A metric current and sequel

Should they redefine the kg

  • Real physics

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I'm stubborn

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
DaveC426913 said:
These two posts indicate some counter-productivity in your intentions. You are more interested in posting a Facebook picture than you are in being able to communicate with your audience.
Click to expand...
The picture is a piece of my writing/calculations from Office , where I also have drawings of the integral . I am not able to explain 3D geometry without a drawing (picture) .:(
 
DaveC426913 said:
Then you have some communication skills to practice to do before thinking about publishing.
Click to expand...
I'm to old a dog to have time for learning prose writing in English , so I'm much on the look for someone to write. A problem is find someone understanding the science and math , plus translating my bad output in this distinct jargon. Swedish and Finnish is waste of time (not in use anymore). For now I only spread out the info best I can over the net. Since I can not afford to pay for any extended time , the only thing I can offer is eventual revenue of publishing .
And before we go to criticize my computer skills I can say that I'm good at computers, or at least I was in the 90:es :p
 
Last edited:
TIMO MOILANEN said:
I'm to old a dog to have time for learning prose writing in English , so I'm much on the look for someone to write. A problem is find someone understanding the science and math , plus translating my bad output in this distinct jargon. Swedish and Finnish is waste of time (not in use anymore). For now I only spread out the info best I can over the net. Since I can not afford to pay for any extended time , the only thing I can offer is eventual revenue of publishing .
And before we go to criticize my computer skills I can say that I'm good at computers, or at least I was in the 90:es :p
Click to expand...
Now that is very clear and easy to comprehend.

So you can write in words and make yourself understood, even though English is not your first language. Please do more of this. It helps a lot.
 
TIMO MOILANEN said:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArSE2R4ReZrzii5323SoUhYx9Ifl
Here I tested to send a piece of exel table.
The bottom line is that I can not write physics and math without equations and numbers, pictures may help.
Click to expand...
Yes of course, equations and maths are essential in physics, but they need some explanation, of both the symbols and the algebraic expressions you use, so that readers can understand what you are doing. Pictures are less crucial, usually.
 
exchemist said:
So why not explain, in words, how you propose to calculate the ampere from various physical constants. Then we can all see what you are doing and we may be able to comment on it. Start by listing the constants you use in the calculation and give the symbol you intend to use for each.
Click to expand...
To start Coulomb's ,electric E0i and magnetic constants µ0i are one and the same. With Coulomb's law I put in 1Ci ( with no definition) and via Faradays law I get Coulomb's const.Ki , elementary charge ei and Avogadro's const.NA tied together. Faradays constant F is included via the eq. to get out ei . Not surprisingly the fine structure constant ai is included in both ei and Planck constant hi . ei=2*ai/c^2 that upside down is clearer c^2/(2*ai) is both a kinetic energy and equally large potential energy. Planck constant is also 4 times the electric const. in nuclear units (/c^2). Then I just check the constants with eq. ei^2=2*ai*E0i*hi*c so all ad up . Here I also derived the mass of a proton Mpi since I used E0i=3*Mpi*c^2 /(16*pi) to begin with . Then just testing the constants on most equations I found and transforming half a dozen "minor" constants to apply metric ampere Ai. Ai have a similar definition as the SI A (=stupid) but can be compared to the SI ampere via the magnetic constant µ0i.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I'm not talking about your English; I'm taking about your ability to express your idea coherently.
Click to expand...
Yes I know, I loose the thread while writing . I eat 3*150 mg tramadol and 3*1000 mg paracetamol (and a bunch others)a day so I have only 2-3 (sober) hrs a day if I'm not too tired.
 
TIMO MOILANEN said:
Yes I know, I loose the thread while writing . I eat 3*150 mg tramadol and 3*1000 mg paracetamol (and a bunch others)a day so I have only 2-3 (sober) hrs a day if I'm not too tired.
Click to expand...
OK. So don't rush it. But you can't submit this as-is for publication. First things first.
 
TIMO MOILANEN said:
To start Coulomb's ,electric E0i and magnetic constants µ0i are one and the same.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this first sentence. What are these and what have they to do with Coulomb?

Do you mean dielectric permittivity, ε, and magnetic permeability μ ? If so, they are obviously NOT "the same".

If you mean something different, then what?

And what have either of them to do with Coulomb?

I won't attempt to comment on anything else until this is resolved.
 
TIMO MOILANEN said:
E0i=3*Mpi*c^2 /(16*pi)
Click to expand...
Why does the electric constant have the units of kg m^2/s^2?
Why is the mass of a proton multiplied by three?
Why won't an electron instead of a proton yield the same constant?
Why is pi multiplied by 16?
 
origin said:
Why does the electric constant have the units of kg m^2/s^2?
Why is the mass of a proton multiplied by three?
Why won't an electron instead of a proton yield the same constant?
Why is pi multiplied by 16?
Click to expand...
Good points. He is claiming that his electric constant has the dimensions of energy!

Shome mishtake shurely?
 
origin said:
Why does the electric constant have the units of kg m^2/s^2?
Why is the mass of a proton multiplied by three?
Why won't an electron instead of a proton yield the same constant?
Why is pi multiplied by 16?
Click to expand...
It have not, it have A^2 s^4/(m^3 kg)=F/m . Remember me writing about putting in 1C ,1m and 1kg that not show in formulas. Here that make putting in1 Ci^-2 at dist 1m => kg*m^3/(s^2*Ci^2)=N*m^2/Ci^2 This is exactly the opposite of what E0i need to be Ci^2/(N*m^2) So I get the opposite *needed =1 , whereas when measuring they just put in what is needed ( in simple measurement setups the needed is obvious, at least when you know what you want to have). 4/3 comes from the integral constant I put in to Ki =4/(3*Mp*c^2), and since E0i=1/(4pi*Ki) it make 3/(16pi). The constant is how much per total energy(E=mc^2) goes to the electron and from there to Fq. The mass is needed for reference to classical force kgm/s^2 per electric charge (n*ei) . They are both needed because it is a comparison between them.
 
exchemist said:
Good points. He is claiming that his electric constant has the dimensions of energy!
Click to expand...
Of course it has (As)^2 per a force N , that leave one force(potential energy) that must be in the constant, and having the 1Ci^2 just multiplied 1^2 mean two energies (As) more . Sum= energy^2*distance^2/force
 
DaveC426913 said:
OK. So don't rush it. But you can't submit this as-is for publication. First things first.
Click to expand...
I explained I can probably not publish myself (and f*** the academic procedures) , just hoping someone could write it properly . I'm making "science" not papers . Making this common knowledge is my aim , and I wrote any interested can make money of it (and give me small % ?). And there is much more where this came from.
 
exchemist said:
I don't understand this first sentence. What are these and what have they to do with Coulomb?
Click to expand...
Coulombs const. Ki , electric const. E0i and magnetic const. µ0i are one and same constant just "turned over". E0i=1/(4pi*Ki) , µ0i=1/(E0i*c^2) , just fitted into different "geometry"
 
exchemist said:
Do you mean dielectric permittivity, ε, and magnetic permeability μ ? If so, they are obviously NOT "the same".
Click to expand...
To me they are the same , both have the exactly same information, and can be fitted (µ0i=1/(E0i*c^2) into each others "aplications" matching perfectly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top