Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tassel
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
M*[(33.35E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) * m'] /r^2 = m v^2/r, and to conserve the product (G'm') =126.73E+15 m^3 s^-2, divided by 33.35E-11 kg, m' becomes = 3.8E+26 kg (which is one fifth the mass of what Jupiter was in a G = 6.67E-11 N.. equation).
Now I ask you, where did I go wrong? I'm once again faced with the same challenge, where Jupiter is still the same Jupiter in terms of mass and location and orbital velocity, but if it should be in a different G, its mass is different. To adjust for the mass in Jupiter's G' mass back to Earth's G mass, the kilograms have to increase fivefold. This means m' is in new kilograms!
|
This is the problem right here. There's no justification for "new kilograms". What would be the problem with simply using 3.8E+26 kg for the mass of Jupiter in all the familiar equations? |
Did Jupiter just shrink in size per its "shrunk" mass?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
It is the gravitational mass.
On the right-hand side you have the inertial mass.
If you assume that the Equivalence Priniple is still valid, the two masses are one and the same, and you are left with a contradiction in your reasoning.
The only way out for you is a violation of the Equivalence Principle, which is disproven by observations.
But the Equivalence Principle is anyway unrelated to the actual value of G.
|
Are you saying (Gm) = m, or not ? :-) ...Show me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
G has not the dimensions of a force.
And do you think that a change in the gravitational mass by 5 times would not be observable?
|
G is in SI units: m^3/ kg/ s^2 or Nm^2/kg^2.
The second part question belongs on ATM, since it had not been observed. Any variance in G could be observable, but ask ESA if that's what they're after,
in situ.