[Action80]

Not really thought this through, have you Action?  What stars?  In addition to the armed guards and killer-drones, its only practical to travel to the South Pole in southern summer months due to the climate and absence of daylight in winter, and the sun doesn't set, so no visible stars.  What you can do, however, is take a sextant reading of the sun.

Another aspect of convenience it seems for RE.

Bring up the subject of stars only to say, "Well, you can only see them at certain times anyway..."

If you are still holding onto the idea anyone can go there, you would be wrong.

[Action80]

There are lots of options to travel to the north pole. Not just one. Have a google/duckduckgo.

Surely by your definiton everywhere is restricted? Where are you drawing the line here?

Yes, and there are lots of options to travel to North Korea as well. You can even go to different parts of the country. All of them approved and pre-arranged by "The Great Leader" and his government. See? That proves that North Korea isn't as restricted as you think; it's only your imagination.

Pretty much everywhere is restricted to a greater or lesser extent. You need a passport to go to most countries. For some you need a visa too.
But your implication is that there is some special "none shall pass" restriction on the North Pole. That simply isn't the case and we've shown you multiple ways you can get there if you're really that fussed. The main barrier to going there is how inhospitable it is.

The North Pole is certainly not as inhospitable as the supposed South Pole.

[Action80]

Not really thought this through, have you Action?  What stars?  In addition to the armed guards and killer-drones, its only practical to travel to the South Pole in southern summer months due to the climate and absence of daylight in winter, and the sun doesn't set, so no visible stars.  What you can do, however, is take a sextant reading of the sun.

To be fair the stars thing is my fault, I mentioned that. Then I realised that wouldn't work for the reason you mention so I mentioned the sun and forgot to remove the bit about the stars. The sun going around you in the Antarctic circle is an interesting one though, I don't think the monopole model as outlined in the Wiki can really explain that.

The issue with Action's line of argument is you could apply it to any remote location.
I mean, Uluru (the rock formerly known as Ayers) is in the middle of nowhere. You can go there, you could do the star sightings there, check GPS and so on but if you're determined enough to believe that the real one is either heavily guarded because "they" are hiding something or doesn't exist at all then you could follow Action's line of reasoning there too. Or anywhere. I read an article about this, how some people operate in the sceptical context ("how do we really know that..."), but they do so selectively. So in the real world day to day people rely on GPS and trust it, but in a specific scenario they cast doubt on it because it could be telling them anything.

You can rest the argument of my "selectively," applying the skepticism.

[Gonzo]

There are lots of options to travel to the north pole. Not just one. Have a google/duckduckgo.

Surely by your definiton everywhere is restricted? Where are you drawing the line here?

Yes, and there are lots of options to travel to North Korea as well. You can even go to different parts of the country. All of them approved and pre-arranged by "The Great Leader" and his government. See? That proves that North Korea isn't as restricted as you think; it's only your imagination.

Why are you talking about N Korea?

You were making a claim about the North Pole, no?

Can you explain how travel to the North Pole is restricted please?

[Dual1ty]

There are lots of options to travel to the north pole. Not just one. Have a google/duckduckgo.

Surely by your definiton everywhere is restricted? Where are you drawing the line here?

Yes, and there are lots of options to travel to North Korea as well. You can even go to different parts of the country. All of them approved and pre-arranged by "The Great Leader" and his government. See? That proves that North Korea isn't as restricted as you think; it's only your imagination.

Why are you talking about N Korea?

You were making a claim about the North Pole, no?

Can you explain how travel to the North Pole is restricted please?

I'm talking about that whole continent that you think is nothing but ice where the North Pole is, not the exact point at 90ºN that they say is the "top of the world" that you're allowed to go take a selfie at for tens of thousands of dollars. But you globeheads keep trying to twist it because you're globeheads. I want full exploration, which means getting hundreds of ships and planes and whatnot to explore that area. I'm talking about an entire army that is free to explore that area, unconditionally. And even have huge underground excavations and drillings if needed.

[DuncanDoenitz]

I'm talking about that whole continent that you think is nothing but ice where the North Pole is, not the exact point at 90ºN that they say is the "top of the world" that you're allowed to go take a selfie at for tens of thousands of dollars. But you globeheads keep trying to twist it because you're globeheads. I want full exploration, which means getting hundreds of ships and planes and whatnot to explore that area. I'm talking about an entire army that is free to explore that area, unconditionally. And even have huge underground excavations and drillings if needed.

You present a case who's logic is difficult to refute. 

Not an army, exactly, but you could maybe try getting in touch with the producers of that Oak Island series.  I'm serious; the treasure must surely be imminent, so they will be looking for a new project, and appear to have the requisite tunnelling and investigative (and fundraising) skills.  Don't know about the "hundreds of ships and planes", but maybe start small until the sponsorship starts rolling in.  (Also not sure about the need for ships to explore the continent of Arctica, perhaps you could expand on this). 

Actually, what is it that leads you to believe that there is a continent there?  And how would you circumvent the security?  Sorry, trying to be constructive but I keep coming up with more questions. 

[RonJ]

The North Pole is in the middle of the ocean.  No country’s permission or passport would be required.  The USA has had a couple of submarines go there and surface by breaking thru the ice.     

[Dual1ty]

I'm talking about that whole continent that you think is nothing but ice where the North Pole is, not the exact point at 90ºN that they say is the "top of the world" that you're allowed to go take a selfie at for tens of thousands of dollars. But you globeheads keep trying to twist it because you're globeheads. I want full exploration, which means getting hundreds of ships and planes and whatnot to explore that area. I'm talking about an entire army that is free to explore that area, unconditionally. And even have huge underground excavations and drillings if needed.

You present a case who's logic is difficult to refute. 

Not an army, exactly, but you could maybe try getting in touch with the producers of that Oak Island series.  I'm serious; the treasure must surely be imminent, so they will be looking for a new project, and appear to have the requisite tunnelling and investigative (and fundraising) skills.  Don't know about the "hundreds of ships and planes", but maybe start small until the sponsorship starts rolling in.  (Also not sure about the need for ships to explore the continent of Arctica, perhaps you could expand on this). 

Actually, what is it that leads you to believe that there is a continent there?  And how would you circumvent the security?  Sorry, trying to be constructive but I keep coming up with more questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperborea - I have no idea if "Hyperborea" is real or not, but you can't get to know the truth by doing nothing and leaving that area for the fish and the birds. They also say Atlantis is a myth, but there's now a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. They could also potentially be lying about where magnetic north is because no one actually goes there to check, do they? Oh, and no one goes to the North Pole to check if the stars are where they're supposed to be, either. So it could easily not be the real North (just North according to your trusty GPS and according to the given coordinates).

I don't know what that Oak Island series is, sorry - I'm team full exploration, not team Full HD Netflix. I don't want to start small, I want an army. Maybe it takes 200 years until we reach that point, who knows? I don't want to fool myself thinking that it's going to happen any time soon. Right now I'm lucky that they're letting me live my life and not throwing me inside an insane asylum for wrongthink.

[Realestfake]

In this thread:

People misconstruing booking trips to the North Pole (a semi-dangerous trip made significantly easier by booking with a guide) with “being restricted like North Korea”. There is just no argument there.

[Dual1ty]

In this thread:

People misconstruing booking trips to the North Pole (a semi-dangerous trip made significantly easier by booking with a guide) with “being restricted like North Korea”. There is just no argument there.

It doesn't need to be as heavily guarded as North Korea because of the logistics, but effectively it is as restricted. Since surely you're an army pilot stationed in the Arctic, maybe try flying your jetplane there without authorization and see what happens. Riiiight, they will stop you long before you even reach their kosher North Pole, won't they?

Funny how any pilot who flies unauthorized instantly becomes a terrorist, even if they're (supposedly) flying nowhere.

[Dual1ty]

In this thread:

People misconstruing booking trips to the North Pole (a semi-dangerous trip made significantly easier by booking with a guide) with “being restricted like North Korea”. There is just no argument there.

You're also telling a big lie that you have a choice of booking a guide because it's easier. No one goes there by themselves.

Attempting to travel to the North Pole on your own is not only risky but also illegal in some cases, as certain areas of the Arctic Ocean are designated as protected wildlife areas or military zones, and entry is strictly controlled. Therefore, it is important to plan your trip carefully, choose a reputable tour operator, and follow all safety protocols when visiting the North Pole.

It's exactly like North Korea.

[AATW]

Riiiight, they will stop you long before you even reach their kosher North Pole, won't they?

Who do you think "they" are?
As has been pointed out to you, there isn't even a landmass at the North Pole. One of the ways to get there is with an ice breaker ship. You think there's someone guarding the place?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

Science is paid for by taxes, not Tom Bishop. Since these scale experiments are supposed to be mainstream science, this is their obligation to fix their shortcomings. The atmosphere obviously touches the scale, and so the experiment needs to be conducted to discount the effect of the atmosphere.

It appears that this guy thought of it.

This demonstrates that the atmosphere does affect the scale. The problem is that this isn't the same experiment. It appears to only have been conducted in one location. He needs to take the device to different locations and see if the weight changes.

[SteelyBob]

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.

Science is paid for by taxes, not Tom Bishop. Since these scale experiment are supposed to be mainstream science, this is this is their obligation to fix their shortcomings. The atmosphere obviously touches the scale, and so the experiment needs to be conducted to discount the effect of the atmosphere.

It appears that this guy thought of it.

This proves that the atmosphere does affect the scale. The problem is that this isn't the same experiment. It appears to only have been conducted in one location. He needs to take the device to different locations and see if the weight changes.

The atmosphere will affect the scale, just not by that much and not in the way that the wiki would suggest it does. As the video shows, the issue with atmospheric pressure / density is one of buoyancy. We normally discount buoyancy effects as they are very small. Moreover, when we calibrate scales we eliminate the effect. Changes to atmospheric pressure mean that regular calibration is important for very precise measurements.

The wiki, and your posts here, are all kinds of muddled up thinking. First of all, your assertion that scales should be calibrated before conducting, for example, the travelling gnome experiment, misses an obvious point. The way we normally calibrate a precise scale / balance is by using a reference mass - if we did that then any gravity variation would be eliminated too and the whole thing would be pointless.

The next issue is that you seem to be missing is that the Kern gnome experiment is clearly intended to be light-hearted - it is not serious science. That said, I would expect that the results probably still do the job. Assuming that the gnome is roughly the same density as water, then buoyancy effects would, at the very most, cause a roughly 0.1% variation in the mass reading, and that would be if you weighed the gnome in a vacuum. The lowest pressure would probably be found at the highest altitudes (another point the wiki seems to miss - altitude variations are far greater than latitude variations) - at the South Pole, for example, with an elevation of over 9000 feet, atmospheric pressure would be around 30% less than at sea level, thereby dwarfing the slightly higher sea-level pressures caused by the polar location.

You and the wiki also seem terribly confused over gravimetry, and the variations in apparent gravity caused by the shape and spin of the earth.

Gravity anomalies, as measured by gravimetry, are tiny local deviations from the expected gravity strength at a particular point on earth. They are typically measured on a scale of +/- 100mGal, as in the example shown in the wiki in the  'World Volcano Map' section - https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Seismometers_are_Gravimeters.

100mGal, which is the most extreme gravity anomaly on the charts, is less than 0.1% of g (g is 981 Gal), so the gravity anomalies that are being measured are far smaller than the difference in apparent g that we find going from the equator to the poles, where the difference amounts to around 0.5% of g. That is why the data are corrected for these effects - they would be swamped by the bigger numbers if not, and it is the local variations that are generally of interest.

In all the talk of travelling gnomes, you seem to gloss over the more serious gravimetry that is conducted, in particular airborne gravimetry. Given your belief that seismology is just the same as gravimetry, I'm curious to understand what you think is being measured during airborne gravimetry - how would the accelerometers measure seismic activity? Aside from a vague assertion that P-waves can pass through air (it's called noise), you don't really back this up. Throw in some usual deep distrust of normal scientific activity like using filters to eliminate noise and you have painted a true masterpiece of confusion.

[Tom Bishop]

The atmosphere will affect the scale, just not by that much and not in the way that the wiki would suggest it does. As the video shows, the issue with atmospheric pressure / density is one of buoyancy. We normally discount buoyancy effects as they are very small. Moreover, when we calibrate scales we eliminate the effect. Changes to atmospheric pressure mean that regular calibration is important for very precise measurements.

Incorrect.

You have to do the experiment, not just assume.

The scales are also not recalibrated after being moved in the scale gravity experiments. You are mistaken. Please review the citations at https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude Search for "calibrated" on that page to find the citations.

You and the wiki also seem terribly confused over gravimetry, and the variations in apparent gravity caused by the shape and spin of the earth.

Gravity anomalies, as measured by gravimetry, are tiny local deviations from the expected gravity strength at a particular point on earth. They are typically measured on a scale of +/- 100mGal, as in the example shown in the wiki in the  'World Volcano Map' section - https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Seismometers_are_Gravimeters.

100mGal, which is the most extreme gravity anomaly on the charts, is less than 0.1% of g (g is 981 Gal), so the gravity anomalies that are being measured are far smaller than the difference in apparent g that we find going from the equator to the poles, where the difference amounts to around 0.5% of g. That is why the data are corrected for these effects - they would be swamped by the bigger numbers if not, and it is the local variations that are generally of interest.

In all the talk of travelling gnomes, you seem to gloss over the more serious gravimetry that is conducted, in particular airborne gravimetry. Given your belief that seismology is just the same as gravimetry, I'm curious to understand what you think is being measured during airborne gravimetry - how would the accelerometers measure seismic activity? Aside from a vague assertion that P-waves can pass through air (it's called noise), you don't really back this up. Throw in some usual deep distrust of normal scientific activity like using filters to eliminate noise and you have painted a true masterpiece of confusion.

Actually the Wiki cites its sources for points such as seismic waves traveling through the air -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Airborne_Seismic_Waves

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_wave (Archive)

  “ Primary waves (P-waves) are compressional waves that are longitudinal in nature. P waves are pressure waves that travel faster than other waves through the earth to arrive at seismograph stations first, hence the name "Primary". These waves can travel through any type of material, including fluids, and can travel nearly 1.7 times faster than the S waves. In air, they take the form of sound waves, hence they travel at the speed of sound. Typical speeds are 330 m/s in air, 1450 m/s in water and about 5000 m/s in granite. ”

Also here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope_-_Seismology#Seismic_Wave_Propagation

https://amp.livescience.com/24209-earthquakes-infrasound.html

  “ As earthquake waves ripple through the Earth, the crust buckles, rumbles and roars — both audibly and at infrasonic frequencies, below the range of human hearing. A new study finds the Earth's surface acts like a speaker for low-frequency vibrations, transmitting an earthquake's infrasonic tumult into the air. ”

You, on the other hand, have cited nothing.

[RonJ]

Say the Gnome you are measuring is made from plastic and you check the density of plastic you will find that it's about 1.2 gm/cm^3. Then you make a Gnome with a weight of 1.2 gm.  Suppose you measure that in air at sea level and then in another location at an altitude of about 5000 ft and you see a difference in weight.  If you take the density of air at sea level it will be about 0.001225 gm/cm^3 and at 5000 ft it will be about 0.001007 gm/cm^3.  You don't really care too much about the air density at a specific location but the difference between the two locations you are doing the measurements since you are interested in the difference in weights, not the absolute values.  When you subtract the two typical air densities you find that it's about 0.000218 gm/cm^3.  Your Gnome has a density of 1.2 gm/cm^3 so the typical difference due to any air buoyancy would be about 0.018%.  That's a difference that probably wouldn't be measurable with the scale used in the experiments.  So any difference measured would mostly be due to gravitation or some other unknown factors.  That means that measuring the Gnome in a vacuum chamber would make for more accuracy in absolute weights but the difference in weights (what you are looking for) would be so small (due to air buoyancy) because the differences would be more than 3 digits to the right of the decimal point.       

[markjo]

This demonstrates that the atmosphere does affect the scale. The problem is that this isn't the same experiment. It appears to only have been conducted in one location. He needs to take the device to different locations and see if the weight changes.

That's right.  It's a different experiment because it's trying to answer a different question.  As you well know, in a controlled experiment you only change one variable at a time.  You can change atmospheric pressure or you can change location, but not both at the same time.  If you like, you can perform the vacuum experiment at various locations, you just have to understand that you are performing performing two different experiments that are looking to answer two different questions (atmospheric pressure or location).

[SteelyBob]

The atmosphere will affect the scale, just not by that much and not in the way that the wiki would suggest it does. As the video shows, the issue with atmospheric pressure / density is one of buoyancy. We normally discount buoyancy effects as they are very small. Moreover, when we calibrate scales we eliminate the effect. Changes to atmospheric pressure mean that regular calibration is important for very precise measurements.

Incorrect.

You have to do the experiment, not just assume.

The scales are also not recalibrated after being moved in the scale gravity experiments. You are mistaken. Please review the citations at https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude Search for "calibrated" on that page to find the citations.

I know they aren't calibrated when they are moved in experiments like the travelling gnome. I said that a little later on, and explained why.

Actually the Wiki cites its sources for points such as seismic waves traveling through the air -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Airborne_Seismic_Waves

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_wave (Archive)

  “ Primary waves (P-waves) are compressional waves that are longitudinal in nature. P waves are pressure waves that travel faster than other waves through the earth to arrive at seismograph stations first, hence the name "Primary". These waves can travel through any type of material, including fluids, and can travel nearly 1.7 times faster than the S waves. In air, they take the form of sound waves, hence they travel at the speed of sound. Typical speeds are 330 m/s in air, 1450 m/s in water and about 5000 m/s in granite. ”

Also here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope_-_Seismology#Seismic_Wave_Propagation

https://amp.livescience.com/24209-earthquakes-infrasound.html

  “ As earthquake waves ripple through the Earth, the crust buckles, rumbles and roars — both audibly and at infrasonic frequencies, below the range of human hearing. A new study finds the Earth's surface acts like a speaker for low-frequency vibrations, transmitting an earthquake's infrasonic tumult into the air. ”

You, on the other hand, have cited nothing.

I haven't cited stuff because you've done a great job of that already, you just haven't appreciated what is being discussed or what it all means. Take this one, for example - https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.33.2681&rep=rep1&type=pdf, which is referenced by the wiki. It's a good read, and sums up the challenges of trying to measure very small changes in g using a moving, vibrating platform whose position information is subject to some degree of error.

It's absolutely true that P waves (note that's only one kind of seismic wave, there are others that don't propagate through air) can pass through air. These are typically very low frequency waves. You seem to be suggesting, although you haven't actually answered my question, that when aircraft conduct gravimetry all that is being detected is seismic P waves and not changes in gravity. However, if you actually read and understood papers like the one above, you'd appreciate that this cannot be the case. As the aircraft is travelling along, the changes in force detected by the accelerometers present as a low frequency signal (see appendix C1 of the above paper), limited by the low-pass filters applied in order to filter out the noise. This means the sampling resolution is directly related to the aircraft's speed. If what was being measured was the seismic P waves, then you would get different results at different speeds.

