Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Machines & Experiments
Theoretical Models of Nature and Motion for a Law of Base Reality
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tflofasho" data-source="post: 223643" data-attributes="member: 7714"><p>Yeah; I figured as much. It’s the mind/body objective/subjective dichotomy.</p><p></p><p>Problem of constructing something out of naturally sourced nothing to make sense of something.</p><p></p><p>Constant of Prop sounds like Gustav Fechner’s model of Psychophysics of testing and measuring repeated trials to observe and notice any just noticeable differences, relative to whatever model of measurement theory one applies.</p><p></p><p>In Kinesiology; like in Rocket Science; Force was used to measure “Mass.” No different than the laws of motion “low key” measuring oxygen density within the environment on the basis that air is another form of water, just less dense. Think of the air/oxygen as the canvas Board to calibrate the scale off of, and any noticeable differences are measured.</p><p></p><p>The law of gravity is constant; relative to the level of elevation it’s at. Therefore: more oxygen = more friction/resistance. Too much matter in the space of so called “thin air.” It becomes an issue of: is there space, matter or both? All it does is measure spatial displacements between one point in time, relative to the next one from point A to point whatever. The only thing it keeps trying and failing to do is account for all those variables into the picture aside from the observer effect.</p><p></p><p>That’s usually the problem by the end of the day. The learned potential imprint abstraction is hard to apply “ON PAPER.”</p><p></p><p>That’s why it can’t reflect well once the model doesn’t reflect reality; it’s simply the weight of the mass of the ink and paper constitute when looking at the figures to observe what the hell is going on. That’s why things are “falling apart.”</p><p></p><p>In a nutshell; certain variables are still not taken into consideration when looking and assessing the analysis. People aren’t greasing the grooves. That’s why.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tflofasho, post: 223643, member: 7714"] Yeah; I figured as much. It’s the mind/body objective/subjective dichotomy. Problem of constructing something out of naturally sourced nothing to make sense of something. Constant of Prop sounds like Gustav Fechner’s model of Psychophysics of testing and measuring repeated trials to observe and notice any just noticeable differences, relative to whatever model of measurement theory one applies. In Kinesiology; like in Rocket Science; Force was used to measure “Mass.” No different than the laws of motion “low key” measuring oxygen density within the environment on the basis that air is another form of water, just less dense. Think of the air/oxygen as the canvas Board to calibrate the scale off of, and any noticeable differences are measured. The law of gravity is constant; relative to the level of elevation it’s at. Therefore: more oxygen = more friction/resistance. Too much matter in the space of so called “thin air.” It becomes an issue of: is there space, matter or both? All it does is measure spatial displacements between one point in time, relative to the next one from point A to point whatever. The only thing it keeps trying and failing to do is account for all those variables into the picture aside from the observer effect. That’s usually the problem by the end of the day. The learned potential imprint abstraction is hard to apply “ON PAPER.” That’s why it can’t reflect well once the model doesn’t reflect reality; it’s simply the weight of the mass of the ink and paper constitute when looking at the figures to observe what the hell is going on. That’s why things are “falling apart.” In a nutshell; certain variables are still not taken into consideration when looking and assessing the analysis. People aren’t greasing the grooves. That’s why. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Machines & Experiments
Theoretical Models of Nature and Motion for a Law of Base Reality
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top