/sci/ - Science & Math

anti-grav and more importantly anti-mass?

For obvious reasons

What does it mean?

>http://milesmathis.com/uft.html

I will show that Newton’s famous gravitational equation is a compound equation that expresses both the gravitational field and the E/M field. I will separate the two fields mathematically, showing the distinct equations and how they fit together. I will then do a Relativistic transform on each new field, showing that a new Relative field equation can be achieved directly without tensors or any difficult math. I will then re-unify these two Relative field equations into a Unified Field Equation, which I will show is just Newton’s classical field with a simple transform.

Once that is done, I will derive the new number for g by novel means, showing that the gravitational acceleration—newly divorced from the acceleration caused by the electrical field—must be greater than 9.8. I will show that this is because the gravitational field and the electrical field are in vector opposition.

>Are we spaceships now or is this mememetics

>>6613705
No. The purpose of math is to extrapolate upon the beautiful nature of existence.
The purpose of physics is to try and apply mathematics to the real world.
The purpose of engineering is to try and simply apply physics to solve problems.
The purpose of art is to try and express beauty itself.
The purpose of philosophy is to study the fundamental problems.
The purpose of science is the philosophical reasoning of the nature of everything.

These equations basically can solve several problems in the realm of science and mathematics but the current age of the "scientific realm" consists of vehement opposition of new-age thinkers by old-age "knowers"; people are bashed and told they are wrong throughout all civilization before any real science takes place. Science should be the formal process of reasoning out hypothetical propositions; TESTING HYPOTHESES, and yet you have people like
>>6612473
and mods who delete posts, and users who report them,
that attempt to cripple the spread of information itself, simply because their egotistical ideas of self-importance is contradicted when someone answers a question before them, or in terms that the all-knowers do not want to understand.

I asked myself a question, "What am I?"
I answered:

Quid pro quo:
Cogito ergo sum; tempus edax rerum.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

I asked myself a question, "What is 'it'?" (read: Alan Watts, "even and odd"), (read: Richard Feynmann, "inconceivable nature of nature")
I answered this by creating a 3-Sphere; a p-brane: a surface of light itself that was both inside and outside of itself in a singular moment, there-by tying together via quaternionics the wave-particle duality via the singularity of observation, through an infinite seventh-dimensional weave that ties together the infinitesimal fifth dimensional singularity of experience and existence through sixth-dimensional reflections.

In terms of Buddhist philosophy, once I identified Indra's Net, I then experimented with a flashlight.