Traveler and the Strange Tale of the Confounded Experimental Design

[traveler]

I'll give an example of why an experiment that supposedly "proves something" is laughable when looked at from a different point of view.

 

The hammer and the feather on the moon. Supposedly, the experiment is supposed to somehow quantify the notion that all objects fall at the same rate.

 

The hammer and feather were held up above the Moon's surface and released. They appeared to fall at the same rate, supposedly supporting the idea that all objects fall at the same rate, regardless of their mass.

 

Question:

 

If the objects fell at different rates according to the difference in mass between the moon's mass and the object's mass, how much difference in time would there be between dropping a hammer on the moon, and dropping a feather on the moon?

 

Do you honestly expect me to believe that two human hands releasing two different objects at the same height above the moons surface, and using the human eye as a judge would be sufficient to observe the miniscule difference in time of impact between the two objects???

 

I submit the following for a similar test on Earth negating air resistance:

 

Let's just ASSUME the Earth has the mass of 5,974,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg.

 

We are going to compare impact times of two different objects when dropped from an exact height of 16.087 feet.

 

Object A has a mass of 1 kg

Object B has a mass of 10 kg

 

Using the formula A=(L-S)/R2

 

Object A has a "A value" of 371,368,185,491,390,563,809,286.93976503

 

Object B has a "A value" of 371,368,185,491,390,563,809,286.38030708

 

A previous test was done with object A. It was determined that object A took exactly 1 second to impact the ground when dropped from a height of 16.087 feet, which is an acceleration of 32.174 ft/sec^2.

 

 

That means an “A value” of 1, has an acceleration of

32.174/371,368,185,491,390,563,809,286.93976503=

 

.000000000000000000000086636392822469954136118658002141 ft/sec^2

 

If you multiply that by Object B’s “A value”, you find an acceleration of 32.173999999999999999999951530582 ft/sec^2 for object B.

 

Now, let’s look at the time it takes for each object to hit the ground, when dropped from the 16.087 feet.

 

Object A- 1.0000000000000000000000000000000 seconds

Object B- 1.0000000000000000000000007532389 seconds

 

 

 

Can I borrow your stop watch?

 

How massive would object B have to be in order to observe, say, a .001 second difference in impact times with the human eye, as compared to object A?????

Edited October 1, 2008 by traveler

[Klaynos]

Take two balls, one made of lead one one of very light rubber drop them using some electronic release mechanism in an evacuated chamber and they will hit the ground at the same time.

 

This experiment has been conducted.

 

You are again just WRONG.

[traveler]

Take two balls, one made of lead one one of very light rubber drop them using some electronic release mechanism in an evacuated chamber and they will hit the ground at the same time.

 

This experiment has been conducted.

 

You are again just WRONG.

 

Really??

 

What did they use to measure the time?

 

What was the height they were dropped from, what were the masses of the balls, and EXACTLY how long did it take each of them to impact, Klaynos?

 

I mean, if one object impacted .00000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds later than the other, what time device would detect that small of a difference?

Edited October 1, 2008 by traveler

[swansont]

If the objects fell at different rates according to the difference in mass between the moon's mass and the object's mass, how much difference in time would there be between dropping a hammer on the moon, and dropping a feather on the moon?

 

What data do you have to support that this is the case? If acceleration depended on the mass difference, rather than the mass product, how would this affect, say, the planetary orbits and the motion of our moon?

 

The moon experiment wasn't designed to support or disprove this particular conjecture, so your critique of it is without merit. You have proceeded under the apparent assumption that Newton's gravitational law didn't have a massive (as it were) amount of evidence to support it already.

[traveler]

What data do you have to support that this is the case? If acceleration depended on the mass difference, rather than the mass product, how would this affect, say, the planetary orbits and the motion of our moon?

 

The moon experiment wasn't designed to support or disprove this particular conjecture, so your critique of it is without merit. You have proceeded under the apparent assumption that Newton's gravitational law didn't have a massive (as it were) amount of evidence to support it already.

 

What time device have they used in previous experiments that would be capable of detecting the difference between a 1kg object and a 10kg object dropped from 16.087 feet?

 

I asked previously, "How massive would object B have to be in order to observe, say, a .001 second difference in impact times with the human eye, as compared to object A?????"

 

Am I supposed to believe the difference in time for such a small difference in mass between any two objects we could test, as compared to the Earth would be detectable with the human eye? How about a Wal-Mart stop watch? How about the best time device known to man????

 

What data do you have to support that this is the case? If acceleration depended on the mass difference, rather than the mass product, how would this affect, say, the planetary orbits and the motion of our moon?

