Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  Well, let me just say you're right about one thing. I'm not interested in swallowing the consensus based soley on empirical and theoretical science without philosophically extending it to draw my own logical conclusions. You can't explain matter without antimatter because you can only observe sensorily with c as the yardstick, and c is far from accurate. True c is absolute, non-existent, and relative rates of propagation and energy transfers can only be the result of antimatter slowing light down to c.
I've pressed Lloyd and Dave and many other scientists to explain there exact positions regarding what is outside of the universe and/or what the universe is made of exactly.
The bottom line is any conceivable universal functioning doesn't work, I've looked deeper into it than anyone I've come across, and that's my safety net to safely say that nobody knows what he/she is talking about except Einstein who admitted that there is nothing left of the castle.
Sincerly, best of luck in your search for truth. Your out-of-the-box thinking is truly brilliant, if your own. |
_______________________________________________
Dear Nobody.
Thanks.
As regards you complementary last sentence in the above missive, the 'if your own' clause...:
There's not a thing I know that I didn't learn from someone else.
Starting with the English language, and some Spanish and Italian.
On the other hand, what I learned in physics were metaphorical pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that no one put together before I did. I became sure of this because the more I studied the more I found that everytime someone proved all of matter is in a constant state of accelerating expansion, they dropped it like a hot potato, 'because, anyone can see that matter isn't expanding'.....
Just as 'anyone can see that the universe revolves around the earth every twenty four hours.' To perceive otherwise is bonkers, right? Uh huh....
I simply re-cognized what was already there. I didn't even do that all by myself, but I inspired others to help me in unanticipated ways once I got the ball rolling in their lanes... Galileo's experiments with variusly 'weighted' objects falling at the same speed and contradicting Aristotle - and later Newton - is what got me started. Inert and Heavy mass being equivalent to each other when they're not supposed to be the least bit related. One's about gravity the other's about inertia. 'An astonishing coincidence' Einstein called it, which indeed it is.
I went about the business of developing an hypothesis simultaneous with trying to disprove it, not believing I could possibly be blazing a trail no one else had never been on before. I'm still trying to disprove my own theory, and I will thank anyone who may do it for me... (Buona fortuna). The more I look for disproof, the more proof I have found...
Incidentally, Nobody, this is my 360th post, and If I'm not mistaken, it's the crossover point from two black stars to three. I think that appropriate.
Thank you sir.
- RP