*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #100 on: November 28, 2018, 08:07:15 PM »
It says that the gravity readings on the gravimeter change as a precursor to an earthquake. The change of mass would be the interpretation if it were measuring "gravity". I do not believe it is because the mass of the earth changed. The vibration levels changed. I believe that a gravimeter is a seismometer, which some appear to say is more advanced in some ways.

This inventor describes gravimeters as follows:

http://www.njsas.org/projects/tidal_forces/magnetic_gravimeter/baker/

Quote
A seismometer usually looks for the smallest possible acceleration changes. Since gravity is physically the same as acceleration, gravimeters are merely versions of seismometers with an infinitely long period response.


This guy is an amateur diy guy. Knowledgeable, no doubt. But not the devices we are referring to here. He describes his homemade device as, "My instrument tends to be a little bit seismometer/gravimeter, a little bit magnetometer, a little bit thermometer, and a little bit barograph." I don't believe he is operating at the level of accuracy that has been discussed so far.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #101 on: November 28, 2018, 08:33:19 PM »
If gravimeters are really seismometers, and are measuring tiny vibrations and noise with numerous levels of filtering and analysis, and are interpreting the left over vibrations as gravity, it seems that it is not a direct test of gravity at all.

They are not one in the same, there is a difference between the two devices in how they measure:

"Comparative study of superconducting gravimeters and broadband seismometers STS-1 / Z in seismic and subseismic frequency bands

Superconducting gravimeters and broadband seismometers (vertical component) both measure gravity, but whereas the former are most sensitive to very long period signals (gravity tides with periods longer than 6 h), the latter are designed for recording the seismic band (elastic normal modes with periods shorter than 1 h).”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031920197000034
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4385
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #102 on: November 28, 2018, 08:38:06 PM »
It says that the gravity readings on the gravimeter change as a precursor to an earthquake. The change of mass would be the interpretation if it were measuring "gravity".
That could be one interpretation.  Another might be that gravimeters are extremely sensitive accelerometers and can measure vertical vibrations associated with seismic activity.

From your source:
Thus the gravity meters may be useful for obtaining new information in the study of seismic velocities, attenuation and dispersion.

Also, from the makers of the gPhone gravity meters mentioned in the article:
The January 13, 2007 earthquake (M8.2) off the coast of the Kiril Islands was detected by the
gPhone gravity meter at the Micro-g LaCoste facility in Colorado. These data demonstrate
that gPhones are capable of recording extremely precise vertical acceleration, velocity, and
displacement during quiet periods as well as during period of high seismic activity.

I do not believe it is because the mass of the earth changed.
Remember what Einstein said about gravity and acceleration being equivalent.

The vibration levels changed.
And vibrations can induce acceleration.

I believe that a gravimeter is a seismometer, which some appear to say in those seismograph-gravimeter earthquake papers is more advanced in some ways.
Should it come as a surprise that gravimeters and seismometers can have overlapping functionality?

If gravimeters are really seismometers, and are measuring tiny vibrations and noise with numerous levels of filtering and analysis, and are interpreting the left over vibrations as gravity, it seems that it is not a direct test of gravity at all.
There are several different types of gravimeters available, so its suitability as a seismometer would depend on which type of gravimeter you have in mind.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2018, 08:55:55 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 RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 952
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #103 on: November 28, 2018, 08:54:10 PM »
Tom
I really liked the articles you included in the links.  Unfortunately, for FET they gave a fine treatise on gravity.  There were also illustrations of just how good the instruments are these days and a nice proof that gravity is what is really being measured.
 
Your implication that a gravimeter and a seismometer are just measuring the same thing would be something like my old high school physics teacher would ask on a pop quiz.  I have been out of high school for a few years, but I can still remember what the answers would be.   A gravimeter is measuring a force of one object on another object.  A seismometer is measuring the vibration of the earth.  The fact that a gravimeter would also measure a vibration is evident in the standard gravity equation with just the radius rapidly changing or the distances between the masses changing.  That would make the overall reading of the force change. A seismometer could easily measure the vibration of a standard speaker, but a properly setup gravimeter wouldn’t show much of anything.
 
I believe that you are just trying to bury the measured changes of gravimeter readings vs earths latitude in a bunch of noise and make those readings appear to be subject to doubt, so they can be swept under the rug, but of course that won’t really work.  You are just really arguing about something like the difference between 0.000000123 and 0.000000456. The instruments are very sensitive to minor effects of the environment and the chaotic motion of the earth.  The differences in the force of gravity at the equator and the poles are millions of times larger than the small affects you are disputing.  Trying to bury the core issue of the Somigliana Equation is just being disingenuous and is one of the main reasons why the Universal Accelerator paradigm is invalid.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #104 on: November 28, 2018, 10:17:24 PM »
Not only can gravimeters detect seismic activity and take the place of seismometers, but seismometers can take the place of gravimeters. Seismometers can detect gravity levels just like gravimeters.


