MT EVEREST

FE people
how do you people explain the fact that acceleration due to g
on mt everyest is slightly below 9.8ms
i explain because the effect of g is inversly proportional to distance

but since you belive the whole earth is moving upwards at 9.8ms
how do you explain it being slightly less on top of mt everest

FE people
how do you people explain the fact that acceleration due to g
on mt everyest is slightly below 9.8ms
i explain because the effect of g is inversly proportional to distance

but since you belive the whole earth is moving upwards at 9.8ms
how do you explain it being slightly less on top of mt everest

You raise an extremely good point. Man, wish I'd thought of that. Of course, don't expect an answer. Whenever you bring up a point that they can't refute, they simply ignore you. It's the only way they can continue life and justify their beliefs. If you get any kind of response it will be something along the lines of, "The people that scaled Mt. Everest are obviously lying. Duh! Don't you know what every scientific principle that refutes our is? CONSPIRACY!" That's about the kind of answer you'll get. Sad truth.

Quote from: "father jack hackett"

FE people
how do you people explain the fact that acceleration due to g
on mt everyest is slightly below 9.8ms
i explain because the effect of g is inversly proportional to distance

but since you belive the whole earth is moving upwards at 9.8ms
how do you explain it being slightly less on top of mt everest

You raise an extremely good point. Man, wish I'd thought of that. Of course, don't expect an answer. Whenever you bring up a point that they can't refute, they simply ignore you. It's the only way they can continue life and justify their beliefs. If you get any kind of response it will be something along the lines of, "The people that scaled Mt. Everest are obviously lying. Duh! Don't you know what every scientific principle that refutes our is? CONSPIRACY!" That's about the kind of answer you'll get. Sad truth.

thanks

i would be surprised if they could come up with an answer

Also, wouldn't the magnetism of the pole be weaker the farther away you are from the North Pole?

Mt. Everest is a fake mountain that the government built as part of the conspiracy.

Mt. Everest is a fake mountain that the government built as part of the conspiracy.

Hehehe. I laughed with mirth and merriment when I read this post. Wouldn't actually be surprised if an FE'er came up with this.

The photos of Mt. Everest are faked.  :lol:

So um, how do you know that acceleration due to gravity is slightly less atom Mt. Everest?

It could be that you went up there yourself and measured the miniscule difference using highly sensitive, delicate, complex, and expensive lab equipment that you brought with you.

Or, it could be that you are merely listening to the claims of people who went up there themselves and measured the miniscule difference using highly sensitive, delicate, complex, and expensive lab equipment that they brought with them.

Or -- and I predict that this is really what is going on here -- you or somebody else assumed that gravity on the Earth follows an inverse square law and computed the miniscule difference sitting comfortably at a warm desk someplace not too far from sea level.

Question well begged.

So um, how do you know that acceleration due to gravity is slightly less atom Mt. Everest?

It could be that you went up there yourself and measured the miniscule difference using highly sensitive, delicate, complex, and expensive lab equipment that you brought with you.

Or, it could be that the reason you think this, is because you're sitting on your ass, not doing any of it yourself. You're probably sitting comfortable at your desk, looking at pictures of the horizon, and trying to find a explanation that will probably be equally bogus to the explanation you're trying to forumulate about why eclipses can still work. Maybe that's what wrong. Just a thought.

Or, it could be that the reason you think this, is because you're sitting on your ass, not doing any of it yourself. You're probably sitting comfortable at your desk, looking at pictures of the horizon, and trying to find a explanation that will probably be equally bogus to the explanation you're trying to forumulate about why eclipses can still work. Maybe that's what wrong. Just a thought.

Yeah.... so, we're in agreement, then, that you have no particularly good reason to believe that the weight of objects is actually different atop Mt. Everest?

At least, it sure sounds like my "reason" for thinking this is the same as your reason for believing what you believe.

Quote from: "Aralith"

Or, it could be that the reason you think this, is because you're sitting on your ass, not doing any of it yourself. You're probably sitting comfortable at your desk, looking at pictures of the horizon, and trying to find a explanation that will probably be equally bogus to the explanation you're trying to forumulate about why eclipses can still work. Maybe that's what wrong. Just a thought.

Yeah.... so, we're in agreement, then, that you have no particularly good reason to believe that the weight of objects is actually different atop Mt. Everest?

At least, it sure sounds like my "reason" for thinking this is the same as your reason for believing what you believe.

Yeah, except I trust the scientific community. Did you know, that nothing is considered fact until it has been proven by accurate measures. So maybe no one took those measuring devices up to the top of Mt. Everest, but I'm sure that they took them to different elevations and tested the minute differences in gravity. In fact, I'd be willing to guess that they took upwards of a hundred such measurements, and then created a forumla that would describe the effect that was seen as one raises in elevation. They then used this formula to determine what the gravity on Mt. Everest. would be. They probably took no equipment up there because it was too much of a risk for such expensive equipment, and thus came up with a much safer and easier way to figure this out (using the method I explained). But, I'm not very knowledgeable with this subject, so perhaps they did take those instruments up there. Either way, until you go up there (or use the same method I mentioned earlier) and take those measurements yourself, you have no right (at least not in the name of science) to claim that this is a "falsified fact" (an oxymoron in itself. Oh well).

Yeah, except I trust the scientific community.

FEers consider that a fault.

I'm sure that they took them to different elevations and tested the minute differences in gravity.

The whole point of using Mt. Everest is that it makes the ridiculously tiny variations slightly less ridiculously tiny so that maybe -- maybe -- there exist devices sensitive enough to measure them.  Abandon Everest and your gradient measurements get much more difficult.

Your homework assignment is to find a scientific paper from a reputable journal describing such an experiment.

you have no right (at least not in the name of science) to claim that this is a "falsified fact" (an oxymoron in itself. Oh well).

And you have no right to claim that it is a genuine fact, on the basis that

I'm sure that ...

and

In fact, I'd be willing to guess ...

Guesses do not sound premises make.

Now, I never claimed that the results were false.  I merely claimed that you had no reason to believe that they even existed -- in other words, I made no assumptions, where as you were happy with your "I trust"s and "I'm sure"s and "I guess"es.

Your homework assignment is to find a scientific paper from a reputable journal describing such an experiment.

All reputable journals also state that the Earth is round and give evidence from the results of not disimilar experiments.

Since they are probably all part of the conspiracy, I'd like to know what kind of journal FEers would find reputable.

And you have no right to claim that it is a genuine fact, on the basis that

If we go on like that nothing is a fact, and therefore I propose the earth is banana-shaped, just like they said in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. And the scene in which they come the conclusion that a witch must weigh the same as a duck (go watch that movie. now) is actually based on more logic thought than the FE theory, and thus I am inclined to think of those ideas as more probable than a flat earth.

All reputable journals also state that the Earth is round and give evidence from the results of not disimilar experiments.

Since they are probably all part of the conspiracy, I'd like to know what kind of journal FEers would find reputable.

So, you guys don't even want to try?  I'm not promising I'll believe it when I see it: I just have a hunch that you won't find any such experiments, and I'd like to be proven wrong.

But you know, if you're not confident of success it's probably better to just keep on dodging.

....owned....

but since you belive the whole earth is moving upwards at 9.8ms

  I do not believe the earth is moving upwards at all, and I do not know where you got that idea.

- Dionysios

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Your homework assignment is to find a scientific paper from a reputable journal describing such an experiment.

All reputable journals also state that the Earth is round and give evidence from the results of not disimilar experiments.

  Avoiding the topic after he had you cornered.  Too lazy to find anything to back up the as yet unverified declarations?

- Dionysios

So, you guys don't even want to try?  I'm not promising I'll believe it when I see it: I just have a hunch that you won't find any such experiments, and I'd like to be proven wrong.

Uhm, home experiments have been posted on this board, and ignored by FErs, or dismissed by saying "You do it and tell me the results", as if they wouldn't just say "I don't believe you" if we came back and gave results that pointed to RE, not FE.

I've seen several good points brought up in calm and respectful manners on this board also ignored by FErs. Lunar eclipses and the lines of latitude, for example.

I've yet to see, however, ANY experiments whose results would suggest a Flat Earth.

Quote from: "father jack hackett"

but since you belive the whole earth is moving upwards at 9.8ms

  I do not believe the earth is moving upwards at all, and I do not know where you got that idea.

- Dionysios

So what's your hypothesis?

Quote from: "father jack hackett"

but since you belive the whole earth is moving upwards at 9.8ms

  I do not believe the earth is moving upwards at all, and I do not know where you got that idea.

- Dionysios

it's in the FAQ.
And if you really want to know, the lower g-force at mountains is also caused by the mountain roots, which are less dense. Still doesn't take away the problem of reduced gravity at the equator. However, my 2-minute search yielded only pages (in very large amounts though) which calculated it while following scientific principles most FEers don't believe in. Experiments probably have been conducted, now we only have to find them. In the meantime, why don't you show me an experiment which proves gravity at the equator (or mountains, whatever) is the same as at the poles?

Uhm, home experiments have been posted on this board, and ignored by FErs,

Which home experiments?  Can you link me to the posts in question?

The only home experiment I remember hearing is the nonsense about the Coriolis force in sinks and bathtubs, which despite already knowing what the results would be, I tried in my apartment and got, not surprisingly, no correlation between hemisphere and direction of outflow.

Were you thinking of something else?

Quote from: "EnCrypto"

Uhm, home experiments have been posted on this board, and ignored by FErs,

Which home experiments?  Can you link me to the posts in question?

There was the one during the Summer Solstice, but that has passed now...

And I'm not great at sourcing, but I remember one experiment that showed a  wrecking ball at complete rest next to a brick wall, and it slowly moved towards the wall. I'm sure a similar experiment exists on a much smaller scale, as well as a list of things to ensure that the objects are at rest... even though they won't be swaying, as if caused by the movement of the Earth or a shaky hand, they'll actually pull towards each other.

And I'm not great at sourcing, but I remember one experiment that showed a  wrecking ball at complete rest next to a brick wall, and it slowly moved towards the wall. I'm sure a similar experiment exists on a much smaller scale, as well as a list of things to ensure that the objects are at rest... even though they won't be swaying, as if caused by the movement of the Earth or a shaky hand, they'll actually pull towards each other.

The experiment you're referring to is called the "torsion balance experiment", and has been linked on this site several times.  There are some great videos of torsion balances doing their thing.

The problem is isolating the system for the duration (usually several days) that it would take before any movement would be noticeable.  There is no way that a wrecking ball next to a brick wall, outdoors, would be appropriately isolated.  The amount of movement required is many orders of magnitude smaller than what would be produced by even the tiniest wind currents or electromagnetic fields.  This makes it an extremely difficult experiment to perform in the home.

The problem is isolating the system for the duration (usually several days) that it would take before any movement would be noticeable.  There is no way that a wrecking ball next to a brick wall, outdoors, would be appropriately isolated.  The amount of movement required is many orders of magnitude smaller than what would be produced by even the tiniest wind currents or electromagnetic fields.  This makes it an extremely difficult experiment to perform in the home.

I'll try to find some others and get back to you on this.

Quote from: "EnCrypto"

Uhm, home experiments have been posted on this board, and ignored by FErs,

Which home experiments?  Can you link me to the posts in question?

The only home experiment I remember hearing is the nonsense about the Coriolis force in sinks and bathtubs, which despite already knowing what the results would be, I tried in my apartment and got, not surprisingly, no correlation between hemisphere and direction of outflow.

Were you thinking of something else?

There was an experiment on Braniac about this that said it had to do with the shape of the sink/tub/toilet rather than the hemisphere.

However, and isolated pendulum that knocks down pieces of wood (like dominoes) in a consistent interval of [can't remember exactly, it was nearly a minute they way they set it up], without varying by more than 1-2 seconds. I have seen on of these, observed it, and timed it (the estimated time was posted by it).

And if you really want to know, the lower g-force at mountains is also caused by the mountain roots, which are less dense. Still doesn't take away the problem of reduced gravity at the equator.

What?

Something which is sort of explained here.
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/courses/g112/mtn_roots.html

About the equator, the g-acceleration is slightly less than on the poles. This is because the earth is spherical and spinning, which has two consequences: First of all, on the equator the spinning-speed is greatest, which results in a lower centripetal force, and because of this there is a lower gravity-acceleration. Secondly, the earth isn't a perfect sphere, because of all the spinning the distance to the center is larger at the equator. This results in a lower gravitational acceleration at the equator and a higher one at the poles, because of the distance to the center. And no, I haven't been to the poles and equator myself, but other people did. Now please, for once, try to believe other people and science (especially physics). O, and try to give a nice reason for these effects on an accelerating flat earth.

Secondly, the earth isn't a perfect sphere, because of all the spinning the distance to the center is larger at the equator. This results in a lower gravitational acceleration at the equator and a higher one at the poles, because of the distance to the center.

Wow, thanks for the science lesson, but I know how gravity works.

And if you really want to know, the lower g-force at mountains is also caused by the mountain roots, which are less dense.

I missed the 'also' part.  My mistake.  The maximum variation in the Earth's grav. field due to density variations is about .01%.  That is very small compared to the inverse square law of gravitation.

Wow, thanks for the science lesson, but I know how gravity works.

Some people here maybe don't, or they just ignore it. Anyway, better to explain too much than too little, right?

The maximum variation in the Earth's grav. field due to density variations is about .01%. That is very small compared to the inverse square law of gravitation.

If you say so, I don't really know the exact numbers myself. But still, there is a variation in gravity both on mountains and at the equator, and FE hasn't properly explained this.