gravity is electro-elastic it has the tendency to pull back.
E=mc2 questions?
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
That's your Hans Christian Anderson version of it.
Science sees gravity as exhibiting itself when spacetime is curved in the presence of mass.
Please stop using the science forums as a vehicle to push your unsupported fairy tales.
Very strange physics says if I lift an object off the floor and let go , it will return to the floor with a force greater than its own body weight, Physics also says that the higher I lift the object, the greater the force will be , the object will travel at 9.81m/s2 and will hit the ground at a speed and force depending on altitude.
Physics also says that the greater I stretch the object away from the force of gravity, my object will gain a greater speed in its return.
Now if you do not consider that to be of elastic properties, then you should give up now.
The facts are that you are posturing and pretending to gain some credibility of which you have zilch.
The facts are that your continued posturing and pretense is impressing no one and is further isolating yourself and your unsupported illogical views on gravity.
The facts are you are no Einstein, Feynman or Hawking. Stop pretending to be, and face the facts that you are wrong in all the hypothesis you have put here, evident in them all being shifted to the fringes and resulting in more tighter controlled science forums, permanently banning you.
Those are the facts.
So perhaps you need to take your own advice?
You can't be that blind to your own ignorance. Have you already forgotten that you argued strenuously for some ten pages for a badly wrong understanding of weight and mass?
I know gibberish when I see it as would anyone who passed a Junior High physics module.
Stop trolling my threads and putting big embold writing to try get noticed just because I am ignoring your duck friend now you have changed tactics, the mod has already spoken several times, you do not have to read or post but you persist on trolling.
Either talk about the facts I am presenting or stay out of the thread, how hard is that to understand?
i argued a valued point , you do not go to the super market and ask for a mass of apples , you ask for a kilo to be weighed, therefore a weight, it is not me who has a misuse of everyday words.
I repeat....Do not use the science forums to push your unsupported hypothetical nonsense.
You have no facts: You have no evidence: All your threads have been moved to the fringes including cesspool:
Other places far more strict then this have permanently banned you.
Those are pertinent facts.
Um, right.
You: I understand your definition of mass and weight been two different things.
You: I understand now why you separate , in every day it is different.
This has been explained to you time and again.
You stated that you understood and accepted that explanation (eventually).
And now you're disputing it. Again.
You're a dishonest troll.
The more I thought about it, the more I thought about newtons is the force, newtons change by altitude, but if I weighed the object the weight would still be the same, it is only the speed difference that makes higher newtons of force, so mass is technically weight, and newtons are force by speed, so yes I disagree again.
No, it won't. The force accelerating it will be equal to its weight, or alternatively mass times gravitational acceleration.
Incorrect. To lift it at a steady velocity requires a steady force. (Until you get high enough; then the force diminishes along with gravity.)
That's not a speed, that's an acceleration. You don't "travel" at an acceleration, you travel at a speed.
No stretching involved, just motion.
You seem to not understand even basic physics. If you are really serious about learning perhaps this will help:http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Physics-A-Self-Teaching-Guide/dp/0471134473
No, you are totally confused and befuddled.
You have unquestionably been given evidence and proof that they are not the same.
All you are doing now is being belligerent in fanatically trying to enforce your right to say what you like, even in the face of observational evidence that contradicts your silly obsessions and belligerent stance.
A good analogy is a 3 year old stamping his feet and taking home his cricket bat when given out.
That's an EHD thruster, which is a reaction engine. It is no more "antigravity" than a Falcon 9 rocket is.
I suggest you buy yourself that book. An object that is lifted off the floor and is dropped hits the floor greater than its own weight, example - 100g = 0.981n on the ground , at 10m high the force of the object hitting the ground is 9.81n ten times it own body weight.
5 lbs of apples on Earth will not weigh 5 lbs on the moon, however 5 kilos is always 5 kilos.
Well what ever it is, it is simple when you consider the facts and consider helium and hydrogen that are anti gravity, this is because there entropy gain of energy is greater than the loss of energy, this allows them to lift away from gravity, the denser gases that remain hugged to the surface , there gain by being denser is not enough to equal the loss, unless an hot day or a fire etc.
That is, simply put, complete nonsense. Simple example - every drinking glass in the world can sustain 2G's acceleration. That's the sort of acceleration you get if you brake very hard in a good car. Now drop the glass from 2 meters onto a tile floor. You claim that it should experience only 2 G's, or 2 times its own weight.
Try it and let us know what happens.
- Status