Pointless!

[Relative]

Ok mods, although I never strayed from gravity in my last thread, never speculated and asked questions, you still closed it down, so is there any point trying to discusss anything?

 

 

This section according to your rules I can discuss anything?

 

 

So here you go lets talk weapons technology and the design for an electro pulse rifle.

 

 

Perhaps if the cultured society does not want listen, I should go find an extremest site to listen?

 

 

Do i breach your rules in this section?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

anything (not comparable)

1. In any way, any extent or any degree. That isn't anything like a car.

''''in philosophy, ideas are usually construed as mental representational images of some object. Ideas can also be abstract concepts that do not present as mental images.^[1] Many philosophers have considered ideas to be a fundamental ontological category of being. The capacity to create and understand the meaning of ideas is considered to be an essential and defining feature of human beings. In a popular sense, an idea arises in a reflexive, spontaneous manner, even without thinking or serious reflection, for example, when we talk about the idea of a person or a place.''

 

 

Ideas, do I need to remind science of what an idea actually is?

I do not even break your rules

 

speculation

ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/

noun

1. 1.

   the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

   "there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit"

   synonyms: conjecture, theorizing, hypothesizing, supposition, guesswork; More

I accuse this forum of breaking its own rules and closing threads when the forum rules are not been broken?

[Strange]

 

I do not even break your rules

 

Maybe you should quote from the rules, then, rather than a dictionary. AT least, I assume it is a dictionary. In your usual sloppy way, you don't provide a reference.

[swansont]

Ok mods, although I never strayed from gravity in my last thread, never speculated and asked questions, you still closed it down, so is there any point trying to discusss anything?

 

 

This section according to your rules I can discuss anything?

 

 

Prior to the closure(s), nobody said you couldn't discuss any particular topic. The warnings you got were for bringing up the topics in the wrong area of the forum. It's trivially easy to start a new thread, in the appropriate area of the forum, to discuss a new topic. Heck, the staff don't even get all that upset when a new thread is in the wrong section — we generally just move it — up to the point that it becomes a chronic problem. We are more sensitive to ongoing discussions being driven off on a tangent.

 

The issue here is that you did not follow the rules, and repeated ignored moderator warnings (and hints) about following the rules. That's why you don't get to have nice things. You broke too many of them to be allowed to play anymore.

 

To claim you never strayed from gravity in your last thread is a laughable claim. You brought up magnets, which are unrelated to gravity,. Then you posted a diagram with magnetic fields, emf's and mentioned the curie point of Venus — all unrelated to gravity. I asked, at that point, that we discuss only gravity and orbits, and that was followed by a moderator saying the same thing. In your very next post you talked about magnetic field lines. When you blatantly disregard a moderator warning like that, what do you think is going to happen?

 

I can't fathom the disconnect here that makes you think you didn't stray from the subject of gravity, that you didn't break rules, or allows you to be shocked (apparently sincerely) that your threads have been shut down.

 

———————

 

edit to add: Each closure is the result of breaking at least one of these rules

 

Rule 5: Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory

 

Rule 8: Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

 

Rule 10: Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.

[/backslash/]

The mods on this site are not jerks. Every time someone complains about them, there was a good reason for whatever they did.

[Sensei]

so is there any point trying to discusss anything?

 

Discuss science, then it will be all fine..

[Ophiolite]

Ok mods, although I never strayed from gravity in my last thread, never speculated and asked questions, you still closed it down, so is there any point trying to discusss anything?

I have followed many of your posts in a number of threads. They tend to follow a consistent pattern: you make a statement; members point out problems with the statement; you ignore, or completely misunderstand the responses; you head off in an entirely different and irrelevant direction.

 

This is not discussion. This is you pontificating, while placing your fingers in your ears and singing "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah" to any remarks directed in your way. Until you learn to actually read, think about, fully consider and be educated by responses, you will continue to be disappointed and members will continue to be frustrated, until finally the mods call it a day on your participation.

[Relative]

 

Prior to the closure(s), nobody said you couldn't discuss any particular topic. The warnings you got were for bringing up the topics in the wrong area of the forum. It's trivially easy to start a new thread, in the appropriate area of the forum, to discuss a new topic. Heck, the staff don't even get all that upset when a new thread is in the wrong section — we generally just move it — up to the point that it becomes a chronic problem. We are more sensitive to ongoing discussions being driven off on a tangent.

 

The issue here is that you did not follow the rules, and repeated ignored moderator warnings (and hints) about following the rules. That's why you don't get to have nice things. You broke too many of them to be allowed to play anymore.

 

To claim you never strayed from gravity in your last thread is a laughable claim. You brought up magnets, which are unrelated to gravity,. Then you posted a diagram with magnetic fields, emf's and mentioned the curie point of Venus — all unrelated to gravity. I asked, at that point, that we discuss only gravity and orbits, and that was followed by a moderator saying the same thing. In your very next post you talked about magnetic field lines. When you blatantly disregard a moderator warning like that, what do you think is going to happen?

 

I can't fathom the disconnect here that makes you think you didn't stray from the subject of gravity, that you didn't break rules, or allows you to be shocked (apparently sincerely) that your threads have been shut down.

 

———————

 

edit to add: Each closure is the result of breaking at least one of these rules

 

Rule 5: Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory

t

Rule 8: Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

 

Rule 10: Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.

My nature is never to accept something , unless there is 100% facts , and my own logic, has ruled out any other possible ways first. How can I rule out thoughts, if I have no one to share them with?.

 

,You all misunderstand, if you consider I am preaching with any activist tendencies, I share my thoughts and ask about those thoughts. I am asking you if it is possible, relying on your knowledge to put me straight, or the possible chance I may be correct on something, then I am in the best place with the correct type persons whom know what to do with new ideas that have any merit.

 

I have looked at basic science for several years, forces, laws , etc,

 

I do diagrams showing them forces in action, and you all say no , its garbage, when it is your own science.

So I am really confused , you agree with all the actions of the force, but I put several forces together and you then deny it.

 

 

I mentioned magnetic fields, because of classical mechanics, and the belief that what is now known has Gravity in modern Physics, before, was forces of magnetism at work.

 

I mentioned Venus, because that was the planet that killed magnetic theory of orbit.

 

''Rule 10: Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations).''

 

The mods closed that one remember, it was my speculation, but I was not aloud to speculate, even though I have started to produce some primitive type maths with basic explanation.

 

 

I speculate, and instantly, no its not that way its this way.......I know that , i know which way science see's it, that is why I am speculating in the first place.

I have followed many of your posts in a number of threads. They tend to follow a consistent pattern: you make a statement; members point out problems with the statement; you ignore, or completely misunderstand the responses; you head off in an entirely different and irrelevant direction.

 

This is not discussion. This is you pontificating, while placing your fingers in your ears and singing "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah" to any remarks directed in your way. Until you learn to actually read, think about, fully consider and be educated by responses, you will continue to be disappointed and members will continue to be frustrated, until finally the mods call it a day on your participation.

Members do not point out problems with what I say, they redirect me back to science of now, and nothing in science can be wrong can it.

I head off has you put it to try and get you understand my idea of speculation compared to current.

[Strange]

I do diagrams showing them forces in action, and you all say no , its garbage, when it is your own science.

 

This summarises your problem. It is not "our own science"; it is your mangled and incorrect version of science.

 

I mentioned magnetic fields, because of classical mechanics, and the belief that what is now known has Gravity in modern Physics, before, was forces of magnetism at work

 

I'm not sure that gravity was ever though of as being magnetic. But even if it was, once upon a time, that is irrelevant because we have known it isn't for hundreds of years. Why bring up ancient history (which I suspect is wrong anyway).

 

 

i know which way science see's it, that is why I am speculating in the first place.

 

That makes no sense. If you know what current science says, why bother speculating?

 

Science sees it that way because of the evidence.

 

Maybe you should study history of science so you know why science sees it that way.

 

Members do not point out problems with what I say, they redirect me back to science of now,

 

They do point out problems in what you say. Often this explanation takes the form of trying to explain what is actually known about the subject (the "science of now").

 

and nothing in science can be wrong can it.

 

Science can be wrong. But the very basic things you ask about are very well understood and have been thoroughly tested by experiment. The chances of anything being fundamentally wrong is nearly zero.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Strange

[Relative]

 

This summarises your problem. It is not "our own science"; it is your mangled and incorrect version of science.

 

 

I'm not sure that gravity was ever though of as being magnetic. But even if it was, once upon a time, that is irrelevant because we have known it isn't for hundreds of years. Why bring up ancient history (which I suspect is wrong anyway).

 

 

That makes no sense. If you know what current science says, why bother speculating?

 

Science sees it that way because of the evidence.

 

Maybe you should study history of science so you know why science sees it that way.

 

 

They do point out problems in what you say. Often this explanation takes the form of trying to explain what is actually known about the subject (the "science of now").

 

 

Science can be wrong. But the very basic things you ask about are very well understood and have been thoroughly tested by experiment. The chances of anything being fundamentally wrong is nearly zero.

I completely understand the forums concerns ,

 

''This summarises your problem. It is not "our own science"; it is your mangled and incorrect version of science.''

 

incorrect version, how can a speculation be an incorrect version, mangled , yes maybe, I am just getting to grips with models and formulas, you have learnt me, helped me.

 

''I'm not sure that gravity was ever though of as being magnetic. But even if it was, once upon a time, that is irrelevant because we have known it isn't for hundreds of years. Why bring up ancient history (which I suspect is wrong anyway).''

 

Ok, if it was not magnetism , what was it before Einstein?

 

I brought up history , history been apart of my speculation, Gravity been one force,attracting, and magnetism been the stopping force and also possible Emr force by electricity contained in the emr been repelled by KE of planets.

 

 

''They do point out problems in what you say. Often this explanation takes the form of trying to explain what is actually known about the subject (the "science of now").''

 

The subjects I speculate about I already know about, several years now on the internet, probably longer hours than in a University studying.

So talking about the current and not the actual speculation, does not achieve any goals.

 

 

''''Science can be wrong. But the very basic things you ask about are very well understood and have been thoroughly tested by experiment. The chances of anything being fundamentally wrong is nearly zero.''

 

Maxwell, etc, all made maths to fit what was observed, so yes it will work, but that is not to say that there is not a paradox explanation, that also works and can be made to fit.

 

 

And P.s yes or no to the opening diagram in this thread, would that work ?

So gravity never was considered to be like this link?

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/orbmag.html

I am not sure whether it was this forum or another forum , but I asked why a negative tail meets a positive header in lightning strikes on the ground.

A basic diagram of what I drew to go with it.

 

 

From this diagram I considered perpetual motion.

[Sensei]

Ok, if it was not magnetism , what was it before Einstein?

Before, nor after Einstein, gravity was not magnetisms.

 

Idea of force F predates work on electricity and magnetisms in XIX century.

 

Have you seen Newton Cradle?

It's showing conservation of momentum..

Edited October 5, 2014 by Sensei

[Relative]

Can you now see why I struggle with current science theory on Gravity, when there is all this information out there, that to the ordinary person looks the same, meaning the physical process that is achieved been the same.?

[Sensei]

Can you now see why I struggle with current science theory on Gravity, when there is all this information out there, that to the ordinary person looks the same, meaning the physical process that is achieved been the same.?

Sorry, I don't understand what do you mean..

[Relative]

 

Before, nor after Einstein, gravity was not magnetisms.

 

Idea of force F predates work on electricity and magnetisms in XIX century.

arrr, now I see, from a child I always thought gravity was magnets/electrical interaction of forces, I thought that was classical mechanics,

 

 

So before Einstein there was no theory?

 

 

I think I am even more confused now, so the ancient greeks did not discover that now gravity , was electromagnetic interaction, blimey i need go read some classical mechanics see what that is about.

Sorry, I don't understand what do you mean..

To me the link i provided looks exactly like the gravity example diagram in previous thread strange provided. I always thought electromagnetism was classical mechanics,

I have the sun as a positive, planet cores as positive, mantles, surfaces negative, by thought about lightning strikes.

I have the positives repelling, I have both positives attracting the negative.

[Sensei]

So before Einstein there was no theory?

Before Einstein there was obviously Newton's theory of gravitation..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

and Newton's mechanics.

 

The main difference between the two is in that Newton velocity has no maximum limit.

 

Kinetic Energy in Newton's mechanics is

[latex]E.K.=\frac{1}{2}*m*v^2[/latex]

while in Einstein's special relativity it is:

[latex]E.K.=\frac{m_0*c^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}-m_0*c^2[/latex]

 

I think I am even more confused now, so the ancient greeks did not discover that now gravity , was electromagnetic interaction, blimey i need go read some classical mechanics see what that is about.

What on Earth ancient Greeks have to electricity I have no idea..

Edited October 5, 2014 by Sensei

[Relative]

If I run you through my logic, then you can tell me where i am misguided.

Before Einstein there was obviously Newton's theory of gravitation..

Ty for the link, so my thought about electro magnetic interactions is just my thought then . No idea where i had the notion from.

And I thought Newton and Einstein did the gravity together, sorry my error

I understand the centrifugal force part, I got banned in my early science days for arguing gravity orbit was centrifugal force, they thought i was a troll, i did not know that it was centrifugal force, that made the orbit.

I firstly looked at a ball on a string been hit around a pole, a ball in ''centrifugal flow'', yes my words, an orbit of centrifugal force.

 

 

I realized though, that the string does not pull back.

yes I know that sounds confusing, a string not pulling back,

Edited October 5, 2014 by Relative

[Sensei]

Buy 1st class physics book, then 2nd class, then 3rd class, and so on..

Don't make your own theory until reading them all, with understanding..

[Relative]

The pole holds the string, the ground holds the pole, gravity holds the ground.

 

 

But the force on the string is never equal to zero, the ball always wants to accelerate away, so goes circualr

Buy 1st class physics book, then 2nd class, then 3rd class, and so on..
Don't make your own theory until reading them all, with understanding..

Yes I should , but do I not have the same knowledge at my finger tips? I can instantly look any subject material up, I understand what I read quite fast in the terms of I can put into a physical picture in my mind and draw that picture.

Can you see by my logical reasoning I understand centrifugal , centripetal, gravity current, ?

My problem with the string, if I retracted the string, added centripetal force, the balls orbit will just contract inwards at any velocity.

However if i retract my string and could put an opposing invisible force in the way to stop the contraction, my ball would maintain a stable orbit

I could obviously only retract my string equal to the opposing force

This is how I think, I am thinking out aloud.

Is this more understandable than previous?

I see gravity different to current, I see several paradoxes.

 

I can not help where my mind takes me.

 

Imagine I and you, I and you are 100 meters apart on a train track on a small track cart, each of us have a pully wheel ,rope connecting our carts, we turn the wheel and we draw nearer together,

 

Then imagine I put a 100 meter spring on the rope,

This is what i see the sun and the earth does.

It does not matter how much force we put into turning the pully wheel , the spring will never allow us to get close.

Then recently I argued your Fn, then I realised what you was saying, the ground has spring like properties,

I then consider all mass is attracted to mass, but all stopping Fn is equal to the force.

