[alright1234 (OP)]

but it is true! I could reword differently every time too.

[Kryptid]

but it is true! I could reword differently every time too.

You need to actually provide evidence. Repeating the claim isn't evidence.

[alright1234 (OP)]

but it is true! I could reword differently every time too.

You need to actually provide evidence. Repeating the claim isn't evidence.

I did. The most actuate measure device in 1797 was a balance that has an uncertainty of 1 mg.

[Kryptid]

I did. The most actuate measure device in 1797 was a balance that has an uncertainty of 1 mg.

You need to go back and re-read the thread.

[alancalverd]

The art of politics is to repeat a lie until the electorate believes it. The downfall of politicians occurs when they believe their own propaganda.

[Bored chemist]

It is not physically possible to measure a 2ug force in 1797 no matter what method you use.

Plainly false, because someone did it.

but it is true! I could reword differently every time too.

You need to actually provide evidence. Repeating the claim isn't evidence.

I did. The most actuate measure device in 1797 was a balance that has an uncertainty of 1 mg.

Nobody is saying he had a balance that could weigh 2µg
I even explained how they avoided the issue of weight.

but it is true! I could reword differently every time too.

Rewording it won't help, because you are wrong.

but it is true! I could reword differently every time too.

You need to actually provide evidence. Repeating the claim isn't evidence.

I did. The most actuate measure device in 1797 was a balance that has an uncertainty of 1 mg.

That's absurd.
It's like saying the fastest carriage back then could only travel at 40 MPH so a bow couldn't fire and arrow  any faster than that.


It's a different process.
It has different limits.

[Colin2B]

It is not physically possible to measure a 2ug force in 1797 no matter what method you use.

The experiment and how the measurements were performed has been explained to you. Your argument that an angle cannot represent a force is fallacious as the mechanism is used in many early scales, angle also measures current in a galvanometer, and in a clock measures time.
It also appears you do not understand integration.
You have also posted unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that deny scientific observation.
We welcome debate on science subjects, but if you are unwilling to learn, or are unable to understand the replies to your posts we will ask you to limit your posting to ‘The Lighter Side’.
To give you time to consider your stance we will activate a temporary ban to start when you return from your honeymoon.
Congratulations on your marriage and we wish you every happiness.

[alright1234 (OP)]

I did. The most actuate measure device in 1797 was a balance that has an uncertainty of 1 mg.

You cannot possible twist a iron rod using a weight equal to a single particle of dust.

To get good a play a piano require repetitive practice.

[alright1234 (OP)]

Also, regarding the Sun gravitation force on the centripetal force would be negligible since using a micro balance the variable of a weight is not observed every 12 hours.

[Bored chemist]

I did. The most actuate measure device in 1797 was a balance that has an uncertainty of 1 mg.

You cannot possible twist a iron rod using a weight equal to a single particle of dust.

To get good a play a piano require repetitive practice.

To get good at playing the piano you need to repeat doing the right thing.
Repeating mistakes doesn't help
"You cannot possible twist a iron rod using a weight equal to a single particle of dust. "
Nobody said you could, so that's something you shouldn't repeat.
And, of course, (per Aristotle) you could- if you used a long enough lever.

[Kryptid]

Also, regarding the Sun gravitation force on the centripetal force would be negligible since using a micro balance the variable of a weight is not observed every 12 hours.

Do you have a reputable source saying that such a variation does not occur?

[alright1234 (OP)]

Also, regarding the Sun gravitation force on the centripetal force would be negligible since using a micro balance the variable of a weight is not observed every 12 hours.

Do you have a reputable source saying that such a variation does not occur?

Hey micro balances.

https://www.hogentogler.com/mettler-toledo/xpe56-microbalance.asp?gclid=CjwKCAjw_MnmBRAoEiwAPRRWW07vSKVNnqv-xVqMBj9H9gki6lYMLCzMct1XwUI-aIa9LBeGtXNEFRoCBXcQAvD_BwE

[Kryptid]

Hey micro balances.

https://www.hogentogler.com/mettler-toledo/xpe56-microbalance.asp?gclid=CjwKCAjw_MnmBRAoEiwAPRRWW07vSKVNnqv-xVqMBj9H9gki6lYMLCzMct1XwUI-aIa9LBeGtXNEFRoCBXcQAvD_BwE

Please quote the part of that which says that the weight of objects placed on that balance do not vary throughout the day.

[Bored chemist]

Hey micro balances.

Microbalances obtain really great stability by a simple trick.
They have a built in calibration weight and a system for using it, automatically, to recalibrate the balance  regularly.
So, if there was a variation over 12 hrs, they wouldn't see it. Again, it would be better if you knew what you were talking about.

None of that matters.
Cavendish did not build a balance.
Do you understand that?

He wasn't wearing anything in his lab.
He didn't build a balance.

[alright1234 (OP)]

How can you sit there an tell ME that it is possible to measure a 2 ug force in 1797? Newton's gravity equation is based on this erroneous and incredulous measurement. Shame.

[Colin2B]

How can you sit there an tell ME that it is possible to measure a 2 ug force in 1797? ........ Shame.

How can you sit there and tell us that you do not understand a piece of technology from 1797. Shame on you that you keep repeating false information.

We welcome intelligent debate, but mindlessly repeating false information is trolling.

It has been explained, repeatedly, how this experiment works, understanding it is not beyond the wit of secondary school pupils.

[Kryptid]

Newton's gravity equation is based on this erroneous and incredulous measurement.

His equation works.

[Bored chemist]

How can you sit there an tell ME that it is possible to measure a 2 ug force in 1797?

In the same way that I can tell you it was possible for someone to climb Everest in 1953.
Someone did it.

How are you not understanding this?

[alright1234 (OP)]

Newton's gravity equation is based on this erroneous and incredulous measurement.

His equation works.

Does Newton's equations work to explain the halve circular path of the CSML to the moon?

[Kryptid]

Does Newton's equations work to explain the halve circular path of the CSML to the moon?

Yes, because gravity pulls on objects that are in free fall. Objects in free fall are weightless. If you don't believe me, try weighing something on a scale while both the scale and object in question are falling in a vacuum. It won't work.