no, we are agreed that it is the general conception of physics that there is no "Known" law that states it and therefore you are right in that respect, however I still believe it to be true for any constant that is a result of a physical action or reaction (my personal opinion). and this is what allowed me to find what i found.. i challenged the current thought process.. im not the first to do this, many theories did the same and were rejected at first (a very important and proven theory comes to mind). And no, i do not equate myself to giants like Einstein., just saying.

Edited July 24Jul 24 by mike.appleby

Just now, mike.appleby said:

however I still believe it to be true for any constant that is a result of a physical action or reaction (my personal opinion).

So what about Reynolds Number ?

I chose this one because it is probably the one most likely for you to have heard of, but there are plenty more.

You can't get more physical than the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces which determines the flow regime.

'So what about Reynolds Number ?' - i have not looked into it exactly but a i do now it is dimensionless according to fluid mechanics - but under my train of thought for this paper, if the number is derived from action then it must carry dimensions, but i state this with curiosity more than fact as i did with pi. to prove it, that is the challenge, and that is what i set out to do here.

Now I do appreciate the curiosity, and I fully understand where you are coming from. There are lots of examples that could be quoted that 'Prove my thought' wrong. That does not change the fact that I chose to test the idea, to challenge the thought and see where it took me. So my motive is pure, i did not set out to find a new theory or to change the world, i just chose to challenge the high court of physics knowledge gods and see if anything else was possible.

in conclusion, Although i made that statement, I in no way intend to suggest that all dimensionless numbers have to have units in reality. it was just the rule i set for myself for this particular theory because it did not sit comfortably with me that this number had no physical meaning/participation in the creation/manipulation of curvature within a mass filled universe.

as an added note, my theory has thus far been unable to find a reason for the fine structure constant to have units even with the concept of pi having units. ( not through lack of trying). But that is the beauty of a theory, it can prove you right in one area and wrong in another, it is incumbent on us to accept the results either way, and if we really believe we are right to continue to look as i do.

Edited July 24Jul 24 by mike.appleby

Just now, mike.appleby said:

'So what about Reynolds Number ?' - i have not looked into it exactly but a i do now it is dimensionless according to fluid mechanics - but under my train of thought for this paper, if the number is derived from action then it must carry dimensions, but i state this with curiosity more than fact as i did with pi. to prove it, that is the challenge, and that is what i set out to do here.

Now I do appreciate the curiosity, and I fully understand where you are coming from. There are lots of examples that could be quoted that 'Prove my thought' wrong. That does not change the fact that I chose to test the idea, to challenge the thought and see where it took me. So my motive is pure, i did not set out to find a new theory or to change the world, i just chose to challenge the high court of physics knowledge gods and see if anything else was possible.

in conclusion, Although i made that statement, I in no way intend to suggest that all dimensionless numbers have to have units in reality. it was just the rule i set for myself for this particular theory because it did not sit comfortably with me that this number had no physical meaning/participation in the creation/manipulation of curvature within a mass filled universe.

as an added note, my theory has thus far been unable to find a reason for the fine structure constant to have units even with the concept of pi having units. ( not through lack of trying). But that is the beauty of a theory, it can prove you right in one area and wrong in another, it is incumbent on us to accept the results either way, and if we really believe we are right to continue to look as i do.

Well at least you are prepared to consider the possibility of being to hasty.

What do you know about units, dimension theory, and coefficients in maths and physics and the difference between them ?

One thing is that different sets of both base units and/or base dimensions may be chosen which will make the actual values different.

14 minutes ago, mike.appleby said:

'So what about Reynolds Number ?' - i have not looked into it exactly but a i do now it is dimensionless according to fluid mechanics - but under my train of thought for this paper, if the number is derived from action then it must carry dimensions, but i state this with curiosity more than fact as i did with pi. to prove it, that is the challenge, and that is what i set out to do here.

Now I do appreciate the curiosity, and I fully understand where you are coming from. There are lots of examples that could be quoted that 'Prove my thought' wrong. That does not change the fact that I chose to test the idea, to challenge the thought and see where it took me. So my motive is pure, i did not set out to find a new theory or to change the world, i just chose to challenge the high court of physics knowledge gods and see if anything else was possible.

in conclusion, Although i made that statement, I in no way intend to suggest that all dimensionless numbers have to have units in reality. it was just the rule i set for myself for this particular theory because it did not sit comfortably with me that this number had no physical meaning/participation in the creation/manipulation of curvature within a mass filled universe.

as an added note, my theory has thus far been unable to find a reason for the fine structure constant to have units even with the concept of pi having units. ( not through lack of trying). But that is the beauty of a theory, it can prove you right in one area and wrong in another, it is incumbent on us to accept the results either way, and if we really believe we are right to continue to look as i do.

