Archive for setembro 6th, 2013

Meu Povo! Não Existe esse negocio de Mão Direita e Mão Esquerda

sexta-feira, setembro 6th, 2013

Imagine dois homens, um de frente para o outro. E Joaquim diz: ” Esta bem. Para acabar esse problema de como vamos dividir essa terra, vamos dizer que tudo o que esta a nossa direita pertence a um e tudo que esta a nossa esquerda pertence a outro. Para definir quem vai ser dono do que, vamos tirar cara ou coroa na moeda. Se sair cara, eu fico com a direita e você com a esquerda. E vice-versa se sair coroa. Certo?”

Ai o João responde: ” Tai… gostei da ideia. Atire a moeda.” E deu cara. O Joaquim correu a dizer: ” Então tudo o que esta aqui,  a nossa direita me pertence e tudo o que esta aqui, a nossa esquerda, te pertence. Certo?”

Havia um problema. Todos os dois já tinham percebido que as terras de um lado tinha algumas vantagens. E era o lado que ia caber ao Joaquim. Então o João correu a se defender.

” Esta errado. O lado direito é esse aqui, ta vendo, onde estou apontando com meu braço direito.”

Joaquim que estava de frente ao João correu  a retrucar: ” Exatamente. O lado direito é para onde estou apontando com meu braço direito. É este aqui e não esse ai…”

Para encurtar, o que era direita para Joaquim, era esquerda para João. E agora? E qual a causa que faz acontecer este tipo de problema?

A causa esta num dos maiores erros crassos que a humanidade vem cometendo. Não existe esse negocio de mão direita nem mão esquerda. Para se dizer ou se entrar num acordo que algo esta a direita ou a esquerda e preciso um ponto de referencia. Por exemplo um poste a nossa frente. Podemos dizer que estamos vendo uma pessoa a direita ou a esquerda do poste, usando como ponto de referencia o que estendemos ser o lado esquerdo e direito do nosso corpo. Mas qual o ponto de referencia que usamos para dizer qual é o lado direito ou esquerdo do nosso corpo?! Se o mundo é redondo!?.

Hein?!!! Repita que não ouvi bem sua resposta.

Para se dizer que tal lado é direito ou esquerdo, duas ou mais pessoas tem que concordarem que um ponto qualquer, fixo, seja a referencia. Mas não ha nada fixo neste mundo, tudo esta em movimento. Vamos usar o Sol, a Lua? Estes dois parecem serelepes que não ficam quietos, basta dar um cochilo aqui e eles já trocaram de lugar.

Eu vou tentar pesquisar quem foi o primeiro carcamanjo na historia da humanidade que um dia falou em ” meu lado direito, ou minha mão direita…” Ele estava se baseando em que? Se o mundo fosse quadrado, ou se o mundo tivesse lados, daria para entender, mas com um mundo redondo não entendo…

Vou pesquisar e um dia volto para continuar este assunto… se achar a resposta antes de morrer… Enquanto isso o João e o Joaquim vao ter que procurar outra maneira de dividir as terras.

Desbancando a Cultura Virtual: ” Brasileiros, Natureza nada tem de feminino nem masculino”

sexta-feira, setembro 6th, 2013

Quem disse a portugueses e brasileiros que Natureza é feminina?! Num forum em inglês quando entrei em debate com um inglês ele me fez ver um erro clássico que eu nunca tinha percebido antes. Quando eu precisei escrever em Inglês ” a Natureza não se defende mas ela se vinga”, o inglês disse que não entendeu e me perguntou de onde tirei a palavra ” she”. Eu disse que em portugues nos nos referimos a Natureza com o pronome feminino, não dizemos ” o Natureza” e nem “ele” para a Natureza. Mas de onde tiramos a ideia que Natureza é algo feminino, ele perguntou… Eu me remexi todo, procurei la no fundo do bau, nas origens das palavras, e não consegui responder. De fato, não faz sentido pensar sobre Natureza como algo feminino , nem masculino. E nesse ponto os povos que pensam em Natureza sem definir gênero sexual esta totalmente certo. Espera ai… deixa-me buscar no Wikipedia a definição da palavra Natureza:
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natureza.

