Except Neptune distortions didn't require assumption of exotic types of matter, just an undetected lump of regular matter, so the analogy doesn't quite work. It's not a limitation of instruments or observations. It's an ontological limitation of theory.
Conversation
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Replying to
"gravity" itself has undergone 2 redefinitions that completely altered its ontological character. It was a "force" under Newton, a space-time curvature effect under Einstein, and now a "wave-particle" under quantum gravity type theories. So the word doesn't matter much.
2
1
Here are some alternative models:
1) Interference Theory/Harmonic resonance
interferencetheory.com/Research/Resea
2) Subquantum Kinetics
starburstfound.org/subquantum-kin
3) The Gravity Cycle
feandft.com/gravity/
4) Fractal Implosion
fractalfield.com/conjugategravi
5) Third Wave
milesmathis.com/third.html
3
1
4
Wow! ALL those pages look like 15% time-cube level crackpottery :D
1
1
The only difference between crackpottery and canon is adoption. 😊
1
1
4
application is certainly a very robust test, though people are capable of fooling themselves about that. There are after all entire systems of medicine based on weird theories of biology.
Biology/medicine is extra weird because it’s more obviously entangled with psychology/consciousness — placebo effect as the easiest example.
Did you see who owns that patent btw?
1
1
Show replies

