Hi Frank. This isn't anything complex, except for the units.
e is the charge on the electron. h is planks constant. Here are those values. http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constants.html e 4.8032068(14) 10^-10 esu h 6.6260755(40) 10^-27 erg s e^2/h = 348 km/sec This quantity has the dimensions of time in the SI system, about 40 microseconds. More constants need to be corralled to get us to the streaming velocity as measured by Silvertooth in the SI system. Horace is perhaps underestimating the differences between the systems, it's not just conversion factors. Although I do agree that with enough shoehorning you can get the same results from all of them. It remains to be seen if the streaming velocity is really determining atomic "constants". There's plenty of references on the web for e^2/h, this one caught my eye http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1985/press.html K. "For a political candidate to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander-in-chief" -George W Bush- Couldn't have said it better myself, George. -----Original Message----- From: Grimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 4:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: e2/h was RE: Dimensions of mass At 08:33 pm 27-10-04 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Frank. > >That all was a rather convoluted way of saying that a constant angular >velocity gives rise to a ponderable force where a constant >linear velocity does not. We'll not make any further headway until >we bring together Michelson, Morley AND Gale. > >You write: >>Well, the Silvertooth velocity of 378 kilometres per second >>towards Leo is a good starting point. > >Yes, this is the Great Attractor. All mass in the visible >sky is streaming towards that point in Leo. Bonus points for anyone with >an explanation of how this is possible with Hubble expansion? >Does one really preclude the other? > >As Adam, our Magickal Engineer knows, "as above, so below". That >macroscopic streaming velocity of our local part of the universe >is within' spittin' distance of the microscopic velocity > > e^2/h = 348 km/s > >I'm using CGS units here, don't try this at home with your SI units (grin). > >If we can squeeze 8 percent out of Silvertooth's measurement >( or the astrophysicists ) then we might have something here. > > >K. In the circumstances I would think "8 percent" is bugger all. <g> For me, the fact that it is the right order of magnitude is good enough. But you will have to explain to me - in Physics for Dummies terms - exactly what, e^2/h = 348 km/s means. Or a intelligible reference would do. I certainly like the hierarchical sound of "as above, so below". It reminds me of my ...upon the clouds of heaven... thread, though I suppose that would be more a case of *as below, so above* ;-) Cheers Frank Incidently, I owe you an apology about OCR_ing. I tried to OCR one of my jpeg pages and it came out all gobbledegook. I now realise that cutting the original scan file size down to a point where it was still reasonably readable on screen had crippled it for OCR.
