Gravity At Different Altitudes

I haven't searched the forums for a post about this, and frankly I wouldn't even know what keywords to use, so I'll address it here.

The acceleration due to gravity has been measured at different altitudes on the earth.  It's been shown that that acceleration is lower at high altitudes than it is at sea level.  How would the FE model account for this?

I haven't searched the forums for a post about this, and frankly I wouldn't even know what keywords to use, so I'll address it here.

The acceleration due to gravity has been measured at different altitudes on the earth.  It's been shown that that acceleration is lower at high altitudes than it is at sea level.  How would the FE model account for this?

the gravity of the stars apparently.

The acceleration due to gravity has been measured at different altitudes on the earth

Measured by who? Those who have worked so hard to make the world believe the earth is flat?  Please try harder not to confuse myth with fact.

Quote

The acceleration due to gravity has been measured at different altitudes on the earth

Measured by who? Those who have worked so hard to make the world believe the earth is flat?  Please try harder not to confuse myth with fact.

perhaps you can take your own advice.

F = GM1M2/Rē

G = constant (6.672 x 10^-11)
M1 = mass of first object
M2 = mass of second object
R = radius (distance between centre of mass of objects)

http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/materials/introduction/gravity/gravity.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/gravity-earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(Earth)

Quote

The acceleration due to gravity has been measured at different altitudes on the earth

Measured by who? Those who have worked so hard to make the world believe the earth is flat?  Please try harder not to confuse myth with fact.

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

^This is a RE explanation of why g varies at different parts of the earth.  What's the FE explanation?  Or are you saying "it doesn't vary"?  We're talking on a most fundamental level here - this is simply a website that exposes a hole in FE theory.  g varies, it's a given.  I don't know how to make it any more clear-cut for you.  It isn't a "myth" when you can test this out for yourself with nothing more than some video equipment, linear measuring tools and a marble.

And the cash to do an intermediate amount of travelling.

Edit: Here's a fun site to play around with: http://bpesoft.com/s/wleizero/xhac/?h=-86&M=g

his is a RE explanation of why g varies at different parts of the earth. What's the FE explanation? Or are you saying "it doesn't vary"?

Well, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so why don't YOU put in the FE explanation?

Quote

his is a RE explanation of why g varies at different parts of the earth. What's the FE explanation? Or are you saying "it doesn't vary"?

Well, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so why don't YOU put in the FE explanation?

What is your point?  You're saying that "unreliable sources" may have contributed to that wikipedia article?  I did a google search for "acceleration due to gravity", and this was the top result, probably because it was the most RELEVANT?  I'm just posting the most relevant page it gave me - if you don't like it, I can post a hundred more that have nothing to do with wikipedia.

And why should I try to explain something that it's my opponent's job to?  Honest to goodness I wouldn't even know where to begin... I'm a RE'er.  Leave it to the "professionals".

Meh, it's getting hard to tell who's on which side....

I did a google search for "acceleration due to gravity", and this was the top result, probably because it was the most RELEVANT?

God the next generation is flat out retarded. This IS NOT how you do research. A website pointing to a user editable website. Clearly at the utmost of accuracy and objectivity right there.

Meh, it's getting hard to tell who's on which side....

Back in the day, people had their own labels... like sceptic/believer.

Take your adderall and then tell me where I said I was doing research you arrogant twit.  I just linked a site EXPLAINING RE theory's take on this.  In no way is it a 100% proof via the scientific method or anything close to that, I'm just citing an example of RE EXPLANATION for this fact.  Which is better than the NOTHING you or any FE'ers are giving me so far.

If you need to put words in my mouth and belittle me in an attempt to "throw off" my argument, just don't.  Realize that you don't have to post in every thread.  And I sure as hell don't need to belittle you to help myself, but I did it anyway because you're just that much of a natural dumbass.

Next?

Take your adderall and then tell me where I said I was doing research you arrogant twit.  I just linked a site EXPLAINING RE theory's take on this.  In no way is it a 100% proof via the scientific method or anything close to that, I'm just citing an example of RE EXPLANATION for this fact.  Which is better than the NOTHING you or any FE'ers are giving me so far.

If you need to put words in my mouth and belittle me in an attempt to "throw off" my argument, just don't.  Realize that you don't have to post in every thread.  And I sure as hell don't need to belittle you to help myself, but I did it anyway because you're just that much of a natural dumbass.

Next?

I laugh at you for trusting google to think for you.  :lol:

Good job getting all pissed off at me for pointing out you haven't the faintest clue at doing research, or citing credible sources in an argument.

submerge529 - they don't have an answer. They all know that they're wrong. I've seen the posts which the FE'ers thought no RE'ers would ever read. They stated to their fellow FE'ers in that they believe and acknowledge that the Earth is truly round in said posts. They're just screwing with you. Some prominent FE'ers are openly Devil's Advocate. Even the RE'ers here screw with you. Abandon all hope ye who enter here.

Like me and meph for example, we are both RE people, but like to argue FE, I don't know his motives, but mine are simply fun and debate practice.

F = GM1M2/Rē

thats all you need. higher up, R is bigger, F is smaller. since F=mg then g is smaller. whats the problem?

The problem is that the UA hypothesis can't explain that.