Acceleration is not constant on Earth

That is addressed in the gravimeter article. It's possible to detect structures with seismology. An example is given: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Underground_Detection

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:27:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:05:03 AM

The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun in an experiment or from the earth in a very long drop test (skyscraper size tests have been conducted) then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

Tom, why do you imagine the earth has a variable elliptical orbit? It is these variations in gravity that have resulted in the numerous  ice ages the earth has experienced over the ages.

The evidence for this is in the rocks under our very feet.

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:27:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:05:03 AM

The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That is addressed in the gravimeter article. It's possible to detect structures with seismology. https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Underground_Detection

No it’s not Tom.

You supply a random link with no supporting evidence that you imagine overturns proven scientific theory combined with everyday practical experience  that the global oil and mining industries have been using for years and years.

Have you let them know all their discoveries using this science have all been wrong?

Sorry but this is an example of blind ignorance trying to overturn proven science.

You continually carp on about unsubstantiated claims, while you are the master at doing this providing meaningless links from your wiki as though they carry any weight.

That is addressed in the gravimeter article. It's possible to detect structures with seismology. An example is given: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Underground_Detection

Just a small point Tom, but why does your Wiki not use flat earth maps for presenting data?

That is addressed in the gravimeter article. It's possible to detect structures with seismology. An example is given: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Underground_Detection

Here is some real science Tom.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984715301932

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:35:06 AM

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:27:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:05:03 AM

The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:41:33 AM

That is addressed in the gravimeter article. It's possible to detect structures with seismology. An example is given: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Underground_Detection

Here is some real science Tom.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984715301932

I don't see how it contradicts the statements that Gravimeters are Seismometers.

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:49:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:35:06 AM

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:27:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:05:03 AM

The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.

That's not what I asked. You stated that "The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle." Which would therefore make gravity variation a violation of GR. But I'm not seeing that anywhere in the literature. Do you have anything to support your claim or is it simply your interpretation/assertion?

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 01:58:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:41:33 AM

That is addressed in the gravimeter article. It's possible to detect structures with seismology. An example is given: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Underground_Detection

Here is some real science Tom.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984715301932

I don't see how it contradicts the statements that Gravimeters are Seismometers.

You have obviously not read your wiki properly nor understood the working of a gravimeter. Incidentally why would a flat earth Wiki not use flat earth maps when presenting its data? I’m assuming you have some.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 02:00:59 AM

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:49:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:35:06 AM

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:27:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:05:03 AM

The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.

That's not what I asked. You stated that "The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle." Which would therefore make gravity variation a violation of GR. But I'm not seeing that anywhere in the literature. Do you have anything to support your claim or is it simply your interpretation/assertion?

Simply look up what is covered under the Weak Equivalence Principle. Motion through space due to 'gravity'. Indirect effects like subseismic interpretation is not covered.

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 02:17:01 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 02:00:59 AM

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:49:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:35:06 AM

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:27:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:05:03 AM

The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.

That's not what I asked. You stated that "The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle." Which would therefore make gravity variation a violation of GR. But I'm not seeing that anywhere in the literature. Do you have anything to support your claim or is it simply your interpretation/assertion?

Simply look up what is covered under the Weak Equivalence Principle. Motion through space. Indirect effects like subseismic interpretation is not covered.

Let’s introduce a few brass tacks.

Are you trying to say all the geologists, mining engineers oil workers and other professionals engaged in mineral extraction are all deluded, along with the designers and manufacturers of gravity meters?

I think the clue is in the name.

Also why does the flatearth wiki not exclusively use flatearth maps?

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:49:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:35:06 AM

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:27:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:05:03 AM

The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.

So you say Tom, that’s not what the mining industry says.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 21, 2019, 01:18:19 AM

Precision absolute gravimeters are not seismometers!

Write us an article or make a YouTube video to contradict the sources which say and suggest that Gravimeters are Seismometers, including Absolute Gravimeters. Quote physcists. Show us directly. Make your case, rather than stating opinion.

I did not state my opinion!
I quoted a manufacturer of absolute gravimeters who might know far more than you about how their own instruments work.

If you took any notice of what I posted you might have learned that it operates by timing the rise and fall of a mass in a vacuum chamber.
The position of the mass is measured by an optical interferometer.

You might read:

A new generation of absolute gravimeters. Metrologia, 32, 159-180
Abstract
We describe the design improvements incorporated in a new generation of absolute gravimeters, the FG5. A vertically oriented (in-line) interferometer design is used to remove the influence of floor vibration and tilt on the optical path length. The interferometer uses an iodine-stabilized laser as a primary length standard, with circuitry for automatic peak detection and locking. The seismic isolation system is an active long-period seismometer (Super Spring). The new design has improved passive isolation and thermal drift characteristics over previous systems. Programming flexibility and control of the test mass trajectory have been improved. The computer system has also improved real-time analysis and system capability. The FG5 instrument has a higher level of robustness, reliability and ease of use. These design advances have led to an instrumental uncertainty estimate of 1,1 × 10^-8 m s^-2 (1,0 μGal). Instrument agreement among nine similar devices is 1,8 μGal and observations under optimal conditions exhibit standard deviations of 5 μGal to 8 μGal.



<< Read the rest of the document for more detail. >>

I repeat that absolute gravimeters are not seismometers. The measure the local value of the g.

Note that the unit Gal referred to is defined as an acceleration of 1 cm/s² or 0.01 m/s².

They don't calibrate the scales. See the article posted. https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

Repeatedly spamming the same thing won't help you, nor will ignoring the refutation of it.

You have been unable to provide an alternative for the very real variation of gravity.

Some interesting quotes there. The gravimeter is really a seismometer

Not realy, just ficticious.

Absolute gravimeters measure the free fall acceleration of an object.
Sizemology has nothing to do with it.

The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle

No, it wouldn't. Not in the slightest.
The equivalence principle does not apply to a massive system. It applies locally, technically only to an infinitesimally small regions.

If you want to assert that it is a violation you will need a justification.
But it seems you are just grasping at whatever straws you can.

Many experiments have been tried to detect such violations

No, they aren't violations, they are variations, which are detected.

Write us an article or make a YouTube video to contradict the sources

So far the only sources which you have provided is your FE website. It is nothing more than a baseless assertion.

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun in an experiment or from the earth in a very long drop test (skyscraper size tests have been conducted) then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They take that analogy quite literally.

No it wouldn't.
Firstly, it wouldn't be felt. It would merely be a difference in the value of g.
This would be like being in a rocket accelerating at a slightly different rate.
So no, no violation of the equivalence principle there.

Simply look up what is covered under the Weak Equivalence Principle. Motion through space due to 'gravity'. Indirect effects like subseismic interpretation is not covered.

But absolute gravimeters do not measure seismic effects so there would seem to be no "Indirect effects like subseismic interpretation is not covered.".
The one described in the paper I quoted goes to great lengths to cancel seismic effects.

The Equivalence Principle stares simply that:
"There is no way of distinguishing between the effects on an observer of a uniform gravitational field and of constant acceleration".

Let’s stop for a moment and consider reality.

The mineral extraction industry that exists is a multi billion dollar industry that operates in all parts of the earth extracting all the resources required to build the world in which we live.

Before something is cut, dug or drilled, a survey is carried out to determine the geology of the area. Part of that survey would be to use some gravimetric device that gives a picture of the nature of the underlying strata. The picture gained is based on variations in local gravity and not on anything to do with seismic activity.

One can stand on ground that has an underlying layer of clay at altitude A and obtain a reading such as around London. One can then drive to Cornwall take another reading, again at altitude A, which would be much higher. Why? Because the underlying rock is granite rather than clay, much denser that clay hence the higher the local gravity.

The density of clay being 1.33 g/cu3 while granite is 2.75 g/cu3

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:49:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:35:06 AM

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:27:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:05:03 AM

The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.

When you say they, you obviously mean all your other flat earth pals. The worldwide mining and petroleum industries know exactly what a gravimeter measures as do I.
What I think you need to do is brush up on the science, this might help.

https://earth.esa.int/documents/973910/1006684/RR3.pdf

That is merely a casual version of the weight experiments done 300 years ago. They didn't use vaccumes then and no one is using vaccumes in the present version. The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around. Many experiments have been tried to detect such violations, from high hights or even from gravity sources such as the Sun, to which they speculate that selective gravity is occuring to maintain the EP through 'preferred curves' in spacetime.

The Weight Variations by Latitude is an ancient hold-over, from before the modern EP experiments. The few types of experiments cited in favor of 'gravity' in these discussions are actually a minority compared to the wide range of experiments which have sought to find violations of the Equivalence Principle without success.

See this article as well: https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

Tom,
The explanation of upwards acceleration for gravity is merely a sanitized illustration in an Earth reference frame.  This force decreases with distance by the inverse square.  Gravity is weaker at higher altitudes.

Separately, air pressure is irrelevant in the weight experiment because, as you can see, the weight of the air is zeroed out on the scale.  You can see 0.00 at all locations for the experiment before he puts the weight down, showing that he already accounted for the air. 

If I told you I fly satellites around the globe would you give up your FE belief?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 20, 2019, 01:22:49 PM

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 18, 2019, 06:31:36 PM

FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

Have you measured this yourself? You seem so sure this data is correct, and it is the only thing you're basing your conclusion on.

If I had, would you believe me?

Or would you only believe the Earth to be a globe if you could see these differences in Earth's gravity for your self?

It doesn't really matter if I believe it. But if you're going to base the entirety of your argument that the earth isn't flat on one set of data, wouldn't it be prudent to assure yourself of the validity of the data yourself? Rather than relying on something other people tell you is so? Which seems to be a big problem here.

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 02:17:01 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 02:00:59 AM

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:49:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:35:06 AM

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:27:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:05:03 AM

The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.

That's not what I asked. You stated that "The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle." Which would therefore make gravity variation a violation of GR. But I'm not seeing that anywhere in the literature. Do you have anything to support your claim or is it simply your interpretation/assertion?

Simply look up what is covered under the Weak Equivalence Principle. Motion through space due to 'gravity'. Indirect effects like subseismic interpretation is not covered.

I wasn't asking about subseismic interpretation or whatever. I was asking about your statement regarding gravity variations and how such a thing would violate the EP and by extension GR. Do you have anything to support your claim or is it simply your interpretation/assertion?

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 20, 2019, 02:27:16 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 20, 2019, 01:22:49 PM

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 18, 2019, 06:31:36 PM

FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

Have you measured this yourself? You seem so sure this data is correct, and it is the only thing you're basing your conclusion on.

If I had, would you believe me?

Or would you only believe the Earth to be a globe if you could see these differences in Earth's gravity for your self?

It doesn't really matter if I believe it. But if you're going to base the entirety of your argument that the earth isn't flat on one set of data, wouldn't it be prudent to assure yourself of the validity of the data yourself? Rather than relying on something other people tell you is so? Which seems to be a big problem here.

Who are you listening to, and where do you get your information from? Or do you know everything?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 21, 2019, 02:54:32 PM

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 20, 2019, 02:27:16 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 20, 2019, 01:22:49 PM

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 18, 2019, 06:31:36 PM

FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

Have you measured this yourself? You seem so sure this data is correct, and it is the only thing you're basing your conclusion on.

If I had, would you believe me?

Or would you only believe the Earth to be a globe if you could see these differences in Earth's gravity for your self?

It doesn't really matter if I believe it. But if you're going to base the entirety of your argument that the earth isn't flat on one set of data, wouldn't it be prudent to assure yourself of the validity of the data yourself? Rather than relying on something other people tell you is so? Which seems to be a big problem here.

Who are you listening to, and where do you get your information from? Or do you know everything?

I listen to, read, and have conversations with many different sources. I evaluate the credibility of those sources and appropriately weigh the veracity and reliability of the information from those sources keeping their credibility in mind. I also get information from my own observation, experience, experimentation, and measurements. I come to conclusions based on a large number of pieces of information.

(I'll skip your second question, as it was clearly meant to be a devastating cutting remark, but just sounds dumb.)

mightyfletch, on the other hand, bases an entire argument about whether the earth is flat or not on one type of measurement, and on two data points. His conclusion is based on the accuracy of those two measurements. And much of the discussion in these forums questions that some people might intentionally or unintentionally be providing information that is not correct.

Given that, wouldn't one want to verify the basis for one's whole argument?

Who are you listening to, and where do you get your information from? Or do you know everything?

I listen to, read, and have conversations with many different sources. I evaluate the credibility of those sources and appropriately weigh the veracity and reliability of the information from those sources keeping their credibility in mind. I also get information from my own observation, experience, experimentation, and measurements. I come to conclusions based on a large number of pieces of information.

(I'll skip your second question, as it was clearly meant to be a devastating cutting remark, but just sounds dumb.)

mightyfletch, on the other hand, bases an entire argument about whether the earth is flat or not on one type of measurement, and on two data points. His conclusion is based on the accuracy of those two measurements. And much of the discussion in these forums questions that some people might intentionally or unintentionally be providing information that is not correct.

Given that, wouldn't one want to verify the basis for one's whole argument?
[/quote]

I have a long list of points about why the Earth is a globe.  This one thread is to discuss one specific point about how the force of gravity is different at different locations on the Earth.  So far, FEers can't explain this variation.  I've already provided video proof of the experiment being done.  If I did it myself, would you believe me and abandon your flat-earth adherence? No, you'd only be convinced if you did it yourself.

I know the Earth is a globe because I fly satellites around it in orbit as part of my job.

 I factor in the spinning globe into my weather forecasts and watch them verify at the mid latitudes and at the equator.  Been doing this for 14 years.

I measure the buys ballots law with the wind at my back, proving the counterclockwise rotation of rising air parcels due to coriolis.  When I was at the equator, this rule didn't apply. 

But in the end, you will never accept my conclusions because you're not doing them yourself.  You're chosing to be handicapped in a world surrounded by orbiting satellites. 

What would even do if you tried to get a job as a Directv installation technician?  You have to aim the dish at the satellite to get a signal.  If you're a nighttime astronomer, you have chose a location based on whether the starlink satellites are going to contaminate your photo.  If you want any job that relies on satellite communication and link troubleshooting, how do you even survive? 

(Fixed your erroneous quote attributions)

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 21, 2019, 05:50:06 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 03:29:20 PM

Who are you listening to, and where do you get your information from? Or do you know everything?

I listen to, read, and have conversations with many different sources. I evaluate the credibility of those sources and appropriately weigh the veracity and reliability of the information from those sources keeping their credibility in mind. I also get information from my own observation, experience, experimentation, and measurements. I come to conclusions based on a large number of pieces of information.

(I'll skip your second question, as it was clearly meant to be a devastating cutting remark, but just sounds dumb.)

mightyfletch, on the other hand, bases an entire argument about whether the earth is flat or not on one type of measurement, and on two data points. His conclusion is based on the accuracy of those two measurements. And much of the discussion in these forums questions that some people might intentionally or unintentionally be providing information that is not correct.

Given that, wouldn't one want to verify the basis for one's whole argument?

I have a long list of points about why the Earth is a globe.  This one thread is to discuss one specific point about how the force of gravity is different at different locations on the Earth. 

But that's not what you said. You gave one single piece of evidence and claimed "Earth cannot be flat because of this."

Your claim, as presented in your initial post, consists of that and that alone; essentially

"Acceleration different at Point A and Point B is the only thing necessary to prove earth is not flat."

If you're going to go out on a limb with such a poor argument, you should at least know the data for Point A and Point B is accurate.

So far, FEers can't explain this variation.  I've already provided video proof of the experiment being done.  If I did it myself, would you believe me and abandon your flat-earth adherence?

Sorry? My what?

No, you'd only be convinced if you did it yourself.

That's presumptuous.

I know the Earth is a globe because I fly satellites around it in orbit as part of my job.

 I factor in the spinning globe into my weather forecasts and watch them verify at the mid latitudes and at the equator.  Been doing this for 14 years.

I like the credential-swapping portion of this game.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81384.msg2173876#msg2173876

I measure the buys ballots law with the wind at my back, proving the counterclockwise rotation of rising air parcels due to coriolis.  When I was at the equator, this rule didn't apply. 

But in the end, you will never accept my conclusions because you're not doing them yourself. 

Presumptuous. My concern is not with your conclusion, but with your poor attempt at proving it.

You're chosing to be handicapped in a world surrounded by orbiting satellites. 

You're actually handicapped by assuming someone that questions you must be a flat-earther.

What would even do if you tried to get a job as a Directv installation technician?  You have to aim the dish at the satellite to get a signal.  If you're a nighttime astronomer, you have chose a location based on whether the starlink satellites are going to contaminate your photo.  If you want any job that relies on satellite communication and link troubleshooting, how do you even survive?

I like how you pretend to be concerned about my future employment opportunities. See previous link to find out about my employment experience, as well as my thoughts on knee-jerk assumptions.

(Fixed your erroneous quote attributions)

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 21, 2019, 05:50:06 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 03:29:20 PM

Who are you listening to, and where do you get your information from? Or do you know everything?

I listen to, read, and have conversations with many different sources. I evaluate the credibility of those sources and appropriately weigh the veracity and reliability of the information from those sources keeping their credibility in mind. I also get information from my own observation, experience, experimentation, and measurements. I come to conclusions based on a large number of pieces of information.

