 ### Unified Theory Foundations

© Engineer Xavier Borg - Blaze Labs Research

Mass varies with its absolute velocity
..and together with gravitational constant G, over 50 other scientific units depend on stars position!

Final Demystification of the gravitational constant variation

For hundreds of years, great thinkers have thought about the substance of matter, and specifically to its property we call mass. It all started with the work of Isaac Newton , an English scientist and mathematician who lived between 1642-1727. He had one of the most brilliant minds the world has ever known. Legend has it that seeing an apple fall made Newton reflect about the laws behind gravity, the force which keeps us bound to the Earth. Being a good experimenter himself, it did not take him too long to work out the laws of gravity. In fact at the age of 44, he found out that the motion of the planets and the moon as well as that of the falling apple could be explained by one simple Law of Universal Gravitation, which states that any two objects attract each other with a force equal to the product of their masses M1 & M2, divided by the square of their distance apart R, times a constant of proportionality G.

F = G (M1 * M2)
R2

Newton estimated this constant of proportionality, called the gravitational constant G, also referred to as the 'big G', from the gravitational acceleration of the falling apple and an approximate guess for the average density of the Earth. However, more than 100 years elapsed before G was first measured in the laboratory. It was in 1798 that Henry Cavendish and co-workers obtained a value for G of 6.67E-11 Newton.m2/kg2, accurate to about 1%. During his experiment, Cavendish claimed that he was "weighing the Earth", since, once G is known, the mass of the Earth can be obtained from the known gravitational acceleration on the Earth surface. In fact, knowing G enables us to find the mass of any rotating body, like for example the sun or moon by knowing their orbital radius and time for one complete cycle. Early in the 20th century, Albert Einstein developed his theory of gravity called General Relativity, in which the gravitational attraction is explained as a result of the curvature of space-time. This curvature is also proportional to G and is a constant. Planck has also defined G as one of his universal constants (G,h,c) and stated that these three constants are the same anywhere in the universe.

Controversial values of G This is a photograph of a simple big G apparatus used to indirectly determine the value for G. The value of the fundamental constant G has been of great interest for physicists for over 300 years and it has the longest history of measurements after the speed of light. In spite of the central importance of the universal gravitational constant, it is the least well defined of all the fundamental constants. Despite our modern technology, almost all measurements of G have used variations of the classical torsion balance technique as engineered by Cavendish during the 17th century. The usual torsion balance basically consists of two masses connected by a horizontal rod suspended by a very thin fibre, referred to as the dumbbell. When two heavy attracting bodies are placed on opposite sides of the dumbbell, the dumbbell twists by a very small amount. The attracting bodies are then moved to the other side of the dumbbell and the dumbbell twists in the opposite direction. The magnitude of these twists is used to find G. Another common set-up variation to this technique, is to set the dumbbell into an oscillatory motion and measure the frequency of oscillation. The gravitational interaction between the dumbbell and the attracting bodies causes the oscillation frequency to change slightly when the attractors are moved to a different position and this frequency change determines G. This frequency shift method was used in the most precise measurement of G to date (reported in 1982) by Gabe Luther and William Towler from the National Bureau of Standards and the University of Virginia. Based on their measurement, CoData now lists G = 6.6742E-11Nm2/Kg2 and assigned a quite conservative uncertainty of 0.015%. Comparing this constant to other well known units of physics, the fractional uncertainty in G is still thousands of times larger. As a result, the mass of the Earth, the sun, the moon and all celestial bodies cannot be known to an accuracy greater than that of G, since all these quantities have been derived from the experimental G. The units of G are m3/Kg/sec2, so any error in the Kg unit will show up as an error in G. An uncertainty of 0.015% might seem quite small, but when applied to masses under consideration, for example earth's mass with a nominal mass of 5.972E24 Kg, it means that the actual mass could be higher by as much as 8.958E20 kg!, and that's why the mass of earth can only be given to three decimal places.

Variation evidence from readings spanning over 200 years

 Data Set number Author Year G (x10-11 m3Kg-1s-2) Accuracy % Deviationfrom CODATA 1 Cavendish H. 1798 6.74 ±0.05 +0.986 2 Reich F. 1838 6.63 ±0.06 -0.662 3 Baily F. 1843 6.62 ±0.07 -0.812 4 Cornu A, Baille J. 1873 6.63 ±0.017 -0.662 5 Jolly Ph. 1878 6.46 ±0.11 -3.209 6 Wilsing J. 1889 6.594 ±0.015 -1.202 7 Poynting J.H. 1891 6.70 ±0.04 +0.387 8 Boys C.V. 1895 6.658 ±0.007 -0.243 9 Eotvos R. 1896 6.657 ±0.013 -0.258 10 Brayn C.A. 1897 6.658 ±0.007 -0.243 11 Richarz F. & Krigar-Menzel O. 1898 6.683 ±0.011 +0.132 12 Burgess G.K. 1902 6.64 ±0.04 -0.512 13 Heyl P.R. 1928 6.6721 ±0.0073 -0.031 14 Heyl P.R. 1930 6.670 ±0.005 -0.063 15 Zaradnicek J. 1933 6.66 ±0.04 -0.213 16 Heyl P.,Chrzanowski 1942 6.673 ±0.003 -0.018 17 Rose R.D. et al. 1969 6.674 ±0.004 -0.003 18 Facy L., Pontikis C. 1972 6.6714 ±0.0006 -0.042 19 Renner Ya. 1974 6.670 ±0.008 -0.063 20 Karagioz et al 1975 6.668 ±0.002 -0.093 21 Luther et al 1975 6.6699 ±0.0014 -0.064 22 Koldewyn W., Faller J. 1976 6.57 ±0.17 -1.561 23 Sagitov M.U. et al 1977 6.6745 ±0.0008 +0.004 24 Luther G., Towler W. 1982 6.6726 ±0.0005 -0.024 25 Karagioz et al 1985 6.6730 ±0.0005 -0.018 26 Dousse & Rheme 1986 6.6722 ±0.0051 -0.030 27 Boer H. et al 1987 6.667 ±0.0007 -0.108 28 Karagioz et al 1986 6.6730 ±0.0003 -0.018 29 Karagioz et al 1987 6.6730 ±0.0005 -0.018 30 Karagioz et al 1988 6.6728 ±0.0003 -0.021 31 Karagioz et al 1989 6.6729 ±0.0002 -0.019 32 Saulnier M.S., Frisch D. 1989 6.65 ±0.09 -0.363 33 Karagioz et al 1990 6.6730 ±0.00009 -0.018 34 Schurr et al 1991 6.6613 ±0.0093 -0.193 35 Hubler et al 1992 6.6737 ±0.0051 -0.008 36 Izmailov et al 1992 6.6771 ±0.0004 +0.043 37 Michaelis et al 1993 6.71540 ±0.00008 +0.617 38 Hubler et al 1993 6.6698 ±0.0013 -0.066 39 Karagioz et al 1993 6.6729 ±0.0002 -0.019 40 Walesch et al 1994 6.6719 ±0.0008 -0.035 41 Fitzgerald & Armstrong 1994 6.6746 ±0.001 +0.006 42 Hubler et al 1994 6.6607 ±0.0032 -0.202 43 Hubler et al 1994 6.6779 ±0.0063 +0.055 44 Karagioz et al 1994 6.67285 ±0.00008 -0.020 45 Fitzgerald & Armstrong 1995 6.6656 ±0.0009 -0.129 46 Karagioz et al 1995 6.6729 ±0.0002 -0.019 47 Walesch et al 1995 6.6685 ±0.0011 -0.085 48 Michaelis et al 1996 6.7154 ±0.0008 +0.617 49 Karagioz et al 1996 6.6729 ±0.0005 -0.019 50 Bagley & Luther 1997 6.6740 ±0.0007 -0.003 51 Schurr, Nolting et al 1997 6.6754 ±0.0014 +0.018 52 Luo et al 1997 6.6699 ±0.0007 -0.064 53 Schwarz W. et al 1998 6.6873 ±0.0094 +0.196 54 Kleinvoss et al 1998 6.6735 ±0.0004 -0.011 55 Richman et al 1998 6.683 ±0.011 +0.132 56 Luo et al 1999 6.6699 ±0.0007 -0.064 57 Fitzgerald & Armstrong 1999 6.6742 ±0.0007 ±0.01 58 Richman S.J. et al 1999 6.6830 ±0.0011 +0.132 59 Schurr, Noltting et al 1999 6.6754 ±0.0015 +0.018 60 Gundlach & Merkowitz 1999 6.67422 ±0.00009 +0.0003 61 Quinn et al 2000 6.67559 ±0.00027 +0.021 -- PRESENT CODATA VALUE 2004 6.6742 ±0.001 ±0.0150

The official CODATA value for G in 1986 was given as G= (6,67259±0.00085)x10-11 m3Kg-1s-2 and was based on the Luther and Towler determination in 1982. However, the value of G has been recently called into question by new measurements from respected research teams in Germany, New Zealand, and Russia in order to try to settle this issue. The new values using the best laboratory equipment to-date disagreed wildly to the point that many are doubting about the constancy of this parameter and some are even postulating entirely new forces to explain these gravitational anomalies. For example, in 1996, a team from the German Institute of Standards led by W. Michaelis obtained a value for G that is 0.6% higher than the accepted value; another group from the University of Wuppertal in Germany led by Hinrich Meyer found a value that is 0.06% lower, and in 1995, Mark Fitzgerald and collaborators at Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand measured a value that is 0.13% lower. The Russian group found a curious space and time variation of G of up to +0.7%. In the early 1980s, Frank Stacey and his colleagues measured G in deep mines and bore holes in Australia. Their value was about 1% higher than currently accepted. In 1986 Ephrain Fischbach, at the University of Washington, Seattle, claimed that laboratory tests also showed a slight deviation from Newton's law of gravity, consistent with the Australian results. As it may be seen from the Cavendish conference data, the results of the major 7 groups may agree with each other only on the level 10-1%. So, despite our great technology advancements in measuring equipment, we are still very close to the precision of 1% obtained by Cavendish in the 17th century. This controversy has spurred several efforts to make a more reliable measurement of G, but till now we only got further conflicting results. More evidence

One such effort was that by J.P. Schwartz and J.E. Faller, who devised an experiment that uses gravity field of a one half metric ton source mass to perturb the trajectory of a free-falling mass. They used laser interferometry to track the falling object. This experiment does not suspend the test mass from a support system, and it therefore rules out many of the systematic errors associated with supports in Cavendish-like setups. Below are the results gathered over three years. This is a plot of G results using the mentioned free fall technique. Error bars represent one formal standard deviation. The 1997 data was processed daily, giving values of G from 6.66E-11 to 6.71E-11. One day's observation consisted of approximately 7200 drop measurements. Again, data consistently shows that G varies over time, with an uncertainty of over 1400ppm, despite the fact that all sources of possible experimental errors associated with the classical Cavendish setup, have been eliminated.

Just a couple of years ago, Mikhail Gershteyn, a visiting scientist at the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Centre and his colleagues have successfully experimentally demonstrated that the well known force of gravity between two test bodies varies with their orientation in space, relative to a system of distant stars. Their remarkable finding has been also been issued on the journal 'Gravitation and Cosmology'. George Spagna, a chairman of the physics dept at Randolph-Macon College, argued that Mikhail and his colleagues must provide theoretical justification to be convincing.

...and some more

Variations in G are not only present in Cavendish experiments and free fall setups. They have been recorded by nature in several ways, which we can now interpret and use to find out the constraints of the variation of the gravitational constant over a long period of time. Astrophysical constraints on this variation have been obtained using various observation methods including lunar occultations and eclipses (Muller et al 1991), and planetary and lunar radar-ranging measurements (Shapiro 1990), helioseismology (Guenther et al 1998), primordial nucleosynthesis (Olive et al 1990), gravitational lensing (Krauss & White 1992), and white dwarf luminosity function (Garcia et al 1995). Determinations based on celestial mechanics provide the constraints on the variation of G of (dG/dt)/Go ≤ 10E-12/year. Other methods, such as those utilizing neutron star masses (Thorsett 1996), globular cluster ages (Degl'Innocenti et al 1995), and binary pulsar timings (Damour & Gundlach 1991) and helioseismology (Demarque et al). 1994, have yielded similar constraints on the long term averaged variation of the gravitational constant. Another way to determine the long term average change in G is by analysing the variation of planets' radii. The best limit comes from Mercury, which gave the limit on the variability of G, (dG/dt)/G ≤ 8E-12/year, which comes from the fact that the radius of Mercury has changed at most one km during the last 3000 to 4000 million years.

The collection of these new results suggests that the something is wrong or missing in our understanding of G. By the end of 1999, the international committee CODATA, decided to officially increase the uncertainty of the accepted value for the gravitational constant from 128 ppm to 1500 ppm. This remarkable step of increasing the uncertainty instead of decreasing was made to reflect the discrepancies between the mentioned experiments. In my theory of absolute velocity of matter, I will show that the variation within all these experimental results, not only IS NOT due to experimental error, but that the measure of the variation itself is of paramount importance to our understanding of physical laws, and indeed of the whole universe. Several physicists, among them Arthur Eddington and Paul Dirac, have speculated that at least some of the 'fundamental constants' may change with time. In particular, Dirac proposed that the universal gravitational constant, G, is related to the age of the universe T, with the relation Gmp2/hc~T-1. Then as the age varies, some constants or their combinations must vary as well. Atomic constants seemed to Dirac to be more stable, so he chose the variation of G as 1/T, in other words, the gravitational force weakening as the universe expands. In one of his lectures, Richard Feynman said "...the gravitation attraction relative to the electrical repulsion of two electrons is 0.24E-42... the ratio of time taken for light to travel across a proton to the age of the universe is 0.63E-42...this relation is not accidental (also known as Dirac's large number hypothesis), in which case the gravitational constant would be changing with time, because as the universe got older, the ratio of the age of the universe to the time which it takes for light to go across a proton would be gradually increasing." A few modern generalised theories of gravitation also admit or predict the variation of G with time. Revival of interest in the Brans-Dicke and alike theories, with variable G, was in fact motivated by the appearance of superstring theories where G is considered to be a dynamic quantity. The acceptance of a non zero variation in G, would of course require the revision or extension of general relativity, since this one assumes a constant G, which experimental evidence seems to consistently deny. The acceptance of a variable G, will of course set the dawn of a new physics.

Solving the controversy by better understanding of the nature of mass

The main reason leading to the above mentioned controversies comes from the fact that mass m is considered to be a static substance rather than a dynamic property of space, and despite our knowledge of relativistic mass M, research labs keep on applying the rest mass definition to the masses involved in their experiments. Also, unless you consider the spin levels which I'll soon introduce to you, there is no means to understand why the variations of the measured gravitational constant over a small period of time do not add up to a greater variation over a larger period. One can easily note for example that although measurements within one year vary about 0.7% of the mean value, the variation between the average values of each subsequent year is much smaller. This is because averaging the values cancels out the dynamic variations in mass. It is not a coincidence that ALL Cavendish and free fall setup experimental results fit within the same upper and lower boundary limits of 6.645E-11 to 6.715E-11, equivalent to -0.43% and +0.611% relative to the present (average) value from CODATA. What scientists seem to be missing is that G is oscillating within these two boundaries, and any experiment will give the value of G at the particular point in time of the oscillation. It means that all experimental data points shown above are in fact tracing an oscillating curve. Further on, we will analyse the origin of these oscillations. Those of you who followed my ST conversion table, could clearly see that mass is just a 3D structure of energy and that energy and motion have opposite (inverse) dimensions. Matter can be considered as different levels of spinning electromagnetic gyros embedded within each other. No wonder that inertial mass is defined as its resistance to motion! Varying the velocity of matter, will change the velocity of all these gyros with respect to a fixed point, and automatically vary its mass M. Mathematically it can be shown that relativistic mass has a velocity dependence, and the object will be more massive at higher velocities. The conventional invariant rest mass mo on the other hand, can be shown to be equivalent to a relativistic mass when one changes the frame of reference to the next higher level. The confusion arising from the two different terms, is due to the fact that rest mass, is considered as SOMETHING residing IN space time, which does not exist. Mass is formed of space time itself (=T3/S3 remember?). Statements like "The invariant mass of a particle is independent of velocity" make no sense. Every 'invariant mass' can be thought of a relativistic mass (a gyro) spinning inside a stationary box.

Why so much discrepancy in the measurement of G

Once you understand how all scientific parameters are interlinked, and how to manipulate standard deviation calculations, it becomes clear that the constant G should have the highest deviation, and that small changes in either of the two really fundamental units, space and time, will be amplified in any experimental measurements of G.
The relation between most scientific parameters has already been discussed in our ST system of units page. From here you can see that G is defined as S6/T5. Now we need to know how errors add up when multiplying or dividing parameters whose values are known to be in error by some non zero quantity. Such error or uncertainty factor over a parameter X, is usually quoted as relative standard uncertainty dX/X. But what happens if our quantity is related to X by Y=Xn? The error will increase according to the following equations:

In general, the total error dX/X of any computation X=A*B*C/D*E/F... is:

dX/X = sqrt {[dA/A]2 + [dB/B]2 + [dC/C]2 + [dD/D]2 + [dE/E]2 + [dF/F]2 + ....}

So, for our ST converted unit in the form G = Sx Ty, the total standard deviation is:

dG/G = sqrt {|x|* [dS/S]2 + |y|* [dT/T]2}

So it follows that dG/G = sqrt { 6*[dS/S]2 + 5*[dT/T]2 }

Whatever the actual standard deviation values for S and T are, it is quite obvious that the 'constant' G should have the highest standard deviation of all units due to its highest powers of dS/S and dT/T. It also means that we can monitor measurements of G to get a picture of the much smaller variations of the fundamental units S and T. The big chances are that the variations detected in 1887 by Michelson-Morley and in 1925 by Dayton Miller when checking for variations in the speed of light (the purpose of which was to display the movement of the Earth relatively to an aether) are the same variations on a smaller scale of those which present scientists are noticing in the experimental values of G. Just as a side note, it is less widely known that both Michelson's and Miller's results were not null. However Einstein's theories of SR and GR are only valid for an allegedly null result of their experiments which was denied by both Michelson and Miller. Most of the 200,000 individual readings from Dayton Miller's clearly show a systematic positive result, yet, Einstein prefered to discredit this data for temperature variations, for obvious personal reasons. Shown below are just two of Miller's data, with sinusoidal fitting curves by Maurice Allais. What's the noise contribution in the measurement of G ? As you can abserve from the above curve fitting, for reasons I will shortly explain, G varies in a quasi-sinusoidal manner, but we do have a secondary problem with measurement of G. It's the noise which gets superimposed on the natural oscillating variations of G. This rather random noise is caused by various stellar and intestellar processes. These deviations would correlate with different events taking place in our universe, such as the ones we observe from our own sun, including huge violent coronal mass ejections, electric and magnetic flux changes, which are randomly generated across the universe. It is known, that during coronal mass ejections (CME's) from our own sun, billions of tons of scathing plasma can be accelerated to millions of miles per hour. Solar flares are also other mechanisms which suddenly release huge amount of magnetic energy and radiation across virtually the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Such activities can easily result in noise levels exceeding the noise floor of the measuring equipment, or even the amplitude of the observable sinusoidal variation itself. Luckily enough, they are random, whilst the wanted variation is repetivite, so using digital filtering/curve fitting techniques, we can still filter out this noise to analyse our interesting variations in G....as long as we do not discard all variations in our readings as experimental error!

Newton's Wrong assumption

For over 200 years the equations of motion as stated by Newton were taken as final, and seemed to describe nature quite accurately. However, discrepancies were found later on, which required the intervention of Einstein in 1905 to tweak all Newton's laws of motion. The tweak came at the expense of the acceptance that MASS VARIES WITH VELOCITY and this is clearly shown in Lorentz work:

M = g m0 .... where g is Lorentz factor = 1/Ö(1-v2/c2)

M = Effective mass
g = Lorentz factor
m0 = Stationary mass
v = velocity of mass relative to the observer's reference frame
c = speed of light

From his observations, Kepler was able to state his third law, which is the most important of all, in our context. The third law relates the period of a planet's orbit, T, to the length of its semimajor axis, a. It states that the square of the sidereal period of the orbit (T2) is proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis (a3), and further that the constant of proportionality is independent of the individual planets; in other words, each and every planet has the same constant of proportionality K:

K = a3/T2 .... K= 3.35E18 m3/s2 Since Newton wrongly assumed that Mass is a constant, he had later on 'hidden' Kepler's constant within his Gravitational constant G. Newton's G and Kepler's constant K, are related through:

K = GMS/4 π2.....MS = Solar system mass

So here we can see that planetary motion shows that it's not G or M that are constant, but their product GM, and that G will only be a constant as long as Mass is constant. In fact, today we call the GM product as the standard gravitational parameter µ. It not only simplifies various gravity-related formulas, but also gives more accuracy to the results, than if one uses separate values of G and M. In fact, the product of G and the mass of the Sun is known much more accurately than either quantity alone! So, at relativistic speeds, we have to account for the relativistic mass and we have:

From Kepler's constant and the standard gravitational parameter, we know that GM is conserved for different planetary velocities:

µ = GM = (G+DG) * (M+DM)

(G+DG) a 1/(M+DM)

DM = Dg mo and DG = D(1/g) G ..... where g= Lorentz factor, mo = rest mass

This relationship shows that any change in mass will be reflected in a change in G
and that both Mass and G are functions of velocity

This conclusion can also be easily deduced, from the fact that the dimensions of gravitational 'constant' G has MLT dimensions L3M-1T-2, showing the inverse relation between G and Mass.

For a body oscillating between two relativistic velocities VMAX and VMIN, both expressed as ratios of c, the Lorentz contraction factor variation is given by:

gMAX/gMIN = {1/Ö(1-VMAX2)} / {1/Ö(1-VMIN2)}

gMAX/gMIN = MMAX/MMIN = GMIN/GMAX... where GMAX-GMIN represents the deviation in G.

In other words, the experimental variation in G, is a MEASURE of the variation of the absolute velocity of the test masses at that point in space and time, and not an error at all! This should come to no surprise, after all we know that Einstein already tweaked Newton's laws of motion by replacing the rest mass with relativistic mass. At first, it was a shocking fact to accept that Newton's laws were wrong, after 200 years of general acceptance. The fact is that the relativistic effects on the experiments which had validated Newton's laws were smaller than the accuracy of the experimental error, and so the small but important change in mass was neglected. Einstein's tweak to Newtons equations of motion was simply to replace Newton's constant mass by the velocity dependent mass. For velocities much lower than the speed of light, Einstein's tweak has no effect upon Newton's original equations, but this is not a good enough reason, for present physics textbooks to still quote Newton's laws of motion without any hint of that mass is in fact a function of velocity. In fact, it is not before reaching advanced levels that the student is first exposed to Einstein's relativistic mass.

We are used to the fact that a 1kg steel ball will always 'contain' 1kg of matter, and that when we put it on a measuring balance on earth, we will always read 9.8 Newtons of weight. Yet, Einstein showed this is false. As it has been shown in both my ST conversion table and in Einstein's equations, the effective mass of an object (the opposition to motion) will increase with the velocity of the object, and the effective mass is not something virtual. As long as a 1kg steel ball is moving at a velocity enough to reach an effective mass of 10kg, the steel ball will have all the properties of a 10kg steel ball, no more, no less, and the 1kg mass becomes history! The first confirmation of measured increase in mass came in 1908, measuring the mass of the fast electrons in a vacuum tube. In fact, TV designers work out their calculations assuming an electron mass of 0.5% heavier than its so called 'rest mass' when calculating the magnetic fields used to deflect them across the screen. At relativistic speeds, the effective mass will increase with velocity. As you can see from the graph, the Lorentz factor is not linear, with its gradient increasing further as the velocity approaches the speed of light. This means that if a mass is moving at relativistic velocity, and a similar mass is moving at twice its velocity, the mass of the fastest object will be more than twice the mass of the slower one. Also, if a mass moving at relativistic velocity, varies its velocity sinusoidaly, the variation in mass will not be perfectly sinusoidal, but distorted towards the positive velocity variation. The above plot shows multiple curves (in blue) plotting 1/g for an object travelling at different velocities v ± 30km/sec where 0<v<c, that is moving forward at relativistic velocity with non relativistic sinusoidal velocity variations. Due to the non linear curve for g, the perfect sinusoidal velocity variation will eventually result into a distorted sine wave representing the actual Lorentz factor variation. Since the plot is for 1/g, it also represents the variation of G for such an object.
In the following paragraph, we will see that on earth (were most experiments are done), no object is really at rest, and that the relativistic mass has to be considered even for a steel ball sitting motionless on a table. The only thing which is in fact at rest in the whole (closed) universe is its boundary, or its reference frame beyond which no matter can exist.

How fast is Earth going For us who live on this planet, it looks as if our planet is stationary. In fact, a long time ago, it was believed that the sun and stars all revolved around the fixed earth, and that the earth was at the centre of the universe. We now know, that our Earth is just a tiny planet residing in a huge universe containing multiple galaxies of thousands of solar systems.

We know that our planet spins on its axis at one cycle every day. The solar system in turn, spins at one cycle every year. We normally refer to solar system spin as planet orbit motion, but in fact even the sun is known to be spinning, so it is more correct to call it solar system spin. Our whole solar system is thus spinning on its own axis while orbiting around our Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy (not the Milky Way galaxy) at one cycle every approximately 226 million years, and it's highly probable that other galaxies spin around as well, and this hierarchy goes on for five levels. All this happens within a closed fixed frame universe. So, saying that something is at rest means only that it is traveling at the same velocity as the observer and not at rest in relation to the universe frame of reference. So, your PC, your desk, your room are all traveling through space at the same speed as you are, and the velocity at which you are traveling right now is far greater than you would ever expect. The table below shows the currently accepted velocities for the known universe.

 •How fast is the Earth spinning? 0.46 km/sec •How fast is the Solar system spinning? 30 km/sec •How fast is the Galaxy spinning? 250 km/sec •How fast is our super cluster spinning? 627 km/sec •How fast is the CMBR frame spinning? Assumed at rest
 So, when all these velocities happen to line up, we will have an absolute velocity of 907.46 km/sec or 0.3% the speed of light when 'stationary'!

Introducing Macro Spin Levels and the Relativistic Universe model Macro Spin Level 3 At time of writing, it is generally thought that all galaxy clusters are rotating about what is normally referred to as the Great Attractor. This great attractor is assumed by most, to be fixed in space that it can be taken as the fixed reference in the universe. As you see in my universe hierarchy diagram, and as highly debated within astronomers and scientists, we lack much data and knowledge to assume such thing, and the great attractor is probably orbiting around, with other great attractors around the real fixed centre of the universe. For the pre-eliminary calculations we shall abide to the conventional idea that the great attractor is fixed, and start from Spin level 4 which is the orbital velocity of the galaxy about the great attractor. From astronomy we know some interesting data about Macro Spin Level 3. At this level our whole galaxy is spinning about its own centre at the velocity of 250kps and orbiting along the universe at Spin level 4 velocity of about 627 kps relative to the Great Attractor. The value of 627 kps is equal to 0.21% the speed of light and has been measured from the cosmic microwave background radiation, under the assumption that the speed of light is constant across the whole universe. Let's work out the change in mass that would result from a change of + 250kps to -250kps at the galaxy velocity of 627kps, assuming the great attractor at rest. From g= 1/Ö(1-v2/c2) At v=627+250kps or 877kps, we get gMAX= 1.000004279 At v=627-250kps or 377kps, we get gMIN= 1.000000791 So the variation Dg from its minimum to maximum value is 3.488E-6 Applying this g factor to a mass of MMIN1000Kg at any place in our solar system, DM (in grammes)= Dg*1000*1000 = 3.488 grammes So, a nominal mass of 1000kg would vary its mass in a cyclic way by 3.488 grammes every 226 million years, the time taken for the solar system to make a complete revolution around the galaxy. This percentage change in mass will take effect over the whole of the galaxy, and even though the percentage may seem small, the change in global mass will be quite huge considering the total mass of the whole galaxy. It will thus oscillate the gravitational force between all stars within the galaxy, and also between their components at lower macro spin levels. Thus, spin level 3 variation is the only variation that will show up when averaging data values over one year. Our value will thus show as a long term variation of (dG/dt)/G = 3.488E-6/112E6 = 0.031E-12/year.
Macro Spin Level 2

Now let's consider level 2, the orbital spin of the earth and other planets around the sun. Actually it's not the planets that are spinning around the sun, but the entire solar system, including the sun is rotating on its own axis. In astronomy, the "ecliptic plane" is by definition, the 2D plane in space defined by the sun at its centre, and by the orbit of the earth, as shown below. The 12 zodiac constellations are all on the ecliptic plane. Let us assume that an observer outside our solar system is observing the motion from a fixed point in space on the same plane as the ecliptic plane. If he could measure the velocities of the sun and earth, he would note that the sun is moving at a constant 250 kps around the centre of the galaxy, but he would also note that the earth is not moving at a constant velocity. At times the earth is moving at 220 kps, at times it is moving at 280 kps (because it is going in circles around the sun), and at most times it is accelerating or decelerating between these two limits. The earth will seem to be racing with the sun around the galaxy. At times the earth would be slightly in front of the sun and at other times it would be slightly behind the sun. At times it would be moving faster than the sun as it comes in front, and at times it would be moving slower as it goes behind. This motion is describing the absolute velocity of Macro Spin Level 2, with the Great Attractor taken as the fixed reference. Our solar system's velocity around the centre of our galaxy is known to be approximately 250kps, and earth's orbital velocity is about 30kps. This means that the earth's velocity with respect to the galaxy will vary from 220 kps to 280 kps, depending on the orbital position of the earth, relative to our joint path towards the centre of the galaxy, that is depending on the month of the year. To measure the maximum absolute velocity limits for Spin Level 2, we must also consider the velocity of the higher level 3, at which the centre of the galaxy is moving with respect to the fixed reference frame, and so we must add 627kps to the solar system velocity.

Calculation of mass variation for Macro Spin Level 2

This velocity will be a sinusoidal variation oscillating from +30kps to -30kps about the absolute solar system velocity of 250kps+627kps = 877kps, that is an oscillation with peak to peak velocity variation of 60kps.

This means that any object on earth, including earth itself is moving at a velocity of 997kps, which varies ±30kps, or a total velocity variation of 60kps every year cycle.

So, let us work out the change in mass that would result from a change of 60kps at the absolute solar system velocity of 877kps.

From g= 1/Ö(1-v2/c2)

At 877+30kps or 907kps, we get gMAX= 1.000004577
At 877-30kps or 847kps, we get gMIN= 1.000003992
So the variation g from its minimum to maximum value is 5.85E-7
Applying this g factor to a mass of 1000Kg at any place on earth, DM= Dg*1000 = 0.585 grammes

So, a nominal mass of 1000kg would vary its mass in a cyclic way by 0.585 grammes every 6 months, returning back to its original mass on the next 6 months.

Spin level 2 does not vary with the location of the object on earth, since the velocity variation is taking place over all matter on earth, and thus can be applied to the whole earth's mass.
Thus applying this g factor to Earth's average mass, DM= Dg*Me= 5.85E-7*5.972E24Kg
Earth's mass will increase by 3.49E18Kg over a period of 6 months and loose 3.49E18Kg over the following 6 months. All consequences of Macro Spin Level 2 will thus show and repeat themselves yearly. One of such obvious consequences of this change in earth's mass is that the gravitational force of attraction between it and the sun will have a minimum and a maximum value separated by 6 months time. The minimum distance between the Earth and sun will be that position in which the earth is moving at 280kps due to the increase in earth's effective mass, whilst the maximum radial distance from the sun will occur when the earth is moving at 220kps (refer to the above diagram). This implies that the orbit around the sun cannot have a uniform centripetal force, and its orbit will be distorted into an elliptical one, and this we know for fact, or was it an other enigma?

