Message from @the21cat
Discord ID: 582628828917268507
😃
lol gravity isnt a force i went over this like 5 times. Theres a difference in the force of gravity and gravity itself but people can't seem to get ahold of it. Since no one explained the cavendish experiment I will. Please don't say stuff till the end of my explanation.
So lets begin with what should happen when everything goes right. you have a rotating frictionless arm with 2 100 kg dense masses on each end and 2 non moving, heavier (to reduce friction on arm because the force of friction increases from more weight) masses 180 degrees apart just so that the rotating arm will barely not touch the masses. The rotating arm is set a little bit away from the masses like 20 degrees, then you let go; in like an hour I would assume it will have rotated a small amount toward the masses and gain kinetic energy because it moving. (Reminder this is in a perfect system where everything is being assumed right right now)...
If it were to rotate it would gain kinetic energy (speed for practical terms in this case) and would either need to have gained energy or have had energy switched from another from another form. If we define our system as the weights and the arm then it shouldn't have gained energy and thus transformed from something which we will call the potential energy of gravity. Its the most reasonable assumption we can make. It is the only isolated variable. (This is still assuming everything said is perfect now)
ok
Well from pendulums we know that potential energy of gravity (or potential energy from being upwards, energy from being lifted, whatever you want to call it, etc) is switched to between kinetic energy and that potential energy (again please keep all comment for the end).
So if all mentioned above is true, the masses will oscillate (as in like the pendulum moving back and forward) continuously. Using measurements from its oscillation would allow people to conclude a mass attracts mass because there would be nothing else to input the energy, and b something im about to find because i forgot to research tha part🤔
oh i missed something
He also had a wire that hung the arm which he could use to see how much torque and therefor force was put on the masses
Since he could actually measure the force of the "attraction" (again bare with me), he could accurately measure Force, mass, time, and distance, which allowed him to plug these things into an equation "Fg" (the force of attraction he measured with the wire) = m1m2"G" (a constant that worked to make one side equal the other)/r (distance)^2
and im now done please comment
im still watching
@Citizen Z Excellent find with that cavendish debunked video.
the only thing it mentioned of serious debunking was air conditioning which he didn't have when he did his experiment
A rinky dink shed is an air tight container? No.
no but it doesn't blow air into the shed
That’s the problem colleges and universities have today. Duplicating an experiment in an enclosed container. To limit any outside interference.
no but it doesn't blow air into the shed
but air being around a shed wont cause the arms to rotate. thats not a force
Obviously you didn’t even watch the video. You’re arguing against something that was just shown how air has an impact on it and can cause the arms to rotate. But an 18th century shed, is air tight in your mind, so I think this is already ridiculous.
also i will say there is no way a pendulum would proves earth rotation thats just flawed
its not air tight but it doesnt have a constant directional air flow into the shed in one direction
And what are you basing that on? As if wind can’t blow against a shed from one direction?
it would prevent any oscillation though without doubt
Ill be gone for a good chunk of the day but post any comments you have and i will respond to them
MASS does not attract MASS..
GRAVITY fallacy once again
Maybe there was an underground river under Cavendishs shed
So cool looks like we lost Derek Nelson to a different topic
The only comment here is wind caused the movement, but people cant say that causes oscillation
Yeah he definetly is
@the21cat You used the Foucault pendulum to infer that mass attracts mass. You’re in your own world if you think that’s what the ‘experiment’ was even about. So, yeah. Not even going to address that.
No i used a pendulum to expain how energy work not even as a part of the experiment