[NewCandle] More spacecraft velocity anomalies

[Keith Nagel]

Yes, this is the (in)famous Large Numbers Hypothesis.

I used to have a copy of that book of Dirac's where
he lays out the idea. He wrote it very late in life,
and it generated a great deal of controversy due
to the prestige of the author and the almost numerological
nature of the argument.

A nice summary of the argument can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis

Although you should try to find Dirac's book, it was
much quirkier than this rather dry exposition.

As you say, the age change of G is only described in
the idea as a proportion, so it could be quite small
over any ordinary span of time ( << age of the universe ).

It interested me at the time for the simple ( perhaps too
simple ) reason that the G :: 1/T equation was reminiscent
of the units you get for G when you express the physical
units without the mass unit. That is to say, you can use
the same idea as practiced in the CGS system and define
mass in terms of the newtonian force law. Now you have
a unit system of just length and time, and the units
of G ( if I remember correctly ) are 1/T. This also
ties in to Kozyrevs work. I'd have to dig out my notes
to bloviate more, I was in my 20's and obviously out
of my mind when I was considering this (grin).

K.

-----Original Message-----
From: newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com
[mailto:newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com]On Behalf Of Jones Beene
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 9:10 PM
To: New energy for the new world.
Subject: Re: [NewCandle] More spacecraft velocity anomalies


Well - you want a wild idea to play with?

Dirac noted that the Gravitational constant, G is
related to the inverse age of the universe in certain
'natural' units. 

He concluded, or more like he speculated, that G could
then change over time in order to maintain the
relationship. We would have no way of knowing that G
was not constant, since the rate of change is very
small. Across 10-15 billion years, the change for say,
any 10,000 year interval is minuscule,
percentage-wise, even if we had been keeping records
for that long.

Which makes G a variable constant, so to speak.

There is a possible rationale for this, which (greatly
simplified) can be verbalized to conclude that gravity
 is a "reflexive" relic of prior photon emission. The
photon, in effect, never fully departs its source, but
always leaves a Yo-Yo-like "trailer" in another
dimension, which is the graviton (it would be a very
long string if in 3-space, but the graviton exists
"in" reciprocal space but with interfacial effects).

When the photon cools to near zero ~the CMB temp, it
then "recoils" back to its original source, and that
that recoil effect has an interfacial friction-like
effect on 3-space, which net effect is gravity.

That observation, if even partly accurate, could be
taken to another level. Since G is not constant over
time, it may be not constant over space. If the age of
a significant proportion of the matter in any area has
changed by reversion to quarks for instance, this
would  create a slight difference. In a supernova,
some new matter is 'reborn' from quarks and this
changes G slightly in the local vicinity.

In either case, the variation is not great enough
normally to make a noticeable difference unless we are
tracking an object which traverses from a "younger
space" into an "older space". 

Since many local areas of the universe are influenced
by second or third generation stars, they may have a
slightly lower G than areas where older stars
dominate. 

Even the Oort cloud, for instance, could contain
matter which may be older on average, than our Sun,
and would have a slightly different G associated with
its mass, which could influence an object traversing
that distance.

<G>



_______________________________________________
NewCandle mailing list
NewCandle at ipdiscover.com
http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com