Support NeoGAF

[Nymphae]

Looks like it has:

Gnome proves an amazing fact about Earth’s gravity.

Did you know the Earth's gravity varies, wherever you go? A gnome is travelling the world to measure the phenomenon. Check out the results and follow his progress.

gnome-experiment.com

That was the only thing I could find as well. " This wiki has some information on the various factors that affect weight measurements at different latitudes, and this video goes into detail about the various atmospheric factors at play. From the wiki:

When one examines the properties of the air they will find that other elements too are related to pressure, temperature, and humidity; such as air viscosity and thermal diffusivity -- all of which may affect the operation of scales. If a scale is affected by any of that then those factors should be excluded, ideally in a vacuum chamber experiment. Yet a search on such types of experiments finds none... an experiment which is based on bringing uncalibrated scales to different environments and then looking for differences of a fraction of one percent of a body's weight must only be questioned for validity. The European Union has mandated that any scale that is not calibrated after being relocated is not a legitimate measurement device.

 

[greyshark]

That was the only thing I could find as well. " This wiki has some information on the various factors that affect weight measurements at different latitudes, and this video goes into detail about the various atmospheric factors at play. From the wiki:

So you don’t think the results of the experiment are valid? It was run by a company that makes digital scales - the whole point was to show off the accuracy of them. They even explicitly stated that they did calibrate them for the experiment.

 

[Nymphae]

So you don’t think the results of the experiment are valid?

I'm saying there does appear to be good reason to require another more strictly controlled test, to consider this experimentally verified. And the EU literally says it's not even considered a legitimate measuring device if is not recalibrated on site after relocation due to the numerous things that can affect the scale.

This was a PR campaign that was designed to "increase [Kern's] market share in the global science and education sectors." They hired the PR firm Ogilvy to come up with a campaign to achieve this. The generated social media pages and had people self submit to a website (which is now defunct). It's odd to me that this supposed fact of nature was never experimentally verified until 2012 when a scale company wanted to increase it's marketshare and hired a PR company to design a media campaign rather than a strictly controlled series of tests.

 

[greyshark]

I'm saying there does appear to be good reason to require another more strictly controlled test, to consider this experimentally verified. And the EU literally says it's not even considered a legitimate measuring device if is not recalibrated on site after relocation due to the numerous things that can affect the scale.

This was a PR campaign that was designed to "increase [Kern's] market share in the global science and education sectors." They hired the PR firm Ogilvy to come up with a campaign to achieve this. The generated social media pages and had people self submit to a website (which is now defunct). It's odd to me that this supposed fact of nature was never experimentally verified until 2012 when a scale company wanted to increase it's marketshare and hired a PR company to design a media campaign rather than a strictly controlled series of tests.

I’m having trouble finding the math behind the atmospheric affects on weight - can you tell me what the percentage difference between a low density and high density environment would be?

 

[Nymphae]

I’m having trouble finding the math behind the atmospheric affects on weight - can you tell me what the percentage difference between a low density and high density environment would be?

No I can't lol

 

[greyshark]

No I can't lol

So how do we know this effect has invalidated the experiment? A lot of the weight variation in humans is due to our buoyancy - we are made of largely water after all.

For example the difference in weight of gold in a vacuum (no atmosphere) vs at sea level on Earth is 0.0063%. That is nowhere close to affecting a result such as in the gnome experiment.

Are you willing to throw out the results of that experiment over such a potentially small variation?

 

[Nymphae]

So how do we know this effect has invalidated the experiment?

The EU regulations on scale calibration would appear to delegitimize the devices themselves, to say nothing of how atmospheric factors are affecting things (the video I linked has some fairly extensive research on the various factors at play at each test location at the time of measurement, I think there is sufficient reason to believe that these things do impact the tests at the miniscule amounts of variance it is attempting to detect.)

And I mean, does your belief in this effect hinge on this experiment? Was this effect entirely theoretical before a scale company decided to drum up some business in 2012? What other experiments have proven this effect?

 

[greyshark]

The EU regulations on scale calibration would appear to delegitimize the devices themselves, to say nothing of how atmospheric factors are affecting things (the video I linked has some fairly extensive research on the various factors at play at each test location at the time of measurement, I think there is sufficient reason to believe that these things do impact the tests at the miniscule amounts of variance it is attempting to detect.)

And I mean, does your belief in this effect hinge on this experiment? Was this effect entirely theoretical before a scale company decided to drum up some business in 2012? What other experiments have proven this effect?

Without seeing the math behind the dispute I’m not sure how to quantify the issue - the data I showed you would point to the effect being negligible.

And no, my belief is not dependent on this experiment. The effect of centripetal acceleration has been proven for centuries, I did not need a garden gnome to help validate it.

 

[strange headache]

It's odd to me that this supposed fact of nature was never experimentally verified until 2012 when a scale company wanted to increase it's marketshare and hired a PR company to design a media campaign rather than a strictly controlled series of tests.

That is not true. NASA's GRACE mission measures local fluctuations in Earth's gravity field since 1997:

The GRACE mission was selected as the second mission under the NASA Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) Program in May 1997. Launched in March of 2002, the GRACE mission is accurately mapping variations in Earth's gravity field. [...] The gravity variations studied by GRACE include: changes due to surface and deep currents in the ocean; runoff and ground water storage on land masses; exchanges between ice sheets or glaciers and the ocean; and variations of mass within Earth. Another goal of the mission is to create a better profile of Earth's atmosphere.

This "fact of nature" has been thoroughly measured and experimentally verified. GRACE's results are commonly used to make predictions on atmospheric changes and to establish climatic models.

 

[Nymphae]

I did not need a garden gnome to help validate it.

I'm simply asking for the original data that would have verified this, if there is any, I understand that the model has been mathematically correct for some time, but I'm not looking for references that restate the claims, but the experimental data that proves them. You simply searched google for something like "can we feel the earth spin?" and literally pasted me the very first search result. I asked where the claims in that link had been verified, and you responded with "do you dispute the maths?!" with more copypasta that wasn't relevant experimental data. I once again asked for the data, which compelled you to search from something like "equator pole weight experiment", and you pasted the gnome link.

 

[Bladed Thesis]

That is not true. NASA's GRACE mission measures local fluctuations in Earth's gravity field since 1997:

This "fact of nature" has been thoroughly measured and experimentally verified. GRACE's results are commonly used to make predictions on atmospheric changes and to establish climatic models.

I see NASA, I know lie. Also, that image of the earth looks fake. Green water? Are we supposed to buy that? Global-lovers are getting desperate with the earth pictures.

 

[greyshark]

I'm simply asking for the original data that would have verified this, if there is any, I understand that the model has been mathematically correct for some time, but I'm not looking for references that restate the claims, but the experimental data that proves them. You simply searched google for something like "can we feel the earth spin?" and literally pasted me the very first search result. I asked where the claims in that link had been verified, and you responded with "do you dispute the maths?!" with more copypasta that wasn't relevant experimental data. I once again asked for the data, which compelled you to search from something like "equator pole weight experiment", and you pasted the gnome link.

Your original premise was a simple one - “shouldn’t we feel the acceleration of the Earth if it’s a sphere?”

It’s a simple question with a simple answer - hence my original response.

Then you asked for experimental data - if the gnome experiment isn’t enough, does the above linked NASA mission satisfy your request?

 

[Nymphae]

does the above linked NASA mission satisfy your request?

That is more in line with what I was looking for, not mere parroting from science blogs. I'm going over this when I have time, thanks strange headache

 

[Evil Calvin]

The primary motivation was beating the Soviet Union to the Moon, and, after Kennedy's assassination, honoring his memory and fulfilling that dream. Hundreds of thousands of people worked on the space race in the United States. Once we achieved the goal and beat the Soviets, the public quickly lost interest. Television ratings for the subsequent Apollo moon landings plummeted. The Moon is a rock and of limited practical utility on its own (helium-3 mining, perhaps, and as a staging area for Mars etc.). There wasn't a public mandate to go beyond the Moon, and the space program was a massive financial sink, so progress stabilized into an incremental pace.

Don't understand the fascination with inhabiting Mars. Lets fix the shit pile we created on Earth first!!

 

[Bladed Thesis]

Don't understand the fascination with inhabiting Mars. Lets fix the shit pile we created on Earth first!!

What shit pile?

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Don't understand the fascination with inhabiting Mars. Lets fix the shit pile we created on Earth first!!

When we challenge ourselves to do something we inevitably grow and learn along the way. Mars is the destination but the goal is ~~the friends we make along the way~~

 

[Ornlu]

Don't understand the fascination with inhabiting Mars. Lets fix the shit pile we created on Earth first!!

Eggs in multiple baskets; obtaining resources from other sources; we can do more than one thing at a time; etc.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Don't understand the fascination with inhabiting Mars. Lets fix the shit pile we created on Earth first!!

Don't have all your eggs in one basket? Man being in two planets means less chance of extinction. But that is if there's a colonization project.

I think barring advanced nanotech, trying to colonize a planet as hostile as mars is probably not going to be practical. In order to have constant use of advanced manufacturing, state of the art semiconductors, and machinery, it will take the ability to manufacture everything locally.

Advanced nanotech not only allows for the local manufacture of state of the art technology, but it would also allow for robotic facilities that replicate and expand using materials mined from mars. Allowing for rapid colony expansion or growth.
edit

It does affect bullets. Snipers have to account for it.

Flat earthers claim they've interviewed snipers who've told them they never have to take into account Coriolis.

 

[Evil Calvin]

What shit pile?

Have you not looked around?

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

american moon, timestamp 3 times flag was waving without anyone touching it.


Here we see that the flag was moving without any astronaut touching it. In the last example the flag moved while the astronauts were in the vehicle and no one was nearby, it also was several meters away from the vehicle, and the flag waves towards the vehicle.

 

[Nymphae]

This is a great series of articles on the Apollo program for those interested

Wagging the Moondoggie

Visit the post for more.

centerforaninformedamerica.com

 

[zeomax]

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Look at the earth at timestamp 4:47 from that same video


With the right contrast the earth seems surrounded by a square of a slightly different color than the surrounding black space, as if it had been photo shopped in. That's one of the issues that has been seen with images of the earth from the moon, upon analysis they appear surrounded by a square of different quality than the surrounding space, as if the earth was added into the photo.

edit even from the video preview photo you can see a square of lighter black around the earth.

 

[Nymphae]

edit even from the video preview photo you can see a square of lighter black around the earth.

All I did was crank the levels, try it yourself. Box is clear as day lol. That is an official image is it not?

 

[zeomax]

Because it is a fake photo. No, not faked by NASA, faked by conspiracy theorists to "prove" their evidence (that's why it is in the video and not the original photo).

This is the original NASA picture. It ends where the artifacts in the fake photo occurs.

 

[Nymphae]

Going to need an official NASA link, though I would not be surprised if these have been crawled and re-edited since the 70's.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Because it is a fake photo. No, not faked by NASA, faked by conspiracy theorists to "prove" their evidence (that's why it is in the video).

This is the original NASA picture. It ends where the artifacts in the fake photo occurs.

I know there was one with a similar square around the earth that nasa removed from the archives, but was still saved on some articles on the net who sourced it from nasa.

 

[zeomax]

Going to need an official NASA link, though I would not be surprised if these have been crawled and re-edited since the 70's.

https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/hires/as11_40_5868.jpg

This is probably the picture from where the earth was copied

https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo8/hires/as08-14-2383.jpg

 

[Nymphae]

That's better, though like I said, they've had plenty of time to remove or re-edit things. I simply do not trust government video and images as proof of anything, with a 21.5 billion dollar budget in 2019 alone, I believe they're capable of making some compelling images. More interested in proofs that don't rely on falsifiable media.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

 

[zeomax]

I simply do not trust government video and images as proof of anything,

Then why are you asking for official NASA images?

 

[zeomax]

Dude it is a compressed jpeg image. Of course it has all kinds of artifacts.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Dude it is a compressed jpeg image. Of course it has all kinds of artifacts.

Well the photo now gives far less artifacts, so it seems it was potentially changed. The original had a square around the earth it seems.

 

[zeomax]

Well the photo now gives far less artifacts, so it seems it was potentially changed. The original had a square around the earth it seems.

And? The original pictures are analog. So basically every picture on the NASA site has some king of compression artifacts. At some point someone realised it was bad because of the artifacts caused by the image compression and they uploaded a less compressed image.

 

[Nymphae]

Then why are you asking for official NASA images?

Because you can't give me a random link and call it an official shot.

 

[Nymphae]

And? The original pictures are analog. So basically every picture on the NASA site has some king of compression artifacts. At some point someone realised it was bad because of the artifacts caused by the image compression and they uploaded a less compressed image.

You would never see a compression artifact that clearly defined, and it shoikd affect other areas as well. That is clear evidence of image editing, but I'm not convinced it was official. You can see the vertical line just beside the earth, that indicates where another image was stiched onto the left, compare the image to the one you shared as official.

 

[zeomax]

Because you can't give me a random link and call it an official shot.

Does it matter? Because you said you "do not trust government video and images as proof of anything"

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

And? The original pictures are analog. So basically every picture on the NASA site has some king of compression artifacts. At some point someone realised it was bad because of the artifacts caused by the image compression and they uploaded a less compressed image.

did you see the room 237 video earlier in the thread?


What do you think of the changes kubrik did to the shining?

or the nervous almost guilty behavior of the astronauts on interview

 

[zeomax]

You would never see a compression artifact that clearly defined, and it shoikd affect other areas as well. That is clear evidence of image editing, but I'm not convinced it was official. You can see the vertical line just beside the earth, that indicates where another image was stiched onto the left, compare the image to the one you shared as official.

I was talking about the picture in this video, not the one i posted.

What do you think of the changes kubrik did to the shining?

Nothing. I never saw the movie.

 

[Nymphae]

Does it matter? Because you said you "do not trust government video and images as proof of anything"

No an image from NASA isn't going to convince me of anything, but if you're going to post an image claiming it's official, it helps your case if you use the official links.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Nothing. I never saw the movie.

The video I linked covers some of the changes. Like a little boy with an apollo 11 rocket t shirt rising up and going into a room called room 237, the same number as the thousands of miles from earth the moon is. Neither the room number nor the apollo shirt were in the original source material.

 

[zeomax]

did you see the room 237 video earlier in the thread?
What do you think of the changes kubrik did to the shining?

Ok, watched. So the guy is assuming the number change of the room to 237 is an indication to the fake moon landing because you can scramble the letters of "ROOM No" to "MOON"?

or the nervous almost guilty behavior of the astronauts on interview

And this is surprising to you? They are sitting there and billions of people are watching them what they are saying. Everybody would be nervous in this moment.

 

[zeomax]

a room called room 237, the same number as the thousands of miles from earth the moon is

The moon distance varies between 221 and 252 million miles depends on the orbit. 237 means absolutely nothing in this case.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Ok, watched. So the guy is assuming the number change of the room to 237 is an indication to the fake moon landing because you can scramble the letters of "ROOM No" to "MOON"?

IT is not just the room, the boy has an apollo 11 rocket t shirt and rises up from the ground and walks towards that room. Also alot of the rest of the movie appears to suggest he's been gagged by ndas.

The moon distance varies between 221 and 252 million miles depends on the orbit. 237 means absolutely nothing in this case.

The orbit is elliptical? I thought it was circular


google says
384,400 km moon distance to earth, which is 238,800~ miles. Though earlier less precise figures could easily have been 237,000.

edit got this
"Apollo 11 traveled about 237,000 miles to the moon in about 103 hours. Apollo 12 made the same trip in about 123 hours. What is the difference in the rates of travel of the two spacecraft round to the nearest whole number?"

Apollo 11 traveled about 237,000 miles to the moon in about 103 hours. Apollo 12 made the same trip in about 123 hours. What is the difference in the rates of travel of the two spacecraft round to the nearest whole number? | Socratic

The difference in rates of speed is "379 mi/h". The rate of speed is determined by dividing the distance traveled by the time it takes to travel that distance. The equation is r=d/t, where r is the rate of speed, d is the distance, and t is the time. Apollo 11 d="237000 mi" t="103 h"...

socratic.org

that is the distance traveled by apollo 11

 

[zeomax]

The orbit is elliptical? I thought it was circular


google says
384,400 km moon distance to earth, which is 238,800~ miles. Though earlier less precise figures could easily have been 237,000.

The actual distance varies over the course of the orbit of the Moon, from 356,500 km (221,500 mi) at the perigee to 406,700 km (252,700 mi) at apogee, resulting in a differential range of 50,200 km (31,200 mi)

Lunar distance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[zeomax]

IT is not just the room, the boy has an apollo 11 rocket t shirt and rises up from the ground and walks towards that room.

You can find whatever you want if you search long enough. Look this guy has found some satanic messages on his pizza box.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

You can find whatever you want if you search long enough. Look this guy has found some satanic messages on his pizza box.

IT is specific changes by a director that is rumored to have been involved in the faking of the moon landing. Maybe he was just trolling, but if not that is whistleblowing.

 

[Tesseract]

how do you do fellow earthers

how do you guys deal with keyhole sat photography and the like, giving us all kinds of historic insights into shit like the chernobyl disaster

are the kh-11 orbital const. paths just fake news to you lot, or is there a deeper explanation

shout outs to the hulkamaniacs that think kubrick was some kinda time lord, that shit never gets old

 

[zeomax]

IT is specific changes by a director that is rumored to have been involved in the faking of the moon landing. Maybe he was just trolling, but if not that is whistleblowing.

"Apollo 11" has 6 letters. 6 upside down is 9. It has the numbers 11 --> 9/11. Holly shit, Kubrick predicted 9/11 in Shining!!!

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

"Apollo 11" has 6 letters. 6 upside down is 9. It has the numbers 11 --> 9/11. Holly shit, Kubrick predicted 9/11 in Shining!!!

A kid with a tshirt with a white rocket and the words apollo 11 walks up from around a bunch of cars, like a launch pad, and enters a room with the numbers 237. The same number of thousands of miles apollo 11 travelled to the moon.

This was not in the original source material.