#### edby

• 1079
##### Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #120 on: November 18, 2018, 10:30:25 AM »
And here is the same type of data for Africa between latitudes of 35 and 17 South. Note I have NOT corrected for elevation so far. As we know, celestial gravitation (the attraction of earthly bodies to sun, moon or stars) will interfere with universal acceleration.

Note again how acceleration increases as we move from the equator. The cause of this phenomenon is as yet unknown. Tom Bishop says it could be a form of gravitation arising from objects above or below the earth. I have surmised it is caused by a form of Dark Energy.

Data provided by National Centers for Environmental Information.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2413
##### Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #121 on: November 18, 2018, 04:56:00 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.
Would you say that Rowbotham’s experiments are rigorous enough to make that claim for?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### RonJ

• 786
• ACTA NON VERBA
##### Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #122 on: November 18, 2018, 06:07:57 PM »
The graph of all the data points are about what I would expect.  The works of Somigliana outlines the mathematical expected differences in gravity at different latitudes.  Corrections for the differences between the surface of the earth and the center of gravity in the oblate spheroid are accounted for.  Additionally there are also corrections for the expected differences in centrifugal forces as well.   Of course the data is a bit noisy because it hasn't been corrected for the differences in altitude yet.  The graph is an example of good scientific methods.  Formulate a hypothesis for the shape of the earth.  Develop an equation based upon the expected variables.  Make thousands of measurements in the field and collect all the data being as careful as you can to reduce error.  Compare that data with the expected values based upon the equations you have. If there is a good match, then it is a good indication that your thesis has some merit.  Of course if another theory and mathematical equation can be developed that also will matched the actual observed data then there will be a strong basis for a debate.  If there is another theory and equation for the flat earth paradigm now is the time to bring it forth so it can be compared with the actual collected data to see if there's also a reasonable match.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

#### LoveScience

##### Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #123 on: November 19, 2018, 10:20:46 PM »
Entirely agree with all of the above.

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 8714
##### Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #124 on: November 19, 2018, 10:45:19 PM »
Entirely agree with all of the above.

Please refrain from "me too" posts in the upper fora. They do not add anything to the discussion and are considered low-content. Warned.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

#### LoveScience

##### Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #125 on: November 19, 2018, 11:41:07 PM »
Are we not allowed to state when we agree with the comments from another member then.  Or just not when it happens to not correspond with the views of the FES?  All part of free speech in my view but if that contravenes your rules then by all means cancel my membership!

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 8714
##### Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #126 on: November 20, 2018, 12:08:31 AM »
Are we not allowed to state when we agree with the comments from another member then.  Or just not when it happens to not correspond with the views of the FES?  All part of free speech in my view but if that contravenes your rules then by all means cancel my membership!

You are allowed to agree with anyone you want to. Just add something more to the post so it actually contributes to the conversation (and therefore is not a low-content post). I am not sure why this recent batch of new users (you included) seem to struggle with following a few simple rules without suggesting you are being oppressed, or acting like your free speech is being inhibited.

Also, you can cancel your own membership at any time. Anyway, if you are going to post again, I suggest you stick to the topic. I'll refrain from additional warnings for now.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

#### LoveScience

##### Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #127 on: November 20, 2018, 07:51:24 AM »
Well my sincere apologies if I have been in breach of any of your rules. I will ensure I read them again and make every effort to abide. I have no knowledge about any other users for reasons that are obvious but I have only come on here and offer my side of any discussions that I contribute to.

What I say is based on my 35+ years experience as an amateur astronomer and all I say is true to the best of my knowledge and experience. I will say no more in this particular thread or topic.

#### edby

• 1079
##### Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« Reply #128 on: November 24, 2018, 01:09:09 PM »
Given the arguments about gravimeter accuracy in another thread, I am posting the theoretical correspondence between latitude and local gravity at height zero at the given latitude.
The point is to highlight how large is the theoretical difference between local gravity at the equator and at the pole, in terms of the units used in gravimetry.

The figures are in microGal, i.e. one millionth of 1 cm per secsq. Note centimetres not metres, hence the usually quoted number of 9.81 is 981 Gal.
Then note the difference in microG between equator and pole, which is of the order of 5 million, so it is false to say that there is a ‘slight difference’ between gravity at equator and pole.

Modern machines have an error of about 5-10 microG. If you compare actual observations against the theoretical values below, you will find a close correspondence.

I have the formula if anyone is interested.

Latitude   ,   Local gravity microG   ,   Difference
90   ,   983 218 620.6   ,   5 185 920.6
85   ,   983 179 056.6   ,   5 146 356.6
80   ,   983 061 582.4   ,   5 028 882.4
75   ,   982 869 811.6   ,   4 837 111.6
70   ,   982 609 639.3   ,   4 576 939.3
65   ,   982 289 054.2   ,   4 256 354.2
60   ,   981 917 886.0   ,   3 885 186.0
55   ,   981 507 495.9   ,   3 474 795.9
50   ,   981 070 421.6   ,   3 037 721.6
45   ,   980 619 987.7   ,   2 587 287.7
40   ,   980 169 895.9   ,   2 137 195.9
35   ,   979 733 806.6   ,   1 701 106.6
30   ,   979 324 925.7   ,   1 292 225.7
25   ,   978 955 608.7   ,   922 908.7
20   ,   978 636 993.7   ,   604 293.7
15   ,   978 378 672.7   ,   345 972.7
10   ,   978 188 411.1   ,   155 711.1
5   ,   978 071 921.8   ,   39 221.8
0   ,   978 032 700.0   ,   0.0