On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 5:00:40 PM UTC-6 [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 6:30 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> But g does NOT drop by 50% and I never said it did, I said the >>>>> gravitational potential energy drops by 50%, and that will happen if the >>>>> mass/energy of a gravitationally bound system drops by 50% even if g >>>>> remains constant. If yesterday I measured the mass/energy of a pendulum >>>>> and >>>>> of the entire earth against an energy standard and I measure those things >>>>> again today against today's energy standard, and if the mass/energy of >>>>> the >>>>> pendulum and the earth and today's energy standard have all decreased by >>>>> 50%, then I will get the same measured value that I got yesterday even if >>>>> g >>>>> really is the same as it was yesterday. >>>> >>>> >>>> *> If all mass were scaled down by the same factor the gravitational >>>> interactions, like orbits and pendulums, would seem unchanged. But what >>>> about the natural frequency of spring-mass systems? Halving the mass >>>> while >>>> the EM forces between molecules of the spring stay the same means the >>>> frequency will go up. So must all interaction constants change to save >>>> the appearance?Brent* >>>> >>> >>> *If* the mass/energy at the end of the spring was reduced by 50% (and >>> thus its inertia also reduced by 50%), as it would if the universe had >>> split and energy is conserved, *then* the energy in the spring, and any >>> other form of energy, would also have to be reduced by 50%. So the spring >>> would move the same way it did before, and there would be no experimental >>> or observational way to determine that anything had changed. >>> >>> Just as in the case of the gravitational constant g, the Coulomb >>> electric force constant in a vacuum ε0, and the magnetic constant μ0 (also >>> called the vacuum permeability of free space), would also produce the same >>> value today that it did yesterday when we find those numbers through >>> experiment, and for the same reason it did for the gravitational constant. >>> The speed of light c would be the same too because from Maxwell's Equations >>> we know that c = 1/√μ0εo. Thus physics textbooks would not have to be >>> rewritten in any universe. >>> >> >> * > If m in f = ma, decreases by 50% on every single split, I'm pretty >> sure (but not certain) that planetary orbits would change, making life >> impossible on Earth. g might not change, but G likely will.* >> > > As I've a explained before and will not explain again, If the sun's > gravitational attraction to the earth, f, is reduced by 50% (because the > sun's mass/energy is reduced by 50%) then the earth's inertia must also be > reduced by 50% (because the earth's mass/energy is also reduced by 50%) so > the two changes would cancel out and the earth's orbit would not change by > one nanometer. > This is a case where your intuition has led you astray. If the Earth is in a closed orbit around the Sun as an initial condition, and you progressively reduce the mass-energy of the Earth and the Sun to zero by progressive splits of 50%, the Earth would soon cease to be captured by the Sun because gravity would cease to exist. AG > And for the same reason if you performed an experiment, after the two > changes were made to determine the value of G, the experiment would look > exactly as it did before and so you'd get the same numerical value for G. > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > 7gvd > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/95943118-8d35-4dad-a49a-e999a5e4b21fn%40googlegroups.com.
