The Flat Earth Wiki
The Flat Earth Wiki
Log in

Difference between revisions of "Variations of Gravity"

From The Flat Earth Wiki
(Duplicate)
Tag: New redirect
 
(53 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''Variations of Gravity''' are the supposed variations to gravity caused by the earth, moon and sun. Some precision devices are alleged to detect these variations, while other precision devices are unable to do so.
+
#REDIRECT [[Variations in Gravity]]
 
 
=The Gravimeter=
 
 
 
On analysis of the gravimeter we find that the device is not directly measuring gravitational acceleration at all. It is measuring noise and using many software algorithms to cancel out the noise. Every part of the device's components -- the lasers which measure the motion, the springs which launch the mass up and down the tube, and all component parts -- are all connected to the earth, and is subject to vibrations.
 
 
 
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-03482-8_9
 
 
 
{{cite|One of the most serious problems for absolute gravimeters is the vibration disturbances.}}
 
 
 
===Marine Gravimeters===
 
 
 
Below we see an example of gravimetry devices and methods for marine gravimetric surveying:
 
 
 
http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE2012_1237.pdf
 
 
 
An example is given of outputs from VSE, Accelerometer, and Gradiometer devices on a mid-size ship navigating Toyama Bay, Japan:
 
 
 
[[File:Marine-Gravimeters.png|600px]]
 
 
 
{{cite|'''''FINDING GRAVITY''' FROM VERY NOISY DATA''
 
 
 
In the previous section, the low-pass filter is used to find the gravity from the noisy data. We can expect
 
that the variation of gravity consists of components with long period, however the vibration of carrier
 
with short period. If this expectation is satisfied, the low-pass filter should work well. Actually, analysis
 
for the first observation on an observation wheel works well, though, not for the other two observations.
 
The reason is the difference of the amplitude of the noise: it is very difficult to pick up the gravity data
 
with very small amplitude from very large vibration of the carrier. This must be limitation of simple
 
filtering technique.
 
 
 
To reduce the vibration of the carrier, we can choose two different approaches.}}
 
 
 
From the above we see that a need to use algorithms and filters to ''''find gravity'''' from noise. The levels of g are not readily apparent, and must be constructed by subtracting the noise to ''''find gravity''''. The above passage states that "We can expect to find the variations of gravity consists of components with long period, however the vibration of the carrier with short periods."
 
 
 
The reader may decide whether the process of subtracting vibrations with one characteristic to reveal other vibrations truly measuring gravity. Why does "gravity" need to be found?
 
 
 
===Galathea-3: A global marine gravity profile===
 
 
 
The Danish vessel Galathea-3 describes its methods for gravimetric surveying:
 
 
 
[http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:23403/datastreams/file_7702126/content Galathea-3: A Global Marine Gravity Profile]
 
 
 
{{cite|The Galathea-3 navigation data included raw depth records provided by The Danish Hydrological Office. The data transfer was sometimes unstable and the data themselves were often very noisy. A preparation of such data for the Bouguer gravity processing requires a cumbersome data cleaning the removal of the spikes, the smoothing, and often the interpolation}}
 
 
 
We see that the process involves extensive data analysis, filtering, and cleanup from noise.
 
 
 
===Airborne Gravimetry===
 
 
 
Airbourne gravimetery methods echoes the same:
 
 
 
[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.33.2681&rep=rep1&type=pdf Improving the Accuracy and Resolution of SINS/DGPS Airborne Gravimetry]
 
 
 
{{cite|Because the resulting signal is very noisy (see Sections 2.3.2 to 2.3.4 for details), its derivation is
 
followed by a filtering step that removes most of the noise by low-pass filtering the data.}}
 
 
 
Again, we see that filtering is necessary to clean up the noise.
 
 
 
===Land Based Gravimetry===
 
 
 
The following paper describes the process of turning a laser signal into a "variation of gravity":
 
 
 
[https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-fau/files/658/ChristianRothleitnerDissertation.pdf Ultra-high Precision, Absolute, Earth Gravity Measurements]
 
 
 
The paper describes that the fringe signal from the laser beam is digitized and processed:
 
 
 
{{cite|One of the new features of our setup is that the whole fringe signal (with up to
 
1.6 million data points) is digitized and processed. In other gravimeters usually
 
just parts of the fringe signal are used for data processing. Since the duration
 
of our FB’s fall in the MPG-1 is about 200 ms, the resultant signal reaches a
 
frequency of up to 6.2 MHz. As an industry standard, a sampling rate of at
 
least 7 times the measured frequency is suggested.}}
 
 
 
''Processing Steps''
 
 
 
[[File:Gravimeter_Processing_Steps.png|600px]]
 
 
 
The fringe signal from the laser must be filtered with software:
 
 
 
[[File:Gravimeter-3.png|600px]]
 
 
 
The remainder of the document describes how the filtering occurs. All sources, to the best of the author's ability, is given an "uncertainty budget," to which is subtracted from the noise. The uncertainty budgets are estimated ranges to which a phenomenon may be contributing to the noise. All possible phenomena in nature must be considered and ''precisely defined''. Everything from air drag, electrostatic fields, pressure, seismic vibrations, &c.
 
 
 
In the Table of Contents we find a list of tables, showing the various elements which are subtracted:
 
 
 
4.6 Uncertainty budget of the measured imbalance – Method II. . . . 84<br>
 
4.7 Uncertainty budget: COM and OC adjusted – Method II. . . . . . 84<br>
 
5.1 Uncertainty budget for air drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89<br>
 
5.2 Uncertainty budget for outgassing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90<br>
 
5.3 Uncertainty budget for eddy currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91<br>
 
5.4 Uncertainty budget for electrostatic field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91<br>
 
5.5 Uncertainty budget for instrumental masses . . . . . . . . . . . . 94<br>
 
5.6 Uncertainty budget for laser verticality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96<br>
 
5.7 Length standard specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96<br>
 
5.8 Uncertainty budget for laser stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97<br>
 
5.9 Frequency standard specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98<br>
 
5.10 Uncertainty budget for clock stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98<br>
 
5.11 Uncertainty budget for corner cube rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . 98<br>
 
5.12 Uncertainty budget for radiation pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99<br>
 
5.13 Uncertainty budget for beam divergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100<br>
 
5.14 Uncertainty budget for temperature gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . 101<br>
 
5.15 Uncertainty budget for seismic noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107<br>
 
5.16 Uncertainty budget for speed of light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108<br>
 
5.17 Uncertainty budget for effective height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109<br>
 
5.18 Specifications of Photoreceiver. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110<br>
 
5.19 Uncertainty budget for amplifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111<br>
 
5.20 Uncertainty budget for solid Earth tides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113<br>
 
5.21 Uncertainty budget for ocean loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113<br>
 
5.22 Uncertainty budget for polar motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114<br>
 
5.23 Uncertainty budget for environmental pressure . . . . . . . . . . . 115<br>
 
5.24 Uncertainty budget for Coriolis force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116<br>
 
5.25 Uncertainty budget for MPG-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117<br>
 
5.26 Uncertainty budget for MPG-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
 
 
 
Once all of these items and their theoretical uncertainties are subtracted, we are left with "gravity."
 
 
 
In truth, the method is merely subtracting vibrations and then applying trend analysis.
 
 
 
===Gravimeter Tides===
 
 
 
The above pdf mentions that long-term analysis of the gravimeter vibrations can detect the tides:
 
 
 
[[File:Gravimeter-tides.png|600px]]
 
 
 
The main conclusion from this is that the tides must be related in some manner to vibration. No mechanism is presented, or is identifiable, from a long term analysis of vertical vibration trends.
 
 
 
===Location Trends===
 
 
 
'''Q.''' How is it that the level of g is different at high altitudes and at the poles?
 
 
 
'''A.''' The gravimeter measures noise in the environment, when the fringe noise is assessed, not the "level of g". No direct measurement is attempted or achieved. The output is the result of specialized filtering. That, after the final filtering and analysis, there may be trends for noise at the top of a mountain, or in an environment which sits on a large amount of compressed ice, or with different environmental affects, should not be surprising.
 
 
 
=The Torsion Balance=
 
 
 
While the gravimeter relies on noise and vibration analysis, the types of experiments used in the equivalence principle tests are of a different sort. The equivalence principle tests are incredibly reliable precision machines used to measure the equivalence principal to increasing precision.
 
 
 
Experimenters have redesigned the torsion balance tests to try and detect the gravity changes caused by the sun, moon, and the tidal forces. It was found that the gravitational influence of the sun, moon, or the tidal forces could not be measured as being a function of the attraction of the bodies in the experiments. Variations to "gravity" did not appear.
 
 
 
==The Princeton Experiment==
 
 
 
From 'The Pendulum Paradigm: Variations on a Theme and the Measure of Heaven and Earth', by Martin Beech, [https://books.google.com/books?id=qumVBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA176&ots=7zlmtFg8WI&pg=PA176#v=onepage&q&f=false we read the following]:
 
 
 
[[File:Torsion-equivelence.png|800]]
 
 
 
{{cite|Specifically, as the Earth spins on its axis and difference between '''the Sun's gravitational interaction with the two masses will result in a 24 hour modulation''' or oscillation, in the orientation of the balance arm as seen in the laboratory. '''The Princeton group found no modulation''' of the torsion balance, and concluded that the Sun's gravitational acceleration on identical aluminum and gold masses was the same to one part in one hundred billion.}}
 
 
 
The masses were not attracted to the sun in the experiment.
 
 
 
==Repetitions==
 
 
 
Additional experiments of this class [http://202.38.64.11/~jmy/documents/publications/equivalence%20principle.htm are described]:
 
 
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
! Authors
 
! Year
 
! Description
 
! Accuracy
 
|-
 
| Roll, Krotkov and Dicke
 
| 1964
 
| Torsion balance experiment, dropping aluminum and gold test masses
 
| difference is less than one part in one hundred billion
 
|-
 
| Branginsky and Panov
 
| 1971
 
| Torsion balance, aluminum and platinum test masses, measuring acceleration towards the sun
 
| difference is less than 1 part in a trillion (most accurate to date)
 
|-
 
| Eöt-Wash
 
| 1987–
 
| Torsion balance, measuring acceleration of different masses towards the earth, sun and galactic center, using several different kinds of masses
 
| difference is less than a few parts in a trillion
 
|}
 
 
 
The Eöt-Wash experiments, which measured the acceleration of different masses towards the earth, sun, and galactic center was repeated by others:
 
 
 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-experiment/app4.html
 
 
 
{{cite|The torsion-balance experiments of Eöt-Wash were repeated by others including (Cowsik et al. 1988; Fitch, Isaila and Palmer 1988; Adelberger 1989; Bennett 1989; Newman, Graham and Nelson 1989; Stubbs et al. 1989; Cowsik et al. 1990; Nelson, Graham and Newman 1990). These repetitions, in different locations and using different substances, gave consistently negative results. In addition, Bizzeti and collaborators (1989a; 1989b), using a float apparatus similar to that of Thieberger, also obtained results showing no evidence of a Fifth Force. There is, in fact, no explanation of either Thieberger’s original, presumably incorrect, results. The scientific community has chosen, I believe quite reasonably, to regard the preponderance of negative results as conclusive.[2] Experiment had shown that there is no Fifth Force.}}
 

Latest revision as of 23:30, 1 July 2019