Science > Physics > The inconstancy of the "Universal Gravitational Constant".
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Rolf Guthmann" |
| Date: |
24 Mar 2005 07:10:08 PM |
| Object: |
The inconstancy of the "Universal Gravitational Constant". |
The universal gravitational constant ("G"), with an official value
of 6.6726 x 10-11 and the strange units of m3.kg-1.s-2 (distance cubed
divided by the product of mass by time squared), is the oldest constant
in physics, but has proved to be the most difficult to determine. Most
physical constants are precise to more than 8 decimal places, but
values found for "G" differ shortly after the third decimal place
and sometimes before. No precise value has yet been determined, and
every time a new team of researchers sets out to establish it with new
and modern equipment, different values are found.
We will now see how a range of experimental results or gravitational
anomalies question the validity of Newton's universal law of
gravitation. This law states that the gravitational force between two
bodies is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely
proportional to the square of the distance between them. To obtain the
force of attraction between them, it is also necessary to multiply by
"G".
F.D. Stacey and G.J. Tuck's 1981 study, "Geophysical evidence for
non-Newtonian gravity" (Nature, v. 292, 1981, pp. 230-232.), shows
that measurements performed under the sea, in deep mineshafts and in
similar locations give results up to 1% higher than the official value,
and that the deeper the location, the higher the value of "G".
From chapter 2 of the QTG, we know that the higher the density of the
material surrounding the experiment location, the greater the
definition of the time reference or the present. Heavy atoms contain
more electrons, and we know that for each electron there is an
accompanying acceleration or gravitation vector, like a shadow, and
that these generate the gravitational field, as shown in chapter 8. As
atoms that are very closely associated temporally generate less gravity
(exactly the opposite of the situation shown in chapter 7, where space
probes leave the solar system), it is necessary to increase the value
of "G" to compensate for the missing force.
Charles F. Brush's 1924 study, "Some new experiments in
gravitation" (Proceedings of the American Philosophy Society, v. 63,
pp. 57-61.) with its extremely detailed photographic analysis, shows
that metallic bodies with heavier, denser atoms tend to fall more
rapidly or with greater gravitational force than do bodies of the same
mass but with lower density or lower atomic number.
Chapter 8 of the QTG shows that atoms with many electrons generate a
more uniform gravitational field, which also confers a greater
attractive force, because the lighter the atom, the less uniform the
gravitational field generated by the inertia vectors associated with
the electrons. In the hydrogen atom, this generation is unilateral and
lacks geometric equilibrium, which may be one of the reasons for it
being difficult to manipulate. This case certainly reveals a very
subtle gravitational difference, but one sufficiently large for Brush
to be able to detect it with photons.
In 1798, Henry Cavendish published an experiment in Philosophical
Transactions that has been challenging the world of physics for over
200 years. Using a sensitive torsion balance to determine the
gravitational constant, he discovered that heating the spheres produced
a considerable increase in the attraction between them (see Stephen
Mooney, "From the cause of gravity to the revolution of science",
Apeiron, 1999, pp. 138-141). Since then, the experiment has been
repeated countless times, in high vacuum chambers, using the most
modern measuring equipment. Despite the powerful arsenal of
contemporary physics, efforts to explain the phenomenon have been
unconvincing.
We know that heated metals radiate electromagnetic waves or photons,
and that this is accompanied by electrons changing orbits or an
increase in free electrons that lodge in the crystalline structure of
the metal, as in the case of a tungsten filament conducting an electric
current. Each time an electron is dispersed, as shown in chapter 8 of
the QTG, it leave a space in the atom, increasing the imbalance between
the nuclear forces. The electron remains nearby, maintaining the
electrical neutrality of the material, but, for this short period of
time, we find an increased coulomb force in the atomic nucleus, which
generates more gravity. The QTG shows that we must consider the time
reference in relation to the nucleus.
Each year, further examples of gravitational anomalies appear to
challenge Newton's laws, mainly in astronomy, such as the complex
orbits of the outer planets or Saturn's thousands of controversial
rings. Whenever an experiment suggests a slight disparity with the
expected value, the scientific community attributes the difference to
experimental error, so as not to compromise the sacred and conservative
laws of Newton.
Experiments for measuring "G" are carried out on the surface of a
sphere with billions and billions of atoms, which we call Earth, whose
dimensions are gigantic in relation to the bodies used in the studies,
with the result that there is a tiny margin for experimental detection
of the gravity generated by them. The experimental bodies simply suffer
the implacable action of that gigantic gravitational field.
This disproportion of planetary dimensions has delayed an understanding
of the true nature of gravity for over 200 years. As can be seen, the
gravitational effects of the Newtonian theory and those of the new
theory, the QTG, are very similar, because the proportional difference
between them is almost imperceptible. In the first, gravity is a
consequence of the mere presence of mass, while in the second it
results from the relative difference of the nuclear forces generated by
the electrons associated with the atoms. In fact, the number of
electrons involved in the QTG is proportional to the amount of mass in
the Newtonian model. Bearing this in mind, we find a subtle difference
only under very precise experimental conditions. On the other hand,
chapter 7 of the QTG shows that these differences are accentuated in
the case of large distances where the time reference is significant.
In the following SITE http://www.geocities.com/rolfguthmann/ we will
demonstrate how gravity can be found in atoms and the importance of
time.
.
|
|
| User: "John Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconstancy of the "Universal Gravitational Constant". |
01 Apr 2005 02:25:45 PM |
|
|
"Rolf Guthmann" <rolfguthmann@uol.com.br> wrote in message
news:1111713008.914799.25710@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The universal gravitational constant ("G"), with an official value
of 6.6726 x 10-11 and the strange units of m3.kg-1.s-2 (distance cubed
divided by the product of mass by time squared), is the oldest constant
in physics, but has proved to be the most difficult to determine. Most
physical constants are precise to more than 8 decimal places, but
values found for "G" differ shortly after the third decimal place
and sometimes before. No precise value has yet been determined, and
every time a new team of researchers sets out to establish it with new
and modern equipment, different values are found.
You don't think that might have something to do with
gravity being roughly 40 orders of magnitude than the electric
force? Why not try doing a back of the envelope calculation
on how much of an electric dipole you'd need to offset the
gravitational force ...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconstancy of the "Universal Gravitational Constant". |
25 Mar 2005 03:29:50 PM |
|
|
Rolf Guthmann wrote:
The universal gravitational constant ("G"), with an official value
of 6.6726 x 10-11 and the strange units of m3.kg-1.s-2 (distance cubed
divided by the product of mass by time squared), is the oldest constant
in physics, but has proved to be the most difficult to determine. Most
physical constants are precise to more than 8 decimal places, but
values found for "G" differ shortly after the third decimal place
and sometimes before. No precise value has yet been determined, and
every time a new team of researchers sets out to establish it with new
and modern equipment, different values are found.
If you are going to be a spewing idiot, at least be an informed
spewing idiot:
6.674215x10^(-11) m^3/kg-s^2
Phys. Rev. Lett. 85(14) 2869 (2000)
Science 288(5468) 944 (2000)
6.67407x10^(-11) m^3/kg-s^2
Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 16102 (2002)
You aren't even close.
We will now see how a range of experimental results or gravitational
anomalies question the validity of Newton's universal law of
gravitation.
[snip]
Idiot. Physical reality works to spec - not to your spec, of course,
but to intelligent men's specs.
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0405262
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0307284
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
Charles F. Brush's 1924 study, "Some new experiments in
gravitation" (Proceedings of the American Philosophy Society, v. 63,
pp. 57-61.) with its extremely detailed photographic analysis, shows
that metallic bodies with heavier, denser atoms tend to fall more
rapidly or with greater gravitational force than do bodies of the same
mass but with lower density or lower atomic number.
1924! Fucking pathetic. All chemical compositions of matter fall
identically to at least one part in ten trillion difference/average by
demonstration,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
In 1798, Henry Cavendish published an experiment in Philosophical
Transactions that has been challenging the world of physics for over
200 years.
1798? They didn't even have... well ***** howdy, Alessandro Volta
didn't wang together the first battery until 1799,
<http://www.ieee.org/organizations/history_center/milestones_photos/volta.html>
Experiments for measuring "G" are carried out on the surface of a
sphere with billions and billions of atoms, which we call Earth, whose
dimensions are gigantic in relation to the bodies used in the studies,
with the result that there is a tiny margin for experimental detection
of the gravity generated by them. The experimental bodies simply suffer
the implacable action of that gigantic gravitational field.
Gravity Probe-B, fuckwad. The satellite contains one ping-pong
ball-sized gyroball in drag-free perfect free fall about the Earth.
The other three gyroballs, a total of two anti-parallel 10,000 rpm
spin pairs at 2 K plus their massive stationary housing at ambnet
temp, coast along with it. Where does that leave your argument?
Here, have a look for yourself,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
From your public embarassment of a website,
"This new physical interpretation uses elegant, simple, creative
mathematics"
Wrong. No backgroundless theory can use anything simpler than
tensors. No theory with a coordinate background can be correct,
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
Idiot.
"The gravitational anomaly discovered by Eugene Podkletnov"
Discredited by NASA, amongst others. Irreproducible. Lies.
Podkletnov's "observations" were caused by atmospheric composition and
temperature gradients re liquid nitrogen offgassing and boyancy, plus
plebeian personal incompetence.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rolf Guthmann" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconstancy of the "Universal Gravitational Constant". |
25 Mar 2005 08:24:04 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al
I don't get to understand the reason because you didn't still win a
Nobel prize.
Rolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconstancy of the "Universal Gravitational Constant". |
25 Mar 2005 09:29:24 PM |
|
|
Rolf Guthmann wrote:
Uncle Al
I don't get to understand the reason because you didn't still win a
Nobel prize.
I didn't buy a ticket.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The inconstancy of the "Universal Gravitational Constant". |
24 Mar 2005 07:22:23 PM |
|
|
Rolf Guthmann wrote:
The universal gravitational constant ("G"), with an official value
of 6.6726 x 10-11 and the strange units of m3.kg-1.s-2 (distance cubed
divided by the product of mass by time squared), is the oldest constant
in physics, but has proved to be the most difficult to determine. Most
physical constants are precise to more than 8 decimal places, but
values found for "G" differ shortly after the third decimal place
and sometimes before. No precise value has yet been determined, and
every time a new team of researchers sets out to establish it with new
and modern equipment, different values are found.
Your ***** has been discredited many times. Thanks, Guth, for
registering at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22guth++%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
