Is the Gravitational
linked to the Sunspot Cycle?
09/27/09 - Why is the Gravitational
Constant so sloppy? Is it merely measuring error, or is there room to
argue that the constant may fluctuate between the 2nd and 4th decimal?
Before posting these questions, I checked the Bautforum for previous
posts, the most relevant one seems to be
this query in aid of a seemingly dead-end contentious debate, which
was of little help.
reference link from Wikipidia's page on "Gravitational Constant",
note this excerpt from the abstract:
"...G stands mysteriously alone, its history being that of a quantity
which is extremely difficult to measure and which remains virtually
isolated from the theoretical structure of the rest of physics. Several
attempts aimed at changing this situation are now underway, but the most
recent experimental results have once again produced conflicting values
of G and, in spite of some progress and much interest, there remains to
date no universally accepted way of predicting its absolute value..."
The measurements seem surprisingly sketchy when considering that most
Universal Constants can be measured to the 8th to 10th decimal.
list of contemporary measurements, there seems little agreement to
the third decimal:
Luther 1982 Torsion pendulum 6:6726 § 0:0005 75
Fitzgerald 1995 Torsion balance 6:6656 § 0:0006 90
Schwarz 1998 Free fall 6:6873 § 0:0094 1400
KĻundig 2002 Beam balance 6:67407 § 0:00022 200
Posting a query on the
baut forum about the 'soft' data of the Gravitational Constant, I
took it into my head to place the year that the Gravitational Constant
measurements were taken, in relation to the sunspot cycle. Needless to
say, this data is thin to the point of being laughable, but still - an
amusing thought.Notice the smaller result during low sunspot activity:
| Return |