Calilasseia wrote:

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);

}

}

Not much. It discerns whether a list\array contains anything, and if so, runs the function\method 'apply' with 2 parameters instead of one.
Typical shitty javascript OO code, with its layers of self referential abstraction, objects passing themselves to themselves, tying the programmer up with his own self-made mess of pointless abstractions, sidelining actually functionality

I avoid OO where possible and Java where possible. Go watch Brian Will on why OO is bad. But fine by me if you don't. OO is a boon to programmers who know that OO is shite. Because non-OO programmers can get shit done a lot faster and better than the mass of fools stuck in the OO quagmire.

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

Not that big. wtf is it supposed to do?

What's an ad homien?

So programming is another topic he knows bugger all about. Quelle surprise.

felltoearth wrote:What's an ad homien?

It's a personal attack on a hominid-like alien. Possibly an electric alien from the planet Ohm.

Calilasseia wrote:So programming is another topic he knows bugger all about. Quelle surprise.

Yeah. You know it's cool these days to shit on OOP and I think this one wants to look cool a lot.
That talk he mentioned does raise some good points - there's certainly cases were OOP might not be needed - but goes overboard with the generalized conclusion and also contains one very major embarassing error.

Also, his comments on JS just show how little he really understands.

My experience of OOP was in the late '80's and '90's.

Calilasseia wrote:So programming is another topic he knows bugger all about. Quelle surprise.

I think the same about you. You obviously take pride \ identity in programming.
One thing you might find later if you get good is that decent programmers certainly don't have to resort to randomly posting snippets of generic code on non programming forums to get a feel of being good at something, or to derail a debate they can't handle. Decent programmers get approval from results. More on that later.

If you say so.

electricgravity1 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:So programming is another topic he knows bugger all about. Quelle surprise.

I think the same about you. You obviously take pride \ identity in programming.
One thing you might find later if you get good is that decent programmers certainly don't have to resort to randomly posting snippets of generic code on non programming forums to get a feel of being good at something, or to derail a debate they can't handle. Decent programmers get approval from results. More on that later.

A problem with this ridiculous idea of gravity being caused by static electricity is this:

If gravity is caused by electrostatic charge, neutralize the difference of potential, and you'd neutralize gravity. Now, wouldn't that be a cool trick? All that would be necessary to escape earth's gravity well is a fucking wire long enough to make the trip. This guy didn't think this through.

Using his idea, I should be able to simply earth myself and negate the pull of gravity on me. Yet, we don't see this happening.

The_Metatron wrote:This guy didn't think this through.

Well that's not a requirement for trolling.

The_Metatron wrote:A problem with this ridiculous idea of gravity being caused by static electricity is this:

If gravity is caused by electrostatic charge, neutralize the difference of potential, and you'd neutralize gravity. Now, wouldn't that be a cool trick? All that would be necessary to escape earth's gravity well is a fucking wire long enough to make the trip. This guy didn't think this through.

Using his idea, I should be able to simply earth myself and negate the pull of gravity on me. Yet, we don't see this happening.

Similarly, thunderstorm clouds should crash to the Earth with enough velocity to leave craters.

The_Metatron wrote:A problem with this ridiculous idea of gravity being caused by static electricity is this:

If gravity is caused by electrostatic charge, neutralize the difference of potential, and you'd neutralize gravity. Now, wouldn't that be a cool trick? All that would be necessary to escape earth's gravity well is a fucking wire long enough to make the trip. This guy didn't think this through.

Using his idea, I should be able to simply earth myself and negate the pull of gravity on me. Yet, we don't see this happening.

Thank you for trying some rationale.

You might be aware that the ground under your feet also experiences force towards the Earth's core. If you set yourself to be the same voltage \ charge as the ground, you can expect to experience the same force of attraction as the ground.

The hypothesis requires Earth's surface is not the same charge as the Earth's core. There is a voltage between them, this is what creates the pull of gravity.

You may ask : well why doesn't the charge in the Earth's surface go to the core and neutralize it?
Well its hot and high pressure down in the core. So much so that it squeezes electrons off their atoms. The Earth's core is therefore intrinsically positively charged, and will always electro-statically pull on the mantle and the Earth surface, and even distance off Earth's objects. The pull on the mantle crushes the core, ensuring that it remains too pressured to allow electrons to return to the core. The electrons exist in discrete bands of high orbits around the core, similar to the discrete layers of electrons in an atom. That's one main reason why the surface of the Earth is negatively charged.

Oh hi Weaver, getting anywhere with posting the " well known " cause of gravity yet? Take your time.

electricgravity1 wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:A problem with this ridiculous idea of gravity being caused by static electricity is this:

If gravity is caused by electrostatic charge, neutralize the difference of potential, and you'd neutralize gravity. Now, wouldn't that be a cool trick? All that would be necessary to escape earth's gravity well is a fucking wire long enough to make the trip. This guy didn't think this through.

Using his idea, I should be able to simply earth myself and negate the pull of gravity on me. Yet, we don't see this happening.

Thank you for trying some rationale.

You might be aware that the ground under your feet also experiences force towards the Earth's core. If you set yourself to be the same voltage \ charge as the ground, you can expect to experience the same force of attraction as the ground.

The hypothesis requires Earth's surface is not the same charge as the Earth's core. There is a voltage between them, this is what creates the pull of gravity.

You may ask : well why doesn't the charge in the Earth's surface go to the core and neutralize it?
Well its hot and high pressure down in the core. So much so that it squeezes electrons off their atoms. The Earth's core is therefore intrinsically positively charged, and will always electro-statically pull on the mantle and the Earth surface, and even distance off Earth's objects. The pull on the mantle crushes the core, ensuring that it remains too pressured to allow electrons to return to the core. The electrons exist in discrete bands of high orbits around the core, similar to the discrete layers of electrons in an atom. That's one main reason why the surface of the Earth is negatively charged.

At what field density?

Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but it sounds like a pretty solid theory to me. electricgravity1 has explained it well. It's just a matter of time before it becomes accepted by the wider scientific community. We all know the problems Copernicus had originally.

For the sun to attract all the planets such that they remain in orbit, it must, in the Electric Gravity Universe, have an opposite charge to the planets.

Let's, just for grins, leave aside the credulity required to believe that each planet has exactly the right charge for the attraction to be precisely equal to the actual force predicted by GmM/r2.

But if the sun attracts all the planets, all the planets will be repelling each other.

Does the OP not think that this would have shown up by now? Does he not think that perhaps the discovery of Neptune would have been a little different, if the planets all repelled each other?

The same argument applies to all moons, of all planets, and all earth satellites. Everything depends on a universally attractive gravitational force, not one that is alternately attractive or repulsive depending on mutual charge.

I should note the following, in case the OP claims that a charged object attracts an uncharged object by electrostatic induction, and that the planets don't, strictly, need to be oppositely charged:

1. Electrostatic induction is relevant only at close range. At sun-planet distances, the relative distance of the like and unlike charges are so nearly identical that the net force is effectively zero.

2. Even if the above was not true, and the planets were all neutral, they would still not be exerting attractive forces on one another. So all the predictions based on gravity being a universally attractive force would still have been proved wrong by now.

electricgravity1 wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

The_Metatron wrote:A problem with this ridiculous idea of gravity being caused by static electricity is this:

If gravity is caused by electrostatic charge, neutralize the difference of potential, and you'd neutralize gravity. Now, wouldn't that be a cool trick? All that would be necessary to escape earth's gravity well is a fucking wire long enough to make the trip. This guy didn't think this through.

Using his idea, I should be able to simply earth myself and negate the pull of gravity on me. Yet, we don't see this happening.

Thank you for trying some rationale.

You might be aware that the ground under your feet also experiences force towards the Earth's core. If you set yourself to be the same voltage \ charge as the ground, you can expect to experience the same force of attraction as the ground.

The hypothesis requires Earth's surface is not the same charge as the Earth's core. There is a voltage between them, this is what creates the pull of gravity.

You may ask : well why doesn't the charge in the Earth's surface go to the core and neutralize it?

Well its hot and high pressure down in the core. So much so that it squeezes electrons off their atoms.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

The Earth's core is therefore intrinsically positively charged, and will always electro-statically pull on the mantle and the Earth surface, and even distance off Earth's objects. The pull on the mantle crushes the core, ensuring that it remains too pressured to allow electrons to return to the core. The electrons exist in discrete bands of high orbits around the core, similar to the discrete layers of electrons in an atom. That's one main reason why the surface of the Earth is negatively charged.

There's a name what happens when this occurs: they are called neutron stars. Only possible with masses several times that of our sun.

Dude. You're not even trying.

The_Metatron wrote:Using his idea, I should be able to simply earth myself and negate the pull of gravity on me. Yet, we don't see this happening.

Or, indeed, step inside a Faraday cage, where there would be no electric field.

tolman wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Using his idea, I should be able to simply earth myself and negate the pull of gravity on me. Yet, we don't see this happening.

Or, indeed, step inside a Faraday cage, where there would be no electric field.

I never once felt lighter when I was working those many hours in those things. I had to glue my buddy's coffee cup to its ceiling to hide it from him.