<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hello Mike.<div><br></div><div>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</div><div><a href="http://www.maldwynphysics.org/Equal%20strength%20of%20gravitation%20and%20charge%20fields%20Tables.pdf">http://www.maldwynphysics.org/Equal%20strength%20of%20gravitation%20and%20charge%20fields%20Tables.pdf</a> 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.<br></div><div>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:<br><font color="#0000ff"><b>The DAPU/SI relationship is A(SI)/A(DAPU) = G^-0.5 so that<br>g (SI) = g(DAPU) * G^-0.5 = 8.0048x10^-5 / 8.169639x10^-6 = 9.798 ms^-2</b></font> <br></div><div>being the same as: mg = GmM/r^2</div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards.</div><div>Ruud Loeffen</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Op do 21 nov. 2019 om 19:05 schreef <<a href="mailto:mikelawr@freenetname.co.uk">mikelawr@freenetname.co.uk</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Ruud,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the reply. Sure, I wouldbe happy for you to add my stuff to <br>
your list. In response to your question on gravity, here is what I think <br>
you are asking for....<br>
<br>
Force at surface = mg = GmM/r^2<br>
<br>
Where (SI units)<br>
<br>
m = mass of any object in kg<br>
g = acceleration at surface in ms^-2<br>
M = mass of Earth in kg = 5.9722×10^24 kg<br>
G = 6.67430x10−11 m^3⋅kg^−1⋅s^−2<br>
r = radius of Earth from surface in metres = 6.3781×10^6 m<br>
<br>
So g = 6.67430x10−11 * 5.9722×10^24/( 6.3781×10^6)^2 = 9.798 ms^-2<br>
<br>
Check of powers<br>
mg = Y^1 * Y^7 = Y^8 = force = GmM/r^2 = Y^0 Y^1 Y^1/(Y^-3)^2 = Y^8<br>
<br>
In DAPU units the equation is now<br>
<br>
Force at surface = mg = mM/r^2 (Note – No G)<br>
<br>
m = mass of any object in DAPU mass units<br>
g = acceleration at surface in DAPU acceleration units<br>
M = mass of Earth in DAPU mass units = 4.879×10^19 DAPUMU<br>
G = not needed<br>
r = radius of Earth from surface in DAPU length units = 7.8071×10^11 <br>
DAPULU<br>
<br>
So g = 4.879×10^19 /( 7.8071×10^11)^2 = 8.0048x10^-5 DAPUAU<br>
<br>
The DAPU/SI relationship is A(SI)/A(DAPU) = G^-0.5 so that<br>
g (SI) = g(DAPU) * G^-0.5 = 8.0048x10^-5 / 8.169639x10^-6 = 9.798 ms^-2<br>
<br>
When using DAPU units there is never any need to use G.<br>
<br>
Hope that helps.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2019-11-21 04:28, Ruud Loeffen wrote:<br>
> Hello Mike.<br>
> <br>
> I read through your "Hypothetical Pre-Fermion TOE in 95 Theses M<br>
> Lawrence.pdf ". (<br>
> <a href="http://www.everythingexplained.co.uk/Hypothetical%20Pre-Fermion%20TOE%20in%2095%20Theses%20M%20Lawrence.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.everythingexplained.co.uk/Hypothetical%20Pre-Fermion%20TOE%20in%2095%20Theses%20M%20Lawrence.pdf</a><br>
> )<br>
> I can see that you built up a theoretical world of _"myriad of the two<br>
> fundamental particles, a pair of positive and negative „meons‟,<br>
> which when merged form a zero mass black hole (ZMBH)"_. It's<br>
> interesting and this may present an important view on the emergence of<br>
> mass. There are some other theories that may be compared to your<br>
> approach. Also in my "Con-Fusing Gravitation" I listed a few theories<br>
> that depart from emergence of matter from elementary particles on the<br>
> _"background of the universe that produces a viscosity against which<br>
> all composite particles"_ arise.(chapter 5. The inflow of energy). If<br>
> you would agree to be listed there too, let me know. I can add your<br>
> book with the link.<br>
> <br>
> However. I would like to know if you can present an equation similar<br>
> to this one, that can be used to calculate the acceleration at the<br>
> surface of a planet (but then based on your theory). How would your<br>
> equation look?<br>
> <br>
> These are from chapter 3. 3. THE FALLING STONE. SPLITTING THE<br>
> GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT.<br>
> <br>
> I hope to hear from you again.<br>
> <br>
> Best regards.<br>
> Ruud Loeffen.<br>
> <br>
> Op do 21 nov. 2019 om 01:42 schreef <<a href="mailto:mikelawr@freenetname.co.uk" target="_blank">mikelawr@freenetname.co.uk</a>>:<br>
> <br>
>> Ruud,<br>
>> <br>
>> Thanks for your email. Some of my further work showed that it is<br>
>> more<br>
>> useful to keep h, even though it is a dimensionless number, because<br>
>> it<br>
>> helps to keep sizes relative to observations better.<br>
>> <br>
>> So to give numbers to Earth’s gravity, best to use DAPU<br>
>> (double-adjusted<br>
>> Planck units). But the reason for gravity in either current SI or<br>
>> DAPU<br>
>> is the same – the effective depression of space time. I don’t<br>
>> want to<br>
>> jump into the full explanation of gravity here (I will give the<br>
>> hyperlink below) because it needs to be understood in logical steps.<br>
>> <br>
>> But put simply, the myriad merged particle/anti-particle ‘meons’<br>
>> that<br>
>> make up the universe become unmerged, form chains with other such<br>
>> pairs<br>
>> – each positive chasing a negative chasing a positive etc until<br>
>> the<br>
>> chains latch onto their own tails to form loops. Loops with three<br>
>> such<br>
>> pairs are our fermions. Loops with other than three pairs are dark<br>
