Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 12:29:27 UTC No. 16619698

>>16619694
This is a valid approach. The most recent one is redefining mass by the measured value of a silicon spheroid. This is important because mass of objects does vary over time.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:04:18 UTC No. 16620423

>>16619698
>nooooo you can't just keep measuring things!!!!!!!!
Having reviewed your post, I consent to a peership.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:19:35 UTC No. 16620437

is this why my pp is bigger in the morning?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 06:04:24 UTC No. 16620480

Schizo. The values didn't drift, there was simply a measurement uncertainty depending on the method used, that's it.

🗑️ Cult of Passion at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 06:15:37 UTC No. 16620489

>>16620480
>t.Big Metrology shill
Youre not fooling me.

Not by a furlong, I wont even give you a cubit, you'll just take a spat.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 06:17:50 UTC No. 16620492

>>16620489
You didn't even hear about something as simple as experimental uncertainty? Why the fuck do you think they were updating the tables? Because as time went on, instruments got more precise, so we got more accurate measurements of the constants.
In way, it's kind of like discovering more digits of pi.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:06:47 UTC No. 16622072

>>16619694
so if the speed of light changes its basically impossible to tell with modern physics, neat.

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 19:58:09 UTC No. 16622611

>>16622072
>so if the speed of light changes its basically impossible to tell with modern physics, neat
kek

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 20:04:49 UTC No. 16622619

Pure schizo. Also G doesn't depend on the speed of light at all. It is a totally empirical constant and has to be measured (this is hard), which is why it has such a relativity large uncertainty on its value.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 21:58:28 UTC No. 16622793

>>16619694
everything that is true is schizo, although not everything that is schizo is true

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 22:21:45 UTC No. 16622875

>>16619694
It's a wildly schizo interpretation/distortion of perfectly reasonable and correct facts. The one thing they got right is that the modern definition of "meter" was defined in terms of the speed of light (so that it is tied to something that is absolutely unchanging and easy to measure very precisely).

Used to be a meter was one defined as 10,000,000th of a straight walk (geodesic curve) from the north pole to the equator, passing through Paris. To make that more definition more precise and accessible to your average engineer, Napoleonic France commissioned 2 guys to make a bunch of cartography measurements a portion of that geodesic curve that went from Dunkirk to Bercelona, and then scale up the distance to make up 90 degrees. They then used that calculation to produce a "one true meter stick", which was an individual platinum bar machined as precisely as possible to match 1/10,000,000 of the 90 degree geodesic arc. From then until 1983, the unit of meter was just defined to be "the length of this exact hunk of platinum"

But here's the thing, the earth is a messy place, and not a perfect sphere. First of all, the earth's belly gets stretched out from the inertia of its spinning, so it's ever so slightly flatter on the poles and fatter near the equator. This changes the length of the geodesic arc a bit. It's also covered in mountains and valleys and shit which make it hard to take very precise measurements. Turns out one of the guys, Pierre Mechan had a rough fucking time getting malaria and being imprisoned as a suspected spy during the journey, and as a result made a very minor mistake in his calculations. Dude was too embarrassed to come clean about it. All in all these factors made the platinum stick about 0.002% off the length of the 90 degree geodesic arc.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 22:36:45 UTC No. 16622940

>>16622875

So imagine you discover this and are thinking, "what if I need submicron-level precision in my standards and I don't want to walk to the goddamn north pole every time I want to check that my chunk of platinum is right?" You might try to think of some way you can measure the "idea" of a meter on site wherever you are in the world. One of the first ways people thought about this is by making a pendulum where you can slide a standard weight up and down the pole until its period of oscillation exactly agrees with some standard second and call the length of pendulum from hinge to weight the new "meter", just making sure to pick your standard weight so that the new meter is, as precisely as possible, the same as the old platinum hunk. The earth should be pulling down with the same force anywhere on the surface, so the physical laws are the same, so you should end up with the same "meter" whether you do it in France or Australia, right? Well again we run into the messy earth issue. the globe is slightly fat, so your pendulum is further away from the center of the earth on the equator than when it is at the north pole. Also mountains and valleys and shit change the height. Also the earth is kinda lumpy inside, with some parts being slightly denser and some parts being slightly less dense. Also the moon might pull a tiny amount downards or upwards or sidewayson your pendulum depending on where it is in the sky when you measure it. All of these things slightly affect the measured gravitational force at a particular point on the earth's surface. The variation from lowest gravity to highest gravity is about 0.7%, and we want that sweet sub-micron precision, so we can't use this method.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 22:54:45 UTC No. 16623021

>>16622940
So in 1983 someone put together some new pieces: The the speed of light can be measured super duper precisely with this thing called interferometry, and the length of a second can be measured super duper precisely using a vibrating caesium 133 atom, and distance = speed * time so they said let's define the length of a "new meter" to be (speed of light) * (time it takes for speed of light to travel 1 "old platinum rod meter") as precisely as we can measure it.
whammo we've got definition of a meter that can be measured wherever you want in the universe, can be measured to like sub-nanometer precision, and will stay the same forever and ever. Checks every box we want in a standard. Here's the thing though, every constant that has a meter in its unit expression depends on this, so we technically have to recalculate those since our new meter changed the tiniest bit. G has units [math] \frac{m^3}{kg s^2} [/math] so it depends on the meter, and therefore depends indirectly on the speed of light, so we have to change our calculated value of G ever so slightly. But the thing is that the speed of light isn't changing, the light is always traveling exactly the same speed in a vacuum. And G isn't actually changing, matter is still pulling on itself exactly as strongly as it used to. The only difference is that we're improving the precision of the measurements and the precision of the systems we use to tie those measurements together into computed numerical representations.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 23:37:22 UTC No. 16623094

>>16620480
>the values did not change they simply were different each time they were measured

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:29:24 UTC No. 16623159

>>16622875
>>16622940
>>16623021
casting pearls before trumpanzees but somebody's got to do it I guess

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:36:25 UTC No. 16623698

>>16622875
>>16622940
>>16623021
I will bet big money that every single person in your convenient little story is jewish.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 16:45:14 UTC No. 16623730

Now that computers exist and so do more complex simulations, defining shit more accurately is a necessity. Not vague ass shit that determines a kg or a meter from hundreds of years ago.

Simulations and computers can make things (or measure them) far more accurate than any human possibly could.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 16:47:15 UTC No. 16623733

>>16623730
That, and using a constant that never, ever changes to determine distance makes far more sense than anything else. Even if the calculations are impractical for most real world applications. Same reason we use newtonian physics for orbital calculations and not shit like relativity even though relativity is far more accurate, precise, and true to nature.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 17:29:42 UTC No. 16623748

>>16623094
Coefficients are just gradients we assign to the change in dependent variable's value. The gravitational constant doesn't exist on the same ontological level as concepts like "velocity" or actual objects like "chair". Set your units right and G disappears because the universe is not acutely aware of the particular units we use.
You aren't directly measuring G, you are measuring at least two different values and inferring G from it. Its value is tiny and experiments can be off. You can perform experiments at home where your gradient is expected to be unity yet differs slightly due to noise and imperfections in the experiment you may not even be aware of.
There is research being done that questions if the constant remains constant at every scale but so far there's little evidence it varies. If the constant changed universally at every scale overnight, you wouldn't be able to tell because it's not a dimensionless constant and all other values would change alongside it.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 17:54:20 UTC No. 16623763

It's not schizo, he just doesn't understand what proportionality constants are. Dimensioned constants describe a certain (interesting to us) relations between physical phenomena. Their exact value is of very little interest beyond practical applications. Of course the value will change as you get more or less accurate methods of measuring these phenomena because that's where the constant comes from.
Science is dogmatic and its dogma is that we can choose what we measure and that these measurement can be done independently. There is no formal justification for this, it's dogmatic. Nobody outside of philosophers cares because science is clearly useful despite of this. Modern science isn't about the natural philosopher's quest to uncover the ultimate truth of the universe, it's to create a useful toy model of the universe with increasingly higher predictive and descriptive power. Some people would even consider this distinction sophistry and claim both goals are the same just worded differently.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 22:00:07 UTC No. 16623927

>>16619694
>>16620480
>Schizo
I would explain but you obviously would be too dumb to understand.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 22:01:09 UTC No. 16623928

>>16623748
>There is little evidence G varies
>Dark matter and dark energy are totally real though

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 22:03:17 UTC No. 16623930

>>16623763
>Science is dogmatic
It isn't, most of the people doing science are midwits who desire conformity more than they desire discovery.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 22:16:06 UTC No. 16623941

The original measurement of the electron charge was very innacurate. Experiments done later showed it was wrong but fudged the number to get it closer to the original value because they didnt want to refute big man Millikan

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 22:45:05 UTC No. 16623968

>>16623748

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 00:07:19 UTC No. 16624015

>>16619694 Yes, you do live in a ever-changing world.
The only thing that doesn't change is the Changeless, Source of all of this.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 00:55:03 UTC No. 16624048

>>16622072
Not only that but the entire big bang cosmogeny is predicated on the assumptions that the speed of light cannot change, and that galactic redshift is due entirely to the Doppler effect.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 00:57:51 UTC No. 16624049

>>16623748
Now prove that G was identical 10 billion years ago in another galaxy.
Sheldrake's morphic resonance theory is quite compelling.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 00:58:24 UTC No. 16624052

>>16623748
Serious question, Do you think this blogpost is gonna get you some pussy?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 04:34:14 UTC No. 16624126

>>16619694
it's spacetime density that fluctuates as we travel through it, the medium isn't perfectly smooth

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 15:52:31 UTC No. 16624309

>>16619694
i don’t see a single experiùment in that post, so i can’t trust it

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:30:34 UTC No. 16624400

>What is an experimental error/uncertainity the thread
Imagine how low IQ and retarded do you have to be not to understand the most basic fundamental 1st year university physics. Nevermind think it's up to some "discussion". That's like trying to argue 1+1=3. Jesus fucking christ, can schizos all get a gun and blow their brains out so I don't have to see their stupidity?

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:58:51 UTC No. 16625095

>>16619694
>>16622875
yuropoors laugh so much but they cant even define the meter, while i know exactly what foot, feet, inch is, and that my dick is 7 inches no matter if some scientist changes his mind

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:07:29 UTC No. 16625103

>>16623094
Are you really so fucking retarded you don't understand experimental error/resolution?