Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #364728 > unrolled thread

Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-20 17:11 +0000
    Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-21 12:04 -0700
      Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-21 16:51 -0400
        Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-22 15:45 +0000
    Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-24 07:25 +0200
      Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-24 15:01 +0000
        Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-24 10:02 -0700
          Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-24 10:05 -0700
          Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-24 11:21 -0700
            Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-24 11:46 -0700
              Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-24 12:03 -0700
          Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-25 05:39 -0700
            Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-25 07:30 -0700
              Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-25 08:19 -0700
                Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-25 10:15 -0700
                  Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-25 13:45 -0400
                    Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-25 10:59 -0700
                      Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 11:07 -0700
                        Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-25 13:04 -0700
        Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-24 22:19 +0200
          Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-24 13:30 -0700
            Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-26 08:25 +0200
              Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-26 05:54 -0700
                Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-26 22:20 +0200
                  Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-26 20:02 -0700
                    Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-26 20:19 -0700
                      Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-26 20:30 -0700
                        Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-27 11:28 +0200
                          Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-27 12:16 -0700
                          Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-27 12:34 -0700
                            Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-28 06:23 +0200
                              Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-28 19:47 -0700
                                Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-29 10:14 -0700
                                  Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-30 04:56 +0200
                                    Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-30 08:14 -0700
                                      Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-30 08:50 -0700
                                        Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-30 09:04 -0700
                                          Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-30 18:29 -0700
                                            Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-05 10:00 -0700
                              Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-28 19:56 -0700
              Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-26 06:11 -0700
          Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 21:01 -0400
            Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-26 08:17 +0200
      Re: Why does "curved space-time" cause gravity?: A better answer. fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-24 09:55 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#365190

> ..Matter is total different from empty space. 

if you take matter away from space, you get a vacuum. 

But actually what is space? 

Kinetic energy 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365310

Am 24.09.2015 22:30, schrieb fuller.david@hotmail.com:
>> ..Matter is total different from empty space.
>
> if you take matter away from space, you get a vacuum.
>
> But actually what is space?
>
> Kinetic energy

Kinetic energy is defined as energy of moving bodies. Since there are no 
such bodies in vacuum, you have no kinetic energy.

This would mean, that your reply is the most unjustified assumption 
possible.

You may also separate the quoted text from your reply, because otherwise 
it is impossible to see, what you have written yourself.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365326

Am 24.09.2015 22:30, schrieb fuller...@hotmail.com: 
>> ..Matter is total different from empty space. 
> 
> if you take matter away from space, you get a vacuum. 
> 
> But actually what is space? 
> 
> Kinetic energy 

Kinetic energy is defined as energy of moving bodies. Since there are no 
such bodies in vacuum, you have no kinetic energy. 

This would mean, that your reply is the most unjustified assumption 
possible. 

You may also separate the quoted text from your reply, because otherwise 
it is impossible to see, what you have written yourself. 


TH

The concepts in Your own Google docs book seems to predict "space" to be kinetic energy as it states "mass" appears as "light" in different inertial frames 

For the event horizon of a black hole, The gravitational acceleration in excess of v of c would be space ripped open because the objects inertia will not allow it to be accelerated any further because it is gaining relativistic mass too quickly. The objects resistance to further acceleration causes a "vacuum".
This object with mass is traveling at c in the gravity of a black hole so it does possess kinetic energy. 
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365365

Am 26.09.2015 14:54, schrieb fuller.david@hotmail.com:
> Am 24.09.2015 22:30, schrieb fuller...@hotmail.com:
>>> ..Matter is total different from empty space.
>>
>> if you take matter away from space, you get a vacuum.
>>
>> But actually what is space?
>>
>> Kinetic energy
>
> Kinetic energy is defined as energy of moving bodies. Since there are no
> such bodies in vacuum, you have no kinetic energy.
>
> This would mean, that your reply is the most unjustified assumption
> possible.
>
> You may also separate the quoted text from your reply, because otherwise
> it is impossible to see, what you have written yourself.
>
>
> TH
>


 > The concepts in Your own Google docs book seems to predict "space" to 
be kinetic energy as it states "mass" appears as "light" in different 
inertial frames
 >

No, since I assume, that 'space' is the distorted impression we have 
from the real universe, since light is delayed and needs time to travel. 
Since we see things by received light, the image we get from space in 
NOT an image from the real universe.

Its a real image, of course, but the image is OUR image - not the 'real 
thing'.

What we see is not only remote in space, but also remote in time.

The so called 'past-light-cone' is, from where we receive light and what 
we regard as space.

This is obviously not the euclidean 3d-space, but has also a time 
component. It also depends on position and velocity of the observer.

