The chart below illustrates the second problem of Tom’s hypothesis
Let me explain. I constructed the chart using data from the British Geological survey. The blue noisy line represents raw gravimeter observations along latitude 50.9 (which corresponds to Brighton, England e.g.) There are no corrections of any sort, not for height or latitude or terrain or anything. This is the stuff coming out of the instrument, which is simply measuring
acceleration, not ‘gravity’.
Units are the familiar one of m / s sq.
The red noisy line is the same kind of raw data measured at different points along the 55.6 latitude, including Gretna Green in Scotland.
Turning to the green line, this is absolutely straight and represents a theoretical acceleration based on (i) latitude of 50.9 and (ii) average assumed height of 100m. It’s important to understand
this line does not use any information from the instrument at all. It’s a purely theoretical function using two inputs, based on the Newtonian theory of gravity. Nothing more. Finally the purple straight line is the same theoretical acceleration for the Scotland latitude.
[edit] Putting it another way, the straight line is saying 'this is what we would
expect to see if Newtonian gravity is true and if the earth were approximately spherical, the noisy line is say 'this is what we
actually see'.
The problem for the UA theory is to explain how the observed, i.e. totally uncorrected data is different for the different latitudes. No assumptions have been made about ‘gravity’, the shape of the earth, density of rock or anything like that. Simply observed acceleration measured by dropping an object for a certain distance then measuring the time taken.
As for ‘anomaly’, this chart is not showing anomaly, but you could derive the anomaly by subtracting the noisy line from the straight one. It is the confusion about anomaly which has derailed this discussion. Anomaly is not gravity, but rather an observation number (noisy) minus a theoretical number (straight).