There are indeed many models of the value of elementary electric charge origin, but all of them have introduced other types of new phenomena.
I solved this problem only based on the phenomena that are known and have been measured, in:
Preprint The value of the elementary electric charge-a different approach
It is an article related to electric charge, Hubble's constant, fine structure constant, wave function collapse and reveals the quantified nature of spacetime, but please give more time and patience to read the material to the end, to see how beautifully come all these together (constants), forming a unitary whole (one theory).
I await your observations
Dear Mavrice,
especially with respect to the integer geometric exactness (effectively creating a zero error bar!) for the derived predicted relations of constants of nature to spacetime one must have a look on iSpace project:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/iSpace-Exact-quantum-geometric-value-of-primary-constants-of-nature
iSpace theory is able to show in iSpace-SI units (fully MKS/A SI unit system value compatible) and more so in new iSpace-IQ units (a true integer geometric unit system and first of its kind being fully lab compatible, yet able to do away with all human artifacts *whatsoever*) the core inner geometric relationships and more so currently unknown inter-constant relationships by some very simple multiplicative first order metric equations.
With you mentioning "Electric charge, Hubble's constant, fine structure constant, …“ iSpace project as presented on my RG blog by the published papers and - possibly more so - as best possible intro for starters on the simple yet quite unusual geometric principles and properties of iSpace geometric constraints, fully induced and enforced by the rarely known (even by most experts in the field) concept of a so called „changed distance definition„ to watch my recently presented Youtube video in the framework of the TEGS session series:
https://www.researchgate.net/deref/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEhGeANkwUME
Especially my paper related to the derivation of an exact value for the Hubble constant H0 predicting an exact age of the universe (and with this a cut-off constraint for other spacetime models!) as well as my conference papers from Wolfram IMS-2015 in Prague should be very interesting with relation to your work, able to be in-depth analyzed by the toolkit of powerful Mathematica based exact equation relations for most but all constants of nature like e, h, alpha, me, R, a0, re, G, kB and even Planck-constants in SI (or any other unit system, for that matter).
For more information please take the little additional time to have a look into the links below (in order of raising complexity = time to read):
Preprint New novel physical constants metric and fine structure const...
Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...
Conference Paper iSpace - Exact Symbolic Equations for Important Physical Con...
Conference Paper iSpace - Deriving G from α, e, R∞, μ0 and Quantum of Gravita...
Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...
Many thanks for your time and much valued judgement, Christian
Dear Preston Guynn,
I am not a great scientist, but I found some question marks regarding your theory:
1. "Einstein's theory of special relativity was incomplete..."
Yes, indeed the Theory of Special Relativity was incomplete, that's why it was completed with the General Relativity Theory;
2. You only refer to the "inertial frame", but we know that this frame is only a special one, the existing frames in nature are the non-inertial ones... you even refer to the "Electron g factor" at some point;
3. "Another new hypothesis is that the precession of Mercury's orbit, which is not explained byNewtonian gravitation"...
No need for another hypothesis, the precession of Mercury's orbit was explained by General Relativity Theory;
4. Through "The rest mass and energy of the electron wereproven to be functions of vg and vm. Electrostatic force and energy were proven to be functions of vg and vm", you tell me that in another galaxy, the values are different. Then what is the validity of light spectra, if the values are different depending on the galaxy in which we are?
5. After all, I notice that you did not read my article. I show where the electric charge has this value, which I did not see with you.
6. We also have common points when we talk about quantum space time, and the influence of processes from the cosmic scale to the microcosm scale;
7. I also found this:
Article Thomas precession: Correct and incorrect solutions
These are just my observations...maybe I'm wrong...
Respectfully,
Adrian.
Dear Christian G. Wolf,
I don't really understand the notion of "iSpace", only this passage puts me in difficulty:
"The iSpace metric model represents a novel geometric model for space-time....based on....a very small magic prime number and the key ingredient of using a so called "changed distance definition"
I'm sorry, I don't want to sound mean, but I don't understand many of the concepts.
These are just my observations...maybe I'm wrong...
Respectfully,
Adrian.
Preston - as a person with some known high functional Asperger lebel I cannot be sure, but - at first sight your reply is at least impolite - if not narcissistic - do you really have need to do so?
I can send you a link about how RG became the wonderful place to start open discussions on every topic in science possible.
The least thing we all need here is some personality war on how clever you think you are and how much you know - or not - and in the form you did.
Please get yourself under control - and please do this fast.
I am likely not the only one in RG who can see you are seemingly incapable of coping with critical replies to you and your however valid or not physical ideas (and btw - the world does not only exist due to Thomas precession - which your reply subjectively sounds like …) are not the only relevant ones.
Such imho inappropriate harsh reaction to someone possibly new on RG likely trying to find its way into our community is something you should be ashamed of - maybe get some social training on how to publicly react to possibly critical replies or opinion in blogs like RG - one of the best I myself could learn from is btw to just keep mouth shut from time to time.
But I could not follow my own advice on this case, unfortunately.
So please all let’s be respectful!
Dear Mr. Preston Guynn ,
First of all, I apologize if you misunderstood me. I will answer you punctually (which you did not do), without being mean.
1. I just pointed out what you wrote, I don't see what bothers you about it.
By this I wanted to say that "Einstein was aware" about "the rotational effect", that's why he created G.R.
The Theory of Special Relativity it only treats rectilinear and uniform movements, only G.R. treats accelerated movements("the rotational effect" it is an accelerated movement).
And to prove to you that I have knowledge about the Theory of Relativity, I will ask you to give me an example of rectilinear and uniform movement...I'll tell you, there is only a special case (that's why it's called Theory of Special Relativity) of varied (accelerated) motion - motion that G.R. treats.
Having said that, the Theory of Special Relativity is a special (restricted) case of G.R.
2. When I said "maybe I'm wrong", I am aware that I still have to learn (without you sending me to learn) - in science we learn continuously, no one (for now) has the ultimate truth, not even you.
3. About" I am not interested in debate. I wrote a response to your discussion to instruct you in physics", if you wanted to "train me in physics", you would have known that physics is based on....DEBATE...
4. How about "If you can't be instructed, then your presence on Researchgate is misdirected."....it's your opinion...
5.Your affirmation "In your item 2 you wrote that the inertial frame is special one and that the existing frames in nature are the non-inertial ones. This statement isn't even meaningful. You apparently don't know what an inertial frame of reference is and what SR describes. I will help you. First, a frame of reference is a description of the environment in which one views physics.", I answered you above, so please give me an example of an inertial reference system, and with respect to which reference, and I will surely prove to you that it is ... non-inertial.
6." The electron g factor has nothing to do with non-inertial frames of reference and you are probably confusing the electron g factor as having to do with the so-called gravitational constant G.", I did not understand gravitational constant, but gravitational acceleration.
7. "You should direct several years of study to a topic and be familiar at least with the topic before writing a paper about it. Instead of writing papers, you should be reading them.", I read, and I'm still reading, even STILL learning, because (as I said before), in science you learn continuously.
8. "In your item 3 you again dismissed what my paper described, without reading it or understanding it, and referred me to GR, of which you know nothing. " I just read your theory, and you state "Another new hypothesis is that the precession of Mercury's orbit, which is not explained by Newtonian gravitation", and I don't see the point of another hypothesis...As for "GR is actually the most thoroughly disproved physics theory in history."...I hold back...
9. "In your item 4 you actually asked a question from a statement in the conclusion of my paper! Congratulations! Asking questions is one of the important ways to learn. Unfortunately, questions should be asked in conjunction with reading and attempting to understand papers, which you neglected. Also, you should study general science and try to develop a general knowledge of the topics. You wrote referring to rest mass and energy being functions of the galactic rotation velocity that "you tell me that in another galaxy, the values are different." No. The galactic rotation velocity at the solar radius, which I designate vg, is the velocity of the solar system with respect to the galactic center. The rest mass and energy of electron and proton vary with galactic rotation velocity."...
Although I referred to what you said in your theory, you keep sending me to read your theory...well, could I get your attention without reading it?
You say that "The rest mass...of electron and proton vary with galactic rotation velocity", by this it is understood that in another galaxy that has another "galactic rotation velocity", the electron and the proton have other rest masses...therefore, we can no longer precisely know the light spectra of those galaxies....this is what is understood...if that's not what you wanted to say, then something is wrong with the expression ''The rest mass...of electron and proton vary with galactic rotation velocity'
10. "To understand the significance of this you would need to read the paper, and also be familiar with GR. I will give you a little background. GR doesn't give results that match observation ..."
Well, you either agree with Gr, or you don't?....because I don't understand anything anymore....you are contradicting yourself
11. You tell me that "GR doesn't give results that match observation at any scale greater than the solar system", but when I pointed out that "No need for another hypothesis, the precession of Mercury's orbit was explained by General Relativity Theory", you upset..."the precession of Mercury's" is at the level of "the solar system", therefore G.R. applies, and we don't need "another hypothesis"
12. "GR gives results that are incorrect for observed gravitational lensing due to galaxies..."...from what I've read 'This was one of G.R.'s first predictions, and an expedition led by Sir Arthur Eddington to observe the bending of starlight during a total solar eclipse was the first test of Einstein's famous theory.'....but we are probably reading different material
13. "You need not write to me at all, please don't, but especially to tell me something you think you know about GR."....Unfortunately, it is a discussion opened by me, and I have to answer, otherwise what would be the point of it?
14. "You may wonder why you've seen so many shows describing the wonders of GR if GR has been falsified. GR continues to be promoted by academia for several reasons. One reason, which is the primary reason, that GR continues to be promoted is philosophical reasons."....Above, you sent me to read and learn G.R., and now you deny this theory.......you contradict yourself...
15. At least you will see many scientists researching and publishing competing theories to GR such as MOND, Einstein Cartan theory, etc. Each published article of these alternatives is an admission by the publishing industry that GR doesn't give useful results. I could link here many papers that give background and fill in the picture of the current status of gravitational research, but apparently you won't read them so I won't bother..... again...
16." In item 5 you state "I notice that you did not read my article", and this is incorrect. Your article though has numerous weaknesses that are too many to describe here, and almost any comment about it could only be made that you as author would find offensive, so I did not comment much on your article except that your appeal to an electromagnetic "membrane" contradicts the claim you made in this discussion statement to have no new phenomena as a distinguishing feature from other theories.".... You didn't mention even one 'numerous weaknesses", and I don't see why I would feel offended, if I opened the discussion...I also expect criticism...supported by...points of view that are related to current theories
17. "In item 5 you state "I notice that you did not read my article", and this is incorrect....so I did not comment much on your article except that your appeal to an electromagnetic "membrane" contradicts the claim you made in this discussion statement to have no new phenomena as a distinguishing feature from other theories."...I mention it again "I notice that you did not read my article", nowhere in my theory did I talk about "an electromagnetic membrane"...great attention .... we talked about a space-time membrane...which G.R. also talks about....but anyway you don't agree with G.R.
18. Your formula 1 is already well known....that's why I used it, because it's known
19. "and your claims of what it means to have formulated the electrostatic force in terms of the fine structure constant are also wrong."....
well, again you are contradicting yourself...either it is known or it is wrong?
20. "Apparently you didn't read my paper which I linked to you previously, because it also shows that formulation, but the significance is not in rearranging the many well known variable, but in formulating the fine structure constant itself in more fundamental terms."...on the contrary, I read the theory, and I see that you were bothered by my observations, and you sending me to learn...funny
21. "You attempt to rely on the Hubble constant but appear unaware of two relevant facts, the most significant of which is that the Hubble constant is only claimed to be known to a couple of significant digits, and secondly that the various ways of measuring it give conflicting values that are inconsistent with the accuracy claimed for the methods. That means that you have nothing in "phenomena that are known and have been measured". It is a complete fail. "...Again "I notice that you did not read my article", if you read CAREFULLY, I said "How, the value of is not precisely known..."....this confirms what i said "I notice that you did not read my article"....
22".Because most astronomical data is known to extraordinarily low precision, it is not useful for proving anything about basically anything."...and yet you referred to "the precession of Mercury's", which is an "astronomical date"...I don't know what else to believe....you are contradicting yourself continuously
23. "Study more, read more, think critically, and consider what "proof" means before considering to have something to contribute to science."...I have admitted....I DO NOT OWN THE SUPREME TRUTH...and that is why I study continuously...thanks for your advice...but I wonder, do you still do this?...do you know how to have a discussion without offending?...
Respectfully,
Adrian.
Dear Christian G. Wolf ,
Thank you very much for your support!
"I can send you a link about how RG became the wonderful place to start open discussions on every topic in science possible."...I opened this dialog...for discussions....I like constructive criticism...and I noticed that it is practiced on RG....with some exceptions...
"The least thing we all need here is some personality war on how clever you think you are and how much you know - or not - and in the form you did."
I didn't start a "personality war", and I hope that my answers can't be interpreted like that...if it is, I apologize....
I admit, I can be wrong, but I don't attack the person...
Thank you once again!
Respectfully,
Adrian.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Nanotechnology
- Nanostructures
- Thin Films