Quatums of Gravity = n% of Pi

Explanation: I here provide the following very simple picture detailing the very basics of my claim ...

Quatums of Gravity = n% of Pi



Personal Disclosure: I here provide a quote by Albert Einstein ...

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

So my fellow ATS members ... Is my example too simple or too complex?

reply to post by OmegaLogos


I like it! S&F

Though I must admit, I'm not the smartest man when it comes to these matters....

I will be following the thread as is develops



SS

Using your formula please demonstrate how to calculate the acceleration due to gravity of an object of mass m1 toward an object of mass m2.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos

So my fellow ATS members ... Is my example too simple or too complex?

0% gravity = 0% pi

So what;
0% pi = 1 dimensional? (i'm thinking flat)

Are you saying this stuff has to do with dimensions? The more gravity, the more roundness? More dimensions? ....or something. As of now, too complex for me haha.

reply to post by Phage


Explanation: I'm very sorry that I can't do that as I have simplified the example down to a single plancks length ... which is how big the big bang singularity was ... and that was a closed loop!

When that loop was broken by the act of inflation, aka the Cosmological Constant and is reflected in current reality as Hubbles Constant,... aka expansion of time+space, the entropy was set at a negetive value allowing the universe to get more energy from a hidden variable source, which we are currently unable to pin down.

That seriously complicates matters and isn't a idealized formula like Galileo's frictionless motion!

Personal Disclosure: I refer you back to Einstein's quote in my OP!

reply to post by OmegaLogos

I see.
So your "formula" has no practical use or application.
Thank you.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


I don't really care about the math show, but I would love an explaination of where it is generated, and why it is generated with an analogy of common things.

I know that sounded rude, but it is not intended to be. I don't have any concept of where or why gravity is generated besides "from things with mass", and I would love it if you could supply one.

eta: Nevermind

I just read "hidden variable source". Thanks though.

reply to post by Phage


Explanation: That is indeed correct!

I made no such claims that it was a usable workable formula and I also posted this in the skunk works forums due to that fact!

However I do believe it meets the standard for logic.

Personal Disclosure: Do you assess my claims as being both logical and also meeting Einstein's 'Simplicity' standard?

reply to post by OmegaLogos

Simple is good.
If it means something. On the other hand nonsense is nonsense no matter how simple it is.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos


Personal Disclosure: Do you assess my claims as being both logical and also meeting Einstein's 'Simplicity' standard?

Logical? Yes.

Most simple? I think it could be even simpler. Although it's over my head right now.

But could you elaborate on the math? A little more detail?

Question: So what?

reply to post by OmegaLogos


I thought-up a query some days ago about this...kinda.

Doesn't the flow of electrons kinda keep things put? ... the iron core? (sumthin 'bout getting sucked off the planet; nm).

Explains why Gas giants without molten cores (if they do?) can live in harmony...one piece?

Everything in the ball of the universe has it's (consequential ball of matter); what's inside the big ball that tells all the other balls what to do and where to live? To dance like this and that?

I tried to convince myself that gravity had nothing to do with magnetism, which didn't go over well when I got back home...not that I have...HAD a secret magnetic hovering vehicle at all.

reply to post by Phage


Explanation: That is very true ... but I feel you are overlooking the following points ...

1stly Galileo's idealized frictionless motion formula is based on a reality that does not exist in the real world!

Would you call Galileo's idealized concept "nonsense"?

If no .. then why invoke that here and now with my idealized claim about gravity?

2ndly I have provided the formula and yet I have great difficulty with doing the maths you are asking of me..

Could you please try to input my formula into your own equations and see if what I claim has any basis in reality?

Personal Disclosure: I deeply appreciate your focus upon this thread and also the time and effort you are investing in it.

I hope you can help me prove or disprove the basis of my claim.

Thank You!

reply to post by OmegaLogos

Could you please try to input my formula into your own equations and see if what I claim has any basis in reality?

I don't know how. I asked you to demonstrate and you were of no help.

Since no one has a concept I'll let you have mine.


Energy has concepts(See the link in my signature)

Gravity is the concept, of energy, of getting close enough to other energy to trade concepts. Just as we are compelled to trade concepts, so is energy, or rather we are compelled because we are energy.

gravity = energy's motion of getting close to other energy in order to trade concepts.



eta: trade = reproduce

reply to post by Phage


Explanation: What follows is my uneducated speculation ok.

May I suggest one takes the Gravitational Constant as the Gravity of the unbent single planks length [hereafter called the rod].

Hypothesis ... 0% of Pi = G [as in Big G aka the gravitational constant] since a flat plancks length/second is also = to the constant speed of light in a vacuum [i.e. under zero influence of gravity].

Then we arbitrarily add 2 masses [as in values of little g] at either end of that 'rod' [at the node points] and convert both masses into percentages of Pi and iterate the formula's to see how much the 'rod' bends towards itself.

If the combined masses [%'s of Pi] are = to or greater than 100% Pi ... then I would say that closes the loop and would be similar to the Swartzchild radius of a backhole.

Personal Disclosure: I hope demonstrating this highly unusual hypothesis helps to bring a conclusion to this thread.

reply to post by OmegaLogos

0% of Pi = G

Ok.
G = 0
Got it. There is no gravity, the Earth sucks.

bionics doing gymnastics
in case of boredom...





hgn

reply to post by loveguy


The bottom video is great.
If i had to guess, I would say he's creating polarization in the center of that coil.

reply to post by Phage


Explanation: NO! Incorrect!

You left out Pi!

Therefor G = 0% of Pi ... NOT G = 0 .. because removing it from the equation simplifies the equation.

G its self has a measurable value [although only accurate to within the limits of our ability to measure that] and its value is G = 6.67*10E-11 Newtons of force.

Therefor, and since we are talking about ratio's [a/b] and percentages [%] there should be no issue setting one of the sides to zero % and defining that as the flat 'rod'.

Personal Disclosure: The issue is not with the Big G of gravity ... its is the little g's of gravity [due to mass] at either end that are the n% of Pi that bend the rod and it is here that my skill and talents in doing the maths break down. :shk:

Can you please help me resolve that?

How do I convert mass to little g .. and what amount of little g forces the 1 plancks length/second 'rod' to bend into a complete loop?

Would the little g's at either end have to add up to equal or more than the plancks mass of 2.176 51 x 10E-8 kg to force it into a closed loop?

Please walk me through the formula's ok.

Sorry if i come of as an uneducated tard with poor maths and geometry skills ok!

Even Einstein needed help with the maths and he was way smarter than I am ok.

reply to post by OmegaLogos

Therefor G = 0% of Pi ... NOT G = 0

What is 0% ?
So we have 0 * ╥.
What is 0 * ╥?
What is 0 * anything?
Nothing, right?
So according to your "forumula", G = 0.

Even Einstein needed help with the maths and he was way smarter than I am ok.

At least he did know that 0 x anything = 0.