Timo Moilanen

I'm so sincerely glad you got a better job , since this cite obviously is not your vocation , and the presentation surely is either way boring .But thank you for "reading" the numbers.

Here are the only proof I have that my "theory" work. The grav. values are for non-orbiting measurements .As from a weather balloon , earth rotating speed can be ignored.

Anyone seen measured g-values ? Or are they cropped as malfunction  etc categorically for last 1-2 hundred years.

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 .

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.

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

the distribution of that mass is unimportant

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 F_tot . 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 .  

22 hours ago, studiot said:

the composition of the matter has an effect

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 .

N_A because mol is the only quantity with weight(known by the grams /N_A  (that I know ) , in this case 1kmol =kg = 1000 N_A (p+n).

Since kg*kg =kg² *N²  division by 1000N_A  give kgN_A  , I divided by kg and N_A have no quality . Your question on conversion factors I do not find.

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)

21 hours ago, studiot said:

Where is the error in the integral that gives Gauss's law

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.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why doesn't their result differ from the ones done with spheres

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 .

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

19 hours ago, studiot said:

Are you simply substituting GM₁ with TiM

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 ?

20 hours ago, studiot said:

Where is the error in the integral that gives Gauss's law

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.

21 hours ago, studiot said:

Chemistry threads are genuine.

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.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

What experiments used cylinders

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 .

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 

4 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

when your roots are in chemistry

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

55 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

I'd be careful using terminology

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.

9 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

Before any evidence, something remains hypothesis

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 )

8 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

There may be evidence a fundamental constant has changed somewhere

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

17 hours ago, Strange said:

It is for the sake of other users

It's such a relief to know other users are protected from "off mainstream stream "ideas !

12 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Why are you not answering the questions being posed to you about why your solution is so far off from our best explanations?

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 F_m = 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")

OK you decide . I put in material when done , but I must proceed . 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Where is the error in solving the integral that gives Gauss's law?

The integral for a sphere/r² dx,dy,dz give  F_m = TiM/r²  , so that does not disagree .In integrating F_tot  I only have left out cos(a) factor to get Ti as F_m =F_tot at long distances ,cos(a) =1.

For the surface (r=R) of a even density sphere Fm = TiM/R²  ,is as close I get .And if there are other aspects of Gauss law for this , I am not trying to prove Gauss is right (I'm determining  Ti)

On 17/10/2017 at 4:38 PM, Strange said:

As real-world measurements contradict your result

My calculations rely on real world measurements and the fact that they are very accurate , if I only could have more (material) to explore .The exact distance between is not to be found ( 1 year searching) despite other chat.

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Why does the other solution disagree?

If you referring to the two graphs , they are the same in different perspective (scale) to read rough numbers from y .

Furthermore the "speculation" of atom "parts" being key in the force of gravity , dividing by N_A is to eliminate N_A ^2 .So F_m is still multiplied with N_A , and I can see no way of not accounting for these particles (neutron/proton) in relative rest as a factor .

And therefore my topic could be in physics classification . Not for my sake , but for other users of this site that are not here for "schoolbooks only " citations .

I see no scalar parts in the components ,and by my meaning not even the field is scalar but the sum of vector parts in r-direction at r distant . If sideways or multiplied with k ,don't make scalar only points to direction . k could be the sum of 1/cos(a) but that would be useful only at one distant r at time. Only F_tot /F_m =k give a useful equation .

A sphere is symmetric and in sideways direction and these parts cancelled but of course not gone, and on long distances all of dF parts are aligned. F_tot is in that aspect a very factual force with an average direction .By my meaning proven simply by that a body have gravitation in all directions and distances (that kind of spring) . The asymmetry is in r- direction giving a stronger field (from the closer components) at short distances .This asymmetry is of strength 1/r⁴  .

Made measurements are all made at about same relative distance (r/R) whit of course some variation , and that's why the for ever ongoing measurements . Calculating the right value taking into account the "short" distance would give a constant Ti . 

for planets and earth the too small G has led to estimate the masses the same 11% higher . For tennis balls and satellites etc. any values making up the right G*M is useful , that include any random value for G + - 50% would be accepted today and anomalies "explained". 

What comes to Gauss F_tot /k_surf => F_tot  /1.5 =1.0 F_m   , and the k- factor work all the way from surface to infinity ,but goes to near 1.0 quite soon (a few tens of radius dist.) In real world everything is far away (more than 10 R) and Ti useful as such , except  in lab's where dist is smallest practical to place two bodies close for measurement .

They cancel at all distances of course but at the "short" distances where measurements of G are done have led to that the value is 11% too small , since distance have not been accounted for in calculations . This mean fortunately that all old measurements done on spheres are very good and useful for calcs. but cylinders I would not accept

Of course , in a very gigantic explosion  one can imagine that gravity change "drop permanently"  but not between the few, very close together and far from such an event , bodies . The experiment setup spheres (cylinders) are "compared to each other and far away gravitation with (and changes )get canceled out  by the second pair "working" in opposite direction. Small masses nearby are more critic because they can be closer to only one target body .

The "front" hemisphere dMTi/(r-R)²   "far " hemis ph. dMTi /(r +R)²   => dMTi*{(r-R)² +(r+R)²  ]/[r² -R² )*(r+R)² ]

R=1;r=2 =>  10/9 dMTi  ,r=3/2 R=1 => 40/9 dMTi  . This is compensating the sideways* (1-sin²(a))^1/2 loss .

1 hour ago, hoola said:

to allow a reasonably accurate and stable value to be achieved? 

As I reason it, a gravity wave affect both source mass and target mass with same (N/kg) force.And in the time it take to cower both with the speed of light (minimum) , versus the " oscillation "of gravity setup is in minutes . I think no effect can stay in the system.

In theory the wave moves the masses but as a " single " wave also  move them back 

The sideways components of dF  vectors  do indeed totally cancel out , but the component vector length (strength) is on average more than dMTi/r²  Think all vectors in near hemisphere have a pair in far hemisphere , and an example along x axis :

The "first (near side ) and the farthest (back side ) . Their distance in sqr =(r-R)^2 and (r+R)^2  sum /2 =average 

[(r-R)²+(r+R)² ]/2 = [ r² -2rR + R²  +r²  +2rR +R²  ]/2 = [ 2r² +2R² ]/2 => dMTi /( r² +R² ) and this is always stronger than dMTi/r²  vector , so the asymmetry  is compensated by asymmetry of hemispheres ( near / far)