Acceleration is not constant on Earth

  • 453 Replies
  • 17182 Views
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #120 on: July 25, 2019, 12:13:24 AM »
I would consider your continual appeal to vacuum chambers as iron clad evidence you have no rational objection, even though a semi-objection has already been provided for you.
The atmosphere would not have a significant enough affect to cause the variations observed.
This has been explained repeatedly, yet you ignore it and just repeat the same nonsense.
Why?

Simply because you are incorrect. Scales do vary far greater than a fraction of one percent when left uncalibrated. Easily seen on a bathroom scale.

https://thewirecutter.com/blog/can-i-trust-my-bathroom-scale/

“ A dietician who weighed herself 15 times over the course of a day found that she’d “gained” seven pounds. ”

Not very scientific Tom. How about you get yourself one of these:
https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-gravimeter-drives-out-of-the-lab-and-into-the-hills/

Is this system accurate enough for you Tom? Slightly more accurate than your bathroom scales don’t you think.

Basing your stance on no more than a biased belief is hardly credible, especially when every single geologist bar none would disagree with you.


Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #121 on: July 25, 2019, 12:39:36 AM »
The scale increased a pound in an hour, and she said that she didn't eat anything.
Notice how eating was only one thing I said?
Why ignore the rest?

Just what time are you referring to?
Do you mean the first time she appeared to gain weight after going for a jog, after which she took off her shoes and lost it all and then some?

Then she had a completely different set of clothes on in the next one.

She was changing outfits by the hour?
Have you bothered looking at the photos where she is clearly in different outfits?
Sure, it doesn't change every time (which could just be that the clothes that were changed aren't visible, but it changes quite a lot.

Again, this is a completely useless thing to bring up, incapable of telling basically anything on the topic at hand.

Funny, but in the EU if a scale is not calibrated before use after repositioning then it is not a legitimate measurement device.
Do you know why?
Because they aren't using the scales to measure weight. They are using it to determine mass.
If you move a scale, due to the variations in gravity, the weight of an object of the same mass will vary and thus the scale will report an incorrect mass.

If what you are looking for is weight, rather than mass, the recalibration isn't needed.

Notice how it doesn't say if the temperature changes by a few degrees or the atmospheric pressure changes by a few mbar you need to re-calibrate and instead just requires re-calibration from changing location?

The nature of the Earth was changed to better explain the results of these experiments:
 “ The celebrated Huygens, by calculating centrifugal forces, had proved that the consequent diminution of weight on the surface of a sphere was not great enough to explain the phenomenon, and that therefore the earth must be a spheroid flattened at the poles. ”
You really seem to love quote mining that and lying about what it indicates.

Yes, some people believed Earth to be a perfect sphere, but that wasn't base upon any observation showing it had to be perfect.
It was unscientific to think Earth was a perfect sphere as that wasn't supported by anything.

But here is more of the quote:
"Never did reason and experiment so fully concur to establish a truth. The celebrated Huygens, by calculating centrifugal forces, had proved that the consequent diminution of weight on the surface of a sphere was not great enough to explain the phenomena, and that therefore the earth must be a spheroid flattened at the poles. Newton, by the principles of attraction, had found nearly the same relations; only it must be observed, that Huygens believed this force inherent in bodies determining them towards the centre of the globe, to be every where the same. He had not yet seen the discoveries of Newton; so that he considered the diminution of weight by the theory of centrifugal forces only."

Notice how Newton already figured it out, without needing an experiment to show a problem?
So Newton's predictions were then confirmed by experiment?

So no, observations met theory.
Your argument against it doing so are based upon a source which clearly indicates that they did agree.

It is also "known" that precision scales are greatly affected by their environments.
No, it isn't known.
What is known is that precision scales are so precise that even tiny variations can produce a noticeable shift in the reading, such as a person merely leaning on an improper table.

These variations other than due to gravity are much smaller than the variations we are discussing.
As such, it is irrelevant.

However what is known is that the acceleration due to gravity varies around the round Earth.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #122 on: July 25, 2019, 12:58:36 AM »
It is also "known" that precision scales are greatly affected by their environments.

https://bitesizebio.com/33245/drift-measurements-analytical-balances/

Drift in Measurements with Analytical Balances

" Pharmaceutical laboratories and bioscience research institutes make extensive use of analytical balances that are highly sensitive. These analytical balances are greatly affected by their environment and also by the way they are installed and handled. "

The people you cited failed to control for the environment. The experiment is still using ancient methodologies despite modern technology. Did they not know that weighing devices are affected by environment? Not disclosing such information can only be described as deception or ignorance, and I suspect that they are smart enough to figure eout that bringing a scale into another environment might affect the result.

Tom you are indeed the master of the red herrings and deception for sure. Rather than dealing with precision weight measuring devices that have an accuracy of around 0.0001g and are used for weighing tiny amounts, how about you deal with the actual devices that you fundamentally disagree with, gravimetric devices?
High precision scales are one thing, gravimetric devices are quite another.
Are you saying that you think all geological surveys ever carried out using gravimetric devices are flawed? Are you saying that every mining and oil survey carried out is flawed?
Precisely Tom what is your beef with the undeniable fact that gravity is variable?
Are you saying these gravity maps produced by the British Geological Survey are flawed because you have a problem with your bathroom scales?

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/data/gravAndMag.html



What precisely is the problem you have with gravitational variation other than it messes with your notion of a flat earth? If you have data to support your position by all means share it, but please avoid quoting yourself or your biased Wiki.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2019, 01:00:20 AM by Lonegranger »

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #123 on: July 25, 2019, 04:04:21 PM »
I would consider the fact that the weight experiments were not done in vacuum chambers as iron clad evidence that the RE don't really have much evidence on this topic. The experiment has not advanced in 300 years. This uncontrolled experiment showing fractions of a percent differences is referenced again and again mindlessly. Taking an uncalibrated scale from one location to another and finding patterns close to the equator? Really?

In the future when additional and better experiments are conducted we will find that there are no variations by latitude, like it was discovered for time dilation.

Tom, the vacuum isn't a factor in this measurement.  The scale shows zero before placing the weight on the scale, so the weight of the atmosphere is already accounted for. 
Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

*

sokarul

  • 17085
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #124 on: July 25, 2019, 04:11:29 PM »
All this trash talking scales seems to show why it’s better to use a gravimeter to measure gravity.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #125 on: July 25, 2019, 04:39:22 PM »
Tom, the vacuum isn't a factor in this measurement.  The scale shows zero before placing the weight on the scale, so the weight of the atmosphere is already accounted for.
It isn't the weight of the atmosphere which can be the issue it is the effect of buoyancy.

However as I showed above, that is insignificant.

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #126 on: July 25, 2019, 05:42:26 PM »
Tom, the vacuum isn't a factor in this measurement.  The scale shows zero before placing the weight on the scale, so the weight of the atmosphere is already accounted for.
It isn't the weight of the atmosphere which can be the issue it is the effect of buoyancy.

However as I showed above, that is insignificant.

Buoyancy?  As in, the weight becomes more buoyant with air around it?  Whoever proposes that has no idea how buoyancy works.  Because the weight is heavier than air, the air is bouyant in relation to the weight, thereby adding to  a weight measurement.  If there a way to calculate the lifted index of a steel weight, it would be a very low negative number, indicating stability.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2019, 08:22:21 AM by mightyfletch »
Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #127 on: July 25, 2019, 06:00:42 PM »
Insert princess bride meme.
Sorry fletch.
Maybe read up on that one.

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #128 on: July 25, 2019, 06:41:58 PM »
Insert princess bride meme.
Sorry fletch.
Maybe read up on that one.

I know what bouyancy is all about.  I got paid a great deal of money over the last 14 years to write operational weather forecasts. 

You have FEers here claiming a steel weight somehow becomes bouyant when air is around it.  Sorry, that's not how that works. 
Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 13861
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #129 on: July 25, 2019, 08:40:33 PM »
Insert princess bride meme.
Sorry fletch.
Maybe read up on that one.

I know what bouyancy is all about.  I got paid a great deal of money over the last 14 years to write operational weather forecasts. 

You have FEers here claiming a steel weight somehow becomes bouyant when air is around it.  Sorry, that's not how that works.
I eagerly look forward to your disproof of fluid dynamics!

*

rabinoz

  • 25608
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #130 on: July 25, 2019, 09:15:09 PM »
Tom, the vacuum isn't a factor in this measurement.  The scale shows zero before placing the weight on the scale, so the weight of the atmosphere is already accounted for.
It isn't the weight of the atmosphere which can be the issue it is the effect of buoyancy.

However as I showed above, that is insignificant.

Bouyancy?  As in, the weight becomes more bouyant with air around it?  Whoever proposes that has no idea how bouyancy works.  Because the weight is heavier than air, the air is bouyant in relation to the weight, thereby adding to  a weight measurement.  If there a way to calculate the lifted index of a steel weight, it would be a very low negative number, indicating stability.
Look at: Appendix 09: Correcting Mass for the Buoyancy of Air

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #131 on: July 25, 2019, 10:10:44 PM »
Insert princess bride meme.
Sorry fletch.
Maybe read up on that one.

I know what bouyancy is all about.  I got paid a great deal of money over the last 14 years to write operational weather forecasts. 

You have FEers here claiming a steel weight somehow becomes bouyant when air is around it.  Sorry, that's not how that works.
I eagerly look forward to your disproof of fluid dynamics!

My comment is in the context of atmospheric dynamics, where a less dense parcel of air would become bouyant and rise in a colder, more dense surroundings.  Parcels of air that don't rise are not considered bouyant.  Unless a steel weight lifted, it wouldn't be considered bouyant. Semantics.

 But with respect to fluid dynamics principles, the less dense air at the equator would result in the weight measurement at the equator to be HIGHER than at higher lattitudes, where the air is more dense, contributing to a greater bouyancy effect. 

But, as you can see, it is the other way around.  The centrifugal force of the rotating globe does much more than counteract any affect of the surrounding air.  The observed weight is lower at the equator.

End point:  Your persistence in demanding bouyancy being accounted for has resulted in it working against the FE model. 
« Last Edit: July 25, 2019, 10:39:07 PM by mightyfletch »
Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #132 on: July 26, 2019, 03:04:33 AM »
Bouyancy?  As in, the weight becomes more bouyant with air around it?  Whoever proposes that has no idea how bouyancy works.  Because the weight is heavier than air, the air is bouyant in relation to the weight, thereby adding to  a weight measurement.  If there a way to calculate the lifted index of a steel weight, it would be a very low negative number, indicating stability.
I would caution against saying people have no idea how buoyancy works when you get it completely wrong.

The buoyant force acts on all objects, based upon the volume of fluid displaced and the density of that fluid.

If you zero the scale, it just accounts for the buoyant force on the scale.
If you then calibrate it with a mass of a known material, it will calibrate based upon the buoyant force of that material.
If you then weigh a different material, with a different density, the buoyant force acting on it will be different and thus not properly accounted for.

Like I asked before, what weighs more, 1 kg of osmium or 1 kg of feathers?
While we are at it, also throw in 1 kg of helium (and ignore the issue with containing it).
Do you think they all weigh the same?

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #133 on: July 26, 2019, 03:22:05 AM »
No dpubt the bouuancy is nelgible on a solid lump of steel vs a helium baloon...but javkB has already pointed out.

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #134 on: July 26, 2019, 07:56:53 AM »
Bouyancy?  As in, the weight becomes more bouyant with air around it?  Whoever proposes that has no idea how bouyancy works.  Because the weight is heavier than air, the air is bouyant in relation to the weight, thereby adding to  a weight measurement.  If there a way to calculate the lifted index of a steel weight, it would be a very low negative number, indicating stability.
I would caution against saying people have no idea how buoyancy works when you get it completely wrong.

The buoyant force acts on all objects, based upon the volume of fluid displaced and the density of that fluid.

If you zero the scale, it just accounts for the buoyant force on the scale.
If you then calibrate it with a mass of a known material, it will calibrate based upon the buoyant force of that material.
If you then weigh a different material, with a different density, the buoyant force acting on it will be different and thus not properly accounted for.

Like I asked before, what weighs more, 1 kg of osmium or 1 kg of feathers?
While we are at it, also throw in 1 kg of helium (and ignore the issue with containing it).
Do you think they all weigh the same?

It looks like you skipped over my last post. It is true that any fluid acts on an object it's surrounded by, decreasing its downward force, measured as buoyancy.

My mistake is that writing about buoyancy, I was talking in terms of atmospheric stability.  So yes, buoyancy acts on all objects in a fluid.

And as I pointed out, buoyancy would lead to a higher weight measurement in a less-dense atmosphere at the equator.  But since the weight measurements are lower at the equator, we know there is another force at work.  In this case centrifugal force.

« Last Edit: July 26, 2019, 08:29:10 AM by mightyfletch »
Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #135 on: July 26, 2019, 08:13:12 AM »
I know what bouyancy is all about.  I got paid a great deal of money over the last 14 years to write operational weather forecasts. 

I consider grammar- and spelling-correction to be such an extremely poor form of argument that I have never before used it on this board, because in almost all cases it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument in question.

But I can't help pointing out that in an argument where one party claims expertise and long experience in a field, and then misspells a fundamental word in that field 10 times (hence not just a slip of the fingers while typing) while having an otherwise good command of English is an indication of the competence and attention level of the arguer.

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #136 on: July 26, 2019, 08:32:36 AM »
I know what bouyancy is all about.  I got paid a great deal of money over the last 14 years to write operational weather forecasts. 

I consider grammar- and spelling-correction to be such an extremely poor form of argument that I have never before used it on this board, because in almost all cases it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument in question.

But I can't help pointing out that in an argument where one party claims expertise and long experience in a field, and then misspells a fundamental word in that field 10 times (hence not just a slip of the fingers while typing) while having an otherwise good command of English is an indication of the competence and attention level of the arguer.

Honestly, everytime I write buoyancy, reverse the u and the o.  Same goes with ei in chief. 
Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #137 on: July 26, 2019, 08:39:41 AM »
So, out of 136 posts on this thread, there has yet to be an explanation as to how objects weight less at the equator, greater at the poles, and less at higher altitudes.

There's no observed device lifting everything off the ground.

Buoyancy causes objects to comparatively weigh more at the equator than at higher lattitudes with higher air pressure, albeit far less significant than any weight measurements taken.  So measuring in a vacuum is moot. 

I'm surprised no explanation has been brought forth to explain this.  Actually, I'm not.  Because the world is a globe.

Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 13861
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #138 on: July 28, 2019, 06:24:18 AM »
In UA, the accelerator is a fundamental property of the universe. It's not a device.

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #139 on: July 28, 2019, 08:48:17 AM »
In UA, the accelerator is a fundamental property of the universe. It's not a device.

I understand that part.  My point is that the FE model doesn't account for the lower weight measurements at the equator and at higher altitudes.  There's no proposed mechanism or "device" for this.
Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 13861
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #140 on: July 28, 2019, 09:21:42 AM »
In UA, the accelerator is a fundamental property of the universe. It's not a device.

I understand that part.  My point is that the FE model doesn't account for the lower weight measurements at the equator and at higher altitudes.  There's no proposed mechanism or "device" for this.
It's not that it doesn't account for it. It's more that it's deemed acceptable to say "I don't know, we have not yet figured that out." And plenty of supporters of UA would probably tell you they have, in fact, figured it out, but I don't really know the argument since it's not something I subscribe to. To simply assert that no UA proponent has any answer at all is a huge assumption, and I'm not certain you can assume it to be a fact.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17526
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #141 on: July 28, 2019, 09:32:46 AM »
Quote
Buoyancy causes objects to comparatively weigh more at the equator than at higher lattitudes with higher air pressure, albeit far less significant than any weight measurements taken.  So measuring in a vacuum is moot. 

The differences seen in the devices are not significant. They are a fraction of one percent.

There are many factors to consider: weight of atmosphere, humidity, static build up, moisture, etc, all of which affects scales and the atmosphere. The experiment needs to take place in a vaccum.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2019, 09:34:38 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #142 on: July 28, 2019, 10:22:21 AM »
Quote
Buoyancy causes objects to comparatively weigh more at the equator than at higher lattitudes with higher air pressure, albeit far less significant than any weight measurements taken.  So measuring in a vacuum is moot. 

The differences seen in the devices are not significant. They are a fraction of one percent.

There are many factors to consider: weight of atmosphere, humidity, static build up, moisture, etc, all of which affects scales and the atmosphere. The experiment needs to take place in a vaccum.

The weight of atmosphere, when taken into account, gives greater buoyancy at higher lattitudes where the atmospheric pressure is greater than at the equator.  Since the measurements showed lower measured weights at the equator, you see the effect of centrifugal force far outweighing any of these issues you've listed that you say need to be accounted for.

Also, the scale is zeroed out before the steel weight is measured, thereby already accounting for the weight of the atmosphere.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2019, 10:58:12 AM by mightyfletch »
Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39313
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #143 on: July 28, 2019, 11:08:17 AM »
Quote
Buoyancy causes objects to comparatively weigh more at the equator than at higher lattitudes with higher air pressure, albeit far less significant than any weight measurements taken.  So measuring in a vacuum is moot. 

The differences seen in the devices are not significant. They are a fraction of one percent.

There are many factors to consider: weight of atmosphere, humidity, static build up, moisture, etc, all of which affects scales and the atmosphere. The experiment needs to take place in a vaccum.
If you sincerely believe that these experiments need to take place in a vacuum chamber, then feel free to perform such an experiment yourself and let us know your results.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 407
  • Weather Pegasus
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #144 on: July 28, 2019, 11:47:19 AM »
There is a practical explanation that such free fall.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Are you sure that the earth is not such?

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #145 on: July 28, 2019, 11:59:54 AM »
There is a practical explanation that such free fall.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

This is the flat earth society forums, not the общество плоской земли.  Try English.
Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #146 on: July 28, 2019, 01:20:07 PM »
Quote
Buoyancy causes objects to comparatively weigh more at the equator than at higher lattitudes with higher air pressure, albeit far less significant than any weight measurements taken.  So measuring in a vacuum is moot. 

The differences seen in the devices are not significant. They are a fraction of one percent.

There are many factors to consider: weight of atmosphere, humidity, static build up, moisture, etc, all of which affects scales and the atmosphere. The experiment needs to take place in a vaccum.

Possibly a million geologists would disagree with you. The question for you Tom is what scientific data are you using to base your opinions on, or are they just random opinions?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17526
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #147 on: July 28, 2019, 02:07:40 PM »
This geologist agrees that the theory of gravity variations is not coherent with theory:

https://lhcrazyworld.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/gravity-and-isostasy/amp/

" Gravity and Isostasy
 Louis Hissink

Gravitational theory is firmly entrenched as dogma and is unchallengeable and punishable by excommunication and if the heresy great enough, by permanent expulsion from polite society.  It is thus similar to religion in that as a basic premise it cannot be challenged.

So what about isostasy, a theory developed from the observation that surveying plumb-bobs were not attracted by an adjacent mountain? Or that they were not deflected as much as expected.  This observation is similar to the laboratory Cavendish experiment to determine big G, the gravitational constant, where bodies have the attractive force measured in the horizontal plane.  Herein lies the problem and the manner of thinking adopted when anomalous results are observed.

The reaction to the lack off deflection of the plumb-bob from vertical was to assume that the adjacent mountain had a mass shortfall, rather than question the theory that matter attracts matter.  Clearly the lack of attraction observed would lead to one questioning the principle, and not the data, but no, it is the data which are erroneous, and not the principle of gravitation.

This manner of thinking is simply the religious mind at work, for religious minds cannot contradict received authority, here the belief that come what may, matter always attracts matter.  Thuis attitude was driven home when I presented the anomalous downhole survey data to the consulting geophysicists, who opined that if the readings are true, then there had to be a gravitating mass above the drill hole and since this is not observed, which is correct, then the data have to be in error, and an instrument malfunction the cause of the anomalous data preented in Gravity Update previously.  It never occurred to them that maybe the theory is the problem.

Most scientists hold one or other religious beliefs, and the manner in which they think thus determines how they interpret scientific observations, especially observations that cannot be easily tested in a laboratory.  Minds dominated by a belief system inculcated by education, will tend to only see what the believe system asserts, here that matter attracts matter, and hence if the data do not confirm the theory, or belief, then the data have to be in error. This led to the idea of mountain ranges, or some of them, having deep low density roots into the upper mantle, and the development of Plate Tectonics theory. Except that plates with mountains on them with interpreted under-slab keels should not be able to move, but this inconsistency in the theory seems never a problem, and readily explained as a collision effect between two converging tectonic plates.

Because of this manner of thinking, which leads to the illogical scenario of low density rocks floating in a more dense substrate, ice caps are believed to depress the crust underneath them, and when the ice melts, the crust re-adjusts by expanding upwards. Proof of this is the crustal emergence around the Baltic sea due to the melting of the earlier Pleistocene ice age when an ice cap is postulated to have existed in this part of Europe, and also in Canada where crustal uplift is also observed. But just how a rock of density 1 Kg/M^3 can sink into crust of density 2.7Kg/M^3 is explained by the principle of isostasy.  This assertion is simply crazy – logical but crazy and came about from misinterpeting the earlier surveying data where the plumbline did not deflect as expected from calculations compensating for the mass of the adjacent mountain.

In both cases, the non-deflecting plumb-line and the anomlous downhole survey data, the mainstream reaction to the discordant data was to reject the data and confirm the supremacy of the belief in gravitation. But if the theory of gravity is wrong, then a great lot of theory and assumptions become, if not moot, just plain wrong. Retrocalculation of planetary orbits becomes problematical, gravitational accretion becomes a nonsense leading to a rather drastic paradigm shift in the physical sciences. It is tantamount to questioning our cultural world-view, that of the Abrahamic Religions, and that could be a most dangerous entreprise.

One challenge to this world view is being mounted by Tim Cullen at the Malaga Bay Blog, and of course this one has been politically incorrect for a long time.  It is an intellectual battle between the Oriental and Occidental world-views, that of a cyclical orientalism and a linear occidentalism.

Update: I now wonder if Gravity has replaced God as the prime  mover of the Universe. Both are words starting with a capital G "

" Louis Hissink (MSc, Macquarie University) was a consulting diamond geologist, formerly of John Taylors, Western Mining Corporation Ltd and De Beers. He has worked for other smaller companies in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. "

On discrepancies, one writer states:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190728080158/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ae59/7456f647efb7155ac419edf5c9f38f240fb0.pdf

 “ 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 lowdensity 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.’15

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. ”

"Bouguer Anomalies Over The Continents and Oceans" in the Journal of the Geological Society of India tells us:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj35rvk0_jeAhVknuAKHU-rC7EQFjAAegQIGhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geosocindia.org%2Findex.php%2Fjgsi%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F83944%2F64911&usg=AOvVaw2HzDoF7yD_h3qD27TuGMzb

  “ Why, in general, the Bouguer gravity anomalies are negative in continental areas and positive in oceanic areas? Extending the question further, why do the predominant negative and positive anomalies respectively correspond to the mountain peaks and ocean depths? Although the Bouguer gravity data are not brought on to an even datum, there is fairly a good inverse correlation of Bouguer anomalies with height/depth as well as seismic data. This obviously indicates the excess mass reflected as gravity lows and the deficit mass as gravity highs with respect to the geoid/ellipsoid surface. This is in contrast to the theory of the gravity field which is proportional to the excess or deficit mass. Mathematically speaking, the observed anomalies are proportional to the vertical gradient of gravity, indicating excess mass above the geoid as gravity lows and deficit mass below the geoid as gravity highs. If this were true, far reaching implications arise in the understanding of the theory and interpretation of Bouguer anomalies. ”
« Last Edit: July 28, 2019, 02:25:47 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #148 on: July 28, 2019, 03:16:48 PM »
The differences seen in the devices are not significant. They are a fraction of one percent.
Difference due to variation in buoyancy for any significantly dense object is even less significant.
A tiny fraction of the overall variation observed.
I have already pointed this out repeatedly. Why do you keep ignoring it?

Again:
For steel, with a density of ~8000 kg/m^3, compared to air's ~1.2 kg/m^3, the buoyant force is only 0.015% of the weight of the object.
That is a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
But that would only apply if we are comparing weights in atmosphere to weights in vacuum.
If you are just measuring it in air, then what is important is the variation in the density of the air.
Again, even assuming an extremely generous 10% variation in the density of the atmosphere, the change in the buoyant force on a steel sample is only going to be 0.0015%.

This is much lower than the observed variations. Enough to ignore it unless you need extremely precise gravity mapping.
If the purpose is to establish a rough scale mapping of gravity as it varies over the globe, you do not need a vacuum.

weight of atmosphere
i.e. density of the atmosphere which contributes to the buoyant force.
humidity
Which affects the density of the atmosphere and thus is the same as above.
static build up
Which is irrelevant for what we are discussing and which a vacuum doesn't help with at all.
moisture
i.e. humidity, and thus still covered by buoyancy.

So the only justification there is to do it in a vacuum is the variation in the buoyant force. But that is insignificant compared to the observed variations and thus no vacuum is needed.

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #149 on: July 28, 2019, 03:36:02 PM »
This geologist agrees that the theory of gravity variations is not coherent with theory:

https://lhcrazyworld.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/gravity-and-isostasy/amp/

" Gravity and Isostasy
 Louis Hissink

Gravitational theory is firmly entrenched as dogma and is unchallengeable and punishable by excommunication and if the heresy great enough, by permanent expulsion from polite society.  It is thus similar to religion in that as a basic premise it cannot be challenged.

So what about isostasy, a theory developed from the observation that surveying plumb-bobs were not attracted by an adjacent mountain? Or that they were not deflected as much as expected.  This observation is similar to the laboratory Cavendish experiment to determine big G, the gravitational constant, where bodies have the attractive force measured in the horizontal plane.  Herein lies the problem and the manner of thinking adopted when anomalous results are observed.

The reaction to the lack off deflection of the plumb-bob from vertical was to assume that the adjacent mountain had a mass shortfall, rather than question the theory that matter attracts matter.  Clearly the lack of attraction observed would lead to one questioning the principle, and not the data, but no, it is the data which are erroneous, and not the principle of gravitation.

This manner of thinking is simply the religious mind at work, for religious minds cannot contradict received authority, here the belief that come what may, matter always attracts matter.  Thuis attitude was driven home when I presented the anomalous downhole survey data to the consulting geophysicists, who opined that if the readings are true, then there had to be a gravitating mass above the drill hole and since this is not observed, which is correct, then the data have to be in error, and an instrument malfunction the cause of the anomalous data preented in Gravity Update previously.  It never occurred to them that maybe the theory is the problem.

Most scientists hold one or other religious beliefs, and the manner in which they think thus determines how they interpret scientific observations, especially observations that cannot be easily tested in a laboratory.  Minds dominated by a belief system inculcated by education, will tend to only see what the believe system asserts, here that matter attracts matter, and hence if the data do not confirm the theory, or belief, then the data have to be in error. This led to the idea of mountain ranges, or some of them, having deep low density roots into the upper mantle, and the development of Plate Tectonics theory. Except that plates with mountains on them with interpreted under-slab keels should not be able to move, but this inconsistency in the theory seems never a problem, and readily explained as a collision effect between two converging tectonic plates.

Because of this manner of thinking, which leads to the illogical scenario of low density rocks floating in a more dense substrate, ice caps are believed to depress the crust underneath them, and when the ice melts, the crust re-adjusts by expanding upwards. Proof of this is the crustal emergence around the Baltic sea due to the melting of the earlier Pleistocene ice age when an ice cap is postulated to have existed in this part of Europe, and also in Canada where crustal uplift is also observed. But just how a rock of density 1 Kg/M^3 can sink into crust of density 2.7Kg/M^3 is explained by the principle of isostasy.  This assertion is simply crazy – logical but crazy and came about from misinterpeting the earlier surveying data where the plumbline did not deflect as expected from calculations compensating for the mass of the adjacent mountain.

In both cases, the non-deflecting plumb-line and the anomlous downhole survey data, the mainstream reaction to the discordant data was to reject the data and confirm the supremacy of the belief in gravitation. But if the theory of gravity is wrong, then a great lot of theory and assumptions become, if not moot, just plain wrong. Retrocalculation of planetary orbits becomes problematical, gravitational accretion becomes a nonsense leading to a rather drastic paradigm shift in the physical sciences. It is tantamount to questioning our cultural world-view, that of the Abrahamic Religions, and that could be a most dangerous entreprise.

One challenge to this world view is being mounted by Tim Cullen at the Malaga Bay Blog, and of course this one has been politically incorrect for a long time.  It is an intellectual battle between the Oriental and Occidental world-views, that of a cyclical orientalism and a linear occidentalism.

Update: I now wonder if Gravity has replaced God as the prime  mover of the Universe. Both are words starting with a capital G "

" Louis Hissink (MSc, Macquarie University) was a consulting diamond geologist, formerly of John Taylors, Western Mining Corporation Ltd and De Beers. He has worked for other smaller companies in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. "

On discrepancies, one writer states:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190728080158/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ae59/7456f647efb7155ac419edf5c9f38f240fb0.pdf

 “ 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 lowdensity 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.’15

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. ”

"Bouguer Anomalies Over The Continents and Oceans" in the Journal of the Geological Society of India tells us:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj35rvk0_jeAhVknuAKHU-rC7EQFjAAegQIGhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geosocindia.org%2Findex.php%2Fjgsi%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F83944%2F64911&usg=AOvVaw2HzDoF7yD_h3qD27TuGMzb

  “ Why, in general, the Bouguer gravity anomalies are negative in continental areas and positive in oceanic areas? Extending the question further, why do the predominant negative and positive anomalies respectively correspond to the mountain peaks and ocean depths? Although the Bouguer gravity data are not brought on to an even datum, there is fairly a good inverse correlation of Bouguer anomalies with height/depth as well as seismic data. This obviously indicates the excess mass reflected as gravity lows and the deficit mass as gravity highs with respect to the geoid/ellipsoid surface. This is in contrast to the theory of the gravity field which is proportional to the excess or deficit mass. Mathematically speaking, the observed anomalies are proportional to the vertical gradient of gravity, indicating excess mass above the geoid as gravity lows and deficit mass below the geoid as gravity highs. If this were true, far reaching implications arise in the understanding of the theory and interpretation of Bouguer anomalies. ”

Your post is about the plumb-bob deflection experiment, which had to account for varying densities in the Earth's composition vs the mass of a mountain, making it difficult to ascertain either them.  Later experiments acheived greater accuracy, leading to a better understanding of Earth's composition.  Either way, positive gravity anomalies aren't necessarily at mountains.  They're also over India. 

But that's not even what my post is about.  It's that gravity decreases as you increase in altitude, and gravity is weaker at the equator.  Thus far, no FE model has been presented that provides an explanation for this.  The plumb-Bob test wasn't even testing that.

Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!