Strength of gravity shifts – and this time it's serious

Well this recent article from newscientist.com is certainly interesting, for the record the thread title is copied from the article. Reminds me of the controversial TED talk titled the science delusion. In that talk Rupert made same very good points about why it's possible that some of natures "constants" may actually be changing. In the article they postulate the existence of a new field which could help explain dark energy. Extremely interesting stuff.

Did gravity, the force that pins us to Earth's surface and holds stars together, just shift? Maybe, just maybe. The latest measurement of G, the so-called constant that puts a figure on the gravitational attraction between two objects, has come up higher than the current official value.

Measurements of G are notoriously unreliable, so the constant is in permanent flux and the official value is an average. However, the recent deviation is particularly puzzling, as it is at once starkly different to the official value and yet very similar to a measurement made back in 2001, not what you would expect if the discrepancy was due to random experimental errors.

It's possible that both experiments suffer from a hidden, persistent error, but the result is also prompting serious consideration of a weirder possibility: that G itself can change. That's a pretty radical option, but if correct, it would take us a step closer to tackling one very big mystery – dark energy, the unknown entity accelerating the expansion of the universe.

Strength of gravity shifts – and this time it's serious

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Thats an interesting Ted talk, I posted a thread about it a few weeks ago.

I wonder what the maximum deviation could be? Could we wake up one day and find ourselves floating? Or stuck to the bed unable to move? LOL

I think this is entirely plausible but im not sure the extremes are going to be enough to make any particular difference to anything.

Wouldn't it be cool though, to have a place on earth with moon like gravity. THAT my friends is a place to build a theme park!

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Very interesting article, thanks for sharing.

I made a thread last week about the possibility of our solar system revolving around the milky way into an area of space where the energy is much more different and highly charged. This affects everything in our solar system including our planets' electromagnetic fields and harmonics.

I personally believe that Earth's electromagnetic fields are responsible for our gravitational effects oppose to Newton's Law.

Very interesting to see possible evidence of changes in our gravity.

what this would probably mean is "the bigger they are the harder they fall" just got Bigger.. and Harder LOL

may also mean, that when # hit's the fan, the fan may also get damaged besides getting 'filthy' from an increase in force.

ok.. kidding and stale jokes aside..

it could mean that the planet's density is increasing. matter in this region of space itself may be increasing in density, including the matter that makes up our bodies.

this is if they havent made any errors in testing that corrupted the results of the experiments.

I was just watching that TED lecture again and he also mentions that in the past the speed of light has appeared to change and how scientists managed to fix that problem by defining the metre in terms of the speed of light. So even if the speed of light does change we wont notice it because the unit we use to measure it will change with it.

The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second

en.wikipedia.org...

So lets see how a metre is defined:

The metre is the fundamental unit of length in the International System of Units (SI).[1] Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's equator to the North Pole (at sea level), its definition has been periodically refined to reflect growing knowledge of metrology. Since 1983, it has been defined as:

"the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."

en.wikipedia.org...

Which brings us to the second:

With the advent of atomic clocks, it became feasible to define the second based on fundamental properties of nature. Since 1967, the second has been defined to be:

"the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."

During the 1970s it was realized that gravitational time dilation caused the second produced by each atomic clock to differ depending on its altitude. A uniform second was produced by correcting the output of each atomic clock to mean sea level (the rotating geoid), lengthening the second by about 1×10−10. The definition of the second was later refined at the 1997 meeting of the BIPM to include the statement:

"This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K."

en.wikipedia.org...

Well this seems like a never ending loop of insanity if there ever was one. Perhaps quantum mechanics can help use to quantize this problem. I like to reduce things down to quantum mechanics when ever possible, because it breaks everything into discrete units and I believe it's the truest description of nature at the most fundamental levels.

In physics, the Planck time (tP) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length.[1] The unit is named after Max Planck, who was the first to propose it.

The Planck time is defined as:

tP = √(ħG/c^5) ≈ 5.39106(32) × 10−44 s

where:

ħ = h/2π is the reduced Planck constant
G = gravitational constant
c = speed of light in a vacuum
s is the SI unit of time, the second.

en.wikipedia.org...

In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616199(97)×10−35 metres. It is a base unit in the system of Planck units, developed by physicist Max Planck. The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant.

The Planck length is defined as:

ℓP = √(ħG/c^3) ≈ 1.616199(97)×10−35

en.wikipedia.org...

Well that's not much help, because the Planck Time equation uses G and c! And the Planck Length isn't much help either because it's also derived using G and c. These are hardly "natural units" imo. If G or c change than it means the Planck Time and Planck Length are not static values.

So, does this mean I didn't really gain an extra pound or two of fat?

Maybe the sun's mass is increasing? Could the Earth be spinning faster? I'm not sure I understand how this would happen?

MystikMushroom
Maybe the sun's mass is increasing? Could the Earth be spinning faster? I'm not sure I understand how this would happen?

The only way it could really be possible is if there were some sort of field which affected the strength of gravity, and that field was stronger and weaker in different parts of space, so as the Earth moved through space it would experience very slightly different levels of gravity, probably too small to ever feel, but measurable with sensitive equipment. The field could be connected to dark energy and the higgs field.

MystikMushroom
So, does this mean I didn't really gain an extra pound or two of fat?

Maybe the sun's mass is increasing? Could the Earth be spinning faster? I'm not sure I understand how this would happen?

maybe the atoms are spinning faster. generating a stronger magnetic field and conglomerately contributing to an increase in G

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


perhaps the location of measuring Gravity was in flux


i have read thet the planet Earth is reeling from the series of 8 major quakes...now that factor plus the apparent weirdness of the Earth Core and Mantle flows has perhaps caused a really bad reading or value of Gravity at that base point.


it really disgusts me when scientists think they hold ALL the high cards and are always & absolutely correct


it does not have to be somethging exotic like dark matter that is affecting the measurements...yeah right... just like not 'life' can't exist that lives on sulfuric acid instead of the Suns energy (search deep ocean 'smokers' & that Alien chain of life environment)

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I am not sure this is true....but then again I am nothing close to a physicist.

It would seem to me that since we don't know the source of gravity, we can't speculate too much about it. Essentially, we are quantifying the shadow cast by a vapor, where we can only see the shadow.

Consider this: there is a known relation between EM and G. I guess "known" is a poor choice...but it is observed and seemingly acknowledged (even if uncomfortably).

The EU models include Birkeland Strands, with the stars essentially being a glow discharge along those strands/currents. It would seem possible, then (if we can postulate) that G could change in relation to the amount of energy fed into our system via the Birkeland current we are associated with.

Far simplified in concept....but I hope that I was clear.

ETA: to clarify: gravity is correlative to mass. Matter and energy are essentially the same thing in different outward appearances (it is why LLNL has been able to make "black holes" using lasers). If more energy is fed into our system.....massive energy instead of massive matter.

I think that may be more clear.

bigfatfurrytexan


It would seem to me that since we don't know the source of gravity, we can't speculate too much about it.

IMO source of gravity is time coupled dark matter

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


But that is more guessing.

We can no more prove the existence of dark matter than we can prove that gravity is a force, and not a property.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


All human measurements are basically combinations of time, temperature, charge, length, and mass.
Constants of nature are derived minimums and maximums given our observation of "nature" which seems to be an averaged out approximation of the infinitely small interactions (Quantum) that make up our "reality" in space time.

If the Universe is constantly undergoing changes that we can measure using the combinations above (almost certainly on 3 out of 5 IMO) it would make sense that there may be quantum level phase transitions (or symmetrical reorganizing depending upon viewpoint) occurring in space time itself that alter our measurements.

Good news is as long as everything stays in sync; things are OK.

I

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

But that is more guessing.

We can no more prove the existence of dark matter than we can prove that gravity is a force, and not a property.

No, not exactly guessing. You'll have to chk my posts elsewhere
showing build up to my theory / hypothesis

Biigs
I think this is entirely plausible but im not sure the extremes are going to be enough to make any particular difference to anything.

Wouldn't it be cool though, to have a place on earth with moon like gravity. THAT my friends is a place to build a theme park!

I like the way you think!
Let's do it !