Proofs of varying gravity

Here we post conclusive evidence that gravity varies  with height. Let me start:

Sorry, gravity isn't always 'down' it can be in any direction, the deplection of plum bobs near mountains clearly shows this.

After the advent of Newton's Theory of Gravity where was a widespread attempt to prove it by meticulously studying plum bobs near mountains. It failed. No one was able to observe deviation of any sort, despite his equations predicting that variation should be readily observable with basic instruments.

Newton himself said that the failure was one of the most devastating blows to his theory.

But, these scientists have even calculated the deflection angle.

The matter has been over and done with.

Newton's equations predicted a deflection near the earth's greatest mountains, and there was none, leaving the Newtonians to mumble about unseen dense underground rocks on the other side of the plum bobs to balance things out in each and every case.

How about when I try to boil my eggs on a high mountain-top? They're always too soft boiled.

How about when I try to boil my eggs on a high mountain-top? They're always too soft boiled.

I personally say that the stars have a slight attracting field.

However, other FE proponents vehemently deny any alteration of g at higher altitudes.

Quote from: parsec on December 28, 2009, 01:41:11 AM

How about when I try to boil my eggs on a high mountain-top? They're always too soft boiled.

I personally say that the stars have a slight attracting field.

However, other FE proponents vehemently deny any alteration of g at higher altitudes.

yeah but who cares? I can vehemently deny the sky is blue. g varies. its differnet at the equator compared to the poles.

Of course Bishop will deny it. It's his standard procedure when confronted with evidence that blows FET away. He has no other course of action.

Wasn't there an experiment not using plum-bobs that detects the subtle change in gravity between two objects? How do you respond to that? 

Wasn't there an experiment not using plum-bobs that detects the subtle change in gravity between two objects? How do you respond to that? 

I would respond by saying that you might want to cite the specific experiment rather than just mentioning it.

I would respond with the experiment. I forgot its name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_balance#Torsion_balance

I would respond with the experiment. I forgot its name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_balance#Torsion_balance

I think you mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on December 28, 2009, 09:08:40 AM

I would respond with the experiment. I forgot its name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_balance#Torsion_balance

I think you mean this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment.

What is your take on it Parsec?

It's not a direct proof of varying gravity, is it?

It's not a direct proof of varying gravity, is it?

You don't think it's at least a bit compelling?

How about when I try to boil my eggs on a high mountain-top? They're always too soft boiled.

Uh, Parsec? That's definitely due to varying atmospheric pressure with altitude, and not gravity. The difference in gravity between the surface of the Earth at sea level (6,378 km) and the surface of the Earth at high elevation (6,382 km for the highest city on Earth, maybe 6,386 km if you're cooking on the summit of everest), as predicted by the RE model, is at most 1-(6,378/6,386)²=.25%. I have a hard time believing you'd notice that when cooking eggs. The variations due to pressure are much more dramatic (and are also easily explained in the FE model).

Quote from: parsec on December 28, 2009, 01:41:11 AM

How about when I try to boil my eggs on a high mountain-top? They're always too soft boiled.

Uh, Parsec? That's definitely due to varying atmospheric pressure with altitude, and not gravity. The difference in gravity between the surface of the Earth at sea level (6,378 km) and the surface of the Earth at high elevation (6,382 km for the highest city on Earth, maybe 6,386 km if you're cooking on the summit of everest), as predicted by the RE model, is at most 1-(6,378/6,386)²=.25%. I have a hard time believing you'd notice that when cooking eggs. The variations due to pressure are much more dramatic (and are also easily explained in the FE model).

but, atmospheric pressure is due to the weight of the air. The higher the g, the higher the pressure and vice versa.

but, atmospheric pressure is due to the weight of the air. The higher the g, the higher the pressure and vice versa.

That's true, but not a significant influence on pressure. Pressure is due to the weight of a column of air above you (to first approximation, neglecting effects such as the weather). This weight is less at elevation than at sea level not because of the minute decrease in g but rather because the column of air above a point at sea level contains a lot more air than the column of air above a point at high elevation.

Again, this is explained just as easily by the UA model of the FE (or other FE models of gravity) as by the round Earth model, so it hardly constitutes proof of a round Earth.

So, according to your theory, at the top of the atmosphere, there should be zero pressure, since, by definition of the top, there should be no column of air above it. How is this possible?

That is true, space is basically a vacuum. Very good Parsec.

so, space is COMPLETELY empty?!

so, space is COMPLETELY empty?!

Space is a near, but not perfect, vacuum. 

So, according to your theory, at the top of the atmosphere, there should be zero pressure, since, by definition of the top, there should be no column of air above it. How is this possible?

Well, the atmosphere gradually thins out to vacuum (which still isn't true vacuum), so there's not really a distinct "top" of the atmosphere (although the Kármán line is sometimes used for definitional purposes). But otherwise that's true: there is no pressure in a vacuum. I'm not quite sure why you ask "How is this possible?" however, since it seems perfectly plausible to me, so I'll counter: why wouldn't it be possible?

So, let me get this straight. Space has some small, but nonzero density and zero pressure. Let's say ideal gas law holds:

P = ρ*k*T/m,

where:
ρ is the average mass density,
m is the average mass of the molecules,
k = 1.3807x10^-23 J/K is Boltzmann constant and
T is the absolute temperature.

So, according to what you said before, T = 0 K! But, this is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics?!

So, according to what you said before, T = 0 K! But, this is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics?!

I said nothing of the sort. I said that pressure is zero in a perfect vacuum, which is true, and in accordance with the ideal gas law (since n=0). In what is commonly referred to as the "vacuum" of space (which, as I said, is not a true vacuum), the density is very small but nonzero, and the pressure is similarly very small but nonzero.

There is very few moles in space. So, it is about 2.6K degrees. I don't see the problem here.

Quote from: parsec on December 28, 2009, 11:37:09 AM

So, according to what you said before, T = 0 K! But, this is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics?!

I said nothing of the sort. I said that pressure is zero in a perfect vacuum, which is true, and in accordance with the ideal gas law (since n=0). In what is commonly referred to as the "vacuum" of space (which, as I said, is not a true vacuum), the density is very small but nonzero, and the pressure is similarly very small but nonzero.

This post was not directed as a reply to your post, but, instead, to one above you, since I was typing it at the same time as you.

As a reply to your post, if the atmosphere has no top, then it will have an infinite mass and the pressure at sea level would also be infinite.

This post was not directed as a reply to your post, but, instead, to one above you, since I was typing it at the same time as you.

Oh, excuse me.

As a reply to your post, if the atmosphere has no top, then it will have an infinite mass and the pressure at sea level would also be infinite.

No, because, while there is no top, it gradually thins out to vacuum, so it still has only finite mass, and results in finite pressure.

Ok, Parsec, let's get this straight: are you actually saying that the difference in cooking properties of eggs and other foods between sea level and high elevation constitutes evidence that the Earth is round?

So, let me get this straight. Space has some small, but nonzero density and zero pressure. Let's say ideal gas law holds:

P = ?*k*T/m,

where:
? is the average mass density,
m is the average mass of the molecules,
k = 1.3807x10^-23 J/K is Boltzmann constant and
T is the absolute temperature.

So, according to what you said before, T = 0 K! But, this is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics?!

If you had a perfect vacuum, temperature becomes irrelevant as it's a measure of the energy of the molecules in an area. If you have no molecules in an area (which is the definition of a vacuum) then it cannot be said to have a temperature, and thermodynamics is not violated.