Planck's Constant Revealed for the First Time

reply to post by Tetryonics


Why should I produce any math? I requested that you produce math. And your answer is "No you do it".

As for my "BS", it is the work of the genious Rodin. He is way ahead of you.

reply to post by -PLB-


Sir, you are deluded.

You are the one who claimed my Math was in error with my stated value for Plank's constant.
I backed up my claim with Math but challenged you have simply resorted to words, despite me pointing out your errors of Math with Math [validating my value]

You on the other hand have done nothing.
Again, I await you mathematical response [but I guess I'll get words again from WIKI - not even original]

Perhaps too much sugar in your donuts

reply to post by AnonyJai

Oh how I wish that physics and all of these theories weren't so far above my head.

Well, the thing about it is, that the actual physics is sort of simple... it's just the mathematics that DESCRIBE ACCURATELY the fundamental workings of physics are somewhat complex.

Let's take a basic starter course:

Newton's law of motion... F=MA

This states that the Force of an object is equal to it's mass multiplied by it's acceleration.

Acceleration as a variable, describes two properties, one is direction of movement, the other is change of speed over a unit time... given as Meters per second per second (m/s^2)

Mass is always given in the S.I. formation of Kilograms (approx 2.2 lbs)

And force is given in Newtons (One newton being the amount of energy required to accelerate a one kilogram weight to a velocity of one meter per second over the course of one second.

So, to break down the Formula (F=MA) we can calculate that a one kilogram mass, travelling at one meter per second, is exerting no force.

However, if we change the velocity of that mass (acceleration) by having the mass impact upon a stationary object.... the Mass of the object (1) multiplied by the Acceleration of the object (1m/s^2) gives us a net force of 1 newton (1*1=1)

This can also be done in reverse, where a stationary body (80kg) accelerated to 100 meters per second, over the course of one second, will require a force of 8,000 newtons.

And since a newton is roughly equivalent to a watt second, we can extrapolate that the electrical force required to accelerate an 80 kilogram object to 100 meters per second in one second would be roughly 8 kilowatts. (This is after entropic losses, of course)

This is roughly the encapsulation of newtons First and Second laws of motion.

Now, there are different measurements for energy of different types and flavours, for example:

A Watt is basically a continuous power source that expends one joule per second.... because a joule is instantaneous power, while a watt is a time average measurement of power.

For example, a One watt system generates one joule per second for as long as it remains working.

While a one joule system will expend a maximum of one joule.

While a Joule is a measurement of instantaneous energy, and a watt is a measurement of time averaged electrical power, a newton is a measurement of the force of momentum.

Furthermore, we have the calorie, which is a measurement of thermal energy equivalent to 4.18400 joules, or the amount of heat energy required to cause an increase of temperature of one gram of water, by one degree Celsius, at atmospheric pressure.

Related to the Calorie, is the British thermal unit, which is 1,055.05585 joules, and also the joule is used as a measure of heat energy.

(The Calorie is used more often in bio-chemistry, and the BTU is used in Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning applications)

In addition to these, we have a veritable plethora of other measures of energy:

We have Radient Flux, which is the measure of total energy emitted from a light source

We have Lumen, which measures the total amount of VISIBLE LIGHT emitted from a source

We have Lux, which is the SI unit for measuring luminous flux per unit area (Visible Photons striking an area)

Volt is the Electrical "Pressure" between two dissimilar charges

Ampere is the total flow of electrons across a conductor (1 ampere is the flow of one Coulomb(6.241 × 10^18 electrons) across a difference of one volt, producing one watt across one ohm.)

Ohm is the measurement of resistance to current flow (Often called "load")

But when we get down to quantum mechanics.... we usually use the Electron Volt:

The ElectvonVolt (1.6×10^−19 joule) gives us the energy gained (or lost) by the charge of a single electron moved across an electric potential difference of one volt.

In many physics applications, the ElectronVolt is used as a measurement of Momentum energy of a particle, or, the Force of the Acceleration of the Mass of the particle.

So, when you see that a particle emission has an energy of 5MeV (5 million electron volts) that particle has the Momentum energy, equivalent to 5 million electrons accelerated across a one volt field.

F=MA


But, yeah.... pretty complex jargon... but necessary due to the complexity of the different TYPES of forces we may need to describe with our mathematics...

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


And the point is ???

reply to post by shixta

Tetryonics gives an exact value for Planck’s Constant [6.629697947 e-34 kg.m2/s]

Please demonstrate the derivation of this constant without using any other measured or arbitrary constants, as it seems that you are deriving all your other "exact" constants from it.

I just want to see the math to avoid any communication issues.

reply to post by moebius


Here is the Tetryonic derivation for the mass-Energy of Planck's Constant



plus.google.com...

plus.google.com...

plus.google.com...


This derivation must be used in conjunction with Tetryonic charge geometries of rest mass [v=0] Leptons and Baryons as outlined in Tetryonic theory to exclude Blackbody and kinetic energies from the derivation.

reply to post by Tetryonics


Again, where is the mathematically formulated derivation! Write it down here, shouldn't be to hard I think.

reply to post by Tetryonics

Your misconception is that a couple of triangles (or other shapes) with a couple of numbers written around them is math. It is not. So still waiting for it.

reply to post by -PLB-


Again, open your eyes...all the math you need is right there.
Using a pocket calculator and solve as it shows

AND I am still waiting for anything other than WIKI from you.
continued comments about 'where's the math' when you haven't provided any shows your inability to perform

reply to post by Tetryonics

The claim is:

Its exact value can now be calculated by using the geometry.

Please demonstrate the calculation of the exact Planck constant using mathematics (your weird ideograms don't count), or stop wasting everyones time.

Are you able to do it or not?

reply to post by Tetryonics

And the point is ???

Dunno... did I need one?

reply to post by moebius


the math is right there - on the page

Space (static) is time (kinetic), whereby space is in the form of non-kinetic time, time is in the form of kinetic space. They trade characteristics as either static (space) or kinetic (time). We witness just after pure, absolute space (infinite static, infinitesimal in duration, no time element), which is the expanse of space, occurring as a string of instances at Planck FREQUENCY, and dwell in the realm of that transition (implosions) where space in converting back into time. Down and inward, from everywhere, towards everywhere, targeting the ONE infinitely kinetic (rate and angular diversity), infinitesimal Singularity. It is the kinetic of the Singularity being the cause for the expanse of space existing. Half of that kinetics of the Singularity produces/upholds the expanse of space, the other half of the "flight path" produces the non-existence, null, absolute nothingness.

reply to post by Tetryonics


Om what page!? Jeez... seriously.

Please write the math down in the reply to this post. I am primarily interested in the mathematical derivation of the exact Planck constant (asking for the third time already!!!).

reply to post by Tetryonics


You still seem to be getting me confused with -PLB-. Try looking at the names of the people you're responding to.

You have posted 4 links to the same diagram, and that diagram shows nothing of your derivation of the Planck constant.
You can't ask others to do the math and find out for themselves. Why did you develop Tetryonics? To keep the methodology to yourself and make everyone else figure it out on their own? You are the one deriving a magical value for the Planck constant, and you're the one who needs to show your work.

reply to post by CLPrime

**** Tetryonic geometry defines Hydrogen rest mass-Matter to have 2.2512e23 quanta exactly. *****
(electron [12*1e19] + Proton [36*(25^2)*1e19] = 2.2512 e23 quanta)

1 gram [0.001kg] of rest mass Hydrogen Matter divided by Avogadro's number for atoms in that molar mass gives an estimated value of mass of 1.660538841 e-27 kg [or to put it another way a mass for a single atom of Hydrogen that is the inverse of Avogadro's N]

Convert this mass value of a Hydrogen atom into its Energy equivalent [using E=mc^2]

And using this estimate for the atomic mass-energy of a single Hydrogen atom we then divide by the 2.2512 e23 quanta that make up the Hydrogen atom to derive a value for Planck ’s constant

[6.629697947 e-34]
This value is exclusive of all Blackbody, thermal of Kinetic mass-Energies.

We can then re-apply this value of Planck [h] back to the 270072 e19 quanta for allotropic Carbon and get an exact molar mass of 11.9968 g/mol [compared to 12g currently used]

Additionally, this value of h /c^2 gives us a mass value of 7.376238634 e-51 for a single quanta of Planck energy which we can apply to all periodic elements to confirm these results including

Hydrogen [22512 e19 * 7.376238634 e-51] = 1.660538841 e-27
the mass for Hydrogen * Avagardo's number = 1gram/mol

The only constant used here is the speed of light in a vacuum [c] – with [h] being derived

[and I offer my apologies for mixing different comments up in this thread]

reply to post by Tetryonics


Thank you for showing your work.

Now...I'm curious how you can divide the mass-energy of the Hydrogen atom by the number of quanta and get the Planck constant from that. What you should actually get is the mass-energy of each quanta, having units of joules. You need joule-seconds.

The value given by this is 6.62943804315x10^-34 J (which is close to the value first given by shixta in the OP), which is somewhat different from what you've given. Is there a step in there I'm missing?

Dividing the mass-energy value by your Planck constant value gives what would be a frequency of 0.99996079703 Hz. Does this mean something?

Incidentally, a frequency of 1.0005083667 Hz would give the current accepted value for the Planck constant.

ETA: the value for Avogadro's number given by the diagram you linked to earlier leads to a value of 6.62943243986x10^-38 J for each mass-energy quanta. Only slightly different from the value I found above.

reply to post by CLPrime


I screwed up my original post and didn't realize until my window of opportunity had already ended. The original number I provided was from page 214 of Tetryonics[1] Quantum Mechanics.

I had confused it with Planck Energy by accident. Planck Energy is 6.62943244 e-34 kg[m^2/s^2]

Because I messed it all up, Tetryonics created an account to set the record straight. I'm still very new to all of this, but it's making more logical sense than anything else. You will need to download the FREE materials and watch the FREE Youtube Channel Lectures. There's about 40 hours and counting up so far.

I will continue to study this thread from a far in hopes that my lack of understanding no longer adds further confusion to the topic. I have already attempted to correct my mistake but I am humble enough to admit that I don't have it all put together just yet. Everyday does bring new insights however.

A few things that you can keep in mind moving forward.

Planck's Constant can be described in a number of ways.
1) Energy * Time
2) Momentum * Distance
3) Tetyonic mass * Angular Momentum

Page 186 Tetryonics [1] pdf
Planck mass

"Currently the Atomic masses are calculated using 1/12 of a Molar Carbon 12 atom's mass as the reference mass. If we calculated for the molar mass of C12 in 12 grams we would get a value that is in error by 1/2 the mass of an electron.

Using Tetryonic geometry we can solve for an exact value of a n-level 'Planck mass' and exactly account for Quantum energy contributions in the Electrons and Baryons in any Element thus determining exact masses avoiding 'weighted' masses. In turn this sets N[Hydrogen - Rest mass] as 1 gram exactly and defines Avogadro's number as the inverse of this number."

Planck mass = 7.376238376 e^-32 kg

Page 187 [1]QM.pdf

"The discovery of the relationship between inverse Planck mass and charge agrees with an earlier determination that Current and Coulomb's Constant can be redefined as a measurement of mass-seconds and mass/second respectively. Thus reinforcing Charge's role in the geometry of mass-ENERGY-Matter."

Page 195 states "Planck's constant is the relationship between EM mass-ENERGY and Quantised Angular Momentum that provides the basis for EM charge in Tetryonics Geometry."

We can also note that Protons are actually Baryonic Geometries. 3 Quarks combine to form Baryonic Geometries.

The point I am trying to make is that without starting at the foundations of Tetryonics you won't really be able to understand what's going on. The materials are in fact Free and I would encourage each and every one of you to download all the ebooks. It will clarify many things for you.

reply to post by shixta


Could you just explain one thing... how Tetryonics gets from a mass-energy quantum of 6.62943244x10^-34 J to a Planck constant of 6.629697947x10^-34 J·s?

Originally posted by Tetryonics
reply to post by CLPrime

 

**** Tetryonic geometry defines Hydrogen rest mass-Matter to have 2.2512e23 quanta exactly. *****
(electron [12*1e19] + Proton [36*(25^2)*1e19] = 2.2512 e23 quanta)

Where are you getting this "exact" numbers from? What is their physical meaning (quanta of what)?