On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:45:59 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

I am still struggling to understand which 'G' of 'g' it was that Cynic
is talking about.

It was the first one in your post. The relationship between force,
distance and mass. The decrease is miniscule but measurable.

How?

They are arguing about how accurately G has been measured so far,
which is an indication of how difficult it is to measure.

This is big G I am talking about.

Glenys

--
No, really, the basket does not fit on your head.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:36:56 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

Think again. "G" is less at the equator than the poles both because
it is further away from the Earth's center of mass and because of
centripetal force due to the rotation of the planet.

NO! FFS. Big G is the gravitational constant. Little 'g', which is
the acceleration due to gravity, is affected by centripetal rotation.

How often must I repeat this before you understand?

Glenys

--
No, really, the basket does not fit on your head.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:14:08 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Rob Morley
writes
In article , "raden"
says...
snip
Well yes, by a fraction of a second, but like they said it's like an ice
skater pulling their arms in to rotate faster, nothing to do with "g"

ISTM that if we're rotating faster there's a larger force trying to
throw us off the planet, so anywhere other than the poles the
measured downward acceleration of a dropped body will be less.

That would be centripetal force

(no relation - as they say)

They are indeed different forces, although AFAIK there is no known
method to tell the difference between the two types of force by
measuring the characteristics of the force.

If a projectile is fired directly "upwards" (i.e. away from the
direction of the force), the projectile will be seen to move sideways
in the direction of rotation if centripetal force is involved, but not
in the case of gravitational force, so the two can be distinguished by
inference (due to conservation of momentum).

"Free fall" as experienced by spacemen whilst in orbit is not caused
by the absence of gravity, but because the gravitational force acting
on the astronauts is exactly balanced by an opposite centripetal force
also acting on them.

--
Cynic

"Cynic" wrote in message

ISTM that if we're rotating faster there's a larger force trying to
throw us off the planet, so anywhere other than the poles the
measured downward acceleration of a dropped body will be less.

That would be centripetal force

(no relation - as they say)

They are indeed different forces, although AFAIK there is no known
method to tell the difference between the two types of force by
measuring the characteristics of the force.

??

One *is* a force!

If a projectile is fired directly "upwards" (i.e. away from the
direction of the force), the projectile will be seen to move sideways
in the direction of rotation if centripetal force is involved, but not
in the case of gravitational force, so the two can be distinguished by
inference (due to conservation of momentum).

!!

"Free fall" as experienced by spacemen whilst in orbit is not caused
by the absence of gravity, but because the gravitational force acting
on the astronauts is exactly balanced by an opposite centripetal force
also acting on them.

You are, of course taking into account all of the forces present in this
universe?

Gravity is still, AFAIK defined by Newton's original hypothesis.

Unless you know different?

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:45:12 +0000, Juggz
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:45:59 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

I am still struggling to understand which 'G' of 'g' it was that Cynic
is talking about.

It was the first one in your post. The relationship between force,
distance and mass. The decrease is miniscule but measurable.

How?

They are arguing about how accurately G has been measured so far,
which is an indication of how difficult it is to measure.

This is big G I am talking about.

Whilst I was taliking about little "g" - the relationship between
force, distance and two masses. The change has been measured by
observing planetary motion rather than measuring the Eath's
gravitational force.

--
Cynic

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:46:12 +0000, Juggz
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:36:56 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

Think again. "G" is less at the equator than the poles both because
it is further away from the Earth's center of mass and because of
centripetal force due to the rotation of the planet.

NO! FFS. Big G is the gravitational constant. Little 'g', which is
the acceleration due to gravity, is affected by centripetal rotation.

How often must I repeat this before you understand?

I understand fine, thanks. Gravitational force is *not* reduced by
the Eath's rotation. Centripetal force acts in the opposite direction
thus reducing the total force that we measure.

--
Cynic

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:36:17 -0000, "DZ-015"
wrote:

"Cynic" wrote in message

ISTM that if we're rotating faster there's a larger force trying to
throw us off the planet, so anywhere other than the poles the
measured downward acceleration of a dropped body will be less.

That would be centripetal force

(no relation - as they say)

They are indeed different forces, although AFAIK there is no known
method to tell the difference between the two types of force by
measuring the characteristics of the force.

??

One *is* a force!

Huh? they are *both* forces. Produced in entirely different ways.

If a projectile is fired directly "upwards" (i.e. away from the
direction of the force), the projectile will be seen to move sideways
in the direction of rotation if centripetal force is involved, but not
in the case of gravitational force, so the two can be distinguished by
inference (due to conservation of momentum).

!!

I'll explain in greater detail if you don't see it.

"Free fall" as experienced by spacemen whilst in orbit is not caused
by the absence of gravity, but because the gravitational force acting
on the astronauts is exactly balanced by an opposite centripetal force
also acting on them.

You are, of course taking into account all of the forces present in this
universe?

I am considering the only two *major* forces acting on the astronauts.
As for different types of forces, (electrostatic, magnetic, nuclear
etc.), no, they play no part in this particular discussion.

Gravity is still, AFAIK defined by Newton's original hypothesis.
Unless you know different?

I don't understand what you are inferring. Nowhere have I stated
anything to the contrary.

--
Cynic

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:11:37 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

Whilst I was taliking about little "g" - the relationship between
force, distance and two masses. The change has been measured by
observing planetary motion rather than measuring the Eath's
gravitational force.

OK. Maybe I am not making myself clear, here. There is no such
little "g". As far as I know, but then, I am a girly, etc. And you
are a big strong boy and clearly know more about such things.

Which is why I am asking you for a cite.

Glenys

--
Wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:18:41 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

One *is* a force!

Huh? they are *both* forces. Produced in entirely different ways.

Nope. Only centripetal force exists. The other is a figment of your
rotating imagination.

Glenys

--
Wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:00:35 +0000, Juggz
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:11:37 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

Whilst I was taliking about little "g" - the relationship between
force, distance and two masses. The change has been measured by
observing planetary motion rather than measuring the Eath's
gravitational force.

OK. Maybe I am not making myself clear, here. There is no such
little "g". As far as I know, but then, I am a girly, etc. And you
are a big strong boy and clearly know more about such things.

Which is why I am asking you for a cite.

OK, the gravitational constant is usually referred to as big 'G' and I
had misremembered. I think it was clear from my explanation as to the
constant I was referring to. There is indeed a quantity usually
referred to as little 'g', which is the acceleration caused by
gravity.

I am sure your seach engine turned up much the same sites as mine has
just done.

--
Cynic

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:26:47 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

OK, the gravitational constant is usually referred to as big 'G' and I
had misremembered. I think it was clear from my explanation as to the
constant I was referring to. There is indeed a quantity usually
referred to as little 'g', which is the acceleration caused by
gravity.

Great! Now we're thinking with rocket fuel.

So, why do you think that big G has changed, apart from problems with
measurement.

I am sure your seach engine turned up much the same sites as mine has
just done.

Don't need no search engine.

Glenys

--
Wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:01:35 +0000, Juggz
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:18:41 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

One *is* a force!

Huh? they are *both* forces. Produced in entirely different ways.

Nope. Only centripetal force exists. The other is a figment of your
rotating imagination.

You are stating that gravitational force is the same as centripetal
force?

--
Cynic

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:28:29 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

One *is* a force!

Huh? they are *both* forces. Produced in entirely different ways.

Nope. Only centripetal force exists. The other is a figment of your
rotating imagination.

You are stating that gravitational force is the same as centripetal
force?

Oh, no. I'm not stating that. Yet.

I thought you were talking about centripetal force and centrifugal
force. Weren't you? Earlier on? Not even just a little bit?

Glenys

--
Wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing.

"DZ-015" writes:

"Cynic" wrote in message

Gravity is still, AFAIK defined by Newton's original hypothesis.

Unless you know different?

Yes, I do know different. The current view is that what we call
gravity is curvature induced in space-time by the presence of
mass-energy. Evidence that Newton's hypothesis is inadequate (though
still very very good) has been accumulating for well over a century
now. The first crumbling in Newton's theory came with it being unable
to account for all of the precession in the orbit of Mercury. Since
then, several other discrepancies have come to light, including
gravitational redshifts, bending of light and some evidence for
gravitational radiation.

I recommend getting hold of a copy of Gravitation, by Misner, Thorne
and Wheeler. Seriously. The text is a bit over 30 years old now, but
is still by far the best I know if you want to know about classical
(i.e. non-quantum) gravity.


Paul
--
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.
The time is gone, the song is over.
Thought I'd something more to say.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:27:07 +0000, Juggz
wrote:

OK, the gravitational constant is usually referred to as big 'G' and I
had misremembered. I think it was clear from my explanation as to the
constant I was referring to. There is indeed a quantity usually
referred to as little 'g', which is the acceleration caused by
gravity.

Great! Now we're thinking with rocket fuel.

So, why do you think that big G has changed, apart from problems with
measurement.

The widely differing values of "G" that different measurement methods
have produced cannot reasonably be explained by experimental error, so
"problems with measurement" rather understates the issue.

I am sure that someone with so much knowlege of the subject that they
can afford to be so annoyingly patronising has at least heard of the
Attractive Universe Theory (AUT), which ties "G" to the mass
distribution of the Universe and is what I was originally alluding to?

I am sure your seach engine turned up much the same sites as mine has
just done.

Don't need no search engine.

Ahh. Fresh knowlege or fixed ideas?

--
Cynic

On 14 Feb 2005 11:28:21 +0000, August West wrote:

Cynic writes:

I am sure your seach engine turned up much the same sites as mine has
just done.

Somehow, I don't think La Juggz is arguing from ignorance and web
sites.

Nor am I. There is no shame in consulting a reference when it appears
necessary.

--
Cynic

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:33:31 +0000, Juggz
wrote:

One *is* a force!

Huh? they are *both* forces. Produced in entirely different ways.

Nope. Only centripetal force exists. The other is a figment of your
rotating imagination.

You are stating that gravitational force is the same as centripetal
force?

Oh, no. I'm not stating that. Yet.

You will do so later?

I thought you were talking about centripetal force and centrifugal
force. Weren't you? Earlier on? Not even just a little bit?

I am quite certain that you understand my meaning perfectly well,
because with the exception of a playful allusion to AUT, it is all
extremely basic high school stuff. It is not particularly edifying to
attempt to play someone for a monkey by pretending to misunderstand
over a minor and obvious error. That's pretty much akin to a spelling
or grammar flame.

--
Cynic

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:49:27 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

The widely differing values of "G" that different measurement methods
have produced cannot reasonably be explained by experimental error, so
"problems with measurement" rather understates the issue.

And again, I am asking you for a cite on this.

Glenys

--
Wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:16:38 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

It is not particularly edifying to
attempt to play someone for a monkey by pretending to misunderstand
over a minor and obvious error.

Well, quite. So, why did you do it?

Glenys
--
Wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing.

August West wrote:

Cynic writes:

I am sure your seach engine turned up much the same sites as mine has
just done.

Somehow, I don't think La Juggz is arguing from ignorance and web
sites.

Aye, she wouldn't take your job away from you.

--
Nothing to be done.

Rob Morley wrote:

It may be further from the centre of mass, but there's also more mass
directly "beneath" it - how do they balance up?

Hint: "centre of gravity".

--
Nothing to be done.

Cynic wrote:
"Free fall" as experienced by spacemen whilst in orbit is not caused
by the absence of gravity, but because the gravitational force acting
on the astronauts is exactly balanced by an opposite centripetal force
also acting on them.

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Come back Sir Isaac, your work is not yet done.

--
Nothing to be done.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:31:59 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:

"Free fall" as experienced by spacemen whilst in orbit is not caused
by the absence of gravity, but because the gravitational force acting
on the astronauts is exactly balanced by an opposite centripetal force
also acting on them.

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

I missed that. I am deeply ashamed.

Glenys

--
Wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing.

Juggz wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:31:59 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:


"Free fall" as experienced by spacemen whilst in orbit is not caused
by the absence of gravity, but because the gravitational force acting
on the astronauts is exactly balanced by an opposite centripetal force
also acting on them.

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.


I missed that. I am deeply ashamed.

IIUC correctly, the centripetal force grows in the Autumn in
the Northern Hemisphere - except in Kew.

Anyhow, I am not sure why you are arguing about g so much,
or are you just stringing Cynic along?

I am sure that astronauts don't worry much about whether g
is constant or not because even if they get it wrong, it is
only a drop in the Ocean..

Oh, if you know any jokes about g, do tell. I clearly don't
know any. Sorry, can't stop, must fly...my centripetals are
making couples again.

--

Sue

Attempting to make light of this air on a g thread..

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:05:19 +0000, Palindr?me
wrote:

Anyhow, I am not sure why you are arguing about g so much,
or are you just stringing Cynic along?

Pshaw. Who would do such a thing?

Glenys

--
Wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:19:35 +0000, Juggz
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:49:27 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

The widely differing values of "G" that different measurement methods
have produced cannot reasonably be explained by experimental error, so
"problems with measurement" rather understates the issue.

And again, I am asking you for a cite on this.

Anyone using a bit of thought would question how come the level of
uncertainty regarding G is *increasing* as experimental methods become
more accurate.

