The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Alchemist21 on December 02, 2013, 01:59:15 AM

Title: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Alchemist21 on December 02, 2013, 01:59:15 AM
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Excelsior John on December 02, 2013, 10:54:06 PM
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
I beleive gravitey exists. I beleive in two thoerys concerning why this: 1) The earth is infinite/expanding with the universe 2) The earth is finite but is the still the vary base of the universe and ultimate gravitationel dent and is being pulled by the expanding universe keeping it flat

Ether way in my gravitationel hipothesis gravitey causes the sun and moon to revolve (or circle) above the sun. The planets revolve around the sun (and the planets moons revolve around the planets. I also think the Earth causes some gravitationel distortion causing elipticel orbits). I beleive the Solar System to be the Milkey Ways center and the other galxaxys revolve the Milkey Way. Tracing it back to the begining this efectivley makes Earth the center of the universe

As earth is the base of the universe i beleive it to be the ultimate gravitationel dent of the universe as told by generel relativitey causing the sun to circle above it
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Adolf Hipster on December 02, 2013, 11:02:31 PM
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
I beleive gravitey exists. I beleive in two thoerys concerning why this: 1) The earth is infinite/expanding with the universe 2) The earth is finite but is the still the vary base of the universe and ultimate gravitationel dent and is being pulled by the expanding universe keeping it flat

Ether way in my gravitationel hipothesis gravitey causes the sun and moon to revolve (or circle) above the sun. The planets revolve around the sun (and the planets moons revolve around the planets. I also think the Earth causes some gravitationel distortion causing elipticel orbits). I beleive the Solar System to be the Milkey Ways center and the other galxaxys revolve the Milkey Way. Tracing it back to the begining this efectivley makes Earth the center of the universe

As earth is the base of the universe i beleive it to be the ultimate gravitationel dent of the universe as told by generel relativitey causing the sun to circle above it
You say that gravity exists, but the earth is flat and is being kept flat by an expanding universe. What about the expansion of the universe is pulling the earth? In RE, the continuous expansion of the universe doesn't make planets and such flat.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Excelsior John on December 02, 2013, 11:17:29 PM
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
I beleive gravitey exists. I beleive in two thoerys concerning why this: 1) The earth is infinite/expanding with the universe 2) The earth is finite but is the still the vary base of the universe and ultimate gravitationel dent and is being pulled by the expanding universe keeping it flat

Ether way in my gravitationel hipothesis gravitey causes the sun and moon to revolve (or circle) above the sun. The planets revolve around the sun (and the planets moons revolve around the planets. I also think the Earth causes some gravitationel distortion causing elipticel orbits). I beleive the Solar System to be the Milkey Ways center and the other galxaxys revolve the Milkey Way. Tracing it back to the begining this efectivley makes Earth the center of the universe

As earth is the base of the universe i beleive it to be the ultimate gravitationel dent of the universe as told by generel relativitey causing the sun to circle above it
You say that gravity exists, but the earth is flat and is being kept flat by an expanding universe. What about the expansion of the universe is pulling the earth? In RE, the continuous expansion of the universe doesn't make planets and such flat.
I cant exacley explain why the universe does this but i beleive some earley cosmic universe event caused this as matter got cooler after the Big Bang and that the earth was at the center from which the Bang ocured. Think about how the galaxys get farther away from each other as the universe expands: Earth was formed at the center of all of this and is the literel vary base of the universe. The universe continues expanding and the earth is being pulled and stays flat

Also dont forget i look at the infinite/expanding earth as a fesible hipothesis as well :)
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Alchemist21 on December 02, 2013, 11:19:22 PM
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
I beleive gravitey exists. I beleive in two thoerys concerning why this: 1) The earth is infinite/expanding with the universe 2) The earth is finite but is the still the vary base of the universe and ultimate gravitationel dent and is being pulled by the expanding universe keeping it flat

Ether way in my gravitationel hipothesis gravitey causes the sun and moon to revolve (or circle) above the sun. The planets revolve around the sun (and the planets moons revolve around the planets. I also think the Earth causes some gravitationel distortion causing elipticel orbits). I beleive the Solar System to be the Milkey Ways center and the other galxaxys revolve the Milkey Way. Tracing it back to the begining this efectivley makes Earth the center of the universe

As earth is the base of the universe i beleive it to be the ultimate gravitationel dent of the universe as told by generel relativitey causing the sun to circle above it

How can you believe Earth is both finite and infinite?  They're literally the opposite of each other.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Excelsior John on December 02, 2013, 11:23:39 PM
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
I beleive gravitey exists. I beleive in two thoerys concerning why this: 1) The earth is infinite/expanding with the universe 2) The earth is finite but is the still the vary base of the universe and ultimate gravitationel dent and is being pulled by the expanding universe keeping it flat

Ether way in my gravitationel hipothesis gravitey causes the sun and moon to revolve (or circle) above the sun. The planets revolve around the sun (and the planets moons revolve around the planets. I also think the Earth causes some gravitationel distortion causing elipticel orbits). I beleive the Solar System to be the Milkey Ways center and the other galxaxys revolve the Milkey Way. Tracing it back to the begining this efectivley makes Earth the center of the universe

As earth is the base of the universe i beleive it to be the ultimate gravitationel dent of the universe as told by generel relativitey causing the sun to circle above it

How can you believe Earth is both finite and infinite?  They're literally the opposite of each other.
I wasnt saying I beleive that. I was saying that I am open to both thoerys and I beleive ether one could be corect. However if the earth was infinite/expanding I would beleive that only the known earth is habitable and the rest of the infinite/expanding earth is ocean as the earth is the only above water land on the earthley plane
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on December 08, 2013, 07:57:41 PM
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
Universal Acceleration exists. Gravitation probably exists. I don't know if the Earth exhibits gravitation, but the other planets appear to.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Roundy on December 09, 2013, 03:44:11 AM
I'm not sure if universal acceleration exists.  All I know for sure is that from my perspective, things fall.  We can measure the rate at which these things fall.  It seems like idle speculation that leads to the conclusion that this is because we are accelerating upwards.  As for what it is, you can call it gravity if you like, but I'm not at all convinced that it's necessarily the same force that is responsible for the movement of the celestial bodies above us.  Believing that requires a leap of faith that I'm not prepared to take.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: rottingroom on December 15, 2013, 05:14:02 PM
I'm not sure if universal acceleration exists.  All I know for sure is that from my perspective, things fall.  We can measure the rate at which these things fall.  It seems like idle speculation that leads to the conclusion that this is because we are accelerating upwards.  As for what it is, you can call it gravity if you like, but I'm not at all convinced that it's necessarily the same force that is responsible for the movement of the celestial bodies above us.  Believing that requires a leap of faith that I'm not prepared to take.

While gravity is attributed to the movement of celestial bodies in modern education, the main driver of the apparent motion of them is simply the Earth's spin. I know that you know that but I decided to waste my time responding anyway.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Excelsior John on December 15, 2013, 08:14:31 PM
Some FE theorists think gravity exists, others think it doesn't. 

If you think it does, explain how it works on the FE model, and whether or not it is exists along with universal acceleration.

If you think it doesn't, then explain why.
Universal Acceleration exists. Gravitation probably exists. I don't know if the Earth exhibits gravitation, but the other planets appear to.
What is your proof of UA? And that wouldnt make sense for other planets to have gravitation while earth doesnt. Afterall the universe does circle above the earth
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on December 15, 2013, 08:31:32 PM
What is your proof of UA?
Go stand on a chair, and then jump off of it.

And that wouldnt make sense for other planets to have gravitation while earth doesnt.
And that wouldn't make sense for only Earth to have life on it, but all the evidence thus far indicates it is.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Scientific Method on December 15, 2013, 10:23:38 PM
What is your proof of UA?
Go stand on a chair, and then jump off of it.

This only proves relative acceleration between you and the earth. It's far from conclusive. Do this with your eyes closed. What do you feel? (this isn't conclusive either, it's just a variation on that tired old 'experiment')

Also (and I hate to bring this up yet again), what about the variations in measured weight of a given mass at different locations around the world? Check out this site for some data: http://www.gnomeexperiment.com/ (http://www.gnomeexperiment.com/)

Or you could also have a look at a gravity map, here's one overlaid on a Mercator projection:
(http://seanmehan.globat.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/gallerygravity.jpg)
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2013, 05:22:11 PM
The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.

Gravity measuring experiment are incredibly sensitive and outside factors weigh in. For example, how are they ruling out that the varying magnetic field of the earth is not affecting the metal weights in the weighing machine?

Different areas on earth have different atmospheric pressures, if only slight, and thus things fall faster/slower via buoyancy. How are they ruling out that either the gnome or the balance are not affected by the pressure?

The static force is said to be orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. How do these experiments account for the static force from the floor, walls, and ceiling of the room the experiment is conducted in?

See: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Per the Mercator gravity map, my comment is that it comes from a space mission and is automatically invalidated on grounds that sustained space travel is not possible. These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 16, 2013, 06:38:08 PM
The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.

Gravity measuring experiment are incredibly sensitive and outside factors weigh in. For example, how are they ruling out that the varying magnetic field of the earth is not affecting the metal weights in the weighing machine?

Different areas on earth have different atmospheric pressures, if only slight, and thus things fall faster/slower via buoyancy. How are they ruling out that either the gnome or the balance are not affected by the pressure?

The static force is said to be orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. How do these experiments account for the static force from the floor, walls, and ceiling of the room the experiment is conducted in?

See: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Per the Mercator gravity map, my comment is that it comes from a space mission and is automatically invalidated on grounds that sustained space travel is not possible. These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.

Atmospheric pressure would not be an issue on a balance unless the pressure varies greatly over the span of a square foot, which is highly unlikely.  Signifigant digits would rule out the Earth's magnetic field in the Gnome experiment since the Earth's magnetic field is measured in millionths of a Tesla, too weak to account for the tenth of a gram variations you can see in the gnome experiment.  It also would not account for the gnome weighing less underground, since magnetic fields get stronger as you reduce the distance between the attracting masses.  See below for the results of the gnome experiment at a laboratory 2kms underground:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/travelling-gnome-experiment-visits-world-s-deepest-lab-1.1294979

As to your assertion that space travel is not possible, the evidence is clearly against you, and you have never conclusively shown that space travel is not possible whereas there is a lot of evidence that it is.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 16, 2013, 08:51:08 PM
These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.
Please elaborate.  What do you mean by "not controlled"?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Scientific Method on December 16, 2013, 09:33:11 PM
The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.

Gravity measuring experiment are incredibly sensitive and outside factors weigh in. For example, how are they ruling out that the varying magnetic field of the earth is not affecting the metal weights in the weighing machine?

Different areas on earth have different atmospheric pressures, if only slight, and thus things fall faster/slower via buoyancy. How are they ruling out that either the gnome or the balance are not affected by the pressure?

The static force is said to be orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. How do these experiments account for the static force from the floor, walls, and ceiling of the room the experiment is conducted in?

See: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Per the Mercator gravity map, my comment is that it comes from a space mission and is automatically invalidated on grounds that sustained space travel is not possible. These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.

...says he who considers looking out your window, or stepping off a chair, as evidence.

No, the gnome experiment is not a controlled trial, it doesn't need to be. Sit down and run some numbers and you will see that the variations are too large to be caused by any of the factors you mentioned, even if they were combined. Buoyancy on the gnome would be in the order of 1.3x10-3g (assuming it displaces 1L of air, which it probably doesn't, it probably displaces less). Electrostatic charge? It's ceramic, so I'm not sure (I've never seen ceramic hold a charge, let alone be influenced by one, but that's not to say it's not possible). Magnetic field of the earth? Not going to affect the gnome, because it's ceramic.

Yes, gravity measuring equipment is very sensitive, it also has ways to account for all of the factors you mentioned (oh, and balances are not used to measure gravity, they don't work for that).
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2013, 10:24:36 PM
Atmospheric pressure would not be an issue on a balance unless the pressure varies greatly over the span of a square foot, which is highly unlikely.  Signifigant digits would rule out the Earth's magnetic field in the Gnome experiment since the Earth's magnetic field is measured in millionths of a Tesla, too weak to account for the tenth of a gram variations you can see in the gnome experiment.  It also would not account for the gnome weighing less underground, since magnetic fields get stronger as you reduce the distance between the attracting masses.  See below for the results of the gnome experiment at a laboratory 2kms underground:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/travelling-gnome-experiment-visits-world-s-deepest-lab-1.1294979

Your assessment that pressure is the same everywhere on earth and would not vary is false. The atmospheric pressure is different between locations. If you are in Death Valley, the air pressure is different than if you were at a beach in Florida or the top of Mt. Everest.

Your assessment that the magnetic field is far too weak for affect is also plainly false. It is certainly strong enough to keep a compass needle pointed at the poles, let alone affect the small parts in a digital scale.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2013, 10:26:28 PM
These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.
Please elaborate.  What do you mean by "not controlled"?

Do you know what a controlled experiment is?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 16, 2013, 11:59:08 PM
Atmospheric pressure would not be an issue on a balance unless the pressure varies greatly over the span of a square foot, which is highly unlikely.  Signifigant digits would rule out the Earth's magnetic field in the Gnome experiment since the Earth's magnetic field is measured in millionths of a Tesla, too weak to account for the tenth of a gram variations you can see in the gnome experiment.  It also would not account for the gnome weighing less underground, since magnetic fields get stronger as you reduce the distance between the attracting masses.  See below for the results of the gnome experiment at a laboratory 2kms underground:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/travelling-gnome-experiment-visits-world-s-deepest-lab-1.1294979

Your assessment that pressure is the same everywhere on earth and would not vary is false. The atmospheric pressure is different between locations. If you are in Death Valley, the air pressure is different than if you were at a beach in Florida or the top of Mt. Everest.

Your assessment that the magnetic field is far too weak for affect is also plainly false. It is certainly strong enough to keep a compass needle pointed at the poles, let alone affect the small parts in a digital scale.

I did not say pressure was the same anywhere. That is a gross misreading. Atmospheric pressure is controlled in the gnome experiment by zeroing the balance. So unless the pressure suddenly changes on one side of the balance it does not affect the weight measurement.

The Earths magnetic field is approximately 1/4 the strength of a fridge magnet, so I doubt it has a significant effect on a ceramic gnome or a lead weight, but the burden of proof is yours to show it does, so go to!

Could you explain why a gnome might be lighter underground when the Earth's magnetic field should be stronger there? As shown in the link I provided?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 17, 2013, 12:31:54 AM
These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.
Please elaborate.  What do you mean by "not controlled"?

Do you know what a controlled experiment is?
The gravity space missions aren't experiments, they're measurements.  Do you know what a measurement is?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Excelsior John on December 17, 2013, 03:00:23 AM
What is your proof of UA?
Go stand on a chair, and then jump off of it.
Its called gravitey

And that wouldnt make sense for other planets to have gravitation while earth doesnt.
And that wouldn't make sense for only Earth to have life on it, but all the evidence thus far indicates it is.
That is because earth is the only known celestel bodey having the nesesarey conditions to suport life. Evidance seems to suport gravitey
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on December 17, 2013, 03:03:59 AM
That is because earth is the only known celestel bodey having the nesesarey conditions to suport life. Evidance seems to suport gravitey
Frankly, I don't know what you're trying to say most the time. Please take time to edit your comments for spelling and basic grammar mistakes before posting. Based on my rough translation of your writings, the point is that the Earth is clearly unique. Hence, I don't wish to assume the Earth exhibits gravitation without clear evidence.

Its called gravitey
Can you show evidence of "gravitey"?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 17, 2013, 03:40:01 AM
What is your proof of UA?
Go stand on a chair, and then jump off of it.
Its called gravitey
Are you sure?  Einstein said that for an experiment that limited, it's impossible to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2013, 05:18:04 PM
I did not say pressure was the same anywhere. That is a gross misreading. Atmospheric pressure is controlled in the gnome experiment by zeroing the balance. So unless the pressure suddenly changes on one side of the balance it does not affect the weight measurement.

Zeroing the balance won't help when things are physically lighter in high-pressure environments.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Would_an_object_weigh_more_or_less_in_vacuum


Quote
The Earths magnetic field is approximately 1/4 the strength of a fridge magnet, so I doubt it has a significant effect on a ceramic gnome or a lead weight, but the burden of proof is yours to show it does, so go to!

How do we know that all materials in the digital scale are non-magnetic?

Quote
Could you explain why a gnome might be lighter underground when the Earth's magnetic field should be stronger there? As shown in the link I provided?

The link says that the first reading was taken above ground and the second reading was taken in an underground lab environment. There are a lot of factors at play. There may also be magnetic material in the earth between the surface and the building. This underground lab may have been pressurized differently than the building up top. There may have been a difference in the static force of the desk it was on, the floors, walls and ceilings of the two locations. The experiment is totally uncontrolled.

Your link also asserts the following:

Quote
The second effect that can change an object's weight with location is that the Earth is slightly flattened at the poles. That means its radius at the equator is about 20 kilometres bigger than at the poles, Jillings said. Objects at the equator are therefore slightly farther away from the centre of the Earth, so the gravitational force is not as strong.

How can it be that things are "lighter at the equator" if the equator bulges out there and there is more mass beneath your feet?

It should be reversed, that things are heavier at the equator because there is more mass pulling you down. Otherwise the idea of being lighter as you travel underground does not make sense. Observations of gnomes weighing less at the equator would run contradictory to the model.

Clearly, they are making things up to justify observations which contradict RET.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2013, 05:31:09 PM
These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.
Please elaborate.  What do you mean by "not controlled"?

Do you know what a controlled experiment is?
The gravity space missions aren't experiments, they're measurements.  Do you know what a measurement is?

All measurements are experiments. The gravity space missions were uncontrolled. It does not conform to the scientific method, which demands that trials are controlled. Trying to pass off something uncontrolled and unscientific as scientific is reprehensible. I would suggest that you and the 'scientists' at NASA go back to middle school and learn some science.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 17, 2013, 06:19:51 PM
All measurements are experiments.
???  They are?  What experiment are you performing when you step on a bathroom scale?

Quote
The gravity space missions were uncontrolled. It does not conform to the scientific method, which demands that trials are controlled. Trying to pass off something uncontrolled and unscientific as scientific is reprehensible. I would suggest that you and the 'scientists' at NASA go back to middle school and learn some science.
What the hell are you talking about?  Do you even know what protocols were used in those gravity measurements?  What sort of controls would you propose for gravity measurement from orbit and how do you know that they weren't used?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: spank86 on December 17, 2013, 06:55:39 PM
The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.


from what I understand they were going to do it in a lab but they couldn't get the whole earth through the doors.


How do we know that all materials in the digital scale are non-magnetic?
put a massive magnet by your digital scale and see what happens first: the reading changes or it just gives up reading.

Hint: the latter

All measurements are experiments.
???  They are?  What experiment are you performing when you step on a bathroom scale?

An experiment to test how the weight of an idiot changes after a big dump usually.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tintagel on December 17, 2013, 10:12:09 PM
I do believe that UA exists.  I also don't discount results from experiments such as the "gnome" experiment showing that the apparent force of UA varies in different locations.  I'm a fan of the aetheric model of the universe and believe that it is changes in the flow aether around the earth that cause these phenomena.  This is also, I believe, what causes things to seem to 'weigh' less at higher altitudes.  Of course, weight itself is entirely an illusion, but that's neither here nor there.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2013, 02:49:16 AM
All measurements are experiments.
???  They are?  What experiment are you performing when you step on a bathroom scale?

When you step on a scale you are conducting an experiment to test your own weight. An experiment is any procedure meant to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.

Quote
What the hell are you talking about?  Do you even know what protocols were used in those gravity measurements?  What sort of controls would you propose for gravity measurement from orbit and how do you know that they weren't used?

I've read all about the gravity space experiments. No controls were used what-so-ever. The data could have been controlled by repeating the experiment numerous times with different kinds of gravimeters, to see if the results changed over time or from device to device. Both land and space and land measurements could have been taken simultaneously to ensure a proper reading. Instruments used to test the strength of the earth's magnetic field could have been included in the system.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2013, 02:50:25 AM
The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.


from what I understand they were going to do it in a lab but they couldn't get the whole earth through the doors.

If there are no controls to the experiment, it's not proper science.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 18, 2013, 03:45:29 AM
All measurements are experiments.
???  They are?  What experiment are you performing when you step on a bathroom scale?

When you step on a scale you are conducting an experiment to test your own weight.
Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

Quote
Quote
What the hell are you talking about?  Do you even know what protocols were used in those gravity measurements?  What sort of controls would you propose for gravity measurement from orbit and how do you know that they weren't used?

I've read all about the gravity space experiments.
Why do I have a hard time believing that?

Quote
No controls were used what-so-ever. The data could have been controlled by repeating the experiment numerous times with different kinds of gravimeters, to see if the results changed over time or from device to device. Both land and space and land measurements could have been taken simultaneously to ensure a proper reading. Instruments used to test the strength of the earth's magnetic field could have been included in the system.
So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2013, 03:59:38 AM
Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.

Quote
So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?

1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.

2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially metal components in gravimeters.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 18, 2013, 04:34:50 AM
Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.
So now you're saying that not all experiments need controls?  Make up your mind, will you?

Quote
Quote
So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?

1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.
Would you care to cite this data that you are referring to?

Quote
2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially the metal components gravimeters.
What makes you think that magnetic fields, plus any number of other potential sources of error, haven't been taken into consideration?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Scientific Method on December 18, 2013, 07:52:43 AM
Zeroing the balance won't help when things are physically lighter in high-pressure environments.

Ignoring your misuse of "balance" (again), the difference in weight due to buoyancy is only ~1-2μg/L (as I pointed out earlier).

How do we know that all materials in the digital scale are non-magnetic?

Variances due to magnetic or static forces could be determined by creating a controlled and variable field of each type and observing the result of variations in the field strength and direction. I'm sure that someone would have thought of doing this at some point, which may be why it is not regarded as a significant factor in this experiment.

How can it be that things are "lighter at the equator" if the equator bulges out there and there is more mass beneath your feet?

It's commonly known as "centrifugal force", and it is fairly significant at the equator, but has no effect at the poles (I suggest you look into it if you are not familiar with it; the physics of rotating systems is quite fascinating, and not always intuitive). Besides, there's not really that much more mass, the bulge is only a very small percentage of the overall radius.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 18, 2013, 11:08:21 AM
The misuse of balance was my own error that Tom was rebutting.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Scientific Method on December 18, 2013, 12:13:52 PM
The misuse of balance was my own error that Tom was rebutting.

No offense intended Rama. :)

I suppose the two terms may well be used interchangeably these days, with the true meaning having been forgotten, but whenever I hear 'balance', I picture a traditional pan balance which, when you think about it, simply compares two masses and, if balanced, would remain so no matter what the strength of gravity (or UA) was. 'Scale', on the other hand, brings to mind a device used to weigh a single mass, and display the weight as accurately as possible on a calibrated scale (or digital readout in the case of electronic models).
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 18, 2013, 03:10:27 PM
No worries, I did misuse the word, so I got what was coming.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2013, 04:46:52 PM
Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.
So now you're saying that not all experiments need controls?  Make up your mind, will you?

It needs controls if you plan to pass it off as a valid scientific experiment.

Quote from: markjo
2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially the metal components gravimeters.
Quote
What makes you think that magnetic fields, plus any number of other potential sources of error, haven't been taken into consideration?

Because no such claims have been made in the reading material.

Quote from: markjo
Quote
Quote
So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?

1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.
Would you care to cite this data that you are referring to?

Sure, here is the evidence that no such trials have been associated with the measurements:
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 18, 2013, 05:01:55 PM
Seriously?  You are basing your claim that there is no corroboration on a Wikipedia entry?  That is a terrible source if you are expecting completeness.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2013, 05:21:20 PM
Seriously?  You are basing your claim that there is no corroboration on a Wikipedia entry?  That is a terrible source if you are expecting completeness.

If it exists, then find it for us. I've already provided evidence that it does not exist.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 18, 2013, 06:40:38 PM
Seriously?  You are basing your claim that there is no corroboration on a Wikipedia entry?  That is a terrible source if you are expecting completeness.

If it exists, then find it for us. I've already provided evidence that it does not exist.

What?  No you haven't. You linked to a Wikipedia page, and pretended that was an exhaustive source.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2013, 07:07:07 PM
Seriously?  You are basing your claim that there is no corroboration on a Wikipedia entry?  That is a terrible source if you are expecting completeness.

If it exists, then find it for us. I've already provided evidence that it does not exist.

What?  No you haven't. You linked to a Wikipedia page, and pretended that was an exhaustive source.

Here, I'll post evidence of its nonexistence again:
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 18, 2013, 07:27:08 PM
So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Also: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  I know you know that, it's too bad you are being so dishonest.

Out of curiosity, why did you remove the link to the wikipedia page you cited?  Here is the page again for anyone who is curious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Field_and_Steady-State_Ocean_Circulation_Explorer
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2013, 09:01:37 PM
So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

Quote
Also: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Says who? People who believe in spirituality, ghosts, and ESP?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 18, 2013, 09:06:31 PM
Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.
So now you're saying that not all experiments need controls?  Make up your mind, will you?

It needs controls if you plan to pass it off as a valid scientific experiment.
Again, how do you know that no controls were used?

Quote
Quote
Quote from: Tom Bishop
2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially the metal components gravimeters.
What makes you think that magnetic fields, plus any number of other potential sources of error, haven't been taken into consideration?

Because no such claims have been made in the reading material.
Did the reading material have a detailed schematic of the probe?

Quote
Quote from: markjo
Quote
Quote
So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?

1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.
Would you care to cite this data that you are referring to?

Sure, here is the evidence that no such trials have been associated with the measurements:
Is there supposed to be a link there?  If so, then I'm not seeing it.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 18, 2013, 09:09:32 PM
Also: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Says who? People who believe in spirituality, ghosts, and ESP?
Says people who recognize an argument from ignorance fallacy when they see one.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 18, 2013, 09:25:52 PM
So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

You are the one who claims that GOCE never corroborated their data with any ground-based source.  Now you can either show that explicitly to be true, or you can maintain your current position, which is that you did not find it on the wikipedia page.  Either is fine, except the latter position is fallacious.

A third option is to make an inductive argument, but you are a long way from that as well.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2013, 09:48:09 PM
Again, how do you know that no controls were used?

Because none were claimed.

Quote
Did the reading material have a detailed schematic of the probe?

If you assert that magnetic fields have been taken into consideration, then you should post your findings here for all to see.

Quote
Is there supposed to be a link there?  If so, then I'm not seeing it.

I posted evidence of its nonexistence.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2013, 09:49:01 PM
So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

You are the one who claims that GOCE never corroborated their data with any ground-based source.  Now you can either show that explicitly to be true, or you can maintain your current position, which is that you did not find it on the wikipedia page.  Either is fine, except the latter position is fallacious.

A third option is to make an inductive argument, but you are a long way from that as well.

An expression of skepticism is a negative claim, not a positive claim. The burden of proof is on those with the positive claims.

"There is no evidence of ghosts" is an expression of skepticism, and is a negative claim. The burden of proof, consequentially, is on the people claiming the existence of ghosts.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: bj1234 on December 18, 2013, 09:56:44 PM
So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

You are the one who claims that GOCE never corroborated their data with any ground-based source.  Now you can either show that explicitly to be true, or you can maintain your current position, which is that you did not find it on the wikipedia page.  Either is fine, except the latter position is fallacious.

A third option is to make an inductive argument, but you are a long way from that as well.

An expression of skepticism is not a positive claim.
No an expression of skepticism is not.  However, you do claim to know something here

I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.

Which when asked to supply your source of this claim, you failed to do so.  Instead you then shifted, and essentially, said "prove me wrong".  Sorry, you need to prove yourself right.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2013, 10:00:12 PM
So you are saying that if it is not on wikipedia it does not exist?

Burden of proof is on the claimant.

You are the one who claims that GOCE never corroborated their data with any ground-based source.  Now you can either show that explicitly to be true, or you can maintain your current position, which is that you did not find it on the wikipedia page.  Either is fine, except the latter position is fallacious.

A third option is to make an inductive argument, but you are a long way from that as well.

An expression of skepticism is not a positive claim.
No an expression of skepticism is not.  However, you do claim to know something here

I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.

Which when asked to supply your source of this claim, you failed to do so.  Instead you then shifted, and essentially, said "prove me wrong".  Sorry, you need to prove yourself right.

I looked at the material and saw no such associated trials. Therefore the trials do not exist until they have been found to exist.

Similarly, I looked in my closet and saw that no ghosts exist in there. The conclusion, necessarily, is that no ghosts exist in my closet.

Claiming that 'it does not exist' is a negative claim, and does not need to be proven. It is that which must be assumed before all else.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2013, 10:13:24 PM
Consider the statement: "The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld"

This is a negative claim. Is the burden of proof on the person claiming that the ancient Egyptions did not watch Seinfeld, or is the burden of proof on those claiming that they did watch Seinfeld?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: garygreen on December 19, 2013, 12:16:06 AM
For a riveting discussion on my important and groundbreaking opinions on proving negatives, see this thread: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=979.0
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: spank86 on December 19, 2013, 12:20:41 AM
I don't mean to derail the topic, but the notion that negative claims bear no burden of proof (or that they cannot be proven at all) is absurd.

Consider the following statement: Barack Obama does not exist.  The statement is not relieved of a burden of proof simply because it contains a negation.  Anyone making this claim would be required to offer evidence supporting the truth of its claim.  This is because all truth claims, negative or positive, carry a burden of proof.

Negative claims can also be proven.  Consider the following argument:

1.  If A, then B.
2.  Not B.
3.  Therefore: Not A.

This is logically sound and valid deductive reasoning, and both the conclusion and one of its arguments are negative claims/statements.

If this is too much of a derailment, someone tell me and I'll start a new thread or something.

I have a question.

How would one go about proving that barack obama does not exist?

I mean I could easily prove he wasn't the president if he in fact wasn't since there's only one president to check, but how would I prove his non existence? Would you have me round up every human on the planet and check their names?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 19, 2013, 12:40:27 AM
Again, how do you know that no controls were used?

Because none were claimed.
How do you know this?  Did you examine all of NASA's claims?

Quote
Quote
Did the reading material have a detailed schematic of the probe?

If you assert that magnetic fields have been taken into consideration, then you should post your findings here for all to see.
I'm not asserting anything, you are.  I'm just asking if you have examined the schematics of the probe to determine how susceptible it may have been to magnetic fields.

Quote
Quote
Is there supposed to be a link there?  If so, then I'm not seeing it.

I posted evidence of its nonexistence.
Oh, so you're just making all of this up?  Good to know.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 19, 2013, 02:15:08 AM
It is true that you cannot empirically prove a negative but all this means is that you should not make such a truth claim to begin with unless you want to make an inductive argument.

Tom laid a big truth claim on the table phrased as a negative, provided evidence and then said prove me wrong. To boot he used an obviously incomplete reference (Wikipedia ) and claimed he had read all there was to read, which is an evident falsehood. 
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Scientific Method on December 19, 2013, 03:03:02 AM
1.  If the experiment used proper procedures to eliminate sources of error, then those procedures will be mentioned in documents on that experiment.
2.  Those procedures were not mentioned in documents on that experiment.
3.  The experiment did not use proper procedures to eliminate sources of error.

Alternatively:
3. Proper procedures to eliminate sources of error were used, but not documented.

Just had to toss that in. ;)
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 20, 2013, 02:19:53 AM
The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.
Actually Tom, it is a controlled experiment.  The gnome is the control.  It's a known mass that is being weighed with the same equipment under different conditions.  How does this not qualify as controlled experiment?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2013, 04:51:19 PM
Again, how do you know that no controls were used?

Because none were claimed.
How do you know this?  Did you examine all of NASA's claims?

I examined the claims I could find. If there are claims which I have not found, perhaps you should see to it that they find me.

Quote
I'm not asserting anything, you are.  I'm just asking if you have examined the schematics of the probe to determine how susceptible it may have been to magnetic fields.

I looked at the sources and could not find any such schematic. If such a schematic exists, which describes a craft as you describe it, with the things you claim of it, then post it here. Otherwise we must conclude that there is no schematic which describes a craft with the things you claim of it.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Is there supposed to be a link there?  If so, then I'm not seeing it.

I posted evidence of its nonexistence.
Oh, so you're just making all of this up?  Good to know.

If there is no evidence that something exist, that is evidence that it does not exist.

The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.
Actually Tom, it is a controlled experiment.  The gnome is the control.  It's a known mass that is being weighed with the same equipment under different conditions.  How does this not qualify as controlled experiment?

The environment was not controlled.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 20, 2013, 05:07:15 PM
You looked on Wikipedia.  It is a poor resource if you are looking for in-depth analysis, or completeness of information.  I am pretty sure you know this too, that is the worst part.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2013, 05:07:36 PM
It is true that you cannot empirically prove a negative but all this means is that you should not make such a truth claim to begin with unless you want to make an inductive argument.

Tom laid a big truth claim on the table phrased as a negative, provided evidence and then said prove me wrong. To boot he used an obviously incomplete reference (Wikipedia ) and claimed he had read all there was to read, which is an evident falsehood.

I made no positive claim. I asked for evidence of your positive claims. I may have made a negative claim in my inquiry, but the positive claims are still on your end.

I did not claim that I've read all that there was to read. I claimed that I read material on the project and saw no such studies. If there are studies which exist, and they exist "somewhere," the burden is on YOU to find it.

Similarly, if you tell me that ghosts exists, but I simply haven't looked hard enough to find them, the burden is not on me to prove that "ghosts do not exist". The burden is on YOU to prove that they do exist.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2013, 05:09:51 PM
You looked on Wikipedia.  It is a poor resource if you are looking for in-depth analysis, or completeness of information.  I am pretty sure you know this too, that is the worst part.

That is similar to saying that there is a ghost in my house, but because I haven't looked at every square inch with a microscope, that I just have yet to find it.

Positive claims require positive evidence.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 20, 2013, 05:13:31 PM
You looked on Wikipedia.  It is a poor resource if you are looking for in-depth analysis, or completeness of information.  I am pretty sure you know this too, that is the worst part.

That is similar to saying that there is a ghost in my house, but because I haven't looked at every square inch with a microscope, that I just have yet to find it.

Positive claims require positive evidence.

I am not sure what you are even referring to.  All I know is that you claimed something did not exist based on it not being mentioned on a Wikipedia page.  If you like I can demonstrate how absurd that line of thinking is, but again, I am pretty sure you are aware.  You let me know.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 20, 2013, 06:30:51 PM
Again, how do you know that no controls were used?

Because none were claimed.
How do you know this?  Did you examine all of NASA's claims?

I examined the claims I could find. If there are claims which I have not found, perhaps you should see to it that they find me.

Quote
I'm not asserting anything, you are.  I'm just asking if you have examined the schematics of the probe to determine how susceptible it may have been to magnetic fields.

I looked at the sources and could not find any such schematic. If such a schematic exists, which describes a craft as you describe it, with the things you claim of it, then post it here. Otherwise we must conclude that there is no schematic which describes a craft with the things you claim of it.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Is there supposed to be a link there?  If so, then I'm not seeing it.

I posted evidence of its nonexistence.
Oh, so you're just making all of this up?  Good to know.

If there is no evidence that something exist, that is evidence that it does not exist.
Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.  All you have proven is that you haven't looked in the right places.  Have you tried contacting the designers, manufacturers or operators of the gravity probe in question?

Quote
The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.
Actually Tom, it is a controlled experiment.  The gnome is the control.  It's a known mass that is being weighed with the same equipment under different conditions.  How does this not qualify as controlled experiment?

The environment was not controlled.
Tom, the environment is what is being tested.  This just goes to show that you don't understand how a controlled experiment works.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Scientific Method on December 20, 2013, 10:03:52 PM
Tom, on the gnome experiment, why don't you test your theories as to possible causes of error? Get a garden gnome, and a sensitive set of scales, a powerful electromagnet (one can be made for next to nothing) and a means to create a powerful static charge (you could borrow a Van de Graaff generator, or build your own, again for next to nothing). Then you could run your own experiments to see if magnetic or electrostatic fields have any effect on the weight of the gnome, or the reading of the scales. Throw in a barometer and thermometer, and you can also see how much difference atmospheric density makes to the weight. This, I would think, would be a natural course of action for a zetetic: to proceed by inquiry. You are a zetetic, right Tom?

Oh, and as far as space flight, how do you explain the silent, fast-moving dots of light that I can observe in the night sky when I look out my window (or better yet, go outside and watch at the predicted time)?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2013, 12:30:06 AM
I am not sure what you are even referring to.  All I know is that you claimed something did not exist based on it not being mentioned on a Wikipedia page.  If you like I can demonstrate how absurd that line of thinking is, but again, I am pretty sure you are aware.  You let me know.

From available evidence it does not exist. If the evidence you think exists, exists, then it is your burden to present it. If you believe that there are other sources, it is your burden to identify them and find the material. It is not my burden to find material which might exist somewhere in the world.

Quote from: markjo
Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.  All you have proven is that you haven't looked in the right places.  Have you tried contacting the designers, manufacturers or operators of the gravity probe in question?

No, I have not contacted them. It is not my claim that this space craft and components within it was built to be impervious to magnetic fields. That's yours. You are making a claim and asking me to "prove me wrong". My argument is "prove yourself right".

Quote from: markjo
Tom, the environment is what is being tested.  This just goes to show that you don't understand how a controlled experiment works.

controlled experiment
n.
An experiment that isolates the effect of one variable on a system by holding constant all variables but the one under observation.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2013, 12:45:14 AM
Tom, on the gnome experiment, why don't you test your theories as to possible causes of error? Get a garden gnome, and a sensitive set of scales, a powerful electromagnet (one can be made for next to nothing) and a means to create a powerful static charge (you could borrow a Van de Graaff generator, or build your own, again for next to nothing). Then you could run your own experiments to see if magnetic or electrostatic fields have any effect on the weight of the gnome, or the reading of the scales. Throw in a barometer and thermometer, and you can also see how much difference atmospheric density makes to the weight. This, I would think, would be a natural course of action for a zetetic: to proceed by inquiry. You are a zetetic, right Tom?

If you want experiments done you're going to have to pay for it. I'm not a charity. The scale used in the gnome experiment is going for about $500 USD. Van de Graff generators are going for about $175. A garden gnome runs about $23.99.

You can paypal $700 plus shipping to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 21, 2013, 01:15:53 AM
I am not sure what you are even referring to.  All I know is that you claimed something did not exist based on it not being mentioned on a Wikipedia page.  If you like I can demonstrate how absurd that line of thinking is, but again, I am pretty sure you are aware.  You let me know.

From available evidence it does not exist. If the evidence you think exists, exists, then it is your burden to present it. If you believe that there are other sources, it is your burden to identify them and find the material. It is not my burden to find material which might exist somewhere in the world.

I made no claim, I am simply challenging the veracity of yours, so do not shift the burden of proof so quickly.  You did not even look at the references on the wikipedia page, so how can you say you exhausted all available evidence?  I am presented with two choices: the evidence does not exist or you are too lazy/scared/busy to look at other evidence.  It seems that the latter is likely true.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 21, 2013, 01:22:46 AM
Quote from: markjo
Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.  All you have proven is that you haven't looked in the right places.  Have you tried contacting the designers, manufacturers or operators of the gravity probe in question?

No, I have not contacted them. It is not my claim that this space craft and components within it was built to be impervious to magnetic fields. That's yours. You are making a claim and asking me to "prove me wrong". My argument is "prove yourself right".
Sorry Tom, but I made no such claim.  You are the one making claims about what NASA did and didn't say about their gravity probes.

Quote
Quote from: markjo
Tom, the environment is what is being tested.  This just goes to show that you don't understand how a controlled experiment works.

controlled experiment
n.
An experiment that isolates the effect of one variable on a system by holding constant all variables but the one under observation.
Exactly.  The mass (gnome) and the scale are constant while the environment (earth's gravitational field) is the variable that is being tested (measured).  Tell me again how this is not a controlled experiment.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Scientific Method on December 21, 2013, 11:14:22 AM
Tom, on the gnome experiment, why don't you test your theories as to possible causes of error? Get a garden gnome, and a sensitive set of scales, a powerful electromagnet (one can be made for next to nothing) and a means to create a powerful static charge (you could borrow a Van de Graaff generator, or build your own, again for next to nothing). Then you could run your own experiments to see if magnetic or electrostatic fields have any effect on the weight of the gnome, or the reading of the scales. Throw in a barometer and thermometer, and you can also see how much difference atmospheric density makes to the weight. This, I would think, would be a natural course of action for a zetetic: to proceed by inquiry. You are a zetetic, right Tom?

If you want experiments done you're going to have to pay for it. I'm not a charity. The scale used in the gnome experiment is going for about $500 USD. Van de Graff generators are going for about $175. A garden gnome runs about $23.99.

You can paypal $700 plus shipping to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com.

I wasn't asking you to do them for my sake, I was suggesting you do them for your own. However, if you have no desire to proceed by inquiry, then perhaps you should stop criticising those who are.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 21, 2013, 04:40:24 PM
Tom, on the gnome experiment, why don't you test your theories as to possible causes of error? Get a garden gnome, and a sensitive set of scales, a powerful electromagnet (one can be made for next to nothing) and a means to create a powerful static charge (you could borrow a Van de Graaff generator, or build your own, again for next to nothing). Then you could run your own experiments to see if magnetic or electrostatic fields have any effect on the weight of the gnome, or the reading of the scales. Throw in a barometer and thermometer, and you can also see how much difference atmospheric density makes to the weight. This, I would think, would be a natural course of action for a zetetic: to proceed by inquiry. You are a zetetic, right Tom?

