Rest in Peace; Gravity.

Apples possess atoms.
Atoms possess electrons which bring forth magnetic fields.
Magnetic fields apply force to other magnetic fields within.

To our Kind; What cause is responsible for an apple moving toward the center of the Earth?

You can speak the word 'gravity' with every breath of your life and write it on every piece of paper, yet I will never trust in that which doesn't exist.

May the seed of knowledge grow inside you.
Peace.

I believe what you are saying is that things fall because of magnitism to the earth? If that is what you are trying to say, then why don't apples stick to magnets?

Originally posted by razor787
I believe what you are saying is that things fall because of magnitism to the earth? If that is what you are trying to say, then why don't apples stick to magnets?

Is the Earth a magnet, or not?

Consider the difference in scale of a neodymium magnet to that of the Earth.

reply to post by razor787


they would... if the magnet were the size of the earth.

not that that proves anything...

does more mass = more (electro)magnetism?

most magnets are iron right? iron has a high atomic mass.
but its not very far from gold.. which isnt magnetic.... huh..

yeah, i have no idea what im talking about.

Originally posted by BornParadox
To our Kind; What cause is responsible for an apple moving toward the center of the Earth?
You can speak the word 'gravity' with every breath of your life and write it on every piece of paper, yet I will never trust in that which doesn't exist.

Thats your argument??
Given the first few lines, I was actually hoping it would lead somewhere better than "I dont believe you".

reply to post by alfa1

Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth. Idiots!

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

i dont know much about physics but isnt there a relativity problem with your argument?

reply to post by BornParadox


I'm not trying to troll but typically when one makes an argument they have a clearly defined hypothesis and then evidence to support it. I see words and even sentences but they don't say much.

seems to have went right over some ppls head

reply to post by trollslayer


Your semantics amuse me as well.
Grasp the meaning of the words I use, such as 'atom' 'magnetic field' and 'earth.'
Rudeness is not my course, knowledge is.

Magnets possess mass.
Masses brings forth gravitational fields.
Gravitational fields apply force to other masses.

To our Kind; What cause is responsible for two magnets moving together?

You can speak the word 'magnetism' with every breath of your life and write it on every piece of paper, yet I will never trust in that which doesn't exist.

May the tapeworm of knowledge grow inside you.
Reese's Pieces.

Originally posted by BornParadox
reply to post by trollslayer

 

Your semantics amuse me as well.
Grasp the meaning of the words I use, such as 'atom' 'magnetic field' and 'earth.'
Rudeness is not my course, knowledge is.

essentially what you're doing here is ditching science for philosophy.
Unfortunately your philosophy is almost as bad as your science, which ultimately leads to a thread with little to no redeeming value.

reply to post by BornParadox

from my post on the thread "Roll over Einstein: Pillar of physics challenged"

OLD NEWS! infact this news is about 15-18 years old, whats more you dont need a particle accelerator to prove it either. next they will be telling you in 15 years that gravity and the graviton is pure fantasy and instead, that particles, particulary vacuumed have a positive state, neutral (ionic state) and negative state, similar to a magnetic field having a north and south, the state of the particle or sub-particle is influenced by it's neighbouring particles state, to put it in simple terms. there you go, now you dont need to wait 15 years for that one. It's long been known that neutrino's, a sub-particle, are attacted to the current state of the particle it bumps into, hence why they remain neutral, because the next particle maybe of an opposite charge and so forth, each time the neutrino interacts, it assumes it's nearest particles charge state,but once that particle charge is flipped the neutrino returns back to it's original state of ionic, causing the neutrino to bounce infront of the constant.

the neutrino in itself goes a long way to prove that gravity doesnt exist, but also explains why neutrino's or other sub atomic particles appear to have no mass. no gravity also leads you towards the electric universe, where instead all particles big and small have a potential of three states of interaction.

This is why science and philosophy should not mix.

It leads to speculation and flights of fancy, nothing wrong with either science or philosophy, just don't mix the two. Easy.

vvv

reply to post by razor787


the arguement on magnetism is this, when referencing the apple:

if positive, theres an attraction, all things fall to the ground
if negative, theres a repulsion, in the south pole the apple along with everything thats not nailed down will float up into space

think along the lines of something exotic but similar to magnetism (a multistate field), in space there is no north or south, no up or down etc.

reply to post by BornParadox


Well, considering what you wrote... could you explain how is fligh possible, and what wings have to do with it?

And I don't mean just aircraft... birds and insects too

Originally posted by razor787
I believe what you are saying is that things fall because of magnitism to the earth? If that is what you are trying to say, then why don't apples stick to magnets?

That is a common mistake. Everything is magnetic. It is just that some materials are more magnetic than others and there is a huge gap in these differences. We just call all those materials that stick to a magnet magnetic and all other non-magnetic. But the fact they they don't stick to a regular magnet doesn't mean that they are non-magnetic. It just means that you need a very big magnetic field to move them.

Have a look at this: Diamagnetism

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


Mr. UFO,

Why do you compartmentalize 'science' and 'philosophy'? Why do you speak to me as if parts of me are removed from the other?

Yours Truly,
Existence

reply to post by Awen24


Please refer yourself to my signature, it can be found at the bottom of this 'irredeemable' post. Take it in, let it become you for a moment or two. Wikipedia if you must.

So you give something a name, big deal. Science, philosophy, war, love, big mac. Names are abstract.
Actually, words are abstract. The concrete is the two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun that exists, just made fresh, for some jackass at the D's drive through.
This person is not me

Originally posted by Duby78
reply to post by BornParadox

 

Well, considering what you wrote... could you explain how is fligh possible, and what wings have to do with it?

And I don't mean just aircraft... birds and insects too

C'mon OP, why don't you just give it a try?

Please