The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2018, 02:11:06 AM

Title: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2018, 02:11:06 AM
I have heard on numerous occasions that the main problem with the division of the Flat Earth groups is because of the topic of the Universal Accelerator. Flat Earthers have declared that, although they believe that the earth is flat, they think that the Flat Earth Society's idea of an upwardly accelerating earth to be farcical and ridiculous. I hold that this belief has spread simply because the facts have not been properly communicated. I have been working on a solution for this. Please read the following article:

Evidence for the Universal Accelerator (https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration)

The Universal Accelerator is, in fact, a strong piece of evidence for the Flat Earth movement. It can be shown that it is actually farcical to try and use or argue for any other form of gravity.

I would appreciate any reviews, comments, or corrections on this article. If we find that this article is sufficient I will take it to the other websites for review.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: inquisitive on November 22, 2018, 09:19:16 AM
I have heard on numerous occasions that the main problem with the division of the Flat Earth groups is because of the topic of the Universal Accelerator. Flat Earthers have declared that, although they believe that the earth is flat, they think that the Flat Earth Society's idea of an upwardly accelerating earth to be farcical and ridiculous. I hold that this belief has spread simply because the facts have not been properly communicated. I have been working on a solution for this. Please read the following article:

Evidence for the Universal Accelerator (https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration)

The Universal Accelerator is, in fact, a strong piece of evidence for the Flat Earth movement. It can be shown that it is actually farcical to try and use or argue for any other form of gravity.

I would appreciate any reviews, comments, or corrections on this article. If we find that this article is sufficient I will take it to the other websites for review.
Why does g vary?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: MattyWS on November 22, 2018, 09:32:10 AM
How does terminal velocity work in universal acceleration?

Why would the Sun and moon be exempt from the effects of their own weight (how are they not crashing down to earth)? And how is it that they orbit above the flat earth without their own form of attraction like gravity?

What are comets and meteorites? If everything is accelerating upwards how do they end up crashing down to earth?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 22, 2018, 02:22:57 PM
Emperical Reasoning -> Empirical Reasoning

Quote
Again, it is asked and pointed out to all readers, challengers, and authorities that, since a heavier object has greater resistance to being moved through space via the laws of inertia, how is it that gravity accelerates both an elephant and a book towards the earth at the same rate?
This is completely wrong. Happy to explain.

Quote
More importantly, it is also not known why there are two totally different physical definitions for inertial and gravitational mass (instead of just one).
Citation?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 22, 2018, 02:34:32 PM
The Universal Accelerator is, in fact, a strong piece of evidence for the Flat Earth movement. It can be shown that it is actually farcical to try and use or argue for any other form of gravity.
But in order to explain the change in gravity between equator and pole, the UA theory explicitly has to appeal for another form of gravity than UA (e.g. celestial gravitation, Dark Energy etc). Why is this not also farcical?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2018, 04:31:26 PM
Per the very slight differences in g, as gauged by gavimetry, at higher altitudes or between different areas, here is a paper about how gravimetry is performed. It's not a direct reading from a device. The results are averaged out over several days, and it is admitted that many different elements affect the device...

"The first absolute gravity measurements in The Netherlands"

https://ncgeo.nl/downloads/50Crombaghs.pdf

Quote
In order to be able to compare measurements from different points of time, a number of mass displacements (tides, polar motion, length of day variation) are modelled, and corrected for. Effects like ground water variations and air pressure variations are difficult to model. Therefore it is tried to limit these effects during the gravity measurements, by combining the measurements of several days.

Of course, air pressure is different at the top of a mountain and at sea level, as well as near the poles and the equator. I refer back to the thread we had involving the gnome experiment.

Here we have scientists, talking about absolute gravimeters, saying that air pressure may affect the device, and that they can't model for it. The other elements listed, such as ground water variations, may also have differences between the top of a mountain and at sea level. Again, things the researchers admit that they are unable to model for.

It's not even a "it may the device." The fact that the reading is an averaging of a statistical output to try and account for the variations tells us all we need to know.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 22, 2018, 05:16:37 PM
Per the very slight differences in g, as gauged by gavimetry, at higher altitudes or between different areas, here is a paper about how gravimetry is performed. It's not a direct reading from a device. The results are averaged out over several days, and it is admitted that many different elements affect the device...

"The first absolute gravity measurements in The Netherlands"

https://ncgeo.nl/downloads/50Crombaghs.pdf

Quote
In order to be able to compare measurements from different points of time, a number of mass displacements (tides, polar motion, length of day variation) are modelled, and corrected for. Effects like ground water variations and air pressure variations are difficult to model. Therefore it is tried to limit these effects during the gravity measurements, by combining the measurements of several days.

Of course, air pressure is different at the top of a mountain and at sea level, as well as near the poles and the equator. I refer back to the thread we had involving the gnome experiment.

Here we have scientists, talking about absolute gravimeters, saying that air pressure may affect the device, and that they can't model for it. The other elements listed, such as ground water variations, may also have differences between the top of a mountain and at sea level. Again, things the researchers admit that they are unable to model for.

It's not even a "it may the device." The fact that the reading is an averaging of a statistical output tells us all we need to know.
So to be clear, your objection is about the nature of the observation and the device etc, rather than the theory. You dispute the observational evidence. Correct? Not objecting, just trying to understand your point clearly.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2018, 05:26:41 PM
We can vividly see that the device is not reliable.

Here is a paper about Absolute Gravimetry at Antarctica:

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1190/2004-1190.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/GaVp4pb.png)

They performed the experiments at Antarctica twice, and the lower version read to a value closer to something closer the equator. Recall the gravity charts you posted in the gnome experiment thread. According to the Africa Acceleration Data you posted, 9.79 should be around the latitude of 29 or 30 degrees, not the poles.

How can that be? Is gravity wildly fluctuating? Not at all. What you are seeing are statistical averaging of the phenomena which is causing this. Again, the researchers admit that they are unable to, and do not, model for the phenomena they say affect the absolute gravimeter. The gravimetric results for the area in such studies are an averaging over several days.

Larger scale statistical averaging of the experiment may identify a trend; but there are also trends between pressure, ground water, and other things which affect the device, at high altitudes and the poles.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 22, 2018, 05:42:13 PM
There are commercially made absolute gravimeters available that can measure gravitational force with accuracy in parts per million now.  All the external factors are accounted for.  The gravitational force of the earth itself does vary some.  Anytime a large mass moves around either at ground level, above ground level, or below ground level the gravitational attraction will change.  Gravitational force is a vector.  The largest factor is the attraction of the earth itself.  However the mass inside the earth isn't homogeneous.  Much of the internal mass of the earth is molten and can flow around inside the earth.  Sometimes it comes out as lava.  The water on the earth is in constant motion as evidenced by tides. The force of gravity is well documented in the formulas.  The only variables are the masses and the distances.  If you could get all the variables to hold still for a short while the readings would be steady.  The earth is a very dynamic Oblate Spheroid and anytime you measure a dynamic object the readings will vary with time.  That doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the theory or the measurement equipment. The bottom line is that gravity works, accurate measurements can be made, and the earth is a body undergoing constant random changes.  Any objections to this assessment?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 22, 2018, 06:05:21 PM
How can that be? Is gravity wildly fluctuating? Not at all. What you are seeing are statistical averaging of the phenomena which is causing this. Again, the researchers admit that they are unable to, and do not, model for the phenomena they say affect the absolute gravimeter. The gravimetric results for the area in such studies are an averaging over several days.
That's fine, I just wanted to be clear whether you wanted to explain the phenomenon by some other force acting on gravimeters, as you argued in the other thread, or whether it is in your view an observational issue. You now say the latter. That's now clear. You think there is some error in measurement which causes the statistical effects we looked at in the other thread.

[edit] However you need to explain the sentence further down where it says "The agreement between the two occupations, separated by 3 weeks, is 1.9 +/- 3.0 microGals.

A microgal is one millionth of a Gal, where a Gal is 980 cms^2.  You might consider whether there was a typo in the statement you cite, or whether such a tremendously large discrepancy of 3 million microGals might have prompted further research.


Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2018, 06:13:08 PM
Quote from: Ron
Anytime a large mass moves around either at ground level, above ground level, or below ground level the gravitational attraction will change.

I believe that this has yet to be demonstrated. Now check this out. While the experiments with the absolute gravimeter devices are unreliable, as we saw with the information I provided above, the type of experiments used in the equivalence principle tests are incredibly reliable. Experimenters have redesigned the equivalence principle torsion balance tests to try and detect the gravity changes of the sun and the moon, and the tidal forces, set the experiment was set to run for long periods of time, and found that they could not.

(https://i.imgur.com/SUaRH7y.png)

(Source (https://books.google.com/books?id=qumVBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA176&ots=7zlmtFg8WI&dq=robert%20dicke%20%22equivalence%20principle%22%20%22variations%22%20%22the%20sun%22&pg=PA176#v=onepage&q&f=false))

The test was accurate to one part in one hundred billion. The gravitational influence of the sun, moon, or anything else, could not be detected.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 22, 2018, 06:37:17 PM
Do you agree you made a significant mistake in your earlier post, by missing a gross and obvious typo?

While the experiments with the absolute gravimeter devices are unreliable, as we saw with the information I provided above,
OK clearly not. They are reliable, as the authors state, to +/- 5 microGal. That's 5 millionths of 1 centimetre per secondsq. Why is that unreliable?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2018, 06:43:31 PM
Do you agree you made a significant mistake in your earlier post, by missing a gross and obvious typo?

While the experiments with the absolute gravimeter devices are unreliable, as we saw with the information I provided above,
OK clearly not. They are reliable, as the authors state, to +/- 5 microGal. That's 5 millionths of 1 centimetre per secondsq. Why is that unreliable?

You are arguing that a peer-reviewed paper has an obvious typo in the first sentence of the results statement, that changes the value to something wildly and profoundly different. That sounds pretty unlikely.

When they say that "The agreement between the two occupations, separated by 3 weeks, is 1.9 +/- 3.0 microGals" they are likely saying that the results of each test, each of which is a statistical averaging of readings, is reliable to that degree.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 22, 2018, 06:50:51 PM
Of course you are trying to be sneaky and compare the accuracy of the eotovos experiment with the results of a gravimeter.  Two different test objectives, two different test results.  You will have to get up a bit earlier to fool and old sailor.  It was a nice attempted diversion though. All the results in the links were over 20 years ago done with equipment that has been greatly improved.  The newer results still indicate the same thing.  Gravity of the earth varies by latitude indicating that the earth is an oblate spheroid.  Trying to argue with the results of 1000s of readings that all agree with the hypothesis doesn't bode well with anyone's credibility. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 22, 2018, 06:52:10 PM
Do you agree you made a significant mistake in your earlier post, by missing a gross and obvious typo?

While the experiments with the absolute gravimeter devices are unreliable, as we saw with the information I provided above,
OK clearly not. They are reliable, as the authors state, to +/- 5 microGal. That's 5 millionths of 1 centimetre per secondsq. Why is that unreliable?

You are arguing that a peer-reviewed paper has an obvious typo in the first sentence of the results statement, that changes the value to something wildly and profoundly different. That sounds pretty unlikely.

When they say that "The agreement between the two occupations, separated by 3 weeks, is 1.9 +/- 3.0 microGals" they are likely saying that the results of each test, each of which is a statistical averaging of readings, is reliable to that degree.

Quote
The results of the two McMurdo occupations (1 1 November 1995 and 1 December 1995) are 9.82 972 759 9 +/- (2.1 x10^-8)m/s^2 and 9.79 972 758 0 +/- (2.2 x 10^-8) respectively
Simple logic shows it’s a typo. The difference between the two readings, typo uncorrected, is 982-979 Gals, equals 3 Gals, equals 3 million microGals. Yet they say (i) the difference between those very same measurements is is 1.9 k microGals. If you correct for the typo, i.e 9.79 -> 9.82, then subtract the first number from the second, you get

759.9 - 758.0  = 1.9

i.e. 1.9 microgals. It's a typo. Moreover it's an obvious typo, which you failed to spot.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 22, 2018, 08:01:43 PM
Some more antarctic observations here
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00288306.1960.10420142
And see below for one of the tables. 982 is the big figure, with the actual observations given as a decimal addition to that. These machines are designed to unbelievable accuracy.
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/5/53/Gravity_measurement_antarctica.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 23, 2018, 08:17:42 AM
Here we have scientists
It's interesting that you trust scientists, and elsewhere you mention a "peer reviewed paper", when they say something which you think backs up your ideas.
When they say things which don't then suddenly the scientific method is bogus.
Stop cherry picking.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 23, 2018, 10:46:11 AM
the very slight differences in g, as gauged by gavimetry, at higher altitudes or between different areas
Let’s put ‘very slight differences’ into context. Gravity is measured in microGals, i.e. one millionth of 1 cm per s^2. Gravity at equator around 978 000 000 microgal, at the poles around 983 000 000 microgal. That’s a ‘very slight difference’ of 5 million, by my arithmetic.

Then you quote a paper from the Netherlands https://ncgeo.nl/downloads/50Crombaghs.pdf mentioning how air pressure can affect the gravimeter, implying that the difference in gravity between equator and pole could be down to statistical errors in the reading.

But if you had bothered to read the paper carefully, you would see they quote an air pressure effect of
Quote
0 - 20 microgal per some days
Which is also a very slight difference, i.e. up to 20 microgal, but nothing like the difference of 5 million which we see between equator and pole.
So when you talk about very slight difference you need to be really clear about what kind of very slight difference it is. 20 or 5 million??
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 23, 2018, 11:06:06 AM
Turning back to the wiki. If the treatment is to be intellectually honest, you need to deal with the subject of gravimetry, set out what the established observations are, and explain how UA deals with these. You have a choice between (1) the bounds of experimental error or (2) some other form of gravity (e.g. celestial gravity, dark energy).

With the first, you need to deal with the problem that the known range of error is a few points in one million, whereas the difference in observation runs into many millions.

With the second, you need to address the problem that UA demands only one kind of gravity, whereas the defence of it requires two.

While I am sure you can deal with these problems, it is intellectually dishonest to ignore them.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 24, 2018, 03:18:52 PM
And finally (as if all the stuff above were not enough) there is no typo in the full table on p.29 of that document.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1190/2004-1190.pdf

The table gives all the separate observations over different days in December, the average of which is 982 972 758.0

However in the summary on p.4 the same number is given as 979 972 758.0

It's the typing, not the device, which is unreliable. I once reviewed a paper by a Nobel prize winner and found such a typo. He refused to believe it at first, but I persisted. Authors make a sensible first draft, then change things by copy and paste, or add extra material particularly as a summary, and errors occur. It happens more than you would think.


Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: HorstFue on November 24, 2018, 03:49:20 PM
Quote from: Ron
Anytime a large mass moves around either at ground level, above ground level, or below ground level the gravitational attraction will change.

I believe that this has yet to be demonstrated. Now check this out. While the experiments with the absolute gravimeter devices are unreliable, as we saw with the information I provided above, the type of experiments used in the equivalence principle tests are incredibly reliable. Experimenters have redesigned the equivalence principle torsion balance tests to try and detect the gravity changes of the sun and the moon, and the tidal forces, set the experiment was set to run for long periods of time, and found that they could not.

(https://i.imgur.com/SUaRH7y.png)

(Source (https://books.google.com/books?id=qumVBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA176&ots=7zlmtFg8WI&dq=robert%20dicke%20%22equivalence%20principle%22%20%22variations%22%20%22the%20sun%22&pg=PA176#v=onepage&q&f=false))

The test was accurate to one part in one hundred billion. The gravitational influence of the sun, moon, or anything else, could not be detected.

It's not  "The gravitational influence ... could not be detected".
Quote from: s. above the diagram
The Princeton group  ... concluded that the Sun´s  gravitational acceleration on identical aluminum and gold masses was the same to one part in one hundred billion.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 24, 2018, 04:31:09 PM
Of course you can accept the results of this experiment.  Maybe there has been no errors in any of the measurements, or maybe the identical results are just a fluke, who knows?  The main issue is that the results of the experiment don't pertain to the discussion at hand.  It's just a diversion.  Shame on you.  Absolute gravimeters measure the force of gravity very accurately.  Please provide a specification for what you would consider as accurate and reliable.  That way data may be provided to meet those standards. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2018, 10:16:02 PM
Quote from: Ron
Anytime a large mass moves around either at ground level, above ground level, or below ground level the gravitational attraction will change.

I believe that this has yet to be demonstrated. Now check this out. While the experiments with the absolute gravimeter devices are unreliable, as we saw with the information I provided above, the type of experiments used in the equivalence principle tests are incredibly reliable. Experimenters have redesigned the equivalence principle torsion balance tests to try and detect the gravity changes of the sun and the moon, and the tidal forces, set the experiment was set to run for long periods of time, and found that they could not.

https://i.imgur.com/SUaRH7y.png

(Source (https://books.google.com/books?id=qumVBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA176&ots=7zlmtFg8WI&dq=robert%20dicke%20%22equivalence%20principle%22%20%22variations%22%20%22the%20sun%22&pg=PA176#v=onepage&q&f=false))

The test was accurate to one part in one hundred billion. The gravitational influence of the sun, moon, or anything else, could not be detected.

It's not  "The gravitational influence ... could not be detected".
Quote from: s. above the diagram
The Princeton group  ... concluded that the Sun´s  gravitational acceleration on identical aluminum and gold masses was the same to one part in one hundred billion.

See the whole quote:

Quote
Specifically, as the Earth spins on its axis and difference between the Sun's gravitational interaction with the two masses will result in a 24 hour modulation or oscillation, in the orientation of the balance arm as seen in the laboratory. The Princeton group found no modulation of the torsion balance, and concluded that the Sun's gravitational acceleration on identical aluminum and gold masses was the same to one part in one hundred billion.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 25, 2018, 02:48:42 AM
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11922814.pdf

It was nice to see that someone has gone to great lengths to confirm that gravitational and inertial mass are essentially the same.   

Now check out the link above and you can see some other scientists that went the extra mile in eliminating all the possible sources of error and measured the gravitational constant.  Effectively they were doing the Cavendish experiment on steroids.  The errors keep getting smaller & smaller. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 25, 2018, 10:47:18 AM
Quote
Firstly, according to Newtonian Gravity, all objects move at the same rate towards the earth uniformly. That is its defining feature, and this operates suspiciously as if the earth were accelerating upwards.
False. As already mentioned above, objects accelerate at different rates depending on their distance from the centre of the earth.

What is the force acting upon an apple at the surface of the earth, ie. 6,371,000m from the centre of the earth?

    F = G x Mass earth x Mass apple/Radius^2

Then the acceleration of the apple is the force acting on it divided by its mass

      Acceleration at surface = F / Mass apple = G x Mass earth /Radius^2

So the mass of the apple cancels out.What is the acceleration of the apple at 100m above the surface?

      Acceleration at 100m = F / Mass apple = G x Mass earth /(Radius+100m)^2

Converting to numbers, using the universal constant G = 6.674*10^-11, Radius = 6,371,000, mass of earth 5.97237*10^24, and converting to micro Gals, gives

      Acceleration at surface = 982,014,041 microGal
      Acceleration at 100m = 981,983,214 microGal
      Difference = 982,014,041- 981,983,214 = 30,827 microGal

I am using microGal as the unit of measurement because we know that modern precision gravimeters have an error of only plus/minus 5 microGal. So the difference attributable to height should be easily measured.

Now FE theory attempts to explain such differences by ‘celestial gravity’ but (i) this reintroduces the very notion that the article tries to refute and (ii) it remains unexplained why the observed differences in acceleration at different heights conform precisely to the predictions of the RE model. Note also that if celestial gravitation is the effect of Sun and Moon, which are constantly on the move, gravimeters should observe differences in acceleration over the period of the day. But no such differences are observed.

[edit] And of course no explanation is forthcoming about the dramatic effects of latitude (about 5 million microG from equator to pole). Tom's earlier objection about the accuracy of gravimeters rests upon an extraordinary error of comprehension, as shown above.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: HorstFue on November 25, 2018, 05:15:14 PM

It's not  "The gravitational influence ... could not be detected".
Quote from: s. above the diagram
The Princeton group  ... concluded that the Sun´s  gravitational acceleration on identical aluminum and gold masses was the same to one part in one hundred billion.


See the whole quote:

Quote
Specifically, as the Earth spins on its axis and difference between the Sun's gravitational interaction with the two masses will result in a 24 hour modulation or oscillation, in the orientation of the balance arm as seen in the laboratory. The Princeton group found no modulation of the torsion balance, and concluded that the Sun's gravitational acceleration on identical aluminum and gold masses was the same to one part in one hundred billion.
What's so hard to understand in this paragraph? Obviously you don't understand it. Or you are deliberately holding on to your misconceived citing.
Of course there is a gravitational interaction, but the experiment is setup this way, that only if the gravitational interaction would be different for the identical aluminum and gold masses, then there would be something else than a null result.
The whole experiment does not measure absolute gravitational forces. It measures only the difference of gravitational acceleration of  masses of equal weight but of different material.
So your post is off topic!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2018, 09:13:46 PM
edby,

How is it that the absolute gravimeters could be affected by air pressure and a number of other effects listed and described if the device utilizes a vacuum chamber?

The answer is as follows:

On analysis of the gravimeter we find that the device is not directly measuring gravitational acceleration at all. It is measuring noise and using many software algorithms to cancel out the noise. Every part of the device's components—the lasers which measure the motion, the mirrors, the springs which launch the mass up and down the small tube, and all component parts—are all connected in some manner to the earth, and are subject to noise and vibrations.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-03482-8_9

Quote
One of the most serious problems for absolute gravimeters is the vibration disturbances.

Marine Gravimeters

Below we see an example of gravimetry devices and methods for marine gravimetric surveying:

http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE2012_1237.pdf

An example is given of outputs from VSE, Accelerometer, and Gradiometer devices on a mid-size ship navigating Toyama Bay, Japan:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/3/33/Marine-Gravimeters.png)

Following the illustration we read:

Quote
FINDING GRAVITY FROM VERY NOISY DATA

In the previous section, the low-pass filter is used to find the gravity from the noisy data. We can expect
that the variation of gravity consists of components with long period, however the vibration of carrier
with short period. If this expectation is satisfied, the low-pass filter should work well. Actually, analysis
for the first observation on an observation wheel works well, though, not for the other two observations.
The reason is the difference of the amplitude of the noise: it is very difficult to pick up the gravity data
with very small amplitude from very large vibration of the carrier. This must be limitation of simple
filtering technique.

To reduce the vibration of the carrier, we can choose two different approaches.

From the above we see that a need to use algorithms and filters to find gravity from noise. The levels of g are not readily apparent, and must be constructed by subtracting from the noise to 'find gravity'. The above passage states that "We can expect to find the variations of gravity consists of components with long period, however the vibration of the carrier with short periods."

Is the process of subtracting vibrations with one characteristic to reveal other vibrations truly measuring gravity? Why does "gravity" need to be found?

Galathea-3: A global marine gravity profile

The Danish vessel Galathea-3 describes its methods for gravimetric surveying:

Galathea-3: A Global Marine Gravity Profile (http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:23403/datastreams/file_7702126/content)

Quote
The Galathea-3 navigation data included raw depth records provided by The Danish Hydrological Office. The data transfer was sometimes unstable and the data themselves were often very noisy. A preparation of such data for the Bouguer gravity processing requires a cumbersome data cleaning the removal of the spikes, the smoothing, and often the interpolation

We see that the process involves extensive data analysis, filtering, and cleanup from noise — to 'find gravity'.

Airborne Gravimetry

Airborne gravimetery methods echoes the same:

Improving the Accuracy and Resolution of SINS/DGPS Airborne Gravimetry (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.33.2681&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

Quote
Because the resulting signal is very noisy (see Sections 2.3.2 to 2.3.4 for details), its derivation is
followed by a filtering step that removes most of the noise by low-pass filtering the data.

Again, we see that filtering is necessary to clean up the noise.

Land Based/General Absolute Gravimetrey

The following paper describes the process of turning a laser signal into a "variation of gravity":

Ultra-high Precision, Absolute, Earth Gravity Measurements (https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-fau/files/658/ChristianRothleitnerDissertation.pdf)

The paper describes that the fringe signal from the laser beam is digitized and processed:

Quote
One of the new features of our setup is that the whole fringe signal (with up to
1.6 million data points) is digitized and processed. In other gravimeters usually
just parts of the fringe signal are used for data processing. Since the duration
of our FB’s fall in the MPG-1 is about 200 ms, the resultant signal reaches a
frequency of up to 6.2 MHz. As an industry standard, a sampling rate of at
least 7 times the measured frequency is suggested.

Processing Steps

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/ff/Gravimeter_Processing_Steps.png)

The fringe signal from the laser must be filtered with software:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/2/24/Gravimeter-3.png)

The remainder of the document describes how the filtering occurs. All sources, to the best of the author's ability, are given an "uncertainty budget," to which is subtracted from the noise. The uncertainty budgets are estimated ranges to which a phenomenon may be contributing to the noise. All possible phenomena in nature must be considered and precisely defined. Everything from air drag, electrostatic fields, pressure, seismic vibrations, &c.

In the Table of Contents we find a list of tables, showing the various elements which are subtracted:

Quote
4.6 Uncertainty budget of the measured imbalance – Method II. . . . 84
4.7 Uncertainty budget: COM and OC adjusted – Method II. . . . . . 84
5.1 Uncertainty budget for air drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.2 Uncertainty budget for outgassing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.3 Uncertainty budget for eddy currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.4 Uncertainty budget for electrostatic field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.5 Uncertainty budget for instrumental masses . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.6 Uncertainty budget for laser verticality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.7 Length standard specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.8 Uncertainty budget for laser stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.9 Frequency standard specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.10 Uncertainty budget for clock stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.11 Uncertainty budget for corner cube rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.12 Uncertainty budget for radiation pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.13 Uncertainty budget for beam divergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.14 Uncertainty budget for temperature gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.15 Uncertainty budget for seismic noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.16 Uncertainty budget for speed of light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.17 Uncertainty budget for effective height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.18 Specifications of Photoreceiver. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.19 Uncertainty budget for amplifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.20 Uncertainty budget for solid Earth tides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.21 Uncertainty budget for ocean loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.22 Uncertainty budget for polar motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.23 Uncertainty budget for environmental pressure . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.24 Uncertainty budget for Coriolis force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.25 Uncertainty budget for MPG-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.26 Uncertainty budget for MPG-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Once all of these items and their theoretical uncertainties are subtracted, we are left with "gravity."

Gravimeter Tides

The above pdf mentions that long-term analysis of the gravimeter noise can detect the tides:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/1/10/Gravimeter-tides.png)

The main conclusion from this is, however, that the tides may be related in some manner to vibration or noise that is being processed. No mechanism is presented, or is identifiable, from a long term analysis of vertical vibration trends.

The gravimeter measures fringe noise, not the "level of g". The output is the result of specialized filtering. That, after the final filtering and analysis, there may be trends at the top of a mountain, or in an environment which sits on a large amount of compressed ice, or with different environmental affects, should not be surprising. Gravity itself is not readily identified from the above processes.

Can you provide us with a more direct way of determining what you imagine to occur? One that does not rely on an author's ability to account for all phenomena in nature?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2018, 09:24:32 PM

It's not  "The gravitational influence ... could not be detected".
Quote from: s. above the diagram
The Princeton group  ... concluded that the Sun´s  gravitational acceleration on identical aluminum and gold masses was the same to one part in one hundred billion.


See the whole quote:

Quote
Specifically, as the Earth spins on its axis and difference between the Sun's gravitational interaction with the two masses will result in a 24 hour modulation or oscillation, in the orientation of the balance arm as seen in the laboratory. The Princeton group found no modulation of the torsion balance, and concluded that the Sun's gravitational acceleration on identical aluminum and gold masses was the same to one part in one hundred billion.
What's so hard to understand in this paragraph? Obviously you don't understand it. Or you are deliberately holding on to your misconceived citing.
Of course there is a gravitational interaction, but the experiment is setup this way, that only if the gravitational interaction would be different for the identical aluminum and gold masses, then there would be something else than a null result.
The whole experiment does not measure absolute gravitational forces. It measures only the difference of gravitational acceleration of  masses of equal weight but of different material.
So your post is off topic!

The quote is quite clear. Here is some more of the quote, for more context:

  “ In the Princeton experiment the balance arm was oriented in a North-South direction (figure 4.13), and the idea was to see if a difference in the Sun's gravitational influence on the suspended masses could be detected. Specifically, as the Earth spins on its axis and difference between the Sun's gravitational interaction with the two masses will result in a 24 hour modulation or oscillation, in the orientation of the balance arm as seen in the laboratory. The Princeton group found no modulation of the torsion balance, and concluded that the Sun's gravitational acceleration on identical aluminum and gold masses was the same to one part in one hundred billion. ”

It is pretty clear to me. An incredibly sensitive experiment was set up to see if the sun's gravitational influence could be detected on masses and it could not.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 25, 2018, 10:04:44 PM
Tom,

Yes indeed, modern gravimeter measurements are unbelievably precise, for the reasons you have suggested, and the links are useful, thanks for these.

Simply raising the height of the instrument by 1cm will change the reading by 3.086 microGal, which is why measurement on a ship presents such a challenge.

If you are interested in the theory, the Newtonian equation I provided above shows that the Free Air Correction (FAC) for a change in height of one metre is as follows

    FAC = -3.086/1,000,000

The gravimeter can measure differences of 1 microGal, i.e. 100 millionth of 1 ms^2.

        FAC = -3.086/1,000,000 x 100,000,000 = -308.6 microgal

This is why precision measurement is such a challenge. But it is a challenge because of the Newtonian mechanics, not in spite of it.

Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 25, 2018, 10:23:14 PM
The illustrated experiment was nice.  Of course, the null result of the experiment would be the same (zero output) whether the machine was on or off.  How do we know if the machine was even turned on?  Even if you could prove that the machine was turned on and produced a zero output you still have the objective of the whole experiment wrong. 

Now we know (if the machine was on) that the suns gravitational attraction produces a gravitational acceleration that’s independent of the mass just like we see on earth.  Galileo showed this a long time ago on the earth.  Gravitational force is real and it’s measurable. The sun has gravity, and the earth and moon have gravity.  Without that universal force of gravity the whole solar system would fly apart.

By arguing over a few parts per million of the actual measured force of gravity you are effectively saying “Yes there’s a force of gravity, it’s just that your measurement accuracy doesn’t satisfy me”.   

If you still have some doubts about gravity and the detection of it by gravimeter, here's another way.  All of the traditional causes of error have now been totally eliminated.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-clock-experiment-demonstrates-your-head-older-your-feet
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 26, 2018, 07:52:50 AM
On analysis of the gravimeter we find that the device is not directly measuring gravitational acceleration at all. It is measuring noise and using many software algorithms to cancel out the noise.
The instrument is simply measuring acceleration, period, and it is doing this incredibly accurately, with very little noise.

To determine the acceleration due to gravitational attraction is a separate issue. If the UA hypothesis is correct, there is no acceleration due to the earth's gravity at all.

But then UA has to explain how, given the observed precision of the instrument of at most 5 microGal, we see an observed acceleration difference of 5 million microGal between equator and pole. There is no noise.

Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 26, 2018, 09:46:59 AM
Here is another way of illustrating the point about noise. The chart below shows a series of observations (145 in all) of acceleration using an absolute gravimeter, the first set taken at 77 degrees latitude, the second set at 74 degrees. You see they are different.

You will also ask ‘where is the noise’, given both lines appear completely flat. Answer: the noise is there, but you would need a magnifying glass to see it. For example, reading 1 is 982972760.4, reading 2 is 982972761.1. A difference of 0.7.

But the average difference between the two sets of readings is 107,117.2.

The noise is inaudible, relative to the phenomenon (difference in acceleration) we are observing. The hypothesis of Universal Acceleration, which implies there should be no difference in acceleration at the two latitudes, is inconsistent with these observations. Noisy differences such as lunar attraction, atmospheric pressure, tiny differences of height etc., do not figure.

(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/2/2f/Acceleration_at_74_and_77_lat.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 26, 2018, 03:05:54 PM
It looks like gravity is in UA is out.
Do you need a little more evidence?  Check out the Red Shift experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

According to Einstein particles will loose energy while moving against GRAVITY.  That will mean you can expect to see photons loose energy as they move against earth's GRAVITY.  There will be a frequency change toward Red in the spectrum while traveling against the force of GRAVITY. 

The experiments that were done have been improved and the errors mostly eliminated.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/02/17/gravitational_redshift/

What all this means is that any acceleration of the earth is irrelevant in the experiments.  It wouldn't matter if the earth were accelerating upwards at any rate.  What is being measured is GRAVITY.  Now you could still have UA, if you want, but you will be required to factor in GRAVITY because of the actual, accurate, experiments done.  Just what number for GRAVITY will you choose to believe?

I believe that the GRAVITY of this situation is extreme.

Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2018, 06:05:49 PM
Edby, you have provided no source for that image. There are numerous start-to-finish levels of pre-processing, processing, averaging and interpretation of the fringe signal to get the accelerations.

The example of gravimeters on ships and planes tells us all we need to know:

https://d28rz98at9flks.cloudfront.net/11830/Rec1966_116.pdf

Quote
"Because the vertical motions aboard ship have instantaneous accelerations
of the order of thousands to hundreds of thousands of milligals,
the gravity measurement is made in a very "noisy" background."

Instantaneous vertical accelerations cause massive issues to the gravimeter; yet we know that the seas themselves are not accelerating through space at hundreds of thousands of milligals. That land-based gravimetery background noise is more stable just tells us that the lands are more stable. Gravity must be found and interpreted, in one way or the other.

Here are seismologists telling us that the North Pole is a very noisy environment, and acquiring useful seismology data is an issue:

https://polarforskningsportalen.se/en/arctic/expeditions/lomrog/cruise-reports/lomrog-det-danska-kontinentalsockelprojektet

Quote
The crucial issue of seismic data acquisition in ice covered waters is to protect the seismic equipment from being damaged by sea ice while simultaneously acquiring useful data in this very noisy environment.

Like with gravimeters, numerous levels of filtering and processing is required.

You are appealing to an interpretation of noise in signals, not a direct and demonstrable phenomenon of gravity.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 26, 2018, 07:08:06 PM
Edby, you have provided no source for that image.
Lol the source is the data in the paper which you found, where you completely misunderstood the data. ‘Absolute Gravimetry in Antarctica: 1995 Observations at Mcmurdo Station and Terra Nova Bay Station’, Glenn Sasagawa et al. The image is mine, after I loaded the data into a spreadsheet
Quote
There are numerous start-to-finish levels of pre-processing, processing, averaging and interpretation of the fringe signal to get the accelerations.
So what? There are 145 observations, the standard deviation is 2 microG around an average (for McMurdo) of 982972759.9 and 982865642.7 (for Terra Nova). Anyone with any experience in statistical analysis of data will tell you that something is being measured. Acceleration perhaps?
You need to explain why the noise around both samples is very tight, yet the McMurdo and Terra Nova samples so different. If it were a case of general noise, both sets of observations would be indistinguishable.
Quote
The example of gravimeters on ships and planes tells us all we need to know
This was on dry land. As for ships, I already explained above how a 1cm change in height will cause 3 microGal difference.
Quote
"Because the vertical motions aboard ship have instantaneous accelerations of the order of thousands to hundreds of thousands of milligals, the gravity measurement is made in a very "noisy" background."
Yes that’s perfectly correct. What are you trying to prove? Newtonian mechanics tells us to expect exactly this.

Quote
Instantaneous vertical accelerations cause massive issues to the gravimeter; yet we know that the seas themselves are not accelerating through space at hundreds of thousands of milligals.
Oh dear. 100,000 milligals is 100 Gals, which is 1 m/s^2. I.e. about a tenth of gravitational acceleration. Exactly what you would expect on a ship, I would have thought, but I will defer to RonJ’s expert knowledge here.
Quote
That land-based gravimetery background noise is more stable just tells us that the lands are more stable.
They are as stable as my land-based data above suggests, i.e. with an error of about 2 microGals.

Quote
Here are seismologists telling us that the North Pole is a very noisy environment, and acquiring useful seismology data is an issue:
You are citing data collected at sea. Different thing.
Quote
You are appealing to an interpretation of noise in signals, not a direct and demonstrable phenomenon of gravity.
I didn’t say it was a ‘demonstrable phenomenon of gravity’. Acceleration is the quantity being measured, and the data above shows the measurement is accurate to a few microGals, which is very precise. You need to show these devices are not measuring acceleration.

[EDIT] This https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2000/87-7944-019-3/html/bil05_eng.htm explains that the 'heave' acceleration on a ship can be 2.5 m/s^2, which is 250,000 milliGals. I rest my case.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 26, 2018, 07:29:13 PM
Gravimeters on ships wouldn't be the absolute types for obvious reasons.  Since ships are generally underway and operating in seas that could be rough the absolute accuracy of any readings will depend on the conditions at sea.  I have been on research ships that were doing what was called 'mowing the lawn'.  We just went back & forth over a specific study area collecting data for later study on shore.  If the earth were flat and undergoing a constant acceleration a gravimeter on a ship would just record random data and wouldn't show anything meaningful.  Even in rough seas if you went by a specific location and saw a obvious blip and then saw that same obvious blip on another close-by pass you have just measured something that wasn't just random noise.  Since all our readings were recorded on a big chart recorder along with very accurate GPS readings you could tell exactly where any recordings were being made. Again, it sounds like Tom is just arguing about the accuracy of the measured gravity readings not the fact that they are obviously there and have been made millions of times by thousands of people.  Just what more evidence would anyone need? 

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=8415&tid=7342&cid=265129
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2018, 07:59:19 PM
Lets read this document:

Comparison of three digital fringe signal processing methods in a ballistic free-fall absolute gravimeter (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/47/6/007/pdf)

From the introduction the author states that the input is a noisy fringe signal.

Quote
The advantages of digitizing the entire fringe signal are as follows:
the imperfect electronic components are eliminated; the full
information on the quality of the fringe signal is available;
a noisy fringe signal is digitally filtered at the pre-processing
steps; different numerical algorithms to calculate a g value can
be interchangeably applied.

The g value must be extracted with various methods. It is not direct and apparent:

Quote
Usually, the fringe signal is digitized at a sampling rate exceeding
its maximum frequency. However, a few methods have
demonstrated the possibility to extract a g value from the fringe
signal sampled far below the Nyquist criterion (table 1).

Multiple methods, functions, to "extract" the gravity value from the "noisy fringe signal"

Not an obvious and apparent method; multiple models are involved:

Quote
This method has been developed by Niebauer et al [18].
The basic idea is to extract the gravity value directly
from the undersampled waveform of the fringe signal given
by the non-linear model (1). To find the initial estimates
of the model parameters, required in the non-linear leastsquares
adjustment, it was proposed to iteratively demodulate
the digitized waveform. For this the acquired fringe signal
is multiplied by a swept sinusoid, denoted as a complex
heterodyne function. This method requires prior knowledge
of the sweep parameters. A complex heterodyning is used
to reduce the bandwidth of the demodulated signal in order
to double the signal-to-noise ratio, compared with a singlesideband
demodulation [18].

Filtering agreement can be made with other fringe signal processing methods:

Quote
Up to now, a few comparisons of different fringe signal
processing methods have reported an agreement within several
parts in 10^9 of g [10, 18] or even larger [12, 16].

These processes are filtering out the noise to find trends. From the conclusion we read:

Quote
5. Conclusions

For the first time, a comparison of the three different digital
fringe signal processing methods, realized in the same absolute
gravimeter, has been completed. The two-sample zerocrossing
method, the windowed second-difference method and
the method of non-linear least-squares adjustment using the
initial parameter estimates, found by the demodulation of the
undersampled fringe signal, have been compared in numerical
simulations, hardware tests and actual measurements with the
MPG-2 absolute gravimeter. Up to now, diversity of the digital
fringe signal processing methods in absolute gravimetry was
mainly caused by a certain technical restriction: processing
of the huge amount of digitized fringe data was limited by
the available computing capabilities.
Owing to this, several
original, though complicated, algorithms have been developed.
In contrast, the reported comparison involves the simple and
straightforward method to detect all the zero-crossings in a
digitized fringe signal.

This document was written in 2010. If this is simple "direct measurement of the acceleration", as you suppose this is, then why was it was limited by pre-2010 computing capabilities? It is not direct at all. It is the many algorithms necessary to interpret the "noisy" fringe signal that need large amounts of computing power.

It is interpretation of a noisy fringe signal; that's all it is.

From the paper:

Quote
Therefore, a combination of the different methods of fringe signal processing in the same instrument is a useful tool to compose a more complete uncertainty budget.

Uncertainty budgets, just as we saw in the earlier paper, are subtracted from the noise in the effort to find gravity.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 26, 2018, 08:45:20 PM
Yes, there is plenty of noise to deal with when you are trying to get every ounce of accuracy out of a gravimeter.  It's like measuring the depth of a swimming pool before & after you've thrown in a glass of water.  All you are arguing about is if the glass was half empty or half full before you threw it into the pool. 

Years ago when I was flying airplanes all the time I might be flying above a layer of clouds.  Air traffic control might tell me to descend to 3000 feet and fly heading 240.  Maybe the signal was a bit noisy the first time and I would ask for a repeat.  After hearing the transmission a second time I would usually be satisfied with the info.  At that time I would bet my very life that my information was correct as I descended into the clouds and depended on air traffic control to keep me from colliding with another aircraft and killing everyone. 

Maybe the gravimeter information was a little noisy at the extremes of the measurement accuracy range.  Then reading after reading after reading was taken giving multiple confirmations.  There's really no doubt about the fact that you are taking the readings of the earths gravitational attraction.  You might not know the exact reading 4 or 5 places to the right of the decimal point but after taking multiple readings your confidence in those figures are high.  The other fact is that the earth itself is noisy.  All kinds of natural forces are at work that can cause small variations in the readings.  That very fact is very comforting.  When you are seeing small variations you have a good indication that the equipment is working normally. 

If I was checking a HF communication radio and was wondering if the receiver had good sensitivity and could receive a signal, I would usually just tune to one of the time broadcast frequencies.  Normally I would hear a transmission from one of the many time signal broadcast stations, worldwide.  Maybe the time signal was weak and buried in the noise. Usually after a while I could get the time even buried in noise if I listened to it enough times.  At that time I was confident that my reading was accurate and I could depend on it 100%.
 
Gravimeters usually have a good self test feature that gives you a quick idea if all the equipment is properly working.  At that time even if the reading you are seeking is in some noise you can be sure that you will come up with a accurate measurement.  As I've said before on here, I have very accurately calculated PI out to about 4 places to the right of the decimal point using just random numbers.  Given that fact a gravimeter can also give you an accurate reading even if the signal is buried under a lot of random noise. 

The bottom line is that any noise is not a valid argument that a gravimeter is NOT measuring gravity well enough to confirm that we are on a oblate spheroid. 
 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2018, 10:07:36 PM
The fact is that edby cannot demonstrate, in a clear and concise manner, that the noise is being interpreted correctly—apart from all possible physical phenomena that can cause noise—to show that what it is being analyzed and filtered is "gravity".
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 26, 2018, 10:08:30 PM
Uncertainty budgets, just as we saw in the earlier paper, are subtracted from the noise in the effort to find gravity.
Where in the earlier paper did we see this? Do you understand what an uncertainty budget is?

The fact is that edby cannot demonstrate, in a clear and concise manner, that the noise is being interpreted correctly—apart from all possible physical phenomena that can cause noise—to show that what it is measuring is "gravity".
Posts crossed. You need to demonstrate you have understood the material discussed in the papers you cited.

Also, please avoid misquoting me. I am not claiming that these instruments measure gravity. They measure acceleration.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 26, 2018, 10:13:17 PM
Need another confirmation that there's gravity, just look at my post above on the Red Shift phenomenon.  It requires gravity and is another completely different form of measurement that doesn't have any of the errors you are needlessly concerned about.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be GRAVITY !
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 02:15:55 AM
"Gravity" Map of Earth to Seismic Zone Comparison

Although seismic monitors often use ground or underground probes to measure seismic activity, and there is no direct comparison with something that is measuring noise on the surface, and which may be affected by much more surface turbulence, we find the following:

"Global" Gravity Maps

(https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/default/print/8.000/6.375/break/images-medium-5/1-gravity-map-of-earth-nasajpluniversity-of-texas-center-for-space-research.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Geoids_sm.jpg)


South America Seismic Zone Maps

(https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/image/0006/29994/Seismic-Hazard-chart-USGS-800px.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/South_America_seismic_hazard_map_with_estimated_El_Tigre_Fault_location_inset.png)


Middle East

https://www.flickr.com/photos/thearchigeek/2430935171

"the seismic zones vary drastically in the UAE region"

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2013/2430935171_b96077131e.jpg)

http://www.carpescriptura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Joshua-6-Earthquake-Zones.jpg

Hotlinking is disallowed, but here it is on imgur:

(https://i.imgur.com/Sw2Qadx.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 02:29:30 AM
Alaska

Gravity Map for recap:

(https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/default/print/8.000/6.375/break/images-medium-5/1-gravity-map-of-earth-nasajpluniversity-of-texas-center-for-space-research.jpg)

Alaska Seismic Zone map from earthquake.usgs.gov

(https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/byregion/images/alaska-haz.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 27, 2018, 03:16:12 AM
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-clock-experiment-demonstrates-your-head-older-your-feet

With all the 'noise' you see in the experiments above why don't you just feast your eyes on just one of the examples that are illustrated above that shows that the earth is in a known gravitational field and a couple of atomic clocks in a laboratory can show you how.  In case you really had any doubts about gravity here is just another example of how to see the effects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFMcGv_jWOw&t=2s

Now if you want to see the religious aspect of this same effect just take a look at the video above. 

Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 03:23:43 AM
Most "Gravity" Anomalies Near Plate Boundaries

Look at the areas near Greenland, North of Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Middle East

(https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/default/print/8.000/6.375/break/images-medium-5/1-gravity-map-of-earth-nasajpluniversity-of-texas-center-for-space-research.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/3p9rbvh.png)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 27, 2018, 05:09:23 AM
Those are a lot of diagrams, Tom.  Does it mean that the green sections in the diagrams are where you believe that the gravity of the earth can best be measured?  According to the legend the green part is where the gravity anomalies are very close to zero.  It looks like at those points, according to the charts you have referenced everything should be good to go.  Maybe the scientists already have some absolute gravimeters there and can make good accurate measurement of the earths gravity at those points that will meet your very tight specifications with minimal anomalies.  I do believe then those measurements would indeed be a representation of the acceleration of a body due to the gravitational attraction of the earth's mass. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 27, 2018, 05:21:07 AM
Most "Gravity" Anomalies Near Plate Boundaries

Look at the areas near Greenland, North of Australia, Japan, Middle East

I'm not sure what your angle is regarding plates and gravity anomalies. There is a correlation, so to speak, and research has definitely been done. But I don't see this as a refutation of the ability to measure gravity.

"Gravity Anomalies and Their Relation to Major Tectonic Features in the North-Central Pacific

Gravity anomalies in the north-central Pacific have been obtained aboard the USC&GS Ship SURVEYOR with a LaCoste and Romberg surface-ship gravity meter. The data lie along several profiles from the Hawaiian Archipelago to 39°N between 167°W and 173°30'W and extend across the north side of the Hawaiian Archi-pelago and portions of the Murray. Pioneer. Mendocino and Surveyor fracture zones. The accuracy of measurements is estimated to be within + 5 mga1 and the data are in agreement with those published by Worze1 on the basis of 1948 submarine pendu1um measurements. t,'1aps of free-air and Bouguer anomalies are presented and some of their crustal structural implications are discussed."

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/luca70/luca70.pdf
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 05:50:23 AM
The volcanoes at Hawaii are active -- noisy. Why should we see a little red spot on the map at Hawaii, and only Hawaii in that area, but not red spots at every mountain in Australia, America and Russia?

Why not red all along the equator where the earth allegedly bulges out?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 08:14:35 AM
Although seismic monitors often use ground or underground probes to measure seismic activity, and there is no direct comparison with something that is measuring noise on the surface, and which may be affected by much more surface turbulence, we find the following:
Here are three readings from the report I cited above.

982972760.4
982972761.1
982972759.1

You see these are different. The first differs from the second by 0.7 microGal, the third from the second by 2.0 microGal. There were 80 readings taken between 4 and 7 November 1995, all differing slightly. The ‘standard deviation’ of the readings, effectively the average difference from the average, was 1.86. The average was 982972759.9.The maximum reading was 982972762.8, the minimum was 982972754.4, giving a difference of 8.4 microG. These are all statistically expected, and are caused by noise.

But the instrument is not measuring noise, as you claim. It is affected by noise. What it is measuring is the quantity given by the big number, to 9 figures, and we can be reasonably certain that the central estimate is statistically robust. The quantity measured is observed acceleration. A number of other adjustments are required to give the acceleration due to gravity, on the hypothesis that it is the earth’s gravity that is causing the acceleration, not UA.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 08:18:28 AM
On the anomalies data, don't confuse the observed acceleration from the instrument, which is what I have been talking about, with the adjustments required to give the 'anomaly'. That is a separate issue, and requires a model that derives theoretical gravity based on RE model plus Newton.

Can we stick to the measurement of the acceleration alone, which is independent of any assumptions about RE and Newton etc?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 08:34:03 AM
Why not red all along the equator where the earth allegedly bulges out?
As a matter of interest, why do you think it should be red all along the equator where the earth allegedly bulges out?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 01:57:44 PM
edby, I will come back to your questions later in the day.

Speaking of Hawaii, I find that it is very interesting how "gravity" seems to like Volcanoes.

(https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/default/print/8.000/6.375/break/images-medium-5/1-gravity-map-of-earth-nasajpluniversity-of-texas-center-for-space-research.jpg)


Total Volcano World Map:

(https://www.cccarto.com/icons/world_volcano_map.jpg)

Active Volcanoes 2006:

(https://images.volcanodiscovery.com/uploads/pics/active-volcano-map2-2016-09-29.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 02:36:45 PM
But, what about the mountains?

Some overlap, since the volcanoes are often in mountain ranges, and mountains are often near plate boundaries, but less spot-on.

(https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/default/print/8.000/6.375/break/images-medium-5/1-gravity-map-of-earth-nasajpluniversity-of-texas-center-for-space-research.jpg)

http://welovefashion14.com/world-map-mountain-ranges/

(http://welovefashion14.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/world-map-mountain-ranges-with-rivers-and-mountains-labeled-test-your-geography-us.jpg)

USA

(https://www.ducksters.com/geography/us_states/mountain_range_us_map_sm.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 27, 2018, 02:49:28 PM
What actual point are you making, Tom?
Is this just another long winded way of you saying you don't understand how something works, therefore it doesn't?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 27, 2018, 03:37:51 PM
Tom has made the case for gravity very nicely with all the colored charts.  Gravity manifests itself by producing a measurable force between two masses separated by a distance.  The earth is not a perfect sphere and is not perfectly homogeneous.  The density of the earth is also quite variable.  That means that there will be variations in mass as you travel across the surface of the globe.  Those density variations are certainly not consistent since the earths crust has a consistency more like a Mulligan Stew.  Those inconsistencies in mass are being manifested in fluctuations of gravity that’s being accurately measured by the traveling gravimeters.  Thank you, Tom, for showing us all the nice colored encoded charts of all those gravity anomalies that perfectly illustrate the inconsistencies of the density (and mass) of the earth’s crust.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 04:05:53 PM
Tom has made the case for gravity very nicely with all the colored charts.  Gravity manifests itself by producing a measurable force between two masses separated by a distance.  The earth is not a perfect sphere and is not perfectly homogeneous.  The density of the earth is also quite variable.  That means that there will be variations in mass as you travel across the surface of the globe.  Those density variations are certainly not consistent since the earths crust has a consistency more like a Mulligan Stew.  Those inconsistencies in mass are being manifested in fluctuations of gravity that’s being accurately measured by the traveling gravimeters.  Thank you, Tom, for showing us all the nice colored encoded charts of all those gravity anomalies that perfectly illustrate the inconsistencies of the density (and mass) of the earth’s crust.
Correct. This (http://courses.washington.edu/ess403/ESS_403/Lectures_files/gravityppt.pdf) explains. Briefly:

1. We start with the observed acceleration. Note acceleration, not gravity. In effect, we drop an object from a height, measure how long it takes to travel a certain distance, then work out acceleration from the well-known formula using time and distance. This measurement will give the same result whether we are on a globe with ‘gravity’, or whether a flat earth with UA. It is 'theory neutral'.

2. Then separately we work out, using latitude, elevation above sea level, facts about the terrain etc, what the theoretical gravity should be, i.e. the acceleration due to gravity.

3. So we have two measurements which are quite separate, namely observed acceleration (which might have been caused by anything, including UA) and theoretical acceleration (which is specifically attributable to gravity).

4. We subtract the theoretical number from the observed number. This is the ‘anomaly’, i.e. the difference or anomaly between theory and practice.

5. The anomaly is what the coloured charts are showing. The received wisdom is that the anomaly is due to the higher density of rocks around mountain ranges and volcanic regions.

edby, I will come back to your questions later in the day. 
I will answer it now. I suspect you thought the equator should be coloured red according to RE because it ‘bulges out’ according to RE. Wrong. This is not what the red is measuring at all. The bulge has already been corrected by the theoretical calculation  for latitude.
Quote
standard gravity  =  978.03185 (1+Asin^2(lat) – Bsin^2(2 lat))
A, B = fitted to observed data in 1967 agreement
The red is simply measuring the difference between the theory and the practice. There is a good fit around the equator. There is not such a good fit around the plates, because of the density. Nothing to do with ‘bulge’.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 04:12:56 PM
What actual point are you making, Tom?
Is this just another long winded way of you saying you don't understand how something works, therefore it doesn't?
I think the confusion is evident from this statement:
Speaking of Hawaii, I find that it is very interesting how "gravity" seems to like Volcanoes.
But the red colours, as I said above, are not measuring gravity, but rather the gravity anomaly, i.e. the difference between theoretical measurement, and observed measurement.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 05:43:22 PM
I have demonstrated the gravity anomalies are associated with seismic zones, and have shown that they do not align with all of the major mountain ranges.

In return we have received undemonstrated thoughts about hypothetical underground masses, as if liquid rock and volcanic rock is more dense than other rock. This is conjecture, not demonstration. I encourage you to build a better argument that does not rely on hypothesis.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 27, 2018, 05:46:57 PM
I have demonstrated the gravity anomalies are associated with seismic zones, and have shown that they do not align with all of the major mountain ranges.

In return we have received undemonstrated thoughts about hypothetical underground masses, as if liquid rock and volcanic rock is more dense than other rock. This is conjecture, not demonstration. I encourage you to build a better argument that does not rely on hypothesis.
But you've given no reason gravity anomalies should align with mountain ranges. If anything that's conjecture on your part that they should. What does it matter if they happen to align with at least some active volcanic/tectonic regions? What does that mean? You appear to suggest it means they should be thrown out, but I'm not sure how that makes sense, nor am I sure that's what you are attempting to suggest. Be plain about what position you are attempting to suggest please.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 05:51:13 PM
I will answer it now. I suspect you thought the equator should be coloured red according to RE because it ‘bulges out’ according to RE. Wrong. This is not what the red is measuring at all. The bulge has already been corrected by the theoretical calculation  for latitude.

Can you show us the gravity map with the earth's equator bulging out?

Here is an image search link for "Global Gravity Map." (https://www.google.com/search?&biw=1377&bih=661&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=0oP9W63RCo2tzwL395nYAg&q=gravity+world+map&oq=global+gravity+map)

I don't see it.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 27, 2018, 05:55:32 PM
I will answer it now. I suspect you thought the equator should be coloured red according to RE because it ‘bulges out’ according to RE. Wrong. This is not what the red is measuring at all. The bulge has already been corrected by the theoretical calculation  for latitude.

Can you show us the gravity map with the earth's equator bulging out?

Here is an image search link for "Global Gravity Map."

https://www.google.com/search?&biw=1377&bih=661&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=0oP9W63RCo2tzwL395nYAg&q=gravity+world+map&oq=global+gravity+map

I don't see it.
Why would there be a gravity anomaly at the equator? You've not presented any need for one, and in fact there's no reason there should be one anyway. Again, what does the fact that gravity anomalies often coincide with increased volcanic activity have to do with anything?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 06:00:39 PM
I will answer it now. I suspect you thought the equator should be coloured red according to RE because it ‘bulges out’ according to RE. Wrong. This is not what the red is measuring at all. The bulge has already been corrected by the theoretical calculation  for latitude.

Can you show us the gravity map with the earth's equator bulging out?

Here is an image search link for "Global Gravity Map."

https://www.google.com/search?&biw=1377&bih=661&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=0oP9W63RCo2tzwL395nYAg&q=gravity+world+map&oq=global+gravity+map

I don't see it.
Why would there be a gravity anomaly at the equator? You've not presented any need for one, and in fact there's no reason there should be one anyway. Again, what does the fact that gravity anomalies often coincide with increased volcanic activity have to do with anything?

Edby claimed there was one, and that it was corrected out of the gravity map we saw. He says that the gravity map we are looking at is only about anomalies. I am asking him to demonstrate his assertion, as I could not find that map.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 27, 2018, 06:06:50 PM
https://www.watertown.k12.wi.us/faculty/wattsp/Earth%20layers%20article.pdf

It makes perfect sense that the molten rock inside the earth is more dense than the rock on the surface.   It is true that liquids and solids are less compressible than gasses.  But they are compressible.  I was taught in engineering school to just consider that water was incomprehensible.  I mentioned this to the deep diving submarine pilot aboard the same research ship I was working on.  He promptly showed me the parts on the submarine where compensation was needed to allow for the 0.5% per 1000 feet increase in water's density due to pressure. Now instead of 1000s of feet think 1000 of MILES and you can easily see that there's just a little more than conjecture that the liquid rock near the earths center might just possibly be more dense than whats near the surface.  I hope that you will find this argument a little more than a delusion of adequacy on my part.

If you look at the link you can also see some of the measurements that are taken by scientists to get an idea of the internal structure of the global earth.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 06:14:29 PM
I will answer it now. I suspect you thought the equator should be coloured red according to RE because it ‘bulges out’ according to RE. Wrong. This is not what the red is measuring at all. The bulge has already been corrected by the theoretical calculation  for latitude.

Can you show us the gravity map with the earth's equator bulging out?

Here is an image search link for "Global Gravity Map." (https://www.google.com/search?&biw=1377&bih=661&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=0oP9W63RCo2tzwL395nYAg&q=gravity+world+map&oq=global+gravity+map)

I don't see it.
Exactly, and thanks for completely misunderstanding my point.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 06:17:21 PM
Edby claimed there was one, and that it was corrected out of the gravity map we saw.
No, where did I claim that there was an anomaly at the equator?

Quote
He says that the gravity map we are looking at is only about anomalies. I am asking him to demonstrate his assertion, as I could not find that map.
I explained exactly why the anomaly map is about anomalies, and I linked to a very clear presentation explaining this.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 27, 2018, 06:17:33 PM
Tom needs to refresh his memory on the Somigliana Equation and it's meaning in relation to the earths gravity field.  Once that's completed, question asked & answered.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 06:20:57 PM

Can you show us the gravity map with the earth's equator bulging out?

Here is an image search link for "Global Gravity Map." (https://www.google.com/search?&biw=1377&bih=661&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=0oP9W63RCo2tzwL395nYAg&q=gravity+world+map&oq=global+gravity+map)

I don't see it.
Wow. That's an anomaly map, not a gravity map. You really don't understand this do you? Could you please do some homework.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 06:21:41 PM
Edby claimed there was one, and that it was corrected out of the gravity map we saw.
No, where did I claim that there was an anomaly at the equator?

Right here:

"I will answer it now. I suspect you thought the equator should be coloured red according to RE because it ‘bulges out’ according to RE. Wrong. This is not what the red is measuring at all. The bulge has already been corrected by the theoretical calculation  for latitude."

You said that it was corrected out. Therefore we must have been looking at some off-shoot to earth's true gravity map. Lets see it.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 06:26:11 PM
Edby claimed there was one, and that it was corrected out of the gravity map we saw.
No, where did I claim that there was an anomaly at the equator?

Right here:

"I will answer it now. I suspect you thought the equator should be coloured red according to RE because it ‘bulges out’ according to RE. Wrong. This is not what the red is measuring at all. The bulge has already been corrected by the theoretical calculation  for latitude."

You said that it was corrected out. Therefore we must have been looking at some off-shoot to earth's true gravity map. Lets see it.
Ah right. You are confusing a correction with an anomaly.

[EDIT]Tom, can you please read this post https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11397.msg174562#msg174562 where I explain what an anomaly is, and by implication why it should not be confused with a correction.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 06:55:40 PM
Edby claimed there was one, and that it was corrected out of the gravity map we saw.
No, where did I claim that there was an anomaly at the equator?

Right here:

"I will answer it now. I suspect you thought the equator should be coloured red according to RE because it ‘bulges out’ according to RE. Wrong. This is not what the red is measuring at all. The bulge has already been corrected by the theoretical calculation  for latitude."

You said that it was corrected out. Therefore we must have been looking at some off-shoot to earth's true gravity map. Lets see it.
Ah right. You are confusing a correction with an anomaly.

[EDIT]Tom, can you please read this post https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11397.msg174562#msg174562 where I explain what an anomaly is, and by implication why it should not be confused with a correction.

It's not about what you can explain, speculate about, or think what happened; but what you can demonstrate. You are incorrect by default. You are only correct until you can demonstrate yourself to be correct.

You linked to a lecture with an equation for correcting for latitude. Was it used? Why can't we find any maps with the real gravity values?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 06:59:32 PM
It's not about what you can explain, speculate about, or think what happened
No, it's about understanding what the theory is. You need to show some understanding first, rather than alighting upon the first return from Google and completely mangling it.

Then we can discuss. Only until then, OK? Read the post of mine I linked to.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 07:03:27 PM
Why can't we find any maps with the real gravity values?

I posted a chart (not a map) in an earlier post. Here it is again. These are absolute observed gravity values at different latitudes (74 and 77).
You note straight away there is a massive difference. This then needs to be ‘corrected’ for latitude, on they hypothesis that the difference is explained by latitude.

You will object that it shouldn’t be corrected? OK, let’s see where that leads us.

[EDIT]  Oh yes, and these aren't gravity values, but acceleration values. As I pointed out, this is what the instrument is reporting, independent of any theory about what it is measuring.

(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/2/2f/Acceleration_at_74_and_77_lat.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 07:14:46 PM
It's not about what you can explain, speculate about, or think what happened
No, it's about understanding what the theory is. You need to show some understanding first, rather than alighting upon the first return from Google and completely mangling it.

Then we can discuss. Only until then, OK? Read the post of mine I linked to.

You want us to read a college lecture which mentions the theory of correcting by latitude, which you found on google, and so therefore we must assume that all of these systems and maps did so?

Why can't we find any maps with the real gravity values?

I posted a chart (not a map) in an earlier post. Here it is again. These are absolute observed gravity values at different latitudes (74 and 77).
You note straight away there is a massive difference. This then needs to be ‘corrected’ for latitude, on they hypothesis that the difference is explained by latitude.

You will object that it shouldn’t be corrected? OK, let’s see where that leads us.

[EDIT]  Oh yes, and these aren't gravity values, but acceleration values. As I pointed out, this is what the instrument is reporting, independent of any theory about what it is measuring.

http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/2/2f/Acceleration_at_74_and_77_lat.jpg

What are you showing us? You just told us that they regularly correct for latitude. Is this an anomaly? Is it corrected for latitude? What is it? What is your argument?

Demonstration is key. Not random assumptions.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 07:27:29 PM
What are you showing us? You just told us that they regularly correct for latitude. Is this an anomaly?
No it's a correction. Again, read the presentation so you understand the difference between 'correction' and 'anomaly'.

That's enough.

Quote
Demonstration is key.
No, a basic willingness to understand is key.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 27, 2018, 07:36:23 PM
There's little willingness to understand, that's the whole objective.  You can present all the evidence you want but it's wasted effort if the evidence won't be believed even before it's presented. 
Maybe there needs to be a standard for both a question and the depth of proof necessary for belief before a question can be answered.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 07:53:40 PM
Sometimes they correct for latitude when it supports your argument, and then other times they don't correct for latitude in situations which do not support your argument. Totally absurd debating strategy. You should be expected to know the systems if you are defending them.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 08:10:26 PM
Sometimes they correct for latitude when it supports your argument, and then other times they don't correct for latitude in situations which do not support your argument. Totally absurd debating strategy. You should be expected to know the systems if you are defending them.
You should be expected to understand the argument if you intend to debate it. Your first sentence shows a total lack of comprehension, once again.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 27, 2018, 08:10:39 PM
The USGS has all the data you need both raw and processed. Everything was collected to exacting standards that can be read.  You can put in or take out any corrections you desire.  All you have to do is be willing to do the work necessary to process and observe what you need.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 08:25:18 PM
Edby, it's simple. Here is the source you got those numbers from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1190/2004-1190.pdf

Show us where they are, or the machine is, correcting for, or not correcting for, latitude in those numbers.

Go find one of the world-wide gravity maps. Show us where they are, or the machine is, correcting for, or not correcting for, latitude in those numbers.

What you are arguing is not clear at all. You are simultaneously arguing two opposite things and and telling us to "learn more".
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 08:30:49 PM
You are simultaneously arguing two opposite things and and telling us to "learn more".
If you learned more you would see I am not simultaneously claiming two opposite things. You need to understand the difference between an anomaly and a correction. There is a Wikipedia page on this, the presentation I linked to, plus my previous post I linked to.

Why not say what you think the difference is, then I am happy to discuss. If you tell me you still don't know, then I will try again, but my patience is a bit thin right now.

Quote
Show us where they are, or the machine is, correcting for, or not correcting for, latitude in those numbers.
I already explained that. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11397.msg174603#msg174603

Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: markjo on November 27, 2018, 08:41:50 PM
Isn't this getting a bit off topic?  I thought that this thread was for discussing evidence in support of FE Universal Acceleration rather than nit picking RE gravity. 

Tom, does your presenting all of those anomaly maps mean that you accept that there are indeed measurable variations in the acceleration of the earth?  If so, how do you propose that UA should explain these variations?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 10:54:57 PM
It seems to me, that the device, since it is recording and interpreting noise from the basic level, may in part, actually be recording something like P-Waves, which cause vertical oscillation in the ground, that can transmute through the air, which why devices on airplanes can detect them, and is why the anomolous zones correlate to seismic zones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_wave

Quote
Primary waves

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.

The multiple levels of filtering, trending, analysis, interpreting, obfuscates the real mechanism.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 27, 2018, 11:18:59 PM
Go find one of the world-wide gravity maps. Show us where they are, or the machine is, correcting for, or not correcting for, latitude in those numbers.
The maps you linked to were anomaly maps, not gravity maps. This is why you need to understand what an anomaly is, how it differs from a correction, and why both of these are different from observed gravity. It's actually not difficult, for anyone with a reasonable attention span.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2018, 11:34:52 PM
Go find one of the world-wide gravity maps. Show us where they are, or the machine is, correcting for, or not correcting for, latitude in those numbers.
The maps you linked to were anomaly maps, not gravity maps.

Where are the gravity maps?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 28, 2018, 12:05:26 AM
Go find one of the world-wide gravity maps. Show us where they are, or the machine is, correcting for, or not correcting for, latitude in those numbers.
The maps you linked to were anomaly maps, not gravity maps.

Where are the gravity maps?

Here's one:

(https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/655_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2010/06/goce.gif?itok=iMov43ZF)

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/esa-satellite-maps-earths-gravity-3-d
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 28, 2018, 12:07:50 AM
Here's one:

https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/655_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2010/06/goce.gif?itok=iMov43ZF

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/esa-satellite-maps-earths-gravity-3-d

That appears to be the same map we were looking at. Take a look at the areas near South America, Greenland, North of Australia, Japan. Same pattern.

(https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/default/print/8.000/6.375/break/images-medium-5/1-gravity-map-of-earth-nasajpluniversity-of-texas-center-for-space-research.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 28, 2018, 12:18:59 AM
That's the same map we were looking at. Look at the areas near South America, Greenland, North of Australia, Japan. Same pattern.

Looks different to me. But I'm not sure where the anomaly map versus gravity map angle comes from? In essence, it's one in the same. Isn't the whole point of this discussion revolve around the fact that there are different gravitational measurements made around the globe?  And how does UA account for that? I mean, essentially, UA is gravity in reverse, for lack of a better descriptor. So does a UA map look the same across the board, no hot spots, no cold spots?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 28, 2018, 01:21:03 AM
With UA you would have everything showing the same acceleration.  Everything would be the same color.  You wouldn't have an acceleration that depended upon latitude.  Measuring the acceleration would be just as accurate (or inaccurate) so the same arguments could just be used in reverse against UA.  Now take a look at the red shift phenomenon due to gravity.  UA has NO explanation for that.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 28, 2018, 02:19:29 AM
I agree. With UA, the entirety of the map would be green.

Or, as I think Tom is contending, the maps are accurate, but instead of showing gravitational variances, they are actually showing tectonic plate seismic activity instead, conceivably mistaken as gravitational variances? Am I off the mark here?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 28, 2018, 02:37:26 AM
Is it a coincidence that a gravimeter can double as a seismometer and measure earthquakes thousands of miles away?


Monitoring earthquakes with gravity meters

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984715301920

Quote
Abstract: Seismic waves from a magnitude 8.3 earthquake in Japan were consistently recorded by five nearly identical gPhone gravity meters in Colorado. Good correlation was also found in the response of two different types of gravity meters and a standard seismometer in Walferdange, Luxembourg to an earthquake of magnitude 8.2 in Japan, indicating that all of them were capable of measuring the surface waves reliably. The gravity meters, however, recorded 11 separate arrivals of Raleigh waves, while the seismometer only one. Thus the gravity meters may be useful for obtaining new information in the study of seismic velocities, attenuation and dispersion.

The end two sentences of that abstract even implies that gravity meters may be better for measuring seismic elements.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 28, 2018, 02:59:38 AM
We have seen at how the gravity anomalies seem to all fall on somewhere the plate lines. It seems that the largest parts specifically match areas of Convergent Plate Boundaries and most common earthquake activity.

(https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/default/print/8.000/6.375/break/images-medium-5/1-gravity-map-of-earth-nasajpluniversity-of-texas-center-for-space-research.jpg)

(https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/images/TectonicPlates.jpg?maxwidth=1200&maxheight=1200&autorotate=false)

In the effort to "find gravity" they found Seismic Waves.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: markjo on November 28, 2018, 03:39:49 AM
We have seen at how the gravity anomalies seem to all fall on somewhere the plate lines. It seems that the largest parts specifically match areas of Convergent Plate Boundaries and most common earthquake activity.
Tom, are you suggesting that gravity anomalies should not occur where you find extra mass as a result of tectonic plates overlapping?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 28, 2018, 04:28:38 AM
"Gravity Anomalies" observed before earthquakes

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984717300034

The mass of the earth changes before an earthquake? Quite the mystery, indeed.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 28, 2018, 06:06:47 AM
"Gravity Anomalies" observed before earthquakes

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984717300034

The mass of the earth changes before an earthquake? Quite the mystery, indeed.

Yes, according to the paper, they measured "pre-seismic amplitude perturbation and co-seismic amplitude perturbation of gravity before the two earthquakes."  And your point is?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 28, 2018, 06:44:38 AM
Monitoring earthquakes with gravity meters

A comparison of Gravity Meters and Seismometers.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984715301920

Quote
(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1674984715301920-gr9.jpg)

Figure 9. Seismic records by a gPhone (blue) and a STS-2 seismometer

(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1674984715301920-gr10.jpg)

Figure 10. A set of five-minute S-wave records with an STS-2 seismometer and a gPhone

(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1674984715301920-gr11.jpg)

Figure 11. A set of five-minute records of background variation with an STS-2 seismometer and a gPhone

Funny how Gravity Meters and Seismometers agree like that.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 28, 2018, 07:18:00 AM
Funny how Gravity Meters and Seismometers agree like that.

If I understand the paper correctly a change in seismic activity can cause a change in the underlying mass of rocks below hence a correlating measurement on a gravity meter.  Doesn't seem funny or mysterious to me, quite logical in fact.

And so I take it that you're whole angle here is that seismometer measurements and gravity meter measurements are simply one in the same and those who measure gravity variances/anomalies are actually just mistaking such for seismic activity? Just to put a fine point on it, is that your argument?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 28, 2018, 08:59:29 AM
I'm not sure where the anomaly map versus gravity map angle comes from? In essence, it's one in the same.

Not one and the same.

    Gravity anomaly = observed acceleration – theoretical acceleration due to gravity

The terms on the right are two large numbers. Let’s say 982,972,760.4 for observed acceleration, 982,972,175.1 for theoretical acceleration. But the difference is a small number (585.3). So not the same in any sense.

To get the discussion back on track we need to focus on observed acceleration, which differs across the globe. It’s about 5 million higher at the poles than at the equator.

Tom is having difficulty with this idea, hence our long detour through the rabbit hole of ‘anomaly’.

And so I take it that [Tom’s] whole angle here is that seismometer measurements and gravity meter measurements are simply one in the same and those who measure gravity variances/anomalies are actually just mistaking such for seismic activity?

That is Tom’s belief, as I understand it. It strikes me as preposterous for a number of reasons. For example, gravimeters are highly sensitive instruments and will be disturbed by the tiniest movement, so you would not make observations during seismic activity.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 28, 2018, 09:11:05 AM
Here's one:

(https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/655_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2010/06/goce.gif?itok=iMov43ZF)

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/esa-satellite-maps-earths-gravity-3-d
This is obviously an anomaly map, i.e. difference between observed and theoretical acceleration. If it were a measure of observed acceleration, there would be a difference of 5 million between equator and poles. Are we seeing that?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 28, 2018, 11:16:21 AM
"Gravity Anomalies" observed before earthquakes

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984717300034

The mass of the earth changes before an earthquake? Quite the mystery, indeed.
I agree it would be a mystery, but where does that piece claim that the mass of the earth changes?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 28, 2018, 07:31:02 PM
It says that the gravity readings on the gravimeter change as a precursor to an earthquake. The change of mass would be the interpretation if it were measuring "gravity". I do not believe it is because the mass of the earth changed. The vibration levels changed. I believe that a gravimeter is a seismometer, which some appear to say in those seismograph-gravimeter earthquake papers is more advanced in some ways.

This inventor describes gravimeters as follows:

http://www.njsas.org/projects/tidal_forces/magnetic_gravimeter/baker/

Quote
A seismometer usually looks for the smallest possible acceleration changes. Since gravity is physically the same as acceleration, gravimeters are merely versions of seismometers with an infinitely long period response.


From https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017RG000566 we read:

Quote
In an absolute gravimeter, a test laser beam bounces off the free‐falling body before being reflected back to the interferometer, where the test beam interferes with a reference one. While the dropped mass is completely isolated from the Earth's vibrations during its fall, anthropogenic and natural microseismic noises continuously modify the position of the reference mirror of the interferometer. Even in the absence of an earthquake, the displacements of the Earth's surface are persistent and location and season dependent, reaching up to a few micrometers close to the coast (Kedar et al., 2008), while one should measure the free‐fall distance at the 1 nm precision level in order to achieve a precision on gravity of 10 nm/s2. In the first white‐light gravimeter, the measurements of gravity were corrected by using the records from a 1 s period seismometer. Early in the 1980s, Rinker (1983) developed the so‐called Super Spring, that is, a modified seismometer providing an inertial reference system at periods shorter than about 1 min—the suspended mass of a seismometer provides an inertial reference frame, independent from the motions of the Earth, at periods shorter than the resonance frequency (Aki & Richards, 2002). The challenge consisted in producing a suspension device of which the free period is about 1 min, that is, longer than the periods ranging 5–20 s, where microseism is the strongest.

From http://microglacoste.com/gPhoneNoise/gPhoneSeismicNoise.pdf we read:

Quote
It is interesting to speculate on the precise origin of the background seismic noise. Haubrich et al ii for example, open their article with the following description of the seismic noise background and the large interest it has generated over the years as well as the intractability of its investigation:

" The low‐level background unrest of the earth, called microseisms or earth noise, has puzzled seismologists and other scientists for nearly a century. The problem of its nature and causes has proved particularly unyielding, not, however, for  lack  of  investigation.  A  bibliography  covering  work up  to 1955  [Gutenberg  and  Andrews,  1956] iii lists  over  600  articles on  the  subject;  one  covering  the  years  from  1955  to  1964 [Hjortenberg,  1967] iv lists  566.  Unfortunately,  much  of  this work has advanced the subject but slightly. "

If gravimeters are really seismometers, and are measuring tiny vibrations and noise with numerous levels of filtering and analysis, and are interpreting the left over vibrations as gravity, it seems that it may not be a direct test of gravity at all.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 28, 2018, 08:07:15 PM
It says that the gravity readings on the gravimeter change as a precursor to an earthquake. The change of mass would be the interpretation if it were measuring "gravity". I do not believe it is because the mass of the earth changed. The vibration levels changed. I believe that a gravimeter is a seismometer, which some appear to say is more advanced in some ways.

This inventor describes gravimeters as follows:

http://www.njsas.org/projects/tidal_forces/magnetic_gravimeter/baker/

Quote
A seismometer usually looks for the smallest possible acceleration changes. Since gravity is physically the same as acceleration, gravimeters are merely versions of seismometers with an infinitely long period response.


This guy is an amateur diy guy. Knowledgeable, no doubt. But not the devices we are referring to here. He describes his homemade device as, "My instrument tends to be a little bit seismometer/gravimeter, a little bit magnetometer, a little bit thermometer, and a little bit barograph." I don't believe he is operating at the level of accuracy that has been discussed so far.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 28, 2018, 08:33:19 PM
If gravimeters are really seismometers, and are measuring tiny vibrations and noise with numerous levels of filtering and analysis, and are interpreting the left over vibrations as gravity, it seems that it is not a direct test of gravity at all.

They are not one in the same, there is a difference between the two devices in how they measure:

"Comparative study of superconducting gravimeters and broadband seismometers STS-1 / Z in seismic and subseismic frequency bands

Superconducting gravimeters and broadband seismometers (vertical component) both measure gravity, but whereas the former are most sensitive to very long period signals (gravity tides with periods longer than 6 h), the latter are designed for recording the seismic band (elastic normal modes with periods shorter than 1 h).”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031920197000034
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: markjo on November 28, 2018, 08:38:06 PM
It says that the gravity readings on the gravimeter change as a precursor to an earthquake. The change of mass would be the interpretation if it were measuring "gravity".
That could be one interpretation.  Another might be that gravimeters are extremely sensitive accelerometers and can measure vertical vibrations associated with seismic activity.

From your source:
Quote from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984715301920
Thus the gravity meters may be useful for obtaining new information in the study of seismic velocities, attenuation and dispersion.

Also, from the makers of the gPhone gravity meters mentioned in the article:
Quote from: http://microglacoste.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MgL_gPhoneX-Brochure.pdf
The January 13, 2007 earthquake (M8.2) off the coast of the Kiril Islands was detected by the
gPhone gravity meter at the Micro-g LaCoste facility in Colorado. These data demonstrate
that gPhones are capable of recording extremely precise vertical acceleration, velocity, and
displacement during quiet periods as well as during period of high seismic activity.

I do not believe it is because the mass of the earth changed.
Remember what Einstein said about gravity and acceleration being equivalent.

The vibration levels changed.
And vibrations can induce acceleration.

I believe that a gravimeter is a seismometer, which some appear to say in those seismograph-gravimeter earthquake papers is more advanced in some ways.
Should it come as a surprise that gravimeters and seismometers can have overlapping functionality?

If gravimeters are really seismometers, and are measuring tiny vibrations and noise with numerous levels of filtering and analysis, and are interpreting the left over vibrations as gravity, it seems that it is not a direct test of gravity at all.
There are several different types of gravimeters available, so its suitability as a seismometer would depend on which type of gravimeter you have in mind.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 28, 2018, 08:54:10 PM
Tom
I really liked the articles you included in the links.  Unfortunately, for FET they gave a fine treatise on gravity.  There were also illustrations of just how good the instruments are these days and a nice proof that gravity is what is really being measured.
 
Your implication that a gravimeter and a seismometer are just measuring the same thing would be something like my old high school physics teacher would ask on a pop quiz.  I have been out of high school for a few years, but I can still remember what the answers would be.   A gravimeter is measuring a force of one object on another object.  A seismometer is measuring the vibration of the earth.  The fact that a gravimeter would also measure a vibration is evident in the standard gravity equation with just the radius rapidly changing or the distances between the masses changing.  That would make the overall reading of the force change. A seismometer could easily measure the vibration of a standard speaker, but a properly setup gravimeter wouldn’t show much of anything.
 
I believe that you are just trying to bury the measured changes of gravimeter readings vs earths latitude in a bunch of noise and make those readings appear to be subject to doubt, so they can be swept under the rug, but of course that won’t really work.  You are just really arguing about something like the difference between 0.000000123 and 0.000000456. The instruments are very sensitive to minor effects of the environment and the chaotic motion of the earth.  The differences in the force of gravity at the equator and the poles are millions of times larger than the small affects you are disputing.  Trying to bury the core issue of the Somigliana Equation is just being disingenuous and is one of the main reasons why the Universal Accelerator paradigm is invalid.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 28, 2018, 10:17:24 PM
Not only can gravimeters detect seismic activity and take the place of seismometers, but seismometers can take the place of gravimeters. Seismometers can detect gravity levels just like gravimeters.


Comparative study of superconducting gravimeters and broadband seismometers STS-1/Z in seismic and subseismic frequency bands

http://www.geo.uu.nl/~jeannot/My_web_pages/Publications/Entries/2013/1/6_Journal_papers_files/pepi97-gravi.pdf

From the Abstract:
Quote
Superconducting gravimeters and broadband seismometers (vertial component) both measure gravity, but whereas the former are most sensitive to very long period signals (gravity tides with periods longer than 6h), the latter are designed for recording the seismic band (elastic normal modes with periods shorter than 1h)

Diagram from p. 212:

(https://i.imgur.com/WaRVjf8.png)

Further, seismometers are also able to detect the tides -- p.204, second paragraph:

Quote
A first attempt to use broadband seismometers outside their traditional spectral range was made by Pillet et al. (1994), and they showed that the STS-1 is able to receive strong tidal signals around diurnal frequencies.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 28, 2018, 11:07:55 PM
Not only can gravimeters detect seismic activity and take the place of seismometers, but seismometers can take the place of gravimeters. Seismometers can detect gravity levels just like gravimeters.

From the Abstract:
Quote
Superconducting gravimeters and broadband seismometers (vertial component) both measure gravity, but whereas the former are most sensitive to very long period signals (gravity tides with periods longer than 6h), the latter are designed for recording the seismic band (elastic normal modes with periods shorter than 1h)

And there you have it, both devices can measure gravity, in different ways, but yes, they do. Two devices are better than one. Ergo, gravity is measurable and exists.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 28, 2018, 11:46:02 PM
It is mentioned that the "gravity tides" are found in the subseismic band:

(https://i.imgur.com/3ZpDrfm.png)

A definition (https://seismo.berkeley.edu/annual_report/ar07_08/node21.html):

Quote
``subseismic band'' (i.e. frequency lower than 0.03mHz) that has very strong background noise;

Is studying of subseismic activity a study of gravity?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on November 28, 2018, 11:46:23 PM
You should have a source citation for this quote about the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass being:

Quote
"one of the deepest, unsolved mysteries in fundamental physics"
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2018, 12:00:01 AM
You should have a source citation for this quote about the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass being:

Quote
"one of the deepest, unsolved mysteries in fundamental physics"

Thank you. The same quote is found in the article in the next section, but I will reference it.

And there you have it, both devices can measure gravity, in different ways, but yes, they do. Two devices are better than one. Ergo, gravity is measurable and exists.

The paper says that when comparing with Gravimeters to the Seismometers, the gravity spectra is nearly identical:

(https://i.imgur.com/mOBLy4a.png)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 29, 2018, 12:06:28 AM
Is studying of subseismic activity a study of gravity?

In part, yes.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2018, 12:23:33 AM
We have seen that a gravimeter can double as a seismometer, and a seismometer can double as a gravimeter. Both associate anomalies near volcanoes, on plate boundaries, and earthquake prone zones. Both are analyzing trends in noise to pull out the gravity. The paper above clearly says that it is analyzing subseismic noise to identify gravity.

Might it be that the tides are only theoretically associated with gravity, and that is why they are called "gravity tides," that this is all one assumption piled upon the next; and that these devices are not evidence for what is being claimed in this thread?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 29, 2018, 12:38:29 AM
We have seen that a gravimeter can double as a seismometer, and a seismometer can double as a gravimeter. Both associate anomalies near volcanoes, on plate boundaries, and earthquake prone zones. Both are analyzing trends in noise to pull out the gravity. The paper above clearly says that it is analyzing subseismic noise to identify gravity.

As well, gravimeters associate anomalies not near volcanoes, on plate boundaries, and earthquake prone zones.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 29, 2018, 01:35:32 AM
Anytime you have something containing atoms then there is mass.  When two or masses are separated then there is a force of attraction between those masses.  That's called gravity.  If you move masses around relative to each other or bang one mass into another mass then you will create something that can be detected by a seismometer.  I believe that if you have a mass that's absolutely motionless it will be detectable by a gravimeter but won't be by a seismometer.  A seismometer is more like a differential gravimeter.  It can detect a change in gravity, but not gravity that is constant. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2018, 03:06:30 AM
I find an interesting quote  from the Enhanced Geothermal Innovative Network for Europe (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francois-D_Vuataz/publication/255180147_BEST_PRACTICE_HANDBOOK_for_the_development_of_Unconventionnal_Geothermal_Resources_with_a_focus_on_ENHANCED_GEOTHERMAL_SYSTEM/links/546f96ac0cf24af340c09195.pdf):

Quote
Gravimetry

As the gravitational field of  the earth depends on the density of the rocks, variations of the gravitational field (Bouguer anomalies) observed at  the surface or in a borehole are due to density changes in the subsurface, which can be interpreted in terms of changes in the composition and/or geometry of the geological layers.

It seems that they are well aware that they are measuring vibrations and calling it gravity.


https://www.leibniz-liag.de/en/research/methods/gravimetry-magnetics/bouguer-anomalies.html

Quote
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.

Low in the Alps of Germany.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Rama Set on November 29, 2018, 03:13:15 AM
Low anomalies, yes.  Meaning gravity is slightly less than predicted on the order of 1 part per 1,000
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 29, 2018, 03:44:30 AM
It seems that they are well aware that they are measuring vibrations and calling it gravity.

I'm not seeing that from what you referenced/quoted. Can you be more specific?

Back to your OP, I think you have a bigger problem than disputing gravity. From poking around youtube, it seems not that it is a lack of understanding around UA that most seem to claim TFES (and maybe the other society) deem your's "psyop" "misinformation gov't shills", "controlled opposition" etc. It's that TFES purports any sort of earthly motion at all. Their's seems to be "electro-static" or some such, or nothing at all, things just fall, if they are heavier than air. Putting the world in any sort of motion at all seems anathema.

So at the end of the day, all roads as evidenced, point to affirming a gravitational phenomena. But that's neither here nor there if as long as you have an earth in motion of any sort, your Flat Earth brethren seem to have a massive issue.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2018, 08:40:25 AM
I think there is a good chance that they will come around if we can successfully build its case. The used to believe that the earth was in motion before FET, after all. At the very least, newcomers will be more informed.

Another gravimeter = seismometer reference:

https://orkustofnun.is/gogn/unu-gtp-sc/UNU-GTP-SC-10-0405a.pdf  on p.4

Quote
An important factor in obtaining useful gravity values in detailed surveys is determining the earth tide effect  as  their  gravitational effects may be greater than the gravity field variations due to the anomalous features being sought. The final aspect of reading a gravity meter concerns seismic activity or cultural movement such as those of vehicles or people. These will disrupt the readings (the meter is actually a low-frequency seismometer) and even though the Scintrex meter has an anti-seismic filter (the  La  Coste-Romberg  meters  are  also  mechanically  damped  to lessen  the  effects  of  earthquakes), readings  will  still  be  disrupted.

The author is Dr. Nicolas O. Mariita. Again, we see that the gravimeter is actually a seismometer.

Recall from above that the seismometer was detecting gravity tides on subseismic bands, which was described as:

Quote
'subseismic band' (i.e. frequency lower than 0.03mHz) that has very strong background noise;

So, the gravimeter is a low-frequency seismometer, taking data out of those low-frequencies.

In the introduction of that paper Dr. Mariita tells us about what gravimetry depends on:

Quote
The success of the gravity method depends on the different earth materials having different bulk densities (mass) that produce variations in the measured gravitational field. These variations can then be  interpreted  by  a  variety  of analytical and computers methods to determine the depth, geometry and density that causes the gravity field variations.

He tells us about the Bouguer anomalies previously mentioned, and the volcanoes:

Quote
The most commonly used processed data are known as Bouguer gravity anomalies, measured  in  mGal.  The  interpretation  of Bouguer gravity anomalies ranges from  just manually inspecting the grid or profiles for variations in the gravitational field to more complex methods that involves separating the gravity anomaly due to an  object  of  interest from some sort of regional gravity field. From this, bodies and structures can be inferred which may be of geothermal interest.

Volcanic centres, where geothermal activity is found, are indicators of cooling magma or hot rock  beneath  these  areas as shown by the recent volcanic  flows, ashes, volcanic domes and abundant hydrothermal activities in the form fumaroles and  hot  springs. Gravity studies in volcanic areas have effectively demonstrated that this method  provides good evidence of shallow subsurface density variations, associated  with the structural and magmatic  history of a volcano. There is a correlation between gravity highs with centres of recent volcanism, intensive faulting and geothermal activity. For example, in the Kenya rift, Olkaria, Domes and Suswa geothermal centres are located on the crest of a gravity high.

This seems to confirm, to me, that:

- A gravimeter is a seismometer
- It takes data from subseismic bands that have lots of noise
- Analysis and filtering is performed under the theory that the different bulk densities of the earth create variations, causing these slight vibration trends
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: inquisitive on November 29, 2018, 09:17:09 AM
What does this measure
http://www.npl.co.uk/news/transportable-optical-clock-used-to-measure-gravitation-for-the-first-time
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 29, 2018, 09:36:08 AM
We have seen that a gravimeter can double as a seismometer, and a seismometer can double as a gravimeter. Both associate anomalies near volcanoes, on plate boundaries, and earthquake prone zones. Both are analyzing trends in noise to pull out the gravity. The paper above clearly says that it is analyzing subseismic noise to identify gravity.
So your thesis is that observed acceleration is higher than expected in seismic/volcanic zones etc.

Two serious problems here. The first is that if the seismic zone is accelerating e.g. 10 milligals faster than a non seismic zone, i.e. increasing speed by 0.0001 metres per second, every second, then every day the discrepancy is 60 x 60 x 24 x 0.0001 = 8.64 metres per second, per day, i.e. one zone is now travelling upwards faster by that amount each day. Thus in one year the difference is 3153.6 metres per second or 7,000 miles an hour. Feel free to check my arithmetic. That’s the difference in upward motion between the different zones, cumulating over one year. Why doesn’t the crust of the flat earth break up under the force, and why don’t we see mountainous areas rising faster and faster compared to the rest of the earth?

Hence you cannot suppose that on average some regions of the earth are accelerating faster than others.

That’s just the first problem.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 29, 2018, 09:52:14 AM
The change of mass would be the interpretation if it were measuring "gravity".
Why? Which of your sources says this?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 29, 2018, 11:53:22 AM
The chart below illustrates the second problem of Tom’s hypothesis

Let me explain. I constructed the chart using data from the British Geological survey. The blue noisy line represents raw gravimeter observations along latitude 50.9 (which corresponds to Brighton, England e.g.)  There are no corrections of any sort, not for height or latitude or terrain or anything. This is the stuff coming out of the instrument, which is simply measuring acceleration, not ‘gravity’.

Units are the familiar one of m / s sq.

The red noisy line is the same kind of raw data measured at different points along the 55.6 latitude, including Gretna Green in Scotland.

Turning to the green line, this is absolutely straight and represents a theoretical acceleration based on (i) latitude of 50.9 and (ii) average assumed height of 100m. It’s important to understand this line does not use any information from the instrument at all. It’s a purely theoretical function using two inputs, based on the Newtonian theory of gravity. Nothing more. Finally the purple straight line is the same theoretical acceleration for the Scotland latitude.

[edit] Putting it another way, the straight line is saying 'this is what we would expect to see if Newtonian gravity is true and if the earth were approximately spherical, the noisy line is say 'this is what we actually see'.

The problem for the UA theory is to explain how the observed, i.e. totally uncorrected data is different for the different latitudes. No assumptions have been made about ‘gravity’, the shape of the earth, density of rock or anything like that. Simply observed acceleration measured by dropping an object for a certain distance then measuring the time taken.

As for ‘anomaly’, this chart is not showing anomaly, but you could derive the anomaly by subtracting the noisy line from the straight one. It is the confusion about anomaly which has derailed this discussion. Anomaly is not gravity, but rather an observation number (noisy) minus a theoretical number (straight).

(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/6/63/British_geo_expected_vs_actual.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 29, 2018, 03:27:29 PM
Another source for exactly what a seismometer is:

Seismometers measure the motion or displacement of the ground, a three-component vector u(x,t) that is a function of position x and time t.

In other words a Seismometer measures the motion or displacement vs time of the mass that produces gravity.  That's why you see a gravimeter show changes when there's a motion of the mass because the distance to the mass changes.  The total amount of mass on the earth doesn't change it just moves around a bit.  Yes, you can have some meteorites crash into the earth that adds a bit to the mass, and you can send some mass off into space (maybe not in FET) that will subtract a bit of mass) but for the most part the mass on earth stays constant.  If that mass was uniformly distributed throughout a perfectly spherical earth the force of gravity would be perfectly uniform and wouldn't ever vary.  Of course the earth is an oblate spheroid so there's a change in the force of gravity measured on the surface of that oblate spheroid depending on the measurement location.  Since the mass inside the earth is in constant motion there's always a change in the measured gravity. A gravimeter will see a small change in the measured force of gravity because there's a small change in the distance to the mass that causes the gravity.  The seismometer measures that motion or displacement of mass not really the absolute force of gravity.  If the mass of the earth remained absolutely constant and had zero movement then a gravimeter would show a constant, steady, reading.  A seismometer would show a constant zero reading. 

It's like ringing a bell.   A gravimeter measures the bell --  a seismometer measures the ring

Maybe if you did even a little more research you could show via seismometer readings that the earth is an oblate spheroid, wouldn't that be interesting?
https://arxiv.org/html/physics/0605162


https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/seismographs
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2018, 06:10:53 PM
Yet another gravimeter = seismometer reference.

From second page of https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/91JB01577

(https://i.imgur.com/0ljBpw8.png)

On the same page:

(https://i.imgur.com/g6Xc1qe.png)

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave

(https://i.imgur.com/2QZO0c6.png)

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infragravity_wave

The gravimeter is a seismometer measuring tiny vibrations in the noisy low frequency bands. Analysis performed under the theory that patterns in the noise are due to gravity.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 29, 2018, 07:53:02 PM
Your analysis is about 180 degrees out of phase.  A seismometer measures CHANGES in gravity LARGER THAN ZERO.  Those changes can be about any frequency LARGER than zero.  A gravimeter can also measure the changes in gravity but can also measure gravity down to a frequency that INCLUDES ZERO.  A subtle but important difference.  The idea of the gravimeter is to measure the acceleration of one mass caused by the force of attraction of another mass.  That force of acceleration can be a constant or a variable, it doesn't matter, the gravimeter can measure it.  The Idea of a seismometer is to measure the change (not the absolute value of) a mass due to it's physical movement.  If there's NO physical movement of the mass then there will be a ZERO reading on a seismometer but a CONSTANT reading on a gravimeter. 

If you have any gravity at all a gravimeter can measure it.  You have to have a CHANGE in that same gravity for a seismometer to measure it.    Two different devices, two different reasons to have them.

It's kind of like having a AC / DC voltmeter.  You can't really measure a constant DC voltage on an AC meter.  Your reading would be zero.  You can measure a slowly changing AC voltage on a DC meter but you really can't make too much sense out of it but can maybe mentally average the readings to get an idea.    Think of the Gravimeter like a DC voltmeter and a Seismometer like a AC meter.  They are both voltmeters but have different purpose.

A gravimeter can measure the equation y = 2   ... a seisometer can only measure the first derivative of that equation:  dy/dx = 0     A gravimeter would measure 2 and a seisometer would measure zero. 
You can't have two instruments measure the same identical thing and get completely different readings and consider them to be equivalent.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 29, 2018, 09:04:00 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology

If you really want to get into Seismology why not pay specific attention to the section in the link above relating to 'Mapping the earth's interior'.  Detailed research will probably lead you to a proof that the earth is spherical just by doing some detailed seismology calculations on the waves produced during an earthquake and how those waves are reflected around on the interior of a sphere.  If the earth were a flat plane the reflections of those waves would be radically different.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 29, 2018, 11:06:19 PM
Lets look at how this gravimeter works:

https://schmidtocean.org/rv-falkor/operations-and-science-systems/gravimeter/#images

Quote
The gravimeter, about the size of a steamer trunk, uses magnetism to suspend an internal metal cylinder, and measures changes in the way gravity pulls on that cylinder. Many people are familiar with the fact that acceleration from gravity—for instance if you jump out of a plane—is 9.8 meters per second squared. Measured in milligals (mGals)—a common research unit for gravity—that’s 980,000. Remarkably, the gravimeter can detect changes as small as 1 mGal—or roughly one millionth of gravity’s total pull.

There is no falling object. The magnetism suspends the cylinder. And the system measures changes to that cylinder.

Quote
The researchers aren’t interested in that total pull, though; they’re interested in learning about the seafloor. So they process the data coming in to subtract out all the normal weight of Earth below them, which is relatively constant, as well as the weight due to topography, which they get from the sonar mapping.

They don't care about the total pull, they just care about using the device as a seismometer, because it is one, and analyzing the low frequency bands to look for the mass changes.

You're omitting the example of why they are using a gravimeter in the first place. And they are certainly not using it as a seismometer. That is crystal clear:

"What they are left with are differences unique to a given spot. The islands, as you might expect, are filled with the remains of ancient coral reefs—which take the form of relatively light carbonate rock. Using gravity data the team will be able to essentially remove those coral remains to “see” what the geological features below look like. An example of the type of feature the gravimeter can reveal is the fissures on volcanoes known as rift zones where magma comes through during volcanic eruptions. Such fissures are naturally denser than the surrounding rock layers, and yield a stronger and more positive gravity signal."
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 30, 2018, 12:18:10 AM
A post went missing, you can see it in Stack's post above.

Lets look at how The Global CCS Institute describes gravimetry:

https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/quantification-techniques-co2-leakage/31-deep-subsurface-monitoring-methods

Quote
Gravimetry consists of studying the anomalies of the gravity field due to density variations underground.

It's studying variations due to density underground, based on the theory that gravity would cause fluctuations. Again, similar to what we saw earlier. This is what gravimetry is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimetry

Quote
Besides precision, stability is also an important property of a gravimeter, as it allows the monitoring of gravity changes. These changes can be the result of mass displacements inside the Earth, or of vertical movements of the Earth's crust on which measurements are being made: remember that gravity decreases 0.3 mGal for every metre of height.

"Changes" was already italicized in the article, because it is emphasizing that the gravimeter is tracking tiny changes and calling it gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter

Quote
Many broadband, three axis, seismometers in common use are sensitive enough to track the sun and moon. When operated to report acceleration, they are useful gravimeters. Because they have three axes, it is possible to solve for their position and orientation, by either tracking the arrival time and pattern of seismic waves from earthquakes, or by referencing them to the sun and moon tidal gravity.

Recently, the SGs, and broadband three axis seismometers operated in gravimeter mode, have begun to detect and characterize the small gravity signals from earthquakes.

Again we see that seismometers can operate in gravimeter mode, detecting the slight changes in the noisy low-frequency bands.

Quote
You're omitting the example of why they are using a gravimeter in the first place. And they are certainly not using it as a seismometer. That is crystal clear:

"What they are left with are differences unique to a given spot. The islands, as you might expect, are filled with the remains of ancient coral reefs—which take the form of relatively light carbonate rock. Using gravity data the team will be able to essentially remove those coral remains to “see” what the geological features below look like. An example of the type of feature the gravimeter can reveal is the fissures on volcanoes known as rift zones where magma comes through during volcanic eruptions. Such fissures are naturally denser than the surrounding rock layers, and yield a stronger and more positive gravity signal."

A gravimeter is a seismometer. We have seen several researchers telling us that it is. Those "gravity signals" are vibrations detected by that seismometer.

The fact that the call them "gravity signals" and "gravity waves," and we see mentions of gravity and tidal bands makes the situation pretty clear.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 30, 2018, 12:44:03 AM

Quote
You're omitting the example of why they are using a gravimeter in the first place. And they are certainly not using it as a seismometer. That is crystal clear:

"What they are left with are differences unique to a given spot. The islands, as you might expect, are filled with the remains of ancient coral reefs—which take the form of relatively light carbonate rock. Using gravity data the team will be able to essentially remove those coral remains to “see” what the geological features below look like. An example of the type of feature the gravimeter can reveal is the fissures on volcanoes known as rift zones where magma comes through during volcanic eruptions. Such fissures are naturally denser than the surrounding rock layers, and yield a stronger and more positive gravity signal."

A gravimeter is a seismometer. We have seen several researchers telling us that it is. Those "gravity signals" are vibrations detected by that seismometer.

The fact that the call them "gravity signals" and "gravity waves," and references to a "gravity bands" makes it perfectly clear.

Is their gravimeter measuring the vibrations of an ancient coral reef or the result of the lower density of the light carbonate deposit, the latter they claim?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 30, 2018, 12:59:06 AM
Is their gravimeter measuring the vibrations of an ancient coral reef or the result of the lower density of the light carbonate deposit, the latter they claim?

If seismic vibrations are passing though something, and those signals change slightly when you pass over, it may be possible to subtract some elements to see others through data analysis, just like how they try to use seismic waves to detect tunnels:

https://phys.org/news/2012-12-tunnels-seismic-simple.html
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: markjo on November 30, 2018, 02:01:27 AM
A post went missing, you can see it in Stack's post above.

Lets look at how The Global CCS Institute describes gravimetry:

https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/quantification-techniques-co2-leakage/31-deep-subsurface-monitoring-methods

Quote
Gravimetry consists of studying the anomalies of the gravity field due to density variations underground.

It's studying variations due to density underground, based on the theory that gravity would cause fluctuations. Again, similar to what we saw earlier. This is what gravimetry is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimetry

Quote
Besides precision, stability is also an important property of a gravimeter, as it allows the monitoring of gravity changes. These changes can be the result of mass displacements inside the Earth, or of vertical movements of the Earth's crust on which measurements are being made: remember that gravity decreases 0.3 mGal for every metre of height.

"Changes" was already italicized in the article, because it is emphasizing that the gravimeter is tracking tiny changes and calling it gravity.
No Tom.  The gravimeter is tracking tiny changes and calling them anomalies, as pointed out in the CSS Institute quote that you cited.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 30, 2018, 02:03:13 AM
You didn't read the whole description (probably) of how tunnels are located.  Under the picture of the truck & equipment there was this reference.

"The photo shows some acquisition equipment, including an SUV-mounted accelerated weight drop to generate seismic waves".

There is a good reason for that requirement.  If you want to use a seisometer you have to have a vibration somehow to measure the response.  It would be possible the just wait until there was an earthquake and then analyze the data but that would just take too long.  I'm sure that they set up the seisometer at the location they want to check, then use the accelerated weight on the truck to 'thump' the earth, then measure the vibrations and look in the anomalies generated for the signature of a tunnel.

Again, just another example of the subtle but definite difference between the use & application of a seisometer and a gravimeter.  There are some applications where you could use either a seisometer or a gravimeter.  Other times there are applications were you could ONLY use a gravimeter to obtain the data you need.  It just depends on what you are trying to measure. 

It looks like you could use either a seisometer or gravimeter to show that the earth is an oblate spheroid!       
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 30, 2018, 07:18:38 AM
Another description:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_gradiometry

Quote
Gravity gradiometry is the study and measurement of variations in the acceleration due to gravity. The gravity gradient is the spatial rate of change of gravitational acceleration.

Gravity gradiometry is used by oil and mineral prospectors to measure the density of the subsurface, effectively by measuring the rate of change of gravitational acceleration (or jerk) due to underlying rock properties. From this information it is possible to build a picture of subsurface anomalies which can then be used to more accurately target oil, gas and mineral deposits. It is also used to image water column density, when locating submerged objects, or determining water depth (bathymetry). Physical scientists use gravimeters to determine the exact size and shape of the earth and they contribute to the gravity compensations applied to inertial navigation systems.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 30, 2018, 07:33:08 AM
Another description:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_gradiometry

Quote
Gravity gradiometry is the study and measurement of variations in the acceleration due to gravity. The gravity gradient is the spatial rate of change of gravitational acceleration.

Gravity gradiometry is used by oil and mineral prospectors to measure the density of the subsurface, effectively by measuring the rate of change of gravitational acceleration (or jerk) due to underlying rock properties. From this information it is possible to build a picture of subsurface anomalies which can then be used to more accurately target oil, gas and mineral deposits. It is also used to image water column density, when locating submerged objects, or determining water depth (bathymetry). Physical scientists use gravimeters to determine the exact size and shape of the earth and they contribute to the gravity compensations applied to inertial navigation systems.

Yes, it seems you keep finding research, definitions, etc., of areas of application/study and the instruments used to measure gravity.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 30, 2018, 07:43:30 AM
Yes, it seems you keep finding research, definitions, etc., of areas of application/study and the instruments used to measure gravity.

How does the measurement of tiny jerks equal a measurement of gravity? I would really like to know.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: inquisitive on November 30, 2018, 09:04:32 AM
Yes, it seems you keep finding research, definitions, etc., of areas of application/study and the instruments used to measure gravity.

How does the measurement of tiny jerks equal a measurement of gravity? I would really like to know.
You need to join a science forum, this is not the place to find out.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 30, 2018, 09:06:49 AM
Yes, it seems you keep finding research, definitions, etc., of areas of application/study and the instruments used to measure gravity.

How does the measurement of tiny jerks equal a measurement of gravity? I would really like to know.

Wow, you want to hang your 'gravity can't be measured' hat on the word "jerk"? Interesting. And you're misrepresenting the term by adding your modifier of "tiny" which is not indicated at all. As if indicating constant movement/vibration. Again, not stated at all by what you cite. 

"In physics, jerk is the rate of change of acceleration; that is, the time derivative of acceleration, and as such the second derivative of velocity, or the third time derivative of position. According to the result of dimensional analysis of jerk, [length/time3], the SI units for its magnitude are m/s3 (or m⋅s−3); this can also be expressed in standard gravity per second (g/s)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)

As we've seen from the countless articles/papers posted here, gravimetry and seismology both factor time as a part of acceleration, or 'jerk'. The former relies more on duration whereas the latter is more attune to the acute aberrations and both measured/used accordingly.

Sorry, but you're going to have to try harder to debunk gravimetry and the instruments used.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 30, 2018, 09:50:01 AM
Tom, you still haven’t addressed the objection I showed earlier, namely that the observed acceleration is different in Gretna (Scotland) than it is in Brighton (Southern England). I.e. the pure observed acceleration without any adjustments for height, latitude, terrain etc. The first showed 9.81539, the second 9.81124

Is the problem that you don’t trust the highly developed and complex instruments discussed in the articles you link to? Then why not a Zetetic experiment of the kind shown here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sipTMkO9ztw.


The method isn’t particularly accurate, but should be enough to detect the different accelerations observed in Scotland and in England.

Or even better, construct one experiment in London and one where you live. I estimate at your latitude you would see an acceleration of 9.79867, if the Newtonian theory is true. But if UA is true, you would see the same value as where I live. We could repeat the experiment at widely different latitudes.

How about that challenge?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 30, 2018, 02:13:27 PM
If you are a weather man and go outside and look at your weather vane on a windy day I'll bet you will see it violently jerking back & forth.  Aren't you still measuring the movement of air?  Usually you just watch the weather vane jerk back & forth and take a mental average and call that the direction of the wind.  When you go down to the sea shore and look at the ocean water don't you usually see a bunch of waves?  If you try to measure the height of the water on a pier piling don't you usually see a lot of violent 'jerky' changes?  You are still measuring the water level, right?  Gravity is like that as well.  It's not a nice steady phenomenon.  The earth can be a chaotic place both above the surface and below.  Any changes below the surface of the earth will produce lots of changes in the gravity field just like a weather vane reacts to the changes in the wind.  Of course you can't see gravity like you can see the waves.  You can't see 'temperature' either, but you can measure it and feel it. You will need some instruments to give you a measurement but just because that measurement varies a lot doesn't mean you are not still measuring gravity.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 30, 2018, 04:46:08 PM
If you are a weather man and go outside and look at your weather vane on a windy day I'll bet you will see it violently jerking back & forth.  Aren't you still measuring the movement of air?  Usually you just watch the weather vane jerk back & forth and take a mental average and call that the direction of the wind.  When you go down to the sea shore and look at the ocean water don't you usually see a bunch of waves?  If you try to measure the height of the water on a pier piling don't you usually see a lot of violent 'jerky' changes?  You are still measuring the water level, right?  Gravity is like that as well.  It's not a nice steady phenomenon.  The earth can be a chaotic place both above the surface and below.  Any changes below the surface of the earth will produce lots of changes in the gravity field just like a weather vane reacts to the changes in the wind.  Of course you can't see gravity like you can see the waves.  You can't see 'temperature' either, but you can measure it and feel it. You will need some instruments to give you a measurement but just because that measurement varies a lot doesn't mean you are not still measuring gravity.
The analogy with wind is a bit misleading, given the amplitude of variation from the average. E.g. I live in a country where the prevailing wind is SW, but this can vary from about nothing, to 50 mph. The gravity 'wind' is more like a river with no tidal variation and which flows in a constant stream with only tiny tiny variations faster and slower. In the case of 'gravitational' acceleration, a constant stream of e.g. 981,164,767 where I live, with variations of 1 to 10 around that average. Variations that only the most accurate instruments in the world can detect.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 30, 2018, 05:18:13 PM
Fair enough.  I was just trying to think of something that would make some sense.  If you were just measuring gravity in a static location on a day to day basis I wouldn't much variation at all.  However if you put a gravimeter on a ship or aircraft then you will see a lot more 'jerks' as you pass over the surface of the earth.  Of course all those 'jerks' would be a few places to the right of the decimal point and there wouldn't be any huge change until you started traveling some distance to the North or South.  I read most of the links Tom referred to and found a lot of information that was interesting.  Many of the links refer to the earth as an oblate spheroid with gravity.

Your proposed experiment is interesting but would essentially show the same thing as the Gnome experiment.  If Tom actually got out and personally did the experiment at a lot of different locations maybe that would change things.  It seems that the Zetetic way is to only trust in the evidence that you have accumulated with your own eyes.   
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 30, 2018, 05:54:39 PM
Quote from: edby
Tom, you still haven’t addressed the objection I showed earlier, namely that the observed acceleration is different in Gretna (Scotland) than it is in Brighton (Southern England). I.e. the pure observed acceleration without any adjustments for height, latitude, terrain etc. The first showed 9.81539, the second 9.81124

We have seen that that is not how the gravimeter works. The gravimeter is a seismometer and works by detecting the small vibrations and noise of the small 'gravity' fluctuations.

We have no idea how they arrived at those numbers after their numerous levels of filtering, interpretation, and analysis. There is no demonstration on those numbers were arrived at, or on how the small vibrations were interpreted and translated. Were latitude corrections made, or not made, in the source of your image, and if so, in what way and at what stage? We have not seen information on that matter.

Further, this is what your image showed between the Gretna, Scotland and Brighton in Southern England:

(https://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/6/63/British_geo_expected_vs_actual.jpg)

Fault lines in the UK:

(https://i.imgur.com/uDVbMh0.jpg)

One of those locations is near fault lines and the other is not.

There are also average temperature variations between the equator and the poles.

(https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003652/SSTMap_2000x1000.jpg)

The winds, pressures, oceans, are also different in different areas, heavier or lighter, contributing to the background noise of the earth, even if the machine is in a basement.  There are daily variations; but Greenland's ice sheets don't melt away during the day and freeze over again at night; there are trends that stay. Could these things have an effect on the small vibrations? Possibly. It is also possible that they are making a number of assumptions to come up with those numbers.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 30, 2018, 06:31:14 PM
It’s interesting the level of scrutiny you’re applying to these experiments when you seem to take Rowbotham’s at face value.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on November 30, 2018, 06:47:17 PM
Tom
You have your definitions wrong as well. Seisometers and gravimeters are two different types of instruments.  They were designed to have two different functions.  Please review the wiki for the basic definitions and all my attempts to explain as well.  You won't get any closer to a real understanding of what is happening in the real world until you can get a basic understanding of how some of the basic measuring equipment works.  Of course, you may really understand quite well and your posts are just your way to generate more hype, but that is pure speculation on my part.  If you have a genuine problem with understanding that probably can be worked out.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: junker on November 30, 2018, 07:08:02 PM
It’s interesting the level of scrutiny you’re applying to these experiments when you seem to take Rowbotham’s at face value.

You aren't adding anything to the thread with this. If you want to question Tom's position, you can certainly do a better job than a one-liner. Warned.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: George Jetson on November 30, 2018, 07:26:00 PM
Great research Tom.  The gravity doctrine is without any straightforward experimental basis.  It's clear that these gravimeters do not directly measure gravity, rather they are interpreted in such a way the presupposes the existence of gravity.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 30, 2018, 08:24:14 PM
Great research Tom.  The gravity doctrine is without any straightforward experimental basis.  It's clear that these gravimeters do not directly measure gravity, rather they are interpreted in such a way the presupposes the existence of gravity.

If you want to get all esoteric I guess you could say the same about a lot of constructs/instruments.

The time doctrine is without any straightforward experimental basis.  It's clear that these clocks do not directly measure time, rather they are interpreted in such a way that presupposes the existence of time.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: markjo on November 30, 2018, 08:59:21 PM
Tom, I think that you're missing the point of your own thread.  If you want UA to be a unifying project, then it isn't enough to disprove gravity.  You need to show why UA is a better alternative.  Showing why absolute gravimeters show different readings at different latitudes and different elevations, and why relative gravimeters (and seismometers) show anomalous variations in expected acceleration readings that coincide with density changes within the earth's crust would be a good place to start.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on November 30, 2018, 09:23:15 PM
Tom, I think that you're missing the point of your own thread.  If you want UA to be a unifying project, then it isn't enough to disprove gravity.  You need to show why UA is a better alternative.  Showing why absolute gravimeters show different readings at different latitudes and different elevations, and why relative gravimeters (and seismometers) show anomalous variations in expected acceleration readings that coincide with density changes within the earth's crust would be a good place to start.