If you want experiments done you're going to have to pay for it. I'm not a charity. The scale used in the gnome experiment is going for about $500 USD. Van de Graff generators are going for about $175. A garden gnome runs about $23.99.

You can paypal $700 plus shipping to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com.

I wasn't asking you to do them for my sake, I was suggesting you do them for your own. However, if you have no desire to proceed by inquiry, then perhaps you should stop criticising those who are.
If Tom has no desire to proceed by inquiry, then perhaps he should stop calling himself a zetetic.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tintagel on December 21, 2013, 05:44:48 PM
Exactly.  The mass (gnome) and the scale are constant while the environment (earth's gravitational field) is the variable that is being tested (measured).  Tell me again how this is not a controlled experiment.

When I first heard about this experiment, my first thought is that there's absolutely no guarantee that the gnome won't be slightly damaged every time it's shipped, altering its mass over time, and similarly that the scale's sensitivity isn't somehow altered by the process.  They're trusting their controls to the hands of postal workers and random strangers.  That doesn't sound like much of a control to me.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2013, 06:06:19 PM
I made no claim, I am simply challenging the veracity of yours, so do not shift the burden of proof so quickly.  You did not even look at the references on the wikipedia page, so how can you say you exhausted all available evidence?  I am presented with two choices: the evidence does not exist or you are too lazy/scared/busy to look at other evidence.  It seems that the latter is likely true.

If you are challenging the veracity of "it doesn't exist" then you are consequentially claiming that it does exist. You are making a positive claim which must come with positive evidence.

The notion of "it doesn't exist" does not need to be demonstrated. I can already see that it doesn't exist. I don't see the study you are claiming exists in the papers on my computer desk. I even went to Wikipedia and the project's website and saw no such thing. Is it my responsibility to search through endless websites, attempt interrogation of people who worked on the project, and fly out to the ESA's library archives in an endless quest of something which might or might not exist? Or is it the responsibility of the person claiming that such a study exists to present it?

It is not even my responsibility to look on Wikipedia, or anywhere at all, for such an alleged study. My responsibility extends to doing nothing. I simply opened my eyes and was presented with evidence that it does not exist. I have not made the positive claim. It is not my responsibility to demonstrate its existence.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2013, 06:13:21 PM
Sorry Tom, but I made no such claim.  You are the one making claims about what NASA did and didn't say about their gravity probes.

If you have documents or a study to show, then show it. Otherwise it doesn't exist.

Quote
Quote
Quote from: markjo
Tom, the environment is what is being tested.  This just goes to show that you don't understand how a controlled experiment works.

controlled experiment
n.
An experiment that isolates the effect of one variable on a system by holding constant all variables but the one under observation.
Exactly.  The mass (gnome) and the scale are constant while the environment (earth's gravitational field) is the variable that is being tested (measured).  Tell me again how this is not a controlled experiment.

The definition says that all variables must be held constant.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: bj1234 on December 21, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
I made no claim, I am simply challenging the veracity of yours, so do not shift the burden of proof so quickly.  You did not even look at the references on the wikipedia page, so how can you say you exhausted all available evidence?  I am presented with two choices: the evidence does not exist or you are too lazy/scared/busy to look at other evidence.  It seems that the latter is likely true.

If you are challenging the veracity of "it doesn't exist" then you are consequentially claiming that it does exist. You are making a positive claim which must come with positive evidence.

The notion of "it doesn't exist" does not need to be demonstrated. I can already see that it doesn't exist. I don't see the study you are claiming exists in the papers on my computer desk. I even went to Wikipedia and the project's website and saw no such thing. Is it my responsibility to search through endless websites, attempt interrogation of people who worked on the project, and fly out to the ESA's library archives in an endless quest of something which might or might not exist? Or is it the responsibility of the person claiming that such a study exists to present it?

It is not even my responsibility to look on Wikipedia, or anywhere at all, for such an alleged study. My responsibility extends to doing nothing. I simply opened my eyes and was presented with evidence that it does not exist. I have not made the positive claim. It is not my responsibility to demonstrate its existence.

Your argument is a prime example of an argument from ignorance.  You are essentially claiming "I have not seen evidence of its existence therefore it does not exist." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


Also, there is a HUGE difference between "It doesn't exist" and "I don't believe it exists"
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2013, 06:32:25 PM
Tom, on the gnome experiment, why don't you test your theories as to possible causes of error? Get a garden gnome, and a sensitive set of scales, a powerful electromagnet (one can be made for next to nothing) and a means to create a powerful static charge (you could borrow a Van de Graaff generator, or build your own, again for next to nothing). Then you could run your own experiments to see if magnetic or electrostatic fields have any effect on the weight of the gnome, or the reading of the scales. Throw in a barometer and thermometer, and you can also see how much difference atmospheric density makes to the weight. This, I would think, would be a natural course of action for a zetetic: to proceed by inquiry. You are a zetetic, right Tom?

If you want experiments done you're going to have to pay for it. I'm not a charity. The scale used in the gnome experiment is going for about $500 USD. Van de Graff generators are going for about $175. A garden gnome runs about $23.99.

You can paypal $700 plus shipping to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com.

I wasn't asking you to do them for my sake, I was suggesting you do them for your own. However, if you have no desire to proceed by inquiry, then perhaps you should stop criticising those who are.

I have already seen for myself, in high school and college courses, that these gravity experiments are not reliable. The readings of these extremely sensitive scales and gravimeters change all throughout the day, due to whisps of moving air currents, and all kinds of things. Such experiments used to be common classroom practice. I have nothing to prove to myself, and no desire to perform experiments which do not further my own understanding.

If you would like experiments performed to satisfy your own understanding, you will need to pay for it.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2013, 06:40:40 PM
Your argument is a prime example of an argument from ignorance.  You are essentially claiming "I have not seen evidence of its existence therefore it does not exist." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


Also, there is a HUGE difference between "It doesn't exist" and "I don't believe it exists"

How can something exist without evidence of existence?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: bj1234 on December 21, 2013, 06:48:28 PM
Your argument is a prime example of an argument from ignorance.  You are essentially claiming "I have not seen evidence of its existence therefore it does not exist." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


Also, there is a HUGE difference between "It doesn't exist" and "I don't believe it exists"

How can something exist without evidence of existence?

But how do you KNOW it doesn't exist without looking in ALL likely places?

The only truth that we can gather from the Wiki is that we cannot know if the experiment was controlled or not.  Stating anything otherwise requires the claimant to provide some sort of evidence or a logical argument. 

That is all everyone is asking from you.
Supply the documents that you looked through, then make a logical argument to support your claim.
Something you have not done.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2013, 06:59:54 PM
But how do you KNOW it doesn't exist without looking in ALL likely places?

The only truth that we can gather from the Wiki is that we cannot know if the experiment was controlled or not.  Stating anything otherwise requires the claimant to provide some sort of evidence or a logical argument. 

That is all everyone is asking from you.
Supply the documents that you looked through, then make a logical argument to support your claim.
Something you have not done.

It's not my responsibility to look anywhere at all for these documents. It is not my responsibility to even make an attempt of looking for them. It's not my claim. I do not need to "look" for things which someone claims may exist "somewhere" in the world.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I opened my eyes, looked around my room, and did not see them.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I woke up this morning and did not find them sitting on my doorstep.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I opened my briefcase and they were not there.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I did absolutely nothing in effort to find these documents and they did not present themselves to me.

When we speak of "for a fact" and "I know" and other declarative statements we are speaking from our own knowledge. We cannot speak for the knowledge of others. I can safely say, that I know, and for a matter of fact, that these documents absolutely do not exist. They will continue not existing until evidence is presented that they do exist.

It is not my responsibility to look for things someone says may exist out in the world. It is not my responsibility to attempt such a search. My responsibility extends to doing nothing, because I already know that it does not exist.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: bj1234 on December 21, 2013, 07:14:56 PM
But how do you KNOW it doesn't exist without looking in ALL likely places?

The only truth that we can gather from the Wiki is that we cannot know if the experiment was controlled or not.  Stating anything otherwise requires the claimant to provide some sort of evidence or a logical argument. 

That is all everyone is asking from you.
Supply the documents that you looked through, then make a logical argument to support your claim.
Something you have not done.

It's not my responsibility to look anywhere at all for these documents. It is not my responsibility to even make an attempt of looking for them. It's not my claim. I do not need to "look" for things which someone claims may exist "somewhere" in the world.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I opened my eyes, looked around my room, and did not see them.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I woke up this morning and did not find them sitting on my doorstep.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I opened my briefcase and they were not there.

I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I did absolutely nothing in effort to find these documents and they did not present themselves to me.

When we speak of "for a fact" and "I know" and other declarative statements we are speaking from our own knowledge. We cannot speak for the knowledge of others. I can safely say, that I know, and for a matter of fact, that these documents absolutely do not exist. They will continue not existing until evidence is presented that they do exist.

It is not my responsibility to look for things someone says may exist out in the world. It is not my responsibility to attempt such a search. My responsibility extends to doing nothing, because I already know for a fact that it does not exist.

But see it WAS your claim that it was not a controlled experiment.  YOU bear the burden of proof.  The answers are not likely to be in your room therefore you CANNOT say for a fact that it was not a controlled experiment.

Next time maybe you shouldn't make such a claim?  Just ask how the experiment was controlled maybe?  You won't sound so ignorant.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2013, 07:21:34 PM
But see it WAS your claim that it was not a controlled experiment.

I see the word not in there. Therefore my claim was a negative claim. It is positive claims which carry the burden of proof.

Not that I had to, or even make an attempt of doing so, but I did provide evidence that the experiment was uncontrolled. I directed readers to look at the website and see that the gnome was being shipped from person to person outside of a laboratory environment.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: bj1234 on December 21, 2013, 07:25:40 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Please learn something about debate.  It does not matter if the claim is a positive claim or a negative claim.  The original claimant holds the burden.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2013, 07:28:24 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Please learn something about debate.  It does not matter if the claim is a positive claim or a negative claim.  The original claimant holds the burden.
Consider this example:


But see, the skeptic did meet the burden. He has never seen a ghost. By default ghosts do not exist until evidence has been presented of their existence. This is why the burden of proof is always on the person with the positive claim. There is already plenty of evidence that something does *not* exist.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: bj1234 on December 21, 2013, 07:50:40 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Please learn something about debate.  It does not matter if the claim is a positive claim or a negative claim.  The original claimant holds the burden.
Consider this example:

    Skeptic: "You know what, I've never seen a ghost. I think that ghosts don't exist."

