Isostasy Incorrect

Both the UA acceleration and the infinite earth hypotheses are science-fiction plots, they have no place here.

Let us take a closer look at those gravitational anomalies which cannot be explained, either in the now accepted attractive gravity scenario, or in the UA acceleration/infinite earth models (quote by James: these anomalies are themselves for the most part ficticious, except where they are brought about by the natural swelling and deflation of the Earth's surface under certain obvious conditions):


Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance. The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much. (G. B. Airy.) Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.


In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted.4 Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eotvos in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent fifth force. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world.

The majority of the experiments failed to find any evidence of a composition-dependent force; one or two did, but this is generally attributed to experimental error. Several earlier experimenters have detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing its physical condition. His work was not taken seriously by the scientific community, and the very precise spark photography technique he used in his free-fall experiments has never been used by other investigators. Experiments by Victor Cremieu showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth?s surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory.


On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.


Law of acceleration in view of the ether/aether theories:

http://www.rexresearch.com/brush/brush.htm

http://keelynet.com/gravity/grav7.txt


J.C. Maxwell's original ether theory, the very best explanation, also torsion physics:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_hyperphysics1.htm#Part%20I

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_hyperphysics2.htm#Part%20II

Double Helix theory of the Magnetic Field:

http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe.pdf

http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf


How J.P. Morgan hired H. Lorentz and O. Heaviside to eliminate and hide the terms of the original equations of Maxwell which were related to aether vortex theory:

http://www.svpforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=696&sid=df49b40b0918509a3a67b10075bf83fc


How H. Lorentz eliminated the terms of the Maxwell equations, which were not wanted by J.P. Morgan:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=205

Tom Bearden on the modified Maxwell equations:

" ... In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified EM/G [electromagnetic/ gravitational] portion of Maxwell's theory that arises when the translation/directional components of two interacting quaternions reduce to zero, but the scalar resultant remains and infolds a deterministic, dynamic structure that is a function of oppositive directional/translational components. In the infolding of EM energy inside a scalar potential, a structured scalar potential results, almost precisely as later shown by Whittaker but unnoticed by the scientific community. The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.

"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.


The best place to start in explaining what gravity actually is, and how this is related to the vorticular physics approach which describes the atom, is one of the greatest mysteries of modern science.

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms:

    It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature.  For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids.  Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.

Living tissue (with the exception of some bacteria) contains only L-amino acids (laevorotatory-left handed); dead tissue only D-amino acids (dextrorotatory-right handed).


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

        This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms, bacteria, molds, even viruses are found to have been made of L-amino acids.

http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c03.htm

A.N. Kozyrev's celebrated gyroscope experiments also show that there are two vorticular forces at work in the universe:

http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36 (also contains an account of Bruce DePalma's spinning ball experiment)


Isn't it strange that our FES members do support the view of a flat earth (as they should, of course) but use as an explanation for the orbits of the planets/stars the concept of photoelectric suspension? The very notion of the photon was invented by the same conspirators who came up with the hoax concerning the shape of the earth (and much more, as they modified radically the chronology of history).

Here is someone who chose to think carefully about the concept of the photon:

www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber12.pdf


More facts which do show the real nature of gravitY...

http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal%20lanterns.htm

ELECTRIC ROCK, GROUND ENERGY, SPACE RAYS, PHOTONUCLEAR REACTORS, SEA OF ENERGY, RADIOACTIVE IMPULSES SECTIONS


Cosmic rays are nothing but telluric currents; these telluric currents are torsion waves, consisting of dextrorotatory strings (gravity), and laevorotatory strings (electricity)...


AGAIN THE LAW OF ACCELERATION IS MOST EASILY EXPLAINED IN THE AETHER THEORY:


http://www.rexresearch.com/brush/brush.htm

http://keelynet.com/gravity/grav7.txt


THE AIRY EXPERIMENT OF 1871, PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF AETHER:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580

SEE ALSO:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38959.msg971069#msg971069

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38959.msg976795#msg976795
 

Except that Airy  theory which you are paraphrasing predicts that such displacement takes place into the crust and mantle, not further.  You also seem to ignore Flexor work which talks of regional compensation and Pratt's theory which covers density differences rather than subtruding crust.

Of course there is some contradiction between their theories and measured data.  I imagine its because they don't know the shape of the earth.

