[Spiral Path]

Hi, David -
Thanks so much for questioning my statements. Finally somebody is seriously thinking about them! Now I'll try to answer one item at a time:

Are you saying that the variance of “G” is the cause of plate tectonics?

Yes, I am saying exactly that! My late brother (Johann Steiner) and I wrote several papers about that 30 years ago and found beautiful correlations. I can list them for you, if you are interested.

I would think that a variance of “MASS” due to velocity would have an effect on the Earths gravity but, not on the gravitational constant which is independent of the Earths mass

In my theory, G varies with both - speed AND mass - of the celestial bodies that are orbiting each other; speed often quite fast and all the time (as evidenced in the "drift" shown for example on stationary field gravimeters) and mass (where, except in supernovae, perceptible changes take eons and are mainly gains from space dust and meteorites, or losses from volatile materials escaping into space). The gravitational "constant" is therefore NOT CONSTANT at any time, but dependent on the absolute speed with which any particle travels around the center of the surrounding mass within an absolute reference frame - which is in the case of our Earth mainly the Galactic Center. (I guess this paragraph could be expressed much clearer and more eloquently than I did just now - it's past midnight and I am dead-tired after a hard day's work. Besides, my 75-year old brain doesn't work as well any more as 50 years ago and English is not my mother tongue.)

It would appear that you are interpreting the “units of measure” as an equation; that’s like saying m/s (meters per second) is an equation for velocity when it is actually the units of measure of velocity.

Well, I guess this is just a matter of semantics. I am not a stickler for it, therefore m/s is for me synonymous with velocity. And why not?

BTW: the accuracy of G is within 3x10^-14 and NOT the 4th decimal place. That's 14 decimal places.

Over the past 200-odd years, G has been measured hundreds and perhaps even thousands of times with many different methods. Granted, some methods may have been better than others, but I have seen papers showing the sigma-bars of many of these measurements by quite reputable scientists - and those sigma-bars exhibited quite considerable up and down movement over time. Actually, I vaguely remember that the overall accuracy varied already with the second digit. I have also seen the accuracy figure you are quoting (3x10^-14) and laughed about as it occurred to me that the measurements might apparently have been taken in quite a hurry, possibly within half an hour or so, as the experimenter probably had a more pressing engagement to look forward to than staying in the lab. - My own Handbook for Space Astronomy and Astrophysics says that the relative uncertainty for G is 128 ppm, so that would make the 4th decimal place variable. Similarly, the 3x10^-14 figure can, of course, also come from the manner of expressing the approximation of G, i.e. 6.672 x 10^-11 m^3/(kg*s^2) +/- 3x10^-14, which would make the relative uncertainty about 450 ppm, or 3.5 times higher than the Handbook states. That's still "in the ball park", isn't it?

Finally let me add, I welcome your questioning - as it makes focussing my own thoughts a little easier. So please fire away!

Thanks,
S.P.