Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #100 on: December 24, 2013, 05:31:09 PM »
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.

Are there a lot of wind and air currents in the rooms you frequent then?


*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5676
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #101 on: December 24, 2013, 07:05:30 PM »
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.

As has been shown in this thread, it has also been performed in controlled environments and regardless of the environment the results do not falsify the expected local variations in gravity.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #102 on: December 24, 2013, 07:07:55 PM »
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.

Are there a lot of wind and air currents in the rooms you frequent then?

You underestimate how sensitive the experiments to measure the slight variations of 'gravity' are.

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200806/physicshistory.cfm

Quote
Since the gravitational force between the spheres is so weak, the tiniest air current could ruin the delicate experiment. Cavendish placed the apparatus in a closed room to keep out extraneous air currents. He used a telescope to observe the experiments through a window, and set up a pulley system that made it possible to move the weights from outside. The room was kept dark to avoid temperature differences in different parts of the room affecting the experiment.

Cavendish relentlessly tracked down potential sources of error. He rotated the spheres in case they had picked up some magnetization. He observed the attraction of the rods without the spheres on the ends. He tried different types of wire to support the apparatus.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #103 on: December 24, 2013, 07:10:02 PM »
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.

As has been shown in this thread, it has also been performed in controlled environments and regardless of the environment the results do not falsify the expected local variations in gravity.

The environments were not controlled. They don't even say if some of the experiments were performed outside or not. No attempt was made to control the numerous variables affecting the experiment.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5676
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #104 on: December 24, 2013, 07:25:10 PM »
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.

As has been shown in this thread, it has also been performed in controlled environments and regardless of the environment the results do not falsify the expected local variations in gravity.

The environments were not controlled. They don't even say if some of the experiments were performed outside or not. No attempt was made to control the numerous variables affecting the experiment.

You know this because of Wikipedia again?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #105 on: December 24, 2013, 07:27:37 PM »
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.

As has been shown in this thread, it has also been performed in controlled environments and regardless of the environment the results do not falsify the expected local variations in gravity.

The environments were not controlled. They don't even say if some of the experiments were performed outside or not. No attempt was made to control the numerous variables affecting the experiment.

You know this because of Wikipedia again?

It says right on their website that they ship the scale and gnome from person to person to perform the experiment at their leisure, and that if you want to perform the experiment in your own home town, all you need to do is 'apply here'.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2013, 07:29:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5676
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #106 on: December 24, 2013, 07:44:08 PM »
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.

As has been shown in this thread, it has also been performed in controlled environments and regardless of the environment the results do not falsify the expected local variations in gravity.

The environments were not controlled. They don't even say if some of the experiments were performed outside or not. No attempt was made to control the numerous variables affecting the experiment.

You know this because of Wikipedia again?

It says right on their website that they ship the scale and gnome from person to person to perform the experiment at their leisure.

So when it is shipped to an underground laboratory I your default position is it was done improperly?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #107 on: December 24, 2013, 07:54:42 PM »
So when it is shipped to an underground laboratory I your default position is it was done improperly?

There is a complete lack of documentation. What variables did this laboratory control in the experiment? Were people in the room during the experiment?
« Last Edit: December 25, 2013, 12:41:15 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5676
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #108 on: December 24, 2013, 08:38:49 PM »
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3852
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #109 on: December 24, 2013, 11:45:21 PM »
You underestimate how sensitive the experiments to measure the slight variations of 'gravity' are.

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200806/physicshistory.cfm
If the gnome experiment used a Cavindish apparatus, then you might have a point.  However, since it doesn't, then you are just needlessly derailing the discussion. 
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #110 on: December 25, 2013, 05:34:24 AM »
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3852
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #111 on: December 25, 2013, 06:47:32 AM »
So when it is shipped to an underground laboratory I your default position is it was done improperly?

There is a complete lack of documentation. What variables did this laboratory control in the experiment? Were people in the room during the experiment?
Tom, I think that you are grossly overestimating the precision of the scale used in the gnome experiment.  The Kern model EWB readout only displays to .01g resolution.  Any concerns of air currents, atmospheric buoyancy or magnetic fields are likely to be far too subtle for the scale to register.  The biggest control concerns are probably just keeping the reference gnome clean and undamaged.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5676
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #112 on: December 25, 2013, 07:48:28 AM »
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

I never said there was, but if there is, Snolab would be a good place to start looking.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #113 on: December 25, 2013, 11:50:16 PM »
I love that Tom doesn't have to prove any of his 'positive' claims about errors.  This is precisely why the negative/positive distinction is not a logical tool, but is merely a cognitive dissonance in the minds of people who are unwilling under any circumstances to alter the beliefs they consider precious.

