Why are the "UA" of different places different, when theyre supposed to be same?

I would like to argue against the theory of the Universal Acceleration.

It is stated the Earth is accelerating upwards at about 9.8 m/s/s, and that this applies to the WHOLE of Earth and that it is always 9.8 m/s/s.

BUT, why is it, that when the higher you go, the less "universal acceleration" or "gravitational acceleration" you will have? Isnt is supposed to be the same no matter how high you are?

Sources: http://www.npl.co.uk/pressure/faqs/altgrav.html

"The variation in the value of g across the earth's surface is about 0.5 % due to latitude, plus a change of approximately 0.003 % per 100 m altitude. Local topography and tidal forces also can have small effects.

An approximate value for g, at a given latitude and height above sea level, may be calculated from the formula:

g = 9.780 327 (1 + A sin2 L - B sin2 2L) - 3.086 × 10-6 H m·s-2

where    
        A    =    0.005 302 4
     B    =    0.000 005 8
     L    =    latitude
     H    =    height in metres above sea level

The uncertainty in the value of g so obtained is generally less than ±5 parts in 105."
________________________________

This is certainly not true if the Universal Acceleration theory is put into place. Can the FEs explain this?

Alright, before you all explain,

1) I do not want to see an argument whereby you are accusing the what so ever government or scientists of telling lies to us or that it is just a conspiracy.

2) I also would not like to see an argument whereby you are saying that the Leprachauns or whatever creature is using some kind of MAGIC or POWER to control the minds of the people.

I want SCIENTIFIC explanations with proper sources and experiments, and not just baseless accusations to other parties.

Look. All you did was state the formula.

Put it this way. Using your post as a template, I could say:

I would like to argue against the theory of the Gravity.

It is stated the all things are pulled down to the Earth based on:
  g = 9.780 327 (1 + A sin2 L - B sin2 2L) - 3.086 × 10-6 H m·s-2
and that this applies to the WHOLE of Earth and that it is always this formula.

BUT, why is it, that when the higher you go, the gravity stays the same? Isn't is supposed to be different when you get higher?

Sources: (Link to Flat Earth's explanation of events without any evidence included on the page).

"It can be determined, using a normal sensitive spring balance 40 000 feet into the atmosphere, that there is negligible difference in gravity"
________________________________

This is certainly not true if the Gravity theory is put into place. Can the REs explain this?

Alright, before you all explain,

1) I do not want to see an argument whereby you are accusing the what so ever government or scientists of telling lies to us or that it is just a conspiracy.

2) I also would not like to see an argument whereby you are saying that the Leprachauns or whatever creature is using some kind of MAGIC or POWER to control the minds of the people.

I want SCIENTIFIC explanations with proper sources and experiments, and not just baseless accusations to other parties.

There you go. This is equally valid to your argument. In short, you haven't really given evidence, you've just made statements that can not be disproved because you didn't give reasoning for your models/formulae/beliefs.

Alright, for those who cannot understand the formula, let me explain a bit.

_________________________
g = 9.780 327 (1 + A sin2 L - B sin2 2L) - 3.086 × 10-6 H m·s-2

where   
        A    =    0.005 302 4
     B    =    0.000 005 8
     L    =    latitude
     H    =    height in metres above sea level
__________________________

As you can read, the "g" which is the "UA" or the Gravitational Acceleration depends on the variables, which is Latitude and Height. This means, that "g" is not constant, like what the FE-ers think, as you can change the value of the variables depending on the Latitude and Height of the object.

If g is a constant, there would be NO variables in the equation, as "g", should be:-

g = 9.8

instead of

g = 9.780 327 (1 + A sin2 L - B sin2 2L) - 3.086 × 10-6 H m·s-2

_____________________________

Anyways, how about we try to ANSWER my question instead of finding fault with the question itself?

Sorry, I'll make it clearer.

My answer is "No, you're wrong".

And my point is I can say that because you didn't give me anything to debate about. You just gave me a lousy formula. Yes, you can easily prove that you didn't just make up the formula on the spot because it's everywhere on the internet. However, you didn't show how anybody could ever come up with that formula in the first place.

For an example of a reasonable post that can be debated, I suggest this thread:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17401.0

You can see that he backed up his claims by providing a method of coming up with the gravitational constant yourself, if you had the necessary equipment. Your post didn't. It didn't even say who came up with that formula and if it has been derived by any other people.

That's a teensy bit specious Logs.

Great, another troll on this site. This one in the form of dead wood.

Oh, alright, so you know what I meant but you still do not want to answer my question?

Haha, great, "Logs".

Any other FEs that wants to answer my question?

Unless you've measured it to be different outside of experimental error, good luck.

Oh my god, the Flat Earthers are so pathetic. I agree to the statement of one Round Earther that:-

"The FE's try to dodge every question that they cannot answer."

If they can't answer a question then it throws their theory down the proverbial pan, so they will dodge it, in whatever way necessary.

Or, you know, they keep posting the same answers.

Well, the same posts. If they were answers then there would be no need for them to dodge the question.

Why is everybody against my reasoning? I just want to make this post into a quality debate 

Look. You have to give evidence for that formula. Not giving evidence, experience or logic in support of that formula is useless. I'm not so much dodging the question as making sure there is one to give an answer to.

Let me put it this way. What if I had said:

That page is wrong. The coefficient A has actually been measured to be 0.0132 823 1

Notice how I didn't tell you how this was calculated? That's what you did. You gave a formula and didn't tell us how anybody came up with it in the first place. Were measurements made? In that case, how did they measure it? Was it based on a thought experiment? If so, what logic was used?

In the interest of giving the best answer possible to your question though, I'm going to do a TheEngineer:

I've been on many flights and I've never noticed the phenomenon of which you speak.

This is the only thing that can be said without any actual logic/evidence to argue about.

Almost every post in this thread is a mess to bother to read through. I'm assuming the OP is asking about variations of g at different altitudes?

If so, it's not known right now. Tom speculates that the celestial bodies have gravitation that causes g to be less when higher up.

Why is everybody against my reasoning? I just want to make this post into a quality debate 

Look. You have to give evidence for that formula. Not giving evidence, experience or logic in support of that formula is useless. I'm not so much dodging the question as making sure there is one to give an answer to.

Let me put it this way. What if I had said:

Quote

That page is wrong. The coefficient A has actually been measured to be 0.0132 823 1

Notice how I didn't tell you how this was calculated? That's what you did. You gave a formula and didn't tell us how anybody came up with it in the first place. Were measurements made? In that case, how did they measure it? Was it based on a thought experiment? If so, what logic was used?

In the interest of giving the best answer possible to your question though, I'm going to do a TheEngineer:

Quote

I've been on many flights and I've never noticed the phenomenon of which you speak.

This is the only thing that can be said without any actual logic/evidence to argue about.

Alright, I understand what you are trying to argue about.

I cant explain how they came up with the formula simply because I am not a physicist. But the formula is tested and it have been proven CORRECT, so I dont have to explain how the formula is derived from.

Forgive me if anything.

Almost every post in this thread is a mess to bother to read through. I'm assuming the OP is asking about variations of g at different altitudes?

If so, it's not known right now. Tom speculates that the celestial bodies have gravitation that causes g to be less when higher up.

Nope, we KNOW why the "gravitational acceleration" or to the FEs, the "Universal Acceleration" is different in altitudes.

The reason being that as you go further away from Earth, the gravitational pull from the Earth will be weaker. A more micro example would be that the the further away you put a nail from a magnet, the less affected the nail will be.

(Also, it also depends on your location on Earth the reason being that the magnetic pull is different in different parts of the Earth.)

Nope, we KNOW why the "gravitational acceleration" or to the FEs, the "Universal Acceleration" is different in altitudes.

The reason being that as you go further away from Earth, the gravitational pull from the Earth will be weaker. A more micro example would be that the the further away you put a nail from a magnet, the less affected the nail will be.

