*

Offline Excelsior John

  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!
    • View Profile
    • Excelsior! Flat Earth
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2013, 03:00:23 AM »
What is your proof of UA?
Go stand on a chair, and then jump off of it.
Its called gravitey

And that wouldnt make sense for other planets to have gravitation while earth doesnt.
And that wouldn't make sense for only Earth to have life on it, but all the evidence thus far indicates it is.
That is because earth is the only known celestel bodey having the nesesarey conditions to suport life. Evidance seems to suport gravitey
Viva la FES!
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham link=https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59968.msg1544396#msg1544396
Excelsior:...You are clearly a reasonable and intelligent person.

Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2013, 03:03:59 AM »
That is because earth is the only known celestel bodey having the nesesarey conditions to suport life. Evidance seems to suport gravitey
Frankly, I don't know what you're trying to say most the time. Please take time to edit your comments for spelling and basic grammar mistakes before posting. Based on my rough translation of your writings, the point is that the Earth is clearly unique. Hence, I don't wish to assume the Earth exhibits gravitation without clear evidence.

Its called gravitey
Can you show evidence of "gravitey"?
You don't think I'm going to post here sober, do you?  ???

I have embraced my Benny Franko side. I'm sleazy.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3784
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2013, 03:40:01 AM »
What is your proof of UA?
Go stand on a chair, and then jump off of it.
Its called gravitey
Are you sure?  Einstein said that for an experiment that limited, it's impossible to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity.
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: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #23 on: December 17, 2013, 05:18:04 PM »
I did not say pressure was the same anywhere. That is a gross misreading. Atmospheric pressure is controlled in the gnome experiment by zeroing the balance. So unless the pressure suddenly changes on one side of the balance it does not affect the weight measurement.

Zeroing the balance won't help when things are physically lighter in high-pressure environments.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Would_an_object_weigh_more_or_less_in_vacuum

    Would an object weigh more or less in vacuum?

    An object will weigh more in vacuum than in air because of the upthrust. There is no upthrust in vacuum whereas in air the pressure pushes an object or person from all sides. The air is dense and it is similar like water where the weight of an object is equal to the weight of the water displaced by it.

Quote
The Earths magnetic field is approximately 1/4 the strength of a fridge magnet, so I doubt it has a significant effect on a ceramic gnome or a lead weight, but the burden of proof is yours to show it does, so go to!

How do we know that all materials in the digital scale are non-magnetic?

Quote
Could you explain why a gnome might be lighter underground when the Earth's magnetic field should be stronger there? As shown in the link I provided?

The link says that the first reading was taken above ground and the second reading was taken in an underground lab environment. There are a lot of factors at play. There may also be magnetic material in the earth between the surface and the building. This underground lab may have been pressurized differently than the building up top. There may have been a difference in the static force of the desk it was on, the floors, walls and ceilings of the two locations. The experiment is totally uncontrolled.

Your link also asserts the following:

Quote
The second effect that can change an object's weight with location is that the Earth is slightly flattened at the poles. That means its radius at the equator is about 20 kilometres bigger than at the poles, Jillings said. Objects at the equator are therefore slightly farther away from the centre of the Earth, so the gravitational force is not as strong.

How can it be that things are "lighter at the equator" if the equator bulges out there and there is more mass beneath your feet?

It should be reversed, that things are heavier at the equator because there is more mass pulling you down. Otherwise the idea of being lighter as you travel underground does not make sense. Observations of gnomes weighing less at the equator would run contradictory to the model.

Clearly, they are making things up to justify observations which contradict RET.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 11:18:18 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #24 on: December 17, 2013, 05:31:09 PM »
These alleged gravity space missions were not controlled, either.
Please elaborate.  What do you mean by "not controlled"?

Do you know what a controlled experiment is?
The gravity space missions aren't experiments, they're measurements.  Do you know what a measurement is?

All measurements are experiments. The gravity space missions were uncontrolled. It does not conform to the scientific method, which demands that trials are controlled. Trying to pass off something uncontrolled and unscientific as scientific is reprehensible. I would suggest that you and the 'scientists' at NASA go back to middle school and learn some science.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 05:34:18 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3784
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #25 on: December 17, 2013, 06:19:51 PM »
All measurements are experiments.
???  They are?  What experiment are you performing when you step on a bathroom scale?

Quote
The gravity space missions were uncontrolled. It does not conform to the scientific method, which demands that trials are controlled. Trying to pass off something uncontrolled and unscientific as scientific is reprehensible. I would suggest that you and the 'scientists' at NASA go back to middle school and learn some science.
What the hell are you talking about?  Do you even know what protocols were used in those gravity measurements?  What sort of controls would you propose for gravity measurement from orbit and how do you know that they weren't used?
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 spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #26 on: December 17, 2013, 06:55:39 PM »
The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.


from what I understand they were going to do it in a lab but they couldn't get the whole earth through the doors.


How do we know that all materials in the digital scale are non-magnetic?
put a massive magnet by your digital scale and see what happens first: the reading changes or it just gives up reading.

Hint: the latter

All measurements are experiments.
???  They are?  What experiment are you performing when you step on a bathroom scale?

An experiment to test how the weight of an idiot changes after a big dump usually.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 07:04:40 PM by spank86 »

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #27 on: December 17, 2013, 10:12:09 PM »
I do believe that UA exists.  I also don't discount results from experiments such as the "gnome" experiment showing that the apparent force of UA varies in different locations.  I'm a fan of the aetheric model of the universe and believe that it is changes in the flow aether around the earth that cause these phenomena.  This is also, I believe, what causes things to seem to 'weigh' less at higher altitudes.  Of course, weight itself is entirely an illusion, but that's neither here nor there.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2013, 02:49:16 AM »
All measurements are experiments.
???  They are?  What experiment are you performing when you step on a bathroom scale?

When you step on a scale you are conducting an experiment to test your own weight. An experiment is any procedure meant to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.

Quote
What the hell are you talking about?  Do you even know what protocols were used in those gravity measurements?  What sort of controls would you propose for gravity measurement from orbit and how do you know that they weren't used?

I've read all about the gravity space experiments. No controls were used what-so-ever. The data could have been controlled by repeating the experiment numerous times with different kinds of gravimeters, to see if the results changed over time or from device to device. Both land and space and land measurements could have been taken simultaneously to ensure a proper reading. Instruments used to test the strength of the earth's magnetic field could have been included in the system.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2013, 02:50:25 AM »
The gnome experiment is not a controlled trial. It is not being conducted in a lab, but being sent from person to person via post mail.


from what I understand they were going to do it in a lab but they couldn't get the whole earth through the doors.

If there are no controls to the experiment, it's not proper science.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3784
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #30 on: December 18, 2013, 03:45:29 AM »
All measurements are experiments.
???  They are?  What experiment are you performing when you step on a bathroom scale?

When you step on a scale you are conducting an experiment to test your own weight.
Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

Quote
Quote
What the hell are you talking about?  Do you even know what protocols were used in those gravity measurements?  What sort of controls would you propose for gravity measurement from orbit and how do you know that they weren't used?

I've read all about the gravity space experiments.
Why do I have a hard time believing that?

Quote
No controls were used what-so-ever. The data could have been controlled by repeating the experiment numerous times with different kinds of gravimeters, to see if the results changed over time or from device to device. Both land and space and land measurements could have been taken simultaneously to ensure a proper reading. Instruments used to test the strength of the earth's magnetic field could have been included in the system.
So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?
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: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #31 on: December 18, 2013, 03:59:38 AM »
Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.

Quote
So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?

1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.

2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially metal components in gravimeters.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 04:20:19 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3784
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #32 on: December 18, 2013, 04:34:50 AM »
Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.
So now you're saying that not all experiments need controls?  Make up your mind, will you?