Already at Macro Spin Level 2, at a velocity variation of 60kps, the motion of the earth around the sun DOES make a dangerously worrying difference on the masses involved. According to the above calculation, it will in fact vary in a quasi-sinusoidal way, the earth's mass by 3.49E18Kg (earth's mass=5.972E24kg). And this is assuming that the cosmic radiation background is the reference frame, otherwise all the calculated values can be much higher. Also note, that if one averages Spin level 2 variations over a year, they would virtually cancel out, since the increase in G in the first 6 months is canceled by the decrease in the following months of the year. This is the reason for which the experimental variations between experiments done during the year, do not eventually add up in the total variation over the whole year.

Macro Spin Level 1

We know a lot of data on this level. The tangential velocity of spin level 1, can be easily calculated knowing the radius of earth and the time it takes for one complete spin (one sidereal day).

Calculation of mass variation for Macro Spin Level 1

Equatorial Earth's diameter : 12757km
Time for complete spin about its axis: 23hrs 56mins 4sec = 86164 seconds
Equatorial perimeter = Pi * 12757 = 40077.29km
Tangential velocity = 40077.29/86164 = 0.465 km/sec or kps
Earth's orbital velocity around the sun (spin level 2) is known to be 30kps.

So considering spin about its axis on its own, any 'stationary' object in the equatorial region on earth would be moving at 0.465 kps or 465 m/s, already at supersonic speeds! If one had to be in the position of the sun, looking at the earth, he would see the earth's motion as in the animated diagram above. Any point on the equator will seem to be oscillating from left to right and back, varying its velocity from zero at the left to +0.465kps at the centre (at noon), to zero at the right, then to -0.465kps when moving on the other side (at midnight), and back to zero after a complete cycle. He will also see the earth moving to the left at its nominal 30kps. The velocity of earth as seen from the sun would be 30kps ±0.465kps. Thus the change in velocity modulated over the 30kps speed is equal to 0.93kps within every half cycle.

From g= 1/Ö(1-v2/c2)

At 627+250+30+0.465kps, we get gMAX= 1.000004582
At 627+250+30-0.465kps we get gMIN= 1.000004572

So the variation Dg from its minimum to maximum value is 1E-8.
For Macro Spin Level 1, such a change in effective mass varies upon the location of the object on earth. Objects at the poles will not be effected by such a variation.
Applying this g factor to a mass of 1000Kg at the equator, DM (in grammes)= Dg*1000*1000 = 10 milli grammes

So, a nominal mass of 1000kg at the equator would vary its mass in a cyclic way by 10mg every 12 hours. I have also shown that the mass variation for Macro Spin Level 1 depends on the actual location on earth, and that is has minor effect at the earth's poles. Also, the consequences of change occurring within this spin level will repeat themselves every 24 hours.

### Natural consequences of change in mass

Given the knowledge of such mechanism, even if lacking a comprehensive set of accurate data to complete exact mass variations calculations at all spin levels, and knowledge of a possible 4th spin level, we can still evaluate the consequences of the spin levels treated here. For Spin level 3, the mass variation will be due to the rotation of the galaxy about its own axis. This mass variation will oscillate periodically every about 226 million years, the time for the solar system to make one complete cycle around our galaxy. Such a mass variation would be even greater than that of level 2, and would literally oscillate the mass values of all bodies within the solar system, including the sun. This means that as a consequence of the 3rd Macro Spin Level, all the planets' orbits will decrease their radial distances from the sun and get very close to each other for the first 112 million years, and then do the opposite on the next 112 million years. We currently have evidence that the earth, and all planets are in fact getting closer to the sun, and now we know why.

Another consequence of such big variation in mass of all objects within the solar system, is that while the planets themselves increase in mass, gravity can possibly crush them into higher density planets. Bigger animals will have less chance to survive as their bodies collapse due to their weight, and animals start getting smaller. In the case where the value of G changes abruptly, only the small 'versions' survive. Scientists are now convinced that what we refer to as birds, are in fact the survivors of the small scale dinasours. This can also explain a lot of known history of unsolved evolution facts. When on the next 112 million year cycle, mass starts to diminish again, Earth's density will decrease, possibly Earth itself would expand in radius, explaining why continents' coastlines are almost a perfect fit to each other, and could once cover the whole surface of a smaller earth. Animals grow taller and bigger as their muscles would be able to lift bigger bodies, and for us humans, building up temples with huge rocks, without any impossible machinery, would be like playing with blocks! Does this solve another mystery? Dinosaurs would be crushed by their own weight under our present gravitational force

Diplodocus weighed about 35 tons, but the limited strength of biological tissues does not make it theoretically possible for such a creature to support its own weight. The flying dinasour Pteranodon had a wing span of 8 metres, which is theoretically inadequate for lifting off such a large animal. A substantially lower value for the G constant, would easily explain these anomalies. Kalasasaya Temple at Tiahuanaco - Its size and weight clearly indicate that gravitational forces were much lower during its time. The vertical coloums are 12 foot long.
Human beings could handle heavier and bigger building blocks with no problem Wall of Gigantic blocks on the summit of Ollantaytambo. The huge polished, jewel hard pink porphyry blocks are in the range of 200 tonnes each, and had been brought to an altitude of 60 metres from a quarry located 8km away and 900m higher on the opposite side of the mountain!!. No way our present human body, with all our technology can ever achieve such a task at the present high value of G. Giant human bones were discovered in the mountain valley area of Turkey. One person's hind leg from the bone fossils measures 120cm in length, indicating a body length of about 5 meters. Photo of monkey over Nazca plain (18m in diameter). Giant humans did not need to work out complex and precise geometry to draft huge scale pictures over the ground. It makes no sense to go into all the geometry trouble to draw a stupid monkey. All they did was to draft their picture on the ground like a child drawing his picture on paper. Today, the photo is taken from a plane, but in those days, a human had just to stand upright! Photo of a miniature human skeleton(left) Homo floresiensis compared to a present human skeleton(right) Homo sapiens. This adult skull was about the size of a 3 year old modern human child. Homo floresiensis lived when the value of G was at its peak. It is estimated, that this skull belongs to a 30 year old female, 1m long, weighing just about 25kg and lived about 18000 years ago. Next to the same sediment deposits bones of dwarf elephants were also found. Since we have past records showing that G was sometimes larger and sometimes smaller than our present value, it is evident that the value of G is not following a linear trend, but oscillating. Giant human footprint contemporary with other dinosaur footprints taken from Paluxy River, Texas. It exceeds 45cm in length. Studies have revealed that it was of a 10 foot female weighing about 454kg.

