The appearance of Gravity

Then you've just wasted three pages of TFES. I'll ask Daniel to remove them from the server.

You not understanding my argument doesn't make it a waste.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 16, 2010, 03:28:43 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 10:35:56 AM

If it isn't perfect, then it is subject to error, and therefore should not be trusted absolutely.

No it's trustable to the level of measured accuracy.

Remind us how you tested your supernatural sensory measurement of g again.

Once again, I addressed the issue of which method should be considered more reliable in the part of my post you did not quote. Neither one is perfect, but we can compare the two and draw conclusions as to which is better tested.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 03:32:40 PM

example:
atomic clocks have shown time dilation, but we don't notice a difference. does that mean that Einstein was wrong?

No, it means that you can't be in two frames of reference at once and have an opportunity to observe the difference.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 03:32:40 PM

also, see optical illusion

There's no such thing as an optical illusion.

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2010, 05:08:45 PM

I'm sorry Steve, I didn't realize that your senses had evolved to be perfectly accurate.

Instead of posting a non-sequitur, why not respond to the part of my post in which I addressed this very issue, and which you removed from your quote?

Well well, today we have learned that:
human senses>machines, computers, and robots
but there is no such thing as an optical illusion.
troll detected.

and parsifal,

yeah, but the thing is, your body would not tell you that there had been a delay in time for you, when you came back and interacted with the rest of the world, because it was too small for you to notice. If the effect had been grand, like if you came back from traveling at relativistic speeds for an hour, and they told you that it had been weeks, you'd be able to tell that there was something off.

and are you saying that you do not see a bent square here?



But back to your original theory:

"My own senses tell me that the gravitational field does not vary from place to place. Why should I put my faith in a machine that could be influenced by all kinds of extraneous factors, when I have perfectly good sensory abilities developed over millions of years of evolution?"


this is madness. not only does evolution not make the best things ever, as previously explained, but it has been shown that human senses<machines. protip: when you want to measure something use a ruler or ____meter. example: put your finger in the two little holes in the wall. the one surrounded by white plastic. tell me then the differences in Amperage throughout the duration of this experiment. And for the gravity meter thing, surely you know that scientists decide that variance exists, when a device shows variance greater than its margin of error. you should lrn2physics before posting here again. I'll help you out:

and parsifal,

yeah, but the thing is, your body would not tell you that there had been a delay in time for you, when you came back and interacted with the rest of the world, because it was too small for you to notice. If the effect had been grand, like if you came back from traveling at relativistic speeds for an hour, and they told you that it had been weeks, you'd be able to tell that there was something off.

The reason your body wouldn't tell you there had been a delay in time is that the delay is only relative to others. You weren't stationary and travelling, you were either stationary or travelling, so in your own frame of reference time passed normally, as it always does.

and are you saying that you do not see a bent square here?

I do see a bent square. Therefore, we may conclude that the square in that image is bent.

this is madness. not only does evolution not make the best things ever, as previously explained, but it has been shown that human senses<machines.

When making statements like this, I expect you to validate them with sources.

protip: when you want to measure something use a ruler or ____meter. example: put your finger in the two little holes in the wall. the one surrounded by white plastic. tell me then the differences in Amperage throughout the duration of this experiment.

I can't. The holes are smaller than my fingers.

And for the gravity meter thing, surely you know that scientists decide that variance exists, when a device shows variance greater than its margin of error. you should lrn2physics before posting here again. I'll help you out:

Scientists don't "decide" how the world works, they collect data and draw conclusions from it. I have collected data by travelling the world and observing that I neither bounce around like a helium balloon or drop like a lead pipe when I step out of the aeroplane, and I have therefore concluded that there is no such variance. Also, the margin of error of any device is only an estimate; if the device is showing variances which don't exist, that estimate is too small.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 10:40:18 PM

and are you saying that you do not see a bent square here?

I do see a bent square. Therefore, we may conclude that the square in that image is bent.

Yes, you may conclude that the square in that image is bent.  However, your conclusion would be wrong.

Yes, you may conclude that the square in that image is bent.  However, your conclusion would be wrong.

Please provide some evidence to support this assertion.

Quote from: markjo on May 17, 2010, 06:27:11 AM

Yes, you may conclude that the square in that image is bent.  However, your conclusion would be wrong.

Please provide some evidence to support this assertion.

Hold 2 pieces of paper on ether side of the line covering the circles.

Quote from: markjo on May 17, 2010, 06:27:11 AM

Yes, you may conclude that the square in that image is bent.  However, your conclusion would be wrong.

Please provide some evidence to support this assertion.

Your predilection of this ruse ("Please provide some evidence to support this assertion") is really just trolling in disguise.



Here you have, pixel by pixel, the exact same drawing except for most of the circles, which have been erased. If the lines really were bent to make a false illusion, then you would still be able to see the bending of the lines.

Quote from: markjo on May 17, 2010, 06:27:11 AM

Yes, you may conclude that the square in that image is bent.  However, your conclusion would be wrong.

Please provide some evidence to support this assertion.

Hold a straight edge next to one of the lines of the box in the picture.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 10:40:18 PM

and parsifal,

yeah, but the thing is, your body would not tell you that there had been a delay in time for you, when you came back and interacted with the rest of the world, because it was too small for you to notice. If the effect had been grand, like if you came back from traveling at relativistic speeds for an hour, and they told you that it had been weeks, you'd be able to tell that there was something off.

The reason your body wouldn't tell you there had been a delay in time is that the delay is only relative to others. You weren't stationary and travelling, you were either stationary or travelling, so in your own frame of reference time passed normally, as it always does.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 10:40:18 PM

and are you saying that you do not see a bent square here?

I do see a bent square. Therefore, we may conclude that the square in that image is bent.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 10:40:18 PM

this is madness. not only does evolution not make the best things ever, as previously explained, but it has been shown that human senses<machines.

When making statements like this, I expect you to validate them with sources.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 10:40:18 PM

protip: when you want to measure something use a ruler or ____meter. example: put your finger in the two little holes in the wall. the one surrounded by white plastic. tell me then the differences in Amperage throughout the duration of this experiment.

I can't. The holes are smaller than my fingers.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 16, 2010, 10:40:18 PM

And for the gravity meter thing, surely you know that scientists decide that variance exists, when a device shows variance greater than its margin of error. you should lrn2physics before posting here again. I'll help you out:

Scientists don't "decide" how the world works, they collect data and draw conclusions from it. I have collected data by travelling the world and observing that I neither bounce around like a helium balloon or drop like a lead pipe when I step out of the aeroplane, and I have therefore concluded that there is no such variance. Also, the margin of error of any device is only an estimate; if the device is showing variances which don't exist, that estimate is too small.

Ok, think about it this way, you cannot measure an ammount of time to the .001 seconds, but an atomic clock can. proof that machines>detectors. you cannot measure length accurately probably beyond .1mm
but machines can. you cannot detect nonvisible light machines can. you cannot detect movement to the scale of nm. you cannot detect vibrations nearly as well as machines. you cannot detect changes in pitch nearly as well as a computer. you cannot detect the presence of chemicals nearly as well as trace.

and use a paperclip, or unscrew the covering.

there is no way you'd be able to notice such subtleties in variance of g at different places. and that isn't how margin of error is determined. you should really watch the vid. and you call yourself a student of physics, and yet you believe that your own body is superior to machines at determining experimental data


Spoiler: the square isn't bent, go onto MS paint, and turn the black spaces white with the fill tool. or use a ruler, a man made device. or draw a line on paint to see if its straight, there's at least 2 man made devices within there somewhere.

I think this should be sent to bed.

Parsifal is just mad at GRACE and pissed at scientists for making technology that would pwn him

Quote from: Parsifal on May 17, 2010, 06:32:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 17, 2010, 06:27:11 AM

Yes, you may conclude that the square in that image is bent.  However, your conclusion would be wrong.

Please provide some evidence to support this assertion.

Hold a straight edge next to one of the lines of the box in the picture.

How can I be sure the straight edge is straight?

Ok, think about it this way, you cannot measure an ammount of time to the .001 seconds, but an atomic clock can. proof that machines>detectors. you cannot measure length accurately probably beyond .1mm
but machines can. you cannot detect nonvisible light machines can. you cannot detect movement to the scale of nm. you cannot detect vibrations nearly as well as machines. you cannot detect changes in pitch nearly as well as a computer. you cannot detect the presence of chemicals nearly as well as trace.

Do you have sources for any of this information, or are you just making it up?

and use a paperclip, or unscrew the covering.

I'd rather not. They've made it difficult to get to for a reason.

there is no way you'd be able to notice such subtleties in variance of g at different places. and that isn't how margin of error is determined. you should really watch the vid. and you call yourself a student of physics, and yet you believe that your own body is superior to machines at determining experimental data

I don't believe it's superior, but I have shown it to be more reliable through more extensive testing. Nobody has yet provided a valid rebuttal to this.

Spoiler: the square isn't bent, go onto MS paint, and turn the black spaces white with the fill tool. or use a ruler, a man made device. or draw a line on paint to see if its straight, there's at least 2 man made devices within there somewhere.

I can't go into MS Paint because it isn't installed on my computer.

Quote from: markjo on May 17, 2010, 08:44:55 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 17, 2010, 06:32:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 17, 2010, 06:27:11 AM

Yes, you may conclude that the square in that image is bent.  However, your conclusion would be wrong.

Please provide some evidence to support this assertion.

Hold a straight edge next to one of the lines of the box in the picture.

How can I be sure the straight edge is straight?

If the edge wasn't straight, then it wouldn't be a straight edge, would it? 

If the edge wasn't straight, then it wouldn't be a straight edge, would it? 

Put differently, how can I be sure that what I have is a straight edge?

Quote from: markjo on May 17, 2010, 11:56:27 AM

If the edge wasn't straight, then it wouldn't be a straight edge, would it? 

Put differently, how can I be sure that what I have is a straight edge?

Your highly evolved senses should be able to tell pretty accurately.

Your highly evolved senses should be able to tell pretty accurately.

There are no straight edges in nature, so such an ability never evolved.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 17, 2010, 12:18:24 PM

Your highly evolved senses should be able to tell pretty accurately.

There are no straight edges in nature, so such an ability never evolved.

How can you be sure?

How can you be sure?

Because I am unable to detect a perfectly straight edge.

Quote from: markjo on May 17, 2010, 08:44:55 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 17, 2010, 06:32:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 17, 2010, 06:27:11 AM

Yes, you may conclude that the square in that image is bent.  However, your conclusion would be wrong.

Please provide some evidence to support this assertion.

Hold a straight edge next to one of the lines of the box in the picture.

How can I be sure the straight edge is straight?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 08:50:20 AM

Ok, think about it this way, you cannot measure an ammount of time to the .001 seconds, but an atomic clock can. proof that machines>detectors. you cannot measure length accurately probably beyond .1mm
but machines can. you cannot detect nonvisible light machines can. you cannot detect movement to the scale of nm. you cannot detect vibrations nearly as well as machines. you cannot detect changes in pitch nearly as well as a computer. you cannot detect the presence of chemicals nearly as well as trace.

Do you have sources for any of this information, or are you just making it up?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 08:50:20 AM

and use a paperclip, or unscrew the covering.

I'd rather not. They've made it difficult to get to for a reason.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 08:50:20 AM

there is no way you'd be able to notice such subtleties in variance of g at different places. and that isn't how margin of error is determined. you should really watch the vid. and you call yourself a student of physics, and yet you believe that your own body is superior to machines at determining experimental data

I don't believe it's superior, but I have shown it to be more reliable through more extensive testing. Nobody has yet provided a valid rebuttal to this.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 08:50:20 AM

Spoiler: the square isn't bent, go onto MS paint, and turn the black spaces white with the fill tool. or use a ruler, a man made device. or draw a line on paint to see if its straight, there's at least 2 man made devices within there somewhere.

I can't go into MS Paint because it isn't installed on my computer.

answer this question, can you see deviations past .01m? like if I were to make a mark that was .005 mm long vs one that was .006 mm wrong, could you tell me which one is different just by looking?
the micrometer can
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometer#Vernier
can you detect light beyond 10 picometer wavelength? Gamma detectors can
http://www.airynothing.com/high_energy_tutorial/detection/detection05.html


why don't you use photoshop or any other image manipulation software.

