Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2021, 02:07:15 PM »
The entire article is about how gravity is difficult to measure and how they have been getting different results.
And he explains why. Because gravity is a very weak force.

He also says:

Quote
Gravity is so strong that it causes stars to fuse hydrogen into helium, collapses stellar cores into neutron stars and black holes, creates quasars and dictates the flow of matter within the entire universe.

So he clearly believes gravity is a thing and believes the mainstream scientific view. He doesn't at any point cast doubt on gravity existing or the shape of the earth. So do you accept his authority on those things too?
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7819
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2021, 02:10:50 PM »
He has a Masters in Astrophysics

Feel free to find someone with equal or greater relevant credentials who supports your position that the experiments are not filled with systematic errors which dominate the results.

That’s not even what he said. He said they “can” cause systematic errors.  The “dominate the results” nonsense is just you dishonestly poisoning the well.

Incorrect.

It's literally what the part you bolded says.

Quote
The entire article is about how gravity is difficult to measure and how they have been getting different results.

I agree it is difficult to measure.  It is not impossible and has been done with precision increasing every year.

Quote
Seriously, I present a source from an astrophysicist who says these things directly and you guys have nothing in the way of an equivalent source for us except your own personal statements/knowledge/interpretation/excuses. You may as well be citing your garbage man's opinion here as he comes by to pick up your trash.

I just called you out on your attempts to use rhetoric like "dominate the results" and you get really defensive.  How do you learn when your ego reacts this way?  Anyway, here is an article that cites multiple published papers describing the methods accuracy and precision of measuring G. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5018785/

Far from impossible, it supports my claim that these measurements, although not as accurate as other constants in physics, is measured with ever increasing precision and results largely agree.

Anyway, I am happy that you are trusting scientists who believe the Earth is round.  It's a good start towards accepting the truth.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline c0i9z

  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2021, 03:35:47 PM »
Seriously, I present a source from an astrophysicist who says these things directly and you guys have nothing in the way of an equivalent source for us except your own personal statements/knowledge/interpretation/excuses. You may as well be citing your garbage man's opinion here as he comes by to pick up your trash.

People are using an equivalent source. They're, in fact, using an equal source. Your source. The very article you're quoting from, to show you how your personal interpretation of the quote is wildly at odds with the views and intents of its author.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2677
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2021, 04:07:13 PM »
The measurements may vary, but so what if they do?

An analogy might be that the measurements of tidal levels at ports such as Hull or Portsmouth give varying results, but at the end of the day, your boat still floats up to the harbour wall...
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #24 on: April 28, 2021, 10:18:13 AM »
Quote
Incorrect. The entire article is about how gravity is difficult to measure and how they have been getting different results. He said that "This has, however, been VERY difficult to prove! Measurements of the gravitational constant over the past 200 years have been erratic.". Not 'can', not 'sometimes', he said 'have been'. I would suggest that you  try to present something that supports your case, rather than plugging your ears and pretending that the author said something else and is being misquoted.

What difference does it make if the measurements aren't exact?  The fact that it can be measured at all is proof of its existence.

If lack of consistency in the measurements is a problem, it is a bigger one for FE/UA.  RE embraces the idea that the gravitational force can vary, FE/UA rejects the idea.
There is nothing wrong with embracing fictional ideas .

There is something wrong with embracing fictional ideas and calling them science, rather than science fiction, which describes gravity perfectly.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #25 on: April 28, 2021, 03:42:03 PM »
There is nothing wrong with embracing fictional ideas .

There is something wrong with embracing fictional ideas and calling them science, rather than science fiction, which describes gravity perfectly.

Repeatedly saying something doesn't make it so. What exactly is your reason for thinking that gravity is 'science fiction'? Which part of our observable world, or indeed solar system / universe is at odds with our understanding of gravity? Do you share Tom's absurd view that, because it's hard to measure to more than 3 or 4 significant figures, it must not exist?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2021, 10:46:28 AM »
There is nothing wrong with embracing fictional ideas .

There is something wrong with embracing fictional ideas and calling them science, rather than science fiction, which describes gravity perfectly.

Repeatedly saying something doesn't make it so. What exactly is your reason for thinking that gravity is 'science fiction'? Which part of our observable world, or indeed solar system / universe is at odds with our understanding of gravity? Do you share Tom's absurd view that, because it's hard to measure to more than 3 or 4 significant figures, it must not exist?
How about Newton?

"That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #27 on: April 30, 2021, 11:17:58 AM »
There is nothing wrong with embracing fictional ideas .

There is something wrong with embracing fictional ideas and calling them science, rather than science fiction, which describes gravity perfectly.

Repeatedly saying something doesn't make it so. What exactly is your reason for thinking that gravity is 'science fiction'? Which part of our observable world, or indeed solar system / universe is at odds with our understanding of gravity? Do you share Tom's absurd view that, because it's hard to measure to more than 3 or 4 significant figures, it must not exist?
How about Newton?

"That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Sir Isaac was a 17th century scientist working at the cutting edge of science and maths. He was wrong about many things, including light and its composition, for example. He was a great scientist, but the world has moved on, and so should we - many others have followed him and tested and refined his ideas. That's what happens in science.

I asked you which part of our observable world, or indeed solar system / universe is at odds with our understanding of gravity? and you've responded with a letter written in 1693. Can you perhaps actually come up with an observable thing, some challenge perhaps to the current theory of gravity? Why can the world not, for example, be a globe of around 25000 mile circumference, exerting a force equal to mg on all matter around it? Where is the 'fiction'?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #28 on: April 30, 2021, 11:31:20 AM »
There is nothing wrong with embracing fictional ideas .

There is something wrong with embracing fictional ideas and calling them science, rather than science fiction, which describes gravity perfectly.

Repeatedly saying something doesn't make it so. What exactly is your reason for thinking that gravity is 'science fiction'? Which part of our observable world, or indeed solar system / universe is at odds with our understanding of gravity? Do you share Tom's absurd view that, because it's hard to measure to more than 3 or 4 significant figures, it must not exist?
How about Newton?

"That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Sir Isaac was a 17th century scientist working at the cutting edge of science and maths. He was wrong about many things, including light and its composition, for example. He was a great scientist, but the world has moved on, and so should we - many others have followed him and tested and refined his ideas. That's what happens in science.

I asked you which part of our observable world, or indeed solar system / universe is at odds with our understanding of gravity? and you've responded with a letter written in 1693. Can you perhaps actually come up with an observable thing, some challenge perhaps to the current theory of gravity? Why can the world not, for example, be a globe of around 25000 mile circumference, exerting a force equal to mg on all matter around it? Where is the 'fiction'?
I do not care what Newton was wrong about.

Neither do you.

Everybody has been wrong about a great many number of things.

Mostly you.

The fiction is gravity.

Period.

I know water will not adhere to a sphere.

You claim it will because of gravity.

I claim it will not and offer the supposed "father," of gravity, who also states it is pure rubbish.

But go ahead.

Describe the mechanism by which gravity causes 326 trillion gallons of water to perform this marvelous magic.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2021, 11:33:48 AM by Action80 »

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7819
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #29 on: April 30, 2021, 12:11:29 PM »
Is the trillions parts meant to make it seem like too much water for the earth to attract? Considering the Earth’s mass is a trillion times the mass of the water it seems like an insignificant mass comparatively. Combined with there being no comparatively large mass nearby to work against the Earth’s gravitation it seems really trivial.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #30 on: April 30, 2021, 12:18:18 PM »
Is the trillions parts meant to make it seem like too much water for the earth to attract? Considering the Earth’s mass is a trillion times the mass of the water it seems like an insignificant mass comparatively. Combined with there being no comparatively large mass nearby to work against the Earth’s gravitation it seems really trivial.
Describe the mechanism gravity uses for just one ounce of water to stick the surface of the earth.

I didn't mean to confuse you with such large numbers.

My apologies.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #31 on: April 30, 2021, 12:20:56 PM »

I do not care what Newton was wrong about.

Neither do you.

Everybody has been wrong about a great many number of things.

Mostly you.

The fiction is gravity.

Period.

I know water will not adhere to a sphere.

You claim it will because of gravity.

I claim it will not and offer the supposed "father," of gravity, who also states it is pure rubbish.

But go ahead.

Describe the mechanism by which gravity causes 326 trillion gallons of water to perform this marvelous magic.

Well, Newton certainly wasn't describing it as pure rubbish in the quote you cited, but rather challenging its ability to reach across a vacuum without some material of transmission. This was deep philosophical stuff at the time, wrapped up in theology as well as maths and physics. Newton would have laughed hard at the notion that earth was flat - he was way, way beyond that. Indeed, he was instrumental in proposing that it was an oblate spheroid and not just a sphere - he's probably not your best choice of champion.

Saying that 'water won't adhere to a sphere' isn't really an argument. Are you saying that water wouldn't adhere to planet earth even if there was a force equal to mg acting on every particle on the surface of the planet? Or are you saying that there isn't a force equal to mg acting on every particle on the surface of the earth?

The theory is very simple - there is a physical property of matter called mass. If you apply a force to a mass, M, then it will accelerate at a rate given by F=MA. That's what mass is.

There is a mutually attractive force that acts between masses. It is proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. That is what gravity is.

Earth's mass is such that every mass on the surface experiences a force equal to its own mass multiplied by 9.81 - the 'acceleration due to gravity', or g. So F = mg = ma, or g = a, meaning everything falls at the same initial rate, until aerodynamic drag takes effect.

But we can measure the effect of gravity with smaller masses - that's what the Cavendish experiment was about, and what numerous other experiments have done. Tom's assertion that the lack of precision in the results invalidates them is absurd - even his own source indicates an agreement between multiple different methodologies of 3-4 significant figures for the gravitation constant. If it isn't a gravity force they are detecting, what is it?

Which part of all of this do you actually disagree with , and why? And saying 'you're wrong' or 'all of it' or 'because Newton' isn't a valid argument.   

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #32 on: April 30, 2021, 12:35:43 PM »

I do not care what Newton was wrong about.

Neither do you.

Everybody has been wrong about a great many number of things.

Mostly you.

The fiction is gravity.

Period.

I know water will not adhere to a sphere.

You claim it will because of gravity.

I claim it will not and offer the supposed "father," of gravity, who also states it is pure rubbish.

But go ahead.

Describe the mechanism by which gravity causes 326 trillion gallons of water to perform this marvelous magic.

Well, Newton certainly wasn't describing it as pure rubbish in the quote you cited, but rather challenging its ability to reach across a vacuum without some material of transmission. This was deep philosophical stuff at the time, wrapped up in theology as well as maths and physics. Newton would have laughed hard at the notion that earth was flat - he was way, way beyond that. Indeed, he was instrumental in proposing that it was an oblate spheroid and not just a sphere - he's probably not your best choice of champion.

Saying that 'water won't adhere to a sphere' isn't really an argument. Are you saying that water wouldn't adhere to planet earth even if there was a force equal to mg acting on every particle on the surface of the planet? Or are you saying that there isn't a force equal to mg acting on every particle on the surface of the earth?

The theory is very simple - there is a physical property of matter called mass. If you apply a force to a mass, M, then it will accelerate at a rate given by F=MA. That's what mass is.

There is a mutually attractive force that acts between masses. It is proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. That is what gravity is.

Earth's mass is such that every mass on the surface experiences a force equal to its own mass multiplied by 9.81 - the 'acceleration due to gravity', or g. So F = mg = ma, or g = a, meaning everything falls at the same initial rate, until aerodynamic drag takes effect.

But we can measure the effect of gravity with smaller masses - that's what the Cavendish experiment was about, and what numerous other experiments have done. Tom's assertion that the lack of precision in the results invalidates them is absurd - even his own source indicates an agreement between multiple different methodologies of 3-4 significant figures for the gravitation constant. If it isn't a gravity force they are detecting, what is it?

Which part of all of this do you actually disagree with , and why? And saying 'you're wrong' or 'all of it' or 'because Newton' isn't a valid argument.   
I am telling you and all other readers here that yes, "absurdity," when uttered by Newton does = rubbish.

And Newton the word "absurdity," when talking about gravity.

As far as measuring gravity, you might as well be talking about the length of lines on your palm or how many tarot cards were flipped over before the death card was witnessed by all. Those, too, are measurable. The difference is, we know the mechanisms in place for both of those.

Now, once again, I want you to provide the mechanism by which gravity performs all its wonders.

Go ahead.

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7819
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #33 on: April 30, 2021, 12:46:42 PM »
Is the trillions parts meant to make it seem like too much water for the earth to attract? Considering the Earth’s mass is a trillion times the mass of the water it seems like an insignificant mass comparatively. Combined with there being no comparatively large mass nearby to work against the Earth’s gravitation it seems really trivial.
Describe the mechanism gravity uses for just one ounce of water to stick the surface of the earth.

The theoretical conception is that the Earth warps space time so that the most conservative path for the water is towards the Earth.

This has always seemed like a strange tactic by FEers because the answer for gravity is just as esoteric as the QM answer for why opposite electrical charges attract. Virtual photons are pretty elusive!

Quote
I didn't mean to confuse you with such large numbers.

My apologies.

No need for personal attacks. Save it for AR, Lackey.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #34 on: April 30, 2021, 12:52:24 PM »
Is the trillions parts meant to make it seem like too much water for the earth to attract? Considering the Earth’s mass is a trillion times the mass of the water it seems like an insignificant mass comparatively. Combined with there being no comparatively large mass nearby to work against the Earth’s gravitation it seems really trivial.
Describe the mechanism gravity uses for just one ounce of water to stick the surface of the earth.

The theoretical conception is that the Earth warps space time so that the most conservative path for the water is towards the Earth.

This has always seemed like a strange tactic by FEers because the answer for gravity is just as esoteric as the QM answer for why opposite electrical charges attract. Virtual photons are pretty elusive!
So there is no mechanism.

Thanks.

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7819
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #35 on: April 30, 2021, 12:59:16 PM »
So there is no mechanism.

Thanks.

The warping of spacetime is the mechanism.  I just explained that.  If you have an issue with that, you should say so instead of your low effort dismissal.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #36 on: April 30, 2021, 01:00:45 PM »
Now, once again, I want you to provide the mechanism by which gravity performs all its wonders.

Go ahead.
Why? I don't need to understand the mechanism behind something to observe an effect.

Let's say I don't know anything about how cars work. I observe that I turn the key, it makes some noise, I press a pedal and it starts moving.
After a while it stops moving and I find that if I put more gas in it starts working again.
I can theorise that it's the great car god who makes it move and who accepts gas as a sacrifice.
I don't have to know anything about engines or the mechanism to observe that when I turn the key and press a pedal then the car moves, and I don't have to know anything about gravity to observe that things fall and that the Cavendish experiment demonstrates that masses attract. What Newton was calling absurd was the way gravity seemed to act over vast distances. Einstein explained it, the fact you don't understand that explanation is neither here nor there.

And why is that lack of understanding an issue when you have no mechanism for UA or EA or how the sun moves or why it doesn't vary in angular size through the course of a day despite the greatly varying distances. Why isn't that an issue for you?
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #37 on: April 30, 2021, 01:02:38 PM »
So there is no mechanism.

Thanks.

The warping of spacetime is the mechanism.  I just explained that.  If you have an issue with that, you should say so instead of your low effort dismissal.
No, you didn't explain a mechanism.

You stated a postulate.

Stated postulate =/= explained mechanism.

Good day to you.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2021, 01:05:37 PM by Action80 »

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #38 on: April 30, 2021, 01:04:09 PM »
Now, once again, I want you to provide the mechanism by which gravity performs all its wonders.

Go ahead.
Why? I don't need to understand the mechanism behind something to observe an effect.

Let's say I don't know anything about how cars work. I observe that I turn the key, it makes some noise, I press a pedal and it starts moving.
After a while it stops moving and I find that if I put more gas in it starts working again.
I can theorise that it's the great car god who makes it move and who accepts gas as a sacrifice.
I don't have to know anything about engines or the mechanism to observe that when I turn the key and press a pedal then the car moves, and I don't have to know anything about gravity to observe that things fall and that the Cavendish experiment demonstrates that masses attract. What Newton was calling absurd was the way gravity seemed to act over vast distances. Einstein explained it, the fact you don't understand that explanation is neither here nor there.

And why is that lack of understanding an issue when you have no mechanism for UA or EA or how the sun moves or why it doesn't vary in angular size through the course of a day despite the greatly varying distances. Why isn't that an issue for you?
You don't have a mechanism either.

Thanks.

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7819
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #39 on: April 30, 2021, 01:09:51 PM »
No, you didn't explain a mechanism.

You stated a postulate.

Stated postulate =/= explained mechanism.

Good day to you.

Your semantic game doesn't change that warped space time is the postulated mechanism that causes the water to fall towards the Earth.  A postulate that has a good deal of empirical evidence to boot.  I hope you can deal with this substantively.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.