Derivation of Gravity
Derivation of the gravitational constant, G
I am not a physicist. I am not even a scientist. I write computer programs.
One program that I wrote compared different physical constants - one to another.
I typed in the gravitational constant as measured for the 1999 value of Lou.
The program flagged the value as equal to 1/50c. Almost exact! I can only guess at why this should be.
If such a strange oddity were true, then the secret is in that number "50" and its relationship to the neutron and proton.
Then, other data - newer data - was published for the gravitational constant.
The new data slightly invalidated the relationship. In my opinion - "killed it"!
Oh well, truth is all that matters. In addition, what is more important
- the dimensional units are totally wrong.
I absolutely will not "cook", or pad, an equation.
All that remained was to throw away the papers, and forget the time wasted.
Just walk away.
However, as a parting gesture: I should know exactly what is the difference between the values.
Not that it really mattered; if it is wrong, it is wrong.
My first-term (old) value was (6.6712819E-11)
subtracted from the new 2006 composite measurement (6.67428E-11)
is a difference of 2.998096E-14. The mantissa is startling.
To the accuracy of the measurement, it is the speed of light! Another oddity.
Shamefully and uncontrollably, I then padded the equation with this new found oddity.
The result was three absolutely defined exact constants (c, 50, 1E-22) that arithmetically gave a value for G.
Very strange; and with out any merit or reason.
R is the number "fifty". C is the speed of light. T is 1E-22.
This equation does not even qualify as an equation; It is more like a curious algorithm.
Without proper dimensions, it is more of a relationship.
I will call this gravitational constant the "Engineered" constant, representing a curious and contrived arithmetical value.
However the value is accurate and quite intriguing.
6.67259 (85) 1986 CODATA-86
6.673 (10) 1998 CODATA-98
6.6740 (7) 1997LANL-97 Bagley
6.6729 (5) 1998TRD-98 Karagioz
6.6709 (7) 2003HUST-99 Luo
6.674255(92) 2002Uwash-00 Markowitz
6.67559 (27) 2001BIPM-01Quinn
6.67422 (98) 2002Uwup-02 kleinvob
6.67407 (22) 2002Uzur-02 schlamminger
6.67387 (27) 2003MSL-03 armstrong
6.6742 (10) 2002 CODATA-02
Condensed and evaluated Empirical gravitational constant from data...
Without Units, this thing means NOTHING! Playing with the computer and just looking at "numbers"
is no way to do business. So I decided to switch tactics and look for "units".
Gravitational constant derivation (with real dimensions).
The first equation that I reference: the Compton wavelength.
h is empirically known...
c is defined...
For example: the neutron wavelength.
And I have chosen the neutron for a reason.
Regardless of the specific mass, we have a relationship between wavelength and mass.
The second equation that I reference: the Planck length, derived from "compatible units".
Planck-length is derived from compatible units.
This is very important: There is NO information about specific coefficients. This fact gives me
freedom to let the computer "choose" them.
Of course other equations for G are possible when using dimensional analysis.
And all with no guaranties of applicability.
And all with no information about coefficients and constants.
When restricted to these three variables:
Mass, Gravitational Constant, Planck Length, and Velocity of Light, this
is a REASONABLE equation - based solely on units.
What is needed is a third equation...
I reasoned that I needed a SINGLE mass unit to put into the above equation.
Most of the mass of substances can be represented by the nucleus with its neutrons,
or Protons-plus-electrons. This
is true whether measurements have been made using the iron and nickel of the earths core,
platinum-iridium in experiments, or brass balls.
A "nuetron-mass-unit" is just as easy and comparable as the atomic mass unit based on carbon-12.
The mass of the neutron was substituted into the planck equation.
I stood back and let the computer run with it.
My computer handed me yet another oddity: a beautiful relationship between the two equations.
There it was on the computer screen.
In total disbelief, I double checked the computer. It seems to be correct.
I therefore assert this equation:
I will call it the Planck-Compton-length relationship (and it is only true for the neutron).
What is the computer showing me now?
I seem to be the first to see it. (Not counting the before mentioned computer)
I extracted the constant from the Koide equation, which I will call the Three-mass-Koide constant.
For my computer to find this relationship I had to tell it previously about a little known constant.
Which was set aside as a curious oddity: the Koide equation.
This relates the masses of the leptons: Electron, Muon, and Tauon.
Substituting the constant K - just as my computer had done.
And it turns out to be correct.
Combining the two equations...
Solving for G...
Dividing up the dimensionless factors a little differently...
Gravitational constant using the two terms of the Engineered equation.
I will call it the "Neutron-G equation",
and it is for only ONE mass.
Although the Koide came from Leptons, we are dealing with hadrons.
It still could refer to a real mass like the neutron.
Why this is so, I do not know.
According to the equivalent principle, this equation should not exist: There is no difference
between inertial mass and gravitational mass. Gravity should not depend on an arbitrary mass.
UNLESS! - The neutron has a planck length and is composed of three "kodie-like" particles.
At least the units are correct now, however the computer still has a free hand with the coefficients.
Now, to take the equation out for a spin...
Here is a formula value for a virtual proton-plus-electron.
(1.672621637E-27 kg) + (9.10938215E-31 kg)
Here is the value for pure hydrogen atom: one proton, zero neutrons.
1.007825u. This is a specific nuclide and does exist as a stable natural "unit".
This value is close to free fall measurements like
G = 6.6873E-11 of Schwarz1998; using tungsten.
The original premise was that it had to be a hadron. Therefore, the last two examples are not applicable.
Here is the formula value of the formula Gravitational constant for the neutron.
Which is close to the G=6.67387(0.00027)E-11 Armstrong2003
The last accepted empirical value of Codata - 2006.
So what does this mean?
I do not know.
My computer just loves dimensional analysis: it gives it vast liberties with coefficients.
Perhaps I should have walked away when I had the chance.
But my computer has this uncontrollable compulsion to play with numbers.
I am out of breath and tired of chasing it. It is brutally efficient at what it does.