0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?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?''I guess that's a good definition of buoyancy, but pointless''It is not pointless, science claims air is buoyant, when air is only temporal buoyant.You will not observe point zero actions until the light is made visible. All the energy action is invisible.''but it isn't lighter - you haven't altered the mass''No the mass may not alter but the newtons of force does for a certainty?
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
It is not pointless, science claims air is buoyant, when air is only temporal buoyant.QuoteI know of no science that makes any claims - science is a process, not an agent. Air is certainly buoyant in the presence of liquid water, but sinks in an atmosphere of hydrogen, or even gaseous water.You will not observe point zero actions until the light is made visible. All the energy action is invisible.QuoteI have no idea what your "point zero" means, but since lightning is principally a linear, not a point or volume phenomenon, it is irrelevant anyway''but it isn't lighter - you haven't altered the mass''No the mass may not alter but the newtons of force does for a certainty?Quoteforce = mass x gravitational acceleration. If you haven't changed m or g, you haven't altered F.
I know of no science that makes any claims - science is a process, not an agent. Air is certainly buoyant in the presence of liquid water, but sinks in an atmosphere of hydrogen, or even gaseous water.
I have no idea what your "point zero" means, but since lightning is principally a linear, not a point or volume phenomenon, it is irrelevant anyway
force = mass x gravitational acceleration. If you haven't changed m or g, you haven't altered F.
You need to distinguish between "closed" and "enclosed". Read Bertrand Russell "Principia Mathematica" for a full explanation(I think it's Chapter 3 or thereabouts, dealing with bounded sets). But I don't see how it is relevant to this thread anyway, which is about an electrostatic discharge.
Air is not buoyant to water it simply can not pass the waters density.
''The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as a closed isolated system, will always increase over time. ...''...How can anything in the Universe be an isolated system?
Quote from: Thebox''The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as a closed isolated system, will always increase over time. ...''...How can anything in the Universe be an isolated system?I agree that it is practically impossible to turn any part of the universe into a fully isolated system - with our current technologies, heat will always leak in or out. But people are trying (on a small scale) with quantum computers, and very precise measurements.If you turned the Solar system into a closed system with a radius of (say) 200 million kilometers, all life on Earth's surface would be dead within a few hours. We actually rely on the general expansion of the universe to make the Earth a habitable place.However, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the universe itself is a closed system, having no contact with other universes.But it's hard to be sure, because we haven't explored the universe very thoroughly at this time.
I think this is a matter of definition. If the universe is defined as containing all matter and energy that exists, then it would have to be a closed system. Any matter or energy that "leaked out" would still count as part of the universe, where ever it is--there is no escape.
1. An assumption that the answers I am given may be incomplete.
2. I can think for myself , I know enough basics about forces and work and energies to make a reasonable assumption
I do not consider the Universe and process is that complex or hard to visualise.
TB - Your DOB states that you're 12 years old. With the comments you make in this forum and the near total lack of understanding of physics it makes sense.At this point its clear to us that you are in all likelihood a young kid who knows the words of science but not what they mean. You've been nothing but trouble since you've gotten here. Please leave your ignorant ranting in the New Theories section where they belong.
Quote from: TheboxQuestions and questioning the answers, I thought that was discussion?You've been talking as if your promoting a theory. It appears that you're trolling which means that you create a thread innocently asking a question and then as things move along you push the theory you had really created the thread for. As such we see your questions designed to arrive at such conclusions giving you an in to push your theory.You must think us very naïve to miss something that obvious.
Questions and questioning the answers, I thought that was discussion?
Quote from: TheboxYour own words rather than an interpret of wiki, in which I have the worlds knowledge at my finger tips.You might think that's true but it isn't exactly so. There is a major difference between what you'll find written and what is actually true. For example: in most texts on nuclear physics the say that you can convert mass into energy when in fact that's not true in the sense both the amount of mass and the amount of energy remain constant during both fission and fusion processes. Then you'll hear people claim that light has no mass when in fact it does. What they really meant was that the proper mass of light is zero. Then there's the fact that all to many SR texts claim that "nobody" uses relativistic mass anymore or that it was an error to begin with when in fact that's one of the most inaccurate claims in physics today. I could go on but you get the idea.
Your own words rather than an interpret of wiki, in which I have the worlds knowledge at my finger tips.
Quote from: TheboxThat would be the reason I spend time on forums, to try to obtain the truths out of the rubbish. Have you seen the internet lately ? there is a lot of ideas that differ.How many times do we ALL have to tell you? Pick up a darn physics text and start reading it!
That would be the reason I spend time on forums, to try to obtain the truths out of the rubbish. Have you seen the internet lately ? there is a lot of ideas that differ.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 31/03/2015 03:36:30Quote from: TheboxThat would be the reason I spend time on forums, to try to obtain the truths out of the rubbish. Have you seen the internet lately ? there is a lot of ideas that differ.How many times do we ALL have to tell you? Pick up a darn physics text and start reading it!What makes you think I do not pick up a text book and read it, like the kindly link that was provided?http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.htmlI can't read that fast, there is a lot, also I have spent 4 years reading, I do understand most of the present science stance.
Quote from: Thebox on 31/03/2015 03:45:15Quote from: PmbPhy on 31/03/2015 03:36:30Quote from: TheboxThat would be the reason I spend time on forums, to try to obtain the truths out of the rubbish. Have you seen the internet lately ? there is a lot of ideas that differ.How many times do we ALL have to tell you? Pick up a darn physics text and start reading it!What makes you think I do not pick up a text book and read it, like the kindly link that was provided?http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.htmlI can't read that fast, there is a lot, also I have spent 4 years reading, I do understand most of the present science stance.If you "understand most of the present science stance", why do you continually ask such elementary questions? I agree with Pete, pick up a good physics book and start reading. After spending some time doing this, you may be ready to ask a few intelligent questions.
Quote from: TheboxWhat makes you think I do not pick up a text book and read it, like the kindly link that was provided?Because I made the assumption that if you actually did pick up such a text that you'd have to learn and know calculus and that you'd have worked hundreds, if not thousands, of homework problems and your knowledge wouldn't be as horrible as you've demonstrated it to be in this forum. Plus you claim to be twelve years old by the information you provided to set up the account. If that was the truth then you'd be unable to have learned calculus by the time you claimed to have started reading the Feynman Lectures. If you're not 12 and thus you lied then there's every likelihood that you're lying about reading the Feynman Lectures. Every physicist, student and amateur knows that the Feynman Lectures are quite advanced. If you read and understood them then it would show. But you clearly don't have a good grasp of physics as all of use can attest to.It's so sad that you thought that you could pull the wool over our eyes and pretend to know physics as well as an undergrad. But we're good at what we do and have dealt with people such as yourself trying to BS us for decades so we know that you're lying about your education.That this is evident is clearly demonstrated from the countless times that we've all asked you very clear questions and you either avoided answering them as if we never asked them or your answer was that of a 12 year olds understanding.Stop thinking that we're as ignorant as you are and you'll start to get on the right track.
What makes you think I do not pick up a text book and read it, like the kindly link that was provided?
I still have not had my question answered about lightning, again attention focused on me rather than my posts or ideas. This forum is no different from others, it takes little time for members to become anti-members.