[Rama Set]

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.

Thats just because you didn't include the entire quote.  He says, "It’s embarrassing to have a fundamental constant that we cannot measure how strong it is."  Which doesn't mean they can't measure it, it means they can't measure it's magnitude.  If you read the entire article it's perfectly clear that they are measuring the constant and the measurements are consistent but not accurate and the accuracy is what they are having trouble achieving.

I offered no contradiction and you know it.

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

Please don't lie:

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.

Your interpretation is that the thing that causes things to fell is the same thing that is responsible for "keeping all things in the same place"  is "in short, nonsense".  You proposed a contradiction here, and not only that, but your proposed contradiction does not even accurately portray how gravity works.  It's a failure on top of a failure.

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

Interesting style of debate, I must say.

I actually said that gravity agrees with orbital mechanics in an extremely elegant way.  Do not put words in my mouth.

Which farm boots were you wearing when you pulled this from the pasture?

And do not make personal attacks.

[Action80]

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.

Yeah, he studies how to measure things.

And he admits they cannot measure gravity.

[Action80]

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.

Thats just because you didn't include the entire quote.  He says, "It’s embarrassing to have a fundamental constant that we cannot measure how strong it is."  Which doesn't mean they can't measure it, it means they can't measure it's magnitude.  If you read the entire article it's perfectly clear that they are measuring the constant and the measurements are consistent but not accurate and the accuracy is what they are having trouble achieving.

I offered no contradiction and you know it.

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

Please don't lie:

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.

Your interpretation is that the thing that causes things to fell is the same thing that is responsible for "keeping all things in the same place"  is "in short, nonsense".  You proposed a contradiction here, and not only that, but your proposed contradiction does not even accurately portray how gravity works.  It's a failure on top of a failure.

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

Interesting style of debate, I must say.

I actually said that gravity agrees with orbital mechanics in an extremely elegant way.  Do not put words in my mouth.

Which farm boots were you wearing when you pulled this from the pasture?

And do not make personal attacks.

I am not engaging you in any sort of personal attack.

I did make an observation of your argumentation style.

Gravity, according to Kepler and Newton, is the force allowing for orbital mechanics.

So, it is the same thing that causes things to have weight, fall, and keeping things in their same place.

Totally ridiculous.

Quinn stated the following: "We should be able to measure gravity."

The reason why he stated this is because they cannot measure gravity.

Plain, pure, and simple.

[Rama Set]

I am not engaging you in any sort of personal attack.

Which farm boots were you wearing when you pulled this from the pasture?

Don't make comments like this, or I will report it as a personal attack.  It's simple.

Gravity, according to Kepler and Newton, is the force allowing for orbital mechanics.

Yes.

So, it is the same thing that causes things to have weight, fall, and keeping things in their same place.

If this is what you understand orbital mechanics to be, then you don't understand orbital mechanics.  Have a look at Newton's Cannonball

Quinn stated the following: "We should be able to measure gravity."

The reason why he stated this is because they cannot measure gravity.

Plain, pure, and simple.

Ignoring the entire article and context makes you more wrong, not less.

[Action80]

I am not engaging you in any sort of personal attack.

Which farm boots were you wearing when you pulled this from the pasture?

Don't make comments like this, or I will report it as a personal attack.  It's simple.

Gravity, according to Kepler and Newton, is the force allowing for orbital mechanics.

Yes.

Like I wrote earlier, it wasn't.

But go ahead.

Gaslighting, such as the type you are exhibiting here, is the type of thing needing to remain in the pasture.

Gravity, you claim is what is allowing for orbital mechanics.

So, it is the same thing that causes things to have weight, fall, and keeping things in their same place.

If this is what you understand orbital mechanics to be, then you don't understand orbital mechanics.  Have a look at Newton's Cannonball

Having weight and falling is not the same thing as orbital mechanics and I claimed nothing of the sort.

Gravity, the force allowing for weight to exist and for things falling and for keeping things in orbit.

That is what you claim.

It is ridiculous.

Quinn stated the following: "We should be able to measure gravity."

The reason why he stated this is because they cannot measure gravity.

Plain, pure, and simple.

Ignoring the entire article and context makes you more wrong, not less.

Kindly demonstrate some competency in interpreting context first.

Do you have some sort of certificate from some online diploma mill in this area of expertise?

[Kokorikos]

So T. Quinn said that the results vary by as much as 450ppm (parts per million in case you do not know what ppm is).
He also said "although at present there is no pressing problem in theoretical physics that requires an accurate value of G, accurate values of the fundamental constants are an essential part of the foundations of physics".
Elsewhere he said "We should be able to measure gravity".

In what way does the interpretation of the above as meaning "we should be able to measure gravity accurately" misrepresent what T. Quinn said?

[Action80]

So T. Quinn said that the results vary by as much as 450ppm (parts per million in case you do not know what ppm is).
He also said "although at present there is no pressing problem in theoretical physics that requires an accurate value of G, accurate values of the fundamental constants are an essential part of the foundations of physics".
Elsewhere he said "We should be able to measure gravity".

In what way does the interpretation of the above as meaning "we should be able to measure gravity accurately" misrepresent what T. Quinn said?

Generally, stating "We should be able to measure gravity accurately," = "We should be able to measure gravity accurately, whereas, stating "We should be able to measure gravity," = "We should be able to measure gravity."

It appears that as of right now, there truly has been no experiment capable of doing this, due to systematic errors within the experiments. Even Quinn states there is only an estimate as to validity of results.

[Kokorikos]

Yes, but he did not just say "we should be able to measure gravity" in isolation. This is just one of the sentences of an article. You cannot just take this sentence and ignore the rest of the article.

As T. Quinn himself says, there have been many experiments that have measured gravity. The problem is that the results of these experiments differ by up to 450ppm and he believes that they need to do better than that.

Just read this: https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3651?proof=t

Among other things he says "Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)? The short answer is, nobody, for the moment, but being apparently unable to converge on a value for G undermines our confidence in the metrology of small forces".

He clearly speaks about an unsatisfactory level of accuracy in the measurement rather than an inability to measure at all.


Edited to correct a spelling error

[Action80]

Yes, but he did not just say "we should be able to measure gravity" in isolation. This is just one of the sentences of an article. You cannot just take this sentence and ignore the rest of the article.

As T. Quinn himself says, there have been many experiments that have measured gravity. The problem is that the results of these experiments differ by up to 450ppm and he believes that they need to do better than that.

Just read this: https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3651?proof=t

Among other things he says "Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)? The short answer is, nobody, for the moment, but being apparently unable to converge on a value for G undermines our confidence in the metrology of small forces".

He clearly speaks about an unsatisfactory level of accuracy in the measurement rather than an inability to measure at all.


Edited to correct a spelling error

Quinn is an expert in measuring things.

As an expert, when he writes, "We should be able to measure gravity," that means we currently cannot measure gravity.

When he writes, ""Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)? The short answer is, nobody, for the moment, but being apparently unable to converge on a value for G undermines our confidence in the metrology of small forces," that means the measurements cannot be ascribed any degree of confidence in either what is being measured, how it is being measured, or both.

Pretty simple stuff.

[Rama Set]

What he never says, not even once, is that gravity doesn’t exist.

[Kokorikos]

How do you get from  "Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)" to "that means the measurements cannot be ascribed any degree of confidence in either what is being measured, how it is being measured, or both"?

He says that a more accurate numerical value is not needed rather than that the measurements do not have any degree of confidence. He actually said that the degree of error is 450ppm. How can you ignore that?

Note that we are not arguing on whether what he says is correct or not. We are arguing on whether he can be used as a reference when one tries to debunk gravity as a thing.



Edited for a correction again. Sorry about that.

[Action80]

How do you get from  "Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)" to "that means the measurements cannot be ascribed any degree of confidence in either what is being measured, how it is being measured, or both"?

He says that a more accurate numerical value is not needed rather than that the measurements do not have any degree of confidence. He actually said that the degree of error is 450ppm. How can you ignore that?

Note that we are not arguing on whether what he says is correct or not. We are arguing on whether he can be used as a reference when one tries to debunk gravity as a thing.



Edited for a correction again. Sorry about that.

Holy crap.

Here is the whole quote again: "Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)? The short answer is, nobody, for the moment, but being apparently unable to converge on a value for G undermines our confidence in the metrology of small forces."

No confidence in how it is being measured, what is being measured, or even in the validity of the experiments themselves.

No one needs an accurate measurement of gravity, because it has no bearing on anything at all. It is mythical to begin with.

Quinn said, "We should be able to measure gravity."

When you cannot measure something, it doesn't exist.

Period.

[Kokorikos]

Where do you see that he has no confidence in "how it is being measured, what is being measured, or even in the validity of the experiments themselves"? He simply does not say that.

He does not say that no one needs an accurate measurement of gravity.
He says that no one needs a "more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)".

Also you cannot really mean that if something cannot be measured then it cannot exist.

[AATW]

No one needs an accurate measurement of gravity, because it has no bearing on anything at all. It is mythical to begin with.

And here you are twisting the words.
Quinn says we don't need a more accurate measure. He is not saying the measure we have isn't accurate. Obviously science always seeks to do better but the value we have is plenty good enough for all practical purposes. Even if we take 450ppm - the very biggest discrepancy mentioned - that's still less than 1 in 2000.
As I said, this is like us both measuring a table, me coming up with a value of 1m 99.9cm and you coming up with a value of 2m dead and you concluding that because we are a millimetre out over a 2m span that it means that tables can't be measured, or don't exist, or that tape measures don't work.

[Action80]

Where do you see that he has no confidence in "how it is being measured, what is being measured, or even in the validity of the experiments themselves"? He simply does not say that.

He does not say that no one needs an accurate measurement of gravity.
He says that no one needs a "more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)".

Also you cannot really mean that if something cannot be measured then it cannot exist.

Yeah, I pretty much do mean that.

When you have no confidence in the metrology that specifically means you have no confidence in the science of measuring things.

In this particular case, those measurements being reported as lacking confidence have to do with gravity.

The lack of confidence stems from either how the measurements are gathered or what is actually being measured or systematic failures in the experiments themselves.

Quinn states that himself.

Just because something has a value does not mean that something to which the value is assigned actually exists.

[Rama Set]

Where do you see that he has no confidence in "how it is being measured, what is being measured, or even in the validity of the experiments themselves"? He simply does not say that.

He does not say that no one needs an accurate measurement of gravity.
He says that no one needs a "more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)".

Also you cannot really mean that if something cannot be measured then it cannot exist.

Yeah, I pretty much do mean that.

When you have no confidence in the metrology that specifically means you have no confidence in the science of measuring things.

In this particular case, those measurements being reported as lacking confidence have to do with gravity.

The lack of confidence stems from either how the measurements are gathered or what is actually being measured or systematic failures in the experiments themselves.

Quinn states that himself.

Just because something has a value does not mean that something to which the value is assigned actually exists.

The measurement of G is not the sole way to observe gravity. If it were your cherry picking other have some solid foundation.

[Action80]

Where do you see that he has no confidence in "how it is being measured, what is being measured, or even in the validity of the experiments themselves"? He simply does not say that.

He does not say that no one needs an accurate measurement of gravity.
He says that no one needs a "more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)".

Also you cannot really mean that if something cannot be measured then it cannot exist.

Yeah, I pretty much do mean that.

When you have no confidence in the metrology that specifically means you have no confidence in the science of measuring things.

In this particular case, those measurements being reported as lacking confidence have to do with gravity.

The lack of confidence stems from either how the measurements are gathered or what is actually being measured or systematic failures in the experiments themselves.

Quinn states that himself.

Just because something has a value does not mean that something to which the value is assigned actually exists.

The measurement of G is not the sole way to observe gravity. If it were your cherry picking other have some solid foundation.

It would not surprise me in the least to find that any other observations that have been made and ascribing the reasons for the observations to gravity, have, in fact, been ascribed to the wrong cause.

[Kokorikos]

Quinn says "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"
At the top of the article you can see that the "unresolved discrepancies" are "about 400ppm".

It is clear that he believes that it is the differences of up to 400ppm that are caused by the systematic errors. He does not say that the systematic errors give him any lack of confidence beyond these discrepancies.
Quinn does not talk about being able to measure gravity. He rather talks about the degree of precision to which we can measure it.

As I said, you cannot really believe that something that cannot be measured cannot exist. To give you an example, what is the distance from the Earth to the Moon? Can it be measured within FE?

Also to give you an example which is more analogous to the discussion on what Quinn says, can you measure your height in micrometers (μm)? If not, does this mean that you do not exist?

[Tom Bishop]

Quinn does not talk about being able to measure gravity.

Actually, he does. Maybe you should read the article:

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. "

He clearly thinks it's too difficult to measure, going hand-in-hand with his statement that "We should be able to measure gravity."

Also to give you an example which is more analogous to the discussion on what Quinn says, can you measure your height in micrometers (μm)? If not, does this mean that you do not exist?

This is nothing like measuring a person's height to increasing precision. In your example you have multiple measurements getting the bulk of the same 5 foot 8 inches (or whatever the person's main height is) in each attempt.

In this case the the the measurements do not often do not overlap and are spread out across a range of over ten times the estimated uncertainties. It's clearly measuring something else that is not gravity in that range. The results are being polluted by something that is not gravity.

There is a graphic here:

https://physicsworld.com/a/the-lure-of-g/

Low precision alone is enough to keep a metrologist up all night. But in recent years, a much more serious problem has arisen: measurements of big G are in wild disagreement with one another (figure 1). Since the turn of this century, values recorded by some of the best labs in the world have been spread apart by more than 10 times their estimated uncertainties. Something is amiss – yet no-one is quite sure what. “You go over it, and over it, and over it,” says Speake. “And there comes a time when you say, I just can’t think of anything we’ve done wrong.”

As stated, the results are in "wild disagreement" with each other.

If the results can be polluted by other non-gravitational effects, then they can also be created by non-gravitational effects. They just don't know what they are measuring, as stated by Quinn above.

They are trying to measure the force equivalent of the weight of a few cells. The more appropriate analogy is the one given by the astrophysicist earlier; of trying to measure the weight of a feather on a crude pair of scales outside in a slight breeze. There are effects dominating the experiment and disrupting the measurement, giving a wild result and dwarfing the thing they are trying to measure.

[Iceman]

Yes there is noise in the data. And the spread of the data outside the reported error bars for each measurement is cause for further investigation of the sources of noise, and identifying potential human error and or experimental design flaws that are contributing to this pack of precision.

Let's now take this more recent physicist you're quoting, Clive Speake. Does he think gravity can't be measured or that it isnt real? No. He's involved in more recent work to improve big G's measurement, since that flurry of discussion in 2014 following Quinn's groups measurement of G.

From Physics Letters A, vol. 382: Speake and Collins: "Torsion balances with fibres of zero length"

Here Speake describes a new method of simulating a torsion balance using electrostatic charges or magnetic superconductors. This has the effect of limiting ground noise, and reducing the effective distance of force being measured to <50micrometers.

Doesnt sound like someone who's given up on gravity.