Gravity

Here's a major challenge for the Cult of Gravity:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high-gravitational-constant/

For 200 years, they've been trying to figure out how to measure something that doesn't exist.

This is a major challenge how?

This is a major challenge how?

The centuries-old failure to measure the imaginary force the Cult of Gravity worships.

Here's a major challenge for the Cult of Gravity:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high-gravitational-constant/

For 200 years, they've been trying to figure out how to measure something that doesn't exist.

Not really. The fact that G has been measured for 200 years and comes to within 240 parts per million (that's 0.024% error) implies there is something going on, but we just don't know the exact value of it.

Think of pi. When Zu Chongzhi calculated pi to be 3.141592920, later calculations showed he was off by 2.664 * 10^-7. Not much, but, in the words of your article, "a constant should be constant." If pi was a real constant, why does its value change?

For something like gravity, which isn't just calculation but experimenting to try and find a very, very weak force, having difficulties in narrowing it down to an exact number is to be expected. At that scale a person standing near the experiment can severely alter the results.

Just as our methods of calculating pi have become more exact over time, so will our methods of calculating G. But we're still transitioning from the Zu Chongzhi to Christoph Grienberger.

Oh. I guess a measurement difference of 240/1000000 is physics breaking. My worship of a fictional force that accurately describes universal motions is completely shattered now. I think I'm going to switch over to the side that has measurements differences of 400%.

Not really. The fact that G has been measured for 200 years and comes to within 240 parts per million (that's 0.024% error) implies there is something going on, but we just don't know the exact value of it.

But why can't it be accurately measured? Take any other constant--the speed of light perhaps. I haven't heard any groundbreaking developments in the measuring of the speed of light lately.

Take any other constant--the speed of light perhaps. I haven't heard any groundbreaking developments in the measuring of the speed of light lately.

In 1983 the 17th CGPM redefined the metre thus, "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."[81] As a result of this definition, the value of the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s and has become a defined constant in the SI system of units. Improved experimental techniques do not affect the value of the speed of light in SI units, but instead allow a more precise realization of the metre

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#History

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on September 06, 2013, 08:07:41 AM

Not really. The fact that G has been measured for 200 years and comes to within 240 parts per million (that's 0.024% error) implies there is something going on, but we just don't know the exact value of it.

But why can't it be accurately measured? Take any other constant--the speed of light perhaps. I haven't heard any groundbreaking developments in the measuring of the speed of light lately.

What do you consider accurate? I think our measurements of the value are rather precise, though they can be improved upon. The reason it is extremely difficult to measure is because you can't cancel gravity like, say, the electromagnetic force. Everything in the lab, as well as the entire universe, is effecting the results.

muggs,

why do you think that gaps in scientific knowledge mean that we should disregard it? What is wrong with not knowing things and what is wrong with the pursuit of answering what isn't known?

What do you consider accurate? I think our measurements of the value are rather precise, though they can be improved upon. The reason it is extremely difficult to measure is because you can't cancel gravity like, say, the electromagnetic force. Everything in the lab, as well as the entire universe, is effecting the results.

I think the reason it is difficult to measure is that there is no proof that it exists in the first place.

Quote from: Galactian on September 06, 2013, 08:31:45 AM

What do you consider accurate? I think our measurements of the value are rather precise, though they can be improved upon. The reason it is extremely difficult to measure is because you can't cancel gravity like, say, the electromagnetic force. Everything in the lab, as well as the entire universe, is effecting the results.

I think the reason it is difficult to measure is that there is no proof that it exists in the first place.

Or maybe, and you might want to sit down for this, gravity is a real thing and it is just a difficult thing to measure for the reasons stated above.

And there is proof that it exists.

And there is proof that it exists.

Such as...?

Quote from: REphoenix on September 06, 2013, 12:24:11 PM

And there is proof that it exists.

Such as...?

Three easily observable things that prove gravity:
1. We are pulled to the ground.
2. Orbits.
3. All of the other planets being spheres.

I know FE has explanations for these but this is proof that there is a force. We call this force gravity.

Quote from: muggsybogues1 on September 06, 2013, 12:26:55 PM

Quote from: REphoenix on September 06, 2013, 12:24:11 PM

And there is proof that it exists.

Such as...?

Three easily observable things that prove gravity:
1. We are pulled to the ground.
2. Orbits.
3. All of the other planets being spheres.

I know FE has explanations for these but this is proof that there is a force. We call this force gravity.

It cannot be created, no one knows how or why it should work, and apparently they're not even able to measure it accurately.

Quote from: Galactian on September 06, 2013, 08:31:45 AM

What do you consider accurate? I think our measurements of the value are rather precise, though they can be improved upon. The reason it is extremely difficult to measure is because you can't cancel gravity like, say, the electromagnetic force. Everything in the lab, as well as the entire universe, is effecting the results.

I think the reason it is difficult to measure is that there is no proof that it exists in the first place.

Saying that scientists cannot measure the exact value of G is not the same as saying that scientists can not measure G at all or that the value of G measured is not useful.

The fact that we don't know how something works is not proof against it's existence. All it proves is that we don't know how it works.

The fact that we don't know how something works is not proof against it's existence. All it proves is that we don't know how it works.

And if you cannot describe it, you should not be proclaiming it as a fact.

Quote from: REphoenix on September 06, 2013, 12:36:58 PM

The fact that we don't know how something works is not proof against it's existence. All it proves is that we don't know how it works.

And if you cannot describe it, you should not be proclaiming it as a fact.

I can't tell you exactly how a computer works. I guess I shouldn't think that they work.

Quote from: REphoenix on September 06, 2013, 12:30:39 PM

Quote from: muggsybogues1 on September 06, 2013, 12:26:55 PM

Quote from: REphoenix on September 06, 2013, 12:24:11 PM

And there is proof that it exists.

Such as...?

Three easily observable things that prove gravity:
1. We are pulled to the ground.
2. Orbits.
3. All of the other planets being spheres.

I know FE has explanations for these but this is proof that there is a force. We call this force gravity.

It cannot be created, no one knows how or why it should work, and apparently they're not even able to measure it accurately.

Magnetic force can't be created, either. Are you doubting that magnets are real.

And before you say "Electromagnets!" that's not creating magnetic force. That's using materials to induce a magnetic field. By that argument, we create gravity all the time when we smash particles together and create new particles. By creating new particles we've created the gravitational force between them.

That's a good point Alex. Sometimes I really don't understand how FEers logic works. They say they are zetetic in the sense that they must be able to observe themselves before they can accept. They say they don't believe in gravity because they can't see it (although they can observe what it does). There are many others which we can't sense directly with our sensory organ like electromagnetic force, radio wave, etc.

They say they are also zetetic and yet they come up with ideas which they cannot sense, explain or prove themselves either such as UA, ice wall, dome, weird maps etc. Although I don't always agree with his methods, at least Rowbotham tried to do some experiments and observations himself and presented the explanation in a kids friendly way. But his followers? Nothing. Nada. Rien! Just fallacy.

This is not zetetic. This is a complete denial.

Magnetic force can't be created, either. Are you doubting that magnets are real.

No one knows the mechanism of magnetism. it is just as mysterious as gravity. Magnetic photons are a hypothesis.

And before you say "Electromagnets!" that's not creating magnetic force. That's using materials to induce a magnetic field. By that argument, we create gravity all the time when we smash particles together and create new particles. By creating new particles we've created the gravitational force between them.

False analogy. No one is measuring those particles to ensure that we are "creating gravity."

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on September 06, 2013, 12:57:02 PM

Magnetic force can't be created, either. Are you doubting that magnets are real.

No one knows the mechanism of magnetism. it is just as mysterious as gravity. Magnetic photons are a hypothesis.

Quote

And before you say "Electromagnets!" that's not creating magnetic force. That's using materials to induce a magnetic field. By that argument, we create gravity all the time when we smash particles together and create new particles. By creating new particles we've created the gravitational force between them.

False analogy. No one is measuring those particles to ensure that we are "creating gravity."

So you are doubting the existence of magnetism. Good to know.

And how is using electrons to produce an electro-magnetic field different from using matter to produce a gravitational field?

Magnetism "exists" in the sense that something is pulling metal together at a distance, but the mechanism is unknown. Magnetism can be manipulated on small scale, via electromagnets, metal shavings, etc, demonstrating its property as a surrounding field of some kind.

Gravity, on the other hand, cannot be manipulated at measurable levels to demonstrate its field-like properties. Experiments like the Cavendish Experiment are discredited, since there are forces stronger than the gravitational force not accounted for in the experiments, at the sensitivities necessary for the trials.

Magnetism "exists" in the sense that something is pulling metal together at a distance, but the mechanism is unknown. Magnetism can be manipulated on small scale, via electro-magnets metal shavings, etc, demonstrating its property as a field of some kind.

Gravity, on the other hand, cannot be manipulated at measurable levels to demonstrate its field-like properties. Experiments like the Cavendish Experiment are discredited, since there are forces stronger than the gravitational force not accounted for in the experiments, at the sensitivities necessary for the trials.

Oh, so there's some other force that's bending light around galaxies? Huh. And I didn't know it was magnetism keeping the Moon at such a distance it takes light 2.58 seconds to get there and back. I learn so much in this forum!

I don't see why the optical effects of light which occur in the heavens should have anything to do with the phenomenon which keeps us on the ground.

Gravity doesn't even work in RET's model of the universe. For example; in the Round Earth model stellar systems like galaxies aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies and super clusters has been a challenge to astronomers. Newtonian mechanics and "gravity" predicts that the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is exactly opposite of what is observed.

See this quote from softpedia.com:

"According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."

I don't see why the optical effects of light which occur in the heavens should have anything to do with the phenomenon which keeps us on the ground.

Gravity doesn't even work in RET's model of the universe. For example; in the Round Earth model stellar systems like galaxies aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies and super clusters has been a challenge to astronomers. Newtonian mechanics and "gravity" predicts that the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is exactly opposite of what is observed.

See this quote from softpedia.com:

"According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."

Is there a particular reason why you do not list all the cases where gravitational theory works perfectly?  Is it because it does not help your case?

Is there a particular reason why you do not list all the cases where gravitational theory works perfectly?  Is it because it does not help your case?

Where does it work perfectly? All myths of gravity being applicable to the universe are false. Astronomers can't predict where bodies will be in the sky using gravity alone. Prediction in astronomy is done through looking at patterns in past events to predict future events. Aristotle, for example, could predict the lunar eclipse thousands of years into the future, using tables of past occurrences. This method of prediction via pattern is what is taught in college astronomy today, not any method to predict via gravity.

It is often popularly alleged that the discovery of Neptune is a proof of gravity, but we know  today that Neptune's discovery is not because of gravity.

There is a lot of things we don't know everything about, including gravity. Gravity is simply the apparent attraction of bodies to each other. Studying the phenomena and having difficulty measuring the exact value of G is not discrediting its existence. Nor is an anomaly in places we know little about. It just means there is a lot more to know. It doesn't mean we aren't being pulled into the earth and it sure as hell doesn't mean the earth is a plane accelerating upward.

No one knows the mechanism of magnetism. it is just as mysterious as gravity. Magnetic photons are a hypothesis.

This is the kind of hilarious posts that only Tom Bishop can do. He destroys all the foundation of the FE "theory" in one simple, short sentence and does not even grasp the enormity of his contribution to real science.

As Tom Bishop clearly implies, we don't need any of the four basic forces of nature to be non-mysterious. We can work with them just fine as they are.

And just as Tom Bishop tells us, gravity is mysterious, not non-existent. Forces can be as mysterious as gravity or magnetism, pushing and pulling objects at a distance without us knowing how, and still be as real as the coin I am holding in my hand.

Tom, you are conflating a lack of precision in the two predictions, which requires estimations which will of course make room for error, with a falsification of the theory. Here is a lisylt of some areas gravity is very accurate in its description:

1. Kepler's laws work extremely well and accurately and you may recall being handled by Major Twang on this front last year.

2. Calculation of the tides, also works.

3. The successful prediction of the local gravity of the moon (I would not expect you to cite this, but I sure will).

4. Relativistic frame-dragging by the Earth's rotation.

5. The motion of all falling bodies.

I am sure I could go on if I wanted to.