It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Quatums of Gravity = n% of Pi

page: 2
4
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:14 AM

Explanation: Ok ...

G = 6.67*10E-11 Newtons of force = 0% of Pi

So therefor G = 0% bend in the rod.

Since G = 0% bend in the rod .. it can be ignored! This is what simplification is all about.

Big G in no way affects the curvature of spacetime!

Your focusing on the wrong type of 'g'/gravity ok.

Please focus on the little g's at either end of the 'rod' like you asked me to do here ...

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.

m1 = n% of Pi ... and m2 = m% of Pi ... then both m1 and m2 have their own values of g ... and this is where I get stuck in working out those values.

Personal Disclosure: I apologize for the scrappy [over simplified
] nature of my explanations ok!

I thank you for persevering with me ok!

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:22 AM

The reason math formulas are regarded as highly as they are is because numbers are supposed to have a static meaning, whereas words can change meanings. If words always held the same meaning then we would use them for our formulas.

You cannot make 0% = a number because math has already defined 0% as absense of a number.

You need to make 0% a letter if you want it to be a number value.

Edit:
Also this looks weird:
n% + m% => 100%

Are you saying g is capable of being greater than g?
edit on 12/3/2012 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:16 AM

Originally posted by OmegaLogos

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:

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?

I guess you are speaking of a distortion in the geometry, as a Planck length is usually considered a "point" - which is 1-dimensional. Well, if I may quote the wikipedia

In special relativity, mass turns out to be part of a more general quantity called the energy–momentum tensor, which includes both energy and momentum densities as well as stress (that is, pressure and shear).[29] Using the equivalence principle, this tensor is readily generalized to curved space-time.

Which leaves us stumped, as the calculations of tensor-mathematics are quite complex. Nevertheless, if this was a high building of info, there is the Burj Khalifa right around the corner.. Einsteins field equations..

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.

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:46 PM
Omegalogos, I have always been really curious why you write your posts the way you do. The whole Explanation:, Personal Disclosure:, etc. What is the purpose or origin of writing like this? I do think it is annoying but I am not trying to be critical, I am just so curious why you do it like that. Whats the deal?

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Phage
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.

I would love to know what you think gravity is?

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:54 PM

A force of attraction between masses.

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:06 PM

how does the force mediate?

I dont even comprehend how magnets have an attractive force at a distance... i under stand its not similar...
but if you can give a simple explanation to that ( not... N attracts S... S attracts N ) that would be appreciated as well..

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:12 PM

No one really knows what causes gravity. I'm just glad something does.

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:23 PM

Gravity is dependent on Phage. When Phage ceases to exist, so does gravity I am not looking forward to that. I am hoping Phage is eternal.

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:24 PM

The mathematical function is not linear.

I don't think it does what you imagine.

As the numbers get larger, the step sizes change (inverse proportionally). This would produce 'quanta' of various sizes.

'Quanta' of a particular item are usually of a single fixed size.

edit on 3/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:48 AM
This thread comes close to an "anti-singularity"-event, as the useful content drops with each uncomprehensible posting..

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Phage

No one really knows what causes gravity. I'm just glad something does.

I think gravity is close to Einstein's interpretation of space-time fabric bending...

but i think the fabric can be viewed like an ocean... the molecules that make up the water... would be related to the particles that make up the fabric/ vacuum....

when a mass rotates, revolves, and travels through the less dense energy areas of the fabric... it twists and turns it... or creates wakes and whirlpools... smaller masses that can not cancel out these whirlpools with their own,, fall victim...

I think black holes can be viewed similarly as a whirlpool.. and I also think black holes may create the dark energy and/or matter that helps hold them together...

my view of gravity may actually have something to do with what OL has stated.. but im not actually quite sure what he stated.....

people think mass needs a higgs field or particle... i think mass exist because the exact energy densities and energetic particles exist.. and interact with one another.. i think the clumping of the most fundamental particles creates mass.. the more particles together the more relative mass... I.e. the earth has more particles then me... it is more massive...( i understand mass may also have to do with density and not only apparent size) .....
I think mass exists because particles of matter,, and clumps of particles of matter,, cannot travel the speed of light... so relative speeds traveled by clumps, interactions of clumps, in "gravity wells".. give the relative feeling of mass to a human at least..... where as to a human in a less energy dense area such as the fabric of space... there would be no near mass to relate what mass is, and the human would feel massless....

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 03:01 PM

I think gravity is close to Einstein's interpretation of space-time fabric bending...

Yes, that model works very well to predict the effects of gravity. Newton's formula also works very well for most purposes. But neither attempts to explain "why" there is gravity.

when a mass rotates, revolves, and travels through the less dense energy areas of the fabric... it twists and turns it... or creates wakes and whirlpools... smaller masses that can not cancel out these whirlpools with their own,, fall victim...
What do you mean "less dense energy"? Come to think of it, what do you mean by "energy"? BTW, all masses produce gravitational forces.

where as to a human in a less energy dense area such as the fabric of space... there would be no near mass to relate what mass is, and the human would feel massless....
So humans for some reason would become massless but a planet wouldn't?

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:01 PM

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Originally posted by OmegaLogos

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:

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?

I guess you are speaking of a distortion in the geometry, as a Planck length is usually considered a "point" - which is 1-dimensional. Well, if I may quote the wikipedia

In special relativity, mass turns out to be part of a more general quantity called the energy–momentum tensor, which includes both energy and momentum densities as well as stress (that is, pressure and shear).[29] Using the equivalence principle, this tensor is readily generalized to curved space-time.

Which leaves us stumped, as the calculations of tensor-mathematics are quite complex. Nevertheless, if this was a high building of info, there is the Burj Khalifa right around the corner.. Einsteins field equations..

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.

Pardon the large quote.
Have a look at this photo. To me it explains that the singularity wasn't just a point where nothing existed prior to expansion of the universe. It helps to define the separate dimensions we are of, not in...

Watch this pic have trouble appearing according to preview option...

I think gravity happens due to the flow of electrical energy, but can't put my amateur finger on it.

This is a fun thread, thanks.

edit on (12/5/1212 by loveguy because: supposed to be clickable thumb, what gives

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Phage

when a mass rotates, revolves, and travels through the less dense energy areas of the fabric... it twists and turns it... or creates wakes and whirlpools... smaller masses that can not cancel out these whirlpools with their own,, fall victim...
What do you mean "less dense energy"? Come to think of it, what do you mean by "energy"? BTW, all masses produce gravitational forces.

What I mean by less dense energy is that space-time fabric is a fabric of "energy".. but has less amounts of it in density then a star or planet... planets and stars are energy dense regions of the universe... space-time is less dense energy/less quantity of energy.... but the space-time fabrics constituents are related to the constituents of all other "things" in and of the universe.... What i mean by energy is ( I guess I should have specified it as material energy), I guess the standard particle model, or the least common denominator, of infinitesimal constituents of physicality in the universe.. there is a "substance/bit/particleness/energyness" which all matter shares ( unless dark matter is discovered to not be of the same particles as standard model, in which it would still be "made of something right"?)

All masses produce gravitational forces... all masses are taking up space-time and traveling through it... so i guess they distort it in the same way...the larger masses do...

where as to a human in a less energy dense area such as the fabric of space... there would be no near mass to relate what mass is, and the human would feel massless....
So humans for some reason would become massless but a planet wouldn't?

Do you agree that a human feels the sensation of masslessness in space? Do you agree that the planets we observe are in a gravitational bind with other massive bodies... yes i am sure the human in space would be effected by these forces in someway,, but because a human is not as massive as a moon, the humans gravity and the earths gravity and the moons gravity will not react as strongly with the human....
the planets are revolving, rotating, and traveling around the galactic center... in order to do the experiment I suggested with an observer feeling massless in space without physical relations to compare it self to... we would have to travel to a point in the universe that is completely empty ( or low energy density) for millions of light years.... place a planet motionless there,, endow it with consciousness and ask it how heavy it feels....

perhaps this relates to why EM radiation is massless/ travels the speeds in which it does... the light from stars are unleashed into space,, and have nothing to compare themselves too, until they interact with an object and present the quantity they are onto that object in a physical interaction....
this nothing to interact with idea is why the higgs seekers, believe there must be something like the higgs,,, something in which the standard particles do interact with, which make them have mass while traveling through space...

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Mugen

0% gravity = 0% pi

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

Pi is non-dimensional - it is just a number.

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:00 PM

Originally posted by loveguy

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Originally posted by OmegaLogos

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:

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?

I guess you are speaking of a distortion in the geometry, as a Planck length is usually considered a "point" - which is 1-dimensional. Well, if I may quote the wikipedia

In special relativity, mass turns out to be part of a more general quantity called the energy–momentum tensor, which includes both energy and momentum densities as well as stress (that is, pressure and shear).[29] Using the equivalence principle, this tensor is readily generalized to curved space-time.

Which leaves us stumped, as the calculations of tensor-mathematics are quite complex. Nevertheless, if this was a high building of info, there is the Burj Khalifa right around the corner.. Einsteins field equations..

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.

Pardon the large quote.
Have a look at this photo. To me it explains that the singularity wasn't just a point where nothing existed prior to expansion of the universe. It helps to define the separate dimensions we are of, not in...

Watch this pic have trouble appearing according to preview option...

I think gravity happens due to the flow of electrical energy, but can't put my amateur finger on it.

This is a fun thread, thanks.

edit on (12/5/1212 by loveguy because: supposed to be clickable thumb, what gives

Gravity and Electromagnetism are different basic forces.

Although many have suggested that Electrogravitics should be accepted by science, there has never been any indication of a link between gravity and electricity, despite phenomenal voltages or massive currents being used.

www.sandia.gov...

Cheers!

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:17 PM

Cool.

Can I get one that's portable so I can zip around in outer-space? Imagine the thrust! Suppose strapping a reactor will power it up sufficiently?

Reality is hard to dream up sometimes; but I ain't giving up!

top topics

4