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. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/95943118-8d35-4dad-a49a-e999a5e4b21fn%40googlegroups.com.