ImplicitDemands

Like I said, my lifts are down right now. These past four days have been..weird. I'm not going back on my daily penance, I'm just trying to get back on a normal sleep routine.

That's interesting. I haven't emitted a thing about what the physics I offer on here, if that's what your little band is cohesing. Is that a David Carradine monologue I missed in Kill Bill?

Oh was it? I claimed it already happened, RECENTLY. Has been happening since the first generation. BTW the 9th step says EXCEPT when it threatens you or your own. They don't tell you what that except entails. From my reading of it they will turn away. They ain't gettin' in the middle of that shit. If anyone heard my voice say some of these words...oooooooohhh

Yeah but that doesn't get a lot of traction. And we don't live long, so don't expect a lot of holding out. There's no real interest I suppose in fairness.

You need to know the diameters as they get closer or further away. When you or your heirs figure it out, I'll concede.

But has Victor Timely finally met his match made in heaven?

Sphere or cube, trig in general is tricky in 3D Ya'll can't navigate for crap

I may have my own equivalency. I don't feel shame, no. I'm not going to rehash my life any further.

Again, it's difficult to dig the shame in the context of whatever I wrote. Why don't you try and put the shame in me again? See if that helps. Maybe if you ease up, or go the other way, it might have the opposite effect that it's having. Not suggesting you do so, quite the contrary. But if you were Thomas Edison you might attempt eliminating that which does not work until something works. It's the hero role betrayed. The hero helps others, harms self. This only works if he has help. Considerably more help. You failed to understand.

I was more along the lines of a single jump. Destination would need to be an atmosphere. A star has the particles, any planet does, but only an atmosphere could support the integrity of the craft. But there's a lot I need to look over according to ^

My point is these are physics questions. We obviously know enough about physics, we've been over it in the topic. I was just trying to clarify if the bar magnet could be controlled in the way that I described. One small element that everything else rested upon.

I think we should build a really big campfire!

I don't understand the nature of some of these allegations. They seem to be broaching on the most heinous of levels imaginable. Someone could end up in a lot of trouble just for these words. As I said before, I try to rise above negative connotations when the letters form into slurred lines. If the goal is to get a reaction, invoke shape, force a false confession that may satisfy another's agenda, or otherwise provoke a reaction of some kind. I've done plenty for less and still saw a net zero return. If there were a return in the way I'd wished it yielded a negative value. So I stay neutral at all times. Let the lawmen do their jobs, and let me continue my studies as the other thread shows I still have much to learn. I misunderstood the term misogyny as massage. That was a positive value in retrospect, probably the only one. Or as close as I can to a positive from what I have to compare it to.

When you consider the problem with surpassing the speed of light is that the object takes on greater and greater amounts of drag as it accelerates close to the speed of light. So then if the spacecraft is accelerated by gravity/mass/drag in front then the problem is that drag ends up decelerating it when it moves said distance. So what if one were deleting the drag in the spaceship's wake as it is moved forward. Again, I'm not saying that this is the dark energy causing galaxies to gain separation as that hasn't been officially established. Should there already be any such proposals, I'll have a look. Not enough information was provided to establish that I don't know about the double slit experiment and it's theorized implications. It's obvious I quoted the Copenhagen interpretation because I was tired of writing it. That doesn't mean I just looked it up, maybe I just didn't like spelling it out again. Okay, "contributed" wasn't the right word, I guess annexed was a better word. Einstein gave us most of this information in the 1905 paper "Photoelectric effect" and "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Content?" that same year. These are just matters of semantics. I did not know someone else attempted this. So it would be interesting to see how we differ. I'll have to self-check it. I was being melodramatic because I feel having an incomplete picture is as good as having nothing. Even if the incomplete picture can still be used for all kinds of advantages they'd still pale in comparison to the complete picture. Photons are the quanta of energy. Energy is mass times the speed of light squared. You know this. Okay, this is given matter and its mass are inseparable or rather one and the same. If you take away the entire mass of a body of matter, it becomes energy and nothing is left over. I've heard claims that they've created antimatter, however I have my own thoughts on the matter. Again, I'll have to fall back on my research.

While it's true turning gravity off can only leave you with a perfect vacuum, the rates that can be achieved by gravity alone in front of the craft is potentially limitless - if the fact that light is unable to escape the event horizon can be taken at face value. Especially if you're removing 100% of the drag behind the ship. Or you could just teleport through a superposition/entangled states depending on which view of the Copenhagen interpretation you take. So you've contributed to what I said about the maximum energy output being the square of a given unit of mass times the speed of light. I actually have a youtube video showing how you don't even need modern technology to get an approximate speed of light. I can't share it for personal reasons. "We" still don't know everything about it. Let's brainstorm some unknowns: 1. The quantum venn diagram paradox, 2. Why matter can be transformed into it 3. Why it possesses particle wave duality 4. We don't even know why particular wavelengths are produced under various conflicting conditions In essence, if we really don't understand light how can we understand the three effects in the opening post? The point of bringing it up is that the real science garners enough interest for someone to devote their work to appealing to a new generation 100 years after these problems were posed. Just look at the layers of separation between the Copenhagen interpretation and DC comics. It permeates everything because it is real, and it is mysterious. I'm simply saying if I were to claim how much power it actually has. Wouldn't dare compare it to religion though.

