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 - c0i9z

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
The results show that moonlight not only gives NO HEAT, it actually TAKES HEAT AWAY!

Do they, though? I don't know what experiment you're referring to specifically, but my guess is that all it really shows is that in some places, at night, items cool down faster than they do in other places. That's not surprising and there's lot of known reasons why this might happen. A proper experiment would try to account for all of these reasons and try to minimize the effect of potentially unknown reasons. It would take a number of measurements at a number of given locations on multiple days, crucially also on days when there is no moon and would, ideally, be double blinded, so that experimenter bias doesn't accidentally affect the result. Without all of that, it's hard to really know that what you think you're measuring really is what you're measuring.

2
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 12, 2021, 12:21:01 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 Newtonian constant of gravitation, a constant too difficult to measure?”

If you'll notice the last character, here? It's a question mark. This makes this a question, not a statement. The answer to the statement is 'no, not to a reasonable precision', as the article itself establishes.

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

"measuring G is hard": true
"we should be able to do better": true

Nothing here says that measuring gravity isn't a thing that is done. Notice that this doesn't say "measuring G is impossible". These are different things. Are you aware of this?

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.  ::)

Please take that finger and point it right back at you, where it belongs, thanks.

3
Thanks Iceman. I respect your thought process but why wouldn’t the same insulator effect be in place in the shade of the sun.  It doesn’t seem right that it would only happen in the shade of the moon and NOT the shade of the sun.

Because the moon gives very nearly no heat, while the sun gives a ridiculous amount of heat, so whatever is gained by the insulator effect, or, for that, matter, the heat radiating from the insulator itself, if, by far, lost from not gaining all of that sun heat.

Imagine you had a perfect insulator that exactly maintains your temperature while it's on. Your thing start lukewarm. During the day, things get warmer. A thing without the insulator will be warm, one with will be lukewarm, so the uninsulated is warmer. During the night, things get colder, moonlight or not, so a thing without the insulator will be lukewarm, one with will be cold, so the insulated is warmer.

4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 11:21:10 PM »
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 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.

They are measuring a range of results across 450ppm. The rest is the bit that is not uncertain. The rest of the million parts. Again, do you understand what ppm means? How it's used?

They are measuring something, which is gravity. The inconsistency shows that other effects are involved, of course, as is the case with all measurements. And it's difficult to pinpoint the value of gravity to the accuracy that they wish it to be, as we've all agreed.

Why is it that you personally believe, against the opinion of all these people that you are quoting that the minuscule uncertainty in the value of the gravity constant means that gravity doesn't exist.

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 08:26:46 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"

Therefore the two methods produce numbers that are right.

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.

So you believe their numbers but don't believe they're doing what they say they're doing?

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.

Gravity is weak. Gravity is difficult to measure. No one has disagreed with wither of these things. But difficult is not the same thing as impossible.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 08:19:45 PM »
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.

No. Your personal misinterpretation of what these quotes clearly say is, as already well established both invalid and incorrect. Again, please provide a clear quote that specifically says that gravity doesn't exist without any interpretation needed.

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 08:03:06 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.

8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 07:59:33 PM »
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.

No, all of the quotes you've given clearly say something different than what you're pretending that they're saying. This has already been explained in multiple ways and in detail. I recommend that you go to those quotes again and really read them carefully. Make sure that you properly understand every word and every term used. Then go to the place they're quoted from and do the same again. Make sure you really grasp the context. Think to yourself 'Is this physicist really saying that gravity doesn't exist or am I misinterpreting something?'

9
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 05:41:18 PM »
Quote
Measuring such small forces on kg-objects to 10-4 or 10-5 precision is just not easy
Emphasis mine.

This essentially what this article and every quote you've trotted out is saying. The precision mentioned here is important. Everything less precise than that is fine and accepted and completely uncontroversial.

And, really, if any of these people thought that gravity wasn't a thing, they'd say that clearly. They'd make entire articles about exactly that. That would be enormous news if that was true! They wouldn't bury it in some quote that says something else in the middle of an article that's about something completely different.

10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 09, 2021, 12:10:24 AM »
Does that chart and explanation come from a physicist? It doesn't appear so. It appears to come from you, an unqualified individual on the internet trying to reinterpret the explanations and statements from qualified individuals.

