gravity differences based on location?

the accepted acceleration of gravity at sea level is 9.81 m/s^2

but it is not constant everywhere.

for example, I measured the gravity in Austin Tx, on the UT campus, and came up with 9.79 m/s^2, maching with the results accecpted by the physics department at UT.

on this site, i've seen gravity explained as the planet accelerating up at the average.

How are there small differences in gravity based on location?

A good point.  And remember that that theory is not the definitive view of FE'ism.  It is just an idea.


My theory is different completely.

How, exactly, DID you perform that measurement? I'm not disputing your result, I'd just like to know your methodology before attempting to explain your result within an FE framework.

The Moon have a small gravity impact on the Earth. We can see this by the level of water changing.

I measured it directly.  

i can't remember the name of it, but it worked like this:
there was a tube with a near vacuum with a laser at the bottom, and at the top, there was a door that would drop a ball.  It would track the time until the ball broke the laser.  then, using the kinematic equations, you could calculate the acceleration, whitch would be the gravitional acceleration.

for refrence
x= x(naught)+ v(naught)t + .5at^2
with x and v(naught) being zero and x(naught) being the distance the ball fell and t being the time it took.

naturally, I preformed multiple tests (about 40 I think) and took the average

The phenomenon described here is well documented and is explainable based on altitude and distance from the Earth's center -- not by a universal upward acceleration.

any explanation for this in the Flat Earth model?

One proposed explanation is that the stars each some some mass, and therefore have a slight gravitational pull. The higher you climb, the closer you are to the stars, resulting in a slight upwards pull. This makes it appear that you weigh less as you gain altitude. Keep in mind this is only a proposed explanation, we have not tested it as yet.

Hmm, well I know of some navigational systems which use slight differences in the Earths gravitational field to plot their position- I think submarines use it. There's a good example of it here.

One proposed explanation is that the stars each some some mass, and therefore have a slight gravitational pull. The higher you climb, the closer you are to the stars, resulting in a slight upwards pull. This makes it appear that you weigh less as you gain altitude. Keep in mind this is only a proposed explanation, we have not tested it as yet.

Hmm, well if that were true would that not negate the upwards acceleration gravitational theory? Plus if just changing your altitude by a few 10 kilometers or so has a significant change in gravitational effect, with the star being several million kilometers away, wouldn't that mean the gravity closer towards the star would be reaching black hole levels?

here are some graviional accelerations that have been determined in different cities and their elevation(found of wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_%28Earth%29)

Brussels-13 m,  gravity- 9.811 m/s^2
Havana - 15 m, gravity- 9.788 m/s^2
Mexico City - 2240 m, gravity- 9.779 m/s^2

One proposed explanation is that the stars each some some mass, and therefore have a slight gravitational pull. The higher you climb, the closer you are to the stars, resulting in a slight upwards pull. This makes it appear that you weigh less as you gain altitude. Keep in mind this is only a proposed explanation, we have not tested it as yet.

This makes Flat Earth Theory self contradictory by stating that only some masses exert the gravitational force, neglecting the fact that the Earth itself, being made from matter, must also exert a gravitational force. Also, as far as the stars having mass, you are either going to say that stars have different masses than we say they do (not surprising given that the sun is a spotlight) or are changing the gravitational constant.

Ok i got a question and its about the tides?

If the earth is flat and the tides change because the earth is tilting how come one side of the earth doesnt flood when it tilts to the lower side.

What i mean by this is take and empty ice cream container and fill it up half way with water now tip it slowly to one side. Notice how the water is higher on the side you tipped it towards then the opposing side. Now wouldnt the countrys on that side flood? Thats of course is there is a giant ice wall all the way around the world.

Now before you say that is why the tides are happening it just doesnt tilt that much. How come other large bodies of waters dont have tides? e.g Lakes and rivers or what about swimming pools and how come we dont notice a constant tilting in the earth.

Or is the government stealing your water to Mayor West?? :lol:  :lol:

Quote

One proposed explanation is that the stars each some some mass, and therefore have a slight gravitational pull. The higher you climb, the closer you are to the stars, resulting in a slight upwards pull. This makes it appear that you weigh less as you gain altitude. Keep in mind this is only a proposed explanation, we have not tested it as yet.

Hmm, well if that were true would that not negate the upwards acceleration gravitational theory? Plus if just changing your altitude by a few 10 kilometers or so has a significant change in gravitational effect, with the star being several million kilometers away, wouldn't that mean the gravity closer towards the star would be reaching black hole levels?

The stars aren't several million kilometers away, they're several kilometers away. In the FE model, anyway.

Quote from: "FastEddy"

Quote

One proposed explanation is that the stars each some some mass, and therefore have a slight gravitational pull. The higher you climb, the closer you are to the stars, resulting in a slight upwards pull. This makes it appear that you weigh less as you gain altitude. Keep in mind this is only a proposed explanation, we have not tested it as yet.

Hmm, well if that were true would that not negate the upwards acceleration gravitational theory? Plus if just changing your altitude by a few 10 kilometers or so has a significant change in gravitational effect, with the star being several million kilometers away, wouldn't that mean the gravity closer towards the star would be reaching black hole levels?

The stars aren't several million kilometers away, they're several kilometers away. In the FE model, anyway.

Any evidence of this ?

Any evidence of this ?

What do you think?

This makes Flat Earth Theory self contradictory by stating that only some masses exert the gravitational force, neglecting the fact that the Earth itself, being made from matter, must also exert a gravitational force.

That doesn't make the FE theory contradictory; it just makes it contradict certain RE-supportive theories, namely the universality of gravitation.

what evidence do you have that gravity is not universal?

any body with mass exerts gravity, and I have experimental evidence of this, namely the Cavendish experiment.

any body with mass exerts gravity, and I have experimental evidence of this, namely the Cavendish experiment.

You have inductive evidence; obviously, you haven't verified that it's true for any body.  In particular, the bulk of the Earth might be made up of a form of matter not currently known to science.

yes, I am using the principal of induction:
If an instance X is observed that is consistent with theory T, then the probability that T is true increases

but can how is it possible to prove every case is true?

induction is reasonable in the absence of proof otherwise.

all matter tested to date has been observed to be affected by gravity, so the likelihood of gravity being universal increases.

on an other note, the distance can be found using parallax if you accept the Copernican model, which has scientific backing and has not been disproved to date.

because we are sure to get into it, I think we should spend some time defining a scientific theory.  Care to start?

yes, I am using the principal of induction:
If an instance X is observed that is consistent with theory T, then the probability that T is true increases

That definition is circular unless you have something really novel to say about probability.

[quote[because we are sure to get into it, I think we should spend some time defining a scientific theory.  Care to start?[/quote]

No, that's okay, thanks.  I'm sure there are volumes that discuss it.