Measurements of Newton’s gravitational constant and the length of day

Posted: January 29, 2016 by tallbloke in Gravity, solar system dynamics

Gravity-1

J. D. Anderson1,5, G. Schubert2, V. Trimble3 and M. R. Feldman4

Published 9 April 2015Copyright © EPLA, 2015 EPL (Europhysics Letters), Volume 110, Number 1

About a dozen measurements of Newton’s gravitational constant, G, since 1962 have yielded values that differ by far more than their reported random plus systematic errors. We find that these values for G are oscillatory in nature, with a period of $P = 5.899 \pm 0.062\ \text{yr}$ , an amplitude of $(1.619 \pm 0.103) \times 10^{-14}\ \text{m}^3\ \text{kg}^{-1}\ \text{s}^{-2}$ , and mean-value crossings in 1994 and 1997. However, we do not suggest that G is actually varying by this much, this quickly, but instead that something in the measurement process varies. Of other recently reported results, to the best of our knowledge, the only measurement with the same period and phase is the Length of Day (LOD —defined as a frequency measurement such that a positive increase in LOD values means slower Earth rotation rates and therefore longer days).


The aforementioned period is also about half of a solar activity cycle, but the correlation is far less convincing. The 5.9 year periodic signal in LOD has previously been interpreted as due to fluid core motions and inner-core coupling. We report the G/LOD correlation, whose statistical significance is 0.99764 assuming no difference in phase, without claiming to have any satisfactory explanation for it. Least unlikely, perhaps, are currents in the Earth’s fluid core that change both its moment of inertia (affecting LOD) and the circumstances in which the Earth-based experiments measure G. In this case, there might be correlations with terrestrial-magnetic-field measurements.

Full paper here

 

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    5.899 years is about 79 Carrington rotations of 27.2753 days.
    http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/crn/CARRTIME.HTML

  2. p.g.sharrow says:

    Mass/inertia and gravity appears to me to be a function of the stress created in the Aether by matter and not a function within matter. There is an Electro-Static charge difference between matter and space, or matter and Aether. Aether is strong charge(negative) and matter is low charge(positive). This causes the linear acceleration of gravity and the resistance to changes in motion of mass/inertia…pg

  3. p.g.sharrow says:

    https://pgtruspace.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/gravity-and-aether/
    a single page pictorial of charge stress in the dielectric of matter that takes place under both gravity and charge…pg

  4. Curious George says:

    The stated uncertainty 5.899+-0.062 years is 45.29 days, 2 Carrington rotations.

  5. Ned Nikolov says:

    This is a very interesting article indeed!

    According to the Electric Universe (EU) concept, gravity is a type of electro-magnetic phenomenon rather than a curvature of spacetime as postulated by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. As such, gravity is a function of electric charge. More generally, mass (hence gravity) depends on the electric charge of matter. The observed periodic variations in G may in fact be a result of a varying gravitational field due to changes in the planetary electric charge as proposed by the EU theory.

    There is an informative presentation on this topic by Wallace Thornhill made at the 2015 annual EU Conference:

    I think the above paper may be pointing to a new paradigm regarding the nature of gravity …

  6. tallbloke says:

    Here’s an article on the 2013 discovery of the 5.9yr LOD variation
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-pair-year-oscillations-length-day.html

  7. oldbrew says:

    Could the 5.9 year period be linked to the Chandler wobble, maybe 5 CWs?
    This MIT story says ‘the Chandler Wobble in Earth’s axis changed phase by 180 degrees in 2005. The question is why.’
    http://www.technologyreview.com/view/415093/earths-chandler-wobble-changed-dramatically-in-2005/

    The 5.9 year period paper says:
    ‘we show a clear partition of the non-atmospheric component into only three components: a decadally varying trend, a 5.9-year period oscillation, and jumps at times contemporaneous with geomagnetic jerks.’

    ‘Figure 4: Focus on 2002–2006 to compare LOD series with well-constrained geomagnetic jerk times (long vertical dashes; short dashes mark 3 months each side of these times).’
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7457/full/nature12282.html

    There’s a big dip around 2005 in figure 4.

  8. Gerry Pease says:

    One thing that all the experimental determinations appear to have in common is being performed on the surface of Earth.

    From the abstract:
    “The 5.9 year periodic signal in LOD has previously been interpreted as due to fluid core motions and inner-core coupling. We report the G/LOD correlation, whose statistical significance is 0.99764 assuming no difference in phase, without claiming to have any satisfactory explanation for it. Least unlikely, perhaps, are currents in the Earth’s fluid core that change both its moment of inertia (affecting LOD) and the circumstances in which the Earth-based experiments measure G. In this case, there might be correlations with terrestrial magnetic field measurements.”

    For “Least unlikely” above, substitute “Most likely”.

    The latest and claimed most precise determination is from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7506/full/nature13433.html:
    Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant using cold atoms

    “About 300 experiments have tried to determine the value of the Newtonian gravitational constant, G, so far, but large discrepancies in the results have made it impossible to know its value precisely. The weakness of the gravitational interaction and the impossibility of shielding the effects of gravity make it very difficult to measure G while keeping systematic effects under control. Most previous experiments performed were based on the torsion pendulum or torsion balance scheme as in the experiment by Cavendish2 in 1798, and in all cases macroscopic masses were used. Here we report the precise determination of G using laser-cooled atoms and quantum interferometry. We obtain the value G = 6.67191(99) × 10^−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2 with a relative uncertainty of 150 parts per million (the combined standard uncertainty is given in parentheses). Our value differs by 1.5 combined standard deviations from the current recommended value of the Committee on Data for Science and Technology3. A conceptually different experiment such as ours helps to identify the systematic errors that have proved elusive in previous experiments, thus improving the confidence in the value of G. There is no definitive relationship between G and the other fundamental constants, and there is no theoretical prediction for its value, against which to test experimental results. Improving the precision with which we know G has not only a pure metrological interest, but is also important because of the key role that G has in theories of gravitation, cosmology, particle physics and astrophysics and in geophysical models.”

    It will be interesting to see if repetitions of the cold atoms experiment also show the LOD variation.

  9. p.g.sharrow says:

    The Moon also exhibits a wobble or bobble, that is in time with the earths’ rotation. Likely caused by the earths’ magnetic field…pg

  10. p.g.sharrow says:

    It would be very difficult to determine a “constant” figure for Gravity as it is not a thing. Gravity is an effect or result caused by other things. Things that might change due to outside changes in conditions that create the conditions that result in local gravity…pg

  11. tallbloke says:

    PG: The Moon has a cycle around 5.99 years where the line of Apsides crosses the line of nodes. It’s a little outside the stated error margin of the gravity oscillation, but not by much.

  12. R J Salvador says:

    TB: The lunar line of apsides crossing the line of nodes seems the likely culprit to me.

  13. Ned Nikolov says:

    Acknowledging that G may not be a constant at all in the mainstream science literature might the beginning of reconsidering the fundamental pillars of Einstein’s General Relativity … We live in amazing times, where all established concepts are being shaken up by new views and data. That applies to the climate Greenhouse theory, Big-bang cosmology, nutritional/dietary guidelines, and many more concepts …

  14. suricat says:

    p.g.sharrow says: January 29, 2016 at 10:18 pm

    “The Moon also exhibits a wobble or bobble, that is in time with the earths’ rotation. Likely caused by the earths’ magnetic field…pg”

    Wow! Who knew that! As an engineer with mild Astronomy inclinations, I didn’t. I ‘Googled’ and found this;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration

    but the diurnal ‘librations’ are due to ‘line of sight’ aberration. However, this made me curious about the ‘monthly librations’ to lat and long in the time lapsed vid there. I ‘Googled’ again and found this at ‘YouTube’;

    which, again, made me curious about the way that the monthly libration resonated/timed with the passage of insolation to the Lunar surface.

    It strikes me that the Solar Wind may well generate this monthly libration in counterpoise with the/any telleconnective force between the Earth and its Moon. Which makes me even more curious about the force/s that hold the same Lunar geography facing towards Earth (any suggestions?).

    Could this be that ‘planetary rotation’ is caused/generated by the ‘angle of incidence’ to a planet’s ‘orbital speed : average stellar wind speed’? The motion of a ‘moon in orbit’ strongly suggests this to me.

    Best regards, Ray.

  15. Trick says:

    It is more than G. Why does nature set the speed of light c? Has it always been c or was c different in earlier epochs? Was G different? Why are the universal constants such as makes things work as they do? Why is the water molecule the only really important one that freezes such that it expands so lakes don’t freeze out fish from bottom up? When one mentions absolute zero, another party might have the frozen motionless concept in mind yet at a nano-Kelvin, the motion of matter is found even more frenetic.

    As time goes on will we see more and more galaxies wink on as their (Einstein lens) light finally reaches Earth?

    Wish we could make contact with friendly space aliens or Q, just to get all the answers NOW. Joe Cocker: ”I just can’t waste my time….’Cause there’s too much to do before I die…And I’m not feelin’ too good myself… ”

  16. suricat says:

    Trick says: January 30, 2016 at 2:57 am

    “Wish we could make contact with friendly space aliens or Q, just to get all the answers NOW.”

    That would be nice Trick, but we don’t have ‘contact’ yet. Who’s ‘Q’?

    Let’s just try to get to know the ‘unknown’ by our own efforts eh!

    As for your “Joe Cocker” quote. Get on with what you want to do and do it with ‘gusto’😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  17. Trick says:

    suricat – Q is a Star Trek TNG omniscient entity, once took Capt. Picard 1) back to watch the big bang – from a distance, 2) back to earth primordial pea green soup pond in which life started. Among other interesting things.

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    1/(3V-5E+2J)

    Note the 2J term. (That’s frequency algebra, so in period think J/2.)
    I left related G oscillation notes & graphs on one of the Suggestions threads months back.

    The lunar 6 year period looked (considerably) too long.

  19. Ned Nikolov mentions EU 2015 and Einstein. Here is another presentation at EU 2015 by Steven Crothers who talks about Black holes and general relativity – even if you can not follow all the maths, he does put it together so most will have to think about the concensus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBorBKDnE3U

  20. oldbrew says:

    Ray says: ‘Could this be that ‘planetary rotation’ is caused/generated by the ‘angle of incidence’ to a planet’s ‘orbital speed : average stellar wind speed’?’

    Doesn’t that run into trouble with Venus and Mercury?

  21. tallbloke says:

    Paul: I left related G oscillation notes & graphs on one of the Suggestions threads months back.

    Here:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-13/#comment-105728
    “I’m exploring the observational evidence further and the emerging picture suggests gravity variations somehow being tied to the location of gas giants on the z-axis of the ecliptic.”

    Yes, one of the thoughts that crossed my mind was: “Where’s Jupiter when Earth crosses its orbital plane twice a year”. The article seems to be saying that the LOD change is sudden, and for a few months every ~5.9 years, not that there’s a smooth sinusoidal variation. Jupiter moves retrograde as seen from Earth for a few months around the time of Earth-Jupiter conjunction. If that coincides with Earth being aligned with the nodes of Jupiter’s orbit, that puts Earth between Jupiter and the Sun just under twice per J orbit. But that would make the period just over 6 years, not 5.9.

  22. wayne says:

    NN: “According to the Electric Universe (EU) concept, gravity is a type of electro-magnetic phenomenon rather than a curvature of spacetime as postulated by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. As such, gravity is a function of electric charge. More generally, mass (hence gravity) depends on the electric charge of matter. The observed periodic variations in G may in fact be a result of a varying gravitational field due to changes in the planetary electric charge as proposed by the EU theory.”

    I seem to find that hard to accept that it is due to electric charge. Although the universal constant ‘G’ is not well known to high precision, and may actually be changing, the standard gravitational parameters (the GM, G times M), the combination of G and the mass M of massive bodies are known to very high precision and show no evidence, that I have I come across, that the standard gravitational parameters of the planetary bodies are changing of any meaningful degree over time, which seems to leave you with a logical explanation that it is the mass M itself which is difficult to pin down for mass always must be known precisely, or assumed to be precise, to even determine G experimentally. For without the mass/energy of some form gravity does not exist as all experiments currently seem to indicate.

    However, if G does have some periodic variance, one thing that may change with a period of about 5.9 years is how the gravitational field warps in relation to the location of, say, Jupiter to Saturn for instance having the greatest influence. When J and S are near conjunction/opposition the field that Earth is travelling about the sun is different in absolue magnitude than when Saturn is at 90° to Jupiter in relation to the sun. So does the inertia of a fixed quantity of matter vary because of the gravitational field within which that matter is immersed from other bodies? Is it “inertia per mass” that is changing? This seems to lie outside of general relativity as it is defined… best that I can understand.

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36114/36114-pdf.pdfRelativity: The Special & the General Theory – Albert Einstein

    If ‘G’ were to increase as the ‘inertia per mass’ were to decrease this seem to be one possible reason why the GM (standard gravitational parameters) seems so be so constant while G and M by themselves are not.

    Just my two cents.

  23. Gerry Pease says:

    Scientists will be checking the Earth Flyby Anomaly for a possible connection.

    From http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html:

    “Despite the close correlation between LOD and G, the scientists note that the maximum percentage variation of the LOD is on the order of 10^-9, which is large enough to change G by only 10^-5 of the amplitude—not enough to explain the full 10^-4 percentage variation in G. Since this means that the LOD variations cannot cause the G variations, the researchers surmise that both variations are caused by changing motions in the Earth’s core, or perhaps some other geophysical process.

    Although the results also raise the possibility that new physics could explain the variations, the scientists believe this is unlikely. One of the 13 measurements of G used in this analysis is the first-ever quantum measurement, called LENS-14, performed in 2014. The G value obtained by the quantum measurement is the larger of two outliers in the data, with the other outlier being a 1996 experiment that is known to have problems. Further quantum measurements of G are needed to understand why the quantum measurement deviates from the classical measurements.

    The scientists are also not fully convinced that the G/LOD correlation is the full story, and they plan to search for other correlations in the future.”

    “We plan to look into the possibility of a connection with the Earth flyby anomaly, which also seems periodic, and perhaps other anomalies,” Anderson said.

    The Flyby Phenomenon

    “When space probes, such as Rosetta and Cassini, fly over certain planets and moons in order to gain momentum and travel long distances, their speed changes slightly for an unknown reason. A Spanish researcher has now analysed whether or not a hypothetical gravitomagnetic field could have an influence. However, other factors such as solar radiation, tides, or even relativistic effects or dark matter could be behind this mystery.”…

    Read details at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-anomaly-satellite-flybys-confounds-scientists.html#jCp

  24. TLMango says:

    Another great topic! The sun is traveling 486000 mph in it’s orbit around the center of
    the galaxy. The sun is also orbiting the solar system’s center of mass in ~11.862242 years.
    This means that the sun has a side-to-side vibration of ~5.931121 years (J / 2). There is
    a 5.8915568 year (S / 5) beat. There is also a 5.9577936 year (JS tri-synodic / 10) beat.
    ……….. J = 11.862242 ………… S = 29.457784
    ……….. [(J / 2) (S / 5) / (J / 2 – S / 5)] / 2 = 441.60549 years
    The sun rocks side-to-side to odd multiples of this ~441.6 year cycle.
    This ~441.6 year cycle is a close approximation for the sum of Inex and Saros quantities known
    as the Babylonian cycle. (for more on side-to-side motion: Weathercycles.wordpress)

  25. Paul Vaughan says:

    On Earth:

    (11.862615)*(1) / (11.862615 – 1) = 1.092058864
    (11.862615)*(1) / (11.862615 + 1) = 0.922255311

    (1.092058864)*(0.922255311) / (1.092058864 – 0.922255311) = 5.9313075 2/J
    (1.092058864)*(0.922255311) / (1.092058864 + 0.922255311) = 0.5 = 2/E
    (1.092058864)*(0.922255311) / ( (1.092058864 + 0.922255311) / 2 ) = 1 = 1/E

    On Venus:

    (11.862615)*(0.61519726) / (11.862615 – 0.61519726) = 0.648846554
    (11.862615)*(0.61519726) / (11.862615 + 0.61519726) = 0.584866008

    (0.648846554)*(0.584866008) / (0.648846554 – 0.584866008) = 5.9313075 = 2/J
    (0.648846554)*(0.584866008) / (0.648846554 + 0.584866008) = 0.30759863 = 2/V
    (0.648846554)*(0.584866008) / ( (0.648846554 + 0.584866008) / 2 ) = 0.61519726 = 1/V

  26. Paul Vaughan says:

    Recall that Q is the devious parameter beyond the circumscribing power of the pentagon:

  27. oldbrew says:

    TL Mango says: ‘the sun rocks side-to-side to odd multiples of this ~441.6 year cycle.’

    It’s 15 Saturn orbits.

  28. Gerry Pease says:

    TB:

    In https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/jackpot-jupiter-and-saturn-solar-cycle-link-confirmed/

    you noticed that
    “Over on Bart’s thread, we’ve been looking at a Power Spectral Density (PSD) analysis of the Sunspot data from 1749. After the application of some clever signal processing techniques, Bart says:

    “The sunspot count appears to reflect the energy of these combined processes at around 20 and 23.6 years, which necessarily has apparent periods of 0.5*T1, 0.5*T2, T1*T2/(T2+T1), and T1*T2/(T2-T1) years, or 10 years, 11.8 years, 10.8 years, and 131 years.

    The 11.8 year period is very close to 11.86 years, the orbital period of Jupiter.” ”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    And 11.8 years is exactly double the 5.9 year LOD signature.

  29. suricat says:

    oldbrew says: January 30, 2016 at 10:39 am

    “Doesn’t that run into trouble with Venus and Mercury?”

    Yes it does, but the exception can prove a rule. Please explain why Venus’s rotation is retrograde and Mercury’s rotation dithers.😉

    We’re getting a bit off thread with this subject, though LOD seems cogent.

    Best regards, Ray.

  30. tallbloke says:

    Gerry: Good spot!

    Ray: My hypothesis for the retrograde rotation of Venus, is that it’s the only way it can show the same face to both Earth and Jupiter at her respective conjunctions with them. Mercury’s rotation doesn’t dither, it’s 3:2 spin-orbit pattern WRT the Sun causes double sunsets and sunrises to occur at certain Mercurian latitudes.

  31. oldbrew says:

    Ray: ‘Please explain why Venus’s rotation is retrograde and Mercury’s rotation dithers.’

    Look at the LODs: 2 Venus = 3 Mercury

  32. David A says:

    Tallbloke asked that I move these comments to this more cogent thread for anyone to comment on that wishes.

    David A says:

    January 31, 2016 at 11:20 am

    Some provocative precession questions for you guys to parse and dice with…

    “We know the length of the cycle for precession of the equinoxes is
    T2/(T2-T1) tropical years = 25771 tropical years
    (Over this length of time, the number of tropical years will exceed the number of sidereal years by one.)

    However a web site makes some interesting observations which appear to be true. Below is just a sample, but the overall impact is a stronger then expected case for a very radical idea. Below are just a few of the many interesting concepts presented. The actual web site http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/bri/research/introduction/theory.shtml has far greater detail.

    ==========================================================================

    “Long term predictions of changes in the earth’s orientation to VLBI sources have been historically unreliable. The IAU has found that current methods are “not consistent with dynamical theory”.

    Part of the problem appears to be that measurements of the precession observable are made to points outside the moving frame of the solar system yet do not account for motion of the solar system relative to those reference points. Another problem with current theory is the moon is thought to be the principal force acting upon the oblate earth. However, the moon is slowly receding from the earth (thereby theoretically producing less torque) whereas the precession rate is slowly speeding up (an indication of a greater force at work.

    And of course the biggest failure of the current lunisolar theory is it makes no allowance for the different reference frames (a moving solar system versus fixed stars) and therefore requires that the earth change orientation relative to all objects, near and far, at the same rate. Such is not the case.”

    (My comment here. This is fascinating. Apparently we use two very different methods of tracking objects outside our solar system, vs. inside, as precession does not appear to apply to objects within our solar system)

    “The simplest way to produce the precession observable is the binary model. In this common stellar system, the observable of a moving equinox (or stars appearing to move relative to the equinox when viewed from earth on the date of the equinox) is simply the geometric effect of a solar system that curves through space as part of a binary system. As the solar system curves through space it gently changes the orientation of the Earth relative to the fixed stars (but not relative to objects within the moving solar system such as the sun or moon). This model requires little or no local wobble and is fully consistent with observations that show little or no precession relative to nearby objects and a full 50 arc seconds of precession relative to distant objects.”

    (It also accounts for acceleration of precession. My comment.)

    “It is the missing motion of the solar system curving through space that modern scientists have failed to calculate in their lunisolar precession theory. But the Moon does not lie. Its movement is exact and acts like a witness to the Earth’s motion. The only way the Sun can appear to move around the Earth, and be confirmed by lunar data, is because the Earth is spinning on its axis. Likewise, the only way the Earth’s axis can appear to precess or wobble relative to inertial space, and not wobble relative to the Sun as confirmed by lunar data, is if the solar system (the reference frame that contains the Sun and Earth) is curving through space. Furthermore, the only way the solar system can be curving through space at a rate of 50 arc seconds per year, is if it were gravitationally affected by another very large mass: a companion star.

    I really think you guys will, at the very least, find this to be an interesting site.

    David A says:

    January 31, 2016 at 11:36 am

    One particular section of interest to you guys maybe the study of the orbital resonance of the outer dwarf planets, and their harmony with a 24,000 year precession cycle, and the observable steady increase in the rate of precession looks more like an orbit pattern following Kepler’s Laws than any local wobble phenomenon,

    David A says:

    January 31, 2016 at 11:52 am

    I think you guys will also find the work done on Sirius to be seriously interesting as well.
    http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/SiriusResearch.shtml

    tallbloke says:

    January 31, 2016 at 1:19 pm

    Hi David. Thanks for the comments, which might be better placed on the gravity/LOD thread. With a period of 24kyr, wouldn’t the hypothetical binary pair be a mere 3.5 light days apart at closest approach? Surely such a closeby object sufficiently massive to be capable of producing the Sun-barycentre radius required would be spotted by its occultation of other stars, even if it were a brown dwarf?

    David A says:

    January 31, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    Tallbloke, thanks for the comment and please take the time to read the site. Yes, the not finding it yet is really the biggest criticism. However we have been finding more solar dwarf stars, possibly cooler then brown dwarfs, and not easily located depending on their vicinity.

    The Sirius link is interesting, what with your sites study of orbital resonances and potential phi relationships to these observations, and this portion http://annesastronomynews.com/double-stars-mysterious-connection/ about forces linking binaries is likewise interesting.
    Occam’s razor does apply in that many mysterious factors, including missing solar angular momentum, are solved by one simple explanation.

    The part I find hard to dismiss concerns the acceleration of precession, and the non observation of precession to objects within the solar system. If it was a 24,000 year earth wobble, this would not be possible.

    tallbloke says:

    January 31, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Sirius is over 8Lyr from the Solar system, or at least, that’s what current theory says. If that was our binary, the orbital period would be a lot more than 24kyr wouldn’t it?

    oldbrew says:

    January 31, 2016 at 9:16 pm

    David A: ‘the non observation of precession to objects within the solar system.’

    How would such observation be done, i.e. is it a lack of observation or just a lack of attempts?

    ‘do not account for motion of the solar system relative to those reference points.’

    Isn’t that begging the question?

    David A says:

    February 1, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    Oldbrew,

    PRECESSION MEASUREMENT PARADOX

    Studies show that changes in earth’s orientation relative to objects “inside” the SS (i.e. Sun, Moon, Venus, etc.) are negligible (less than an arc second or two p/y), whereas changes in earth
    orientation relative to objects “outside” the moving frame of the SS (fixed stars, quasars, etc.) are over 50˝p/y.

    In fact, rotation time equivalence studies and lunar studies show the earth hardly
    “precesses” at all relative to objects within the SS.Most astronomers acknowledge this
    in practice by using a non-precessing tropical frame to locate objects “inside”
    the SS, whereas they require a precessing sidereal frame (or T[J2000]+PxY) to find
    objects “outside” the moving SS.

    365.24219878 x 86400s = 366.24219878 x 86164.0905382s = 31,556,925.97s
    This equation describes Earth’s complete 360° period of revolution of 31,556,925.97s relative
    to a fixed frame of reference, implying that the position of the vernal equinox remains fixed
    with respect to the orientation of Earth’s axis in space. The total number of rotations of Earth
    in such a complete orbit is expressed by the equations:
    1 ÷ (1- (86164.0905382 s ÷ 86400 s)) = 366.24219878
    86400 s ÷ 235.9094618 s = 366.24219878
    No precession with respect to the SS frame.

    You may find the lunar witness portion of the site interesting as well.

    David A says:

    February 1, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    Tallbloke says, “Sirius is over 8Lyr from the Solar system, or at least, that’s what current theory says. If that was our binary, the orbital period would be a lot more than 24kyr wouldn’t it?
    =====================================================

    My thinking initially ruled out such a possibility as well, nor is it central to BRI studies, yet my mind is not completely closed…

    However, there are other possibilities, including the possibility that the solar system itself is moving much faster than any of the planets and therefore our companion star may be a nearby visible star.

    While the solar system speed is difficult to measure (the question is always “compared to what?”), astrophysicist Reg Cahill of Australia has suggested that the solar system is moving in excess of 430km/s, relative to the cosmic microwave background (CMB), and this opens the possibility that our solar system might be orbiting anyone of a number of local stars, but more than likely one of the larger masses that lies not too far inclined to the plane of the solar system. Such a scenario might seem improbable given our current understanding of gravity and visible star distances, however there are compelling theories, such as MOND theory, and there is unusual evidentiary information, such as the data from Voyager 1 and 2 or the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft that make this scenario attractive to investigation.

    In addition to the odd behavior of distant satellites the most distant dwarf planets also display the signature of a potential companion star in their strange orbits. Mike Brown, Professor of Planetary Astronomy at Caltech, and the discoverer of Sedna, said simply:

    “Sedna shouldn’t be there. …There’s no way to put Sedna where it is. It never comes close enough to be affected by the Sun, but it never goes far enough away from the Sun to be affected by other stars.” (Space.com, “Sun’s Nemesis…” 3-11-10)

    Other astronomers, including John Matese, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and physicist Daniel P. Whitmire, of the same institution, and Richard Muller of the University of California Berkeley, have come to similar conclusions (based mostly on comet data), albeit without correlating orbit periodicity to the precession observable. Given such research we urge the scientific community to keep an open mind on possible forces that might be affecting the sun’s motion, and in turn the earth’s orientation.

  33. oldbrew says:

    David A: I know the BRI site, but I’m not convinced they have it right.

    ‘In fact, rotation time equivalence studies and lunar studies show the earth hardly “precesses” at all relative to objects within the SS.’

    It’s orbit precesses wrt the Sun – apsidal precession – every ~111,700 years, this is well-known (animation in link).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession

    That doesn’t seem to fit with ‘hardly precesses at all’?

    [Reply] Take it to the gravity/LOD thread please. Ta TB

  34. David A says:

    Ollbloke, thanks for the link. I was not familiar with apsidal precession. If I grasped your link correctly, it appears to be an orbital observation where perihelion changes over a very long period relative to earth’s orbit around the Sun, as oppose to an earth axis wobble as current lunar solar precession describes.

    I am not certain but I would think apsidal precession would produce a much smaller observational nutation, both to objects within the solar system, and outside the solar system; as it would primarily be a parallax change taking place over a much longer cycle, as opposed to a an annual 50” p/y axis orientation. (Which if correct must affect all observations from the earth’s surface?)

    Perhaps a good analogy would be driving down a straight highway looking at the moon out the window where the moon appears to be moving in tandem with the motion of the vehicle, but when the vehicle turns (lunar solar precession) the moons position relative to the car changes radically, just as the precession of the zodiac is almost entirely a result of luna solar precession, not apsidal precession.

    Another problem with current theory is the moon is thought to be the principal force acting upon the oblate earth. However, the moon is slowly receding from the earth (thereby theoretically producing less torque) whereas the precession rate is slowly speeding up (an indication of a greater force at work).

    “The rate of change can be reliably predicted using Kepler’s laws if the basic orbit parameters are known. In fact we have found that by using Kepler’s laws we can predict the precession rate 10 times more accurately than Simon Newcomb’s constant.” (Based on Keplers laws applied to ancient India parameters, which places the earth at about 4.5 billion years old and also maintains a long awareness of binary star systems, and according to some interpretations places apoapsis at 500 A.D. and is the source of the 24,000 year cycle.)

    In addition there is the angular momentum problem, solar system sheer edge, as well as the orbits of outer dwarf planets, pioneer anomalies, gravity probe B observations, etc, which could all potentially be explained by a simple binary model.

    Personally I truly have no idea and consider the Sirius connection much weaker, or demanding of physics not yet discovered. I just find the observations interesting and I am aware that when Lunar solar theory was developed solar system motion through space was not even considered, let alone the potential for solar system curvature through space. Perhaps the sentence you quoted should be amended to “‘In fact, rotation time equivalence studies and lunar studies show the earth hardly “precesses” at all relative to objects within the SS in the manner in which Lunar Solar precession demands that they should.”

  35. David A says:

    Oldbrew, sorry for the Oldbloke handle my mind sometimes has crosscurrents and gets a bit dyslexic as well I understand 10 out f 4 people experience this. (-;

  36. Wayne Job says:

    Hi Tallbloke,
    We have measured gravity inside and outside our device and found a difference, tomorrow we are doing accurate elevation measurements and another gravity test, let you know how we go. Wayne.

  37. oldbrew says:

    David A: no worries – see our recent post showing that Earth’s various precessions are linked.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/why-phi-a-unified-precession-model/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s