Physical constants and the solar system

[Roberts ratios]

Using just the physical constants; c, h, G and the rest mass of the electron, with simple ratios it is possible to predict, the average Astronomical Unit, the mass of the Sun, and the average velocity of any object orbiting the Sun at A.U. distance. These ratios allow for the formulation of a different type of gravitational equation which is specific for the solar system. There is nothing unique about the solar system, but, these ratios do predict exact values. Perhaps with in these calculations there will appear concepts which will allow for generalizations which would apply universally.

[John Cuthber]

I predict an outbreak of numerology.

[swansont]

Using just the physical constants; c, h, G and the rest mass of the electron, with simple ratios it is possible to predict, the average Astronomical Unit, the mass of the Sun, and the average velocity of any object orbiting the Sun at A.U. distance. These ratios allow for the formulation of a different type of gravitational equation which is specific for the solar system. There is nothing unique about the solar system, but, these ratios do predict exact values. Perhaps with in these calculations there will appear concepts which will allow for generalizations which would apply universally.

 

There are more equations than known, meaning there are an infinite number of solutions. IOW, no you could not have predicted these values ahead of time.

[Roberts ratios]

There are more equations than known, meaning there are an infinite number of solutions. IOW, no you could not have predicted these values ahead of time.

Here is the conclusion to my paper, if you give me your e-mail address I will send you a copy.

If you study the simple equations perhaps you can detect flaws which may have escaped me.

Thanks for you comments.

CONCLUSION

 

Using several physical constants and the rest mass of the electron it has been shown that it is possible to predict magnitudes specific to the Solar System.

 

A reasonably accurate magnitude for the Astronomical Unit was determined using Planckʼs constant and some simple geometry.

 

A relationship between the Astronomical Unit calculated using Planckʼs constant and an Astronomical Unit, close to the accepted value, was shown to be a function of 1/4 the distance light travels in one second.

 

The exact mass of the Sun was determined using several physical constants and the Astronomical Unit, and from this relationship it was possible to predict the gravitational force of attraction of the Sun for one gram at a distance equal to the average A.U. using only three physical constants and the rest mass of the electron.

 

The velocity of any object orbiting the Sun at A.U. distance was derived from the previously determined force of attraction for one gram.

 

It was demonstrated that with several physical constants, A.U. and the rest mass of the electron, a magnitude equal to the product of the mass of the Sun and G was obtained.

 

A novel equation was produced using characteristics and magnitudes of the electron which will predict the gravitational force of attraction of any object in orbit about the Sun. The specificity of this equation for the Solar System begs for further study in order to generalize it.

 

A concept of the number of electron masses equivalent to an orbiting mass and the total amount of time which they would correspondingly represent , at the time one one electron wave for each electron mass equivalent, suggested that when a force equal to G acted for this length of time, the impulse produced has a relationship to the gravitational force of attraction.

 

The period of any object in orbit about the Sun was shown to be a function of, its distance from the Sun, the mass of the Sun, the rest mass of the electron and the frequency of a electron.

 

The fact that accurate predictions of magnitudes of the solar system were obtained using simple ratios of several physical constants suggests, that these constants, and magnitudes and characteristics of the electron may allow for new interpretations of the dynamics of celestial mechanics.

 

The specificity of these equations for the solar system is perplexing, but, perhaps with thorough study some fundamental generalizations can be conceptualized.

 

8

 

Robert Propoggio permls@fastermac.net 618-996-2243

 

 

 

 

 

 

[csmyth3025]

First, Welcome to Science Forums.net!

 

Second, if you would like us to comment on your equations your best approach would be to present them here in your post. Most members are reluctant to email someone they don't know (or give someone they don't know their email address).

 

Chris

Edited September 18, 2011 by csmyth3025

[Roberts ratios]

file:///Users/robertpropoggio/Desktop/THEORY%20/COSMOLOGICAL/Physical%20Constants%20&%20the%20Solar%20System%20%232%20%20PDF.pdf

[insane_alien]

we don't have access to your harddrive. you'll need to attach it to your post.

[Roberts ratios]

I would appreciate it if you would tell me how to do this.

My paper is in pdf form, would that suffice?

Some forms delete the equations which were done on Equation Editor.

This is a very sound paper, no "numerology" as suggested.

By combining several constants in simple ratios relationships are

established which predict celestial magnitudes exactly.

