Robert M. Evans Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 DERIVING THE G CONSTANT A GYROCENTRIC MODEL BY: ROBERT M. EVANS *INTRODUCTION* The current model “Gyrocentrism” began with my conclusion that the “center-seeking” attractive force that we perceive as gravity is “in fact” an inversion of the 3 dimensionally rotating centripetal forces, which originated from the “eruption” of the initial “Big Bang”. In Keplerian “orbital mechanics” (as well as other mathematical analysis of gravity), centripetal force is set equal to gravity (implying that these 2 opposing phenomena are one and the same) which ultimately validates the current models prediction that centripetal force is “in fact” the underlying “root cause” of gravity. The initial causal mechanism of the the Big Bang is still a mystery, but spherical geometry shows us that any asymmetric scalar explosion will necessarily manifest itself into a 3 dimensional rotation of the elementary particles which condense out of that expanding nebulosity (I now refer to these fundamental particles as “mono-poles”). After the "Big Bang" explosion, those most fundamental of Planck scale “mono-pole” particles condensed into a 3 dimensional Cartesian grid work, or matrix (analogous to a box full of golf balls) as they expanded outward into the infinite void of empty space. The irrational nature of pi (and its implied inability to form a perfect sphere) caused each individual monopole to subsequently take on an intrinsic 3 dimensional rotation which was imparted to it by the initial energy of that primal eruption (like a basketball spinning simultaneously on its X, Y, and Z axis).This 3 dimensional angular momentum consequently had the net effect of inverting (or countering) those intrinsic centripetal forces to become an attractive, center seeking (gravitational) force. The dynamic of 3 dimensional rotation creates a “non intuitive” phenomenon called “gimbalock” where at each 90 degrees of rotation, 2 axis necessarily line up to cancel each other out. This geometry is virtually impossible to visualize, but can be demonstrated to show that this gimbal lock (axial alignment) occurs at every 90 degrees, and because each axis is rotating simultaneously, this geometric anomaly cancels out a net rotation of ½ of "1" of those 3 axis (at each 360 degree cycle). This nonintituative (asymmetric) cancelling effect consequently gives each condensing monopole a “net” rotational motion of “spin ½” (or what is now described by particle physicists as 720 degree isospin), because it takes 2 complete 360 degree rotational cycles to bring each fundamental particle back to its original position (or “pseudo inertial reference frame”). It is the conclusion of this Gyrocentric model that the 720 degree particle spin (which is inherent within all fundamental particles) is a product of this gimbalock anomaly, and originates from the primordial (3 dimensionally rotating) mechanism. Each monopole is rotating on all 3 axis, which cancels out 2.5 axis (or 5/6) of its perceived “motion” (from our “pseudo inertial” reference frame), storing it as gravitational (potential) energy) leaving the remaining .5 (or 1/6) of its inherent “energy” as an "apparent" angular momentum (or electrostatic charge). This intrinsic potential energy manifest itself; “first” as an inverted 3 dimensional rotation of the monopoles spherical geometry (which is the underlying root cause of the initial center seeking, "attractive" dynamic). Secondly, the "net" apparent rotation (or electrostatic charge) of these monopoles manifests itself (at the next larger "fractally iterating scale") as an "oscillating interaction" (or attraction, and repulsion) between the monopoles within the bitetrahedral configurations. Consequently, this oscillating interaction between those monopoles "mimics" the original inversion of centripetal forces (through their arching oscillatory paths), to again create a secondary "center seeking dynamic". These 2 dynamics work in concert to ultimately create the large scale attractive force that we experience as gravity while maintaining an inherent stored vacuum energy throughout the entire cosmos. The 5 monopole (bitetrahedral) configurations are formed as a result of the subsequent release of pressure within the octahedral (box of golf balls) vacuum field as the Big Bang scalar expansion continues to perpetually evolve, and spread out (like spokes of a 3 dimensional wheel). In conclusion; this 3 dimensional rotation creates an inversion of the monopoles intrinsic centripetal forces, causing those forces to become center seeking, and then (again) manifest that same center seeking mechanism within the larger 5 monopole configurations. This revelation demonstrates that the apparent (perceived) force of gravity is simply an inversion of the centripetal forces within the condensing fundamental particles created at the Big Bang, and then again as a larger scale inversion of centripetal forces, as those particles attempt to gain stability as spherical groups. This Gyrocentric model goes on to include a mathematical analysis which demonstrates that these fundamental particles continue to group together into larger and larger fractal iterations, and ultimately form the "quarks" and "nucleons" of atoms (which also subsequently explains the "ad hoc" addition of the so-called "color charge" of quarks within the standard model of particle physics) *DERIVING THE “G” CONSTANT* The following equations are the product of a decade of my independent research which initially began as the proposal for a new (and ongoing) cosmological model called Gyrocentrism. This research lead to a series of discoveries which ultimately evolved into nothing less then a complete understanding of the very mechanism of gravity (as well as an accurate description of the geometric architecture of the universe). I then came to the understanding that in order to clearly describe the conclusions of the current model “Gyrocentrism”, that I must begin by uncovering the critical historical mistake which lead mainstream physicists to their current conundrum, and subsequent inability to accurately describe gravity (and resolve the so called “dark matter/energy” problem). My research has concluded that the initial problem arose between Johannes Kepler’s development of his 3rd law of planetary motion, and the Leibniz’s/Newton descriptions of force and gravity. History shows us that Kepler’s laws of planetary motion exactly describe the force of gravity between 2 large scale bodies (or what might better be described as 2 bodies which have a “low proportionality” to each other). Kepler’s 3rd law constant (which he must have been aware of) requires a value of [(4 x pi^2)/G(M{1}+M{2})], but historically was not inserted into that law until (what has now been referred to as) the “modern day interpretation” which only occurred after Newton proposed his gravity formula (and more importantly its corresponding “G constant”). The problem which I discovered is that Kepler's constant requires the 2 mass terms to be added together rather than being multiplied as Leibniz later (incorrectly) proposed in his "Inverse Square Law". Leibniz use of multiplication actually worked (and still does to a certain "limited" extent) because the “lead balls” that he used in his experiments had such a high proportionality to the earth. A perfect analogy to this problem can be demonstrated when we consider how a Galilean transformation is sufficient at low velocities, but that a Lorentzian transformation must be used at relativistic velocities. Newton merely followed Leibniz convention in his classical gravity equation rather than conceding the fact that Kepler's constant clearly necessitated the use of an addition of masses. So Newton’s gravity formula (along with its “Big G” constant) was “born”, with a set of untenable dimensional parameters (of m^3 / kg x s^2). It is absolutely true that the dimensional parameters of the Big G constant are necessary to reconcile Newton's “2nd force law” with Leibniz “inverse square law”, but it is totally unacceptable, and inappropriate to just arbitrarily insert (meaningless) parameters into a mathematical equation (and/or constant). This ad hoc insertion of arbitrary parameters was the “fork in the road” that lead classical physics astray because this “dysfunctional” G constant served to obscure (and completely cover up) the problem of the incorrect use of multiplication by Newton (which ultimately created an inability for physicists to detect the problem). It seems that Leibniz made a major mistake in his “Inverse Square Law” where he multiplied the 2 numerator mass terms together rather than adding them as is shown in Kepler's 3rd law constant (and also in the later celestial mechanics equation). Leibniz's “inverse square law” numerator must be changed from “multiplication” of masses to “addition” of masses (“or” from [M{1}xM{2}/r^2] “into” [M{1}+M{2}/r^2]). “To put it simply”, Kepler understood that when 2 bodies gravitationally interact, that they must be considered as 2 separate fractional “pieces” of the same total body (or "M{tot})" as is used in celestial mechanics, and that their “total mass” must be a “sum” of their individual “fractional masses”. Subsequently, it must also be understood that the 2 fractional masses of 1 body must obviously be subtracted if their “vector directions” are opposing (or if they are being separated). Kepler's 3rd law revelation (whether he understood the implications of its implied constant or not) ultimately contradicted with Leibniz multiplication of masses term (which Newton went on to adopt into his classical gravity equation). My previous mathematical analysis of Newton’s action/reaction 3rd law shows that if 2 bodies are being separated by a force, that 1/2 of that repelling energy will be absorbed by each fraction of that body (as a density gain) regardless of the magnitude of their individual masses (because of the implications of Einstein’s “Special Relativity” which necessarily produces a shifting Lagrangian point between them). The distribution of potential energy offered by a separating force between 2 bodies does not depend on the magnitude of the masses of those fractions but depends only upon the (high or low) proportionality between them (which consequently governs the length of the Lagrangian shift). It is most important to understand that the separation of 2 bodies is exactly the same as a single body being broken into 2 separate fractional pieces whose later “rejoining” must be considered as an addition. Any repelling energy is necessarily split evenly between the 2 fractions of a body regardless of the value of the individual fractional masses (and is accounted for by the relativistic effect of a "shifting Lagrangian"), In Celestial Mechanics, the “specific orbital energy” (Vis Viva) equation is a special case of Kepler's 3rd law which describes the attractive force between 2 bodies (or 2 separated “fractions” of a single body) being drawn straight toward each other (with zero orbital angular momentum) from an infinite distance apart. This special case (zero angular momentum) equation can be (and is) the only true expression (and representation) of an accurate description of gravity, and must not be complacently overlooked (or underestimated) by the physics community because of its contradicting implications to the accepted dogma of the standard model. The Kepler (3rd law constant) “sum of masses” denominator term has been (and still is) utilized as the numerator in the celestial mechanics equation but subsequently has been entirely overlooked (and disregarded) by mainstream physicists as a possible modification to Newton's gravity formula (which is completely unacceptable in our modern description of the scientific method). After a decade of my independent research and analysis into this specific problem, it has become apparent to me that Newton’s product of masses numerator has been complacently accepted by mainstream physics because of its “dimensional absorption” into the "untenable" parameters of the G constant. These G constant dimensions must be recognized as being the root cause of physicists inability to understand the underlying mechanism of gravity, (which consequently is the basis of the current models focus on the reconciliation of those parameters). Newton’s gravity equation uses Leibniz inverse square law, which shows a "multiplication of masses" (because of the high proportionality that Leibniz used between his "lead ball" test bodies, and the earth), while "Kepler’s Constant", and the "Celestial Mechanics" equation show an "addition of masses" (because of the low proportionality between the "planetary" test bodies). In conclusion, it is most important to understand that Newton’s gravity formula is nothing more than the Leibniz “inverse square law” with an added (ad hoc) “G” term, whose purpose was to reconcile that force law with Newton’s 2nd law of motion. * FIRST MODIFICATION OF THE CLASSICAL GRAVITY FORMULA * This new modified Gyrocentric version of the (“so called” Newton/Leibniz) classical gravity formula can be described verbally as its first term (or macro term) being the Leibniz inverse square law, but having its “product of masses” numerator modified into a “sum of masses” (which was first implied by Kepler’s constant, and than later by the celestial mechanics equation). This modification simply eliminates a mass term by changing “M(1) x M(2)” into ”M(1) + M(2)“ or “M(1+2)” (because the 2 mass terms must be considered as fractions of 1 larger massive body). This “sum of masses” numerator term must then be divided by the radius squared (r^2) “denominator” term (which was originally proposed by Leibniz) ultimately creating the term [M(1+2)/r^2]. The current model Gyrocentrism utilizes this development of Kepler's, and Leibniz, and modifies it into a new, and “correct” equation of gravity. * SECOND MODIFICATION OF THE CLASSICAL GRAVITY FORMULA * The second modification (developed completely independent by Gyrocentrism) concerns the “Big G” constant, (or micro term) whose currently accepted dimensional parameters (proposed by Newton) have absolutely no physical meaning, nor do they have any correspondence (whatsoever) to any measured value within our modern system of quantization. The Big G constant in its current form has dimensional parameters of “meters cubed divided by kilograms times seconds squared” (or m^3/kgxs^2) which makes absolutely no sense in this physical reality, but has been “complacently” accepted by the physics community under the impetus that its dimensions are ("get this") “required as cancelling factors”. This notion of the arbitrarily introduction of "cancelling factors" to reconcile an equation is not (nor has it ever been) an accepted mechanism in mathematics to resolve a dimensional inequality within a formula. This proposal that the G constant dimensions are “necessary as canceling factors” is (by far) the most absurd idea ever accepted by the physics community in its history, and has "unfortunately" now become a barrier in physicists ability to develop a complete description of gravity (and ultimately an understanding of the anomolystic "Dark matter/Energy". The dimensions of the G constant must be understood as being an ad hoc addition to Leibniz inverse square law (which is completely unacceptable in mathematics). The term ad hoc is defined as; [“the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by a theory in its unmodified form”]. It is the conclusion of the current model "Gyrocentrism" that Newton simply added the “G” constant term into his gravity equation to compensate for the inequality between the inverse square law and his (“F=Ma”) 2nd force law, without consideration that the dimensions of this constant have absolutely no meaning in our current system of quantization. According to the modification of this Gyrocentric model, the second (micro) term (or “Big G” term) takes on 2 forms (which tends to further complicate things) but ultimately serves to prove (absolutely) that this "2 fold" equation is correct. This Big G constant takes on 2 forms which include an "at the event horizon" version, and also an "above the event horizon" version,.whose differences simply describe the constraining effects which are experienced at that singularity "threshold". These 2 variations of the G constant equation (when compared to each other) compliment each other, and provide an overwhelming preponderance of evidence which ultimately proves their accuracy. Without going into a prolonged explanation of the environment at the "event horizon threshold" (which is beyond the scope of this presentation), I must (at least) briefly describe my conclusions of what occurs at that "enigmatic" point in space/time (to validate the 2 variations of this equation). At the event horizon where matter reaches the velocity of light (and from a "falling in" perspective "looking out the window of a falling in spacecraft") the outside time apparently speeds up to infinity, which means that the entire universe must necessarily unfold to its ultimate end (as the falling body closes in to reach its final 1 Planck length distance from that horizon). This ultimate (finite) distance of 1 Planck length shows an inability to consider a distance factor as the mass of the falling body immediately spreads around the event horizon increasing its surface area rather then its volume. These 2 problems (of time and distance) imply that a body can never fall into (or past) an event horizon because of the constraining effects experienced at that horizon which involves the infinite increase in time (from that bodies perception) and also the subsequent inability to move closer to that horizon past a 1 Planck length distance (which is a function of the uncertainty principle). The Planck length (of 1.616 x 10-34) turns out "simply" to be the "Phi" fractally iterating growth value (or "infinite series" length term value of 1.618), and not just some arbitrary coincidental value. This value manifests itself in nature as a scalar progression, and corresponds exactly to the original conclusion of Leibniz (concerning the inverse square law) where the interacting scalar fields (between 2 spherical bodies) fall off as the reciprocal of the square of the distance between them. This Phi (natural iteration) value is "in fact" the most fundamental value of distance and necessarily corresponds to what quantum mechanics has interpreted as the Planck length. * 2 ULTIMATE VERSIONS OF THE G CONSTANT* It turns out that because measurement conditions are different "at" and "above" the event horizon of a singularity, that their must be 2 different versions of the G constant. The current model Gyrocentrism derives a solution for either of these 2 equations, where both solutions result in the historically measured "Cavendish" value (of 6.666 x 10-11). Both solutions contain different parameters whose combinations represents the difference in their position (either "at" or "above" the event horizon of a singularity). Both versions begin with a first parameter of the "Vis Viva" energy component, which is expressed in Joules as 2 times kinetic energy (or 2 x [Mv^2]/2), or simply Mv^2. [NOTE: The 2 x 1/2 factors (in the Vis Viva energy parameter) is eliminated from the equation for purposes of algebraic convenience]. The second parameter is a division by Roe (or vacuum energy density) which represents the compactness of the quantum vacuum monopole field, and its ultimate ability to inhibit both the formation, and the oscillation the 5 monopole bitetrahedral configurations (this Roe term, again for "algebraic convenience" is expressed as a "multiplication by its reciprocal"). In the ("at" the event horizon) "first" version, "Roe" represents a "surface density" because of the inability for a body to move closer to the horizon at that Planck length distance (and it takes on the dimensions of mass/radius^2) because the bodies mass can only spread around the surface area of the horizon. In the ("above" the event horizon) "second" version, "Roe" represents a "normal" volume density, and takes on the dimensions of mass/radius^3. In the first ("at" horizon) version, the numerator term of "Vis Viva over Roe" term, must be divided by a denominator value of 35355 (or the fundamental monopole radius as measured from its 45 degree inertial reference frame, or .25 x root 2), which completes the first version of the formula. In the second ("above" horizon) equation, because there is now "room" (or distance to move), a scalar distance term (the same as Leibniz used in the inverse square macro term) must be added to represent a falling off of the scalar field (as the reciprocal of the square of the distance). The term 1/Phi^2 must be added into the numerator of the second version, and then the whole numerator term must finally be square rooted. The final factor (in the second version) is a division of that numerator by the conversion factor of 1 radian which represents the energy of gravity standing still as a standing wave (and so must be expressed as an angular value). * AT" AND "ABOVE" THE EVENT HORIZON GRAVITY FORMULAS * The macro term of the modified gravity formula (M(1+2)/r^2) begins the same for both versions, while the difference in the 2 "G" constants necessarily represent the 2 different versions of the overall formula. The 2 formulas contain different parameters which ultimately compliment each other, and also mutually validate each others accuracy. The 2 versions are stated as follows: *AT THE EVENT HORIZON FORMULA*: MODIFIED INVERSE x "BIG G" = GRAVITATIONAL SQUARE TERM CONSTANT FORCE [M(1)+M(2)/r^2] x [ {E(vv)} x {1/roe(a)} ] = JOULES [r(m) x root 2 ] [kg(1+2)/r^2] x [ {kg x r^2/s^2} x {r^2/kg} ] = [kg x r/s^2] [r] G = [{222 x 2618/2916} x {2618/222}] [.25 x 1.4142] G = [ {(222) x (9)} x {(1178)} ] [35355] G = 2358 35355 G = 6.666 *ABOVE HORIZON EQUATION* MODIFIED INVERSE x "BIG G" = GRAVITATIONAL SQUARE TERM CONSTANT FORCE [M(1)+M(2)/r^2] x [sqrt.{ {E(vv)} x {1/roe(v)} x {1/Phi^2} }] = FORCE [1 radian ] [kg(1+2)/r^2] x [sqrt.{ {kg x r^2/s^2} x {r^3/kg} x {1/r^2} }] = [kg x r/s^2] [1 radian] G = [sqrt.{ {222 x 2618/2916} x {4236/222} x {3819} }] [ 360/2pi] G = [sqrt.{ {222 x 9} x {1908} x {3819} }] [5729] G = [sqrt.{ {2} x {1909} x {3819} }] [5729] G = [sqrt.{ {3818} x {3818} }] [5729] G = [sqrt. {145.8} ] [NOTE: phi/1.111=.145.8] [5729] G = 3.818 5729 G = 6.666 SIMBOL CONVENTION: E(p) = kg x (m^2 x s^2) = potential energy Roe = M/m^3 = density field M = Mass = 2.22x10-8 S = seconds = 5.4x10-44 Scalar (“fractal”) progression term = 1/phi^2 = 3.818 1 radian = 5729 m = meters (or radius) = Phi = 1.618x10-35 r(m) = .25 monopole radius x root 2 = .35355 The above equation accurately predicts the measured "Cavendish" value of the G constant, while also demonstrating a correct set of the necessary dimensional parameters. This modification of the "Kepler", "Leibniz", "Newton", and now "Evans" gravity equation is “in fact” an accurate, and ultimate description of the force of gravity. CONTACT: ROBERT M. EVANS Gyrocentrism70@gmail.com I just posted this article which looked perfect during my download, but the mathametical equations came out almost illegibal. So plese try to decifer the formulas, but its not my fault. Oh well I tried Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Hanke Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 23 minutes ago, Robert M. Evans said: So plese try to decifer the formulas, but its not my fault. 1. This forum supports LaTeX, so you could have just typed them using LaTeX code. 2. You should have posted this in the “Speculations” section of the forum, not in “Physics” 3. As for the actual contents - are you open to an honest assessment, or did you post this in the hopes of receiving only positive feedback? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 30 minutes ago, Robert M. Evans said: it is totally unacceptable, and inappropriate to just arbitrarily insert (meaningless) parameters into a mathematical equation (and/or constant). Nobody did. BTW, do you know that only an inverse square law gives rise to stable orbits? Nothing else works. Since all the orbits have been shown to be stable (simply because they have been here for a long time) we know that gravity, at least on the scale of the solar system and beyond, follows an inverse square law. It has also been verified in the lab on much smaller scales. Please can you confirm which of these sums up your new idea: "It agrees with the inverse square law and is redundant" or "it does not agree with the inverse square law and is experimentally shown to be wrong" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 43 minutes ago, Robert M. Evans said: This modification simply eliminates a mass term by changing “M(1) x M(2)” into ”M(1) + M(2)“ or “M(1+2)” As this will give different results from Newton's law it must be wrong. Reported for posting outside Speculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Robert M. Evans said: CONTACT: ROBERT M. EVANS Gyrocentrism70@gmail.com Slipping the golden ratio into spatial volume calculations is a neat trick. Do you also cast spells on a Sunday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 ! Moderator Note Due to non-mainstream assertions, I'm moving this to Speculations. Please read the special rules for this section, respond to requests for clarification, and support your ideas with evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now