Reciprocal System Research Society

Before LIGO verified [?] Einstein his biggest hits were predicting the orbit change of Mercury [which RS has altos handled without GR] and gravitational lensing caused by large masses like the sun and galaxies. What does RS or RS2 have to say about this?

My problem is being stuck on the fact that physics says neutrons come from the nucleus of an atom. I need to look at "neutron" as just a name for a piece of matter that just is and is formed like any other piece of matter in our universe. Thanks for helping me clear this up in my mind.

I am a bit confused about subatomic particles. RS theory on the one hand seems to think the atom has a nucleus but then as you state above no neutrons. On the other hand you talk about "free" neutrons. Free from what?

what do you think of the current debate about the weight of a neutron? SCIAM has article saying two methods of determining it and both seem accurate but disagree. Is there such a thing as a free Neutron outside the nucleus in RS theory?

<t>Seems - after reading the detractors - that someone had to re-up for funding and validate the wasted money and resources. But what puzzles me is why all the "physicists" jumped on it as quickly as the "truth". Doesn't anyone really want to look at the facts and see how this errant answer waiting ...

So no one here has a response to the finding of gravitational waves? I found no one in the press questioning it as anything but Nobel prize guaranteed! Will this post get deleted like my others? why?

<t>Yes - I am going to read all of the papers by all of the authors. I have many questions but will hold off until I read more. I think its funny all the quotes on proving Einstein "right" [that they found ripples in something with LIGO?] and no mention that modern physics has no definition of what ...

<t>Totally agree and still learning RS. Need to unlearn the unreal answers feed to us as fact instead of unprovable theories? Your use of black holes bothered me but I see we have to use the vernacular of the field and know what we really mean even if the bulk of cosmologists don't but think they do...

<t>So you accept that black holes are real? Larson did not.<br/> <br/> Einstein predicted gravity waves and then added he doubted they would ever be found. This from National Geographic blurb<br/> <br/> If recent rumors are true, scientists have finally detected gravitational waves—shockwaves rippli...

So when physicists report mass or length change as an object is speed up [down?] towards the speed of light [unity] what are they measuring? Is it "weight" [the force exerted by gravity on mass[ that really increases with mass being unchanged?