    Believer: "You just made a claim. Burden of proof. Prove that ghosts don't exist!!"

But see, the skeptic did meet the burden. He has never seen a ghost. By default ghosts do not exist until evidence has been presented of their existence. This is why the burden of proof is always on the person with the positive claim. There is already plenty of evidence that something does *not* exist.

Saying I think ghosts don't exist is different than ghosts don't exist.

Saying I don't think ghosts exist can logically be explained.
Such as, the lights flickering was caused by a faulty electrical connection in the attic.
The chill that went down my spine was caused by a drafty window.
Etc.

If I claimed ghost absolutely do not exist, I better have some solid evidence to back that up.

Big difference in a belief and a truth claim.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2013, 07:55:36 PM
There is no difference between a "belief claim" and a "truth claim". You can only speak from your own knowledge. You cannot speak from the knowledge of others, or from a source of ultimate knowledge.

If someone said "I believe that the Ancient Egyptians practiced surgery" and if they had said "the Ancient Egyptians practiced surgery," they are exactly the same. To the best of that person's knowledge, the Ancient Egyptians practiced surgery.

You cannot make a declarative statement and disassociate it from what you believe, or vice versa.

If someone says that "water is wet," then they believe, obviously, that water is wet. It makes no difference if they stick "I believe" in there. Whatever they say is their belief.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: garygreen on December 21, 2013, 08:01:58 PM
Consider this example:

    Skeptic: "You know what, I've never seen a ghost. I think that ghosts don't exist."

    Believer: "You just made a claim. Burden of proof. Prove that ghosts don't exist!!"

But see, the skeptic did meet the burden. He has never seen a ghost. By default ghosts do not exist until evidence has been presented of their existence. This is why the burden of proof is always on the person with the positive claim. There is already plenty of evidence that something does *not* exist.

You're confusing two different claims.  And this whole 'negative/positive' thing is nonsense.  Those are asinine distinctions, and they're irrelevant to the 'burden of proof' as you see it.

The claim "I am skeptical that ghosts exist" isn't a truth claim (I guess it could be a truth claim about your thoughts, but that's obviously not what's at stake here).  It bears no burden of proof.  It's just an opinion or a state of mind.

The claim "Ghosts do not exist" is a truth claim and bears a burden of proof.  It doesn't matter that if contains a negation.  Check out the thread I started on this exact topic.  It's trivially easy to prove a negative.

1.  If ghosts exist, then irrefutable, reproducible evidence of ghosts exists.
2.  Irrefutable, reproducible evidence of ghosts does not exist.
3.  Therefore, Ghosts do not exist.

Regardless of its soundness, this proof is logically valid.  If you want to assume that any statement featuring a negation is automatically true until proven otherwise, that's your prerogative.  But you're going to run into some issues once you realize that every 'positive' claim can be reformulated into a 'negative' claim.

"It is not the case that ghosts do not exist" means the same thing as "Ghosts exist."  Do you have to automatically assume the former since it has a negation in it?  I mean, it has two of them.  I guess we should doubly assume it to be true, yes?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2013, 08:25:51 PM
The claim "I am skeptical that ghosts exist" isn't a truth claim (I guess it could be a truth claim about your thoughts, but that's obviously not what's at stake here).  It bears no burden of proof.  It's just an opinion or a state of mind.

"I believe ghosts do not exist" and "Ghosts do not exist" are the same. The second sentence is also the person's belief. Anything we say is our belief. We do not need to put "I believe" before everything we say for it to be our belief.

"Ghosts do not exist" is an opinion or state of mind of whoever is saying it.

Quote
The claim "Ghosts do not exist" is a truth claim and bears a burden of proof.  It doesn't matter that if contains a negation.  Check out the thread I started on this exact topic.  It's trivially easy to prove a negative.

1.  If ghosts exist, then irrefutable, reproducible evidence of ghosts exists.
2.  Irrefutable, reproducible evidence of ghosts does not exist.
3.  Therefore, Ghosts do not exist.

That's exactly what I said in what you quoted of me. In my example the skeptic has already met the burden of proof because he has never seen a ghost. The evidence to prove a negative is in abundance. That's why the burden of proof mainly rests on the positive claim. Negative claims have already been demonstrated to be true by default.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: garygreen on December 21, 2013, 08:40:07 PM
The claim "I am skeptical that ghosts exist" isn't a truth claim (I guess it could be a truth claim about your thoughts, but that's obviously not what's at stake here).  It bears no burden of proof.  It's just an opinion or a state of mind.

"I believe ghosts do not exist" and "Ghosts do not exist" are the same. The second sentence is also the person's belief. Anything we say is our belief. We do not need to put "I believe" before everything we say for it to be our belief.

"Ghosts do not exist" is an opinion or state of mind of whoever is saying it.

I don't really want to debate epistemology and metaphysics because that's boring, but I'm not sure I believe that you actually think that that's reasonable or that you can't tell the difference between asserting a truth and asserting a belief.

Quote
The claim "Ghosts do not exist" is a truth claim and bears a burden of proof.  It doesn't matter that if contains a negation.  Check out the thread I started on this exact topic.  It's trivially easy to prove a negative.

1.  If ghosts exist, then irrefutable, reproducible evidence of ghosts exists.
2.  Irrefutable, reproducible evidence of ghosts does not exist.
3.  Therefore, Ghosts do not exist.

That's exactly what I said in what you quoted of me. In my example the skeptic has already met the burden of proof because he has never seen a ghost. The evidence to prove a negative is in abundance. That's why the burden of proof is on the positive.

Actually, you said,

Quote
It's not my responsibility to look anywhere at all for zebras. It is not my responsibility to even make an attempt of looking for them. It's not my claim. I do not need to "look" for things which someone claims may exist "somewhere" in the world.

I KNOW that zebras do not exist because I opened my eyes, looked around my room, and did not see them.

I KNOW that zebras do not exist because I woke up this morning and did not find them sitting on my doorstep.

I KNOW that zebras do not exist because I opened my briefcase and they were not there.

I KNOW that zebras do not exist because I did absolutely nothing in effort to find these documents and they did not present themselves to me.

When we speak of "for a fact" and "I know" and other declarative statements we are speaking from our own knowledge. We cannot speak for the knowledge of others. I can safely say, that I know, and for a matter of fact, that zebras absolutely do not exist. They will continue not existing until evidence is presented that they do exist.

I changed it to say zebras to show you how absurd your logic is.  You're literally saying that anything you don't already know about doesn't exist, and that the properly skeptical thing to do is to avoid any further inquiry into the matter and consider the discussion over.  That's the opposite of skepticism.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2013, 08:42:18 PM
"It is not the case that ghosts do not exist" means the same thing as "Ghosts exist."  Do you have to automatically assume the former since it has a negation in it?  I mean, it has two of them.  I guess we should doubly assume it to be true, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Two_negatives_resolving_to_a_positive

"In Standard English, two negatives are understood to resolve to a positive."
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2013, 08:47:54 PM
I don't really want to debate epistemology and metaphysics because that's boring, but I'm not sure I believe that you actually think that that's reasonable or that you can't tell the difference between asserting a truth and asserting a belief.

How can you assert a truth without also asserting a belief?

Quote
I changed it to say zebras to show you how absurd your logic is.  You're literally saying that anything you don't already know about doesn't exist, and that the properly skeptical thing to do is to avoid any further inquiry into the matter and consider the discussion over.  That's the opposite of skepticism.

The logic is not absurd.

If I had never seen a Zebra, read about them, or seen a picture of one, I could say that "I KNOW" that Zebras do not exist. To my knowledge I would have no evidence of their existence.

It would not be unreasonable for me to demand evidence of these "Zebras," of which you claim exist. I do not need to go searching the world for evidence of Zebras. The burden is on you, the claimant, to provide evidence of these creatures. The burden is not on me to find them.

In such a situation I could easily prove that Zebras do not exist because we do not have evidence of one and no party has presented evidence of them, meeting my burden of proof. The ruling would default with me. In lack of evidence of these creatures the conclusion rests with the only evidence that we do have -- that Zebras do not exist.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: garygreen on December 21, 2013, 09:35:01 PM
"It is not the case that ghosts do not exist" means the same thing as "Ghosts exist."  Do you have to automatically assume the former since it has a negation in it?  I mean, it has two of them.  I guess we should doubly assume it to be true, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Two_negatives_resolving_to_a_positive

"In Standard English, two negatives are understood to resolve to a positive."

This is precisely the point I am making.  "Ghosts do not not exist" is the same as "Ghosts exist."  You're saying that any 'negative' claim bears no burden of proof and should be assumed to be true and that no further inquiry is required.  I'm saying that that is nonsense since it would require us to assume both that ghosts do exist and that ghosts do not exist.  We have to assume "Ghosts do not exist" and we have to assume "Ghosts do not not exist."  Both are negative claims.

I don't really want to debate epistemology and metaphysics because that's boring, but I'm not sure I believe that you actually think that that's reasonable or that you can't tell the difference between asserting a truth and asserting a belief.

How can you assert a truth without also asserting a belief?

"Zebras do not exist."  I don't believe that claim.  If I assert it in a debate, then it still bears a burden of proof.  Whether or not I believe it is irrelevant to the debate/discussion.  I know that you're able to see the difference between a claim about one's beliefs and a claim about other things.

If I had never seen a Zebra, read about them, or seen a picture of one, I could say that "I KNOW" that Zebras do not exist. To my knowledge I would have no evidence of their existence.

It would not be unreasonable for me to demand evidence of these "Zebras," of which you claim exist. I do not need to go searching the world for evidence of Zebras. The burden is on you, the claimant, to provide evidence of these creatures. The burden is not on me to find them.

In such a situation I could easily prove that Zebras do not exist because we do not have evidence of one and no party has presented evidence of them, meeting my burden of proof. The ruling would default with me. In lack of evidence of these creatures the conclusion rests with the only evidence that we do have -- that Zebras do not exist.

Sorry, I took 'I KNOW...' to mean 'I am CERTAIN...'  It sounds like you're just saying "I don't know things that I don't know," or, "I only know the things of which I am current aware."  And you're adding to that truism that it isn't your job to learn more things.  Kudos?  I don't see how this is anything like skepticism. 

Skepticism would lead you to think something like, "I do not believe that these studies have properly adhered to the scientific method; I will attempt to prove that it does.  If I cannot, then my belief will be validated.  I can then be reasonably sure, through valid and sound deductive reasoning, that these studies have not properly adhered to the scientific method."
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: bj1234 on December 21, 2013, 10:16:02 PM
I don't really want to debate epistemology and metaphysics because that's boring, but I'm not sure I believe that you actually think that that's reasonable or that you can't tell the difference between asserting a truth and asserting a belief.

How can you assert a truth without also asserting a belief?

Quote
I changed it to say zebras to show you how absurd your logic is.  You're literally saying that anything you don't already know about doesn't exist, and that the properly skeptical thing to do is to avoid any further inquiry into the matter and consider the discussion over.  That's the opposite of skepticism.

The logic is not absurd.

If I had never seen a Zebra, read about them, or seen a picture of one, I could say that "I KNOW" that Zebras do not exist. To my knowledge I would have no evidence of their existence.

It would not be unreasonable for me to demand evidence of these "Zebras," of which you claim exist. I do not need to go searching the world for evidence of Zebras. The burden is on you, the claimant, to provide evidence of these creatures. The burden is not on me to find them.

In such a situation I could easily prove that Zebras do not exist because we do not have evidence of one and no party has presented evidence of them, meeting my burden of proof. The ruling would default with me. In lack of evidence of these creatures the conclusion rests with the only evidence that we do have -- that Zebras do not exist.

How about taking the most logical stance. Which would be stating "I am ignorant to the existence of Zebras, my room would not contain evidence of the existence of zebras, therefore I can not claim that they exist or they do not exist."
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Scientific Method on December 21, 2013, 11:12:18 PM
I KNOW that these documents do not exist because I did absolutely nothing in effort to find these documents and they did not present themselves to me.

Laziness. What if they were under the cushion of your lounge chair? You would KNOW they don't exist, yet there they would be, existing quite happily under the cushion supporting your lazy, un-zetetic posterior. You'll never learn anything with that attitude Tom, no wonder you support FEH.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 21, 2013, 11:17:11 PM
Sorry Tom, but I made no such claim.  You are the one making claims about what NASA did and didn't say about their gravity probes.

If you have documents or a study to show, then show it. Otherwise it doesn't exist.
Tom, do you even understand how stupid that argument is?  I don't have the blueprints that were used to build my car, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote from: markjo
Tom, the environment is what is being tested.  This just goes to show that you don't understand how a controlled experiment works.

controlled experiment
n.
An experiment that isolates the effect of one variable on a system by holding constant all variables but the one under observation.
Exactly.  The mass (gnome) and the scale are constant while the environment (earth's gravitational field) is the variable that is being tested (measured).  Tell me again how this is not a controlled experiment.

The definition says that all variables must be held constant.
Did you even read that definition?  It says all variables except for the one being under observation.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: bj1234 on December 21, 2013, 11:41:51 PM


How can you assert a truth without also asserting a belief?

Try reversing that statement.

Is it possible to assert a belief without asserting a truth?

Yes.  Because holding a belief does not necessarily mean that the belief is true.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: MonkeyButz on December 23, 2013, 01:34:35 PM
Yes, the gnome experiment is not controlled to the level of a laboratory experiment, but that is not the point here.  The scale is tared, which compensates (to a degree significant with the magnitude of the experiment) for ALL of the variables that Tom is obsessed with.  The important point is that a pattern has emerged over the course of the experiment that correlates to what is predicted by calculations based on the Earth being a globe and gravity existing.

It's Occam's Razor.  Which hypothesis has the least assumptions?  That the correlation in the experiment to what is predicted by calculations based on the Earth's gravitational field is caused by the Earth's gravitational field or that the correlation is caused by fluctuations in magnetic fields and air pressures and so on?  Especially when the differences in magnetic fields and air pressure and so on between locations are nullified by pushing the Tare button on the scale.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 23, 2013, 04:52:28 PM
Depending on the resolution and accuracy of the scale, I'd be more concerned with the gravitational influence of the sun and moon than with atmospheric buoyancy or magnetic fields.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: MonkeyButz on December 24, 2013, 02:41:53 PM
Am I the only one here who knows what it means to tare a scale?  The only way that the gravitational pull of the Moon or the Sun would be relevant here is if they caused rapid fluctuations that happened in the time it takes for the scale to take a reading or in the time between when they tare the scale and when they put the gnome on the scale.  Here is the thing with an electronic scale, though:  It waits for the weight to stop fluctuating before giving a reading or giving an error.  So, if there were fluctuations in the gravitational fields or magnetic fields or air pressure or whatever that could actually influence the experiment at the resolution of the scale, it wouldn't be proving data in the first place.  You can try this if you have an electronic bathroom scale at home.  Try to get it to provide a reading while repeatedly and rapidly stepping on and off of the scale.  If it has any sophistication nearing the level of the scale in the experiment, it will give you an error.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 24, 2013, 04:26:24 PM
Am I the only one here who knows what it means to tare a scale?  The only way that the gravitational pull of the Moon or the Sun would be relevant here is if they caused rapid fluctuations that happened in the time it takes for the scale to take a reading or in the time between when they tare the scale and when they put the gnome on the scale. 
Ummm...  No.  The gravitational influences of the sun and moon (tidal forces) can and do affect the actual value of g (the local gravitational field).  With a scale sensitive enough, you can actually measure the changes of g during the course of a day.  In fact, some scales are sensitive enough that snow accumulation on the roof can affect the reading.  I'm not saying that this scale is or isn't sensitive enough to pick up this effect, but it is a real phenomenon.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force#Mathematical_treatment
The tidal accelerations at the surfaces of planets in the Solar System are generally very small. For example, the lunar tidal acceleration at the Earth's surface along the Moon-Earth axis is about 1.1 × 10−7 g, while the solar tidal acceleration at the Earth's surface along the Sun-Earth axis is about 0.52 × 10−7 g, where g is the gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface.

Quote
Here is the thing with an electronic scale, though:  It waits for the weight to stop fluctuating before giving a reading or giving an error.  So, if there were fluctuations in the gravitational fields or magnetic fields or air pressure or whatever that could actually influence the experiment at the resolution of the scale, it wouldn't be proving data in the first place.  You can try this if you have an electronic bathroom scale at home.  Try to get it to provide a reading while repeatedly and rapidly stepping on and off of the scale.  If it has any sophistication nearing the level of the scale in the experiment, it will give you an error.
The concern isn't about rapid fluctuations, it's about how the local environment can affect readings.  The magnetic field of the earth, atmospheric pressure and buoyancy, tidal forces from the sun and moon are not rapid fluctuations, but can all have some tiny effect on the weight of the reference mass.  The real question is which of those influences are significant enough to affect the actual reading?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 24, 2013, 05:02:59 PM
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: spank86 on December 24, 2013, 05:31:09 PM
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.

Are there a lot of wind and air currents in the rooms you frequent then?

Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 24, 2013, 07:05:30 PM
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.

As has been shown in this thread, it has also been performed in controlled environments and regardless of the environment the results do not falsify the expected local variations in gravity.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 24, 2013, 07:07:55 PM
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.

Are there a lot of wind and air currents in the rooms you frequent then?

You underestimate how sensitive the experiments to measure the slight variations of 'gravity' are.

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200806/physicshistory.cfm

Quote
Since the gravitational force between the spheres is so weak, the tiniest air current could ruin the delicate experiment. Cavendish placed the apparatus in a closed room to keep out extraneous air currents. He used a telescope to observe the experiments through a window, and set up a pulley system that made it possible to move the weights from outside. The room was kept dark to avoid temperature differences in different parts of the room affecting the experiment.

Cavendish relentlessly tracked down potential sources of error. He rotated the spheres in case they had picked up some magnetization. He observed the attraction of the rods without the spheres on the ends. He tried different types of wire to support the apparatus.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 24, 2013, 07:10:02 PM
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.

As has been shown in this thread, it has also been performed in controlled environments and regardless of the environment the results do not falsify the expected local variations in gravity.

The environments were not controlled. They don't even say if some of the experiments were performed outside or not. No attempt was made to control the numerous variables affecting the experiment.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 24, 2013, 07:25:10 PM
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.

As has been shown in this thread, it has also been performed in controlled environments and regardless of the environment the results do not falsify the expected local variations in gravity.

The environments were not controlled. They don't even say if some of the experiments were performed outside or not. No attempt was made to control the numerous variables affecting the experiment.

You know this because of Wikipedia again?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 24, 2013, 07:27:37 PM
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.

As has been shown in this thread, it has also been performed in controlled environments and regardless of the environment the results do not falsify the expected local variations in gravity.

The environments were not controlled. They don't even say if some of the experiments were performed outside or not. No attempt was made to control the numerous variables affecting the experiment.

You know this because of Wikipedia again?

It says right on their website that they ship the scale and gnome from person to person to perform the experiment at their leisure, and that if you want to perform the experiment in your own home town, all you need to do is 'apply here'.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 24, 2013, 07:44:08 PM
Wind and air currents of a room are certainly potent enough to affect the reading. Seeing as this experiment was shipped from person to person and performed in various uncontrolled environments, the experiment is invalid.

As has been shown in this thread, it has also been performed in controlled environments and regardless of the environment the results do not falsify the expected local variations in gravity.

The environments were not controlled. They don't even say if some of the experiments were performed outside or not. No attempt was made to control the numerous variables affecting the experiment.

You know this because of Wikipedia again?

It says right on their website that they ship the scale and gnome from person to person to perform the experiment at their leisure.

So when it is shipped to an underground laboratory I your default position is it was done improperly?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 24, 2013, 07:54:42 PM
So when it is shipped to an underground laboratory I your default position is it was done improperly?

There is a complete lack of documentation. What variables did this laboratory control in the experiment? Were people in the room during the experiment?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 24, 2013, 08:38:49 PM
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 24, 2013, 11:45:21 PM
You underestimate how sensitive the experiments to measure the slight variations of 'gravity' are.

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200806/physicshistory.cfm
If the gnome experiment used a Cavindish apparatus, then you might have a point.  However, since it doesn't, then you are just needlessly derailing the discussion. 
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2013, 05:34:24 AM
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 25, 2013, 06:47:32 AM
So when it is shipped to an underground laboratory I your default position is it was done improperly?

