Gravitational Constant

[renormalised (Carl)]

Oh, and another thing....the Solar System doesn't orbit the Great Attractor. The Great Attractor is a massive group of galaxy superclusters in the direction of Centaurus-Hydra and about 500Mly away. The Milky Way and the rest of the galaxies in the general neighbourhood, including the Virgo Supercluster (of which we're an outlier galaxy) is streaming towards that general direction, but hardly orbiting it.

The Solar System orbits the centre of the Galaxy once every 250 million years (that's the new figure...the one you quoted (226Ma...actually 225Ma) is out of date despite still being oft quoted and in textbooks).

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

I got the towel ready first mention of plasma and it's going in.

[CraigS]

Cosmic plasma .. cosmic plasma .. cosmic plasma !!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by craigs

cosmic plasma .. Cosmic plasma .. Cosmic plasma !!
:p

towel towel towel

[CraigS]

Hi Ernie;

I think that in order to refute things as strongly supported in Astrophysics as the constancy of G, or the mass of the Earth, or the fundamentals of Special Relativity, one has to demonstrate a strong understanding of the principles upon which each of these concepts is built. A simple read on the history/thinking Einstein went through leading to his theory of SR, usually lays out the rationale underpinning SR theory (for example). Subsequent empirical testing has removed any doubts in mainstream Science.

So far, all of the reference sources you have quoted, have been clearly refuted in some shape or another and yet, I haven't yet seen any acknowledgements or attempts at interactive conversation on this from you at all.

It seems to me that you are selecting information from pseudoscientific sources, without any consideration of reputable sources or value-laden feedback on the same subject. Making no visible attempts to comprehend the bases upon which the cornerstones of modern physics rest, makes your quest look completely biased, unyielding and uninformed.

The name of the game in refutation is to demonstrate some mastery of the topic you are attempting to refute. Quoting any paper from any source on the web, which supports one's own viewpoint, means nothing thesedays, as there is so much mis-information out there, one has to develop knowledge to separate the rubbish from value.

I'm sure everyone here will help you along this path, if you choose to take it. Some attempts at conversation/feedback and sharing your views along these lines, wouldn't go astray here.

Cheers

[Ernest Wilson]

Hi CraigS,
You are right; I have been selective because I do not see agreement amongst the physicists. Perhaps I should have used relative velocity with the Earth's velocity relative to the Sun as 30 kps and relative to Sagitarrius A( as Renormalised Reminded me) as 250 +/-30. I don't have the expertise to take this any further, but there is a very good discussion on the subject on the net, reference below. I assure you I have learned quite a bit from our discussions.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47515
www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47515Cached - Similar
20 posts - 7 authors - Last post: 25 Jul 2005
Absolute Velocity - Meaningful but Useless Physics & Math.

Cheerio, Ernie.