Gravity (split from A change in Gravity killed the dinosaurs!)

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, MigL said:

How do you understand the gravity?

Could you answer, why an electromagnetic field (which represented inside particles as mass) in its "free form" (outside of particles) doesn't generate the gravity?

Mass presupposes an instantaneity while electromagnetism does enegry in motion – two separate instances; as it were, which is first, the chicken or the egg?

In the context of our local circumstances I could say it’s their combined effect under the auspices of instantaneity, can gravity be adduced.

• Replies 60
• Created

Posted Images

12 hours ago, kba said:

How do you understand the gravity?

As a force between objects with mass, if we're looking at things through a Newtonian lens. As a curvature of spacetime owing to energy-momentum (recall that mass is a form of energy) if we are considering general relativity

12 hours ago, kba said:

Could you answer, why an electromagnetic field (which represented inside particles as mass) in its "free form" (outside of particles) doesn't generate the gravity?

If it has energy it does. But generally speaking the energy of an electric field is small and gravity is a very weak interaction, so it can be safely ignored in most cases.

12 hours ago, kba said:

Accordingly to a subject of this thread it "bring to the table" many answers to paleobiological and geophysical questions.

I'm sure that many specialists in paleo- and geo- sciences would like to correlate many known evidencies with changes of the Earth's gravity.

But it needs to be correct to be helpful, and you have to demonstrate that it is correct. Your model appears to imply there is a deviation from the 1/r^2 force of Newtonian gravity (you've thus far declined the opportunity to show details of this). But if so, this causes problems. Newton's third law, for one - you have an action force that's not the same magnitude as the reaction force. Also Bertrand's theorem says that bound orbits are only closed if you have a 1/r or 1/r^2 force. So how do we have what appear to be closed orbits?

Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ni Mimi. said:
13 hours ago, MigL said:

How do you understand the gravity?

Could you answer, why an electromagnetic field (which represented inside particles as mass) in its "free form" (outside of particles) doesn't generate the gravity?

Mass presupposes an instantaneity while electromagnetism does enegry in motion – two separate instances; as it were, which is first, the chicken or the egg?

In the context of our local circumstances I could say it’s their combined effect under the auspices of instantaneity, can gravity be adduced.

Please don't attribute quotes to me that were, in fact, posted by kba.
Quote the original post please, not a quote of a quote. Thank you.

I don't know what any of your post is supposed to mean.
Mass and energy are both equivalent properties of a system;  energy is the property that allows for changing the configuration of the system, and do work, while mass, the property that resists change in the configuration of the system, is responsible for inertia.
No chickens or eggs involved.

Share on other sites

On 7/26/2022 at 5:05 PM, swansont said:

So how do we have what appear to be closed orbits?

Accordingly to Relative Gravity, we have the difference (from Newtonian law) for the gravity only inside the local gravitational system. I can't provide final RG law formula, yet. But, considering the previously published picture, it must describe the gravity function for third body, as a changing of the gravity acceleration, from its minimum (zero value), on the border of planet's local gravity system to its maximum (constant, which depends on planet's mass), in the center of the planet, by means of curve, which should be defined by 1/r^2 law.

The distance (r) from planet's center to its surface is a constant value. But the size (R) of local gravitational system (accordingly to picture, posted above) depends on a planet's orbital radius, and they're get various value, due to difference on Sun's gravity acceleration on those orbits. Thus, we have various ratio r/R for the functions of the gravitational acceleration on the various orbits of the planet. This is a reason, accordingly to Relative Gravity, to register different acceleration on the planet's surface on its different orbits.

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kba said:

Accordingly to Relative Gravity, we have the difference (from Newtonian law) for the gravity only inside the local gravitational system. I can't provide final RG law formula, yet. But, considering the previously published picture, it must describe the gravity function as a changing of the gravity acceleration, from its minimum (zero value) on the border of planet's local gravity system to its maximum (constant, which depends on planet's mass) in the center of the planet, by means of curve, which should be defined by 1/r^2 law.

The distance (r) from planet's center to its surface is a constant value. But the size (R) of local gravitational system (accordingly to picture, posted above) depends on a planet's orbital radius, and they're get various value, due to difference on Sun's gravity acceleration on those orbits. Thus, we have various ratio r/R for the functions of the gravitational acceleration on the various orbits of the planet. This is a reason, accordingly to Relative Gravity, to register different acceleration on the planet's surface on its different orbits.

Why does the gravity field of the Earth not follow these predictions ?

Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

Why does the gravity field of the Earth not follow these predictions ?

The test measurements of G gave various values. The difference was bigger than measurement's precision. May be it was connected with Relative gravity?

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kba said:

The test measurements of G gave various values. The difference was bigger than measurement's precision. May be it was connected with Relative gravity?

That wasn't what I asked you.

Do you know and understand the difference between g and G ?

Share on other sites

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Do you know and understand the difference between g and G ?

Actually, I do.

Share on other sites

17 hours ago, kba said:

Accordingly to Relative Gravity, we have the difference (from Newtonian law) for the gravity only inside the local gravitational system. I can't provide final RG law formula, yet.

But it must be a deviation from 1/r^2 since it's a modification of Newton's law.

So how do we have closed orbits?

17 hours ago, kba said:

The distance (r) from planet's center to its surface is a constant value. But the size (R) of local gravitational system (accordingly to picture, posted above) depends on a planet's orbital radius, and they're get various value, due to difference on Sun's gravity acceleration on those orbits. Thus, we have various ratio r/R for the functions of the gravitational acceleration on the various orbits of the planet. This is a reason, accordingly to Relative Gravity, to register different acceleration on the planet's surface on its different orbits.

But if the earth's gravity exerted on the sun depends on its size, then how does the earth exert the same force on the sun, as the sin does on the earth? (this is required by Newton's third law)

Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, kba said:

Actually, I do.

So why did you not address the question I asked you ?

G is a universal scalar constant.
g is a vector which is not proportional to G and is the variable that measures the Earth's gravity field.

They do not have the same units or dimensions.

Quote

Oxford Science

The basic difference between g and G is that 'g' is the Gravitational acceleration while 'G ' is the Gravitational constant. The value of g changes with altitude while the value of G remains constant. Gravitational acceleration is the vector quantity and gravitational constant is the scalar quantity.

I quoted exactly which of your many points I was objecting to.

Here it is again.

18 hours ago, kba said:

The distance (r) from planet's center to its surface is a constant value.

And here is what I asked you.

18 hours ago, studiot said:

Why does the gravity field of the Earth not follow these predictions ?

I should like to point out that there is a whole branch of Science called Geodesy, which I studied for postgrad, devoted to measuring and studying the fact that the Earth's gravity field does not follow these predictions.

Edited by studiot
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, studiot said:

They do not have the same units or dimensions.

But g depends on G:

F=mg=GmM/r^2 =>
g=MG/r^2.

where, G was defined as constant in the tests made near to the current Earth's orbit.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But it must be a deviation from 1/r^2 since it's a modification of Newton's law.

So how do we have closed orbits?

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kba said:

But g depends on G:

F=mg=GmM/r^2 =>
g=MG/r^2.

where, G was defined as constant in the tests made near to the current Earth's orbit.

Well part of g depends on G, but as I said,

G is a scalar constant.

This means it is the same everywhere in the universe.

g is a vector so how exactly do you derive the direction part of this vector from a universal scalar constant ?

Your equations only tell part of the story, but omit the all important direction part.

You also have yet to answer my comment that for the Earth it is just not true that

Quote

The distance (r) from planet's center to its surface is a constant value.

Nor, for that matter have you defined 'the surface of the planet'.

Share on other sites

1 hour ago, studiot said:

You also have yet to answer my comment that for the Earth it is just not true that

Dinosaurs' extinction showed us that it is a true )

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Nor, for that matter have you defined 'the surface of the planet'.

The surface is that you do stand on.

What more definition do you need?

3 hours ago, studiot said:

I quoted exactly which of your many points I was objecting to.

Here it is again.

21 hours ago, kba said:

The distance (r) from planet's center to its surface is a constant value.

And here is what I asked you.

21 hours ago, studiot said:

Why does the gravity field of the Earth not follow these predictions ?

Ok. I understud you at now. And I say again.

Because the ratio r/R for various orbits isn't constant. This ratio correlate with gravity acceleration value by law describes its changing from minimum to a maximum or vice versa.

When the Earth's orbit and Earth's local gravity system (R) is decreasing, the g on r goes nearer to the minimum on the gravity acceleration graphics, and, vice versa, when R is increasing, g on r goes nearer to the maximum of gravity acceleration.

Using Newton's gravity law without idea of gravity's relativity, you'll never get the changing of gravity on the planet's surface during the changing of planet's orbit. So, just don't try. )

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, studiot said:

I should like to point out that there is a whole branch of Science called Geodesy, which I studied for postgrad, devoted to measuring and studying the fact that the Earth's gravity field does not follow these predictions.

It's interesting for me. Did you the precision measurements of weight for etalon mass during half of year?

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Well part of g depends on G, but as I said,

What the part? There isn't any additional part of g, which doesn't depends on G, in the equation. )

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kba said:

Dinosaurs' extinction showed us that it is a true )

Really ?

How does a meteorite impact show that "the distance from the planet's centre is constant " ?

1 hour ago, kba said:

The surface is that you do stand on.

What more definition do you need?

And if I was standing at the North Pole ?

1 hour ago, kba said:

Ok. I understud you at now. And I say again.

Because the ratio r/R for various orbits isn't constant. This ratio correlate with gravity acceleration value by law describes its changing from minimum to a maximum or vice versa.

Apparantly not.

Repetition does not improve understanding or veracity.

Actually responding to the points of others migh go some way to achieving this.

10 minutes ago, kba said:

It's interesting for me. Did you the precision measurements of weight for etalon mass during half of year?

No, in my day (the 1970s) we did gravimetric surveys the hard way from on board ship or sometimes aircraft.

Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, studiot said:

How does a meteorite impact show that "the distance from the planet's centre is constant "

I didnt meant it.

22 hours ago, studiot said:

Why does the gravity field of the Earth not follow these predictions ?

Without any reference what predictions you mean.

The connection with my

"The distance (r) from planet's center to its surface is a constant value."

you provided later.

I was mistaken.

"r is a constant value" means that it is constant in the time in some limits. I didn't mean that Earth has form of ideal sphere.

But for r/R ratio these deviations of r can be ignored as doesn't matter.

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kba said:

you provided later.

Fair enough, but you wrote that , not I.

and it was in the quote of your post that I responded to.

So what about my request ?

35 minutes ago, studiot said:

Actually responding to the points of others migh go some way to achieving this.

Edited by studiot
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, studiot said:

Apparantly not.

Because English isn't my native language. And I don't use it daily. Except of two threads here.

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Actually responding to the points of others migh go some way to achieving this.

An achieving of what? I didn't understand your request.

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

So what about my request ?

48 minutes ago, studiot said:

Actually responding to the points of others migh go some way to achieving this.

An achieving of what? I didn't understand your request.

Share on other sites

16 hours ago, kba said:

Is that the form of your modification? Everything is doubled? That isn’t what you wrote earlier.

Share on other sites

• 6 months later...

The confirmation for relative gravity changes I've found in the Internet:

As the independed gravity researcher Anatoliy F. Chernyaev [1937-2013] from Russia was argued about 10 years ago, he made weight measurements for various materials and he did registered their weight changes during the traveling of Earth on its orbit, per year. These changes were in range 1÷7 gr. for every 100 gr. of weight and had, generally, wavelike form. As he said, these changes were depended on distance of Earth from the Sun.

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kba said:

gravity researcher

2 hours ago, kba said:

independed

Yes, independent of science.

Share on other sites

Just another WAG.

Share on other sites

Yes, independent of science.

Is scales independent of science?

He didn't mean to find weight changes, he just registered them. And, exactly, he didn't know about relative gravity changes. His explanation for phenomena of weight changes was incorrect.

Only useful thing in his researches for me is long time weight measurement I never made.

Just make your own measurement to refute his one.

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kba said:

Is scales independent of science?

No, it isn't. He was.

6 minutes ago, kba said:

Only useful thing in his researches for me is long time weight measurement

Where is it? Reference? Citation?

Create an account

Register a new account