What if the Great Attractor is not fixed in space?

In the above calculations, I showed that various changes in mass occur in different locations in space at different times. Even if all the numbers are wrong, you always end up with non zero variations in mass, of different periodic cycles superimposed on each other. One could in fact use the few past records we've got of maximum 'error' in experimental G to determine the actual velocity deviations of our solar system with respect to the universe reference frame within the past. Since the history of records for values of G does not span more than a few years, the variations due to Spin level 3, which take 224 million years for a whole cycle, will be negligible. However, Spin level 2 would show up the whole deviation in a year's time, and is the main Spin level generating the error in measurement. We have seen that macro spin level 2 velocity variation, would result in Dg=5.85E-7 or a deviation of 0.00006% in mass, which will be reflected in the experimentally derived value for G. The error of 0.0128% quoted by Codata is still about 213 times as much as this deviation, and this could simply mean that the Great attractor, assumed fixed in space, is in motion as well, in which case its velocity has to be added to all Spin levels. If we account for a higher spin level, ie. spin level 4, the absolute velocity has to be stepped up by the velocity of this spin level, and all mass variations in the lower spin levels will thus be offset to higher values.

If one assumes that the average of 0.7% experimental error in G is all due to the fact that the experiments have been done in different months of the year, we can equate the mass variation of spin level 2 to 0.7% to find the approximate value for the Great Attractor orbital velocity (GAV) around the centre of the universe.

gMAX/gMIN= {1/Ö(1-v2max/c2)}/{ 1/Ö(1-v2min/c2)}

100.7% = {1/Ö(1-v2max/c2)}/{ 1/Ö(1-v2min/c2)}

Vmax= 907 + GAV, Vmin = 847 + GAV

1.007 = {1/Ö(1-(907+GAV)2/c2)} / { 1/Ö(1-(847+GAV)2/c2)}..... c=299792.458kps

GAV ~ 294644km/sec or 0.9828c

It makes sense that after all, the GAV, which sits in the cosmic microwave background radiation rest frame, is a source of electromagnetic waves, which we know by definition have to travel at velocity c. The 0.9828 factor then arises from the tilt of the axis of each hierarchy level with respect to the direction of this energetic microwave source. This factor would correspond to cos-1(0.98)= 10.6 degrees.

Now re-working the mass variations for all spin levels including CMBR source velocity:

Spin Level 1:

At 294644+627+250+30+0.465kps, we get gMAX= 5.96627
At 294644+627+250+30-0.465kps we get gMIN= 5.96562

So the variation Dg from its minimum to maximum value is ~0.011% every 12 hours.

Spin Level 2:

At 294644+627+250+30kps , we get g= 5.9659
At 294644+627+250-30kps , we get g= 5.9245
So the variation Dg from its minimum to maximum value is ~0.7% every 6 months

Spin Level 3:

At 294644+627+250kps , we get g= 5.945108
At 294644+627-250kps , we get g= 5.627361
So the variation Dg from its minimum to maximum value is ~5.67% every 112 million years

This implies that if one performs the Cavendish experiment with the same setup at a time separation of 12 hours, he will get 0.011% difference from his previous reading. He may also get an error of 0.7% if re-done within 6 months, and theoretically he should get an error (or better, a deviation) of 5.67% if re-done after 112 million years(!).

### Science Horoscopy and scientific consequences of mass variation Measuring G with the false assumption of mass conservation would be better defined as science horoscopy and no matter how accurate the experiment is, will always give different readings at different locations on earth, at different times of the day, year and at different locations of our solar system within the fixed frame of the whole universe. Here you will see that a LOT of scientific parameters DO change with the positions of the stars. Understanding this point is of primary importance if we have to ever settle down for physics constants that are really constant and be accurately specified. Perhaps, the scientific consequences of variation in mass and resulting value of varying G, are more drastic then the natural consequences. Knowing the exact velocity of earth at any point in time with respect to the universe fixed frame of reference, would enable us to know the EXACT values of all physics constants at any location and at any point in time in both past and future. The value of G at any particular space and time location on earth can in itself be predicted by knowing the position and velocity at that point in time, of earth. The reason for different laboratories to come up with G values which differ so wildly from each others, is simply because the masses of both test masses and that of earth are varying due to variations in velocities of the earth at different times of the experiment. These variations can be worked out using Einstein's effective mass equations upon the velocity variation we found to exist in all Macro Spin Levels. No one else seems to have been thinking about applying Einstein's theory because all researchers assumed that their laboratories are stationary and that the masses involved in their experiments are equivalent to rest masses. As we have seen, all matter around us is traveling at relativistic speeds, and applying Newton's law of gravitation to varying masses, will obviously give varying results for G. Indeed, Einstein is at fault as well, as he should not have defined anything as 'rest mass' by choosing any reference frame other than the fixed frame of the closed universe. 'Rest mass' should not mean a mass which is stationary with respect to the observer but to the universe and in fact it can only be used to refer to the universe fixed frame of reference itself, the universe 'shell' if you like. The very basis of special and general relativity theories rest on a triple shaking basis: the reputedly negative results of Michelson's experiments, which were reconfirmed to be positive by several scientists, the invariance of the speed of light in all directions, and the impossibility to detect absolute motion, all of which have been confirmed NOT true by various other experiments.

Gravitational constant G is always measured indirectly, with the false assumption that the masses (both of the equipment and that of earth) are constant. But we now know that this is not true. Kepler's constant is the mass independent constant which relates to product G*M. A change in velocity will thus always result in a change in mass, and in G. If one does not take into account the variations in Earth's mass and the dumbbell's masses, then for sure, the value of the MEASURED G will vary with the time of year in which the experiment is done. Since G is a function of the reciprocal of mass (see dimensions of G), the experimental values for it will vary because the mass property is varying with the relative velocity of earth to the fixed reference frame at that particular place within the universe.

As a matter of fact, G is not the only measured unit that suffers such variations, though as we discussed it is in fact the best candidate to detect any variations. The consequences of this finding, which is a direct consequence of the ST conversion clean-up, are quite ground shaking, considering that ALL parameters have to be accepted as varying with star positions and time, and these include the speed of light and all those SI units which we have already explored analysing the present SI system of units.

