Well, one couldn't ask for a better testimonial, even if one had written it oneself. :-)
====================================================== http://tinyurl.com/43v9r ------------------------------------------------------ Mikhail Gershteyn, a visiting scientist at the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Centre and his colleagues have successfully and experimentally demonstrated that the well-known force of gravitation between two test bodies varies with their orientation in space, relative to a system of distant stars. ... Newton's gravitational constant G changes with the orientation of test masses by at least 0.054 per cent, according to Gershteyn's experiments, a remarkable and unprecedented finding that has landed his paper on the subject in the journal Gravitation and Cosmology. ====================================================== And as as you will see from the below extract taken from the Blaze Labs Yahoo website, Ing.Saviour is definitely up to speed.8-) =================================================================== > Now, we know that G is always measured indirectly, with the false > assumption that the masses (both of the equipment and that of earth) > are constant. But we know that this is not true. It CANNOT be. The > value of the MEASURED G will thus vary with the time of year in which > the experiment is done, but not because REAL G is varying, but > because the mass property is varying with the relative velocity of > earth to the whole universe. > > Measuring G with such a false assumption would be better defined as > science horoscopy and no matter how accurate the experiment is, will > always give different readings at different times. As a matter of > fact, G is not the only measured unit that suffers such variations. > > The consequences of this finding, which is a direct consequence of > the ST conversion clean-up, are quite ground shaking, considering > that quite a lot of parameters have to be accepted as varying with > star positions, and these include all those SI units having the Kg > unit in their definition, which are: > > Refer to : http://blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp > > Force, surface tension, energy, power, density, mass, momentum, > impulse, moment, torque, angular momentum, inertia, pressure, stress, > resistance, impedance, conductance, capacitance, inductance, magnetic > flux, magnetic flux density, magnetic reluctance, electric flux > density, electric field strength, voltage, MMF, permittivity, > permittivity, permeability, resistivity, enthalpy, conductivity, > thermal conductivity, energy density, ion mobility, dynamic > viscosity, fluidity, effective radiated power, radiant flux, > gravitational constant, planck constant, young modulus, electron > volt, hubble constant, boltzmann constant, molar gas constant and > entropy. > > The consequences of such a variation are just overwhelming! Just > think about how ridiculous is that 1kg prototype sitting at the > International Bureau of weights and measures, which is cycling it's > own mass in sinusoidal fashion whilst encapsulated and 'stationary' > under that glass jar! NIST has now to define the 1Kg something > like: "This prototype shall henceforth be considered to be the unit > of mass measured when Leo, earth and the sun line up once every year". =================================================================== Cheers Grimer At 10:05 pm 27-10-04 +0000, you wrote: >------------------------------------------------------ >Uncertainty in the Universal Gravitational Constant G. >------------------------------------------------------ > >How's about this then? 8-) > >At least they admit it - especially the Russkies. > >====================================================== >http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/gconst.html >------------------------------------------------------ >Recently the value of G has been called into question >by new measurements from respected research teams in >Germany, New Zealand, and Russia. The new values >disagree wildly. For example, a team from the German >Institute of Standards led by W. Michaelis obtained a >value for G that is 0.6% larger than the accepted >value; a group from the University of Wuppertal in >Germany led by Hinrich Meyer found a value that is >0.06% lower, and Mark Fitzgerald and collaborators at >Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand >measured a value that is 0.1% lower. The Russian group >found a curious space and time variation of G of up to >0.7% The collection of these new results suggests that >the uncertainty in G could be much larger than >originally thought. This controversy has spurred >several efforts to make a more reliable measure of G. >====================================================== > >Cheers > >Grimer > >
