Reciprocal System Research Society

Well these guys are lying good enough to get big bucks to make LIGO even more sensitive [accurate?]. Seems there is something they are measuring. Any idea what that might be instead of GW?

Looks like second and maybe third find of GW by LIGO. Does this mean RS needs some changes? How do you account for it if not?

No black holes? No GV waves? Hmmm ... these guys think so and now they have more "proof"?

Gravitational Wave Observatory Finds More Colliding Black Holes

The second confirmation of ripples in spacetime is announced by astronomers at LIGO

<t>Yes - and I am trying to reach those experiences. Really cool how the reality we have established as dimentsional and solid and "timefull" are likely anything but. WE make them that way by observing them. Thank you for the lively discussion and not just telling me to reread the words someone has ...

<t>I was attracted to RS because of its simplicity in describing reality but find now that it is anything but. I also believe the rule of speed of light made no sense as the top speed. Again another reason I find RS interesting. But the details as above seem to be tangled in words and concepts and l...

So no explanation of moving in Cosmic 3d time. Maybe I missed it. seems illogical and no practical way to describe.

Yes - I agree but it makes good copy? It states in the article how close all of this is too Brownian motion and how they figured out how to take that out. Really? How?

<r><URL url="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lisa-pathfinder-reports-record-breaking-gravitational-wave-results/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20160607"><LINK_TEXT text="http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... D_20160607">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lisa-pathfinder-reports-record-breaki...

<t>Well said. I have read more than half the papers posted on this site and will look at your site. I do agree modern main stream physics seems to just find more questions and created more contrivances to make their ideas "real". We spend billions looking for the building blocks of the universe and ...

<t>thank you for seeing what I believe is the obvious failing in this theory and many others like it - the proponents see it as self evident and when asked why point to other papers and say its just so. Why it does explain some things it leaves others open to many more questions than answers. faster...