RS2--daniel

Would anyone care to comment on this? I know only that my intuition beckons that this is yet another attempt by paid for scientists to solidify the work presented in the name of the idol of Einstein, not because some discovery of a sound generating phenomena wasn't had, but because we know from the RS that gravity is inward motion and acts instantaneously from/on all points of focal aggregation; that the attempt to maintain a container/content view of reality as a product of "discovering" particles of gravity (gravitons) that act upon space and form waves, is an attempt to keep humanity from stepping out of the box (nearly an literal analogy at this point) within which the collective psyche is deeply entrenched. I've seen the story trending quite a bit, and just now I saw someone post a video with an opposing theory, but it seemed to me that the intention behind posting it using subtle sarcastic humor was to disestablish the possibility that Einstein could possibly be wrong and can be seen as an attempt to cast doubters into the same boat with subscribers of the flat earth religion.

The story, as given by the mainstream:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/scien ... .html?_r=0

The rebuttal that was posted on found on my fb feed:
https://youtu.be/srVlo1Ez5fk

I'm more interested in this rebuttal. As stated elsewhere, I no longer possess a technical enough understanding of the mainstream weltanschauung with specific regards to physical theory to validate or contradict, which is why I'm posting it here for others to comment on.

Bruce commented on it in the rs2 forum if that's of any help; http://forum.rs2theory.org/forum/gravitational-waves
I didn't get quite as much out of it as I hoped but I haven't read the RS material, yet.

That'll do, thanks for the point of reference, animus!

You might also want to read Miles Mathis' take on the matter: http://mileswmathis.com/liego.pdf
His conclusion, as always, is that the whole story is just another hoax. Seems very reasonable.

I once learned that whenever it is necessary to pull out some type of graphical assistance to convey a certain point to the public, chances are you are being deceived. That's the first thing that came to mind when I watched this presentation yesterday, which shows an animation of two black holes merging.

I agree with Mathis; these gravitational waves are just a scientific "false flag."

Listening to their arguments, I find that there are just two, minor flaws:

1. It is impossible for our technology to see 1.3 billion light years.
2. It is impossible for our technology to see 1.3 billion light years.

Now I realize that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw, but I thought it was such a big one, it was worth mentioning twice.

daniel wrote:I agree with Mathis; these gravitational waves are just a scientific "false flag."

Listening to their arguments, I find that there are just two, minor flaws:

1. It is impossible for our technology to see 1.3 billion light years.
2. It is impossible for our technology to see 1.3 billion light years.

Now I realize that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw, but I thought it was such a big one, it was worth mentioning twice.

I haven't looked that much into it. Is what you are saying true because of you know about the "fish bowl" effect? Where what they think is 1.3 billion light years away is really a fraction of that amount away? Kind of reminds me of a scene from the movie Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

MRS. GLOOP: He's gone! He'll be made into marshmallows in
five seconds!

WONKA: Impossible, my dear lady, that's absurd!
Unthinkable!

MRS. GLOOP: Why?

WONKA: Because that pipe doesn't go to the marshmallow room;
it goes to the fudge room.

Andrew wrote:I haven't looked that much into it. Is what you are saying true because of you know about the "fish bowl" effect? Where what they think is 1.3 billion light years away is really a fraction of that amount away?

As I like to do, let's use the Reciprocal System for a quick look. "Black holes," in the RS, are the cores of supernovae that are exploding in time, hence contracting in space. They are a super-dense, solid object--not a "hole in space."

Let's use some common sense:

• Space is a vacuum... so how can you have a hole in nothing?
• A supernova is quite an explosion, that tends to push any adjacent objects in space, far, far away. How could you have TWO supernovae go off, right next to each other, and stay close enough so their cores could merge as "black holes?"
• How can enough photons of light exactly line up with a tiny telescope on Earth with enough resolution to make an image at a distance of billions of light years?

The simple answer is, "you can't." This indicates to me that the whole thing is a scientific "false flag," probably to cover up something else that is going on, along with the fact that they went over their $200 million budget by $420 million dollars. Obviously, TPTB needed this "device" for some reason, but NOT the one we've been told--gravity wave detector. So they get you to watch the gravity-waving magician's hand, flapping the brightly-colored flags, while the other hand pushes the secret buttons on the real purpose of the machine.

daniel wrote:

Andrew wrote:I haven't looked that much into it. Is what you are saying true because of you know about the "fish bowl" effect? Where what they think is 1.3 billion light years away is really a fraction of that amount away?

As I like to do, let's use the Reciprocal System for a quick look. "Black holes," in the RS, are the cores of supernovae that are exploding in time, hence contracting in space. They are a super-dense, solid object--not a "hole in space."

