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

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 ]

Posts: 67
Registered: 3/17/12
Re: The nature of gravity
Posted: Jan 22, 2013 9:37 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

If you want to find connections between the nature of gravity with the Planck Order you can do no better than look at the Rydberg series.
Most of the Rydberg links with gravity are tied up with the proton, naturally.
Take the following formula, 4(proton mass/h)=1.009721667x10^7. Divide this into
the Rydberg constant, 1.09737316x10^7, and you have 1.086807579.
(4{h[c/2]^4})^0.333r=1.10194453. Multiply this by 1.086807579 and you have
1.19760166, the Rydberg Adjustor. There are plenty of uses for the Rydberg Adjustor as you will see.
Take the Rydberg Energy, 2.17987637x10^-18 J and divide it by 1.19760166 and you get 1.8202x10^-18.
1.8202x10^-18 is the value for Gm where m is the Planck mass. It doesn't matter
which mass system is used so long as its time unit is the second and its unit of length is the SI metre.
You might have read earlier posts where I've made mention of the Inbetweener
mass model. There G is 6.4487301x10^-11 and the Planck mass is 2.8225705x10^-8
and you'll find that the Gm product comes to 1.8202x10^-18.
Take a look at the Rydberg Constant, 1.09737316x10^7. Multiply by c and you
have 3.28984197x10^15, the Rydberg frequency. Multiply this by c^2, and
you have 2.9567625x10^32, the Rydberg Multiplier. Divide this by the Rydberg
Adjustor, 1.19760166, and you get 2.4689x10^32. Divide by 29.6906036, the
Proton's Gm opposite and divide again by the Quantum Adjustor, 3.62994678, and
you get 2.29078612x10^30 protonic mass units. The Protonic system's timescale
mass is based on the proton Compton frequency:
(2.2687314x10^23)^1.5=1.080624035x10^35 protonic mass unit where local G is

In the situation above, 2.29078612x10^30 represents (29.6906036/G)(c/G) with,
in this case, local G equal to 6.23343585x10^-11. The odd thing here is, though,
that whatever mass model we use along with its local, changed, G we will always get the following situation when we use this structure, (29.6906036/G)(c/G).
Whatever the mass value is, if we divide by the local Planck mass squared we always get the same result, 2.68659x10^45. This means we can work out the Schwarzschild radius of this Sunlike structure. Remember, in the SI system
the value of Gm^2 where m is the Planck mass is ch/4, the Schwarzschild radius
is 2/c^2 times this which is 1.1051104x10^-42 which is the same as h/2c.
If we multiply this by our 2.68659x10^45 we get 2.96897865x10^3m, our radius,
but only in the SI system. When systems change so does the value of h and
therefore the value of ch/4.

In the formula 3.62994678c=1.0823067x10^9 we find a rather multi-functioning
product. If we multiply it by (29.6906036/8) we get 4.038778144x10^9.
(4.038778144x10^9)^4 = 2.660724996x10^38. This is the ratio between the
Gravitational and electro-magnetic forces. It is also the difference between
the proton mass and the mass of its opposite, 4.4503898x10^11kg. These were
the primordial black holes of the early universe and they vaporised away by means of Lorentzian gravitational contraction and became protons. How could this be?
Surface gravity of the Planck sphere, Gm/r^2, is 1.1094399x10^51ms^-2. At this rate of free fall it would take one Planck time unit to accelerate you to the speed of light. It is this magnitude of gravity that has been ascribed a value
equivalent to c. If we can consider gravity as being a moving field of space
then the space around the Earth would be moving through its surface at the rate
of some 10^-42m per second. This means that this space field would take 10^42
seconds to move one metre. This works out at 10^26 light years per metre.

Where does this take us and when did it start?
It must be Planck.
Say before the beginning bthere was nothing. No space, no dimensionality,
no time, nothing. And into this void of nothingness came the hand of our Maker.
Between his thumb and forefinger he holds a tiny sphere and leaves it suspended in the void. It is the size of a Planck sphere, some 8x10^-35m in diameter.
It, then, has dimension and is not infinitesimal or a singularity and does not hold infinite energy potential. What does it have then?
It has space and that means field potential. What does the area just outside
its spherical surface have? Why, nothing, nothing at all. No space, no field
potential. Absolutely nothing. What we have is zero resistance surrounding the field within the sphere. What happens is that the field potential within the sphere becomes activated; it is turbulent. In this new little seed there can only be one speed potential and that is the speed of light. The walls of the sphere expand at the speed of light. With each Planck volume that is created a Planck wave is also created. As the sphere expands its surface grows too; by the square of its radius. With all these Planck waves emitting back into the sphere and colliding with those from the opposite side we should have quite a fireball on our hands.
Then the time comes for our production line of primordial black holes. When the gravitational spacetime continuum is formed with each sphere it quickly hits
a problem. As relativistic contraction starts to do its work with gravity approaching the speed of light the spacetime continuum will find its no longer continuous. The rate of Lorentzian contraction will not form a uniform gradient
and the continuum will break at a point where it becomes more stable. That means somewhere close to a point where g is close to 1.09439913x10^51ms. In other words, gravitational c. The event horizon of these black holes will have
diameters equal to the proton's Compton wavelength. But the contraction will reduce this by 4.038778144x10^9 to 3.27180635x10^-25m, the inner horizon and
true surface of the proton. 1/3.27180635x10^-25=3.0564156x10^24 which is
What has happened here is that when the radius shrinks back toward the centre of the sphere, relativistically, the surface area of the shrunken surface also contracts by two more dimensions. Time will also slow by the same rate and overall there will be a four dimensional collapse. So, on that inner horizon
surface time and length will have contracted by 4.038778144x10^9 in each dimension. That is why gravity appears to be 2.6607x10^38 times weaker than
the electro magnetic force. The only way that electro magnetic and nuclear interactions are made possible is because of the wave structure of the
interacting particle penetrating the outer event horizon and making contact with the inner surface. Gravity has to hang around in our time. You can see
now the plausibility of Kaluza's ideas with the proton's inner nucleus being shut off from our own spacetime zone.
Another thing to remember is that when the primordial black holes collapse into protons, virtually all the energy will be released and go back into the melting pot of further creation.

Date Subject Author
Read The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity
Read Re: The nature of gravity

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 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.