I agree and alluded to this before. To appeal to the wider FE proponents as you are wanting to do the issue isn't why UA is a better alternative to spherical earth gravity, but that it is a better alternative to their belief that any form of "gravity", UA or otherwise, doesn't exist. UA puts the earth in motion. That aspect alone is the sticking point for the wider FE audience. It's as ludicrous to them as much as a rotating ball. And it seems to be the main issue why they claim TFES is controlled opposition. There may be other issues, but this seems to be the one I see crop up the most.

So the question is why is UA necessary? What problem does it solve for FE at large?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 30, 2018, 09:37:05 PM
Quote from: edby
Tom, you still haven’t addressed the objection I showed earlier, namely that the OBSERVED ACCELERATION is different in Gretna (Scotland) than it is in Brighton (Southern England). I.e. the pure observed acceleration without any adjustments for height, latitude, terrain etc. The first showed 9.81539, the second 9.81124
[…]
We have no idea how they arrived at those numbers after their numerous levels of filtering, interpretation, and analysis. There is no demonstration on those numbers were arrived at, or on how the small vibrations were interpreted and translated. Were latitude corrections made, or not made, in the source of your image, and if so, in what way? We have not seen information on that matter.
[…]
 
Every sentence of your post contains at least one mistake, but let’s start with your question about whether latitude corrections were made, or not made, in the source of that image.

As clearly stated in my post https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11397.msg174759#msg174759 I made no corrections made to the raw data. Observed acceleration has no adjustments for latitude, or height, or terrain etc.

So, as I clearly stated this, you are quite wrong to say ‘We have not seen information on that matter.’

I don’t know what you mean by ‘small vibrations’. What vibrations are these? Was there any reference in my post to ‘vibrations’?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 30, 2018, 10:02:28 PM
Tom, I think that you're missing the point of your own thread.  If you want UA to be a unifying project, then it isn't enough to disprove gravity.  You need to show why UA is a better alternative.  Showing why absolute gravimeters show different readings at different latitudes and different elevations, and why relative gravimeters (and seismometers) show anomalous variations in expected acceleration readings that coincide with density changes within the earth's crust would be a good place to start.

My understanding is that Tom believes the different readings at different latitude are down to noise (or in another remark, to temperature).

The problem with the first position (noise) is that the noise is not enough to explain difference in latitude. If you look at my chart above (which is not an image sourced from Google, but rather my own analytical work) there is certainly noise in the data, but it stays within a certain band.

The problem with the second is that temperature is changing all the time, so we would expect to see readings in London made on very hot days that coincided with readings in Africa made on very cold days. Furthermore I can't find any sources in the literature that even mention such a wide range of readings caused by temperature.

[edit]
Here is the chart again. You see how the noisy data all stays within a well-defined range.

(https://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/6/63/British_geo_expected_vs_actual.jpg)
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on November 30, 2018, 10:06:47 PM
Great research Tom.  The gravity doctrine is without any straightforward experimental basis.  It's clear that these gravimeters do not directly measure gravity, rather they are interpreted in such a way the presupposes the existence of gravity.
They directly measure acceleration, not gravity. Expected acceleration certainly does assume the mechanics of gravity, but the whole point is to compare actual (=observed) acceleration, which does not depend on any theory, with expected acceleration, which is a pure mathematical calculation. As you see from my charts above, these correlate pretty well.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2018, 02:51:32 AM
Edby, my point was that we don't know how those figures were created.

I took a look at those latitude corrections. Look at this: http://www.geol-amu.org/notes/m10-1-4.htm

The top of the page says:

Quote
Recall that, if the Earth were an homogeneous ellipsoid, the value of gravity at the surface would be given by:

g = g0 (1 + k1 sin2 ϕ – k2 sin2 2ϕ)

The objective of gravity surveys is to look for deviations from this reference value.

If the objective of gravity surveys is merely to look for deviations from a round earth reference model with the vibrating gravity theory, then the final computed 9.8... number, which the gravity surveys modify, becomes meaningless for the purpose of discussion. Any modifications for latitude in that process would be done one a theoretical basis, and may already be performed in your image.

Take a read through that page. It basically says that "Here is the model. The goal of gravity surveys is to modify this model"... Lower down it says that the corrections for height and latitude are made to that model.

Think about it. Why would there be "lattitude correction" and "height correction" formulas if these devices could detect it? Why would they need to be corrected with that data? The answer appears to be that they can't detect it. As that page says, they are correction formulas for that round earth model we are trying to find deviations from.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on December 01, 2018, 05:27:42 AM
The whole idea of a reference oblate spheroid was to establish an absolute value for the acceleration of gravity at the equator and at the poles.  Once the endpoints of the equator and the poles have been established a formula was developed to let anyone calculate the acceleration as a function of latitude.  Once that has been established and everyone (worldwide) has agreed upon it then all detailed surveys will just log an offset to that calculated reference.  To understand the concept alone you really don't need to have all the survey data because all it does is tweak the reference by less than 1%.  If you are a company that has spent untold millions to put up a bunch of satellites, you want to have the detailed database because it will have an effect on the orbit.  GPS satellites need to have detailed data to calculate offsets so the positions will be accurate.  The whole idea wasn't to hide anything but to make it easier for a computer to quickly generate an acceleration reading with just a position and an offset reading.  All you need to be very close to the correct acceleration reading is the equation and the acceleration reading at the equator.  It's not really that complicated. 

Yes, I know you need to try to discredit the whole concept by finding a way to make all the data invalid.  Your reference to 'vibrating gravity theory' doesn't help much because it's just been made up and isn't a valid argument at all.  The biggest problem is that the world geodetic model is international and most countries rely on the model for many things these days.  Millions of readings have been taken probably by thousands of surveyors.  I suppose you could try to call the whole thing a scam, like the space program.  You could allege that all the data was taken by incompetent people with defective equipment and all they really have is noisy useless data.  Perhaps your only way out is to formulate an explanation under UA for why the confirmed acceleration readings change in relation to the latitude. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on December 01, 2018, 08:31:33 AM
Edby, my point was that we don't know how those figures were created.

I took a look at those latitude corrections. Look at this: http://www.geol-amu.org/notes/m10-1-4.htm
You really still aren't listening.

I performed the corrections to the expected i.e. theoretical values. I took the latitude and applied the formula you mention above (the IGF formula), then made a further correction for average height.

I performed no "corrections" to the observed values.

Quote
Think about it. Why would there be "lattitude correction" and "height correction" formulas if these devices could detect it? Why would they need to be corrected with that data? The answer appears to be that they can't detect it. As that page says, they are correction formulas for that round earth model we are trying to find deviations from.
The devices can't detect latitude or height above sea level. They simply detect acceleration. You drop an object for an accurately known distance, accurately time the start and the finish, so you know the distance travelled and the time taken. This will work equally well if the earth is accelerating upwards under UA, or whether 'gravity' exists. Isn't your whole hypothesis that this is what is happening? I.e. the instrument can't tell whether the object is accelerating downwards (a) because earth is accelerating upwards or (b) some mysterious force called 'gravity' is pulling it downwards. The instrument doesn't know, hence we have the observed values in my chart.

The two straight horizontal lines by contrast are calculated using a formula, with no observation whatsoever.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: stack on December 01, 2018, 10:27:51 AM
The Universal Accelerator is, in fact, a strong piece of evidence for the Flat Earth movement. It can be shown that it is actually farcical to try and use or argue for any other form of gravity.

Why does FET need an alternate form of gravity? I understand that the spherical version is untenable, but why does FE need one at all?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on December 01, 2018, 03:36:00 PM
Gravity produces a force on a mass.  A force is a vector that has both magnitude and direction.  If the earth were flat, then the expected gravity vector would point wildly off vertical the further out towards the edge you went.  It's hard to say exactly how bad the effect would be because FET doesn't seem to have any mass, exact shape, or density specs on the earth like RET does.  To counter that UA was invented and under that paradigm everything is being accelerated at 9.81 worldwide.  You can't really have any consistent change in the acceleration readings anywhere on the earth because that would mean that the earth would break up.
 
Some absolute gravimeters measure the acceleration of a small ball in a vacuum and use that figure for the gravity acceleration measurement.  Those same instruments could function the same under UA.  However, instruments consistently measure a change that depends upon latitude.  You would expect that if the earth were an oblate spheroid.  A small effect is also noticed due to the rotation of the earth (another FET no-no) and must be considered when calculating the gravitational acceleration.
So, either all the earth’s worldwide gravity surveys must be totally discredited as either being inaccurate, not done by competent personnel, not really measuring gravity, or the earth is really an oblate spheroid.  An attempt has been made to cloud the issue and equate a seismometer reading with a gravimeter reading.  Those two devices really measure different properties of the earth and are completely different things.

Of course, any mass, of any kind, will have a gravitational attraction to another mass, of any kind.  As far as anyone knows, this is a universal fact and applies anywhere in the galaxy.  It certainly applies anywhere in the solar system.  The idea that the earth has mass and no gravity under FET is interesting.  The Wiki still claims that tides are produced by the gravitational attraction of the moon and the stars.  That would mean that the earth’s oceans have some gravitational attraction, but not the land or anything else.  Another interesting ‘fact’. 
There are inconsistencies all over the place, but FET and UA can fly if you just don’t look too close or ask too many questions.   “Pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain”.   
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on December 01, 2018, 03:45:51 PM
I was thinking about powder scales last evening.  Years ago I used to reload my own rifle bullets so an accurate scale was necessary because that's how you determined how much powder to put in the bullet.
This was the quote I found from a related manual. 

Mass vs Weight
In everyday situations, to make things easy, we pretend that the strength of gravity is the same everywhere on Earth and that mass and weight are interchangeable. This is a lie though. In reality, local gravity varies slightly depending on your latitude, longitude, altitude and other geological features. The same mass might have a different weight depending on where you weigh it. In other words, a 500g mass on Earth is going to weigh much more than a 500g mass on the Moon due to the much weaker gravity. Although scales measure the weight of an object, they are calibrated to display in units of mass. When a scale is calibrated at its location of use, a standard mass is placed on the scale and its weight is measured. The scale is then adjusted so that it's readings display the correct mass and any differences in gravity between its new location and the last location it was adjusted are compensated for. This is why calibration certificates for precision scales must be issued at their location of use and are not valid if the scale is shipped to another location.

Hopefully all the drug dealers have their scales accurately compensated.  If not you should get a little more on the equator than at the poles. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on December 02, 2018, 09:59:27 AM
The Universal Accelerator is, in fact, a strong piece of evidence for the Flat Earth movement. It can be shown that it is actually farcical to try and use or argue for any other form of gravity.

Why does FET need an alternate form of gravity? I understand that the spherical version is untenable, but why does FE need one at all?
Good point. I think the logic is as follows. If we admit even the possibility of different massy objects attracting one another at a distance, then we admit the possibility of people standing upside down in Australia, attracted to the centre of the earth. So that possibility must be denied at all costs.

The problem is that they have already conceded the possibility in the form of 'celestial gravity', but that's another matter.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on December 02, 2018, 05:26:29 PM
The Wiki admits that the tides are caused by gravitational attraction to the heavenly bodies.  So gravity is possible under FET but just between unspecified heavenly bodies (including the moon, I believe) and the oceans on the surface of the earth. Where can I find an equation describing this force.  The RE folks have equations quantifying the strength of gravity.  In order to be taken seriously the FET folks will have to come up with some equations of their own.   
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: edby on December 02, 2018, 06:10:43 PM
The Wiki admits that the tides are caused by gravitational attraction to the heavenly bodies.  So gravity is possible under FET but just between unspecified heavenly bodies (including the moon, I believe) and the oceans on the surface of the earth. Where can I find an equation describing this force.  The RE folks have equations quantifying the strength of gravity.  In order to be taken seriously the FET folks will have to come up with some equations of their own.   
RE seems to explain it.  Newton predicts the mutual force between two bodies with mass m1 and m2 with distance r is

   G m1 m2/r^2

Where G is the gravitational constant, first estimated by Cavendish and now thought to be around 6.674 x 10^-11. Let m2 be an apple. Then let the first body be the earth and the second an apple. From the law that F = ma, we have

   G m1 m2/r^2  =  m2 a

But the mass of the apple cancels out, so the acceleration acting on the apple is

   G m1/r^2  =  a

Mass of earth is 10^24 kg, radius is 6,371,000 metres.

   a = 6.674 x 10^-11 times 10^24 divided by 6,371,000 squared = 9.819532032816

If the apple is h metres off the ground, use r+h, which neatly predicts the acceleration data I have been looking at from the British Geological Survey (I can supply that if anyone asks).

Now the RE theory may be false, and the FE hypothesis true. But the RE theory does neatly predict all sorts of things – including the effect of height on observed acceleration – that the FE theory doesn’t. It’s not that FE predicts the wrong number. Rather, it fails to predict anything at all.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on December 02, 2018, 06:50:28 PM
My quandary was the aspect of selective gravitation.  A heavenly body can have a gravitational effect on the earth's oceans, but does that also mean that the earth's oceans have the same attraction to the heavenly bodies?  Then if the earth's oceans have a gravitational effect on a heavenly body why doesn't it have a similar effect on the earth itself?  Then why doesn't the earth itself have a gravitational effect on everything else?  The FET model has one mass attracting another mass selectively.  What is the differences in those masses?  What is the property of the mass of the ocean's water that allows it to be attracted to the heavenly bodies but not to anything else? 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: markjo on December 02, 2018, 10:57:52 PM
My quandary was the aspect of selective gravitation.  A heavenly body can have a gravitational effect on the earth's oceans, but does that also mean that the earth's oceans have the same attraction to the heavenly bodies?
I've always wondered why the heavenly bodies don't have a gravitational effect on each other.  If the sun an moon can affect the tides on earth, then why don't they affect the stars which are ostensibly much closer?  Tom likes to trot out 3 body simulations with bodies dancing around each other.  Why don't we see that sort of interaction between the sun and moon every month as they approach each other during the new moon?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on December 03, 2018, 04:39:17 AM
It looks like there's only one kind of mass in the universe.  There is an equivalence between inertial mass and the gravitational influence that's inherent in any mass.  Since water has inertial mass then it also has a gravitational influence (gravitational mass)  that's even acknowledged by this web site in the wiki since the tides are the gravitational influence between the water and the heavenly bodies.  It has been said on the wiki that there is a gravitational force on the earth but in a greatly diminished form.  I've not seen any equations for that 'greatly diminished' force.  That must mean that the force is really just unknown.  There also has been no explanation for how the heavenly bodies can 'selectively' exert a gravitational force on the earth's water and not on anything else.  It sure looks to me that the whole thing is just made up.  There's no good descriptions of how things work and no equations of force that describes the selectivity of the gravitational force.   
Title: Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
Post by: RonJ on December 05, 2018, 05:19:42 AM
This is a quote from the Wiki:
Think about it: If, through the laws of inertia, a heavier mass has greater resistance to being moved, why should gravity accelerate both an elephant and a book at the same rate towards the earth?

Take a look a the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EkHB_WtKRQ
Basically what this is saying is that since there is an inertial mass and gravitational mass equivalence the book and elephant will always fall at the same rate.  The equations are easy to see and I don't like to 'reinvent the wheel' so I just gave a link to the video.  The bottom line is:  Acceleration is independent of the mass according to the equations so it doesn't matter what the mass happens to be, it will always fall at the same rate.

Another quote from the Wiki:
To the rationalist the above experiments might appear to be futile, but to the empiricist, the fact that one mechanism is observed and not others is grave. While the proposed mechanisms of "graviton puller particles" and "bending space" versions of gravity in Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, which Scientific American describes as 'whooping coincidence', provide equivalent, if absurd, explanations to the results of the above experiments, those things are completely undiscovered and unobserved, and so, are decidedly less empirical

There is no doubt that some of the proofs of gravity are hard to measure and are subtle.  That alone does not make them less valid.  Imagine yourself alone in a swimming pool.  Focus your attention very, very intently on the level of the pool.  Now empty your bladder into the pool.  You know for an absolute fact that the level of the pool has just risen.  Can you measure it?  You would need very sensitive instruments to get a good reading.  There would be plenty of noise.  But if you did the experiment 1000 times and got a average reading wouldn't it give you a pretty good idea of the volume of your bladder? 

That's the problem faced by many scientists trying to measure gravity under certain conditions.  The theory matches the experimental evidence so the experiments are done many, many times.  You eventually end up with an average of the readings and you use that as a good indication that your theory is correct.  Why should that be a problem?