I have looked at the site you linked to. It contains a version of a diagram that practically every elementary text on celestial mechanics must have. However, the word "anomaly" as used in this context is probably not what you were thinking of when you googled to that site. My dictionary gives the following three definitions for anomaly:

1. The angular distance of a planet from its perhelion as seen from the sun.
2. Deviation from the common rule. Synonym: irregularity.
3. Something anomalous, especially something that deviates in excess of normal variation.

There is nothing abnormal about either of the three anomalies (mean, eccentric and true) used in celestial mechanics.
There is no evidence of any variation in G over the size of the Solar System. On the other hand, the possibility of variation over time and over larger scales of length is possible, but the variation is going to be slight. For example, Solar System experiments limit (dG/dt)/G to no more than about 10^-11 yr^-1.
The source of electromagnetic fields are electrical charges, which can be both positive and negative, with the resulting forces being both attractive and repulsive. The source of Newtonian gravity is mass, which is always positive and the force always attractive. I believe Newton was first to consider G to be a universal constant because otherwise the forces acting between two masses would not be equal and opposite. Observations in the Solar System confirm this to a high degree of accuracy.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

I googled "Halley's comet".
Do you have a reference for this? Most interesting.
Yes, of course, electromagnetic field is fundamentally different from gravitic field. I have not yet shown the hpothesis of why these two interact, a paper working on now, so bear with me. FYI, it works out to look something like this:

E = hc/L(proton mass) = f(1 - (proton grav constant g))c^2

where E = planet's total orbital energy (a variable per irradiance of the Sun times distance to planet--reverse of d/d^2, where d^2 is W/m^2, and d is distance in meters-- time planet's orbital KE, kinetic energy)

h = Planck's constant
c = light velocity constant
L = lambda 1.322e-15 m
proton mass = 1.67e-27 kg
f = function of
1 = mass (axiomatic)
proton gravity constant = 5.9e-39 (dimensionless, but also Volts^2, or kg/s, which I can't go into for now) and can be calculated for variable proton mass (resulting from variable E).

I'd love to go into all this in detail, but this is still work in progress, so only bare bones for now. However, once we know the proton grav constant g, there is a way to figure Newton's G, i.e. f(gc^2), which turns out to be a variable as stated above. Sorry can't be more helpful for now.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Circular. We assumed constant G, so used it to estimate astonomical phenomena per constant G, estimated distant mass per constant G, calculated how orbits behave per this estimated mass, and then concluded that G is constant. Circular.

Have we looked for it? ESA is looking: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/9/3

"Assumed".

The equivalence principle is why change in G changes inertial mass.

Because the F = GMm/R^2 dictates that a greater G translates into a greater F.**

Of course!

**[I should add something here, because this will be a source of possible confusion. M is lower in a higher G , but its "inertial mass" is higher by the same proportion, because of the equivalence of a higher G. This is not the usual way to think of this since we never had to cope with a gravity variable (hypothetical for now) before, so ill equipped to see it easily. But the offset of a higher G is that estimated Mass is too high, but the inertial mass is too low, all self canceling so in the end it looked okay. But this is where we were being misled by a universal constant G, as I suspect. The end result is that further from the Sun, lower Energy region, orbital behavior looks "normal" to us, but it may be masking a higher proton mass, higher proton gravity coupling constant, higher inertial mass, and lower total planetary mass. But this is where caution is needed: Lower planetary mass is offset by higher inertial/proton mass, so they self cancel, leaving us ingenous that anything was wrong. Furthermore, why be suspicious when the numbers we used worked just fine?!]

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Ok, my problem with the statement was it seemed to me that you were using his 'as far as I know" to tear down his argument. But, then in the very next post you used it in an argument yourself. If this was not the case, it would be my faulty understanding. Sorry.

Thanks, I'll look them over.

What do you mean by a stripped down version? A non-Differential Geometry version? There wouldn't be one for the precession calculation. The non-linearity of the equations in GR is what enables it to accurately predict the precession. Short non-mathematical description: the gravity of the sun has an energy content of its own and that energy also generates gravity. It's the additional gravity, caused by the energy content of the sun's gravity, that accounts for the precession of Mercury.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Let’s start with the basics: Tesla never published his equations, he may not have formalized them, but if Newton’s wrong and 'action-at-a-distance' is really a standing wave, I can start by throwing out the strong equivalence principle and assume that 'G' is an independant variable that is a function of the distance from the Sun. Plugging this into the proven formula for gravity near the earth:

F = kln(Gn/r2)(M1M2/r^2) Eq 1.

Where kln(Gn/r^2) is the G constant we use on Earth, but in this equation, k and Gn are unknown constants that are characteristic of the attenuation in the inertial field in a log/log relationship. This means the only time we would see significant differences in the g force is in probes such as the Pioneer I & II as they accelerate between the planets. (I should note that every space probe has been at some variance from the predicted orbit, but only the Pioneer Probes were designed to track this small of an anomally.)

To solve for k values, I am going to set up a curve based upon the following assumptions that are consistent with this theory of ‘gravity’:

1) The Density of most solid spheres in the galaxy should be close to the same. This is somewhat justified upon the basis most meteorites have a density between 6 and 9, and the inner planets between 3.5 and 5.5. The gas giant planets are clear exceptions.

2) The earth and moon were once a single planet with a density of about 4.5.

3) The lighter moons of Saturn are, like the planet, extremely high in very light elements, In fact the only moon of Saturn that is composed like the rest of the orbs is Titon.

4) I use the densitys of all of the moon of all the other planets, omitting only the densities of the gas giants. (I did not use the densest moon of jupiter, omitting it accidently, but it is also a three sigma outlier.)

I can now average the apparent densities at each solar distance and calculate the slope of the log curve. Gn turns out to be –1.3532 and the offset is 10.159. (The equation: F=(kln(Gn)/r) (M1/M2/r^2) gives the same answer within 2%)

I can then plug in the numbers and calculate the densities for each of the planets and their moons if they were all in the same orbit as the earth. And look what happens:

Orb Density Density (in Earth frame of reference)

Mercury 5.4 4.49
Venus 5.24 4.47
Earth 5.5 5.5 ( Earth Moon Ave=4.47)
Mars 3.933 4.47

Jupiter 1.326 2.11
Metis 2.8 4.47
Thebe 3.55 5.67
Europa 3.02 4.81
Ganymede 1.94 3.91
Callisto 1.86 2.97
Leda 2.7 4.31
Himilia 2.8 4.47
Lysithia 3.1 4.49
Elara 3.3 5.27
Anaka 2.7 4.31
Carme 2.8 4.47
Sinope 3.1 4.95
P2x 3.3 5.27
P3x 2.7 4.31
P4x 2.8 4.47
Pasiphae 2.9 4.63
P5x 3.1 4.95
Amalthea 1.8 2.87
P6x 2.1 3.35
Io 3.55 5.67
Andrastea 4.5 10.59
P7x 3.7 8.7

Average of all
Jupiters Moons: 2.8 4.93

Saturn 0.568 1.34
Prometheus 0.70 1.65
Pandora 0.70 1.65
Epimetheus 0.70 1.65
Janus 0.67 1.58
Mimas 1.17 2.75
Phoebe 1.60 3.76
Hyperion 1.40 3.29
Encleladus 1.24 2.92
Tethys 1.21 2.85
Dione 1.43 3.36
Rhea 1.33 3.13
Titan 1.88 4.42

Uranus 1.27 3.78
Miranda 1.20 3.58
Ariel 1.56 4.65
Umbriel 1.52 4.53
Titania 1.70 5.07
Oberon 1.64 4.89

Neptune 1.638 5.76
Naiad 1.2 4.22
Thalassa 1.3 4.57
Despina 1.2 4.47
Galatea 1.3 4.47
Larissa 1.3 4.84
Proteus 1.3 4.47

Pluto 1.75 4.47

Look how often ~ 4.47 and numbers within a few percent of it show up! Mercury, Venus, The average of the earth and the moon, Mars, 14 of Jupiter’s moons and the average of all of Jupiter’s moons, eight of Uranus’s moons, five of Neptune’s moons and Pluto! Using the ‘Tesla’ equation, 64% of the moons and planets in our solar system can be categorized as having essentially the same density, and if you throw out Saturn, the number is even higher!!!

It could still be argued this is just a coincidental function of the fact that densities are progressively lower with increasing distance from the Sun, but if I integrate the variance in gravity predicted by this equation between the orbits of Jupiter and Neptune, I get an acceleration 0.8cm10^-8/sec^2, which is precisely the acceleration of the Pioneer Probes!

Can your cosmology do that?

More, later! Edit: confused variable names & found another moon

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

We have observed comets outgassing.
We have not observed a variation in G.
Which one is more likely to affect the orbit of a comet?

Some phenomena can be observed even if we are not looking for it.
So, is there any unambiguous observation that shos that G is not constant?

You missed the point.
Those are assumptions based on experimental evidence.


G is the interaction strength independent of the masses involved (as you can see from the formula you quoted below).
So, why would a change in the force change the mass?


Which is what I said ("because the force acting on it changed").
Does this mean that I got your reasoning right?
If so,
How do justify this reasoning?
If G changes, why should the masses change?


But we can cope with variable forces, which would be the case if G changes, but the masses do not.
We are not ill equipped, it would just make things a bit complicated (like describing the motion of rocket, whose mass changes because it is burning fuel).

Resorting to "self-cancelling" effects sounds a lot like ad hoc assumptions to justify the failure of a theory to account for observations.
How is this any better than dark matter?

See above.
With the evidence available, assuming a variable G is more far-fetched than assuming the existence of dark matter.

__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I'm a simple fellow, so subscribe to the KISS principle. But never having seen Einstein's work on Mercury, other than anecdotally, I'd be flying without instruments, by the intuitive seat of my pants. It's easy to make things complex, harder to keep it simple.

Not too surprised by the results of this "tweaked" Newton equation: F=(kln(Gn)/r) (M1/M2/r^2), so planetary density within a narrow parameter is an interesting find. Funny that this same idea had been on my mind, to find if a variable G evens out planetary density, so that Mercury's nearly all metallic in a very light G soup would be closer to Neptunes all gas in a very high G soup, but never worked out the numbers. This would imply that our Sun's energy modulates the planets and moons densities within some parameters of what our solar system is made of. The gas giants are therefore more dense per their higher G environment than they would be in Earth's G, while Mercury's very dense material acts as if it were less dense in its very low G. Since all cosmology had been postulated on a constant Newton's G, expect howls from the opposition, since we are still unfamiliar with thinking of a variable G, though MOND had already pointed that way. (But for now, these variable G ideas are still a BA exclusive!) Have you thought of publishing a paper on it? I'm working on one now, though I suspect it will be difficult to find a venue for it... so much work to be done. At first blush, a solar energy related variable G appears to be a more sensible explanation for lots of cosmic phenomena than a constant G, though it's still "blue sky" for now.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

"Action-at-a-distance" is an approximation that works if the speeds involved are much lower than the speed of changes in gravitational field (which is, from what we know, the same as the speed of light in vacuum).
This approximation does not work well over long distances.

The equivalence principle (gravitational mass = inertial mass) has nothing to do with the value or the constancy of G and is based on experiments (such as the Cavendish torsional balance), nor does it have anything to do with "action-at-a-distance".
So, on what basis do you throw it out (not experimental evidence, as far as I can see)?

Where did you get this "proven" formula?

Why should these be the only cases?
What about comets?

The "theory of gravity" you outlined above does not look like the one currently used.

"Most solid spheres"?
What does this have to do with the planets, or satellites, or even many asteroids and meteorites?

"Density(in Earth frame of reference)"?
I was not aware that the planet move with relativistic speeds with respect to the Earth.
Unless I misunderstand what you mean.

On what is this "Tesla equation" based?

To be honest, your method reminds me of Lyndon Ashmore.
I did not see a proper justification of all these calculations (not even a link).

It is not "my", nor "cosmology", since you are dealing with the Solar System, and I have not developed the theories on it.

EDIT to add: the Cavendish experiment is not an accurate reference to the equivalence principle. The correct reference would be the Eotvos experiment. ops:

__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Mass is mass, and a change in G does not change the mass of what the planet, or probe, is made of. If we weigh it on Earth, and it works out to be so many kilograms, it is still the same mass far out there in terms of Earth's kilograms, but different in terms of its local "kilograms" per the local G. So force does not "change the mass", except as it applies to its inertial mass. Now, if the inertial mass out there is greater than here, the force of gravity from the Sun will have a greater pull on it, so that it should show a greater acceleration towards the Sun. This is what the Pioneers are responding to. Remember we had estimated distant mass assuming a constant G, so we overestimated the mass of the gas giants, for example, in terms of their local G. As I explained above, this was not obvious to us because the lesser planetary mass out there was countered by their greater inertial mass, so it looked okay. The only way we found something was wrong was when the now greater inertial mass of the Pioneers out there began to act as if they were being pulled back towards the Sun at a greater rate. This is only a first clue, and now we need to look for more, which is what ESA plans to do. I hope this makes sense, because it is a new way of thinking about it, so not common to our experience. We had been coddled within a constant G on Earth, and now are being prodded to think different. :roll:

[Edited for finger dyslexia.]

The weight changes.
Weight on Earth is the gravitational force between the Earth and the object.
Change one of the masses or the distance, and the weight changes.

If the amount of matter has not changed, why would the (inertial) mass be different?

The Pioneer probes are not the only objects moving between planets.
Why does the anomalous acceleration show up now, instead of when the probes were closer to the planets?
Why aren't there anomalies in the orbits of the comets, or the Voyager probes, or any other probe that gets close enough to the outer planets?
Why does the sling-shot effect work as planned for the probes?

__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

When the probes were closer in, there was not enough variation in G to show results yet, and we were not looking for it. Ditto for comets. The "sling-shot effect" is a non sequitur.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

But, what you said here is
There are probes between Jupiter and the outer planets, not to mention comets.
If you are talking about "bands of constant G" which depend on the distance from the Sun, the sling-shot effect around a planet would show the anomaly, because the gravitational force goes like the distance squared.

By the way, you still have not told me whether I understood your idea of "self-cancelling effects" (which is still unsupported).

__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I presume you are refering to this in the link? Yes? I fail to see your point. If inertial mass is self adjusting for the G where it is traveling, and our mass estimates were off by the same proportion, why would you notice a difference in how they behave from what we had calculated? I can see how you are having difficulty with this "think different" approach, but think about it. The variance in G for Venus or Mars is very small. It becomes more meaningful for Mercury's lower G, and for Jupiter's higher G. To help you see it better, here is a table of what these values look like (approximate only):

PLANET: total orbital Energy, Proton mass, Proton gravity g', local Newton's G':

MERCURY (0.39 AU): 60.55E+16 J, 2.48E-28 kg, 8.76E-40, ~2.79E-11 N

VENUS (0.72 AU): 17.33E+16 J, 8.67E-28 kg, 3.06E-39, ~ 5.20E-11 N

EARTH (1 AU): 9.0E+16 J, 1.67E-27 kg, 5.9E-39, ~7.24E-11 N (vs. 6.67E-11 N)

MARS (1.52 AU): 3.66E+16 J, 3.86E-27 kg, 1.36E-38, ~10.96E-11 N

JUPITER (5.2 AU): 0.335E+16 J, 4.49E-26 kg, 1.586E-37, ~ 38.6E-11 N

SATURN (9.5 AU): 0.1004E+16J, 1.498E-25 kg, 5.29E-37, ~68.5E-11 N

URANUS (19.2 AU): 0.0247E+16J, 6.1E-25 kg, 2.153E-36, ~138E-11 N

NEPTUNE (30 AU): 0.01E+16 J, 1.5E-24 kg, 5.3E-36, ~217E-11 N

PLUTO (39.5 AU): 0.006E+16 J, 2.58E-24 kg, 9.11E-36, ~284E-11 N

This is showing the results without the computations or theory, which would be too complicated to show here. The mass vs. inertial-mass variance becomes more pronounced for the distant outer planets, as per above. That's where we began to find the anomaly in Pioneers, Ulyses, Casini, Galileo, though we had never looked for them in the first place, until now.

For now, trust me.

[Eidted for decimal point error.]

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

And what happens if not?
On what basis do you assume that the inertial mass of an object has anything to do with the strength of gravitational interaction?

Do you remeber this post?
Do you mean, "you are having difficulty to accept speculations that have no support, except my very own interpretation of the anomlaous acceleration of the Pioneer"?
Because that is what it looks like so far.


The only anomalies I heard of, are the Pioneer ones.
On what do base your idea that the inertial mass changes?
(Except for a desire to reach a preconcieved conclusion.)

So, you do not have experimental evidence nor well supported theoretical speculations.
Why should I trust you?

__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Papageno,

Please see Physics News Update, for which sattelites are affected: http://www.aip.org/pnu/1998/split/pnu391-1.htm

Asteroidal slight perturbation: http://www.scienceone.org/NASA_Scien...84-4253-a.html

...or would 'braneworld' be a better fit?
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/21/13/013/

...or would 'outgasing' etc. be better, though it fails to explain anomaly by 5 to 1?
http://www.phys.uni.torun.pl/~jkob/p...99/node64.html

.. then again, if you want 'anomalies' here's a list!
http://www.science-frontiers.com/cat-astr.htm

Gremlins, Bose-Einstein condensate, radio waves pressure, etc. there could be lots of reasons why distant probes accelerate towards the Sun. And if I were you, I too would challenge any idea that tried to present a new hypothesis. I am totally skeptical when some weird idea is presented, so totally identify with what you're doing, and it's okay. But at the same time, I catalog all these weird ideas into my head for future references, because one never knows where the next breakthrough is going to be. Do I have the answer? Only a hypothesis that we need not be stuck on a Newton's gravitational constant found on Earth, and then project for the rest of the universe. The rest is wide open for study, and eventually, proof.

[I am shame facedly sorry I misspelt Cassini and Ulysses in my above.]

Cheers.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Do not trust him !
Hypothesis may be considered as good if they explain a lot of results better than old theories . It is not the case here (and not for the big bang which requires a strange hypothesis after almost every type of observation ! ).
The simplest explanation of the increase of frequency of the Pioneer is a transfer of energy from the sun light to radiowaves where protons and electrons of the solar wind are cold enough to combine into excited atomic hydrogen.
Laser experiments show transfers of energy giving frequency shifts from beams having a high Planck's temperature (generally high frequency : light) to colder beams (generally low frequency : thermal and radio). Applying the rules verified with lasers, it appears that, using ordinary light, nearly only atomic hydrogen in its excited states allows such transfers of energy.

__________________
JMB

Do you "have experimental evidence for well supported theoretical speculations" to support your excitd atomic hydrogen hypothesis?

Can I trust you on this?

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Let's see if this helps. Taking Newton's orbital energy as a template for Mass:

GM = Rv^2 .

Taking the old GM values of mass and Newton's G for each planet, to get theoretical Rv^2 value, then used to estimate a new M from the new G.

Example: G = 6.67e-11 Nm^2.kg-2
Mars M = 0.642e24 kg

GM = Rv^2 = 4.282e13 Nm^2.kg^-1, where by substituting the new G for Mars:

(1.096e-10)M = 4.282e13 , we get M' = 0.3907e24 kg

...which is a new (G-adjusted) M value for Mars's mass. Note that today's physics assumes Newton's G is a universal constant; the hypothesis shows it is a variable 'constant' instead, as per posts above.


TABLE OF OLD PLANETARY NEWTON'S G , AND THE NEW (varaible) G, OLD MASS, AND NEW G-ADJUSTED MASS (as 'local' mass in local G):

Planet body, Old G, New G, Earth G Mass, local G Mass "kg"

Mercury, 6.67E-11 N, 2.79e-11 N, 0.33e24 kg, 0.788e24 kg
Venus, 6.67E-11 N, 5.20e-11 N, 4.87e24 kg, 6.25e24 kg
Earth, 6.67E-11 N, 6.67e-11 N, 5.97e24 kg, 5.97e24 kg
Mars, 6.67E-11 N, 1.096e-10 N, 0.6242e24 kg, 0.3907e24 kg
Jupiter, 6.67E-11 N, 3.86e-10 N, 18.9e26 kg, 32.66e25 kg
Saturn, 6.67E-11 N, 6.85e-10 N, 5.684e26 kg, 5.534e25 kg
Uranus, 6.67E-11 N, 1.38e-9 N, 8.68e25 kg, 4.195e24 kg
Neptune, 6.67E-11 N, 2.17e-9 N, 10.24e25 kg, 3.147e24 kg
Pluto, 6.67E-11 N, 2.84e-9 N, 0.013e24 kg, 0.305e23 kg

Now you can see better (I hope) what I meant by "self canceling", where the greater G translates into equivalent greater inertial-mass (equivalence) but lower local G mass, for the local "kilograms". I don't know if this will communicate it to you, but as in any detective story, this is just one more clue. Or as famous Holmes would say, "Elementary my dear Watson." But we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle yet to know "whodunnit".

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

This is my working assumption: Inertial energy and gravity are only equvalent in a framework where the total amount of mass is equvalent. If a mass is places in an envionment, such as at a different distance from the sun, it's inertial equvalent changes in log/log distance squared proportions.
I simply plugged a variable form of "G" - my working hypothesis, into the 'proven' Newtonian formula F=G(m1m2/r^2), replace G with k(ln(Gn/r^2).

Of course it applies to comets as well! Since we do not know the precise orbits or masses of the comets, how can we make precise predictions of there densities? The Pioneer Probes were the only probes that we tracked with enough accuracy to state there is an unexplained acceleration of 0.8x10^-8 cm/sec^2. Lunatik explains observation by increasing gravity, I explain it by decreasing 'inertia'., which defines "g" in the above equation.

It is significant to note that before we actually visited Jupiter,
Saturn and Uranus, we predicted the densities of these planets and their moons were much more in-line with the inner planet densities. If the inertia of the pioneer and voyagers probes diminished with increasing distance, our use of this inertia to calculate the density of these environments was wrong!
Again, I have plugged in a variable 'G' constant, which really boils down to a variable inertia, although as I have explained elsewhere in this thread, the idea is based upon the mechanics of Tesla.
This is an assumption I used to determine the constants needed to create a variable inertia that is consistant with observations. I could have worked the other way and used the measured acceleration of the Pioneer probe to calculate the masses of the planets, In which case, with this equation, the same high level of coincidence in density would have popped out (4.47g/cc). I think it was much more impressive to blindly work it the other way, as I did.

I am saying that if 'inertial mass' is proportional to total mass, in this case, in reference to the distance from the sun, you must move everything to the same inertial frame of reference to compare densities of different objects. This has nothing to do with relativity, other than relativistic equations would yield slightly different results.

"Inertial mass" is a function of total mass. Like Lunatik says, these are new concepts and not necessarily easy to grasp. The k(ln(gn/r^2)) term is an approximation of a very complex wave mechanics solution. - Since this only varies one term in the standard equation for calculating gravitational forces, hopefully it is easier to relate to. Actually, the inertial function varies quite a bit in the enviroments of Jupiter and Saturn.

Thank you, this is helpful feedback. Lyndon is not assigning causality to anything, nor is everything he has posted up in the night. These discrepancies between theory and observation are real.

If I am right about the nature of what we call inertia, what we define as the momentum of an object is actually an inbalance in the electrical forces of a standing wave: Push against the sun, and the sun "moves away" from us; this creates a net inbalance in the Emf in the opposite direction, and we are pulled toward this inbalance and moved away from the sun.
But the amount of 'upward momentum' we can exhibit is a function of our distance from the sun. Assuming this function is the type gausian distribution we would expect if gravity is an emf, this momentum tensor (mt) will decrease by a factor of about ln(mt)r, or ln(mt/r^2).

As I said, this is just an approximation based upon prior an estimate of the attenuation factor necessary to explain the universe as we see it.

I have a strong sense of urgency in addressing this, and let me tell you why:

This past year, the Beagle expedition ended in failure when the probe failed to respond after entering the Martian atmosphere. In the final report the investigators were unable to identify a root cause for the mission failure, but what they could identify was an anomalous atmospheric condition that created an extremely low pressure in the atmosphere of Mars during Beagles decent. The evidence of this is a measured depression 200 miles above the Martian surface.

What is most curious about this finding is that the successful landings of both Spirit and Opportunity still experienced flight anomalies that are consistent with the Beagle scenario: In both missions the parachutes deployed late, indicating either a calibration error in the sensors on both missions, or that the density of the atmosphere of Mars at the deployment altitude was less than predicted. Both of the Viking probes, which successfully landed in the 1970’s also experienced late deployment of braking parachute deployment, and they both used much more hydrazine fuel than anticipated. These failures are not coincidental, nor are they systemic: pressure actuated event technology has been highly developed and very reliable since World War II.

If I am right about inertial strength decreasing with increasing distance from the sun, These anomalies are due to the intrinsic pressure differential in the Martian atmosphere. The decrease in ‘inertial mass’ means the real density of Mars is much closer to that of the earth (4.47g/cc), so the pressure gradient above the planet, in complete accordance with ideal gas laws, diminishes more rapidly with increasing distance from the surface.

For example: if planet X has an uniform density, and an atmospheric density of 100mg/m^3, diameter of 10 km and a surface gravitational constant of 10m/s^2, then at 20 km altitude, the density would be about 100mg/m^3 /(20km-10km)^2 =1mg/m^3.

But if the core of the planet is mostly iron, since more of the mass of the planet is toward the center, the maximum g-force is not at the surface, but at an effective radius of about 7km from the center. Now the density of the atmosphere at 10km above the planet is about 10m/s^2/(20km-7km) = 0.59mg/m^3. The denser the planet, the less braking there is in the upper atmosphere, and this is the reason the parachutes have not opened on schedule. The same thing is likely to happen with Huygen, only worse, because while On Mars our estimate of the density is off by only 30%, near Saturn it is of by almost 300%!

Much work to do.

Edit: The latest estimate on the anomalous acceleration rate is 8.74cm/s^2,
per Michael Martin Nieto. An exhaust review of every system has revealed naughta. They also indicate they cannot differential between a true doppler event, or a redshift in the light spectrum, as Jacque Moret-Bailly and others - including myself have proposed. What? Jerry, you are proposing both Strong equivalance principle violation and cosmic redshift?

Can I hedge just a little and say there are arguments in favor of both directions: The cosmic RS theory is consistent with reshifts elsewhere, although in this case it would have to be a blue shift, which I decided, after reviewing the alpha absorbtion data in this range. So for the reasons i have given on this thread and others, I am of the opinion the net effect on the pioneer probe is dominated by a strong equivalence violation that is distance from the sun dependent, (Therefore there is no measureable Blue shift in the moon, nor was there in the Pioneer probe prior to the time it entered the jovian environment.) A cosmic reshift could be masked by this blue shift, which would put the sep violation in the order of 16 cm*10-8 /s^2.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Ahhhh, but you can't just throw out Saturn if it doesn't fit. That would be Bad Astronomy. So we will have to scrap your whole idea. Similar to what you want to do with the Big Bang. Mostly, I gather, because your interpretation of observations doesn't match the interpretations of most astrophysicists.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

KISS and keep it as simple as possible are two vastly different things. We can keep it simple (concerning planets anyway) from the orbit of Venus out. This is due to the GR and Newtonian answer being virtual identical at those distances. But, the Newtonian answer doesn't agree with observations at the orbit of Mercury, but GR does. Which would indicate that GR is the simplest (even though the math is horribly complex) at that distance.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Well, then I am going to have to take you to task for the same sloppiness with units and notation that Lyndon Ashmore practices.

First, any quantity inside of a logarithm must be dimensionless. The units of G are m^3/kg/s^2, n is kg/m^3, and r is of course m, so that G*n/r^2 is in m^-2*s^-2. Unless, of course, your G isn't the usual definition of G, in which case the notation is confusing.

Second, logarithms are dimensionless, so in order for k*(ln(G*n/r^2)) to be a replacement for G, it must have the same dimensions as G. A far better way to write this would be:

G_0*ln(k*n/r^2), where k has units m^5/kg and G_0 (that's g sub zero, can't do subscripts in HTML, sorry) has the same units as G.

Of course, you still haven't really justified the use of this formula, all you've done is drop the name of Tesla as if it were some sort of magic talisman. What heuristic reason do you have for this particular formula?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

I started the theory of the CREIL (without the acronym) without any experimental support. About at the same time, people working with femtosecond lasers discovered the ISRS, which uses the same theory, except that as the index of refraction depends on the high peak power of the lasers, the transfers of energy and frequency shifts depend on this peak power. The theory of ISRS shows that it works at any power so that it becomes a femtosecond CREIL with short, low power pulses.
The common theory of CREIL and ISRS is verified by experimental ISRS.
In particular, the length of the pulses must verify the general condition : shorter than all relevant time constants of the gas. These time constants are:
- the collisional time, so that, for CREIL the pressure must be low
- The period of the Raman type resonance. In CREIL, as the coherence of the natural light is some nanoseconds, the Raman resonance must have a period of the order of 100 MHZ. In hydrogen, the resonance in the fundamental state (1420 MHz ~ 21cm) has too high a frequency, but the resonances in the n=2 states work well. for n>2, it may be some CREIL, but weaker because the frequencies are low.

The best experimental verification is the explanation of the spectra of the quasars, in particular the experimental observation of the periodicity 0.062 of the redshifts z, discovered experimentally before I demonstrated it is very simply deduced from the spectrum of atomic hydrogen (to shift the Lyman beta or gamma lines to the alpha, z is 3*0.062 or 4*0.062)

__________________
JMB

Not really.
I asked you whether my depiction of your idea is correct or not, to see if understood it (not if I agree with it).

So, do you think I understand your idea or not?

__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Define "total amount of mass" and "inertial energy", and then explain on what your assumption is based.

What is "mass" and its "inertial equivalent" in this context?
Why would it change with distance?
If these are assumptions, on what are they based?

You have not answered the question: where does this formula come from?
Why would you use it?
And other problems with the equation have been addressed by Celestial Mechanic.

I referred Lunatik to the Halley comet.
Considering that it came back right on time in 1910 and 1986, do you think that its orbit is known with enough precision?
If G were variable, why would the orbit of a comet be elliptical?
(For a G that depends on distance, the force no longer varies as the inverse of distance squared, hence the orbits are not necessarily quadratic curves.)

Lunatik still has not explained why he assumes that the inertial mass should change (except for post hoc assumptions).

If the amount of matter does not change, why would the inertia change?
On what is this based?

On what is "Tesla's mechanics" based?
If it actually works, for what reason isn't this mechanics used by physicists?
(This is the first time that I see "Tesla's mechanics" mentioned.)

On what is this assumption based?
Why shouldn't we think that it is just an arbitrary assumption you used to reach a preconcieved conclusion?

And why haven't you done so?

"Blindly" worked out from assumptions you have not justified.
Why should it be more impressive?

Define "total mass" and explain why it is different from "inertial mass".
What do you mean with "Earth frame of reference"?

Again, what is "total mass"?

Why would you use a "very complex wave mechanics solutions"?
Where does it come from?

References are welcome.

I was referring to the unscientific approach of Lyndon Ashmore.
He has a conclusion to reach, and he makes up assumptions and misapplies established physics in order to reach that conclusion.

What if your are wrong?
Can you concieve feasible experiments to test your assumptions?

Physicists already tried to blame inertia on electromagnetism.
It did not work out.
Why should your approach be more succesful?

Why would gravity have anything to do with an Electro-Motive Force (emf)?

On what is this approximation based?

And why do you blame it on a variable G?
Why not on our incomplete understanding of martian meteorology?
What if you are not right?


Please, look up Gauss theorem, because what you are saying does not make much sense.


On what is your idea based?

__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Papageno, you had asked me above: To which I will respond now, since this is important to understand. Of course, what I say is only one man's point of view, so not to be taken as gospel, just as how I understand it conceptually.

Let's take it a piece at a time: RE If G changes, the gravitational interaction changes, that mean the force acting on the object changes.
For the motion to be the same as in the case where G is constant, we must assume that the inertial mass changes.

Yes, inertial mass changes, but the correct way to say this is that it was always changed, living in a higher G, and we overestimated it with a constant G. So our mass value in kilograms (Earth based on our local G)were too high for a higher G (but okay in Earth's G 'constant'), so the motion to be the same we must assume that the inertial mass changes, which must read "it was already changed." What we see as orbital motion in local G necessitates the mass value of the object is lower than we had estimated (for outer planets), so the resulting motion is unaffected (self-canceled). This changes, of course, if a mass is traveling through increasing G regions, then its velocity will be affected as it gains [per equivalence principle] in inertial-mass.

RE My problem is this:
from experiments we know that the inertial mass depends on the amount of matter, but not on gravitational force acting on it.

Yes, of course. The matter/inertial-mass relationship is always the same in the same G region. Why would it be different? It is only affected if measured in different G, then it is lower inertial mass for inner planets, and conversely greater inertial mass for outer planets. So what happens to matter, let's take the outer planets, to make its inertial-mass greater (and hence per constant momentum to slow)? Think of it this way, as (to take a Jerry analogy, though we reach different conlusions on inertia) the matter enters lower solar energy regions it "out-radiates" its own energy; but if it out-radiates, something must be "in-radiating". So what would in-radiate to make inertial mass different? This can only be answered by "suspending" everything we ever learned on mass-matter-inertia (since it was for our 'constant' G only) and instead hypothesize that as energy out-radiates the "other thing" in-radiates. Now you can see why yours above "If G changes, the gravitational interaction changes, that mean the force acting on the object changes," is off the mark: the force on the object doesn't change; what changes is how this object in a higher G region in-radiates this "other thing" to give it greater inertial-mass, and hence make it "heavier" to the force acting on it (viz. the Sun's gravity). Of course, this "other thing" is that in a higher G, gravity is stronger per mass, hence it counterbalances the out-radiating energy intrinsic to this mass, so that its inertial-mass increases. The reason I said earlier that we have to "suspend everything we ever learned on mass-matter-inertia" is because we never had to think in terms of a variable Newton's G before. So what "in-radiates"? It's gravity expressed in the higher G function, which then implies an inverse relationship between the Sun's energy flux and the gravity potential of any given region: more energy, less gravity G, and less energy is more gravity G. Ditto for inertial mass (which by the way does not agree with how Jerry sees it, since he sees inertial mass decreasing with decreasing energy flux environment).

Now to answer your question: RE On what basis would one assume that the inertial mass changed to compensate?

By now the answer should be self evident: per the equivalence principle, higher G means higher inertial-mass, which means it is also "heavier" as to how it responds to the gravity from another body. In the case of the Pioneers, they are being pulled back towards the Sun at a constant rate of approximately ~8E-8 cm/s^2 (though my hypothesis says this is ONLY accounted for at the constant rate of ~ 7.24E-10 cm/s^2), with the balance possibly due to other systemic or external influences, such as how the spacevacuum's molecules interact with the heat release vents on the (dark) side of the crafts facing away from the Sun, i.e., what I called a "Crookes" effect (as any toy radiometer will demonstrate).

Did yours above show you understood what I had presented? Well, I really don't know if you do, unless you can explain better by what you meant in "If G changes, the gravitational interaction changes, that mean the force acting on the object changes." This is a critical point, what did you have in mind with "the force acting on the object"? To my understanding, the force of gravity from the Sun, the galaxy, other planets, etc. does not change; what changes is how this object responds to it.

__________________
Caveat Lector. Experimentum summus judex...

Strange discussion that I am unable to follow.
Using the CREIL, which is deduced from ordinary physics, appears too simple to be interesting !

__________________
JMB

The total mass of an object is the total atomic weight of the baryons in the object. The “inertial energy’ of an object is the relativistic momentum minus the rest mass of the object. As you know, when we try to accelerate objects to near the speed of light, they start radiating; we can only pound so much energy into any object.

I am hypothesizing that the kinetic energy capacity of any object is limited by its mass and the mass of its environment. Note the subtle difference between this explanation and Einstein’s: Einstein says you cannot accelerate a physical object to the speed of light. I am saying the same thing, but also stating that momentum is a ‘field’ effect limited by the capacity of the field. (I can see all the EE’s out their nodding their heads, yes, we know what happens with we try to feed too much energy into an electromagnetic system.)

If any object is moving away from a center of mass, if the inertial energy of the object exceeds the field strength it is moving within, the path of the object is altered and to obey the rules of energy conservation, the energy is radiated. I justify this on the bases of the measured acceleration of stars near the edges of galaxies, the acceleration of the Pioneer probes, and the fact that whenever we see events that should create a great deal of momentum, we observe X-rays, gamma rays and so forth.

It was Newton who made the assumption momentum is a function of mass of an object, but not the mass of the system, not me. I am saying the Pioneer observations tell us something is wrong, and the energy and matter displacements patterns in supernova and the energy spike in the cosmic ray power function tell us the ‘inertial capacity’ of an object is limited by the mass of the system.


The late deployment of every parachute descent on to Mars and the hard landings confirm this. It took over three hundred corrections to put Odessey in the right orbit. And if something isn’t done between now and December 25th to prepare Huygen for landing on a moon more than twice a massive as we think it is, Huygen is going to end up like a bug on a windscreen, just like Beagle!

I am only doing what Newton and Einstein did, creating a mathematical approximation of reality. I expect forces in nature to behave in natural log proportions, if the G 'constant' is a function of total mass, this should be a reasonable approximation for a two body system where m1>>>m2.

If you are asking why I am starting over - throwing out Newton's & Einsteins laws - ranking astrophysicsts will assure you the cosmos are so tightly constrained within the current set of rules, dark matter, inflation, and dark energy are necessary components, and I agree. So the basic rules must be wrong.

Yes, I made a bad choice, I’m writing like an astrophycist (making up new units whenever I change scales). Gn (Gsubnaturalog) in my original formula should be unit-less, so the units would be in the k value (m^3/kg/s^2m). This is just an approximation, another function that works just as well is (now using CM’s nomenclature) F=Gjln(k)/r, Gj is then ~10m^2/kg/s^2 ...or is that Mparsecs-hr/slug/ft-yr^3?

My gut answer is that comets are much denser than the orbit predicts – we estimate the mass from the orbit, not the other way around. Have you seen the pictures of the outgassing of Wild2? It is even outgassing on the opposite side of the comet from the sun. Dirty ice should not transfer heat that fast, but iron would. If the Europian intercept is successful in 2012, we will have a definitive answer. We should also be able to tell from Cassini’s orbits of Titan if my predictions are correct, but it will take some time to get a good approximation of the 2d term of the equation, I don’t know how long.

Wild 2 will hopefully be landing in the Utah desert in 2006 with comet stuff – any bets on the iron content? I’ll be it is high.

True, but only one more term is necessary, and the deviance is small, also we had prior historicals probables on Haley’s …

A rational judgment about the material in the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, as well as the planets themselves. Prometheus simply cannot have a density of only 0.7 and be stealing matter from Saturn’s rings! What in the hell is it made out of? Dark energy? Hooverium?

wave mechanics. EEs use them all the time…

I don’t have an agenda, just a lot of observations that don’t mate well with existing theory, and a lot of time watching the ocean. The idea that gravity is "field-limited" popped up while I was studying the jets flowing out of AGN - What in the hell tied them in knots? How did they stand in such tight columns? Why do they, at times seem to hit a wall? why are they so radio loud? This answers all of theses questions, as well as explaining about five dozen other things that have mystified us for decades.

I don’t have to, since by estimating the density of the planets, the acceleration of the Pioneer probes popped out, the proof is in the pudding. HOWEVER, when I did go back and double check, I came up with 1.6*10^-8cm/s^2, for the predicted velocity of the Pioneer probes. I am actually more pleased with this number: the approximation does not take into account the variations in ‘Gj’ caused by the masses of the big planets themselves. I am not certain how these masses were calculated (they are based upon the interactions of Voyager with the planets and the moons.) So with a number of 1.6 instead of 8, once I figure out how to reverse engineer this whole thing, the Densities of Saturn’s minor moons, and even Saturn and Jupiter themselves could easily be in the 4.5g/cc range as well.

"Blindly" worked out from assumptions you have not justified.
Why should it be more impressive?[/quote]Well, I’m assuming gravity has a second order function because we observe rotational velocities that don’t match Newtonian theory, and we can neither find nor quantify dark matter. With current theory, we cannot explain cosmic rays or static friction.

Tesla, Jacques Monet Bailly (who has an elaborate but unpublished paper creating a Proton as an EMF soliton.) and a whole lot of time watching the ocean.

Start where I started. This could save a few thousand hours – it is not all correct, but there are a few dozen good – mostly mainstream - references.

Check out my post on the CREIL thread, also if the Huygen splats, or lands very hard, that is a tough experiment, but then, so was Beagle. We will know, and soon. We are also collecting supernova observations by the thousands now. If gravity proves to have the variability I have described, hopefully serious researchers in the supernova field will start looking at the supernova data from the prospective I have.

Perhaps it won’t. I think they limited the frequency by Planck’s constant and couldn’t get the energy right.


gas laws are not that tough, why should it be so different from our own?
The only thing I am certain of is that I am wrong! Scientists, unlike prophets, have an inalienable right to be wrong.

What is wrong is that in today’s scientific world, is to be wrong even once, is to be discredited. The result is we are lead by accountants. (All the brilliant clowns who make a lot of mistakes are writing software.)

Only four out of seven of Darwin’s hypothesis turned out to be true. I would have to hit on nine out of seven to even get a thumbnail reference in "who's ideas got stolen" :roll: .

Yes it does: Look at the limiting cases: If a planet had a surface area equal to a one mole layer of hydrogen gas, and has an atmosphere of one mole of hydrogen, and a mass just shy of a Neutron star, the atmosphere will be very dense at one angstrom and very very thin at 100km. If that same planet had the mass of the moon, the atmosphere would be spread from here to Mars, but a thicker atmosphere at 100km than the heavy one (by about seven atoms). Working from both extremes, it is easy to see that with a fixed amount of gas, the thickness of the atmosphere at a high altitude decreases with increasing density in the planet.

tip of the iceberg
More later.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Lunatik,

to be blunt, you seem to confuse the gravitational force acting on an object with the gravitational "constant" G.
Also, you seem to misunderstand the principle of equivalence (whichs has nothing to do with the value or the universality of G).

In order to save your idea of "variable G", you introduce the assumption that the inertial mass of an object changes to compensate the variation of G.
But you have not provided a single physically valid argument in support of this assumption.

Didn't you quote the Newton's formula, that show that the gravitationla force between two objects depends on the distance?
Let me repeat it here:

F = G * (m1 * m2) / r12

where F is the force, G Newton's gravitational constant, [i]m1[/i}, m2 the gravitational masses of the two objects, and r12 the doistance between the two objects.
So, "If G changes" and everything else (masses and distance) is constant "the gravitational interaction changes, that means the force acting on the object changes."

By the way, I told Jerry

__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

On what basis are you "hypothesizing"?

Why?
If the kinetic energy energy of an object is larger than the interaction energy, the object simply does not stay bound to the center of mass.
You see this in the "sling-shot effect" and basically in any scattering experiment.
What energy would the object radiate?

How is this not accounted for in the "conventional" theories?

Classical Mechanics has progressed since Newton.
Now we know that momentum is linked to symmetries (as are angular momentum and energy).
Also, you have not answered the questions.

What makes you think that this is evidence that Newtonian Mechanics is fundamentally wrong?
Isn't it more likely that, since there are many objects out there, adjustements are necessary to correct for perturbations due to these other objects?

You still have not answered the question!
Where does that formula come from?
On what are your "expectations" based?
Why do you think that G depends on mass?

On what experimental evidence is this "conclusion" based?
How does this evidence show that "the basic rules must be wrong"?
Why don't we see this on Earth?


Please explain how it is possible to have elliptical orbits if G is not constant?
If you want to resort to Lunatik "solution" of assuming that the inertial mass changes, cancelling the effect, you are expected to provide some support for this.


So, you do not have experimental evidence.
Yours is just an argument form ignorance.


Come on, at least give some proper references!
Yours isn't an answer.


Again, no substance, just an argument from ignorance.


So, you do start from the conclusion and work backwards.



This sound like "we do not understand every detail, so everything we know is wrong".



So, why would you use a "very complex wave mechanics solutions"?

Thanks.

Because Mars is different from Earth (which has oceans, stronger gravity and is closer to the Sun).

What does evolution have to do with this?
You should worry about your own theories.

So, you do not know what the theorem says and how it is applied to gravity.


You might think I am a bit harsh towards you and Lunatik.
But I do not want this thread to become like the one with lyndonashmore.
If you want to talk about physics, making "against-the-mainstream" claims, you are expected to support them and explain your reasoning.

__________________
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)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)