Okay, that's nice...

"numerical value of the gravitational constant is exactly the same as the numerical value of the product of the magnetic constant and the square of the fine structure constant"

This is twaddle. You can rake through all the "constants" you want, looking for silly numerical relationships. OK, you'll find some, but it is coincidence, nothing more. These "constants" are, numerically, only as good as the equipment currently available to measure them. Go back ten years - then 50 - then 100 etc. and the "constants" will be different.

Don't be suckered in by this tripe.

I quite agree. Enough of that "what equals a jewel purr second" stuff. I never did understand it, can't remember it, and don't like it. I say, I don't like it at all. What do you guys think about using Planck units for everything? Anyway, count me in.

Unless I am calculating incorrectly, your statement:

"numerical value of the gravitational constant is exactly the same as the numerical value of the product of the magnetic constant and the square of the fine structure constant"

is incorrect even when ignoring units as you suggest (see calculation below).

G = (1/137.035999679) x (4π x 10^-7)

6.674 x 10^-11 ≠ 6.69176... x 10^-11

(the value 6.67 may seem close to the value 6.69 but "close" is the not "the same", especially when we are talking about cosmological constants)

Having gone to your website, which is barely coherent, I find no compelling evidence to support your claim.

1-Why do you limit the dimensional analysis to geometry only?

2- What do you want to say with the "outlaw map "? I apologize but I did not understand it. I know I am only an engineer and not a scientist but any way I did not understand it.

3- Why did you bring it on this modest engineering forum?

325 references, 100 of them cited in the 20 or so pages of text in articles or website material, 20 some odd pages of values if the unique numericals-as-common logs tables are printed out, and maybe two dozen graphics as maps, those could take a while to investigate for those who adequately examine material before commenting on it, but they may be only among that majority of viewers who don't or can't post, so, a month or so later, I answer what responses I got. When a search engine disclosed discussion of [G] in CR4 back in March of 2008, I posted here knowing that there already existed a multitude of publications and conversations involving matrices, unit systems design, or algebraic treatments and was, still am aware of few that compare to the graphical approach of GDA : if the existing statements of relationship among the elements of the International System of Units, among the fundamental constants, among the atomic system of units, and among the Planck system of units are true wherever written and in whatever direction they proceed, then they can be placed and oriented in multidimensional lattices of logic which project patterns of greater truth and hitherto unseen facts. They can be woven into maps. When the approach can only be truly appreciated by expressing the numerical values of the entities mentioned above as powers of ten, as common logs, flying in the face of that form called scientific notation because it was tailor made for converting numerical values into characteristic and mantissa for use with log tables and slide rules(do you even remember those?), when the symbols and unit labels employed to accommodate the increased density of information in maps and tables and be more easily searchable in digital form fly in the face of demanded standards, and when insistence that my material be in the public domain flies in the face of demands for the right to restrict reproduction of material(which is all that publisher's copyright does guarantee), then I call my work outlaw. If physics is based in experiment and every calculation with the quantity calculus is another experiment, then however the numerical values are expressed, anyone can reproduce the experiments and establish the fact that differing combinations of currently accepted values of Planck mass, Planck length, and Planck time do produce differing results for [G], for the Planck constant, or for many of the other quantities that the Plank unit set must combine as factors to produce. In looking for a set that both addresses that problem and yields a [G] within the range of modern experimental results as published on page 1788 of Journal of Physical & Chemical Reference Data, volume 28, no 6, 1999, one can not only notice that results published in January, 2007 by Fixler and his associates placing [G] at 10^-10.1743792 = 6.693e-11 are well centered in that range, one can also recognize how close that is to 6.6917625079...e-11 , which I find significant for, in my mind, very good reason: When raking through constants, such as in the 1926, 1929, 1973, 1986, 1994, 1998, 2002, or currently recommended tables I list, or in articles, such as those I list addressing what seem to be numerical, dimensional(as in units), quantitative(both numerical and dimensional), OR silly coincidences, I recommend, for postulating, not just emphasis on coincidenceS (the s means a plurality), but emphasis on PATTERNS of coincidences, such as those made more easily visible by lattices of logic and maps. As mentioned in my material. John Aikman

John Aikman,

Please learn to use the [Enter] key to lay out your posts. Also, check your text for other mistakes in layout - you have at least three instances of an opening bracket "(", without a preceding space.

I got about three lines into this, and gave up, with eyestrain. I'm not saying that what you've said is wrong, bad, good or anything else but unreadable.

Until you learn this simple technique, I doubt whether you'll convince anyone of anything.

Dude, how about some paragraphs!

Oh, for goodness sakes! You can't ignore units. If you do, the answer is scale dependent, meaning you can make it anything you want it to be simply by using the appropriate measuring stick. Such a quantity may have commercial or contextural significance, but it has no physical significance. The numeric coefficient is 1% of the value - the unit(s) is 99%.

Believe it or not, I submitted my post preformatted as a paste, properly spaced, with gaps between paragraphs as well, and could get no result with my enter key as I tried to make it appear correctly. Now, thanks to the editor(?) showing tags, perhaps this will look better.

I can say nothing right now about people who comment without examination of what they refer to, as my web host, making administrative changes, completely disarrayed my website and has removed my material until things can be fixed, but I assure you I have ignored no units. The postulate is that a when an entire pattern of coincidences between dissimilar quantities appears for one particular value of [G] and its required set of Planck units, then it raises the possibility that the inability to link gravity to other forces has involved an improper definition or use of units. John Aikman

Hold up a second. I'm not one of the guys on here with the 150+ IQs, so you gotta walk me slowly through this argument. Are you saying you're using Planck units? If so, are you normalizing G? If so, why isn't it equal to 1, exactly? You gotta watch (the lack of) units when working in Planck units - it's kind of like a Braille Swatch.

And, how come outlawmapofphysics is suspended? Wassup wid 'at?