Originally posted by VoidHawk
Thanks for the reply
I know very little about this subject but I'm always pleased when someone like you comes along offering new theories, thats how we progress
Physics for Doofuses: Mass vs. charge deathmatch
Back in high school, I was struck by the apparent symmetry between mass and charge. For the one you’ve got Newton’s F=Gm1m2/r2, for the other you’ve got Coulomb’s F=Kq1q2/r2. So then why, in our current understanding of the universe, are mass and charge treated so differently? Why should one be inextricably linked to the geometry of spacetime, whereas the other seems more like an add-on? Why should it be so much harder to give a quantum-mechanical treatment of one than the other?
Originally posted by yampa
Physics for Doofuses: Mass vs. charge deathmatch
Back in high school, I was struck by the apparent symmetry between mass and charge. For the one you’ve got Newton’s F=Gm1m2/r2, for the other you’ve got Coulomb’s F=Kq1q2/r2. So then why, in our current understanding of the universe, are mass and charge treated so differently? Why should one be inextricably linked to the geometry of spacetime, whereas the other seems more like an add-on? Why should it be so much harder to give a quantum-mechanical treatment of one than the other?
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
It has to do with magnitude since electrical charge and gravity are different forces, they have different magnitudes (or strength). k = 1 ⁄ 4πε whereas G=6.674 x 10^-11.
They are calculated the same way because they are both forces but the constants (magnitudes of the force) are different.
Gravity is considered a very weak force, whereas electrical charge is stronger. The two equations are so similar because they are both force eqations that depend on two "things" that have a distance between them. They are essentially the same other than the magnitude due to the type of force that is being measured.
Hope that helps
The official CODATA value for G in 1986 was given as G= (6,67259±0.00085)x10-11 m3Kg-1s-2 and was based on the Luther and Towler determination in 1982. However, the value of G has been recently called into question by new measurements from respected research teams in Germany, New Zealand, and Russia in order to try to settle this issue. The new values using the best laboratory equipment to-date disagreed wildly to the point that many are doubting about the constancy of this parameter and some are even postulating entirely new forces to explain these gravitational anomalies.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by yampa
It is already known G is not a constant. If measurements from vastly different parts of the Earth had the same reading it would be cause of great concern. G should vary on Earth, much like G on other planets is not the same as on Earth.
The gravitational constant denoted by letter G, is an empirical physical constant involved in the calculation(s) of gravitational force between two bodies. It usually appears in Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation, and in Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It is also known as the universal gravitational constant, Newton's constant, and colloquially as Big G.[1] It should not be confused with "little g" (g), which is the local gravitational field (equivalent to the free-fall acceleration[2]), especially that at the Earth's surface.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by yampa
Ah, yes, I am. I'm at work and read the link you provided me quickly and they were talking about the gravitational force on Earth. I will have to look into what you have posted more thoroughly when time allows.
Interestingly, I was just reading about the large mammals that cropped up when the dinosaurs died out and I was wondering why they didn’t get crushed under their own weight. Here’s a strange idea that offers an explanation for that and a few other mysteries:
Interesting claim. I don’t know about that… They had pretty strong bones. Anyway, this web site proposes periodic large fast changes in the force of gravity (G).
The top of the Himalayas will have a different reading than deep within a mine shaft.
Originally posted by yampa
Not just 'things'. Spheres. Spherical emissions dissipate in accordance with the inverse square.
Have you considered where G comes from and why it varies under experiment? It is not a constant constant, ya know? Have you considered that G and k might actually be accounting for mechanically and physically related phenomena at different scales?
The official CODATA value for G in 1986 was given as G= (6,67259±0.00085)x10-11 m3Kg-1s-2 and was based on the Luther and Towler determination in 1982. However, the value of G has been recently called into question by new measurements from respected research teams in Germany, New Zealand, and Russia in order to try to settle this issue. The new values using the best laboratory equipment to-date disagreed wildly to the point that many are doubting about the constancy of this parameter and some are even postulating entirely new forces to explain these gravitational anomalies.
xenophilius.wordpress.com...
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Yes, the constant of proportionality is dependent upon theoretical spherical values and can vary depending on the shape of the objects you are dealing with at close distances, but of course at a great distance, the spherical values are approached regardless of the individual shape. Also, the numerical equivalent value for G can be different at times depending on what units you are dealing with, the constant of proportionality G is always the same given the theoretical parameters.
Originally posted by yampa
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Yes, the constant of proportionality is dependent upon theoretical spherical values and can vary depending on the shape of the objects you are dealing with at close distances, but of course at a great distance, the spherical values are approached regardless of the individual shape. Also, the numerical equivalent value for G can be different at times depending on what units you are dealing with, the constant of proportionality G is always the same given the theoretical parameters.
The experimentally confirmed variance in G is caused by the units they use? Come now.
What *causes* the variance? Why does the constant of proportionality vary depending on the orientation of the experiment?
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Exact values are the fractions used in computing, estimated values are what you get when you perform the calculations and round off the decimal point. Depending on when you do the calculator, you can end up with different values if you use very large masses due to the multiplication factor in calculating it
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by ubeenhad
Actually, professors use it quite often.... I know of at least one that does....
Originally posted by ubeenhad
Acceleration is the same as gravity. So, speeding up gives you mass. Any object, no matter how big/small experiences this. You guys are arguing over semantics. Photons have no rest mass. Thats the answer. To go any deeper requires a much longer explanation than can be given on a forum.
Originally posted by ubeenhad
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by ubeenhad
Actually, professors use it quite often.... I know of at least one that does....
Now that I think about it, its the better term to put in the correct context.
Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by PurpleChiten
More semantics.
The effects of gravity is indistinguishable from the effects of acceleration.