[Ga_x2]

Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.

I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:

"This is not the same as Gravity"

Nice that you bring it up, because I started a thread on this very subject that got no attention, and I understand that bumping threads up is not kosher, here.

From your link:

This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.

Emphasis mine.
How do you explain the Cavendish experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Secondly, how can it cause the tide(s) if object on earth are not affected by it?

btw, my thread is here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6813.0

[Tom Bishop]

How do you explain the Cavendish experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

[3DGeek]

How do you explain the Cavendish experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Oh good grief!  Protect us from rank amateurs trying to debunk world class experts!

The point about the Cavendish experiment isn't so much that it's an accurate measurement of gravity (although it's not bad) - it's that it demonstrates that any two masses exert a force between them due to their masses and distances.

The precise measurements can be done with planets, moons and stars where there is no air resistance, no walls nearby, nothing like that.   Cavendish demonstrates that what makes the planets orbit the sun, and various moons orbit their planets also operates between lead weights inside a laboratory.

[Ga_x2]

How do you explain the Cavendishb experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

please either explain it in your own words, or at least quote the relevant parts of the linked document. I'm not going to wade for an hour through the ramblings of a graphomaniac. (I'm not discarding it a priori only because he's a crank convinced that pi equals 4. It's just that I have a life)

[CriticalThinker]

How do you explain the Cavendishb experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

please either explain it in your own words, or at least quote the relevant parts of the linked document. I'm not going to wade for an hour through the ramblings of a graphomaniac. (I'm not discarding it a priori only because he's a crank convinced that pi equals 4. It's just that I have a life)

I read through it.  It is a lot of assumptions followed by conclusions.  There is no actual construction, observation or measurement before the calculations.  There is not any actual measured data, just assumed data based on the author's feelings from looking at photos of the experiments.  In not one place could I find description of how the author built his own version of the apparatus matching the Cavendish experiment to the greatest degree of accuracy and then took more highly accurate measurements from his own experiment to compare against the observed data from the original.  He guestimated everything and then concluded exactly what he believed before he started.  He could have saved me a lot of reading if he had just said "nuh-uh" and left it at that.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[Ga_x2]

I read through it.[...]

you sir are one dedicated motherf thank you.
But I still want Tom's explanation. He's always whining on the quality of the evidence presented... when it's his turn, I'm entitled to do the same.

[CriticalThinker]

I read through it.[...]

you sir are one dedicated motherf thank you.
But I still want Tom's explanation. He's always whining on the quality of the evidence presented... when it's his turn, I'm entitled to do the same.

I would agree completely with your right to point out flaws in his evidence.  I am running into very much the same thing asking about a different experiment.  The text cited as proof lacks actual controls, it just assumes that it got everything right.  Tom, please explain why your evidence for the FE model doesn't need rigor?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[Ga_x2]

How do you explain the Cavendishb experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

please either explain it in your own words, or at least quote the relevant parts of the linked document. I'm not going to wade for an hour through the ramblings of a graphomaniac. (I'm not discarding it a priori only because he's a crank convinced that pi equals 4. It's just that I have a life)

I read through it.  It is a lot of assumptions followed by conclusions.  There is no actual construction, observation or measurement before the calculations.  There is not any actual measured data, just assumed data based on the author's feelings from looking at photos of the experiments.  In not one place could I find description of how the author built his own version of the apparatus matching the Cavendish experiment to the greatest degree of accuracy and then took more highly accurate measurements from his own experiment to compare against the observed data from the original.  He guestimated everything and then concluded exactly what he believed before he started.  He could have saved me a lot of reading if he had just said "nuh-uh" and left it at that.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

So, because I'm a glutton for punishment, I ended up reading (most of) that tripe. I would submit that your description is still too generous. Kudos to the kindness of your hearth.

Not only it's the scientific equivalent of a pipe dream, in which he spends pages and pages finding supposed oversights on the experiments others have done, while accurately avoiding to conduct one himself, but the entire armchair reasoning rests on his own made up unified theory of everything, and that, oh boy, really has the scientific establishment trembling. No really, you guys should google him. It's fun. Read his demonstration(s) of how pi equals 4, and how everybody before him got it wrong.

Tom, did you actually read the content of that link, or did you forward the first result that came up with google?
If the former, do you espouse his *snicker* theory in all its ramifications? 

This forum gets better by the day 

[3DGeek]

How do you explain the Cavendishb experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

please either explain it in your own words, or at least quote the relevant parts of the linked document. I'm not going to wade for an hour through the ramblings of a graphomaniac. (I'm not discarding it a priori only because he's a crank convinced that pi equals 4. It's just that I have a life)

I read through it.  It is a lot of assumptions followed by conclusions.  There is no actual construction, observation or measurement before the calculations.  There is not any actual measured data, just assumed data based on the author's feelings from looking at photos of the experiments.  In not one place could I find description of how the author built his own version of the apparatus matching the Cavendish experiment to the greatest degree of accuracy and then took more highly accurate measurements from his own experiment to compare against the observed data from the original.  He guestimated everything and then concluded exactly what he believed before he started.  He could have saved me a lot of reading if he had just said "nuh-uh" and left it at that.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

So, because I'm a glutton for punishment, I ended up reading (most of) that tripe. I would submit that your description is still too generous. Kudos to the kindness of your hearth.

