Offline c0i9z

  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #140 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.

Offline c0i9z

  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #141 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.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #142 on: May 09, 2021, 08:35:57 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.

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.

Quote
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.   ::)

You’ve provided all the evidence we needed, thank you. And very interesting it was too. Did you read those links I posted, by the way? Fascinating how the challenge of measuring G has progressed.

Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #143 on: May 09, 2021, 08:51:43 PM »
Quote
They can't measure gravity. They say this themselves. There goes your Cavendish proof.
No they don't.
They say that measuring gravity is hard because it is such a weak force.
They also say that despite this they can measure it with a discrepancy of 450ppm - as I said this is less that 1 in 2000.
They also say that they would like to do better, but that even if G does turn out to be different from what they think it is, it wouldn't change any laws of physics - it is clear they are not saying that they don't think gravity is a thing.

Your argument is basically that because the variations are 450ppm that means they aren't measuring gravity, which is absolutely not what is being said. It's like saying that I'm measuring a table which is about 2 meters long and some people are claiming that it's only 1.999m long and you are concluding that tables don't exist, or tape measures don't work.
"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: 8629
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #144 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.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2021, 11:11:10 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7803
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #145 on: May 09, 2021, 10:42:31 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.

But they are saying what we want them to say. G is difficult to measure, isn’t as accurate as they would like, but gravity exists. I mean, everyone agrees that’s what it says, right?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline c0i9z

  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #146 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.

Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #147 on: May 10, 2021, 06:07:08 AM »
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.
I mean, you know why.
Were Tom to accept gravity then the whole of FET (such as it is) falls apart. So Tom does here what he does a lot. He quotes selectively from “authorities” and then dishonestly misinterprets what they say. He ignores the parts where they say things he doesn’t want to believe - he doesn’t accept them as an authority on those parts, strangely.
It’s possibly a combination of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, but I think it’s more likely trolling.
"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: 8629
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #148 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.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2021, 11:03:41 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #149 on: May 10, 2021, 11:52:09 AM »

Material things (i.e., matter) fall because they have weight.


Celestial bodies don't fall yet they have weight.  You do understand what 'mechanism' means, don't you?
Yeah, I understand it so much as to hear you claim the thing that somehow causes things to fall is the same thing that is somehow also responsible for keeping all things in the same place.

In short, nonsense.
Nothing in the universe "stays in the same place".  Literally every celestial body that is observed has some sort of motion relative to the Earth.
When the motion remains in the same relative place, that is the same place.

There are no celestial bodies that we don’t observe moving so let’s move on.
Yeah, and we observe them moving in the same place.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7803
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #150 on: May 10, 2021, 11:54:45 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.

This is a whole lot of opinions from internet persona Tom Bishop. Do you have any sources to back this up? It seems that physicists disagree with you and that gravity actually exists.

Perhaps it just has to do with you not appreciating how small the variation in measurements of G is? A simple pie chart was provided.

To recap: your source pointed out measuring G was difficult, it’s not as accurate as people would like and that gravity certainly exists. If you wish to contradict your source, feel free to.

Yeah, and we observe them moving in the same place.

Let’s just let this sink in.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2021, 11:56:22 AM by Rama Set »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #151 on: May 10, 2021, 11:56:59 AM »
Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity.
Quinn stating:  “We should be able to measure gravity.” - seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity, considering that is a full admission they cannot measure it.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #152 on: May 10, 2021, 11:59:25 AM »

Yeah, and we observe them moving in the same place.

Let’s just let this sink in.
You act as if things moving in the same paths over periods of time is incongruous with my statement.

Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #153 on: May 10, 2021, 12:30:24 PM »
Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity.
Quinn stating:  “We should be able to measure gravity.” - seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity, considering that is a full admission they cannot measure it.

You cannot just isolate this sentence out of the entire document and claim that it implies that gravity does not exist.

It is the same as me taking into isolation "seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity" and say that Action80 wrote that it only seems to cast doubt on the existence of gravity so Action80 supports that it does not cast doubt on the existence of gravity.

Edited for clarity.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2021, 12:33:18 PM by Kokorikos »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7803
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #154 on: May 10, 2021, 12:34:55 PM »
Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity.
Quinn stating:  “We should be able to measure gravity.” - seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity, considering that is a full admission they cannot measure it.

Something being difficult to measure does not mean the same thing as not existing. Nowhere does the article
Mention the stunning revelation that gravity doesn’t exist. It gives a couple of other possibilities why G is difficult to measure accurately. Your homework is to find those and report back to the class.


Yeah, and we observe them moving in the same place.

Let’s just let this sink in.
You act as if things moving in the same paths over periods of time is incongruous with my statement.

You said gravity keeps things in place. This is incorrect and asserting that moving along the same path encompasses the “moving but keeps them in place” contradiction is a badly conceived way to try and save your badly conceived objection. Look up how Kepler derived his orbital laws directly from Newton. It’s extremely intuitive, elegant and logical. There is no contradiction.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #155 on: May 10, 2021, 12:46:57 PM »
Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity.
Quinn stating:  “We should be able to measure gravity.” - seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity, considering that is a full admission they cannot measure it.

You cannot just isolate this sentence out of the entire document and claim that it implies that gravity does not exist.

It is the same as me taking into isolation "seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity" and say that Action80 wrote that it only seems to cast doubt on the existence of gravity so Action80 supports that it does not cast doubt on the existence of gravity.

Edited for clarity.
I do not believe a more feeble attempt to communicate a point has ever been made here on this forum.

Regardless, Quinn stating "We should be able to measure gravity," doesn't imply anything.

It admits that gravity cannot be measured and has not been measured.

From that, I can infer gravity doesn't exist.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #156 on: May 10, 2021, 12:55:50 PM »
Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity.
Quinn stating:  “We should be able to measure gravity.” - seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity, considering that is a full admission they cannot measure it.

Something being difficult to measure does not mean the same thing as not existing. Nowhere does the article
Mention the stunning revelation that gravity doesn’t exist. It gives a couple of other possibilities why G is difficult to measure accurately. Your homework is to find those and report back to the class.
Since Quinn already admitted they cannot measure it, that means they cannot measure it.

Not being able to measure it =/= difficult to measure.

You have some set theory to study.

Yeah, and we observe them moving in the same place.

Let’s just let this sink in.
You act as if things moving in the same paths over periods of time is incongruous with my statement.

You said gravity keeps things in place. This is incorrect and asserting that moving along the same path encompasses the “moving but keeps them in place” contradiction is a badly conceived way to try and save your badly conceived objection. Look up how Kepler derived his orbital laws directly from Newton. It’s extremely intuitive, elegant and logical. There is no contradiction.
I offered no contradiction and you know it.

Your framing it that way is just a feeble attempt to muddy the water.

Now you're  claiming that gravity doesn't fit with orbital mechanics, at the same time offering Newton and Kepler.

Interesting style of debate, I must say.

Which farm boots were you wearing when you pulled this style from the pasture?
« Last Edit: May 10, 2021, 01:19:42 PM by Action80 »

Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #157 on: May 10, 2021, 01:04:45 PM »
Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity.
Quinn stating:  “We should be able to measure gravity.” - seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity, considering that is a full admission they cannot measure it.

You cannot just isolate this sentence out of the entire document and claim that it implies that gravity does not exist.

It is the same as me taking into isolation "seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity" and say that Action80 wrote that it only seems to cast doubt on the existence of gravity so Action80 supports that it does not cast doubt on the existence of gravity.

Edited for clarity.
I do not believe a more feeble attempt to communicate a point has ever been made here on this forum.

Regardless, Quinn stating "We should be able to measure gravity," doesn't imply anything.

It admits that gravity cannot be measured and has not been measured.

From that, I can infer gravity doesn't exist.

If you read the entire article you will see that he only means that they should be able to measure gravity more accurately.
Your attempt to say that he means that they cannot measure gravity at all sounds much more feeble than my comment actually.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #158 on: May 10, 2021, 01:18:20 PM »
Nothing in that article casts any doubt on the existence of gravity.
Quinn stating:  “We should be able to measure gravity.” - seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity, considering that is a full admission they cannot measure it.

You cannot just isolate this sentence out of the entire document and claim that it implies that gravity does not exist.

It is the same as me taking into isolation "seems to cast huge doubt on the existence of gravity" and say that Action80 wrote that it only seems to cast doubt on the existence of gravity so Action80 supports that it does not cast doubt on the existence of gravity.

Edited for clarity.
I do not believe a more feeble attempt to communicate a point has ever been made here on this forum.

Regardless, Quinn stating "We should be able to measure gravity," doesn't imply anything.

It admits that gravity cannot be measured and has not been measured.

From that, I can infer gravity doesn't exist.

If you read the entire article you will see that he only means that they should be able to measure gravity more accurately.
Your attempt to say that he means that they cannot measure gravity at all sounds much more feeble than my comment actually.
Again, you have no basis on which to interpret the statement, "We should be able to measure gravity," as somehow containing the words, "more accurately."

I am not attempting to state what he means.

He stated what he means.

When someone states "We should be able to measure gravity," that means someone should be able to measure gravity.

Further, stating "We should be able to measure gravity," clearly indicates it has not been measured.

Now, if you want to speak for Quinn, I suggest you contact him and do an interview, then ask his permission.

Otherwise, don't.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 941
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #159 on: May 10, 2021, 01:19:44 PM »
Action and TB keep quoting half a sentence from Dr. Quinn in the Sci. Am and Futurism articles, but if you take 30 seconds and look up what Dr. Quinn does for a living, what he has published himself, and the projects he's been involved in, the ridiculousness of this repeated exchange is plainly obvious.


Some additional quotes from Dr. Quinn (originally quoted from the Sci. Am. Article above) from a short note he wrote in Nature:

"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..."

"Could these unresolved discrepancies in G hide some new physics? This seems unlikely. I believe undiscovered systematic errors in all or some of these new experiments is the answer — G is difficult to measure but it should not be too difficult!"

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


Side note, Dr. Quinn isnt an astrophysicist by man is he ever qualified for that work! Very impressive resume.