Show Posts

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


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 399  Next >
1
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: Today at 01:19:08 PM »

No, that is not the analogy that was made. You are bringing in analogies which were not stated. The astophyscist didn't say that. You did. You are an unqualified individual in comparison.

We can take your assessment, which entirely backwards and wrong to what is occuring, crumple it up, and toss it away like the garbage that it is.

Do let us know when you can quote something from an appropriate source which directly contradicts the quotes we have seen here.

If you wish to continue to use the analogy from the article, you'll need to adhere to the totality of what the author was saying, and not just the bits you've cherry-picked.

He clearly outlines strategies for compensating for the challenges - the 'breeze', if you like, and if you care to read any of the papers on the subject, such as those I linked to, you'll find plenty more detail. The net effect is evident from the results - the 'breeze' has been reduced to a tiny fraction of the result. We know this because of multiple experiments using different methodologies that all arrive at the same result, albeit with a larger than hoped for, but still tiny, error range.

You seem to be ignoring all that and clinging on to the phrasing to the analogy. Seems somewhat desperate.

None of that is a citation from a physicist, sorry. All I see is an interpretation from an unqualified individual.

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

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.

If you can't prove to us that you are equally qualified then your statements are pretty much garbage.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Isostasy
« on: Today at 01:01:26 PM »
I'll ask for a third time; can you actually put up two quotes side by side, one from the geologist in the Wiki and another from another geologist and show a statement which is directly contradicted by another?

It appears that you can't do that. Since you can't do that I don't see what more there is to discuss on this.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Isostasy
« on: May 07, 2021, 12:04:28 AM »
I do think I know more about evidence for isostasy than the geologists quoted in the wiki page.

Feel free to present it then. Post a quote from the geologist cited in the Wiki and then post another quote from another geologist which directly contradicts that statement.

Quote
Obviously I cant force you to read them and if your only response is "okay", well then...OK!

I read it. I didn't see what was being contradicted. The person you are referring to in the Wiki isn't saying that the definition of isostasy is wrong. If you think that there is something that is wrong then post the quotes side by side for us.

4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 05, 2021, 12:13:33 PM »
It's like the previous analogy of the issues with the inconsistent gravity experiments the astrophysicist gave, of weighing a feather on a scale while outside in a small breeze. The small effect of the breeze dominates the effect of the feather's weight. He said this clearly, and you discarded his analysis, pretending that you know better about this. You don't.  ::)

No. It's like weighing something on a scale in a breeze, whereby the breeze contributes 0.045% of the result and the feather, or whatever else is being weighed, makes up the other 99.9955%.

No, that is not the analogy that was made. You are bringing in analogies which were not stated. The astophyscist didn't say that. You did. You are an unqualified individual in comparison.

We can take your assessment, which entirely backwards and wrong to what is occuring, crumple it up, and toss it away like the garbage that it is.

Do let us know when you can quote something from an appropriate source which directly contradicts the quotes we have seen here.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Isostasy
« on: May 05, 2021, 11:22:46 AM »
Quote
but the central points he brings up demonstrate a lack of understanding of the concept of isostacy as a whole

It is interesting that you think that you know better than geologists, but I don't see a source that directly contradicts any of his statements. You have posted some definitions of isostasy, but this doesn't contradict what he says about it. You are basically telling us that you, a random person on the internet, disagrees with the assessment of a geologist. My response is "Okay.  ::)"

Post a quote from him and then a quote from another geologist which directly contradicts that statement. You are avoiding quoting him at all, or directly contradicting those statements. Since you have failed to do this, and are only posting definitions of isostasy, which that author doesn't even appear to disagree with in his comments, I don't see what you are contradicting here.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 05, 2021, 11:03:31 AM »

From the article:

Quote
Through these dual experiments, Quinn’s team arrived at a value of 6.67545 X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. That’s 241 parts per million above the standard value of 6.67384(80) X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, which was arrived at by a special task force of the International Council for Science’s Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) (pdf) in 2010 by calculating a weighted average of all the various experimental values. These values differ from one another by as much as 450 ppm of the constant, even though most of them have estimated uncertainties of only about 40 ppm. “Clearly, many of them or most of them are subject either to serious significant errors or grossly underestimated uncertainties,” Quinn says.

You can distract, deflect and quote out of context all you like, but you can't avoid the fact that the noise you say 'dominates' the results simply doesn't.

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.

It's like the previous analogy to the issues with the inconsistent gravity experiments the astrophysicist gave, of weighing a feather on a scale while outside in a small breeze. The small effect of the breeze dominates the effect of the feather's weight. He said this clearly, and you discarded his analysis, pretending that you know better about this. You don't.  ::)

Once again, your source on your statements is your own self; an unqualified individual trying to argue that black is white and arguing that the things you are reading aren't really saying what they appear to be saying.

none of the people you are quoting are even close to suggesting that any of the experiments indicate that gravity doesn’t exist.

Wrong. They clearly admit that the problem is so concerning that they don't know if they are measuring it at all.

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

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

You “accidentally” forgot to quote this part of that article:

Quote
If the true value of big G turns out to be closer to the Quinn team’s measurement than the CODATA value, then calculations that depend on G will have to be revised. For example, the estimated masses of the solar system’s planets, including Earth, would change slightly. Such a revision, however, wouldn’t alter any fundamental laws of physics, and would have very little practical effect on anyone’s life, Quinn says. But getting to the bottom of the issue is more a matter of principle to the scientists. “It’s not a thing one likes to leave unresolved,” he adds. “We should be able to measure gravity.”

There is clearly no doubt that gravity is a thing, but our ability to measure it is imperfect because it is such a weak force.

Read your own quote. It says that if the true value of gravity matches this team's results then xx. It doesn't say that multiple teams aren't getting contradicting results.

None of that contradicts the rest of the article which says that the results from different teams are inconsistent.

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 04, 2021, 02:11:14 AM »
You're acting like the futurism article is the only source that matters on the topic, when the reality is that the Cavendish experiment has been performed many times (vacuum chamber, electrically grounded masses) and is continually updated and improved to explore the limits of gravitational attraction

https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.11761

Granted, no one is satisfied with the lack of precision compared to other universal constants, but science is more than just a body of knowledge, it's the search for answers to questions we might not have even though to ask yet.

That's not a Cavendish-type experiment. That's an experiment testing the Equivalence Principle with a torsion balance like these ones: https://wiki.tfes.org/Torsion_Balance_Tests

8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 04, 2021, 01:15:19 AM »
It isn't dominated

If you are forced to refer to yourself as a source you may as well say nothing at all. It's a sign of defeated position. Surely if there were mountains of evidence for this on your side you would be able to quote it directly from appropriate sources in order to directly contradict it.

9
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 10:44:34 PM »
Ten fold differences from the expected uncertainties aren't similar results. They are different results. The effect of gravity is dominated by other effects on that range. If we don't have a consistent effect then we cannot say that it is gravity. It could be electrostatic forces at that level.

You need to purify the experiment enough so that noise doesn't dominate the results, in order to separate one phenomena from another. They have not yet been able to do that.

From the previous link:

" But getting to the bottom of the issue is more a matter of principle to the scientists. “It’s not a thing one likes to leave unresolved,” he adds. “We should be able to measure gravity.” "

Obviously the implication there is that they can't measure gravity.

10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 10:27:28 PM »
none of the people you are quoting are even close to suggesting that any of the experiments indicate that gravity doesn’t exist.

Wrong. They clearly admit that the problem is so concerning that they don't know if they are measuring it at all.

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

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

11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 10:21:29 PM »
The gravity effect being measured is only equivalent to the weight of a few cells, very small. That gravity effect is be being dominated over ten fold by effects which are not gravity.

How do we know if it's measuring gravity if the noise level dominates the effect being measured? The results are erratic. It could just be measuring noise in that range.

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« on: May 03, 2021, 10:09:19 PM »
The same is true of gravity. It has been measured. Cavendish measured it. Lots of people have measured it and they are with 0.15% of each other for the gravitational constant. Why do you need a mechanism before you acknowledge that something is there?

The effect of gravity is much smaller than that range. The 0.15% deviation is dominated by effects which are not gravity. See this section: https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment#A_Small_Effect

Since the noise highly dominates the effect, how do you know that the effect is actually being measured?

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 02, 2021, 05:52:32 PM »
So this is someone not important enough for me to remember. How does that help your argument that Matt Gaetz is an important person?

Who claimed he was important? Lying and now straw manning. Yikes, Tom. Get some sleep. You’re slipping.

If you are admitting that you are spamming fanatic MSM links and accusations against unimportant people then if undermines your efforts. You need to make a connection on his significance, else you are just telling us that an unimportant person was accused of a thing.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 02, 2021, 05:38:44 PM »
So this is someone not important enough for me to remember. How does that help your argument that Matt Gaetz is an important person?

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 02, 2021, 03:03:50 PM »
Looks like we were collecting quotes from lawyers in that link. His was just one of many which proved you wrong.

Nothing about what is alleged about Gaetz here invalidates that quote. You would need to show that Gaetz is not really a lawyer to invalidate it.

So your argument is now that someone I once quoted has allegations against him. Why should I care? Who is he that this should be so concerning? You've pointed out that he is a lawyer that I once quoted, but fail to show why is he a super important person otherwise. You guys are posting his name around like he's important, but have so far neglected to show why he is important.

He's a representative of the first district of Florida, a relatively small area compared to the entire US. Does the first district of Florida have some kind of special significance that we are missing here?

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 01, 2021, 01:49:31 AM »
Never heard of him. Are we just bring up allegations against different people who may be associated with a political party? I can do that.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 30, 2021, 10:08:34 PM »
I need a summary of this. Who is Matt Gaetz and why should I care?

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« 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.

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« 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.

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« 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.  ”

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 399  Next >