Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 478  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« on: May 08, 2023, 04:13:43 AM »
If you are watching the ball drop from an external viewpoint then it's a second-hand view. If you strap a Go Pro on the ball before you drop it then the view from the Go Pro is more of a first-hand view. In the first-hand view the earth is accelerating upwards.

Likewise, if you get up on a chair and walk off the edge and observe the surface of the earth carefully, you will find that from a first hand view the earth accelerates upwards to meet your feet.

If you take a water balloon and drop it you will find that it changes shape in freefall to its weightless form.


If there is a pulling phenomena which pulls and accelerates all atoms within the balloon "down", how could the water atoms within the balloon experience weightlessness and travel just as easily upwards or downwards within the container of the balloon without resistance from "gravity"?

In a Zero-G airplane flight that uses free-fall to create weightlessness within the plane it has been seen that someone with long hair can have their hair freely flow up and down without resistance, as if the hair was in a weightless environment.

If there is a pulling phenomena which pulls and accelerates all atoms "down", how could the atoms in the hair flow freely up and down without resistance in free-fall? Surely if she were to mold her hair into a certain shape it should  not flow up and down freely without resistance if there were a phenomenon pulling all atoms downwards.

In a situation where you are losing a game tug-of-war with an elephant and are being pulled along, any time you pull against the rope it creates resistance against the direction you are being pulled in. If the atoms in the hair are all being pulled down towards the earth they should not be allowed to float freely up and down without resistance. Yet water, hair, and various types of materials act weightless in a zero-g freefall flight.

All of this and more is easy evidence that the true physical nature of gravity is that of an upwardly accelerating earth.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« on: May 07, 2023, 11:15:14 PM »
Yes, I think that you're finally getting it.  The EP says that you can't tell the difference between a flat earth accelerating upwards and curved space-time causing the round earth to push upwards on your feet.  Maybe the rocket scenario is an absurd philosophical question, but it just goes to show that any such test to tell the difference between acceleration and gravitation would be inconclusive, therefore you can't use the EP as evidence to support or disprove an upwardly accelerating flat earth or curved space-time on a round earth.

Sure, I can tell the difference between a reality which has direct physical evidence for it and someone screaming that the physical evidence is an illusion derived from processes in an unseen dimension. One of the explanations has direct physical evidence and the other does not.

Recall from the above Princeton University Prof quote from John Richard Gott III that curved space was needed because an upwardly accelerating surface didn't make sense on a round earth -

"Still one must ask how Earth’s surface could be accelerating upward (away from Earth's center) if Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon. The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering spacetime to be curved."

When the justification rests on it being the only way to make sense of it in your model, the mere fact that you need to do this is a proof against the model.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« on: May 07, 2023, 03:25:31 AM »
Considering that curved space is used to create an illusion to explain the physical reality of the other scenario it is really more of an absurd philosophical question.

It would be like asking "How do you know whether the woman you love wasn't abducted and replaced last month by a human clone of her body and her mind and all of her defects by an advanced alien species to the point that there is nothing you could do to tell the difference?"

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« on: May 07, 2023, 02:40:20 AM »
Yes, gravity mimics acceleration, even down to the subatomic level.  So, how is it that you can tell the difference?  What is acceleration doing that gravity isn't, or vice versa?

Upwards acceleration is doing something that does not happen in classic Newtonian gravity.
This isn't going to be another pedantic gravity vs gravitation gotcha, is it?  You know full well that the terms gravity and gravitation are used interchangeably, even by physicists discussing GR.  Even the article that you cited uses the term gravity even though it's obviously referring to gravitation.

So, just to make you happy, how does one tell the difference between acceleration and gravitation when the EP specifically says that you can't?

It's not an argument of the difference between gravity and gravitation. In the scenario with the upwardly accelerating rocket the ceiling within the rocket is accelerating upwards and moving through space. This does not happen in the static version on earth. There is a physical difference.

The version of gravity where bodies fall down is not physically equivalent to a scenario where the room accelerates up. There are experiments and indications that this classic version of gravity is incorrect. Gravity must simulate the physics of a scenario where the room accelerates upwards because there are different kinds of experiments showing this physical reality.

Curved space is used to simulate the upwardly accelerating rocket scenario. See this section titled "Why Is Spacetime Curved?" of the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe by Princeton University prof John Richard Gott III:

A famous (perhaps apocryphal) story about Einstein describes one occasion when he fell into conversation with a man at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. During their chat, the man suddenly pulled a little book from his coat pocket and jotted something down. Einstein asked, “What is that?" “Oh,” the man answered, “it's a notebook I keep, so that any time I have a good idea I can write it down before I forget it.” “I never needed one of those," Einstein replied. “I only had three good ideas.”

One of them occurred to him in 1907—what he would later call the “happiest” idea of his life. Einstein noted that an observer on Earth and an observer on an accelerating spaceship in interstellar space would have the same sensations. Follow this chain of thought to see why. Galileo had shown that an observer dropping two balls of different mass on Earth sees them hit the floor at the same time. If an observer in an accelerating rocket in interstellar space performed the same experiment, dropping two balls of different mass, they would float motionless in space—but, since the rocket was firing, the floor of the spaceship would simply come up and hit both of them at once. Both observers thus should see the same thing. In one case, it is the result of gravity; in the other case, it is caused by an accelerating floor with no gravity involved. But then Einstein proposed something very bold—if the two situations looked the same, they must be the same. Gravity was nothing more than an accelerated frame-of-reference. Likewise, Einstein noted that if you get in an elevator on Earth and cut the cable, you and everything in the elevator will fall toward Earth at the same rate. (Galileo again—objects of different mass all fall at the same rate.) So, how do things look to you in the falling elevator? Any object you drop will float weightless in the elevator—because you, the object, and the elevator are all falling at the same rate together. This is exactly what you would see if you were in a spaceship floating in interstellar space. All the objects in the spaceship, including you, would be weightless. If you want to experience weightlessness just like an astronaut, all you have to do is get in an elevator and cut the cable. (This works, of course, only until the elevator hits bottom.)

Einstein's assertion that gravity and acceleration are, the same—which he called the equivalence principle—was influenced, no doubt, by his previous success in equating the situation of a stationary magnet and a moving charge with that of a stationary charge and a moving magnet. But if gravity and accelerated motion were the same, then gravity was nothing but accelerated motion. Earth's surface was simply accelerating upward. This explained why a heavy ball and a light ball, when dropped, hit the floor at the same time. When the balls are released, they just float there—weightless. The floor (Earth) simply comes up and hits them. What a remarkably fresh way of looking at things!

Still one must ask how Earth’s surface could be accelerating upward (away from Earth's center) if Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon. The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering spacetime to be curved.

Einstein proposed that mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. It took him 8 years of hard work to derive the equations governing this. He had to learn the abstruse geometry of curved higher dimensional spaces. He had to learn about the Riemannian curvature tensor—a mathematical monster with 256 components telling how spacetime could be curved. This was very difficult mathematics, and Einstein ran upon many false leads. But he didn't give up because he had great faith in the idea.

You can also see this section from Gravity: A Very Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton:

Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs!

Also, this quote on p.65 of Relativity Visualized by Lewis Carroll Epstein:

Einstein’s view of gravity is that things don’t fall; the floor comes up!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« on: May 06, 2023, 11:13:32 PM »
Yes, gravity mimics acceleration, even down to the subatomic level.  So, how is it that you can tell the difference?  What is acceleration doing that gravity isn't, or vice versa?

Upwards acceleration is doing something that does not happen in classic Newtonian gravity. See the above example of the Pund-Rebka experiment. In the version in an upwardly accelerating rocket the ceiling would be accelerating upwards and therefore creating more space between it and the photon. In Newtonian gravity the ceiling is not accelerating upwards.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« on: May 06, 2023, 09:24:35 PM » illusion that makes all tests appear as if the floor is physically accelerating upwards."
That depends on your frame of reference.  If your FoR is the same as the earth, then a dropped object appears to be accelerating downwards towards the floor.  So again, there is no way to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.

