Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 462
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #200 on: May 11, 2021, 05:24:45 PM »
I didn't say that the scientists don't think that the feather is there. Most of them do think that they are trying to measure something that exists. The problem is that they can't do it reliably; there are other dominating effects at that range getting in the way, creating results that are in "wild disagreement with each other", to the point that some speculate on "new physics" where gravity's effect only applies on astrophysical scales.

Whether you call it human error, the presence of dominating effects, or claim that the theory of gravity is non-universal and wrong, all of this has the same result: We can't measure gravity in this experiment.

That's some vintage word twisting right there. Nobody in any of the sources we've discussed is saying that.

The comment was:

Quote
G is not truly universal and may depend on matter density on astrophysical scales

That is not the same thing. G is the gravitational constant - the point being that some are speculating that it might vary, depending on matter density on astrophysical scales.

Stop it. You aren't very good at this, and everybody can see through it.
There is no gravitational constant is the point.

The word, "constant,"  pretty much means "fixed."

And, as detailed by Quinn, "constant," cannot be applied as an adjective when things are not "constant."

So, you do as you would wish Tom do, only first.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #201 on: May 11, 2021, 05:51:00 PM »
And yet physicists, metrologists, and amateur experimenters constantly get values right around the reported value, just with a spread that exceeds the uncertainty ranges calculated for individual results and they (the former two groups) are constantly developing new ways to investigate and minimize the sources of the uncertainty.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #202 on: May 11, 2021, 06:29:59 PM »
There is no gravitational constant is the point.

The word, "constant,"  pretty much means "fixed."

And, as detailed by Quinn, "constant," cannot be applied as an adjective when things are not "constant."

So, you do as you would wish Tom do, only first.

But if the source of the roughly 400ppm error is variability in G - which, by the way, none of the scientists agree on - that means that G exists, but it's just a function of something else and at a local level here on earth it's close enough to being a constant as to not matter much. And they've measured it pretty well. And if G exists, so does gravity.

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #203 on: May 11, 2021, 07:45:19 PM »
Quote
I don't want SteelyBob's points or analogies. I want the points and analogies of qualified individuals. If you can't provide that then you guys have lost the argument.

What exactly do you need these qualified individuals to say?
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8629
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #204 on: May 11, 2021, 09:57:11 PM »
Tom plays these semantic games endlessly to pretend people are saying things which they clearly aren't saying.
As we've seen in this thread, it can go on for pages.

No. That is your MO.

I quoted this as Quinn saying that he can't measure gravity:

“It’s not a thing one likes to leave unresolved, we should be able to measure gravity.”

“The Newtonian constant of gravitation, a constant too difficult to measure?”

You denied this and quoted this from Quinn in your defense:

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

That's the best you could provide. A statement that it's hard and they need to do better isn't a statement that he's doing it. 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.  ::)
« Last Edit: May 11, 2021, 10:16:32 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7802
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #205 on: May 11, 2021, 10:41:48 PM »
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/09/06/scientists-admit-embarrassingly-we-dont-know-how-strong-the-force-of-gravity-is/?sh=58baec562c3e

This article goes over much of the same ground and is written by an astrophsicist.  As he says, the lack of precision compared with other constants is uncomfortable, but there is no doubt that gravity exists and that they measure it:

"The gravitational constant of the Universe, G, was the first constant to ever be measured. Yet more than 350 years after we first determined its value, it is truly embarrassing how poorly known, compared to all the other constants, our knowledge of this one is. We use this constant in a whole slew of measurements and calculations, from gravitational waves to pulsar timing to the expansion of the Universe. Yet our ability to determine it is rooted in small-scale measurements made right here on Earth. The tiniest sources of uncertainty, from the density of materials to seismic vibrations across the globe, can weave their way into our attempts to determine it. Until we can do better, there will be an inherent, uncomfortably large uncertainty anywhere the gravitational phenomenon is important. It's 2018, and we still don't know how strong gravity actually is."

They are uncomfortable with G's uncertainty because they know other constants to a range of 8 to 14 significant digits.  Compared to the insane precision with which they can measure them, G is virtually unknown, but it still is known extremely well to 3 significant digits.  It has been used to make many predictions and the Cavendish experiment consistently returns that result.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #206 on: May 11, 2021, 11:32:22 PM »

I quoted this as Quinn saying that he can't measure gravity:

“It’s not a thing one likes to leave unresolved, we should be able to measure gravity.”

“The Newtonian constant of gravitation, a constant too difficult to measure?”

You denied this and quoted this from Quinn in your defense:

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

That's the best you could provide. A statement that it's hard and they need to do better isn't a statement that he's doing it. 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.  ::)

You keep using the same quote of Dr Quinn, take from the Sci. Am. and Futurism articles.

It has been pointed out that Dr. Quinn, and the other physicists quoted on both articles, have had much more to say on the matter of measuring G than the few words you keep regurgitating ad nasuem. I would recommend that you (and anyone else reading through this mess of a thread) look up what the scientists say on the matter themselves, in their peer-reviewed publications.

From Dr Quinn:
"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

Or go to Dr. Speake's google Scholar profile and look up the work hes done since his PhD, including recent developmental of new methodologies to mimic a torsion balance experiment while limiting external sources of noise from ground movements due to farfield seismic vibration.

Do the same for all the physicists in the articles described here, and in the wiki. Decide for yourself what the experts have to say.

Offline c0i9z

  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #207 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.

Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #208 on: May 12, 2021, 09:32:56 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?
Tom isn't interested in context. He routinely does this. Picks out a snippet of a quote from someone and deliberately leaves out the context or quotes elsewhere in the same article which make the views of the person he is quoting clear.
Another good example of this is on the Equivalence Principle Wiki page where he quotes part of "Gravity: A Very Short Introduction" which he thinks backs up his point but ignores quotes elsewhere in the book which clearly talks about the earth as a globe and a planet orbiting the sun. He not only cherry picks quotes, he extends that to cherry picking what he will accept people as "experts" on. You see him in this thread citing experts, but those experts clearly believe that gravity exists and that the earth is a globe. Strangely, he doesn't accept their views about that.

The only question is whether this is delusion, dishonestly or downright trolling. But the article is clear that gravity is a thing and can be measured to a level of precision plenty good enough for all practical purposes.
"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 #209 on: May 12, 2021, 09:39:15 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 question is whether is is saying that he is or is not measuring gravity. "We should be able to measure gravity" and "We are measuring gravity" are contradictory statements. 'Can' is already presumed in the effort.

Why is it that you guys cannot understand simple English and must attempt to twist clear and direct sentences? Oh wait, I know why.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Tom isn't interested in context. He routinely does this. Picks out a snippet of a quote from someone and deliberately leaves out the context or quotes elsewhere in the same article which make the views of the person he is quoting clear.

Too bad you have failed to show any of Quinn's quotes to show that he was quoted out of context, and likewise cannot actually show that anything is quoted out of context in the of the rest of the Wiki. The one quote from Quinn you did provide here did not say what you wanted it to say. You posted:

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

Again, a statement that it is hard is not a statement that he is measuring gravity. You have absolutely failed to show this. You are clearly the one trying to twist direct sentences here. Yet you continue to spam and rant, but utterly fail to demonstrate your case.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2021, 09:52:27 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #210 on: May 12, 2021, 09:51:54 AM »

The question is whether is is saying that he is or is not measuring gravity. "We should be able to measure gravity" and "We are measuring gravity" are contradictory statements. 'Can' is already presumed in the effort.

Why is it that you guys cannot understand simple English and must attempt to twist clear and direct sentences? Oh wait, I know why.

'I should be able to ride a bike'

'I can ride a bike'

These are not contradictory statements Tom. At least we've got down to the actual point of disagreement I guess. We're reading a large body of available quotes and papers from a large group of esteemed scientists who are experts in their field (measuring G, amongst other things, just to be clear). We're understanding context, and reading the short phrases you keep quoting in light of the broader debate being had - the desire to measure G to the same standard as other constants.

You, on the other hand, are doggedly sticking to a perceived literal reading of some illustrative analogies and quotations out of context and, whilst bizarrely appealing to the authority of a bunch of people who profoundly disagree with the point you are making, hoping that the whole thing sticks together to form some kind of coherent argument.

Look, we're well past trying to persuade you of anything. Most of us here don't even think you actually believe the stuff you're writing. We're just calling you out in the hope that other people reading this don't get sucked into the con.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8629
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #211 on: May 12, 2021, 09:59:23 AM »
'I should be able to ride a bike'

'I can ride a bike'

These are not contradictory statements Tom.

Yet that is not the question at all. The question is whether Quinn believes that he did or did not measure gravity in his long multi-year efforts in the laboratory. If he is saying "we should be able to measure gravity" then he clearly believes that he did not measure gravity in his efforts.

Why is this difficult to understand? Maybe because you can't stand being wrong and need to make up a fabrication to suit yourself?

If you want context, Terence Quinn is a British physicist who spent many years studying gravity and was emeritus director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. If he says it, it's golden.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2021, 10:11:02 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #212 on: May 12, 2021, 10:10:14 AM »
Yet that is not the question at all. The question is whether Quinn believes that he did or did not measure gravity in his long efforts. If he is saying "we should be able to measure gravity" then he clearly believes that he did not measure gravity in his efforts.

Why is this difficult for you to understand? Maybe because you can't stand being wrong and need to make up a fabrication to suit yourself?

Taken in isolation, 'we should be able to measure gravity' could mean many things. It is entirely consistent, in fairness to your argument, with somebody who wishes to measure gravity but cannot, for whatever reason. No dispute there. However, it is also entirely consistent with somebody working in a very niche field describing their frustration at not being able to measure something more precisely.

So to work out what he is taking about, we have to look at the context. And the context makes it very obvious. If there was any doubt whatsoever that G existed, then it would be in the article and indeed the numerous papers relating to experiments to measure it. But it isn't. Just lots and lots of very different experiments all measuring G to within 400ppm of each other. You keep quoting the scales/breeze/feather analogy as if it's of equal significance to the vast volume of information explaining exactly how they go about removing the 'breeze' and improving the 'scales' to better measure the 'feather' - that's the whole point. The fact that completely different methodologies all return values for such a difficult to measure constant that are so close together is very good confirmation that G exists. The only debate, and it is a fairly fringe view, is that some of the error could be caused by variations in G itself. Emphasis on variations - nobody, apart from some random on the internet, is saying it doesn't exist at all.   

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8629
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #213 on: May 12, 2021, 11:10:22 AM »
Quote
So to work out what he is taking about, we have to look at the context. And the context makes it very obvious. If there was any doubt whatsoever that G existed, then it would be in the article and indeed the numerous papers relating to experiments to measure it. But it isn't

If you want to look at context and believe in keeping the story straight then you can start by accepting that Quinn believes in gravity, and that gravity exists, but he says that he can't measure it.

Quote
However, it is also entirely consistent with somebody working in a very niche field describing their frustration at not being able to measure something more precisely.

He says that 'we should be able to measure gravity' after spending many years in the laboratory on these experiments.

He penned an article with a title stating that the Newtonian constant is too difficult to measure.

Finally, Quinn suggests in the article that you posted that gravity mainly applies at astrophysical scales and isn't universal. He clearly thinks that he can't detect it in the laboratory and that is possible that gravity is different than conceived.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2021, 11:19:04 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #214 on: May 12, 2021, 11:18:50 AM »
If you want to look at context and believe in keeping the story straight then you can start by accepting that Quinn believes in gravity, and that gravity exists

If you want context, Terence Quinn is a British physicist who spent many years studying gravity and was emeritus director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. If he says it, it's golden.

Cool. So you accept his authority that gravity exists then? Good, we're making progress.
"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 #215 on: May 12, 2021, 11:20:11 AM »
If you want to look at context and believe in keeping the story straight then you can start by accepting that Quinn believes in gravity, and that gravity exists

If you want context, Terence Quinn is a British physicist who spent many years studying gravity and was emeritus director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. If he says it, it's golden.

Cool. So you accept his authority that gravity exists then? Good, we're making progress.

Wrong. On his authority he believes gravity exists and that experiments fail to measure it.

This would evidence that gravity is merely a belief.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2021, 11:27:02 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7802
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #216 on: May 12, 2021, 11:26:35 AM »
If you want to look at context and believe in keeping the story straight then you can start by accepting that Quinn believes in gravity, and that gravity exists

If you want context, Terence Quinn is a British physicist who spent many years studying gravity and was emeritus director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. If he says it, it's golden.

Cool. So you accept his authority that gravity exists then? Good, we're making progress.

Wrong. On his authority he believes gravity exists and that experiments fail to measure it.

This is evidence that gravity is merely a belief.

The Cavendish experiment is not the only test of gravity, so his awareness of the imprecision of the Cavendish Experiment isn't evidence that "gravity is merely a belief".
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8629
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #217 on: May 12, 2021, 11:27:58 AM »
The Cavendish experiment is not the only test of gravity, so his awareness of the imprecision of the Cavendish Experiment isn't evidence that "gravity is merely a belief".

He is aware that he can't measure gravity. Refer to the previous quotations.

Re: Cavendish experiment
« Reply #218 on: May 12, 2021, 11:32:12 AM »
Look, we're well past trying to persuade you of anything. Most of us here don't even think you actually believe the stuff you're writing. We're just calling you out in the hope that other people reading this don't get sucked into the con.
Correct. I think we should all stop feeding the troll.
It's clear what the article is about if you look at the context, no matter how many times certain people try to quote small parts selectively or twist things to try and make them mean something they clearly don't mean.
"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 #219 on: May 12, 2021, 11:37:04 AM »
Look, we're well past trying to persuade you of anything. Most of us here don't even think you actually believe the stuff you're writing. We're just calling you out in the hope that other people reading this don't get sucked into the con.
Correct. I think we should all stop feeding the troll.
It's clear what the article is about if you look at the context, no matter how many times certain people try to quote small parts selectively or twist things to try and make them mean something they clearly don't mean.

It is crystal clear what "we should be able to measure gravity" from someone who has spent years in the laboratory trying to measure it means.

Obviously if I am trying to measure the weight of a feather on a crude pair of scales outside in a slight breeze where the values shift around I'm not going to jump up and down and claim that I measured the weight of a feather. This is the analogy an astrophysicist gave on this, and is the only legitimate one in this thread.

I have direct quotes and direct analogies on my side from qualified sources and you have nothing at all.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2021, 11:39:45 AM by Tom Bishop »