The Stowe Unitary System
Paul Stowe
in terms of basic medium parameters, including the gravitational
constant G. Further, G is, within this system, seamlessly integrated
to all others, fitting into a unified system.
The key to this system's definition is the realization that charge is
fundamentally a result AND the measure of the compressibility of
Maxwell's aether. See: http://www.mountainman.com.au/charge_ps.htm
for futher details on this.
I have posted an overview in the past and will repeat it here below.
(If interested, do a Google Groups Search on the exact phrase "Stowe Units")
Quantity SI Conversion Factor to (Stowe Units)
Length meter (m) 1 meter(m)
Mass Kilogram (kg) 1 Kilogram (kg)
Time Second (sec) 1 second (sec)
Force Newton (Nt) 1 kg-m/sec^2
Energy Joules (J) 1 kg-m^2/sec^2
Power Watts 1 kg-m^2/sec^3
Action [h] (J-sec) 1 kg-m^2/sec
Permitivitty [z] (Q^2/kg-m^3) 1 kg/m^3 {1}
Permeability [u] (kg-m-sec^2/Q^2) 1 m-sec^2/kg {2}
Charge [q] (Coulomb) 1 kg/sec
Boltzmann's [k] (J/°K) 1 m-sec
Current [I] (Amp) 1 kg/sec^2
Electric Field [E] 1 m/sec
Potential [V] (Voltage) 1 m^2/sec {3}
Displacement [D] 1 kg/m^2-sec
Resistance [R] (Ohms) 1 m^2-sec/kg
Capacitance [C] 1 kg/m^2
Magnetic Field [H] (Henries) 1 m^2
Magnetic Flux [B] (Gauss) 1 (none)
Inductance [L] 1 m^2-sec^2/kg
Temperature [°K] (Kelvin) 1 kg-m/sec^3
{1} - Medium density
{2} - Medium modulus
{3} - Medium Kinematic Viscosity
The basic physical quantities in this system are the medium properties
of, momentum quanta [ß], characteristic interaction length quanta [L],
the root mean speed [c], and a mass attenuation coefficient [¿].
Their values are,
ß = ~5.154664E-27 kg-m/sec
L = ~6.430917E-08 m
¿ = ~3.144609E-06 m^2/kg
c = ~2.997925E+08 m/sec
There are two dimensionless factors also. These are shared with the
standard systems of measure as,
á = ~7.297353E-03 (Fine Structure Constant)
ƒ = ~1.001159E+00 (Electron Magnetic Anomaly)
Now to the fumdamental constants. I'll now show that h, z, u, k, q, G
easily fall out of the above.
h ~= 2ßL
q ~= 2ß/L
k ~= L^2/c
u ~= áL^3/ßc
z ~= ß/áL^3c
G ~= (áßc/2piL^3)¿^2
Note rounding to six significant digits in the above numeric definitions
can affect the results slightly.
Paul Stowe
Uncle Al
>
> For the first time I have been able to define all fundamental constants
> in terms of basic medium parameters, including the gravitational
> constant G. Further, G is, within this system, seamlessly integrated
> to all others, fitting into a unified system.
>
> The key to this system's definition is the realization that charge is
> fundamentally a result AND the measure of the compressibility of
> Maxwell's aether.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
Michelson-Morley experiments (to 10^(-8) in 1887 and 1.7x10^(-15) in
2002)
Kennedy-Thorndyke experiments
Ives-Stilwell experiments
Hughes-Drever experiments
etc.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Paul Stowe
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>> For the first time I have been able to define all fundamental constants
>> in terms of basic medium parameters, including the gravitational
>> constant G. Further, G is, within this system, seamlessly integrated
>> to all others, fitting into a unified system.
>>
>> The key to this system's definition is the realization that charge is
>> fundamentally a result AND the measure of the compressibility of
>> Maxwell's aether.
