Earth is accelerating up?

I will try to keep this objective as possible.

Assuming that the FE theorist are correct and gravitational pull is actually an effect of the earth accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s squared, as I read in the FAQ.  Than how does one FET account for the fact that there are irregularities in this acceleration in different places on the earth, and different altitudes?  For example, acceleration at lower latitudes is slower than than at higher latitudes.  Also the acceleration at higher altitudes is slower than lower altitudes.  In other words, standing on top of a mountain you would weigh slightly less then you would at sea level.

From what I have read, you are assuming that all RE data related to your question is in fact true and valid and not part of a big conspiracy that includes everyone in the world that might take any sort of scientific measurement.

It's not data relating to RE, it's data relating to acceleration of objects towards the earth.  I didn't relate anything in my post to RE data, I also didn't explain any of those phenomena with RE theories to why they are true, I simply asked how FE theorist explain this phenomena.  It is a fact that you weight and acceleration toward the earth varies slightly depending on your altitude relative to sea level and latitude (distance from the equator).

From what I have read, you are assuming that all RE data related to your question is in fact true and valid and not part of a big conspiracy that includes everyone in the world that might take any sort of scientific measurement.

It is out of question that g varies with latitude. For example, you always use 9.81 m*s^-2 cause that is the average acceleration, yet in Denmark we use 9.82 m*s^-2 as our local. The fact that g varies is indisputable, anyone can measure it. Now, back on topic.  

If earth is moving up...causing gravity..right??

The sun and moon are moving up as well?? Right??

Otherwise we would out-run them eventually...and we wouldn't be able to see them anymore..huh?

Are the sun and moon moving with us?

And probably the funniest thing i've heard is that the sunset is an optical illusion...wtf??? Please explain!

Quote from: lomein987 on August 14, 2008, 03:04:26 PM

From what I have read, you are assuming that all RE data related to your question is in fact true and valid and not part of a big conspiracy that includes everyone in the world that might take any sort of scientific measurement.

It is out of question that g varies with latitude. For example, you always use 9.81 m*s^-2 cause that is the average acceleration, yet in Denmark we use 9.82 m*s^-2 as our local. The fact that g varies is indisputable, anyone can measure it. Now, back on topic.  

Damn you Kasper!!!

Honestly, it's going to be enjoyable having a REer who actually knows stuff for once. Though I can't imagine it will be too enjoyable for you any more or for much longer. Of course if it starts to get boring I could always provide you with excellent reasons to switch sides... Have you realised the terrible moral implications of Round Earth Theory?

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 14, 2008, 03:13:18 PM

Quote from: lomein987 on August 14, 2008, 03:04:26 PM

From what I have read, you are assuming that all RE data related to your question is in fact true and valid and not part of a big conspiracy that includes everyone in the world that might take any sort of scientific measurement.

It is out of question that g varies with latitude. For example, you always use 9.81 m*s^-2 cause that is the average acceleration, yet in Denmark we use 9.82 m*s^-2 as our local. The fact that g varies is indisputable, anyone can measure it. Now, back on topic.  

Damn you Kasper!!!

Honestly, it's going to be enjoyable having a REer who actually knows stuff for once. Though I can't imagine it will be too enjoyable for you any more or for much longer. Of course if it starts to get boring I could always provide you with excellent reasons to switch sides... Have you realised the terrible moral implications of Round Earth Theory?

Please do tell.

Quote from: lomein987 on August 14, 2008, 03:04:26 PM

From what I have read, you are assuming that all RE data related to your question is in fact true and valid and not part of a big conspiracy that includes everyone in the world that might take any sort of scientific measurement.

It is out of question that g varies with latitude. For example, you always use 9.81 m*s^-2 cause that is the average acceleration, yet in Denmark we use 9.82 m*s^-2 as our local. The fact that g varies is indisputable, anyone can measure it. Now, back on topic.  

I am confused by your post, first you say it is out of the question that these variations exist, then in your next sentence you confirm that it does.  Was it a typo?  In any case, I was questioning why these variations exist from an FE perspective.

He's Danish - English isn't his first language.

Can anyone tell me why?

Because he was born in Denmark.

And probably the funniest thing i've heard is that the sunset is an optical illusion...wtf??? Please explain!

Oh - that's a argument that they seem to have pulled over from Zetetic Astronomy regarding by Rowbotham.

The math in this text is incredibly bad - according to the intro "Rowbotham was an accomplished debater who reputedly steamrollered all opponents", but frankly, reading the text, I'm having a hard time believing it - the math on a lot of his work (I'm still glancing at it and deciding which parts to debunk - it's pretty bad though.) doesn't pass the smell test.

I've got a suspicion that his 'accomplished debating skills' are along the same lines as the FE posts here - they say things that don't pass muster and while people are sitting around going "These are not the standard definitions of the words their using" declare victory - even Socrates conceded he couldn't out-debate a sophist when they refused to grant any standard terms for the debate.

So what you do is you keep defending your territory by forcing the other side to establish that, yes, magnetism implies both a north *and* a south pole, and yes the Cavendish experiment *does* establish an attractive force . . . and eventually they get tired of reproving long established principles and leave, and you claim you proved something and 'won'.

When the educated people that actually know how to debate and use logic note that you never actually proved anything, you accuse them of elitism and trying to lord it over the peasants and still claim you won.

If that reminds you of modern GOP politics, that's not entirely coincidental - <G>

CD.

Quote from: positivethinker on August 14, 2008, 03:13:25 PM

And probably the funniest thing i've heard is that the sunset is an optical illusion...wtf??? Please explain!

Oh - that's a argument that they seem to have pulled over from Zetetic Astronomy regarding by Rowbotham.

The math in this text is incredibly bad - according to the intro "Rowbotham was an accomplished debater who reputedly steamrollered all opponents", but frankly, reading the text, I'm having a hard time believing it - the math on a lot of his work (I'm still glancing at it and deciding which parts to debunk - it's pretty bad though.) doesn't pass the smell test.

I've got a suspicion that his 'accomplished debating skills' are along the same lines as the FE posts here - they say things that don't pass muster and while people are sitting around going "These are not the standard definitions of the words their using" declare victory - even Socrates conceded he couldn't out-debate a sophist when they refused to grant any standard terms for the debate.

So what you do is you keep defending your territory by forcing the other side to establish that, yes, magnetism implies both a north *and* a south pole, and yes the Cavendish experiment *does* establish an attractive force . . . and eventually they get tired of reproving long established principles and leave, and you claim you proved something and 'won'.

When the educated people that actually know how to debate and use logic note that you never actually proved anything, you accuse them of elitism and trying to lord it over the peasants and still claim you won.

If that reminds you of modern GOP politics, that's not entirely coincidental - <G>

CD.

Genius. I second that. You said it much better than I could ever have, tis a shame I am only a child in the mind.

Because he was born in Denmark.

I was referring to my original question, which so far nobody has even tried to give an answer too.

Than how does one FET account for the fact that there are irregularities in this acceleration in different places on the earth, and different altitudes? 

Have you calculated this yourself and do you know the error involved in the calculation?

You assume there is an error in the calculations why?  This has been observed and recorded by scientists around (or accross) the world.  Has anybody observed that this acceleration is exactly the same?

You assume there is an error in the calculations why? 

There is a certain amount of error in every calculation, which by the way is typically also calculated.

Quote from: ragnarr on August 14, 2008, 06:11:37 PM

You assume there is an error in the calculations why? 

There is a certain amount of error in every calculation, which by the way is typically also calculated.

These findings are not so much calculations as they are measurements.  In this case a measurement of the time it takes for an object to fall a certain distance.  From this measurement you can then calculate the acceleration.  The same formula is used to calculate the acceleration, and it is not wrong. 

The measurments do have an amount of error, in this case it would be how precise the measurements were.  One measurement for instance for Mexico City was 9.779m/s^2.  In Washington DC it is 9.801m/s^2.  Since these measurements were taken to the thousandth of a m/s^2, then that is your error:  <.001m/s^2.

Thats not how measurement error is calculated.  Also, it is accuracy, not precision.  There is a difference.

I doubt they would have an error rate that deviates the data that much.  One thing is consistent, that latitude and altitude affect the acceleration of objects towards the earth (or vice versa).  This is consistent, and all I am asking is if it is the earth that is in fact accelerating upwards, then how does one account for this phenomenon. 

Accuracy for gravitational measurements is currently about +/- 1%, which is almost .1 m/s², encompassing all these said gravitational changes due to elevation.

Accuracy for gravitational measurements is currently about +/- 1%, which is almost .1 m/s², encompassing all these said gravitational changes due to elevation.

If that were the case then measurements in Mexico would deviate by +/- 1%, but they don't, they are consistently 9.779, and DC is 9.801 m/s^2.  I would expect it to deviate by 1% everywhere wouldn't you?

I am not trying to belittle or make fun of anybody, I just think there should be a logical explanation for this.  I do not believe that measurement error is a logical explanation given that this is consistent.

It's consistant because the same people use the same tool each time.  Consistancy and accuracy are two different things.

So let me understand what your saying, if the same tool consistently measures one acceleration in mexico city, and consistently another in washington D.C.  Then it is the measurement tool that is flawed?  You are taking the easy way out.  There has to be another explanation for that.

The two measurement devices in each city are most likely not the exact same device.  This is where accuracy of a particular device comes into play.  Two different devices measuring a consistant parameter doesn't mean that it is accurate.  This might help a little:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error

Quote from: Robbyj on August 14, 2008, 07:28:16 PM

Accuracy for gravitational measurements is currently about +/- 1%, which is almost .1 m/s², encompassing all these said gravitational changes due to elevation.

If that were the case then measurements in Mexico would deviate by +/- 1%, but they don't, they are consistently 9.779, and DC is 9.801 m/s^2.  I would expect it to deviate by 1% everywhere wouldn't you?

Accuracy and precision are not the same thing.

Thats not how measurement error is calculated.  Also, it is accuracy, not precision.  There is a difference.

Maybe second times the charm.

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 14, 2008, 03:13:18 PM

Quote from: lomein987 on August 14, 2008, 03:04:26 PM

From what I have read, you are assuming that all RE data related to your question is in fact true and valid and not part of a big conspiracy that includes everyone in the world that might take any sort of scientific measurement.

It is out of question that g varies with latitude. For example, you always use 9.81 m*s^-2 cause that is the average acceleration, yet in Denmark we use 9.82 m*s^-2 as our local. The fact that g varies is indisputable, anyone can measure it. Now, back on topic. 

Damn you Kasper!!!

Honestly, it's going to be enjoyable having a REer who actually knows stuff for once. Though I can't imagine it will be too enjoyable for you any more or for much longer. Of course if it starts to get boring I could always provide you with excellent reasons to switch sides... Have you realised the terrible moral implications of Round Earth Theory?

I lol'ed! And thanks for the compliment.

It's not data relating to RE, it's data relating to acceleration of objects towards the earth.  I didn't relate anything in my post to RE data, I also didn't explain any of those phenomena with RE theories to why they are true, I simply asked how FE theorist explain this phenomena.

Oh! In that case I will follow this discussion closely.

The two measurement devices in each city are most likely not the exact same device.  This is where accuracy of a particular device comes into play.  Two different devices measuring a consistant parameter doesn't mean that it is accurate.  This might help a little:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error

meassurement device? A ball and a clock?