So the 'space', as we see it, depends on light and an observer and its 
position.

The 'real' space is actually invisible, since light from on million 
light-years distance needs one million years to reach us. (this is too 
long, hence we cannot see. )

And therefore we have little knowledge about this space and cannot 
rightfully claim, it has some specific properties.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365405

> The concepts in Your own Google docs book seems to predict "space" to 
be kinetic energy as it states "mass" appears as "light" in different 
inertial frames 
 > 

No, since I assume, that 'space' is the distorted impression we have 
from the real universe, since light is delayed and needs time to travel. 
Since we see things by received light, the image we get from space in 
NOT an image from the real universe. 

Its a real image, of course, but the image is OUR image - not the 'real 
thing'. 

What we see is not only remote in space, but also remote in time. 

The so called 'past-light-cone' is, from where we receive light and what 
we regard as space. 

This is obviously not the euclidean 3d-space, but has also a time 
component. It also depends on position and velocity of the observer. 

So the 'space', as we see it, depends on light and an observer and its 
position. 

The 'real' space is actually invisible, since light from on million 
light-years distance needs one million years to reach us. (this is too 
long, hence we cannot see. ) 

And therefore we have little knowledge about this space and cannot 
rightfully claim, it has some specific properties. 


TH 


In a vacuum, light will always be observe to be traveling at c and have varying wavelengths because space is Not Just empty space. 

If space was just space, photons would act like ballistic particles with random velocities.

This moment in Time is  spatially everywhere. 
The back side of this moment in time is space. 
Your google docs paper will not work with ballistic particles. 

Light always travels at c because the kinetic energy of the vacuum is c^2
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365408

In a vacuum, light will always be observe to be traveling at c and have varying wavelengths because space is Not Just empty space. 

If space was just space, photons would act like ballistic particles with random velocities. 

This moment in Time is  spatially everywhere. 
The back side of this moment in time is space. 
Your google docs paper will not work with ballistic particles. 

Light always travels at c because the kinetic energy of the vacuum is c^2 
  

The event horizon is this moment in time, right now. 
The event horizon of our space, right here, is time, this moment in time. 
We can't pass in to the future, away from the intersection, right here, of space & time.


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365411

In a vacuum, light will always be observe to be traveling at c and have varying wavelengths because space is Not Just empty space. 

If space was just space, photons would act like ballistic particles with random velocities. 

This moment in Time is  spatially everywhere. 
The back side of this moment in time is space. 
Your google docs paper will not work with ballistic particles. 

Light always travels at c because the kinetic energy of the vacuum is c^2 
  

The event horizon is this moment in time, right now. 
The event horizon of our space, right here, is time, this moment in time. 
We can't pass in to the future, away from the intersection, right here, of space & time. 

That is why Leonard Susskind is predicting the universe is holographic and Regge trajectories for particle masses works and the Koide formula works for the electron the muon and the tau masses

https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/b/a/2baf831e380dc8612715d087128cb210.png

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365421

Am 27.09.2015 05:30, schrieb fuller.david@hotmail.com:
> In a vacuum, light will always be observe to be traveling at c and have varying wavelengths because space is Not Just empty space.
>
> If space was just space, photons would act like ballistic particles with random velocities.
>
> This moment in Time is  spatially everywhere.
> The back side of this moment in time is space.
> Your google docs paper will not work with ballistic particles.
>
> Light always travels at c because the kinetic energy of the vacuum is c^2


In a spacetime-diagram c is the angle of 45°.

So we could think in degrees in spacetime and associate such angles to 
certain observed phenomena.

Angle zero is then 'no space' (or timelike). (like mass is)

The opposite is 'no time' (or spacelike) (like static fields)

if we combine both we get a certain wave and that is light-like (45°).

(If we combine both to a static structure, we get atoms.)

The past light-cone is what we see (called 'universe') and where we are 
seen is our future light-cone.

>
> The event horizon is this moment in time, right now.
> The event horizon of our space, right here, is time, this moment in time.
> We can't pass in to the future, away from the intersection, right here, of space&  time.
>

If we now base the angles on ourselves, we could assume other angles and 
associated 'universes', that have an 'axis of time' not in line with ours.

We could actually see 'time from behind' and that is what we call a 
'black hole'.

We could also see the opposite and that is a 'white hole', where time 
seems to approach.

But the rotation of the axis of time is 'relative'. This means, that 
'stable' is a question of the point of view.

In other terms: the angle of zero needs some sort of reference and that 
is usually the requirement of stability.

 From this we could draw the conclusion, that matter in one FoR may look 
like 'not being there at all' or like radiation.

