On Dec 4, 9:28*am, K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:50*am, Art Unwin wrote:



On Dec 3, 7:46*pm, Richard Clark wrote:

On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:22:53 -0800 (PST), some gomer wrote:
There is no way a charge can travel in a straight line up to the
heavens and down again
without the neutralisation of gravity and without the auspices of
spin .

How does one neutralize gravity? *The anti-gravity of comic books?

Let's see, the energy of an electromagnetic interaction is
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times greater than gravity.

So, when an electron pushes a charge against gravity, it has 400dB
more effect than gravity pulling back. *In comic book terms, that is a
Thousand, Billion, Billion, Billion times stronger than gravity.

An ant weighs 0.003 grams, and the Earth weighs 5.9 x 10^27 g, so you
would need 10000000000 planet Earths to replicate the neutralization
between the energy of gravity and the energy of electromagnetic
interaction (assuming the ant was an electron of ant-like proportions,
energy-wise).

Such is the sandtrap of neutralization across units of measure. *It is
much like the folks of 100 years ago claiming a car couldn't drive up
a hill without a warp drive engine with a dilithium crystal controlled
gravimetric field displacement manifold.

As we all know (or almost all), Gene Roddenberry is the authority to
turn to on the basis of this last claim being fulfilled some 50 years
from now by Zefram Cochrane developing the first warp-capable
starship. *How we currently get to the top of hills in a car is
considered as an example of superstitious mass hysteria.

We can all rest assured that this meets the criteria of not coming
from any text book because it hasn't happened yet. **Whew* *Hence, it
cannot be disproven. *Don't rush to the patent office however, this is
considered Post-Art.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Just rubbish
You are just being foolish. Have you never elevated anything using
magnets? If you haven't then buy a kit to see it for yourself.
The same is used in many places in science
and Industry where transport is raised to avoid friction. I warrant
that you probably can see same on video on the net or a frog suspended
in air .
If you cannot neutralize gravity then you cannot have straight line
trajectory. Period. When a particle is raised from a surface then you
do not have to account for friction when propelling
or accelerating it. Thus all energy applied is used solely to achieve
radiation without the burden of friction created by skin depth which
is not accounted for in Maxwells equations as it reduces efficiency.
As I said at the beginning you are just acting silly or being a
fool.Or, have no understanding of the term equilibrium or Newtons laws
for that matter. Now a question, Why did Maxwell use the term
"displacement current" and what was he suggesting what was being
displaced from the control of gravity? Now get going, collect a lot of
random words. Put them in a container and shake it and pull out a word
at a time as you normally do with any written response.

you can oppose gravity, but you cannot neutralize it. *yes, you can
levitate with magnets, but if gravity were not still in operation the
item would fly off into space due to centrifugal force. *if just
levitating something is evidence of neutralizing gravity then you can
do it by just using pressurized air to lift something... of course you
could theorize that the military has figured out how to neutralize
gravity because they use hovercraft, that would make a nice conspiracy
theory.

I am anxious to look at the browsing hints you supplied in your other
posting . But for the moment I want to look at the word "neutralize"
which I refer to as generating a state of equilibrium. We are
obviously intending the same meaning or observation so now I have to
look up the dictionary to see what the problem is with the term
"neutralize"
Thank you