Hate to beat a dead horse, but Carter and the UM team have not offered in this thread any compelling reason as to why the current, empirically-derived, gravitational constant is incorrect. Frankly, I am not really sure the UM team understands how very wrong they are on this one.
Really their entire ‘hydroplanet model’ (which, as they argue, would majorly change the currently understood mass of the Earth) rests on this one constant (G), which has been tested in and out of a vacuum dozens of times by multiple, independent researchers, always to roughly the same number: 6.67 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2.
And as Barry points out, the Gaussian Gravitational constant (k) is approximately the square root of Cavendish’s constant (G) as defined by Gauss himself. Meaning, their model has no ability to explain orbital mechanics and/or, to put it simply, satellites.
And, frankly, to add insult to injury, they haven’t realized that since 2012 we now use the astronomical unit (admittedly directly derived from the Gaussian constant), and not the Gaussian constant, for “space technology”. The UM’s term usage is out of date. What this means to me is that their response on this critical part of their ‘model’ demonstrates really sloppy google research.
I think they need to come clean about this gaping hole in their ‘model’–their inability to empirically derive a new mass of the Earth and explain orbital mechanics–to their readers and followers. Frankly, I think they should be offering refunds at this point until they can produce something factual.
A true scientist does not, in order to support a model they are biased towards, predict that they will have different results from everyone else by doing the same experiment. And they haven’t been able to demonstrate any fault with the Cavendish Experiment.
This should deeply worry the followers of the ‘Universal Model’–especially the ones who have little skin in the game.