PDA

View Full Version : Gravitational Constant



Carl Johnson
2017-Mar-10, 06:51 PM
I am a Theoretical Physicist (U of chicago '67) who has studied deeply regardingn gravitation. You published (or copied) a presentation of Anderson et al of two years ago which is in serious need of repair.

Their group claimed that the value of G fluctuates at a rather precise rate of 5.9 years. As I always do in MY researches, I examined the error factors in the graph they presentt which they base everything on. Anderson did NOT include such error data, and they IMPLY their data is solid. When I duplicated the error data of their thirteen data points, I expected to get a good r-squared value of around 0.999. Their data failed in that, as their r-squared was less than 0.60, in other words, a failure.

In addition, they had absolutely overlooked the obvious fact that the Earth and Moon orbit around a Barycenter, which is deep within the Earth. Anderson should have monitored the location of the Moon in its orbit, to know where the Barycenter was during each experiment. Worse, the LOCATION of the experiment also affects the space angle of the insftantaneous Gravitational Constant for any given experiment location.

The result of these failures is that no possible claim for a 5.9 year period could apply, and the position of all the data points on their graph needs to be changed.

POSSIBLY, after those serious correcdtions are done, a graph which might have some value mighht be possible.

I do not have the geographic locations at which their data point experiments were done. Buut MY research suggests that the corrections for these errors and the corrections regarding the mass of the Moon and the Barycenter, may entirely eliminate all the "sine wave" claims they made.

In addition, in a rather sad statement, they claim to see an amazing correlation between the sine-wave changes they see and the LOD data. Again, examination of the data points shows that no such claim can be made, and cerainly not to the incredible graph match they claim.

Virtually everything in that Anderson presention has no scientific merit.


You might look at my Research of 2004
at
http://mb-soft.com/public2/newtongr.html


Or my more recent work at
http://mb-soft.com/public4/gravity7.html


Carl Johnson

slang
2017-Mar-11, 10:06 PM
You published (or copied) a presentation of Anderson et al of two years ago which is in serious need of repair.

Can you provide a link to where this supposed publishing has taken place?

Reality Check
2017-Mar-13, 01:12 AM
Welcome to the forum, Carl Johnson.
The paper you seem to be referring to is 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 (http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/110/1/10002/article)
This was described at Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much? (https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html).
Anderson et. al. do include error data - see their Fig 1. with error bars. More details about the errors are in the referenced papers. Possible causes of the periodicity are listed in the paper.
They report a "G/LOD correlation, whose statistical significance is 0.99764", not your assertion of 0.60. Please provide your calculation + working.