Variations of G

Retired JPL physicist John D Anderson is back! He has, with his colleagues/team, found the linkage between LOD (Length Of Day) and the measured values of gravitational constant \(G\). LOD variations mean variations with the spinning frequency of Earth, ah, my first crush ūüėČ You better read the whole paper from IOPscience.

The conclusion is that smaller¬†the Earth’s spinning frequency greater the value of G. How is that possible? Or I should ask, how is that possible according to TOEBI? Because mainstream physics is pretty clueless about the question. There is no apparent reason why Earth’s spinning frequency, caused by Earth originated reason, should affect conventional laboratory measurements of \(G\). By using quantum mechanical based measurements results differ, why?¬†At least free fall measurements won’t suffer from the following mechanism.

So, let’s see what TOEBI can offer… at this point, qualitative. Relevant background information can be found from my previous blog posts (Dark Side – Part I & The Mechanism). Why smaller spinning rate of Earth increases the value of \(G\)? ¬†All the involved masses stay the same… first I thought that there would be changes with masses due to the possible changed¬†FTE density caused by the decreased Earth’s spinning rate.

Because the smaller Earth’s spinning rate the amount of the ejected/deflected surrounding FTEPs is smaller. That indeed might change¬†the FTE density (decrease) throughout¬†Earth (in principle detectable phenomenon) but that’s not affecting the \(G\) measurements by itself. However, there is another effect due to the decreased FTEP ejection/deflection.

Spinning particles generate a denser local FTE around them which is shown to us as particle mass, greater amount of FTEPs around an elementary particle means a higher mass for it. In special conditions, generated by high energy particle collisions, elementary particle can temporarily hold larger amount of these FTEPs around itself, e.g. muon. Nevertheless, the shape of those local particle FTE “bubbles” without any interacting outside¬†FTEPs would be totally spherical.

Gravitating object most certainly affects the FTE “bubble” shape of a particle, it generates higher FTE density on the particle’s side facing it. This is all described in those linked previous blog posts. Those, because of Earth spinning, deflected FTEPs shape those particle FTE “bubbles” too! They might distribute to the gravitational interaction (on the short scale probably not, this requires whole new blog post) but on top that they generate higher FTE density/pressure on the “sides” perpendicular to the gravitating object. Now you probably realize the mechanism how reduced Earth’s spinning rate affects the measured \(G\) values…

…In case you didn’t. Reduced¬†FTE density/pressure (due to reduced Earth’s spinning rate) on the particles sides perpendicular to the gravitating object allows larger amount of particle’s FTEPs to spread on those sides (for a while! – new blog post is coming on the phenomenon). Now two macro world objects can share more of their FTEPs which causes the higher gravitational interaction between them, hence¬†generate¬†the illusion of the increased value for \(G\).

Published paper opens whole new perspectives for TOEBI development.

Update (6/5/2015): Check out also Matthew Pitkin’s paper about the paper.

5 thoughts on “Variations of G

  1. Not so fast. I’m looking for the right parameter values of the FTE behaviour based on all available evidence, including this new Anderson et al. paper (which is actually extremely valuable).

    Other important observations come from the dark matter distributions, dark energy and particle interactions.

  2. If you don’t have much time on your hands, maybe you could share your notes, if someone could do the parameter fitting for you. If you have some proper version of your theory, a bayesian fit shouldn’t be too hard to do if you have time to do it and a computer to do the work.

    Do you think the dark matter stuff is more pressing than this and you can do it without proper idea about the gravitational “parameter”? I understand if there’s something about particle physics pressing you, but handling dark matter distribution etc. without any proper understanding of gravity is weird in my eyes. Or do you have some version of your work in framework of general relativity? That would be very interesting for me, because geometry is basically all I understand. : D

    Feel free to moderate this comment if you anyhow feel like that. This comment most likely reads like one by a drunk student, and I don’t say that’s not the truth.

  3. Do you think the dark matter stuff is more pressing than this and you can do it without proper idea about the gravitational “parameter”?

    No, but by examining the behaviour of dark matter one gets a better sense for how FTEPs “flow” in larger scale. Actually I have a paper about relativity, Atom Model and Relativity, unfortunately it’s a bit out of date (e.g. concept of mass), so read it with a grain of salt.

    So… your spring courses are done? ūüôā I mean it’s Monday now…

  4. I’m afraid that as far as handling your equations to someone for making calculations, the whole extent of TOEBI are the few nonfunctional laws one can find in those “papers” you can find on the right column of the blog‚Ķ

    This apparently allows to criticize how the standard model don’t account for variations of G. This of course totally forgets that some much more likely explanations are invoked in the quoted paper. But let’s not break enthusiasm‚Ķ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.