>>13369567>take your pseudoscience somewhere else>I'm using anti-gravity as a general term and you know exactly what I mean when I say it.I use the same fancy descriptions used by a modern day scientist. Sit there and seethe while you machinate your next attempt at trying to argue semantics. Do you even know what you mean when you say it? It's just a fucking description.
>hurr anti-gravity tech>hurr durr "make mass not fall to mass" techFuck you and whatever goddamn fancy word you want to use or want others to use. "How does it do that?" is all I give a fuck about. If you don't know then whatever word you use to describe it really doesn't mean shit.
>In fact it is the best term to use here, because it is unclear how to achieve it at scale and anti-gravity is the best catch all term to describe a number of potential mechanisms.Well wonderful. You have your fancy description to describe what you can observe. What you lack is the "how it does that". Just like every thread about the subject.
>If you want me to tell you how to make anti-gravity I can't. But we can discuss it from a scientific perspective and educate each other.Circlejerking descriptions isn't science.
>I encourage you to read peer reviewed research from quality journals and conferences, not wikipedia and Bill Nye the Science guy.I encourage you to even attempt at explaining the difference between the two since both simply describe in fanciful terminology. One simply uses more standards of measure.
The causal link to gravity is explained by neither.
The causal link to magnetism is explained by neither
So to me they're equally useless.
What will you do now? Reply to me again with the fact that you can use the term "anti-gravity"? I don't care, moron.
