gravity waves found

[solrey]

Harvey wrote:
The problem is, you are thinking in very simplistic terms. You can see the kind of wood on the tree but you have no idea how big the forest is.

Not all 'flames' are directed by buoyancy or electric fields.

The flames in a solar flare for example leap well beyond any atmospheric lift or electric field or atomic blast push. Instead they are shown to clearly follow a magnetic field.

The flames of a torch are directed by pressure.

Harvey, you start with saying I'm being too simplistic then you describe the hot, fully ionized plasma of solar flares as flames. Do you see the irony in that?

btw, electric fields might be responsible for accelerating the plasma in a solar flare but there's still much data to collect on that subject.

Anyhoo, I was merely responding to David's statement regarding open flames/heat going up so I limited my response to address that specific idea. I didn't want to muddy the waters by bringing up nozzles and flame velocity and stuff.

You could learn something from him.

Are you sure I haven't?

David wrote:
FIRST
does not buoyancy imply gravity? Wikipedia/buoyancy, i looked it up, and sho nuff, gravity CAUSES the buoyant force! Harvey explained that [i thought] is that proof? it seems that if someone were to read the Wiki definition of buoyancy, they could find out for themselves!
[..]
The idea of buoyancy was summed up by Archimedes, a Greek mathematician, in what is known as Archimedes Principle: Any object, wholly or partly immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object....i copied that part, but the word WEIGHT...that implies gravity? can we say there is a force opposite of gravity? without using the word Buoyant?

Fluid physics was a big part of my aerospace courses so I learned about Archimedes and buoyancy long before Wikipedia was merely an idea in Jimmy Wales' head. Archimedes principle applies to any fluid, which could be a liquid or gas. A difference in density (i.e. pressure) is the cause of buoyancy. Gravity attracts gas molecules/atoms (or any fluid) to the surface which produces atmospheric pressure/density resulting in buoyancy. It's not gravity itself that causes buoyancy, it's the atmospheric pressure produced by gravity that causes buoyancy.

Now consider the moon. The moon has gravity but no buoyancy in the ultra diffuse exosphere because the "atmospheric pressure" is pretty much zero.

...when i hear the word buoyancy, i think water, float, boat, etc. , not the image i am trying to portray.

Well it's just a simple fact that gases (like the atmosphere) are fluids too.

the math, i stated that .999 = 1, i also said that .333 = 1 and 3.14 =1 and .314 = 1.......wikipedia, .99999999999....read that for a while.....david

You might want to re-read that Wiki entry. The scientific community has decided that .9999 carried to infinite decimal places is equivalent to 1 by rounding, not exactly equal to 1 as you contend.

As for those other numbers equaling 1? Huh?

cheers

[gravityblock]

You might want to re-read that Wiki entry. The scientific community has decided that .9999 carried to infinite decimal places is equivalent to 1 by rounding, not exactly equal to 1 as you contend.
cheers

Solrey,

Can you divide an apple into three pieces, where each of the three pieces are equal to each other and add up to 1 apple (1 apple divide by 3 = 0.33333....., does not exactly equal 1 apple)? If yes, then please elaborate. If no, then I will show you how it can be done mathematically. Rounding and infinite decimal places isn't allowed. I contend the 3 pieces can be equal to 1 apple without rounding and without using infinite decimal places.

Thanks,

GB

[david lambright]

axicon lenses

my re-discovery of this energy [Leedskalnin] goes hand and hand with spin field theory...there is plenty of stuff about it online....think about why i could not measure it, but could SEE it with my eyes ..this is not something i made up, this is just as real as you and me and the Earth we live on....the russians were using ferrite magnets....i am using a ferrite core , energized like a PMH, and getting the SAME type of results!...this tells me that the force responsible for the effects DOES NOT reside in the permanent magnets but in the deeper force, the force we KNOW exists, orbiting inside the core of a PMH....we know it is magnetic in nature, but gravitic also....one might argue that it is an electric force, but we also know that electricity is not a fundamental force.....i was reading about axicon lens properties and i think that might be KEY in utilizing this energy....if you have a PMH, and a couple of binocular prisms, try this...hold the prisms, widest side facing each other, start about 1" apart and bring them together, with the charged PMH nearby.....i wont even say yet what i feel till a little later after you have been able to try this...interesting....i assure everyone who reads this, i do not have anything to sell, i urge you to find out for yourself, there is more than meets the eye, and deeper things still, than we could ever believe, the only limits we have are ones we place upon ourselves......david

[david lambright]

lenses

a Fresnel lens is concentric rings....could a lens be cut with a spiral instead? Fibonacci type? like in the Sumerian carvings?...david

[gravityblock]

Solrey,

I'll just go ahead and give you the answer. 1 apple can be divided into 3 equal pieces where each piece is 120 degrees of the apple (360 / 3 = 120). Or, if the apple weighed 0.27lbs, and it's weight is equally distributed throughout the apple, we could divide it into 3 equal pieces where each piece weighed 0.09lbs (0.27lbs / 3 = 0.09lbs). We just solved what you contended or implied was impossible by dividing 1 apple into 3 equal pieces (1 / 3 = 0.333... * 3 doesn't exactly equal 1 according to you, but x / 3 = y, while y * 3 = x, and x is equivillent to or equal to 1 apple). So, 0.333... * 3 = 0.999... carried out to infinite decimal places does equal 1 in my book, because other equivillent and more precise solutions will make it exactly 1, without rounding!

GB

[gravityblock]

Solrey,

Most people who are educated by an institution, tend to lose their common sense and logic. There is a simple explanation for this, however. They allowed others to do their thinking and reasoning for them, without questioning anything.



GB

[david lambright]

Solrey,

Most people who are educated by an institution, tend to lose their common sense and logic. There is a simple explanation for this, however. They allowed others to do their thinking and reasoning for them, without questioning anything.



GB

my brother Ben has his masters in physics [very skeptical] but now with other data coming in that does not fit the model, one has to wonder....think outside geometry....david

[gravityblock]

my brother Ben has his masters in physics [very skeptical] but now with other data coming in that does not fit the model, one has to wonder....think outside geometry....david

David,

I agree. Just about everything I was ever taught in school, I'm finding out it was either wrong, inaccurate, incomplete, or was a downright lie. 12+ years of education for nothing. I wasted my time, effort, and money on a bunch of trash. TPTB have inverted every truth imaginable to mankind. The rabbit hole runs very deep. Think outside whatever is being taught.

TPTB = "Father of the lie", "Author of confusion", etc.

GB

[solrey]

gravityblock wrote:
I'll just go ahead and give you the answer. 1 apple can be divided into 3 equal pieces where each piece is 120 degrees of the apple (360 / 3 = 120). Or, if the apple weighed 0.27lbs, and it's weight is equally distributed throughout the apple, we could divide it into 3 equal pieces where each piece weighed 0.09lbs (0.27lbs / 3 = 0.09lbs). We just solved what you contended or implied was impossible by dividing 1 apple into 3 equal pieces (1 / 3 = 0.333... * 3 doesn't exactly equal 1 according to you, but x / 3 = y, while y * 3 = x, and x is equivillent to or equal to 1 apple). So, 0.333... * 3 = 0.999... carried out to infinite decimal places does equal 1 in my book, because other equivillent and more precise solutions will make it exactly 1, without rounding!

Thanks, but not necessary. Why so impatient?
I was merely addressing the question of decimals, not fractions. Interchanging between decimals and fractions isn't logical in your example of dividing an apple into three equal pieces, which can be expressed by the same mathematical expressions you gave, they're the same form as Ohm's law:

x=a/b
or
xb=a

where x describes a wedge of apple as a ratio to the whole, a is 1 whole apple and b is the number of equal pieces. Solving for x in eq. 1 we get: x=1/3 or 1/3=1/3
plugging the fraction x into eq. 2 we get 1/3*3=1

The irony is we're in agreement. Perhaps the confusion is in the concept of conversion between fractions and decimals and I didn't go there for a reason.

Most people who are educated by an institution, tend to lose their common sense and logic. There is a simple explanation for this, however. They allowed others to do their thinking and reasoning for them, without questioning anything.

At the risk of sounding narcissistic:
If you actually knew me you'd know that I agree with that statement, that it doesn't apply to me and that I abhor institutions. I learn from others while thinking for myself and question everything including the things I believe in the most. I'm currently working "behind the scenes" with a group that's challenging conventional cosmology and astrophysics. With a combination of basic physics, primitive building design and modern technology I can show you how to keep a house cool without an air conditioner by using a solar powered attic fan and geothermal heat exchange.

I'm open minded enough that I'm gonna visit David in a couple of days.

cheers

[gravityblock]

Solrey,

We're not in agreement. According to you, 0.999 or (3 * 0.333) carried to infinite decimal places doesn't equal 1 without rounding, but I showed you how it does equal 1 without rounding. There is no confusion in the concept of converting between fractions and decimals. 1/3(one-third) is equal to 0.333 carried to infinite decimal places. I really hope you can see this, for the one form is derived from the other form, so they must be equal. One could argue a ball dropped from a building will never hit the ground, since we could always divide the distance of the ball from the ground in half for infinity, so the ball will never reach the ground according to you. But we do know the ball hits the ground, so all of those infinite divisions by 2 must equal the distance from the top of the building to the ground, for if it didn't, then the ball would never make contact with the ground and would forever be falling.

In regards to your statement about you abhorring institutions, I find this hard to believe when you proudly made the below statement about the education you received by an institution, in reply to Harvey in an earlier post.

Fluid physics was a big part of my aerospace courses so I learned about Archimedes and buoyancy long before Wikipedia was merely an idea in Jimmy Wales' head.

Also, you have 29 posts on this forum, while 28 of them, have been in this thread bashing Dave, while arguing with everyone else. The other post is in Dave's other thread. You followed Dave from the thunderbolt forum, and it's very obvious your only intent on this forum is to troll and harrass him. What a way to be, lol.

GB

[thekubiaks]

my re-discovery of this energy [Leedskalnin] goes hand and hand with spin field theory.........david

If you can show me a youtube video of you levitating a 10,000 pound rock with three impartial observers, then your case is proven, and you won't have to debate your discovery with the crowd, just tell us how you did it.

[Harvey]

With all due respect to both Solrey and GB on their 1/3 discussion, they are both mistaken.

The question regarding being able to divide an apple (or anything for that matter) into 3 equal parts is a matter of precision. The example of weight was offered, but clearly by applying a scale you have set a limit as to what you accept to be equal. The scale is only accurate to some degree, and you cannot accurately measure the 3 parts beyond that limit. If the scale is accurate to 1/100 of a gram, then any of the 3 parts could have 5/1000 of a gram more or less than the others and the scale would be forced to round it accordingly.

So we get to the question of "what is the smallest part?". The answer for pure minerals is the atom. The answer for compounds is the molecule. But the answer for organics, such as an apple is much more complex. Even a two year old readily notices the differences between the skin, the pulp, the core and the seeds of an apple.

So to truly separate an apple into 3 equal parts would require not only that all of the different cell types have a total equally divisible by 3, but would also require that the average mass of those cell types be equivalent in the 3 parts. Once you divide a cell it is no longer part of the apple. It may be considered a derivative of the apple, but it is no longer identifiable by itself as "apple" without the other parts that make up is structure. Naturally this statement will spawn all types of debates on the level of DNA strands and cellular particulates unique to apples in their composition and I'm sure there is one minimum cell that could be used to clone another apple from, but not after it has been divided 3 ways.

So you set your own limits as to what constitutes an equal division into 3 parts. Of course if you had 3,6,9 or 12 apples then you could divide it into unit quantities. But if I take all the big ones and leave you with the small ones, I have a feeling you would think it is an unequal division.

