Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
All well and good, but it's not good enough for me. One kilogram of mass is always the same mass, only it registers differently if G (not variable G times 1 G mass) is different, since then it is "variable G times its own G mass".
|
So, you are arguing that the gravitational mass changes, but the inertial mass does not.
You are claiming that the Equivalence Principle must be violated in your variable G "speculation". |
Here is once again the kernel of the argument, why you and I see it differently.
Inertial-mass is always equivalent to its gravitational-mass. |
So, since you claim that the mass changes, it wouuld observable using non-gravitational forces.
These experiments show that the inertial mass does not change.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Let me illustrated it thus:
Take a one kilogram mass (same cube or rod or ball or whatever, did not change its composition in any way) from Earth's 1 G and move it to Jupiter's (hypo) 5 G. Place this kilogram of mass on a balance scale, and it balances against another kilogram mass. Now try lifting this kilogram off Jupiter's surface: it will take 5 times the force to do so. I interpret this as 5F = 5m*a; while you interpret this as 5F = m*5a; this is our fundamental difference.
|
And the "5a" interpretation is consistent with the observations.
And we know that, because we have observe known masses in situations where the gravitational force is different.
And because the spectra from other planets and stars are recognizable from spectra taken on Earth, and because the electonics of our porbes worked fine (if it did not, we would not have any image taken with CCD-based cameras).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
But Jupiter is not 5 times the mass it was before, same mass.
|
But the gravitationally force Jupiter exerts is 5 times larger.
This would be observable, unless you invoke a violation of the Equivalence Principle.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
If Jupiter were 5 times larger mass, than we operate in 1G, where 5F = m* 5a; but if Jupiter is still the same mass, we operate in 5G, where 5F = 5m*a, which means Jupiter's "kilogram" is one-fifth Earth's kilogram..
|
The weight of 1 kg-mass would be 5 times larger on Jupiter.
But Jupiter's kg-mass would be exactly the same as Earth's.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Now take a one "kilogram" mass from Jupiter, which is one-fifth the size of our previous mass, and take it to Earth's 1 G.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Place that 0.2 mass on a balance scale with Earth's one kilogram mass, and the Earthian kilogram wins hands down.
|
Of course, because 1 kg > 0.2 kg.
But 0.2 kg is not Juptier's kg, it is 0.2 Jupiter's kg.
You are still confused about weight and mass.
Why don't you express the wieght in Newtons?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
This is why Jupiter (if it really is in 5 G) is a far smaller planet core than we realize. Because this core is hidden by its incredibly vast atmosphere, we can't see it, though Voyager reported that it is about two or three Earth masses, which is still very small. Yet Jupiter's small core is operating in 5 G, so it balances on a scale with Earth 1 G mass, but it would take ten to fifteen Earths to do so. If you tried to move 10 to 15 Earths rather than two to three Earths, you would need a great deal more force, and that is why the inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent.
|
You still forget that Jupiter's atmosphere itself has a significant mass.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Here is something by way of illustration that maybe will give you a better sense of what I am talking about : Enceladus, especially where they say:
"Likewise, with the atmosphere, Enceladus does not possess the gravitational attraction necessary to hold on to a cloud of water ions, so this must be being replenished also."
Only problem, Enceladus being about the size of Arizona, is too small gravitationally in 1 G; but it may not be too small in 5-10 G (I think Saturn has ~10 G). The scientists who are puzzling over this (they know nothing of a greater G) are saying that there must be a source replenishing these water ions, and atmosphere. But there is no evidence of this since we began looking, so they're mystified, naturally.
This is why mass behaves differently in 1 G or 5 G: in 5 G it can do things that in 1 G it cannot, like hold onto more ambient mass, gases, water ions, etc. BTW, the current thought is that Saturn's core planet must be much larger than Jupiter's small core, but that again is a function of not knowing that G on Saturn may be twice that of Jupiter, so to compensate theory they give Saturn a bigger core, which has not been found to date due to Saturn's thicker (bigger G, hypothetically) atmosphere.
I think where you run into trouble here, conceptually (and why this whole idea rubs you the wrong way), is that by referring back to all our spaceprobes that successfully maneuvered their way around Jupiter and Saturn, there was no variable G ever detected. And this is positively true, but we may have the planet's mass-volume figured in 1 G, when it fact it should be substantially smaller in 5 G. We use gravity assist, which is a function of (G*m) to navigate the spacecrafts, and the spacecraft mass is infinitesimal in comparison to the mass of the planet, so everything more or less works fine (after a few inflight adjustments). |
5 times the expected force is not small.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
You see, it is well hidden,...
|
To hide it, you need a violation of the Equivalence Principle.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
...even if wrong, because we modeled the universe after our planet's 1 G environment, so even if the G is different elsewhere, we can't tell... well, except for all the puzzling things like an atmosphere on Enceladus or Pluto, where we explain it away saying that they are "gassing out". End result? We get a very confused view of cosmological events from our solar system out to deep space. Is the Pioneers Anomaly giving us a clue? Most people, including yourself, don't think any of these puzzling phenomena are gravitational. I do...* But I do not wish to convince, only to illustrate how I see it, and remember I may be wrong.  |
You just claimed that the variable G is well hidden.
Why would it show up only in the Pionerr probes?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
*(I think it is at least possible, but we can't know until we find a way to measure for this, so only hypothetical for now.)
|
__________________
papageno
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)
"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)
"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)
|