Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Wilson
Thank you Bojan. A vexing question apparently even for physicists with rather robust arguments being expressed at times. I will just have to consider two conflicting assumptions, a constant G and a variable G, in my work. A constant G means that the Earth maintains its mass throughout time and is why subduction had to be invoked to counteract the expansion that is evident in formation of the oceans. A variable G means that Expansion and Contraction could have alternated throughout time, and might help geologists who believe that both expansion and contraction have taken place on Earth. At the moment, reconciling the observations is difficult and we encounter anomalies and paradoxes that seem to defy explanation. Ernie.
|
Ernest,
Physicists have nothing to worry about given the link you have provided is pure pseudoscience nonsense. A simple examination of the G vs time plots indicates there is no "pseudo sinusoidal" variation of G.
The author refers to the works of Dayton Miller. In the history of the MM experiment no one has been able to reproduce Miller's results, so it is fairly certain there was a major flaw in Miller's experiment.
Why refer to the MM experiment in the first place? It was designed to measure differences in the speed of light as the Earth moved through the (non existent) aether and has nothing to do with G.
That is only the tip of the iceberg. The author makes many errors in his interpretation of Newtonian physics, SR and GR.
If G is assumed to vary, why is this due to a variation in the Earth's mass? You have two other "possible" variables, the mass of the other body (ie Sun or Moon) and distance between the Earth and the body.
The fact is G is a proportionality constant. As has been pointed out, the variations are due to experimental error.
Regards
Steven