Much of the rest of your post is wandering and has nothing to do with the topic.  In fact, your entire post has little or nothing to do with this thread.  I'm splitting this.

Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance. The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much. (G. B. Airy.) Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.


In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted.4 Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eotvos in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent fifth force. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world.

The majority of the experiments failed to find any evidence of a composition-dependent force; one or two did, but this is generally attributed to experimental error. Several earlier experimenters have detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing its physical condition. His work was not taken seriously by the scientific community, and the very precise spark photography technique he used in his free-fall experiments has never been used by other investigators. Experiments by Victor Cremieu showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth?s surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory.


On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.

I honestly don't know what the main point of this post is, but I would say, if you are going to copypasta your post, source it:
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_gravity01.htm
(I also recognize one of your other posts as being copied from the first part of the second site.)

Extremely disappointing.

Hey, I got something that contradicts this entire theory with a simple question.

How the hell are we able to take flights around the world if its flat?

Sometimes it doesn't take a scientific explaination, just common sense.

I honestly don't know what the main point of this post is, but I would say, if you are going to copypasta your post, source it:
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_gravity01.htm
(I also recognize one of your other posts as being copied from the first part of the second site.)

I always knew levee couldn't possibly be dumb enough to waste all that time to write out that much bullshit every time he posts, just couldn't be bothered to prove it myself.

Hey, I got something that contradicts this entire theory with a simple question.

How the hell are we able to take flights around the world if its flat?

Sometimes it doesn't take a scientific explaination, just common sense.

Read the FAQ bro.

I take it from the Q&A:

Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"

A: The airline pilots are guided by their GPS. Remember that satellites do not exist. The replacement data given from pseudolites deliberately throwing distorting all the paths to make it the flights take different times. The curvature of these paths can add or subtract great distances without the overall turning being obvious to someone traveling it.

That's asumptions, not proof. And far too complicated. And incoherent with the distances mesured on the Earth.

Except that Airy  theory which you are paraphrasing predicts that such displacement takes place into the crust and mantle, not further.  You also seem to ignore Flexor work which talks of regional compensation and Pratt's theory which covers density differences rather than subtruding crust.

Of course there is some contradiction between their theories and measured data.  I imagine its because they don't know the shape of the earth.

Much of the rest of your post is wandering and has nothing to do with the topic.  In fact, your entire post has little or nothing to do with this thread.  I'm splitting this.

You have never studied any of the subjects I mentioned here...especially the Airy experiment...the notion of bibliographical material seems foreign to your scientific approach...no wonder you have been relying on the infinite earth hypothesis...

"Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)


Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Airy.htm

Airy discovered that there was no change in the aberration through the refracting water in a supposedly "moving" earth. So what did it show then? It showed that only one side was moving and since that was the star side, it means the earth was stationary all along!


Do not pretend you do not understand my point: the Airy experiment makes both the UA acceleration and your infinite earth theories absolutely superfluous.

All the other quotes I provided in my message prove one point: the FES abysmal ignorance of the facts concerning gravity anomalies...

Please read again, this is what my original message contained:

The best place to start in explaining what gravity actually is, and how this is related to the vorticular physics approach which describes the atom, is one of the greatest mysteries of modern science.

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms:

    It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature.  For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids.  Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.

Living tissue (with the exception of some bacteria) contains only L-amino acids (laevorotatory-left handed); dead tissue only D-amino acids (dextrorotatory-right handed).


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

        This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms, bacteria, molds, even viruses are found to have been made of L-amino acids.

http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c03.htm

A.N. Kozyrev's celebrated gyroscope experiments also show that there are two vorticular forces at work in the universe:

http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36 (also contains an account of Bruce DePalma's spinning ball experiment)


Therefore, we have two gravitational forces at work: one causes disintegration/decay/inertia (dextrorotatory waves), the other provides the antigravitational effects (laevorotatory waves), as in the Biefeld-Brown effect...these are known as telluric currents, well documented and studied here:

http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal%20lanterns.htm (ELECTRIC ROCK, GROUND ENERGY, SPACE RAYS, PHOTONUCLEAR REACTORS, SEA OF ENERGY, RADIOACTIVE IMPULSES SECTIONS)


The ONLY disappoinment here, John, is your superficial approach to the science of gravity...


PS I did not start any new thread...in fact I rarely do, if ever...my message was moved from the other discussion, where it was posted initially...