 

See my formation of a planet idea that was moved to the crackpot section.

Edited October 1, 2008 by traveler

[Edtharan]

I mean, if one object impacted .00000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds later than the other, what time device would detect that small of a difference?

Actually the gravitational field from the mass of the experimenters would probably produce an error this big, or slight variations in the conductivity of the wires used in the sensors, vibrations set up by a passing truck, the fact that there is no prefect vacuum, etc.

 

So, based on the the limits of delectability, all objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum.

 

See my formation of a planet idea that was moved to the crackpot section.

Which has been disproved because it makes predictions that do not occur in reality.

 

Actually this is a form of Bare Assertion fallacy. You are claiming that your planet formation idea proves your gravitational idea, but your planet formation idea requires that your gravitation idea be correct. One can not be used as the only evidence of the other.

 

Can I borrow your stop watch?

Yes, keep going on about stopwatches and the human eye as if this is the only way they measure time. It keeps demonstrating that the only arguments you can filed against accepted science are Strawmen.

 

They DON'T measure these things with stopwatches and human eyes. Publicity stunts (like the hammer and feather on the moon) are not real experiments.

 

In real experiments they would use atomic clocks, and other highly accurate measuring devices. They would also know that there can be errors that creep in (like because the variation in conductance of the electrical wires used in the sensors, the gravity of the moon, the mass of the experimenters, passing trucks, etc). So they do the experiments again and again and again and average them out so as to try to eliminate these errors. Even then, they will include the error rate in the results.

 

According to these highly accurate and highly controlled experiments, all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field.

 

There is also another reason that this should occur: Inertia

 

Now, when you do make the calculations on how much force a hammer experiences due to gravity and how much force a feather experiences, then yes, the hammer does experience more force. However, because the hammer is more massive inertia means that it will experience the same rate of acceleration.

 

F=MA

 

which can be change to give

 

A= F/M

 

Now as the strength of gravity is dependent on the mass of the two objects (note it is not the difference between then masses of the two objects), it turns out that the Mass of the object in the gravitational formula is cancelled by the mass of the object in the Inertia calculations.

 

The only way that the acceleration due to gravity is effected by the mass of the object (rather than the mass of the object causing the acceleration) is if the Mass of the first object in the gravity calculation is different to the mass of that same object in the Inertia calculation.

 

In other words, for the acceleration of an object due to gravity to be different because objects have different mass is for each and every object to have 2 simultaneously different masses. An inertial mass and a gravitational mass.

 

But because the strength of gravity is dependent on the Mass of the object, these two masses (Gravitational and inertial) must be the same thing.

 

Which means that for your proposition (that objects of different masses have different rates of acceleration under gravity), an object has to have two completely different masses that are the actually no different masses.

 

It is a complete contradiction. How can something be the same and at the same time different.

 

It is like saying that the number 2 is different to the number 2. It makes no logical sense.

[Baby Astronaut]

The hammer and feather were held up above the Moon's surface and released. They appeared to fall at the same rate, supposedly supporting the idea that all objects fall at the same rate, regardless of their mass.

 

Do you honestly expect me to believe that two human hands releasing two different objects at the same height above the moons surface, and using the human eye as a judge would be sufficient to observe the miniscule difference in time of impact between the two objects???

 

Really??

I mean, if one object impacted .00000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds later than the other, what time device would detect that small of a difference?

I think I'm seeing the problem here.

 

1. The scientists considered the eyeballed test as proof, which goes against the standards of rigid testing.

 

2. Even if the objects measured as reaching the ground at the same time, how do we know the same would hold true in a finer measurement than currently possible? For example, if the best equipment can only measure at x³ resolution, then what if the objects indeed would hit differently at x¹⁰, but we just don't know it yet?

 

I can even add, what counts as hitting at the same time? The bottom-most atom of each object? Or maybe its bottom-most electron (or quantum particle)?

 

Let's begin with #1.

 

No problem here. Scientists had already made the calculations, and the eyeball test was just a simple display for lots of non-scientists to see. However, no real scientist would accept a test done without precise measurements as fact, regardless of how convincing it looked. The eyeball test was likely just eye candy for enthusiasts.

 

As for #2, it goes back to what Mr Skeptic mentioned about uncountably infinite possibilities. Science needs to be centered around things which have a basis in existing science, and avoid chasing every infinite possibility, unless there is strong indication within an unproven area that further examination of it might hit gold.

 

The rules for science exist for good reasons. There are plenty of scientists that might have a genius idea but are unable to find data that supports their intuition. They probably feel bummed about not being able to convince others to explore the idea, but might dedicate a portion of their lives seeking a calculation or math formula indicating they're "getting warmer" and hopefully get the attention of more scientists. Yet their idea can lost in the shuffle, even if it would've led to a scientific breakthrough, if only they had stumbled upon a good formula to describe it.

 

At first glance it might seem a loss for science, its potential to lose discoveries of great significance that don't get accepted for reasons of insufficient data at the time.

 

But we have philosophy for that, and it might cover your needs of being heard and given credibility. Science doesn't offer that, and science isn't here to babysit unproven assumptions just in case they might really be true. Scientists can and will listen to your ideas, but in respect to science discipline, they'll likely not accept the idea as science if it diverts heavily from the known without proof.

 

Unless of course they work in the cabinet of the prez. I'm sure they'll accept your idea for a bit of $$

 

I can't speak for anyone here, or for scientists in general, as those are just my ideas of how the science disciplines work. But I don't think I'm too far off.

[swansont]

What time device have they used in previous experiments that would be capable of detecting the difference between a 1kg object and a 10kg object dropped from 16.087 feet?

 

I asked previously, "How massive would object B have to be in order to observe, say, a .001 second difference in impact times with the human eye, as compared to object A?????"

 

Am I supposed to believe the difference in time for such a small difference in mass between any two objects we could test, as compared to the Earth would be detectable with the human eye? How about a Wal-Mart stop watch? How about the best time device known to man????

 

It depends on what the purported relationship is between mass and acceleration. If it's linear, and our test mass takes 1 second to fall, then A=0.999B would give you that result. A mass that is several times the mass results in a much bigger difference if the dependence is linear.

 

 

See my formation of a planet idea that was moved to the crackpot section.

 

This isn't a question about planet formation, this is a question about orbits and actual data. And you can't use one speculative argument in support of another.

[JohnB]

See my formation of a planet idea that was moved to the crackpot section.

You have been given a worthy challenge then. Show how your idea can correctly predict reality and give observable results and it will be moved out again. Many of us eagerly await the day that this happens.

And you can't use one speculative argument in support of another.

Unless you're a climate scientist. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

[D H]

Take two balls, one made of lead one one of very light rubber drop them using some electronic release mechanism in an evacuated chamber and they will hit the ground at the same time.

Although Traveler has some things wrong in his post (I'll get to that in a bit), he is correct in the sense that if the two balls have different masses they will not hit at exactly the same time. Even crackpots can be kind of right sometimes. While the two balls will have the exact acceleration toward the Earth, the Earth will have different accelerations toward the two balls. The resulting difference in timing will, however, be unmeasurable.

 

Using the formula A=(L-S)/R2

What formula is this? I assume A is acceleration and R is distance, but what are L and S? Perhaps you meant [math]a_{\text{rel}} = \frac{G(m_1+m_2)}{r^2}[/math]? (Note the difference in sign.)

 

Object A has a "A value" of 371,368,185,491,390,563,809,286.93976503

Units?

 

Now' date=' let’s look at the time it takes for each object to hit the ground, when dropped from the 16.087 feet.

 

Object A- 1.0000000000000000000000000000000 seconds

Object B- 1.0000000000000000000000007532389 seconds[/quote']

Since object B is more massive than object A, it will take will hit the Earth about 0.75 yoctoseconds (I had to look up that prefix) before object A rather than after. A yoctosecond is of course unmeasurable. You have a sign error.

 

How massive would object B have to be in order to observe, say, a .001 second difference in impact times with the human eye, as compared to object A?????

About 1.2e22 kilograms, or 0.002 earth masses, or a rock with a density of 5.5 g/cm³ and a radius of about 1/8 earth radii.

 

 

None of the above counterindicates the equivalence principle. The feather and the large rock will both have the same acceleration toward the Earth from the perspective of an inertial observer. The 1 ms difference in the time of collision results Earth from the Earth having different accelerations toward the feather and the rock.

[Klaynos]

Although Traveler has some things wrong in his post (I'll get to that in a bit), he is correct in the sense that if the two balls have different masses they will not hit at exactly the same time. Even crackpots can be kind of right sometimes. While the two balls will have the exact acceleration toward the Earth, the Earth will have different accelerations toward the two balls. The resulting difference in timing will, however, be unmeasurable.

 

I shall have to admit to having thought of that just after writing my post, but being too tired to change it

[traveler]

DH,

 

A=(L-S)/R2 is my formula that allows one to calculate the acceleration value at any given distance from another object. It's correct as it stands. Let's not forget, as the distance decreases, the acceleration rate increases.

 

I am saying that acceleration due to gravity is caused by the DIFFERENCE between two masses (net force) inversely proportional to the distance between them, hence my formula. There's no sign mistake.

 

Mass of object 13,740,622,863,181,450,860,944.616771213 kg

A value 370,514,040,973,259,063,165,230.02320065

Accel rate 32.1 ft/sec^2

ET 1.0011519844410017265896927326835 seconds

 

Where can I find an object with a mass of 13,740,622,863,181,450,860,944.616771213 kg, and how am I going to lift it to a height of 16.087 feet in order to compare the time of impact to object A, so that I can observe (or measure) a difference of .001 seconds between the two impact times???

 

Does anybody have a suggestion as to how I could test this theory?

Edited October 5, 2008 by traveler

[D H]

DH,

 

A=(L-S)/R2 is my formula that allows one to calculate the acceleration value at any given distance from another object. It's correct as it stands.

No, it is not. First off, you need to define your terms. Secondly, you have a sign error.

I am saying that acceleration due to gravity is caused by the DIFFERENCE between two masses (net force) inversely proportional to the distance between them, hence my formula. There's no sign mistake.

Yes, there is a sign error. The acceleration due to gravity of two massive objects toward one another is [math]\frac{G(m_1+m_2)}r^2[/math]

 

A value 370,514,040,973,259,063,165,230.02320065

Units, please.

 

Does anybody have a suggestion as to how I could test this theory?

Your "theory" is wrong. There is a simple test, however. The Moon has a mass of about 0.0123 Earth masses. If your "theory" were correct, the sidereal period of the Moon's orbit around the Earth would be about [math]2\,\pi\sqrt{\frac{(384400\,\text{km})^3}{G\,M_e (1-0.0123)}}\approx 27.62\,\text{days}[/math]. With the sign correction this becomes 27.28 days. The Moon's sidereal period is actually about 27.32 days. Third body effects (e.g., solar gravity) account for the difference between the simplistic 27.28 day calculation of the length of the sidereal month and the observed 27.32 day-long sidereal month. The difference between 27.62 days and 27.32 days is not explainable by any theory. Your "theory" is wrong.

[traveler]

Your "theory" is wrong. There is a simple test, however. The Moon has a mass of about 0.0123 Earth masses. If your "theory" were correct, the sidereal period of the Moon's orbit around the Earth would be about [math]2\,\pi\sqrt{\frac{(384400\,\text{km})^3}{G\,M_e (1-0.0123)}}\approx 27.62\,\text{days}[/math]. With the sign correction this becomes 27.28 days. The Moon's sidereal period is actually about 27.32 days. Third body effects (e.g., solar gravity) account for the difference between the simplistic 27.28 day calculation of the length of the sidereal month and the observed 27.32 day-long sidereal month. The difference between 27.62 days and 27.32 days is not explainable by any theory. Your "theory" is wrong.

 

How do you know the exact mass of the Earth and Moon, without using previously thought to be known correct formulas to calculate the acceleration of gravity, and ultimately the masses of the two objects?

[swansont]

Does anybody have a suggestion as to how I could test this theory?

 

Compare the orbits of Earth and Venus.

 

Do a Cavendish-type experiment and see if there is attraction when the masses are equal.

 

Although Traveler has some things wrong in his post (I'll get to that in a bit), he is correct in the sense that if the two balls have different masses they will not hit at exactly the same time. Even crackpots can be kind of right sometimes. While the two balls will have the exact acceleration toward the Earth, the Earth will have different accelerations toward the two balls. The resulting difference in timing will, however, be unmeasurable.

 

But you can eliminate this issue by dropping the objects simultaneously, with the earth accelerating toward both of them.

[traveler]

Compare the orbits of Earth and Venus.

 

Do a Cavendish-type experiment and see if there is attraction when the masses are equal.

 

I have already performed a Cavendish type experiment, hence my formula. Cavendish did not test the difference in mass, he simply used two massive objects, going along with the train of thought that Newton's product of the masses was correct. It isn't.

 

My experiment showed that as the difference in the mass increased, so did the acceleration.

[insane_alien]

so, according to your equation, objects of equal mass should not attract each other in the slightest?

 

try the cavendish type experiment with equal masses. if they attract then you are wrong.

[traveler]

so, according to your equation, objects of equal mass should not attract each other in the slightest?

 

Correct, in effect ZERO gravity between objects of the EXACT SAME mass.

 

try the cavendish type experiment with equal masses. if they attract then you are wrong.

 

My apparatus was too sensitive to put that much mass on the beam, and in order to have a massive amount of stationary lead, I could not put that much lead on my beam suspended by very light mono-filament line.

[insane_alien]

who said it had to be a large chunk of lead, any mass would do as long as it was equal.

 

oh and have you looked at orbital periods of binary star systems. especially those with very similarly massed stars. there would be a big difference in predictions from newtonian mechanics and your hypothesis.

 

although seeing as the orbital period of the moon was not enough to convince you then i doubt anything would.

 

[edit] spefically, i want you to analyse the orbits of this star system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/61_Cygni

 

all the data you'll need is in there.

 

and can you define the variables in your equation so we can check your maths?

Edited October 5, 2008 by insane_alien

[D H]

spefically, i want you to analyse the orbits of this star system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/61_Cygni

Nice one.

 

He could also stay a little closer to home and look at the solar system. In particular, explain Jupiter's orbit. If one just used Kepler's third law (which ignores the mass of the planet), one arrives at a sidereal period of 4,335.4 days for Jupiter. Accounting for the mass of Jupiter but still using the simple two-body problem equation [math]T_{\text{jupiter}}=2\,\pi\,\sqrt{\frac{a_{\text{jupiter}}^3}{G(M_{\text{sun}}+M_{\text{jupiter}})}}[/math] one arrives at a period of 4,333.3 days. Using the difference between rather than the sum of the masses yields a sidereal period of 4,337.4 days. The actual value: 4,332.589 days.

 

Relevant data:

G*M_sun = 132,712,440,018 km³/sec²

G*M_jupiter = 126,712,768 km³/sec²

Jupiter mean semimajor axis = 5.20336301 AU

 

Sources: The gravitational parameters are from Table III in http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/de405iom/de405iom.pdf. The mean semimajor axis is from http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html.

[Phi for All]

You have been given a worthy challenge then. Show how your idea can correctly predict reality and give observable results and it will be moved out again. Many of us eagerly await the day that this happens.

This would be the best thing EVER. This site would suddenly be the focus of every scientist from JPL to CERN.

[traveler]

You have been given a worthy challenge then. Show how your idea can correctly predict reality and give observable results and it will be moved out again. Many of us eagerly await the day that this happens.

 

I'm working on it, but the difference is so small I have no means of providing accurate measurements.

 

My math skills are poor, and my scientific knowledge is in the same boat. I was hoping to pass my idea along to the general scientific public with hopes that somebody with enough resources and knowledge would have enough interest in it to help me, rather than immediately dismiss the idea using currently "thought to be known true" formulas, and masses.

[insane_alien]

traveler, the thing is, the formula we have today has been the result of centuries of observations and tests and they are still tested today by looking at other star systems and you know what? they still keep coming out right.

 

you can't just swap over a sign and suddenly proclaim it is better when it doesn't match up to reality at all.

 

now, if you please, calculate the orbital period for 61 cygni using your method like i asked. you will come out with a period likely in the millenia and we know the orbital period of that system down to a few decades.

[ydoaPs]

traveler, the thing is, the formula we have today has been the result of centuries of observations and tests and they are still tested today by looking at other star systems and you know what? they still keep coming out right.

 

you can't just swap over a sign and suddenly proclaim it is better when it doesn't match up to reality at all.

 

now, if you please, calculate the orbital period for 61 cygni using your method like i asked. you will come out with a period likely in the millenia and we know the orbital period of that system down to a few decades.

 

He admitted that he can't do math or science, so you'd have to do it for him. But then, he'd probably claim you fudged the numbers.

[traveler]

traveler, the thing is, the formula we have today has been the result of centuries of observations and tests and they are still tested today by looking at other star systems and you know what? they still keep coming out right.

 

you can't just swap over a sign and suddenly proclaim it is better when it doesn't match up to reality at all.

 

now, if you please, calculate the orbital period for 61 cygni using your method like i asked. you will come out with a period likely in the millenia and we know the orbital period of that system down to a few decades.

 

1. I have no clue how to calculate an orbital period. Does that make you correct? NO!

 

2. Masses were calculated using the formula with the "product" of the masses. You can't proclaim the masses are correct, if the formula is incorrect. There is no way one could know the exact masses of planets, moons, or stars.

 

3. All acceleration is caused by the net force, likewise with gravity. Every test known to man accelerates according to the net force, why should gravity be different?

 

4. My car runs 12.84@110.68 MPH in the 1/4 mile at 3860 lbs. Is it slower if I put a grain of sand in the trunk? ABSOLUTELY, because the net force is lower. Can I prove it? NO! There's no possible way to accurately measure that small of a difference.

Edited October 5, 2008 by traveler