d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > General Archive >
Poll > Gravity Debunked
Prev1282930313233Next
Add Reply New Topic
Views: 4993Replies: 323
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 13,231
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 4.77
#291
Jun 30 2016 11:24pm
Quote (Electronic @ 1 Jul 2016 00:07)
How come when I jump I come down. Is it because I'm fat?

It's because the incoherence field we exist in has a couple different pressure zones and the zone around the surface of the earth is at a ratio of 1:1.168 or static:phi
The golden ratio

We can superficially give the example of levitation by magnetism when the upward force is equal to "gravity."
We can scientifically give the example of CERNs plasma coils and NASA's radiowave powered engine
But most importantly this ratio is apparent in atmosphere, vegetative life, and most circulating ecosystems.

My objection to special relativity and current establishment science is because this principle is weaseled in by "p" in Einstein's equations but those can be shown wrong since the "p" or pressure is based on bunk laws, as I have more than proven.

This post was edited by MaliceMizer on Jun 30 2016 11:31pm
Member
Posts: 5,992
Joined: Jul 20 2013
Gold: 1.01
#292
Jun 30 2016 11:27pm
this topic has more views than the video
Member
Posts: 21,489
Joined: Sep 9 2011
Gold: 2.00
#293
Jun 30 2016 11:36pm
Quote (JQo @ Jul 1 2016 12:27am)
this topic has more views than the video


JSP is a bigger deal than YouTube.
Member
Posts: 45,628
Joined: Nov 13 2009
Gold: 42.00
#294
Jun 30 2016 11:42pm
nice thread extra haha !
Member
Posts: 64,732
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
#295
Jun 30 2016 11:48pm
Lol. Rubbing balloons together, or checking a pair of bar magnets is a work in progress that will produce results
Member
Posts: 64,732
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
#296
Jul 1 2016 12:25am
Quote (MaliceMizer @ Jun 30 2016 11:24pm)
My objection to special relativity and current establishment science is because this principle is weaseled in by "p" in Einstein's equations but those can be shown wrong since the "p" or pressure is based on bunk laws, as I have more than proven.[/B]


You haven't proven anything actually. The only reference you could have possibly made to this was your claim that relativity requires dividing by zero, which you laughably ran the fuck away from when tasked with demonstrating.

You also haven't proven that like charges attract, posted sources that rely on the fact that like charges attract, and when pressed spew giant paragraphs that have nothing to do with what you were asked about.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 1 2016 12:25am
Member
Posts: 13,231
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 4.77
#297
Jul 1 2016 04:08am
Quote (Thor123422 @ 1 Jul 2016 01:25)
You haven't proven anything actually. The only reference you could have possibly made to this was your claim that relativity requires dividing by zero, which you laughably ran the fuck away from when tasked with demonstrating.

You also haven't proven that like charges attract, posted sources that rely on the fact that like charges attract, and when pressed spew giant paragraphs that have nothing to do with what you were asked about.

I didn't run the fuck away, there's literally books written on Einstein's greatest blunder, and for each one, there's an equal number of books supporting his lambda, since it necessitates dark energy which has just recently popped up on the radar.
I left that up to you and other gravity cheer leaders so we could discuss it,
as I have no interest in playing with the equations.
I was also hoping to have that aspect of argument dismissed, since I have used similar method for my theory and I don't want to be too hypocritical.
Einstein didn't know Hubble was about to smash his life's work and he had to tailor it to make it relevant,
I have no doubt by the conclusion of my work I'll be accommodating d2jsp and OU interjections but that doesn't mean my correct observation of magnetism is totally wrong.




So the claim at stake, like attracts like:
Why do positive poles of a magnet repel and opposite poles attract?
A magnet is a device that allows the flow of magnetic energy.
That is it's ‘wholeness’.
Two positive poles together don’t allow this flow.
Consequently they don’t create a ‘wholeness’ for the magnet.

Two similar energies do not create harmony or a chord. Two similar energies are just more of the same
there is no contrast that creates pattern, beauty, current.

All branches of physical science demonstrate the fact that every completed manifestation, of whatever kind and on whatever scale, is started by the establishment of a nucleus, infinitely small but endowed with an unquenchable energy of attraction.





That of course was just a touch of history, which in NO WAY explains my magnetism, but an interesting look back... way back
The reason it's relevant is because it's the same materialistic approach for explaining the new static electricity breakthroughs
*note the material transfer*









We can of course give definition TO space, but only as is meant an attribute WITHIN a field, AS a product of a field, matter.
A field containing space is moving at a rate of change of the field,
as measured BY its attribute, space.

To speak otherwise is like saying there is light (field) expanding into/within illumination (nonsensical). Rather illumination is an attribute co-principle to and as light

Light,/EM , like magnetism itself, being a radiation, is expanding with its attributional 'field of illumination (space)'.
We say we are 'in an illuminated space', when the proper causation would be that we are 'standing within the space of illumination (field)'
where ε0 is the permittivity of space,
and μ0 is the permeability of space.
Since none of the four Maxwell’s equations is defined to be a causal relation,
and since each of these equations connects quantities simultaneous in time, none of these equations represents a causal relation.
That is, ∇ · D is not a consequence of ρ (and vice versa),∇ Å~E is not a consequence of ∂B/∂t (and vice versa),
and∇ Å~H is not a consequence of J + ∂D/∂t (and vice versa).

Thus, Maxwell’s equations, even though they are basic electromagnetic equations (since most electromagnetic relations as is Einstein's "p" are derivable from them), do not depict cause-and-effect relations between electromagnetic reactions and therefore do not account for much at all
centripetal
convergence
divergence
centrifugal




GR seems to me to have it backwards (as usual), they have reifined SPACE as a 'thing' that 'does things'.
Space is to gravity as gravity is to repulsion. Does nothing, never has done anything (as a principle or autonomous entity, since definitionally it has no such existence like) space is like zero.
We use it to describe relationships relative to what we observe.

damn all that time spent rambling, I could have been gluing gold foil to balloons.

This post was edited by MaliceMizer on Jul 1 2016 04:21am
Member
Posts: 51,221
Joined: Jun 3 2010
Gold: 0.69
Warn: 50%
#298
Jul 1 2016 04:55am
Quote (Electronic @ Jul 1 2016 01:37am)
How come when I jump I come down. Is it because I'm fat?


Well its not gravity, fatass
Member
Posts: 13,231
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 4.77
#299
Jul 1 2016 05:06am
fuq

This post was edited by MaliceMizer on Jul 1 2016 05:07am
Member
Posts: 13,231
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 4.77
#300
Jul 1 2016 05:07am
Quote (Tuna_BeIIy @ 1 Jul 2016 05:55)
Well its not gravity, fatass




So fat his magnetic field is repulsive of the earth's.
Go Back To General Archive Topic List
Prev1282930313233Next
Add Reply New Topic

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact