*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5435
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
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

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.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 04:54:33 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #1 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

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?

MattyWS

Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #2 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?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #3 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?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #4 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?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5435
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #5 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.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 06:01:24 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #6 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5435
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #7 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



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.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 05:34:48 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 344
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #8 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?
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #9 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.


« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 06:12:02 PM by edby »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5435
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #10 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.



(Source)

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.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 06:40:30 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #11 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?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 06:39:20 PM by edby »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5435
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #12 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.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 06:51:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 344
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #13 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. 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #14 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.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 07:15:53 PM by edby »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #15 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.


Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #16 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.
"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #17 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??

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #18 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.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 06:15:15 PM by edby »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #19 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.


« Last Edit: November 24, 2018, 03:21:03 PM by edby »