Natureza – Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre

pt.wikipedia.org

A natureza, em seu sentido mais amplo, é equivalente ao “mundo natural” ou “universo físico”. O termo “natureza” faz referência aos fenômenos do mundo físico, e também

Vemos que o texto em português já começa dizendo ” a natureza”. Porque não ” o Natureza”? Vamos ver o que diz o wikipedia em Ingles: ” Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural, physical, or material world or universe. “Nature” refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.”.
Entendeu a diferença? Em Inglês, se começa dizendo Nature, não se aplica nenhum artigo antes. A seguir se refere ao natural dizendo “it”, que e um pronome sem distinção de sexo. Parece que não, mas no arranjamento final dos cérebros estes pequenos detalhes acabam fazendo grande diferença nos julgamentos finais e isto é uma das causas das diferenças entre as culturas de diferentes povos. Estamos errados, mas como vamos consertar isto agora para não ensinar as próximas gerações a terem seus cérebros hard-wired de maneira errada?!

Na Busca de Entender o Universo, o Atual Método Acadêmico Foi Aqui Analisado de Maneira Brilhante

sexta-feira, setembro 6th, 2013

New groundbreaking research may expose new aspects of the universe

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-groundbreaking-expose-aspects-universe.html

New groundbreaking research may expose new aspects of the universe

Matin Mojaza. Credit: Matin Mojaza/SDU

No one knows for sure, but it is not unlikely that the universe is constructed in a completely different way than the usual theories and models of today predict. The most widely used model today cannot explain everything in the universe, and therefore there is a need to explore the parts of nature which the model cannot explain. This research field is called new physics, and it turns our understanding of the universe upside down. New research now makes the search for new physics easier.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-groundbreaking-expose-aspects-universe.html#jCp

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Apesar das importantes informações no artigo, o mais interessante são os comentários brilhantes de especialistas na área da Física criticando a própria disciplina. Copio partes mais relevantes dos comentários e mais abaixo tem o comentário que postei no artigo. 
FRANKLINS – Sep 04, 2013

Closing windows is a great opportunity in physics as it helps us narrow our search to what might be true

This is just another “diplomatic” (actually hypocritical) term for the lack of quantitative prediction of theory. Such a theory cannot be falsified with experiments, so it doesn’t belong into science. Try to imagine, how the acceptation of heliocentric model would happen, if the finding of parallax or order of Venus phases would just “close the window” to epicycles. With such approach I could say easily, that the negative result of M-M experiment didn’t disprove the aether model, it just closed one of windows to it – I think, many proponents of mainstream physics would heartily protested against such an interpretation.

The reality simply is, the SUSY/stringy theories have fed too many theorists in the past and now, when these theories are getting gradually disproved, nobody of them wants to admit, he dedicated whole life to fringe hypothesis.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-groundbreaking-expose-aspects-universe.html#jCp

I can feel no sorry for these guys, because they all got a pretty money for it already and they all were warned by the apparent lack of testable predictions of these models in advance. In general, when some theory doesn’t provide testable predictions – only “windows”, it should serve as a first indicia for us, that such a theory is untestable, i.e. nonscientific and as such unphysical. In addition, I explained before few years already, why these theories CAN NOT work in logical easy to follow way, so I did my very best in this matter already.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-groundbreaking-expose-aspects-universe.html#jCp

xxxxxx

Teech2 –

Nesmysl… how about aether monsieur Franklin? Where can we test it?

How we could test the existence of water surface if we would life at it? From perspective of water surface ripples it’s fully transparent environment. We would rely to tiny density fluctuations of underwater, which don’t manifest directly, but with various composite effects: the Brownian noise, which is observable as a CMBR noise in vacuum, with virtual particle field, which manifest at proximity of massive bodies like so-called Cassimir force and of course with quantum uncertainty and quantum noise. For example the helium atoms never freeze at room pressure, because they’re in neverending motion like pollen grains at the surface of water. All these phenomena may serve as an evidence of dense aether model.

But the science tends to ignore the postdictions as an evidence of theories. The string theorists suffer this ignorance too, because all the above phenomena may serve as an evidence extradimensions as well.

We are facing the so-called professional blindness, during which the physicists tend to overlook the notoriously known phenomena, just because they’ve another explanation for it in context of former theories. This ignorance is often employment driven, as my well known example illustrates:

This story begins in dark ages. A group of theorists seeks for violation of gravitational law at short distances. They indeed find nothing, because their wooden experimental device is not sensitive enough. OK…

The sensitivity of devices improves gradually, until some experimentalist finds the solely unexpected electrostatic force, which no gravity theory considered so far…

Next generation of theorists already knows about it – so they arrange their experiments in such a way, the electrostatic force doesn’t interfere their gravitometric measurements. And again, they find no violation of gravitational law at short distances…

The sensitivity of devices improves gradually, until some experimentalist finds the solely unexpected Van DerWaals dipole force, which no gravity theory considered so far.

Next generation of theorists already knows about it – so they arrange their experiments in such a way, neither electrostatic force, neither dipole forces interfere their sensitive gravitometric measurements. As usually, they find no violation of gravitational law at short distances…

The sensitivity of devices improves gradually, until some experimentalist finds the solely unexpected Casimir force, which no gravity theory considered so far.

Next generation of theorists already knows about it – so they arrange their experiments in such a way, neither electrostatic force, neither dipole force, neither Casimir force interferes their extra-sensitive gravitometric measurements. As usually, they find no violation of gravitational law at short distances…

The sensitivity of devices improves gradually, until some experimentalist finds the solely unexpected thermal Casimir force, which no gravity theory considered so far.

Next generation of theorists already knows about it – so they arrange their experiments with single neutrons in such a way, neither electrostatic force, neither dipole force, neither Casimir force, neither thermal Casimir force (..ffffuuuu…!) interferes their ultra-mega-sensitive gravitometric measurements. As usually, they find no violation of gravitational law at short distances…

This is a roughly described but still real history of search for extradimensions with gravitometric experiments. In each step the physicists looked for forces violating the gravity while carefully compensated all instances of these forces, which were revealed before. What physicists are doing is actually both a good joke, both school of life for those, who are paying their nonsensical activity from their taxes.
The professional blindness has its analogy in relativistic description of space-time around black holes, where the relativists insist on their assumption, that the space-time is curved, while the light is spreading along straight line even at the case, when they already revolve the black hole in tight circles together with all photons – thus effectively staying at place. Apparently the relativistic perspective is nonsensical from every extrinsic if not practical perspective – but from perspective of observer inside of gravity field around black hole everything vents normally according to general relativity. 

This happens because the physicists are indeed looking for violations of their theories, but they less or more consciously adjust the conditions of their observations in such a way, that these theories will actually remain unchanged. Which enables them to seek for violations of these theories for ever – until the tax payer’s money are going, indeed.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-groundbreaking-expose-aspects-universe.html#jCp

no fate

Hmmm. Was it my example?

I meant no knock on particle physics by it. Nuclear physicists, anyone who deals with science of the atom, are among the most intelligent people on earth and we wouldn’t know what we know today without these people. The fact that they can construct a working mathematical model to explain how DM can form the structure I alluded to indicates theoretical and mathematical abilities beyond anything I am capable of.

I used that example to illustrate that it just wasn’t necessary to explain the observation in this way. The Lagrangian for this system with magnetism as a conservative force is simpler than the Hamiltonian and is consistent with low density ion transport in a vector field.

If it was because used Tesla instead of Weber, I like him more.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-groundbreaking-expose-aspects-universe.html#jCp

Teech2

nuclear physicists, anyone who deal with science of the atom, are among the most intelligent people on earth

It’s not about intelligence but about willingness to doubt about own model and to consider it from many dual perspectives. The overly excessive level of expertise harms this ability often from objective reasons, which were analyzed with many people already (123). 

That is to say, it’s difficult to be a good expert of wider comprehension – it sounds like an oxymoron. As Lucius Seneca has said “To be everywhere is nowhere. When a person spends all his time in foreign travel, he ends by having many acquaintances, but no actual friends.”

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-groundbreaking-expose-aspects-universe.html#jCp

Franklins

The inflationary standard models predicts 100 % of the universe content

Do you want to say, it’s fitted to 100% of the universe content. When the dark matter was confirmed, it was adjusted to deal with dark matter (23% of the universe), when the dark energy was confirmed, it was adjusted to remaining 70% of the universe. These “artifacts” weren’t predicted with standard cosmology model, they were added to it.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-groundbreaking-expose-aspects-universe.html#jCp

no fate

New physics isn’t required, just proper application of what we know. For example: Particle physics dictates that a filament of high temp hydrogen between 2 galaxies requires an equation to compute the amount of DM and the other effects present to explain how this filament exists. Experience says that a concentration of gravity as great as earth mass has no effect on ionized hydrogen but magnetic flux can accomplish the observations, based on a given tesla of flux over the distance travelled. Overthinking is just as detrimental to science as not thinking enough. The fact that we can’t measure the flux means we can’t confirm it is there, any more than we can confirm a concentration of DM particles is there. Experiments demonstrate how to make ions behave this way and gravity is never involved (at earth mass). If the road from problem to solution is straight there is no point in searching for an alternate route, until you see someone fly over you. That’s new physics.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-groundbreaking-expose-aspects-universe.html#jCp

Lurker2358

The standard model is obviously insufficient to describe the universe, but that also obviously doesn’t make it useful.

“A model need not be what a philosopher would seek as the ‘Truth,’ so long as it makes good predictions.” – Rene Descartes (paraphrase).

The point is it all depends upon what you are trying to do with your model, and how much margin of error you can afford to have.

There are quite a few things which are at the very least odd, if not totally wrong about the standard model, such as how particle collisions produce other particles with masses higher than the original particle’s mass. Though this “mass” may come from the kinetic energy in an accelerator, it is still somewhat silly.

Techni-quarks are proposed to explain Dark Matter, but recent studies of MOND, even reported on this same site, show that Dark Matter is not necessary.

Additionally, Dark Matter is not actually scientific, because we cannot use the conjecture of Dark Matter to make predictions for testing.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-groundbreaking-expose-aspects-universe.html#jCp

AntonKole

“The most widely used model today cannot explain everything in the universe…..One of the Standard Model’s major problems is that it cannot explain gravity, and another is that it cannot explain the existence of dark matter, believed to make up app. 25 percent of all matter in the universe.”

Incorrect!

Too many scientists still ‘assume’ that aether doesn’t exist. With only half the experimental set of data available, too many ‘assumptions’ are still being made today. That is not a true scientific method.

Just one simple experiment in our earth orbit, may solve this dilemma once and for all. And if the experimental results come back negative, then, we should start looking at the “Alternative” Science Models.

For more details on how the Standard Model ‘may’ actually explain gravity, dark energy, and dark matter, check out:

https://www.faceb…59787252

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-groundbreaking-expose-aspects-universe.html#jCp

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

So they have a new method.

But that doesn’t merit the erroneous criticism of the SM, that it doesn’t incorporate all the physics we know exist. As an effective field theory it isn’t supposed to predict higher energies, such as dark matter or gravity.

If anything, it is likely doing its job too well, since people have started to question its naturalness on the grounds that it seems to be extendable to higher energies. Indeed, if it doesn’t build on naturalness it is instead of an effective field theory something of an isolated theory. Which means it not only isn’t expected to predict new phenomena at higher energies, it is _unable_ to.

Getting back to the method improvement, pity it is mostly on technicolor, which LHC has recently rejected AFAIU, and on colors, since recent LHC results seems to make the new physics if any all about the electroweak sector instead. (See the SEARCH 2013 workshop web material.)

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-groundbreaking-expose-aspects-universe.html#jCp

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

@MB: Don’t feed the anti-science trolls.

Speaking of science, the blow to supersymmetry is against obvious ways it should be natural, and lend its naturalness to SM. It can still be valid despite all that, latest at the planck scale.

@DH: Philosophy is inherently anti-science, as it is unfactual story telling. The ones who barks loudest wins. Plato is among the worst.