Quote
Quote
So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?

1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.
Would you care to cite this data that you are referring to?

Quote
2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially the metal components gravimeters.
What makes you think that magnetic fields, plus any number of other potential sources of error, haven't been taken into consideration?
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 Scientific Method

  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Rowbotham, Voliva etc proved the earth to be round
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #33 on: December 18, 2013, 07:52:43 AM »
Zeroing the balance won't help when things are physically lighter in high-pressure environments.

Ignoring your misuse of "balance" (again), the difference in weight due to buoyancy is only ~1-2μg/L (as I pointed out earlier).

How do we know that all materials in the digital scale are non-magnetic?

Variances due to magnetic or static forces could be determined by creating a controlled and variable field of each type and observing the result of variations in the field strength and direction. I'm sure that someone would have thought of doing this at some point, which may be why it is not regarded as a significant factor in this experiment.

How can it be that things are "lighter at the equator" if the equator bulges out there and there is more mass beneath your feet?

It's commonly known as "centrifugal force", and it is fairly significant at the equator, but has no effect at the poles (I suggest you look into it if you are not familiar with it; the physics of rotating systems is quite fascinating, and not always intuitive). Besides, there's not really that much more mass, the bulge is only a very small percentage of the overall radius.
Look out your window. Better yet, get up and go outside for a while.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5607
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #34 on: December 18, 2013, 11:08:21 AM »
The misuse of balance was my own error that Tom was rebutting.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Scientific Method

  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Rowbotham, Voliva etc proved the earth to be round
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #35 on: December 18, 2013, 12:13:52 PM »
The misuse of balance was my own error that Tom was rebutting.

No offense intended Rama. :)

I suppose the two terms may well be used interchangeably these days, with the true meaning having been forgotten, but whenever I hear 'balance', I picture a traditional pan balance which, when you think about it, simply compares two masses and, if balanced, would remain so no matter what the strength of gravity (or UA) was. 'Scale', on the other hand, brings to mind a device used to weigh a single mass, and display the weight as accurately as possible on a calibrated scale (or digital readout in the case of electronic models).
Look out your window. Better yet, get up and go outside for a while.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5607
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #36 on: December 18, 2013, 03:10:27 PM »
No worries, I did misuse the word, so I got what was coming.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #37 on: December 18, 2013, 04:46:52 PM »
Oh?  What's the control in that experiment?

None. It's an uncontrolled experiment.
So now you're saying that not all experiments need controls?  Make up your mind, will you?

It needs controls if you plan to pass it off as a valid scientific experiment.

Quote from: markjo
2. Everything is magnetic to some degree. Especially the metal components gravimeters.
Quote
What makes you think that magnetic fields, plus any number of other potential sources of error, haven't been taken into consideration?

Because no such claims have been made in the reading material.

Quote from: markjo
Quote
Quote
So you're saying that gravitational measurements of various parts of the earth have never been performed before those satellite surveys?  How do you know that earth based gravimeters weren't used to verify satellite based measurements?  What makes you think that magnetic fields would have any effect on the gravity measurements?

1. I know that earth based gravimeters have not been used to verify satellite based measurements because no such trials have been associated with the data.
Would you care to cite this data that you are referring to?

Sure, here is the evidence that no such trials have been associated with the measurements:
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 05:20:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5607
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #38 on: December 18, 2013, 05:01:55 PM »
Seriously?  You are basing your claim that there is no corroboration on a Wikipedia entry?  That is a terrible source if you are expecting completeness.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity vs. Universal Acceleration
« Reply #39 on: December 18, 2013, 05:21:20 PM »
Seriously?  You are basing your claim that there is no corroboration on a Wikipedia entry?  That is a terrible source if you are expecting completeness.

If it exists, then find it for us. I've already provided evidence that it does not exist.