There are other dimensionless constants in physics, one well-known example being the fine structure constant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

But in any case, π is not a physical constant but a mathematical one, as earlier posts on this thread have pointed out. It is not solely related to circles in Euclidian geometry either, but has a more fundamental significance, as shown for instance by Euler's relation, which is not intrinsically geometrical (though you can represent complex numbers geometrically).

You are not at liberty to arbitrarily give π dimensions only when it appears in certain physical contexts: either it is dimensionless or it is not.

Edited July 24Jul 24 by exchemist

i believe i have a good grasp on dimensional analysis, but as I have not been to uni myself, i evaluate my knowledge of physics as no better than a collage student. i did not do too bad with maths in school and have studied (at home) basic calculus. this is why i used ai to check and explain a lot of the later maths in the later part of the paper. I have been learning/studying physics for the last 15 years but again, not a physicist

'One thing is that different sets of both base units and/or base dimensions may be chosen which will make the actual values different.' - this is basically how i was able to identify some of what ive done. for example, when looking at planks constant, it is almost always shown as the factored version (cancelling the 2 time aspects) i did not, the reason, when i was trying to find the meaning of the units, one of the time units was a higher value than the other but the units themselves cancel out leaving just a number. This helped me derive values for Kg and A

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

There are other dimensionless constants in physics, one well-known example being the fine structure constant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

But in any case, π is not a physical constant but a mathematical one, as earlier posts on this thread have pointed out. It is not solely related to circles in Euclidian geometry either, but has a more fundamental significance, as shown for instance by Euler's relation, which is not intrinsically geometrical (though you can represent complex numbers geometrically).

You are not at liberty to arbitrarily give π dimensions only when it appears in certain physical contexts: either it is dimensionless or it is not.

in all due respect (as you are no doubt far more educated than me) i am at liberty to point out that there is a situation that i believe (note the word believe) dictates units. as i said, maybe it is not pi in this situation, and not to sound ignorant or rude, but you are not at liberty to tell me what to think. I am not here to tell you how to think or demand that you believe anything i say, but if your not even going to read my theory and give it a chance, then please let other people make their own minds up instead of acting like you are the god of knowledge in this topic. You may ultimately be right, or wrong, but closing the door on a thought simply because you know better is exactly why progress is stifled. and again, i do not intend to offend and respect your opinion.

3 minutes ago, mike.appleby said:

i believe i have a good grasp on dimensional analysis, but as I have not been to uni myself, i evaluate my knowledge of physics as no better than a collage student. i did not do too bad with maths in school and have studied (at home) basic calculus. this is why i used ai to check and explain a lot of the later maths in the later part of the paper. I have been learning/studying physics for the last 15 years but again, not a physicist

'One thing is that different sets of both base units and/or base dimensions may be chosen which will make the actual values different.' - this is basically how i was able to identify some of what ive done. for example, when looking at planks constant, it is almost always shown as the factored version (cancelling the 2 time aspects) i did not, the reason, when i was trying to find the meaning of the units, one of the time units was a higher value than the other but the units themselves cancel out leaving just a number. This helped me derive values for Kg and A

What is A? Usually it denotes Amperes, i.e. electric current.

Planck's constant has the dimensions of "action", viz. energy x time. That is always true. You can't just cancel the time element, that's nonsense. And there is only one time element. I don't know what you mean by there being two of them. You must have misunderstood whatever you were reading. (Or you were fed a load of garbage by AI: we see increasing amounts of that on this forum.)

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What is A? Usually it denotes Amperes, i.e. electric current.

Planck's constant has the dimensions of "action", viz. energy x time. That is always true. You can't just cancel the time element, that's nonsense. And there is only one time element. I don't know what you mean by there being two of them. You must have misunderstood whatever you were reading. (Or you were fed a load of garbage by AI: we see increasing amounts of that on this forum.)

when calculating planks constant (which by the way remains the same in my theory) the full equation is (kg m² / s² ) . s thus the 2 scancel (and A is Ampere not in this equation directly, but later derived within Kg)

Edited July 24Jul 24 by mike.appleby

2 hours ago, mike.appleby said:

Core Principles

1. Dimensional π (Pi): In VRT, π is assigned physical units: This dimensional form allows π to serve as a curvature-completion operator within the vacuum field.

2. Vacuum Twist Tension (A²): A universal vacuum curvature constant: This tension defines the energy density needed to form stable field curvature structures.

3. Unit derivision A and Kg: derived by first defining what A is in terms of units. Further, we solve for kg, and give reasoning behind what we do.

---

Testable Predictions ( suggested by ai)

1. Electron Mass/Charge Correlation: Predicts that all charged leptons possess the same internal twist-unit charge (545,590), differing only in curvature depth (mass).

2. Resonant Decay Geometry: During beta decay, VRT predicts that the expelled energy forms an up-quark-like seed that is immediately captured into a vacuum twist, forming an electron. Predictable based on curvature energy profiles.

3. π-Twist Completion Threshold: A particle acquires rest mass only once its twist geometry achieves a full π-radian closure — predicts why mass less particles remain mass less (e.g. photons).

You introduce some novel physics descriptions and properties here, but there’s no physics.

Just now, swansont said:

You introduce some novel physics descriptions and properties here, but there’s no physics.

the first three aspects are what i set out in the paper, the last ones (as i noted) are an ai summery of my theory

10 minutes ago, mike.appleby said:

i believe i have a good grasp on dimensional analysis, but as I have not been to uni myself, i evaluate my knowledge of physics as no better than a collage student. i did not do too bad with maths in school and have studied (at home) basic calculus. this is why i used ai to check and explain a lot of the later maths in the later part of the paper. I have been learning/studying physics for the last 15 years but again, not a physicist

'One thing is that different sets of both base units and/or base dimensions may be chosen which will make the actual values different.' - this is basically how i was able to identify some of what ive done. for example, when looking at planks constant, it is almost always shown as the factored version (cancelling the 2 time aspects) i did not, the reason, when i was trying to find the meaning of the units, one of the time units was a higher value than the other but the units themselves cancel out leaving just a number. This helped me derive values for Kg and A

in all due respect (as you are no doubt far more educated than me) i am at liberty to point out that there is a situation that i believe (note the word believe) dictates units. as i said, maybe it is not pi in this situation, and not to sound ignorant or rude, but you are not at liberty to tell me what to think. I am not here to tell you how to think or demand that you believe anything i say, but if your not even going to read my theory and give it a chance, then please let other people make their own minds up instead of acting like you are the god of knowledge in this topic. You may ultimately be right, or wrong, but closing the door on a thought simply because you know better is exactly why progress is stifled. and again, i do not intend to offend and respect your opinion.

But I'm afraid in the real world there is such a thing as ballocks. And if you talk ballocks people will point that out.

As a former contributor on another science forum, who was a school teacher, used to say, "In science, you can't just make shit up." Ideas have to conform to logic, including mathematics, and they need to be testable, at least in principle, by observation of nature. Inventing a now-you-see-it-now-you-don't rule for applying dimensions, when you feel like it, to a mathematical transcendental number like π, has to fail as a scientific idea. You are breaking not just physics but mathematics and logic. I'm sorry to be harsh but there it is.

You are free to think what you like of course. Up to you entirely.

Edited July 24Jul 24 by exchemist

since no one wants to read the paper and some are just intent on attacking me, let me clarify something. I started this paper to prove Pi has dimensions, During my journey, i realised that pi does not govern curvature in the vacuum (oh how i can hear the teeth grinding now) . Rather i found that Z₀ does. this is realised due to the fact that nature does not provide perfect circles. (again teeth grinding). just read the paper and at least look at the logic/non logic that i used, then you can attack my idea and not me. Everything up until deriving Gravity and explaining what it is, is on me, after that is when ai used my theory to answer other questions and solve issues (again based on my theory, weather right or wrong) such as the de broglie wave (later called particle duality) and the 2 slit experiment.

again, please just read it if you want to debate, there is no point in arguing with stubborn people who wont entertain the idea of change.

8 minutes ago, exchemist said:

But I'm afraid in the real world there is such a thing as ballocks. And if you talk ballocks people will point that out.

As a former contributor on another science forum, who was a school teacher, used to say, "In science, you can't just make shit up." Ideas have to conform to logic, including mathematics, and they need to be testable, at least in principle, by observation of nature. Inventing a now-you-see-it-now-you-don't rule for applying dimensions, when you feel like it, to a mathematical transcendental number like π, has to fail as a scientific idea. I'm sorry to be harsh but there it is.

You are free to think what you like. But if you persist with this idea you will be thought a fool, that's all. Up to you entirely.

thank you for proving my point. it shows you havnt read it, just judge it based on your unwillingness to challenge what you professors drilled into you (if you whent to uni i mean)

Edited July 24Jul 24 by mike.appleby

11 minutes ago, mike.appleby said:

when calculating planks constant (which by the way remains the same in my theory) the full equation is (kg m² / s² ) . s thus the 2 scancel (and A is Ampere not in this equation directly, but later derived within Kg)

What? That doesn't make sense. The dimensions of energy are ML²/T², so kg m²/s² in SI units.

Planck's constant has dimensions of energy x time, so ML²/T, i.e. kg m²/s. though it is more usual to express it as an energy unit x time, i.e. in joule-seconds (J.s) or electron volt - seconds (eV.s).

Just now, mike.appleby said:

Rather i found that Z₀ does. this is realised due to the fact that nature does not provide perfect circles.

One thing you need to be careful of are electrical units and dimensions, because in some systems dimensionless constants exist, that are absent in others.

Look up esu and emu units.

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What? That doesn't make sense. The dimensions of energy are ML²/T², so kg m²/s² in SI units.

Planck's constant has dimensions of energy x time, so ML²/T, i.e. kg m²/s. though it is more usual to express it as an energy unit x time, i.e. in joule-seconds (J.s) or electron volt - seconds (eV.s).

sorry was thinking of energy, hf. so E. but h = (kg⋅m2/s².) / 1/s

Edited July 24Jul 24 by mike.appleby

1 minute ago, mike.appleby said:

sorry was thinking of energy, hf. so E. but h = (kg⋅m2/s².) / 1/s

OK so that now agrees with my units, right?

Just now, exchemist said:

OK so that now agrees with my units, right?

yes.. i made the mistake

Beware also that

ML²T^-2 represents other quantites than just energy.

27 minutes ago, exchemist said:

OK so that now agrees with my units, right?

i made the same mistake (defining h in terms of energy(hf)) in the paper with-ought explanation, although it does not change any other results..

i have reduced the paper to its main principle (deriving pi and plank scales) to make it short and easy to read, however, unless i re-write the whole thing, it is not possible to post it here other than as a pdf. so a quick and easy read but it is an external paper.. hope someone reads it. otherwise its going to be a long chat trying to explain everything

1 hour ago, mike.appleby said:

yes.. i made the mistake

OK, so what then did you mean by saying in Planck's constant the "2 s" can be cancelled making it independent of time? To quote you, you said: " for example, when looking at planks constant, it is almost always shown as the factored version (cancelling the 2 time aspects) i did not, the reason, when i was trying to find the meaning of the units, one of the time units was a higher value than the other but the units themselves cancel out leaving just a number."

How can you reconcile that with what we have just gone through?

1 hour ago, mike.appleby said:

i made the same mistake (defining h in terms of energy(hf)) in the paper with-ought explanation, although it does not change any other results..

i have reduced the paper to its main principle (deriving pi and plank scales) to make it short and easy to read, however, unless i re-write the whole thing, it is not possible to post it here other than as a pdf. so a quick and easy read but it is an external paper.. hope someone reads it. otherwise its going to be a long chat trying to explain everything

pi only.pdf

If you want anyone to read it, you will at least need to give them a reason to think it may not be crap. If you persist with trying to apply dimensions to π you have no chance of that. I strongly advise you to get rid of that notion.

By the way it is spelt "without" not "with-ought". Is English your first language?

i was referring to hf not h. in hf one of the s² cancels out due to the 1/s. it was an error on my part to say h. I used E. I then used the full form based on a frequency of 2.5X10⁶ (with ought following through with the cancellation to isolate what the time factors where so that i could find a value for Kg. Then i tested the value with other dimensions until i found a value that worked mathematically for all the dimensions (equations) in other words i can take a dimensional equation (in si units) for anything that is based on plank units and swap them for values to get the given value for that equation. this was pivotal in deriving other aspects such as the Ampere and G

and as usual i wasnt clear, i didnt mean it made it independent of time

18 minutes ago, exchemist said:

OK, so what then did you mean by saying in Planck's constant the "2 s" can be cancelled making it independent of time? To quote you, you said: " for example, when looking at planks constant, it is almost always shown as the factored version (cancelling the 2 time aspects) i did not, the reason, when i was trying to find the meaning of the units, one of the time units was a higher value than the other but the units themselves cancel out leaving just a number."

How can you reconcile that with what we have just gone through?

If you want anyone to read it, you will at least need to give them a reason to think it may not be crap. If you persist with trying to apply dimensions to π you have no chance of that. I strongly advise you to get rid of that notion.

By the way it is spelt "without" not "with-ought". Is English your first language?

Yes english is my first language but I am borderline dyslexic..

And as far as removing the claim that I gave pi dimensions, that would just end up being click bait, dishonest title. People would be more annoyed. The whole theory is based on that premise. The fact that people reject it on principle rather than content just shows how bad the community is.. they believe that they know everything and yet don't have answers to everything. It has always been that way unfortunately. I am only hoping that someone will be curious enough to look. Oh and they should also learn a little humility while their at it. Even prominent theories have floors and some get proven wrong after bieng initialy accepted, because new ways of thinking show mistakes. Maybe I am wrong, but until someone shows me a mistake (that changes the outcome drastically) in my math, I will continue to believe what I have

Edited July 24Jul 24 by mike.appleby

30 minutes ago, mike.appleby said:

i was referring to hf not h. in hf one of the s² cancels out due to the 1/s. it was an error on my part to say h. I used E. I then used the full form based on a frequency of 2.5X10⁶ (with ought following through with the cancellation to isolate what the time factors where so that i could find a value for Kg. Then i tested the value with other dimensions until i found a value that worked mathematically for all the dimensions (equations) in other words i can take a dimensional equation (in si units) for anything that is based on plank units and swap them for values to get the given value for that equation. this was pivotal in deriving other aspects such as the Ampere and G

and as usual i wasnt clear, i didnt mean it made it independent of time

Yes english is my first language but I am borderline dyslexic..

And as far as removing the claim that I gave pi dimensions, that would just end up being click bait, dishonest title. People would be more annoyed. The whole theory is based on that premise. The fact that people reject it on principle rather than content just shows how bad the community is.. they believe that they know everything and yet don't have answers to everything. It has always been that way unfortunately. I am only hoping that someone will be curious enough to look. Oh and they should also learn a little humility while their at it. Even prominent theories have floors and some get proven wrong after bieng initialy accepted, because new ways of thinking show mistakes. Maybe I am wrong, but until someone shows me a mistake (that changes the outcome drastically) in my math, I will continue to believe what I have

OK borderline dyslexic, that explains the occasional wacky spelling, that's fine, I just wondered.

But you have to understand that attaching units to π is nonsensical. Perhaps you could get around the problem by introducing some factor with your chosen dimensions that has a value of 1. You could multiply π by this factor and the product would have the same numerical value as π but now with dimensions. So if the factor is F with units kg . m / A2 . S3, you could write

πF = π kg . m / A2 . S3. Then you would need to explain the physical significance of F and why it has a value of 1.

Very interesting angle, never thought about that.. I will look at that tomorrow. Thanks

I find it poetically ironic that of all the numbers on the number line, you find the one that has a special place in dimension theory to argue with (believe something different about).

FYI dimension theory in Physics (which is quite different from the much more difficult dimension theory in Mathematics) was originally expounded by a man named Buckingham.

And there is a theorem named after him.

Buckinghams Pi theorem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_%CF%80_theorem

n engineering, applied mathematics, and physics, the Buckingham π theorem is a key theorem in dimensional analysis. It is a formalisation of Rayleigh's method of dimensional analysis. Loosely, the theorem states that if there is a physically meaningful equation involving a certain number n physical variables, then the original equation can be rewritten in terms of a set of p = n − k dimensionless parameters π₁, π₂, ..., π_p constructed from the original variables, where k is the number of physical dimensions involved; it is obtained as the rank of a particular matrix.

The theorem provides a method for computing sets of dimensionless parameters from the given variables, or nondimensionalization, even if the form of the equation is still unknown.

The Buckingham π theorem indicates that validity of the laws of physics does not depend on a specific unit system. A statement of this theorem is that any physical law can be expressed as an identity involving only dimensionless combinations (ratios or products) of the variables linked by the law (for example, pressure and volume are linked by Boyle's law – they are inversely proportional). If the dimensionless combinations' values changed with the systems of units, then the equation would not be an identity, and the theorem would not hold.

Note the use of the word dimensionless.

Note I think this link alone is worth this year's subscription, that I have just paid.

Edited July 24Jul 24 by studiot

3 hours ago, mike.appleby said:

Yes english is my first language but I am borderline dyslexic..

I apologise for being a tad sarcastic about Plank and Planck, impute and input, etc. I should know better.

55 minutes ago, studiot said:

FYI dimension theory in Physics (which is quite different from the much more difficult dimension theory in Mathematics) was originally expounded by a man named Buckingham.

And there is a theorem named after him.

Buckinghams Pi theorem.

It's perhaps worth mentioning that this π has nothing necessarily to do with the other π.