Mathematical Relationships Between
Fundamental Constants

 T
he relationships of various parameters governing the behavior of matter can be expressed approximately as powers of R.

In the 'unit' scale (um-ul-ut) where c=1: (Note: Add correct dimensions)

• R = Radiusof universe
• R = Age of the universe
• R2 = New particle production rate
• R3 = Baryon number
• R-1 = Planck constant
• R-1/2 = Baryon Compton wavelength
• R-1/2 = Mass of baryon
• R-1/2 = Elementary charge
• R-3/2 = Gravitational constant
If the foregoing theory is fundamentally correct all these relationships must hold always.

The reader should note here that these simple relationships are not arbitrary and do not depend on any new discovery. One simply needs to change one's units of measure to obtain them. Physicists often arbitrarily set "c" as equal to one (unit value) to make calculations easier to do. It makes no difference what units of measure you use so long as you are consistent. CGS or MKS or anything else ... it doesn't matter.

So why not use a system of measure which would show simplified relationships between all these parameters? Why use an antiquated, obtuse and and totally arbitrary system based on some king's shoe size or on the length of some dipstick in Greenwich? The answer is that to do so would reveal the above relationships forcing everyone to face the obvious conclusion that all these quantities are functions of one another and not independent entities "picked out of a hat"... that supposed "constants" are not constant at all but merely appear to be (given the now slow rate of universe evolution).

The most revealing system of units is that which I am using :

• For unit length we take the average distance between two baryons if all matter were spread out uniformly ... about 1 meter.
• For unit time we set c=1 and the basic unit is then the time needed for light to traverse the unit distance.
• For unit mass, let the gravitational constant be fixed at ~10-39. By using hypothetical [no less hypothetical than the Planck scales] mathematical relationships between the constants (as conjectureded by Dirac and others) we obtain a basic current mass of ~10-13 down from a defined unit (1) mass at the beginning of existence.
• All other measures and their relationships follow as logical necessities.
One might argue that the simple nature of the equations which define the governing parameters of the universe are themselves simple and of consequence beget simple relationships (as if this line of reasoning did not actually support the hypothesis of mutual function). The very fact that the above relationships hold in any system of units is veritable proof of functional relationships. That such a system happens to use the most non-arbitrary macroscopic length conceivable is just icing on the cake.

I continue to find it unconscionable that supposedly rational beings would prefer to accept the forces of nature as having qualitive functional relationships but not quantitive ones. This is as ridiculous as the scientific community gets.

```

``` ```
```  