Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?

April 21, 2015 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature
A set of 13 measurements of G exhibit a 5.9-year periodic oscillation (solid curve) that closely matches the 5.9-year oscillation in LOD measurements (dashed curve). The two outliers are a 2014 quantum measurement and a 1996 measurement known to suffer from drift. The green dot is an estimate of the mean value of G after the 5.9-year periodicity is removed. Credit: J. D. Anderson, et al. ©2015 EPLA

(Phys.org)—Newton's gravitational constant, G, has been measured about a dozen times over the last 40 years, but the results have varied by much more than would be expected due to random and systematic errors. Now scientists have found that the measured G values oscillate over time like a sine wave with a period of 5.9 years. It's not G itself that is varying by this much, they propose, but more likely something else is affecting the measurements.

As a clue to what this "something else" is, the scientists note that the 5.9-year oscillatory period of the measured G values correlates almost perfectly with the 5.9-year oscillatory period of Earth's rotation rate, as determined by recent Length of Day (LOD) measurements. Although the scientists do not claim to know what causes the G/LOD correlation, they cautiously suggest that the "least unlikely" explanation may involve circulating currents in the Earth's core. The changing currents may modify Earth's rotational inertia, affecting LOD, and be accompanied by density variations, affecting G.

The scientists, John D. Anderson, retired from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, and coauthors, have published a paper on the correlation between the measurements of Newton's and the length of day in a recent issue of EPL.

As the scientists explained, the main point of the paper is the finding that, while the measured G values do vary, they do so in a predictable way.

"Once a surprising 5.9-year periodicity is taken into account, most laboratory measurements of G are consistent, and are within one-sigma experimental error limits," Anderson told Phys.org.

The solar cycle (monthly mean of the total sunspot number) (black curve) does not consistently align with the data on G. Credit: J. D. Anderson, et al. ©2015 EPLA

The constant G is essential for our understanding of gravity, appearing in both Newton's law of gravity and Einstein's general relativity. G is not an intuitive concept, and not the same as the acceleration of an object due to gravity, g, of 9.81 m/s2.

The official value of G is 6.673889 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2, but the 13 measurement values analyzed in this study range from approximately 6.672 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2 to 6.675 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2, which is a percentage variation of about 10-4. The variations in G are generally thought to result from measurement inconsistencies because G is very difficult to measure, partly due to the fact that gravity is much weaker than the other fundamental forces.

Despite the difficulties in measuring G, the new analysis suggests that the measurements are not flawed, but that something in the measurement process varies. One of the scientists' first considerations was that the 5.9-year period is about half of the 11-year period of a solar cycle. Changes in solar activity are caused by changes in the number of sun spots, which affects Earth's atmosphere, and in turn affects Earth's . However, a closer look at the shows that it does not consistently align with the data on G.

Next the scientists turned to a 2013 paper published in Nature that reported a 5.9-year periodicity in Earth's LOD, using data from the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Services (IERS) (Holme and de Viron). As the data shows, the length of each day varies slightly, with some days slightly longer and some days slightly shorter than others. The LOD variation is a measure of the speed of Earth's rotation, and the scientists in the current study found that its periodic oscillation aligns almost exactly with the G oscillations. (These 5.9-year LOD periodic variations differ from observations that the Earth's rotation is slowing down and the days getting longer due to tidal friction of the Moon, which occurs on a much longer time scale.)

Despite the close correlation between LOD and G, the scientists note that the maximum percentage variation of the LOD is on the order of 10-9, which is large enough to change G by only 10-5 of the amplitude—not enough to explain the full 10-4 percentage variation in G. Since this means that the LOD variations cannot cause the G variations, the researchers surmise that both variations are caused by changing motions in the Earth's core, or perhaps some other geophysical process.

Although the results also raise the possibility that new physics could explain the variations, the scientists believe this is unlikely. One of the 13 measurements of G used in this analysis is the first-ever , called LENS-14, performed in 2014. The G value obtained by the quantum measurement is the larger of two outliers in the data, with the other outlier being a 1996 experiment that is known to have problems. Further quantum measurements of G are needed to understand why the quantum measurement deviates from the classical .

The are also not fully convinced that the G/LOD correlation is the full story, and they plan to search for other correlations in the future.

"We plan to look into the possibility of a connection with the Earth flyby anomaly, which also seems periodic, and perhaps other anomalies," Anderson said.

Explore further: Researchers conduct first direct measurement of gravity's curvature

More information: J. D. Anderson, G. Schubert, V. Trimble and M. R. Feldman. "Measurements of Newton's gravitational constant and the length of day." EPL 110 (2015) 10002, doi:10.1209/0295-5075/110/10002

Related Stories

A new spin on Saturn's peculiar rotation

March 25, 2015

Tracking the rotation speed of solid planets, like the Earth and Mars, is a relatively simple task: Just measure the time it takes for a surface feature to roll into view again. But giant gas planets Jupiter and Saturn are ...

Recommended for you

Muons spin tales of undiscovered particles

April 20, 2018

Scientists at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories are collaborating to test a magnetic property of the muon. Their experiment could point to the existence of physics beyond our current understanding, including ...

Integrating optical components into existing chip designs

April 19, 2018

Two and a half years ago, a team of researchers led by groups at MIT, the University of California at Berkeley, and Boston University announced a milestone: the fabrication of a working microprocessor, built using only existing ...

159 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tri-ring
1.2 / 5 (13) Apr 21, 2015
It could also mean the first hint that dark matter is having direct effect on our planet.
katesisco
1 / 5 (15) Apr 21, 2015
Well, if the photon has weight like M Mathis proposes, and it is not electron bonding but nuclear spin, it would be easy to see that the LOD is controlled by photon spin.
RichTheEngineer
5 / 5 (17) Apr 21, 2015
So why not measure G outside Earth's inertial frame?
Tri-ring
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 21, 2015
It would be interesting if we found the same anomaly on the moon.
adam_russell_9615
3.2 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2015
Maybe changing G causes changing LOD, with some reduction due to inertia?
Woodwind
4.4 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2015
Sending a spacecraft far out into space to measure G sounds like a good idea. We should keep in mind that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. adam_russell also raises an interesting point. Perhaps the correlation has the cart before the horse. Maybe G actually isn't constant. Its periodic variation could be what causes changes in LOD.
EyeNStein
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2015
We clearly need a lot more measurements.
This could be a hint of "new physics", together with the experimental lack of the "gravitational waves" current physics predicted.
Moebius
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 21, 2015
This is the kind of anomaly that research money should be literally thrown at.
EyeNStein
3.7 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2015
As Gravity also affects time (General Relativity) this research could also lead to unified understanding of GR gravity and Standard model QED: As QED assumes T-symmetry which is not present in the real world. (The weak force is certainly not T-symmetric.)

What I mean is if our ideas of Gravity need adjusting and Time within QED also needs a rethink, some unity could emerge from the analysis as the two are related through GR.
docile
Apr 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Apr 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
foolspoo
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2015
the premise is an oxymoron...
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2015
This is the kind of anomaly that research money should be literally thrown at.

If G isn't constant then maybe there is a way to modify it on-demand, within some sort of limited field, this could allow new propulsion technology,etc. Sounds sci-fi, but worth investigating.

The G value obtained by the quantum measurement is the larger of two outliers in the data, with the other outlier being a 1996 experiment that is known to have problems. Further quantum measurements of G are needed to understand why the quantum measurement deviates from the classical measurements.


You looked at it.

In Quantum Theory the act of looking at something changes it's condition. If you measure G you change G, at least according to the theory. Uncertainty Principle.
TechnoCreed
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2015
the premise is an oxymoron...

No oxymoron there, it is the measurement that varies not the constant.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2015
Track the orbital precession of the planets and see if they have values of G with respect to the Sun which oscillate on some time scale.

This may require a new space observatory or two or three to make very precise measurements of every planet's orbit as often as possible. The idea is to see if G varies every 5.9 years, causing the planetary LOD change and presumably and orbit change, or if the LOD change causes us to measure G differently. Presumably they sould all oscillate at 5.9 earth years if G itself changes.

If the planet is what causes the apparent change, then each planet will have a different apparent change in G.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2015
If you could lower G on demand for a small volume of space, then you could launch space-craft into orbit or to other planets for a much lower fuel cost. That's why I was interested in a variable G concept, which may well be the case. Maybe the magnetic field, which is also linked with the LOD, can modify G somehow.
Returners
2.4 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2015
Jupiter:

Orbital period
11.8618 yr

divide by 2:

5.9309 years.

Almost an exact match.

Looks like the oscillation is synchronized with the half-orbit of Jupiter.

Where is my Nobel?
SamB
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2015
Looks like a reverse hockey stick. Global warming?
Returners
3 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2015
Saturn is in a 5 to 1 resonance.

Divide Saturn's orbital length by 5 and you get 5.89142...again an exact multiple of a whole number.

So the orbits of the two largest planets are in whole number resonances with the oscillation in the value of G.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2015
Neptune has a whole number resonance of 28 to 1.

Uranus does not have a whole number resonance, which is not surprising to me because Uranus has different historical characteristics and rotational axis.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2015
So yeah, I conclude that G literally does vary on a 5.9 year cycle, and this cycle controls several orbits and rotational phenomena of the planets.

Hypothesis:
Uranus is different because it was somehow created by a different process, or was hit by something very large and moved out of the natural resonance.
docile
Apr 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2015
But for contemporary physicists the space-time density and speed of light remains constant even inside most curved & dense gravitational lens - which is an apparent nonsense, because the refraction couldn't happen there after then. Where the speed of light remains constant, then the refraction index must remain unitary and no lensing may occur there.
Flawed interpretation, Zeph, since lensing occurs. It's possible to describe it phenomenologically as an index of refraction, e.g., n = 1 - 2U/c² where U is the gravitational potential ( cf. http://www.marcol...l-lenses ), but the lensing is achromatic -- a difference in photon energy (wavelength) has no affect; only the distribution of matter doing the lensing has an affect. Which maybe makes sense when you consider that if you were to drop a feather and a bowling ball from the same height above the moon, both would hit the regolith at the same time.
Returners
2 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2015
Pluto is almost exactly 42 to 1, and is closer to a whole number than is the planet Uranus, which is 15.93, the farthest from a whole number of any of the 5 planets I've tested so far.

Returners
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2015
I wonder if whole number resonances to the number 5.9 years appear in other star systems orbital and rotational characteristics? That would be the smoking gun. The numbers in our own solar system might be coincidence or some sort of internal only resonance, but if the same number appeared elsewhere it would be a universal constant/law involved.
TheOrphan
4 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2015
Very glad to see people researching this.

The Suns activity may have a delay due to it's size.

The other question is, is the variance spatially dependent, or in other words is it WIMPS causing this variance or space itself, or possibly a combination of both.

The more data we have on this the better in my opinion.
docile
Apr 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
someone11235813
4 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2015
It is indeed astounding that measurements of these types of data and at this level of exactitude are able to be ascertained. While it certainly seems that the LOD and the G variation are a result of a common cause, tracking down this common cause will be subtle.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (12) Apr 21, 2015
So yeah, I conclude


If only that thing you say was the truth Skippy. Cher, you ain't never concluded anything in your life.

Hypothesis:


Returnering-Skippy is never going to conclude his endless using the physorg as practice to write the Encyclopdium Pour Les Couyons
Porgie
1 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2015
Why do they vary so much? Because large heavy objects in closely parallel universes are coming close to ours and causing gravitational wave to leak through the barriers. Its already been demonstrated in the colliders. Drops of matter poke though, its no problem for energy. So as objects move around in other universes, they bang into the borders and gravity comes though. Its also where the missing matter is located.
adam_russell_9615
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2015
Pluto is almost exactly 42 to 1, and is closer to a whole number than is the planet Uranus, which is 15.93, the farthest from a whole number of any of the 5 planets I've tested so far.



Which (42) is also the answer to the meaning of life. It all starts adding up full circle.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2015
Hello Zeph so 'docile' is your new pseudo or, should I say, pet name. Anyway it fits you real good; it sounds really friendly and makes me feel like throwing a bone at you. For the next time that you will change your pseudo (because one day or another you will change it, I know you.) may I suggest 'worm' this would fit you really good too.
just_think_it
3.8 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2015
Note the error bars. Some are almost as big as the total cyclic variation over the years. In short, the oscillations might not even be there.

Also, 3 of the data points don't fit the graph, even within their error bars.

Floyd
www.Just-Think-It.com
Tomator
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2015
What if lowered G causes the Earth to be a bit more loose? Wouldn't i expand a bit, increasing its diameter? To conserve the rotational momentum it would roatate a bit slower then. Wwhen G rises, the diameret shinks, rotarion speeds up and the day become sorter. This should also happen to all celestial objects we observe - so we should measure it. And process the numbers.

This might be something else that G itself. Something we don't know of. Then, quantum measurement gives The G while classic measurements give G modified by some - let me name it - Dark Coefficient. Which might be trivial when finally found.
Gigel
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2015
Maybe it's an effect of time-retarded gravitational force: http://www.ptep-o...3-01.PDF
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2015
Not understanding where you draw your "resonance" numbers from. Therefore not getting the resonant relevance....
docile
Apr 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Apr 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheOrphan
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2015
If I'm reading those graphs properly the higher the G constant the longer the day, or the slower the rotation.

I.E. The inverse of your expanding earth/core theory, although the extra heat generated by the increased G may indeed cause expansion of the core beyond the compression G force.
Mimath224
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2015
Jupiter:Orbital period 11.8618 yr divide by 2: 5.9309 years.
Almost an exact match.
Looks like the oscillation is synchronized with the half-orbit of Jupiter.
Where is my Nobel?
Saturn is in a 5 to 1 resonance.
Divide Saturn's orbital length by 5 and you get 5.89142...again an exact multiple of a whole number.
So the orbits of the two largest planets are in whole number resonances with the oscillation in the value of G.

@Returners, Man, I gotta hand it to you, step up for the first prize, we'll vote you as Earth's greatest.......?(I'll let other posters put in their own name)
Why are you dividing by '2' & '5'? You can't just go around diving by this and that number just because it suits you must have a reason.
How about this one. The article quotes '...5.9-year oscillatory period of Earth's rotation rate...' choose a well known math entity, exp(5.9)=365.037..No, the dimension is 'years'; or(5.9x365.256)^0.0625=1.615625..close to the Golden ratio (days) want some more?
rpaul_bauman
not rated yet Apr 22, 2015
You can fit the data PERFECTLY if you use a sine wave with a varable wave length.
My writing this proves I know very little. From that it is again easy to figure out what every one else knows.
If gravity changes, why would you assume a constant rate when vatiable rates are infinit.
david_gold
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2015
"Despite the difficulties in measuring G, the new analysis suggests that the measurements are not flawed, but that something in the measurement process varies."

Newton's universal gravitational constant does not vary but instead the gravitation force has variable dynamics, which is probably showing up in the measurement processes. This manifest from a theoretical approach to quantum gravity: http://www.scienc...cale.pdf

docile
Apr 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
swordsman
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2015
The effects of the moon and the planets has to be taken into account, along with the variations in mass of the surface of the earth. Also, gravity may be more of a surface effect, in which case the variations in density of the nearby surface produces errors. Recall that gravity is a "square-law" effect as a function of the separation of two bodies. Also note discrepancies of a similar nature in the original measurements from which the law was derived.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2015
If we really understand gravity with known physics instead of these bizarre theories we might know that the gravitational pull changes even faster than we can detect. Suppose gravity can be explained using superposition. Consider the neutron as a contained electron-proton, then replace mass with a particle count, i.e. M/(me + mp). Follow this with the location of the center of the negative charge distribution at a single point in time. Next locate the center of the positive charge distribution. Due this for both masses. Note the total centers for two masses may be outside the body of the mass. Now calculate the expected rate of change for the center of the negative charges and also the same for the positive. Note that this measurement becomes the sort of measurements made using quantum mechanics. Now define how this measurement may change with spin. Note the distance between the two charge centers and compute the coulomb force between the two superimposed dipoles.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2015
The charges will comply such that the like charges are father apart than the unlike charges. So a model, a rectangle within plane. Never mind that all centers do no lie within the plane, a transformation exist such that the above will give a measure of the expected distance between the positive and negative centers. Hence, since we are unable to actually define the location or arrangement of these centers, the distance within the model has dependencies no one has ever studied. Hence, the PhD physicists teaching GR, BB, SM may spend time trying to recapture Truth instead of looking for the unknown to explain the error of our ways and theories only in our minds without empiricism. Hence, Newton related m based upon the measure of g, self referent, no definition for mass, only close to the particle count and the coulomb forces of the all the charges, and there are a lot of charge. It would be inane to dismiss the effects of so many charges.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2015
The superimposed dipole is a different "animal" than the real dipole; hence, reconcile the radiant field and see the interaction of all particles relative to speed and location of other charges. The relative wave-front of each charge relative to each surrounding charge may have any speed,velocity and shape. Also see that only a proton and an electron has a stationary reference frame that is well defined, or properly derived from the evidence, and assumed. The continuity of the existence of these particles is simply a mystery and exactly what these particles are is a mystery. For we have no other definable evidence, theory is not evidence, evidence defines the theory.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2015
So, may the distance between the two charge centers, definable by any plane of choice, possibly be modulated, i.e. a group response upon "charge bundles?" defined by superposition. So what is a better definition of the mass equation for gravity ---> the particle count and energy, i.e. the dE/dt and it's curl, etc.. Did we use proper hindsight? Evidence of a modulated field? Simple interaction! Simply from small numbers to very large numbers and the possible modes! Then "Nature" becomes our creations, only if we fully understand!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2015
I thought the science was settled on gravity?
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2015
I thought the science was settled on gravity?


Is there enough evidence to settle anything, looking for the unknown to give credence to something that does not match the evidence, probably means you're looking from the wrong perspective for why? Settled? What? Exploration is not a science, it's an interest. We shouldn't give Nobles for "probability hits" that match an idea, rather than a measurable and empirically defined Theory, Placing theory before evidence is invalid. Newton was true to his measure, even though he also had some other exploitative thinking, he relied upon Logic.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2015
Is there enough evidence to settle anything,


According to climatists, there is.
They declare the 'science is settled' on climate change so shut up.

rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2015
Take away any degree in physics that accepts GR, the discontinuity between reason, mathematics, known physics is obvious. Momentum then is d(mr)/dt. An absurdity. It does not translate mathematically due to a vector space being treated as a scalar with a false shell of some sort of rest frame and ... representing motion, undefinable in space and time without introducing 1. New Logic - Not defined 2. A new mathematical space totally translatable - momentum has not been shown to be a function of displacement. i.e. no evidence. 3. if motion of heavenly bodies then all values change as the distance and direction of motion. The later is actually true for waves but is not the intent of GR. Thought experiments or the thinking of the insane? The scalar distance field is within his equation and not defined as translatable to Newton, known... ignore???
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2015
Or you can say the space wrinkles, reminds me of book when a kid, "A Wrinkle in Time", probably inspired by this enchantment with GR.

It is sort of hypnotic!

Then you think, Michelson and Morley, looking at their own reflections! Is this how this got started? It is really funny! Like watching children grow up. Oh, I see myself, then begin giving power to the reflection, subjectively.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2015
Compare the expanding Earth theory in the light of already known increasing of length of day from prehistorical times. In the precambrian 500 million years ago, the day was about 22 hours long.
1. The lengthening day is due to tidal friction from the Moon, and to a lesser extent the Sun, and to a microscopic extent the other planets, primarily Jupiter. This is technically called "Tidal acceleration."

No expansion of the Earth is required.

2. I checked and it looks like your figure for the Precambrian is fairly reasonable, for the Late Precambrian anyway.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2015
Compare the expanding Earth theory in the light of already known increasing of length of day from prehistorical times. In the precambrian 500 million years ago, the day was about 22 hours long.
1. The lengthening day is due to tidal friction from the Moon, and to a lesser extent the Sun, and to a microscopic extent the other planets, primarily Jupiter. This is technically called "Tidal acceleration."

No expansion of the Earth is required.

2. I checked and it looks like your figure for the Precambrian is fairly reasonable, for the Late Precambrian anyway.

So why the modulated G? We see the effects of g but why the effect upon G? Is this an interaction of gravitational fields affected by spin or like polar drift upon molecules, i.e. the superposition of the location of the center for the electron cluster from the proton cluster. Maybe definable by superposition and a necessary field capable of creating the discrepancy. A new measure.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2015
These are very large and dynamic fields. Any shift in the location of the centers, only measurable with any precision would require instrumentation to 10^-40 Meters for position. So this may be an opportunity to define required change of these locations that would correct the err in G. Proof of Superstition's validity(not really required) would give more validity if using the same theory we also define the requirements for LOD, i.e.delta spin and delta
|p+-p-| and the electrodynamic-engine that drives G. A logical conjecture.
TheOrphan
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2015
The next few years are going to be very interesting, mapping the Earths magnetic field, upcoming experiments for MOND, plasma wave particle accelerators, we are going to see a lot of supposition put to rest one way or another I think :-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2015
1. The lengthening day is due to tidal friction from the Moon, and to a lesser extent the Sun, and to a microscopic extent the other planets, primarily Jupiter. This is technically called "Tidal acceleration."

I would call it DE-celeration, personally...

rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2015
It's sorta like explaining quantum mechanics to chickens. Obvious to me; however, chickens are only concerned about the manufactured corn.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2015
1. The lengthening day is due to tidal friction from the Moon, and to a lesser extent the Sun, and to a microscopic extent the other planets, primarily Jupiter. This is technically called "Tidal acceleration."

I would call it DE-celeration, personally...
Yeah, it's kinda weird. The Wikipedia article even mentions this counter-intuitive aspect of the terminology. http://en.wikiped...leration
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2015
It's sorta like explaining quantum mechanics to chickens. Obvious to me; however, chickens are only concerned about the manufactured corn.

Wha...? Are you callin' the rest of us "chickens"?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2015
I thought the science was settled on gravity?


Is there enough evidence to settle anything, looking for the unknown to give credence to something that does not match the evidence, probably means you're looking from the wrong perspective for why? Settled? What? Exploration is not a science, it's an interest. We shouldn't give Nobles for "probability hits" that match an idea, rather than a measurable and empirically defined Theory, Placing theory before evidence is invalid. Newton was true to his measure, even though he also had some other exploitative thinking, he relied upon Logic.
Ignore him. Hes a religionist. Lingering questions is proof that god exists.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2015
It's sorta like explaining quantum mechanics to chickens. Obvious to me; however, chickens are only concerned about the manufactured corn.

Wha...? Are you callin' the rest of us "chickens"?

Only if you believe the nonsense of modern physicists. Stay with Rutherford, Maxwell, ..., common sense! Else continue eating the corn.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2015
I thought the science was settled on gravity?


Is there enough evidence to settle anything, looking for the unknown to give credence to something that does not match the evidence, probably means you're looking from the wrong perspective for why? Settled? What? Exploration is not a science, it's an interest. We shouldn't give Nobles for "probability hits" that match an idea, rather than a measurable and empirically defined Theory, Placing theory before evidence is invalid. Newton was true to his measure, even though he also had some other exploitative thinking, he relied upon Logic.
Ignore him. Hes a religionist. Lingering questions is proof that god exists.

Does He have teeth? juz say'n, you can maybe try the Ga of Amon! Best I can find, but it raises the question, "What's the real story of Osiris?" Or, we are only a collection of charged particles, so what's the probability of any form imaginable? So... http://www.omni
rufusgwarren
1.3 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2015
http://www.omnigl...tian.htm

Start here and then corrupted connotations as well as annotation to look for God.
michaeltfrench
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2015
So why not measure G outside Earth's inertial frame?


The surface of the Earth is not an inertial frame, because the Earth is rotating. There will be a centrifugal force on any instruments measuring G at the surface and this force will vary with latitude and the rotation rate (LOD). A component of the force will oppose the force of gravity toward the centre of the Earth, effectively reducing the value of G in a way that follows the LOD variation. The measured value of G would be higher when the rotation is slow (long day) and G would appear lower when the rotation is fast (short day).
SuperThunderRocketJockey
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2015
This is so cool! I had no idea this was even a thing. I wonder if this oscillation is enough to have an impact on life at the molecular level, and if so, would deep space missions need to have this oscillation in artificial gravity to maintain astronaut health?

rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2015
So why not measure G outside Earth's inertial frame?


The surface of the Earth is not an inertial frame, because the Earth is rotating. There will be a centrifugal force on any instruments measuring G at the surface and this force will vary with latitude and the rotation rate (LOD). A component of the force will oppose the force of gravity toward the centre of the Earth, effectively reducing the value of G in a way that follows the LOD variation. The measured value of G would be higher when the rotation is slow (long day) and G would appear lower when the rotation is fast (short day).

Nice try, consider the rotation and affected field of a very, very, very large group of charges, before I listen to any other explanation as relevant. Give me a proof of why this would Not have an effect as well as what G actually represents, some constant for a given state of a bunch of charges!!!!!!!!!!! really, are we still doing this? Is this a thing?
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2015
One would think the young would grab this obvious information, pick an element, a given cosmological cluster, mathematics of aggregate particles, or redefine the quantum with a much better description and properties, i.e assumption with only two elemental parts and a 4D deterministic dimensional description with stability analysis and allowed deviation stability over space and time. Are we boiling in 4D and what are the allowed deviations. Wish I had the time to start over when I wanted to major in physics so that I could understand what the heck Einstein was writing about. But I didn't need a PhD, only an MSEE to earn an honest living. It is all calculable, especially with high speed computers which are about to take another leap. And GR is one of the best magic tricks of misdirection ever played upon the mind. So an accurate 4D description is required to see any influence upon our space-time. Just think, relative ripples based upon location and relative motion of charge.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2015
So why not measure G outside Earth's inertial frame?
Michaeltfrench's answer covers the issue of inertial frames- it's important to remember that if you feel gravity, or acceleration, you are not in an inertial frame.

Keeping in mind Newton's equation for his Universal Gravitation:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

it's clear you must know the two masses m and m', and the distance r, and then measure the force F(g) to find the gravitational constant G. The first attempt to measure G was a series of measurements by Henry Cavendish in 1797 and 1798, reported to the Royal Society in 1798; the original apparatus for the measurements, consisting of a pair of heavy lead balls attached to a torsion balance, was conceived sometime before 1783 by geologist John Michell, and the balance was built by 1793, but Michell unfortunately died before he could complete the experiment. The equipment was passed on to Francis Wollaston, who passed it to Cavendish.

contd
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2015
Cavendish was a meticulous experimenter, and succeeded in his measurements; his actual goal was to determine the specific gravity of the Earth, and G never appears in his initial reports, but its value can be derived from his measurements, and even with his relatively crude apparatus (by modern standards- it was phenomenally precise by the standards of the time) he was able to get a value within 1% of the current measured value. His accuracy was not surpassed for nearly a hundred years.

G is actually very difficult to measure precisely, primarily because gravity is such a weak force, and even far away from Earth's influence, measurements would be disturbed by the other planets and the Sun. Since spacecraft are very expensive and it's very difficult to conduct a large experiment, we're more likely to get a more exact value in a laboratory on Earth's surface than in space, unless and until we have a permanent habitat in space where lab experiments can be conducted.

contd
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2015
So, RichTheEngineer, the main answer to your question is that it wouldn't help much if any at all to measure it outside the Earth's gravitational influence (which is what you were really asking, your minor terminology error aside), and it would be extremely expensive, for little or no gain.

The product of the Earth's mass and the gravitational constant, GM(earth), is extremely well known, since it is measured by every satellite in orbit. But separating the two is very challenging.

Hope that answers your question well.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2015
This is so cool! I had no idea this was even a thing. I wonder if this oscillation is enough to have an impact on life at the molecular level, and if so, would deep space missions need to have this oscillation in artificial gravity to maintain astronaut health?
Gravity is so weak that it's extremely unlikely to have any impact on molecular biology; gravity is routinely ignored in high energy particle experiments, and in all of quantum mechanics, since there is no theory of quantum gravity. For example, the effect of Earth's gravity on the paths of the particles in the LHC is microscopic; the other perturbing forces they experience are far more important and the design of the superconducting magnets that focus the beams and control the paths of the particles can very nearly ignore Earth's gravity at energies on this scale.

contd
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2015
I went looking for a reference, but it's not in my link library and I couldn't find it online. As best I recall an article I read some years ago, the influence of the Earth's gravity on the beam path of the Fermilab Tevatron is on the close order of nanometers for each pass around the main accelerator ring, far outweighed by the other perturbations that the superconducting magnets have to correct for to focus the beam, and it's likely to be a fraction of that in the LHC at its higher energies. I couldn't find any indication that the Earth's gravity was allowed for in the design of either accelerator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2015
BTW, worth mentioning that the G in Newton's equation for Universal Gravitation is the same G as in Einstein's General Relativity. Einstein's theory supercedes Newton's, but only at high energy/high gravity and over very long periods of time and long distances; over short periods and distances, and at moderate energies and under moderate accelerations or gravity fields, they give results that are essentially indistinguishable. Only a very few satellites with special requirements, like the GPS satellites, or Gravity Probe B, or the GRACE mission, use anything but Newtonian gravity to calculate their orbits. The extra precision of Einstein simply isn't required for ordinary space missions and there's no point spending the extra time, money, and computing power on it.

The most significant difference in the Solar System between Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity is the orbit of Mercury, whose orbit's major axis moves some 80 seconds of arc per year that Newton's TUG can't explain.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2015
The reason it only appears in Mercury's orbit is because only Mercury is close enough to the Sun for the difference in Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity to be evident. Gravity, of course, being an inverse-square force that drops off as the square of the distance.