(I'll skip your second question, as it was clearly meant to be a devastating cutting remark, but just sounds dumb.)

mightyfletch, on the other hand, bases an entire argument about whether the earth is flat or not on one type of measurement, and on two data points. His conclusion is based on the accuracy of those two measurements. And much of the discussion in these forums questions that some people might intentionally or unintentionally be providing information that is not correct.

Given that, wouldn't one want to verify the basis for one's whole argument?

I have a long list of points about why the Earth is a globe.  This one thread is to discuss one specific point about how the force of gravity is different at different locations on the Earth. 

But that's not what you said. You gave one single piece of evidence and claimed "Earth cannot be flat because of this."

Your claim, as presented in your initial post, consists of that and that alone; essentially

"Acceleration different at Point A and Point B is the only thing necessary to prove earth is not flat."

If you're going to go out on a limb with such a poor argument, you should at least know the data for Point A and Point B is accurate.

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM

So far, FEers can't explain this variation.  I've already provided video proof of the experiment being done.  If I did it myself, would you believe me and abandon your flat-earth adherence?

Sorry? My what?

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM

No, you'd only be convinced if you did it yourself.

That's presumptuous.

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM

I know the Earth is a globe because I fly satellites around it in orbit as part of my job.

 I factor in the spinning globe into my weather forecasts and watch them verify at the mid latitudes and at the equator.  Been doing this for 14 years.

I like the credential-swapping portion of this game.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81384.msg2173876#msg2173876

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM

I measure the buys ballots law with the wind at my back, proving the counterclockwise rotation of rising air parcels due to coriolis.  When I was at the equator, this rule didn't apply. 

But in the end, you will never accept my conclusions because you're not doing them yourself. 

Presumptuous. My concern is not with your conclusion, but with your poor attempt at proving it.

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM

You're chosing to be handicapped in a world surrounded by orbiting satellites. 

You're actually handicapped by assuming someone that questions you must be a flat-earther.

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM

What would even do if you tried to get a job as a Directv installation technician?  You have to aim the dish at the satellite to get a signal.  If you're a nighttime astronomer, you have chose a location based on whether the starlink satellites are going to contaminate your photo.  If you want any job that relies on satellite communication and link troubleshooting, how do you even survive?

I like how you pretend to be concerned about my future employment opportunities. See previous link to find out about my employment experience, as well as my thoughts on knee-jerk assumptions.

I'm not lying about my credentials. I spent 14 years as an operational weather forecaster, now I operate satellites.

Like I said, I have several points about a round Earth. In this case the Earth cannot be flat because if it were, all points would be accelerating at the same rate.  So, the force of gravity would have to be the same across the the Earth.  Otherwise, it would have broken apart long ago.

If you know the world is round, why are you wasting your time questioning me?

...the Earth cannot be flat because if it were, all points would be accelerating at the same rate.  So, the force of gravity would have to be the same across the the Earth.  Otherwise, it would have broken apart long ago.

You've created a false dichotomy that has been discussed quite a bit in the past. There are proposed ways that allow for the measured variations on gravity without resulting in the Earth breaking apart.

If you know the world is round, why are you wasting your time questioning me?

You made a bad argument. Why shouldn't you be questioned?

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 22, 2019, 08:16:06 AM

...the Earth cannot be flat because if it were, all points would be accelerating at the same rate.  So, the force of gravity would have to be the same across the the Earth.  Otherwise, it would have broken apart long ago.

You've created a false dichotomy that has been discussed quite a bit in the past. There are proposed ways that allow for the measured variations on gravity without resulting in the Earth breaking apart.

Quote

If you know the world is round, why are you wasting your time questioning me?

You made a bad argument. Why shouldn't you be questioned?

If it's been discussed before, say it here.  Because I can promise you the world being round has been discussed for centuries.  Unless you're not up to the task.  And don't just paste links.  Actually write your understanding here.

It's a great argument.  The FE model supposed an upward accelerating disk.  If different parts of the Earth accelerate at different rates, they won't stay together.

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:49:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:35:06 AM

Quote from: Stash on July 21, 2019, 01:27:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2019, 01:05:03 AM

The reality of the matter is that a gravity variation would be a violation of the Equivalence Principle which says that gravity is exactly like being on an upwardly accelerating surface with no other gravitating sources around.

Why would gravity variation be in violation of the EP?

If a difference in gravity or gravity variation could be felt from the Sun or from the earth then it wouldn't be like being in an accelerating rocket in intergalactic space far away from any gravity sources. They that that analogy quite literally.

I don't know quite how to phrase this other than to maintain EP integrity the rocket would simply have to be accelerating at whatever that variation was. Otherwise wouldn't the entire world of Gravimetry be in direct violation of GR and people would be writing papers all over the place about that? I don't see anything like that happening.

That's because Gravimeters are Seismometers and the detection of gravity is indirect through interpretation of some subseismic signals. They know it. Now you know it as well.

No.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter

Gravimeters can be used in planes.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 21, 2019, 10:48:22 PM

(Fixed your erroneous quote attributions)

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 21, 2019, 05:50:06 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 21, 2019, 03:29:20 PM

Who are you listening to, and where do you get your information from? Or do you know everything?

I listen to, read, and have conversations with many different sources. I evaluate the credibility of those sources and appropriately weigh the veracity and reliability of the information from those sources keeping their credibility in mind. I also get information from my own observation, experience, experimentation, and measurements. I come to conclusions based on a large number of pieces of information.

(I'll skip your second question, as it was clearly meant to be a devastating cutting remark, but just sounds dumb.)

mightyfletch, on the other hand, bases an entire argument about whether the earth is flat or not on one type of measurement, and on two data points. His conclusion is based on the accuracy of those two measurements. And much of the discussion in these forums questions that some people might intentionally or unintentionally be providing information that is not correct.

Given that, wouldn't one want to verify the basis for one's whole argument?

I have a long list of points about why the Earth is a globe.  This one thread is to discuss one specific point about how the force of gravity is different at different locations on the Earth. 

But that's not what you said. You gave one single piece of evidence and claimed "Earth cannot be flat because of this."

Your claim, as presented in your initial post, consists of that and that alone; essentially

"Acceleration different at Point A and Point B is the only thing necessary to prove earth is not flat."

If you're going to go out on a limb with such a poor argument, you should at least know the data for Point A and Point B is accurate.

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM

So far, FEers can't explain this variation.  I've already provided video proof of the experiment being done.  If I did it myself, would you believe me and abandon your flat-earth adherence?

Sorry? My what?

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM

No, you'd only be convinced if you did it yourself.

That's presumptuous.

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM

I know the Earth is a globe because I fly satellites around it in orbit as part of my job.

 I factor in the spinning globe into my weather forecasts and watch them verify at the mid latitudes and at the equator.  Been doing this for 14 years.

I like the credential-swapping portion of this game.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81384.msg2173876#msg2173876

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM

I measure the buys ballots law with the wind at my back, proving the counterclockwise rotation of rising air parcels due to coriolis.  When I was at the equator, this rule didn't apply. 

But in the end, you will never accept my conclusions because you're not doing them yourself. 

Presumptuous. My concern is not with your conclusion, but with your poor attempt at proving it.

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM

You're chosing to be handicapped in a world surrounded by orbiting satellites. 

You're actually handicapped by assuming someone that questions you must be a flat-earther.

Quote from: mightyfletch on July 21, 2019, 09:26:02 PM

What would even do if you tried to get a job as a Directv installation technician?  You have to aim the dish at the satellite to get a signal.  If you're a nighttime astronomer, you have chose a location based on whether the starlink satellites are going to contaminate your photo.  If you want any job that relies on satellite communication and link troubleshooting, how do you even survive?

I like how you pretend to be concerned about my future employment opportunities. See previous link to find out about my employment experience, as well as my thoughts on knee-jerk assumptions.

I'm not lying about my credentials. I spent 14 years as an operational weather forecaster, now I operate satellites.

I neither said nor implied that you lied about your credentials.

Like I said, I have several points about a round Earth.

You didn't in this topic. You had one point which you presented as a proof. I commented on what you wrote.

In this case the Earth cannot be flat because if it were, all points would be accelerating at the same rate.  So, the force of gravity would have to be the same across the the Earth.  Otherwise, it would have broken apart long ago.

And I questioned that if this was your only argument, whether you had assured yourself of the data that leads to your conclusion.

If you know the world is round, why are you wasting your time questioning me?

Because these forums contain discussions on subjects other than the shape of the earth. That may be your only interest, but it is not mine. You presented a flawed argument. I have an interest in how people present, argue, and defend their positions. I have an interest in the assumptions they make. Like the assumption that I am wasting my time.