Leaderboard

I will suggest one other axiom, then: 1) The opening post of this thread is meaningless word salad This being an axiom, no further proof or discussion will be necessary - its veracity is self-evident.

So-- I've read it all. and I do see some interesting points. However, I think the reason for a lot of bad feedback is that you are attempting to cover so much with so few words and lots of symbols. Just as an example, the sentence "Society (should/would/could) Service (a/the/those........" puts together many permutations of potential meaning all crammed into a singe sentence. For you this makes sense as a way to say much in little space-- for me it becomes a huge chore to separate the potential meanings, and even when the potential meanings are separate I can't be sure if they are the ones you meant to convey. Similarly, when you use two words with an equal sign in between "Individual perspective = reference" you are saying something that is obvious to you because you know the context in which you are making the statement. However, that context is in your mind but not in the written word. If you want others to understand you need to explain the context. In simple terms, if you want others to understand what you have to say you have to take the time to write whole sentences and explain things more. Try breaking the thing down into many parts a taking on only one part at a time.

I apologize... I was going in a very wrong way, very wrong, and you all showed me that. Hope not had made you waste your time too much. I admit now that even the statement of the title "No material can have a negative charge" is totally wrong. Negative materials do exist (as the discussed balloons), negative ions do exist, the commonly considered "ground" electric potential is not any positive potential, things cannot be explained by just the difference in positive potentials, a really zero potential is achieved at normal temperatures just whenever atoms have all of their electrons and not at 0ºK as I was considering... What a wrong way! I admit. Thanks to have made me "fall to the ground". I'm working on a model for the basic atomic particles considering them as not "point like" particles as is currently considered, I know. I cannot handle the concept of "point like" having a magnetic field. For me the proper definition of magnetic field involves a current element which means a displacement of charge and so imposible to exist "within" a point. A model still under development and I'm not thinking in abandon it easily although I need to reformulate it in something now. May be I could return with some other thing in mind to discuss in the forum at some time. Hope to not bother you too much...

No. Hydraulic pressure is determined by the depth of the liquid column, irrespective of its cross-section. So a 2" depth of mercury will float a 12" depth of rock (using your figures). Even if the mercury connects to the atmosphere via a pinhole. However, the rise of the rock vs the fall of the mercury level is in proportion to their respective cross-sectional areas. This ratio is also called the 'mechanical advantage' which can permit say 1 kg of mercury to lift say 1 tonne of rock.

Upgraded to permanent ban, since the trolling and thread hijacking have continued