d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > General Archive >
Poll > Gravity Debunked
Prev13456733Next
Add Reply New Topic
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 47,627
Joined: May 29 2012
Gold: 5,475.04
Jun 23 2016 09:01pm
Quote (MaliceMizer @ Jun 23 2016 08:32pm)
safety in the majority huh? Never dare to be wrong, works well for the subservient.







As permanent magnets produce bi-polarity, the interference "spin offs" of fieldal + & - energy collisions produces the "levitation" effect if it is perfectly symetrical.
fortunately for us, this interference field is at a ratio of 1.61833:1 (phi:1), so more + than - & it's pushing more than pulling thus we are pushed against the surface of the earth.

We've observed one direction of a magnet vortex for a long time and called that magnetism.
Science has described the other direction of the magnetic vortex and called that gravity.


How much bullshit can you spew in one thread :rofl:

You're not intelligent and it's hilarious that you're trying to argue that gravity is fake rn
Member
Posts: 18,491
Joined: Sep 2 2008
Gold: 0.00
Jun 23 2016 09:07pm
i think you're probably smarter than most of this forum, which is probably what you really are trying to prove
but you're being a total derp in this thread
if you really have a problem with someone deferring to the scientific consensus rather than to you, i do not want to know what other crackpot shit your subscribe to
Member
Posts: 13,231
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 4.77
Jun 23 2016 09:09pm
Quote (Flameyes @ 23 Jun 2016 22:01)
How much bullshit can you spew in one thread :rofl:

You're not intelligent and it's hilarious that you're trying to argue that gravity is fake rn

Can you in any way shape or form produce evidence to show that is bullshit?
I never claimed to be intelligent stop projecting your own insecurities ty.



Quote (chemoshots @ 23 Jun 2016 22:07)
i think you're probably smarter than most of this forum, which is probably what you really are trying to prove
but you're being a total derp in this thread
if you really have a problem with someone deferring to the scientific consensus rather than to you, i do not want to know what other crackpot shit your subscribe to



Nope, I wanted to get people to look at flat earth with the proper level of speculation instead of just dismissing it. That was connected to my own allegory I devised as an atheist last year,
that I was also mocked for.
I'm not trying to prove anything emotional about myself.

I have real pieces of work to produce for proof in communities of critically thinking people.
This is what I do and I'm sharing it, instead of receiving or dismissing or scrutinizing what I'm sharing I'm being attacked as a person.

This post was edited by MaliceMizer on Jun 23 2016 09:14pm
Member
Posts: 30,432
Joined: Dec 28 2010
Gold: 134.69
Jun 23 2016 09:12pm
I'm pretty good at ohms and watts laws calculations
Member
Posts: 702
Joined: Jun 22 2016
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 40%
Jun 23 2016 09:15pm
Quote (dude_927 @ Jun 24 2016 02:12pm)
I'm pretty good at ohms and watts laws calculations


nice
Member
Posts: 53,597
Joined: Jun 5 2006
Gold: 5,388.33
Jun 23 2016 09:16pm
Quote (MaliceMizer @ Jun 23 2016 04:32pm)
safety in the majority huh? Never dare to be wrong, works well for the subservient.







As permanent magnets produce bi-polarity, the interference "spin offs" of fieldal + & - energy collisions produces the "levitation" effect if it is perfectly symetrical.
fortunately for us, this interference field is at a ratio of 1.61833:1 (phi:1), so more + than - & it's pushing more than pulling thus we are pushed against the surface of the earth.

We've observed one direction of a magnet vortex for a long time and called that magnetism.
Science has described the other direction of the magnetic vortex and called that gravity.


you didn't write a mathematical equation to represent the law
Member
Posts: 13,231
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 4.77
Jun 23 2016 09:52pm
Quote (majorblood @ 23 Jun 2016 22:16)
you didn't write a mathematical equation to represent the law



Last time I wrote with math for definition you said I had to express it simply.
Not so sure I could really produce an equation for gravity that easily based on this concept.
But I was looking at simplifying a NASA equation by some Robert Costen for atmospherics

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700032427.pdf

I found it when I was thinking I might have to argue that buoyancy concept on flat earth more.
That would be a decent relative & humanist approach




or I could just uninstall the time variables from my original equation change the dielectric time to planetary radiation half-life and do that + magnetism



Quote (dude_927 @ 23 Jun 2016 22:12)
I'm pretty good at ohms and watts laws calculations




“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” - Nikola Tesla



http://media1.shmoop.com/images/common-core/Ohms_law_triangle.png

This post was edited by MaliceMizer on Jun 23 2016 09:55pm
Member
Posts: 53,597
Joined: Jun 5 2006
Gold: 5,388.33
Jun 23 2016 10:08pm
Quote (MaliceMizer @ Jun 23 2016 07:52pm)
Last time I wrote with math for definition you said I had to express it simply.
Not so sure I could really produce an equation for gravity that easily based on this concept.
But I was looking at simplifying a NASA equation by some Robert Costen for atmospherics

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700032427.pdf

I found it when I was thinking I might have to argue that buoyancy concept on flat earth more.
That would be a decent relative & humanist approach

http://i.imgur.com/Tk75Mov.png


or I could just uninstall the time variables from my original equation change the dielectric time to planetary radiation half-life and do that + magnetism
http://i.imgur.com/g0rmxzf.png






http://media1.shmoop.com/images/common-core/Ohms_law_triangle.png
“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” - Nikola Tesla



http://media1.shmoop.com/images/common-core/Ohms_law_triangle.png


a mathematical equation is elegant, not a bunch of pictures with Microsoft paint swirls.
here is the EFE


or the more simple Newtonian gravitation which can be used for most gravitational interactions accurately outside of extreme conditions
Member
Posts: 13,231
Joined: Feb 1 2010
Gold: 4.77
Jun 23 2016 10:17pm
Quote (majorblood @ 23 Jun 2016 23:08)
a mathematical equation is elegant, not a bunch of pictures with Microsoft paint swirls.
here is the EFE
http://i.imgur.com/d08TegE.png

or the more simple Newtonian gravitation which can be used for most gravitational interactions accurately outside of extreme conditions
http://i.imgur.com/kao9b8L.png



That's why I said Newton was the truth, cause all that matters is #1
but under his premise my universe has an equal chance of existing,
and it's not some redic multiverse theory because of gorgeous math but is verifiable.
If singularity prevails over transcendence it'll be more impressive as far as scope but less impressive as far as divinity, i bet.


This post was edited by MaliceMizer on Jun 23 2016 10:20pm
Member
Posts: 53,597
Joined: Jun 5 2006
Gold: 5,388.33
Jun 23 2016 10:23pm
Quote (MaliceMizer @ Jun 23 2016 08:17pm)
That's why I said Newton was the truth, cause all that matters is #1
but under his premise my universe has an equal chance of existing,
and it's not some redic multiverse theory because of gorgeous math but is verifiable.
If singularity prevails over transcendence it'll be more impressive as far as scope but less impressive as far as divinity, i bet.


what are you trying to say? what is the mathematical law that represents your non-gravity phenomenon?
Go Back To General Archive Topic List
Prev13456733Next
Add Reply New Topic