Cavendish experiment

Your arguements would have more weight if you could write in coherent, correctly structured English (well - not really!) ...
Please explain why Focualt's pendulum does not illustrate the rotation of the earth...

Quote from: radioflat on July 03, 2019, 09:17:20 AM

Your arguements would have more weight if you could write in coherent, correctly structured English (well - not really!) ...
Please explain why Focualt's pendulum does not illustrate the rotation of the earth...

Stop to make word salad by using your sentence in two meanings. Focualt's pendulum works like a clock and its mechanism follows the earth rotation as a machine follows the predicted earth's rotation. this is a simulation, nothing to do with the spin of the world. it works with an estimated rotation, completely imaginary. You can also make it run faster or slower. you can also set it to follow the moon or sun. this cannot be proof of anything. but if there is evidence, it follows it. this is not his proof, since clearly there is no proof of the return of the world. oppositely evidences present the earth is stable. Hence Focualt's pendulum is a worthless garbage.

Foucault's Pendulum
Umberto Eco

"You see, Casaubon, even the Pendulum is a false prophet. You look at it, you think it's the only fixed point in the cosmos, but if you detach it from the ceiling of the Conservatoire and hang it in a brothel, it works just the same. And there are other pendulums: there's one in New York, in the UN building, there's one in the science museum in San Francisco, and God knows how many others. Wherever you put it, Foucault's Pendulum swings from a motionless point while the earth rotates beneath it. Every point of the universe is a fixed point: all you have to do is hang the Pendulum from it."

Foucault's pendulum is an easy experiment demonstrating the Earth's rotation. When Léon Foucault first performed the experiment in 1851, the concept that the Earth revolves was nothing new or radical; the pendulum's accomplishment was to provide a proof that did not require minute observations of the stars or other objects far removed from Earth. Foucault's pendulum is a highly localized, easily prepared experiment whose result is clear, powerful, and accessible even to the non-scientist. In short, the pendulum provides everything a science teacher could ask for in an instructional experiment.

So how does it work? The elegant answer is that the pendulum swings in a fixed plane and the Earth rotates beneath it, but this explanation is misleading. At the north or south pole, the pendulum is moving in a fixed plane (if we disregard the fact that the Earth is also revolving through space), so the plane of the pendulum seems to rotate through 360° as the Earth makes one full rotation. At any other point on Earth, however, the point at which the pendulum is attached cannot be considered a "fixed point," because that point also moves as the Earth rotates. The plane in which the pendulum swings is similarly in motion. Because of this, the amount of time that it takes for the pendulum to make one full rotation (with respect to its surroundings) is equal to one sidereal day (23.93 hours) divided by the sine of the latitude of its location. Since sin(0)=0, the plane of a pendulum located at the equator will not appear to move at all.

In order for a pendulum experiment to be accurate, precautions must be made to assure that the pendulum is not acted upon by any outside forces other than gravity. For example, to start the pendulum moving, it is usually held at an angle by a string, which the experimenter then burns to release the pendulum. Letting the pendulum go from one's hands, or even cutting the string, could give the pendulum undesired momentum in a particular direction. A heavy pendulum on a long, rigid wire can continue oscillating for long periods of time, but eventually air resistance will cause the motion to lessen and stop. Museums will often use an electromagnetic drive to keep their pendula moving, because such a setup provides additional energy to the pendulum without affecting its direction of motion.

On Earth, we call the apparent force due to the Earth's rotation the Coriolis force, a force that is mainly responsible for weather patterns and ocean currents. Contrary to popular belief, the Coriolis force does not cause toilets to drain in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres; in fact, this phenomenon is not even real. The direction in which a sink or toilet drains depends on many factors, including any preexisting rotational motion in the water, as well as forces applied when draining begins. In experiments in which the draining is done very carefully—and usually weeks after the water was initially poured—the direction of draining will correspond with the Coriolis force, but these conditions are certainly not present in everyday situations.

Cavendish Experiment is discussed here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment

Strength of gravity shifts – and this time it's serious[/b]]Strength of gravity shifts – and this time it's serious
Did gravity, the force that pins us to Earth’s surface and holds stars together, just shift? Maybe, just maybe. The latest measurement of G, the so-called constant that puts a figure on the gravitational attraction between two objects, has come up higher than the current official value.

Measurements of G are notoriously unreliable, so the constant is in permanent flux and the official value is an average. However, the recent deviation is particularly puzzling, as it is at once starkly different to the official value and yet very similar to a measurement made back in 2001, not what you would expect if the discrepancy was due to random experimental errors.

Notorious big G: The struggle to pin down gravity
Update: On 2 June 2011, Barry Wood’s committee released its new recommended values for the fundamental physical constants. The value for “big G” was reduced by 66 parts per million, and the uncertainty on it increased from 100 parts per million to 120 parts per million.

Invited Review Article: Measurements of the Newtonian constant of gravitation, G
ABSTRACT
By many accounts, the Newtonian constant of gravitation G is the fundamental constant that is most difficult to measure accurately. Over the past three decades, more than a dozen precision measurements of this constant have been performed. However, the scatter of the data points is much larger than the uncertainties assigned to each individual measurement, yielding a Birge ratio of about five. Today, G is known with a relative standard uncertainty of 4.7 × 10⁻⁵, which is several orders of magnitudes greater than the relative uncertainties of other fundamental constants. In this article, various methods to measure G are discussed. A large array of different instruments ranging from the simple torsion balance to the sophisticated atom interferometer can be used to determine G. Some instruments, such as the torsion balance can be used in several different ways. In this article, the advantages and disadvantages of different instruments as well as different methods are discussed. A narrative arc from the historical beginnings of the different methods to their modern implementation is given. Finally, the article ends with a brief overview of the current state of the art and an outlook.

Foucault Pendulum discussed here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

Per those sources, the strength of gravity varies in strength by ten fold when the Cavendish experiment is repeated.

Through these dual experiments, Quinn’s team arrived at a value of 6.67545 X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. That’s 241 parts per million above the standard value of 6.67384(80) X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, which was arrived at by a special task force of the International Council for Science’s Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) (pdf) in 2010 by calculating a weighted average of all the various experimental values.These values differ from one another by as much as 450 ppm of the constant, even though most of them have estimated uncertainties of only about 40 ppm. “Clearly, many of them or most of them are subject either to serious significant errors or grossly underestimated uncertainties,” Quinn says ”

Later that year, experiments that were performed indicated a value that was inconsistently high with those values: 6.674 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2. Multiple teams, using different methods, were getting values for G that conflicted with each other at the 0.15% level, more than ten times the previously reported uncertainties.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/

Quote

Through these dual experiments, Quinn’s team arrived at a value of 6.67545 X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. That’s 241 parts per million above the standard value of 6.67384(80) X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, which was arrived at by a special task force of the International Council for Science’s Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) (pdf) in 2010 by calculating a weighted average of all the various experimental values.These values differ from one another by as much as 450 ppm of the constant, even though most of them have estimated uncertainties of only about 40 ppm. “Clearly, many of them or most of them are subject either to serious significant errors or grossly underestimated uncertainties,” Quinn says ”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/09/06/scientists-admit-embarrassingly-we-dont-know-how-strong-the-force-of-gravity-is/#134781692c3e

Quote

Later that year, experiments that were performed indicated a value that was inconsistently high with those values: 6.674 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2. Multiple teams, using different methods, were getting values for G that conflicted with each other at the 0.15% level, more than ten times the previously reported uncertainties.

Per those sources, the strength of gravity varies in strength by ten fold when the Cavendish experiment is repeated.

Please point out exactly where it states that "the strength of gravity varies in strength by tenfold when the Cavendish experiment is repeated".

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/

Quote

Through these dual experiments, Quinn’s team arrived at a value of 6.67545 X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. That’s 241 parts per million above the standard value of 6.67384(80) X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, which was arrived at by a special task force of the International Council for Science’s Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) (pdf) in 2010 by calculating a weighted average of all the various experimental values.These values differ from one another by as much as 450 ppm of the constant, even though most of them have estimated uncertainties of only about 40 ppm. “Clearly, many of them or most of them are subject either to serious significant errors or grossly underestimated uncertainties,” Quinn says ”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/09/06/scientists-admit-embarrassingly-we-dont-know-how-strong-the-force-of-gravity-is/#134781692c3e

Quote

Later that year, experiments that were performed indicated a value that was inconsistently high with those values: 6.674 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2. Multiple teams, using different methods, were getting values for G that conflicted with each other at the 0.15% level, more than ten times the previously reported uncertainties.

If 'gravity' is not real, why does the Cavendish experiment work then, showing 'gravity' between masses?

Quote from: alex314 on June 24, 2019, 11:35:36 PM

If 'gravity' is not real, why does the Cavendish experiment work then, showing 'gravity' between masses?

A while ago I did the cavendish experiment and shared the video of it so anybody could try it, and some flat earthers agreed that there must be some attractive force between my masses but that it just wasn't gravity.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 03, 2019, 10:20:37 PM

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/

Quote

Through these dual experiments, Quinn’s team arrived at a value of 6.67545 X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. That’s 241 parts per million above the standard value of 6.67384(80) X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, which was arrived at by a special task force of the International Council for Science’s Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) (pdf) in 2010 by calculating a weighted average of all the various experimental values.These values differ from one another by as much as 450 ppm of the constant, even though most of them have estimated uncertainties of only about 40 ppm. “Clearly, many of them or most of them are subject either to serious significant errors or grossly underestimated uncertainties,” Quinn says ”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/09/06/scientists-admit-embarrassingly-we-dont-know-how-strong-the-force-of-gravity-is/#134781692c3e

Quote

Later that year, experiments that were performed indicated a value that was inconsistently high with those values: 6.674 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2. Multiple teams, using different methods, were getting values for G that conflicted with each other at the 0.15% level, more than ten times the previously reported uncertainties.

You claimed this:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 03, 2019, 09:00:21 PM

Per those sources, the strength of gravity varies in strength by ten fold when the Cavendish experiment is repeated.

So, I must ask again!

Quote from: rabinoz on July 03, 2019, 09:42:14 PM

Please point out exactly where it states that "the strength of gravity varies in strength by tenfold when the Cavendish experiment is repeated".

Did tomB actually read the article or did he cherry pick the title and left it at that?

I got you. If I get you true so you are just trying to find a middle course between my objections and priority of others whose make this experiment. The common way here is, of course, to carry out an experiment that takes into account what I say. for, until the discovery of America (once again) 500 years ago, the world was thought to be flat. that is, in fact, the natural anti-thesis of the globularist thesis. once you take the anti-thesis into consideration, you should take into account the counter-thesis arguments that are likely to affect your experiment.

it is not convincing that the lunar effect that is likely to affect the metal ball is not taken into account when conducting these experiments. I think this was used as a method of deception. in other words, the metal cavendish experiment is proof that the world is flat. and it is easy to prove.

1) Select one of the balls as metal.
2) Choose any other material of equal weight to other ball. This time can be concrete. because it contains less metal, the moon will be less affected by the magnetic effect. this allows the metal ball to take more force of moon and move within the same magnetic field.
3) do this experiment at night and when the moon visible.
4) Place the metal ball in the moon direction. it will not move in this case, but it will make a very slow movement following the movement of the moon.
5) Turn the metal ball to a further point in the direction of movement.
6)

a) if the world is spinning; the metal ball must continue move in the same direction as the previous movement.
b) If the effect that causes the ball to rotate is the magnetic field of the moon, the metal ball will move in the opposite direction of its previous movement and return to the moon direction.

this is not definitive evidence for the flat earth, but it proves the magnetic attraction of the moon and proves that the cavendish experiment is not a proof of the spinning of the earth.

Quote

I got you. If I get you true so you are just trying to find a middle course between my objections and priority of others whose make this experiment. The common way here is, of course, to carry out an experiment that takes into account what I say. for, until the discovery of America (once again) 500 years ago, the world was thought to be flat. that is, in fact, the natural anti-thesis of the globularist thesis. once you take the anti-thesis into consideration, you should take into account the counter-thesis arguments that are likely to affect your experiment.

it is not convincing that the lunar effect that is likely to affect the metal ball is not taken into account when conducting these experiments. I think this was used as a method of deception. in other words, the metal cavendish experiment is proof that the world is flat. and it is easy to prove.

1) Select one of the balls as metal.
2) Choose any other material of equal weight to other ball. This time can be concrete. because it contains less metal, the moon will be less affected by the magnetic effect. this allows the metal ball to take more force of moon and move within the same magnetic field.
3) do this experiment at night and when the moon visible.
4) Place the metal ball in the moon direction. it will not move in this case, but it will make a very slow movement following the movement of the moon.
5) Turn the metal ball to a further point in the direction of movement.
6)

a) if the world is spinning; the metal ball must continue move in the same direction as the previous movement.
b) If the effect that causes the ball to rotate is the magnetic field of the moon, the metal ball will move in the opposite direction of its previous movement and return to the moon direction.

this is not definitive evidence for the flat earth, but it proves the magnetic attraction of the moon and proves that the cavendish experiment is not a proof of the spinning of the earth.

There is no Cavendish experiment, that takes the location of the Moon into account.
Furthermore the moon has no strong magnetic field, your claim of such is  wrong.
Any influence from the moon is not possible.

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 04, 2019, 10:00:04 AM

Did tomB actually read the article or did he cherry pick the title and left it at that?

The title reflects the contents. Dr. Siegel woudn't write a title that contradicts the contents. Scientists don't know how strong gravity is because they are getting inconsistent results.

The strength of gravity differs when tested at different times, affected by unknown forces and errors, but we are assured gravity is in there somewhere. Very amusing!

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 04, 2019, 10:00:04 AM

Did tomB actually read the article or did he cherry pick the title and left it at that?

The title reflects the contents. Dr. Siegel woudn't write a title that contradicts the contents. Scientists don't know how strong gravity is because they are getting inconsistent results.

The strength of gravity differs when tested at different times, affected by unknown forces and errors, but we are assured gravity is in there somewhere. Very amusing!

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 04, 2019, 11:04:59 AM

Quote

I got you. If I get you true so you are just trying to find a middle course between my objections and priority of others whose make this experiment. The common way here is, of course, to carry out an experiment that takes into account what I say. for, until the discovery of America (once again) 500 years ago, the world was thought to be flat. that is, in fact, the natural anti-thesis of the globularist thesis. once you take the anti-thesis into consideration, you should take into account the counter-thesis arguments that are likely to affect your experiment.

it is not convincing that the lunar effect that is likely to affect the metal ball is not taken into account when conducting these experiments. I think this was used as a method of deception. in other words, the metal cavendish experiment is proof that the world is flat. and it is easy to prove.

1) Select one of the balls as metal.
2) Choose any other material of equal weight to other ball. This time can be concrete. because it contains less metal, the moon will be less affected by the magnetic effect. this allows the metal ball to take more force of moon and move within the same magnetic field.
3) do this experiment at night and when the moon visible.
4) Place the metal ball in the moon direction. it will not move in this case, but it will make a very slow movement following the movement of the moon.
5) Turn the metal ball to a further point in the direction of movement.
6)

a) if the world is spinning; the metal ball must continue move in the same direction as the previous movement.
b) If the effect that causes the ball to rotate is the magnetic field of the moon, the metal ball will move in the opposite direction of its previous movement and return to the moon direction.

this is not definitive evidence for the flat earth, but it proves the magnetic attraction of the moon and proves that the cavendish experiment is not a proof of the spinning of the earth.

There is no Cavendish experiment, that takes the location of the Moon into account.
Furthermore the moon has no strong magnetic field, your claim of such is  wrong.
Any influence from the moon is not possible.

Cavendish experiment does not take in the account the position of the moon because its function already to find the location of the moon. It simply follows the moon. If you put the metal ball through moon then it works better, otherwise you'll wait a bit more. That's all.

If the moon does not have an attractive effect, how do you explain the tide? So, stop lying. The moon has pressure effect the general objects and has attraction effect on metals. there are both effects. globularist theory accepts its attractive affect, but you are not.

So, wellcome the flat earth movement you newbie.

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 04, 2019, 10:00:04 AM

Did tomB actually read the article or did he cherry pick the title and left it at that?

The title reflects the contents. Dr. Siegel woudn't write a title that contradicts the contents. Scientists don't know how strong gravity is because they are getting inconsistent results.

The strength of gravity differs when tested at different times, affected by unknown forces and errors, but we are assured gravity is in there somewhere. Very amusing!

Per those sources, the strength of gravity varies in strength by ten fold when the Cavendish experiment is repeated.

On the left 61 sets of measurements from 1798 to 2000. Apart from a couple of "outliers" most are within ±1% of the 2018 CODATA value of G = 6.67430 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 Even the very first, by Henry Cavendish himself,       gave the value of G = 6.74 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2       compared to the ‎2018 CODATA Value of G = 6.67430 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. Not too bad for 220 years ago.

Per those sources, the strength of gravity varies in strength by ten fold when the Cavendish experiment is repeated.

Later that year, experiments that were performed indicated a value that was inconsistently high with those values: 6.674 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2. Multiple teams, using different methods, were getting values for G that conflicted with each other at the 0.15% level, more than ten times the previously reported uncertainties.

...

This is why it was such a shock, in 1998, when a very careful team got a result that differed by a spectacular 0.15 from the previous results, when the errors on those earlier results were claimed to be more than a factor of ten below that difference. NIST responded by throwing out the previously stated uncertainties, and values were suddenly truncated to give at most four significant figures, with much larger uncertainties attached.

Through these dual experiments, Quinn’s team arrived at a value of 6.67545 X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. That’s 241 parts per million above the standard value of 6.67384(80) X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, which was arrived at by a special task force of the International Council for Science’s Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) (pdf) in 2010 by calculating a weighted average of all the various experimental values.These values differ from one another by as much as 450 ppm of the constant, even though most of them have estimated uncertainties of only about 40 ppm. “Clearly, many of them or most of them are subject either to serious significant errors or grossly underestimated uncertainties,” Quinn says ”

The gravitational constant “is one of these things we should know,” says Terry Quinn at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Sévres, France, who led the team behind the latest calculation. “It’s embarrassing to have a fundamental constant that we cannot measure how strong it is.”

Although gravity seems like one of the most salient of nature’s forces in our daily lives, it’s actually by far the weakest, making attempts to calculate its strength an uphill battle. “Two one-kilogram masses that are one meter apart attract each other with a force equivalent to the weight of a few human cells,” says University of Washington physicist Jens Gundlach, who worked on a separate 2000 measurement of big G. “Measuring such small forces on kg-objects to 10-4 or 10-5 precision is just not easy. There are a many effects that could overwhelm gravitational effects, and all of these have to be properly understood and taken into account.”

Once again choosing an abstract variance to prove all math is wrong?
Come on now.
6.673 vs 6.675.

Read the article.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/09/06/scientists-admit-embarrassingly-we-dont-know-how-strong-the-force-of-gravity-is/#7cd5d2392c3e

Quote

Later that year, experiments that were performed indicated a value that was inconsistently high with those values: 6.674 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2. Multiple teams, using different methods, were getting values for G that conflicted with each other at the 0.15% level, more than ten times the previously reported uncertainties.
...
This is why it was such a shock, in 1998, when a very careful team got a result that differed by a spectacular 0.15 from the previous results, when the errors on those earlier results were claimed to be more than a factor of ten below that difference. NIST responded by throwing out the previously stated uncertainties, and values were suddenly truncated to give at most four significant figures, with much larger uncertainties attached.

It says that while the values are small, it's 10 times the expected uncertainties. 0.015% is considered significant.

Clearly, many of them or most of them are subject either to serious significant errors or grossly underestimated uncertainties, Quinn says.

The experiment is measuring something with the weight of a few cells, so of course these numbers are going to be "small."

Dr. Siegel says that scientists don't know how strong gravity is and that it's an embarrassment for them. Why should anyone trust an internet opinion who presents zero sources for their interpretation over Dr. Siegel?

Once again:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/

Quote

Through these dual experiments, Quinn’s team arrived at a value of 6.67545 X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. That’s 241 parts per million above the standard value of 6.67384(80) X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, which was arrived at by a special task force of the International Council for Science’s Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) (pdf) in 2010 by calculating a weighted average of all the various experimental values.These values differ from one another by as much as 450 ppm of the constant, even though most of them have estimated uncertainties of only about 40 ppm. “Clearly, many of them or most of them are subject either to serious significant errors or grossly underestimated uncertainties,” Quinn says ”

Serious significant errors. Who should we trust, a physcists who says that there are serious and significant errors or rabinoz who provides zero sources except for his own uncredentialed opinion?

Per those sources, the strength of gravity varies in strength by ten fold when the Cavendish experiment is repeated.

Scientific American:

Quote

The gravitational constant “is one of these things we should know,” says Terry Quinn at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Sévres, France, who led the team behind the latest calculation. “It’s embarrassing to have a fundamental constant that we cannot measure how strong it is.”

Once again, you have provided zero sources to back up your opinion about the smallness of these numbers and their meaning, or anything to rebut these articles which say that the errors are significant.

Scientific American:

Quote

Although gravity seems like one of the most salient of nature’s forces in our daily lives, it’s actually by far the weakest, making attempts to calculate its strength an uphill battle. “Two one-kilogram masses that are one meter apart attract each other with a force equivalent to the weight of a few human cells,” says University of Washington physicist Jens Gundlach, who worked on a separate 2000 measurement of big G. “Measuring such small forces on kg-objects to 10-4 or 10-5 precision is just not easy. There are a many effects that could overwhelm gravitational effects, and all of these have to be properly understood and taken into account.”

There are many forces which could overwhelm the gravitational effect. They are admitting that there are other more dominant forces involved affecting the result.

Per those sources, the strength of gravity varies in strength by ten fold when the Cavendish experiment is repeated.

Once more, you guys provide no sources which contradict the physcists working on this, who say that it is significant, and who admit that it is an embarrassment, other than your own uninformed internet opinion.

Per those sources, the strength of gravity varies in strength by ten fold when the Cavendish experiment is repeated.

In order to contradict those sources you should find a physcists who says that they are wrong.

Again, you fail to provide a proper source other than you own opinion that the physcists are wrong that it is significant and an embarrassment.

You do not know how this works. Your opinions and "thoughts" mean nothing. You need to corroborate yourself with preferably multiple sources.

Once again, you fail to provide a source than your own opinion for why those physcists are wrong.

Per those sources, the strength of gravity varies in strength by ten fold when the Cavendish experiment is repeated.

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 04, 2019, 09:10:01 PM

Once again choosing an abstract variance to prove all math is wrong?
Come on now.
6.673 vs 6.675.

The measurement involves trying to determine something around the the weight of a few cells. The results are over ten times the expected uncertainties. The numbers will be "small" but significant because it shows that the test has not properly removed all sources and forces of error.

Once more, you guys provide no sources which contradict the physcists working on this, who say that it is significant, and who admit that it is an embarrassment, other than your own uninformed internet opinion. In order to contradict those sources you should find a physcists who says that they are wrong.