Cores of supernova exploding in time... exploding like how a sun explodes and radiates light? Hence - a sun never "dies" but goes beyond the unit boundary(?) reciprocally and equally and is there instead? I've always liked your papers, but I still don't have my head wrapped around RS.

Andrew wrote:Cores of supernova exploding in time... exploding like how a sun explodes and radiates light? Hence - a sun never "dies" but goes beyond the unit boundary(?) reciprocally and equally and is there instead? I've always liked your papers, but I still don't have my head wrapped around RS.

One thing you can think from this point of view is implosion, as opposite to explosion, so the core of the sun, planets and moons are "hollow" as in implosion in space, which emits radiation as a side product. Sun like all stars have their limited time then they "die" although I think they are born again in somewhere else in the "neighborhood"(solar system), when they explode in space at last. It is like how water rotates around the world, a natural phenomenon. When an ex-star as white dwarf explodes in space it implodes in time, hence reciprocity.

When you incorporate Yin & Yang understanding with this then makes more clear. Cosmic and material realms are inseparable, but opposite of each other.

So in conclusion the core of a star sort of "goes" in to the other side. Actually I think it is accelerated to such speed that it disappears from this material side and appears in cosmic side, leaving anti-gravity, hard radiation and gravity as its wake. Then after that all the matter that is floating around it will slowly gather around this "nothing" that radiates gamma rays etc. and form a planet. I am not sure if stars are born different, maybe they are born the same but with bigger chunks of "nothing" of white dwarf matter which is beyond unit speed boundary. Or maybe the Jupiter will be next star of this solar system, which just needs an ignition, later on, from that white dwarf explosion product.

Andrew wrote:Cores of supernova exploding in time... exploding like how a sun explodes and radiates light? Hence - a sun never "dies" but goes beyond the unit boundary(?) reciprocally and equally and is there instead? I've always liked your papers, but I still don't have my head wrapped around RS.

A sun "goes to pieces" during supernova, but then gravity takes over and makes a new one. Kind of like the phoenix bursting into flames to rejuvenate itself. When it happens, the explosion occurs about half way down--not at the core--so the material above the explosion sphere gets thrown out into space, and the material below the explosion (towards the center) gets super-compressed so it cannot explode in space (implosion), so it explodes in time. Since space and time are reciprocally related, "outward in time" = "inward in space" and any remaining spatial matter left over from the explosion zone appears to get super-compressed into a dwarf star. (It is not compressing--it is expanding in the inverse aspect.)

Because the imploding core (a "black hole") is initially repelling matter, the explosion debris tends to gravitate nearby--not around the old core--eventually forming a binary star system. Larson refers to this as a "2nd generation" star (binary). Of course, it can do it again, making stellar triples, quadruples, etc. All documented in the book, Universe of Motion.

Ilkka wrote:When you incorporate Yin & Yang understanding with this then makes more clear. Cosmic and material realms are inseparable, but opposite of each other.

That is actually something Larson missed--he wanted two "halves" of the Universe, the material one, here, and the cosmic sector, far, far away. What we later discovered is that the material and cosmic sectors coexist in the same spot, but are out-of-phase by 90 degrees, like the X and Y axes on a graph. Cosmic atoms cross at the material zero point, so we just don't see them--nor does cosmic life see us.

Ilkka wrote:So in conclusion the core of a star sort of "goes" in to the other side. Actually I think it is accelerated to such speed that it disappears from this material side and appears in cosmic side, leaving anti-gravity, hard radiation and gravity as its wake.

Stars do not have enough energy to do that, then tend to get about half-way then collapse back, rather than flipping over. What you are describing is the behavior of quasars.

Ilkka wrote:I am not sure if stars are born different, maybe they are born the same but with bigger chunks of "nothing" of white dwarf matter which is beyond unit speed boundary. Or maybe the Jupiter will be next star of this solar system, which just needs an ignition, later on, from that white dwarf explosion product.

Jupiter has already exploded, which is why it has all those moons (that look like a mini-solar system) and rings. Turns out that the gas giant "planets" aren't planets, at all, but mini-suns. Larson missed this correlation because he took atomic structure up to the aggregate level (big rocks), then jumped to quasars and pulsars, working his way down to galaxies and solar systems. So he missed the bit in the middle--between hard planets and stars, the gas giants.

And be warned... NASA (Never A Straight Answer) faked most of the satellite photos of gas giants. They are CGI--computer generated images--from orbital telescopes. The "pictures" they provide are from simulations of the way they THINK it should look, not as it actually is.