Forum Replies Created
-
@Stephen and @James , I suggest we meet on Zoom or LIve on streamyard and talk about doing an online funding project to hire programmers to try and fork Google Earth to do what we are wanting. There are online fundraising sites were we could fund the programmers to do all this and of course, it would be open source. Let’s meet?
-
@James @Stephen We finally got an answer to my question about google earth software. Here is a link: https://github.com/google/earthenterprise/issues/1867#issuecomment-769886730
- This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by David.
-
Alexey: The only problem is, dark matter and energy don’t exist. They exist because mainstream science is so screwed up that instead of throwing out their theory, they invent unicorns. As for quarks, same thing.
I recommend you read Dr. Alexander Unzicker’s “The Higgs Fake” to see how bad the work of the particle physicists are.
-
@ThePres @Franklin : the particle model does not have a photon. The photon is a single particle that somehow “magically” carries frequency. That is impossible. Even Newton abandoned that idea. The Particle Model describes light as waves of same particles traveling together in groups and those groups form a frequency. That was my father’s discovery in May of 2015. That was the “last piece of the puzzle” in our Particle Model.
-
Kasim, many thanks for the offer but we are looking for people who don’t already have their own theory or model. 99.9% of our readers will not have their own model or any other model in their heads so we are looking for people with that perspective.
-
The biggest different in our models is that we say that the distance between single photons is not light. It must be groups of particles. Single photons creating a frequency in our opinion doesn’t work. Also, our particle is the same particle for gravity, light, magnetism, and electricity.
Also, be careful: the photon has a particular definition in mainstream science. If I were you, I would change the name because if you change the attributes of the particle, even mainstream will say it is different. Our particle for light, gravity, etc. has a different name. Just a suggetion.
- This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by David.
-
If what people call an “aether” theory does not transmit light through collisions, then it is not an aether theory. It is something else. Sound is to water as light is to aether.
I think the problems are two fold: 1) people are calling things “aether” theories that are not in fact aether theories. 2) People really believe that somehow aether can transmit light without collisions.
-
I have a question. Your model looks like a lattice model yet you talk about aether flow. I’m confused. Aether is a model where waves are transmitted through collisions. Lattice models transmit waves through elastic stretching of the connections. I’m needing clarification or am not understanding something about your theory.