I take back every thing I just said and its the Cavendish experiment u retard, it proves the RE's point, because it not only solved the density of the earth, but was later used to find the RADIUS (can't have one of those on an FE model)
Pardon my skepticism, but Cavendish performed his experiment in 1798. The experiment was intended to measure the variations in gravitational attraction between objects, following up on Newton's Philosophić naturalis principia mathematica, published a century earlier.
Cavendish's experiement compared the "average" density of earth to that of water, providing him with the result of 5.48 times that of water. Presently, scientists believe this number to be 5.518 times that of water. This number has been revised at least a half dozen times since Cavendish first performed his experiment.
Cavendish's experiment was based on and thought to prove Newton's law of universal gravitation.
Newton believed gravity to be a force, not unlike magnetism. The Cavendish experiment is thought to have proven this law. Trouble is, in 1915, Einstein published his general theory of relativity which generally discredited this idea. Einstein's theory concludes that gravity is not a force, but a curvature in space.
Einstein's theory has been used by seemingly legitimate scientists to claim that if you hurl yourself into a black hole, you can go back in time, despite the belief that a black hole is not a hole at all, but rather an object so dense that not even light can escape it. Incidentally, black holes have formed the basis for poking holes (pardon the pun) in Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Thus, Einstein's theories are increasingly coming under fire due to inconsistency with quantum mechanics.
Not that I should presume to know the truth . . .
If the supposed greatest minds in the field today, can't reconcile these "THEORIES" to one another, and since all of these are indeed theories, and since the experiment you claim to solidify REers beleif in spherical reality was intended to prove a theory which was revised six times and later twice supplanted by competing theories, which are themselves struggling for proof, what makes you so sure the experiment is valid in light of modern views on gravity and inconsistent with the idea of a FE? Is a flat disk any less capable of bending space than a sphere? Is it not possible to have a flat disk with the same density as that of a sphere at any given value?
Perhaps most important, given the complexity of the whole concept, what exactly is your basis in experience for relying on the experiment? Have you recreated it? Have you ever actually seen it performed? Are you capable of verifying or even understanding it in its place?
If so, then bravo. I look forward to reading your paper. I didn't know physics was such a prominent course in law school.
If not, then back to my core question . . . why spend so much time defending principals you don't fully understand?
Poll