The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: villani on December 23, 2014, 08:31:43 PM
-
FET is dealing with gravity by accelerating the earth into space. But the things is that g is not the same everywhere ! How do you explain that ?
-
The stars have a slight gravitational pull. Some locations on earth are at a higher altitude than others, bringing the observers closer or farther from the stars. This explains why 'gravity' is less on the summit of Mt. Everest than it is in Death Valley.
In fact, it was Issac Newton who commented that this was a most serious unsatisfactory tenet of gravity. According to theory, the masses of the largest mountain ranges of the world should cause grater gravity in the Mt. Everest area. But this is not the case at all. A gravimeter does not show that gravity gets stronger when you simply bring it by a mountain. Gravitational differences are strongly correlated with the altitude of the measuring device.
Also, don't bother linking that gnome weight measuring experiment showing that different spots on earth have different levels of g. We've seen it a million times. Besides that this incredibly sensitive experiment is totally uncontrolled in inside and outside conditions, those locations are at different altitudes from each other, and therefore, different levels of g are to be expected.
-
The stars have a slight gravitational pull. Some locations on earth are at a higher altitude than others, bringing the observers closer or farther from the stars. This explains why 'gravity' is less on the summit of Mt. Everest than it is in Death Valley.
In fact, it was Issac Newton who commented that this was an unsatisfactory tenet of gravity. According to theory, the masses of the largest mountain ranges of the world should cause grater gravity in the Mt. Everest area. But this is not seen at all. A gravimeter does not show that gravity gets stronger when you simply bring it by a mountain. Gravitational differences are strongly correlated with the altitude of the measuring device.
Also, don't bother linking that gnome weight measuring experiment showing that different spots on earth have different levels of g. Besides this incredibly sensitive experiment being totally uncontrolled in inside and outside conditions, those locations are at different altitudes from each other.
Sorry, no...
GR's EP that FET invokes to explain gravity does accurately predict the lessening of g with height of the observation. Of course, you already understand some of this in that you understand time dilation (or so you seem to claim). So invoking gravity of the stars is a fantasy solution without any need within FET.
Now perhaps you'd like to explain how oil (and other resource) explores use the variation in g to discover oil fields? http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/171/
-
GR's EP that FET invokes to explain gravity does accurately predict the lessening of g with height of the observation. Of course, you already understand some of this in that you understand time dilation (or so you seem to claim). So invoking gravity of the stars is a fantasy solution without any need within FET.
If "gravity" existed, a gravimeter would detect that gravity gets stronger when you bring it near a mountain. But this is not the case. Newton and others commented on this curiosity as a failing of the gravity theory. Small differences happen seemingly all throughout the day on the gravimeter, but not when brought near large masses of the earth, and are primarily and notably seen when it is brought up and down in altitude.
This favors that the differences in 'gravity' are not coming from the mass of the earth, but from the pull of the stars!
Now perhaps you'd like to explain how oil (and other resource) explores use the variation in g to discover oil fields? http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/171/
The technology is actually a scam perpetuated by companies which specialize in selling pseudo-scientific devices to oil companies. They use "gravity sniffers" in combination other slightly more legit methods to pick the best spots for oil. The machine alone actually cannot be used without these other methods.
Please reference last year's thread on this matter on the old site: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59635.0#.VJn-vV4ACY
-
GR's EP that FET invokes to explain gravity does accurately predict the lessening of g with height of the observation. Of course, you already understand some of this in that you understand time dilation (or so you seem to claim). So invoking gravity of the stars is a fantasy solution without any need within FET.
If "gravity" existed, a gravimeter would detect that gravity gets stronger when you bring it near a mountain. But this is not the case. Newton and others commented on this curiosity as a failing of the gravity theory. Small differences happen seemingly all thought the day on the gravimeter, but not when brought near large masses of the earth, and are primarily and notably seen when it is brought up and down in altitude.
This favors that the differences in'gravity' are not coming from the mass of the earth, but from the pull of the stars!
Now perhaps you'd like to explain how oil (and other resource) explores use the variation in g to discover oil fields? http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/171/
The technology is actually a scam perpetuated by companies which specialize in selling pseudo-scientific devices to oil companies. They use "gravity sniffers" in combination other slightly more legit methods to pick the best spots for oil. The machine alone actually cannot be used without these other methods.
Please reference last year's thread on this matter on the old site: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59635.0#.VJn-vV4ACY
There was an experiment that showed evidence of a mountains gravitational influence.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment
-
There was an experiment that showed evidence of a mountains gravitational influence.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment
Miles Mathis, author of The Greatest Standing Errors in Physics and Mathematics, discusses this Mt. Schiehallion topic here: http://milesmathis.com/schie.pdf
-
GR's EP that FET invokes to explain gravity does accurately predict the lessening of g with height of the observation. Of course, you already understand some of this in that you understand time dilation (or so you seem to claim). So invoking gravity of the stars is a fantasy solution without any need within FET.
If "gravity" existed, a gravimeter would detect that gravity gets stronger when you bring it near a mountain. But this is not the case. Newton and others commented on this curiosity as a failing of the gravity theory. Small differences happen seemingly all thought the day on the gravimeter, but not when brought near large masses of the earth, and are primarily and notably seen when it is brought up and down in altitude.
This favors that the differences in'gravity' are not coming from the mass of the earth, but from the pull of the stars!
Now perhaps you'd like to explain how oil (and other resource) explores use the variation in g to discover oil fields? http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/171/
The technology is actually a scam perpetuated by companies which specialize in selling pseudo-scientific devices to oil companies. They use "gravity sniffers" in combination other slightly more legit methods to pick the best spots for oil. The machine alone actually cannot be used without these other methods.
Please reference last year's thread on this matter on the old site: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59635.0#.VJn-vV4ACY
So you reject a peer-reviewed scientific journal article as part of a scam, but stand by Robotham's erroneous experiment of firing a canon straight up to demonstrate that the earth doesn't rotate. Perhaps you could take the time to critique the KSU paper. Since it's part of the scam, you should have no problem demonstrating its error.
-
So you reject a peer-reviewed scientific journal article as part of a scam, but stand by Robotham's erroneous experiment of firing a canon straight up to demonstrate that the earth doesn't rotate. Perhaps you could take the time to critique the KSU paper. Since it's part of the scam, you should have no problem demonstrating its error.
I looked through it. The KSU paper looks at some data and makes some suggestions on how to interpret it and perhaps use it to better the finding oil, but I am afraid it does not follow the Scientific Method. The "experiment" piece of this scientific masterpiece, where the hypothesis is put to the test, is absent.
-
Also, don't bother linking that gnome weight measuring experiment showing that different spots on earth have different levels of g. We've seen it a million times. Besides that this incredibly sensitive experiment is totally uncontrolled in inside and outside conditions, those locations are at different altitudes from each other, and therefore, different levels of g are to be expected.
Tom, you still don't understand that the gnome is the control in that experiment, do you? Of course different levels of g are to be expected. The whole point of the experiment to measure those different values of g using a known reference mass (you know, the control in the experiment, A.K.A., the gnome).
-
Also, don't bother linking that gnome weight measuring experiment showing that different spots on earth have different levels of g. We've seen it a million times. Besides that this incredibly sensitive experiment is totally uncontrolled in inside and outside conditions, those locations are at different altitudes from each other, and therefore, different levels of g are to be expected.
Tom, you still don't understand that the gnome is the control in that experiment, do you? Of course different levels of g are to be expected. The whole point of the experiment to measure those different values of g using a known reference mass (you know, the control in the experiment, A.K.A., the gnome).
The gnome is at different altitudes when it travels the world. Not everywhere is at sea level. The level of the earth rises and falls. The altitude of Huston and the altitude of, say, Denver, has a difference of over 5100 feet.
-
So you reject a peer-reviewed scientific journal article as part of a scam, but stand by Robotham's erroneous experiment of firing a canon straight up to demonstrate that the earth doesn't rotate. Perhaps you could take the time to critique the KSU paper. Since it's part of the scam, you should have no problem demonstrating its error.
I looked through it. The KSU paper looks at some data and makes some suggestions on how to interpret it and perhaps use it to better the finding oil, but I am afraid it does not follow the Scientific Method. The "experiment" piece of this scientific masterpiece, where the hypothesis is put to the test, is absent.
You're wrong. The paper presents a hypothesis and shows that it fits the experimental data. How could you possibly miss that?
Tell me what did you think of how the third-order residuals were handled. I thought the author handled and explained those very well.
-
You're wrong. The paper presents a hypothesis and shows that it fits the experimental data. How could you possibly miss that?
Tell me what did you think of how the third-order residuals were handled. I thought the author handled and explained those very well.
A hypothesis on how the data can be interpreted is meaningless if there is no experiment to demonstrate that hypothesis. That is the heart of the Scientific Method. They even teach it to children in gradeschool.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2cmut5v.png)
-
This from the guy that said proving something was part of the scientific process?
-
This from the guy that said proving something was part of the scientific process?
The entire purpose of science is to prove something. Otherwise, what are we doing?
-
The gnome is at different altitudes when it travels the world. Not everywhere is at sea level. The level of the earth rises and falls. The altitude of Huston and the altitude of, say, Denver, has a difference of over 5100 feet.
And yet the mass of the gnome remains the same, regardless of the altitude or location. This is why the gnome is the control that makes this a controlled experiment.
-
This from the guy that said proving something was part of the scientific process?
The entire purpose of science is to prove something. Otherwise, what are we doing?
Its to conclude something, to say, this is the best possible explanation for what we observe, but its impossible to prove something. I mean we can get into semantics and all, but the reason I posted this was because in another thread he took a very hard line definition of what science was meant to do. Prove something is impossible, but to say this is the best explanation for what we observe is quite possible, and leaves science open to do what it does best, be tested time and again.
I found it rather amusing that in another thread he then posts a graphic that clearly omits proving anything, but only concluding and reporting.
-
This from the guy that said proving something was part of the scientific process?
The entire purpose of science is to prove something. Otherwise, what are we doing?
Its to conclude something, to say, this is the best possible explanation for what we observe, but its impossible to prove something. I mean we can get into semantics and all, but the reason I posted this was because in another thread he took a very hard line definition of what science was meant to do. Prove something is impossible, but to say this is the best explanation for what we observe is quite possible, and leaves science open to do what it does best, be tested time and again.
I found it rather amusing that in another thread he then posts a graphic that clearly omits proving anything, but only concluding and reporting.
Yes, let's get into semantics. Science attempts to conclude something, which is then taken as a proof until further science invalidates it or keeps supporting it. Either way, we're getting into semantics here but I think you understand the point of what Tom and I are saying.
-
Its to conclude something, to say, this is the best possible explanation for what we observe, but its impossible to prove something. I mean we can get into semantics and all, but the reason I posted this was because in another thread he took a very hard line definition of what science was meant to do. Prove something is impossible, but to say this is the best explanation for what we observe is quite possible, and leaves science open to do what it does best, be tested time and again.
I found it rather amusing that in another thread he then posts a graphic that clearly omits proving anything, but only concluding and reporting.
The word proof is not absolute. Look at how "proof" is used in all of scientific history. Aristotle's "three proofs," etc. It is a conclusion based on evidence.
The gnome is at different altitudes when it travels the world. Not everywhere is at sea level. The level of the earth rises and falls. The altitude of Huston and the altitude of, say, Denver, has a difference of over 5100 feet.
And yet the mass of the gnome remains the same, regardless of the altitude or location. This is why the gnome is the control that makes this a controlled experiment.
Actually, the digital scale used is measuring the weight of the gnome, not the mass.
-
Actually, the digital scale used is measuring the weight of the gnome, not the mass.
??? Umm... Isn't weight defined as mass times gravity (universal acceleration)? Therefore, if one knows the mass of an object (control) and then one measures the weight of that object at a particular location, then one can calculate the value of gravity (universal acceleration) at that location, correct?
-
You're wrong. The paper presents a hypothesis and shows that it fits the experimental data. How could you possibly miss that?
Tell me what did you think of how the third-order residuals were handled. I thought the author handled and explained those very well.
A hypothesis on how the data can be interpreted is meaningless if there is no experiment to demonstrate that hypothesis. That is the heart of the Scientific Method. They even teach it to children in gradeschool.
The paper documents its experiment exceptionally well. What is your problem? The author even provides the model number of the computer used in the experiment. What more could you possibly want from him?
-
Actually, the digital scale used is measuring the weight of the gnome, not the mass.
??? Umm... Isn't weight defined as mass times gravity (universal acceleration)? Therefore, if one knows the mass of an object (control) and then one measures the weight of that object at a particular location, then one can calculate the value of gravity (universal acceleration) at that location, correct?
They send the gnome around the word with a scale, and the scale reads out different values wherever it is. Ignoring the uncontrolled nature of this incredibly sensitive experiment which is conducted by the pubic in inside and outside conditions, under who knows what kinds of pressure, wind, and static forces, we see that those locations are also at different altitudes.
Since gravitation is caused by the stars, it is to be expected that different locations, at different altitudes, have slightly different levels of g.
You're wrong. The paper presents a hypothesis and shows that it fits the experimental data. How could you possibly miss that?
Tell me what did you think of how the third-order residuals were handled. I thought the author handled and explained those very well.
A hypothesis on how the data can be interpreted is meaningless if there is no experiment to demonstrate that hypothesis. That is the heart of the Scientific Method. They even teach it to children in gradeschool.
The paper documents its experiment exceptionally well. What is your problem? The author even provides the model number of the computer used in the experiment. What more could you possibly want from him?
An ancient computer generated plot graph from a time when excel-type graphics and visualizations were notable enough to mention is hardly an experiment. It does not test the hypothesis. We expect more from you.
-
An ancient computer generated plot graph from a time when excel-type graphics and visualizations were notable enough to mention is hardly an experiment. It does not test the hypothesis. We expect more from you.
Do tell us how you determined that "excel graphics and visualizations" were notable enough to mention in 1964,
Why would the selection of tools impugn a result anyway? It's not like he's lying about using binoculars to discern children running into the water across 40 miles of a bay like you do.
On what basis do you claim that it does not test the hypothesis? He went all the way to the third order residuals. Has an FEer ever published results with statistics that found the first order residuals properly handled?
-
They send the gnome around the word with a scale, and the scale reads out different values wherever it is. Ignoring the uncontrolled nature of this incredibly sensitive experiment which is conducted by the pubic in inside and outside conditions, under who knows what kinds of pressure, wind, and static forces, we see that those locations are also at different altitudes.
Are you saying that the people weighing the gnome can't also measure the pressure, wind, miscellaneous static forces and altitude at the time of the weighing?
Since gravitation is caused by the stars, it is to be expected that different locations, at different altitudes, have slightly different levels of g.
Then how would you suggest measuring the gravitational effects of the celestial bodies?
-
This from the guy that said proving something was part of the scientific process?
The entire purpose of science is to prove something. Otherwise, what are we doing?
Its to conclude something, to say, this is the best possible explanation for what we observe, but its impossible to prove something. I mean we can get into semantics and all, but the reason I posted this was because in another thread he took a very hard line definition of what science was meant to do. Prove something is impossible, but to say this is the best explanation for what we observe is quite possible, and leaves science open to do what it does best, be tested time and again.
I found it rather amusing that in another thread he then posts a graphic that clearly omits proving anything, but only concluding and reporting.
Yes, let's get into semantics. Science attempts to conclude something, which is then taken as a proof until further science invalidates it or keeps supporting it. Either way, we're getting into semantics here but I think you understand the point of what Tom and I are saying.
No, I understand the point you are making, and the point Tom is making in this thread.
