Cavendish experiment

If 'gravity' is not real, why does the Cavendish experiment work then, showing 'gravity' between masses?

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

Wise, when you can explain how the coastline of Antarctica can be thousands of kilometers shorter than the coastline of Australia, yet Antarctica is a wall of ice on your flat earth map encircling every land mass on earth, maybe you'll be qualified to state the Cavendish experiment doesn't work. Go for it, champ...

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

To save a bit of everyone's time, what criteria would we have to meet to satisfy you that the experiment was completely fair? I mean I can easily find a video of someone performing this on YouTube, but I have the feeling you'd dismiss it straight away for one or other reason, so if you could give us a list of common manipulations to look out for, it would help narrow the search. For a start, do you object to video evidence on principle? In which case I'll give up right now.

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 01:17:22 AM

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

To save a bit of everyone's time, what criteria would we have to meet to satisfy you that the experiment was completely fair? I mean I can easily find a video of someone performing this on YouTube, but I have the feeling you'd dismiss it straight away for one or other reason, so if you could give us a list of common manipulations to look out for, it would help narrow the search. For a start, do you object to video evidence on principle? In which case I'll give up right now.

Video evidence can be acceptable depends on their complete the scientific criterias.

Scientific experiment has to be; reproducible, understandable, and unobjectionable.

We can explain it in two steps:

1- fair and objective; includes taking into account opposite views and objections.
2- repeatable by everybody.

here, first of all, it is necessary to say that because you are involved in this discussion, because you don't like what I say, leaving the discussion and leaving you won't do anything. I don't have to lose an argument to win you. So I will say that I know right here, regardless of your attitude.

I'll say the last things to say now because to save everybody's time a bit.

the cavernity test does not have the conditions of being "fair and objective". Because: Moon is known to attract metals. on the basis of this situation, cupping method has been aplied since thousands of years. this is known from the applications. You can find these people around everywhere. you can appeal to it. there are many people who think so, and this appeal has to be considered. taking this into account provides the "unobjectionable" requirement. but in contrast to this requirement, the balls in the test are selected from metal balls and subjected to the lunar effect. As the moon rotates continuously, it is certain that it will cause rotation in the balls due to the magnetic attraction effect. for this, first of all, these balls must be wood, not metal. So;

CONDITION 1: Wooden balls have to be used, instead of metal.

CONDITION 2: The object to which the rope is attached must be proved to be stationary, immobile and not connected to any mechanism. in many cases it is seen that the part to which the rope is attached is hidden.

CONDITION 3:  the building must be proved being stationary.

CONDITION 4:  it should be proved that there is no wind effect in the building.

CONDITION 5: people must be at a distance that they cannot move by blowing into spheres.

CONDITION 6: video of the test sphere, rope, inside and outside of the building with multiple devices in 3-D format has to be.

That's all I can think of for now. however, these conditions can be increased by looking at the example. What is important here is that the experiment takes place with certainty that it will "cause no doubt". It has to be unobjectionable. to date, I have never seen such a scientific test in benefits of globularist theory. because they are "supposed" scientists. you are now facing the true one for the first time. one day our capabilities will increase then you'll meet the real experiments.

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

I worked in Electrotechnical School "Nikola Tesla" for 11 years (1984 - 1995).
"Cavendish" is one of the basic physics experiments.
We did it every year with every new generation of students.
It worked every time.

EDIT: At that time nobody had a digital camera, not to mention a smartphone.
But schools still do the experiment, and people can find lot of videos on YouTube.
One just has to go there and search for, say, "cavendish experiment at school".

For those interested here is a review paper on the measurement of G: Invited Review Article: Measurements of the Newtonian constant of gravitation, G.

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 01:17:22 AM

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

I worked in Electrotechnical School "Nikola Tesla" for 11 years (1984 - 1995).
"Cavendish" is one of the basic physics experiments.
We did it every year with every new generation of students.
It worked every time.

EDIT: At that time nobody had a digital camera, not to mention a smartphone.
But schools still do the experiment, and people can find lot of videos on YouTube.
One just has to go there and search for, say, "cavendish experiment at school".

Your working on fake experiment since years can not be an evidence of this experiment; just an evidence of your ignorance. reading too much does not diminish your ignorance without you evaluate the events, only allows you to tell more stories.

this is not an experiment. is the "moon clock" indicating the position of the month. If one of the spheres is metal and the other wood works better as a "moon clock". if the metal ball remains to the left of the moon, it moves to the right; vice versa causes opposite rotation. this so called experiment has has nothing to do with the lie of earth' movement.

If you find the correct position of the moon, you will make the cupping better. Since the metals are collected outside the skin on the moon side, the more effective results are obtained if the place of the coupling is where body turned to the moon position.

Quote from: Macarios on June 25, 2019, 02:50:29 AM

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 01:17:22 AM

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

I worked in Electrotechnical School "Nikola Tesla" for 11 years (1984 - 1995).
"Cavendish" is one of the basic physics experiments.
We did it every year with every new generation of students.
It worked every time.

EDIT: At that time nobody had a digital camera, not to mention a smartphone.
But schools still do the experiment, and people can find lot of videos on YouTube.
One just has to go there and search for, say, "cavendish experiment at school".

Your working on fake experiment since years can not be an evidence of this experiment; just an evidence of your ignorance. reading too much does not diminish your ignorance, only allows you to tell more stories.

this is not an experiment. is the "moon clock" indicating the position of the month. If one of the spheres is metal and the other wood works better. if the metal ball remains to the left of the moon, it moves to the right; the world has nothing to do with the lie of movement.

I was there and it worked every time.
You were not there and you dare to say "it doesn't work"?

And you have guts to talk about someone else's "ignorance"?
What about your own?

Let me tell you again: "Smart is not the one who knows, smart is the one who learns."

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 03:10:52 AM

Quote from: Macarios on June 25, 2019, 02:50:29 AM

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 01:17:22 AM

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

I worked in Electrotechnical School "Nikola Tesla" for 11 years (1984 - 1995).
"Cavendish" is one of the basic physics experiments.
We did it every year with every new generation of students.
It worked every time.

EDIT: At that time nobody had a digital camera, not to mention a smartphone.
But schools still do the experiment, and people can find lot of videos on YouTube.
One just has to go there and search for, say, "cavendish experiment at school".

Your working on fake experiment since years can not be an evidence of this experiment; just an evidence of your ignorance. reading too much does not diminish your ignorance, only allows you to tell more stories.

this is not an experiment. is the "moon clock" indicating the position of the month. If one of the spheres is metal and the other wood works better. if the metal ball remains to the left of the moon, it moves to the right; the world has nothing to do with the lie of movement.

I was there and it worked every time.
You were not there and you dare to say "it doesn't work"?

And you have guts to talk about someone else's "ignorance"?
What about your own?

Let me tell you again: "Smart is not the one who knows, smart is the one who learns."

Your claiming its work does not magically it works. it is obvious that it is doing a job, but this is not true working. If you have learned what I wrote above, then you are knowledgeable. Did you learn the terms of the "scientific experiment" I gave above? do you have an objection to them. Did you apply these terms? Your transfer of a magical experience without relying on any technical data without removing any objections does not contribute to the reliability of this experiment. it is still a fake experiment and only a month clock.

if you're too ignorant to do not see that the balls being a metal can destroy the reliability of the experiment because of some magnetic problems, so my saying is only a "due diligence".

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

I have witnessed that experiment myself in university.

Let me tell you again: "Smart is not the one who knows, smart is the one who learns."

That is smart!

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 01:17:22 AM

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

I have witnessed that experiment myself in university.

Didn't you take a course called electromagnetic? Didn't you tell this experiment wasn't reliable? Or did you watch it with chips and coke in your hand like watching a football game?

Quote from: Macarios on June 25, 2019, 03:19:58 AM

Let me tell you again: "Smart is not the one who knows, smart is the one who learns."

That is smart!

Reported because of low content.

Quote from: alex314 on June 25, 2019, 03:44:09 AM

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 01:17:22 AM

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

I have witnessed that experiment myself in university.

Didn't you take a course called electromagnetic? Didn't you tell this experiment wasn't reliable?

Quote from: Macarios on June 25, 2019, 03:19:58 AM

Let me tell you again: "Smart is not the one who knows, smart is the one who learns."

Wise, have you either done a Cavendish type experiment yourself or at least seen it performed?

If you haven't, you have no grounds to claim that the hundreds of laboratory quality experiments and thousands of demonstrations are invalid unless you can show in detail their flaws.

You are just making yourself look foolish by making the claims you do of things you know nothing about.

Your claiming its work does not magically it works.

You would be happy to prevent it from working, wouldn't you?
You can hate it all you want, but you can't stop it.

I couldn't help noticing how poorly written the flat earth wiki segment on the Cavendish experiment is. Wise, did you or your husband Jane write this chapter? 

"When institutions have reproduced this experiment with modern methods involving lasers and instruments of the highest precision, however, the detection of gravity has been fraught with difficulty, giving erratic results...."

This word salad is totally devoid of calories, featuring absolutely no facts to support it's many empty assertions. Not even one. Which institutions? Which modern methods involving lasers? What are these "erratic results"?

In numerous online searches, there are no findings of any such erratic results of the Cavendish experiment conducted by professionals. Amateurs or professional flat earthers on the other hand may be a different story.....

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 03:56:56 AM

Quote from: alex314 on June 25, 2019, 03:44:09 AM

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 01:17:22 AM

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

I have witnessed that experiment myself in university.

Didn't you take a course called electromagnetic? Didn't you tell this experiment wasn't reliable?

Quote from: Macarios on June 25, 2019, 03:19:58 AM

Let me tell you again: "Smart is not the one who knows, smart is the one who learns."

Wise, have you either done a Cavendish type experiment yourself or at least seen it performed?

If you haven't, you have no grounds to claim that the hundreds of laboratory quality experiments and thousands of demonstrations are invalid unless you can show in detail their flaws.

