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: May 4, 2013 2:04 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

It is not only the Planck units that are tied up with the proton. All timescale
masses are. Take a look at our own SI system:

The GM product of our own SI system's timescale mass is 6.7360006x10^24. It has to be that in order to make its Schwarzschild diameter equal one light second.

As you will have gathered by now 29.6906036 is the GM product of the proton
opposite. It has to be because its Schwarzschild diameter is equal to the proton
Compton wavelength, 1.32141x10^-15m.

6.7360006x10^24 divided by 29.6906036 is 2.2687314x10^23 which is the Compton
frequency of the proton.

This means that the Timescale mass of any mass model where the metre and second are used can be divided up as follows:

29.6906036(2.2687314x10^23) or 29.6906036(4.763120196x10^11)^2.
In the case of the protonic model the mass structure is equal to
(29.6906036/G)^3, using local protonic G, 6.23343585x10^-11. Because of this
particular phenomenon we can construct the following formula to confirm local G:

2[{(29.6906036^3)/C}^0.5]/C=6.23343585x10^-11.

As the SI system's kilogram is heavier than the protonic mass unit by a factor
of (x) the timescale mass of our system must be nominally less than the protonic
system's 1.080624035x10^35 units by the same factor of (x).
This means that, although, the structure will start off as
29.6906036(4.763120196x10^11)^2 it will soon become clear that each component
of 4.763120196x10^11 will be weighed in kilograms and will, therefore, be
equal to (29.6906036)(x).

Using the same formula as above we will see that SI G will be
(6.23343585x10^-11)(x): {(29.6906036)^3}(x)^2} and so as above. This particular
framework also becomes the quantum gravitational base of the gravitational field
expressed in quantum units. Here's how:

(1). {(29.6906036)^3x)^2}{(C^2)/h}=(3.550112433x10^54)(x)^2.

(2). {3.550112433x10^54(x)^2}/G^3=1.369513x10^85=quantum gravitational field.
Gravity is a surface phenomenon and therefore this result is two
dimensional. The square root of 1.3569513x10^85 is 3.700693179x10^42
which is the Planck frequency. The gravitational equations we are used
to seeing are three dimensionalised values adjusted from a two dimensional
phenomenon. We can three dimensionalise our quantum gravitational field.
It requires a few adjustments but not today.

(3) You might ask how I came to get to 1.369513x10^85 without the required
SI G^3, see beginning of section (2) above.
It was done like this:

{(3.55011243x10^54(x)^2}/G^3. In place of G I substituted two known values
of local G. One was the Protonic, 6.23343585x10^-11 and the other was the
Inbetweener, 6.44873x10^-11, which can be found several ways, one is
simply 30.716077/4.763210196x10^11.
3.55011243x10^54 was divided by 6.23343585x10^-11 and the result divided
by (6.44873x10^-11)^2. It shouldn't take much analysis; we need to
balance up the (x)^2 in 3.55011243x10^54(x)^2.
Well, we know that protonic G is less than SI G by (x). And we know that
Inbetweener G is less by (x)0.5. As we are using the square of the
Inbetweener G we effectively adjust the equation by the required(x)^2.




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.