It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Phage
Sorry, I was laughing too hard at According to Jim to think straight for a minute. The force of gravity stays the same, so, yes, surface gravity decreases with increasing radius.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by bjarneorn
Don't assume what I believe and don't believe. Especially if you're going to be calling me names in the process.
Originally posted by bjarneorn
I would like to point out, that according to theory, we have black holes out there, that have enormous density. And according to scientists, that makes the gravity even greater. And if we assume it is a star that has collapsed on itself, that gravitational pull is greater than that of the original star.
Originally posted by bjarneorn
When you talk about gravity and mass, you must understand that you are talking circular.
So, what is G? A mean constant, observed from the mass and gravity relationship, and it's radius.
So, stating that M must increase for g to increase, is not acceptable. For many reasons. If you take a look at the earth, gravitationally, you see a lot of anomalies. Why is water flowing up a gravitational mountain? Why is the strongest gravity in the northern hemisphere? Why is the lowest gravity in depths of the indian ocean?
Can water flow uphill?
Originally posted by CLPrime
G can also be calculated from the mass of the Sun (M), the radius of the Earth's orbit (R), and the Earth's orbital period (P):
G = 4(pi^2)(R^3)/M(P^2)
G also appears in fundamental equations determining the Hubble parameter.
In the Friedmann equations, the ratio of the double time derivative of the scale factor, a, with a, which describes the observed rate of expansion of the universe, is dependent on the value of the Gravitational constant.
As for water flowing uphill...ever heard of Magnetic Hill, New Brunswick?
Originally posted by bjarneorn
Originally posted by CLPrime
G also appears in fundamental equations determining the Hubble parameter.
In the Friedmann equations, the ratio of the double time derivative of the scale factor, a, with a, which describes the observed rate of expansion of the universe, is dependent on the value of the Gravitational constant.
And I say, that you cannot use these calculations.
As for water flowing uphill...ever heard of Magnetic Hill, New Brunswick?
No, I hadn't heard of it. Googled after you posted it, and this is what I mean.
However, to further point out what I mean in this concept. The atlantic ridge, is where the greatest gravity is. The distance to the center is smaller here, than around the equator. Yet, water is flowing uphill and against the angular momentum of the earth, all to fill the oceans the way they are.
Originally posted by CLPrime
Now explain to me why the calculation of G from the Friedmann equations is inadmissible.
At the Atlantic Ridge, the gravitational anomaly approaches 50 mGal. That's 0.0005 m/s^2 above the mean. For a mean surface gravity value of 9.80665 m/s^2, that equates to a local surface gravity value of 9.80715 m/s^2. How is this significant?
Also, the oceans are contained within the Earth's gravitational system. They contribute to its angular momentum, they don't act independent of it (unless, of course, the Earth suddenly stopped rotating...then, we'd have a problem). So, how are the oceans flowing uphill, exactly?
Originally posted by bjarneorn
Because it is a basic mathematical fallacy.
...
Actually, the anomaly reaches 80 mGal, and surpasses. And the gravity approaches 9,82 m/s² which is the value we used to use for that area, in my youth. Here, in scandinavia, we use 9,8 flat. At the equator, it's 9,78.
For the first part, you have this new idea that the earth is getting fatter because the oceans are adhering to the centrifugal force, and moving away from the atlantic to the equador. However, the equador is reducing the gravitational force, so it should be the other way around.
Originally posted by CLPrime
That's not the Friedmann equations. Go back to my second-to-last post (2 before this one) and find where I mentioned the Friedmann equations. Or just Google them.
Where's yours?
Also, one key reason the surface gravity at the equator is measured to be less because of centripetal force...
Besides, an anomaly of even 100 mGal is only the equivalent of a 0.01% increase - 9.80765 m/s^2, given the global mean. In order for the Mid-Atlantic ridge to have a surface gravity of 9.82 m/s^2, the standard gravity for that region would have to be 9.819 m/s^2... which is certainly likely. Regardless, the anomaly represents a negligible change from the mean.
The surface gravity at the equator is lower because of the Earth's centripetal force.
The equator is "fatter" because of the Earth's centripetal force.
Originally posted by bjarneorn
I'll admit I haven't taken a look at the Friedman equation specifically, as I view it to be the same thing in reality. Because we have only one means of calculating the Suns mass, and that is by using G in the first place.
I just took a peek at the ESA geo satelite readout. The map says -100 to an 80.
My view is that the mass of the earth, is 90% in the core. I see the core, as a highly dense metallic plasma. This is my personal view on the subject, not a fact as you know I adher to the earth expanding. I see the expansion being this plasma cooling, and as it cools it seeks it gaseous state. As it does, the crust thins, and the distance to this dense material lessens. Causing increase in surface gravity, and thus answers our questions as to how stonehenge was built, as well as pyramids and other ancient architecture. These places may have been gravitational anomalies in the earth, because of subterranian plasma conduits.
It's not a question of centripedal force, as the only force that is acting upon us is g. This is our centripedal force, there is no outgoing force that wants to throw us into space. We are firmly on the surface, and the only question that remains is whether the direction of g, as a vector is 90 degrees down, or wether it is ~90 degrees down.
What we observe in the universe, is the centripedal force of the galaxies. They spin, and gravity is the least around the galactic plain. So, this is where the density is the least ... of course you can say, that the earth is similar, that the gravitation is the leat around the equador. And that the density of water, is "smallest" there. But you already stated that the gravitational difference was miniscule.
You can't have it both ways ...
Originally posted by CLPrime
Fortunately, the Friedmann equations have nothing to do with the Sun. They allow G to be calculated directly from measurements of cosmic redshift.
Also, Einstein's field equations, and several equations that follow from them, allow for a direct calculation of G given observations of the expansion of the universe. Tweak G by even a little and the mathematical universe fails to conform to reality.
A link would be awesome.
And you're more than free to hold that view. There's no evidence, and no need, for such a view, but that hasn't stopped anyone yet.
The gravitational vector always points toward the center of gravity. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything....
So, yes, I can have it both ways, because the Earth has it both ways - if you truly understand the physics involved.
Originally posted by bjarneorn
You started by stating, that G could be found by help of the mass of the sun, and the Friedman model.
As I said, I haven't looked closely at them.
Generally these equations take too much for granted, to be of any real use. They are good to theorize, but not for calculations. Statements like, given that the universe is spherical, or flat, or negative hyperbolic ... is not a statement that suggests to use this as proof. Given this, or given that ... define limits.
You can access it all from here
[Links]
There is full reason for such a view. For a man, with such hold on mathematics, you should take a closer look at the mechanics needed for plate tectonics. I am not going to waste words with it, and simply state what it is ... it's a definition of a perpetual machine. And someone with your knowledge, should know by hand that that is equivalent to it being non sense.
As I said before, you can argue about many things. But there are two things, not argueable ... the obvious, and impossible. The obvious is that the continents fit on a smaller globe. The impossible is the mechanism to drive plate tectonics. This perpetual machine isn't worth an arguement.
As you said, the g is always point down ... but what is important, is vector-g.
Do an experiment, take a simple home kitchen element, a whipper. Put it in something to whip and tell me where the dough is moving, that is cought on the merrigoround.
Take a ball, a football. Put it in a bathtub, balanced, with the equator a little below the water surface to make up for gravitational pull. Now spin the ball, and observe whereto the water flows.
Originally posted by CLPrime
Yep, but those are two different things.
You should.
For the purpose of theoretical calculations, those equations involve "given" parameters. But, when we apply those equations to the observable universe, those "givens" become specifics. As I said, only a single value of G will lead to the universe we observe.
I have yet to see anything that gives actual values. I don't feeling like chasing wild geese today.
My focus is astrophysics and quantum mechanics, so my knowledge of plate tectonics is lacking. However, my skimming of the mechanisms suspected to be responsible for plate tectonics leads me to disagree with you. A perpetual motion machine implies no energy input. In fact, plate tectonics has numerous potential sources of energy to drive plate movement.
Originally posted by bjarneorn
No, they're not ... you put them in a context, where they supposedly meant the same thing.
G can also be calculated from the mass of the Sun (M), the radius of the Earth's orbit (R), and the Earth's orbital period (P):
G = 4(pi^2)(R^3)/M(P^2)
G also appears in fundamental equations determining the Hubble parameter.
In the Friedmann equations, the ratio of the double time derivative of the scale factor, a, with a, which describes the observed rate of expansion of the universe, is dependent on the value of the Gravitational constant.
This is what wikipedia says:
The Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic models of the universe within the context of general relativity.
(G is Newton's gravitational constant, Λ is the cosmological constant, c is the speed of light in vacuum). k is constant throughout a particular solution, but may vary from one solution to another.
Cosmological constant?
k is a constant, but may vary from one solution to another?
Mister! This is an equation, to THEORIZE ... it is NOT AN EQUATION TO CALCULATE an exact ANSWER.
Really? The European Space Agency is suddenly a wild goose?
Let me quote what they say on gravity.
The mean Earth gravity is about 981 000 mGal (the well-known 9.81 m/s2), varies from 978,100 mGal to 983,200 mGal from Equator to pole due to the Earth's flattening and rotation.
The highest is actually 9,83 and not 9,82 as I stated.
You claim to be a physicist? I don't give a damn if you are an astro or other physicist. You claim this, and argue a perpetual machine?