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: Sep 9, 2013 6:41 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Constants:
> > (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.
> (9). Planck mass/Proton mass=1.6311729x10^19.


The square root of Constant(9), 1.6311729x10^19, is 4.038778x10^9, divide this by 4
and multiply by the quantum adjustor, 3.62994678, and you get 3.6651373x10^9.
Divide this into 4 x 1.0973732x10^7, the Rydberg constant, and you get
1.19763393x10^-2, the Rydberg Gm product. Divide this by the Planck radius
and you get 2.956762615x10^10^32. This is simply the Rydberg constant times c^3.
Multiply this by h/c^2 and you get 2.179874x10^-18 J., the Rydberg energy.
Of course, this is just a long winded way of writing Rch where R is the Rydberg constant. That is 1.0973732x10^7 x ch. Now, ch, with variations, is equal to
Gm^2 where m=Planck mass. My own version is based on the formulaic principle
that Compton length should be equivalent to Schwarzschild diameter and not radius, otherwise there is a drift from symmetric parity when comparing all sides of the formula. 2pi is unnecessary here. So a formula can be constructed that goes something like this:

(1) 4(1.0973732x10^7)x(ch/4)=2.179874x10^-18 J., the Rydberg energy.
(2) This becomes 4(1.0973732x10^7)x4.966118653x10^-26, or, R(Gm^2)where m is the
Planck mass.
(3) If we multiply 4(1.0973732x10^7) by a linear version of the Planck mass
using the above formulaic principle we arrive at the Rydberg adjustor,
1.1976016, see Constant (5) above.
(4) In effect we borrow one of the masses from Gm^2 and multiplied by the
Rydberg constant it turns into the Rydberg adjustor, 1.1976016.
(5) The new formula becomes (Rm)x(Gm), where m is the planck mass.
So (Rm)x(Gm) is numerically equivalent to the Rydberg energy,
2.179874x10^-18 J. But Rm is a known value, it is 1.1976016.
(6) The Rydberg energy is another known value, 2.179874x10^-18 J.
If (Rm)x(Gm)= Energy, then, (Gm)=Energy/Rm.
(7) And that is (2.179874x10^-18)/(1.1976016)=1.8201996x10^-18.
And 1.8201996x10^-18 is the Gm product of the Planck mass. It doesn't
matter what the mass model of the system is as long as we measure in meters
and seconds. If mass changes, G changes accordingly and we will always end
> up with Gm=1.8201996x10^-18.

What has made this all possible is the science of spectroscopy. From early
on in the nineteenth century, the observations of William Wollaston of spectral lines on the Sun and the efforts of Bunsen, Kirchoff, Balmer, Rydberg, Planck & Bohr, to name but a few, not to mention the hundreds of assistants and lesser known contributors, have together made so much sense out of what to most of us would have been seen as chaotic tedium. The early pioneers literally were fumbling in the dark yet their perseverance and drive has given our modern era libraries of knowledge literally at our fingertips. How frustrating it must have been in the beginning for some to have worked so hard yet never to have known what many of us now take for granted.
Out of the seeming chaos of the products of their works, numerical structures involving say the Rydberg constant or the finestructure constant, can be closely lined up to fit snugly with the Planck units. Precisely, neatly, amazingly.
And yet in someways we are still in some unknown states in physics. We still don't know what gravity is or, for that matter, the intrinsic nature of any of the forces. We really do need a big breakthrough. An analogy to the revolution in DNA profiling techniques and the advances that has given the
world of anthropology would be nice.
> By the sixties & seventies things seemed to be just round the corner, The Standard Model, quarks, Higgs, a man on the moon, ever precise measurement and data of the universe and yet we're still waiting. How often have you picked up a popular science journal, the front page headlines a fantastic new breakthrough.
You buy the journal and read the exciting new article. Several paragraphs on and you realise this article is a rehash of similar stuff you've read ten,
fifteen or twenty years ago?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



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.