We can always reformulate the discussion in the opposite direction.  Tom, you are making a positive claim:  "X can/does cause an error in your measurement/experiment."

You have to prove that claim.  By your own logic, it's obviously impossible for anyone to prove that the experiment does NOT have a source of error.  That's a negative claim, and it can't be proven, remember?  We have to assume that it does not suffer from error until an error has been proven.

Prove away...

e: Oh, here's a technical document and specs for the Karn EWB 2.4 scale that took me all of 10 seconds to find on Google.  It's a good thing I don't share your view that it's always someone else's responsibility to teach me new things and not learn anything for myself.

http://www.inscale-scales.co.uk/pdf/eg-m.pdf
« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 01:39:21 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #114 on: December 27, 2013, 08:47:29 PM »
So when it is shipped to an underground laboratory I your default position is it was done improperly?

There is a complete lack of documentation. What variables did this laboratory control in the experiment? Were people in the room during the experiment?
Tom, I think that you are grossly overestimating the precision of the scale used in the gnome experiment.  The Kern model EWB readout only displays to .01g resolution.  Any concerns of air currents, atmospheric buoyancy or magnetic fields are likely to be far too subtle for the scale to register.  The biggest control concerns are probably just keeping the reference gnome clean and undamaged.

.01g is one one-hundredth the weight of a dollar bill. Air currents are certainly strong enough to move a dollar bill, let alone something one one-hundredth the weight.

There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

I never said there was, but if there is, Snolab would be a good place to start looking.

Then start looking.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2013, 08:49:24 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3852
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #115 on: December 27, 2013, 09:43:37 PM »
.01g is one one-hundredth the weight of a dollar bill. Air currents are certainly strong enough to move a dollar bill, let alone something one one-hundredth the weight.
But is it enough to move a 300 gram gnome?

Quote
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

I never said there was, but if there is, Snolab would be a good place to start looking.

Then start looking.
Tom, why is it his responsibility to do your research?  ???
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #116 on: December 27, 2013, 10:09:23 PM »
Quote
.01g is one one-hundredth the weight of a dollar bill. Air currents are certainly strong enough to move a dollar bill, let alone something one one-hundredth the weight.
But is it enough to move a 300 gram gnome?

If a gust of wind puts 1g of pressure down on the gnome, then that gnome is 1g heavier.

If a gust of wind attacks the gnome from the side or from below, then that also affects the gnome's weight.

Quote
Quote
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

I never said there was, but if there is, Snolab would be a good place to start looking.

Then start looking.
Tom, why is it his responsibility to do your research?  ???

It's his research. I did not bring up the possibility that controlled trials took place at this lab.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2013, 10:11:53 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #117 on: December 27, 2013, 10:14:52 PM »
I love that Tom doesn't have to prove any of his 'positive' claims about errors.  This is precisely why the negative/positive distinction is not a logical tool, but is merely a cognitive dissonance in the minds of people who are unwilling under any circumstances to alter the beliefs they consider precious.

We can always reformulate the discussion in the opposite direction.  Tom, you are making a positive claim:  "X can/does cause an error in your measurement/experiment."

You have to prove that claim.

Already done. It was agreed that a gust of wind could move a dollar bill. Therefore, a gust of wind could affect this experiment.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3852
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #118 on: December 28, 2013, 12:40:05 AM »
If a gust of wind puts 1g of pressure down on the gnome, then that gnome is 1g heavier.

If a gust of wind attacks the gnome from the side or from below, then that also affects the gnome's weight.
Then it's a good thing that's it's relatively trivial to avoid such wind gusts.

Quote
It's his research. I did not bring up the possibility that controlled trials took place at this lab.
No, but you did assert that you looked for documentation and could find none.  He was merely suggesting a place to continue your search for documentation.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 09:37:17 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5676
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #119 on: December 28, 2013, 08:29:23 AM »
Quote
.01g is one one-hundredth the weight of a dollar bill. Air currents are certainly strong enough to move a dollar bill, let alone something one one-hundredth the weight.
But is it enough to move a 300 gram gnome?

If a gust of wind puts 1g of pressure down on the gnome, then that gnome is 1g heavier.

If a gust of wind attacks the gnome from the side or from below, then that also affects the gnome's weight.

Quote
Quote
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

I never said there was, but if there is, Snolab would be a good place to start looking.

Then start looking.
Tom, why is it his responsibility to do your research?  ???

It's his research. I did not bring up the possibility that controlled trials took place at this lab.

You brought up the possibility that this experiment was never done in a lab.  I rebutted that, shifting the burden back to you. 

Then when you claimed there was no evidence of this experiment being performed in controlled circumstances, I did you the favor of giving you a place to look.  Please feel free to do so.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 08:31:19 AM by Rama Set »
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.