# The Biggest blunder in physics?

Update: This was the biggest blunder in TOEBI. Ignore this post.

The most profound law of classical mechanics might be $F=ma$so the units of force are $N=\frac{kg*m}{s^2}$and gravitational acceleration is $g=G\frac{M_{Earth}}{r^2}$hence $\frac{m}{s^2}=(\text{Units of G})*\frac{kg}{m^2}$

In this situation, the fathers of classical mechanics made the mistake. In order to overcome the mismatch both in units and magnitude they decided that $G$ should be defined as (with modern measurement accuracy) $G=6.67384(80)*10^{-11} \frac{m^3}{kg * s^2}$That must be the biggest blunder in physics! But as we now know (based on ToEbi), $G$ is not a constant. Proper way to go would be $g=(\frac{m^3}{kg})\frac{1}{2}f^2_{Earth}\frac{M_{Earth}}{r^2}$ so $G_{Earth}=(\frac{m^3}{kg})\frac{1}{2}f^2_{Earth}$

## 41 thoughts on “The Biggest blunder in physics?”

1. dwarf says:

I think the biggest blunder in physics history will be the amount of time,
until mainstream physics finally considered and then accepted ToEbi.

2. Berry says:

Hi Kimmo,

I don’t understand how you arrive at your fourth equation here. It
does not follow from the preceding ones, i.e. why the “hence”? Sure,
the units of g equal the units of G times kg/m² (when
using SI everywhere), but that’s not equivalent to your fourth
equation, which nobody but you claims to hold true.

Cheers
Berry

3. That’s the point, the biggest blunder in physics, those units currently used are not right due to underlying inadequate knowledge about gravitational interaction.

4. Berry says:

That doesn’t answer my question at all. Once more: Where does this fourth equation come from? Does it follow from your ToEbi? It does not follow from anything in mainstream physics.

5. Do mean that g=0.5*f*M/r^2? That’s from TOEBI.

6. Berry says:

No, I don’t mean “g=0.5*f*M/r^2”, I mean the fourth equation above, which reads: m/s² = G*kg/m²

My question still reads: Where did you get that from? It is not an equation from mainstream physics. Thus, I guessed that it would follow from your ToEbi, which you didn’t confirm, though.

7. F=m_object*g=G*m_earth*m_object/r^2 -> g=G*m_earth/r^2 which is in SI units m/s^2=G*kg/m^2

Did you mean that derivation?

8. Berry says:

Yes, that’s what I mean: Looking at the units in the equation g=G*M_earth/r^2 one can only deduce:

Units_of_(g) = Units_of(G)*Units_of(M_earth/r^2)
which means in SI
m/s² = Units_of(G)*kg/m² (1)

But Units_of(G) is not the same as G itself. Thus, the equation m/s² =G*kg/m² (2)
cannot be derived as you did.

It makes a difference: While (1) only implies that (in SI)
Units_of(G) = m³/(kg*s²) (1′)
the erroneous (2) would imply
G = 1 m³/(kg*s²) (2′)

While (1′) is indeed mainstream physics, (2′) is nonsense.

If you just wanted to point out (1′), you should fix your fourth equation.

9. Based on TOEBI Units_of(G) = 1/s^2 because you can calculate G = 0.5 * spinning frequency therefore the final result.

10. Berry says:

The units of G according to ToEbi are irrelevant for the impossibility to derive your fourth equation from the preceding ones.

Do you accept that the SI units of G are not the same as G itself, or not?

We can discuss G according to ToEbi and the final result after the status of the fourth equation is clarified.

11. You are right, and I should fix that forth equation. Thanks for pointing that out!

12. Berry says:

Great, thanks!

Ok, let’s turn to the units of G:

In mainstream physics, we agree, they are m³/(kg*s²). If we believe in Newton’s law of gravitation, we have to multiply G by the two involved masses (=> kg²) divided by their squared distance (/m²) to obtain the attractive force between them. Let’s check:
m³/(kg*s²) * kg²/m² = kg*m/s² = N
Thus, in mainstream physics the units of G are (of course) consistent with Newton’s law of gravitation.

Now, you say that G_ToEbi has units 1/s². Multiplying that with the two involved masses divided by their squared distance, we do not end up with the unit of force (N=kg*m/s²) but with kg²/(m²s²). Hence, the law of gravitation in ToEbi must be different from Newton’s. So, how does the force between two massive bodies depend on their masses and their distance in your ToEbi?

13. Berry says:

Oh, sorry, I overlooked the answer already being given, namely by your sixth equation (i.e. you do assume Newton’s law of gravitation, too).

Well, on the right hand side of the sixth equation we’ve got kg/(s²m²), which is not an acceleration.

So…?

14. I might introduce a conversion factor which fix the discrepancy regarding the units, but I might also point out that force in classical physics can be reduced down to interactions between particles which obey the second law of TOEBI, hence units match automaticly.

15. Berry says:

Yes, you might (and should) introduce such a conversion factor, let’s call it b for a moment. But maybe you refrain from this step, there could be several reasons:

1) After the fix, G_ToEbi=b/2*f² would have the same units as the G from mainstream physics. And your argument against the latter’s “utterly wrong units” seemed to be that they are different from yours (a rather biased argument, one should add). That means, half of “The Biggest blunder in physics” would be gone.

2) Which value would this b have to have? We know its units to be m³/kg, but what is its numerical value?

3) You seem to have no problem with an acceleration having units kg/(s²m²) in the first place.

But how did you arrive at 3) at all? Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity, and a velocity is necessarily a length divided by a time (i.e. SI units m/s). Ergo, an acceleration must be a length divided by a squared time (i.e. SI units m/s²). An acceleration has a well defined meaning, you cannot assign arbitrary units to it. If someone provided you with experimental data h(t) (actually obeying h(t)=h(0)-g*t²/2 plus some small measurement errors), how on earth would you extract something with the units kg/(s²m²) from that?

> but I might also point out that force in classical physics can be
> reduced down to interactions between particles which obey the second
> law of TOEBI, hence units match automaticly.

You might point this out, but it’s not true. No physical theory whatsoever possesses such a magical unit matching power: If the force between two masses is found to be proportional to M1*M2/r², then the proportionality factor must have the units m³/(kg*s²) in SI, irrespectively of the underlying origin/mechanism of the force, be it curvature of space, spinning spiked particles or invisible elves.

My principle question: Do you stick to your statement that an acceleration can have SI units different from m/s²?

16. There is no need for a value fixing, spinning frequency takes care of the proportional aspect. Yes, TOEBI is such a theory that possesses such a “magical” unit matching power, it works in any scale. Take a closer look and knock yourself out.

I agree that SI units for acceleration are m/s², therefore I need that unit conversion constant.

17. Berry says:

Ok, can you provide us with that unit conversion constant? How many m³/kg?

In other words, how does the fixed G_ToEbi look like?

18. Something like this, G_{TOEBI} = m³/kg * 0.5 * f^2_{spinning frequency}

19. Berry says:

Sorry, what does “something like” mean? Is the previous factor 1/2 replaced by 1m³/kg, or is it not? G_ToEBi should have a precise definition, shouldn’t it?

20. LOL, sorry about that 🙂 I just fixed the G.

21. Berry says:

Oops, I overlooked the 0.5.

Ok: Is G_ToEbi=0.5m³/kg*f² the correct value or is it not?

22. Berry says:

Thanks. Then two more questions:

1) Do you stick to your statement that the units of the mainstream physics G are “utterly wrong”?

2) What is f for the earth? Is it the macroscopic 1/24h=1/86400s or is it some hidden quantity?

23. Well, units are not utterly wrong, but wrong anyway. But current constant value of G is totally Earth-centric, that’s utterly wrong idea.

Spinning frequency works also in case of Earth. You should read Theory of Everything by Illusion paper, there it is described in detail.

24. Berry says:

> Well, units are not utterly wrong, but wrong anyway.

What’s that supposed to mean? G has the same units as G_ToEbi and they produce N for force and m/s² for acceleration, so what is wrong about the units?

> But current constant value of G is totally Earth-centric, that’s utterly
> wrong idea.

That’s firstly not true and has secondly nothing to do with the units. So, let’s postpone the discussion of the aspect.

> Spinning frequency works also in case of Earth. You should read
> Theory of Everything by Illusion paper, there it is described in detail.

You are trying to advertise your ToEbi, so you should be willing to answer such a simpe question:

Is f_Earth = 1/86400s or is it not?

25. Mmm.. f_Earth is ~1/86164 1/s.

Sorry about that unit thing, there is nothing wrong with them, only the value is utterly wrong.

I strongly suggest that you read the paper, there G_Earth is calculated accurately and also explained why the calculated value differs ~0.9 % from the measured one.

26. Berry says:

> Sorry about that unit thing, there is nothing wrong
> with them, only the value is utterly wrong.

So the alleged blunder has shrunken by 50%. Maybe you should adapt the text above.

> I strongly suggest that you read the paper, there
> G_Earth is calculated accurately

Why, we have everything at hand right here:
With f_Earth = 1/86164 1/s, we have G_Earth = 6.735E-11 m³/(s²kg), which is only 0.9% above the mainstream physics value for the universal G, so we don’t expect a big difference.

With f_Mercury = 1/5067000s, we have G_Mercury = 1.947E-14 m³/(s²kg)
Using M_Mercury = 3.3E23kg and R_Mercury = 2.44E6m, we get
g_Mercury = 0.001m/s², i.e. over 3000 times smaller than the measured value of 3.7m/s². What’s wrong here?

27. Berry says:

The moon has the same spin as Earth producing the same G_ToEbi, thus, there is no additional insight.

Hence, let’s stay with Mercury: Your explanation for the vast discrepancy is that its mass is actually about 3700 times larger than stated by NASA?

28. How about this… I’ll make the detailed calculation for Mercury in form of new blog post. I’ll do it during this week.

Update: Actually I got from quick calculation that Mercury’s mass should be 3439 times the current calculated mass. So I don’t see point writing a new post about it.

29. Berry says:

3439 is not that much different from my roughly estimated 3700, so let’s take your value.

Ok, that would mean also larger mean density of Mercury, namely 1.87E7kg/m³ or 18.7kg/cm³, which is more than 800 times denser than the densest natural element (Osmium).

How dou explain that? Do you think there is a neutron star buried in Mercury?

30. No, I don’t think so, because centripetal force should be increasing along mass increase. More work ahead, thanks for pointing that out! TOEBI laws are not applicable when calculating forces between stellar objects. But actually I have an idea for those kind of calculations…

31. Berry says:

> No, I don’t think so, because centripetal force
> should be increasing along mass increase.

So, what is your explanation for this whopping density of Mercury, claimed by ToEbi?

> TOEBI laws are not applicable when calculating
> forces between stellar objects.

I beg your pardon? ToEbi is a theory of everything but not for something which is well described by an over 300 years old theory? A theory you reject as wrong only because it disagrees with ToEbi, which in turn, as we now learn, is incomplete already in the realm of gravitation.

Moreover, the Mercury calculation was not about forces between stellar objects, but about the acceleration of a test mass at the surface of Mercury, i.e. the very same situation you proudly presented for Earth and moon. If you cannot explain the supposed gigantic density of Mercury, it can only be concluded that ToEbi fails for planet Mercury.

Now, Newton’s law of gravitation does not only work well for stellar objects, but also for smaller objects down to lab scale. E.g. it predicts the attraction between (say) two cannon balls. What does ToEbi have to say about such a situation?

32. For your information, even though TOEBI is theory of everything I haven’t derived every phenomenon in the universe. I’ll check that Mercury case more closely. I mean in case of expanding the second law of TOEBI to stellar objects we have to take into consideration also G_sun! Therefore the total G between Sun and Mercury is G = G_sun + G_mercury hence G_mercury isn’t that significant. So let’s stick with Mercury for awhile.

Update: I mean I’ll do that new blog post on the topic this week. I’ll first calculate Mercury mass based on gravitational interaction between Sun and Mercury.

33. Berry says:

> even though TOEBI is theory of everything I
> haven’t derived every phenomenon in the universe.

Your statement to which I replied was not “I didn’t calculate for Mercury, yet.” but “TOEBI laws are not applicable when calculating forces between stellar objects,”. If they are not applicable (to certain situations), it’s moot whether you applied them (to said situations) or not. If they are not applicable (to certain situations), then ToEbi is (at least) incomplete.

> I’ll check that Mercury case more closely.
> I mean in case of expanding the second law
> of TOEBI to stellar objects

How come you must expand the second law of TOEBI? “Second law of” sounds like quite a fundmental ingredient to me for ToEbi. You deduced loads of stuff from the unexpanded ToEbi, and none of these results is going to change due to the expansion?

And how come you must expand it for stellar objects? Was it meant to be valid for Earth and its moon only? Really? It’s you who regards Newton’s G as wrong because that’s (supposedly) “totally Earth-centric”.

> we have to take into consideration also G_sun!

How come, all of a sudden? Why wasn’t it necessary when dealing with Earth or moon?

> Therefore the total G between Sun and Mercury
> is G = G_sun + G_mercury

Once more: The considered situation has nothing to do with attraction between Mercury and Sun. The considered situation is the acceleration of a test mass at the surface of Mercury, i.e. the very same situation you presented for Earth and moon. Same situation, different types of law, are you serious?

> I’ll first calculate Mercury mass based on
> gravitational interaction between Sun and Mercury.

You’ll pull a (strangely hitherto unnecessary) new law out of thin air, hoping its result will differ from your previous “quick calculation” by three orders of magnitude? Wow, I don’t dare to imagine what you’ll need to invoke for the cannon balls.

34. Relax! I’ll do the calculation. Meanwhile, you’ll have to take a break. I didn’t bring in any new laws. You should really read my paper first, especially that second law of TOEBI part.

35. Berry says:

Whatever the result of your new calculation will be, it won’t answer the question why you have to use a different law for g_Mercury compared to g_Earth (besides using their different parameters, of course). Neither will you, apparently. And no, I don’t dare to read your paper, fearing to find more of such bizarre statements as “the big difference comes from Moon’s much smaller rotation frequency”. f_Earth and f_moon are the same!

36. Berry says:

I said: “f_Earth and f_moon are the same!”
That was silly, sorry. Actually, f_Earth=28 f_Moon, true. But attention here as well: With your result M_moon=5.45E25kg, you’ve got a mean density of 2.48kg/cm³, i.e. over 100 times the density of Osmium. A neutron star in the Moon as well?

37. Berry says:

> I might have ignored one significant factor.

How come? Doesn’t TOEBI tell you exactly how to calculate what?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.