Gravity vs Anti-Gravity

[Anonymous No.9721486]

Someone explain to me why I'm wrong, cause I don't see it any other way.

>A lower density, higher energy state, air bubble raises through the water towards the air.
>A higher density, lower energy state, water droplet drops through the air towards the water.

Gravity vs Anti-gravity. The same reason oceans separate from the atmosphere, is why water, oil, and vinegar separate from each other in science class.

[Anonymous No.9721488]

>>9721486
Gravity is still operating on both materials, and, indeed, if this were not the case, they wouldn't separate.

http://www.our-space.org/materials/states-of-matter/liquids-in-space

[Anonymous No.9721491]

>>9721486
My assumption here is that Gravity is not just a downward force, its equally as much an upward force.

[Anonymous No.9721508]

>>9721491
That would be a problem, gravity defines "down". Though I suppose if you were in between two strong gravitational forces, it may become a condundrom.

[Anonymous No.9721516]

>>9721508
but thats the problem, we've always been taught one side of Gravity, which is its downward/inward force.

Maybe Gravity is not the right term for it, but it seems to me that there is an equal force upwards/outwards.

Just like a magnet, the +/- are entirely opposite, yet equally compliment each other in both directions.

Same reason why Fire always goes upwards, never downwards. Its literally "anti-gravity". (I say anti-gravity because of its opposing force of direction)

[Anonymous No.9721525]

>>9721508
same reason why no has ever explained to you why Gravity exists. Its always been this mysterious force that seems unexplainable in function.

High energy states vs Low energy states. They both have only one goal in mind, to reach a level, either above or below, that harmonizes with the state they are currently in.

[Anonymous No.9721546]

>>9721525
Oh I had a feeling this was another electric universe bait thread.

https://i.4cdn.org/tg/1525581443986.pdf

Don't come to the science board if you're just going to ignore all science and assume you know better. If you wanna discuss religion, there's always >>>/his/, I suppose. Though I would like to see it get a board of its own.

[Anonymous No.9721555]

>>9721546
ok, then prove me wrong. Thats why I made this thread

[Anonymous No.9721559]

>>9721546
also wtf does this have to do with electric universe. Im trying to understand the nature of my existence, specifically why gravity works the way it does.

[Anonymous No.9721565]

>>9721546
thirdly, I did a quick word search on that pdf of yours. Not once does it mention Gravity.

Before you start accusing other people out of your own ignorance, why dont you take a second to consider the possibility. This is why science is stagnating, because Neets like you dont like to think outside the box.

[Anonymous No.9721571]

>>9721555
No point, you already know there's endless volumes of work that do and you choose to ignore them in favor of your own theories. Nothing I say or link is going to convince you that I've proved you wrong.

At first I thought you might have been operating from the premise that you wanted to understand how something works, which, at worst, is a subject for >>>/sci/sqt , but you aren't doing that. You're operating from the premise that you already know and everyone and everything else is wrong. Can't help you with that, can't even debate that.

>>9721565
It's the basis of electric universe theory, which states everything is electromagnetism and science is lying to you about everything. It also predicted comets are balls of plasma, but ignores the fact that we landed on one - granted, given it's actual intention and source, that's hardly surprising. It's just Flat Earth with more layers.

[Anonymous No.9721577]

jesus christ these fucking brainlet threads.

gravity is not repulsive like electromagnetism because unlike electromagnetism, gravity is not a force, it's the curvature of spacetime. there is a difference.

at least read and comprehend the fucking wikipedia article before posting a stupid fucking question like this.

>muh force powerz
>must work in reverze
>nobody think of this b4 me? gibs novell prize

[Anonymous No.9721581]

>>9721571
I didn't mention that science was ever wrong. Most of my assumptions in this theory are derived from the very basis of scientific evidence. I'll even give you a few examples.
>The very same reason a hot air balloon rises in the air when the inside of the balloon is heated, and drops when it is cooled. High vs Low energy states.
>The same reason a Submarine replaces air with water in its ballasts to sink, and fill them with air to rise. Air molecules are in a higher energy state than water molecules. Solid > Liquid > Gas.
>Same reason helium rises above Oxygen. Helium molecules move around faster than Oxygen Molecules. Its because they are in a higher energy state.

This is my first statement in the post you dumb fuck.
>"Someone explain to me why I'm wrong, cause I don't see it any other way. "

How else would I be able to bring forth my theory without stating my theory to begin with.

[Anonymous No.9721585]

>>9721577
>>9721571
OK hold up, I didn't mention electricity even once. So please stop thinking that I did.

[Anonymous No.9721590]

>>9721571
>>9721577
I still stand by my statement by the way. Prove me wrong. I've given you multiple examples of things that happen real time on this earth. Try me.

I literally want you to so that I can sleep peacefully.

[Anonymous No.9721597]

>>9721516
>but thats the problem, we've always been taught one side of Gravity, which is its downward/inward force.
No, it's not a downward force. It's always been a force between masses. "Down" on Earth is defined by gravity pulling everything towards the mass of Earth. There is no "down" once you escape Earth's gravity.

>Maybe Gravity is not the right term for it, but it seems to me that there is an equal force upwards/outwards.
Buoyancy is simply caused by an object displacing a volume of fluid that weighs more than itself. The pressure difference between the fluid below an object and above an object is equivalent to the weight of that fluid. This is only true because of gravity pulling everything towards the Earth, causing that pressure. In empty space without an acceleration there is no such phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.9721613]

>>9721581
>The very same reason a hot air balloon rises in the air when the inside of the balloon is heated, and drops when it is cooled. High vs Low energy states.
It's because hot air has a lower density than cold air. This means that the pressure below is greater than the pressure above. How does "High vs Low energy states" create lift?

>>The same reason a Submarine replaces air with water in its ballasts to sink, and fill them with air to rise. Air molecules are in a higher energy state than water molecules. Solid > Liquid > Gas.
Wrong. The only thing that determines buoyancy is density, not "energy state." This is why some solids float while others sink. You can put all the energy you want into a sunken object, if you don't change its density, it won't float.

>Same reason helium rises above Oxygen. Helium molecules move around faster than Oxygen Molecules. Its because they are in a higher energy state.
Wrong, the kinetic energy of a gas is simply it's absolute temperature. Helium and oxygen at the same temperature move around at the same speed, yet helium rises above oxygen. This is because helium is less dense. You just disproved your own "theory."

[Anonymous No.9721617]

>>9721613
*Helium and oxygen at the same temperature move around with the same momentum, yet helium rises above oxygen.

[Anonymous No.9721637]

>>9721486
air bubble moving up is just water moving down, from a different point of view

[Anonymous No.9721662]

>>9721597
thats why I stated downward/inward. Its a matter of perspective.

Im talking about the very nature of the Air and Water in the submarine, so no, you are wrong. Read what I write, please.

Helium and oxygen do not move around at the same speeds in the same environment. Heres a link: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-05/958168626.Ch.r.html

[Anonymous No.9721663]

>>9721486
It's not that the air bubbles float up because of anti-gravity, it's that the water is pulled down more than the air bubbles are, because it's denser, therefore it looks like the air bubbles are going up when they're really just having the water trying to go underneath them

[Anonymous No.9721665]

>>9721662
My bad, this post was supposed to be in response to this one >>9721613

also >>9721617 proves my point exactly. They are different in nature because of different energy states. Kinetic energy is not the only thing im talking about.

[Anonymous No.9721669]

>>9721663
When I force my hand against the wall, the wall exerts the same force against me. You learn this in basic Physics. How is Air against Water, any different.

Its equal in both directions.

[Anonymous No.9721673]

>>9721669
The forces between the water and air bubbles are negligible in comparison to the different between:
>Gravitational forces between the Earth's mass and the water molecules
>Gravitational forces between the Earth's mass and the air bubble's molecules

It overpowers any direct forces between the air and water

[Anonymous No.9721679]

>>9721673
you're evading my question. The earth compared to air bubbles is at an entirely different scale.

We witness the effects of Gravity regardless at such a small scale, relative to this conversation.

[Anonymous No.9721683]

>>9721679
What is your question then? Looks like you're here to argue, not to learn

Fuck off schizo

[Anonymous No.9721685]

>>9721683
dont compare planets to water droplets. Compare like-size objects.

[Anonymous No.9721693]

>>9721685
The EARTH is pulling on the WATER more then its pulling on the AIR, because the WATER is DENSER (has more mass in the same amount of space) then the AIR.

do you understand?

[Anonymous No.9721698]

>>9721693
I understand very well, thanks for pointing out exactly what Im trying to say.

My assumption however is that it is not the Earth pulling on the Water, its more or less the different densities of water, air, ect. creating a division between themselves.

Why do air bubbles move upwards? its because they are trying to reach an energy state similar to their own. Hence they move towards the layer of Air sitting above the water.

Just like Water, Vinegar, Oil experiments in science class. Doesn't matter how you mix them, overtime they separate themselves. Whether it be downwards or upwards.

My Theory is that gravity is nothing other than, substances trying to find their "home"

[Anonymous No.9721699]

>>9721698
Ok cool, everyone's allowed to be wrong

[Anonymous No.9721716]

>>9721699
(assuming we are on Planet Earth)
Why does the fire always move upwards. Never Down.
Why does Helium rise above oxygen. Never Down.
Why does Hydrogen rise above Helium. Never down.
The fish glide through water the same way birds glide through air, only difference is how they were designed to do so. Water is much more dense, so fish are allowed to be heavier.

The only time it will go down, is if its at a higher energy state than what it wants to be at.

I understand this is unconventional physics. But give it some thought, look at nature, and everything around you. No one really understands the make up of Gravity, because maybe we are looking at it the wrong way. It all makes sense through another perspective.

[Anonymous No.9721722]

>>9721716
oh and btw, Helium moves faster than oxygen, Hydrogen moves faster then Helium.

Interesting isn't it.

[Anonymous No.9721754]

>>9721722
You realize oxygen has more potential energy than helium, and that this phenomenon doesn't happen without gravity, yes?

But yes, you are the one person who truly understands how gravity works. You are smarter than the millions of physicists and mathematicians who falsely claim to have uncovered its mechanics over hundreds of years and all the rocket scientists and engineers that ever used those mechanics are and were, combed. You're right, everyone else is wrong and blinded by the light of your brilliance. Fine. You can go now. We're simply not ready for you. The world is not ready for you, with your intellect of a billion men. Cryogenically freeze yourself for ten thousand years, and then you can be celebrated for your unparalleled genius and laugh at what ignorance all of science was in today for even daring to contradict you.

You're just smarter than all the rest of the world, which is why you don't bother learning anything about the mechanics of liquids, weight, or gravity. You already know it's all wrong, so you don't need to. You certainly don't need to check things with the house of retards that is /sci/, and know, in their terrible ignorance, they'll just tell you you're wrong anyways. You know you're right and we'll just never understand why. No reason to post here.

[Anonymous No.9721772]

>>9721754
I have not claimed that I am, Im just sticking to my current belief on a board meant for discussions. Im hear to argue my point, not be hazed.

Also, potential for what. Of course it has more potential energy for things it actually reacts with.Yet helium still rises above Oxygen, why is that?

The problem I have with most people is that they throw these answers at me that have little relevance towards my question to begin with. Obviously oxygen is more reactive towards more things than helium (in normal Earth conditions), that makes no difference however. Your answer is pointless because it avoids the original question.

I want to know why it is that as things become higher in activity, they seem to rise above layers less active than that of their own selves.

Maybe you just don't understand the extent of my theory, because your very limited understanding of how things really work. Put your book knowledge into practice before you try to answer my question with "potential energy".

[Anonymous No.9721783]

>>9721716
Fire moves upwards because it heats up air, which then creates convection currents as the now-less-dense air rises and is replaced by colder, more dense air. The convection currents pull the flame upward into its shape. In space (or a flame that is in free fall) the flame will form a ball.

Helium rises above oxygen because oxygen has more mass than helium. This means that at equal pressure, oxygen pushes helium further than helium pushes oxygen. So oxygen can bump helium out of the way as it travels towards the ground while helium can't bump oxygen out of the way. So the net effect is oxygen settles below the helium. Same with helium. Again, in freefall the two gases would more or less equally mix with sufficient air currents and have no preference for up, down, left, or right.

Fish swim through water much like submarines do, inflating a swim bladder to displace more or less water so they neutralize the pull of gravity by using buoyancy, then use muscles to push against the water to propel themselves forward. Birds are nothing like this, they use their wings to directly apply a downward force to counteract the force of gravity. Fish are like blimps, birds are like helicopters.

[Anonymous No.9721784]

>>9721754
oh and btw, heres a link you should read, because apparently you know so much about helium and oxygen:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-05/958168626.Ch.r.html

[Anonymous No.9721789]

>>9721783
He's just gonna tell you all that is irrelevant to to his theory while simultaneously ignoring half of it. He still hasn't even addressed the first post in the thread, which kills his nonsense outright.

Stop feeding the troll.

[Anonymous No.9721800]

>>9721789
read the link buddy, cause it states exactly the opposite of what you said.

Perhaps you only understand 50% of what gravity really is, the supposed downward forces.

Gravity is an effect described by humans, not a singular force. Just like time, which is not a singular thing, but a product of change.

[Anonymous No.9721803]

>>9721789
>>9721800
In other words. Gravity, like time is an abstraction of the reality of nature.

[Anonymous No.9721811]

>>9721577
>it's the curvature of spacetime.
>t. scientist
There is not one piece of evidence for that claim.

[Anonymous No.9721817]

Op you are fuckin reTARDED. Like wtf are you even on. Gravity moves 'down' because the earth is there. But there is still gravity in every direction. Your a idiott

[Anonymous No.9721819]

>>9721817
explain "gravity in every direction"

When did you last witness it right to left?

[Anonymous No.9721823]

>>9721811
*sigh* I'll take the bait... What's your explanation for gravitational lensing, seeing as how Newtonian physics don't cut it? Also for the time dilation effects not only thoroughly tested, but in daily use?

(I'm betting on "all fake".)

[Anonymous No.9721828]

>>9721811
Not OP >>9721823

[Anonymous No.9721831]

>>9721828
Well, not that OP wouldn't ultimately have to address that as well, among a whole lotta other issues (including the first post), but that is a bit surprising.

[Anonymous No.9721833]

>>9721831
I felt pressured to address it because you seem quite on the offensive tonight

[Anonymous No.9721837]

>>9721831
first post dresses my theory and fits in perfectly.

[Anonymous No.9721840]

>>9721831
"The heavier liquid is then pushed to the furthest point from the rotation, which brings the lighter liquid closer to the centre."

please explain how this is not what Im talking about. Literally layers itself out like the examples I previously gave.

[Anonymous No.9721841]

>>9721831
When you have matter with higher mass (not gaseous), then its molecules are clearly not as active as that of the gaseous ones. Yet the ones that do have a higher molecular volatility, are on the outside of the mass.

Again my point proven

[Anonymous No.9721845]

>>9721698
Sounds very Aristotelian.
Rocks fall and smoke rises because both are seeking their "natural" place.

But it doesn't explain the inverse-square law.
And it doesn't explain the Cavendish experiment, the one which measured the gravitational constant.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
ALL objects tug on each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
A chunk of lead will be pulled "sideways" towards another chunk of lead. A helium balloon will also be pulled sideways towards the lead block. If "natural level" is distance from the center of the Earth, there ought to be no sidewards forces. Neither should there be tidal effects.

In a complex system, such as multiple planets circling the Sun and traveling through a vacuum, the idea of "natural locations" breaks down completely. Does a pebble move towards Earth or Jupiter?

"Natural location" explains nothing. Objects rearrange themselves to minimize the total potential energy. An air bubble rising to the top allows an equal volume (but heavier) bit of water to sink to the bottom.

Non-gravitational (electrical) forces separate oil and water. They can be overcome by adding a little soap to the mixture.

[Anonymous No.9721849]

>>9721837
>>9721840
>>9721841
But that only happens when you spin the thing. Should not, by your explanation, the "higher energy" material always seek to escape the "lower energy" one? Further, if all gravity is material seeking an energy state, should not this be consistent even in orbit?

[Anonymous No.9721852]

>>9721819
An experiment in6th grade moran

Idiot

[Anonymous No.9721861]

>>9721849
Thank you for the respectable response.

Could the Cavendish experiment just be the two similar masses attempting to join each other into one singular mass? The same way the oil, water, vinegar separate and join with their own liquids?

Im not saying that Gravity isn't real, I'm just saying that there is very likely an equal, opposite effect to compensate, more or less.

I'm looking into the invest square law right now

[Anonymous No.9721864]

>>9721845
damn it, I meant to respond to you, not >>9721849

[Anonymous No.9721866]

>>9721849
hmm, perhaps. Good point

[Anonymous No.9721870]

>>9721861
Okaay... But you do realize you can explain the behavior you're describing with gravity and physical mechanics alone? If another force was involved, should not the bubbles rise faster than those calculations predict?

[Anonymous No.9721873]

>>9721849
My only concern with that, is that it seems entirely inverted in orbit, compared to on earth. Which makes me question whether there is some sort of other effect taking place.

[Anonymous No.9721874]

>>9721870
not with resistance. Since water is more dense than Air, it has more difficulty passing through.

On the flip side, air is less dense than water. Making it easier to pass through.

[Anonymous No.9721878]

>>9721525
>High energy states vs Low energy states. They both have only one goal in mind, to reach a level, either above or below, that harmonizes with the state they are currently in.
How is that any more of an explanation than "mass exerts a force on all other mass, such that the force exerted on either one of a pair of objects is proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of their separation", or, more correctly "spacetime is curved in such a way that the trace-reversed Ricci tensor is proportional to the stress-energy tensor"?

[Anonymous No.9721881]

>>9721878
I guess it isn't. But again thats not why I'm asking my question about this supposed "anti-gravity".

I just feel as if there is a whole other side to it that people for some reason don't examine. And again, I could be entirely wrong, but so far, a lot seems to add up in my head.

[Anonymous No.9721890]

>>9721878
The same amount of force that I apply against the wall, the wall applies onto me. Could there perhaps be a correlation between the forces exerted onto two separate states of energy, simply trying to travel to where they belong?

"For every action, there must be an equal and opposite reaction". Taking that simple physics law into account, it would seem that my theory would make sense.

[Anonymous No.9721893]

>>9721577
>gravity is not repulsive like electromagnetism because unlike electromagnetism, gravity is not a force, it's the curvature of spacetime. there is a difference.
But you can say that electromagnetic (potential/field strength) is the (connection/curvature) of a U(1) principal bundle.
Indeed it is because of the geometrisation of gravity that it can, in certain cases, be repulsive, namely when the energy is negative.

[Anonymous No.9721896]

>>9721716
your energy state theory seems to be highly connected to the speed at which particles move. so faster moving particles will tend to rise above slower moving ones. Hence, solids go under liquids, then liquids under air. But it's simply not always true. It's way easier to explain all this phenomena with density. Wood floats on water despite it being lower energy. That's because the "energy state" of the particles doesn't mean shit when it comes to rising or falling through the water. What matters is density, and wood is less dense than water, so it doesn't fall through water. Why are you coming up with convoluted, non working models of the world? We have good science that explains all this and you ignore it because you're too lazy to learn.

[Anonymous No.9721903]

>>9721896
>wood is less dense than water
thats my point exactly. Higher density generally = lower energy state. Plus wood is buoyant because it traps air inside of itself. Much like a human is able to float in water. So yes, exceptions can and will be made so long as complex systems/organisms exist.

Im not using "energy" to describe its ability to burn or something. Im talking about its ability to freely move in its space. Sorry for the confusion.

[Anonymous No.9721913]

>>9721896
also, if you would read my very first post, I mention
>A lower density, higher energy state, air bubble raises through the water towards the air.
>A higher density, lower energy state, water droplet drops through the air towards the water.

Space is very much, NOT dense, and proves to be easiest to move through. Im not sure how well light fits into this, but light moves through space, almost no problem at all. Light has a very high energy state in this case.

[Anonymous No.9721914]

>>9721903
wood does not trap air within itself, any air that it does have is negligible. Wood, the substance itself is quite literally less dense than water in some cases, with or without air inside of it.

also your definition of energy is simply retarded. Ability to move freely through space is simply mass. You're just trying to mystify density, but you shoudl really just use density. it works.

[Anonymous No.9721916]

>>9721914
Yes, wood does trap air. It wouldn't grow otherwise.

[Anonymous No.9721917]

>>9721913
in this case you simply admit that you are using energy state as a replacement for the word density. I think you know as well as everyone else here that density is the true idea that explains why these things rise and fall.

[Anonymous No.9721918]

>>9721914
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=94

>A lot of different things affect buoyancy, but one of these things is air content. Wood and cork float for the same reason that life jackets and Styrofoam float: these materials have a lot of air in them, which makes them extremely buoyant.

Maybe you should go back to school and top calling me retarded

[Anonymous No.9721920]

>>9721917
fair enough, but it doesn't matter what I call it, the effect still seems to be there.

[Anonymous No.9721921]

>>9721873
It's not inverted in orbit - the lighter materials don't move without gravity operating on both themselves and the heavier ones.

[Anonymous No.9721924]

>>9721921
inverted because there is no rotation, unlike the earth? just a hunch

[Anonymous No.9721925]

>>9721916
have you ever looked at a 2 by 4? where is the air in that. The wood is simply made of wood. any air it has would be released anyways as the wood soaks with water. And indeed, wood soaked with water still floats.

[Anonymous No.9721926]

>>9721921
the moment he spins it, the air bubble in the center begins to push outwards

>>9721925
Whats ur point, wood is less dense than water. I agree

[Anonymous No.9721928]

>>9721874
Eh, how is this not accounted for in the current model? If there is indeed an additional "upward" force, the current model shouldn't work, yet it seems to predict these separations and rate of rise perfectly.

[Anonymous No.9721930]

>>9721925
it not only floats because of the air, but also its composition. It was a biological organism. Hell if you wanted to sit on a log, you could probably use it as a mini boat. That still doesn't refute my theory

[Anonymous No.9721931]

>>9721918
this link does not even disprove me. The first answer is simply wrong. You can have solids that are less dense than liquids. It's not some sort of crazy magic.

[Anonymous No.9721933]

>>9721926
Yes, but - it doesn't move at all while its stationary, only when you apply a gravity-like force. That would seem to contradict your concept.

[Anonymous No.9721937]

>>9721933
stationary, because there is not rotation, unlike the earth. thats why I was thinking it is inverted. Its like artificial gravity through centrifugal motion.

[Anonymous No.9721939]

>>9721920
no it does matter what you call it. Density has been rigorously tested and perfect accounts for why an object will or will not float in both air and water. If your theory is so good and scientific then put a fucking unit on your energy state. why not call is ES, for Energy State. Then go find the ES of things and test whether your theory holds.
If your theory works then I am 100% sure that you could convert ES to any other unit of density and you would find that you are in fact measuring the same thing.
If your unit turns out to be truly distinct and explanatory in a way that density is not, then i concede. please take your nobel prize for discovering anti gravity.

[Anonymous No.9721940]

>>9721931
the link does disprove you because you said wood does not trap air. Which it obviously does because you don't understand how wood grows. Fuck, all living organisms need air to survive.

Regardless of what wood is, it floats within the Biome of air, because it fits naturally within air's atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9721946]

>>9721940
what about ice? Ice is less dense than water and obviously does not trap air. That is quite literally explained in the link. WITH DENSITY. There are solids less dense than water. that it the only point i am trying to make. don't believe me with wood? fine. You can't refute me when it comes to ice.

[Anonymous No.9721947]

>>9721939
Im sure your familiar with Egypt. Go look up the hermetic principles and the massive following it had, and still has. hopefully that will help explain some of the concepts going through my head.

I hate to use this as an example, since its not really modern science, but that stuff dates back further than the most modern Religious texts.

[Anonymous No.9721950]

>>9721946
oh ffs, thats because ICE IS NOT ALIVE. I never said that wood itself, without air would sink. Im telling you that you stated something you believed to be true, and I very quickly told you why you were wrong.

[Anonymous No.9721952]

>>9721950
and for the same reason you believed wood did not trap air, I think its reasonable to assume that some of the things I'm thinking about right now, may have some truth to them.

[Anonymous No.9721962]

>>9721950
>I never said that wood itself, without air would sink
yes you did. you compared wood with a human, saying that is is buoyant BECAUSE it traps air, much as a human is buoyant because he can trap air. this is not true. wood is buoyant for an entirely different reason. that reason being its density as a material being less than the density of water as a material. The same holds for ice. the same holds for many solids.

[Anonymous No.9721966]

>>9721962
where did I say that, please find it for me. Ill paypal you $1000 if you do. Please go.

[Anonymous No.9721967]

>>9721962
I also stated that I know its not just air, but thats literally one of the main factors in why it is buoyant and why you are sometimes able to sit on logs and still float.

Im done talking about fucking logs and their buoyancy.

[Anonymous No.9721971]

>>9721966
>>wood is less dense than water
>thats my point exactly. Higher density generally = lower energy state. Plus wood is buoyant because it traps air inside of itself. Much like a human is able to float in water. So yes, exceptions can and will be made so long as complex systems/organisms exist.

>Im not using "energy" to describe its ability to burn or something. Im talking about its ability to freely move in its space. Sorry for the confusion.

>Plus wood is buoyant because it traps air inside of itself. Much like a human is able to float in water.

You can keep the money. I don't want it. Don't try to bullshit me with semantics either. we all know that my words are equivalent with what you you claimed.

[Anonymous No.9721974]

>>9721967
that's absolutely wrong. Air is not a main factor in why air floats. A soaked log will float just as well as one that has been baking in the sun. It is the wood that has the buoyancy, not the air within it.

[Anonymous No.9721976]

>>9721974
woops, mean to say why wood floats instead of why air floats.

[Anonymous No.9721990]

>>9721967
>>9721966
nothing left to say friend? good. This retarded thread can finally die. I sincerely hope, and do in fact believe that you don't actually believe in this energy state theory, and that you're just baiting for reactions on 4chan. Which is fine. I love this shithole and i fucking love bait. come back tommorow and I can debate you again about logs and buoyancy. try to modify your bullshit theories to be more defensible against its obvious faults and i'm sure you'll have everyone on this board infuriated.

[Anonymous No.9722015]

>>9721486
both examples you gave are gravitational phenomena...

>>9721516
>Same reason why Fire always goes upwards, never downwards. Its literally "anti-gravity". (I say anti-gravity because of its opposing force of direction)
it's literally not...
it's still obeing the laws of gravity...

try again.

[Anonymous No.9722128]

>>9721861
How do you define "similar"?
The Cavendish experiment (and any test of gravity) works whether the attracting masses are both lead, both copper, or one is uranium and the other polyethylene.

As long as you're trying to account for Cavendish and inverse-square, look for
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_experiment
Different materials exert a "pull" proportional to their mass -- and NOTHING else -- accurate to within one part in a hundred billion.

Also, think about a deflated balloon connected to a steel cylinder filled with highly compressed helium. You can put the whole assemblage on scales and it weighs X pounds.
Open the valve and let the balloon inflate and it starts to float away, pressure tank and all.
Same atoms. Steel, helium, and plastic. But by letting it shove some of the Earth's atmosphere out of the way it suddenly "wants" to be in the stratosphere?
Imagine carrying out the balloon experiment inside an air-tight structure, a huge building a mile on a side. Inflating the balloon will slightly increase the air pressure in the building (very slightly if it's really much larger than the balloon) and the balloon will float up to the roof of the building.
But it the entire building is on scales, it's weight post-inflation is exactly the same as it was pre-inflation.
Buoyancy is not anti-gravity.

[Anonymous No.9722371]

>>9721662
>>9721665
You aren't responding to what I wrote. Again: buoyancy is solely determined by density, not "energy state."

>Helium and oxygen do not move around at the same speeds in the same environment.
So is it speed or energy? Because they aren't the same thing. How is this "energy state" measured? And how do solids both float and sink in liquid if the have a higher "energy state" than liquids?

[Anonymous No.9722396]

>>9721698
>My assumption however is that it is not the Earth pulling on the Water, its more or less the different densities of water, air, ect. creating a division between themselves.
OK, so if you put some air and water in empty space, where do they divide? Along which direction do they separate? They don't, because density only has that effect if there is a gravitational force or an acceleration in a certain direction.

[Anonymous No.9722548]

>>9722371
Again, I stated that my definition of energy state is that of their ability to move, not what is stored for some sort of fuel. I agree with you that "energy state" is probably not the right terminology, but its the best I could come up with in that moment of thinking. Please learn to actually read my posts.

>>9722128
Similar because of their relative disability to move (unlike gases, or even liquids). You can basically replace any object in that experiment with other masses, and still have the same effect. But i highly doubt you will have the same effect when using something like water, even if it was in a massive container.

>>9721990
I literally stated that water is more dense than wood, thats why it floats. Wood without air, doesn't sink. You're literal a retarded Mongrel fuck, that doesn't understand english. Stop twisting my words into something I didn't say.

As for all of you I went to bed cause I was tired. Its insane how quick people are to judge.

[Anonymous No.9722551]

I would also like to point out that of course everything that I stated, obey the laws of gravity. So stop trying to use those as a defense against my statements. But what I'm also saying is that there is an opposite side to it, when and why things rise.

I believe that peoples understanding of gravity is one sided, and partially flawed.

[Anonymous No.9722559]

Dear OP, you got it.

Congrats on not following the crowd. Conventional physics is limited to describing the effects of gravity but can't explain its most basic underlying structure. Gravity is not a wave. You may want to look into aether physics for a different perspective. The fact that one can negate gravity with high frequency electricity proves its electromagnetic nature. Now, what are you going to do with this knowledge?

[Anonymous No.9722560]

>>9722396
upward and downward is relative to humans on earth from our perspective. outward and inward is something that even stated further up in >>9721516

>we've always been taught one side of Gravity, which is its downward/inward force.

Maybe Gravity is not the right term for it, but it seems to me that there is an equal force upwards/outwards

[Anonymous No.9722565]

>>9722559
I don't much about how electricity ties into this. But it could very well makes sense, because electricity in nature, makes molecules highly active in comparison. It "energizes" them.

>Now, what are you going to do with this knowledge?

No idea, I just want to better understand the world I live in.

[Anonymous No.9722575]

>>9722371
I know, instead of calling it an energy state. I'll call it an activity state. For something to be active it needs a certain kind of energy to make it do so.

Higher activity states rise above lower activity states.

[Anonymous No.9722587]

>>9722565
This may interest you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXwOkzaqzog . Keep searching. If you have any questions, I may be able to help in this area.

[Anonymous No.9722608]

>>9722548
Do not understand your objection to >>9722128

Water is not absolutely incompressible. Its density varies a bit with pressure and temperature.
Standard trick during WW2 when a submarine wanted to shut off the engines (and avoid making noise) but the sea floor was below their crush depth. Flood the ballast tanks until you were just a LITTLE bit denser than the surrounding ocean and sink.
Usually a layer of colder water a few hundred feet down. You'd descend until you reached the colder layer and stop, supported on water which was denser than you were.

The real danger was if there was no cold layer or if it was too far down. A hollow steel shell is more compressible than water is. So as you go down, the entire submarine shrinks by a few inches in all dimensions. That increases your density, so you sink faster. This positive feedback loop continues until you either:
A) Blow the ballast tanks and give away your position, or
B) Implode and die

There's a toy illustrating this
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_diver
You can make the "diver" go up and down by squeezing the tube a little.
If you put the toy on a scale, the reading is unchanged whether the diver is at the top or partway down.

There simply IS no evidence that there's an anti-gravity "repulsive" force. In fact, there have been any number of attempts to postulate one exists. And they all fail because they can't meet experimental tests.

>http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gravity-is-a-pushing-force.103047/
>https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1wt84p/gravity_is_a_push_not_a_pull_nikola_tesla_thomas/
These guys sound EXACTLY like you, right down to the wording.
And they're all wrong. Like Aristotelian "epicycles" they have to keep adding on assumption after assumption to "explain" why their predictions don't match reality.
Sounds like Reddit might be a more appreciative audience, because you're simply wasting time here.

[Anonymous No.9722614]

>>9722565

Everything starts with 3 forces: frequency, vibration, and oscillation. It is all Kinetic energy my friend. Here is a mechanical representation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ

Imagine the liquid pool to be a subatomic-plasma (aether) where atoms are born.

[Anonymous No.9722616]

>>9722608
Im talking about activity states, in the same pressure environment. Of course your results will change as you sink to greater, possibly colder depths.

How does this change anything that Ive said.

I don't think you quite understand my definition of anti-gravity. Im saying that Gravity as we know it is the effect on things falling down. Anti-gravity is the effect of things falling up.

[Anonymous No.9722620]

>>9722565
Everything starts with 3 forces: frequency, vibration, and energy. It is all Kinetic energy my friend. Here is a mechanical representation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ

Imagine the liquid pool to be a subatomic-plasma (aether) where atoms are born.

[Anonymous No.9722625]

>>9722614
YES! frequency, vibration, and oscillation. I've watched some of this stuff before, but it so well describes the nature of our reality.

Did you know that in the pyramids (I believe the great pyramid of Giza) all notes/frequencies sound perfectly normal inside the halls of the pyramid. Except for A#, the moment you play A#, it harmonizes and amplifies that sound to a point where its significantly louder than you would expect.

[Anonymous No.9722628]

>>9722620
>>9722625
the very same way you play notes on a piano, Whole octave step notes still harmonize and sound perfect. Its almost as if the sound wants to match up and find something it harmonizes with.

Why are things in nature any different?

[Anonymous No.9722636]

>>9722620
Im so glad you responded, have you seen this video before?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w

[Anonymous No.9722652]

>>9722548
>Again, I stated that my definition of energy state is that of their ability to move
How is their ability to move measured? A small, dense object can be easier to move than a large less dense object, but the less dense object will have a greater ability to float.

At the end of the day you have to face the fact that buoyancy is determined by density, not the "ability to move" or whatever else you come up with.

[Anonymous No.9722656]

>>9722575
So how is "activity state" measured? How can a solid be "more active" than a fluid? Why do you keep avoiding these questions?

[Anonymous No.9722658]

>>9722628
>are things in nature any different?

All matter resonates. As above, so below. Doesn't matter how big a lattice of atoms can get, there will always be a resonant frequency. Take a look at the stars and planets. Most believe them to contain drastically different anatomies when in actuality, they share the same core compositions (heavy elements). I will get flamed for these statements but they are true, Keep search and you'll find the truth.

[Anonymous No.9722669]

>>9722656
a solid is generally not more active than a fluid. Stop twisting my words.

[Anonymous No.9722677]

>>9722652
This is obviously a conversation thats not leading anywhere so let me ask you this.

Why do certain things rise above those that seem to fall because of gravity. Its displacement is not?

The very definition of displacement means adding and subtracting something from a space, yet still obeying the laws of nature and equally compensating both spaces.

As much as something falls down, something forces itself up.

Again, all your arguments are valid, but ur not looking at 50% of the equation.

"The same amount of pressure exerted onto a wall, is exerted onto my hand", equal displacement.

[Anonymous No.9722685]

>>9722677
>>9722656
>>9722652
My theory is that, if you want something to go up, you have to put it into a state of active which exceeds that of the environment around it.

It sounds trivial, but think about how the space and material around an object moves around as it goes up. A hot air balloon does this naturally.

Anti-gravity is no other than, the opposite of the downward forces of gravity.

[Anonymous No.9722691]

>>9722636

Yes, cymatics is always fun. You'll also find it in the aether plasma along with vortices and toroids. Some of which make up the mechanical structure of electromagnetism at the subatomic level.

The Sun's surface has similar hills and valleys throughout its surface. My colleagues argue sometimes as to whether they are plasma tufts or cymatic patterns on the Sun's liquid surface.

[Anonymous No.9722694]

>>9722685
thats my point, our entire lives we have only looked and observed the downward forces of gravity, because we all believe that it was the only one that existed. Flip the world upside down, and everything still seems to operate the same way.

Just like a magnet has equal +/- forces, flip it around and the forces are still the same, but in another direction.

[Anonymous No.9722695]

>>9722616
What is "activity state?"

> Im saying that Gravity as we know it is the effect on things falling down. Anti-gravity is the effect of things falling up.
Again, you have it completely backwards. Gravity is the attraction between masses. A small mass near a big mass falls toward the big mass. But there is already gas and fluid attracted towards the big mass that's in the way. In order to push past the gas and the fluid, the small mass has to have more mass in its volume than the gas/fluid it's replacing. So when an object floats up, this is because gravity is pulling a more dense gas/fluid to displace it. Thus gravity causes both falling down and floating up. Gravity *defines* the down direction, it is not "the effect on things falling down."

[Anonymous No.9722697]

>>9722669
Then how do solids float?

[Anonymous No.9722699]

>>9722695
>A small mass near a big mass falls toward the big mass. If thats what the material is trying to reach yes. But why do air bubbles rise, without hesitation. Because they are trying to reach something that is not on the earth. Its being repelled away from earth, and attracted to air.

[Anonymous No.9722703]

>>9722697
generally was my statement. Ice cubes float because the temperature of the cube, is far lower than that of the water. Over time as the temperatures equal out, it liquifies and goes right back to where it wants to be.

So long as you have constants such as pressure and temperature, my theory still holds true, so it would seem.

[Anonymous No.9722712]

>>9722697
helium at the same pressure as the air around it, WIL NOT go down. It forces itself up as much as the air forces its self below the helium.

Its universal accounting. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It only moves to another state of being.

What I'm beginning to see is that both sides of the = symbol have change to them. Never only one side.

Math is a great abstract representation of our natural world. It always works on both sides of the = symbol, never just one side.

[Anonymous No.9722721]

>>9722677
>Why do certain things rise above those that seem to fall because of gravity. Its displacement is not?
This has already been explained to you several times:

>>9721597
>>9721613
>>9721663
>>9721693
>>9721783
>>9721878
>>9722695

How do "activity states" cause things to float?

>The very definition of displacement means adding and subtracting something from a space, yet still obeying the laws of nature and equally compensating both spaces.
>As much as something falls down, something forces itself up.
>Again, all your arguments are valid, but ur not looking at 50% of the equation.
What is your question? What hasn't been explained?

[Anonymous No.9722723]

>>9722697
so naturally, if my assumption that both sides of the = symbol are affected when things happen, why would you think that gravity is always going in one direction. As much as the Earth supposedly pulls things towards it, it seems reasonable to think that it pushes things away.

[Anonymous No.9722730]

>>9722721
You only look at gravity being a downward force pulled by the earth. Think about its equal opposite, the Earth pushing things away. Thats why we have separation of Earth, Water, Air. Generally.

[Anonymous No.9722736]

>>9722685
>My theory is that, if you want something to go up, you have to put it into a state of active which exceeds that of the environment around it.
You don't, you just have to make it less dense. For example, freezing water makes it less "active" and less dense. Ice floats. So once again your "theory" is wrong.

>It sounds trivial, but think about how the space and material around an object moves around as it goes up. A hot air balloon does this naturally.
The only reason a hot air balloon floats is because hot air is less dense than cold air.

>Anti-gravity is no other than, the opposite of the downward forces of gravity.
Gravity is not a downward force, it's a force between masses. Gravity causes both floating and falling.

[Anonymous No.9722737]

>>9722721
>>9722721
your explanations still make perfect sense to my theory, because they are 50% of what is actually going on. Open your eyes dude.

Like you just stated, its all about equal displacement.

Don't think of Anti-Gravity as some UFO shit. Im talking about manipulating the space around you to rise above lower activity states. Its so obvious that it seems stupid.

[Anonymous No.9722741]

>>9722736
I agree. The less dense something becomes, the more free it is to move, and so it will. Thats my point.

[Anonymous No.9722744]

>>9722703

Take a close look at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ and consider that bigger droplets contain more mass and make more of an impression on the pool (aether). This is almost how gravity works. Static charge is a better comparison since it is much weaker, like gravity. Bigger droplets can contain more charge (ground level) supplied by the aether. This is also how nuclear elements remain radioactive.

[Anonymous No.9722746]

>>9722694
>thats my point, our entire lives we have only looked and observed the downward forces of gravity, because we all believe that it was the only one that existed.
Wrong, we have known how gravity makes things float for hundreds of years. Don't project your ignorance of basic physics onto everyone else.

[Anonymous No.9722747]

>>9722736
Gravity between masses only happens when they try to reach each other to equilibrium. Now think about the opposing side, like I've said multiple times.

[Anonymous No.9722764]

>>9722746
You can literally burn anything on this planet with enough energy. The moment you burn it, it is forced into a higher state of activity. The flame and molecules/atoms you're burning will always go up, because they are in a higher state of activity.

As whatever your burning cools down, such as the ashes, it decreases its state of activity, and begins to fall down.

[Anonymous No.9722765]

>>9722746
again, your looking at only one half of whats really happening.

This is not conventional physics by any means, and for that reason so many people are so quick to believe that this is wrong. Yet it happens right before their eyes.

[Anonymous No.9722769]

>>9722699
>If thats what the material is trying to reach yes. But why do air bubbles rise, without hesitation.
They don't rise by themselves, they only rise when in an atmosphere. Air bubbles in a vacuum would fall towards the largest, closest mass. Air bubbles in an atmosphere float up because everything surrounding it is also falling towards the largest closest mass and is heavier per unit volume. Why do you keep ignoring this?

[Anonymous No.9722774]

>>9722769
Yes of course they would fall back, because the air bubble is more dense than an empty atmosphere such as space. In space you are more free to move than in the air on earth. My theory still stands.

[Anonymous No.9722784]

>>9722774
again, higher vs lower activity states. The activity of a substance/material is dependent on its molecular make up, the temperature its at, and the pressures exerted onto it.

[Anonymous No.9722793]

>>9722703
>Ice cubes float because the temperature of the cube, is far lower than that of the water. Over time as the temperatures equal out, it liquifies and goes right back to where it wants to be.
How does lower temperature mean more active when you said that hot air balloons float because hotter air is more active?

>So long as you have constants such as pressure and temperature, my theory still holds true, so it would seem.
The pressure in the atmosphere changes with height! So you are saying your "theory" doesn't even apply to floating objects. Objects float because the pressure above is greater than the pressure below, there is no constant pressure until an object stops floating. And I guess it doesn't apply to hot air balloons since you say they work because the air is hotter. So your theory is not only nonsensical, it doesn't even apply to reality.

[Anonymous No.9722794]

>>9722769
Light has no density. And it just so happens to be the fastest unit of measurement we are aware of.

Even on Earth light moves faster through water, than anything else.

Light is at a significantly higher activity state than that of its surroundings.

Light shined into the ocean, never reaches the bottom, because it just as naturally goes right back up. The photons are more or less pushed through the atmosphere of earth because of their temperature and radiance. My theory still stands.

[Anonymous No.9722797]

>>9722712
>helium at the same pressure as the air around it, WIL NOT go down. It forces itself up as much as the air forces its self below the helium.
Why does it do that?

[Anonymous No.9722798]

>>9722793
>>9722793
Lower temperature is less active. I did not say that. Stop twisting my words.

Every argument against me within the past couple minuets here has been a twisting of my words. Thing

[Anonymous No.9722802]

>>9722723
>so naturally, if my assumption that both sides of the = symbol are affected when things happen, why would you think that gravity is always going in one direction.
Only you claimed that.

>As much as the Earth supposedly pulls things towards it, it seems reasonable to think that it pushes things away.
It doesn't, only the other stuff in the atmosphere pushes things away. Try reading the explanation of buoyancy until you understand it, don't post until then.

[Anonymous No.9722803]

(I messed up my last post, was trying to edit it, but accidentally posted it)
>>9722793
Lower temperature is less active. I did not say that the cube was a higher state of activity when it cools down. Stop twisting my words.

Every argument against me within the past couple minuets here has been a twisting of my words

[Anonymous No.9722811]

>>9722730
>You only look at gravity being a downward force pulled by the earth.
No, only you do that.

>Think about its equal opposite, the Earth pushing things away.
It doesn't.

>Thats why we have separation of Earth, Water, Air. Generally.
No, we have separation because objects of lower density have more pressure below them than above them from all the other objects in the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9722812]

>>9722802
Heres a basic fundamental law of physics that supports my theory.

Solid < Liquid < Gas < Plasma

as a material changes from solid to plasma, it heats up, its increases in activity, and it relative to its environment, it only goes up.

The more you try to argue against me, the more I'm beginning to realize how correct I am in my assumption.

[Anonymous No.9722819]

>>9722812
>>9722811


Please show me an example of where a material falls down as it changes from solid to gas/plasma, in its environment.

[Anonymous No.9722823]

>>9722741
>I agree. The less dense something becomes, the more free it is to move, and so it will. Thats my point.
Nope, a small dense object can be easier to move than a big less dense object. Try again.

[Anonymous No.9722825]

>>9722819
I need an example of some substance/material resting in its (more or less) natural environment, falling towards earth as it changes these into these states

[Anonymous No.9722829]

>>9722747
>Gravity between masses only happens when they try to reach each other to equilibrium.
No, gravity between masses occurs regardless of anything else. Try again.

[Anonymous No.9722831]

>>9722823
Thats a dumb argument. Of course something smaller is easier to move than something bigger. Stop twisting my words.

[Anonymous No.9722836]

>>9722823
give me an example of this by the way. I don't think you can. I want something that has a temperature or pressure constant, relative to the environment around itself.

give me this and I will shut up.

[Anonymous No.9722838]

>>9722744
Sorry for not responding in time, these people just don't see it. Yah, its very interesting.

[Anonymous No.9722839]

>>9722764
>As whatever your burning cools down, such as the ashes, it decreases its state of activity, and begins to fall down.
So ice should sink right? Again, your "theory" contradicts basic observable reality.

[Anonymous No.9722841]

>>9722839
ICE DOESNT SINK BECAUSE THERE IS A TRADEOFF OF DENSITY TO TEMPERATURE.

LIQUID WATER IS MORE DENSE THAN SOLID ICE.

STOP TWISTING MY WORDS YOU DUMB FUCK

[Anonymous No.9722842]

>>9722765
Again, your "theory" is both nonsense and wrong.

[Anonymous No.9722848]

>>9722839
heat up the ice, and it turns to gas. It rises above water. My theory still stands.

[Anonymous No.9722851]

>>9722774
>Yes of course they would fall back, because the air bubble is more dense than an empty atmosphere such as space.
Fall back towards which planet? The atmosphere on one planet could be just as "active" as some other planet's atmosphere. They are both connected by the same empty space. Which atmosphere is the air attracted to?

[Anonymous No.9722852]

>>9722812

Have you seen fluidisation of sand? Add some kinetic energy to sand and it behaves like a fluid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjgURBIqJ6s

[Anonymous No.9722854]

>>9722851
we are talking about earth. Don't change the subject.

Regardless air molecules in space, since they are more dense than the space itself, will be attracted to any planet mass because its trying to get closer to where it easily fits in.

[Anonymous No.9722856]

>>9722794
>even on Earth light moves faster through water, than anything else
wrong, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

>Light shined into the ocean, never reaches the bottom, because it just as naturally goes right back up.
No, it is absorbed by matter. The darkness of the depths of the ocean is caused by the shadow of the water above it. Light cannot penetrate indefinitely in the ocean because too much water has gotten in the way. Water molecules looks just like any other solid molecule to light. A flashlight at the bottom of the ocean will have the beam extend just as far at the top of the beam as it does at the bottom of the beam, or just as far if held horizontally as if held vertically. If what you were claiming is true, then we would expect the light beam to extend further on top than on bottom, or further upwards than horizontally, because the light "goes right back up."

>photons are more or less pushed through the atmosphere of earth because of their temperature and radiance
They are not pushed through the atmosphere... are you sure you want to get into light? It is quite a bit more complex than the kinematics of buoyancy as a result of gravity.
Photons are not pushed through the atmosphere

[Anonymous No.9722858]

>>9722852
Wow, haven't seen this, thats pretty cool actually.

[Anonymous No.9722862]

>>9722856
radiation is a part of the light spectrum. Is it not?

[Anonymous No.9722863]

>>9722794
>Light shined into the ocean, never reaches the bottom, because it just as naturally goes right back up.
No, it gets absorbed by the water. Light doesn't float.

[Anonymous No.9722866]

>>9722856
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation

>electromagnetic radiation, such as radio waves, microwaves, visible light, x-rays, and gamma radiation (γ)
particle radiation, such as alpha radiation (α), beta radiation (β), and neutron radiation (particles of non-zero rest energy)
acoustic radiation, such as ultrasound, sound, and seismic waves (dependent on a physical transmission medium)
gravitational radiation, radiation that takes the form of gravitational waves, or ripples in the curvature of spacetime

Dumb fuck.

[Anonymous No.9722867]

>>9722798
>Lower temperature is less active
THEN HOW DOES ICE FLOAT???

No one is twisting your words, your words just don't describe reality.

[Anonymous No.9722868]

>>9722863
never said light floats. But it sure as hell never reaches the bottom. As it moves through the atmosphere its energy dissipates. My theory still stands.

[Anonymous No.9722870]

>>9722867
Because the ice cube is less dense than that of the water. I feel like I'm talking to a wall. May as well be.

The density of ice is 0.9167 g/cm3 at 0 °C, whereas water has a density of 0.9998 g/cm3 at the same temperature. Liquid water is densest, essentially 1.00 g/cm3, at 4 °C and becomes less dense as the water molecules begin to form the hexagonal crystals of ice as the freezing point is reached

[Anonymous No.9722871]

>>9722812
Then how does ice float? It's a very simple question that you should be able to answer, but you keep avoiding it, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.9722875]

>>9722870
less dense = higher activity state

I even say this in my very first post

>>9721486

>A lower density, higher energy state, air bubble raises through the water towards the air.
>A higher density, lower energy state, water droplet drops through the air towards the water.

My theory still stands.

[Anonymous No.9722877]

>>9722819
Water going from solid to liquid -> falls down

Now explain to me how "activity" makes things float.

[Anonymous No.9722878]

>>9722877
I told you, give me a pressure and temperature constant, then we can talk.

The ice cube is a lot colder than the water.

Dumb fuck.

[Anonymous No.9722881]

>>9722877
>>9722878
release helium into the air, same pressure and temperature. It will rise. IT WILL NEVER EVER DROP.

[Anonymous No.9722883]

>>9722854
>regardless air molecules in space, since they are more dense than the space itself, will be attracted to any planet mass because its trying to get closer to where it easily fits in.
Wrong, they get closer because of the force of gravity on the gas, and because there is no "anti-gravity" force to resist or oppose the acceleration due to gravity. Furthermore, atmosphere readily escapes into space, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape

[Anonymous No.9722884]

>>9722831
>Thats a dumb argument. Of course something smaller is easier to move than something bigger. Stop twisting my words.
So a smaller piece of ice should float more than a larger piece of ice, right? Wrong, size has no effect on buoyancy, only density does.

[Anonymous No.9722889]

>>9722884
you do realize what your doing now. your picking apart my words, instead of giving me scientific evidence of me being wrong. Your backed into a corner of your own understanding.

Just open you're eyes. look at nature.

[Anonymous No.9722890]

>>9722836
>give me an example of this by the way. I don't think you can.
A piece of lead weighing 20 pounds is easier to move than a piece of wood weighing 100 pounds. But the lead will sink while the wood will float.

[Anonymous No.9722893]

>>9722884
a smaller piece of ice melts at a relatively faster rate than that of the larger one. Both pieces of ice still have a lower density than that of the water. So they Float. My theory still stands.

[Anonymous No.9722895]

>>9722890
omfg please go to school. The density of the lead is so much higher than that of the wood. My theory still stands.

[Anonymous No.9722898]

>>9722841
>ICE DOESNT SINK BECAUSE THERE IS A TRADEOFF OF DENSITY TO TEMPERATURE.
What does density have to do with anything? We're talking about "activity state." And how much temperature change is needed to tradeoff a density change? How hot do you need something to be to make it float in a fluid with the same density? The answer is that it doesn't matter how hot you make something, if it's the same density as the surrounding liquid, it won't float. So you can't explain to me why ice floats. Try again.

[Anonymous No.9722899]

>>9722890
doesn't matter how much it weighs, what matters is the density.

[Anonymous No.9722902]

>>9722848
Your theory doesn't explain why ice floats, so it fails. The only way it can stand is by not failing to explain basic physics.

[Anonymous No.9722903]

>>9721486

>A lower density, higher energy state, air bubble raises through the water towards the air.
>A higher density, lower energy state, water droplet drops through the air towards the water.

if this post was you>>9721613
>Wrong. The only thing that determines buoyancy is density,

[Anonymous No.9722907]

>>9722862
>>9722866
Read the first fucking sentence of the link holy shit.
>Cherenkov radiation,... , is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through a dielectric medium at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light in that medium.
>when a charged particle (not light) passes through a dielectric medium at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light in that medium.

And again a little later:
>For example, the speed of the propagation of light in water is only 0.75c. Matter can be accelerated beyond this speed (although still to less than c) during nuclear reactions and in particle accelerators. Cherenkov radiation results when a charged particle, most commonly an electron, travels through a dielectric (electrically polarizable) medium with a speed greater than that at which light propagates in the same medium.

Electrons can and have been observed traveling through water faster than light travels through water. Cherenkov radiation happens as a result of this. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum. This only holds in a vacuum. This does not hold true for other mediums, such as water, as claimed in >>9722794

[Anonymous No.9722908]

>>9722899
Density has everything to do with it. Go back to school. Hell go look it up on google.

[Anonymous No.9722915]

>>9722907
>Cherenkov radiation
ok fair enough, Its not light I misunderstood that. But what does that change, electrons have hardly any mass/density to them.

Same reason why an electrons energy almost moves as fast as light in a computer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity
>the signals or energy travel as electromagnetic waves typically on the order of 50%–99% of the speed of light

[Anonymous No.9722916]

>>9722854
>we are talking about earth. Don't change the subject.
Nice try at avoiding the question. We are not talking about the Earth, we're talking about physics. It works regardless of where you are. Gravity explains all this regardless of Earth, your "theory" doesn't explain anything.

>Regardless air molecules in space, since they are more dense than the space itself, will be attracted to any planet mass because its trying to get closer to where it easily fits in.
What does mass of the planet have to do with how "active" the atmosphere is? How does your "theory" account for the mass of the planet?

You know you're full of shit at this point.

[Anonymous No.9722921]

>>9722902
Ice is less dense than water

[Anonymous No.9722922]

>>9722868
>never said light floats. But it sure as hell never reaches the bottom. As it moves through the atmosphere its energy dissipates. My theory still stands.
So now you are backtracking when you said the light goes "right back up." Now light has nothing to do with anything, even though you brought it up out of the blue! Hilarious.

Your theory has been shown to have failed on several counts and you have no response, just inane non sequiturs that you backtrack on.

[Anonymous No.9722923]

>>9722916
Water is electro-conductive. Its physical make up allows for electricity to move through it more or less freely. Light can and is restricted.

The Cherenkov radiation is a specific type that so happens to surpass the speed of light, because of very few restrictions in that medium.

[Anonymous No.9722927]

>>9722923
correction: "surpass the speed of light in the water"

[Anonymous No.9722935]

>>9722922
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/opt/mch/refr/less.rxml

It literally refracts back towards the surface. Dumb fuck.

[Anonymous No.9722937]

>>9722870
>Because the ice cube is less dense than that of the water.
What does density have to do with activity? How does temperature affect activity independently from density?

We are getting closer and closer to the inevitable truth, that this is all explained by DENSITY, not any "activity" or whatever else you make up. You know it.

>I even say this in my very first post
At first you said it was "energy" then you had to move to "activity," now you are finally having to admit that it's just density and nothing else.
Now explain to me how density causes things to float without referring to gravity.

[Anonymous No.9722943]

>>9722937
go back to school. Dumb fuck.

[Anonymous No.9722947]

>>9722878
>I told you, give me a pressure and temperature constant, then we can talk.
So you can't explain how things float. Your "theory" is useless and you know it.

>The ice cube is a lot colder than the water.
So what? I already explained how it floats, why can't you? You claimed you can explain how a hot air balloon floats, but now all of a sudden you can't talk about objects at different temperatures. It's almost like you are just making shit up as you go along and can't explain anything.

[Anonymous No.9722949]

>>9722937
Ive spent so much on this thread, deducing peoples answers against my argument, that I'm literally reiterating things multiple times. Just read what I wrote and look at the reality of nature.

Don't be so ignorant.

[Anonymous No.9722953]

>>9722889
>you do realize what your doing now. your picking apart my words, instead of giving me scientific evidence of me being wrong.
You do realize that your "theory" doesn't make sense which is why you keep contradicting yourself, right? Now explain to me how a bigger, harder to move object can float better if your "theory" is correct? Or just admit you are making shit up.

[Anonymous No.9722958]

>>9722893
>a smaller piece of ice melts at a relatively faster rate than that of the larger one.
So what? I'm asking you about the ice as it is now, not later. Right now, the big and small pieces of ice are floating. But according to you a bigger piece of ice should float less than a smaller piece. Why are you avoiding the question?

[Anonymous No.9722961]

>>9722895
The lead is easier to move even though it's more dense. So your theory fails.

[Anonymous No.9722962]

>>9722899
So it doesn't matter how easy it is to move. Your "theory" fails.

[Anonymous No.9722966]

>>9722921
Good, now how does density explain buoyancy?

[Anonymous No.9722968]

>>9722915
Electrons do not almost move as fast as light in a computer, light moves through a computer almost as fast as the speed of light in vacuum.
>The speed at which energy or signals travel down a cable is actually the speed of the electromagnetic wave in the insulating material between the conductors, not the movement of electrons. Electromagnetic wave propagation is fast and depends on both the permeability and the permittivity of the insulating material, which may also be referred to as the dielectric. When the insulator is vacuum, the wave travels at the speed of light and almost that fast when air is the insulator.
(from your link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity))
electromagnetic waves are light, the force carrier is the photon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

electron drift is much slower than the speed of light, but still relatively fast.

>>9722935
in the very link you post, the illustration shows light bending down towards the bottom of the glass, not up towards the water's surface. pic included. It shows that light with a shallow angle relative to the normal, would bend towards the surface. But light with a high angle relative to the normal would bend down, towards vertical. Light passing vertically through water would not bend according to this link; it would continue to travel in a straight line down. So why does it too, eventually fade? It is because it there is too much water in the way. Water at depth is dark because it is in the shadow of the water above it.

[Anonymous No.9722970]

>>9722923
How does that respond to anything in that post?

[Anonymous No.9722973]

>>9721662
i think you're trying to put the meta in the physical here friendo

[Anonymous No.9722974]

>>9722943
So you admit your "theory" fails. Good.

[Anonymous No.9722976]

>>9722949
See my responses to those posts. How does density explain buoyancy?

[Anonymous No.9723280]

Don't respond to retarded /x/tier threads. If you must, at least sage.

[Anonymous No.9723680]

"Activity" is energy. It's kinetic energy to be exact. At the atomic level, an increase in kinetic energy such as oscillation results in higher radiations such as thermal energy. This is also how matter transitions from one state to another. Who cares if OP is not perfect with his explanations.

[Anonymous No.9723891]

There is an 'opposite force' if you will: centripital force. Both result in something similar but one is inward one is outward

But you're still retarded as all fuck