Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #100 on: November 15, 2018, 05:59:31 PM »
Sadly Tom has pressed the nuclear button, but here is some other data I have worked on anyway, now that I have done it. The graph below charts acceleration against latitude from about 153,000 locations in the UK, published by the British Geological Society. Includes free air adjustments (for height) and Bouguer correction (for terrain).

Like the data above, it is consistent with an 0.5% (actually 0.7%) increase in acceleration per 90 degrees.



However, any data or evidence whatsoever can be rejected on one simple assumption, namely that it contradicts UA.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #101 on: November 15, 2018, 06:24:11 PM »
No one said that all the variables were accounted for in gnome experiment.  It was just a promotional thing for Kern.  What isn't a promotional thing is all the measurements (world wide) made in a laboratory by scientists with all the variables accounted for down to a gnat's ass.  The absolute gravimeters used have been constructed in various ways by engineers and scientists from countless countries.  Many of those instruments were brought to a common location and their readings compared.  Differences were in the category of a few millionths of a millionth.  How much closer do you want to get?  If you don't believe these facts please tell us all the variables you need accounting for, the standards and the desired accuracy you need.  My guess is that the existing gravimeters already meet those specifications and the data is available.  Would it help if you could personally witness an actual measurement.  If that wouldn't help please tell us what would.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #102 on: November 15, 2018, 06:27:06 PM »
No one said that all the variables were accounted for in gnome experiment.  It was just a promotional thing for Kern.  What isn't a promotional thing is all the measurements (world wide) made in a laboratory by scientists with all the variables accounted for down to a gnat's ass.  The absolute gravimeters used have been constructed in various ways by engineers and scientists from countless countries.  Many of those instruments were brought to a common location and their readings compared.  Differences were in the category of a few millionths of a millionth.  How much closer do you want to get?  If you don't believe these facts please tell us all the variables you need accounting for, the standards and the desired accuracy you need.  My guess is that the existing gravimeters already meet those specifications and the data is available.  Would it help if you could personally witness an actual measurement.  If that wouldn't help please tell us what would.
You are missing Tom's point, which is that the observed variation is explained by some other unknown force above or below the earth. You start with the assumption that UA is true. It follows that any observation apparently contradicting UA must have some unknown explanation that removes the contradiction. For example, the observed increase in acceleration as we move to the poles could be explained by Dark Matter at the perimeter.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #103 on: November 15, 2018, 06:45:27 PM »
Ok, I went off the deep end and answered too quickly.  Let's try this;  Forget gravity altogether. FET doesn't allow gravitational effects of the earth itself anyway.  The measurements made were of the actual acceleration due to UA, not gravity.  Of course all the variables have been accounted for and everything was done in a laboratory setting. The problem is that these laboratories are located all over the world and not just at the poles.  Under the UA theory you can't tolerate too much of any variance in acceleration world wide or the earth would fold in on itself.  Of course that isn't what has been measured.  If you want to play the 'dark matter' card then that can be measured as well.  Anything that has the power to accelerate a mass can be measured.  I don't think anyone has seen any anomalous effects in this regard.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2018, 06:54:10 PM by RonJ »
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #104 on: November 15, 2018, 06:58:03 PM »
Ok, I went off the deep end and answered too quickly.  Let's try this;  Forget gravity altogether.  The measurements made were of the actual acceleration due to UA, not gravity.  Of course all the variables have been accounted for and everything was done in a laboratory setting. The problem is that these laboratories are located all over the world and not just at the poles.  Under the UA theory you can't tolerate too much of any variance in acceleration world wide or the earth would fold in on itself.  Of course that isn't what has been measured.  If you want to play the 'dark matter' card then that can be measured as well.  Anything that has the power to accelerate a mass can be measured.  I don't think anyone has seen any anomalous effects in this regard.
Roughly correct, but strictly speaking the data simply measures observed acceleration at different points in the UK (and the world). Perhaps I shouldn't have included the adjustments, since those require an element of theory.

The question is how to explain the functional relationship between observed acceleration and latitude. Globe-earth theory is the simplest. UA on its own doesn't work, given its basis in the earth's being approximately a flat and rigid plane. So we need an addition to UA, namely some unknown force, perhaps Dark Energy, which acts increasingly as objects approach the poles. Or leprechauns.

