[ICanScienceThat]

Is there a "standard" explanation for the Cavendish experiment? The one I've heard personally is, "it's fake."

Here's an apparatus you can buy from Frey's
https://store.schoolspecialty.com/OA_HTML/ibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?minisite=10029&item=2206303

Here's one from Pasco
https://www.pasco.com/prodCatalog/AP/AP-8215_gravitational-torsion-balance/index.cfm
I even found the instructions
http://www.phys.utk.edu/labs/modphys/Pasco%20Cavendish%20Experiment.pdf
Here's a video of somebody using what looks like the Pasco kit:

and another one:


So not fake right? What's up with that?

[lookatmooninUKthenAUS]

You keep banging on about my inability to accept the equivalency of gravity and acceleration.....please quote where I have made any statement that indicates this. YOU are inferring it in order to do that classic thing that FE's do........create a smokescreen around the real issue.

Now back to the main event.....

you do realize that UA says there is no such thing as gravity, right??  kind of another import part you are missing.

This is EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. I keep pointing out that proper Physics is based on observations and measurements. Gravity is an acceleration caused by a FORCE experienced between masses. This has been measured indeed YOU could measure it yourself if you cared to do so.

You recently chastised a poster for not reading previous posts....dude it is you that seems unable to penetrate the simple logic being laid out in previous posts. Remember my reference to the Schiehallion experiment?

The famous Schiehallion experiment involved measuring the deviation of a plumb line placed next to the mountain Schiehallion in Perthshire (I used to live there). The deviation gives an instant indication of the evident force between masses and the numbers are in line with the aforementioned equation. Only when you can do such a direct observational experiment can you say something is 'observed'.

or we have the classic Cavendish experiment, referenced by the last poster:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Now finally, stop dodging the issue.....how is it possible to have a Universal acceleration that is slightly modified by the action of celestial gravitation where the only factor influencing CG is the altitude (i.e. proximity to celestial bodies).

As I have repeatedly pointed out there are gravity measurements that can be quoted for identical altitudes on Earth that are different. UA and CG cannot account for that. However, a system where the mass of the Earth itself attracts objects CAN!

DO you agree that attraction between masses can be demonstrated and that this forms the basis of a universal Law of gravitation between ALL masses. It is you that must answer this before we 'move on'.

[Tom Bishop]

Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.

[Round Eyes]

You keep banging on about my inability to accept the equivalency of gravity and acceleration.....please quote where I have made any statement that indicates this.

Gravity is an acceleration caused by a FORCE experienced between masses.

Good lord man, please stop, you are embarrassing yourself.  I have direct quoted you already pointing out your ignorance....the fact you don't get it is telling


And that is not what gravity is, seriously, have you ever taken physics.  That is neither the Einstein or Newtonian definition... Is it your own (again)?

[lookatmooninUKthenAUS]

I am still ploughing my way through this overblown dirge of pseudo scientific technobabble. But the clangers come thick and fast....

Any force below a certain minimum amount will not be expressed, and will not lead to motion. Especially with the example of the apple, I suspect that the air pressure between the apple and the torsion bar would prevent the calculated force from expressing itself.

This is S2 level Physics i.e. kids aged 12 should be able to point out the flaws in this statement after being taught Forces. Pressure is not a force, rather it is a Force applied equally over all surface of the apple, therefor cancelling each other. That's Newton's First Law. The only forces that would matter here would be un-balanced forces that would seek to accelerate the apple. That is Newton's Second Law. What would be of consequence would be the air that would need to be displaced, which would innevitably occur under the action of a continuous force irrespective of the air pressure.

What credentials has this barely literate (in the scientific sense) Miles Mathis that he is to be stacked up against a legend of the Scientific community. A man famed for his rigour and carefulness in carrying out scientific experiments.

However......let us persist and see what this dude has to say. In the interests of fairness! After all, I am sure we are going to find that he conducted his own experiment in order to uncover the systematic or random errors that might not have been considered by Cavendish.

[lookatmooninUKthenAUS]

You keep banging on about my inability to accept the equivalency of gravity and acceleration.....please quote where I have made any statement that indicates this.

Gravity is an acceleration caused by a FORCE experienced between masses.

Good lord man, please stop, you are embarrassing yourself.  I have direct quoted you already pointing out your ignorance....the fact you don't get it is telling


And that is not what gravity is, seriously, have you ever taken physics.  That is neither the Einstein or Newtonian definition... Is it your own (again)?

Ok look.....I can see you really have got a thing for this. I wouldn't want to disappoint:

One cannot argue with the Mathematics:

g = -GM/r² where g = gravitational acceleration, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the attracting body and r the distance between the two objects.

This is Newton's universal law of gravitation.

If we introduce the second object with mass = m we have,

F = m x g = -GmM/r² which is equivalent to F = m x a that is to say g is equivalent to a in the classical 'Newtonian' model of gravitation.

We can say this because in Physics we understand properties by their units and if they are vectors by their angular components also. In Physics we essential describe everything in terms of other things. It is rare that any property is expressed so fundamentally that it cannot be reduced any further. A rare example of this would be E=mc² but even here we are unable to really define what mass or energy actually are. In which case, If I wanted to be a real pedant I could insist on every property being expressed in terms of length, mass, time and charge. That would get pretty tedious, no?!

Anyway, I have generally being referring to this classical model in my descriptions of gravity since it is simple and based on observation.

For a more fundamental treatment of what 'gravity' is we must expand our understanding to field theory, not just that we must alter our perception of the Cartesian co-ordinate system in which objects move.

Einstein thus formulated that objects do not as such 'accelerate' in gravity fields (although IT IS STILL PERFECTLY VALID TO DISCUSS THEM DOING SO AS ALL OBSERVATIONS AGREE WITH THIS CLASSICAL FORM OF GRAVITATIONAL THEORY) rather they travel in straight lines (geodesics) in space-time. Gravity in this model is thus seen as a warping of space time such that a curve is the shortest distance between two points.

Now as I said, 99.9% of the population, including the kids I teach use the Newtonian model of gravitation in order to make rational sense of the concept and discuss it without semantics clouding the wider debate. They do not live in a world of space-time or geodesic curves. Usually, I do not either. Personally I do not see the relevance to the discussion we are having here. There is a whole other thread currently ongoing where I invoke Einsteins general theory of gravitation as a method of supporting RE theory. As a matter of fact, I think it deserves its own thread.

I am not sure if you want me to use classical or modern interpretations of gravity but for the sake of allowing the conversation to flow can we please drop this already?

[lookatmooninUKthenAUS]

Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.

So he continues with....

At first glance, it must be clear that the walls of Cavendish’s box and shed cannot be ignored. Even if we look at them only from a gravitational perspective, there is simply no way they can be ignored.

Which is exactly why Cavendish didn't ignore them!

....However, just before we dissect this can I just say.......how likely is it that this meticulous scientist, famed for his legendary attention to detail, even among scientists down through the ages...... What tiny chance is there that Cavendish had a 'bad day at the office' and his seminal experiment is actually bogus and masses DON'T actually attract each other (despite all the other DIFFERENT methods available to corroborate the result). Versus the chance that Miles Mathis, some dude who believes the value of Pi is 4, yup you heard right!!! Pi =4 people! Go get your circles out and measure 'em all again cause 2 x pi x r is no longer valid for calculating circumferences. In fact the new equation according to this dufus is C=8xr (go draw a circle and see how that looks!! teeheehee)

So Miles can't get his head around why the walls of the shed can be ignored. I suspect Miles struggles to figure out how to get his porridge out the packet in the morning but here goes........:

1. The walls of a rectangular building are symmetrical, therefor superficially their effects somewhat cancel out. In the case of a circular room the effect would be entirely cancelled and is studied in first year Physics where it is known as a 'shell of mass'.

2. The effect of mass not on the plane of rotation of the experiment would reduce as the cosine until mass directly overhead would have zero affect.
 
3. Wood is approximately 15 times less dense than lead and so would contain much 15 x less mass per unit volume.

and by far the biggest effect

4. The inverse square law; which states that the effect of the force reduces as the square of the distance. So double the distance the effect is quartered. Triple it and the effect is 1/9th etc.

The size of the wooden box was 10ft and the metal balls were 6ft apart which leaves 2ft between the metal balls and the wooden walls at their closest point. However the force of attraction at this point would be perpendicular to the allowed vector of motion. In other words, it would be the next wall over, the one that the ball was currently moving towards that would be doing the attracting that would create a moment of torque. The distance at this point would be 5ft where the force of attraction would be approximately 1/45th of the force (using 1/r²)

And of course don't forget that the attractive force at this point would be exactly cancelled by the opposite wall (behind). Only as the metal ball rotated closer to the wall in front of it would the attraction from that wall begin to exceed that from behind but this would at the same time be reduced as the cosine function due to the restriction of the vector of motion.

Anyhooo......combining these effects I have little doubt in stating that the contribution from the walls would be less by some three orders of magnitude. (combine points 3 and 4 only gives 1/45 x 1/15 = 1/675 even if we IGNORE the symmetry cancellation of point 1. I'm being generous!).


Miles continues with this absolute classic....

Other experiments are done in massive modern buildings that ......may have any number of different E/M fields, some created by the earth, some created by the iron beams in the buildings, some created by electrical networks in the building. None of this is considered.

Aside from the fact the Miles refers to E/M fields which would indicate 'light' we will assume that he meant electrostatic and magnetic fields. We can immediately eliminate magnetic fields as lead is not a magnetic material so would be unaffected. It is unclear what precautions might have been taken to reduce the effect of static charge build up but given that lead is a conductor it would have been easy to discharge the balls with a simple wire to Earth before running the experiment. Miles cannot confirm that this was not done.

Ok - that's all for now. It is getting tiresome reading this attempted hatchet job that is devoid of proper scientific analysis. It is clear that Miles is unable to conceive how to analyse the phenomena he invokes. Perhaps in future there should be a rule about not referencing crackpots with zero credibility. The type of person I'm thinking of would be schizophrenics who hear voices, people with persecution complexes, people with no Scientific qualifications or background, people who believe pi is anything other than 3.14....that sort of thing?

[Round Eyes]

Please go do some basic research on your Ret gravity to at least know some basics, then make sure you actually understand the equivalence principal.  Then come back and we can discuss.  This is just a huge waste of time until you know what we are discussing.  You obviously have no general physics background, which is fine for a lot of things, but not here when discussing UA. 

[lookatmooninUKthenAUS]

chirp, chirp.....chirp, chirp.......chirp, chirp.........

[juner]

chirp, chirp.....chirp, chirp.......chirp, chirp.........

So you never did bother to read the rules, did you?

Given that you’re on 4 warnings, have a few days off to read the rules.

[ICanScienceThat]

Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.

That is an extremely long paper. As I work my way through this, may I ask, "Is this paper offered as the official stance of the FES or is this simply an example of a refutation of the Cavendish experiment?"

It seems to me that we do not need this entire document to get to whatever this guy's point may be. If he expresses a stance that you agree with, perhaps you might summarize for me what his strongest point is? I'll keep reading this, but if there is a point in you you would care to defend, I will give it extra attention.

[ICanScienceThat]

Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.

I have finally finished reading that paper. There is a lot in there that one might argue with, but none of that seems to matter a bit. Ultimately, the author does not seem to support the claims of FE. While he clearly makes some novel* claims, he states the following:
"The actual gravitational field is 9.81, and the E/M field is -.01. This means at the level of size of the earth, the gravitational field is more than 1000 times stronger than the E/M field."
And this:
"Both of my fields are contained by Newton's equation, which means my equations and theory show no variance from Newton, except in exceptional circumstances like this."

The author describes gravity as an expansion which is blocked by the presence of matter. All he's really saying about gravity is that he thinks gravity is not so much mass attracting mass but mass not repulsing other mass. Good old double-negative arriving at the same result. According to Miles Mathis, all mass is pushed towards all other mass with an inverse-square relationship.

*novel = the most diplomatic word choice I could come up with

[Tom Bishop]

Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.

So he continues with....

At first glance, it must be clear that the walls of Cavendish’s box and shed cannot be ignored. Even if we look at them only from a gravitational perspective, there is simply no way they can be ignored.

Which is exactly why Cavendish didn't ignore them!

....However, just before we dissect this can I just say.......how likely is it that this meticulous scientist, famed for his legendary attention to detail, even among scientists down through the ages...... What tiny chance is there that Cavendish had a 'bad day at the office' and his seminal experiment is actually bogus and masses DON'T actually attract each other.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Versus the chance that Miles Mathis, some dude who believes the value of Pi is 4, yup you heard right!!! Pi =4 people! Go get your circles out and measure 'em all again cause 2 x pi x r is no longer valid for calculating circumferences.

I've argued that Pi can be 4 or some value that is not 3.14... Pi assumes that it is possible for a perfect circle to exist, and that has never been demonstrated. In fact, according to QM, our reality is quantized rather than continuous.

Perfect circles are a HYPOTHESIS.

Aside from the fact the Miles refers to E/M fields which would indicate 'light' we will assume that he meant electrostatic and magnetic fields. We can immediately eliminate magnetic fields as lead is not a magnetic material so would be unaffected. It is unclear what precautions might have been taken to reduce the effect of static charge build up but given that lead is a conductor it would have been easy to discharge the balls with a simple wire to Earth before running the experiment. Miles cannot confirm that this was not done.

I encourage you to learn more about the world. Lead is affected by magnetism.

https://www.reference.com/science/lead-magnetic-63eae4007856bcb8

Ferromagnet is the typical name for a material that is naturally magnetic. This is in contrast to a material that simply becomes magnetic for a short while after contact with a magnet as a nail is wont to do after some time stuck to a ferromagnet. Lead has the opposite effect, where it actually repels the magnetic force of an object. This is called diamagnetism.

[ICanScienceThat]

Hey guys, cool discussion and all, but I wonder if we can return to how any of this relates to FE and the whole UA vs Newton's law question? Did you notice that Mathis agrees with Newton's law? I mean, if you are accepting Mathis's analysis, then I really don't see how this helps the UA position at all. Please explain that first, and then maybe we can pick at various points in that essay.

[lookatmooninUKthenAUS]

Ferromagnet is the typical name for a material that is naturally magnetic. This is in contrast to a material that simply becomes magnetic for a short while after contact with a magnet as a nail is wont to do after some time stuck to a ferromagnet. Lead has the opposite effect, where it actually repels the magnetic force of an object. This is called diamagnetism.

Tom, diamagnetism is a residual effect that all materials have. In this respect, I can be considered magnetic, indeed this is how MRI scanners work. However, the problem for the point you make is that diamagnetism is a dynamic not a static effect. In other words you would need an alternating magnetic field NOT a bar magnet (creating a static field) in order to even see this effect. In addition it is several orders of magnitude less than any static magnetic effect that might be observed between ferromagnetic materials (Iron, Cobalt and Nickel). In short, lead cannot in any meaningful way be influenced by the magnetic fields that might have been present in the Cavendish experiment.

I encourage you to learn more about the world. Lead is affected by magnetism.

Tom, it is you who needs to go learn more about the Physical world you attempt to dissect. I suggest doing what I did, go study Physics for at least 4 years and get a degree. Cutting and pasting quotes who's real meaning you do not penetrate is not helpful to the ongoing discussion and it belies the fundamental lack of real understanding I keep going on about. I make no bones that these exchanges are the point of my efforts on this site. Your ignorance of the basic Physics (and that of your fellow FE devotees) needs called out in every single nook and cranny and I intend to do so with vigour at every opportunity afforded.

[Tom Bishop]

Ferromagnet is the typical name for a material that is naturally magnetic. This is in contrast to a material that simply becomes magnetic for a short while after contact with a magnet as a nail is wont to do after some time stuck to a ferromagnet. Lead has the opposite effect, where it actually repels the magnetic force of an object. This is called diamagnetism.

Tom, diamagnetism is a residual effect that all materials have. In this respect, I can be considered magnetic, indeed this is how MRI scanners work. However, the problem for the point you make is that diamagnetism is a dynamic not a static effect. In other words you would need an alternating magnetic field NOT a bar magnet (creating a static field) in order to even see this effect.

Incorrect again, Mr. Physics degree. Here is a video of lead a diamagnetic material being affected by static permanent magnets:

[Theo]

Ferromagnet is the typical name for a material that is naturally magnetic. This is in contrast to a material that simply becomes magnetic for a short while after contact with a magnet as a nail is wont to do after some time stuck to a ferromagnet. Lead has the opposite effect, where it actually repels the magnetic force of an object. This is called diamagnetism.

Tom, diamagnetism is a residual effect that all materials have. In this respect, I can be considered magnetic, indeed this is how MRI scanners work. However, the problem for the point you make is that diamagnetism is a dynamic not a static effect. In other words you would need an alternating magnetic field NOT a bar magnet (creating a static field) in order to even see this effect.

Incorrect again, Mr. Physics degree. Here is a video of lead being affected by static permanent magnets:

Pencil leads are made of graphite as the video mentions numerous  times.


https://pencils.com/the-unleaded-pencil/

 There is no lead in pencils. Rather, the core is made up of a non-toxic mineral called graphite. The common name “pencil lead” is due to an historic association with the stylus made of lead in ancient Roman times.

[Tom Bishop]

Does it matter? Graphite is right next to lead as a diamagnetic material.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism

Diamagnetic materials are repelled by a magnetic field; an applied magnetic field creates an induced magnetic field in them in the opposite direction, causing a repulsive force.

...

Notable diamagnetic materials[3]
Material   χv [× 10−5 (SI units)]
Superconductor   −105
Pyrolytic carbon   −40.9
Bismuth   −16.6
Mercury   −2.9
Silver   −2.6
Carbon (diamond)   −2.1
Lead   −1.8
Carbon (graphite)   −1.6
Copper   −1.0
Water   −0.91

In the video I posted we had a static permanent magnet and a diamagnetic material that was clearly interacting with it.

[rabinoz]

Does it matter? Graphite is right next to lead as a diamagnetic material.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism

Diamagnetic materials are repelled by a magnetic field; an applied magnetic field creates an induced magnetic field in them in the opposite direction, causing a repulsive force.
...
Notable diamagnetic materials[3]
Material   χv [× 10−5 (SI units)]
Lead   −1.8
Copper   −1.0

In the video I posted we had a static permanent magnet and a diamagnetic material that was clearly interacting with it.

And don't you think that those designing this sort of experiment might know far more about than you might about the precautions necessary?

Here is one fairly modern experiment:
The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, The BIPM measurements of the Newtonian constant of gravitation, G.
This one uses "four test masses of Cu–0.7% Te free-machining alloy", which greatly reduces any stray torque due to variations in the already small magnetic field and movement of near objects. Fixed objects can have no effect.

There are many problems in the measurement of G hence the work continues. 
But the fact remains that after a hundred of more experiments the current value of 6.674 08×10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻² is within 1% of the value of 6.74 x 10^-11 N m²/kg² from Henry Cavendish's value.
He must have done something right. Now please present some flat-earth measurements with even that repeatability.

[lookatmooninUKthenAUS]

Incorrect again, Mr. Physics degree. Here is a video of lead a diamagnetic material being affected by static permanent magnets:

Tom, congratulations are certainly in order for finding an example of magnetic interaction with a non ferromagnetic material that can be observed without creating superconducting effects by chilling to -80 degrees Celsius.

A thin slice of pyrolytic graphite, which is an unusually strong diamagnetic material, can be stably floated in a magnetic field, such as that from rare earth permanent magnets. This can be done with all components at room temperature, making a visually effective demonstration of diamagnetism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism#Levitation

The main problem still remains however, achieving observable interactions requires very specific, very highly engineered materials. In the case of an MRI scanner a very high power alternating magnetic field induced electrically. In the case of static magnets we require several very powerful rare earth magnets placed within 1mm from the material to achieve a very, very weak effect.

Now back to the original context, Cavendish did not have rare earth magnets in his experimental setup. He had the Earth's magnetic field. The difference in field strength is vast. A single rare Earth magnet typicaly achieves 1-1.2 Teslas whereas the Earth's magnetic field ranges from 25 -45 micro Teslas. This is a ratio of some 1:22000.

As I said in my original post, orders of magnitude different.

I will concede that I was not aware that diamagnetism could be achieved outside of chilled superconducting experiments (which I did myself once) but the effect is almost un-measurable and requires a stack of rare earth magnets. I only ever had 1! I did try to attract various materials including my pencil lead and it didn't work.

What is annoying about this exchange is the way it quickly diverges from the main idea and to focus instead on the extreme limits of esoteric areas of science. I freely admit I don't knot know EVERYTHING about science. Not even close. But I certainly know enough to know that magnetism played no part in influencing Cavendish's experiment. Your problem is that you have google at your disposal but not the sense to know that the examples you managed to find do not support the case. The best you can do is to find holes in my knowledge repository. As a Teacher of Physics with a normal degree and some years in Engineering you will find plenty holes in my knowledge. The difference is I know my limits. You, however, are passing yourself off as some kind of authority on this stuff when you clearly have no picture of science as a whole. The inconsistencies you find do not lead anywhere except further from the original argument.

Anyway, I concede I was not aware that in some extreme circumstances non ferromagnetic materials can show other magnetic (diamagnetic) properties.

From your end, can you concede that such properties are not significant in influencing measurements of g. Then we can continue back to the main question.

Does gravity exist between all masses?

And finally, how can UA be explained in the context of celestial gravitation when we can observe differing values of g at equal altitudes on the Earth's surface? This is the point of the thread.

Gravity has been measured countless times with greater and greater accuracy. I am actually angry at myself for even entertaining the idea of defending Cavendish's original experiment. This point is not a reasonable one for discussion. Lets stick to the theories FE proposes. How do THEY work. At least gravity has a long tradition of measurement through experimentation. Celestial gravity is just a vague notion concocted to plug yet another glaring hole in FE theory.