It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Korhyan
You both need to brush up on your elementary physics.
Light is a form of energy.
Darkness is not a thing at all, but an absence of light.
Some darkness has light that is not visible; however, true darkness contains no light at all.
Also light is not a force at all, as I mentioned above it is a form of energy.
Force:
12. Physics. a. an influence on a body or system, producing or tending to produce a change in movement or in shape or other effects.
b. the intensity of such an influence. Symbol: F, f
Additionally, mass is not all charged. I hope that you, like most people, have heard of Neutrons. They are neutral. They have NO charge. Somehow, though they manage to stick to other particles. They even manage to form city- to continent-sized chunks called neutron stars.
Another thing that I hope you already know is that there are four forces. They are, in order of strength: Electromagnetism, the Strong Nuclear Force, the Weak Nuclear Force, and Gravity.
You are correct though in that electromagnetism can be used to create artificial/anti-gravity.
Finally, "Scientists do not know this scientific fact, but I do" seriously damages your credibility.
Originally posted by Korhyan
Neutrons. They are neutral. They have NO charge. Somehow, though they manage to stick to other particles.
Additionally, mass is not all charged. I hope that you, like most people, have heard of Neutrons. They are neutral. They have NO charge. Somehow, though they manage to stick to other particles. They even manage to form city- to continent-sized chunks called neutron stars.
en.wikipedia.org...
It is this which makes the difference when quarks clump together to form protons or neutrons: a proton is made up of two "up quarks" and one "down quark", yielding a net charge of +1; while a neutron contains one "up quark" and two "down quarks", yielding a net charge of 0.
Originally posted by joelrivard
I can't begin to imagine how magnetism could account for this. General relativity is one of the greatest intellectual achievements of mankind. I'm curious about the motivation for replacing it?? I dunno.
Originally posted by joelrivard
Rather than replace gravity there may be some other scientific way to incorporate magnetism into stone-moving.