I made that chart based on the numbers in the post that I quoted, which is, in fact, your post. Is there anything in particular in it you disagree with? The 40 ppm? The 450 ppm? The definition of ppm I used? Because, from what I can tell, all I did was show what 450 ppm looks like in a format that's easy to understand. I don't think that this required any particular interpretation on my part. At least, nothing past understanding how fractions work.

11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 05, 2021, 04:04:27 PM »
What you quoted says exactly that. The results differ by 450ppm from the constant even though the equipment used have experimental uncertainties of about 40ppm. The noise and non-gravity effects dominates the effect of gravity.

Maybe a graph will help. So here's a pie chart. Explanations to follow.



The entire circle represents the measured value. It's 1000000 ppm or a million parts per million. That's the same as saying 100%. It's the whole thing.

The blue area represents experimental uncertainties of 40ppm. 40 millionth of the measured value.

The red area represents an extra 450ppm difference due to noise and such. I've labeled it 'Circumstantial uncertainties'.

The green area, I would have preferred to keep unlabeled, but this particular tool doesn't allow that, so it's the lower value bound. What the true value is if the measured value has overestimated by the entire experimental and circumstantial error. The true value lies somewhere between this and the size of the whole circle plus the size of the uncertainties.

I think it's clear that, while the circumstantial uncertainties are much bigger than the experimental uncertainties, dominating them, perhaps, the entire uncertainty area far from dominates the circle.

Now, you might notice that neither uncertainties are actually visible. That's simply because the circle is much too small to show them. But I feel like this only emphasizes just how insignificant they are.

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 04, 2021, 04:30:28 AM »
We have a 99.85% consistent effect. Like I said before, no one is suggesting that the constant might really be under 6 or over 7. They're just all frustrated that they can't get a precision of more than a few digits, instead of about 9, like they can for other constants. This goes back to the quoting problems I've mentioned elsewhere. None of these sources think for a moment that gravity doesn't exist or that there isn't a gravitational constant or that it isn't about 6.67. Misinterpreting quotes to pretend like they do does nothing but show a severe lack of understanding of the subject.

13
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 05:33:55 PM »
Newton stated any half wit would reject the concept that such a thing as gravity exists.

There seems to be a lot of quoting of people that clearly agreed that gravity exists to pretend that they think otherwise. But what seems more likely, that these people, including the person who described for us the equations that form the literal Theory of Gravity, didn't think they exist or that the quoter has simply misunderstood what they were trying to say? By picking out a single quote and placing it wildly out of context, perhaps? Maybe, before quoting a scientist, it would behoove one to think about whether that scientist actually agreed with what one is trying to argue for?

14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 05:26:20 PM »
I cannot help it if you and the rest refuse to discuss a point within the confines of gravity...

Is your question what makes water stick to the Earth within the confines of gravity? Gravity is the answer. Gravity is the reason why anything sticks to the Earth, including water, rocks and air. It's also what make the earth stick together at all. But I feel like you must have known that already.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA and the atmosplane
« on: May 03, 2021, 05:20:09 PM »
Unless the thing was accelerated at the same time, so it would create a relative vacuum and 'pull up' the atmosphere at the same rate as the bottom part 'pushes' it up. Though, of course, that would force the atmosphere to be the same pressure throughout the volume.

16
Flat Earth Community / Re: On the Notion of Flat Earth Belief Growth
« on: April 30, 2021, 08:36:39 PM »
I doubt that belief in a flat earth will ever become more than niche, simply because it doesn't work, while the standard model does work and works very well. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and the standard model makes a truly amazing pudding. Meanwhile, belief in a flat earth doesn't ever seem to actually make any pudding, only to nitpick the standard model's pudding and boast about how much better its pudding would be if it ever bothered making any.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet
« on: April 28, 2021, 04:25:57 PM »
You have to remember that universal acceleration is not actually universal. Only some things get directly accelerated. Specifically, all the things that it's difficult to interact with directly. Planets, stars, whatever is supposed to be under the Earth that's actually experiencing the acceleration. All the things you might have actual experience with, like rocks, plants, animals, water, air, planes, etc. aren't apparently affected, for some mysterious reason. Otherwise, you'd get rocks that hover when they're dropped, something which I don't recall ever seeing.

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: April 27, 2021, 03:35:47 PM »
Seriously, I present a source from an astrophysicist who says these things directly and you guys have nothing in the way of an equivalent source for us except your own personal statements/knowledge/interpretation/excuses. You may as well be citing your garbage man's opinion here as he comes by to pick up your trash.

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

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« 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.

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« 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.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >