Timo Moilanen

Senior Members
  • Content count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-13 Bad

About Timo Moilanen

  • Rank
    Meson

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwikra-xr4bXAhWnD8AKHZWgC08QFggtMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Ftimomoilanen2%2F&usg=AOvVaw3p3qC_nOwZvtf_wrha0o89

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    HANKO Finland
  • College Major/Degree
    BSc
  • Favorite Area of Science
    physics

Recent Profile Visitors

1026 profile views
  1. Gravitation constant or not

    The plots are where in the sphere (-R to R) the gravitation force comes from when experienced outside at a distance . In the plots can be seen the big asymmetry when observed close . And the lowest row the not measured amount of "drag" , and thus at about little under dist. 1.5 where the measurements are done (second fr.left low dia. is some 10% of dia. above middl.) The two lower rows are multiplied by r2 for the curves not to disappear to 0, but they are plots of gravity outside sphere at dist. (above upper row) *r2 . As for Gauss's law today's "uses" and it is key in calculating the baseline for exploring anomalies in grav. and magnetic fields , and every planet and their moons a satellite have measured differ much from Gauss ideal . On earth the concept is known as "the spherical earth problem " .I do not know if anyone here is educated in this , but it seems a Gaussian sphere is yet to be found . A laboratory sphere is considered gaussian and that is where it goes wrong .Scientists are working to measure the true gravitations among stars and near (our solar system) moons , while they still have the spherical earth problem to solve . I do not blame NASA for going easy on longer missions. Nether geologists nor cosmologists are using Gauss to more than baseline .
  2. Gravitation constant or not

    The gravitation is not measured wrong , it is the calculation of the constant that looses part of mass because the 1-cos(a) part is put aside for direction but is still very much there . About Gauss theorems I do not know what do not ad up , but from earlier I remember assuming his law is simply interpreted somewhat too wide .Did plot of the total force the "traditional" Fm and difference Ftot-Fm , had to multiply the two lower series with r2 to see small differences . But the 11% do not consist of them alone rather the 0.89 * over all.
  3. Gravitation constant or not

    At some distance this is true and integrating dM over the volume of a sphere give same answer GM/r2 . My baseline is that every dM*Ti stays the same seen at any distance and angle , and the sum of them in a body also stays Ftot . The different angles and distances(dr) at closer dist. where cos(a) vs. 1/dr2 equalise was summed up by just loosing 1-cos(a) and then dividing G out of that . I must probably say I disagree with Gauss on that .
  4. Gravitation constant or not

    The composition of the matter have no effect on gravity , I only claim that the number (amount) of protons +neutrons is proportional to gravity . This (p+n ) is the same we put on the scale every day , and only reserve I have is that speed of light stays the same for Ti . NA because mol is the only quantity with weight(known by the grams /NA (that I know ) , in this case 1kmol =kg = 1000 NA (p+n). Since kg*kg =kg2 *N2 division by 1000NA give kgNA , I divided by kg and NA have no quality . Your question on conversion factors I do not find.
  5. Gravitation constant or not

    The field is not alongside a surface and through an infinitely thin wall is 90 deg.at distance =0 and some symmetry (cylinder sphere and even flat surface give 90 deg "field lines ". I think gravity is a very stable and symmetric field with field lines square to "masspoint" on surface of body. (flux/field =90deg)
  6. Gravitation constant or not

    About Gauss's law " This take into account the direction of field lines " On a sphere this have been seen as square angle to the surface , Fm earlier, and with Ti *k give exactly same and co. Gaussian values on the surface . Gauss is interpreted to valid for a variable density sphere and any shape of enclosement for "electric charge . My different view is that a sphere is only so big as the enclosed mass stretches . This mean that higher density cores have their (delta )(ro ) surface and radius closer to midpoint than the outer densities . Two separate spheres with different radius and density certainly are different. Why should the inner one lose its properties when squeezed into an other ( physically very possible ). In other words Gauss was very right on electrical (moldable) fields. The little I have used my integrals on cylinders , show that they have very similar k values , but mostly I think it is a coincident that k for these cylinders are as close . Right distance/radius to right height . The measurement is very interesting because the atoms are k=1 and should be easy to analyse with my formulas .
  7. Separation of Hydrogen Peroxide

    Assume you need the hydrogen . I would try amphoteric reaction with aluminium metal or zinc . Rule of thumb 20 c more temp doubles the reaction speed
  8. Gravitation constant or not

