A few more bases to cover…
« on: April 14, 2018, 12:54:49 AM »
First, gravity variance. There is a measurable difference (about .5%) in gravity between the equator and the poles, and between altitudes. In case you're wondering, I did find some actual data on this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Comparative_gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world

It is Wikipedia, but they cite a book with a specific page number for the table that data comes from. RET of course explains this as centrifugal force from the Earth's rotational motion. However, it could be problematic for FET, which explains gravity as the Earth simply accelerating uniformly through space. I'm wondering how the FET model accommodates this data without distorting its proven flatness of the Earth.

Second, neutrinos. Neutrinos will basically pass straight through anything you put in their way, so neutrino beams used in expirements are usually aimed through the Earth at far-away detectors. Since the beams definitely reach their target, how would aiming with a Round Earth model reach the right target in a Flat Earth model?
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A few more bases to cover…
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2018, 01:03:07 AM »
The answer to the first query is that the stars exhibit a slight gravitational pull.

The answer to the second query is that the neutron beams spread outwards from the device. Even if pointed slightly downwards, many will spread out into a non-parallel direction. You can see the spreading beams in the illustration of the experiment: https://www.bnl.gov/today/body_pics/2013/03/lbne_main_011113_spreads-hr.jpg
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 01:05:45 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: A few more bases to cover…
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2018, 01:19:15 AM »
The answer to the first query is that the stars exhibit a slight gravitational pull.
So then, tidal forces? I can see that, but what about the variance from latitude?
Quote
The answer to the second query is that the neutron beams spread outwards from the device. Even if pointed slightly downwards, many will spread out into a non-parallel direction. You can see the spreading beams in the illustration of the experiment: https://www.bnl.gov/today/body_pics/2013/03/lbne_main_011113_spreads-hr.jpg
Even in that image, the spread is obviously not enough to be above the tangent plane. The beam appears to be angled about 22° below the tangent plane, and neutrinos travel at close to the speed of light, meaning that you're suggesting that seldom-interacting particles are diverted by, as a conservative estimate, several thousand kilometers per second. What exactly is driving that?
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A few more bases to cover…
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2018, 03:32:13 AM »
The various readings of g can be explained by the gravitation of elements above or below the earth.

Per your argument of "it doesn't spread that far," the illustration clearly shows that the beams are spreading outwards. It does not quantify how far they are spreading outwards, but the fact that they are spreading outward, perhaps uncontrollably so, casts doubt on this test as a demonstration of the earth's convexity.

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: A few more bases to cover…
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2018, 04:08:49 AM »
Not really, you're assuming a source of potential error that doesn't really exist. 'Perhaps uncontrollably so,' is not the language of a Zetetic. You're treating an explanatory diagram like a technical blueprint. High-energy neutrinos do not scatter like that; nothing can make them scatter like that. If you want to state it as a claim of evidence, and show an understanding of particle physics, please do.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A few more bases to cover…
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2018, 04:42:53 AM »
The illustration shows scattering of an unknown quantity. This casts doubt on this test as a demonstration of curvature. That is all we will say on the matter.

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: A few more bases to cover…
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2018, 04:55:32 AM »
I guess that means you're backing down from the invitation to demonstrate that you have studied neutrino interactions at all, and instead use a misinterpretation of a picture to deny the results of experimentation.

Here are some questions to help you or any other curious reader get started in understanding what this is:

How are neutrino beams formed?

How are neutrinos detected?

What kinds of neutrino interactions have been observed? Under what conditions?

How much variation is expected from the path of a neutrino beam?

What is 'neutrino scattering?' When has it been observed?

Tom hasn't bothered asking of these questions, and backed away from a chance to learn something, because it would mean admitting the Earth is not flat.

don't let it happen to you

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: A few more bases to cover…
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2018, 06:47:38 AM »
The answer to the first query is that the stars exhibit a slight gravitational pull.

Could you, please, explain how celestial/underground gravitation could cause the Eötvös effect? Thank you.
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

Re: A few more bases to cover…
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2018, 07:34:57 AM »
The illustration shows scattering of an unknown quantity. This casts doubt on this test as a demonstration of curvature. That is all we will say on the matter.
Who is this 'we' you like using?

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: A few more bases to cover…
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2018, 10:18:52 AM »
The answer to the first query is that the stars exhibit a slight gravitational pull.

This is interesting. Is gravity a thing again? I thought that making fun of gravity was a central tenet of the movement.

Not trying to be awkward here - just asking.

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: A few more bases to cover…
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2018, 10:21:36 AM »
The answer to the first query is that the stars exhibit a slight gravitational pull.

This is interesting. Is gravity a thing again? I thought that making fun of gravity was a central tenet of the movement.

Not trying to be awkward here - just asking.

Gravity and gravitation are two totally different things according to the FES...
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: A few more bases to cover…
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2018, 11:01:05 AM »
The answer to the first query is that the stars exhibit a slight gravitational pull.

This is interesting. Is gravity a thing again? I thought that making fun of gravity was a central tenet of the movement.

Not trying to be awkward here - just asking.

Gravity and gravitation are two totally different things according to the FES...

Ah, well that makes sense.