Does the FET hold up to the Cavendish experiment?

Here is a link to the info about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

This experiment should not work with the FET.

I'm going to make a list of experiments that I believe propose challenges to the FET idea of Universal Acceleration.

1. The Cavendish Experiment

- A counter argument of The Cavendish Experiment here

2. Atom Interferometer Measurement of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity

3. On the Newtonian Constant of Gravitation

4. One Universe: At Home in the Cosmos Page 41

5.
GOING DEEP: A SYSTEM CONCEPT FOR DETECTING 
DEEPLY BURIED FACILITIES FROM SPACE Chapter 4

The Cavendish experiment began with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). The results are invalid.

The Cavendish experiment began with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). The results are invalid.

That's false.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on February 13, 2012, 06:09:47 PM

The Cavendish experiment began with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). The results are invalid.

That's false.

That's false.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 13, 2012, 06:14:27 PM

That's false.

That's false.

That's low content, both of you.

The Cavendish experiment began with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). The results are invalid.

It began with a false premise? It simply began with a hypothesis, then it was tested, and it was proven true. That's as good as it gets.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on February 13, 2012, 06:09:47 PM

The Cavendish experiment began with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). The results are invalid.

It began with a false premise? It simply began with a hypothesis, then it was tested, and it was proven true. That's as good as it gets.

It was assumed before the experiment began that the objects would be attracted to each other and the experiment was built to test how much they were attracted to each other. It can only measure force on a single axis and in a single direction. The experiment was very narrow minded and has no real world implications.

Quote from: chrondog on February 13, 2012, 06:56:50 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on February 13, 2012, 06:09:47 PM

The Cavendish experiment began with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). The results are invalid.

It began with a false premise? It simply began with a hypothesis, then it was tested, and it was proven true. That's as good as it gets.

It was assumed before the experiment began that the objects would be attracted to each other and the experiment was built to test how much they were attracted to each other. It can only measure force on a single axis and in a single direction. The experiment was very narrow minded and has no real world implications.

How can what he measured have no real world implications? This experiment proved that mass attracts mass. Not only this but he got the gravitational constant right by the current measurement within 1%. By the FET theory, gravity is not real and the Earth is simply being accelerated at 9.8 m/s/s. Which doesn't make much sense because this value changes varying with height relative to one another. I'll lend you another, much newer, experiment to try and dispute: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5808/74.abstract using this tool http://www.gravitec.co.nz/gravity_gradiometer.html

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on February 13, 2012, 08:24:44 PM

Quote from: chrondog on February 13, 2012, 06:56:50 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on February 13, 2012, 06:09:47 PM

The Cavendish experiment began with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). The results are invalid.

It began with a false premise? It simply began with a hypothesis, then it was tested, and it was proven true. That's as good as it gets.

It was assumed before the experiment began that the objects would be attracted to each other and the experiment was built to test how much they were attracted to each other. It can only measure force on a single axis and in a single direction. The experiment was very narrow minded and has no real world implications.

How can what he measured have no real world implications? This experiment proved that mass attracts mass. Not only this but he got the gravitational constant right by the current measurement within 1%. By the FET theory, gravity is not real and the Earth is simply being accelerated at 9.8 m/s/s. Which doesn't make much sense because this value changes varying with height relative to one another. I'll lend you another, much newer, experiment to try and dispute: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5808/74.abstract using this tool http://www.gravitec.co.nz/gravity_gradiometer.html

You're seeing what you want to see in this experiment, not what is truly presented. What is presented is a machine that only measures a force at a single vector. Well, of course it is going to measure a force. A force of what? How are you determining it is measuring the attraction between the two objects? It could be air currents, leftover momentum, a ridiculous amount of factors before saying its because magic is pulling them together.

Now you're changing the subject to "look how gravity changes everywhere!" Well, guess what, that is caused by celestial gravitation. It is a whole other ball game. Please try to keep the discussion centered around the Cavendish experiment since that is what you obviously had questions about.

You're seeing what you want to see in this experiment, not what is truly presented. What is presented is a machine that only measures a force at a single vector. Well, of course it is going to measure a force. A force of what? How are you determining it is measuring the attraction between the two objects? It could be air currents, leftover momentum, a ridiculous amount of factors before saying its because magic is pulling them together.

Now you're changing the subject to "look how gravity changes everywhere!" Well, guess what, that is caused by celestial gravitation. It is a whole other ball game. Please try to keep the discussion centered around the Cavendish experiment since that is what you obviously had questions about.

What exactly is the problem of measuring the force along one axis?

What part of the protocol failed to consider air currents or leftover momentum.? It sure looks to me that both were well addressed and blocked.

Well, guess what, that is caused by celestial gravitation.

Show any evidence whatsoever that this is true. By "evidence" I do NOT mean "it has to be true because FET can't think of an alternative".
Failure to show evidence of this is an admission that celestial gravitation is not the cause.

Quote from: chrondog on February 13, 2012, 09:18:43 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on February 13, 2012, 08:24:44 PM

Quote from: chrondog on February 13, 2012, 06:56:50 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on February 13, 2012, 06:09:47 PM

The Cavendish experiment began with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). The results are invalid.

It began with a false premise? It simply began with a hypothesis, then it was tested, and it was proven true. That's as good as it gets.

It was assumed before the experiment began that the objects would be attracted to each other and the experiment was built to test how much they were attracted to each other. It can only measure force on a single axis and in a single direction. The experiment was very narrow minded and has no real world implications.

How can what he measured have no real world implications? This experiment proved that mass attracts mass. Not only this but he got the gravitational constant right by the current measurement within 1%. By the FET theory, gravity is not real and the Earth is simply being accelerated at 9.8 m/s/s. Which doesn't make much sense because this value changes varying with height relative to one another. I'll lend you another, much newer, experiment to try and dispute: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5808/74.abstract using this tool http://www.gravitec.co.nz/gravity_gradiometer.html

You're seeing what you want to see in this experiment, not what is truly presented. What is presented is a machine that only measures a force at a single vector. Well, of course it is going to measure a force. A force of what? How are you determining it is measuring the attraction between the two objects? It could be air currents, leftover momentum, a ridiculous amount of factors before saying its because magic is pulling them together.

Now you're changing the subject to "look how gravity changes everywhere!" Well, guess what, that is caused by celestial gravitation. It is a whole other ball game. Please try to keep the discussion centered around the Cavendish experiment since that is what you obviously had questions about.

None of these factors can apply unless the experiment was done once. This experiment was done over the span of one year. Yet his results were still consistent.

None of these factors can apply unless the experiment was done once. This experiment was done over the span of one year. Yet his results were still consistent.

Please produce the complete result history from day 1 to 365, since I can't seem to find it.

What exactly is the problem of measuring the force along one axis?

What isn't wrong about purposefully limiting results to where you expect to have them?

What part of the protocol failed to consider air currents or leftover momentum.? It sure looks to me that both were well addressed and blocked.

Placing a big box around your experiment no more blocks the things I described than hiding under your bed sheets protects you from the environment.

Quote from: chrondog on February 14, 2012, 04:15:25 AM

None of these factors can apply unless the experiment was done once. This experiment was done over the span of one year. Yet his results were still consistent.

Please produce the complete result history from day 1 to 365, since I can't seem to find it.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 13, 2012, 11:21:43 PM

What exactly is the problem of measuring the force along one axis?

What isn't wrong about purposefully limiting results to where you expect to have them?

Quote from: ClockTower on February 13, 2012, 11:21:43 PM

What part of the protocol failed to consider air currents or leftover momentum.? It sure looks to me that both were well addressed and blocked.

Placing a big box around your experiment no more blocks the things I described than hiding under your bed sheets protects you from the environment.

Perform the experiment yourself adequately blocking out air current and momentum, show that the gravitational constant G is inaccurate and present your competing theory in a way that can be proven. Win a Nobel Prize in physics.

I already challenged you to go work for NASA, they don't need to know if you believe in FET or not. If you were serious about knowing the nature of the shape of the Earth you would at least do some kind of investigation. And because I know you aren't serious, this is mainly directed at real FE believers.
Actually do the investigating yourselves. I'm tired of correcting FE believers maths and handing you the evidence just so you can disregard it all. If you cared about what is true, you would find out for yourselves, and see the validity.

Now you're changing the subject to "look how gravity changes everywhere!" Well, guess what, that is caused by celestial gravitation.

celestrial gravitation is made up. it was made up probably due to changes in downwards force at different places on earth. please read enag

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on February 13, 2012, 10:05:14 PM

Well, guess what, that is caused by celestial gravitation.

Show any evidence whatsoever that this is true. By "evidence" I do NOT mean "it has to be true because FET can't think of an alternative".
Failure to show evidence of this is an admission that celestial gravitation is not the cause.

You've posted since this was posted and failed to answer. You have admitted that celestial gravitation is not the cause.
Another win for RE.

The Cavendish experiment began with a false premise (objects with mass are attracted to each other). The results are invalid.

Where do you get the information that it's a false premise? And that the results are invalid?

Quote from: chrondog on February 14, 2012, 04:15:25 AM

None of these factors can apply unless the experiment was done once. This experiment was done over the span of one year. Yet his results were still consistent.

Please produce the complete result history from day 1 to 365, since I can't seem to find it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eiDoN-rg8I8C

Page 336. Paraphrased: it consisted of 17 experiments, each with many different trials from August 5, 1797 to the end of May, 1798.

Here is a more accurate experiment that predicted the value of G more accurately and was 3-dimensional. In other words, C.V. Boys, the experimenter, suspended his two test masses at different heights.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1896ApJ.....3..303W&db_key=AST&page_ind=2&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

In this thread I've listed three different experiments. All of which were done differently, and still managed to get the same number.

Placing a big box around your experiment no more blocks the things I described than hiding under your bed sheets protects you from the environment.

Please tell me exactly how "placing a big box around" the experiment fails to block "air currents".

The Cavendish Experiment is deeply flawed and misinterpreted. It's peddled around to give the theory of gravity some much needed substance.

Here is good reading on the hoax of the Cavendish Experiment: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

In this thread I've listed three different experiments. All of which were done differently, and still managed to get the same number.

Different experiments used different weights. Why are you telling me different weights = same number? Do you not believe in your own equations?

Please tell me exactly how "placing a big box around" the experiment fails to block "air currents".

As long as air is above 0 kelvin, it is moving, which causes currents.

The Cavendish Experiment is deeply flawed and misinterpreted. It's peddled around to give the theory of gravity some much needed substance.

Here is good reading on the hoax of the Cavendish Experiment: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Do you hold the source of the link's document as credible? If you do, then FET is wrong, as he shows that gravity is still true.

From the Postscript:

Notice that I accept Newton's equation as correct, and add nothing to it: no extra terms.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 14, 2012, 01:46:03 PM

Please tell me exactly how "placing a big box around" the experiment fails to block "air currents".

As long as air is above 0 kelvin, it is moving, which causes currents.

Please do tell us the greatest strength of such an air current inside a box enclosed in a shed. Then please tell us how the effect of such a random event was not blocked by the trials.

Please do tell us the greatest strength of such an air current inside a box enclosed in a shed. Then please tell us how the effect of such a random event was not blocked by the trials.

I would say in Cavendish's case it was about 1.74 x 10^–7 N. Cavendish made zero attempts to block air currents inside the box. Have you been following the debate at all?

Quote from: ClockTower on February 14, 2012, 03:18:49 PM

Please do tell us the greatest strength of such an air current inside a box enclosed in a shed. Then please tell us how the effect of such a random event was not blocked by the trials.

I would say in Cavendish's case it was about 1.74 x 10^–7 N. Cavendish made zero attempts to block air currents inside the box. Have you been following the debate at all?

Please do tell us how you determined that magnitude (I will reject any circular reasoning.) and provide the magnitude's value in the axis of concern. Please do answer the request to show us how the effect of such a random event was not blocked by the trials.

Quote from: chrondog on February 14, 2012, 01:17:02 PM

In this thread I've listed three different experiments. All of which were done differently, and still managed to get the same number.

Different experiments used different weights. Why are you telling me different weights = same number? Do you not believe in your own equations?

Quote from: ClockTower on February 14, 2012, 01:46:03 PM

Please tell me exactly how "placing a big box around" the experiment fails to block "air currents".

As long as air is above 0 kelvin, it is moving, which causes currents.

You never answered my questions.

You never answered my questions.

By same number I mean gravitational constant. Through different experiments they resulted in the same number for it.

No I'm talking to SCV, i asked him how he knows the premise is false and that the results were invalid. He ignored the question.

No I'm talking to SCV, i asked him how he knows the premise is false and that the results were invalid. He ignored the question.

Of course he did. He doesn't even fully understand the science he's pretending not to believe.

Quote from: Aytron on February 14, 2012, 04:57:13 PM

No I'm talking to SCV, i asked him how he knows the premise is false and that the results were invalid. He ignored the question.

Of course he did. He doesn't even fully understand the science he's pretending not to believe.

No he pretty much ignored my questions because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Between him avoiding questions that require legitimate proof and iWitless posting pictures of the horizon from the ground level expecting to see some sort of pregnant belly like bulge, i'm not exactly convinced of this retard theory.

An experiment that Einstein did in 1915 to prove General Relativity was correct was to calculate the angle through which starlight signals that just graze the sun would be bent in a solar eclipse and he got 0.00049°. The detection of an angle at this degree was possible back then. So Sir Arthur Eddington, a well-known astronomer and secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society set off to the island of Principe off the coast of West Africa to test Einstein's prediction during the solar eclipse of May 29, 1919. On November 6, 1919, after 5 months of analysis of photographs taken during the eclipse at Principe, it was announced at a meeting of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society that Einstein's prediction on the angle of the light caused by gravity had been confirmed to be true.

Source is from The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.