g is not homogeneous
« on: December 23, 2014, 08:31:43 PM »
FET is dealing with gravity by accelerating the earth into space. But the things is that g is not the same everywhere ! How do you explain that ?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7051
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2014, 11:07:05 PM »
The stars have a slight gravitational pull. Some locations on earth are at a higher altitude than others, bringing the observers closer or farther from the stars. This explains why 'gravity' is less on the summit of Mt. Everest than it is in Death Valley.

In fact, it was Issac Newton who commented that this was a most serious unsatisfactory tenet of gravity. According to theory, the masses of the largest mountain ranges of the world should cause grater gravity in the Mt. Everest area. But this is not the case at all. A gravimeter does not show that gravity gets stronger when you simply bring it by a mountain. Gravitational differences are strongly correlated with the altitude of the measuring device.

Also, don't bother linking that gnome weight measuring experiment showing that different spots on earth have different levels of g. We've seen it a million times. Besides that this incredibly sensitive experiment is totally uncontrolled in inside and outside conditions, those locations are at different altitudes from each other, and therefore, different levels of g are to be expected.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2014, 11:17:54 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 Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2014, 11:19:27 PM »
The stars have a slight gravitational pull. Some locations on earth are at a higher altitude than others, bringing the observers closer or farther from the stars. This explains why 'gravity' is less on the summit of Mt. Everest than it is in Death Valley.

In fact, it was Issac Newton who commented that this was an unsatisfactory tenet of gravity. According to theory, the masses of the largest mountain ranges of the world should cause grater gravity in the Mt. Everest area. But this is not seen at all. A gravimeter does not show that gravity gets stronger when you simply bring it by a mountain. Gravitational differences are strongly correlated with the altitude of the measuring device.

Also, don't bother linking that gnome weight measuring experiment showing that different spots on earth have different levels of g. Besides this incredibly sensitive experiment being totally uncontrolled in inside and outside conditions, those locations are at different altitudes from each other.
Sorry, no...

GR's EP that FET invokes to explain gravity does accurately predict the lessening of g with height of the observation. Of course, you already understand some of this in that you understand time dilation (or so you seem to claim). So invoking gravity of the stars is a fantasy solution without any need within FET.

Now perhaps you'd like to explain how oil (and other resource) explores use the variation in g to discover oil fields? http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/171/
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7051
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2014, 11:57:08 PM »
GR's EP that FET invokes to explain gravity does accurately predict the lessening of g with height of the observation. Of course, you already understand some of this in that you understand time dilation (or so you seem to claim). So invoking gravity of the stars is a fantasy solution without any need within FET.

If "gravity" existed, a gravimeter would detect that gravity gets stronger when you bring it near a mountain. But this is not the case. Newton and others commented on this curiosity as a failing of the gravity theory. Small differences happen seemingly all throughout the day on the gravimeter, but not when brought near large masses of the earth, and are primarily and notably seen when it is brought up and down in altitude.

This favors that the differences in 'gravity' are not coming from the mass of the earth, but from the pull of the stars!

Quote
Now perhaps you'd like to explain how oil (and other resource) explores use the variation in g to discover oil fields? http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/171/

The technology is actually a scam perpetuated by companies which specialize in selling pseudo-scientific devices to oil companies. They use "gravity sniffers" in combination other slightly more legit methods to pick the best spots for oil. The machine alone actually cannot be used without these other methods.

Please reference last year's thread on this matter on the old site: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59635.0#.VJn-vV4ACY
« Last Edit: December 24, 2014, 02:31:38 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: 6229
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2014, 12:06:06 AM »
GR's EP that FET invokes to explain gravity does accurately predict the lessening of g with height of the observation. Of course, you already understand some of this in that you understand time dilation (or so you seem to claim). So invoking gravity of the stars is a fantasy solution without any need within FET.

If "gravity" existed, a gravimeter would detect that gravity gets stronger when you bring it near a mountain. But this is not the case. Newton and others commented on this curiosity as a failing of the gravity theory. Small differences happen seemingly all thought the day on the gravimeter, but not when brought near large masses of the earth, and are primarily and notably seen when it is brought up and down in altitude.

This favors that the differences in'gravity' are not coming from the mass of the earth, but from the pull of the stars!

Quote
Now perhaps you'd like to explain how oil (and other resource) explores use the variation in g to discover oil fields? http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/171/

The technology is actually a scam perpetuated by companies which specialize in selling pseudo-scientific devices to oil companies. They use "gravity sniffers" in combination other slightly more legit methods to pick the best spots for oil. The machine alone actually cannot be used without these other methods.

