Gravitational Equation Solved

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by jerrygg38, Jan 12, 2009.

  1. jerrygg38 Registered Member

    Messages:
    37
    GRAVITATIONAL EQUATION SOLVED
    We can now solve for the gravitational constant. The proton can be looked at as two positive charges with one negative charge.
    The net electrical repulsive forces between the two positive charges within the proton are:

    Repulsive Force = A KQQ/Rp2 (2-30)

    In equation 2-30 the repulsive electrical forces within the proton equals a constant [A] times coulombs constant K times the charge Q squared and divided by the radius of the proton. Many equations can be written for the proton. There are many vector forces. However from a big picture this does not matter. All that we need to know is that the total electrical repulsive forces can be represented by the above equation.

    The repulsive forces want to rip apart the proton. In Chapter 4 the binding energy of the proton will be shown to be 3.4MEV. This saves the proton from ready destruction. The binding energy is another error term, which prevents the number three from being perfect.

    The force of space preventing the destruction of the proton is the standard gravitational formula. Thus:

    F = G Mp Me*/ (Pr)^2 (2-31)

    In order to rip apart the proton, we need to rip out the lease amount of mass/energy possible. Although the dot-waves are tiny masses, the world works on Quantum masses. Thus the least amount of energy would be the mass of a positron. Either an electron or positron could shoot out of the proton, but it most likely will be a positron or a virtual particle, which is like a positron.

    When we look inside the proton we find that all the dot-waves oscillate in complex patterns. To us it looks like chaos and noise. However if we look close we will find that the main body proton operates around a common center within the Plank length. The radius of the common center is:

    Pr = 0.80812729E-35 (2-32)

    Thus the center point of the proton is the Plank radius. As defined by Plank, the plank length is:

    PL = [hG/2 pi C^3]^0.5 = 1.616252458E-35 meters (2-33)
    Therefore the Plank diameter is equal to the Plank length. When we look at the Positron or electron within the proton, we find that it is equally distributed within the proton. The center of mass of the positron appears near the same point as the center of mass of the proton. The closest they can come together is the Plank diameter because when they touch the Plank length separates them.
    The gravitational forces are:

    F = G Mp Me* / (2 Pr)^2 (2-34)

    In equation 2-34 we find that the force of gravity between the proton and the positron is equal to the gravitational constant times the mass of the proton times the mass of the positron and divided by the Plank length (PL) squared.

    Ap K QQ/ Rp^2 = G Mp Me/ (PL)^2 (2-35)
    Although the gravitational force between a proton and a positron or electron is very small when they are external to each other, the force is huge when the two particles coexist. Therefore it is the huge gravitational force which holds the proton together. The only reason the force is huge is that the center of gravity of the two particles is only a Plank length apart.
    We can now solve for the constant A. Since K = 8.987551788E9, Q = 1.602176487E-19, Rp = 1.321409845E-15, G = 6.67428E-11, Mp = 1.672621637E-27, Me = 0.910938215E-30, and PL = 1.616252458E-35, we get:

    Ap = 2.94636 (2-36)

    Ap0.5 = 1.71650 (2-37)
    Therefore we see that the square root of three comes up within an error of 0.898 percent. The number 3 has an error of twice this because it is a square.
    For our purposes we can now write the gravitational force equation.

    2.94636 K QQ/Rp^2 = G Mp Me / [PL]^2 (2-38)

    Equation 2-38 is a missing equation of the Universe. This equation connects gravity with Plank. Thus it connects the Dot-Wave theory with Quantum Mechanics. The constant Ap is the proton constant.
    We can now rearrange the terms to get the gravitational constant. Thus:

    G = 2.94636 K QQ [PL)^2 / Mp Me Rp^2 (2-39)

    The gravitational constant equals 2.946345 times Coulomb’s constant K times the charge Q squared times the Plank Length squared and divided by the mass of the proton, the mass of the electron and the radius of the proton squared. We can also get the ratio of the mass of the electron to the mass of the proton from this equation. There has never been a way to do this except by measurement. Since:

    Rp = h/ MpC (2-40)

    In Equation 2-40 the wavelength of the proton is used as its radius. This could produce a small error term in all my equations. Since there might be a conversion factor necessitated between the radius and the wavelength.

    Me/Mp = 2.94636 Q^2[PL]^2 K C^2 / G h^2 (2-41)

    Mp/Me = 1836.152 (2-42)

    So now we know the equation to obtain the ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron as long as we know the other terms. The important thing is that this equation interconnects all the physical quantities. We can rearrange the terms to produce the radius of the proton. Thus:

    Rp = 1.71650Q [PL] [K/GMpMe]^0.5 (2-43)

    We can also write the equations in the form:

    G/K =2.94636[PL]^2 Q^2 / [Mp Me Rp]^2 (2-44)

    And:

    GMp Me / K QQ = 2.94636 [PL)^2 / [Rp]^2 (2-45)

    We can substitute the Plank length equation into the above to produce:

    Me/Mp = 2.94636 K Q^2 / 2pi hC (2-46)

    As a check:

    Mp/Me = 1836.152 (2-47)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    This post is in Pseudoscience...means you are not confident you solved it...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    Jerry,

    a few items

    first, nevermind the few who do not even try

    they claim, that because others don't like your effort, that you are wrong (useless)

    as far as i am concerned, the real ones try and the idiots cry

    second, go do some homework on what entanglement is.

    meaning, if energy can cause non-local affect as Einstein shared as the 'spooky action at a distance'

    you may wish to read up on the experiments going on all over the world.

    then think like a scientist and look into van der waals and casmir

    notice the potential between the mass caused by the energy shared between the mass.

    what i am trying to do is return your mind to basic analysis before putting you into a mathematical circle jerk

    when you come back, if you can answer a few questions then we can go over the next steps to assist you in the fun
     
  8. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I've spent the last week trying to find a potential which leads to a set of eigenfunctions and eigenvalues which accurately (to within 3 or 4 percent) model the masses of the pion meson and its resonances. So I'm trying but unlike Jerry, I'm working with actual experimental data, rather than just pulling **** out of my arse.
     
  9. jerrygg38 Registered Member

    Messages:
    37

    No. I post here because in the other sections people do not like new ideas. therefore the powers that be remove my work.

    the proof is in the pudding. This equations together with the other equations of physics and my equation for the Bohr orbit expansion velocity gives us the remaining missing equations of classical physics.
     
  10. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745

    what causes 'the' resonance upon 'any' mass?

    p/s ...... how can you show any math to an experiment that includes a sub particle?


    unless you account for every lap and field crossed while a particle is spinning at 'any' speed of light, in an accelerator; your answers will be wrong!

    I could fart, in the same area and the experiment would not yeild the same evidence.

    Why not tell people how many impacts an accelerator creates in a day?

    Such that you could not duplicate an accelerator experiment if you wanted too.


    so when you spout off such foolishness as if you could even be scientific; you do not even admit the fact, that particle physics is the most rediculous and unscientific pursuit in all of the sciences...... it is as rediculous as man being created 6k years ago!


    why not work on gravity?..............

    at least the thread opener was about someone trying to work on something tangible; not lab created particles! :shrug:
     
  11. jerrygg38 Registered Member

    Messages:
    37

    I do not have attraction at a distance. As the proton expands and the Bohr orbit iincreases in size at a velocity of1.053667E-28 meters per second, it pushes against my space dot-waves which push back. this causes a vector force toward the center of gravity of the hydrogen atom and all other hydrogen atoms. Therefore it is space itself which pushes the hydrogen atoms together.
     
  12. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745

    the work is always the best pursuit


    and thanks for going at it..............

    the reason i cannot agree is that i am aware an electron is nothing but a portion of existing mass and not a interchangable part of mass (a constituent particle)

    i am also aware mass is simply energy affixed in time, thereby mass is simply energy

    which means gravity is a property of 'energy' and not a spacebending, property of mass itself

    again, i like any who at least try, and also think it is rude the way threads are taken down because some just can't understand the seeking minds intent to pursue (even in trial and error)
     
  13. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    you are walking into the same frame the big boys had

    it is why many thought an 'aether' existed... as that 'push' must have substance............
     
  14. jerrygg38 Registered Member

    Messages:
    37

    yES WE CAN SAY THAT AN ELECTRON IS A QUANTA OF MASS. bUT WHEN ENERGY BREAKS APART IT TENDS TO BREAK APART IN TERMS OF ELECTRON MASS OR ELECTRON ENERGY.
    fOR EXAMPLE WHEN THE ELECTRON IS BROUGHT INTO THE PROTON TO FORM THE NEUTRON WE GET

    Mn = Mp + Me + Me + (small mass of neutrino)

    the electric field itself produces most of the mass increase in the neutron.

