Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #40 on: April 30, 2021, 01:11:06 PM »
You don't have a mechanism either.

Thanks.
Can you explain the mechanism behind the things you believe?
If not, why do you believe them?
"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 #41 on: April 30, 2021, 01:23:04 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.
Why should I deal with something (your postulate) that has no substance in a substantive manner?

Further, stating the words, "warped space time," does not = an explanation.

Neither does it = gravity.

Hope you can substantively deal with these failures on your part.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #42 on: April 30, 2021, 01:26:58 PM »
You don't have a mechanism either.

Thanks.
Can you explain the mechanism behind the things you believe?
If not, why do you believe them?
Are you going to stick to the topic, or will you continue with these diversionary tactics?

If you cannot explain the mechanism for gravity, then just say so and be done with it.

Newton did so.

The difference is he called people who believed in gravity to be people of low intellect.

You need to take that up with Newton.

Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #43 on: April 30, 2021, 01:29:27 PM »
You don't have a mechanism either.

Thanks.
Can you explain the mechanism behind the things you believe?
If not, why do you believe them?
Are you going to stick to the topic, or will you continue with these diversionary tactics?
You don't have a mechanism either.

Thanks.
"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 Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7819
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #44 on: April 30, 2021, 01:30:52 PM »
Why should I deal with something (your postulate) that has no substance in a substantive manner?

Further, stating the words, "warped space time," does not = an explanation.

Neither does it = gravity.

Hope you can substantively deal with these failures on your part.

Then I suggest you study General Relativity because you are just letting your ignorance become a virtue.  The entire history of the theory deals with what I briefly explained and it is supported by large amounts of empirical evidence.  If you aren't interested in learning about it, then by all means carry on, but don't pretend that I have failed or that you have rebutted the mechanism for gravity under a GR framework.  The only accurate follow up would be that there is no known mechanism for why mass-energy-momentum warps space-time, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not space time warps.  LIGO has unambiguously observed warped space time.  Astronomers observe it every solar eclipse.  The warping of space-time is accounted for by GPS systems.  To ignore this is to be an ostrich in the modern world.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7819
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #45 on: April 30, 2021, 01:57:57 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?
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.”

This is a pretty silly quote to bring up considering that even though Newton could not explain the mechanism for gravity, he showed that gravitation indeed did occur.  He tried, and failed, to explain it using a model of pressure exerted through a medium.  As AATW has pointed out, the mechanism was irrelevant to the observations that were being made and the theory predicted observations extremely well with a few famous exceptions.  So cherry-picking Newton in an attempt at a "Gotcha!" is very ineffective.

Some other Newton quotes:

“Sir Isaac Newton was asked how he discovered the law of gravity. He replied, "By thinking about it all the time.”
“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.”
"...Gravity must be caused by an agent...but whether that agent be material or immaterial I leave to my readers.” (The important finale to your quote)
“Kepler's laws, although not rigidly true, are sufficiently near to the truth to have led to the discovery of the law of attraction of the bodies of the solar system."

This seems quite far from someone who doubts the existence of gravity (what an absurd thought, that Newton didn't believe in gravity).  Instead it appears that the truth of what he discovered was astounding and it's mechanism was inexplicable to him.  Fortunately, Einstein and his associates, gave the world a theory which described gravity, but also described other phenomena springing from the same cause.  These phenomena have been quatitatively predicted and subsequently observed.  The world owes Newton a great debt of gratitude, but Einstein expanded his knowledge greatly.  One more quote from Newton explains Einstein's position in the history of science well, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #46 on: April 30, 2021, 02:04:24 PM »
Why should I deal with something (your postulate) that has no substance in a substantive manner?

Further, stating the words, "warped space time," does not = an explanation.

Neither does it = gravity.

Hope you can substantively deal with these failures on your part.

Then I suggest you study General Relativity because you are just letting your ignorance become a virtue.  The entire history of the theory deals with what I briefly explained and it is supported by large amounts of empirical evidence.  If you aren't interested in learning about it, then by all means carry on, but don't pretend that I have failed or that you have rebutted the mechanism for gravity under a GR framework.  The only accurate follow up would be that there is no known mechanism for why mass-energy-momentum warps space-time, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not space time warps.  LIGO has unambiguously observed warped space time.  Astronomers observe it every solar eclipse.  The warping of space-time is accounted for by GPS systems.  To ignore this is to be an ostrich in the modern world.
Totally laughable in that one who would offer a supposed result of gravity in action as the supposed mechanism by which it acts.

Ridiculous.

As far a LIGO actually observing such nonsense, I can just as easily claim having observed your failure and making a firm accounting of it.

You have no experience with the warping of space-time whatsoever, merely the supposed fantasies built upon the fantasies of others.

Again, you explained nothing. You stated a postulate.

Newton never showed "occurring gravitation."

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7819
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #47 on: April 30, 2021, 02:14:56 PM »
Why should I deal with something (your postulate) that has no substance in a substantive manner?

Further, stating the words, "warped space time," does not = an explanation.

Neither does it = gravity.

Hope you can substantively deal with these failures on your part.

Then I suggest you study General Relativity because you are just letting your ignorance become a virtue.  The entire history of the theory deals with what I briefly explained and it is supported by large amounts of empirical evidence.  If you aren't interested in learning about it, then by all means carry on, but don't pretend that I have failed or that you have rebutted the mechanism for gravity under a GR framework.  The only accurate follow up would be that there is no known mechanism for why mass-energy-momentum warps space-time, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not space time warps.  LIGO has unambiguously observed warped space time.  Astronomers observe it every solar eclipse.  The warping of space-time is accounted for by GPS systems.  To ignore this is to be an ostrich in the modern world.
Totally laughable in that one who would offer a supposed result of gravity in action as the supposed mechanism by which it acts.

Ridiculous.

You have it wrong. Gravity isn’t what causes space-time to warp. The warping of space-time is what causes the effects we observe as gravitation. We don’t have an explanation for why mass-energy-momentum warps space-time.

As far a LIGO actually observing such nonsense, I can just as easily claim having observed your failure and making a firm accounting of it.

Quote
You have no experience with the warping of space-time whatsoever, merely the supposed fantasies built upon the fantasies of others.

I experience the warping of space-time every time I jump.

Quote
Again, you explained nothing. You stated a postulate.

If you want GR explained to you, I suggest you are in the wrong place. What that has to do with your request to state the mechanism is beyond me.

Quote
Newton never showed "occurring gravitation."

Your sentence is badly formed. I am happy to respond to it if you can explain what “showed ‘occurring gravitation’” [sic] means.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #48 on: April 30, 2021, 03:26:40 PM »
Quote
No, you didn't explain a mechanism.

You stated a postulate.

Stated postulate =/= explained mechanism.

Good day to you.

Einstein's field equations explain the mechanism.
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #49 on: April 30, 2021, 07:04:10 PM »
Are you going to stick to the topic, or will you continue with these diversionary tactics?

If you cannot explain the mechanism for gravity, then just say so and be done with it.

Newton did so.

The difference is he called people who believed in gravity to be people of low intellect.

You need to take that up with Newton.

You haven't even understood the Newton quote that you yourself produced. That's not what he said at all. He was in no doubt at all about gravity, indeed he used it to formulate his view on the shape of the earth. Spoiler alert: not flat.

His issue, which by the way was in the middle of becoming a 'formed view' at the time of the letter you quoted, was the manner which gravity was transmitted.

You seem to be obsessing about mechanism. We can have that discussion if you wish - you'll clearly dismiss anything we present, so it's probably pointless, but there you go. I see you've already dismissed LIGO without evidence.

But I think the broader point is that there doesn't need to be a mechanism. You don't need to know how magnets work to observe and measure magnetism. I don't have a the deep physics knowledge to fully comprehend it, and from my light reading of the matter, it sounds like it's not fully settled, although I gather photons, both real and virtual, are involved. But magnets clearly work. A lack of detail on the mechanism does not negate the existence of the force.

The same is true of gravity. It has been measured. Cavendish measured it. Lots of people have measured it and they are with 0.15% of each other for the gravitational constant. Why do you need a mechanism before you acknowledge that something is there?

And you haven't answered my other question - are you saying that water wouldn't adhere to the earth even if gravity existed, or are you saying it would stick but gravity doesn't exist? They are two very different arguments. Which one are you picking?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #50 on: May 03, 2021, 11:33:05 AM »
Are you going to stick to the topic, or will you continue with these diversionary tactics?

If you cannot explain the mechanism for gravity, then just say so and be done with it.

Newton did so.

The difference is he called people who believed in gravity to be people of low intellect.

You need to take that up with Newton.

You haven't even understood the Newton quote that you yourself produced. That's not what he said at all. He was in no doubt at all about gravity, indeed he used it to formulate his view on the shape of the earth. Spoiler alert: not flat.

His issue, which by the way was in the middle of becoming a 'formed view' at the time of the letter you quoted, was the manner which gravity was transmitted.

You seem to be obsessing about mechanism. We can have that discussion if you wish - you'll clearly dismiss anything we present, so it's probably pointless, but there you go. I see you've already dismissed LIGO without evidence.

But I think the broader point is that there doesn't need to be a mechanism. You don't need to know how magnets work to observe and measure magnetism. I don't have a the deep physics knowledge to fully comprehend it, and from my light reading of the matter, it sounds like it's not fully settled, although I gather photons, both real and virtual, are involved. But magnets clearly work. A lack of detail on the mechanism does not negate the existence of the force.

The same is true of gravity. It has been measured. Cavendish measured it. Lots of people have measured it and they are with 0.15% of each other for the gravitational constant. Why do you need a mechanism before you acknowledge that something is there?

And you haven't answered my other question - are you saying that water wouldn't adhere to the earth even if gravity existed, or are you saying it would stick but gravity doesn't exist? They are two very different arguments. Which one are you picking?
Yeah, and now we have it.

Newton did not say what Newton did say.

Well, I am no longer going to entertain your total BS show.

Water rolls off any ball. Period.

We understand the mechanisms of magnetism.

Another BS piece of garbage uttered by you.

Along with the rest of the BS mechanisms, like space time warping causing water to stick to a ball.

One big freaking joke.



Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #51 on: May 03, 2021, 11:52:19 AM »
Water rolls off any ball. Period.



Quote
We understand the mechanisms of magnetism.

Why does the mechanism matter?
For thousands of people people observed things like earthquakes and volcanos without understanding the mechanisms behind them.
And why do you think things fall? What’s the mechanism behind your explanation?
"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 #52 on: May 03, 2021, 12:16:52 PM »
Water rolls off any ball. Period.



Quote
We understand the mechanisms of magnetism.

Why does the mechanism matter?
For thousands of people people observed things like earthquakes and volcanos without understanding the mechanisms behind them.
And why do you think things fall? What’s the mechanism behind your explanation?
Thank you for demonstrating that water will fall off a ball, although we did not need to see such a clear demonstration of that principle.

And thanks for pointing out that you have no explanation for a fictional force, yet your faith demands obedience.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7819
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #53 on: May 03, 2021, 12:46:47 PM »
Water didn’t fall off the ball. You shouldn’t make thing up like that. It’s really dishonest.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #54 on: May 03, 2021, 12:52:19 PM »
Water rolls off any ball. Period.



Quote
We understand the mechanisms of magnetism.

Why does the mechanism matter?
For thousands of people people observed things like earthquakes and volcanos without understanding the mechanisms behind them.
And why do you think things fall? What’s the mechanism behind your explanation?
Thank you for demonstrating that water will fall off a ball, although we did not need to see such a clear demonstration of that principle.

And thanks for pointing out that you have no explanation for a fictional force, yet your faith demands obedience.

I'll ask again. It's a really straightforward question. Are you saying you don't think water would adhere to the earth even if gravity worked in the manner that is generally considered to be true and the earth was a globe, or are you saying that gravity doesn't exist therefore water wouldn't stick to the earth?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #55 on: May 03, 2021, 01:08:51 PM »
Water didn’t fall off the ball. You shouldn’t make thing up like that. It’s really dishonest.
Posting a video of surface tension after effects as being relative to gravity is the only dishonest thing being presented here. Water did fall off the ball. It sure didn't stick to the side of the ball. And regardless, the subject of this thread is Cavendish and his measurements of gravity.

No mechanism? Then no force can be claimed.

Simple.

« Last Edit: May 03, 2021, 01:17:34 PM by Action80 »

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #56 on: May 03, 2021, 01:15:58 PM »
Water rolls off any ball. Period.



Quote
We understand the mechanisms of magnetism.

Why does the mechanism matter?
For thousands of people people observed things like earthquakes and volcanos without understanding the mechanisms behind them.
And why do you think things fall? What’s the mechanism behind your explanation?
Thank you for demonstrating that water will fall off a ball, although we did not need to see such a clear demonstration of that principle.

And thanks for pointing out that you have no explanation for a fictional force, yet your faith demands obedience.

I'll ask again. It's a really straightforward question. Are you saying you don't think water would adhere to the earth even if gravity worked in the manner that is generally considered to be true and the earth was a globe, or are you saying that gravity doesn't exist therefore water wouldn't stick to the earth?
Your question isn't straightforward and you know it.

There are two things I know.

The only reason water sticks to any surface has to do with electromagnetic or chemical bonding processes.

Gravity does not exist.

I guess I should relate one more thing.

Just because something has a consistent measured rate does not indicate the something that is being measured actually is the cause.

That would be like me attributing your screen name as the reason why the process of casting out nines when done with your screen name is working.

When it isn't.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7819
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #57 on: May 03, 2021, 01:16:37 PM »
Water didn’t fall off the ball. You shouldn’t make thing up like that. It’s really dishonest.
No mechanism? Then no force can be claimed.


You making up criteria and declaring victory is pretty poor. As has been mentioned many times, there is a mechanism Space-Time curvature and even if that were not so, being unable to explain a mechanism doesn’t negate the existence of something.

Even more telling is the utter failure of FEers to support their own model but projecting that failure on to gravity.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #58 on: May 03, 2021, 01:20:46 PM »
Water didn’t fall off the ball. You shouldn’t make thing up like that. It’s really dishonest.
No mechanism? Then no force can be claimed.


You making up criteria and declaring victory is pretty poor. As has been mentioned many times, there is a mechanism Space-Time curvature and even if that were not so, being unable to explain a mechanism doesn’t negate the existence of something.

Even more telling is the utter failure of FEers to support their own model but projecting that failure on to gravity.
Yes.

No mechanism, no force.

Very simple.

Even Newton knew that and admitted it : "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.”

I will take the word of Newton, thanks.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2677
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #59 on: May 03, 2021, 01:30:51 PM »
Posting a video of surface tension after effects as being relative to gravity is the only dishonest thing being presented here.

... but you didn't ask for "relative to gravity". You said "Water rolls off any ball. Period."

Water did fall off the ball. It sure didn't stick to the side of the ball.

Try it with a few different types; basketball, football, squash, ping-pong, golf, globe model, tennis ball, etc.

Immerse in water, then remove. Even if the majority of the water rolls to the lower hemisphere, and remains as droplets, if the side or upper hemi is still wet, water is sticking to the ball.

The test is to take dry tissue paper, and touch the upper surface. If the tissue paper gets wet, water is sticking to the ball.

Seriously. Go try.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?