**99.36.1 Re: FSC & Planck length (TomBuoyed)**

Subj: Re: FSC & Planck length

Date: 08/20/2001

From: (TomBuoyed)

Email: TomBuoyed@aol.com

Jerry,

I found something interesting when looking at the atomic and nuclear lengths involved from the Bohr radius to the Planck length.

First of all, the Bohr radius is calculated from Quantum and EM but no relativity involved.

Then there is the Compton wavelength which involves QM and relativity, but not EM

It's value is 1/a(em) = 137.036 times smaller than the Bohr radius (neglecting the 2*PI factor).

Then the Classical Electron Radius, which is calculated using relativity and EM, but no Quantum Mech at all.

Its value is another factor of 137.036 smaller than the Compton wavelength of the electron. The Classic Electron Radius is then 1/a(em)^2 smaller than the Bohr radius; i.e.18,779 times smaller.

Now the Planck length, Lp, includes G for gravity, relativity for c; and Quantum for h-bar. But no EM. Its formula is: Lp = SQRT(G*h-bar/c^3)

The value is Lp = 1.616048616 x 10^(-35) meters

I didn't find an integer power factor of a(em) between the Bohr radius and Lp (Its power is a(em)^11.4726), but I did find an interesting equation.

If you take the FSC and raise it to the 16th power; then divide that number by the Planck length, you get the integer 4 to 1 part in a thousand accuracy.

Here's what I got:

a(em)^16 = 6.466149767 E-35 divided by Lp = 1.616048616 E-35

gives 4.001209928

If you work backwards, starting with the integer 4, multiply it by Lp and take the 16th root, you get .007297215, which when inverted becomes 137.0385798 --- accurate to 1 part in 50,000.

Tom

**99.36.2 Re: FSC & Planck length (MetPhys)**

From: MetPhys

Date: 8/20/2001

What I noticed here is that these relationships seem to represent the fractal spin of light and its iterations upon a torus.

Universe uses whole numbers (Jerry Iuliano, Fermats Last Theorem)....Whole numbers seem to be producing irrationals such as:

(Bohr radius, Compton wavelength, Planck length, Classical Electron Radius, FSC) which Irrationals seem to be the the beat frequencies (R. Tomes- FSC only), the difference of 2 higher frequency whole numbers as in the example by Milamo, below, i.e., 72 and the powers of 10.

From Milamo:

http://hometown.aol.com/MetPhys/99BBelectrons.html

99.28.2 BULLETIN .. Yonaguni, Marsface, Fine Structure, and e ..
(Michael Morton)

"In an email of at least a week or more, ago, I suggested that maybe an "ideal" Fine Structure Constant (discussed in atomic particle physics, etc.) exists .. which would be an elegant interaction of the number 72 with the Pi constant and powers of 10. I showed this formula in a simple equation .. (Morton, 2001, Internet) as ..

[(72 / Pi Squared) / (10 to the minus 3rd)] = Ideal Fine Structure Constant .. = (72 / 9.869604401) / 1000 .. = 7.295125222 / 1000 .. = 0.007295125222

Its reciprocal is .. (1 / 0.007295125222) =137.0778389

99.23.5 Exactly 3 (TomBuoyed)

MetPhys wrote:

Toms Ratios and quote:

"One last thing about the ratios. It turns out that the ratio of ratios is exactly 3. Divide those numbers and you get exactly 3."

8.162097134 / 2.720699046 = 2.9999999985 (Close enough?)

Vs / Vt ratio = 8.162097134

As / At ratio = 2.720699046

Robert Grace

From: Tom

No, it's exactly 3. We're getting bogged down in decimals and truncation/rounding by our pocket calculators. Here's why the ratio is exactly 3. I go back to the use of square roots.

Vs = SQRT(6)*PI/8

Vt = SQRT(2)/12

Vs/Vt = 1.5 * SQRT(3) * PI

As = 1.5 * PI

At = SQRT(3)

As/At = 1.5 * PI / SQRT(3)

Now divide the ratios.

(Vs/Vt)/(As/At) = 3 because:

The 1.5 * PI terms cancel out and what's left is

SQRT(3)*SQRT (3) = 3

Tom

99.23.6 Re: Exactly 3 (MetPhys)

To JerryIuliano, Code UFO, Peace2go, Milamo, TomBuoyed:

Are these rational whole numbers as products of irrationals, beginning to suggest a rational whole number component to universe?

Robert Grace

MetPhys@aol.com

From: Jerry

Date: 7/05/01

Sir:

I believe the system is equivalent to a multi-dimensional Pythagorean form - Fermat's Last Theorem, which requires only integer.

J.Iuliano

My last question:

Are these rational whole numbers as products of irrationals, beginning to suggest a rational whole number component to universe?

Perhaps it is the reverse- Is it possible to conclude that the

1st layer rational whole numbers are producing the

2nd layer irrational beat numbers?

MetPhys@aol.com

© Copyright. Robert Grace. 2001