There are certain numbers that the Egyptians used that even today mathematicians are still work at solving.

David's exercise was to show some relationship between the reflection of the sphere and the infinite permutation of Nonregular Numbers. I'm not certain how that relationship is being addressed, but I get the image in my head of a purely reflective sphere with a photon bouncing around inside where the reflective angle of the sphere is something like the golden angle. The only way the photon could ever find its way back to the precise starting point is if the number of permutations was exactly divisible into the reflective angle (or vice versa ). So, for 3 paths (2 bounces and a return) the reflective angle would have to be the ratio of 1 divided by 3 which is a nonregular number of the type 'repeating decimal'.

This is David's thread and I expect him to help us see the relationship between the spherical reflection and the nonregular numbers.

[gravityblock]

Harvey,

I was talking about dividing 1 apple into 3 equal parts. I never said anything about dividing all of the molecules or atoms which make up the 1 apple into 3 equal parts. Geometry wise, the apple could be divided into 3 equal parts according to degrees. It could also be divided according to weight assuming the weight was equally distributed in the apple (I even stated this in my post). What you fail to realize, the 3 equal pieces divided according to its weight could also be identical in shape and size to the 3 pieces which were divided according to degrees. Also, we've been discussing what the numbers themselves represent, and not if it's practical or possible to perfectly represent those number in the real world. I have never in my entire life seen anyone try to take a simple mathematical equation of dividing one apple into three pieces this far out of context before. If we have 3 pieces, each being one-third of the apple (in a perfect world, just for Harvey), then adding these 3 together (1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 or 1) the three pieces total 1 apple....but if we convert these pieces into decimals, then add them together (0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33 = 0.99 or 99% of 1) makes the 3 pieces 1% less than the total apple? Even if the decimal places of each piece is carried out to infinity, it will still be less than the one apple according to Solrey. I think not. This is the point in which I have been trying to make, but it appears that this "simple truth" is going over people's heads. Totally unbelievable. God will confuse the wise with the simplist things of this world.

Attention everyone: According to Harvey, dividing 8 people into 2 areas doesn't equal 4 per area.......because the atoms or molecules of each person wasn't divided up properly (one person may have more atoms or molecules than the other person. I hope you can see how you took things way out of context). What a joke, and you say we were mistaken! With all due respect, I'll take Solrey's pathetic argument over yours anyday, whatever that may have been. I can't believe this is being debated here, for a child could understand what I'm saying is correct. If we can't get past these simple, basic, and elementary truths, then how can we move into more complex things such as OU or raising massive stones as if it were a feather. By now, we should be eating meat, but we are still drinking milk as babes do.

Anyways, we should be working in base 12, instead of base 10! Base 10 is the system taught by TPTB, and this is probably the worst base for us to be using. Harvey, which institutions were you educated by? It appears you have lost your common sense and logic like Solrey. My brother lost his after he went to college. It's just something I have observed to be true most of the time. I'm sure there are exceptions, like the ones who question what was being taught to them (Solrey claims this exception, but I find previous statements made by him to be contradictory to what he is now claiming).

GB

[gravityblock]

One-third can be represented in base 12 without the decimal places repeating. A third, in base 12 is exactly (0.4). So, doing calculations in base 10 which has an infinite number of decimal places, such as a third, should be equal to the same calculation in base 12, such as with a third which has no repeating decimals in that base.

Case Closed!

GB

[SuperCaviTationIstic]

One-third can be represented in base 12 without the decimal places repeating. A third, in base 12 is exactly (0.4). So, doing calculations in base 10 which has an infinite number of decimal places, such as a third, should be equal to the same calculation in base 12, such as with a third which has no repeating decimals in that base.

Case Closed!

GB

I really like your reasoning, and this example....
If I remember correctly Marko Rodin showed how Pi is calculable in an other base number system, or maybe it was a combination between two base number systems..... maybe I'll dig that up if no one else does