 

Thanking you

 

Robert

[insane_alien]

click on add reply and there will be a whole section for attachments. its fairly simple to use and has its own help.

[Roberts ratios]

file:///Users/robertpropoggio/Downloads/Physical%20Constants%20&%20the%20Solar%20System%20%232%20%20PDF.pdf

[csmyth3025]

At the bottom of your reply box (if you're using the "fast reply" box, use the "use full editor" option) there's a section entitled "attachments". Below that there's a blank box with a "browse" button next to it. Press the "browse" button and you're computer files will come up in a separate window. Double click on the file you want to attach to your reply. The file name will appear in the blank box. Click on the blue "attach this file" button below the box with the file name in it. At the top, over to the right in this same section two selections will appear: "add to post" and "delete". Click on the "add to post" selection and the file will be added to your post - like so:

 

Musings%20-%20The%20Twins%20Paradox.doc

 

The above file downloads to my computer as "Index.doc (99.0 kb)". It's a 12 page 2009 document created by Mark Egdall (not me - I'm not smart enough). It opens on my computer with OpenOffice.org Writer. It would probably be a good idea to include this type of information in your reply.

 

Your computer then gives you the option to save this file (to your desktop, or wherever), or to open it. The program you use to open it will have to be able to recognize the format that it's in.

 

If your file is very long you may have to split it up into several smaller files. I don't know how to do this, but I'm sure someone here can tell you how it's done if you don't already know.

 

Chris

 

Edited to specify use of full editor

Edited September 19, 2011 by csmyth3025

[Roberts ratios]

At the bottom of your reply box (if you're using the "fast reply" box, use the "use full editor" option) there's a section entitled "attachments". Below that there's a blank box with a "browse" button next to it. Press the "browse" button and you're computer files will come up in a separate window. Double click on the file you want to attach to your reply. The file name will appear in the blank box. Click on the blue "attach this file" button below the box with the file name in it. At the top, over to the right in this same section two selections will appear: "add to post" and "delete". Click on the "add to post" selection and the file will be added to your post - like so:

 

Musings%20-%20The%20Twins%20Paradox.doc

 

The above file downloads to my computer as "Index.doc (99.0 kb)". It's a 12 page 2009 document created by Mark Egdall (not me - I'm not smart enough). It opens on my computer with OpenOffice.org Writer. It would probably be a good idea to include this type of information in your reply.

 

Your computer then gives you the option to save this file (to your desktop, or wherever), or to open it. The program you use to open it will have to be able to recognize the format that it's in.

 

If your file is very long you may have to split it up into several smaller files. I don't know how to do this, but I'm sure someone here can tell you how it's done if you don't already know.

 

Chris

 

Edited to specify use of full editor

 

file:///Users/robertpropoggio/Desktop/THEORY%20/COSMOLOGICAL/Physical%20Constants%20&%20the%20Solar%20System.cwk

 

Chris,

 

Thank you for patient advice, it is appreciated.

I'm just an old man who uses an Apple computer,

albeit badly, who wants to share some of the

results of over 35 years of study and contemplation.

I have tried for several hours to put this simple paper

into some form for transmission. I am frustrated and have so far

failed.

All of you interested in this sort of thing will enjoy the simple

accuracy of the results of this paper. It will leave you thinking

that there are, perhaps, some other ways to view cosmological

magnitudes with respect to magnitude and characteristics of the electron.

 

Won't somebody be brave enough to send me an e-mail address

so I can send the pdf paper. Once you read it you will see the necessity

of sharing it. Please someone send an e-mail address, I am harmless

and will not abuse it.

 

Thanking you for your patience

 

Robert

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[csmyth3025]

file:///Users/robertpropoggio/Desktop/THEORY%20/COSMOLOGICAL/Physical%20Constants%20&%20the%20Solar%20System.cwk

 

Chris,

 

Thank you for patient advice, it is appreciated.

I'm just an old man who uses an Apple computer,

albeit badly, who wants to share some of the

results of over 35 years of study and contemplation.

I have tried for several hours to put this simple paper

into some form for transmission. I am frustrated and have so far

failed.

All of you interested in this sort of thing will enjoy the simple

accuracy of the results of this paper. It will leave you thinking

that there are, perhaps, some other ways to view cosmological

magnitudes with respect to magnitude and characteristics of the electron.

 

Won't somebody be brave enough to send me an e-mail address

so I can send the pdf paper. Once you read it you will see the necessity

of sharing it. Please someone send an e-mail address, I am harmless

and will not abuse it.

 

Thanking you for your patience

 

Robert

 

Try putting your paper back into its original pdf format and attaching it to your reply as I indicated in my post above, like so:

 

chapter1.pdf

 

This is a 494 kb document in pdf format that downloads in my computer with the title "Index.pdf". It's a 21 page document dealing mostly with special relativity that I downloaded to my computer many months ago from this site: http://www.eftaylor....ub/chapter1.pdf

 

I'm not very savvy about computers, but I would think that if you can manage to attach your file to an email, you would also be able to attach it to your post here.

 

Chris

[Roberts ratios]

file:///Users/robertpropoggio/Downloads/Physical%20Constants%20&%20the%20Solar%20System%20%232%20%20PDF.pdf.download/

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Hit Browse, find the file you want, and hit Attach This File:

 

 

That'll upload the file to SFN so others can read it.

[imatfaal]

Hello All

 

This is on behalf of Robert - here is his paper.

 

Comments would be most welcome and should be addressed to Robert

 

Physical Constants & the Solar System #2.pdf

[csmyth3025]

I certainly don't have the qualifications to critique this paper, but I immediately notice that Robert begins by manipulating Planck's constant [6.62606957(+/-29)x10^-27 erg*s] and subsequently comparing the manipulated number to the sum of the distance measure AU plus 1/4 the distance light travels in one second.

 

The Planck constant has dimensions of physical action; these are the same as those of angular momentum, i.e., energy multiplied by time or momentum multiplied by distance.

(ref. http://en.wikipedia...._constant#Value )

 

I may be showing my ignorance here, but I fail to see the signifcance of taking a natural physial constant with units of one gram centimeter-squared per second-squared times seconds (g·cm²/s²)(s)=(g*cm²/s), manipulating that number, and then comparing the result to the sum of an arbitrarily chosen distance measurement (the current average orbital distance between the Earth and the Sun) plus another arbitrarily chosen distance measurement (1/4 the distance that light travels in one second). I might add that the second, itself, is an arbitrarily chosen unit of time based originally on Egyptian and then Babylonian and finally Persian systems of measurement:

 

In 1000, the Persian scholar al-Biruni gave the times of the new moons of specific weeks as a number of days, hours, minutes, seconds, thirds, and fourths after noon Sunday.

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....chanical_clocks )

 

Other than coincidence and convenient manipulation, is there any significance to the comparison of these two numerical results? Dimensionally, I have no idea how to compare them.

 

If Robert had used the Planck length [1.616252(81)×10⁻³⁵metres] as a starting point I could have at least followed the the dimensional comparison a bit better

[Roberts ratios]

The second does represent a distance, in this case it is the distance the Earth travels in that time.

I believe this distance justifies using the unit of action in these calculations.

[csmyth3025]

The second does represent a distance, in this case it is the distance the Earth travels in that time.

I believe this distance justifies using the unit of action in these calculations.

If my calculation is correct, the Earth travels 2,977,356.8 cm in one second.

 

Are you saying that when comparing your manipulated Planck constant (having units of g*cm²/s) with the Earth's average orbital distance from the Sun (having units of cm), that the "/s" should be replaced with "/2,977,356.8 cm"?

 

Chris

 

Edited to include distance that the Earth travels in one second.

Edited September 22, 2011 by csmyth3025

[Roberts ratios]

There can not be any action in the operating dynamics of the solar system which is not an exact multiple

of Planck's constant. The distance the earth travels in one second is an underlying clue to the relationship

between the gram cm² and this time. I can not answer how, but this leads to the calculation of the mass

of the sun from several additional constants, G, c, and m_{e. More underlying clues. If dimensional analysis is forgotten}

_{for a moment, and we ask......if these constants (most likely some exact multiple of each of them) were not part of this dynamic,}

_{could the mass of the sun be so accurately predicted from them.}

[John Cuthber]

From Wiki

"The best current (2009) estimate of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) for the value of the astronomical unit in meters is A = 149 597 870 700(3) m,"

 

From Robert's paper

"By selecting an average A.U. of

1.495417807 X 10^13cm , one which is just 375 millionths less than the established value,"

 

So, it's wrong.

That's it.

End of "theory".

 

Robert, for the record, numbers like that are often quoted with an error margin. Sometimes it's clearly specified, sometimes not.

In this particular instance the 3 in brackets after the number is the error margin.

The right answer is known to more than 9 digits and your answer only agrees to 4 digits.

So you have got an answer that's laughably wrong.

 

Pretending that they are the same number means it's not science and it might as well be numerology.

[Roberts ratios]

The distance the earth is away fron the sun varies from microsecond to microsecond.

The orbit is slightly elipitcal.

At APHELION it is 1.5206 X 10¹³ centimeters away.

At PERIHELION it is 1.4708 X 10¹³ centimeters away.

 

So twice a year I am right--- WHY??

 

As I have said, I have no theory, wish I did. All I have is some very

curious unexplainable mathematical relationships which could not

possibly predict the magnitudes which they do unless there is some

underlying reason. Come on... with a few physical constants and

some very simple math, all of which is exact, magnitudes of the

solar systems dynamics are predicted. I don't believe this is numerology.

Loosen up a bit and explore ideas which might lead to some NEW

scientific information. I have no idea as to why the constants are

related to cosmological magnitudes, but, I will keep exploring because

it is an exciting adventure.

 

[Roberts ratios]

If my calculation is correct, the Earth travels 2,977,356.8 cm in one second.

 

Are you saying that when comparing your manipulated Planck constant (having units of g*cm²/s) with the Earth's average orbital distance from the Sun (having units of cm), that the "/s" should be replaced with "/2,977,356.8 cm"?

 

Chris

 

Edited to include distance that the Earth travels in one second.

 

Planck's constant is measured with the second, the 2.9773568 X 10⁶ centimeters

is also measured with the second. I believe that this distance, because of the common

second, bares a relationship to the gram centimeter² represented in Planck's constant.

 

Robert

 

 

 

 

[csmyth3025]

The distance the earth is away from the sun varies from microsecond to microsecond.

The orbit is slightly elliptical.

At APHELION it is 1.5206 X 10¹³ centimeters away.

At PERIHELION it is 1.4708 X 10¹³ centimeters away.

 

So twice a year I am right--- WHY??

 

Can you provide a reference for these values? The most convenient source of information available to me is Wikipedia, which gives the following values:

 

 

Aphelion 152,098,232 km

 

Perihelion 147,098,290 km

(ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth )

 

 

More importantly, your subjecting your initial values to manipulations that seem entirely arbitrary. Regarding the relationship between the given value for the Astronomical Unit and Planck's constant, please explain what you feel is the logical motivation and significance of the mathematical treatment that you've applied to these numbers.

 

On the surface it seems that you've arbitrarily selected formulas that will give you a predetermined result.

 

You seem to feel that there's a deeper meaning to your results than sheer coincidence, so I have to assume there's a deeper meaning to your method of manipulating these numbers than just the desire to make them ultimately match.

 

Chris

[Roberts ratios]

Can you provide a reference for these values? The most convenient source of information available to me is Wikipedia, which gives the following values:

 

 

(ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth )

 

 

More importantly, your subjecting your initial values to manipulations that seem entirely arbitrary. Regarding the relationship between the given value for the Astronomical Unit and Planck's constant, please explain what you feel is the logical motivation and significance of the mathematical treatment that you've applied to these numbers.

 

On the surface it seems that you've arbitrarily selected formulas that will give you a predetermined result.

 

You seem to feel that there's a deeper meaning to your results than sheer coincidence, so I have to assume there's a deeper meaning to your method of manipulating these numbers than just the desire to make them ultimately match.

 

Chris

I wish I could give you a theory neatly tied up in a bow,but, I can not.

Because I was able to determine A.U. as a function of Planck's constant it

made me persue other celectial magnitudes from constants. Through

patient trial and error and a great deal of sequential thinking the relationships developed.

I can not tell you how or why, only that if these constants were not at some basic level

related to reality accurate predictions would be impossible.

 

Try a little math problem.

 

THE RATIO OF, the amount of the mass of the sun PER each cubic centimeter of the volume of the

orbit of the earth TO the amount of the mass of the earth PER each square centimeter of the

spherical surface area of the orbit of the earth. I found the result to be an unwanted suprise.

 

Robert