Dependence Of The Macro- And The Microworld Of The Earth On The Geocentric Gravitational Constant

Distance Earth-Sun Earths absolute radius Schumann resonance

6 replies to this topic

#1 Hamster

Hamster

Curious

• Members
• 7 posts

Posted 23 April 2019 - 04:24 AM

For several years I have been developing the idea of the relationship of the micro- and the macroworld with fundamental physical constants. As a result, I got some interesting formulas that seem to confirm this idea. The first formula calculates the average radius of the Earth:

The second formula calculates the average distance (not AU!) from the Earth to the Sun:

The third formula calculates the highest-intensity harmonic of the Schumann resonance:

where µ is the Earth's gravitational parameter (the geocentric gravitational constant), me is the electron rest mass, ħ  is the reduced Planck constant, h is the Planck constant, c  is the speed of light in vacuum, Rc is the Rydberg constant (in Hz), α ≈ 1/137.04  is the fine-structure constant, C = 1 m/s is a matching coefficient.

(I also have other formulas using gravitational parameters that I have not yet published.)

I have already discussed the first two formulas in other forums. I was told that these formulas are a coincidence. Now, considering the third formula I got (about 7.85 Hz), it would be interesting for me to hear opinions of other researchers - Is it really just three formulas that give the correct results can be a coincidence? Maybe we just do not understand that the reality of different planets depends on their gravitational parameters and may be various? Maybe the information about the Universe, which we obtain with our senses and instruments, is an illusion that requires correction?

Thanks for your opinion.

Edited by Hamster, 23 April 2019 - 04:59 AM.

#2 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1043 posts

Posted 23 April 2019 - 12:02 PM

My opinion is this is just numerology. Basically, by choosing what powers to apply and to which constants and also multiplying and/or dividing by whatever numbers you choose, you can make the result come out whatever way you want.

It may be a fun and even an interesting way to spend your time, but otherwise meaningless.

• exchemist likes this

#3 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 605 posts

Posted 02 May 2019 - 05:12 PM

My opinion is this is just numerology. Basically, by choosing what powers to apply and to which constants and also multiplying and/or dividing by whatever numbers you choose, you can make the result come out whatever way you want.

It may be a fun and even an interesting way to spend your time, but otherwise meaningless.

This is the first time Ive agreed with you!

Now apply that same logic to Einstein's theories.

#4 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1043 posts

Posted 03 May 2019 - 03:04 AM

Einstein's theories are based on sound science, not by just playing around with numbers. No, we do not agree.

#5 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 605 posts

Posted 03 May 2019 - 04:35 AM

Einstein's theories are based on sound science, not by just playing around with numbers. No, we do not agree.

You are mistaken that the theories of Einstein are based on rational claims. You THINK that, but this does not make it correct. I dispute all claims of supporting observational evidence for SR if thats what you are going to say next.

#6 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1043 posts

Posted 03 May 2019 - 09:11 AM

That's not what I was going to say next.

This is what I was going to say next:

• Flummoxed likes this

#7 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 605 posts

Posted 03 May 2019 - 03:39 PM

That's not what I was going to say next.

This is what I was going to say next:

totally the thought of a disciplined scientific inquiring mind, Im impressed.