# The Biggest Blunder in TOEBI

For multiple reasons I had this idea that gravitational constant $G$ is easily calculated from object’s spinning frequency $f_{object}$. $G_{object}= \frac{1}{2}f_{object}^2 \frac{m^3}{kg}\tag{1}$

That doesn’t work, as Berry has pointed out. Good old gravitational constant seems to be still valid in our solar system. However, rotation induced force generation still works in TOEBI. Spinning particle interactions can be calculated with those laws. So the question goes, what I have missed regarding gravitational interactions?

In TOEBI, gravitational interaction must emerge and be calculable from its hypotheses and laws. We have two observations

1. Gravitational constant is valid
2. Attractive force can be increased with significant rotation frequency (apparently Earth’s rotation frequency is too small to increase attractive force)

With these building blocks I should be able to save my theory of everything… I have an idea already.

## 12 thoughts on “The Biggest Blunder in TOEBI”

1. dwarf says:

Respect, Kimmo. You surprised me in a good way.

2. Thanks! I might be a crackpot, but I try to be a honest one.

3. Berry says:

Don’t you think, you owe Newton an apology? Next time to London, light a candle on his grave.

And what about your answer to Q2 now? Do you admit that there has never been a problem with G in the first place?

But what about the factor $G_1+G_2)$ now? When is it valid, when is it not?

BTW: How many independent confirmation of http://www.sea3000.net/zhuyonghuan/20081009181348.php do exist?

4. I can promise that I’ll lit up a candle on Newton’s grave when I’m in London next time. And yes, I do admit that there hasn’t been any problem with G whatsoever, but I want to remind that G is not the whole story. It can’t be, I’m referring at the need for dark matter.

$G_1 + G_2$ is valid in atomic scale regarding particle interactions. I have no idea how many confirmations that experiment have. Actually I have asked if one of my ResearchGate contact could confirm it, but so far, nothing has materialized.

5. Berry says:

> G_1+G_2 is valid in atomic scale regarding
> particle interactions.

But you don’t have any experimental confirmation for that claim, either, right? It is as an idea as the one for stellar objects had been.

> I have no idea how many confirmations
> that experiment have. Actually I have
> asked if one of my ResearchGate contact
> could confirm it, but so far, nothing has materialized.

So at the moment, there is not even a hint that there may be more than zero independent confirmations. Don’t you fear that you’re building your theory on pretty thin ice?

6. Berry says:

> but I want to remind that G is not the whole
> story. It can’t be, I’m referring at the need for dark matter.

As long as you can’t prove that DM doesn’t or can’t exist, GR with its G is in no trouble. And as long as you don’t come up with a better theory than GR+DM, nobody will listen to you. And “better” does not mean that you like it better, but that it has as few experimental refutations as GR (namely zero) and causes less problems with unification.

7. dwarf says:

> Chapeau for your honesty, really!

+1

I would really not have expected that turn.
But it is a very pleasant surprise.

8. I do realize that I’m walking on a thin ice, no doubt about it. But what I’m looking for is a theory of everything and in order to create one, I have taken a novel approach and that you might have already noticed. Due to my personal traits and lack of time resources I have made few stupid mistakes, but I’m fast learner 😉

Reproducing those spinning ball experiments is mandatory. Preferable by somebody who can publish his/her results on legitimate science journal.

9. Berry says:

> I do realize that I’m walking on a thin ice,

And yet you think it’s the appropriate degree of modesty to call well established and tested physics “bullshit” and to present yourself as being on the verge of a physical revolution?

> But what I’m looking for is a theory of
> everything and in order to create one, I have
> taken a novel approach and that you might have

The first thing a novel approach for a theory of everything should fulfill is to be not in contradiction to well established experimental facts and the corresponding well tested theories, rather than focusing on one single dubious experiment.

Sorry, but you did a rather poor job in analyzing the implications of your theory.

> Due to my personal traits and lack of time
> resources I have made few stupid mistakes, but
> I’m fast learner 😉

You are? Then you should start actual learning, first about fundamental concepts of physics. Do you still think that TOEBI has magical unit matching powers?

10. Obviously modesty isn’t my strong suit… anyway, now I have to update TOEBI accordingly and do a lot more validation against current physics knowledge.

> Do you still think that TOEBI has magical unit matching powers?

Right now I would say no, but who knows about tomorrow 😉

11. Berry says:

> Obviously modesty isn’t my strong suit…

That’s detrimental to finding support.

> anyway, now I have to update TOEBI accordingly
> and do a lot more validation against current
> physics knowledge.

Yep. Anything valid left from the Second Laws?

>> Do you still think that TOEBI has magical unit matching powers?
> Right now I would say no, but who knows about tomorrow 😉

Learn!

12. I’m learning to be more modest. Initially I made the choice of being arrogant and aggressive, just to get some attention (I couldn’t figure out a better plan). Getting attention from physicists is a bit of a problem for outsider like me. Luckily things have changed into the better over the years.

I have sketched the future II law and it looks a lot better (more general, more right and more elegant). At the same time, III law gets an update. Within a week I have updated TOEBI. At the same time, I’m fixing also few other errors in the paper.

I want to thank you for your feedback! Obviously you are studying or working with physics in university and it certainly shows. Big hand from me!

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