# Proof that Gravitational Constant is not constant

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Robittybob1, Oct 12, 2012.

1. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
For those who have worked macros would know , there is a huge investment of short term memory involved in their processing and it is hard to go back into them. I've been working across a few computers and with the effects of the stroke lingering I was getting quite confused as to where I had got up to. Coming right and will give it another go soon. I am thinking I must have overestimated the reduction in G for it appeared at the current rate that when the stars collided all their gravitation would have gone as well and that would make no sense at all.

3. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
Would this apply to the question here in the same way you are applying it in your Binary System, do you think? Would the same math proposed agree in the Galaxy Rotation Problem as well?

Notes from Wiki: "In theoretical physics, the nonsymmetric gravitational theory[1] (NGT) of John Moffat is a classical theory of gravitation which tries to explain the observation of the flat rotation curves of galaxies.

In general relativity, the gravitational field is characterized by a symmetric rank-2 tensor, the metric tensor. The possibility of generalizing the metric tensor has been considered by many, including Einstein and others. A general (nonsymmetric) tensor can always be decomposed into a symmetric and an antisymmetric part. As the electromagnetic field is characterized by an antisymmetric rank-2 tensor, there is an obvious possibility for a unified theory: a nonsymmetric tensor composed of a symmetric part representing gravity, and an antisymmetric part that represents electromagnetism. Research in this direction ultimately proved fruitless; the desired classical unified field theory was not found.

In 1979, Moffat made the observation[2] that the antisymmetric part of the generalized metric tensor need not necessarily represent electromagnetism; it may represent a new, hypothetical force. Later, in 1995, Moffat noted[1] that the field corresponding with the antisymmetric part need not be massless, like the electromagnetic (or gravitational) fields.

In its original form, the theory may be unstable, although this has only been shown in the case of the linearized version.[3][4]

In the weak field approximation where interaction between fields is not taken into account, NGT is characterized by a symmetric rank-2 tensor field (gravity), an antisymmetric tensor field, and a constant characterizing the mass of the antisymmetric tensor field. The antisymmetric tensor field is found to satisfy the equations of a Maxwell-Proca massive antisymmetric tensor field. This led Moffat to propose Metric Skew Tensor Gravity (MSTG),[5] in which a skew symmetric tensor field postulated as part of the gravitational action.

A newer version of MSTG, in which the skew symmetric tensor field was replaced by a vector field, is Scalar-tensor-vector gravity (STVG). STVG, like Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), can provide an explanation for flat rotation curves of galaxies."

I found a paper on this, but am not authorized to view it.

Here is the link to it. Perhaps someone who is authorized to view this database can share some key points. There are several other solotions offered in the journals, but this one was closest to what you are working on. Some solutions support Dark Matter and some do not. I realize that is not at all your focus, but I found it interesting. Some modify the orbits in strange ways, others show evidence of a possible third object; i.e. missing mass.

Messages:
4,199

Messages:
290

Messages:
4,199

Messages:
290
10. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Thanks Scott. Did you agree with it? All lining up on the MOND expected line (as mentioned in the YouTube) I'm watching what's on YouTube to get the feel for the topic at this stage.

11. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
Yes. I mean, it looks very good considering the sample size and the clear divergence from the ACDM prediction shown. They chose the gas-dominated galaxies to try and separate observations from the models, so the test shows a good match with these very particular examples. I wish they would go on to make the same comparison with star dominated spirals. There may be a slight amount more scatter, but I bet they still fit the MOND prediction better. The test they did would lead to that conclusion I think.

So MOND can solve the DI Herculis question AND give one sensible, and mathematical, solution to the Galaxy Rotation Problem without requiring additional non-Baryonic mass. However, we still have the Bullet Cluster to look at then, as briefly stated in the publication. The overall mass estimate has been reduced by quite a large margin, I think, if they have indeed successfully separated their initial data from the ACDM. This will likely fail to be a good fit with the Gravitational Lensing observations without the overall mass being equal.

Two good examples though, I think.

12. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Think about how this could happen "CID-42: Simulation of Black Hole Ejection"

13. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
To get a black hole to exceed the escape velocity of another black hole takes a bit of imagination. Does this concept support my contention that the action of black holes orbiting each other can result in the gravitational attraction between them being less and the escape velocity being lowered? Does the orbital spiral inward provide enough additional velocity to exceed the now lowered escape velocity?
For normally the loss of orbital mechanical energy can never be regained. OK the Moon is tidally accelerated but nowhere near to the escape velocity. Planetary perturbations could cause eccentric orbital motions but to escape velocity speed? No I haven't heard of it!

14. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
I love the animation. What I see is a pendulum. Extreme forces seem to have destroyed the two Black Holes, and then they have recollected. At the very end of the animation, is one mass ejected, creating a ‘binary’ Black Hole? It’s interesting, for sure, but velocity can be replaced by force?
As far as your equivalence principle, and energy conservation; I want to add to your equations somehow, the electromagnetic energy that is lost, and or gained, by the myriad of photons that interact with a given mass.

It is no secret, I have been studying the Gravitational effects on Time in our equations, but there is also the Gravitational Redshift which happens to light as it enters, or exits a Gravitational field. It has been briefly discussed throughout the forums here, that the Doppler shift, as an artifact of velocity, can only be compared to, or observed from a differential relationship from one frame to another. We don’t care, or cannot measure, a zero mark, to be able to witness this Doppler Effect, unless there is a relative velocity between one object (observer) toward another. The correlating Redshift, or Blue shift, can only be measured, or witnessed if there is a relationship between one object and another. Relative to our frame, either moving toward us (blue shift) or away from us (redshift) as the wavelength of light stretches from our perspective, but only if we are behind, and chasing the object being observed.

Now… Gravitational Redshift (or GTD) can be calculated from what I would like to call initial state. The fast ticking observer referenced in the GTD equation, for example, is the fast ticking observer in ZERO Gravitational influence. The KTD or kinematic Time Dilation is a result only of relative, or relationship, motion; therefore, the initial state cannot be calculated. We do not know where sitting still (zero velocity) exists in the cosmos, so we have no equation to eliminate this. We are simply unable to measure velocity from, nowhere, which is simply the truth of the matter.

We say that; when photons, who are created through the fusion of Hydrogen atoms within a star’s nucleus, exit or enter Gravitational influence along their path that they shed, or gain energy, in the Gravitational field. They gain energy as they enter, and they shed energy as they leave. This gain or loss of energy is calculable, and has an independent equation from the one we were using for Time Dilation, but the equation also has the benefits of being derived in GR, and not SR. This again is important because in GR we know where the ZERO, initial state exists. It is where there is no Gravity/or inertial velocity. It is the same state.

The Redshift or Blue shift can still only be viewed, or witnessed, in relativistic manor. We can only witness the change in wavelength along the photon’s journey, as we compare out Gravitational influence with the others, but the energy transference, must happen whether or not we are collecting data. Else the tree in the forest cannot have made a noise, unless we heard it? This is not the case. The vibrations created by the tree falling are real, and will create the sound waves weather or not we are there to hear it. It is a physical demand.

The energy gained (borrowed from somewhere) as photons have entered Gravity, and the energy lost as photons continue and leave the gravity, must happen even without our observing each particular photon. The photons that we collect with our light cones in our eyes are only a tiny portion of the photons (radiation) created, that continue in all directions from their creation until they are either absorbed, or reflected. What could this mean for your energy loss, or gain from the gravitational waves that surely are not 100% constant. After all we have energy=mass=and the speed of light that must equate. Gravity, could have to bow, if Time is not enough to account for the solution. I would rather change Time first, then, Gravity, then the others are solid constants.

Last edited: Mar 6, 2013
15. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Force equals mass times acceleration (algebra) f = m/a
Inserting that into Torricelli's equation
V^2 = U^2 + 2*a* delta X where delta X is the change in position (distance moved during application of the force), and U is the initial velocity. V is final velocity.

V^2 = U^2 + 2*(F/m)* delta X
so you are correct that force and velocity are linked via the mass being accelerated.

Maybe Tashja can explain how the black hole gains sufficient velocity to escape?