Not only it's the scientific equivalent of a pipe dream, in which he spends pages and pages finding supposed oversights on the experiments others have done, while accurately avoiding to conduct one himself, but the entire armchair reasoning rests on his own made up unified theory of everything, and that, oh boy, really has the scientific establishment trembling. No really, you guys should google him. It's fun. Read his demonstration(s) of how pi equals 4, and how everybody before him got it wrong.

Tom, did you actually read the content of that link, or did you forward the first result that came up with google?
If the former, do you espouse his *snicker* theory in all its ramifications? 

This forum gets better by the day 

Wow!  Pi=4?  Not even 3?  That's impressive.   There is a man who needs to wrap a tape measure around a coke can and see what it says!

[Ga_x2]

Wow!  Pi=4?  Not even 3?  That's impressive.   There is a man who needs to wrap a tape measure around a coke can and see what it says!

he's in a league of his own.
The abridged version is here: http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html
The unabridged version contains even weirder stuff, but is longer than the old testament, and not nearly as funny.

So getting back to Cavendish... anyone else willing to chime in? Junker?

[3DGeek]

Wow!  Pi=4?  Not even 3?  That's impressive.   There is a man who needs to wrap a tape measure around a coke can and see what it says!

he's in a league of his own.
The abridged version is here: http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html
The unabridged version contains even weirder stuff, but is longer than the old testament, and not nearly as funny.

Oh boy!  That's hilarious.  So he's subdividing the tangent and cotangent into smaller and smaller chunks - then boldly asserts that "If we take this process to its limit, we take our path to the path of the arc AC."...which isn't true.  Then, a few paragraphs down, he says "Some will say this is just doing the calculus wrong, but I claim that history has done the calculus wrong, not me."

Ah - OK then.

But why not measure the circumference of a circle with a tape measure...just to be on the safe side?...and if the answer is anywhere between (say) 3.9 and 4.1 times the diameter, go ahead and publish...but if the answer is anywhere between 3.0 and 3.2 - you should probably go back and double-check your math!

So getting back to Cavendish... anyone else willing to chime in? Junker?

(Fetching popcorn now...)

[CriticalThinker]

Wow!  Pi=4?  Not even 3?  That's impressive.   There is a man who needs to wrap a tape measure around a coke can and see what it says!

he's in a league of his own.
The abridged version is here: http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html
The unabridged version contains even weirder stuff, but is longer than the old testament, and not nearly as funny.

Oh boy!  That's hilarious.  So he's subdividing the tangent and cotangent into smaller and smaller chunks - then boldly asserts that "If we take this process to its limit, we take our path to the path of the arc AC."...which isn't true.  Then, a few paragraphs down, he says "Some will say this is just doing the calculus wrong, but I claim that history has done the calculus wrong, not me."

Ah - OK then.

But why not measure the circumference of a circle with a tape measure...just to be on the safe side?...and if the answer is anywhere between (say) 3.9 and 4.1 times the diameter, go ahead and publish...but if the answer is anywhere between 3.0 and 3.2 - you should probably go back and double-check your math!

So getting back to Cavendish... anyone else willing to chime in? Junker?

(Fetching popcorn now...)

I find it interesting that exacting standards of experimental control are demanded of any RE evidence, but the FE evidence is assumed as true without any experimental control and often without any actual experiments.  I believe that this is sufficient evidence of dual standards, but I would prefer to take further samplings of the arguments for FE before coming to a conclusion.  Is there a FE experiment with physical measurements demonstrating that gravity doesn't exist?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[3DGeek]

Wow!  Pi=4?  Not even 3?  That's impressive.   There is a man who needs to wrap a tape measure around a coke can and see what it says!

he's in a league of his own.
The abridged version is here: http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html
The unabridged version contains even weirder stuff, but is longer than the old testament, and not nearly as funny.

Oh boy!  That's hilarious.  So he's subdividing the tangent and cotangent into smaller and smaller chunks - then boldly asserts that "If we take this process to its limit, we take our path to the path of the arc AC."...which isn't true.  Then, a few paragraphs down, he says "Some will say this is just doing the calculus wrong, but I claim that history has done the calculus wrong, not me."

Ah - OK then.

But why not measure the circumference of a circle with a tape measure...just to be on the safe side?...and if the answer is anywhere between (say) 3.9 and 4.1 times the diameter, go ahead and publish...but if the answer is anywhere between 3.0 and 3.2 - you should probably go back and double-check your math!

So getting back to Cavendish... anyone else willing to chime in? Junker?

(Fetching popcorn now...)

I find it interesting that exacting standards of experimental control are demanded of any RE evidence, but the FE evidence is assumed as true without any experimental control and often without any actual experiments.  I believe that this is sufficient evidence of dual standards, but I would prefer to take further samplings of the arguments for FE before coming to a conclusion.  Is there a FE experiment with physical measurements demonstrating that gravity doesn't exist?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

That would be a very hard experiment to do.

The FE'ers claim is that gravity exists (and is the cause of tides...er...well...one tide...but handwave) but is selective in it's action...so they're at liberty to randomly say "Well, OF COURSE your experiment that uses buckets of water as the weights demonstrates gravity - but what if you'd made them out of Osmium?"

But it's much easier to disprove by asking (AGAIN!) how it is that gravity is less at the equator and greater at the poles...and less at the tops of mountains...and how the heck there are TWO tides per day.

As usual...crickets...(unless Junker says "False!" - which is always such a convincing debating tactic!)