This is all we know for now. If we had reason to suspect otherwise, I am sure we'd be looking into it. And looking is exactly what we are about to do.

Also:
Let's leave that to ESA's future probe, where they will have a separated "flywheel" registering inertial mass, and the equivalence principle. But what if they find that inertial mass and spin are different there? Would "equivalence" not dictate a different gravity at work in that part of space, say at 10-30 AU from the Sun, for example? And if that gravity is different, would it not impact how G is measured out there? And if it shows to be a variable, are we prepared to cope with that conceptually?

But I personally think the Pioneers Anomaly is the least of our problems,that there are enough holes out there in our cosmological theories to allow for new thinking. For example:

• [1.] How are stars born from hydrogen clouds, since there is insufficient gravity to make the clouds come together with enough force to start nuclear fusion, a mystery.
  
  [2.] "Dark matter" foils our understanding of how galaxies rotate, in violation of the inverse square law for gravity.
  
  [3.] Why do the gas giants sport such massive atmospheres, especially if the inner core planet is small? Why does our local moon have no atmosphere, but Pluto a small planet a fraction of our moon, or Saturn's Arizon sized Enceladus, does have an atmosphere?
  
  [4.] How can a "dark matter galaxy" exist, when it has no visible stars?
  
  [5.] Cosmic light redshift, though now ascribed to a Doppler effect of expanding universe, may find a different interpretation if gravity is different for 99.99% of the spacevacuum between galaxies.
  
  [6.] Why are there unmodeled gravitational anomalies on Mars, or Venus, for their prominent features? Or why are the giant's rings dirtier near the planet than further out, where they're almost pure water ice?
  
  [7.] Why did astronomers find "clumps of dark matter" in space?

I think the Pioneers Anomaly is the smallest of our mysteries, judging from the list above. Explaining these things takes incredible contortions of reason, if not outright fancy, such as the Big Bang; including theorized gravity waves never detected, or more "elementary" particles yet to be discovered, like the Higgs boson. There's lots of room for an improved theory on how gravity works, or how it interacts closer in to star generated energies. Can a variable gravity, a variable G as discussed here, be the answer? I don't know. But we should try to see if that may not work better than what we had been working with so far, assuming a universal Newton's 1 G proportional for the whole cosmos.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

Wrong, the kilogram is a unit, coequal with the meter and the second.
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.
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.

__________________
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.

:roll:
I see that you still do not grasp the difference between kilogram-mass and kilogram-weight.

You basket has a weight of 1 kg-weight = 1 kg-mass * g on Earth, and of 10 kg-weight = 1 kg-mass * (10*g) on your planet.
The inertial mass of 1 kg-mass has not changed.

Wrong.
The force on them is ten time higher: their masses are not.

Of course you are referring to the weight, measured in kg-weight, and not to the mass, measured in kg-mass.

The masses are not proportional to G.

Because it can be measured.
Newton's law for gravitation gives at least an operative definition of G, which allows researchers to measure it.

Is it not a quantity that can be measured?

The force increases, but not the masses.

It is not: the gravitational force increased because you increased G not the masses.

Why?
You already increased G: G' = 10 G.
Then you assume out of the blue an increase in mass: m' = 10 m, M' = 10 M.
That would make the force: F' = 10*10*10*F = 1000 F.


It is not, because the definition of kilogram-mass does not depend on the value of G.

Your question can be raised with G as universal constant.
Your problem is the distinction between kg-mass and kg-weight: you just need to go to the Moon to raise that question, and find the answer.

No, you do not understand.
You still confuse weight with mass.

So, how come it does not show up in the relevant equation?
M(grav) = M(inertial).

And of the distance and mass of the other mass (for example, Earth).

Because the gravitational force is proportional to G.

:roll:
If the acceleration of a mass is due to gravity, then your "gravity acceleration" and "acceleration of mass" are one and the same!
And sinc this acceleration depends on the garvitational force exerted on the mass, of course it depends on G.
But this does not imply that the mass that is accelerated depends on G.


Because the force changes.

Change G and you change the force.
Change the force and you change the acceleration.

G mM/r^2 = F = a M, and
G' mM/r^2 = F' = a' M
If G' = 10 G,
G mM/r^2 = F = a M, and
(10 G) mM/r^2 = (10 F) = (10 a) M.

You see? M is subjected to ten times the acceleration, becasue the force is ten times stronger.
But you, with no justification whatsoever, assume a change in M.


So, you admit that G, even through a, does not enter M(1) = M(2).


Experimental results show that it is (10 a).
Why are you attributing the change to M?


And on Jupiter the weight of 1 kg-mass is higher!


Unfortunately for you, we observe the first case, where the acceleration is larger.


You forgot to justify where the change in mass comes from.


You cannot even be consistent.
You had mutually exclusive options: either 10 M or 10 a.
You chose 10 M, so you cannot change a: a stay the same (not the "same").



You forgot that the inertial mass can be measure using non-gravitational forces.
And by doing such experiments, you would see that the inertial mass has not changed, even if G changes.


Your opinion on serious misconceptions and deep misunderstandings.
I explained to you uncountable times that a variable G is not an exotic concept, nor mathematically challenging.
It would exactly like a variable dielectric constant in electrostatics, which is commonplace, and easily dealt with.


:roll:
You still do not understand how mass is measured.


So, you still do not understand.


You persist in your misconception.


The numbers attributed to physical quantities depends on the system of units.
You have shown that this concept is beyond your grasp.


You are contradicting yourself: either mass does not change, or it does.


:roll:
Why can't you understand the difference between kg-mass and kg-weight?
Why is it so hard for you?


The "above" is misguided and wrong.


Translated: "I have no clue." Is this what you mean?


But you clearly do not grasp the basics for this kind of speculations.
Hence you are reaching wrong conclusions.


You made claim: the burden of proof is yours.


:roll:
Galileo's experimental results are still valid today.

__________________
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)

Jerry may be gone, but his "spirit" lives on.

You have a lot more patience than I, papageno! That's praiseworthy. But after all these corrections with no meaningful responses, it must be wearing at least a little thin by now.

Meanwhile, good work re your replies. A shame your target audience doesn't seem to comprehend physics fundamentals. :-?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

My jaw dropped to the ground when I realized nutant gene 71's misconception about the kilogram.
It's a pity that he persists in it.

__________________
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)

Maksutov, I think all here have had a lot of patience with my attempt to communicate something I see as a conceptual conundrum, but it seems no one picked up on it. So I take it as my personal failure to communicate something I see, but I don't know how else to present it. I've run out of ideas!

In papageno's last big post I counted at least 10 times where he says I'm "wrong" or "don't understand", so must accept this as my failure. In my previous incarnation (as "Lunatik" now in permanent 'safing') I had shown a paper on Atomic Mass with some mathematical scratchings on how G is different for each orbital region (which happens to unexpectedly grow at the rate of one G per AU), but then too I was told how wrong I was, or didn't understand, by the same parties, so pulled it from its site for review (it's up for peer review at the moment). I don't have the answers, and would not have them unless further astrophysical research measured a different Newton's G, which has not happened. So I remain isolated with my conceptual conundrum, which is okay with me, as it is something on which I can further meditate.

I would like to leave off here with this article at Space.com: First Invisible Galaxy Discovered in Cosmology Breakthrough, which too me is worth more than "a picture's worth a thousand words", since no picture appears.

I sincerely hope we can discover a variable G in the future, because if we cannot, then God help us, for this universe, in the present form of our understanding, makes absolutely no sense. I see our present cosmology as pure fantasy.

In my vision of the universe, gravity is a variable determined by the G proportional where it is measured. That is not the same as to say that greater gravity is merely greater acceleration between masses, but it means that the actual mass itself has changed, per equivalence, and thus the resulting interactions of these masses is between the greater masses. Obviously, not one else thinks so, at least not at present.

No fault. My next project is to work out how much gravity we would need in the 99.99% of the space "vacuum" to account for redshift z = 1, but haven't worked it out yet. Thanks for your inputs, and to all who had their say, appreciate it.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

Let's be clear: it has been shown and explained where you are wrong.


We tried to get you out of your coneptual conudrum, but you simply dismiss our explanations by saying that we just would not understand.

Now, do you understand that kilogram-mass is not the same as kilogram-weight?

__________________
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)

Sure hope you didn't break a tooth!

You forget I wrote in my above, July 5th:
Mass does not change. But it's measured inertial mass, per equivalence, just like its weight, does change. Place 1 kilogram cubic decimeter of water on a balance scale in a 10 G universe, it would still balance with 1 kg of platinum-iridium rod on the other side; but this rod/cubic water is now on a scale in 10G; so it registers (each side independently) as 10 kg. That's the equivalence of gravitational mass (weight/gravity related) and inertial mass (acceleration related/equivalence) that makes a difference in the new measure of mass, where the same 1 kg of mass registered differently, now as m' = 10 kg for G' = 10 G. And that dear sir, is the conundrum.

It's not that the Earth is suddenly ten times larger in mass, same planet same mass, but the G changed, and that is what changes the (measured) mass, not the acceleration, but the mass. Remember my original question:

Hypothetically, per Equivalence Principle, what would kilograms be for any given mass in a variable G?

You answer it with 'acceleration' changes in terms of G; I answer 'mass' changes in terms of G.

Your answer makes sense in a 1 G universe, forever universally the same. My answer makes sense in a universe where G is variable. But I know you cannot (or will not?) see this. My conclusion is that if you did see it, you'd have to admit to the possibility our current take on the universe is possibly wrong, and variable gravity is a real possibility. By rejecting my idea, you're safe, nothing need change, and G is a universal constant.

I do not wish to offend you Sir, but that is how I read your responses, though I do appreciate them all the same, really.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer