Proofs of varying gravity

It could be that the illusion of varying gravity is created by varying degrees of air pressure pushing down upon weighty objects.

As for plumb bobs near mountains, maybe you are correct: down isn't always down; it is in the direction of the most earth. You can call this "center of gravity", but it may better be thought of as "place of most earth". 

Also his talking of E/M fields in this experiment seems incredibly stupid. I have no idea how E/M fields would affect a Lead ball.

E/M fields affect all bodies on small scales.

Ok, now see the title of this thread and reconsider whether you are posting in the correct thread.

I was replying to your egg comment. Only you can explain why you posted that in this thread. When replying to comments in a thread, my tendency is to reply in the thread, rather than create a new one.

In any case, would you care to respond to my argument, rather than quibble about where I posted it?

How would E/M effect lead balls? Lead is not magnetic. I doubt the movement of photons makes anywhere near enough momentum to get it going. I don't think that guy was particularly smart.


Even he said that while the experiment had flaws, it would give correct results. Thanks Bishop for helping me.

Quote from: parsec on December 28, 2009, 04:48:35 PM

So, are you arguing for or aginst FE?

I'm arguing that the variation of pressure with altitude (and by extension, the variation in the boiling point) can be equally well explained in both models, and that therefore the empirical fact that boiling point varies with elevation, alone, does not constitute evidence for either model.

This discussion is a good example of a natural phenomenon that does not give nice and easy demonstrations of the shape of the Earth.

While maybe we could construct measuring equipment that measures the pressure of the atmosphere with enough precision to differentiate between the two models (and I am using the term "model" very loosely in the case of "FET") there are other experiments and observations that give better results with a millionth of the effort.

If the FE "model" was right we should see a nice round wall around the known Earth, of about 70,000 feet high. That is several times higher than the Everest. And it would have to be surprisingly invisible. It would, as always, be easy to just travel South on a plane until a really impenetrable barrier is found. But it is easier still to make any number of experiments concerning navigation of a few hundred kilometers, on land, sea or air and tabulate the position of stars, sun, moon and planets.

PS. Remember, the atmosphere is a paper thin layer on top of a huge planet. It would not be wise to expect a stable enough atmosphere to measure such a tiny effect and not confuse it with other phenomenons, like the changing composition of the air at different altitudes.

Also his talking of E/M fields in this experiment seems incredibly stupid. I have no idea how E/M fields would affect a Lead ball.

If one of the objects is slightly charged, this will cause electrostatic influence separation of bound charges in the conducting metallic sphere. The closer end would be charged by opposite sign and the farhter end by the like sign. Thus, the attractive force would be slightly  bigger than the repulsive force and there is an effective attraction. Note that this effect does not depend on the sign of the charge of the charged sphere.

I derived an exact expression for the attractive force between a point charge Q and a neutral conducting sphere with radius R a distance d apart:


When R << d, the lowest order approximation to this formula is:


We can find for what charge Q is this force comparable to the gravitational force between the spheres:

Yea I know slight charges would do that but charges are really slight on a lead ball. I'd say that gravity would be far stronger at these distances as weak as it is.

I dont get this thread at all. Are there really REers here who believe in the reality of gravity, or are you just all pulling our legs? I didnt realize you were a bunch of relativity deniers.

If there are any actual gravity cranks here they should probably start their own site and call it the Gravity Society.

Yea I know slight charges would do that but charges are really slight on a lead ball. I'd say that gravity would be far stronger at these distances as weak as it is.

Calculate!

Dino are you asking who believes in gravity?

Parsec you could be right that the slight forces negate as I am far too lazy to calculate. I guess I'm wrong on that part but he still says that the experiment works. Bishop really helped out RE with that.

Dino are you asking who believes in gravity?

Yes, I am asking if there is a single person here who believes in gravity.

I believe in gravity.

I believe in gravity.

So you are a relativity denier? They arent consistent theories are they?

Dino are you asking who believes in gravity?

Parsec you could be right that the slight forces negate as I am far too lazy to calculate. I guess I'm wrong on that part but he still says that the experiment works. Bishop really helped out RE with that.

lol, they don't negate! they are both attractive.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 28, 2009, 07:40:28 PM

I believe in gravity.

So you are a relativity denier? They arent consistent theories are they?

Don't tell me this is going to degenerate to another pedantic gravity/gravitation discussion. 

Quote from: Dino on December 28, 2009, 07:45:22 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 28, 2009, 07:40:28 PM

I believe in gravity.

So you are a relativity denier? They arent consistent theories are they?

Don't tell me this is going to degenerate to another pedantic gravity/gravitation discussion. 

Not at all. There is no force of gravity in relativity. And the theories make different predictions. They do not reconcile. Why are the REers here using such an archaic theory, one they know to be wrong? There is no occult gravity force and that there are intelligent people here arguing for one only goes to show they are trolls.

Quote from: markjo on December 28, 2009, 08:34:27 PM

Quote from: Dino on December 28, 2009, 07:45:22 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 28, 2009, 07:40:28 PM

I believe in gravity.

So you are a relativity denier? They arent consistent theories are they?

Don't tell me this is going to degenerate to another pedantic gravity/gravitation discussion. 

Not at all. There is no force of gravity in relativity. And the theories make different predictions. They do not reconcile. Why are the REers here using such an archaic theory, one they know to be wrong? There is no occult gravity force and that there are intelligent people here arguing for one only goes to show they are trolls.

GR says that mass warps space-time.  Objects following that warping of space-time is what we interpret as the "force" of gravity.  GR may or may not accurately describe the actual mechanism of gravity, but it does work well as a mathematical model of what we experience as gravity.

Not at all. There is no force of gravity in relativity.

Sure there is, in the same way centrifugal force is a real force. Yes, it is an artifact of using certain frames of reference, but in those frames of reference it is a very real force.

And the theories make different predictions. They do not reconcile. Why are the REers here using such an archaic theory, one they know to be wrong?

They do make different predictions, but those predictions are very close together in most situations, and the force predicted by the Newtonian model is much easier to calculate, so there is nothing wrong with using the Newtonian model in the realm where it gives good predictions.

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

Quote from: Sutekh on December 22, 2009, 12:25:31 AM

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

That's a quote, which is hardly conclusive evidence. Also, it doesn't seem to refer to height-related variation, but rather deflection owing to large masses (mountains), which is something else entirely. Where is your conclusive evidence that the force of gravity varies with height?

But, these scientists have even calculated the deflection angle.

Yes, they have calculated what the deflection angle would be for a hanging plumb bob on a spherical rotating Earth due to centrifugal force. But nowhere in that thread is any evidence that they have measured said force, so their calculations are evidence of nothing. In any case, since they compute the dependence on latitude, this seems to have little to do with your claimed height-related variation of gravity.

So far, the only thing you seem to have claimed as evidence that gravity depends on height was your boiled egg conundrum. As I have explained, this is due to atmospheric pressure and not gravity, and does not provide evidence that gravity varies with height.

Quote from: Dino on December 28, 2009, 08:53:23 PM

Not at all. There is no force of gravity in relativity.

Sure there is, in the same way centrifugal force is a real force. Yes, it is an artifact of using certain frames of reference, but in those frames of reference it is a very real force.

Quote

And the theories make different predictions. They do not reconcile. Why are the REers here using such an archaic theory, one they know to be wrong?

They do make different predictions, but those predictions are very close together in most situations, and the force predicted by the Newtonian model is much easier to calculate, so there is nothing wrong with using the Newtonian model in the realm where it gives good predictions.

So REer's prefer models which are "easier to calculate". I agree with this. REer's look for convenient models. They are are biased toward the idea that truth is convenient.

Shouldnt the truth also be true?

Quote from: Dino on December 28, 2009, 08:53:23 PM

Not at all. There is no force of gravity in relativity.

Sure there is, in the same way centrifugal force is a real force. Yes, it is an artifact of using certain frames of reference, but in those frames of reference it is a very real force.

Quote

And the theories make different predictions. They do not reconcile. Why are the REers here using such an archaic theory, one they know to be wrong?

They do make different predictions, but those predictions are very close together in most situations, and the force predicted by the Newtonian model is much easier to calculate, so there is nothing wrong with using the Newtonian model in the realm where it gives good predictions.

I like this. Arent the predictions of UA right in most situations? But maybe the theory of gravity is more accurate than that. and relativity more accurate than that. then how could one say that gravity AND relativity are true but UA is false? Either they are all varying degrees of true or only one could be true. (Though, likely none are true.)

I like this. Arent the predictions of UA right in most situations?

Oh certainly. Most scientists treat the Earth as flat and gravity as constant (not varying with height) all the time, because locally it's true. That doesn't mean that they think the Earth is flat, only that taking its curvature into account would be a lot of extra work for no actual benefit.

In fact, I was amused to note earlier this evening that the Wikipedia page on atmospheric pressure treats the Earth's gravity as being constant, and so their theoretical value for the dependence of pressure on altitude is identical to the formula I derived for the flat Earth model.

I believe in gravity. It's pretty real to me. In fact it is more real than your silly UA. Why? Because you can measure the slight attraction between two objects or between say a mountain and a plum bob. UA has no provisions for this except ignore it. You are right, the truth should be true.

I believe in gravity. It's pretty real to me. In fact it is more real than your silly UA. Why? Because you can measure the slight attraction between two objects or between say a mountain and a plum bob. UA has no provisions for this except ignore it. You are right, the truth should be true.

This. You guys stop derailing my thread. Any new ideas as evidence?

I believe in gravity. It's pretty real to me. In fact it is more real than your silly UA. Why? Because you can measure the slight attraction between two objects or between say a mountain and a plum bob. UA has no provisions for this except ignore it. You are right, the truth should be true.

I've seen a lot of claims about this, but no evidence. How do you propose I measure this?

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ozsvath/images/plumb_bob_observations.htm

Get yourself a plumb bob and head over to the nearest massive mountain chain. Also the cavendish experiment can show the attraction between 2 objects.

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ozsvath/images/plumb_bob_observations.htm

Get yourself a plumb bob and head over to the nearest massive mountain chain. Also the cavendish experiment can show the attraction between 2 objects.

Precisely. Irrefutable.

According to accounts of similar experiments on Wikipedia, the magnitude of the deflection I would be looking for is about one half of one percent of a single degree of arc (or about 10 seconds of arc). How do you propose I reliably measure this? Has anyone here actually done this experiment? You seem to be pretty cavalier in your claims that it can be easily performed and this deflection easily detected, but the actual deflection claimed by RE scientists is far less than the experimental error in any measuring device I have or can feasibly make or buy.

If your evidence is an experiment that you haven't performed, that I can't feasibly perform, and that hasn't been performed and described by anyone I can trust, it's hardly irrefutable, and is basically worthless as evidence of anything if you believe in the conspiracy.

So you don't trust the link I gave but trust wikipedia? Who do you trust? Get some good equipment and this should be simple. Do multiple trials at different locations with different hardware, and you can eliminate error. If you do this like a real science lab (controls, lots of trials, etc) you can get pretty close to the correct answer.

So you don't trust the link I gave but trust wikipedia? Who do you trust? Get some good equipment and this should be simple. Do multiple trials at different locations with different hardware, and you can eliminate error. If you do this like a real science lab (controls, lots of trials, etc) you can get pretty close to the correct answer.

Where do you suggest that he find equipment that can measure 10 arc seconds of deflection?