You seem to be confusing that the airborne system, as with stationary gravimetry, is trying to measure an essentially static quantity - the local variation in g from the expected g at that position on earth - with the changes in that quantity that might occur due to seismic activity. But outside of active earthquakes, background seismic activity is tiny in comparison to the 'static' anomaly being measured in gravimetry. Here's one paper using a microGal-level gravimeter, and other equipment, where some distant earthquake activity is measured - the amplitude is changes to local g is less than 1 micro ms-2, or 0.1mGal: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6731071/

Again, gravimetry is not about measuring the global scale changes in apparent g caused by the shape of the earth, or height above geoid, or the earth's rotation. Those things are well known and understood. What is being measured - small changes in the local gravity field - are far, far smaller. That is why the known variations are removed from the data before presenting the gravity anomalies. Neither you nor the wiki acknowledge this - it's all rather basic.

Moving back to the original question posed by the OP, the above paper I linked to mentions an interesting precursor experiment to the main survey carried out:

Taking the basement floor gravity as a reference, Fig. 4 compares the gravity variation from the atomic gravimeter and the relative gravimeter (see table S2 for the absolute gravity on each floor). We excluded the gravity measured on the basement floor when fitting the gravity gradient because the gradient is expected to be significantly different below and above the ground level. The atomic gravimeter measures a VGG of −0.289(3) mGal/m, and the relative gravimeter obtains −0.285(1) mGal/m, matching within the statistical error. These gradients are smaller than the free-air gradient (−0.3086 mGal/m), indicating the gravitational effect of the mass of the building.

So they measured a reduction in g with increasing height that is almost precisely the same as the generally agreed model for gravity would suggest. What would you suggest has happened here? Are they lying? Was their kit faulty? Why did the measured g reduce, in your opinion?

[AATW]

Science is paid for by taxes, not Tom Bishop.

No it isn't. I mean, it can be. But many charities who do science fund raise to do their research. Private individuals can do experiments too. The experiments you can find around weight and latitude are mostly done by private people. There's one on this dude's YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/@Wolfie6020/videos

Rowbotham wasn't tax-payer funded, the Bishop Experiment wasn't taxpayer funded. Anyone can do science. The weight experiments aren't particularly expensive to do. Some years back you were shown multiple experiments to test horizon dip, you spent all your effort finding fault with all of them, because they didn't show what you wanted. You made no effort to do your own tests despite them being very cheap to do.

Since these scale experiments are supposed to be mainstream science, this is their obligation to fix their shortcomings.

No. You are the one claiming there are shortcomings, the experiments are not expensive to do.
If you feel there are flaws in the claimed results then devise your own tests correcting the flaws and let's see the results.

This demonstrates that the atmosphere does affect the scale.

Yes. In the exact opposite way you are claiming.
So let's see the results of your tests.

[Dual1ty]

Say the Gnome you are measuring is made from plastic and you check the density of plastic you will find that it's about 1.2 gm/cm^3. Then you make a Gnome with a weight of 1.2 gm.  Suppose you measure that in air at sea level and then in another location at an altitude of about 5000 ft and you see a difference in weight.  If you take the density of air at sea level it will be about 0.001225 gm/cm^3 and at 5000 ft it will be about 0.001007 gm/cm^3.  You don't really care too much about the air density at a specific location but the difference between the two locations you are doing the measurements since you are interested in the difference in weights, not the absolute values.  When you subtract the two typical air densities you find that it's about 0.000218 gm/cm^3.  Your Gnome has a density of 1.2 gm/cm^3 so the typical difference due to any air buoyancy would be about 0.018%.  That's a difference that probably wouldn't be measurable with the scale used in the experiments.  So any difference measured would mostly be due to gravitation or some other unknown factors.  That means that measuring the Gnome in a vacuum chamber would make for more accuracy in absolute weights but the difference in weights (what you are looking for) would be so small (due to air buoyancy) because the differences would be more than 3 digits to the right of the decimal point.     

I agree with that. I think our agreement means that we can go back to talking about how g varies with altitude and depth.







What equation would you come up with that predicts that result? (this question is for everyone and anyone)