“This is not sci-fi,” he says, “its real science.” Forums:
A ring-like filament of stars wrapping around the Milky Way may actually belong to the galaxy itself, rippling above and below the relatively flat galactic plane. If so, that would expand the size of the known galaxy by 50 percent and raise intriguing questions about what caused the waves of stars.
So, it's now a circular cloud of debris with an inner plane--just like our own solar system looks, and even Jupiter and its moons within our solar system.
Have they got around to admitting that globular clusters are the most populus aggregate in space yet, as Larson predicted over 50 years ago, when only a few clusters were known?
i don't know why the print is so large (i wasn't trying to shout)
I fixed it. When you do a straight "paste" into the editor window, it keeps the styling of the original, in this case it had a size:40pt in it. You can use the icon buttons at the top of the window to paste as plain text, which removes all embedded formatting.
The internet is making mainstream education obsolete. The Khan Academy is posting free lectures which are increasingly being used to accelerate student progress. Use this new medium to bypass mainstream education and reach the public directly. Larson's theories can be comprehended at the high school level. Before long student pressure will create demand for college and university coverage. Please consider sending some well crafted lecture material to The Khan Academy. One of the first lectures should explore the dificiencies of the standard model and present Larson as the obvious replacement theory. The elites have taught us well. Their techniques of manipulation can be used equally well to benefit of mankind.
Lets assume that Andrew Basiagio is a reliable witness and and that his statements are true, ie. that time travel and teleportation are real trechnologies that have been developed in the black budget world. If so, can Larson explain how this technology works?Forums:
If Mathis is correct, then this vectorial direction must remain constant during one unit, and that is the reason why kinematic Pi=4
Larson says exactly the same thing, that you cannot change direction within one unit--only at the end of a unit.
I think I have a possible solution to my momentum/inertia problem, that I discovered qutie by accident. I am working on the Java classes for a universe of motion, and have made considerable headway. (I'll make the source available on GitHub after I've got the interfaces worked out; Java, jdbc with the Postgresql connector, Netbeans 8). I opted to store the rotations of motions in a database, rather than hard-coding them, so they can be retrieved by multiple names and I can also add molecules later on (BTW, in the RS, hydrogen and the neutron are molecules--not atoms--so are not currently available as basic rotating systems).
I have opted for "readability" over efficiency at the present, so if you have read Larson's books, there should be a relatively simple correlation to the Java code. Larson's naming conventions are not the best, so I've made some corrections. For example, rather than 4 regions (time-space, space-time, time and space), I broke them down into "Cosms," the Macrocosm class (time-space and space-time, the "outside" regions) and the Microcosm class (time region and space region, the "inside" regions. More on this later.
When I was doing the Microcosm series, you end up with a sequence of microcosm (eg: time region) that has a principle and subordinate rotation (A-B), and each of those have the rotation vector (eg: complex or quaternion). But when it came to the Macrocosm, Larson goes straight from Macrocosm (time-space region) to the coordinates--a bit was missing, namely the concept of a "principle" and "subordinate" location. To keep the symmetry between space and time, it must be there--and it hit me that WE are programmed to think in terms of "center of gravity" so all objects can be described by a single location. What if that isn't the case?
I got to thinking about planetary orbits--not circles, but ellipses with TWO foci, a principle and subordinate. Also, most bodies have an axis of rotation, which Larson's motions do not. If I apply that concept to a "motion," that means there will be a principle location, the center of gravity, and a subordinate location that, like it's rotational counterpart, could be the same speed (static) or offset by one natural unit (as in the magnetic rotations (2-1, 2-2, 3-2, 3-3, ...). If they are offset, then I have TWO locations describing a vector of motion, for each atomic system. I think this subordinate location is where the kinetic energy of a particle is stored, giving it momentum.
In application, the dual location acts just like two motions in fixed relationship, so when I switch over to scalar to progress the system, the orientation is preserved--as well as the net velocity in a specific direction. This adds that extra velocity vector to keep a particle or atom moving, when it would otherwise just find its balance and stop, as it was doing with the single-location scalar progression.
I'm implementing this concept in my code, now. I'll probably release the source to GitHub after I see if it works or not. But it looks promising!
Halton Arp has shown convincingly that many quasars fan out along the minor axis of a host galaxy and that as they do their intrinsic red shift declines. I think this means that the ultra high speed matter of the quasar gradually slows down creating the illusion of higher mass and gravitation in the so called halo region of the host galaxy. Isnt it possible, even probable, that this is the source of the missing mass which Shostak's research in the early 70's lead to the theory of dark matter?Forums: