Lisa, come look at something I wrote and posted at a physics forum

[Plug Drugs]

I'm getting better at quantum physics as a spectator sport
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/8...st-resistance/
I was able to contend with others and hold my ground at a physics forum for 3 whole pages of a thread; borrowing my friend's calc book and watching physics lectures from MIT and caltech must have paid off

[Lisa]

Quantum physics as a spectator sport hey? Lol

[Lisa]

In the first paragraph I'd ask you about two charged particles I'd ask you about the force that is resistance, that pushes them apart.

Then I'd ask you if you think mass isn't actually made up of particles?

Just at a glance

[Autistic Spectrum]

cant belve nobody called you a fag in that thread

[Lisa]

But I mean your thinking isn't that stupid, but you should study more instead of making assumptions, a lot of your questions have already been asked and answered by science, a lot of what you are trying to suggest has either been disproven or just is not related to the subject you raised, you were talking about electromagnetism and then tried to assume that gravity was the same thing. It isn't, that's quite fundamental.

[Lisa]

And at a glance at the replies these guys know what they are talking about and can back up what they are saying with references to actual science.

[Lisa]

And the moon is held in place by gravity dear

[Lisa]

I think you are trying to tie two completely different forces at work in the universe together and they are actually separate forces. There is matter and then there are forces that act on the matter

I also think you are jumping too fast from sub atomic particles into astronomically large masses. All large masses are made up of sub atomic particles... But what have we found out recently that actually gives a particle mass as we know it? The Higgs boson

[Plug Drugs]

I think you are trying to tie two completely different forces at work in the universe together and they are actually separate forces. There is matter and then there are forces that act on the matter

I also think you are jumping too fast from sub atomic particles into astronomically large masses. All large masses are made up of sub atomic particles... But what have we found out recently that actually gives a particle mass as we know it? The Higgs boson

There's relativistic mass which must tie in to energy (you know, e=mc^2) then there is mass in its classical sense: resistance to being accelerated by a force.
The concept of the former is reached by considering that there is no objective reference frame, and whether a particle is accelerating or not depends on its relation to other particles. Hence, the more a particle accelerates, the more it will interact with what's around it, leading to an observed increase in volume as well as time for the particle.

[Plug Drugs]

and yeah, if you're putting the pieces together and noticing, that 'volume and time' is spacetime, and acceleration warps it

[Plug Drugs]

The FLRW solutions to the Einstein Field Equations (the one they were asking me to disprove in that thread) assumes homogenous mass and not individual particles with the electromagnetic property of 'charge'.
Obviously, I was trying to promote and advocate the latter.

[Autistic Spectrum]

you push carts at walmart, that's why you came up with the push gravity theory from the 1600's, because you a fat retard who pushes carts

[Autistic Spectrum]

Le Sage's theory of gravitation is a kinetic theory of gravity originally proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690 and later by Georges-Louis Le Sage in 1748. The theory proposed a mechanical explanation for Newton's gravitational force in terms of streams of tiny unseen particles (which Le Sage called ultra-mundane corpuscles) impacting all material objects from all directions. According to this model, any two material bodies partially shield each other from the impinging corpuscles, resulting in a net imbalance in the pressure exerted by the impact of corpuscles on the bodies, tending to drive the bodies together. This mechanical explanation for gravity never gained widespread acceptance, although it continued to be studied occasionally by physicists until the beginning of the 20th century, by which time it was generally considered to be conclusively discredited.


le fat retard

[Autistic Spectrum]

was proven totally fucking wrong you stupid kike shut up pls god dammit go back to acutal school

[Plug Drugs]

you push carts at walmart, that's why you came up with the push gravity theory from the 1600's, because you a fat retard who pushes carts

There's been numerous push gravity models put out over the 20th century by a variety of respected physicists; there was even one from 2007 that got some traction for a while

[Plug Drugs]

There's relativistic mass which must tie in to energy (you know, e=mc^2) then there is mass in its classical sense: resistance to being accelerated by a force.
The concept of the former is reached by considering that there is no objective reference frame, and whether a particle is accelerating or not depends on its relation to other particles. Hence, the more a particle accelerates, the more it will interact with what's around it, leading to an observed increase in volume as well as time for the particle.

This is probably the sweetest shortest explanation of special and general relativity you're ever going to read; if it went too fast for you and you're not a strong enough reader to take it all in in one paragraph, go watch a video explaining it with diagrams

[Plug Drugs]

Until you can explain the GR EFE to me, or even show me you know anything about gravity at all, you're just regurgitating mainstream opinions.
Fuckin dickweed.

[Autistic Spectrum]

Until you can explain the GR EFE to me, or even show me you know anything about gravity at all, you're just regurgitating mainstream opinions.
Fuckin dickweed.

this is why your other thread was locked, you have stories, not sceince,

[Lisa]

Until you can explain the GR EFE to me, or even show me you know anything about gravity at all, you're just regurgitating mainstream opinions.
Fuckin dickweed.

GR means "general relativity" as in einstein

I don't know what EFE means but I looked it up and I'm pretty sure this is it http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

Which you could do with having a read of along with general relativity

[Plug Drugs]

GR means "general relativity" as in einstein

I don't know what EFE means but I looked it up and I'm pretty sure this is it http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

Which you could do with having a read of along with general relativity

It takes about 2 hours just to be able to explain each piece of the equation:

[Plug Drugs]

you figured out how free money works and dug in like a fucking kike

[Lisa]

There's relativistic mass which must tie in to energy (you know, e=mc^2) then there is mass in its classical sense: resistance to being accelerated by a force.
The concept of the former is reached by considering that there is no objective reference frame, and whether a particle is accelerating or not depends on its relation to other particles. Hence, the more a particle accelerates, the more it will interact with what's around it, leading to an observed increase in volume as well as time for the particle.

that's not really mass in the "classical sense"

I think you should talk about mass in the scientific sense in such discussions lol

A particle gets mass from passing through the Higgs field, it doesn't actually inherently have mass... Well that was last I heard

Look I could go on all day but what I did notice on closer inspection is that these guys seem to tell you pretty much what I tell you only better and with maths to back them up, you seem to get a hold of a concept or two and instead of actually studying them you create a theory and try to relate them all together but what you come up with doesn't really make that much sense. I think you should study the basics like how gravity and electromagnetism actually work because I think you'll find if you do you will find the answers already exist, it saves you time, that way you don't have to spend an afternoon creating a theory that basically makes no sense and is some kind of mix mash up of various concepts you've gotten wind of but haven't taken the time to actually study and it would save whoever you are talking to about its time by them not having to correct you. Look if you look it up first and get it right then you can further push and query but you do get ahead of yourself by not actually getting to know the basics first. These guys seem like they will push you in the right direction but it is clear they know what they are talking about so I wouldn't waste your time or theirs by trying to argue your half baked theories with them, what they would love though is if you asked them questions but I think your best bet yet is to research the science first, have a solid and basic understanding of the various subjects you wish to discuss and if you don't know something, don't just make it up, people who actually know what they are talking about are going to know you've made it up straight away, just ASK

[Lisa]

And gravity isn't actually an attractive force, gravity is a pressure force exerted onto objects that holds them together, the gravity is a force from outside the mass

[Lisa]

Study the standard model

when lisa says at a glance she means before she googles a wikipedia article

[Lisa]

when lisa says at a glance she means before she googles a wikipedia article

No I knew I'd do this, I took a glance, posted, walked away, kept thinking, came back posted more, made a cup of tea, kept thinking, came back and posted more

I do study this shit sometimes

[peter quinn i.e. manoman]

Neutrons, molecules and particles. Gravitational force creates positives. The head of a comet is a nuecleas. Not that id know. Cock fell off.

[Lisa]

Neutrons, molecules and particles. Gravitational force creates positives. The head of a comet is a nuecleas. Not that id know. Cock fell off.

first funny thing you've posted

It's not going to be worth taking you off ignore for it though

[Lisa]

I mean it's all complex stuff, I don't full grasp all of it but I think you ask questions a lot that you then try to answer yourself that have already been answered. No-one knows exactly how everything works but we get closer to understanding all the time and the questions you ask aren't stupid, they are very clever questions but try not to leap to assumptions and take on too many different subjects at once getting them missed up and confused. Nor are they the dumbest assumptions I've ever heard, but I think you could actually look up the answers and endeavour to understand them rather than make them up lol

[Lisa]

And he was asking me because he knows I have some knowledge on the subject. I actually score in the top 1% for science, not that I'm a scientist but I am good at science, it's in my blood