0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 20/03/2015 12:27:56How can what goes up be the opposite of what comes down, they are both a plasma and both emit light suggesting both are a positive in energy.How can a negative possibly emit light?Simply appropriating scientific terms and stringing them into a sentence does not generate meaning. Adding a questionmark doesn't help. As you seem to have an idiosyncratic concept of positive, negative and energy, I don't think you are going to find yourself taken seriously in the company of scientists, for whom such words are currency.
How can what goes up be the opposite of what comes down, they are both a plasma and both emit light suggesting both are a positive in energy.How can a negative possibly emit light?
Quote from: alancalverd on 21/03/2015 00:11:15Quote from: Thebox on 20/03/2015 12:27:56How can what goes up be the opposite of what comes down, they are both a plasma and both emit light suggesting both are a positive in energy.How can a negative possibly emit light?Simply appropriating scientific terms and stringing them into a sentence does not generate meaning. Adding a questionmark doesn't help. As you seem to have an idiosyncratic concept of positive, negative and energy, I don't think you are going to find yourself taken seriously in the company of scientists, for whom such words are currency.In replyMechanism is not the process like the hands on a clock but rather the internal workings that makes the process. We all know that we have a gravity calculation based on mass that defines orbital actions and an acceleration that an object will fall at too the Earth from the sky. This is process and actions rather than a mechanism, a comparison to owning a car and knowing it can move but not knowing what an engine is that drives the actions. It is also said that everything in the Universe of a matter or mediums form is made up of atoms, atoms consist of 3 Quarks that make up a Proton and also there is a Neutron that makes up the Nucleus of the atom and an electron of a outer electron shell , although some elements of the Universe made of atoms are without Neutrons. It is also explained that all matter or a medium has mass, mass being essential to the equations of the gravity calculation and Newtons force. Mass of an object is defined normally in kilograms, not to be mistaken for a weight which is Newtons of force calculated by an objects mass. In explanation of Gravity it is also said that all mass is attracted to mass, meaning any object of matter or mediums such as air are attracted to each other by Gravity of each others mass.Atoms are bound together by a strong nuclear force and have the ability to become excited by gaining positive charge or becoming dormant when negative charged known in science as positive or negative charged ions. A positive ion will repel an equally positive ion where as a negative ion is attracted to a positive ion, a negative ion has no effect on a negative ion. In context referring to the actions of atmospheric gases and a said buoyancy , I would like to mention what I consider an ion flux and the ion flux being the magic and mechanism of gravity.It is a well known fact that Helium and Hydrogen are buoyant gases and air is buoyancy dependant on energy in the air in the form of heat, hot air rises. However , where as Hydrogen and Helium will rise and remain rising, air has a differential in the characteristics of behaviour, when the air cools down as it rises the air eventually will fall back down to the Earth, a sort of yoyo action by thermodynamic increase or decrease. Air being made of atoms that becomes positively charged and rises opposing the effects of gravity and effectively decreasing in Newtons. A consequence of actions of being a positive more than a negative being repelled by the positive ion's Earth's core, from once it returns to its equilibrium state and loses the charge when the air is cooled as it rises creating a negative effect that then is attracted back down to the positive ion core.Thanks for reading.I will complete it tomorrow and link it to lightning.
At The Box. You say you have a desire to learn. This is a very positive thing. Some forum members, respecting that desire, have attempted to help you to learn, by answering your questions, pointing out errors in your thinking and providing links that go into greater depth. Unfortunately, you do not appear to be willing to take advantage of any of this well intentioned help. Now that "appearance" may simply be a result of how you go about learning. Before I invest any time in helping you learn I would welcome an answer to these questions:Do you accept that, for the most part, science has been able to provide detailed and well validated explanations for many aspects of "reality"?If the answer is no,then why not?
I accept that the most part of science is correct. Who says I am not learning? I am not accepting without questioning what I learn, a big difference.
