### Recent Posts

1
##### Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Last post by beardo on Today at 02:48:37 AM »
Tiny-Peepee Coates
2
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« Last post by stack on Today at 01:52:30 AM »
The analogy we looked at earlier by the astrophyscist earlier shows that the non-gravity effects can create the recorded effects:

Quote
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.

In the above example the breeze makes up the majority of the effect.

Does the feather not exist?

The analogy is clearly such that the feather could not be there and the results would have no significant difference.

How can that be? How do you get that interpretation when he is actually, literally/analogously, saying he is trying to measure a thing, a feather (gravity), but there are other things that make it difficult? The thing exists that he is measuring, it's just hard to measure. Where is it clearly stated that he is trying to measure nothing? Does a feather mean the same to you as nothing?
3
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« Last post by Rama Set on Today at 12:56:18 AM »

If the results can be polluted by other non-gravitational effects, then they can also be created by non-gravitational effects.

Evidence, please, that the second half of that sentence follows from the first. Quote me a physicist (because you're just a random internet person, you see) who actually say that the existence of an error source in an experiment could mean that the totality of the result is in fact something other than that which they thought was being measured.

The analogy we looked at earlier by the astrophyscist earlier shows that the non-gravity effects can create the recorded effects:

Quote
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.

In the above example the breeze makes up the majority of the effect, creating systemic errors.

Making measurement difficult, not impossible.

Quote
Quinn doubts that he is measuring gravity in his statement "We should be able to measure gravity." Obviously if he is not measuring gravity he is measuring something else.

He doesn’t say he is not measuring gravity so your conclusion is arrived at from a faulty premise.

Quote
In the link you posted Quinn also suggests that it could be that gravity isn't universal and that it only applies on astrophysical scales:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0253

Quote
What matters then is not the actual value of G itself (give or take a percentage or so) but its uncertainty. The real importance of the accuracy of G is arguably that it can be taken as a measure, in popular culture, of how well we understand our most familiar force: the discrepant results may signify some new physics, or they may demonstrate that we do not understand the metrology of measuring weak forces. Owing to the lack of theoretical understanding of gravity, as alluded to earlier, there is an abundance of respectable theories that predict violations of the inverse square law or violations of the universality of free fall. In fact, a growing view is that G is not truly universal and may depend on matter density on astrophysical scales, for example. A misunderstanding of the metrology of weak force physics may in turn imply that the experimental tests that have established the inverse square law and the universality of free fall thus far are flawed in some subtle fashion. This makes for a potentially exciting situation and perhaps explains the general interest shown in our apparently mundane and painstaking work on G.

This clearly shows a suggestion that he is not measuring gravity in the Cavendish Experiment; that it doesn't apply at smaller scales in the laboratory.

The "new physics" Quinn refers to is that gravity doesn't exist in the Cavendish Experiment test because it only mainly applies at larger scales in that suggestion.

Another quote from the Scientific American article says that the non-gravity effects could easily overwhelm the experiment and make up the effect:

Quote
Although gravity seems like one of the most salient of nature’s forces in our daily lives, it’s actually by far the weakest, making attempts to calculate its strength an uphill battle. “Two one-kilogram masses that are one meter apart attract each other with a force equivalent to the weight of a few human cells,” says University of Washington physicist Jens Gundlach, who worked on a separate 2000 measurement of big G. “Measuring such small forces on kg-objects to 10-4 or 10-5 precision is just not easy. There are a many effects that could overwhelm gravitational effects, and all of these have to be properly understood and taken into account.

Saying G is not universal is not the same as saying gravity isn’t universal. G is the constant that mediates the relationship between the mass product and 1/r2, not gravity itself. He is definitely saying gravity exists just that it may not be constant like the other forces. He also says nothing about how likely that hypothesis is.
4
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 12:54:14 AM »
The analogy we looked at earlier by the astrophyscist earlier shows that the non-gravity effects can create the recorded effects:

Quote
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.

In the above example the breeze makes up the majority of the effect.

Does the feather not exist?

The analogy is clearly such that the feather could not be there and the results would have no significant difference.
5
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« Last post by stack on Today at 12:31:36 AM »
The analogy we looked at earlier by the astrophyscist earlier shows that the non-gravity effects can create the recorded effects:

Quote
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.

In the above example the breeze makes up the majority of the effect.

Does the feather not exist?
6
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 12:11:46 AM »
If the results can be polluted by other non-gravitational effects, then they can also be created by non-gravitational effects.

Evidence, please, that the second half of that sentence follows from the first. Quote me a physicist (because you're just a random internet person, you see) who actually say that the existence of an error source in an experiment could mean that the totality of the result is in fact something other than that which they thought was being measured.

The analogy we looked at earlier by the astrophyscist earlier shows that the non-gravity effects can create the recorded effects:

Quote
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.

In the above example the breeze makes up the majority of the effect, creating systemic errors.

Quinn doubts that he is measuring gravity in his statement "We should be able to measure gravity." Obviously if he is not measuring gravity he is measuring something else.

In the link you posted Quinn also suggests that it could be that gravity isn't universal and that it only applies on astrophysical scales:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0253

Quote
What matters then is not the actual value of G itself (give or take a percentage or so) but its uncertainty. The real importance of the accuracy of G is arguably that it can be taken as a measure, in popular culture, of how well we understand our most familiar force: the discrepant results may signify some new physics, or they may demonstrate that we do not understand the metrology of measuring weak forces. Owing to the lack of theoretical understanding of gravity, as alluded to earlier, there is an abundance of respectable theories that predict violations of the inverse square law or violations of the universality of free fall. In fact, a growing view is that G is not truly universal and may depend on matter density on astrophysical scales, for example. A misunderstanding of the metrology of weak force physics may in turn imply that the experimental tests that have established the inverse square law and the universality of free fall thus far are flawed in some subtle fashion. This makes for a potentially exciting situation and perhaps explains the general interest shown in our apparently mundane and painstaking work on G.

This clearly shows a suggestion that he is not measuring gravity in the Cavendish Experiment; that it doesn't apply at smaller scales in the laboratory.

The "new physics" Quinn refers to is that gravity doesn't exist in the Cavendish Experiment test because it only mainly applies at larger scales in that suggestion.

Another quote from the Scientific American article says that the non-gravity effects could easily overwhelm the experiment and make up the effect:

Quote
Although gravity seems like one of the most salient of nature’s forces in our daily lives, it’s actually by far the weakest, making attempts to calculate its strength an uphill battle. “Two one-kilogram masses that are one meter apart attract each other with a force equivalent to the weight of a few human cells,” says University of Washington physicist Jens Gundlach, who worked on a separate 2000 measurement of big G. “Measuring such small forces on kg-objects to 10-4 or 10-5 precision is just not easy. There are a many effects that could overwhelm gravitational effects, and all of these have to be properly understood and taken into account.
7
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« Last post by Rama Set on Today at 12:04:34 AM »
RI gHt tO wORk!
8
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Last post by RonJ on May 10, 2021, 09:48:04 PM »
You missed my point, that being all kinds of operating systems evolve, with some functions being labeled as being based on "something," not really necessary to the function or continued successful operation or even actually based on to the reason given.

For instance, I use a computer everyday with Windows as the operating system. Maybe we should check with them as to whether everything in place for their operating system is necessary or helpful.

I think we both know the answer to that question is a firm "NO."
There is only one possible purpose for a drift nut, though, isn't there? It causes the gyro to precess by up to 15 degrees per hour. There is no possible reason to have that feature if there wasn't a need for it. It's not like some legacy software code that's tangled up with something essential and can't be removed. Moreover, users can easily disable the feature by setting it to 0 latitude - the equator. But nobody does that, because that would be silly. From a personal perspective, I've flown aircraft that actually have the drift correction selectable in the cockpit and, yes, we always made sure we set it right.
Gyroscopes do not need a drift to function.

Here is where the attempt at a diversion takes place.  A gyro does NOT need a drift nut to function.  The gyro part will indeed spin and provide a nice steady indication of an azimuth without the drift nut, but that azimuth indication probably won't be accurate. A spun up and stabilized gyro has to be set to a useful reference azimuth so it's accurate and provides useful information to the pilot. That's why you always use the DRIFT NUT to set the directional gyro to your runway heading (that's always accurately known) just before your start your takeoff roll.  Then if the control tower says something like 'fly heading 235 and climb and maintain 5000' you can easily use your directional gyro to comply with the control tower's instructions.  If you didn't you would have to note what the gyro indicated after it spun up, then do some quick mental math, and turn to the heading as instructed.
Seems to me you are admitting they don't need drift nuts to function and neither does the pilot need a gyro with a drift nut to fly the plane to the destination.

The bottom line is, the gyro will work without a drift nut just fine but you will need to use that drift nut many times during your flight to save yourself from having to calculate an error differential that will continuously take place during the flight.  It's a known and verified fact that if you fly a straight heading, say directly along geographic North line, for a length of time, your directional gyro will continuously drift off the 360 (or 0) degree indicated heading as the earth rotates.  The gyro is working fine and is following the laws of physics but the drift nut is for the convenience of the pilot. As for my source if information:  FAA issued commercial pilot's license and experience as pilot in command over a period of about 30 years.
Yes, you confirmed everything.

You do not need a gyro with a drift nut to fly.

Basically, it appears a drift nut is merely something of an automated process that provides additional information that was already available to all pilots and capable of being performed regardless.

You probably are starting to get the picture.  The drift nut doesn't change anything about how the gyro actually works but it does save the pilot a lot of mental arithmetic and probably avoids plenty of mistakes that could happen at critical times.  On top of this as the earth spins and takes the atmosphere and the aircraft with it the directional gyro's heading accuracy will slowly become inaccurate.  This means that the pilot will then be required to have a stopwatch as well to keep track of the drift of the azimuth as a function of time.  These days you could probably just have an iPhone app to keep track of everything, but 50 years ago when I was first starting to fly we didn't have all the high tech stuff like that.  Instead a drift nut was installed on the directional gyro.  Again, it didn't actually have any effect on how the gyro works or the gyro's accuracy, but it did make the directional gyro a whole lot more of an effective instrument that the pilot could use for his navigation between point A and point B.
Why would I try to hide something that is not needed?

Seems you are attempting to ascribe extreme relevance to something that turns out be a matter of simple convenience.

In other words, without Google Maps installed on your phone, getting to grandma's house for Thanksgiving dinner wouldn't be possible.

I've explained in detail what the drift nut is used for on a directional gyro and how it greatly reduces a pilot's workload and that's a particularly important safety issue.  You could get out your stop watch and every 20 or 30 minutes during the flight mentally factor in a couple of degrees of compensation needed to make your gyro give you your correct heading to compensate for the rotation of the earth or you could just have a drift nut.  Pilot's convenience or SAFETY ?

As for going to grandma's house I just go over the river and thru the woods to grandmother's house I go. THE HORSE KNOWS THE WAY TO CARRY THE SLEIGH.......So no, it's not me that need the iPhone and Google maps.
9
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« Last post by Iceman on May 10, 2021, 09:40:43 PM »
The free market is great for CEO's until they're forced to compete for labor. Seeing the product of ridiculous lack of wage growth compared to productivity and it's a little bit hilarious.
10
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« Last post by SteelyBob on May 10, 2021, 08:41:09 PM »
If the results can be polluted by other non-gravitational effects, then they can also be created by non-gravitational effects.

Evidence, please, that the second half of that sentence follows from the first. Quote me a physicist (because you're just a random internet person, you see) who actually say that the existence of an error source in an experiment could mean that the totality of the result is in fact something other than that which they thought was being measured.

They just don't know what they are measuring, as stated by Quinn above.
Where does Quinn say he doesn't know what they are measuring? He certainly says, as do his colleagues, that they can't account for all of the errors, but there is no doubt in any of their extensive work that they doubt the existence of G. The wildest assertions anybody is making outside of this forum is that G might in some way be slightly variable, but even that is generally viewed as a fairly wild opinion.

Since you only listen to physicists (apart from when they describe the shape of the earth or the existence of gravity), here's our man Quinn introducing the very Royal Society event that you have bizarrely used to imply that G doesn't exist:

Quote
A misunderstanding of the metrology of weak force physics may in turn imply that the experimental tests that have established the inverse square law and the universality of free fall thus far are flawed in some subtle fashion. This makes for a potentially exciting situation and perhaps explains the general interest shown in our apparently mundane and painstaking work on G.

It's great read - lots of detail from Quinn, and numerous papers outlining many fascinating ways of measuring G. No mention of anybody believing that G doesn't exist, or that the earth might be flat, but to fair I didn't read them all. Do let us know if you find any juicy quotes Tom.