# Gravity constant G = 3(H^2)/[4pi(e^3)ρ].

1. Jul 24, 2004

### Nigel

gravity constant G = (3/4)(H^2)/[(pi)(density)e^3]

1.65% accuracy: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook2.htm

Background info: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook2.htm

Summary:

Nugent, Physical Review Letters (v75 p394), cites decay of nickel-63 from supernovae, obtaining H = 50 km/sec/Mps (where 1 Mps = 3.086x10^22 m). The density of visible matter at our local time has long been known to be 4x10^-28 kg/m3. However, White and Fabian in the March 1995 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, using the Einstein Observatory satellite data, estimate that invisible gas increases this density by 15%.

Using these data, G = 3(H^2)/[4pi(e^3)ρ] = 6.783x10^-11 Nm^2kg^-2, within 1.65% of the physical measurement for G of 6.673x10^-11 Nm^2kg^-2.

Background:

‘Electronic Universe’ article (Electronics World, Vol. 109, No. 1804) proves G = 3(H^2)/(4 pi ρ). [Ref: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?f=author&p=Cook,+N ]

H is the Hubble constant and ρ is the density of universe responsible for causing gravity by the inward reaction of 377-ohm physical space to the outward big bang; pi is the mathematical constant. Considering the density, it is highest at early times and thus density increases in the observable space-time trajectory, as we look further into the past with increasing distance.

But the increasing spread of matter with increasing distance partly offsets this increase, as proven when we put the observed Hubble equation (v = Hr) into the mass continuity equation and solve it. For spherical symmetry, dx = dy = dz = dr. Hence: dρ/dt = -div.(ρv) = -div.(ρHr) = 3d(ρHr)/dr = -3ρH. Solving dρ/dt = -3ρH by rearranging, integrating, then using exponentials to get rid of the natural logarithms (resulting from the integration) gives the increased density to be ρe^(3Ht), where e is Euler’s constant (2.718 ...). In the absence of gravitational retardation (i.e. with the cause of gravity as inward reaction of space to the outward big bang), H = 1/t when H = v/r = c/(radius of universe) = 1/t, where t is the age of the universe, so e^(3Ht) = e^3 = 20.1 and observed G = 3(H^2)/[4pi(e^3)ρ].

2. Sep 11, 2004

### AntonB

"Suppose that there are X rival explanations of gravity, each proven to predict the correct result. Then the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the planet earth will be 9.8X ms-2. The success of the single mathematical proof above therefore disproves the possibility of any alternative, unless an error can be found in the proof above."

This statement is from your paper - it is, to my mind, clearly incorrect. You are, it seems, using
some physically measured data to predict G from some equations. Let's call your rival' theories T(X), where X numbers them. And the physical parameters p(i), where i numbers them. Let's say that some number of equations give the prediction you require, and call this prediction T(X)(p(i)) - what you are saying then is that if T(X)(p(i)) gives A physically verifiable and correct' result then X is unique - this is clearly not the case for a general enough theory.

A simple (physically relevant, perhaps) example illustrates this - Newton's Theory of Gravity gives wonderfully accurate predictions for the movements of some celestial bodies. However Einstein's Theory reduces to Newton's in the weak and static gravity limit, thus unsurprisingly giving the same predictions for these movements in this limit. According to your claim above, if I have read it properly, it would imply by anology that we should therefore say that they are one and the same theory!

A better and more simple example is provided by some very basic theory of functions in mathematics. Keeping it very simple, your statement would then imply that, for fixed x and y, and some mapping (or rule if you like) f (let's assume they are all real valued) then if f(x)=y this would imply that f is unique! Lot's of counter examples to that claim, unless f belongs to a very particular class of mappings! Admittedly this oversimplies the situation.

I've just noticed that there is another thread discussing mathematics and its relation to physics. I think your statement raises an interesting and relevant question as to how axiomatic and unique a mathematical theory of the description of nature can be.
By anology with the very simple example above - how do we fix the class of mappings?!

best, Anton

Last edited: Sep 11, 2004
3. Sep 11, 2004

### anti_crank

In the perfect world, discussion and raconteur would fill the world. We would be able to discuss openly and freely anything we wished, and do it at an intellectual level fit for a king, because we all would be able to speak and think in a manner that would never be insulting, would all know that our thoughts would be of the orderly, logical, and sound fashion that should befit us all.

Unfortunately, looking at your history, I can't believe in this for the real world as far as I can throw it.

Again, I believe that we should be able to discuss things in an open and inviting manner that should be the norm here. However, when I start seeing insults, blind speculation, and just plain idiocy fly like vultures, such idealism falls by the wayside for more direct measures. I must applaud the admins here for taking direct action against these things, since I was running out of Tylenol to buy and my doctor was complaining that his blood pressure monitor wasn't right for me because it didn't have numbers past three hundred. However, since the closure of your first threads have failed to give you the hint that we don't accept such material here, I must take matters into my own hands.

Since you've already posted what your definition of a "crank" is here https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=258537&postcount=11, let's work with that one, shall we? You later state that you've become disgusted with this forum and decided to look for greener pastures, yet here you are. (Whether that translated to a more ignorant group of people or ones who are just more blindingly accepting I have no idea, but I digress.) You claim to strive for scientific discussion, but when people try to argue anything you come up with, you let fly with the accusations. Because of these things, by your very own definition, you hereby qualify as a crank.

That having been said, let's get down to business.

While having some initial hope, your gravity model of action/reaction forces is hopelessly flawed, compounded by a lack of understanding of Newtonian mechanics and elementary calculus. In one of your claims, you state that for spherical symmetry, dx = dy = dz = dr. As anyone with a half-baked understanding will tell you, spherically, dr^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2. Most of the time errors can be written off as simple misunderstandings, but when it's something as fundamental as this, one can only wonder how systemic this erroneous thought can possibly be. (As for me, I'll think about how much it sucks to be that wondering guy right now.) I find great amusement in the fact that you believe that the entire universe can be modelled through the plain old continuity equation. While one's universe is indeed limited by one's knowledge (or lack thereof), the universe in which we dwell happens to be far more complex. Your "proof", as you call it, exists only in your mind, a figment of "many years of hard work" creating fanciful delusions and mindless prattle. For anyone to "rubbish on them" is akin to beating a dead horse, as they are already rubbish. As we've already seen, whenever something of the sort happens, you retreat behind a wall of insults, proclamations of "you are wrong", and total incomprehension of opposing arguments whenever your proofs are challenged. Welcome to the wonderful world of cognitive dissonance.

Reading segments of your magnum opus however has given me good laughs, whereby you demonstrate that your scientific knowledge stems from quotes from Kepler and anecdotes from Einstein. I have yet to see any letter from Physical Review Letters (I have been keeping an eye on this just in case), but I can probably fill in the blanks. From what I can see, they haven't forwarded your paper to peer reviewers because they know it's useless blathering. They know full well that there isn't enough scientific knowledge in them to fill a thimble, and whoever places your used sheets of paper in the recycle bin know that the editors don't have the time nor want the time to read them. These people have meaningful things to do, and because the peer-review system is a thankless job at best, they don't want to spend their time needlessly and uselessly. As for me, I know that in the same token I will never compare to them, but if I and a whole lot of other people aren't willing to waste brain cells that would get more use by watching the Fox network, I don't think they would either.