Is the Gravitational Constant
linked to the Sunspot Cycle?

09/27/09 - Why is the Gravitational Constant so sloppy? Is it merely measuring error, or is there room to argue that the constant may fluctuate between the 2nd and 4th decimal?

Before posting these questions, I checked the Bautforum for previous posts, the most relevant one seems to be this query in aid of a seemingly dead-end contentious debate, which was of little help.

Following a reference link from Wikipidia's page on "Gravitational Constant", note this excerpt from the abstract:
"...G stands mysteriously alone, its history being that of a quantity which is extremely difficult to measure and which remains virtually isolated from the theoretical structure of the rest of physics. Several attempts aimed at changing this situation are now underway, but the most recent experimental results have once again produced conflicting values of G and, in spite of some progress and much interest, there remains to date no universally accepted way of predicting its absolute value..."

The measurements seem surprisingly sketchy when considering that most Universal Constants can be measured to the 8th to 10th decimal.

Reviewing a list of contemporary measurements, there seems little agreement to the third decimal:
Luther 1982 Torsion pendulum 6:6726 § 0:0005 75
Fitzgerald 1995 Torsion balance 6:6656 § 0:0006 90
Schwarz 1998 Free fall 6:6873 § 0:0094 1400
KĻundig 2002 Beam balance 6:67407 § 0:00022 200

Posting a query on the baut forum about the 'soft' data of the Gravitational Constant, I took it into my head to place the year that the Gravitational Constant measurements were taken, in relation to the sunspot cycle. Needless to say, this data is thin to the point of being laughable, but still - an amusing thought.Notice the smaller result during low sunspot activity:

| Return |