, but is capable of doing many wondrous things for the human body. PLEASE DON'T STOP HERE. I need a little information or some thoughts on the matter of what I am about to get started doing. I have a small control panel consisting of 18 dials numbered 1-10 per dial. I have not seen the circuitry, but have been told that their are resistors and capacitors. It has been said that this is a healing machine.....and I have seen it work several times for family and close friends. I would not call what I saw mind over matter. This unit called the " EMS" is said to have parallel and series connections. The dials are to be considered like settings for radio stations generating analog signals. A pendulum box is connected to the control panel's input to determine a resonant frequency by which to set each dial to a specific number based on positive or negative rotation of the pendulum There are more things that this unit can do. At any rate, after the test settings,thereby setting these dials on the control panel, with the correct numbers, it is then that the unit is turned on using a 12-16 dc volt plugged into the wall. The dials or potentiometers are approximately each 530 ohms. The headings on the control panel state 100k, 10k and 1k. Based on this information there appears to be a capacity to operate up to 30 million ohms that can perform functions at less that 1 watt of power. An a acquaintance who has never seen this unit, told me that this unit appears to be a collective resistor unit, and is known to be very accurate. My question: I need to know what these settings mean in terms of frequency output. Yes. there is an output wire spliced for a Y connection for two metal pads to come in contact with the human body. Nothing felt and no danger. I am 62 years old. Studied electronic over 40 years ago and computers over 20 years ago. I am only above the layman slightly and I have a disease that this unit seems to neutralize or paralyze the organism, or....the EMS unit is destroying a multiple reproductive or self-replicating organism that can morph quickly by engaging somehow with the mitochondria of a corrupted DNA and is then shielded by silicon. Those that carry this organism also carry micro photonic crystals. Will just leave that alone for now. I have been recently informed, that it is the belief that this EMS Unit some how develops an electromagnetic field of energy known as either kinetic or salar energy. What matters to me right now is that I find a good oscilloscope to connect to those pads as one pad for part of the circuits output. The questions I have: If I use my VOM (VOLTAGE OHM METER) on one of the two EMS units I have, how will I determine the voltage? There is a ground connection on the EMS. I don't want to inversely short or allow changes that could adversely affect the EMS's function. THE EMS after testing for dial numbers per affliction....well they can be added with other affliction numbers upto to a certain point, the point being more than one affliction can be addressed. I have been trying to refresh my past reviewing the use of an oscilloscope, before deciding the type I need to buy. I know for certain that it has to be used to analyze analog signals. I'm sure you have heard of Dr. Royal Rife. A new design and a new idea before he died, also using analog signals. Sorry, I will stay on point to finish this: From what I have read the user must be aware of the voltage peak maxium , coming from the circuits output signal so to be sure that the oscilloscope is able to handle that voltage capacity. A specimen of the organism can be placed between the pads on input connection to the panel. For the first time... I may be able to see from the oscilloscope data the type of waveform, the pulses the real frequency of the organism and not any other powered frequency, by adjusting the dials on the EMS panel close to the readings I got from the settings based on the pendulum. In other words, I may be able to find the exact frequency dial settings to destroy this thing. For example: I may be able to adjust the amplitude of the wave by finding which of the panel dials affects the wave amplitude. Second, there may be distortions in the wave cycle or the wave itself that the panel dials may help me to discover and adjust. Another thought further along on this issue, using the pads on a microscopic lens carrying the specimen adjusting with the oscilloscope to help make short work in finding the correct frequency to destroy the organism. Last, the most difficult thought process to work out. How much farther can we go with this! Considering thoughts on Ultrasound and Ultraviolet light, plasma as did Dr. Rife, but yet one more option. Shock waves, ( the sonic boom). Accelerating something that sends shock waves of the right electromagnetic frequency just a bit faster than the speed of sound. For example: Ultrasound is used to destroy kidney stones. Fibre optics, where a Dr. Robert Boyd of Rochester University sent a laser light through a tube whereby the light exited before it entered and was returning back toward the entrance. A small consideration of faster than the speed of light. I am not looking to quote anyone. I am looking for help, advise, and to critique me if that is necessary. Professor even if you could put me in touch with someone that can give me some guidance. I am not going to give up on this.. I want my life back and I don't want this in my children or grandchildren.

