Post is pinned.Post has attachment
My top postings about The New Meta-physics Paradigm
One-stop reading for your review. - •smile•
My books are available here:
Commenting is disabled for this post.

Post has attachment
What does what I propose actually/REALLY mean?

What does it mean if one cannot move mass/matter beyond the speed of light, even if it means one must reach beyond space/time altogether in order to do so (which would transform it otherwise, as explained in another posting below), thereby outstripping its limitations, which are certain in space/time context alone? - Good question. - Now what?
This new leap beyond basic physics, which is limited to space/time & matter/energy, though not denying it in its own limited context, means we must understand, in an entirely new way, the context of my new Final Cosmology Paradigm which, by inspiration, has moved us so easily now toward the new physics which speaks of that which is beyond space/time entirely.
We MUST therefore take another serious look because, if nothing else, I’ve already proven there is no dark matter/dark energy, etc., which existing, recorded data, denies, prima facia, its existence altogether.
As I’ve already laid out, each ”higher“ dimension MUST be PERFECTLY perpendicular to EVERY other dimension below at once (therefore no 10 or 11 “dimensions” [string theory] are at all possible in the context of space/time, it being only a false, mathematical construct which has no match in physical reality, according to Nikola Tesla himself).
Okay, so let’s take the next step by accepting this virtual proposal which works perfectly WITH the observed evidence we have.
It must be a leap of consciousness and overall perspective in order to realize that to grasp this new understanding, one must grant that one cannot measure what is beyond space/time. - So, we must leave all our yardsticks behind, except what true perpendicularity requires of us. - And so it is that one can only THEN fully grasp what I have proposed that NO data actually denies!
Let’s consider this as a way to understand what I have proposed, especially being that their silly theories have NO observed evidence/data to go with them. - Thanks. --RK
You can order my book online from my website here:

Post has attachment
Ah, the absurdity, eh? - - •nodding•

Post has shared content
Quoting from the article: ”One possibility is that the black hole smashed into a red giant star, and then gas from the outer regions of the star was ejected from the binary. The remaining core of the red giant would form into a white dwarf, which becomes a binary companion to the black hole. The orbit of the binary would then have shrunk as gravitational waves were emitted (Question: By what means other than gravity and orbital dynamics [not fictitious “gravitational waves”]?) , until the black hole started pulling material from the white dwarf.
The gravitational waves currently being produced by the binary (Note: There’s no observed evidence of this.) have a frequency that is too low to be detected with Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, LIGO, that has recently detected gravitational waves from merging black holes (Note: This has been debunked by other scientists, by the way.) . Sources like X9 could potentially be detected with future gravitational wave observatories in space.“
No, I don‘t think so. - If the black hole “smashed into” the red giant that it might have been, it would have consumed it entirely, unless it was on an oblique trajectory and initially just missed it. - Then, with the right trajectory (not acutally hitting it), it would have stripped off its outer (less dense) envelope of gas while consuming it (as it pulled its remainder into orbit), not ejecting it. RK, 9:58pmEST, 3/13/2017

Post has attachment
*It's true. - Word up!* -

Just here to pick up some knowledge

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
New Discovery: - Key Encoding Numbers Found in the Tzolkin!
This is only the top half of the full interactive posting on my website here:
I think you'll all find this quite interesting indeed! - smile
Screen shot only. - Original is very interactive w/many mouse-overs!
See also:

Post has attachment
Let's see what 'the other side' has been up to (theorizing) lately.
Just so you know 'their side' of the story to be fair, eh?
These screen shots are from Dan Hooper's talk at Fermi Lab.
Compare what you've read here in the community with his video: - 1h5m2s
He referenced Vera Cooper Rubin (also recommended): - 6m10s
33 Photos - View album

Post has attachment
Apparently, it's really official now! ~Scientific American
This should echo around for a while, eh?
Some aren't giving up, but gravity waves aren't there to be found and,
interestingly enough, it also disproves the 'Big Bang,' too!
Wait while more posts are being loaded