Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #358967

Re: Einstein's gravitational constant

Show all headers | View raw

On 07/28/2015 09:43 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 6:11:27 PM UTC-7, pbouc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 07/28/2015 09:07 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>> On 07/27/2015 11:55 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>> On 07/26/2015 11:20 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>> On 07/26/2015 10:50 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/26/2015 10:30 PM, John Heath wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/26/2015 06:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/26/2015 05:45 PM, John Heath wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:10:32 PM UTC-4, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Where is the Einstein's gravitational constant coming from?
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Was this constant tested?  Is it precise?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Phil
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Phil
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For a given frame of reference yes. For a cross reference frame of
>>>>>>>>>> reference measurement no. It is possible the the consistency of the
>>>>>>>>>> speed of light is a relative concept not absolute therefore it
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> follow that the gravitational constant is also not absolute but
>>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>>> a relative concept. By this I mean c , fine structure constant
>>>>>>>>>> and h
>>>>>>>>>> could all be relative concepts not absolute. They will be constant
>>>>>>>>>> from a given FoR but not necessarily from a different cross FoR
>>>>>>>>>> measurement. We know time dilates in a different FoR . A FoR can be
>>>>>>>>>> broadened into a gravitational FoR for G constant and voltage FoR
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> fine structure constant. This was entertained by Uncle Albert for a
>>>>>>>>>> few years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Das Prinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit kann nur
>>>>>>>>>> insofern
>>>>>>>>>> aufrechterhalten werden, als man sich auf für
>>>>>>>>>> Raum-Zeitliche-Gebiete
>>>>>>>>>> mit konstantem Gravitationspotential beschränkt."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ("The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept
>>>>>>>>>> only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant
>>>>>>>>>> gravitational potential.")
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The quote is from wikipedia
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With this in place you are liberated to proceed with your
>>>>>>>>>> solution to
>>>>>>>>>> the outer part of galaxies turning faster than they should. Just
>>>>>>>>>> change the gravitational constant and write it off as a change in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> vacuum therefore gravitational constant is not the same in the
>>>>>>>>>> outer
>>>>>>>>>> regions of galaxies. There is no longer a need for mysterious dark
>>>>>>>>>> matter. I would add that this would not mean that GR is wrong as
>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>> light speed and gravitational constant are not stated as absolute.
>>>>>>>>>> These variables are only absolute from a given FoR be it movement ,
>>>>>>>>>> gravitational or voltage for fine structure constant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You got it!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's next?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are not saying a lot Phil. That's ok as I like to talk. Somehow
>>>>>>> the world seems right when everyone is sitting quietly hanging on to
>>>>>>> my every word of wisdom. Its better that way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's next? The outer part of our galaxy is a long long way to go to
>>>>>>> test for a difference in G constant. However voyager 1 is headed that
>>>>>>> way and is now confirmed to be in interstellar space. Our sun is just
>>>>>>> another star. Rumor has it Voyager is moving faster than it should.
>>>>>>> Current thoughts are the IR radiation from its energy source is
>>>>>>> pushing voyager somewhat like a photon accelerator. This could be true
>>>>>>> but my money is on a change in the density of the vacuum , gravity
>>>>>>> density that sets our G constant. If I were you I would keep an eye on
>>>>>>> voyager along with some computer simulations , your forte , to see how
>>>>>>> much of a G constant is required to justify the increase in speed of
>>>>>>> voyager then project that out to the outer parts of our galaxy to see
>>>>>>> if there is a correlation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting.  Getting away from the Sun definitely will speed up any
>>>>>> object according to Finite Theory.  That can be implemented easily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in terms of technicalities I would have to access NASA's database
>>>>>> for Voyager's exact coordinates...
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's something I can start with:
>>>>> http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/
>>>>
>>>> So I've already added Voyager 1 to my simulator with the following
>>>> settings:
>>>> position = {19763008767000, 0, 0}
>>>> velocity = {17000, 0, 0}
>>>>
>>>> It is decelerating and the difference with what is predicted by Newton
>>>> and Finite Theory in terms of speed is in the order of:
>>>> 1e-7 m/s
>>>>
>>>> Does that match what NASA is currently seeing?
>>>
>>> It seems to be of the same order of the Pioneer anomaly (deceleration of
>>> 8.74e-10 m/s^2):
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
>>>
>>> How about that?
>>
>> Isn't it great to have a constructive conversation? ;)
>
> 2 pretenders congratulating themselves over bad science...

Even you can understand; the value kappa or what's it's based on is not 
constant.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 15:10 -0400
  Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 21:53 +0200
  Re: Einstein's gravitational constant John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 20:26 -0700
  Re: Einstein's gravitational constant John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 21:11 -0700
  Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 10:15 -0500
  Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 21:07 -0400
    Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 21:11 -0400
      Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-07-28 18:43 -0700
        Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 21:52 -0400
        Re: Einstein's gravitational constant "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-28 21:01 -0700
  Re: Einstein's gravitational constant John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 18:08 -0700
    Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pbouchard8@gmail.com - 2015-07-28 18:30 -0700
      Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pbouchard8@gmail.com - 2015-07-28 19:56 -0700
        Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pbouchard8@gmail.com - 2015-07-28 20:25 -0700
        Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pbouchard8@gmail.com - 2015-08-01 15:04 -0700
          Cretin Phil Bouchard perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-01 16:45 -0700
          Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pbouchard8@gmail.com - 2015-08-01 17:20 -0700
      Delusional idiot Philippe Bouchard chimes in "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-28 21:00 -0700

csiph-web