Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

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: 48
Registered: 3/17/12
The nature of gravity
Posted: Dec 29, 2012 2:13 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

For the ascertainment of greater knowledge of the nature of gravity we need templates. The proton springs to mind because it is at the heart of all matter. Its role in the Bohr atom and the Rydberg series is ample proof that the link between gravity & electromagnetism lies with the proton.
Take the Compton frequency of the proton wavelength, 2.2687314x10^23. You will find this number closely linked to most products involving numerical structures
bonding planck units with Classical gravitational formulae.

In recent posts in Sonntag I've mentioned the Protonic Model. The Protonic Model
is a hypothetical mass structure where the timescale mass is 1.080624035x10^35 local mass units. This figure is simply the Compton frequency taken to exponent 1.5 or (2.2687314x10^23)^1.5. The timescale mass is the total mass needed in a sphere to house a schwarzschild sphere measuring one light second in diameter.
If we consider this mass structure to be measured in metres and its diameter one
light second then its local Gravitational constant, G, will be 6.7360006x10^24 divided by its mass, 1.080624035x10^35, equal to 6.23343585x10^-11. 6.736x10^24
is our GM product where the Schwarzschild diameter is equal to one light second.
If you divide it by G you wind up with just the timescale mass in local mass units. In this particular case protonic mass units will be about 1.07 times
lighter than kilograms. One big difference in this model will be that local h,
the Planck constant, will be bigger by about 1.07.

However, we can still make use of the constants we have even if we have to mix them. We have a Protonic G and our own h. So we can find a hybrid Planck mass.
The formula for the planck mass is (ch/4G)^0.5. Using our mixed constants we arrive at a figure, 2.822570503x10^-8. This must differentiate from our own SI Panck mass by the square root of 1.07. As we don't know this value exactly let's call it (x), that is (x)= about 1.07.

Opposite numbers: I use this term to describe the situation where a particular mass has a Schwarzschild diameter equal to the Compton wavelength of another
mass. A case in point is the proton. We know its Compton wavelength to be
1.3214x10^-15m. But we also know that the GM product with a Schwarzschild
diameter equal to this has a GM product value of 29.6906036. And wherever we
know a Compton wavelength we must find, also, the GM product of its opposite number.

In Planck gravitational structures two numbers constantly crop up:
(1) h/4 turns up as a mass value and differentiates with the mass value for the proton by 1.009721668x10^7.

(2) The Quantum Adjustor crops up frequently and, amongst other things, is
the differnce beween 1/(1.009721668x10^7) and the local planck mass.
Its value in our own SI system is 3.62994678 which is worked out from
the formula 4/(4(c/2)h)^0.33333r. What we don't know is how close any
template is to the value of the proton in precise terms.

Now let's put it in to action:
Remembering our hybrid Planck mass, 2,822570503x10^-8, Compton frequency
2.2687314x10^23 and, of course, the Quantum Adjustor, 3.62994678, we get:

2.2687314x10^23/2.822570503x10^-8 is equal to 8.03782012x10^30.
8.03782012x10^30/3.62994678 is equal to 2.21430798x10^30. This last value
is not just an adjusted Planck frequency but a Sun like mass value. When divided
again by our hybrid Planck mass we get:
2.21430798x10^30/2.822570503x10^-8=7.845005038x10^37.
And, 7.845005038x!0^37/3.62994678=2.16119009x10^37.
The square root of 2.16119009x10^37 is equal to 4.64886018x10^18.
c/4.64886018x10^18 equals 6.44873x10^-11. Which is the value of the local G, of
the particular time scale mass model
where the Planck mass is equal to our hybrid mass, 2.822570503x10^-8.
Working backwords from this we can find local h which is 6.854931784x10^-34.
Obviously, because of the square root situation, if our own SI system is based
on a difference of (x), then this in between model differs by the square root of (x) or (x)^0.5.

What we do have is the GM product of Gm^2, or the Planck mass squared, it is
ch/4, or 4.966118653x10^-26. 1/4.966118653x10^-26=2.013645x10^25.
4(2.013645x10^24)^0.333r is equal to 1.08823066x10^9.
(1.08823066x10^9)(2.833570503X10^-8)=30.71607783. This represents the difference between the SI proton GM opposite and the in between model's.
But is the SI system's proton monitor based precisely on the proton?







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]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.