nice

What do you think they prove

Have you ever used one?

Well they prove that mass attracts mass

And they measure that attraction

with a super duper sensitive spring device

They buried 5 tons of lead in the ground, then they used this super sensitive spring device called a gravimeter and moved it slowly horizontally over it. When more mass is under it, the spring compresses more. I'd show a graph, but I don't have image permissions, so here's a link to the tests they did. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC110440/jrc110440_technical_note_preparatory_tests_2016-17.pdf

I have never used one

Have you heard of the Allias Effect

No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect

Abstract
Conventional explanations for observations of anomalous behaviour of mechanical
systems during solar eclipses are critically reviewed. These observations include the work
of Allais with paraconical pendula, those of Saxl and Allen with a torsion pendulum and
measurements with gravimeters. Attempts of replications of these experiments and recent
gravimeter results are discussed and unpublished data by Latham and by Saxl et al. is
presented. Some of the data are summarized and re-analyzed. Especially, attention is paid
to observations of tilt of the vertical, which seems to play an important role in this matter
and recommendations for future research are given. It is concluded that all the proposed
conventional explanations either qualitatively or quantitatively fail to explain the
observations.

Thanks for the info

Haven't they failed to recreate this effect so far?

Yeah np. Ty also

@IG have they?

I haven't read about in a long time

I know people plan every eclipse to try and recreate it, I just haven't heard of someone being successful.

The veracity of the Allais effect remains controversial among the scientific community, as its testing has frequently met with inconsistent or ambiguous results over more than five decades of observation.

@Citizen Z you do realize atomic clocks existed before einstein right

But I'll read more

It's still interesting

@Shadow✓ they dont prove anything

still no answer to my question

whatever

@Citizen Z is that your best response

The paper you sent seemed to assume that all atomic clocks rely on the speed of light

I can easily show this paper doesn't negate anything considering we have atomic clocks earlier than einstein's theory was even developed and they worked without assumptions of lightspeed

I'm not even going to bother with reading the actual paper

Besides, they do prove that atomic clocks at higher altitudes (farther away from earths core in the globe model) tick at a different rate than those closer. In accordance with general relativity and with gravity.

Not to mention, that's only a single proof of GR.

I can name many, many more, and besides even if general relativity was proven incorrect it's not like density is plausible as an alternative.

https://youtu.be/SXR25ofqD58 @Shadow✓

Density/buoyancy as replacement for gravity is *easily* disproven.

A little common sense goes a long way

nice like/dislike ratio

A video could have a million likes. Doesnt mean its true

I have a good example of trickery in videos but many didnt see it.

ok

Let me find