Not a member?     Existing members login below:

A Conspiracy to Selectively Withhold Science Information

Reduced from A CONSPIRACY in SCIENCE in PROGREESS 4 Visit PEET SCHUTTE STOREFRONT @ GOOGLE OR @LULU.COM
This is so typical Newtonian in every sense there is in science. The Newtonians gave the Titius Bode law
a formula and that explains the lot. To they’re under achieving standards that is very satisfactory. Now it
is written in mathematics then what more do we need to know. The fact that the distance that Mercury
has from the sun is doubled by that which Venus has from the sun is completely ignored. In cosmic reality
mass plays no part. Then again the distance that Venus has from the sun is doubled by that which the
earth has. This clearly has nothing to do with the size or mass of the planets. Explaining that part is
completely ignored. Then again the distance that the earth has from the sun is doubled by that which
Venus has and inexplicably this forms the layout of all planets in the solar system. Where do Newton and
his idea of mass fit into what truly applies in outer space. Moreover, why does science never mention
this? This is my formulated explanation about how the Titius Bode law forms.
If you think my accusations are baseless or the ravings of a madman then go on and download what you
have opened and read for yourself. What you download is free and I do not benefit financially from this
explanation I present to you. There is no such a thing as mass anywhere in the cosmos. If there were a
factor such as mass every planet would orbit distinctly positioned according to mass, but they don’t.
Should you think of the size of a body containing more or containing less material and put that in terms of
mass that forms gravity then the orbital layout of the Universe or solar system would very distinctly NOT
be the way it is. The cosmos shows no mass as a factor and we can either regard the cosmos as correct
or Newtonian science as correct as Newtonian science diverts totally from the physics that the cosmos
displays. The choice to make is do we believe science or do we believe the cosmos you choose?
Show that the square of the mass in relation to the gravitational common factor puts planets in their
allocated positions! Put the orbit of Jupiter in relation to the mass of Jupiter and in relation to the position
Jupiter holds. Forget getting swept away by the fancy Mathematics; just get to the task of putting the
mass of any of the planets in relation or ratio of that particular planet has and then in connection with the
position that any of the planets hold. Don’t come up with the argument that science works and therefore
Newton works. Please then show as he put it: The author has no legitimacy in disputing physics: he is
merely an amateur trying to disprove what the greatest minds of our times have taken centuries to prove
(by the way, you need to have studied a subject before you can criticize it, which the author didn't). In my
opinion, the author is so narrow-minded that when he came to scientists to talk about his material, the
scientists must have told him that it was nonsensical. That is a lame excuse to hide incompetence. If you
are unable to do it your physics is a giant fraud, which is based on a century old lie and a hoax. It then
shows your small-mindedness because you have never put physics as it is taught to the test. This is
taken from the idea that Newton had when Newton changed Kepler’s formula from a3 = (T2k) to a3 =
T2because without any legal mathematical backing Newton said the third dimension is equal to anything
holding a second dimension or a cube a3 is equal to a square T2.
Mathematical reality is that any person in the third dimension a3 having three sides can climb into a mirror
T2 being absolutely flat and then climb back to the third dimension because a3 = T2. This is the garbage
those slow witted person’s such as Symeof failed to see when he was taught that a3 = T2 because
Newton said so.
Reading this mathematically encrypted coded formula of the cosmos given to Kepler and
keeping it removed from Newton it reads as being that the
space a3 is
equal to = the motion T2 of the space a3 in ratio k to a centre k0,
which is relevant to the positioning of k. If we bring in the full
equation it will be k0 = a3
¸
(T2k) which means half of space is
a3 where
liquid is moving. However, it is also true that everything through
movement defines a value in relation to one point holding
singularity k0 and that is what the formula k0 = a3
¸
T2 and half of space is liquid k-1=T2
¸
¸
(T2k) underwrites.
What this
proves is that gravity is the motion of space provided by time being the
liquid. Please
allow me to explain. In the formula a3 = T2 k the space forms as the
dJ
space is in
motion. Newton suggested that
=
0
where he stopped time to
dt
have the motion of the circle demolish the work that the circle does. That Symeof says
that the author has no legitimacy in disputing physics: Please address the following facts.
All of the above is way past the level of understanding physics of a person such as Symeof and in his
critics as he showed how little he understands of what should be understood about physics.
solid k = a3
 
Remove