[stevecanuck]

Milutin Milankovitch spent his life studying the solar system and it's effects on the earth. A by-product of his research was an affirmation of the existence of the solar system and the round earth. He defined cycles that were named for him.

So, was he in on the hoax, or was he utterly fooled his whole life?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milankovi%C4%87

[Tom Bishop]

So he was an expert in astronomy, climatology, and geoscience?

Wow. What a crank. Those are the most pseudoscientific fields in all of science. Any science which relies on observation and interpretation is a pseudoscience - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

[AATW]

Any science which relies on observation and interpretation is a pseudoscience - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

How did you (plural) come up with the ideas of UA and EA if it wasn't for observation and interpretation?

[Tom Bishop]

Any science which relies on observation and interpretation is a pseudoscience - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

How did you (plural) come up with the ideas of UA and EA if it wasn't for observation and interpretation?

We're not going around pretending to have the answers to everything. That's why we have a page called Astronomy is a Pseudoscience. Any time you observe and interpret you are engaging in a pseudoscience. I would bet that this scientist does not put a disclaimer in his work that Astronomy is a pseudoscience and that it cannot come to truths as strong as other fields. They never do. He just claims to have all the answers.

Also, UA is something that is more directly testable, and is based on the terrestrial experimental evidence referenced on the UA pages in the Wiki.

[AATW]

Also, UA is something that is more directly testable

Well, you can certainly verify that things fall. But variations in gravity better match the model of gravity than they do UA.
In fact, there are industries which use this fact to find things underground:

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

And this is how you distinguish between models. Which one is useful, can make predictions and has practical applications.

[Iceman]

.Any science which relies on observation and interpretation is a pseudoscience

In your earth is not a globe workshop page, you describe science based on observation and interpretation as natural science. And laud the applicability of that as a pursuit, given that is, at the core, what FE research consists of...

[Tom Bishop]

Also, UA is something that is more directly testable

Well, you can certainly verify that things fall. But variations in gravity better match the model of gravity than they do UA.
In fact, there are industries which use this fact to find things underground:

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

And this is how you distinguish between models. Which one is useful, can make predictions and has practical applications.

Your assertion might have some merit if the data actually matched what is predicted by the theory of the universal attraction of matter. Those variations seen are opposite than the theory of the attraction of matter, however, and other theories are needed to explain it.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy

http://earthsci.org/education/teacher/basicgeol/earthq/earthq.html

“ Negative anomalies exist beneath mountain ranges, and mirror the topography and crustal thickness as determined by seismic studies. Thus, the low density continents appear to be floating on higher density mantle. ”

.Any science which relies on observation and interpretation is a pseudoscience

In your earth is not a globe workshop page, you describe science based on observation and interpretation as natural science. And laud the applicability of that as a pursuit, given that is, at the core, what FE research consists of...

What natural scientists like Aristotle did in trying to understand the world with his theories was science, and laudable. But was also pseudoscience, since no experimentation was involved. That doesn't mean what Aristotitle did was totally worthless. Pseudosciences are sciences, just of lesser rank.

Its fine to do theorize about the world, as long as you are honest about it. And since scientists can't disclaim that they are providing pseudoscience, and since you can't come to terms that a lot of what you believe is pseudoscience, I consider that to be more on the dishonest side.

[Iceman]

Your assertion might have some merit if the data actually matched what is predicted by the theory of the universal attraction of matter. Those variations seen are opposite than the theory of the attraction of matter, and other theories are needed to explain it.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy

You keep showing that diagram as if it disproves isostatic theory, even though it demonstrates it. Importantly, it is the only citation included on that page of the wiki that has merit, since the other two included sources are quotes from other geologists with dubious interpretations of the workings of the earth and universe.

I made a post in FE theory with numerous references to some of the issues around dismissing isostasy - particularly glacial isostasy - in the FE Theory board a little while back.

[SteelyBob]

Tom, clear this up for me. That diagram that you've shown here, and also in the wiki, is from a website (https://web.archive.org/web/20130529124307/http://earthsci.org/education/teacher/basicgeol/earthq/earthq.html) all about geology. Immediately above the picture is the following text:

Gravity is measured with a device known as a gravimeter. A gravimeter can measure differences in the pull of gravity to as little as 1 part in 100 million. Measurements of gravity can detect areas where there is a deficiency or excess of mass beneath the surface of the Earth. These deficiencies or excesses of mass are called gravity anomalies.
A positive gravity anomaly indicates that an excess of mass exits beneath the area.
A negative gravity anomaly indicates that there is less mass beneath an area.
Negative anomalies exist beneath mountain ranges, and mirror the topography and crustal thickness as determined by seismic studies. Thus, the low density continents appear to be floating on higher density mantle.

But your wiki entry on gravity variations asserts that:

The Variations in Gravity are the supposed variations to gravity due to either the variations in strength of the gravitational field of the earth or due to the presence of masses such as hills or celestial bodies. It is often stated that the strength of gravity decreases with altitude or that the gravity of the Sun and Moon pulls upon the earth's surface.

The FE model of Celestial Gravitation postulates that the celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull, which accounts for tidal effects and the lessening of g with altitude. Other FE models question whether variations in gravity actually exist at all. The few effects suggesting variations are questionable, contradicted, and may be attributed to other causes.

Gravity generally appears to behave as if the earth is accelerating upwards, that the strength of gravity is uniform, and there are no other gravitating sources around us.

So, which is it? Is gravity uniform, in which case the web page you've cited is wrong, making you wrong, or is the wiki wrong, which makes you wrong? Which kind of wrong are we dealing with?

[stevecanuck]

So he was an expert in astronomy, climatology, and geoscience?

Wow. What a crank. Those are the most pseudoscientific fields in all of science. Any science which relies on observation and interpretation is a pseudoscience - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

Mathematics and geophysics are pseudoscience? Oh, my. Did you hear that from your alchemist or your astrologer?

[scomato]

@Tom, what fields of science are NOT pseudoscience, based on your own personal criteria?

[Tumeni]

Any time you observe and interpret you are engaging in a pseudoscience.

In the Wiki, under the heading of Experimental Evidence, appears this;



The observer is pictured, on the left, doing .... what? Observing.

Isn't he?

[Tom Bishop]

Any time you observe and interpret you are engaging in a pseudoscience.

In the Wiki, under the heading of Experimental Evidence, appears this;



The observer is pictured, on the left, doing .... what? Observing.

Isn't he?

Actually, this is more of an experiment than an observation. Flags of known height are artificial manipulations to the scene to test the path of light over distance. Each flag is an experiment; alignment controls.

@Tom, what fields of science are NOT pseudoscience, based on your own personal criteria?

There is a definition for pseudoscience. It's not my personal criteria. Pseudoscience doesn't follow the scientific method for its truths. The scientific method demands experimentation.

So, which is it? Is gravity uniform, in which case the web page you've cited is wrong, making you wrong, or is the wiki wrong, which makes you wrong? Which kind of wrong are we dealing with?

What you quoted says "The few effects suggesting variations are questionable, contradicted, and may be attributed to other causes."

In the case of the variations from the mountains, it is contradicted because the observations are opposite than expected, and thus questionable.

The Wiki also suggests what causes it at the bottom of the Isostasy article. The cause is related to your misconception of the nature of what the gravimeter device is detecting - https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy#An_Alternative_Explanation

[Tumeni]

Any time you observe and interpret you are engaging in a pseudoscience.

In the Wiki, under the heading of Experimental Evidence, appears this;



The observer is pictured, on the left, doing .... what? Observing.

Isn't he?

Actually, this is more of an experiment than an observation. Flags of known height are artificial manipulations to the scene test the path of light over distance.

So you agree that any experiment where someone looks out over open water, from a known height, to objects of known height on the water, and/or to lands of known height beyond the water, is a valid one, then?