Man, you gotta think outside the box.
Oh, I don't think so. I referred to your emails a spam because there is nothing in them that couldn't and shouldn't be discussed in public. You complained because I ridiculed you regarding your ideas about gravity. Sorry, but fringe ideas about gravity are going to be the subject of ridicule wherever you go. If there's something to them, find an article in a science journal, even a popular science magazine, and give us a link or reference.
Science and math are not elitist. They are the most class blind of all human activities. They are not blind, however to sloppy thinking. You seem to have the idea that only liberals accept the common definitions employed in mathematics. I would advise you that this is a new age hippy dippy way of thinking. Same with the notion that some unnamed "doctor of quantum physics" is going to brew up some compound in a laboratory that alters the physics of gravity. If that isn't what you mean, then what is? Point us to a source for your ideas.
Man, you gotta think outside the box.
"Oh, I don't think so. I referred to your emails a spam because there is nothing in them that couldn't and shouldn't be discussed in public."
i approached you directly, where-as you attacked me on the sidelines with your buddies. you held your view as being above mine, thus "elitist" fits nicely.
but hey, whats my line of thinking to you? im just a moron, right? it shouldnt bother you in the least, unless you feel some sort of truth in my words.
the studies of math may be class-blind, but the studiers are very human, and thus, prone to ignorance. you view science as the only truth. i view science and philosophy blended properly as the way to truth. i embrace several thought processes. you embrace few. as liberal as that may sound, there is a reason liberals use that way of talking to sway others to them. its the truth!
funny jokes, satires, and lies all rely on one simple thing. a shred of truth. thats what you hold as your perfect logic. "a shred" of truth.
as for "brewing up" a compond that "alters" gravity. i never said that, nor did i intend to say so.
the idea of "gravitons" has been spoken of for some time now. (it is now at the same stage "photons" were at before they got discovered)
if something emits gravitons, it has gravity. we cant observe gravity on the quantum level, but we assume it applies, despite interference from electrical energy.
i simply suggest that MAYBE quanta matter ISNT affected by gravity, as our research cannot conflict yet. IF that was the case, at what mass does gravity apply?
enter the idea of "clusters"
this is a controversial idea that a certain number of molecules behave in an unknown manner. this number (in idea) is very small for the quantum level. something like 162 (no more, no less) atoms of X element. (x being whatever element that number applies to)
my idea was a simple jump into "well, if we dont know the properties of 'clusters' who knows what it may do? what if they somehow magnified polarity, or even the pulses of gravitons?"
then followed by "a given object large enough to make (noticeable?) gravity is bound to produce a 'cluster'"
i know it sounds stupid, even made-up to you, but im in school right now, and my teacher, Dr. M. Hair of Kennesaw State Univ. brought up "clusters" in chemistry class, making sure we knew that they were strictly an idea at this point. after looking up gravity from some sources, ranging from a book "Dictionary of Theories" to my old physics books, i figured (unless you know something i dont) that gravity is so not understood, that i dont know where we would even begin to look at it.
so, i offered an idea, that one day, may be testable. if im wrong, oh well, all people who study science are wrong at several times in their lives. if im right, what would that mean for furthering understandings of how existance is even possible?