*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #140 on: November 30, 2018, 05:54:39 PM »
Quote from: edby
Tom, you still haven’t addressed the objection I showed earlier, namely that the observed acceleration is different in Gretna (Scotland) than it is in Brighton (Southern England). I.e. the pure observed acceleration without any adjustments for height, latitude, terrain etc. The first showed 9.81539, the second 9.81124

We have seen that that is not how the gravimeter works. The gravimeter is a seismometer and works by detecting the small vibrations and noise of the small 'gravity' fluctuations.

We have no idea how they arrived at those numbers after their numerous levels of filtering, interpretation, and analysis. There is no demonstration on those numbers were arrived at, or on how the small vibrations were interpreted and translated. Were latitude corrections made, or not made, in the source of your image, and if so, in what way and at what stage? We have not seen information on that matter.

Further, this is what your image showed between the Gretna, Scotland and Brighton in Southern England:



Fault lines in the UK:



One of those locations is near fault lines and the other is not.

There are also average temperature variations between the equator and the poles.



The winds, pressures, oceans, are also different in different areas, heavier or lighter, contributing to the background noise of the earth, even if the machine is in a basement.  There are daily variations; but Greenland's ice sheets don't melt away during the day and freeze over again at night; there are trends that stay. Could these things have an effect on the small vibrations? Possibly. It is also possible that they are making a number of assumptions to come up with those numbers.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2018, 01:36:12 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #141 on: November 30, 2018, 06:31:14 PM »
It’s interesting the level of scrutiny you’re applying to these experiments when you seem to take Rowbotham’s at face value.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2615
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #142 on: November 30, 2018, 06:47:17 PM »
Tom
You have your definitions wrong as well. Seisometers and gravimeters are two different types of instruments.  They were designed to have two different functions.  Please review the wiki for the basic definitions and all my attempts to explain as well.  You won't get any closer to a real understanding of what is happening in the real world until you can get a basic understanding of how some of the basic measuring equipment works.  Of course, you may really understand quite well and your posts are just your way to generate more hype, but that is pure speculation on my part.  If you have a genuine problem with understanding that probably can be worked out.
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #143 on: November 30, 2018, 07:08:02 PM »
It’s interesting the level of scrutiny you’re applying to these experiments when you seem to take Rowbotham’s at face value.

You aren't adding anything to the thread with this. If you want to question Tom's position, you can certainly do a better job than a one-liner. Warned.

Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #144 on: November 30, 2018, 07:26:00 PM »
Great research Tom.  The gravity doctrine is without any straightforward experimental basis.  It's clear that these gravimeters do not directly measure gravity, rather they are interpreted in such a way the presupposes the existence of gravity.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #145 on: November 30, 2018, 08:24:14 PM »
Great research Tom.  The gravity doctrine is without any straightforward experimental basis.  It's clear that these gravimeters do not directly measure gravity, rather they are interpreted in such a way the presupposes the existence of gravity.

If you want to get all esoteric I guess you could say the same about a lot of constructs/instruments.

The time doctrine is without any straightforward experimental basis.  It's clear that these clocks do not directly measure time, rather they are interpreted in such a way that presupposes the existence of time.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #146 on: November 30, 2018, 08:59:21 PM »
Tom, I think that you're missing the point of your own thread.  If you want UA to be a unifying project, then it isn't enough to disprove gravity.  You need to show why UA is a better alternative.  Showing why absolute gravimeters show different readings at different latitudes and different elevations, and why relative gravimeters (and seismometers) show anomalous variations in expected acceleration readings that coincide with density changes within the earth's crust would be a good place to start.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #147 on: November 30, 2018, 09:23:15 PM »
Tom, I think that you're missing the point of your own thread.  If you want UA to be a unifying project, then it isn't enough to disprove gravity.  You need to show why UA is a better alternative.  Showing why absolute gravimeters show different readings at different latitudes and different elevations, and why relative gravimeters (and seismometers) show anomalous variations in expected acceleration readings that coincide with density changes within the earth's crust would be a good place to start.

I agree and alluded to this before. To appeal to the wider FE proponents as you are wanting to do the issue isn't why UA is a better alternative to spherical earth gravity, but that it is a better alternative to their belief that any form of "gravity", UA or otherwise, doesn't exist. UA puts the earth in motion. That aspect alone is the sticking point for the wider FE audience. It's as ludicrous to them as much as a rotating ball. And it seems to be the main issue why they claim TFES is controlled opposition. There may be other issues, but this seems to be the one I see crop up the most.

So the question is why is UA necessary? What problem does it solve for FE at large?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #148 on: November 30, 2018, 09:37:05 PM »
Quote from: edby
Tom, you still haven’t addressed the objection I showed earlier, namely that the OBSERVED ACCELERATION is different in Gretna (Scotland) than it is in Brighton (Southern England). I.e. the pure observed acceleration without any adjustments for height, latitude, terrain etc. The first showed 9.81539, the second 9.81124
[…]
We have no idea how they arrived at those numbers after their numerous levels of filtering, interpretation, and analysis. There is no demonstration on those numbers were arrived at, or on how the small vibrations were interpreted and translated. Were latitude corrections made, or not made, in the source of your image, and if so, in what way? We have not seen information on that matter.
[…]
 
Every sentence of your post contains at least one mistake, but let’s start with your question about whether latitude corrections were made, or not made, in the source of that image.

As clearly stated in my post https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11397.msg174759#msg174759 I made no corrections made to the raw data. Observed acceleration has no adjustments for latitude, or height, or terrain etc.

So, as I clearly stated this, you are quite wrong to say ‘We have not seen information on that matter.’

I don’t know what you mean by ‘small vibrations’. What vibrations are these? Was there any reference in my post to ‘vibrations’?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #149 on: November 30, 2018, 10:02:28 PM »
Tom, I think that you're missing the point of your own thread.  If you want UA to be a unifying project, then it isn't enough to disprove gravity.  You need to show why UA is a better alternative.  Showing why absolute gravimeters show different readings at different latitudes and different elevations, and why relative gravimeters (and seismometers) show anomalous variations in expected acceleration readings that coincide with density changes within the earth's crust would be a good place to start.

My understanding is that Tom believes the different readings at different latitude are down to noise (or in another remark, to temperature).

The problem with the first position (noise) is that the noise is not enough to explain difference in latitude. If you look at my chart above (which is not an image sourced from Google, but rather my own analytical work) there is certainly noise in the data, but it stays within a certain band.

The problem with the second is that temperature is changing all the time, so we would expect to see readings in London made on very hot days that coincided with readings in Africa made on very cold days. Furthermore I can't find any sources in the literature that even mention such a wide range of readings caused by temperature.

[edit]
Here is the chart again. You see how the noisy data all stays within a well-defined range.



Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #150 on: November 30, 2018, 10:06:47 PM »
Great research Tom.  The gravity doctrine is without any straightforward experimental basis.  It's clear that these gravimeters do not directly measure gravity, rather they are interpreted in such a way the presupposes the existence of gravity.
They directly measure acceleration, not gravity. Expected acceleration certainly does assume the mechanics of gravity, but the whole point is to compare actual (=observed) acceleration, which does not depend on any theory, with expected acceleration, which is a pure mathematical calculation. As you see from my charts above, these correlate pretty well.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #151 on: December 01, 2018, 02:51:32 AM »
Edby, my point was that we don't know how those figures were created.

I took a look at those latitude corrections. Look at this: http://www.geol-amu.org/notes/m10-1-4.htm

The top of the page says:

Quote
Recall that, if the Earth were an homogeneous ellipsoid, the value of gravity at the surface would be given by:

g = g0 (1 + k1 sin2 ϕ – k2 sin2 2ϕ)

The objective of gravity surveys is to look for deviations from this reference value.

If the objective of gravity surveys is merely to look for deviations from a round earth reference model with the vibrating gravity theory, then the final computed 9.8... number, which the gravity surveys modify, becomes meaningless for the purpose of discussion. Any modifications for latitude in that process would be done one a theoretical basis, and may already be performed in your image.

Take a read through that page. It basically says that "Here is the model. The goal of gravity surveys is to modify this model"... Lower down it says that the corrections for height and latitude are made to that model.

Think about it. Why would there be "lattitude correction" and "height correction" formulas if these devices could detect it? Why would they need to be corrected with that data? The answer appears to be that they can't detect it. As that page says, they are correction formulas for that round earth model we are trying to find deviations from.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2018, 05:38:26 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2615
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #152 on: December 01, 2018, 05:27:42 AM »
The whole idea of a reference oblate spheroid was to establish an absolute value for the acceleration of gravity at the equator and at the poles.  Once the endpoints of the equator and the poles have been established a formula was developed to let anyone calculate the acceleration as a function of latitude.  Once that has been established and everyone (worldwide) has agreed upon it then all detailed surveys will just log an offset to that calculated reference.  To understand the concept alone you really don't need to have all the survey data because all it does is tweak the reference by less than 1%.  If you are a company that has spent untold millions to put up a bunch of satellites, you want to have the detailed database because it will have an effect on the orbit.  GPS satellites need to have detailed data to calculate offsets so the positions will be accurate.  The whole idea wasn't to hide anything but to make it easier for a computer to quickly generate an acceleration reading with just a position and an offset reading.  All you need to be very close to the correct acceleration reading is the equation and the acceleration reading at the equator.  It's not really that complicated. 

Yes, I know you need to try to discredit the whole concept by finding a way to make all the data invalid.  Your reference to 'vibrating gravity theory' doesn't help much because it's just been made up and isn't a valid argument at all.  The biggest problem is that the world geodetic model is international and most countries rely on the model for many things these days.  Millions of readings have been taken probably by thousands of surveyors.  I suppose you could try to call the whole thing a scam, like the space program.  You could allege that all the data was taken by incompetent people with defective equipment and all they really have is noisy useless data.  Perhaps your only way out is to formulate an explanation under UA for why the confirmed acceleration readings change in relation to the latitude. 
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #153 on: December 01, 2018, 08:31:33 AM »
Edby, my point was that we don't know how those figures were created.

I took a look at those latitude corrections. Look at this: http://www.geol-amu.org/notes/m10-1-4.htm
You really still aren't listening.

I performed the corrections to the expected i.e. theoretical values. I took the latitude and applied the formula you mention above (the IGF formula), then made a further correction for average height.

I performed no "corrections" to the observed values.

Quote
Think about it. Why would there be "lattitude correction" and "height correction" formulas if these devices could detect it? Why would they need to be corrected with that data? The answer appears to be that they can't detect it. As that page says, they are correction formulas for that round earth model we are trying to find deviations from.
The devices can't detect latitude or height above sea level. They simply detect acceleration. You drop an object for an accurately known distance, accurately time the start and the finish, so you know the distance travelled and the time taken. This will work equally well if the earth is accelerating upwards under UA, or whether 'gravity' exists. Isn't your whole hypothesis that this is what is happening? I.e. the instrument can't tell whether the object is accelerating downwards (a) because earth is accelerating upwards or (b) some mysterious force called 'gravity' is pulling it downwards. The instrument doesn't know, hence we have the observed values in my chart.

The two straight horizontal lines by contrast are calculated using a formula, with no observation whatsoever.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2018, 10:17:44 AM by edby »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #154 on: December 01, 2018, 10:27:51 AM »
The Universal Accelerator is, in fact, a strong piece of evidence for the Flat Earth movement. It can be shown that it is actually farcical to try and use or argue for any other form of gravity.

Why does FET need an alternate form of gravity? I understand that the spherical version is untenable, but why does FE need one at all?

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2615
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #155 on: December 01, 2018, 03:36:00 PM »
Gravity produces a force on a mass.  A force is a vector that has both magnitude and direction.  If the earth were flat, then the expected gravity vector would point wildly off vertical the further out towards the edge you went.  It's hard to say exactly how bad the effect would be because FET doesn't seem to have any mass, exact shape, or density specs on the earth like RET does.  To counter that UA was invented and under that paradigm everything is being accelerated at 9.81 worldwide.  You can't really have any consistent change in the acceleration readings anywhere on the earth because that would mean that the earth would break up.
 
Some absolute gravimeters measure the acceleration of a small ball in a vacuum and use that figure for the gravity acceleration measurement.  Those same instruments could function the same under UA.  However, instruments consistently measure a change that depends upon latitude.  You would expect that if the earth were an oblate spheroid.  A small effect is also noticed due to the rotation of the earth (another FET no-no) and must be considered when calculating the gravitational acceleration.
So, either all the earth’s worldwide gravity surveys must be totally discredited as either being inaccurate, not done by competent personnel, not really measuring gravity, or the earth is really an oblate spheroid.  An attempt has been made to cloud the issue and equate a seismometer reading with a gravimeter reading.  Those two devices really measure different properties of the earth and are completely different things.

Of course, any mass, of any kind, will have a gravitational attraction to another mass, of any kind.  As far as anyone knows, this is a universal fact and applies anywhere in the galaxy.  It certainly applies anywhere in the solar system.  The idea that the earth has mass and no gravity under FET is interesting.  The Wiki still claims that tides are produced by the gravitational attraction of the moon and the stars.  That would mean that the earth’s oceans have some gravitational attraction, but not the land or anything else.  Another interesting ‘fact’. 
There are inconsistencies all over the place, but FET and UA can fly if you just don’t look too close or ask too many questions.   “Pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain”.   
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2615
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #156 on: December 01, 2018, 03:45:51 PM »
I was thinking about powder scales last evening.  Years ago I used to reload my own rifle bullets so an accurate scale was necessary because that's how you determined how much powder to put in the bullet.
This was the quote I found from a related manual. 

Mass vs Weight
In everyday situations, to make things easy, we pretend that the strength of gravity is the same everywhere on Earth and that mass and weight are interchangeable. This is a lie though. In reality, local gravity varies slightly depending on your latitude, longitude, altitude and other geological features. The same mass might have a different weight depending on where you weigh it. In other words, a 500g mass on Earth is going to weigh much more than a 500g mass on the Moon due to the much weaker gravity. Although scales measure the weight of an object, they are calibrated to display in units of mass. When a scale is calibrated at its location of use, a standard mass is placed on the scale and its weight is measured. The scale is then adjusted so that it's readings display the correct mass and any differences in gravity between its new location and the last location it was adjusted are compensated for. This is why calibration certificates for precision scales must be issued at their location of use and are not valid if the scale is shipped to another location.

Hopefully all the drug dealers have their scales accurately compensated.  If not you should get a little more on the equator than at the poles. 
« Last Edit: December 01, 2018, 04:55:30 PM by RonJ »
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #157 on: December 02, 2018, 09:59:27 AM »
The Universal Accelerator is, in fact, a strong piece of evidence for the Flat Earth movement. It can be shown that it is actually farcical to try and use or argue for any other form of gravity.

Why does FET need an alternate form of gravity? I understand that the spherical version is untenable, but why does FE need one at all?
Good point. I think the logic is as follows. If we admit even the possibility of different massy objects attracting one another at a distance, then we admit the possibility of people standing upside down in Australia, attracted to the centre of the earth. So that possibility must be denied at all costs.

The problem is that they have already conceded the possibility in the form of 'celestial gravity', but that's another matter.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2615
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #158 on: December 02, 2018, 05:26:29 PM »
The Wiki admits that the tides are caused by gravitational attraction to the heavenly bodies.  So gravity is possible under FET but just between unspecified heavenly bodies (including the moon, I believe) and the oceans on the surface of the earth. Where can I find an equation describing this force.  The RE folks have equations quantifying the strength of gravity.  In order to be taken seriously the FET folks will have to come up with some equations of their own.   
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #159 on: December 02, 2018, 06:10:43 PM »
The Wiki admits that the tides are caused by gravitational attraction to the heavenly bodies.  So gravity is possible under FET but just between unspecified heavenly bodies (including the moon, I believe) and the oceans on the surface of the earth. Where can I find an equation describing this force.  The RE folks have equations quantifying the strength of gravity.  In order to be taken seriously the FET folks will have to come up with some equations of their own.   
RE seems to explain it.  Newton predicts the mutual force between two bodies with mass m1 and m2 with distance r is

   G m1 m2/r^2

Where G is the gravitational constant, first estimated by Cavendish and now thought to be around 6.674 x 10^-11. Let m2 be an apple. Then let the first body be the earth and the second an apple. From the law that F = ma, we have

   G m1 m2/r^2  =  m2 a

But the mass of the apple cancels out, so the acceleration acting on the apple is

   G m1/r^2  =  a

Mass of earth is 10^24 kg, radius is 6,371,000 metres.

   a = 6.674 x 10^-11 times 10^24 divided by 6,371,000 squared = 9.819532032816

If the apple is h metres off the ground, use r+h, which neatly predicts the acceleration data I have been looking at from the British Geological Survey (I can supply that if anyone asks).

Now the RE theory may be false, and the FE hypothesis true. But the RE theory does neatly predict all sorts of things – including the effect of height on observed acceleration – that the FE theory doesn’t. It’s not that FE predicts the wrong number. Rather, it fails to predict anything at all.