Centripetal Acceleration and Weight

How do you know that the constant variation of local g is just enough to be explained away by globularism?

I'm not sure I understand your question, especially the "explained away" part.

I'm sure you don't.

I'm sure you don't.

So I take it you don't know what you were talking about?

Quote from: pitdroidtech on September 07, 2011, 03:15:00 AM

  The hourly and minute changes to the gravitational field you mention are explainable by density of the earth at a given point, but not by the positions of the stars at a given time. 

The density of the round earth changes hourly and by the minute? What a fascinating world you've all invented. Far simpler to accord these changes to the celestial bodies, but I understand your fanatical defense of globularism.

Quote

  Even if we allow that the gravitational affect of the stars is spread out and averaged over the surface of the earth, this would still not affect tops of mountains measurably less than ground at sea level.  The stars are just too far away.

Stars are only a few thousand miles away. Your adherence to the myth that the stars are (if you forgive the term) "astronomically" far away is fatally affecting your argument.

The density of the earth does change minute to minute, but the increments are so small as to completely dismiss the stars as an explanation for the observed reduction of gravity at height.  The movement of the sun and moon with respect to earth is a much more predominant affecter of local gravity in terms of change over time.  Once you account for these forces, there is nothing left to explain the stars having any affect.  The gravitational map does not match with a possible celestial affect.

The belief in the work of the world's astronauts who have travelled beyond the measly 3100 miles FET proposes, or the landing of probes on the surface of other planets hundreds of thousands of kilometres away and the taking of photos there where the "celestial" bodies are effectively no closer, isn't needed and I have not claimed it as a supporting tenent of my argument.

The record of gravitational anomolies does not allow for an affect due to celestial bodies.  All the relevant factors are accounted for.  Therefore, if the stars have gravity, they have to be an extremely long distance away to have no measurable affect.

The affect of gravity is well known.  It's a quantifiable force, even if it's exact nature is unknown.  The observed affect of gravity on Earth, and the formulas derived from direct observation, happen to fit perfectly with the galaxies and stars we see in the night sky.  By observing remote star systems and the way for example two stars interact with eachother in a binary system, and applying known graviational laws to the orbit times and distances of the two stars, we can plot what mass they'd have to have to explain the observed orbits.  Even just one of those systems has a mass that if sitting only 3100 miles above use would have an affect hundreds of thousands of times more powerful than the moon or sun combined.  Not to mention the heat, but that's another thing.  And there are thousands, nay millions of such systems in the Milky Way alone.

It's fun to argue these little slices of cosmology with you FE'ers, but the bottomline there is just way too much evidence to support the accepted model of cosmology and FET just doesn't fit into that.

  Once you account for these forces, there is nothing left to explain the stars having any affect.  The gravitational map does not match with a possible celestial affect... The record of gravitational anomolies does not allow for an affect due to celestial bodies.  All the relevant factors are accounted for.  Therefore, if the stars have gravity, they have to be an extremely long distance away to have no measurable affect.

You are using the term stellar and the word celestial interchangeably in this conversation. If the accepted values for local g at altitude are used, the effect of nearness to the celestial bodies would produce only an approximate quarter of a percent of change in g at altitude. And again, the stars are not an extremely long distance away.

Quote from: pitdroidtech on September 07, 2011, 07:06:21 PM

  Once you account for these forces, there is nothing left to explain the stars having any affect.  The gravitational map does not match with a possible celestial affect... The record of gravitational anomolies does not allow for an affect due to celestial bodies.  All the relevant factors are accounted for.  Therefore, if the stars have gravity, they have to be an extremely long distance away to have no measurable affect.

You are using the term stellar and the word celestial interchangeably in this conversation. If the accepted values for local g at altitude are used, the effect of nearness to the celestial bodies would produce only an approximate quarter of a percent of change in g at altitude. And again, the stars are not an extremely long distance away.

Stars form a large portion of the celestial mass.  I'm excluding the sun and the moon from celestial.

You are arguing that gravity exists for Stars, but deny that they adhere to the normal rules of gravity?  I really think you need to clarify your model, it's hanging together by threads atm...

Stars form a large portion of the celestial mass.  I'm excluding the sun and the moon from celestial.

Stars are much smaller than the sun and the moon, though no doubt there are more of them.

Quote from: pitdroidtech on September 07, 2011, 08:42:56 PM

Stars form a large portion of the celestial mass.  I'm excluding the sun and the moon from celestial.

Stars are much smaller than the sun and the moon, though no doubt there are more of them.

The technique of determining parallax by distance shows us how far away the stars are.  Applying the laws of gravity (established through observation and experiment), tell us how massive the stars are (by looking at the orbits of ninary star systems) and using mass and spectrography we can establish a benchmark to measure starts that are further away than can be measured using parallax.

Quote from: Ski on September 07, 2011, 09:59:14 PM

Quote from: pitdroidtech on September 07, 2011, 08:42:56 PM

Stars form a large portion of the celestial mass.  I'm excluding the sun and the moon from celestial.

Stars are much smaller than the sun and the moon, though no doubt there are more of them.

The technique of determining parallax by distance shows us how far away the stars are.

Parallax assumes the earth is rotating around the sun and that the stars are stationary.

Quote from: pitdroidtech on September 08, 2011, 10:20:38 AM

Quote from: Ski on September 07, 2011, 09:59:14 PM

Quote from: pitdroidtech on September 07, 2011, 08:42:56 PM

Stars form a large portion of the celestial mass.  I'm excluding the sun and the moon from celestial.

Stars are much smaller than the sun and the moon, though no doubt there are more of them.

The technique of determining parallax by distance shows us how far away the stars are.

Parallax assumes the earth is rotating around the sun and that the stars are stationary.

And it's quite nifty to see that some stars (the closer ones in RET) move slightly due to parallax as opposed to other more distant stars. I always thought of the FET stars as being a blanket of little lights in the sky, being moved around. I couldn't quite imagine how some would be able to move from their positions in the sky as the year progressed as opposed to others not doing so.

Quote from: Ski on September 09, 2011, 06:27:33 PM

Parallax assumes the earth is rotating around the sun and that the stars are stationary.

And it's quite nifty to see that some stars (the closer ones in RET) move slightly due to parallax as opposed to other more distant stars. I always thought of the FET stars as being a blanket of little lights in the sky, being moved around. I couldn't quite imagine how some would be able to move from their positions in the sky as the year progressed as opposed to others not doing so.

Correct.

Let's also look at it this way.  We can directly observe mercury transiting the sun.  This picture is one of thousands by amateur astronomers, so we don't need to rely on NASA here.


The distance to mercury and can be determined  by radar.  You can't invoke NASA conspiracy theories to defunct radar.  Radar works.  I know, I have personally tested it with the assistance of various state police in my country.  By tracking Mercury, we know it tracks a circular orbit with the sun somewhere in the middle (due to the transit and at times blocking of mercury by the sun).  If for arguments sake we assume that the Sun is the centre of the circle inscribed by Mercury, we find, surprise surprise, that the Sun's position matches that predicted by the parallax method.  It would seem extremely unlikely that two methods come up with the same answer when both are premised on mistaken base assumptions.  Throw in Venus as well, and it becomes even less likely that the base assumptions are incorrect.

Venus/Sun transit taken with a Minolta A2


Fortunately we can use many other methods such as satelitte and probe telemetry, but disregarding that for now, let's look at the gravitational affect on orbits.  The fact that gravity so perfectly predicts planetary orbits that it has led to the discovery of planets, and continues to this day to faithfully predict the locations of the planets confirms the orbits of venus and mercury.  So we know venus and mercury orbit the sun and we know our varying distance to mercury and venus by radar measurements.  From this it can be determined by triangulation the distance to the sun form Earth.  This further the confirms the accuracy of the prediction that Earth is orbiting the sun, and therefore the paralax method can be used to measure the distances to the nearest stars.

They are going to claim those pics are fake. There was a pic of the ISS doing the same thing and it was said to be a close up of a orange with the ISS etched into it some how.

They are going to claim those pics are fake. There was a pic of the ISS doing the same thing and it was said to be a close up of a orange with the ISS etched into it some how.

You are right they no doubt will.  But it's fun deluding myself that they will play the game by the rules and accept evidence that is not from NASA as prima facie.  I also like to pull at the skin on on my cuticles even though it hurts....

Quote from: Puttah on September 09, 2011, 07:10:24 PM

Quote from: Ski on September 09, 2011, 06:27:33 PM

Parallax assumes the earth is rotating around the sun and that the stars are stationary.

And it's quite nifty to see that some stars (the closer ones in RET) move slightly due to parallax as opposed to other more distant stars. I always thought of the FET stars as being a blanket of little lights in the sky, being moved around. I couldn't quite imagine how some would be able to move from their positions in the sky as the year progressed as opposed to others not doing so.

Correct.

Let's also look at it this way.  We can directly observe mercury transiting the sun.  This picture is one of thousands by amateur astronomers, so we don't need to rely on NASA here.


The distance to mercury and can be determined  by radar.  You can't invoke NASA conspiracy theories to defunct radar.  Radar works.  I know, I have personally tested it with the assistance of various state police in my country.  By tracking Mercury, we know it tracks a circular orbit with the sun somewhere in the middle (due to the transit and at times blocking of mercury by the sun).  If for arguments sake we assume that the Sun is the centre of the circle inscribed by Mercury, we find, surprise surprise, that the Sun's position matches that predicted by the parallax method.  It would seem extremely unlikely that two methods come up with the same answer when both are premised on mistaken base assumptions.  Throw in Venus as well, and it becomes even less likely that the base assumptions are incorrect.

Venus/Sun transit taken with a Minolta A2


Fortunately we can use many other methods such as satelitte and probe telemetry, but disregarding that for now, let's look at the gravitational affect on orbits.  The fact that gravity so perfectly predicts planetary orbits that it has led to the discovery of planets, and continues to this day to faithfully predict the locations of the planets confirms the orbits of venus and mercury.  So we know venus and mercury orbit the sun and we know our varying distance to mercury and venus by radar measurements.  From this it can be determined by triangulation the distance to the sun form Earth.  This further the confirms the accuracy of the prediction that Earth is orbiting the sun, and therefore the paralax method can be used to measure the distances to the nearest stars.

We don't know that Venus and Mercury orbit the Sun. The picture is cool and only shows Venus in front of the Sun. That only proves that Venus is closer to earth than the sun.

We don't know that Venus and Mercury orbit the Sun. The picture is cool and only shows Venus in front of the Sun. That only proves that Venus is closer to earth than the sun.

Try to keep up.  I know the pictures are pretty, but reading the entire post and attempting to understand the argument is the first step to refuting...

What the pictures prove is that the sun is atleast further away than the closest orbit of venus. (as measured by radar)

This in itself is a serious problem for FET.

This along with other radar measurements, show that mercury and venus are circling the sun.

I will happily dance the dance of alleged radar distances in a dedicated thread. This one is getting too far off the beaten path.

I will happily dance the dance of alleged radar distances in a dedicated thread. This one is getting too far off the beaten path.

I'm game if you are, but as far as I'm concerned this is an RE win by default. 

The thread topic requires proof that the Earth is distant from the stars in order to refute the claim of stars contributing to weight, and since the parallax proof is central to that argument, any evidence that supports the parallax method is relevant to the topic.

I wonder, if in a radar measurement thread, when the trail of proof leads to yet more physics, will you spawn yet another thread, ad infinitum? 

Rather convenient if you ask me.

The thread topic requires proof that the Earth is distant from the stars in order to refute the claim of stars contributing to weight, ...

Actually, what the thread topic needs is some actual proof that weight changes at the equator due to centripetal acceleration, and that this hypothetical change (which isn't actually observed) would be due to centripetal acceleration and not any of the slew of other potential causes.

Quote from: pitdroidtech on September 10, 2011, 02:52:40 PM

The thread topic requires proof that the Earth is distant from the stars in order to refute the claim of stars contributing to weight, ...

Actually, what the thread topic needs is some actual proof that weight changes at the equator due to centripetal acceleration, and that this hypothetical change (which isn't actually observed) would be due to centripetal acceleration and not any of the slew of other potential causes.

Geophysicists have measured it which is why we know about it.  The reason it's identifiable from all the other stuff is that the other stuff (moon, sun) changes on schedule, the centripetal is constant, and it increases the further away from the poles you get, ie: you are measurably lighter at the equator than at the pole.  By about the weight of about a glass of water.  Fluctations due to density change very little in any given spot, but they do change drastically from area to area, centripetal does not - it's gradual slow change as you move away from the poles towards the equator. 

Maybe I'll bother finding the evidence, but to be honest the same reason I believe it's true, that geophysics is advanced enough a field to have identified any anomolies that contradicted gravitational theory or round spinning earth dynamics, is the same reason that you will use to shoot down any evidence that I find and post: ie: it's part of the conspiracy.

Instead I put the onus back onto you, if you care about spreading knowledge of FES, you need to find the gravitational readings, map them out and show how the model developed by geophysicists is inaccurate.  Otherwise, you may as well block membership of FES to non-adherants and just party amongst yourselves.

Geophysicists have measured it which is why we know about it.  The reason it's identifiable from all the other stuff is that the other stuff (moon, sun) changes on schedule, the centripetal is constant, and it increases the further away from the poles you get, ie: you are measurably lighter at the equator than at the pole.

I'm sorry, are you not the same person who told me that:
A) The measurements don't change (on schedule or otherwise)
B) Then presented a map that shows no trace of lower gravity at the equator vs poles

Here is a gravity map of the Earth.  The gravity field does not change hour to hour...

Oh, you are. Ok...

Quote from: pitdroidtech on September 10, 2011, 09:06:43 PM

Geophysicists have measured it which is why we know about it.  The reason it's identifiable from all the other stuff is that the other stuff (moon, sun) changes on schedule, the centripetal is constant, and it increases the further away from the poles you get, ie: you are measurably lighter at the equator than at the pole.

I'm sorry, are you not the same person who told me that:
A) The measurements don't change (on schedule or otherwise)
B) Then presented a map that shows no trace of lower gravity at the equator vs poles

Because of your insistence on always picking on one small piece of evidence and refusing to look at the total affect of all inputs at any given time, I've allowed myself to lose track of the bigger picture myself in terms of how I've framed my response, but I've always been clear about it within my own understanding of the issue.  I guess my confused response is a fair bow to your trolling efforts, well done sir.  I've corrected myself where necessary. 

Regarding the map, it's corrected for the known inputs that aren't related to geoidal distribution (density within the earth), so all the known factors cancel out to show geoidal distribution plus if it exists, the affect of the stars.  There is no celestial affect, or as I have said before, if there is it is equal at all surfaces of the planet, from a high mountain top to a seabed floor.  Therefore it cannot explain the reduction in g at height.

This link gives a very good explanation of how gravity maps are constructed, both land based and satellite based data methods.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Intro/Part2_1b.html

Note where they say

Another correction is made to compensate for the slight increase in gravity going poleward (this ranges from 978.04 cm/sec/sec at the equator to 983.2 cm/sec/sec at the pole, where the instrument would be closer to the center of mass)

If this correction wasn't made the gravity map would show the effect of centripetal force. If the correction was made, and there was no such actual effect, the gravity readings for the map would be skewed to the equator.  The fact that the map shows no such bias, as you usefully pointed out, is actually proof of the centripetal force.

To eliminate the NAS conspiracy, here's a 1984 map created using gravimeters in aircraft, compared to the recent GRACE satellite map:

1984 Map:


GRACE map:


The correlations are evident.

So now that I have supplied evidence based on observations, not guesswork, where's yours? You mentioned that globularist have recognised the affect, but have not yet produced this wonderful support for your theory? Were you perhaps speaking through your hat?

Quote from Ski September 06, 2011, 01:35:31 PM:

The gravitational field does change hour to hour, and it is measured, and even globularist scientists attribute it to the celestial objects.

If this correction wasn't made the gravity map would show the effect of centripetal force.

