Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Astrophysics

Pages: [1]
1
Science & Alternative Science / He dispoved all Science?
« on: November 11, 2019, 01:08:25 PM »
Have they ever tried to detect Dark Energy particles? And do they still try to detect Dark Matter particles? Why?
They look for particles (matter) in gravitational Dark Matter anomaly, because it puts in danger the founder of modern Science - sir Isaac Newton. Violating the Newton in his area of applicability, one disproves the Einstein as well. So, they need to find the particles of Dark Energy as badly. My fix to this is to put "by hand" a non-universal mathematical modifications into the Physics. And the mathematics as well, because math was invented from observations of nature. Being just math, these "virtual terms" can not be directly detected, however their impact on nature (Dark Matter makes the spacetime curved) is seen.

All this is in Manuscript, which one gets from amidalitram@mail.ru , and includes many topics, including Time Travel, the first photo of Black Hole (please google the NEWS), and ET aliens.

It is not the death of science, but revolution. The take over the Newton.

2
The unshakable method of science sounds like "Science is refutable." Details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Same thing: "Science is possible to refute." Why then not to take opportunity? It is just like possibility of opening the can of fish. It is possible to open can, why then not?! "The theory is Scientific, if it can be shown, that theory is wrong." Why nobody is laughing at this Popper's idea?
Perhaps theory is Science, if it can be rather proven or at least confirmed several times? The Popper's idea is not the same as saying "Possibly, the Science is refutable." Latter rejects the Popper as established, unshakable method of Science.

More: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78569.0

3
Recently is found special Galaxy without Dark Matter, and so is concluded, what there is Dark Matter in cosmos. There is action of Dark Matter, but Dark Matter itself is not detected: it has no material interactions (no strong, no weak, no electromagnetic). A matter without matter interactions is not matter. If a matter curves space-time (and produces gravity then), why then Dark Matter curves the space-time? It is miracle! It is divine miracle! Bound before your God!

The Gravity is not material interaction, because it is not a force-field in General Relativity: the free falling body feels no-force but the weightlessness.

The Academic Science is built on the conservation Laws (latter are defined as divine-free [it means natural] mechanisms to control the Nature). Showing the violation of latter, one opens door to any models of the Reality, including the Flat Earth. But indeed, the action of Dark Matter and Dark Energy is without source: no Dark Matter was observed practically or theoretically.  There are two kind of models: Flat Earth model (it uses God's Grace to bent the lights and motions, to make objects appear to any observer as being far away), and the Round Earth. The latter kind of Science came to conclusion, that "the Universe should not exist." The people, who said ``Earth is round" have said also ``There is no Earth, because the Universe should not exist".
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325022362_Violation_of_energy-momentum_conservation_Laws

One video is longer, than other. But the Academic Science destroys itself:
“The collapse of physics as we know it”
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ac_1372191290
“Science v s God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it”
www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jbd7x

The Academic Science came to conclusion, that round Earth (and flat, no matter) does not exist. What is better: existing Flat Earth Model with God, or non-existing Spherical Earth without God?
"Michio Kaku - The Universe Shouldn't Exist"

4
Flat Earth Theory / Proof of Flat Earth model within Legal Science
« on: May 03, 2018, 04:36:45 PM »
There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of North Star during one year cycle. But it is pointed. Thus, the official Science either lies or is incompetent. Correct? Yes. And the Flat Earth model is consistent with Nature here.

The classical reasoning (in words), is presented in the publication (click on the public link) below. Steps to write math to it: 1. using the Newton Gravity to show, that ship's hull, which moves along the orbit has weightlessness. It is obviously true. Thus, from definition of inertial system we conclude, that ship is such system. 2. To recall the Law in Nature: the angular momentum does conserve in inertial system. 3. To make conclusion: rotating body does conserve the angle to its orbit.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324950713_Can_someone_show_in_detail_the_derivation_of_Celestial_Pole_precession_within_General_Relativity_formalism

This might be more up to date:
http://vixra.org/abs/1805.0048

Pages: [1]