this question is concerning negative matter (-e) and positive matter (+e) in relation to wormholes
1 is the opposite of -1.
1 is 'more than everything'
as we know 1 is more than nothing
1 is also less than 2
therefore 2 is more than more than everything or 1 is less than everything
1 is more than nothing -1 is less than everything
1 =-1 1 and 1 are opposites 1,1,-1 1>-1
-1=1 1 and -1 are opposites of 1
is 1 is a positive matter(+e)than that positive and two opposites, the opposite of a positive is a negative 1 and -1 are negative, but 1 =1 so for every +e there is a -e which is of equal value and a -e which is of lesser value
I am lost in all of this and how it could be applied to negative matter in black holes and their wormholes(if present) I

I have some questions which are really important to me because they have literally speaking ruined my life and have caused a lot of phobias in my mind and soul, sir, i have a strange feeling everytime that anytime the earth will start rotating and i would not be able to sustain that and will die due to my motion phobia.Sir,is it really possible that the earth will start rotating and we will be able to see it? (I do know that earth is rotating with a constant acceleration) but could anything happen that would disrupt the constant nature,and we will be able to see it? i mean as a lot of traffic is moving on the surface,so they should cause acceleration and deacceleration to the earth's movement. sir,plz reply me asap as i can't travel by any means due to this circular movent phobia and everything.

A step beyond the physics of the physical world there is the precept of meta-physics or that spirit known as 'Karma' in the world. The precepts of ethical force that becomes contrived by the actions of one that bring either falter or reward from that spirit of ethics and the force that our higher power has invested in its effects as per action/reaction. In this sense, would it stand to reason that in the use of trees for paper and paper products (so frivolous a use of such a precious resource) when there is highly renewable water grasses (cypress and papyrus grasses) and modern technology to alleviate such a waste of our precious trees. In that we have not developed a process to derive paper from these alternate resources I believe that the human condition suffers from the spirits of the forests that are as alive as any self respecting human being. I also believe that the animal populations of the water punish us (degrade the quality of human life) for not cleaning our waste waters more effectively by recreating the natural osmosis that promotes the sedimentary processing of the waters in underground systems. We could recreate the conditions of underground lakes and create an electromagnetic osmosis that we could intensify to make a sedimentary time machine and do in 1 year what takes 1000 naturally. Do not even answer this question because I know I am right; just use sense and get to work on these projects. I have many more to follow.s

suppose the higgs boson was emmited from the nucleus of atoms, at speeds faster than the speed of light, in arcs that "lassoed" the atoms and kept them intact. I believe that the particles are responsible for gravity, the higgs field is strongest closest to the nucleus, but spans as far as gravity. the higgs boson is the smallest particle, the glue that holds reality together, the lowest common denominator in reality. O

On a theory I came up with a few years back 2005. At the time Stephen Hawkins Ask for someone to dispell his theory on the Hawkins paradox. Then one theory was brought out that proved him wrong. That he inturn agreed. In my theory. To put it simple lets think of the center of our galaxy as a giant Recycling Plant. That slung out subatomic particles that were absorbed by all bodies in the galaxy and created new matter. Would this then go along with the expanding earth theory. It might also tell us what is happening now in our solar system. Could it be possible that these subatomic particle waves were being produced in cycles . As the black hole is spinning and ejecting these subatomic particle's in a spiral manner. That this could also be affecting or sun and other planets in our system in such a manner. Does this fall under ( SUBQUANTUM KINETICS ) As I said just a Theory. Do you think It's possible. ????

introduction : very important ????????????

1. It is Wrong to say that the Earth turns around itself from West to East , because the rotation from West to East can be move with Clockwise or Anti Clockwise direction .

2. we are looking north pole up, and as Copernicus theory says that the Earth turns around itself Anti Clockwise to form day and night , and also the Earth orbit around the Sun Anti Clockwise to form the four seasons .

the advance is

� Solar eclipse occurs when the Moon between the Sun and the Earth , eclipse period take 8 hours .

� As Copernicus theory :

1. Sun is stationery

2. The Moon orbit around the Earth 360 per 29 days 14 hours and 40 Minutes Anti Clockwise direction .

� So the Moon orbit around Earth per 24 hours 12 degrees ,

� and within eclipse period 8 hours the Moon will orbit around Earth 4 degrees Anti Clockwise direction .

3. Earth Consisting of 360 degrees , or 360 longitudes , it turn around it self within 24 hours Anti Clockwise direction

� within eclipse period 8 hours , the Earth is turn around it self 120 degrees or 120 longitudes Anti Clockwise direction ,

As above 1, 2 & 3 :

� If the Solar eclipse began over longitude Greenwich 000 over Africa ,

� and the Earth turn Anti Clockwise direction around it self

� the Solar eclipse will end over longitude 120 West over America

� But actually if Solar eclipse began over longitude Greenwich 000 over Africa it will ended over longitude 120 East over Asia

� That mean either the Earth turns around itself Clockwise Or the Earth is standing still , I have 22 evidence and 26 question confirm theory captain Nader Jneid that : The Earth is Standstill It Is Not Turn Around Itself And Not Orbit Around The Sun Day And Night Form During Orbit The Sun Around The Earth Clock Wise Direction , Four Season Form By The Sun Transition Between Cancer And Capricorn During Orbiting Around The Earth

Hello, I was just wondering something about our basis for nuclear physics, which are the precepts, findings and notions of Einstein. When I first saw the equation of E=MCsqared I instantly thought that it was wrong... I was only four at the time but still the thought that it was wrong struck me. Now I am 37 and I think I have figured it out. MCsquared is actually the volume of an orb when the M is the physical weight of it. To measure the atomic energy within an atom you need to times the volume you find (in the above suggested manner) times the total space that it occupies which will give you the atomic energy. The physics in the world is obviously off the true path and I think this is the answer. Einstein was pretty old when he found the answers that scientists have blindly followed for 60 years. Do you see any sense in this and agree?

Numbers as digits makes sense to us when we write them on a piece of paper. But as soon as write them on a ruler they lose their meaning. When you have a ruler divided into 6 segments, the segments are divided by a drawn line. Now because that line itself can be divided into smaller segments (when you magnify in) then the ruler is never really divided into 6 segments. The only way it would truly be divided is if the utensil that you used to make the divisions was infinitely narrow. And because that is not possible, the segments are not possible. The 6 doesn't really exist. It's the same with motion. 6 stationary train cars in a row = 6 cars. But as soon as that train begins to move, the number 6 loses it's meaning and the definition of 6 now depends on the "Velocity" of the viewer to approach the train and discern segments. If the train is moving at a million meters per second you could never say that it has 6 cars if you couldn't either approach the train at the same velocity or else slow the train down. Measurement is relative to motion. Because Velocity is a factor of (Acceleration x Time) the ball that you "say" is moving at 20 meters per second is really Accelerating a quantum amount above or below 20 meters per second. In reality that 20 meter per second velocity does not exist. Just like the ruler, nothing can be at a solid number. Only theoretical Math.

It seems to be apparent that almost everything that we see (and don't see) arises from the ambient Zero Point Energy Field. Scientists like Milo Wolff have proposed that all so called material structure is actually standing waves of ZPE. Why is this concept not accepted by mainstream academic physicists.

The ultimate knowledge, or merely The phrase "NOTHING, DOESN'T EXIST" (accent on the word nothing) is a simple statement, meaning two things, depending on punctuation. 1. Nothing, by it's own definition, does not, has not, and cannot EVER exist, as it literally means NO THING, and, that means no thing, which cannot exist because if it did, it would be SOMEthing. As we know, even a total void has infinite quantum soup particles jumping in and out of existence, and even the number zero is not nothing, it's an imaginary number that is as infinite in concept as "infinity", like observing a join in a circular loop. one side would be the beginning, the other infinity, but it's the same singularity. the end is the beginning again. It's an imaginary number basically, for use to measure the rest of the numbers by comparison. It was even shunned to be used in math until a few centuries ago. A dangerous number, of devilish origins, or so it was feared by the religious extremists. The second meaning of NOTHING DOESN'T EXIST, but this time imagine the phrase WITHOUT the comma, (accent on the word nothing) means that "there is nothing in existence that isn't in existence". Obvious and simple, but true. Only things CAN exist. It can't NOT exist, because if it didn't, it would be a thing, it would be NO thing, making existance impossible...and don't get me started on the word impossible. If EVERYTHING EXISTS, then we mean an infinity of things. Over eternity, then, everything will exist, even the seemingly impossible, but impossibilities means something that cannot exist, and as we see, there is only one thing that "could" not exist: Nothing. And that doesn't exist. So, one day, if I lived eternally, I will fall through the earth and then eat a star and become James Joyce suddenly. Literally, that HAS to happen. It cannot not happen, if infinity is really a conceptually hard thing to imagine but perfectly complete forever, with time, and timelessness joined In a way, we exist because of nothing. And the phrase Everything, exists must therefore mean that infinity of existence exists forever, as it couldn't ever not exist if nothing never could exist. See what I'm saying? Every thing we can imagine, and ininitely more we can't, will exist at some point, or am I being fooled by wordgames and semantics?

