Dovada

These are the questions I originally proposed and the ones that need to be answered. There could be many more problems with the constants. All I know is we are discussing the movement of atomic matter within our vacuum environment and the constants being used to describe conditions within that atomic structure. The problem, if there is a problem, is not mine. All I know it needs answers and hopefully someone can shed some serious light on the subject in question. Turning a blind eye or making excuses for the use of the constants is one solution, but not one I would recommend.

At the moment myself I am assuming the original units apply. Can you shed any light on the subject of: They maybe no longer dependable as a source of universal physical constants?

I agree - Only I have found similar relationships appear in some other physical constants used. The pattern for the magnetic constant and electric constant specifically points to the vacuum of space in which we exist, in that they are sometimes commonly called the vacuum permittivity and vacuum permeability. This tends to not indicate any numerology is happening.

I only know that many of the components the numbers are referring to, vary at different times of the year.The orbit velocity varies at the same time as the radius varies, as they all do effect each other. Has anybody checked this out seriously or has the blind assumption been made that they are universal constants? I am interested to hear what others have to say. The physics of this problem has annoyed me for some time, as the numerical relationship definitely does exist.

Why do we have to use physical constants in our physics equations? Is it to compensate for our physical environment? Consider the following where: Speed of light squared = c^2 = 1 / (magnetic constant * electric constant) Magnetic constant = (29920 * 2pi) / 149,600,000,000 = 1.25663706143592 x10-6 Electric constant = 1 / (600,772.178 * 29920 * 2pi) = 8.854187818 x10-12 Radius sun-earth = (29920 * 2pi) / 1.25663706143592 x10-6 = 149,600,000,000 m Radius sun-earth = 1 / (600,772.178 * magnetic constant * electric constant) = 149,600,000,000 m Solar orbit velocity = (149,600,000,000 * magnetic constant) / 2pi = 29920 m/sec Centripetal velocity = 1 / ((29920 * 2pi) * electric constant) = 600,772.178 m/sec Centripetal velocity = c^2 / 149,600,000,000 = 600,772.178 m/sec Could these numbers be just a coincidence? If these numbers are not just a coincidence we have a problem. The reason is, if the magnetic constant and electric constant express only our local environment conditions, the constants will not hold up elsewhere within the cosmos. Meaning they are no longer dependable as a source of universal physical constants. So do we have the question, “are they physical constants or just plain numerology”?

The difficulty here is everybody is trying to defend something that is not yet fully understood. Fundamentally I am not attacking and trying to tear down the science we know to date. I am trying to expand its ability to help us achieve greater heights by looking at the system from another perspective. As far as electrons and frequency are concerned it is clear that they can be manipulated to oscillate at any reasonable frequency as the radio spectrum shows us. After all our communications system would not work if this was not possible. The main point I wanted to make was that our environment where we live is made possible because the processes of atomic structure makes it possible for the environment to exist this way. There are aspects of our environment that are happening, which we are not clear on as to why? We have developed some theories some of which are more of a means to an end, rather than a clear solution to a problem. In many ways we depend on the insight and intuitiveness of the physicist to develop the tools and new methods to enable us to understand what is going on. It is this insight and intuitiveness that will enable us to rapidly develop our theories to levels tomorrow that we can only dream about today. One of the problems we do have with our current theories, is they do not readily interface at all levels of functionality. It is because of this that we have conflicts, including what is happening in this thread. We need to resolve these functionality problems to progress into any source of success in bringing functionality back into our theories. This will not happen if we persist in becoming inflexible to the point of no change. The ability of neutral atomic structure to move within the cosmos in any uniform path, as appears under the influence of gravity in our galactic motions, means to me, we have overlooked something obvious. For this reason we need to step back and re-hash the way we assume atomic structure is working with the environment. In the research I have done, I discovered a simple but effective method whereby neutral atomic structure could be moved by a moving electrical gravitational field. But more importantly moved it in a manner which also masked the existence of the electrical properties of the gravitational field itself. That process I wanted to discuss with sensible members on this forum who understand classic electrical theory and how it could be applied to the current theories incorporating quantum mechanics. This is the reason I am here today. I am not here to tell you that you are wrong. I am here to discuss something new and different, and this at times, may conflict with your concept of how things are working.

You mean free electrons bound in our galaxy and moving with that galaxy? What was meant here was the galaxies have a variety of velocities extending up toward the speed of light. Our local group has a value of 600,000 m/sec. Not in my world - It is very physical condition. How can motion within the fourth dimension appose your ideas? We are in real physical motion and we have to accept that fact. Your experiments do not show how the universe works. Ask yourself: Why does all atomic matter have equal quantities of charge? Why does atomic structure have a positive nucleus and negative electrons on the outside? How do gravitation fields accelerate atomic structure? Dynamic impedance, when the velocity changes the effective electromagnetic wavelength also changes. (Frequency modulation - something the quantum atomic model does not cater for).

Only recently was the technology developed sufficiently to make the discoveries needed. But you knew that didn't you? What do you mean "none (generally, but it depends on the field through which the electron is moving)"? Do you understand about amplitude and frequency modulation? How do you express frequency modulation in the quantum atomic model?

If a electron particle has a velocity of: 462.9 m/sec what is its resonant frequency? 29770 m/sec what is its resonant frequency? 600,000 m/sec what is its resonant frequency? What if it contains all three velocity vectors what harmonics are available?

The simple answer here is that the atomic structure of the galaxy along with the solar system has a velocity which is 600,000 m/sec relative to other recorded galactic velocities which in some cases approach close to the speed of light itself. So if you need a reference, and assuming the speed of light is the maximum limit that is possible, then the speed of light is the relative factor. It is sufficient that we accept 600,000 as a limit in our calculations simply because it has been recorded as a local universal velocity condition. Are you saying in this case the trees are moving at 600,000 m/sec or the train is moving at 600,000 m/sec. I don't see the point here because we have discovered the motion and using logic suggests the galaxy is doing the moving. If the use of infra red technology was available 100 years ago do you think we would be having this conversation, I doubt it.It is important to understand that 100 years ago the information was not available to enable scientists to use alternative methods to explain atomic functions. I realize you are having difficulty understanding the practicality of what I am saying. But we need to adapt to new knowledge that clearly becomes available to us, otherwise what is the point of obtaining new knowledge and information if we do not adjust our theories to use that new knowledge. Why do you use information out of context. I was drawing an analogy. I am trying to draw your attention to the fact that we need to include our galactic velocity into our current models. This does not mean we should ignore this velocity completely.As I commented before using the earth as ground zero means that we can only reliably depend on conditions that are in our local earth's environment. Conditions within the universe vary everywhere but somehow our atomic model cannot include this potential variation.

The use of mc^2/r described simply as a centripetal force was to show the relationship that the Sun Earth experiences in a path that is similar to the ratio of the galactic velocity of 600,000 m/sec for the solar system as it moves with the galaxy and the solar radius distance between the Sun and the Earth.The 600,000 m/sec centripetal force that would normally apply is (counteracted) balanced out by the 600,000 m/sec galactic velocity. This still leaves an active force between the masses we refer to as gravitation. example: 600,000 * (Sun Earth radius) is simply equal to c^2 This is similar to Kepler's law that expresses the planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time, so the Earth's mass moves with the Sun's mass at a radial distance that equals (c^2/600,000) along with the galaxy at 600,000 m/sec to sweep out an area that simply equals c^2. These types of numerical relationships need to be looked at a little closer, that is all I am implying here. Do you imply here that the galactic velocity that we are a part of is not moving at 600,000 meters per second? If you do agree we are moving at 600,000 m/s how can you say "It's evidence that motion has no effect on atomic structure. It falsifies your claim. I have not found any evidence that suggests this.

It is a known fact that atomic mass has at least a velocity of 600,000 meters per second along with the rest of the galaxy and more in that this 600,000 meters per second velocity applies to the local group of galaxies. The 600,000 meters per second is a suitable frame of reference. May I add a much more realistic frame of reference than a zero earth frame of reference. Time flows in one direction just as the local group of galaxies move in one direction. When we use the term 600,000 meters per second we are defining the time of one second itself. The motion of electrical charges moving with the local group of galaxies at 600,000 meters per second. The conditions under which quantum and classical physics agree are referred to as the correspondence limit. The rules of quantum mechanics are highly successful in describing microscopic objects, atoms and elementary particles. But macroscopic systems like springs and capacitors are accurately described by classical theories like classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics. If quantum mechanics should be applicable to macroscopic objects there must be some limit in which quantum mechanics reduces to classical mechanics. Bohr's correspondence principle demands that classical physics and quantum physics give the same answer when the systems become large. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle for more on this subject. This is how scientists discovered our 600,000 meters per second for the local group of galaxies. They measured using the infra red shift of emitted light from galaxies. The 600,000 meters per second is a common velocity to all atomic matter in the local group of galaxies. The use of earth as zero is illogical in that any results will only apply to the earth environment itself. The facts are all around us (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_%28physics%29 ) It is time we opened our eyes and progressed by expanding quantum physics to accept that all atomic structure is in motion. When we apply motion to electric charges we can then assign wavelength and frequency components. We can see the common values appearing in gravitational forces and electric charge.

Unfortunately many assumed conclusions reached by our scientists and physicists in the past are seriously flawed, mainly because some of them were founded on an incomplete or incorrect scientific knowledge base from an earlier period. Plus in the absence of any zero frames of reference within the cosmos to base theories on, the scientist has resorted to using the earth itself as the zero frame of reference point. This has created major problems for the physicist in that it prevents him from exploring the possibility of using motion within the fourth dimension as a reference for further development of his theoretical models. Most importantly this accelerated cosmic motion allows us to add a new electrical dimension to quantum atomic theory to remove the “correspondence limit” that cripples quantum theory. The inclusion of cosmic motion within quantum atomic theory not only helps to explain why the quanta effect is occurring, but provides the atomic model with the ability to completely function under classical electrical theory because of cosmic motion of the charged particles. From this perspective of cosmic motion of the atomic charged particles our fundamental quantum mechanics can now be reduced back down to classical mechanical principles. To what? Using classical mechanics the movement of electric charge is relative to what? This is a major problem in physics today and has been taken to extremes. Many of today's problems relating to the compatibility of quantum physics and classical physics can be understood if we consider infra red galactic velocity information which has only recently been brought to light. When we have the information about the velocity of the local group of galaxies (600,000 m/sec) - it is not unreasonable to use that as a zero reference point instead of the earth as a zero reference point.

What I fail to understand is the inability of modern day physics theories to accept the fundamental fact that atomic structure that is both defined as mass and as electric charge is in a state of high speed motion within the cosmos. This motion must contribute to the energy structure that is present within and around atomic structure such that the motion of all atomic structure would not be possible without such contribution. Why I ask questions about what is accepted in physics today is, modern theories do not and cannot explain this motion and I strongly believe that the physics today is overlooking one of the most important aspects that prevents the linking together of electrical and gravitational theory. What you are suggesting to me is, to go away and study the accepted physics theories that are used today and when you think the same as us you will not need to question us about our theories. I have questioned the modern theories used today and feel they are inadequate, meaning they are as yet incomplete. For this reason I question the definitions that are associated with various mathematical statements.

Mass also defined as charge is in circular motion around the sun and in motion within the galaxy. You say, "the gravitational force is many orders of magnitude smaller than the other fundamental forces" how do you arrive at this conclusion? E = energy? p = ? c = speed of light m = mass Not sure of p and unsure of the purpose of what is written.

When you define actual gravitational force energy as smaller against the electrical force, in what way do you do the comparison? For example the ratio between the two forces, what values do you use?

If E=mc^2 then Centripetal force = m(c^2/r) The continual centripetal force is the energy imposed on earth's atomic structure to continually change direction as it spirals around the sun. Where: 149,793,753,493.686 = Radius distance between sun and the earth. 1836.151 = mass proton / mass electron. 9,000 meters/sec = Galactic U velocity (motion of the solar system toward the galactic center. 600,000 meters/sec = Velocity of the local group of galaxies (includes milky way). 599,995.098 = c^2/149,793,753,493.686 599,995.098 = 600,000 - (9,000/1836.151) electron volt = ((599,995.098 x Magnetic constant)/ 2pi)^2 / c^2 = 1.602189 x10-19 Coulombs The suggestion is that the gravitational centripetal force between the masses may be related to atomic electrical forces. Unfortunately this does not translate into other planets unless the constants are not necessary constant. Any opinions on this? I really appreciated your post, having worked in a country that only works in decimal all my life my reliability in working with other areas needs some improvement. Thank you, you confirmed a value for me.

Just added this to show that the energy area being swept out is c^2

The gravitational constant, denoted G, is an empirical physical constant involved in the calculation of the gravitational attraction between objects with mass. My experience tells me that the formula is required to correct the dynamic physical distance between the mass bodies. This means that while the distance between mass bodies is the radius length in meters, it is not the correct value as seen by the electromagnetic conditions of the cosmos. The cosmos which includes the matter within it, is in continual motion. Based from that perspective the gravitational attractive force needs big G is to correct the dynamic distance (impedance) between the mass bodies. To understand this, consider the radial distance between the sun and the earth. Let us say the distance could be at a particular moment 149,792,529,789.47 meters The galactic velocity the sun and the earth has is measured as 600,000 meters/sec System energy = 149,792,529,789.47 x 600,000 = 8.9875517873682 x10+16 or simply c^2 As an electromagnetic wave, we start to travel from the sun on our journey to the earth only to find that when we get to where the earth should be, we find it has moved its not there anymore. The reality is that we cannot travel in a straight line to the earth as the formula in the equation suggests (m1 x m2)/r^2 where the r (radius) is referenced. We must take into account that at every second the earth is continually moving and so is the sun. This continual motion increases the length for the radius. In effect the path to the earth electromagnetically is curved and this curving must be compensated for. Hence the need for the big G correction constant. This observation could establish the gravitational field having the same velocity as the speed of light and also being electromagnetic in nature.

I have a reason for asking (the units are possibly wrongly defined), if it is so simple please explain by example.