You are just making yourself look foolish by making the claims you do of things you know nothing about.

Wise has pointed out what he thinks are the flaws in the Cavendish experiment pretty convincingly from his point of view.

But as always your desperate appeal to authority is your boldest argument.....
Hundreds of experiments, thousends of skilled induviduals, hundreds/ thousends of years....all those highly decorated people cannot be in error.....and so on.
What becomes of you when a truly groundbraking research would indeed reveal that humanity + it’s brightest specimen had something substancially wrong about the major things in life that seemed so different at the time ?

Or do you simply dismiss anything of that megatude from ever happening..... just evolution upon the things we allready know for a ‘fact’ ?
You are such a dogmatic person without knowing it....

Quote from: robinofloxley on June 25, 2019, 02:09:39 AM

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 01:17:22 AM

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

To save a bit of everyone's time, what criteria would we have to meet to satisfy you that the experiment was completely fair? I mean I can easily find a video of someone performing this on YouTube, but I have the feeling you'd dismiss it straight away for one or other reason, so if you could give us a list of common manipulations to look out for, it would help narrow the search. For a start, do you object to video evidence on principle? In which case I'll give up right now.

Video evidence can be acceptable depends on their complete the scientific criterias.

Scientific experiment has to be; reproducible, understandable, and unobjectionable.

We can explain it in two steps:

1- fair and objective; includes taking into account opposite views and objections.
2- repeatable by everybody.

here, first of all, it is necessary to say that because you are involved in this discussion, because you don't like what I say, leaving the discussion and leaving you won't do anything. I don't have to lose an argument to win you. So I will say that I know right here, regardless of your attitude.

I'll say the last things to say now because to save everybody's time a bit.

the cavernity test does not have the conditions of being "fair and objective". Because: Moon is known to attract metals. on the basis of this situation, cupping method has been aplied since thousands of years. this is known from the applications. You can find these people around everywhere. you can appeal to it. there are many people who think so, and this appeal has to be considered. taking this into account provides the "unobjectionable" requirement. but in contrast to this requirement, the balls in the test are selected from metal balls and subjected to the lunar effect. As the moon rotates continuously, it is certain that it will cause rotation in the balls due to the magnetic attraction effect. for this, first of all, these balls must be wood, not metal. So;

CONDITION 1: Wooden balls have to be used, instead of metal.

CONDITION 2: The object to which the rope is attached must be proved to be stationary, immobile and not connected to any mechanism. in many cases it is seen that the part to which the rope is attached is hidden.

CONDITION 3:  the building must be proved being stationary.

CONDITION 4:  it should be proved that there is no wind effect in the building.

CONDITION 5: people must be at a distance that they cannot move by blowing into spheres.

CONDITION 6: video of the test sphere, rope, inside and outside of the building with multiple devices in 3-D format has to be.

That's all I can think of for now. however, these conditions can be increased by looking at the example. What is important here is that the experiment takes place with certainty that it will "cause no doubt". It has to be unobjectionable. to date, I have never seen such a scientific test in benefits of globularist theory. because they are "supposed" scientists. you are now facing the true one for the first time. one day our capabilities will increase then you'll meet the real experiments.

OK, I have a few follow up questions regarding condition 1 since I think it's unlikely I'm going to be able to find any well documented serious attempts of the Cavendish Experiment using wooden balls (I assume they don't literally have to be balls, any sensible shape would do?)

Would any non-metal weight be acceptable - e.g. concrete, water in a plastic container - or does it have to be wood?

Your objection to metal is that the moon exerts a magnetic attraction on metal objects is that correct? So something like lead would be ruled out because of its weak interaction with magnetic fields, however you are OK with wood, even though that also weakly interacts with magnetic fields?

I've seen versions of the Cavendish experiment where the weights are moved to different positions which would tend to cancel out any stray attractions from a particular direction would it not? Any good?

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 02:42:56 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on June 25, 2019, 02:09:39 AM

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 01:17:22 AM

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

To save a bit of everyone's time, what criteria would we have to meet to satisfy you that the experiment was completely fair? I mean I can easily find a video of someone performing this on YouTube, but I have the feeling you'd dismiss it straight away for one or other reason, so if you could give us a list of common manipulations to look out for, it would help narrow the search. For a start, do you object to video evidence on principle? In which case I'll give up right now.

Video evidence can be acceptable depends on their complete the scientific criterias.

Scientific experiment has to be; reproducible, understandable, and unobjectionable.

We can explain it in two steps:

1- fair and objective; includes taking into account opposite views and objections.
2- repeatable by everybody.

here, first of all, it is necessary to say that because you are involved in this discussion, because you don't like what I say, leaving the discussion and leaving you won't do anything. I don't have to lose an argument to win you. So I will say that I know right here, regardless of your attitude.

I'll say the last things to say now because to save everybody's time a bit.

the cavernity test does not have the conditions of being "fair and objective". Because: Moon is known to attract metals. on the basis of this situation, cupping method has been aplied since thousands of years. this is known from the applications. You can find these people around everywhere. you can appeal to it. there are many people who think so, and this appeal has to be considered. taking this into account provides the "unobjectionable" requirement. but in contrast to this requirement, the balls in the test are selected from metal balls and subjected to the lunar effect. As the moon rotates continuously, it is certain that it will cause rotation in the balls due to the magnetic attraction effect. for this, first of all, these balls must be wood, not metal. So;

CONDITION 1: Wooden balls have to be used, instead of metal.

CONDITION 2: The object to which the rope is attached must be proved to be stationary, immobile and not connected to any mechanism. in many cases it is seen that the part to which the rope is attached is hidden.

CONDITION 3:  the building must be proved being stationary.

CONDITION 4:  it should be proved that there is no wind effect in the building.

CONDITION 5: people must be at a distance that they cannot move by blowing into spheres.

CONDITION 6: video of the test sphere, rope, inside and outside of the building with multiple devices in 3-D format has to be.

That's all I can think of for now. however, these conditions can be increased by looking at the example. What is important here is that the experiment takes place with certainty that it will "cause no doubt". It has to be unobjectionable. to date, I have never seen such a scientific test in benefits of globularist theory. because they are "supposed" scientists. you are now facing the true one for the first time. one day our capabilities will increase then you'll meet the real experiments.

OK, I have a few follow up questions regarding condition 1 since I think it's unlikely I'm going to be able to find any well documented serious attempts of the Cavendish Experiment using wooden balls (I assume they don't literally have to be balls, any sensible shape would do?)

Would any non-metal weight be acceptable - e.g. concrete, water in a plastic container - or does it have to be wood?

Your objection to metal is that the moon exerts a magnetic attraction on metal objects is that correct? So something like lead would be ruled out because of its weak interaction with magnetic fields, however you are OK with wood, even though that also weakly interacts with magnetic fields?

I've seen versions of the Cavendish experiment where the weights are moved to different positions which would tend to cancel out any stray attractions from a particular direction would it not? Any good?

of course, wood is not essential, but the material should be nonconductive and free of metal. it is important that the metals are not affected by the magnetic field. It can be all kinds of magnetic field. Even electric tools affect metal. because the electric current creates a magnetic field and the magnetic field applies force to the charged particle there.it is important that metals are not affected by the magnetic field. Any kind of magnetic field. Even power tools affect metal. because the electric current creates a magnetic field and the magnetic field applies force to the particles there. any of the metals may contain material with magnet properties, and we can not be sure of this.

there is a wide variety of materials in the concrete and some of it is not metal. plastic is not very reliable because some non-conductive materials, even some production plastics, can be electrically affected and affected by the magnetic field. therefore the best is wood.

but instead of doing this experiment, I suggest you use metal, and then prove that it can really be used to determine the position of the moon. this is really useful and real. It still does not scientific experiment but can be used.

Don't you know that FE's regard any kind of photography such as video and any kind of science as fake and anything that they haven't done for themselves as fake ?

Don't you know that FE's regard any kind of photography such as video and any kind of science as fake and anything that they haven't done for themselves as fake ?

Well that was my impression too, but wise has said

Video evidence can be acceptable depends on their complete the scientific criterias

which I have to say was a pleasant if unexpected surprise.

You make such mentality mistakes constantly. I've been wanting to see the videos taken of sydney santiago flights for years. this indicates that both of your argument is incorrect. if there is a convincing video about this experiment, of course it will be looked at.

did you show us a neutral, objective, precise video, but did we reject it? all the videos I've seen so far about this experiment have been clearly manipulated. at top of the list, materials used in the should not contain metal. What is illogical request here? the ball must not be metal to avoid being affected by magnetic influences. What is there can not to be understandable?

Quote from: robinofloxley on June 25, 2019, 07:44:58 AM

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 02:42:56 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on June 25, 2019, 02:09:39 AM

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 01:17:22 AM

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

To save a bit of everyone's time, what criteria would we have to meet to satisfy you that the experiment was completely fair? I mean I can easily find a video of someone performing this on YouTube, but I have the feeling you'd dismiss it straight away for one or other reason, so if you could give us a list of common manipulations to look out for, it would help narrow the search. For a start, do you object to video evidence on principle? In which case I'll give up right now.

Video evidence can be acceptable depends on their complete the scientific criterias.

Scientific experiment has to be; reproducible, understandable, and unobjectionable.

We can explain it in two steps:

1- fair and objective; includes taking into account opposite views and objections.
2- repeatable by everybody.

here, first of all, it is necessary to say that because you are involved in this discussion, because you don't like what I say, leaving the discussion and leaving you won't do anything. I don't have to lose an argument to win you. So I will say that I know right here, regardless of your attitude.

I'll say the last things to say now because to save everybody's time a bit.

the cavernity test does not have the conditions of being "fair and objective". Because: Moon is known to attract metals. on the basis of this situation, cupping method has been aplied since thousands of years. this is known from the applications. You can find these people around everywhere. you can appeal to it. there are many people who think so, and this appeal has to be considered. taking this into account provides the "unobjectionable" requirement. but in contrast to this requirement, the balls in the test are selected from metal balls and subjected to the lunar effect. As the moon rotates continuously, it is certain that it will cause rotation in the balls due to the magnetic attraction effect. for this, first of all, these balls must be wood, not metal. So;

CONDITION 1: Wooden balls have to be used, instead of metal.

CONDITION 2: The object to which the rope is attached must be proved to be stationary, immobile and not connected to any mechanism. in many cases it is seen that the part to which the rope is attached is hidden.

CONDITION 3:  the building must be proved being stationary.

CONDITION 4:  it should be proved that there is no wind effect in the building.

CONDITION 5: people must be at a distance that they cannot move by blowing into spheres.

CONDITION 6: video of the test sphere, rope, inside and outside of the building with multiple devices in 3-D format has to be.

That's all I can think of for now. however, these conditions can be increased by looking at the example. What is important here is that the experiment takes place with certainty that it will "cause no doubt". It has to be unobjectionable. to date, I have never seen such a scientific test in benefits of globularist theory. because they are "supposed" scientists. you are now facing the true one for the first time. one day our capabilities will increase then you'll meet the real experiments.

OK, I have a few follow up questions regarding condition 1 since I think it's unlikely I'm going to be able to find any well documented serious attempts of the Cavendish Experiment using wooden balls (I assume they don't literally have to be balls, any sensible shape would do?)

Would any non-metal weight be acceptable - e.g. concrete, water in a plastic container - or does it have to be wood?

Your objection to metal is that the moon exerts a magnetic attraction on metal objects is that correct? So something like lead would be ruled out because of its weak interaction with magnetic fields, however you are OK with wood, even though that also weakly interacts with magnetic fields?

I've seen versions of the Cavendish experiment where the weights are moved to different positions which would tend to cancel out any stray attractions from a particular direction would it not? Any good?

of course, wood is not essential, but the material should be nonconductive and free of metal. it is important that the metals are not affected by the magnetic field. It can be all kinds of magnetic field. Even electric tools affect metal. because the electric current creates a magnetic field and the magnetic field applies force to the charged particle there.it is important that metals are not affected by the magnetic field. Any kind of magnetic field. Even power tools affect metal. because the electric current creates a magnetic field and the magnetic field applies force to the particles there. any of the metals may contain material with magnet properties, and we can not be sure of this.

there is a wide variety of materials in the concrete and some of it is not metal. plastic is not very reliable because some non-conductive materials, even some production plastics, can be electrically affected and affected by the magnetic field. therefore the best is wood.

but instead of doing this experiment, I suggest you use metal, and then prove that it can really be used to determine the position of the moon. this is really useful and real. It still does not scientific experiment but can be used.

Don't think this is going to be easy. Most of the experiments I've seen use lead balls, however I did come across an old film from way back (1961) with the title "An excerpt of the PSSC Film FORCES Professor Jerrold R. Zacharias The Massachusetts Institute of Technology a qualitative demonstration of the Cavendish Experiment".

The experiment uses large boxes of sand and bottles of water. The experiment is enclosed in a glass case with a wire screen to keep out stray air currents and electromagnetic effects. I think this goes some way to fulfilling your condition 1. The camera also pans to the roof showing where the "rope" is attached (in this case they use recording tape), addressing your condition 2 I think. The building is very solid looking and is described as a garage - I don't know if you could prove it is stationary, but looks pretty solid to me (condition 3). As I say, the equipment is enclosed, so conditions 4 and 5 are covered. Condition 6 is a no-no, the film is from 1961 in B&W so you're not getting 3-D for starters.

I can't now find the original in English (I have it downloaded), but there is for some reason an italian version on YouTube if you want to look it up.

Don't you know that FE's regard any kind of photography such as video and any kind of science as fake and anything that they haven't done for themselves as fake ?

Of course...... and you the exalted knows that cartoons, cgi , an artists rendering, augmented reality is considered absolute EQUAL to reality the moment it comes from above the Kármán line.

You are such a funny guy aren't you ?

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 07:57:31 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on June 25, 2019, 07:44:58 AM

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 02:42:56 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on June 25, 2019, 02:09:39 AM

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 01:17:22 AM

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

To save a bit of everyone's time, what criteria would we have to meet to satisfy you that the experiment was completely fair? I mean I can easily find a video of someone performing this on YouTube, but I have the feeling you'd dismiss it straight away for one or other reason, so if you could give us a list of common manipulations to look out for, it would help narrow the search. For a start, do you object to video evidence on principle? In which case I'll give up right now.

Video evidence can be acceptable depends on their complete the scientific criterias.

Scientific experiment has to be; reproducible, understandable, and unobjectionable.

We can explain it in two steps:

1- fair and objective; includes taking into account opposite views and objections.
2- repeatable by everybody.

here, first of all, it is necessary to say that because you are involved in this discussion, because you don't like what I say, leaving the discussion and leaving you won't do anything. I don't have to lose an argument to win you. So I will say that I know right here, regardless of your attitude.

I'll say the last things to say now because to save everybody's time a bit.

the cavernity test does not have the conditions of being "fair and objective". Because: Moon is known to attract metals. on the basis of this situation, cupping method has been aplied since thousands of years. this is known from the applications. You can find these people around everywhere. you can appeal to it. there are many people who think so, and this appeal has to be considered. taking this into account provides the "unobjectionable" requirement. but in contrast to this requirement, the balls in the test are selected from metal balls and subjected to the lunar effect. As the moon rotates continuously, it is certain that it will cause rotation in the balls due to the magnetic attraction effect. for this, first of all, these balls must be wood, not metal. So;

CONDITION 1: Wooden balls have to be used, instead of metal.

CONDITION 2: The object to which the rope is attached must be proved to be stationary, immobile and not connected to any mechanism. in many cases it is seen that the part to which the rope is attached is hidden.

CONDITION 3:  the building must be proved being stationary.

CONDITION 4:  it should be proved that there is no wind effect in the building.

CONDITION 5: people must be at a distance that they cannot move by blowing into spheres.

CONDITION 6: video of the test sphere, rope, inside and outside of the building with multiple devices in 3-D format has to be.

That's all I can think of for now. however, these conditions can be increased by looking at the example. What is important here is that the experiment takes place with certainty that it will "cause no doubt". It has to be unobjectionable. to date, I have never seen such a scientific test in benefits of globularist theory. because they are "supposed" scientists. you are now facing the true one for the first time. one day our capabilities will increase then you'll meet the real experiments.

OK, I have a few follow up questions regarding condition 1 since I think it's unlikely I'm going to be able to find any well documented serious attempts of the Cavendish Experiment using wooden balls (I assume they don't literally have to be balls, any sensible shape would do?)

Would any non-metal weight be acceptable - e.g. concrete, water in a plastic container - or does it have to be wood?

Your objection to metal is that the moon exerts a magnetic attraction on metal objects is that correct? So something like lead would be ruled out because of its weak interaction with magnetic fields, however you are OK with wood, even though that also weakly interacts with magnetic fields?

I've seen versions of the Cavendish experiment where the weights are moved to different positions which would tend to cancel out any stray attractions from a particular direction would it not? Any good?

of course, wood is not essential, but the material should be nonconductive and free of metal. it is important that the metals are not affected by the magnetic field. It can be all kinds of magnetic field. Even electric tools affect metal. because the electric current creates a magnetic field and the magnetic field applies force to the charged particle there.it is important that metals are not affected by the magnetic field. Any kind of magnetic field. Even power tools affect metal. because the electric current creates a magnetic field and the magnetic field applies force to the particles there. any of the metals may contain material with magnet properties, and we can not be sure of this.

there is a wide variety of materials in the concrete and some of it is not metal. plastic is not very reliable because some non-conductive materials, even some production plastics, can be electrically affected and affected by the magnetic field. therefore the best is wood.

but instead of doing this experiment, I suggest you use metal, and then prove that it can really be used to determine the position of the moon. this is really useful and real. It still does not scientific experiment but can be used.

Don't think this is going to be easy. Most of the experiments I've seen use lead balls, however I did come across an old film from way back (1961) with the title "An excerpt of the PSSC Film FORCES Professor Jerrold R. Zacharias The Massachusetts Institute of Technology a qualitative demonstration of the Cavendish Experiment".

The experiment uses large boxes of sand and bottles of water. The experiment is enclosed in a glass case with a wire screen to keep out stray air currents and electromagnetic effects. I think this goes some way to fulfilling your condition 1. The camera also pans to the roof showing where the "rope" is attached (in this case they use recording tape), addressing your condition 2 I think. The building is very solid looking and is described as a garage - I don't know if you could prove it is stationary, but looks pretty solid to me (condition 3). As I say, the equipment is enclosed, so conditions 4 and 5 are covered. Condition 6 is a no-no, the film is from 1961 in B&W so you're not getting 3-D for starters.

I can't now find the original in English (I have it downloaded), but there is for some reason an italian version on YouTube if you want to look it up.

An experiment made in 1961 it should be much better with today's technological possibilities, doesn't it?

Quote from: Googleotomy on June 25, 2019, 09:00:10 AM

Don't you know that FE's regard any kind of photography such as video and any kind of science as fake and anything that they haven't done for themselves as fake ?

Of course...... and you the exalted knows that cartoons, cgi , an artists rendering, augmented reality is considered absolute EQUAL to reality the moment it comes from above the Kármán line.

You are such a funny guy aren't you ?

Nope.

It’s YOUR position that requires you to automatically decide on every single photo or video from space without even seeing it.

You dismiss every one as fake on the presumption that they must be, to fit your preconceptions.  As well as arbitrarily dismissing the existence of Satellite TV, GPS, communications satellites, weather satellites, etc, etc.

Nope.

Nope ? 

It’s YOUR position that requires you to automatically decide on every single photo or video from space without even seeing it.

