Reciprocal System Research Society

a long but interesting video i didn't get all the way through but will try again some of this should be useful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wsq1hJvftg The End of the World - Conjunctions, The Red Dragon, & The Day of the Lord Decoded. the destructive resonance of conjunctions of Mars, Earth...

More Jupiter in the news: https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2019/02/27/new-photos-from-jupiter-look-like-a-van-gogh-painting/ Image at the link: "The composite image, derived from data collected by the Jovian Infrared Auroral Mapper (JIRAM) instrument aboard NASA’s Juno mission to Jupiter, shows the...

Seems the focus should be on the anti-neutrino. Not to dox myself too badly, but I do recall from my nuclear days that anti-neutrinos were a bi-product (tri-?) of the beta decay process. Sure enough... https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/66 Anti-neutrinos are produced in nuclear reactors when the r...

Challenging theories that have defined objects, while keeping the objects as if they had an intrinsic reality, seems illogical to me. Indeed. Plato's Allegory of the Cave comes to mind... "Likewise, we may acquire concepts by our perceptual experience of physical objects. But we would be mista...

Does this theory only predict what others do as well?! The essential question of predicting new phenomena has not been answered. If there are no new phenomena and no experimental verifications although in science we must take care to compare theories with measurements, I don't see the relationship ...

F6FLT wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:27 am The constants mentioned as "had hoc" are in fact the result of measurements.

Using who's ruler or stopwatch?
Measuring from what point(s) of reference?

Moreover, all these considerations are unclear. I expected an answer like "with such an experimental setup, this theory predicts that you will observe this, whereas current theories predict that you will observe that", and all this being quantified according to a mathematical formalism th...

Relativity perfectly explains electromagnetism (in a best way than Maxwell equations and the Lorentz force). Relativity does not explain anything. It's a bunch of mathematical gibberish without a basis of theory, which it does attempt but falls short. Well, at least insomuch as it contradicts its o...

F6FLT wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:27 am Science does not say what things are ("to be" makes no sense, we do not have to assume an independent underlying reality) but how they behave when we observe them.

I can't disagree enough with this point.
Science must do both.
To be is to disturb the still magnetic light.

1-x = Low Speed (3D spatial = outward in time = inward in space = gravity) Progression speed i.e. "Speed of Light" 2-x = Intermediate Speed (2D spatial, 1D temporal = neutral) 3-x = Ultra High Speed (1D spatial, 2D temporal = inverse-gravity) Cosmic/Material boundary Inverse in time... Thi...