They bust myths, not D.I.Y. physics theories.

Deadly Intelegent Youngsters

If you don't have gravity then you loose weight but not mass. So therefor you would still have sound being transmitted through the air.

By your theory the air has to be rushing toward the craft not away from it. If you get rid of the weight of the air, the air would rise it would create a low pressure area and the surrounding air would rush in. So only one way the air could travel by your theory.

That is the problem with your theory, you have not really thought it out. The basic observable world disagrees with everything you say but you just say that we don't know enough.

theTroll

I agree with three_678 confirmed (space).

I'm sorry for this post (my previos post is wery good to be the last) but I must answer one question from thetroll that I am wery happy that he asked -
"Also if the magnetic field is that strong why are the UFOs not picking up every little ferris particle in the dirt? Take a magnet and roll it around in the dirt and you will see what I mean.
"
Well there was a show on discovery about the crops signs and a group of students ware trying to replicate all the conditions that found in them - one of them the hardest one was - litle iron sferes that were spread all around the crops circles. Well if you read above about the litle sferes that I wrote, the same answer goes here - UFO lands on a place and shuts down. Than using strong magnetic field and light emision - that is generating high temperatures melts the sorounding earth and ferits, than when finaly the gravitation is weakenend this melted particles take a shape of sferes because of the surface tension and weightless enviroment - now finaly when the UFO flyes off this microscopic sferes fall on the ground.
Any way - I thik that if mythbusters don't test ideas from amateurs like me than they can test the Bifiel-Brown effect. There is a myth that "Lifters" - wery light crafts that levitate using high frequenci electric current and magnetic field actually are anty-gravity mashines - BUT THEY ARE NOT, that is proven, they just generate ionizen wind that propes them upwords. However Bifield-Brown effect WORKS IN VACUUM so the ionized wind doesen'tapply here - now this may be actualy anti-gravity mashine. Now if this is true the myt of anty-gravity mashine IS NOT BUSTED. And right here they can actualy test my theory - since they have the habit to test different versions of one myth. I hope they will do this - and tell me if the plan to do it since I don't want to miss that.

Wow, the tempatures are hot enough to melt earth and ferites but for some reason does not catch the ripe wheat on fire. Do you people really not think about these things before you say them?

theTroll

He spelled Phenomenon with an F... [Quote]"Now if someone there belives in the UFO fenomenon"[/Quote]

"If you don't have gravity then you loose weight but not mass. So therefor you would still have sound being transmitted through the air.
"
-----tell me what has more inertion a ball of foam or a ball of iron? When the iron ball loses it's mass is acting like to foam ball - it doesen't have any inertion to pass to the next object, and therfore the molecule can't pass the kinetic energy to the other molecule.

"By your theory the air has to be rushing toward the craft not away from it. If you get rid of the weight of the air, the air would rise it would create a low pressure area and the surrounding air would rush in. So only one way the air could travel by your theory.
"
-----Well my friend THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAYD - read above!!! PLEASE

it accually make a fair amount of sense exept for the spelling errors but you theory has some minor flaws because if something was in a medium would it even exist at all or simply become nothing itself.

"it accually make a fair amount of sense exept for the spelling errors"
-----thank you for this my friend, something like this I haven't heard a long time - I know it's logical I'm not crazy.

"if something was in a medium would it even exist at all or simply become nothing itself"
----I don't think that understand you werry well - but I think I know what you're sayng - well that is the problem - the structure ov the atom should be affected if there is a change in it's mass - whell read above about the plasma ball (thunder ball) the air sorounding the UFO should be in "plasma state". I have some interesting ideas about that plasma (thunder) ball and as you know they are usualy created in a thunder - where there is a stron electric current's and light.

sorry for the spelling - I'm from Skopje, Macedonia, english is not my native language.

That's the best you can come up with... anti-gravity proven and explained by UFO's? There isn't any proof that they exist.

teflonsuit - you should read the first post of the text - On the part with UFO's it's standing written: DON'T READ THIS IF YOU DON'T BELIVE IN THE UFO PHENOMENON - I guess you haven't listen.

[quote]teflonsuit - you should read the first post of the text - On the part with UFO's it's standing written: DON'T READ THIS IF YOU DON'T BELIVE IN THE UFO PHENOMENON - I guess you haven't listen.[/quote]


So, if I've read this whole thing correctly, you are basing your entire idea on an unproven, unprovable assertion. That is not science, that is fantasy.

One would hope that you pay more attention to your medical studies than you did to your physics studies. One hopes.

Once again you can if you got rid of or lowered gravity lower something's weight, but you can not get rid of it's mass unless some how you can neutrilize the Higgs particles. When people are in space they are weightless not massless.

theTroll

thetroll - you have to change the concept of how you look at this - why do you compare it with the sweightlesness in space? In space you don't lose your gravitational field - you still have it - n this case you lose it. It's like this I already told that to you - if you put one electromagnetic emither in a Faraday's cage - that transmiter will not have electromagnetic field around him (magnet for example) - if you try to attract metal with it - it will not work. This apparatus did not lose it's electromagnetic field it's just paralised. So when a molecule losses it's gravitational field, look at is as the magnetic lines in a magnet, it oesen't have interaction with the gravitational field. Yes a cosmonaut in space has inertion - but it hasen't lost it's gravitational field - in my case the molecule doesen't have anything to grab-on and therefore it doesen't have inertion. The concept is different.


TELL ME ONE THING THETROLL - do you belive that this is plausable? I'm shore it is. Do you know why I'm telling it to everyone - because a litle shmurk like me can't tell this to no-one without everyone thinking he is dead crazy. So Let God deside.

[quote]TELL ME ONE THING THETROLL - do you belive that this is plausable? I'm shore it is. Do you know why I'm telling it to everyone - because a litle shmurk like me can't tell this to no-one without everyone thinking he is dead crazy. So Let God deside.[/quote]

God decided you're wrong.

He's holding up the entire Universe as proof.

And the whole thing is quietly snickering at you.

"
So, if I've read this whole thing correctly, you are basing your entire idea on an unproven, unprovable assertion. That is not science, that is fantasy.

One would hope that you pay more attention to your medical studies than you did to your physics studies. One hopes."
-----logic is my proof. And I don't force no one to read it-you do it by your will. I'm not a conformist-phisicist, I've never read 100 books telling me what is inpossible to do, just logaicaly analised things that I knew and have one logical solution - like a puzzle. If you ask me all of the pieces of the puzzle FIT PERFECTLY - that's my proof.

sure as long as your method of putting the pieces together is by cutting and shaving the peices, and slamming them together, but what you end up with is one big mess, and not the pretty picture on the box.

Sorry but you are wrong about the whole gravity thing. Even if you remove the gravity effecting an object it does not change the object'ss mass, yes the object's weight would be zero, but the mass would be the same.

Gravity acts on a objects mass it does not change it. It is like saying that when a ferris object is not in a magnetic field that it looses it color. They are mot related.

No I don't think your idea will work becuase the basic premise is contridicted by all current knowledge. Magnetic fields do not effect gravity or light, it is that simple.

theTroll