Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Xelasnave.1947, Apr 22, 2017.
Thank you Q-reeus for your reply I appreciate and value your observations.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
So it was settled before they realised the Universe was more than the Milly Way?
I posted the following elsewhere here and when doing so it occurred to me strange that GR was established before they thought of the universe as more than the Milky Way.
From Wiki when google Island Universe.
The Great Debate, also called the Shapley–Curtis Debate, was held on 26 April 1920 at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, between the astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis. It concerned the nature of so-called spiral nebulae and the size of the universe; Shapley believed that distant nebulae were relatively small and lay within the outskirts of the Earth's home galaxy, while Curtis held that they were in fact independent galaxies, implying that they were exceedingly large and distant.
The two scientists first presented independent technical papers about "The Scale of the Universe" during the day and then took part in a joint discussion that evening. Much of the lore of the Great Debate grew out of two papers published by Shapley and by Curtis in the May 1921 issue of the Bulletin of the National Research Council. The published papers each included counter arguments to the position advocated by the other scientist at the 1920 meeting.
In the aftermath of the public debate, scientists have been able to verify individual pieces of evidence from both astronomers but on the main point of the existence of other galaxies, Curtis has been proven correct.
Shapley was arguing in favor of the Milky Way as the entirety of the then known universe. He believed that "spiral nebulae" such as Andromeda were simply part of the Milky Way. He could back up this claim by citing relative sizes—if Andromeda were not part of the Milky Way, then its distance must have been on the order of 108 light years—a span most astronomers would not accept. Adriaan van Maanen was also providing evidence to Shapley's argument. Van Maanen was a well-respected astronomer of the time who claimed he had observed the Pinwheel Galaxy rotating. If the Pinwheel Galaxy were in fact a distinct galaxy and could be observed to be rotating on a timescale of years, its orbital velocity would be enormous and there would clearly be a violation of the universal speed limit, the speed of light. Also used to back up his claims was the observation of a nova in the Andromeda "nebula" that had briefly outshone the entire nebula, constituting a seemingly impossible output of energy were Andromeda in fact a separate galaxy.
Curtis on the other side contended that Andromeda and other such "nebulae" were separate galaxies, or "island universes" (a term invented by the 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant, who also believed that the "spiral nebulae" were extragalactic). He showed that there were more novae in Andromeda than in the Milky Way. From this he could ask why there were more novae in one small section of the galaxy than the other sections of the galaxy, if Andromeda was not a separate galaxy but simply a nebula within the Earth's galaxy. This led to supporting Andromeda as a separate galaxy with its own signature age and rate of nova occurrences. He also cited dark lanes present in other galaxies similar to the dust clouds found in the Earth's own galaxy and massive doppler shifts found in other galaxies.
Curtis stated that if van Maanen's observation of the Pinwheel Galaxy rotating were correct, he himself would have been wrong about the scale of the universe and that the Milky Way would fully encompass it.
After the debateEdit
It later became apparent that van Maanen's observations were incorrect—one can not actually see the Pinwheel Galaxy rotate during a human lifespan.
Due to the work of Edwin Hubble, it is now known that the Milky Way is only one of as many as an estimated 200 billion (2×1011) to 2 trillion (2×1012) or more galaxies(containing more stars than all the grains of sand on planet Earth),proving Curtis the more accurate party in the debate. Also, astronomers generally accept that the nova Shapley referred to in his arguments was in fact a supernova, which does indeed temporarily outshine the combined output of an entire galaxy. On other points, the results were mixed (the actual size of the Milky Way is in between the sizes proposed by Shapley and Curtis), or in favor of Shapley (Curtis' galaxy was centered on the Sun, while Shapley correctly placed the Sun in the outer regions of the galaxy).
Einstein's cosmological constant was the sole fudge factor in his final equations. Meant to justify his initial belief in an eternal and static universe. Such a universe was shown to be unstable, something AE himself didn't notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe
Thank you Q-reeus.
Like your style of writing. did not take the time to read all comments, but:
Thinking of the experiments to establish the Gravitational constant by having objects of known mass deflected from the perpendicular
If you thought of the pushing force radiating in all directions, as generated by thrust of rocket engines ( this is alternate rocket science ), would not the effect become more pronounced as the opposing rockes got closer, closed the escape of the gases? If the pushing force came from the outside mass of the universe at large , ( kind of like the Casimir effect), would that not require the rewriting of the squared distance rule?
happened to me, took out a patent 40 years ago on a mouse milk propulsion method I thought was original, to discover 2 years ago it was based on a
1901 theory by Yarkovsky. Even the patent examiner (not an Einstein), did not cite that prior art to refuse the patent.
I understand your concern however think of it this way...like little pool balls rushing everywhere but only a small percentage even inter act with matter so although a huge number only a few interact...
I doubt it.
But I think it would be difficult to fit the idea with math because you would need to get down how each pool ball acts all at once.
In calculations I'we prove that "point mass" do not work on closer distances of bodies and Nevton's theory is outdated (but read like the bible). After calculating the new value to 7.46*10^-11 and revision of the legendary F=MG/r^2 formula I found that furthermore than a 11% offset it is not a constant at all. The kg^2 infeaciblity and prospect for a "better" suited "new constant" (could not invent G again) led me to find out that it is 1. And 1 being the constant of all times I call the former G now Ti ( indifferent conversion factor to work in all (3) dimensions). One Ti=c^2/(2*1000*Na) , where speed of light and Avogadro's constant are hardly new ( 1000=1000mol/kmol). So there is no magic constant and kind of "everything" is 11% off (times every G used) and the need of dark matter and such I hope at least is scrutinized when calculations are redone. One thing looks sure , weight and gravity is absolutely bound to the number of protons and neutrons involved. But the biggest new I found is that Gauss theorems do not apply as such .(Maybe they are too simplified in other science too) Sorry for my bad writing. Essence of gravitation FB <https://www.facebook.com/timomoilanen2/notifications/>find more
It is well known that you can't use a point mass calculations if the object isn't a point mass. It is generally used as an approximation anyway.
I have never heard of anyone reading Newton's writtings as a Bible.
Newton's theories on gravity have been superseded by general relativity, had you not heard?
Assuming a rigid spherically symmetric mass distribution, it can be treated as a point mass located at the center of mass in Newtonian gravity In GR it is an extremely good approximation unless strong gravity applies and two such comparable masses are in close proximity.
Just two questions.
1: Does the gravitational 'g-field' emanating from an infinitesimal element of mass have a strictly radial and spherically symmetric 1/r^2 form?
2: Do the contributions from all such infinitesimal elements, together constituting some arbitrary mass distribution, sum in a strictly linear manner - i.e. is your theory linear?
Yes every smallest element (proton /neutron )or a subelement of them are the only point masses (till inside the atom , nucleus radi/distance small <1/10).Two atoms beside each other are about 99% like a point mass when distance some 10 times their mutual distance . By my understanding the gravity must be equal and symmetric in all directions from an element. When adding the elements (vectors) the left over 1-cos(a) do not disappear like assumed nowadays in Cavendish type measurements at ca. 1.5 R distance from the source mass , ending up in about 0.9 Ti.
My theory differs only by accounting for the "crossing" vectors especially at close distance . All longer distances (all celestial objects ) the k-value is "exactly" 1 but the force Ti/G= 1.11 to 1.12 times bigger (depending on what G-value is "elected". The "linearity"1/r^2 is diminished close to the bodies and depend strictly on their shape , elongated or thinner (discs) have smaller gravity force (the average direction sum) at closer dist. but are equal to mass points at far dist. This mean that I strictly do not see any possibility for some kind of "force channeling " like with magnetism .What comes to Gauss's theories , that the field on surface of a sphere is exactly mass times a mystic constant G divided R^2 is not possible by my meaning . It is exactly 2/3 times mass and conversion factor (Ti) divided R^2. As proof would be calculating 200 years of experiments . but I do not have access to data . The distance between the spheres is necessary (no average will do) . By using k-factor calculations will give an exact Ti , in contrast to a never to be found G.And besides G =Ti/(k1*k2). The k-value is a function of the ratio r/R (distance/radius)
And I say the approximation is too "general " to give any useful calcs., and worst of all the approx. have led to a G value 11% too small . The strength of gravity is only a multiplier of masses. The relative distance r/R is crucial (gravity does not "understand"meters or yards) , and on shorter than r/R =10 nowadays approx are way off. And considering there are no mystic G constant correcting the universe is speaking for the sake of just substituting the units to match "modern times"
So at least you assume spherically symmetric field for a point mass.
????? Shell theorem again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
Please point to, in that article, precisely where you claim that straightforward derivation 'breaks down'.
Seems you have set up a straw man to knock down. Or are you not aware that shape effects locally felt gravity in standard Newtonian gravity also? There is no such thing as an effective point mass equivalent for any geometric shape other than spherically symmetric. Something Newton would have been well aware of.
The trouble for you observationally is how to explain that e.g. Earth satellite orbits - some highly elliptical - are extremely well determined using just Newtonian gravity. With only tiny corrections when GR is employed instead (GPS sync etc.). And for which r/R typically lies within the range 1.1 to 2 or so. Right where you would evidently predict significant departures from a 1/r^2 form for Earth gravity.
And btw in claiming that 1/r^2 law breaks down significantly when r/R < 10 or so, you are claiming a nonlinearity far more severe than for GR in nearly all situations. And which does not depend on strength of gravity but only on geometry - quite bizarre imo.
Integrating the shells separately at sphere surface R=r (allows the angles to be easily calculated) and gives the extremest outside the sphere values . This I have done "semi"arithmetically and that give for the outermost shell Fm=M*(any const)/(2R^2). Inwards the "mass efficiency" goes to over 1 and summing up all shells give exactly Fm= M(any const)/R^2. I also did the integral x,y,z at dist. r (said to be impossible) that also give Volume/r^2. But as the constant cant be different for separate shells I mathematically concluded that the sphere has no special feature and is only the sum of its parts (the cylinder also is slightly "miss interpreted").By an other integral got total "mass drag" at the surface to 3/2 of the cos(a) decimated. So the breakdown will be found by giving r a value r=R or r=1.01R before integration, or like me comparing the integral of separate shells to dM/R^2.
This Fm=2/3MTi/R^2 at surface of a even density sphere also mean that by my initial estimations earth mass is 7-7.2*10^24kg and due to a more dens core earth gravity on surface 0.76*M*Ti (maintaining rotation inertia factor 0.33 and geostat satellites in a few % of hight .The at distance earth gravity is 30 to 32% higher than earlier "expected". An of course rest of universe experience 11-12% more force per mass (where ewer that leads )
On cite <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem#Outside_a_shell> it says "If the mass of the shell is M, one therefore has dM=2piR^2 sinf/(4piR^2)*M df =1/2M sinf df , but I also get the integ. 2pi R^2 sinf df to be 4pi R^2 and therefore dM=M ??????
A difficult read to decipher. My best guess summary of your basic argument:
Close up to any given spherical shell, much of the elemental mass contributions are 'wasted' owing to the relatively large level of field components normal to the radius line between shell center and field point at r. Further out where r/R is large, all shell elemental mass contributions are essentially directed radially - which is 'maximum efficiency' condition.
Well sorry but shell theorem is certainly correct and your 'non radial inefficiencies' are compensated by the 1/r^2 distance bias of shell elemental masses lying close to a radial path. Net result is that each and every shell, taken together forming a solid sphere, adds to give exactly Newtonian result. There is no such thing as 'increasing mass efficiency' in moving to larger r as you imagine. If it were true, there could not be an overall 1/r^2 gravity, valid for all r > R, for any spherical mass.
It's well known the 'anomalous' perihelion advance due to GR nonlinearity can be modeled as a slight departure from strictly 1/r^2 character. See eqns (2) & (3) here:
I won't attempt to follow your calculations through and work out the relatively enormous negative perihelion advance your theory would predict for Earth satellites in elliptical orbits, but undoubtedly it would have shown up as a serious discrepancy long ago if real.
Back to the drawing board!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Just made calculations on spherical shell . Tried a for me never seen approach , and must admit "they" have done the math. ok but I never believed in the shell theorem anyway. With increasing efficiency I simply mean mass particles closer and/or more in direction of the experienced gravity. For longer distance (r)=> cos(a) get to near 1 , and all particles "work" in the same direction. And by the way what was established first , distance to moon or earth mass. Earth's gravity fit badly in with all measures and it would help me much to see some results measured with the probes they use for other planets . Now they are disregarded because we have "own satellites" . I only read that they do only measure other planets mass , coz for earth they are useless . My useless is 18% more earth mass and NASA's probes should have given 30 to 32% bigger GM value.
For elliptic orbits I have new formulas that are spot on with most planet (not Saturn). The small negative energy (Kepler) I would not call negative , coz it explains the last tenth of percents for (times and radius ) of orbits , the interaction between planets do not.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That could mean just about anything.
Which tallies with my own best guess summary last post. And it's wrong since it predicts a large departure from 1/r^2 gravity for, as you write, r < ~ 10R. Especially closer to r = R. Doesn't happen.
Not up to deciphering that passage. Bottom line to contemplate: Except for extremes like inspiraling BH's, or where extreme accuracy is needed e.g. binary pulsar data, celestial and satellite orbital mechanics has been based on Newtonian gravity. Every satellite launch, every space mission including Apollo Moon landings. Worked without fail.
To repeat: any significant departure from Newtonian gravity would have long ago been observed and generated a 'crisis of confidence'. Hasn't happened. Because shell theorem works!
To try and cap this episode off.....
Shell theorem is the direct consequence of a standard vector integration over the entirety of a given spherically symmetric mass shell. It assumes only that superposition principle applies. Which except when gravity is strong, is found to be true to very high precision. And guarantees that 1/r^2 Newtonian gravity holds exterior to any spherically symmetric mass distribution. Regardless of the radial density profile.
Owing to rotation, most celestial bodies are oblate spheroids not perfect spheres. That alone will introduce a quadrupole moment correction to strictly 1/r^2 spherically symmetric gravity, but it's generally small and relatively easily accounted for.
The shell theorem could only be proven in a Cavendish setup experiment using identical outer diameter and same weight source masses , one setup with high density material and largest possible spherical hole in source mass and second setup with low density solid source of same weight .( The same diameters and weights solely to "destabilize" calculation handicapped mainstream scientists .
The "elliptic" shapes of celestial bodies do not concern me , their diameter and rotation absorb the "sun" given potential energy so orbit (speed and radi ) is diminished ( again in miniscule but calculable amount)
Here an rather old estimation of earth gravitation. Mass ruohgly estimated, disregarding the three body problem ) , next will include sun that after all have a 200 times stronger field on earth than the moon (6*10^-3 to 3*10^5 m/s^2)
Hope capping do not mean banning , just ignore me if the alternative theory is too alternative .
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.