Don Barone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's gravity Warwick ?
>
> How does it work ?
>
> Regards
> Don Barone
>
Don -
Once again, you're playing number games
I'll ignore the numbers for the sake of rational discussion, at least until it becomes irrational.
If you are honest about your question, then the bottom line gets extremely existentialist and/or religious. In other words, quite controversial and you should stay clear of that area.
Short of that however, there are accepted notions of what gravity is, based upon some serious hard science, that allows the predictions & verifiable evidence we use and see.
[
en.wikipedia.org]
While most may point you to Newtons Laws -- they are also inaccurate. They suffice for good approximations, which means you'll likely make very good use of them.
However, we do have a much more precise system of calculating gravitation from known masses. It's based on the principals of general relativity. Each atom in matter exerts an attracting force on each other atom in the known universe. That's beyond comprehension and if you wish to call it divine, well I shan't argue! Collections of mass (atoms) will exert a large force in porportion to the amount of mass (atoms) in the collection. The more mass, the more attraction. YOu might be interested to note that the rate of increase in attraction over the rate of increase in mass can match your relationships between numbers in your diagrams - just choose the right material for the mass to show it.
I could further show that the minimum mass of u235 for a critical reaction and the minum mass of the triggering action have the same 'golden ratio' as is the base of some of your work. I'll leave it to you to go prove that - it's quite interesting to see all the relationships based on golden ratios. Personally I prefer relating the Fibonacci numbers to the golden ration -- then you can incorporate everything from DNA to plants in there as well.
Just number games. Meaning is irrelevant at that point.
Note that we do not have a true unified field theory at this time. Wiser heads than I know are working on it (I've read through a couple of proposed theories, *very* heady stuff) but they aren't there yet. They are attempting to relate the 4 elemental interactions (forces) we know of in a systematic predictable fashion. Wait, did I say 4 elemental? [
en.wikipedia.org] Hmm, maybe you, Don, can relate those 4 fundamental interactions to the Greek/Egyptian concept of the 4 elements fire, wind, water, and earth? (hint: you can, but it'd have about as much meaning as the number games)
So, anyway, I'd like to point that while we understand what gravitation *is*, we do not know *why*. Why would go off into that controversial area that I won't go to.
Now as for your numbers and diagrams, I find so many specious errors that I don't even know where to start.
Perhaps with the fact that the distances used in the solar system are approximations, and not precise? That using those measurements to the centers of planets with only approximate diameters introduces large margins of error? That the planets orbits arent circles, but ellipses? That no reference to planetary alignment events in history has been cited? (there was one not too long ago, like within the last 20 years) That no allowance has been made for the journey of our solar system through the galaxy? That geometry is a fascinating subject of study in which a relationship can be formed between almost any two unrelated concepts? I do not have the time to disprove your errors in their margins, but I suggest that if you remain convinced of their divinity, that you research the concepts of the 'aether' as a substitute for electromagnetic science, or perhaps 'an electric cosmos' as an alternate theory of the history of the universe (you'll like it, it claims the solar system is several orders of magnitude younger than mainstream conjectures)
While you are at it - your numbers and their ratios reminded me of the ratios between the durations of time that novas bombard the earth with radiation... or the rate at which technological advances occur (moore's law)... More material for you to look up if you will.
Also, I'm sure you would realize it sooner or later, but those same ratios you are using can be used to describe the earths rotation and the solar year. Care to post that as a diagram as well?
Please note I am not meaning offense. I'm well aware, from the construction of your posts, that you are a reasonably intelligent individual at a minimum. I'm equally sure, from your posts, that your training is not in mathematics, geometry, engineer, or computer software design. Please let me know if it is and I'm wrong?
I should also point out that I enjoy reading such math as you've posted as being quite fascinating, until I find those margins of error that makes the whole thing fall sour in my mouth
-- it honestly reminds me a great deal of ley lines and their origins, descriptions, and eventualy debunking of the so called ley line maps of Britain
My reactions were identical. Fascination and excitement feeding each other to raise me up on euphoric awe to be followed by a dawning realization of denial, horror, shame, frustration then eventually calm acceptance of having been completely buffaloed.