The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.num-analysis

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: The nature of gravity
Replies: 28   Last Post: Apr 11, 2014 4:14 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com

Posts: 67
Registered: 3/17/12
Re: The nature of gravity
Posted: Apr 25, 2013 1:08 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply


> (1). The Rydberg Constant: 1.0973731x10^7.
>
> (2). The Rydberg Frequency: (1.0973731x10^7)xC=3.2898417x10^15.
>
> (3). The Rydberg Multiplier:(1.0973731x10^7)xC^3=2.956762346x10^32.
>
> (4). The Rydberg Energy=Rydberg Multiplier x(h/c^2)=2.179874415x10^-18 J.
>
> (5). The Rydberg Adjustor: C/[{1836.1526x(137.035989)^2}x2x3.62994678]=1.1976016.
>
> (6). The Rydberg Gm Product: =1.1976339x10^-2. Rydberg Adjustor x(Gc/2).
>
> (7). The Proton Adjustor: (29.6906036)/(3.62994678)^2=2x1.126648663.

(8). Suggested surface gravity on proton surface=6.80148649x10^31 ms.

The big question to the last post should be why there is such a connection
between Rydberg and the Planck units and the answer is as follows:

The proton and the Planck mass were numerically linked at their inception
immediately after the Big Bang.

The Gm product of the proton mass is 1.115883945x10^-37. quantise this by multiplying by the quantum adjustor, 3.62994678, and you get 4.050599332x10^-37.
This is the Planck radius, 4.05049x10^-35m, multiplied by Gc/2. The reciprocal of the Planck radius is 2.4688368x10^34. You can check this out by substituting
G with 2/c and you'll find that (2/c)m multiplied by 3.62994678 comes to
4.05049x10^-35.

The surface gravity, 6.80148649x10^31ms, multiplied by the quantum adjustor, 3.62994678, becomes 2.468903399x10^32. This, as pointed out in the last post,
is the reciprocal of the Planck radius multiplied by Gc/2. So here you have three values separated by Gc/2. Why?

The Rydberg energy, 2.17987373x10^-18 J, which is adjusted by the Rydberg adjustor from 1.82019956x10-18 J. This happens when you reciprocate the Planck
mass to 3.665236x10^7 and then divide by 4. The truth is that 3.665236x10^7/4 is the Rydberg constant. The adjustments are required because of the manifest
effects of the associated wave mechanics.

If we proceed with that in mind all we need to ask is how did the Planck radius
get involved? Well it goes like this:

The Planck Radius is the Schwarzschild radius of the Planck mass, 2GM/c^2, but what happens when we construct the Rydberg multiplier is that we multiply by
c^3. When we do this we assemble the formula 1/(4m/c^3) and wind up with
2.468903x10^32, short by Gc/2 of the reciprocal of the Planck radius.

Also, as pointed out before, 2.468903x10^32x(h/c^2) = 1.82019956x10^-18 J.
This number is also the Gm product of the Planck mass. It does not matter what
the mass of the system is, as long as the time unit is the second and we use
SI metres, the Gm product stays 1.82019956x10^-18. In which case 29.6906036, the
proton opposite Gm product, divided by 1.82019956x10^-18 is 1.6311727x10^19,
the difference between the proton and Planck masses.

Not only that, it is the ratio between 1.1094399x10^51, the Planck
sphere's surface gravity, and 6.801485895x10^31, the surface gravity of the proton.

Assuming we cannot rely on an available G, we can arrive at a value for
1.1094399x10^51 free of G.
We can assemble 1.1094399x10^51 by the following formula:
(c^2)/Planck radius.
Planck radius = (Gh/c^3)^0.5.
Which reassembles, without G, as (C^3.5)/(h)^0.5=9.06179586x10^45.

9.06179586x10^45/6.80148595x10^31=1.3323259x10^14.

1.3323259x10^14/c=4.4441608x10^5.

4.4441608x10^5/3.62994678(quantum adjustor)=1.22430468x10^5.

1/(1.22430468x10^5)^2=6.6714614x10^-11=G.

I've tried several independent approaches to G and I keep getting the same
value, 6.6714614x10^-11. I know it's low and I've tried many ways to raise it without success so I'm sticking with it for now.


Date Subject Author
12/29/12
Read The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
1/2/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
1/3/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
1/4/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
1/5/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
1/22/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
2/2/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
2/23/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
3/16/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
4/5/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
4/25/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
5/2/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
5/4/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
5/6/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
6/1/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
8/13/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
8/24/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
9/9/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
9/19/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
henisdov@netvision.net.il
9/21/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
10/5/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
10/5/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
10/7/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
10/7/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
10/14/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
10/21/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
11/2/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com
11/19/13
Read Re: The nature of gravity
m.michael.musatov@gmail.com
4/11/14
Read Re: The nature of gravity
haroldj.l.jones@gmail.com

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.