Existence

"the average atomic mass of this mixture determines the element's atomic weight."Atomic number - Wikipedia

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Fine, what are you trying to hash out is the question, you are all over the place, circular light that then continues on to an observer, density of water, electromagnetic spectrum...ect... I would love to see this all tied together into something other than "all you can read word salad".I know how hard it is to explain things that you have on your mind. As I said earlier,take your time and research, being all over the place just goes to muddle your whole question/concept/theory. Don't feel like you have to respond right away, this isn't a chat site, although that might be cool if it could be added as an option. Clarity and content mean much more than a speedy reply.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Nonetheless, density is what determines that steam bubbles rise in a pot of boiling water. Surely you know that the molecular weight of steam bubbles is the same as that of the liquid water. So what is your explanation for why steam bubbles rise in boiling water? Why does ice float on water when ice and water have the same atomic weight?Based on what I could understand of what you were discussing, it is irrelevant that the average atomic weight of air (around 28.8) grams/mole) is greater than that of water (18 grams per mole) at normal temperatures and pressure, air bubbles floats in liquid water because of the lower density of the air bubbles.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

To even an educated mind Physics can read like word salad.I have sent links to NASA, Tim Paglione, and the APSU president Tim Hall. I want my observations reviewed by those who can understand what I am saying, Or at least one of them to formulate an argument with me that may derive any missed observation.I hope to hear back from them and further the argument with them. If it does not bear fruit, at the least it may bear fruit for them to unlock anything from what I have observed.If I am correct, I have solved relativity and quite possibly made the greatest discovery in the history of mankind. Because that is what’s on the line I am remaining a healthy skeptic until a mathematical equation based on my observations of the behavior match observational proof for relativity equations.So whatever happens; happens. But I will not ignore my observations.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

As a general rule, if your two options are:1) "I've overturned the physics establishment and proven that water is less dense than air", or
2) "I'm wrong"Go with number 2, pretty much every time. It's taken the smartest human beings in all of history to get physics to where it is today. Are you smarter than they are?

Temperature has alot to do with the amount of energy a mass contains.A vacuum has the least energy levels, and mass has the most energy levels.The energy levels determine the behavior of a given mass; some structures can be raised in energy levels and change structure.So less energy levels, less heat. Less photons; less energy levels.
Less photons=less density
More photons= more density.
More density= more weight
More weight=more massThe movement of more weighted molecular mass in a greater volume of lesser weighted molecular mass tends to rise (movement) with an oscillation (spiral not back and forth).There is not a simple way to explain this (for me)But the answer is: there is a heavier substance inside a lighter substance and the lighter substance has more density, not necessarily more mass cumulatively for its location in another mass.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Surely this is all under the guise that you have the required 1.21 gigawatts of electromagnetic force and are traversing the spacetime continuum at 88 mph, correct? Edited by hooah212002, : Beginning a sentence with "but"= no go troop

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

I didn't start this post for ridicule.I started this to further my understanding of physics.If I understand it correctly: the behavior fits my model. If the model is mathematically correct, it would be the true model.If ONE assumption is wrong in physics, all assumptions based on it will be false.I'm making a different assumption about the behavior of what is being observed.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Whoa whoa whoa. I am asking you an honest question in line with your reasoning. my question has just as much to do with the topic as yours does your "assumption" or "model".To whit: you need to fix your flux capacitor in order to proceed postulating on the dynamics of the atomic properties of air matter.What the fuck does the weight/mass/density of air or water have to do with relativity? Or existence for that matter (since that is the topic of discussion after all)?

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Because our universe is behaving exactly like water bubbles in a current. Understand how it works in water gives insight into the behavior of planets and galaxies relative motion.You have to watch the bubbles in water accumulate via currents, and then see how tiny bubbles in water interact with a greater bubble, and relative to other bubbles of different and same sizes:In the same way that bodies in a galaxy appear to behave.The trick is in establishing a velocity of water that will keep the bubbles under the top of a tank and rotating. If we can make a model that will look like a galaxy: I'm on the right track.If alternatively, releasing or slowing currents could give insight as to non-spiral galaxies. (Or shutting the current off and displaying the behavior of bubbles outside of earth’s gravity if the dispersion is played very slowly)So then you see why the mass discrepancies between air and water become a clue as to how bubbles work: therefore; how the galaxy works.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Ahh, so i see. Well, the required velocity of water would be a constant 88 mph which can be accomplished via a flux capacitor that can produce 1.21 gigawatts of power, whereby enabling you to bypass relativity altogether. You would be able to traverse the spacetime continuum at will.I think you might be on to something. You just need that ever elusive flux capacitor. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Hi NoNukes, Just like we know Einstein was wrong when he introduced his cosmological constant.Predictions are just that predictions.Some turn out right and some turn out wrong. Well the GPS clocks have to have the exact time the ECIF has so gravitational potential has to be accounted for, the velocity of the satellites have to be accounted for and the velocity of the receiver on the ground have to be accounted for the elevation of the ground has to be accounted for computed and the instructions transfered to the controls of the hydraulic system to move the blade to cut the grade required.There is one other option. It could be that STR and GR is not needed to obtain the correct information for the GPS receivers on the ground to produce the required information.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

We're talking about two different types of predictions here. Einstein added his constant because he wanted to model a static universe. The constant was not a consequence of his theory, so when he was proven wrong, then it was time to drop the constant.When Einstein's GR theory makes incorrect predictions that do not agree with experiment, then the theory itself would be wrong.On the other hand, Hatch's prediction is a consequence of his hypothesis that light is anisotropic and that relativity is therefore wrong. Accordingly, disagreements with experimental results, particularly in cases where general relativity gives the correct result, indicate that Hatch's hypothesis is incorrect.I find it utterly baffling that you insist on pushing a disproved hypothesis. No mistake Einstein makes will save Hatch's work from being wrong. And how does everybody else on earth do that? We've posted links indicating that receivers actually do make SR corrections based on the Sagnac-Effect and that SR corrections are made for satellite motion in orbits. Hatch is simply wrong that the Sagnac-Effect requires the speed of light to be anisotropic. The Sagnac-Effect can be explained using special relativity.Further, there is no evidence that Hatch employs his theory in his own GPS calculations or that his corrections are different in substance from SR's predictions. If you have some such evidence, I'd sure like to see it. We know that those corrections are what everyone else is using. That kinda says that either SR/GR or a replacement theory are needed.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If there is a coherent theory in there somewhere, most likely you are going to have to learn the math, and develop the theory yourself.Yale professor Charles Bailyn has a video lecture series on astronomy. Lectures 8-11 are relevant to some of the things we discuss here. Lecture 11 deals with Special and General Relativity. During the beginning of the lecture (first 9 minutes or so) Prof Bailyn talks a little bit about Einstein as a rebel, and also about the material he receives from would be Einstein's. I highly recommend taking a look. Link below.Online College Courses & Accredited Degree Programs - Academic Earth

quote:

---

Like Einstein, these people could also be.......patent clerks.

---