Timo Moilanen

Ti =my equality to G Traditionally dM*G*cos a /s^2 is said to be gravity of one piece and is added up to MG/r^2 I do the same addition but divide by Ftot/Fm to" compensate" for both cosa and the s^2 average at same time . Ftot= (sigma)dM/s^2 And this give the force F/m as I write that is 2/3*Ti*M/R^2 at surface and TiM/r^2 for very far away . so summing up is from 2/3 to1 times adding

My first solution was to calculate via distance between "gravitational mass points " Mas pieces farther away and beside the common axis do less work and the more nearby parts compensate this only to a degree . On long distances these factors go to "1.000" The method gave same constant and that was long before I found the as someones call relativity coupling (mass is energy and the half is as v^2/2)

Yes I used G as a constant that it is supposed to be. Point of the figure is the difference in adding the pieces

By summing I mean adding every miniscule component separately , adding is like taking two spheres and saying this is now a point with double the mass I have not gone into these details yet since this is little compared to +17 % mass

Bodies are not influenced by anything else than other bodies , but their shape influence their gravitational fields shape and strength in different direction an distances (they can not be assumed as point masses ) Even spheres have shape that affect gravity field both inside and out. On longer distances negligible impact (Moon at distance 385*10^6 m expire 1/1.000043 less earth gravity than very "pure" classical view point , because earth is not a point. All old measurements are valid , and will give a very stable constant calculated "my way"

Yes it is purely classical (geometrical) no relativistic elements added so far This is only an other quality of energy/mass c^2/2 is as common that come Last year we discussed this and agreed that I disagree with Gauss on this point (for gravity not electromagnetism) I wrote earlier that gravitation is not additive , the feature of the "particles" must be summed up (no opinion to what they are)

I just sent you https://sites.ualberta.ca/~unsworth/UA-classes/210/notes210/B/210B3-2008.pdf page 7 ,. The Bouguer correction, I don't manage to copy the text and formulas here

I suppose you have the upper hand . Providing evidence is hard enough (my destiny) disclaiming them ( I would not even try (without any alternative) and additional evidence For true participants of physic discussion https://sites.ualberta.ca/~unsworth/UA-classes/210/notes210/B/210B3-2008.pdf page 7 . Sorry I remembered page number wrong earlier

Traditionally surface and hills ,mountains . I presented one of the most credible sources there is to you . Read it thoroughly

The add means adding to the acceleration on a height a dg/h when ascending , not decreasing by (mu)/r^2- (mu)/(r+dh)^2 as simple (basic) model says

Here https://sites.ualberta.ca/~unsworth/UA-classes/210/notes210/B/210B3-2008.pdf is low altitude facts . Mark the add . my coarse model do this without empiric input ( other than earth densities not a single one) You are right they mostly just say (write) objects in common text , Einstein specifies to "point mass like". In experiments they call spheres "sphere" with no generaliseing purpose

To Phi for All:s ultimatum . For the dimensions lets try a "parallel" the dozen . 1/1dzn *1/1dzn =1/!dzn^2 =1/12dzn 1/12dzn give same numbers (eventually) but stand for 1/12 of a dozen => (1/12dzn) divided by (1/12dzn) = (1/12dzn)/(1/12dzn) =1/dzn^2 . This is the best I can do for this detail . For the mol being SI units nowadays is true and definition 0.0012 kg of C12 so I can not avoid multiplication with 1/1000 or *0.001 The idea of G is a constant and the right value of G is constant , but the measurements are not constant (or corrected ).That's why there is a "monumental" difficulty in finding a stable value in a historical "chase". The definition mentioning spheres too often (since Newton) , but Einstein says point like masses .I can not make spheres to points and the measurable difference do not stretch outside the lab anyway . The why and how is in plain math. on my original paper from some year ago ,where none have pointed out any errors . There is a good reason why astronomers prefer (mu) gravitational parameter , it is calculated without G (their own written saying) I CAN NOT BACK DOWN FROM SAYING G-value IS 11.8% TOO LOW. This is no quality of G it's procedure of calculating measure data . Here I admit " G IS NOT A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE Timo Moilanen 23.2-19 Now I know G is measured but I can not get data to correct this by some 11%. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0573-2 this article Strange point to is about the gravitation stability times distance and that I have not questioned . On the opposite I insist it is "linear" for every smallest piece of the body measured . The masses of sun and earth I mentioned in my "heads up" are from the interaction of orbiting (two direction free fall) bodies and the fall towards centre (one direction) plain math. (physics) assuming point masses action in orbit and this impact on third (negligible mass) satellite, and the masses(ex. earth moon) needed to propel these orbits (satellites in moon plane orbit) The "anomalies" I referred to https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012821X81900273 and https://sites.ualberta.ca/~unsworth/UA-classes/210/notes210/B/210B3-2008.pdf and numerous measurements since 19:century by me adapted to the geodesic map readings are hard labour I will not give for free to outsiders . A rough density variation model of earth thou give very in-line properties to low satellites.

You are right about the kg ,. I must specify in future by inserting *1/kg . It is the weight of a proton (neutron) [kg] , but I still have to divide by 1000 because 1 mol is defined as 0.012 kg of C12( carbon 12 isotope) I have not questioned Einsteins theory ,The 0.5*speed of light is just to switch qualities . G:s only fault is its value and maybe definition at some point . It specifically says spheres , so technically the value is right but bound to the lab bench . I am simply "dividing away" the sphere and have a value from individual mass particles viewpoint.

I could not come up with any simpler to compare with The value I use is constant as speed of light , and I only say G is 11.8% of and that can be calculated from countless lab experiments.Besides that can be calculated via "mass point of gravitation (computer integral) To be honest I don't think you have studied my work very much , since I have to say same things over and over. Correction of what errors ? If I had nothing new to say I wouldn't need to discuss anything . Newtons book is not part of the bible .No offend That is a long known fact. It is only on internet that it is simplified away . Is so much easier to leave out minor "exceptions" especially when they have only empiric explanations. How is G measured at distance?

Found only later news that Wilczek have been "involved" I gave a few people here a heads up for the calculation of earth and sun masses ( and all other ) Especially thanks to Strange who encouraged me to proceed . What I found have little to do with value of G (only close satellite orbits for now) but I was jumped so fast that I only now mention that there is "views "to all orbits that allow center bodies to have larger masses than the orbiting satellites require .This math. is calculator simple so that solve many difficulties.