Over periods of millions of years, the difference becomes evident in the orbits of the other planets, but since we haven't been around that long, we're not old enough to notice them in our measurements yet.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2015


Keeping in mind Newton's equation for his Universal Gravitation:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²


Why do you use a macroscopic measure for the elemental? esp. one with very poor empirical data without causal affect?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2015
Why do you use a macroscopic measure for the elemental?
What's that even mean? The Newtonian formula properly describes the orbits of all the planets but Mercury on human life timescales. What's "elemental" mean? Seems pretty "elemental" to me.

esp. one with very poor empirical data without causal affect?
Empirical data other than the orbits of the planets and comets, you mean? You do realize that Newton's TUG was confirmed by Sir Edmund Halley who predicted the return of Halley's Comet, right? Looks causal to me. Maybe you don't know what "causal" means.

BTW it's "effect," not "affect." The first is a noun, the second a verb.

In English. On Earth.

Given you can't even separate the parts of speech, how do you expect to understand basic mechanics, never mind God?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2015
Tell me, rufus, are you a flat earther? Do you "believe in" nuclear weapons, satellites, and particle accelerators? Or do you think Jebus makes them all look like they work? Do you even believe in skyscrapers, or do you think they're all lies by people who "hate Jebus?"

Where do these fools spawn, is what I wanna know. And how do they eat without sticking forks in their faces?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2015
rufus, dude, can you even count, or do you think that's an invention of Satan?
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2015


BTW it's "effect," not "affect." The first is a noun, the second a verb.

In English. On Earth.
An affect generates an effect. However, correcting grammar is a poor argument and is unrelated. So with your great knowledge and understanding what did we communicate with a not so obvious correction. Instead, speak to the point or make a point.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2015
An affect generates an effect.
Dude, you just used affect as a noun again.

Seriously, did you graduate third grade? That's when I learned the parts of speech.

Not to mention, you appear to think Jebus is holding all the atomic nucleusies together.

You are an uneducated fool and you make Jebus and the Babble look like crap as a result. You should shut up and read, and maybe you'll learn something.

Even I have more respect for religion than you do. And I'm an atheist.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2015
BTW, affect can be used as a noun- but its meaning is, the expression of emotion by actions. Rufus, I don't think planets, stars, and comets have emotions. Just sayin'.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2015
An affect generates an effect.
Dude, you just used affect as a noun again.

Seriously,

OK, I get it. Let's use a wrinkly space wither grammatically and mathematically possible and include grammar as causal and do it just because ... Which logic from "What's the Name of this Book" by Smulyan. Check my spelling of the author's name then tell me witch logic you find acceptable? Include what is pertinently classified as to degree by using a causal actions defined by the acceptable response such as will define gravity forcing you to accept!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2015
Dude, you can't even spell "which."
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2015
What attributes of this unknown "thing", affecting acceleration, we call mass ... wait on it ... ahhh, Maxwell, where were you when the puzzle was first mentioned; show us how this gravitational "effect" may be "affected" by the constituent elemental charges and other bodies of charge. i.e .mass?

I love this idiocy, it keeps me sharp, to see absurdity as possibility or the thoughts of fools and wise men. Please, more nonsense. I'm building a journal, online. Those who parrot popular "thought" may be educated; however, without any originality allowed while eating this manufactured corn. Better off, ignoring this regimen.

Which of these things do not belong within the set of sane thought? A wrinkled space, i.e a conceptual frame of measure as affecting ... or an effect of a bundle of charge?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2015
Maxwell, where were you when the puzzle was first mentioned; show us how this gravitational "effect" may be "affected" by the constituent elemental charges and other bodies of charge. i.e .mass?
LOL, Maxwell's equations deal with electric charge, not gravity, dumb da dumb dumb.

Seriously, rufus, you're making Jebus look bad. Really. Religion for the duh ummm.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2015
You know, rufus, there are Christian physicists who don't deny relativity.

Maybe you should talk to them. BEFORE you post on the physics site and make them all look as dumb as you are.
jazzy_j_man
4 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2015
What a bunch of fucking nutters! Fuck all of you that can't hold a job or relationship but know how "physics is all wrong" and xtians, tell your sky daddy to pull his goddamned boner out of my arse!
Aliensarethere
5 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2015
As far as I understand, these G experiments do a lot to eliminate the influence of Earth's gravitational pull. So any variation shouldn't affect their results.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2015
One can always do a fit to variation, and in fact it is an all too popular pastime. But it amounts to data fishing, so would need a 5 sigma test whereas 3 sigma uncertainty suffice for a simple measurement. And since it injects extraneous parameters, it would need testing of its mechanism indeed.

Well, we will see if this becomes fruitful. Meanwhile, the cherry picking of data, the attempt to predict variation that is on the order of the uncertainty in some of the experiments, the having of a retiree and a "private researcher" on the team, and the interest in similar variation elsewhere (the so called "flyby anomalies"), do not lend confidence.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
One can always do a fit to variation, and in fact it is an all too popular pastime. But it amounts to data fishing, so would need a 5 sigma test whereas 3 sigma uncertainty suffice for a simple measurement. And since it injects extraneous parameters, it would need testing of its mechanism indeed.

Well, we will see if this becomes fruitful. Meanwhile, the cherry picking of data, the attempt to predict variation that is on the order of the uncertainty in some of the experiments, the having of a retiree and a "private researcher" on the team, and the interest in similar variation elsewhere (the so called "flyby anomalies"), do not lend confidence.


Everywhere, i.e. space-time, you know there is an equality of space and time defined within the measurement of C; hence, why do you need a tensor to transform, wave-length and frequency, a constant, you could even define a complex wave length and complex period if you are really trying to be creative ...
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
But smart enough to understand these attributes as reality or simply a tautology Then its OK to ridicule and speak nonsense. LOL

with me!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
As far as I understand, these G experiments do a lot to eliminate the influence of Earth's gravitational pull. So any variation shouldn't affect their results.
Well, they do the best they can, and the variation isn't *that* big.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
Else, you do not have a frontal cortex of an evolved specie; in other words, you exist among those creating a new bias called "specy". A flock of fools, or is the term "tribe" and one incapable of domestication with so much erroneous thinking, i.e. flawed logic, self worship, ... without attention to their Masters, Rutherford, Faraday, ... No, they think we shall ignore these Truths and instead "accept" magic as our theoretical foundation even though it is unproven, i.e. defined. I prefer "Flock" ... Really!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
One can always do a fit to variation, and in fact it is an all too popular pastime. But it amounts to data fishing, so would need a 5 sigma test whereas 3 sigma uncertainty suffice for a simple measurement. And since it injects extraneous parameters, it would need testing of its mechanism indeed.
I would tend toward the view that the LOD variation and G variations, if these are not in fact random systematic errors, are effects of a common cause, rather than the LOD variation causing the G measurement variations, because of the method mostly used to measure G, which tends to exclude Earth's gravity.

Well, we will see if this becomes fruitful. Meanwhile, the cherry picking of data, the attempt to predict variation that is on the order of the uncertainty in some of the experiments, the having of a retiree and a "private researcher" on the team, and the interest in similar variation elsewhere (the so called "flyby anomalies"), do not lend confidence.
Agreed.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
Rufus, now you're trying to pretend science is a religion, and that's not going to work either. We've all seen that one before, and it's been thoroughly and embarrassingly debunked many times. Suffice it to say that science goes where the evidence leads it, whereas religion is just made-up fairy tales about jealous super magic daddies in the sky.

