-2

In an answer to a previous post of the same question, it was stated that the gravitational constant can not be determined theoretically yet! From my perspective, the reason this is not yet possible is because of a flaw in the assignment of units in the SI system.

It is possible to derive the gravitational constant multiple ways using known physical constants but because of the flaw in the SI system the dimensions will not work out. Thus the proof would be defined as a numerical coincidence and would be rejected. If one was to show the proof using a new system of units it would still be rejected because the new system would suggest a flaw in theory of something which has been established for over one hundred years.

So the argument of a numerical coincidence based on unjustifiable units is used to defend a faulty set of units which is the source of the problem in the first place.

So my question is, "How does one defeat this problem?"

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
user199479
  • 1
  • 2
    It's a little difficult to tell what the real question is here, but I believe the answer is to post to viXra. – knzhou Sep 10 '19 at 06:40
  • 1
    You mention that "It is possible to derive the gravitational constant multiple ways using known physical constants". Could you be more specific? I do not know such ways. – lesnik Sep 10 '19 at 09:27
  • Mainstream physics incorrectly assumes that the fine structure constant is a dimensionless value. It has replaced another dimensionless value necessary to theoretically derive the gravitational constant, the mass and volume of the proton, or explain kB = h (e c) etc. in terms of other physical constants. A new system of units called the Metre-second system will attempt to resolve this and other issues in physics. – user199479 Sep 10 '19 at 21:37

2 Answers2

2

This answers the question in the title and leaves out the bulk of the text (which don't make much sense).

No, $G$ has to be measured.

The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy ...

In principle one could take e.g. measure the Schwarzschild radius of a 1-solar mass black hole and use that to "derive" $G$, but $G$ is clearly the more fundamental constant.

Allure
  • 20,501
  • The gravitational constant represents a change in the geometry of space. If one understands how space itself changes, then you can take that factor which represents the change in space and apply it to a field value calculated using known physical constants, thus deriving the value of the gravitational constant. – user199479 Sep 12 '19 at 06:05
2

This question has a tag of "newtonian gravity". But in Newtonian gravity, the gravitational constant is simply a free parameter, whose actual value is to be determined by experiment.

However, in a different theory, the value of the gravitational constant might indeed be determined by something more fundamental. For example, if the universe is actually a particular string theory "vacuum", then the value of the gravitational constant will be determined by other things, like the "dilaton vev".

But given the wording of the question, it seems the poster has obtained the value of the gravitational constant through an algebraic combination of other fundamental constants, only to be told that it didn't make sense, probably on dimensional grounds (wrong combinations of units like length, time, mass).

If that was indeed the problem, then (in my opinion, and the opinion of 95+% of physicists) there is no hope for the original "derivation", which was simply a coincidence.

Mitchell Porter
  • 13,121