g/G = 1 AU. Discuss

[studiot]

3 hours ago, KeyOfDavid said:

How do you know G is constant? What observations prove this?

Except G is not a scaling factor as it not dimensionless.

Do you see where I'm going with this yet?

How am I supposed to take your question seriously ?

 

First your claim is that g/G is the distance to the Sun.

Then you question if G is constant.

If you think G is not constant how cna it be related to a sensibly constant distance ?

[KeyOfDavid]

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

How am I supposed to take your question seriously ?

 

First your claim is that g/G is the distance to the Sun.

Then you question if G is constant.

If you think G is not constant how cna it be related to a sensibly constant distance ?

So numerically, g/G is distance to sun.

Yes, G is defined constant.

Now consider the universal law of gravity. What observations lead you to believe that Fr²/Mm is constant?

[exchemist]

8 minutes ago, KeyOfDavid said:

So numerically, g/G is distance to sun.

Yes, G is defined constant.

Now consider the universal law of gravity. What observations lead you to believe that Fr²/Mm is constant?

How about you revealing your agenda, instead of asking tiresome questions?

[KeyOfDavid]

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

How about you revealing your agenda, instead of asking tiresome questions?

What's the point if you can't understand or establish basic results in physics?

You showing an aptitude to think or comprehend is a pre-requisite to understanding what I have to say.

[exchemist]

10 minutes ago, KeyOfDavid said:

What's the point if you can't understand or establish basic results in physics?

You showing an aptitude to think or comprehend is a pre-requisite to understanding what I have to say.

You can think what you like, of course. Normally when I make a scientific error, people here will jump in and correct me, just as I and others have done with you. That's how we improve one another's knowledge.    

If and when you decide to let us know what you are doing on this forum, I may take a further interest. For now, I'll leave you, while I nip out and buy some popcorn, just in case. 😀   

[studiot]

1 hour ago, KeyOfDavid said:

So numerically, g/G is distance to sun.

Yes, G is defined constant.

Now consider the universal law of gravity. What observations lead you to believe that Fr²/Mm is constant?

I will answer your question, even though you haven't answered mine.

Note this is your thread in Speculatrions and the rules you recently accepted when you joined require your answer.

 

The constancy of G was established by Cavendish and confirmed by many subsequent more sensitive experiments.

Also indirect confirmation comes from the experimental fact that a large part of theory in Astrophysics and Astronomy  yield results consistent with constancy rather than variability.

How many observations and experiments have you conducted ?

[KeyOfDavid]

48 minutes ago, studiot said:

I will answer your question, even though you haven't answered mine.

Note this is your thread in Speculatrions and the rules you recently accepted when you joined require your answer.

 

The constancy of G was established by Cavendish and confirmed by many subsequent more sensitive experiments.

Also indirect confirmation comes from the experimental fact that a large part of theory in Astrophysics and Astronomy  yield results consistent with constancy rather than variability.

How many observations and experiments have you conducted ?

I had a look at Cavendish's result. He's measuring a force of order 10^-11 N, compared with a downwards force of order 1 N. That requires an unbelievable sensitivity. A false result might occur simply by walking across the room and causing a tilt or bend in the equipment. I'm not saying that I can prove the result wrong, merely that I don't accept that without question.

For other results, I suspect confirmation bias. Suppose I am doing an experiment to measure G. It's probably going to be at the limit of my equipment. So the noise is going to be similar to the measurement I'm making 

Well suppose I measure G and get 10^-14 or 4×10^-11. Well, I'm going to work out what's wrong and measure again. Or I'm going to publish anyway. Would my publication be accepted? And even if my result was published, would anyone care? I'm I'm simply pointing out the huge potential for confirmation bias.

And this point it sounds a bit like mud slinging. But I have reasons as well as excuses to doubt the result.

First up Sheldrake's censored Ted talk in which he mentions his investigation into how constants are measured. He mentions constants from minute 10.

Second up in the Wikipedia page on the mass of the sun.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_mass

Quote

The value of G is difficult to measure and is only known with limited accuracy (see Cavendish experiment). The value of G times the mass of an object, called the standard gravitational parameter, is known for the Sun and several planets to a much higher accuracy than G alone.[12](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bg)

Thirdly answers your point about astrophysics and astronomy. Yes, all the theory agrees. But that's because all the theory is done assuming ULG is correct. The result however is massive holes in all the equations showing which are explained away as dark matter. Missing mass in the universe is explicitly a problem. Gravity is also explicitly a problem which physicists claim to be spending billions of dollars solving.

So we have a kind of schizophrenia where we accept and defined Newton without question and at the same time work as hard as we can to reconcile ULG with the so called standard model. And at the same time claim accuracy of ULG while observing these huge mysterious problems with mass on a cosmological scale.

Maybe ULG produces operational effectiveness within our solar system. But I have no data to back up its effectiveness universally.

So what I am beginning to do is pick apart ULG, work out where there is room for error. And to work out the mistakes in how we test, model and apply it. And why it produces what seem like workable results in some situations and not others.

When it comes to observations, I am mostly looking at existing results and trying to interpret them in a much more consistent way by coming up with a better model. I actually think for the most part, correct, or at least more accurate models already exist, but they are largely ignored.

[MigL]

I just love it when some confused person has to use a YouTube video to back up their claims.
Try a good Science book instead; YouTube is NOT peer reviewed.

Maybe you should realize that we have sent interplanetary probes ( now interstellar ) on fly-bys of the outer planets, including Pluto ( and pictures sent back as proof ), using the Newtonian gravity model, which happens to include G .
Do you even stop to consider what accuracy G has to be known to ( never mind the Cavendish experiments) to be able to plot and execute near orbital trajectories at the distance of Pluto ?

[exchemist]

24 minutes ago, KeyOfDavid said:

I had a look at Cavendish's result. He's measuring a force of order 10^-11 N, compared with a downwards force of order 1 N. That requires an unbelievable sensitivity. A false result might occur simply by walking across the room and causing a tilt or bend in the equipment. I'm not saying that I can prove the result wrong, merely that I don't accept that without question.

For other results, I suspect confirmation bias. Suppose I am doing an experiment to measure G. It's probably going to be at the limit of my equipment. So the noise is going to be similar to the measurement I'm making 

Well suppose I measure G and get 10^-14 or 4×10^-11. Well, I'm going to work out what's wrong and measure again. Or I'm going to publish anyway. Would my publication be accepted? And even if my result was published, would anyone care? I'm I'm simply pointing out the huge potential for confirmation bias.

And this point it sounds a bit like mud slinging. But I have reasons as well as excuses to doubt the result.

First up Sheldrake's censored Ted talk in which he mentions his investigation into how constants are measured. He mentions constants from minute 10.

Second up in the Wikipedia page on the mass of the sun.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_mass

Thirdly answers your point about astrophysics and astronomy. Yes, all the theory agrees. But that's because all the theory is done assuming ULG is correct. The result however is massive holes in all the equations showing which are explained away as dark matter. Missing mass in the universe is explicitly a problem. Gravity is also explicitly a problem which physicists claim to be spending billions of dollars solving.

So we have a kind of schizophrenia where we accept and defined Newton without question and at the same time work as hard as we can to reconcile ULG with the so called standard model. And at the same time claim accuracy of ULG while observing these huge mysterious problems with mass on a cosmological scale.

Maybe ULG produces operational effectiveness within our solar system. But I have no data to back up its effectiveness universally.

So what I am beginning to do is pick apart ULG, work out where there is room for error. And to work out the mistakes in how we test, model and apply it. And why it produces what seem like workable results in some situations and not others.

When it comes to observations, I am mostly looking at existing results and trying to interpret them in a much more consistent way by coming up with a better model. I actually think for the most part, correct, or at least more accurate models already exist, but they are largely ignored.

Aha, now we have it. Thanks for coming clean at last. So you are trying to pick orbital mechanics apart, to see if variable G can explain dark matter. Fine. 

I'm slightly intrigued, though as to what a nonsense equation like  g/G = 1 AU has to do with that. It does not bode well for your study.

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, KeyOfDavid said:

You showing an aptitude to think or comprehend is a pre-requisite to understanding what I have to say.

That goes both ways and you should think about the fact that you are outnumbered by actual scientists here.
 

1 hour ago, KeyOfDavid said:

I had a look at Cavendish's result. He's measuring a force of order 10^-11 N, compared with a downwards force of order 1 N. That requires an unbelievable sensitivity. A false result might occur simply by walking across the room and causing a tilt or bend in the equipment.

You should also have had a look at his methods.
He measured the change in position with a telescope.
So he wasn't walking across the room.
That's because he was clever enough to think about these things.

It's a little beside the point. There have been plenty of measurements since his day.

1 hour ago, KeyOfDavid said:

First up Sheldrake's censored Ted talk

Would that be this guy?
Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and parapsychology researcher. He proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been criticized as pseudoscience.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, KeyOfDavid said:

What's the point if you can't understand or establish basic results in physics?

You showing an aptitude to think or comprehend is a pre-requisite to understanding what I have to say.

!

Moderator Note

Rule 2.12 precludes posting in bad faith, and the rules of speculations require a model and/or evidence. Assertion is not sufficient, and tap-dancing will end up with thread closure 

 

[KeyOfDavid]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

I just love it when some confused person has to use a YouTube video to back up their claims.
Try a good Science book instead; YouTube is NOT peer reviewed.

Maybe you should realize that we have sent interplanetary probes ( now interstellar ) on fly-bys of the outer planets, including Pluto ( and pictures sent back as proof ), using the Newtonian gravity model, which happens to include G .
Do you even stop to consider what accuracy G has to be known to ( never mind the Cavendish experiments) to be able to plot and execute near orbital trajectories at the distance of Pluto ?

Do you think science is a matter of picking which books to believe? I mean it's great for passing exams, but I'm doing research which involves questioning what's gone before and understanding new things.

Accepting only peer reviewed results is a method of filtering that results in confirmation bias. You are kind of proving my point to adopt this attitude.

F=mg works very well for many applications. It doesn't mean g is universal. Did you just ignore the part where I said that ULG might operational work within the solar system.

Also this is why science has stopped progressing. You systemically eliminate alternative theories to the ones you use before they have chance to be formed.

I suggest you hold off the black hat thinking, and try and extract something useful out of what's being considered and say something constructive.

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

That goes both ways and you should think about the fact that you are outnumbered by actual scientists here.
 

You should also have had a look at his methods.
He measured the change in position with a telescope.
So he wasn't walking across the room.
That's because he was clever enough to think about these things.

It's a little beside the point. There have been plenty of measurements since his day.

Would that be this guy?
Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and parapsychology researcher. He proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been criticized as pseudoscience.

Fair point that I haven't examined his methods closely.

Question: Did you not listen to what Sheldrake had to say about G and how it's determined, because of his research into things you don't accept?

I ask, because that's pretty much the definition of confirmation bias.

[John Cuthber]

20 minutes ago, KeyOfDavid said:

Did you not listen to what Sheldrake had to say about G and how it's determined

Did it occur to you that I might be able to give a competent  talk on the determination of G?
Are you aware that physics and psychology are not the same thing and that Sheldrake might claim some expertise, but only in one of those areas?

I know what confirmation bias is.
It's trawling through google results until you find a video where someone says what you want to hear, and posting it as evidence- even though the video is by a discredited scientist working in a totally different field.

[exchemist]

32 minutes ago, KeyOfDavid said:

Do you think science is a matter of picking which books to believe? I mean it's great for passing exams, but I'm doing research which involves questioning what's gone before and understanding new things.

Accepting only peer reviewed results is a method of filtering that results in confirmation bias. You are kind of proving my point to adopt this attitude.

F=mg works very well for many applications. It doesn't mean g is universal. Did you just ignore the part where I said that ULG might operational work within the solar system.

Also this is why science has stopped progressing. You systemically eliminate alternative theories to the ones you use before they have chance to be formed.

I suggest you hold off the black hat thinking, and try and extract something useful out of what's being considered and say something constructive.

Fair point that I haven't examined his methods closely.

Question: Did you not listen to what Sheldrake had to say about G and how it's determined, because of his research into things you don't accept?

I ask, because that's pretty much the definition of confirmation bias.

Nobody thinks g is universal. It quite obviously isn't.

F=mg leads to different F for a given m, depending on where you are in relation to the centre of the Earth. In fact that is one of the things Newton's Law of Gravitation correctly predicts. 

It is beginning to look as if you do not understand the difference between Newton's 2nd Law of Motion and his Law of Gravitation. You seem to be confusing g and G, in other words. This is fairly - how shall I put this? - strange for someone claiming to be doing research on gravitation. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by exchemist

[KeyOfDavid]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Aha, now we have it. Thanks for coming clean at last. So you are trying to pick orbital mechanics apart, to see if variable G can explain dark matter. Fine. 

I'm slightly intrigued, though as to what a nonsense equation like  g/G = 1 AU has to do with that. It does not bode well for your study.

Ok, so suppose we know the law of gravity is

F=GMm/r^k

How do we determine k?

Or put it another way: how do we determine the masses of the relevant bodies in the solar system?

Let's define:

F=G_kM_km_k/r^k and F=ma

m is the inertial mass,

m_k is the k-gravitational mass.

Because for every extra body we consider we introduce a new constant M_k we can assign values for all these k-masses that will produce the correct orbital parameters.

And so Newton's formula basically seems to work no matter what value of k you choose. To test this we need to think through how these masses are determined and what experimental observations agree or disagree with this notion.

Newton's result then can be restated that the 2-gravitational mass is the intertial mass, or m₂=m.

24 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Did it occur to you that I might be able to give a competent  talk on the determination of G?
Are you aware that physics and psychology are not the same thing and that Sheldrake might claim some expertise, but only in one of those areas?

I know what confirmation bias is.
It's trawling through google results until you find a video where someone says what you want to hear, and posting it as evidence- even though the video is by a discredited scientist working in a totally different field.

If you can give a competent talk on determination of G, how does that help me?

If you can use your competence to critique Sheldrake's remarks on his investigation of how G is determined, then it might help a great deal.

If however you basically use ad hominem to make your point, it simply appears that you are close minded, and I am none the wiser.

[exchemist]

10 minutes ago, KeyOfDavid said:

Ok, so suppose we know the law of gravity is

F=GMm/r^k

How do we determine k?

Or put it another way: how do we determine the masses of the relevant bodies in the solar system?

Let's define:

F=G_kM_km_k/r^k and F=ma

m is the inertial mass,

m_k is the k-gravitational mass.

Because for every extra body we consider we introduce a new constant M_k we can assign values for all these k-masses that will produce the correct orbital parameters.

And so Newton's formula basically seems to work no matter what value of k you choose. To test this we need to think through how these masses are determined and what experimental observations agree or disagree with this notion.

Newton's result then can be restated that the 2-gravitational mass is the intertial mass, or m₂=m.

No, let's start at the beginning. Why did you start this thread with g/G = 1 AU? What relation does it bear to any of the above?

Edited February 23, 2023 by exchemist

[KeyOfDavid]

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

Why did you start this thread with g/G = 1 AU? What relation does it bear of any of the above?

Well, if we're trying to determine the k-mass of the sun, from the mass of the earth, then G₂=G and G₁=g, since r=1 AU.

This seems more than a coincidence.

[exchemist]

19 minutes ago, KeyOfDavid said:

Well, if we're trying to determine the k-mass of the sun, from the mass of the earth, then G₂=G and G₁=g, since r=1 AU.

This seems more than a coincidence.

Can you show how you get these results?   

[swansont]

1 hour ago, KeyOfDavid said:

Ok, so suppose we know the law of gravity is

F=GMm/r^k

How do we determine k?

 k = 2 (or -1) are the only solutions that have closed orbits  (Bertrand’s theorem)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand's_theorem

[studiot]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

 k = 2 (or -1) are the only solutions that have closed orbits  (Bertrand’s theorem)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand's_theorem

I do so love it when someone tells me something I don't know or reminds me of something I should know. +1

 

54 minutes ago, KeyOfDavid said:

Well, if we're trying to determine the k-mass of the sun, from the mass of the earth, then G₂=G and G₁=g, since r=1 AU.

This seems more than a coincidence.

You are still not expressing you research goals and intentions very clearly or pehaps even correctly.

I seriously suggest you accept this, ask to moderator to close this thread and let you start a new one with a half ways decent proposition.

That way we could all stop bickering.

[John Cuthber]

15 hours ago, KeyOfDavid said:

how does that help me?

It explains why telling me about Sheldrakes nonsense is a waste of your time and mine.

 

 

15 hours ago, KeyOfDavid said:

If you can use your competence to critique Sheldrake's remarks on his investigation of how G is determined, then it might help a great deal.

I thought I already had.
 

  

19 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It's a little beside the point. There have been plenty of measurements since his day.

 

15 hours ago, KeyOfDavid said:

I am none the wiser.

There may be more than one reason for that.

[KeyOfDavid]

On 2/24/2023 at 1:16 PM, John Cuthber said:

I thought I already had.

If you can't say why his arguments are wrong, but merely attack his credentials, you have explained nothing. It merely proves your own bias.

 

On 2/23/2023 at 10:48 PM, swansont said:

 k = 2 (or -1) are the only solutions that have closed orbits  (Bertrand’s theorem)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand's_theorem

Possibly relevant, but I'm not assuming the orbits are stable.

But there are papers that do examine the stability of 1/r orbits as that law, sometimes called MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) is what is predominantly observed outside the solar system.

[John Cuthber]

28 minutes ago, KeyOfDavid said:

If you can't say why his arguments are wrong, but merely attack his credentials, you have explained nothing. It merely proves your own bias.

And if I did point out why he's wrong and you ignore that simple fact, it shows that you are not here to do science.
And here's where I point it out.
 

 

On 2/24/2023 at 1:16 PM, John Cuthber said:

 

On 2/23/2023 at 5:57 PM, John Cuthber said:

It's a little beside the point. There have been plenty of measurements since his day.

More importantly; I'm not attacking his credentials as a physicist.
I am pointing out that he has no credentials as a physicist.

His video is no more "valid" than a high street butcher telling you that physics is wrong.
The difference is that the butcher does a useful job.
 At 11 min 22 sec or so he says that he doesn't understand the measurements.
At 12:57 he says G has varied in recent years.
How is he defining "recent"?

But the point is moot.
The "measured" values change- it's called experimental error.
That's not the same as saying the actual values change, is it?

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

3 hours ago, KeyOfDavid said:

Possibly relevant, but I'm not assuming the orbits are stable.

And why not? We have independent evidence that the earth is >4 billion years old. That would make a stable orbit necessary, and relevant to the issue you raised.

 

3 hours ago, KeyOfDavid said:

But there are papers that do examine the stability of 1/r orbits as that law, sometimes called MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) is what is predominantly observed outside the solar system.

Then open a new thread to discuss MOND. Be sure to include the problems, like how MOND doesn’t work at all scales. 

3 hours ago, KeyOfDavid said:

you can't say why his arguments are wrong, but merely attack his credentials, you have explained nothing. It merely proves your own bias.

His arguments are suspect. He says that the error bars on c are in the decimal places, referring to a 1945 result, but the state of the art in 1950 was 299792.5±3.0 km/s

This is one reason we restrict the use of video - it’s hard to check references.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

If he’s BS-ing about that, there’s no confidence he’s not BS-ing about other claims.

So: don’t rely on some video. We want links to actual scientific results.

(also: how is this a “banned” talk if we can see it? Banned by whom? More BS)

edit: This has an extensive list of measurements of c; a lot of them have error bars, and most are large in the pre-1950 values (table 1; also see fig 3)

The value might easily differ by 20 km/s, but (as with the observation John Cuthber made about G) if the differences are consistent with the experimental error, you can’t legitimately say it changed — unless you’re trying to pull a fast one

https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_ANSO_132_0359--determining-the-speed-of-light.htm