I created a theory that tells us that it does. There is a lot of research in the field and I evaluate two seminal papers;
a) Lunar Ranging Data Analysis
b) SN1a Data Analysis
Both tells us that there isn't any real epoch-dependence on the Gravitational Constant.
Here I rebut those articles and show that glaring mistakes (assuming as a hypothesis something that forces the conclusion). That would be ok is the hypothesis made any sense, but in this case it does not.
Please, if you are a real astronomer, professor of astronomy (as opposed to self-described specialist on astronomy and cosmology), please defend this article:
https://www.quora.com/How-could-this-article-pass-peer-review-Is-the-conclusion-one-of-its-assumptions/answer/Marco-Pereira-1
I say that because, only the opinion of real experts are relevant. Opinions of other people will not change this debate.
Dear Marco,
I derived a model for the way how the gravitation constant changes with time. I used biological fossils to fix my parameter of how G changes with time. I then was able to use the law to calculate the length of the day, number of days in a year and number of months in a year over the entire Earth history that is consistent with astronomical and paleontological data. You can read these papers at
Article TEMPORAL VARIATION OF THE EARTH-MOON SYSTEM PARAMETERS WITH ...
Article The Length of the Day: A Cosmological Perspective
Article EVOLUTION OF ANGULAR MOMENTA AND ENERGY OF THE EARTH-MOON SYSTEM
Good luck.
Arbab
The value for the current rate is 30% off but it is not bad.
Equation 6 is incorrect (not consistent with astronomical observations).
1/G0 * dG/dt= 1/time
I just Do not get Gravitational Constant, because we do not know origination of Gravity itself. How could we calculate Gravitational constant?
Article What is Gravity
The constant G in Newton's (and Einstein's) Law of Gravity is, so far as we know, an absolute constant that should never change, for any reason whatsoever. Changes in distance from a given mass can alter the gravitational force in a given part of space-time; but G itself plays no part in such changes. Even the expansion of the Universe does not change the constant of gravitation; it merely changes the gravitational force exerted by a given object on extremely distant objects by making them more distant.
There are, as previous answers show, many theories that have been devised by one person or another to try to explain gravity in a different way from the theories of Newton and Einstein; but not one of their theories could ever survive peer review and even be mentioned in any respected scientific journal, save perhaps in a scathing review of codswallop physics.
Javad Fardaei read my theory to understand how to derive a law of gravitation that solves all issues of Dark Matter, Dark Energy and that properly predicts all SR and GR predictions.
If yours pass muster, let me know.
https://www.quora.com/How-would-anyone-defend-general-relativity-from-Marco-Pereiras-HU-challenge/answer/Marco-Pereira-1
Courtney Seligman
I explained why G is not supported by any evidence. Here is the posting
https://www.quora.com/How-could-this-article-pass-peer-review-Is-the-conclusion-one-of-its-assumptions/answer/Marco-Pereira-1
The paper that supports your view (G 'should' never change) and yet, it is such a crappy paper that in its abstract, it tells us why it is a Logical Fallacy.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.1534.pdf
So, NO. We don't know that G "should never change".
If you don't, let me read the abstract for you:
ABSTRACT
...
An important caveat is that it rests on the assumption that the same mass of 56Ni is burned to create the standard candle regardless of redshift.
If your article about G being epoch-dependent ASSUMES that SN1a are epoch-independent, then you don't need to do any analysis since the Hypothesis assures the conclusion.
SO, this is the kind of Science that you are talking about as blocking epoch-dependent G!!!
Marco Pereira Sorry I am not able to pass your qualification.
One question for you to pass master.
does more mass make more weight?
I skimmed through your article and couldn't find a single equation. So, I don't know exactly where are you trying to get.
In my theory single charges sense no Gravity.
Neutral Matter (made of neutrons/protons/electrons) will induce a stronger Gravitational Force on a probe, given that the other parameters are maintained constant.
He Law (a formula) is shown below:
- Badges
- Science topic