I have already addressed the stationary loop, not once but twice:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2148867#msg2148867https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2153966#msg2153966You and your pal seem to be the only ones yet to realize this fact.
The Cavendish has to be done in VACUUM, just like Dr. Lamoreaux performed his experiment.
Otherwise, one will observe statistical significant deviations in the measurements:
A superconducting gravimeter was used in a laboratory physics problem for the first time in the inverse square law of gravitation. The gravimeter test mass was used to measure the force exerted by a 325 kg source mass as a function of the separation between the masses. The results of the experiment are interpreted in terms of two models of non-Newtonian gravity, and compared to limits established by previous experiments. 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….
P.V. Czipott, 1983
adsabs.Harvard.edu has deleted ALL of the experiments which contradicted the inverse square law in the Cavendish experiment:
A paper by P.V. Moore et. al. from IOP, 1994, no longer available as of 2008. A paper by J.K. Hoskins from ADS, 1981, no longer available as of 2008. A paper by Jean Sivardiere from AIP, 1997, no longer available as of 2008, entitled, "“Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in a Cavendish Experiment”.
"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.
The same applies to Walker and the new experiments. They are incredibly sloppy about mass in an experiment that concerns mass, and yet they always seem to get reliable results. Does no one else find this the least bit strange? All they have to do is block the wind and the experiment provides all the right motions. They can switch it from clockwise to counterclockwise without concern: they still get attraction. They don’t have to worry if one wall is bigger than the other, or if there are magnetic fields in the area, or if they have cameras or ladders in the way, or if they are not square to the wall, or if they are nearer the floor or the ceiling. All these things that you would think might matter in an experiment concerning mass don’t seem to matter. Very curious.
In a world mediated by gravitational attractions of the sort Cavendish envisioned, and that the standard model accepts, this position of balance would be very difficult to find, by either computation or trial and error. Because it is an inverse square field, the field is changing quickly over very short distances, making a walk-about trial and error sort of repositioning all but impossible. But in a repulsion field created by E/M, there is no inverse square law. It is inverse square only if you are dealing with spherical fields, but we are not. And it is inverse quad only if you are dealing with both spheres and relativity, but we are not. In Cavendish we are not dealing with either spherical fields or relativity. We don’t have large distances or large velocities, so relativity is moot. And our walls and ceilings and other objects are mainly flat. This means that they will create bombarding fields that do not diminish over short distances. This makes it quite easy to move about with little rigor and still find a point of balance.
Once this point of balance is found, we simply introduce our large “attracting spheres” and await a motion. But this motion is not caused by attraction. It is caused by blocking repulsion. A gravitational field cannot be blocked, but a basic bombarding field can be blocked, no matter what it is made of. Our large ball simply gets in the way of photons being emitted by the walls. Since the smaller ball is no longer being repulsed from that direction, it moves it that direction, appearing to be attracted by the larger ball. It is that simple. A ball that is closer will block photons more effectively, as will a denser ball, as of lead. In this way, mass and distance considerations mirror those of the expectations of gravity. Move the larger ball farther away and it allows more photons to get by it from more directions. Change either its size or its density, and more photons get past it or through it."
So, BOTH THE CAVENDISH AND THE CASIMIR EXPERIMENTS will display non-Newtonian forces.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.1183.pdfAbstract: We briefly review the experimental bounds on the strength of inverse square
law violating short-range interactions. The contribution of our experiment in this
direction will be presented. The future scope of our experiment to test and constrain
the predictions of fundamental theories will be discussed.
If the inverse square law violating interactions are present due to any of the scenarios mentioned in Chapter 1, they will show up as additional forces in the measurement. Thus, constraints on the strength of these interactions can be obtained by looking at the deviation of the measured Casimir force from the theoretically expected value and attributing it to Yukawa type interactions.
Here is a very precise gravitational experiment performed IN FULL VACUUM, which defies Newton's law of attractive gravitation:
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.