I see, sorry, misread.

I didn't make it to the discussion about electrostatics on the video, it's just too long. If you can point to a specific minute, I can analyze it.

I won't argue that electrostatics and gravity are related. They are, and that's why a field called "electrogravitics" exists. But that has nothing to do with the Cavendish experiment.

Even if it was electrostatics, the moment the hanging blocks touch the sitting blocks the charge would dissipate and the electrostatic effect would vanish (the hanging blocks would move away). But that's not the case. They stay next to the sitting blocks.

In relation to electrostatics, the Cavendish experiment does not involve electrically charging the masses.

In the video that I posted you can see that the experimenter does not charge the hanging lead blocks at any moment.

I made a long comment about it. Maybe you didn't receive the notification.

nostr:nevent1qqsty9ncku74qcdd6vzjvpf0cdhz2pddhq698r4sj6vew9kuw5l425cpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpr9mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumgd96xvmmjvdjjummwv5pzpvhcr50lejkevqt63nsrql30waayw6hdfkhj9z2tzd2u9jvwagfqqvzqqqqqqydle3vw

Two separate topics. I addressed the video on a separate comment.

Magnetism does nothing to lead.

I'm trying to find the exact minute on the video.

I guess these are the questions you are talking about?

"Can you provide evidence that the earth orbits the sun?" No, and it doesn't matter. In general relativity all bodies travel in space in a straight line. Therefore the "orbit" is there only at a solar system scale, not locally. That is why you can't "feel it", because you're not going in circles and, in a way, according to GR, the Earth is in fact stationary (except for rotation).

What you **can** prove, is that the moon orbits the Earth and is quite heavy. We can prove that we are being orbited, thanks to gravity.

The contradictions posited in the Newton vs Einstein picture are only apparent. Newtonian physics are OK and used for practical purposes mainly on the surface of Earth. General Relativity is used for planetary scale, stellar scale, galactic scale, etc.

Both approaches are wrong and right. For example, Newton ignored what Einstein discovered about space being flexible and how gravity works. Einstein ignored that the aether (that he refuted) would make a comeback with different names in the future (dark matter, dark energy, quantum physics, etc.) "Aether" is like a placeholder, a wildcard.

There is no perfect explanation of our universe yet. We have approximations to the Truth that are useful in practice. We can make predictions with them. We are grateful for these teachings, but we know that they aren't perfect. They are part of a learning curve for Mankind. Just that.

Magnetism has no effect on lead.

The Cavendish experiment stands.

You can see gravity in action with your own eyes thanks to the Cavendish experiment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbucRPiL92Q

When the human brain wants to believe something, no matter how wrong it is, it is somehow right. It's fantastic.

Hot Yoga

If something I learned from Silicon Valley is that a good logo must always be lowercase.

And by the way, the ostrich makes it look from the eighties, it's unique, I like it most.

Now, in relation to the video you just posted.

This guy shows as "proof" of... something? a video made by a drone flying up on a beach... Really, you can't see the error here?

These people lie blatantly to you.

The answer to your questions is "Fata Morgana". Well known phenomenon.

And again, I have no interest in proving to you any "model". What I do want to prove to you, and I did, is that the video you posted is based on lies.

In reality according to the model you should be able to see most of the platforms. They lied to you.

She could improve her manners.

"Mass attracting mass" is a simplistic description of what appears to happen on the Cavendish experiment. Not a definition, but not wrong either.

"Top-of-the-IQ-bell people".

Also change the acronym to "Not an OSTRich".

Kidding, I love the ostrich.

https://0x0.st/HIfx.mp4

My condolences. Stay strong and never give up.

He is not interested in truth, he's interested in winning pissing contests on the internet.

lmao, this horny dutch

1. Yes, I proved that "the bases of the platforms are covered by the physical horizon". I proved that to you **mathematically** (not necessarily visually). The video does not "clearly shows" anything, because it is very blurry, as it's supposed to be in these cases. And yes, you can see water "behind" the platforms thanks, again, to Fata Morgana, a well known phenomenon.

2. I never said that the physical horizon "can be seen", I said it **is** there, which is different. What you see is a distorted image, light. Understand that light can be bent, reflected, refracted, you can do all sorts of things with light, as in this case. I even told you that for you to corroborate that the horizon **is** physically there, you would need to have a very long stick to touch it, because your eyes wouldn't be of help.

Yes, the horizon has a curvature, that doesn't mean that you are perceiving it. Most people don't perceive it until very high altitudes. Remember we're measuring stuff here, not perceiving.

3. No, you won't notice the horizon falling down your eye sight until very very high altitudes. It does fall eventually, but you never experienced it in your life.

You shouldn't avoid the hard fact, that the farthest platform cannot be seen as tall as the first one. As expected.

You shouldn't avoid the hard fact that we don't know the height of the sea level at that moment (another missing piece of information).

You shouldn't avoid the hard fact that your initial proposition that "they shouldn't be seen at all according to the model" was proven FALSE.

I'll repeat that last sentence, because you seem to have problems understanding the **point** of my argument here:

You shouldn't avoid the hard fact that your initial proposition that "they shouldn't be seen at all according to the model" was proven FALSE.

The model DOES EXPECT them to be seen partially, as they are.

In relation to your image, no, no, no, no. That angle is not accurate, that is not the real angle that you're experiencing. It is a **representation** for illustrative purposes (otherwise the degrees would appear on the screen, you see a number there?, no). As I said many times before, for you to experience a falling of the horizon below your eye level, you need much much higher altitudes, that you never experienced in your life.

You also put a note "the base of the platforms should be visible", but the base of the farthest platform is clearly NOT visible. You can see that platform appears to be below the closest one.

Again, back to the main point of my argument.

This is not about how many feet are seen or hidden, this is about you believing the lies of the video.

1. They told you that "according to the model" the platforms shouldn't be seen at all. That's lie.

2. They told you that "the horizon is behind the platforms", when in reality it is Fata Morgana, as expected in these cases. Another lie.

3. They told you that "light travels in straight lines", another lie. Light travels in a medium that may not be straight.

These are three basic lies that they use to fool people into believing that a model doesn't work, when in reality they apply it the wrong way, on purpose.

These are well known misinformation techniques used profusely in propaganda and psychological operations by government agencies. As well as the video editing style, etc. It's all very hypnotic, as you may have noticed. It is on purpose.

I suggest you watch the "Behind the Curve" documentary, where more lies from Flat Earth influencers are exposed.

The documentary is very well done, very professional, very impartial, and genuinely entertaining.

I believe that the producers really wanted flatearthers to do better, but instead they found them blatantly lying. Which made me very sad. It's always sad when you find out a liar.

And what's even more sad, they tripled down on the lies after the release of the documentary. That tells you that they will never learn, and that they must have very selfish motivations to do what they do.

Seriously, watch it, it's a very good documentary.