Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Sylvia Else Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: 1 Second Defined in a Formula Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:17:00 +1000 Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <609ea73d-c7c6-412b-8ed9-b9b6f0ae6b4f@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net 7inWF3RUOUp9c2JPI9IEhA/rKUaU4RY6W4qg4vUWwNL1tfCPSH Cancel-Lock: sha1:/JnRe834meHwmvNfqW9EHgixWKw= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:570361 On 13/04/2016 2:03 AM, omnilobe@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, April 11, Sylvia wrote: > > "Leaving aside the arbitrary constant you introduced, G is not known > very accurately, so it's a very rough definition." > > See a correction at the end. > > Yes. G is rough and V, the proton volume is widely based on a radius > from 0.84fm to 1.25fm. But the 5.1ns non-arbitrary universal constant > is adjusted to match the V so the Momentum of Free Space (p) matches > experiments. > > p = V / 5ns > > Conclusion for Sylvia : Yes it is rough, now. It is a theory to > explain reality. It is not a guessing game where an arbitrary > constant is used. The 5.1ns has been verified on six planets and two > stars. Conservation of Continuum sets space equal to time magnitudes > as gravity shrinks space and grows time from protons and neutrons. What do you mean by "verified"? At the moment, it looks as if you've taken 1 second, divided/multiplied it by the other constants, as appropriate, and the 5.131534 x 10^-9 is what's left. This makes it arbitrary. You could similarly define a second in terms of my daily alcohol intake and the average number of birds in my garden, if you include the necessary fudge factor. The result is physically meaningless. Sylvia.