Miles Mathis agrees with Thork that
the Cavendish Experiment is deeply flawed. At the level of sensitivity the experiment is working on, macro forces, such as the static force, would have more of an effect on the experiment than any alleged "gravity".
Not only that, but the Cavendish Experiment itself is unreliable as well. In a past thread TheEngineer
had this to say about a "
Bending Space-Time in the Basement" Cavendish experiment:--
There seems to me, to be some unexplainable things going on in the experiments. The second video shows a large return of the balance after it contacts the weights. Just from looking at the video and using an estimate of the angle and time using the stamp on the video, I've made a liberal estimate of the velocity when it makes contact with the weights. This will result in a certain kinetic energy at the moment of impact. Assuming a perfectly elastic collision (again, very liberal), the total energy must be conserved, so that the potential energy gained by the masses must equal the kinetic energy. Using a simple equation, I've found the gravitational attraction of the weights and masses. Using the kinetic energy as the maximum potential energy and solving for the distance that the mass can travel, I've found the rebound angle to be 0.126 degrees, not the nearly 30 that is shown in the video. However, there is also a water brake which should damp this small movement, making the video highly suspect.
Now, as I have said, I've made assumptions and simplifications (as it's late, I'm tired and I'm not getting paid for this), and those have been on the larger side of things.
Perhaps I will do an in depth analysis of this if I get bored.
BTW, it is stated on Wiki:
"Bending Spacetime in the Basement (do-it-yourself Cavendish apparatus - appears to be seriously flawed[1])"
Ergo we see that this particular instance of the Cavendish experiment is unreliable. Each and every one of us can personally observe in the demonstration videos that gravity does not act in the way predicted by Round Earth Theory.