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.
I got you. If I get you true so you are just trying to find a middle course between my objections and priority of others whose make this experiment. The common way here is, of course, to carry out an experiment that takes into account what I say. for, until the discovery of America (once again) 500 years ago, the world was thought to be flat. that is, in fact, the natural anti-thesis of the globularist thesis. once you take the anti-thesis into consideration, you should take into account the counter-thesis arguments that are likely to affect your experiment.
it is not convincing that the lunar effect that is likely to affect the metal ball is not taken into account when conducting these experiments. I think this was used as a method of deception. in other words, the metal cavendish experiment is proof that the world is flat. and it is easy to prove.
1) Select one of the balls as metal.
2) Choose any other material of equal weight to other ball. This time can be concrete. because it contains less metal, the moon will be less affected by the magnetic effect. this allows the metal ball to take more force of moon and move within the same magnetic field.
3) do this experiment at night and when the moon visible.
4) Place the metal ball in the moon direction. it will not move in this case, but it will make a very slow movement following the movement of the moon.
5) Turn the metal ball to a further point in the direction of movement.
6)
a) if the world is spinning; the metal ball must continue move in the same direction as the previous movement.
b) If the effect that causes the ball to rotate is the magnetic field of the moon, the metal ball will move in the opposite direction of its previous movement and return to the moon direction.
this is not definitive evidence for the flat earth, but it proves the magnetic attraction of the moon and proves that the cavendish experiment is not a proof of the spinning of the earth.