Gravitation constant or not

[hoola]

isn't it possible that any measure of G will be fuzzy due to gravity waves impinging upon the test apparatus in the duration of the observations? If so, could triangulating gravity wave receiver be hooked up in a compensatory fashion  ( as optical telescopes are now atmospherically corrected), running in real time to the test apparatus, to allow a reasonably accurate and stable value to be achieved? 

[Timo Moilanen]

The sideways components of dF  vectors  do indeed totally cancel out , but the component vector length (strength) is on average more than dMTi/r²  Think all vectors in near hemisphere have a pair in far hemisphere , and an example along x axis :

The "first (near side ) and the farthest (back side ) . Their distance in sqr =(r-R)^2 and (r+R)^2  sum /2 =average 

[(r-R)²+(r+R)² ]/2 = [ r² -2rR + R²  +r²  +2rR +R²  ]/2 = [ 2r² +2R² ]/2 => dMTi /( r² +R² ) and this is always stronger than dMTi/r²  vector , so the asymmetry  is compensated by asymmetry of hemispheres ( near / far)

[Timo Moilanen]

The "front" hemisphere dMTi/(r-R)²   "far " hemis ph. dMTi /(r +R)²   => dMTi*{(r-R)² +(r+R)²  ]/[r² -R² )*(r+R)² ]

R=1;r=2 =>  10/9 dMTi  ,r=3/2 R=1 => 40/9 dMTi  . This is compensating the sideways* (1-sin²(a))^1/2 loss .

1 hour ago, hoola said:

to allow a reasonably accurate and stable value to be achieved? 

As I reason it, a gravity wave affect both source mass and target mass with same (N/kg) force.And in the time it take to cower both with the speed of light (minimum) , versus the " oscillation "of gravity setup is in minutes . I think no effect can stay in the system.

In theory the wave moves the masses but as a " single " wave also  move them back 

[hoola]

fair enough Tim, but couldn't there be  long duration VLF waves,  also what of the supposed dark matter floating about, which might exceed mere minutes in particular variations of strengths at various points of the globe? Wouldn't the noise of earthbound labs require space based tests in any event? Thanks...

Edited October 16, 2017 by hoola

[Timo Moilanen]

Of course , in a very gigantic explosion  one can imagine that gravity change "drop permanently"  but not between the few, very close together and far from such an event , bodies . The experiment setup spheres (cylinders) are "compared to each other and far away gravitation with (and changes )get canceled out  by the second pair "working" in opposite direction. Small masses nearby are more critic because they can be closer to only one target body .

[swansont]

On 10/15/2017 at 3:43 AM, Timo Moilanen said:

The sideways components of dF  vectors  do indeed totally cancel out ,  

So your bit about them only canceling at short distances was wrong. Got it.  

On 10/15/2017 at 3:43 AM, Timo Moilanen said:

the component vector length (strength) is on average more than dMTi/r²  Think all vectors in near hemisphere have a pair in far hemisphere , and an example along x axis :

The "first (near side ) and the farthest (back side ) . Their distance in sqr =(r-R)^2 and (r+R)^2  sum /2 =average 

[(r-R)²+(r+R)² ]/2 = [ r² -2rR + R²  +r²  +2rR +R²  ]/2 = [ 2r² +2R² ]/2 => dMTi /( r² +R² ) and this is always stronger than dMTi/r²  vector , so the asymmetry  is compensated by asymmetry of hemispheres ( near / far)

There are other parts of the calculation that do this as well. Masses that are off-axis are further away and make a smaller contribution than the ones that are on-axis.

On the whole, they balance out. If you do the integral properly.

On 10/15/2017 at 3:30 AM, hoola said:

isn't it possible that any measure of G will be fuzzy due to gravity waves impinging upon the test apparatus in the duration of the observations? If so, could triangulating gravity wave receiver be hooked up in a compensatory fashion  ( as optical telescopes are now atmospherically corrected), running in real time to the test apparatus, to allow a reasonably accurate and stable value to be achieved? 

No, that's not a source of uncertainty in any measurement of G

5 hours ago, hoola said:

fair enough Tim, but couldn't there be  long duration VLF waves,  also what of the supposed dark matter floating about, which might exceed mere minutes in particular variations of strengths at various points of the globe? Wouldn't the noise of earthbound labs require space based tests in any event? Thanks...

This has nothing to do with the OP. Dark matter? VLF waves? 

[Timo Moilanen]

They cancel at all distances of course but at the "short" distances where measurements of G are done have led to that the value is 11% too small , since distance have not been accounted for in calculations . This mean fortunately that all old measurements done on spheres are very good and useful for calcs. but cylinders I would not accept

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Timo Moilanen said:

They cancel at all distances of course but at the "short" distances where measurements of G are done have led to that the value is 11% too small , since distance have not been accounted for in calculations . This mean fortunately that all old measurements done on spheres are very good and useful for calcs. but cylinders I would not accept

If they cancel, they cancel. 

What measurements have been done with cylinders?

The earth and the sun are spheres, so why would you need to adjust the mass of the earth?

[Strange]

On 15/10/2017 at 8:30 AM, hoola said:

isn't it possible that any measure of G will be fuzzy due to gravity waves impinging upon the test apparatus in the duration of the observations? I

That is ridiculous. We can barely measure occasional gravitational waves with a specially built apparatus which is 4km on a side. It certainly isn't going to affect any lab experiments that take place over hours.

1 hour ago, Timo Moilanen said:

They cancel at all distances of course but at the "short" distances where measurements of G are done have led to that the value is 11% too small 

And yet that "11% too small" value works for tennis balls, gunfire, satellites, comets, moons, planets and stars. Suggesting it is actually the correct value.

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, Strange said:

And yet that "11% too small" value works for tennis balls, gunfire, satellites, comets, moons, planets and stars. Suggesting it is actually the correct value.

Not to mention that if Gauss's law is wrong, it has implications for electrostatics as well. And nobody has noticed any problems.

[Timo Moilanen]

Made measurements are all made at about same relative distance (r/R) whit of course some variation , and that's why the for ever ongoing measurements . Calculating the right value taking into account the "short" distance would give a constant Ti . 

for planets and earth the too small G has led to estimate the masses the same 11% higher . For tennis balls and satellites etc. any values making up the right G*M is useful , that include any random value for G + - 50% would be accepted today and anomalies "explained". 

What comes to Gauss F_tot /k_surf => F_tot  /1.5 =1.0 F_m   , and the k- factor work all the way from surface to infinity ,but goes to near 1.0 quite soon (a few tens of radius dist.) In real world everything is far away (more than 10 R) and Ti useful as such , except  in lab's where dist is smallest practical to place two bodies close for measurement .

[swansont]

The bottom line here is that math is self-consistent. You can't get two different valid answers to the same problem. The integral when solving Gauss's law gives one answer. Yours is different, suggesting that you have made an error. It's up to you to show that the previous work is in error and yours is correct.

Where is the error in solving the integral that gives Gauss's law?

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

Made measurements are all made at about same relative distance (r/R) whit of course some variation , and that's why the for ever ongoing measurements . Calculating the right value taking into account the "short" distance would give a constant Ti . 

As real-world measurements contradict your result, you have made an error somewhere. Simple as that. Calculations do not trump reality.

[Timo Moilanen]

I see no scalar parts in the components ,and by my meaning not even the field is scalar but the sum of vector parts in r-direction at r distant . If sideways or multiplied with k ,don't make scalar only points to direction . k could be the sum of 1/cos(a) but that would be useful only at one distant r at time. Only F_tot /F_m =k give a useful equation .

A sphere is symmetric and in sideways direction and these parts cancelled but of course not gone, and on long distances all of dF parts are aligned. F_tot is in that aspect a very factual force with an average direction .By my meaning proven simply by that a body have gravitation in all directions and distances (that kind of spring) . The asymmetry is in r- direction giving a stronger field (from the closer components) at short distances .This asymmetry is of strength 1/r⁴  .

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Timo Moilanen said:

I see no scalar parts in the components ,and by my meaning not even the field is scalar but the sum of vector parts in r-direction at r distant . If sideways or multiplied with k ,don't make scalar only points to direction . k could be the sum of 1/cos(a) but that would be useful only at one distant r at time. Only F_tot /F_m =k give a useful equation .

A sphere is symmetric and in sideways direction and these parts cancelled but of course not gone, and on long distances all of dF parts are aligned. F_tot is in that aspect a very factual force with an average direction .By my meaning proven simply by that a body have gravitation in all directions and distances (that kind of spring) . The asymmetry is in r- direction giving a stronger field (from the closer components) at short distances .This asymmetry is of strength 1/r⁴  .

Why does the other solution disagree? Where is the error in solving the integral that gives Gauss's law?

[Timo Moilanen]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Where is the error in solving the integral that gives Gauss's law?

The integral for a sphere/r² dx,dy,dz give  F_m = TiM/r²  , so that does not disagree .In integrating F_tot  I only have left out cos(a) factor to get Ti as F_m =F_tot at long distances ,cos(a) =1.

For the surface (r=R) of a even density sphere Fm = TiM/R²  ,is as close I get .And if there are other aspects of Gauss law for this , I am not trying to prove Gauss is right (I'm determining  Ti)

On 17/10/2017 at 4:38 PM, Strange said:

As real-world measurements contradict your result

My calculations rely on real world measurements and the fact that they are very accurate , if I only could have more (material) to explore .The exact distance between is not to be found ( 1 year searching) despite other chat.

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Why does the other solution disagree?

If you referring to the two graphs , they are the same in different perspective (scale) to read rough numbers from y .

Furthermore the "speculation" of atom "parts" being key in the force of gravity , dividing by N_A is to eliminate N_A ^2 .So F_m is still multiplied with N_A , and I can see no way of not accounting for these particles (neutron/proton) in relative rest as a factor .

And therefore my topic could be in physics classification . Not for my sake , but for other users of this site that are not here for "schoolbooks only " citations .

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

The integral for a sphere/r² dx,dy,dz give  F_m = TiM/r²  , so that does not disagree .In integrating F_tot  I only have left out cos(a) factor to get Ti as F_m =F_tot at long distances ,cos(a) =1.

For the surface (r=R) of a even density sphere Fm = TiM/R²  ,is as close I get .And if there are other aspects of Gauss law for this , I am not trying to prove Gauss is right (I'm determining  Ti)

 

But your result disagrees, which is the same as claiming that the other solution is wrong. You can't "leave out" a factor and have the solution be correct.

6 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

Furthermore the "speculation" of atom "parts" being key in the force of gravity , dividing by N_A is to eliminate N_A ^2 .So F_m is still multiplied with N_A , and I can see no way of not accounting for these particles (neutron/proton) in relative rest as a factor .

We know from General Relativity (GR) that the composition doesn't matter, just the mass, so there's no valid basis for this being an issue.

6 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

And therefore my topic could be in physics classification . Not for my sake , but for other users of this site that are not here for "schoolbooks only " citations .

This is decidedly not mainstream, so no, there is no way this is going in the physics section.

[Timo Moilanen]

OK you decide . I put in material when done , but I must proceed . 

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

And therefore my topic could be in physics classification . Not for my sake , but for other users of this site that are not here for "schoolbooks only " citations .

It is for the sake of other users that it is not in the Physics section.

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

OK you decide . I put in material when done , but I must proceed . 

!

Moderator Note

Why are you not answering the questions being posed to you about why your solution is so far off from our best explanations? This is why your ideas aren't in the mainstream sections, why they can't be. You aren't engaging with the process science has found successful, and you aren't satisfying the rules of this Speculations section of our discussion forum. We're two pages in, it's time to start supporting your ideas against the arguments of peers. Welcome to science.

 

[Dubbelosix]

There are only so many fundamental constants, if any of them change, either through the evolution of a universe and thus slight adjustments may appear depending on the theory which deals with those parameters. 

There may be evidence a fundamental constant has changed somewhere... go dig the internet if you can. 

Secondly, Nob. Prize win. Abdus Salam has noted that if gravity has a cosmological and quantum scaling, then gravity could explain the strong force as understood in terms of the quarks. Interestingly, [math]P^{-2}[/math] propagators have been shown to be totally describable by the spacetime curvature they inhabit.

If in extended theories where the speed of light is connected to the speed of gravitons fundamentally, then you could in theory change the permeability and permittivity then you could alter the speed of light itself. Barrow and Tippler did hypothesise that the universe could have undergone early changes that satisfies the alteration of the universal speed limit over time. 

Phi is right, you must address people. Go check my own posts, you don't need to read my work, but will you have look at how I interact with people - I do myself no harm though, because I do make attempts to make sure such questions will not throw me off by excellent questions that can otherwise, come from the blue. May I suggest, until you are happy with a theory, do not post it - this is my very first key principle - it has to agree with a fuller understanding before I post anything, otherwise, if it is a subject I know nothing about, I tend to only say a few things then tend to be quiet. But you really should talk with others, you might learn a lot, like I did many years ago. 

and still today ( no less), I am still learning. Will always learn from others. 

Even my work, I dare not post in physics section so let that be a lesson for those who do not wish to be meticulous with their physics - I've been told I am when I write my stuff, but I still have to keep myself firmly on terra firma and know the place of where quantum gravity and speculations about it, sits. Until evidence points in the way of the theory, then it is falsifiable properly. Before any evidence, something remains hypothesis. 

Popper falsifiability is very important and not even taken that seriously by many scientists who like to write about subjects outside the experimental means. 

Edited October 20, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Timo Moilanen]

17 hours ago, Strange said:

It is for the sake of other users

It's such a relief to know other users are protected from "off mainstream stream "ideas !

12 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Why are you not answering the questions being posed to you about why your solution is so far off from our best explanations?

I do not remember seeing questions formulated like that . Are you sure there aren't q:s left in physics  or dropped "off".I almost daily search this column and seldom find unanswered . It's a long shot but it need people to understand the math , and I'm working on a graphic (slide show) of last integral before F_m = Ti M/r² ( found a cite where such a curve is possible). It has been suggested that I "adjust" to the theoretical Ti , but that is even to me a surprise from about 20.9-17 , while I have worked on Ti well over a year (even seen on this cite) and value 7.43 *10^-11 in spring this year . Earlier I just thought the convergence factors are well of in the constant .

What comes to writing , my writing is like  a" miss understood dictionary "at it's best and i have no intention of writing any "official in English myself (just "short notes")

[Timo Moilanen]

8 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

There may be evidence a fundamental constant has changed somewhere

I have a very classical approach and even ignore the fundamental of space time . My calcs. are non-relativistic (frozen "snap shots") 

What comes to the constant seeming to be a conversion factor is even a bigger issue (that I cant philosophically comprehend..yet)

The 11 or so% is plain math. but should lead to huge (11%) changes in most surprising details . Changes of the constant can not be possible through my calc. but need change of light speed

[Dubbelosix]

Whatever. Have you ever heard of the idiom word salad? I'd be careful using terminology that doesn't make sense when stringed together. You can take more time to contemplate the meaning of what you post. 

It isn't a timed chess game

Edited October 21, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Timo Moilanen]

9 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

Before any evidence, something remains hypothesis

I have not learned the academic style , since my latest paper is decades ago for a BSc degree in chemistry (in Swedish ). 

This visibility on cites is very non formal out come of me (and not the official) because gravity science is nonexistant in Finland.

I will learn evidently , but I hope you will accept my inofficial  bug and typo laced way of discussing ideas (counterweight to official stifnes ) . All of the whole story here now is not my approach on cites , and this time I have to begin tell half the findings (or less) It just seem to be so gasping much . What comes to hypothesis , I can only patiently wait till math. checked and redone , since experimental proves are out of my reach (and I think not necessary ).There is 200 years of outstanding precision measurements to calculate Ti , and a proving modification of the experiment would look like a show (can be done though )