Fwd: Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:25:40 -0500
From: Sam Wormley
Newsgroups: sci.physics

Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravita...tant-vary.html

(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
gravitational constant 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.

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.)

Read more at:
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravita...-vary.html#jCp


--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:26:35 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote this crap:




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:25:40 -0500
From: Sam Wormley
Newsgroups: sci.physics

Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravita...tant-vary.html

(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
gravitational constant 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.

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.)

Read more at:
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravita...-vary.html#jCp

All numbers are variables. The day I realized that fact was the day I
became a mathematician.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 6:26:38 PM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?

You are such strange people inhabiting the 21st century and all its technological achievements. Newton's 'universal gravitation' is nothing other than a subterfuge for the empirical method which doesn't make the necessary distinctions between analogies and motions at all scales from a human level to a celestial scale so that a fall of an apple is meant to convey the same ideology as the motion of the stars around the galaxy or smaller motions.

I found all the ideologies which separate us from the original geocentric astronomers to be fascinating and even the twisted narratives meant to justify Newton and the exotic notions of the early 20th century are easy enough to grasp. It is like listening to a police confession as your colleagues conjure up stories for whatever goal is aimed for but unfortunately the goals now are vague and jargon filled ,meaningless nonsense.

The unwary world is hardly aware of the damage behind a simple statement but it is only damage as long as people accept it -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

Even when it is obvious that nothing is to be gained by such an overreaching agenda,not even for an instant, the purveyors of that doctrine do not know when to compromise. All that will happen now is that it will create more people like Sam here and while he may be a decent man who means no harm, he uses the vehicle of the education system to infect the next generation. This is no personal attack on any one individual,it is the infectious trait of a cult that has long since lost its effectiveness.

Astronomy is a visual exercise in case you all haven't forgotten or never understood it in the first place.

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:00:50 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

All numbers are variables. The day I realized that fact was the day I
became a mathematician.

And gave up any hope of being a physicist.

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:25:59 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:00:50 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

All numbers are variables. The day I realized that fact was the day I
became a mathematician.

And gave up any hope of being a physicist.

I never wanted to be physicist. There's not enough money in it.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:38:43 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

I never wanted to be physicist. There's not enough money in it.

And yet, you feel yourself competent to challenge mainstream physics.

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 11:26:38 AM UTC-6, Sam Wormley wrote:

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.

Thus, while they don't know what the cause of the correlation is, _presumably_
this periodic oscillation is affecting something against which sensitive
measurements of G are calibrated - whatever method is chosen to measure G.

That should narrow it down some. Although to me this is still hard to believe;
most sensitive measurements of G involve things like torsion balances; they're
not comparing the gravitational force exerted by a large mass on another mass
to the Earth's gravity.

But, of course, the torsion balance has to be calibrated.

However, the gravitational force on standard masses is known to vary with
things like the longitude of the laboratory. Calibrating a torsion balance with
electromagnetic or electrostatic forces, since voltages and currents can be
measured with high precision, seems much more natural - but this result implies that it's *never been done*.

So I am quite puzzled here.

Of course, the Earth's rotation doesn't just fight against the force of the
Earth's gravity - creating an adjustment needed for pendulum clocks. Maybe that
centrifugal force directly interferes with the gravitational forces exerted by
test masses? But that would depend on the orientation of the experiment, so the
consistent results found would not be produced!

John Savard