>> matter. The merged pairs are the ‘background’ across which all<br>
>> relativistic motion occurs.<br>
>> <br>
>> The particles and anti-particles – the only real objects in the<br>
>> universe<br>
>> - have only properties of fundamental charge and mass. When they<br>
>> unmerge, each spins (not the usual spin ½ h) to generate one-sixth<br>
>> the<br>
>> electron charge, either positive or negative, with the total<br>
>> generated<br>
>> always zero.<br>
>> <br>
>> In the fundamental particles, the chains, the loops and all<br>
>> combinations<br>
>> of loops like nucleons, the total of all energies present is always<br>
>> zero. How loops interact depends on how much of each type of mass<br>
>> and<br>
>> charge energy, and in what form, they each have.<br>
>> <br>
>> Specifically the mass energy of positive meons in a loop will be<br>
>> exactly<br>
>> the same size and opposite sign to the mass energy of the negative<br>
>> meons<br>
>> in that loop. So all loops have total fundamental mass energy of<br>
>> zero.<br>
>> But the loop still has a frequency of rotation and a physical size.<br>
>> It<br>
>> is the effect of, firstly, the physical size of the loop and,<br>
>> secondly,<br>
>> the action of other nearby loops and the background merged pairs<br>
>> that<br>
>> act as if they are being deflected by space time. I think of the<br>
>> loop<br>
>> as floating on the background, with the defection dependent on the<br>
>> area<br>
>> of the loop- larger mass loops have higher frequencies of rotation<br>
>> and<br>
>> thus smaller areas, so ‘sink’ further.<br>
>> So that is my explanation of gravity, and the sum total of all the<br>
>> loops<br>
>> that make up the Earth gives the acceleration at the surface.<br>
>> <br>
>> The latest paper I have had published explains the above and more,<br>
>> although it is structured more as list of hypotheses that need to be<br>
>> <br>
>> understood in order to see how the whole picture. It is like taking<br>
>> the<br>
>> current interpretations of much of physics as a jigsaw where pieces<br>
>> have<br>
>> been wrongly forced in place and showing that the pieces fit better<br>
>> in<br>
>> different places and the result is a different picture – although<br>
>> with<br>
>> all the observations retained.<br>
>> <br>
>> The hyperlink is <a href="http://www.everythingexplained.co.uk/Hypothetical" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.everythingexplained.co.uk/Hypothetical</a> [1]<br>
>> Pre-Fermion<br>
>> TOE in 95 Theses M Lawrence.pdf<br>
>> <br>
>> Hope it helps you.<br>
>> <br>
>> Cheers<br>
>> <br>
>> Mike<br>
>> <br>
>> On 2019-11-19 09:10, Ruud Loeffen wrote:<br>
>>> Dear Mike.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Thanks for sending me your paper-link. I read through your<br>
>> document.<br>
>>> It's very interesting. It's important to try to find the fundament<br>
>> of<br>
>>> the units and the constants in physics.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> My approach is different from yours. I am not a physicist and not<br>
>> a<br>
>>> mathematician. I just want to know "Why the stone is falling" In<br>
>> your<br>
>>> paper I saw some remarks, that I recognize. As this one: _"To<br>
>>> correctly understand the relationships between properties the<br>
>>> fundamental constant G needs to be split equally between both mass<br>
>> and<br>
>>> distance properties and h equally between both mass and charge<br>
>>> properties on the one hand and distance on the other "_<br>
>>> Sure, your approach is different and on a very more fundamental<br>
>> level.<br>
>>> However, there may be some interesting connections on a less basic<br>
>>> level. I would like to know from you how you would explain the<br>
>> 9.81<br>
>>> m/s^2 acceleration at the surface of the earth. HOW WOULD YOUR<br>
>>> EQUATION LOOK LIKE WITH THE BREAKDOWN OF THE UNITS? I think there<br>
>> must<br>
>>> be some connection. I would also like to know: Do you have some<br>
>>> insights or hypothesis related to the physical reality that we<br>
>>> experience every day? There must be a physical reality built up<br>
>> from<br>
>>> the fundamental dimensionless parameters that you proposed? If you<br>
>>> have such a paper or if you have some ideas about that, I would<br>
>> like<br>
>>> to hear.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> I hope you will read through my book and if you see connections,<br>
>>> please let me know.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Best regards.<br>
>>> Ruud Loeffen.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Op di 19 nov. 2019 om 06:58 schreef <<a href="mailto:mikelawr@freenetname.co.uk" target="_blank">mikelawr@freenetname.co.uk</a>>:<br>
>>> <br>
>>>> Ruud,<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Apologies, hyperlink should be<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
> <a href="https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/how-si-units-hide-the-equal-strength-of-gravitation-and-charge-fields-2090-0902-1000151.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/how-si-units-hide-the-equal-strength-of-gravitation-and-charge-fields-2090-0902-1000151.pdf</a><br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Cheers<br>
>>>> Mike<br></blockquote></div></div>