/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9105163
>albeit for very, very short periods of time

You just answered your own question.

>>9105014
No proofs, all theories. Please prove me wrong. Go ahead and mention Millikan oil drop experiment and I will be glad to tell you that it would not have produced the results without the xray or the electromagnet, the experiment would not have produced the result it did.

>>9105257
>There are no atoms / particles / whatever, and what we perceive as matter is just a result of energy being projected through a medium.

Via induction coherency, permeability, permittivity, and the LOSS of inertia AKA change, yes. All projected via magnetism!

https://youtu.be/U-at-y3MicE?t=1m15s

>>9105028

No they really don't. Go take a n45 and a n55 Gauss magnet and record the distance which one can grip and the n45 will grab further away. The n55 Gauss magnet will hold strong yes because MORE INDUCTION, was passed through it. Size doesn't matter it's the RATE OF INDUCTION in the magnet.
Compare it to a gyroscope. When you speed up the gyroscope it wants to remain in one spot because it's mass has become COHERENT. You can nudge it, and it will try it's best to remain straight and will take up less spacial foot print. When it starts losing that momentum what happens? It wobbles, you can tip it and it'll start to shift around and precess more, it will take up MORE spacial footprint because it has a LESS COHESIVE mass.

What would have more gravity? An Earth sized Earth or an Earth sized sun? Both have the same about of mass, but there is one key difference. THE RATE OF INDUCTION OF THAT MASS.