What did Henry Cavendish Measure?

  • 4 Replies


  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
What did Henry Cavendish Measure?
« on: March 14, 2016, 04:53:13 PM »
I have presented essentially the same post numerous times, usually with no response other than questioning Henry Cavendish's character.
Take a look at
Henry Cavendish
A notoriously shy man (it has been postulated that he was autistic[1]), Cavendish was nonetheless distinguished for great accuracy and precision in his researches into the composition of atmospheric air, the properties of different gases, the synthesis of water, the law governing electrical attraction and repulsion, a mechanical theory of heat, and calculations of the density (and hence the mass) of the Earth. His experiment to measure the density of the Earth has come to be known as the Cavendish experiment.

from: Wikipedia, Henry Cavendish
No-one questions Cavendish's other work, yet he gets ridiculed for the "Cavendish Experiment".

So just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?

Some have accused Cavendish of knowing the answer beforehand and guessing the Universal Gravitational Constant G. But, he never set out to measure G, but to "weigh the earth" - find its density.
Newton before him, had no way of knowing this density so he estimated that it might be about the same as the surface rocks - roughly 2,900 kg/m3.
This was all the information Cavendish had to start with. His result of about 5,500 kg/m3 surprised everybody,
but his results have been shown to be within about 1%. Not that bad for such a difficult experiment!

Of course, once the mass of the earth was known G could easily be found, so he effectively measured the Universal Gravitational Constant G.
Now before you dismiss Cavendish[2] (as so many Flat Earthers try to), just remember the value of G determined from the Cavendish experiment was within 1% of the currently accepted value.  You don't get that close by accident! His result was verified in 1873 and numerous times up to the present day.

This table summarises the modern work:

from: Quantum Method Closes in on Gravitational Constant

There have been numerous versions of the Cavendish experiment performed since then.
His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy. 
Most of the measurements were done using variations of the equipment used by Cavendish, though in at least one the equipment was evacuated to minimise interference.
The "atom interferometry" one uses "the minuscule gravitational tug between rubidium atoms and a 516-kilogram array of tungsten cylinders. The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015%" from the same source.

None of this pretends that gravitation is fully understood, but it appears to be a real phenomenon that causes an attractive force between two masses. (Pity we don't know how to reverse it yet!)

When one person does an experiment (like cold fusion or even detecting gravity waves) it might be looked on as interesting, but will not be taken too seriously until it can be shown to be repeatable.
So the results of Cavendish's experiment could easily have been dismissed, had they not been verified so many times.

[1]  Many with "autism" (Aspergers Spectrum Disorder) have extreme capability in a few areas - they are Savants, but have problems interacting with people and that does fit Henry Cavendish!

[2]  Some might argue that Miles Mathis has "debunked" Cavendish, but on reading his paper, I would not give much credence to it.  Mind you Miles Mathis seems to have had little to say on all the modern work, with better equipment and the means to avoid some of the sources of possible error.  In any case many of the "errors" Miles Mathis alludes to are simply constant masses in the vicinity, as no-one has questioned the additive property of gravity.
Another paper by Miles Mathis proves π = 4, and is not "dimensionless".  Interesting fellow, Miles Mathis!

<< tidied up quotes >>
« Last Edit: January 21, 2017, 05:21:13 PM by rabinoz »



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: What did Henry Cavendish Measure?
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2016, 12:19:11 AM »
rabinoz... don't you understand that it takes less than 30 seconds to debunk your failed Cavendish experiment thread?


The Cavendish experiment is routinely included in a short list of the greatest or most elegant experiments ever done. Like all of the other existing dogma, it has surrounded itself with a nearly impenetrable slag heap of boasting and idolatry, most if not all of it sloppy and unanalyzed. This was true even before the internet arose, but now it is true to the nth degree. Like everything else, the Cavendish experiment has added to its armor a thousand Wikipedia-like entries and glosses by a thousand mid-level physics professors. Of the many thousand recent reruns of the experiment, not one appears to have begun with any level of skepticism. Not one is actually set up to test or extend the experiment. Not one starts with the assumption that Cavendish might have been wrong. Despite the stated sacred nature of the scientific method, actually having an open mind about any standard model theory now appears to be equivalent to heresy or sacrilege.

For instance, S.J. Barnett was a professor at UCLA, then went to work at Cal Tech and JPL. He was not some crank or marginal character. And he was not an ancient or outdated character: he was still writing for PRL as late as 1953. He specialized in the field of electromagnetism, and wrote a famous book on electrostatics. He said, Due to the nature of the laws of electrostatics, the experiment of Cavendish is not conclusive.

Likewise, if we have now entered the realm of forces of 10^-10N, we must be a bit more rigorous with our analyses. Let us first return to Cavendish's machine. Although he has a force 1000 times greater, he is still lacking the rigor required at his level of precision. We are told that his wooden bar was six feet long, and that his box was ten feet wide. According to my calculations, that puts the smaller balls only two feet from the walls. Those walls were two feet thick. Even though they were made of wood, a wall two feet thick provides a great deal of mass. It may be that those wooden walls of the box were backed up by brick walls of the shed, adding much more mass. How much mass does a wall 2 feet thick, ten feet tall and ten feet wide, provide? Without knowing the wood type and the construction type, it is impossible to say, but we are in the thousands of pounds. A brick wall one foot wide would double that mass, at least, although the brick wall would obviously be two or three feet farther away from our small lead balls. At any rate, we have absolutely huge masses at no great distances from our machine, a machine that is claiming to measure tiny gravitational attractions. I find this monumentally strange.

Here is another one on Cavendish:

In the original experiment of Cavendish there seems to have been an 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.

Those are two separate margins of error, so they have to multiply. Ten percent times 3 percent. That's a thirty percent error. We don't hear much about that from Wikipedia.

Basically, Cavendish said that because he showed a motion, and because there was no other known explanation for it, it must be gravity. Newer variations on Cavendish do the same. They show a motion, tell us it is not wind (showing us the metal and glass casing to prove it), tell us there is no other explanation for it, so that it must be gravity. They therefore apply the gravitational equation to it, and spit all the old numbers out as supposed proof of something.

But it is proof of nothing. Cavendish didn't even bother to include the weight of his walls. He had a 348 lb ball 9 away, and a multi-thousand pound wall 24 away. Sure, only one point on the wall is 24 away; other parts are varying distances, but the wall is not negligible however you look at it. Cavendish assumes an inverse square law but then doesnt apply it to the greatest masses in the vicinity, even though they are quite near. According to the equation and theory he is trying to use, and that he has been used to prove, he should apply the equation to all the walls, determine force differentials, and go from there. Instead, he just ignores all these things. The fact that he is able to get good results despite ignoring all these things does not imply that his assumptions are all correct, or that it was OK to ignore all these masses. It implies that the motion is not caused in the way he assumes. In an experiment about mass, you should not be able to ignore most mass in the vicinity and still get the same answer. If your set-up doesnt matter, your set-up is probably wrong.

Here are not one, not two, but FOUR DIFFERENT PROOFS, experiments performed by some of the greatest physicists of the 20th century: terrestrial gravity is not related at all to mass.


http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html (experiment carried out by the team of researchers which worked with Dr. Bruce DePalma)

Gyro Drop Experiment

In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity. The elapsed time taken to fall a measured distance of 10.617 feet was measured, with the rotor stopped and also with the rotor spinning at approximately 15,000 RPM.

Data was gathered on a Chronometrics Digital Elapsed Dime Clock measuring 1/10,000 second, actuated by two phototransistor sensors placed in the paths of two light beams which were consecutively interrupted by the edge of the casing of the falling gyroscope.

A fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.

Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.


Spinning Gyroscope Experiment

According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, the greatest astrophysicist of the former Soviet Union, time and rotation are closely interconnected.

In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning.

N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories.

Kozyrev torsion fields: http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html

In the 1970s, in order to verify N.A.Kozyrev's theory, a major research of gyroscopes and gyroscopic systems was conducted by a member of Belarus Academy of Sciences, professor A.I.Veinik. The effect discovered earlier by N.A.Kozyrev was completely confirmed.

Dr. Kozyrev (see The Pendulum of the Universe article in the Sputnik magazine) made sure that his experiments were screened from any factors usually taken into account in such experiments: air currents, mechanical actions/causes, electrical fields, e/m fields.

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields.

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.


Spinning Ball Experiment

Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation.

He set up this experiment using two one-inch diameter pinball machine ball bearings where one was not spinning and one was made to spin at 18,000 rpm by a hand held router motor with cups to hold the balls, one on the spinning shaft and one affixed to the casing of the motor. He then he gave the assembly a thrust at an appropriate angle and in the dark with a 60 cycle strobe light and open camera lens he photographed the parallel trajectories of the two ball bearings. Repeating this numerous times and analyzing the photographs, this experiment showed that there is indeed a variation in the gravitational behavior of the spinning vs non-spinning ball bearing. The spinning ball, given the same thrust, went to a higher point in its trajectory, fell faster and hit the bottom of the trajectory before the non-spinning ball.

The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."

Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher into the air and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics.

The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus “soaking up” more of this energy than its counterpart – energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth.

With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy.

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other [enlightened] researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.

Laevorotatory torsion waves were harnessed/attracted by the high torsion/rotational movement and caused the antigravitational effect: left to its own devices, the ball with no torsion was subjected to the dextrorotatory wave effect, that is, terrestrial gravity.


Vacuum Chamber Pressure of Gravity Experiment


" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

starts at 9:31 (negative energy and pressure gravity experiment)

Dr. Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University)

The zero-point fluctuations of free space won't fit between those plates, as well, so when you bring these two plates together, there are fewer fluctuations between the plates than there are outside the plates.

The force builds up, and it actually gets stronger and stronger as the plates get closer together, and that force we refer to as arising from negative energy.
The zero-point energy fluctuations outside the plates are stronger than those between, so pressure from the outside pushes them together.

Or think of it another way.
The negative energy between the plates expands space around it.

Steve's years of meticulous labor have made him the first person on Earth to have measured a force produced by negative energy.

Negative energy = effect of telluric waves/strings upon matter (see http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9803/9803039.pdf )

Four classic experiments which contradict Newton's alleged law of universal gravitation.

Next time we meet rabinoz, you are going to have to deal with the Biefeld-Brown effect (videos showing that terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity).
« Last Edit: March 16, 2016, 12:21:38 AM by sandokhan »



  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: What did Henry Cavendish Measure?
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2016, 01:26:28 AM »
Next time we meet rabinoz, you are going to have to deal with the Biefeld-Brown effect (videos showing that terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity).

None of it contradicts the fact that
some force was measured, and
the values of "G" were consistent.

On top of that more modern methods are using quantum effects (on Caesium atoms).

Not only that but what effect could fixed walls, and whatever else have? What is measured is the change as the large masses are moved. If Mathis was bothered by that little mass, what about 5.972 × 1024 kg of earth close by?

All the rest of stuff in your wall of text may bring out other effects, like Allias effect might, but hardly denies what has been measured!



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: What did Henry Cavendish Measure?
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2016, 01:59:30 AM »
Mathis' paper explains what the forces involved in the Cavendish experiment actually consist of.

Steve Lamoreaux's vacuum chamber experiment establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the plates are PUSHED TOGETHER by an outside force: ether waves.

Here is the Biefeld-Brown experiment with videos:


Francis Nipher, one of the most distinguished professors of physics of the 20th century, showed that electricity is absolutely linked to terrestrial gravity, thereby invalidating the failed Cavendish experiment.


The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.


The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.



  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: What did Henry Cavendish Measure?
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2016, 02:49:03 AM »

I must admit that I have not been able to study in detail but :
Were the experiments are repeated by other independent workers so there is consensus I will look again.

On the internet there are almost an infinite number of theories on everything from free energy to (yes) various forms of propulsion not needing mass ejection.

Had there been anything in these theories I am sure someone would have made billions from them!
Sorry, I quest "the conspiracy" covered it all up!

By the way if you had a plausible alternate earth model that explained our observations your ideas would carry more weight. It would have to have an infinitely better map than the bi-polar one.