[Tom Bishop]

This statement from someone who postulates Electromagnetic Acceleration and even has a mathematical, as yet, undefined constant named for him is beyond comical.

Your response perfectly illustrates the deflection tactic I predicted at the outset of this thread. Instead of addressing the core argument, you attempt to dismiss the discussion by referencing unrelated topics. This does nothing to defend your position that the Earth is continually exploding apart from itself through speculative mechanisms like space-time curvature.

Instead of providing evidence or a coherent defense of the Round Earth model's reliance on metaphysical constructs like curved space-time, you attempt to derail the discussion by mocking unrelated ideas. This is a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy. If you believe the Round Earth explanation of gravity is superior, demonstrate it with evidence and logical reasoning, not deflection.

You have provided no evidence or logical argument to support the claim that the Earth is accelerating upward through curved space-time. Instead, you resort to dismissive remarks. This lack of engagement suggests that even you recognize the intractability of the Round Earth explanation, which requires increasingly convoluted abstractions to justify its claims. If the Round Earth model were as robust as you imply, why not defend it directly?

I'm curious about the bizarre physics that would be needed to uniformly accelerate the flat earth and all of the celestial objects.

You should probably first focus on the problem with the official model that the earth is exploding apart from itself in an unseen dimension, and that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through spacetime. Where is the evidence for this? Your reference texts give the acceleration phenomena proofs that the earth is accelerating upwards as proof enough that this is happening, which is insufficient considering that there is another more direct interpretation.

[Pete Svarrior]

a mathematical, as yet, undefined constant

It will be so funny when the penny finally drops. It'll be your new "unknown unknowns" moment. It's so, so incredibly mind-boggling that you've been saying this for years and didn't think to check yourself even once.

named for him is beyond comical.

What the fuck do you want Tom to do about the fact that someone named a variable after him? How does this even begin to be relevant?

Also, to be abundantly clear, and to make sure you definitely understand what I'm saying here: if you don't know how to post in the upper, do not post in the upper. I get it - you don't like the subject (it's in your username), and you don't know how to handle things you don't like (it's in your username). But you're in the wrong place for this.

If you want to argue for RE, you're welcome to, but this sort of shit-stirring from you ends now. Super-duper final warning, for realsies.

[markjo]

I'm curious about the bizarre physics that would be needed to uniformly accelerate the flat earth and all of the celestial objects.

You should probably first focus on the problem with the official model that the earth is exploding apart from itself in an unseen dimension, and that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through spacetime.

Einstein already figured that out.  That you don't understand it isn't surprising, a lot RE physicists have trouble understanding it too.  It's been said that if you think you understand relativity, then you don't understand relativity.

Where is the evidence for this? Your reference texts give the acceleration phenomena proofs that the earth is accelerating upwards as proof enough that this is happening, which is insufficient considering that there is another more direct interpretation.

GR is one of the most thoroughly tested theories ever, starting with the precession of Mercury's orbit and astronomical observations of gravitational lensing.  The apparent upward acceleration of the earth's surface is merely a consequence of an otherwise stationary round earth moving through the time element of curved space-time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

[WTF_Seriously]

Your response perfectly illustrates the deflection tactic I predicted at the outset of this thread.

Less of a deflection tactic and more of a Matthew 7:3-5 take on things.  As to the rest of your post, I've freely admitted here that GR is not something I'm well versed in.  Others here are much more qualified and are doing quite fine at addressing it.

[Longtitube]

Things do not "fall" to the ground. The so-called "falling" is nothing more than the result of the Earth accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s², as evidenced by direct observations and experiments...

...The evidence overwhelmingly supports the upwards acceleration of the surface as the more direct explanation of physical reality

Ah yes, the evidence nobody seems able to produce, so I did my own research. Experimental measurements of acceleration towards the ground by an object falling in a vacuum have been done for many years and at many locations. The OP will insist that these are actually measurements of the earth accelerating towards the object, but it's irrelevant – relative to the object or relative to the Earth, there is undeniable acceleration of one towards the other and this has been measured with great precision.

TL/DR: measured acceleration values of between 9.829 m/s² (Thule, northern Greenland) and 9.772 m/s² (Quito, Ecuador) are documented: these are 0.3% larger and 0.29% smaller than the aforementioned 9.8 metres/second². Acceleration is generally larger nearer the poles, smaller nearer the equator.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276278343_Absolute_gravity_measurements_in_South_Africa#pf6
https://library.arcticportal.org/2513/1/A20130416.pdf
https://www.sirgas.org/fileadmin/docs/Boletines/Bol24/45_Guaimaraes_et_al_2019_Absolute_gravimetry_SouthAmerica.pdf
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA099017.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2000GL012438
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350145419_Twelve_Years_of_High_Frequency_Absolute_Gravity_Measurements_at_the_UK%27s_Space_Geodesy_Facility_Systematic_Signals_and_Comparison_with_SLR_Heights/fulltext/609da3ca299bf147699628f2/Twelve-Years-of-High-Frequency-Absolute-Gravity-Measurements-at-the-UKs-Space-Geodesy-Facility-Systematic-Signals-and-Comparison-with-SLR-Heights.pdf
https://geodaesie.info/images/zfv/133-jahrgang-2008/downloads/zfv_2008_3_Timmen_et-al.pdf
https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/217/2/1141/5304614
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232822567_Absolute_gravity_values_in_Norway
https://www.academia.edu/4418215/Absolute_gravity_measurements_in_India_and_Antarctica
https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/89119479/PHD_JEMNI_1_.pdf

Acceleration also varies within countries. Within the US, documented acceleration figures vary from 9.788 (Texas) to 9.805 (Missouri) to 9.819 m/s² (Alaska).  Norway ranges from 9.818 (Stavanger) to 9.827 m/s² (Honningsvåg). Antarctica records values of 9.826 (twice) and 9.825m/s².

I have rounded the acceleration values measured to three decimal places in all examples.

These variations in acceleration pose a dreadful problem to UA, because they indicate a flat, upwardly accelerating Earth is not accelerating uniformly. The variations in acceleration from the aforementioned 9.8m/s² are only +0.3%  to -0.29%, but a little schoolboy physics shows this is catastrophic in practice.

We will start from a stationary flat earth to simplify the calculations. For acceleration a, the distance travelled (from a standing start) in time t is given by:

                    distance, d = a/2 x t²                              d in metres, a in m/s², t in seconds.

In one minute (60 seconds), an object accelerating at 9.772 m/s² will travel (9.772/2) x 60² = 17,589.6m. At 9.829m/s² the distance travelled is 17,692.2m. 102.6m difference between largest and smallest distances isn't much across the entirety of a flat earth.

In 10 minutes (600 seconds) the results vary from a minimum of (9.772/2) x 600² = 1,758,960m to a maximum of (9.829/2) x 600² = 1,769,220m, a difference of 10,260m. In just 9 minutes the difference has risen a hundredfold.

In 1 hour (3,600s) the results vary from (9.772/2) x 3600² = 63,322,560m to (9.829/2) x 3600² = 63,691,920m. The difference is now 369,360m or 369.36 kilometres.

In 12 hours (43,200s) we get (9.772/2) x 43200² = 9,118,448,640m at a minimum and (9.829/2) x 43200² = 9,171,636,480m maximum distance travelled. The difference is 53,187,840m.

It has taken 12 hours for areas of a flat earth accelerating upwards at experimentally measured rates to rise by vertical distances differing by up to 53,187.84 kilometres, which is more than five times the distance from the north pole to the equator. If it were even possible for a flat earth to distort by this much, it would no longer be flat, the oceans would be pooling around the tropics and the mountain some believe is at the north pole would in fact be the entire Arctic region. However, the world is not made of pulling taffy, able to stretch at will, and the only sane conclusion is that a flat earth would have been pulled apart by the stresses and reduced to rubble less than 12 hours after starting to accelerate.

The very notion this is the idea Brian Cox is endorsing is ridiculous.

[Tom Bishop]

Einstein already figured that out.  That you don't understand it isn't surprising, a lot RE physicists have trouble understanding it too.  It's been said that if you think you understand relativity, then you don't understand relativity.

It is correct that a lot of physicists say that they don't understand general relativity, and this thread shows why. It's based on "We know that the earth is round, so it HAS to be this way" and proceeds to creatively theorize elaborate metaphysics of an earth which is exploding apart from itself interdimensionally to explain the acceleration effects.

It's confusing why these mechanisms are being proposed because it is not science, it's a band-aid. When assessed on the topic of the earth's shape we further understand the intricacies of general relativity and the necessity for this.

GR is one of the most thoroughly tested theories ever, starting with the precession of Mercury's orbit and astronomical observations of gravitational lensing.  The apparent upward acceleration of the earth's surface is merely a consequence of an otherwise stationary round earth moving through the time element of curved space-time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

In that link all of the terrestrial tests are the equivalence principle tests that the earth is accelerating upwards.

The astronomical observations such as starlight bending and mercury are indirect inferences. For example:

- Is the only way to explain the observation of light bending bend towards the sun is if the earth is exploding apart from itself in another dimension? Please connect the dots there.
- Is the only way to account for an issue in the precession of Mercury is if the earth is exploding apart from itself in another dimension? Please connect the dots.

There is not a direct connection to the underlying mechanism proposed. It is possible to create different theories of gravity where light bends towards the Sun.

In 1957 Physicist Robert Dicke complained about the shoddy state of General Relativity as compared to other fields:

“ Dicke’s thinking about his change of direction of research is illustrated by these quotes from his 1957 Chapel Hill paper, The Experimental Basis of Einstein’s Theory (Dicke 1957a, p. 5):

"It is unfortunate to note that the situation with respect to the experimental checks of general relativity theory is not much better than it was a few years after the theory was discovered – say in 1920. This is in striking contrast to the situation with respect to quantum theory, where we have literally thousands of experimental checks.
...
Professor Wheeler has already discussed the three famous checks of general relativity; this is really very flimsy evidence on which to hang a theory.
...
It is a great challenge to the experimental physicist to try to improve this situation; to try to devise new experiments and refine old ones to give new checks on the theory. We have been accustomed to thinking that gravity can play no role in laboratory-scale experiments; that the gradients are too small, and that all gravitational effects are equivalent to a change of frame of reference. Recently I have been changing my views about this."

In the second of these quotes Dicke was referring to Wheeler’s summary comments on the classical three tests of general relativity: the orbit of the planet Mercury, the gravitational deflection of light passing near the Sun, and the gravitational redshift of light from stars. ”

Quantum Theory had thousands of checks. General Relativity only had a few, and its state has hardly improved today in comparison. It is 2025 and you are still citing Mercury and light bending as your proof.

Beyond that, there has been disagreement these few proofs even work. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Precession_of_Mercury%27s_Orbit

[Tom Bishop]

TL/DR: measured acceleration values of between 9.829 m/s² (Thule, northern Greenland) and 9.772 m/s² (Quito, Ecuador) are documented: these are 0.3% larger and 0.29% smaller than the aforementioned 9.8 metres/second². Acceleration is generally larger nearer the poles, smaller nearer the equator.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276278343_Absolute_gravity_measurements_in_South_Africa#pf6
https://library.arcticportal.org/2513/1/A20130416.pdf
https://www.sirgas.org/fileadmin/docs/Boletines/Bol24/45_Guaimaraes_et_al_2019_Absolute_gravimetry_SouthAmerica.pdf
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA099017.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2000GL012438
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350145419_Twelve_Years_of_High_Frequency_Absolute_Gravity_Measurements_at_the_UK%27s_Space_Geodesy_Facility_Systematic_Signals_and_Comparison_with_SLR_Heights/fulltext/609da3ca299bf147699628f2/Twelve-Years-of-High-Frequency-Absolute-Gravity-Measurements-at-the-UKs-Space-Geodesy-Facility-Systematic-Signals-and-Comparison-with-SLR-Heights.pdf
https://geodaesie.info/images/zfv/133-jahrgang-2008/downloads/zfv_2008_3_Timmen_et-al.pdf
https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/217/2/1141/5304614
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232822567_Absolute_gravity_values_in_Norway
https://www.academia.edu/4418215/Absolute_gravity_measurements_in_India_and_Antarctica
https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/89119479/PHD_JEMNI_1_.pdf

Acceleration also varies within countries. Within the US, documented acceleration figures vary from 9.788 (Texas) to 9.805 (Missouri) to 9.819 m/s² (Alaska).  Norway ranges from 9.818 (Stavanger) to 9.827 m/s² (Honningsvåg). Antarctica records values of 9.826 (twice) and 9.825m/s².

This is talking about gravimeters. We have a page on this here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Considering that there are seismometers which have a "gravimeter mode" and there are quotes that a gravimeter is really a seismometer, it's clear that there is something wrong with your interpretation on how this device is measuring gravity. There are also maps showing that the gravitational anomalies across the earth are associated with the seismic zones, further questioning what this device is actually measuring.

[Longtitube]

TL/DR: measured acceleration values of between 9.829 m/s² (Thule, northern Greenland) and 9.772 m/s² (Quito, Ecuador) are documented: these are 0.3% larger and 0.29% smaller than the aforementioned 9.8 metres/second². Acceleration is generally larger nearer the poles, smaller nearer the equator.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276278343_Absolute_gravity_measurements_in_South_Africa#pf6
https://library.arcticportal.org/2513/1/A20130416.pdf
https://www.sirgas.org/fileadmin/docs/Boletines/Bol24/45_Guaimaraes_et_al_2019_Absolute_gravimetry_SouthAmerica.pdf
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA099017.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2000GL012438
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350145419_Twelve_Years_of_High_Frequency_Absolute_Gravity_Measurements_at_the_UK%27s_Space_Geodesy_Facility_Systematic_Signals_and_Comparison_with_SLR_Heights/fulltext/609da3ca299bf147699628f2/Twelve-Years-of-High-Frequency-Absolute-Gravity-Measurements-at-the-UKs-Space-Geodesy-Facility-Systematic-Signals-and-Comparison-with-SLR-Heights.pdf
https://geodaesie.info/images/zfv/133-jahrgang-2008/downloads/zfv_2008_3_Timmen_et-al.pdf
https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/217/2/1141/5304614
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232822567_Absolute_gravity_values_in_Norway
https://www.academia.edu/4418215/Absolute_gravity_measurements_in_India_and_Antarctica
https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/89119479/PHD_JEMNI_1_.pdf

Acceleration also varies within countries. Within the US, documented acceleration figures vary from 9.788 (Texas) to 9.805 (Missouri) to 9.819 m/s² (Alaska).  Norway ranges from 9.818 (Stavanger) to 9.827 m/s² (Honningsvåg). Antarctica records values of 9.826 (twice) and 9.825m/s².

This is talking about gravimeters. We have a page on this here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Considering that there are seismometers which have a "gravimeter mode" and there are quotes that a gravimeter is really a seismometer, it's clear that there is something wrong with your interpretation on how this device is measuring gravity. There are also maps showing that the gravitational anomalies across the earth are associated with the seismic zones, further questioning what this device is actually measuring.

I have read the wiki page on gravimeters, repeatedly, and understand how it suggests a relative gravimeter can be compared with a seismometer. However, I wonder if you actually read my post, because all my citations are from absolute gravimeters:

Experimental measurements of acceleration towards the ground by an object falling in a vacuum have been done for many years and at many locations. The OP will insist that these are actually measurements of the earth accelerating towards the object, but it's irrelevant – relative to the object or relative to the Earth, there is undeniable acceleration of one towards the other and this has been measured with great precision.

If you can explain how an object accelerating towards the ground in a vacuum can detect seismic signals I would be really surprised, because the wiki page doesn't explain it. All the measurements in the cited references are measuring the acceleration of a mass, in a vacuum, towards the ground.

If you can also explain how gravitational anomalies make these acceleration measurements vary both above and below the expected value I should be equally surprised, because the wiki doesn't explain how that might be so. More damningly, the northwest coast of Greenland and Ecuador are the furthest variations above and below, respectively, the expected value. The wiki has a map of gravitational anomalies above and below expected, yet both the Greenland and Ecuador values are in areas of positive anomaly on that map, not one in positive anomaly and the other negative. This is inconsistent with the wiki claim.

Finally, the variations cited in the wiki map https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Seismic_Map_Similarities are of up to plus or minus 70 mGal. One mGal is one thousandth of a Gal, one Gal is 1 cm/s² or one hundredth of a metre/s², so one mGal is one hundred thousandth of a metre/s² or 0.00001m/s². 70mGal is therefore 0.0007 m/s² and is too small to register in the quoted 3-decimal-place measurements of 9.827 to 9.772 m/s².

The cited differences in acceleration of an object in a vacuum are therefore too large to be explained by the wiki's quibbling. The upwards-accelerating flat earth would still tear itself to pieces in less than half a day.

[Tom Bishop]

The Wiki covers that. See the section Corrections for Latitude. There are absolute gravimeters examples where a formula is applied with values for the latitude variations between the equator and poles.

Corrections for Latitude

It is asserted that gravimetry has shown trends at different latitudes, and so this is validation of the idea that it is really measuring "gravity". We find that this assertion is unfounded.

From a university course on gravity surveying we read:

http://www.geol-amu.org/notes/m10-1-4.htm

“ Recall that, if the Earth were an homogeneous ellipsoid, the value of gravity at the surface would be given by:

g = g0 (1 + k1 sin2 ϕ – k2 sin2 2ϕ)

The objective of gravity surveys is to look for deviations from this reference value. ”

If the objective of gravity surveys is merely to look for deviations from a round earth reference model with the vibrating gravity theory, then the final computed number in meters per second squared would becomes meaningless for the purpose of discussion. Any modifications to the reference values are constructed on an entirely theoretical basis.

The above page tells us that there is a theoretical model and that the goal of gravity surveys is to modify that model. Further down we see, among the list of corrections to be made, the latitude correction:

“ Latitude correction: The earth's poles are closer to the centre of the equator than is the equator. However, there is more mass under the equator and there is an opposing centrifugal acceleration at the equator. The net effect is that gravity is greater at the poles than the equator.

For values relative to a base station, gravity increases as you move north, so subtract 0.811 sin(2a) mGal/km as you move north from the base station. (where a is latitude). ”

We read that we are subtracting or adding values to the reference model and the data to make the corrections for latitude, which is very different than using the data to determine the latitude. The claim that the final number is meaningful as evidence to showcase any particular point may be fallacious.

Note: The reference 'for values relative to a base station' may imply that this is referring to a relative gravimeter.

United Nations University

On p.9 of Seismic Activity, Gravity, and Magnetic Measurements by LaGeo as part of the United Nations University Geothermal Training Program we read:

“ 3.6 Reduction of data

Gravimeters do not give direct measurements of gravity; rather, a meter reading is taken which is then multiplied by an instrumental calibration factor to produce a value of observed gravity (known as gobs). The correction process is known as gravity data reduction or reduction to the geoid. The various corrections that can be applied are the following. ”

The section goes on to list a number of corrections, including corrections for latitude and elevation, which is not data contained in the measurement readings:

“ Latitude correction (gn) - Correction subtracted from gobs that accounts for earth's elliptical shape and rotation. The gravity value that would be observed if the earth were a perfect (no geologic or topographic complexities) rotating ellipsoid is referred to as the normal gravity.

gn = 978031.85 * (1.0 + 0.005278895 sin 2 (lat) + 0.000023462 sin4(lat)) (mGal) (4)

where lat is latitude  ”

  “ Free-air corrected gravity (gfa) - The free-air correction accounts for gravity variations caused by elevation differences in the observation locations ”

These are artificial corrections which are added or subtracted to the data and reference model. If the earth were really elliptical or rotating, and if the devices were really measuring gravity in full, then these artificial corrections would not be necessary. It is seen that the devices are seismometers and that these corrections are artificially added into the data as modifications.

Absolute Gravimeter Corrections

A common response to some of the references above is to declare that even though the sources do not specify, the sources must solely be talking about relative gravimeters, and that absolute gravimeters are completely different devices which measures gravity in full. Yet, despite this argument we see that even absolute gravimeters determine local gravity through a model involving the gravitational acceleration of the equator and poles.

Terrain-aided navigation with an atomic gravimeter

Introduction

"The purpose of the paper is to provide a solution for surface or sub-surface navigation by Terrain Matching using an absolute gravimeter."

On the third page:

III. A METHOD TO MAP THE GRAVITY ANOMALY WITH THE ATOMIC GRAVIMETER



Elsewhere it describes that "Φ is the longitude and λ the latitude. g(Φ, λ) is the modulus of the local gravity acceleration vector"

To determine the local gravity acceleration the device invokes a model involving an equation using gravitational acceleration at the equator and poles with the latitude, and the results are then added to the gravity anomaly (Last line: g(Φ, λ) [Local gravity] = g0(λ)[standard gravity accounting for latitude gravity gradient] + ga(Φ, λ) [gravity anomaly]) We see similar equations (sin 2 lat) as in the previous latitude corrections. Why should this be necessary to involve the gravitational accelerations of the equator and poles to determine the local gravity? If an absolute gravimeter is measuring gravity in full then it should measure gravity in full.

Mobile Atom Interferometer

Similarly, we read the following about latitude corrections for a precision free-fall device:

Gravity surveys using a mobile atom interferometer

Introduction

“ atomic gravimeters rely on matter-wave interferometry with a freely falling atomic cloud ”

~

Latitude and terrain correction

“ We correct the gravity values collected in the Berkeley Hills for latitude variations using the WGS84 ellipsoidal gravity formula (38) to create latitude-corrected gravity anomalies. ”

~

References and notes for (38)

“ 38. Department of Defense World Geodetic System 1984: Its definition and relationships with local geodetic systems (NIMA Technical Report 8350.2, 3rd ed., National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 1997). ”

We again see a precision free-fall gravimeter which is corrected for latitude.

WGS84 Ellipsoidal Gravity Formula

On p.13 of a paper titled Invited Review Article: Measurements of the Newtonian constant of gravitation, G we see a summary of the WGS84 ellipsoidal gravity formula:

“ The local acceleration is a sum of the centrifugal acceleration and the gravitational acceleration. At the equator, the local acceleration is reduced by the centrifugal acceleration. This effect is exacerbated by the fact that the figure of the Earth is in response to the centrifugal acceleration an oblate spheroid. Hence the polar radius is smaller than the equatorial radius, increasing the gravitational part of the local acceleration towards the pole. A model describing this normal gravity g0 approximately, the so-called reference ellipsoid, is WGS8497,

and Φ denotes the latitude. This formula describes the theoretical local acceleration on an equipotential surface at mean sea level. It includes both gravitational and centrifugal potentials. ”

This is a very similar equation to the absolute gravimeter local gravity equation given in a section previous to this [8](sin 2 lat).

The text around this p.13 quote also strongly indicates that the WGS84 equation for the gravity variations was determined based on the weight change experiments conducted at different latitudes and which affects pendulums and scales. From the sentence immediately prior to the above quote:

“In 1672, Jean Richer noticed on a trip to French Guiana that the oscillation frequency of a seconds pendulum depends on the geographical latitude ”

We hence see that the gravimeters, including absolute gravimeters, are adjusting the output for local gravity based on a latitudinal formula that was determined by a different experiment (Note: This is a determination which may be flawed in interpretation; see Weight Variation by Latitude). Once again, if the absolute gravimeter is measuring gravity in full, why should equations involving gravity's latitudinal differences of the equator and poles be necessary to determine local gravity?

Absolute gravimeter end product data employ latitude correction formulas, which gives the supposed difference between the equator and the poles. These are values which were derived from a different experiment.

An absolute gravimeter is absolute because the falling object is disconnected from the earth. It allows the vibrations affecting the mirror in the device to be studied with greater accuracy because there is an independent object to compare it to. See this section from the Wiki page:

Absolute Gravimeter Description

From Geophysics From Terrestrial Time‐Variable Gravity Measurements we read about a device that does involve a falling object. The interest is in the tiny noises that affect the mirror in the device while the body is in free fall and disconnected from the Earth:

  “ In an absolute gravimeter, a test laser beam bounces off the free‐falling body before being reflected back to the interferometer, where the test beam interferes with a reference one. While the dropped mass is completely isolated from the Earth's vibrations during its fall, anthropogenic and natural microseismic noises continuously modify the position of the reference mirror of the interferometer. Even in the absence of an earthquake, the displacements of the Earth's surface are persistent and location and season dependent, reaching up to a few micrometers close to the coast (Kedar et al., 2008), while one should measure the free‐fall distance at the 1 nm precision level in order to achieve a precision on gravity of 10 nm/s^2. In the first white‐light gravimeter, the measurements of gravity were corrected by using the records from a 1 s period seismometer. Early in the 1980s, Rinker (1983) developed the so‐called Super Spring, that is, a modified seismometer providing an inertial reference system at periods shorter than about 1 min—the suspended mass of a seismometer provides an inertial reference frame, independent from the motions of the Earth, at periods shorter than the resonance frequency (Aki & Richards, 2002). The challenge consisted in producing a suspension device of which the free period is about 1 min, that is, longer than the periods ranging 5–20 s, where microseism is the strongest. ”

[Tom Bishop]

Some of the absolute gravimeter articles you posted actually reference corrections. See this:

https://www.sirgas.org/fileadmin/docs/Boletines/Bol24/45_Guaimaraes_et_al_2019_Absolute_gravimetry_SouthAmerica.pdf

Measurements 2010 - Today

The A-10 nº 032

- The process is controlled by a computer that corrects the
luni-solar attraction, the effect of rotation of the Earth,
the ocean load and the barometric pressure, providing a
final “g” value;
- The final value of absolute gravity is an adjustment of all
observations in the different sets, after corrections.

The "effect of the rotation of the Earth" is the difference of g you are referring to between the equator and poles, which is allegedly due to the earth's rotation. The above section is saying that there is a built-in correction. Since a correction is needed to account for it in the final end product data, it tells us that the gravimeter is not detecting this.