[juner]

So. Back again: it has A LOT to do with the OP.
Please share

It actually doesn't have anything to do with the OP. Are you sure you are in the correct thread? OP is actually, literally specific about acceleration.

[Ga_x2]

So. Back again: it has A LOT to do with the OP.
Please share

It actually doesn't have anything to do with the OP. Are you sure you are in the correct thread? OP is actually, literally specific about acceleration.

see you're probably not getting this because of your kinda sorta opinion about ye old Cavendish. Share, and then we'll have some foundation to build on 

[Curious Squirrel]

Because observing acceleration is objectively easier than observing gravity.

False

I mean, I know RE logicians can be kind of dense, but do you actually believe this? Do you understand what acceleration is? I honestly can't believe this discussion is happening right now (or that I am replying to it).

Hold out an object above the ground. Let go. Bam, observing gravity.

[juner]

see you're probably not getting this because of your kinda sorta opinion about ye old Cavendish. Share, and then we'll have some foundation to build on 

You can continue to deflect as much as you'd like when it is pointed out that you are wrong, but it doesn't make you any less wrong. I figured you would have learned that by now.

Hold out an object above the ground. Let go. Bam, observing gravity.

Oh cool. How do you measure the "gravity" you are observing in your example?

[Ga_x2]

see you're probably not getting this because of your kinda sorta opinion about ye old Cavendish. Share, and then we'll have some foundation to build on 

You can continue to deflect as much as you'd like when it is pointed out that you are wrong, but it doesn't make you any less wrong. I figured you would have learned that by now.

I'm sorry, this time it's you the one not getting it, but I don't want to beat around the bushes for hours on end.
Tell you what, if you don't feel like discussing this here, comment on the question I posed as one of my first posts in the Q&A forum, if you really are interested in a conversation. Or at least in trying to provide an explanation for a plain observation, which has, again, A LOT to do with the value of the UA the OP is quoting. We can always come back here later.
It's easy to find, it's the one with 0 replies. I can resurrect it for you, too.

[3DGeek]

So.
When you drop something to the floor, the only immediate observation is that the ball accelerates toward it. To go from there to "there is something that attracts stuff and that attraction is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the distance and I'm calling this thing gravity" is a stretch.

Yeah - but that's what Leonardo Da Vinci did.   Newton, however, used the same basic principle (stuff falls, it accelerates as it does so, the acceleration rate is independent of mass) - and applied it to the motion of planets, the moon, everything else he could get data for.   That's how HE figured out how gravity is proportional to the product of the two masses divided by the square of the distance between them.

So the FET "universal accelerator" would certainly have fooled Da Vinci - but would not have persuaded Sir Isaac Newton.

The Cavendish experiment shows that there is something like what I've described above. The immediate observation is that the balls accelerate toward each other, but you have nothing clearly acting on them, and the edit: attraction is dependent on mass and distance. My understanding is that we call this thing gravity, even if we don't yet know the underpinnings. So the short answer is yes. Why do you think otherwise?

The Cavendish experiment was really an effort to calculate the constant in Newton's Law of Gravity. ("Big G")   You can't easily work it out without knowing the masses of the objects involved - which is hard to figure out for stars, planets, moons, etc.  Hence Cavendish (and others who refined his experiment) use known masses so they can figure out 'G' directly rather than from 'g and guesstimated masses for planets and such.   We don't need Cavendish to explain how gravity works - that can be deduced by watching the motion of planets in a heliocentric solar system.

[Ga_x2]

The Cavendish experiment was really an effort to calculate the constant in Newton's Law of Gravity. ("Big G")   You can't easily work it out without knowing the masses of the objects involved - which is hard to figure out for stars, planets, moons, etc.  Hence Cavendish (and others who refined his experiment) use known masses so they can figure out 'G' directly rather than from 'g and guesstimated masses for planets and such.   We don't need Cavendish to explain how gravity works - that can be deduced by watching the motion of planets in a heliocentric solar system.

Sure, but that's not why it's important in this context. In this thread we are not anywhere near any G yet, big or small. We could go faster, but the people here love their hair thoroughly splitted.
EDIT: you work with too many assumptions. Newton assumed a 'RE. "No shit sherlock" you are probably saying, but that's precisely the problem

[juner]

It's easy to find, it's the one with 0 replies.

Must not have been a very interesting topic, then.

[Ga_x2]

It's easy to find, it's the one with 0 replies.

Must not have been a very interesting topic, then.

come on now you're overdoing it
 
Edited to add: please refrain from low content posts in the upper fora

[3DGeek]

The Cavendish experiment was really an effort to calculate the constant in Newton's Law of Gravity. ("Big G")   You can't easily work it out without knowing the masses of the objects involved - which is hard to figure out for stars, planets, moons, etc.  Hence Cavendish (and others who refined his experiment) use known masses so they can figure out 'G' directly rather than from 'g and guesstimated masses for planets and such.   We don't need Cavendish to explain how gravity works - that can be deduced by watching the motion of planets in a heliocentric solar system.

Sure, but that's not why it's important in this context. In this thread we are not anywhere near any G yet, big or small. We could go faster, but the people here love their hair thoroughly splitted.
EDIT: you work with too many assumptions. Newton assumed a 'RE. "No shit sherlock" you are probably saying, but that's precisely the problem

Well, he famously said: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

He stood on the shoulders of Da Vinci, Galileo, Copernicus and others.  They proved the heliocentric model...which depends on the earth being round.

But by the 1650's there had been enough circumnavigations and other long distance ocean travel using only "star and compass" navigation that any rational doubt as to the shape and size of the earth had been completely answered.

It's entirely unreasonable to expect every new generation of scientists to re-prove things that are already well established...just as you no longer have to convince yourself that apples are not poisonous before you eat one.  There are things that are just so well established that they can't be wrong.

Unless, of course, you're a Flat Earther.

[juner]

It's easy to find, it's the one with 0 replies.

Must not have been a very interesting topic, then.

come on now you're overdoing it
 
Edited to add: please refrain from low content posts in the upper fora

I mean, I could have easily warned you for your initial low-content post that initiated the whole mess, but I didn't. However, seeing as you are not a moderator, I will kindly ask that you don't attempt to moderate threads. This can go ahead and be your last freebie.

[Ga_x2]

It's easy to find, it's the one with 0 replies.

Must not have been a very interesting topic, then.

come on now you're overdoing it
 
Edited to add: please refrain from low content posts in the upper fora

I mean, I could have easily warned you for your initial low-content post that initiated the whole mess, but I didn't. However, seeing as you are not a moderator, I will kindly ask that you don't attempt to moderate threads. This can go ahead and be your last freebie.

*Adding humour to the list of things not to use with you.
So are you willing to discuss cavendish here or elsewhere or shall I put that on the list of things FE proponents seem not to have an opinion/understand/care to discuss?

[juner]

*Adding humour to the list of things not to use with you.

You certainly can use humor. I would even suggest trying sometime.

So are you willing to discuss cavendish here or elsewhere or shall I put that on the list of things FE proponents seem not to have an opinion/understand/care to discuss?

Why would I discuss Cavendish in a thread that has nothing to do with it? I know you RE proponents think this place exist for your personal whims, but I assure you that is not the case. While it certainly has been fun and hopefully you have finally learned something, I will ask that your next post in this thread try to stay on topic. It is common for RE logicians to resort to changing subjects, "whataboutisms," and moving the goal posts when they are shown to be wrong during discussion, so I will ask you not to do that here.

[Rama Set]

Considering that the force of gravity on Earth is tied to the gravitational constant, the measuring of this constant would be extremely relevant.

[juner]

Considering that the force of gravity on Earth is tied to the gravitational constant, the measuring of this constant would be extremely relevant.

It would be relevant in a thread about gravity, the gravitational constant, or measuring said constant. Oddly enough, not a single one of those things are mentioned in the OP. You are welcome to make a thread about that topic if you'd like.

[Ga_x2]

So are you willing to discuss cavendish here or elsewhere or shall I put that on the list of things FE proponents seem not to have an opinion/understand/care to discuss?

Why would I discuss Cavendish in a thread that has nothing to do with it?

you are still not getting why it's relevant with the concept of UA of the OP.
Fine. Ubi major minor cessat. Maybe when you feel like making an effort or contributing something substantial resurrect the other thread. Besos

[Rama Set]

Considering that the force of gravity on Earth is tied to the gravitational constant, the measuring of this constant would be extremely relevant.

It would be relevant in a thread about gravity, the gravitational constant, or measuring said constant. Oddly enough, not a single one of those things are mentioned in the OP. You are welcome to make a thread about that topic if you'd like.

Come now, we all know that not every post must connect directly to the OP, especially in the debate forum. The Cavendish experiment is an excellent falsification of UA since it can measure an attraction between masses that is not due to electromagnetism. Variations have shown attraction perpendicular to the supposed vector of UA in precisely the amount predicted by GR and Newton's theory.

[juner]

Come now, we all know that not every post must connect directly to the OP, especially in the debate forum.

Most threads deviate in some manner (thanks to RE behaviors mentioned above), but this really is a separate topic.

The Cavendish experiment is an excellent falsification of UA since it can measure an attraction between masses that is not due to electromagnetism. Variations have shown attraction perpendicular to the supposed vector of UA in precisely the amount predicted by GR and Newton's theory.

If this was a thread about the flaws in UA, falsifying UA, or exploring the Cavendish experiment, then it would be worth discussing, along with other flaws. It is time to get the thread back on track. That is the great thing about these fora, anyone can make a topic to discuss instead of hijacking a thread on another topic.

[Rama Set]

In a debate, if the FE response to the OP is "UA ftw!", rebutting with, "Nyah! Nyah! Cavendish!" is appropriate. It's much more on topic than "observing acceleration is objectively easier than observing gravity." Although that statement is true, it doesn't change the fact that gravity has been observed on small and large scales.

[juner]

In a debate, if the FE response to the OP is "UA ftw!", rebutting with, "Nyah! Nyah! Cavendish!" is appropriate. It's much more on topic than "observing acceleration is objectively easier than observing gravity." Although that statement is true, it doesn't change the fact that gravity has been observed on small and large scales.

Except that the rebuttal was what actually happened, whereas you are meme-ifying the "FE response." I also disagree that it is "much more on topic." But I acknowledge I shouldn't have taken the RE bait and even bothered engaging. I should have just warned those posting and got the thread back on track at that time. But, it is done and I am getting it back on track now. So, if you have anything on the topic you want to contribute, feel free to do so. If you want to discuss another topic, feel free to make a new thread.