However in another thread he wanted to take prove very literally. General Relativity can't prove that space is bending due to mass.
With you saying that of course prove in the scientific sense means to simply conclude something best fits the evidence would fly in the face of that, I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of Tom using one definition of the goal of science in one thread, to prove beyond a doubt something, and a completely different definition in another thread, to simply conclude something that best fits the evidence.
But, I digress. I actually rather like you Vaux, don't want to come off like I am attacking you everywhere I go. Merry Christmas!
-
No hard feelings at all, Lemmi. Things can get heated up here in the upper fora, but that is not indicative of my disposition towards you or anyone else. It's nice to have a new active RE'er.
I'll have to check out Tom's claim and see what he meant. I guess I missed it.
-
An ancient computer generated plot graph from a time when excel-type graphics and visualizations were notable enough to mention is hardly an experiment. It does not test the hypothesis. We expect more from you.
Do tell us how you determined that "excel graphics and visualizations" were notable enough to mention in 1964,
Why would the selection of tools impugn a result anyway? It's not like he's lying about using binoculars to discern children running into the water across 40 miles of a bay like you do.
On what basis do you claim that it does not test the hypothesis? He went all the way to the third order residuals. Has an FEer ever published results with statistics that found the first order residuals properly handled?
A computer generated visualization of the data is not an experiment which tests to see if the hypothesis can find oil under the earth.
They send the gnome around the word with a scale, and the scale reads out different values wherever it is. Ignoring the uncontrolled nature of this incredibly sensitive experiment which is conducted by the pubic in inside and outside conditions, under who knows what kinds of pressure, wind, and static forces, we see that those locations are also at different altitudes.
Are you saying that the people weighing the gnome can't also measure the pressure, wind, miscellaneous static forces and altitude at the time of the weighing?
They're not measuring those things. The people they are sending the scale and gnome to are members of the public.
-
A computer generated visualization of the data is not an experiment which tests to see if the hypothesis can find oil under the earth.
It is when you use that simulation data to decide where to drill for oil.
They're not measuring those things. The people they are sending the scale and gnome to are members of the public.
Are you saying that the organizers of the experiment don't think to include procedural instructions on how to properly make the measurements and submit the results?
-
A computer generated visualization of the data is not an experiment which tests to see if the hypothesis can find oil under the earth.
It is when you use that simulation data to decide where to drill for oil.
It's not a simulation of the hypothesis. It's a simulation of the data used to make the hypothesis. And even if it were a simulation of the hypothesis, which it is not, a computer simulation does not test the hypothesis that oil will be found if such tactics are used.
Are you saying that the organizers of the experiment don't think to include procedural instructions on how to properly make the measurements and submit the results?
Correct.
-
A computer generated visualization of the data is not an experiment which tests to see if the hypothesis can find oil under the earth.
It is when you use that simulation data to decide where to drill for oil.
It's not a simulation of the hypothesis. It's a simulation of the data used to make the hypothesis. And even if it were a simulation of the hypothesis, which it is not, a computer simulation does not test the hypothesis that oil will be found if such tactics are used.
Maybe not, but drilling where the data says that there is oil most certainly does test the hypothesis.
Are you saying that the organizers of the experiment don't think to include procedural instructions on how to properly make the measurements and submit the results?
Correct.
Have you personally participated in this experiment?
-
A computer generated visualization of the data is not an experiment which tests to see if the hypothesis can find oil under the earth.
It is when you use that simulation data to decide where to drill for oil.
It's not a simulation of the hypothesis. It's a simulation of the data used to make the hypothesis. And even if it were a simulation of the hypothesis, which it is not, a computer simulation does not test the hypothesis that oil will be found if such tactics are used.
Maybe not, but drilling where the data says that there is oil most certainly does test the hypothesis.
Are you saying that the organizers of the experiment don't think to include procedural instructions on how to properly make the measurements and submit the results?
Correct.
Have you personally participated in this experiment?
If you want to argue that a gnome-related publicity stunt is sufficient proof of gravitational anomalies, the burden of proof is on you. Can you demonstrate that they did include such instructions and that participants followed them in a controlled, demonstrable fashion?
-
If you want to argue that a gnome-related publicity stunt is sufficient proof of gravitational anomalies, the burden of proof is on you. Can you demonstrate that they did include such instructions and that participants followed them in a controlled, demonstrable fashion?
Would you please clarify your position? Do you contend that in FET g does, or does not, vary inversely proportionally with altitude (as measured from the "center" plane of the FE) squared. Both USGS observations and the EP support that variance. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0239-95/fs-0239-95.pdf (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0239-95/fs-0239-95.pdf)
-
If you want to argue that a gnome-related publicity stunt is sufficient proof of gravitational anomalies, the burden of proof is on you. Can you demonstrate that they did include such instructions and that participants followed them in a controlled, demonstrable fashion?
Would you please clarify your position? Do you contend that in FET g does, or does not, vary inversely proportionally with altitude (as measured from the "center" plane of the FE) squared. Both USGS observations and the EP support that variance. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0239-95/fs-0239-95.pdf (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0239-95/fs-0239-95.pdf)
My statement was only related to the Gnome experiment, which was a dumb and meaningless experiment and should not be considered evidence of anything at all.
For the record my position is that gravitational anomalies are possible, but unlikely. Gravitational anomalies are not variation due to altitude. All theories of FET adequately explain variation due to altitude. In AWT, it's an aetheric effect. Gravitational anomalies are, as well, should they exist.
-
If you want to argue that a gnome-related publicity stunt is sufficient proof of gravitational anomalies, the burden of proof is on you. Can you demonstrate that they did include such instructions and that participants followed them in a controlled, demonstrable fashion?
Would you please clarify your position? Do you contend that in FET g does, or does not, vary inversely proportionally with altitude (as measured from the "center" plane of the FE) squared. Both USGS observations and the EP support that variance. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0239-95/fs-0239-95.pdf (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0239-95/fs-0239-95.pdf)
My statement was only related to the Gnome experiment, which was a dumb and meaningless experiment and should not be considered evidence of anything at all.
For the record my position is that gravitational anomalies are possible, but unlikely. Gravitational anomalies are not variation due to altitude. All theories of FET adequately explain variation due to altitude. In AWT, it's an aetheric effect. Gravitational anomalies are, as well, should they exist.
You do realize that high school physic labs often include direct measurement of g, right? FET need only look to the EP to understand the reason for the predicted (and measured) results even with the UA. Claiming that such variation doesn't exist is, well, rather intentionally and needlessly blind. Claiming that a never-detected substance would be responsible is putting a fifth wheel on an oxcart. See, for a lab example, https://share.ehs.uen.org/node/7955 (https://share.ehs.uen.org/node/7955)
-
If you want to argue that a gnome-related publicity stunt is sufficient proof of gravitational anomalies, the burden of proof is on you.
First of all, that is not my claim. Secondly, well known variations in g are not considered anomalies.
Can you demonstrate that they did include such instructions and that participants followed them in a controlled, demonstrable fashion?
Again, that is not my claim. I am disputing Tom's claim that the gnome experiment is not a controlled experiment.
-
The stars have a slight gravitational pull. Some locations on earth are at a higher altitude than others, bringing the observers closer or farther from the stars. This explains why 'gravity' is less on the summit of Mt. Everest than it is in Death Valley.
Could you tell us more about the stars and how they are considered in FET? Are they like the sun, but only further away? And how much further away? Are they all at the same altitude or do they have varying altitudes and they only appear at the same altitude because they are far away?
In fact, it was Issac Newton who commented that this was a most serious unsatisfactory tenet of gravity. According to theory, the masses of the largest mountain ranges of the world should cause grater gravity in the Mt. Everest area. But this is not the case at all. A gravimeter does not show that gravity gets stronger when you simply bring it by a mountain. Gravitational differences are strongly correlated with the altitude of the measuring device.
Well, to be accurate, Newton thought that the difference would be too small to be directly measurable, but he actually never did the experiment.