Quote from: Thebox on 21/03/2015 10:18:34I accept that the most part of science is correct. Who says I am not learning? I am not accepting without questioning what I learn, a big difference.Very good. However, the manner in which you question creates the definite impression that you are not accepting, or perhaps not understanding the answers that are given to you. Asking, both for clarity and in order to achieve a deeper understanding is welcome and desirable. But I would ask you to consider this. When I ask questions on forums I do so in the expectation that at least some of the answers will come from individuals who are more knowledgeable than I. I have hopes of receiving the "correct" answer. My starting assumption is that there is a good chance that this is possible. So far I have rarely been disappointed.1.However, your questions create the impression that your starting assumption is that the answers you receive will be wrong. Further than that, there is 2.an implication that you have about as good an idea of the answer as anyone involved in the discussion.Now, this impression - created by your posts - is not only my impression, but seems to be the impression formed other members in this thread. If that was not your intent then you need to find a way of modifying your posting style. Your comments on these thoughts would be most welcome.
The bottom of the cloud can be observed of becoming more dense .... A density created by gravity pulling at the clouds elements
I considered the various effects of gravity on various elements [of lightning]
A white cloud will reflect more light and allow more light to pass through than a dark cloud
thermodynamic absorption...thermodynamic increase
Quote from: TheboxThe bottom of the cloud can be observed of becoming more dense .... A density created by gravity pulling at the clouds elementsThe reason that clouds float in the sky is because they are slightly less dense than the atmospheric layers below them. Because clouds are buoyant, they are almost weightless, and you can almost ignore gravity, even in the absence of electric fields.Quote from: TheboxI considered the various effects of gravity on various elements [of lightning]Gravity is an extremely weak force. If there are strong electrical fields around (such as you have with lightning in clouds), you can ignore gravity.QuoteA white cloud will reflect more light and allow more light to pass through than a dark cloudIf you have been in an airplane over a storm, you will know that from the top, the dark clouds are also very white.The reason heavy rainclouds are darker underneath is because they are thicker than light fluffy clouds, and the depth of the clouds scatters more light away from reaching the ground.Thunderclouds are very efficient at transferring energy between layers within the atmosphere, with fast-moving updrafts and downdrafts which generate the lightning (static electricity) by friction. These thunderclouds tower thousands of feet high, and not much light gets through.So the lightning is an effect of the rapid updrafts and downdrafts reaching high altitudes. And the dark base of the cloud is also an effect of the rapid updrafts and downdrafts reaching high altitudes. But it would be wrong to say that light causes the lightning - after all, violent and spectacular thunderstorms can happen at night.Quotethermodynamic absorption...thermodynamic increaseThermodynamics does suggest that large energy differences between different layers of the atmosphere will tend to dissipate or equalize over time. The measure of thermodynamics is "entropy". Is this referring to entropy increasing?I don't understand the terms "thermodynamic absorption" and "thermodynamic increase". Can you explain them, or try a different term?
In replyMechanism is not the process like the hands on a clockQuotehands are mechanism. movement of hands is process. but rather the internal workings that makes the process. We all know that we have a gravity calculation based on mass that defines orbital actions and an acceleration that an object will fall at too the Earth from the sky. This is process and actions rather than a mechanism, a comparison to owning a car and knowing it can move but not knowing what an engine is that drives the actions. It is also said that everything in the Universe of a matter or mediums form is made up of atoms, atoms consist of 3 Quarks that make up a Proton and also there is a Neutron Quotealso made of quarksthat makes up the Nucleus of the atom and an electron of a outer electron shell , although some elements of the Universe made of atoms are without Neutrons. It is also explained that all matter or a medium Quotecan you distinguish between matter and medium, please? has mass, mass being essential to the equations of the gravity calculation and Newtons force. Mass of an object is defined normally in kilograms, not to be mistaken for a weight which is Newtons of force calculated by an objects massQuotenot only mass but also local gravitational field. Indeed I think the assertion is inverted: we normally calculate mass from a comparision of weights in a given field. In explanation of Gravity it is also said that all mass is attracted to mass, meaning any object of matter or mediums such as air are attracted to each other by Gravity of each others mass.Atoms are bound together by a