Gravitation constant or not

[Dubbelosix]

May I ask you a question without sounded too .... well you know.

 

What made you interested in talking about a complex subject like quantum gravity, when your roots are in chemistry? There is quite a difference between the two, and if you don't mind me saying, if you are a chemist, set an example so that you express your physics clearly. 

 

I wrote some work not long ago about a pre-big bang phase to the universe and actually involved a long study into chemistry. That might be a surprise, but we have to do it sometimes. I took chemistry at college along with biology, but sometimes, we need to go back to basics. The mind can only remember so much after a certain time. 

Unless you are Sheldon

Edited October 21, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Timo Moilanen]

55 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

I'd be careful using terminology

I'm learning terminology from a dictionary and Wiki and I still hope you have patience with my inofficial behavior , all errors i make may be the joy for pedants not getting it out of their dayjob.

[Dubbelosix]

you can make errors all you want. I'll never hold you responsible for them unless you intend them. Many years before I am today, I was ridiculed badly for early idea's I had no capability to uphold with math. It actually... damaged me a bit, emotionally.

 

But I realised, that I needed to prove those idea's so that I could in some way prove to people, I was not insane and actually capable of learning the math that the great prof. 's of yesteryear preached. I went to college. I became a drop-out in my third year. I realised I was suffering from bad mental health that was impeding my ability to continue with my studies, so I became a hermit for four years and studying in silence.

 

I come here, I meet physicists elsewhere who have appreciated, I am not on the same score, but certainly on the same page (some of the time :p) and the result is... I am much happier I put this personal time into it because I learned much more than any college class threw at me. 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Timo Moilanen]

4 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

when your roots are in chemistry

I have (had) a career in pharmaceutical industry (every invention property of the company bla. bla)and last emlpoyer sacked me on more personal grounds (at least for my boss) promising me no job in Finland anymore and shut up or else (the else was not jive I'v bitterly learned) What comes to physics its not far from chemistry and I'we always been multidisciplinary

[Dubbelosix]

So yes... put more time into your posts if:

 

1. Your theory doesn't match current physics, certainly check it over

 

2. Make sure your theory is consistent - in both the wording/terminology... but also if you ever come to math, make sure you understand its complexities, because I will not lie, mathematics is a very hard subject - take Einstein for an example, he actually failed his primary math tests. His relativity was so mathematically incomplete, he required his wife to help him finish it, who had no less, a PhD in mathematics. 

 

3. Never lose hope even if you are proven wrong. This is the way of science. Also, make sure a theory can be falsified and fits observational or experimental data. 

 

These would be good principles to hold by when talking about the scientific methodology with physics. 

2 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

I have (had) a career in pharmaceutical industry (every invention property of the company bla. bla)and last emlpoyer sacked me on more personal grounds (at least for my boss) promising me no job in Finland anymore and shut up or else (the else was not jive I'v bitterly learned) What comes to physics its not far from chemistry and I'we always been multidisciplinary

 

What kind of career exactly?

Are you talking about dispensing drugs to patients over the counter?

[Timo Moilanen]

In production from foreman as a student to plant manager and most job titles in between ( heavy ch. industry ) and consultant for factory planning ,instrumentation (you name it) . Most economically successful invention were in synthesis , that is the part of chemistry I,we studied only the basics (physical chemistry was my main in the chemical department) I had use for national economics when I briefly were into politics in late 90.s to early 2000 

[Dubbelosix]

I don't know, maybe it is just me, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I'll leave it for others to decide this, but will urge its not a reason for a banning. I am only saying this because people with (deficits) in the ability to talk the english language fluently may be interpreted wrongly. 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

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

It is not a matter of protecting them from non-mainstream ideas (some non mainstream ideas go on to become mainstream, after all).

It is important that people (e.g. students) know what is mainstream and what is new, cutting edge and possibly wrong. Or even just wrong. 

[Dubbelosix]

But maybe the thread should be closed. Unless you prove me wrong, can you try and present your thoughts a bit more clearly? I mean, I am hardly Einstein myself, but I do have some knowledge in physics, and your claim to be a chemist, surprises me, since even chemists are usually trained in the scientific discipline.

 

Trust me you can get there, but effort is needed.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is not a matter of protecting them from non-mainstream ideas (some non mainstream ideas go on to become mainstream, after all).

It is important that people (e.g. students) know what is mainstream and what is new, cutting edge and possibly wrong. Or even just wrong. 

Yes quite right. Even for me, in which I tend to use math, would still not dare do this in the mainstream until almost certain about something. 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Timo Moilanen said:

I have (had) a career in pharmaceutical industry (every invention property of the company bla. bla)and last emlpoyer sacked me on more personal grounds (at least for my boss) promising me no job in Finland anymore and shut up or else (the else was not jive I'v bitterly learned) What comes to physics its not far from chemistry and I'we always been multidisciplinary

Since you have qualifications and bags of experience in Chemistry, it would be nice if you would help answer one or two of the questions posed here. for the benefit of others.

After all, you are benefitting from discussions in Physics.

Interestingly, just an unscientific observation, but the posts in Chemistry seem to attract considerably fewr cranks than the ones in Physics.
by and large the Chemistry threads are genuine.

[Strange]

44 minutes ago, studiot said:

Interestingly, just an unscientific observation, but the posts in Chemistry seem to attract considerably fewr cranks than the ones in Physics.
by and large the Chemistry threads are genuine.

In terms of crankdom, it seems to be physics, biology(1), environment(2), mathematics and then everything else. No idea why.

(1) Apart from the obvious evolution "debate", there are all sorts of things like "all disease caused by X", anti-vaccination, cryptozoology, etc.

(2) As well as the obvious climate change denialism there are "chemtrails", "weather manipulation" and various other weird theories out there.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Strange

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

 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 .

You haven't answered these questions:

What experiments used cylinders, which would allegedly cause the errors in calculations of G. 
Where is the error in the integral that gives Gauss's law, which conflicts with your assertion
Are you simply substituting GM₁ with TiM₂

(and maybe others I missed)

_{You have not justified why you base your constant on Avogadro's number, nor defended your claim that the composition of the matter has an effect on gravity, contradicting GR.}

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

You haven't answered these questions:

What experiments used cylinders, which would allegedly cause the errors in calculations of G. 
Where is the error in the integral that gives Gauss's law, which conflicts with your assertion
Are you simply substituting GM₁ with TiM₂

(and maybe others I missed)

_{You have not justified why you base your constant on Avogadro's number, nor defended your claim that the composition of the matter has an effect on gravity, contradicting GR.}

 

Nor have you answered my question about the conversion factors you use, despite making several references to Cavendish's experiment.

[Timo Moilanen]

21 hours ago, studiot said:

Chemistry threads are genuine.

I will look at the threads and thank you for discussion ( I do not know a single person in real life understanding a squat of what I would need to discuss ) Closest I'w come is to suggest to some astronomers "what if G was some 7,4 ...... ",that was blasphemy 

I also put in corrected copy of one page of my paper , I didn't see the obvious despite how many leads from you . And now I know why I was not understood , I had it desperately wrong and "inverted" , and should be glad anyone bothered to read.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

What experiments used cylinders

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/measuring-gravity-have-we-finally-cracked-it here the latest done with "falling"atoms as targets in an arrangement of cylinders .

[Timo Moilanen]

19 hours ago, studiot said:

Are you simply substituting GM₁ with TiM

Sorry for my wrong writing and "thinking " 

In calculating the field Fm and force between objects at close distance it must be GM => TiMk . Calculated integrals and other to get k from Cavendish type of measurement  and that way a value for Ti . The k factor goes to 1 very soon ( the geostationary satellite distance would give k about  1.0003) . All (long distance) formulas having G can be replace with Ti , but for example light bending "while passing the sun " is not simple as 1,75 arc s ,even thought Ti*M give the same as G*M.

In universe GM =TiM but in lab. and other short distances it is TiMk 

Does the solar wind slow down satellites but not accelerate them back . Did the sun mass really shrink when the GEO something satellites measured earth gravitation in descending orbits . Was it UFO:s interacting wit the Voyager satellites slingshots . Did Eddington  have lens problems or did just that star(s) have different light than others right besides. There are plenty of explanations and will be more. What was the Eagles orbit time around the moon exactly , anyone heard ?

20 hours ago, studiot said:

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

About Gauss's law " This take into account the direction of field lines " On a sphere this have been seen as square angle to the surface ,  Fm earlier, and with Ti *k give exactly same and co. Gaussian values on the surface . Gauss is interpreted to valid for a variable density sphere and any shape of enclosement for "electric charge . My different view is that a sphere is only so big as the enclosed mass stretches . This mean that higher density cores have their (delta )(ro ) surface and radius closer to midpoint than the outer densities .

Two separate spheres with different radius and density certainly are different. Why should the inner one lose its properties when squeezed into an other ( physically very possible ). In other words Gauss was very right on electrical (moldable) fields.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

 https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/measuring-gravity-have-we-finally-cracked-it here the latest done with "falling"atoms as targets in an arrangement of cylinders .

Why doesn't their result differ from the ones done with spheres, by 11%?

[Timo Moilanen]

21 hours ago, studiot said:

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

About Gauss's law " This take into account the direction of field lines " On a sphere this have been seen as square angle to the surface ,  Fm earlier, and with Ti *k give exactly same and co. Gaussian values on the surface . Gauss is interpreted to valid for a variable density sphere and any shape of enclosement for "electric charge . My different view is that a sphere is only so big as the enclosed mass stretches . This mean that higher density cores have their (delta )(ro ) surface and radius closer to midpoint than the outer densities .