Please reference last year's thread on this matter on the old site: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59635.0#.VJn-vV4ACY

There was an experiment that showed evidence of a mountains gravitational influence.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7051
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2014, 12:18:13 AM »
There was an experiment that showed evidence of a mountains gravitational influence.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment

Miles Mathis, author of The Greatest Standing Errors in Physics and Mathematics, discusses this Mt. Schiehallion topic here: http://milesmathis.com/schie.pdf
« Last Edit: December 24, 2014, 12:21:51 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 Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2014, 12:40:32 AM »
GR's EP that FET invokes to explain gravity does accurately predict the lessening of g with height of the observation. Of course, you already understand some of this in that you understand time dilation (or so you seem to claim). So invoking gravity of the stars is a fantasy solution without any need within FET.

If "gravity" existed, a gravimeter would detect that gravity gets stronger when you bring it near a mountain. But this is not the case. Newton and others commented on this curiosity as a failing of the gravity theory. Small differences happen seemingly all thought the day on the gravimeter, but not when brought near large masses of the earth, and are primarily and notably seen when it is brought up and down in altitude.

This favors that the differences in'gravity' are not coming from the mass of the earth, but from the pull of the stars!

Quote
Now perhaps you'd like to explain how oil (and other resource) explores use the variation in g to discover oil fields? http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/171/

The technology is actually a scam perpetuated by companies which specialize in selling pseudo-scientific devices to oil companies. They use "gravity sniffers" in combination other slightly more legit methods to pick the best spots for oil. The machine alone actually cannot be used without these other methods.

Please reference last year's thread on this matter on the old site: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59635.0#.VJn-vV4ACY
So you reject a peer-reviewed scientific journal article as part of a scam, but stand by Robotham's erroneous experiment of firing a canon straight up to demonstrate that the earth doesn't rotate. Perhaps you could take the time to critique the KSU paper. Since it's part of the scam, you should have no problem demonstrating its error.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7051
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2014, 12:57:47 AM »
So you reject a peer-reviewed scientific journal article as part of a scam, but stand by Robotham's erroneous experiment of firing a canon straight up to demonstrate that the earth doesn't rotate. Perhaps you could take the time to critique the KSU paper. Since it's part of the scam, you should have no problem demonstrating its error.

I looked through it. The KSU paper looks at some data and makes some suggestions on how to interpret it and perhaps use it to better the finding oil, but I am afraid it does not follow the Scientific Method. The "experiment" piece of this scientific masterpiece, where the hypothesis is put to the test, is absent.
"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 markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4396
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2014, 12:59:33 AM »
Also, don't bother linking that gnome weight measuring experiment showing that different spots on earth have different levels of g. We've seen it a million times. Besides that this incredibly sensitive experiment is totally uncontrolled in inside and outside conditions, those locations are at different altitudes from each other, and therefore, different levels of g are to be expected.
Tom, you still don't understand that the gnome is the control in that experiment, do you?  Of course different levels of g are to be expected.  The whole point of the experiment to measure those different values of g using a known reference mass (you know, the control in the experiment, A.K.A., the gnome).
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: 7051
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2014, 01:01:28 AM »
Also, don't bother linking that gnome weight measuring experiment showing that different spots on earth have different levels of g. We've seen it a million times. Besides that this incredibly sensitive experiment is totally uncontrolled in inside and outside conditions, those locations are at different altitudes from each other, and therefore, different levels of g are to be expected.
Tom, you still don't understand that the gnome is the control in that experiment, do you?  Of course different levels of g are to be expected.  The whole point of the experiment to measure those different values of g using a known reference mass (you know, the control in the experiment, A.K.A., the gnome).

The gnome is at different altitudes when it travels the world. Not everywhere is at sea level. The level of the earth rises and falls. The altitude of Huston and the altitude of, say, Denver, has a difference of over 5100 feet.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2014, 01:04:32 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 Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #10 on: December 24, 2014, 01:06:50 AM »
So you reject a peer-reviewed scientific journal article as part of a scam, but stand by Robotham's erroneous experiment of firing a canon straight up to demonstrate that the earth doesn't rotate. Perhaps you could take the time to critique the KSU paper. Since it's part of the scam, you should have no problem demonstrating its error.

I looked through it. The KSU paper looks at some data and makes some suggestions on how to interpret it and perhaps use it to better the finding oil, but I am afraid it does not follow the Scientific Method. The "experiment" piece of this scientific masterpiece, where the hypothesis is put to the test, is absent.
You're wrong. The paper presents a hypothesis and shows that it fits the experimental data. How could you possibly miss that?

Tell me what did you think of how the third-order residuals were handled. I thought the author handled and explained those very well.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7051
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #11 on: December 24, 2014, 01:13:19 AM »
You're wrong. The paper presents a hypothesis and shows that it fits the experimental data. How could you possibly miss that?

Tell me what did you think of how the third-order residuals were handled. I thought the author handled and explained those very well.

A hypothesis on how the data can be interpreted is meaningless if there is no experiment to demonstrate that hypothesis. That is the heart of the Scientific Method. They even teach it to children in gradeschool.

« Last Edit: December 24, 2014, 01:39:41 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 Lemmiwinks

  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #12 on: December 24, 2014, 01:14:33 AM »
This from the guy that said proving something was part of the scientific process?
Scepti is the most eminent flat earth scientist of our generation, he's never even heard of you clowns.

Ghost of V

Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #13 on: December 24, 2014, 01:15:58 AM »
This from the guy that said proving something was part of the scientific process?


The entire purpose of science is to prove something. Otherwise, what are we doing?

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4396
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2014, 01:20:20 AM »
The gnome is at different altitudes when it travels the world. Not everywhere is at sea level. The level of the earth rises and falls. The altitude of Huston and the altitude of, say, Denver, has a difference of over 5100 feet.
And yet the mass of the gnome remains the same, regardless of the altitude or location.  This is why the gnome is the control that makes this a controlled experiment.
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 Lemmiwinks

  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #15 on: December 24, 2014, 01:21:52 AM »
This from the guy that said proving something was part of the scientific process?


The entire purpose of science is to prove something. Otherwise, what are we doing?

Its to conclude something, to say, this is the best possible explanation for what we observe, but its impossible to prove something. I mean we can get into semantics and all, but the reason I posted this was because in another thread he took a very hard line definition of what science was meant to do. Prove something is impossible, but to say this is the best explanation for what we observe is quite possible, and leaves science open to do what it does best, be tested time and again.

I found it rather amusing that in another thread he then posts a graphic that clearly omits proving anything, but only concluding and reporting.
Scepti is the most eminent flat earth scientist of our generation, he's never even heard of you clowns.

Ghost of V

Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2014, 01:23:25 AM »
This from the guy that said proving something was part of the scientific process?


The entire purpose of science is to prove something. Otherwise, what are we doing?

Its to conclude something, to say, this is the best possible explanation for what we observe, but its impossible to prove something. I mean we can get into semantics and all, but the reason I posted this was because in another thread he took a very hard line definition of what science was meant to do. Prove something is impossible, but to say this is the best explanation for what we observe is quite possible, and leaves science open to do what it does best, be tested time and again.

I found it rather amusing that in another thread he then posts a graphic that clearly omits proving anything, but only concluding and reporting.

Yes, let's get into semantics. Science attempts to conclude something, which is then taken as a proof until further science invalidates it or keeps supporting it. Either way, we're getting into semantics here but I think you understand the point of what Tom and I are saying.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7051
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #17 on: December 24, 2014, 01:30:39 AM »
Its to conclude something, to say, this is the best possible explanation for what we observe, but its impossible to prove something. I mean we can get into semantics and all, but the reason I posted this was because in another thread he took a very hard line definition of what science was meant to do. Prove something is impossible, but to say this is the best explanation for what we observe is quite possible, and leaves science open to do what it does best, be tested time and again.

I found it rather amusing that in another thread he then posts a graphic that clearly omits proving anything, but only concluding and reporting.

The word proof is not absolute. Look at how "proof" is used in all of scientific history. Aristotle's "three proofs," etc. It is a conclusion based on evidence.

The gnome is at different altitudes when it travels the world. Not everywhere is at sea level. The level of the earth rises and falls. The altitude of Huston and the altitude of, say, Denver, has a difference of over 5100 feet.
And yet the mass of the gnome remains the same, regardless of the altitude or location.  This is why the gnome is the control that makes this a controlled experiment.

Actually, the digital scale used is measuring the weight of the gnome, not the mass.
"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 markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4396
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #18 on: December 24, 2014, 02:41:24 AM »
Actually, the digital scale used is measuring the weight of the gnome, not the mass.
???  Umm...  Isn't weight defined as mass times gravity (universal acceleration)?  Therefore, if one knows the mass of an object (control) and then one measures the weight of that object at a particular location, then one can calculate the value of gravity (universal acceleration) at that location, correct?
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 Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: g is not homogeneous
« Reply #19 on: December 24, 2014, 03:16:46 AM »
You're wrong. The paper presents a hypothesis and shows that it fits the experimental data. How could you possibly miss that?

Tell me what did you think of how the third-order residuals were handled. I thought the author handled and explained those very well.

A hypothesis on how the data can be interpreted is meaningless if there is no experiment to demonstrate that hypothesis. That is the heart of the Scientific Method. They even teach it to children in gradeschool.
The paper documents its experiment exceptionally well. What is your problem? The author even provides the model number of the computer used in the experiment. What more could you possibly want from him?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.