Stuff

  • 144 Replies
  • 13000 Views
Stuff
« on: February 08, 2007, 09:24:14 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "Quarrior"

Well done sherlock holmes, im aware of this

You sure of that?
Quote
the universe can slow down as NOT TO PASS THE SPEED OF LIGHT, which is fine, but the negative acceleration would be noticable by anyone on earth as a weakening of the pulling force toward the ground.


Omg u never learn do you lol. I offered one of two possibilities, the one you quoted then was one which did not follow the theory of relativity. Still failing to disprove me i see, and u call yourself an Engineer...What kind by the way, im a Chemical Engineer with a science major in Physics and nuclear chemistry
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

?

GeoGuy

Stuff
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2007, 09:26:43 PM »
Well you certainly had me fooled.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Stuff
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2007, 09:26:45 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
im a Chemical Engineer with a science major in Physics and nuclear chemistry


And you never learned about relativity?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Stuff
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2007, 09:27:32 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"


My god you FE people..

He's one of yours. :roll:


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

RenaissanceMan

Stuff
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2007, 09:27:37 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
An inertial observer is an observer that is at rest with respect to an inertial reference frame. In the context of relativity, an inertial reference frame is one that drifts in gravity-free space without undergoing rotation or being accelerated.


Yup, that is the definition of an inertial observer. You have 2 ways to go with this. Either clamp the definition to the point that no observation of acceleration is possible, and as such... observation of velocity is impossible as well... or accept that measurable differential acceleration is possible. Measurement of acceleration is achieved through red shift analysis, measurement of velocity is achieved though observations over time.

As such, if you can see a thing... you are an inertial observer of that thing.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Stuff
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2007, 09:28:30 PM »
My pen, when I let go of it is in an inertial reference frame.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Stuff
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2007, 09:29:36 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
im a Chemical Engineer with a science major in Physics and nuclear chemistry


And you never learned about relativity?


I have to say relativity was something i wasn't good at, because i didn't major in it, i was more in the Quantum Mechanics side, u guys still havn't talked to me about that. So far im still kickin ur ass boys, disprove me, cmon
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Stuff
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2007, 09:30:38 PM »
I've told you how you are wrong about relativity.  So, no, you are not kicking any ass.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

FES_the_stupid_morons

Stuff
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2007, 09:32:15 PM »
TheEngineer, you are the biggest moron i have ever seen. You know absolutely nothing about anything let alone relativity and gravity. All you know how to do is say "Does it?", and "im a gay moron". All you Flat Earth Society people think you know everything. This is the most rediculous theory in existence and yous should all jump into a cespit full of rotting corpses and have a bug gay orgy. Honestly, do any of you have a clue about what your saying? Quarrior actually knows what he is talking about, thank god there is someone in this forum with some intellect.

But really, get a gun... shoot yourselves in the groin, not that there will be much to shoot down there, then invite all your lame society of homosexuals into a big warehouse full of dead puppies and masterbate all over each other. Then proceed to drink the semenal fluids, whilst setting yourselves on fire.

Once your done, think of a new theory that describes how a group of overweight, stupid morons can think of such a gay theory, like the one proposed here.

See ya losers. Ban me if you want i dont really care

Stuff
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2007, 09:32:54 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
I've told you how you are wrong about relativity.  So, no, you are not kicking any ass.


lol no you havn't and I still have louds of other points which you guys can't touch...wheres your argument about general relativity, all we've talked about is special relativity. Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics...kickin ur arse boys
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

Stuff
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2007, 09:34:25 PM »
Quote from: "FES_the_stupid_morons"
TheEngineer, you are the biggest moron i have ever seen. You know absolutely nothing about anything let alone relativity and gravity. All you know how to do is say "Does it?", and "im a gay moron". All you Flat Earth Society people think you know everything. This is the most rediculous theory in existence and yous should all jump into a cespit full of rotting corpses and have a bug gay orgy. Honestly, do any of you have a clue about what your saying? Quarrior actually knows what he is talking about, thank god there is someone in this forum with some intellect.

But really, get a gun... shoot yourselves in the groin, not that there will be much to shoot down there, then invite all your lame society of homosexuals into a big warehouse full of dead puppies and masterbate all over each other. Then proceed to drink the semenal fluids, whilst setting yourselves on fire.

Once your done, think of a new theory that describes how a group of overweight, stupid morons can think of such a gay theory, like the one proposed here.

See ya losers. Ban me if you want i dont really care


omg classic material
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Stuff
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2007, 09:35:05 PM »
Arrogance, the most annoying RE trait. :roll:


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: fe and relativity
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2007, 09:36:03 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Grigori Rasputin"
Yes, this would be the case if everything (universe) around the platform (flat Earth) wasn't accelerating as well. But what if everything around the platform was also accelerating at 9.8m/s2?


Lots of stuff wouldn't be accelerating without the help of the Earth or some celestial body.  This is why we feel a force from the ground.


That's not what I asked. I asked what would happen to the object dropped over the edge of the platform if everything around the platform was accelerating as well. Any ideas on this?

I also wanted to know it FE model is geocentric, or is the FE at the bottom of the universe pushing everything "up"? Or perhaps something completely different?
hen one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called conspiracy.

Stuff
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2007, 09:37:13 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Arrogance, the most annoying RE trait. :roll:

lol that wont save your blessed theory, how is it arrogant that i provided you with reasons why Flat Earth is rubbish and you just come back with desperate one liners. I seriously doubt you actually believe it yourself, your just depserate to be part of some pathetic fad...cmon if u can disprove me i will accept it. You did good on special relativity, u tried...but u'll never win the argument at this rate
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

Stuff
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2007, 09:43:48 PM »
Ahhh well, I'm off to work, you guys failed to prove anything, except the laws of relativity...good Job. If anyone would like to continue this discussion, feel free to add me on msn where i will beat u into the ground feel free to email me, quarrior@hotmail.com
I am most dissappointed with you "TheEngineer" for someone who is supposed to be a moderator on this forum u know very little of your own theory...

I win, you lose, cyas
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3793
  • We are as one.
Stuff
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2007, 10:12:49 PM »
Quote from: "FES_the_stupid_morons"
Quarrior actually knows what he is talking about


Really?  I'm interested ...

Quote from: "Quarrior"
havn't ... have louds of other points ... wheres your argument about general relativity ... wont ... i ... desperate one liners ... your just depserate



Quote from: "Quarrior"
My god you FE people...check what an Inertial frame of reference is...you dont know...THIS IS NOT WHAT AN INTERIAL FRAME OF REFERENCE IS...It must not be accelerating at the same rate as what it is observing.


If your frame of reference is accelerating, and you're observing an object that's in your frame of reference, is it accelerating according to you?

Now, if you drop the object (which means it's no longer in your reference frame and is travelling at a constant velocity), what will happen?

I'm saying that, since EVERYTHING is accelerating upwards (in the "accelerating upwards" model), the entire universe is in the same reference frame until it enters a state of constant velocity (such as dropping something).  Einstein said (with GR, no less!) that frames undergoing constant acceleration and frames under the influence of gravity are equivalent.

That's why you have gravity and we have the "accelerating upwards" model.

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3793
  • We are as one.
Stuff
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2007, 10:15:14 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
I win, you lose, cyas


No you didn't, for I wasn't invited ...

Stuff
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2007, 10:24:08 PM »
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "Quarrior"
havn't ... have louds of other points ... wheres your argument about general relativity ... wont ... i ... desperate one liners ... your just depserate




Pointing out typos is a great way of proving lack of intelligence. Well done.
hen one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called conspiracy.

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3793
  • We are as one.
Stuff
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2007, 10:34:44 PM »
Quote from: "Grigori Rasputin"
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "Quarrior"
havn't ... have louds of other points ... wheres your argument about general relativity ... wont ... i ... desperate one liners ... your just depserate




Pointing out typos is a great way of proving lack of intelligence. Well done.


There are different intelligences, sir; I only showed he either a)didn't care that reading what he wrote is annoying, for he doesn't care enough to make it grammatically decent, or b)seriously lacks in the Grammar error.  He could have English as his second language, in which case, I'd apologize for being such an ass about it.

Furthermore, I didn't see you attacking him whenever he was calling TheEngineer/EnragedPenguin/others stupid.  Hypocrisy much?

Stuff
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2007, 10:50:33 PM »
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Furthermore, I didn't see you attacking him whenever he was calling TheEngineer/EnragedPenguin/others stupid.  Hypocrisy much?


It would've been hypocrisy if I had been the one calling someone stupid. Of course it was wrong for Quarrior to call ppl stupid. Assuming that the ppl he called stupid are not.
hen one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called conspiracy.

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3793
  • We are as one.
Stuff
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2007, 11:09:33 PM »
Quote from: "Grigori Rasputin"
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Furthermore, I didn't see you attacking him whenever he was calling TheEngineer/EnragedPenguin/others stupid.  Hypocrisy much?


It would've been hypocrisy if I had been the one calling someone stupid. Of course it was wrong for Quarrior to call ppl stupid. Assuming that the ppl he called stupid are not.


Remember this?
Quote from: "Grigori Rasputin"
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "Quarrior"
havn't ... have louds of other points ... wheres your argument about general relativity ... wont ... i ... desperate one liners ... your just depserate




Pointing out typos is a great way of proving lack of intelligence. Well done.


I wasn't calling you stupid, yet you rushed to the aid of one person whom I was calling stupid (what goes around, comes around).  Why oh why didn't you defend the FEers when you defended the REer?  Discrimination?  I believe so!  Hypocrisy?  Why, yes!

If you aren't going to be unbiased, don't bother at all.

Stuff
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2007, 11:24:38 PM »
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
If you aren't going to be unbiased, don't bother at all.

Fine. Here's me being unbiased, treating FEers and REers equally:

Quote from: "Quarrior"
havn't ... have louds of other points ... wheres your argument about general relativity ... wont ... i ... desperate one liners ... your just depserate



Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Tom, don't make me get the duck tape.



Happy now?
hen one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called conspiracy.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Stuff
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2007, 12:16:28 AM »
I must admit that I didn't get past the second paragraph of this gem of a post.  Now that I've read it, I wish I had done so earlier.

Quote from: "Quarrior"
All areas of physics point to the existence of gravity

Hmm, Relativity says gravity does not exist.  Strike one!

Quote

General Relativity states that
“…gravitation is not due to a force but rather is a manifestation of curved space and time, with this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the space-time. General relativity is distinguished from other metric theories of gravitation by its use of the Einstein field equations to relate space-time content and space-time curvature…”
General Relativity (GR) is used to bridge Newton’s law of gravitation with special relativity. To visualize this, space-time as a large flat piece of fabric that runs all the way through the universe. This fabric can be bent, curved, whatever you will. This is caused by “mass-energy” and momentum. The simplest example of this is mass, where by a celestial body will actually curve the space-time continuum, creating an indent in the fabric of space-time.

 

Ok great, space-time can be bent, but what does this mean?
Basically, thinking in Newtonian physics, fallings objects are caused by the force we call gravity, which is true. What Einstein says is that this force is actually just a curvature in space-time resulting from a mass-energy disturbance. Say when we are held to the surface of the earth, it is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration caused by the mechanical resistance of the surface on which they are standing. Whether you find this ridiculous or not, it has some interesting effects on light.

Light, by definition travels in a straight line through space-time. When space-time is bent, light follows the curvature of space-time. This has been proven since 1919 when Sir Arthur Eddington photographed a distant star, the night before and during an eclipse. The position of the star seemed to move during the eclipse, due to the light emitted by that star bending around the curvature caused by the sun.

Yep, that what is said in textbooks.  Good job vomiting up one.
Quote
Now, since your “mystic gravity” theory states that all objects are moving at a constant acceleration, you cannot claim that the star naturally changed position because relative to the earth the star would have an inertial velocity of zero.

Just because the stars are being accelerated along with us does not mean they don't move with respect to us.
Quote

Special Relativity equally disproves the existence of this mystic gravitation. If what you say is true, and the entire universe is accelerating at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s/s upwards then we have some serious issues. Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE.

Accelerating past the speed of light is, yes.
Quote
Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light.

Too bad for you velocity does not add linearly in relativity.  We will never reach the speed of light.  Strike two!
Quote

I’m getting tired already, so I am going to introduce a final point based on Quantum Mechanics, Unified String Theory for those who understand it and the idea of the universal force. I’ll quickly give some background into the idea. Basically String theory is the theory we currently use to describe the way matter acts on the quantum level. It completes the notions of Quantum Mechanics which has been around for the past 80 years. String theory basically tries to unify Einstein’s Quantum Theory and Quantum Mechanics, since both models of the universe are true but are completely different. Quantum Theory creates a universe which is smooth and ordered, while the universe of quantum mechanics is dysfunctional and random. Both are true for their part. String theory bridges the gap and one such way is by unifying the forces of Gravity, Electro-Magnetism, Weak Nuclear and Strong Nuclear. String theory is very difficult to prove as it requires the existence of more than 12 dimensions but it can be shown to some extent. If you want to research further into String theory, please do so yourself. I will only outline the area which disproves the mystic gravitation.

Thanks for vomiting this up also.  We can read too, you know.

Quote
One area of String theory where proof exists is the in the unification of Gravity and Strong Nuclear.
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/NGFT_Chapter_11.htm
The Strong nuclear force is caused by the interactions between Gluons (sub-atomic particles known as bosons) in the nucleus. Gluons are responsible for the binding of Neutrons and Protons within the nuclei of atoms.
It is now understood that this binding of protons and neutrons in the nucleus is the same force that holds us to the ground. It is however incredibly strong within the nucleus and much weaker on a macro sized scale.
Gravity, known for causing space time compression (see above) happens within the atomic radius of atoms. The actual size of an atom would be much larger if it were not for the effect of gravity. The explanation can be found from the above link but basically we know that gravity is NOT constant, but infact depends on the sub-atomic structure of the material inducing the gravity. This is what allows the strong nuclear and gravity to be unified.
The gravity is determined by the “binding energy per nucleon” which is a result of gluon interaction. Nucleons (protons and neutrons) at the surface of the nucleus are much more weakly bound due to the limited interaction gluons have with the more central nucleons. Note that the strong nuclear – gravity strength is at its strongest (incredibly strong 10^15N) at the distance equivalent to the diameter of a proton/neutron and then gets significantly weaker which explains why gravity is so weak over such vast distances. It also provides more evidence to explain why some materials have a higher refractive index than others.
Also as I said above, atoms experience space time compression, much in the same way the universe does from gravity. This is due again to the “binding energy per nucleon”. Atoms that have all their ground state proton energy levels filled will have the strongest space-time compression and the smallest atomic radius as a result of having their protons and neutrons more tightly bound, also known as the proton “magic” numbers. “Double Magic” atoms are atoms that have all their neutron and proton ground state energy levels filled and have an even tighter pact nucleus and greater space-time compression. Atoms which have more or less protons or neutrons than these magic numbers (the magic number can be found in the above link) have their outer protons less tightly bound and undergo decay, as well as having a much weaker space-time compression.

Let me see if I can understand this:  You get your physics insights from a website whose purpose is:
Quote
The purpose of this Website is to provide the “Real Physics” involved with developing “Warp Drive” and “making Star Trek a reality.”  Gravity manipulation and amplification is the key that unlocks the Milky Way galaxy and the rest of the universe.  By navigating the heavens on a Starship using an Amplified Gravity Field Propulsion System, man will no longer be bound to a portion of our Sun's Solar System.  

I am embarassed if you really are an engineer.
Quote

The above theories are now widely accepted and are all pieces now used by physicists as they try to understand the puzzle which is our universe.

Your “NUCLEAR GRAVITATION FIELD THEORY” is a crackpot theory from a crackpot.  No self respecting physicist believes his theory.  If he was able to solve the Unification problem, why hasn't he been awarded the Nobel Prize?

STRIKE THREE! YOU'RE OUT!


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Stuff
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2007, 05:44:13 AM »
Shut the fuck up TheEngineer, you penguin.

Stuff
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2007, 07:29:42 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Uzor"
1) you're wrong
2) we're right
3) the earth's speed it constant, its acceleration is not(read: its acceleration is 0).


(1) and (2) are the same thing.  Replace (2) with "the measured acceleration of an object depends on the relative velocity of the observer and the object.

Aren't you the bright one.

That doesn't answer my initial question though. Or maybe you didn't answer is because you can't?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Stuff
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2007, 07:40:10 AM »
I answered it.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Stuff
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2007, 07:56:42 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer
I must admit that I didn't get past the second paragraph of this gem of a post.  Now that I've read it, I wish I had done so earlier.

Quote from: "Quarrior"
All areas of physics point to the existence of gravity

Hmm, Relativity says gravity does not exist.  Strike one!

Quote

General Relativity states that
“…gravitation is not due to a force but rather is a manifestation of curved space and time, with this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the space-time. General relativity is distinguished from other metric theories of gravitation by its use of the Einstein field equations to relate space-time content and space-time curvature…”
General Relativity (GR) is used to bridge Newton’s law of gravitation with special relativity. To visualize this, space-time as a large flat piece of fabric that runs all the way through the universe. This fabric can be bent, curved, whatever you will. This is caused by “mass-energy” and momentum. The simplest example of this is mass, where by a celestial body will actually curve the space-time continuum, creating an indent in the fabric of space-time.

 

Ok great, space-time can be bent, but what does this mean?
Basically, thinking in Newtonian physics, fallings objects are caused by the force we call gravity, which is true. What Einstein says is that this force is actually just a curvature in space-time resulting from a mass-energy disturbance. Say when we are held to the surface of the earth, it is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration caused by the mechanical resistance of the surface on which they are standing. Whether you find this ridiculous or not, it has some interesting effects on light.

Light, by definition travels in a straight line through space-time. When space-time is bent, light follows the curvature of space-time. This has been proven since 1919 when Sir Arthur Eddington photographed a distant star, the night before and during an eclipse. The position of the star seemed to move during the eclipse, due to the light emitted by that star bending around the curvature caused by the sun.

Yep, that what is said in textbooks.  Good job vomiting up one.
Quote
Now, since your “mystic gravity” theory states that all objects are moving at a constant acceleration, you cannot claim that the star naturally changed position because relative to the earth the star would have an inertial velocity of zero.

Just because the stars are being accelerated along with us does not mean they don't move with respect to us.
Quote

Special Relativity equally disproves the existence of this mystic gravitation. If what you say is true, and the entire universe is accelerating at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s/s upwards then we have some serious issues. Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE.

Accelerating past the speed of light is, yes.
Quote
Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light.

Too bad for you velocity does not add linearly in relativity.  We will never reach the speed of light.  Strike two!
Quote

I’m getting tired already, so I am going to introduce a final point based on Quantum Mechanics, Unified String Theory for those who understand it and the idea of the universal force. I’ll quickly give some background into the idea. Basically String theory is the theory we currently use to describe the way matter acts on the quantum level. It completes the notions of Quantum Mechanics which has been around for the past 80 years. String theory basically tries to unify Einstein’s Quantum Theory and Quantum Mechanics, since both models of the universe are true but are completely different. Quantum Theory creates a universe which is smooth and ordered, while the universe of quantum mechanics is dysfunctional and random. Both are true for their part. String theory bridges the gap and one such way is by unifying the forces of Gravity, Electro-Magnetism, Weak Nuclear and Strong Nuclear. String theory is very difficult to prove as it requires the existence of more than 12 dimensions but it can be shown to some extent. If you want to research further into String theory, please do so yourself. I will only outline the area which disproves the mystic gravitation.

Thanks for vomiting this up also.  We can read too, you know.

Quote
One area of String theory where proof exists is the in the unification of Gravity and Strong Nuclear.
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/NGFT_Chapter_11.htm
The Strong nuclear force is caused by the interactions between Gluons (sub-atomic particles known as bosons) in the nucleus. Gluons are responsible for the binding of Neutrons and Protons within the nuclei of atoms.
It is now understood that this binding of protons and neutrons in the nucleus is the same force that holds us to the ground. It is however incredibly strong within the nucleus and much weaker on a macro sized scale.
Gravity, known for causing space time compression (see above) happens within the atomic radius of atoms. The actual size of an atom would be much larger if it were not for the effect of gravity. The explanation can be found from the above link but basically we know that gravity is NOT constant, but infact depends on the sub-atomic structure of the material inducing the gravity. This is what allows the strong nuclear and gravity to be unified.
The gravity is determined by the “binding energy per nucleon” which is a result of gluon interaction. Nucleons (protons and neutrons) at the surface of the nucleus are much more weakly bound due to the limited interaction gluons have with the more central nucleons. Note that the strong nuclear – gravity strength is at its strongest (incredibly strong 10^15N) at the distance equivalent to the diameter of a proton/neutron and then gets significantly weaker which explains why gravity is so weak over such vast distances. It also provides more evidence to explain why some materials have a higher refractive index than others.
Also as I said above, atoms experience space time compression, much in the same way the universe does from gravity. This is due again to the “binding energy per nucleon”. Atoms that have all their ground state proton energy levels filled will have the strongest space-time compression and the smallest atomic radius as a result of having their protons and neutrons more tightly bound, also known as the proton “magic” numbers. “Double Magic” atoms are atoms that have all their neutron and proton ground state energy levels filled and have an even tighter pact nucleus and greater space-time compression. Atoms which have more or less protons or neutrons than these magic numbers (the magic number can be found in the above link) have their outer protons less tightly bound and undergo decay, as well as having a much weaker space-time compression.

I am embarassed if you really are an engineer.

Your “NUCLEAR GRAVITATION FIELD THEORY” is a crackpot theory from a crackpot.  No self respecting physicist believes his theory.  If he was able to solve the Unification problem, why hasn't he been awarded the Nobel Prize?

STRIKE THREE! YOU'RE OUT!


omg The Engineer, your idiocy has NO BOUNDS. firstly Relativity says gravity DOES EXIST you GOD DAMN MORON...it just describes it differently to Newtonian Physics...once again fail to disprove me

How can stars, move in other  directions but the same way we do in this accelerating universe IF THERE IS NO OTHER FORCE TO PUSH OR PULL THEM ABOUT...once again, your rebutal lacks any strong case, only the support of a moron.

Quote
The purpose of this Website is to provide the “Real Physics” involved with developing “Warp Drive” and “making Star Trek a reality.”  Gravity manipulation and amplification is the key that unlocks the Milky Way galaxy and the rest of the universe.  By navigating the heavens on a Starship using an Amplified Gravity Field Propulsion System, man will no longer be bound to a portion of our Sun's Solar System.  

The information the website provides is true. Its trying to show you how it is possible to travel at great speeds. For morons like you the only representation you can understand is stat treck, the theory explained is 100% correct, try reading what it has to say. You can look for another website if you want to, it will disprove your pathetic flat earth theory.

This theory isn't by one physicist either. Its by a group of men from all around the world. The document you read is 7 years old, we are a lot further into string theory and uniformed force theory now than we were 7 years ago. You can't give the nobel prize to one man for a theory which comprises several different scientists from many different organisations...

Also...sorry for trying to explain Quantum Mechanics to those who don't understand it...such as yourself. I didn't quote any text book unless i specifically said so, that is from my head based on years of University education, something im sure u'll never experience
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

Stuff
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2007, 08:02:41 AM »
P.S you still havn't disproved what I said. Face it... Flat Earth Theory is wrong... In the next few years regular "non-government" human beings ( although exceedingly wealthy ones ) will look down on earth from their celestial tour bus orbiting the planet and say "oooh it is round, how amazing"...
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Stuff
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2007, 08:12:53 AM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"

omg The Engineer, your idiocy has NO BOUNDS. firstly Relativity says gravity DOES EXIST you GOD DAMN MORON...

Relativity specifically states that gravity does not exist.  Gravitation is supported by Relativity.  Remember when I said there was a difference?
Quote
How can stars, move in other  directions but the same way we do in this accelerating universe IF THERE IS NO OTHER FORCE TO PUSH OR PULL THEM ABOUT...once again, your rebutal lacks any strong case, only the support of a moron.

Who said that the UA was the only force in the universe?

Quote

The information the website provides is true. Its trying to show you how it is possible to travel at great speeds. For morons like you the only representation you can understand is stat treck, the theory explained is 100% correct, try reading what it has to say.

Is it?  Where is the documentation?  What other respected scientists have supported it?

Quote
This theory isn't by one physicist either. Its by a group of men from all around the world. The document you read is 7 years old, we are a lot further into string theory and uniformed force theory now than we were 7 years ago. You can't give the nobel prize to one man for a theory which comprises several different scientists from many different organisations...

Really?  Then why does it specifically state on his website that he came up with the theory by himself?
Quote
You can't give the nobel prize to one man for a theory which comprises several different scientists from many different organisations...

They would give it to all of them.  So why haven't they?  I mean he has unfied the fundamental forces and solved the greatest problem in physics, right?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

GeoGuy

Stuff
« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2007, 08:16:33 AM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
that is from my head based on years of University education...

So much for University education, eh?