Leonard,

Thanks very much for your short paper titled: 'Universal Natural Hybrid Units'. I was going to reply personally to you, but it's easier on this forum and others might want to join in.

I have a special interest in ancient measures e.g. the so-called 'megalithic yard', which appears to have been, effectively, a foot plus a cubit.

Anyway, my problem with your paper is simply that I don't understand what a 'universal natural unit' is. If you would kindly explain it in layman's terms, it would be very helpful to me.

I can then put your interest in the 48lb. weight, the pennygauge etc. into some sort of context.

The following may be related to universal natural units. We don't give enough credit to the scientific abilities of our forbears. You might have been interested in a programme shown on British TV last year in which Stonehenge was analysed for sound patterns. It was discovered that the stones had been precisely arranged so that certain kinds of sound received maximum amplification - a pattern that has been found at other ancient sites as well. As I understood the programme, not being a scientist, that could only have occurred if the ancients who constructed Stonehenge knew about only recently-discovered (i.e. 're-discovered') properties of sound waves. Almost certainly, units of measurements must have been used in the building of Stonehenge, and those who erected the stones must have been able to relate their knowledge of sound waves to units of height and length.

The programme's conclusion - which ties in with other archaeological evidence, much of it quite recent - was that the stones were so placed in order to reach a climax of sound at their religious/pagan gatherings, a bit like a a rock concert. I wouldn't want to go too deeply into the kinds of goings-on that were said to have occurred on such occasions.

If I've not made my request re natural hybrid units clear, please tell me.


Tony Bennett

P.S. I confess I switched off very early on at the technical definition of a 'bryan' and haven't followed all those threads at all.

P.P.S. ARM was happy to accept 'pennygauge' as a British unit for obviously historical and cultural reasons. Was a 'talent', the English word used in the Gospels, ever a British weight? If so, of course we'll accept it as legitimate for our ever-growing band of ARM members' code names.

Hear of Van Daniken? Hear of a cynic named B. Parry?

Interestingly, the megalithic yard appears to have been used all over the UK and northern Europe, with surprisingly little variation in its size. The megalithic stone "circles" appear to have been laid out so that both diameter and circumference were integer multiples of the megalithic yard (which makes them subtly but deliberately non-circular).

Leonard,
>>P.S. I confess I switched off very early on at the technical definition of a 'bryan' and haven't followed all those threads at all.

TONY, I'M VERY GLAD YOU ARE ASKING ABOUT nature-based units NOW, BETTER LATE THAN NEVER!

>>P.P.S. ARM was happy to accept 'pennygauge' as a >>British unit for obviously historical and cultural >>reasons. Was a 'talent', the English word used in >>the Gospels, ever a British weight?

YOU ARE THE EXPERT. IF YOU DON'T CONSIDER IT EVER TO HAVE BEEN SO THEN IT WASNT. Obviously it would have been used in Britain during roman times such as Kipling wrote of in Puck of Pook's Hill---post Celtic but pre Saxon.
You define the britishness of measures for me. I have no basis for arguing either way.

For me, Britain was enriched but never subjugated by the roman occupation, which probably gave it roads with milestones on them and trade with roman type weights including the talent. The roman heritage, born lightly, is one of the best things in british tradition. But you are the judge on all such matters.

>>If so, of course we'll accept it as legitimate for >>our ever-growing band of ARM members' code names.


>>Thanks very much for your short paper titled: 'Universal Natural Hybrid Units'. I was going to reply personally to you, but it's easier on this forum and others might want to join in.

SURE THAT MAKES SENSE. There is a set of units which are universally present in nature and which people tend to use for certain very hard fundamental theoretical work (where anything that makes things simpler is gratefully adopted.)

It is my guiding notion that traditional units like mile, pound etc are more likely to survive and prevail if they are linked in people's minds to the units inherent in nature.

To find the natural units all you need to do is google with [nist constants] and when you get to the Natl Inst of Standards and Technology site you click on "universal constants".

There are british and german sites which also list the CODATA recommmended values of the universal fundamental constants (like newton's G, planck's h-bar, the speed of light, the natural length unit, the natural mass unit etc.) but I have given you the most authoritative US site. CODATA is an international body which essentially defines what the constants are and what the best estimates of their values are.

ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT IS THAT the natural or Planck unit of mass you find at NIST is the natural unit of mass and the Planck length is the unit of length intrinsic to nature and that BY AN INCREDIBLE TOTALLY UNEXPECTED COINCIDENCE if you multiply the mass by a billion you get 48 pounds as close as can be measured. You don't get 21.767 (that is how many kilograms) and you don't get 47.3 or 48.5. You get 48.00 right on the button as close as the instruments can measure!

And if you multiply the natural length by enough powers of ten you get within half a percent of our ordinary mile.

You don't get 1.616 (that is it in kilometers) you get one mile.

So far I haven't told you anything. This is all stuff anybody can do on their own. Go to any website with the crown jewells of the sci/tech community, namely the fundmental constants of nature, and look up the length and mass units built into nature and notice that for some crazy reason they are stamped "relative of English pound" and "cousin of English mile."

Like, it will say the mass is 2.1767 x 10**-8 kilogram
(I am quoting verbatim) and you go "hey if I multiply that by a billion I get 21.767 kilograms! But that is 48 pounds on the button!"

I am not going to say right now what I think about this. That would make this post too long. What I am saying is what could happen to anyone with access to internet who knows that the sci/tech community has a bunch of things called universal fundamental constants (the speed of light was the first one to be discovered and measured) which now includes a set of units.

They would only need to be smart enough to realize that 21.767 kilograms is 48 pounds, and that 1616 meters is essentially a mile.



**************rest of Tony's post for reference*****

I have a special interest in ancient measures e.g. the so-called 'megalithic yard', which appears to have been, effectively, a foot plus a cubit.

Anyway, my problem with your paper is simply that I don't understand what a 'universal natural unit' is. If you would kindly explain it in layman's terms, it would be very helpful to me.

I can then put your interest in the 48lb. weight, the pennygauge etc. into some sort of context.

The following may be related to universal natural units. We don't give enough credit to the scientific abilities of our forbears. You might have been interested in a programme shown on British TV last year in which Stonehenge was analysed for sound patterns. It was discovered that the stones had been precisely arranged so that certain kinds of sound received maximum amplification - a pattern that has been found at other ancient sites as well. As I understood the programme, not being a scientist, that could only have occurred if the ancients who constructed Stonehenge knew about only recently-discovered (i.e. 're-discovered') properties of sound waves. Almost certainly, units of measurements must have been used in the building of Stonehenge, and those who erected the stones must have been able to relate their knowledge of sound waves to units of height and length.

The programme's conclusion - which ties in with other archaeological evidence, much of it quite recent - was that the stones were so placed in order to reach a climax of sound at their religious/pagan gatherings, a bit like a a rock concert. I wouldn't want to go too deeply into the kinds of goings-on that were said to have occurred on such occasions.

If I've not made my request re natural hybrid units clear, please tell me.


Tony Bennett

I should make clear that I am not one whose thinking tends to or requires the supernatural. the Planck units are one which some physicists, I have been told, refer to as "God's units" whether laughingly or not.

I have too much respect for the viewpoints of sincere agnostic and religious people to call them that, in jest or not.

If the universe occurred by accident then the natural units are accidents which appeared at its beginning, implicit in the proportions of light and gravity, and have always been here--they are among the small set of universal natural constants like the speed of light. In fact the speed of light is the unit speed: one natural unit of length per natural unit of time.

the fact that mile and talent (the greek/roman talent Rowlett says was 56 pounds, I assume the monetary value had something to do with this) appear prominently and to strong literary effect in the Book of Matthew is, for me, an entertaining and stimulating coincidence.

However because I think the bible is a European cultural taproot (better reading than much of Homer, IMHO) I think it foolish not to keep the mile and talent in our living language. People who cut themselves off from cultural roots become vapid and trivial and are ultimately weakened by it.

Britain now is the only European vessel preserving the real European units of measurement and the seeds of their continued growth.

Metric is a paltry system with no connection either to nature or to the Greco-Roman and European traditions. The english language is the only remaining European language which contains decent units still in active use.

Have to go, no time to edit or make more concise.

L

this will strike you as ludicrously optimistic and over-ambitious perhaps

I want there to be an association in france called

Amis du mille et du talent

which each year puts up a roman milestone (at a beautiful spot some definite number of miles from a classic landmark) and then has a picnic

at the picnic there should be something like 48 pounds of a good champagne punch to drink (it may be summer and after putting up the milestone people may be thirsty)

and perhaps 48 pounds of something good to eat in case people are hungry.

Occitan france, on north slopes of pyrennees, or around Poitou, might be good, where the people have not forgotten that their language (provencal) was destroyed by invaders from the north. Aquitaine and Poitevin france.

*le mille* and *le talent* are still in the Larousse
french dictionary as units (mille defined as 1.6 km and talent defined as "environs 26 kg en Attique").

For readers of the Larousse french dictionary the first meaning of *talent* is not the money value of a talent of some metal but "Poids unite' chez les Grecs"(about 26 kg in Attica).

as you know I would prefer to take note of the variability of the greek talenton and roman talentum
and consider it to be "environs 22 kg" rather than 26 otherwise I have no quarrel with any frenchman who values and respects the classical past and would most willingly drink a toast delivered in good latin to the confusion of the metric enemy.

and a toast in occitan (provencal) to William IX duke of Aquitaine and VII count of Poitier (Eleanor of Aquitaine's grandfather) who was the first troubadour poet. Born in 1071 and a fine representative of the culture wiped out by the north in the Albigensian war.

What can one barbeque that weighs 48 pounds? Are their turkeys that heavy?

Leonard,

I'm being very slow on this topic. To help me understand, please give some *actual* examples from nature, using as many 'natural units' as you say there are. This does seem to be a fascinating topic

Thanks very much,

Tony

I will write you a little essay that begins by explaining why natural units are NOT familiar to people. (You find them at premier science websites that come up if you put the word "contants" into google but not in everyday life.) The reason is we are so big we don't notice individual quanta of light---these carry bits of energy small by our standards---AND because we never have practical reason to calculate quantities of the energyxlength sort.

You have never heard of energyxlength quantities I'm almost certain. We DO calculate powerxtime (e.g. horsepowerxhour or kilowattxhour) and we DO calculate distancexforce (footxpound or newtonxmeter) but I can almost guarantee you've never heard someone speak of a caloriexinch, or BTUxfoot, or joulexmeter quantity as anything of significance. It's a relevant type of quantity though, nevertheless.

Quantities of energyxlength are crucial to describing gravity and light. If you have two masses M and M' then using newton's constant G you can make the quantity GMM' which is very important to describing how the two things interact. That GMM' is a quantity of energyxlength.

It is for example the product of the distance between the two things with the work that would be required to finally separate them so far apart that their interaction would be negligible. In more technical terms, it's the product of their separation and their binding energy. And GMM' is also the attraction multiplied by the square of the distance--this too is an energyxlength product.

There is one unique energyxlength product which is more prominent in nature than all others of that type and that is the energyxlength possessed by each quantum of light.
Quanta of of light come with widely differing energies and differing vaccuum wavelengths, but these are inversely proportional so that each quantum gives the same answer if you multiply the energy it carries by its wavelength. This product is the PLANCK energyxlength quantity. It is equal to planck unit energy multiplied by planck unit length. Also it is equal to h-bar x c, the speed of light. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT THE POINT IS THAT EVERY BIT OF LIGHT IN THE ROOM AROUND YOU OR in the swarms coming to us from the sun---every photon carries this unique energyxlength product. Incredible consistency. Nature really really really must like this particular energyxlength amount because every photon in the universe carries that quantity as label.
It might be viewed as a label that says "made in this universe".

Also GRAVITY ASSOCIATES WITH EVERY MASS a particular GMM
energyxlength product: one you would observe in two balls each with that mass. It would appear as their binding energy multiplied by their separation, whatever it happened to be.

PLANCK MASS is the one unique mass which gravity associates with the distinctive "made in this universe" quantity of energyxlength displayed by all quanta of light.

It is THE mass that has THE quantity of energyxlength linked to it by gravity.

The formula for the natural, or planck, unit of mass is sqrt(h-bar c/G). All the mass depends on is three fundamental constants newton's G, planck's h-bar, and speed of light c. You take h-bar multiplied by c and divide by G--then square root and you have the mass.

A billion times it happens to be 48 pounds as closely as can be determined with today's instruments.


worth noting that the Planck units offer no competition to everyday human units because the ones which Planck proposed are mostly extreme.


To put it rather baldly in naive terms,

the speed of light is very fast
planck temperature is very hot
and planck mass is very small (roughly millionth of ounce)

no one could use these units without first scaling them
to make them handier

However in 1899 Planck did point out that these units were in nature and universal. and he did propose them as an improvement on then-existing human units, so he MAY have had the idea that they could be scaled up or down to make them more accessible to use.

as they stand, un-scaled to everyday practical size, the natural units are mind-boggling.
In spite of the mind-boggling extremity of largeness and smallness the units are growing in recognition by scientists.

Rather than think about the Planck mass itself, I prefer to think about a 48 pound dog which is a billion times the Planck mass. The Planck mass itself is more like the mass of a flea or barely visible mite the size of the period at end of sentence.

I can judge my own mass in dogs easily. I am 4 dogs.
but offhand I cannot judge my mass in mite-size natural mass units. They are ridiculously small for everyday.

The other natural units, raw and unscaled to suit humans as they are, are inconvenient as a rule. A few,
like the momentum unit, are the right size for us but most are not.

If one scales them, however, in a systematic way by powers of ten, one gets SOMETHING VERY CLOSE TO A MILE, and one gets 48 pounds, and a gallon which is 7 percent smaller than present UK gallon, at least roughly gallon-LIKE in other words. Indeed one can construct a usable set of units out of scaled natural units---a system in terms of which the speed of light is a billion and other natural constants take on equally nice values. This system has things like mile and pound as auxilliary multiples of its base units.
(this is one reason why I think mile, and some other traditional units, are potentially long lasting, possibly more durable than metric units.

Tony asked for examples of Planck units, universal units in nature.

one is the speed of light in empty space.

offhand it seems quite remarkable that each quantum of light coming to us from the sun goes exactly the same speed and that the light from each star goes the same speed as that from all the other stars. maybe it becomes less wonderful if you have a model for how light propagates in empty space or maybe it doesn't become less wonderful. maybe then the fact that the model works is wonderful. anyway there is this unit speed. All the other speeds are fractions of it.

another is the universal unit of charge

offhand it seems amazing that each electron has the same charge as every other. the natural unit of charge (first proposed in 1874 by Irish physicist G Stoney) is now called the "elementary charge". in bryan units we made our macroscopic unit equal to exactly a quintillion of the elementary charge. it is not yet
understood, I believe, why nature is so extremely consistent about favoring this amount in all charged particles like electrons and protons that can move around independently. fractions of the unit (1/3, 2/3) are said to occur on quarks but they mostly exist in combinations with other quarks that produce integral multiples of the unit.

the ubiquitous energy x length

there is an energyxlength that characterizes all light and tags every quantum---its energy multiplied by its (angular) wavelength.

in bryan units the energy unit is kibblebone (roughly half a calorie) and the length unit is bone (5/8")
so the energyxlength unit is kibble square bone (roughly 5/16 caloriexinch.)
The NATURAL unit, present in all light, is 10**-24 of our bryan one.

So if you take any bit of light and multiply its wavelength in fractions of inch by its energy in calories you get a trilliontrillionth (10**-24) of something roughly 5/16 of a calorieinch.

Or if you multiply its wavelength in bone by its energy in kibblebone you get exactly 10**-24 of the bryan unit.

This impresses me as nature being consistent again.
Our language is not especially well prepared to TALK
about this case of an identical quantity found all over the place, but it is real enough for all that.

again there is something else I must attend to
will try to reply further later,

L

Hi Tony,

I may have provided enough examples of units
in nature--can only tell if you respond.

You should verify independently that the scientific community is in the process of discovering not-manmade units manifest in nature. Don't take it on authority.


Best if you could find a British scientist whom you can question face to face and on whose judgement you feel you can rely.

All I can really do is point you to on-line evidence
I can say go to google and put in "planck length" or "natural units" and see what you get. If my site comes up look for others--there are plenty of others.


In your place I WOULD NOT WORRY about popularizing planck units. That is something for scientists to worry about. You should only see if you can gain some advantage for traditional by pointing out a connection with natural units. ONLY BOTHER WITH PLANCK UNITS IF THEY SEEM TO YOU TO CORROBORATE the traditional ones you favor.

I will try to answer any questions and provide
more illustrations to whatever extent you wish.
Paul Birch knows all about planck units too, I believe.
Much of nature is (what appears to us to be) empty space with light in it. These are units which are inherent everywhere, even in empty-space-with-light-in-it. They are intrinsic to the universe, not just to "nature" in the sense of animals and trees. Based on
the simplest and fewest constants: the speed of light the quantum constant the gravity constant---that about does it. Paul could explain better perhaps. The units sort of unfold from these bare minimum conditions which are everywhere and the basis for everything.
Really should ask Paul and get his take on it.

TB says he simply doesn't understand natural units
(I mean the one's physicists call natural--based on speedoflight, planck-h-bar, newton-G.)

My guess about Tony is that as a politician he does not take on any science unless he could explain it to the general brit-in-the-street. He personally may have had enough physics in college to know c, h-bar, G and the natural units are simply those which arise from these basic constants which are everywhere and fundamental to light and gravity. But the brit-in-street is not acquainted with c, h-bar,G.

So I have an unusally challenging job which is to think of a way to communicate natural units to someone without first-year-college-physics.

OK my next approach is by the universal frequency, "Planck frequency".

It has to be something that I can show is intrinsic to what the world is---mostly empty space with light in it: grains of light traveling along lines curved by gravity.

the natural frequency implicit in light and gravity is 10**40 times higher than middle D on piano, which is the pitch the violin and guitar D strings are tuned to as well.

I have to explain (as if to Mr. and Mrs. Jones) how this frequency arises from the speed and curvature and graininess of the Prima Facie natural world.

To be really precise about the natural frequency I define a small time unit SNICKER to be 1/18.55 of a second. Then, as close as can be measured with today's instruments, the frequency is 10**42 events per snicker.

If you like conventional seconds you could also say it is 18.55 x 10**42 events per second (and for vibrations the event being counted in these situations is passage through a radian of phase though that is a technicality).

When I square the universe's frequency I get 10**84 per square snicker.

Planck's h-bar is a built-in ratio of square frequency to power--if you multiply 10**34 per sq. sn. by it you get half a horsepower, more exactly 360 watts which is roughly half a horsepower. The power that a beam of light delivers depends on the average frequency of its photons and how rapidly they are arriving, if you make a combined index of the amount of light by multiplying those two you get a square frequency. h-bar is the ratio of that to wattage.

So if you had a beam of light with average quantum frequency 10**14 and 10**20 arriving (per snicker) and you multiplied the two to get a combined indicator 10**34 per square snicker, then you should know by now that the light is delivering half a horsepower or 360 watts.

Maybe this explanation will fail for Tony (or for his brit-in-street constituent) but I have to keep trying until the message gets delivered.

IF YOU LOOK OUT AT THE NIGHT SKY (or imagine the universe when it began either way) it is space filled with lightgrains traveling at the standard (top) speed along lines curved by the standard (main) force. This force is everywhere mediating between the curvature and the density of energy-cum-momentum in space. Top speed and main force are PRIMA FACIE embedded in existence. Everywhere the most prevalent speed and force. Everything is whizzing around you according to those two things obvious though invisible to our eyes.
The standard force (they write it c**4/G) is 10**40 tons and pushing at the speed of light with that force would deliver the natural unit of power.

In any system of units, unit power is that delivered by unit force pushing at unit speed (watt is newton force pushing at meter per second speed, footpound per second is pound force pushing at foot per second speed etc.) in any consistent system of units thats how it is. So in natural units, the prima facie unit speed and unit force give us unit power.

THAT POWER, which is enough to create tenthousand suns out of nothing in a snicker of time, is the power of a square-unit-frequency lightbeam.

Remember I said imagine a beam of light based on the
natural frequency 10**42 per snicker. The beam had square frequency 10**84 per sq. sn.
Using the same built-in ratio as we did when we said
a 10**34 per sq.sn. beam would deliver half a horsepower we can say that the 10**84 one (the universe's full power lightbeam) would deliver 10**50 halfhorsepowers. It is just proportional.

Such a beam shining on a dark surface would actually exert a terrific force. it would exert the unit force of 10**40 tons. All these units coalesce like that again and again in many different ways. There is no one correct way to begin describing them. They are all aspects of the same thing and arise from each other repeatedly in different order.

