Gravity formula

[Tony P.]

Should it be possible to right a surface gravity formula using a density/dimension variable?

[eyez4096]

Probably..

The problem with even the current non-dimensionally-oriented gravity formula is that we still don't know what it IS. It fairly accurately expresses the phenomenon as it is observed, but the underlaying mechanisms which create gravity are still a mystery to mainstream science.

To create a formula which is derived from a fundamental knowledge of WHAT gravity IS would probably, in my intuition, involve a concept SIMILAR at least to density/dimension.

-Charles

[soup]

This might relate to Newton's law:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Orbits/newtongrav.html

If density is in units of mass per volume, then there would be a volume component factored with the density term to form an equivalent mass. It may be possible to simplify the mathematics related to integrating differential volumes by taking the gravitational distance vector as reaching between the centers of mass.

[eyez4096]

This might relate to Newton's law:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Orbits/newtongrav.html

If density is in units of mass per volume, then there would be a volume component factored with the density term to form an equivalent mass. It may be possible to simplify the mathematics related to integrating differential volumes by taking the gravitational distance vector as reaching between the centers of mass.

Most often the problems are solved by treating "simplifying cases" to assume the mass is all in one spot... which for bodies which are at distances from eachother much greater than their relative sizes is not a terrible idea. As for the non-simplified case, it can be treated similarly by basically numerically integrating the vector problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the question was if gravity could be described in terms of the spiritual light-denseness and/or vibrational frequencies or dimensions of bodies? If not, and if in fact he means mass/vol density and cartesian dimensions then it's trivial to apply it to Newton's Laws (at least for a computer).

-Charles

[soup]

..(a) question was if gravity could be described in terms of the spiritual light-denseness and/or vibrational frequencies or dimensions of bodies?..

My impression is that this suggests a "formula" of metaphysical nature. There's a formula for spiritual mass in the Ra materials, Session #39 of book 2; possibly this is related somehow.

Is it possible that the term potentiated energy contains a component of potential due to gravity?

[Tony P.]

Please correct me if I'm incorrect.
We're third density, correct?
Other planets are in other densities, correct?
I am speaking of a surface gravity formula to determine the density nature of a given planet, and by density, I mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, type of thing.
Maybe I mean dimension, who knows?

Now, from what I can tell, I would assume that the Sun, in the center of our solar system, would be represented by the number 12 for density, dimension, whatever. As for Jupiter, I would ascribe the number 6.

What catches my eye is some other material I've read, which I think might be from the 1800s, and once I figure out if I'm reading it correctly, I think I can almost right down something.

As to what gravity is, I'm not entirely sure still. Maybe gravity is the rate of time, how fast time progresses, whereas time is change itself.

[eyez4096]

If Ra is to be taken seriously, the sun cannot be of density "12" because this would be past the octave (8) and would effectively restart. Although a base eight representation is not so rediculous.

Additionally my understanding is that planets are not "in" a given density so much as they are habitable for groupings of densities. My rough comprehension of this would make it comparable to the energy centers of the human body -- densities would be activated or blocked etc, probably in a piecewise continuous spectrum, so that multiple densities my be active at a time.

As such, it seems very reasonable that, were one able to accurately measure the density spectra of a given area, one may be able to use spectra of a planet to describe its "gravity" interaction. I suspect that such a measurement is not directly available to 3D whereas a 4D+ entity may be able to see such a phenomena clearly.

-Charles

(typing on my laptop sucks...)

[Tony P.]

Maybe what I'm looking for is the word dimension, not density, which I think is somehow different, but I don't totally comprehend it yet.

[charran]

Fellas,

Gravity is NOT constant on Earth!!! Formulas will only give you an AVERAGE of gravity (as a constant). Gravity varies depending on WHERE you are on the Earth (distance from surface of Earth) AND what kind of matter (rock formations, sand, etc.) are at the local that you are wishing to measure for gravity. For instance at Yellowstone National Park we have molten Earth that is closer to the surface of the Earth and hence the gravity is stronger here than in locals where the surface of the Earth is more porous (molten rock is not so close up). I work with scientists who map out gravity across the US and this is what they have found.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1992.tb00370.x

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Tecto..15...84M

Charran :)

[soup]

Newton's equation reveals gravity varies inversly with distance, and proportionally with mass. So gradients in gravity could suggest gradients in distance or gradients in mas density. I don't know how magnetism couples into gravitation, is it by way of Maxwell's expanded equations?

[charran]

Newton's equation reveals gravity varies inversly with distance, and proportionally with mass. So gradients in gravity could suggest gradients in distance or gradients in mas density. I don't know how magnetism couples into gravitation, is it by way of Maxwell's expanded equations?

Soup,

Magnetism and gravity go hand is hand. Don't personally know Maxwell's equations. I leave that to the scientists in the office.

Take a look at the links here

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GEOID/GEOID96/geo-indx.html.

Click on the link for the JPG for "Conterminous United States (GEOID96)" and then look at the description (i.e. caption).

Distance, Mass, and Magnetism affect Gravity most definitely.

Charran

[Robert Riedel]

Hey, Now,

So, one thing I remember from somewhere, is talk of opposites. Love, -Hate; good,- bad; light,- dark; up,- down; in, -out; gravity, -.........?

In this marvoulous universe of our creation, every thing is perfectly balanced. It's pointless to try to understand that which is labeled Gravity, without an equal effort to understand Levity. We only stay put here, because because the gravity waves are always slightly stronger than the levity waves.

So, how does one levitate? Simply, ya just fiddle with the balance, so the levity becomes a little more dominant. You can call anti-gravity, positive levity- and so what if we've got to re-write all the physics books- think of it as job-security for a lot of librarians, for a long time to come.

Bob

[soup]

Thanks for sharing something about the Geoids. I learned something about spirit leveling by way of that, (thanks to wikipedia.)

The expanded Maxwell equations, that stretches me to remember. There was something about it shared by Enterprise Mission years ago.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper2.html

[Tony P.]

I think I mean to speak of the average surface gravity at a certain latitude.

Fellas,

Gravity is NOT constant on Earth!!! Formulas will only give you an AVERAGE of gravity (as a constant). Gravity varies depending on WHERE you are on the Earth (distance from surface of Earth) AND what kind of matter (rock formations, sand, etc.) are at the local that you are wishing to measure for gravity. For instance at Yellowstone National Park we have molten Earth that is closer to the surface of the Earth and hence the gravity is stronger here than in locals where the surface of the Earth is more porous (molten rock is not so close up). I work with scientists who map out gravity across the US and this is what they have found.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1992.tb00370.x

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Tecto..15...84M

Charran :)