Several Ways to Calculate the Universal Gravitational Constant <i>G</i> Theoretically and Cubic Splines to Verify Its Measured Value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1686, Newton discovered the laws of gravitation [1] and predicted the universal gravitational constant 11 3 1 2 7 10 m kg s G --- . In 1798, with a tor- sion balance, Cavendish [2] measured 11 3 1 2 6.754 10 m kg s G --- . Due to the low intensity of gravitation, it is difficult to obtain reliable results because they are disturbed by surrounding masses and environmental phenomena. Modern physics is unable to link G with other constants. However, in a 2019 article [3], with a new cosmological model, we showed that G seams related to other constants, and we obtained a theoretical value of ( ) 11 3 1 2 6.673229809 86 10 m kg s G --- . Here, we want to show that our theoretical value of G is the right one by interpreting measurements of G with the help of a new technique using cubic splines. We make the hypothesis that most G measurements are affected by an unknown systematic error which creates two main groups of data. We obtain a measured value of ( ) 11 3 1 2 6.673262 60 10 m kg s G --- . Knowing that our theoretical value of
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".