High-Precision Measurements of the Gravitational Constant Don't Match

Small clarification: the speed of light has zero relative uncertainty not because we measured it with infinite precision, but because its value is fixed by definition. The speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s, and the meter is defined from that value and the second. So c is exact by definition, while G is still experimentally measured with real uncertainty.

bro you literally deserve everything u have, be it money, or whatever positive things u have in your life. you been doing this for minute bro. & what i really love about u & your channel, is you don't sale your soul for it, you don't change anything about who u are, for anyone/or anything, & you can absolutely tell your not doing this for clicks/views/like/whatever. you can absolutely without a doubt tell that you do this because you love it, you put passion into it, & u luv what you do. you put your heart all the way into it because you love what you do. you are without a doubt, one of the most real people on this platform, if not the realist mfkr on here period. it means everything to me as a viewer, that you do not do the clickbait bullshit, or any of the other bullshit you see on this platform. i absolutely appreciate you being who you really are, & don't follow or do what 99% of the other mindless sheep do. doing literally anything & everything they can just for clicks & likes & views & whatever other bullshit. sorry so long, i just wanted to let u know how i feel about you as a youtuber, & as being who you truly are as a person. a good person. i wish you all the good luck you deserve, & positive vibes. you truly are one of the best people/channels on youtube period. you are the wonderful person here, Anton. there's no doubt about it.

Some people just don't understand the gravity of this problem.

Alas, I can't do a torsion balance experiment in my home. All I'd learn is that cats love to play with suspended things.

First year physics in college, we ran 4 experiments to calculate little g. Came up with my number to 4 places, turned it in with all of the experiment results. Professor wanted to know where I got the number. Told him it is in the data. He gave me a C. Come to find out it was the exact number for our elevation. Dude probably went to his grave thinking I pencil whipped the results.

Gravity always brings me down, man...

My nerdy glasses make it hard to distinguish the numbers '3' and '8', or '1' and '7', the probability of experimental errors is 700%.

I really don't like when people say X times smaller than Z, if you say like the thing is 10x smaller than earth, that means nothing, you mean it's 1/10th the size or the world is 10x larger.

Before the development of the computerized processing of bubble chamber data, physicists regularly excluded suspicious measurements, and that was quite a common occurence. Then in 1963 Lynch et al. rigorously proved in PhysRev that "there are systematic errors in the analysis of the 72-in. hydrogen bubble chamber film not accounted for," and in the same year Rosenfeld and Humphrey formalized the solution for this problem: just multiply all errors by the chi-squared. This is now known as the Physics Data Group scale factor and is commonly used in physics, since in 1964 Rosenfeld, one of the founders of the PDG, generalized the technique from a single experiment to a review of multiple experiments (Data Tables)

Mixing precision and accuracy at the start.