rationalskepticism.org

John Hendry wrote:Read your own posts and replies... you have over 14,000 of them here at almost 8 per day vs my 5 posts in the last 6 years that come up on Google connected to various physics topics which I why I decided to come back here and see why. This is obviously where you express your opinions (mostly philosophy) as fact and dismiss anything outside your own opinions you hang on to as fact... without presenting anything concrete such as an experiment or better some simple basic math to back up saying something using a universal language everything is based on.

If you noticed my posts are first and foremost based on using basic math and some simple basic algebra to show something spectacular yet very basic and relatively simple that outside of empty (baseless) hit and run posts like yours exposing little more than how you feel to react with emotion in the form of an insult, stands 100% undisputed despite being very controversial by changing basic understandings in physics and correcting a famous analogy on time dilation.

In fact using the proven fact space is connected to time and pointing out related obvious known facts that went blindly unnoticed I added the missing 4th oscillation phase of the graviton misnamed the hole shown opposite the electron to the atom, and in doing that also added a second reverse arrow to time needed to support an oscillation in space connected to time. Now that's hard to argue with and because logic was used and put in place the change allowed gravity on the atomic scale to be understood by simply pointing out that just as the neutron measures bigger than the proton, the graviton phase (path) measures larger than the electron phase (path) and the difference in size (length) added to the reverse oscillation phase is the cause of gravity acting as a real force connected to the observer's own center of gravity... rather than describing gravity using it's complex spacetime geometry looking at the big picture "at the same time" spread out over 13.8 billion years.

And my last post here referenced further confirmation by SLAC that has not only not been disputed, but copied and used to support other related observations in physics. So honestly the emotional response calling mathematics and associated descriptions "word soup" coming from you is to be expected. How is (e{a})/t=E word soup? That's just like saying V=IR or F=ma is word soup. And what's sad is in briefly reading your posts on Freewill you agree with what I've shown but you are way too lazy to think it out and prefer to hear yourself talk rather than try to comprehend what I said and you justify it to maintain your chemical based symmetry with an insult.