While I find several statements in that essay irritating and debatable and even insulting towards science, I'll at least try to approach the the theory itself with a bit of logic and science.
Quote:
|
On reading the Cavendish paper I was struck by two results. The first entails repulsion. Cavendish discovered that "the arm moved backwards, in the same manner that it before move forward". Gravity is not supposed to involve repulsion. The second result was that after heating one of the weights "the effect was so much increased, that the arm was drawn 14 division aside, instead of about three". Heating one of the weights increased the attraction. I had no problem with this. The heating increased the emission of the weight and when this was absorbed by the other weight it increased the attraction. This is also against the physics law of gravity.
|
While I don't have a copy of the origianl article, I've just done a little research and familiarized myself on how it was conducted. First up, repulsion? I seriously doubt there was any repulsion observed. If the bar was allowed to swing quite freely then it would end up acting like a pendulum, swinging back and forth with the weight as the center of this motion. I think you've misinterpreted Cavendish's description of this motion. Second, heating increases gravitational attraction? I can't debate this as easily, but I'm gussing it was a some sort of mistake on his part. Since I don't have the article, I can't really say any more on what this mistake might have been. But current physics as I understand it says heating or temperature does not affect gravity (or electromagnetism or any other force). Current physics is also based on experiments and observations carried out by thouands of individuals for hundreds of years. This essay is basically saying that everyone who has studied physics for the past 200 years has missed this supposed effect. I have serious doubts about the possibility of that happening...
I must admit that some aspects of this theory are interesting, but I'm not at all convinced that it is correct in the places where it disagrees with current physics.