There is no such thing as the theory of general relativity, evolution is a myth and you post articles from intelligent design websites (-.-), there is a reptilian blood line, proof for the "subquark model" comes from a paper on extra-sensory perception , Maxwell's equation prove light is variable and they demolish theory of relativity yet nobody in the scientific community who studies physics has come to this conclusion except for you may I add.
I think scepti has a rival.
The very best of quantum physicists, astrophysicists have come to the same conclusion, and I have enumerated already some of them: Nikola Tesla, T. Townsend Brown, Linus Pauling, J.C. Maxwell and much more.
YOU ryantg continue to post superficially.
Let me remedy your problem right now.
When Einstein asserted that nothing was faster than the speed of light - he was comparing light to electromagnetic emissions, that is, Hertzian waves based on the conventional Maxwell equations.
However, our present-day Maxwell equations are not the original Maxwell equations:
http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdfOn the modified Maxwell equations:
" ... In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified EM/G [electromagnetic/ gravitational] portion of Maxwell's theory that arises when the translation/directional components of two interacting quaternions reduce to zero, but the scalar resultant remains and infolds a deterministic, dynamic structure that is a function of oppositive directional/translational components. In the infolding of EM energy inside a scalar potential, a structured scalar potential results, almost precisely as later shown by Whittaker but unnoticed by the scientific community. The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.
"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.
A true electromagnetic wave does not fall off as the distance from the source increases, that is, it is immune to the inverse square law of the usual Hertz waves.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdfAbstract. Maxwell’s 1864 paper ‘A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic
Field’ abandons the theory of molecular vortices that was a central feature of his
1861 paper ‘On Physical Lines of Force’. Even after writing part I of his 1861
paper, Maxwell realized that a purely hydrodynamical approach to
electromagnetic theory is insufficient, and so he introduced electrical particles
and gradually shifted over to a more dynamical approach.
This article investigates whether or not any physics was lost as a result of
Maxwell abandoning his theory of molecular vortices. The focus of attention is
centred on equation (5) of his 1861 paper, as this equation contains components
that can be demonstrated to simultaneously represent both the Coriolis force and
the Lorentz force, therefore implying that the Lorentz force is a kind of Coriolis
force. Since a rotating frame of reference is needed for a Coriolis force, it follows
that the Lorentz force must depend entirely on the rotating aethereal substance
within Maxwell’s vortex cells. The conclusion is that Maxwell made a serious
error when he abandoned his theory of molecular vortices, and that the physical
explanation for the Lorentz force was lost as a result.
Let me stress this fact most strongly. After Maxwell's death a single man - Oliver Heaviside - directly altered Maxwell's equations, eliminating localized electrogravitation and producing the form of the theory taught throughout the West today as "Maxwell's theory."
Maxwell's theory has never been taught in Western universities! Only Heaviside's crippled subset of the theory has been taught!
Then, shortly before the turn of the century , a short, sharp "debate" erupted in a few journals - mostly in the journal Nature. Only about 30 scientists took part in the "debate."
It wasn't really much of a debate! The vectorists simply steam- rolled right over the remaining quaternionists, sweeping all opposition before them.
They simply threw out the remaining vestiges of Maxwell's quaternion theory, and completely adopted Heaviside's interpretation.
Thus, a little over a decade later when Einstein wrote his general relativity theory , he did not know that the original work of Maxwell already indicated the unification of gravitation and electromagnetics, and indicated the ease with which local spacetime could be electrogravitationally curved locally and engineered.
Accordingly, he placed the scientists of the West on a road which rigorously assumed that a unified field theory was yet to be discovered. It also strongly discouraged any experimentation aimed at curving local spacetime, for it assumed that such could not be done.
YOU ryantg are among those misguided scientists who use ONLY the modified Maxwell equations.
ryantg PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING VERY CAREFULLY.
The biography of Dr. Stephen Phillips.
DR STEPHEN PHILLIPS earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, where he also taught mathematics and physics. In 1979 one of his scientific papers was published, proposing a theory that unified particle interactions and predicted that quarks are not fundamental (as most physicists currently believe) but are composed of three more basic particles ('subquarks') which, may have since been detected at FermiLab, high-energy physics laboratory near Chicago in America. He has lectured on his research at the Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University.
A century-old claim by two early leaders of the Theosophical
Society to have used a form of ESP to observe subatomic particles is evaluat-
ed. Their observations are found to be consistent with facts of nuclear
physics and with the quark model of particle physics provided that their as-
sumption that they saw atoms is rejected. Their account of the force binding
together the fundamental constituents of matter is shown to agree with the
string model. Their description of these basic particles bears striking similar-
ity to basic ideas of superstring theory. The implication of this remarkable
correlation between ostensible paranormal observations of subatomic parti-
cles and facts of nuclear and particle physics is that quarks are neither funda-
mental nor hadronic states of superstrings, as many physicists currently as-
sume, but, instead, are composed of three subquark states of a superstring.
Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater,
how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real objects and were not fabricated ac-
cording to their expectations? Knowing which groups of the periodic table
these undiscovered elements belong to could have enabled them to deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups.
But the values of the atomic weights of these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for these elements agree with their chemical atomic weights to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have come about by chance in every case.
Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery. These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements
must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.
The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always
occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if Besant and Leadbeater had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation.
Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements? This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively, 1939 and 1940, about seven years after the deaths of the two
Theosophists.
How, if MPAs are not atoms, could they have anticipated in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in 1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.
This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of
nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions
of subatomic particles. It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-
servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available
that their work cannot be rejected as fraudulent once this consistency is ac-
cepted. Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive
visions of future ideas and discoveries of physics. If this had been the case, Besant and Leadbeater might reasonably have been expected to describe atoms according to the Rutherford-Bohr model. The nuclear model of the atom was
formulated by Rutherford in 1911, two years after they concluded their main
investigation of MPAs. Yet none of its features can be found in their publica-
tions. Instead of being atoms, as would be expected if micro-psi faculty were
actually precognition, MPAs are more exotic objects which, as Figure 5 shows,
have compositions and UPA populations indicating that they consist of the
constituent quarks and subquarks or two atomic nuclei of an element. This
makes them more akin to what nuclear physicists call "compound nuclei,"
which are formed in high-energy physics laboratories by the collision and brief
fusion of two very fast-moving nuclei. Moreover, precognition would not
have led Besant and Leadbeater to portray some chemical molecules such as
methane and benzene in a way that conflicts with chemistry. If they had used
merely precognition, they would never have observed four MPAs for which
atomic theory can provide no corresponding element; they would have record-
ed only MPAs of known elements.
The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were published several years before physicists even suspected that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discovering the neutron in 1932, twenty-four years after the first edition of Occult
Chemistry appeared. No normal or alternative paranormal explanation of the
correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old obser-
vations of subatomic particles appears to exist other than that Besant and
Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of
ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation.
EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT AND ISOTOPE PREDICTED WITH 100% ACCURACY.
A clear and absolute proof that everything I have posted is true.
ESP OF QUARKS AND STRINGS, 1999, DR. STEPHEN PHILLIPS
http://books.google.ro/books?id=5Qgfx4bXkT4C&pg=PA33&dq=esp+of+quarks+and+strings&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=rM3FUMTSM4b14QT264GYAw&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=neutrino&f=falseHISTORICAL EVIDENCE, QUARKS AND STRINGS:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdfFARCE OF MODERN PHYSICS:
http://davidpratt.info/farce.htmOCCULT CHEMISTRY, the work copied by Dirac, Gell-Mann, Higgs and many others:
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/pdfindex.htmAs for the lizard thread, all of you now know exactly what is going on: the reptilian bloodline descendants are the ones who invented the round earth theory, who falsified the entire history prior to 1825 ad, and who currently run Nasa.