F = G ((m1 x m2)/r^2) If m is in (kg) and radius in (meters) then G is referenced as 6.673x10-11 N(m/kg)^2 If m is in (imperial lbs) and radius in (yards) then G is referenced as 6.673x10-11 N(what)? Or does the number 6.673x10-11 remain the same?

Why in your opinion, did Newton need to use the numerical big G constant 6.673x10-11 in the first place?

It does but only slightly, for example as the orbit velocity slows the orbit radius increases etc, so much quietly goes on unnoticed. We need to ask the question in the first place; if our atomic physicists have managed to succeed in predicting the behavior of the atomic functions so accurately, how can their base theory be considered as wrong? This is a common defense presented by physicists. So what is it that has made their atomic predictions so reliable? The answer is they have used mathematical empirical constants! Mathematical empirical constants commonly used in atomic physics are necessary and have been required to compensate for the effect of our helical motion of atomic structure with its charged particles within the cosmic environment. That is to say, atomic physicists have in the past, have neglected the influence of the external cosmic environment which includes cosmic motion from its atomic interaction and as a consequence must use empirically derived constants to make their calculations work in accordance with observed atomic laboratory experimental results as they experimented with atoms and associated particle physics. In this way the physicist was mathematically forced, by the use of these physical constants, to compensate for the cosmic environmental conditions whether he was aware of them or not. A friend of mine who is strong in mathematics, once said to me, if a single constant could be calculated by using the velocity associated the cosmic environment then that could be classified as just a coincidence. If two constants could be calculated by using the velocity associated the cosmic environment then it is not necessarily a coincidence and recommended that it should be investigated further. If on the other hand three or more constants could be calculated by using the velocity associated the cosmic environment then there is no coincidence and it can be concluded that the cosmic environment is playing an important role in the use of the constants. I tend to agree with him so I investigated further and found most empirical constants could be expressed using conditions within the cosmos. For example: Where: Mean solar spiral orbit velocity = 29,770 meters/sec Galactic motion = 600,000 meters/sec galactic spin = 225,000 meters/sec Galactic u velocity = 9,000 meters/sec Sun surface gravity = 274 meters/sec 1836.151 = mass proton/mass electron 464.463 = square-root(225,000 - 9,000 - 274) Planck’s constant = (electron volt x (29,770/464.463))^2 x 2pi = 6.626x10-34 Planck’s h-bar = (electron volt x (29,770/464.463))^2 = 1.054x10-34 Two components control the value necessary to define the Rydberg Constant and these are: 1: The vertical motion of the solar system within the Galaxy = (W Velocity) = 7,000 m/s 2: Earths magnetic frequency energy relative to the sun freq = c/Rse = 0.00200396 Hertz Where: c = speed of light in vacuum = 299,792,458 meters/sec Rse = approx sun/earth radial distance = 149,600,000,000 meters Rydberg constant = (7,000 * Pi)/freq = 10,973,844.534 m Fine structure = 1/(0.5 * 274) = 1/137 = 0.00729 Big G = ((9,000/ (1836.151))/600,000)^2 = 6.673x10-11 There are many more examples but the post get too long.

I would not ask you to do such a thing as ignore a fantastic wealth of experimental evidence. Sometimes I will be looking at things from a different perspective using different logic. This is what I requested from you, that this fantastic wealth of experimental evidence should be used to consider some facts from a different point of view. For example Newton's constant big G = 6.673x10-11 N(m / kg)^2 All atomic structure in our local group of galaxies is traveling at a velocity close to 1/500 times the speed of light, this is a velocity of c/500 or 600,000 meters per second. As a consequence of this velocity we can calculate the big G gravitational constant. where: Galactic velocity = 600,000 meters/sec Galactic U velocity = 9,000 meters/sec Mass proton / mass electron = 1836.151 U is the inward 9,000 meters per second motion of the sun and our solar system toward the galactic center. Big G = ((9,000/ (1836.151))/600,000)^2 = 6.673x10-11 Newton's constant was derived empirically, only later to be measured with any accuracy. Yet interestingly the constant value appears to be related to cosmic velocity.

Klaynos: I would like to have a fair and open discussion regarding some of these points you have answered. I have some strong convictions about why we have failed to make any headway in discovering the workings of areas classified as phenomena (gravity, propagation) etc. It is my belief we have overlooked and/or failed to comprehend fully some of the theory we work with. This is such that we have compounded the issue using questionable concepts to the point whereby we have placed stumbling blocks in our own path. To discuss this we might have to go out on a limb so as to consider certain facts from another perspective. This is a perspective that may appear initially to be contradictory to currently held belief. After all the old paths we have taken in the past, have so far led us down the path of failure. If you are you interested in accepting that we might go out on that limb, I will be willing to continue our discussion.