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

Groups > sci.physics > #610594 > unrolled thread

Calculating G

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-28 06:13 -0800
    Re: Calculating G Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 15:40 +0100
      Re: Calculating G Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 15:41 +0100
      Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-28 22:10 -0800
        Re: Calculating G "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-28 22:29 -0800
        Re: Calculating G Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 08:07 +0100
          Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-29 16:53 -0800
    Re: Calculating G Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 09:27 -0800
    Re: Calculating G Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-29 17:21 +1100
      Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-29 04:21 -0800
        Re: Calculating G Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-12-29 09:11 -0500
          Re: Calculating G "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-29 06:34 -0800
            Re: Calculating G noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 15:40 -0800
            Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-29 16:52 -0800
          Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-29 16:59 -0800
            Re: Calculating G Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 12:19 -0600
              Re: Calculating G noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 12:43 -0800
        Re: Calculating G Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-30 13:22 +1100
          Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-30 01:11 -0800
            Re: Calculating G Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-30 21:43 +1100
              Re: Calculating G "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-30 06:48 -0800
              Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-30 14:43 -0800
                Re: Calculating G Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-31 11:35 +1100
                  Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-30 17:06 -0800
                    Re: Calculating G Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-31 12:40 +1100
                      Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-30 23:22 -0800
                      Re: Calculating G Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-31 20:28 +1100
                        Re: Calculating G "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 11:07 -0800
                          Re: Calculating G "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-31 11:16 -0800
                        Re: Calculating G "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 13:22 -0800
                          Re: Calculating G "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-31 15:36 -0800
                          Re: Calculating G Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-01 11:49 +1100
                Re: Calculating G Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 15:09 -0600
                  Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-01-03 16:22 -0800
                    Re: Calculating G noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 16:57 -0800
                    Re: Calculating G Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 10:22 -0600
                      Re: Calculating G Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-01-05 16:02 -0800
                        Re: Calculating G Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 07:09 -0600

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#610858

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> 
"Peter Riedt" <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> G can be derived from elements of a star by the formula
>>>>>> G=gstar*rstar^2/Mstar
>>>>>> gstar = surface acceleration in m/sec rstar = radius in m Mstar =
>>>>>> mass in kg
>>>> I got the mass of the sun and Alpha Centauri A, B, C from sources
>>>> available on the Internet:
>>>
"Sylvia Else" wrote:
>>> Are you for real? How do you think they ended up on the Internet?
> So calculating G using the mass of the sun obtained from the Internet is 
> actually calculating G from G.
> As always Peter, your attempts to calculate G are completely circular.
> 
> There is no known way of calculating it, other than from the measured 
> attraction between masses that are known accurately by means other than 
> orbital mechanics.
> 
hanson worte:
Syl, your last para is well put, you saying "by means 
other than orbital mechanics."  An early mention of a 
possible relation between gravity and electricity was 
by Michael Faraday in 1850. His lecture was titled, 
"On the possible relation of gravity to electricity"
>
Later independent measurements do show that 
Newton's "G" happens to be the product of

G = (e/m_e)^2  /  [3 * (pi^2) * (a^3) * (N_A)^2)]   
>
which arises out of  Millikan's electron charge to
mass ratio, e/m_e,  (1906 Oil drop, Nobel 1923),
Sommerfeld's Finestructure constant "a" (1916)
and the Mol or mole, expressed through Avogadro's 
number "N_A", (1820 !!!), ... pi = 3.14...,  etc.
>
... or use ** Max Planck's Natural Units * (1894)
which will give you this simple, condensed final 
bottom line as:
.            G =  a * e^2 / m_pl^2                   ... 
wherein Planck mass m-pl^2 = hbar * c / G &
Avogadro's number has been substituted by
1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass 
>
.       m_pl / m_e  =  a * N_A*pi*sqrt(3)     
>
Run the numbers to check. Use Co-Data
... 

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

#610933

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 6:43:45 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 30/12/2016 8:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 10:22:43 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 29/12/2016 11:21 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 2:21:38 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 29/12/2016 1:13 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>>>> Calculating G
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The constant G was anticipated by Newton but first accurately
> >>>>> determined in the laboratory by Henry Cavendish in 1798. It has
> >>>>> the value G=6.674E-11m3kg−1s−2 (cubic meters per kilogram second
> >>>>> squared).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> G can be derived from elements of a star by the formula
> >>>>> G=gstar*rstar^2/Mstar
> >>>>>
> >>>>> gstar	   rstar	   Mstar	    G Sun	 273.97	696,000,000	 1.99E+30
> >>>>> 6.674E-11 ACa	 200.18	853,992,000	 2.19E+30	6.674E-11 ACb	 332.10
> >>>>> 602,040,000	 1.80E+30	6.674E-11 AC c	1695.00	 98,136,000
> >>>>> 2.45E+29	6.674E-11
> >>>>>
> >>>>> gstar = surface acceleration in m/sec rstar = radius in m Mstar =
> >>>>> mass in kg
> >>>>
> >>>> How are you going to get the mass and surface acceleration of the
> >>>> star?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> I got the mass of the sun and Alpha Centauri A, B, C from sources
> >>> available on the Internet:
> >>
> >> Are you for real? How do you think they ended up on the Internet?
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > What is your point?
> >
> 
> The mass of the sun that's on the Internet was calculated by applying 
> the measured value of G to the orbits of the planets.
> 
> So calculating G using the mass of the sun obtained from the Internet is 
> actually calculating G from G.
> 
> The other masses are either derived similarly from orbital speeds, or 
> are derived from brightness based on stellar physics.
> 
> Surface accelerations are calculated from the mass and G and measured 
> radius.
> 
> As always, your attempts to calculate G are completely circular.
> 
> There is no known way of calculating it, other than from the measured 
> attraction between masses that are known accurately by means other than 
> orbital mechanics.
> 
> Sylvia.

You did not grasp it. I am not trying to calculate G; I am using it to establish relationships between elements of free fall objects and secondly if it has the same value in other star systems. You have too narrow a view.

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

#610956

On 31/12/2016 9:43 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 6:43:45 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 30/12/2016 8:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 10:22:43 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 29/12/2016 11:21 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 2:21:38 PM UTC+8, Sylvia
>>>>> Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/12/2016 1:13 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>>>>> Calculating G
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The constant G was anticipated by Newton but first
>>>>>>> accurately determined in the laboratory by Henry
>>>>>>> Cavendish in 1798. It has the value G=6.674E-11m3kg−1s−2
>>>>>>> (cubic meters per kilogram second squared).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> G can be derived from elements of a star by the formula
>>>>>>> G=gstar*rstar^2/Mstar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gstar	   rstar	   Mstar	    G Sun	 273.97	696,000,000
>>>>>>> 1.99E+30 6.674E-11 ACa	 200.18	853,992,000	 2.19E+30
>>>>>>> 6.674E-11 ACb	 332.10 602,040,000	 1.80E+30	6.674E-11 AC
>>>>>>> c	1695.00	 98,136,000 2.45E+29	6.674E-11
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gstar = surface acceleration in m/sec rstar = radius in m
>>>>>>> Mstar = mass in kg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How are you going to get the mass and surface acceleration
>>>>>> of the star?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> I got the mass of the sun and Alpha Centauri A, B, C from
>>>>> sources available on the Internet:
>>>>
>>>> Are you for real? How do you think they ended up on the
>>>> Internet?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> What is your point?
>>>
>>
>> The mass of the sun that's on the Internet was calculated by
>> applying the measured value of G to the orbits of the planets.
>>
>> So calculating G using the mass of the sun obtained from the
>> Internet is actually calculating G from G.
>>
>> The other masses are either derived similarly from orbital speeds,
>> or are derived from brightness based on stellar physics.
>>
>> Surface accelerations are calculated from the mass and G and
>> measured radius.
>>
>> As always, your attempts to calculate G are completely circular.
>>
>> There is no known way of calculating it, other than from the
>> measured attraction between masses that are known accurately by
>> means other than orbital mechanics.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> You did not grasp it. I am not trying to calculate G; I am using it
> to establish relationships between elements of free fall objects and
> secondly if it has the same value in other star systems. You have too
> narrow a view.
>

Orbital mechanics is already well understood. There's nothing for you to 
establish.

As for determining whether it has the same value in other star systems, 
this would involve finding gravitationally bound stellar objects, and 
determining their mass otherwise than by using orbital mechanics. 
Estimates based on brightness and stellar physics are much too 
inaccurate to be useful unless the constant G is hugely variable.  If it 
were, that would have been noticed already.

Sylvia.

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

#610958

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 8:36:04 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/12/2016 9:43 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 6:43:45 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 30/12/2016 8:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 10:22:43 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 29/12/2016 11:21 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 2:21:38 PM UTC+8, Sylvia
> >>>>> Else wrote:
> >>>>>> On 29/12/2016 1:13 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>>>>>> Calculating G
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The constant G was anticipated by Newton but first
> >>>>>>> accurately determined in the laboratory by Henry
> >>>>>>> Cavendish in 1798. It has the value G=6.674E-11m3kg−1s−2
> >>>>>>> (cubic meters per kilogram second squared).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> G can be derived from elements of a star by the formula
> >>>>>>> G=gstar*rstar^2/Mstar
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> gstar	   rstar	   Mstar	    G Sun	 273.97	696,000,000
> >>>>>>> 1.99E+30 6.674E-11 ACa	 200.18	853,992,000	 2.19E+30
> >>>>>>> 6.674E-11 ACb	 332.10 602,040,000	 1.80E+30	6.674E-11 AC
> >>>>>>> c	1695.00	 98,136,000 2.45E+29	6.674E-11
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> gstar = surface acceleration in m/sec rstar = radius in m
> >>>>>>> Mstar = mass in kg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How are you going to get the mass and surface acceleration
> >>>>>> of the star?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I got the mass of the sun and Alpha Centauri A, B, C from
> >>>>> sources available on the Internet:
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you for real? How do you think they ended up on the
> >>>> Internet?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> What is your point?
> >>>
> >>
> >> The mass of the sun that's on the Internet was calculated by
> >> applying the measured value of G to the orbits of the planets.
> >>
> >> So calculating G using the mass of the sun obtained from the
> >> Internet is actually calculating G from G.
> >>
> >> The other masses are either derived similarly from orbital speeds,
> >> or are derived from brightness based on stellar physics.
> >>
> >> Surface accelerations are calculated from the mass and G and
> >> measured radius.
> >>
> >> As always, your attempts to calculate G are completely circular.
> >>
> >> There is no known way of calculating it, other than from the
> >> measured attraction between masses that are known accurately by
> >> means other than orbital mechanics.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > You did not grasp it. I am not trying to calculate G; I am using it
> > to establish relationships between elements of free fall objects and
> > secondly if it has the same value in other star systems. You have too
> > narrow a view.
> >
> 
> Orbital mechanics is already well understood. There's nothing for you to 
> establish.
> 
> As for determining whether it has the same value in other star systems, 
> this would involve finding gravitationally bound stellar objects, and 
> determining their mass otherwise than by using orbital mechanics. 
> Estimates based on brightness and stellar physics are much too 
> inaccurate to be useful unless the constant G is hugely variable.  If it 
> were, that would have been noticed already.
> 
> Sylvia.

I agree and submit that the mass of the three Alpha Centauri stars and their surface acceleration as stated in the literature are grossly inaccurate. Furthermore the value of G is defined only for the solar system and no evidence exists it is the same in other star systems.

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

#610967

On 31/12/2016 12:06 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 8:36:04 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>> On 31/12/2016 9:43 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 6:43:45 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 30/12/2016 8:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 10:22:43 AM UTC+8, Sylvia
>>>>> Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/12/2016 11:21 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 2:21:38 PM UTC+8,
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/12/2016 1:13 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Calculating G
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The constant G was anticipated by Newton but first
>>>>>>>>> accurately determined in the laboratory by Henry
>>>>>>>>> Cavendish in 1798. It has the value
>>>>>>>>> G=6.674E-11m3kg−1s−2 (cubic meters per kilogram
>>>>>>>>> second squared).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> G can be derived from elements of a star by the
>>>>>>>>> formula G=gstar*rstar^2/Mstar
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> gstar	   rstar	   Mstar	    G Sun	 273.97
>>>>>>>>> 696,000,000 1.99E+30 6.674E-11 ACa	 200.18
>>>>>>>>> 853,992,000	 2.19E+30 6.674E-11 ACb	 332.10
>>>>>>>>> 602,040,000	 1.80E+30	6.674E-11 AC c	1695.00
>>>>>>>>> 98,136,000 2.45E+29	6.674E-11
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> gstar = surface acceleration in m/sec rstar = radius
>>>>>>>>> in m Mstar = mass in kg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How are you going to get the mass and surface
>>>>>>>> acceleration of the star?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I got the mass of the sun and Alpha Centauri A, B, C
>>>>>>> from sources available on the Internet:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you for real? How do you think they ended up on the
>>>>>> Internet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your point?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The mass of the sun that's on the Internet was calculated by
>>>> applying the measured value of G to the orbits of the planets.
>>>>
>>>> So calculating G using the mass of the sun obtained from the
>>>> Internet is actually calculating G from G.
>>>>
>>>> The other masses are either derived similarly from orbital
>>>> speeds, or are derived from brightness based on stellar
>>>> physics.
>>>>
>>>> Surface accelerations are calculated from the mass and G and
>>>> measured radius.
>>>>
>>>> As always, your attempts to calculate G are completely
>>>> circular.
>>>>
>>>> There is no known way of calculating it, other than from the
>>>> measured attraction between masses that are known accurately
>>>> by means other than orbital mechanics.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> You did not grasp it. I am not trying to calculate G; I am using
>>> it to establish relationships between elements of free fall
>>> objects and secondly if it has the same value in other star
>>> systems. You have too narrow a view.
>>>
>>
>> Orbital mechanics is already well understood. There's nothing for
>> you to establish.
>>
>> As for determining whether it has the same value in other star
>> systems, this would involve finding gravitationally bound stellar
>> objects, and determining their mass otherwise than by using orbital
>> mechanics. Estimates based on brightness and stellar physics are
>> much too inaccurate to be useful unless the constant G is hugely
>> variable.  If it were, that would have been noticed already.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> I agree and submit that the mass of the three Alpha Centauri stars
> and their surface acceleration as stated in the literature are
> grossly inaccurate. Furthermore the value of G is defined only for
> the solar system and no evidence exists it is the same in other star
> systems.
>


We know that it is the same to a high degree of accuracy all the way out 
to the current position of Voyager 1 (137AU). It's value beyond that is 
constrained by the requirement that the orbital periods of binary stars 
be consistent with their separation and their masses, as estimated using 
the brightness (or period, in the case of some variable stars) using 
stellar physics.

So while there's no direct evidence that the value is exactly the same 
beyond the solar system, there is evidence that its value is not hugely 
different. Given its constancy out to Voyager 1, there is no present 
reason to think it varies.

Either way, your circular analyses contribute nothing to our knowledge.

Sylvia.

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

#611009

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 9:40:36 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/12/2016 12:06 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 8:36:04 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else
> > wrote:
> >> On 31/12/2016 9:43 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 6:43:45 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 30/12/2016 8:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 10:22:43 AM UTC+8, Sylvia
> >>>>> Else wrote:
> >>>>>> On 29/12/2016 11:21 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 2:21:38 PM UTC+8,
> >>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 29/12/2016 1:13 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Calculating G
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The constant G was anticipated by Newton but first
> >>>>>>>>> accurately determined in the laboratory by Henry
> >>>>>>>>> Cavendish in 1798. It has the value
> >>>>>>>>> G=6.674E-11m3kg−1s−2 (cubic meters per kilogram
> >>>>>>>>> second squared).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> G can be derived from elements of a star by the
> >>>>>>>>> formula G=gstar*rstar^2/Mstar
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> gstar	   rstar	   Mstar	    G Sun	 273.97
> >>>>>>>>> 696,000,000 1.99E+30 6.674E-11 ACa	 200.18
> >>>>>>>>> 853,992,000	 2.19E+30 6.674E-11 ACb	 332.10
> >>>>>>>>> 602,040,000	 1.80E+30	6.674E-11 AC c	1695.00
> >>>>>>>>> 98,136,000 2.45E+29	6.674E-11
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> gstar = surface acceleration in m/sec rstar = radius
> >>>>>>>>> in m Mstar = mass in kg
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How are you going to get the mass and surface
> >>>>>>>> acceleration of the star?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I got the mass of the sun and Alpha Centauri A, B, C
> >>>>>>> from sources available on the Internet:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you for real? How do you think they ended up on the
> >>>>>> Internet?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is your point?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The mass of the sun that's on the Internet was calculated by
> >>>> applying the measured value of G to the orbits of the planets.
> >>>>
> >>>> So calculating G using the mass of the sun obtained from the
> >>>> Internet is actually calculating G from G.
> >>>>
> >>>> The other masses are either derived similarly from orbital
> >>>> speeds, or are derived from brightness based on stellar
> >>>> physics.
> >>>>
> >>>> Surface accelerations are calculated from the mass and G and
> >>>> measured radius.
> >>>>
> >>>> As always, your attempts to calculate G are completely
> >>>> circular.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no known way of calculating it, other than from the
> >>>> measured attraction between masses that are known accurately
> >>>> by means other than orbital mechanics.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> You did not grasp it. I am not trying to calculate G; I am using
> >>> it to establish relationships between elements of free fall
> >>> objects and secondly if it has the same value in other star
> >>> systems. You have too narrow a view.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Orbital mechanics is already well understood. There's nothing for
> >> you to establish.
> >>
> >> As for determining whether it has the same value in other star
> >> systems, this would involve finding gravitationally bound stellar
> >> objects, and determining their mass otherwise than by using orbital
> >> mechanics. Estimates based on brightness and stellar physics are
> >> much too inaccurate to be useful unless the constant G is hugely
> >> variable.  If it were, that would have been noticed already.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > I agree and submit that the mass of the three Alpha Centauri stars
> > and their surface acceleration as stated in the literature are
> > grossly inaccurate. Furthermore the value of G is defined only for
> > the solar system and no evidence exists it is the same in other star
> > systems.
> >
> 
> 
> We know that it is the same to a high degree of accuracy all the way out 
> to the current position of Voyager 1 (137AU). It's value beyond that is 
> constrained by the requirement that the orbital periods of binary stars 
> be consistent with their separation and their masses, as estimated using 
> the brightness (or period, in the case of some variable stars) using 
> stellar physics.
> 
> So while there's no direct evidence that the value is exactly the same 
> beyond the solar system, there is evidence that its value is not hugely 
> different. Given its constancy out to Voyager 1, there is no present 
> reason to think it varies.
> 
> Either way, your circular analyses contribute nothing to our knowledge.
> 
> Sylvia.

Thank you for your information. I shall hesitate to calculate G beyond the solar system as the assumptions of the experts do not affect my gravity theory.

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

#611013

On 31/12/2016 12:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> It's value beyond that is
> constrained by the requirement that the orbital periods of binary stars
> be consistent with their separation and their masses, as estimated using
> the brightness (or period, in the case of some variable stars) using
> stellar physics.

I may be guilty of some circularity of my own here, since the brightness 
of a star of given mass depends on the local value of G. For higher G, 
the star will be brighter (and shorter lived) for a given mass. However, 
I'd be surprised if the relationship were linear, so inconsistencies 
would still show (unless I'm wrong about the relationship).

It should also be noted that stars get brighter as they age, even 
thought their mass is reducing.

Sylvia.

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

#611050

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 1:28:21 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/12/2016 12:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > It's value beyond that is
> > constrained by the requirement that the orbital periods of binary stars
> > be consistent with their separation and their masses, as estimated using
> > the brightness (or period, in the case of some variable stars) using
> > stellar physics.
> 
> I may be guilty of some circularity of my own here, since the brightness 
> of a star of given mass depends on the local value of G. For higher G, 
> the star will be brighter (and shorter lived) for a given mass. However, 
> I'd be surprised if the relationship were linear, so inconsistencies 
> would still show (unless I'm wrong about the relationship).
> 
> It should also be noted that stars get brighter as they age, even 
> thought their mass is reducing.
> 
> Sylvia.

Moon's force of gravity is greater than the Sun.Yet the Sun is 99 % of the mass of solar system.The reason for this is well known.Moon's gravity force also has the start of an objects falling much slower  than object starting to fall in Earth's gravity field. Best to keep that in mind. TreBert

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

#611055

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
Best to keep that in mind that TreBert is a cretin

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

#611076

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 1:28:21 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/12/2016 12:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > It's value beyond that is
> > constrained by the requirement that the orbital periods of binary stars
> > be consistent with their separation and their masses, as estimated using
> > the brightness (or period, in the case of some variable stars) using
> > stellar physics.
> 
> I may be guilty of some circularity of my own here, since the brightness 
> of a star of given mass depends on the local value of G. For higher G, 
> the star will be brighter (and shorter lived) for a given mass. However, 
> I'd be surprised if the relationship were linear, so inconsistencies 
> would still show (unless I'm wrong about the relationship).
> 
> It should also be noted that stars get brighter as they age, even 
> thought their mass is reducing.
> 
> Sylvia.

I see the other way.Reason stars that use up their fuel faster are brighter.Think density.Trebert

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

#611134

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
 I see the other way that says: "g=emc^2" is short for:
____ glazier exhibits micro cephalic cretinism ____

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

#611148

On 1/01/2017 8:22 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 1:28:21 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 31/12/2016 12:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> It's value beyond that is
>>> constrained by the requirement that the orbital periods of binary stars
>>> be consistent with their separation and their masses, as estimated using
>>> the brightness (or period, in the case of some variable stars) using
>>> stellar physics.
>>
>> I may be guilty of some circularity of my own here, since the brightness
>> of a star of given mass depends on the local value of G. For higher G,
>> the star will be brighter (and shorter lived) for a given mass. However,
>> I'd be surprised if the relationship were linear, so inconsistencies
>> would still show (unless I'm wrong about the relationship).
>>
>> It should also be noted that stars get brighter as they age, even
>> thought their mass is reducing.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> I see the other way.Reason stars that use up their fuel faster are brighter.Think density.Trebert
>

The reason stars get brighter as they age is well understood.

Sylvia.

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

#611532

On 12/30/2016 4:43 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> You did not grasp it. I am not trying to calculate G; I am using it to
> establish relationships between elements of free fall objects and secondly
> if it has the same value in other star systems. You have too narrow a view.

Already done a long time ago.
Why do you have trouble reading books where all of this old stuff 
already is?
Why do you think you are inventing it?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#611584

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 5:09:01 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/30/2016 4:43 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > You did not grasp it. I am not trying to calculate G; I am using it to
> > establish relationships between elements of free fall objects and secondly
> > if it has the same value in other star systems. You have too narrow a view.
> 
> Already done a long time ago.
> Why do you have trouble reading books where all of this old stuff 
> already is?
> Why do you think you are inventing it?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I am not inventing G. I am trying to confirm it. I have failed to confirm it in the case of stars because I was not able to get the correct values of some elements of the stars I looked at. The equation that I used showed a difference in the value of G of the sun and Alpha Centauri A, B, C. The assumption that G is the same in the universe is not supported by evidence.

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

#611598

gravity is not really a longrange force, 
except in the EinsteinmaniA of sylliness

> in the case of stars because I was not able to get the correct values of some elements of the stars I looked at. The equation that I used showed a difference in the value of G of the sun and Alpha Centauri A, B, C. The assumption that G is the same in the universe is not supported by evidence.

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

#611652

On 1/3/2017 6:22 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 5:09:01 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 12/30/2016 4:43 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> You did not grasp it. I am not trying to calculate G; I am using it to
>>> establish relationships between elements of free fall objects and secondly
>>> if it has the same value in other star systems. You have too narrow a view.
>>
>> Already done a long time ago.
>> Why do you have trouble reading books where all of this old stuff
>> already is?
>> Why do you think you are inventing it?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I am not inventing G. I am trying to confirm it.

Already been done.

> I have failed to confirm it in the case of stars because I was not able to
> get the correct values of some elements of the stars I looked at. The equation
> that I used showed a difference in the value of G of the sun and Alpha Centauri
> A, B, C. The assumption that G is the same in the universe is not supported by evidence.

Yes, it is. The only problem is that you've not been able to research 
and find the correct evidence.

Do not assume that just because you haven't found it, it doesn't exist.

>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#611851

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 12:22:34 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/3/2017 6:22 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 5:09:01 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 12/30/2016 4:43 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>> You did not grasp it. I am not trying to calculate G; I am using it to
> >>> establish relationships between elements of free fall objects and secondly
> >>> if it has the same value in other star systems. You have too narrow a view.
> >>
> >> Already done a long time ago.
> >> Why do you have trouble reading books where all of this old stuff
> >> already is?
> >> Why do you think you are inventing it?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > I am not inventing G. I am trying to confirm it.
> 
> Already been done.
> 
> > I have failed to confirm it in the case of stars because I was not able to
> > get the correct values of some elements of the stars I looked at. The equation
> > that I used showed a difference in the value of G of the sun and Alpha Centauri
> > A, B, C. The assumption that G is the same in the universe is not supported by evidence.
> 
> Yes, it is. The only problem is that you've not been able to research 
> and find the correct evidence.
> 
> Do not assume that just because you haven't found it, it doesn't exist.
> 
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Your assertions and references to non existing evidence are pure bull shit arguments.

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

#611915

On 1/5/2017 6:02 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Your assertions and references to non existing evidence are pure bull shit arguments.

Peter, please. You are not well informed. Do not overinflate your 
knowledge of stuff.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web