Of course it does. It's quite obvious that they're talking about the constant of gravitation (capital 'G').
There also has been a continuing interest in the determination of the constant of gravitation, although it must be pointed out that G occupies a rather anomalous position among the other constants of physics. In the first place, the mass M of any celestial object cannot be determined independently of the gravitational attraction that it exerts. Thus, the combination GM, not the separate value of M, is the only meaningful property of a star, planet, or galaxy. Second, according to general relativity and the principle of equivalence, G does not depend on material properties but is in a sense a geometric factor.
The article does not state that it is talking about a "big G" versus a "little g". The experiments are testing the acceleration of bodies in free fall or the attraction from external gravity.
We have discussed the equivalence principle before in the context of reconciling the lack of downward wind from a UA. You had incorrectly applied this principle to that situation as well, and I did you the courtesy of explaining your mistake, which you acknowledged by bowing out of the conversation
As I recall front that conversation you were backed into a corner, essentially claiming that if the earth was not rotating that the weight of the air would constantly increase on the surface of the earth. I don't see the need to engage with that.
If you believe that there would be a difference in a container of air accelerating upwards and "gravity", then I would suggest that you read up on the equivalence principle. It's the same. Your response was "but the earth is rotating!" The rotation of the earth does not keep the air pressure or weight on the surface of the earth from constantly increasing. Refrain from rediculous discussions.
I had assumed that you saw your error, but I guess not. Do please tell us all about how, if the earth were not rotating, that air pressure or weight would constantly increase on the surface of the earth.
A nice try. After your marble analogy failed, you floundered, and almost hysterically asked me how the two scenarios could possibly be different. I explained how a rotating earth is different than the inside of a rocket ship!
Which was quite easy to do, Tom.
I then proceeded to explain how that difference not only supported the equivalence principle, but also resulted in weather on our planet (you got that for free).
Then I finished by underlining step-by-step how, in fact, it was your scenario that violated the equivalence principle.
You then disappeared.
Welcome back though! I look forward to picking up where we left off! Have you found some new possible workarounds?