(Also, it also depends on your location on Earth the reason being that the magnetic pull is different in different parts of the Earth.)

No, the UA's replication of gravitation does not account for the variance in g. Not sure where you tried to pull that out of.

Quote from: afiq980 on October 20, 2007, 08:00:11 AM

Nope, we KNOW why the "gravitational acceleration" or to the FEs, the "Universal Acceleration" is different in altitudes.

The reason being that as you go further away from Earth, the gravitational pull from the Earth will be weaker. A more micro example would be that the the further away you put a nail from a magnet, the less affected the nail will be.

(Also, it also depends on your location on Earth the reason being that the magnetic pull is different in different parts of the Earth.)

No, the UA's replication of gravitation does not account for the variance in g. Not sure where you tried to pull that out of.

No no no.

The FE's theory of UA is their interpretation of RE's "earth's gravity". Gravitational acceleration, which is "g" is therefore, "UA". UA is supposed to be the same for everything on Earth, eg, if a ball is thrown upwards into the air, the Earth will (in FE UA theory) go TOWARDS the ball at about 9.8m/s/s, and this "9.8m/s/s" is supposed to be the same for the WHOLE Earth, since the "dark matter" or "dark whatever" is accelerating the Earth at 9.8m/s/s

What I am trying to argue is: Why is the "UA" in different places different?

This can only be proven by RE's "Earth's Gravitational PULL" theory.

Stars have a slight gravitational pull.  I believe that is in the FAQ.

What I am trying to argue is: Why is the "UA" in different places different?

Which I already said was unknown. Do you have trouble reading?

"I'm assuming the OP is asking about variations of g at different altitudes?

If so, it's not known right now. Tom speculates that the celestial bodies have gravitation that causes g to be less when higher up."

"I'm assuming the OP is asking about variations of g at different altitudes?

If so, it's not known right now. Tom speculates that the celestial bodies have gravitation that causes g to be less when higher up."

Trouble is Divito there are several problems with that speculation.
a) If the variance was due to celestial bodies the variance would be localized to their position above us not directly proportional to altitude from Center of gravity of the Earth.
b) A UA  is influencing the celestial bodies also, if they have a gravitational attraction to  the Earth they would be experiencing an "unbalanced force" and so their displacement from Earth would be reducing.
c) The path objects free fall in has been shown to converge to the COG of the Earth, in FE theory they should be parallel.Celestial being position specific would not have that net effect.

How come when I stand at the equator, I weigh less than at the poles?

How come when I stand at the equator, I weigh less than at the poles?

You do?
I never knew this...
It's from the earth's rotation, right?

 If the Earth was to stop spinning you would weigh about 0.3% more than you do now at the equator due to centrifugal force induced by the earth's rotation, weight difference at the poles would be negligible.
Another factor is the slight bulge of the Earth at the equator ie. the Earth is not exactly spherical . This means you are further from the Earths COG and as gravity's influence diminishes with the square of the distance you weigh slightly more at the poles , for the same reason you weigh less on the top of a mountain than at the base.

Please note:

Your "Mass" does not change.
Your "Weight" does ie. the amount of force you would impose on a scale. ...F=m*a

Please note:

Your "Mass" does not change.
Your "Weight" does ie. the amount of force you would impose on a scale. ...F=m*a

You're right, but I think its actually F(weight) = mg.

F = ma = mg

The gravitational field constant acclerates 1Kg at 9.8ms^-2. That's why 1Kg has an average force of 9.8N on it, it takes 9.8N to perform the required acceleration. Double the mass, the force doubles and acceleration stays the same.

You're right, but I think its actually F(weight) = mg.

You're right, but I think its actually F(weight) = (6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2)x((m1 x m2)/r^2)
 

just depends on how you want to present it
 

Heh.

The answer to the original question of course, is that gravitational attraction follows an inverse square law, on a RE. I'm not sure how the UA accounts for this in the FE though.

Magic.