Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE?

  • 12 Replies
  • 4770 Views
*

ScintillaOfStars

  • 88
  • Hi, Huan.
Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE?
« on: April 25, 2017, 05:54:40 PM »
If such an experiment as the Cavendish Experiment conclusively proved that there is an attraction between masses (gravity), would this convince anyone here that the Earth was round?

This isn't to say that the experiment itself was valid, but theoretically if it were, what would it mean for FET?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE?
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2017, 06:58:57 PM »
Would the Tamarack Mines Experiment convince you that the Earth is inside out?

*

ScintillaOfStars

  • 88
  • Hi, Huan.
Re: Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE?
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2017, 07:03:01 PM »
Would the Tamarack Mines Experiment convince you that the Earth is inside out?

Apologies, but I fail to see your point. No, the experiment would not convince me the Earth is inside out. Would the Cavendish experiment convince you that there is gravity? If not, how would you explain its findings, if and only if it were to be conclusively proven true.

I'm not implying it is true, merely hypothetically positing such.

EDIT: I probably ought to clarify, I believe in FE myself
« Last Edit: April 25, 2017, 07:06:24 PM by ScintillaOfStars »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE?
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2017, 08:19:41 PM »
If such an experiment as the Cavendish Experiment conclusively proved that there is an attraction between masses (gravity), would this convince anyone here that the Earth was round?

This isn't to say that the experiment itself was valid, but theoretically if it were, what would it mean for FET?
Flat earthers often show the results of one observation and claim that it "debunks the globe earth".
But many experiments, no matter how well-intentioned, can have errors, so verification is necessary.

In his post jroa brings up one such case
Would the Tamarack Mines Experiment convince you that the Earth is inside out?
If the experiment was supposed to have so momentous results, then it should have been repeated in other locations to see if results were consistent.
Maybe jroa or someone else would be kind enough to work out how much closer the wires should have been at the bottom of the shaft than at the top.
My calculations show such a small value, that I find it hard to believe that I haven't made a big mistake, but the globe is huge that in 111 km the angle change is only 1°.

But the Cavendish Experiment, being so important was repeated 10 times in the next 100 years
with results, except for 2 cases, within 1% of the present value of G.

Because these experiments are measuring extremely small forces there is great difficulty in getting a very small experimental error.

I have given quite a few references to this in Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity vs Buoyancy « Message by rabinoz on April 20, 2017, 12:48:55 PM ».
These go into the problems and some of the modern methods.

Here I will only give the results of all 61 of the "Cavendish type" experiments done up to the year 2000:

Results of gravitational constant measurements till 2000.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 07:49:54 PM by rabinoz »

*

ScintillaOfStars

  • 88
  • Hi, Huan.
Re: Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE?
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2017, 09:33:38 PM »
If such an experiment as the Cavendish Experiment conclusively proved that there is an attraction between masses (gravity), would this convince anyone here that the Earth was round?

This isn't to say that the experiment itself was valid, but theoretically if it were, what would it mean for FET?
Flat earthers often show the results of one observation and claim that it "debunks the globe earth".
But many experiments, no matter how well-intentioned, can have errors, so verification is necessary.

In his post jroa brings up one such case
Would the Tamarack Mines Experiment convince you that the Earth is inside out?
If the experiment was supposed to have so momentous results, then it should have been repeated in other locations to see if results were consistent.
Maybe jroa or someone else would be kind enough to work out how much closer the wires should have been at the bottom of the shaft than at the top.
My calculations show such a small value, that I find it hard to believe that I haven't made a big mistake, but the globe is huge that in 111 km the angle change is only 1°.

But the Cavendish Experiment, being so important was repeated 10 times in the next 100 years
with results, except for 2 cases, within 1% of the present value of G.

Because these experiments are measuring extremely small forces there is great difficulty in getting a very small experimental error.

I have given quite a few references to this in Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity vs Buoyancy « Message by rabinoz on April 20, 2017, 12:48:55 PM ».
These go into the problems and some of the modern methods.

Here I will only give the results of all 61 of the "Cavendish type" experiments done up to the year 2000:

Results of gravitational constant measurements till 2000.
So would the Cavendish Experiment 'debunk' the flat earth?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7251
Re: Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE?
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2017, 10:16:20 PM »
You can't use the flawed Cavendish experiment.

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

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 doesn't 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 doesn't matter, your set-up is probably wrong.


HERE ARE TWO EXPERIMENTS PERFORMED BY DR. FRANCIS NIPHER AND DR. STEVE LAMOREAUX WHICH DISPROVE THE ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATIONAL MODEL.

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.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)

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.


"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."

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.

Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm


In one of the most celebrated experiments of the past 100 years in physics, Dr. Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University) was able to prove the existence of pressure gravity.


THE LAMOREAUX EFFECT.

Dr. Steve Lamoreaux, Yale University

Inside this vacuum chamber are two small metal plates sitting less than the width of a human hair apart from one another.
To get them that close and not touch, the metal has to be perfectly flat, down almost to the atomic level.
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 )


Terrestrial gravity IS a force of pressure as proven by the experiment carried out by Dr. Lamoreaux.



(starts at 7:50 - Dr. Lamoreaux explains the pushing gravity experiment)

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE?
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2017, 11:28:32 PM »
You can't use the flawed Cavendish experiment.

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.

I know right? Now, instead of doing any real research some people just copy n paste copious amounts of information from the internet and then pretend that they've made a real argument.

It's pathetic, really.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

Re: Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE?
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2017, 11:44:19 PM »
Why do the idiots on this forum go on about an experiment carried out in 1798? Why do these total nobodys try to knock the memory of a really great man. Now Henry Cavendish it could be said was a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic, but he did do some really important scientific work like discovering hydrogen, calculating the mass of the earth etc.
While all  Sandokhan can do is to continue to post mountains of rubbish, all of it the ravings of various crackpots he has discovered on the web.
One the one hand he claims to have disproved Relativity and on the other designed a perpetual motion or energy device made from fridge magnets!


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE?
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2017, 11:45:25 PM »
You can't use the flawed Cavendish experiment.
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
<< miles of copy-pasta >>
I can use the "Cavendish experiment" if I like.
I take little notice of someone who proves by dubious means that π = 4.

Yes, Miles Mathis claims is all down to  ;D magical compensating errors  ;D.
That's a bit strange when those experiments use many different configurations with vertical and horizontal orientations and even one using cold Rubidium atoms and all giving close (though not identical) results.

:P Yes, Mr Sandokhan, pull the other one, it yodels  :P!

It's funny how Newtonian Gravitation actually works in practice.

When all your silly theories seem to end up with impossible chronology
and the sun and presumably the moon and planets, some 12 miles (or km or cubits or something) above the flat earth.

Yet we know that
         radar return echoes from the moon take about 2.5 seconds and
         radar return echoes from the moon take about 5 minutes (one measurement 295.5065 secs).
You, of course are going to tell me that your super-high-density-magical-aether is slowing light down to about 146.19 miles per hour.

So, sorry if my figures are a bit wrong, but it's impossible to find anything buried in your rubbish bin!

Now, go and post your garbage in at least some physics fora so someone qualified can tear it asunder.

Bye bye, have a nice day!

PS Spend your time studying up on your latest hero, Miles Mathis
       RationalWiki, Miles Mathis;D interesting fellow  ;D!
      Thunderbolts Forum, Why Miles Mathis is wrong!



*

disputeone

  • 25601
  • Or should I?
Re: Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE?
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2017, 11:48:36 PM »
What makes you think this isn't a physics forum with qualified people?

Certainly some very intelligent people here.

You can't use the flawed Cavendish experiment.

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.

I know right? Now, instead of doing any real research some people just copy n paste copious amounts of information from the internet and then pretend that they've made a real argument.

It's pathetic, really.

I also hate it when people do that.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns. 

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE?
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2017, 01:28:03 AM »
So would the Cavendish Experiment 'debunk' the flat earth?
It would demolish the "finite disk" flat earth models.

One reason for this is that gravity on a disk will be "vertical" (ie at 90° to the surface) only at the centre of the disk.
As you move towards the edge the direction of gravity gradually starts to tilt so it finally points in towards the centre.
The only reference I could find for this is in a "Vsauce" video

Is Earth Actually Flat? Vsauce
The first bit is not too heavy and from about 0:20 describes gravity on a disk.
If you don't like too much anti-flat earth stuff, you can stop watching anytime. Vsauce does come on pretty "strong" - maybe an acquired taste!

Then, the real killer. Any "clump" of rock bigger than about 400 km in diameter, depending on composition, will collapse into a sphere.
See The asteroidal sphericity limit. Sometimes it's called the potato limit, as smaller asteroids are often "potato shaped".
This is verified by observing the sizes an shapes of asteroids.

John Davis recognises these and his "Infinite Flat Earth" in principle is stable and has uniform gravity, but I fail to see that an infinite flat earth fits any observations.

*

JackBlack

  • 22978
Re: Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE?
« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2017, 01:47:23 AM »
If such an experiment as the Cavendish Experiment conclusively proved that there is an attraction between masses (gravity), would this convince anyone here that the Earth was round?

This isn't to say that the experiment itself was valid, but theoretically if it were, what would it mean for FET?
No, it wouldn't.
It would still leave open the possibility of an infinite Earth or a thin Earth.

*

napoleon

  • 913
  • The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut...
Re: Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE?
« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2017, 02:03:09 AM »
Why do the idiots on this forum go on about an experiment carried out in 1798? Why do these total nobodys try to knock the memory of a really great man. Now Henry Cavendish it could be said was a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic, but he did do some really important scientific work like discovering hydrogen, calculating the mass of the earth etc.
While all  Sandokhan can do is to continue to post mountains of rubbish, all of it the ravings of various crackpots he has discovered on the web.
One the one hand he claims to have disproved Relativity and on the other designed a perpetual motion or energy device made from fridge magnets!
Perhaps we can do the cavendish experiment using Sandman's mountains of rubbish ::) ::)
Never argue with an idiot...
First they will drag you down to their own level,
and then they beat you by experience...