d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > General Archive >
Poll > Gravity Debunked
Prev1232425262733Next
Add Reply New Topic
Views: 4993Replies: 323
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 53,598
Joined: Jun 5 2006
Gold: 5,388.33
#241
Jun 29 2016 02:48am
Quote (Thor123422 @ Jun 29 2016 12:39am)
In case anybody is wondering about the paper he was bullshitting about you should be able to access it here.

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/468/2145/2829

Basically the attraction is derivable while still understanding that like charges repel and unlike charges attract.

It gets deeper than I said before, and I'm not going to pretend to understand the math, but point is he's not capable of understanding these things, just cherry picking lines that look on the surface like they support his assertions.


it reminds me of the strange behavior of the nuclear strong force at very close distances
Quote (MaliceMizer @ Jun 29 2016 12:44am)
2.Why not tell me Newton's second law is true so I can crush it, pretty please?


why do you need anyone's permission to prove a law wrong? go ahead and do it if you are able

This post was edited by majorblood on Jun 29 2016 02:56am
Member
Posts: 13,231
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 4.77
#242
Jun 29 2016 02:53am
Quote (Thor123422 @ 29 Jun 2016 03:39)
In case anybody is wondering about the paper he was bullshitting about you should be able to access it here.

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/468/2145/2829

Basically the attraction is derivable while still understanding that like charges repel and unlike charges attract.

It gets deeper than I said before, and I'm not going to pretend to understand the math, but point is he's not capable of understanding these things, just cherry picking lines that look on the surface like they support his assertions.



You poor thing :(
I didn't know you couldn't read.

Member
Posts: 53,598
Joined: Jun 5 2006
Gold: 5,388.33
#243
Jun 29 2016 02:55am
Quote (MaliceMizer @ Jun 29 2016 12:53am)
You poor thing :(
I didn't know you couldn't read.

http://i.imgur.com/VwpWx7a.jpg


what is considered short range?
Member
Posts: 87,224
Joined: Apr 1 2011
Gold: 62.77
#244
Jun 29 2016 02:56am
this is a good thread and all but why don't you guys post in the other threads too? :huh:

i'm dying out here! it's hard out here for a pimp! :(
Member
Posts: 64,732
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
#245
Jun 29 2016 03:12am
Quote (majorblood @ Jun 29 2016 02:48am)
it reminds me of the strange behavior of the nuclear strong force at very close distances
http://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/sci_phys_quanta_strong_force.png

why do you need anyone's permission to prove a law wrong? go ahead and do it if you are able


I'm not familiar, but that looks exactly like a Morse potential well, albeit at a much smaller distance.

Quote (MaliceMizer @ Jun 29 2016 02:53am)
You poor thing :(
I didn't know you couldn't read.

http://i.imgur.com/VwpWx7a.jpg


I can read just fine. I'm sorry you're totally incapable of actually reading the paper and not just cherry picking lines you think support your conclusion.

Quote (majorblood @ Jun 29 2016 02:55am)
what is considered short range?


Picometers

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 29 2016 03:18am
Member
Posts: 64,732
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
#246
Jun 29 2016 03:17am
Quote (MaliceMizer @ Jun 29 2016 02:53am)
You poor thing :(
I didn't know you couldn't read.

http://i.imgur.com/VwpWx7a.jpg


Oh, look, a quote from the paper which explains that what is happening is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID WAS HAPPENING

Quote
The physical explanation lies in charge redistribution on the two spheres owing to their mutual polarization: attraction arises because as the spheres approach each other, a negative charge density appears around the pole of one of the spheres, as calculated and discussed in appendix B. We then have a configuration in which the nearby north and south poles of the two spheres have opposite charge, and the attraction of these near charges dominates over the repulsion of the overall like charges.


That this phenomena is a result of UNLIKE CHARGES ATTRACTING.
Member
Posts: 64,732
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
#247
Jun 29 2016 03:28am
Quote (MaliceMizer @ Jun 29 2016 02:44am)
1.Magnets bending light
2.Why not tell me Newton's second law is true so I can crush it, pretty please?

And besides that everything I've said to contrary interjection has been published and substantiated by scientific community.

The only authority I claim is first hand experience with nuclear energy in a variety of forms under mechanical parameters. I don't want to have to account for all the garbage you might be able to copy pasta off Wikipedia about what it does in gravity land.

I have also constantly stated almost none of these ideas are original to me, so I don't know why you'd contrive me being an authority in them from.


The only thing I'm doing in this forum is making a unification, which under no circumstances would be considered by any journal regardless of how well it's articulated unless they're already well established, and I have no reason to care about authority.
Ask Ted Kyzinski how well that went for him when as an MIT professor he logically proved how computers will take over way before that was even considered.

Perhaps when I finish accounting for time then maybe I'd send it all into a former professor so I can have my name on their publication.
But as I told you previously my tangible stakes in this are in developing and patenting a swashbuckling motor.

The man, the system, the bureaucracy, the outdated institutions and the masses are all that Field Theory is really up against right now.


I totally missed this post with the page turn.

LOLOLOLOL citing somebody "logically proving" that computers will take over. There's a good reason this guy would be laughed at, because the notion you can "logically prove" something like computers taking over is laughable at best.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's worth considering, but somebody claiming a logical proof of something like that just doesn't understand what "logical proof" means.

You also misspelled his name.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 29 2016 03:29am
Member
Posts: 13,231
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 4.77
#248
Jun 29 2016 02:30pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ 29 Jun 2016 04:12)
I can read just fine. I'm sorry you're totally incapable of actually reading the paper and not just cherry picking lines you think support your conclusion.



Picometers


I can literally just make a quick Google about how static electricity works to find that it is irrelevant of the + & - signs
So I haven't cherry picked anything.
But you're just holding on to your old dead religion like some mongoloid and their dragons.


This post was edited by MaliceMizer on Jun 29 2016 02:31pm
Member
Posts: 13,231
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 4.77
#249
Jun 29 2016 02:36pm
Member
Posts: 64,732
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
#250
Jun 29 2016 03:04pm
Quote (MaliceMizer @ Jun 29 2016 02:30pm)
I can literally just make a quick Google about how static electricity works to find that it is irrelevant of the + & - signs
So I haven't cherry picked anything.
But you're just holding on to your old dead religion like some mongoloid and their dragons.
http://i.imgur.com/xYV840H.jpg


That source doesn't prove that static electricity is irrelevant of the signs.

Once again you cherry picked an article without actually reading it, and it again becomes obvious you don't know what you are talking about.
Go Back To General Archive Topic List
Prev1232425262733Next
Add Reply New Topic

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact