By 1798, single-handedly and using Newton and Euler, Henry Cavendish measured the forces of gravity on Earth AND used its derived G to calculate
the density of Earth. More than 200 years later, his calculations differ less
than 2% of modern values.

His experiments with the torsion pendulum are being recreated with the
most advanced instruments, materials and setups in every university lab
around the world (and they are much more complex than Cavendish's setups.
That is the stature of a true genius, opposite to the undeserved fame of Einstein.

All the complexities of General Relativity CRASHES when trying to explain
with the newtonian gravitational FORCES.

But relativists will never concede about THE FRAUD OF GR.

Here are some links for anyone wanting to analyze the experiment and formulae:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-wire-was-used-to-measure-a-tiny-force-of-gravity/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-_GBymrck

GR CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS BEHAVIOR. Newton CAN.

That's why Newton is IMMORTAL and Einstein and followers are stupid clowns, forced to use Cavendish's G Gravitational Constant as the core
of their absurd mathematical body of GR.

On Saturday, December 30, 2023 at 10:12:27 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> By 1798, single-handedly and using Newton and Euler, Henry Cavendish measured the forces of gravity on Earth AND used its derived G to calculate
> the density of Earth. More than 200 years later, his calculations differ less
> than 2% of modern values.
>
> His experiments with the torsion pendulum are being recreated with the
> most advanced instruments, materials and setups in every university lab
> around the world (and they are much more complex than Cavendish's setups.
> That is the stature of a true genius, opposite to the undeserved fame of Einstein.
>
> All the complexities of General Relativity CRASHES when trying to explain
> with the newtonian gravitational FORCES.
>
> But relativists will never concede about THE FRAUD OF GR.
>
> Here are some links for anyone wanting to analyze the experiment and formulae:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-wire-was-used-to-measure-a-tiny-force-of-gravity/
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-_GBymrck
>
> GR CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS BEHAVIOR. Newton CAN.
>
> That's why Newton is IMMORTAL and Einstein and followers are stupid clowns, forced to use Cavendish's G Gravitational Constant as the core
> of their absurd mathematical body of GR.

Butthurt.....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/09/06/scientists-admit-embarrassingly-we-dont-know-how-strong-the-force-of-gravity-is/?sh=9238c562c3e2

QUOTE:

"The gravitational constant of the Universe, G, was the first constant to ever be measured. Yet more than 250 years after we first
determined its value, it is truly embarrassing how poorly known, compared to all the other constants, our knowledge of this one is.
We use this constant in a whole slew of measurements and calculations, from gravitational waves to pulsar timing to the expansion
of the Universe. Yet our ability to determine it is rooted in small-scale measurements made right here on Earth. The tiniest sources
of uncertainty, from the density of materials to seismic vibrations across the globe, can weave their way into our attempts to
determine it. Until we can do better, there will be an inherent, uncomfortably large uncertainty anywhere the gravitational phenomenon
is important.

It's 2018, and we still don't know how strong gravity actually is."

Cavendish disproved Einstein's GR, BBT and current cosmology by the end of XVIII century.

Yet, for 100 years, relativists don't give a shit about gravitational forces, YET they use the G constant as THE HEART in any of their crappy theories.

No matter about how far away or how much time passed for any celestial event (like 13.5 billion years). Their USELESS EQUATIONS depend on G,
which is PURELY NEWTONIAN!

This, alone, serves to show how hypocritical cretins they are.

THEY HAVE NO SHAME, ONLY HUNGER FOR MAKE A GOOD LIVING WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY, FAME AND PRIVILEGES.

Relativists are despicable sons of HELL!

Here are examples of use of G (Cavendish discovery) under Newton and using GR.
Please, appreciate HOW IDIOTIC is the entirety of General Relativity and some further uses of 4).

---------------------------------------------------

FOR EUCLIDEAN 3D SPACE

1) G = 2π²Lr²ϴ/(MT²) , (Cavendish formula for G using torsion pendulum. Still used 230 years after)

2) F = GMm/r² , (Newton Law of Gravitational Force, after Cavendish)

FOR NON-EUCLIDEAN 4D SPACETIME (absolutely dependent on G constant)

3) φ = - GMm/r [1 + (B/mcr)²] , (GR gravitational potential, as used in Einstein's 1915 Mercury paper, in physical units)

4) Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , (1915 Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR)

5a) [(1/R dR/dt)² - 8/3 πG ρ] R² = -kc² -
5b) (H² - 8/3 πGρ) R² = -kc²
(Two expressions of Friedmann's equation for the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang)

On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 2:26:15 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Here are examples of use of G (Cavendish discovery) under Newton and using GR.
> Please, appreciate HOW IDIOTIC is the entirety of General Relativity and some further uses of 4).
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> FOR EUCLIDEAN 3D SPACE
>
> 1) G = 2π²Lr²ϴ/(MT²) , (Cavendish formula for G using torsion pendulum. Still used 230 years after)
>
> 2) F = GMm/r² , (Newton Law of Gravitational Force, after Cavendish)
>
>
> FOR NON-EUCLIDEAN 4D SPACETIME (absolutely dependent on G constant)
>
> 3) φ = - GMm/r [1 + (B/mcr)²] , (GR gravitational potential, as used in Einstein's 1915 Mercury paper, in physical units)
>
> 4) Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , (1915 Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR)
>
> 5a) [(1/R dR/dt)² - 8/3 πG ρ] R² = -kc² -
> 5b) (H² - 8/3 πGρ) R² = -kc²
> (Two expressions of Friedmann's equation for the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang)
You know they define the speeding up of atomic clocks as time "dilation" so they can claim there is no Newtonian prediction? Relativity is such hair-brain nonsense I can't waste too much time on it. Besides, my conjecture is multidisciplinary, so I'm reading about theories on the End Quaternary extinctions and climate versus overkill. BTW, I heard that dollarization takes years, and Argentina will still sell vast quantities to China (but I like your president).

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:39:59 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 8:35:39 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 2:26:15 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > Here are examples of use of G (Cavendish discovery) under Newton and using GR.
> > > Please, appreciate HOW IDIOTIC is the entirety of General Relativity and some further uses of 4).
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > FOR EUCLIDEAN 3D SPACE
> > >
> > > 1) G = 2π²Lr²ϴ/(MT²) , (Cavendish formula for G using torsion pendulum. Still used 230 years after)
> > >
> > > 2) F = GMm/r² , (Newton Law of Gravitational Force, after Cavendish)
> > >
> > >
> > > FOR NON-EUCLIDEAN 4D SPACETIME (absolutely dependent on G constant)
> > >
> > > 3) φ = - GMm/r [1 + (B/mcr)²] , (GR gravitational potential, as used in Einstein's 1915 Mercury paper, in physical units)
> > >
> > > 4) Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , (1915 Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR)
> > >
> > > 5a) [(1/R dR/dt)² - 8/3 πG ρ] R² = -kc² -
> > > 5b) (H² - 8/3 πGρ) R² = -kc²
> > > (Two expressions of Friedmann's equation for the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang)
> > You know they define the speeding up of atomic clocks as time "dilation" so they can claim there is no Newtonian prediction? Relativity is such hair-brain nonsense I can't waste too much time on it. Besides, my conjecture is multidisciplinary, so I'm reading about theories on the End Quaternary extinctions and climate versus overkill. BTW, I heard that dollarization takes years, and Argentina will still sell vast quantities to China (but I like your president).

> There is more than one way to measure gravity strength... where a weight quantity manifests for a frame
> and where wight goes away in free falling motion degrees... Gravity is two sided...

There is only another way to measure gravity strength and derive the constant G, which is the gaussian method: involves Earth-Moon, the Sun and
a slight modification of Kepler's third law, which provides the constant k.

k is directly related to G and the mass of the Sun, and was the favorite of Einstein-Besso (1913), whom derived it in SIX different ways (and values).

Widely used by astronomers for more than a century, until it was dropped for ITS INACCURACY, in the late 1920s.

Cavendish's G prevailed since then.

The fixed value of k = 0.01720209895 [radians per day, expressing the mean angular velocity of the Sun–Earth system.]
was taken to be the one set by Gauss in 1809 (converted from degrees to radian), so that a = 4π²/(k² P² M) ≈ 1.

In 2012, the IAU, as part of a new, self-consistent set of units and numerical standards for use in modern dynamical astronomy, redefined the astronomical
unit as a conventional unit of length equal to 149597870700 m exactly, ... ... considering that the accuracy of modern range measurements makes the use of distance ratios unnecessary, and abandoned the Gaussian constant as an indirect definition of scale in the Solar System, recommending that the Gaussian gravitational constant k be deleted from the system of astronomical constants.

G, the Newtonian gravitational constant took place of k².

k² (M + m) = n² a³ is the definition of Kepler's third law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion

a³/T² = G (M + m)/4π² is the modern form of Kepler's third law.

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 12:44:05 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:39:59 PM UTC-3, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 8:35:39 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 2:26:15 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > Here are examples of use of G (Cavendish discovery) under Newton and using GR.
> > > > Please, appreciate HOW IDIOTIC is the entirety of General Relativity and some further uses of 4).
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > FOR EUCLIDEAN 3D SPACE
> > > >
> > > > 1) G = 2π²Lr²ϴ/(MT²) , (Cavendish formula for G using torsion pendulum. Still used 230 years after)
> > > >
> > > > 2) F = GMm/r² , (Newton Law of Gravitational Force, after Cavendish)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > FOR NON-EUCLIDEAN 4D SPACETIME (absolutely dependent on G constant)
> > > >
> > > > 3) φ = - GMm/r [1 + (B/mcr)²] , (GR gravitational potential, as used in Einstein's 1915 Mercury paper, in physical units)
> > > >
> > > > 4) Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , (1915 Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR)
> > > >
> > > > 5a) [(1/R dR/dt)² - 8/3 πG ρ] R² = -kc² -
> > > > 5b) (H² - 8/3 πGρ) R² = -kc²
> > > > (Two expressions of Friedmann's equation for the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang)
> > > You know they define the speeding up of atomic clocks as time "dilation" so they can claim there is no Newtonian prediction? Relativity is such hair-brain nonsense I can't waste too much time on it. Besides, my conjecture is multidisciplinary, so I'm reading about theories on the End Quaternary extinctions and climate versus overkill. BTW, I heard that dollarization takes years, and Argentina will still sell vast quantities to China (but I like your president).
>
> > There is more than one way to measure gravity strength... where a weight quantity manifests for a frame
> > and where wight goes away in free falling motion degrees... Gravity is two sided...
> There is only another way to measure gravity strength and derive the constant G, which is the gaussian method: involves Earth-Moon, the Sun and
> a slight modification of Kepler's third law, which provides the constant k.
>
> k is directly related to G and the mass of the Sun, and was the favorite of Einstein-Besso (1913), whom derived it in SIX different ways (and values).
>
> Widely used by astronomers for more than a century, until it was dropped for ITS INACCURACY, in the late 1920s.
>
> Cavendish's G prevailed since then.
>
> The fixed value of k = 0.01720209895 [radians per day, expressing the mean angular velocity of the Sun–Earth system.]
> was taken to be the one set by Gauss in 1809 (converted from degrees to radian), so that a = 4π²/(k² P² M) ≈ 1.
>
> In 2012, the IAU, as part of a new, self-consistent set of units and numerical standards for use in modern dynamical astronomy, redefined the astronomical
> unit as a conventional unit of length equal to 149597870700 m exactly, .... ... considering that the accuracy of modern range measurements makes the use of distance ratios unnecessary, and abandoned the Gaussian constant as an indirect definition of scale in the Solar System, recommending that the Gaussian gravitational constant k be deleted from the system of astronomical constants.
>
> G, the Newtonian gravitational constant took place of k².
>
> k² (M + m) = n² a³ is the definition of Kepler's third law.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion
>
> a³/T² = G (M + m)/4π² is the modern form of Kepler's third law.
So, when M is multiplied by G, is the product greater or lesser than M?