Gravitation constant or not

[Timo Moilanen]

On 2/19/2019 at 3:19 PM, Mordred said:

I for one see no reason you have presented not to use the following tables for fundamental constants including G

That is the whole idea G is not constant and measured only at very near distances (longer would be impossible). G can be calculated from my factor G=0.5*c^2/(1000*N_A*k)  where k I call reduced volume =3/2*p^2-3/4(p^3-p)*ln((p+1)/(p-1))  and p=r/R ( distance / radius) . This is integrated for one uniform density sphere only 

[studiot]

49 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

That is the whole idea G is not constant and measured only at very near distances (longer would be impossible). G can be calculated from my factor G=0.5*c^2/(1000*N_A*k)  where k I call reduced volume =3/2*p^2-3/4(p^3-p)*ln((p+1)/(p-1))  and p=r/R ( distance / radius) . This is integrated for one uniform density sphere only 

Oh dear,

G has dimensions L³ M^-1 T^-2

Your expression has dimensions L² T^-2
since Na and p are dimensionless numbers.

 

How do you explain this?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Timo Moilanen said:

That is the whole idea G is not constant and measured only at very near distances (longer would be impossible). G can be calculated from my factor G=0.5*c^2/(1000*N_A*k)  where k I call reduced volume =3/2*p^2-3/4(p^3-p)*ln((p+1)/(p-1))  and p=r/R ( distance / radius) . This is integrated for one uniform density sphere only 

But there is no evidence that this is the case. You have been asked for evidence, but what you provided is support for Newtonian gravity with a constant G

Plus the whole bit about your G having no basis in physics, and the units being wrong.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

That is the whole idea G is not constant and measured only at very near distances (longer would be impossible).

We have sent satellites and spaceships very long distances using the constant value of G in calculations. It seems to be correct.

[Mordred]

8 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

That is the whole idea G is not constant and measured only at very near distances (longer would be impossible). G can be calculated from my factor G=0.5*c^2/(1000*N_A*k)  where k I call reduced volume =3/2*p^2-3/4(p^3-p)*ln((p+1)/(p-1))  and p=r/R ( distance / radius) . This is integrated for one uniform density sphere only 

And yet it has proven to be so incredibly accurate that it is still applicable today with extreme accuracy right up until you get into requiring relativistic corrections.  Yet you claim it is not constant despite its incredible successes with numerous mistakes in much of your mathematics. Many of those mistakes have already been pointed out. 

Even if you had correct mathematics, you still require measurement support. In the mainstream methods the fact that it has been so successful in predicting planetary motion and satellite orbits etc tells a completely different story than your claim.

6 hours ago, Strange said:

We have sent satellites and spaceships very long distances using the constant value of G in calculations. It seems to be correct.

precisely if G was not constant this alone would have reflected in errors in these applications.  For example it would have applied in fuel consumption of all those spacecraft. Not to mention determining the correct stable orbits...

Edited February 21, 2019 by Mordred

[Timo Moilanen]

18 hours ago, studiot said:

G has dimensions L³ M^-1 T^-2

[N_A ]=n/(g *0.001kg/g) =n/kg .  I tried integrate it  but ended up with same problem as in Hooke's law , for a spring k=F/x but when "ratio" is k=F/x^2  one length is lost (or one more L^-1) . I'm sure a professional can explain .

[Timo Moilanen]

11 hours ago, Mordred said:

precisely if G was not constant this alone would have reflected in errors in these applications.  For example it would have applied in fuel consumption of all those spacecraft. Not to mention determining the correct stable orbits...

Near earth fuel consumption is empiric and loner distances can not be "driven" with fuel .For long distances I I agree with nobelwinner Frank Wilczek , on his stand on Pioneer anomalies, that there has to be something . The excess acceleration is huge and the two till now explanation till now are not even close..There are not more long distance probes far away so far.On satellite orbits inclined orbits (ex polar orbit) have more energy than equatorial orbits.These orbits have more than "old" earth mass allows  but there are always an explanation till there is a new one. The stable orbits "found" so far are scarce and crowded

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

Near earth fuel consumption is empiric and loner distances can not be "driven" with fuel .

You don't need to consider fuel consumption, just the effects of gravity on spacecraft - eg when using slingshot manoeuvres.

19 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

For long distances I I agree with nobelwinner Frank Wilczek , on his stand on Pioneer anomalies, that there has to be something

This has been completely explained.

19 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

The excess acceleration is huge

Really?

"The effect is an extremely small acceleration towards the Sun, of (8.74±1.33)×10⁻¹⁰ m/s², which is equivalent to a reduction of the outbound velocity by 1 km/h over a period of ten years."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

20 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

and the two till now explanation till now are not even close..

Sounds like you are just making stuff up.

"By 2012 several papers by different groups, all reanalyzing the thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft, showed that a careful accounting of this explains the entire anomaly, and thus the cause was mundane and did not point to any new phenomena or need for a different physical paradigm.^[2][3] The most detailed analysis to date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two methods of estimating thermal forces, then states "We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains."^[4]"

Ibid.

[Timo Moilanen]

 

12 hours ago, Mordred said:

. Many of those mistakes have already been pointed out. 

I have not seen any mistakes pointed out .On the opposite none have even remarked on the fact that earth gravitation increases by altitude to 22km ( very nonrelativistic since speed modest and distance almost 0) G is used as a constant , it is only 11.8% of . The "unconstant" is in its measurement, different values measured at different distances.

20 hours ago, swansont said:

But there is no evidence that this is the case. You have been asked for evidence, but what you provided is support for Newtonian gravity with a constant G

My  formula on G only says that near a sphere the measurement will give these results and that is why the right value will not been found before the distance correction (reduced volume) is accounted for in laboratory experiments , and what best all detailed old experiments will be valid

[swansont]

39 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

I have not seen any mistakes pointed out .On the opposite none have even remarked on the fact that earth gravitation increases by altitude to 22km

Where, exactly, did you present evidence of this?

39 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

 My  formula on G only says that near a sphere the measurement will give these results and that is why the right value will not been found before the distance correction (reduced volume) is accounted for in laboratory experiments , and what best all detailed old experiments will be valid

Your claim is that these values are wrong, but you have not yet provided evidence that this is true. Restating your claim is not evidence. Do you understand the difference between these two things?

2 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

[N_A ]=n/(g *0.001kg/g) =n/kg .  I tried integrate it  but ended up with same problem as in Hooke's law , for a spring k=F/x but when "ratio" is k=F/x^2  one length is lost (or one more L^-1) . I'm sure a professional can explain .

Or not. This "professional" has no idea what you are talking about

[Strange]

42 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

I have not seen any mistakes pointed out

Just a couple of examples:

• You claimed G is a function of distance. It isn't.
• You claims G has not been measured at a distance. This is untrue.
• Your replacement for G has the wrong dimensions. 

So the problem is that you are ignoring any corrections of your errors, not they have not been made.

 

[Timo Moilanen]

Found only later news that Wilczek have been "involved"

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

Your claim is that these values are wrong, but you have not yet provided evidence that this is true. Restating your claim is not evidence. Do you understand the difference between these two things?

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.

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Timo Moilanen said:

 

My  formula on G only says that near a sphere the measurement will give these results and that is why the right value will not been found before the distance correction (reduced volume) is accounted for in laboratory experiments , and what best all detailed old experiments will be valid

Your formula gives the wrong dimensions so is useless if you cannot get the units right on the LHS and RHS of the equal sign under dimensional analysis then it doesn't matter what the formula is meant to describe. It is automatically invalid. 

That is a serious mistake also as it is your theory that G varies the onus is up to you to correct not expect some physicist to come along and make your corrections for you.

Ignoring the fact that all our astronomy models rely on G being constant in making calculations for spacecraft, orbits etc and correctly predicting those orbits (example location of stable orbits etc) is evidence that G is constant. Yet you have provided none in your model support that this is wrong. 

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Just a couple of examples:

• You claimed G is a function of distance. It isn't.
• You claims G has not been measured at a distance. This is untrue.
• Your replacement for G has the wrong dimensions. 

So the problem is that you are ignoring any corrections of your errors, not they have not been made.

 

agreed

3 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

[N_A ]=n/(g *0.001kg/g) =n/kg .  I tried integrate it  but ended up with same problem as in Hooke's law , for a spring k=F/x but when "ratio" is k=F/x^2  one length is lost (or one more L^-1) . I'm sure a professional can explain .

huh ??? I agree with Swansont on this one...regardless it still means your equation is invalid.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Mordred

[Timo Moilanen]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Or not. This "professional" has no idea what you are talking about

I could not come up with any simpler to compare with

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That is a serious mistake also as it is your theory that G varies the onus is up to you to correct not expect some physicist to come along and make your corrections for you.

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.

34 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So the problem is that you are ignoring any corrections of your errors, not they have not been made.

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

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Where, exactly, did you present evidence of this?

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.

47 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You claims G has not been measured at a distance. This is untrue.

How is G measured at distance?

[Strange]

47 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

Correction of what errors ?

I just listed three. There have been others.

48 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

How is G measured at distance?

This has been explained multiple times. SPACECRAFT. They follow paths predicted by the laws of gravity (in general Newtonian gravity is good enough, but GR is used in some cases) which relies on the value of G being constant at any distance.

How many more times do you need to be told before it sinks in?

49 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

That is a long known fact.

Then you should have no problem providing some evidence.

[studiot]

4 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

[N_A ]=n/(g *0.001kg/g) =n/kg .  I tried integrate it  but ended up with same problem as in Hooke's law , for a spring k=F/x but when "ratio" is k=F/x^2  one length is lost (or one more L^-1) . I'm sure a professional can explain .

Rather than challenging you again I will try to be helpful and provide more detail.

This discussion is solidly founded in Mechanics.

Mechanics can be reduced to relationships (Laws, formule etc) between three suitable quantities.

The current international standards use Mass, Length and Time  (although some disciplines also use Force, Length and Time, eg Fluid Mechanics)
In the ISO these are realised as the kilogramme, metre and second.
These are called units.
For the purpose of dimensional analysis you simply need to work in consistent units.
So we work in unitless dimensions M, L and T and expressed as a product of powers (including negative powers) of these three.

 

The baic relationship connecting the last two is the definition of velocity

Note I am using an equals sign for the defining relationship and an arrow to denote the derived dimensions.

[math]velocity = \frac{{dis\tan ce}}{{time}} \to L{T^{ - 1}}[/math],

This can be extended to acceleration

[math]aceleration = \frac{{velocitychange}}{{time}} \to L{T^{ - 2}}[/math]

These are both simple geomtrical relationships.
Introducing a Physical law - Newton's second Law we define force

[math]force = mass*acceleration \to ML{T^{ - 2}}[/math]

and work (or energy since work is a particular type of energy)

[math]work = force*dis\tan ce \to M{L^2}{T^{ - 2}}[/math]

Now we are in a position to derive the dimensions of the Universal gravitational constant G, using Newton's Law of gravity.

[math]Gforce = G\frac{{{m_1}{m_2}}}{{{d^2}}} \to G{M^2}{L^2}[/math]

Newton's law is an equation and to be equal the dimensions must be identical on both sides of the equation so comapring

[math]ML{T^{ - 2}} \leftrightarrow G{M^2}{L^2}[/math]

[math]\frac{{ML{T^{ - 2}}}}{{{M^2}{L^2}}} \leftrightarrow G[/math]

[math]{M^{ - 1}}{L^3}{T^{ - 2}} \leftrightarrow G[/math]

Which yields mys tated dimensions for G.

 

Now Avogadro's number is defined as

[math]Avogadro'sNumber,{N_a} = \frac{{Molarmass}}{{molecularmass}} = \frac{M}{m} \to \frac{M}{M}[/math]

remembering my earlier note that the molar mass and the molecular mass must be in the same units we find that the constant is mass/mass or Kg/Kg
That is dimensionless.

This is not different from say the dimensionless quantitly 'Reynold's number' which is the ratio of inertial forces to the viscous forces or
The dimensionless quantity 'strain' which is the ratio of two lengths
Or the dimensionless quantity 'duty factor' which is the ratio of two times.

The first two of these other examples are variables and the third is a constant,
demonstrating that dimensionless quantities can be constants or variables.

There are many examples in Physics of such dimensionless ratios and I note you made no comment when I stated your 'reduced volume' was not a volume but also a dimensionless quantity since it is based on the ratio of two lengths.

Be aware there is some disinformation about concerning the dimensions of Avogadro's Number, concerning moles.
Just remember that the ratio must be in the same units.

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Timo Moilanen said:

How is G measured at distance?

General relativity has been (repeatedly) confirmed at cosmological scales. For example: 

 

So, the value G must be independent of distance.

[Timo Moilanen]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Be aware there is some disinformation about concerning the dimensions of Avogadro's Number, concerning moles.
Just remember that the ratio must be in the same units.

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)

1 hour ago, Strange said:

General relativity has been (repeatedly) confirmed at cosmological scales. For example

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. 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said:

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

!

Moderator Note

This is a BIG problem. You asked this before, and you were shown a few of these errors, and did nothing to correct your mistakes. Now you ask again, "What errors?"

This is an intellectually dishonest approach, and it won't be tolerated here. Either correct the flaws in your idea and show you're here to learn, or this thread will be closed due to intractable ignorance and violating the rules for this section. Your choice, and you can let us know in your very next post.

 

[Strange]

43 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

I have not questioned Einsteins theory

Of course you have. You have said that G is a function of distance. But maybe you are unable to understand the consequences of that.

43 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

It specifically says spheres

What "specifically says spheres"?

 

[swansont]

46 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

 I have not questioned Einsteins theory 

G is part of general relativity, so you are questioning GR, even if you don't realize it, and don't realize the headwinds you are facing in claiming that G is a variable.

[Mordred]

Here is a clear example see this educators guide to the Gravity probe. Please note the following equation

[latex]\Omega=\underbrace{\frac{3GM}{2c^2 R^3}(R*v)}_{geodesic precession}+\underbrace{\frac{GI}{c^2 R^3}[\frac{3R}{r^2}(\omega\cdot R)-\omega]}_{frame dragging precession}[/latex]

If G varied as a result of distance then you can bet this would have deviations from the predictions of GR. 

http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/education/GP-B_T-Guide4-2008.pdf

simply because a test does not directly test for specifically G does not mean it doesn't indirectly test G in other related dynamics such as the example above.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Mordred

[Timo Moilanen]

12 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Moderator Note

This is a BIG problem. You asked this before, and you were shown a few of these errors, and did nothing to correct your mistakes. Now you ask again, "What errors?"

This is an intellectually dishonest approach, and it won't be tolerated here. Either correct the flaws in your idea and show you're here to learn, or this thread will be closed due to intractable ignorance and violating the rules for this section. Your choice, and you can let us know in your very next post.

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.

[Strange]

23 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

For the dimensions lets try a "parallel" the dozen ...

I can only assume you don't understand the problem, even after studiot's excellent explanation. Do you understand what dimensional analysis means?

A dozen is dimensionless; it is just a number. So it doesn't matter how you multiply or divide it.

Your replacement for G still does not have the same dimensions of G and therefore any equations using it will be meaningless.

If you cannot understand or accept that, then you do not have enough mathematical understanding to present a theory.

26 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

That's why there is a "monumental" difficulty in finding a stable value in a historical "chase".

That is purely because it is difficult to measure. Gravity is very weak.

27 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

The definition mentioning spheres too often (since Newton)

So you can't provide a reference to support your claim?

28 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

I CAN NOT BACK DOWN FROM SAYING G-value IS 11.8% TOO LOW.

You need to provide evidence for that then.

28 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

Here I admit " G IS NOT A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE 

Well, that is progress, I suppose.

29 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

Now I know G is measured but I can not get data to correct this by some 11%.

Maybe because it doesn't need correcting by 11%.

As a general principle, if you can't find any evidence to support your hypothesis, maybe it is time to drop it.

35 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said:

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 

The first of those is about the fact the Earth is not homogeneous (not exactly surprising).

The second is about the fact the Earth is not a perfect sphere (not surprising, either).

I can't see how either are relevant, except as further evidence you are incapable of understanding anything you read.

 

[Timo Moilanen]

18 hours ago, Strange said:

Then you should have no problem providing some evidence.

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)

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

So you can't provide a reference to support your claim?

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