On edit: Well, the "big three" religions are, anyway. There are some out there that are less nutty, but push on just about any of them and you're going to find a fairy tale at its core.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
there is an equality of space and time defined within the measurement of C
No, there isn't. You appear not to understand the difference between equality and equivalence.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
One can always do a fit to variation, and in fact it is an all too popular pastime. But it amounts to data fishing, so would need a 5 sigma test whereas 3 sigma uncertainty suffice for a simple measurement. And since it injects extraneous parameters, it would need testing of its mechanism indeed.
I would tend toward the view that the LOD variation and G variations, if these are not in fact random systematic errors, are effects of a common cause, rather than the LOD variation causing the G measurement variations, because of the method mostly used to measure G, which tends to exclude Earth's gravity.

.
Agreed.

Ok, except the self reference, using the measured thing to described the measured thing, is only acceptable with a correctly defined feedback loop, or a fractal space. i.e. Not classical, define your logic.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
using the measured thing to described the measured thing
Don't see where that's happening.

Remember that GM(Earth) is well-known from satellite orbits.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
I should explain why GM(Earth) is well known:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

We know F(g), because the orbit is dictated by it.
We know m', the mass of the satellite, because we built it.
We know r because we can measure the satellite's orbit.
What's left? Gm, AKA GM(Earth).
QED.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
I should explain why GM(Earth) is well known:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

We know F(g), because the orbit is dictated by it.
We know m', the mass of the satellite, because we built it.
We know r because we can measure the satellite's orbit.
What's left? Gm, AKA GM(Earth).
QED.

What, slugs and grams, what? These are assignments not the other way around, we named this measure, get it? We did not have enough information to define more than just a name not a causal effect. So if you know what you are describing, why do you need G? We already have 1 constant. What tha ... he asks.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
Dude, now you're denying Newtonian gravity.

Where is this supposed other constant you claim we have? It's a simple equation. Let me refresh your memory:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

I only see one constant. Please point the other one out.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
Here's an idea, put this wrinkle in space and match it to what we see with the perihelion of mercury, not the original calculation, but an updated calculation with another freaking constant to match the expected. Really? Are we cod?
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
Dude, now you're denying Newtonian gravity.

Where is this supposed other constant you claim we have? It's a simple equation. Let me refresh your memory:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

I only see one constant. Please point the other one out.

Your denial of the obvious is well played, you be Tweedledee and and I'll be Tweedledum. Anyway, please define your variable space as it relates to your measure. If we continue playing this game we will be denied to write upon this site eventually. So, I must excuse myself, in spite of this joy and laughter for a skit on SNL.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
I note you can't point to the "other constant" you claim exists.

As usual you make claims that are untrue and when challenged you try to deflect the conversation away from your FAIL.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2015
Rufus, you should be asking questions, not making assertions. You don't know enough to make assertions.

Not knowing is fixable. Not wanting to know is not.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
Rufus, you should be asking questions, not making assertions. You don't know enough to make assertions.

Not knowing is fixable. Not wanting to know is not.


C'est vrai!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
Still waiting for the "other constant," rufus.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
Mass is the item, the constant defined by the measured data, using the calculus of Newton. A very particular measure and not holistic with enough information; hence the question. A theory, attributes of the whole and the attributes of the constituents as defined by interpretation by whom? The property of the whole, for a particular measure, as the property of the constituent parts is illogically defined. The constant you deny exists, some kind of variable responsible for wrinkling space that has not been tested or is required. Therefore, your necessary and sufficiency conditions of your argument and my argument are two different things. No new paper is required only the destruction of many more without logic, necessary and sufficient! It is necessary and sufficient that the theory of the elemental to describe the whole is quite necessary and is sufficient. QED
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
Both masses are variables, rufus. The equation has to work for any two masses, any distance, and will yield a force for those masses at that distance.

Let me remind you again:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

FAIL.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
i.e. the house, the physics required to build the house, and the trees, all have different attributes than the house. The idea that a tree molecule has tiny little amounts of homes in them maybe the potential but not the house; ludicrous. The unit measure house, or mass depends upon us, the earth, the instrumentation, but we still have not defined the constituent parts of the mass, as nothing but more mass, and tinier and tinier amounts of mass, really!?? Bend space???!!! What the hell are you talking about, please, expound with more than ridicule! Is this not a revelation of the obvious? Measure the amount of the + and -, sum it up. Create a dipole with any orientation and motion, may you then approximate gravity as a function of the distance between these superimposed charges? Clearly, yes. Now would the like charges be closer together than the unlike charges when measuring a single instant of these two dipoles? So do you need a wrinkle in space?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2015
The unit measure house, or mass depends upon us
But the mass doesn't. You can choose any unit you like as long as you use consistent units for all masses, and units that are dimensionally consistent in the rest of the variables and constants.

Rufus, if you don't understand algebra no amount of weaseling is going to get you out of it.

The second constant, rufus. Still waiting.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
So what the hell is m in your equation and how does the m relate to G? What's the physics of your allowed deviation due to the surrounding fields and all elemental particles? Do you have data supporting your interpretation? Do you have a theory defining what causes the measure and the deviation. Or do you simply define the deviation as dark? The darkness in your head!
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2015
For example, we could use force in pound-forces (lbf), mass in pound-masses (lbm), and distance in feet, in which case the value of G would be feet cubed over the quantity pound-masses times seconds squared.

The results would still be the same. And the equation is still the same. And if you convert the lbf force to Newtons, you'll get the same answer as if you use Newtons, kilograms, and meters.

You need to point to the second constant, rufus. You're not going to divert me. I suggest you admit you screwed up and there is no second constant. You're just making yourself look stupider and stupider by trying to avoid reality.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
So what you are saying is that G is changing because the space is wrinkling periodically causing the mass to vary periodically and a constant that is not a constant, or a mass dependent upon what? Your changing measurement as the reason for the change? The work required to identify the modal response of a "mass" to any field ... forgot, we just started to collect data, never mine. You are not caught up!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
No, what I'm saying is G doesn't change. Our measurements of G are of limited precision, and therefore of limited accuracy. The measured value therefore fluctuates, depending on imprecision of our measuring techniques, systematic errors, and (allegedly, according to this article) some unknown minor fluctuation that we have not yet discovered. The article does not provide evidence that there is, in fact, any actual change in anything but our measurements. This could all still be a statistical anomaly, as Torbjorn pointed out above implicitly.

Not only do you not know any physics or any relativity, you also don't know any measurement theory.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
"unknown minor fluctuation that we have not yet discovered"

is your science not mine! Theory, allows precision.

Theory, using the unknown to define the known, and not applying known science is .... please explain!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2015
Theory, allows precision.
Theory does not define constants; these are empirical values determined by measurement. Theory defines the equation(s); measurement defines the constant(s) in the equation(s).

As you would know if your understanding of science was above the third grade level.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
Meanwhile, still no second constant, and more attempts at obfuscation.

You're FAILING again, rufus.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
Meanwhile, note that the article is, in fact, about measuring the constant.

This is duh.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
I should be thorough: in fact, deeper theories might define constants in earlier theories. This is actually an issue in current high energy particle physics. Scientists are always asking "why" and some constants' values have been defined by deeper theories; but the deepest theories, which define things like α, the fine structure constant which defines the strength of the electromagnetic force, remain unknown. The value of G is one of these unknowns; the only way we know to find its value is to try to measure it. That's why the measurements described in this article are so important. With a really good value for G, we have a value to shoot for in any proposed deeper theory, which might unify gravity with the quantum forces of the SM, and help us find a final theory of physics that shows why these constants have the values they have, as well as a quantum theory of gravity allowing full unification of the four forces of nature.