And such 'not there matter' could pop out of nothing in an event called 
'big bang'.

Or we could make matter disappear into (seemingly) nowhere.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365468

Kinetic Energy and the Equivalence Principle

S. Carlip
(Submitted on 3 Sep 1999)
According to the general theory of relativity, kinetic energy contributes to gravitational mass. Surprisingly, the observational evidence for this prediction does not seem to be discussed in the literature. I reanalyze existing experimental data to test the equivalence principle for the kinetic energy of atomic electrons, and show that fairly strong limits on possible violations can be obtained. I discuss the relationship of this result to the occasional claim that ``light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary matter.''




Am 27.09.2015 05:30, schrieb fuller...@hotmail.com: 
> In a vacuum, light will always be observe to be traveling at c and have varying wavelengths because space is Not Just empty space. 
> 
> If space was just space, photons would act like ballistic particles with random velocities. 
> 
> This moment in Time is  spatially everywhere. 
> The back side of this moment in time is space. 
> Your google docs paper will not work with ballistic particles. 
> 
> Light always travels at c because the kinetic energy of the vacuum is c^2 


In a spacetime-diagram c is the angle of 45°. 

So we could think in degrees in spacetime and associate such angles to 
certain observed phenomena. 

Angle zero is then 'no space' (or timelike). (like mass is) 

The opposite is 'no time' (or spacelike) (like static fields) 

if we combine both we get a certain wave and that is light-like (45°). 

(If we combine both to a static structure, we get atoms.) 

The past light-cone is what we see (called 'universe') and where we are 
seen is our future light-cone. 

> 
> The event horizon is this moment in time, right now. 
> The event horizon of our space, right here, is time, this moment in time. 
> We can't pass in to the future, away from the intersection, right here, of space&  time. 
> 

If we now base the angles on ourselves, we could assume other angles and 
associated 'universes', that have an 'axis of time' not in line with ours. 

We could actually see 'time from behind' and that is what we call a 
'black hole'. 

We could also see the opposite and that is a 'white hole', where time 
seems to approach. 

But the rotation of the axis of time is 'relative'. This means, that 
'stable' is a question of the point of view. 

In other terms: the angle of zero needs some sort of reference and that 
is usually the requirement of stability. 

 From this we could draw the conclusion, that matter in one FoR may look 
like 'not being there at all' or like radiation. 

And such 'not there matter' could pop out of nothing in an event called 
'big bang'. 

Or we could make matter disappear into (seemingly) nowhere. 


TH 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365470

TH
According to your paper on google the totality of the CMBR can be alternately viewed as mass from a different reference frame
Meaning space would be caused by the Kinetic Energy of the particles of CMBR traveling at c in the opposing frame. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365484

Am 27.09.2015 21:34, schrieb fuller.david@hotmail.com:
> TH
> According to your paper on google the totality of the CMBR can be alternately viewed as mass from a different reference frame
> Meaning space would be caused by the Kinetic Energy of the particles of CMBR traveling at c in the opposing frame.
>
Hi

apparently I have at least on reader...

But I want to mention, that I use a different perspective than you.

I use 'subjectivism'. I assume, that anybody sees the world from the own 
perspective. That's why I don't ask, what that something 'really' is, 
but why we could have some sort of observations.

So, maybe, CMBR has mass and that kinetic energy. But actually I had not 
thought about this question, since I tried to explain the observation we 
call CMBR.

Or: I assume a physical entity called 'spacetime', without trying to 
tell, what that 'really' is.

My approach is from the other direction and I try to find a common 
denominator for certain experiences and call this 'spacetime'.

(This is just a term like 'mumble' or 'XYZ'.)

In my model  'particles' refers to 'structures' of this entity 'spacetime'.

This is like the relation of a wave to the surface of the ocean or a 
vortex in relation to air.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365662

3.085677581e+22 m/ (70000 m * 299792458^2) = 4.90468476209 

Ho = 70 +/- 2.2 km/sec/Mpc

Mpc 3.085677 * 10^22 m
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365739

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 9:47:34 PM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> 3.085677581e+22 m/ (70000 m * 299792458^2) = 4.90468476209 
> 
> Ho = 70 +/- 2.2 km/sec/Mpc
> 
> Mpc 3.085677 * 10^22 m

70 ((kilometers / second) / Mpc) = 2.2685455 × 10^-18 hertz
 
1/(2.2685455 × 10^-18) = 4.4081108e+17

1836 eV  6.7530e-10 m  4.4394e+17 Hz

https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/cnvcalc.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365784

Am 29.09.2015 19:14, schrieb fuller.david@hotmail.com:
> On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 9:47:34 PM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> 3.085677581e+22 m/ (70000 m * 299792458^2) = 4.90468476209
>>
>> Ho = 70 +/- 2.2 km/sec/Mpc
>>
>> Mpc 3.085677 * 10^22 m
>
> 70 ((kilometers / second) / Mpc) = 2.2685455 × 10^-18 hertz
>
> 1/(2.2685455 × 10^-18) = 4.4081108e+17
>
> 1836 eV  6.7530e-10 m  4.4394e+17 Hz
>
> https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/cnvcalc.htm

That's nice...

But would you mind telling me, what you try to figure out?


Yes, the universe as a hole has apparently a 'frequency' (thou extremely 
low) and a VERY long wavelength.

This you have figured out from the Hubble constant.

Well, quite nice, but what do you try to express?


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365807

That's nice... 

But would you mind telling me, what you try to figure out? 


Yes, the universe as a hole has apparently a 'frequency' (thou extremely 
low) and a VERY long wavelength. 

This you have figured out from the Hubble constant. 

Well, quite nice, but what do you try to express? 


TH 

Space is kinetic energy. 
Impedance of the vacuum regulates v of c. 
Appearance of expanding, red shifting universe is result of changing vacuum impedance 

Current time dilation in our local is exceedingly high and not noticed. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365809

Well, quite nice, but what do you try to express? 


TH 

Space is kinetic energy. 
Impedance of the vacuum regulates v of c. 
Appearance of expanding, red shifting universe is result of changing vacuum impedance 

Current time dilation in our local is exceedingly high and not noticed. 

433494437 / (3 * 10^8) = 1.4449815

433494437 / (299792458) = 1.44598179651

1/(1-(c/(3*10^8)) ) = 1445.49055131

433494437^2  / 299792458^2 = 2.09086335585

E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2

Current time dilation around 1445

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365810

Well, quite nice, but what do you try to express? 


TH 

Space is kinetic energy. 
Impedance of the vacuum regulates v of c. 
Appearance of expanding, red shifting universe is result of changing vacuum impedance 

Current time dilation in our local is exceedingly high and not noticed. 

433494437 / (3 * 10^8) = 1.4449815 

433494437 / (299792458) = 1.44598179651 

1/(1-(c/(3*10^8)) ) = 1445.49055131 

433494437^2  / 299792458^2 = 2.09086335585 

E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 

Current time dilation around 1445 

No tidal effects will be experienced because matter is made of the medium and in the medium

Tidal effects will be experienced a solely as a temperature change

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365842

(4pi*29.9792458)/(1507/4)=0.99994774641

(1507/4)/(4pi*1*1*2*3*5) = 0.99936041349

(4pi*29.9792458)/377=0.99928465109

1508/4 = 377   14 : 377 = 13 x 29

(1507/1508) * 300000000 = 299801061.008


n : F(n)=factorisation
0 : 0
1 : 1
2 : 1
3 : 2
4 : 3
5 : 5
6 : 8 = 23
7 : 13
8 : 21 = 3 x 7
9 : 34 = 2 x 17
10 : 55 = 5 x 11
11 : 89
12 : 144 = 24 x 32
13 : 233
14 : 377 = 13 x 29
15 : 610 = 2 x 5 x 61
16 : 987 = 3 x 7 x 47
17 : 1597
18 : 2584 = 23 x 17 x 19
19 : 4181 = 37 x 113
20 : 6765 = 3 x 5 x 11 x 41
21 : 10946 = 2 x 13 x 421
22 : 17711 = 89 x 199
23 : 28657
24 : 46368 = 25 x 32 x 7 x 23
25 : 75025 = 52 x 3001
26 : 121393 = 233 x 521
27 : 196418 = 2 x 17 x 53 x 109
28 : 317811 = 3 x 13 x 29 x 281
29 : 514229
30 : 832040 = 23 x 5 x 11 x 31 x 61
31 : 1346269 = 557 x 2417
32 : 2178309 = 3 x 7 x 47 x 2207
33 : 3524578 = 2 x 89 x 19801
34 : 5702887 = 1597 x 3571
35 : 9227465 = 5 x 13 x 141961
36 : 14930352 = 24 x 33 x 17 x 19 x 107
37 : 24157817 = 73 x 149 x 2221
38 : 39088169 = 37 x 113 x 9349
39 : 63245986 = 2 x 233 x 135721
40 : 102334155 = 3 x 5 x 7 x 11 x 41 x 2161
41 : 165580141 = 2789 x 59369
42 : 267914296 = 23 x 13 x 29 x 211 x 421
43 : 433494437

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366224

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 8:29:51 PM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
> n : F(n)=factorisation> (4pi*29.9792458)/(1507/4)=0.99994774641
> 
> (1507/4)/(4pi*1*1*2*3*5) = 0.99936041349
> 
> (4pi*29.9792458)/377=0.99928465109
> 
> 1508/4 = 377   14 : 377 = 13 x 29
> 
> (1507/1508) * 300000000 = 299801061.008
> 

> 0 : 0
> 1 : 1
> 2 : 1
> 3 : 2
> 4 : 3
> 5 : 5
> 6 : 8 = 23
> 7 : 13
> 8 : 21 = 3 x 7
> 9 : 34 = 2 x 17
> 10 : 55 = 5 x 11
> 11 : 89
> 12 : 144 = 24 x 32
> 13 : 233
> 14 : 377 = 13 x 29
> 15 : 610 = 2 x 5 x 61
> 16 : 987 = 3 x 7 x 47
> 17 : 1597
> 18 : 2584 = 23 x 17 x 19
> 19 : 4181 = 37 x 113
> 20 : 6765 = 3 x 5 x 11 x 41
> 21 : 10946 = 2 x 13 x 421
> 22 : 17711 = 89 x 199
> 23 : 28657
> 24 : 46368 = 25 x 32 x 7 x 23
> 25 : 75025 = 52 x 3001
> 26 : 121393 = 233 x 521
> 27 : 196418 = 2 x 17 x 53 x 109
> 28 : 317811 = 3 x 13 x 29 x 281
> 29 : 514229
> 30 : 832040 = 23 x 5 x 11 x 31 x 61
> 31 : 1346269 = 557 x 2417
> 32 : 2178309 = 3 x 7 x 47 x 2207
> 33 : 3524578 = 2 x 89 x 19801
> 34 : 5702887 = 1597 x 3571
> 35 : 9227465 = 5 x 13 x 141961
> 36 : 14930352 = 24 x 33 x 17 x 19 x 107
> 37 : 24157817 = 73 x 149 x 2221
> 38 : 39088169 = 37 x 113 x 9349
> 39 : 63245986 = 2 x 233 x 135721
> 40 : 102334155 = 3 x 5 x 7 x 11 x 41 x 2161
> 41 : 165580141 = 2789 x 59369
> 42 : 267914296 = 23 x 13 x 29 x 211 x 421
> 43 : 433494437

(4pi*29.9792458)/(1507/4)=0.99994774641

(1507/4)/(4pi*1*1*2*3*5) = 0.99936041349
 
(4pi*29.9792458)/377=0.99928465109
 
1508/4 = 377   14 : 377 = 13 x 29
 
(1507/1508) * 300000000 = 299801061.008

42 : 267914296 = 2^3 x 13 x 29 x 211 x 421 

4 * 377 = 1/(1/( 4 * 377) +1) = 299801192.843

267914296 / (377 * 2^2) = 2 x 211 x 421 = 177662

Impedance of the Vacuum = 13 x 29 = 377 

29.9792458 * 4pi = 376.730313462

376.730313462 / 377 = 0.99928465109 

0.99928465109 * 300000000 = 299785395.327


sqrt 177662 = 421.49970344 

421 / sqrt 177662 = 0.99881446312 

840/841 = 0.99881093935
(840/841) / (421 / sqrt 177662) = 0.99999647204

Pythagorean Triples


A triplet is relatively prime if the triplet cannot be reduced.
Ex: 3,4,5 cannot be reduced.
Ex: 6,8,10 CAN be reduced (by 2) so it is not.

These are all RPPTs.

               A    B    C      CC          Diff. A   B   B / 12      
              ---  ---  ---   ------             --- --- ---
Here is one:    3    4    5       25 Difference:  3   4   0       
Here is one:    5   12   13      169 Difference:  2   8   0
Here is one:    7   24   25      625 Difference:  2  12   1
Here is one:   11   60   61     3721 Difference:  4  36   3 ----------
Here is one:   13   84   85     7225 Difference:  2  24   2
Here is one:   17  144  145    21025 Difference:  4  60   5  10 primes 
Here is one:   19  180  181    32761 Difference:  2  36   3
Here is one:   23  264  265    70225 Difference:  4  84   7  in a row?
Here is one:   29  420  421   177241 Difference:  6 156  13
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365663

(1 / (c * 50)) / G = 0.999580752 kg s^3 / m^4

0.999580752 * 300 000 000 =
299874225.6	

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web