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 - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 307  Next >
1
Flat Earth Media / NASA: Going Nowhere Since 1958
« on: Today at 06:53:44 AM »
To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the moon landing Jeran Campanella explores the interesting history of NASA and it's relationship with politics since its inception in 1958. The film features several rarely seen clips, such as from president Kennedy speaking semi-privately about how he didn't really care about space, the Moon, or research, only the international order and defense implications.

Runtime: 1h


2
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 20, 2019, 05:23:26 PM »
Quote
The theory of gravity is a mathematical interpretation of what we observe in nature. Gravity can be demonstrated, but I don't think there is an absolute proof of the law of gravity, if that is what you are asking. 

I'm asking for a reference that gravitational mass is defined as static and unchanging in all environments.

Quote
I'm sure you also know what Occam's Razor is. Gravity is a much simpler explanation than UA, because UA requires us to believe in additional things to what we observe.

I didn't observe any gravitons, bendy space, or any spooky action-at-a-distance mechanism when I stepped off a chair and observed the earth accelerate up towards me. Please tell me which scientific instrument I need to buy that will observe this.

3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 20, 2019, 02:28:33 PM »
From Encyclopedia Britannica:
Quote
Gravitational mass is determined by the strength of the gravitational force experienced by the body when in the gravitational field g.
Move the body to a different gravitational field and you will get a different force. But the mass remains the same.

Do you guys have a source that gravitational mass is unchanging and permenant in every environment, or do you have only your own opinion?

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elevator question
« on: July 20, 2019, 01:52:56 AM »
So the earth is accelerating, thanks
At 32.2 ft/sec^2 it would be traveling at c (speed of light) in 353 days.
In the last 100 years 100c

The standard model of Special Relativity allows for continual acceleration without reaching c. Frames of reference and lack of absolute coordinates.

If we discard SR due to experimental evidence which seems to contradict it, then there is no speed limit.

It's not really a problem either way.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 19, 2019, 09:24:24 PM »
Dr. Croca closes the above cited paper with this (the paragraph after the one you cited above about velocities greater than c):

"As a final note, I would like to stress that these observed facts in any way deny the usefulness of relativity. Relativity is a good approach to describe reality at its proper scale of applicability. What is quite wrong is to claim that relativity is the last, the complete and final theory ever devised by mankind."

So he's not saying relativity is falsified. He's saying it isn't the last theory on the matter. Who wouldn't agree with that? Literally no one.

It sounds like he gave up and is admitting that SR cannot explain why some of its defining postulates are violated in experiment.

He is somehow suggesting that SR only applies to the 'proper scale' of explaining the Michelson-Morley, Airy's Failure, and other motionless earth experiments, but does not apply to the laboratory experiments which show that the speed of light is c +/- v.

Back to the drawing board!

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 19, 2019, 09:04:44 PM »
It says that light 'may' travel faster than c because, depending on which direction things are moving it 'may' also travel slower than c. The Sagnac-type devices show that the speed of light is c +/- velocity.

On the topic of Sagnac from Al Kelly's book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=XVLmihZnsvUC&lpg=PA64&dq=%22Sagnac%22%20%22faster%20than%20c%22&pg=PA64#v=onepage&q&f=false



See the last sentence.

Dr. Gezari in his "Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector" shows us that Special Relativity is a theory of limited experimental validity and casts doubt on the invariance of c postulate (the same light consistency postulate used to justify the MM and AF experiments).

https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3818

Quote
ABSTRACT

A search of the literature reveals that none of the five new optical effects predicted by the special
theory of relativity have ever been observed to occur in nature. In particular, the speed of light (0)
has never been measured directly with a moving detector to validate the invariance of c to motion of
the observer, a necessary condition for the Lorentz invariance of c.
The invariance of c can now
only be inferred from indirect experimental evidence. It is also not Widely recognized that essentially
all of the experimental support for special relativity in the photon sector consists of null results.
The experimental basis for special relativity in the photon sector is summarized, and concerns about
the completeness, integrity and interpretation of the present body of experimental evidence are
discussed.

