insane_alien

no i'm on level 6 now and have been for quite some time. for level five just do exactly as it says. append 3. you'll kick yourself when you get it.

silicon oxide nano particles have bugger all to do with what your suggesting happens to an iron nuclei when you shine an infrared laser on it. NASA's work actually makes sense where yours does not. get a bloody clue.

oh its a plasma jet now is it? stop talking crap. you yourself have admitted that you are not a scientist there are people here far smarter than you or i who have told you this is utter crap. you have no evidence, you have no internally consistent hypothesis and your own 'evidence' proves you wrong. now give it a rest.

don't magnets work on a inverse cube law because they have poles? ok, i was wrong about the speeds and gravity and all that.

Janus, thats what i did. i did the math in the other thread. i'll post it here too and you can tell me where its wrong. never quoted my self before. what CPL came up with is orbital velocity at the surface of the earth.

CPL, you would be going at around 11 km/s at the centre but you would slow don to 0 by he surface. the escape velocity of 11 km/s is for going 11km/s at the surface. not the centre

i would start by making a graph and then trying to find a function to fit the data.

maybe because he doesn't have lab equipment?

looking through sayonaras blog just there looking for part 2 of that creationist thing i seen a suspicious google ad on the page. [ATTACH]1393[/ATTACH] sayonaras secret past time maybe? let the speculation begin. please don't kill me sayonara.

solar could also take a bit of the load off our power stations. like, all ne homes have a couple of solar panels on them, doesn't need to be all that big(say 1kW per home)thats a megawatt less power needed per 1000 homes during the day

lets look at this from the energy perspective. at the centre you will have 0J of gravitational potential energy at the surface you will have (-6.6742*10-11*5.9742*10^24*70)/6278100 =-4376084406 J of potential energy KE = 0.5*m*v^2 v^2=2*KE/m v=sqrt(2*KE/m) v=11181.7 m s^-1 which just so happens to be escape velocity as well.

you probably have a lot of impurities.

is this the same guy who wanted this to catch his friend stealing food from him? or was that another guy/forum/reality?

food colouring can do it IIRC. safe too. and theres something else that makes your pee a luminous orange but i can't remember wahat that is.

The H came about through mattercoalecence as the universe cooled. the high energy gamma rays that existed at the time turned into matter-antimatter pairs and eventually the matter won out(at least in this part of the universe) helium and lithium formed from fusion reactions and beta decay of heavy hydrogen atoms H-3 and up.

well, whe do have quantum computers just now but they suck at the moment. it needs further research to bring them up to the standards of a modern PC

Ok, I have went and skimmed over all of the posts on this subject and have made a few notes. It seems that Alph-137's model of gravity is independant of mass(Iron or otherwise) as seen in his post about watching blocks of hot iron being carried on forklifts linkage. I draw this conclusion because a tiny block of iron is lifting up gravel against the ENTIRE core of the earth. so his would make newtons gravity into Fg=G/r^2 from Fg=GMm/r^2. but wait! there is a way to make up for this difference. his model is apparently dependant on temperature as well,there are numerous posts saying it is thermal transfer causing this. so we can add a delta T part to the equation. so now we have Fg=GdT/r^2 another thing evident in that post is that it is not consistant. it is only intermittent. now. he has also said 'newtons and einsteins math does not need to be changed' well; 1. Einsteins GR supercedes newtons obsolete maths so therefore his is irrelevenat and could be thrown out 2. Looking above, yes they DO need to be changed. it can't just be pesky mass causing all this gravityit must be the strong force which only has a tiny tiny range thats less than the diameter of most nuclei. now, newons gravity works quite well, it predictsorbital velocities and planets have even been found using this maths. Discrepencies such as mercuries perihelion advancing are covered by Einsteins more accurate GR. Even cold objects can be observed to have huge gravitational fields such as gas and dust clouds in space. in some cases they can bend light by an observable amount. this obviously rules out a temperature dependance. conclusion: Alpha-137's model of gravity CRAP! of course i am willing to address any further arguments Alpha presents but i suggest he learns some more physics. a little knowledge can be a dnagerous thing.

a metre or two

the strong force does not have the range to hold electrons it is mainly an electrostatic attraction with a small amount of magnetism thrown in for good measure also, electrons cannot interact with the strong force. only the weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces.

i don't see it. why don't you describe it

this should be N/m not N/s

ok, so in your hypothesis, gravity is caused by the polarization of the strong force. you say it has 2 poles but what about the other 4. the strong force has 6 types of charge. could you explain this?

he would not be able to as his 'past self' would be there and since he doesn't remember swapping places with his 'future self' when he wrote on the paper means that it never happened and john would have seen an A.

ahh ok. well i would be interested in investigating the unknown source but i think it will turn out to be a known phenomenon rather than a new means to power the globe.

well, electrons are generally in the lowest energy level they can be in at anygiven time and won't go up without input of energy. they can't go lower so i don't know whats he's talking about. your not quite wrong canada, you just forgot that it has to go up to be able to go down.