The Reproducability of the Cavendish Experiment

Hey,

FET proposes that the Cavendish experiment showed only the results of an imperfect apparatus; that the perceived "universal gravitation" force could have been caused by air currents, or temperature changes, or any number of factors. The Cavendish experiment, however, can and has been performed in middle and high school classroom settings, and can even be set up at home, all yielding the same results within significant digits. What's going on? Is there something about air currents that we don't know?

Thanks!

Hey,

FET proposes that the Cavendish experiment showed only the results of an imperfect apparatus; that the perceived "universal gravitation" force could have been caused by air currents, or temperature changes, or any number of factors. The Cavendish experiment, however, can and has been performed in middle and high school classroom settings, and can even be set up at home, all yielding the same results within significant digits. What's going on? Is there something about air currents that we don't know?

Thanks!

What's going on is simply the same process by which the Society disproves pictures from space - denial.

While this may be true, I'd like to hear from a well-versed supporter of FET, to gain perspective.

Oh they will come, but don't expect an answer that is meaningful or scientific. The first thing that will happen is a moderator will post a warning for me not to pre-empt what the FE'ers will say. But the moderator, despite being well-versed in FET, will not answer your question.

Dinosaur Neil, I just banned you last week for doing literally this exact same thing.  People don't come here to hear how round-earthers think we'll respond to a question.  You aren't "winning anyone over" by jumping on threads and drowning them in negative flat-earth thought.  These people are already on your side.  Now, I'm not warning you anymore for this.  If you want to express your disapproval for how we'll respond, then wait for us to respond.

The first thing that will happen is a moderator will post a warning for me not to pre-empt what the FE'ers will say.

Check.

But the moderator, despite being well-versed in FET, will not answer your question.

Check.

I almost said it would be Pongo, too. Seriously, chill a little. This place is supposed to be fun. If you take light hearted humour such as this to heart so much, I think you've got your priorities wrong. Defend FET on its merits, not by gunning down all those who don't support it.

Hey,

While I don't disagree with any particular point, this thread is really supposed to be about the phenomenon of the Cavendish experiment and its reproducability. If we could stay on topic, that would be great.

Still waiting for an active FET proponent...

Thanks.

Neil, that wasn't a light-hearted comment, it was a dickish comment. Saying it's lighthearted is similar to a school-yard bully saying he's just having fun. Certainly the forum should be fun for you, but you have to be polite and allow others to enjoy themselves as well. Furthermore, the ultimate point of this forum is to further Flat Earth Theory, not to amuse you.

So. Cavendish Experiment. I admit I'm not an expert on this one, I believe Tom Bishop would probably be the best candidate for answering your question, but I believe that his response is that Gravity is not the only universal force, even in RET. There's also the weak and strong nuclear forces and more importantly Electromagnetic force. Electromagnetism is not accounted for in Cavendish and indeed experimenters use metal balls in the experiment. These metal balls are denser and therefore more affected by the supposed gravity, but they are also more subject to static and other electromagentic phenomena.

Also, just saying, but you made this thread at noon on a Wednesday. Most FE'ers are going to be at work right now. I'm only able to answer your question because I'm home with the flu. Have a bit of patience.

Hey,

That's a really good point, especially since gravity is the one force most theoretical physicists are having trouble integrating into the standard particle model.

Maybe I should wait for Tom Bishop on an answer for this one, but claiming that the cause of the Cavendish effect is electromagnetism implies that the Cavendish effect should be a monotonic function on the conductivity of the materials used (as conductive materials polarize better), which so far has been unobserved (you can try it at home with cinder blocks). Is this a fundamental flaw in our understanding of electromagnetism? If so, how does electromagnetism really work?

Thanks!

Out of interest, this question has been kicking around for some time now.

Why are no more FErs taking up the challenge?

Same reason all the others are. It proves them wrong so they ignore it. Like  dinosaur said denial.

I think you're right, and it's a bit of a shame.

The problem is that there is no logical method behind the reasoning that is presented here.  It really is impossible to have an intellectually satisfying debate on these boards.  Instead, you get the feeling that you are talking to a petulant child, who is unwilling to learn.  It's at its most obvious when people refuse to follow links to external websites, or dismiss things out of hand without bothering to argue them properly.

In a way though, I'm glad the site exists.  It's a bit like a child's toy - it allows them to remain active without actually doing anything that might harm anyone.

Its been done to death and is quite a boring topic.

In short even Round Earthers question the validity of Cavendish results.

Here is someone else who thinks Cavendish made a right mess of things. Its nice when scientists agree with FErs.
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Tthe experiment showed an attraction. It makes no attempt to find out what that attraction is. Cavendish just assumed gravity because he was looking for gravity. That is poor science.

Mathis also thinks at the level of sensitivity the experiment is working on, macro forces, such as the static force, would have more of an effect on the experiment than any alleged "gravity". Its also irritating that they always use metallic apparatus. This gives all kinds of problems with forces from all over the place from static to magnetic, conduction, weak radioactive, cosmic rays, microwave ... the list is huge but Cavendish was trying to shoehorn gravity into his Round Earth hypothesis. Ugly ugly science. A Zetetic mind would have started from a point of inquiry and not worked backwards from a flawed hypothesis.

The cavendish experiment has been refined and redone thousands of times, always yielding the same result. So the first time out was not the best, but the conception is what counts.  As previously mentioned in this thread, it can be done with cinder blocks too. Not only metal as you assert Thork.

The cavendish experiment has been refined and redone thousands of times, always yielding the same result.

You are a complete waste of time and energy. You never even bothered to read the link I provided. No wonder you don't know anything. You don't make any effort to learn.

In the very first paragraph it says

Critics of my papers often lead with the argument that famous experiments like this have been repeated thousands of times by professionals and amateurs alike, some of them very smart people. This argument is supposed to imply a sort of statistical power or infallibility by numbers, I suppose. But it should be clear by now that arguments of that sort are astronomically weak.

I will not be putting in any further effort to answer your queries.

Biased but interesting:

http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2010/11/16/grandiose-crackpottery-proves-pi4/

I've made my banana challenge a long time ago now. Guess what - no one has even attempted it. So much for people's confidence in the Cavendish Experiment, I suppose.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 23, 2013, 04:45:34 PM

The cavendish experiment has been refined and redone thousands of times, always yielding the same result.

You are a complete waste of time and energy. You never even bothered to read the link I provided. No wonder you don't know anything. You don't make any effort to learn.

In the very first paragraph it says

Quote from: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Critics of my papers often lead with the argument that famous experiments like this have been repeated thousands of times by professionals and amateurs alike, some of them very smart people. This argument is supposed to imply a sort of statistical power or infallibility by numbers, I suppose. But it should be clear by now that arguments of that sort are astronomically weak.

I will not be putting in any further effort to answer your queries.

I read the paper. I find someone who denies reproducibly accurate results for hundreds of years to be a waste of time. Fortunately we do not have to hang our hat on Cavendish, but its still a good experiment. Nice trolling too Thork. It's a good touch

Quote from: Thork on March 23, 2013, 05:00:19 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 23, 2013, 04:45:34 PM

The cavendish experiment has been refined and redone thousands of times, always yielding the same result.

You are a complete waste of time and energy. You never even bothered to read the link I provided. No wonder you don't know anything. You don't make any effort to learn.

In the very first paragraph it says

Quote from: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Critics of my papers often lead with the argument that famous experiments like this have been repeated thousands of times by professionals and amateurs alike, some of them very smart people. This argument is supposed to imply a sort of statistical power or infallibility by numbers, I suppose. But it should be clear by now that arguments of that sort are astronomically weak.

I will not be putting in any further effort to answer your queries.

I read the paper. I find someone who denies reproducibly accurate results for hundreds of years to be a waste of time. Fortunately we do not have to hang our hat on Cavendish, but its still a good experiment. Nice trolling too Thork. It's a good touch

George Scott Fallacy

Quote from: Rama Set on March 23, 2013, 06:55:40 PM

Quote from: Thork on March 23, 2013, 05:00:19 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 23, 2013, 04:45:34 PM

The cavendish experiment has been refined and redone thousands of times, always yielding the same result.

You are a complete waste of time and energy. You never even bothered to read the link I provided. No wonder you don't know anything. You don't make any effort to learn.

In the very first paragraph it says

Quote from: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Critics of my papers often lead with the argument that famous experiments like this have been repeated thousands of times by professionals and amateurs alike, some of them very smart people. This argument is supposed to imply a sort of statistical power or infallibility by numbers, I suppose. But it should be clear by now that arguments of that sort are astronomically weak.

I will not be putting in any further effort to answer your queries.

I read the paper. I find someone who denies reproducibly accurate results for hundreds of years to be a waste of time. Fortunately we do not have to hang our hat on Cavendish, but its still a good experiment. Nice trolling too Thork. It's a good touch

George Scott Fallacy

You think I don't believe what I said?  Is that what the George Scott fallacy is?

Here is someone else who thinks Cavendish made a right mess of things. Its nice when scientists agree with FErs.
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Seriously?  You're going to trust someone who "proved" that pi=4?
http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html

Quote from: Tausami on March 23, 2013, 07:32:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 23, 2013, 06:55:40 PM

Quote from: Thork on March 23, 2013, 05:00:19 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 23, 2013, 04:45:34 PM

The cavendish experiment has been refined and redone thousands of times, always yielding the same result.

You are a complete waste of time and energy. You never even bothered to read the link I provided. No wonder you don't know anything. You don't make any effort to learn.

In the very first paragraph it says

Quote from: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Critics of my papers often lead with the argument that famous experiments like this have been repeated thousands of times by professionals and amateurs alike, some of them very smart people. This argument is supposed to imply a sort of statistical power or infallibility by numbers, I suppose. But it should be clear by now that arguments of that sort are astronomically weak.

I will not be putting in any further effort to answer your queries.

I read the paper. I find someone who denies reproducibly accurate results for hundreds of years to be a waste of time. Fortunately we do not have to hang our hat on Cavendish, but its still a good experiment. Nice trolling too Thork. It's a good touch

George Scott Fallacy

You think I don't believe what I said?  Is that what the George Scott fallacy is?

You're suggesting that Thork does not believe what he is saying, that he is trolling. Therefore, you are guilty of this fallacy.

Nah, I just thought that his insults were a nice touch of inflammatory posting. Nice try though.

Quote from: Thork on March 23, 2013, 04:06:55 PM

Here is someone else who thinks Cavendish made a right mess of things. Its nice when scientists agree with FErs.
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Seriously?  You're going to trust someone who "proved" that pi=4?
http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html

Sounds like somebody has reinvented mathematics. Now where have I heard that phrase before?