The Newtonian gravitational constant G remains the least precisely known major fundamental constant. Its CODATA-2022 recommendation, G = 6. 67430 (15) × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻², still rests on a factor-3. 9 expansion of the input-data uncertainties, applied because the direct determinations remain mutually inconsistent. The 2026 NIST/BIPM torsion-balance replication reports the peer-reviewed Metrologia value GNIST = 6. 67387 (38) × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻², a low direct-G value. We show that an offset of this sign and magnitude arises internally, without any experiment-level fit parameter, from a two-path finite-source response mechanism in the parameter-free finite-cell formulation of Mittermeier Attractor Theory (MAT), and we offer this as a falsifiable resolution candidate. The construction separates two paths. The first path uses the Rydberg identity to fix a Hubble-free SI Planck anchor, R∞, SI ℓPMAT = (α0, MAT² / 4π) μe, where α0, MAT is the MAT laboratory fine-structure readout and μe is the finite-support electron-to-Planck coordinate. This gives Gₐtom = 6. 674300 × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻², only 17. 1 ppb above the CODATA central value (+0. 00076 σ). The second path describes direct macroscopic G measurements. It keeps the Rydberg anchor fixed and multiplies it by one finite-source response factor, Gbulk = Gₐtom Dbulk, with Dbulk = (αM / α0, MAT) ⁴ (1 − αM² / 6π) ⁴. This gives Gbulk = 6. 673871 × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻², only 0. 166 ppm above the peer-reviewed NIST/BIPM value. Thus MAT keeps the atomic sector fixed: the Rydberg wavenumber, the electron mass, and the laboratory fine-structure constant define one unique Gₐtom. The low direct-G value is then read as the response of finite macroscopic source masses, not as a second atomic or metrological constant. The bifurcation is sharply falsifiable. Clean finite macroscopic source–source experiments should converge to Gbulk, while a genuine coherent source–source quantum-gravity measurement should approach Gₐtom. Ordinary free-fall and atom-gravimeter tests are protected because the response factor belongs to active finite-source gravity, not to universal passive-mass renormalization.
Rainer Andreas Mittermeier (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: