Centripetal Acceleration and Weight

It has been proven that the centripetal acceleration of a person on a RE model makes it so that someone at the equator weighs less than if they were positioned at the northpole... All else being equal. (A distance of about 4g/kg, as has been proven by experiments.)

The same could be said for the "south pole" on a RE model, where one would weigh more than at the equator. 

How is this explained in FET, and even if you were to say that the FE model is rotating (which some say it doesn't) then at the icewall, (or the RE equivalent of the south pole), would a person not weigh MORE, contradictory to what actually happens?

Are you sure that the proofs of your centripetal acceleration changes are solid enough?

You say "it has been proven". Did you prove it or did you hear it from someone else?

Are you sure that the proofs of your centripetal acceleration changes are solid enough?

You say "it has been proven". Did you prove it or did you hear it from someone else?

The proof relies on simple Newtonian physics that I myself have performed and others have performed as well. Opening your high-school physics textbook, you can find all the formulae necessary . Of course this applies to the RET as you would inevitably point out, an this is why I turn to YOU to ask how this can be explained in FET?

You are saying that you can prove that someone developed the concept of centripetal force.

That is not what I questioned.

the centripetal acceleration of a person on a RE model makes it so that someone at the equator weighs less than if they were positioned at the northpole

How do you know that? Did you make the experiment or did you learn it from someone else?

You are saying that you can prove that someone developed the concept of centripetal force.

No, I'm proving that the weight of a person increases as you get closer to the north and south pole respectively on the RE model.

Did you make the experiment or did you learn it from someone else?

Why do you care? Just because you can't answer my questions about how you can explain the weight difference in te FE model, doesn't mean you need to question who exactly derived basic mechanics formulae.

Answer my questions about the FE model and THEN we can discuss the math.

Quote

the centripetal acceleration of a person on a RE model makes it so that someone at the equator weighs less than if they were positioned at the northpole

How do you know that? Did you make the experiment or did you learn it from someone else?

The theory tells us that on a uniformly dense Round Earth that's spinning on its axis, if you stood at the equator you'd weigh less than if you stood at the poles.

Experiments have also been conducted to show that gravity does vary on the Earth - but it's not quite as simple as the above statement because the Earth isn't exactly uniform.

Quote from: Agnostic on September 01, 2011, 02:46:28 PM

You are saying that you can prove that someone developed the concept of centripetal force.

No, I'm proving that the weight of a person increases as you get closer to the north and south pole respectively on the RE model.

Yes, theoretically, if the earth were a rapidly spinning sphere this would happen. The question then is: Do you have actual evidence this is case? Or are you simply proffering a thought-experiment for us all while parroting something you've been told?

Yes, theoretically, if the earth were a rapidly spinning sphere this would happen.

Thank you for acknowledging this.

Now where are we? Oh right, now we will need to present the evidence of varying weight at different locations on Earth that the FE'ers are going to discard because it completely debunks FET.

Even your beloved NASA can't figure out the data they allegedly collect.

Why do some places on Earth have higher gravity than others? Sometimes the reason is unknown.

How am I to tell which excuse the globularists will use this time to explain the constantly changing measurements of "gravity"? Centripetal acceleration? Gravity?

We can talk about theory for hours, or we can talk about facts.

So far, there is no evidence that we weight less or more in different places of the earth due to a centripetal force.

Even your beloved NASA can't figure out the data they allegedly collect.

Quote from: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030723.html

Why do some places on Earth have higher gravity than others? Sometimes the reason is unknown.

How am I to tell which excuse the globularists will use this time to explain the constantly changing measurements of "gravity"? Centripetal acceleration? Gravity?

When they go to the moon, you shout conspiracy. When they collect data, you discard it. When they admit there isn't enough data available, you discredit them.
They also admit that they don't exactly know why the magnetic field lines on the sun that penetrates the surface come in different densities (the highest causing sunspots). Does this mean they're wrong about the sun having a magnetic field?

We can talk about theory for hours, or we can talk about facts.

So far, there is no evidence that we weight less or more in different places of the earth due to a centripetal force.

With that thinking we would've never invented physics. Why create equations to describe natural phenomena?
The centripetal force is miniscule (about 0.3%) compared to gravity and you're wrong about there being no evidence that our weight varies. And remember that the density of the Earth plays a major role as well:

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/best-earth-gravity-map-ever-geoid-1591/

Even your beloved NASA can't figure out the data they allegedly collect.

Quote from: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030723.html

Why do some places on Earth have higher gravity than others? Sometimes the reason is unknown.

How am I to tell which excuse the globularists will use this time to explain the constantly changing measurements of "gravity"? Centripetal acceleration? Gravity?

I think in this case it is the responsibility of FET to provide an alternative to gravity which explains the global variations in gravitational acceleration.  Taken in context and with an understanding of the nature of gravity (as proposed under RET), most people will reasonably conclude that the measured deviations in Earth's gravitational field are due to local changes in density of material in the Earth's crust around certain areas.

It is well documented that the Earth's crust is not homogeneous, so given an understanding of the law of gravitation we would expect to observe measurable differences in gravitational acceleration around the globe.  Now if you wish to reject the gravitational data posted by NASA in this case (but collected by other agencies), then that is another argument altogether.  But if you choose to accept the evidence, then the following paragraphs will necessarily be your conclusions:

We may not understand wholly the mechanism by which gravity operates, but we do know that it exists and that it is dependent upon the amount of matter in objects and square of the distance between them.  These things have been measured carefully and are known.  Gravity accelerates all massive bodies towards one another, and the rate of acceleration is dependent upon the masses of the bodies and the square of the distance between them.

By contrast, FET proposes a universal acceleration as the mechanism by which objects are attracted to the surface of the Earth.  Unfortunately, a surface accelerating indefinitely at a constant rate will yield measurements across its surface which are consistent and identical in space and time.

Therefore, we can conclude that the hypothesis of UA is incorrect.  Again, note that this has no bearing on the shape of the Earth; this argument relates only to the mechanism which causes everything on Earth to accelerate towards its surface.

Again, note that this has no bearing on the shape of the Earth;

It definitely defines the shape of the Earth. A finite flat Earth cannot possibly have gravity because if it did, then the force of gravity wouldn't be perpendicular to the ground everywhere. At the edges of the Earth we would be getting pulled into the centre.

Quote from: Trev on September 01, 2011, 03:27:40 PM

Quote from: Agnostic on September 01, 2011, 02:46:28 PM

You are saying that you can prove that someone developed the concept of centripetal force.

No, I'm proving that the weight of a person increases as you get closer to the north and south pole respectively on the RE model.

Yes, theoretically, if the earth were a rapidly spinning sphere this would happen. The question then is: Do you have actual evidence this is case? Or are you simply proffering a thought-experiment for us all while parroting something you've been told?

This "thought-experiment" that I'm "parroting" can actually offer an explanation as to why our weights increase as we deviate from the equator.

What I haven't seen here yet, is an explanation in FE terms... Only ridiculous arguments against the origins of physics principles. Give me YOUR explanation, and then we can compare the reasoning behind both of our so-called "thought experiments."

This "thought-experiment" that I'm "parroting" can actually offer an explanation as to why our weights increase as we deviate from the equator.

I've seen absolutely zero evidence from you or anyone else that this is actually the case.

Quote from: Trev on September 02, 2011, 06:39:14 AM

This "thought-experiment" that I'm "parroting" can actually offer an explanation as to why our weights increase as we deviate from the equator.

I've seen absolutely zero evidence

Bullshit. We've shown you the evidence and you choose to ignore it.

This isn't a gravimetric survey of the poles vs. equator, but it does show the differences in g at different locations. It's a gravimetric survey of a volcano:
http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/8665/1/2(2)_p239-245.pdf

This isn't a gravimetric survey of the poles vs. equator...

Then it's not very helpful or relevant, is it?

However it does show that the earth cannot be a plane under the influence of a universal accelerator.

Quote from: momentia on September 02, 2011, 08:06:26 PM

This isn't a gravimetric survey of the poles vs. equator...

Then it's not very helpful or relevant, is it?

Seems like this is a question. No, you're wrong. It is helpful and it is very relevant.

What have we already said about assuming a uniformly dense round Earth when making these calculations? And we have also said that the Earth isn't uniformly dense, thus momentia's link is very relevant.

Of course the Earth isn't uniformly dense. When was the last time you lot have seen the Earth? It's made up of different things with different densities that are not uniformly spread around. Momentia's link, frankly, states the obvious. It also doesn't relate to FET vs. RET at all.

As Roundy has already stated - this is not very helpful, nor relevant.

In the UA model of FET, the "gravity" at all points on the Earth should be identical, don't you agree?

In the UA model of FET, the "gravity" at all points on the Earth should be identical, don't you agree?

The stars have a slight pulling sensation. This would be slightly more paramount at the top of a mountain than in Death Valley.

The stars have a slight pulling sensation.

For the record, there is no observational (zetetic) evidence that this is true. This is complete speculation, and hypocrisy on the part of Tom Bishop.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2011, 06:01:05 PM

The stars have a slight pulling sensation.

For the record, there is no observational (zetetic) evidence that this is true. This is complete speculation, and hypocrisy on the part of Tom Bishop.

There is evidence that when you get closer to the stars the level of g changes.

Quote from: General Disarray on September 04, 2011, 06:02:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2011, 06:01:05 PM

The stars have a slight pulling sensation.

For the record, there is no observational (zetetic) evidence that this is true. This is complete speculation, and hypocrisy on the part of Tom Bishop.

There is evidence that when you get closer to the stars the level of g changes.

There is no evidence that the stars cause this change.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2011, 06:08:38 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on September 04, 2011, 06:02:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2011, 06:01:05 PM

The stars have a slight pulling sensation.

For the record, there is no observational (zetetic) evidence that this is true. This is complete speculation, and hypocrisy on the part of Tom Bishop.

There is evidence that when you get closer to the stars the level of g changes.

There is no evidence that the stars cause this change.

It happens when you go towards the stars. This is evidence that the stars are the cause.

Quote from: General Disarray on September 04, 2011, 06:27:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2011, 06:08:38 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on September 04, 2011, 06:02:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2011, 06:01:05 PM

The stars have a slight pulling sensation.

For the record, there is no observational (zetetic) evidence that this is true. This is complete speculation, and hypocrisy on the part of Tom Bishop.

There is evidence that when you get closer to the stars the level of g changes.

There is no evidence that the stars cause this change.

It happens when you go towards the stars. This is evidence that the stars are the cause.

It happens when you go towards the earth. This is evidence that the earth are the cause. Also, changes in density beneath the surface of the earth cause changes in the local g. This is a very important concept used by surveyors. For example, one way to survey for oil deposits is to measure the local g around an area and find places where g is lower, as this means lower density mass underneath (like an oil deposit).

Here's some reading:
http://books.google.com/books?id=NlKpOdEqGY4C&lpg=PA51&dq=gravimetric%20survey&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q=gravimetric%20survey&f=false

Quote from: General Disarray on September 04, 2011, 06:27:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2011, 06:08:38 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on September 04, 2011, 06:02:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2011, 06:01:05 PM

The stars have a slight pulling sensation.

For the record, there is no observational (zetetic) evidence that this is true. This is complete speculation, and hypocrisy on the part of Tom Bishop.

There is evidence that when you get closer to the stars the level of g changes.

There is no evidence that the stars cause this change.

It happens when you go towards the stars. This is evidence that the stars are the cause.

Or it could be God. Because this phenomenon can be explained by two different ideas, and neither one is visible (you see no puller particles or a god) it is evidence for neither. Isn't that right, Tom?

Quote from: General Disarray on September 04, 2011, 06:27:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2011, 06:08:38 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on September 04, 2011, 06:02:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2011, 06:01:05 PM

The stars have a slight pulling sensation.

For the record, there is no observational (zetetic) evidence that this is true. This is complete speculation, and hypocrisy on the part of Tom Bishop.

There is evidence that when you get closer to the stars the level of g changes.

There is no evidence that the stars cause this change.

It happens when you go towards the stars. This is evidence that the stars are the cause.

Have you seen or experienced any interaction between the stars and matter on earth? Does gravity only exist when it is convenient to your argument?