Acceleration is not constant on Earth

  • 453 Replies
  • 61236 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #150 on: July 28, 2019, 04:23:08 PM »
Topic of the thread is gravity anomalies. Anomalies in gravimetey are inconsistent with the RE theory of gravity.

The RE effort is now to claim that the error of scales is imperceptible, in contradiction of the statements from authorities that the scales are highly affected by various factors and that regular calibration is necessary.

The following on uncalibrated scale drift portrays 0.5% variance as small, and gives it as an example of why frequent calibration is necessary.

https://precisionscale.com/scale-calibration/

" UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF SCALE CALIBRATION

In more complex terms, scale calibration involves the process of comparing a known standard, such as a calibration service’s certified weights, to the results given by the unit that is being tested (your company’s scales). Such a procedure ensures the accuracy of the unit being tested. When your business relies on accuracy of weights to run and operate smoothly and protect profits, calibration of your scales is not negotiable. It is an absolute must and will also ensure that your business is adhering to industry standards and Canadian laws and regulations if you use the weights and measurements to calculate truck loads.

Why Is Calibrating Your Business’s Scales So Important?

While you may not realize it, your business’s scales and the accuracy they produce have a direct impact on your company’s bottom line. If your scales are off, your profits can be off as well. For example, let’s say that your business deals in a very expensive powdered cleaning product. If the product cost is $10 per pound and on average you weigh 1,000 pounds of product per day, the total value of product weighed each day is $10,000.

Now, let’s say that your scale is out of balance by just 0.5 percent. That discrepancy will cost you approximately $50 per day, or $1,000 a month. Unless your company is in the position to literally throw away $1,000 a month ($12,000 a year), then it becomes very apparent why scale calibration is a necessity. In fact, keeping these numbers in mind, one can actually say that such a service is actually an insurance policy protecting your business’s bottom line, rather than just another routine business expense. "
« Last Edit: July 28, 2019, 04:36:28 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #151 on: July 28, 2019, 04:55:46 PM »
Topic of the thread is gravity anomalies. Anomalies in gravimetey are inconsistent with the RE theory of gravity.

The RE effort is now to claim that the error of scales is imperceptible, in contradiction of the statements from authorities that the scales are highly affected by various factors and that regular calibration is necessary.

The following on uncalibrated scale drift portrays 0.5% variance as small, and gives it as an example of why frequent calibration is necessary.

https://precisionscale.com/scale-calibration/

" UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF SCALE CALIBRATION

In more complex terms, scale calibration involves the process of comparing a known standard, such as a calibration service’s certified weights, to the results given by the unit that is being tested (your company’s scales). Such a procedure ensures the accuracy of the unit being tested. When your business relies on accuracy of weights to run and operate smoothly and protect profits, calibration of your scales is not negotiable. It is an absolute must and will also ensure that your business is adhering to industry standards and Canadian laws and regulations if you use the weights and measurements to calculate truck loads.

Why Is Calibrating Your Business’s Scales So Important?

While you may not realize it, your business’s scales and the accuracy they produce have a direct impact on your company’s bottom line. If your scales are off, your profits can be off as well. For example, let’s say that your business deals in a very expensive powdered cleaning product. If the product cost is $10 per pound and on average you weigh 1,000 pounds of product per day, the total value of product weighed each day is $10,000.

Now, let’s say that your scale is out of balance by just 0.5 percent. That discrepancy will cost you approximately $50 per day, or $1,000 a month. Unless your company is in the position to literally throw away $1,000 a month ($12,000 a year), then it becomes very apparent why scale calibration is a necessity. In fact, keeping these numbers in mind, one can actually say that such a service is actually an insurance policy protecting your business’s bottom line, rather than just another routine business expense. "

No, Tom.  Gravity anomalies are an integral part of how a rotating globe works.  The centrifugal force at the equator is demonstrated in this experiment.   
Note, the scale is calibrated in the experiment.

   The Flat Earth model does not account for this at all.  Also, according to the inverse square law, gravity decreases with altitude...another element not accounted for in the FE model that is elementary in the RE model.

By the way, here is my original post for reference.


"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......"

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
  • 17754
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #152 on: July 28, 2019, 07:07:00 PM »
By the way, here is my original post for reference.


"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......"
Thanks for bringing the OP up again. Especially the "Earth cannot be flat because of this" part. Because it's wrong, even though you keep bringing it up. The entire thread can be closed, based on that fact alone.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #153 on: July 28, 2019, 07:16:50 PM »
Topic of the thread is gravity anomalies. Anomalies in gravimetey are inconsistent with the RE theory of gravity.
No, Anomalies in gravimetry are not in any way, shape or form inconsistent with the RE theory of gravity. Why would you suggest that they are?
Dense ore bodies and high mountains can cause what you would call gravity anomolies.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The RE effort is now to claim that the error of scales is imperceptible, in contradiction of the statements from authorities that the scales are highly affected by various factors and that regular calibration is necessary.

The following on uncalibrated scale drift portrays 0.5% variance as small, and gives it as an example of why frequent calibration is necessary.
https://precisionscale.com/scale-calibration/
" UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF SCALE CALIBRATION
But even that gives no indication of the drift that might be expected over a few days.

All of that is, however, totally irrelevant to the measurement of gravity anomalies because only amateurs demonstrating the variations in g with latitude and E-W velocity would use them these precision scales as "gravimeters".

Professionals doing serious measurements of gravity anomalies would use either absolute or relative gravimeters. You might read:
        Learn more about Gravimeter: Exploration Geophysics
        Geophysics: Gravity anomalies of some simple structures.
        Gravity: Theory and measurement.
And absolute gravimeters have been described previously.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #154 on: July 28, 2019, 08:23:57 PM »
The RE effort is now to claim that the error of scales is imperceptible, in contradiction of the statements from authorities that the scales are highly affected by various factors and that regular calibration is necessary.

The following on uncalibrated scale drift portrays 0.5% variance as small, and gives it as an example of why frequent calibration is necessary.
First of all, how often do you think that scales need to be calibrated?

Secondly, one of the things that calibrating the scale does is to adjust for the local value of g.  If you're trying to measure variations in local values of g, then it doesn't make sense to keep calibrating your scale to the local value of g every time you move your scale, does it?
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.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #155 on: July 28, 2019, 08:52:30 PM »
Ok, the Universal Acceleration is property of the Universe.
It accelerates the whole Earth up together as integral chunk.
Changing altitude in that case won't change the effect of gravity.
The one, single Earth is "accelerating" towards objetse at lower altitude and objects at higher altitude?

Keep one gravimeter low (say, at sea level) and measure how fast is Earth acceleating towards it.
Bring another gravimeter high (say, in an anchored balloon above the same point) and measure how fast is Earth accelerating towards it.
It is well known (measured and documented) that in reality the "acceleration of the same ground towards such two points" differs.

Why and how would the same Earth at the same time accelerate differently towards two points one above the other?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some tried to explain the difference by existence of some "celestial gravitation"
that would selectively exist between celestial bodies and earthly bodies,
but not between two or more earthly bodies alone.
Some massive celestial bodies, say, "the Dome", would have gravitational properties and pull earthly bodies from above to reduce their weight.
("We don't know the actual configuration of the bottom surface of the Dome.")
But for that to affect earthly bodies the earthy bodies would have to have the same properties.

Electric fields only exert forces on bodies with electric properties (electric charge ability). Bodies with such properties also interact with each other that way.
Magnetic fields only exert forces on bodies with magnetic properties (magnetic polarization ability). Bodies with such properties also interact with each other that way.
Gravitational fields (celestial or not) only exert forces on bodies with gravitational properties (mass). Bodies with such properties also interact with each other that way.

Plus, nobody has ever shown the existence of such celestial bodies (say, "the Dome") in reality.

"Rocket hit the Dome at the altitude of 73 miles."
"North Korean ICBM reached the altitude of 2314.5 miles on July 28, 2017." (from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-14)
« Last Edit: July 28, 2019, 08:59:09 PM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #156 on: July 28, 2019, 10:09:56 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.
Who says that "surveying plumb-bobs were not attracted by an adjacent mountain"?

At the time of the Schiehallion experiment the average density of the earth was unknown although the densities of mountains could at least be estimated.

You might read the following extract:
Quote
Schiehallion experiment
The Schiehallion experiment was an 18th-century experiment to determine the mean density of the Earth. Funded by a grant from the Royal Society, it was conducted in the summer of 1774 around the Scottish mountain of Schiehallion, Perthshire. The experiment involved measuring the tiny deflection of a pendulum due to the gravitational attraction of a nearby mountain. Schiehallion was considered the ideal location after a search for candidate mountains, thanks to its isolation and almost symmetrical shape. One of the triggers for the experiment were anomalies noted during the survey of the Mason–Dixon line.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finding the mountain

Chimborazo, 1738
A pair of French astronomers named Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie de La Condamine were the first to attempt the experiment, conducting their measurements on the 6,268-metre (20,564 ft) volcano Chimborazo in Ecuador[a] in 1738. Their expedition had left France for South America in 1735 to try to measure the meridian arc length of one degree of latitude near the equator, but they took advantage of the opportunity to attempt the deflection experiment. In December 1738, under very difficult conditions of terrain and climate, they conducted a pair of measurements at altitudes of 4,680 and 4,340 m.Bouguer wrote in a 1749 paper that they had been able to detect a deflection of 8 seconds of arc, but he downplayed the significance of their results, suggesting that the experiment would be better carried out under easier conditions in France or England. He added that the experiment had at least proved that the Earth could not be a hollow shell, as some thinkers of the day, including Edmond Halley, had suggested.

Schiehallion, 1774
That a further attempt should be made on the experiment was proposed to the Royal Society in 1772 by Nevil Maskelyne, Astronomer Royal. He suggested that the experiment would "do honour to the nation where it was made" and proposed Whernside in Yorkshire, or the Blencathra-Skiddaw massif in Cumberland as suitable targets. The Royal Society formed the Committee of Attraction to consider the matter, appointing Maskelyne, Joseph Banks and Benjamin Franklin amongst its members. The Committee despatched the astronomer and surveyor Charles Mason to find a suitable mountain.

After a lengthy search over the summer of 1773, Mason reported that the best candidate was Schiehallion(then spelled Schehallien), a 1,083 m (3,553 ft) peak lying between Loch Tay and Loch Rannoch in the central Scottish Highlands. The mountain stood in isolation from any nearby hills, which would reduce their gravitational influence, and its symmetrical east–west ridge would simplify the calculations. Its steep northern and southern slopes would allow the experiment to be sited close to its centre of mass, maximising the deflection effect. Coincidentally, the summit lies almost exactly at the latitudinal and longitudinal centre of Scotland.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To determine the deflection due to the mountain, it was necessary to account for the curvature of the Earth: an observer moving north or south will see the local zenith shift by the same angle as any change in latitude. After accounting for observational effects such as precession, aberration of light and nutation, Maskelyne showed that the difference between the locally determined zenith for observers north and south of Schiehallion was 54.6 arc seconds. Once the surveying team had provided a difference of 42.94″ latitude between the two stations, he was able to subtract this, and after rounding to the accuracy of his observations, announce that the sum of the north and south deflections was 11.6″.

Maskelyne published his initial results in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1775, using preliminary data on the mountain's shape and hence the position of its center of gravity. This led him to expect a deflection of 20.9″ if the mean densities of Schiehallion and the Earth were equal. Since the deflection was about half this, he was able to make a preliminary announcement that the mean density of the Earth was approximately double that of Schiehallion. A more accurate value would have to await completion of the surveying process.

Maskelyne took the opportunity to note that Schiehallion exhibited a gravitational attraction, and thus all mountains did; and that Newton's inverse square law of gravitation had been confirmed. An appreciative Royal Society presented Maskelyne with the 1775 Copley Medal; the biographer Chalmers later noting that "If any doubts yet remained with respect to the truth of the Newtonian system, they were now totally removed".
Please note this part, "This led him to expect a deflection of 20.9″ if the mean densities of Schiehallion and the Earth were equal. Since the deflection was about half this, he was able to make a preliminary announcement that the mean density of the Earth was approximately double that of Schiehallion".

Here is another reference to that experiment: The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow: 31st October, 1990 Maskelyne on Schiehallion

So one could say that the deflection of 11.6″ was less than the expected deflection of 20.9″ but that 20.9″ was based on Schiehallion having the same density as the rest of the earth.

Then in 1788/89 the Cavendish experiment was performed with the express purpose of determining the average density of the earth.
That experiment "found that the Earth's density was 5.448±0.033 times that of water" consistent with, but far more accurate than, the Schiehallion measurement.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2019, 01:48:19 AM by rabinoz »

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #157 on: July 28, 2019, 10:32:47 PM »
There is a practical explanation that such free fall.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

This is the flat earth society forums, not the общество плоской земли.  Try English.

Strange you are here. Yes, I do not speak English ... But I have not seen such information in English. If you are not able to read the subtitles, then where am I?
You are not interested in the result, and you are not aware that we may soon be flying, subjecting gravity. Acceleration is only a special case of the whole picture. How will I laugh, when you then argue about how all the same gravitole fly. No, you will say that they are not real as the satellites above us ... For now.
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #158 on: July 29, 2019, 01:02:15 AM »
Topic of the thread is gravity anomalies.
The topic of the thread is variation in gravity with latitude.

The RE effort is now to claim that the error of scales is imperceptible
No it isn't, just that the error is smaller than the variation observed.

in contradiction of the statements from authorities that the scales are highly affected by various factors and that regular calibration is necessary.
You mean consistent with it.
The problem is they want to measure mass, not weight.

The following on uncalibrated scale drift portrays 0.5% variance as small
Drift in mass, based upon how much money you want to lose, by a company trying to get you to pay them to re-calibrate.

They are just using a number most people consider small.
They aren't demonstrating that this number is actually a likely drift.

If all the factors you listed were so important, scales would need to be calibrated on a hour by hour basis, or more.

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #159 on: July 29, 2019, 04:33:30 AM »
Quote
.....Then in 1788/89 the Cavendish experiment was performed with the express purpose of determining the average density of the earth.
That experiment "found that the Earth's density was 5.448±0.033 times that of water" consistent with, but far more accurate than, the Schiehallion measurement.

You what serezno you trust in all this nonsense?
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #160 on: July 29, 2019, 04:45:28 AM »
Tell me, what experiments could people do by definition of gravity. When did they fly into space at that time? Yes, they all already knew, it came up with a fairy tale for us. Read the rhymedodynamics, and then as in Hladi there is a standing wave gathering a point of attraction to the center in the earth's crust. Planets go around the sun like that. There is the concept of orbital resonance ... All this is the other side of the coin. In general, the moon is not a piece of cheese, and the first descendants of Eve were immortal - the koshche, which now fly on UFOs. Why should I believe some Einstein when all the facts shout the opposite?
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #161 on: July 29, 2019, 04:51:25 AM »
Quote
.....Then in 1788/89 the Cavendish experiment was performed with the express purpose of determining the average density of the earth.
That experiment "found that the Earth's density was 5.448±0.033 times that of water" consistent with, but far more accurate than, the Schiehallion measurement.

You what serezno you trust in all this nonsense?
Why not?
It has been verified by hundreds of similar experiments since that time. So it seems as though it is not nonsense.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #162 on: July 29, 2019, 06:21:56 AM »
Tell me, what experiments could people do by definition of gravity. When did they fly into space at that time? Yes, they all already knew, it came up with a fairy tale for us. Read the rhymedodynamics, and then as in Hladi there is a standing wave gathering a point of attraction to the center in the earth's crust. Planets go around the sun like that. There is the concept of orbital resonance ... All this is the other side of the coin. In general, the moon is not a piece of cheese, and the first descendants of Eve were immortal - the koshche, which now fly on UFOs. Why should I believe some Einstein when all the facts shout the opposite?

So let’s see if I understand you correctly:
You say you’re a pony with wings
You believe that the Koshche fly around in spaceships
You believe there was some kind of major atomic related incident in what was the USSR prior to WW1 and have a belief in history that is totally at odds with what’s accepted
You also say Space travel by human society in a fairy tale and believe all that said Einstein was fakery!




*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #163 on: July 29, 2019, 09:14:41 AM »
There is a practical explanation that such free fall.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

This is the flat earth society forums, not the общество плоской земли.  Try English.

Strange you are here. Yes, I do not speak English ... But I have not seen such information in English. If you are not able to read the subtitles, then where am I?
You are not interested in the result, and you are not aware that we may soon be flying, subjecting gravity. Acceleration is only a special case of the whole picture. How will I laugh, when you then argue about how all the same gravitole fly. No, you will say that they are not real as the satellites above us ... For now.

The subtitles look like they're in Russian.  I am not sure what you are writing either.  We have satellites above us that orbit the Earth and we have airplanes that fly.  I'm not sure if that answers your question.
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 #164 on: July 29, 2019, 09:17:46 AM »
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude. 
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 #165 on: July 29, 2019, 10:40:32 AM »

Note, the scale is calibrated in the experiment.


Notes:
The scale is calibrated in one location, Perth.
The scale is then moved to a different location.
The manufacturer's instructions state "the weighing range can shift slightly during the shipping". While the wording is clumsy and inaccurate (the change in the weighing range is not corrected by calibration, the correction to the scale's reading at 500g is) the intent is clear. Moving the scale can change its calibration. This is standard. Ask anyone who uses these types of balances in a laboratory setting. Precision scales should be calibrated in place.
The manufacturer's instructions also clearly state "If scale begins to show inaccuracies, please perform calibration with the scale with a ... calibration weight."
The experimenter does not exercise good standard laboratory practices. Precision calibration weights should not be handled with bare skin (done multiple times) and banged against a table (done multiple times).

So. According to the manufacturer:
If the scale shows inaccuracies, the scale should be recalibrated.
The experimenter calibrated the scale.
The experimenter moved the scale to a different city (method not specified).
The experimenter saw an inaccuracy.
The manufacturer specifies that at this point, the scale should be recalibrated, which was not done.
If it had been done, the scale would have read 500.00g, which is what the scale is intended to do when a 500g calibration weight is placed on it.

This scale cannot used as a measuring standard in the experiment as shown. It is not designed to independently measure weight unless calibrated against a standard.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #166 on: July 29, 2019, 11:48:27 AM »
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude.
What thread have you been reading? Don't be one of those posters.
You're free to disagree with FET, but pretending the most overdone questions like this don't have answers is just silly. If you want to reject them for being unsupported, go right ahead, but denying their existence is thoroughly unnecessary and does nothing but give the impression you think RET is so weak you need to lie to defend it.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #167 on: July 29, 2019, 01:49:36 PM »
Precision scales should be calibrated in place.
Yes, if you want to correct for very small variations and also insure the mass is being reported correctly rather than the weight.

The experimenter saw an inaccuracy.
No, the experimenter saw a variation in the reported mass, which is to be expected if the weight of the mass changed.

If it had been done, the scale would have read 500.00g, which is what the scale is intended to do when a 500g calibration weight is placed on it.
Which is why calibrating based upon a known mass instead of a known weight is pointless for an experiment like this.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #168 on: July 29, 2019, 01:57:58 PM »
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude.
What thread have you been reading? Don't be one of those posters.
You're free to disagree with FET, but pretending the most overdone questions like this don't have answers is just silly. If you want to reject them for being unsupported, go right ahead, but denying their existence is thoroughly unnecessary and does nothing but give the impression you think RET is so weak you need to lie to defend it.

Come on Jane how about you give some solid verifiable facts that can explain how gravity can be measured by anyone who cares to do it and be shown to be variable according to well-known factors. Can you also explain how geologists for many years have been using these facts to produce and use gravity maps in their search for both oil and minerals?
Can you also explain how in the case of the Chicxulub crater, discovered by  Antonio Camargo and Glen Penfield during a survey the gravity anomaly the meteor created can be mapped precisely using the variations in gravity produced by the impact that caused the increases in rock density?

