Gravity ?

  • 28 Replies
  • 5819 Views
?

Stoiss

  • 11
  • +0/-0
Gravity ?
« on: June 16, 2016, 06:03:23 AM »
Im a bit new in this. But do i understand correctly that gravity doesnt exist and that earth is just accelerating with 9.8 meter per second to give the impression of gravity of 1G ?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2016, 06:35:05 AM »
Do you think the Earth is round or flat? 

*

Pongo

  • 6752
  • +1/-0
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2016, 06:53:41 AM »
Im a bit new in this. But do i understand correctly that gravity doesnt exist and that earth is just accelerating with 9.8 meter per second to give the impression of gravity of 1G ?

9.8 meters/second ^2.  In the accelerating earth model, that is.

?

ibelle42

  • 68
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2016, 08:36:17 AM »
The force of gravity is measurably different at high elevations than at sea level.  This could not be the case were the earth moving along at some constant rate. 

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2016, 09:01:50 AM »
Wow, are you new here?  You should read all the hundreds of threads about gravity variations.  You might actually learn something, ibelle42. 

?

ibelle42

  • 68
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2016, 09:39:39 AM »
Wow, are you new here?  You should read all the hundreds of threads about gravity variations.  You might actually learn something, ibelle42.

The ones I have read seem conflicting and often contradictory.  And most digress into name-calling nonsense before the fact that gravitational force is measurably different at high elevations is ever actually explained, addressed or even acknowledged.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2016, 09:49:23 AM »
From my understanding (though this may have changed since I last investigated this when I was on the infinite plane kick) you gravimeters and accelerometers are simply not sensitive enough to find any difference if there is one, especially when you consider the difficulty of taking into account local mass distribution.
If you can't argue both ides, yoou u,nderstad neither

?

ibelle42

  • 68
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2016, 10:37:18 AM »
From my understanding (though this may have changed since I last investigated this when I was on the infinite plane kick) you gravimeters and accelerometers are simply not sensitive enough to find any difference if there is one, especially when you consider the difficulty of taking into account local mass distribution.

If they aren't sensitive enough, why DO they detect differences?  A lack of sensitivity would result in a lack of detectable difference.  Conversely, a detectable difference indicates high sensitivity.

You can't just wave away experimental data when it doesn't agree with you.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2016, 10:48:53 AM »
Why can your scientists not explain why gravity is so much lower in Canada?  Why do you insist that we must have answers for all of your dumb questions? 

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2016, 11:01:53 AM »
Wave away experimental evidence? You haven't provided any. You've just stated this evidence exists. You want me to do your research for you and then also debunk it for you?  :o
If you can't argue both ides, yoou u,nderstad neither

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • +0/-0
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2016, 11:13:20 AM »


Gravity anomaly map for several states.
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2016, 11:18:15 AM »
It is the same rock under all of those locations, right?  I thought you people believed that mass equals gravity, liar. 

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • +0/-0
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2016, 11:29:18 AM »
It is the same rock under all of those locations, right?  I thought you people believed that mass equals gravity, liar.

So "liar" is the word of the day, huh?  I wonder if it will stop seeming like a real word by the time you get tired of it.  Anyway, click the picture to go to the page I got it from.  I don't make this stuff up.  Mass does cause gravity, but Earth isn't a perfectly uniform sphere, so gravity isn't exactly the same everywhere. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2016, 11:38:02 AM »
Can you source this? I'll do my best to guess, but NAD27 could be referring to things other than the data source. LCL83 clearly refers to the projection. Notable is that this projection is one that is used due to its prevalence in the military.

No evidence has been found of any type of accelerometer having being used before the early 1920s. NAD27 was obviously in 1927, and at that time there was one device on the market I know about. It's design was suited for the following applications:
 “recording acceleration of
an airplane catapult, passenger elevators, aircraft shock absorbers
and to record vibrations of steam turbines, underground pipes and
forces of explosions . . .”

In other words, fairly high differences in acceleration. And this was reported in 1930, so we can expect that its accuracy had only increased since then.

Also, what defines an "anomoly". To me that word means measured gravitational amounts that differ from the prediction of the model. If that is the case, this is just a picture of all the mistakes in the round earth model.

In short: more information please. Its pretty silly for you to post this picture and expect us to know what to make of it. Where is the data? How was it gathered? What devices were used? Is this the predicted gravity or the measured?

This time don't use the google image search.
If you can't argue both ides, yoou u,nderstad neither

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2016, 11:39:37 AM »
Edit: I see now, going to read on it a bit.

First thoughts: Bougher gravity anomoly map huh? Sounds like the were using the infinite plane model.
If you can't argue both ides, yoou u,nderstad neither

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2016, 12:02:41 PM »
Another thought experiment gone awry. Maybe the thought police, I mean roudies, can take it up a notch? 

?

Alpha2Omega

  • 4107
  • +1/-1
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2016, 12:36:04 PM »
It is the same rock under all of those locations, right? 

No. That is an incorrect assumption. The purpose of gravity surveys is to detect and map changes in the subsurface geology.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2016, 12:38:37 PM »
Who invited you to speak in the Questions and Answers forum?  Perhaps you think this is the Round Earth Society? 

?

Alpha2Omega

  • 4107
  • +1/-1
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2016, 01:37:45 PM »
Who invited you to speak in the Questions and Answers forum? 

Assuming this outburst was in response to the post directly above it, you did.

You earlier addressed a question to "you people". I knew the answer.
 
Quote
Perhaps you think this is the Round Earth Society?

I'll take this question as another invitation to answer.

No. It clearly isn't.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • +0/-0
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2016, 01:48:38 PM »
First thoughts: Bougher gravity anomoly map huh? Sounds like the were using the infinite plane model.

What?  Where are you getting that? 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2016, 01:52:17 PM »
Is "you people" an offensive term?  Now you people are going to make this racist? 

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2016, 01:56:07 PM »
First thoughts: Bougher gravity anomoly map huh? Sounds like the were using the infinite plane model.

What?  Where are you getting that?
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BouguerGravity.html
If you can't argue both ides, yoou u,nderstad neither

?

ibelle42

  • 68
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2016, 02:28:04 PM »
Wave away experimental evidence? You haven't provided any. You've just stated this evidence exists. You want me to do your research for you and then also debunk it for you?  :o

You've got a fair point, I should have included data.  But Blue Moon got to it first.

To the Debunking!

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11852
  • +10/-5
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #23 on: June 16, 2016, 05:58:44 PM »
Do you think the Earth is round or flat?
I don't think he has enough brain power to think about a question like that.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

JusticeCat

  • 16
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #24 on: June 16, 2016, 09:39:35 PM »
wow i really love how a question about this ideology (which is what this forum page is about) is just met with insults and ridicule for just about no reason at all

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #25 on: June 16, 2016, 09:44:15 PM »
Im a bit new in this. But do i understand correctly that gravity doesnt exist and that earth is just accelerating with 9.8 meter per second to give the impression of gravity of 1G ?
9.8 meters/second ^2.  In the accelerating earth model, that is.
So what would be de rigueur on the gravity issue? 

UA, John Davis' infinite plane, Sceptimatic's "atmospheric pressure" or whatever, "denspressure" and I have seen that "It's just in the nature of things to fall down" .

Must be a bit hard hoping for Global acceptance of the "Flat Earth hypothesis" when no-one knows what makes things fall down!

?

Stoiss

  • 11
  • +0/-0
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2016, 12:08:10 AM »
Its just a bit hard to find what exactly is the official explanation for gravity.
It seems a bit to me that the official laws of physics and how the world works keeps changing all the time.

As for the 9.8m/s acceleration can obviously not be right so i was just wondering what makes up for the "pull of earth"
 

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2016, 05:48:24 AM »
Its just a bit hard to find what exactly is the official explanation for gravity.
It seems a bit to me that the official laws of physics and how the world works keeps changing all the time.

As for the 9.8m/s acceleration can obviously not be right so i was just wondering what makes up for the "pull of earth"
I think the latest idea is that you roll a dice to find the explanation for today.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Gravity ?
« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2016, 08:05:42 AM »
As a group of free thinkers with many beliefs under our umbrella we don't have an official explanation. But, we are demphasizing the UA soon.
If you can't argue both ides, yoou u,nderstad neither