easy to show Cavendish Experiment is a fake #151 New Physics #260 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I do not know if the Bible starts out with "In the beginnning, let
there be light", but the Bible is mostly fiction with the hints of
some historical truths, but mostly fiction. In the Cavendish
Experiment, we can say: In the beginning of the experiment, let the
first thoughts be logical thoughts.

Physics is the modern day bible. As I keep saying, Science is god, and
god is Science.

Now the Cavendish Experiment is fatally flawed, but of course in 1797,
Henry Cavendish would not have known much about electricity and
magnetism and seek to make sure that his experiment eliminated EM from
his experiment.

I went ahead and redid a mock- Cavendish Experiment with 50 lb steel
weights. I say mock because, not only did Cavendish fail to eliminate
static electricity, in that you can repeat the Cavendish Experiment
and get a torque in the torsion bar without using any weights, and
caused by applying a static electric charge, similar to making the
leaves of a electroscope move.

Let us go back to 1797 and do the Cavendish Experiment properly. We
first start with two balls of either lead or steel, preferably steel.
We suspend the steel balls near one another and independently
suspended. We put them as close together as possible without touching.
We then run a series of tests to see if the proper Cavendish
Experiment is worthwhile or doomed to perpetual failure.

Can the steel balls as they get closer and closer, have an attraction
that is as observable as when we bring two bar magnets closer and
closer, so that we cannot deny the fact that there is an "attraction"?
Not a pseudo wish desire that the Cavendish lead balls attract.

Because in the Cavendish Experiment, as I could easily see from my
mock Cavendish set-up, that I could put a weak magnet on one and both
will visibly come together. But without the magnet, I can never see
them come together.

But there is a worse culprit. The culprit that the ground where any
and all Cavendish type experiments are conducted the ground is moving,
or better, the ground is vibrating. Henry himself complained that as
he was doing the measurement, that the measurement was in oscillation.
So was Cavendish
measuring gravity, or probably, better yet, Cavendish was merely
measuring the jiggling of the ground due to Plate Tectonics of
continents adrift.

Now the Plates in South America are moving about centimeters a year.
The deflection of Cavendish Experiment was 4.1 mm. If Cavendish had
his setup in South America where the ground is noticeably jiggling,
then Cavendish would have had a far different answer. If we set-up
identical Cavendish Experiments, one near Chicago, one where Cavendish
actually did it, one near Tokyo Japan near active fault zone, etc etc,
we can expect all ranges of deflection, not because the experiment is
measuring gravity, but because it is an experiment that cannot exceed
the limitations of the fact that Plate Tectonics is a jiggling motion
that prevents the accuracy of a Cavendish Experiment to properly
function and work right.

So the question of In the Beginning of the Cavendish Experiment, Let
there be the first Logical Question: since the force of Newtonian
gravity is 10^39 weaker than the force of Electricity Magnetism for
which all material objects are composed of EM, then can there be an
experiment of Newtonian gravity that can differentiate out, separate
out the fact that EM is 10^39 stronger, and that one charge imbalance
in the Experiment would make the result a fake result.

What I am saying is that since EM is 10^39 stronger than Newtonian
gravity or General Relativity, that there never can be an experiment
on Earth that separates out EM from gravity as mass attraction. By
Logic, the Cavendish Experiment is an impossibility, to know if that
deflection was an EM deflection or a balancing imperfection or a
jiggling of the ground imperfection.

The take away by a real physicist, is that when all materials have EM
and that EM is 10^39 stronger than Newtonian gravity, that it is
impossible in an experiment to isolate the Newtonian gravity from EM.

The results of Henry Cavendish were make-belief, wish fulfillment
results, but not physics, not science for the experiment is bereft of
logic.

If someone set up the experiment at different locations around Earth,
each would experience different deflections depending on the
seismology of the ground shaking. The experiment can eliminate wind
currents and control the air. But none can control the ground of
jiggling. And none can control the fact that an object is made of EM.

Every one can witness, that no matter how large and massive of two
balls, of steel you make and place them close together, that there
never, ever was a perceptible attraction by Newtonian gravity of one
for the other. But everyone can build the tiniest of bar magnets and
notice that as you bring the two closer together, that the snap at one
another in attraction.

Also, the asteroid Ida and its moon Dactyl. Anyone doing the Cavendish
Experiment and believing it, should look at the asteroid belt, that
all the asteroids should have moons based on Cavendish Experiment, but
the fact is, that gravitational bonding is a rare phenomenon, because,
well, gravity is not Newtonian and that gravity is EM-gravity.

So the Cavendish Experiment is a fairy tale experiment, and not
physics. Physicists should be ashamed of that experiment, not proud.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies