This here’s a free board (for now). You can assume whatever you want to. 
I have just spent one and a half hours (with occasional work in between) reading this entire thread. You have taken from me time which I will never get back. I could have been doing something constructive with my time had this thread not been here. Something to benefit all mankind and bring us closer to God.
I may even have defined n…
Instead, I’ve got to go have some pie…mmmm Pumpkin pi
All your pumpkin phi are belong –
gunshot
…
silence
I am resurrecting this thread to point something out.
Waverley, you said that it would be absurd to measure gravity in m/s, I ask why?
It is reasonable to define a gravitational force as the speed at which it draws an object towards itself. In other words the speed is an indication of the force.
I am not talking about a gravitational constant, that is a bogus concept. I am talking about a variable force of gravity that is dependent on the implosive centering force generated by a phi-vortex.
SCALE INVARIANCE here means that the pattern held between the waves (which we have been calling MATTER and MIND), can be held even if the form or wave nodes are packed or unpacked into the infinitely small or large. Because of this scale invariance, the pressure and spin density of these waves crossing in this way, can converge infinitely to center.
This is the geometry of perfect implosion which Einstein needed in order to understand how black holes bend time. More siginificantly for this conversation this is the geometry for the one way wind inward of magnetism which Einstein called the “magnetic monopole”, WHICH IS THE DEFINITION OF GRAVITY. In other words, gravity occurs among waves ONLY when the geometry of this only significant possible centering force, RECURSION OR NESTING PERFECTED, is organized. Thus the work it might take for example to get data rearranged so as to be fractal and therefore perfectly compressible, is the same work which nature must do to make gravity. Predicting how much gravity force in a wave quantum is as simple as evaluating it’s recursiveness.
Black holes bend time because they have such high mass and gravity. Any mass or gravity distorts space/time, but the distortion is generally far too small to notice. Having used a 35 channel-electroencephalograph-heuristic-nondeterministic-neural-interface and my Commodore Plus 4 with transfinite-unfrequency-Ether-modem, I have projected my concious mind past the event horizon. I have witnessed first-hand the working of a black hole. If you can not say the same HeyYou, do not presume to lecture me on their nature.
A magnetic-monopole is created by transposing one the poles through a dimensaional portal. The pole can be sent to another location any where in our universe or moved to another plane of existence entirely. A magnetic-monopole cannot be created in conventional space/time. Doing so would be as impossible as making 3-D models of MC Escher’s paintings.
BTW-monopoles are most useful in the creation of perpetual motion devices. I am currently testing an engine whose pistons are driven by a PMD rather than internal combustion.No, it is not reasonable, because the force caused by gravitational attraction is constant. Barring air resistance, constant force equals constant acceleration, which is measured in m/s[sup]2[/sup].
If gravity is constant then why does a larger object have more gravitational pull than a smaller one?
By smaller and larger I mean density, cause a neutron star is small but is very dense.
Because each individual component of those objects - they’re called “atoms” - has gravity. If there are more atoms present, there is more gravity. Since the ratio of “amount of gravity per atom” is always the same, it is a constant.
And note that the size of an object is not an indicator of its gravity. You can get a ball of styrofoam a thousand miles in diameter, and it’ll have less gravity than a ball of lead a hundred miles in diameter.
In other words, gravitational acceleration is constant and is measured in m/s[sup]2[/sup]. Gravitational force is acceleration times mass, and is measured in kg*m/s[sup]2[/sup]. Thus, higher mass=more gravitational force. The acceleration is constant.
Should also toss in:
Well, the amount of gravity per atom is always the same for atoms of the same element and isotope. But atoms of higher atomic numbers have more mass, therefore they would exert more gravitational attraction than lower numbered ones.
Quoting Dan Winter:
Are you merely channeling Mr. Winter? Or is this an implicit admission that you can’t understand what you’re quoting?
neither, now jerk off elsewhere.
That was a little uncalled for. It was a valid question. Most of your comments in this thread (and similar threads) are these long excerpts from Mr. Winter. You haven’t convinced me that you have any idea what you’re quoting.
For that matter, neither you or Mr. Winter seem to have the dimmest understanding of the distinction between basic physics concepts such as velocity, acceleration, force, inertia, mass, and density. Not to mention gravity and light!
Whenever you [mis]use yet another physics term, I keep wanting to say to you: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Hiyruu quoted Dan Winter as saying:
Okay, that confirms, with little doubt (if there was any by now, anyway), that Dan Winter is a kook. Using the same “logic,” were I to say, “dogs are to cats as the U.S. is to terrorism,” I must be saying that the U.S. is, in fact, a dog. This is, of course, absurd (bow-wow, woof!).
By the way, have any truly reputable researchers done any work whatsoever on the theories of T. Townsend Brown in the past, oh, 43 years? Has it been determined whether or not Brown worked on the Philadelphia Experiment?
OK, Hiyruu.
Suppose I threw Dan Winter off a cliff into the ocean. The ledge is 100 meters high. How fast is he going when he impacts the water? (You may neglect air resistance.)
You can solve this problem without resorting to statements like “PRODUCE OPTIMUM CHARGE COMPRESSION & THEREFORE THE GREATEST GRAVITY”. The fact that you keep coming up with this stuff, rather than dealing with any of the questions or implications at hand, leads this Doper to believe that you are not just a crank, but are deliberately wasting our time.
Dijon…
Well, I guess I should have said “A certain amount of mass”. In other words, gravitic force is directly proportional to mass. Mass increases, gravity increases. Mass decreases, gravity decreases. Thank you for the explanation, though.
And Hiyruu… your last name wouldn’t happen to be Bergman (or Braga), would it?
Captain, sensors are picking up a gravitic mine field. Shall I raise shields, sir?
[/quote]
Way to go, Hiyruu. You’ve given up on ignoring us and have moved on to insults. This is not the proper way to convince anyone of anything.
I asked because some people on the board understand many, perhaps most, of the technical terms that Winter is using. The fact that none of us can make head nor tail of the prose that results when he uses them does suggest that perhaps he doesn’t. That you’re just largely parroting his text means that, possibly unfairly, we have to have even less confidence in your understanding of the terms. As it is, I see neither a debate nor a lesson in this thread. Are you trying to convince us or are really trying to convince yourself of something?