This is part of a series of articles responding to the claims made in Dean Sessions’ Universal Model. Click the link to see the introduction to the series.
UM Claim: The Universal Model claims that instead of a core made mostly of iron, the Earth has a core made of ice. But if so, that would mean the Earth has a much different total mass than scientists believe, and all the standard measurements of Isaac Newton’s Universal Gravitational Constant (G), starting with Henry Cavendish’s torsion balance experiment in 1798, must have been wildly inaccurate.
One of the indirect evidences used in determining the Earth’s core composition is density. From where did the inferred average density of 5.52 g/cm^3 come? The answer comes from one experiment described in subchapter 18.4 [not yet published], the Cavendish Experiment. In 1798, Henry Cavendish constructed an apparatus similar to a pendulum but designed to measure the faint gravitational attraction between two large lead balls and two small lead balls. The two sets of balls suspended independently allowed Cavendish to obtain accurate measurements of the twisting suspension wire as the balls oscillated back and forth past each other. The whole process of this experiment, fascinating as it is, gets duplicated and retested by others in physics labs today. However, there is one major flaw in the experiment leading to the Cavendish Error. 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 attraction 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. (Universal Model, Vol. 1, p. 107)
Issue: Way back in 1798, Cavendish’s careful experiments implied a value of G = 6.754×10−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2, which is within about 1% of the accepted value today. And guess what? Dean Sessions wasn’t the first one to wonder whether air resistance and the Earth’s gravitational field. So not only have Cavendish-type experiments been done many times in a vacuum–they have also been done in both a vacuum AND during freefall to negate the effects of gravity! Many, many experiments have yielded about the same value for G, whether or not such corrections are made.
There probably have been experiments done that yielded wildly different values of G, but as Dean Sessions pointed out, rigorous experiments are hard to do, and lots of things can go wrong! If things could go wrong with the Cavendish experiment, why couldn’t they have gone wrong with whatever experiment Sessions set up in his garage? Replication of important experimental results is a hallmark of science, and the vast, vast majority of G measurements have been very close to one another.
When this point was made on the UM internet forum, the UM team eventually responded with this stunning admission.
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.
That’s right. After the publication of Volume 1, the UM team found out that their garage experiment was faulty, but they seem quite confident that by the time they roll out Volume 3, they will get the result they need to save their model.
To be blunt, if the accepted value of G is even remotely accurate, there is no way the UM “hydroplanet” model can be right, or even in the ballpark.