When I wrote the book of Superdeterminism replacing Darwin Evolution
theory I came across
a very pretty and profound insight of some basic numbers. And one can
see more links and
connections with these numbers.

These numbers are:

(1) Dirac calculated the number of protons in the Universe is 10^80
and that would
further conclude that the Universe has 10^80 electrons

(2) The number of Coulomb Interactions in a atom of plutonium is
10^160 to hold
together the plutonium atom in the Schrodinger Equation or Dirac
Equation.

(2^188 x2x2x2) of (n,L,M_L,m_s), or the 95!/2

(3) The coupling strength of the Coulomb force versus Gravity is 10^40
in favor of
Coulomb.

Now, (1) and (2) above are independent of one another, yet it is
simple to see
that 10^80 x 10^80 = 10^160

And it is easy to see that Gravity force strength at 10^40 where
Coulomb force
strength at 10^80 that we have

Coulomb Force squared is the energy of 10^160 Coulomb Interactions
whilst
Gravity force to the 4th power is the energy of 10^160 Coulomb
Interactions.

Now I want to shift the conversation from algebra to that of geometry.

E = mc^2 is telling of geometry.

It says that energy is mass multiplied through 2nd dimensional cross
section of space.
Overall energy is 3rd dimensional space where mass is one dimension
and c^2 is
two dimensional.

Now that raises an interesting geometrical question of what
geometrical dimensions
belie Coulomb force versus Gravity force?

F = (q x q)/r x r

F = (m x m) / r x r

In the Coulomb force of (q x q), is that not a energy term, the
quantity of charge energy?
So does that make the Coulomb force a 2nd dimensional force?

But in the Gravity force the term (m x m) is a 2nd dimensional
geometry and overall in
the gravity force with the (r x r) we have 4th dimensional geometry?

So do we have Energy as 3rd dimensional geometry and Coulomb as 2nd
dimensional
geometry and Gravity as 4th dimensional geometry?

I am not sure, just asking questions at this moment. I believe the
problem lies with the
concept of "charge" in that physics never really had a deep
understanding of charge.

Perhaps the Atom Totality theory can clarify what charge is compared
to mass.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

When I wrote the book of Superdeterminism replacing Darwin Evolution
theory I came across
a very pretty and profound insight of some basic numbers. And one can
see more links and
connections with these numbers.

These numbers are:

(1) Dirac calculated the number of protons in the Universe is 10^80
and that would
further conclude that the Universe has 10^80 electrons

(2) The number of Coulomb Interactions in a atom of plutonium is
10^160 to hold
together the plutonium atom in the Schrodinger Equation or Dirac
Equation.

(2^188 x2x2x2) of (n,L,M_L,m_s), or the 95!/2

(3) The coupling strength of the Coulomb force versus Gravity is 10^40
in favor of
Coulomb.

Now, (1) and (2) above are independent of one another, yet it is
simple to see
that 10^80 x 10^80 = 10^160

And it is easy to see that Gravity force strength at 10^40 where
Coulomb force
strength at 10^80 that we have

Coulomb Force squared is the energy of 10^160 Coulomb Interactions
whilst
Gravity force to the 4th power is the energy of 10^160 Coulomb
Interactions.

Now I want to shift the conversation from algebra to that of geometry.

E = mc^2 is telling of geometry.

It says that energy is mass multiplied through 2nd dimensional cross
section of space.
Overall energy is 3rd dimensional space where mass is one dimension
and c^2 is
two dimensional.

Now that raises an interesting geometrical question of what
geometrical dimensions
belie Coulomb force versus Gravity force?

F = (q x q)/r x r

F = (m x m) / r x r

In the Coulomb force of (q x q), is that not a energy term, the
quantity of charge energy?
So does that make the Coulomb force a 2nd dimensional force?

But in the Gravity force the term (m x m) is a 2nd dimensional
geometry and overall in
the gravity force with the (r x r) we have 4th dimensional geometry?

So do we have Energy as 3rd dimensional geometry and Coulomb as 2nd
dimensional
geometry and Gravity as 4th dimensional geometry?

I am not sure, just asking questions at this moment. I believe the
problem lies with the
concept of "charge" in that physics never really had a deep
understanding of charge.

Perhaps the Atom Totality theory can clarify what charge is compared
to mass.



Now many scientists who read the above are going to fall into a trap
of
wrongness.

I am not talking in the above, about Units of measure in Physics
where:

Force is (kg) x (m/s^2)
Energy is (kg) x (m^2/s^2)
Pressure is (kg) x 1/(mxs^2)
Momentum kg x (m/s)

I am not talking about Units but something more fundamental than
units.
I am talking about the geometry of measure.

The units of Energy is (kg) x (m^2/s^2) but what is the geometry of
energy?
Is Energy 2 dimensional or 3 dimensional? Distance is 1 dimensional
but
when you have distance squared you have 2 dimensional. When you
multiply
mass by c^2 you have 3 dimensional but what about momentum would it be
2 dimensional? And what about Force, does it remain 2 dimensional.

So I am talking about geometry and not simply "units". I am talking
about something
deeper and more profound than the units of physics but rather talking
about the
Geometry of Units. Most physicists would not be comfortable in
discussing something
more primitive than Units, for they can only handle units as the axiom
base of physics.
But they are mistaken, because physics is deeper than the units of
physics. Physics
has a layer that is more basic than units and it is this layer of
geometry below units
that is the axiom set of physics.

So, is Force and Pressure and Momentum 2 dimensional whereas Energy is
3 dimensional?

Where this is leading into is the question of whether Gravity as a
force has the same
dimensions as does Coulomb force? In the old physics of Units as the
axiom base the
answer is that all forces are of the same units and same geometrical
dimension.

What I am after is to point out that the dimensions of Gravity are
probably different dimensions
than the Coulomb force. So this is very new physics and deeply
profound for I have put the
axiom set of physics on a level far lower than units.