Unity+

I noticed that, but I thought they may have worked differently.

Well, supposedly they are very efficient within atmosphere, which brings to question whether they are efficient in vacuum space if my proposal was presented. The equation for the force produced is , where: F is the resulting force, measured in dimension M L T−2 I is the current flow of electric current, measured in dimension I. d is the air gap distance, measured in dimension L. k is the ion mobility coefficient of air, measured in dimension M−1 T2 I (Nominal value 2·10−4 m2 V−1 s−1). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft (This, of course, assumes that wikipedia is correct). So, if you increase the gaps in the ionocraft then it supposedly increases the force(which is weird because I thought there would be a limit where you would have to increase the amount of watts in order to account for such a large gap). It was just an idea. Only if I could test it...

So, I was curious to how it worked(after trying to get past the crackpottish "antigravity" videos) and it stated that it worked by ionizing the air, which caused lift in the craft because of the aluminum build(if that is correct). So, basically it pushes the air downward creating a lift upwards(correct me on this if this is incorrect). The problem is doing this in space because vacuums do not contain the gases that are on Earth. However, I was thinking why can't we expel a gas in the area of the lifter in a vacuum in order to create this lift. In space, some gas could be expelled to the ionocraft-like engine in order to create a push between the gas and the ionocraft. It isn't like it would be efficient, but just a hypothetical. Would this work? Or are there other things at work? EDIT: Apparently there are many people on the internet who keep claiming one thing over the other. A group of people claim that it is ionized wind while others claim another. Can someone explain how it works?

No citation is needed at all to common sense. If the particle is made up of other smaller particles or strings then it is not the fundamental particle or string. The component that makes it up and does not break down into other forms of matter or energy is the fundamental.

What do you mean when gravity is shifted horizontal? It doesn't have a specific direction besides towards the direction of the object that has a force of gravity(which all objects do). It would be better to ask the question: "What if instead of gravity pulling objects towards itself, it caused a circular motion, resulting in the object orbiting around the object instead of falling towards the object, which may cause the same effect?"

I would agree, but if the government has no morals then it would have all ability to kill these whistle blowers. Just a hypothetical.

For some reason, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or serious.

Before anything, answer this question. Do you agree that [math]\lim_{n \to \infty }\frac{1}{n}=0[/math]?

Well, until we start moving to other planets, many problems will arise when age of humans have increased, wouldn't you think?

The purpose of Medicine is not to extend the life of humans. It is to allow organisms, such as humans, to live according to how the species was supposed to live. Life expansion will cause many unwanted factors, such as overpopulation and may cause new diseases to arise.

True, but I didn't see anything referring to what values were acceptable.

The reason why there are two solutions, the positive and negative, is because if you square a negative number it becomes positive. Therefore, it would be correct to say that [math]\sqrt{16}= \pm 4[/math]. Typical convention says that it equals both until specified.

Yeah, sorry for this. I guess the title glamoured itself too much.

I would believe so, but I may wrong.

I had already hypothesized this way before, but was considered a crackpot for it. I guess I was right in some areas.

I'm still trying to figure out the problem with the amount of energy needed from the Sun to cause the iron core to expand in relation to the electromagnetic field's effect on the iron core of the Earth. I'm also currently working on the calculations of the plate movements based on this expansion and see if the model is similar to what is seen over periods of time. It is going to take some time to make these models. EDIT: I am more leaning towards the argument that the Sun's emission of energy particles are actually responsible rather than the actual interaction of the electromagnetic fields. Though, someone could probably say this has no bearing of an explanation. I found an article pertaining to this, and it says: http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/auror2.htm So, in fact, the energy we could be talking about could be coming from both the emission of charged particles from the Sun and the interaction of the Sun's and Earth's electromagnetic field.

It was simply an example for John Cuthber, however I will be interested in what you will present.

Since I have set up my blog, I am now mostly posting my works there instead. The blog is called "Mysteries of Math". I will still post stuff here, but not as often.

I think we were mainly referring to EdEarl's post that contained mostly sarcasm and less of the items required.

I was never arguing that the hypothesis was correct. I was arguing that instead of dedicating one post to insult, which it was, he should have just said that the information provided doesn't provide much as a predictive setting and requested that the original poster give more information or otherwise consider it flawed. Such a request doesn't call for an attack on the original poster. And by a waste of bandwidth, do you mean the original post or poster? And if it is a waste of bandwidth, they can just report the thread or completely ignore it all together.

I was going to say something, but I was afraid of a thumbs down. As a scientist, we are to analyze things with an open mind and to do so we must, without insults, reveal both potentials and flaws within the theory. If it had no potential, then do so by saying "This defies certain fundamentals of physics and has many flaws. In order for it to work as a theory it needs to follow current observations." I feel saying "Your life must suck to make this concoction and to reveal it to us" just makes people afraid of revealing anything they find for the potential fear of such criticism. So, instead of wasting bandwidth over insulting a person and then leaving little to say about the flaws of the alleged theory or hypothesis just reveal the flaws and mistakes. If they are trolling then they won't get much out of it in the first place because trolls simply try to cause rage in members.

I feel most schools really focus more on providing English and other fields while failing to provide other fields in mathematics. Teachers do sometimes do extras when teaching certain topics, but never get deeply into the subjects. Thanks for providing the link.