Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
My favorite theory is...
Magnetation 40%
Electro-Gravitism 40%
Relativity 0%
Evolution 20%

Votes: 5

 Gravity, Magnetism and Relativity

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jan 20, 2002
It has become clear to me from the discussions on the astrology post that many readers of this site are not fully familiar with Newton's Theory of Magnetation and Maxwell's laws of Electro-Gravitism. I would like to set the record straight, and I am sacrificing a precious diary entry to do so.

More diaries by eMan
Playing Poker
Boring Diaries
Magnetation, the most common force we encounter in our everyday lives, makes things fall toward the earth. That's because the Earth has a magnetic field, and most everything on Earth except birds and airplanes is attracted to it. Birds, airplanes, and distant galaxies experience the unattractive magnetic force, which makes them move away from the Earth's surface.

Newton's law of Magnetation between two objects is as follows:


where F is the Force, G is the Girth of the Earth, M1,M2 are the Magentization parameters of the objects in question and D is the Dirichlet constant, whose value cannot be accurately measured because it's random. So much for Magnetation.

Maxwell's Theory of Electro-Gravitism is far more complex and is based on five equations that specify the interaction between waves called gravitrons and particles called electricons. Electricons exist only in power switches, and are released when the switch is flipped. The interactions are highly complex, but I'll give an example: in the case of a lightbulb turning on, the electricons excite the gravitrons to higher energy levels, so the gravitational force pulls waves of light from the sun into the lightbulb and makes it appear to emit light. So much for Electro-Gravitism.

The last point to cover is Relativity, which is often a topic of hot debate among laymen. Relativity specifies that only gravitrons and electricons may travel faster than the speed of light, which is faster than Einstein's relatives. A host of interesting consequences follow from Relativity, including Quantum Mechanics, String Theory and Linear Algebra. Also, it means that if you turn on a lightbulb, it's actually on a long time before you see it.

I hope this diary entry has cleared up any doubts the adequacy readership may have had about the laws of Physics. Please feel free to contact me for further clarification.


As Prime would say: (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Autobots vs Panopticon on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 01:17:50 AM PST
Electricons! Transform and roll out!
More than meets the eye!

I am so deeply impressed (none / 0) (#2)
by SpaceGhoti on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 02:10:12 AM PST
The quality of this work is such that I think you ought to be made an Editor of this site. Your scientific background and logical thinking are right on par with the current Editorial staff.

I take my hat off to you.

A troll's true colors.

Actually ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by eMan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 07:28:22 AM PST
You probably won't believe this because the spelling and grammar are okay, but I had just come back from a party and was incredibly drunk last night. I wanted to continue writing, but I stopped because I was falling asleep at the keyboard. We all know that's not fun.

So, what does this tell us about the editors?

Oh, for fuck's sake. (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 02:35:30 AM PST
Look, the only persona who needs to be slapped around with this sort of crap is Potatohead. And you know it.

He's already admitted that he doesn't know the fuck-all about modern physics, so why bother? You're only chasing one inter-web blowhard here. The rest of us know better.

Fuck, the drummer for my favorite Thrill Jockey indy-rock band knows better. So give it a fucking rest. Go out and get laid, and forget about the irish-hating obsessive-compulsive freak-beast for a few hours.

It will do you a world of good, I promise.

heh heh heh (none / 0) (#6)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 07:35:19 AM PST
I dont really give a shit that a few people here are ignorant of the truth and want to remain so. You will stay down. Other people who wanted educational input will no doubt have noticed eMans great truth changing capabilities - because he went a bit over the top with it. This will only make them believe my words more.


Sir, (none / 0) (#9)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 08:39:10 AM PST
But science is not the truth, it's not even fact! Science is based on theory, which is a best guess. We dont know the existance of atoms just as we cant say absolutly 100% that the sun will rise tommorow. The mere fact that science is not fact shows a deep flaw in the current scientific method. The general populace want facts not a bunch of hogwash - "well maybe our universe is expanding" or "maybe there are atoms". They want "yes, we have atoms" and "yes god exists". Until then, scientists can kiss a good portion of their funding goodbye.

If scientists would focus more on the spiritual side of everyday life, and the philosophical implications of such things as electro-gravity, perhaps we could grow asymtopically closer to that esteemed 100% fact. Until scientists stop basing their theorys on just what is observed, and more on what their gut feeling tells them, we will forever be devoid of facts in our lives.

Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

Well-said Dr Cortez (none / 0) (#10)
by eMan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 08:59:24 AM PST
All of science rests on one fundamental principle: the law of induction. The scientific method assumes that if something happens sufficiently often, this makes it a "law". Clearly, that is not a valid premise, especially for a discipline that deems itself respectable and rigorous.

The shaky foundation of science was under heavy discussion during much of the 19th century, but since the lucky accident of spaceflight, too many people gobble up anything a scientist says as a basic fact. Books on modern physics written for laymen give the mistaken impression that much is known as true, when in fact the scientific method is incapable from its construction to say anything with certainty.

May I direct the readership's attention to a website on Calabi-Yau manifolds, an essential mathematical tool in the description of the scientific abomination known as M-theory. It is clear that the authors of this page haven't used their guts in decades.

Work of Genius (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 10:04:28 AM PST
Thank you eMan for directing us to that fascinating site on Calabi-Yau manifolds. I was particularly impressed by the animation of a sphere turning inside out, presumably using Calabi-Yau orbifolds (although I freely confess that I don't give a fuck).

My only comment is that whilst I have no doubt that it was the result of years of mathematical theorising, the same result could easily have been obtained by a lunatic with 3D Studio Max.

Magnetation spot on (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 03:39:08 AM PST
It's gratifying to chance upon a writer able to describe the scientifically accepted workings of the world in succinct and simple manner. Hats off to you Madam. I particularly enjoyed your explanation of magnetism, a subject I've studied in some depth.

I'm currently developing business opportunities in parallel universes and a link to your page will hugely assist me explain some of our research to less technically-minded folk. Keep up the Good Work!

that you made this post just to annoy me eMan, (none / 0) (#7)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 07:36:45 AM PST
makes me slightly scared.

PotatoError... (none / 0) (#8)
by eMan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 07:45:44 AM PST
You're a nice fellow, but don't flatter yourself. I made this one because the first one in the astrology story was fun, then I got drunk and felt like writing more. Granted, the first one was to annoy you, though.

Of course, my ultimate mission is to deliver the Adequacy readership from the oppression of the rigorous scientific method into a brave new world where I make up the rules.

Inadequate young upstart (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by iat on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:44:14 AM PST
My ultimate mission is to deliver the Adequacy readership from the oppression of the rigorous scientific method into a brave new world where I make up the rules.

Sir Isaac Newton made up the rules of Physics, and invented all the phenomena that we take for granted today - gravity, quantum theory, optics etc. You display remarkable arrogance by thinking that you are worthy of re-writing Sir Isaac's time honoured laws of physics. I don't know what gives you the right to think that can change the way the world works, but you'll do it over Sir Isaac's dead body. - love it or leave it.

Isaac Maxwell (none / 0) (#12)
by eMan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 11:39:29 AM PST
Let me begin by saying that I have the greatest respect for Sir Isaac Maxwell's monumental achievements. If he hadn't made use of Leibnitz's propositional calculus to fix the workings of the world, we would be constantly living in fear of being turned into spaghetti by the quantum foam from a flying cow's nostrils. Thanks to Maxwell, most people never worry about this sort of peril.

However, the laws of Physics are still too inconsistent: some things fly and others don't, some objects are attractive (like Natalie Portman) and others are unattractive (like slashdot readers), and some people can get away with begin arrogant pricks. I'm sure you will agree that the laws of science, currently split between Mechanics, Magneto-Electrism, Quantum Gravity, and fifty Theories of Everything vying for attention, could use some consolidation.

Maxwell was Lucasian Professor of Applied Mathematics at Oxford, but Newton was merely a patent clerk in Geneva. Both successfully changed the laws of Physics and made the world better, but every few years some idiot comes along and spouts out some formulas, and suddenly the world is 11-dimensional and parallel universes are popping up in people's backyards.

It is time to make the world sane again, and there is no better place to start than with the educated readership of You should be flattered.

Nonsense (none / 0) (#14)
by iat on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 02:05:49 PM PST
Newton was merely a patent clerk in Geneva.

Sir Isaac Newton was a great Englishman, and never went to Geneva in his entire life. You're obviously confusing him with Sir Adolf Hitler. - love it or leave it.

Newton in Geneva (none / 0) (#15)
by eMan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 03:03:21 PM PST
Newton Page at the New Geneva Center

Adolf Hitler was a bum from Austria or Australia, I forget which.


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to