Dovada Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) Why do we have to use physical constants in our physics equations? Is it to compensate for our physical environment? Consider the following where: Speed of light squared = c^2 = 1 / (magnetic constant * electric constant) Magnetic constant = (29920 * 2pi) / 149,600,000,000 = 1.25663706143592 x10-6 Electric constant = 1 / (600,772.178 * 29920 * 2pi) = 8.854187818 x10-12 Radius sun-earth = (29920 * 2pi) / 1.25663706143592 x10-6 = 149,600,000,000 m Radius sun-earth = 1 / (600,772.178 * magnetic constant * electric constant) = 149,600,000,000 m Solar orbit velocity = (149,600,000,000 * magnetic constant) / 2pi = 29920 m/sec Centripetal velocity = 1 / ((29920 * 2pi) * electric constant) = 600,772.178 m/sec Centripetal velocity = c^2 / 149,600,000,000 = 600,772.178 m/sec Could these numbers be just a coincidence? If these numbers are not just a coincidence we have a problem. The reason is, if the magnetic constant and electric constant express only our local environment conditions, the constants will not hold up elsewhere within the cosmos. Meaning they are no longer dependable as a source of universal physical constants. So do we have the question, “are they physical constants or just plain numerology”? Edited November 7, 2011 by Dovada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 If the distance from the sun to the earth was an integral part of those constants, why hasn't anyone noticed a difference in those constants from perihelion to aphelion? The difference in distance is not insignificant, which should change those constants in a not insignificant way, which would mean things like the computers you and I are communicating with the forum would only work correctly for a short time each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dovada Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) If the distance from the sun to the earth was an integral part of those constants, why hasn't anyone noticed a difference in those constants from perihelion to aphelion? The difference in distance is not insignificant, which should change those constants in a not insignificant way, which would mean things like the computers you and I are communicating with the forum would only work correctly for a short time each year. I only know that many of the components the numbers are referring to, vary at different times of the year.The orbit velocity varies at the same time as the radius varies, as they all do effect each other. Has anybody checked this out seriously or has the blind assumption been made that they are universal constants? I am interested to hear what others have to say. The physics of this problem has annoyed me for some time, as the numerical relationship definitely does exist. Edited November 7, 2011 by Dovada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) Many constants are used in other constants. Its not numerology when a constant's equation includes other constants or relationship between constants. Constants have some absolute meaning that they represent, whereas numerology just constitutes meaningless numbers used in conjunction with other meaningless numbers and how they are related in a non-specific, non-orderly manner. Edited November 7, 2011 by Realitycheck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dovada Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 Many constants are used in other constants. Its not numerology when a constant's equation includes other constants or relationship between constants. Constants have some absolute meaning that they represent, whereas numerology just constitutes meaningless numbers used in conjunction with other meaningless numbers and how they are related. I agree - Only I have found similar relationships appear in some other physical constants used. The pattern for the magnetic constant and electric constant specifically points to the vacuum of space in which we exist, in that they are sometimes commonly called the vacuum permittivity and vacuum permeability. This tends to not indicate any numerology is happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 What about units? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dovada Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 What about units? At the moment myself I am assuming the original units apply. Can you shed any light on the subject of: They maybe no longer dependable as a source of universal physical constants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Speed of light squared = c^2 = 1 / (magnetic constant * electric constant) Is not plucked out of the air, it has a physical basis. Numerology just picks numbers until it works, you can't do that in physics you need reasons. Also, Centripetal velocity = 1 / ((29920 * 2pi) * electric constant) = 600,772.178 m/sec Does not appear to work dimensionally, the units do not work out as m/sec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dovada Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 Could these numbers be just a coincidence? If these numbers are not just a coincidence we have a problem. The reason is, if the magnetic constant and electric constant express only our local environment conditions, the constants will not hold up elsewhere within the cosmos. Meaning they are no longer dependable as a source of universal physical constants. These are the questions I originally proposed and the ones that need to be answered. There could be many more problems with the constants. All I know is we are discussing the movement of atomic matter within our vacuum environment and the constants being used to describe conditions within that atomic structure. The problem, if there is a problem, is not mine. All I know it needs answers and hopefully someone can shed some serious light on the subject in question. Turning a blind eye or making excuses for the use of the constants is one solution, but not one I would recommend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 The number don't make sense because there are dimensionality problems, the numbers change depending on which unit set you use. Your question doesn't have an answer because it is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dovada Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 The number don't make sense because there are dimensionality problems, the numbers change depending on which unit set you use. Your question doesn't have an answer because it is flawed. Are you suggesting that we just ignore the coincidences or what are you suggesting? Mass itself is moving in orbit and that mass also contains moving electric charges so are you saying Amperes per second or Newtons per Ampere do not apply? I am questioning the validity of these magnetic and electric constants on a universal level outside of our solar environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Are you suggesting that we just ignore the coincidences or what are you suggesting? There is no coincidence, the numbers do not make sense if you take the units into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dovada Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) There is no coincidence, the numbers do not make sense if you take the units into account. Electromagnetism does apply here: Electron magnetic moment in nuclear magnetons = 1838.282 Proton magnetic moment in nuclear magnetons = 2.792847386 net magnetic moment for the atom = 1,838.282 - 2.792847386 = 1,835.489. This atomic condition surely will interact with the magnetic and electric constants. Vacuum permeability is derived from production of a magnetic field by an electric current or by a moving electric charge and in all other formulas for magnetic-field production in a vacuum. Edited November 7, 2011 by Dovada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Units, please please include units! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dovada Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 Units, please please include units! Joule / Tesla - this is an example. Have you never worked with electric current flow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Joule / Tesla - this is an example. Have you never worked with electric current flow? Yes, and a lot of work in electromagnetism. Include your units as you go along. You'll notice that in some of your equations in your first post in this thread the units on one side of the equation cannot add up the the units on the other side, they're dimensionally flawed and unphysical, meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dovada Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 You'll notice that in some of your equations in your first post in this thread the units on one side of the equation cannot add up the the units on the other side, they're dimensionally flawed and unphysical, meaningless. Yes - All I did was list the answer in the original units, I never attempted to define any units at this time. There are two sides to the coin here. The side I am discussing here is that there are conflicts involved which I feel run much deeper, so much so that I wanted to get other peoples comments on why this numerical balance is occurring. If and when we can decide what is happening, then we can redefine any units involved if necessary. Can I ask you again - Can you shed any light on the subject of: The constants maybe no longer dependable as a source of universal physical constants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Yes - All I did was list the answer in the original units, I never attempted to define any units at this time. There are two sides to the coin here. The side I am discussing here is that there are conflicts involved which I feel run much deeper, so much so that I wanted to get other peoples comments on why this numerical balance is occurring. If and when we can decide what is happening, then we can redefine any units involved if necessary. Can I ask you again - Can you shed any light on the subject of: The constants maybe no longer dependable as a source of universal physical constants? You have added nothing new, you original post if fundamentally flawed due to dimensionality inconsistencies, therefore you have not changed anything related to the universal physical constants and they are dependable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dovada Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 Thank you for your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Dovada, the units not working out is very serious issue, and cannot just be ignored. "How fast is it moving?" "6 fishtanks per handshake" It doesn't matter how coincidentally a number appears, if it is in an equation which is dimensionally unsound, it is as useless as the reply to the question above. That is, if you are seeking a velocity, and you don't get a length per unit time, then it does not matter at all what what value the arithmetic yields -- it is meaningless. You do want your results to take on some kind of meaning, don't you? I only know that many of the components the numbers are referring to, vary at different times of the year. The orbit velocity varies at the same time as the radius varies, as they all do effect each other. Has anybody checked this out seriously or has the blind assumption been made that they are universal constants? I am interested to hear what others have to say. The physics of this problem has annoyed me for some time, as the numerical relationship definitely does exist. Unless you can show me that every experiment done to find the electric constant or the magnetic constant was performed on exactly the same day each year, how could their values NOT change if they followed the rules you've laid out? There is around 5 million km difference between perihelion and aphelion. That would not yield just a 1 part per million difference if your formulas we right. It would yield something like a 5% difference. That would be noticeable! Why hasn't it been noticed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dovada Posted November 8, 2011 Author Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) You have added nothing new, you original post if fundamentally flawed due to dimensionality inconsistencies, therefore you have not changed anything related to the universal physical constants and they are dependable. Klaynos I respect your seniority in that I hoped you could provide a closer examination of what is happening and provide some further insight for all of us, your members. The purpose of the magnetic and electric constants is to provide us with the ability to explain the conductivity for magnetic flux within our space environment using typically the units of henry and farads per meter. Such conductivity is likely to vary as we move further away from the influence of our sun, which is consistent with what I suspect may be happening. I know of no experiment on any other planet except the earth where the values for our magnetic and electric constants have been tested. The lack of such testing leaves a big question mark on the validity of these constants being universal. For this reason I am reserving my personal decision regarding these particular constants. Bignose I also respect your comments regarding units and motion. For the comment on motion we exist in a moving environment in that the earth has many cosmic motion vectors but the ones in question within the original post state the earths solar orbit velocity and the speed of electromagnetic light, both in meters per second. Both of these velocities are infact forms of constant acceleration with constant velocity which is being imposed on earths atomic structure. From this perspective I have started this thread, hoping to share my concerns about the universal status being applied to some of these constants. I hope that these concerns I have, stimulate you with your own questions, and ask that you share them with us, your members. It is also hoped that you do not leave us out in the cold, guessing, when you limit your answers to what is quoted above. Please be a little more informative on "dimensionality inconsistencies" so that we can understand your thoughts or concerns regarding these constants. Unless you can show me that every experiment done to find the electric constant or the magnetic constant was performed on exactly the same day each year, how could their values NOT change if they followed the rules you've laid out? There is around 5 million km difference between perihelion and aphelion. That would not yield just a 1 part per million difference if your formulas we right. It would yield something like a 5% difference. That would be noticeable! Why hasn't it been noticed!0 Bignose, I do not know the answer to this. Maybe it was never tested. Also as I said before as one value changed so another simultaneously changed value, thus countering the effect somewhere else. Edited November 8, 2011 by Dovada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 ! Moderator Note This (closed) thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60646-dovadas-new-atomic-model/ was closed for a reason. Namely, you refused to participate in a proper scientific debate which requires you to put forth evidence for scientific claims *and* answer all the counter-claims that were posed to you. You were given ample opportunity to support your claims on that thread, and when it was clear it was going 'round and 'round in circles, it was closed. Closed threads are closed for a reason, and reopening a closed thread is against our rules, especially when you already ask another moderator and they say no. No only have you reopened this subject, but you did so by picking up where you left off, without a single shred of new (or old) evidence that support any and all of your claims. Thread closed. AGAIN. Do NOT open this again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts