repeated a wrong statement and 'nope' doesn't change reality

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11922814.pdf

Lots of colleges and universities claim to have reproduced it. Yet, whenever independent people try to do so, they can’t.

Know why?

b/c theyr'e doing a different experiment

Because it’s like the Foucault pendulum. You can’t produce the experiment without first manipulating the device.

helllo

what experiment requires no manipulation of a device, or setup

Yep it was repeated

@the21cat good help me out here

I just read the document

Brian Mullin being wrong : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quRpMETMOjU

Did you guys even watch that video I posted?

easy to find

yes, and Brian is wrong

did you watch it, or just read the title @Derek Nelson

No because its description is already proven wrong

Oh wait

Yes i did

That was the dumb video that said it was all wind

all the video is is of this guy describing the cavendish experiment

Even though wind wont let the thing oscillate

https://youtu.be/_mfzcTCmZ-g

yes if wind isn't protected against, then it's not the cavendish experiment

And hom showing a childs experiment and comparing it to the real experiment

Brian the science man, is a pseudoscientist.

This is so painful.

It was an 18th century

Shed

I barely consider his claim

An 18th century shed that should have been airtight, yes?

And in all likelihood, it was not.

Well atleast air tight from large amount of wind yra

doesn't have to be airtight

But maybe it had a hole in it

just good enough to prevent wind from affecting the results

besides he always saw an attraction

Whenever the cavendish Experiment is attempted to be repeated in an air tight container, guess what happens?

widn would blow it in random directions

Nothing.

prove it