Gravity is a chain reaction within an equilibrium of chaos and entropy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An origonal theory
By Corey White


The formula everyone uses in the world to explain gravity is F= G(
(m1*m2) / r ) , and I am trying to change that because the formula
itself doesn't actually explain the process. But my theory does, and I
am looking for mathematicians and physicists to formalize this theory
into a new formula and a new paper which I can then submit to a journal
or publish on a website like wikipedia. I've put this paper in an
auction on rentacoder for anyone who wants to help.

But here is my work so far, and it is an experiment you can test out at
home:

Roulette is a 50/50 game if you are playing black vs red, except for
the two green slips of the wheel, but the odds of

hitting that are very remote.

Get 21 pennies, and a quarter.

Now get 3 pennies and the quarter ready. Put 2 pennies in a pile, and
one by itself.

If the quarter comes up heads move the penny by itself into the pile of


2, and tails you do the opposite.

The odds are 50% higher that you will win at roulette if you have the
pile of 2 pennies.

Now you can keep playing this game by adding a penny to each pile, and
the odds of you taking the whole pot continue to go

down logically. When you are playing 3 on 2, the odds of winning aren't
50% higher, they are only 25% higher. And with each

penny you add the odds go down

by half. Or something like that. You do the math.

The idea is that if you play the 50/50 game, and you're always trying
to win just half of what you are willing to gamble,

your odds improve greatly.

2 against 1 , you have a 66% chance of winning

You win that pot

3 against 1, you have a 75% chance of winning

4 against 2, you have a 66% chance of winning.

So every time you win a pot you get a free penny, that improves your
odds!

And once you go up on a streak of luck like this, even when you start
to come down, you can continue going back up, and find

a happy medium. You just have to know when to quit, and know how to
score those free pennies. Just look at the whole pot that

you have at the time as something you are willing to risk to get
whatever 'goal' you have at the time.

Can you imagine what the odds would look like if you only go after one
penny as your goal? As the pile of pennies on your

side keeps growing larger, your odds go up exponentially after you
reach each goal. But obviously there is still a chance

you will lose everything because you are risking all of your pennies to
win.

If I have 2 pennies and I want to start a chain reaction, in a 50/50
game, then I only go after one pennie at a time.

There are 3 ways the game can go, I can lose a penny, get it back, and
then score the penny that is my goal. Or I can win

the penny right off. Or I can lose completely.

So I have a 66.6% chance of winning

And now that I have 3 pennies and I go after one more penny, the odds
are 75% that I will win, because there are 3 ways I can

win and 1 way I can lose.

If I take the chance of playing these two games in a row, There are 7
ways I can win and 5 ways I can lose. So the chances

of winning are (2/3 + 3/4 )/2. And that's 71.42857%

Which is a whole lot better than starting with 2 pennies and playing
against 2 pennies!!

It can only be explained as gravity, and astrological magnetism. Or
maybe, the butterfly effect?

I have been working on the theory too, and am willing to review your
ideas and help direct the project, if any of you want to apply for the
rentacoder auction. Here is my idea so far...

You form a circle with 10 coins. And you form a smaller circle with 5
coins.

So according to my formula we have a 10/15% chance that the smaller
circle will gravitate to the larger circle, if the odds are 50/50 of it
moving in either direction.

But how do we tie this into our formula for gravity as it exists?

Distance between the two objects represents the actual probability.
Space time itself. So for example we can say that an object 10 light
years away has a reduced probability, than we do here on earth to the
earths gravitational pull.

The masses of the objects represent the coins themselves. Each coin is
like one atom. And as they move it represents how some of the atoms
are tugged in one direction or another, but are linked by the other
forces to the larger object they are appart of. So the whole object
moves in one direction or another.

The gravitational constant, is there to balance the equation, which as
it stands is different than the origonal formula, because the origonal
formula doesn't have a notion of which direction the objects are
headed, and just says they are equally attracted by a certain ammount
of force.

These are the ideas I would like you to work with!



wrote:
Gravity is a chain reaction within an equilibrium of chaos and entropy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An origonal theory
By Corey White


The formula everyone uses in the world to explain gravity is F= G(
(m1*m2) / r ) , and I am trying to change that because the formula
itself doesn't actually explain the process. But my theory does, and I
am looking for mathematicians and physicists to formalize this theory
into a new formula and a new paper which I can then submit to a journal
or publish on a website like wikipedia. I've put this paper in an
auction on rentacoder for anyone who wants to help.

