*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« on: October 07, 2018, 02:26:11 PM »
Can you see all of the Cliffs of Dover from France? This post lifted from another topic claims yes. "No curvature whatsoever."

What do you think? Is this convincing evidence of earth's lack of rotundity?

Quote

The English Channel: 34 km distance from Cap Gris Nez to Dover, a curvature of some 22.4 meters on a round earth.




The original webpages, as they were posted on flickr.com

The photographers located between Cap Blanc Nez and Cap Gris Nez: we will ascend to 30 meters.



And now the photograph itself: no curvature whatsoever, all the way to the other shoreline, the Dover cliffs seen in their entirety (on a round earth, from 30 meters, we could not see anything under 16.5 meters from the other side), the ships are not part of an ascending/descending slope, no midpoint curvature of 22.4 meters:



Another photograph taken right on the beach of Cap Gris Nez: no curvature over a distance of 34 km:



Dover cliffs:




Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2018, 05:33:48 PM »
It states the curvature should be 22m, but the cliffs are over 100m high so you would expect to see most of them

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Cliffs_of_Dover

The claim that you can see them all the way down to the waterline is very hard to verify from that photo.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Humble B

  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • Full merrily the humble B doth sing
    • View Profile
Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2018, 07:32:16 PM »
On a globe it all depends on the height of the observer. Cap Gris-Nez itself is said to be 30 meters above sea level. But a topographic map of Cap Gris-Nez shows that the direct surrounding can be up to 20 meters higher. Therefore a picture addressed to be taken from Cap Gris-Nez can easily be taken from an altitude of 50 meters:



In that case the target hidden height is only 4,72 meters. The average elevation of the Dover cliffs is about 100 meters. This means that when the picture is taken from 50 meters altitude, only ± 5% of the cliffs are hidden by the curvature, and ± 95% will be clearly visible above the horizon.



 Hard to tell the difference on a picture like this if we see 100% of the cliffs, or if we are missing the bottom 5%:



But many pictures of the Dover cliffs taken from France are not taken from Cap Gris-Nez, but from other locations nearby, like Cap Blanc-Nez, with an elevation of 134 meters:



A recent picture of Cap Blanc-Nez, May 2018:



The earth curvature calculator shows us that from a distance of 33 km we need an altitude of 84 meters above sea level to reduce the target hidden height to zero:



Conclusion, pictures from the Dover cliffs taken from the French coast do not prove the earth is flat. But the fact that those pictures are never taken from the beach but always from a higher altitude is proof for the curve.


He who believes windmills are his enemies, will take the gentle turning of their blades an act of aggression, and mistake their soft murmur for angry ranting.

Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2018, 07:54:39 PM »
Is this supposed to be a joke?

The fifth photograph was taken right on the Cap Gris Nez beach.

The photographers are right on the beach in the first and second images: out of the goodness of my heart, I accepted to ascend all the way to 30 m (you can see Cap Blanc Nez, the 130 m cliffs, in the background, the photographers are much closer to Cap Gris Nez).

No curvature of the water whatsoever: the boat is not part of either an ascending slope, a midpoint obstacle, or a descending slope.

The entirety of the Dover cliffs can be seen.

You wanna play games with me fighting for a meter of curvature?

I'll show you how it's done.

Let us increase the distance to 55 km (Grimsby - Toronto):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1616955#msg1616955

Zero curvature across a distance of 55 km, no 59 midpoint curvature whatsoever, the photographs include a ZOOM from the Niagara escarpment.

Remember, the RE called Ms. Kerry-Ann Lecky-Hepburn to confirm the photographs are real.

Toronto, more photographs:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1969076#msg1969076




*

Offline Humble B

  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • Full merrily the humble B doth sing
    • View Profile
Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2018, 11:00:12 PM »
The photographers are right on the beach in the first and second images......

Nope, the vegetation around their feet doesn't grow on beaches, the sharp edge and the size of the waves below clearly shows they are standing on a cliff. Altitude unknown, but if close to Cap Gris-Nez it can easily be 50 meters above sea level:



The entirety of the Dover cliffs can be seen.

That picture cannot be used to make such a claim, because we do not have a reference of another picture showing those same cliffs clearly top to bottom, and without such a reference nobody can tell what we see; the entirety of the cliffs or just 84% of the upper part.

Just like we should compare this picture of the Toronto skyline:



With this one,



to see if the first picture is showing the entirety of the Toronto skyline or if a part of it is hidden behind a curved surface of water:

No curvature of the water whatsoever: the boat is not part of either an ascending slope, a midpoint obstacle, or a descending slope.

Did someone ever mention the word "perspective" to you? Probably not.

The curve you are trying to see is calculated by "8 inch/miles²" Do you know how big 8 inch is when seen over a distance of 1 mile? You need very sharp eyes to see an object of 8 inch over a distance of 1 mile. From that distance that 8 inch is seen within an angle of 0.086 degrees of an arc, which is equivalent of 0.5 inch watched over a distance of 30 feet'

Let's say the boat in your picture is somewhere in the middle between France and England, 10 miles away from the observer. then the drop of curvature will be 800 inch, or 67 feet. Over a distance of 10 miles 67 feet is still only 0.86 degrees of an arc. Now the problem is that with the naked eye it is hard to tell if a horizontal line 10 miles away is exactly on our eye level or just 0.86 degrees of an arc below eye level. Therefore with the naked eye we can not see the curvature of the globe as a descending slope, because perspective is hiding that slope for us. For our natural observation it is impossible to tell if we're watching a flat surface, or a surface that's curving down from our point of view with only 8 inch/miles².

To tell if a body of water is flat or curving down with 8 inch/miles² we need the help of precision instruments like theodolites, or a trick like watching a boat on the horizon from two different levels of observation, like on this picture: same boat, same distance but two pictures taken 7 seconds and 4 feet apart from each other, showing that the first picture of the boat is more obstructed by a bulge of curved water than the second one. That's how we see the curvature.


He who believes windmills are his enemies, will take the gentle turning of their blades an act of aggression, and mistake their soft murmur for angry ranting.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2018, 04:16:09 AM »
The claim that you can see them all the way down to the waterline is very hard to verify from that photo.

I felt the same thing. Here's the photo.

That section of the cliffs are as much as 400' high. Distance is at least 21 miles.

For comparison, here's a recent photo I took of an island rising 400' above sea level from a distance of 17 miles. Can you tell if the island is or isn't fully visible?


Mine is most definitely taken from about 3' above the tidal water level. If one can tell that the full extent of the Cliffs of Dover is visible, then the same should be true of my photo too.

But look again from a view of 400'


Compare:


I don't believe that Dover image was taken from sea level. I think it was taken from around 90-100' in elevation:



The inset box is the section of the Cliffs at Samfire Hoe, which is an area built up at the base of the cliffs up to 60' above sea level. The train tracks there enter the Shakespeare Tunnell. The cliffs above rise to 430'.

From a viewing elevation of 100' you could expect 30-60' MSL down to the water's edge of Samphire Hoe to be hidden depending on the refractive index. You might even get looming on occasion and actually be able to see the full extent...from 100 ft viewing height. I marked the no/low refraction (sinking) and standard refraction elevations on the Google image with red and yellow lines respectively. I didn't mark where high refractive index (looming) would be since that could be to the water's edge.

Back to the WStreet photo, 33' amounts to around 3 pixels, and double that is 6 pixels, of course. Can someone claim to be able to see if 3 (or 6) pixels at that resolution are missing or fully visible?  Color me skeptical. I can definitely make out the upper elevation of Samphire Hoe, but there's not enough there to account for the fully angular height of 60 feet that would be true if "full extent" was visible. Of course, it could be compressed by a different refractive index close to the water level.

But who knows? I sure wouldn't present that photo as evidence one way or the other. You can't tell. If it was taken from 100', then I think it shows what one would expect on a globe, with about 30' or so hidden, which is probably too small an amount to really tell at that resolution.

Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2018, 05:31:58 AM »
As I said several times before, what the RE really want is a spherical earth with no curvature.

The curve you are trying to see is calculated by "8 inch/miles²" Do you know how big 8 inch is when seen over a distance of 1 mile? You need very sharp eyes to see an object of 8 inch over a distance of 1 mile. From that distance that 8 inch is seen within an angle of 0.086 degrees of an arc, which is equivalent of 0.5 inch watched over a distance of 30 feet'

This is priceless.

Here are the CORRECT formulas:

CURVATURE

C = R(1 - cos[s/(2R)]) - angle measured in radians

R = 6378,164 km

s = distance


VISUAL OBSTACLE



BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h2]1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R


BD = visual obstacle

h = altitude of observer


The MIDPOINT OBSTACLE for a distance of 34 km is 22.4 meters.

Suppose you are standing on a cliff 100 ft in height in Cap Gris Nez. On a spherical earth you will observe this: an ascending slope, a huge midpoint bulge/visual obstacle of 22.4 meters, and a descending slope all the way to the other shoreline.

None of these features are being observed in this fantastic photograph:



None of these features are being observed in these photographs taken from the Niagara escarpment:







No ascending slope, no huge 59 meter midpoint obstacle, no descending slope.


HOW would the water stay curved on a spherical earth? No one can explain how two gravitons attract each other.

How would a graviton released by the iron/nickel core interact with a graviton emitted by lake Ontario?

Does it make any sense at all? And if not, how can anyone believe this nonsense?


*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2018, 05:41:22 AM »
Let us increase the distance to 55 km (Grimsby - Toronto):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1616955#msg1616955

Zero curvature across a distance of 55 km, no 59 midpoint curvature whatsoever, the photographs include a ZOOM from the Niagara escarpment.

Remember, the RE called Ms. Kerry-Ann Lecky-Hepburn to confirm the photographs are real.

Toronto, more photographs:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1969076#msg1969076
As expected on a globe earth:




Compare with what Toronto skyline would look like from that elevation at that distance if the earth was flat (and horizon really DID rise to eye level).



*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2018, 06:09:19 AM »
Here's what the curve and "bulge" between the Beamer Conservation Overlook near Grimbsy to Toronto look to scale:



(If image is broken or width is messing up the page display, here's a direct link.)

Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2018, 06:14:17 AM »
As expected on a globe earth:

No.

On a globe earth, for a distance of 55 km, you will have a 59 meter midpoint obstacle.

And both an ascending slope to that 59 meter curvature midpoint, and a descending slope all the way to the other shoreline.

What you seem to preach is a globe earth WITHOUT CURVATURE.

For a distance of 55 km, on a globe earth, you will have a 59 meter midpoint visual obstacle. It is as simple as this.

http://oi63.tinypic.com/2q0uiy9.jpg

Completely misleading!

What you are comparing in that image is the 55 km distance to the 59 meter curvature: a catastrophic analysis.

What you have to compare is the 59 meter curvature to the buildings/skyline of Toronto!

That is, if you are on the Niagara escarpment, what you will see on a spherical earth is an ascending slope, a midpoint curvature of 59 meters which would be immediately seen by comparison with the buildings from Toronto, and a descending slope.

NO such features are being observed in the pics from Grimsby.


Let us visit the strait of Gibraltar.

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip

38:28 to 38:35



From the same spot, a splendid photograph:



No curvature whatsoever, just like the image in the video itself.


You have some explaining to do.

HOW would the water stay curved on a spherical earth? No one can explain how two gravitons attract each other.

How would a graviton released by the iron/nickel core interact with a graviton emitted by lake Ontario?

Does it make any sense at all? And if not, how can anyone believe this nonsense?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2018, 06:24:51 AM »
I dare anyone to say they can visually detect an "ascending slope" of 146 feet over a longitudinal view of 16 miles.

You can't. Expecting to detect the "bulge" and thinking that not seeing it means the surface is flat is naive. The horizon is where the curve reveals itself.


Example:

Point Loma (San Diego) to Isla Coronados Middle Grounds (Mexico) is ~ 17 miles.

Here are four views on the same day, taken one right after the other, but from ascending viewing heights and their associated horizon points (with standard refraction):

Observation 1: 3 feet
Observation 2: 30 feet
Observation 3: 60 feet
Observation 4: 400 feet (not depicted)



The "bulge" is the same for all (48' at the midway point of 8 1/2 miles) but, even once the horizon point is beyond that bulge point, you can't detect the crest of a 48' gradual slope 8.5 miles in the distance. If there were gridlines on the earth, then maybe. But such a feature is lost to perspective and depth perception.

But the horizon? That's plain:

« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 06:56:44 AM by Bobby Shafto »

Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2018, 06:54:17 AM »
I dare anyone to say they can visually detect an "ascending slope" of 146 feet over a longitudinal view of 16 miles.

Sure you can.

You have to compare the curvature to the visual target, NOT to the length of the distance.

Grimsby - Toronto 55 km

A midpoint curvature of 59 meters

To borrow a line from the famous Wendy commercial:

WHERE'S THE CURVATURE?



No 59 meter curvature at all.



No ascending slope, no midpoint visual obstacle of 59 meters, no curvature whatsoever.

From the very same spot, Ms. Lecky-Hepburn used a reflector telescope for this zoom:



Everything in plain sight: no curvature whatsoever.


You still have some explaining to do.

HOW would the water stay curved on a spherical earth? No one can explain how two gravitons attract each other.

How would a graviton released by the iron/nickel core interact with a graviton emitted by lake Ontario?

Does it make any sense at all? And if not, how can anyone believe this nonsense?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2018, 07:02:54 AM »

You still have some explaining to do.

HOW would the water stay curved on a spherical earth? No one can explain how two gravitons attract each other.

How would a graviton released by the iron/nickel core interact with a graviton emitted by lake Ontario?

Does it make any sense at all? And if not, how can anyone believe this nonsense?

No, I don't have to explain that. I'm just observing curvature. How and/or why it exists is a different concern.

Curve is evidenced by the horizon; not by trying to detect "ascending/descending slope" of "the bulge."  Curvature is detected by horizon.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2018, 07:09:23 AM »
From the very same spot, Ms. Lecky-Hepburn used a reflector telescope for this zoom:



Everything in plain sight: no curvature whatsoever.

The horizon is at or further than the "everything in plain sight" in that photo, so of course curve isn't detectable.

Actually, it is if you know where "eye level" is and do a little analysis of the "dip." But just looking out over the vista? You're not going to see what you think you should see. The degree of slope is too slight. That inability to detect the slope isn't indicative of "no curvature."

I know you've been harping on this for a long time. But you're looking for curve in the wrong way. The way and what you're looking for, sure, you're never going to see it. Because it isn't manifest in the way you say it should be.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 01:25:31 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2018, 07:23:12 AM »
No, I don't have to explain that

But you have to: otherwise, the readers will think that the water stays curved by pure magic.

How does a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interact with a graviton released by lake Ontario?

I'm just observing curvature.

Not in the photographs I provided: no curvature at all is being observed.

The degree of slope is too slight. That inability to detect the slope isn't indicative of "no curvature."


You could not see anything at all from the shoreline of Toronton given the 59 meter curvature. The zoom shows in plain sight each and every detail: not possible on a globe earth.

Curvature is detected by horizon.

Right.

Let us increase the distance to 5,200 km.





The Tunguska event was observed INSTANTANEOUSLY from London, Antwerp, Stockholm, Berlin.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1676400#msg1676400 (six consecutive messages)

It could not have been caused by either a comet, or an asteroid, or a meteorite.

The precise geomagnetic pulses were observed THREE DAYS BEFORE THE EVENT:







TWO OBJECTS CAUSED THE TUNGUKSA EXPLOSION:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995026#msg1995026

The initial map of the trajectory:



The final map: two trajectories, whose paths were modified in mid-air, no natural object is capable of such a feat.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995521#msg1995521



It was found that the pattern of ytterbium’s distribution at Tunguska follows the projection of the “southern” TSB’s path on the ground. Similar shapes have been formed at Tunguska for the surface distribution of lanthanum, lead, silver and manganese (Zhuravlev & Demin, 1976). Only these five elements have patterns of distribution in Tunguska soils and peats that follow the projection of the TSB path on the ground, and only ytterbium follows this path strongly enough to be considered as the most likely main ingredient of the TSB substance.

This is an amazing outcome, one should note. This soft silvery-white rareearth metal, discovered in 1878, is now used mainly for improving the hardness of stainless steel, as well as in making high-power lasers. Definitely, if the chief chemical component of the TSB was ytterbium it hardly could have been a natural space body.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #15 on: October 08, 2018, 10:11:38 AM »
As I said several times before, what the RE really want is a spherical earth with no curvature.
Weirdly, I often notice that FE wants a flat earth but with curvature.
A lot of the "long distance photos" arguments I see as evidence for a flat earth are along the lines of "Well, the curve calculator says that 'x' should be hidden but only 'y' is hidden!"
OK, well maybe that's because of refraction or a mistake in your calculations of distance or viewer height, but if the earth is flat why is 'y' hidden? Surely you should be able to see all of the distant objects?

Quote
Suppose you are standing on a cliff 100 ft in height in Cap Gris Nez. On a spherical earth you will observe this: an ascending slope, a huge midpoint bulge/visual obstacle of 22.4 meters, and a descending slope all the way to the other shoreline.

No, silly! Because you are effectively standing on "top" of the earth. The earth slopes away from you in all directions, just very gradually.
If you're standing on top of a ball why would there be any upwards slope?
On a globe earth you see the top of these two diagrams. The horizon is you looking over the curve of the earth, represented by the red line.



This is why you see further at altitude, you can see further over the curve of the earth.
The slope away from you is far too subtle to see though.
On a flat earth the horizon would be the limit of your vision, bottom diagram.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Humble B

  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • Full merrily the humble B doth sing
    • View Profile
Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2018, 01:20:53 PM »
On a spherical earth you will observe this: an ascending slope, a huge midpoint bulge/visual obstacle of 22.4 meters, and a descending slope all the way to the other shoreline.

That is not what you will observe on a spherical earth, because this is not the curve, this is a "straw man"

What is a straw man?



What FE'ers do who claim they can't see the curve is they first create a "straw man" of the curve; a totally false image in their prepossessed anti-globular mind about how a curved surface of the earth would be visible. Then they look around if they can see this caricature of a curve. Of course they can't see it, because they are not looking for the curve itself, but for a misconception about that curvature. And because such a misconception does not exist in the real world, they incorrectly conclude that there is no curve, while that curve is just in front of their nose if they are watching the horizon on a clear day.

That's what I call: "A straw man attack on Mother Earth spherical shape."
He who believes windmills are his enemies, will take the gentle turning of their blades an act of aggression, and mistake their soft murmur for angry ranting.

Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2018, 01:29:36 PM »
The previous two messages should be moved to CN.

They don't belong anywhere else.

Imagine having to explain basic geometry to the stubborn RE.

You are standing right on the Cap Gris Nez. Distance to the Dover cliffs, 34 km. Spherical earth hypothesis.

Unite the two beaches (Cap Gris Nez and Dover) by a straight line. The midpoint curvature/basic visual obstacle will measure 22.4 meters (greatest distance from the arclength to the straight line).

You compare the midpoint curvature to the visual target (which I always include, be it the Toronto skyline, or the rock of Gibraltar, or the Dover cliffs), AND NOT to the length of the distance.

Even if one ascends to 45 meters in altitude (Cap Gris Nez cliffs), you still are going to have to deal with a 22.4 meter midpoint bulge, an ascending slope, and a descending slope.

That midpoint curvature is totally missing from the photographs taken in France, Grimsby, Gibraltar.

Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #18 on: October 08, 2018, 01:38:07 PM »
That midpoint curvature is totally missing from the photographs taken in France, Grimsby, Gibraltar.
There is no midpoint curvature, my diagram shows why.
If you want to provide your own diagram explaining my mistake then please do, just repeating yourself does nothing to advance this discussion.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2018, 01:52:18 PM »
Your diagrams are comparing the arclength distance to the value of the midpoint curvature.

The midpoint curvature figure (English Channel 22.4 meters, lake Ontario 59 meters, strait of Gibraltar 3.5 meters)  has to be compared to the heights of the visual targets (SkyDome 86 meters, Dover Cliffs 100 meters, rock of Gibraltar), that is why I always include the visual target.

Then, your globe earth hypothesis falls apart.

Please explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other.

You need attractive gravity to explain the supposed curved line of the body of water.

How does it work?

How does a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interact with a graviton released by lake Ontario?

If you cannot explain this, you are going to have to admit you are relying on pure magic as an explanation.