Why I disagree with static eternal universe

Hi Lydon, I get the value of 6.626E-34 from teh gravitational/e.m couple. Now the simple fact is that the cgs system and the s.i. system use different equations but doing teh sums for both, and looking at the couple for proton/proton, electron/electron and proton/electron I get a fairly small range. I chose the h value as the most interesting. Now the thing is, that I get barh as the nearest valu but decided to lose the 2pi in the equation hf = E = mb^2

Now I'm not too sure what your old mate's value for the speed of gravity is. Does he convert lectron volts to joules and come up with and answer that differs from my proposed gravity speed by a factor of ten? If that's the case, then we probably differ around whether we multiply by the fine structure constant or its reciprocal.

Thinking about Dirac's ideas, we can have an expanding universe in which G declines over time, or we can have an expanding universe in which h increases over time. At the moment I'm not too sure what to make of that, still thinking about it.

The other area I think we should look at is the rather vexing one of the emu and the esu. Again at the moment I'm just palying a hunch in thinking that the speed of gravity will show up.

What I think will happen is that e.m information and gravitational information act rather like a half key code, and in effect mass particles are holgrams with a gravitational component, I suppose we'd have to call it a "gaser".

G'day

This link is interesting

arxiv.org/abs/0908.1539
The case for a non-expanding universe

Authors: Antonio Alfonso-Faus
(Submitted on 11 Aug 2009)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Abstract: We present the results of two empirical constancies: the fine structure constant and the Rydberg constant. When the speed of light c is taken away from the fine structure constant, as shown elsewhere, this constancy implies the constancy of the ratio e^2/h, e the charge of the electron and h Planck constant. This forces the charge of the electron e to be constant as long as the action h (an angular momentum) is a true constant too. Then the constancy of the Rydberg expression implies that the momentum mc is also a true constant. This is just the second law of Newton. The Compton wavelength, h/mc, is then a true constant and there is no expansion at the quantum mechanical level. General relativity then predicts that the universe is not expanding. It is the only solution for cosmology. The time variation of the speed of light explains the observed red shift.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Smile and live another day

Sorry Stoat,
I will not accept the relation h = c^2/b^2.
It just isn't right!
Its just like me asking you "how many bananas equal 4 apples?"
cheers
Lyndon


lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.

If the Universe was created, then it logically follows that the phenomenon of existence is derived from cause and effect. But it seems clear enough that before something can change or be changed, before something can act or be acted upon, it must first exist.

By definition, if existence is required in order for change to occur, then cause and effect is derived from the phenomenon of existence.

Logically, no phenomenon can be derived from its own subordinate derivative, so the premise of creation is obviously flawed.

Cause and effect is derived from existence, not the reverse.

Time is just a measurement of change. If there was no 'creation' then there was no beginning. There will be no end. You can measure backward or forward for as far as you wish and you will never reach 'eternity'. Like infinity... if a point of eternity existed, it wouldn't.

www.theory-of-reciprocity.com


I'd procrastinate, but I can't seem to find the time

If there is a creator, who created the creator?
If the universe is infinite, why aren't we?
Even an infinite universe came from somewhere.
Started somewhere.
Where?


lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by lyndonashmore</i>
<br />If there is a creator, who created the creator?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There isn't.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the universe is infinite, why aren't we?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Life and death are transient states of existence. Why would you assume that YOU - the animus (animated fundamental particle) that compiled and compels your corporal shell - didn't exist prior to birth or that it will cease to exist after death. Conditions cease to exist, existences do not. Do you REALLY think the evolution of life was a chemical accident?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Even an infinite universe came from somewhere.
Started somewhere.
Where?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If existence were the product of cause and effect, your assumption would be valid, but, instead, cause and effect is a product of existence. The Universe has, does and forever will change and evolve. There was always something 'before' and there will always be something 'after'. It is eternal as well as infinite - couldn't be one without the other. Time and distance are unlimited in all directions. Our finite minds give us a propensity to expect limits in all things - it is a trait one has to overcome in order to actually understand the nature of the cosmos.

I'd procrastinate, but I can't seem to find the time