Aardwolf wrote:Do you accept this evidence that the mass of the planet isn't constant? If not, what is varying exactly?
I have no idea, but you are right that its and interesting anomaly.
It’s far beyond an anomaly. Analysis of 40 years of specialised laboratory experiments designed specifically to identify a constant value of G has failed. That’s not an anomaly, it’s probably the clearest evidence of the failure of a theory ever witnessed. Either “constant” G is varying or the mass of the planet is, and considering that G is merely an abstract term driven by gravity itself, in reality the mass of the planet must be varying. There is no other interpretation available. Unless all the scientists involved were incompetent on a sinusoidal basis over multiple sites/decades.
willendure wrote:BTW, the reason for talking about GR is that one of its base assumptions is that inertial and gravitational acceleration frames cannot be told apart; that is that gravity is mass based. So any test that GR passes helps support that case. I know Pound-Rebka does not address that directly.
A base assumption that it’s comparable to an acceleration does not exclude other causes of gravity. The theoretical formula have no requirement that gravity = mass. It isn’t driven by mass it’s driven by observation and the mathematical description of the forces assumed to drive them.
willendure wrote:I still don't know why you connect GR with dark matter? Dark matter is that galaxies rotate at the wrong speed given the matter we think we can see, so there was a postulation that there must be some dark stuff we can't see, but that has mass. Dark energy is the cosmological constant from GR. Its dark energy and GR that are connected.
Again, you introduced GR. I’ll happily drop but you keep introducing as if it answers my points/questions.
willendure wrote:The gravitational accelerations of around galaxies are very small, so Newtons laws can be used to model them. GR only differs from Newtons laws when the accelerations are large. So the dark matter issue arising from galaxies rotating at the wrong speed doesn't relate to GR. If there is something wrong with our model of gravity, its at the small end not the big end. This is where ideas like modified Newtons laws come in (with a parameter you can tune to fit the data, no less), and wacky shit like MiHSC.
Good. Then drop GR, I had no interest in it anyway. Just find me an experiment that proves gravity is mass based. After all, as you said, we must abandon theories that can be disproven in a lab, so let’s analyse where mass based gravity has succeeded.
willendure wrote:Let's see what happens when they measure G in space.
Unfortunately we’ll probably be dead before that’s possible, because we need at least as many years as we’ve already studied G to prove if it’s constant. Then again of course, you might just say it’s an anomaly so what’s the point. Maybe not being able to levitate a charged foil is an anomaly. You see we can all avoid evidence and write off as an anomaly when it doesn't fit our expectations.