Gravity isn't constant

You were asked how did you specifically measured that heavens above exert foce to the objects and not something else

As has already been explained, I'm not sure how you expect to separate and measure that or other vectors with a vertical component.  How do you propose to do this?

I do not know how you would expect me to compute values for all the unknown vectors that have a vertical component. How do you propose to do that exactly, since you are asking it of me? Noone seems to have a method beyond, create arbitrary values. I did that for demonstration's sake, and it seems pretty useless for the purpose, I'm sure you'll agree.

Unfortunately, F=Gmm'/r^2 does not accurately describe the phenomenon of gravitation. That's been pretty well established for some time now.

Only in conditions where you need to use General Relativity (like the orbit of Mercury) or if the object have some internal activity and you have to account for thrust (comets, some asteroids), or external drag and you have to make some correction (low orbit satellites). Otherwise I don't know what you are talking about, and again, I'm asking for a better formula, because with that one right now I can calculate from the value of g to the orbital periods of the planets, moons and satellites (supposing circular orbits because I don't want to lose much time and anyway they don't deviate much from the correct result but I challenge you to get better results with an alternative formula).

What about objects without mass? Or objects with momentum?



I don't have to have a unique and complete model of gravitation to recognize that other models fail to match observation, do I?

What about objects without mass? Or objects with momentum?
I don't have to have a unique and complete model of gravitation to recognize that other models fail to match observation, do I?

So do you want to bypass classical gravitation (which work perfectly under classical conditions) and go straight to General Relativity? What is what you say does not match observations in that case?

Are we sure we are dealing only with classical conditions on the scale of the cosmos? Because it seems unlikely.


For example, the earth itself produces a magnetic field of which also contributes to the SEM tensor. This could account for some variation in g at the north pole in any model, and at the mapped "southern" expanses in the bi-polar models.


Even assuming classical conditions, variations of mass within the earth obviously exist, and the existence of celestial bodies of various sorts might be reasonably presumed to exist below the earth if the distribution of celestial mass is assumed to be more or less homogeneous.


If we are moving centrally from some initial point or "big bang" "below" us, then the vast majority of mass in the universe would be located "below", unobservable and having a gravitational attraction with a vertical component.

It's pretty hilarious to criticise Newton's law of universal gravitation for not being accurate enough, while simultaneously proposing some unquantified, unidentified sources for variations of Earth's gravity (for which you need both static and moving components).  On top of the explained cause of Earth's acceleration, the crazy (and plain wrong) claimed motion of the sun, moon and stars, and all the other physics defying flat earth ideas.

You don't seem to think it's necessary to even have a stab at identifying the sources for your "model".  Well, Newton and Einstein both managed it, with far fewer resources than we available today.  That's why we use their equations today, and why the flat earth will never be anything more than a youtube fad for us to chuckle over (including yourself, I assume).

You seem to be mad that I don't just make up an answer and "take a stab" at identifying sources of variation for g.  If I did that, you then complain I didn't measure it and just made it up. I ask you the same question I asked of Zork: how do you propose we separate and measure that or other vectors with a vertical component? What methodology do you propose to answer the questions before us?

Will simply naming it make it less mysterious? Let us then refer to it as "dark matter". You will believe anything wholesale, afterall, if only the priests of the Orthodoxy simply name it.

Are we sure we are dealing only with classical conditions on the scale of the cosmos? Because it seems unlikely.

Of course not, but for understanding most of the dynamics of our solar system is more than enough.

For example, the earth itself produces a magnetic field of which also contributes to the SEM tensor. This could account for some variation in g at the north pole in any model, and at the mapped "southern" expanses in the bi-polar models.

Not really. You are proposing a relation between electromagnetic and gravitational forces, thing that of course hasn't been observed yet, or even satisfactorily theorized. Doing so is a sure Nobel Prize.

