Gravity and the equivalence principle

  • 37 Replies
  • 4236 Views
*

sokarul

  • 16526
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Gravity and the equivalence principle
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2019, 03:43:47 PM »
Clearly, you cannot contradict it, or produce sources otherwise, and so you are attempting to whine and discredit. I authored very little of that content, markjo. The primary authors are traditional science sources, and your fe-fees can't seem to handle that science shows you to be wrong.
You changed your claim from “gravimeter” to “absolute gravimeter”.

Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38878
Re: Gravity and the equivalence principle
« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2019, 04:33:02 PM »
Clearly, you cannot contradict it, or produce sources otherwise, and so you are attempting to whine and discredit. I authored very little of that content, markjo. The primary authors are traditional science sources, and your fe-fees can't seem to handle that science shows you to be wrong.
Tom, when you cherry pick your quotes and post them in a different context, you remind me of a Weird Al interview.  Yes, they said what they said, but that doesn't mean that they support your argument.
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17457
Re: Gravity and the equivalence principle
« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2019, 05:13:33 PM »
So you think that what was quoted does support the argument, but it might be misquoted. Interesting hypothesis. Another hypothesis is that the researchers mean what they say.

*

rabinoz

  • 24206
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Gravity and the equivalence principle
« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2019, 05:46:37 PM »
So you think that what was quoted does support the argument, but it might be misquoted. Interesting hypothesis. Another hypothesis is that the researchers mean what they say.
We aren't doubting the researchers just your interpretations of what they write.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17457
Re: Gravity and the equivalence principle
« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2019, 05:49:27 PM »
So you think that what was quoted does support the argument, but it might be misquoted. Interesting hypothesis. Another hypothesis is that the researchers mean what they say.
We aren't doubting the researchers just your interpretations of what they write.

Yeah, it's just a coincidence that I found multiple sources and examples to back up the argument, and it's only a coincidence that multiple researchers say that gravimeters are seismometers. Weak argument. You are better off calling the researchers lackluster scientists who don't know what they are talking about, and who fell for an old science myth that caused them to write what they wrote. At least that wouldn't rely on unbelievable coincidence to maintain that your viewpoint is correct.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 06:06:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38878
Re: Gravity and the equivalence principle
« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2019, 06:06:47 PM »
So you think that what was quoted does support the argument, but it might be misquoted. Interesting hypothesis. Another hypothesis is that the researchers mean what they say.
We aren't doubting the researchers just your interpretations of what they write.

Yeah, it's just a coincidence that I found multiple sources and examples to back up the argument, and it's only a coincidence that multiple researchers say that gravimeters are seismometers.
Do any of those sources say that the earth is flat?

BTW, what's the whole point of the "gravimeters are seismometers" claim in the first place?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 06:12:51 PM by markjo »
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.

*

rabinoz

  • 24206
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Gravity and the equivalence principle
« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2019, 06:39:44 PM »
So you think that what was quoted does support the argument, but it might be misquoted. Interesting hypothesis. Another hypothesis is that the researchers mean what they say.
We aren't doubting the researchers just your interpretations of what they write.

Yeah, it's just a coincidence that I found multiple sources and examples to back up the argument, and it's only a coincidence that multiple researchers say that gravimeters are seismometers. Weak argument. You are better off calling the researchers are college dropouts who don't know what they are talking about, and who fell for an old science myth that caused them to write what they wrote. At least that wouldn't rely on unbelievable coincidence to maintain that your viewpoint is correct.
But what I am saying is that absolute gravimeters are not seismometers. Try to debunk that.

In any case, while they are both accelerometers a seismometer must be connected firmly to the ground of bedrock if possible.
Quote
USGS: Seismometers, seismographs, seismograms - what's the difference? How do they work?
Seismographs are instruments used to record the motion of the ground during an earthquake. They are installed in the ground throughout the world and operated as part of a seismographic network. The earliest "seismoscope" was invented by the Chinese philosopher Chang Heng in A.D. 132. This did not, however, record earthquakes; it only indicated that an earthquake was occurring. The first seismograph was developed in 1890.

A seismograph is securely mounted onto the surface of the earth so that when the earth shakes, the entire unit shakes with it EXCEPT for the mass on the spring, which has inertia and remains in the same place. As the seismograph shakes under the mass, the recording device on the mass records the relative motion between itself and the rest of the instrument, thus recording the ground motion. In reality, these mechanisms are no longer manual, but instead work by measuring electronic changes produced by the motion of the ground with respect to the mass.
You might also read: Site Selection, Preparation and Installation of Seismic Stations by Amadej Trnkoczy, Peter Bormann, Winfried Hanka, L. Gary Holcomb and Robert L. Nigbor
Would you care to dispute any of that?

Gravity meters, on the other hand, must be isolated from seismic events but because they of necessity have to be mounted on a stable platform they must include some type of seismic isolation.

The simplest is a super-spring arrangement but more advanced units include a seismic detector whose output can cancel any seismic effects on the gravity meter.
For example see:
Quote
NCBI: Gravity measurements below 10−9g with a transportable absolute quantum gravimeter

Figure 1.
A high-precision accelerometer is attached to the top of the vacuum chamber, as close as possible to the pyramidal reflector. Its signal is used to apply a real-time correction to the laser phase, in order to reject seismic noise. Two tiltmeters and a barometer are also attached to the sensor to ensure high accuracy and long-term stability of the gravity measurement.

Far from being a seismometer this Absolute Quantum Gravimeter (AQG-A01) takes steps to "in order to reject seismic noise".


Re: Gravity and the equivalence principle
« Reply #37 on: December 03, 2019, 02:01:26 AM »
Clearly, you cannot contradict it
It is quite easy for something to be clear when you just ignore what shows it to be wrong.

So far all you have provided is your opinion, and a link to your opinion.
Do you have any actual sources?

it's only a coincidence that multiple researchers say that gravimeters are seismometers.
Have any of them said that all gravimeters are seismometers?