So that's part of why we measure constants.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015

So that's part of why we measure constants.
Then replace m with the equivalent q/m, use m= me + mp, also modify your constant epsilon zero with the unit "Kg or g", i.e. remove mass from the mathematics. Now compute an equivalent set of dipoles, using the known measure of distance and the properties of charge and motion and explain to me, which constants you are talking about? You may set a minimum distance apart within each mass, relative to another mass and simply set "d" to a constant, if you are lazy; but, are we also within a field? In other words, what are you talking about, an unknown reason? Wow! What are you smoking, gimme som'a dat! It is also relative to scale, gee, what magic visions you must be having! Don't forget the magnetic field and the location of the poles, include its present change, space, whatever, create a response to a calculable charge distribution, but not some new physics to explain your laziness or some head trip.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2015
Still using G, that's funny, it should be changing. Relate, everything is changing except two little particles, a swarm of them, no and ocean of them. try a planet of them, G? What are you really talking about? A change with some kind of relevant measure of your reflection upon this field, well almost, the absorption rate for humans is beginning to slow down, but the quantity is up. Blame that motion. say anything; except, "I don't know why this measurement is changing? Or maybe our precision, or ... it is changing! I would say that is understood, really? It should be changing, its not a constant, it's a result of the idea of the measure of mass, a mildly dynamic interaction among matter, and so on.. may be included, but then you need real science, which leads us to this idiotic conversation the correct expression for gravity as one without an external/improperly defined force of nature, due to lack of information. Simpletons!
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Still no second constant, rufus.

Go back and do third grade again.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Then replace m with the equivalent q/m
Why? We're not dealing with electric charge, only gravity.

it should be changing
Why? α doesn't change. c doesn't change. Why should G change?

They're called constants for a reason, duh.
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Then replace m with the equivalent q/m
Why?


Then replace m with the equivalent q/m
Why?


Good question.

Visualize: seeing the magnitude of a collection of like things, with a defined symmetry of the whole, i.e. atoms, molecules, the stationary field, dynamics, that which causes motion of the centers, stable or unstable "masses" as only groups of charge, any group … just see it, in your head! Then you may understand as a function of scale without ever using the unit "mass"! Want a transformation, note the limitations into your way of thinking.
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Why would anyone argue with an engineer about his measurement. I would give him that data as he walked through the door. i.e.what are we talking bout, an insult.

This definition is more holistic, the math is the same; however, the initial conditions ... I'm wasting my time, you will never see the continuum, lucky it takes intelligence to distort it, ugh BB, what you get mathematically has much greater dynamics once the transition to q from m is properly applied to a four dimensional space. You are blind without it.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Visualize: seeing the magnitude of a collection of like things, with a defined symmetry of the whole, i.e. atoms, molecules, the stationary field, dynamics, that which causes motion of the centers
None of this is relevant to

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

You FAIL again.

Holism is irrelevant. Physics equations are independent of the background; that's why they're equations, and not recipes.

And you still haven't pointed out the second constant. FAIL again, thrice.
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Define, in 4D, from a zero ref frame of an electron with and without interaction, just this simulation ... this is the 21st century, we should be able to reach anywhere in the universe within a century. Sooner with cooperation instead of the BS in Washington and the rest of this crazy world. If you need more information, hire me.

Just 4D, any dimension as time, or distance. Can every point be defined with a known boundary? Of course we know that now, 4D is already being calculated, but when we are out of space and time, i.e the reflection is distance translated backward in time and time is reflected backward in time,
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2015
Define, in 4D, from a zero ref frame of an electron with and without interaction, just this simulation
Why? I don't see anything there that has to do with gravity. You're talking about electrons, and that's quantum mechanics, and there isn't any quantum theory of gravity. This is, again, totally irrelevant to the gravitic constant, G.

You're deflecting again and FAIL.

Seriously, rufus, do you not understand that the entire point of physics is to provide simple equations like

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

that define how forces work?

Look at Newton's laws of motion. Here they are in mathematical form:

0 = 0
F = ma
F = -F

See anything tough there? Notice how simple they are? That simplicity is the work of genius. That's why Newton is famous, and you aren't.
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Would this be an anti-particle?

Isn't this rather obvious when you see it with 4 orthogonal lines, a sort as, I see 3, I see 4, and now we have new quadrants! Are they all real? some are verifiable and we got that new science you been looking for which is not new at all, it's like you and them, all 'been still eating the manufactured corn since the 20th century.
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Want the complete theory,stop the BS and negotiate.
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
T$, question is it possible to 4D-invert which properties? Inverters build super-computers. Then there are matter transformation, energy transformation,optics, ok, ok, most of this is well defined, "just beginning decent plasma experiments, but the insight! Opportunity, if you do it correctly.
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
But I think the new supercomputer "gets it" already, necessary delays, with few concepts not applied. Anyway, my insult, I'm not too good at this; but, you don't even appear to have a mind or you are and intellectual property thief. I've already publish the basics but not the later. So good luck with G.
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Anyway, to address G, show the distribution of the center of all rotating matter (mass) traveling around the sun, also do a total center of gravity relative to the earth, just a conjecture ..
Kedas
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
It's just those anti-gravity engines of the aliens that keep messing with the measurements.
(kidding, but can't prove it isn't so)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2015
Anyway, to address G, show the distribution of the center of all rotating matter (mass) traveling around the sun, also do a total center of gravity relative to the earth, just a conjecture ..

Rufus,
I'm sure all of this is clear as a bell - in your own head. To me, at least, your choice of words seem rather, well, obfuscating...
You kinda sound like Reality Check... or JVK.
Rather than doing the whole "I know something and you don't" game try explaining yourself more clearly...
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2015
@Whydening Gyre & Da Schneib if either of you are American then you'll know more about this idea than I do; Isn't Rufus Warren and American Football Player? Separating with a 'g' (gravity) might explain where rufus 'is coming from'.
When I looked at rufus's '...show the distribution of the center of all rotating matter...' thinking of Parallel axes theorem and Papus along with astro perturbation theory, it reminded me of a 'game plan'. Maybe just my warped sense of humour!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2015
@Whydening Gyre & Da Schneib if either of you are American then you'll know more about this idea than I do; Isn't Rufus Warren and American Football Player? Separating with a 'g' (gravity) might explain where rufus 'is coming from'.

American, but not a big sports fan, so only watch during playoffs if Chicago is in it...
When I looked at rufus's '...show the distribution of the center of all rotating matter...'

"rotating matter" is an interesting postulation... which necessitates oppositional rotation, with all the really interesting stuff happening at the boundaries...
thinking of Parallel axes theorem and Papus along with astro perturbation theory, it reminded me of a 'game plan'.

If they were all Parallel and contiguous, we wouldn't have boundaries, therefore "us"...
Don't know what a Papus is, or astro perturbation. But David Bowie sings - "It's no game..."
Maybe just my warped sense of humour!

Warped is fun - and even useful...:-)
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2015
Thanks guys. Multiple formal papers have been rejected, i.e. needs more work. Moe work? Maxwell needs more work? Really? I'm demonstrating what is bullsh*t. I show the speed of the wave front of light is obviously from -infinity to +infinity, common sense. I show a calculation, irrefutable, for the force of gravity. Rejected. I show how to compute attractive and repulsive forces in molecules, attraction is the big winner at distance, self assembly, repulsion plays only upon stability during a forced containment, .... No buyers. I'm leaving earth pretty soon, so I thought I would blast what I see. Well, not leaving, being absorbed, burnt, and recycled after death, maybe. I won't be there to validate my wishes.

