181

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity - measurement and applications

« on: September 12, 2020, 06:40:59 PM »

Look up the word "conflate", Tom. You are applying the explanation of Experiment A to Experiment B, when they are not the same. Also, if you care to look up the iGrav manufacturer's information, you will see the sizes given include what you have circled, the "cold head" of the device. It's still only 102cm tall fully set up.

The connections to the platform you point out are not in fact bolted or screwed to it, they only rest on it. There's a handy video on the iGrav site on moving it which will show what all the pieces are.

182

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity - measurement and applications

« on: September 12, 2020, 06:14:30 PM »

Show me.

It says:

4. Designed laboratory experiments

4.1. Monitoring mass change

In order to test the sensitivity of the iGrav, three boxes with
known weights were placed on top of the iGrav. Before doing
this experiment, we provided extra support (two cabinets) to
the platform and let this situation become stabilized. The three
boxes with a total weight of 92.8 kg were then positioned
on the top of the platform, the height of which was 132 cm
from the ground.

It says they placed the weights on top of the gravimeter.

The cabinets were placed as extra support to the platform.

Then they took the weights off the gravimeter and put it onto the platform. The gravimeter readings returned to their original state.

From elsewhere in the document:

We put the iGrav on the platform of the lift table and measured the residual gravity without periodical effects (figure 9).

The 'platform' is something the gravimeter is resting on.

Yes, the platform is something the gravimeter rests on, but beware of conflating two calibration experiments. The experiment you're questioning has the gravimeter on the ground – typically a concrete block – and cabinets either side of it. Here is the iGrav device loaded in the back of a Honda SUV:–



and this is the device set up for use:–



Now, the weights mentioned were placed "on top of" the iGrav at a height of 132cm above the ground. The iGrav is 102cm tall when set up, and its core sensor (in the middle of the device) is explicitly mentioned as being 52cm above the ground. So there was a gap between the top of the iGrav and the weights in the calibration experiment of up to 30cm (approx 1 foot). There is also nowhere to set heavy boxed weights directly on the device, so your objection is bogus.

All relevant sizes of the iGrav can be found on their website:– http://www.gwrinstruments.com/igrav-gravity-sensors.html#Ease-of-Operation-And-Portability

The other experiment I mentioned involved placing the iGrav on a liftable platform and when raised the device measured a reduction in gravitational deflection:–




UA cannot account for a reduction in gravity in such circumstances. Gravity has been investigated and demonstrated for some centuries, UA has not.

183

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity - measurement and applications

« on: September 11, 2020, 09:58:20 PM »

This is a poor setup. The gravimeter is very sensitive to noise. Placing a mass on top of the gravimeter can change the dampening. .... This experiment should  be done with the mass suspended over the device without touching it.

Reading a little more carefully, you'll see two cabinets were placed either side of it to make a platform to support the weight above the SG and left for some hours to stabilise. The reduction in gravitational reading is, like the reduction by raising the SG on a lifting platform, difficult to square with Universal Acceleration. Indeed, if the methodology is so poor, why is it cited by a number of other scientific papers on applications of gravimeters? Scroll down your original link and you'll find them.

184

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity - measurement and applications

« on: September 11, 2020, 06:44:25 PM »

It would help if we had some survey data of some sort to see what Iceman2020 is describing, whether a gravimeter can detect different densities of below-ground deposits. Happily, Tom has supplied a link to some: if you follow his link to the "SG Raw Gravity graph" etc, you can scroll down a little to a download of the full scientific paper – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264122117_Detecting_small_gravity_change_in_field_measurement_Simulations_and_experiments_of_the_superconducting_gravimeter_-_IGrav/download

It's a very interesting read, investigating whether a superconducting gravimeter could be used to monitor in-ground storage of carbon dioxide for reducing global warming. The calibrating experiments include one where a heavy weight is placed directly above the gravimeter to see if any change in the downward, Planet Earth-induced force of gravity is found, plus another to measure any variation in gravity when the instrument is simply raised a short distance above the ground, but I won't spoil your enjoyment by posting spoilers. Suffice to say, the idea of Universal Acceleration struggles to explain the results found.

185

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity - measurement and applications

« on: September 10, 2020, 06:32:51 AM »

So the level of noise Tom’s talking about, compared to your survey data, is like the person behind you coughing in the middle of a ZZ Top concert. Or sniffling during Tchaikovsky’s 1812 overture as the cannons are fired?

186

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Center of gravity of objects on a flat earth

« on: August 21, 2020, 09:33:12 PM »

The OP needs to study Mechanics 101. He's ignoring turning effects when a force is applied away from the CoM (Centre of Mass). Gravity is considered as being applied at the CoM, not anywhere else. A resting body under gravity whose CoM is not over or between points of contact with the ground will topple and fall. A body in contact with an upwardly accelerating plane whose CoM is not over or between points of contact with the plane will also topple or fall.

The teeter totter example is easier understood if you think of Calvin (weight 55lbs) and Moe (weight 120lbs) sitting on the seats at either end, so each is 6ft away from the pivot. The result is exactly the same as placing a weight equal to the difference between Calvin and Moe (120-55=65lbs) on Moe's seat. What do you think would happen if you placed a 65lb weight on one seat of an empty teeter totter? Doesn't matter if the teeter totter is on a massive globe or an upwardly accelerating plane, the result is the same.

Flat Earthery (and general relativity's Equivalence Principle) has nothing to do with this, it's simple mechanics.

187

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki - Equivalence Principle page created

« on: August 15, 2020, 09:41:01 PM »

All very interesting, but the gravity vs acceleration conundrum can only be applied if the Earth is indeed flat. For a round Earth, the proposed Universal Acceleration would mean the world accelerating in all directions simultaneously at 9.81 m/s², which is plainly ridiculous. Did Einstein consider the world to be flat instead of round? I can find no indication he did. Did he protest loudly at the successful application of General Relativity to solving the problem of Mercury's orbit in contradiction of the FE cosmology? No. Indeed, why does this subject absorb so much FE attention when General Relativity is a theoretical description of something called gravity which FE theory repudiates?

The inconsistency of argument here is extraordinary: the Equivalence Principle and Relativity (both special and general) are appealed to in support of a flat earth at the same time as it is used by physicists and astrophysicists in their modelling of a round Earth's behaviour in orbit around the Sun, of the Sun's effect on its satellites and much farther afield in the Universe. Relativistic predictions have been tested again and again over the past near-century and found to be accurate. The huge irony is that relativity started as a thought experiment which has borne out in practice, in measurement, in experiment, what it implies. How very un-zetetic.

The article you linked – thank you for that, it was most interesting as well as diverting – talks at some length of a proposed experiment to be conducted in outer space, a "place" FE theory apparently has no notion of (the extended thought experiment in that article, about Rotonians, is another non-zetetic construct, hence the amusement.) I should like to know what R J Benish is smoking, it's evidently strong stuff, but notice Benish is speaking of a ball Earth, visited by aliens who travel through outer space. Surely you don't intend to justify the FE model by appealing to astrophysics and the mainstream model of the universe?

188

Flat Earth Community / Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE

« on: August 09, 2020, 07:57:04 PM »

I think the theoretical work in the wiki has gone as far as it could go based on mainstream sources. The next step is to think of experiments which could fill in a gap of knowledge. Since we are not funded it would need to be something low cost or reasonable, so geographical explorations are probably out. It is possible that collaborative tests can be made at some time in the future after all details have been worked out.

Electromagnetic Acceleration

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Evidence
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

If you read these pages we find that EA predicts various curving phenomena with celestial phenomena. Straight lines will curve on the celestial sphere. On the Celestial Sphere page we see various astronomers who describe curving astonomical phenomena and the Moon Tilt Illusion page has an observation of an astrophotographer seeing the tilted Moon in the same frame as the Sun simultaneously, which should not be possible if the explanation is due to a perspective effect.

Better evidence of these curving effects could be gathered if we had a rectilinear wide angle lens which could capture very wide angle shots in a single frame while keeping straight lines straight. It should be possible to capture the Sun and Moon in the same frame simultaneously and see that the illuminated portion of the Moon does not point at the Sun. It should also be possible to take pictures of curving phenomena on the celestial sphere such as aurora, meteors, milky way, or timelapses of moon trails.

For confidence we could send this camera and lens to different members, or find a public figure such as a physics teacher or something of that nature....

Thork is correct that people would never believe any experiment we did...

As a final observation on the aims of FES outlined in this thread, you should remember the often-mentioned distrust of photos and videos which don't confirm the FES beliefs. If you generally disparage other people's photos and videos (and their rigorously documented experiments), you needn't expect them to take your own photos and videos seriously. Habitual scepticism is a two-edged sword.

I wish you well in doing and meticulously documenting actual experiments, it might help dispel the impressions some people have of the Society as a collection of individuals raging at their internet feed. However, do try not to chase non-existent problems like the Moon Tilt Illusion with unnecessarily expensive equipment: all you need (as previously discussed in the Flat Earth Theory forum) is a ping pong ball. I repeated the experiment myself just this morning.

Longtitube over and out.

189

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flights from and to French Polynesia a hoax?

« on: July 30, 2020, 10:14:33 AM »

I don’t think either proposed FE model or any proposed FE map fits our world. The often demonstrated weaknesses for journeys south of the tropics, such as to and from French Polynesia, the routes which jump from one side of the world to another to travel a thousand miles and other difficulties mean the FE models and maps are of no practical use. A major rethink is needed.

190

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flights from and to French Polynesia a hoax?

« on: July 27, 2020, 09:26:43 PM »

So which version of the flight is correct? Is it the 7/24 version of the flight or is it the current version of the flight?

Do airliners always follow the exact same route regardless of other considerations? No they don't, unless you'd rather they flew through tropical storms (obviously none over Greenland...), severe thunderstorms (like the one that put me off the intended route from Bangor, Maine to LAX), strong headwinds (hey, we landed 2 hours late, I'm gonna sue) or severe icing risks (quite possible over Greenland). It's not as simple as always flying a "great circle" route.

191

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: My dad is a pilot, does he know something?

« on: July 24, 2020, 09:39:18 PM »

Well I've also read things about pilot instruments just showing manipulated data too? I mean that would make sense I think since it'd be hard to keep every pilot quiet...

Where did you read that? Did they offer facts, real evidence to back up that claim? Who or what would that benefit? After all, if flight instruments give false readings there may be serious safety implications and I don't want to take a flight, say, over the Rockies if manipulated flight instruments put an aircraft on a heading and height which will pile it into Mt HighSteepAndUgly. Or is there a chance someone was talking out the back of his/her head?

192

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: My dad is a pilot, does he know something?

« on: July 24, 2020, 04:21:53 PM »

Sorry to hear about your job! What have you been reading and why do you trust that instead of anything else? Have you good reason to mistrust your dad or is he a decent sort who’s generally done right by you? The internet rabbit holes are often obsessive without reason but there’s a whole world out there which isn’t necessarily out to get you. Apart from the IRS...

You’ll find all sorts of opinions here, don’t just latch on to the first you find.

193

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flights from and to French Polynesia a hoax?

« on: July 23, 2020, 10:06:51 PM »

I’ve no reason to doubt your observations, it’s just not as clear-cut as you seem to think. Airspace is highly controlled, the penalties for ignoring the instructions of air traffic control are grievous and the LAX to London route as flown is not a simple FE vs RE case.

In case your uncle is interested, I meant the direct flight between Tokyo and London. It overflies Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia.

https://www.airportdistancecalculator.com/tokyo-japan-to-london-united-kingdom-flight-time.html

194

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flights from and to French Polynesia a hoax?

