This is the kind of anomaly that research money should be literally thrown at.
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.
the premise is an oxymoron...
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.
So yeah, I conclude
Hypothesis:
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.
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.
Is there enough evidence to settle anything,
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."
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."
Yeah, it's kinda weird. The Wikipedia article even mentions this counter-intuitive aspect of the terminology. http://en.wikiped...leration1. 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...
It's sorta like explaining quantum mechanics to chickens. Obvious to me; however, chickens are only concerned about the manufactured corn.
Ignore him. Hes a religionist. Lingering questions is proof that god exists.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.
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.
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.
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.
An affect generates an effect.Dude, you just used affect as a noun again.
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.
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.
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.
there is an equality of space and time defined within the measurement of CNo, there isn't. You appear not to understand the difference between equality and equivalence.
using the measured thing to described the measured thingDon't see where that's happening.
The unit measure house, or mass depends upon usBut 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.
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).
Then replace m with the equivalent q/mWhy? We're not dealing with electric charge, only gravity.
it should be changingWhy? α doesn't change. c doesn't change. Why should G change?
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 centersNone of this is relevant to
Define, in 4D, from a zero ref frame of an electron with and without interaction, just this simulationWhy? 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.
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 ..
@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!
Thanks guys. Multiple formal papers have been rejected, i.e. needs more work. Moe work?
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.
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?
katesisco
Apr 21, 2015