[...]
I will start by reminding you that Newton didn't discover G himself, or give it the firm definition of “constant” we now have. He knew there was a numerical hole in his equation that must be filled, of course. And, yes, he himself would have called that numerical filler a constant. But he knew as well as anyone that this constant was only as firm as the other variables in the equation. Since he assumed that mass was the cause of the force, and since he assumed that the mass of a given object was constant, he would have assumed his constant was fixed, as we still assume that it is. However, if you could have shown him that his mass was really a compound of two fields—not one—and that one of these fields could vary slightly, he would have been willing to allow his constant to vary in the same way.
This is because the constant in such an equation is not and was never meant to be a so-called constant of Nature. G has only taken on that form due to the ossification of physics, and due to the longstanding of the assumption that matter exists in only one field at the planetary level. We know that not every constant in an equation is a constant of Nature. We know that an equation constant is—in the first instance—simply a relationship between variables. It is unchanging only in the case that the relationship between variables is unchanging, and that is not a mathematical question. It is a physical question.
As Sheldrake pointed out, we also know the answer to that question: G is not a physical constant. As data, it is only fixed near a known value. Data on G is not constant and never has been. For some reason, physicists are not prepared to face that fact. It scares them. It shouldn't—and won't after they read this paper—since
admitting G is not fixed to a single hard value doesn't bring down Newton, Einstein, or quantum mechanics. In fact, it verifies all of them (for the most part) while providing a simple means of unification. They have been seeking unification from both sides for decades now, so all of this should thrill them rather than frighten them.
Yes,
G is actually the unification number in the unified field. As I have shown, Newton's original equation was already unified from the beginning. It contained and contains two fields and G is the scaler between them. Each mass in the equation can be written as a unified field entity, by writing it as a density and a volume instead of a mass. We then give density to the charge field and volume to the gravity field. G takes the size of one field down to the size of the other, so that they can be put into the same equation. In other words, the gravity field is an acceleration field, and that acceleration applies to macro-bodies. The charge field however is a field of photons, and the charge force is transferred at that level. So we need a size scaler between the two forces. That is what G is.
Stated that way, it is clear that G isn't the sort of constant we have been taught it is. It is the relationship between the charge field and the gravity field, so it is only as fixed as that relationship is.
Since the bodies in our Solar System are known to move through different patches of charge, it should not surprise anyone that G is varying to small degrees.
[...]
Excerpted from:
http://milesmathis.com/g4.pdf
Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.
.
Bookmarks