[Dual1ty]

This is mainly a question for the globeheads because I don't really see any interest in this from flat-earthers. 

My question is this: Where are the experiments that prove that g decreases with altitude? I searched for them and all I see are people doing equations on white boards and notebooks and some stories about a tuning fork inside a Concorde or some crap (excuse the French).

I understand fully that I can do an equation that will predict that g at the top of Mount Everest is supposedly 9.77 m/s/s, but where is the experiment that shows this? I have no bias against the claim that g decreases with altitude, but I need to see the experiments... Equations alone aren't good enough... Show me the experiments. Even if g decreases with altitude (which I'm inclined to believe myself), how do you know that reality matches the prediction? Can't wait to see your replies. 

[markjo]

I'm not sure if it's still running, but Kern sponsored an experiment where they would send one of their precision scales to scientists and schools all over the world with a small gnome as the reference mass.  The recipients would then measure the gnome to see how the weight varies from location to location.  It's a fairly straightforward experiment that anyone with a sufficiently accurate scale can perform.

Here are a few articles about the experiment if you want to learn more:
https://www.labbulletin.com/articles/gnome-far-from-home-in-global-gravity-experiment
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/travelling-gnome-experiment-visits-world-s-deepest-lab-1.1294979https://www.livescience.com/19200-gnome-earth-weird-gravity.html

[Dual1ty]

I'm not sure if it's still running, but Kern sponsored an experiment where they would send one of their precision scales to scientists and schools all over the world with a small gnome as the reference mass.  The recipients would then measure the gnome to see how the weight varies from location to location.  It's a fairly straightforward experiment that anyone with a sufficiently accurate scale can perform.

Here are a few articles about the experiment if you want to learn more:
https://www.labbulletin.com/articles/gnome-far-from-home-in-global-gravity-experiment
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/travelling-gnome-experiment-visits-world-s-deepest-lab-1.1294979
https://www.livescience.com/19200-gnome-earth-weird-gravity.html

This is amazing, thank you. I can see why this was a gimmicky marketing campaign and not a serious government-funded study because I already found a result from this experiment that not only doesn't match the prediction from the globe model, but in fact goes completely against it while at the same time also showing variance.



In the globe model g is supposed to keep increasing below the surface up until the "Gutenberg discontinuity" (an imaginary boundary said to be "about 2900 km below the surface"). Gnome says otherwise, which is glorious. 

[AATW]

In the globe model g is supposed to keep increasing below the surface up until the "Gutenberg discontinuity" (an imaginary boundary said to be "about 2900 km below the surface").

Do you have a source for that?
As you go deep into the earth the "r" decreases, but so does the "m". And you have plenty of "m" above you which would be pulling in the opposite direction. According to this

https://byjus.com/question-answer/how-does-gravity-decreases-with-increase-in-depth/

gravity decreases with depth and it's nothing to do with the Gutenberg discontinuity which I hadn't heard of but having looked it up seems to be a different thing altogether.

[Dual1ty]

In the globe model g is supposed to keep increasing below the surface up until the "Gutenberg discontinuity" (an imaginary boundary said to be "about 2900 km below the surface").

Do you have a source for that?
As you go deep into the earth the "r" decreases, but so does the "m". And you have plenty of "m" above you which would be pulling in the opposite direction. According to this

https://byjus.com/question-answer/how-does-gravity-decreases-with-increase-in-depth/

gravity decreases with depth and it's nothing to do with the Gutenberg discontinuity which I hadn't heard of but having looked it up seems to be a different thing altogether.

The globe model says that if an object moves away from the surface the value of g decreases and if it moves closer to the center of the Earth the value of g increases. But you get some mathematical "geniuses" who think that because you are below the surface that means that the Earth above you ceases to exist, and as r decreases in their imagination the value of g does too. That is because they were trained to use equations that only work (supposedly, of course) when applied to objects moving away from the surface. If you plug that equation in, there's a 10x difference between the prediction of the gnome's weight and what it actually weighs according to that result above.

The only explanation you get for why the gnome weighs less 2 km under the surface is that the 2 km of ground above it is "pulling" on it. Not only is that complete lunacy, but it also doesn't even work mathematically. If you think it does, you're welcome to provide your results.

[SteelyBob]

In the globe model g is supposed to keep increasing below the surface up until the "Gutenberg discontinuity" (an imaginary boundary said to be "about 2900 km below the surface").

Do you have a source for that?
As you go deep into the earth the "r" decreases, but so does the "m". And you have plenty of "m" above you which would be pulling in the opposite direction. According to this

https://byjus.com/question-answer/how-does-gravity-decreases-with-increase-in-depth/

gravity decreases with depth and it's nothing to do with the Gutenberg discontinuity which I hadn't heard of but having looked it up seems to be a different thing altogether.

That's the 'first pass' analysis. It essentially assumes constant density throughout the earth. However, that's not the full picture - the earth is of higher density in the middle than the edge, so a more sophisticated model incorporates this variable density and finds that g increases slightly with depth until the more dense layer is reached. However, there are numerous complicating factors, and a distance of 2km is trivial compared to the overall size. A more pressing question for the FE community would be: 'why does g vary at all - surely it should be the same everywhere if any of the FE models are correct?'.

This one is quite old, but explains it well: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusa.v4i2.8674?needAccess=true

For a more modern take on it: https://profoundphysics.com/gravity-underground/?utm_content=cmp-true

[Tom Bishop]

A more pressing question for the FE community would be: 'why does g vary at all - surely it should be the same everywhere if any of the FE models are correct?'

Can you show us controlled experiments which show this? The experiments are not controlled against the phenomena of the atmosphere, do not attempt to analyze much, and this is the main contention of the Wiki on this - https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

The fact that the "superior model" of RE is full of poor experiments for this is evidence against it. Compared to a field like Chemistry where experiments are expected to be conducted again and again in various ways and methods to account for potential influences, the RE experiments are so poor that it is hard to take it seriously that this is legitimate science.

Based on previous discussions, you will guys will read the above article and proceed to argue reasons for why the experiments don't need to be controlled, which is insufficient.

[Dual1ty]

In the globe model g is supposed to keep increasing below the surface up until the "Gutenberg discontinuity" (an imaginary boundary said to be "about 2900 km below the surface").

Do you have a source for that?
As you go deep into the earth the "r" decreases, but so does the "m". And you have plenty of "m" above you which would be pulling in the opposite direction. According to this

https://byjus.com/question-answer/how-does-gravity-decreases-with-increase-in-depth/

gravity decreases with depth and it's nothing to do with the Gutenberg discontinuity which I hadn't heard of but having looked it up seems to be a different thing altogether.

That's the 'first pass' analysis. It essentially assumes constant density throughout the earth. However, that's not the full picture - the earth is of higher density in the middle than the edge, so a more sophisticated model incorporates this variable density and finds that g increases slightly with depth until the more dense layer is reached. However, there are numerous complicating factors, and a distance of 2km is trivial compared to the overall size. A more pressing question for the FE community would be: 'why does g vary at all - surely it should be the same everywhere if any of the FE models are correct?'.

This one is quite old, but explains it well: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusa.v4i2.8674?needAccess=true

For a more modern take on it: https://profoundphysics.com/gravity-underground/?utm_content=cmp-true

By trivial you mean that you want to dismiss the result, which is consistent only with a FE model where gravity is caused by acceleration of the Ether. Globe model wants you to believe that when you're 2 km underground you're 2 km closer to the center of the Earth, but there's no such thing as the center of the globe Earth because the Earth isn't a globe. So in reality what you're doing when you go underground is getting further away from the center of whatever is causing gravity, which explains the decrease in weight. Easily shown and understood with a simple sketch:

[AATW]

The fact that the "superior model" of RE is full of poor experiments for this is evidence against it.

No it isn't.
Any more than all the poor FE experiments are evidence against the FE model.
A poor experiment is evidence of nothing other than the incompetence of the experimenter.

That Wiki page is your usual desperate attempt to find fault with any experiment which doesn't show what you want it to. The scrutiny you apply to any evidence is entirely dependent on whether it confirms your beliefs or not.

But this is why, coming back to a previous conversation, experiments are documented. By showing the method and results other people can check the workings and do their own tests. If you dispute the results of these tests then why not conduct your own and show your results? At least in Beyond The Curve they did that with the ring laser gyroscope experiment. Of course when the results shown a 15 degree per hour drift (RIP, Bob), as you'd expect on a RE, they didn't accept the results because of course they didn't. But at least they were honest about the results and were trying to do experiments.

If you dispute the experiments then do your own and publish your results.

[Action80]

The fact that the "superior model" of RE is full of poor experiments for this is evidence against it.

No it isn't.
Any more than all the poor FE experiments are evidence against the FE model.
A poor experiment is evidence of nothing other than the incompetence of the experimenter.

That Wiki page is your usual desperate attempt to find fault with any experiment which doesn't show what you want it to. The scrutiny you apply to any evidence is entirely dependent on whether it confirms your beliefs or not.

But this is why, coming back to a previous conversation, experiments are documented. By showing the method and results other people can check the workings and do their own tests. If you dispute the results of these tests then why not conduct your own and show your results? At least in Beyond The Curve they did that with the ring laser gyroscope experiment. Of course when the results shown a 15 degree per hour drift (RIP, Bob), as you'd expect on a RE, they didn't accept the results because of course they didn't. But at least they were honest about the results and were trying to do experiments.

If you dispute the experiments then do your own and publish your results.

Kindly explain how repeating an experiment with no controls present is a worthwhile activity.

It is useless to repeat a poor experiment. A poor experiment is evidence for nothing.

You haven't progressed much past the "nuh uh, whataboutism..." approach, have you?

[Pete Svarrior]

Globe model wants you to believe that when you're 2 km underground you're 2 km closer to the center of the Earth, but there's no such thing as the center of the globe Earth because the Earth isn't a globe. So in reality what you're doing when you go underground is getting further away from the center of whatever is causing gravity, which explains the decrease in weight. Easily shown and understood with a simple sketch:

Disclaimer: I am not a Round Earther, but I don't think you're representing RE correctly here. In their model, gravitation is not caused by some "element", but rather the entirety of the Earth. Matter pulls other matter towards itself. So, as you go undeground, there is a little bit less Earth underneath you, and a little more Earth above you. All of that still exhibits a pull on you, but not all of it points downward.

It's important that we don't strawman each other in these discussions - what's the point of disproving a RE model that no RE'er believes? We don't like it when they do it to us - let's be better.

A more pressing question for the FE community would be: 'why does g vary at all - surely it should be the same everywhere if any of the FE models are correct?'.

Similarly, this is an intentional misrepresentation of FE. If you can't have this discussion without fairly comparing the sides, consider not participating.

[Action80]

A more pressing question for the FE community would be: 'why does g vary at all - surely it should be the same everywhere if any of the FE models are correct?'.

Why would my weight "surely" be the same everywhere on the flat earth?

I know my weight is not the same everywhere on the flat earth.

I go into the water, I become buoyant.

There is no need to doubt the same process could be at work in a different fluid medium, such as the atmoplane.

[Dual1ty]

Globe model wants you to believe that when you're 2 km underground you're 2 km closer to the center of the Earth, but there's no such thing as the center of the globe Earth because the Earth isn't a globe. So in reality what you're doing when you go underground is getting further away from the center of whatever is causing gravity, which explains the decrease in weight. Easily shown and understood with a simple sketch:

Disclaimer: I am not a Round Earther, but I don't think you're representing RE correctly here. In their model, gravitation is not caused by some "element", but rather the entirety of the Earth. Matter pulls other matter towards itself. So, as you go undeground, there is a little bit less Earth underneath you, and a little more Earth above you. All of that still exhibits a pull on you, but not all of it points downward.

It's important that we don't strawman each other in these discussions - what's the point of disproving a RE model that no RE'er believes? We don't like it when they do it to us - let's be better.

I'm not representing "RE", I'm representing a model of FE where gravity is caused by acceleration of the Ether like I already said. Supposedly that gravity causing element would be located at the North Pole as any magnetic compass indicates. But that area is completely off limits and no one is allowed to explore it, not to mention that the whole Arctic is heavily militarized and monitored and more so each day and therefore only the elites know what's actually there while we're left to fend against ourselves in forums engaging in endless debates... Sorry if I seem ranty, but isn't it true?



Do any of you notice anything strange?

The whole thing is just a white smudge that a 5 year old could make in Photoshop. In other words, nothing to see there.

[AATW]

Kindly explain how repeating an experiment with no controls present is a worthwhile activity.

The word repeat is not in my post.
Not once.

I said "If you dispute the experiments then do your own and publish your results."
Obviously if Tom believes there are flaws in the experiments then he would correct those when designing his own.

[Action80]

Kindly explain how repeating an experiment with no controls present is a worthwhile activity.

The word repeat is not in my post.
Not once.

I said "If you dispute the experiments then do your own and publish your results."
Obviously if Tom believes there are flaws in the experiments then he would correct those when designing his own.

So, Bob Knodel and jeran did not repeat an experiment.

Gotcha.

[AATW]

So, Bob Knodel and jeran did not repeat an experiment.

Gotcha.

I don't know if they did or not. They don't cite another experiment so its' not obvious they were.
I have no idea what point you're making.

Tom said that experiments which he regards as bad are evidence against an RE model. That is incorrect, they're not evidence of anything other than the competence, or lack thereof, of the experimenter. But the point of documenting experimental methods and results, as the Beyond the Curve guys did, is so that other people can review those things and repeat the experiments. Or, if it's thought that the original experiment is flawed, devise a new experiment correcting those flaws and perform that.

My suggestion to Tom is that he does that. The RE claim is that these weight variation experiments is evidence we live on a spinning ball. The centrifugal force would be greater at the equator than at higher or lower latitudes so you would expect a measurable difference. Tom's riposte is that the experiments are flawed. OK. So correct those flaws, do your own tests and present the results. Then the conversation can progress.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom said that experiments which he regards as bad are evidence against an RE model. That is incorrect, they're not evidence of anything other than the competence, or lack thereof, of the experimenter.

Yes, it is RE at fault. In the 300 year history of this experiment no one has performed controlled experiments on this. No one thought to perform the experiment in a vacuum chamber. The excuse for this appears to be that no one thought that the atmosphere touched the scale.

We are not talking about an individual experiment, or a single person's experiments. We are talking about all of the weight variation scale experiments and we are talking about all of academia who is interested in gravity and weight variation. At this level the enterprise it at fault. It is absurd that no one is performing this experiment in different ways to account for the variables that interact with the device. In other fields like Chemistry this is the standard practice and a necessity.

As expected, instead of posting "Yes it has been done, here is the link: <link>" we are just getting paragraphs of excuses.

[AATW]

In the 300 year history of this experiment no one has performed controlled experiments on this.

Well this sounds like the ideal opportunity for you to do something revolutionary then.
I look forward to your results. Can you document your method clearly so that it can be properly reviewed and repeated.

[Action80]

So, Bob Knodel and jeran did not repeat an experiment.

Gotcha.

I don't know if they did or not. They don't cite another experiment so its' not obvious they were.
I have no idea what point you're making.

You could have just wrote, "I have no idea."

In your very first reply and would have been more honest.

Tom said that experiments which he regards as bad are evidence against an RE model. That is incorrect, they're not evidence of anything other than the competence, or lack thereof, of the experimenter.

A HA!!! You are going to take the time to correct me on a false paraphrasing of your post, attributing the word "repeat," as within the spirit of your writing...yet, here you are using the word "bad, imputing the post of Tom as having that spirit in describing experiments. 

But the point of documenting experimental methods and results, as the Beyond the Curve guys did, is so that other people can review those things and repeat the experiments. Or, if it's thought that the original experiment is flawed, devise a new experiment correcting those flaws and perform that.

1) It is doubtful you did not know, full well, the Beyond the Curve guys repeated the experiment. That is why you brought it up.
B) It is nonsensical to repeat any poor experiment.

My suggestion to Tom is that he does that. The RE claim is that these weight variation experiments is evidence we live on a spinning ball. The centrifugal force would be greater at the equator than at higher or lower latitudes so you would expect a measurable difference. Tom's riposte is that the experiments are flawed. OK. So correct those flaws, do your own tests and present the results. Then the conversation can progress.

The conversation only needs to progress as far as to hold the people accountable for making false claims based upon poor experiments.

[Realestfake]

Do any of you notice anything strange?

The whole thing is just a white smudge that a 5 year old could make in Photoshop. In other words, nothing to see there.

Is there supposed to be something strange here? I’m not sure how a specific random image is relevant. You picked an image (out of thousands of similar images) where the ice (a fluid and changing element) is on a lower resolution layer than the ground layer (which is static). This image does not claim to be a photograph, it is in a map/diagram rendering style.

Nothing surprising about a model showing computer-generated sea ice. You know this sea ice exists on a flat earth too, right? Just as much as it would on a globe.