Constants of Nature: Newton's Big G - Where does the Gravitational Constant Come from?

Measured more than a century after Newton's discovery by Cavendish, big G remains a mystery to this day.

Mind also my backup channel:

[Senshidayo]

It’s really nice hearing a contrarian view. There are so many bold pronouncements by mainstream physicists and yet we see nothing similar in practical results similar to the early 20th century. It is, as Sabine Hossenfelder has said, that much of physics is stuck in a rut, and chasing grant money rather than scientific truth.

[nichtvonbedeutung]

My explanation: The gravitational constant is only measured with one big and another negliable small mass. This circumstances are only valid in solar systems and galaxies like NGC-1052-DF2. You can ask now why are the speeds at outer rims of other galaxies are to fast for this constant, but also you can ask, why the rotationspeeds of solid disks (binding force is near the Coulomb constant there) is proportional to it's radius (hint: take a look at agular speeds instead of rotation speeds). We don't have solid disks as galaxies, but if we would, we would see, what happens there: The binding force of rotating systems depends on their density. Stir in a dumpling soup while adding more and more dumplings... soon you'll see, what I mean. G is the lowest border of constants for a binding force and the Coulomb constant is the highest. This also explains, why the gravitational and Coulombs law look similar. They have got the same origin. You won't need black matter anymore.

[mackenziecopley]

Thank you for making this video. I think it should be retitled, though, to ~“…a History of the Research Into Big G” because ~“Where Does It Come From” made me think you would explain its deeper meaning. That’s what I wanted at least, and maybe you know. If so, a video on that would be awesome ❤️. Off to watch the G c connection video now and hope you have a great day! :) Thank you

[atticuswalker]

the experiment to find g. never stopped moving completely. no free suspended object does.
the 6.67408 we use is the centre of the movement.
the 6.67439 and 6.67377 are the range of gravity as a wave.
the .00031 difference is the ark of the wave. two arks make a circle with a circumference of 62. and a radius of 9.87
the distance all mass moves as it vibrates along the centre of the wave. at different frequencies. the higher frequency mass has longer seconds.

[nagendragoud]

It is true that fundamental constants are mapping to something unique physical process and we are failing to map them, by suitably defining natural units.

[christophershelton]

there is a TED talk video on youtube called 'exposing scientific dogmas' and it talks about how during the years 1928-1945 the 'constant' of light differed among old physics textbooks by up to 20 km/s...

[andrewbrodis]

In my perspective, gravity is proportional to the number of neutrons. I believe in a matrix of expansion. Protons exist in synchronization with the expansion matrix but neutrons offset this balance, creating localized deformations of the matrix (gravity).

[michaellindemann]

I appreciate the discussion, but do not feel you addressed the topic: Where does the Gravitational Constant Come from? I found more information on this by reading the comments section. Perhaps you would consider adding to this video. Thank you.

[SkyDarmos]

Unzicker made this video about two weeks after I sent him my paper about my research on the gravitational constants of different materials. Starting from minute 3, he starts talking about the huge discrepancies in the measurements. Then he mentions possible temporal variations. I was hoping that he would mention material dependency. While he did mention a bit what materials have been used, which is already great, he did shy away from directly talking about the material-dependency that me and Fischbach have discovered (me in a meta-analysis of ALL G-measurements, and Fischbach in Eötvös' freefall experiment from 1922). However, he does look like he might bring himself to mention this material-dependency in the future. However, if he does, it will be a very big step, because this is a very fundamental change. It is a gigantic paradigm shift, and it would be unnatural if Unzicker follows that paradigm shift lightly.

[thesciencebeyond]

The issue is not really about mathematical value of the G. It works only in theories. In real life most mechanics evolves experimentally.

[ycfwvqn]

How are physicists able to make predictions of the motions of bodies in space without an accurate value for G?

[AmbivalentInfluence]

There is no such thing as the gravitational constant. The strength of gravity as any given point depends upon the density of spacetime (vacuum) at that point. We can calculate a value for G simply because the density of spacetime is largely uniform across the universe producing the illusion of a constant. This is the same problem as we have with c, exactly the same.

[GamesBond.]

The units of G are those because they come from newton's equation.
g=GM/R^2 so G =gR^2/M which in units is m/s^2*m^2/kg= m^3/kg*s^2.
I think its a futile exercise to try to link those units to something else, when its clear why they are so.
And the number comes from it too, so if you know the gravitational acceleration, the radius, and the mass, you get a value of G which is not even a constant, since there are different measurements of G. Probably because they are taken at a different radius, since the earth is not a perfect sphere.

[piusthegler]

sorry for the very unrelated question but are you by any chance related to chess grandmaster Wolfgang Unzicker?

[pdaniel]

I just had a thought: permittivity and permeability are related to the inverse speed of light; though it is not possible (as I understand it) to have a Permittivity < 1, Permeability can be less than one in some cases, meaning the potential for both a greater and lesser value for the speed of light, which in turn would mean a greater G value. Maybe this a potential answer for why we have seen fluctuation in the measured value of G over the years, if its possible for a Change in G to be a localized phenomenon, and not purely dependent on the total Universal Mass and total Universal Radius (from our perspective).

[buddysnackit]

Actually. There is no gravitational constant. It changes. This is why physics is searching for dark matter. Around our neighborhood (galaxy), it is fairly constant. But around black holes? In other galaxies?
If you wait long enough the constant will increase slightly. Or will it? It depends on how you would measure it if other things also changed proportionally. One way to do this is to look at light from nearby and from far away. The shifting of the light isn't a change of the waveform but a change in "ether" density. Our space is being filled with more and more ether ever so slowly. This increase in density is causing atoms to run a bit faster. Causing gravity to be a bit stronger. Causing C to increase in speed. Are these increases proportional to one another? Unknown. What I do know for certain is that space isn't being stretched and that the increase in ether (Base Level Matter) density has a very small effect which takes a long time to detect. How long? I actually know how to find this out. You observe "nearby" objects and check for red-shift. The distance at the first detectable red shift is our smallest detectable value. Of course, this can be reduced as technology allows more sensitivity.

The ability to detect a G change is hindered by the question of the change of time, gravitation, and light speed as the ether field increases. If they scale exactly then we will never be able to measure a change because we change along with what we are measuring. My guess is that they drift apart slightly, which means a change in G will be very difficult to detect. But lucky for the world, I exist. I know that sounds narcissistic, but it is true. Maybe somebody else has designed a machine that can make its apparent weight increase by modifying the local gravitational field. If so there is a backup for me.

I am writing a book that will sound like a fairy tale made up by a story teller. But it is completely based on F = M * A interactions at our scale of perception all the way down to sub-atomic particles. No magic pulls, no magic dark matter, no anti-particles and "energy". It is momentum exchanges through mass. Oh yeah, no massless anything except for space. If it has force it has mass. The force is momentum. All energy is momentum. It is just tiny momentum that you can't see or measure directly.

But enough rambling.

To answer where it comes from? I actually know the answer. It is the amount of force removed from other nucleons from a nucleon's shadow in the field of BLM(ether). Therefore the density of the ether field changes the value of G.

P.S. I can give you the full gravitational answer...but you'll need to help me with the advanced math notation. I can do the math in the notation of a C program but not how a math guy can. I used to know how 30+ years ago but don't remember it and don't care to, as I express it in software. I know concepts, not syntax.

[arandomguy]

They come from our imagination. We just create models to understand nature. Whats the meaning of "why a constant is" you can explain with a principle, but why the principle?

[shrunkensimon]

Have you looked into plasma cosmology and the electric universe theory?

[GamesBond.]

Why is it said that gravity is an inverse square law ? If we write mass as density*Volume, where V of sphere=4Pi R^3/3, the equation g=G*M/R^2 becomes g=4Pi* G*Density*R/3. So now its a direct non square law. Which tells us that the gravitational acceleration/force increases with Density and Radius of the spherical object (earth, planets, stars, etc). And also the 'gravitational constant' now becomes 4Pi*G/3. But of course this is a simple transformation based on highschool physics Im sure you and mister Schrodinger have thought about this already.

[johnconcannon]

Could gravity be caused by broken symmetry of the superposition of electric charges due to their relative distribution in matter. This broken symmetry attraction could behave like gravity between objects.