Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


MikeBrace last won the day on April 25 2019

MikeBrace had the most liked content!

About MikeBrace

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 04/15/1958

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Virginia (today)
  • Interests
    Aerospace composite engineer by education, jet pilot by training and sailor at heart. I have over a dozen engineering related patents and I have designed, built and fabricated parts & assemblies that have gone to the bottom of the oceans, went up on the space shuttles, still orbit the earth and crashed on Mars.

    My obsession for over the last 45 years has been superluminal travel and my hobby was gravity.
  1. You're barking up the wrong tree in sentence one. As I stated, the soul has nothing to do with religion. I can't help it if they highjacked the one part of you that makes you unique (if you have one). And it's explanations are not beyond known physical laws...just as your emotions are not. And it is possible that they are connected, but I haven't gone there yet. And, as I asked VictorMedvil, why are you on this forum?
  2. Not to be rude, but I have to ask; why are you on this forum [in the first place]?
  3. Then I take it you believe no one has a soul?
  4. It’s important that you understand word for word how I defined compassion for it is at the heart the definition of a 'soul'. Compassion defines the soul and is unique to the soul. Compassion is not the same as 'sympathy' or 'empathy'. Those are just emotions. Compassion requires a physical act. Remember how I said the soul controls the consciousness? Here is a good definition of compassion: Compassion (noun): The investment and/or expenditure of a personal asset on behalf of another living being, knowing that there exists a high probability that there will be an immediate negative ra
  5. It is important that you separate the religion from the definition. Your physical consciousness is the basic operating system that controls the living entity in order to meet its basic survival needs. That is your 'elephant'. It has nothing to do with religion. Not all living entities require a consciousness (an 'elephant') to properly operate themselves, but most higher, more evolved forms of life do have them. I think that most autonomous forms of life need one in order to survive. However, history has shown us countless number of examples there the physical consciousness can be influenced
  6. I think that most 'human minds' have accepted the fact that life is finite, so I'm not buying your concept that we created a 'soul' to transcend the end of our physical existence. Even you yourself 'died' twice [and yet] your consciousness did not. Even if you slipped into 'an inky black silence' it was [still] a state of existence that you recognized as a physical state of existence and could describe. And your conscious returned twice, so 'something' about you continued to exist after your body was not capable of harboring it. And when it was [again]. it came back. I will 'agree' in part w
  7. I've spent a lifetime thinking about 'the Soul'. Most people have a perception of what a 'soul' is, but I think few have actually defined it. I submit this for your review: The spark of life in you, your life force, is just your consciousness (you) collaborating with organic cells (also made up of matter and energy) on a very large scale in order to survive in a place where everything eats everything else just to stay alive. It’s who you see when you look in the mirror. Most, if not all living organisms [that do not belong to a collective] have a life force. We humans call it our consciousne
  8. I think you can create a proton and an electron strictly though mechanical means. I know you can magnetize and demagnetize ferrous metal by introducing the ferrous metal to a magnetic field though mechanical means, such as immediate contact (rub a magnet on a screw driver) or simply imparting kinetic energy (striking it hard with a hammer) to the metal in a magnetic field. I speculate that it you impact a neutron hard enough to break it apart, and you do so in a highly-magnetized field, you will spit out a proton and a neutron. And if they attempt to get back together through mutual attraction
  9. Final post on the UFoP; the Superluminal Drive. The speed of any object of mass is governed by the physics of two things: the force by which the object is accelerated and the medium through which it is traveling. If the object of mass [from herein referred to as the projectile] is born of the electromagnetic spectrum (ES) then we know its force is derived from the same, and its final steady-state velocity is the speed of light; 300M m/s (c). (I, for one, have always found it odd that the only projectiles we see (and measure) to be traveling at (or near) the speed of light are those projectil
  10. Thank you for offering the answer that was on the tip of my tongue (fingertips?) And now, for the conclusion...
  11. (Authors’ warning: this post is more personable and less scientific than the previous posts. I felt that if you have no just criticism of my work on the UFoP by now then I should show you the man behind the proof and let you decide if your time has been worth it). I will work on the equations (as I referenced a few posts back) and when I have the mathematical proof I will post it as well. It may be on this forum, it may be on another. However, I feel it is incumbent on me, as the scientist that built this UFoP, to explain my motivation for building it. I didn’t do it for recognition, or just
  12. The above quote is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the discussions in this post, and how they can go so badly astray and end up as bullshit. I use this post as not because it is in error, because it (like so many other posts in this thread) keep basing their arguments on informal fallacies; in this example it's the speed of light. Many on this thread keep thinking that the speed of light is a constant and the arguments based on this assumption are sound physics. I hate to break the news, but scientist have long ago figured out a way to slow light down, and I am talking about slo
  13. For many scientists the proof can be in the results or the proof can be in the numbers. I’ve been of the mindset that the proof is always in the results, and the numbers are just the icing on the cake. This mindset isn’t based on education, logic or personal psychology, but based on reason. I have learned [and seen] a multitude of manmade equations predict naturally occurring physics time and time again, however the scientific history of the physics behind those equations tells us that the physic is born of reason, and not of mathematics from theoretical equations. Theoretical equations produc
  14. If the previous theories and observations supporting these theories are true (factual) then in accordance with the laws of physics the opposite reactions of these postulates must be true. If the kinetic energy of Mass, and its interaction with other objects of Mass [in the Void], can create pressure waves and localized pressure differentials in the Void (both high pressure and low pressure) as well as change the localized density differential of the Void, than Mass can create not only Black Holes, it should be able to create pressure variations of a different physical characteristic as well, a
  15. (Dear readers, I would ask that as you read this post please allow enough time to understand and comprehend it, because of all of the posts in this thread this one discusses the most fundamental and controversial subject in physics: Black Holes and all of the ramifications of defining them) The postulate of using the density differentials between layers of particles to bend light is considered sound physics. However the historical postulate of the Aether was not needed to bend light, it was theorize as the medium of which light traveled in (or on, depending on your point of view). We have al
  • Create New...