Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 400  Next >
1
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 12:01:44 PM »
...Terence Quinn is a British physicist who spent many years studying gravity and was emeritus director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. If he says it, it's golden.

Okay great, he said this in a nature piece:
"Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)? The short answer is, nobody, for the moment..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3651?proof=t


 I guess were done here?

Here is his quote:

"Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)? The short answer is, nobody, for the moment, but being apparently unable to converge on a value for G undermines our confidence in the metrology of small forces. Although it is true that the orbits of the planets depend on the product of G and the mass of the Sun — the structures of all astrophysical objects are determined by the balance of gravity and other forces produced by, for example, gas, photon or degeneracy pressure — ab initio models of the Sun are still an order of magnitude away from predicting a value of G at a level comparable with laboratory determinations. We do not need a value of G to test for departures from the inverse square law or the equivalence principle. There is as yet no prospect of a theory of quantum gravity that would predict a value for G that could be tested by experiment."

The part you cut out after "nobody for the moment..." says that this value undermines their science in the metrology of small forces. He clearly suggests the recommended range is invalid and questionable there, rather than your suggestion that he is supporting it wholeheartedly. This is another point against you.

Trivializing the need for G doesn't directly address the matter of whether he thinks that he measured it. He is talking about the practical purpose for the such a measurement, in non-cavendish situations and measurements. He is correct that G is not needed for the equivalence principle tests. That's something else, showing that gravity does not depart on various ranges and situations from the concept that the Earth is accelerating upwards. The EP tests are highly and accurately verified.

Quinn's "we should be able to measure gravity" statement says that he cannot measure gravity in the Cavendish Experiment. In the quote you referenced we see a statement that the recommended range undermines their science in the metrology of small forces, showing that he is certainly not endorsing it. You're right. We are done here. We have talked about this for pages and you are still unable to substantiate your argument.

2
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 11:37:04 AM »
Look, we're well past trying to persuade you of anything. Most of us here don't even think you actually believe the stuff you're writing. We're just calling you out in the hope that other people reading this don't get sucked into the con.
Correct. I think we should all stop feeding the troll.
It's clear what the article is about if you look at the context, no matter how many times certain people try to quote small parts selectively or twist things to try and make them mean something they clearly don't mean.

It is crystal clear what "we should be able to measure gravity" from someone who has spent years in the laboratory trying to measure it means.

Obviously if I am trying to measure the weight of a feather on a crude pair of scales outside in a slight breeze where the values shift around I'm not going to jump up and down and claim that I measured the weight of a feather. This is the analogy an astrophysicist gave on this, and is the only legitimate one in this thread.

I have direct quotes and direct analogies on my side from qualified sources and you have nothing at all.

3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 11:27:58 AM »
The Cavendish experiment is not the only test of gravity, so his awareness of the imprecision of the Cavendish Experiment isn't evidence that "gravity is merely a belief".

He is aware that he can't measure gravity. Refer to the previous quotations.

4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 11:20:11 AM »
If you want to look at context and believe in keeping the story straight then you can start by accepting that Quinn believes in gravity, and that gravity exists

If you want context, Terence Quinn is a British physicist who spent many years studying gravity and was emeritus director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. If he says it, it's golden.

Cool. So you accept his authority that gravity exists then? Good, we're making progress.

Wrong. On his authority he believes gravity exists and that experiments fail to measure it.

This would evidence that gravity is merely a belief.

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 11:10:22 AM »
Quote
So to work out what he is taking about, we have to look at the context. And the context makes it very obvious. If there was any doubt whatsoever that G existed, then it would be in the article and indeed the numerous papers relating to experiments to measure it. But it isn't

If you want to look at context and believe in keeping the story straight then you can start by accepting that Quinn believes in gravity, and that gravity exists, but he says that he can't measure it.

Quote
However, it is also entirely consistent with somebody working in a very niche field describing their frustration at not being able to measure something more precisely.

He says that 'we should be able to measure gravity' after spending many years in the laboratory on these experiments.

He penned an article with a title stating that the Newtonian constant is too difficult to measure.

Finally, Quinn suggests in the article that you posted that gravity mainly applies at astrophysical scales and isn't universal. He clearly thinks that he can't detect it in the laboratory and that is possible that gravity is different than conceived.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 09:59:23 AM »
'I should be able to ride a bike'

'I can ride a bike'

These are not contradictory statements Tom.

Yet that is not the question at all. The question is whether Quinn believes that he did or did not measure gravity in his long multi-year efforts in the laboratory. If he is saying "we should be able to measure gravity" then he clearly believes that he did not measure gravity in his efforts.

Why is this difficult to understand? Maybe because you can't stand being wrong and need to make up a fabrication to suit yourself?

If you want context, Terence Quinn is a British physicist who spent many years studying gravity and was emeritus director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. If he says it, it's golden.

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 09:39:15 AM »
“It’s not a thing one likes to leave unresolved, we should be able to measure gravity.”

"We should be able to measure gravity." and "We can measure gravity." are not contradictory statements. Have you tried to read the rest of the article to understand the context here?

The question is whether is is saying that he is or is not measuring gravity. "We should be able to measure gravity" and "We are measuring gravity" are contradictory statements. 'Can' is already presumed in the effort.

Why is it that you guys cannot understand simple English and must attempt to twist clear and direct sentences? Oh wait, I know why.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Tom isn't interested in context. He routinely does this. Picks out a snippet of a quote from someone and deliberately leaves out the context or quotes elsewhere in the same article which make the views of the person he is quoting clear.

Too bad you have failed to show any of Quinn's quotes to show that he was quoted out of context, and likewise cannot actually show that anything is quoted out of context in the of the rest of the Wiki. The one quote from Quinn you did provide here did not say what you wanted it to say. You posted:

"measuring G is hard, but we should be able to do better"

Again, a statement that it is hard is not a statement that he is measuring gravity. You have absolutely failed to show this. You are clearly the one trying to twist direct sentences here. Yet you continue to spam and rant, but utterly fail to demonstrate your case.

8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 11, 2021, 09:57:11 PM »
Tom plays these semantic games endlessly to pretend people are saying things which they clearly aren't saying.
As we've seen in this thread, it can go on for pages.

No. That is your MO.

I quoted this as Quinn saying that he can't measure gravity:

“It’s not a thing one likes to leave unresolved, we should be able to measure gravity.”

“The Newtonian constant of gravitation, a constant too difficult to measure?”

You denied this and quoted this from Quinn in your defense:

"measuring G is hard, but we should be able to do better"

That's the best you could provide. A statement that it's hard and they need to do better isn't a statement that he's doing it. You are the person playing semantic word games here, attempting to warp clear statements with vain interpretations. You are stamping your feet and just can't accept being wrong.  ::)

9
Your assumed distances are fallacious for a few reasons:

- People aren't walking across the oceans
- Planes use jet streams to reach far off locations
- The calculated of speed is s = d/t and requires a known distance. Distances are fundamentally in contention in this discussion

The translation to a FE model may be attributable to a number of possibilities. For example; if the outer edges of the FE celestial system are moving at a quicker speed over the Earth like the outer extremities of a record on a record player, then it stands that the upper atmosphere may be as well. A plane traveling in a high region of atmosphere may move faster in certain regions of the Earth than another.

And indeed, the winds are said to be anomalous in the South - https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis

Please show a paper by a scientist that shows what you said to be true.

That page contain almost nothing except quotes and citations from contemporary sources. Feel free to go through them.

10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 11, 2021, 02:04:50 PM »
I merely pointed out that Quinn states they cannot measure gravity.
But you are cherry picking that statement and not looking at it in the context of the article which basically says "measuring G is hard, but we should be able to do better". Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity, it explicitly says that this doesn't change any scientific theories.

Nope. Saying that they need do do better isn't a statement that they are measuring gravity.

11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 11, 2021, 11:52:30 AM »
Quinn does not talk about being able to measure gravity.

Actually, he does. Maybe you should read the article:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/



I would ask that whenever you quote me you do not cherry pick to misrepresent what I wrote.
The full quote is:

"Quinn does not talk about being able to measure gravity. He rather talks about the degree of precision to which we can measure it."

The above is consistent to what is written in the article that you posted and also to the one I posted.

Incorrect.

“It’s not a thing one likes to leave unresolved, we should be able to measure gravity.”

“The Newtonian constant of gravitation, a constant too difficult to measure?”

He is literally talking about the ability to measure gravity there in those quotes.

How can that be? How do you get that interpretation when he is actually, literally/analogously, saying he is trying to measure a thing, a feather (gravity), but there are other things that make it difficult? The thing exists that he is measuring, it's just hard to measure. Where is it clearly stated that he is trying to measure nothing? Does a feather mean the same to you as nothing?

I didn't say that the scientists don't think that the feather is there. Most of them do think that they are trying to measure something that exists. The problem is that they can't do it reliably; there are other dominating effects at that range getting in the way, creating results that are in "wild disagreement with each other", to the point that some speculate on "new physics" where gravity's effect only applies on astrophysical scales.

Whether you call it human error, the presence of dominating effects, or claim that the theory of gravity is non-universal and wrong, all of this has the same result: We can't measure gravity in this experiment.

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 11, 2021, 12:54:14 AM »
The analogy we looked at earlier by the astrophyscist earlier shows that the non-gravity effects can create the recorded effects:

Quote
Therefore, when trying to measure it, the other forces can cause systematic errors. It is akin to trying to measure the weight of a feather, outdoors, in a slight breeze, with an old pair of scales.

In the above example the breeze makes up the majority of the effect.

Does the feather not exist?

The analogy is clearly such that the feather could not be there and the results would have no significant difference.

13
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 11, 2021, 12:11:46 AM »
If the results can be polluted by other non-gravitational effects, then they can also be created by non-gravitational effects.

Evidence, please, that the second half of that sentence follows from the first. Quote me a physicist (because you're just a random internet person, you see) who actually say that the existence of an error source in an experiment could mean that the totality of the result is in fact something other than that which they thought was being measured.

The analogy we looked at earlier by the astrophyscist earlier shows that the non-gravity effects can create the recorded effects:

Quote
Therefore, when trying to measure it, the other forces can cause systematic errors. It is akin to trying to measure the weight of a feather, outdoors, in a slight breeze, with an old pair of scales.

In the above example the breeze makes up the majority of the effect, creating systemic errors.

Quinn doubts that he is measuring gravity in his statement "We should be able to measure gravity." Obviously if he is not measuring gravity he is measuring something else.

In the link you posted Quinn also suggests that it could be that gravity isn't universal and that it only applies on astrophysical scales:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0253

Quote
What matters then is not the actual value of G itself (give or take a percentage or so) but its uncertainty. The real importance of the accuracy of G is arguably that it can be taken as a measure, in popular culture, of how well we understand our most familiar force: the discrepant results may signify some new physics, or they may demonstrate that we do not understand the metrology of measuring weak forces. Owing to the lack of theoretical understanding of gravity, as alluded to earlier, there is an abundance of respectable theories that predict violations of the inverse square law or violations of the universality of free fall. In fact, a growing view is that G is not truly universal and may depend on matter density on astrophysical scales, for example. A misunderstanding of the metrology of weak force physics may in turn imply that the experimental tests that have established the inverse square law and the universality of free fall thus far are flawed in some subtle fashion. This makes for a potentially exciting situation and perhaps explains the general interest shown in our apparently mundane and painstaking work on G.

This clearly shows a suggestion that he is not measuring gravity in the Cavendish Experiment; that it doesn't apply at smaller scales in the laboratory.

The "new physics" Quinn refers to is that gravity doesn't exist in the Cavendish Experiment test because it only mainly applies at larger scales in that suggestion.

Another quote from the Scientific American article says that the non-gravity effects could easily overwhelm the experiment and make up the effect:

Quote
Although gravity seems like one of the most salient of nature’s forces in our daily lives, it’s actually by far the weakest, making attempts to calculate its strength an uphill battle. “Two one-kilogram masses that are one meter apart attract each other with a force equivalent to the weight of a few human cells,” says University of Washington physicist Jens Gundlach, who worked on a separate 2000 measurement of big G. “Measuring such small forces on kg-objects to 10-4 or 10-5 precision is just not easy. There are a many effects that could overwhelm gravitational effects, and all of these have to be properly understood and taken into account.

14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 10, 2021, 08:06:18 PM »
Quinn does not talk about being able to measure gravity.

Actually, he does. Maybe you should read the article:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/

" In fact, the discrepancy is such a problem that Quinn is organizing a meeting in February at the Royal Society in London to come up with a game plan for resolving the impasse. The meeting’s title—“The Newtonian constant of gravitation, a constant too difficult to measure?”—reveals the general consternation. "

He clearly thinks it's too difficult to measure, going hand-in-hand with his statement that "We should be able to measure gravity."

Quote
Also to give you an example which is more analogous to the discussion on what Quinn says, can you measure your height in micrometers (μm)? If not, does this mean that you do not exist?

This is nothing like measuring a person's height to increasing precision. In your example you have multiple measurements getting the bulk of the same 5 foot 8 inches (or whatever the person's main height is) in each attempt.

In this case the the the measurements do not often do not overlap and are spread out across a range of over ten times the estimated uncertainties. It's clearly measuring something else that is not gravity in that range. The results are being polluted by something that is not gravity.

There is a graphic here:

https://physicsworld.com/a/the-lure-of-g/

Quote



Low precision alone is enough to keep a metrologist up all night. But in recent years, a much more serious problem has arisen: measurements of big G are in wild disagreement with one another (figure 1). Since the turn of this century, values recorded by some of the best labs in the world have been spread apart by more than 10 times their estimated uncertainties. Something is amiss – yet no-one is quite sure what. “You go over it, and over it, and over it,” says Speake. “And there comes a time when you say, I just can’t think of anything we’ve done wrong.”

As stated, the results are in "wild disagreement" with each other.

If the results can be polluted by other non-gravitational effects, then they can also be created by non-gravitational effects. They just don't know what they are measuring, as stated by Quinn above.

They are trying to measure the force equivalent of the weight of a few cells. The more appropriate analogy is the one given by the astrophysicist earlier; of trying to measure the weight of a feather on a crude pair of scales outside in a slight breeze. There are effects dominating the experiment and disrupting the measurement, giving a wild result and dwarfing the thing they are trying to measure.

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 10, 2021, 10:52:42 AM »
A questionable and inconsistent proof of gravity polluted by other effects is exactly what we should expect to find if we had a civilization pretending that gravity exists.

If this was chemistry or any other hard physical science this matter would be thrown out, and a better proof for a phenomena would be sought, as that which is inconsistent proves nothing. But no, there are very few proofs of gravity and this must be clinged to without shame.

Obviously something is wrong if things are like this. It is unfortunate that there is no honesty or self reflection about it.

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 10:34:00 PM »
It doesn’t prove that. The rest of the information in your sources absolutely does though. If you yourself agree that there was, for example, a range of 0.15% between the different experiments and that this represents the ‘error’ (or go with the 450ppm figure if you’d prefer to use that) then by definition the remnant has to be ‘not error’, ie the thing that was being measured.

It's nice that you have your own interpretation of a number that you read, but you are simply not a physicist, and you refuse to provide quotes from a qualified source saying what you want them to say.

Quote
They also say that despite this they can measure it with a discrepancy of 450ppm

As they stated, the experimental uncertainty for the equipment is about 40ppm. They are measuring a range of results across 450ppm. If gravity is a constant then they are measuring a range of effects above and around that, and not gravity solely or directly.

They are measuring something, but the inconsistency shows that other effects are involved and it's difficult to pinpoint it down as to exactly what is being measured.

Again, this is all stated directly. Your message is that it's good enough, but the fact that they are measuring non gravitational effects says otherwise.

17
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 08:16:40 PM »
Your quote says "It is difficult to see how the two methods can produce two numbers that are wrong, but yet agree with each other"

How does this prove that 99.85% of what they are measuring is gravity? It doesn't say that at all. You are pathetically grasping at straws.

Another quote cited at the top of the page says that the are trying to measure something with the weight of a few human cells, Futurism says that gravity is incredibly weak, and numerous references to the weakness of gravity are likewise made in the articles.

You have not shown sufficient evidence that they are actually measuring gravity. You do not have direct quotes from qualified sources for your imaginary scenerio of what is occuring. We need to trust "SteelyBob" on this one.   ::)

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 08:05:25 PM »
If you think the quotes are not saying what they appear to be saying then I can't wait for you to prove yourself with quotes from physicists which clarify it for us. So far you are only citing yourself on this.

Sorry, I think you misunderstand. You're saying that the quotes are not saying what they appear to be saying. Can you prove yourself with quotes from physicists that clearly say that gravity doesn't exist? Otherwise, you are only citing yourself on this.

The physicists already made the scale analogy and the other statements directly. If you are saying that the analogies and statements they made are wrong in what they appear to be saying then lets now see quotes from physicists which clarify it for us. Surely the situation isn't that physicists are making statements implying one thing and only you know the real truth.

Let us now see the real truth. Please provide a list of clarifying quotes which shows the truth of the situation.

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 08:00:37 PM »
If you think the quotes are not saying what they appear to be saying then I can't wait for you to prove yourself with quotes from physicists which clarify it for us. So far you are only citing yourself on this.

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 07:04:36 PM »
You “accidentally” left out these quotes:

Quote
Most scientists think all these discrepancies reflect human sources of error, rather than a true inconstancy of big G.

And

Quote
If the true value of big G turns out to be closer to the Quinn team’s measurement than the CODATA value, then calculations that depend on G will have to be revised. For example, the estimated masses of the solar system’s planets, including Earth, would change slightly. Such a revision, however, wouldn’t alter any fundamental laws of physics, and would have very little practical effect on anyone’s life

Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity. At most there’s some discussion about whether there’s some subtlety of gravity which hasn’t been understood. But even if we take that discrepancy of of 450ppm, that’s still under 1 in 2000. It’s like people measuring something 2 meters wide, getting differences of a millimetre. Yes, they’d like to do better but no one is casting any doubt on gravity existing or the shape of the earth. So what is your actual point here in citing these authorities?

It doesn't matter if they think that the discrepancies are human sources of error, or that gravity is there somewhere but they just can't get ahold of it. The end result is the same. They can't measure gravity. They say this themselves. There goes your Cavendish proof.

And, really, if any of these people thought that gravity wasn't a thing, they'd say that clearly.

They think it's there but admit that they can't measure it, and that other effects are getting in the way. They say that pretty clearly, and which ultimately invalidates your position for the human measurement of the gravity between horizonal masses.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 400  Next >