strong nuclear force Quotenot atoms, nucleiand have the ability to become excited by gaining positive charge or becoming dormant when negative Quoteno, a negative ion is just as "active" as a positive ioncharged known in science as positive or negative charged ions. A positive ion will repel an equally positive ion where as a negative ion is attracted to a positive ion, a negative ion has no effect on a negative ionQuoteon the contrary, negative ions repel one another too. In context referring to the actions of atmospheric gases and a said buoyancy , I would like to mention what I consider an ion flux and the ion flux being the magic and mechanism of gravityQuoteyou may consider it so, but it isn't an ion flux may be affected by gravity but gravity does not require the transfer of ions.It is a well known fact that Helium and Hydrogen are buoyant gases Quoteonly compared with more dense gases. In a vacuum, they sinkand air is buoyancy dependant on energy in the air in the form of heat, hot air rises. However , where as Hydrogen and Helium will rise and remain risingQuotenot true. all gases convect, air has a differential in the characteristics of behaviour, when the air cools down as it rises the air eventually will fall back down to the Earth, a sort of yoyo action by thermodynamic increase or decreaseQuotetry using "temperature", which is what you mean, rather than thermodynamic, which isn't . Air being made of atoms that becomes positively charged and rises opposing the effects of gravity and effectively decreasing in NewtonsQuotenot ture. The gravitational force on a mass of air is independent of the temperature or charge of that mass. A consequence of actions of being a positive more than a negative being repelled by the positive ion's Earth's core, Quoteboth positive and negative ions may be attracted towards the surfacefrom once it returns to its equilibrium state and loses the charge when the air is cooled Quoteno, charge is not affected by altitude or temperatureas it rises creating a negative effect that then is attracted back down to the positive ion core.Thanks for reading.I will complete it tomorrow and link it to lightning.
hands are mechanism. movement of hands is process.
also made of quarks
can you distinguish between matter and medium, please?
not only mass but also local gravitational field. Indeed I think the assertion is inverted: we normally calculate mass from a comparision of weights in a given field
not atoms, nuclei
no, a negative ion is just as "active" as a positive ion
on the contrary, negative ions repel one another too
you may consider it so, but it isn't an ion flux may be affected by gravity but gravity does not require the transfer of ions
only compared with more dense gases. In a vacuum, they sink
not true. all gases convect
try using "temperature", which is what you mean, rather than thermodynamic, which isn't
not ture. The gravitational force on a mass of air is independent of the temperature or charge of that mass
both positive and negative ions may be attracted towards the surface
no, charge is not affected by altitude or temperature
Just a few notesQuote from: Thebox on 21/03/2015 01:14:25In replyMechanism is not the process like the hands on a clockQuotehands are mechanism. movement of hands is process. but rather the internal workings that makes the process. We all know that we have a gravity calculation based on mass that defines orbital actions and an acceleration that an object will fall at too the Earth from the sky. This is process and actions rather than a mechanism, a comparison to owning a car and knowing it can move but not knowing what an engine is that drives the actions. It is also said that everything in the Universe of a matter or mediums form is made up of atoms, atoms consist of 3 Quarks that make up a Proton and also there is a Neutron Quotealso made of quarksthat makes up the Nucleus of the atom and an electron of a outer electron shell , although some elements of the Universe made of atoms are without Neutrons. It is also explained that all matter or a medium Quotecan you distinguish between matter and medium, please? has mass, mass being essential to the equations of the gravity calculation and Newtons force. Mass of an object is defined normally in kilograms, not to be mistaken for a weight which is Newtons of force calculated by an objects massQuotenot only mass but also local gravitational field. Indeed I think the assertion is inverted: we normally calculate mass from a comparision of weights in a given field. In explanation of Gravity it is also said that all mass is attracted to mass, meaning any object of matter or mediums such as air are attracted to each other by Gravity of each others mass.Atoms are bound together by a strong nuclear force Quotenot atoms, nucleiand have the ability to become excited by gaining positive charge or becoming dormant when negative Quoteno, a negative ion is just as "active" as a positive ioncharged known in science as positive or negative charged ions. A positive ion will repel an equally positive ion where as a negative ion is attracted to a positive ion, a negative ion has no effect on a negative ionQuoteon the contrary, negative ions repel one another too. In context referring to the actions of atmospheric gases and a said buoyancy , I would like to mention what I consider an ion flux and the ion flux being the magic and mechanism of gravityQuoteyou may consider it so, but it isn't an ion flux may be affected by gravity but gravity does not require the transfer of ions.It is a well known fact that Helium and Hydrogen are buoyant gases Quoteonly compared with more dense gases. In a vacuum, they sinkand air is buoyancy dependant on energy in the air in the form of heat, hot air rises. However , where as Hydrogen and Helium will rise and remain risingQuotenot true. all gases convect, air has a differential in the characteristics of behaviour, when the air cools down as it rises the air eventually will fall back down to the Earth, a sort of yoyo action by thermodynamic increase or decreaseQuotetry using "temperature", which is what you mean, rather than thermodynamic, which isn't . Air being made of atoms that becomes positively charged and rises opposing the effects of gravity and effectively decreasing in NewtonsQuotenot ture. The gravitational force on a mass of air is independent of the temperature or charge of that mass. A consequence of actions of being a positive more than a negative being repelled by the positive ion's Earth's core, Quoteboth positive and negative ions may be attracted towards the surfacefrom once it returns to its equilibrium state and loses the charge when the air is cooled Quoteno, charge is not affected by altitude or temperatureas it rises creating a negative effect that then is attracted back down to the positive ion core.Thanks for reading.I will complete it tomorrow and link it to lightning.Are you saying Neutrons are also made of Quarks?Matter - dust or objectsmedium - air, a gas, an electrical medium, I did mean nuclie, sorry wording badly.How can a negative energy repel a negative energy, how can there be a negative energy?''you may consider it so, but it isn't an ion flux may be affected by gravity but gravity does not require the transfer of ions''Not a transfer of ions, an equilibrium offset of ions, a fluctuation in positive or negative hence the up and down of air. In a vacuum Hydrogen sinks because there is no intake of energy only loss.''both positive and negative ions may be attracted towards the surface''Yes , gravity, the surface is both positive and negative depending on charge,
Yes, neutrons are also made of quarks.Air and gases are also matter (so are electrons and other subatomic particles.)Gravity and charge (electrostatic attraction or repulsion) are different sets of forces. Neither one require the other.Air and clouds can definitely be buoyant--an air-filled balloon floats in water for the exact same reason a hydrogen-filled balloon floats in air, and a water-filled balloon floats on mercury (the metal).I don't know how you're coming up with these definitions, but you are using different definitions from what everyone else uses for pretty much every word... (buoyancy, thermodynamic, negative/positive, entropy, matter, medium, time, dimension) They all have agreed-upon and specific meanings that you are not intending when you use these words (and others) this is partly why people get so confused in discussion with you.
Ok lets try it a different way, I will change my approach of how I write things.QuoteA good idea. Asserting untruths is the job of priests, politicians and philosophers, not physicists.Air is heavier on the ground when it has sunk, air is lighter when it rises , why?QuoteCart before horse. Warm air is less dense than cold air at the same pressure, so bubbles of warm air will rise through cold air. Archimedes.If air on the ground is attracted by a force what makes air un-attractive to the forceQuoteNothing. Gravity strill applies, that what makes the air rise up from the ground?QuoteArchimedesMy answer would be that the air attracted to the ground is not the same energy level as the air that rises, the air that rises having more energy by some sort of gain, a gain that is then released as it rises allowing the force of the ground to pull its less energy state back down to the ground.QuoteThe light may be dawning here. Read about "adiabatic lapse rate" and the Gas LawsWhen the air gains this energy and rises becoming opposed to the force from the ground , an anti and opposite reaction is observed to the force from the ground.QuoteConvectionAir floats on air is what science is saying.Quoteyes, indeed, though the mechanism of convection is a lot simpler that your description Imagine if you were high in the sky and in each hand you had an un-charged air atom, you drop both atoms at the same time, both atoms fall through the other air atoms of the atmosphere, why? because they are heavy.QuoteHow would you know? They are indistinguishable from other air molecules (air is a mixture of molecules rather than atoms) It is true that there is slightly more oxygen and carbon dioxide at low level but it would take a very long time (years) for one CO2 molecule to diffuse its way to the ground from 30,000 ft, whereas a thundercloud can form, discharge and disperse in an hourNow imagine we repeat the experiment with two charged air atoms, the atoms would just float on release.QuoteUntrue. You can ionise a molecule by adding or subtracting one electron, which would alter the mass of an oxygen molecule by about 1 part in 60,000 - hardly enough to reverse its buoyancy, as nitrogen is about 10% less dense.