    Yes mass is energy and. Yet when a mass is placed in space, it becomes surrounded with huge amounts of space dot-waves. From a particle viewpoint, we can say that the space dot-waves push upon the mass causeing the gravitational field.
    From an Einsteinian viewpoint, we can say that space contracts near the mass. Two different ways of looking at the same problem.
     
  15. jerrygg38 Registered Member

    Messages:
    37

    Of course the aether must exist. The only difference between the aether and molecules of air is that the dot-waves travel at light speed C. So the aether is filled with billions of billions of low energy dot-waves traveling at C. They continually hit objects from all directions. Yet the net effect is no change in energy or momentum of a mass in space. There is equal force on all sides. Of course in the long run, this helps to produce a component of the red shift.
     
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    The quarks which form the meson enter higher energy states, which form a discrete spectrum.
    Experience and history show you are wrong. Accelerators spend years repeating particular experiments and then analysing them. Sure, you can't really get exactly the same setup twice, but that's true of any experiment in any physics. Hence why you repeat them as much as possible and then consider a statistical analysis.

    You might want to look up how science actually works some time.
    Yeah, it leading to the atomic bomb, nuclear power, lasers and electronics is all ridiculous, isn't it.
    The fact particle accelerators have helped us understand the life of stars, galaxies and the origins of matter in the universe obviously passed you by.

    Jerry, what experimental results are you using? You say things like the mass of the neutron is the sum of the masses of the proton, electron and neutrino, so you're trying to work out a description of some kind of experimental result, but which one? What raw experimental data are you working with?

    The fact you haven't replied to my question here speaks volumes. You aren't using any raw experimental data and in the 27 years you've been 'studying' gravity you're still functionally illiterate when it comes to any mainstream work.

    Wow, you wasted that time well. I felt guilty for wasting a month or two of my PhD but you've wasted more time than I've been alive!
     
  17. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    is that plancks constant?

    no electron in your hand unless you use 'energy' to isolate it. Keep that in mind

    and what about the magnetic field?

    can you share what that is doing to the equation? Right hand rule... shares purely the 2 exist side by side. (hence how we generate electricity)

    i disagree........ unequivocally!

    if you want to know why, you can ask...
     
  18. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    nope.........

    idea to remember is there is NO empty space between points....

    youhave your opinion but i disagree and it seems you are within the same circle many many have walked

    it is the error cause by using a debroglie/schroadinger mind within a bohring regime caused by walking the planck.............. old stuff but many go through the same learning curve


    look up entanglement (the property of em)

    when you have that between your ears, then reassess........

    if not then 'as you were soldier' and enjoy the ride.....
     
  19. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    quarks are created, not consituent

    how am i wrong when you confirm it

    then for you to SCREAM fact, when you know for a FACT that the experiments will ALWAYS be inconsistant.

    wrong method

    mathed out my first A bomb at 16;

    lasers in the garage, and more electronic toys than you probably own now


    what does using an accelerator have to do with nuclear other than it was used to share that mass is simply energy itself... ?

    they used them like a gun, but that is all...........

    heck put enough u-235 in each hand and slap them together and find that out

    would you like the threshold amount?



    really think about what you are saying: folks standing on the earth staring at the sky have offered more than every accelerator combined and still not a one SOLID advancement...........


    for example: if i was to simply state; life abuses entropy and then use evolution as an example, (that life evolves over time)............ and is still alive now............... WITH STATISTICAL ANALYSIS every human on earth can see it................... then perhaps, the pursuit of how that exists would be pursued

    but if one hot pan gets cold, then the statistical analysis is moot........


    i would like to know one advancement from an accelerator that is applied to the betterment of mankind besides the idea than mankind is understanding 'out there' ?????

    (seems all that is occuring is they are creating new things, and then to suggest they can define dark matter, gravity, from "The LHC will create almost a billion such collisions per second"........ is just a sales tool and stupid)

    meaning: apply the advancement(s) to this earth; medicine, technology, and life preservation.

    in fact, it is the complacent acceptance of inconsistancies that maintains the corruption that allows religions to continue, too! :shrug:
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2009
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I know they are fundamental. Their resonance masses form a discrete spectrum, just like an electron has discrete energy levels when orbiting a proton.
    Your implication was that it's impossible to use accelerators to learn about the properties of quantum objects. That's incorrect. You don't need an exact replica of an experiment to get information about particles.

    If we did, we'd not know much about quantum objects and we wouldn't build accelerators, would we?
    They aren't inconsistent. They are consistent. Suppose I'm doing an experiment to work out the acceleration due to gravity on the Earth's surface by dropping a brick and measuring the time it takes to hit the ground. Do I need to drop a brick from exactly the same height each time or can I take into account the different initial heights and still work out the acceleration I'm after?