There is a complete lack of documentation. What variables did this laboratory control in the experiment? Were people in the room during the experiment?
Tom, I think that you are grossly overestimating the precision of the scale used in the gnome experiment.  The Kern model EWB (http://www.kern-sohn.com/lshop,showdetail,138795313618136,en,1387953191-19737,produkte.108.109,EWB|-|-|109,8,Tshowrub--produkte.108.109,.htm) readout only displays to .01g resolution.  Any concerns of air currents, atmospheric buoyancy or magnetic fields are likely to be far too subtle for the scale to register.  The biggest control concerns are probably just keeping the reference gnome clean and undamaged.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 25, 2013, 07:48:28 AM
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

I never said there was, but if there is, Snolab would be a good place to start looking.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: garygreen on December 25, 2013, 11:50:16 PM
I love that Tom doesn't have to prove any of his 'positive' claims about errors.  This is precisely why the negative/positive distinction is not a logical tool, but is merely a cognitive dissonance in the minds of people who are unwilling under any circumstances to alter the beliefs they consider precious.

We can always reformulate the discussion in the opposite direction.  Tom, you are making a positive claim:  "X can/does cause an error in your measurement/experiment."

You have to prove that claim.  By your own logic, it's obviously impossible for anyone to prove that the experiment does NOT have a source of error.  That's a negative claim, and it can't be proven, remember?  We have to assume that it does not suffer from error until an error has been proven.

Prove away...

e: Oh, here's a technical document and specs for the Karn EWB 2.4 scale that took me all of 10 seconds to find on Google.  It's a good thing I don't share your view that it's always someone else's responsibility to teach me new things and not learn anything for myself.

http://www.inscale-scales.co.uk/pdf/eg-m.pdf
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2013, 08:47:29 PM
So when it is shipped to an underground laboratory I your default position is it was done improperly?

There is a complete lack of documentation. What variables did this laboratory control in the experiment? Were people in the room during the experiment?
Tom, I think that you are grossly overestimating the precision of the scale used in the gnome experiment.  The Kern model EWB (http://www.kern-sohn.com/lshop,showdetail,138795313618136,en,1387953191-19737,produkte.108.109,EWB|-|-|109,8,Tshowrub--produkte.108.109,.htm) readout only displays to .01g resolution.  Any concerns of air currents, atmospheric buoyancy or magnetic fields are likely to be far too subtle for the scale to register.  The biggest control concerns are probably just keeping the reference gnome clean and undamaged.

.01g is one one-hundredth the weight of a dollar bill. Air currents are certainly strong enough to move a dollar bill, let alone something one one-hundredth the weight.

There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

I never said there was, but if there is, Snolab would be a good place to start looking.

Then start looking.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 27, 2013, 09:43:37 PM
.01g is one one-hundredth the weight of a dollar bill. Air currents are certainly strong enough to move a dollar bill, let alone something one one-hundredth the weight.
But is it enough to move a 300 gram gnome?

Quote
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

I never said there was, but if there is, Snolab would be a good place to start looking.

Then start looking.
Tom, why is it his responsibility to do your research?  ???
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2013, 10:09:23 PM
Quote
.01g is one one-hundredth the weight of a dollar bill. Air currents are certainly strong enough to move a dollar bill, let alone something one one-hundredth the weight.
But is it enough to move a 300 gram gnome?

If a gust of wind puts 1g of pressure down on the gnome, then that gnome is 1g heavier.

If a gust of wind attacks the gnome from the side or from below, then that also affects the gnome's weight.

Quote
Quote
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

I never said there was, but if there is, Snolab would be a good place to start looking.

Then start looking.
Tom, why is it his responsibility to do your research?  ???

It's his research. I did not bring up the possibility that controlled trials took place at this lab.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2013, 10:14:52 PM
I love that Tom doesn't have to prove any of his 'positive' claims about errors.  This is precisely why the negative/positive distinction is not a logical tool, but is merely a cognitive dissonance in the minds of people who are unwilling under any circumstances to alter the beliefs they consider precious.

We can always reformulate the discussion in the opposite direction.  Tom, you are making a positive claim:  "X can/does cause an error in your measurement/experiment."

You have to prove that claim.

Already done. It was agreed that a gust of wind could move a dollar bill. Therefore, a gust of wind could affect this experiment.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: markjo on December 28, 2013, 12:40:05 AM
If a gust of wind puts 1g of pressure down on the gnome, then that gnome is 1g heavier.

If a gust of wind attacks the gnome from the side or from below, then that also affects the gnome's weight.
Then it's a good thing that's it's relatively trivial to avoid such wind gusts.

Quote
It's his research. I did not bring up the possibility that controlled trials took place at this lab.
No, but you did assert that you looked for documentation and could find none.  He was merely suggesting a place to continue your search for documentation.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 28, 2013, 08:29:23 AM
Quote
.01g is one one-hundredth the weight of a dollar bill. Air currents are certainly strong enough to move a dollar bill, let alone something one one-hundredth the weight.
But is it enough to move a 300 gram gnome?

If a gust of wind puts 1g of pressure down on the gnome, then that gnome is 1g heavier.

If a gust of wind attacks the gnome from the side or from below, then that also affects the gnome's weight.

Quote
Quote
There is a complete lack of documentation?  You contacted Snolab to verify this? Why are you starting down your fallacious and odious one of thought again?

Where is this documentation?

I never said there was, but if there is, Snolab would be a good place to start looking.

Then start looking.
Tom, why is it his responsibility to do your research?  ???

It's his research. I did not bring up the possibility that controlled trials took place at this lab.

You brought up the possibility that this experiment was never done in a lab.  I rebutted that, shifting the burden back to you. 

Then when you claimed there was no evidence of this experiment being performed in controlled circumstances, I did you the favor of giving you a place to look.  Please feel free to do so.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on December 28, 2013, 10:44:42 PM
Hi all,

my first contribution here.  I have spent some time in recent weeks reviewing the discussion put forward by Rowbotham in his book and to date I have not found any flaws.  I should add that I don't fully understand the vertical gun experiments yet.  I feel honour bound to inform readers of this contribution that I have been fully exposed to the traditional education system and hold a science degree with a physics major, an engineering degree with a mining major and an MBA.  I am a consulting mining engineer and company director.

If I accept Rowbothams view that the earth is stationary i.e. not accelerating ad infinitum, then one explanation of gravity which I find compelling is that it is in fact an electromagnetic effect.  One piece of supporting evidence for this is that microgravity has been demonstrated in an intense magnetic field.  I recently watched a video demonstration of this effect which starred a nylon nut, a spider and an ant.  If I can find the link again I will post it.

Until my reading of Rowbotham's book, I was being drawn to the models provided by the adherents of the "electric universe" model.  Applying concepts about the nature of electromagnetics to the flat earth model may prove instructive.

I am delighted to see the return of FE thinking.  I smile each time I look at Port Philip Bay in Victoria Australia.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Rama Set on December 30, 2013, 11:34:04 PM
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/g/goce

This link describes many technical elements of the GOCE craft including the challenges anticipated in getting accurate readings. It never mentions magnetic fields as an issue. Based on this it is safe to assume that magnetic fields were not a significant concern.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tintagel on January 02, 2014, 04:40:51 AM
Hi all,

my first contribution here.  I have spent some time in recent weeks reviewing the discussion put forward by Rowbotham in his book and to date I have not found any flaws.  I should add that I don't fully understand the vertical gun experiments yet.  I feel honour bound to inform readers of this contribution that I have been fully exposed to the traditional education system and hold a science degree with a physics major, an engineering degree with a mining major and an MBA.  I am a consulting mining engineer and company director.

If I accept Rowbothams view that the earth is stationary i.e. not accelerating ad infinitum, then one explanation of gravity which I find compelling is that it is in fact an electromagnetic effect.  One piece of supporting evidence for this is that microgravity has been demonstrated in an intense magnetic field.  I recently watched a video demonstration of this effect which starred a nylon nut, a spider and an ant.  If I can find the link again I will post it.

Until my reading of Rowbotham's book, I was being drawn to the models provided by the adherents of the "electric universe" model.  Applying concepts about the nature of electromagnetics to the flat earth model may prove instructive.

I am delighted to see the return of FE thinking.  I smile each time I look at Port Philip Bay in Victoria Australia.

Welcome to the FES forums.  :)  I'd like to see the video in question.  Stationary earth with gravity models exist, but I believe most of the folks who hold this theory also subscribe to the notion that the earth in an infinite plane, since the direction of "gravity" is always down and not toward the centre of the disc. 

I find the infinite plane model interesting and don't completely discount it, as it solves some problems that the disc model presents.  However, in order for aetheric lensing / electromagnetic acceleration to bend light sufficiently to create the southern sky, in my opinion, a disc is necessary, so I tend to lean toward it, with a universal accelerator accounting for gravitational effects.
Title: Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
Post by: MonkeyButz on January 03, 2014, 01:28:54 PM
Ummm...  No.  The gravitational influences of the sun and moon (tidal forces) can and do affect the actual value of g (the local gravitational field).  With a scale sensitive enough, you can actually measure the changes of g during the course of a day.

The concern isn't about rapid fluctuations, it's about how the local environment can affect readings.  The magnetic field of the earth, atmospheric pressure and buoyancy, tidal forces from the sun and moon are not rapid fluctuations, but can all have some tiny effect on the weight of the reference mass.  The real question is which of those influences are significant enough to affect the actual reading?

According to Wikipedia the daily gravitational fluctuation caused by the Sun and the Moon is only 0.000002 g0.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the scale used in the experiment is not capable of detecting this magnitude of gravitational shift.

Also, it is ABSOLUTELY about rapid fluctuations because the scale is tared.  When you tare the empty scale, it compensates for all of the magnetic fields and atmospheric pressure and tidal forces, etc...  So, these forces would have to change, between the time that the scale is tared and the time that the gnome's weight is calculated to have an effect of the gnome's reading.  Here is an example to illustrate:  The scale is tared with a 10g weight on it, so the scale resets itself to 0.  You place the gnome on the scale next to the 10g weight and take a reading.  Does the scale show the weight of the gnome or the weight of the gnome plus 10g?  It shows only the weight of the gnome.  The weight would have to be removed or more weight added BEFORE the reading was taken for it to be affected.  Tidal forces and atmospheric pressure, et al. just don't change enough in 10 seconds to affect the readings, so it's a moot point.  Which is actually the WHOLE reason for taring a scale, to make all of those things moot.


Which brings me to Tom's point about all of these wind-swept areas where all of the experiments have been performed.  It's Occam's Razor, once again.  What's more plausible?  That the Earth's gravitation field is causing the weight fluctuations to match the Gnome's position on the Earth or that in EVERY place the the gnome was weighed, there just happened to be a gust of wind that was exactly and correctly altering the readings of the scale to match what is predicted by the gravitational calculations?  That's pretty amazing timing by all of that wind in all of those different places on all of those different days, even inside buildings, wouldn't you say?