S o my conclusion was that the action of gravity had an opposite reaction, the opposite action been equal in force to the action of gravity,

And I hope you understand now , why and how I get my thoughts, I do use a thought process, it is not just half baked ideas, I think them through, often my ideas are instantaneous though, and I agree my sentencing is still not the best, although dramatically improving.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Relative

[swansont]

I mentioned magnetic fields, because of classical mechanics, and the belief that what is now known has Gravity in modern Physics, before, was forces of magnetism at work.

 

I mentioned Venus, because that was the planet that killed magnetic theory of orbit.

 

And you were told to stop, and you didn't.

 

 

''Rule 10: Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations).''

 

The mods closed that one remember, it was my speculation, but I was not aloud to speculate, even though I have started to produce some primitive type maths with basic explanation.

You're missing the point: you are allowed to speculate — in the speculations forum, and if you conform to the rules. However, you started a thread called Gravity questions! in the Homework help section — NOT speculations. The expectation is that the questions will be about gravity, and will not include speculation. NONE. AT. ALL.

 

And you went off-topic not once, not twice, but three times. Further, the tangent you introduced was from a locked thread that went on for ~130 posts. That's another no-no. You had your chance to discuss that topic. IMO your best option would be to take an actual physics class and learn some of the basics. There's nothing you can do without a decent foundation, which you obviously lack.

 

 

…

 

Then recently I argued your Fn, then I realised what you was saying, the ground has spring like properties,

I then consider all mass is attracted to mass, but all stopping Fn is equal to the force.

S o my conclusion was that the action of gravity had an opposite reaction, the opposite action been equal in force to the action of gravity,

 

You're doing it again. This thread is not about any specific physics question. Don't go there.

Maxwell, etc, all made maths to fit what was observed, so yes it will work, but that is not to say that there is not a paradox explanation, that also works and can be made to fit.

 

 

 

But it needs to actually fit — the model must match the data. So you need an actual model.

[Relative]

 

And you were told to stop, and you didn't.

 

 

You're missing the point: you are allowed to speculate — in the speculations forum, and if you conform to the rules. However, you started a thread called Gravity questions! in the Homework help section — NOT speculations. The expectation is that the questions will be about gravity, and will not include speculation. NONE. AT. ALL.

 

And you went off-topic not once, not twice, but three times. Further, the tangent you introduced was from a locked thread that went on for ~130 posts. That's another no-no. You had your chance to discuss that topic. IMO your best option would be to take an actual physics class and learn some of the basics. There's nothing you can do without a decent foundation, which you obviously lack.

 

 

 

You're doing it again. This thread is not about any specific physics question. Don't go there.

I was not going any where , if you read, i was explaining my thought process and how i derived with my gravity speculation, You will find before the homework thread, I had a thread in speculations called gravity which got closed for , wait for it, random speculations, wild accusations, or something along those lines.

 

 

''This thread is not about any specific physics question, dont go there, '' you are correct it is not my intention to start a physics thread, although I am in the lounge and your own rules on the opening page, on this lounge section, states ''talk about anything;;, define anything?

I even gave formulas

Discuss life, work, school, anything!

Can i please make a suggestion? cant you let me just talk openly in this thread and rename it to the nutters thread, and stay off the main forum that way/

 

Because I know by asking the right questions, im giving you answers, I will still be a nobody and you guys will advance.

[swansont]

I was not going any where , if you read, i was explaining my thought process and how i derived with my gravity speculation

 

 

This is not about how logical your thought process was, or how you think it justifies your posts.

 

Don't post speculative materials outside of speculations.

 

Don't bring off-topic material into a thread.

 

Is there something about this you not understanding? Is this not clear?

 

Is the problem here that you think that if you have a good enough excuse, that breaking the rules is then OK? Spoiler alert: that's not going to fly.

[Relative]

For example how much energy can a house brick absorb?

[swansont]

For example how much energy can a house brick absorb?

 

Didn't someone with a striking resemblance to me JUST SAY NOT TO DO THIS ?

 

The mind boggles.