Or show that points along the equator (those most closely associated with the observed paths of the sun and moon, and therefore, with the highest vertical component of celestial gravitation) show the highest effect of this celestial gravitation.

So now that I have supplied evidence based on observations, not guesswork, where's yours? You mentioned that globularist have recognised the affect, but have not yet produced this wonderful support for your theory? Were you perhaps speaking through your hat?

Quote from Ski September 06, 2011, 01:35:31 PM:

Quote

The gravitational field does change hour to hour, and it is measured, and even globularist scientists attribute it to the celestial objects.

[/quote]
http://library.seg.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=GPYSA7000005000004000317000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

Quote from: pitdroidtech on September 11, 2011, 02:36:00 AM

If this correction wasn't made the gravity map would show the effect of centripetal force.

Or show that points along the equator (those most closely associated with the observed paths of the sun and moon, and therefore, with the highest vertical component of celestial gravitation) show the highest effect of this celestial gravitation.

The modelling corrects for non-geoidal gravitation.  Besides the reduction in g at height also occurs on mountains not on the equator. 

"The acceleration from the Sun is .0059 m/s2 (meters per second squared) and from the Moon is .000034 m/s2 or 176 times smaller." http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_earth.html#pull (it's NASA, but you can do you own calculations if you don't trust theirs)

Using this site http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv.html you can see that the reduction in g at 10km height, is roughly .1m/s/s.

The affect of the Sun and the Moon are almost neglible comparatively.  These calculations have been observed over and over again, along with the observed reduction in g at the poles.  Any possible celestial affect simply doesn't come into the equation.

Quote

So now that I have supplied evidence based on observations, not guesswork, where's yours? You mentioned that globularist have recognised the affect, but have not yet produced this wonderful support for your theory? Were you perhaps speaking through your hat?

Quote from Ski September 06, 2011, 01:35:31 PM:

Quote

The gravitational field does change hour to hour, and it is measured, and even globularist scientists attribute it to the celestial objects.

http://library.seg.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=GPYSA7000005000004000317000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

Really doesn't contribute anything. It could be talking about graviational variances due to sun and moon.  How about you buy the pdf and then quote the relevant data that supports your claim that globularists attribute the affect of changing gravitation to celestial bodies (being the stars, not the sun and the moon, which do not account for the proportional constant reduction in gravity at height)?

The affect of the Sun and the Moon are almost neglible comparatively.  These calculations have been observed over and over again, along with the observed reduction in g at the poles.  Any possible celestial affect simply doesn't come into the equation.

The sun and moon are part of the celestial effect. The sun and moon are part of the celestial system whose barycenter is above the earth resulting in a vertical vector.

Quote

Quote from Ski September 06, 2011, 01:35:31 PM:
http://library.seg.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=GPYSA7000005000004000317000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

Really doesn't contribute anything. It could be talking about graviational variances due to sun and moon.  How about you buy the pdf and then quote the relevant data that supports your claim that globularists attribute the affect of changing gravitation to celestial bodies (being the stars, not the sun and the moon, which do not account for the proportional constant reduction in gravity at height)?

It is talking about gravitational variances due to the sun and moon. Are you paying attention at all to the discussion, or are you just arguing with anything I say because I think the earth is flat and am, therefore, an idiot? I cannot hold your hand or spoon-feed you. The data is all there, and you are free to visit your local university if you do not wish to purchase the paper.


In addition to Wolf's groundbreaking discoveries, Weber published many studies about celestial gravitation. Here is an excerpt from the intro to "A Constraint on Astrophysical Sources of Gravity Waves" (Partridge, Wrixon):
"For several years, Weber (1969, 1970a, b) has been gathering data which indicate the existence of gravitational radiation from a celestial source. The source appears to lie in the general direction of the galactic center."
Paper is available here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...173L..75P

First off, the gravity maps of the earth measure deviation from the geoid, which already includes effects of centripetal force.

Second, these maps are averages of multiple gravity measurements.

Also, look at the scales on he different maps. Tidal effects are on the order of .1 mgal, while deviations from the geoid are on the order of 10 mgal. In other words, the effects are different by 2 orders of magnitude. This implies gravitational effects due to terrestrial origins.

Quote

First off, the gravity maps of the earth measure deviation from the geoid, which already includes effects of centripetal force.

They've doctored the data input for the map based on a thought experiment. I think we established that. The data offer seems to refute the claim that local g is lower on mountains. What doctoring did they do there?

Quote

Second, these maps are averages of multiple gravity measurements.

Yes, because the measurements change in a sinusoidal manner reflecting the heavens above (not to mention changes based on weather, instrumental error, etc).

Quote

Tidal effects are on the order of .1 mgal, while deviations from the geoid are on the order of 10 mgal. In other words, the effects are different by 2 orders of magnitude. This implies gravitational effects due to terrestrial origins.

Tidal effects are the effect of the moon and sun on top of the base celestial vector which you are ignoring.

Quote from: pitdroidtech on September 11, 2011, 08:07:58 PM

The affect of the Sun and the Moon are almost neglible comparatively.  These calculations have been observed over and over again, along with the observed reduction in g at the poles.  Any possible celestial affect simply doesn't come into the equation.

The sun and moon are part of the celestial effect. The sun and moon are part of the celestial system whose barycenter is above the earth resulting in a vertical vector.

So what?  It's an insufficient strength to account for the observed difference of readings at sea level compared to mountain height values for g.

Besides it varies depending on the location of the moon and the sun

Quote

Quote

Quote from Ski September 06, 2011, 01:35:31 PM:
http://library.seg.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=GPYSA7000005000004000317000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

Really doesn't contribute anything. It could be talking about graviational variances due to sun and moon.  How about you buy the pdf and then quote the relevant data that supports your claim that globularists attribute the affect of changing gravitation to celestial bodies (being the stars, not the sun and the moon, which do not account for the proportional constant reduction in gravity at height)?

It is talking about gravitational variances due to the sun and moon. Are you paying attention at all to the discussion, or are you just arguing with anything I say because I think the earth is flat and am, therefore, an idiot? I cannot hold your hand or spoon-feed you. The data is all there, and you are free to visit your local university if you do not wish to purchase the paper.


In addition to Wolf's groundbreaking discoveries, Weber published many studies about celestial gravitation. Here is an excerpt from the intro to "A Constraint on Astrophysical Sources of Gravity Waves" (Partridge, Wrixon):
"For several years, Weber (1969, 1970a, b) has been gathering data which indicate the existence of gravitational radiation from a celestial source. The source appears to lie in the general direction of the galactic center."
Paper is available here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...173L..75P

They're talking about gravity waves, orders of magnitute smaller than anything measurable with a gravimeter.

A gal is 1cm/s/s.  A mGal is 1/1000th of a gal, or roughly 1/100000th of 9.8m/s/s.  The chart above is measure in .1 increments, so we are talking millionths of a fraction of Earth's gravity.

btw, I asked you to post evidence, since you are the one who made a statement rather central to the argument but without any real evidence.  I'm not going to do your research for you.  If I make a statement, I will back it up with evidence when asked.  You have avoided presenting any evidence of your claim until now, and the evidence has shown, rather than to support your argument, to work against it.  Well done.

Ski, what is the "base celestial vector" caused by?

Not the sun or the moon, because acceleration fur to gravitation goes like the the inverse of distance squared. Tulsa is at latitude 36.154509, or .60 the radius of the FE equator. This was also taken during winter, when FE claims the sun is south of the equator. (I don't know the latitude, but it has never been given.)
However, by rough estimates, I would say that the sun was about twice as far from the earth at midnight than at noon, meaning that the variations of .2-.3 mgal = k/r^2-k/(2r)^2=3k/4r^2, where k is a constant. This means that the total acceleration can be calculated:
.3=3k/4r^2 =>k/r^2=.4mgal.

Since, this experiment occurred during a new moon, when tidal forces are strongest due to the alignment of the sun and the moon, the total acceleration due to the sun and moon is still on the order of .1 mgal.

If I had more information about the orbits of the moon and sun, I could separate their gravitational forces, but the order of magnitude would not jump to the needed values.