Newton

Interested in your theories...however looking through the FAQ:

Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

This directly breaks Newton's law of universal gravitation. Could someone please explain how this is possible?

I imagine they would counter that the law of universal gravitation is wrong.  Although masses attracting other masses can be observed with the Cavendish experiment, and the best counter I've seen to that is a link to a rather insane alternative physics site.

I imagine they would counter that the law of universal gravitation is wrong.  Although masses attracting other masses can be observed with the Cavendish experiment, and the best counter I've seen to that is a link to a rather insane alternative physics site.

Thankfully, FET is not based on the shortcomings of your imagination. The earth, most likely, does have a slight gravitational pull from its mass. However, as even round-earth physicists will tell you, gravity is an incredibly weak force. It cannot account for the strength required to keep people grounded, that's what universal acceleration is for.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on August 03, 2012, 12:30:53 AM

I imagine they would counter that the law of universal gravitation is wrong.  Although masses attracting other masses can be observed with the Cavendish experiment, and the best counter I've seen to that is a link to a rather insane alternative physics site.

Thankfully, FET is not based on the shortcomings of your imagination. The earth, most likely, does have a slight gravitational pull from its mass. However, as even round-earth physicists will tell you, gravity is an incredibly weak force. It cannot account for the strength required to keep people grounded, that's what universal acceleration is for.

Could you provide me with the ratio of gravity:universal acceleration that keeps us grounded - otherwise your statement is pointless and my question still stands.

Also I think the FAQ may need to be updated now:

Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

A3: In the Davis model, the infinite plane produces a finite gravitational field with a downward pull. Click here for the mathematical formulation behind this model.

According to your statement, you just proved the dark energy model, McIntyre and Bishop model "most likely" wrong.

Quote from: Cat Earth Theory on August 03, 2012, 12:30:53 AM

I imagine they would counter that the law of universal gravitation is wrong.  Although masses attracting other masses can be observed with the Cavendish experiment, and the best counter I've seen to that is a link to a rather insane alternative physics site.

Thankfully, FET is not based on the shortcomings of your imagination. The earth, most likely, does have a slight gravitational pull from its mass. However, as even round-earth physicists will tell you, gravity is an incredibly weak force. It cannot account for the strength required to keep people grounded, that's what universal acceleration is for.

So gravity does exist now?  I need to keep an excel spreadsheet or something to keep up with all these amazing advancements in FET.

I've said for years that if GR is true the earth must exhibit some sort of gravitation. I very much dispute the value of the gravitational constant and Cavendish. If the earth exhibits gravitation it is so weak as to be negligible.

I've said for years that if GR is true the earth must exhibit some sort of gravitation. I very much dispute the value of the gravitational constant and Cavendish. If the earth exhibits gravitation it is so weak as to be negligible.

You may dispute however much you want, however without any evidence or scientific reasoning - it is pointless and therefore meaningless to this discussion.

I very much dispute the value of the gravitational constant and Cavendish.

On what grounds?

It's a bit naive to think I dispute the reliability of Cavendish without reason, isn't it? 

I've said for years that if GR is true the earth must exhibit some sort of gravitation. I very much dispute the value of the gravitational constant and Cavendish. If the earth exhibits gravitation it is so weak as to be negligible.

Extremely naive to dispute a basic law of physics without reason, yes. Could even be seen as something that is holding human kind back.....

Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 01:41:28 AM

I very much dispute the value of the gravitational constant and Cavendish.

On what grounds?

There have been mountains of papers on Cavendish and its flaws. Miles Mathis in particular has done a splendid job spelling out potential pitfalls and the institutional removal of published papers disputing it from the internet. If you have access to a university library, I will happily give you a list of contemporary papers you can dig up to read of the failures of Cavendish.

Ah yes, Miles Mathis, the crank who runs the website Tom linked me to last time I brought up the Cavendish experiment.  What a wonderful source you've chosen to rely upon.

Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981pmfc.conf..591H
Records the failure of standard gravitational models to account for experimental results.


http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/11/6A/008
More of same

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983AmJPh..51.1016S
"Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (SSB)" = Model cannot definitively predict experimental result.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

Yawn, I'll do my "homework" if this is actually going to go anywhere.  What exactly am I looking for here that's going to somehow make the observations thousands have made with the Cavendish experiment and its various updates disappear?

As for Miles Mathis, he's a double-edged sword to deal with.  The world he lives in has an alternative for everything, including calculus and geometry.  It's a self-contained world, and his objections might not make sense outside of it.

The last time he was brought up, I asked what objections, exactly, he brought up to the Cavendish experiment that were worthwhile and all I got was that it was done underground, and so the gravity of the walls wasn't taken into account, which is false given that the experiment starts in equilibrium with whatever the local gravity is and only measures the change to the new state of equilibrium after introducing the heavier balls.

Miles notes that efforts to measure G in the last 20 to 30 years have produced deviating results. Often significant deviation. All with efforts using modern precision instruments: (See Here)

All modern efforts to duplicate Cavendish have relied on much smaller objects of mass in torsion devices. Here then the object is constrained in a vertical plane, but free to move in the horizontal plane. If motion in that plane is limited only by air resistance and electromagnetic fields, then all mass in those planes must be accounted for as well as EM fields. To simply say that the effect of buildings, walls, the instrument itself, et al are negligible is to ignore the fact that one is trying to measure an immensely small effects to begin with. To say that the objects start in equilibrium is to ignore the fact that air resistance and possibly electromagnetic fields are affecting those objects in situ. We do not know, in fact, that there is a priori equilibrium.

Cavendish observed: "irregularity in the position of rest of one-tenth of the deflection obtained, while the period showed discrepancies of five to fifteen seconds in seven minutes."
This is ten percent deviation and three percent. But because it is two separate margins of error we multiply and get 30%!

It's a bit naive to think I dispute the reliability of Cavendish without reason, isn't it? 

And it's a bit naive to think that Cavendish is the only way to measure G.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5808/74.abstract

We measured the Newtonian constant of gravity, G, using a gravity gradiometer based on atom interferometry. The gradiometer measures the differential acceleration of two samples of laser-cooled Cs atoms. The change in gravitational field along one dimension is measured when a well-characterized Pb mass is displaced. Here, we report a value of G = 6.693 × 10^–11 cubic meters per kilogram second squared, with a standard error of the mean of ±0.027 × 10^–11 and a systematic error of ±0.021 × 10^–11 cubic meters per kilogram second squared. The possibility that unknown systematic errors still exist in traditional measurements makes it important to measure G with independent methods.

You can measure the gravitational force in your basement.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/

That laughable experiment is precisely what one should avoid doing. It's too bad you can't deign to actually read Miles.

Miles notes that efforts to measure G in the last 20 to 30 years have produced deviating results. Often significant deviation. All with efforts using modern precision instruments: (See Here)

All modern efforts to duplicate Cavendish have relied on much smaller objects of mass in torsion devices. Here then the object is constrained in a vertical plane, but free to move in the horizontal plane. If motion in that plane is limited only by air resistance and electromagnetic fields, then all mass in those planes must be accounted for as well as EM fields. To simply say that the effect of buildings, walls, the instrument itself, et al are negligible is to ignore the fact that one is trying to measure an immensely small effects to begin with. To say that the objects start in equilibrium is to ignore the fact that air resistance and possibly electromagnetic fields are affecting those objects in situ. We do not know, in fact, that there is a priori equilibrium.

Lol, it's quite clear that the apparatus in the experiment I linked to is in equilibrium at the beginning of the experiment.  The tiniest movement will show up as a movement of the laser.

You should do your "homework," read the actual experiment, and come up with your own criticisms that are actually relevant.

Cavendish observed: "irregularity in the position of rest of one-tenth of the deflection obtained, while the period showed discrepancies of five to fifteen seconds in seven minutes."
This is ten percent deviation and three percent. But because it is two separate margins of error we multiply and get 30%!

 

Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

did you just quote a 0.75% failure rate as the reason to throw out all evidence of gravity?  please be clear here.

Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 03:19:45 AM

Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

did you just quote a 0.75% failure rate as the reason to throw out all evidence of gravity?  please be clear here.

No, the quote says, (75 times out of 100) ³, the results varied from Newtonian predicted results.

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 03:51:58 AM

Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 03:19:45 AM

Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

did you just quote a 0.75% failure rate as the reason to throw out all evidence of gravity?  please be clear here.

No, the quote says, (75 times out of 100) ³, the results varied from Newtonian predicted results.

7.5 times out of 10 to the third.  That means 7.5 times out of 1000.  That works out to 0.75%

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 15, 2012, 06:22:06 AM

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 03:51:58 AM

Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 03:19:45 AM

Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

did you just quote a 0.75% failure rate as the reason to throw out all evidence of gravity?  please be clear here.

No, the quote says, (75 times out of 100) ³, the results varied from Newtonian predicted results.

7.5 times out of 10 to the third.  That means 7.5 times out of 1000.  That works out to 0.75%

Ah yes. I misinterpreted. I just finished my coffee and this is making a lot more sense now.

Quote from: MrT on August 15, 2012, 07:57:44 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 15, 2012, 06:22:06 AM

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 03:51:58 AM

Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 03:19:45 AM

Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

did you just quote a 0.75% failure rate as the reason to throw out all evidence of gravity?  please be clear here.

No, the quote says, (75 times out of 100) ³, the results varied from Newtonian predicted results.

7.5 times out of 10 to the third.  That means 7.5 times out of 1000.  That works out to 0.75%

Ah yes. I misinterpreted. I just finished my coffee and this is making a lot more sense now.

So we can agree that this was a misinterpretation and .75% isn't evidence of anything more than a delusional person grasping at straws to support the ridiculous theories of a deranged mind, correct?

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 15, 2012, 08:04:24 AM

Quote from: MrT on August 15, 2012, 07:57:44 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 15, 2012, 06:22:06 AM

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 03:51:58 AM

Quote from: Ski on August 03, 2012, 03:19:45 AM

Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

did you just quote a 0.75% failure rate as the reason to throw out all evidence of gravity?  please be clear here.

No, the quote says, (75 times out of 100) ³, the results varied from Newtonian predicted results.

7.5 times out of 10 to the third.  That means 7.5 times out of 1000.  That works out to 0.75%

Ah yes. I misinterpreted. I just finished my coffee and this is making a lot more sense now.

So we can agree that this was a misinterpretation and .75% isn't evidence of anything more than a delusional person grasping at straws to support the ridiculous theories of a deranged mind, correct?

I'll drink to that.

No, I asserted that a .75% deviation is unaccounted for and that Cavendish is wrong. I seriously worry about the world's mean reading comprehension level.

No, I asserted that a .75% deviation is unaccounted for and that Cavendish is wrong. I seriously worry about the world's mean reading comprehension level.

a .75% deviation is WAY more accurate than anything provided by a FEHer.

It's still grasping at straws, and it doesn't "disprove" anything.

What is a FEHer?

It certainly disproves Cavendish and the accepted models. Why are you so obstinately clinging to error?

What is a FEHer?

Someone who believes in the Flat Earth Hypothesis. . .