The Tesla Challenge

i never said it did, although i believe they are related.i said G-force (short for "the great force") which is what i was taught it was called. it isn't very well understood, but it is considered infinitly more powerful than gravity.my theory concerning the G-force and gravity, is that the collective sharing of the g-force in atoms resonate together. so that matter composed of more atoms, have more shared g-force, which resonate as a greater gravity. which is why the attraction is not by size, but by density.furthermore, the interactions of the universal energies are in harmony, and are considered by most as the "natural order".no man has yet built a star system, much less a galaxy, nor created any biological thing from a stone. which should at least humble yourselves to admit the complexity and scale.how about this sidelined, post for our good friends a scale of the universe in this way:show the earth next to the sun in scale. show the planets in the solar system next to the sun and earth in scale. then show an averaged size star next to our sun and planets and earth to scale.then show the sky at night with the clarity of all the stars in it. then show the darkest known spot of that sky amplified as much as possible.now..looking at that...re-evaluate the ability and knowledge of man.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

ah. thanks for the correction the force that holds atoms together is the force I'm referring. i guess that would be the "strong" force?ill make sure i remember that in the future.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

i don't really remember. its been a long time since Ive really gone over it, i may have learned it in the ninth grade (where i spent three years) or read about it in an encyclopedia or one of the great books of the western world.I'm mostly self taught, and have a G.E.D. but it has aided my understanding because I had to work out truths of text by myself. the same way i learned how to be a mechanic, hands on. i watch people of today in school, and notice how they just copy text for online degrees, and really learn nothing. or listen to a teacher and take the teachers word on the truth of it. Ive always been stoic to the point of anal, in that if i cant apply what Ive read to logic, there's too many missing pieces to take it at face value. and either more research needs done, or its useless information.I'm just a construction worker. but i know that a person judges a person by what they have and what they do. i believe a lot of it is subconscious. but observe the way a person reacts to a movie star, who is rude, and then watch the same person react to a construction worker, who isn't. you'll find that the interest of the person is far greater for the rude movie star.knoledge works the same way. a person who has a lot of documents to show how smart they are, many times, will believe themselves to be so smart there is nothing left to learn. but the man, who walks with eyes open for truth , and willingness to learn, is far smarter.so also did the hypocrites in Jesus time, who were known to be the most godly among men, were by Jesus estimation, evil hypocrites. because they glorified themselves. and Glory belongs to God. so also, does what i give here not meant to glorify me, but to glorify God. so if one comes to understand the truth, and i die tomorrow, and the work is passed on, then God will be glorified when men understand he IS.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

i am willing with proof. no one has proven the laws wrong. and all my observation's say there correct. i considered it very seriously for a very long time. years. I've just been hashing it out longer so already know a lot of the debate I'm having with others, I've had it with myself.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

it is the strong force that i meant by "g-force" or "great force".i gave it the wrong name, but insert "strong force" where i have said "great force" and you'll see what i mean.without the force that binds the nucleus, the atom cannot maintain form.however, my "theory" about its relevance to gravity is a theory of mine. and so it is a "guess".

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

instead of going through it all over again here, just go here:http://EvC Forum: Creator of God, Big Bang -->EvC Forum: Creator of God, Big Bang

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

i have answered all these questions time and again. if you want to know my answers, click my name and see what i have said.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I've never discussed the theory with another before. this might be cool.ok, lets observe force. if i strike an object, the object has a reaction equal to the action, but the force, as it travels through another item slowly weakens until its gone. unless the force is maintained (continuous striking)so my theory of the strong force is that it IS extremely powerful continuous striking that resonates through matter and comes out in a weaker form known as gravity.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

its my theory, which means it should be scrutinized.ok, lets look again at force.an outward force is subject to the law i just mentioned, that through other matter it resonates. like sound traveling, so also does kinetic force travel.subatomic particles are still matter.if the rule applies to an outward force, so also should it apply to an inward force.explosion forces matter out, but attraction forces matter in.the greatest attractive force that is maintained would then resonate through matter but weaken as the more matter it travels through. but the more strikes, the greater the force.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

matter reacts to forces.outward forces are easy to rationalize. but no one has really been able to rationalize inward forces.resonate i use to describe how a force travels through matter.if outward and kinetic forces travel through matter, then so also do inward and attractive forces.like magnetism, which is an inward force, but only specific to certain types of matter, travel through matter by alignment, and by aligning poles the attraction will align the poles of other matter next to it that has properties that can be aligned.this also works with the inward force of the strong force, and gravity, but in all matter, align able, or not.its a hard concept to explain, since I've never seen much research relative to the collective sharing of inward forces. especially one that is attracted to all matter.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

something is itching in my brain about your name.i keep having this thought:in evolution, it is proposed that man has come form apes, but why hasn't it been observed at the possibility that man is not an evolutionized ape, but apes a devolution of man?its off topic tho. food for thought i guess.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

ok larni, all I'm trying to point out is the T=0 part, that energy has evolved and if you follow it back its one source. and to understand what i have said, you have to apply what a "singularity" is and is not by the laws of science and logic so we know what to look for.all roads lead to Rome. i really don't want to hash this out anymore since i have come to my conclusion.before any energy is found, all the laws of science and logic of true science (laws) must be applied to it before we know what to look for to find it physically.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

!

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

i mean that it would be the same as an object of equal density. an earth orbiting earth, which would affect the oceans as well as other things if we had an earth orbiting earth. a planet spins around the sun, and can very close to the sun, and then slingshot very quickly away, like a bubble in water around a drain. but when the planet becomes to close, that it cant escape the field, it "goes down the drain" so to speak.the strong force is balanced. i wonder if you can verify that fission is a weakening of this force..anyways, its logical to me, that if the force becomes to great for an atoms nucleus, (or maybe the electrons and neutrons that are around it) that it would fuse.but thats the "theory" oh yeah you quoted "loose"
i meant lose. exactly, but doesn't equal mass mean the same amount of atoms?proximity is definitely important as far as atoms being too far away, so what would be "too close"? is a good question anyway, but i don't have that answer.then proximity of atoms also has bearing on the shared strong force. as my theory is anyway.Edited by tesla, : added more thoughts on proximity

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

a good experiment:if i took lead, of equal weight of a size of wood, does both the wood and lead have the same amount of atoms?if i took uranium, and took wood, and they had equal weight, would they also have the same amount of atoms?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides