mooeypoo

I can see how you think you can't see tides if you're not looking (though it's COMPLETELY irrelevant.. you can't see magnetism either and it obviously exists, as do many other concepts). But Gravity? Dude.. you feel it all the time, you just got USED to it. Ask astronauts in orbit how painful it is to try and sleep the first night. Because of the lack of gravity, the spine is no longer compressed - the spine stretches, the muscles do too, and it's quite uncomfortable. You feel gravity ALL THE TIME, from simple actions like (oh) walking, to more subtle things like your compressed spine. Be serious, really. First off, the "Thus" does not fit here, because your initial premise is nonsense. Second, what, in all that is physics in this world, is the "Vibrating Level" ? Seriously, jsaldea12, if you want to participate in an actual debate, you will need to CONDUCT an actual debate. You're just throwing up terms that make no sense, do not exist, and are unsupported by anything, and then say "Thus -- conclusion!" .. how is that even remotely science? How is that even remotely LOGICAL? It's not. They're BOTH attractive. We showed you they can. You either didn't read, or don't care to read and learn. Either way, you're not making sense, nor are you putting up any sort of valid argument. Quite frankly, your above sentence is equivalen to me saying "A banana isn't a fruit." as a statement. Yes it is, whether I want it or not. If I was shown proof that it is, then I can either keep my hands on my eyes and ears and stomp the ground because I reaally really reaallllyyyy want banana not to be a fruit, or accept that I was shown the evidence against my wrong statement,and revise my theory to actually fit reality. Choose, my friend. Are you going to stomp the ground and fight reality, or do you actually want to do some actual physics? Read swansont's remark. Stop ignoring what you don't like to hear. My 6 year old cousin stopped doing that a year ago, you should too. You think wrong. Either educate yourself or prove *us* wrong, but proving us wrong will not happen with babbling googligook. It will happen with math and evidence. You have supplied absolute zero. That is, to put it mildly, insufficient. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you start taking yourself seriously. ~moo

It is? Okay, let me demonstrate something, proton. I will your next sentence and use my own terms in it: Original: Mine: So because 60% of mayan books don't use rel-mass you want to mother 100% of the people here not to? Unwise. I consider the mayan culture pretty modern for its time, so I don't see a problem using "mayan" instead of what you consider "modern". Texts are also more specifically defined as books, so I will be using books instead. The term 'force' is used in F=ma, and 'ma' sounds like the abbreviation to "mom" so I will be using "Mother" instead. Now. Can you talk to me, understand what I'm saying, and respond properly if I do any of the above, specifically if I would've done it *without* putting up the index of what I changed and to what after? The entire point of this thread is that your question was NOT clear. We have no problems letting people discuss other concept of mass, but you will need to define them first, so we can all understand what you're talking about. Otherwise we will assume (naturally) that when you say "mass" you mean what everyone *agrees* mass to be, and not what you want it to be. Redefine the term, or use a different one, either way, if you want a mutual discussion you will need to cooperate with the "mutual" part of it; the language. Definitions exist so we can know what we're talking about. To be quite honest, proton, you don't "choose" to use them or not, you have to use them otherwise no one understands what you're talking about. If you want to use "mass" in a different definition than the one that is accepted, you have 2 options: (1) Define, at the top of your post/paper that every time someone sees the word "mass" they should actually consider it as rest mass (or relative mass, or whatever is), so people can understand you. (2) Switch to a subject that is dealing with pseudoterms and definitions, like philosophy. Otherwise, you're going to have to stick to the norm, or no one with understand you.

That's a good point Sysiphus, if I may just add that this so-called 'law' also isn't consistent with all other physical concepts. That is, while opposites attract in electrodynamics (more or less), opposites do not attract in gravity, or relativity, etc. There is no such law.

Great! Then you can bring us citations of those books so we can borrow them in the library, open them up in the designated page, and read what you're talking about. There is no such law, you've invented it, or you misunderstood an actual physical law. The only way we can tell if it's your imaginative invention or a misunderstanding of an actual law is if you bring us the source that you take this from. If you have no sources, please move on. There is no such law, we won't be convinced that there's such a law until you prove that the law exists, either by deriving it mathematically or giving us a citation from a book that does that. ~moo

But there is no "anti gravity". There IS NO opposite for gravity, gravity is an ATTRACTING force. There's no such thing as a repelling gravity. By "Laws of Opposite" Do you mean Newton's Second Law? That's not laws of opposite, it defines the reaction of objects to forces exerted on them.. that does not make gravity 'dual' or 'opposite'. Gravity is attracting. By definition..... http://www.iit.edu/~johnsonp/smart00/lesson4.htm http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=289 The above are the small tidbits on the physics of tides. We know how tides work. Not quite, they have different effects.. but you are right about both being affected by gravity. I don't quite get your claim, then. So.. everything is affected by gravity? Einstein's relativity does not completely negate Newton's laws, you know.. there *are* other things out there other than gravity.

Who's "we" ? ... do you have any evidence / supporting facts / mathematics / references to support these claims?

wonderd, flash powder - and this process in general - is extremely dangerous and unsafe, and should not be handled by an amateur or outside a lab. Random readers are urged AGAINST doing this procedure outside a controlled, professional environment. Please go over our HazMat policy, as we don't allow for hazardous material discussions in this forum for the safety of everyone involved. ~moo

Sure. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/bigbang.html huh? You're making no sense. As far as I know, we don't know. That doesn't mean a nuclear bomb did it..

jsaldea12, in Physics we discuss valid physics - math- and evidence-based science. The Pseudoscience and Speculation forum is intended to host hypotheses and ideas that are either borderline or not yet supported by valid evidence. Yours is *NOT* mainstream science, it is NOT supported by evidence, and hence does NOT blong in the mainstream physics forum. Please take this move as a chance to improve your theory and supply some valid evidence to the matter. Math would help. If it wasn't clear, thread was moved to Pseudoscience and Speculation forum, where it will stay until the hypothesis within it is proven to be valid. ~moo

FEELING has nothing to do with it. You have supplied no math or any sort of *valid* evidence to your theories, hence it is NOT mainstream, and does NOT belong on the mainstream forum. Do not post it there, it will be against the rules. It will be moved, and likely result in some moderation action. Keep your discussion where it belongs: Right here. I recommend you concentrate on providing some valid evidence to your CURRENT claims in your CURRENT threads that are, currently, quite lacking, before you go on to post yet another incoheret unsupported bunch of googligook wordsalad. ~moo

No, water is a very poor conductor. It's the *salt* ions that conduct electricity, which is why salty water conduct better than fresh water. Of course we can feel it, we see the tides. If you mean the human body can't feel it, you can't really feel electromagnetism either unless it's huge - same with gravity. You feel gravity towards Earth, because you're close enough to its surface for it to be larger than other forces of gravity from other planets/celestial objects. Gravity is attractive force. There's no such thing as "Attraction Gravity", it's a repetition. Not only *can* these be explained by Einstein's theories, they *are* explained with Einstein's theories, and are supported by math that *predicts* occurrences. If you have a better idea about how things work, you really should start supplying actual math to support it; your claims are comparative ("stronger"/"weaker"/etc) and thus will be proven with math quite clearly. I'm waiting for the math and its predictive capabilities. Can you show your math to be better than the current mathematical concept that supports and predicts the CURRENT theory? If so, show it.

Awesome, then there's no reason not to go back on topic. I am not referring to a specific member when I ask you *all* to please get back on topic, so we can discuss the topic and not discuss the discussion.

No, they're not unified, they're individual forces. Plus.. what is "re-gravity"?

It might've been helpful if you posted the link along with your hypothesis, bombus. Guys, let's please drop the mutual accusations and get back on topic. You might all benefit from going over the Speculation Policy. The fact this thread is in P&S does not make it a free-for-all ideafest. ~moo

I don't know about pseudo, I am just not sure what you mean.. I'm completely lost. If a constant is a constant (not a variable), then obviously the relationship to anything else constant is the same.. Pi is like that. The speed of light is like that too. So... I don't quite get your point.

Out of some weird belief that his pictures are worth billions of dollars, Orifiel has asked for them to be removed. As a result, the images in the original post have been switched to alternative images. Have a nice day.

bombus, you said "forget about QM", but then you made a comment about what *you* think to be the deepest levels of operation of the brain (that the neurons "think for themselves" via smaller structures, etc). You used this hypothesis to say that "even the fundamental mechanisms are not that well understood." You posted it as a direct reply to Sysiphus' first point about what "Deepest Level" means. So you gave an answer talking aobut what you think the deepest level is, related it to what others remarked about deepest level is, and the entire conversation is (in broader context) about why it is or isn't about QM. The fact you said "Forget QM" in the beginning of your paragraph doesn't mean the context has vanished. You made the context yourself, bombus. Stop moving the goal post, and please stop changing subjects all the time, it's very confusing. ~moo

bombus, I'm not ignoring your previous reply, it will just take me a bit more to go over it thoroughly and give you proper answers. This, however, popped up and I thought it needs a quick one: (Emphasis by me) You do understand that this is a highly unproven hypothesis, right? I am not saying it's wrong, but since it's not proven and isn't (yet) supported by any evidence, it can't be held as an obvious reason of why QM != brain. That is, you think that the brain doesn't work by QM because the above reason, which is an unproven hypothesis. It means that in order for your reasoning to make good point, you need to first put some evidence for your hypothesis. Yes you are right, but you'd be more open to criticism. That's an unfair assumption.. what are you basing it on? First off, we're not closed to criticism (if we were, we would not have had this discussion, would we?) and second, there's no reason to claim the criticism or acceptance of it would change with that new case. If there is a reason, you need to put it forth. I, for one, might disagree with you on that one - I think that if the comparison is close enough, there's not much difference between the two cases, and therefore we either need to have moral consideration for *both*, or none for either. On the other hand, if you are refering to the fact that the slaves are humans (unsaid, but valid point to make), then I agree with you, but then the comparison to brain neurons is lacking, and missing the point that was made (about the *amount* and *ability* of multiple units to achieve a highly complex task). You see my point, bombus? I understand your reasoning, but the way you present it can lead us to have a totally different discussion, and so when anyone disagrees or agrees we do that on a totally different point than the one we actually argue, and the discussion becomes moot. ~moo

Bombus, please go over your latest post and fix the quotes, I'm having trouble following who said what, something got screwey with the quote tag.

Farrah Fawcett She deserves her own thread.

No, no, no it's not.

Do you intend on sticking around and answering questions or are you just here to post random threads and run off? If it's the latter, I recommend you read our rules and perhaps save everyone some time.

You are testing our patience. Read the rules, or don't bother posting here.

I am drunk with homework. I claim no responsibility for my actions.

I didn't mean this as semantics debate, I meant it more as a reminder than though he did change the face of music, he was INCREDIBLY controversial (to say the least) about his more-than-outrageous behavior and legal problems. I, personally, would not call that type a hero, but I see your point. I was just trying to point out mine..