Cavendish Experiment

  • 36 Replies
  • 5347 Views
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 26, 2007, 02:04:38 PM »
Continued from a different thread so as to not disturb it's current discussion.

Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Quote from: "hix45"
Gravity is a force that makes objects round because it pulls towards the center of an object. Oysters apply pressure onto sand and form a ROUND pearl. Coincidence?


Ohh, so Gravity wasn't just randomly pulled out of someone's ass? Unless you can show me a "graviton" or some reason why mass should attract other mass, gravity is ENTIRELY speculation.


Let me direct your attention here.

Please also watch the video here to witness the Cavendish Experiment in action, accelerated because of the length of time it takes. You can clearly see the action of gravity at work here, and I don't see any UA in the works. And you cannot simply dismiss it as conspiracy or that it's already affected by the UA, because the UA is unidirectional and wouldn't affect this experiment in any form.

And to make it noted, there are no external forces acting on the smaller sphere's, as the entire mechanism is contained in Plexiglas.

I'd love to hear how gravity is speculation now. :roll:

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2007, 02:06:35 PM »
It only proves that gravity is plausible, not that it exists on a large level. There is still not explanation as for the mechanics of gravity. Not to mention everyone tries to prove the existence of gravity while already going into the experiment with the belief that it does exist. How can you trust the results?

~D-Draw

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2007, 02:20:00 PM »
I trust the results because of what was shown.

It's the basic's that matter in this, because here you have two objects attracting to one another without any external influences, such as electricity, wind, etc. Basically anything but the hope of gravity. The smaller objects moving simultaneously towards the larger, "sister" objects without said influences is a HIGH indicator of the force we call gravity.

Here's the other reason why I trust it to be gravity.

The objects are not magnetic. If they were, they would have been attracted to the larger objects nearly instantaneously, based on the nature of the 4 natural forces in the Universe: http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm

Electromagnetism is stronger than gravity. If you take a toy magnet (one of those cheap ones) and hold a paper clip to it, the paper clip sticks to the magnet, and does not fall to the ground. This demonstrates how weak of a force gravity is.

That said, if the sphere's were magnetic, they would have been attracted to each other nearly right away. They cannot exhibit weak or strong nuclear force (the forces [don't ask me how or what, I do not know, nor are they overly important to prove or disprove gravity] that hold atomic nuclei and atoms together) due to the scale of the objects, so the only other "logical and obvious" choice is gravity. Which accounts for the amount of time it takes for the smaller sphere's to be directly next to the larger sphere's, because it is still a weak force.

I'm sure that performing the same experiment with the same size "small" sphere's and a pair of much larger sphere's would exhibit the same result's at a slightly faster pace. Which also shows that the earth has to be very massive to hold all of us to it in RE.

Although the experiment does not explain "how" it works, it does very well show that gravity indeed does exist and behaves very much as we have described it since Newton first coined the notion about gravity.

UA cannot be applied here, and it can also be strongly dismissed as the reason and mechanism for gravity on earth. Because otherwise, you would need to apply the UA to the objects in the experiment and I don't think anyone here knows how to do that.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2007, 08:20:27 PM »
/bump

Discuss, dammit.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2007, 08:34:48 PM »
The third shot seems suspicious to me.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2007, 11:40:27 PM »
Explain?

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2007, 08:32:59 AM »
if gravity is not real..

then why do my balls drop?

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2007, 08:35:55 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
The third shot seems suspicious to me.


I haven't run the math, but it looks like there is something funny.  How could it return to center?

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2007, 08:37:35 AM »
because of gravity..

WHY is this not sinking in?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2007, 02:51:38 PM »
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
The third shot seems suspicious to me.


I haven't run the math, but it looks like there is something funny.  How could it return to center?

Exactly. How does the force from the further sphere overcome the force from the closer one?  Gravity is not selectively repulsive.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2007, 03:17:38 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Gravity is not selectively repulsive.


I believe what happened during the third trial was the experimenter moved the balls far enough away so that the dominant force on the balance became the torsion value of the wire.

When doing this experiment, you let the wire unwind completely, and then set up the experiment around the orientation the balance assumes.  In this way, you minimize any torsion effects that the wire may have.  But, as soon as the large masses were moved away, their already weak gravity became negligible, and the torsion balance unwound to the position where the wire is completely un-twisted.  In it's starting position.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2007, 03:23:17 PM »
By the way, the Cavendish experiment has been brought up before.  First by Erasmus:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8562&highlight=torsion+balance#8562

And again by me:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=92030&highlight=#92030

You can see neither topic got very far. . .
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2007, 03:24:19 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
The third shot seems suspicious to me.


I haven't run the math, but it looks like there is something funny.  How could it return to center?

Exactly. How does the force from the further sphere overcome the force from the closer one?  Gravity is not selectively repulsive.


I don't understand your question, could you elaborate? And gravity isn't repulsive at all.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2007, 01:46:55 PM »
As soon as the tensioner was mentioned, they stopped posting. :roll:

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2007, 07:19:48 PM »
Bumpity
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2007, 09:01:37 PM »
boomp.

I mean


bump

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2007, 09:24:41 PM »
Simon Say's "bump".

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3793
  • We are as one.
Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2007, 09:48:40 PM »
Quote from: "Hara Taiki"
Simon Say's "bump".

Simon:  Simon says ... "go play in traffic!"
Kids:  Yaaaaay!

-Robot Chicken, season one.

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2007, 07:59:45 AM »
With the absence of a decent Mod. on this forum, I'm gonna have to tell you to stay on topic and avoid spamming the thread.

There's enough dumb and pointless stuff here as it is.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2007, 08:26:35 AM »
Quote from: "Hara Taiki"
As soon as the tensioner was mentioned, they stopped posting. :roll:


But you didn't.  I'm satisfied with Max's explanation.  What else do you want from us?  

(no jokes please.  Hopefully I can take silence as your response)

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2007, 08:30:39 AM »
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Quote from: "Hara Taiki"
As soon as the tensioner was mentioned, they stopped posting. :roll:


But you didn't.  I'm satisfied with Max's explanation.  What else do you want from us?  

(no jokes please.  Hopefully I can take silence as your response)


I think he wanted a reply either saying

-ok we concede the point

or

-No, we still think you're wrong because so and so.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

?

Tom Bishop

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2007, 08:55:49 AM »
Actually, the Universal Accelerator does not exist in Rowbotham's model. In his model the flat earth has enough mass to have a gravitational pull.

The flat earth doesn't necessarily have to collapse into a ball with the existence of gravity if the structural integrity is good enough. The entire structure can even be spherical in shape, with a flat part on one side.

The UA is only necessary for the "earth as a coin" model.

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2007, 09:36:16 AM »
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Actually, the Universal Accelerator does not exist in Rowbotham's model. In his model the flat earth has enough mass to have a gravitational pull.

The flat earth doesn't necessarily have to collapse into a ball with the existence of gravity if the structural integrity is good enough. The entire structure can even be spherical in shape, with a flat part on one side.

The UA is only necessary for the "earth as a coin" model.


Oh...for......the...love.....of
FE Pwnage Archive

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=8101.0


The Engineer is still a douchebag







.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2007, 12:02:43 PM »
@phaseshifter: You must not know what the meaning and purpose of "bump" is.

@EvilToothPaste: I did mention the tensioner. It's even mentioned it in the webpage which outlines all the specifics of the video. Go take a gander at that.

@Tom: Once again.. you fail. You made no responce to the experiment shown. You saw the UA and that's all you went with. My argument is that if gravity can only exist as the UA, then explain the mechanism at work which attracts the small balls to the big ones over time in the expiriment. So explain how the UA can be applied to the balls to attract in that way. Otherwise the UA is severely flawed.

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2007, 02:36:09 PM »
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Actually, the Universal Accelerator does not exist in Rowbotham's model. In his model the flat earth has enough mass to have a gravitational pull.
which would mean everything is pulled towards the earth's centre of mass which is the north pole. this is clearly not the case, since you can walk upright in places other than the north pole. explain.
tf?

?

Tom Bishop

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #25 on: January 29, 2007, 03:27:34 PM »
Quote
which would mean everything is pulled towards the earth's centre of mass which is the north pole. this is clearly not the case, since you can walk upright in places other than the north pole. explain.


Structural integrity. Everything would be pulled to the center of the flat earth, not the north pole.

Quote
@Tom: Once again.. you fail. You made no responce to the experiment shown. You saw the UA and that's all you went with. My argument is that if gravity can only exist as the UA, then explain the mechanism at work which attracts the small balls to the big ones over time in the expiriment. So explain how the UA can be applied to the balls to attract in that way. Otherwise the UA is severely flawed.


Whatever FE model you look at, gravity still exists. In the earth as a coin model gravity exists. It's just not the primary force that keeps your feet on the ground.

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #26 on: January 29, 2007, 03:37:00 PM »
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Structural integrity. Everything would be pulled to the center of the flat earth, not the north pole.


Actually neither of you are right. If the earth were a plain, regardless of how thick it was, the resulting gravitational field would be in a direction
perp. to the plane, and constant everywhere (so long as you're far from
the edges).

FEers can all breathe a sigh of relief though because due to the effects of
the sides of the plane, this constant  grav field would begin to drop off
above a certain altitude, and will start to resemble the gravitational field
of a sphere as our distance from the plane tends to infinity.

?

Tom Bishop

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2007, 03:38:08 PM »
None of the FE models are 2d planes.

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2007, 03:40:19 PM »
Did I say 2D? I dont think so. That would just be ridiculous
(Notice I menioned thickness)

Cavendish Experiment
« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2007, 03:46:34 PM »
Quote from: "CharlesJohnson"
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Structural integrity. Everything would be pulled to the center of the flat earth, not the north pole.


Actually neither of you are right. If the earth were a plain, regardless of how thick it was, the resulting gravitational field would be in a direction
perp. to the plane, and constant everywhere (so long as you're far from
the edges). blah blah


er......... how?
gravity acts towards the centre of mass. the centre of mass of a cylinder would be directly beneath the middle of the circular face. gravitational pull would be to a point directly beneath the north pole and not underneath any other point.
tf?