J.C.MacSwell Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, studiot said: 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? ...and the follow up question: "which has more mass?"
Timo Moilanen Posted October 23, 2017 Author Posted October 23, 2017 The gravitation is not measured wrong , it is the calculation of the constant that looses part of mass because the 1-cos(a) part is put aside for direction but is still very much there . About Gauss theorems I do not know what do not ad up , but from earlier I remember assuming his law is simply interpreted somewhat too wide .Did plot of the total force the "traditional" Fm and difference Ftot-Fm , had to multiply the two lower series with r2 to see small differences . But the 11% do not consist of them alone rather the 0.89 * over all.
studiot Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Timo Moilanen said: The gravitation is not measured wrong , it is the calculation of the constant that looses part of mass because the 1-cos(a) part is put aside for direction but is still very much there . About Gauss theorems I do not know what do not ad up , but from earlier I remember assuming his law is simply interpreted somewhat too wide .Did plot of the total force the "traditional" Fm and difference Ftot-Fm , had to multiply the two lower series with r2 to see small differences . But the 11% do not consist of them alone rather the 0.89 * over all. I'm trying very hard to be heard here, without shouting. Your plots are titled "Buildup of gravity in a sphere" Perhaps this is where your difficulty lies? I (and I believe the rest of the members responding) have been talking about gravity outside a sphere. The distribution of gravity inside that same sphere can be quite complicated. The study of gravity inside the sphere (or other shape) is known as Geodesy (Greek for the shape of the Earth) and the world standard textbook for this, which I used as my postgrad text in that subject is Geodesy by Bomford. Oxford University Press. You need to be aware that the 'sphere' reaches to its highest point - Mount Everest in the case of the Earth. The existence of the Himalaya was originally deduced by the deflection of survey plumb bobs due to increased gravity on one side. Today satellites and aircraft routinely conduct gravimetric surveys which reveal all sorts of local variations in the strength and direction of gravity and thus tell us about the underlying rocks. But these effects are all 'within the sphere'. Gauss' Law still holds Edited October 23, 2017 by studiot 1
Timo Moilanen Posted October 24, 2017 Author Posted October 24, 2017 The plots are where in the sphere (-R to R) the gravitation force comes from when experienced outside at a distance . In the plots can be seen the big asymmetry when observed close . And the lowest row the not measured amount of "drag" , and thus at about little under dist. 1.5 where the measurements are done (second fr.left low dia. is some 10% of dia. above middl.) The two lower rows are multiplied by r2 for the curves not to disappear to 0, but they are plots of gravity outside sphere at dist. (above upper row) *r2 . As for Gauss's law today's "uses" and it is key in calculating the baseline for exploring anomalies in grav. and magnetic fields , and every planet and their moons a satellite have measured differ much from Gauss ideal . On earth the concept is known as "the spherical earth problem " .I do not know if anyone here is educated in this , but it seems a Gaussian sphere is yet to be found . A laboratory sphere is considered gaussian and that is where it goes wrong .Scientists are working to measure the true gravitations among stars and near (our solar system) moons , while they still have the spherical earth problem to solve . I do not blame NASA for going easy on longer missions. Nether geologists nor cosmologists are using Gauss to more than baseline .
Timo Moilanen Posted February 18, 2019 Author Posted February 18, 2019 Here are the only proof I have that my "theory" work. The grav. values are for non-orbiting measurements .As from a weather balloon , earth rotating speed can be ignored. Anyone seen measured g-values ? Or are they cropped as malfunction etc categorically for last 1-2 hundred years.
swansont Posted February 18, 2019 Posted February 18, 2019 2 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said: Here are the only proof I have that my "theory" work. The grav. values are for non-orbiting measurements .As from a weather balloon , earth rotating speed can be ignored. "As from" a weather balloon? Was it a weather balloon, or not? What instrument was used to measure g?
Timo Moilanen Posted February 19, 2019 Author Posted February 19, 2019 I'm so sincerely glad you got a better job , since this cite obviously is not your vocation , and the presentation surely is either way boring .But thank you for "reading" the numbers. -3
Mordred Posted February 19, 2019 Posted February 19, 2019 Perhaps you can do a better job answering questions, I for one see no reason you have presented not to use the following tables for fundamental constants including G https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.07956.pdf 1
Phi for All Posted February 19, 2019 Posted February 19, 2019 5 hours ago, Timo Moilanen said: I'm so sincerely glad you got a better job , since this cite obviously is not your vocation , and the presentation surely is either way boring .But thank you for "reading" the numbers. ! Moderator Note That's not the way to engage in discussion here. You need to answer questions to the best of your ability.
studiot Posted February 19, 2019 Posted February 19, 2019 32 minutes ago, Mordred said: Perhaps you can do a better job answering questions, I for one see no reason you have presented not to use the following tables for fundamental constants including G https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.07956.pdf Thank you for that useful information and link. +1
Mordred Posted February 19, 2019 Posted February 19, 2019 I've always found it useful ever since I came across it.
Mordred Posted February 20, 2019 Posted February 20, 2019 (edited) Here is a relevent question to the OP, why do your results differ from those of the numerous professionally done in the last 35 years ? here is a listing of several of them with their values. see page 5 for a chart listing reference "Recent measurements of the gravitational constant as a function of time" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.01774.pdf took a bit to find a decent listing of recent tests though I am positive this is nowhere complete it does prove that G is constantly being examined to this day. So you really have your work cut out for you to make any kind of impression vs these examination and continuous experimentation. What you have shown thus far does not meet that standard.... (also one of the first rules when supplying test results is to describe the experimental setup...) as well as describe any uncertainties involved is such a setup. 16 hours ago, Mordred said: Perhaps you can do a better job answering questions, I for one see no reason you have presented not to use the following tables for fundamental constants including G https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.07956.pdf 16 hours ago, studiot said: Thank you for that useful information and link. +1 here is the particle data group listing that contains that chart in the quoted arxiv. This is an extremely lengthy and well brought together document that summarizes a huge range of findings. here is the abstract The Review summarizes much of particle physics and cosmology. Using data from previous editions, plus 2,873 new measurements from 758 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons and the recently discovered Higgs boson, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as supersymmetric particles, heavy bosons, axions, dark photons, etc. Particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as Higgs Boson Physics, Supersymmetry, Grand Unified Theories, Neutrino Mixing, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Cosmology, Particle Detectors, Colliders, Probability and Statistics. Among the 118 reviews are many that are new or heavily revised, including a new review on Neutrinos in Cosmology. Starting with this edition, the Review is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 includes the Summary Tables and all review articles. Volume 2 consists of the Particle Listings. Review articles that were previously part of the Listings are now included in volume 1. The complete Review (both volumes) is published online on the website of the Particle Data Group (http://pdg.lbl.gov) and in a journal. Volume 1 is available in print as the PDG Book. A Particle Physics Booklet with the Summary Tables and essential tables, figures, and equations from selected review articles is also available. https://journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001 enjoy I'm positive you will find this incredibly useful Edited February 20, 2019 by Mordred
Mordred Posted February 20, 2019 Posted February 20, 2019 Here Is a different approach to testing G "Precision Measurement of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant Using Cold Atoms" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.7954.pdf
Timo Moilanen Posted February 21, 2019 Author Posted February 21, 2019 On 10/23/2017 at 3:24 PM, studiot said: Your plots are titled "Buildup of gravity in a sphere" My plots are from inside the sphere (-1R to+1R) and the numbers above indicate the distance to observation point . I'm sorry for not being specific about that ( I'm a bad writer that way too) I do not indicate there are any phenomenon outside the sphere , only plain linear gravitation from every single mass "particle "separate . This is my whole point , the body do not recast the gravity field , every dM need to be accounted for in full strength not *cos(a). So I say the shell theory do not add up .
Strange Posted February 21, 2019 Posted February 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said: So I say the shell theory do not add up . As the shell theorem is a purely mathematical proof, you need to show where the mathematics is wrong. (The rest of your post is totally incomprehensible.)
Timo Moilanen Posted February 21, 2019 Author Posted February 21, 2019 On 2/20/2019 at 9:02 AM, Mordred said: Here Is a different approach to testing G The measurements are good and there are "millions" of them , all with slightly different result. Now used value is a average of F/(M r^2) at 1.4 to 1.5 radius from centre of source mass . My "number is what "G" would be at infinite distance . This is a mathematical (geometric) difference , and now used math will never find an invariable constant. My approach give the same value to every experiment for individual r- distances (averages will not do)
Strange Posted February 21, 2019 Posted February 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Timo Moilanen said: My "number is what "G" would be at infinite distance . G is a constant and does not change with distance.
Timo Moilanen Posted February 21, 2019 Author Posted February 21, 2019 14 minutes ago, Strange said: As the shell theorem is a purely mathematical proof, you need to show where the mathematics is wrong The dM*G*cos(a) part reduces mass or G , and part of the product goes missing even if the integral (of a sphere) ads up neatly to MG/r^2 .You saw my procedure of doing the impossible.I simply preserve both G and M intact and divide with the equivalence of Sigma (1/cos(a)) This mean I disagree with the way of using math. 20 minutes ago, Strange said: G is a constant and does not change with distance. Nowadays measurements(math.) give only a distance specific G , that's why constant is never found .And G is nowhere near useful at longer distances. 0.5*c^2/(1000*NA ) is spot on . Avogadros number is only philosophic (what do we measure when weighing) to match qualities and c^2/2 is no brainer . My constant do not change even measured , but mean gravitation is nothing like electromagnetism . Actually gravitation do't even add , the "particles" feature need to be summed up. 53 minutes ago, Strange said: G is a constant and does not change with distance Measurements tell a different story
Timo Moilanen Posted February 21, 2019 Author Posted February 21, 2019 On 2/18/2019 at 2:01 PM, swansont said: As from" a weather balloon? Was it a weather balloon, or not? What instrument was used to measure g? The table I presented is calculated . Measured values of course Do not go above 30km , but todays censors (microchip accelerometer? ) give a more than necessary precision .Look for "The spherical earth problem"
swansont Posted February 21, 2019 Posted February 21, 2019 9 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said: The table I presented is calculated . Measured values of course Do not go above 30km , but todays censors (microchip accelerometer? ) give a more than necessary precision .Look for "The spherical earth problem" So how do calculated values supposedly prove anything? And one can deduce values above 30 km, since we have satellites. In a circular orbit, g = v^2/r, which is the centripetal acceleration. It does not depend on G. If satellites were off by 11% in their orbits, I think people would notice.
Timo Moilanen Posted February 21, 2019 Author Posted February 21, 2019 On 2/20/2019 at 7:37 AM, Mordred said: enjoy I'm positive you will find this incredibly useful Thank you my point of view is obviously outdated , and I can not make a coupling to modern physics from my geometric mathematic approach. So far 3 minutes ago, swansont said: So how do calculated values supposedly prove anything? For lover altitudes (measured) by matching readings. Minus the variation in different areas that are in recent year got extremely precise
swansont Posted February 21, 2019 Posted February 21, 2019 12 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said: For lover altitudes (measured) by matching readings. Minus the variation in different areas that are in recent year got extremely precise Do the measured values match your predictions? Do you have a link to the measured values?
Timo Moilanen Posted February 21, 2019 Author Posted February 21, 2019 1 hour ago, swansont said: Do the measured values match your predictions? Do you have a link to the measured values? Here on page 6 is how gravity is corrected , and it is no news (very standard read +and-) https://sites.ualberta.ca/~unsworth/UA-classes/210/notes210/B/210B3-2008.pdf
Mordred Posted February 21, 2019 Posted February 21, 2019 You do realize there is a difference between g and the constant G right ? That last link shows the [latex] 1/r^2[/latex] relation for g not G. The constant G is kept constant in every calculation in that paper. The mass terms however may vary such as above the mountain example or the equator. The variations in mass distribution affect the mass terms not the constant G.
swansont Posted February 21, 2019 Posted February 21, 2019 8 minutes ago, Timo Moilanen said: Here on page 6 is how gravity is corrected , and it is no news (very standard read +and-) https://sites.ualberta.ca/~unsworth/UA-classes/210/notes210/B/210B3-2008.pdf This does not support your thesis in any way. It's a correction for a rotating nonspherical earth, based on mainstream physics, and still uses Newton's law of gravitation.
Recommended Posts