Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Thank you Q-reeus for your reply I appreciate and value your observations.The predictions of GR are indeed still being intensively researched
Alex
Thank you Q-reeus for your reply I appreciate and value your observations.The predictions of GR are indeed still being intensively researched
So it was settled before they realised the Universe was more than the Milly Way?It has been a closed package from the outset in 1915-16.
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_universeSo 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....
Thank you Q-reeus.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. It was shown to be unstable, something AE himself didn't notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe
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 aI thought about and developed my idea for some five years before someone pointed out that Le Sage first presented the idea in 1745.
Thank you.Like your style of writing.
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...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?
I doubt it.would that not require the rewriting of the squared distance rule?
In calculations I'we prove that "point mass" do not work on closer distances of bodies and Nevton's theory is outdated (but read like the bible).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 more2 .how attraction could work.
It seemed to me that between two masses there would have to be a message sent and returned as it were to effect the force we call attraction.
I concluded attraction may not exist and that all particles may do is interact very basically such that rather than convey a message they simply may bounch off each other and gravity may be the result of more particles coming from one direction than another.
I could rationalise that gravity was perhaps a form of pressure or an outside force as opposed to an attraction coming from within a mass.
We observe dark matter via rotation curves of galaxies which as our models are built upon an assumption gravity works via attraction.
General relativity however I believe models gravity as a bending of space without need of a force.
However it is a model and I wonder that if gravity was regarded as an external pushing force would that approach not be more likely to produce the rotation curves we observe without a need for dark matter.
In other words would, on the face of it, in a pressure style or push environment would not our observations be more consistent with a force from outside than from inside the galaxy.
The only science principle I could invoke may be ...for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Has anyone else here thought about this along similar lines...more to come
Alex
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.In calculations I'we prove that "point mass" do not work on closer distances of bodies
I have never heard of anyone reading Newton's writtings as a Bible.and Nevton's theory is outdated (but read like the bible).
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.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....
Just two questions.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
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.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?
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"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.
So at least you assume spherically symmetric field for a point mass.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....
????? Shell theorem again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem...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.
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.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.
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.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)
https://www.facebook.com/timomoilanen2/
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.Please point to, in that article, precisely where you claim that straightforward derivation 'breaks down'
A difficult read to decipher. My best guess summary of your basic argument: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 )
That could mean just about anything.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....
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.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.
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.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.