As for a cite, a quick 'net search came up immediately with:

http://eprints.anu.edu.au/archive/00...e_Universe.pdf

--
Cynic

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:20:12 +0000, Juggz
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:16:38 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

It is not particularly edifying to
attempt to play someone for a monkey by pretending to misunderstand
over a minor and obvious error.

Well, quite. So, why did you do it?

Where do you think I did so?

--
Cynic

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:31:59 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:

Cynic wrote:
"Free fall" as experienced by spacemen whilst in orbit is not caused
by the absence of gravity, but because the gravitational force acting
on the astronauts is exactly balanced by an opposite centripetal force
also acting on them.

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Come back Sir Isaac, your work is not yet done.

I think he understood.

--
Cynic

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:15:43 +0000, Juggz
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:05:19 +0000, Palindr?me
wrote:

Anyhow, I am not sure why you are arguing about g so much,
or are you just stringing Cynic along?

Pshaw. Who would do such a thing?

What strange people you are.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:

Anyone using a bit of thought would question how come the level of
uncertainty regarding G is *increasing* as experimental methods become
more accurate.

As for a cite, a quick 'net search came up immediately with:

http://eprints.anu.edu.au/archive/00...e_Universe.pdf

"Models give a clew" it sez. Do you expect us to take it seriously?

--
Nothing to be done.

Cynic wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:31:59 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:

Cynic wrote:
"Free fall" as experienced by spacemen whilst in orbit is not caused
by the absence of gravity, but because the gravitational force acting
on the astronauts is exactly balanced by an opposite centripetal force
also acting on them.

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Come back Sir Isaac, your work is not yet done.

I think he understood.

Yes, he did. You appear not to.

--
Nothing to be done.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:36:17 -0000, "DZ-015"
wrote:

Gravity is still, AFAIK defined by Newton's original hypothesis.
Unless you know different?

Gravity is defined by the rate of change of density lines in the fabric of
space. I somehow doubt if Newton had quite this in mind.

In message , Peter Corlett
writes
raden wrote:
[New Scientist, now in handy tabloid format]
Maybe so, but for those of us who have moved in other directions, a
useful addition to tyhe "Klo Bibliotek"

Neither Google nor I know what "Klo Bibliotek" is. However, if you are
referring to the loo, I find that Private Eye does the job, is half
the price, and is also softer and more absorbent than New Scientist.

Each to their own

--
geoff

In message , Mike
writes

Even c is only constant in our particular universe. Ask the lot next
door
what their value for c is.

Not even constant in this universe if one school of thought is to be
believed. ISTR an article in NS a while ago about someone postulating
that the speed of light was slowing down.

Okay - to be precise c is a constant related to the age of the universe. As
you say it is slowing down very gradually now, though in the first few
milliseconds it plummeted down the curve.


You just can't trust anything nowadays, can you?

I blame Phoney Blair myself

Come now - weren't you taken in by his grovelling apology ?

--
geoff

In message , Juggz
writes
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:18:41 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

One *is* a force!

Huh? they are *both* forces. Produced in entirely different ways.

Nope. Only centripetal force exists. The other is a figment of your
rotating imagination.

The girl's not for turning

--
geoff

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:33:28 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:

Cynic wrote:

Anyone using a bit of thought would question how come the level of
uncertainty regarding G is *increasing* as experimental methods become
more accurate.

As for a cite, a quick 'net search came up immediately with:

http://eprints.anu.edu.au/archive/00...e_Universe.pdf

"Models give a clew" it sez. Do you expect us to take it seriously?

A troll of your calibre ought to manage something better than a
spelling flame. Sez?

--
Cynic

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:45:26 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:

Come back Sir Isaac, your work is not yet done.

I think he understood.

Yes, he did. You appear not to.

You are correct. I was indeed taken in. A pretty good if unusual
troll. 8/10

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:33:28 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:

"Models give a clew" it sez. Do you expect us to take it seriously?

A troll of your calibre ought to manage something better than a
spelling flame. Sez?

Yes. "Sez". That is wot I wrote.

--
Nothing to be done.

Cynic wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:45:26 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:

Come back Sir Isaac, your work is not yet done.

I think he understood.

Yes, he did. You appear not to.

You are correct. I was indeed taken in. A pretty good if unusual
troll. 8/10

Does this mean that you are fessing up to the fact that your bizarre
comments about orbiting "spacemen" were just trolling?

--
Nothing to be done.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:12:56 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

Anyone using a bit of thought would question how come the level of
uncertainty regarding G is *increasing* as experimental methods become
more accurate.

And again: I suspect that you don't fully understand the meaning of
accuracy.

Glenys

--
Wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing.