@Lou

Quote:

Really? How strong can gravity be if I can overcome it simply by stretching my legs fast enough while standing vertically? By force, it's an acceleration, so when I lose contact with "the earth" I can no longer continue to apply my leg-force that otherwise easily overcomes "the all powerful (NOT) force of gravity". Fact EM is 38 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. My legs are an order of magnitude stronger than gravity but I am dependent on a surface to push off. You and nimrod pick and choose mis-matched bases(basis') to compare one to the other and you will always do that to make your disinformation seem correct to noobs.

. I assume you are typing this from earth. And as such you failed to overcome gravity. Let me know if I'm wrong and where in space are you? As for yor fact proclaiming EM 38 orders of magnitude stronger. We must ask what you are comparing there? That statement is nonsensical as we don't know what objects you mean. For example EM of 1 atom is much less than gravity of 1 earth. The res is your typical go for the ad hominem and hope no one notices its a inappropriate and meaningless statement in a discussion.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Really? How strong can gravity be if I can overcome it simply by stretching my legs fast enough while standing vertically? By force, it's an acceleration, so when I lose contact with "the earth" I can no longer continue to apply my leg-force that otherwise easily overcomes "the all powerful (NOT) force of gravity". Fact EM is 38 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. My legs are an order of magnitude stronger than gravity but I am dependent on a surface to push off. You and nimrod pick and choose mis-matched bases(basis') to compare one to the other and you will always do that to make your disinformation seem correct to noobs. . I assume you are typing this from earth. And as such you failed to overcome gravity. Let me know if I'm wrong and where in space are you? As for yor fact proclaiming EM 38 orders of magnitude stronger. We must ask what you are comparing there? That statement is nonsensical as we don't know what objects you mean. For example EM of 1 atom is much less than gravity of 1 earth. The res is your typical go for the ad hominem and hope no one notices its a inappropriate and meaningless statement in a discussion.

BrianK,
I love your science by proclamation. If gravity is so strong, why doesn't it pull your head off when you peek over the edge of a ledge? In fact, it's EM forces holding the atoms in your cells together, is it not?

We've gone over this before. I know you like to ignore facts that make you look like a tool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

Do continue to troll. You wear that hat well.

@Lou

Quote:

Fact EM is 38 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

Could you please cite your scientific source for this claim, together with any experimental evidence to support it. To check out this fairy story I measured the attraction toward a large geomagnet (the Earth) of a 5mm diameter neodymium magnet. I also measured the attraction to the same geomagnet of a 5mm diameter diamagnetic sphere The strong magnet, far from being more strongly attracted toward the geomagnet by a factor of 38 orders of magnitude, was slightly less drawn toward the geomagnet than the diamagnet was. Could this possibly be because gravity predominates over magnetism?

Quote:

'Gravity' is an acceleration. So you are trying to tell me that an acceleration by any other name cannot be called gravity, correct?

Quite correct. The fact that all horses are quadrupeds, does not autmatically make all quadrupeds, horses. The name of the animal in this picture may mean "river horse" but it is not a horse.

Quote:

Yep, all done with string and sticks!

It took you long enough to work it out, but well done anyway. Stonemasons have been cutting stone for thousands of years, and they have become quite good at it. Long straight grooves are easy using abrasives, and the same goes for boring holes. In modern terms, if a nylon belt on a conveyor rubs against stainless steel, it is the steel that gets cut, not the soft plastic.

Quote:

400 million year old hammer

Why don't you go for broke and claim that it is ninety quintillion years old, and predates the start of the universe. The individual that produced this CRAP revealed his ignorance for all the world to see at the four minute point when he claimed that the metallurgy of this hammer was beyond the twenty first century. The metallurgy of the hammer indicates that it was a nineteenth century geologists hammer that had been encrusted in a limestone deposit. The fact that it still has organic parts that have not fossilised indicates that it is slightly less than four hundred billion years old.

Quote:

Memory foil from Roswell crash has been reverse engineered for some time:

What Roswell crash? As I already asked before, If they are so advanced, how did we "capture" their technology.
Also the so called "Roswell incident" took place in 1947. By that time scientists had been aware of the properties of shape memory, and studying it for fifteen years. Of course it is easier to ignore the hard work and effort done by real scientists and engineers and just make up some CRAP about how we are dependant on benevolent beings from above, be they angels or aliens.

Quote:

If gravity is so strong, why doesn't it pull your head off when you peek over the edge of a ledge?

Because it is slightly less than 980 m/sec^2. Or even than 98 m/sec^2. In fact the local acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/sec^2 . None of us is denying the existence of EM forces, but unlike you we are aware of how strong the EM forces are, or more specifically how strong they are not.

Quote:

We've gone over this before. I know you like to ignore facts that make you look like a tool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

Lou, If you are going to link to an article in order to prove your point, you could at least try to read it first, even if you have to get somebody to help with the longer words.
For example from the article that you linked to "On the other hand, all objects having mass are subject to the gravitational force, which only attracts. Therefore, only gravitation matters on the large scale structure of the universe." Not EM, not wishful thinking, gravity.

Last edited by Nimrod on 24-Jul-2012 at 08:20 PM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Fact EM is 38 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Could you please cite your scientific source for this claim, together with any experimental evidence to support it. To check out this fairy story I measured the attraction toward a large geomagnet (the Earth) of a 5mm diameter neodymium magnet. I also measured the attraction to the same geomagnet of a 5mm diameter diamagnetic sphere The strong magnet, far from being more strongly attracted toward the geomagnet by a factor of 38 orders of magnitude, was slightly less drawn toward the geomagnet than the diamagnet was. Could this possibly be because gravity predominates over magnetism? Quote: 'Gravity' is an acceleration. So you are trying to tell me that an acceleration by any other name cannot be called gravity, correct? Quite correct. The fact that all horses are quadrupeds, does not autmatically make all quadrupeds, horses. The name of the animal in this picture may mean "river horse" but it is not a horse. Quote: Yep, all done with string and sticks! It took you long enough to work it out, but well done anyway. Stonemasons have been cutting stone for thousands of years, and they have become quite good at it. Long straight grooves are easy using abrasives, and the same goes for boring holes. In modern terms, if a nylon belt on a conveyor rubs against stainless steel, it is the steel that gets cut, not the soft plastic. Quote: 400 million year old hammer Why don't you go for broke and claim that it is ninety quintillion years old, and predates the start of the universe. The individual that produced this CRAP revealed his ignorance for all the world to see at the four minute point when he claimed that the metallurgy of this hammer was beyond the twenty first century. The metallurgy of the hammer indicates that it was a nineteenth century geologists hammer that had been encrusted in a limestone deposit. The fact that it still has organic parts that have not fossilised indicates that it is slightly less than four hundred billion years old. Quote: Memory foil from Roswell crash has been reverse engineered for some time: What Roswell crash? As I already asked before, If they are so advanced, how did we "capture" their technology. Also the so called "Roswell incident" took place in 1947. By that time scientists had been aware of the properties of shape memory, and studying it for fifteen years. Of course it is easier to ignore the hard work and effort done by real scientists and engineers and just make up some CRAP about how we are dependant on benevolent beings from above, be they angels or aliens. Quote: If gravity is so strong, why doesn't it pull your head off when you peek over the edge of a ledge? Because it is slightly less than 980 m/sec^2. Or even than 98 m/sec^2. In fact the local acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/sec^2 . None of us is denying the existence of EM forces, but unlike you we are aware of how strong the EM forces are, or more specifically how strong they are not. Quote: We've gone over this before. I know you like to ignore facts that make you look like a tool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction Lou, If you are going to link to an article in order to prove your point, you could at least try to read it first, even if you have to get somebody to help with the longer words. For example from the article that you linked to "On the other hand, all objects having mass are subject to the gravitational force, which only attracts. Therefore, only gravitation matters on the large scale structure of the universe." Not EM, not wishful thinking, gravity.

So sayeth nimrod, so sayeth we all.

More science by proclamation as usual.

Nimrod in this nimrodic post denounces:
-carbon dating (only good when it fits into your warped sense of history)
-metallurgy (because apparently you have a phd in that along with the one you have in blatant bullshitting)
-any physicist (who can tell you about the strength of the forces)
-common sense (as in how long it takes to cut thru stone to build an entire city with "abrasives")

You state "abrasives have been used to cut stones for thousands of year" with nothing but conjecture. Nitinol was made in 1959, well after Roswell, and I should note that Roswell was not the first UFO crash, but your trollish BS ways will make you ignore this fact. Roswell was merely the first well known 'public' account of memory foil from UFO's despite it being "studied" for some time.

Why don't you just come out of the troll closet...and go back under the bridge.
Bring facts with references instead of trollish statements.

Last edited by Lou on 24-Jul-2012 at 09:01 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

I love your science by proclamation.

Do note you did ask for scientific works which I provided. I also provided you direction on how to find more of those. You stated you couldn't be bothered to get off your lazyboy and read the scientific work. So if you're not going to bother anyway why should I.

And afterall you were the one that declared EM is a factor of 38 greater than gravity. You proclaimed truth without proof. I simply used your same standard you are to dismiss your statement.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I love your science by proclamation. Do note you did ask for scientific works which I provided. I also provided you direction on how to find more of those. You stated you couldn't be bothered to get off your lazyboy and read the scientific work. So if you're not going to bother anyway why should I. And afterall you were the one that declared EM is a factor of 38 greater than gravity. You proclaimed truth without proof. I simply used your same standard you are to dismiss your statement.

BrianK,
Your examples are CRAP. I put two pieces of wood on a desk, 1" apart, they don't attract enough to overcome the force of friction. I put two magnets of the same weight (ZOMG MASS) and size, and they attract and can overcome the force of friction. Magnetic field strengths can change and your idiotic examples always convenitently use weak ones.

Stop acting like a troll.

For trolls who think gravity is stronger than EM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt6MiLxeDv0

You keep stating the same "Science By Proclamation" bull shit then keep asking me to prove otherwise when in reality you are full of CRAP. You have nothing. You are just trolls who keep repeating yourselves and conveniently ignoring facts asking for them to be repeated to you again because rather than admit you are wrong, you'd much rather continue to troll.

Last edited by Lou on 24-Jul-2012 at 09:16 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Your examples are CRAP.

Interesting claim though if you go read the post you referred to I created exactly ZERO examples. It's bad enough your conclusions aren't supported by the data. It's even worse when there's no data and you still make conclusions like this.

Quote:

put two pieces of wood on a desk, 1" apart, they don't attract enough to overcome the force of friction

Your conclusion comes from not fully understanding the forces in this relationship. The 'Force of Friction' is that force that compresses the piece of wood and the desk together. Because they're two parallel surfaces to the earth this equation is N=mg. Aka is dependent upon the GRAVITY of the earth. In this case magnitude is dependent upon the mass of the wood, the acceleration due to gravity, and the coefficent of friction.

What you're really asking is the magnitude of forces between the wood (1 or 2, or both) and the earth along with the desk must be < magnitude of forces between the pieces of wood for them to attract. There's a fairly easy way to see this is not EM. Bring your experiment to another planet! If the only characteristics at play were the EM fields between the wood and the desk then the force required to overcome friction would be a constant. However, when you change planets the change in the gravity field provides a change in the friction. If you wanna talk smack about CRAP you really shouldn't front your own stinky pile!

Quote:

Magnetic field strengths can change

Wait you just told us that EM is 38 fold greater than gravity. If you're changing EM then the 38x relationship doesn't hold. It's now something greater or less than 38x. At least be consistent and select one so you don't have internally falsifying statements polishing your stinky pile.

Quote:

You keep stating the same "Science By Proclamation"

Lou get real. In the threads here you've failed to provide valid evidence for your claims. You've also refused to read scientific works which demonstrate evidence. Assuming we're proclaiming something is at best the pot calling the kettle black. In reality we're one better as we provided works to review. You just feigned interest in them. Because they were provided to you and you refused to read them.

Last edited by BrianK on 25-Jul-2012 at 03:14 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 24-Jul-2012 at 10:39 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Your examples are CRAP. Interesting claim though if you go read the post you referred to I created exactly ZERO examples. It's bad enough your conclusions aren't supported by the data. It's even worse when there's no data and you still make conclusions like this. Quote: put two pieces of wood on a desk, 1" apart, they don't attract enough to overcome the force of friction Your conclusion comes from not fully understanding the forces in this relationship. The 'Force of Friction' is that force that compresses the piece of wood and the desk together. Because they're two parallel surfaces to the earth this equation is N=mg. Aka is dependent upon the GRAVITY of the earth. In this case magnitude is dependent upon the mass of the wood, the acceleration due to gravity, and the coefficent of friction. What you're really asking is the magnitude of forces between the wood (1 or 2, or both) and the earth along with the desk must be < magnitude of forces between the pieces of wood for them to attract. There's a fairly easy way to see this is not EM. Bring your experiment to another planet! If the only characteristics at play were the EM fields between the wood and the desk then the force required to overcome friction would be a constant. However, when you change planets the change in the gravity field provides a change in the friction. If you wanna talk smack about CRAP you really shouldn't front your own stinky pile! Quote: Magnetic field strengths can change Wait you just told us that EM is 38 fold greater than gravity. If you're changing EM then the 38x relationship doesn't hold. It's now something greater or less than 38x. At least be consistent and select one so you don't have internally falsifying statements polishing your stinky pile. Quote: You keep stating the same "Science By Proclamation" Lou get real. In the threads here you've failed to provide valid evidence for your claims. You've also refused to read scientific works which demonstrate evidence. Assuming we're proclaiming something is at best the pot calling the kettle black. In reality we're one better as we provided works to review. You just feigned interest in them. Because they were provided to you and you refused to read them.

BrianK,

You get real and stop trolling. EM > G now get over it.

@Lou

Quote:

You get real and stop trolling. EM > G now get over it.

You're giving us an example of science by proclaimation?

Certainly EM can be > G. It all depends upon magnitude of the forces at play. Your wood blocks + Desk example was due to your misunderstanding of the forces at work. I highlighted where gravity gives you problems. When we look at planets we can (and do) fly EM-meters and Gravitometers into space to measure these things. And we have used things like Pioneer 9 and 10 using gravitational planetary slingshots to speed the craft faster than the internal EM energy can provide. And while you want us to believe (as you've cited no work whatsover) that EM is 38 fold greater than gravity it's not a true constant relationship as you cite. The non-static 38 fold relationship is easily demonstrated by use of magnetic vs non-magnetic materials.

I have to come back to the items you seem to not answer... Do you have experiments for Harmein? Instead of trying to rephrase a joke do you actually have any valid datum? What's your evidence that EM forces are always 38 fold greater than gravity? Can you provide us any. .... Unlike your quarterbacking in an armchair I'll actually go read that work. (Though note when I've done that in the past you seem to dislike it actually being undersood.)

@Lou

Quote:

Nimrod in this nimrodic post denounces: -carbon dating (only good when it fits into your warped sense of history) -metallurgy (because apparently you have a phd in that along with the one you have in blatant bullshitting) -any physicist (who can tell you about the strength of the forces) -common sense (as in how long it takes to cut thru stone to build an entire city with "abrasives")

1. Carbon dating. As has already been explained to you one more than one occasion, carbon dating is one of many methods of dating items, but it has its limitations. The prime limitation is that it is only valid for organic object less than circa 60,000 years. As a result no reputable scientist will ever claim that an artefact has been C14 dated to 400,000,000 years. The individual who made this claim on a youtube video was a liar, but you would prefer to accept his baseless proclamation, than apply as much as one picosecond applying scientific scepticism. Somebody said it on Youtube so it must be right.
2. Metallurgy. No I do not have any qualifications as a metallurgist, and unlike some I do not claim that what I say is automatically true, but when I checked the claim (Yes Lou, I know that you would never bother to do that) I was more willing to accept the information offered by an engineer who knew how the word was spelled, rather than your sources claim "Metalogy beyond the 21st century" One explanation for the presence of Chlorine in the surface scrape of the metal was contamination by the Hydrochloric acid used to create the void when the artefact was faked. I am not saying that this is a definitive answer, merely putting forward a possible explanation.
3. Any Physicist. There is no physicist who will claim that magnetic forces exceed grayitational forces by a factor of 38 orders of magnitude, i.e. multiplied by 10^38. Any physicist will also acknowledge that EM forces cancel each other out, while Gravitational forces are always cumulative. This means that only gravitation matters on the large scale structure of the universe.
4. Common Sense. As in how long it takes a skilled and experienced stonemason to do his job. If I want to find out how quickly stone can be cut, I do not ask a brain surgeon, or even a rocket scientist. I ask somebody with the relevant knowledge, and I get a valid answer. Add to this the simple fact that in the quarries where the stones were cut, archeaologists have found evidence of abrasives. We have evidence of tools, working practices, workers wages, etc. why should we need to invent, alien invaders. Where is the common sense in that?

Quote:

I should note that Roswell was not the first UFO crash

Shouldn't that be "I should note that Roswell was not a UFO crash" Or do you have any actual concrete evidence beyound the ravings of a collection of conspiracy theorists who haven't been taking their meds... No I didn't think so.

Quote:

Magnetic field strengths can change and your idiotic examples always convenitently use weak ones.

What is the matter with you? Can you actually read, or do you just not bother? I described an experiment using neodymium magnets, How much better do you want? Can you name a stronger magnet? I recently bought a box of 216 neodymium spheres and despite the fact that they were in the magnetic field of a planet sized geodynamo I picked up the entire pack!!!!!

Quote:

For trolls who think gravity is stronger than EM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt6MiLxeDv0

This is all very well on the atomic scale, but note the quoted relative strengths are not claimed to be a factor of 10^38 as you keep asserting, merely "billions" which means n x 10^9, where n is the number of billions being stated. Also note that this repelling force only overcomes gravity at very short ranges where it benefits from the inverse square law. However where gravity is increased the repulsion force can be overcome, which is how we get neutron stars and black holes.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You get real and stop trolling. EM > G now get over it. You're giving us an example of science by proclaimation? Certainly EM can be > G. It all depends upon magnitude of the forces at play.

Ofcourse, and every example where you site g>em, it's apples and oranges...which is why you continue to be under the misconception that G>EM when its not at all...OR you are a troll.

If a Chevette is travelling at 60mph and a Corvette is travelling at 5mph, newsflash, the Corvette is still the more powerful vehicle. Now stop trolling.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Nimrod in this nimrodic post denounces: -carbon dating (only good when it fits into your warped sense of history) -metallurgy (because apparently you have a phd in that along with the one you have in blatant bullshitting) -any physicist (who can tell you about the strength of the forces) -common sense (as in how long it takes to cut thru stone to build an entire city with "abrasives") 1. Carbon dating. As has already been explained to you one more than one occasion, carbon dating is one of many methods of dating items, but it has its limitations. The prime limitation is that it is only valid for organic object less than circa 60,000 years. As a result no reputable scientist will ever claim that an artefact has been C14 dated to 400,000,000 years. The individual who made this claim on a youtube video was a liar, but you would prefer to accept his baseless proclamation, than apply as much as one picosecond applying scientific scepticism. Somebody said it on Youtube so it must be right. 2. Metallurgy. No I do not have any qualifications as a metallurgist, and unlike some I do not claim that what I say is automatically true, but when I checked the claim (Yes Lou, I know that you would never bother to do that) I was more willing to accept the information offered by an engineer who knew how the word was spelled, rather than your sources claim "Metalogy beyond the 21st century" One explanation for the presence of Chlorine in the surface scrape of the metal was contamination by the Hydrochloric acid used to create the void when the artefact was faked. I am not saying that this is a definitive answer, merely putting forward a possible explanation. 3. Any Physicist. There is no physicist who will claim that magnetic forces exceed grayitational forces by a factor of 38 orders of magnitude, i.e. multiplied by 10^38. Any physicist will also acknowledge that EM forces cancel each other out, while Gravitational forces are always cumulative. This means that only gravitation matters on the large scale structure of the universe. 4. Common Sense. As in how long it takes a skilled and experienced stonemason to do his job. If I want to find out how quickly stone can be cut, I do not ask a brain surgeon, or even a rocket scientist. I ask somebody with the relevant knowledge, and I get a valid answer. Add to this the simple fact that in the quarries where the stones were cut, archeaologists have found evidence of abrasives. We have evidence of tools, working practices, workers wages, etc. why should we need to invent, alien invaders. Where is the common sense in that? Quote: I should note that Roswell was not the first UFO crash Shouldn't that be "I should note that Roswell was not a UFO crash" Or do you have any actual concrete evidence beyound the ravings of a collection of conspiracy theorists who haven't been taking their meds... No I didn't think so. Quote: Magnetic field strengths can change and your idiotic examples always convenitently use weak ones. What is the matter with you? Can you actually read, or do you just not bother? I described an experiment using neodymium magnets, How much better do you want? Can you name a stronger magnet? I recently bought a box of 216 neodymium spheres and despite the fact that they were in the magnetic field of a planet sized geodynamo I picked up the entire pack!!!!! Quote: For trolls who think gravity is stronger than EM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt6MiLxeDv0 This is all very well on the atomic scale, but note the quoted relative strengths are not claimed to be a factor of 10^38 as you keep asserting, merely "billions" which means n x 10^9, where n is the number of billions being stated. Also note that this repelling force only overcomes gravity at very short ranges where it benefits from the inverse square law. However where gravity is increased the repulsion force can be overcome, which is how we get neutron stars and black holes.

Apparently, in addition to living up to your username, you are also hard of hearing. They sais "billions and billions". The actual calculated difference is what I stated.
Scale means nothing because scale is just an excuse for you to be a troll and deny the facts. Fact, if you have a mass of -charged ions near a mass of +charged ions, they would be attracted 10^38x stronger than the gravetic effect of two nuetrally charged masses of the same "mass".

You mention EM cancelling out, and that is true, however it is possible to generate a large charge with a small amount of mass. You can never "generate" extra gravity. Why? I've explained why. You just will never get it, instead you'd much rather troll.
The effect you call 'gravity' is just a cheerios effect of matter in a sea of ZPF.

@Lou

Ad hominems (aka name calling) doesn't help the discussion. Seems to me since you've lost the logic and proof based debate you're spiraling downward to "win" by insulting another's character.

Quote:

Ofcourse, and every example where you site g>em, it's apples and oranges

The question here is which forces are the dominate forces in the system. It's not that difficult to determine. We measure all forces and see what the magnitude of the forces is. You claim that EM is always 38x the magnitude of Gravity. That's proven not the be the case. Gravity is based on mass. If you take a mass of non-metallic material and the exact same mass of metallic material you will get two different EM fields. The gravitational fields are the same if the mass is the same. So indeed EM is not a constant 38 fold advantage of Gravity.

Quote:

If a Chevette is travelling at 60mph and a Corvette is travelling at 5mph, newsflash, the Corvette is still the more powerful vehicle.

I see where your problem is we're talking forces at play in a system. In physics a force is defined by that influencing factor which causes an object to undergo change. So force is that quantiative action between bodies.

Let's expand on your example... Lou walks out into the roadway. Along comes the Corvette which strikes Lou at 5MPH. It's highly likely Lou will stand up, brush off the dirt, and walk away. Lou continues his journey and gets struck by a 60MPH Chevette coming from the other direction. The result from that accident is Lou travels much farther from the site of impact and Lou will take much more damage. As the ambulance is taking you away do you demand the Corvette driver be sued because he hit you with a 'more powerful' car? The Judge would probably laugh at your case wondering why you didn't sue the driver of the car which tossed your body further and did more damage - aka the truly more powerful force in the accident.

When it comes to bodies of nature what we see (at least within our solar system) the EM forces of materials hold those bodies together. The work while they are doing this ties up that energy. Thereby negating transmission. EM ends up negating itself to keep a structure together. Whereas the gravitational forces are only additive. This is how Gravity becomes greater than EM when we're talking "large" objects. And especially when we get to celistial bodies. ..... And we can validate this by measuring it. Turns out, for example, the EM forces of the moon have been measured and they're very tiny compared to the gravitational force of the moon. Remember we do have ElectroMagentic Field monitors and gravitometers on our satellites and equipment. It's not like we're pulling numbers out of the aether.

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Jul-2012 at 03:25 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

They sais "billions and billions".

Precisely, billions means multiples of 10^9. A billion and another billion is two billion not 1 x 10^38. even a billion times a billion is only 1 x 10^18, not 1 x 10^38. You claim that scale means nothing, but scale is the most important part of any mathematics. No matter how you try to evade the facts 14g of applied radiation pressure from the sun has a negligible effect on a mass of 68,000,000,000 kg travelling at hundreds of kilometres per hour. and your much vaunted zero point energy is even less available to apply force to anything.

Quote:

Fact, if you have a mass of -charged ions near a mass of +charged ions, they would be attracted 10^38x stronger than the gravetic effect of two nuetrally charged masses of the same "mass".

It is true that under certain tightly controlled circumstances, magnetic fields can be generated that exceed local gravitation at a range of more than a few millimetresbut it remains a fact that a meteorite would not be deflected by the magnetic field of the Earth, even if it had the same charge polarity as the planet.

Quote:

possible to generate a large charge with a small amount of mass

You do not actually create the charge, you merely move it about. You make one bit a little more positive by moving the charge from elsewhere, making that bit a little less positive. Therefore just as you cannot create mass, you cannot create charge. You simply move it about.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Ad hominems (aka name calling) doesn't help the discussion. Seems to me since you've lost the logic and proof based debate you're spiraling downward to "win" by insulting another's character. Quote: Ofcourse, and every example where you site g>em, it's apples and oranges The question here is which forces are the dominate forces in the system. It's not that difficult to determine. We measure all forces and see what the magnitude of the forces is. You claim that EM is always 38x the magnitude of Gravity. That's proven not the be the case. Gravity is based on mass. If you take a mass of non-metallic material and the exact same mass of metallic material you will get two different EM fields. The gravitational fields are the same if the mass is the same. So indeed EM is not a constant 38 fold advantage of Gravity. Quote: If a Chevette is travelling at 60mph and a Corvette is travelling at 5mph, newsflash, the Corvette is still the more powerful vehicle. I see where your problem is we're talking forces at play in a system. In physics a force is defined by that influencing factor which causes an object to undergo change. So force is that quantiative action between bodies. Let's expand on your example... Lou walks out into the roadway. Along comes the Corvette which strikes Lou at 5MPH. It's highly likely Lou will stand up, brush off the dirt, and walk away. Lou continues his journey and gets struck by a 60MPH Chevette coming from the other direction. The result from that accident is Lou travels much farther from the site of impact and Lou will take much more damage. As the ambulance is taking you away do you demand the Corvette driver be sued because he hit you with a 'more powerful' car? The Judge would probably laugh at your case wondering why you didn't sue the driver of the car which tossed your body further and did more damage - aka the truly more powerful force in the accident. When it comes to bodies of nature what we see (at least within our solar system) the EM forces of materials hold those bodies together. The work while they are doing this ties up that energy. Thereby negating transmission. EM ends up negating itself to keep a structure together. Whereas the gravitational forces are only additive. This is how Gravity becomes greater than EM when we're talking "large" objects. And especially when we get to celistial bodies. ..... And we can validate this by measuring it. Turns out, for example, the EM forces of the moon have been measured and they're very tiny compared to the gravitational force of the moon. Remember we do have ElectroMagentic Field monitors and gravitometers on our satellites and equipment. It's not like we're pulling numbers out of the aether.

Oh look, another CRAP example...

EM holds every molecule in your body together rather being ripped about by the feeble gravity.

3 threads and hundreds of pages of denying the facts that EM is the prevailing force and you don't think you are a troll? Madness...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: They sais "billions and billions". Precisely, billions means multiples of 10^9. A billion and another billion is two billion not 1 x 10^38. even a billion times a billion is only 1 x 10^18, not 1 x 10^38. You claim that scale means nothing, but scale is the most important part of any mathematics. No matter how you try to evade the facts 14g of applied radiation pressure from the sun has a negligible effect on a mass of 68,000,000,000 kg travelling at hundreds of kilometres per hour. and your much vaunted zero point energy is even less available to apply force to anything.

That's right nimrod, argue the semantics of spoken words rather than the facts...

Quote:

Quote: Fact, if you have a mass of -charged ions near a mass of +charged ions, they would be attracted 10^38x stronger than the gravetic effect of two nuetrally charged masses of the same "mass". It is true that under certain tightly controlled circumstances, magnetic fields can be generated that exceed local gravitation at a range of more than a few millimetresbut it remains a fact that a meteorite would not be deflected by the magnetic field of the Earth, even if it had the same charge polarity as the planet. Quote: possible to generate a large charge with a small amount of mass You do not actually create the charge, you merely move it about. You make one bit a little more positive by moving the charge from elsewhere, making that bit a little less positive. Therefore just as you cannot create mass, you cannot create charge. You simply move it about.

The facts are magnets overcome the entire planet's not so epic force of gravity.
The facts are that EM prevents every molecule in your body from being flattened out across the surface of the planet.
The facts are you know the facts but just like to troll.
The facts are you call yourself nimrod.

@Lou

Quote:

Oh look, another CRAP example...

Sorry, I can't make excuses for the person that created the CRAP foundation which the example was built upon. You'll have to take that up with Lou.

Quote:

3 threads and hundreds of pages of denying the facts that EM is the prevailing force and you don't think you are a troll? Madness...

Ahh the Lou troll shows us his true colors. Change the question! We weren't asking the dominate force in the Universe but what force moves the planets. This is fairly easy to answer for our solar system. Measure the gravity and measure the EM on the planet and you find EM is incredibly small in comparsion. Majority of the force being gravity is said to be so because it actually measures that way. (Remember that little evil thing called evidence?)

Quote:

EM holds every molecule in your body together rather being ripped about by the feeble gravity.

You seem to not understand that EM is so busy holding the body together there's no excess to magnetically attach you to the planet. Because that EM relationship isn't happening the 'feeble gravity' is allowed to dominate the relationship between your body and the earth. So while the relationship between gravity of your body and gravity of the planet is feeble it's hundreds of times stronger than the EM relationship between those two objects. EM might dominate the universe (not saying if it does or doesn't). Gravity is what is keeping your EM composed body on the planet Earth.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Jul-2012 at 05:59 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Quote: They sais "billions and billions". Precisely, billions means multiples of 10^9. A billion and another billion is two billion not 1 x 10^38. even a billion times a billion is only 1 x 10^18, not 1 x 10^38. You claim that scale means nothing, but scale is the most important part of any mathematics. No matter how you try to evade the facts 14g of applied radiation pressure from the sun has a negligible effect on a mass of 68,000,000,000 kg travelling at hundreds of kilometres per hour. and your much vaunted zero point energy is even less available to apply force to anything.

Very quickly these resources supporting Lou's view get their math facts wrong! It's almost as if they agree with the first 3 seconds of Barbie

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Jul-2012 at 05:58 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

That's right nimrod, argue the semantics of spoken words rather than the facts..

I am merely being accurate . Without accuracy everything else is just a waste of time. It was only by being accurate that it was discovered that the Pioneer probe was out of place by 0.000000000007%, just as it was accuracy that led to the reason being discovered. Feel free to compare this level of accuracy with that employed by Haramein when he created an error of over 1% in a single iteration of a calculation.

Quote:

The facts are that EM prevents every molecule in your body from being flattened out across the surface of the planet.

The fact is that nobody is denying the existence of EM Neither am I denying that it is a useful force. What you fail to realise is that it is not the only force in the universe. On the subatomic scale it is overwhelmed by the strong nuclear force that is able to hold identically charged particles in close proximity despite their EM repulsion, and at the macroscopic level it is overwhelmed by the cumulatively attractive force of gravity. I walk on the path, not six feet above it. EM in fact nicely fills the little gap between strong nuclear force, and gravity, in the same way that mortar fills the gap between two bricks in a wall. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

The facts are you know the facts

Indeed I do, old boy. The thing that I do not know is why it has taken you so long to realise it.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.