# Gravity (split from Infinite gravity)

## Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Sensei said:

E=mc^2 simply informs how to convert from mass units (e.g. kg or eV/c^2) to energy units (e.g. J or eV)..

In normalized units (where c=1) you simply have E=m.

"Blessed is he who believes".   Do not substitute physics for mathematics. Any matter has some limiting resource, which we call "energy" (or "mass"). Therefore, if matter creates a gravitational field, then it cannot be infinite. I am sure that you make a mistake by comparing gravity with electromagnetic waves (or light), since we can screen electromagnetic waves, but gravity cannot.
For example, according to the theory that I develop, the gravitational fields of the big planets of the Solar system reach the Sun. Therefore, the orbits of these planets are close to a circle. But the gravitational fields of small objects of the Solar system (asteroids, plutoids, and also Mercury) do not reach the Sun. Therefore, their orbits have large eccentricities. I derived the exact formula for calculating the radius of the gravitational action of any planet, but I would not want to publish it, since it has not yet passed the test of time, in my understanding.

##### Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

But the gravitational fields of small objects of the Solar system (asteroids, plutoids, and also Mercury) do not reach the Sun.

Exactly how far do they reach?

##### Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

"Blessed is he who believes".   Do not substitute physics for mathematics. Any matter has some limiting resource, which we call "energy" (or "mass"). Therefore, if matter creates a gravitational field, then it cannot be infinite. I am sure that you make a mistake by comparing gravity with electromagnetic waves (or light), since we can screen electromagnetic waves, but gravity cannot.
For example, according to the theory that I develop, the gravitational fields of the big planets of the Solar system reach the Sun. Therefore, the orbits of these planets are close to a circle. But the gravitational fields of small objects of the Solar system (asteroids, plutoids, and also Mercury) do not reach the Sun. Therefore, their orbits have large eccentricities. I derived the exact formula for calculating the radius of the gravitational action of any planet, but I would not want to publish it, since it has not yet passed the test of time, in my understanding.

So why do they not reach the sun? is there some hard boundary around them? If I would have a spaceship, and move closer to them, will at some point I suddenly be noticing their gravitational fields?

So you have this new formula, but you don't want to publish it, you don't want to further science and our understanding of the universe, because.... it hasn't passed the test of time (what does this mean?)? If you publish, other people can scrutinize it and see if it is right or not, and even use it if it is useful. But instead you tell some people on an internet forum that you found such a formula but don't want to publish it?

-Dagl

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Exactly how far do they reach?

//"... but I would not want to publish it, since it has not yet passed the test of time, in my understanding."//

If you stick to classical physics, in any case you will not accept an alternative theory. I am a realist and I understand that the best proof of any theory is its practical use. That is what I try to do now in my home laboratory. I already have some interesting results.

54 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

So why do they not reach the sun? is there some hard boundary around them? If I would have a spaceship, and move closer to them, will at some point I suddenly be noticing their gravitational fields?

Of course, yes. You see our spacecraft without problems go into planetary orbits.

54 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

So you have this new formula, but you don't want to publish it, you don't want to further science and our understanding of the universe, because.... it hasn't passed the test of time (what does this mean?)? If you publish, other people can scrutinize it and see if it is right or not, and even use it if it is useful. But instead you tell some people on an internet forum that you found such a formula but don't want to publish it?

Ok, I am ready to provide here a formula that I have already published on the Internet - the calculation of the average distance from the Earth to the Sun. This formula is close to the formula that calculates the radius of the gravitational action of any planet, according to the theory that I develop:

where µ  is the Earth's gravitational parameter (the geocentric gravitational constant), α-1 ≈ 137.04 is the fine-structure constant, C = 1 m/s is a matching coefficient.

The logic by which I got this formula is not quite physical. This logic is more philosophical. Are you ready to accept philosophical logic in a physical forum?

P.S. I will be out of the Internet for several days, so I will not be able to answer questions here. Sorry.

Edited by Hamster22

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

Therefore, if matter creates a gravitational field, then it cannot be infinite.

Do you know Newtonian classical physics?

Mass is proportional to the force, while distance is inversely proportional to squared distance r.

$F=\frac{GMm}{r^2}$

Double mass, with constant distance r, and you have force twice stronger.

Double distance r, with constant mass m and M, and you have force four times weaker.

Either mass m and M, or r can approach to infinity, resulting in meaningless small force from extraordinary distance.

Meaningless small, below threshold at which somebody can detect and properly interpret such information.

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

For example, according to the theory that I develop, the gravitational fields of the big planets of the Solar system reach the Sun. Therefore, the orbits of these planets are close to a circle. But the gravitational fields of small objects of the Solar system (asteroids, plutoids, and also Mercury) do not reach the Sun.

Billions of years ago there was no Solar System, as we know it now. It used to be cloud of gases Hydrogen and Helium, with trace of other elements. It used to be larger than entire Solar System, with very small density. It collapsed due to gravity. If small mass is unable to have gravitational effect on longer distances (you're claiming that even so small cosmic scale distances as solar distances), how could initial cloud collapse in the first place?

##### Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

//"... but I would not want to publish it, since it has not yet passed the test of time, in my understanding."//

!

Moderator Note

The rules require that you suport your assertion with a model or evidence. How can it be tested?

##### Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

If﻿ you stick to classical physics﻿, in any case you will not accept an alternative﻿﻿ theory﻿.﻿﻿﻿

New theories are accepted when they have compelling evidence.

This is something you are totally lacking. You cannot expect people to believe things you make up just because ... well, because you made it up.

6 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

Ok, I am ready to provide here a formula that I have already published on the Internet - the calculation of the average distance from the Earth to the Sun. This formula is close to the formula that calculates the radius of the gravitational action of any planet, according to the theory that I develop

Please show how this equation is derived.

6 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

The logic by which I got this formula is not quite physical. This logic is more philosophical. Are you ready to accept philosophical logic in a physical forum?

It depends what you mean by "philosophical logic". If, like so many people with "personal theories" you mean "it makes sense to me because I made it up" then no.

It would be better to base your theory on sound science.

##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

But the gravitational fields of small objects of the Solar system (asteroids, plutoids, and also Mercury) do not reach the Sun.

Then how do they orbit the sun?

##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

Any matter has some limiting resource, which we call "energy" (or "mass"). Therefore, if matter creates a gravitational field, then it cannot be infinite.

You are misusing the word "therefore" in that sentence. Your conclusion has no connection to the premise.

8 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

I am sure that you make a mistake by comparing gravity with electromagnetic waves (or light), since we can screen electromagnetic waves, but gravity cannot.

There was no comparison of gravity and electromagnetic radiation in the post you quoted.

Also, the fact that we can screen electromagnetic waves is not relevant.

So you get a double fail in logical argument.

##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

Ok, I am ready to provide here a formula that I have already published on the Internet - the calculation of the average distance from the Earth to the Sun. This formula is close to the f﻿ormula that calculates the radius of the gravitational action of any planet, according to the theory that I develop:

﻿

where µ  is the Earth's gravitational parameter (the geocentric gravitational constant﻿), α-1 ≈ 137.04﻿ is the fine-structure constant, C = 1 m/s is a matching coefficient.

The logic by which ﻿I got this formula is not quite physical. This logic is more philosophical. Are you ready to accept philosophical logic in a physical forum?

So your equation for the average earth to sun distance is off by about a 1,000,000 km, which is not too bad.  I tried your equation on Mars (using the geocentric gravitational constant for Mars = 4.283 x 10^13).  The results of your equation put the orbit of Mars inside the orbit of the earth.  That does not seem quite right.  Either I did something wrong or your equation needs a bit of tweaking.

##### Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Either I did something wrong or your equation needs a bit of tweaking.

Maybe there is a different equation for every planet...

##### Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Strange said:

Maybe there is a different equation for every planet...

Well that would be a useful!

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/8/2019 at 11:14 AM, Sensei said:

Do you know Newtonian classical physics?

Mass is proportional to the force, while distance is inversely proportional to squared distance r.F=GMmr2

I doubt the truth of the Newton's formula because Newton could not know the masses of the Earth and the Sun. The experiments of Cavendish and his followers could be incorrect. Criticizing these experiences is not my topic, but I can give you the reference where other researchers criticize these experiences.

On 5/8/2019 at 1:28 PM, Sensei said:

Billions of years ago there was no Solar System, as we know it now. It used to be cloud of gases Hydrogen and Helium, with trace of other elements. It used to be larger than entire Solar System, with very small density. It collapsed due to gravity. If small mass is unable to have gravitational effect on longer distances (you're claiming that even so small cosmic scale distances as solar distances), how could initial cloud collapse in the first place?﻿

This is just a hypothesis. We cannot directly observe the formation of planetary systems of other stars. Interpretations of astronomical observations vary  between different astronomers at different times. Humans tend to make mistakes. It is presumptuous to believe that we now know the absolute truth about the birth of the Solar system. For example, if the giant planets of the Solar system were formed from approximately one gas-dust cloud, why are these planets so different from each other? And why do the satellites of the giant planets differ from each other (atmosphere, temperature, chemical composition etc.)? After all, according to logic, they should be built from almost one substance. And why is the Moon so strikingly different from the Earth? Etc.

On 5/8/2019 at 3:16 PM, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

The rules require that you suport your assertion with a model or evidence. How can it be tested?

Sorry, I initially posted my comments in the topic "Infinite gravity", and I did not plan to start new topic.

On 5/8/2019 at 3:57 PM, Strange said:

Please show how this equation is derived.﻿

This is a long matter, because to explain how I derived this formula, I will have to explain my theory of the structure of the hydrogen atom, proton, and electron. Since this theory has not yet passed the test of time, I am not ready to fully explain it, but in short I can tell the general idea of this theory. This is not fully my original theory. Initially, I learned about it from other authors about 25 years ago and then I began to develop it. Its main idea is as follows: any planet is a self-sufficient system in which the whole (the planet itself) and the particulars (elementary particles) are similar to each other in many ways, and the fundamental physical constants (the speed of light, the electron mass and some others) are valid only for this planet. Further, I assumed (in accordance with the arguments given by me in my previous comments) that the scope of a planet’s influence is limited. Next, I ratiocinated as follows: if the physical constants are related to a planet, then they must be related to the gravitational parameter µ of the planet. Next. If the scope (radius) of influence of the planet is limited, then it must also be related with the gravitational parameter of the planet. But the average radius of an orbit, in which any small body rotates around the planet, is related with its average orbital speed accordingly to the formula √(µ/Ro). That is, the orbital speed of a body related to the maximum radius of the sphere of influence of the planet must be as low as possible. And I thought: could such a minimum speed also exist in the microworld of the planet (for example, the Earth), that is, in atoms, nuclei, and electrons? I think I found such a minimum speed in the electron. Assuming that the electron model is approximately as follows,

I derived the formula for the electron radius

which give a value close to the electron radius obtained by Hans Dehmelt in 1989 year. Then, in my electron model, I discovered the speed of 51 m/s, and supposed that it is the minimum orbital speed of a body revolving around the Earth along a circular orbit, which exactly corresponds to the radius

that is, the average distance from the Earth to the Sun. I would like to say that later I came to the conclusion that there is an even more minimal speed, which, as I suppose, corresponds to the maximum radius of the sphere of gravitational action of the Earth. Now this minimum speed passes the test of time.

On 5/8/2019 at 5:32 PM, swansont said:

Then how do they orbit the sun?

This is a good question. One could answer that the Sun's gravity rotates the planets (the sphere of the Sun's gravitational action, according to my formula, is at least not less than 5.03 * 1016 m, but I think that is not so simple. I'm still thinking about this question.

On 5/8/2019 at 5:38 PM, Strange said:

There was no comparison of gravity and electromagnetic radiation in the post you quoted.

I am sorry. Instead of the word "you" I should probably have written the word "they". English is not my native language.

On 5/8/2019 at 6:05 PM, Bufofrog said:

So your equation for the average earth to sun distance is off by about a 1,000,000 km, which is not too bad.  I tried your equation on Mars (using the geocentric gravitational constant for Mars = 4.283 x 10^13).  The results of your equation put the orbit of Mars inside the orbit of the earth.  That does not seem quite right.  Either I did something wrong or your equation needs a bit of tweaking.

I am sorry. In listing "asteroids, plutoids, and also Mercury﻿", I forgot to mention Mars. Of course, as I suppose, the sphere of the gravitational action of Mars also does not reach the Sun. Therefore, Mars has a significant eccentricity. In addition, there is an assumption that Mars (and Ceres) are part of the asteroid belt,  which may additionally affect their eccentricities, but that is another topic.

On 5/8/2019 at 7:04 PM, Strange said:

Maybe there is a different equation for every planet...

I assume that the formula that calculates the maximum radius of gravitational action of planets (as well as stars, black holes, etc.) is universal, but the formula that calculates the average distance from the Earth to the Sun is unique. Perhaps this makes the Earth a unique space object, in a sense, maybe even the center of the Universe (since I assume that the fine-structure constant is universal).

Edited by Hamster22

##### Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

I am sorry. In listing "asteroids, plutoids, and also Mercury﻿", I forgot to mention Mars. Of course, as I suppose, the sphere of the gravitational action of Mars also does not reach the Sun. Therefore, Mars has a significant eccentricity. In addition, there is an assumption that Mars (and Ceres) are part of the asteroid belt,  which may additionally affect their eccentricities, but that is another topic.

Do you think Mars orbits the Sun because of the gravity from the Sun but not the gravity from Mars because the gravity from Mars does not reach the Sun?

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Do you think Mars orbits the Sun because of the gravity from the Sun but not the gravity from Mars because the gravity from Mars does not reach the Sun?﻿

Exactly! I share the opinion of other researchers who argue that gravity is not a force effect, but an algorithmic one. That is, Newton's 3 law in the case of gravity does not work!

##### Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Exactly! I share the opinion of other researchers who argue that gravity is not a force effect, but an algorithmic one. That is, Newton's 3 law in the case of gravity does not work!

Thanks for your reply.  To be sure I completely disagree with you, I think there is ample evidence showing that the equations for gravity using Newtons equations and general relativity work very well.

Do you have equations for orbital mechanics using your hypothesis?

Would your hypothesis be falsified if we were to find 2 bodies that orbit each other, even though your equations said that there influence was less than their distance from each other?

##### Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Do you think Mars orbits the Sun because of the gravity from the Sun but not the gravity from Mars because the gravity from Mars does not reach the Sun?

There are two ways to detect exoplanet and eventually habitable planet. One way is to measure shaking of the star. Massive exoplanets are disturbing center-of-mass of their star system. It's slightly offset from center of the star, similar like binary star systems have offset center of mass. Two equal mass binary stars have center-of-mass in the middle between them. Second way is to measure luminosity of star in the long period of time. Periodical brightening and darkening of the star means it's shaded by something orbiting around it e.g. exoplanet. These two methods can be used simultaneously to verify themselves. Shaking of the center-of-mass of star system learn scientist that exoplanet is there.

In the face of this, your claim that "Mars does not affect the Sun", is kinda silly, don't you think? You're rejecting entire methodology of searching of exoplanets..

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

I doubt the truth of the Newton's formula because Newton could not know the masses of the Earth and the Sun.

And yet he was able to formulate an hypothesis without them.

And we have subsequent confirmation of the formula.

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

For example, if the giant planets of the Solar system were formed from approximately one gas-dust cloud, why are these planets so different from each other? And why do the satellites of the giant planets differ from each other (atmosphere, temperature, chemical composition etc.)? After all, according to logic, they should be built from almost one substance. And why is the Moon so strikingly different from the Earth? Etc.

People actually study this, so you do not have to rely on uninformed "logic"

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

Sorry, I initially posted my comments in the topic "Infinite gravity", and I did not plan to start new topic.

And that represented a hijack of a discussion, so here we are.

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

This is a long matter, because to explain how I derived this formula, I will have to explain my theory of the structure of the hydrogen atom, proton, and electron. Since this theory has not yet passed the test of time, I am not ready to fully explain it, but in short I can tell the general idea of this theory. This is not fully my original theory. Initially, I learned about it from other authors about 25 years ago and then I began to develop it. Its main idea is as follows: any planet is a self-sufficient system in which the whole (the planet itself) and the particulars (elementary particles) are similar to each other in many ways, and the fundamental physical constants (the speed of light, the electron mass and some others) are valid only for this planet.

This is trivially falsified. Spectroscopy, for example, confirms that atoms behave the same way on different bodies, and this would not be the case if the constants varied. The speed of light being invariant is a cornerstone of both Electromagnetism and Relativity, which have mountains of evidence to support them.

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

Perhaps this makes the Earth a unique space object, in a sense, maybe even the center of the Universe (since I assume that the fine-structure constant is universal).

How can that be, if the fundamental constants that comprise the fine structure constant are different for each planet?

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

Its main idea is as follows: any planet is a self-sufficient system in which the whole (the planet itself) and the particulars (elementary particles) are similar to each other in many ways, and the fundamental physical constants (the speed of light, the electron mass and some others) are valid only for this planet.

A Question, so I understand what your idea states. According to the idea an asteroid formed by matter from a distant part of the solar system has a set of elementary particles that differs from the ones here at earth. But the asteroids that are collected and investigated here on earth seems to consist of regular particles. What process transforms the asteroids' elementary particles to match the earth's elementary particles, so that our investigations show "earth matter" made from "earth particles"? Or are there other explanations in your idea?

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

I doubt the truth of the Newton's formula because Newton could not know the masses of the Earth and the Sun.

You don't need to know the masses of the Earth and Sun to confirm Newton's theory.

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

This is just a hypothesis.

It is more than a hypothesis. You need to look up the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory". The predictions of this model are supported by evidence, so it is a theory, not a hypothesis.

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

We cannot directly observe the formation of planetary systems of other stars.

Actually, we can. Don't let your ignorance of the evidence fool you into thinking that there isn't any.

This is why it is so important to have a really good education in the subject before making up your own "theory" (not a theory. or even a hypothesis.)

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

Interpretations of astronomical observations vary  between different astronomers at different times. Humans tend to make mistakes.

Yep, that is how science progresses. (Not by people making things up.)

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

It is presumptuous to believe that we now know the absolute truth about the birth of the Solar system.

No one believes that. So why make such a ridiculous claim?

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

For example, if the giant planets of the Solar system were formed from approximately one gas-dust cloud, why are these planets so different from each other?

Physics.

It may be incomprehensible if you don't know anything and, apparently, refuse to learn. But, to put it as simply as possible, different materials behave differently.

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

After all, according to logic, they should be built from almost one substance

I have no idea what the word "logic" is doing in this sentence.

I think what you meant to say was: "After all, according to my complete lack of understanding, they should be built from almost one substance"

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

This is a long matter, because to explain how I derived this formula, I will have to explain my theory of the structure of the hydrogen atom, proton, and electron.

So you are happy to criticise well-established science supported by mountains of evidence gathered over centuries (because you don't know about it) and yet you make up a model for the atom that has no basis in reality, and then try to invent a theory of gravity from that.

You can't see a flaw in this approach?

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

Its main idea is as follows: any planet is a self-sufficient system in which the whole (the planet itself) and the particulars (elementary particles) are similar to each other in many ways, and the fundamental physical constants (the speed of light, the electron mass and some others) are valid only for this planet.

This is wrong in so many ways.

Firstly, elementary particles and planets are not at all alike. Elementary particles are described by wave functions and probability; electrons are not little balls orbiting a solid nucleus. (Despite what a children's science book might have told you.)

Secondly, we can measure things like the speed of light, etc. and know that they are universal constants.

As the rest of your "theory" is based on these fundamental errors, I am not going to spend much more time on it.

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

I am sorry. Instead of the word "you" I should probably have written the word "they". English is not my native language.

There was still no comparison of gravity and electromagnetism. (Using a different pronoun doesn't change that fact.)

##### Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 7:54 PM, Hamster22 said:

"Blessed is he who believes".   Do not substitute physics for mathematics. Any matter has some limiting resource, which we call "energy" (or "mass"). Therefore, if matter creates a gravitational field, then it cannot be infinite.

You are making the mistake of confusing infinite in extent with infinite in energy.  Gravitational force falls off by the square of the distance.  Because of this, the energy of the gravitational field remains finite out to any distance, even infinity.   If you integrate GMm/r2 in order to get gravitational potential energy, you get E= -GMm/r.   To get the  energy difference for a mass at different distances from a planet, you take the difference in GPE at those distances.   For example, between the surface of the Earth and a point an infinitely far away.   As r tends towards infinity, GPE tends towards 0.  Thus you end up with 0 -(-GMm/re) or just GMm/re, where re is the radius for the Earth , M is the mass of the Earth, and m the mass of our object.  This works out to be ~62511759 joules per kilogram for mass m. This also works out to being the energy it takes per kilogram to accelerate the object up to 11.18 km/sec or escape velocity from the Earth.

Ergo, any mass, even infinitely far from the Earth, has a finite gravitational energy with respect to it, and an infinite in range gravitational field does not require infinite energy.

##### Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Do you have equations for orbital mechanics using your hypothesis?

Yes, I have. These are the three laws of Kepler.

17 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Would your hypothesis be falsified if we were to find 2 bodies that orbit each other, even though your equations said that there influence was less than their distance from each other?﻿

You (and other members) probably misunderstood my hypothesis. When I said "Newton's 3 law in the case of gravity does not work", I meant the small objects of the Solar system, which I listed earlier  - "asteroids, plutoids, Mars, and also Mercury". Perhaps I have not accurately expressed my idea. Sorry. If the gravitational spheres of objects overlap, they interact with each other in accordance with the laws of Kepler. No problems. For example, Pluto and Charon rotate around their center of mass, Jupiter and the Sun rotate around their center of mass, the Moon and Earth rotate around their center of mass, an electron and a proton in an hydrogen atom rotate around their center of mass, etc., but a spaceship and the Earth DO NOT rotate around their center of mass, Mercury and the Sun DO NOT rotate around their center of mass, etc.

17 hours ago, Sensei said:

Second way is to measure luminosity of star in the long period of time. Periodical brightening and darkening of the star means it's shaded by something orbiting around it e.g. exoplanet.

This is not an absolute fact. For example, there are Intrinsic variables stars whose periodical brightening and darkening are not caused by exoplanets. By the way, the Sun also changes its luminosity every 11 years. What does the exoplanets here?

18 hours ago, Sensei said:

In the face of this, your claim that "Mars does not affect the Sun", is kinda silly, don't you think? You're rejecting entire methodology of searching of exoplanets..﻿

I defined more exactly my idea in reply to Bufofrog. Mars really does not affect the Sun, but Jupiter is affected.

18 hours ago, swansont said:

And yet he was able to formulate an hypothesis without them.

And we have subsequent confirmation of the formula.

I assume that when calculating the motion of space objects, it is necessary to apply not GM but µ. That’s all. Is it really unscientific?

18 hours ago, swansont said:

People actually study this, so you do not have to rely on uninformed "logic"

May be. I do not want to seem smarter than I really am. The future will show what people study.

18 hours ago, swansont said:

This is trivially falsified. Spectroscopy, for example, confirms that atoms behave the same way on different bodies, and this would not be the case if the constants varied. The speed of light being invariant is a cornerstone of both Electromagnetism and Relativity, which have mountains of evidence to support them.

Atoms that spectroscopy studies are in the sphere of the Earth and belong to the Earth. So, the fundamental physical constants of the Earth are valid for the atoms (with some reservations). By the way, meteorites that fall to the Earth become "earthly" and their atoms also begin to obey the fundamental physical constants of the Earth. Of course, this is still a hypothesis. I find it hard to strictly prove it.

18 hours ago, swansont said:

How can that be, if the fundamental constants that comprise the fine structure constant are different for each planet?

The fundamental constants are different but the ratio of these constants (which is the fine structure constant) is unchanged. That is, the fine structure constant is universal for the entire Universe.

18 hours ago, Ghideon said:

A Question, so I understand what your idea states. According to the idea an asteroid formed by matter from a distant part of the solar system has a set of elementary particles that differs from the ones here at earth. But the asteroids that are collected and investigated here on earth seems to consist of regular particles. What process transforms the asteroids' elementary particles to match the earth's elementary particles, so that our investigations show "earth matter" made from "earth particles"? Or are there other explanations in your idea?﻿

I answered your question in my reply to swansont. The physics of the transformation process is still unknown to me.

18 hours ago, Strange said:

You don't need to know the masses of the Earth and Sun to confirm Newton's theory.

To calculate the motion of space objects in the first approximation, Kepler's theory is quite sufficient. If you mean the equation F = GM1M2 / r2, then I consider it incorrect, since the experiments of Cavendish and his followers, who determined G, are unreliable. I think to calculate a gravitational attraction, it is necessary to use an equation using gravitational parameters instead of masses of objects. By the way, are you absolutely sure that you know what mass is? Probably not. How can you be absolutely sure of the truth of Newton's equation?

18 hours ago, Strange said:

This is why it is so important to have a really good education in the subject before making up your own "theory" (not a theory. or even a hypothesis.)

A stick has two ends. If an education is based on incorrect theories, it is useless. To remind you how in the Middle Ages "educated" geocentrists taught that the Universe revolves around the Earth? I like science, but I don't like scrupulous scientific work. This is about how Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - you either see the horizon or drown in details, and cannot see beyond your nose. I prefer to see the horizon. To each his own.

18 hours ago, Strange said:

I think what you meant to say was: "After all, according to my complete lack of understanding, they should be built from almost one substance"

18 hours ago, Strange said:

So you are happy to criticise well-established science supported by mountains of evidence gathered over centuries (because you don't know about it) and yet you make up a model for the atom that has no basis in reality, and then try to invent a theory of gravity from that.

I am more or less confident in my models of the atom and in my theory because they are confirmed by independent experimental evidences made by modern experimental science. In addition to the electron radius, which I have already published here, my theory, for example, allows to calculate experimentally confirmed the magnetic proton radius

experimentally confirmed the Earth's average radius

experimentally confirmed the highest-intensity harmonic of the Schumann resonance

Now I am preparing for publication the formula that calculates and explains experimentally confirmed the 11-year cycle of Sun's activity. Do you really think that these are all unscientific coincidences? Or do you think that I poke my finger at the sky and then get the correct results?

19 hours ago, Strange said:

Firstly, elementary particles and planets are not at all alike. Elementary particles are described by wave functions and probability; electrons are not little balls orbiting a solid nucleus. (Despite what a children's science book might have told you.)

Maybe so, but maybe not. It all depends on the interpretation of experiences. Personally, I think that comparing an electron with a ball is more correct than comparing an electron with a math abstraction such as wave functions.

19 hours ago, Strange said:

Secondly, we can measure things like the speed of light, etc. and know that they are universal constants.

We measure the fundamental constants on the Earth with earthly instruments, and analyze these measurements by our earthly sense organs, which belong to our earthly bodies.

19 hours ago, Strange said:

As the rest of your "theory" is based on these fundamental errors, I am not going to spend much more time on it.

Thanks for an interesting conversation, Mr. Strange. Bye-bye!

15 hours ago, Janus said:

You are making the mistake of confusing infinite in extent with infinite in energy.  Gravitational force falls off by the square of the distance.  Because of this, the energy of the gravitational field remains finite out to any distance, even infinity.   If you integrate GMm/r2 in order to get gravitational potential energy, you get E= -GMm/r.   To get the  energy difference for a mass at different distances from a planet, you take the difference in GPE at those distances.   For example, between the surface of the Earth and a point an infinitely far away.   As r tends towards infinity, GPE tends towards 0.  Thus you end up with 0 -(-GMm/re) or just GMm/re, where re is the radius for the Earth , M is the mass of the Earth, and m the mass of our object.  This works out to be ~62511759 joules per kilogram for mass m. This also works out to being the energy it takes per kilogram to accelerate the object up to 11.18 km/sec or escape velocity from the Earth.

Ergo, any mass, even infinitely far from the Earth, has a finite gravitational energy with respect to it, and an infinite in range gravitational field does not require infinite energy.﻿

If gravitational force is not produced by power way (i.e. by the direct attraction of a force center) but algorithmic one (by transmitting a weak informational gravitational impulse to a falling body), then the concept of “the energy of the gravitational field” needs to be corrected.

##### Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

You (and other members) probably misunderstood my hypothesis. When I said "Newton's 3 law in the case of gravity does not work", I meant the small objects of the Solar system, which I listed earlier  - "asteroids, plutoids, Mars, and also Mercury".

And yet Newton's laws describe the motions of these pretty well.

The one exception is the precession of Mercury, which required the greater accuracy of GR to fully account for.

Can your model correctly calculate the precession of Mercury without using GR?

11 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

but a spaceship and the Earth DO NOT rotate around their center of mass, Mercury and the Sun DO NOT rotate around their center of mass, etc

Please provide the observational evidence to support this claim.

12 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

This is not an absolute fact.

No one said it was. This is science, not religion.

13 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

I assume that when calculating the motion of space objects, it is necessary to apply not GM but µ. That’s all. Is it really unscientific?

It is unscientific if you cannot provide any evidence.

14 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

The future will show what people study.

Why not look at what people study now?

14 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

To calculate the motion of space objects in the first approximation, Kepler's theory is quite sufficient. If you mean the equation F = GM1M2 / r2, then I consider it incorrect

Please provide some evidence to support this claim.

15 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

That’s all. Is it really unscientific?﻿

Yes.

15 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Atoms that spectroscopy studies are in the sphere of the Earth and belong to the Earth.

Nonsense.

You really do need to learn a tiny little bit of physics before embarrassing yourself like this.

17 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

I think to calculate a gravitational attraction, it is necessary to use an equation using gravitational parameters instead of masses of objects

Please provide evidence to support this claim.

17 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

By the way, are you absolutely sure that you know what mass is?

Irrelevant.

17 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

A stick has two ends. If an education is based on incorrect theories, it is useless.

And yet science progresses. But when wild guesses are based on ignorance of science, they are very unlikely to be correct.

19 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Maybe so, but maybe not. It all depends on the interpretation of experiences. Personally, I think that comparing an electron with a ball is more correct than comparing an electron with a math abstraction such as wave functions.

The evidence contradicts you. Again.

19 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

We measure the fundamental constants on the Earth with earthly instruments, and analyze these measurements by our earthly sense organs, which belong to our earthly bodies.

Nonsense.

20 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

If gravitational force is not produced by power way (i.e. by the direct attraction of a force center) but algorithmic one (by transmitting a weak informational gravitational impulse to a falling body), then the concept of “the energy of the gravitational field” needs to be corrected.

Do you have evidence that the potential energy of the gravitational field is calculated incorrectly?

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

I answered your question in my reply to swansont. The physics of the transformation process is still unknown to me.

Thanks! There are several issues already adressed by other members so I focus on this specific part of the discussion for now:

7 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

By the way, meteorites that fall to the Earth become "earthly" and their atoms also begin to obey the fundamental physical constants of the Earth. Of course, this is still a hypothesis. I find it hard to strictly prove it.

That means that for instance the Mars rovers sent by Nasa becomes "marsly"? The rovers and hence the rovers' instruments* are transformed by some unknown process so that they are different on a fundamental level?  And yet the rover** instruments are able to deliver reliable results. I do not find the hypothesis plausible. Can you provide som details why it is worth investigating?

**) and all other space probes on, or in orbit around or on their way to or away from celestial bodies in the solar system.