Fuzzwood

You misread his question. Can you sum up your qualities as if it were for a job application?

It's always the consumer that is at fault it seems. Never the lobbying industries.

I am 99% logically sure I could make a simple device, that would create energy literally out of fresh air using this model and the concept and idea that goes with it. <-- then your logic is as unsound as your knowledge of physics.

The point about Schroedinger's cat, which was actually Schroedinger's attempt to mock this interpretation of quantum mechanics, is that he arranged the macroscopic outcome of a dead or alive cat to be dependant on a single particle being emitted or not.

Still no issue as long as you don't hit something solid, albeit the air friction will simply rip you off of that contraption. Be aware that we are all traveling at 30 km/sec already.

yes we have astronomy shop in our town. i will inform you how things developed. about joinig the club-i dont have time for social life. sadly.

Time or interest?

Men don't really consider that a problem.

Exactly, your model very roughly describes something known as the Lennard-Jones potential:

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Microfluid_Mechanics/Intermolecular_and_Surface_Forces#mediaviewer/File:Lennard_jones_potential_force.png

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Microfluid_Mechanics/Intermolecular_and_Surface_Forces for the mathematics stuff behind it.

It basically states that there is an optimal range (the potential well) for 2 molecules when the repulsive and attractive forces are equal to eachother.

Ah now I grasp your issue with the matter, I hope. You think the surface has to be moving somehow in order to exert a force?

To me you are saying that an object is repelled by the surface?

No, that would be saying that its magnitude would be greater than that of gravity. It is exactly equal to the magnitude of the gravitational force.

No, your velocity becomes 0 because you are rapidly decelerated by a counteracting force. And this is why your topics keep getting closed. *sigh*

YES IT EXERTS A FORCE, ELSE YOU WOULD KEEP ACCELERATING DOWNWARDS! Is it so hard to grasp that? Perhaps it is, and that would be because you don't understand what a force is.

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

The ground does not push back.

Yet it quite rapidly stopped any downward motion you had. In essence decellerating your mass till your velocity was 0.

Remind me how the force of gravity was defined again? Oh right, it was F_g = m * g (mass times the acceleration caused by gravity). How is that any different than the phenomenon I explained above this paragraph?

Then answer this. What is a force?

X axis will always try to fall.

 

There is no force in a floor, gravity holds me to the floor, the floor is dense?

Does a cylinder not fall down a hill and rolling or sliding is just the action?

And here we go again. Disproving something established in physics because you don't grasp the theory. Take it from me that there is a force acting upon you from the floor which vector is opposite to the direction of the vector of gravity and with an equal magnitude.

Re-direction of mass .

 

Why do I contradict, because I look at the articles, and they either jump out and are instantly correct, or the complete opposite.

 

My thoughts on the cylinder was instantaneous.

 

cent.jpg

 

 

 

All mass is attracted to a central point, centripetally , by gravity, all objects with no surface contact in our atmosphere fall, just because you put a slope in the way it does not mean that object is not still falling, but been redirected.

 

X axis on my diagram, the entire axis would fall, and if no other elements affected it, it would stay falling linear like an arrow.

 

So this is why I contradict.

 

I like accuracy.

cy.jpg

 

 

My cylinder still wants to fall?

Yes it does. If you let go of the beaker, it, and its contents, will certainly fall. However, the force that the glass is exerting on the cylinder is preventing it from falling.

If the normal force of a floor you stood on would be weaker than the gravity force exerted upon you, you would fall through the floor. If you are still standing still, yet there is gravity acting upon you, there must be a counteracting force, ergo the normal force.

No it isn't. You are overthinking things here.

You can or cannot divide them by 11 as well. It's not the fact of prime numbers you don't grasp but the binary counting method.

It would not be wise; it would be rather stupidly flawed. And what kind of parent kills their own offspring anyway?

Squirrel females due to stress of their 'spouse' wanting to mate again.

Twice the boobies and no schlongs in sight. Problem? I see none.

So you are basically looking at this scenario? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Schizoid_Man_%28Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation%29

This ball of rock will still be orbiting that fiery ball of plasma long after humanity died out.

What you all fail to recognize, is that sodium chloride currently in the seas is healthier than sodium chloride that used to be in the seas and is now mined. So much in fact, that sea salt costs $8 for a tiny shaker, and table salt costs $0.06 for nine pounds.

NaCl = NaCl. I see no difference besides the rip-off price they can ask guillible people. Or are you implying that some crackpot-defined energy has left the mined salt?

Well don't get me started of what I think of religion. Also, yes, in your last case. It's just water with some waste products. Remove the waste products and it's drinkable water again.

Molecules are molecules. Forgive me if this sounds in any way offensive, but some water molecules in your body for example might or might not have been part of Napoleon Bonaparte's pee and/or pigs. L-cysteine is nothing more and nothing less than a simple amino acid.

Besides, you work with chemicals too when you cook, heck even oxygen is a chemical.

What is the "big bang", to you, if only a percentage (probably) true?

Unproven but at the moment the best theory that fits observations.

I understand up until "the God of the gaps"---"the answer of the gaps" would be correct. I'm Atheist, belief in a cause for the big bang is not belief in God, it's rational belief.

It is, however, still something you believe. Science doesn't care for beliefs, only testable hypothesis and theories that match our observations. Religion cares for belief.