The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: aaronb on May 08, 2019, 03:37:29 PM

As every experienced trader through the ages knows weight measurements by force depend on where they are taken. Hence the change of trading in Lbs for Kg for fair trade. Readings for gravity are different depending on where you are. There is an average value used for basic use but the world is not average and so readings range generally between about 9.83 to 9.76. As I am sure many here must know this (especially any experienced traders) and can be measured and verified by anyone freely.
So I am confused how the upward acceleration works that seems to assume an average value? when if you measure the force at any specific location we clearly see it is not average. So surely different parts of the world must be accelerating at different rates and hence the world falling apart alarmingly quickly? This clearly does not even closely fit observation. Can anyone please explain?

Sorry by piggybacking over your original post, but as far as I read, everything on FE accelerates upwards. This includes "everything" in reference to the ground, atmosphere, the Sun, Moon, stars, no matter the altitude to sea level. Considering everything goes upwards at the same acceleration rate, there is no difference on the nominal acceleration based on altitude to sea level. Imagine a high altitude balloon, sit on some atmospheric gases at 50km of altitude. The balloon is sit quietly there because it is being pushed upwards at the same acceleration imposed to the trash can at my backyard.
Using well known, measured, tested and used for decades formula, the ER gravity at 50km above sea level would use the formula g1/g2 = (R2/R1)², where R is the radius of the planet where the gravity g1 or g2 is measured. So, consider g1 = gravity at sea level and Radius of Earth on equator to be 6400km, then 9.8/g2 = (6450/6400)² = 9.8/g2 = 1.0078125² = g2 = 9.8/1.015686035, result g2 = 9.648m/s² (at 50km of altitude over equator). That means a reduction of gravity in the order of 1.5%, or, 0.153m/s². Using a second formula that calculates Height (of fall) for a specific time and gravity, h=t²*g/2, we can find a mass can fall through 50.067km in just 809 seconds (not considering air friction), final velocity of 445.6km/h. What all this means? That balloon at 50km of altitude, with acceleration of only 9.648m/s², less than the earth itself, would comes down and eventually hit the ground in 809 seconds. Of course that for several reasons the balloon will not splat on ground, but with different acceleration reates the balloon will not stay at 50km of altitude, it would be at much lower altitude trying to compensate the differences of acceleration and pressures differences between the atmosphere and balloon. Eventually it would touch ground, since speed differences don't forgive.
So, the only way to consider this possibility on FE, is if upwards acceleration is constant 9.8m/s² at any altitude, what was already proven otherwise. A 10kg solid metal mass at sea level will weight only 9.988km (12g less) at La Paz (Bolivia) 3640m above sea level, using the same precise scale, this proves without questions the gravity changes by altitude.
This test can be repeated, exercised, duplicated inside airplanes, top of mountains, etc. As a reference, such 10kg solid metal mass at sea level would weight only 9.968km, 32g less, inside an airplane flying steady at 10km of altitude over equator. FErs can do this test anytime.
I am here considering a very linear gravity acceleration over the whole planet, what is not. Several precise measurements were made using special satellites for that (NASA Grace (twin), and European GOCE), and found changes all over the globe, due different mass densities.
But wait... there is something here, I was wrong. It is not everything that accelerates at 9.8m/s² on FE world. We don't. My chair doesn't. My trash can doesn't. Only the earth does that, only the flat planet does that and pushes everything along. Everything else is just sit on top of it. No matter how dip I dig a hole and remove dirt and rocks, they don't accelerate, they still sit over the land. I can go into very dip caves and find rocks on the floor of the caves, what means what accelerate upward on FE world is the very very deep base. Even the volcanos's lava doesn't float in space, they sit and runs down the mountain's surface, it means, not even molten lava is being accelerated upward by this strange force. So, someone care for explain?

While I understand very well all the issues in the expansion of my original question. I feel quoting formulas that already work well does not eliminate the possibility that others that may also do the same.
It is normal when presenting new ideas simplify them before they are expanded to fit all the events we observe. So I would like to keep things simple and just hear something that could explain the basics of what we clearly observe around us, which is of course that the upward force varies depending where we are.
ADDENDUM: I would also suggest that the wording of the oversimplified single acceleration which (while, is useful for estimating values) clearly does not fit our observation, does not help. Surely it would be useful to be open about the fact that this does not match realworld measurements?

I should also like to point out I have read other threads on this, but the only remote answers I found where either.
1. Regurgitations of roundearth theory I already know: Not really helpful, I want to know how flatearth theory can explain it (if possible).
2. Denial based on force cannot be measured: Clearly they never heard of a simple spring scale? which I think many of us agree, do exist, have indeed used, and are more than accurate enough to the few percent needed.
3. Another force causes acceleration (and therefore speed) to vary: As none of us see parts of the world flying up and down away from us, that clearly does not match any observation at all.
I really would dearly love to hear the views from those who are not just going to blindly throw established equations like it negates other views, admits existence of a spring scale, and does look out the window to notice that parts of the world are not actually flying up and down all over the place.

Despite what appears a lot of activity here seemly there is debate over complex issues or experiments which are outside of regular peoples ability to see directly.
The simple measurement of gravity using a spring scale and it's noting that is not quite the published average, which most of us have done at school at some point, I know I did, and in the UK at least the ability to do this using basic principles is part of the National Curriculum (I suspect this is done in most parts of at least the western world today) apparently cannot be explained?
Does this FlatEarth community (who claim to have answers regarding relativity) really have no answer for simple observations using basic principles that most school kids perform at some point using basic equipment in schools each day? I find this astounding to say the least. I really assumed there must be an explanation (even though I could not think of it) of something so basic to warrant belief in a flat earth model.

The typical criticism is that the weight of the air, air pressure, changes by latitude and altitude. The Poles are of higher pressure than the equator. Sea level is at higher pressure than higher altitudes.
Can you reference scale weight experiments that have taken place in a vacuum at different locations?

I am willing to attempt the scale weight experiments in a vacuum. Can you please show me on a map where the poles are located?

I too am eager to see where the poles are on the flatearth map.
Yes, there is a buoyancy effect in the air, Thank you for that idea. Great. Let's test it right now. We will assume for now this does not break the idea of universal acceleration in itself.
For such a buoyancy effect to be measurably significant assuming a mass of 1 kg used for the measurement over 10 cm (again that calculation is basic and taught in the national curriculum to kids. Nothing advanced here). The buoyancy force would have to be at least 10g for every meter. OK everybody There are many household items that fit the bill so try float them in the air right now. Did any float? Items far far less than that did not float in my location.
Other extremely simple supporting evidence include the fact that my ears do not pop when I stand up so I actually was able to eliminate that effect immediately actually from everyday observation.
Any other ideas?

I am dying to measure the precise length of a spring, like the one in the picture, in the vacuum, at sea level (1 ATM, 14.7 PSI) and even 10m underwater (2 ATM, 200kPa), considering the spring metal at the same temperature in each measurement. Considering most of weight scales use a simple spring to counteract the gravity acceleration, air pressure will not interfere with measurement. The electronic ones use strain gage resistive sensors and measurement electronics on a tick piece of metal, second image, measuring the microns of metal deformation, what acts exactly like a spring but much better resolution and precision.
(https://static.grainger.com/rp/s/is/image/Grainger/18AX54_AS01?$mdmain$)
(https://researchdesignlab.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/512x512/9ea150a65d3ccc136116bd4ea279f951/f/r/freeshipping10pcsweighingsensorelectronicfontbkitchenbfontscales1kg3kg5kg6kg.jpg)

Water and air pressure will vary between city and state. That's why it's best to measure using Gravimeter.

So we still have no proposed explanation for a simple observation made by most kids in school every day that the force of gravitation differs (yes even at sea level).
Tom Bishop above helpfully offered that pressure differences on his rather round earth model with poles and equator (I am new here but see he regularly like to play devils advocate here) could be a possibility.
However a flat earth model does not have poles and an equator to create this effect and just to rule out even on a round model I showed this effect insignificant to these every day measurements as lowdensity items would float in air which is clearly not part of everyday observation.
So that leaves me still amazed that there is no possible explanation for this everyday observed effect for the flatearth model.

The typical criticism is that the weight of the air, air pressure, changes by latitude and altitude. The Poles are of higher pressure than the equator. Sea level is at higher pressure than higher altitudes.
Can you reference scale weight experiments that have taken place in a vacuum at different locations?
Presumably one could account for varying air pressure rather than doing the experiment in a vacuum. I think the calculation is just Archimedes' Principle.
Alternatively, maybe some backoftheenvelope calculations could quantify how much of an effect air pressure would have on an object's weight:
1m^3 of steel is 8000kg, and 1m^3 of air is 1.225kg at STP.
The resulting weight of the block according to Archimedes would be
(80001.225)=7998.775 kg.
If we now double the pressure, we have 2.45kg of air displaced, so the weight is now
(80002.45)=7997.55 kg,
which is a decrease of ~0.015% in the measured weight.
The actual measured discrepancy is apparently ~(9.76  9.83) m/s^2 = ~0.7%, so even in this very generous case where we considered doubling the pressure, we're missing an order and a half of magnitude from the measured value. Unless I did something dumb in the maths, I'm confident in saying that changing air pressure cannot possibly be the primary cause of this discrepancy.

Air pressure does not only affect scales trivially. See the following illustration and text:
https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/fairorfoulhowtouseabarometer/
(https://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads/2015/07/whatisatmosphericpressure.gif)
Air pressure decreases as altitude increases.
Atmospheric pressure — or barometric pressure — is simply the weight of the air at ground level. It’s a little easier to understand when you think about the concept of water pressure first. As you get deeper in water, the pressure increases. This is because as you descend, the built up weight of the water on top of you increases. In 1 foot of water, you have the weight of that foot of water pressing down on you. In 2 feet of water, you have the weight of an extra foot of water pressing on you. It’s quite logical, really.

Air pressure does not only affect scales trivially. See the following illustration and text:
https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/fairorfoulhowtouseabarometer/
(https://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads/2015/07/whatisatmosphericpressure.gif)
Air pressure decreases as altitude increases.
Atmospheric pressure — or barometric pressure — is simply the weight of the air at ground level. It’s a little easier to understand when you think about the concept of water pressure first. As you get deeper in water, the pressure increases. This is because as you descend, the built up weight of the water on top of you increases. In 1 foot of water, you have the weight of that foot of water pressing down on you. In 2 feet of water, you have the weight of an extra foot of water pressing on you. It’s quite logical, really.
That seems like quite trivial to me  the pressure applied to the scales from the air is just the measured air pressure. One could account for this quite easily.
Does the process of zeroing your scale before measurement not already account for this effect? I'll sit and think about it.
EDIT: I've thought about it some more (and read spherical's post), and I've realised that the picture you linked is in an article talking about barometers. Scales don't behave like that in real life. Air pressure doesn't only push downwards, it pushes in all directions.

Air pressure does not only affect scales trivially. See the following illustration and text:
https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/fairorfoulhowtouseabarometer/
(https://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads/2015/07/whatisatmosphericpressure.gif)
Air pressure decreases as altitude increases.
Atmospheric pressure — or barometric pressure — is simply the weight of the air at ground level. It’s a little easier to understand when you think about the concept of water pressure first. As you get deeper in water, the pressure increases. This is because as you descend, the built up weight of the water on top of you increases. In 1 foot of water, you have the weight of that foot of water pressing down on you. In 2 feet of water, you have the weight of an extra foot of water pressing on you. It’s quite logical, really.
Tom, I think you understand very well the difference between absolute and differential pressure gauges, how the absolute needs calibration (zero tara) when moved to a difference place, etc. A Bourdon tube needs needle zero adjustment for that particular location. A differential gauge needs not adjustment whatsoever, only the factory relationship to the needle movement to differential pressure, thus, calibration. Most spring based mechanical scales are considered differential, being "gravity" one of the sides of the measurement element. The force necessary to move the spring will not change based on air pressure, the mass doesn't change eight, but over a mountain the gravity will change, also changing the weight you can measure of such mass.
A regular barometer (Aneroid, Torricelly, open tube, etc) is an absolute gauge that measures the inner pressure and atmospheric pressure.
Sorry, your statement is not really correct and carries a huge misconception. When you descend into a deeper water, the pressure of the water is not OVER you, is all around you, it does NOT make you weight heavier over any fixed regular scale, as a matter of fact, you would be lighter, your body will be less dense than the water. This is why diver workers need to use extra weight on their suits to counter effect buoyancy, in order to reach deeper water.
Unfortunately your posted drawing is not trying to represent anything else than atmospheric pressure gauge readings using an absolute air pressure sensor (barometric measurement), nothing to do with mass measurements unde different gravity. The same changes in different mass by gravity could be exercised on Earth or the Moon (no atmosphere).
Also, your image posted comes from this website http://www.flightlearnings.com/2011/10/23/atmosphereatmosphericpressure/ (http://www.flightlearnings.com/2011/10/23/atmosphereatmosphericpressure/) related to atmospheric pressure, so, why you use this to try to make a reference to different mass measurement for different altitudes? What you thought is the other way around, if only thinking about air pressure interfering with weight over a scale, more pressure around you including underwater would make you lighter, not heavier, by buoyancy effect.