Even assuming classical conditions, variations of mass within the earth obviously exist, and the existence of celestial bodies of various sorts might be reasonably presumed to exist below the earth if the distribution of celestial mass is assumed to be more or less homogeneous.
If we are moving centrally from some initial point or "big bang" "below" us, then the vast majority of mass in the universe would be located "below", unobservable and having a gravitational attraction with a vertical component.

Yes, I get what you propose, what I'm asking now is the mathematical form of what you propose, which must be simpler and more exact than what is already observed and established to be considered seriously. I mean, you always can say "this could be different in fact", ok great, but a scientist cannot do anything with that, you have to be able to answer "how so?". There are many problems in science that we know are open but we don't have yet a better explanation (guess what, the shape of our planet is not one of them, that's just a far easy question to answer compared to the dynamics of neutrinos or the quantum nature of gravity).

identifying sources of variation for g.
how do you propose we separate and measure that or other vectors with a vertical component? What methodology do you propose to answer the questions before us?

I'm not sure what you are asking, but you can get a good aproximation of the value of g with height just by calculating it. In fact, you can use that value at the height of satellites (including the Moon itself) and calculate their period, which will coincide with the one you observe. This is particularly easy for circular orbits.

Not really. You are proposing a relation between electromagnetic and gravitational forces, thing that of course hasn't been observed yet, or even satisfactorily theorized. Doing so is a sure Nobel Prize.

Less a direct relationship or interaction between the forces (though that is also possible) and more an observation that within the context of GR, energy exhibits gravitation. A charged battery has more energy, momentum, gravitation than a discharged battery, though the mass is constant. In addition, if the internal masses of the earth are truly churning, they have increased momentum. This increases the gravitation while mass remains constant.

There are many problems in science that we know are open but we don't have yet a better explanation (guess what, the shape of our planet is not one of them, that's just a far easy question to answer compared to the dynamics of neutrinos or the quantum nature of gravity).

If we don't understand the basic dynamics of fundamental forces, how well can we apply those aspects into coherent models of anything?

I'm not sure what you are asking, but you can get a good aproximation of the value of g with height just by calculating it.

We can even measure g, but the question being asked of me is to accurately break the measurement of g from the sum of all vectors with a vertical component into all the individual components. How am I or anyone else to do such a thing?

The gravitation effects you mention are far too small to be important for what we would want.
You don't need to understand everything to do something. That's the whole point of science. Even without having a quantum theory of gravity we are able to send probes in between the moons of Jupiter with astounding precision. Again, the effects you are expecting are far far too small to be any kind of problem, even in those situations.
The last thing you ask can only be done if you know which things contribute, and calculate each of them. That's what Newton did and enabled him to understand things previously not understood (tides, precession...), and all that with the traditional picture of the solar system. I'm still waiting what a FE model would enable us to understand, and with which laws.

You seem to be mad that I don't just make up an answer and "take a stab" at identifying sources of variation for g.  If I did that, you then complain I didn't measure it and just made it up. I ask you the same question I asked of Zork: how do you propose we separate and measure that or other vectors with a vertical component? What methodology do you propose to answer the questions before us?

Will simply naming it make it less mysterious? Let us then refer to it as "dark matter". You will believe anything wholesale, afterall, if only the priests of the Orthodoxy simply name it.

Not mad at all.  I just find the double standards between what you expect of the heliocentric model, vs what you think is acceptable as a flat earth explanation amusing.

OK, so how would we handle this with real science?

First off, ideally, you would have discovered some flaw or inconsistency with the current model.  No need to take measurements yourself, as they are already available.  For the sake of argument, let’s accept flat earther personal incredulity as a flaw in the model.

Next you want to form a hypothesis of what else could cause these results.  Before you say you’ve done that, you need to be far more specific.

So for instance, you might want to try investigating if the mass of the sun and moon could be responsible for the small variations that cause the tides, while the variation wrt latitude is from the invisible magic train tracks that keep them on their crazy dance in the sky.

