NASA's J.G. Williams, Mould & Uddin, and Sahni & Shtanov stepped on the Ball...:)
Correcting Physics without having a single Physicist coming forward and objecting to my theory is tricky. First, I reproduced and improved all of Physics.
I expected that to be the GREAT EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT MY GREAT CLAIMS.
NOT A SINGLE SCIENTIST CAME TO SHOW SUPPORT OR CRITICISM.
So, I placed myself inside those small heads and asked myself: what could be providing some plausible deniability to these scammers?
There are THREE possible arguments against G-variability:
The reason why they screwed up is because they failed to recognize that Sun's brightness is a function of both G and M (Sun's mass). Hence, if the Sun were born with 0.7 Solar Masses and received hydrogen rain for 4.5 billion years, everything would remain the same. A simple solution to a simple problem.
Sahni, V., & Shtanov, Y. (2014). Can a variable gravitational constant resolve the faint young Sun paradox? International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23(12). DOI: 10.1142/S0218271814420188, arXiv:1405.4369.
Mould, J., & Uddin, S. A. knew they were screwing up their analysis when in the ABSTRACT, they told us that "No matter what, they would keep the Supernova as Stellar Candles or keep G constant for the observations of SN1a Photometric Distances". Here, the observable is Magnitude. To obtain distances, one must assume something about G and SN1a Absolute Luminosity. If you make the same assumptions as HU, everything is explained without Dark Matter or Dark Energy.
Mould, J., & Uddin, S. A. (2014). Constraining a possible variation of G with type Ia supernovae. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 31(1), 1–15. DOI: 10.1017/pasa.2014.9.
FINALLY, NASA
Here, I will detail NASA SNAFU.
Williams, J. ~G., Newhall, X. ~X., & Dickey, J. ~O. (1987). Lunar Science From Lunar Laser Ranging. Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 116.
THIS IS HOW NASA SCREWED UP PHYSICS FOR A LONG TIME.
The paper I submitted to Preprint.com... the one that Ivana Protic summarily rejected, debunked NASA's half-baked argument against G-Variability.
The argument is trivial to understand IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN INTEREST IN NOT UNDERSTANDING IT. It goes like this:
NASA assumes that the Moon obeys Kepler's Law (we know it doesn't because of Relativistic Perihelion Precession and, more importantly, because of the Moon Recession).
The relative receding velocity (eq-5) and the relative angular velocity slowing down (eq-6) are OBSERVABLES. They came with only two figures, and thus, their error bar is at least 6-10%.
I never debate observations. I always suppose the scientists who carefully measured laser pulses round-trips, angles in the sky, etc, did their job.
So, NASA plugged in the observables and found out that the G-variability is zero.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT ARGUMENT?
?
Just to explain better equation (14). Consider the definition of the Moon's Angular Momentum L and consider L to be constant in time:
L=Mnr. (where n is the tangential velocity)
Take the log of both sides and the time derivative; you will get equation (14).
In other words, a simple angular moment preservation approximation would indicate that TLM (Tidal Locking Model) could add epoch-dependent G modeling and not have any mismatches between the model prediction and the observed elliptical orbit. The actual values for the G-dependent contributions cannot be ascertained just by the Moon’s angular momentum conservation. Hence, these are just initial estimates or proof of principle.
Due to Tidal Locking, individual angular momenta are not conserved. Hence, one needs to consider the conservation of total angular momentum:
So:
EQUATION (34) SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FULLY EPOCH-DEPENDENT G TIDAL LOCKING MODEL AND THE STANDARD TLM USED BY NASA. NOTICE THAT I ONLY USED EPOCH-DEPENDENT G WHEN I CALCULATED THE G-DEPENDENT EARTH RADIUS AND USED CHANDRASEKHAR RADIUS (EQUATION 29). THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS IS LESS THAN ONE PERCENT. NASA DOESN'T HAVE THAT KIND OF PRECISION ON THE RATE OF VARIATION OF EARTH'S MOMENT OF INERTIA!!!
This means that a fully epoch-dependent G Tidal Locking Model would be consistent with observations and differ from the constant-G TLM by less than 1% in their prediction of the variation of Earth’s Moment of Inertia.
This implies that the NASA Tidal Locking Laser Lunar Ranging Experiment couldn’t possibly detect the effect of Gravitational Changes.? The experiment wasn’t precise enough because the rate of change of Earth's Moment of Inertia is not known with less than 1% precision.
In other words, all observables are recovered and are very resilient to changes in G. Notice that in the derivation using the conservation of global angular momentum, the results from equations (3) and (4) were not used since Kepler's Law is not a good enough description of the Moon’s orbit, within this context.
What drove NASA's Williams, J.G., Sahni, V., & Shtanov, Y., Mould, J., & Uddin, S. A. to commit these atrocious errors was CONFIRMATION BIAS.
They knew Einstein was right (G is constant in Einstein's theory) and acted accordingly.
Well, it turned out that Einstein was wrong about everything.
CONVERSATION WITH CHATGPT ABOUT THE PAPER AND NASA'S ERROR.
References
1.???? Williams, J. G., Turyshev, S. G., & Boggs, D. H. (2004). Progress in lunar laser ranging tests of relativistic gravity. Physical Review Letters, 93(26 I). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.261101
2.???? Williams, J. ~G., Newhall, X. ~X., & Dickey, J. ~O. (1987). Lunar Science From Lunar Laser Ranging. Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 116.
3.???? Sahni, V., & Shtanov, Y. (2014). Can a variable gravitational constant resolve the faint young Sun paradox? International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23(12). DOI: 10.1142/S0218271814420188, arXiv:1405.4369.
4.???? Mould, J., & Uddin, S. A. (2014). Constraining a possible variation of G with type Ia supernovae. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 31(1), 1–15. DOI: 10.1017/pasa.2014.9.
5.???? Arnett, D. (1980). Analytic Solution for Light Curves of Supernovae of Type II. The Astrophysical Journal, 237, 541–549.
6.???? Pereira, M. (2024). The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.5012064
7.???? Pereira, M. (2024). Hu -The Big Pop Cosmogenesis Equation of State. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.5012159
8.???? Pereira, M. (2024). ny2292000/HU_Papers: Repository with HU Papers. https://github.com/ny2292000/HU_Papers
9.???? Pereira, M. (2024). ny2292000/HU_Galaxy_docker https://github.com/ny2292000/HU_Galaxy_docker
10.? Pereira, M. (2024). ny2292000/HU_GalaxyPackage. https://github.com/ny2292000/HU_GalaxyPackage
11.? Pereira, M. (2024). Pereira’s Github CMB Repository. https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU
12.? Brodsley, L., Frank, C., & Steeds, J. W. (1986). Prince Rupert’s Drops. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 41(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.1986.0001