Comparative study of superconducting gravimeters and broadband seismometers STS-1/Z in seismic and subseismic frequency bands

http://www.geo.uu.nl/~jeannot/My_web_pages/Publications/Entries/2013/1/6_Journal_papers_files/pepi97-gravi.pdf

From the Abstract:
Quote
Superconducting gravimeters and broadband seismometers (vertial component) both measure gravity, but whereas the former are most sensitive to very long period signals (gravity tides with periods longer than 6h), the latter are designed for recording the seismic band (elastic normal modes with periods shorter than 1h)

Diagram from p. 212:



Further, seismometers are also able to detect the tides -- p.204, second paragraph:

Quote
A first attempt to use broadband seismometers outside their traditional spectral range was made by Pillet et al. (1994), and they showed that the STS-1 is able to receive strong tidal signals around diurnal frequencies.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2018, 11:02:16 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #105 on: November 28, 2018, 11:07:55 PM »
Not only can gravimeters detect seismic activity and take the place of seismometers, but seismometers can take the place of gravimeters. Seismometers can detect gravity levels just like gravimeters.

From the Abstract:
Quote
Superconducting gravimeters and broadband seismometers (vertial component) both measure gravity, but whereas the former are most sensitive to very long period signals (gravity tides with periods longer than 6h), the latter are designed for recording the seismic band (elastic normal modes with periods shorter than 1h)

And there you have it, both devices can measure gravity, in different ways, but yes, they do. Two devices are better than one. Ergo, gravity is measurable and exists.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #106 on: November 28, 2018, 11:46:02 PM »
It is mentioned that the "gravity tides" are found in the subseismic band:



A definition:

Quote
``subseismic band'' (i.e. frequency lower than 0.03mHz) that has very strong background noise;

Is studying of subseismic activity a study of gravity?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2018, 11:56:10 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #107 on: November 28, 2018, 11:46:23 PM »
You should have a source citation for this quote about the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass being:

Quote
"one of the deepest, unsolved mysteries in fundamental physics"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #108 on: November 29, 2018, 12:00:01 AM »
You should have a source citation for this quote about the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass being:

Quote
"one of the deepest, unsolved mysteries in fundamental physics"

Thank you. The same quote is found in the article in the next section, but I will reference it.

And there you have it, both devices can measure gravity, in different ways, but yes, they do. Two devices are better than one. Ergo, gravity is measurable and exists.

The paper says that when comparing with Gravimeters to the Seismometers, the gravity spectra is nearly identical:

« Last Edit: November 29, 2018, 12:19:31 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #109 on: November 29, 2018, 12:06:28 AM »
Is studying of subseismic activity a study of gravity?

In part, yes.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #110 on: November 29, 2018, 12:23:33 AM »
We have seen that a gravimeter can double as a seismometer, and a seismometer can double as a gravimeter. Both associate anomalies near volcanoes, on plate boundaries, and earthquake prone zones. Both are analyzing trends in noise to pull out the gravity. The paper above clearly says that it is analyzing subseismic noise to identify gravity.

Might it be that the tides are only theoretically associated with gravity, and that is why they are called "gravity tides," that this is all one assumption piled upon the next; and that these devices are not evidence for what is being claimed in this thread?
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #111 on: November 29, 2018, 12:38:29 AM »
We have seen that a gravimeter can double as a seismometer, and a seismometer can double as a gravimeter. Both associate anomalies near volcanoes, on plate boundaries, and earthquake prone zones. Both are analyzing trends in noise to pull out the gravity. The paper above clearly says that it is analyzing subseismic noise to identify gravity.

As well, gravimeters associate anomalies not near volcanoes, on plate boundaries, and earthquake prone zones.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 952
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #112 on: November 29, 2018, 01:35:32 AM »
Anytime you have something containing atoms then there is mass.  When two or masses are separated then there is a force of attraction between those masses.  That's called gravity.  If you move masses around relative to each other or bang one mass into another mass then you will create something that can be detected by a seismometer.  I believe that if you have a mass that's absolutely motionless it will be detectable by a gravimeter but won't be by a seismometer.  A seismometer is more like a differential gravimeter.  It can detect a change in gravity, but not gravity that is constant. 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #113 on: November 29, 2018, 03:06:30 AM »
I find an interesting quote from the Enhanced Geothermal Innovative Network for Europe:

Quote
Gravimetry

As the gravitational field of  the earth depends on the density of the rocks, variations of the gravitational field (Bouguer anomalies) observed at  the surface or in a borehole are due to density changes in the subsurface, which can be interpreted in terms of changes in the composition and/or geometry of the geological layers.

It seems that they are well aware that they are measuring vibrations and calling it gravity.


https://www.leibniz-liag.de/en/research/methods/gravimetry-magnetics/bouguer-anomalies.html

Quote
This map shows the Bouguer anomalies over the whole of Germany and surrounding areas, in a detailed but still clear way.

...

The resulting gravity anomalies vary across the mapped area from -170 mGal in the Alps to +40 mGal around the gravity low in the Magdeburg area.

Low in the Alps of Germany.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2018, 03:22:29 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6215
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #114 on: November 29, 2018, 03:13:15 AM »
Low anomalies, yes.  Meaning gravity is slightly less than predicted on the order of 1 part per 1,000

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #115 on: November 29, 2018, 03:44:30 AM »
It seems that they are well aware that they are measuring vibrations and calling it gravity.

I'm not seeing that from what you referenced/quoted. Can you be more specific?

Back to your OP, I think you have a bigger problem than disputing gravity. From poking around youtube, it seems not that it is a lack of understanding around UA that most seem to claim TFES (and maybe the other society) deem your's "psyop" "misinformation gov't shills", "controlled opposition" etc. It's that TFES purports any sort of earthly motion at all. Their's seems to be "electro-static" or some such, or nothing at all, things just fall, if they are heavier than air. Putting the world in any sort of motion at all seems anathema.

So at the end of the day, all roads as evidenced, point to affirming a gravitational phenomena. But that's neither here nor there if as long as you have an earth in motion of any sort, your Flat Earth brethren seem to have a massive issue.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #116 on: November 29, 2018, 08:40:25 AM »
I think there is a good chance that they will come around if we can successfully build its case. The used to believe that the earth was in motion before FET, after all. At the very least, newcomers will be more informed.

Another gravimeter = seismometer reference:

https://orkustofnun.is/gogn/unu-gtp-sc/UNU-GTP-SC-10-0405a.pdf  on p.4

Quote
An important factor in obtaining useful gravity values in detailed surveys is determining the earth tide effect  as  their  gravitational effects may be greater than the gravity field variations due to the anomalous features being sought. The final aspect of reading a gravity meter concerns seismic activity or cultural movement such as those of vehicles or people. These will disrupt the readings (the meter is actually a low-frequency seismometer) and even though the Scintrex meter has an anti-seismic filter (the  La  Coste-Romberg  meters  are  also  mechanically  damped  to lessen  the  effects  of  earthquakes), readings  will  still  be  disrupted.

The author is Dr. Nicolas O. Mariita. Again, we see that the gravimeter is actually a seismometer.

Recall from above that the seismometer was detecting gravity tides on subseismic bands, which was described as:

Quote
'subseismic band' (i.e. frequency lower than 0.03mHz) that has very strong background noise;

So, the gravimeter is a low-frequency seismometer, taking data out of those low-frequencies.

In the introduction of that paper Dr. Mariita tells us about what gravimetry depends on:

Quote
The success of the gravity method depends on the different earth materials having different bulk densities (mass) that produce variations in the measured gravitational field. These variations can then be  interpreted  by  a  variety  of analytical and computers methods to determine the depth, geometry and density that causes the gravity field variations.

He tells us about the Bouguer anomalies previously mentioned, and the volcanoes:

Quote
The most commonly used processed data are known as Bouguer gravity anomalies, measured  in  mGal.  The  interpretation  of Bouguer gravity anomalies ranges from  just manually inspecting the grid or profiles for variations in the gravitational field to more complex methods that involves separating the gravity anomaly due to an  object  of  interest from some sort of regional gravity field. From this, bodies and structures can be inferred which may be of geothermal interest.

Volcanic centres, where geothermal activity is found, are indicators of cooling magma or hot rock  beneath  these  areas as shown by the recent volcanic  flows, ashes, volcanic domes and abundant hydrothermal activities in the form fumaroles and  hot  springs. Gravity studies in volcanic areas have effectively demonstrated that this method  provides good evidence of shallow subsurface density variations, associated  with the structural and magmatic  history of a volcano. There is a correlation between gravity highs with centres of recent volcanism, intensive faulting and geothermal activity. For example, in the Kenya rift, Olkaria, Domes and Suswa geothermal centres are located on the crest of a gravity high.

This seems to confirm, to me, that:

- A gravimeter is a seismometer
- It takes data from subseismic bands that have lots of noise
- Analysis and filtering is performed under the theory that the different bulk densities of the earth create variations, causing these slight vibration trends
« Last Edit: November 29, 2018, 09:38:39 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy


Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1098
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #118 on: November 29, 2018, 09:36:08 AM »
We have seen that a gravimeter can double as a seismometer, and a seismometer can double as a gravimeter. Both associate anomalies near volcanoes, on plate boundaries, and earthquake prone zones. Both are analyzing trends in noise to pull out the gravity. The paper above clearly says that it is analyzing subseismic noise to identify gravity.
So your thesis is that observed acceleration is higher than expected in seismic/volcanic zones etc.

Two serious problems here. The first is that if the seismic zone is accelerating e.g. 10 milligals faster than a non seismic zone, i.e. increasing speed by 0.0001 metres per second, every second, then every day the discrepancy is 60 x 60 x 24 x 0.0001 = 8.64 metres per second, per day, i.e. one zone is now travelling upwards faster by that amount each day. Thus in one year the difference is 3153.6 metres per second or 7,000 miles an hour. Feel free to check my arithmetic. That’s the difference in upward motion between the different zones, cumulating over one year. Why doesn’t the crust of the flat earth break up under the force, and why don’t we see mountainous areas rising faster and faster compared to the rest of the earth?

Hence you cannot suppose that on average some regions of the earth are accelerating faster than others.

That’s just the first problem.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1098
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator
« Reply #119 on: November 29, 2018, 09:52:14 AM »
The change of mass would be the interpretation if it were measuring "gravity".
Why? Which of your sources says this?