*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?
« Reply #60 on: October 31, 2018, 11:39:18 AM »
Most of your entire theory is based on what has not been proven, "Gravity".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE

And what is your theory based on?

An enlightened comment from the video:

Quote
Kk Westbury

How did they eliminate electrostatic conditions? Do they always attract at the same rate? I remember how long it took Lord Cavendish to see movement in his experiment, this seems fishy.

- There is NO demonstration how they protected this experiment from other conditions
- The attraction is also far too fast, it took Lord Cavendish a LONG TIME to see movement in his experiment.

Why are you showing us cartoons? Are you so easily led to believe what you see without assessment of the most critical nature?

Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?
« Reply #61 on: October 31, 2018, 11:55:24 AM »
You're a zetetic and empiricist, you're free to repeat the experiment if you dispute its results.
Or devise your own.
I look forward to your results.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?
« Reply #62 on: October 31, 2018, 12:36:55 PM »
You're a zetetic and empiricist, you're free to repeat the experiment if you dispute its results.
Or devise your own.
I look forward to your results.

Your claim, your burden. If you are making a positive claim, it is your burden to defend your claim. "Prove me wrong" is an invalid debating strategy.

Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?
« Reply #63 on: October 31, 2018, 12:39:22 PM »
My evidence for my claim is the experiment result. Oh, and the whole of physics
If you dispute the result then you can repeat the experiment or devise your own.
And I once again note that only experiments from Rowbotham are accepted unquestioningly.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?
« Reply #64 on: October 31, 2018, 12:47:03 PM »
My evidence for my claim is the experiment result. Oh, and the whole of physics
If you dispute the result then you can repeat the experiment or devise your own.
And I once again note that only experiments from Rowbotham are accepted unquestioningly.

The "experiment result" you provided was criticized, and you have failed to provide any justification, with or without evidence of that justification, for why the experiment is correct and the criticism is incorrect. You are entirely free to use exhibits from "the whole of physics" to support your case.

Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?
« Reply #65 on: October 31, 2018, 12:49:27 PM »
Here's an answer to the question raised above. Obviously I cannot talk sensibly about this particular experiment as I did not conduct it

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/226085/question-about-cavendish-experiment

I look forward to the results of your experiment which I'm sure will advance the cause of FE theory.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?
« Reply #66 on: November 01, 2018, 08:57:38 PM »
The question in that link is "I got a question. In Cavendish experiment was used lead in both of spheres. Can we repeat that experiment with balls made from stone or anything else. Because lead could be a byproduct of radioactive decay and by that emit ionizing radiation. And by ionizing lead it can create positive charge and to be attracted."

How is that related to the fast-moving Cavendish action in your video or accounting for the electrostatic force?

Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?
« Reply #67 on: November 03, 2018, 11:05:45 AM »
I just noticed that if you look in the replies to that comment the answers are actually given there.
But it's good that like the good empiricist/zetetic you are you're not taking this experiment result as read.
I look forward to seeing the results of your experiment.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?
« Reply #68 on: November 04, 2018, 01:06:39 PM »
The question in that link is "I got a question. In Cavendish experiment was used lead in both of spheres. Can we repeat that experiment with balls made from stone or anything else. Because lead could be a byproduct of radioactive decay and by that emit ionizing radiation. And by ionizing lead it can create positive charge and to be attracted."
You are correct in that freshly mined lead can contain traces of some radioactive isotopes with relatively short half-lives.
This is important when the lead is to be used as shielding for sensitive experiments and "aged lead" can be valuable even to using some found in old shipwrecks.
This reference gives some of the details: Chemistry StackExchange, Is lead radioactive?

Cavendish did use lead balls and I've no idea whether the results could have been affected but they were within about 1% of the current accepted value.

Measurements and demonstrations of gravitation have been performed with many materials.
The long post referred to below gives examples of some demonstrations using materials from rocks, bowling balls, iron and lead but these gave no numerical result.
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GRAVITY PROOF « Message by rabinoz on August 27, 2018, 08:56:40 AM ».
There is more detail on the BIPM measurements in this .pdf file: The BIPM measurements of the Newtonian constant of gravitation, G by Terry Quinn, Clive Speake, Harold Parks, and Richard Davis

That experiment used cylindrical copper–tellurium test and source masses.
The cylindrical shape was chosen because though the calculations are more difficult it is far easier to machine a precise cylindrical shape than a spherical shape.
And the copper–tellurium alloy was chosen because of its free machining quantities though other experiments have used tungsten because of its very high density.