Among things like a torsion balance, an atomic interferometer, a pack of cigarettes, liquor stores, golf score cards and various handicaps, or whatever it may be in occurrence by misty brook, for example, the force of gravity has been said to
be constant. "The accuracy of the measured value of G has increased only modestly since the original Cavendish experiment. G is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces, and an experimental apparatus cannot be separated from the gravitational influence of other
bodies. Furthermore, gravity has no established relation to other fundamental forces, so it does not appear possible
to calculate it indirectly from other constants that can be measured more accurately, as is done in some other areas of physics. Published values of G have varied rather broadly, and some
recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive."(1)(2)
When Cavendish first measured
gravity his thought was not actually to measure the gravitational constant, but rather to measure the Earth's density relative to water, through the precise knowledge of the gravitational interaction. The density that Cavendish calculated implies a value for G of 6.754 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2.
However, the gravitational interactions of water and the Earth are not only gravitational ... nor are they constant. Rain may spoil a picnic but save a farmer's crop. They also are intermittent and elemental interactions in quale quid, like
the quiddity and quality everywhere around us, from the top shelf to the bottom shelf in liquor stores, and in the table of elements, and in the smoke and mirrors in smokey back rooms.
"The farmer has to be an optimist or he wouldn't still be a farmer", and if there was only one quality
of one element and that would be all, if there was only one interstitial quality in nature, ens inquantum ens, that would be one thing that would be everywhere ... like Newton's idea of gravity and the interstices ... but that is not how it really is for agriculture or the markets. Without fallacy of composition like "gravity", the ancient Greeks recognized four fundamental qualities that corresponded in simple and constant ways to what they considered to be the four basic elements.
They were hot and cold, and wet and dry, which corresponded to fire and earth, and water and air. The basic rubric was good enough that it still catches today the essence overall of the whole modern table of elements.
the other things like torsion balances and golf score cards and luggage of whatever, where is the gravity in the qualities and
in the elements? Where is the gravity except always in the same place, in the tension, pressure, mass, weight, balance, structure, and elemental design of things that would have a center?
So then what is gravitation? Is it the darkness that follows under feet? The lithosphere may become as dry as the desert air, as dry as hydrogen or oxygen, without water.
Since the accuracy of the measured value of G has increased only modestly, after the original Cavendish experiments, take
a look at the numbers.
1. G = 6.754 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 is from Cavendish's experiments.
2. G = 6.693 × 10^-11 cubic meters per kilogram second squared, with a standard error of the mean of ±0.027
× 10^-11 and a systematic error of ±0.021 × 10^-11 cubic meters per kilogram second squared, is from atomic interferometer experiments.
3. G = 6.674 x 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 is from a heliocentric science textbook.
The other things and their measurements in the formula are the same except for .754, .693, .674. Then what is that little stuff in the modica of the vapors?
Was that some of the universal and constant gravity in the .754, .693, .674? Would that have been what it was? How did it change, if it was universal and constant, and
where did it go in constant mutability of a game of relativity and hocus pocus.?
Besides these numbers, various experiments with ultra-sensitive torsion balances have found discrepancies in Newton's inverse square law "to the tune of .37%, quite
innocuous to the average Joe on the street, but a gaping hole in the world of science."(3)
heliocentrism still denies that there is a center and that anything or any place in the cosmos is authentically stationary. Acentric heliocentrism says everything is in motion, including
the Earth, of course, and there are only relative states of rest in relative inertial frames of reference. Even if things may look at times as though they are stopped, they never really are. At most, they are only relative inertial frames of reference,
and everything must be in motion.
Would it be, however, "through a glass darkly", they are only measuring constant
changeability and motion of some sort and relative inertia in various things of relativity then, when they measure gravity in the vapors? Then it must not be constant and universal, of course ... and not yet. How could it be constant
and universal, if it was not constant and universal already? If it were constant and universal, it should be constant and universal already --- and have alwasy been so.
answer is that so-called "gravity" represents only something conditional and circumstantial, sometimes even not yet, yet something uniformly euphemistic for science, like division or multiplication by 1. Predicated or activated in separate spheres, therefore,
it very well must not be constant and universal by the differentiations and experiments that come and go, and the Newtonian and heliocentric theory of gravity and of the cosmos is simply wrong.