Surely you must know the square to be straight

Quote from: General Disarray on May 17, 2010, 12:18:24 PM

Your highly evolved senses should be able to tell pretty accurately.

There are no straight edges in nature, so such an ability never evolved.

Some crystalline structures naturally form straight edges.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 17, 2010, 12:18:24 PM

Your highly evolved senses should be able to tell pretty accurately.

There are no straight edges in nature, so such an ability never evolved.

or by straight we'll use one pixel on your computer as the margin of error. do you think that that square bends by at least about one pixel? because the computer can show you  that its not

Quote from: General Disarray on May 17, 2010, 12:36:05 PM

How can you be sure?

Because I am unable to detect a perfectly straight edge.

How would you know one if you've never seen one?

answer this question, can you see deviations past .01m? like if I were to make a mark that was .005 mm long vs one that was .006 mm wrong, could you tell me which one is different just by looking?
the micrometer can
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometer#Vernier

Probably not, but then there was never any reason for this ability to evolve in nature.

can you detect light beyond 10 picometer wavelength? Gamma detectors can
http://www.airynothing.com/high_energy_tutorial/detection/detection05.html

Again, there was never any reason for this ability to evolve, so we can't expect to possess it.

why don't you use photoshop or any other image manipulation software.

Any such software may have been tampered with by the Conspiracy.

Surely you must know the square to be straight

Why? I haven't seen any reason why it should be straight, and it quite clearly appears bent. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that it is bent.

Some crystalline structures naturally form straight edges.

How were they determined to be straight?

How would you know one if you've never seen one?

What?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 12:51:30 PM

answer this question, can you see deviations past .01m? like if I were to make a mark that was .005 mm long vs one that was .006 mm wrong, could you tell me which one is different just by looking?
the micrometer can
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometer#Vernier

Probably not, but then there was never any reason for this ability to evolve in nature.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 12:51:30 PM

can you detect light beyond 10 picometer wavelength? Gamma detectors can
http://www.airynothing.com/high_energy_tutorial/detection/detection05.html

Again, there was never any reason for this ability to evolve, so we can't expect to possess it.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 12:51:30 PM

why don't you use photoshop or any other image manipulation software.

Any such software may have been tampered with by the Conspiracy.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 12:51:30 PM

Surely you must know the square to be straight

Why? I haven't seen any reason why it should be straight, and it quite clearly appears bent. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that it is bent.

So what about variance in g at the degree of .01m/s why would we need that?
Software that makes it so if you are trying to prove an optical illusion, it straightens out the line when you try to solve the illusion???
why don't you get an artist's compass and a T-square. draw the image. done.


Or take this one

It's a jpg, so it cannot be moving, but if you move your head back and forth, it looks like it is.

how about 3d movies?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 12:51:30 PM

why don't you use photoshop or any other image manipulation software.

Any such software may have been tampered with by the Conspiracy.

I thought that you only used free software that includes source code that you can check for tampering.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 16, 2010, 06:13:19 PM

Then you've just wasted three pages of TFES. I'll ask Daniel to remove them from the server.

You not understanding my argument doesn't make it a waste.

You back-pedalling all of the internet does.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 17, 2010, 12:36:05 PM

How can you be sure?

Because I am unable to detect a perfectly straight edge.

That's why we have sophisticated equipment that can do that for you, thousands of times more accurately than any person could hope to.  This can be done many ways, including ways that do not rely on the sensory equipment's positioning or orientation. If you were to take a laser distance measuring device, it could give you the distance within (I'm using a conservative estimate here) 1"/10,000". Have the laser mounted in a rotating joint, positioned so that the end of the laser remains fixed upon a central point. This can be accurately achieved with a second laser placed perpendicular to the first, to determine if the laser end movies in relation to the laser fixed upon it beyond one degree of freedom of motion. Place the straight edge so that it lies upon the same plane as the lasers degree of freedom. Then, measure the distance to the straight edge from the laser point, at set intervals of rotation. With trigonometry, and knowing the orientation of the laser and the distance provided, you will be able to mathematically prove that the edge is straight, with however much variance the edge has. The math is actually not that complicated, and you could easily make your own Excel spreadsheet (Or Open Office spreadsheet, which you can view source code) to do the math for you. if you think the gravity of the Earth (or any other celestial body you wish to proclaim would have an effect) has an effect on the laser technology by bending the light, simply re-do the experiment in a different orientation to said outside influence. If the numbers prove to be the same (within an acceptable error rating), it proves that other variable had no effect on the experiment.

Quote from: Parsifal on May 17, 2010, 12:42:27 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 17, 2010, 12:36:05 PM

How can you be sure?

Because I am unable to detect a perfectly straight edge.

That's why we have sophisticated equipment that can do that for you, thousands of times more accurately than any person could hope to.  This can be done many ways, including ways that do not rely on the sensory equipment's positioning or orientation. If you were to take a laser distance measuring device, it could give you the distance within (I'm using a conservative estimate here) 1"/10,000". Have the laser mounted in a rotating joint, positioned so that the end of the laser remains fixed upon a central point. This can be accurately achieved with a second laser placed perpendicular to the first, to determine if the laser end movies in relation to the laser fixed upon it beyond one degree of freedom of motion. Place the straight edge so that it lies upon the same plane as the lasers degree of freedom. Then, measure the distance to the straight edge from the laser point, at set intervals of rotation. With trigonometry, and knowing the orientation of the laser and the distance provided, you will be able to mathematically prove that the edge is straight, with however much variance the edge has. The math is actually not that complicated, and you could easily make your own Excel spreadsheet (Or Open Office spreadsheet, which you can view source code) to do the math for you. if you think the gravity of the Earth (or any other celestial body you wish to proclaim would have an effect) has an effect on the laser technology by bending the light, simply re-do the experiment in a different orientation to said outside influence. If the numbers prove to be the same (within an acceptable error rating), it proves that other variable had no effect on the experiment.

According to this man, light bends, so that messes up your equipment.
Also the error of margin is an estimate, so if he doesn't detect variance, the error of margin must be greatly increased.
Welcome to Zeteticism

Quote from: Damnati on May 17, 2010, 08:24:50 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 17, 2010, 12:42:27 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 17, 2010, 12:36:05 PM

How can you be sure?

Because I am unable to detect a perfectly straight edge.

That's why we have sophisticated equipment that can do that for you, thousands of times more accurately than any person could hope to.  This can be done many ways, including ways that do not rely on the sensory equipment's positioning or orientation. If you were to take a laser distance measuring device, it could give you the distance within (I'm using a conservative estimate here) 1"/10,000". Have the laser mounted in a rotating joint, positioned so that the end of the laser remains fixed upon a central point. This can be accurately achieved with a second laser placed perpendicular to the first, to determine if the laser end movies in relation to the laser fixed upon it beyond one degree of freedom of motion. Place the straight edge so that it lies upon the same plane as the lasers degree of freedom. Then, measure the distance to the straight edge from the laser point, at set intervals of rotation. With trigonometry, and knowing the orientation of the laser and the distance provided, you will be able to mathematically prove that the edge is straight, with however much variance the edge has. The math is actually not that complicated, and you could easily make your own Excel spreadsheet (Or Open Office spreadsheet, which you can view source code) to do the math for you. if you think the gravity of the Earth (or any other celestial body you wish to proclaim would have an effect) has an effect on the laser technology by bending the light, simply re-do the experiment in a different orientation to said outside influence. If the numbers prove to be the same (within an acceptable error rating), it proves that other variable had no effect on the experiment.

According to this man, light bends, so that messes up your equipment.
Also the error of margin is an estimate, so if he doesn't detect variance, the error of margin must be greatly increased.
Welcome to Zeteticism

Which is why you would perform the experiment at different orientations to the factors which would cause light to bed. Which would be gravity (No other force bends light, other than reflection or refraction (Not bending, but we can simplify it as such). To avoid both, do this experiment in a vacuum where the only outside force acting on the light is the curvature of space, which could be accounted for if you want to get that involved with it, and throw in some higher level calculus as well). If the results are the same with a reasonable margin of error, regardless of the orientation to gravitational sources which would bend the light, it can be deemed that the light is not bending. At least, not to a measurable degree under these circumstances. It's a whole different ballgame to prove that light IS bending, and you need some calculus thrown in there.

And actually, if he doesn't detect a variance, then the margin of error would be incredibly small. Really, there would a slight difference, but the net result should be accurate within +-1"/10,000" (estimating a relatively cheap laser distance finder). Which is a rather low margin of error.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 08:43:56 PM

Quote from: Damnati on May 17, 2010, 08:24:50 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 17, 2010, 12:42:27 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 17, 2010, 12:36:05 PM

How can you be sure?

Because I am unable to detect a perfectly straight edge.

That's why we have sophisticated equipment that can do that for you, thousands of times more accurately than any person could hope to.  This can be done many ways, including ways that do not rely on the sensory equipment's positioning or orientation. If you were to take a laser distance measuring device, it could give you the distance within (I'm using a conservative estimate here) 1"/10,000". Have the laser mounted in a rotating joint, positioned so that the end of the laser remains fixed upon a central point. This can be accurately achieved with a second laser placed perpendicular to the first, to determine if the laser end movies in relation to the laser fixed upon it beyond one degree of freedom of motion. Place the straight edge so that it lies upon the same plane as the lasers degree of freedom. Then, measure the distance to the straight edge from the laser point, at set intervals of rotation. With trigonometry, and knowing the orientation of the laser and the distance provided, you will be able to mathematically prove that the edge is straight, with however much variance the edge has. The math is actually not that complicated, and you could easily make your own Excel spreadsheet (Or Open Office spreadsheet, which you can view source code) to do the math for you. if you think the gravity of the Earth (or any other celestial body you wish to proclaim would have an effect) has an effect on the laser technology by bending the light, simply re-do the experiment in a different orientation to said outside influence. If the numbers prove to be the same (within an acceptable error rating), it proves that other variable had no effect on the experiment.

According to this man, light bends, so that messes up your equipment.
Also the error of margin is an estimate, so if he doesn't detect variance, the error of margin must be greatly increased.
Welcome to Zeteticism

Which is why you would perform the experiment at different orientations to the factors which would cause light to bed. Which would be gravity (No other force bends light, other than reflection or refraction (Not bending, but we can simplify it as such). To avoid both, do this experiment in a vacuum where the only outside force acting on the light is the curvature of space, which could be accounted for if you want to get that involved with it, and throw in some higher level calculus as well). If the results are the same with a reasonable margin of error, regardless of the orientation to gravitational sources which would bend the light, it can be deemed that the light is not bending. At least, not to a measurable degree under these circumstances. It's a whole different ballgame to prove that light IS bending, and you need some calculus thrown in there.

And actually, if he doesn't detect a variance, then the margin of error would be incredibly small. Really, there would a slight difference, but the net result should be accurate within +-1"/10,000" (estimating a relatively cheap laser distance finder). Which is a rather low margin of error.

Which is exactly why I argue here so much. Laws of physics say light goes straight through space. (gravity makes space itself bend). FES doesn't have a formula for bendy light, and they never will. noone here yet understands that light would have to bend in a circle for a flat earth to appear round:


I mean literally if he, with only his body doesn't detect a difference in a measurement, then the man made device must automatically be flawed. aka gravimeters, atomic clocks, laser measuring devices are flawed. this is because evolution is supposed to have made him better than we can make a device

So what about variance in g at the degree of .01m/s why would we need that?

Because gravitational fields do exist in nature, and we are always interacting with them.

Software that makes it so if you are trying to prove an optical illusion, it straightens out the line when you try to solve the illusion???
why don't you get an artist's compass and a T-square. draw the image. done.

The Conspiracy can and does tamper with paper to cause it to shift the image as it is being drawn.

Or take this one

It's a jpg, so it cannot be moving, but if you move your head back and forth, it looks like it is.

The Conspiracy has developed secret animation techniques for all image codecs, and they use them to make such "illusions" move.

how about 3d movies?

The objects really do come out of the screen towards you when you put on your 3D glasses. This is a technique developed by the Conspiracy during the early days of filmmaking. You can tell it is a Conspiracy tool because they used it in making a film about the ISS.

I thought that you only used free software that includes source code that you can check for tampering.

The Conspiracy can and does tamper with the execution of binary files at the hardware level.