So I am looking into the UM and am excited by what I am learning, but I also have some concerns. (Please keep in mind I have not yet read the book although I have ordered it.)
According to what I understand the UM Hydroplanet model requires a lighter mass for the earth than currently accepted. This makes sense as water is lesd dense than iron. What doesnt make sense is that this would destroy orbital mechanics for all satelites, moons, and spacecraft as the law of universal gravitation depends directly on the mass of the earth. Sure we could be off on the mass of the moon too, but we know how much our spacecraft weigh. Surely if our mass measurements are wrong for the earth, then our satelites would have been lost with not enough gravity to hold them; or, the Universal Gravitational Constant is wrong. How do you reconcile these?
Great question Stuart!
Just a reminder of something you probably understand, but the UM is a massive undertaking. We are questioning very fundamental theories of the scientific establishment and that means we have to cover every field of science: geology, astronomy, physics, biology, etc. We have to do this because every field of science connects to almost every other field. What I’m saying is, thank you for your question, and we regret that we could not fit the answer in Volume I. So instead we actually cover this subject in Volume III of the UM: The Universe System as it relates more to physics and the universe.
But since you asked, I would be happy to give you a general answer! The Gravitational Constant, G, is a proportion that shows up in Newton’s equation of gravity. Henry Cavendish devised an experiment to find G back in the year 1798 using a device that used pendulums and big metal spheres to measure the gravitational attraction between the spheres. From his experiment, he calculated a density of the Earth to about 5.5 grams per cubic centimeter. Other scientists noticed this number was close to the density of iron, hence the iron core theory. From there, G was derived to be about 6.6 x 10^-11 with the subsequent units. UM researchers have replicated this experiment and have found that air resistance actually has an appreciable effect on the pendulum, something that Cavendish did not account for. His experiment needs to be redone in a vacuum so that the air doesn’t slow down the movement of the pendulum.
Even though this number has been ‘established’, there is another number that is usable and even preferred in space technology. That is called the Gaussian Gravitational Constant, k. It was derived by Carl Fredrich Gauss based on the average orbital period of the Earth. This number does not require a specific mass of a celestial body, and is in fact the number that satellite scientists will use in their formulations and space missions.
So, in essence, space missions successfully work because scientists use the right proportions for the mass of planets and asteroids, even though the specific mass isn’t accurately known.
I hope that answers your questions. Let me knew if there was something you want me to further expound.
Have a great day!
Thank you for that explanation. I will see if that is something that I could do.
Unfortunately, there are many problems with Carter’s answer to you. Some of these have recently been addressed in the comments on the Universal Model’s YouTube channel.
In this reply, I’m going to paste in some of the posts from the YouTube comments, and you can click the link above to see the full conversation.
Professor of Geological Sciences
Brigham Young University
Yes, that’s more correctly said. Thanks for pointing that out.
I would love it, however, if one of the “Universal Model” backers would have the decency to explain to us all how we are regularly able to put satellites into orbit if the mass of the Earth is 1/3 what mainstream science says it is. Did NASA just get lucky the first time?
Surely, you they don’t expect people to pay $70.00 for a book before better explaining how they came about their alternative theory that the mass of the Earth is only 1/3 what we know it to be.
See our forum response to a question similar to this at the following link:
So the answer is that they have supposedly measured a new value for the universal gravitational constant, G (from Newton’s law of gravitation). It says,
“UM researchers have replicated this experiment and have found that air resistance actually has an appreciable effect on the pendulum, something that Cavendish did not account for. His experiment needs to be redone in a vacuum so that the air doesn’t slow down the movement of the pendulum.”
However, the Cavendish experiment HAS been done in a vacuum. See this:
Maybe they didn’t realize that the Cavendish experiment (or its equivalent) has been repeated many more times than once in a vacuum (you can scroll through to find a slew of them):
So the UM’s new gravitational constant to calculate the Earth’s mass at about 1/3 of what is known (roughly 2*10^24 kg) would have to be something around 1.8*10^-10 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 (using a 6371 km radius of the Earth and gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s).
That doesn’t hold up to aggregate experimental values done in a vacuum. Bad news guys.
(I’ve edited this to highlight the fact that the Universal Model requires a new gravitational constant that is off by at least one order of magnitude to produce it’s stated mass of the Earth. Their complaint that the Cavendish Experiment hasn’t been completed in a vacuum is false. It has many times–and those experiments lend to the validity of the experiment whether it is completed in a vacuum or not in a vacuum).
We are not able to discuss fully our position about calculations regarding a revised gravitational constant and an effective change to the Earth’s mass at this time. While we acknowledge the oft-repeated Cavendish experiment, there are other research data we are not ready to publish or discuss so we must withdraw from this subject at present. This matter will be addressed at length in Volume 3. Thank you for your feedback.
So if all those Cavendish-type experiments were way off (except the one you guys did in your garage), can you at least admit that they weren’t way off because of air resistance? I’m asking because I want to see if you guys are even capable of admitting that one of your arguments doesn’t hold water. <—–pun intended
Russ, since you guys are still working out some of the kinks in your measurement of the universal gravitational constant, I thought I would help you out by posing a few questions you might want to address, so as to refine your argument.
Universal Model, Vol. 1, p. 107 says this about what is supposedly wrong with previous measurements of the universal gravitational constant, G:
“However, there is one major flaw in the experiment leading to the Cavendish Experiment. Unlike the Earth, the lead balls are not in outer space, and thus, the balls, restricted by the air and influenced by the Earth’s gravity rendered incorrect data. Their attraction should have been measured in a vacuum, in low gravity. Air, a denser medium than the vacuum of space, along with the attractive gravitational force of the Earth, slowed the balls’ oscillation rate. Cavendish neglected to account for the reduced oscillation in the original experiment, leading to an incorrect gravitational constant and errors in the Earth’s density estimates. As we will learn in subchapter 18.4, the New Mass of the Earth, the Earth’s density, recalculated to approximately 2.3 g/cm^3 using the physics of gravitational atuaction and the new geological discoveries outlined in this and other chapters, renders a truer density of the Earth that aligns with empirical observations. We next examine the geological nature of the Earth’s density.”
As I pointed out above, the value of G has been measured in a vacuum, and Will Meservy chimed in with the observation that this has actually been done many times. Well, it turns out that G has even been measured in a vacuum AND in freefall, negating the effects of gravitational attraction by nearby bodies such as the Earth! The paper was published in Science Magazine in 1998. Here’s the paper (figures at the bottom):
The answer they got was G = (6.6873 + 0.0094) x 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 sec^-2, which is very close to what everyone else (except you) has gotten, even when they were doing it in air and Earth surface gravity. The value implied by Cavendish’s original experiment in 1798 (!!!!!!) was 6.754×10−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2, which is only 1% off the 1998 measurement!
So here’s my first few questions:
1. I can imagine that you guys might have set up a vacuum chamber in your garage to perform such a measurement, but what did you do to offset the effects of the Earth’s gravitational field? (Did you launch a rocket into orbit? Did you put the apparatus into freefall like the guys who published in Science? Even if you totally botched the experiment, I would be very impressed if you even attempted either one of those feats.)
2. Why do you suppose your experiments imply very large effects for air resistance and the Earth’s gravitational field, when the guys who published in Science Magazine observed such minuscule effects? (For instance, could it be that you did your experiments in someone’s garage with a cheap vacuum pump that vibrates, and cars were driving by, and you didn’t have an active vibration cancellation table to negate these effects, so it threw off the oscillations of your apparatus? I’m just throwing out some wild guesses, but maybe they will serve as food for thought.)
More questions in the next post.
Here’s another issue that weighs on my mind. As Will Meservy brought up above, if the true value of G is vastly different than what has been accepted, how do we so successfully put spacecraft into orbit and such? The owner of this YouTube channel replied with a link to this “official” forum response by one Carter Brown to a similar question.
Here’s the relevant part of Carter’s answer:
“Even though this number has been ‘established’, there is another number that is usable and even preferred in space technology. That is called the Gaussian Gravitational Constant, k. It was derived by Carl Fredrich Gauss based on the average orbital period of the Earth. This number does not require a specific mass of a celestial body, and is in fact the number that satellite scientists will use in their formulations and space missions.”
“So, in essence, space missions successfully work because scientists use the right proportions for the mass of planets and asteroids, even though the specific mass isn’t accurately known.”
I had never heard of the Gaussian Gravitational Constant before, so I looked it up on Wikipedia.
I thought of a couple different ways to mathematically test Carter’s answer, but before I go to all that work, I thought I’d raise a simpler issue, first. That is, the Wiki article shows the math to derive the Gaussian Gravitational constant (k), and shows that k has a very simple relationship with the universal gravitational constant, G. That is, k^2 = G by definition. So here’s my next question:
3. If k^2 = G, then wouldn’t a wildly inaccurate value of G also imply a wildly inaccurate value of k? If so, then Carter didn’t really provide a valid answer to the question he addressed.
I am confident that you guys will take these questions seriously, because as Chauncey Riddle, emeritus Professor of Philosophy at BYU said in his review of your book,
“Sessions will possibly be proved wrong about some assertions he has made in his work. This is almost inevitable for anyone doing serious thinking and writing. But the finding of such errors will not be an embarrassment for Sessions. He will laud such finding, because that will mean that the cause of truth will be advanced. His purpose is to bring truth and light to important matters, and if his work stimulates others to produce more truth and light, even unto showing his work needs to be amended, he will be grateful. He will be grateful because he writes not to give the final word but to further the ongoing human inquiry into the powerful ideas about the true nature of the universe that give us all more understanding and power.”
Please note, the information discussed here will be included in Volume III of the Universal Model. That volume is still being written and reviewed. Carter’s comment did not mention the fact that other scientists have conducted experiments in a vacuum that they had similar results to what Cavendish found.
The “appreciable effect on the pendulum” stated by Carter in regards to UM experimentation was a faulty test of a continuing experiment that will not be finished until the release of the Universal System – Volume III of the Universal Model.
However, Carter is correct regarding his mention of satellite calculations being based on an entirely different formula.
More information regarding this question will come in upcoming volumes. Thank you again for your question!
Dear UM Team,
Your admission that your experiment was faulty restores some of my faith in you.
However, you say, “Carter is correct regarding his mention of satellite calculations being based on an entirely different formula.” This is sort of a dodge, don’t you think? As I mentioned, the universal gravitational constant and the Gaussian gravitational constant are mathematically linked in a very simple way, so it’s not really an ENTIRELY different formula, is it? In fact, Stuart was correct to say that our predicted orbits for satellites would be way off if the universal constant was off. This is a MAJOR problem for the UM. Seriously.
You are here to keep me in line aren’t you! haha
I think you make great points. I need to take the blame on this one again, I really shouldn’t have said so much at the beginning of this thread because there is still more experimentation to be done on our end. In a sense you could say I was talking about a UM Theory. Which means we have more to do before being justified in calling it a Natural Law. I am learning now to be extra careful and double check all the things that I say while writing on the UM website.
It is theoretical at this point, we are still in discussion phase and we do have satellite engineers and physicists helping us along in that discussion with what they can. The whole purpose of the UM is to find truth so that I say ‘come what may’!
Can I just say, we appreciate your questions Barry. It is helping us find our weak points, giving us (well at least me) ideas for future research, and also, this is just fun! It is a great day when you get to spend your time discussing and learning more truth about nature.
Anyway, consider this my formal apology to Barry and the UM team for overstepping my bounds on this thread.
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.
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?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.