Physics Help Forum Cavendish's experiment

 General Physics General Physics Help Forum

 Apr 23rd 2018, 11:51 AM #1 Banned   Join Date: Apr 2018 Posts: 92 Cavendish's experiment Cavendish detected a force of 2 x 10^-6 grams which is a weight less than a dust particle yet the weight measurement uncertainty in 1798 was 1 mg. Also, in the LIGO (2009) a length variation of the armature of 10^-18 m was detected which is smaller than the diameter of an electron. Can someone tell me what is going on? I modern theoretical and experiment physics one big fat hoax? Last edited by lovebunny; Apr 23rd 2018 at 03:30 PM.
 Apr 23rd 2018, 12:19 PM #2 Senior Member   Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 383 Did you mean 10^(-6)? What reason do you have to believe that "the weight measurement uncertainty in 1798 was 1 mg"? Why do you have a difficulty with the idea of detecting a length variation "which is smaller than the diameter of the electron"?
 Apr 23rd 2018, 03:31 PM #3 Banned   Join Date: Apr 2018 Posts: 92 Because there must be some limit and Cavendish also lied previously. To measure a length variation of 10^18 would require to see the measurement which is not physically possible since the most powerful device would be an electron micro. Last edited by lovebunny; Apr 23rd 2018 at 04:11 PM.
Apr 24th 2018, 04:27 AM   #4
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 269
 Originally Posted by lovebunny Cavendish detected a force of 2 x 10^-6 grams which is a weight less than a dust particle yet the weight measurement uncertainty in 1798 was 1 mg. Also, in the LIGO (2009) a length variation of the armature of 10^-18 m was detected which is smaller than the diameter of an electron. Can someone tell me what is going on? I modern theoretical and experiment physics one big fat hoax?
According to the wikipedia page, the measurement variable was not weight, but the change in length of a torsion arm, which was $\displaystyle 0.16 \pm 0.001$ inch using Vernier scales. This probably translates using error propagation in quadrature to the uncertainty in weight.

 Apr 28th 2018, 03:26 PM #5 Banned   Join Date: Apr 2018 Posts: 92 Thank you for confirming my theory since Cavendish's experiment is used to determine Newton's constant that is derived using Newton's gravity equation that uses a Weight (force). Thank you for the justification of my paper title Optica! with your observant and astute comment. Congrads!!
May 1st 2018, 03:09 AM   #6
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 269
 Originally Posted by lovebunny Thank you for confirming my theory since Cavendish's experiment is used to determine Newton's constant that is derived using Newton's gravity equation that uses a Weight (force). Thank you for the justification of my paper title Optica! with your observant and astute comment. Congrads!!
I have done no such thing. I haven't even read your paper. I'm not even in a position to confirm or not historical events around those experiments. I'm also reporting from Wikipedia, which might not be entirely accurate (although the Cavendish page seems well referenced).

However, if you're claiming that Cavendish lied about a measurement, but then your claim is inconsistent with other reports (e.g. from Wikipedia) then something needs to change.

Last edited by benit13; May 1st 2018 at 03:13 AM.

 May 1st 2018, 11:32 AM #7 Banned   Join Date: Apr 2018 Posts: 92 At this infinitesimal moment in time and the earth's orbital path you are the only reason that they (Kindī, Haytham, Shatir, Leibniz, Newton, Joule, Carnot, Fahrenheit, Volts, Amps, Ohms and Coulombs) have existed at all. Who we are is who we were at any point in time (date) and space of the celestial universe (point along the earth's orbital path). Last edited by lovebunny; May 1st 2018 at 12:11 PM.
 May 1st 2018, 01:23 PM #8 Banned   Join Date: Apr 2018 Posts: 92 What you are seeing in Cavendish's experiment you are also seeing in LIGO where a 10^-18 m armature contraction is being experimentally detected which is less than the measurement uncertainty. ALso, we see this in astronomy where galaxies more than 10 ly are described but the maximum distance using a reflection telescope is 1 ly since the reflection telescope is composed of mirror that are composed of matter that would limit the resolution. Why with so many problems are you so certain that theoretical physics is valid? Would you say that regardless 120 years is a short time for theoretical physics to change to a new system?
May 1st 2018, 09:12 PM   #9

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,491
 Originally Posted by lovebunny What you are seeing in Cavendish's experiment you are also seeing in LIGO where a 10^-18 m armature contraction is being experimentally detected which is less than the measurement uncertainty. ALso, we see this in astronomy where galaxies more than 10 ly are described but the maximum distance using a reflection telescope is 1 ly since the reflection telescope is composed of mirror that are composed of matter that would limit the resolution. Why with so many problems are you so certain that theoretical physics is valid? Would you say that regardless 120 years is a short time for theoretical physics to change to a new system?
If you read the papers carefully you will see that they have already addressed the problems you speak of.

More conspiracy stuff.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 Tags cavendish, experiment

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post fizicar Electricity and Magnetism 1 Aug 28th 2014 09:19 AM Troll Theoretical Physics 4 Nov 26th 2013 12:46 PM Sean12345 Nuclear and Particle Physics 2 Apr 16th 2008 07:31 AM