Is the gravitational constant constant, or does it vary over time?
There are a host of reasons to believe that the effect of gravity is a constant.
If the effect of gravity were greater in the past, then celestial objects in stable orbits would have to move faster in the past to avoid collapse. This would mean that as time passes, and the gravitational force diminishes, the velocity of orbiting systems would also have to diminish, resulting in a loss of kinetic energy. This violates the conservation of energy principle.
(But if we observed such orbiting systems in the past, it would appear that they are moving too fast to remain in stable orbit, which requires some kind of additional unobserved “dark matter” would have to be there to keep the systems in stable orbit).
All kinds of issues are raised if the effect of gravity were to vary. It seems that the very stable structure of our universe is built on certain fundamental relationships being constant.
But do the “constants of nature” need to be constant or can the change according to fundamental relationships? www.uniformexpansion.com
Is there any observational proof of this effect of gravity being greater in the past?
In a few days I will post an explanation for the energy output of Quasars without resorting to black holes.
To reduce the size of the next posting the following examples illustrate the use and application of the proposed formula.
The basic formula predicting how the effect of gravity varies with time is
"G2/G1" = (T1/T2) ^(4/3)
T is used to describe a measure of time called Cosmic time. It marks a point’s location historically from the beginning of time.
G can be understood to represent the gravitational constant.
The subscripts 1 and 2 are to be associated to when events are measured with 1 represented an earlier measure, and 2 representing a later measure.
T2 will normally be associated with the current age of the universe.
The following list illustrates the relationships, assume T2 = 8 x 10^9 years. (I know this is not the accepted age of the Universe, for now assume this to just be a number used to get a feel for the proposed relationships.)
Relative increase in gravity 100 years ago
"G1/G2" = (T2/T1) ^(4/3) = (8/8-.0000001) ^(4/3) = 1.000 000 16 times greater 100 years ago. We would have a hard time detecting this change. Most would just assume that we are improving on the accuracy of mass measurements.
Years ago................Proportional increase in “gravitational constant”
4 billion years ago; Effect of gravity 2.5 times
6 billion years ago; Effect of gravity 6.3 times
7 billion years ago; Effect of gravity 16 times
7.5 x 10^9..............Effect of gravity 40 times
7.9 x 10^9.................................345 times (Universe 1 million years old)
7.99 x 10^9..............................7,400 times (Universe 100,000 years old)
7,999,999,999.......16,000,000,000,000 times (Universe 1 year old)
It is with a bit of trepidation that any figures beyond ages of the universe of 1 million years old is given. They seem so preposterous that they defy credibility. Two powerful effects are balanced to each other, expansion and contraction. Gravity has to be very powerful at the beginning of the universe if there is going to be any kind of structure associated with an expansion that is capable of hurling the mass of 100’s of billions of galaxies with 100’s of billions of stars billions of light years away from each other.