Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Question To Richard Stafford About C And H.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alexander on July 16, 2001 21:30:57 UTC

Dick, after reading carefully every equation in your opus again, I failed to find ANY derivation of h, c or G.

And this post above about "making h different that is actually is and seeing how world changes (atoms sizes, photon energies, etc)" made me certain that you DO NOT understand that the origin of h, c and G is NOT found yet.

You follow historical empirical way of MEASURING values of H, c and G from MEASURED energies, sizes and strength of fundamental interactions. While actually all this success of physics in last century DERIVING all phenomena mathematically from more and more fundamental objects (like symmetries) requires mathematical explanation (from any good TOE) for NUMERICAL values of C, h and G. By other words, it is NOT c, h and G being such BECAUSE our world is such, but exactly VICE VERSA: our world is such BECAUSE of certain values for h, c and G, which, in turn, mathematically FOLLOW from more fundamental mathematical object (like false vacuum, or strings, etc.)

So,numerical values of h, c and G should be mathematically DERIVED from more fundamental parameter or object (which itself is a mathematical consequence of yet more fundamental object and so on).

Sorry again, but in your "vision" of universe (which you call a theory, but which is not a theory yet because it does not predict or even explain anything) there is NO SINGLE bit of information why c is 3x10^8 m/s but not 2x10^6 m/s or why h is 6x10^-34 J sec but not any other value. Simply non.

And again, atoms are such because the numerical values of e, h, and c is such, not vice versa as you claim. Size of hydrogen (and any other) atom is simply a place where electron is most likely to be found around a proton if you bring them together and it is derived mathematically to be r0=(4 pi epsilon hbar^2)/(m e^2). So changing c (which changes epsilon), or h or e makes the hydrogen atom size and other parameters of hydrogen atom different, because hydrogen atom is simply a solution of wave equation for an electron in central 1/r Coulomb potential of a proton.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins