Cavendish experiment
« on: April 26, 2021, 01:44:18 PM »
Hi All,

I'm new here. Thanks for letting me join! And thanks for this central point of information.

I came here after my own journey. I believe the earth is not a spinning sphere. I have some arguments against it, that I thought of myself, that I didn't find yet in the main page.
I thought I'd share them with you so that maybe you hear something interesting new.

One is the false cavendish experiment where they conveniently forgot diamagnetism and the experiment calculations never give a conclusive answer. They do the experiment a hundred times and pick the one that gives the desired outcome.

Now the second argument is about kinetic energy ((1/2)mv^2, m being mass, and v being velocity). If you are 200 kg and go 10m/s steady state together with your environment (this is just an example to make calculation easy), then, to change speed with 1 m/s in one direction would take 2100 joules whereas changing speed by 1 m/s in the other direction would take 1900 joules. (Huh? nobody ever could explain me this. If you're a physicists reading this, please explain).

Third, Earths precession is another scam. It is told to be around 20.000 years. But due to the well known Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, it is impossible to state with any finite accuracy, the period of a harmonic of which less than half the period has been measured. We haven't measured even close to 10.000 years.

If I can help in any way, please let me know.

I studied science and know (and have worked with the equations) quite a lot about Newton, Euler-lagrange equations of motion. Lorentz contraction and special relativity. And from linear dynamics (fourier transform), to nonlinear dynamics to chaos theory and finally quantum dynamics with Maxwells equations. I went deep into the rabit hole and since I have used it for my profession, I dare to say I know pretty much the ins and outs, and problems with all these theories.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8181
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2021, 02:32:26 PM »
One is the false cavendish experiment where they conveniently forgot diamagnetism and the experiment calculations never give a conclusive answer. They do the experiment a hundred times and pick the one that gives the desired outcome.

Incorrect.  The answer does vary depending on which version of the cavendish experiment is performed.  It has moved beyond the torsion balance method and now setups using atomic fountains that measure quantum interference has been used.  The accuracy of the measurements are extremely high and variances of more than .001% are considered large.  There are plans to use do the atomic fountain set up with strontium atoms instead of rubidium which will eliminate the effects of magnetic interference and increase the accuract by orders of magnitude.

Quote
Third, Earths precession is another scam. It is told to be around 20.000 years. But due to the well known Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, it is impossible to state with any finite accuracy, the period of a harmonic of which less than half the period has been measured. We haven't measured even close to 10.000 years.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to quantum mechanics not orbital mechanics.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2021, 05:21:52 PM »
Quote
Now the second argument is about kinetic energy ((1/2)mv^2, m being mass, and v being velocity). If you are 200 kg and go 10m/s steady state together with your environment (this is just an example to make calculation easy), then, to change speed with 1 m/s in one direction would take 2100 joules whereas changing speed by 1 m/s in the other direction would take 1900 joules. (Huh? nobody ever could explain me this. If you're a physicists reading this, please explain).

I don't understand the question.  What do you mean by "change speed with 1/ms in one direction"? And what does the question have to do with the shape of the earth?
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2021, 05:33:20 PM »
Now the second argument is about kinetic energy ((1/2)mv^2, m being mass, and v being velocity). If you are 200 kg and go 10m/s steady state together with your environment (this is just an example to make calculation easy), then, to change speed with 1 m/s in one direction would take 2100 joules whereas changing speed by 1 m/s in the other direction would take 1900 joules. (Huh? nobody ever could explain me this. If you're a physicists reading this, please explain).

I share fisherman's view - what does this have to do with the shape of the earth, and what exactly is the problem?

Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2021, 07:01:03 PM »
Quote
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to quantum mechanics not orbital mechanics.

That's not correct. It's a general rule that applies to any Fourrier transform. In signal processing, it's better known as Nyquist theorem.

Quote
I don't understand the question.  What do you mean by "change speed with 1/ms in one direction"? And what does the question have to do with the shape of the earth?

It has to do with a earth being stationary. If you travel 9 m/s, your kinetic energy is 8.100 joule (at 200 kg), at 10 m/s, it's 10.000 joule, and at 11 m/s, it's 12.100 Joules. Now if you move at 10 m/s, and your environment (earth) does so too, what they claim with the spheircal earth, you would perceive as standing still. But it would cost more energy to change speed in one direction, than that it would in the other direction.

Quote
Incorrect.  The answer does vary depending on which version of the cavendish experiment is performed.  It has moved beyond the torsion balance method and now setups using atomic fountains that measure quantum interference has been used.  The accuracy of the measurements are extremely high and variances of more than .001% are considered large.  There are plans to use do the atomic fountain set up with strontium atoms instead of rubidium which will eliminate the effects of magnetic interference and increase the accuract by orders of magnitude.

I can argue with you about this but it's going to be a 'yes it is', 'no it isn't' discussion. I'm talking about the original experiment. Show me one youtube video that calculates the correct result.
About the atomic fountains method, I don't know, I have no experience. Is it someting eeny meeny tiny so that you cannot see it and have to use a computer? Then I know enough. I worked in semicon tools development for a decade now.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2021, 07:07:16 PM by Wesley Ooms »

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2021, 07:27:20 PM »
It has to do with a earth being stationary. If you travel 9 m/s, your kinetic energy is 8.100 joule (at 200 kg), at 10 m/s, it's 10.000 joule, and at 11 m/s, it's 12.100 Joules. Now if you move at 10 m/s, and your environment (earth) does so too, what they claim with the spheircal earth, you would perceive as standing still. But it would cost more energy to change speed in one direction, than that it would in the other direction.

That's not how it works. What matters is your velocity with respect to an inertial reference frame. Consider being on a train, or an aircraft, travelling smoothly along at some constant speed. There's no way of determining the direction of travel from how things feel - it's no easier to walk one way up the carriage than the other. If you had the room, and the ride was smooth enough, you could quite happily play table tennis just as you could at rest. Whether you choose the train or the track as your inertial reference frame, the forces work exactly the same. Your kinetic energy, of course, will be higher if you choose the track as your datum, but then your 'zero', ie at rest with respect to the train, will still have a huge amount of energy.

It's the same with the earth - for convenience, we choose it as our inertial datum. It's actually not strictly inert - it is both accelerating (towards the sun) and rotating, meaning we experience small forces that cause very small errors in the calculations, but for all but the most sensitive of applications, they can be ignored.


Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2021, 07:40:13 PM »
Quote
It has to do with a earth being stationary. If you travel 9 m/s, your kinetic energy is 8.100 joule (at 200 kg), at 10 m/s, it's 10.000 joule, and at 11 m/s, it's 12.100 Joules. Now if you move at 10 m/s, and your environment (earth) does so too, what they claim with the spheircal earth, you would perceive as standing still. But it would cost more energy to change speed in one direction, than that it would in the other direction.

I think Bob beat me to it. Still not sure I understand what you are getting at, but it seems like you are missing the fact that because velocity is relative, so it kinetic energy.  If it seems like it takes it takes more energy to change speed in one direction, than in the other, then its because you are using two different reference frames.

There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8181
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2021, 11:25:05 PM »
Quote from: Wesley Ooms
I can argue with you about this but it's going to be a 'yes it is', 'no it isn't' discussion. I'm talking about the original experiment. Show me one youtube video that calculates the correct result.

How about you show me your credentials. If you’re asking for a YouTube video it seems far more likely that you’re a larping high school student than someone who has any expertise in the matter.

Quote
About the atomic fountains method, I don't know, I have no experience. Is it someting eeny meeny tiny so that you cannot see it and have to use a computer? Then I know enough. I worked in semicon tools development for a decade now.

You don’t know anything about it, but you know enough? Ok. I won’t waste any more time.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8914
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2021, 11:34:56 PM »
The results are not accurate. An astrophysicist says that there are systemic errors, akin to trying to measure the weight of a feather on an old pair of scales outdoors during a breeze.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment

Quote
From a Futurism Article Is the Gravitational Constant Really a Constant? by Astrophysicist Colin Robson (bio):

  “ So far as we can tell, the gravitational constant has remained constant throughout the entire history of the universe. This has, however, been VERY difficult to prove! Measurements of the gravitational constant over the past 200 years have been erratic. Even as the techniques that we use now are far more advanced and sensitive than were used two centuries ago, the true value of the gravitational constant remains elusive.

In 2013, a group of researchers working out of France took the measurement of the gravitational constant, using the same machine that they’d used some 2 years earlier. Improvements were made on the machine to improve the sensitivity and give a more accurate result. The machine, which uses two independent methods to calculate the constant, averages the results of the two. This, in theory, should help reduce systematic errors. What did they find? A different result!

At first it may seem strange that the gravitational constant is so hard to determine. There are four fundamental forces in the universe:

- Strong Force
- Weak Force
- Electromagnetism
- Gravity

Gravity is by far the weakest of the four forces, which, may also sound a little strange considering what we see in the universe. When looking out into the cosmos, gravity appears to be the reigning king of all. 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.

On a large scale, gravity wins. But, as was previously mentioned, gravity is the weakest of the four forces. The reason for this discrepancy is, as a force, gravity travels further and has a slower fall off. The strongest of the four forces, the Strong Force, becomes almost non-existent at distances outside of a nucleus. What makes gravity stronger in macro circumstances is that it is accumulative. The more matter there is, the more gravity. But still, gravity is weaker. 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.  ”
« Last Edit: April 26, 2021, 11:51:11 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline c0i9z

  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2021, 01:00:53 AM »
I would say more that the results are accurate, but not very precise. Here's a link where the difference is explained: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant , the gravitational constant has been known to be about 6.7 since the 1680s. This has not actually changed, though since 1969, we seem to have gotten consistently precise down to 6.67, with the next number being around 3-4. Compared to, say, the speed of light, which, before it became a definition, was known to about 9 digits. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light ), it's certainly massively less precise. But just because it's less precise doesn't mean it's wrong. Add to that that the variance is less than 1%. That's not even imprecise. For most applications, that's a trivial error. It's certainly well below what most instruments will register.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8181
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2021, 01:26:19 AM »
The results are not accurate. An astrophysicist says that there are systemic errors, akin to trying to measure the weight of a feather on an old pair of scales outdoors during a breeze.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment

Quote
From a Futurism Article Is the Gravitational Constant Really a Constant? by Astrophysicist Colin Robson (bio):

  “ So far as we can tell, the gravitational constant has remained constant throughout the entire history of the universe. This has, however, been VERY difficult to prove! Measurements of the gravitational constant over the past 200 years have been erratic. Even as the techniques that we use now are far more advanced and sensitive than were used two centuries ago, the true value of the gravitational constant remains elusive.

In 2013, a group of researchers working out of France took the measurement of the gravitational constant, using the same machine that they’d used some 2 years earlier. Improvements were made on the machine to improve the sensitivity and give a more accurate result. The machine, which uses two independent methods to calculate the constant, averages the results of the two. This, in theory, should help reduce systematic errors. What did they find? A different result!

At first it may seem strange that the gravitational constant is so hard to determine. There are four fundamental forces in the universe:

- Strong Force
- Weak Force
- Electromagnetism
- Gravity

Gravity is by far the weakest of the four forces, which, may also sound a little strange considering what we see in the universe. When looking out into the cosmos, gravity appears to be the reigning king of all. 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.

On a large scale, gravity wins. But, as was previously mentioned, gravity is the weakest of the four forces. The reason for this discrepancy is, as a force, gravity travels further and has a slower fall off. The strongest of the four forces, the Strong Force, becomes almost non-existent at distances outside of a nucleus. What makes gravity stronger in macro circumstances is that it is accumulative. The more matter there is, the more gravity. But still, gravity is weaker. 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.  ”

Difficult does not mean impossible.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1187
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2021, 01:37:16 AM »
Articles in 'Futurism' absolutely carry as much weight as scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. The words and imagery were in no way simplified or generalized for a general audience's lack of technical background.

Not that it matters, but does Colin Robson have a graduate degree? In past threads you've denounced anyone without a PhD in subject matter as lacking adequate credentials to refute claims...just curious where the goal posts have been set in this instance?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8914
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2021, 01:42:47 AM »
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.

Offline c0i9z

  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2021, 02:15:25 AM »
He was also explaining that's it's hard to tell for sure whether the gravitational constant because our measurements are imprecise. When he said earlier in the same article "The Gravitational Constant has a value of 6.67384×10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2", he didn't follow it up by inferring that the actual value might be closer to 3 or something. He's not disputing the value or its accuracy. He's saying that the lack of precision makes the question in question "Is The Gravitational Constant Really Constant?" hard to answer. Essentially, we can't tell if the reason why we keep getting very slightly different values is because the constant fluctuates a tiny bit or if, more likely, it's because our measurements are just not excruciatingly precise.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1187
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2021, 02:15:40 AM »
So he does! (Good for him!)  Hes got a cool little observatory/astrophotography enterprise going now too.

Next question: is this the only gravity-related article written by him that we can trust on the subject? Or are any of his other several articles like the creation of black holes, or gravitational redshifts to be trusted as well?

Those are, admittedly, not directly about the Cavendish experiment results, but I would argue they still hold relevance to the potential discussion here, given that our understanding of gravity is a little bit important in those phenomena.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8181
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2021, 09:39:08 AM »
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.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2021, 10:34:21 AM »
The results are not accurate. An astrophysicist says that there are systemic errors, akin to trying to measure the weight of a feather on an old pair of scales outdoors during a breeze.
He also explains why it's so hard to measure.
And there's no doubt from the part where he talks about the effects of gravity that he isn't a flat earther, so are you accepting his authority about the shape of the earth too or are you just cherry picking again?
"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 Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8914
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2021, 01:48:52 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. 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.

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.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2021, 01:57:20 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2021, 02:00:07 PM »
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 are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2021, 02:06:40 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. 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.

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.

Tom - are you suggesting that, because measuring the gravitational constant is difficult to do, gravity therefore doesn't exist?

To be absolutely clear, even the most remarkable, outlying experiment that you yourself referenced has an error tolerance of around 0.15%, meaning the debate is focusing around the 3rd/4th significant figure. Poor by comparison with other known universal constants, but certainly not evidence for the complete non existence of the force. If the force doesn't exist, what exactly are all these different competing scientists actually measuring, given that they are all coming up with a number around the 6.67 x 10-11 mark? Surely that's evidence that a gravitational force does exist? Given its weakness in comparison to other forces, we would absolutely expect it to be hard to measure accurately, would we not?