Timo Moilanen

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have not explained how adding things is "not additive".

Ti =my equality to G  Traditionally dM*G*cos a /s^2 is said to be gravity of one piece and is added  up to MG/r^2 

I do the same addition but divide by Ftot/Fm  to" compensate" for both cosa and the s^2 average at same time . Ftot= (sigma)dM/s^2

And this give the force F/m as I write  that is 2/3*Ti*M/R^2 at surface and TiM/r^2 for very far away . so summing up is from 2/3 to1 times  adding

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

The (solid) sphere is just one of the easiest for calculation.

My first solution was to calculate via distance between "gravitational mass points " Mas pieces farther away and beside the common axis do less work and the more nearby parts compensate this only to a degree . On long distances these factors go to "1.000"

The method gave same constant and that was long before I found the as someones call relativity coupling (mass is energy and the half is as v^2/2)

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

This is only true if G is constant (something you are trying to disprove !

Yes I used G as a constant that it is supposed to be. Point of the figure is the difference in adding the pieces 

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is the difference between "adding" and "summing"?

By summing  I mean adding every miniscule component separately , adding is like taking two spheres and saying this is now a point with double the mass

1 minute ago, studiot said:

The fact that the Earth is spinning affects both the magnitude and the direction of the attraction experienced by any body in the Earth's gravitational field.

I have not gone into these details yet since this is little compared to +17 % mass

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

6) There has been considerable discussion about measurements that I have not participated in, but you have not made clear that bodies are subject to other influences (forces) which affect the measurement of the local attraction experienced between bodies. These are additional to the standard force due to the Universal Gravitational Constant (whatever you wish to call it). So if you are seeking to measure any variation of G in the real world, you have to acount for these.

Bodies are not influenced by anything else than other bodies , but their shape influence their gravitational fields shape and strength in different direction an distances (they can not be assumed as point masses ) Even spheres have shape that affect gravity field both inside and out. On longer distances negligible impact (Moon at distance 385*10^6 m expire 1/1.000043 less earth gravity than very "pure" classical view point , because earth is not a point.

All old measurements are valid , and will give a very stable constant calculated "my way"

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

1) Your treatment appears purely classical. Relativity of gravity is not involved.

Yes it is purely classical (geometrical) no relativistic elements added so far

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

4) You have introduced 'energy' into your thesis, and also the special relativity relationship between energy and mass.

This is only an other quality of energy/mass c^2/2 is as common that come

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

5) You have not discussed Gauss' theorem in your 5 pages, but did show a lack of understanding of it in the 6 pages of this thread. This needs proper discussion.

Last year we discussed this and agreed that I disagree  with Gauss on this point (for gravity not electromagnetism)

I wrote earlier that gravitation is not additive , the feature of the "particles" must be summed up (no opinion to what they are)

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Again, if even you are not able to find any evidence

I just sent you https://sites.ualberta.ca/~unsworth/UA-classes/210/notes210/B/210B3-2008.pdf page 7 ,. The Bouguer correction, I don't manage to copy the text and formulas here 

Just now, Strange said:

I can't see much point in this thread staying open 

I suppose you have the upper hand . Providing evidence is hard enough (my destiny) disclaiming them ( I would not even try (without any alternative) and additional evidence

For true participants of physic discussion https://sites.ualberta.ca/~unsworth/UA-classes/210/notes210/B/210B3-2008.pdf  

page 7 . Sorry I remembered page number wrong earlier

35 minutes ago, Strange said:

By "low altitude" you mean on the Earth's surface, of course.

Traditionally surface and hills ,mountains . 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

You need evidence this happens. (It doesn't.)

I presented one of the most credible sources there is to you . Read it thoroughly 

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

It does nothing to support your claim that gravity increases with altitude.

The add means adding to the acceleration on a height a dg/h when ascending , not decreasing by (mu)/r^2- (mu)/(r+dh)^2 as simple (basic) model says

18 hours ago, Strange said:

Then you should have no problem providing some evidence.

Here https://sites.ualberta.ca/~unsworth/UA-classes/210/notes210/B/210B3-2008.pdf  is low altitude facts . Mark the add . my coarse model do this without empiric input ( other than earth densities  not a single one)

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

So you can't provide a reference to support your claim?

You are right they mostly just say (write) objects in common text , Einstein specifies to "point mass like". In experiments they call spheres "sphere" with no generaliseing purpose 

12 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Moderator Note

This is a BIG problem. You asked this before, and you were shown a few of these errors, and did nothing to correct your mistakes. Now you ask again, "What errors?"

This is an intellectually dishonest approach, and it won't be tolerated here. Either correct the flaws in your idea and show you're here to learn, or this thread will be closed due to intractable ignorance and violating the rules for this section. Your choice, and you can let us know in your very next post.

To Phi for All:s ultimatum . For the dimensions lets try a "parallel" the dozen .  1/1dzn *1/1dzn =1/!dzn^2 =1/12dzn   

1/12dzn give same numbers (eventually) but stand for 1/12 of a dozen =>  (1/12dzn) divided by (1/12dzn) =

(1/12dzn)/(1/12dzn) =1/dzn^2 . This is the best I can do for this detail .

For  the mol being SI units nowadays is true and definition 0.0012 kg of C₁₂ so I can not avoid multiplication with 1/1000 or *0.001

The idea of G is a constant and the right value of G is constant , but the measurements are not constant (or corrected ).That's why there is a "monumental" difficulty in finding a stable value in a historical "chase". The definition mentioning spheres too often (since Newton) , but Einstein says point like masses .I can not make spheres to points and the measurable difference do not stretch outside the lab  anyway . The why and how is in plain math. on my original paper from some year ago ,where none have pointed out any errors . There is a good reason why astronomers prefer (mu) gravitational parameter , it is calculated without G (their own written saying) I CAN NOT BACK DOWN FROM SAYING G-value IS 11.8% TOO LOW. This is no quality of G it's procedure of calculating measure data . Here I admit " G IS NOT A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE  Timo Moilanen 23.2-19

Now I know G is measured but I can not get data to correct this by some 11%.  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0573-2  this article Strange point to is about the gravitation stability times distance and that I have not questioned . On the opposite I insist it is "linear" for  every smallest piece of the body measured .

The masses of sun and earth I mentioned in my "heads up" are from the interaction of orbiting (two direction free fall) bodies and the fall towards centre (one direction) plain math. (physics) assuming point masses action in orbit and this impact  on third (negligible mass) satellite, and the masses(ex. earth moon) needed to propel these orbits (satellites in moon plane orbit)

The "anomalies" I referred to  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012821X81900273  and https://sites.ualberta.ca/~unsworth/UA-classes/210/notes210/B/210B3-2008.pdf 

and numerous measurements since 19:century by me adapted to the geodesic map readings are hard labour I will not give for free to outsiders . A rough density variation model of earth thou give very in-line properties to low satellites.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Be aware there is some disinformation about concerning the dimensions of Avogadro's Number, concerning moles.
Just remember that the ratio must be in the same units.

You are right about the kg ,. I must specify in future by inserting *1/kg . It is the weight of a proton (neutron) [kg] , but I still have to divide by 1000 because 1 mol is defined as 0.012 kg of C₁₂( carbon 12 isotope)

1 hour ago, Strange said:

General relativity has been (repeatedly) confirmed at cosmological scales. For example

I have not questioned Einsteins theory ,The 0.5*speed of light is just to switch qualities . G:s only fault is its value and maybe definition at some point . It specifically says spheres , so technically the value is right but bound to the lab bench . I am simply "dividing away" the sphere and have a value  from individual mass particles viewpoint. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Or not. This "professional" has no idea what you are talking about

I could not come up with any simpler to compare with

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That is a serious mistake also as it is your theory that G varies the onus is up to you to correct not expect some physicist to come along and make your corrections for you.

The value I use is constant as speed of light , and I only say G is 11.8% of and that can be calculated from countless lab experiments.Besides that can be calculated via "mass point of gravitation (computer integral) To be honest I don't think you have studied my work very much , since I have to say same things over and over.

34 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So the problem is that you are ignoring any corrections of your errors, not they have not been made.

Correction of what errors ? If I had nothing new to say I wouldn't need to discuss anything . Newtons book is not part of the bible .No offend

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Where, exactly, did you present evidence of this?

That is a long known fact. It is only on internet that it is simplified away . Is so much easier to leave out minor "exceptions" especially when they have only empiric explanations.

47 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You claims G has not been measured at a distance. This is untrue.

How is G measured at distance?

Found only later news that Wilczek have been "involved"

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

Your claim is that these values are wrong, but you have not yet provided evidence that this is true. Restating your claim is not evidence. Do you understand the difference between these two things?

I gave a few people  here a heads up for the calculation of earth and sun masses ( and all other ) Especially thanks to Strange who encouraged me to proceed . What I found have little to do with value of G (only close satellite orbits for now) but I was jumped so fast that I only now mention that there is "views "to all orbits that allow center bodies to have larger masses than the orbiting satellites require .This math. is calculator simple so that solve many difficulties.

12 hours ago, Mordred said:

. Many of those mistakes have already been pointed out. 

I have not seen any mistakes pointed out .On the opposite none have even remarked on the fact that earth gravitation increases by altitude to 22km ( very nonrelativistic since speed modest and distance almost 0) G is used as a constant , it is only 11.8% of . The "unconstant" is in its measurement, different values measured at different distances.

20 hours ago, swansont said:

But there is no evidence that this is the case. You have been asked for evidence, but what you provided is support for Newtonian gravity with a constant G

My  formula on G only says that near a sphere the measurement will give these results and that is why the right value will not been found before the distance correction (reduced volume) is accounted for in laboratory experiments , and what best all detailed old experiments will be valid

11 hours ago, Mordred said:

precisely if G was not constant this alone would have reflected in errors in these applications.  For example it would have applied in fuel consumption of all those spacecraft. Not to mention determining the correct stable orbits...

Near earth fuel consumption is empiric and loner distances can not be "driven" with fuel .For long distances I I agree with nobelwinner Frank Wilczek , on his stand on Pioneer anomalies, that there has to be something . The excess acceleration is huge and the two till now explanation till now are not even close..There are not more long distance probes far away so far.On satellite orbits inclined orbits (ex polar orbit) have more energy than equatorial orbits.These orbits have more than "old" earth mass allows  but there are always an explanation till there is a new one. The stable orbits "found" so far are scarce and crowded

18 hours ago, studiot said:

G has dimensions L³ M^-1 T^-2

[N_A ]=n/(g *0.001kg/g) =n/kg .  I tried integrate it  but ended up with same problem as in Hooke's law , for a spring k=F/x but when "ratio" is k=F/x^2  one length is lost (or one more L^-1) . I'm sure a professional can explain .

On 2/19/2019 at 3:19 PM, Mordred said:

I for one see no reason you have presented not to use the following tables for fundamental constants including G

That is the whole idea G is not constant and measured only at very near distances (longer would be impossible). G can be calculated from my factor G=0.5*c^2/(1000*N_A*k)  where k I call reduced volume =3/2*p^2-3/4(p^3-p)*ln((p+1)/(p-1))  and p=r/R ( distance / radius) . This is integrated for one uniform density sphere only 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Do the measured values match your predictions? Do you have a link to the measured values? 

Here on page 6 is how gravity is corrected , and it is no news (very standard read +and-)

https://sites.ualberta.ca/~unsworth/UA-classes/210/notes210/B/210B3-2008.pdf

On 2/20/2019 at 7:37 AM, Mordred said:

enjoy I'm positive you will find this incredibly useful

Thank you my point of view is obviously outdated , and I can not make a coupling to modern physics from my geometric mathematic approach. So far 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

So how do calculated values supposedly prove anything?

For lover altitudes (measured) by matching readings. Minus the variation in different areas that are in recent year got extremely precise

On 2/18/2019 at 2:01 PM, swansont said:

As from" a weather balloon? Was it a weather balloon, or not? What instrument was used to measure g?

The table I presented is calculated . Measured values of course Do not go above 30km , but todays censors (microchip accelerometer? ) give a more than necessary precision .Look for "The spherical earth problem"

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

As the shell theorem is a purely mathematical proof, you need to show where the mathematics is wrong

The dM*G*cos(a) part reduces mass or G , and part of the product goes missing even if the integral (of a sphere) ads up neatly to MG/r^2 .You saw my procedure of doing the impossible.I simply preserve both G and M intact and divide with the equivalence of Sigma (1/cos(a)) This mean I disagree with the way of using math.

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

G is a constant and does not change with distance.

Nowadays measurements(math.) give only a distance specific G , that's why constant is never found .And G is nowhere near useful at longer distances. 0.5*c^2/(1000*N_A ) is spot on . Avogadros number is only philosophic (what do we measure when weighing) to match qualities and  c^2/2 is no brainer . My constant do not change even measured , but mean gravitation is nothing like electromagnetism . Actually gravitation do't even add , the "particles" feature need to be summed up.

53 minutes ago, Strange said:

G is a constant and does not change with distance

Measurements tell a different story

On 2/20/2019 at 9:02 AM, Mordred said:

Here Is a different approach to testing G

The measurements are good and there are "millions" of them , all with slightly different result. Now used value is a average of F/(M r^2) at 1.4 to 1.5 radius from centre of source mass . My "number is what "G" would be at infinite distance . This is a mathematical (geometric) difference , and now used math will never find an invariable constant. My approach give the same value to every experiment for individual r- distances (averages will not do)

On 10/23/2017 at 3:24 PM, studiot said:

Your plots are titled "Buildup of gravity in a sphere"

My plots are from inside the sphere (-1R to+1R) and the numbers above indicate the distance to observation point . I'm sorry for not being specific about that ( I'm a bad writer that way too) I do not indicate there are any phenomenon outside the sphere , only plain  linear gravitation from every single mass "particle "separate . This is my whole point , the body do not recast the gravity field , every dM need to be accounted for in full strength not *cos(a). So I say the shell theory do not add up .