what would happen if an object (ie planet) was surrounded by energy strong enough to resist the pressure of a black hole while traveling through to the event horizon, or what if some way to produce artificially an energy field (E=mc^3) to exist while traveling through a black hole where E=mc^2? What would happen to the planet once inside?

MY QUETION IS REGARDING TEMPERATERS AS WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME VERY HOT BODIES IN SPACE SUCH AS OUR SUN AND I BELIVE THAT IN UNIVERS EVERY POSITIVE HAS A NAGITIVE SO SPEAKING OF HOT BODIES ARE THERE ANY COLD BODEIS FOR EXAMPLE IF THE MAX TEMPERATURE OF A BODY IS FIVE HUNDRAD THOUSAND DEGREES AND THEN THERE MIGHT BE A BODY WHOS TEMPERATURE IS FIVE HUNDRAD THOUSAND DEGREES BELOW ZERO IN NAGITIVE. ONE MORE THING WHAT IS THE COLDEST TEMPERATURE ONE CAN OBTAIN ON THE PLANET EARTH.

before asking my question I want to tell u smthing abt my project that we r making at our personel level to bring a revolution in indian history. pls try to answer as soon as possible ok. this project is related to jetpack. u might hav heard about it, yes my friend we r trying to fly. but we r having lots of problem to start with......... for example the fuel selection I know this is not related to physics, so my question to u is that can we develop that much thurst to lift a man of about 80-90 kg, i know ur answer is going to be yes ... but suggest me the most cheapest way to do this... just seeing the market and our dreams answer this..

I have an interesting question. It pertains to the singularity and the strength of gravity prior to the big band and the strength of gravity now.

Is it not possible that gravity is EXACTLY as strong now as it ever was? Common understanding apparently says no. We assume that gravity was once much stronger at the time prior to the big bang and now is not a very strong force relative to the other known forces.

I believe in theory it's possible that gravity is the same as it ever has been. How so? Well I call it the "bully effect". Quite simply it states that at the time of the singularity, when all matter and all the forces, everything was the same size that gravity was the strongest force. It was the bully of the group.

However, like the bully in school who can pick on other kids as long as their not bigger than he is, gravity simply never grew up like everthing else did, post big bang.

Now that matter can be the size of suns and planets and the individual gravity particle is still the same sub-atomic size it always has been, it's not so scary anymore. It can only pick on things it's own size.

So when planets, stars and well, everthing, were still all compressed into the same size space as gravity (pre big bang era) gravity could hold everything together, because everything was essentially the same size.

Post big bang when things expanded and became enormous in size; the tiny, once very tough graviton was now the tiniest kid on the block. How could a tiny graviton particle take on something as big as a planet? It couldn't all by itself.

I think gravity is just as tough as it has always been, it's just been outgrown. It stayed sub atomic in size, while everything else we see with our eyes has grown or expanded to enormous sizes compared to the graviton particle.

If we were to rewind the video of the universe, it would all shrink back towards itself, eventually shrinking to the infinitely small size that everything we now see must have at one time fit into.

So, if you were to take say, the sun, and shrink and compress it to the same exact size as a graviton particle...I believe that gravity would have it's way with the sun. It would once again be the bully and it would once again be able to maintain it's death grip on the sun. But with the sun at its current size it's just too big for the graviton particle to overpower.

Anyway, I'm not a physicist and I don't claim to be. But I wondered what your thoughts were on the subject.