Allegedly "debunking" the Cavendish Experiment

  • B
  • Thread starter DarthOblivious
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Flat earth
  • #1
DarthOblivious
1
0
TL;DR Summary
Someone showed me this and I wanted to know everything that's wrong about it.
A flatearther sent this to me a few months ago. Dude actually thought this... "project" would convince me. I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories at all, but my knowledge of science is very, very modest, so I can't personally scrutinize it properly. Would anyone be kind enough to help?

EDIT: Forgot the link, lol:
(link removed by mentor: non-accredited journal)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It's a waste of time analysing such things as they are generally nonsense.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and DarthOblivious
  • #3
Welcome to PF.

The Cavendish experiment has NOT been debunked, and can be repeated today.

That is a list of possible distractions that, then and now, play no part in the experiment. The list was constructed by a non-scientist, acting as devil's advocate, with the aim of muddying the water of science, with pseudo-science.
 
  • Like
Likes DarthOblivious and PeroK
  • #4
Any work that seriously compares two values with different dimensions (Newton's ##G## and whatever nonsense Spear's ##Ge## is supposed to be) and declares them "very close" can safely be dismissed as the work of a clueless poser. Is 1m "very close to" 1kg? Is 1km "very close to" 1kg? What does it even mean to compare a distance to a weight? If it didn't occur to anybody involved in the publication of that paper to ask the equivalent question about ##G## and ##Ge##, nobody involved has even the most basic grasp of physics.
 
  • Informative
Likes DarthOblivious
  • #5
Don't waste your time arguing with a flatearth person. They will simply not trust your evidence and conclude its all a conspiracy theory to hide the flatness of the Earth.

Closing thread, thanks to everyone who contributed here.
 
  • Like
Likes DarthOblivious and Drakkith

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
9K
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top