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the most reassuring things we know about modern physics is that the special theory
of relativity has faced a century of experimental challenges, and passed every test. This is
generally understood to mean that every aspect of special relativity has been tested and
validated, beyond any doubt. But all it really means is that every aspect of special
relativity that has been tested has passed the test. This prompts the question, what has
been tested and what has not?

Contrary to the popular view, a search of the literature reveals that the experimental basis
for the special theory of relativity in the photon sector is not robust.

....

2.1. Invariance of c.

There are two necessary conditions for the local Lorentz invariance of c: invariance to
motion of the source and invariance to motion of the observer. Satisfaction of these two
conditions is both necessary and sufficient to validate the invariance of c. Invariance to
motion of the emitting source — Einstein’s second postulate has been convincingly
validated experimentally (Section 3.1). But conspicuously absent from the experimental
record is any published attempt to directly measure the speed of light with a moving
detector to test the invariance of c to motion of the observer.

The experimental validation of the invariance of c is plagued by misconceptions and errors
of interpretation. There is a common misconception that Einstein’s second postulate says
that c is invariant to ‘motion of the source and motion of the observer" and it is
incorrectly presented this way in most textbooks. But the second postulate says nothing
about the observer: “Light is propagated in empty space with a definite velocity 0 which
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body” (Einstein 1905). The second
postulate was not a new idea in 1905 and it is not unique to special relativity (recall that
the classical wave theory of light also holds that c is invariant to motion of the emitting
source). So observations of moving sources cannot discriminate between special relativity
and the old ether hypothesis, and do not favor one over the other. Of course, it could be
argued that experiments with moving sources and moving observers should be equivalent
and indistinguishable, so the second postulate would apply to the observer as well as to
the source. But in other phenomena involving propagating light (e.g., the Doppler effect
in an optical medium, stellar aberration) motion of the source and motion of the observer
have entirely independent consequences. To claim that source and observer motions are
equivalent without experimental confirmation would be invoking the theory to validate
itself.
Observations of moving sources certainly cannot validate the universal Lorentz
invariance of 0 without observations with moving detectors, or at least experimental
validation of the equivalence of source and observer motions for propagating light, and
these things have not yet been accomplished.

...

It would seem that elements of the classical Sagnac effect conflict directly with special
relativity, however, the prevailing view is that the rotating instrument is a non—inertial
system to which special relativity does not apply (as first argued by Langevin 1921). The
argument goes further to say that an observer viewing the rotating experiment from any
inertial frame would be permitted under the rules of special relativity to measure relative
speeds that differed from c, so the apparent speeds c + v and c - V of the counter—
propagating beams in the instrument frame would still be consistent with special relativity.
However, recently Wang et a1. (2003, 2004) demonstrated the Sagnac effect in a non-
rotating, inertial reference frame using a fiber optic linear motion sensor (FOLMS)
interferometer. They showed that the light travel time in a straight optical fiber in inertial
motion has a first—order dependence on the fiber speed in the local stationary frame, just as
the light travel time in a rotating Sagnac effect fiber optic gyro has a first-order
dependence on the tangential rotation speed of the fiber. The effect was obtained using
both solid and hollow (air core) fibers. If the Sagnac effect can be produced by inertial
motion then the rules of special relativity would have to be applied after all, and the linear
Sagnac experiment would violate special relativity.

...

5. CONCLUSION

Considering the weakness of the present experimental support for the invariance of c — the
fact that observations of moving sources cannot discriminate between special relativity and
the old ether hypothesis, the absence of speed-of-light measurements with moving detectors,
the lack of experimental validation of the equivalence of source and observer motions,
doubts about the interpretation of the classical ether-drift experiments, concerns about the
applicability of the modern isotropy experiments, and the fact that all of the unambiguous
tests of special relativity in the photon sector have produced null results — it cannot yet be
claimed that the local Lorentz invariance of c has been convincingly validated by
observation or experiment.

Gezari appears to agree that Wang's linear Sagnac experiment violates SR and also tells us that SR has never been validated with a moving detector in a laboratory.

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 19, 2019, 08:19:42 PM »
Quote
If you don't know all of the details on how those numbers were derived, why would you believe it?

Because my mind works different to yours Tom. Hence our reasons for believing something or not believing something are also different. You state that you will only accept something as true if it can be 'demonstrated' to the finest level of detail.  Whatever that means.

I haven't got a tape measure to hand that happens to be 1/4 million miles long so I cannot directly measure the distance to the Moon and demonstrate it. However the distance to the Moon has been more than adequately measured by many and different ways and all agree with the same figure. You can argue about that as long as you wish and point out yet more links to FE Wiki that dispute that but that will not change reality.

If you assume the Earth is flat then all sorts of experiments will yield different figures and distances etc compared to RE. If you introduce an error into a process at an early stage then that error will be carried through and out pops a wrong result at the end.  Garbage in Garbage out as they say.

I simply asked how you can believe something blindly, when you don't even know how it was derived. And you answered "because my mind works differently".

Apparently so. I like to know about what I believe and why I believe it.

8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 19, 2019, 12:25:24 PM »
Quote
I am unable to verify this personally .

If you are going to limit your acceptance of facts and figures to only those you can verify personally then you are going to run into all sorts of problems.

I can't personally verify for certain the distance to the Moon or the Sun but I know that many can and so I respect those quoted values.

If FE says the Sun is only 3000 miles away I bet you can't verify that personally either but you accept it because it happens to fall in line with a belief system that you subscribe to.

If you don't know all of the details on how those numbers were derived, why would you believe it?

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 19, 2019, 12:06:07 PM »
That's the same person. Dr. Bennett holds a Ph.D. in Physics and agrees that the experimental evidence for Heliocentrism is insufficient.

I would submit that scientists follow the experiments to their conclusions, and that pseudoscientists do not, however.

I don't know why you guys are dancing around it. It says right here by Dr. Croca:

Quote
In the book Unified Field Mechanics II we find a paper by Physicist José R. Croca, Ph.D. (bio), where we see:

  “  Since the realization of this experiment, which has been done with photons [25], electrons [26] and neutrons [27], many trials have been made to interpret the observed results seen, for instance, Selleri [28]. Indeed, Sagnac utilized the habitual linear additive rule and with that he was able to correctly predict the observed results. Still, since his prediction lead to velocities greater than c and consequently are against relativity which claims that the maximal possible velocity is c this raised a large amount of arguing. In fact, many authors tried to explain the results of the experiment in the framework of relativity which assumed that the maximal possible velocity is c. As can be seen in the literature, there are almost as many explanations as the authors that have tried to explain the results in the framework of relativity. In some cases the same author [29] presents even more than one possible explanation. The complexity of the problem stems mainly from the fact that the experiment is done in a rotating platform. In such case, there may occur a possible accelerating effect leading the explanation of the experiment to fall in the framework of general relativity.

This controversy, whether Sagnac experiment is against or in accordance with relativity, was settled recently by R. Wang et al. [30] with a very interesting experimental setup they called linear Sagac interferometer. In this case the platform is still, what moves is a single mode optical fiber coil, Fig. 12.



They did the experiment with a 50 meter length linear interferometer with wheels of 30 cm. The observed relative phase shift difference for the two beams of light following in opposite directions along the optical fiber was indeed dependent only on the length of the interferometer and consequently independent of the angular velocity of the wheels. From the experimental results obtained with the linear Sagnac interferometer one is lead to conclude that in this particular case the linear additive rule applies. Consequently we may have velocities greater than c, which clearly shows that relativity is not adequate to describe this specific physical process. ”

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 19, 2019, 10:36:46 AM »
Einstein said that light was constant for all observervers, and that this explained experiments such as Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure (Funny how there are motionless earth experiments that need to be explained). However, his explanation was directly contradicted by experiments showing that light does change velocity to different observers when motion is involved, including velocities faster than c!

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Yet, despite the explanation being directly contradicted by experiment, with the admission by mainstream sources that it does contradict relativity, the RE still cling to the belief of terrestrial motion!

However on Lijun Wang's own words:

"Einstein’s Relativity: Our experiment is not at odds with Einstein’s special relativity. The experiment can be well explained using existing physics theories that are consistent with Relativity. In fact, the experiment was designed based on calculations using existing physics theories. "

http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0007/images/1901.pdf

That is a different experiment and a different Wang. Look into Ruyong Wang's experiment:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

MMX was more than just about measuring the velocity of light.

Dorothy Michelson Livingston, Michelson's daughter, describes the experiment in The Master of Light (University of Chicago Press, 1979), her biography of her father. The following is excerpted from her book:

"In April 1887, Morely wrote his father that he and Michelson had begun a new experiment, the purpose of which was "to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions." They also hoped to learn from the experiment the speed of the Earth in orbit and in movement with the solar system; whether the ether was moving or stationary; and, most important to Michelson, some clear proof of the ether's actual existence, with which to confront skeptics.”

https://www.the-scientist.com/books-etc/michelson-morley-the-great-failure-63642

From:

On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether  (1887)
by Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Morley

"On the undulatory theory, according to Fresnel, first, the ether is supposed to be at rest except in the interior of transparent media, in which secondly, it is supposed to move with a velocity less than the velocity of the medium in the ratio, where n is the index of refraction. These two hypotheses give a complete and satisfactory explanation of aberration. The second hypothesis, notwithstanding its seeming improbability, must be considered as fully proved, first, by the celebrated experiment of Fizeau,[2] and secondly, by the ample confirmation of our own work.[3] The experimental trial of the first hypothesis forms the subject of the present paper."

Learning about the motion of the earth and whether aether was stationary or not would have been derived from studying the velocity of light. There were no alternative theories at the time which held that light would not change velocity.

It was assumed that light would change velocities on a moving platform, like a bullet would hit you from a higher velocity if fired from a moving train that was approaching you. This was a correct assumption. It can and does, to even velocities greater than c. The error is assuming that the earth was an object in (horizontal) motion.

Einstein said that light was constant for all observervers, and that this explained experiments such as Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure (Funny how there are motionless earth experiments that need to be explained). However, his explanation was directly contradicted by experiments showing that light does change velocity to different observers when motion is involved, including velocities faster than c!

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Yet, despite the explanation being directly contradicted by experiment, with the admission by mainstream sources that it does contradict relativity, the RE still cling to the belief of terrestrial motion!

There is no motion faster than the speed of light. And light appears to travel at the speed of light for every observer.

What you just claim is incorrect.

Also, the referenced paper in the link you shown does not mention any speed >c at all. Just check yourself.

Look at the quote by Dr. Croca in that link.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 19, 2019, 06:31:48 AM »
Einstein said that light was constant for all observervers, and that this explained experiments such as Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure (Funny how there are motionless earth experiments that need to be explained). However, his explanation was directly contradicted by experiments showing that light does change velocity to different observers when motion is involved, including velocities faster than c!

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Yet, despite the explanation being directly contradicted by experiment, with the admission by mainstream sources that it does contradict relativity, the RE still cling to the belief of terrestrial motion!

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 19, 2019, 06:19:36 AM »
Quote
Incorrect. That experiment was to determine if the aether is a background medium of space which light flows through.

Kindly read the article. The experiment is merely measuring the velocity of light. Aether is just a medium for light like ripples in water.

Quote
Morley wrote to his father that the purpose of the experiment was “to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions.”

Quote
https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/ (Archive)

Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet

  “ Physicists in Germany have performed the most precise Michelson-Morley experiment to date, confirming that the speed of light is the same in all directions. The experiment, which involves rotating two optical cavities, is about 10 times more precise than previous experiments – and a hundred million times more precise than Michelson and Morley’s 1887 measurement. ”

The purpose is to measure the speed of light in different directions.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 19, 2019, 06:06:10 AM »
Quote
You do seem to cling on to all the 'ancient reasonings' when it comes to astronomy and all things celestial don't you Tom. While ignoring all the progress that has been made since then which has changed our interpretations and understanding of the subject.

I believe that I just mentioned an experiment, Sagnac and Wang, which directly contradicted the explanation given for the motionless earth experiments, and it was you who ignored them.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Funny how we are in the position of the existence of motionless earth experiments and physcists needing to come up with ways to explain them.


These three experiments don't seem to agree with Heliocentrism:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment


This experiment was to determine if the aether exists or not. Scientists back them mostly believed that the aether exists. But with science (unlike flat earth), you just don't believe, but you have to verify your assumption experimentally. That is the Michelson-Morley_Experiment.

To the great surprise of the scientists, the experiment did not confirm the existence of the aether. The aether does not exist!

But, as scientists (unlike flat earthers), they have to adapt to the new knowledge that the ether does not exist. The solution of the problem the scientists wanted to understand with the aether was finally resolved with Einsteins special theory of relativity.

Aether was merely the background medium of space which light flowed through. It was needed for the same reason that sound needs air for propagation.

The experiment was to test the velocity of light and see how it changed due to the motion of the earth. The velocity of light did not change. The earth appeared to be motionless. So Einstein did away with the aether and came up with an alternative explanation.

Unfortunately the explanation is directly contradicted by multiple experiments which do show that the velocity of light changes when motion is involved.   :(

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 19, 2019, 02:48:04 AM »
Aether was just postulated as the background medium to space which light travels through, like sound through the air or ripples through the water. A wave needs a medium to propagate through, so it was deducted that space was not truly empty.

Morley wrote to his father that the purpose of the MM experiment was “to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions.” The result was that it did travel the same velocity in all (horizontal) directions.

But how could that be if the earth is in motion?

The RE explanation (SR) that was given; that light is consistent in speed for all observers, was contradicted by the Sagnac and Wang experiments, where light does change velocity for different observers, even to velocities greater than c: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Quote
However, he never demonstrated that Earth is a planet.

So what to your mind then Tom is the definition of a planet?  And hence from that how exactly do you 'demonstrate' a planet to someone?

A planet has been historically defined as a 'wandering star'. It was mainly through ancient reasoning that it was deduced that Earth was a similar wandering body in the solar system which we observe above us.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 18, 2019, 09:05:39 PM »
The Retrograde Motion of the planets was determined by Copernicus. The planets are moving around the Sun to make those shapes.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Retrograde_Motion_of_the_Planets

However, he never demonstrated that Earth is a planet.

I am all in favour of seeking alternative models/theories when it is necessary to 'fill in the holes'. For example Newtonian gravity survived adequately until the early 20th century when Einsteins GTR proved to be a better explanation overall. Our understanding of gravity had evolved and so had to be refined.  That is what science is all about.

As far as I know the heliocentric model of the solar system where the Earth rotates on its axis and orbits the Sun has been doing a pretty good job of explaining the events and phenomenon that we see in the night sky. So where is the need for an alternative approch like FET? You cannot make a base pre-assertion (that the Earth is flat for example) and then try to work everything we see and experience so that it fits in with that pre-assertion.

Certain observations, such as the retrograde motion of the (superior) planets that ChrisTP describes above is explained simply and logically in heliocentrism where as FET seems to have to produce all sorts or weird and complex geometrical shapes and patterns to create the same effect.

These three experiments don't seem to agree with Heliocentrism:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment
https://wiki.tfes.org/Airy%27s_Failure
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment

The Wang Experiment appears to directly contradict the RE explanation for the MM and AF experiments.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 18, 2019, 06:05:37 AM »
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.

17
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Additions to the Library
« on: July 17, 2019, 10:19:27 PM »
This one is more of an educational resource on the history of Flat Earth Theory through the ages:

The Earliest Cosmologies: The Universe as Pictured in Thought by the Ancient Hebrews, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Iranians, and Indo-Aryans. A Guidebook for Beginners in the Study of Ancient Literatures and Religions.

"In the judgment of those who have seen it the following treatise sheds a new light on not a few important questions. It ought to prove helpful to all students of ancient thought, preeminently to all teachers of ancient literatures. It deals with a theme fundamental beyond all others. Back of every religion, and of every philosophy or science worthy of the name, lies a "world-view"--a concept in which are included all localities and all beings supposed in that religion or philosophy or science to exist. In proportion to its clearness and completeness, it in every case groups and mentally pictures these localities and beings in certain relations to each other, and thus also in their total unity as a universe. The science which critically investigates and expounds the world- view of any people, or of any system of doctrine, is called Cosmology; the branch which does this for a group or class of world-concepts is known as Comparative Cosmology. The present work may be regarded as an introduction to this fascinating study."

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 17, 2019, 07:46:00 PM »
rpt said: "You seem to be confusing gravitational mass with weight. On Jupiter an object will weigh more than it does on earth but its gravitational mass will stay the same."

What is the difference between gravitational mass and weight, if gravitational mass is determined by weight as measured by a scale? If gravitational mass is connected to weight, then on Jupiter an object will have a greater gravitational mass, even if the ratios between the weight of other masses stays the same.

Can we have a quote and a source for these assertions that gravitational mass never changes anywhere? The assertion that "gravitational mass" never changes, and is the same on Earth, on Jupiter, and on the Moon—always unchanging—is something that I would like to request a source on, as it goes against everything I have learned on the subject. Clearly, there is no gravitational mass in weightless space, so it cannot be unchanging.

A Study Packet

Quote
Transport the spring balance and the inertial balance to the elevator and determine whether the gravitational mass and the inertial mass can be detected to change as the elevator descends. These determinations shouldonly be attempted after the students are relatively accomplished in usingtheir spring and inertial balances. [The gravitational mass will change but not the inertial mass.]

From A Dictionary of Scientists

Quote
The gravitational mass depends on forces of gravitational attraction between two masses.

From flash cards based on a physics course:

Quote
Q: How are gravitational mass and inertial mass alike and how are they different?

A: Gravitational mass depends on an objects gravitational pull and inertial remains the same.

Physics Final:

Quote
Gravitational mass: depends on the strength of the force exerted upon it by the gravitational field

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

Quote
Gravitational mass is determined by the strength of the gravitational force experienced by the body when in the gravitational field g.

I cannot seem to find anything which states that gravitational mass is universal and unchanging, or see anything about ratios. However, I do find sources which appear to directly state that gravitational mass is determined by the strength of the gravitational field. I submit that Encyclopedia Britannica is not mistaken.

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 17, 2019, 06:01:12 PM »
Gravity does change in different gravity environments, however. Thus gravitational mass will not be equal to inertial mass.
You seem to be confusing gravitational mass with weight. On Jupiter an object will weigh more than it does on earth but its gravitational mass will stay the same.

Can you provide a source for that statement?

This source says that gravitational mass is determined by a weight scale:

Quote
Gravitational mass is the mass of a body as determined by its response to the force of gravity, such as done on a balance scale.

...

Summary

Gravitational mass of an object is determined by using a balance scale to compare its mass with a unit mass. Inertial mass is the measurement of the mass of an object measured by its resistance to acceleration. Gravitational mass and inertial mass have been shown to be equivalent.

Weight is defined as the force of gravity on a mass. A spring scale can be used to measure weight.

https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae305.cfm

Quote
Gravitational mass is measured by comparing the force of gravity of an unknown mass to the force of gravity of a known mass. This is typically done with some sort of balance scale.

http://www.bozemanscience.com/ap-phys-010-gravitational-mass

Quote
Paul Andersen explains how the gravitational mass is a measure of the force on an object in a gravitational field. The gravitational mass is based on the amount of material in an object and can be measured to a standard kg using a balance.

On Jupiter an object will weigh more... therefore that object will have a greater gravitational mass.

On another note, an interesting quote from Wikipedia is found:

Quote
Inertial vs. gravitational mass

Although inertial mass, passive gravitational mass and active gravitational mass are conceptually distinct, no experiment has ever unambiguously demonstrated any difference between them. In classical mechanics, Newton's third law implies that active and passive gravitational mass must always be identical (or at least proportional), but the classical theory offers no compelling reason why the gravitational mass has to equal the inertial mass. That it does is merely an empirical fact.

Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity starting with the assumption of the intentionality of correspondence between inertial and passive gravitational mass, and that no experiment will ever detect a difference between them, in essence the equivalence principle.

'Gravitational mass' does not exist, only inertial mass.

https://www.echaandscience.com/the-post-modern-modification-of-the-weak-equivalence-principle/

Quote
The characteristics of gravitational mass are the same as that of inertial mass.

20
They ask "Can the genie ever be put back into the bottle?"

Yes. By producing independent, repeatable, and conclusive evidence that the earth is a globe.
Surely that exists with the WGS-84 model?

Are you talking about the system with the small flat maps? https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

I don't see what that has to do with the video in the thread.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 307  Next >