A different take on gravity

Aaron, again I humbly request that you discuss my model in my thread . I don't like hijacking a thread about someone else's model.

I stepped into this thread because you had a question for which my model has an answer. My answer raised a number of questions in your mind about my model. On June 1, I posted a response to your questions about my model under my own thread with a link from this thread to that one. Did you bother to click the link and read my response? Please do so, now. In the mean time, I shall prepare a response to your latest list of questions about my model and post it in the discussion of my model.

I'm not trying to be rude to you; it's just that we've both been rude to Panteltje. Internet forum etiquette is modeled after real-world party etiquette. If you take a seat at a discussion about boobs and start talking about cars, you probably won't be invited to the next party. But you may mention that some cars have bras and you're available to discuss car bras at another table.



Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

Aaron,

Phil makes a good point. Do you know how to copy and paste the text from your reply here to a new post in Phil's thread?

LB

<b>[Stoat]"Plank's constant is a dimensionless number, it doesn't have a numerical part and some other part, it's like pi or e.</b>

Archemedies' constant (pi) and the natural logarithmic base (e) are examples of mathematical constants. They are in fact dimensionless.

Physical constants such as Planck's constant (h) and the gravitational constant (G) do have dimensions. (Yes, there are some physical constants that do not have units attached to them. Alpha, the fine structure constant, comes to mind.)

===

This is physics 101. So I guess I have to ask - are you serious? Or is it time to let us in on the joke?

I'll give it one last shot then give it up as a bad job. The ratio of the speed of light to the speed of gravity is probably the most important dimensionless number in physics. So can we get close to saying what it is?

A good place to start would be to look at the electromagnetic, gravitational couple.
Gmp^2 / ke^2

mp = mass of proton
k = 1 / 4 pi epsilon (epsilon the permittivity of free space)
e = charge on proton

This comes out at about 8.08E-37

Then what's usually done, is to multiply this by the fine structure constant, to get about 6E-39 but I think that's rather moot. Remember that I'm saying that there's a phase change at the speed of light.

Remember also that the strong atomic force is supposed to be directly proportional to the radius, rather than inversely, I believe this to be indicative of a phase change. So, we multiply that number 8.08E-37 by 137 to give us a number within spitting distance of bar h

That's my last six pennyworth, as I think this board has simply become a little too bad mannered and no fun at all.

All of these symbols stand for numbers that have units attached to them.

If you will not demonstrate to us that the units on each side of the equal sign are equivalent, then we have no choice but to conclude that they do not match and that your theory is broken. And that means you will also need to start using the equal sign a little more often.

But ... lets put all of that aside for a minute and look at something else.

<b>[Stoat]"Remember that I'm saying that there's a phase change at the speed of light."</b>

This is an interesting prediction, but I'm not able to figure out what it means physically (largely because you are not showing units). What is changing phase? In the physical sense?

<b>[Stoat]"This board has become no fun at all."</b>

Are you saying that you do not want your ideas to undergo even the mild questioning I'm doing here? Surely they can stand up to some serious scrutiny? This should be a cake walk.

Some of what you have posted on this message board in the past has been good quality stuff. These recent posts are not among them, but you have shown us you can do it if you want to.

If we can help, let us know.

LB

As I'm saying that the speed of light squared, divided by the speed of gravity squared, equals h then of course I'm saying that h is a dimensionless number, a pure number. I take the blame for this idea.

But the other pure numbers are not down to me.

e^2 / barhc = 7.3E-3 fine structure constant, no units

me / mp = 0.54E-3 mass ratio of electron to proton, no units

Gmp^2 /ke^2 / = 8.08E-37 ratio of grav to elect force, no units (but I say that this becomes h, I can remove 2pi from it and use the reciprocal of the fine structure constant.

me c^3 /e^2 H = about 10.6E 39 age of universe in atomic units, again no units (There should be talk about this one, as H the Hubble constant, is problematic)

8pi rho c^3 / 3 mp H^3 = 1.2E 78 no. of particles in the observable universe, again no units, and again that needs to be looked at because of the Hubble constant.