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 - RonJ

Pages: < Back  1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 30  Next >
321
Your analysis is about 180 degrees out of phase.  A seismometer measures CHANGES in gravity LARGER THAN ZERO.  Those changes can be about any frequency LARGER than zero.  A gravimeter can also measure the changes in gravity but can also measure gravity down to a frequency that INCLUDES ZERO.  A subtle but important difference.  The idea of the gravimeter is to measure the acceleration of one mass caused by the force of attraction of another mass.  That force of acceleration can be a constant or a variable, it doesn't matter, the gravimeter can measure it.  The Idea of a seismometer is to measure the change (not the absolute value of) a mass due to it's physical movement.  If there's NO physical movement of the mass then there will be a ZERO reading on a seismometer but a CONSTANT reading on a gravimeter. 

If you have any gravity at all a gravimeter can measure it.  You have to have a CHANGE in that same gravity for a seismometer to measure it.    Two different devices, two different reasons to have them.

It's kind of like having a AC / DC voltmeter.  You can't really measure a constant DC voltage on an AC meter.  Your reading would be zero.  You can measure a slowly changing AC voltage on a DC meter but you really can't make too much sense out of it but can maybe mentally average the readings to get an idea.    Think of the Gravimeter like a DC voltmeter and a Seismometer like a AC meter.  They are both voltmeters but have different purpose.

A gravimeter can measure the equation y = 2   ... a seisometer can only measure the first derivative of that equation:  dy/dx = 0     A gravimeter would measure 2 and a seisometer would measure zero. 
You can't have two instruments measure the same identical thing and get completely different readings and consider them to be equivalent.

322
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sunset Ship Sighting
« on: November 29, 2018, 04:25:14 PM »
What you are seeing is about what I would visually see on the bridge of a ship.  The additional confirmation would be the radar picture.  We had radars that would show the AIS data overlayed by the radar echo.  The AIS data had a much longer range than the radar echo itself.  You could readily see the echo fade steadily away as the ship went over the curvature of the earth and the AIS data would continue to show the actual position of the ship as it continued to open up the distance.  The opposite was true as well.  If we were in a busy sea lane you would often see the AIS data overlayed on the radar screen of an on coming ship so you knew something was coming your way.  The on coming ship would be invisible visually and by radar.  The AIS data transmits the ships position, course, and speed so we had all that data and it would be displayed on the radar at the correct position relative to our ship.  Slowly we would then start to see just tiny return echos overlaying the AIS mark on the radar screen. The lookout could then usually start to see just the tops of the mast of the on coming ship.  As our distance steady closed then the radar echos would become very strong and the lookout would see in his binoculars a nice view of the ship.  In busy areas of the ocean this procedure was done day in and day out. By using the tracking feature of the radar we could see the historical course of the oncoming ship and if it looked like that ship might need to cross our path ahead of us the mate would usually call the other ship on the VHF radio to make a deal for a passage maneuver.  We didn't want any collisions.  The passage of other ships over the horizon was an everyday thing that we saw under all kinds of different conditions so the earth's curvature is an obvious thing for me.

323
Another source for exactly what a seismometer is:

Seismometers measure the motion or displacement of the ground, a three-component vector u(x,t) that is a function of position x and time t.

In other words a Seismometer measures the motion or displacement vs time of the mass that produces gravity.  That's why you see a gravimeter show changes when there's a motion of the mass because the distance to the mass changes.  The total amount of mass on the earth doesn't change it just moves around a bit.  Yes, you can have some meteorites crash into the earth that adds a bit to the mass, and you can send some mass off into space (maybe not in FET) that will subtract a bit of mass) but for the most part the mass on earth stays constant.  If that mass was uniformly distributed throughout a perfectly spherical earth the force of gravity would be perfectly uniform and wouldn't ever vary.  Of course the earth is an oblate spheroid so there's a change in the force of gravity measured on the surface of that oblate spheroid depending on the measurement location.  Since the mass inside the earth is in constant motion there's always a change in the measured gravity. A gravimeter will see a small change in the measured force of gravity because there's a small change in the distance to the mass that causes the gravity.  The seismometer measures that motion or displacement of mass not really the absolute force of gravity.  If the mass of the earth remained absolutely constant and had zero movement then a gravimeter would show a constant, steady, reading.  A seismometer would show a constant zero reading. 

It's like ringing a bell.   A gravimeter measures the bell --  a seismometer measures the ring

Maybe if you did even a little more research you could show via seismometer readings that the earth is an oblate spheroid, wouldn't that be interesting?
https://arxiv.org/html/physics/0605162


https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/seismographs

324
Anytime you have something containing atoms then there is mass.  When two or masses are separated then there is a force of attraction between those masses.  That's called gravity.  If you move masses around relative to each other or bang one mass into another mass then you will create something that can be detected by a seismometer.  I believe that if you have a mass that's absolutely motionless it will be detectable by a gravimeter but won't be by a seismometer.  A seismometer is more like a differential gravimeter.  It can detect a change in gravity, but not gravity that is constant. 

325
Tom
I really liked the articles you included in the links.  Unfortunately, for FET they gave a fine treatise on gravity.  There were also illustrations of just how good the instruments are these days and a nice proof that gravity is what is really being measured.
 
Your implication that a gravimeter and a seismometer are just measuring the same thing would be something like my old high school physics teacher would ask on a pop quiz.  I have been out of high school for a few years, but I can still remember what the answers would be.   A gravimeter is measuring a force of one object on another object.  A seismometer is measuring the vibration of the earth.  The fact that a gravimeter would also measure a vibration is evident in the standard gravity equation with just the radius rapidly changing or the distances between the masses changing.  That would make the overall reading of the force change. A seismometer could easily measure the vibration of a standard speaker, but a properly setup gravimeter wouldn’t show much of anything.
 
I believe that you are just trying to bury the measured changes of gravimeter readings vs earths latitude in a bunch of noise and make those readings appear to be subject to doubt, so they can be swept under the rug, but of course that won’t really work.  You are just really arguing about something like the difference between 0.000000123 and 0.000000456. The instruments are very sensitive to minor effects of the environment and the chaotic motion of the earth.  The differences in the force of gravity at the equator and the poles are millions of times larger than the small affects you are disputing.  Trying to bury the core issue of the Somigliana Equation is just being disingenuous and is one of the main reasons why the Universal Accelerator paradigm is invalid.

326
With UA you would have everything showing the same acceleration.  Everything would be the same color.  You wouldn't have an acceleration that depended upon latitude.  Measuring the acceleration would be just as accurate (or inaccurate) so the same arguments could just be used in reverse against UA.  Now take a look at the red shift phenomenon due to gravity.  UA has NO explanation for that.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

327
The USGS has all the data you need both raw and processed. Everything was collected to exacting standards that can be read.  You can put in or take out any corrections you desire.  All you have to do is be willing to do the work necessary to process and observe what you need.

328
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: November 27, 2018, 08:03:55 PM »
Any drop of water is subject to the sum of all the vector forces acting on it.  Normally the biggest force vector is the earth's gravity that acts in the direction of the center of the spherical earth.  Other forces can be the gravitational force exerted by the moon and the sun.  Winds and waves caused by boats can also cause anomalies.  In other words, water can be subject to many different force vectors and you have to know them all before you can say for sure what any given section of water will likely do. 

329
There's little willingness to understand, that's the whole objective.  You can present all the evidence you want but it's wasted effort if the evidence won't be believed even before it's presented. 
Maybe there needs to be a standard for both a question and the depth of proof necessary for belief before a question can be answered.

330
Tom needs to refresh his memory on the Somigliana Equation and it's meaning in relation to the earths gravity field.  Once that's completed, question asked & answered.

331
https://www.watertown.k12.wi.us/faculty/wattsp/Earth%20layers%20article.pdf

It makes perfect sense that the molten rock inside the earth is more dense than the rock on the surface.   It is true that liquids and solids are less compressible than gasses.  But they are compressible.  I was taught in engineering school to just consider that water was incomprehensible.  I mentioned this to the deep diving submarine pilot aboard the same research ship I was working on.  He promptly showed me the parts on the submarine where compensation was needed to allow for the 0.5% per 1000 feet increase in water's density due to pressure. Now instead of 1000s of feet think 1000 of MILES and you can easily see that there's just a little more than conjecture that the liquid rock near the earths center might just possibly be more dense than whats near the surface.  I hope that you will find this argument a little more than a delusion of adequacy on my part.

If you look at the link you can also see some of the measurements that are taken by scientists to get an idea of the internal structure of the global earth.

332
Tom has made the case for gravity very nicely with all the colored charts.  Gravity manifests itself by producing a measurable force between two masses separated by a distance.  The earth is not a perfect sphere and is not perfectly homogeneous.  The density of the earth is also quite variable.  That means that there will be variations in mass as you travel across the surface of the globe.  Those density variations are certainly not consistent since the earths crust has a consistency more like a Mulligan Stew.  Those inconsistencies in mass are being manifested in fluctuations of gravity that’s being accurately measured by the traveling gravimeters.  Thank you, Tom, for showing us all the nice colored encoded charts of all those gravity anomalies that perfectly illustrate the inconsistencies of the density (and mass) of the earth’s crust.

333
Those are a lot of diagrams, Tom.  Does it mean that the green sections in the diagrams are where you believe that the gravity of the earth can best be measured?  According to the legend the green part is where the gravity anomalies are very close to zero.  It looks like at those points, according to the charts you have referenced everything should be good to go.  Maybe the scientists already have some absolute gravimeters there and can make good accurate measurement of the earths gravity at those points that will meet your very tight specifications with minimal anomalies.  I do believe then those measurements would indeed be a representation of the acceleration of a body due to the gravitational attraction of the earth's mass. 

334
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-clock-experiment-demonstrates-your-head-older-your-feet

With all the 'noise' you see in the experiments above why don't you just feast your eyes on just one of the examples that are illustrated above that shows that the earth is in a known gravitational field and a couple of atomic clocks in a laboratory can show you how.  In case you really had any doubts about gravity here is just another example of how to see the effects.



Now if you want to see the religious aspect of this same effect just take a look at the video above. 


335
Need another confirmation that there's gravity, just look at my post above on the Red Shift phenomenon.  It requires gravity and is another completely different form of measurement that doesn't have any of the errors you are needlessly concerned about.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be GRAVITY !

336
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Chemtrails
« on: November 26, 2018, 08:58:23 PM »


There were vapor trails all the way back to WWII.  You don't need a jet engine or a fast new aircraft to product the effect.

337
Yes, there is plenty of noise to deal with when you are trying to get every ounce of accuracy out of a gravimeter.  It's like measuring the depth of a swimming pool before & after you've thrown in a glass of water.  All you are arguing about is if the glass was half empty or half full before you threw it into the pool. 

Years ago when I was flying airplanes all the time I might be flying above a layer of clouds.  Air traffic control might tell me to descend to 3000 feet and fly heading 240.  Maybe the signal was a bit noisy the first time and I would ask for a repeat.  After hearing the transmission a second time I would usually be satisfied with the info.  At that time I would bet my very life that my information was correct as I descended into the clouds and depended on air traffic control to keep me from colliding with another aircraft and killing everyone. 

Maybe the gravimeter information was a little noisy at the extremes of the measurement accuracy range.  Then reading after reading after reading was taken giving multiple confirmations.  There's really no doubt about the fact that you are taking the readings of the earths gravitational attraction.  You might not know the exact reading 4 or 5 places to the right of the decimal point but after taking multiple readings your confidence in those figures are high.  The other fact is that the earth itself is noisy.  All kinds of natural forces are at work that can cause small variations in the readings.  That very fact is very comforting.  When you are seeing small variations you have a good indication that the equipment is working normally. 

If I was checking a HF communication radio and was wondering if the receiver had good sensitivity and could receive a signal, I would usually just tune to one of the time broadcast frequencies.  Normally I would hear a transmission from one of the many time signal broadcast stations, worldwide.  Maybe the time signal was weak and buried in the noise. Usually after a while I could get the time even buried in noise if I listened to it enough times.  At that time I was confident that my reading was accurate and I could depend on it 100%.
 
Gravimeters usually have a good self test feature that gives you a quick idea if all the equipment is properly working.  At that time even if the reading you are seeking is in some noise you can be sure that you will come up with a accurate measurement.  As I've said before on here, I have very accurately calculated PI out to about 4 places to the right of the decimal point using just random numbers.  Given that fact a gravimeter can also give you an accurate reading even if the signal is buried under a lot of random noise. 

The bottom line is that any noise is not a valid argument that a gravimeter is NOT measuring gravity well enough to confirm that we are on a oblate spheroid. 
 

338
Gravimeters on ships wouldn't be the absolute types for obvious reasons.  Since ships are generally underway and operating in seas that could be rough the absolute accuracy of any readings will depend on the conditions at sea.  I have been on research ships that were doing what was called 'mowing the lawn'.  We just went back & forth over a specific study area collecting data for later study on shore.  If the earth were flat and undergoing a constant acceleration a gravimeter on a ship would just record random data and wouldn't show anything meaningful.  Even in rough seas if you went by a specific location and saw a obvious blip and then saw that same obvious blip on another close-by pass you have just measured something that wasn't just random noise.  Since all our readings were recorded on a big chart recorder along with very accurate GPS readings you could tell exactly where any recordings were being made. Again, it sounds like Tom is just arguing about the accuracy of the measured gravity readings not the fact that they are obviously there and have been made millions of times by thousands of people.  Just what more evidence would anyone need? 

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=8415&tid=7342&cid=265129

339
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Green Flash
« on: November 26, 2018, 06:57:33 PM »
I would expect to see some St. Elmo's fire as well under certain circumstances.  I've personally witnessed the phenomenon both at sea on ocean going ships and on aircraft as well.  Of course your explanation for the green flash on the sun is erroneous.  St. Elmo's fire requires a atmosphere and plenty of air.  Are you then saying that you have an atmosphere above the flat earth at 800 miles up?  Of course you can claim that there is, but then be ready to defend the atmospheric pressure on the earth's surface vs the density of air.  Are you ready for a discussion with just verifiable facts and no BS? 

340
It looks like gravity is in UA is out.
Do you need a little more evidence?  Check out the Red Shift experiment.

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

According to Einstein particles will loose energy while moving against GRAVITY.  That will mean you can expect to see photons loose energy as they move against earth's GRAVITY.  There will be a frequency change toward Red in the spectrum while traveling against the force of GRAVITY. 

The experiments that were done have been improved and the errors mostly eliminated.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/02/17/gravitational_redshift/

What all this means is that any acceleration of the earth is irrelevant in the experiments.  It wouldn't matter if the earth were accelerating upwards at any rate.  What is being measured is GRAVITY.  Now you could still have UA, if you want, but you will be required to factor in GRAVITY because of the actual, accurate, experiments done.  Just what number for GRAVITY will you choose to believe?

I believe that the GRAVITY of this situation is extreme.


Pages: < Back  1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 30  Next >