Fuzzwood

And the diagram

 

A general balance of forces, equilibrium,

 

 

and in the singularity diagram , this would apply to whether it was the sun or the earth has a singularity.

The term you are looking for is 'point mass'.

You add force to either action

 

on the ground when it loses V and curves

you do not want me to start drawing cannon balls do you?

Nope, just gonna show you why you don't need to throw electronic forces to reason why we don't fall into the sun. Now assume for a minute that we remove the atmosphere and thus all friction caused by air. Let's say we are on the moon right now. Will the stone still fall at our feet when simply released and fall a bit further when it is thrown?

"What goes up must come down, unless there is acting compensating force."

If I released a stone by just opening my fingers, it would plummet down to earth. If I gave it horizontal motion while throwing it, where would it end up?

Ok now here is an important sentence: If I try to float motionless in a pool I soon find myself vertical with just the tip of my head at the water surface. <-- so this is still able to float somewhat, but not as much as an average person. What would this mean for the density of this person in regards to that of water. Will his density be lower, the same, or higher that that of water?

No, but you can force some of them in there, like a capacitor.

None since you are misunderstanding torgue.

Is the magnet massless? If not, Fn cannot be at 0 and remain still, assuming gravity is working on it. Then again, what does any of that have to do with magnetism?

Well you need the densities of the 4 liquids first, what are they?

You don't have to make the magnet that big; just use a compass.

The health of and scenario that our species and environment will be in, in 1000 years, under NASA and academia.

Ok let me rephrase that last question: what makes you think such predictions exist or that there is any data out there to base predictions with any kind of statistical significance on? Jokes aside, we cannot accurately predict next week's weather, let alone something that might happen in a millennium.

Because I'm not destroying, natural resources, or close natural resources, collectively, the Earth, or being the cause of future children's suffering with my actions, beliefs or personality. We need these to survive. Go ahead and argue reasons why 'survival is not our objective', 'there is no good', but I've said this before, if you are unable to eat, you will die, so do "you" truly deserve an opinion if you cannot live properly under the concept of you? You even believe if you lived life knowing only yourself, you wouldn't know anything...

Do you eat on a daily basis? Then you are destroying the natural resource that is food.

Scientists often revel in the beauty of the universe, but insult the livelihoods of animals, calling them stupider.

Nice generalization you have going there. I thank you for your insult. You are an animal too.

Children have wild dreams of technological advancement and space exploration, but the reality is much different. As I said in a different thread, world dies and some humans in bunkers on Mars, not universal civilization. Why allow imaginative stupidity dictate real things, why not show people the real imagery, the real predictions of what life will be like for us in the future following what NASA or academicians believe?

What predictions are you talking about?

And if there is force of gravity, does the gravity attraction not cause a ''friction'', a gravity drag has such taking away energy from the motion? <-- why?

I have placed an inverted transparent basin , with a paper balancing on a needle within it. The purpose to of the basin was to prevent any external force like air from the outside.

 

The experiment which I made was similar to this video.

 

Let's see. Strong halogen lamp and a prominent shade. Air will be cooler underneath the shade, warmer air rises up, tadaa airflow. No chi, just basic physics, although those basics are also a kind of magic for some people.

Those are a lot of beliefs, for which science doesn't care a rat's behind. Where is your evidence, supported by mathematics?

That is exactly how I wanted you to grasp my explanation. As for your final bit: that won't work because of the nature of the p orbital, which has a negative and positive lobe, which in turn are solutions of quantummechanical functions. Both parts contribute to a pi bond equally. This essentially means that your image is half-complete: you need to draw 2 addiional purple lines between the P_x and _y yet unbound 'half-orbitals'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_bond

It is the nature of these bonds and the angle that they make with each other.

In an sp³ hybridized system you have 4 equal bonds to other atoms, ideally making an angle of cos^-1(-1/3) = 109.47°. In an sp² hybridized system you have 3 equal bonds with other atoms and an additional pi-bond with one of the 3 atoms. Ideally, the bonds now make an angle of 120°. In an sp hybridized system you have 2 equal bonds with other atoms and two additionals pi-bond with one or 2 of the other atoms. Ideally, the bonds now make an angle of 180°. The reason behind these angles is that the elektrons making up the bonds are as far away from the other bonds as possible.

The orbitals making up the pi bonds are perpendicular to the one making the sigma bond. To engage in a pi bond with another atom, these p orbitals sort of have to bend towards each other. This works for the p_x and p_y orbitals, but not for the p_z orbital as that one is antiparallel to the sigma bond and thus has to wrap around the entire atom for it to reach the other orbital. You can imagine the strain on this bond to exceed whatever bonding force the bond might have.

2 equal masses, on an x axis been vertical, been balanced of an equilibrium of weight, A been at 0 degrees, and B been at 180 degrees, increase the mass of A by thermodynamics and A gains more mass.

What? I see only a word salad. The fact that something is moving, does not mean it is doing any work. If things slow down or speed up (ie. acceleration) THEN there is work being done.

And yes planets slow marginally down by things like tidal forces, space being not completely empty, etc.

Here we go again. Posts upon posts explaining advanced physics from different angles while the basics are not yet understood...

As long as you can burn something, there is your energy right there. Coal is flammable. Incidentally, so is wood and peat.

"I hear scientist are researching technology to upload minds up to computer"

http://xkcd.com/285/

So, any chance of our sun harboring any life within its corona?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation might be a nice one.

In this light, would you be able to explain the full spectrum of sexuality this way? I mean, why are some people attracted to children or other species, even on a sexual level?

A religious atheist is a contradictio in terminis...

Nope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

I know, didn't want to overcomplicate things.