    Provided you know the initial conditions of a particle collision, you don't need the initial conditions to always be the same. You can still build models and test them from that.
    It's the wrong method to examine nature as much as possible?
    It's pretty pathetic of you to lie so transparently. You don't even know high school physics or chemistry.
    We examine the internal workings of nuclei with them. The neutron is critical to nuclear reactions used in bombs and reactors and we only discovered it once we could use accelerators to examine the nucleus properly. Also, the Manhatten Project used one of the first accelerators to process Uranium.
    I never said the bomb involved a particle accelerator, but the U235 was obtained in high concentrations by accelerator processing.
    No. And I'm in no doubt you can use Google to find the answer.
    The accelerators allowed us to understand the processes which power the Sun. They have provided information about neutrinos, which are major players in supernova. If the LHC discovers supersymmetry, it'll allow us to examine dark matter, which makes up 1/4 of the universe.
    Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.
     
  21. nalxhal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    29
    jerry wrote

    We can also write the equations in the form:

    G/K =2.94636[PL]^2 Q^2 / [Mp Me Rp]^2 (2-44)
    And:

    GMp Me / K QQ = 2.94636 [PL)^2 / [Rp]^2 (2-45)

    We can substitute the Plank length equation into the above to produce:

    Me/Mp = 2.94636 K Q^2 / 2pi hC (2-46)

    As a check:

    Mp/Me = 1836.152 (2-47)[/QUOTE]




    nalxhal write

    I think I have the same hypotheses with jerry that are old and the analogy of mp/me gives the hope that are true.

    But the profesors do not accept physics mathematical proofs

    WHY ?

    Where is your web site or journal , jerry ?
     
  22. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    You don't have anything close to a good mathematical derivation of those results. Furthermore they don't match experiment. Working with no experimental data and being worse than a high school student at maths does you no favours.
     
  23. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    can you share the wavelength and f of that resonance?

    define the proton, in the ups and down 'resonance' of each quark.

    and if you do, then you just provided the em construct of the flavored half of hydrogen.

    now that would be good, because then to return that electron, you could measure the potential to entanglement between the post and prior states.

    if you want to discuss that style of experiment, i could entertain that if you want to go 'forward'

    what objects? They start with hydrogen atoms, strip the electron and send it spinning to an impact; now if that electron and proton are bound to each other from the start, unless that pole of the unit (the electron) is maintained as relevant to the experiment, then it is like playing base ball without the bat. No way to operate the game as relevant to the nature of its existence without being causal to the (required) parameters. (can't play baseball without the bat, and can't be causal to spinning without including the electron of the broken up hydrogen atom)

    but in an accelerator, the momentum is artificially imposed; that is like the wind to your brick experiment. And unless you can address the wind at ever drop, the experiment is for fun.

    if i take the electron from an H atom, the proton and electron are still bound to that occurance; so unless the other half is addressed then the technical term is 'guestimating'
    a statement/question............

    Nature is always correct. Incorrect definitions and complacency are what ruin the experiments (truth).

    back to the punk move of the ad hominen

    happens everytime you read something you don't 'comprehend'

    workings?????? you are smashing an eggs to learn about the chicken

    what a waste of resources

    did you actually put into writing the contributions mankind has reaped from accelerators?

    they helped build nuclear devices.............. you smaught

    now we are back to being foolish again...

    the earths interior is nuclear....... what processes did an accelerator tell you about that?

    as well the sun/star is not the ONLY place elements are 'created'............ that fact is what has been learned........ by nuclear

    it basically shares that what people thought of how mass exists is incorrect; that is what the accelerators shared and from there forth everything in the fireworks factory are just creations.

    what supernova? do you mean the flashes of light a few miles away from earth?

    if that is how you view science, i feel sorry for you

    perhaps that is god out there with a flash light screwing with you but to think smashing eggs is going to give you the answer over a statistical analysis of millions of impacts............. no wonder the circle jerks continue the sales pitch. (you actually believe it)

    again, created ideas to define created ideas (supersymmetry is like creating dimensions to fix the errors; a mathematical patch)

    no such thing as dark matter/energy........... it was created to fix the differences of what has been recorded and observed, to the mathematical predictions......... DM and DE were 'creations' to fix these exact errors!

    that's the point, i do understand what is going on...... and since you are bound to what you tink is smaught... you will keeping spinning up the ignorance as if you actually have a clue
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2009

Share This Page