So be careful, present beliefs in theoretical physics is more of a religion than science, its all about the unknown. This is what the unknown-known looks like. Only paper required is the lack of it.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2015
I played football in high school at 140 lbs, in 1965. I was so small, I was always busted-up. But I was stupid enough to get back up and get busted again, and again. Became the model of courage for all the players. (Present thinking-Really? High School!) The coach took me on the road with the team even though I was on crutches. Did not ever get into a game. So not the star "Rufus" of the Mississippi Bull Dogs but an NCA&T Bull Dog where I never played sports. Diff bulldogs and diff Rufus. I'm prettier!
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2015
Present theory has as much science as what was used to a pass law, marijuana made illegal. Test what people are telling you and what you think is the correct measure based upon reality not bias, emotion, or misguided thinking.

An old hippie theory, mine.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2015
Thanks guys. Multiple formal papers have been rejected, i.e. needs more work. Moe work?

He made Larry an Curly do all the work...
I show the speed of the wave front of light is obviously from -infinity to +infinity, common sense.

What is the basis of that statement?
I show a calculation, irrefutable, for the force of gravity. Rejected.

As an artist - I know rejection... That would be an interesting calculation, but I want to know why you feel it to be irrefutable? Is there such a thing?
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
I show how to compute attractive and repulsive forces in molecules, attraction is the big winner at distance, self assembly, repulsion plays only upon stability during a forced containment, .... No buyers.

That also would be an interesting read...
I'm leaving earth pretty soon, so I thought I would blast what I see. Well, not leaving, being absorbed, burnt, and recycled after death, maybe. I won't be there to validate my wishes.

In my business, we call it UP-cycled...:-) - we can charge more...:-)
Here's one for ya -
It's ALL loops. Notice how everything (within this galaxy, anyway) is corkscrewing it's way through space?
We'll just see ya in the next loop...:-)

rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Thanks guys. Multiple formal papers have been rejected, i.e. needs more work. Moe work?

He made Larry an Curly do all the work...
I show the speed of the wave front of light is obviously from -infinity to +infinity, common sense.

What is the basis of that statement?
I show a calculation, irrefutable, for the force of gravity. Rejected.

As an artist - I know rejection... That would be an interesting calculation, but I want to know why you feel it to be irrefutable? Is there such a thing?


Do you exist? This not a puzzle, relative to me that I think is common sense. If you can't see that you haven't learned, "How many blocks are there?"
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Thanks guys. Multiple formal papers have been rejected, i.e. needs more work. Moe work?

He made Larry an Curly do all the work...
I show the speed of the wave front of light is obviously from -infinity to +infinity, common sense.

What is the basis of that statement?
I show a calculation, irrefutable, for the force of gravity. Rejected.

As an artist - I know rejection... That would be an interesting calculation, but I want to know why you feel it to be irrefutable? Is there such a thing?


Do you exist? This not a puzzle, relative to me that I think is common sense. If you can't see that you haven't learned, "How many blocks are there?"

Really? Did you not get this before you got your graduate degree based upon someone's stupidity or the stupidity of the whole. Yea, we can define rejection, just be specific.
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015

Do you exist? This not a puzzle, relative to me that I think is common sense. If you can't see that you haven't learned, "How many blocks are there?"
Really? Did you not get this before you got your graduate degree based upon someone's stupidity or the stupidity of the whole. Yea, we can define rejection, just be specific.
I don't care, just my 0.02 apprx. of 100/1 ie Value of a dollar relative to the value of a: penny is getting bigger.
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015

Do you exist? This not a puzzle, relative to me that I think is common sense. If you can't see that you haven't learned, "How many blocks are there?"

Really? Did you not get this before you got your graduate degree based upon someone's stupidity or the stupidity of the whole. Yea, we can define rejection, just be specific.
I don't care, just my 0.02 apprx. of 100/1 ie Value of a dollar relative to the value of a: penny is getting bigger.
Was this weird or what?
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Relative to what? No assumptions! Traceable information and mathematics is a description of itself, we don't need to try to redefine Maxwell. But, there exist a better description, the 4D space is definable empirically without any assumptions. A Four dimensional representation of the singularity, +/- charge! I think good software should be able to converge. At least we get that fit to known theory of the singularity. We know that!
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Relative to what? No assumptions! Traceable information and mathematics is a description of itself, we don't need to try to redefine Maxwell. But, there exist a better description, the 4D space is definable empirically without any assumptions. A Four dimensional representation of the singularity, +/- charge! I think good software should be able to converge. At least we get that fit to known theory of the singularity. We know that!


time and space same thing, all mapped to any lambda nu or lambda T ..
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Relative to what? No assumptions! Traceable information and mathematics is a description of itself, we don't need to try to redefine Maxwell. But, there exist a better description, the 4D space is definable empirically without any assumptions. A Four dimensional representation of the singularity, +/- charge! I think good software should be able to converge. At least we get that fit to known theory of the singularity. We know that!


time and space same thing, all mapped to any lambda nu or lambda T ..

Space and the fields and or observation point as any point or just our 3D or frame" blah, blah ..
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
I show how to compute attractive and repulsive forces in molecules, attraction is the big winner at distance, self assembly, repulsion plays only upon stability during a forced containment, .... No buyers.

That also would be an interesting read...
I'm leaving earth pretty soon, so I thought I would blast what I see. Well, not leaving, being absorbed, burnt, and recycled after death, maybe. I won't be there to validate my wishes.

In my business, we call it UP-cycled...:-) - we can charge more...:-)
Here's one for ya -
It's ALL loops. Notice how everything (within this galaxy, anyway) is corkscrewing it's way through space?
We'll just see ya in the next loop...:-)


You could then use another constant of iteration, a dimension of time, or a dimension of space, using any initial configuration based only upon known physics, i.e. precision!
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
I show how to compute attractive and repulsive forces in molecules, attraction is the big winner at distance, self assembly, repulsion plays only upon stability during a forced containment, .... No buyers.

That also would be an interesting read...
I'm leaving earth pretty soon, so I thought I would blast what I see. Well, not leaving, being absorbed, burnt, and recycled after death, maybe. I won't be there to validate my wishes.

In my business, we call it UP-cycled...:-) - we can charge more...:-)
Here's one for ya -
It's ALL loops. Notice how everything (within this galaxy, anyway) is corkscrewing it's way through space?
We'll just see ya in the next loop...:-)


You could then use another constant of iteration, a dimension of time, or a dimension of space, using any initial configuration based only upon known physics, i.e. precision!


So why not pick the loop!
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
I show how to compute attractive and repulsive forces in molecules, attraction is the big winner at distance, self assembly, repulsion plays only upon stability during a forced containment, .... No buyers.

That also would be an interesting read...
I'm leaving earth pretty soon, so I thought I would blast what I see. Well, not leaving, being absorbed, burnt, and recycled after death, maybe. I won't be there to validate my wishes.

In my business, we call it UP-cycled...:-) - we can charge more...:-)
Here's one for ya -
It's ALL loops. Notice how everything (within this galaxy, anyway) is corkscrewing it's way through space?
We'll just see ya in the next loop...:-)

So why not pick the loop!


In other words, predict the value of your misguided measurement!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2015
Well, Rufus...
That was a quite a conversation you just had with yourself, there.

What I THINK you might be trying to describe is - triangulation of time and space. Which SHOULD be simple geometry...

Or not...
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015

Do you exist? This not a puzzle, relative to me that I think is common sense. If you can't see that you haven't learned, "How many blocks are there?"

Really? Did you not get this before you got your graduate degree based upon someone's stupidity or the stupidity of the whole. Yea, we can define rejection, just be specific.

I don't care, just my 0.02 apprx. of 100/1 ie Value of a dollar relative to the value of a: penny is getting bigger.

Was this weird or what?

Yup...
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Great wisdom, let me out of this rabbit hole.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Apr 27, 2015
Great wisdom, let me out of this rabbit hole.

falling in is easy...
Crawling back out - ain't...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.