Constant coincidences
New method of measuring the G brings value much closer to Larson's calculation method...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5808/74?rss=1%5D%5B%5BREPORTS%5D
1/c^3 divided by 1.66053873E-027 (amu constant) = 22.35058433, times 3 = 67.05175299
New value is 6.693 X 10^-11
67.05175299/6.693 = 1.00182
(decimal point misplaced depending on the units you use to measure c and G)
But I have another question; why is 22.3505843 so darn close to sqrt5, 2.23607?
2.23607/22.3505843= 0.1000451687 ...this is not a coincidence, somewhere the mass measure is tied to the c measure.
davelook
Sat, 08/11/2007 - 20:04
Permalink
Constant coincidences
Another strange coincidence...
h-bar * c = 3.161526205E-026
sqrt 10 = 3.16227766
3.16227766 / 3.161526205E-026 = 1.000237687E+026
MWells
Sun, 08/12/2007 - 11:06
Permalink
Constant coincidences
davelook
Sun, 08/12/2007 - 14:01
Permalink
Constant coincidences
Larson NORMAL charge mass .00004494 = 7.46027E-32 kg. (O-16 scale value)
charge mass (kg) X c = 2.2365328545E-23
sqrt 5 = 2.236067977
2.2365328545E-23 / 2.236067977 = 1.000207899
The significance of these numbers reveals what I can only describe as of yet as the natural counting system's fractal value nature of charge.
Or, this might be nature's way of saying 1 = 1^2 = 1^3.
For some strange reason, as proved by harmonics and sacred math, nature has a way of ignoring powers of ten. This is what the science of fractals is all about.
I'm working thru what these coincidences signify, but in the meantime I think they should be out there for others to ponder.
I am ultimately working toward a numerical understanding of the RATIO between the circumference as 4.55633 (Snat) and the Bohr circumference, which is the 137.036 (fine structure constant).
This number has been experimentally determined with absurd accuracy, and I'd like to find it's value using RS theory.
bperet
Thu, 08/16/2007 - 12:01
Permalink
Re: New Gravity measure reduces Larson's error in BPOM
The sqrt(5) is the basis for the golden ratio, which shows up frequently when working with the coupling between the spatial and counterspatial reference frames, particularly in the biological realm. Dan loaned me some books on plants, showing the geometry of growth patterns being related by the phi ratio. Things like buds and leaf patterns can be calculated by creating linkage between space and counterspace, and plotted out with remarkable detail.
It may have something to do with the 'wavicle' (a discrete unit of counterspace) coupling to a 'particle'.
Just need to remember that we are dealing with the coordinate reference system in these cases, not the scalar motion, so the observer principle has to be accounted for.
No doubting that; E = mc2 or sqrt(E/m) = c
One of the things I am considering more and more is that we cannot "see" mass, because mass has the dimensions of energy (t3/s3). What we visually perceive is 'gravity' (s3/t3)--a speed. All the other t/s relations are distributed scalar motions (invisible force fields), so why would mass be an exception?
davelook
Fri, 08/17/2007 - 11:43
Permalink
Constant coincidences
Another strange coincidence...
h-bar * c = 3.161526205E-026
sqrt 10 = 3.16227766
3.16227766 / 3.161526205E-026 = 1.000237687E+026
.....I thought I was really onto something new with my coincidences, but it's all covered in something called "Observer Physics"...
http://www.dpedtech.com/observer%20physics.htm
davelook
Mon, 08/20/2007 - 19:37
Permalink
Constant coincidences
Here's another one I just discovered...
(ec)/((sqrt10)/3))=4.5567196698E-011
4.5567196698E-011 / 4.5563352528E-008 = 1.0000843698E-03
davelook
Fri, 01/25/2008 - 23:35
Permalink
Constant coincidences
MAN have I got a good one for you today!!!!!!!!
Go to this page http://id.mind.net/~zona/mmts/miscellaneousMath/quadraticRealSolver/quadraticRealSolver.html and enter the following values:
a=1, b=-64.0625, c=-1, hit calculate. (64.0625 is just (128+1/8)/2, the fine structure constant converges to 128 at high energies.)
Then add a zero to c=-1, so it equals -10, and hit calculate. Keep adding zeros to c= until you hit the jackpot at c=-10000!
Key to this discovery was the sudden realization that 137.0359... PLUS 72.97352... = 200+10. Then I found that 137.0359... MINUS 72.97352... = 64.06247432 (close to 128.125/2).
There are 2 other dimensionless ratios which scale like this.