But here is my work so far, and it is an experiment you can test out at
home:

Roulette is a 50/50 game if you are playing black vs red, except for
the two green slips of the wheel, but the odds of

hitting that are very remote.

Get 21 pennies, and a quarter.

Now get 3 pennies and the quarter ready. Put 2 pennies in a pile, and
one by itself.

If the quarter comes up heads move the penny by itself into the pile of


2, and tails you do the opposite.

The odds are 50% higher that you will win at roulette if you have the
pile of 2 pennies.

Now you can keep playing this game by adding a penny to each pile, and
the odds of you taking the whole pot continue to go

down logically. When you are playing 3 on 2, the odds of winning aren't
50% higher, they are only 25% higher. And with each

penny you add the odds go down

by half. Or something like that. You do the math.

The idea is that if you play the 50/50 game, and you're always trying
to win just half of what you are willing to gamble,

your odds improve greatly.

2 against 1 , you have a 66% chance of winning

You win that pot

3 against 1, you have a 75% chance of winning

4 against 2, you have a 66% chance of winning.

So every time you win a pot you get a free penny, that improves your
odds!

And once you go up on a streak of luck like this, even when you start
to come down, you can continue going back up, and find

a happy medium. You just have to know when to quit, and know how to
score those free pennies. Just look at the whole pot that

you have at the time as something you are willing to risk to get
whatever 'goal' you have at the time.

Can you imagine what the odds would look like if you only go after one
penny as your goal? As the pile of pennies on your

side keeps growing larger, your odds go up exponentially after you
reach each goal. But obviously there is still a chance

you will lose everything because you are risking all of your pennies to
win.

If I have 2 pennies and I want to start a chain reaction, in a 50/50
game, then I only go after one pennie at a time.

There are 3 ways the game can go, I can lose a penny, get it back, and
then score the penny that is my goal. Or I can win

the penny right off. Or I can lose completely.

So I have a 66.6% chance of winning

And now that I have 3 pennies and I go after one more penny, the odds
are 75% that I will win, because there are 3 ways I can

win and 1 way I can lose.

If I take the chance of playing these two games in a row, There are 7
ways I can win and 5 ways I can lose. So the chances

of winning are (2/3 + 3/4 )/2. And that's 71.42857%

Which is a whole lot better than starting with 2 pennies and playing
against 2 pennies!!

It can only be explained as gravity, and astrological magnetism. Or
maybe, the butterfly effect?

I have been working on a theory of gravity, and would like help
modeling everything else that we know about gravity into the theory. So
I can self publish my work in a journal or on a website like Wikipedia.
Gravity is represented as F= G( (m1*m2) / r^2 ) , and I would like to
change this theory, but make sure that the math still works exactly the
same. The Force Of Gravity is equal to the Gravitiational Constant
multiplide by the masses of two objects, and divided by their distance
appart.


So in my game where you form a circle of 10 pennies that represent the
gravitational pull of one object, and my individual penny which sits
outside of the circle entirely solitary. The odds still remain 10/11,
when you are flipping a fair coin to decide which pile wins each round.

As the piles move there is a .09765625% of flipping 10 wins in a row
for the individual penny, and a 50% chance that the pile of 10 pennies
will win on the first round. But my question was, how do I calculate
the average number of coin flips before the larger pile wins.

And the answer is k(n-k)

That's right, k(n-k). So in my illistration, you can see that the
circle of 10 pennies attracts to lonely penny into its gravitational
field after 10 coin flips on average. But theoretically the number of
rounds in the game could come close to infinity. And in practice you
win after the first round or too.

And I think you can see how this example illistrates a basic
understanding of gravity. If we assume that gravity accelerates
everything on earth at 9.8 m/s^2.

For example if we look at the earth as being a mass of 10 pennies, and
we look as the signle penny as being a distance of 4.9 meters, then if
we follow this equation.

t = sqrt( ( 2(4.9 m) ) / ( 9.8 m/s^2 ) ) = 1 s

And if we say the average number of coin flips it takes to produce this
effect is 10, then each coin flip represents 1/10th of a second. So on
average it takes just 1 second.

Now obviously with correct preportions of pennies, and more
sophisticated mathematics, and a better understanding of the physical
formulas for gravity. We could do a lot more. And be far more
precise.


wrote:
I have been working on the theory too, and am willing to review your
ideas and help direct the project, if any of you want to apply for the
rentacoder auction. Here is my idea so far...

You form a circle with 10 coins. And you form a smaller circle with 5
coins.

So according to my formula we have a 10/15% chance that the smaller
circle will gravitate to the larger circle, if the odds are 50/50 of it
moving in either direction.

But how do we tie this into our formula for gravity as it exists?

Distance between the two objects represents the actual probability.
Space time itself. So for example we can say that an object 10 light
years away has a reduced probability, than we do here on earth to the
earths gravitational pull.

The masses of the objects represent the coins themselves. Each coin is
like one atom. And as they move it represents how some of the atoms
are tugged in one direction or another, but are linked by the other
forces to the larger object they are appart of. So the whole object
moves in one direction or another.

The gravitational constant, is there to balance the equation, which as
it stands is different than the origonal formula, because the origonal
formula doesn't have a notion of which direction the objects are
headed, and just says they are equally attracted by a certain ammount
of force.

These are the ideas I would like you to work with!



wrote:
Gravity is a chain reaction within an equilibrium of chaos and entropy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An origonal theory
By Corey White


The formula everyone uses in the world to explain gravity is F= G(
(m1*m2) / r ) , and I am trying to change that because the formula
itself doesn't actually explain the process. But my theory does, and I
am looking for mathematicians and physicists to formalize this theory
into a new formula and a new paper which I can then submit to a journal
or publish on a website like wikipedia. I've put this paper in an
auction on rentacoder for anyone who wants to help.

But here is my work so far, and it is an experiment you can test out at
home:

Roulette is a 50/50 game if you are playing black vs red, except for
the two green slips of the wheel, but the odds of

hitting that are very remote.

Get 21 pennies, and a quarter.

Now get 3 pennies and the quarter ready. Put 2 pennies in a pile, and
one by itself.

If the quarter comes up heads move the penny by itself into the pile of


2, and tails you do the opposite.

The odds are 50% higher that you will win at roulette if you have the
pile of 2 pennies.

Now you can keep playing this game by adding a penny to each pile, and
the odds of you taking the whole pot continue to go

down logically. When you are playing 3 on 2, the odds of winning aren't
50% higher, they are only 25% higher. And with each

penny you add the odds go down

by half. Or something like that. You do the math.

The idea is that if you play the 50/50 game, and you're always trying
to win just half of what you are willing to gamble,

your odds improve greatly.

2 against 1 , you have a 66% chance of winning

You win that pot

3 against 1, you have a 75% chance of winning

4 against 2, you have a 66% chance of winning.

So every time you win a pot you get a free penny, that improves your
odds!

And once you go up on a streak of luck like this, even when you start
to come down, you can continue going back up, and find

a happy medium. You just have to know when to quit, and know how to
score those free pennies. Just look at the whole pot that

you have at the time as something you are willing to risk to get
whatever 'goal' you have at the time.

Can you imagine what the odds would look like if you only go after one
penny as your goal? As the pile of pennies on your

side keeps growing larger, your odds go up exponentially after you
reach each goal. But obviously there is still a chance

you will lose everything because you are risking all of your pennies to
win.

If I have 2 pennies and I want to start a chain reaction, in a 50/50
game, then I only go after one pennie at a time.

There are 3 ways the game can go, I can lose a penny, get it back, and
then score the penny that is my goal. Or I can win

the penny right off. Or I can lose completely.

So I have a 66.6% chance of winning

And now that I have 3 pennies and I go after one more penny, the odds
are 75% that I will win, because there are 3 ways I can

win and 1 way I can lose.

If I take the chance of playing these two games in a row, There are 7
ways I can win and 5 ways I can lose. So the chances

of winning are (2/3 + 3/4 )/2. And that's 71.42857%

Which is a whole lot better than starting with 2 pennies and playing
against 2 pennies!!

It can only be explained as gravity, and astrological magnetism. Or
maybe, the butterfly effect?

wrote in message
ps.com...
|I have been working on a theory of gravity, and would like help
| modeling everything else that we know about gravity into the theory. So
| I can self publish my work in a journal or on a website like Wikipedia.

Hahaha....


| Gravity is represented as F= G( (m1*m2) / r^2 ) , and I would like to
| change this theory, but make sure that the math still works exactly the
| same.

What a good idea!
Let's see... How about changing m1 to M and m2 to m, then
dumping the extraneous parentheses, like this: F = GMm/r^2 ?


