I'll post where and when I like...And don't forget, both of us are under the auspices of the mods. So you go ahead and complain. Your posts are here for all to see, in this and other threads.
E=mc2 questions?
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
I'll post where and when I like...And don't forget, both of us are under the auspices of the mods. So you go ahead and complain. Your posts are here for all to see, in this and other threads.
To the contrary , I have give a very valid argument to temporal night vision, I refer to my gravity idea and anti gravity idea, and the ice losing Kinetic energy to gravity,
A 1kg cube on the ground, the weight of force is 9.81n , this is the stress on the object of some form of energy contained whether it be atom or other means, if we could replace the energy loss equal to 9.81n of force, then this cube will be weightless on earth.
I understand how it works, I advanced your gravity version, and if two house bricks can attract to each other in space, the only mechanism is the atomic force.
I do not just make things up, i have a lot facts i work off.
Nope.
You might have given an argument.
But it was far from valid.
Oh look, he's trying to bullshit his way out again by (mis)using terminology.
You clearly don't know what "stress" means.
1) There is no "energy loss".
2) You're talking bollocks.
No you don't.
As this thread illustrates.
No.
Absolute crap.
Blatantly untrue.
If you do "work off facts" it's only by ignoring them.
CORRECTION:
You have no evidence for any of your claims.
Obviously, you do certainly make things up.
Just as obviously, you do not know how it works.
No. Science just wants to stay with what's provable and supportable. That's how science works.
Anyone who offers antigravity SHOULD be laughed at - at least, until they demonstrate the principles that support their claim. Feel free to do so.
- Newton's First Law of Motion: I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. This we recognize as essentially Galileo's concept of inertia, and this is often termed simply the "Law of Inertia".
''second law - The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: F = ma''.
I say - The vector sum of the forces F of an object in a stationary reference frame on earth, is equal to mass m , multiplied by the acceleration, F=ma, which is equal to energy loss from that object to gravity.
third law -
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.''
I say untrue, an object on the ground imposes a force centripetal in direction to the ground, the ground also imposes a force centripetal and has no mechanism to push back the opposite direction to the first body.
The lifter technology shows you my concept,
The electrical energy field is creating a greater energy than the loss to gravity ,
Only a fool questions what he does not know.
Oh wait, aren't you the guy that wrote my ideas do not interfere with present knowledge.
Reported for lying.
Again.
A wise man once did not know about space time curvature, until he questioned it, I beg to differ.
Technically speaking, there is nothing in the rules about someone being wrong/ignorant of how the world works.
If you all feel TC has no desire to learn, or to work with facts... then simply stop replying, and let the thread fall to the dredges.
I know enough to know that I don't know enough to pass judgement over a majority of what happens in this sub-forum.
Rubbish. The electrical energy field is simply overcoming the attractive force of gravity.
Just as a magnet attracts a paper clip against the force of the earth's gravity.
Why do you persist in pontificating and posturing. Ever heard of Occam's razor?
The electrical field is simply overcoming the attractive force of gravity, consider those words wisely when comparing to the charged Protons by the electrical field overcoming gravity.
That's OK...You can say what you like. I invoke little invisible fairies, but just like your hypothesis, I have no evidence for such.
You need to ask yourself, why does the whole world reject my hypothesis?
Why am I banned elsewhere? Why do all my threads get shifted to the fringes and beyond to cesspool?
Consider this, there is no force being applied to the tin foil, the only force exists is gravity, by adding energy the effects of gravity are counteracted, the energy lost to gravity is replaced by the energy added.
You mean like mass is weight? Gravity is electromagnetism? Yeah, those ideas contradict seventh grade science.
No I mean like this model based on the lifter video, by entropy means the lifter has energy gain greater than energy loss.
Attachments
I will say in my opinion i think gravity is a frequency , and the frequency is of two parts, maybe even 3 parts.
part one electrons attract
part two the protons attract
Two opposites attracting two other opposites, the combination of the two opposites becoming one - i.e the electron joining a proton, making the combination of one attractive frequency to two frequencies that are as one.
part one electrons attract
part two the protons attract
Two opposites attracting two other opposites, the combination of the two opposites becoming one - i.e the electron joining a proton, making the combination of one attractive frequency to two frequencies that are as one.
As usual your opinion is worthless.
One more time: gravity is not electrostatic.
Meaningless bollocks.
- Status