Of those mentioned I would rate Popper though, since he gave some ideas on how to model how testability (hypothesis testing) plays out between models in competition, and could be part of what is needed to predict why bayesian methods are insufficient in practice. Mandelbroth made math FWIW.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-groundbreaking-expose-aspects-universe.html#jCp

XXXXXXXXXXX

Meu post

Agradeço a Phys.org e aos comentadores aqui como Franklins, Teech2, no fate, Lurker2358, AntonKole, Torbjorn, etc., pois fiquei admirado com o surpreendente nível de inteligencia e honestidade nos comentários que não tenho visto em outros lugares. Sou  leigo em Física e estou aqui porque preciso da ajuda de mentes abertas como as destes comentadores para um grande problema existencial que estou enfrentando. Sou apenas filosofo naturalista e como tal tive que viver isolado na selva amazônica que me tornou obcecado na busca de respostas para nossa existência aqui e agora como humanos e a existência deste mundo que produziu aquela biosfera caótica e selvagem.  Tal caos me pareceu um efeito de degeneração da ordem mecanicista que sinto ao observar o sistema solar, mas esta ordem se desvanece outra vez quando observo o caos das estrelas espalhadas aleatoriamente na galaxia. No entanto, a própria existência dos humanos e suas civilizações com seus construídos ambientes se parecem com um novo fluxo de ordem que levantou da biosfera caótica. Isto me obrigou a buscar mais informações na Cosmologia Acadêmica e perceber que ela esta sendo estudada apenas pela Física e suas teorias desenvolvidas apenas pela logica Matemática.

Isto me conduz a supor que a Ciência esta seguindo um caminho que não pode ser o correto para uma Teoria do Tudo, porque o resultado da historia do mundo que vemos aqui, o ultimo produto da sua evolução, é o ser humano, um sistema que não pode ser limitado ao campo de estudo da Física e não pode ser traduzido pela linguagem Matemática. O corpo humano é composto pela sua estrutura óssea que pode ser explicada pela Física, mais sua estrutura “mole” que pode ser explicada pela Biologia, e mais agora sua super-estrutura mental que talvez sera explicada pela Neurologia. Ora, na minha humilde racionalidade de leigo acadêmico sinto que o Universo só poderá ser explicado pela soma, no minimo, destas três áreas de estudo. A vida e a auto-consciência de alguma maneira tem que ter tido seus princípios, manifestados ou não, já no Big Bang, e tais princípios devem ter interferido com a evolução do Universo, descendo ao nível de sua física e influenciando-a, assim como a parte mole do corpo humano, o DNA. etc. desceu ao nível dos esqueletos dos cretáceos para altera-los e produzir os esqueletos das formas posteriores.

A Matemática pode ser aplicada a sistemas biológicos como os cretáceos para desvendar seus exo-esqueletos porem nunca vai detectar e explicar seu interior mole. No entanto, um esforço do pensamento matemático sobre o que se obtêm dos exo-esqueletos pode dar um salto sobre o interior mole, ignorando-o e ressurgir na frente fazendo previsões corretas sobre os endo-esqueletos de mamíferos, nisso esta o valor da Matemática. Ademais, quando tentei calcular a Historia do Universo desde o Big Bang ate o cérebro humano num gráfico cartesiano tendo como coordenadas o tempo e o espaço, e no meio a rolar o primeiro sistema conhecido como átomo, a figura final mostrou que a evolução é curva e não linear. Como toda longa linha curva pode ser vista como soma de pequenas linhas retas mudando de direção, a Matemática pega os trechos em reta mas não pega a curva geral. De onde emergira uma Teoria do Tudo.

Tentei aplicar o que sei do atual conhecimento da Biologia e Neurologia sobre o que sei da Física no tocante a acadêmica Teoria Cosmológica. Como resultado final obtive um quadro que chamo de “teoria” segundo a definição grega da palavra e não segundo a definição cientifica desta palavra. O que este quadro esta sugerindo de mais evidente é que os sistemas naturais, como átomos, estelares, galácticos, apresentam todas as propriedades vitais que vemos nos corpos humanos, mas estas não estão constatando das teorias acadêmicas. Deduz-se portanto que os Físicos devem fazer o enorme esforço de desacelerar seu pensamento físico e matemático e voltar-se para os inícios da Biologia, Neurologia, aprendendo estas disciplinas, se querem realmente entender o Universo e chegarem a uma teoria do tudo. Se alguém tiver interessado, minha teoria chama-se ” The Universal Matrix/DNA of Natural Systems and Life Cycles”, basta googlar e ver o website com os modelos teóricos. Qualquer critica seria bem-vinda pois não estou vendendo uma visão de mundo, estou buscando a Verdade, simplesmente, e aqui eu voltaria para debater nossos diferentes modelos. Mais uma vez, gratos por suas valiosas informações e brilhantes pensamentos.

