[WTF_Seriously]

Material things (i.e., matter) fall because they have weight.

Celestial bodies don't fall yet they have weight.  You do understand what 'mechanism' means, don't you?

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.

Weight=mechanism.  Admittedly, not everyone can be as brilliant as you.

[Rama Set]

Material things (i.e., matter) fall because they have weight.

Celestial bodies don't fall yet they have weight.  You do understand what 'mechanism' means, don't you?

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.

Honestly, you misunderstanding of basic high school physics is so incredibly painful.  Nothing in the universe "stays in the same place".  Literally every celestial body that is observed has some sort of motion relative to the Earth.

[fisherman]

Material things (i.e., matter) fall because they have weight.

Matter and weight are inseparable and elemental facts.

But yet, on the Vomit Comet, material things have mass, but they don't have weight.  Do you even know the definition of weight?

When you are on a elevator or a roller coaster, your weight will change, but your mass doesn't.  It's almost as if there is something else that determines your weight, besides mass.

[Action80]

Material things (i.e., matter) fall because they have weight.

Celestial bodies don't fall yet they have weight.  You do understand what 'mechanism' means, don't you?

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.

Nothing in the universe "stays in the same place".  Literally every celestial body that is observed has some sort of motion relative to the Earth.

When the motion remains in the same relative place, that is the same place.

[Tom Bishop]

From the article:

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:

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.

[AATW]

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. 

Which doesn't mean feathers don't have weight or that scales don't work or even that feathers don't exist.
The model of gravity demonstrably works and can be used to make predictions which match observations.

[SteelyBob]

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%.

And then, to continue the analogy, it's like then getting loads of scientists all over the world to devote huge chunks of their professional careers to the problem, and having them measure the weight of the same thing using a variety of different methods, and all coming up with results that match to within a very close tolerance.

And then, when you publish paper saying that you wish you could measure the thing even better, somebody on the internet claims that your desire to measure the thing better indicates that the thing in fact, doesn't exist at all because you aren't able to get more precise result, and that the breeze must be 'dominating' the result.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[AATW]

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

Do any of the authorities you are appealing to question the existence of gravity or the shape of the earth?

[SteelyBob]

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. 

[Rama Set]

Material things (i.e., matter) fall because they have weight.

Celestial bodies don't fall yet they have weight.  You do understand what 'mechanism' means, don't you?

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.

Nothing in the universe "stays in the same place".  Literally every celestial body that is observed has some sort of motion relative to the Earth.

When the motion remains in the same relative place, that is the same place.

There are no celestial bodies that we don’t observe moving so let’s move on.

[Rama Set]

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.

The analogy was that it was a difficult measurement. Sorry, a VERY difficult measurement. So what? It doesn’t say it’s impossible, unusable or anything else you are implying. Even if the measurement of G was “dominated by noise” as you dishonestly assert, it still doesn’t mean gravity exists. Everything you are doing here gets you no closer to your goals and it still leaves the real work of making FET viable, incomplete.

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.

Nice opinion.

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

I previously pointed to an article that links to multiple scientific papers from credentialed journals that explains the uncertainty in the measurement and how it is consistently reducing with time.

[c0i9z]

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.

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



The entire circle represents the measured value. It's 1000000 ppm or a million parts per million. That's the same as saying 100%. It's the whole thing.

The blue area represents experimental uncertainties of 40ppm. 40 millionth of the measured value.

The red area represents an extra 450ppm difference due to noise and such. I've labeled it 'Circumstantial uncertainties'.

The green area, I would have preferred to keep unlabeled, but this particular tool doesn't allow that, so it's the lower value bound. What the true value is if the measured value has overestimated by the entire experimental and circumstantial error. The true value lies somewhere between this and the size of the whole circle plus the size of the uncertainties.

I think it's clear that, while the circumstantial uncertainties are much bigger than the experimental uncertainties, dominating them, perhaps, the entire uncertainty area far from dominates the circle.

Now, you might notice that neither uncertainties are actually visible. That's simply because the circle is much too small to show them. But I feel like this only emphasizes just how insignificant they are.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[SteelyBob]

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

Eh?

I’m referring to the article you quoted, and a couple of papers by very well qualified scientists that you appear to be ignoring. Which part of what I said isn’t supported by a reliable source?

And if we’re going to go down this road - your choice, remember - what are your qualifications, precisely? What credibility lies behind your various experiments? Should we reject those for the reasons you’ve proposed here?

[AATW]

Does that chart and explanation come from a physicist?

It’s based on data from the article you posted.

And why do you think that you, an unqualified individual on the internet, should be taken seriously when all the physicists you are quoting agree that gravity is a thing and that the earth is a globe?

If you can't prove to us that you are equally qualified then your statements on the shape of the earth are pretty much garbage.

[Tom Bishop]

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

Eh?

I’m referring to the article you quoted, and a couple of papers by very well qualified scientists that you appear to be ignoring. Which part of what I said isn’t supported by a reliable source?

And if we’re going to go down this road - your choice, remember - what are your qualifications, precisely? What credibility lies behind your various experiments? Should we reject those for the reasons you’ve proposed here?

I directly cited the astophysicist who likened the situation to trying to measure the weight of a feather on a crude pair of scale outdoors in a slight breeze. That wasn't my analogy. Your response was to provide a 'better' analogy and argue that the astophyscist was wrong. If you are doing that you are pretty much citing yourself as a better source than the astrophyscist.

My position is that anonymous people on an internet message forum are not better sources for technical matters on this subject than astrophysicists.

You should be searching the internet for qualified opinions to cite. Instead of doing this you keep posting here insisting that you know better than astrophysicists and can correct their statements. 

[AATW]

I directly cited the astophysicist who likened the situation to trying to measure the weight of a feather on a crude pair of scale outdoors in a slight breeze. That wasn't my analogy. Your response was to provide a "better" analogy and argue that the astophyscist was wrong.

Incorrect, as you are wont to say.
The astrophysicist was explaining why it’s difficult to measure G - basically, gravity is very weak compared to other forces.

SteelyBob is comparing the discrepancies in the value of G being measured compared with the value. It is neither a better or worse analogy, it’s making a completely different point. The first point is explaining how hard it is to measure, the second is how despite that the experiments are measuring it with impressive accuracy. The fact you don’t understand that these are different points speaks volumes.

If you are doing that you are pretty much citing yourself as a better source than the astrophysicist

Well, he isn’t doing that. And the astrophysicist is not casting any doubt on the existence of gravity or the shape of the earth. You are doing those things, so are you citing yourself as a better source than the astrophysicist? On what basis?

My position is that anonymous people on an internet message forum are not better sources  on these subjects than astrophysicists.

[Tom Bishop]

SteelyBob is comparing the discrepancies in the value of G being measured compared with the value. It is neither a better or worse analogy, it’s making a completely different point.

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.

[SteelyBob]

You are doing those things, so are you citing yourself as a better source than the astrophysicist? On what basis?

Yet another question you’ve completely ignored Tom. Is that because you don’t have an answer?