A good idea. Asserting untruths is the job of priests, politicians and philosophers, not physicists.
Cart before horse. Warm air is less dense than cold air at the same pressure, so bubbles of warm air will rise through cold air. Archimedes.
Nothing. Gravity strill applies
Archimedes
The light may be dawning here. Read about "adiabatic lapse rate" and the Gas Laws
Convection
yes, indeed, though the mechanism of convection is a lot simpler that your description
How would you know? They are indistinguishable from other air molecules (air is a mixture of molecules rather than atoms) It is true that there is slightly more oxygen and carbon dioxide at low level but it would take a very long time (years) for one CO2 molecule to diffuse its way to the ground from 30,000 ft, whereas a thundercloud can form, discharge and disperse in an hour
Untrue. You can ionise a molecule by adding or subtracting one electron, which would alter the mass of an oxygen molecule by about 1 part in 60,000 - hardly enough to reverse its buoyancy, as nitrogen is about 10% less dense.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/03/2015 23:58:48Ok lets try it a different way, I will change my approach of how I write things.QuoteA good idea. Asserting untruths is the job of priests, politicians and philosophers, not physicists.Air is heavier on the ground when it has sunk, air is lighter when it rises , why?QuoteCart before horse. Warm air is less dense than cold air at the same pressure, so bubbles of warm air will rise through cold air. Archimedes.If air on the ground is attracted by a force what makes air un-attractive to the forceQuoteNothing. Gravity strill applies, that what makes the air rise up from the ground?QuoteArchimedesMy answer would be that the air attracted to the ground is not the same energy level as the air that rises, the air that rises having more energy by some sort of gain, a gain that is then released as it rises allowing the force of the ground to pull its less energy state back down to the ground.QuoteThe light may be dawning here. Read about "adiabatic lapse rate" and the Gas LawsWhen the air gains this energy and rises becoming opposed to the force from the ground , an anti and opposite reaction is observed to the force from the ground.QuoteConvectionAir floats on air is what science is saying.Quoteyes, indeed, though the mechanism of convection is a lot simpler that your description Imagine if you were high in the sky and in each hand you had an un-charged air atom, you drop both atoms at the same time, both atoms fall through the other air atoms of the atmosphere, why? because they are heavy.QuoteHow would you know? They are indistinguishable from other air molecules (air is a mixture of molecules rather than atoms) It is true that there is slightly more oxygen and carbon dioxide at low level but it would take a very long time (years) for one CO2 molecule to diffuse its way to the ground from 30,000 ft, whereas a thundercloud can form, discharge and disperse in an hourNow imagine we repeat the experiment with two charged air atoms, the atoms would just float on release.QuoteUntrue. You can ionise a molecule by adding or subtracting one electron, which would alter the mass of an oxygen molecule by about 1 part in 60,000 - hardly enough to reverse its buoyancy, as nitrogen is about 10% less dense.
I feel that science is missing the entire point, what goes up comes back down through itself. If I dropped a drip of water into a glass of water, would the water drip sink?
If i was to add about 50,000 volts to wire surrounding an aluminium structure and it rises of the ground would you not consider that anti-gravity?
''See'' this please, air is not buoyant when it is sinking......Imagine two separate clusters of air molecules at ground level, let's say 10 molecules per cluster and 10 atoms per molecule.
Lets say (a) and (b) start off at 1kg. 0.981n of force and both clusters are only 1 inch cubed.and both clusters have 100 atoms total volume.Cluster (a) expands making now 50 atoms per cubic inch compared to 100 atoms a cubic inch of (b).Less dense making less weight, newtons of force.
This still does not explain why it rises opposing gravity, neither does it account for that when the air is expanding it opposes itself.Cluster (a) is held together by gravity, cluster (a) expands, cluster (a) opposes its own gravity when charged.If you can imagine a positive charged invisible sphere, the sphere will always want to rip itself apart.
Now at the very instance of the explosion the starting point(s), I call this zero point space, This is what I want to know about lightning, the zero point space.I have centripetally pressurised positive ion's clusters that then gain charge and explode at point zero.The negative ion's absorb the charge and then collapse into point zero forcing an implode and then an escape seen as lightning.
What magnetic bottling holds the sun together?
Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2015 10:25:49I feel that science is missing the entire point, what goes up comes back down through itself. If I dropped a drip of water into a glass of water, would the water drip sink?No, you are missing the entire point. Buoyancy has to do with the density of the object and the fluid (liquid or gas) that it will ultimately sink or float in. It's trickier to talk about objects that can mix with or dissolve in the fluid that they are sinking or floating in. If the object is denser than the fluid, it will sink because it displaces a volume of liquid equal to its own volume. Say a 1 cm3 cube of gold, having a weight of approximately 19 g is placed on the surface some water (approximately 1 g/cm3). For every cm that the gold sinks, you can think of one cm3 of water moving up one cm. This only works because the gold weighs 19 times as much. Essentially the 19 gram weight pushes the 1 gram obstacle up, out of its way so it can continue to fall.Similarly, if we were to put a 1 cm3 plastic cube (approximately 0.8 grams) at the bottom of a glass of water, the heavier water will fall down, pushing the plastic cube up.As I said, it's harder to think about objects that will mix/dissolve in the fluid, but if we look at timescales shorter than mixing time we can still see the same picture: If the drip of water has the same density as the water in the glass (same temperature) then it will not sink or float, but merely mix into the water that is there. If it is denser it will sink before ultimately reaching the same temperature and mixing perfectly.Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2015 10:25:49If i was to add about 50,000 volts to wire surrounding an aluminium structure and it rises of the ground would you not consider that anti-gravity?I have already said that electrostatic forces and gravity are totally different. They can oppose each other, but neither is "anti" the other. You also would not be able to lift an aluminum structure with 50,000 volts (negative or positive). If it were a flexible structure, it might distort to maximize the distance between same charges (like strings on a van de graff generator), but it will not rise off the ground. Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2015 10:25:49''See'' this please, air is not buoyant when it is sinking......Imagine two separate clusters of air molecules at ground level, let's say 10 molecules per cluster and 10 atoms per molecule.Most molecules in the air have 2 or 3 atoms. For a gas, the density is directly related to how many atoms are in the molecule (actually the mass of each molecule).Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2015 10:25:49Lets say (a) and (b) start off at 1kg. 0.981n of force and both clusters are only 1 inch cubed.and both clusters have 100 atoms total volume.Cluster (a) expands making now 50 atoms per cubic inch compared to 100 atoms a cubic inch of (b).Less dense making less weight, newtons of force.100 atoms, one kg? You're off by two dozen orders of magnitude (a factor of 1000000000000000000000000)!!!Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2015 10:25:49This still does not explain why it rises opposing gravity, neither does it account for that when the air is expanding it opposes itself.Cluster (a) is held together by gravity, cluster (a) expands, cluster (a) opposes its own gravity when charged.If you can imagine a positive charged invisible sphere, the sphere will always want to rip itself apart.Gravity is not holding the clusters together it holds the cluster near the Earth. Yes, charged spheres will have an outward force.Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2015 10:25:49Now at the very instance of the explosion the starting point(s), I call this zero point space, This is what I want to know about lightning, the zero point space.I have centripetally pressurised positive ion's clusters that then gain charge and explode at point zero.The negative ion's absorb the charge and then collapse into point zero forcing an implode and then an escape seen as lightning.You're making up language again.Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2015 10:25:49What magnetic bottling holds the sun together?Ummm... Gravity holds the sun together.
All matter has mass, all matter is held together by its own mass.
All equal positive forces will repel each other.
Let us take your bar of gold and add some energy to the gold , enough energy to cause the binding gravity of itself to molecularly fail and the gold to change form.Can you not see that gravity is being opposed in the gold of the atoms when charged?
And 100 atoms per kg was just an example that would be easier to understand and work with rather than millions.
''I have already said that electrostatic forces and gravity are totally different. They can oppose each other, but neither is "anti" the other. You also would not be able to lift an aluminum structure with 50,000 volts (negative or positive). If it were a flexible structure, it might distort to maximize the distance between same charges (like strings on a van de graff generator), but it will not rise off the ground. ''Incorrect, view a lifter device.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHPevIbSCPA
and also the energy vortex from the sun better known has curvature.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbBYZZBREBAexcept the suns energy vortex is transparent and invisible and the sun is in the center of a worm hole.A worm hole created by its motion. A rolling road.
You say the sun is held together by its own gravity, in plasma Physics you have to magnetic bottle plasma, how is this different?
Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2015 13:08:18All matter has mass, all matter is held together by its own mass. The force of gravity is very, very weak compared to electrostatic forces. Think about it, it takes the mass of the entire Earth to generate the gravity that holds you to the surface. But this force is much smaller than the force that holds you together (the Earth won't rip you apart).Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2015 13:08:18All equal positive forces will repel each other. Positive *charges* repel each other.Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2015 13:08:18Let us take your bar of gold and add some energy to the gold , enough energy to cause the binding gravity of itself to molecularly fail and the gold to change form.Can you not see that gravity is being opposed in the gold of the atoms when charged?Again, gravity is not what holds the gold together. Gold atoms are bound to each other by electrostatic forces (positive nuclei sharing negative electrons). You have to put a lot of energy into gold to melt it (melting point is 1064 °C), and this hardly changes its density (it goes from 19.3 g/cm3 as a solid at rt to 17.3 g/cm3 as a liquid at melting point). You have to get it up to 2970 °C to boil gold and then heat of vaporization is still 342 kJ/mol! (water only needs 40 kJ/mol) In contrast, the energy required to lift gold 1000 meters above the ground is only about 1.9 kJ/mol.Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2015 13:08:18And 100 atoms per kg was just an example that would be easier to understand and work with rather than millions.I understand that you are just supplying numbers that are easier to work with, but even "millions" is way off. Millions of millions of millions of millions are the numbers that we need to think about. It's easier to use scientific notation to discuss these numbers 1x1024 is just as easy to think about as 100 (1x102).Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2015 13:08:18''I have already said that electrostatic forces and gravity are totally different. They can oppose each other, but neither is "anti" the other. You also would not be able to lift an aluminum structure with 50,000 volts (negative or positive). If it were a flexible structure, it might distort to maximize the distance between same charges (like strings on a van de graff generator), but it will not rise off the ground. ''Incorrect, view a lifter device.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHPevIbSCPASorry, I misinterpreted "aluminum structure" as something much bigger than you intended. Sure, you can lift a piece of aluminum foil with 50kV--just more proof that gravity is much weaker than electrostatics.Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2015 13:08:18and also the energy vortex from the sun better known has curvature.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbBYZZBREBAexcept the suns energy vortex is transparent and invisible and the sun is in the center of a worm hole.A worm hole created by its motion. A rolling road.I wish there were a wormhole so close that it could be studied!Quote from: Thebox on 23/03/2015 13:08:18You say the sun is held together by its own gravity, in plasma Physics you have to magnetic bottle plasma, how is this different?We resort to using electromagnetic technology to confine plasma because that's all we can do. The sun has enough mass that the plasma is confined purely by gravitational forces. Bear in mind the sun has a mass of 2x1030 kg! Essentially ratio of mass between the sun and you is approximately the same as the ratio of mass between you and an electron. That's also 330000 times the mass of the Earth.