The problem with the Dark Energy hypothesis is it requires the very phenomenon that UA was designed to avoid, namely action at a distance. If we accept that, why not ditch UA altogether and make Dark Energy explain everything? Or why not just call it 'gravity'?
« Last Edit: November 15, 2018, 06:59:54 PM by edby »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #105 on: November 15, 2018, 07:16:45 PM »
I could see that a single measurement point of one of the gravimeters could get some kind of an anomalous reading that couldn't be accounted for.  With all the measurement labs out there (worldwide) making frequent measurements, any variations in readings would be seen and any small disturbances in the earths gravity due to transient events would be seen.  No it's just not possible to dismiss the theory of gravity for such a minor reason.  Besides, the differences in the readings between spaced out gravimeters are NOT slight for an instrument that can measure the force down to a millionth of a millionth.   If you hit me with a grain of rice, I might not even feel it.  I believe that if a gnat got hit with that same grain of rice the it would be knocked silly or killed.  You have to keep everything in perspective.

I believe that the idea to avoid gravity in the FET paradigm is to avoid another problem.  If the earth were flat and you had gravity then a plum bob wouldn't be at right angles to the earth anywhere except at the North Pole.  The further out you got, the more the bob would be out of level.  All the other problems are flowing from the first flat earth assumption.  Like the old saying 'what a tangled web we weave when we first try to deceive'. 
« Last Edit: November 15, 2018, 07:21:56 PM by RonJ »
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #106 on: November 15, 2018, 07:26:18 PM »
The problem with the Dark Energy hypothesis is it requires the very phenomenon that UA was designed to avoid, namely action at a distance. If we accept that, why not ditch UA altogether and make Dark Energy explain everything? Or why not just call it 'gravity'?

Neither of those solutions answer the astronomical coincidence that inertial equivalence is exactly equal to gravitational mass equivalence.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0004/0004027.pdf



Also watch this video at the 3h4m16s mark for 15 minutes:


« Last Edit: November 15, 2018, 08:37:08 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3783
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #107 on: November 15, 2018, 08:30:23 PM »
If you want to claim accuracy on an experiment then you need to demonstrate that all variables were accounted for, and that it was properly controlled. All variables were not accounted for with the gnome and spring scale experiment.

Nonetheless, no gravimetric discrepancy would disprove UA. You would need to show that there are no slight gravimetric disturbances above or below the earth. This is why this topic is a dead end discussion-wise.

Actually, there are slight gravimetric variations below the earth that correspond to the varying densities of various geologic formations.  As mentioned before, surveys of these slight gravitmetric variations have real world applications in mineral and resource mining.  This is a real world application that GR explains quite nicely, but UA can't.
The ability for rock density to be detected using gravity variations is the basis for the use of Gravity Surveys in mineral exploration.  Rock below the earth’s surface is not homogeneous. It is composed of material of different densities, both horizontally  and vertically. The density of rock varies with the amount of mass contained within them. Denser rocks contain more mass and therefore exert a greater force of gravitational attraction.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2018, 08:36:05 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #108 on: November 15, 2018, 09:26:47 PM »
If you want to claim accuracy on an experiment then you need to demonstrate that all variables were accounted for, and that it was properly controlled. All variables were not accounted for with the gnome and spring scale experiment.

Nonetheless, no gravimetric discrepancy would disprove UA. You would need to show that there are no slight gravimetric disturbances above or below the earth. This is why this topic is a dead end discussion-wise.

Actually, there are slight gravimetric variations below the earth that correspond to the varying densities of various geologic formations.  As mentioned before, surveys of these slight gravitmetric variations have real world applications in mineral and resource mining.  This is a real world application that GR explains quite nicely, but UA can't.
The ability for rock density to be detected using gravity variations is the basis for the use of Gravity Surveys in mineral exploration.  Rock below the earth’s surface is not homogeneous. It is composed of material of different densities, both horizontally  and vertically. The density of rock varies with the amount of mass contained within them. Denser rocks contain more mass and therefore exert a greater force of gravitational attraction.

Those companies who promise to be able to use gravimeters to discover oil and mineral deposits on your property are actually snake oil men. Look up the "Great Oil Sniffer Hoax".  These days they use multiple methods to search for oil and mineral deposits, some valid and some not. Gravimeters were never proven to be valid for that purpose.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326920804_The_Great_Oil_Sniffer_Hoax

Quote
The Great Oil Sniffer Hoax

Since the early days of petroleum exploration, the industry has met diviners and dowsers who, by using esoteric techniques, simple devices or sophisticated artifacts designed by themselves, have tried to fool companies by claiming they were able to detect oil in the subsurface. In France, during the late 1970s, two eccentric inventors claimed they could directly detect oil in the subsurface from an exceptional device mounted on board an airplane, resulting in one of the most famous frauds in petroleum exploration history.

Of course, these forms of divination are not exclusive of oil exploration and they have been a subject of discussion and controversy for many years.

From your article "The ability for rock density to be detected using gravity variations is the basis for the use of Gravity Surveys in mineral exploration"

This is a promotional piece designed to promoting tools of the diviners and dowsers, whose science is very much controversial. They promise get rich quick mineral and resource finding schemes for a small investment... Just look at the url of your article: geologyforinvestors.com

We have had this discussion a number of times before, and you continue to link to these cons.

HorstFue

Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #109 on: November 15, 2018, 09:37:57 PM »
E.g. if it was 980mb in London last week, and if it is 1040mb in London this week, my weight will increase by 6%. Thus if you weighed 170lb last week, you will weigh 180lb this week. Does that make more sense?
That does not make more sense at all, unless nonsense.
According good old Archimedes:
"the upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces"
Don't argue about "fluid", later in the article the same is applied to a dirigible in air.

What is the volume of a human body? Density of a human body is close to water, 1000kg/m³. A human with 100kg so has a volume of about 0.1m³.
Air density is 1.225kg/m³. Air density changes directly proportional to pressure (p*V = const.). So increasing pressure by 6%, increases density by 6%. So the total weight change, the change of the weight of the displaced air, is 1.225kg/m³*0.1m³*0.06 = 0.007kg.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #110 on: November 15, 2018, 10:09:55 PM »
E.g. if it was 980mb in London last week, and if it is 1040mb in London this week, my weight will increase by 6%. Thus if you weighed 170lb last week, you will weigh 180lb this week. Does that make more sense?
That does not make more sense at all, unless nonsense.
I was paraphrasing an argument made by Tom, who claims that increasing atmospheric pressure increases weight. Are you saying his argument is nonsense?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #111 on: November 15, 2018, 10:20:23 PM »
Nonetheless, no gravimetric discrepancy would disprove UA.
No gravimetric discrepancy would disprove it was caused by leprechauns.

Science does not and cannot prove or disprove anything. Science proffers the most economical hypothesis to explain the observations.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #112 on: November 15, 2018, 10:28:09 PM »
And as Tom says, gravimetrics has indeed been discussed here before.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2175.0

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7639.0


*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #113 on: November 15, 2018, 10:36:44 PM »
From the Wiki:
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

I am surprised that Celestial Gravitation wasn’t cited as a cause for some of the gravimetric anomalies that were measured by the absolute gravimeters.  The citation also implies that there is no gravitational attraction between two masses on the earth.  Any gravitational attraction will only be between an earthly mass, like water, and an unspecified heavenly body at an unspecified distance.  This would mean that the ‘heavenly body’ would have to be endowed with a property of gravitational attraction between itself and a mass on the earth.  Is this hypothesis correct?

It would then be logical to assume that these ‘heavenly bodies’ are in motion since there is a variable attraction causing the variation of tides on the earth.  Since the tide are on a regular schedule that means the heavenly body must be on a regular schedule as well.  Given all that you should then be able to put a gravimeter in a fixed location on the earth as see a regular and significant reading change that would coincide roughly with the change in tides.  Of course, this isn’t what is being observed here on earth.    Where did my thesis go wrong?
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #114 on: November 15, 2018, 11:03:46 PM »
From the Wiki:
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

I am surprised that Celestial Gravitation wasn’t cited as a cause for some of the gravimetric anomalies that were measured by the absolute gravimeters.  The citation also implies that there is no gravitational attraction between two masses on the earth.  Any gravitational attraction will only be between an earthly mass, like water, and an unspecified heavenly body at an unspecified distance.  This would mean that the ‘heavenly body’ would have to be endowed with a property of gravitational attraction between itself and a mass on the earth.  Is this hypothesis correct?

It would then be logical to assume that these ‘heavenly bodies’ are in motion since there is a variable attraction causing the variation of tides on the earth.  Since the tide are on a regular schedule that means the heavenly body must be on a regular schedule as well.  Given all that you should then be able to put a gravimeter in a fixed location on the earth as see a regular and significant reading change that would coincide roughly with the change in tides.  Of course, this isn’t what is being observed here on earth.    Where did my thesis go wrong?
Clearly then the force which is a function of latitude must be different from the force which causes tides, for the reasons you suggest. Why not a pool of Dark Energy surrounding the earth behind the ice wall? Or is there a problem here that the force does not act in a North-South direction? (I am assuming the monopole map here).

This is proving quite a challenge but I am thinking about it.

Another explanation could be that the disc-earth really is accelerating faster at the rim than at the centre, but we don't notice this because of a distortion of space-time. The earth appears flat, but is really the inside surface of an enormous cup-shaped object, ever-increasing in height, with light curving around the inside surface. It looks flat, but isn't.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #115 on: November 16, 2018, 01:01:06 AM »
Since according to the Wiki a property of Celestial Gravitation that allows an attraction of things on the earth to the unspecified Heavenly body (moon and the stars I see in another part of the wiki), can I use the standard universal gravitation equation to measure that attractive force?  Do you believe in the Davis Model?  If that is an invalid equation for Celestial Gravitation is there a specified equation for this force?  If there’s no gravitational attraction between any two objects on earth, then the Clairaut experiment is invalid and either the measuring equipment is malfunctioning, or the Heavenly bodies are the cause of the difference in force measured.  Since there are hundreds of absolute gravimeters in service and they have all been checked and compared extensively I am going to hypothesize that not all of them are defective and most of them are providing valid readings of some kind of force. 

Since Universal Acceleration provides for a constant acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared, you can just subtract that from any reading you get on a gravimeter because that is the part measured due exclusively to UA.  If you do that you will find some negative numbers.  Readings are a bit higher at the poles and a bit lower at the equator.  Since the earth is flat and non-rotating there can’t be a factor due to centrifugal force.  Is maybe the wiki figure for UA of 9.8 a bit too high?  Is there some kind of Celestial Repulsive force at work?  Is dark energy causing the anomalous readings?  All I’m trying to do is answer some basic questions abut the earth and the heavenly bodies.  I can see how you could use the variations of the gravimeter readings along with their position to get a reading on at least the center of mass of the Heavenly bodies causing the reading anomalies.   
« Last Edit: November 16, 2018, 03:27:52 AM by RonJ »
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #116 on: November 17, 2018, 03:30:14 PM »
Here is a tidier chart of the same data (from the British Geological Survey)



I used all of the data this time. Instead of taking intervals on the data set, I used all of it but averaged bucketed over 0.01 degrees of latitude, giving just 1,000 data points. I also used a proper x-y chart. Finally I added a trend line using least squares method. This suggests an 0.84% change in gravity from equator to N pole, but remember that is an extrapolation from UK data only, within UK latitudes.

The trend line does not fit perfectly – note the significant deviation around 57o latitude.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2018, 08:11:06 PM by edby »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #117 on: November 17, 2018, 06:20:55 PM »
The readings above pretty much matches the Somigliana formula.  I put a sampling of the numbers into my MathCad program and everything matches up closely.  Of course there are gravitational survey results from all over the globe conducted by countless countries each conducting independent investigations.  Results are available for a lot of them and will show a correlation between measured gravitation and latitude.  Anything that matches the Somigliana formula would indicate that the earth is rotating and is not a perfect spheroid.  The acceleration due to rotation, height, and the earth not being a perfect sphere are all accounted for.  You can be sure that the vast majority of the gravimeters used were well calibrated and used by trained people.  My opinion is that in order to believe FET they will have to come up with a viable story that will account for a huge amount of actual measurements made by observers from all over the world. 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

LoveScience

Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #118 on: November 17, 2018, 11:54:04 PM »
And no doubt they will.... one way or another!

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8715
    • View Profile
Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #119 on: November 17, 2018, 11:56:05 PM »
And no doubt they will.... one way or another!

Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora (this includes “me too” posts where it’s just an agreement with a previous post). No warning yet, but please read the rules.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?