I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
So the theory of gravity is bunk?
-
using energy is the only way to do it. Can’t really do anything without energy.
And Switch is right. The laws of gravity still apply. Otherwise, jumping would be considered breaking the laws of gravity.
-
when you jump you come down.
when you use energy like a fuel, thats pushing against gravity and will keep you afloat.
this doesnt use some much energy right. they just place things correctly use their natural energy. which isnt man made energy.
so theoretically couldnt nature do this somehow at sometime, and would need man to arrange it? then it would be a natural thing that goes against gravity.
they use a example of a amphibian, the gecko, and how it uses these natural constructions to defy gravity.
-
It is still energy, just because it is not mechanical does not mean it is not energy.
Gravity is still just fine.
-
Birds fly. Gravity still works.
Planes fly. Gravity still works.
The space shuttle goes into space. Gravity still works.
We come back down after we jump because we stop countering gravity’s force.
When I drop a bowling ball off the roof and it doesn’t move to a lower elevation then you can say gravity is bunk.
I’m guessing that you failed or never took high school physics, Balung?
-
The law of gravity would not be bunk just because of levitation. :roll: Gravity can be overpowered by an outside force, but it is still present.
-
Lol, I had plans at one time to build a hovercraft from old vacuum cleaner parts. I never did it in part because it would have to be plugged in and therefore been limited to fifty feet of travel. With the balung anti gravity theory as long as it was plugged in I would have made a hole in the earths gravity. I suspect All Gore would have made a movie about me…
-
i’m still saying these forces are in nature.
so if nature constructed them itself, over millions of years, the way we humans did with technology, wouldnt that be a naturally occuring happenstance? so done by nature, objects theoretically, if put together correctly by nature, could levitate.
wouldnt that break the laws of gravity if you saw an object that could levitate w/o man made interference of it. nature was able to construct it itself (hypothetically).
so can anyone answer that.
if nature was able to constuct these minute particles into the same way we put them, so naturally the levitation occurs, wouldn’t that be against gravity? its a natural occurance (hypothetically) and if the world and nature had made something like that, some object, that would really mess with the theory of gravity right?
-
wouldnt that break the laws of gravity if you saw an object that could levitate w/o man made interference of it. nature was able to construct it itself (hypothetically).
what makes us special?
-
so can anyone answer that.
Yes, I can.
From the article, MAN altered the particles to reverse the forces. He did this with an application of energy to tap the existing energy to be applied in a different way.
Analogy:
2 magnetic particles with 1 having its S pole facing another particle’s N pole. They are drawn towards each other. Man interferes, flips one particle over so that both N poles are facing each other, the two particles are now forced apart.We did not change the nature of magnetism by doing this, we USED the nature of magnetism. We applied outside energy to change the particles, and then let their existing energy provide the repulsion instead of attraction.
-
but again,
what if these forces that we set up, all we did was arrange them, what if they were arranged by nature of millions of years.
what would that do to the theory of gravity if newton had objects in the natural world to look at that can levitate?
thats what i’m trying to get at.
-
wouldnt that break the laws of gravity if you saw an object that could levitate w/o man made interference of it. nature was able to construct it itself (hypothetically).
what makes us special?
repeat. why does it being nature or man mature?
-
Literally speaking, the Space Shuttle violates the law of gravity if you want to define gravity as “What goes up must come down.” So does light. These things go up, but do not have to come down.
-
those burn fuel to do so. and when out of fuel, they will come down, unless in outer space.
-
Even there gravity applies Balung.
And you must have missed all the magnetism experiments in physics… you can hover an item a LONG time, with no apparent “energy” used (as long as other factors do not disrupt the hover)
-
Throwing a rock in the air takes fuel too. It’s measured in calories and not gallons or liters, but it’s still fuel.
-
but this doesnt use magnetism.
its just certain small particles and such arranged in the right way.
what i’m saying is what if nature had done this. and nature had these arranged this way. what would that do to the theory of gravity. newton would be able to see things that float, which would mess up the theory.
-
I am not saying that it is magnetism. It is a different force, but the appearance of how it works is similar is similar to magnetism… particles that in their normal arrangement attract each other (like N/S poles of a magnet) when their arrangement is changed they repel each other (like N/N poles of a magnet). But outside force has been applied to change their alignment to reverse the normal action of the attraction.
-
There are more poles then just N/S though. The Sun, for instance, has an extreme number of different poles. We on Earth are just lucky to have two which makes navigation easier. =)
At least according to “The Universe” but I think even a TV show could get the number of poles right if the choice is between 2 and hundreds.
-
There are only 2 magnetic polarities though, and they coincide with N/S poles of earth, thus magnets have north and south poles. The sun just has a lot of different areas that are alternately north polar magnetic and south polar magnetic
-
its always been said that this theory woudl go bunk if someone could levitate something, which has been impossible. so the theory holds. well now scientists have at least gotten things to levitate at a quantum (nano) level. its a start, but in the future they should be able to get things to float. basically rewritting the science books.
The “levitating” they describe has nothing to do with gravity. That’s just what they called it. Those particles are still on Earth, subject to its gravitational force.
i always tell believers in stict scientific knowledge and nothing else that they are fools. b/c what they believe religiously today will be proved wrong in the future. so those same “science and thats it people” are wrong today……b/c their science is wrong. kinda makes you think.
That’s the thing about science - it constantly works to improve itself. Other themes of existence don’t necessarily do the same. :wink:
and all science have exceptions to their rules. they just dont fully understand them. in time they will.
No, I’m pretty sure it’s you that doesn’t understand. The only rules in science are in regards to conducting experiments properly. The rest is hypothesis, a best guess based on trial after trial and current knowledge. But it adapts as new breakthroughs are discovered.
@ncscswitch:
Dude, it is a reversal of attractive forces for particles smaller than protons. And you can already get protons to repel each other… they do it naturally…
For extra credit, why don’t nuclei blow apart? 8-)
Lol, I had plans at one time to build a hovercraft from old vacuum cleaner parts. I never did it in part because it would have to be plugged in and therefore been limited to fifty feet of travel. With the balung anti gravity theory as long as it was plugged in I would have made a hole in the earths gravity. I suspect All Gore would have made a movie about me…
Dude, a hovercraft with a 50 ft range is still AWESOME!
So does light. These things go up, but do not have to come down.
Light is still subject to gravity, even if it doesn’t come “down.” That is one thing that was wrong about Newtonian law of gravity.
There are more poles then just N/S though. The Sun, for instance, has an extreme number of different poles. We on Earth are just lucky to have two which makes navigation easier. =)
At least according to “The Universe” but I think even a TV show could get the number of poles right if the choice is between 2 and hundreds.
As Switch noted, it’s not a pole if there are more or fewer than two forces. But a good show, either way. :-)
Suggested Topics
