Jerry, I have to disagree with this. Time is a result of gravity, not
gravity itself.
> The flow of aether/zpe which is erroenously called
> 'gravity'
This has not been fully proven to be true, sense the graviton has yet to
be discovered.
> into mass to hold it together clocks the initial aggregation,
> and the subsequent aging and dissolution of the mass when it again
> rejoins the aether/zpe plenum.
>
> So the faster the flow of aether/zpe/gravity into mass, the faster the
> rate of time associated with that mass, and for other masses that are
> 'stuck' to that mass by being caught in the flow..<g>..
>
> You'd think that would mean larger planets have a faster flow and thus
> faster time...not so because of the larger surface area....that absorbs
> the aether/zpe influx and precipitates it into mass.
You can have many planets with the same surface area but with different
densities. It's the amount mass within a given volume that regulates the
rate of time not the surface area.
> In space where there is less time flow, you age slower,
This is incorrect. In space when an object is far away from a massive
body such as a planet, the rate of time is faster not slower. Thus, you
would age faster due to a less gravitational field.
This brings me to an interesting question, if the rate of time increases
due to a lower gravitational field. Then what would happen if there was
absolutely no gravitational field, does time reach a maximum rate?
> as you come into
> the pressure influx of aether/zpe into large masses, like planets, you
> come under its embrace and its 'rate of time' flows.
>
> All matter is comprised of the flow of aether/zpe either way so even in
> space, our bodies would be absorbing a proportionate amount of
> aether/zpe to keep us 'together'...<g>...it is one of the most profound
> relationships I've ever had the honor to study as it explains so much.
Although, there is much more research that needs to be done concerning
the very fabric of space itself.
Terry