Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Physics forums censor ship | Antenna | |||
sci.physics.electromag NEEDS YOU! | Antenna | |||
Physics according to toad | Policy | |||
NY TIMES says new super-small Hammie Antenna defies physics | CB | |||
Ye canna change the lars o' physics | CB |