Thanks to one of Keith's posts I got to thinking about Planck's constant. I started off with a nice easy page meant for school kids and noted that Planck's constant was given as 6.626 - Mmm....Haven't I seen that number before recently? What was that gravitational constant? - 6.670 - Mmm....not the same, but not a million miles from each other numerically - I wonder why that it.
And then something else occurred to me. The precision with which Planck's constant is defined is not much better than that with which the allegedly UNIVERSAL CONSTANT OF GRAVITATION is defined. In short, because h involves Mass, it too varies with the seasons. What a laugh! What a joke! When I came up before my supposedly "Expert Panel" on trial for my heretical Note - see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blazelabs/files/I.H.M./ one idiot, a Fellow of the Royal Society no less, was chuntering on about how wonderfully precise physics was - I think he must have been referring to the Lamb-Retherford shift - let's google it - yes here it is - ========================================== whereas the most recent experimental value is 1.001159652193 (with a possible error of about 10 in the last two digits). ========================================== Now that's what you call precision, man! But of course, you can't get that precision for G or h coz the summertime value ain't the same as the value in the winter. Mark Twain once needed to point out that "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." Well, I'm afraid that the constancy of Planck's constant has been greatly exaggerated as well. I wonder if Savvy included Planck's constant in his list. Ah, yes, there it is. I've singled it out with three plus signs on either side. ================================================================== 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's 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". ========================================================================= No wonder Savvy blew his top. These things take longer to sink in with me. Maybe anno domini is catching up, eh! :-( This situation is really getting beyond a joke. I can see that I shall have to scan some of my expert panel documents and put them on Blaze Labs Yahoo website. That should frighten the horses. :-) The Official Secrets Act will just have to go hang. I can't imagine that Tony Blair would be stupid enough to prosecute me - especially after that recent foul up involving a government scientist who topped himself. And if he does - well that will bring everything out into the open, wont it. 8-] Cheers Grimer