So one could start with the core frequency and imagine a lightbeam with photons of that frequency passing by at that frequency and that beam would exert a force merely by shining on a dark surface and that force would be the force ("c**4/G") that governs gravity and the curving of rays of light.

And by the way the wavelength of light of that frequency is usually called planck length and a power of ten scaleup of it is essentially (within half a percent) of a mile. But you have heard me say that often enough already!

Does this approach help at all or am I drawing a blank?

I'm trying to visualise a 'planck'. Can you (in theory, anyway), see them or photograph them? Can you 'time' them? If so, how fast do they move? Exactly how big are they? Are all 'plancks' the same size? Does everything around me have lots of 'plancks' in it? How many 'plancks' in, say, a flea; how many in, say, a book, or a human being? What's the relationship of a 'planck' to an atom?


Tony Bennett

Thank you, Tony, your post set quite a few things into perspective. Probably not the way you intended to...

Ralf

What does a 'planck' look like? September 12 2002, 10:06 PM

I'm trying to visualise a 'planck'. Can you (in theory, anyway), see them or photograph them? Can you 'time' them? If so, how fast do they move? Exactly how big are they? Are all 'plancks' the same size? Does everything around me have lots of 'plancks' in it? How many 'plancks' in, say, a flea; how many in, say, a book, or a human being? What's the relationship of a 'planck' to an atom?


Tony Bennett
********************************
Hi Tony, I just checked in and saw your post, sorry not to have replied earlier. These are excellent questions. Be sure to get Paul's reaction if you can. he explains things with exceptional clarity--has a knack for it.

There is a set of units called either natural units or Planck units. Planck speed just means natural unit speed. Planck force just means natural unit force. Planck mass means natural unit mass. THERE IS NO PLANCK PARTICLE. The units are implicit in empty space. So there is nothing to look for with a magnifying glass!!!!!

This is the frustrating counterintuitive thing about the natural units. They are present (as the speed of light, which is one of them, is present) wherever there is empty space with light in it.

When you think about it it seems right---that is what most of nature is, just empty space with light in it. So to be truly prevalent throughout nature, the units have to be disembodied: not dependent on some particular kind of flea or grain of sand.

I can try to provide an explanation which (sometime when you feel patient) you can try to read. It goes like this:

the units are very interconnected and there is no single correct way to begin the discussion. this time I will try starting with the natural units of speed and force.

the Speed (about 10**9 feet per second) is manifest in all light

the Force (about 10**40 british tons-force) is manifest in the curved paths of light

(heard of 'gravitational lensing'? gravity bends space so light goes in slightly curved paths. Eddington in 1919. The Force is the coefficient that relates curvature to the concentration of energy producing it,
a central constant in one of main equations of Gen Relativity.)

BUT MAYBE YOU DON'T LIKE THAT. Actually the Force is present in our world not only as the basic proportion in General Rel (our model of gravity) but in MANY OTHER WAYS. Like here is a very elementary one: the moon's weight in her own surface gravity is a certain force 10**19 brit tons-force.

The means if you took a power shovel and scooped up a 10**19-th part of the moon's mass and weighed it on scales on moon's surface it would weigh one brit ton-force. So the whole moon weighs (in her surface gravity) 10**19 tons.

And there is a maximum speed for satellites in circular orbit around moon which is 5.6 millionths of the speed of light.

IF YOU DIVIDE MOON'S WEIGHT BY FOURTH POWER OF THAT MAXIMUM SPEED NUMBER---that is 5.6 millionths, squared twice---YOU GET THE NATURAL UNIT FORCE---namely 10**40 tons.

that is just simple arithmetic: 10**19 divided by (5.6 millionths)**4 equals 10**40.

there is a children's poem to this effect

A planet has an upper bound
On speeds of orbits circling round.
Raise that limit to the fourth,
divide her weight, and get the Force.

AND THEN THERE IS THE NATURAL POWER UNIT WHICH IS SIMPLY THE POWER delivered by pushing with unit force at unit speed.

You can calculate it yourself just by multiplying the force (10**40 tons) by the speed (10**9 feet per second) and get some number of footpounds per second.
A rate of energy flow. A power in other words.

In metric terms it is 36 x 10**51 watts.
In british terms it is 0.5 x 10**50 horsepower.

I HAVE TO STOP FOR NOW but you see how it goes. There is a bunch of natural units connected to no special *thing* like a particle. They are simply present everywhere in how gravity behaves and how light behaves.

They happen to be present in how orbit speeds around moon relate to weight of moon but that is only one little elementary instance. They are fully present even in a cubic mile of empty space--where there isnt any earth or moon to provide grist for calculation.

These are indwelling in the basic fabric of the gently curved expanding light-filled space-time which somehow came into being. the universe.

i think I unpacked the units of speed, force, and power for you. another time, some others.

peace and thanks for your interest!

L

just now I declared flatly that "there is no planck particle" but Paul might object that there is expert speculation as to the possibility that a particle with planck mass could exist (but way beyond our capability to produce it) and also as to the possibility that photons with planck energy may have been abundant in the very early universe (because the temperature was probably right for them then)

but all I wanted to say was that there is no *commonly observed* planck particle---that is not how you look into nature to see natural units--the units are not embodied in a specific particle, they are present in the way gravity and light behave.

10**40 tons is very rough

to be more precise, redefine the tradtional "quarter" to be 27 pounds and then the Force is
10**42 quarters.

it is always present in any situation for example

we are always going around sun at a certain distance and at one tenthousandth (10**-4) of the speed of light and the Force tells us from this how much the sun would weigh at this distance from itself (how much a copy of it would weigh placed at our distance from it)

You just square the speed twice and multiply by the Force and that gives the weight of the central body.

Squaring speed twice gives 10**-16 and multiplying by 10**42 quarters gives 10**26 quarters. Indeed that is the weight of the sun at this distance!

***************************************

we can also weigh the moon this way. circular orbit speed at earth's distance around sun was 100 millionths (the fact we just used) now consider a small satellite's
circular orbit speed around moon near its surface is 5.6 millionths (5.6x10**-6, or 0.0000056)

Squaring 0.0000056 twice gives 10**-21 and multiplying by 10**42 quarters gives 10**21 quarters. And that is the weight of the moon in gravity equal to that at its surface.

******************************************

nature's force unit is always present because it is an intrinsic proportion in gravity which is basic to how all gravity works, as a simple manifestation of that, I have just shown you that the Force relates a small satellite's circular orbit speed to the weight of the central body: a proportion connecting speed to weight (with speed expressed as a fraction of the natural speed unit.)

*********************************************

Twentysevenpound Quarter would be a good codename.

You should bring the traditonal Quarter weight back to life and establish it as 27 (rather than 25 or 28) pounds.

another thing about the natural unit Force

you've probably heard of the Planck intervals of length and time

If you multiply

unit Force x unit Length x unit Time

the answer comes out to be Planck's h-bar constant
which is basic to how transistors work, and light, and
atoms and quantum stuff in general

so if you have a wristwatch h-bar is inside making it work (or if it is the non-electric kind you wind up, h-bar is keeping the metal cogwheels together and making the spring springy)

as well as keeping the light in the room in good order for you

and this ubiquitous h-bar has a trace of the Force in it, as I said, because h-bar is equal to

(10**42 quarters) x Planck length x Planck time

where the length and time are just nature's units.

applied to units the word "Planck" just means natural of whatever type. why do they say that? well sometimes they say "natural" instead and it sounds a bit better to me. that is just words anyway. the main thing is that nature has units and they are in everything

yrs trly,

Twentysevenpound Quarter

I think you've scared him off, Leonard.

you may be right, Bryan,
the thought had occurred to me as well

but in a way I think Tony has a constituency
of people with certain ideas and sentiments
in mind and he responds in a way that he thinks
makes sense to that contituency (my theory)
so we have to wait for him to filter these ideas
not just through his own head but through a
kind of multibranched borough that he consults
with in his imagination

I think I will start a new thread which, if
he is scared off, will scare him even further off.

I've been thinking of a kind of traditional+natural
hybrid which is like bryan units exept it uses
traditional names:

the 48 pound dog is rechristened a "talent" (which used to be 57 pounds)

the kibble 27 pounds of force is renamed a "quarter" (which used to be 28 pounds)