Universal Acceleration instead of Gravity

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 13, 2013, 05:53:32 PM

Oh, contrarian, are ya?  Well I'll have you know we don't tolerate your ilk in these parts!  Kidding, of course, it's good to have someone to say against claims.

Unfortunately, I have to point out how it appears you're mistaken.  The interaction of celestial masses would have to change, namely orbital velocity.  If G were changed, in either direction, the speed of orbital velocity would change proportionally, due to the nature of orbit.  This would also affect orbital distances.  If G were upped, everything would probably be much more compact, the asteroid belts would have likely been absorbed by a planet, and smaller objects would likely be closer to spherical than they are, too.

We don't know the mass of any of those objects    Scientists calculate the masses based on their movement and the accepted value of G..

Quote

This is all cursory speculation though, I'll freely admit that I'm not an astrophysicist.  Not to insult you, but I doubt you are either. 

We don't need to be, though I admire your humility.

For sake of simplicity, I'll say you're right, because I can't offer any hard proof to the contrary, only speculation on possible effects.  I'm reasonably certain you could calculate mass backward using the volume of the object in question, mass of another object, and force exerted between them, but you'd first have to perform something similar to the Cavendish Experiment with two objects of known mass.  Since we're calling the results of the experiment into question, all I can provide is that another experiment would have to be done in order to confirm.

I will explain this exactly one more time.  Gravitation accurately predicts the motions of the heavens.  Yes, it's a guess.  It, however, is a guess with thousands of accurate observations and calculations under it's belt, that fit more or less perfectly with what is expected.  We have not actively manipulated objects on a stellar scale, but it is by no means untested.  Every observation that coincides with what is predicted by gravitation is a test against it, as is every observation which doesn't.  Such is the nature of a descriptive theory, if what is described is accurately represented in all observations, the theory is accurate.  Of course, the theory must also be falsifiable.

FE models have not demonstrated a way to accurately predict the motions of the heavens without subscribing to some form of gravity, celestial or otherwise.  The original point of this thread was to see alternate ways to do so, amongst some other alternatives on a flat Earth.  The reason I did this is because if a form of gravity is subscribed to, one has to either explain why the Earth, made of the same fundamental stuff as everything else, isn't affected by it.  Feel free to do that, I'd be happy to hear it, but your argument consists mainly of, "We don't have to explain it because you haven't taken a chunk out of a star, and your observations that coincide precisely with expectations mean nothing."  You do, in fact, and you have to give an explanation which is not only falsifiable, but describes the motions of the heavens, why they act as they do, and can accurately predict their motions.

If you want to discuss any of the irrelevant points, such as god or why I'm not evaluating a flat Earth as opposed to observed facts, feel free to make another thread for it.

For sake of simplicity, I'll say you're right, because I can't offer any hard proof to the contrary, only speculation on possible effects.  I'm reasonably certain you could calculate mass backward using the volume of the object in question, mass of another object, and force exerted between them, but you'd first have to perform something similar to the Cavendish Experiment with two objects of known mass.  Since we're calling the results of the experiment into question, all I can provide is that another experiment would have to be done in order to confirm.

The salient point here is that we can plug any value of G into gravitational equations and make observations match reality. The masses of celestial objects are "calculated" based on those equations and the value of G. If we change any of the variables (G, distance/velocity, etc)  the equation will still predict celestial motion though our a priori assumptions force us to conclude a different value for the other variables.
Hence, as I do not accept the Cavendish, the Orthodoxy's "working backwards" as you say to find the values for mass, etc leaves me with uncompelling answers.

  Gravitation accurately predicts the motions of the heavens. 

I was going to ignore this post as it is late, but you obviously put some effort into it, and I feel obliged to provide some form of answer. Forgive my pruning of your post to the trunk as it were.
I have no truck with celestial gravitation. I have issue with the dozens of assumptions built upon that foundation.

  Gravitation accurately predicts the motions of the heavens... The reason I did this is because if a form of gravity is subscribed to, one has to either explain why the Earth, made of the same fundamental stuff as everything else, isn't affected by it.

First, I'm not sure this is fundamentally true. Orthodoxy has introduced exotic material and substance of unknowable properties to make the equations/predictions match reality. This is not a small "fudge factor", but indeed is (somewhat perversely) now thought to be some 97% of the universe. Which, I may remind,  in the orthodox cosmology is an astonishingly large amount of "stuff" that we know nothing about -- and further, cannot indeed be certain exists. This hints at a larger problem in the assumptions orthodoxy has built their house of cards upon.

Second, the earth is affected by gravity, as to be expected as it exerts some value to the SEM tensor. But as that implies, there are much larger variables among that equation than the "stuff" which celestial bodies and the earth are made of.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 14, 2013, 11:51:26 AM

For sake of simplicity, I'll say you're right, because I can't offer any hard proof to the contrary, only speculation on possible effects.  I'm reasonably certain you could calculate mass backward using the volume of the object in question, mass of another object, and force exerted between them, but you'd first have to perform something similar to the Cavendish Experiment with two objects of known mass.  Since we're calling the results of the experiment into question, all I can provide is that another experiment would have to be done in order to confirm.

The salient point here is that we can plug any value of G into gravitational equations and make observations match reality. The masses of celestial objects are "calculated" based on those equations and the value of G. If we change any of the variables (G, distance/velocity, etc)  the equation will still predict celestial motion though our a priori assumptions force us to conclude a different value for the other variables.
Hence, as I do not accept the Cavendish, the Orthodoxy's "working backwards" as you say to find the values for mass, etc leaves me with uncompelling answers.

Like I said to Tom, if you'd like to start a thread to discuss the validity of the Cavendish Experiment, I'd be more than willing to discuss.  I'm a bit low on time the next few days, but I'll get a word in where I can until I've got more of it on my hands.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 14, 2013, 12:28:38 PM

  Gravitation accurately predicts the motions of the heavens. 

I was going to ignore this post as it is late, but you obviously put some effort into it, and I feel obliged to provide some form of answer. Forgive my pruning of your post to the trunk as it were.
I have no truck with celestial gravitation. I have issue with the dozens of assumptions built upon that foundation.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 14, 2013, 12:28:38 PM

  Gravitation accurately predicts the motions of the heavens... The reason I did this is because if a form of gravity is subscribed to, one has to either explain why the Earth, made of the same fundamental stuff as everything else, isn't affected by it.

First, I'm not sure this is fundamentally true. Orthodoxy has introduced exotic material and substance of unknowable properties to make the equations/predictions match reality. This is not a small "fudge factor", but indeed is (somewhat perversely) now thought to be some 97% of the universe. Which, I may remind,  in the orthodox cosmology is an astonishingly large amount of "stuff" that we know nothing about -- and further, cannot indeed be certain exists. This hints at a larger problem in the assumptions orthodoxy has built their house of cards upon.

Second, the earth is affected by gravity, as to be expected as it exerts some value to the SEM tensor. But as that implies, there are much larger variables among that equation than the "stuff" which celestial bodies and the earth are made of.

If we're speaking of dark matter and dark energy, they're simply the hypotheses that describe observed phenomena.  Never once has either been described as having unknowable properties, only possibly unknown properties which have not been tested in a lab yet.

Dark energy isn't relevant, as it hypothetically drives the metric expansion of space, a phenomena which is independent of the Earth's shape.  Thus, it is unrelated to the topic at hand.

Dark matter is somewhat relevant, but only to the degree that we observe areas where phenomena occur that have not been explained with anything but such a descriptor.  As these occur regardless of the Earth's shape, they are also irrelevant to the discussion.

Both the metric expansion of space and phenomena attributed to dark matter occur regardless of whether the Earth is flat or spherical, and regardless of whether gravitation exists.

If your point was that either Earth or the rest of the cosmos aren't made of the same fundamental particles, massive objects behave the same in every other context.  If you have a way to tell that they're different, beyond some unconfirmed force affecting everything but Earth, then please throw it out there.  That's part of the point of this thread.

If we're speaking of dark matter and dark energy, they're simply the hypotheses that describe observed phenomena.  Never once has either been described as having unknowable properties, only possibly unknown properties which have not been tested in a lab yet.

How many experiments are currently being done on dark matter? If we don't even know if it exists, then it stands to reason we don't have the slightest what properties it has.

Dark energy isn't relevant, as it hypothetically drives the metric expansion of space, a phenomena which is independent of the Earth's shape.  Thus, it is unrelated to the topic at hand.

It's entirely relevant as it shows how skewed the cosmological orthodoxy is from not only reality but even their own models/predictions.

Dark matter is somewhat relevant, but only to the degree that we observe areas where phenomena occur that have not been explained with anything but such a descriptor.  As these occur regardless of the Earth's shape, they are also irrelevant to the discussion.

Would it be fair to say gravitation does not work on cosmological scales without the introduction of hypothetical matter with the only descriptor consisting of "well, it works if we do this"?

Both the metric expansion of space and phenomena attributed to dark matter occur regardless of whether the Earth is flat or spherical, and regardless of whether gravitation exists.

haha  Do they?

If you have a way to tell that they're different, beyond some unconfirmed force affecting everything but Earth, then please throw it out there. 

Deliciously ironic considering the substance of the rest of the post, wouldn't you agree?

Ski, it would be nice if you could present a substantial view of your own perspective. I feel like very often, you only critique the side you disagree with, which begins to feel like a cop out after a while.

Dark matter is somewhat relevant, but only to the degree that we observe areas where phenomena occur that have not been explained with anything but such a descriptor.  As these occur regardless of the Earth's shape, they are also irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote

Would it be fair to say gravitation does not work on cosmological scales without the introduction of hypothetical matter with the only descriptor consisting of "well, it works if we do this"?

Somewhat fair, although incredibly reductionist. You are leaving out the part where if the hypothesis proves fruitless after experimentation and observation they will admit they are wrong and search for another hypothesis. You seem to think there is a more appropriate response to the observations that lead to the hypothesizing of dark matter. Is there a better option in your mind?

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 15, 2013, 06:22:59 PM

If we're speaking of dark matter and dark energy, they're simply the hypotheses that describe observed phenomena.  Never once has either been described as having unknowable properties, only possibly unknown properties which have not been tested in a lab yet.

How many experiments are currently being done on dark matter? If we don't even know if it exists, then it stands to reason we don't have the slightest what properties it has.

And again, terms for descriptors of observed phenomena.  We know that something is occurring to cause these phenomena, and we term the hypothetical causes as such.  Their properties are what we observe, and while tests haven't been performed on either yet, they're also still just hypotheses.
 

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 15, 2013, 06:22:59 PM

Dark energy isn't relevant, as it hypothetically drives the metric expansion of space, a phenomena which is independent of the Earth's shape.  Thus, it is unrelated to the topic at hand.

It's entirely relevant as it shows how skewed the cosmological orthodoxy is from not only reality but even their own models/predictions.

Quote

Dark matter is somewhat relevant, but only to the degree that we observe areas where phenomena occur that have not been explained with anything but such a descriptor.  As these occur regardless of the Earth's shape, they are also irrelevant to the discussion.

Would it be fair to say gravitation does not work on cosmological scales without the introduction of hypothetical matter with the only descriptor consisting of "well, it works if we do this"?

Yes and no?  Again, dark matter isn't necessarily linked to gravitation.  What we observe is just extremely similar to gravitational lensing, enough so to be near indistinguishable in it's effect, and so the observation is attributed to such.  A hypothesis, one that could easily be proven wrong if we ever achieve interstellar travel.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 15, 2013, 06:22:59 PM

Both the metric expansion of space and phenomena attributed to dark matter occur regardless of whether the Earth is flat or spherical, and regardless of whether gravitation exists.

haha  Do they?

Yes.  In short, we know that something is driving objects apart from one another, and that whatever is doing so is causing such to happen at an increasing rate.  This happens regardless of the Earth's shape, and in spite of gravitation whether it exists or not.  The metric expansion of space isn't definitely the answer, but it is the best explanation available for the observed phenomena.

For dark matter, see above.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 15, 2013, 06:22:59 PM

If you have a way to tell that they're different, beyond some unconfirmed force affecting everything but Earth, then please throw it out there. 

Deliciously ironic considering the substance of the rest of the post, wouldn't you agree?

Afraid I don't see it, dark energy and dark matter don't behave in precisely the same way as either normal energy or normal/antimatter.  If your point was that the effects of the hypothetical causes don't exist, feel free to confirm yourself.  I recommend an visiting an observatory and picking the brains of the resident astronomers, even observing the phenomena and running through the math personally if you like.  But I suppose if you're rich you could just have an observatory commissioned and watch it's construction so you know there are no falsehoods at play.  Don't recommend that second one, though, unless you really are obscenely wealthy and intend to set it up to be open to the public.

If you have any actual evidence that those things exist beyond some unconfirmed force affecting everything but Earth, then please throw it out there. 

If you have any actual evidence that those things exist beyond some unconfirmed force affecting everything but Earth, then please throw it out there. 

Okay.  For the third time, gravitation isn't unconfirmed, and our models of it work rather well.  We have everything from dropping an apple, to observing the orbital motions of bodies in space, to achieving orbit ourselves, to reaching other bodies.  All predicted, achieved, and workable by what is described as gravitation.  And for the record, the alleged conspiracy of every spacefaring organization isn't up for debate in this topic, and is to be regarded as simple conjecture until proven conclusively in another thread.

Also, thanks for ignoring the points about how dark matter and energy aren't necessary for gravitation to be valid, and the repeated points that they're simply names for the hypothetical description of what could be causing either phenomena.

Quote from: Ski on August 19, 2013, 09:09:27 PM

If you have any actual evidence that those things exist beyond some unconfirmed force affecting everything but Earth, then please throw it out there. 

Okay.  For the third time, gravitation isn't unconfirmed, and our models of it work rather well.  We have everything from dropping an apple, to observing the orbital motions of bodies in space, to achieving orbit ourselves, to reaching other bodies.  All predicted, achieved, and workable by what is described as gravitation.  And for the record, the alleged conspiracy of every spacefaring organization isn't up for debate in this topic, and is to be regarded as simple conjecture until proven conclusively in another thread.

Also, thanks for ignoring the points about how dark matter and energy aren't necessary for gravitation to be valid, and the repeated points that they're simply names for the hypothetical description of what could be causing either phenomena.

To add to that we have gravity probe B observing frame-dragging by the Earth as among the more impressive displays of gravitation.

Quote from: Ski on August 19, 2013, 09:09:27 PM

If you have any actual evidence that those things exist beyond some unconfirmed force affecting everything but Earth, then please throw it out there. 

Okay.  For the third time, gravitation isn't unconfirmed, and our models of it work rather well. 

How does it work rather well if entire such astronomically (pardon my pun) large constructs as orthodoxy's galaxies are not behaving according to Newtonian or even relativistic predictions? If the only way we can make them work is by introducing CDM or other hypothetical constructs solely designed to prop up the equations, what a house of cards we are building. To then say the presence of some sort of dark matter is confirmed by those very same equations is the height of hubris.

Just wanted to point something out.

So the speed of light according to science is 299,792,458 m/s.

This has been called out to be false by many flat earthers and I've heard it mentioned that it would have to be much slower in reality. Whatever.

Moving on. So the acceleration of UA is 9.8 m/s/s. Okay.

There are 31,556,900 seconds in a year.

So let's say the Earth is 4000 years old. That would mean that it has been accelerating for about 126,227,600,000 seconds at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s. That would mean that the Earth is currently going 12,880,367,347 m/s. That's about 42 times faster than the speed of light and this is only considering the Earth being 4000 years old.

More adequately lets suggest the Earth 1,000,000 (1 million) years old. Still shy of my beliefs but a much more realistic number. That would be 31,556,900,000,000 seconds bringing the Earths speed to 309,257,620,000,000. That is 1,031,572 times faster than the speed of light.

Even more adequately lets suggest the Earth 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) years old. That would be 31,556,900,000,000,000 seconds bringing the Earths speed to 309,257,620,000,000,000. That is 1,031,572,381 times faster than the speed of light.


So, according to the FES:
A 4,000 year old Earth is 42 times faster than the speed of light.
A 1,000,000 Earth is over 1 million times faster than the speed of light.
A 1,000,000,000 Earth is over 1 billion times faster than the speed of light.

Seems legit.

Just pointing out some of the discrepancies raised by disregarding gravity for UA.  If UA is preferred, explanations need to be given for:

1.  The motions of observed celestial objects.
2.  The formation of observed celestial objects.
3.  What causes stars to luminesce.
4.  What causes what are observed as black holes.
5.  What causes UA.
6.  How UA affects objects.
7.  What UA affects, and in what manner.

Organized neatly to debate at your leisure.  If clarification is needed for any of the queries, just say, I'd be happy to elaborate.

UA model supposes that you feel the same pulling force throughout the surface of the earth. In UA model, an object must weigh the same regardless where it is. But this is actually not the case. An object weighs differently depending on its location (its latitude, altitude, density of the earth where it is etc).

UA model simply cannot explain this variation.

You can reproduce this experiment yourself too:

Travelling gnome experiment visits world's deepest lab
The Gnome Experiment


Whereas using the gravity model, not only the same phenomenon can be explained easily but it can also be predicted using various mathematical calculations:

Variation in gravity and apparent gravity

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 19, 2013, 10:58:21 PM

Quote from: Ski on August 19, 2013, 09:09:27 PM

If you have any actual evidence that those things exist beyond some unconfirmed force affecting everything but Earth, then please throw it out there. 

Okay.  For the third time, gravitation isn't unconfirmed, and our models of it work rather well. 

How does it work rather well if entire such astronomically (pardon my pun) large constructs as orthodoxy's galaxies are not behaving according to Newtonian or even relativistic predictions? If the only way we can make them work is by introducing CDM or other hypothetical constructs solely designed to prop up the equations, what a house of cards we are building. To then say the presence of some sort of dark matter is confirmed by those very same equations is the height of hubris.

To start off, galaxies behave rather accurately to relativistic calculations, believe it or not.  The early universe may not have, or we may be wrong about the early universe.

I'm waiting for the part where you explain how a hypothetical possibility of how galaxies may have formed is necessary, though.  Because, really, it isn't.  All it actually requires is a single part of the entire system of the early universe having even slightly more or less matter than the rest.  The reason for this is, again, attributed to dark matter.  It could just as easily be attributed to the early universe not being perfectly uniform.  But, again, this is very easily proven or disproven once we have a better understanding of quantum mechanics.

And also once again, dark matter isn't confirmed, unlike gravitation.  It's hypothetical.  It is also the best hypothesis we have at the moment to explain phenomena such as gravitational lensing in odd locations where it really shouldn't be, and how the hypothetically uniform early universe came to be as it is.

UA model supposes that you feel the same pulling force throughout the surface of the earth. In UA model, an object must weigh the same regardless where it is. But this is actually not the case. An object weighs differently depending on its location (its latitude, altitude, density of the earth where it is etc).

UA model simply cannot explain this variation.

You can reproduce this experiment yourself too:

Travelling gnome experiment visits world's deepest lab
The Gnome Experiment


Whereas using the gravity model, not only the same phenomenon can be explained easily but it can also be predicted using various mathematical calculations:

Variation in gravity and apparent gravity

In the last link above, you can also find the table below showing gravitation or acceleration (depending on your belief) in some cities of the world. We tend to be lighter nearer the equator. If you don't believe this you can try the Gnome Experiment yourself.

Can FEers explain this using UA model? Or is it time to find another hypothetical explanation than UA to explain the pulling force?

Location	m/s²
Amsterdam	9.817
Athens	9.800
Auckland	9.799
Bangkok	9.780
Brussels	9.815
Buenos Aires	9.797
Calcutta	9.785
Cape Town	9.796
Chicago	9.804
Copenhagen	9.821
Denver	9.798
Frankfurt	9.814
Havana	9.786
Helsinki	9.825
Istanbul	9.808
Jakarta	9.777
Kuala Lumpur	9.776
Kuwait	9.792
Lisbon	9.801
London	9.816
Los Angeles	9.796
Madrid	9.800
Manila	9.780
Mexico City	9.776
Montréal	9.809
New York City	9.802
Nicosia	9.797
Oslo	9.825
Ottawa	9.806
Paris	9.809
Rio de Janeiro	9.788
Rome	9.803
San Francisco	9.800
Singapore	9.776
Skopje	9.804
Stockholm	9.818
Sydney	9.797
Taipei	9.790
Tokyo	9.798
Vancouver	9.809
Washington	9.801
Wellington	9.803
Zurich	9.807

Just wanted to point something out.

So the speed of light according to science is 299,792,458 m/s.

This has been called out to be false by many flat earthers and I've heard it mentioned that it would have to be much slower in reality. Whatever.

Moving on. So the acceleration of UA is 9.8 m/s/s. Okay.

There are 31,556,900 seconds in a year.

So let's say the Earth is 4000 years old. That would mean that it has been accelerating for about 126,227,600,000 seconds at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s. That would mean that the Earth is currently going 12,880,367,347 m/s/s. That's about 42 times faster than the speed of light and this is only considering the Earth being 4000 years old.

More adequately lets suggest the Earth 1,000,000 (1 million) years old. Still shy of my beliefs but a much more realistic number. That would be 31,556,900,000,000 seconds bringing the Earths speed to 309,257,620,000,000. That is 1,031,572 times faster than the speed of light.

Even more adequately lets suggest the Earth 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) years old. That would be 31,556,900,000,000,000 seconds bringing the Earths speed to 309,257,620,000,000,000. That is 1,031,572,381 times faster than the speed of light.


So, according to the FES:
A 4,000 year old Earth is 42 times faster than the speed of light.
A 1,000,000 Earth is over 1 million times faster than the speed of light.
A 1,000,000,000 Earth is over 1 billion times faster than the speed of light.

Seems legit.

You aren't using the right equations.

UA model supposes that you feel the same pulling force throughout the surface of the earth. In UA model, an object must weigh the same regardless where it is. But this is actually not the case. An object weighs differently depending on its location (its latitude, altitude, density of the earth where it is etc).

Discrepancies, assuming they exist, are the a sum of negligible or near-negligible outside forces (celestial gravitation, even terrestrial, atmospheric pressure, etc)...

Quote from: Cartesian on August 21, 2013, 06:10:46 AM

UA model supposes that you feel the same pulling force throughout the surface of the earth. In UA model, an object must weigh the same regardless where it is. But this is actually not the case. An object weighs differently depending on its location (its latitude, altitude, density of the earth where it is etc).

Discrepancies, assuming they exist, are the a sum of negligible or near-negligible outside forces (celestial gravitation, even terrestrial, atmospheric pressure, etc)...

Wow. So these extremely variable sources are consistent enough to allow for submarines to navigate and can accurately predict the location of oil wells!

Man if stars can do that, maybe astrology has some weight behind it, pun totally intended.

To start off, galaxies behave rather accurately to relativistic calculations, believe it or not.

Perhaps you can explain the galaxy rotation curve problem for the rest of us then. I assume you will do so without the introduction of hypothetical stuffs, since it is rather accurate to begin with.

I'm waiting for the part where you explain how a hypothetical possibility of how galaxies may have formed is necessary, though.  Because, really, it isn't.  All it actually requires is a single part of the entire system of the early universe having even slightly more or less matter than the rest.  The reason for this is, again, attributed to dark matter.  It could just as easily be attributed to the early universe not being perfectly uniform.  But, again, this is very easily proven or disproven once we have a better understanding of quantum mechanics.

Orthodoxy's anistropic nature of the early universe really is neither here or there in the discussion we're currently having, but it is another difficulty for them, yes.

And also once again, dark matter isn't confirmed, unlike gravitation.  It's hypothetical.  It is also the best hypothesis we have at the moment to explain phenomena such as gravitational lensing in odd locations where it really shouldn't be, and how the hypothetically uniform early universe came to be as it is.

And other bigger problems you are apparently unaware of.

Quote from: Ski on August 21, 2013, 02:56:06 PM

Quote from: Cartesian on August 21, 2013, 06:10:46 AM

UA model supposes that you feel the same pulling force throughout the surface of the earth. In UA model, an object must weigh the same regardless where it is. But this is actually not the case. An object weighs differently depending on its location (its latitude, altitude, density of the earth where it is etc).

Discrepancies, assuming they exist, are the a sum of negligible or near-negligible outside forces (celestial gravitation, even terrestrial, atmospheric pressure, etc)...

Wow. So these extremely variable sources are consistent enough to allow for submarines to navigate and can accurately predict the location of oil wells!

Man if stars can do that, maybe astrology has some weight behind it, pun totally intended.

The measured value of g at any point will vary throughout the day. That is a simple fact. The fact that there is variance in measurements across the earth is hardly unexpected. I believe astrology may have some weight behind it, but you are delving into the esoteric and beyond science. Such things as horoscopes, at anyrate, are a mindless waste of time.

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 21, 2013, 03:00:24 PM

Quote from: Ski on August 21, 2013, 02:56:06 PM

Quote from: Cartesian on August 21, 2013, 06:10:46 AM

UA model supposes that you feel the same pulling force throughout the surface of the earth. In UA model, an object must weigh the same regardless where it is. But this is actually not the case. An object weighs differently depending on its location (its latitude, altitude, density of the earth where it is etc).

Discrepancies, assuming they exist, are the a sum of negligible or near-negligible outside forces (celestial gravitation, even terrestrial, atmospheric pressure, etc)...

Wow. So these extremely variable sources are consistent enough to allow for submarines to navigate and can accurately predict the location of oil wells!

Man if stars can do that, maybe astrology has some weight behind it, pun totally intended.

The measured value of g at any point will vary throughout the day. That is a simple fact. The fact that there is variance in measurements across the earth is hardly unexpected. I believe astrology may have some weight behind it, but you are delving into the esoteric and beyond science. Such things as horoscopes, at anyrate, are a mindless waste of time.

So these varying values of g accurately predicts the location of oil wells and aquifers? You'd think something as random as wind currents or as cyclical as astrology would vary in their predictions.

Discrepancies, assuming they exist, are the a sum of negligible or near-negligible outside forces (celestial gravitation, even terrestrial, atmospheric pressure, etc)...

 

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 21, 2013, 06:17:30 AM

To start off, galaxies behave rather accurately to relativistic calculations, believe it or not.

Perhaps you can explain the galaxy rotation curve problem for the rest of us then. I assume you will do so without the introduction of hypothetical stuffs, since it is rather accurate to begin with.

Alright, I'm wrong, dark matter is also the hypothetical solution to such.  It also behaves more or less the same in both instances, causing discrepancies in mass, in or near otherwise empty space.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 21, 2013, 06:17:30 AM

I'm waiting for the part where you explain how a hypothetical possibility of how galaxies may have formed is necessary, though.  Because, really, it isn't.  All it actually requires is a single part of the entire system of the early universe having even slightly more or less matter than the rest.  The reason for this is, again, attributed to dark matter.  It could just as easily be attributed to the early universe not being perfectly uniform.  But, again, this is very easily proven or disproven once we have a better understanding of quantum mechanics.

Orthodoxy's anistropic nature of the early universe really is neither here or there in the discussion we're currently having, but it is another difficulty for them, yes.

As you can likely tell, I believed you to be addressing another point.  The odd recurrence of a hypothetical form of matter which acts extremely similar in each instance is rather telling, though.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 21, 2013, 06:17:30 AM

And also once again, dark matter isn't confirmed, unlike gravitation.  It's hypothetical.  It is also the best hypothesis we have at the moment to explain phenomena such as gravitational lensing in odd locations where it really shouldn't be, and how the hypothetically uniform early universe came to be as it is.

And other bigger problems you are apparently unaware of.

Like I said previously, I'm waiting as to how the observed effects attributed to a hypothetical form of matter in any way invalidate gravitation.  If you'd like, we can continue in another thread, though.  This isn't the thread for the validity of gravitation and it's implications, it's for explanations of phenomena without gravitation.

I have no truck with celestial gravitation.

From G, to the following arbitrary value of celestial masses, hypothetical "stuffs" consisting of 97% of a mind-bogglingly large universe, etc. The whole thing is a deck of cards built on a priori assumptions waiting to be tumbled by a more comprehensive theory.

In truth, despite the billions of dollars spent on cosmological research, the whole thing is no less mysterious than the universal accelerator at root. The fact that one can claim Orthodoxy works "well-enough" and at the same time decry the world of the zeteticist as "hypothetical' or "fanciful" is humoursly ironic to me.

Quote from: Ski on August 14, 2013, 11:25:21 PM

I have no truck with celestial gravitation.

From G, to the following arbitrary value of celestial masses, hypothetical "stuffs" consisting of 97% of a mind-bogglingly large universe, etc. The whole thing is a deck of cards built on a priori assumptions waiting to be tumbled by a more comprehensive theory.

In truth, despite the billions of dollars spent on cosmological research, the whole thing is no less mysterious than the universal accelerator at root. The fact that one can claim Orthodoxy works "well-enough" and at the same time decry the world of the zeteticist as "hypothetical' or "fanciful" is humoursly ironic to me.

First thing, yours certainly isn't a more comprehensive theory.  It is a great amount more complex, in fact, as it has to explain why the effects of UA as well as 'celestial' gravitation and why galaxies behave as if under the influence of a hypothetical dark matter, as well as why 'celestial' gravitation doesn't affect the matter on Earth.  To be honest, you really should have issue with celestial gravitation, because it's still subject to the fallacy of special pleading.

Second, there are people actively working toward a unified theory of everything on the side of a spherical Earth which presumes gravitation, and they're making progress regularly.  The same can't be said of the opposing side.

Thirdly, this is all irrelevant to the thread, unless you're going to justify celestial gravitation with why it doesn't apply to the Earth.  On a fundamental level, as has been stated multiple times.

Quote from: Ski on August 21, 2013, 02:56:06 PM

Discrepancies, assuming they exist, are the a sum of negligible or near-negligible outside forces (celestial gravitation, even terrestrial, atmospheric pressure, etc)...

 

The text in bold is very ambiguous. It's location after "Celestial gravitation" implies you believe in terrestrial gravitation, but it's presence in a list of forces (containing 'atmospheric pressure' implies that terrestrial forces are getting in the way. Shall we logic them both?

Terrestrial gravitation means FE can't exist, since gravity would cause the platter to fold into itself and form a sphereoid.

As for 'terrestrial forces' causing variations in g, what would they be? You've covered atmospheric pressure--a variable dependent on temperature and causing things like wind and rain, so weather can be all clumped up into that one. But weather's chaotic and can't accurately predict the location of oil and aquifers.

So that leaves something about the oil and aquifers themselves that have to be causing these unknown terrestrial forces. But what could they do--so far underground--to affect gravity gradiometers if not gravity?

There's no reason some negligible terrestrial gravitation should not exist. I assume you believe some negligible Alex gravitation exists, and you are still here. Terrestrial gravitation is simply insufficient to overcome the hydrostatic forces of the earth.

There's no reason some negligible terrestrial gravitation should not exist. I assume you believe some negligible Alex gravitation exists, and you are still here. Terrestrial gravitation is simply insufficient to overcome the hydrostatic forces of the earth.

I'm glad to humor some discussion on the validity of gravitation, but that isn't the point of my OP.  That said, there is actually, if the both of you would quit derailing my thread.  You have to explain the difference between 'terrestrial' and 'celestial' on a fundamental level for the forces affecting them to be different in any way.  This has not been done, and so regardless of the fact that it could be the case, it isn't until you do.

Page 3:

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 12, 2013, 02:31:35 PM

The Cavendish Experiment works.  It works well enough to give the gravitational constant, which has proven accurate for most every object we've either been to or can calculate it's approximate attraction by effect on other objects.  So even if the experiment itself is faulty, it's accurate enough to provide numbers which are apparently rather accurate in and of themselves.

On the contrary, Newtonian mechanics have worked "well enough".  It doesn't matter a tinker's damn what value one gives to G -- the calculated value of celestial masses (which, let us be honest, are unknowable and only calculated backward by gravitational interaction) would then vary, but nothing would change in the interaction of celestial masses.

There is no difference between terrestrial and celestial gravitation excepting that of scope.

Page 3:

Quote from: Ski on August 13, 2013, 05:02:11 PM

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 12, 2013, 02:31:35 PM

The Cavendish Experiment works.  It works well enough to give the gravitational constant, which has proven accurate for most every object we've either been to or can calculate it's approximate attraction by effect on other objects.  So even if the experiment itself is faulty, it's accurate enough to provide numbers which are apparently rather accurate in and of themselves.

On the contrary, Newtonian mechanics have worked "well enough".  It doesn't matter a tinker's damn what value one gives to G -- the calculated value of celestial masses (which, let us be honest, are unknowable and only calculated backward by gravitational interaction) would then vary, but nothing would change in the interaction of celestial masses.

There is no difference between terrestrial and celestial gravitation excepting that of scope.

Are you saying gravity is magically weaker down here or that the celestial bodies are just a lot more massive? Keep in mind the celestial bodies have been shown to be made of the exact same matter as we have down here.