0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So what happened to reality?
Quote from: rstormview on 26/01/2020 16:12:07By what scientific process does attraction reverse into repulsion It doesn't.That's an irrational presumption you have made.The attractive and repulsive terms are both acting all the time.But the repulsive force is a short rage effect. It wins at short ranges and the electrostatic attraction dominates at longer ranges.
By what scientific process does attraction reverse into repulsion
I used to teach control system design after work at Sperry and sometimes at Polytechnic
Voltage is Meters cubed per seconds cubed. Again I do not know what that means
G =Uo is a units formula
G = 16 pi e Uo/(137.036)^3 =6.67223E-11 [6.67260E-11 per US standards].
So, if it's true, it will still be true if you redo the calculation in imperial units.
I think the units are something like henries per metreAnd the henry is kg m^2/ (s^2 A^2)or some such thingSo you can calculate the values.Replace kg by 2.2. Lbs and the metre by 3.280... feetThe Amp and Second are the same.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/02/2020 11:41:57I think the units are something like henries per metreAnd the henry is kg m^2/ (s^2 A^2)or some such thingSo you can calculate the values.Replace kg by 2.2. Lbs and the metre by 3.280... feetThe Amp and Second are the same.Okay, I looked it up and the henry is equal to (kg•m2)/(s2•A2). The kilogram is the metric unit for mass, and apparently the equivalent unit for mass in imperial is the slug (0.06852 kg per slug). The square meter is 10.7639 square feet. So 0.06852 x 10.7639 = 0.73756 and 0.73756 x 1.25663706212 x 10−6 H/m equals 9.2685 x 10-7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m.Now for the recalculation:(16 x 3.14159 x 2.71828 x (9.2685 x 10−7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m))/(137.0363)(50.26548 x 2.71828 x (9.2685 x 10−7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m))/(137.0363)(136.63574756 x (9.2685 x 10−7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m))/(137.0363)(1.2664 x 10-4 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m)/(137.0363)(1.2664 x 10-4 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m)/(2,573,380.584702656)4.92117 x 10-11 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/mThat number is very different from the gravitational constant in imperial units (3.4397 x 10-8 ft3•slug-1•s-2). So unless I made a miscalculation, the metric similarity is merely a coincidence.
The electrical should be more accurate.
Now I will have to study your work.
G = 6.67430E-11 N M^2/Kg^2 for the MKS system and it is6.674E-8 Cm^3 g^-1 S^-2 for the CGS system. Either system should yield the same results. I use the MKS system and I use my calculated value of 6.67223E-11. I believe G calculated from the electrical world is more accurate than the mechanical world. Yet the differences are small. In any event I recalculated my numbers and I get the same results. I will still try to figure out what you did differently.
A precise collision of frequencies at the positive peaks spewed out protons.The precise collision of frequencies at the negative peaks created electrons.
for the core temperature of hydrogen floating in infinity to reach the flashpoint of hydrogen, +565.5C, the Big Bang must have been fuelled with material from a hydrogen concentration of infinite size.
Yet the differences are small.
4.92117 x 10-11is not3.4397 x 10-8
None of the comments above relate to a pre-Big Bang environment so I will repeat the Post in hope for some dialogue
You have been told multiple times but refuse to accept it for reasons I cannot fathom.