Water boil/freeze on absolute temp scale 373.15/273.15 = 1.3660992 (pure dimensionless energy ratio)
c/2Rinf = 13.6595 (this is a PURE NUMBER 1/t) Also, remember that 1/13.6595 = 0.0732089 (sqrt3-1)/10
1.3661 is a very interesting number because if you make it the adj. side, and the hypotenuse is sqrt2, the opp will be .3661, but the sides are based on the sqrt3. After you square the sides, look how they add up. That's what made a light bulb go off in my head about alpha.
Also, the thermal conductance quantum, when you use T = 273.15 K, gives 1613544223 W/K (1/t), so the thermal resistance is 6.197536986E-10 K/W, (t/1). Divide THAT by Space to get energy, and you get 0.01360202146. Divide that by .02353827 (freezing point of water in eV), and you get 1/sqrt3.
And most of all, let's not forget that electron spin, the PRIMARY source of all "quantum phenomena" according to David Hestenes (see pg 51 of http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/SpacetimePhysics.pdf is quantized in units of sqrt3/2 h-bar.
JUST FOUND THIS on http://www.dac.neu.edu/physics/a.cromer/Physics1192/Pressure.html...
AND Get this on http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/standards/am0/newam0.html...
davelook
Mon, 01/28/2008 - 06:34
Permalink
Constant coincidences
Sorry, 13.6595 is actually dimensionful, s^2/t.
davelook
Mon, 01/28/2008 - 21:19
Permalink
Constant coincidences
Ok, this is probably nothing, but I'll get it out there...
2*3*5*7=210 (/2=105)
1/105= 0.0095238095238.... (+210) = 210.0095238095...
Using the newest (2006, Gabrielse) experimental value for alpha (137.03599971096) plus it's reciprocal (x10^4) 72.97352535897, you get
210.00952507
/ 210.0095238095... = 1.000000006001678
bperet
Tue, 01/29/2008 - 11:21
Permalink
Constant coincidences
Dave, have you been able to come up with a reason for these coincidences? They appear to be geometric relationships. Square roots are indicative of a phase relationship between two different geometries.
For example, in a recent conversation with Doug, he reminded me of the old solution to the Pythagorean "square number" problem, where the hypotenuse of a right triangle of side = 1 was the sqrt(2), which was an irrational number and incompatible with the Pythagorean take on numbers.
The solution was that it was actually a square of side = 2, 22, and the hypotenuse was just one side of the inscribed square of 4 diagonals, the length being the inverse measure of 21/2. So it could be represented with whole numbers, that number being the relationships of 2. The only time it became irrational was when the inverse measure was viewed in the perspective of the original measure, not from its own perspective.
With the use of square roots in the constants, it looks like something similar going on where the "inscribed" geometry is that of time, related to the circumscribed geometry of space.
Have you investigated these constants using complex numbers, since i is a rotational operator? The imaginary component might give a clearer picture of where the constants originate.
davelook
Wed, 02/06/2008 - 22:00
Permalink
Constant coincidences
I haven't yet, but I was flipping through Tetrascroll by R. Buckminster Fuller, and found this...
from http://lampsacus.com/documents/BuckminsterFullerTetrascroll.pdf
"Goldy goes on to discover that multiplying
numbers by themselves can be identified not only
with the rate at which the number of similar squares
multiply within a modularly subdivided square but
also with the rate at which the number of triangles
multiply within a modularly subdivided triangle,
accomplished by a symmetrical and modularly
uniform three-way grid, subdividing any triangularly
bound area. A triangle whose edge module is two
has a two-times-two-equals-four- triangles area. A
triangle with edge module three contains nine
similar triangles. Edge four contains sixteen similar
triangles, edge five contains twenty-five similar
triangles, and so on. Whereas this phenomenon of
“second powering” of numbers has always hereto-
fore been identified (even by all scientists) only with
“squares,” Goldy saw that a square consists of two
triangles and that identifying the product of a given
number multiplied by itself only with “squaring”
requires twice as much area as does “triangling” and
is therefore inefficient. Since she has been assured
by physicists that Nature always employs the most
economical (or least effort) solutions to its prob-
lems, Goldy decides to adopt “triangling” as her
method of accounting area experiences and discov-
eries.
Goldy then discovers that a second multiplying of a
number by itself (i.e., 2 X 2 X 2 = 8) as a method of
volumetric accounting can be identified with the rate
of omni-symmetrical expansive growth of tetrahedra,
whereas scholars, including scientists, have always
identified this third powering of a number exclu-
sively with the rate at which cubes multiply them-
selves when symmetrically amassed in an arithmeti-
cal progression of the overall cubes’ symmetrically
and modularly divided edges.
Goldy finds that each cube has six square faces
which, being structurally unstable, collapse but
which can be subdivided into two triangles each by
the six diagonals that bisect each of the cube’s
square faces. The six diagonals are produced by
omni-interconnecting four of the cube’s eight
corners-two of the opposite top corners with each
other, and the latter with each of the two diagonally
opposite bottom corners as well as interconnecting
the latter two bottom corners with each other.
Not only do the six omni-interconnected diagonals
of the six faces of the cube structurally stabilize the
cube with minimum effort by omni-triangulation,
but those diagonals are seen by Goldy also to be the
six edges AB, A C, AD, BC, BD, CD of the tetrahe-
dron, which Goldy has already found to be not only
the minimum structural system of Universe but also
to be one quantum unit of the quanta mathematics
of the physicists."
Regarding my post above about 210, check out this 3D Pascal Triangle (Fig 13), and look at the center number...
http://buckydome.com/math/Article2.htm
If the levels are viewed as possible permutations of displacement ratios (the side ratios always total 8, ie, 7:1 6:2 5:3 etc) we have an interesting way to view to possibilities of displacement ratios. Larson says S/T is always 1 to 1, but one component reverses.
I'm intrigued by spin being integer multiples of (sqrt3)/2. This has the look of a tetrahedral relationship.
Also, check out this fascinating plot of primes...
http://buckydome.com/math/ulam/triangle.htm
davelook
Thu, 02/07/2008 - 20:47
Permalink
Constant coincidences
While trying to figure out why the decimal result of 1/89 results in the Fibonacci numbers, I came up with a new way to find the reciprocal of a number.
If you want 1/7, take 10-7=3, and take the infinite sum of the following series...
3^0 /10^1 .100000000
3^1 /10^2 .030000000
3^2 /10^3 .009000000
3^3 /10^4 .002700000
3^4 /10^5 .000810000
3^5 /10^6 .000243000
3^6 /10^7 .000072900
3^7 /10^8 .000021870
(repeating)
=.142857... repeating
When you do this in Excel, it's amazing to see how the increasing powers of (10-n) "line up" to keep the repeating decimal going!!!!!
I think this SUMMING as opposed to Division may have something to do with the Zeta function...
http://www.timetoeternity.com/time_space_light/prime_time.htm
By the way, while 1/89 appears to give the Fibonacci numbers, it is really giving the squares of 11, as becomes visible when you give the numbers a little room to express themselves...
1/89=0.011235955056179775280898876404494
1/989=0.0010111223458038422649140546006067
1/9989=1.0011012113324657122835118630494e-4
1/99989=1.0001100121013311464261068717559e-5
1/999989=1.0000110001210013310146411610528e-6
davelook
Fri, 02/08/2008 - 23:25
Permalink
Constant coincidences
getting there...
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_zeta_function
During several physics-related calculations, one must evaluate the sum of the positive integers; paradoxically, on physical grounds one expects a finite answer. When this situation arises, there is typically a rigorous approach involving much in-depth analysis, as well as a "short-cut" solution relying on the Riemann zeta-function. The argument goes as follows: we wish to evaluate the sum 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + · · ·, but we can re-write it as a sum of reciprocals:
(see link above, text is gargled.)
Yea!, it IS related to Pi, just found this...(!)
from http://www.geocities.com/hjsmithh/Numbers/Zeta.html
The Riemann Zeta function:
Zeta(x) = 1 + 2^−x + 3^−x + ... = Sum{k=1, infinity}[k^−x], x > 1.
Zeta is defined for all values of x except x = 1 where it is infinite.
For example, Zeta(2) = 1 + 1/4 + 1/9 + 1/16 + ... = Pi^2/6 = 1.64493,40668,48226,43647... .
Horace
Sat, 02/09/2008 - 12:44
Permalink
Constant coincidences
And why is this remarkable ?
...because PI is the half of the natural counterspace unit (turn) ?
bperet
Sat, 02/09/2008 - 14:03
Permalink
Constant coincidences
The turn in counterspace is unbounded; it has infinite angle so it would just be an integer count. Now, when you have to project that turn into observable space, there is no way to represent the concept of an unbounded/infinite angle, since you have to use the laws of the observable environment which say that a "rotational motion" is BOUNDED (like linear motion is bounded in counterspace as a vibration). So a Turn of 'n' angle becomes a rotation of n/2(2*PI) in space.
Looking at Dave's concepts and references, I see three connected factors:
- They are spatial measurements of counterspatial events.
- They are scale variant, requiring a series expansion to define ("hall of mirrors" measure).
- The numerical coincidences are shadows on the wall of Plato's cave... projections.
One can learn a lot from shadows, but I think it would be far more interesting to find what is casting those shadows, then extract the "coincidences" from that projection. That would be pretty awesome.[/davelook
Sat, 03/08/2008 - 23:32
Permalink
Constant coincidences
Amazingly, this can be generalized in the following way...
18-5=13, so sum the following infinite series...
5^0 / 18^1
5^1 / 18^2
5^2 / 18^3
5^3 / 18^4
... = 1/13
for lower numbers, ie 11+2=13, 11 is 2 LOWER than 13, so sum the following series and it still works...
-2^0 / 11^1
-2^1 / 11^2
-2^2 / 11^3
-2^3 / 11^4
-2^4 / 11^5
... = 1/13
bperet
Sun, 03/09/2008 - 14:39
Permalink
Constant coincidences
Very interesting article on the Zeta function, and synchronistically, very much like the post I just made!
They are talking about the projection of a complex relation (here a 1-dimensional function), with the Riemann zeros occurring where the function is COMPLETELY imaginary--the real component being zero. Thus, it disappears from observation. They are implying that these disappearances occur at the prime numbers, or quantum energy level "gaps", which makes sense because we observe SPACE, and when there is no space to observe, we'll get a gap (discrete break).
Zeta(n) = 1 + 1/2n + 1/3n + 1/4n + ...
If that doesn't look like a Time Region function (s=1, t varying), I don't know what does! The denominator with the increasing series is scale variant, with a fixed dimensionality. Riemann put in complex numbers for 'n' -- equivalent space + temporal rotation.
Hey Gopi, want to help me work out the math of this as a TR function, based on the RS, and I'll split the million dollar prize with you and move to India, where the money would actually be worth something! Man, can you imagine what winning that prize would do for the acceptance of the RS theory? Not to mention what it would do to your standing at IIT Kanpur--can you just imagine Snape's face?
Gopi
Mon, 03/10/2008 - 02:50
Permalink
Constant coincidences
A mouth-watering proposition, particularly the last part! :)
Let me get these exams out of the way, and I am all in!
BE the change that you want to see in the world.
Phillip
Mon, 03/10/2008 - 06:09
Permalink
Constant coincidences
Yes, go for it guys!
Phillip
davelook
Wed, 03/19/2008 - 22:08
Permalink
Constant coincidences
Using the Rydberg freq, 3.289842E+015=1/(2pi*sqrt(L*C)), and standard Larson units for the capacitance s3/t=6.223748666E-007, you get an L value of 0.011175591067 (t3/s3). So the cube root is .22357513446(t/s), and s/t = 4.4727693105...
sqrt(5)*2=4.472135955 /4.4727693105 = 1.00014!
Also, take a look at this from NBM, Ch. 13...
...or multiplied by this factor: 4.4721619 X 107, (- the exponent being the same one they stick into the vac. permeability constant, (4pi X 107)
So coming at this number from a completely new direction from Larson is very encouraging!
By the way, look how close that early Larson value is to the sqrt(5)=2.2360679775/2.236055=1.0000058037!!!!
My first post above makes more sense now!
davelook
Sun, 04/20/2008 - 22:38
Permalink
Constant coincidences
Check out this simple elegant way of generating alpha...
http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2004_10_04_The_Electro_Magnetic_coupling_constant.html
bperet
Sun, 04/05/2009 - 19:01
Permalink
Planar separation of axes
Hey Dave...
I was working on some graphics regarding the Plane at Infinity and happen to notice that when the 3 orthogonal axes, X, Y and Z are projected onto the Plane at Infinity (or the Plane at Zero), they make points--one point for each axis, and one can draw a circle through those 3 points, where each point is separated by an arc 120° or 2π/3 radians--which look exactly like the 3rd roots of Unity that you have mentioned before, separating masses. Only difference being that the 3rd roots of unity would require a 3-axis projection with ONE real and TWO imaginary axes.
Could be that the masses are just the same motion, oriented on different coordinate time axes.
davelook
Wed, 04/15/2009 - 09:32
Permalink
Tau vs coupling vs c^3
The square root of 1/alpha is considered the true "coupling constant"...
Quote by Feynman...
There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant e the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to -0.08542455.
By the lepton unity scale, the tau mass should be 3.1677344679E-027. The tau is a "full" unit of mass for the charged lepton scale.
So tau/c3 = .0853514 , and the latest experimental value of the coupling is .085424543.
Coincidence?