Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
A 10 kg mass weighs 98 Newtons on Earth. It weighs about 16 Newtons on the Moon, but still has a mass of 10 kg.
If somehow G were to be made 10 times bigger than it is now and if the Earth does not compress and get smaller then that 10 kg mass will still be 10 kg but it will weigh 980 Newtons.
This is elementary physics. Please review a good elementary physics text on the distinction between mass and weight.
|
Thanks C.M., that is how I see it too, in a 1 G universe scenario. I will show below the fundamental difference between that and a variable G universe scenario, should there be a different G elsewhere. It may have a profound effect on lots of things we now cannot seem to explain. Remember that the "kilogram" is dimensionless, a scalar, unlike G, which is a cubic meter per kilogram per second squared (m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) dimensional. |
Wrong, the kilogram is a unit, coequal with the meter and the second.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Take out the kilograms, and you still have the cubic meters per second squared, so this is something not contingent on the kilogram itself, but a "proportional" force in its own right which affects the mass. The mass is in kilograms.
|
Again, the kilogram is a unit and cannot be dispensed with. There is an exception to this, though. It is a common practice to set c=1 (eliminating seconds in favor of meters) and h-bar=1 (eliminating meters in favor of kilograms^-1). This simplifies computations considerably. However, it is understood that when it is time to give real results in SI units the answers must be multiplied by the appropriate powers of c and h-bar so that the answer is in SI units. We haven't really dispensed with any of these units at all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Now, the current existing physics books do not address the possibility that these kilograms, really an arbitrary unit developed from the (metric system) cubic decimeter of water, which we use to measure mass are capable of being anything else. That's what's being explored here.
|
You (and your various previous incarnations/identities) have been pointed to numerous references in the literature where variable G and variable masses have been considered.
I happen to believe in variable G and variable masses myself, but not in anything as drastic and noticeable as what you and the now-banned
Jerry have been promoting. In my theory (which is a long way from ready for prime time) the masses of leptons and quarks depend on the expectation values of at least two scalar fields, and ...
Excuse me, there's a knock at the door.
[A little later]
It's OK, it was a razor salesman at the door. I assured him that I was not multiplying entities endlessly, in fact, I use those two scalar fields to provide the value for my varying G. The curious thing is that while the lepton and quark masses vary, the nucleon masses do not vary as much because chromodynamic fields are the main source of nucleon mass, not the quark content. In my theory, if the scalar fields are smaller by a factor of x, lepton and quark masses are smaller by a factor of x, nucleon masses are maybe (1-x/20) times as large (can't calculate this yet), spectral lines are longer (redder) by a factor of 1/x and G is stronger by a factor of x^-2.
I am not optimistic of this variability existing on the galactic scale where it could explain the velocity curves, but there may be a small variation on cosmological scales. More research is needed.