The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Dual1ty on April 22, 2023, 11:59:01 PM
-
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. :)
-
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
-
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/p5370kB.jpg)
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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 (https://profoundphysics.com/gravity-underground/?utm_content=cmp-true)
-
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.
-
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 (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 (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:
(https://i.imgur.com/wmim8y4.png)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/wmim8y4.png)
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/wmim8y4.png)
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?
(https://i.imgur.com/JWcJCG4.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/JWcJCG4.jpg)
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.
-
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.
I understand that it's CGI and not a photograph - that's the point. Computer generated ice is not part of my reality, but it has to be part of yours if you're a globe believer (not to mention a computer generated Earth, planets, and everything else). It's obvious that they want you to think that there's nothing there but a bunch of ice and that there's nothing interesting to see. And I see that you're happy drinking that Kool-Aid but I'm not. I want full unconditional unrestricted exploration. By the people, not the governments. Antarctica as well.
-
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.
It appears that this guy thought of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHmBf6TSLew
-
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?
The whole thing is just a white smudge that a 5 year old could make in Photoshop. In other words, nothing to see there.
An interesting semi-rant.
I think you actually know that gravity is not a function of magnetism, and that "any compass" only points at the North Pole because that end of the needle is painted red; the other end points South.
"The whole Arctic is off-limits"? By who? It's outside any nation's jurisdiction.
".... heavily militarized ...."? By whom?
"... more so each day..."? Evidence?
Anyone can fly over the Arctic by booking a flight from (say) Helsinki to Tokyo; then look out the window. Anyone can travel to the Arctic, just don't forget your stout walking-shoes and polar bear repellent.
You are PricelessPearl, and I claim my £5.
-
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?
The whole thing is just a white smudge that a 5 year old could make in Photoshop. In other words, nothing to see there.
An interesting semi-rant.
I think you actually know that gravity is not a function of magnetism, and that "any compass" only points at the North Pole because that end of the needle is painted red; the other end points South.
"The whole Arctic is off-limits"? By who? It's outside any nation's jurisdiction.
".... heavily militarized ...."? By whom?
"... more so each day..."? Evidence?
Anyone can fly over the Arctic by booking a flight from (say) Helsinki to Tokyo; then look out the window. Anyone can travel to the Arctic, just don't forget your stout walking-shoes and polar bear repellent.
You are PricelessPearl, and I claim my £5.
You're quoting things I didn't say, which is very naughty (dishonest) of you. I didn't say that "gravity is a function of magnetism" (although they are related), I said gravity is caused by acceleration of the Ether (what else?). I didn't say "the whole Arctic is off-limits", I said the North Pole is. And if you doubt that the Arctic is getting more militarized each day (a figure of speech, obviously) you just have to read some news yourself, I'm not going to read them for you.
I didn't get the "PricelessPearl and £5" part, I'll consider that a malfunction in your programming.
-
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.
It appears that this guy thought of it.
Interesting. So according to Tom's Wiki page
It is known that that pressure is greater at the poles and lesser at the equator
So from the above experiment that lessening pressure should cause an increase in weight at the equator, but actually the experiments show the reverse.
But I await the results of Tom's controlled experiment.
-
I didn't say "the whole Arctic is off-limits", I said the North Pole is.
Nah. You can book a trip there
https://explore.polaradventure.com/northpole
You can to the South Pole too.
I mean, it's not cheap. It's pretty niche. But there are trips that go there.
-
I didn't say "the whole Arctic is off-limits", I said the North Pole is.
Nah. You can book a trip there
https://explore.polaradventure.com/northpole
You can to the South Pole too.
I mean, it's not cheap. It's pretty niche. But there are trips that go there.
That is meaningless. I already said it: unconditional unrestricted access only. If you refuse to understand that, that's your problem.
-
I didn't say "the whole Arctic is off-limits", I said the North Pole is.
Nah. You can book a trip there
https://explore.polaradventure.com/northpole
You can to the South Pole too.
I mean, it's not cheap. It's pretty niche. But there are trips that go there.
A couple of questions:
Have you ever been there?
Once you arrived, how could you absolutely verify you were at a supposed South Pole? A billboard?
-
You're quoting things I didn't say, which is very naughty (dishonest) of you. I didn't say that "gravity is a function of magnetism" (although they are related), I said gravity is caused by acceleration of the Ether (what else?). I didn't say "the whole Arctic is off-limits", I said the North Pole is. And if you doubt that the Arctic is getting more militarized each day (a figure of speech, obviously) you just have to read some news yourself, I'm not going to read them for you.
I didn't get the "PricelessPearl and £5" part, I'll consider that a malfunction in your programming.
I'll give you the Arctic thing, that was lazy of me. If by "Arctic" we mean the area inside the Arctic Circle then, yes; thousands of people live there for goodness sake. I've been there several times.
I'm gonna double-down on the North Pole though. How? Who? Which (Magnetic or True)? What size of an exclusion zone? What Jurisdiction? Its just in international waters, that happens to be frozen. What is your evidence of military presence, or restriction? Yes, its difficult to get too, like anywhere far from land in the Pacific, Atlantic or Southern Ocean. But restricted? How? World Police?
-
Have you ever been there?
I have not, but would love to. I don't think I could really justify the expense though.
Once you arrived, how could you absolutely verify you were at a supposed South Pole? A billboard?
A fair question. I mean, there's a research station there. And there's a physical pole which they put there as a sort of symbol of where you are. And yes, there is a billboard, well there's a sign anyway. But hey, they could put those anywhere, right? You could apply that to anywhere. How do you know you're anywhere especially if the somewhere is remote. I guess GPS would work and that would verify your location. GPS is trusted everywhere else you go. There are probably star sightings you could make, and observations of the sun as it circles around you would be a pretty good indicator.
-
That is meaningless. I already said it: unconditional unrestricted access only.
There isn't unconditional unrestricted access anywhere. Have you heard of passports? But it's not the heavily guarded zone you're claiming.
There are multiple ways to go to the North Pole. But for obvious reasons it's not the most hospitable place so the main restrictions are whether you can afford it and your abilities, depending on your method of travel.
https://www.polarexplorers.com/post/five-ways-to-get-to-the-north-pole-and-what-to-do-when-you-get-there
-
You're quoting things I didn't say, which is very naughty (dishonest) of you. I didn't say that "gravity is a function of magnetism" (although they are related), I said gravity is caused by acceleration of the Ether (what else?). I didn't say "the whole Arctic is off-limits", I said the North Pole is. And if you doubt that the Arctic is getting more militarized each day (a figure of speech, obviously) you just have to read some news yourself, I'm not going to read them for you.
I didn't get the "PricelessPearl and £5" part, I'll consider that a malfunction in your programming.
I'll give you the Arctic thing, that was lazy of me. If by "Arctic" we mean the area inside the Arctic Circle then, yes; thousands of people live there for goodness sake. I've been there several times.
I'm gonna double-down on the North Pole though. How? Who? Which (Magnetic or True)? What size of an exclusion zone? What Jurisdiction? Its just in international waters, that happens to be frozen. What is your evidence of military presence, or restriction? Yes, its difficult to get too, like anywhere far from land in the Pacific, Atlantic or Southern Ocean. But restricted? How? World Police?
You're serious? It's one of the most restricted places on Earth. They give you one option to book an uber expensive trip to go to some X point and that makes you think that area is not restricted? That's like thinking that North Korea isn't restricted because you can book a trip to go there. At least the NK one is affordable...
That said, I don't care if you think it isn't restricted. It clearly is restricted. So please, no more doubling-down (or keep doubling-down and waste your time because I'm not going to reply. Your choice).
-
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?
-
Have you ever been there?
I have not, but would love to. I don't think I could really justify the expense though.
Once you arrived, how could you absolutely verify you were at a supposed South Pole? A billboard?
A fair question. I mean, there's a research station there. And there's a physical pole which they put there as a sort of symbol of where you are. And yes, there is a billboard, well there's a sign anyway. But hey, they could put those anywhere, right? You could apply that to anywhere. How do you know you're anywhere especially if the somewhere is remote. I guess GPS would work and that would verify your location. GPS is trusted everywhere else you go. There are probably star sightings you could make, and observations of the sun as it circles around you would be a pretty good indicator.
You are correct. They could place a pole anywhere and label it "SOUTH POLE!"
The rest of it (GPS and what not), you can only claim and rely on what others state about it as far as that goes.
Stars, you would know the Southern Cross, but that is about it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/mMQIITP.png)
-
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.
I entirely agree on your clampdown on strawmanning Pete, so if I’ve misrepresented FE here I’ll gladly apologise. I had inferred from both Tom’s arguments here and the wiki ( https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity (https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity)) that the general FE view was that gravity doesn’t vary with position on the earth or with altitude.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHmBf6TSLew
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.
-
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHmBf6TSLew
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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 (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/ (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?
-
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.
-
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/yun8zNU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PDtPKfb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/bEGm5ie.png)
What equation would you come up with that predicts that result? (this question is for everyone and anyone)
-
What equation would you come up with that predicts that result? (this question is for everyone and anyone)
I wouldn't. It's a tiny change that is entirely consistent with typical local gravity anomalies. There's all sorts of factors - what was the elevation (above msl) at ground level? What is the composition of the rock above the measuring point? The predicted changes in g with depth are generalised across the whole earth; I would reasonably expect substantial local variations depending on where you measure it, particularly at depths that are trivial compared to the 1000s of Km that are being discussed.
Take a look at my previous post - there's a paper there with a very credible measurement of g at different heights in a building, showing conformity with expectations in a less complex (ie above ground) environment.
-
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.
To answer your question, yes there have been countless experiments done that show that the acceleration of gravity varies with altitude. The physicists call it gravitational potential. When you change this, you change time dilation that can be measured with atomic clocks. There was an experiment recently that showed a measurable time dilation due to a change in altitude of about 1 millimeter. If you want to spend some time in this realm of study you can convince yourself that this is a well known fact that was postulated by Einstein and is being verified (in the Zetetic manner) each and every day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation)
Project GREAT 2016a -- Hawking, Einstein, and Time Dilation on Mt Lemmon (leapsecond.com) (http://www.leapsecond.com/great2016a/index.htm)
-
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.
To answer your question, yes there have been countless experiments done that show that the acceleration of gravity varies with altitude. The physicists call it gravitational potential. When you change this, you change time dilation that can be measured with atomic clocks. There was an experiment recently that showed a measurable time dilation due to a change in altitude of about 1 millimeter. If you want to spend some time in this realm of study you can convince yourself that this is a well known fact that was postulated by Einstein and is being verified (in the Zetetic manner) each and every day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation)
Project GREAT 2016a -- Hawking, Einstein, and Time Dilation on Mt Lemmon (leapsecond.com) (http://www.leapsecond.com/great2016a/index.htm)
You could make an atomic clock inaccurate with EMF. That doesn't mean that you "dilated time" because the clock subjected to the EMF is no longer in sync with the other clocks. You can't dilate time because time doesn't exist physically - it's a concept. So it's really Ether dilation. You can shield against EMF but you can't shield against the Ether.
-
You could make an atomic clock inaccurate with EMF. That doesn't mean that you "dilated time" because the clock subjected to the EMF is no longer in sync with the other clocks. You can't dilate time because time doesn't exist physically - it's a concept. So it's really Ether dilation. You can shield against EMF but you can't shield against the Ether.
The US National Bureau of Standards has many atomic clocks in their network, and they are all compensated for different altitudes to account for the different gravitational potentials that dilate time.
This is effectively another demonstration of how gravitation varies with altitude.
Einstein knew that time is a dimension just like space is. Michelson and Morley worked long and hard to detect the Ether but were unsuccessful. Perhaps you know of an experiment where that effort was realized.
-
You could make an atomic clock inaccurate with EMF. That doesn't mean that you "dilated time" because the clock subjected to the EMF is no longer in sync with the other clocks. You can't dilate time because time doesn't exist physically - it's a concept. So it's really Ether dilation. You can shield against EMF but you can't shield against the Ether.
The US National Bureau of Standards has many atomic clocks in their network, and they are all compensated for different altitudes to account for the different gravitational potentials that dilate time.
This is effectively another demonstration of how gravitation varies with altitude.
Einstein knew that time is a dimension just like space is. Michelson and Morley worked long and hard to detect the Ether but were unsuccessful. Perhaps you know of an experiment where that effort was realized.
I don't think I'm ever going to convince you, but you could watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HewSdyqbX0U
-
You could make an atomic clock inaccurate with EMF. That doesn't mean that you "dilated time" because the clock subjected to the EMF is no longer in sync with the other clocks. You can't dilate time because time doesn't exist physically - it's a concept. So it's really Ether dilation. You can shield against EMF but you can't shield against the Ether.
The US National Bureau of Standards has many atomic clocks in their network, and they are all compensated for different altitudes to account for the different gravitational potentials that dilate time.
This is effectively another demonstration of how gravitation varies with altitude.
Einstein knew that time is a dimension just like space is. Michelson and Morley worked long and hard to detect the Ether but were unsuccessful. Perhaps you know of an experiment where that effort was realized.
I don't think I'm ever going to convince you, but you could watch this video:
I watched the video.
I'll stick with Einstein and Maxwell. Their theories are backed up with plenty of descriptive equations that have been peer reviewed and tested in the real world for at least a century.
If you don't believe that please specify an instance where their theories don't work.
-
You could make an atomic clock inaccurate with EMF. That doesn't mean that you "dilated time" because the clock subjected to the EMF is no longer in sync with the other clocks. You can't dilate time because time doesn't exist physically - it's a concept. So it's really Ether dilation. You can shield against EMF but you can't shield against the Ether.
The US National Bureau of Standards has many atomic clocks in their network, and they are all compensated for different altitudes to account for the different gravitational potentials that dilate time.
This is effectively another demonstration of how gravitation varies with altitude.
Einstein knew that time is a dimension just like space is. Michelson and Morley worked long and hard to detect the Ether but were unsuccessful. Perhaps you know of an experiment where that effort was realized.
I don't think I'm ever going to convince you, but you could watch this video:
I watched the video.
I'll stick with Einstein and Maxwell. Their theories are backed up with plenty of descriptive equations that have been peer reviewed and tested in the real world for at least a century.
If you don't believe that please specify an instance where their theories don't work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUdBhqX5hIU
-
The guy doesn't speak mathematics. Without that you can't ever be sure of what he's really talking about. Can you supply some relevant equations?
-
We seem to be quite a long way from gravity varying with height.
There’s tons of stuff out there on this, eg:
https://www.npl.co.uk/insights/measuring-gravitation-with-optical-atomic-clocks (https://www.npl.co.uk/insights/measuring-gravitation-with-optical-atomic-clocks)
I’m curious to understand a bit more about what you think is going on here - what you agree with, and what you don’t. We have two different measurements of g variations going on. One using atomic clocks, one using gravimeters. I’ve shown you links to one example of a gravimeter at different heights in a building - what do you think is going on there, if not g decreasing in the exact manner expected?
Likewise, what do you think is going on with atomic clocks? Why does the g variation implied by changing the height of an atomic clock align so well with the measure g variation taken from a gravimeter - a completely different measuring technique?
What would it take to persuade you that, actually, gravity does work the way we think it does?
-
The guy doesn't speak mathematics. Without that you can't ever be sure of what he's really talking about. Can you supply some relevant equations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-eh2SD54fM
If you still don't understand, I can't help you. I can lead you to the truth but I can't make you think. ;)
We seem to be quite a long way from gravity varying with height.
There’s tons of stuff out there on this, eg:
https://www.npl.co.uk/insights/measuring-gravitation-with-optical-atomic-clocks (https://www.npl.co.uk/insights/measuring-gravitation-with-optical-atomic-clocks)
I’m curious to understand a bit more about what you think is going on here - what you agree with, and what you don’t. We have two different measurements of g variations going on. One using atomic clocks, one using gravimeters. I’ve shown you links to one example of a gravimeter at different heights in a building - what do you think is going on there, if not g decreasing in the exact manner expected?
Likewise, what do you think is going on with atomic clocks? Why does the g variation implied by changing the height of an atomic clock align so well with the measure g variation taken from a gravimeter - a completely different measuring technique?
What would it take to persuade you that, actually, gravity does work the way we think it does?
It sounds like you think that I'm denying that g varies relating to latitude/altitude in the predicted way but I'm not. I was looking for experiments because I couldn't find any. So thank you for providing some academic examples, but a more compelling experiment would be one that almost anyone can do and that is well documented in a visual way, which should be the goal. So for instance someone could take a scale to some mountain and, after controlling for temperature and humidity, measure the weight of some thing and see if it matches the prediction. People can understand that experiment instead of expecting them to understand based on their limited understanding of atomic clocks and advanced gravimetry devices or whatever. Not to mention that an experiment that can be performed by only a few with extraordinary means ought to be distrusted on principle.
-
A true leader will know the path towards the desired destination. Mathematics is the best descriptor of that path. So how can you lead me towards the truth without having a specific path? I can think and that makes me believe that I don’t want to run off in all directions at once.
-
A true leader will know the path towards the desired destination. Mathematics is the best descriptor of that path. So how can you lead me towards the truth without having a specific path? I can think and that makes me believe that I don’t want to run off in all directions at once.
That's a strange way of saying that what I'm showing you doesn't agree with your religion's commandment that mathematical models = reality if that's the consensus.
Celestial navigation using trigonometry used to be simple and worked perfectly fine when assuming a flat Earth, but with the introduction of the mathematical model of a globe Earth all of a sudden celestial navigation became complicated. Even though you can make those complications work mathematically, if you care about physics and natural science that means that you care about what things actually are, and you don't sacrifice that for a mathematical model no matter how much you believe or want to believe that mathematical model = reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58kR5-bgL4o
-
A true leader will know the path towards the desired destination. Mathematics is the best descriptor of that path. So how can you lead me towards the truth without having a specific path? I can think and that makes me believe that I don’t want to run off in all directions at once.
That's a strange way of saying that what I'm showing you doesn't agree with your religion's commandment that mathematical models = reality if that's the consensus.
Celestial navigation using trigonometry used to be simple and worked perfectly fine when assuming a flat Earth, but with the introduction of the mathematical model of a globe Earth all of a sudden celestial navigation became complicated. Even though you can make those complications work mathematically, if you care about physics and natural science that means that you care about what things actually are, and you don't sacrifice that for a mathematical model no matter how much you believe or want to believe that mathematical model = reality.
Take a look at the works of Nathaniel Bowditch on Wikipedia. This person has distilled the notion of celestial navigation down to spherical mathematical equations that are still taught to ship's navigators today. Yes, I do care about physics and natural science and especially care about how things actually are. I believe that mathematical models can = reality so have personally applied the works of Bowditch and his American Practical Navigator publications that are still required to be carried aboard ships today. We were always taught navigation is a series of steps. Here is the concept. These mathematical equations describe the concept. This is the way to apply this knowledge to match your postion on a navigational chart. Now experiment on your own to see if you can find any faults. Once you have convinced yourself take the tests to prove your abilities. Now go out there and bet your life on your knowledge and abilities.
I am still alive today and have owned my own sextant and made observations and then used spherical trig to determine a position at sea well outside the view of any land. In light of my success why should I believe that mathematical descriptions and the applications of the same won't work?
You could apply the same concepts to the altitude related G force questions or for about anything else for that matter, but you need a mathematical equation first. Use the equations to form an experiment. Perform the experiment and analyze the results. Do the results confirm the equations? It's a loop that has been confirmed to work.
-
A true leader will know the path towards the desired destination. Mathematics is the best descriptor of that path. So how can you lead me towards the truth without having a specific path? I can think and that makes me believe that I don’t want to run off in all directions at once.
That's a strange way of saying that what I'm showing you doesn't agree with your religion's commandment that mathematical models = reality if that's the consensus.
Celestial navigation using trigonometry used to be simple and worked perfectly fine when assuming a flat Earth, but with the introduction of the mathematical model of a globe Earth all of a sudden celestial navigation became complicated. Even though you can make those complications work mathematically, if you care about physics and natural science that means that you care about what things actually are, and you don't sacrifice that for a mathematical model no matter how much you believe or want to believe that mathematical model = reality.
Take a look at the works of Nathaniel Bowditch on Wikipedia. This person has distilled the notion of celestial navigation down to spherical mathematical equations that are still taught to ship's navigators today. Yes, I do care about physics and natural science and especially care about how things actually are. I believe that mathematical models can = reality so have personally applied the works of Bowditch and his American Practical Navigator publications that are still required to be carried aboard ships today. We were always taught navigation is a series of steps. Here is the concept. These mathematical equations describe the concept. This is the way to apply this knowledge to match your postion on a navigational chart. Now experiment on your own to see if you can find any faults. Once you have convinced yourself take the tests to prove your abilities. Now go out there and bet your life on your knowledge and abilities.
I am still alive today and have owned my own sextant and made observations and then used spherical trig to determine a position at sea well outside the view of any land. In light of my success why should I believe that mathematical descriptions and the applications of the same won't work?
You could apply the same concepts to the altitude related G force questions or for about anything else for that matter, but you need a mathematical equation first. Use the equations to form an experiment. Perform the experiment and analyze the results. Do the results confirm the equations? It's a loop that has been confirmed to work.
I was going to type a longer reply, but let's just keep it simple: How can you prove that a plane flying at the same altitude for many miles is actually flying along a curved path and that after whatever many thousands of miles it is flying antipodally relative to where it started from? All you have is your belief in the globe model. According to the globe model there must be people who exist antipodally relative to each other. You can believe in "antipodal people" all you want but there is no proof of that other than when you go to a circus and they perform a certain act that looks like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/jG9bbYc.jpg)
-
You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope. I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern. Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day. When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey.
Like Johannes Kepler said:
The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
should be to discover the rational order and harmony
which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
to us in the language of mathematics.
-
You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope. I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern. Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day. When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey.
Like Johannes Kepler said:
The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
should be to discover the rational order and harmony
which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
to us in the language of mathematics.
Nope. Gravity is making the gyroscope do that, not them going along an imaginary curved path. It's your problem if you refuse to understand what gravity is and the reality of our Earth.
You claim that you care about physics and natural science but really what you care about is formal science and mathematical physics. Have a good whatever it is wherever you are on our level Earth.
Nope.
Gyroscopes work on the principles of gyroscopic inertia. They will work fine whether there's gravity present or not. Mathematics shows this to be true.
Immanuel Kant said: In any particular theory there is only as much real science as there is mathematics.
-
It sounds like you think that I'm denying that g varies relating to latitude/altitude in the predicted way but I'm not. I was looking for experiments because I couldn't find any. So thank you for providing some academic examples, but a more compelling experiment would be one that almost anyone can do and that is well documented in a visual way, which should be the goal. So for instance someone could take a scale to some mountain and, after controlling for temperature and humidity, measure the weight of some thing and see if it matches the prediction. People can understand that experiment instead of expecting them to understand based on their limited understanding of atomic clocks and advanced gravimetry devices or whatever. Not to mention that an experiment that can be performed by only a few with extraordinary means ought to be distrusted on principle.
The issue you are always going to have is that the changes in g that we experience, either by changing our position on the earth’s surface, or by changing our height, are generally very small indeed. You therefore need very accurate devices to be able to show the changes. This either means very precise scales / balances, or more advanced stuff like gravimeters. Your best bet would be to measure a solid object near where you live using very accurate scales and then travel closer to the equator , at the same elevation above sea level, somewhere and measure the same object again using the same scales. If your scales are accurate to the order of <0.1% then you should see some discernible change.
This is a bit easier, I would suggest, than changing your elevation, where the changes are smaller and the confounding factors, such as pressure, are more apparent. It’s also quite difficult for most people to ascend to an altitude high enough to make a measurable difference, and using an aircraft brings with it all sorts of other errors.
I’m still curious to understand, if you generally accept the idea that g does vary with height, but remain convinced that the earth is flat, what do you suppose is going on? What do you think gravity is?
-
You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope. I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern. Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day. When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey.
Like Johannes Kepler said:
The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
should be to discover the rational order and harmony
which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
to us in the language of mathematics.
Nope. Gravity is making the gyroscope do that, not them going along an imaginary curved path. It's your problem if you refuse to understand what gravity is and the reality of our Earth.
You claim that you care about physics and natural science but really what you care about is formal science and mathematical physics. Have a good whatever it is wherever you are on our level Earth.
Nope.
Gyroscopes work on the principles of gyroscopic inertia. They will work fine whether there's gravity present or not. Mathematics shows this to be true.
Immanuel Kant said: In any particular theory there is only as much real science as there is mathematics.
Sorry, but were you saying that if the gyroscope tells you you're flying level, that means that you're flying along a curved path because you're assuming the Earth to be a globe and level means curved? If so, I have nothing else to say to you to put it mildly.
It sounds like you think that I'm denying that g varies relating to latitude/altitude in the predicted way but I'm not. I was looking for experiments because I couldn't find any. So thank you for providing some academic examples, but a more compelling experiment would be one that almost anyone can do and that is well documented in a visual way, which should be the goal. So for instance someone could take a scale to some mountain and, after controlling for temperature and humidity, measure the weight of some thing and see if it matches the prediction. People can understand that experiment instead of expecting them to understand based on their limited understanding of atomic clocks and advanced gravimetry devices or whatever. Not to mention that an experiment that can be performed by only a few with extraordinary means ought to be distrusted on principle.
The issue you are always going to have is that the changes in g that we experience, either by changing our position on the earth’s surface, or by changing our height, are generally very small indeed. You therefore need very accurate devices to be able to show the changes. This either means very precise scales / balances, or more advanced stuff like gravimeters. Your best bet would be to measure a solid object near where you live using very accurate scales and then travel closer to the equator , at the same elevation above sea level, somewhere and measure the same object again using the same scales. If your scales are accurate to the order of <0.1% then you should see some discernible change.
This is a bit easier, I would suggest, than changing your elevation, where the changes are smaller and the confounding factors, such as pressure, are more apparent. It’s also quite difficult for most people to ascend to an altitude high enough to make a measurable difference, and using an aircraft brings with it all sorts of other errors.
I’m still curious to understand, if you generally accept the idea that g does vary with height, but remain convinced that the earth is flat, what do you suppose is going on? What do you think gravity is?
You can buy very accurate scales. A more portable one is going to compromise the precision but it is going to be able to resolve up to 0.001 g +/- whatever. I don't know how much of a difference temperature & humidity can make but you can create a microclimate if that's a big concern. As far as air buoyancy, you can calculate that and take that into account or you can build a small vacuum chamber.
Gravity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXLL2zz8ndM
-
You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope. I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern. Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day. When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey.
Like Johannes Kepler said:
The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
should be to discover the rational order and harmony
which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
to us in the language of mathematics.
Nope. Gravity is making the gyroscope do that, not them going along an imaginary curved path. It's your problem if you refuse to understand what gravity is and the reality of our Earth.
You claim that you care about physics and natural science but really what you care about is formal science and mathematical physics. Have a good whatever it is wherever you are on our level Earth.
Nope.
Gyroscopes work on the principles of gyroscopic inertia. They will work fine whether there's gravity present or not. Mathematics shows this to be true.
Immanuel Kant said: In any particular theory there is only as much real science as there is mathematics.
Sorry, but were you saying that if the gyroscope tells you you're flying level, that means that you're flying along a curved path because you're assuming the Earth to be a globe and level means curved? If so, I have nothing else to say to you to put it mildly.
In an airplane the altimeter’s function is to measure the distance above the surface of the earth along the route. On a spherical earth when you maintain a constant altitude between two points you do fly a curved flight path. You never notice that because the changes are so small relative to the forward distance you are traveling. It’s not unusual for your altimeter to bounce up and down by a couple hundred feet all along the way while the autopilot compensates to maintain a set altitude. A gyroscope, on the other hand, will always point at a fixed reference point in space. When it’s mounted in an aircraft you would see a constant change in the Z axis as you progress along your route. If you could set your autopilot to maintain a particular constant Z axis value, then you would see a continuous increase in altitude as you progressed along your route. If the earth was flat, then flying along a constant Z axis would also mean flying at a constant altitude over the earth’s surface. My measurements indicated a curved surface because of the consistent changes in the Z axis measurements in the direction of travel that were consistently reversed when the reverse journey was made back to the original point of departure. All I know is that this is what I witnessed over countless trips using many different gyros.
-
Gravity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXLL2zz8ndM
It's a good thing that we have this master chef tossing a word salad like no other to clear everything up...
"Gravity describes the motion of charge. Gravity is the field of counter space. So what's the field of counter space? Well the field of counter space is hyperboloidal observed phenomena that we conventionally call gravity. Explained by the field of counter space - Magnetism is of course reciprocally the field of generating space so we have charge and discharge capacitance.
And what's the inverse of capacitance? What's the release of capacitance? Well magnetism is the three-dimensional force-vector which is of course the force-vector of the taurus or a doughnut, if you will, and of course the volume of that donut is the generation of creation of space. Space is the negative image of pure potential or of charge. What's the opposite of charge? Everybody should know this but nobody was taught this stuff in high school or college. I wasn't either, but i knew fundamentally that none of these people knew anything and were supposedly my teachers.
I started off with the great advantage and knowing these people didn't know what they were talking about and then I worked back from there. So we have energy or increasing energy and then discharge of energy or decreasing energy. And you say acceleration and of course any time any book is said, and there are many countless books of science that refer to gravity as a force. Gravity is not only not a force it's the complete opposite of a force."
-
You can buy very accurate scales. A more portable one is going to compromise the precision but it is going to be able to resolve up to 0.001 g +/- whatever. I don't know how much of a difference temperature & humidity can make but you can create a microclimate if that's a big concern. As far as air buoyancy, you can calculate that and take that into account or you can build a small vacuum chamber.
Well, indeed - so get out there and do it, if you don't find the multitude of scientific papers, that show a wide range of experiments that all align despite using different methods, convincing. One point of note - poor terminology on my part - I said 'scales / balance' earlier. That's not right - you definitely want scales, and not a balance, as a balance will compensate for gravity error. You want scales, and you want to make sure you don't calibrate them after moving - clearly using a reference mass for calibration will remove the tiny error that you are deliberately trying to measure. You'd also need to make sure the the scales were perfectly level at each location.
I don't think you'd need to go to the effort of a vacuum chamber - air pressure does not change that much, as long as you are at roughly the same elevation, and you would need a very large change to see much of a buoyancy difference.
But ultimately what you are describing is essentially the Kern gnome experiment - admittedly a bit of scientific fun (as the real science has moved way, way past this level) - albeit changed to an altitude perspective rather than a latitude.
Sorry, but were you saying that if the gyroscope tells you you're flying level, that means that you're flying along a curved path because you're assuming the Earth to be a globe and level means curved? If so, I have nothing else to say to you to put it mildly.
Aviation gyro behaviour is very compelling evidence for a round earth. I'm not sure you've understood what is being discussed here. A traditional mechanical gyro will hold its attitude regardless of what goes on around it - that is why there are so useful in aviation, for both attitude referencing and other functions like turn indicators (a 'rate gyro') and heading referencing. Taking the attitude example, we take a full freedom gyro, attach it to a system of indication and use it to tell the pilot which way is up. This is great, but it is subject to a number of errors. Transport errors, for example, are where you take a gyro that is indicating level and move it to some other place on the earth. It will, without correction, retain its original orientation, meaning it will progressively indicate pitch or bank errors. The solution to this is to have a system that exploits the fact that pilots generally either use bank angles above 5 degrees, or will try to not bank at all - very small bank angles are unusual. So gyro systems are designed to have a function whereby at small (ie <5 degrees) bank angles, the system is assumed to be level, and is subject to a small gravity correction, which means it retains level as it moves around the globe. This is inhibited above 5 degrees, providing precision during manoeuvring.
There is a similar issue with heading referencing systems, which are subject to errors caused by the earth's rotation. Simple systems have a 'drift nut', which is preset during maintenance to the aircraft's local latitude - this provides a correcting precession to the system, counteracting the earth's rotation. On more advanced systems, there is usually a pilot-controlled dial to set the local latitude.
All of these errors are also present in ring-laser 'gyro' systems - these aren't really gyros at all, but rather sense rotation in all three axes - and similar compensations have to be applied for transport topple and drift as well as rotation errors.
-
It's a good thing that we have this master chef tossing a word salad like no other to clear everything up...
I concluded two things:
- he thinks the world is round
- I haven't the faintest idea what he's on about with the other stuff
He's clearly been accused of word salading before. His riposte is interesting, as he focusses on the specific definitions of each word, and ridicules those who might not know them. He ignores, of course, the fact that a word salad is, by definition, composed of valid words. It's the selection and order that is the issue. That doesn't make him wrong - indeed he may well have some interesting ideas - but he simply doesn't make any sense half the time, as your transcript neatly illustrates.
-
You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope. I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern. Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day. When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey.
Like Johannes Kepler said:
The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
should be to discover the rational order and harmony
which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
to us in the language of mathematics.
Nope. Gravity is making the gyroscope do that, not them going along an imaginary curved path. It's your problem if you refuse to understand what gravity is and the reality of our Earth.
You claim that you care about physics and natural science but really what you care about is formal science and mathematical physics. Have a good whatever it is wherever you are on our level Earth.
Nope.
Gyroscopes work on the principles of gyroscopic inertia. They will work fine whether there's gravity present or not. Mathematics shows this to be true.
Immanuel Kant said: In any particular theory there is only as much real science as there is mathematics.
Sorry, but were you saying that if the gyroscope tells you you're flying level, that means that you're flying along a curved path because you're assuming the Earth to be a globe and level means curved? If so, I have nothing else to say to you to put it mildly.
In an airplane the altimeter’s function is to measure the distance above the surface of the earth along the route. On a spherical earth when you maintain a constant altitude between two points you do fly a curved flight path. You never notice that because the changes are so small relative to the forward distance you are traveling. It’s not unusual for your altimeter to bounce up and down by a couple hundred feet all along the way while the autopilot compensates to maintain a set altitude. A gyroscope, on the other hand, will always point at a fixed reference point in space. When it’s mounted in an aircraft you would see a constant change in the Z axis as you progress along your route. If you could set your autopilot to maintain a particular constant Z axis value, then you would see a continuous increase in altitude as you progressed along your route. If the earth was flat, then flying along a constant Z axis would also mean flying at a constant altitude over the earth’s surface. My measurements indicated a curved surface because of the consistent changes in the Z axis measurements in the direction of travel that were consistently reversed when the reverse journey was made back to the original point of departure. All I know is that this is what I witnessed over countless trips using many different gyros.
You can't be serious. If the globe model was true and you had a theoretical gyroscope that didn't get affected by external forces (which can't happen in reality), it would not drift at all. Because in the globe model curved = level.
Gravity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXLL2zz8ndM
It's a good thing that we have this master chef tossing a word salad like no other to clear everything up...
"Gravity describes the motion of charge. Gravity is the field of counter space. So what's the field of counter space? Well the field of counter space is hyperboloidal observed phenomena that we conventionally call gravity. Explained by the field of counter space - Magnetism is of course reciprocally the field of generating space so we have charge and discharge capacitance.
And what's the inverse of capacitance? What's the release of capacitance? Well magnetism is the three-dimensional force-vector which is of course the force-vector of the taurus or a doughnut, if you will, and of course the volume of that donut is the generation of creation of space. Space is the negative image of pure potential or of charge. What's the opposite of charge? Everybody should know this but nobody was taught this stuff in high school or college. I wasn't either, but i knew fundamentally that none of these people knew anything and were supposedly my teachers.
I started off with the great advantage and knowing these people didn't know what they were talking about and then I worked back from there. So we have energy or increasing energy and then discharge of energy or decreasing energy. And you say acceleration and of course any time any book is said, and there are many countless books of science that refer to gravity as a force. Gravity is not only not a force it's the complete opposite of a force."
Accusing someone of word salad means what besides being a fallacious pseudo-argument? You could say that about Einstein, Hawking, Planck or anyone that you probably hold in high regard. All rationalists use word salad.
Sorry, but were you saying that if the gyroscope tells you you're flying level, that means that you're flying along a curved path because you're assuming the Earth to be a globe and level means curved? If so, I have nothing else to say to you to put it mildly.
Aviation gyro behaviour is very compelling evidence for a round earth. I'm not sure you've understood what is being discussed here. A traditional mechanical gyro will hold its attitude regardless of what goes on around it - that is why there are so useful in aviation, for both attitude referencing and other functions like turn indicators (a 'rate gyro') and heading referencing. Taking the attitude example, we take a full freedom gyro, attach it to a system of indication and use it to tell the pilot which way is up. This is great, but it is subject to a number of errors. Transport errors, for example, are where you take a gyro that is indicating level and move it to some other place on the earth. It will, without correction, retain its original orientation, meaning it will progressively indicate pitch or bank errors. The solution to this is to have a system that exploits the fact that pilots generally either use bank angles above 5 degrees, or will try to not bank at all - very small bank angles are unusual. So gyro systems are designed to have a function whereby at small (ie <5 degrees) bank angles, the system is assumed to be level, and is subject to a small gravity correction, which means it retains level as it moves around the globe. This is inhibited above 5 degrees, providing precision during manoeuvring.
There is a similar issue with heading referencing systems, which are subject to errors caused by the earth's rotation. Simple systems have a 'drift nut', which is preset during maintenance to the aircraft's local latitude - this provides a correcting precession to the system, counteracting the earth's rotation. On more advanced systems, there is usually a pilot-controlled dial to set the local latitude.
All of these errors are also present in ring-laser 'gyro' systems - these aren't really gyros at all, but rather sense rotation in all three axes - and similar compensations have to be applied for transport topple and drift as well as rotation errors.
I don't know what all that means... to me it looks like you're pasting that from some textbook or something. Why not address the original question instead?
It's a good thing that we have this master chef tossing a word salad like no other to clear everything up...
I concluded two things:
- he thinks the world is round
- I haven't the faintest idea what he's on about with the other stuff
He's clearly been accused of word salading before. His riposte is interesting, as he focusses on the specific definitions of each word, and ridicules those who might not know them. He ignores, of course, the fact that a word salad is, by definition, composed of valid words. It's the selection and order that is the issue. That doesn't make him wrong - indeed he may well have some interesting ideas - but he simply doesn't make any sense half the time, as your transcript neatly illustrates.
Your ad hominem is equally as meaningless as the word salad pseudo-argument.
-
Your ad hominem is equally as meaningless as the word salad pseudo-argument.
At least I'm not pretending that my observation is meaningful. Unlike this guy who seems to think stringing together a bunch synaptic flatulence is....
You can't count the number of accelerating unicorns underneath your bed because there are no such things as unicorns - In fact, there is no bed underneath which unicorns could be, let alone at a pace greater than a standstill, which there couldn't be, as previously stated, even if the bed existed in a non-duality counter space, degaussing the taurus orifice's inverse negative charge capacitance through which the hyperboloidal phenomenological force-vector wave action tugs across the construct known to clock-watchers as 'time'.
But hey, if you find this guy even remotely relevant, then, well, good luck with that.
-
Gravity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXLL2zz8ndM
The guy in the video is Theoria Apophasis, also known as The Angry Photographer, also known as Ken Wheeler. His YouTube channel is https://www.youtube.com/@kathodosdotcom (https://www.youtube.com/@kathodosdotcom).
I make no comment on his channel, videos or knowledge – this is only for information. You can make your own assessment of his opinions.
-
Your ad hominem is equally as meaningless as the word salad pseudo-argument.
At least I'm not pretending that my observation is meaningful. Unlike this guy who seems to think stringing together a bunch synaptic flatulence is....
You can't count the number of accelerating unicorns underneath your bed because there are no such things as unicorns - In fact, there is no bed underneath which unicorns could be, let alone at a pace greater than a standstill, which there couldn't be, as previously stated, even if the bed existed in a non-duality counter space, degaussing the taurus orifice's inverse negative charge capacitance through which the hyperboloidal phenomenological force-vector wave action tugs across the construct known to clock-watchers as 'time'.
But hey, if you find this guy even remotely relevant, then, well, good luck with that.
"At least I'm not pretending that my observation is meaningful.". I have no clue what you mean by that.
I don't remember that quote from the video. Where does he say that exactly?
Regardless if that's a real quote or not, he has his own way of saying things and I agree that it's word salad, but that's not a valid argument (well, maybe to you personally it is, which is fine and also irrelevant) to dismiss what he talks about or the experiments he did (he has many experiments on his channel, it's not just videos of him chatting). He's a bit of an oddball, but he is a globe believer after all.
He's also a self-made millionaire, by the way... Since you want to attack him, maybe it turns out that he's more interesting and successful than you. Just saying.
-
I don't know what all that means
Indeed.
... to me it looks like you're pasting that from some textbook or something.
Well, it happens to be something I know about. It’s not pasted directly from a textbook, but you can certainly find it there, or indeed in numerous online sources. In any case…why should that matter? If it was copied from a textbook, wouldn’t that be better? Wouldn’t the fact that every airliner flying today employs technology that has specific compensation for the round shape of the earth give you pause for thought that maybe your idea that it’s flat is perhaps incorrect?
Why not address the original question instead?
The question about g varying with height? I have done that - I’ve given you explanations, papers and ideas. I’m not sure what else you want. I’m talking about gyros because you’ve been discussing them.
Your ad hominem is equally as meaningless as the word salad pseudo-argument.
It’s not ad hominem. I’m criticising him, yes, but I’m not going at his argument because of who he is, or what qualifications he has. And word salad isn’t a pseudo argument. He appears, at times, to be stringing together a series of words that sound impressive to the uninitiated, but which on inspection simply do not make sense. It’s like integrating across the transverse Laplace meta-space. Unless your eigenvalues are conjugate, there cannot be any rational value for beta. Any idiot knows this.
Read the transcript posted here - try to understand gravity, from first principles, according to him. It’s just circular - it doesn’t make coherent sense at all. And that’s being generous.
-
I don't know what all that means
Indeed.
- I haven't the faintest idea what he's on about with the other stuff
Indeed x2. Except what he talks about is way more relevant and meaningful that your delusion that a gyroscope somehow proves that we live on an absurdity.
Well, it happens to be something I know about. It’s not pasted directly from a textbook, but you can certainly find it there, or indeed in numerous online sources. In any case…why should that matter? If it was copied from a textbook, wouldn’t that be better? Wouldn’t the fact that every airliner flying today employs technology that has specific compensation for the round shape of the earth give you pause for thought that maybe your idea that it’s flat is perhaps incorrect?
No, I know the Earth is flat. But the way I got to that conclusion has nothing to do with gyroscopes. It's mostly globe believers like you who have to constantly try to make false associations between unrelated things and think that said ficticious associations prove your assumptions about the world correct.
The question about g varying with height? I have done that - I’ve given you explanations, papers and ideas. I’m not sure what else you want. I’m talking about gyros because you’ve been discussing them.
No, not that. I was asking how do your prove that a plane is really flying along curved a path if it's flying at the same altitude and how do you prove that "antipodal things" exist in the real world other than at the circus.
-
[
No, not that. I was asking how do your prove that a plane is really flying along curved a path if it's flying at the same altitude and how do you prove that "antipodal things" exist in the real world other than at the circus.
Ah, I see. Well, ok then, let’s talk some more about aircraft.
I’ve described how aircraft gyro instruments are corrected for the transport errors, for example. You indicated that you don’t understand it, and that’s fine, but you must either:
- believe that I’m correct, and that aircraft attitude referencing systems, for example, are corrected for the round shape of the earth, or:
- believe that I’m wrong, and that they aren’t.
If you think I’m wrong, then you are also disagreeing with an entire industry / profession. Are they all wrong too? Do people spend entire careers teaching this stuff, and designing systems around it, and adjusting or fixing them, but everybody is lying?
If you think I’m right, then what is actually going on? We have systems, like heading systems with drift correction, where the error correction would actually induce errors if it wasn’t for the earths rotation…so we’d notice pretty quick if it wasn’t a rotating ball.
So what, exactly, are you suggesting is going on?
-
Your ad hominem is equally as meaningless as the word salad pseudo-argument.
At least I'm not pretending that my observation is meaningful. Unlike this guy who seems to think stringing together a bunch synaptic flatulence is....
You can't count the number of accelerating unicorns underneath your bed because there are no such things as unicorns - In fact, there is no bed underneath which unicorns could be, let alone at a pace greater than a standstill, which there couldn't be, as previously stated, even if the bed existed in a non-duality counter space, degaussing the taurus orifice's inverse negative charge capacitance through which the hyperboloidal phenomenological force-vector wave action tugs across the construct known to clock-watchers as 'time'.
But hey, if you find this guy even remotely relevant, then, well, good luck with that.
"At least I'm not pretending that my observation is meaningful.". I have no clue what you mean by that.
I don't remember that quote from the video. Where does he say that exactly?
Regardless if that's a real quote or not, he has his own way of saying things and I agree that it's word salad, but that's not a valid argument (well, maybe to you personally it is, which is fine and also irrelevant) to dismiss what he talks about or the experiments he did (he has many experiments on his channel, it's not just videos of him chatting). He's a bit of an oddball, but he is a globe believer after all.
What experiments? Many? I'm having a hard time finding one.
He's also a self-made millionaire, by the way... Since you want to attack him, maybe it turns out that he's more interesting and successful than you. Just saying.
How do you know that he is a self-made millionaire? And why would that be relevant to gravity or gyroscopes or magnetism?
I don't know what all that means
Indeed.
- I haven't the faintest idea what he's on about with the other stuff
Indeed x2. Except what he talks about is way more relevant and meaningful that your delusion that a gyroscope somehow proves that we live on an absurdity.
If you have no idea what he is on about, how would you know what he is saying is more meaningful and relevant than anything else?
And if you don't know what he is talking about, what's the purpose of posting his videos? Just saying.
-
[
No, not that. I was asking how do your prove that a plane is really flying along curved a path if it's flying at the same altitude and how do you prove that "antipodal things" exist in the real world other than at the circus.
Ah, I see. Well, ok then, let’s talk some more about aircraft.
I’ve described how aircraft gyro instruments are corrected for the transport errors, for example. You indicated that you don’t understand it, and that’s fine, but you must either:
- believe that I’m correct, and that aircraft attitude referencing systems, for example, are corrected for the round shape of the earth, or:
- believe that I’m wrong, and that they aren’t.
If you think I’m wrong, then you are also disagreeing with an entire industry / profession. Are they all wrong too? Do people spend entire careers teaching this stuff, and designing systems around it, and adjusting or fixing them, but everybody is lying?
If you think I’m right, then what is actually going on? We have systems, like heading systems with drift correction, where the error correction would actually induce errors if it wasn’t for the earths rotation…so we’d notice pretty quick if it wasn’t a rotating ball.
So what, exactly, are you suggesting is going on?
I must? I must do nothing except laugh! People ardently believing that the world is a spinning ball is actually hilarious when you think about it. The entire cosmology that goes with it is hilarious.
(https://i.imgur.com/PB9nxcX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/yWmWj4M.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/pQOMP5d.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BYWuUB6.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rEK0LY9.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQS_xCkOIaU
-
I must? I must do nothing except laugh! People ardently believing that the world is a spinning ball is actually hilarious when you think about it. The entire cosmology that goes with it is hilarious.
This is a debating forum. We clearly disagree with each other, or else we wouldn’t be talking. But you aren’t debating. Of course you find my viewpoint ridiculous. That goes without saying. But if you don’t actually address the point being made, it just makes it look like you don’t actually have an argument.
Yes, you must either agree that gyro systems are as I say they are, or you instead must disagree. Because you aren’t making your view known it’s very difficult to have a meaningful discussion.
Could you clarify what exactly you think is happening, for example, in an aircraft’s attitude and heading indicating systems when it flies around? Why do we have latitude-specific compensation for the earths rotation if the earth is isn’t rotating?
[edited to fix a typo]
-
I must? I must do nothing except laugh! People ardently believing that the world is a spinning ball is actually hilarious when you think about it. The entire cosmology that goes with it is hilarious.
This is a debating forum. We clearly disagree with each other, or else we wouldn’t be talking. But you aren’t debating. Of course you find my viewpoint ridiculous. That goes without saying. But if you don’t actually address the point being made, it just makes it look like you don’t actually have an argument.
Yes, you must either agree that gyro systems are as I say they are, or you instead must disagree. Because you sent making your view known it’s very difficult to have a meaningful discussion.
Could you clarify what exactly you think is happening, for example, in an aircraft’s attitude and heading indicating systems when it flies around? Why do we have latitude-specific compensation for the earths rotation if the earth is isn’t rotating?
You're forgetting that objective reality is not debatable. Therefore you can only discuss things, and that's not the same as a game of football where you have two teams who must score goals against each other.
Gyroscopes aren't part of my reality and I don't know much about them, so why would I talk about them? Why don't you discuss that with other flat-earthers who know about them, in a separate thread dedicated to that topic?
-
I must? I must do nothing except laugh! People ardently believing that the world is a spinning ball is actually hilarious when you think about it. The entire cosmology that goes with it is hilarious.
This is a debating forum. We clearly disagree with each other, or else we wouldn’t be talking. But you aren’t debating. Of course you find my viewpoint ridiculous. That goes without saying. But if you don’t actually address the point being made, it just makes it look like you don’t actually have an argument.
Yes, you must either agree that gyro systems are as I say they are, or you instead must disagree. Because you sent making your view known it’s very difficult to have a meaningful discussion.
Could you clarify what exactly you think is happening, for example, in an aircraft’s attitude and heading indicating systems when it flies around? Why do we have latitude-specific compensation for the earths rotation if the earth is isn’t rotating?
You're forgetting that objective reality is not debatable. Therefore you can only discuss things, and that's not the same as a game of football where you have two teams who have to score goals against each other.
Gyroscopes aren't part of my reality and I don't know much about them, so why would I talk about them? Why don't you discuss that with other flat-earthers who know about them, in a separate thread dedicated to that topic?
Well, I’m mainly talking about them because you said:
I was asking how do your prove that a plane is really flying along curved a path if it's flying at the same altitude
So I was trying to show you how, if you dig a little deeper, the shape of the earth is a fundamental part of the design of the systems that keep you safe when you fly. If you don’t understand that, that’s fine, but you therefore cannot be in a position to dismiss or ridicule those arguments - you’ve just admitted that you don’t understand them.
Very happy to switch back to your original point, although I think we’re done, aren’t we? You asked for some experiments, we showed you some stuff, and you’ve now understood what kit you would need if you wanted to try it yourself - assuming you don’t trust the large amount of mutually supporting data and research that’s already out there. I’m still not clear what you think gravity is, but that’s ok.
-
I must? I must do nothing except laugh! People ardently believing that the world is a spinning ball is actually hilarious when you think about it. The entire cosmology that goes with it is hilarious.
This is a debating forum. We clearly disagree with each other, or else we wouldn’t be talking. But you aren’t debating. Of course you find my viewpoint ridiculous. That goes without saying. But if you don’t actually address the point being made, it just makes it look like you don’t actually have an argument.
Yes, you must either agree that gyro systems are as I say they are, or you instead must disagree. Because you sent making your view known it’s very difficult to have a meaningful discussion.
Could you clarify what exactly you think is happening, for example, in an aircraft’s attitude and heading indicating systems when it flies around? Why do we have latitude-specific compensation for the earths rotation if the earth is isn’t rotating?
You're forgetting that objective reality is not debatable. Therefore you can only discuss things, and that's not the same as a game of football where you have two teams who have to score goals against each other.
Gyroscopes aren't part of my reality and I don't know much about them, so why would I talk about them? Why don't you discuss that with other flat-earthers who know about them, in a separate thread dedicated to that topic?
Well, I’m mainly talking about them because you said:
I was asking how do your prove that a plane is really flying along curved a path if it's flying at the same altitude
So I was trying to show you how, if you dig a little deeper, the shape of the earth is a fundamental part of the design of the systems that keep you safe when you fly. If you don’t understand that, that’s fine, but you therefore cannot be in a position to dismiss or ridicule those arguments - you’ve just admitted that you don’t understand them.
It was the other dude who brought gyroscopes into the conversation, not me. He said:
In an airplane the altimeter’s function is to measure the distance above the surface of the earth along the route. On a spherical earth when you maintain a constant altitude between two points you do fly a curved flight path. You never notice that because the changes are so small relative to the forward distance you are traveling. It’s not unusual for your altimeter to bounce up and down by a couple hundred feet all along the way while the autopilot compensates to maintain a set altitude. A gyroscope, on the other hand, will always point at a fixed reference point in space. When it’s mounted in an aircraft you would see a constant change in the Z axis as you progress along your route. If you could set your autopilot to maintain a particular constant Z axis value, then you would see a continuous increase in altitude as you progressed along your route. If the earth was flat, then flying along a constant Z axis would also mean flying at a constant altitude over the earth’s surface. My measurements indicated a curved surface because of the consistent changes in the Z axis measurements in the direction of travel that were consistently reversed when the reverse journey was made back to the original point of departure. All I know is that this is what I witnessed over countless trips using many different gyros.
My reply to that was:
You can't be serious. If the globe model was true and you had a theoretical gyroscope that didn't get affected by external forces (which can't happen in reality), it would not drift at all. Because in the globe model curved = level.
You didn't say that was wrong. How is that wrong?
-
[
You can't be serious. If the globe model was true and you had a theoretical gyroscope that didn't get affected by external forces (which can't happen in reality), it would not drift at all. Because in the globe model curved = level.
You didn't say that was wrong. How is that wrong?
Ok…we’re back talking about gyros again.
You actually weren’t really wrong. I’d slightly challenge you on the curved=level bit, as that’s not how we define level, but I think I get what you mean. But your broader point is correct - if you take a full freedom gyro and move it around the world it will keep pointing to a fixed point in space, so yes, it will appear to move as you travel around. Where your debate with RonJ went a bit awry is that you didn’t realise that you were both saying the same thing - he was saying that he had observed precisely that phenomenon himself.
The reason I brought in my point about aircraft gyro systems was to show you that, in order to be useful to pilots, attitude indicators have to be corrected for this effect - otherwise they show would progressive pitching, of one degree for every nautical miles, as the aircraft travelled over long distances, as other time-based errors caused by the earth’s rotation.
-
[
You can't be serious. If the globe model was true and you had a theoretical gyroscope that didn't get affected by external forces (which can't happen in reality), it would not drift at all. Because in the globe model curved = level.
You didn't say that was wrong. How is that wrong?
Ok…we’re back talking about gyros again.
You actually weren’t really wrong. I’d slightly challenge you on the curved=level bit, as that’s not how we define level, but I think I get what you mean. But your broader point is correct - if you take a full freedom gyro and move it around the world it will keep pointing to a fixed point in space, so yes, it will appear to move as you travel around. Where your debate with RonJ went a bit awry is that you didn’t realise that you were both saying the same thing - he was saying that he had observed precisely that phenomenon himself.
