There are no fundamental constants and hence no fine tuning of the universe is necessary. Most fundamental constants come from the need to translate between the different ‘stuffs’ and energies of contemporary physics. Once these are reduced to a single set of equations, the problem disappears.
The elementary particles
In the chart below, Konstantin Meyl shows the measured masses (relative to the mass of the electron) of the elementary particles and compares them with the values he has calculated from his own field equations.
The correlation is striking and cannot be coincidence.
The periodic table
In this next chart, again from Meyl, the measured radii of the elements from the periodic table are compared with values calculated from the more fundamental field equations. No other informational input is necessary.
The values show precise correspondence at the start of each new electron shell and drift apart slightly as the complexity of calculation necessitates simplification by series truncation.
Avogadro’s number
Avogadro’s Law: “Equal volumes of all gases, at the same temperature and pressure, have the same number of molecules.” – Wikipedia
Avogadro constant: “The Avogadro number is an exact number equal to the number of constituent particles in one ‘mole’ of any substance” – Wikipedia
Simplification: “The same number of molecules take up the same amount of space” (Each molecule is the same size?)
Fixed by decree: “In its 26th Conference, the BIPM adopted a different approach: effective 20 May 2019, it defined the Avogadro constant NA as the exact value 6.02214076×1023 mol−1” – Wikipedia
There is no sensible explanation for this within mainstream physics. The value of the constant cannot be calculated directly from any fundamental theory of gases and so they just decree that the number itself is a fundamental constant of physics, thereby discouraging any attempts to investigate the matter, removing the need for any proposed mechanism and obviating the need for any more measurements of the value as it is already established as a fixed element of the system!
An explanation of the constant and a derivation from Meyl
The obvious inference from measurements is that the molecules are spaced out evenly throughout the volume, being surrounded by some ‘sphere of influence’ which keeps them apart and which provides resistance to compression via repulsive forces. These forces nevertheless allow the molecules to move around (diffusion and flow) with a little resistance (friction).
The only forces worth considering here are electromagnetic in nature and so we need some sort of field structure that creates such a sphere around an atomic nucleus. The field will be some arrangement of electrically negative vortices which are attracted to the nucleus but repel other such structures.
Konstantin Meyl has the answer in this video here and derives a value for the constant again from his single fundamental field equation: https://www.k-meyl.de/go/27_Videos/water_motor_theory_EN_pt2.mp4
A credible description of the gaseous state of matter
The extra energy in the gas state has caused the eight electrons of the n=2 shell of the Oxygen atom to come out of their usual concentric orbitals to form an eight-fold ring around the outside of the nucleus. The reduced field strength at this distance from the centre has caused the electrons to expand suddenly to many times their original volume.
The electrons stick together via magnetic dipole forces but repel other negatively charged elements. The electrons rotate of themselves and rotate as a ring and this represents a means of energy storage and energy transfer. A cross-sectional view from the north pole is shown but in reality the whole shape is that of a peeled orange with an overall spherical shape comprised of eight segments which are the electrons.
Whatever the original size of the molecule, the volume is now dominated by the size of the expanded electron shell and this is the same for each atom at least. Something similar must be happening with compound molecules.
Gas pressure and Avogadro laws are now explained along with the critical (as opposed to continuous) change from liquid to gas.
Gravitational constant
“About a dozen measurements of Newton’s gravitational constant, G, since 1962 have yielded values that differ by far more than their reported random plus systematic errors. We find that these values for G are oscillatory in nature, with a period of P = 5.899 +/- 0.062 year, an amplitude of (1.619 +/- 0.103) x 10^{-14} m^3 kg^{-1} s^{-2}, and mean-value crossings in 1994 and 1997.” – Anderson et. al.
So not only do measurements vary but they vary with a certain pattern which actually correlates with the varying rotational speed of the Earth:
“Of other recently reported results, to the best of our knowledge, the only measurement with the same period and phase is the Length of Day ” – ibid
Most sources will say that there is and can be no variation at all in the gravitational constant simply because it is declared as a fundamental constant of nature. Any apparent discrepancies in the value must therefore be caused by problems with the measurement method:
“However, we do not suggest that G is actually varying by this much, this quickly, but instead that something in the measurement process varies” – ibid
One possibility mentioned by Anderson et. al. is that the whole process is some how affected by the Earth’s magnetic field:
“Least unlikely, perhaps, are currents in the Earth’s fluid core that change both its moment of inertia (affecting LOD) and the circumstances in which the Earth-based experiments measure G. In this case, there might be correlations with terrestrial magnetic field measurements.” – ibid
Gravity as an emergent effect of magnetic dipoles
Many scientists including Konstantin Meyl and adherents of the Electric Universe Model have suggested that gravity is really just an average of the electromagnetic fields arising from the constituent atoms of matter.
The field arises from the sum of the magnetic fields of a random assortment of atoms and will consequently become much stronger if the atoms are aligned and regularly spaced such as in a bar magnet.
Meyl gives arguments for the masses of the elementary particles (see above) and calibrates them with respect to the mass of an electron, obtaining very good agreement with experimental results.
So gravity is not fundamental but arising from magnetic fields, with the cumulative effect in macro sized lumps of matter dependent upon the precise arrangement of atoms and possibly the presence of other electromagnetic fields.
The mass of an electron according to Meyl is not fundamental but depends upon the speed of light.
How is the gravitational constant measured?
Good question. The papers cited above merely say that the constant has been ‘measured’ by several different teams. This gives the impression that you can buy a device to wave in the air and get a reading in both metric and imperial units if you are lucky.
This is not the case and what is measured is rotating balls or falling weights, with the gravitational constant somehow inferred from such measurements.
The only physical measurement we ever see in real life is the displacement of a visual marker on some instrument or other, whether it be the hands on a clock or glowing digits on an electronic device. Everything else is an artefact of the model.
To say that the gravitational constant is ‘measured’ is highly misleading; it is interpreted from measurements and according to a theoretical framework. Now if your theoretical framework has this value defined as ‘constant’ and it turns out to be variable then you are already in a bit of a mess.
What is ‘mass’?
There is no consistent definition of ‘mass’. It is held to be fundamental (of course!) and is described as an ‘innate’ property of matter, but the only existing definitions are contradictory and circular.
“Mass is an intrinsic property of a body. It was traditionally believed to be related to the quantity of matter in a body, until the discovery of the atom and particle physics. It was found that different atoms and different elementary particles, theoretically with the same amount of matter, have nonetheless different masses.” – Wikipedia
Oops! Mass is not related to the quantity of matter!
If mass is not related to the quantity of matter and we have no other definition apart from a collection of purported measurement techniques, then how can it be ‘intrinsic’?
“Mass in modern physics has multiple definitions which are conceptually distinct, but physically equivalent. Mass can be experimentally defined as a measure of the body’s inertia, meaning the resistance to acceleration (change of velocity) when a net force is applied. The object’s mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies.” – ibid
But it is already established that the strength of gravitational attraction is dependent upon the gravitational constant, not just the mass.
We find that mass is defined by various measurement techniques:
- Resistance to acceleration (inertia)
- Strength of gravitational attraction to other bodies
- Power to attract other bodies by its own gravity
These are emphatically not physically equivalent unless shown to be so by experiment and theory. Just saying it is so does not make it so.
Note that all these definitions are by measurement of something other than mass itself. The mass, which is presumed fundamental and declared ‘intrinsic’, is actually a theoretically inferred value from other (measurable) quantities.
Moreover, the strength of gravitational attraction (mass) depends upon the gravitational constant and this has been shown to vary, or at least has not been shown to be constant.
In addition to this we find that calculations of the gravitational constant itself all depend upon knowing the precise values of the masses involved. Therefore: Gravity depends upon mass and mass is defined with respect to gravity.
This is circular self-referential nonsense!
Inertia as mass
The addition of inertia as a definition of mass does not help. This just adds an extra quantity that needs defining, measuring and somehow integrating into an already shaky framework.
How can this be achieved if inertia is absolute but other forms of mass vary? What is the theoretical mechanism that describes how the inertial mass is the same as the gravitational? In what sense then are they ‘equivalent’?
Inertial mass is measured by the force needed to produce an acceleration on an object. It therefore needs an acceleration in order to be manifest and yet at the same time is said to be an ‘innate property of matter‘.
How is this conclusion reached if the mass is never measured with respect to a body at uniform speed? How do we know that the mass of such an object persists at the measured value and what does this even mean?
An analogy with dynamic friction
If this seems like sophistry, first consider the phenomenon of ‘friction’. We have a good analogy as nobody knows how it works and the property of dynamic friction is only measured in moving objects. The frictional properties of stationary objects are different to that of those in motion and both are dependent upon the interaction between the objects.
Nobody thinks that friction is an innate property of any material but varies with speed and depends upon the relationship between the two surfaces. Dynamic friction is only present when motion is involved and disappears when motion ceases. Nobody asks “Where has it gone?” because it is not assumed to be an immutable property of matter.
Lenz’s law
A magnet dropped down a copper pipe will travel much slower than if the pipe were not there according to Lenz’s law.
What has happened to all the mass? If mass is intrinsic then there is some other (magnetic) force acting upon the magnet to oppose the motion. No magnetic field was present in the copper pipe before the motion started and the field of the magnet is not sufficient by itself to produce the slowing down. The force did not exist prior to the experiment and disappeared after it ended. The new property was actually created by the experiment itself.
Again, nobody would think that this retarding force is an intrinsic property of matter, so how can they be so certain as to claim that ‘mass’ is such a property?
If, as suggested above, the gravitational force arises from the electromagnetic field interaction between the field of an object and the field of the Earth then the above considerations are pertinent. The current formulation of the mass of an object as only dependent upon the object itself, however, effectively rules out any investigation of such phenomena.
An empirical definition?
“Mass can be experimentally defined as a measure of the body’s inertia, meaning the resistance to acceleration (change of velocity) when a net force is applied. ” – Wikipedia
This is as confused as a definition can be.
If all that is measured is a resistance to acceleration then that is all that may be deduced. An ‘intrinsic property’ may not be inferred and there should be no automatic conclusion of a similar effect in different gravitational fields.
“The object’s mass (i.e. resistance to acceleration) also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies.” How does this work exactly? How can this be deduced? Do we assume that a material with a high frictional coefficient also has the power to attract other objects? No, of course not.
We have several different measurement techniques measuring several different quantities and the claim is that they are all ultimately measuring the same thing, that they are ‘physically equivalent‘. But how can this be justified?
A measurement is just a measurement and a concept just a concept. The concept of mass is just a concept as it can never be measured directly It can be deduced only by the application of external forces and the measurement of movement followed by an interpretation made according to a specific theoretical model.
So two different results are obtained from two different measurement techniques, interpreted according to two conceptually different theoretical frameworks and are then declared to be “physically equivalent“! No. Theoretically equivalent, maybe, but ‘physically‘? No, the phrase has no meaning.
If inertia is simply owing to the quantity of matter present then it cannot possibly be related to mass, according the initial quote from Wikipedia!
Time
There appears to be no consistent definition of time as an independent physical variable.
The rate of a swinging pendulum depends upon gravity and so will change with variations in the gravitational constant and will vary according to its location on the Earth’s surface.
The rate of atomic clocks varies even with two clocks in the same building. They will run at different speeds during an eclipse and even differ according to their alignment with respect to the Earth’s magnetic field. See diagram below.
Distance
In the Tamarack mine experiment a long piece of wire was lowered into a mine shaft and found to have shrunk considerably. See: Tamarack mines experiment The explanation from Meyl is that a horizontal component of the Earth’s magnetic field increases towards the centre of the Earth and this is responsible for shortening the wire.
The Hafele – Keating experiment showed the opposite effect when distances were measured in a plane flying at altitude; distance was stretched out instead of shrunk.
A simple measure of distance is therefore subject to interpretation and such interpretation will vary according to the model involved.
Attempts to measure distance by wavelengths of light are subject to Doppler shift and again are not direct measurements at all but interpretations filtered through some theoretical framework.
π
Surely the ratio of a circle’s radius to its circumference is a fixed and fundamental constant of the universe?
Alas, no. Pi is a constant in Euclidean geometry but the experiments above suggest that the physical world does not follow the rules.
In the field theory of Meyl, physical length is determined by field strength and so the apparent geometry of the real world is also a reflection of field strength and this is unlikely to give rise to a Euclidean geometry.
There is no proof that the physical world is super-imposed upon a Cartesian grid; all we have are some sort of physical measurements and the Mine experiment shows that our measuring tools do not follow the rules of traditional geometry if gravitational fields are involved.
If we take a long piece of string out into space and measure the radius as we go, we expect to find that the circumference of a circle orbiting the Earth is 2πr but both Meyl’s theory and the Hafele-Keating experiment suggest otherwise.
Geometry is therefore a function of field strength and this will vary continuously through space. The existence of a perfect circle or square in physical space is highly unlikely but the space in which we live is approximately Euclidean over small distances and so nobody has noticed.
Dark Matter
The invention of Dark Matter and Dark Energy with no direct evidence whatsoever of their existence is surely one of the greatest embarrassments of modern science. They have assumed this ‘stuff’ to comprise over 95% of the known universe simply because they have an incorrect model of gravity.
Konstantin Meyl proposes that in addition to gravity there is the possibility of resonant neutrino attraction between individual galaxies and stars to help resolve the matter.
We can note here that if you have no stable concept of time nor distance and have declared gravitational forces to be constant when they are measurably variable and unrelated to the amount of matter, then you are already in Big Trouble.
The speed of light
The speed of light is declared to be a fundamental constant within the framework of Einstein’s relativity. What this means is that whatever speed you manage to measure for light it must necessarily come to the same value. If it appears to be a different value then it is something else that has varied.
‘Speed’ is calculated as distance per unit time but as explained above, there is no consistent definition of either distance or time and so if the speed of light is different from its decreed value then scientists are free now to blame variations in either time or distance according to their whim.
In Rupert Sheldrake’s TED talk: “The science delusion”, he mentions that that the speed of light slowed down by about 20 km/s between 1928 and 1945 before resuming its approved value. The response of the standards authorities was to simply re-define the length of the metre in terms of the speed of light so as to correct for the difference, thereby confirming that distance is no longer a fundamental quantity of physics.
The units of the gravitational constant
The gravitational constant is equal to approximately 6.67×10−11 metres cubed per kilogram per second squared i.e. 6.67×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2
We will merely note here that not one of metres, kilograms or seconds has a stable definition and yet they are all assumed to combine together to give a constant value!
The vortex physics of Konstantin Meyl
The vortex physics of Konstantin Meyl contains a single vector differential equation with one ‘constant’ only which he calls ‘c’, by analogy with the speed of light, and which in his framework is the speed of field propagation. There are no other variables within the system with which to compare this value and so ‘c’ may be set to unity without any loss of information.
The whole of physics is described via a single equation which means there are no separate ‘stuffs’ needing adaptation or calibration to one to another and hence no fundamental constants are needed.
Moreover, since there is only one equation, there is not only no need for translation from one set of units to another, but no possibility of any extra units arising and so never any need for constants, ever; there is simply no place for them in the theoretical framework.
Fine tuning?
Nope. There are no constants and therefore nothing to fine tune.
The fine tuning argument has been used to advocate for intelligent design on the grounds that the precise values of the constants we see cannot have arisen by accident whilst atheists prefer to think that the constants are different in an infinite number of different universes, with only the single universe that we inhabit being lucky enough to have the right values.
We now see that the idea of fine-tuned constants arises from an inadequate model of physics and that all those fascinating debates are just a waste of time. Either side could have paused to think that contemporary physics is incomplete and that this is what necessitates the introduction of all these new constants.
References
“Scalar Waves: a first Tesla physics textbook for engineers” – Konstantin Meyl
Part 2: Respiration of gas from the air – Konstantin Meyl
https://www.k-meyl.de/go/27_Videos/water_motor_theory_EN_pt2.mp4
PDF version
Die-Covid-Falle – Konstantin Meyl
https://mainz.world/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Die-Covid-Falle.pdf
Measurements of Newton’s gravitational constant and the length of day – Anderson et. al.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.06604
The search for Newton’s constant – Speake, Quinn
https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/67/7/27/414758/The-search-for-Newton-s-constantThree-decades-of
