26m views__AP's 257th book of Science-- deriving the G, Gravitational Constant 6.67x10^-11 m^3/(kg*s^2) from pure numbers of Electromagnetism
26m views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 23, 2023, 3:51:25 PM (2 days ago)

I just read an article in SCIENCE NEWS, July 15,2023 "What is big G?" "Newton's Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 23, 2023, 4:43:00 PM (2 days ago)

Alright, last night I started to play around with purely the masses to see if I could reach exponent
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 23, 2023, 10:16:23 PM (2 days ago)

Alright, in my finding what the Gravitational Constant derived from EM theory will consist of is a
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2023, 12:47:58 AM (2 days ago)

By the way, I love doing this type of physics, searching out the constant, for it ties into one of my
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2023, 1:35:09 AM (yesterday)

Alright, I think I have this solved, as far as the numerical value is concerned. It is a far
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2023, 3:03:04 AM (yesterday)

I cannot use the 35 by itself without the MeV attached unless I can get it all alone. Also, I need to
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2023, 3:22:13 AM (yesterday)

A very simple remedy and shortens the derivation. Square of (1.618*10^-19) as in PSI squared which is
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2023, 2:35:05 PM (yesterday)

On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 3:21:42 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > A very simple
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2023, 3:09:00 PM (yesterday)

Lo and behold, the 256 in 0.256 is itself a perfect square of 16^2 as is 25 = 5^2. Notice also that
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2023, 5:32:33 PM (yesterday)

On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 3:07:24 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Lo and behold,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2023, 6:15:07 PM (yesterday)

My last few posts on this topic gave me the idea of Crafting, and Constructing a Constant of Physics.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2023, 7:23:32 PM (yesterday)

Page 2-10, Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1963, discusses the force of gravity relative strength
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2023, 10:32:24 PM (yesterday)

On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:21:45 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Page 2-10,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2023, 10:47:38 PM (yesterday)

An example of my forgetfulness is that I meant Asimov, not Gamow. Asimov wrote 280 science books,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2023, 12:26:54 AM (yesterday)

Call them the AP PSI-squared numbers. Here I build psi-squared numbers for physics constants. So let
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2023, 1:45:56 AM (23 hours ago)

Now apparently the maximum psi-built number from whole numbers is 0.169 1= 1^2, 16=4^2, 169= 13^2, a
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2023, 3:53:48 PM (9 hours ago)

So I am wavering today, not steady and assured. So the Golden Mean number 1.618... is truly marvelous
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2023, 4:11:08 PM (9 hours ago)

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:44:45 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > So I am wavering
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2023, 4:41:02 PM (8 hours ago)

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 4:09:27 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Monday,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2023, 9:21:52 PM (4 hours ago)

Currently I am doing my 257th book of science (although I call it the 263rd, but bumped up in cue-
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2023, 9:39:39 PM (3 hours ago)

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 9:20:17 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Currently I am
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Sep 25, 2023, 9:56:20 PM (3 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Sorry this is my 257th book of science, and should have it published in the next few days, perhaps even by Wednesday if lucky.

However I do have the hardest part of this book to overcome. Not the mathematics for the math is easy for me. I breeze through the math like a athlete swims freestyle in a swimming pool.

The hard thing is to visualize how gravity is the same as Coulomb force such as two bar magnets before sticking together.

The two bar magnets are Coulombs law, and how can we visualize them coming close to one another then sticking together.

Every day we visualize gravity working as the Earth orbits around the Sun, but the Earth and Sun do not stick together or have the force to make Earth go plunging into the Sun because of Coulomb force which is about 10^38 or 10^39 times stronger than
gravity force.

So the hardest part of this book for me, is explaining how gravity is the weakest and Coulomb the strongest.

But I am half way there, for I explain gravity as Sun creates pathways in Space of its magnetic field, magnetic lines of force for which each of the planets follow in one of those pathway magnetic lines of force ( we all see iron filings lined up in
pathways when a bar magnet is brought close). Then, the Sun shoots electric current along those pathways, a current aft of Earth pushing Earth in that pathway, but also a electric current fore of Earth-- pulling Earth (this is called the electromagnetic
potential) in its magnetic pathway.

So, somehow I need to use that same picture to describe Coulomb force as two bar magnetics get close enough they cause one to stick to the other in the strongest of EM forces.

AP, King of Science

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In my 205th book of science I discover a way of producing four important constants of physics and math-- pi, Fine Structure, 840, and 360. One of those is a angle measure-- the 360 for a full revolution.

In an experiment described in that 205th book, I took 840 identical circles and crafted them into a perfect torus. To find the angle of separation I did a 360/840 and found an angle of 0.428 degrees. Look up what 0.428 degrees is in radians-- for it is
the Fine Structure constant of physics 0.0072. Then in that experiment I measured the diameter and radius of the torus I constructed from 840 identical circles placed with a angle 0.428 degree separation. Measuring the diameters of circles and of the
donut hole, the diameter of the donut hole of 840 circles forming a ratio which is pi = 3.14159....., specifically, in my experiment --
--- quoting my book ---
Alright, well it is easy to see that 210/65 is 3.230... So I went back to the lab and measured again and it was actually 205mm to 65mm. That gives me 205/65 = 3.15 and compared to pi 3.15/3.14 is a 0.3% sigma error, so close that it is automatic we
announce that given any circle, and if you have 840 of those circles wound around into a torus, that the donut hole diameter divided by given circle diameter is pi number.
--- end quote ---

This is amazing for in a torus construction of precisely 840 circles, specifically 840, it cannot be any other number. That in the construction of 840 falls out pi = 3.1415... falls out that a full circle revolution must be the number 360 degrees and
falls out the Fine Structure Constant in radians 0.0072.


My 205th published book of science.


Faraday Law is inverse projective-geometry of Coulomb-gravity Law//Physics-Math

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon-Kindle edition)


Last revision was 24Nov2022. And this is AP's 205th p

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
5:14 PM (3 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
I only vaguely recall deriving the Coulomb electric magnetic monopole of 1.618*10^-19 C. And I need to check what that was, because here I use this constant to derive the Gravitational constant.

My memory is vague on this issue, and about the only thing I remember is I used both permittivity in conjunction with permeability to get Coulomb monopole.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
6:45 PM (1 hour ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 5:14:45 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I only vaguely recall deriving the Coulomb electric magnetic monopole of 1.618*10^-19 C. And I need to check what that was, because here I use this constant to derive the Gravitational constant.

My memory is vague on this issue, and about the only thing I remember is I used both permittivity in conjunction with permeability to get Coulomb monopole.


quoting from --- My 151st published book of science.

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also,
physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics
super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts,
throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as
template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in
1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard,
not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.

Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that
awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.

Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics
education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1048 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 404 pages
Best Sellers Rank: #4,844,838 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) #487 in Electromagnetic Theory
#1,210 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
#8,751 in Electromagnetism (Books)


What I am going to do is review what that teaching of Avogadro's number because it is a similar idea to the "Elementary Coulomb".

So what was Avogadro's Number in most simple teaching? Avogadro's number, or mole, was taking a "elementary mass" and knowing that in every 1 gram of mass, there is a specific number of these elementary mass units. So if I have a 1 gram of iron or a 1
gram of silver, or a 1 gram of oxygen gas or a 1 gram of sodium or a 1 gram of hydrogen or a 1 gram of H2O or a 1 gram of CO2. If I have 1 gram of anything of matter, it has a number of particles that is the same number in all 1 gram of matter. What is
that elementary particle of mass? It is called nucleon in Old Physics and is either the neutron at 945MeV or the proton 840MeV + muon 105MeV = 945MeV.

So we need to measure the mass of the neutron or the proton+muon and both come close to 1.618*10^-24 grams. And if I divide that mass unit, call it the "Elementary Mass Unit", if I divide it into 1 as in 1 gram, what I procure is the Avogadro number, or
the mole. So, 1/ 1.618*10^-24 = 6.18*10^23 elementary mass particles that compose every 1 gram of mass.

So in summary, every atomic or molecular material that has a mass of 1 gram, has 6.18*10^23 nucleons. It does not matter if it is a element or a molecule, so long as its mass is 1 gram.

Now we are going to do the same sort of thing with "Elementary Coulomb" where coulomb means quantity of electricity. So we do not have mass, we have electricity, and we need a Elementary Coulomb, just as the neutron or proton+muon was the elementary mass.

So, how do we get this elementary coulomb? It is going to be similar to the number 1.618*10^-24 grams mass. Only it is coulombs electricity. Remember, electricity is a wave energy, a hoola hoop wave. And the number is 1.618^10^-19 coulomb. So how do we
get that number 1.618^10^-19 ?

And the answer is by Experiments. And the best experiments to get 1.618*10^-19 is from Faraday's experiments into finding the Faraday constant and dividing it by Avogadro's number 6.18*10^24.

--- end quoting from my 151st book ---

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

So the Faraday constant is 96485 Amperes/mole

The Avogadro constant is 6.*10^23 per mole

If we divide F/N_A

9.6*10^4 / 6*10^23

We end up with 1.6*10^-19 Coulomb.

I do not know how easy or difficult it is to repeat Faraday's experiment. But it is the superior teaching experiment.

Setting up the Faraday constant experiment in class.
--- further quoting from my 1st year college Teaching True Physics textbook ---

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 8:38:19 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

So the Faraday constant is 96485 Amperes/mole

The Avogadro constant is 6.*10^23 per mole

If we divide F/N_A

9.6*10^4 / 6*10^23

We end up with 1.6*10^-19 Coulomb.

I do not know how easy or difficult it is to repeat Faraday's experiment. But it is the superior teaching experiment.

Setting up the Faraday constant experiment in class.
--- further quoting from my 1st year college Teaching True Physics textbook ---

So, this is a beautiful, beautiful ending here.

We experimentally measure Faraday constant and Avogadro constant and then by theory are able to step and tiptoe our way into what the Gravitational constant is as a Psi-squared upon 1.6*10^-19 C times a constant.

We never really had to perform any experiment to find out Gravity constant save for Faraday constant and Avogadro constant.

Looking in Wikipedia at the ease of experimentally producing Faraday constant and Avogadro constant.

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
The value of F was first determined by weighing the amount of silver deposited in an electrochemical reaction in which a measured current was passed for a measured time, and using Faraday's law of electrolysis.
--- end quote ---

Much much easier than the Cavendish set-up to measure gravitational constant.

And how easy was it to measure Avogadro's number?? Well, this is the measuring of the mass of the proton+muon or the neutron in grams and you instantly have Avogadro's number.

So the chain link between finding gravity constant starts with Avogadro number and Faraday constant and ends with Coulomb monopole constant of 1.618*10^-19 C.

However there is that pesky constant at the end, of 0.256000... the Psi-squared constant. And I am still working on it. In the derivation of Fine Structure constant we find that it is an angle in a torus of 840 rings or windings. The angle of separation
of the windings in a torus of 840 windings is a angle in radians of 0.0072.

So is t

Alright, I am going to completely drop this further quest of making a physical meaning of the brand new constant in math and physics of AP's Psi-squared constant 0.2560000. It is used to find the Gravitational constant using Psi-squared upon the
elementary Coulomb monopole 1.618*10^-19 C. and when that is squared and multiplied by 0.256, we end up with the exact Gravitational Constant 6.70*10^-39.

I had to check if 0.256000 was some sort of angle, for Fine Structure Constant is the angle of separation of 840 wrings in the proton torus, for the proton is 840MeV with a muon inside doing the Faraday law.

I am not going to pursue 0.256000 and further for that would take me into the Feigenbaum constants of Bifurcation theory of quantum mechanics-- the constants of 4.66 and 2.50.

Further, I am not going to get into the Meissel-Mertens constant of 0.261, which looks to me as also describing geometrically a quantum mechanics field of lines of force.

I simply do not have the time to spend to find out about Bifurcation theory of quantum mechanics. But it appears to me that my newly found constant is similar in aspects to both Feigenbaum and Meissel-Mertens, only mine involves Perfect Squares in Psi-
squared. I have higher priorities than to take off a year learning what bifurcation theory solved.

I am deeply happy and content I found the pure theory derivation of the Gravititional Constant 6.70*10^-39 GeV/c^2. Deeply gratified because it starts with finding the mass of either proton+muon or the neutron as the basic nucleon unit of mass. And when
in physics history were we able to measure the mass accurately? Early 1900's. From that we get the Avogadro's constant and combining that with the Faraday constant we end up with the Gravitational constant. There is no longer any need to measure the
gravity constant as what the SCIENCE NEWS article that prompted me to write this book. That chapter is closed. But a new chapter opens-- what exactly is this constant 0.2560000.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 12:29:10 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Alright, I am going to completely drop this further quest of making a physical meaning of the brand new constant in math and physics of AP's Psi-squared constant 0.2560000. It is used to find the Gravitational constant using Psi-squared upon the

elementary Coulomb monopole 1.618*10^-19 C. and when that is squared and multiplied by 0.256, we end up with the exact Gravitational Constant 6.70*10^-39.


On second thought, I found what I was looking for.

I remembered that the Fibonnaci Sequence of a Rectangle in Whirling Squares is Calculus in 2D for squares on rectangles. For I reduced 0.256 to its 32/125 and remembered that in the Fibonacci sequence I had a 34 then four squares later a 144 for 34/144 =
0.2361 whereas 32/125 = 0.256. The meaning is clear. The Open log spiral is governed by a constant close to 0.2360000 while to close the spiral, the minimum to close the curve to be a oval, ellipse, circle is 0.256.

In Harold Jacobs book Mathematics a Human Endeavor, page 291 we see the Rectangle in Whirling Squares calculus and that focusing upon the 8 square and the larger 34 square above it. Where 8/34 = 0.2352 and 8/32 = 0.25. If we had a square 32 instead of 34,
would cause the curve to form a circle that would enclose the first 32 square as it swung back around and no longer be an open curve.

The constant 0.256 is the smallest number to create a closed curve in gravitational bound masses. In addition to the fact that the constant 0.256 is formed from perfect square numbers in Psi-squared.

I knew I could not leave this alone until solved.

AP, King of Science

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)