Two separate spheres with different radius and density certainly are different. Why should the inner one lose its properties when squeezed into an other ( physically very possible ). In other words Gauss was very right on electrical (moldable) fields.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why doesn't their result differ from the ones done with spheres

The little I have used my integrals on cylinders , show that they have very similar k values , but mostly I think it is a coincident that k for these cylinders are as close . Right distance/radius to right height  . The measurement is very interesting because the atoms are k=1 and should be easy to analyse with my formulas .

[studiot]

Gauss's Law refers to the integral of flux through a closed surface.

The only directional effect is (for 3D) in or out.

[Timo Moilanen]

The field is not alongside a surface and through an infinitely thin wall is 90 deg.at distance =0 and some symmetry (cylinder sphere and even flat surface give   90 deg  "field lines ". I think gravity is a very stable and symmetric field with field lines square to "masspoint" on surface of body. (flux/field =90deg)

[studiot]

 

 

You missed my point.

The total flux through a closed surface is independent of the angle of incidence on that surface or how smooth or wrinkly that surface is.

 

It is rather like that old theorem from Euclid that all parallelograms on the same base have the same area, no matter how skewed they are.

Notice that the derivation refers to the total mass enclosed, the distribution of that mass is unimportant ouside the surface.

Edited October 22, 2017 by studiot

[Timo Moilanen]

22 hours ago, studiot said:

the composition of the matter has an effect

The composition of the matter have no effect on gravity , I only claim that the number (amount) of protons +neutrons is proportional to gravity . This (p+n ) is the same we put on the scale every day , and only reserve I have is that speed of light stays the same for Ti .

N_A because mol is the only quantity with weight(known by the grams /N_A  (that I know ) , in this case 1kmol =kg = 1000 N_A (p+n).

Since kg*kg =kg² *N²  division by 1000N_A  give kgN_A  , I divided by kg and N_A have no quality . Your question on conversion factors I do not find.

[studiot]

14 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

23 hours ago, studiot said:

the composition of the matter has an effect

The composition of the matter have no effect on gravity , I only claim that the number (amount) of protons +neutrons is proportional to gravity . This (p+n ) is the same we put on the scale every day , and only reserve I have is that speed of light stays the same for Ti .

N_A because mol is the only quantity with weight(known by the grams /N_A  (that I know ) , in this case 1kmol =kg = 1000 N_A (p+n).

Since kg*kg =kg² *N²  division by 1000N_A  give kgN_A  , I divided by kg and N_A have no quality . Your question on conversion factors I do not find.

Timo, look carefully where you are copy/pasting from or you will be attributing quotes to the wrong person as you have done here.

I didn't say that and have not been discussing composition or Avogadro with you.

 

I came back to this thread to add something to my last post but you got here before me, so please consider this as further explanation of the attachment in my last post.

 

No doubt you will notice the derivation uses the Normal component.

This is because the normal (and outward normal at that - are you aware there are two normals?) is the only part of the flux that can pass through the enclosing surface without being balanced out by a corresponding oppositely directed contribution from another part of the enclosed mass.

In other words for every component at a point on the surface perpendicular to the normal there is an equal an opposite component somewhere else on that surface.

Thank you for taking notice about my comment on chemistry, did you notice I had responded in that thread?

Edited October 22, 2017 by studiot

[Timo Moilanen]

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

the distribution of that mass is unimportant

At some distance this is true and integrating dM over the volume of a sphere give same answer GM/r² . My baseline is that every dM*Ti stays the same seen at any distance and angle , and the sum of them in a body also stays F_tot . The different angles and distances(dr) at closer dist. where cos(a) vs. 1/dr² equalise was summed up by just loosing 1-cos(a) and then dividing G out of that  . I must probably say I disagree with Gauss on that .  

[studiot]

Distribution is not the same as composition.

We have an old saying in English ( a trick question)

 

Which weighs more a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

 

The little I have used my integrals on cylinders , show that they have very similar k values , but mostly I think it is a coincident that k for these cylinders are as close . Right distance/radius to right height  . The measurement is very interesting because the atoms are k=1 and should be easy to analyse with my formulas .

You said the difference was 11%. That's not what the experiment showed. i.e. your prediction failed, therefore the model is wrong.

44 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

At some distance this is true and integrating dM over the volume of a sphere give same answer GM/r² . My baseline is that every dM*Ti stays the same seen at any distance and angle , and the sum of them in a body also stays F_tot . The different angles and distances(dr) at closer dist. where cos(a) vs. 1/dr² equalise was summed up by just loosing 1-cos(a) and then dividing G out of that  . I must probably say I disagree with Gauss on that .  

Show where it's wrong.

The calculation doesn't "lose" anything. It integrates over the whole volume, i.e. it adds the contribution of all the masses.