Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: A Davis on 27/01/2009 15:33:14
-
The following equation can be used to unify Newtons gravity equation with Maxwells equation. The equation was determined numerically.
g = α2μoμr
Alpha is the Fine Structure constant and μo the permeability of free space, μr = 1.
The fine structure constant has four main parts, the most significant being the Intrinsic Spin of the Electron S.
α = π S/8 ( appoximately)
From the Curie Weiss law.
g = π2 S2(1 + C/(T-θf))/64
Testing this equation on the Sun at it's current temperatue of above 1 million deg μr = 1, and assuming it has an iron core then at the Curie temperature of 1090degK μr = 5000, as the Sun cools it's spin reduces, so at the Curie temperature it's spin should be 0.9 revolutions per day (11years/5000). It's not possible, the increased gravitational force causes the Sun to implode and produce a smaller solution rotating faster.
There is a second example and that is Binary Star Systems when a star cools down it's gravitational force increases, but it can't increase it's spin, nature has a solution the cooling star must find a companion and it's increased gravitational force helps it to do so. This is why Binary Star Systems are so common, the rotational spin of the pair brings gravity back to it's normal value. The above equation predicts
that the square of the period of rotation is proportional to the temperature of the coldest star. (The spin value is universal)
A.Davis. B.Sc. 27.01.2009
Mod edit - formatted the subject as a question - please do this to help keep the forum tidy and easy to navigate - thanks!
Mod edit - formatted the subject as a question again - please do not undo this change
-
Do you not need permittivity or is that the 1.
-
Permittivity is in Maxwells equation for the velocity of light, if one rearranges the equation I have shown and puts it in Maxwells equation then the gravitational constant is in the equation, Unification.
-
Permittivity is in Maxwells equation for the velocity of light, if one rearranges the equation I have shown and puts it in Maxwells equation then the gravitational constant is in the equation, Unification.
The way I understood Maxwell is that permeability was the property of a material that allowed a magnetic field and permittivity was the property that allowed the electric field. Maybe "allowed" is not the right word.
I'm not all that swift when it comes to manipulating maths; but it just seemed that permittivity might be unaccounted for in your equation since it is in the Maxwell equations. If you could show your derivation I might could follow it even though I can't do it from scratch.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2FKemp%2FMax.png&hash=43a645a0d29bca59f66faa8f1dcd685e)
-
The equation I have shown is all magnetic Vern there is no electric field or charge in the equation. If one rearranges it to give.
μo = g/(α2μr) and substitute it into c2=1/(ε0.μ0) Maxwell then one gets
c2 = α2.μr /(εo.g)
There is no derivation it was determined numerically it's a new equation to Science, Science has to test it numerically and then dimensionally when they have a result they have to form a conclusion, is it correct or not!
-
The equation I have shown is all magnetic Vern there is no electric field or charge in the equation. If one rearranges it to give.
μo = g/(α2μr) and substitute it into c2=1/(ε0.μ0) Maxwell then one gets
c2 = α2.μr /(εo.g)
There is no derivation it was determined numerically it's a new equation to Science, Science has to test it numerically and then dimensionally when they have a result they have to form a conclusion, is it correct or not!
Well; good luck[:)] It is a little bit over my head to put it to the test. Maybe someone will offer some insight.
-
The following equation can be used to unify Newtons gravity equation with Maxwells equation. The equation was determined numerically.
g = α2μoμr
Alpha is the Fine Structure constant and μo the permeability of free space, μr = 1.
A.Davis. B.Sc. 27.01.2009
This doesn't seem to work for me. What values and units were you working in?
If I use the following values:
α = 7.29735257x10-3
μ0 = 1.2566x10-6
then:
α2 = 5.325135x10-5
and:
5.325135x10-5 x 1.2566x10-6 = 6.69156464x10-11
but:
g = 6.67428x10-11
The values for the constants were obtained from wikipedia, with the value for α being the corrected value. However, even the older uncorrected value doesn't give g.
-
Nice to see somebody doing some maths, your values agree with mine there is a small error. Life isn't simple in Science there are always errors which lead to corrections, if you want a correction look at the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Electron square the correction value and divide it into the value you have calculated from my equation, there's no point in going any further the measured value isn't accurate enough. You have to do the dimensional analysis yourself and come to a conclusion, it's not easy.
-
"There is no derivation it was determined numerically it's a new equation to Science, Science has to test it numerically and then dimensionally when they have a result they have to form a conclusion, is it correct or not!"
And Science has tested it, and it's not correct because it gives the wrong answer for G.
A small error as you call it is bigger than the errors on the numbers you are working with. The least acurately known is G which is known to 6 significant figures so the agreement should be that good. It isn't, it's only good to 2 figures and that's far to imprecise to be experimental error.
You have just come up with an amusing (near) coincidence.
Heres' a joke based on a much better coincidence (5 sig fig).
http://xkcd.com/217/
-
The error between the two values is 1.00258973
Squaring the anomalous magnetic moment gives 1.00232054 and removing it gives, error 1.00026856
Taking the squareroot of the reduced mass correction gives 1.0002722 and removing it gives, error 1.000004.
The way to attack the theory is to prove that the predicted square law in the Binary Star System, is wrong.
If the period of rotation squared is not proportional to the temperature of the coldest star, then I will
concede defeat.
-
Hang on a minute - you've changed the title of the thread to relate to temperatures now, which had nothing to do with your original postings. What are you up to?
-
Unifying both of them. Put the new equations at the beginning. More to come.
-
The next question is what happens when both the stars in a binary star system reach their curie temperatures. First they will implode and then they will explode.
The result is the same as eta carinae.
-
A Davis
There is a second example and that is Binary Star Systems when a star cools down it's gravitational force increases, but it can't increase it's spin, nature has a solution the cooling star must find a companion and it's increased gravitational force helps it to do so. This is why Binary Star Systems are so common, the rotational spin of the pair brings gravity back to it's normal value.
So, we've got this star which cools down to this limit of yours. It's been doing an essentially Newtonian thing and following its lonely (minimum energy) path through the Galaxy. Suddenly it breaks out of this behaviour - getting incredible amounts of ENERGY (from where, exactly?) and locates a suitable chum to visit. They then set up home together in a mutual orbit of low eccentricity - involving a load more energy to make the change in trajerctory. This corresponds to a major cosmological event. Why haven't any stars observed doing this (you claim it is a common phenomenon)?
Should I believe your bit of numerology or the evidence, or rather, non-evidence produced from Astronomy?
-
January edition Astronomy now page 68, quote Estimates suggest that two-thirds of stars in our local
neighbourhood are doubles. Binary star systems are a big part of nature. One can also get triplets and other multiples of stars. I don't understand where you are getting all this energy from, most of it is locked up inside the Stars.
-
Hi A. Davis; do you have any candidates for stars that might become Sol's companion?
-
A. Davis - The subject line of this thread was changed, by me, to be a question, as this is in line with forum policy. I put a note in your post to explain as much, and now I find that you have altered it back without explanation.
Kindly edit your original post so that the subject line is a question. I would also appreciate it in future if you did not revert changes that moderators have made.
-
I don't understand your reasoning. There's a lot of new Science to do , I am in no position to do it, only work on the Maths, to me it's a challenge to young graduate science students to take it forwards could get a P.hd. in the following areas.
1. The half integer solution is interesting.
2. Put the equation into precession theory, very interesting.
3. The maximum value for c is in the maths.
4. Relativistic change in spin.
5. Relativistic change in charge.
6. Our Sun has a companion, worth looking at.
I will continue doing calculations, if I come up with something new I'll post it.
-
I think this says it all.
"There's a lot of new Science to do , I am in no position to do it,"
-
January edition Astronomy now page 68, quote Estimates suggest that two-thirds of stars in our local
neighbourhood are doubles. Binary star systems are a big part of nature. One can also get triplets and other multiples of stars. I don't understand where you are getting all this energy from, most of it is locked up inside the Stars.
I have no problem with the statistics - just your explanation of them.
What proof do you have that there is any causal relationship?
-
To Bored chemist, I am not in a position to do experiments, it would require funding. My pension wouldn't cover it. To SC none, do you have a better explanation. Will post possible Pulsar theory tomorrow.
-
To Bored chemist, I am not in a position to do experiments, it would require funding. My pension wouldn't cover it. To SC none, do you have a better explanation. Will post possible Pulsar theory tomorrow.
My "better explanation" is the conventional one which is, at least backed up by observations and has some logical consistency. Have you actually spotted any major flaws in it?
From the very start of this thread - its title,even - you have used scientific inconsistency. If we can't use dimensional analysis then the whole of our present Science is very shaky. If you want to be as revolutionary as that, then you can't really quote any of the formulae from established Science - which were based upon the idea of dimensional consistency. You are on your own from the very start. You have leaped in, half way through and cherry picked the bits that fit your fancy. As I said before, it's no more than numerology.
-
I agree, I am on my own. Newtons Laws do describe planetary motion, if the universe is made from elecromagnetic radiation then what electrical unit replaces mass. There are a number of electrical problems with our solar system, the suns magnetic field should decrease as the cube of the distance from the sun it doesn't. Why. Mars has a very small magnetic field. Why. I am trying to prove that the numbers work first, if they didn't I would put the theory into the dustbin.
-
the suns magnetic field should decrease as the cube of the distance from the sun
why?
-
I can't answer the question fully, not done enough Maths on the problem. It's interesting to note that Keplers equation can be seen in Stratton i.e. r 3/2
-
Pulsar solution. From the spin calculation on the sun, one gets a spin value of 0.9 revolutions per day an earth type solution, this agrees with current theory for gravitational collapse the result is a mass value equal to the size of the earth. Repeat the process for a binary solution, one gets a spin of 3.71 seconds, it,s close to measured values. Now repeat for a triplet solution and one gets 2.7 milliseconds, not quite a pulsar solution but the mur value is an estimate. Theres always a quadruple solution.
-
What on earth are you on about?
-
Binary star sytems rotate around each other the colder the stars the faster the spin and a shorter period. Why don't you look on the internet for the shortest period, something to do.
-
What on earth are you on about?
-
Don't ask him, BC - he'll TELL you!
-
Hi SC, you asked me if there was any evidence for the theory, I said none, yor-on has found a link which I didn't know about it's gravitation.org/institute-of- gravity-research/Experiments/experiments.html
Thanks yor-on.
-
Don't ask him, BC - he'll TELL you!
He hasn't so far.
-
Things move fast on the internet, that link has been altered already.
-
Don't ask him, BC - he'll TELL you!
He hasn't so far.
Still waiting.
-
Name the fastest binary spin time and I'll describe the calculation. The result isn't that good. Things are happening chatter on my name on yahoo up by 1.5 million, not so good on google, come on SC start talking to a U.S. university.
-
I wouldn't want to appear a loony.