Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE KILOGRAM IN A VARIABLE G?
I'd like to add this, how I see it. I don't know if any of this is true or not, and will not know for certain until such time that we find G varies, so for now this is all hypothetical.
I suspect, per my above reasonings, that the kilogram, which is an arbitrary unit of mass (and with which we also calculate weight), is a defined unit in its own right. Taking the same representative mass and putting it elsewhere where G might be different does not change the mass itself, except in how it interacts with other mass at that locale.
|
You mean: the
weight changes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
This means the same gravitational parameters exist as before, but the size of the material mass may be different.
|
No.
The
kg-mass is the same on Earth, on Mars, on Jupiter or on your
5G-Earth.
1 kg-mass will still be accelerated by
1 m/s^2 if
1 N of force is applied, whether this force is gravitational or not.
The difference between the Earth and your
5G-Earth is the gravtitational force at the surface, hence the wieght is different.
And since the force on the
1 kg-mass at the surface, changes, the gravitational acceleration (downwards) changes.
But if you go ice-skating on
5G-Earth, you still need the same force as on Earth to accelerate horizontally, even if your weight is different.
This is what happened to the Apollo astronauts on the Moon.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
If we use 5G as an example, in that locale, the material size of a representative unit of kilogram would be five times smaller, but still exhibit the same characteristics we know for one kilogram (on Earth).
|
No need to change the size, because the (inertial) mass does not change.
You can take take a sample
kilogram from and use it on
5G-Earth.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
The effect should be that smaller size bonds with other equivalent smaller size, what we can also call "weight" for gravitational, or molecular attraction for chemical, as if the smaller mass weighed more.
|
That would work
at most in the vertical direction, but not horizontally.
Since the inertial mass of atoms does not change, I do not expect significant changes in molecular bonding.
If chemical bonds were affected by the weight of atmos and molecules, we would not be able to recognize spectra from the Sun or the gas giants.
All the spectroscopy in astrophysics would be useless, because we would not be able to compare spectra taken in labs on Earth with spectra from stars.
The electronics of the probes we sent throughout the Solar System and of the artificial satellites around Earth would not work as designed, becuase chemical bonds determine the band-structure of the semiconductors used (which includes CCDs), and hence it determines their electric properties.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Not knowing how this will affect chemical bonding, I am forced to leave that to some future study. And ditto for how it affects metal springs, or rocket propulsion, both unknowns.
|
Since spectroscopy works fine, and the probes we sent out work fine, it is safe to say that weight does not significantly affect chemical bonding.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
I assume that "heavier" gravitational mass will somehow affect these, but can't guess how. Obviously the Cassini-Huygens springs worked, though operating in extreme cold space (which might make them brittle?) and launched the separated craft away from the mother craft without mishap. But I do suspect that this different "kilogram", which is heavier than our kilogram per volume, does affect gases and matter.
|
Why?
Spectra from the Sun look like spectra taken on Earth, hence atoms in gases have still the same electronic structure, which determines chemical bonds.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
There should be more compactness to the planet cores for the gas giants, if such a core exists, and there should be more abundant gas retention per mass. This means that even if Jupiter's core planet is only two Earth masses (in size and volume) it may retain an atmosphere that is substantially greater than if Earth was twice its own size here.
|
Do you still think that the mass of gas of Jupiter does not exert gravitational force?
WHy do you treat gases as passive objects in gravitational interaction?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
I can't calculate this, since I don't know how, so treat this only as a conceptual idea worth examining. When I learn how to calculate it, I will. Separately, though I am not yet ready to release it, I did calculate what the gravitational mass is for the hydrogen atoms in 99.9% of deep space (I used one atom of hydrogen per cubic centimeter of space), away from those tiny galaxy islands of electromagnetic radiant energy, and came up with a startling number, where G is 100,000 times what it is on Earth. When I applied this greater G against a gravitational-redshift value (measured on Earth), I came up with close to Hubble's constant. But that's all I can say for now, not ready to show this yet.
|
You should show how yopu performed these calculations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Overall, I am intrigued by the idea that maybe we don't have the G "constant" right, and that perhaps its variance had been (very well) hidden from us all this time.
|
Do you think you can "hide" a 100000
G?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Do I know this for sure? Hardly! I'm fascinated by it. And if it's self delusion, then it's self delusion, and no loss to anybody. But if it's right, how exciting it will be to know that the isotropic universe is still homogenous, but at a substantially higher G, and that the galaxies and stars within them are but low G islands within the cosmic scale of things. If we find that G is variable, our universe is a very different place from what we had thought before, and very exciting too.
|
You should take into account what we already know.