I feel that science is missing the entire point, what goes up comes back down through itself. If I dropped a drip of water into a glass of water, would the water drip sink?Quoteif it was denser than the surrounding water, yes. That's why there is life on earth - but the logic is a bit too complicated for this thread.If i was to add about 50,000 volts to wire surrounding an aluminium structure and it rises of the ground would you not consider that anti-gravity?Quoteno. no more than a crane or an aeroplane is antigravityI am still considering lightning, just down a different path than a normal person would take.Quotealas, lightning strikes normal people too, by pretty much the same path as the abnormal''See'' this please, air is not buoyant when it is sinking...... QuoteI guess that's a good definition of buoyancy, but pointlessImagine two separate clusters of air molecules at ground level, let's say 10 molecules per cluster and 10 atoms per molecule.Cluster (a) we start to add energy, the cluster then starts to expand, so per cubic mm, the density becomes less, in effect being lighter than cluster (b).Quoteless dense, not lighterLighter meaning less Newtons of force.Quotebut it isn't lighter - you haven't altered the massLets say (a) and (b) start off at 1kg. 0.981n of force and both clusters are only 1 inch cubed.and both clusters have 100 atoms total volume.Cluster (a) expands making now 50 atoms per cubic inch compared to 100 atoms a cubic inch of (b).Less dense making less weight, newtons of force.Quoteno, becuse you haven't got rid of any mass, just spread it out a bitThis still does not explain why it rises opposing gravity, QuotePLEASE read Archimedes before confusing yourself any furtherneither does it account for that when the air is expanding it opposes itself.Cluster (a) is held together by gravity Quotewho said so? I thought you had put the molecules in a box, cluster (a) expands, cluster (a) opposes its own gravity when charged Quotewhere diod this charge come from, all of a sudden? Heat doesn't make charge.If you can imagine a positive charged invisible sphere, the sphere will always want to rip itself apartQuotenot in my imagination, nor according to Cavendish's experiment.I am sure you have seen one of these video before.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6ucN1Qa-PoThe energy from the explosion expanding making a temporal energy vacuum in the water , as the water pressurises and the explosion force radius weakens, the vacuum then implodes forcing the explosion upwards, upwards being the less dense and less pressure.Quotelots of words, no discernible logic or meaningNow at the very instance of the explosion the starting point(s), I call this zero point space, Quotequite ambitious, equating time to space, and quite unnecessary: lightning is a mesoscopic phenomenon of classical electrostaticsThis is what I want to know about lightning, the zero point space.I have centripetally pressurised positive ion's clusters that then gain charge and explode at point zero.The negative ion's absorb the charge and then collapse into point zero forcing an implode and then an escape seen as lightningQuotea wonderful concoction, but utterly unlike anything anyone has ever observed.A similarity to the underwater link without the water. What magnetic bottling holds the sun together Quotenone. gravity is not magnetism?
if it was denser than the surrounding water, yes. That's why there is life on earth - but the logic is a bit too complicated for this thread.
no. no more than a crane or an aeroplane is antigravity
alas, lightning strikes normal people too, by pretty much the same path as the abnormal
I guess that's a good definition of buoyancy, but pointless
less dense, not lighter
but it isn't lighter - you haven't altered the mass
no, becuse you haven't got rid of any mass, just spread it out a bit
PLEASE read Archimedes before confusing yourself any further
who said so? I thought you had put the molecules in a box
where diod this charge come from, all of a sudden? Heat doesn't make charge
not in my imagination, nor according to Cavendish's experiment
lots of words, no discernible logic or meaning
quite ambitious, equating time to space, and quite unnecessary: lightning is a mesoscopic phenomenon of classical electrostatics
a wonderful concoction, but utterly unlike anything anyone has ever observed
none. gravity is not magnetism