Cavendish experiment

And to the 10x error business.

We have a thing in canada called lottomax.
Its a 1:1,000,000,000 odds.
When the pool gets larger they add side pots.
One time there were 50x 1mil bonus opporuntiies.
The odds of winning were 51x better than before.
You tell me if that is significant or not.
Site so sources.

Once again, you fail to provide a source than your own opinion for why those physcists are wrong, and why it is not significant or an embarrassment. Are you a physcist? Are they physcists? Are you working on this? Are they working on this?

Find sources for your opinion. Prove yourself with authoritative sources rather than uncredentialed opinion.

I think you need to calm down, step back and stop trying to bend the story to meet your overwhelming need to disprove gravity.

Let’s look at the facts. Teams of physicists from all over the world have all conducted experiments to find the value of G. Not one of these teams is disputing the existence of gravity only you are doing that based on zero evidence and prejudice.

The teams have produced results that do indeed vary:-
6.67259 × 10-11 N/kg2⋅m2.
6.674184
6.674484
6.6757
6.6719
Etc......

The journalist who wrote the piece went for a sensationalist headline the you latched on to.
What we are dealing with is not that there is doubt over existence of gravity but rather it’s exact value with all experiments throwing up differences that amount to  0.05 per cent.

All the experiments have determined that gravity exists but due to unknown factors no one has yet established an exact value. The most recent Chinese values differ with relative standard uncertainties of 11.64 and 11.61 parts per million, respectively. That is hardly the 10 times you were claiming that was disingenuous to say the least, but it suited your extreme bias.

The truth of the matter is all the experiments show gravity to be a fact but the exact value of the constant still remains unclear.

As LIGO recently discovered gravitational waves, could the influence of gravitational waves and other factors as yet unknown, including experimental error, account for the very small but important differences?

While the exact value is up for question the fact of the existence of gravity is not.

The reason why you desperately cling on to overplay and distort these stories is that you have no proof of your own and never will.

A more measured interpretation of the recent Chinese experiments.
https://physicsworld.com/a/gravitational-constant-mystery-deepens-with-new-precision-measurements/

The challenge to Tom Bishop is to prove somehow that all these experiments that confirm the existence of gravity are somehow doing the opposite!

Tom Bishop claimed there was a discrepancy of 10 times between all the results where the truth of the matter is that when all 200 experiments that have been carried out are looked at, the differences actually yield a relative uncertainty of 47 parts per million......that’s hardly the 10 times Bishop was claiming.

What we have here is 200 scientific experiments that prove the existence of gravity while Tom Bishop has no scientific experiments to prove otherwise.

What other contributors have to ask is why did Tom Bishop leap on and cling to the distorted ten times claim, and why does he not take the 200 successful experiments as proof that gravity exists?

It says directly that the results can differ by over ten times their expected uncertainties.

This reminds me of a question I asked you before Tom, and I really would love to hear the answer to this if you might be so generous.

By way of background, as I understand it, you have noted that the various measurements of gravity vary by 0.05% (i.e. 500 part per million) and are therefore invalid.

By way of comparison, imagine you stepped on your bathroom scale and your daily weight reading varied by 0.05% (1/8th of a pound if you're 250 pounds) - some days the scale reads 250.5 and other days it reads 250.6 -- are you going to rule it out because of the huge variation?

Or let's say your doctor measures your blood pressure and it changes by 0.05% between readings, are you going to say he's not measuring it accurately?

But back to my question - you say that a variation in measurements of 500 parts per million is such a huge variation that they are all invalid.

This is my very simple question to you -- the one you seem unwilling thus far to answer:

How small would the variation need to be in order for you to consider it valid? 50 parts per million? 5 parts per million? 1 part per trillion trillion?

Or if all the measurements agreed to 1 part per trillion trillion would you still say there is too much error, and ask them to agree to within 1 part in a trillion trillion trillion?

Please tell me just how much variation you would allow while not ruling out the measurement due to the variation.

Thanks!

Nope. We did not see it at all. If you have so show it.

OK well I'm on a dreadfully slow cellular internet connection from the northernmost state of the United States of America (Alaska!!!) so I'm not really able to check out my youtube videos to find the best ones, but here's one and you can find more by viewing my channel:

And tell us whose are accepted your so called attractive force.

It was a fellow flat earther on some other forum site but I don't remember who it was.

The only known attractive force about it is magnetic force

Ok my friend, you obviously don't know much about physics. There is another attractive force called electrostatic attraction. It's different than magnetic force.

and it means your so called experiment is a hoax.

Well my friend, I'm not sure what to say. Having personally performed the Cavendish experiment, and clearly seen a non-magnetic and non-electrostatic attractive force between the weights, I'm not inclined to accept your assessment of my experiment as a haox.

At least not when you don't even know about electrostatic forces and have never even tried to do the experiment yourself.

But I wish you all the best of your pursuit of knowledge - but please try doing some experiments before you try to tell me my experiment is a hoax when you've never even tried it!

Hey Dr. Bishop - was that you that agreed that there is *some* attractive force between terrestrial masses? or any other flat earther's who agree to this? I'm not asking you to call it gravity, only to agree that experimental evidence does seem to show an attractive force.

Thanks!

It appears that Tom has left the party.

What is interesting however, it appears that in the order of 200 experiments were carried out that all confirm the existence of gravity albeit with slight differences in the actual value of G.

The same can not be said for the flat earth answer to gravity, UA as it appears there are no published results of any experiments that have been carried out to determine its value or even its existence. Instead flat earthers appear to accept it as true in a way that’s  almost akin to belief in some religious belief.

How Tom can Baulk at the existance of gravity given the amount of dats available to support it yet is prepared to swallow UA that has no more supporting ‘evidence’ other than a page or two on a flat earth Wiki!

It appears that Tom has left the party.

What is interesting however, it appears that in the order of 200 experiments were carried out that all confirm the existence of gravity albeit with slight differences in the actual value of G.

The same can not be said for the flat earth answer to gravity, UA as it appears there are no published results of any experiments that have been carried out to determine its value or even its existence. Instead flat earthers appear to accept it as true in a way that’s  almost akin to belief in some religious belief.

How Tom can Baulk at the existance of gravity given the amount of dats available to support it yet is prepared to swallow UA that has no more supporting ‘evidence’ other than a page or two on a flat earth Wiki!

As Jeran Campenalla, Jeranism, remarked after "measuring curvature", "That's interesting . . . . . " and promptly ignored his own findings. That's what I find so interesting.

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 06, 2019, 12:13:04 PM

It appears that Tom has left the party.

What is interesting however, it appears that in the order of 200 experiments were carried out that all confirm the existence of gravity albeit with slight differences in the actual value of G.

The same can not be said for the flat earth answer to gravity, UA as it appears there are no published results of any experiments that have been carried out to determine its value or even its existence. Instead flat earthers appear to accept it as true in a way that’s  almost akin to belief in some religious belief.

How Tom can Baulk at the existance of gravity given the amount of dats available to support it yet is prepared to swallow UA that has no more supporting ‘evidence’ other than a page or two on a flat earth Wiki!

As Jeran Campenalla, Jeranism, remarked after "measuring curvature", "That's interesting . . . . . " and promptly ignored his own findings. That's what I find so interesting.

Ignoring the facts and supporting evidence free ideas appears to be some flat earth common denominator. As far as I can see if UA were true the universe would be a very different place.
They also appear to rely on information that is patently not true. For example one book quoted in their information repository, Does The Earth Rotate, it states that Polaris can be observed from New Zealand.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080122142029/http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/dTeR/doesTheEarthRotate.html

It is generally accepted that the famous Pole Star, by the aid of which mariners navigate their vessels, is a fixture.

The angle at which the Pole Star stands to London is 51 ½ degrees, to Frome, Somerset, which is in the vicinity where most of my calculations and observations have been taken, at an angle of 51 ¼ degrees, at Newcastle 55 degrees, New Zealand 40 degrees, Edinburgh 56 degrees, and Spitzbergen 77 degrees.

This appears in the first chapter, so from the word go his book has a glaring error as no matter how hard one looks Polaris can not be observed from NZ.

Back in the 20s when the book was written I think one could get away with, in this case, telling lies or just making stuff up to prove a point, but today it’s a different story, yet flat earthers appear to cling to all these books which were all written in the latter half of the 19th century and the early 20th century. I suppose they are all waiting for the new book by John Davis which I hear is due to be published this year.

I suppose they are all waiting for the new book by John Davis which I hear is due to be published this year.

Might I respectfully suggest that the new book by John Davis will always be due to be published next year.

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 07, 2019, 01:08:27 AM

I suppose they are all waiting for the new book by John Davis which I hear is due to be published this year.

Might I respectfully suggest that the new book by John Davis will always be due to be published next year.

Time will tell, though he is on record in stating that one is in production.

Quote from: wise on July 04, 2019, 12:56:23 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 04, 2019, 11:04:59 AM

Quote

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.

There is no Cavendish experiment, that takes the location of the Moon into account.
Furthermore the moon has no strong magnetic field, your claim of such is  wrong.
Any influence from the moon is not possible.

Cavendish experiment does not take in the account the position of the moon because its function already to find the location of the moon. It simply follows the moon. If you put the metal ball through moon then it works better, otherwise you'll wait a bit more. That's all.

If the moon does not have an attractive effect, how do you explain the tide? So, stop lying. The moon has pressure effect the general objects and has attraction effect on metals. there are both effects. globularist theory accepts its attractive affect, but you are not.

So, wellcome the flat earth movement you newbie.

I see that you acknowledge that there is an attractive force between the moon and the earth that creates the tides. We globularist call this force, gravity.

As to the magnetic field affects on the earth from the moon, thy are non-existent, for every compass, would detect such a field, and  thy don't.

wise :
this got buried. Or I have missed your response, I would like to see you.
Thank you wise.

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 04, 2019, 07:02:21 PM

Quote from: wise on July 04, 2019, 12:56:23 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 04, 2019, 11:04:59 AM

Quote

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.

There is no Cavendish experiment, that takes the location of the Moon into account.
Furthermore the moon has no strong magnetic field, your claim of such is  wrong.
Any influence from the moon is not possible.

Cavendish experiment does not take in the account the position of the moon because its function already to find the location of the moon. It simply follows the moon. If you put the metal ball through moon then it works better, otherwise you'll wait a bit more. That's all.

If the moon does not have an attractive effect, how do you explain the tide? So, stop lying. The moon has pressure effect the general objects and has attraction effect on metals. there are both effects. globularist theory accepts its attractive affect, but you are not.

So, wellcome the flat earth movement you newbie.

I see that you acknowledge that there is an attractive force between the moon and the earth that creates the tides. We globularist call this force, gravity.

As to the magnetic field affects on the earth from the moon, thy are non-existent, for every compass, would detect such a field, and  thy don't.

wise :
this got buried. Or I have missed your response, I would like to see you.
Thank you wise.

The world system is based on magnetic forces. gravity was never detected, and these fake experiments cannot prove it. where I live there is no tide. I don't want to talk about anymoreI haven't seen. I told you what I thought about it. I don't care if you agree or not.

Where I live there is no tide. I don't want to talk about anymoreI haven't seen.

Wise is right. The highest tide in Istanbul could be around 12 cm, and the lowest about -2 cm.

Wise, you've heard about tides elsewhere in the world?
You even saw them on TV and in videos.
Could they be real?

I don't see the relevance of this experiment at all.

The world system is based on magnetic forces.

Incorrect!
Gravitation affects all object whether magnetic or not in exactly the same way. Learn about the Equivalence Principle.

Equivalence Principle
Commonly known as the stepping-stone to the development of General Relativity, the Equivalence Principle is a theory developed by Albert Einstein detailing the relationship between gravitational and inertial mass. Einstein posited that gravitation and acceleration are indistinguishable from one another experimentally, laying the framework for what has said to have been the "greatest feat of human thinking about nature".

gravity was never detected, and these fake experiments cannot prove it.

Incorrect!
Gravitation has been measured directly hundreds of times and detected directly thousands of times.
Your continued denial just proves your own ignorance.

where I live there is no tide.

Correct, well almost no tide and exactly as expected on the Globe.

I don't want to talk about anymore.

Well don't! Bye then.

Quote from: wise on July 11, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Where I live there is no tide. I don't want to talk about anymoreI haven't seen.

Wise is right. The highest tide in Istanbul could be around 12 cm, and the lowest about -2 cm.

Wise, you've heard about tides elsewhere in the world?
You even saw them on TV and in videos.
Could they be real?

I believe this being a bait. you will probably invite a flat earth believer here accordingly to my answer, right? if you ask honestly, I can answer honestly. but unfortunately the honesty is a feature that we have seen or even never seen in the globularists in our forum.

Incorrect!
Gravitation affects all object whether magnetic or not in exactly the same way. Learn about the Equivalence Principle.

It is not incorrect, it is opposite argument. Your claims of gravitation magic do not magically make the gravity exist. It is an old fable and expired.

Incorrect!
Gravitation has been measured directly hundreds of times and detected directly thousands of times.
Your continued denial just proves your own ignorance.

Your childishly repeating same "incorrect" does not magically make my arguments incorrect! Grow up and give up childish behaves. People have measured something but it is definitely not anything related the so called gravitation.

Correct, well almost no tide and exactly as expected on the Globe.

I just said I've not seen it. I did not say anything about its being exist or absent. Do not manipulate my words.

Well don't! Bye then.

Bye.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 12, 2019, 01:32:41 AM

Incorrect!
Gravitation affects all object whether magnetic or not in exactly the same way. Learn about the Equivalence Principle.

It is not incorrect, it is opposite argument. Your claims of gravitation magic do not magically make the gravity exist. It is an old fable and expired.

You claimed "The world system is based on magnetic forces".
That is obviously wrong because gravity affects all objects whether magnetic or not in exactly the same way.

I said nothing about "gravitation magic".

If you disagree prove your case.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 12, 2019, 01:32:41 AM

Incorrect!
Gravitation has been measured directly hundreds of times and detected directly thousands of times.
Your continued denial just proves your own ignorance.

Your childishly repeating same "incorrect" does not magically make my arguments incorrect! Grow up and give up childish behaves. People have measured something but it is definitely not anything related the so called gravitation.

Incorrect!
If it wasn't gravitation that they measured please explain what those hundreds of experiments performed by people far wiser than you did measure.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 12, 2019, 01:32:41 AM

Correct, well almost no tide and exactly as expected on the Globe.

I just said I've not seen it. I did not say anything about its being exist or absent. Do not manipulate my words.

I did not manipulate your words! I just gave a more precise answer than you did.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 12, 2019, 01:32:41 AM

Well don't! Bye then.

Bye.

Be gone for good this time!

Quote from: Macarios on July 11, 2019, 11:19:15 PM

Quote from: wise on July 11, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Where I live there is no tide. I don't want to talk about anymoreI haven't seen.

Wise is right. The highest tide in Istanbul could be around 12 cm, and the lowest about -2 cm.

Wise, you've heard about tides elsewhere in the world?
You even saw them on TV and in videos.
Could they be real?

I believe this being a bait. you will probably invite a flat earth believer here accordingly to my answer, right? if you ask honestly, I can answer honestly. but unfortunately the honesty is a feature that we have seen or even never seen in the globularists in our forum.

I was not asking about honesty, I was asking about tides.

Do they exist, or people are lying?

I don't care if anyone else tries to push their own agenda based on your answer.

~~~~~

About honesty:

We were talking about distance between Van and Izmir.

Turkish Geodesic Institute and many other organizationa and groups measured the whole Turkey.
Many times they measured every corner and every centimeter, up and down, left and right.
Every government, not only the present one, wants to know every inch about state properties.
Every government also wants to know about private properties, for one simple reason: taxes.

Izmir and Van are not some lost small villages, they are pretty big.
The exact distance between them is well known.

Yet, you were still trying to avoid the answer, pretending that you don't know how and where to find it.
And then you suddenly easily measure distances all over the Europe.

But ok, I gave up.
Relax.

Quote from: wise on July 12, 2019, 01:54:10 AM

Quote from: Macarios on July 11, 2019, 11:19:15 PM

Quote from: wise on July 11, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Where I live there is no tide. I don't want to talk about anymoreI haven't seen.

Wise is right. The highest tide in Istanbul could be around 12 cm, and the lowest about -2 cm.

Wise, you've heard about tides elsewhere in the world?
You even saw them on TV and in videos.
Could they be real?

I believe this being a bait. you will probably invite a flat earth believer here accordingly to my answer, right? if you ask honestly, I can answer honestly. but unfortunately the honesty is a feature that we have seen or even never seen in the globularists in our forum.

I was not asking about honesty, I was asking about tides.

Do they exist, or people are lying?

I don't care if anyone else tries to push their own agenda based on your answer.

~~~~~

About honesty:

We were talking about distance between Van and Izmir.

Turkish Geodesic Institute and many other organizationa and groups measured the whole Turkey.
Many times they measured every corner and every centimeter, up and down, left and right.
Every government, not only the present one, wants to know every inch about state properties.
Every government also wants to know about private properties, for one simple reason: taxes.

Izmir and Van are not some lost small villages, they are pretty big.
The exact distance between them is well known.

Yet, you were still trying to avoid the answer, pretending that you don't know how and where to find it.
And then you suddenly easily measure distances all over the Europe.

But ok, I gave up.
Relax.

If you gave up of something so you can simply delete it instead of writing you gave up. You say don't care if anyone else tries to push their own agenda based on my answer, but you are who try to push your own agenda based on my answer. I remind you that you asked Tom a question according to my response, queries me being a believer or not.

How can you convince that you're honest because after you act like that? first you need to repair this behavior.

Quote from: Macarios on July 12, 2019, 07:05:24 AM

Quote from: wise on July 12, 2019, 01:54:10 AM

Quote from: Macarios on July 11, 2019, 11:19:15 PM

Quote from: wise on July 11, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Where I live there is no tide. I don't want to talk about anymoreI haven't seen.

Wise is right. The highest tide in Istanbul could be around 12 cm, and the lowest about -2 cm.

Wise, you've heard about tides elsewhere in the world?
You even saw them on TV and in videos.
Could they be real?

I believe this being a bait. you will probably invite a flat earth believer here accordingly to my answer, right? if you ask honestly, I can answer honestly. but unfortunately the honesty is a feature that we have seen or even never seen in the globularists in our forum.

I was not asking about honesty, I was asking about tides.

Do they exist, or people are lying?

I don't care if anyone else tries to push their own agenda based on your answer.

~~~~~

About honesty:

We were talking about distance between Van and Izmir.

Turkish Geodesic Institute and many other organizationa and groups measured the whole Turkey.
Many times they measured every corner and every centimeter, up and down, left and right.
Every government, not only the present one, wants to know every inch about state properties.
Every government also wants to know about private properties, for one simple reason: taxes.

Izmir and Van are not some lost small villages, they are pretty big.
The exact distance between them is well known.

Yet, you were still trying to avoid the answer, pretending that you don't know how and where to find it.
And then you suddenly easily measure distances all over the Europe.

But ok, I gave up.
Relax.

If you gave up of something so you can simply delete it instead of writing you gave up. You say don't care if anyone else tries to push their own agenda based on my answer, but you are who try to push your own agenda based on my answer. I remind you that you asked Tom a question according to my response, queries me being a believer or not.

How can you convince that you're honest because after you act like that? first you need to repair this behavior.

I am telling you that I don't insist on your answer any more.
I stopped asking for the distance between Van and Izmir.
If that is not "giving up", then please tell us what it is.

~~~~~

My question for Tom Bishop "if you are Flat Earther" was based on your rising part of the water
and redesigning the flat surface of the water into something else.

Do you even remember that you've sent this:

Quote from: wise on July 12, 2019, 12:19:14 PM

Quote from: Macarios on July 12, 2019, 07:05:24 AM

Quote from: wise on July 12, 2019, 01:54:10 AM

Quote from: Macarios on July 11, 2019, 11:19:15 PM

Quote from: wise on July 11, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Where I live there is no tide. I don't want to talk about anymoreI haven't seen.

Wise is right. The highest tide in Istanbul could be around 12 cm, and the lowest about -2 cm.

Wise, you've heard about tides elsewhere in the world?
You even saw them on TV and in videos.
Could they be real?

I believe this being a bait. you will probably invite a flat earth believer here accordingly to my answer, right? if you ask honestly, I can answer honestly. but unfortunately the honesty is a feature that we have seen or even never seen in the globularists in our forum.

I was not asking about honesty, I was asking about tides.

Do they exist, or people are lying?

I don't care if anyone else tries to push their own agenda based on your answer.

~~~~~

About honesty:

We were talking about distance between Van and Izmir.

Turkish Geodesic Institute and many other organizationa and groups measured the whole Turkey.
Many times they measured every corner and every centimeter, up and down, left and right.
Every government, not only the present one, wants to know every inch about state properties.
Every government also wants to know about private properties, for one simple reason: taxes.

Izmir and Van are not some lost small villages, they are pretty big.
The exact distance between them is well known.

Yet, you were still trying to avoid the answer, pretending that you don't know how and where to find it.
And then you suddenly easily measure distances all over the Europe.

But ok, I gave up.
Relax.

If you gave up of something so you can simply delete it instead of writing you gave up. You say don't care if anyone else tries to push their own agenda based on my answer, but you are who try to push your own agenda based on my answer. I remind you that you asked Tom a question according to my response, queries me being a believer or not.

How can you convince that you're honest because after you act like that? first you need to repair this behavior.

I am telling you that I don't insist on your answer any more.
I stopped asking for the distance between Van and Izmir.
If that is not "giving up", then please tell us what it is.

~~~~~

My question for Tom Bishop "if you are Flat Earther" was based on your rising part of the water
and redesigning the flat surface of the water into something else.

Do you even remember that you've sent this:

I did not remember the issue's being distance between Van and Izmir. You are talking about Van and Izmir, I am not! This is the issue cavendish experiment, beaware!

I don't want to talk it because it is out of issue. Although your talkings are out of content, I know the moderator angry globularist boydster will not move your post but moves my post if I reply you with additionally bans me because of I talked out of issue. This is what he constantly does.

On the one had I am replying all your childish questions, on the other hand, I am dealing with baheviours of an angry globularist moderation here. I guess you can get this.

Again, if you want to ask something to Tom Bishop, then do it with in conversation which you do with him, not with me.
 you both try to make the subject more complicated, and you try to limit my area of ​​action. they are ugly and dishonest  behavours. What does Tom Bishop have to do with our subject here? What is your expectation here, Tom's saying "hell yeah, wise isn't a flat earth believer, oh my God". Are you thinking like this? This is bullshit! Behave yourself!

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 10, 2019, 08:28:06 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 04, 2019, 07:02:21 PM

Quote from: wise on July 04, 2019, 12:56:23 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 04, 2019, 11:04:59 AM

Quote

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.

There is no Cavendish experiment, that takes the location of the Moon into account.
Furthermore the moon has no strong magnetic field, your claim of such is  wrong.
Any influence from the moon is not possible.

Cavendish experiment does not take in the account the position of the moon because its function already to find the location of the moon. It simply follows the moon. If you put the metal ball through moon then it works better, otherwise you'll wait a bit more. That's all.

If the moon does not have an attractive effect, how do you explain the tide? So, stop lying. The moon has pressure effect the general objects and has attraction effect on metals. there are both effects. globularist theory accepts its attractive affect, but you are not.

So, wellcome the flat earth movement you newbie.

I see that you acknowledge that there is an attractive force between the moon and the earth that creates the tides. We globularist call this force, gravity.

As to the magnetic field affects on the earth from the moon, thy are non-existent, for every compass, would detect such a field, and  thy don't.

wise :
this got buried. Or I have missed your response, I would like to see you.
Thank you wise.