The reason I brought in my point about aircraft gyro systems was to show you that, in order to be useful to pilots, attitude indicators have to be corrected for this effect - otherwise they show would progressive pitching, of one degree for every nautical miles, as the aircraft travelled over long distances, as other time-based errors caused by the earth’s rotation.
Yeah, but you're both assuming that the Earth is a globe and I'm not, because it's actually not a globe. So you're using circular reasoning if you're utilizing that as prove for your globe belief.
As far as any errors due to "earth’s rotation" - you're only hypothesizing that to be the cause of the errors.
-
[
Yeah, but you're both assuming that the Earth is a globe and I'm not, because it's actually not a globe. So you're using circular reasoning if you're utilizing that as prove for your globe belief.
As far as any errors due to "earth’s rotation" - you're only hypothesizing that to be the cause of the errors.
Attitude gyros are seen to pitch by 1 degree every 60 nautical miles, which is exactly what you would expect for the size and shape of the earth as we understand it. Heading indicators wander by 15 degrees per hour, multiplied by the sine of the latitude of the gyro position. Again, this is exactly what we would expect for the size, shape and rotation of the earth as we know it.
What else could cause these errors?
-
[
Yeah, but you're both assuming that the Earth is a globe and I'm not, because it's actually not a globe. So you're using circular reasoning if you're utilizing that as prove for your globe belief.
As far as any errors due to "earth’s rotation" - you're only hypothesizing that to be the cause of the errors.
Attitude gyros are seen to pitch by 1 degree every 60 nautical miles, which is exactly what you would expect for the size and shape of the earth as we understand it. Heading indicators wander by 15 degrees per hour, multiplied by the sine of the latitude of the gyro position. Again, this is exactly what we would expect for the size, shape and rotation of the earth as we know it.
What else could cause these errors?
Why are you asking me? I would say gravity or magnetism because both your models of those things are wrong, just like your models of Earth and the "Solar System" are wrong.
-
Why are you asking me? I would say gravity or magnetism because both your models of those things are wrong, just like your models of Earth and the "Solar System" are wrong.
I’m asking because you’ve rejected my suggestion. If you’re prepared to reject something then it suggests that you disagree with it. That’s fine, but only if you can propose some other mechanism, and unfortunately vague statements like ‘gravity’ or ‘magnetism’ aren’t credible explanations.
It’s ok not to understand stuff. But it sounds very much like you are rejecting what I am saying because it does not conform to your idea of what the world is like. That isn’t a good way to approach things.
-
Why are you asking me? I would say gravity or magnetism because both your models of those things are wrong, just like your models of Earth and the "Solar System" are wrong.
I’m asking because you’ve rejected my suggestion. If you’re prepared to reject something then it suggests that you disagree with it. That’s fine, but only if you can propose some other mechanism, and unfortunately vague statements like ‘gravity’ or ‘magnetism’ aren’t credible explanations.
It’s ok not to understand stuff. But it sounds very much like you are rejecting what I am saying because it does not conform to your idea of what the world is like. That isn’t a good way to approach things.
You're doing some heavy psychological projection right there...
If you asked how tides or eclipses work I would equally tell you I don't know the answer. I could give you an OPINION, but that's about it. The problem with you globe believers is that you think that because some flat-earther can't give you a detailed answer to how a specific thing in the Universe works, that must mean that the Earth is a globe, that the Sun is 93 million miles away... all that crap you believe in.
(https://i.imgur.com/LfKPqR1.jpg)
-
[
You're doing some heavy psychological projection right there...
If you asked how tides or eclipses work I would equally tell you I don't know the answer. I could give you an OPINION, but that's about it. The problem with you globe believers is that you think that because some flat-earther can't give you a detailed answer to how a specific thing in the Universe works, that must mean that the Earth is a globe, that the Sun is 93 million miles away... all that crap you believe in.
Well, nobody understands everything, and again, it’s absolutely fine to not understand something. However, if you don’t understand something very well at all, then it’s very odd to confidently declare that something somebody is saying is wrong. So if you don’t understand the tides, for example, how can you confidently declare that the normal model for how they work is wrong? The normal model, I should add, which makes complete sense, and is observably consistent with the movements of the sun and moon. Likewise, why is the sun being a particular distance away ‘crap’? If you don’t understand it all, how can you judge what a non-crap distance might be?
-
[
You're doing some heavy psychological projection right there...
If you asked how tides or eclipses work I would equally tell you I don't know the answer. I could give you an OPINION, but that's about it. The problem with you globe believers is that you think that because some flat-earther can't give you a detailed answer to how a specific thing in the Universe works, that must mean that the Earth is a globe, that the Sun is 93 million miles away... all that crap you believe in.
Well, nobody understands everything, and again, it’s absolutely fine to not understand something. However, if you don’t understand something very well at all, then it’s very odd to confidently declare that something somebody is saying is wrong. So if you don’t understand the tides, for example, how can you confidently declare that the normal model for how they work is wrong? The normal model, I should add, which makes complete sense, and is observably consistent with the movements of the sun and moon. Likewise, why is the sun being a particular distance away ‘crap’? If you don’t understand it all, how can you judge what a non-crap distance might be?
My friend, you are preceded by 150 years of the PHLOGISTON "making sense" to people; and now another 150 years of the VIRION "making sense" to people. That is your legacy as a consensus dweller. The heliocentric model doesn't even work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had hundreds of years to make it work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS_zF1V-pgE
-
The heliocentric model doesn't even work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had hundreds of years to make it work.
So your position is that a random guy on the web messing around with autocad and some eclipse data has single-handedly debunked centuries of heliocentric geometry in about 90 minutes, ergo, the earth is flat? And nary a Nobel to show for it? I guess I forgot that everything on the internet is true and should be taken unquestionably as such. Compelling argument.
I suppose equally compelling, the flat earth model doesn't even have a usable, relevant map, let alone work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had thousands of years to make it work.
-
The heliocentric model doesn't even work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had hundreds of years to make it work.
So your position is that a random guy on the web messing around with autocad and some eclipse data has single-handedly debunked centuries of heliocentric geometry in about 90 minutes, ergo, the earth is flat? And nary a Nobel to show for it? I guess I forgot that everything on the internet is true and should be taken unquestionably as such. Compelling argument.
I suppose equally compelling, the flat earth model doesn't even have a usable, relevant map, let alone work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had thousands of years to make it work.
You wish.
He's looking at something that people don't usually look at - that's why it was easy for him to prove it wrong in 90 minutes from the comfort of his home. Of course, there are hundreds of things that prove it wrong, starting with the fact that there is no measurable curvature anywhere on Earth. How about that GEOMETRY?
-
The heliocentric model doesn't even work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had hundreds of years to make it work.
So your position is that a random guy on the web messing around with autocad and some eclipse data has single-handedly debunked centuries of heliocentric geometry in about 90 minutes, ergo, the earth is flat? And nary a Nobel to show for it? I guess I forgot that everything on the internet is true and should be taken unquestionably as such. Compelling argument.
I suppose equally compelling, the flat earth model doesn't even have a usable, relevant map, let alone work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had thousands of years to make it work.
You wish.
He's looking at something that people don't usually look at - that's why it was easy for him to prove it wrong in 90 minutes from the comfort of his home. Of course, there are hundreds of things that prove it wrong, starting with the fact that there is no measurable curvature anywhere on Earth. How about that GEOMETRY?
Yes, I suppose humans don't usually look at where and when the predictability of an eclipse totality will occur. A truly novel approach. Perhaps people just randomly show up somewhere snd get lucky...
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a06cc4c8f6a58eb5b2e552ffe96a37b171c940ba/0_0_3500_2100/master/3500.jpg?width=300&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=6b28841ab0a90528ad0262b7eee40339)
(https://i.imgur.com/Ux9DzId.gif)
And I'm guessing you have verified this random guy's findings as well. Especially comparing it to your flat earth map...Oh wait, that's right, there's no such thing as a flat earth map. I wonder how you lot get yourselves and your stuff from point A to point B without getting lost. I guess it's just by happenstance.
-
So your position is that a random guy on the web messing around with autocad and some eclipse data has single-handedly debunked centuries of heliocentric geometry in about 90 minutes, ergo, the earth is flat? And nary a Nobel to show for it? I guess I forgot that everything on the internet is true and should be taken unquestionably as such. Compelling argument.
I suppose equally compelling, the flat earth model doesn't even have a usable, relevant map, let alone work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had thousands of years to make it work.
Yes, I suppose humans don't usually look at where and when the predictability of an eclipse totality will occur. A truly novel approach. Perhaps people just randomly show up somewhere snd get lucky...
And I'm guessing you have verified this random guy's findings as well. Especially comparing it to your flat earth map...Oh wait, that's right, there's no such thing as a flat earth map. I wonder how you lot get yourselves and your stuff from point A to point B without getting lost. I guess it's just by happenstance.
Stack, take your crap where it belongs, unless you're requesting another vacation. This is the nicest I'll ever be to you on this subject.
-
[
You wish.
He's looking at something that people don't usually look at - that's why it was easy for him to prove it wrong in 90 minutes from the comfort of his home. Of course, there are hundreds of things that prove it wrong, starting with the fact that there is no measurable curvature anywhere on Earth. How about that GEOMETRY?
I’m not really clear what you think he proved or disproved with that video. The eclipse that he modelled, on 9 March 2016, was accurately predicted using ephemeris data, and occurred exactly at the times and places predicted, witnessed by millions of people. That his autocad model is slightly out from the prediction says more about his model than it does about the ephemeris. It’s hard to say where the error is exactly - I didn’t go through the whole thing in detail - i wonder if it might be the approximation he’s used for the elliptical orbits, but it’s hard to figure out.
I’m also not really clear why you would reject a model that is capable of predicting the location and timing of every eclipse, in favour of one that has no predictive power in that regard whatsoever.
-
[
You wish.
He's looking at something that people don't usually look at - that's why it was easy for him to prove it wrong in 90 minutes from the comfort of his home. Of course, there are hundreds of things that prove it wrong, starting with the fact that there is no measurable curvature anywhere on Earth. How about that GEOMETRY?
I’m not really clear what you think he proved or disproved with that video. The eclipse that he modelled, on 9 March 2016, was accurately predicted using ephemeris data, and occurred exactly at the times and places predicted, witnessed by millions of people. That his autocad model is slightly out from the prediction says more about his model than it does about the ephemeris. It’s hard to say where the error is exactly - I didn’t go through the whole thing in detail - i wonder if it might be the approximation he’s used for the elliptical orbits, but it’s hard to figure out.
I’m also not really clear why you would reject a model that is capable of predicting the location and timing of every eclipse, in favour of one that has no predictive power in that regard whatsoever.
It's not his model - it's NASA's model. Take a looksie at just how "slight" of an error the NASA data regarding astronomical positions produces:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35s9arfKg-A
It's a big joke.
-
[
It's not his model - it's NASA's model. Take a looksie at just how "slight" of an error the NASA data regarding astronomical positions produces:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35s9arfKg-A
It's a big joke.
No, it’s his model. He has built a model of the earth, moon and sun in autocad / 3ds and has used some data from the JPL horizons tool to populate his model. They are not the same thing. I don’t have the time to wade through all of his stuff, unfortunately, but a brief skim shows several moments where his model will differ by some amount from the ephemeris. His treatment of the elliptical orbits is one example - I dare say there may be others. How significant that will be is hard to tell.
What I do know for sure is that the eclipse he is referring to was watched by millions of people, and occurred exactly as predicted. I also note that your man has disabled comments on his video, which makes critique somewhat tricky.
-
[
It's not his model - it's NASA's model. Take a looksie at just how "slight" of an error the NASA data regarding astronomical positions produces:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35s9arfKg-A
It's a big joke.
No, it’s his model. He has built a model of the earth, moon and sun in autocad / 3ds and has used some data from the JPL horizons tool to populate his model. They are not the same thing. I don’t have the time to wade through all of his stuff, unfortunately, but a brief skim shows several moments where his model will differ by some amount from the ephemeris. His treatment of the elliptical orbits is one example - I dare say there may be others. How significant that will be is hard to tell.
What I do know for sure is that the eclipse he is referring to was watched by millions of people, and occurred exactly as predicted. I also note that your man has disabled comments on his video, which makes critique somewhat tricky.
"Some data" LOL.
Obviously they're using a different model based on real-world observations to predict how the eclipse is going to happen - they're not deriving that from the geometrical model according to NASA's astronomical data, which is what the guy in the video is doing to the T. I have to explain this to you this because obviously you didn't watch the videos - you said as much yourself. Big cognitive dissonance kicking in preventing the globe believer from paying attention as per usual.
-
"Some data" LOL.
Obviously they're using a different model based on real-world observations to predict how the eclipse is going to happen - they're not deriving that from the geometrical model according to NASA's astronomical data, which is what the guy in the video is doing to the T. I have to explain this to you this because obviously you didn't watch the videos - you said as much yourself. Big cognitive dissonance kicking in preventing the globe believer from paying attention as per usual.
Why does 'some data' trigger an 'LOL'?
So, NASA know their data is flawed, and actually use 'real world observations' (of what?) to predict the eclipse, but don't bother to retrospectively upgrade their ephemeris data. They just leave it uncorrected. I see.
I pointed out a possible flaw - his use of ellipses - do you have any thoughts on that? I didn't dig any deeper because a) that's enough of a problem and b) you've presented us with nearly 3 hours of video. If you want me to go deeper into it you could at least extend me the courtesy of addressing the point I've made.
-
Why does 'some data' trigger an 'LOL'?
Because you said "He has built a model of the earth, moon and sun in autocad / 3ds and has used some data from the JPL horizons tool to populate his model.".
You're not realizing that the data IS the model. He uses nothing but NASA's data to build it. He's literally copying and pasting the values from the NASA website, you can see it for yourself. That debunks any notion that he's building his own model.
So, NASA know their data is flawed, and actually use 'real world observations' (of what?) to predict the eclipse, but don't bother to retrospectively upgrade their ephemeris data. They just leave it uncorrected. I see.
What makes you think that they know? Most people at NASA have no idea what's going on in general. You really think that the guys predicting the eclipses are deriving that from the geometrical model? Where's your proof of that? Even if you find some text that claims that, that's not proof. Not to mention that the videos debunk that notion too.
I pointed out a possible flaw - his use of ellipses - do you have any thoughts on that? I didn't dig any deeper because a) that's enough of a problem and b) you've presented us with nearly 3 hours of video. If you want me to go deeper into it you could at least extend me the courtesy of addressing the point I've made.
Sure, I can if it makes you happy, but I don't know what you mean by that "flaw". I watched those videos years ago. You would have to explain it in detail for me to address it, and/or give me a timestamp.
But the main issue is that you're not watching the videos and you're trying to make arguments to defend the model instead.
-
Sure, I can if it makes you happy, but I don't know what you mean by that "flaw". I watched those videos years ago. You would have to explain it in detail for me to address it, and/or give me a timestamp.
But the main issue is that you're not watching the videos and you're trying to make arguments to defend the model instead.
A couple of problems that I can see right away.
If you look in the first of his videos that you posted, around the 7 minute mark, you'll see that he is doing something of a 'pick and mix'. He is taking the distances from the ephemeris data on the horizons website, but is taking his tilt and elliptical parameters from the 'Earth facts' website. The problem with that is the earth facts data is, as per its factsheet, not particularly accurate. The orbital data, for example, when he looked at it, came from the year 2000, and was a mean value of a constantly changing parameter.
The next problem builds on that - he's taken each year, divided it by two, and created two perfect ellipses, based on the 2000 average figures for eccentricity and the ephemeris figures for the range from the sun, with a correction made in the second ellipse to bring the finish point into alignment with the distance from the sun of the following January. The problem is that the ellipse the earth is on changes constantly - doing it in the way he's done is a simplification. It's a small amount of error, but when you're trying to predict eclipses it will be enough to throw the result.
He is then triumphantly wondering why the moon and sun are not precisely where they were predicted to be according to the azimuth and elevation figures at, for example, the eclipse. If he'd have used one of the coordinate datasets - those are tick options on the menu of parameters on the horizons page - for the actual position of the earth and moon, with respect to the sun, instead of trying to build his ellipses the way he did, then I suspect he'd have achieved 'better' results, if indeed that's what he wanted to happen.
They may be other errors in there too. I'm not going to wade through 3 hours to find them.
-
Sure, I can if it makes you happy, but I don't know what you mean by that "flaw". I watched those videos years ago. You would have to explain it in detail for me to address it, and/or give me a timestamp.
But the main issue is that you're not watching the videos and you're trying to make arguments to defend the model instead.
A couple of problems that I can see right away.
If you look in the first of his videos that you posted, around the 7 minute mark, you'll see that he is doing something of a 'pick and mix'. He is taking the distances from the ephemeris data on the horizons website, but is taking his tilt and elliptical parameters from the 'Earth facts' website. The problem with that is the earth facts data is, as per its factsheet, not particularly accurate. The orbital data, for example, when he looked at it, came from the year 2000, and was a mean value of a constantly changing parameter.
The next problem builds on that - he's taken each year, divided it by two, and created two perfect ellipses, based on the 2000 average figures for eccentricity and the ephemeris figures for the range from the sun, with a correction made in the second ellipse to bring the finish point into alignment with the distance from the sun of the following January. The problem is that the ellipse the earth is on changes constantly - doing it in the way he's done is a simplification. It's a small amount of error, but when you're trying to predict eclipses it will be enough to throw the result.
He is then triumphantly wondering why the moon and sun are not precisely where they were predicted to be according to the azimuth and elevation figures at, for example, the eclipse. If he'd have used one of the coordinate datasets - those are tick options on the menu of parameters on the horizons page - for the actual position of the earth and moon, with respect to the sun, instead of trying to build his ellipses the way he did, then I suspect he'd have achieved 'better' results, if indeed that's what he wanted to happen.
They may be other errors in there too. I'm not going to wade through 3 hours to find them.
Are you seriously saying that the tilt angle and the orbital eccentricity have changed significantly from 2000 to 2015?
"It's a small amount of error, but when you're trying to predict eclipses it will be enough to throw the result.". If you really think so, prove it. Even if what you're saying could hypothetically explain the disparity in the 1st video, it explains nothing regarding the conclusions of the 2nd video. Saying "there may be other errors in there too" is meaningless, it's just you hoping and praying that there are so you can dismiss the conclusions.