There are ways to tell. Light blueshifts or redshifts whether the light is moving towards or away from you.

In the Pound-Rebka and Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments a light source is placed at the top and the bottom of the tower and researchers measured whether it was redshifted or blueshifted at the other end. If it acts like the environment of an upwardly accelerating rocket ship where the ceiling is accelerating away from the incoming light that is shining upwards it will behave one way and not another.

In the right hand version we can see when the light shines upwards from the light source to the ceiling it redshifts.

This quote in this book even clarifies it:

“ One can also see the role of the equivalence principle by considering a pulse of light emitted over a distance h along the axis of a spaceship in uniform acceleration g in outer space. The time taken for the light to reach the detector is t = h (we use units G = c = 1). The difference in velocity of the detector acquired during the light travel time is v = gt = gh, the Doppler shift z in the detected light. This experiment, carried out in the gravity-free environment of a spaceship whose rockets produce an acceleration g, must yield the same result for the energy shift of the photon in a uniform gravitational field f according to the equivalence principle. The Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments can therefore be regarded as an experimental proof of the equivalence principle.

See bolded.

Curved space gravity is mimicking the effect of being inside of an upwardly accelerating rocket ship. That is what is meant by the equivalence principle.

According to the equivalence principle whatever physical effect takes place in an upwardly accelerating environment is indistinguishable from "gravity". This is what it is.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 06, 2023, 07:32:31 PM »
There are lots of reasons why many women don't immediately report rape or other sexual harassment or abuse, especially when committed by powerful people.

Yes, and one of those reasons is that they are lying headcases who admit in court that they love the tv shows that the powerful people who rape them go on to star in.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 06, 2023, 06:19:26 PM »
According to this MSNBC legal analyst who was covering it, despite her department store rape Carroll said she continued to shop at that store, was a massive Apprentice fan afterwards, and says that she wasn't sure if she would have sued Trump if he had said it was consensual.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 06, 2023, 06:04:41 PM »
Are we really supposed to believe someone who was raped in a department store wouldn't immediately report it?

"It didn't happen," Trump said, "and by the way, if it did happen, it would have been reported within minutes. Talking about going to a major floor, probably I assumed the most important floor, a major floor in a major department store. That's a very busy store, by the way, checkout counters and everything else. And I would be in there– I mean, it's the most ridiculous. It's the most ridiculous disgusting story is just made up."

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« on: May 05, 2023, 04:59:12 PM »
See the information in these links:

The objection to UA mainly comes from imagining the Earth as a disk that accelerates through the universe that can hit objects in the way, or that the disk can exceed the speed of light.
My main objection to UA is that the Equivalence Principle, that you like to tout as evidence, explicitly says that it's impossible to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.

It's more like "there is not a difference between an environment with an upwardly accelerating floor and an illusion that makes all tests appear as if the floor is physically accelerating upwards."

The "gravity" you are referring to is the curved space illusion gravity, not the traditional Newtonian gravity where bodies fall downwards. The version of gravity where bodies fall downwards was long disproven.

But one of your objections to gravity is that "despite great effort, the mechanism for gravity has not been discovered". But you think it unreasonable to ask what powers UA?

That is a statement of fact. Some people do think that all things about gravity have been discovered. They are incorrect.

Maybe it is also unreasonable to expect to know the mechanism and energy source of gravity. This is just another point against the notion that the UA energy source should be known.

On your Wiki page on the evidence for EA you say that gravitational mass and inertial mass being equivalent has been called "one of the deepest, unsolved mysteries that exists in fundamental physics". What is your source for that quote? I couldn't see a reference on the Wiki page and when I Googled the phrase the only reference I could find was the Wiki page.

Did you try clicking on the [1] link after that quote?

Personally I'm not sure why this is an issue anyway. I mean, F = ma tells us that a greater "m" requires a greater "F" to make it accelerate at the same rate as a smaller "m". But the formula for gravity tells us that the "F" due to gravity is proportional to the "m", so those two things cancel out and all objects accelerate at the same rate in a gravitational field. You could ask "why" that is, but isn't that similar to the question you objected to above? It just seems to be the way the universe works. I think General Relativity makes some sense of this but that's a bit above my scientific pay grade.

I guess it could be possible that the universe is filled with phenomena where Flat Earth Theory appears to be correct, but numerous illusions really make the earth round. At some point you will have to look in the mirror, however.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« on: May 04, 2023, 08:51:10 PM »
I already read the info in those links. My objection is not what you say, my objection is that postulating a moving Earth requires an explanation for this motion, and people who propose that can't provide an explanation. "Dark energy" is meaningless - you could say "unicorn farts" and it would be just as valid of an explanation.

What you are asking is unreasonable. Demanding to know about the workings and origins to the energies of the universe is basically asking a spiritual question.

The laboratory experiments speak for themselves for what is happening and anything else is speculation.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« on: May 04, 2023, 08:18:02 PM »
UA is my favorite proof of Flat Earth. There are different kinds of experiments which suggest that the surface of the Earth is physically accelerating upwards. It is considered to be an absurd phenomenon which inspired the modification of the nature of space and time at the beginning of the 20th century to account for the effects under a Round Earth. The geometry of space of such a nature that the earth is physically accelerating up to objects at a physical level, but there is an unseen nature of the universe called "space-time" or "curved space" which creates this illusion.

See the information in these links:

The objection to UA mainly comes from imagining the Earth as a disk that accelerates through the universe that can hit objects in the way, or that the disk can exceed the speed of light.

Firstly, it doesn't need to be a disk accelerating through a Cartesian universe. The traditional expanding universe model postulates that the universe can expand and accelerate away from itself and create new space without mass destruction. It could also be something akin to a universe accelerating through a larger meta-universe and we feel the inertial effects.

Per speed of light limits, it's not a limit in Special Relativity and things can continuously accelerate without reaching the speed of light as a function of the laws through dilation effects. But Special Relativity was created to explain the Michelson-Morley Experiment which suggests that the Earth is horizontally motionless. So while continuous acceleration isn't a problem in SR, I have some doubts about those laws myself.

Much of the major theoretical science in Astronomy is really about why the FE seems to be true but is "really" not. It is continuously fascinating. The "but but how about this" just doesn't compare to the bulk of this evidence.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: May 02, 2023, 03:37:17 PM »
Hunter Biden claims he has no money to avoid child support payments, forced to sleep in dad's room -

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do liberal elites worship Satan?
« on: April 30, 2023, 02:52:14 AM »
He didn't ask what the motivation is. ??? That's something we already know, thanks to the candid admissions of everyone here. Yes, we are Satanists, and soon we will abort every baby, transify every young person, and rig every election. There's nothing you can do about it.

It sounds more like you are play acting there, to be honest with you. I would use this post as an exhibit for why we can't trust people to state their genuine beliefs.

This is why it is difficult to tell whether each specific instance of what you demonstrated is supposed to mean something evil or not. Recently the Grammy Awards featured a show with a man dressed with devil horns singing "Unholy" while strippers danced around him.

Is this supposed to be evil and satanic? Difficult to say. Leftist Hollywood who run the Grammys could be LARPers who are only pretending to be satanic.

Some say they are leftist lunatics:

Major leftist outlet @CBS only eggs it on with comments like "We are ready to worship!"

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do liberal elites worship Satan?
« on: April 30, 2023, 12:42:12 AM »
At one point Joe Biden's website had the IP address of
Just out of curiosity, are the other 65,535 IP addresses in the 66.6.*.* range evil too, or is it just Biden's site?

I don't know what the motivation is. It might not be evil, or intended to be evil. It appears to be purposeful, but the best I can say about it at this time is that it could be a joke. Biden = The Devil might be a running meme that the Biden Administration are embracing and facilitating with Joe Biden. Liberals have a reputation for "play acting" and creating false drama. Politicians also have a reputation for being clowns who put on a show. In this case it might be an attempted troll against the right who are seen as religious conservatives.

