nick c wrote:
I'll stand by the statement that Constant G is but an assumption.
Your post does not refute anything, despite some strawman arguments:
With the same line of reasoning you could argue that nobody can prove that the sun will come up tomorrow. Still, most modern people are not afraid of that...There is no reason to assume mass is different on another location or time.
As I read what Thornhill has written, there is plenty of observation, measurements, and other evidences to give reasonable consideration to a variable gravitational constant or that mass and matter are not the same thing. It is part of a valid theory that can be tested. The assumptions of your preferred model or mainstream's model do not constitute falsification of that theory. Your analogy to the question of the sun rising is a strawman argument and not applicable.
My rising sun is not a strawman of the theory of gravity, but of your theory that 350 years of measurements are nothing but an assumption. Maybe I should turn the argument around: what evidence in the form of measurements
(not assumptions) do you have for a non-constant G?
The dismissal of Thornhills' model was on the basis that I see no evidence of electrical forces at play that could replace gravitational and inertial forces on a planetary level.
You are free to dismiss the model for whatever reason you choose.
Obviously you do not accept (I assume you have read) the literature pertaining to the EU model, since plenty of evidence of the failure of gravity only models are presented.
I do not doubt the existence of electric and magnetic effects in space, but the estimation of the influence of the effects should be done properly.
-planets revolve in the same plane and in alignment with the Sun's magnetic field
Since the polarity of the Sun's and planet's magnetic fields regularly flip, this cannot be a major alignment effect. There are plenty of other good explanations, like conservation of angular momentum since the creation of the solar system.
-planets are spaced so that there is a least action interaction between their magnetospheres
The planets are spaced and sized according to the Titius-Bode law, which is not a coincidence but can be explained from quantisation of motion as done by Dewey Larson. (Unfortunately I do not have a good reference for the complete explanation).
-interplanetary space is a plasma, planets are charged bodies moving within the Sun's plasmasphere, which extends beyond the orbit of Pluto
Sure, but this plasma has a very low density and planets are not charged to very high potentials, so you are never talking about major forces, even in comparison with gravity.
-evidence that the surfaces of all terrestial type bodies have been shaped by electric discharges on a scale not presently observed. This requires planet sized bodies to encroach upon each others plasmaspheres
We do have observation of regular meteorite impacts but not of major electric discharges on planets. Planets approaching eachother is a major assumption for which there is no more than some mythical evidence.
-anomalies in the precession of Mercury
This can be easily explained by non-electrical phenomena, like GR or Dewey Larsons Reciprocal System Theory.
-the [url2=http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/20123]Pioneer anomaly[/url2]..."Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 are following trajectories that cannot be explained by conventional physics."
Though measurable, the effect is very minor (10 billion times weaker than Earth's gravity). Why would this point to an EU effect?
-just about anything to do with comets
I assume for comets EU effects play a major role.
-the behavior of solar prominences and CME's
They are assumed to have a magnetic origin by most theories.
-polar jets on various stars, including brown dwarves
Is there any evidence that a jet is an electrical effect?
-size of animals from past geological ages
I have pointed you earlier to a website that explains that it is biologically quite feasible to have land animals weighing 100 tons or more.
-the N body problem
An N-body problem does not become mathematically easier by making it electrical...
-The Sun is spherical, it should display flattening at the poles due to its 26 day rotation and 1,400,000 km diameter
We do not know enough about the composition of the sun to assume that. The internal pressure could be much larger than the flattening force due to the sun's rotation.
-gravity needs to act instantaneously
-Newton gave a description of something not an explanation of how gravity actually operates
Newton was correct in its observations. Dewey Larson explains how gravity operates and why it acts instantaneously:Beyond Newton
All of the above and others are the result of observations and measurements which have produced anomalies to "gravitational and inertial forces on a planetary level," indicating an electromagnetic factor.
Your indication is really just a big assumption. There are perfectly valid not electrical explanations available too.
On galactic levels gravity models completely break down, and are near useless, creating the need for dark matter, dark energy, and black holes. This alone should be a tip off that the accepted understanding of G as presented by the scientific cognoscenti is at least open to questioning. Alternate theories should not be dismissed just because they dare to violate a cherished assumption which has become accepted as unassailable fact.
I'm certainly not dismissing alternate theories, just making a rational selection of the best explanations.
E.g. an explanation why at a galactic level gravity breaks down is:
- gravity has a restricted reach (individual stars in a galaxy do not attract eachother for instance)
- this is due to gravity being offset at a certain distance by the 'expansion' of the universe (or "space-time progression")
- e.g. the gravitional reach of our Sun is estimated to be about 3.77 lightyears and the nearest star is about 4.37 lightyears away.
This is elegantly explained by DL Reciprocal System Theory, as discussed in the "Time For A New Theory Of Gravitation Thread":
StevenO wrote:The RST explanations for these observations are:
1) The basic motion of the universe is an outward "expansion" of space and time at lightspeed
2) The gravitational motion of matter is an inward motion that counters this expansion
3) As such gravity has a limited reach (until the expansion motion is faster than the gravitational motion)
4) Stars and galaxies reside in their own gravitational "cell". Collisions between galaxies are not possible, but heavier galaxies with larger gravitional reach will eventually absorb smaller galaxies in their vicinity.
5) These satellite galaxies or globular clusters are the first stage of star and galaxy forming from interstellar matter. Small sperical galaxies can merge into small elliptical galaxies and into larger spiral galaxies.
sathearn wrote:So does Newton's law need to be revised? Here's my own preliminary take, also based on reading Larson and a bit about the problems that have given rise to the dark matter hypothesis. StevenO said some of it already; I will add a few points for clarity regarding just how Larson's principles affect the problem.
The basic issue is that the outer stars in rotating galaxies have orbital speeds around the galaxies' centers-of-gravity (if we were to judge that center of gravity by the visible mass) that are comparable to those of the stars closer in toward the core. This is certainly not provided for by Newton's inverse square law, whereby in stable orbital systems the objects that are farther out have slower orbital velocities, since much lower speeds are required to balance the much attenuated gravitational force.
I think the key insight from Larson here is that we should not expect this relation to hold at the level of the structure of galaxies. The gravitational effects which Newton observed and based his law on, are actually a net effect of two opposing motions - the outward progression of space-time and the inward gravitational motion. The two forces (motions) do not respond to distance in the same way. The outward progression is constant everywhere, while the inward motion is distributed three dimensionally from its points of origin - it therefore becomes less effective with distance. For any given mass, there is a finite distance at which the two motions are equal - for present purposes, we may label this point the "gravitational limit." As one moves still farther out, objects recede from one another. As gravitation attenuates still further, the objects actually accelerate away from one another, toward the limiting speed of the progression.
We may note parenthetically that in Larson's system, gravity is not a force of one mass on another, but a motion toward all other locations within the gravitational limits, motion which becomes observable in the presence of other masses.
The upshot is that Newton's law holds absolutely within the gravitational limits of an aggregate of matter.
1. The planets are within the gravitational limit of the sun. Their stable orbits are determined by the inverse-square law.
2. At the level of clusters of galaxies, relatively stable orbits are less probable, the basic trend being toward aggregation of the whole Local Group into one supergalaxy. But given the random motions of the individual components, it is possible that some dwarf galaxies will find themselves in orbit around, say, the Milky Way. Since such satellites will be within the gravitational limit of the galaxy, their orbital velocities will also follow Newton's law.
3. At the level of galactic structure, Newton's law is not applicable. The stars (or multiple star systems) that make up a galaxy are necessarily outside the gravitational limits of one another, hence tending to move apart. However, the gravitational motion of the larger aggregate of which they are a part (the galaxy) toward each of its constituent stars (or multiple star systems), "holds" the stars in place. This kind of equilibrium accounts for the stability of these structures. It also explains why they tend to rotate as coherent bodies - outer stars at similar velocities to those of the ones farther in. And it also explains the stability of aggregates such as globular clusters, many of which have little rotation. No "dark matter" needed.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.