studiot

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    10265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

studiot last won the day on February 15

studiot had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1583 Glorious Leader

7 Followers

About studiot

  • Rank
    SuperNerd

Profile Information

  • Location
    Somerset, England
  • Favorite Area of Science
    applications of physical sciences
  • Occupation
    Semi Retired Technical Consultant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Can anyone comment on the provenance of this 'journal' ? It promotes this rubbish for instance (Aug 2018) https://www.scitechnol.com/peer-review/gravity-is-a-myth-CHpy.php?article_id=8027
  2. studiot

    Elucubrations on positve, negative & imaginary numbers

    But Michel doesn't want to do this. He want to use only imaginary numbers and that is where his problems start. Technically by themselves imaginary numbers do not form an 'algebra'. Of course, both the real numbers and the complex numbers do. This issue is so fundamental that we normally take it for granted and don't bother to mention it or state it. We just so used to cracking on with appropriate mathematical object we don't even realise we are automatically selecting them. Using only only imaginary numbers doesn't lead to mathematical nonsense, it is just a helluva lot more restrictive than the alternatives - as you rightly observe Michel is finding out.
  3. The eco (furniture) factory described in the book is still going strong. https://grimshaw.global/projects/herman-miller-factory/
  4. Which Lagrange theorem would that be? The one in Number theory? or The one in Group theory?
  5. studiot

    Gravitation constant or not

    No work is done unless a force moves its point of application.
  6. studiot

    Gravitation constant or not

    I think this argument about point masses is a red herring. Whether a body is a sphere or not, it has a centre of mass. Mechanics requires we use this centre in our formulae. The (solid) sphere is just one of the easiest for calculation.
  7. studiot

    Gravitation constant or not

    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.
  8. studiot

    Gravitation constant or not

    This is just plain bad mathematics. This definition and argument is circular This is only true if G is constant, something you are trying to disprove ! You are relying on the constancy of G or T in any summation or integral where you take G or T outside the summation or integral. If they are not constant, then your calculation would be different. It is very difficult to separate out calculations involving G and T from your pictures, since you have mixed them intimately.
  9. I agree with this, unfortunately those promoting these shifts tend to be less well resourced and less articulate than the establishment. For example the small book 'Cradle to Cradle' by Braungart and McDonough Is very well reasearched, and contains some excellent examples of actual (successful) cases. However it is very hard to read as its style is not coherent or progressive. When our back have been to the wall (eg WW II) coherent (joined up) Government did indeed lead and direct a successful collective response to an emergency. But real and imminent emergencies do appear to be the only drver for such action. In the Netherlands (Holland) last year the banned the use of gas in new homes. The UK government is considering a similar ban. But another part of the UK government is still offering grant suport and promoting gas boilers. Worse the UK government has fragmented its policy to provide a relaible and stable electricity alternative.
  10. studiot

    Gravitation constant or not

    You have posted your original paper abstract as 5 pictures. This is good as I have just been able to print them out as 5 readable pages. So I now propose to check through the maths properly, something I have only skimmed up till now. Several things immediately come to notice. Please confirm if you agree with them. 1) Your treatment appears purely classical. Relativity of gravity is not involved. 2) Because you have not numbered your equations as is standard practice and they are pictures, it is impossible to quote them directly here and difficult to refer to them. 3) I see that on page (picture) 3 of your paper you have introduced the mole and Avogadro's constant. I would would like to discuss the circularity of that part of your argument, but I cannot extract it or refer to it directly. 4) You have introduced 'energy' into your thesis, and also the special relativity relationship between energy and mass. 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. 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. 7) One of you misunderstandings is that you have not shown Forces (however generated) as vector quantities and therefore you have ignored the directional properties of vectors. These are also affected by other acting forces. This is linked to your misunderstanding of Gauss.
  11. Sorry, how old were you last time you told us?
  12. studiot

    Gravitation constant or not

    Rather than challenging you again I will try to be helpful and provide more detail. This discussion is solidly founded in Mechanics. Mechanics can be reduced to relationships (Laws, formule etc) between three suitable quantities. The current international standards use Mass, Length and Time (although some disciplines also use Force, Length and Time, eg Fluid Mechanics) In the ISO these are realised as the kilogramme, metre and second. These are called units. For the purpose of dimensional analysis you simply need to work in consistent units. So we work in unitless dimensions M, L and T and expressed as a product of powers (including negative powers) of these three. The baic relationship connecting the last two is the definition of velocity Note I am using an equals sign for the defining relationship and an arrow to denote the derived dimensions. [math]velocity = \frac{{dis\tan ce}}{{time}} \to L{T^{ - 1}}[/math], This can be extended to acceleration [math]aceleration = \frac{{velocitychange}}{{time}} \to L{T^{ - 2}}[/math] These are both simple geomtrical relationships. Introducing a Physical law - Newton's second Law we define force [math]force = mass*acceleration \to ML{T^{ - 2}}[/math] and work (or energy since work is a particular type of energy) [math]work = force*dis\tan ce \to M{L^2}{T^{ - 2}}[/math] Now we are in a position to derive the dimensions of the Universal gravitational constant G, using Newton's Law of gravity. [math]Gforce = G\frac{{{m_1}{m_2}}}{{{d^2}}} \to G{M^2}{L^2}[/math] Newton's law is an equation and to be equal the dimensions must be identical on both sides of the equation so comapring [math]ML{T^{ - 2}} \leftrightarrow G{M^2}{L^2}[/math] [math]\frac{{ML{T^{ - 2}}}}{{{M^2}{L^2}}} \leftrightarrow G[/math] [math]{M^{ - 1}}{L^3}{T^{ - 2}} \leftrightarrow G[/math] Which yields mys tated dimensions for G. Now Avogadro's number is defined as [math]Avogadro'sNumber,{N_a} = \frac{{Molarmass}}{{molecularmass}} = \frac{M}{m} \to \frac{M}{M}[/math] remembering my earlier note that the molar mass and the molecular mass must be in the same units we find that the constant is mass/mass or Kg/Kg That is dimensionless. This is not different from say the dimensionless quantitly 'Reynold's number' which is the ratio of inertial forces to the viscous forces or The dimensionless quantity 'strain' which is the ratio of two lengths Or the dimensionless quantity 'duty factor' which is the ratio of two times. The first two of these other examples are variables and the third is a constant, demonstrating that dimensionless quantities can be constants or variables. There are many examples in Physics of such dimensionless ratios and I note you made no comment when I stated your 'reduced volume' was not a volume but also a dimensionless quantity since it is based on the ratio of two lengths. 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.
  13. studiot

    Elucubrations on positve, negative & imaginary numbers

    I apologise I was rushing when I posted. I should have made clear what I was doing. At least you have picked it up correctly. A is the point (6i, 9i) so the product is -54 B is the point (1i, 54i) so the product is -54 C is the point (54i, 1i) so the product is -54 So my point still stands What does the -54 mean since there are many different points, each with this value of product?
  14. studiot

    Gravitation constant or not

    Oh dear, G has dimensions L3 M-1 T-2 Your expression has dimensions L2 T-2 since Na and p are dimensionless numbers. How do you explain this?
  15. studiot

    Elucubrations on positve, negative & imaginary numbers

    Could you please label your axis? I don't follow. Which axis or axes? The bottom conformal map or the top hand drawn one? The top one is simply your crossed imaginary axes. I haven't bothered with the i since every number on those axes is multiplied by i.