-6
$\begingroup$

The question is on title; What if Gravitational Constant, $G$, is not constant?

Let's skip all the local consequences if it would suddenly change, like asked here; Can gravitational constant be changed? Let's also skip all the thought about if this could be proved, like asked here; What is the proof that the universal constants ($G$, $\hbar$, $\ldots$) are really constant in time and space? Also let's skip the theoretical discussions like; Can the gravitational constant $G$ be calculated theoretically? and also the discussion about if it's constant or not, like Is the gravitational constant $G$ a fundamental universal constant?

The stuff I am thinking here has nothing to do in our Solar system, as it seems that G is here as constant as the g is on Earth. And exactly as g varies between planets, it might be possible that G varies between Solar systems. Actually a variation in G has allready been noticed; and funnily enough it follows the LOD variations with a period of 5.9 Years.

But what if it's truly not constant, but varies, in different part of universe?

  1. Could it explain Dark matter?

At least every known evidence of Dark matter Includes the G; Viral theorem in astrophysics and Gravitational binding energy.

  1. Could it explain Dark energy?

This is more complicated than Dark Matter, as evidence for Dark Energy is used Gravitational Lensing, which calculations includes G. Also the cosmic microwave background's critical density is calculated through G. The Large scale structure to again based on the same critical density. The Sachs-Wolfe effect would simply be more logical through QED explained gravity. The Hubble constant is also derived through G. The only evidence I can't close out is Supernoavae. but it seems to be Circular reasoning.

These are my main detailled problems. And I wan't to point out, that the antimatter is not to be confused in these Dark ones. Positron's are real, observed, stuff. The Dark-stuff is only hypotethical things to explain the observed problems, when G is assumed to be constant. According to Occam's razor; Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. And if we assume that G is not constant, we remove quite a lot of assumptions.

The first given answer provides thoughts how the gravity could be influenced locally. I don't see this possible and I want to lead the thoughts to correct direction, So I feel it necessary to open my thoughts more. The source is this Feynman Lection. I calculated and found out, that the energy of these particles hitting the "mass only" is not enough to cause Gravity. But if we think the Solar system, it's 110- 122 AU up to the Edge of Heliosphere. (Maybe it's 137.036) Anyhow, the Voyager has detected a 100-fold increase in the intensity of high-energy electrons from elsewhere in the galaxy diffusing into our solar system from outside, this means that these electrons are colliding the few atoms at 120 AU away from the sun; and thus these atoms will have a velocity. And as they will hit more an more atoms, the pressure grows as it grows in atmosphere and in sea. If there is a mass consentration, like planet, it will get more hits, and it will have shade on the Sun's side. And this fit's exactly on the Newton's gravity laws.

Shortly, the Gravity is like pressure, but you need enough connected atoms to make a difference between the random directions and the systematical direction of these collisions. This would mean that all particle size are influenced; like answered here by AnnaV; What is the smallest item for which gravity has been recorded or observed? But it would also explain how very small particles can flow in the air quite some time.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I claim Gravity is not constant, and can be explained by QED, but this also requires that Rotation of Earth and other planets must be explained through Thermodynamics. The related questions can be found through my profile. $\endgroup$ – Jokela Nov 14 '15 at 12:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It makes no sense to ask whether something with dimensions is constant. Only dimensionless constants e.g. the fine structure constant can be tested for variability. This has been discussed in a number of previous posts. $\endgroup$ – Rob Jeffries Nov 14 '15 at 17:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RobJeffries I think I asked the logical consequence's of this variability, rather than asking if it's variable. I checked number of previous posts before asking, the most relevant one's is even shown in my question. I tried to make the question in general form, but the focus is clearly on Dark Matter&Energy. As they might be completely explained by the variability of this constant. The Earth was not the constant center, neither was the sun, even time was found relative. Now this "G" is the fixed point of many theories. But these theories seems running as wild as the geocentric solarsystem. $\endgroup$ – Jokela Nov 14 '15 at 17:41
-6
$\begingroup$

I like this question:

I understand you are asking what are the consequences and the opportunities if this is true.

If gravity is not a constant then perhaps we can control this by either increasing or decreasing gravity.

If gravity is not a constant and gravity can be greater this may be a method of putting out forest fires. The fire may have to expend more energy against an increase of gravity and therefore the burn maybe shorter lived. The converse maybe true for the poor who depend on a new type of stove to conserve wood fuel - the gravity cooker.

Invent a gravity beam - the G.A.S.E.R.(Gravity Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) and move the moon 4 centimeters closer to Earth. Or you could call this a tractor beam.

A team could make a microgravity chamber to test cars, trains, planes and create metal alloys such as they do in a space station.

Could produce a pocket watch parachute. An airplane malfunctions and all the passengers have a portable anti-gravity parachute for a safe landing.

Could also mean the age of the stars is much lower than what some claim is to be.

And I guess this would present the problem of defining what "Mass" is. People calculate gravity based upon mass so that may change too. Researchers would I imagine have to update that as well. They may ask the question is "Mass" not a constant just like is "Gravity" not a constant.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer, as it provides at least a dialogue. But as the votes already shows, your ideas are far from the real possibilities what might be done with the known physics. But thanks for showing one direction which my question leads the thoughts, I will edit my question accordingly. $\endgroup$ – Jokela Nov 21 '15 at 17:44
  • $\begingroup$ Too far fetched $\endgroup$ – N.S.JOHN Dec 31 '15 at 3:13

protected by ACuriousMind Jun 27 '17 at 9:59

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.