Newton and Mercury
The paper “Isaac Newton and Planet Mercury” is now published at https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Beatty-Newton-PSI-paper.pdf Exhibits in this discussion are copied from that paper.
The paper calculates what alterations need to be made to Newton’s famous constant G before the observed anomaly in the orbit of planet Mercury disappears.
The required alterations reach as far as planet Venus, which also shows a faster metres per second orbital anomaly, but to a lesser extent than Mercury. Comparisons are graphed in Exhibit 7 where the accepted value for G is shown, as well as the altered comparative planet values:
Exhibit 7.
This leads to an important conclusion. ‘In cosmology there is much reliance placed on the Newtonian constant G, but there is empirical evidence that G is not constant, but may vary slightly on Earth through unknown causes.’ Variations over time to the value of G are reported by the International Science Council (ISC).
The anomalies noted at Mercury and Venus appear to result from the high mass of the Sun preferentially attracting gravitons, which effectively depletes these near planets of gravitons. This in turn reduces the gravity attraction between the planets and the Sun, which allows them to orbit slightly faster than would otherwise be the case. Exhibit 10 illustrates a depletion of gravitons near to the Sun:
Previous papers published at PSI show gravitons appearing in the Solar System may be forming at black hole V616 through a mechanism illustrated in Exhibit 8
This interpretation of a black hole proposes a close connection between electrons and gravitons. The radiating field of gravitons stays entangled with their positron hosts at the black hole. There appears to be two forms of electrons in the universe – one form has a graviton entangled association with a black hole and the other form does not.
However, gravitons can radiate throughout our Gravisphere following the inverse square law, until they reach the Solar System some 3,343 light years away, where factor G has diluted a massive ‘order of power’ by 39 times. This interpretation is graphed in Exhibit 11:
Variation to the value of G throughout the universe has profound implications for our
understanding of how the universe ‘works’. This empirical Newtonian constant is frequently
applied in several gravity based formulae. Adopting a variable form of G changes much of what is currently calculated in cosmology, and may provide an alternate explanation to the ‘dark matter’ theory.
Our comparatively low G value is due to our remote stellar location illustrated in Exhibit 9.
This also explains why much of the star light reaching Earth is red shifted – associated with transmission through higher gravity regions – with comparatively few blue shifted stars.
See more here principia-scientific.com
Header image: Amino
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Robert and PSI Readers,
“Exhibit 7 Average Orbit Radius m from the Sun”. This “Average Orbit Radius” makes the orbits of the planets perfect CIRCLES just as Galileo claimed their orbits to be as he ignored Tycho Brahe’s quantitative data which Johannes Kepler’s mathematical analysis which showed these orbits to be elliptical instead of circular.
More recent, more precise, astronomical data support the validity of Brahe’s data and Kepler’s mathematical analysis of the existence of these OBSERVED elliptical orbits of the planets’ revolutions (orbits) about the Sun.
So Robert, your analysis is absolutely wrong, as was Galileo’s belief that the shape of the planets’ orbits were perfectly circular, despite the physical evidence to the contrary.
Have a good day, Jerry
(Had to correct your username error before I can approve it) SUNMOD PSI Administrator
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Jerry,
Kepler’s second law of planetary motion tells me your comment is erroneous.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Robert,
Please explain to PSI Readers how, or why, you conclude this.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
A circle is an ellipse where the two centers coincide. In a circle an object traveling around the circumference will go at a constant speed and produce a constant area per unit of time. In an ellipse an object going around the circumference will change speeds as distance changes (C=dv^2) and still will produce a constant area per nit of time.
Herb
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Thank you, Jerry, for introducing some reality and common sense here.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Robert and PSI Readers,
My previous comment has not yet been posted so I also supply these measured (and calculated) eccentricities for your considerations.
Mercury 0.2056
Venus 0.0068
Earth 0.0167
Moon 0.0549
Mars 0.0934
Jupiter 0.0484
Halley’s Comet 0.9671
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Geraint HUghes
| #
This is actually really good I like it.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Thanks Geraint and thanks John O’Sullivan for publishing what has turned out to be the culmination of several years of careful consideration.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Dear Robert Beatty,
Thank you for the interesting article.
As theorized by Issac Newton, and confirmed by real experimentation, Gravitational Force is a function of the Mass of a planet or moon.
What you are pretending is that planets, moons, and ping-pong balls change mass without anyone noticing?
Does this mean the planets went on a ‘Weight Watchers Diet’? Who knew Saturn could slim down after a few diet milk-shakes?
Retarded B.S. like this does not serve the interests of science. It only serves the proponents of such nonsense, in a desperate attempt for hugs, recognition, or money.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Kevin,
“Gravitational Force is a function of the Mass of a planet or moon.”
This force calculation relies on the assumption that G is constant. My investigation shows this assumption is not universally correct.
Why not donate a sum of money to PSI to represent the first income received in connection with my G analysis?
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
As I stated previously, “Retarded B.S. like this does not serve the interests of science. It only serves the proponents of such nonsense, in a desperate attempt for hugs, recognition, or money.”
You just asked for money, like the grifter outside the train station with a drug problem.
Which do you want? Hugs? Money? Recognition for being the smartest guy in the room? All of the above?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
G was created to give a source for gravity, mass. Gravity is a result of energy and produces motion while mass produces inertia or resistance to motion. If gravitational mass and inertial mass are equal then the resistance to motion is equal to force trying to produce motion and gravity cannot create motion.
If you use Newton’s formula for determining the mass of an asteroid orbited by another asteroid the result is unbelievable. G would have to vary with every object in the solar system. The collisions of the Shoemaker-Levy comet fragments with Jupiter shows that it is not gas giant as calculated by Newton’s formula and the accepted masses of the planets and moons are incorrect.
Gravity is the energy radiated by an object and is a function of the energy of the objet, not its mass. Kepler’s law dv^2=C is an expression of energy of the object and has those units. G was devised to convert that energy unit into a mass unit.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Herb,
“gravity cannot create motion” Experiment equipment designed by Hebert Cavendish was showed gravity created motion and led to a calculation for G.
My paper shows G is a variable quantity in the Solar System and follows the inverse square law over a number of light years distant to eventually terminate at a black hole, where gravity is so strong that molecules are torn apart.
We previously proposed an updated structure for Jupiter based on the Juno satellite information. See https://principia-scientific.com/jupiters-magnetosphere-and-the-great-red-spot-update/
“the accepted masses of the planets and moons are incorrect.” Please tabulate the comparative values you have.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
You cannot calculate the mass op planets when gravity is not a function of mass. The recent trips to binary asteroid should provide accurate data on the distance between the asteroids and the velocity of the orbiting asteroid. You can use this data to calculate the mass of the central astroid using the same formula used to calculate the mass of the planets. If the value is not believable how can you accept the value given by the formula for the mass of the planets?
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Herb,
The mass of planets has been calculated and agrees generally with their observed orbits. A major exception was Mercury which my paper addresses. I have not studied orbiting asteroids, but there are several papers available on that subject.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
The orbit of a planet or satellite has nothing to do with mass. The distance from the orbited object determines the velocity regardless of the mass. All objects the same distance will travel at the same velocity. The masses were determined starting with the assumed mass of the Earth, then determining the mass of the sun using Kepler’s Law and Newton’s formula. To get the masses of the planets the velocities of their moons and the distance from the planet were used. It amazes me that the masses of Mercury, Venus, and Mars (before discovery of its moons) have remained the same even though there was no way to determine them. It has been a continuous compound of errors that hasn’t matched reality with the exploration of them (the moon isn’t made of green cheese). The velocity of an orbiting object has no connection to its mass.
If you check the results of visits to binary asteroids you will find they do nt use Newton’s formula to determine mass but just estimate it.
Herb
Robert Beatty
| #
“The orbit of a planet or satellite has nothing to do with mass.”
Only if you abandon the Universal Laws of Gravity. If you abandon ULG you also have to abandon the Inverse Square Law. I have suggested minor change to the ULG ‘constant’ G, but I see no logic in substituting what you are proposing which is IMO just an arm waving exercise.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
The inverse square law is the wrong formula.
When they first tried to land satellites on Mars they smashed into the planet. They finally succeeded when they fitted the satellite with air bags so it would survive the impact.
The reason they give for the failures was that they mixed metric and English units in the software but this is an excuse not a cause. The acceleration and speed of descent determines how much force they need to create a soft landing and this speed is a function of the mass of the planet. It doesn’t matter if the satellite weighs 1000 pounds or 1000 kilograms, the acceleration due to gravity will be the same. They knew the mass of the satellite but it was the mistaken mass of Mars that caused the greater speed that caused the satellites to crash. Since landing on Mars (and the moon) we have gotten samples and know that they are not much less dense than the Earth, if anything they are denser due to an absence sow water.
So if you were an astronaut going to land on a distant planet it would be important to know the correct acceleration due to gravity.
Herb
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Herb,
I think what you are missing in all your discussion is a consideration of thermodynamics. Planets and satellites are balls of radio active material. The bigger the ball the more radio activity. This leads me to think the size of the object is a measure of its place on the nuclear decay chart. My consolidated thoughts on this aspect are at https://bosmin.com/PSL/PlanetsSatellitesLandforms.pdf
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
I have a hard time with all of the theories on the origin of the solar system, especially one from the 18th century when most of the solar sateen hadn’t been discovered. If gravity caused the solar system to coalesce at the same time why did the lightest elements (hydrogen and helium) concentrate at the center while the heavier elements formed planets?
If the largest element that can be formed by fusion is iron (with the heavier elements be reworked from atoms given off from distant novas (some elements being reworked 5 times)) why isn’t space full of the atoms of larger elements and, again, why are these heaviest radioactive elements concentrated in the planets?
I am of the opinion that stars burn by fission and when the concentration of larger elements become to high the sun goes nova discarding these unwanted elements into space where they form trash piles known as planets, moons, and asteroids creating a solar system. That is why the heavier elements are located on the planets. The sun continues to burn (after novas stars have been seen in the center) discarding trash to the trash heaps as solar winds.
The sun does not start out as hydrogen and helium but as pure matter, neutrons. Energy is attracted to positive matter and repels negative matter, so it mines the neutron star breaking off chunks (which continue to be refines in the corona, which is why it is hotter than the sun’s surface) and when those chunks have a surface (electrons in the inside) where no electrons are exposed it forms an atom of a stable element. It is the compression force of energy that is the strong nuclear force (radiated as gravity (non directional) and magnetic (directional force)) while the electrons within the nucleus, form the weak nuclear force.
In beta decay an electron is emitted from the nucleus. This is thought to be a result of the weak nuclear force, but how can the loss of an electron, which would hold the protons together, result in a stable atom where there is an increase in the repelling force (additional proton) and how can the expenditure of energy needed to expel that electron (and a gamma ray) cause an increase in the energy in the atom to form that stable atom.
Helium an hydrogen are not the fuel of the sun but the smallest ashes produced by fission. Why does a neutron spontaneously split to form a hydrogen atom giving off energy as a gamma ray?
The sun formed as energy converted matter (neutrons) into atoms where both matter and energy are radiating two forces (electric field from matter, gravity and magnetic force from energy). The size of an object is not determine by its matter but by its fields (A small super magnet can produce a much larger magnet than a bigger iron magnet) and the fields extend until they meet fields coming from other objects with equal strength. Just as Kepler’s law, C/d=v^2, says field decrease by distance, not the square of distance.
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Herb,
“why did the lightest elements (hydrogen and helium) concentrate at the center while the heavier elements formed planets?” According to the Pierre Simon de Laplace theory our planetary system developed from a rotating dust cloud. As such the heavier elements had more angular momentum than hydrogen and helium. So when the dust cloud got to concentrating into rings, initially under the attraction of static electricity, and eventually through gravity collapse, the lighter elements, having lower angular velocity, concentrated at the centre. Hence the Sun was created by a concentration of the very numerous lighter elements available in the original dust cloud. The planets formed from the heavier elements according to their respective regions of matching angular velocity.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
Sounds like trying to select evidence to support theory. Don’t they believe Jupiter is composed of hydrogen and helium? Static electricity? Doesn’t that require that the particles already be concentrated so electrons can be rubbed off objects by other objects and the particles have different velocities?
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Again Robert,
It order to convert a cloud of dust into a rotating disc there needs to be an attractive force at the center of the disc. To claim that this rotating disc condenses to form a sun that creates the force (gravity) creating the rotating disc is using results as cause. It has no validity, just as saying that Newtons Law of Gravity supports the established masses of the planets when the Law of Gravity was used to determine those masses is invalid reasoning.
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Herb, I rest my case, and thanks for the discussion.
Reply