Tom you keep saying that gravimeters only measure seismic noise, even though the example that YOU dug up and spend the first half of this thread discussing demonstrated that the noise that is measured is 4 orders of magnitude less than the signal it was measuring.
You write them off as measuring nothing but noise, then give another example,the lacoste and bromberg set up, where they do exactly the thing you complained the first paper's authors DIDN'T do, but then write off the data because you dont understand the math they used... I'm at a loss.
UA doesnt account for the observed changes in pull measured by gravimeters when different masses are near, whether that's beneath earth's surface or directly above the instrument.
Lets recap:
- The gravimeter is incredibly sensitive to noise.
From the lacoste and bromberg document:
"The first experiments carried out in 1991 showed that
the human presence near the calibration device during the
measurements produces thermal anomalies, tilts, vibrations,
etc., significantly influencing the results. To avoid these
problems the automated version of the equipment operates
by remote control."
Very sensitive. With this sort of sensitivity there would need to be sufficient and very compelling evidence that gravity actually plays a part in the results.
- From the SG in Sweden, we saw that most of the raw signal was noise.
- When placing a weight on top of the gravimeter, the gravity signal dampened.
- When placing a massive cylinder around the gravimeter over its sides, the gravity signal dampened.
- In one anecdote above, when the large area of the roof above was covered with a bunch of snow, the gravity signal was dampened.
So far, all of this is in line with the idea that the device could be reading noise. Mass dampens noise.
In order to demonstrate that the device is actually measuring gravity, we would need more and different tests. We would need to put a mass underneath the gravimeter. If the gravimeter is just reading how noise propagates, when a mass is put underneath the gravimeter the readings should dampen like the previous examples. If it is gravity, the pull of the mass should add to the pull of the Earth and the readings should increase.
You will have a difficult time finding someone who did that, however, as they aren't really trying to prove gravity, only to describe things under existing assumptions, which is why they aren't testing much in the determinative ways we are looking for. But fortunately we already have this experiment. In practice the gravimeter gives lower readings over the continents and mountains, and higher readings over the oceans. Additional mass below the device dampens the reading.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Perplexing_AnomaliesGravity Anomalies Contrary To Theory
Bouguer Anomalies Over The Continents and Oceans (Archive) in the Journal of the Geological Society of India tells us that the anomalies are greater over the ocean than over the land, which is contrary to gravity theory:
"Why, in general, the Bouguer gravity anomalies are negative in continental areas and positive in oceanic areas? Extending the question further, why do the predominant negative and positive anomalies respectively correspond to the mountain peaks and ocean depths? Although the Bouguer gravity data are not brought on to an even datum, there is fairly a good inverse correlation of Bouguer anomalies with height/depth as well as seismic data. This obviously indicates the excess mass reflected as gravity lows and the deficit mass as gravity highs with respect to the geoid/ellipsoid surface. This is in contrast to the theory of the gravity field which is proportional to the excess or deficit mass. Mathematically speaking, the observed anomalies are proportional to the vertical gradient of gravity, indicating excess mass above the geoid as gravity lows and deficit mass below the geoid as gravity highs. If this were true, far reaching implications arise in the understanding of the theory and interpretation of Bouguer anomalies."
The anomalies are negative in continental areas and positive in oceanic areas. The anomalies are also negative in the mountains. These anomalies appear to go against the theory that the anomalies are due to the attraction of mass.
On discrepancies, one writer states:
"On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that lowdensity rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: ‘There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.’ 15
The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding."
Bouguer Anomalies - Australia
We find the following depiction of Australia's Complete Bouguer Anomalies and Free Air Anomalies on a University of California Berkeley lecture on gravimetry (Archive) p.3, showing that the unfiltered anomalies are negative over continental areas and positive over oceanic areas:
Bouguer Anomalies - Alps of Germany
https://www.leibniz-liag.de/en/research/methods/gravimetry-magnetics/bouguer-anomalies.html (Archive)
"This map shows the Bouguer anomalies over the whole of Germany and surrounding areas, in a detailed but still clear way.
...The resulting gravity anomalies vary across the mapped area from -170 mGal in the Alps to +40 mGal around the gravity low in the Magdeburg area."
The above shows that the anomalies are negative in the Alps of Germany.
So the continents and mountains act to dampen the gravity readings, rather than to increase them. This is the missing experiment that you needed to complete your theory, and the result is contradictory.