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Gravity-anomalies-over-Chicxulub-crater-Horizontal-gravity-gradient-gravity-units-per_fig9_249057175

Are you saying the scientists who produced this and other gravity maps are in error?

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #169 on: July 29, 2019, 02:11:45 PM »
Topic of the thread is gravity anomalies. Anomalies in gravimetey are inconsistent with the RE theory of gravity.

The RE effort is now to claim that the error of scales is imperceptible, in contradiction of the statements from authorities that the scales are highly affected by various factors and that regular calibration is necessary.

The following on uncalibrated scale drift portrays 0.5% variance as small, and gives it as an example of why frequent calibration is necessary.

https://precisionscale.com/scale-calibration/

" UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF SCALE CALIBRATION

In more complex terms, scale calibration involves the process of comparing a known standard, such as a calibration service’s certified weights, to the results given by the unit that is being tested (your company’s scales). Such a procedure ensures the accuracy of the unit being tested. When your business relies on accuracy of weights to run and operate smoothly and protect profits, calibration of your scales is not negotiable. It is an absolute must and will also ensure that your business is adhering to industry standards and Canadian laws and regulations if you use the weights and measurements to calculate truck loads.

Why Is Calibrating Your Business’s Scales So Important?

While you may not realize it, your business’s scales and the accuracy they produce have a direct impact on your company’s bottom line. If your scales are off, your profits can be off as well. For example, let’s say that your business deals in a very expensive powdered cleaning product. If the product cost is $10 per pound and on average you weigh 1,000 pounds of product per day, the total value of product weighed each day is $10,000.

Now, let’s say that your scale is out of balance by just 0.5 percent. That discrepancy will cost you approximately $50 per day, or $1,000 a month. Unless your company is in the position to literally throw away $1,000 a month ($12,000 a year), then it becomes very apparent why scale calibration is a necessity. In fact, keeping these numbers in mind, one can actually say that such a service is actually an insurance policy protecting your business’s bottom line, rather than just another routine business expense. "

If your business is measuring very small quantities, sure your scales need to be calibrated as do all scientific instruments that's why the French government have been so protective of thee Kilogram, though the definition has recently been changed is now based on an electric current rather than a shiny lump of metal.

However, that has little to do with the production of gravity maps like this famous one from the Yukatan

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Gravity-anomalies-over-Chicxulub-crater-Horizontal-gravity-gradient-gravity-units-per_fig9_249057175

This clearly shows the gravity anomaly that was produced by the meteor impact, an how rock density, as well as elevation and latitude, can affect gravity.

Are you saying gravity maps are not real Tom, are you saying all the geoligist who both make and use them are in error, please explain.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #170 on: July 29, 2019, 02:23:49 PM »
Precision scales should be calibrated in place.
Yes, if you want to correct for very small variations and also insure the mass is being reported correctly rather than the weight.
With the precision of the scales and calibration quality systems I work with, I do want to correct for very small variations, as those variations can exceed the specified tolerance of the scale. The calibration procedures I deal with require calibrating scales in place.

The experimenter saw an inaccuracy.
No, the experimenter saw a variation in the reported mass,

Yeah. That's called an inaccuracy.

which is to be expected if the weight of the mass changed.

That's one explanation, but not the only one. The weight *could* have remained the same and the scale read differently because of jostling during transport. Statistics showing how much the scale varied after multiple shipments would bolster the argument, as would a calculation of how much the weight was expected to change at each location. But that's not part of this experiment.

If it had been done, the scale would have read 500.00g, which is what the scale is intended to do when a 500g calibration weight is placed on it.
Which is why calibrating based upon a known mass instead of a known weight is pointless for an experiment like this.
Yep. That is one thing we agree on.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #171 on: July 29, 2019, 02:26:50 PM »
Are you saying the scientists who produced this and other gravity maps are in error?
No, that was the exact opposite of what I said, troll harder next time.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #172 on: July 29, 2019, 02:42:32 PM »
Ha
I think jane is just calling flech a jackass for picknig a fight.
Very un-marcos of flech.

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #173 on: July 29, 2019, 03:13:14 PM »
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude.
What thread have you been reading? Don't be one of those posters.
You're free to disagree with FET, but pretending the most overdone questions like this don't have answers is just silly. If you want to reject them for being unsupported, go right ahead, but denying their existence is thoroughly unnecessary and does nothing but give the impression you think RET is so weak you need to lie to defend it.

No lies here.  This post had 163 replies, but none of them, not even the Archbishop Tom, have an answer to why gravity is weaker with altitude or at the equator.  The only FE responses are any measurements already performed cannot be trusted, and no FEer is willing to perform them.  The closest anyone has come is that there might be an unknown, invisible force shaped like a ring over the equator that lifts every material like a magnet.  I have not seen any FE wiki explain it.  That's why I posted this, and that's why I'm calling FEers out. 
Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #174 on: July 29, 2019, 03:16:09 PM »
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude.
What thread have you been reading? Don't be one of those posters.
You're free to disagree with FET, but pretending the most overdone questions like this don't have answers is just silly. If you want to reject them for being unsupported, go right ahead, but denying their existence is thoroughly unnecessary and does nothing but give the impression you think RET is so weak you need to lie to defend it.

No lies here.  This post had 163 replies, but none of them, not even the Archbishop Tom, have an answer to why gravity is weaker with altitude or at the equator.  The only FE responses are any measurements already performed cannot be trusted, and no FEer is willing to perform them.  The closest anyone has come is that there might be an unknown, invisible force shaped like a ring over the equator that lifts every material like a magnet.  I have not seen any FE wiki explain it.  That's why I posted this, and that's why I'm calling FEers out.
*goes to first page*
*fucking Rab gives you an answer to altitude, if bastardised, by reply 2*
Yep, you're totally not making that up just to convince yourself you contributed something that hasn't been covered hundreds of times before.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #175 on: July 29, 2019, 03:32:46 PM »
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude.
What thread have you been reading? Don't be one of those posters.
You're free to disagree with FET, but pretending the most overdone questions like this don't have answers is just silly. If you want to reject them for being unsupported, go right ahead, but denying their existence is thoroughly unnecessary and does nothing but give the impression you think RET is so weak you need to lie to defend it.

No lies here.  This post had 163 replies, but none of them, not even the Archbishop Tom, have an answer to why gravity is weaker with altitude or at the equator.  The only FE responses are any measurements already performed cannot be trusted, and no FEer is willing to perform them.  The closest anyone has come is that there might be an unknown, invisible force shaped like a ring over the equator that lifts every material like a magnet.  I have not seen any FE wiki explain it.  That's why I posted this, and that's why I'm calling FEers out.
*goes to first page*
*fucking Rab gives you an answer to altitude, if bastardised, by reply 2*
Yep, you're totally not making that up just to convince yourself you contributed something that hasn't been covered hundreds of times before.

His casual mention of celestial gravitation was not defended by FEers that I saw post on this thread, since they seem to not believe in it.  I wonder why.  Perhaps it doesn't fit the Unversal Acceleration model.  Who knows.  Tom Bishop seemed to think it wasn't worth mentioning.  Also, celestial gravitation does not explain decreasing acceleration/gravity with decreasing latitude.

Are you here to defend celestial gravitation?  Do you have some answer you care to share?
« Last Edit: July 29, 2019, 03:43:02 PM by mightyfletch »
Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #176 on: July 29, 2019, 03:40:37 PM »
Precision scales should be calibrated in place.
Yes, if you want to correct for very small variations and also insure the mass is being reported correctly rather than the weight.
With the precision of the scales and calibration quality systems I work with, I do want to correct for very small variations, as those variations can exceed the specified tolerance of the scale. The calibration procedures I deal with require calibrating scales in place.

The experimenter saw an inaccuracy.
No, the experimenter saw a variation in the reported mass,

Yeah. That's called an inaccuracy.

which is to be expected if the weight of the mass changed.

That's one explanation, but not the only one. The weight *could* have remained the same and the scale read differently because of jostling during transport. Statistics showing how much the scale varied after multiple shipments would bolster the argument, as would a calculation of how much the weight was expected to change at each location. But that's not part of this experiment.
But your explanation of "inaccuracy" loses a little weight when the experiment is performed a number of times by different people and they all achieved similar results.


How I destroyed flat Earth idiocy – Earth is not spinning? by Olivier Joseph



Flat Earth vs Globe - Does weight change with Latitude?

Is this evidence the Earth is spinning? by Wolfie6020
     
Flat Earth vs Globe - The Eötvös effect observed in aircraft

- how does it affect Gravity? by Wolfie6020


Flat Earth Crushed by a 500g Weight by Critical Think,

Quote
In experiment measuring a standard weight at different latitudes.
At 5:12 it should read 7.9 N Doh! Missed that typo!
If you dispute any results see below.


Zero Probability: Flat Earth by Critical Think
     
Zero Probability: Flat Earth - Part 2: The method

by Critical Think
     
Zero Probability: Flat Earth - Part 3: Error Analysis

by Critical Think

Did they all get random errors that led to the similar results - that gravity varies predictably with latitude (and with West-East vs East-West velocity).

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #177 on: July 29, 2019, 03:44:58 PM »
His casual mention of celestial gravitation was not defended by FEers that I saw post on this thread, since they seem to not believe in it.  I wonder why.  Perhaps it doesn't fit the Unversal Acceleration model.  Who knows.  Tom Bishop seemed to think it wasn't worth mentioning.  Also, celestial gravitation does not explain decreasing acceleration at the equator.
Because everyone's sick to death of discussing it because it is an absurdly overdone discussion to the point that even Rabinoz will bring it up, and he'd kick up a fuss if a FEer said the sky was blue. Trust me, acting cocky is doing you no favours.

You get some people that deny accurate measurement of the variation, which more often than not ties into completely different aspects of FET because they've rather unsurprisingly got different laws of physics to RET because, see again, FET, naturally there are things an RE understanding doesn't take into account. There are those that reject them just generally, mind you, but hey.
Then you get to celestial gravitation, which functions on the premise gravity is more akin to magnetism; only certain materials exert it, and affect many more than just those that exert it. Hence stars can exert it, while not enough of the Earth to turn it into a ball does. You can easily use a variation of that with materials within the Earth to justify variation in net force depending on distance from the pole, though offhand I couldn't tell you how many do that. Latitude is definitely the better argument there but, again, doesn't justify lying about no answer being given to altitude.
Celestial gravitation fits with the UA model neatly. Then you get onto non-UA models, which most users here accept, from denpressure to DET to AFET to non-Euclidean and... how much time do you have?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #178 on: July 29, 2019, 03:46:13 PM »
With the precision of the scales and calibration quality systems I work with
But we aren't discussing what you work with.
We are discussing using them to measure variations in g across Earth.

Yeah. That's called an inaccuracy.
Not if you are trying to use it to determine weight instead of mass.

That's one explanation, but not the only one. The weight *could* have remained the same and the scale read differently because of jostling during transport. Statistics showing how much the scale varied after multiple shipments would bolster the argument, as would a calculation of how much the weight was expected to change at each location. But that's not part of this experiment.
Yes, the experiment should have more than just 2 data points. But that doesn't mean that the reading in the experiment was an inaccuracy rather than simply a different measurement.

However there are plenty of other such measurements.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #179 on: July 29, 2019, 03:46:52 PM »
Precision scales should be calibrated in place.
Yes, if you want to correct for very small variations and also insure the mass is being reported correctly rather than the weight.
With the precision of the scales and calibration quality systems I work with, I do want to correct for very small variations, as those variations can exceed the specified tolerance of the scale. The calibration procedures I deal with require calibrating scales in place.

The experimenter saw an inaccuracy.
No, the experimenter saw a variation in the reported mass,

Yeah. That's called an inaccuracy.

which is to be expected if the weight of the mass changed.

That's one explanation, but not the only one. The weight *could* have remained the same and the scale read differently because of jostling during transport. Statistics showing how much the scale varied after multiple shipments would bolster the argument, as would a calculation of how much the weight was expected to change at each location. But that's not part of this experiment.
But your explanation of "inaccuracy" loses a little weight when the experiment is performed a number of times by different people and they all achieved similar results.
But that's not part of this experiment.