The Force Of Gravity is equal to the Gravitiational Constant
| multiplide by the masses of two objects, and divided by their distance
| appart.
|


I suppose I'll have to comment on this, you keep on pushing it.

| So in my game where you form a circle of 10 pennies that represent the
| gravitational pull of one object, and my individual penny which sits
| outside of the circle entirely solitary. The odds still remain 10/11,
| when you are flipping a fair coin to decide which pile wins each round.
|
| As the piles move there is a .09765625% of flipping 10 wins in a row
| for the individual penny, and a 50% chance that the pile of 10 pennies
| will win on the first round. But my question was, how do I calculate
| the average number of coin flips before the larger pile wins.
|
| And the answer is k(n-k)

What does k represent and what does n represent? What does "win"
mean?

|
| That's right, k(n-k). So in my illistration, you can see that the
| circle of 10 pennies attracts to lonely penny into its gravitational
| field after 10 coin flips on average. But theoretically the number of
| rounds in the game could come close to infinity. And in practice you
| win after the first round or too.
|
| And I think you can see how this example illistrates a basic
| understanding of gravity.


I'm ****ed if I do. What are you babbling about?


If we assume that gravity accelerates
| everything on earth at 9.8 m/s^2.


IF statement THEN consequence ? ELSE ???


| For example if we look at the earth as being a mass of 10 pennies, and
| we look as the signle penny as being a distance of 4.9 meters, then if
| we follow this equation.

10 pennies maps to Mass(Earth) and
1 penny maps to Distance = 4.9 metres....

You are not making much sense. What drugs are you taking?

Androcles.

Sorcerer wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...
|I have been working on a theory of gravity, and would like help
| modeling everything else that we know about gravity into the theory. So
| I can self publish my work in a journal or on a website like Wikipedia.

Hahaha....


| Gravity is represented as F= G( (m1*m2) / r^2 ) , and I would like to
| change this theory, but make sure that the math still works exactly the
| same.

What a good idea!
Let's see... How about changing m1 to M and m2 to m, then
dumping the extraneous parentheses, like this: F = GMm/r^2 ?


The Force Of Gravity is equal to the Gravitiational Constant
| multiplide by the masses of two objects, and divided by their distance
| appart.
|


I suppose I'll have to comment on this, you keep on pushing it.

| So in my game where you form a circle of 10 pennies that represent the
| gravitational pull of one object, and my individual penny which sits
| outside of the circle entirely solitary. The odds still remain 10/11,
| when you are flipping a fair coin to decide which pile wins each round.
|
| As the piles move there is a .09765625% of flipping 10 wins in a row
| for the individual penny, and a 50% chance that the pile of 10 pennies
| will win on the first round. But my question was, how do I calculate
| the average number of coin flips before the larger pile wins.
|
| And the answer is k(n-k)

What does k represent and what does n represent? What does "win"
mean?

|
| That's right, k(n-k). So in my illistration, you can see that the
| circle of 10 pennies attracts to lonely penny into its gravitational
| field after 10 coin flips on average. But theoretically the number of
| rounds in the game could come close to infinity. And in practice you
| win after the first round or too.
|
| And I think you can see how this example illistrates a basic
| understanding of gravity.


I'm ****ed if I do. What are you babbling about?


If we assume that gravity accelerates
| everything on earth at 9.8 m/s^2.


IF statement THEN consequence ? ELSE ???


| For example if we look at the earth as being a mass of 10 pennies, and
| we look as the signle penny as being a distance of 4.9 meters, then if
| we follow this equation.

10 pennies maps to Mass(Earth) and
1 penny maps to Distance = 4.9 metres....

You are not making much sense. What drugs are you taking?

Nutjob drugs. He's a genuine certified loon, before you waste any more
time trying to argue with him. You caught him on a good day. The ****
he posts isn't usually as coherent and logical as this.

We had a bunch of trolls in here the last couple of days, but they
can't hold a candle to Corey, and he isn't even trying.

Erwin Hessle, 8=3

So here is my final gravity theory. If the earth is represented as 10
pennies, then each meter of distance is represented as 0.225876976
pennies. And the equation k(n-k) calculates the average time in actual
seconds for the object to land.

For example 10(10.0451752951-10)=0.451752951

Which is the time it takes for an object 1 meter high to fall and land
on the earth.

But to make things more difficult we are going to use intervals of 1
millionth of a second. So instead of just using the number for one
meter, and multiplying it by 2 in the gravity equation. We devide it
by 1 million first, and that leaves us with an average number of
millionths of a second. That will not be as experientially variable.

Erwin Hessle wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...
|I have been working on a theory of gravity, and would like help
| modeling everything else that we know about gravity into the theory. So
| I can self publish my work in a journal or on a website like Wikipedia.

Hahaha....


| Gravity is represented as F= G( (m1*m2) / r^2 ) , and I would like to
| change this theory, but make sure that the math still works exactly the
| same.

What a good idea!
Let's see... How about changing m1 to M and m2 to m, then
dumping the extraneous parentheses, like this: F = GMm/r^2 ?


The Force Of Gravity is equal to the Gravitiational Constant
| multiplide by the masses of two objects, and divided by their distance
| appart.
|


I suppose I'll have to comment on this, you keep on pushing it.

| So in my game where you form a circle of 10 pennies that represent the
| gravitational pull of one object, and my individual penny which sits
| outside of the circle entirely solitary. The odds still remain 10/11,
| when you are flipping a fair coin to decide which pile wins each round.
|
| As the piles move there is a .09765625% of flipping 10 wins in a row
| for the individual penny, and a 50% chance that the pile of 10 pennies
| will win on the first round. But my question was, how do I calculate
| the average number of coin flips before the larger pile wins.
|
| And the answer is k(n-k)

What does k represent and what does n represent? What does "win"
mean?

|
| That's right, k(n-k). So in my illistration, you can see that the
| circle of 10 pennies attracts to lonely penny into its gravitational
| field after 10 coin flips on average. But theoretically the number of
| rounds in the game could come close to infinity. And in practice you
| win after the first round or too.
|
| And I think you can see how this example illistrates a basic
| understanding of gravity.


I'm ****ed if I do. What are you babbling about?


If we assume that gravity accelerates
| everything on earth at 9.8 m/s^2.


IF statement THEN consequence ? ELSE ???


| For example if we look at the earth as being a mass of 10 pennies, and
| we look as the signle penny as being a distance of 4.9 meters, then if
| we follow this equation.

10 pennies maps to Mass(Earth) and
1 penny maps to Distance = 4.9 metres....

You are not making much sense. What drugs are you taking?

Nutjob drugs. He's a genuine certified loon, before you waste any more
time trying to argue with him. You caught him on a good day. The ****
he posts isn't usually as coherent and logical as this.

We had a bunch of trolls in here the last couple of days, but they
can't hold a candle to Corey, and he isn't even trying.

Erwin Hessle, 8=3

"Erwin Hessle" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| wrote in message
| ps.com...
| |I have been working on a theory of gravity, and would like help
| | modeling everything else that we know about gravity into the theory.
So
| | I can self publish my work in a journal or on a website like
Wikipedia.
|
| Hahaha....
|
|
| | Gravity is represented as F= G( (m1*m2) / r^2 ) , and I would like to
| | change this theory, but make sure that the math still works exactly
the
| | same.
|
| What a good idea!
| Let's see... How about changing m1 to M and m2 to m, then
| dumping the extraneous parentheses, like this: F = GMm/r^2 ?
|
|
| The Force Of Gravity is equal to the Gravitiational Constant
| | multiplide by the masses of two objects, and divided by their distance
| | appart.
| |
|
|
| I suppose I'll have to comment on this, you keep on pushing it.
|
| | So in my game where you form a circle of 10 pennies that represent the
| | gravitational pull of one object, and my individual penny which sits
| | outside of the circle entirely solitary. The odds still remain 10/11,
| | when you are flipping a fair coin to decide which pile wins each
round.
| |
| | As the piles move there is a .09765625% of flipping 10 wins in a row
| | for the individual penny, and a 50% chance that the pile of 10 pennies
| | will win on the first round. But my question was, how do I calculate
| | the average number of coin flips before the larger pile wins.
| |
| | And the answer is k(n-k)
|
| What does k represent and what does n represent? What does "win"
| mean?
|
| |
| | That's right, k(n-k). So in my illistration, you can see that the
| | circle of 10 pennies attracts to lonely penny into its gravitational
| | field after 10 coin flips on average. But theoretically the number of
| | rounds in the game could come close to infinity. And in practice you
| | win after the first round or too.
| |
| | And I think you can see how this example illistrates a basic
| | understanding of gravity.
|
|
| I'm ****ed if I do. What are you babbling about?
|
|
| If we assume that gravity accelerates
| | everything on earth at 9.8 m/s^2.
|
|
| IF statement THEN consequence ? ELSE ???
|
|
| | For example if we look at the earth as being a mass of 10 pennies, and
| | we look as the signle penny as being a distance of 4.9 meters, then if
| | we follow this equation.
|
| 10 pennies maps to Mass(Earth) and
| 1 penny maps to Distance = 4.9 metres....
|
| You are not making much sense. What drugs are you taking?
|
| Nutjob drugs. He's a genuine certified loon, before you waste any more
| time trying to argue with him. You caught him on a good day. The ****
| he posts isn't usually as coherent and logical as this.
|
| We had a bunch of trolls in here the last couple of days, but they
| can't hold a candle to Corey, and he isn't even trying.
|
| Erwin Hessle, 8=3

