Check out our Youtube channel for the latest Playlists and updates:https://www.youtube.com/user/overunitydotcom/playlists?view=1&flow=grid

hey,this is part of a thesis/ theory that ihave been working on forever it seems...i think that these ideas will change physics...i hope you too will find simple answers to the problemsthat plague the classic and quantum models...there are 2 energy streamsand they are polar by nature....the singularity is split into a ring...this ring is bi-directional,super-fluid and equal,effectively cancelling each other....twist this into an 8 [infinity]and you have two lobes...take a pen...draw an infinity sign...there are 2 streams so draw it again...the streams still cancel each other...take your pen and draw that sign againthis time draw two circles on top of each otherand then at the point where you starteddraw two more circles finishing the infinity sign...you see the lobes do not cancel nowbut you have a direction to move from <the point>....move either direction and we haveattraction/repulsion N and S,magnetism etc....movement causes this attraction/repulsionso one lobe is bigger ...doppler...[that is why one pole is stronger}...so now we see that from the singularitywe get a ring [or disc] bi-dimensional/directional...add movement and you will havetime behind you, space ahead...the only reason we experience any of these forcesis the difference in lobe size ...due to acceleration/spin,one lobe is dominant [red shift problem]....this theory was written bydavid lambright on Thur.1/20/2011...we KNOW about super fluidity, conductivity etc...these forces are all easily manipulated...convection is temperature dependentbut bi-directional....consider the floor you stand on evenor (a) rest temperature,and one foot = 1 degree....bring a point into the room five degrees warmer,and you will have a spikeor if colder a pit...vortex/anti vortex...convection pulls down the point till it reaches an even temp...this is the same mechanism that is gravity....one lobe bigger than the other to createthe attraction/repulsion that we feel as gravity...there are two supreme forces that all the forces arise from ...the math will prove this...the 90 degree or linear to radial interaction;...a particle, at absolute zero,moving through spacebecomes a line....any interaction with anythingtakes energy from it,but since energy can only be transfered,any interaction with a boundary,turns into rotation,bi directionally....there will be a lot more about thisand the experiments that led me here....thanks...david

Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known.

So, Mr. Lambright, I challenge you to use your "theory" to generate a testable hypothesis that reveals behaviour that is currently unexplained by the standard theories that are being used today to make things like computers and spacecraft and nylon stockings.

wrong. coherent means:â€“adjective1. logically connected; consistent: a coherent argument.2. cohering; sticking together: a coherent mass of sticky candies.3. having a natural or due agreement of parts; harmonious: a coherent design.4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed phase relationship, as in coherent light. could you specify which unexplained behaviors your red herring pertains to?

Still playing the fool, I see.What part of the definitions you have posted do you have trouble understanding? If a "theory" is internally contradictory and does not stick together with what is already known, it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad shows quite clearly.It's not up to me to show how somebody else's weak conjectures predict and explain any currently unexplained phenomena. That is what a THEORY is supposed to do. I am asking for the creator of the "Theory" outlined here to list one or more currently unexplained behaviours that his "theory" explains or predicts. Any real theory of anything can do this -- it's what theories do.Your trolling is getting pretty weak, maybe you need to go back to sleep under your bridge for a while.

still engaging in logical fallacies i see... what part of the definition do you have trouble understanding? you said "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." nowhere, i repeat, NOWHERE in the definition of that word does it say anything remotely close to what you said. furthermore, something can be coherent without "sticking together with what is already known". it does this by being logically connected; consistent... as per the definition.your fallacies are getting pretty weak, maybe you need to brush up...

Hi David,As several have asked is there a way for you to physically prove your theory. Or perhaps give us a simplied diagram of what you are discussing so we can examine and digest it. ThanksBizzy

Never mind sticking together with what's already known. If what is proposed is internally contradictory it is indeed incoherent. Such a proposal isn't even a theory. Internally contradictory proposal is simply called nonsense. You'll shoot down that thing right there if you can point out the internal contradiction.

tu stultus es... take your red herrings elsewhere. no one said anything about internal contradictions. tinsel said and i quote: "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." this is completely incorrect. a coherent argument, theory or whatever you want to call it, can contradict what is already known... science has done such on a regular and consistent basis throughout its history.

Don't lie. @Tinsel Koala said "If a "theory" is internally contradictory ... it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad shows quite clearly."

noone was talking to you... tu stultus es.don't misrepresent... he said that after i posted the correct definition of the word. as the record shows quite clearly... see reply #4