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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #367849 > unrolled thread

Why is G

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Why is G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-10-22 17:23 -0700
    Re: Why is G Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-23 11:40 +1100
      Re: Why is G The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-22 23:29 -0700
        Re: Why is G Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 12:15 +0200
      Re: Why is G mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-22 23:55 -0700
    Re: Why is G kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-22 21:08 -0400
      Re: Why is G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-10-22 19:24 -0700
        Re: Why is G pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-22 19:34 -0700
          Re: Why is G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-10-22 21:57 -0700
        Re: Why is G kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-23 00:45 -0400
          Re: Why is G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-10-23 01:14 -0700
          Re: Why is G Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 12:06 +0200
            Re: Why is G mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-23 03:28 -0700
            Re: Why is G kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-23 06:53 -0400
              Re: Why is G Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-23 11:14 +0000
              Re: Why is G mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-23 04:15 -0700
    Re: Why is G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 19:02 -0700
    Re: Why is G Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 23:09 -0500
      Re: Why is G Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-23 11:16 +0000
        Re: Why is G Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-23 13:25 -0500
          Re: Why is G Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-23 18:40 +0000
            Re: Why is G Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-23 22:38 -0500
              Re: Why is G Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-24 10:51 +0000
              Re: Why is G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-24 04:23 -0700
                Re: Why is G Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-24 11:28 +0000
              Re: Why is G kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-24 09:12 -0700
                Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-24 09:34 -0700
                  Re: Why is G James Sinclair Jr <jamis@portalbnova.org> - 2015-10-24 18:52 +0000
                    Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-24 12:03 -0700
                      Re: Why is G James Sinclair Jr <jamis@portalbnova.org> - 2015-10-24 19:25 +0000
                        Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-24 13:13 -0700
                          Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-24 17:28 -0700
                            Re: Why is G kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-24 21:31 -0400
                              Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-24 19:05 -0700
                              Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-24 19:10 -0700
                              Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-24 19:13 -0700
                                Re: Why is G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-24 19:29 -0700
                                  Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-24 19:36 -0700
                                  Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-25 08:53 -0700
                                    Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-25 08:55 -0700
                                    Re: Why is G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 08:59 -0700
                                      Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-25 09:46 -0700
                                        Re: Why is G kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-25 14:27 -0400
                    Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-24 12:08 -0700
                      Re: Why is G James Sinclair Jr <jamis@portalbnova.org> - 2015-10-24 19:24 +0000
                    Re: Why is G kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-25 08:20 -0700
                      Re: Why is G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 08:42 -0700
                        Re: Why is G kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-25 14:37 -0400
                          Re: Why is G Juan Esteban <esteju@freecannabis.org> - 2015-10-25 18:46 +0000
                            Re: Why is G kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-25 15:06 -0400
                          Re: Why is G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 14:49 -0700
                            Re: Why is G kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-25 19:22 -0400
                              Re: Why is G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 18:17 -0700
                                Re: Why is G kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-25 21:30 -0400
                                  Re: Why is G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 19:22 -0700
                            Re: Why is G Juan Esteban <esteju@freecannabis.org> - 2015-10-26 16:55 +0000
                              Re: Why is G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 11:42 -0700
                      Re: Why is G Juan Esteban <esteju@freecannabis.org> - 2015-10-25 15:46 +0000
                      Re: Why is G Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-25 11:32 -0500
                        Re: Why is G kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-10-26 07:23 -0700
                          Re: Why is G mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-26 07:44 -0700
                      Re: Why is G pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-25 14:15 -0700
                        Re: Why is G mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-26 00:31 -0700
                          Re: Why is G Günther Huldiberaht <gunhu@allrportos.org> - 2015-10-26 19:06 +0000
                            Re: Why is G mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-26 23:45 -0700
                              Re: Why is G pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-26 23:51 -0700
                                Re: Why is G mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-27 00:45 -0700
                                  Re: Why is G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 04:40 -0700
                                    Re: Why is G mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-27 05:41 -0700
                                      Re: Why is G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 08:28 -0700
                                        Re: Why is G Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-27 17:16 +0100
                                  Re: Why is G pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-27 13:44 -0700
                                    Re: Why is G mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-28 00:18 -0700
                              Re: Why is G Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:43 +0000
                                Re: Why is G mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:07 -0800
          Re: Why is G Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-23 20:45 +0200
          Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-23 13:33 -0700
            Re: Why is G Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-23 23:08 +0000
              Re: Why is G kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-23 19:32 -0400
                Re: Why is G Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-23 23:40 +0000
                  Re: Why is G Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-24 00:30 +0000
                    Re: Why is G pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-23 17:55 -0700
                      Re: Why is G Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 18:01 -0700
                        Re: Why is G Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-24 11:01 +0000
                      Re: Why is G Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-24 10:56 +0000
                  Re: Why is G Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-24 10:40 +0000
      Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-23 13:29 -0700
        Re: Why is G kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-23 16:34 -0400
      Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-23 16:15 -0700
        Re: Why is G Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-23 23:43 +0000
          Re: Why is G paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 17:42 -0700
            Re: Why is G Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-24 10:44 +0000
              Re: Why is G James Sinclair Jr <jamis@portalbnova.org> - 2015-10-24 15:08 +0000
              Re: Why is G James Sinclair Jr <jamis@portalbnova.org> - 2015-10-24 15:18 +0000
                Re: Why is G kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-24 11:34 -0400
                Re: Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-24 09:02 -0700
    Re: Why is G Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 09:44 -0500
    Why is G fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-03 05:07 -0800
    Re: Why is G RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 14:15 -0800

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#367849 — Why is G

Why is it that G is a universal constant that applies equally on earth, Jupiter and all other points of the solar system instead of being affected as well by the local gravity such as exists on individual planets?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#367852

On 23/10/2015 11:23 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Why is it that G is a universal constant that applies equally on
> earth, Jupiter and all other points of the solar system instead of
> being affected as well by the local gravity such as exists on
> individual planets?
>

This is a "why?" question, and science does not address such questions.

However, note that our calculations of the masses of the planets, 
including Earth, are based on the assumption that G really is constant. 
If G is variable, then our calculations could be wrong.

That said, if G were to vary, it would have to do so in a very 
constrained way if it were not to lead to inconsistencies in the 
calculations of the masses of planets (which should not vary) and the 
paths of space probes.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367876

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> On 23/10/2015 11:23 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > Why is it that G is a universal constant that applies equally on
> > earth, Jupiter and all other points of the solar system instead of
> > being affected as well by the local gravity such as exists on
> > individual planets?
> >
> 
> This is a "why?" question, and science does not address such questions.


So, a kid asks you "Why is the sky blue?" and you respond with, "This is a "why?" question, and science does not address such questions."?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367890

On 10/23/2015 08:29 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> This is a "why?" question, and science does not address such questions.
> 
> So, a kid asks you "Why is the sky blue?" and you respond with, "This is a "why?" question, and science does not address such questions."?
> 
Sure, science will tell you atmospheric diffraction is stronger for
shorter light wavelengths, but it will not tell you
why you see shorter light wavelengths as blue :-)

but I guess Silvia just meant the questions about primary reasons
like why nature behaves like this.

As science does not know.

Science can know, why happens some secondary effects,
that are consequences of the primary effects,
that have unknown reasons.

Science takes as given,
that the primary effects just happen,
as consequence of unknown primary reasons,
that may be never known.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367882

W dniu piątek, 23 października 2015 02:40:51 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
 
> This is a "why?" question, and science does not address such questions.

Madame, get conscious and take a look around.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367855

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:23:26 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
<riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Why is it that G is a universal constant that applies equally on earth, Jupiter and all other points of the solar system instead of being affected as well by the local gravity such as exists on individual planets?

This quantity is sometimes referred to informally as BIG  G

http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/bigg.cfm




This quantity is sometimes referred to informally as little g 

http://www.universetoday.com/43227/gravity-constant/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367862

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 9:09:30 AM UTC+8, kefischer wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:23:26 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
> <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >Why is it that G is a universal constant that applies equally on earth, Jupiter and all other points of the solar system instead of being affected as well by the local gravity such as exists on individual planets?
> 
> This quantity is sometimes referred to informally as BIG  G
> 
> http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/bigg.cfm
> 
> 
Why is big G not affected by little g?
> 
> 
> This quantity is sometimes referred to informally as little g 
> 
> http://www.universetoday.com/43227/gravity-constant/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367863

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 7:24:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 9:09:30 AM UTC+8, kefischer wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:23:26 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
> > <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > >Why is it that G is a universal constant that applies equally on earth, Jupiter and all other points of the solar system instead of being affected as well by the local gravity such as exists on individual planets?
> > 
> > This quantity is sometimes referred to informally as BIG  G
> > 
> > http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/bigg.cfm
> > 
> > 
> Why is big G not affected by little g?
> > 
> > 
> > This quantity is sometimes referred to informally as little g 
> > 
> > http://www.universetoday.com/43227/gravity-constant/

You shoulda read the second link that Ken provided, you answer is there...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367874

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 10:34:46 AM UTC+8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 7:24:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 9:09:30 AM UTC+8, kefischer wrote:
> > > On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:23:26 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
> > > <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > 
> > > >Why is it that G is a universal constant that applies equally on earth, Jupiter and all other points of the solar system instead of being affected as well by the local gravity such as exists on individual planets?
> > > 
> > > This quantity is sometimes referred to informally as BIG  G
> > > 
> > > http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/bigg.cfm
> > > 
> > > 
> > Why is big G not affected by little g?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This quantity is sometimes referred to informally as little g 
> > > 
> > > http://www.universetoday.com/43227/gravity-constant/
> 
> You shoulda read the second link that Ken provided, you answer is there...

Thanks to you and Ken, good answer: Obviously, big G and little g are closely related; the force on a mass m at the surface of the Earth is both mg and GmM/r2, where M is the mass of the Earth and r is its radius (in Newton's law of universal gravitation, the distance is measured between the centers of mass of each object) ... so g is just GM/r2.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367872

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
<riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 9:09:30 AM UTC+8, kefischer wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:23:26 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
>> <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> >Why is it that G is a universal constant that applies equally on earth, Jupiter and all other points of the solar system instead of being affected as well by the local gravity such as exists on individual planets?
>> 
>> This quantity is sometimes referred to informally as BIG  G
>> 
>> http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/bigg.cfm
>> 
>> 
>Why is big G not affected by little g?
 
         It is the Newtonian concept of attraction,
Big G is the gravitational constant everyplace,
and is what causes little g which is just Big G
applied to the mass of the Earth and the radius
of the Earth, resulting in little g at the surface
of the Earth, of 9.8 meters/ses/sec.

         Little g is just the nominal acceleration
of gravity on or near the surface of Earth,
it does not apply or exist any place else,
but is often used as a familiar value of
acceleration, instead of the 9.8 m/s/s.

        Many times a value like one m/s/s
is too small or unfamiliar, so a larger,
more well known value term is used,
little g is not a separate "force" from
BIG G, it is just the result of BIG G
applied at the surface of Earth.


 
>> This quantity is sometimes referred to informally as little g 
>> 
>> http://www.universetoday.com/43227/gravity-constant/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367887

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:46:36 PM UTC+8, kefischer wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
> <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 9:09:30 AM UTC+8, kefischer wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:23:26 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
> >> <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >Why is it that G is a universal constant that applies equally on earth, Jupiter and all other points of the solar system instead of being affected as well by the local gravity such as exists on individual planets?
> >> 
> >> This quantity is sometimes referred to informally as BIG  G
> >> 
> >> http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/bigg.cfm
> >> 
> >> 
> >Why is big G not affected by little g?
>  
>          It is the Newtonian concept of attraction,
> Big G is the gravitational constant everyplace,
> and is what causes little g which is just Big G
> applied to the mass of the Earth and the radius
> of the Earth, resulting in little g at the surface
> of the Earth, of 9.8 meters/ses/sec.
> 
>          Little g is just the nominal acceleration
> of gravity on or near the surface of Earth,
> it does not apply or exist any place else,
> but is often used as a familiar value of
> acceleration, instead of the 9.8 m/s/s.
> 
>         Many times a value like one m/s/s
> is too small or unfamiliar, so a larger,
> more well known value term is used,
> little g is not a separate "force" from
> BIG G, it is just the result of BIG G
> applied at the surface of Earth.
> 
> 
>  
> >> This quantity is sometimes referred to informally as little g 
> >> 
> >> http://www.universetoday.com/43227/gravity-constant/

According to the reference given by Ken, little g can be derived from  big G, the mass of the planet and its radius:

Obviously, big G and little g are closely related; the force on a mass m at the surface of the Earth is both mg and GmM/r2, where M is the mass of the Earth and r is its radius (in Newton's law of universal gravitation, the distance is measured between the centers of mass of each object) ... so g is just GM/r2:

	  g	   r	              m	            G	       g = Gm/r2
MER 	 3.70	 2439000	3.30220.E+23	6.67E-11	  3.7048
VEN 	 8.87	 6051000	4.86850.E+24	6.67E-11	  8.8742
EAR      9.81	 6378000	5.97360.E+24	6.67E-11	  9.8006
MAR 	 3.71	 3397000	6.41850.E+23	6.67E-11	  3.7122
JUP 	23.12	71492000	1.89860.E+27	6.67E-11	 24.7916
SAT 	10.44	60267000	5.68460.E+26	6.67E-11	 10.4454
URA 	 8.69	25557000	8.68100.E+25	6.67E-11	  8.8703
NEP 	11.00	24766000	1.02430.E+26	6.67E-11	 11.1456
PLU 	 0.60	 1184000	1.25000.E+22	6.67E-11	  0.5951

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367889

On 10/23/2015 06:45 AM, kefischer wrote:

>          It is the Newtonian concept of attraction,

Attraction as a kinematic effect is independent on theory of gravity,
as it occurs independently on it.

If you launched a space probe out of the Solar system,
it would be attracted by Jupiter at its neighbobourhood
and its trajectory will bended,
no matter what theory of gravity you apply.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367892

W dniu piątek, 23 października 2015 12:06:53 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> If you launched a space probe out of the Solar system,
> it would be attracted by Jupiter at its neighbobourhood
> and its trajectory will bended,
> no matter what theory of gravity you apply.

You really don't know your Shit, do you?
Your common sense prejudices are refuted
by your Great Guru.
There is no attraction, just specetime 
curvature, and the trajectory of your 
probe will be straight/geodesic (unless 
it uses engine, or solar sails, or sth).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367893

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:06:50 +0200, Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/23/2015 06:45 AM, kefischer wrote:
>
>>          It is the Newtonian concept of attraction,
>
>Attraction as a kinematic effect is independent on theory of gravity,
>as it occurs independently on it.

         Nonsense, there may "appear" to be attraction,
but in the Divergent Matter model, there is no 
attraction, the distance between surfaces of
non-orbiting nearby masses does actually
reduce because the objects _are_ expanding,
and the distance between centers of mass
only "appears" to reduce because the
"current" meterstick is actually getting longer.

       This is a more precise description, and
results in more precise predictions when
precise math is used.


>If you launched a space probe out of the Solar system,
>it would be attracted by Jupiter at its neighbobourhood
>and its trajectory will bended,
>no matter what theory of gravity you apply.

        See above, in the Divergent Matter model,
space is a non-entity, distance replaces it,
space-time becomes variable because it
is a matrix or manifold of "distance values"
that changes as objects move, and get bigger.

        This is a  complete  theory, and relativity
results naturally, there is no G attraction, and
the speed of light results from the ratio of
the underlying speed of light and the apparent
change in the length of the meterstick as
time passes.

        Distances get longer as matter expands,
so going faster results in an inordinate lesser
travel time.
        The elegance of this model is maximal,
nothing can supersede it, it is the final theory.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367894

kefischer wrote:

>>Attraction as a kinematic effect is independent on theory of gravity,
>>as it occurs independently on it.
> 
>          Nonsense, there may "appear" to be attraction,
> but in the Divergent Matter model, there is no attraction, the distance
> between surfaces of non-orbiting nearby masses does actually reduce
> because the objects _are_ expanding,
> and the distance between centers of mass only "appears" to reduce
> because the "current" meterstick is actually getting longer.

Agree. You just need to show the son of the bitch. Both symbolically and
numerically, for us to see what you do. You never show anything.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367895

W dniu piątek, 23 października 2015 12:54:36 UTC+2 użytkownik kefischer napisał:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:06:50 +0200, Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On 10/23/2015 06:45 AM, kefischer wrote:
> >
> >>          It is the Newtonian concept of attraction,
> >
> >Attraction as a kinematic effect is independent on theory of gravity,
> >as it occurs independently on it.
> 
>          Nonsense, there may "appear" to be attraction,
> but in the Divergent Matter model, there is no 
> attraction, the distance between surfaces of
> non-orbiting nearby masses does actually
> reduce because the objects _are_ expanding,
> and the distance between centers of mass
> only "appears" to reduce because the
> "current" meterstick is actually getting longer.

Now, we can clearly observe, what The Shit
is doing with a brain of its victim.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367861

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 6:23:29 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> Why is it that G is a universal constant that applies equally on earth,
> Jupiter and all other points of the solar system instead of being affected
> as well by the local gravity such as exists on individual planets?

G is merely a conversion factor between F (the force that exists if a
mass, m, is constrained to be a distance r from another mass, M) and
M*M/r^2.  F ~ m*M/r^2 is the real discovery of Newton which unifies what
is observed on earth with what is observed in the heavens.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367869

On 10/22/15 10/22/15   7:23 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Why is it that G is a universal constant that applies equally on earth,
> Jupiter and all other points of the solar system instead of being affected as
> well by the local gravity such as exists on individual planets?

Because in modern physics, G is merely a conversion factor for units, relating 
units of energy to those of length. The units do not vary depending on location, 
so neither does the conversion between them.

Most theorists using General Relativity use "natural" (or "geometrical") units 
in which 8 pi G = 1 (and also c = 1). One would not expect 1/(8 pi) to vary from 
place to place.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367896

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Most theorists using General Relativity use "natural" (or "geometrical")
> units in which 8 pi G = 1 (and also c = 1). One would not expect 1/(8
> pi) to vary from place to place.

Thank you sir, you are great. You just said that G is varying in this 
Universe from place to place. You are wonderful, I really appreciate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367930

On 10/23/15 10/23/15   6:16 AM, Erebus Xanthopoulos wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Most theorists using General Relativity use "natural" (or "geometrical")
>> units in which 8 pi G = 1 (and also c = 1). One would not expect 1/(8
>> pi) to vary from place to place.
>
> You just said that G is varying in this
> Universe from place to place.

You need to learn how to read. That is NOT AT ALL what I said. You got it almost 
exactly BACKWARDS.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web