I too am interested in the “real” answer to this question.
It may be that the answer is completely different than what we are all expecting to hear, but to publish such claims without the ability to offer any conclusive evidence in favor does not help the UM’s case.
Even if you are certain the answer is out there, why publish the book before you find it?
Isn’t this the foundation of the UM? The magma question seems to be the basis of everything else and so if we are expected to just accept the hydroplanet theory on good faith, aren’t we expected to accept the whole UM on good faith? Isn’t that what we do with modern science today?
I’m not especially concerned myself because I figure the answer will come out one way or another. However, this appears to be a gaping hole that the moderators can’t cover up with band-aids.
If, as you say, the current accepted mass of the planet is incorrect, what is the correct mass and how did you go about calculating it? What led you to discover that the current and accepted way of calculating the mass of the earth is incorrect?
How can we calculate the mass of the earth ourselves in an experiment that is reproducible?
