THE DERAILING ROOM

[lux]

You're mistake, in my view, was thinking of the two as a row, whereas a row has to be more than two. Two points make a line, not a row. A row is two or more lines sharing common points without separation, if you get my drift.

I didn't say "two in a row." I said "three in a row." In fact I said it twice before this.

Hello?

It's really very simple ...

I mean three weights & shafts that fall on a straight line.

They had two shafts in the experiment so you add one more shaft in line with the other two. That makes three in a row.

O ----------------------- O ----------------------- O
[the three shafts viewed from above]

[hoi.polloi]

^ I said three balls in a row.

...

'Science' should be based on the exposure of ignorance, not the confirmation of knowledge. Experiments should be designed to disprove theories, to test them against observations and see if they are predictive. The problem is vanity.

Sorry to push you into the DERAILING ROOM here, but this has gotta be one of the most pedantic discussions I've contributed to and I want to take it out of that thread.

You're mistake, in my view, was thinking of the two as a row, whereas a row has to be more than two. Two points make a line, not a row. A row is two or more lines sharing common points without separation, if you get my drift.

You're seriously blaming lux for your answer to his question? He asked what he thought 3 in a row would result in, and you said it would result in something that isn't a row, therefore he's made a mistake? Take it easy on us, alright? Please just help us reach your logic with baby steps.

You could have just as easily said: three parallel mine shafts in a single line would result in the plumb bobs pushing in different directions and their row would be upset and would not remain in line with one another.

[hoi.polloi]

The propaganda is the restricted interpretation that even sincere researchers pursue, whether they came up with it or not.

Okay, but this forum has clearly identified a concerted effort to hide the truth, which is in fact propaganda. So if you're going to call us or call science propaganda too just because we are trying to design experiments, make observations or merely ask questions, please do it privately to yourself to avoid confusion on our forum, a'ight mate?

[dblitz]

Sorry Lux, I wasn't clear. I meant the two in the experiment using two. But it has to do with the dynamics of a system freed from the 'need' to be consistent with gravity. I was referring to the difference between the dynamics of motion in a system conceived as a spherical 2D surface with a single 'force' point, and the dynamics of a system in which multiple force boundaries define surfaces and points themselves. The surface is not 'at' the surface because the interacting surfaces are defined by the boundary between 3D forces not defined by points, but by their relation to other surfaces, or force boundaries. How a line (pair) changes is going to be very different to how a row (shape) changes when gravity is not the only force. These are just ideas, and I shouldn't have confused the issue with them. I'm just working on them by throwing your ideas into the mix and seeing the limitations in both our concepts. Perhaps forget what I said, I'm not sure if it makes sense anyway.

I am working on a theory I have that is hard to explain outside of the restrictions of forces acting from, or towards 'points' that are the only things the other things around them can 'see' or that we need to take into account.

I'm glad you moved the posts Hoi. I work mostly in notebooks with drawings and doing thought experiments, and I have been able to explain these things to people one on one, because they can ask questions or challenge me as I talk, but it's really difficult on a forum where you cant all sit around and interrupt each other and turn the page and draw another picture or something.

I might make a video soon or some images, but I think you both would really enjoy learning about the EU because I guarantee you cannot imagine how helpful it is in understanding what has happened to science and why. If you start reading those pictures of the day and other EU material, soon something will click for you, and you will have a new way of being 'allowed' to think. But it will lead to more questions as well, considering what we now know about NASA.

Anyway, thanks for discussing this experiment, I had forgotten about it, but this discussion of it has helped me a lot with my own ideas. I have benefited greatly from all the speculation and serious thought applied by all members on the space threads. Sometimes I come across the wrong way because there are implications for others in statements I make that I didn't even imagine when I wrote it.

I now think of Newtonian gravity as an 'observable law' rather than an irresistible force in space. I can see it works quite well on Earth, and many assume it works quite well within the solar system, but the information on this board has caused me to doubt that. The thing is, gravity is the weakest force, but due to the domination of the standard model, people get upset if you contradict Newton's laws speaking of motion in space because they can't let anything else override them in that realm (even though your fridge magnet is doing just that right here on Earth.) But when the most powerful forces come into equilibrium, motion proceeds according to the 'observed law' of gravity, and so it is seen as a being necessary to conform our concepts of space and motion to it. I think the laws of gravity are a result of some other force, and changes in that force change the laws of gravity on the fly.

The key is plasma, because there is no mathematical model for it's behavior, but you cant just leave it out in modeling motion in space. The origin of dark matter and black holes is in the limitations of mathematical models run on computers. Run a formula with the observed mass of the galaxy and the laws of gravity and the galaxy flies apart. Insert extra matter (something like 90%) and the galaxy holds together. Oh, and you are going to need a black hole in the middle as well!

Dark matter and black holes don't exist in space, but electricity does, and it accounts for that 90% of missing 'stuff.' Now I might be told I am basing my ideas of space on faked galaxies or other faked images and data, but until you understand the standard model from the viewpoint of EU, you will not know why I still do that and what burning questions arise. It is not just to do with space and astronomy, but the history of the Earth and solar system. Please read up on EU/Saturn theory so we can talk about it more.

What we are doing is trying to conceive of how things work without the benefit of mathematical certainty, but by understanding the balance of forces in a universe where everything is 'aware' of everything else, and not an isolated solar system that is unaffected by distant stars (because gravity isn't that strong.) As long as we demand mathematical gravitational fidelity from our ideas, we are still, in a way, forcing our minds to think like a NASA supercomputer that has already failed because it is faking the laws of physics by omission.

Hoi, Lux, read thunderbolts.info, it will blow your mind, I promise. I wasn't calling anyone or anything 'propaganda,' that was hastily written post that I regret. What I mean is that you have definitely uncovered something hidden, but none of us really know what that means until we deal with the other things that are being hidden that are are much more significant. In some ways, those hidden things have been 'masked' like 9/11 was, by fakery, and there are still some very powerful masks that you need to remove. EU/Saturn theory will do that for you if you read the material, otherwise I am alone here and kind of useless.

I can't start discussing the nature or reasons for these 'masks' right away, or I will be ridiculed. They take time to understand. They concern prehistory and questions of the history of science that I am not prepared to re-write in 5000 word posts when the information is available already prepared. Just read up on it. For now, I'm gonna take a break from these subjects and I'm sorry for the trouble.

[hoi.polloi]

I'm afraid thunderbolts.info doesn't blow my mind, but it does give the sinking feeling you have been taken in by a glorified NASA imagery store. I am really sorry if you can't find yourself questioning pages like this: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/09 ... chapter-1/

... which nearly cites more unproven satellites and probes than the NASA site itself.



How can this parallax even take place if in addition to an orbit around the Sun, the Sun is itself orbiting around the Milky Way every 250 million years? Has this parallax been observed or is it all speculation? What exactly do you want us to get from this cluster of assembled mainstream information? Are you legit or pulling our leg?

You must understand that when articles like this (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... lumbia.htm) come out of a group, they are most definitely pulling yours.

Please read up on John Hutchison and Judy Wood and why people avoid them.

By the way, have you checked your e-mail lately? I have tried e-mailing you.

[Heiwa]

You find the eight parts and 4 hours, 5 minutes and 15 seconds of Ace Baker's PsyOpera at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmD5BDyM ... 93EC843D80

[youtube]FmD5BDyMRkg&list=PLEA05F393EC843D80[/youtube]

When I saw the first version many years ago it was much shorter. This version is quite professional. I didn't find any acknowledgements at the end, though. It seems SS & Co are cut off.

And as Ace says or sings: It does not really matter what happened ...

I found Ace Ok when we discussed structural collapse many years ago. I think his PsyOpera is quite good.

[hoi.polloi]

Enough is enough. Go promote your phony ESA rocket science with Christopher Bollyn. You clearly do not have the ability to recognize when you are either not wanted or you are being blatantly lied to by a backstabbing secret agent like fucking Ace Baker.

It no longer matters whether your addled brain is flawed because you are dumb or because you are pretending to be dumb. It is absurd and it's high time we finally gave you the ban you have been begging for with your NASA is fake but ESA is a good investment in satellites and Costa Concordia is suspicious but the pictures look all A-OK and believing in untruths is my philosophy and Ace Baker is a talented young man malarkey.

Congrats. You've sounded off longer and shillier than many others before they received the ban. But no more. Good bye.

[brianv]

I'm not going to engage in schadenfreude but halle_fucking_lujah, and I can speculate that this was another shill suicide.

[dblitz]

Sorry Hoi, I don't remember which address I signed up with, and I can't find that info in my profile.

Could you remind me of the email address you wrote to in a pm maybe?

[hoi.polloi]

Sorry Hoi, I don't remember which address I signed up with, and I can't find that info in my profile.

Could you remind me of the email address you wrote to in a pm maybe?

Sorry to be rude but how many e-mails do you have, and can't you check all of them? Anyway, I just sent a private message with the e-mail address associated with your member name.

[dblitz]

That's a reasonable question, not rude at all, and I've been asked so many times, I expected it.

I cant check all of them because I can't remember all of them, and for that reason I cannot tell you how many I have.

No pm so far. I even logged out and back in.

[brianv]

I cant check all of them because I can't remember all of them.

Mind if I ask - where do you propose to look in for hoi's PM in that case?

[dblitz]

pm = a private message received through the forum not by email.

[hoi.polloi]

I have just tried sending you a PM. Perhaps the first didn't take because it apparently requires users to hit Submit twice. I forgot nonhocapito implemented that probably? Or is that a PHPbb default?

Anyway, I just did that. So please check it and confirm your e-mail. Thanks!

[brianv]

pm = a private message received through the forum not by email.

Yeah OK I see, but it still sounds fishy to me.