No my position is that many many moon photographs are taken on earth in a studio.
Only just recently (again) confirmed by TOP photographers in the docu ‘American Moon’
The enthousiastic NASA groupies claim they have proven that all photographs are consistant with what to expect from the moon  , but ‘ lightguy’ SG Collins is the only one PROFESSIONALLY stating the moon footage is genuine.
All others are big mouthed  amatures at best.
While an array of top photographers and film makers have clearly showed over the years the moonlanding photographs are studio fakery.
 
But since NASA in 2019 still claims that not a single photograph was manipulated in order to deceive we have a huge conflict of interrest.

I am not interrested in any other space related cgi picture or other nonsense, because i know that the organisation behind it all also claims all the photographs from the moon are the real deal.

Like i have said many, many  times, the pro NASA side does not have the support from top photographers.
They have internal support among their own ranks and support from an enthousiastic Apollo bandwagon.

Bottom line..... each and every time a real expert on film, photography and studio facilities examines the Apollo photographs, the conclusion is that at least dozens of photographs are 100% studio works.
Stupid NASA still claims each and every Apollo photograph is 100% genuine.
Therefor they are as trustworthy as a secondhand car’s salesman at best.... when it comes to supposed footage from outerspace.

I’ll pause before i examine other ‘space’ claims untill the Apollo afair is truly settled.

Quote from: Unconvinced on June 25, 2019, 12:18:47 PM

Nope.

Nope ? 

Nope.  I’m willing to bet if I post collection of images of the Earth (far enough out to see a clear curve) and ask Googleotomy to judge whether they are photos, CGI, or whatever, he’d look at each and have a stab at identifying them.

If I ask you to do the same, is there any way at all you’d conclude any are a genuine representative photo.

Would you take such a test?

‘American Moon’

Yeah, yeah, I know.  Weren’t you going to start a thread on that sometime?

I’d be interested in going over what you consider the 3 or 4 best cases from the video.

Not sure I want to give the man any money though.

Quote from: Unconvinced on June 25, 2019, 12:18:47 PM

Nope.

Nope ? 

Quote

It’s YOUR position that requires you to automatically decide on every single photo or video from space without even seeing it.

No my position is that many many moon photographs are taken on earth in a studio.
Only just recently (again) confirmed by TOP photographers in the docu ‘American Moon’
The enthousiastic NASA groupies claim they have proven that all photographs are consistant with what to expect from the moon  , but ‘ lightguy’ SG Collins is the only one PROFESSIONALLY stating the moon footage is genuine.
All others are big mouthed  amatures at best.
While an array of top photographers and film makers have clearly showed over the years the moonlanding photographs are studio fakery.
 
But since NASA in 2019 still claims that not a single photograph was manipulated in order to deceive we have a huge conflict of interrest.

I am not interrested in any other space related cgi picture or other nonsense, because i know that the organisation behind it all also claims all the photographs from the moon are the real deal.

So says our resident NASAphobic, Dutchy! But why are NASA so special?
They were not the first in space and now with the numerous other satellite launch groups, including many private companies NASA are comparatively small fry.

Go and search for "Private spaceflight companies" and then debunk all the satellites that they launch!
Small satellites are even launched from New Zealand now: Satellites launched from NZ to be tracked for traffic and debris purposes 07:52, Jun 26 2019.

But it's not my loss if you choose to go through life with your eyes closed!

Quote from: robinofloxley on June 25, 2019, 09:38:55 AM

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 07:57:31 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on June 25, 2019, 07:44:58 AM

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 02:42:56 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on June 25, 2019, 02:09:39 AM

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 01:17:22 AM

Simple. It does not work. Prove somebody have done that experiment in completely a fair and scientific environment; with preventing every type of manipulation.

To save a bit of everyone's time, what criteria would we have to meet to satisfy you that the experiment was completely fair? I mean I can easily find a video of someone performing this on YouTube, but I have the feeling you'd dismiss it straight away for one or other reason, so if you could give us a list of common manipulations to look out for, it would help narrow the search. For a start, do you object to video evidence on principle? In which case I'll give up right now.

Video evidence can be acceptable depends on their complete the scientific criterias.

Scientific experiment has to be; reproducible, understandable, and unobjectionable.

We can explain it in two steps:

1- fair and objective; includes taking into account opposite views and objections.
2- repeatable by everybody.

here, first of all, it is necessary to say that because you are involved in this discussion, because you don't like what I say, leaving the discussion and leaving you won't do anything. I don't have to lose an argument to win you. So I will say that I know right here, regardless of your attitude.

I'll say the last things to say now because to save everybody's time a bit.

the cavernity test does not have the conditions of being "fair and objective". Because: Moon is known to attract metals. on the basis of this situation, cupping method has been aplied since thousands of years. this is known from the applications. You can find these people around everywhere. you can appeal to it. there are many people who think so, and this appeal has to be considered. taking this into account provides the "unobjectionable" requirement. but in contrast to this requirement, the balls in the test are selected from metal balls and subjected to the lunar effect. As the moon rotates continuously, it is certain that it will cause rotation in the balls due to the magnetic attraction effect. for this, first of all, these balls must be wood, not metal. So;

CONDITION 1: Wooden balls have to be used, instead of metal.

CONDITION 2: The object to which the rope is attached must be proved to be stationary, immobile and not connected to any mechanism. in many cases it is seen that the part to which the rope is attached is hidden.

CONDITION 3:  the building must be proved being stationary.

CONDITION 4:  it should be proved that there is no wind effect in the building.

CONDITION 5: people must be at a distance that they cannot move by blowing into spheres.

CONDITION 6: video of the test sphere, rope, inside and outside of the building with multiple devices in 3-D format has to be.

That's all I can think of for now. however, these conditions can be increased by looking at the example. What is important here is that the experiment takes place with certainty that it will "cause no doubt". It has to be unobjectionable. to date, I have never seen such a scientific test in benefits of globularist theory. because they are "supposed" scientists. you are now facing the true one for the first time. one day our capabilities will increase then you'll meet the real experiments.

OK, I have a few follow up questions regarding condition 1 since I think it's unlikely I'm going to be able to find any well documented serious attempts of the Cavendish Experiment using wooden balls (I assume they don't literally have to be balls, any sensible shape would do?)

Would any non-metal weight be acceptable - e.g. concrete, water in a plastic container - or does it have to be wood?

Your objection to metal is that the moon exerts a magnetic attraction on metal objects is that correct? So something like lead would be ruled out because of its weak interaction with magnetic fields, however you are OK with wood, even though that also weakly interacts with magnetic fields?

I've seen versions of the Cavendish experiment where the weights are moved to different positions which would tend to cancel out any stray attractions from a particular direction would it not? Any good?

of course, wood is not essential, but the material should be nonconductive and free of metal. it is important that the metals are not affected by the magnetic field. It can be all kinds of magnetic field. Even electric tools affect metal. because the electric current creates a magnetic field and the magnetic field applies force to the charged particle there.it is important that metals are not affected by the magnetic field. Any kind of magnetic field. Even power tools affect metal. because the electric current creates a magnetic field and the magnetic field applies force to the particles there. any of the metals may contain material with magnet properties, and we can not be sure of this.

there is a wide variety of materials in the concrete and some of it is not metal. plastic is not very reliable because some non-conductive materials, even some production plastics, can be electrically affected and affected by the magnetic field. therefore the best is wood.

but instead of doing this experiment, I suggest you use metal, and then prove that it can really be used to determine the position of the moon. this is really useful and real. It still does not scientific experiment but can be used.

Don't think this is going to be easy. Most of the experiments I've seen use lead balls, however I did come across an old film from way back (1961) with the title "An excerpt of the PSSC Film FORCES Professor Jerrold R. Zacharias The Massachusetts Institute of Technology a qualitative demonstration of the Cavendish Experiment".

The experiment uses large boxes of sand and bottles of water. The experiment is enclosed in a glass case with a wire screen to keep out stray air currents and electromagnetic effects. I think this goes some way to fulfilling your condition 1. The camera also pans to the roof showing where the "rope" is attached (in this case they use recording tape), addressing your condition 2 I think. The building is very solid looking and is described as a garage - I don't know if you could prove it is stationary, but looks pretty solid to me (condition 3). As I say, the equipment is enclosed, so conditions 4 and 5 are covered. Condition 6 is a no-no, the film is from 1961 in B&W so you're not getting 3-D for starters.

I can't now find the original in English (I have it downloaded), but there is for some reason an italian version on YouTube if you want to look it up.

An experiment made in 1961 it should be much better with today's technological possibilities, doesn't it?

Of course and there have been a number of more sophisticated attempts to measure G, for example using cryogenic temperatures to increase accuracy. However these experiments aren't something you can repeat in your garage using things you can find around the house and in any case they are not attempting to prove the existence of gravity through these experiments, gravity is taken for granted - the object of the exercise is to measure gravity with as much accuracy as possible.

To my mind the more relevant experiments are the ones using simple technology just intended to demonstrate gravity, not necessarily to measure it accurately. The sort of thing college physics courses do all over the world. The problem here is that they are likely just to use an off the shelf Cavendish balance from a supplier of lab equipment and these will most likely use lead balls - something you object to - so there's no point looking at these either.

That leaves us scrabbling around looking for more DIY experiments, but done in a professional manner. So a properly documented and filmed experiment by an MIT professor using sand and water (to satisfy your no-metals requirement) seemed like a close match for your requirements. I can't help that it was filmed in 1961 and nobody has bothered to repeat it (and publish a film about it) since.

The problem is that people have been measuring and demonstrating gravity for 200 years or so, but they've designed their experiments according to their own ideas and requirements. Most people are satisfied with the methods used, you are not - fair enough - but you're asking for someone to have anticipated your requirements and designed an experiment around your ideas and unsurprisingly nobody has as far as I can tell, so we're just looking for the closest match.