I just read an article in SCIENCE NEWS, July 15,2023 "What is big G?" "Newton's gravitational constant has proved tough to pin down.

I have a backlog of reading magazines to do and this article caught my attention.

Clive Speake says: "Nobody knows how to predict from theory what the actual value of G should be"

Well, the time has come when predict from theory what G should be is here and now.

We know that gravity is simply the weakest form of Electromagnetism under the EM force unification. All is EM.

And the primal axiom over all of physics, all of science is All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.

So what I am going to do in this book is show where the gravity constant

6.70 * 10^-39 GeV comes directly from other pure numbers of physics, so we do not directly need to find this number from experiment. Although, we do have to experiment on the other pure numbers.

In a sense though, and good that Stephan Schlamminger conducting the experiment is using copper, or lead. For actually, much of G value is iron as in iron electrical conductivity and iron magnetism.

AP, doing this is probably not good news for Dr.Schlamminger, for he may see it as ridicule. But good news, if instead-- he sees it as a advance in physics. And especially the clearing out of the fake General Relativity b.s.

The reason we have partial solid body rotation in Saturn rings and in asteroid belt is due to ice polar body electricity bond and iron nickel in asteroids.

So this adventure for me is all about finding the Weakest electricity and magnetism between two objects of mass. The Unification of 4 Forces of Physics shows all 4 are a form of the EM force, for the EM force has the most perfect of physics particles--
the photon, and having the most perfect physics particles means the other 3 forces were factors of EM force.

In fact, since atoms have no nucleus, we can actually discard the Strong nuclear force as non-existent.

The closest that mass gets to other mass without bonding is magnetic attachment.

The Coulomb force is identical to gravity force only 10^-39 weaker, for their formulas are identical-- inverse square with distance.

In the SCIENCE NEWS article, where-ever the author talks about Einstein General Relativity, just bypass that b.s. General Relativity is b.s., not worth a thing.

I have an advantage over all other physicists for I have corrected Old Physics-- the proton is actually a 840MeV torus, and the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside the proton torus doing the Faraday law. The JJ Thompson particle of 0.5MeV is
not the electron of atoms but the Dirac magnetic monopole. Once I apply all those corrections, the G value should fall out like a birthday cake-- organic hopefully.

AP, King of Science

AP's 263rd book of Science-- deriving the G, Gravitational Constant 6.67x10^-11 m^3/(kg*s^2) from pure numbers of Electromagnetism

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Alright, last night I started to play around with purely the masses to see if I could reach exponent 39, the coupling constant of gravity force strength to that of EM force strength. Although through the years I often said gravity was 10^40 weaker.

So I am shooting for matching 6.70*10^-39 GeV and GeV is 10^9

So I am looking for 6.70*10^-30

I have

0.5*10^6 magnetic monopole

105*10^6 muon

840*10^6 proton

945*10^6 neutron

If I multiply the lot (.5*10^6)(105*10^6)(840*10^6)(945*10^6) I end up getting 4.16*10^31. And divide that into 1 for inverse gives me 2.4*10^-32.

Too far off, and frankly do not see a reason to just multiply masses.

So, I do a different tactic of reason.

I look to see if any physics constant is near 10^-39 or 10^39.

Looking at the list of constants I spot a curious one called Thomson cross section at 6.65*10^-29.

Although the exponent is off by 10, looking at the prefix number digits of 6.65 and doing a Sigma Error

6.70/6.65 = a sigma error of 0.7% close enough to say they are equal.

So somehow, the force of gravity is involved with Thomson Cross Section. All I need here is a factor of exponent 10^-10 to make 6.70*10^-39.

I see the Coulomb Constant being that factor I need.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Alright, in my finding what the Gravitational Constant derived from EM theory will consist of is a two part discovery since there is no apparent obvious matching of the prefix number 6.70 and then with the exponent of 10^-39.

So I have to discover the prefix number then discover the exponent power.

The prefix number already is coming in clear and loud in my mind. However it may not last. The prefix number is 6.70 and that is 2/3 to 10^1.

In pure geometry, 2/3 and 1/3 come up often, especially in volume of sphere inside cylinder is 2/3 and volume of cone inside associated cylinder is 1/3. And cylinder is part of Faraday law.

So let us see what the sigma error of 2/3 for 6.70 is. We have 6.70/6.66 is a sigma error of 0.6% which is very acceptable as being physically equal.

Now for the hard part, finding a 10^-38 power to accommodate a 2/3 prefix number. If I can find a exponent 10^-38 and then attach prefix number 0.666, problem is solved. However, up to this writing I have not found a constant or combination of constants
to achieve a 10^-38.

Speaking of combination of constants.

In an past book of mine I was figuring out the radius of the donut hole in a proton torus of whatever specific size the rings are. This is what I wrote in my 205th science book.

--- quoting my 205th book of science ---
Faraday Law is inverse projective-geometry of Coulomb-gravity Law//Physics-Math

by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface: This book discusses the symmetry of the 4 differential laws of Electromagnetic theory, the Faraday law, Ampere-Maxwell law, Coulomb-gravity law and the Transformer law. This book also dives into the numbers of importance of physics and math, the
1/137, the pi, the pi subtract 2.71... and much more.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of 840 windings of slinky toy to form a torus that is the proton torus of physics of its 840MeV with a muon stuck inside at 105MeV doing the Faraday law.


Now I play with those numbers and see what becomes of them for the Conjectures I placed so far. The most important being the idea that 840 windings is the physical geometry of the Fine Structure Constant as a torus the produces Maximum Electricity in the
Faraday law.

Alright, well it is easy to see that 210/65 is 3.230... So I went back to the lab and m

By the way, I love doing this type of physics, searching out the constant, for it ties into one of my strong suits-- geometry excellence.

The PSI squared function of physics is quantum mechanics as the probability of finding something in a location in space.

What happens when we apply PSI squared to Coulomb constant 1.6*10^-19 we get 2.61828*10^-38.

Now here I take Coulomb constant to be, actually and really that of 1.618... and not 1.60 what physics experiments says it is. Because 1.618.. is the Golden Ratio of the logarithmic spiral, of a constant angle throughout the open curve. And as we
multiply 1.618 by 1.618 we get back the 0.618 in the 2.618.

Now I divide 6.70 by 2.618 to see how much more I need. And it turns out to be 2.56 to make 6.70. And there is a constant in math called Sierpinski Constant, a probability wave function. We can visualize the force of gravity as the weakest
electromagnetic force but in a wave probability.

Now, I multiply (1.61828*10^-19)(1.61828*10^-19)(2.56) and get 6.70*10^-38. Unfortunately it is 6.70*10^-39 that I need.

So is there a math or physics constant that is 0.256 instead of Sierpinski Constant? There is a close one called Meissel-Mertens constant of 0.26, but not close enough.

I like the idea of PSI squared but fall short of sigma error matching. So will look elswhere.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Alright, I think I have this solved, as far as the numerical value is concerned. It is a far different matter if the Reasoning stands up, and holds up. It is the reasoning that is more important than getting a numerical match.

Alright, I feel it is sound to take the Coulomb Constant as a Psi Squared. I believe the Coulomb constant is actually a Golden Mean prefix number of 1.618. And so I have the square of (1.618*10^-19) which is 2.618*10^-38). Trouble this far is mostly the
exponent needs to be -39 and not -38.

Now, I am going to multiply 2.618*10^-38 by the Fine Structure Constant. Almost everything in EM theory is multiplied by the Fine Structure Constant 0.0072 units.

That gives me now 1.88*10^-40.

Finally a last multiplication. I am going to multiply that by 35 to get 66*10-40. Turning that into Scientific Notation yields 6.6*10^-39.

What is the justification of multiply by 35???

The muon rest mass is 105 MeV, and appears to be divisible by 3 to be 35MeV. Somehow 35MeV is the lowest unit for the muon.

--- quoting my 139th published book of science ---

Deriving the Rest-Mass of Dirac's Magnetic Monopole at 0.5MeV //Physics focus series, book 13
By Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was Feb2023. And this is AP's 139th published book of science.

Preface: It is of essential importance to derive all the most important physics constants from electricity and magnetism for it shows a consistent picture of physics where all its structure is in place and is thus a correct whole and unified theory. The
constants have to fit into a whole consistent picture. And one of the most important constants is the rest-mass of the Dirac Magnetic Monopole pegged at 0.5MeV or 1/2MeV, and why this number comes up so often in measurements as 0.5MeV. And, this number
is very much out of place in Old Physics Table of Elementary particles for most of the rest masses are between 105MeV and 1000 MeV, yet there is one lonely particle rest-mass in Old Physics of 0.5MeV. You would think this loner number of 0.5MeV totally
un

I cannot use the 35 by itself without the MeV attached unless I can get it all alone.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

A very simple remedy and shortens the derivation.

Square of (1.618*10^-19) as in PSI squared which is 2.618*10^-38 then multiply by Meissel-Mertens constant 0.26 yields the end result 6.70*10^-39, within sigma error.

Trouble is, how to explain what Meissel-Mertens constant has to do with Electromagnetic theory. And if not, well I need to look further for a 0.256. Perhaps a combination of 0.0072 and 35.55. Is there a 35.55 somewhere in physics? Other than 35MeV.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)