The consequences of such a variation are just overwhelming! Mass is not conserved and together with G, and most scientific units, it depends on star positions. All the units above depend on the absolute velocity. The law of isotropy, the well accepted feature of the universe which states that a body's physical properties are independent of its location and orientation in space, simply breaks down. We can no longer just ignore the term absolute velocity. The idea proposed by Ernest Mach to Einstein, in which he stated that forces on bodies may vary relative to the orientation of distant stars proves itself to be perfectly justified. Einstein has in fact used this principle which he himself coined as Mach's Principle to reach his final laws of general relativity, but later on just dropped off this most interesting part. The fact that we are unable to sense absolute motion is a result of lacking a human sense for such thing (which would otherwise make us crazy, given the speeds at which we are traveling). We know that traveling in an aircraft at a uniform supersonic speed, does not feel any different from sitting down in your office, unless you look out of the window. It was not until James Clerk Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics was developed, that there showed up physical laws that suggested that one could measure his velocity without any reference to outside his reference frame, or to use our example, without looking out of the window. Unfortunately, during those days, all experiments could not show this is true, and in physics, anything that cannot be detected by experiment makes no sense to be defined. But, we cannot say that an experiment which consistently shows variations in the order of 0.0125% in Gravitational constant or mass, is not detecting anything! One cannot just ignore an idea or path of thought because it feels weird. As long as there is an experiment to support the idea, that idea can no longer be ignored. Time has come to accept Mach's and Maxwell's ideas. One has also to keep in mind that these were the pioneers behind Einstein's work. It is well known that most of Einstein's credit goes for making public, the ideas that these and other pioneers of his time had already known or derived for some time. For the first time, science will be able to define an object standing still, from an object traveling at uniform velocity. It will be also able to define an accelerating object from one being under the effect of gravity. In other words, science will be able to better describe reality.

Just think about how ridiculous is that NIST 1kg prototype sitting at the International Bureau of weights and measures, which is cycling it's own mass in sinusoidal fashion whilst encapsulated and 'stationary' under that glass jar! NIST has now to define the 1Kg something like: "This prototype shall henceforth be considered to be the unit of mass ...but measured when Leo, earth and the sun line up, on the first year that our solar system returns from its 226 million year orbital journey..". There is no guarantee that its actual mass might not vary wildly from 1kg along the journey of our solar system within the universe.

Now, if one compares the universe structure presented here, to the atomic structure we find a surprising similarity, not only a hierarchical similarity but also new numerical evidence showing that the universe is a set of spinning levels, with the ultimate source being a pure electromagnetic source. Starting off from the earth's rotation and diameter, we found that Spin level 1 has a velocity of 465 m/s.

Now using the same relation already found at atomic levels, that is 1/2Alpha, we can find the velocity for spin level 2:

Spin level 2 velocity = 462.9 * 137.036/2 = 31716.98 m/s
Spin level 3 velocity = 31716.98 * 137.036/2 = 2173184.18 m/s = 0.007c
... Now similarly to the atomic version, we will not apply the 1/2 factor to the last spin level 4: Spin level 4 velocity = 2183043.09 * 137.036 = 297804468 m/s = 0.993c

Adding up the 4 spin level velocities 0.993c + 0.007c + 0.000c + 0.000c = c

This re confirms that Spin level 4 must exist and its velocity is very close to the speed of light. Remember, the value we estimated previously for GAV gave us a value of 0.9828c, and this was based on the past records of deviation in G over a couple of decades. Also, given that no matter can travel faster than the speed of light, and that the observable universe is composed of matter, then, it follows that the sum of all spin level velocities cannot exceed c, and so anything trying to spin or travel faster than c, will start to have its axis tilted in a way that its velocity component in the direction of GAV never adds up to more than c. This would explain the earth's tilt to its orbit around the sun, and the solar system tilt along the galactic plane. These tilts vary according the the spin velocities... the higher the spins the greater the tilt. Earth's tilt results in seasons and is know to change from 21 to 25 degrees. The cause of this tilt has been long pondered upon by many scientists, and will remain an enigma, until the presented relativistic universe model is considered.

The simple and straight forward theory presented on this page, together with the high degree of mismatch obtained by independent labs upon the experimental value of G, Mach's original arguments which led Einstein to draw up his most famous theory, Mikhail's experimental results, together with the high precision of the GM product, must be more than enough to convince any one with basic physics knowledge that mass and the majority of scientific parameters DO vary with the actual location and orientation of earth with respect to the surrounding universe. There is a small difference however for the actual reason of why this happens, from the way Mach & Michail described the dependency. The dependency of the scientific units varies with the positions of the stars, in an indirect way, because a difference in the location of the stars IMPLIES a difference in our absolute velocity with respect to the universe fixed frame of reference. In other words, knowing our position relative to the stars, is the same as knowing our absolute velocity.

It would not be the first time in history, that even those ideas which seem to have been accurately verified might be wrong, and that in our present physical laws, everything could be wrong! A breakthrough in science will always result in a breakdown of the old version, the bigger the breakthrough, the less relics are left over from the older version. I am here re-introducing what Mach and Maxwell have already shown exist, the theory of absolute velocity. This theory together with its natural and scientific consequences just dwarfs out Einstein's tweaks upon Newton's laws, which was in itself another scientific breakthrough. It automatically abolishes Einstein's Weak Equivalence principle, which states that there is no local experiment that can distinguishing between the effects on an observer of a uniform gravitational field and of constant acceleration. Of course this is not true for an observer that can locally measure his absolute velocity. This principle is the foundation of the General Theory of Relativity and is now shown to be incorrect. It is known that despite its popularity, the General Theory of Relativity was a failed attempt by Einstein to unify gravity with electromagnetism. This fact led Einstein to become increasingly isolated in his late years and eventually being unsuccessful in his attempts to unify general relativity and Quantum Mechanics. So, that something is wrong with General Theory of Relativity is already guaranteed by its incompatibility with Quantum mechanics and also by the known violation of the Nordtvedt effect. Again, in the Nordtvedt case we see that many metric theories of gravity actually predict that massive bodies violate the weak equivalence principle. Brans-Dicke scalar-tensor theory has come very close to the truth, and in fact successfully linked such an effect to the possibility of a spatially varying gravitational constant. Niels Bohr, the father of Quantum Mechanics claimed "We will never understand anything until we have found some contradictions". Indeed, the most difficult part is not finding the contradictions, but accepting them without trying to discard them as experimental error. My study thus concludes that the theory of absolute velocity should be at the fundamentals of all physical units, since all our experiences and experiments depend on their absolute motion that is the motion relative to our universe fixed frame of reference.