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> No aether
Hey Bozo, Maxwell's aether WAS what lead TO LCR. See Lorentz 1904,
Einstein 1905... etc.
>http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
>http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> No Lorentz violation
BFD! That certainly does NOT invalidate Maxwell!
> Michelson-Morley experiments (to 10^(-8) in 1887 and 1.7x10^(-15) in
> 2002) Kennedy-Thorndyke experiments Ives-Stilwell experiments
> Hughes-Drever experiments etc.
Irrelevant to the issue!
The system stands or falls solely based upon its internal
continuity AND the ability to match & predict relationships
both known or unknown.
Your CRAP above isn't even on the radar scope of this particular
topic!
Paul Stowe
Bilge
> in terms of basic medium parameters, including the gravitational
> constant G. Further, G is, within this system, seamlessly integrated
> to all others, fitting into a unified system.
take two fundamental constants, \alpha and G, and rewrite
them as six.
Paul Stowe
wrote:
> Paul Stowe:
>> For the first time I have been able to define all fundamental constants
>> in terms of basic medium parameters, including the gravitational
>> constant G. Further, G is, within this system, seamlessly integrated
>> to all others, fitting into a unified system.
>>
> What do units have to do with physics?
I would not expect an Idiot-Savant like you to figure that out...
> You've managed to take two fundamental constants, \alpha and G, and
> rewrite them as six.
OK, then show us how to get Boltzmann's Constant from just alpha & G. :)
Paul Stowe
Morituri-|-Max
>> You've managed to take two fundamental constants, \alpha and G, and
>> rewrite them as six.
>
> OK, then show us how to get Boltzmann's Constant from just alpha & G.
You first... why did you need to take two constants and merely rewrite them
as six constants? It's your "brainstorm," you tell us yours before he tells
you his.
Paul Stowe
Hey Bozo, go look at the post you replied to, it's in there.
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
wrote:
BTW, I wonder if I'll ever get a 'straight answer' back, or, is it
do as I say, and not as I do...?
Paul Stowe
FrediFizzx
news:raf901d8tqfdkqph8...@4ax.com...
Paul, I thought we had it settled that the conversion factors for electric
and magnetic quantities are powers of (kg*sec^-2*amp^-1) which is a tesla in
SI units? Anyone can easily see that the conversion factors can't be 1.
FrediFizzx
Paul Stowe
That's fine but, since an Amp => kg/sec^2, Tesla is dimensionless.
IOW,
kg sec^2
----- x ----- => unitless
sec^2 kg
> in SI units? Anyone can easily see that the conversion factors can't be 1.
Further, since 1 Coulomb = 1 kg/sec, conversion is unity & dimensionless.
I could, of course have said Tesla, but to me it is needless confusion.
As I've mentioned before, all I've really done, in terms of SI, is redefine
the unit Coulomb as kg/sec. The rest, ß, L, c all come from standard
kinetic theory. So, wherever Coulomb appears in SI, replace the unit with
kg/sec, that's it. Since Coulomb is arbitrary, doing so will NOT change
any internal consistencies. Thus the Stowe Unitary System is as consistent
as the standard SI it enhances.
Paul Stowe
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge)
>>
>> What do units have to do with physics?
>
> I would not expect an Idiot-Savant like you to figure that out...
I take that to mean you have no answer, as usual.
>> You've managed to take two fundamental constants, \alpha and G, and
>> rewrite them as six.
>
> OK, then show us how to get Boltzmann's Constant from just alpha & G. :)
I must have missed boltzmann's constant, so make that, ``You've
managed to take three fundamental constants, \alpha, G and k, and
double the number.
Paul Stowe
wrote:
> Paul Stowe:
> >On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:43:52 GMT,
> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge)
>
> >>
> >> What do units have to do with physics?
> >
> > I would not expect an Idiot-Savant like you to figure that out...
>
> I take that to mean you have no answer, as usual.
>
> >> You've managed to take two fundamental constants, \alpha and G, and
> >> rewrite them as six.
> >
> > OK, then show us how to get Boltzmann's Constant from just alpha & G. :)
>
> I must have missed boltzmann's constant,
You miss alot Bozo...
> so make that, ``You've managed to take three fundamental constants,
> \alpha, G and k, and double the number.
Sigh, OK Bozo, take JUST alpha (that's the value of 7.297353E-3 alone),
k, and G and get Planck's constant h... IF you require the relationship
equation q^2/2hzc AND ANY of those constants, you CAN'T do what you claim!
You are such a dweeb...
Paul Stowe
Bilge
>(Bilge) wrote:
>
>> Paul Stowe:
>> >On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:43:52 GMT,
>> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge)
>>
>> >>
>> >> What do units have to do with physics?
>> >
>> > I would not expect an Idiot-Savant like you to figure that out...
>>
>> I take that to mean you have no answer, as usual.
>>
>> >> You've managed to take two fundamental constants, \alpha and G, and
>> >> rewrite them as six.
>> >
>> > OK, then show us how to get Boltzmann's Constant from just alpha & G. :)
>>
>> I must have missed boltzmann's constant,
>
> You miss alot Bozo...
>> so make that, ``You've managed to take three fundamental constants,
>> \alpha, G and k, and double the number.
>
> Sigh, OK Bozo, take JUST alpha (that's the value of 7.297353E-3 alone),
> k, and G and get Planck's constant h...
Why?
>IF you require the relationship
> equation q^2/2hzc AND ANY of those constants, you CAN'T do what you claim!
Then it's a good thing I don't require that equation.
> You are such a dweeb...
I was taught to write for my audience, which in this case is you.
If I've gone over your head, just say so.
Paul Stowe
wrote:
The only thing obvious is, you haven't done squat...
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
wrote:
> Paul Stowe:
> >On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:42:49 GMT, dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net
> >(Bilge) wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Stowe:
> >> >On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:43:52 GMT,
> >> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge)
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> What do units have to do with physics?
> >> >
> >> > I would not expect an Idiot-Savant like you to figure that out...
> >>
> >> I take that to mean you have no answer, as usual.
> >>
> >> >> You've managed to take two fundamental constants, \alpha and G, and
> >> >> rewrite them as six.
> >> >
> >> > OK, then show us how to get Boltzmann's Constant from just alpha & G. :)
> >>
> >> I must have missed boltzmann's constant,
> >
> > You miss alot Bozo...
>
> Make that two fundamental constants as I said originally.
>
> >> so make that, ``You've managed to take three fundamental constants,
> >> \alpha, G and k, and double the number.
> >
> > Sigh, OK Bozo, take JUST alpha (that's the value of 7.297353E-3 alone),
> > k, and G and get Planck's constant h...
>
> Why?
Because you can't use just k, G & alpha AND nothing else and do it!
You know this, and your bluff is being called!
> >IF you require the relationship
> > equation q^2/2hzc AND ANY of those constants, you CAN'T do what you claim!
>
> Then it's a good thing I don't require that equation.
>
> > You are such a dweeb...
>
> I was taught to write for my audience, which in this case is you.
>If I've gone over your head, just say so.
The only thing obvious is, you haven't done squat...
Paul Stowe
Bilge
>> Paul Stowe:
>> > k, and G and get Planck's constant h...
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because you can't use just k, G & alpha AND nothing else and do it!
> You know this, and your bluff is being called!
nature had something to do with defining SI units.
>
>> >IF you require the relationship
>> > equation q^2/2hzc AND ANY of those constants, you CAN'T do what
>> >you claim!
>>
>> Then it's a good thing I don't require that equation.
>>
>> > You are such a dweeb...
>>
>> I was taught to write for my audience, which in this case is you.
>>If I've gone over your head, just say so.
>
> The only thing obvious is, you haven't done squat...
So far, none of posts require doing squat.
Morituri-|-Max
> BTW, I wonder if I'll ever get a 'straight answer' back, or, is it
> do as I say, and not as I do...?
You have to post a straight question to get a straight answer.
Paul Stowe
What a weasel! Not one ounce of integrity, eh?
Bilge: "You've managed to take two fundamental constants,
\alpha and G, and rewrite them as six."
I replied: "OK, then show us how to get Boltzmann's Constant
from just alpha & G."
You jumped in, put foot in mouth, and said,
"You first... why did you need to take two constants and merely
rewrite them as six constants? It's your "brainstorm," you
tell us yours before he tells you his."
When in fact, my original post (which WAS present in Bilge's reply)
very clearly showed,
Quantity SI Conversion Factor to (Stowe Units)
[...]
Boltzmann's [k] (J/°K) 1 m-sec
[...]
{1} - Medium density
{2} - Medium modulus
{3} - Medium Kinematic Viscosity
The basic physical quantities in this system are the medium properties
of, momentum quanta [ß], characteristic interaction length quanta [L],
the root mean speed [c], and a mass attenuation coefficient [¿].
Their values are,
ß = ~5.154664E-27 kg-m/sec
L = ~6.430917E-08 m
¿ = ~3.144609E-06 m^2/kg
c = ~2.997925E+08 m/sec
There are two dimensionless factors also. These are shared with the
standard systems of measure as,
á = ~7.297353E-03 (Fine Structure Constant)
ƒ = ~1.001159E+00 (Electron Magnetic Anomaly)
Now to the fumdamental constants. I'll now show that h, z, u, k, q, G
easily fall out of the above. ^_
[...]
k ~= L^2/c
[...]
So, any one with an ounce of integrity would have immediately said
something like,
Oh, I'm sorry, I was wrong. Apparently you DID define Boltzmann's Constant.
I jumped to rash & invalid conclusions WITHOUT ACTUALLY LOOKING at what you
posted...
Is this clear enough?
Paul Stowe
FrediFizzx
news:slrnd0ec32....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
| Paul Stowe:
| >On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 03:31:35 GMT,
dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net
| >> >
| >> Paul Stowe:
| >> > Sigh, OK Bozo, take JUST alpha (that's the value of 7.297353E-3
alone),
| >> > k, and G and get Planck's constant h...
| >>
| >> Why?
| >
| > Because you can't use just k, G & alpha AND nothing else and do it!
|
| As usual, you missed the point. \hbar = 1 unit of angular momentum.
|
| > You know this, and your bluff is being called!
|
| What I kow is that you are completely clueless and seem to think
| nature had something to do with defining SI units.
Nature has to do with defining any unit system if that system is to be
useful in describing nature accurately for its applications. If one is
to model the quantum "vacuum" as a particulate relativistic medium, then
possibly SI units are closer to the "truth".
However, with the concept of quantum "vacuum" (spacetime) charge = +,-
sqrt(hbar*c), one can do what Paul has done in any system of units
including cgs and natural units.
FrediFizzx
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36pqosF...@individual.net...
> "Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd0ec32....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
...
> | What I kow is that you are completely clueless and seem to think
> | nature had something to do with defining SI units.
>
> Nature has to do with defining any unit system if that system is to be
> useful in describing nature accurately for its applications. If one is
> to model the quantum "vacuum" as a particulate relativistic medium, then
> possibly SI units are closer to the "truth".
>
> However, with the concept of quantum "vacuum" (spacetime) charge = +,-
> sqrt(hbar*c), one can do what Paul has done in any system of units
> including cgs and natural units.
I didn't know that Lord Buckingham's first name was "Paul". Funny I should
have remembered that in studying "dimensional analysis".
David A. Smith
Bilge
That means you have 4 constants which are superfluous and have
to cancel in any physical result. Don't ever accuse anyone of
mistaking math for physics.