"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Phage


Correction: Gravity is a push towards the displacement of energy as mass is being both propelled and compressed.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Tie a rock to a piece of string and start spinning it around your head. Now walk forward while continuing to spin the rock. Does your head collide with the rock?

Hmm... I think that possibility deserves a closer look. Physics can be tricky, you know. Who knows what might have happened?

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Phage

 

Correction: Gravity is a push towards the displacement of energy as mass is being both propelled and compressed.

Flotation is a pull outwards of the displacement of liquid as mass is being both inflated and consumed.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Phage

 

Correction: Gravity is a push towards the displacement of energy as mass is being both propelled and compressed.

Flotation is a pull outwards of the displacement of liquid as mass is being both inflated and consumed.

So it's no wonder, you can't dive into the pool - head first - without it emptying.

This is a video that exposes the dogmatic, ossified and absurd character of the mainstream science:

Originally posted by Americanist
Correction: Gravity is a push towards the displacement of energy as mass is being both propelled and compressed.

Is gravity a pull or a push?

One can't discuss gravity without discussing mass, correct?

The Wikipedia article on mass defines it as the measure of the matter in an object:

In physics, mass (from Greek μᾶζα "barley cake, lump (of dough)") refers to the quantity of matter in an object.

Yet, in the same article, it says that matter is poorly understood in science:

Macroscopically, mass is associated with matter—although matter, unlike mass, is poorly defined in science.

So, Wikipedia defines mass in terms of matter but can't clearly define matter.

And it claims that mass is not poorly understood, even though it's defining mass in terms of a term it says is poorly understood. That's rather contradictory.

I say there is lots of room for alternative science.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
So, Wikipedia defines mass in terms of matter but can't clearly define matter.

And it claims that mass is not poorly understood, even though it's defining mass in terms of a term it says is poorly understood. That's rather contradictory.

I say there is lots of room for alternative science.

You see, real scientists and real science do not have a problem delineating concepts and phenomena that are not completely understood, or even remain a mystery altogether. That's the spirit of honesty. Contrast this with the endless silly parade of charlatans, wannabes and plain idiots, which goes in this thread year in, year out, where every link (or most) contain proclamations like:

"Simple Theory of Everything"
"Grand Unification Theory"
"This will change the world"
"Revolutionary theory that explains how magnetic fields create not only plasma, but actual matter"
"Fingerprint of God"
"Secret Quantum Mechanics"
"Number nine is the missing particle"
"I have created a Black Hole on my workbench in the lab"

In most cases the math behind these comic statement can be easily understood and operated by my 5 year old kid. And I don't mean in it a good way -- sorry guys but simple arithmetic doesn't get you far in desribing our Universe. But I digress -- in the above it is obvious that it was either idiocy or purposeful deceit that led these person to produce these monumentally ambitious pronouncements with zero merit or evidence to support same. What's sad, there are people who willfully perform an equivalent of lobotomy on themselves, and put even half a penny of stock in this idiocy.

If there is "lots of room" for anything in science, that's room for more research. As to "alternative science", in the sense that is presented here, sorry, there is already way too much of this sad excrement here on ATS pages and everywhere else.

reply to post by buddhasystem


So, you, who hold yourself out as an expert in physics and the defender of sanity, have nothing to say about whether gravity is a pull or a push and why, from your exceedingly superior , well-informed, perspective.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

So, you, who hold yourself out as an expert in physics and the defender of sanity, have nothing to say about whether gravity is a pull or a push and why, from your exceedingly superior

, well-informed,

perspective.

Some questions are just too idiotic to waste time answering. Plus, there are physics textbooks, I know you hate those and the knowledge contained therein, but well tough.

The staff has discussed this and determined that this topic has run its course.

Closed.