electric gravity

twistor59 · **#81** by **twistor59** » Nov 06, 2016 7:27 pm

We're gonna rock down to electric gravitoo,
trollin' take it higher

:smoke:

used to love that song.

Calilasseia · **#82** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 06, 2016 9:24 pm

electricgravity1 wrote:
lol. Cali, you are more than half the reason I visit ratskep. Thank you for this post.

He appears to be a one-off skittle. Tried to set up some counter arguments to electric gravity, but I knocked them all over with ease. Since then he hasn't tried again.

You like playing skittles too? We should go bowling. :p

I was too busy debugging my JavaScript.

Oh who was this sock, by the way? Only the aroma, at least to my olfactory senses, had an interesting Middle East/Irish mixture to it ...

Scar · **#83** by **Scar** » Nov 06, 2016 9:25 pm

Oh, debugging JavaScript is a much more interesting topic! What are you working on?

Calilasseia · **#84** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 06, 2016 9:30 pm

3D modelling application, with file transfers mediated by a custom node.js server. The latter part now also handles AJAX transactions using PHP scripts as well as node.js scripts.

Thomas Eshuis · **#85** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Nov 06, 2016 10:14 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:
lol. Cali, you are more than half the reason I visit ratskep. Thank you for this post.

He appears to be a one-off skittle. Tried to set up some counter arguments to electric gravity, but I knocked them all over with ease. Since then he hasn't tried again.

You like playing skittles too? We should go bowling. :p

I was too busy debugging my JavaScript.

Oh who was this sock, by the way? Only the aroma, at least to my olfactory senses, had an interesting Middle East/Irish mixture to it ...

He's only been suspended for a cooldown, so he's still protected by the FUA.

Bubalus · **#86** by **Bubalus** » Nov 06, 2016 10:28 pm

Is that a record? - only 29 posts!

Scar · **#87** by **Scar** » Nov 06, 2016 10:48 pm

Calilasseia wrote:3D modelling application, with file transfers mediated by a custom node.js server. The latter part now also handles AJAX transactions using PHP scripts as well as node.js scripts.

Why would you need PHP in addition to nodejs for some mere AJAX api stuff?

Calilasseia · **#88** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 07, 2016 1:32 am

Scar wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:3D modelling application, with file transfers mediated by a custom node.js server. The latter part now also handles AJAX transactions using PHP scripts as well as node.js scripts.

Why would you need PHP in addition to nodejs for some mere AJAX api stuff?

It's not needed to perform the task, but I'm including the ability to handle PHP scripts, so that I can use the project for demonstration purposes at recruitment interviews - basically, to show that I have PHP knowledge under my belt as well as JavaScript, and the ability to integrate PHP handling into my custom node.js server (which now works). Though I also intend to use the finished product to create some retro style 3D objects for things such as a Battlezone clone.

tolman · **#89** by **tolman** » Nov 07, 2016 3:06 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:You're trolling is really rather subpar.

What did you expect?
They're probably in a rush before Mom gets home and realises she forgot to lock the computer away again.

electricgravity1 · **#90** by **electricgravity1** » Nov 08, 2016 12:31 am

Calilasseia wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:
lol. Cali, you are more than half the reason I visit ratskep. Thank you for this post.

He appears to be a one-off skittle. Tried to set up some counter arguments to electric gravity, but I knocked them all over with ease. Since then he hasn't tried again.

You like playing skittles too? We should go bowling. :p

I was too busy debugging my JavaScript.

cute excuse. Your back I see, with some rational debate? Let's see...

Oh who was this sock, by the way? Only the aroma, at least to my olfactory senses, had an interesting Middle East/Irish mixture to it ...

Yeah, that's about RS standard.
Who is this 'Calilasseia' skittle by the way?
How did he manage to momentarily rise up from the RS depths of ad-homiens and one liner wise cracks, before sinking back down ? No wonder he was made a mod.

TE wrote:Once again jumping to unjustified conclusions I see.

I think its justified. He's managed to make a one off attempt at rational debate. Well done to him I say. He deserved the title of skittle. Don't be jealous, he's back down with the rest of you making quippy ad-homiens.

I think that makes a grand total of 3 replies with some substance, 2 by ScholasticSpastic, 1 by Calilasseia.
Thats fair going for RS. About 1 reply for every 2 pages.

electricgravity1 wrote:
Weaver wrote:No. I am saying it is so absurdly, ludicrously wrong - that the cause of gravity is well known and has jack shit to do with static electricity.

It is pseudoscientific to the core.

Please state the well known cause of gravity

39 hrs later...
Weaver still hasn't replied with the 'well known' cause of gravity. Perhaps he's forgotten it. Maybe if we all try and help him by asking him then he could overcome the difficulty he's having with posting it. Hope you are OK Weaver.

Anyway, time to post something new and substantial for electric gravity theory, something that might explain why Weaver went quiet when I asked him to post the explanation of gravity.

What is electric gravity theory competing against? What theory is it trying to usurp?
Answer :
Its a trick question. But none of you here will know or care either before or after I tell you :

Current physics does not have an explanation for gravity, it merely has a description

Most of you will think GR or Newton gives an explanation for gravity, but they don't. They describe the effect of gravity, but not the cause. Explaining gravity is considered an unsolved problem in physics. Hence my attempt. Hence the RS community's total lack of an attempt, awareness of the problem, and policy of putting any attempt in the pseudo science forum. Many theorists have put forward their own hypotheses, but nearly all of them, you will find if any of you looked ( which none of you will ), are wacky.
To suggest electricity is the cause of gravity is merely the simplest and most logical 1st guess, since they are both inverse square fields and both integral to matter. No RS member will appreciate this, or that having a starting theory is better than having no theory.

The_Metatron · **#91** by **The_Metatron** » Nov 08, 2016 12:54 am

It is a mistake to assume Cali is interested in debating you about anything. What he writes, he supports very well indeed. What he wrote only needed to be said once. Restating or repeating it for your amusement serves nothing.

You either accept it, or you do not. I can assure you Cali isn't concerned either way.

CdesignProponentsist · **#92** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Nov 08, 2016 12:57 am

twistor59 wrote:We're gonna rock down to electric gravitoo,
trollin' take it higher

used to love that song.

tolman · **#93** by **tolman** » Nov 08, 2016 2:38 am

electricgravity1 wrote:Yeah, that's about RS standard.

Unless you're a sad sock puppet, how the fuck would you come to that conclusion already?

scott1328 · **#94** by **scott1328** » Nov 08, 2016 3:28 am

tolman wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:Yeah, that's about RS standard.

Unless you're a sad sock puppet, how the fuck would you come to that conclusion already?

It seems painfully obvious that the OP does not need evidence to arrive at conclusions. This fact alone doesn't rule out the sock puppet explanation.

electricgravity1 · **#95** by **electricgravity1** » Nov 08, 2016 7:50 am

Another 4 trash replies, one by a leader.

The_Metatron wrote:It is a mistake to assume Cali is interested in debating you about anything.

Its a mistake to assume I assume Cali or most members here have interest or ability in rational debate.
Very few members here are interested or capable of rational debate. What does interest them is making ad-homiens, but since this isn't supposed to be allowed, they make slightly backhanded ones, such as yours.
This thread is a notepad to myself, and the rationale & theory I present is not intended for you or nearly every other RS member. There may be rare outsiders who are visiting RS and who are capable of rational debate.

When RS members try to fake being capable of rational debate, they put forward weak arguments that are easily to invalidate, hence the term skittle. Also they do it rarely because (a) They aren't interested in it (b) Are scared of being wrong (c) Know they can't do it.
Safer just to make back handed ad-homiens from the side lines than actually engage in debate - should be the RS motto.

Unless you're a sad sock puppet, how the fuck would you come to that conclusion already?

I can lurk. Also I can go back and read posts from the past. Also RS has a reputation. Also I've got 5 pages of ad-homiens and derailments already. You lot aren't exactly subtle or refrained, you don't try to hide your nature, its clear from the start what your standard is.

Anyway enough rolling in the gutter with RS members, time for back on-topic...

Example of electro-static systems arranging themselves to form attraction.

The premise of electric gravity is that electric systems will arrange themselves to maximize attraction and minimize repulsive forces. Therefore if we take a system of macro objects ( all macro objects are composed of electric ) they will be attracted to each other. To rule out conventional gravity, we consider objects too small to have noticeable conventional gravity fields.

Different material show the same behaviour : attraction. This supports the electric gravity hypothesis.

Scar · **#96** by **Scar** » Nov 08, 2016 8:55 am

Fallible · **#97** by **Fallible** » Nov 08, 2016 9:00 am

Oh Jesus, just fuck off.

Thomas Eshuis · **#98** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Nov 08, 2016 9:33 am

electricgravity1 wrote:
TE wrote:Once again jumping to unjustified conclusions I see.

I think its justified.

You're a very recent member of this site, so you don't have any basis to make the generalising assertions you do about Cali's character, that of the forum membership or the forum itself.
You can think otherwise all you want, it won't change the facts.

electricgravity1 wrote: He's managed to make a one off attempt at rational debate.

Blatant lie.

electricgravity1 wrote:Well done to him I say. He deserved the title of skittle. Don't be jealous, he's back down with the rest of you making quippy ad-homiens.

Like I said, really subpar trolling. :roll:

electricgravity1 wrote:I think that makes a grand total of 3 replies with some substance, 2 by ScholasticSpastic, 1 by Calilasseia.
Thats fair going for RS. About 1 reply for every 2 pages.

Vapid trolls don't tend to get replies with much substance. Should be obvious why.

Calilasseia · **#99** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 08, 2016 10:36 am

electricgravity1 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:
lol. Cali, you are more than half the reason I visit ratskep. Thank you for this post.

He appears to be a one-off skittle. Tried to set up some counter arguments to electric gravity, but I knocked them all over with ease. Since then he hasn't tried again.

You like playing skittles too? We should go bowling. :p

I was too busy debugging my JavaScript.

cute excuse.

See if you can work out what this does. It's part of the code I've been working on.

Code: Select all: myObject.prototype.whatDoesThisDo = function(selector) { this.saved = selector; if (selector !== NULL_VALUE) { if (this.pList.length == 0) this.fList[selector].apply(this); else this.fList[selector].apply(this, this.pList); } }

I'll go and attend to the other 19,276 lines of code now.

Sendraks · **#100** by **Sendraks** » Nov 08, 2016 10:54 am

electricgravity1 wrote:
Very few members here are interested or capable of rational debate. What does interest them is making ad-homiens,

He said, having just directed an ad-hom at the membership.

We've heard this nonsense before from people who can't take disagreement, so like to flail around with insults accusing the membership of not being capable of rational debate.

Tell me, does "if you don't agree with me, you're not capable of rational debate" sound terribly rational to you? Given, that is what you are doing.

:coffee:

electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Re: electric gravity

Who is online