XXXXXXXXXXX      INGLES       XXXXXXXX

Thank Phys.org and commentators here as Franklins , Teech2 in fate , Lurker2358 , AntonKole , Torbjorn , etc.  I was amazed with the surprising level of intelligence and honesty in the comments here that I have never seen elsewhere . I am a layman in Physics and I’m here because I need help from open minds as these commentators for a big existential problem I’m facing . I’m just a naturalist philosopher and as such had to live isolated in the Amazon jungle. I became obsessed in finding answers to our existence here and now as humans beings and answers to the existence of this world that produced this biosphere chaotic and wild. Such chaos seemed an effect of degeneration of the mechanistic order I feel when observing the solar system, but, this order vanishes again when I watch the chaos of stars scattered randomly in the galaxy.  However , the very existence of humans and their civilizations with their built environments resemble a new order flow that raised from this chaotic biosphere. This forced me to seek more information on Academic Cosmology and realize that it is just being studied by physics and theories developed only by logic Mathematics. These fields and me, as a human observer, can’t grasp that where it seems chaos, there are physical vital forces at action.

This leads me to suppose that Science are following a path that can not be correct for a Theory of Everything , because the outcome of world history we see here , the last product of its evolution , is the human being , a system that can not be limited to the field of study of Physics and can not be translated by the language of Mathematics . The human body was made by the Universe, so, the Universe itself must have the properties of life as its total configuration. The human body is made with a bone structure that can be explained by Physics , more the “soft” structure  that can be explained by Biology , and now, more its super – mental structure that will be perhaps explained by Neurology. Now, in my humble layman’s rationality, I think that the universe can only be explained by the sum, at least, of these three areas of study . The life and self – consciousness must have had its principles , manifested or not , since the Big Bang , and these principles must have interfered with the evolution of the universe , down to the level of their physical skeleton, and influencing it , as well as the soft part of the human body , the DNA . etc. . descended to the level of the skeletons of Cretaceous to alter them and produce skeletons of later forms.

Mathematics can be applied to biological systems like Cretaceous to unveil their exo-skeletons, however will never detect and explain its soft interior. However , an effort of mathematical thinking about what you get from exo-skeletons can leap over the soft interior , ignoring him, and resurface in front making correct predictions about the endo-skeletons of mammals. This is the value of Mathematics . Moreover , when I tried to calculate the History of the Universe from the Big Bang until the human brain as a Cartesian graph with time and space coordinates , and in the midst rolling the first system known as atom, the final figure showed that evolution is curved and non-linear. Like any long curved line can be seen as the sum of small straight lines changing direction , Mathematics takes in straight stretches but does not catch the general curve . From which must emerges a Theory of Everything .

I tried to apply what I know of the current knowledge of the biology and neurology on what I know of physics regarding academic Cosmological Theory . As a final result got a picture I call ” theory ” according to the Greek definition of the word and not according to the scientific definition of the word . What this picture suggests as more evident is that natural systems, such as atoms, stellar , galactic , have all  vital properties that we see in human bodies , but the academic models of these systems have not found these properties. It follows therefore that physicists should make great effort to slow down their Physicist thinking and mathematical jumps back to the beginnings of biology , neurology , learning these subjects , if they really want to understand the universe and arrive at a theory of everything . If anybody has interested , my theory is called “The Universal Matrix/DNA of Natural Systems and Life Cycles ” , just google it and see the website with the theoretical models . Any criticism would be welcome as I’m not selling a worldview, I am seeking the truth, simply, at my rough salvage conditions, and here I will return to discuss our different models . Again , grateful for yours valuable informations and brilliant thoughts.

xxxxxx

Pesquisa:

” One of the Standard Model’s major problems is that it cannot explain gravity”

Gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other. It is most commonly experienced as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped.

From a cosmological perspective, gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and coalesced matter to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence of planetsstarsgalaxies and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe

Vou parar por aqui porque isto, a Gravitacao Universal, precisa ser revista pela Matrix/DNA depois da sua interpretacao da Luz.