Biden officials are known to have readily embraced Biden memes before:

Business Insider - Biden White House embraces 'Dark Brandon,' a parody of the 'Dark MAGA' meme used by the far right

In Biden's ill-famed evil dictator speech, the Biden Administration certainly must have known what they were doing to create this imagery:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do liberal elites worship Satan?
« on: April 29, 2023, 07:20:57 PM »
They do clarify in the link that they mean 3.0330. In the link it shows this:

It is certainly possible that this is a coincidence. But considering that Joe Biden seems to really enjoy comparing himself to the devil, it is also possible that he thinks it's a joke and instructed his campaign to make it satanic. He has a pretty crude sense of humor. I wouldn't put it past him to do this.

In reference to his "Battle for the Soul of the Nation" bus campaign tour see the following statement from Biden to CNBC at the 8 second mark:

"the the fact is that uh we had a great
bus tour we've uh about 660 miles
we're going on day six "

It is fairly clear that he is doing this on purpose, like his running joke about him being like the devil and comments like "six minutes, or six days, or six weeks". The question at this point is why he is doing it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Do liberal elites worship Satan?
« on: April 29, 2023, 03:09:18 PM »
There is an absurd rumor going around that the liberal elites worship Satan. This claim caught my interest and I will explore that notion. This thread doesn't attempt to argue whether anything supernatural exists, but suggests that there is evidence that there may be some level of truth to that notion that the purported satanic references placed in liberal elite content are purposeful. Whether it is a joke or not, and whether it is truly 'worship' or 'admiration', there is some evidence that appears to rise above the level of coincidence that that they are purposely using satanic references and imagery.

This will first focus on the Joe Biden campaign and may move off to others. It is possible that some republicans like putting in religious or satanic references into their content, but I have mostly seen claims against democrats. The democrat examples are the most flagrant and hard to deny as coincidence.

Item 1 - IP address

At one point Joe Biden's website had the IP address of I tested this out myself at the time was going around in the 2020 election and confirmed it. The IP has since changed and the URL now redirects to

666 and 45 + 1 as in the 46th president

This thread has multiple people who claim to have verified it for themselves:

Item 2 - "6 minutes, 6 days, or 6 weeks"

From Reuters Video - Joe Biden: "It doesn't matter whether it is in 6 minutes, 6 days, or 6 weeks, we're going to get it done"

Pretty weird thing to say.

Item 3 - Joe Biden Campaign Tag Line

Joe Biden's 2020 campaign tagline was that they were in a "Battle for the Soul of the Nation"

Per the text number 30330 printed on the bus, some internet commenters have pointed out that 2020 ÷ 666 = 30330 - Freaky! Internet Users Point Out 2020 ÷ 666 = 30330 (Biden/Harris Campaign Text Code)

Item 4 - Odd casting picks

The People's Voice - Biden's Monkeypox Czar is a self-confessed satanist.

The National Pulse - ‘We’ll Steal Your Soul’ – Biden’s Monkeypox Spox Has a Penchant for Pentagrams, Occultism, and Satanism.

Item 5 - 2020 Democratic National Convention "Death 2 America" Logo

The 2020 Democratic National Convention logo seems to have an unfortunate connotation with "Death to America". The “D” has a weird star in it that looks like an arrowhead, the number 2, and then a zero with a map of America.


Item 6 - Numerous innuendos

Alone, some of these comments could be passed off as meaningless, but there appears a theme here.

That awkward moment when Biden openly compares himself to Satan - - Joe Biden Compares Himself to the Devil

Joe Biden says that in his plan "the devil is in the details" - - March 15 2021--- “It’s one thing to pass a historic piece of legislation like the American Rescue Plan, and it’s quite another to implement it,” Biden said in remarks from the White House. “The devil is in the details. It requires fastidious oversight to make sure the relief arrives quickly, equitably and efficiently with no waste or fraud.”

Joe Biden says he is going to "work like the Devil" - - Biden: "I am going to work like the devil to make sure I turn every Latino and Hispanic vote" - Biden: "I'm going to work like the devil to bring gas prices down" - Biden 'working like the devil' on tornado response - Biden: ‘I’m going to work like the devil’ to cut energy prices

NY Daily News - Biden says working 'like the devil' to avert Russian invasion ... - The Biden ultimatum: Joe vows to veto any abortion ban, will 'try like the devil' to outlaw assault rifles and won't back down on climate change - In Culpeper, Biden vows to “work like the devil” against inflation, high drug prices

Joe Biden says he doesn't care if people think he is Satan reincarnated - - Biden tells crowd: "I don't care if you think I'm Satan reincarnated."

Biden says Kamala is like a devil too -

Business Standard - US elections 2020: Kamala Harris is smart as a devil, says Joe Biden

Quote from:  SteelyBob
The atmosphere will affect the scale, just not by that much and not in the way that the wiki would suggest it does. As the video shows, the issue with atmospheric pressure / density is one of buoyancy. We normally discount buoyancy effects as they are very small. Moreover, when we calibrate scales we eliminate the effect. Changes to atmospheric pressure mean that regular calibration is important for very precise measurements.


You have to do the experiment, not just assume.

The scales are also not recalibrated after being moved in the scale gravity experiments. You are mistaken. Please review the citations at Search for "calibrated" on that page to find the citations.

Quote from:  SteelyBob
You and the wiki also seem terribly confused over gravimetry, and the variations in apparent gravity caused by the shape and spin of the earth.

Gravity anomalies, as measured by gravimetry, are tiny local deviations from the expected gravity strength at a particular point on earth. They are typically measured on a scale of +/- 100mGal, as in the example shown in the wiki in the  'World Volcano Map' section -

100mGal, which is the most extreme gravity anomaly on the charts, is less than 0.1% of g (g is 981 Gal), so the gravity anomalies that are being measured are far smaller than the difference in apparent g that we find going from the equator to the poles, where the difference amounts to around 0.5% of g. That is why the data are corrected for these effects - they would be swamped by the bigger numbers if not, and it is the local variations that are generally of interest.

In all the talk of travelling gnomes, you seem to gloss over the more serious gravimetry that is conducted, in particular airborne gravimetry. Given your belief that seismology is just the same as gravimetry, I'm curious to understand what you think is being measured during airborne gravimetry - how would the accelerometers measure seismic activity? Aside from a vague assertion that P-waves can pass through air (it's called noise), you don't really back this up. Throw in some usual deep distrust of normal scientific activity like using filters to eliminate noise and you have painted a true masterpiece of confusion.

Actually the Wiki cites its sources for points such as seismic waves traveling through the air -

Quote (Archive)

  “ Primary waves (P-waves) are compressional waves that are longitudinal in nature. P waves are pressure waves that travel faster than other waves through the earth to arrive at seismograph stations first, hence the name "Primary". These waves can travel through any type of material, including fluids, and can travel nearly 1.7 times faster than the S waves. In air, they take the form of sound waves, hence they travel at the speed of sound. Typical speeds are 330 m/s in air, 1450 m/s in water and about 5000 m/s in granite. ”

Also here:


  “ As earthquake waves ripple through the Earth, the crust buckles, rumbles and roars — both audibly and at infrasonic frequencies, below the range of human hearing. A new study finds the Earth's surface acts like a speaker for low-frequency vibrations, transmitting an earthquake's infrasonic tumult into the air. ”

You, on the other hand, have cited nothing.

In the 300 year history of this experiment no one has performed controlled experiments on this.
Well this sounds like the ideal opportunity for you to do something revolutionary then.
I look forward to your results. Can you document your method clearly so that it can be properly reviewed and repeated.

Science is paid for by taxes, not Tom Bishop. Since these scale experiments are supposed to be mainstream science, this is their obligation to fix their shortcomings. The atmosphere obviously touches the scale, and so the experiment needs to be conducted to discount the effect of the atmosphere.

It appears that this guy thought of it.

This demonstrates that the atmosphere does affect the scale. The problem is that this isn't the same experiment. It appears to only have been conducted in one location. He needs to take the device to different locations and see if the weight changes.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: April 26, 2023, 01:28:27 AM »

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 478  Next >