I have cracked the gravitational constant

[quantumuppercut]

The gravitational constant is exactly 1/r, where r is the distance from the sun to earth. However, it is off by a factor of 10 when i use the value given on the net. I think there is a mis measurement somewhere. I am still working on the rest of the derivation details.

[lamare]

However, it is off by a factor of 10 when i use the value given on the net.

I don't know what you're doing exactly, but you might have overlooked Newton's law F = m * g, which gives a relation between force, mass and gravitational acceleration. Since g is about 10, this might explain your factor 10.

[witsend]

Hi lamare,

That's a really sweet little penguin - in clogs? Not sure if he's blowing or smoking the 'horn'? Just so cute. May I ask if you're a physicist?

And Quantum, you're on your own when it comes to equations. I barely understand the e=mc^2 number. But I do have an exotic take on gravity. I think that there are two moments. The one is where amalgams interact with magnetic fields - all pervasive but different depending on where an object is - in space. The next is that the casimir effect comes into play - meaning that the nearer an object is to other massive objects the greater the attraction. The greater the proximity then the greater the attraction.

[morpher44]

n-body

Life is in fact complicated.
True calculations involving gravity are n-body, whether you like it or not.
In any experiment involving gravity, it is very difficult to NULL out the effects of gravity you don't want. We have large gravitational bodies in our solar system.

N-body equations are computationally difficult -- especially when you go and add time to the mix.

I would think all of this contributes to the difficulty of measuring accurately
the so called gravitational constant.

[witsend]

morpher44. I had to look up the n-body problem. I get it that this was resolved by Poincare? Is that right.

My own take is that proximity of an object to another is determined by the mass of both objects. That eventually determines the rest mass of both objects - which relates to weight. And completely different is the interaction of an object with pervasive fields in space that I see as being magnetic. This simply determines the direction of the object with no reference to mass. Here I propose an interaction with the field that determines direction and, presumably - velocity. But It's 'weight' computation is irrelevant as regardless of the mass it will generate a given and constant velocity. So. In my book the equation relating to gravity would only be resolved depending on where in space the object is.

Is any of that even half way undestandable?

[lamare]

Hi lamare,

That's a really sweet little penguin - in clogs? Not sure if he's blowing or smoking the 'horn'? Just so cute. May I ask if you're a physicist?

He's blowing the horn, which is an old tradition here in the eastern provinces of the Netherlands. On my homepage, there's a picture of me blowing the horn: http://www.tuks.nl/
And yes, he's definately wearing clogs.

As for your question: I'm educated as an electrical engineer, but I have spent most of my career developing software, mostly under Linux as well as porting to a.o. windows and the Mac. The software I worked on until the end of 2005 has recently become fully open source:
OpendTect is now completely free

[witsend]

Thanks lamare.

[Armagdn03]

Inverse Square Law

Here it can be shown that the gravitational constant is dependent on the the distance perpendicular from the center of the mass in question. In other words, just like a candle, the further from the point source you get, the less gravity you "feel". Because of this"the acceleration of gravity, g, is an expression of the intensity of the gravity field. "

Therefore, the gravitational constant of 9.81 meters per second is applicable only to objects near to the surface of the earth. It will change according to the inverse squared law if you go above or below this point.

It is also interesting to note Archimedes' principle and buoyant force. "Any object, wholly or partly immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object." An object forced into a strata of differing density will experience buoyant force, either positive or negative which will either lift the body in question up (think hot air balloon) or down (rock dropped in water). If the surrounding body is of the same character as the object immersed in it it will feel no net force, meaning it does not "feel" gravity (think your rappla medium depth fishing lures or how you feel weightless in water (since its what we are composed of)).

This effect causes a stratification of the earth and atmosphere which can be most easily seen by looking up in the sky, you will notice the differing layers of clouds,


1. Lower level clouds
2. Cumulus
3. Stratocumulus
4. Stratus
5. Middle level clouds
6. Altocumulus
7. Altostratus
8. Nimbostratus
9. Higher level clouds
10. Cirrus and cirrostratus

Each layer has a characteristic density which invites similar materials to its level. Because of this clouds hit a floor, much like we walk on ground, which they cannot pass unless they change their character in some way.

Because of this, the effect we call gravity much more complicated than simply a constant. The net effect is a combination of the interaction between an inward flow of contraction, and outward push of radiation, and the character of the two objects in question, which take into account mainly density, which can be well researched and understood with a bit of attention to the idea gas laws, PV=nrT, where pressure volume and temperature are all interconnected each affecting..........density.

The question to ask is, what causes "orbits" at pre-defined distances, why do planets not fall into the sun, and why did tesla state "As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment."

If one looks at iron filings around a magnet, why do they prefer certain bands, which alternate in predominance with bands where no filings are held. Its as if we are alternating bands of density predominance, with space predominance, much like electromagnetic waves from a point source alternate with magnetic and electric predominance. (those filings will have their own attractive force, which will not exist if the parent magnet is not there, much like our moon and planet, planet and sun, our sun and galaxy on and on, refer to Tesla quote above)

If gravity is a gradient following the inverse squared law, then stratification can only be a result of the interaction between two objects, the strata do not exist if nothing is there to fill them.

believe me when I say, we are only touching the surface of so called "gravity" its not what we think it is, and all phenomenon can be boiled down to cause, while we are preoccupied with effect.

[morpher44]

n-body

morpher44. I had to look up the n-body problem. I get it that this was resolved by Poincare?
My own take is that proximity of an object to another is determined by the mass of both objects. That eventually determines the rest mass of both objects - which relates to weight. And completely different is the interaction of an object with pervasive fields in space that I see as being magnetic. This simply determines the direction of the object with no reference to mass. Here I propose an interaction with the field that determines direction and, presumably - velocity. But It's 'weight' computation is irrelevant as regardless of the mass it will generate a given and constant velocity. So. In my book the equation relating to gravity would only be resolved depending on where in space the object is.
Is any of that even half way undestandable?

I was thinking more in terms of laboratory measurements and experiments. n-body is tricky because you don't know all the other bodies out their influencing your experiment ... and you cannot NULL there effects easily.
Yes the math is difficult as well or writing software for an n-body simulation ... very tricky .. highly computational.

Proximity is a metric irrespective of mass -- so I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I'm impressed by Stan Deyo's explanation that the MASS is influencing the aether by sending out waves that come back ... creating certain standing wave gravity wells which influence orbit locations. Orbits are purely a standing wave phenomenon. These standing waves occur as a LARGE mass and its gravitational influence is affected by other masses in the reach of its gravitational influence.

Our solar system is n-body and certain orbits appear where they are due to geometry of the planets around the sun ... according to Deyo.

An event happened a few years back were a large body entered our solar system -- as large as the earth. It should have tweaked everything ... but didn't. There is so much we don't understand about this n-body stuff.

[witsend]

The question to ask is, what causes "orbits" at pre-defined distances, why do planets not fall into the sun, and why did tesla state "As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment."

If one looks at iron filings around a magnet, why do they prefer certain bands, which alternate in predominance with bands where no filings are held. Its as if we are alternating bands of density predominance, with space predominance, much like electromagnetic waves from a point source alternate with magnetic and electric predominance. (those filings will have their own attractive force, which will not exist if the parent magnet is not there, much like our moon and planet, planet and sun, our sun and galaxy on and on, refer to Tesla quote above)

If gravity is a gradient following the inverse squared law, then stratification can only be a result of the interaction between two objects, the strata do not exist if nothing is there to fill them.

believe me when I say, we are only touching the surface of so called "gravity" its not what we think it is, and all phenomenon can be boiled down to cause, while we are preoccupied with effect.

Hi Armagdn03. Nice to see you posting here. I absolutely agree with Tesla about matter being at the 'mercy' of this hidden force. My own eccentric take is that even photons are 'moved' by the field. Had no idea that Tesla was there - just so long ago.

I think the 'strata' exist but are only evident when there's something there to 'fill them'. But I see these, on Earth, as our magnetic fields that determine the 'direction of matter'. The 'weight' kicks in in relation to matter's proximity to the really big 'object' or amalgam - being our entire planet. But that's my take. By the way, I also think that the Casimir effect is the thing that determines an object's weight.

I love rabbiting on about my model but it's most distinguished feature is it's entire incomprehensibility. Hopefully all you highly qualified gentlemen can indulge me here. And I really think it's probably off topic as we're trying to find out Quantum's take.

BTW Quantumuppercut - Where are you?

[quantumuppercut]

WOW!

After I see lamare suggestion on 9.8m/s, I took a week off to work on it. I did not know there are follow participations. Sorry guys. So lucky I choose to come back and thank lamare.

lamare,
Thank you for your suggestion. I now know that the missing factor is pi^2 , or about 9.86 when deriving it from Kepler's third law and Newton's interpretation. Is this somehow related to 9.8? I'm not sure but I think it is. Thanks again for your suggestion.

witsend,
Thank you for reaching into your theory. Yes, the closer the object, the greater attraction. Everything is conserve as you stated and it is location in space dependant. It's impossible to go off topic on this one.

morpher44,
The n-body problem as I understand is just pure computational . It can get very tedious even with computers. However, we can assumed them as background noise when we focus on an experiment, thus, I think it will eliminate itself in the equation. Stan Deyo is one big bad warrior. His wave that come back keeping the planets in position is sufficient explaining the solar system stability . If one see it closely, it is the same as Armagdn03 words in different view, density.

Armagdn03,
Ah... the inverse square law. Do you know that magnets interation obey an inverse cube law? Matter of fact, I was attracted to this matter to go into this research about gravity. My take is that the planets will take an inverse cube law if you push it closer to the sun, but it will repel. If you push it away from the sun, it will attract. It's an attraction repulsion phenomena that the forces obey the inverse cube law. What cause this? You already stated well in your post, density and Archimede's boyancy. The law of angular momentum conservation is the right one that describe this. However, there is an inverse square law if one to modify the angular momentum conservation. mass x radius x velocity is conserve in angular momentum conservation, but only if we assumed the mass is constant. I've worked it out and shoved in some planets number crunching and it matches. If i'm not wrong, the atomic world also agree on this.

Thank you everyone for your input, you are all right at different viewing angles. Our solar systems and the forces it operate under is the most mysterious and wonderful phenomena.

Quantumuppercut