    Sorry for my wrong writing and "thinking " In calculating the field Fm and force between objects at close distance it must be GM => TiMk . Calculated integrals and other to get k from Cavendish type of measurement and that way a value for Ti . The k factor goes to 1 very soon ( the geostationary satellite distance would give k about 1.0003) . All (long distance) formulas having G can be replace with Ti , but for example light bending "while passing the sun " is not simple as 1,75 arc s ,even thought Ti*M give the same as G*M. In universe GM =TiM but in lab. and other short distances it is TiMk Does the solar wind slow down satellites but not accelerate them back . Did the sun mass really shrink when the GEO something satellites measured earth gravitation in descending orbits . Was it UFO:s interacting wit the Voyager satellites slingshots . Did Eddington have lens problems or did just that star(s) have different light than others right besides. There are plenty of explanations and will be more. What was the Eagles orbit time around the moon exactly , anyone heard ? About Gauss's law " This take into account the direction of field lines " On a sphere this have been seen as square angle to the surface , Fm earlier, and with Ti *k give exactly same and co. Gaussian values on the surface . Gauss is interpreted to valid for a variable density sphere and any shape of enclosement for "electric charge . My different view is that a sphere is only so big as the enclosed mass stretches . This mean that higher density cores have their (delta )(ro ) surface and radius closer to midpoint than the outer densities . Two separate spheres with different radius and density certainly are different. Why should the inner one lose its properties when squeezed into an other ( physically very possible ). In other words Gauss was very right on electrical (moldable) fields.
  9. Gravitation constant or not

    I will look at the threads and thank you for discussion ( I do not know a single person in real life understanding a squat of what I would need to discuss ) Closest I'w come is to suggest to some astronomers "what if G was some 7,4 ...... ",that was blasphemy I also put in corrected copy of one page of my paper , I didn't see the obvious despite how many leads from you . And now I know why I was not understood , I had it desperately wrong and "inverted" , and should be glad anyone bothered to read. https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/measuring-gravity-have-we-finally-cracked-it here the latest done with "falling"atoms as targets in an arrangement of cylinders .
  10. Gravitation constant or not

    In production from foreman as a student to plant manager and most job titles in between ( heavy ch. industry ) and consultant for factory planning ,instrumentation (you name it) . Most economically successful invention were in synthesis , that is the part of chemistry I,we studied only the basics (physical chemistry was my main in the chemical department) I had use for national economics when I briefly were into politics in late 90.s to early 2000
  11. Gravitation constant or not

    I have (had) a career in pharmaceutical industry (every invention property of the company bla. bla)and last emlpoyer sacked me on more personal grounds (at least for my boss) promising me no job in Finland anymore and shut up or else (the else was not jive I'v bitterly learned) What comes to physics its not far from chemistry and I'we always been multidisciplinary
  12. Gravitation constant or not

    I'm learning terminology from a dictionary and Wiki and I still hope you have patience with my inofficial behavior , all errors i make may be the joy for pedants not getting it out of their dayjob.
  13. Gravitation constant or not

    I have not learned the academic style , since my latest paper is decades ago for a BSc degree in chemistry (in Swedish ). This visibility on cites is very non formal out come of me (and not the official) because gravity science is nonexistant in Finland. I will learn evidently , but I hope you will accept my inofficial bug and typo laced way of discussing ideas (counterweight to official stifnes ) . All of the whole story here now is not my approach on cites , and this time I have to begin tell half the findings (or less) It just seem to be so gasping much . What comes to hypothesis , I can only patiently wait till math. checked and redone , since experimental proves are out of my reach (and I think not necessary ).There is 200 years of outstanding precision measurements to calculate Ti , and a proving modification of the experiment would look like a show (can be done though )
  14. Gravitation constant or not

    I have a very classical approach and even ignore the fundamental of space time . My calcs. are non-relativistic (frozen "snap shots") What comes to the constant seeming to be a conversion factor is even a bigger issue (that I cant philosophically comprehend..yet) The 11 or so% is plain math. but should lead to huge (11%) changes in most surprising details . Changes of the constant can not be possible through my calc. but need change of light speed
  15. Gravitation constant or not

    It's such a relief to know other users are protected from "off mainstream stream "ideas ! I do not remember seeing questions formulated like that . Are you sure there aren't q:s left in physics or dropped "off".I almost daily search this column and seldom find unanswered . It's a long shot but it need people to understand the math , and I'm working on a graphic (slide show) of last integral before Fm = Ti M/r2 ( found a cite where such a curve is possible). It has been suggested that I "adjust" to the theoretical Ti , but that is even to me a surprise from about 20.9-17 , while I have worked on Ti well over a year (even seen on this cite) and value 7.43 *10-11 in spring this year . Earlier I just thought the convergence factors are well of in the constant . What comes to writing , my writing is like a" miss understood dictionary "at it's best and i have no intention of writing any "official in English myself (just "short notes")