Hurt someone by not sharing my quantum physics with the world? No let's be honest here and call it for what it is. It's a gun or at best a taser, to thwart some imagined threat woven from some out-of-context babble, as you're about to try. In most cases it does even more damage than a taser ever could, because it attacks the brain. The same can be said for street drugs. It's called humor. Sometimes laughter at the wrong moment can be a critical error, especially when it's manic. Such as laughing at something said, that something having a deeply personal and traumatic context that you didn't realize it possessed. I even know when to switch to a straight face mid-laughter. The entire Batman-Joker complex is the most difficult temperament one could ever attain. If someone is just seeing the last part of this latest comment, they're probably thinking I'm an incel because I still read comic books. 🤣

Why on earth would that irritate anyone?

Those aren't even the reasons I'm opposed to use of medication in the first place. Not one of those points touch on the fact that a chemical, however complex, just isn't sufficient to rewire an entire labyrinth of synaptic-patterns in real-time. Alcohol and any mind-altering substance simply can't compete with a living working brain. In general. There is no wonder drug, there never will be. You know what else a psychiatrist does? Apply a massive voltage to the brain. They also poke needles into it through the eyeball.

This comes from it being the color of blood. Which has nothing to do with why I found it aesthetic when I was too young to even think about it. You know what the color green looks like? Vomit. You know at least blood doesn't smell as bad as stomach acid. As far as the wavelength of light goes, at least red is at one end of the spectrum. On the end is fricken purple. It's like difference between masculine and feminine. Red being the longest wavelength more heat dispersal, purple the shortest and therefore more hot-tempered. Blue and green aren't even at either side of the spectrum, they don't even matter.

It's funny that you'd trust a psychiatrist, basically a drug dealer, that much to actually act out on it.

Seriously I want everyone that has been sending me negative reputations to take a long look at themselves in the mirror after carefully viewing this chart If you look at the colors in the chart and compare that to reputations, justify the reason you're giving them and see if you don't in reality fall along the victim side in doing so. Some believe the color green has been associated with jealousy dating back to the ancient Greeks. They believed jealousy occurred as result of the overproduction of bile, which turned human skin slightly green. One potential explanation for the color red being associated with power is that this color is often used to draw attention. 9 This increased attention signifies that something is important, and power and importance often go hand in hand.

Let us get one thing very clear. What you are referring starts with the letter r. And it has lighter forms, including hercy jerky arranged marriage. Or even a sh-t date if you want to get very mild. In fact dating in poverty or bad social status could be compared to the r-word. I compared the r-word to an vicarious experience, possibly manufactured, that I have experienced far too often lately. My first time r-worded me of what it could have been for me. So I would like it if you recognized my needs for quality as being the opposite of the r word, and please discontinue alluding toward it, even remotely. Even if the slightest revelations I've shared were trivial, if they were accurate and intuitive (meaning not explicitly apart of the information provided for me) than that shows I'm capable of learning something not so trivial. Don't you think, that if there were enough interest in the potential of the human mind to spend massive amounts of effort rehashing old philosophers and mathematicians long gone, that if there were the slightest chance that someone has shown that kind of potential is deceitful, and withholding, that this isn't a problem to be addressed? Of course the solution is always a negative one, not a positive one, because brute force is a quick fix and society has become cheap and uncreative. Speaking of negatives vs positives, I see a lot of member here with over a thousand positive reps. I haven't seen anyone with 1000 negative reps. Let's see, iNow has 7,069 positive reps so if I just had another 7,049 negative reps, I'd at least be a worthy villain. Not this 20 crap, I mean I'm not even the highest score in negative reps. Red is my favorite color. I'm sorry, for a laugh I just had to add this video given the context.

Now hang on, if dark energy expands space, and dark matter holds galaxies together against dark energy - and the alcubierre warp bubble is by definition the expansion of space behind the spaceship and the contraction of space in front of it - than this matches the description of the AWB. Looking at the definition of dark energy, I would have started with the idea that it turns gravity off before finding a mechanism that does just that. Looking at the definition of dark matter I would have started with singularities above the planck particle scale but below anything that lasts long enough to detect with our instruments. The collective. Although if I were an individual of the collective and I had the answers I'd keep them to myself. But that's just me. I never thought of it that way. How intuitive you are. Scratch that, reverse it. I would have found the mechanism first like with the micro-singularity. It looks less suspicious if I wasn't trying to find something for convenience but it accidently came up on some table for rate of change, for something else entirely.