ydoaPs Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 How incorrect do you think the formulas are? And why? Of course they're not going to give the exact masses down to the trillionth of a gram, but they're approximations. All of them. Thats what science is: we make models and approximations. We strive to make them better and closer and closer to what reality actually is.
insane_alien Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 1/ so we are now supposed to trust some formula you just made up without doing a mathematical analaysis of the data? really now. well, just calculate the acceleration then, you seemed to be able to do that fine before. 2/ there are many different ways to calculate mass. the formula we used has also proven itself to accurately reflect reality many many times. it is not just assumed to be true. 3/yep, motion due to gravity depends on net force. 4/ cars do not behave the same as stars for a variety of reasons. in this scenario it is due to the rolling friction on the bearings that a heavier car will not be able to reach the same speed as a lighter car. last time i checked, stars don't scoot about space on wheels. this is way way offtopic.
D H Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 I have already performed a Cavendish type experiment, hence my formula. My math skills are poor, and my scientific knowledge is in the same boat. Something doesn't jibe here. In short, I don't believe you have performed a Cavendish experiment.
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 Something doesn't jibe here. In short, I don't believe you have performed a Cavendish experiment. You don't have to believe me, it doesn't affect the reality that I did make my own torsion balance, and used lead fishing weights for the masses. I never said I took precise measurements or performed precise calculations of the exact accelerations. I could clearly see that when I reduced the mass on the beam the acceleration was noticeably greater, rather than staying the same or being lower. In other words, if Newton's "product" of the masses was correct, reducing the mass on the beam should have made the beam accelerate at a lower rate. That was not the case, in fact, the exact opposite occurred.
insane_alien Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 doubt your torsional balance was anywhere near as sensitive as you claimed earlier then. proper sensitive ones have an evacuated chamber, finely calibrated weights and use something a little better(read 'a lot') better than fishing line. so much for you screaming about accuracy in results earlier when you can't be arsed in your own experiments then eh?
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 doubt your torsional balance was anywhere near as sensitive as you claimed earlier then. proper sensitive ones have an evacuated chamber, finely calibrated weights and use something a little better(read 'a lot') better than fishing line. so much for you screaming about accuracy in results earlier when you can't be arsed in your own experiments then eh? I said I couldn't measure the difference, and neither can you, so don't pretend you can. I'm wasn't looking to measure exact accelerations, only to test my idea that putting a smaller mass on the beam would mean a greater acceleration of that mass, as compared to a more massive object on the beam.
insane_alien Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 you do realise that on a torsional beam your looking for the angle its displaced and not how fast it gets there right? also, was it protected from drafts? its entirely feasible that it was just deflected more by a draft otherwise. and a torsional balance isn't the only thing we can do to measure gravitational attraction you know.
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 you do realise that on a torsional beam your looking for the angle its displaced and not how fast it gets there right? also, was it protected from drafts? its entirely feasible that it was just deflected more by a draft otherwise. and a torsional balance isn't the only thing we can do to measure gravitational attraction you know. I was looking for the acceleration of the mass, as in my gravity race example of object A and Object B. That is what I have been talking about, the distance and time an object takes to get from point A to point B, correct?
insane_alien Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 so, you don't actually understand the mechanics behind the cavendish experiment then? well then. i don't see how we can take your results as accurate. oh and you still haven't defined the terms in your equation you posted earlier, still waiting for those.
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 so, you don't actually understand the mechanics behind the cavendish experiment then? well then. i don't see how we can take your results as accurate. oh and you still haven't defined the terms in your equation you posted earlier, still waiting for those. I'm not concerned with what Henry Cavendish did in his experiment, I am talking about using his torsion balance type experiment, using different net masses, which is not what he did, as I already previously mentioned. L is the mass of the large mass. S is the mass of the small mass. R2 is the distance. Sheese, If I pulled up in a tractor trailer, got out, and told you the trailer was full of horny hot brunettes waiting for you, why would you ask me if they're naked? Do I have to do everything for you?
insane_alien Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 are you sure R2 isn't the distance squared? or are you debating the inverse power law as well? and what the hell has a tractor load of horny brunettes got to do with anything?
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 are you sure R2 isn't the distance squared? or are you debating the inverse power law as well? Do the math in my example and see what you come up with.
Sayonara Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 1. I have no clue how to calculate an orbital period. Does that make you correct? NO! You might not be good at calculating but you sure do make me smile. 1
John Cuthber Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 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. Someone did. DH pointed out that, if you were right, the orbits of the planets and satellites would be different (a lot different in the case of Jupiter's orbit of the sun). Since that's observably nonsense they then discounted the idea. You can stop worying about it now.
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 Someone did.DH pointed out that, if you were right, the orbits of the planets and satellites would be different (a lot different in the case of Jupiter's orbit of the sun). Since that's observably nonsense they then discounted the idea. You can stop worying about it now. So what is the exact mass of Jupiter and the Sun? How did you arrive at the figures without using the product of the masses?
insane_alien Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 by using their interactions with other planetary bodies. now, i know you are going to claim that the formulae are inaccurate, so, i will preemptively say that newtonian gravity has been tested using known masses(measure using scales and/or inertia devices) to a very high accuracy and precision much higher than your primitive torsion balance could possibly have achieved. now will you please drop this, your formula has been disproved SEVERAL times in this thread already. particularly with 61 Cygni, that system should not even exist according to your equation as the masses are so similar.
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 by using their interactions with other planetary bodies. now, i know you are going to claim that the formulae are inaccurate, so, i will preemptively say that newtonian gravity has been tested using known masses(measure using scales and/or inertia devices) to a very high accuracy and precision much higher than your primitive torsion balance could possibly have achieved. now will you please drop this, your formula has been disproved SEVERAL times in this thread already. particularly with 61 Cygni, that system should not even exist according to your equation as the masses are so similar. Really? I asked before, what time device was used to measure the time to a degree of accuracy of .0000000000000000000000000000001 seconds??? I'm still waiting for an answer. Those tests were never done accurately because there is not a timer available to measure to the degree of accuracy needed. Also, calculating the mass of planets, stars, and moons using Newton's formula, and then claiming I'm wrong because the numbers don't add up using those "Newtonian calculated masses" is absurd. Tell me the exact masses of the bodies, as accurately measured, not derived from Newton's formula.
ydoaPs Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 As has been shown, you do not need that accuracy to prove you're wrong.
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 As has been shown, you do not need that accuracy to prove you're wrong. Oh, I forgot, they dropped a hammer and a feather on the Moon and they both hit at the same time. :rolleyes:
insane_alien Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 traveller, they have done it using robotic mechanisms and atomicc clocks with much more accuracy than you're experiments. also, the mass of earth can be computed from its density and volume, both relatively easily calculated from seismological data and laser mapping. this agrees with the mass found by newtonian gravity to within the uncertainty due to errors. you're calculations however, fall well outside the error range so do not agree with observed data. So, far you have used logical fallacies and misconceptions to claim science is wrong, just because we can't measure down to a trillion decimal places does not mean that we are off by a couple of thousand trillion units.
Klaynos Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 Masses measured by gravity match up to masses measured by mass spectrometry which uses electric and magnetic fields... As well as IA's point that experiments many many many times more accurate than yours have been conducted.... what are the errors on yours?
D H Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 I'm not concerned with what Henry Cavendish did in his experiment, I am talking about using his torsion balance type experiment, using different net masses, which is not what he did, as I already previously mentioned. L is the mass of the large mass. S is the mass of the small mass. R2 is the distance. If that's the case, your equation A=(L-S)/R2 doesn't even have the right units. Acceleration is not mass/distance. Sheese, If I pulled up in a tractor trailer, got out, and told you the trailer was full of horny hot brunettes waiting for you, why would you ask me if they're naked? Do I have to do everything for you? The stereotypical scientist is an asexual nerd who prefers blondes on the rare occasion that he does feel some stirrings in his loins. Getting serious now, scientists are overwhelmed with crackpots' outrageous claims. Why should they waste their time on a claim that is patently *wrong* (e.g., yours)? I'm wasn't looking to measure exact accelerations, only to test my idea that putting a smaller mass on the beam would mean a greater acceleration of that mass, as compared to a more massive object on the beam. Cavendish' experiment did not measure the acceleration of a moving object. It measured the displacement of a non-moving object. Measuring acceleration is rather difficult to do, isn't particularly precise, and is subject to confounding errors. Measuring displacement is comparatively much easier to accomplish, is much more accurate, and introduces fewer error sources. It is still a tough experiment to set up correctly. So what is the exact mass of Jupiter and the Sun? Red herring. How did you arrive at the figures without using the product of the masses? I looked them up. The people who did the actual work used several things to determine the gravitational parameters1 for Jupiter and the Sun. First off, both Jupiter and the Sun have many small bodies orbiting them. Secondly, they did indeed assume that our best model of gravity2 is correct, at least as far as we know. If the models were not correct, contradictory results would arise in modeling the orbits of various satellites around their planets and the planets around the Sun. The results, instead, are self-consistent. Footnotes: 1 Note that I said "gravitational parameter" rather than mass. The gravitational parameter for some body is the product of the universal gravitational parameter G and the mass of the body. The gravitational parameter is highly observable; we know the gravitational parameter for the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, and Jupiter to many decimal places of accuracy. The universal gravitational constant, on the other hand, is notoriously hard to measure, and thus so are the masses. Astronomers work with G*M directly rather than G and M separately. 2 I mentioned that those at JPL used the best model of gravity to assess the mass of the planets. This is not Newton's law of gravitation. I also mentioned that contradictory results would have arisen if the model was incorrect. An example of a contradictory result: Newton's law of gravity predicts a different value for the precession of Mercury than is observed. Our best model of gravity to date is general relativity, not Newton's law. GR explains the precession of Mercury; Newton's law does not.
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 (edited) Masses measured by gravity match up to masses measured by mass spectrometry which uses electric and magnetic fields... As well as IA's point that experiments many many many times more accurate than yours have been conducted.... what are the errors on yours? I never mentioned actual numbers, nor did I measure them. I decreased the mass on the beam and the acceleration increased. That contradicts Newton's "product" theory. If it was the "product," the acceleration would have stayed the same or decreased when the mass on the beam decreased. That didn't happen. The stereotypical scientist is an asexual nerd who prefers blondes on the rare occasion that he does feel some stirrings in his loins. So you do have a slight sense of humor. There's not one shred of evidence that life is serious. Edited October 5, 2008 by traveler multiple post merged
Klaynos Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 You quoted me but didn't answer all my questions, nice.
traveler Posted October 5, 2008 Author Posted October 5, 2008 You quoted me but didn't answer all my questions, nice. You still haven't answered some of my questions directed towards you in this thread, and I'm still waiting. I don't claim to know everything (actually very little), but that doesn't mean I shouldn't stick to my guns and be rigorous in my claims.
Recommended Posts