What is wrong in this Picture ?

One of the things you just said was it happens at different altitudes. Now you're telling me that you're not talking about altitude or elevation.     Why do globularists have such problems keeping their thoughts straight?

One of the things you just said was it happens at different altitudes. Now you're telling me that you're not talking about altitude or elevation.     Why do globularists have such problems keeping their thoughts straight?

It's hard to keep your thoughts straight when you're hanging out with a bunch of tinfoil-hatters.

Basically, we can detect differences in the gravitational field with a gravimeter. Two ways we can detect this are:
- Change altitude
- Stay at same altitude (sea level for example), but go somewhere else on Earth.

You "explained" the first scenario, but you can't explain the second, or why measuring the G-field around the Earth matches what we would expect on an oblate spheroid.
The only explanation would be: "there is bulge (that peaks at the equator) around the flat Earth"

-Change altitude: increasing proximity to celestial bodies
-"Go somewhere else on earth": moving in relation to celestial bodies

Why is that inexplicable to you?

-Change altitude: increasing proximity to celestial bodies
-"Go somewhere else on earth": moving in relation to celestial bodies

Why is that inexplicable to you?

This
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gravity_of_Earth#Comparative_gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world

I don't see correlation. The rest of the article says you are wrong as well.

Plus there is this thread where I show you can't have variances on a flat earth.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63935.0#.VYOKm0brDEo

A link without commentary to a wiki page. Surely, I defer to your grand understanding, sok.

Another link to a thread wherein you show a lack of elementary physics understanding.  You're on a roll...   

A link without commentary to a wiki page. Surely, I defer to your grand understanding, sok.

Another link to a thread wherein you show a lack of elementary physics understanding.  You're on a roll...   

No need for commentary. It supplements my statement above.
The gravitational variances around the world match exactly what we would expect on an oblate spheroid Earth. To explain this we have two possibilities:
-The Earth is an oblate spheroid.
-"moving in relation to celestial bodies", whatever that means.

... Occam's Razor yadda yadda...

Oh and in that thread nowhere did I see "a lack of elementary physics understanding", nice try though.

A link without commentary to a wiki page. Surely, I defer to your grand understanding, sok.

kinda thought it explained itself. Gravitational measurements that show no correlation to altitude.

Another link to a thread wherein you show a lack of elementary physics understanding.  You're on a roll...   

Yet you couldn't. Feel free to back up your claim. Or just be a typical fe'er and not be able to back anything up. Whatever.

No need for commentary. It supplements my statement above.
The gravitational variances around the world match exactly what we would expect on an oblate spheroid Earth. To explain this we have two possibilities:
-The Earth is an oblate spheroid.
-"moving in relation to celestial bodies", whatever that means.

It's exactly what we would expect if we would have celestial gravitation concentrated about the equator (witness the approximate paths of the sun, moon), as well. What makes your pre-expectation more valid?

Oh and in that thread nowhere did I see "a lack of elementary physics understanding", nice try though.

If you feel comfortable admitting such, that's fine by me.

It's exactly what we would expect if we would have celestial gravitation concentrated about the equator (witness the approximate paths of the sun, moon), as well. What makes your pre-expectation more valid?

That would fluctuate throughout the day, as the sun in your "model" is moving. We don't observe fluctuating gravity at a single point in reality.

If you feel comfortable admitting such, that's fine by me.

K

Ski seems to have ignored my post. Maybe he can't explain why Denver with an altitude of 5280 feet has gravity that is more or similar to cities that are at sea level.

Did I just see a flat Earther claim that someone else has a lack of basic elementary physics?  Seriously.
So lets see how that works then.
Please elaborate why the centrifugal force of the Earths spin at the equator matches with the decrease in expected gravity in that area for the distance from the center of the sphere?  Do you understand how the forces can counteract?
We will just stay on this for a second while you show your vast understanding of physics.  Please continue.
If it is the increase in celestial objects that "pull" you away from the Earth in those areas, what is this force then?  Gravity of a sufficiently size and density (incase you don't understand density it is the amount of mass concentrated in relation to the space it occupies), would actually form into a ball. 
So are you saying you believe in gravity but only part?  If so how do you explain how these celestial objects that exert enough gravity to counteract Earths gravity in a significant enough way to change measurements, are spherical in nature?  Or is it more of the aether magical stuff?

Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2015, 02:39:22 PM

It's exactly what we would expect if we would have celestial gravitation concentrated about the equator (witness the approximate paths of the sun, moon), as well. What makes your pre-expectation more valid?

That would fluctuate throughout the day, as the sun in your "model" is moving. We don't observe fluctuating gravity at a single point in reality.

Uhm, ... we do   

Quote from: Dog on June 19, 2015, 02:42:12 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2015, 02:39:22 PM

It's exactly what we would expect if we would have celestial gravitation concentrated about the equator (witness the approximate paths of the sun, moon), as well. What makes your pre-expectation more valid?

That would fluctuate throughout the day, as the sun in your "model" is moving. We don't observe fluctuating gravity at a single point in reality.

Uhm, ... we do   

So still no rebuttal against the massive amount of evidence against your claims?

Quote from: Dog on June 19, 2015, 02:42:12 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2015, 02:39:22 PM

It's exactly what we would expect if we would have celestial gravitation concentrated about the equator (witness the approximate paths of the sun, moon), as well. What makes your pre-expectation more valid?

That would fluctuate throughout the day, as the sun in your "model" is moving. We don't observe fluctuating gravity at a single point in reality.

Uhm, ... we do   

Prove it

How do you propose to explain tides, for example, without fluctuating gravitational values based on the movement of celestial bodies? 

How do you propose to explain tides, for example, without fluctuating gravitational values based on the movement of celestial bodies? 

Can you provide evidence for the existence of daily fluctuations of axles at one part per say... 10000. If you can't, then your model is most certainly wrong.

Quote from: Ski on June 20, 2015, 04:58:31 PM

How do you propose to explain tides, for example, without fluctuating gravitational values based on the movement of celestial bodies? 

Can you provide evidence for the existence of daily fluctuations of axles at one part per say... 10000. If you can't, then your model is most certainly wrong.

Huh?    He just did; gravitation, as observed by tides.  Did you just pop in here without reading the thread?  Get on your game or NASA will fire you for sure. 

How does an object have a different acceleration than the earth's acceleration and not float away?

How do you propose to explain tides, for example, without fluctuating gravitational values based on the movement of celestial bodies? 

What gravitational model are you proposing?   Doesn't sound like denspressure,  doesn't sound like UA,  so what is your flat earth gravity model?

Tides forces are the natural result of diverging gravitational field lines.   Stretching longitudinally and compressing across the field direction.
Tidal forces in a uniform gravitational field are zero,  therefore tides are not possible under UA.

How does an object have a different acceleration than the earth's acceleration and not float away?

I find it difficult to believe that you are being deliberately obtuse.

If the earth is hurtling along at an arse hair off the speed of light, and constantly accelerating, then any variations in g, whether they are caused by "celestial bodies" or mass migrations of tooth fairies, would cause the planet to tear apart in nano seconds.

UA is simply incompatible with measured variations in g across the earth's surface, and therefore falsified.  You need to up with something that matches observations.

Get back to me when you understand why "an arse hair off the speed of light" is completely irrelevant in the context of your false blanket statement regarding the earth tearing itself apart.

Further I believe I've addressed variations in measured values of 'g' to any competent person's understanding.

Get back to me when you understand why "an arse hair off the speed of light" is completely irrelevant in the context of your false blanket statement regarding the earth tearing itself apart.

You are correct in one sense - the earth would tear itself apart whatever the speed.  The relativistic velocity just means it would do it much more quickly and spectacularly.

Further I believe I've addressed variations in measured values of 'g' to any competent person's understanding.

Any variations in g would mean (under the UA model) that different parts of the planet are accelerating at different rates - with predictable results.

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2015, 05:36:18 AM

Get back to me when you understand why "an arse hair off the speed of light" is completely irrelevant in the context of your false blanket statement regarding the earth tearing itself apart.

You are correct in one sense - the earth would tear itself apart whatever the speed.  The relativistic velocity just means it would do it much more quickly and spectacularly.

Why isn't the earth being torn apart in RET?  And why are you using the term "relativistic velocity" in this context?

Any variations in g would mean (under the UA model) that different parts of the planet are accelerating at different rates - with predictable results.

Right, because of the "relativistic velocity" or something....   

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on June 25, 2015, 09:19:33 AM

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2015, 05:36:18 AM

Get back to me when you understand why "an arse hair off the speed of light" is completely irrelevant in the context of your false blanket statement regarding the earth tearing itself apart.

You are correct in one sense - the earth would tear itself apart whatever the speed.  The relativistic velocity just means it would do it much more quickly and spectacularly.

Why isn't the earth being torn apart in RET?  And why are you using the term "relativistic velocity" in this context?

Because, unlike UA proposed for the flat earth in place of gravity, the force gravity exerts on your mass accelerates you toward the center of the Earth at about 9.8 m/s², but this varies slightly depending on where (and how far from the center of the Earth) you are. UA has the flat earth itself accelerating "upward" at 9.8 m/s². If this varies over the surface (it's  does), then part of Earth is accelerating at a higher rate than another, which means the areas with higher acceleration at the surface (the poles vs. the Equator) will be traveling faster and cover more distance in a finite amount of time.

The measured difference in the acceleration of gravity at sea level at the Equator is about 0.5% less than at the poles.

Since distance traveled, s, is s = at²/2, then after one day (86400 seconds):

s_equator = 9.7755 m/s² (86400 sec)²/2
 = 36,486,858,000 m
 = 36,486,858 km

s_pole = 9.8245 m/s² (86400 sec)²/2
 = 36,669,750,000 m
 = 36,669,750 km

Meaning the polar regions have traveled "upward" 182,892 km further than the equatorial regions after a single day. Given that even the young-earth crowd puts the age of the Earth at several thousand years, it seems like this would be somewhat of a problem.

Quote

Any variations in g would mean (under the UA model) that different parts of the planet are accelerating at different rates - with predictable results.

Yep. The regions with just slightly lower acceleration would lag other regions by almost 200,000 km in very short order.

Right, because of the "relativistic velocity" or something....

No, we haven't even gotten into relativistic effects yet. Since velocity v = at, after one day, the slower-accelerating equatorial regions are traveling

v_equator = 9.7755 m/sec² * 86400 sec
 = 844,603.2 m/sec
 = 844.6 km/sec

This is still well below relativistic velocity (the speed of light is about 300,000 km/sec). After a few weeks, however...

Not that I'm defending UA,  but the only way I could see it working is if the flat earth was orbiting something,  at a radius and velocity that would provide 1g of centripetal acceleration,  the flat side would have to always facing towards the center,  that way you could have 1g without ever reaching relativistic velocities.   Differential gravity would still be a problem.

The bigger problem for UA, in my opinion is tidal forces,  you don't get tidal forces without divergence in the gravitational field,  and a flat earth gravitational field doesn't diverge ergo, no tides.

The other thing not mentioned so far, is that geological gravitational surveys are commonly used in prospecting,  the technique is to map tiny gravitational variances caused by different density ore bodies.   

Because, unlike UA proposed for the flat earth in place of gravity, the force gravity exerts on your mass accelerates you toward the center of the Earth at about 9.8 m/s², ..

I'm going to try to gently help you and say that apparent acceleration of you is toward the earth in both models. I'll let you figure the rest out on your own, seeing as how you are so much smarter than me.

No, we haven't even gotten into relativistic effects yet. Since velocity v = at, after one day, the slower-accelerating equatorial regions are traveling

v_equator = 9.7755 m/sec² * 86400 sec
 = 844,603.2 m/sec
 = 844.6 km/sec

This is still well below relativistic velocity (the speed of light is about 300,000 km/sec). After a few weeks, however...

You are not using the correct formula for velocity, first. Second, you're missing a good deal of thought about frames therein lies a good deal of your (plural) problems with the rubbish about relativistic velocities at all affecting the earth.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 25, 2015, 08:51:58 PM

Because, unlike UA proposed for the flat earth in place of gravity, the force gravity exerts on your mass accelerates you toward the center of the Earth at about 9.8 m/s², ..

I'm going to try to gently help you and say that apparent acceleration of you is toward the earth in both models. I'll let you figure the rest out on your own, seeing as how you are so much smarter than me.

No, actually, UA is based on the premise that the entire Earth is accelerating toward you. Equivalence principle and all that.

Quote

No, we haven't even gotten into relativistic effects yet. Since velocity v = at, after one day, the slower-accelerating equatorial regions are traveling

v_equator = 9.7755 m/sec² * 86400 sec
 = 844,603.2 m/sec
 = 844.6 km/sec

This is still well below relativistic velocity (the speed of light is about 300,000 km/sec). After a few weeks, however...

You are not using the correct formula for velocity, first. Second, you're missing a good deal of thought about frames therein lies a good deal of your (plural) problems with the rubbish about relativistic velocities at all affecting the earth.

Can you explain what you think the correct formula for velocity is? We can move on to frames of reference after this if you still want.

No, actually, UA is based on the premise that the entire Earth is accelerating toward you. Equivalence principle and all that.

Please explain more of this new relativity you've formed with a preferred frame.

Can you explain what you think the correct formula for velocity is? We can move on to frames of reference after this if you still want.

I thought we were talking about relativistic speeds. Can you explain why you believe that is the correct formula?