Cosmological Constant G

How to Calculate the Cosmological Constant G

Needless to say, G - The Gravitational Constant - has been the strongest pillar of our understanding of the Cosmos. Everything in the Cosmos is governed by it. Any model on how we started depends upon it.

Everytime we look into the skies and try to conclude something about a tremendous explosion that happened Eons ago in a very far place, we need to be sure that G is always the same...:) Otherwise how could we derive any conclusion about collisions (they are driven by G through Gravitational forces)...:)

Everytime you hear about the Gigantic Black Holes that might have seeded our Galaxies, you are modeling the dynamics through a constant G.

It turned out that for you to have a single description of Gravitation and Electromagnetism, you need a Cosmological Time dependent G, that is, G has to be inverselly proportional to 4D radius of the Universe.

This means that G was two times larger some 7 billion light years ago and millions, billions, trillions of times larger at the beginning of times.

I calculated the supersymmetry condition for the Gravitational and Electromagnetic forces to be equal. It is in the paper, book and links on this site.

Next, this theory provides another impossibility... The simple calculation of the Gravitational Constant as a function of the 4D Radius of the Universe or the Cosmological Time. Double-click the images below for a larger picture.

As you can see, there is a simple formula for it.

This formula also provides something that we need to know....:) Everytime someone says something about the existence of Gravitational Waves, they forget to mention that the space has to be elastic....:) I calculated the elasticity constant of 4DSpace. It is a quantity that allows for the calculation of the Natural Frequency of the Universe...>:)

That frequency is the one to look for when seeking the elusive Gravitational waves.

There are many application for twisting space. I will mention them some other time...:)

The numbers should be correct, other than maybe a factor of 2 or 4 here or there...:) Please double check the calculation...It is a mess moving between 3D and 4D representations. If I notice an error, I will correct in this page.

Next I will show how to calculate all the isotopes masses and the why for a 28 neutron rule...:)

Now I am sure someone is reading my posts with attention...;) It is about time already...:)

Cheers,

MP