[PickYerPoison]

The wiki says that "As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct." and then points to the Dark Energy and Davis Plane theories. I was wondering, what experiments or research could we do to try and better understand the Universal Accelerator? Obviously we can't just dig all the way down until we break through, I don't think there's enough grant money in the world for something like that, but what else could be done?

(I'm just wondering if anyone has any hypothetical ideas, I'm not neceessarily looking for anyone to come up with an experiment someone like me could actually do - if your experiment would need the Hadron Collider or something then that's still fine! The wiki implies they might be kind of expensive anyway, and if it was something I could do, someone would've already done it already.)

[RazaTD]

The wiki says that "As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct." and then points to the Dark Energy and Davis Plane theories. I was wondering, what experiments or research could we do to try and better understand the Universal Accelerator? Obviously we can't just dig all the way down until we break through, I don't think there's enough grant money in the world for something like that, but what else could be done?

(I'm just wondering if anyone has any hypothetical ideas, I'm not neceessarily looking for anyone to come up with an experiment someone like me could actually do - if your experiment would need the Hadron Collider or something then that's still fine! The wiki implies they might be kind of expensive anyway, and if it was something I could do, someone would've already done it already.)

Although it may seem gravity and universal acceleration can work as substitute for each other, there is one thing that is different about them, which you can use to distinguish them.

According to the theory of gravity, the downward pull we experience daily is simply another one of the attractive forces that exist between objects with mass. In this case the Earth attracts us, and we attract the Earth. However, the Earth is much more massive and therefore it is able to exert a greater force than we can exert on it.

On the other hand, the theory of universal acceleration states that the Earth is accelerating up to catch us giving the illusion of a downwards pull.

The difference is subtle but it is of major significance. Universal acceleration claims that the Earth is accelerating up. This means that the Earth MUST be accelerating up the same amount EVERYWHERE. Otherwise, faster accelerating pieces would fly off. The implication is that you should get the exact same value for the downward pull no matter where on Earth you take the measurement. Gravity, however, does not requires this. Therefore, you can get different values of downward pull at different locations.

The experiment could then be to take careful measurements of the downward pull in different places of the Earth. If the value is not constant, UA fails to explain observed reality. Though we still would not have proved that it is gravity, but whatever it is, it’s not UA.

[Iceman]

The wiki addresses some of the large scale gravity variations with the aim of discounting the theory of gravity and the use of gravimeters.

The wiki fails to address the local and site-scale variations that are discernable through precise measurement by gravimeters, where subsurface data confirms that density variations in the subsurface are the cause.

Modern satellites are also able to observe transient variations in gravity related to changes in glacier mass balance, groundwater drawdown, or water level variations.

Some of these topics are discussed here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16913.0

[PickYerPoison]

I'm not really interested in proving or disproving the existence of the UA here. That discussion has been had a lot already on this forum, and on the wiki. What I'm interested in is something the wiki, and this forum, are lacking on - the nature of the UA, and what ways that nature could be better investigated and determined. The wiki offers two theories, but doesn't provide reasoning behind why they were hypothesized, or how we could figure out which of them is correct (or if there might be additional theories about what the UA is).

[RazaTD]

I'm not really interested in proving or disproving the existence of the UA here. That discussion has been had a lot already on this forum, and on the wiki. What I'm interested in is something the wiki, and this forum, are lacking on - the nature of the UA, and what ways that nature could be better investigated and determined. The wiki offers two theories, but doesn't provide reasoning behind why they were hypothesized, or how we could figure out which of them is correct (or if there might be additional theories about what the UA is).

You can do the experiment I outlined in my previous reply to investigate whether or not UA maintains the same value in different parts of the Earth. I’m interested in knowing why you think this experiment does not reveal something about the nature of UA.

[PickYerPoison]

I'm not really interested in proving or disproving the existence of the UA here. That discussion has been had a lot already on this forum, and on the wiki. What I'm interested in is something the wiki, and this forum, are lacking on - the nature of the UA, and what ways that nature could be better investigated and determined. The wiki offers two theories, but doesn't provide reasoning behind why they were hypothesized, or how we could figure out which of them is correct (or if there might be additional theories about what the UA is).

You can do the experiment I outlined in my previous reply to investigate whether or not UA maintains the same value in different parts of the Earth. I’m interested in knowing why you think this experiment does not reveal something about the nature of UA.

It doesn't tell me what gravity is made of either!

[JSS]

I'm not really interested in proving or disproving the existence of the UA here. That discussion has been had a lot already on this forum, and on the wiki. What I'm interested in is something the wiki, and this forum, are lacking on - the nature of the UA, and what ways that nature could be better investigated and determined. The wiki offers two theories, but doesn't provide reasoning behind why they were hypothesized, or how we could figure out which of them is correct (or if there might be additional theories about what the UA is).

You can do the experiment I outlined in my previous reply to investigate whether or not UA maintains the same value in different parts of the Earth. I’m interested in knowing why you think this experiment does not reveal something about the nature of UA.

It doesn't tell me what gravity is made of either!

You should keep in mind that it is impossible to ever know EVERYTHING about the physical world. No matter how much we learn, you can always ask 'why?' one more time.

Try it with literally any subject and you will find you can always just ask why one more time, until we run out of answers.

This is not a limitation of 'RET' science, and Flat Earth has the same problem. You can ask why forever.

Not knowing everything doesn't mean we don't know anything. We know a lot, just not all of it, and never will.

But it means learning new things and pushing our limits of knowledge will never end. That's a good thing.

[scomato]

It can be observed using ground-based instruments that g does not equal 9.81 m/s² everywhere. I do not see how you can reconcile the fact that the Earths gravity is easily measurable using gravimeters.

Gravimetry is the backbone of modern oil, mineral and gas industries, it is how they survey the earth to estimate the mineral compositions below the earth. Over pockets and voids in the earth full of less dense oil and gas, energy companies can know where to drill. This is all totally independent of, and can be verified without coming close to the topic of satellites, a curvature of the earth, atmospheric distortion of light, the size and positions of the sun and moon, the trailing of the stars, it's just a good old fashioned box with a spring in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5WYBVFqRhk

The data from gravimeters tell us that the downward pull from the earth is weaker where there is the least mass underneath you (over the deepest parts of the ocean) and the pull is stronger when there is more mass underneath you (over a tall mountain range). What you get is a global distribution of gravity that makes the Earth less of a sphere and more like a lumpy potato.



If UA was real, gravimetry would show that the downward pull on the earth is the same everywhere - and it would not be possible to explain the measurable variation in gravity at different points of the earth at the same time.

In FE UA it would not matter if you were standing at the top of Mt. Everest or at the bottom of Mariana's Trench you would experience the same downward pull anywhere you were on Earth, as the Earth can't be accelerating at different speeds in different places.

[SteelyBob]

It can be observed using ground-based instruments that g does not equal 9.81 m/s² everywhere. I do not see how you can reconcile the fact that the Earths gravity is easily measurable using gravimeters.

Gravimetry is the backbone of modern oil, mineral and gas industries, it is how they survey the earth to estimate the mineral compositions below the earth. Over pockets and voids in the earth full of less dense oil and gas, energy companies can know where to drill. This is all totally independent of, and can be verified without coming close to the topic of satellites, a curvature of the earth, atmospheric distortion of light, the size and positions of the sun and moon, the trailing of the stars, it's just a good old fashioned box with a spring in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5WYBVFqRhk

The data from gravimeters tell us that the downward pull from the earth is weaker where there is the least mass underneath you (over the deepest parts of the ocean) and the pull is stronger when there is more mass underneath you (over a tall mountain range). What you get is a global distribution of gravity that makes the Earth less of a sphere and more like a lumpy potato.



If UA was real, gravimetry would show that the downward pull on the earth is the same everywhere - and it would not be possible to explain the measurable variation in gravity at different points of the earth at the same time.

In FE UA it would not matter if you were standing at the top of Mt. Everest or at the bottom of Mariana's Trench you would experience the same downward pull anywhere you were on Earth, as the Earth can't be accelerating at different speeds in different places.

A very good point. The FE Wiki has a huge section on gravimetry - none of it makes any sense at all. It seems to muddle (deliberately?) the fact that a lot of people using gravimeters, for example those looking for oil or other minerals, are interested only in the sub surface densities, and hence want to correct for the larger scale variations that you get due to the earth's shape and the apparent reduction in g you get, in increasing amounts closer to the equator, due to the earth's spin. It also goes big on the similarities with seismometers, as if this is some grand conspiracy. Amusingly, there's several references to how gravimeters and seismometers are often accurate enough to detect solar and lunar gravitational effects. The fact that the FE wiki itself is quoting sources that state that the passing of the sun and moon, synchronised perfectly with the tides of the sea, can be detected by what is essentially a weight/spring balance machine, should give most FE believers at least pause for thought.   

[scomato]

A very good point. The FE Wiki has a huge section on gravimetry - none of it makes any sense at all. It seems to muddle (deliberately?) the fact that a lot of people using gravimeters, for example those looking for oil or other minerals, are interested only in the sub surface densities, and hence want to correct for the larger scale variations that you get due to the earth's shape and the apparent reduction in g you get, in increasing amounts closer to the equator, due to the earth's spin. It also goes big on the similarities with seismometers, as if this is some grand conspiracy. Amusingly, there's several references to how gravimeters and seismometers are often accurate enough to detect solar and lunar gravitational effects. The fact that the FE wiki itself is quoting sources that state that the passing of the sun and moon, synchronised perfectly with the tides of the sea, can be detected by what is essentially a weight/spring balance machine, should give most FE believers at least pause for thought.

The wiki on Gravimetry claims that Gravimeters are picking up seismic noise, which is impossible considering most Gravimetry these days is conducted using airplane or satellite mounted devices. How does seismology work, when the detector is not even attached to the ground?

The FE dispute of Gravimetry seems to revolve around this notion, and posits that the correlation between seismically active regions of earth and the gravimetric anomaly distribution of Earth as being the same thing. But they are visibly not. Most notably are the mountain ranges of West Africa - we know them to be ancient and from the Precambrian period and what's left today is eroded sediment from half a billion years ago. It isn't volcanic, yet, the high density of mass caused by those mountains still gives the expected gravimetry readings despite being seismically inactive!

Gravity of Earth


Seismically Active Regions


There are many similarities, but any grade-school child could understand that mountains are the result of tectonic plates colliding and are therefore seismically active regions, while the same process creates volcanic mountain ranges that are incidentally the densest regions of the Earths surface.



The correlation is not causation. If airborne gravimeters were indeed somehow magically picking up on seismic activity, then there should be spikes in measurement in the seismically active undersea tectonic plate borderlands too. But instead, the gravimeters provide data that is consistent with a less dense region of the earth's surface, why is that?

[RazaTD]

I'm not really interested in proving or disproving the existence of the UA here. That discussion has been had a lot already on this forum, and on the wiki. What I'm interested in is something the wiki, and this forum, are lacking on - the nature of the UA, and what ways that nature could be better investigated and determined. The wiki offers two theories, but doesn't provide reasoning behind why they were hypothesized, or how we could figure out which of them is correct (or if there might be additional theories about what the UA is).

You can do the experiment I outlined in my previous reply to investigate whether or not UA maintains the same value in different parts of the Earth. I’m interested in knowing why you think this experiment does not reveal something about the nature of UA.

It doesn't tell me what gravity is made of either!

It’s an experiment to discover the nature of UA. It will not reveal a whole lot about gravity. However, it is enough to disprove UA. I don’t understand why you are not interested in something that disproves UA while trying to learn more about its nature.

[Tom Bishop]

The wiki on Gravimetry claims that Gravimeters are picking up seismic noise, which is impossible considering most Gravimetry these days is conducted using airplane or satellite mounted devices. How does seismology work, when the detector is not even attached to the ground?

Seismic waves are transmitted into the air as well - https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Airborne_Seismic_Waves

It isn't volcanic, yet, the high density of mass caused by those mountains still gives the expected gravimetry readings despite being seismically inactive!

No, they don't. Gravity readings are negative on the mountains - https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy#Inverse_Mountains

[Iceman]

No, they don't. Gravity readings are negative on the mountains - https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy#Inverse_Mountains

That's only partially true, like areas where mountain peaks are composed of uplifted lithified former seafloor sediments. In these areas, the less dense rocks press down on the denser crustal rocks beneath, making the observed pull due to gravity less.

Other modern and former mountain chains with higher proportions of denser rock display high gravity anomalies. Look at the Andes or the ancient Appalachians, which have a higher gravity than the surrounding intracratonic basins infilled with Paleozoic and younger sea floor sediments.

The highest gravity anomalies tend to occur in areas where dense crust occurs near surface: mid-ocean ridges and along the margins of ocean trenches.

The isostacy wiki page is drastically deficient in quality references and empirical data.

[Tom Bishop]

No, they don't. Gravity readings are negative on the mountains - https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy#Inverse_Mountains

That's only partially true, like areas where mountain peaks are composed of uplifted lithified former seafloor sediments. In these areas, the less dense rocks press down on the denser crustal rocks beneath, making the observed pull due to gravity less.

Other modern and former mountain chains with higher proportions of denser rock display high gravity anomalies. Look at the Andes or the ancient Appalachians, which have a higher gravity than the surrounding intracratonic basins infilled with Paleozoic and younger sea floor sediments.

The highest gravity anomalies tend to occur in areas where dense crust occurs near surface: mid-ocean ridges and along the margins of ocean trenches.

The isostacy wiki page is drastically deficient in quality references and empirical data.

The Wiki actually does provide sources. Whereas you provide no sources at all for your statements.

[Iceman]

The Wiki actually does provide sources. Whereas you provide no sources at all for your statements.

The wiki page quotes two geologists. Each of which offer wildly alternative views on a variety of natural phenomena. It then quotes some material from the geological survey of India which is inconsequential to the discussion at hand, then provides a diagram which...effectively demonstrates the concept of isostasy, which it is intended to refute

Here are some counter points and references to freely available data:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17659.msg231979