Proof that Gravitational Constant is not constant

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

  1. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,797
    What a waste of band width...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    12,565,590. Computer put itself to sleep after 12,565,590 loops, GB2 still declining and the orbital period still decreasing, so it is looking good.
    Actual proof that Einstein's postulate of constant G throughout all space and time a waste of bandwidth! He would be turning in his coffin when you say something as irreverent as that. Go bathe in the river Ganges. Wash your mouth out with soap.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,797
    That's not what you are doing. You demonstrating that you do not understand significant figures and error. You are writting macros that compound errors by doing a bazzilion loops - it means nothing. It is like weighing 20 nickels on a bathroom scale and dividing it by 6.02 X 10^23 to get the mass of a nickel atom.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    But the thing is, I don't really believe you know what I am doing. Have you followed the macro step by step? In your example that might give you a rough estimate of the mass of a nickel atom. And when you compare that result to lead, you would be well able to say an atom of lead is more massive than nickel. That is the level I am working at? broad brush, but so far the force of gravity has kept on declining as the stars approach each other. Will the same progression continue right to the end.
     
  8. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,797
    Well that would put us on equal footing then.

    Of course not. Crap in = crap out, I do not need (nor want) to inspect the sphincter.

    [sarcasm]Ah, science at it's best.[/sarcasm]

    Hmmm, as 2 stars approach each other the gravity decreases. Do you, by chance, detect a problem with this scenario?
     
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Unbelievable. You're witnessing the birth of the dumbest crank I've ever seen. He went from just being scientific illiterate to the dumbest crank I've ever come across in ~ 6 months. According to his analysis the binary system PRS1913+16 will stay in the same orbit until the end of time. So John Taylor and Russell Hulse should return their Nobel. I wonder how he can tie his shoes.
     
  10. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Progress report:
    4.651214700000000E+07 counterX out of the expect 389 million! will there be any gravity left at this rate when they clash?
    -7.837577982723150E+23 power2 Watts
    -1.365318505070890E+41 emech joules
    5.818810268288730E-11 Gb2 down from 6.7384E-11
    1.685632085212420E+09 ab2 down from 1.949138400000000E+09 meters
    2.403301353287600E+04 T2 down from 2.790697958755200E+04 seconds
     
  11. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I notice you are beginning to suffer from dementia BruceP or else how can you say such things? Where did you get "the binary system PRS1913+16 will stay in the same orbit until the end of time" from? Nothing like I've been saying at all.
     
  12. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Gravity = "G" declines as gravitational radiation operates, but the total gravitational force increases as the masses approach of course. For there has to be a balance of the inertial mass forces as they orbit each other. If G declined too rapidly you might expect them to fly apart, but I have spent 8 or so pages showing that can't happen unless the gravitational energy debt is repaid. Flying apart would only happen if there was a way to provide huge amounts of mechanical energy into the system.
     
  13. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,797
    Gravity declines as gravitational radiation operates, but the total gravitational force increases as the masses approach?

    WTF is that suppose to mean?????
     
  14. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Progress after 66,468,453 years,
    5.473688606746400E-11, = Gb2, 6.672132375600000E-11, 0.820380697
    1.579712578913460E+09, = ab2, 1.949138400000000E+09, 0.810467117
    2.248061646604010E+04, = T2, 2.790697958755200E+04, 0.805555341

    Interesting that the movement in all three variables are moving at roughly the same rate all about 18 - 19% lower. At this rate it will take just less than 3.50E+08 years to orbital collapse.
     
  15. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    gravitational force depends on mass whereas G is a proportional constant. (not totally constant). F = GM1M2/r^2 so the force has many components, but G is the link between the force experienced and the M1M2/r^2 ratio. So "total gravitational force increases as the masses approach" because r is getting shorter, and M1 M2 are staying constant.
     
  16. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,797
    So you meant to say, "The gravitational constant declines as gravitational radiation operates, but the total gravitational force increases as the masses approach of course".

    But you have no evidence that the gravitational constant decreases, and cannot determine any changes in the constant with your approach. This has been pointed out to you by a couple of different people. They have explained why you cannot detect a change of the level that you think you see. Why do you persist, do you think they are wrong?
     
  17. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    He thinks the gravitational radiation associated with the binary pulsars is radiating away gravitational attraction [G] rather than orbital energy. He doesn't realize how dumb his conclusions are because his metacognitive skills are non existent. He knows no physics and he doesn't realize his macro is only as smart as the person who programs it. The perfect crank making storm. When he started posting at physforum he was posting ~ 300 times a day. Saying nothing of interest. Chat room fodder. Now he's progressed to this.
     
  18. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    When you try and explain something quite new it can be difficult to describe it adequately. I don't use the words "gravitational constant" for it is not actually anything but a linkage, it is the actual strength of gravity that is declining rather than G but G is what is used to gauge the strength.
    The reasons used to explain why it can't be done were wrong. They would rather just say the orbital period formula does work rather than admit the simple answer is that G has a lesser value in the binary. AN's main objection was that I wasn't using errors in the measurements, but once I pointed out the binary measures G to a much higher degree than can be done in any Earth bound experiment.
    I experimented using error corrections and it can be applied retrospectively. The main thrust of the research goes on in the meantime. Once I get an idea of what could be happening, I will then look at other binary systems to see if they are under the same effects. Early days yet.
     
  19. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    You have totally lost the plot Bruce. 300 posts per day what a joke! Some of what you say is true but you have to remember I am in the process of trying to work this out, so what I said last week may have been superseded by more recent insights.
    "He thinks the gravitational radiation associated with the binary pulsars is radiating away gravitational attraction [G] rather than orbital energy." is close but what I say now is that orbital energy is used to repay the potential energy debt so G declines. In this process energy is released as gravitational radiation.

    Describing it more accurately is what I'm trying to do, for it really is a work in progress. Were there errors in my theory? That is why I'm trying to follow this macro right to the point the stars collide.
     
  20. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Progress report: ETA 353,620,618.9 years so it appears as the date of collision is falling back as the star get closer! That is weird! 88,569,721 years accounted for so far.
    PS: The amount it falls per year keeps on increasing so the time to collision must be becoming quicker too.
    95431610 -5.4350878 m/year
    96761906 -5.439894796 m/year
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  21. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Progress report: In 113 million years time:
    4.646570507194170E-11, Gb2, 6.672132375600000E-11, 0.6964, proportion remaining.
    1.327582665571500E+09, ab2, 1.949138400000000E+09, 0.6811, proportion remaining.
    1.879780929348090E+04, T2, 2.790697958755200E+04, 0.6736, proportion remaining.

    Isn't this strange that gravity (Gb2) is declining at a slower rate than the separation (ab2). Orbital Period (T2) declining fastest of them all. One thing I have not been able to alter is the eccentricity of the elliptical orbits. If the orbits circularize the resultant figures would be slightly different. Something to think about later.
     
  22. tesla2 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11
    gravitation is not constant has relation with
    solar system velocity in universe
     
  23. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Why limit it to the velocity of the solar system? So was that just a comment out of the blue or are you agreeing with my concept, that it is gravity that changes .... lost for words for I haven't fully understood it yet.
     

Share This Page