[Physics] Splitting the Gravitational Constant

[mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk]

Ruud,

Thanks for delving deeper into my stuff. My view is much as I said 
before, that it is the deflection of the background (space time in usual 
usage) by the presence of meons in loops and the density of the 
background itself near those loops that causes what looks like a form of 
gravity in action. There is only fundamental mass to fundamental mass 
fields that act as attractive or repulsive forces. Loops do not work 
that way, except when other loops get very close and even then it is 
meon to meon interaction between the loops that acts. We see things like 
frame-dragging and magnetic field lines due to the ZMBHs in the 
background attaching themselves to meons in loops. The hyperlink below 
explains in more detail, specifically in section 13- The Action Modes of 
ZMBHs.

So my explanation is that all loops and extra densities of the 
background act as if they were centres of a gravitational field, even 
though there is no total mass energy at the centre. Remember that every 
loop has a total mass energy of zero. All you can observe is the 
rotational frequency of the loop and its charge. This means that to some 
extent you could say that the motion of loops and ZMBHs towards the 
centre is a sort of influx.

So yes, I would be happy to have you add my stuff to that section. The 
hyperlinked paper is probably the best to use because, although it 
doesn’t specifically call the background an ‘aether’, that is exactly 
what it is. And the background is an aether that shows itself only over 
cosmic distances through the red shift of photons. This viscosity red 
shift means that the total red shift of an observation has three 
components and that the universe (or our own big bang part) may be 
smaller and expanding more slowly that the Hubble constant implies, may 
be stationary, or even contracting.

Here is the hyperlink 
http://maldwynphysics.org/Viscosity%20Hypothesis%20M%20Lawrence%202090-0902-7-200.pdf

I have a number of papers on the website you looked at. The main ones 
have been published and sometimes cover some of the same areas, but from 
a different perspective.

Hope you find the paper interesting.

Cheers
Mike



On 2019-11-22 05:03, Ruud Loeffen wrote:
> Hello Mike.
> 
> Thank you for your explanation.  It's amazing that you constructed a
> completely new system with your DAPU units. I saw also your tables of
> these units at
> http://www.maldwynphysics.org/Equal%20strength%20of%20gravitation%20and%20charge%20fields%20Tables.pdf
>  It's really amazing. This must be the result of many years of hard
> work. I can't follow your calculation in detail, but I trust that you
> are very competent in your DAPU analyses and that the calculations are
> correct. I also can accept that it is possible to use these units
> instead of the mainstream-accepted constants and values.
> 
> Now I would like to know from you: Do these impressing DAPU units give
> you a clear view on "Why the stone is falling"? You calculated:
> The DAPU/SI relationship is A(SI)/A(DAPU) = G^-0.5 so that
> g (SI) = g(DAPU) * G^-0.5 = 8.0048x10^-5 / 8.169639x10^-6 = 9.798
> ms^-2
> 
> being the same as: mg = GmM/r^2
> Can you relate a PHYSICAL MEANING for your DAPU calculation? Does it
> show this "in-stream" or "influx" of the energy-field to the center of
> mass? If so, I would like to list your paper in chapter 5 "Inflow of
> energy" with the other books/papers that are related to an "aether",
> and/or "in-stream" from a universal (energy)field to the center of
> mass. If so: please explain to me. Perhaps you have written a paper
> that could be informative at this point?
> 
> Best regards.
> Ruud Loeffen
> 
> Op do 21 nov. 2019 om 19:05 schreef <mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk>:
> 
>> Ruud,
>> 
>> Thanks for the reply. Sure, I wouldbe happy for you to add my stuff
>> to
>> your list. In response to your question on gravity, here is what I
>> think
>> you are asking for....
>> 
>> Force at surface  = mg = GmM/r^2
>> 
>> Where (SI units)
>> 
>> m = mass of any object in kg
>> g = acceleration at surface in ms^-2
>> M = mass of Earth in kg = 5.9722×10^24 kg
>> G = 6.67430x10−11 m^3⋅kg^−1⋅s^−2
>> r = radius of Earth from surface in metres  =  6.3781×10^6 m
>> 
>> So      g = 6.67430x10−11 *  5.9722×10^24/( 6.3781×10^6)^2  =
>> 9.798 ms^-2
>> 
>> Check of powers
>> mg = Y^1 * Y^7 = Y^8 = force = GmM/r^2 = Y^0 Y^1 Y^1/(Y^-3)^2 = Y^8
>> 
>> In DAPU units the equation is now
>> 
>> Force at surface  = mg = mM/r^2    (Note – No G)
>> 
>> m = mass of any object in DAPU mass units
>> g = acceleration at surface in DAPU acceleration units
>> M = mass of Earth in DAPU mass units  = 4.879×10^19 DAPUMU
>> G = not needed
>> r = radius of Earth from surface in DAPU length units  =
>> 7.8071×10^11
>> DAPULU
>> 
>> So      g = 4.879×10^19 /( 7.8071×10^11)^2  =  8.0048x10^-5 DAPUAU
>> 
>> The DAPU/SI relationship is A(SI)/A(DAPU) = G^-0.5 so that
>> g (SI) = g(DAPU) * G^-0.5 = 8.0048x10^-5 / 8.169639x10^-6 = 9.798
>> ms^-2
>> 
>> When using DAPU units there is never any need to use G.
>> 
>> Hope that helps.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Mike
>> 
>> On 2019-11-21 04:28, Ruud Loeffen wrote:
>>> Hello Mike.
>>> 
>>> I read through your "Hypothetical Pre-Fermion TOE in 95 Theses M
>>> Lawrence.pdf ". (
>>> 
>> 
> http://www.everythingexplained.co.uk/Hypothetical%20Pre-Fermion%20TOE%20in%2095%20Theses%20M%20Lawrence.pdf
>>> )
>>> I can see that you built up a theoretical world of _"myriad of the
>> two
>>> fundamental particles, a pair of positive and negative
>> „meons‟,
>>> which when merged form a zero mass black hole (ZMBH)"_. It's
>>> interesting and this may present an important view on the
>> emergence of
>>> mass. There are some other theories that may be compared to your
>>> approach. Also in my "Con-Fusing Gravitation" I listed a few
>> theories
>>> that depart from emergence of matter from elementary particles on
>> the
>>> _"background of the universe that produces a viscosity against
>> which
>>> all composite particles"_ arise.(chapter 5. The inflow of energy).
>> If
>>> you would agree to be listed there too, let me know. I can add
>> your
>>> book with the link.
>>> 
>>> However. I would like to know if you can present an equation
>> similar
>>> to this one, that can be used to calculate the acceleration at the
>>> surface of a planet (but then based on your theory). How would
>> your
>>> equation look?
>>> 
>>> These are from chapter 3. 3. THE FALLING STONE. SPLITTING THE
>>> GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT.
>>> 
>>> I hope to hear from you again.
>>> 
>>> Best regards.
>>> Ruud Loeffen.
>>> 
>>> Op do 21 nov. 2019 om 01:42 schreef <mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk>:
>>> 
>>>> Ruud,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your email. Some of my further work showed that it is
>>>> more
>>>> useful to keep h, even though it is a dimensionless number,
>> because
>>>> it
>>>> helps to keep sizes relative to observations better.
>>>> 
>>>> So to give numbers to Earth’s gravity, best to use DAPU
>>>> (double-adjusted
>>>> Planck units). But the reason for gravity in either current SI or
>>>> DAPU
>>>> is the same – the effective depression of space time. I don’t
>>>> want to
>>>> jump into the full explanation of gravity here (I will give the
>>>> hyperlink below) because it needs to be understood in logical
>> steps.
>>>> 
>>>> But put simply, the myriad merged particle/anti-particle
>> ‘meons’
>>>> that
>>>> make up the universe become unmerged, form chains with other such
>>>> pairs
>>>> – each positive chasing a negative chasing a positive etc until
>>>> the
>>>> chains latch onto their own tails to form loops. Loops with three
>>>> such
>>>> pairs are our fermions. Loops with other than three pairs are
>> dark
>>>> matter. The merged pairs are the ‘background’ across which
>> all
>>>> relativistic motion occurs.
>>>> 
>>>> The particles and anti-particles – the only real objects in the
>>>> universe
>>>> - have only properties of fundamental charge and mass. When they
>>>> unmerge, each spins (not the usual spin ½ h) to generate
>> one-sixth
>>>> the
>>>> electron charge, either positive or negative, with the total
>>>> generated
>>>> always zero.
>>>> 
>>>> In the fundamental particles, the chains, the loops and all
>>>> combinations
>>>> of loops like nucleons, the total of all energies present is
>> always
>>>> zero. How loops interact depends on how much of each type of mass
>>>> and
>>>> charge energy, and in what form, they each have.
>>>> 
>>>> Specifically the mass energy of positive meons in a loop will be
>>>> exactly
>>>> the same size and opposite sign to the mass energy of the
>> negative
>>>> meons
>>>> in that loop. So all loops have total fundamental mass energy of
>>>> zero.
>>>> But the loop still has a frequency of rotation and a physical
>> size.
>>>> It
>>>> is the effect of, firstly, the physical size of the loop and,
>>>> secondly,
>>>> the action of other nearby loops and the background merged pairs
>>>> that
>>>> act as if they are being deflected by space time.  I think of the
>>>> loop
>>>> as floating on the background, with the defection dependent on
>> the
>>>> area
>>>> of the loop- larger mass loops have higher frequencies of
>> rotation
>>>> and
>>>> thus smaller areas, so ‘sink’ further.
>>>> So that is my explanation of gravity, and the sum total of all
>> the
>>>> loops
>>>> that make up the Earth gives the acceleration at the surface.
>>>> 
>>>> The latest paper I have had published explains the above and
>> more,
>>>> although it is structured more as list of hypotheses that need to
>> be
>>>> 
>>>> understood in order to see how the whole picture. It is like
>> taking
>>>> the
>>>> current interpretations of much of physics as a jigsaw where
>> pieces
>>>> have
>>>> been wrongly forced in place and showing that the pieces fit
>> better
>>>> in
>>>> different places and the result is a different picture –
>> although
>>>> with
>>>> all the observations retained.
>>>> 
>>>> The hyperlink is www.everythingexplained.co.uk/Hypothetical [1]
>> [1]
>>>> Pre-Fermion
>>>> TOE in 95 Theses M Lawrence.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> Hope it helps you.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> 
>>>> Mike
>>>> 
>>>> On 2019-11-19 09:10, Ruud Loeffen wrote:
>>>>> Dear Mike.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for sending me your paper-link. I read through your
>>>> document.
>>>>> It's very interesting. It's important to try to find the
>> fundament
>>>> of
>>>>> the units and the constants in physics.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My approach is  different from yours. I am not a physicist and
>> not
>>>> a
>>>>> mathematician. I just want to know "Why the stone is falling" In
>>>> your
>>>>> paper I saw some remarks, that I recognize. As this one: _"To
>>>>> correctly understand the relationships between properties the
>>>>> fundamental constant G needs to be split equally between both
>> mass
>>>> and
>>>>> distance properties and h equally between both mass and charge
>>>>> properties on the one hand and distance on the other "_
>>>>> Sure, your approach is different and on a very more fundamental
>>>> level.
>>>>> However, there may be some interesting connections on a less
>> basic
>>>>> level. I would like to know from you how you would explain the
>>>> 9.81
>>>>> m/s^2 acceleration at the surface of the earth. HOW WOULD YOUR
>>>>> EQUATION LOOK LIKE WITH THE BREAKDOWN OF THE UNITS? I think
>> there
>>>> must
>>>>> be some connection. I would also like to know: Do you have some
>>>>> insights or hypothesis related to the physical reality that we
>>>>> experience every day? There must be a physical reality built up
>>>> from
>>>>> the fundamental dimensionless parameters that you proposed? If
>> you
>>>>> have such a paper or if you have some ideas about that, I would
>>>> like
>>>>> to hear.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I hope you will read through my book and if you see connections,
>>>>> please let me know.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>> Ruud Loeffen.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Op di 19 nov. 2019 om 06:58 schreef
>> <mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ruud,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Apologies, hyperlink should be
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/how-si-units-hide-the-equal-strength-of-gravitation-and-charge-fields-2090-0902-1000151.pdf
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Mike
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.everythingexplained.co.uk/Hypothetical