The world system is based on magnetic forces. gravity was never detected, and these fake experiments cannot prove it. where I live there is no tide. I don't want to talk about anymoreI haven't seen. I told you what I thought about it. I don't care if you agree or not.

thank you for your response

The world system is based on magnetic forces.

This something that I have magnetic, and is it why I am being held to earth, and is this force that gives me wight?
We have magnetic materials, and non magnetic, they are held to the earth the same way, why?
How does compass work with All the magnetic materials around it?
I will not argue with you about the power of magnetism or electricity one can induce the other.
Magnets are stronger than the (magic of gravity) they Picked up Metal Objects with ease. (Magic is a Science  that is not understood)
Or should I say this way gravity appears to be magic because, it is not understood.

Quote from: wise on July 11, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 10, 2019, 08:28:06 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 04, 2019, 07:02:21 PM

Quote from: wise on July 04, 2019, 12:56:23 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 04, 2019, 11:04:59 AM

Quote

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.

There is no Cavendish experiment, that takes the location of the Moon into account.
Furthermore the moon has no strong magnetic field, your claim of such is  wrong.
Any influence from the moon is not possible.

Cavendish experiment does not take in the account the position of the moon because its function already to find the location of the moon. It simply follows the moon. If you put the metal ball through moon then it works better, otherwise you'll wait a bit more. That's all.

If the moon does not have an attractive effect, how do you explain the tide? So, stop lying. The moon has pressure effect the general objects and has attraction effect on metals. there are both effects. globularist theory accepts its attractive affect, but you are not.

So, wellcome the flat earth movement you newbie.

I see that you acknowledge that there is an attractive force between the moon and the earth that creates the tides. We globularist call this force, gravity.

As to the magnetic field affects on the earth from the moon, thy are non-existent, for every compass, would detect such a field, and  thy don't.

wise :
this got buried. Or I have missed your response, I would like to see you.
Thank you wise.

The world system is based on magnetic forces. gravity was never detected, and these fake experiments cannot prove it. where I live there is no tide. I don't want to talk about anymoreI haven't seen. I told you what I thought about it. I don't care if you agree or not.

thank you for your response

Quote

The world system is based on magnetic forces.

This something that I have magnetic, and is it why I am being held to earth, and is this force that gives me wight?
We have magnetic materials, and non magnetic, they are held to the earth the same way, why?
How does compass work with All the magnetic materials around it?
I will not argue with you about the power of magnetism or electricity one can induce the other.
Magnets are stronger than the (magic of gravity) they Picked up Metal Objects with ease. (Magic is a Science  that is not understood)
Or should I say this way gravity appears to be magic because, it is not understood.

Earth system works magnetically.  the development of the issue was not in this direction. but you ask that and the others are waiting for my answer. so they can attack in the direction you opened more easily. No, this has become boring. if you have a question you can ask this to rabinoz, jackblack and macarios. because they know as much as we do. The only difference is that they are manipulating the truth. Seek real answers without manipulating them so they can answer you. rabinoz's database is higher than all known flat worlds. if you have a question, ask it. and say "answer me in accordance with the theory of the flat world". if he wants to do he does.

Asking questions to others while a large database such as rabinoz is here is proof that it is the goal not learning or data exchange. then don't expect a response from me. Your goal is not to get answers.

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 13, 2019, 03:12:25 PM

Quote from: wise on July 11, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 10, 2019, 08:28:06 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 04, 2019, 07:02:21 PM

Quote from: wise on July 04, 2019, 12:56:23 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 04, 2019, 11:04:59 AM

Quote

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.

There is no Cavendish experiment, that takes the location of the Moon into account.
Furthermore the moon has no strong magnetic field, your claim of such is  wrong.
Any influence from the moon is not possible.

Cavendish experiment does not take in the account the position of the moon because its function already to find the location of the moon. It simply follows the moon. If you put the metal ball through moon then it works better, otherwise you'll wait a bit more. That's all.

If the moon does not have an attractive effect, how do you explain the tide? So, stop lying. The moon has pressure effect the general objects and has attraction effect on metals. there are both effects. globularist theory accepts its attractive affect, but you are not.

So, wellcome the flat earth movement you newbie.

I see that you acknowledge that there is an attractive force between the moon and the earth that creates the tides. We globularist call this force, gravity.

As to the magnetic field affects on the earth from the moon, thy are non-existent, for every compass, would detect such a field, and  thy don't.

wise :
this got buried. Or I have missed your response, I would like to see you.
Thank you wise.

The world system is based on magnetic forces. gravity was never detected, and these fake experiments cannot prove it. where I live there is no tide. I don't want to talk about anymoreI haven't seen. I told you what I thought about it. I don't care if you agree or not.

thank you for your response

Quote

The world system is based on magnetic forces.

This something that I have magnetic, and is it why I am being held to earth, and is this force that gives me wight?
We have magnetic materials, and non magnetic, they are held to the earth the same way, why?
How does compass work with All the magnetic materials around it?
I will not argue with you about the power of magnetism or electricity one can induce the other.
Magnets are stronger than the (magic of gravity) they Picked up Metal Objects with ease. (Magic is a Science  that is not understood)
Or should I say this way gravity appears to be magic because, it is not understood.

Earth system works magnetically.  the development of the issue was not in this direction. but you ask that and the others are waiting for my answer. so they can attack in the direction you opened more easily. No, this has become boring. if you have a question you can ask this to rabinoz, jackblack and macarios. because they know as much as we do. The only difference is that they are manipulating the truth. Seek real answers without manipulating them so they can answer you. rabinoz's database is higher than all known flat worlds. if you have a question, ask it. and say "answer me in accordance with the theory of the flat world". if he wants to do he does.

Asking questions to others while a large database such as rabinoz is here is proof that it is the goal not learning or data exchange. then don't expect a response from me. Your goal is not to get answers.

I am trying to see, the world from your point of view.
What are see so far, Falls apart.
Celestial gears, after have too much motion, does not answer the question of how things stay up there.
What you present does not make me a believer, your ranting and rave in from your point of view, does not help you.
Your position of Science all being lies, is not supportable.
So that we are at an impasse, since we will not be able to move, the other too his Point of view.
I reserve the right, to comment and question, from time to time.

The world system is based on magnetic forces. gravity was never detected, and these fake experiments cannot prove it.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Earth system works magnetically.  the development of the issue was not in this direction. wants to do he does.

The gravity, at least, in the earth system does not work magnetically! There are magnetic and electric forces, all classed as electromagnetic forces.

But they cannot replace gravity in any way shape or form because:
       Both electric and magnetic effects depend strongly on the type of material and
       the effects of electric fields can be shielded against by good electrical conductors (metals) and
       the effects of magnetic fields can be shielded against by good magnetic "conductors" - very high magnetic permeability materials.
But there is no way to shield against the effects of gravitation - objects weigh the same in the best shielded vault as in the open.

So it is quite unlikely that gravitation can be of magnetic of electric origin.

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

What is your evidence gravity pulls mass to center of Earth? Our Earth has no evidence of this theory.   

Quote from: alex314 on June 24, 2019, 11:35:36 PM

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

What is your evidence gravity pulls mass to center of Earth? Our Earth has no evidence of this theory.

The evidence is the fact that the Earth attracts magnetic and non-magnetic objects with equal mass equally.

But people didn't accept it as is, they tested it, measured it, and they still do, trying to get more accurate.

"The gravitational constant "big G" is about 6.67408 ×10⁻¹¹ N⋅m²/kg²."

6.67408 ×10⁻¹¹ is 0.0000000000667408 and that "408" part is currently in dispute.

It is not just about mesuring the value so small.
It is also about how to be sure that you were correct.

You can not do the same as religious Dogma - tell people "it is so", forbid doubts, and condemn "heretics" who don't obey.
(Burn Giordano Bruno and imprison Galileo Galilei.)
You have to develop a method that anyone can repeat, test and improve as needed.

It is a college lab experiment.

It is a college lab experiment.

Hello Joecool, welcome to the FES. Please stop bumping threads if you're not going to add anything worthwhile to them.