On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 5:18:57 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 5:00:40 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 6:30 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> 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. 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.
> But G is defined by F = G * m1*m2/ R^2. If m1 and m2 are respectively the 
> masses of the Earth and Sun, and they are reduced by 50% or any amount, it 
> sure looks like G must change to keep the equality, recognizing the G is a 
> constant. AG

You might be correct. AG 

>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Reply via email to