Astronomy & Astro-Physic(s)
Astronomy = Astro-Physic(s) Philosophy(s)? = Study of Star(s)
Fix with Cosmology
Astro-Physic(s) = A Math(s) Logic of Astrology = A Singular set of Star(s) => Theory?
Quantity of Star(s) = ?
Relationship of A Star to other Star(s) = ?
Relationship of A Star to other Entity(s) = Planet(s), Asteroid(s), other
Relationship in Astrology = The study of A Star (Sun) to other Entity(s) that are Not-Star(s) => Sun to Earth Distance(s) is equal to One Unit(s) of AU = 1AU => Why Earth over another planet like closest, furthest, and closest to Averages of All Entity(s)?
Why Earth over another planet like closest, furthest, and closest to Averages of All Entity(s)? = Used as AU? => Because easiest for Calculations? => What about Gravity(s)?
Moon(s) = Rotate(s) around Planet(s) which Rotate(s) around Star(s) = 3-Body Problem
It has to be and Object around the Star.
Why our Star? What about AU for another Star System? It is not Universal if using Sun and Earth in sense of Gravity(s) and etc.
Speed of Light changes from when it's closer to a Star than further. So the AU would bend or change between Stars depending on the Semi-major and Semi-Minor Axis = Ratio of Foci?
What if c = speed of light is only close to a constant in our solar-system. The spread of the speed of the lights would have a definitive ratio(s) between where it is in Distance(s) to both Star(s)? Could Speed be faster at one point than at another, but be undetectable by Only observing from One Star(s) AU?
Would there be a Single Ratio used as an average of Ratio(s) vs Hypothesizing that it varies depending on Distance(s) of each instant between the two-Star(s)?
What about Gravity? Same as Light? As far as how it works between two Star(s)?
What about center of the Galaxy? Computable? Observable? From any Star System chosen to represent AU? Or is their an ideal star to choose as the First-Second Body to Measure?
Then go to Galaxy(s)? Is it the Same?
Then go to beginning of the Universe? Is it the Center of the Universe and observable from any Star with the same Architecture of relationship(s) in Math as Earth
Now work your way the opposite direction towards the infinitely small?
Is there a limit or observable for difference(s) of experiments on this planet(s) as in all Planet(s) even Exo-Planet(s)?
An Exo-Planet in the exact Middle of Two Star(s)?
What could be it's motion? Could it theoretically have a 0 Orbit? To a Star? Would Require more Stars. More than 360 x 360 degrees of a sphere.
Could a Star have a 0 Orbit to a Galaxy?
Could a Galaxy have a 0 Orbit to a Center of the hypothetical Universe?
Working way to uniform which two Entities to start with to create a single relationship which would be the basis for 1 single unit that would work in both Star Systems and Both Galaxies and easiest to use for all and any star, galaxy, and Center. Is this possible? Does it change anything at all as far as other ratios? Averages? How Calculus works to yield important numbers?
Does this explain wave and points proportions?
What if the Radius was not a straight line, but the Distance measured was actually a Curve or Semi-Circle or Semi-Ellipses of Distance to the Center. Then the best number would be equivalent to a straight-line as a Radius of a circle of equal distance. As in the Straight-Line would be what is assumed, the Circular Line would be curved in some way maybe even non symmetrical.
If this were true, the speed of light is not necessarily a constant. Only a constant for us measuring so minutely.
If this is true how would it change for an Centric Exo-Planet with no orbit and no way to determine Distance? A 1:1 Ratio between each star?
Should the speed of light or gravity be the singular unit in Physics that is equal to One Unit of anything? Would that make some important numbers or ratios infeasibly small or big?
Could the line be wiggly and not a semi-circle which is a wave?
Could this explain electron Density(s) because of how small electron(s) are better than now?
Is there proof there is no Unified Theory of Everything yet because we cannot confirm experiments on other star(s)?
Could the center be the node of the complete wave if only one-node?
Justify going from 1 to 2 before justifying 1 to 2 to 3 and so on.
Physic(s) Math(s) = Logical Math(s) = A Logical Math?
Avg. Speed of Light(s) is equal to 'c' = Distance(s) / Time(s)
If Distance equaled 1 meter over 1 second then c = 1.
1 Second would equal how many vibrations of a Caesium Atom? Would this break the Meter, or would the Meter be far smaller than now. The meter would become closer to a millimeter or micrometer in now. What about the Prime Ratio of 1:2 ? C =1m/2s or = 2m/1s
Currently it is a 299,792,458:1 Prime Ratio.
Inspect 1 second being 1second/n(s) per year
1 year is 31,540,000 seconds per year for Earth. What about another similar planet a different distance from the Sun? Would the second be different?
Einstein's General Relativity?
A planet rotating around a similar star to the Sun at an average of more or less the rate of Earth? If Earth was moving more Distance as in a larger circle, then the radius would have to be greater Which means further away from the Sun to stay orbital. The speed of light would be the same? Why?
If a year were different amount of seconds whether greater than or less than Earth, then an Earth Second would be a different amount according to…
Earth to Mars to a Star Ratio is
67,000 m/h compared to 29.78km/second = Ratio
#m/h compared to 24,000 km/second = Same Ratio as above
88,775.245 seconds
31558149.54 s
Same vibration measurements of atoms.
E=hf 1 Wave per Second
h = 6.62607015×10−34 J⋅Hz−1
Hz = One Quanta of Action Per Second or One Second Per One Second or = One Change from One Amplitude of a WaveLength to the Opossite Amplitude of a WaveLength.
From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant>
What is the smallest Wavelength?
Planck's constant, symbolized as h, is a fundamental universal constant that defines the quantum nature of energy and relates the energy of a photon to its frequency. In the International System of Units (SI), the constant value is 6.62607015×10−34 joule-hertz−1
1 Hertz = PRIME RATIO OF ONE UNIT PER ONE SECOND is Universal Frequency? Of 1 of an Electron Change over One Second as known to be observed on Earth and most of the Universe?
Hypothesis, the Time Scale and Reverse Engineering of Time from observations indicate that the further back in time you go the closer you get to the center of the universe?
Assuming a sinusoidal wave moving at a fixed wave speed, wavelength is inversely proportional to the frequency of the wave: waves with higher frequencies have shorter wavelengths, and lower frequencies have longer wavelengths.[6]
From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength>
A sine wave, sinusoidal wave, or sinusoid (symbol: ∿) is a periodic wave whose waveform (shape) is the trigonometric sine function. In mechanics, as a linear motion over time, this is simple harmonic motion; as rotation, it corresponds to uniform circular motion. Sine waves occur often in physics, including wind waves, sound waves, and light waves, such as monochromatic radiation. In engineering, signal processing, and mathematics, Fourier analysis decomposes general functions into a sum of sine waves of various frequencies, relative phases, and magnitudes.
From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_wave>
When any two sine waves of the same frequency (but arbitrary phase) are linearly combined, the result is another sine wave of the same frequency; this property is unique among periodic waves. Conversely, if some phase is chosen as a zero reference, a sine wave of arbitrary phase can be written as the linear combination of two sine waves with phases of zero and a quarter cycle, the sine and cosine components, respectively.
From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_wave>
1g is One Mole of Atoms
The gravitational constant is an empirical physical constant involved in the calculation of gravitational effects in Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation and in Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It is also known as the universal gravitational constant, the Newtonian constant of gravitation, or the Cavendish gravitational constant,[a] denoted by the capital letter G.
In Newton's law, it is the proportionality constant connecting the gravitational force between two bodies with the product of their masses and the inverse square of their distance. In the Einstein field equations, it quantifies the relation between the geometry of spacetime and the energy–momentum tensor (also referred to as the stress–energy tensor).
The measured value of the constant is known with some certainty to four significant digits. In SI units, its value is approximately 6.6743×10−11 N⋅m2/kg2.
From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant>
In physics, the fundamental interactions or fundamental forces are the interactions that do not appear to be reducible to more basic interactions. There are four fundamental interactions known to exist:[1]
The gravitational and electromagnetic interactions produce long-range forces whose effects can be seen directly in everyday life. The strong and weak interactions produce forces at minuscule, subatomic distances and govern nuclear interactions inside atoms.
Some scientists hypothesize that a fifth force might exist, but these hypotheses remain speculative. It is possible, however, that the fifth force is a combination of the prior four forces in the form of a scalar field; such as the Higgs field.[2][3][4]
Each of the known fundamental interactions can be described mathematically as a field. The gravitational force is attributed to the curvature of spacetime, described by Einstein's general theory of relativity. The other three are discrete quantum fields, and their interactions are mediated by elementary particles described by the Standard Model of particle physics.[5]
Within the Standard Model, the strong interaction is carried by a particle called the gluon and is responsible for quarks binding together to form hadrons, such as protons and neutrons. As a residual effect, it creates the nuclear force that binds the latter particles to form atomic nuclei. The weak interaction is carried by particles called W and Z bosons, and also acts on the nucleus of atoms, mediating radioactive decay. The electromagnetic force, carried by the photon, creates electric and magnetic fields, which are responsible for the attraction between orbital electrons and atomic nuclei which holds atoms together, as well as chemical bonding and electromagnetic waves, including visible light, and forms the basis for electrical technology. Although the electromagnetic force is far stronger than gravity, it tends to cancel itself out within large objects, so over large (astronomical) distances gravity tends to be the dominant force, and is responsible for holding together the large scale structures in the universe, such as planets, stars, and galaxies.
Many theoretical physicists believe these fundamental forces to be related and to become unified into a single force at very high energies on a minuscule scale, the Planck scale,[6] but particle accelerators cannot produce the enormous energies required to experimentally probe this. Devising a common theoretical framework that would explain the relation between the forces in a single theory is perhaps the greatest goal of today's theoretical physicists. The weak and electromagnetic forces have already been unified with the electroweak theory of Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam, and Steven Weinberg, for which they received the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics.[7][8][9] Some physicists seek to unite the electroweak and strong fields within what is called a Grand Unified Theory (GUT). An even bigger challenge is to find a way to quantize the gravitational field, resulting in a theory of quantum gravity (QG) which would unite gravity in a common theoretical framework with the other three forces. Some theories, notably string theory, seek both QG and GUT within one framework, unifying all four fundamental interactions along with mass generation within a theory of everything (ToE).
From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction>
Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is any model in particle physics that merges the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces (the three gauge interactions of the Standard Model) into a single force at high energies. Although this unified force has not been directly observed, many GUT models theorize its existence. If the unification of these three interactions is possible, it raises the possibility that there was a grand unification epoch in the very early universe in which these three fundamental interactions were not yet distinct.
Experiments have confirmed that at high energy, the electromagnetic interaction and weak interaction unify into a single combined electroweak interaction.[1] GUT models predict that at even higher energy, the strong and electroweak interactions will unify into one electronuclear interaction. This interaction is characterized by one larger gauge symmetry and thus several force carriers, but one unified coupling constant. Unifying gravity with the electronuclear interaction would provide a more comprehensive theory of everything (TOE) rather than a Grand Unified Theory. Thus, GUTs are often seen as an intermediate step towards a TOE.
The novel particles predicted by GUT models are expected to have extremely high masses—around the GUT scale of
GeV (just three orders of magnitude below the Planck scale of
GeV)—and so are well beyond the reach of any foreseen particle hadron collider experiments. Therefore, the particles predicted by GUT models will be unable to be observed directly, and instead the effects of grand unification might be detected through indirect observations of the following:
Some GUTs, such as the Pati–Salam model, predict the existence of magnetic monopoles.
While GUTs might be expected to offer simplicity over the complications present in the Standard Model, realistic models remain complicated because they need to introduce additional fields and interactions, or even additional dimensions of space, in order to reproduce observed fermion masses and mixing angles. This difficulty, in turn, may be related to the existence[clarification needed] of family symmetries beyond the conventional GUT models. Due to this and the lack of any observed effect of grand unification so far, there is no generally accepted GUT model.
Models that do not unify the three interactions using one simple group as the gauge symmetry but do so using semisimple groups can exhibit similar properties and are sometimes referred to as Grand Unified Theories as well.