« on: July 23, 2020, 09:17:10 PM »

The most glaring controversy  is flight paths and flight times.  I have flown nonstop from LA to London twice in my life. Both times I looked out the window. Both times I noticed that I didn't fly over Greenland. I have mapped the path that I believe that I took based on the flight information online and based on my own personal observations

Whoa there, tiger. Flight across busy airspace is heavily organised and the North Atlantic is no exception. All commercial flights are organised, corralled, controlled by air traffic control in distinct lanes whether they are flying east or west, to avoid mid-air collisions. Flights across the continental US are also heavily organised. An airliner is not free to pick the most direct route in any circumstances, even if that would save a ton of fuel, because midair collisions make even worse headlines than the price of a ticket and you're talking about some of the busiest airspace in the world.

If you want a long-distance flight that more resembles the "great circle" route, try London to Tokyo.

195

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: RE Lunar Phases With Extreme Perspective Changes

« on: July 21, 2020, 06:03:52 AM »

We can see 190 degrees of space using both of our eyes. Unless there are horizon or object obstructions the Sun and Moon will not ever be in a position when they are above the horizon and where it is impossible to see both at the same time.

I would not like unkind remarks about swivel-eyed loons, so you might like to check that claim. Human vision is about 150 degrees, but the majority of that field only registers movement and large objects. Our central field of vision where details are more important only covers about 30 degrees and we only resolve text, phase angle of moon, etc within a much narrower angle of 2-3 degrees. Unlike a 200 degree wide panoramic photograph.

To see wider involves changing your viewpoint, just like panning the camera for ultra-wide photography. This is how the illusion of the moon tilting wrongly arises.

196

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: RE Lunar Phases With Extreme Perspective Changes

« on: July 20, 2020, 07:16:45 PM »

The evidence is that they assert that they saw it themselves with or without photos. That was just a panoramic they took. I would suggest actually reading the content.

Excellent advice, do read the content, especially the link to the original Stack Exchange post:–

Below is a photo that my son took in Scotland showing the sun and moon at the same time. I immediately noticed this anomaly...

The poster was not present when the panoramic photo was taken by his son. Actually, it's more accurate to say photos because a panorama is made of several photos joined together later by software. Make a wide enough panorama and it's easy to give the wrong impression of where something is pointing.

How did you get on with the ping pong ball experiment?

197

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: RE Lunar Phases With Extreme Perspective Changes

« on: July 20, 2020, 06:42:38 PM »

OK, here's an image I found in the wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion):



There is something that doesn't appear right in this photo...........

sigh......

It's a panoramic photo!

You can't make any determination one way or the other with it. It isn't representative of reality, whatsoever.

Exactly. You can use Stellarium or any other good star chart program to check the Moon phase for the date in the photo and you'll find it's correct. What you'll also find is the Sun and Moon are about 140 degrees apart horizontally near sunset as in the photograph – if you were standing facing the Moon, the Sun would be behind your right shoulder. My mother may have had eyes in the back of her head, but I can't see that wide. The photograph is useless without that extra information.

198

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flights from and to French Polynesia a hoax?

« on: July 19, 2020, 08:15:56 PM »

... this is the only model that has a line of longitude as the shortest distance between two points, and observation suggests that a line of longitude is in fact the shortest distance between two points.

That's only true if one point lies due north or south of the other, otherwise a line of longtitude won't pass through both points.

199

Flat Earth Projects / Re: The Atlantic Split

« on: July 19, 2020, 08:45:16 AM »

The route used between the UK and the Falklands in 1982 as would be drawn on the OP’s tentative map is difficult to imagine. The entire operation would be ridiculously difficult and extremely unlikely. Yet it did happen and I know people who participated.

I also know a Falklander who visits the UK annually, using a regular flight via the Cape Verde Islands. The Falklands are on the bottom right hand of the map shown, off the coast of South America, while the Cape Verde Islands are off the west coast of Africa on the far top left of the map.

Back to the old drawing board, I fear.

200

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Celestial Rotation in the wiki

« on: July 18, 2020, 10:03:39 AM »

The original post sets out the problem.