manipulating electrons and quarks to negate gravity

[NotEinstein]

realising the importance of the use of language in scientific terms

Prefacing a sentence with the word "honestly" is not using it in a scientific manner; it's using it conversationally. Please learn how the English language works.

you have decided to flog a dead horse that you lead to water then shot because it asked if there was a different flavour water availible.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please learn how the English language works.

the "flogging" part of your post is "shouting" the same thing "etherial honesty" as a metaphor to subframe the debate into a pre coded version of what you intend to pull out of it.

What do you mean? What is "ethereal honesty"?

the application of the technical specificity is important ?

What do you mean by "technical specificity"?

My point is that, in the first sentence of the OP, the TS is saying (s)he is trying to negate gravity. Many posts later, (s)he says (s)he's not trying to negate gravity. That's a direct contradiction, that I pointed out. Please learn how logic works.

thus injecting the term "honesty" should suddenly be translated into something else ?

What does this have to do with what I wrote? In fact, I only "injected" the term "honesty" posts later.​

... ?

of "any" variety ?

intellectualy honest ?[/QUOTE]
What does my comment you intellectual honesty have to do with your unexplained term "harmonic field generators of some variety"? Please learn how the English language works.

you appear to be trolling.

It appears you are trolling yourself! You are seeing things in my posts that are most definitely not there.

i look forward to you proving me wrong.

I doubt that I can; if your grasp of the English language is truly this poor, I don't think I can help you understand everything you got wrong. Please learn how the English language works!

Edit: Oh, and I see you've chosen to once again ignore all of my on-topic questions. See, this is why I asked you about your intellectual honesty: you are attacking strawmen (your own delusions about what I said), instead of simply answering straight-forward questions about what you meant when you said certain things.

 

[NotEinstein]

I see I messed up one of the quotes in post #61... Too late to edit. Also, auto-correct changed "etherial honesty" into "ethereal honesty" without me noticing, sorry about that misquote.

I'm only now noticing RainbowSingularity's post right before mine. I see (s)he didn't quote me, nor addressed me directly, but let me address it anyway:

i conceed your points to err on my ignorance while accepting your greater comprehention of NE's meanings.

Does that mean you owe me an apology? I'm willing to admit that I probably used too harsh a tone in post #61; I have a quite low tolerance for immorality, but if you didn't mean it that way, I'm fully willing to retract those parts of my posts.

noting some subjects are off limits...

Illegal subjects are. Subjects against the forum rules are. Pseudoscientific ones aren't; that what this whole subforum is for!

And DaveC426913: thanks for your support!​

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I see I messed up one of the quotes in post #61... Too late to edit. Also, auto-correct changed "etherial honesty" into "ethereal honesty" without me noticing, sorry about that misquote.

I'm only now noticing RainbowSingularity's post right before mine. I see (s)he didn't quote me, nor addressed me directly, but let me address it anyway:

Does that mean you owe me an apology? I'm willing to admit that I probably used too harsh a tone in post #61; I have a quite low tolerance for immorality, but if you didn't mean it that way, I'm fully willing to retract those parts of my posts.


Illegal subjects are. Subjects against the forum rules are. Pseudoscientific ones aren't; that what this whole subforum is for!

And DaveC426913: thanks for your support!​

soo you are appologising for using the deliberate slur "word salad" ?

That is gibberish; you appear to just be stringing words together, resulting in a meaningless word-salad.

because if your not, then i assign you as "troll" and will add you to my ignore list
while adding dave to a trolls assistant personality.

 

[DaveC426913]

soo you are appologising for using the deliberate slur "word salad" ?

That is not a slur. Word salad has a particular meaning, and it is descriptive here.

Again, how long must NE be patient trying to get meaning out of the OP before he has to explain to the OP why he's not making sense?

because if your not, then i assign you as "troll" and will add you to my ignore list
while adding dave to a trolls assistant personality.

Troll does not mean simply 'someone whose opinion I don't like'.

Again, NE is doing the very opposite of trolling by actually engaging with the OP.

One definition of troll is someone who attempts to disrupt an ongoing conversation. Technically, you are the one being disruptive, by derailing it to anything other than the actual topic under discussion.

So: if you have something to contribute, why not provide content, rather than just provide friction?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

That is not a slur. Word salad has a particular meaning, and it is descriptive here.

Again, how long must NE be patient trying to get meaning out of the OP before he has to explain to the OP why he's not making sense?


Troll does not mean simply 'someone whose opinion I don't like'.

Again, NE is doing the very opposite of trolling by actually engaging with the OP.

One definition of troll is someone who attempts to disrupt an ongoing conversation. Technically, you are the one being disruptive, by derailing it to anything other than the actual topic under discussion.

So: if you have something to contribute, why not provide content, rather than just provide friction?

no
i am not entertaining your tag a troll non reply games.

your both added to my ignore list

 

[DaveC426913]

no
i am not entertaining your tag a troll non reply games.
your both added to my ignore list

We'll manage.

 

[NotEinstein]

soo you are appologising for using the deliberate slur "word salad" ?

The term "word salad" is not a slur; I suggest you look both up in a dictionary. If you interpreted it as an offensive term: it was not meant as such.

because if your not, then i assign you as "troll" and will add you to my ignore list
while adding dave to a trolls assistant personality.

In that case: I apologize. I didn't mean to offend, and didn't know you would take this so badly. All I was trying to point out was that, using the standard definitions of the terms you used, your text doesn't seem to make much sense in the current scientific paradigm. I wasn't trying to troll, honestly.

 

[NotEinstein]

We'll manage.

Well, if what happened here was a good indication, we have good company there.

 

[gamelord]

Done some googling, it says Gravitons (Gravity particles which cause gravity) are indeed real. I hypothesized their existence in the past, but was not sure.

In any case, I am not an expert on gravity so I would not be an expert on Anti-gravity. Google tells me that gravity is caused by a curvature in space-time, but I do not fully understand it. The diagrams depict time as a spatial dimension, drawn on 2d diagrams, which confuses me.

The main thing I do not get about it, is this. Saying a curvature in space-time, causes gravity, implies that Time is a thing, or force. It makes no sense to me because Time is merely a measure of Movement, it is not an additive force. So how could a curvature in Space-time cause an additive force at all? Because if two objects are at rest, they are not moving. So it doesn't matter what direction space-time is curved, the objects have no destination so there is no "force" there to give them the path of least resistance, they are not moving at all to begin with.

 

[NotEinstein]

Done some googling, it says Gravitons (Gravity particles which cause gravity) are indeed real. I hypothesized their existence in the past, but was not sure.

Their existence has, to the best of my knowledge, yet to be proven.

In any case, I am not an expert on gravity so I would not be an expert on Anti-gravity. Google tells me that gravity is caused by a curvature in space-time, but I do not fully understand it. The diagrams depict time as a spatial dimension, drawn on 2d diagrams, which confuses me.

They don't depict time as a spatial dimension, except in the obvious case it often is in graphs?

The main thing I do not get about it, is this. Saying a curvature in space-time, causes gravity, implies that Time is a thing, or force.

Time is most definitely not a force. Time can be a thing, depending on your definition of the word "thing".

It makes no sense to me because Time is merely a measure of Movement,

False in GR. There, time is a dimension, not some measure, and it's definitely not dependent on movement. Time can still pass in a static universe (i.e. a universe where nothing moves). Sure, time is quite useless in such a case, but not non-existent.

it is not an additive force.

Correct; it's not a force at all.

So how could a curvature in Space-time cause an additive force at all?

Very over-simplified: say you are moving forward in a straight line, but space (i.e. the coordinate system) itself is curving. When you check your coordinates, you are drifting sideways according to the numbers. It appears as if a force is acting on you.

Because if two objects are at rest, they are not moving.

False in GR: both objects are still moving through time.

So it doesn't matter what direction space-time is curved, the objects have no destination so there is no "force" there to give them the path of least resistance, they are not moving at all to begin with.

Since they're still moving (through time), this isn't what's happening.

 

[James R]

So how could a curvature in Space-time cause an additive force at all?

I like to explain it this way.

Imagine two ships on the equator, separated by 90 degrees of longitude. Both of them sail due North. As time goes on they see that they are getting closer and closer together, until finally they meet at the North Pole. Therefore, they could say that there is some kind of attractive force that is pushing them together. But looking at this situation from outside, no force is needed - the apparent "attraction" is simply an effect of the curvature of the Earth.

Gravity is just like that, only in 4 dimensions instead of 3.

 

[Hayden]

Gravity cannot be negated or eliminated, of course counter force can be applied.

 

[gamelord]

I like to explain it this way.

Imagine two ships on the equator, separated by 90 degrees of longitude. Both of them sail due North. As time goes on they see that they are getting closer and closer together, until finally they meet at the North Pole. Therefore, they could say that there is some kind of attractive force that is pushing them together. But looking at this situation from outside, no force is needed - the apparent "attraction" is simply an effect of the curvature of the Earth.

Gravity is just like that, only in 4 dimensions instead of 3.

I can visualize the two boats moving to the north pole, but I cannot visualize it in terms of gravity.

Second, the boats are still using an additive force - the propellers.

Very over-simplified: say you are moving forward in a straight line, but space (i.e. the coordinate system) itself is curving. When you check your coordinates, you are drifting sideways according to the numbers. It appears as if a force is acting on you.

This is the problem here. You say I must move forward, in a straight line, for gravity to happen.
But if I am not moving at all, gravity still happens to me.

 

[NotEinstein]

This is the problem here. You say I must move forward, in a straight line, for gravity to happen.
But if I am not moving at all, gravity still happens to me.

(I see I've forgotten to respond to this; sorry!)

Even though you may not be moving in space, you are still moving through spacetime (i.e. time is still ticking forward for you). That's the big deal about the theory of relativity: space and time cannot be seen as separate; you must treat them as two aspects of one spacetime.