KeyOfDavid

If you can't say why his arguments are wrong, but merely attack his credentials, you have explained nothing. It merely proves your own bias. Possibly relevant, but I'm not assuming the orbits are stable. But there are papers that do examine the stability of 1/r orbits as that law, sometimes called MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) is what is predominantly observed outside the solar system.

Well, if we're trying to determine the k-mass of the sun, from the mass of the earth, then G2=G and G1=g, since r=1 AU. This seems more than a coincidence.

Ok, so suppose we know the law of gravity is F=GMm/rk How do we determine k? Or put it another way: how do we determine the masses of the relevant bodies in the solar system? Let's define: F=GkMkmk/rk and F=ma m is the inertial mass, mk is the k-gravitational mass. Because for every extra body we consider we introduce a new constant Mk we can assign values for all these k-masses that will produce the correct orbital parameters. And so Newton's formula basically seems to work no matter what value of k you choose. To test this we need to think through how these masses are determined and what experimental observations agree or disagree with this notion. Newton's result then can be restated that the 2-gravitational mass is the intertial mass, or m2=m. If you can give a competent talk on determination of G, how does that help me? If you can use your competence to critique Sheldrake's remarks on his investigation of how G is determined, then it might help a great deal. If however you basically use ad hominem to make your point, it simply appears that you are close minded, and I am none the wiser.

Do you think science is a matter of picking which books to believe? I mean it's great for passing exams, but I'm doing research which involves questioning what's gone before and understanding new things. Accepting only peer reviewed results is a method of filtering that results in confirmation bias. You are kind of proving my point to adopt this attitude. F=mg works very well for many applications. It doesn't mean g is universal. Did you just ignore the part where I said that ULG might operational work within the solar system. Also this is why science has stopped progressing. You systemically eliminate alternative theories to the ones you use before they have chance to be formed. I suggest you hold off the black hat thinking, and try and extract something useful out of what's being considered and say something constructive. Fair point that I haven't examined his methods closely. Question: Did you not listen to what Sheldrake had to say about G and how it's determined, because of his research into things you don't accept? I ask, because that's pretty much the definition of confirmation bias.

I had a look at Cavendish's result. He's measuring a force of order 10-11 N, compared with a downwards force of order 1 N. That requires an unbelievable sensitivity. A false result might occur simply by walking across the room and causing a tilt or bend in the equipment. I'm not saying that I can prove the result wrong, merely that I don't accept that without question. For other results, I suspect confirmation bias. Suppose I am doing an experiment to measure G. It's probably going to be at the limit of my equipment. So the noise is going to be similar to the measurement I'm making Well suppose I measure G and get 10-14 or 4×10-11. Well, I'm going to work out what's wrong and measure again. Or I'm going to publish anyway. Would my publication be accepted? And even if my result was published, would anyone care? I'm I'm simply pointing out the huge potential for confirmation bias. And this point it sounds a bit like mud slinging. But I have reasons as well as excuses to doubt the result. First up Sheldrake's censored Ted talk in which he mentions his investigation into how constants are measured. He mentions constants from minute 10. Second up in the Wikipedia page on the mass of the sun. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_mass Thirdly answers your point about astrophysics and astronomy. Yes, all the theory agrees. But that's because all the theory is done assuming ULG is correct. The result however is massive holes in all the equations showing which are explained away as dark matter. Missing mass in the universe is explicitly a problem. Gravity is also explicitly a problem which physicists claim to be spending billions of dollars solving. So we have a kind of schizophrenia where we accept and defined Newton without question and at the same time work as hard as we can to reconcile ULG with the so called standard model. And at the same time claim accuracy of ULG while observing these huge mysterious problems with mass on a cosmological scale. Maybe ULG produces operational effectiveness within our solar system. But I have no data to back up its effectiveness universally. So what I am beginning to do is pick apart ULG, work out where there is room for error. And to work out the mistakes in how we test, model and apply it. And why it produces what seem like workable results in some situations and not others. When it comes to observations, I am mostly looking at existing results and trying to interpret them in a much more consistent way by coming up with a better model. I actually think for the most part, correct, or at least more accurate models already exist, but they are largely ignored.

What's the point if you can't understand or establish basic results in physics? You showing an aptitude to think or comprehend is a pre-requisite to understanding what I have to say.

So numerically, g/G is distance to sun. Yes, G is defined constant. Now consider the universal law of gravity. What observations lead you to believe that Fr2/Mm is constant?

Except G is not a scaling factor as it not dimensionless. So who's the crank? The equation you are using is dimensionally incorrect. Why do you mock me for what you are doing? What's green, scaly and has 13 feet?

How do you know G is constant? What observations prove this? Except G is not a scaling factor as it not dimensionless. Do you see where I'm going with this yet?

So it works in some sense only in SI units. But what are SI units, and why do we use them? Are there other formulae that only work in SI units?

Ok, congratulations for your take down analysis Now explain to me the physical interpretation of G and how that makes sense.

OK, so my equation is out by 1 kg/m3. What is physical interpretation of kg/m3? Or units of G for that matter? Ok, so 3.7e11 is different from 7.4e11 by 3.7e11, or as we might say by a factor of 2.

I observe that g/G is the distance to the sun. Before I add own thoughts on this, I offer this up to discussion. What might be the reason for this coincidence?