[humanbydefault]

I'd like to reproduce from wikipedia an interesting conclusion about gravity:

Measurement of the gravitational constant

was first implicitly measured by Henry Cavendish (Philosophical Transactions 1798). He used a horizontal torsion beam with lead balls whose inertia (in relation to the torsion constant) he could tell by timing the beam's oscillation. Their faint attraction to other balls placed alongside the beam was detectable by the deflection it caused. However, it is worth mentioning that the aim of Cavendish was not to measure the gravitational constant but rather to measure the mass of the Earth through the precise knowledge of the gravitational interaction.
The accuracy of the measured value of has increased only modestly since the original experiment of Cavendish. is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces, and an experimental apparatus cannot be separated from the gravitational influence of other bodies. Furthermore, gravity has no established relation to other fundamental forces, so it does not appear possible to measure it indirectly. A recent review (Gillies, 1997) shows that published values of have varied rather broadly, and some recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive. [end of quotation]

I don't understand...

If the MASS of the planet Earth is constant across time... If gravity was according to Albert Einstein a direct result of the effect of mass warping the fabric of space-time continium...
How come we are so frustrated when it comes to have a definitive measurement of the so-called gravity constant?
Of course you know me... I certainly have another controversial and sort of an ALIEN feeling about all this.
I'll try a different method to answer those questions and I'll do it with more questions:
>>> If the constant of gravity depended on a cause different than the "warping-twisting-curving" effect of mass on space-time... let's assume the quantum mechanical process occuring inside the sun's structure, for example... wouldn't be a little closer to logic to assume that the gravity constant would also depended on the position of the Earth and the moon at the instant of its calculation?
>>> Assuming that the mass of the MOON were [as I believe it is] the compensating part of the missing mass Earth was not capable of "supplying" wouldn't be that an important part of the overall considerations in every measurement?
>>> If my crazy views were in fact proved to be a fact one day... Wouldn't be logical to say that for each point in the trajectory of Earth around the sun there could be a different value for it?
To make things even worse.... What would happen if we pinpoint an exact point in the trajectory referred above without taking into consideration ALSO the actual position of the MOON at the moment of its calculation?
I think we are missing something here... No offense!

Before letting your voice to be heard...

Give it a moment of reflexion and you'll see. I know...

HUMANBYDEFAULT







[edit]

[mkirkpatrick]

I see gravity as held in the vice like grip of a vortex within the dynamic ether. What is your view on the vortex, and do you accept the dynamic ether as the perfect universal fluid???
kind regards michael.

[TinyTree]

I think you are correct to say that the gravitational pull changes instantaneously at all times due to the motion of all the gravitational bodies.

However, it is assumed that this force change is so small compared to the larger forces (of nearby gravity wells) that it plays an insignificant, and unmeasurable, role with the apparatus available to us at the current time.

[humanbydefault]

However the fact that those hardly detectable variations are subject today to some sort of "renormalization process" does not mean they are not real... does it?
Tell me something: How sure could we be that those aspects I have mentioned above do not account for part of those unstable reasons preventing us from achieving a conclusive figure in the final search for the gravitational constant?
Aren't we looking at things from erroneus perspectives perhaps?
It is true that if a given planet had a greater mass than others [for example] it will exert a greater gravitational force upon those walking upon its surface right? For those planning to walk on Jupiter's soil the task will be almost impossible compared to wlaking here on Earth. But we have [intentionally or not] forgeting to realized that there is an interesting pattern in the shape of those planets rotating in this system. With a couple of exceptions [mars perhaps...] planets increase their mass as we move from Mercury Toward Jupiter and the pattern suddenly reverses as we move from there to Pluto... Isn't it weird?
Other unexplained phenomenon is the ellipticity of those orbits! You see Keppler was the first [we know] who spoke about the actual elliptical shape of the planets in the solar system... But what about its reasons for being that way???
It's a long shot, I know! But Isn't it a coincidence that the shape of the momentum of energy around the atom is pretty close to the shape of those planets? They are [mostly with Mars as an exception] elliptical and not spherically perfect.
Then you have the fact that STANDING WAVES show exactly the same elliptical shape when they rise from the interference between two incoming waves. To make things even more "suspicious" you find that all them decrease their density according with the inverse of the square distance...
Gravity and electromagnetism to mention just a couple of them.
Wouldn't be too crazy to assume that the maximum gravitational area was located at the very core of each planet due to the same cause that makes them exist in their orbits? Of course the presence of a given magnitude of mass spinning in space around a star could be explained by the actual density of the vacuum "dictated" by the star itself. (!)
In magnetism we can not explain the force emanating from the magnet at least we assume that all the spins and their net directions were amplfied to reach that level of attracting force. It is all because of the nature of the vacuum itself, but if there were not by the spin interaction occurring in ferromagnetic materials magnetism would have never existed in physical reality would it?
If we have [as we speak] not being able to admit the true nature of magnetism and the magnetic field... How could you expect to have an agreement about a force that defies our instruments all times... (?)
They are in fact [as it's been stated so many times in the past] the result of the same underlining process: a quantum mechanical one based on the amplification of standing waves in space and at the same time responsible for a physical REALITY that we can't understand. Our nature of "solids" prevent us from looking at the core of the problem. Reality is made in deeper levels or dimension that we have no access to it!
Only with our cognitive powers and abilites those puzzles will be one day understood completely.
humanbydefault

[quanta07]

Most of us take ‘gravity’ for granted. We evolved to what we are as a species, within a ‘field of acceleration vectors’. No matter where we travel on this planets surface, the field vectors point toward center earth. We can view/model ‘gravity’ as a spherical field, where all vectors converge toward center sphere. We can now state that ‘gravity’ behaves like 3 dimensional point convergent acceleration, on a surface at ‘R’ distance from the point. At sea level on earth, acceleration is measured at 32 feet per second squared, 9.8 meters per second squared.
The label ‘gravity’, describes the convergent direction of acceleration vectors. The cause of this behavior is something quite common in nature.
The existence of point divergent acceleration creates a sphere, that when bisected shows a plane of divergent acceleration (X,Y). Along the normal (Z) to this plane will be convergent linear acceleration. Because this occurs with every existence of planar divergent acceleration, the existence of 3 dimensional divergent acceleration creates convergent field vectors of acceleration toward the point divergence. Encapsulation by convergent field vectors in this manner is called the quantum effect.
Concerning center earth the behavior appears related to point divergent acceleration. This would keep things very hot, ionization and electro dynamics. The surface of earth seems to be encasing an ‘on going’ explosion, which escapes volcanically at times. I believe the acceleration we measure at ‘g’ (at distance ‘R’ from center earth) is the result of the quantum effect. The convergent field vectors we sense as ‘gravity’.
Our sun can be modeled as a sphere of point divergent acceleration of such magnitude, the generated convergent field causes high temperature in the corona. It is the sun’s convergent field vectors, generated by the quantum effect, that hold the planets in orbit.

another view.......Q7

[humanbydefault]

So I take that you also believe that gravity [inside our solar system] is originated in the sun... just as I have expressed here.
I'm glad to find someone that share this conclusion here in this forum.
Tomorrow I plan to write a very interesting conclusion about the consequences of revising the point of origin of a force nobody agrees on everything about it.
humanbydefault

[humanbydefault]

What would happen if the moon suddenly broke up in a bunch of pieces...?

Case No 1>>> All the pieces would continue spinning around the planet Earth in different orbits as if nothing would happen.
Case No 2>>> All the pieces will fall into the surface of the host planet [Earth] like meteorites causing the destruction of our world as it is now.
Case No 3>>> Perhaps one of the pieces will join the Earth falling like a meteorite or asteroid and causing a lot of damage [end of life on Earth including us] but the rest of the pieces will continue the rotation as satellites and gravity will change altogether.
There may be more options but I believe that the final answer is hidden in one of those 3 alternatives.

Before giving you my version I'd like to underline some of the aspects of gravity the way "I see it" {I repeat} >the way I see it and not the way Eisntein or Newton would...ok?<
Since G R A V I T Y was the result of an "attractive force" which center lies at the very core of our planet... just as with the rest of them in the solar system... A hypothetical destruction or desintegration of [our natural satellite] the moon would bring an interesting opportunity to finally compensate for the "missing mass" that would bring BALANCE into the orbit.
Assuming that one of the resulting pieces were the exact match of the needed mass [one missing in the overall mass of Earth] an eventual fusion of both would take care of the natural problem. As for the rest of the lunar pieces I don't see any need for them so it is logical to assume that they will continue their new orbital momentum around Earth.
Oh! But what would happen to them according to the distance from the surface of the planet Earth?
I believe that their orbits will get pretty far from the "mother planet" and the reason is pretty simple to me: The greater the need for mass compensation in a planetarium system, the shorter the actual orbit of the moon or natural satellite and viceversa. I am not a cosmology lover... I've said that in the past many times now. But if you asked me if this phenomenon has ever occured I would say YES IT HAS HAPPENED NOT FAR AWAY FROM US. The planet Mars used to have water and atmosphere according to astronomers and scientists studing the development of the universe. I could imagine that for some reasons [unknown to me] one of the natural satellites of Mars broke up into pieces and one of them hit the planet a long long long time ago. The rest of its moons had no other alternative than to get farhter away from its "host" assuming a new balance status in the mass-compensation process.

THIS IS IT! HIT ME with your comments if you consider a different alternative to the hypothetical scenario. This time I say: Relax! have some fun and put your imagination to work... don't take it too personal! You know what? The universe is not going to end tomorrow if we [you and me] were wrong. Physics need to be enjoyable and an instrument of connection between you and God.

We are all trying to "read the mind of God" as Einstein used to say...

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

What would happen then to the actual gravitational constant on Earth?
This is when the trully controversial part comes in!
There is an overall and generalized assumption that the greater the mass of a planet the greater will be the pulling force toward it's surface [gravity].
But! If the net mass of the Earth increased after joinning a piece of the moon, then... will gravity be stronger or weaker after that?
Lts's see it!
According to Newton and Eisntein's views they [both] would agree on that the final gravity force will have to be greater in value now that the mass of the Earth planet grew up considerably. Newton would probably say: "Gravity will increase now that the mass will exert a greater attractive force toward an apple. The damn apple will be attracted with such a force toward my head that instead of a small bump as I had then I will have a real fracture of the bones in my cranial region..." -Ok Mr. Newton... That's far enough good to me! -And what about you Mr. Einstein? I asked-
-"Well... I disagree with Newton in this subject, I'm afraid... Since the fabric of space-time will be severely warped and curved under the action of a greater mass, the Earth will exert a greater attraction to anything on the surface and even those satellites or pieces left from the moon would get closer and closer to the mother planet."
Thank you both!
You see? Didn't I warn you about the controversy I have unintentionally created here?
I SAY NO WAY! Gravity will be weaker now that the compensation process mass-core-gravity achieved a better status toward balance. That's the reason the rest of the pieces left behind the desintegration process of the moon will stay in a new orbit far distant than the one occupy by today's moon.
The challenge is on...

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault What would happen then to the actual gravitational constant on Earth? This is when the trully controversial part comes in! There is an overall and generalized assumption that the greater the mass of a planet the greater will be the pulling force toward it's surface [gravity]. But! If the net mass of the Earth increased after joinning a piece of the moon, then... will gravity be stronger or weaker after that? Lts's see it! I SAY NO WAY! Gravity will be weaker now that the compensation process mass-core-gravity achieved a better status toward balance. That's the reason the rest of the pieces left behind the desintegration process of the moon will stay in a new orbit far distant than the one occupy by today's moon. The challenge is on...HUMANBYDEFAULT

HBD, you have more or less described what I have mentioned before. Gravity is the difference of in and out wave forces, of not only the sun, but all the other suns and matter in the universe. As a matter of fact your very description of size and distance from our sun may possibly figure to show the true nature of gravity, i.e., the difference of wave forces when planet densities are considered and truly figured. I mentioned elswere that the four neutrino experiments have detected more wave forces coming into the earth than exiting, due most likely to such density. Those outer planets being further from the sun fits perfectly with what you mentioned about the change with distance. I think we need only do the math to prove what gravity really is, i.e., the entire universe's differences of in/out wave forces. If you have read this correctly, in conjunction with your posts, you will notice that the wave's forces repel, not attract completely, to create such gravity... What do you think?

regards

p.s.
You didn't catch this when I posted befor to Dave, even though you answered. Now, with your own ideas coming so close, do you catch the samenesses...?

Dave, have you come across this idea? Gravity is the force velocity differences of incoming and outgoing waves/particles. Gravity is created by the velocity forces of the entire energy/matter universe's wave/particle differences, as the trillions to the power of trillions, pass in toward our planet, and the lesser number that pass out of our planet. The difference in the number of incoming wave/particles and outgoing wave/particles has already been proven by the world's recent discovery of nutrino differences, of nutrinos collected in the four collectors around the world. The experiments showed a larger number of incoming through the atmosphere, as those passing completely through the earth, and out. Transferring this information and mathematics to the universe's entire wave energy/matter structure sending energy waves in all directions infinitely and equally, yet some annialating as passing through the earth, gives a possible deffinition and mathematics of a new gravity theory and possible reality, does it not? What do you think?

[humanbydefault]

This morning when I decided to post the possible scenario of what could happen to the Earth's gravity in case the moon would desintegrate I forgot to add a small detail. Here is what I forgot to post:
" If we board a special plane flying at high-altitude [just as the astronauts do in their trainnings] gravity will diminish with the distance from the surface... right? If we were sitting on top mount Everest we would not notes a big change of gravity at all except for some missing oxigen and severe cold. But what would happen to the actual LEVEL OF SOIL OR GROUND making for the Earth's surface in case the moon would "contribute" with some billions of tons of dust and rocks? Assuming the Earth's mass increased to such altitude to reach the altitude where those planes fly with astronauts... Wouldn't be LOGICAL to imagine that gravity will be felt just with the exact strength that they do inside those special aircrafts? ... Meanning ZERO?
In this special case all the mass of the Earth would not be capable of "warping-curving and twisting" the fabric of space-time well enough to keep our feets on the ground (!)..."
Gravity gets weaker with the square of the distance following the same rules as electromagnetism is this so? If the Earth's surface had been ELEVATED hundreds of meters with the inclusion of rocks, dust and lunar garbage... what would happen to gravity now? Do you get my point this time?

Why is the secret reason the moon spins around the Earth?
Have you ever seen those new metallic toys made of little steal balls that keep rotating as if they will never stop moving around?
That is the same principle the moon keeps rotating and never stops. The only way the moon would "try" to keep up with the imbalance of mass due to the Earth's insuficient amount of mass is by spinning in circles around the planet looking for an equilibrium of the overall momentum. Since that equilibrium is unstable due to the non-uniform action of the sun across time this moving around of the moon seems to be there for a long long time.

HUMANBYDEFAULT