Actual proof that Einstein's postulate of constant G throughout all space and time a waste of bandwidth!
But the thing is, I don't really believe you know what I am doing. Have you followed the macro step by step? In your example that might give you a rough estimate of the mass of a nickel atom. And when you compare that result to lead, you would be well able to say an atom of lead is more massive than nickel. That is the level I am working at? broad brush, but so far the force of gravity has kept on declining as the stars approach each other. Will the same progression continue right to the end.That's not what you are doing. You demonstrating that you do not understand significant figures and error. You are writting macros that compound errors by doing a bazzilion loops - it means nothing. It is like weighing 20 nickels on a bathroom scale and dividing it by 6.02 X 10^23 to get the mass of a nickel atom.
But the thing is, I don't really believe you know what I am doing.
Have you followed the macro step by step?
In your example that might give you a rough estimate of the mass of a nickel atom. And when you compare that result to lead, you would be well able to say an atom of lead is more massive than nickel. That is the level I am working at?
but so far the force of gravity has kept on declining as the stars approach each other. Will the same progression continue right to the end.
Well that would put us on equal footing then.
Of course not. Crap in = crap out, I do not need (nor want) to inspect the sphincter.
[sarcasm]Ah, science at it's best.[/sarcasm]
Hmmm, as 2 stars approach each other the gravity decreases. Do you, by chance, detect a problem with this scenario?
I notice you are beginning to suffer from dementia BruceP or else how can you say such things? Where did you get "the binary system PRS1913+16 will stay in the same orbit until the end of time" from? Nothing like I've been saying at all.Unbelievable. You're witnessing the birth of the dumbest crank I've ever seen. He went from just being scientific illiterate to the dumbest crank I've ever come across in ~ 6 months. According to his analysis the binary system PRS1913+16 will stay in the same orbit until the end of time. So John Taylor and Russell Hulse should return their Nobel. I wonder how he can tie his shoes.
Gravity = "G" declines as gravitational radiation operates, but the total gravitational force increases as the masses approach of course. For there has to be a balance of the inertial mass forces as they orbit each other. If G declined too rapidly you might expect them to fly apart, but I have spent 8 or so pages showing that can't happen unless the gravitational energy debt is repaid. Flying apart would only happen if there was a way to provide huge amounts of mechanical energy into the system...... junk deleted ....
Hmmm, as 2 stars approach each other the gravity decreases. Do you, by chance, detect a problem with this scenario?
gravitational force depends on mass whereas G is a proportional constant. (not totally constant). F = GM1M2/r^2 so the force has many components, but G is the link between the force experienced and the M1M2/r^2 ratio. So "total gravitational force increases as the masses approach" because r is getting shorter, and M1 M2 are staying constant.Gravity declines as gravitational radiation operates, but the total gravitational force increases as the masses approach?
WTF is that suppose to mean?????
gravitational force depends on mass whereas G is a proportional constant. (not totally constant). F = GM1M2/r^2 so the force has many components, but G is the link between the force experienced and the M1M2/r^2 ratio. So "total gravitational force increases as the masses approach" because r is getting shorter, and M1 M2 are staying constant.
Gravity declines as gravitational radiation operates, but the total gravitational force increases as the masses approach?
WTF is that suppose to mean?????
When you try and explain something quite new it can be difficult to describe it adequately. I don't use the words "gravitational constant" for it is not actually anything but a linkage, it is the actual strength of gravity that is declining rather than G but G is what is used to gauge the strength.So you meant to say, "The gravitational constant declines as gravitational radiation operates, but the total gravitational force increases as the masses approach of course".
But you have no evidence that the gravitational constant decreases, and cannot determine any changes in the constant with your approach. This has been pointed out to you by a couple of different people. They have explained why you cannot detect a change of the level that you think you see. Why do you persist, do you think they are wrong?
You have totally lost the plot Bruce. 300 posts per day what a joke! Some of what you say is true but you have to remember I am in the process of trying to work this out, so what I said last week may have been superseded by more recent insights.He thinks the gravitational radiation associated with the binary pulsars is radiating away gravitational attraction [G] rather than orbital energy. He doesn't realize how dumb his conclusions are because his metacognitive skills are non existent. He knows no physics and he doesn't realize his macro is only as smart as the person who programs it. The perfect crank making storm. When he started posting at physforum he was posting ~ 300 times a day. Saying nothing of interest. Chat room fodder. Now he's progressed to this.
Why limit it to the velocity of the solar system? So was that just a comment out of the blue or are you agreeing with my concept, that it is gravity that changes .... lost for words for I haven't fully understood it yet.gravitation is not constant has relation with
solar system velocity in universe