We still don't have a more precise value for "Big G"
1–10 of 69 posts
Re: We still don't have a more precise value for "Big G"
#2Source: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2026/04/nist-weighs-my... (4 points, 12 days ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47796892
Re: We still don't have a more precise value for "Big G"
#3[dead]
Re: We still don't have a more precise value for "Big G"
#4I appreciate the scientists’ honesty. When asked about big G and time invariance, he says he just takes it on faith that it has been the same forever. If more people would admit their leaps I think the theistic schism would be far more shallow.
Re: We still don't have a more precise value for "Big G"
#5[flagged]
Re: We still don't have a more precise value for "Big G"
#6Figure 1 in the paper helps contextualize the numbers better.
Re: We still don't have a more precise value for "Big G"
#7[flagged]
Re: We still don't have a more precise value for "Big G"
#8I appreciate the scientists’ honesty. When asked about big G and time invariance, he says he just takes it on faith that it has been the same forever. If more people would admit their leaps I think the theistic schism would be far more shallow.
It might also be nice if cosmologists stopped claiming their Big Bang "Theory" wasn't more accurately termed a mere Hypothesis. IIRC, 12 out of 13 predictions failing and necessitating "model" "tweaks" is not a fantastic track record for a Theory, which are supposed to robustly survive investigation.
Re: We still don't have a more precise value for "Big G"
#9[flagged]
how is this at all related to TFA
Re: We still don't have a more precise value for "Big G"
#10[flagged]
"Please don't fulminate."