Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - MonkeyButz

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: January 03, 2014, 01:28:54 PM »
Ummm...  No.  The gravitational influences of the sun and moon (tidal forces) can and do affect the actual value of g (the local gravitational field).  With a scale sensitive enough, you can actually measure the changes of g during the course of a day.

The concern isn't about rapid fluctuations, it's about how the local environment can affect readings.  The magnetic field of the earth, atmospheric pressure and buoyancy, tidal forces from the sun and moon are not rapid fluctuations, but can all have some tiny effect on the weight of the reference mass.  The real question is which of those influences are significant enough to affect the actual reading?

According to Wikipedia the daily gravitational fluctuation caused by the Sun and the Moon is only 0.000002 g0.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the scale used in the experiment is not capable of detecting this magnitude of gravitational shift.

Also, it is ABSOLUTELY about rapid fluctuations because the scale is tared.  When you tare the empty scale, it compensates for all of the magnetic fields and atmospheric pressure and tidal forces, etc...  So, these forces would have to change, between the time that the scale is tared and the time that the gnome's weight is calculated to have an effect of the gnome's reading.  Here is an example to illustrate:  The scale is tared with a 10g weight on it, so the scale resets itself to 0.  You place the gnome on the scale next to the 10g weight and take a reading.  Does the scale show the weight of the gnome or the weight of the gnome plus 10g?  It shows only the weight of the gnome.  The weight would have to be removed or more weight added BEFORE the reading was taken for it to be affected.  Tidal forces and atmospheric pressure, et al. just don't change enough in 10 seconds to affect the readings, so it's a moot point.  Which is actually the WHOLE reason for taring a scale, to make all of those things moot.

Which brings me to Tom's point about all of these wind-swept areas where all of the experiments have been performed.  It's Occam's Razor, once again.  What's more plausible?  That the Earth's gravitation field is causing the weight fluctuations to match the Gnome's position on the Earth or that in EVERY place the the gnome was weighed, there just happened to be a gust of wind that was exactly and correctly altering the readings of the scale to match what is predicted by the gravitational calculations?  That's pretty amazing timing by all of that wind in all of those different places on all of those different days, even inside buildings, wouldn't you say?

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 24, 2013, 02:41:53 PM »
Am I the only one here who knows what it means to tare a scale?  The only way that the gravitational pull of the Moon or the Sun would be relevant here is if they caused rapid fluctuations that happened in the time it takes for the scale to take a reading or in the time between when they tare the scale and when they put the gnome on the scale.  Here is the thing with an electronic scale, though:  It waits for the weight to stop fluctuating before giving a reading or giving an error.  So, if there were fluctuations in the gravitational fields or magnetic fields or air pressure or whatever that could actually influence the experiment at the resolution of the scale, it wouldn't be proving data in the first place.  You can try this if you have an electronic bathroom scale at home.  Try to get it to provide a reading while repeatedly and rapidly stepping on and off of the scale.  If it has any sophistication nearing the level of the scale in the experiment, it will give you an error.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« on: December 23, 2013, 01:34:35 PM »
Yes, the gnome experiment is not controlled to the level of a laboratory experiment, but that is not the point here.  The scale is tared, which compensates (to a degree significant with the magnitude of the experiment) for ALL of the variables that Tom is obsessed with.  The important point is that a pattern has emerged over the course of the experiment that correlates to what is predicted by calculations based on the Earth being a globe and gravity existing.

It's Occam's Razor.  Which hypothesis has the least assumptions?  That the correlation in the experiment to what is predicted by calculations based on the Earth's gravitational field is caused by the Earth's gravitational field or that the correlation is caused by fluctuations in magnetic fields and air pressures and so on?  Especially when the differences in magnetic fields and air pressure and so on between locations are nullified by pushing the Tare button on the scale.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 11, 2013, 01:46:47 PM »
This just confirms what I was talking about.  They're using the existing rocket engines to engineer new ones.  Why would they bother working with the 40 year-old equipment, if the paper designs existed?  Also, it says that in the case of the J-2X, even though they started by looking an existing unit, "it became a clean sheet design".

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: December 10, 2013, 06:34:35 PM »

The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.

This is incorrect.  The blueprints for the Saturn V are not available because they were destroyed during a routine NASA housecleaning (though I imagine that explanation will seem like part of the conspiracy to some).  With all of the advances in technology since the late '60's, you wouldn't really want to duplicate one anyways.

Pages: [1]