Next, you should try to find actual equations and/or parameters that could make this hypothesis fit with observations.  You don’t need actual proof of your causes of the variation, but you do need a working model.

Then either you or others can use it to make testable predictions where it differs from the existing model.  If all goes well, you should have a model that fits the observations better than the old one, and people can start taking you seriously.  Only then do you need to worry about getting direct physical evidence.

That’s the scientific way, not the “zetatic” way, of course.

However, we all know why you really can’t do this, and it’s nothing to do with the method.  It’s because first you need a flat earth model that can can tell you where to find the sun to better than about 45 degrees.  Bummer.

Next, you should try to find actual equations and/or parameters that could make this hypothesis fit with observations

It's not hard to invent an ad hoc hypothesis. I did it above. It doesn't bring us anywhere towards a specific testable model without modeling the whole system. Which noone has done, irrespective of their view of the shape of the earth. Why am I being held to a unique standard?

The gravitation effects you mention are far too small to be important...

If we don't understand how these forces originate or interact, why do we assume they are bound to be negligible?

Not hard?  Right.  I guess it would be beneath the mighty intellect of flat earthers to come up with something with actual numbers to attempt to match what we see. 

“Celestial gravitation!”  That’ll do.  No need to explore further.

Now let’s get back to dismissing the obvious shape of the planet on the basis that scientists haven’t yet resolved the paradox of a particle crossing the event horizon of a black hole, or whatever it is we’re on now?

If we don't understand how these forces originate or interact, why do we assume they are bound to be negligible?

Because we could otherwise measure them in a laboratory experiment.
Gravitation between masses has been measured since the end of the 18th century.

Quote from: zork

You were asked how did you specifically measured that heavens above exert foce to the objects and not something else

As has already been explained, I'm not sure how you expect to separate and measure that or other vectors with a vertical component.  How do you propose to do this?

Quote from: Ski

I do not know how you would expect me to compute values for all the unknown vectors that have a vertical component. How do you propose to do that exactly, since you are asking it of me? Noone seems to have a method beyond, create arbitrary values. I did that for demonstration's sake, and it seems pretty useless for the purpose, I'm sure you'll agree.

  I don't know how you can do that. You made the claim so you should have something to back it up. But instead you only talk how you can't do anything and ask from others how you could to something. Its kind of stupid.

Shouldnt be unknown.
If the fixed lift is felt at fixed point A there should be gravity field of proportional magnitude along vector B.
So where is it?
Black matter?

Conversation so far:

 "Aha! If the earth was accelerating constantly at 9.8m/s/s, it would be torn to pieces"

 "Only if that acceleration is the only thing contributing to that value"

 "Of course it is! "

 "It obviously is not, because it is variable."

 "What else could possibly contribute?"

"Lots of things contribute. Just like in the global model"

 "Yeah, right"

"Uhm, okay..."

 "How did you measure each contributing vector?"

"I didn't. How would I possibly measure it? How do YOU do that for the globe?"

 " ...
 ...
...
You should measure it"

More like:

"We know pretty well how gravity works and can calculate it in base of everything what we observe and it's effects not only match what celestial objects do but also every artificial thing we put in space that anyone can observe directly."

"Ok, but I like to believe this completely crazy thing instead..."

"Show us your laws and the math."

"..."

Have you identified all the contributing vectors to g on all points of the globe? How could you possibly do such a thing? If not, why are we asking me to do so?

Conversation so far:

 "Aha! If the earth was accelerating constantly at 9.8m/s/s, it would be torn to pieces"

 "Only if that acceleration is the only thing contributing to that value"

 "Of course it is! "

 "It obviously is not, because it is variable."

 "What else could possibly contribute?"

"Lots of things contribute. Just like in the global model"

 "Yeah, right"

"Uhm, okay..."

 "How did you measure each contributing vector?"

"I didn't. How would I possibly measure it? How do YOU do that for the globe?"

 " ...
 ...
...
You should measure it"

Aah didnt you give an elevator example of a magnet on the ceiling.
The magnetic force is very calculatable at distance X and its effect on the metal object to result in a less than normal measured weight.

So...there should be some garvity anomaly along your FE equator ring that would account for it.

Have you identified all the contributing vectors to g on all points of the globe? How could you possibly do such a thing? If not, why are we asking me to do so?

Personally I'd never ask that, the details of mass distribution cannot be modeled. I ask easier things: calculation of approximate g with height and periods of satellites, moons and planets. I've asked that many times, still waiting (for something I know won't come, you flat earthers are unable to make the simplest calculations done 3 centuries ago).

Quote from: Ski on March 06, 2019, 01:13:53 PM

Have you identified all the contributing vectors to g on all points of the globe? How could you possibly do such a thing? If not, why are we asking me to do so?

Personally I'd never ask that, the details of mass distribution cannot be modeled. I ask easier things: calculation of approximate g with height and periods of satellites, moons and planets. I've asked that many times, still waiting (for something I know won't come, you flat earthers are unable to make the simplest calculations done 3 centuries ago).

I may have missed the context here; are you asking for a solution to the 3 body problem?

There are many theories about this supposed phenomenon.  I tend to lean more towards the simple fact that humans see things that are not there if it supports the preconceived notions.

this can just be inversed towards the flat earth theory and is therefor not a real argument against this phenomen.
You as a moderator should stay on the scientifical approach and suggest an method of investigation to test the facts.
just my opinion...

I may have missed the context here; are you asking for a solution to the 3 body problem?

Of course I'm always assuming the traditional approximations will be made (M+m ~ M for example), since otherwise there is no analytical solution. In fact I've already written the results of those calculations in another thread (which are easy to reach), about their observable from your backyard validity, and I'm still waiting for the flat alternative.

Quote from: Son of Orospu on January 31, 2019, 06:56:48 AM

There are many theories about this supposed phenomenon.  I tend to lean more towards the simple fact that humans see things that are not there if it supports the preconceived notions.

this can just be inversed towards the flat earth theory and is therefor not a real argument against this phenomen.
You as a moderator should stay on the scientifical approach and suggest an method of investigation to test the facts.
just my opinion...

I almost made a "Your Mama" joke. 

Why would there need to be an alternative? You have already said elsewhere that you can plug arbitrary numbers in for G, r, etc and make the equation work.

Quote from: mimbelusmimbeltonia on March 08, 2019, 06:15:27 PM

Quote from: Son of Orospu on January 31, 2019, 06:56:48 AM

There are many theories about this supposed phenomenon.  I tend to lean more towards the simple fact that humans see things that are not there if it supports the preconceived notions.

this can just be inversed towards the flat earth theory and is therefor not a real argument against this phenomen.
You as a moderator should stay on the scientifical approach and suggest an method of investigation to test the facts.
just my opinion...

I almost made a "Your Mama" joke.

Should get tested anyway.

Quote from: Son of Orospu on March 11, 2019, 04:23:27 AM

Quote from: mimbelusmimbeltonia on March 08, 2019, 06:15:27 PM

Quote from: Son of Orospu on January 31, 2019, 06:56:48 AM

There are many theories about this supposed phenomenon.  I tend to lean more towards the simple fact that humans see things that are not there if it supports the preconceived notions.

this can just be inversed towards the flat earth theory and is therefor not a real argument against this phenomen.
You as a moderator should stay on the scientifical approach and suggest an method of investigation to test the facts.
just my opinion...

I almost made a "Your Mama" joke.

Should get tested anyway.

It has.

Weight changes by more than half a gram. Is easily repeatable too.

Sorry if that already written,
but if gravity would be upwards acceleration of the ground and varies locally, we can calculate the resulting height differences after certain time steps.