Beats me why these lunatics want to tell us about their theories
anyway. What do they want, a pat on the back? Reassurance? What?
Once upon a time Britain used to pack 'em on a wooden barque
crewed by iron men and ship 'em off to the colonies, but now they
are everywhere. Can't we round em all up and send them to Antarctica?
After all, it's big and needs colonising. Get 'em to terraform it, that
should be whole lot easier than fooling with Mars or Venus, the
atmosphere and water are already in place.
Wish 'em all Good luck and Bon Voyage, let 'em get on with it.
Androcles.

Sorcerer wrote:
"Erwin Hessle" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| You are not making much sense. What drugs are you taking?
|
| Nutjob drugs. He's a genuine certified loon, before you waste any more
| time trying to argue with him. You caught him on a good day. The ****
| he posts isn't usually as coherent and logical as this.
|
| We had a bunch of trolls in here the last couple of days, but they
| can't hold a candle to Corey, and he isn't even trying.
|
| Erwin Hessle, 8=3

Beats me why these lunatics want to tell us about their theories
anyway.

Guess that's why they call them nutjobs.

Erwin Hessle, 8=3

I have been working on a theory of gravity, and would like help
modeling everything else that we know about gravity into the theory.
So I can self publish my work in a journal or on a website like
Wikipedia. Gravity is represented as F= G( (m1*m2) / r^2 ) , and I
would like to change this theory, but make sure that the math still
works exactly the same. The Force Of Gravity is equal to the
Gravitiational Constant multiplide by the masses of two objects, and
divided by their distance appart.

So in my game where you form a circle of 10 pennies that represent the
gravitational pull of one object, and my individual penny which sits
outside of the circle entirely solitary. The odds still remain 10/11,
when you are flipping a fair coin to decide which pile wins each
round. As the piles move there is a .09765625% of flipping 10 wins in a
row for the individual penny, and a 50% chance that the pile of 10
pennies will win on the first round. But my question was, how do I
calculate the average number of coin flips before the larger pile
wins.

And the answer is k(n-k)

That's right, k(n-k). So in my illistration, you can see that the
circle of 10 pennies attracts to lonely penny into its gravitational
field after 10 coin flips on average. But theoretically the number of
rounds in the game could come close to infinity. And in practice you
win after the first round or too. And I think you can see how this
example illistrates a basic understanding of gravity. If we assume
that gravity accelerates everything on earth at 9.8 m/s^2. For example
if we look at the earth as being a mass of 10 pennies, and we look as
the signle penny as being a distance of 4.9 meters, then if we follow
this equation.

t = sqrt( ( 2(4.9 m) ) / ( 9.8 m/s^2 ) ) = 1 s

And if we say the average number of coin flips it takes to produce this
effect is 10, then each coin flip represents 1/10th of a second. So
on average it takes just 1 second. Now obviously with correct
preportions of pennies, and more sophisticated mathematics, and a
better understanding of the physical formulas for gravity. We could do
a lot more. And be far more precise.

So here is my final gravity theory. We use the quadratic formula to
solve 2*n/9.8 = k(n-k) for k, which makes k=(1/14) (7n +- sqrt(49 n^2
- 40 n)).

So now we have the formula ( (1/14) (7n +- sqrt(49 n^2 - 40 n)) ) * (n
- ((1/14) (7n +- sqrt(49 n^2 - 40 n))) ) , which solves the gravity
problem. And solves the problem of averages in my game of pennies!

Erwin Hessle wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
"Erwin Hessle" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| You are not making much sense. What drugs are you taking?
|
| Nutjob drugs. He's a genuine certified loon, before you waste any more
| time trying to argue with him. You caught him on a good day. The ****
| he posts isn't usually as coherent and logical as this.
|
| We had a bunch of trolls in here the last couple of days, but they
| can't hold a candle to Corey, and he isn't even trying.
|
| Erwin Hessle, 8=3

Beats me why these lunatics want to tell us about their theories
anyway.

Guess that's why they call them nutjobs.

Erwin Hessle, 8=3