## Earth's "Center of Gravity—Up or down?"

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

### Earth's "Center of Gravity—Up or down?"

Why was it that at the turn of the century, the Geodetic Survey Departments of both the French and United States governments made certain tests, which upset the Copernican theory, than decided that they should be kept secret? What, actually, were these tests, and should they be repeated today, under the most severe test conditions?

If you've ever watched a bricklayer at work, you've seen him use a plumb bob to determine the perpendicular so that his wall will be erect and straight. A plumb bob is simply a weight suspended on the end of cord. It acts on the principle of the attraction of gravity, or mass, and the weight always points toward the center of gravity, which in the case of spherical Earth is its exact center. A line formed by the cord of a plumb bob is at precisely a right angle from the horizontal.

It is a division of a plane surface into two 90° angles. By simply laying his bricks parallel to the line of the plumb bob, the bricklayer builds a wall that is precisely erect. If he did not use a plumb bob, there would be many more leaning towers of Pisa in the world.

However, the plumb bob is not used only to erect buildings, but it is used to measured the distance of the sun or any planet. This is done by measuring a precise horizontal distance on the Earth (which is naturally a curve, because the Earth is round), and since we know the circumference of the Earth, the distance around it, thus we can calculate an exact base for our proposed triangle to be used in measuring the distance of the sun. Then, by us of a sextant, we can "shoot the sun" from both ends of this base line, and get a pair of angles which are slightly less than 90° angles because they are obviously not parallel to the perpendicular as determined by the plumb bob. We know that, given one side of a triangle, and two of its angles, we can calculate the length of the other two sides. Thus, we can tell how far the sun is from the Earth. It isn't quite this simple, because we don't know the precise size of the Earth, and thus, the difference in parallelism of the two perpendiculars we have achieved at both ends of our base line. It should be obvious to the reader that since the plumb bobs point at the center of the earth lines projected into space would continually move further apart.

Thus we have a great interest in exactly how far it is to the center of the Earth, in order to be absolutely sure of our two important angles in figuring interplanetary distances.

Sometime prior to 1901, the French Government, wishing to determine more accurately the actual size of the Earth, so that they could revise and refine their calculations regarding the distance to the sun, hit on a way to measure the difference in distance apart at the top of two lines perpendicular to the surface of the Earth and the bottom of those same two lines. They wanted a pair of lines long enough to give them an appreciable measurement . Obviously they could not erect two parallel poles a mile high, but they did feel they could suspend two plumb bobs a mile deep into a mine shaft, and thus be able to measure the distance apart at the top and the distance apart at the bottom, which would be slightly less. They wanted to know exactly how much less. The result of these tests was very strange. So strange that the French Geodetic scientists contacted the scientists of the American Geodetic Survey and conveyed their results to them, with the request that similar tests be conducted in this country. Officially, nothing was done for some years. But in 1901, one of the Geodetic surveyors happened to be working in the vicinity of the Tamarack mines near Calumet, Michigan. He contacted the chief engineer at Tamarack, and informed him of the information transmitted by the French government. Two mine shafts were selected, and plumb lines exactly 4,250 feet long were suspended in each mine. At the end of these lines a sixty pound bob was hung. In order to prevent movement through a horizontal direction, each bob was suspended in a tank of oil placed at the bottom of the mine shafts.

In this way, it was reasoned, magnetic forces could not effect them. The lines used to suspend the bobs were No. 24 piano wires. For twenty-four hours the lines were allowed to hang, so that there would be no possibility of movement from putting them in place still remaining in the lines. The measurements were begun.

It was then that it was discovered that the French Geodetic engineers had not made a mistake.

Careful re-checking proved that the lines, contrary to expectations, were farther apart at the bottom than at the top!

There can be only one implication to such strange result the center of gravity is not, as previously believed, at the center of the Earth, but in fact, it must be above the surface of the Earth, somewhere in Space! If these two lines, formed by the suspended plumb lines, were to be extended upward, they would meet somewhere in the void away from the Earth, and that point, by all the rules of gravitational attraction, should be the center of gravity of this planet! Greatly puzzled, and not a little disturbed, the Tamarack engineer sent for Professor McNair of the Michigan College of Mines. With McNair there to check his results, the experiment was repeated, the measurements gone over again, and both men were convinced that no error had been made. Professor McNair suggested that the plumb bobs be changed to a non-magnetic metal to overcome any possibility of magnetic attraction or repulsion due to a magnetic ore body nearby. But when this was done, the same figures were arrived at. If magnetic influences had been at work, they would have varied with different metals, but they did not.

continued:
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/palmer.htm

spark

Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:36 am

### Re: Earth's "Center of Gravity—Up or down?"

I don't know if the Tamarack Mine thing is legitimate, but it brings up ideas I have resisted discussing because I didn't know how to express them, and, I thought they were too far out. Also, I don't have the scientific background to defend what I believe to be true.

Below are quotes from Sparky's link that I have been considering:

There is no such thing as a straight line. “If there is no such thing as a "straight line" in this sense of the words, then are not all our measurements of astronomical distances based on initial error inherent in the incompatibility of angles and lines in a perpetually whirling "curved" electromagnetic field?”
Due to curvature of the universe, cosmic bodies are much closer than we believe. “Is it not true that the plumb lines are not straight at all, but follow a curve dictated by the lines of force of a whirling electromagnetic field? Is it true, that the sun is seen not via light coming to us in a straight line, but actually a gigantic curve dictated by the master vortex of the Solar Systems whirling electromagnetic field? Thus it would be considerably nearer than the 93,000,000 miles we believe its distance to be?”
There is no such thing as “attraction of mass”. “It is said the Moon's orbit is maintained because the attraction of mass of both bodies is exactly counterbalanced by centrifugal force. The Earth system is maintained in its orbit about the sun by the same delicate balance. Could it be that there is no such thing as "attraction of mass?"”
The universe is rotating. “The best theory of creation to date is the theory of an electromagnetic field being placed in rotation, and thus the driving to its center, in a literal condensation process, of matter, to form a central body and planets.”
jtb

Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

### Re: Earth's "Center of Gravity—Up or down?"

I don't know if the Tamarack Mine thing is legitimate, but it brings up ideas I have resisted discussing because I didn't know how to express them, and, I thought they were too far out. Also, I don't have the scientific background to defend what I believe to be true.

Below are quotes from the link provided by Spark that I have been considering:

There is no such thing as a straight line. “If there is no such thing as a "straight line" in this sense of the words, then are not all our measurements of astronomical distances based on initial error inherent in the incompatibility of angles and lines in a perpetually whirling "curved" electromagnetic field?”

Due to curvature of the universe, cosmic bodies are much closer than we believe. “Is it not true that the plumb lines are not straight at all, but follow a curve dictated by the lines of force of a whirling electromagnetic field? Is it true, that the sun is seen not via light coming to us in a straight line, but actually a gigantic curve dictated by the master vortex of the Solar Systems whirling electromagnetic field? Thus it would be considerably nearer than the 93,000,000 miles we believe its distance to be?”

There is no such thing as “attraction of mass”. “It is said the Moon's orbit is maintained because the attraction of mass of both bodies is exactly counterbalanced by centrifugal force. The Earth system is maintained in its orbit about the sun by the same delicate balance. Could it be that there is no such thing as "attraction of mass?"”

The universe is rotating. “The best theory of creation to date is the theory of an electromagnetic field being placed in rotation, and thus the driving to its center, in a literal condensation process, of matter, to form a central body and planets.”
jtb

Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

### Re: Earth's "Center of Gravity—Up or down?"

I think the answer is that the Earth is charged at the surface, differently than at the core.
What we have done, is hung plumb bobs from the Earth's surface, into a tub of oil (an insulator). The bobs are connected by metal lines to the surface of the Earth. When our bobs were on the surface, everything around them was like charged. It wasn't that our bobs had no electrical repulsion from each other, it was just that everything around them had the same electrical repulsion. No net pull of an object from one point on the surface of a charged Earth, to another. In the well, a single bob (charged like Earth's surface) is surrounded by opposite charge, but no net pull towards any one side of the well. If we lower two like charged objects from the surface, we have the electrostatic repulsion pushing them apart, but no "balancing" electrostatic repulsion from the objects on the other sides.

We are not measuring the curvature of the Earth, as they intended, but we are measuring the charge differential by depth beneath the Earth's surface. The angle between our lines,tells us the strength of the electrostatic forces pushing our bobs apart, compared to the gravitational forces pulling our bobs to the bottom of the well.
celeste

Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

### Re: Earth's "Center of Gravity—Up or down?"

Hi Sparky,

I am relatively new to this forum. I have found this idea pretty fascinating in concept, the "what if" gravity was doing this....etc. I reminds me of a book I read a few years back.His crazy idea was what if gravity was actually an intrinsic property of matter where there was a constant of expansion, i.e. everything is expanding at the same rate, providing the illusion of attraction of matter. Some great points were made, but ultimately this was trading one "unknown" for another. There were probably larger issues with his ideas, however he hasn't at the time his book was written provided any test allowing it to be de-bunked. However, digging through your link, it looks like it was de-bunked around 1902.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/mcnair.htm

"the west wire was moved eastward, lessening the distance between the lines, the wires hung nearly parallel than when this wire was close to the wall of the shaft. It seems therefore that a very simple cause was at the bottom of the divergence."

The cause of the measurements was due to a steady air current where one of the plumb bobs hung. A re-positioning of the plumb bob corrected their error.

Nick
nicho247

Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:01 am

### Re: Earth's "Center of Gravity—Up or down?"

Hi Sparky,

Rumors of my posting abilities have been greatly exaggerated.
spark is well above me in that area.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky

Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

### Re: Earth's "Center of Gravity—Up or down?"

So it seems to me a "steady air current" needs just as much explanation. Sounds to me like this experiment was riddled with variables. Not to mention, was the french study invalidated by the same, was it air currents there as well?

I don't really think there is much to this, but has a more controlled experiment been attempted, or was it just, stable air currents cause it, never try again? I though the goal was to measure the earth or sun more precisely? Did we accomplish this by some other means? We couldn't do much with data since there was no defined tolerance or measurable outcome from the experiment?

I guess I just need some closure here ... lol
Frantic

Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49 am

### Re: Earth's "Center of Gravity—Up or down?"

nicho247 wrote:
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/mcnair.htm

"the west wire was moved eastward, lessening the distance between the lines, the wires hung nearly parallel than when this wire was close to the wall of the shaft. It seems therefore that a very simple cause was at the bottom of the divergence."

The cause of the measurements was due to a steady air current where one of the plumb bobs hung. A re-positioning of the plumb bob corrected their error.

Nick

Actually, That behavior is what we would expect in the electrostatic model! If we hang a single plumb bob down in the center of the shaft, we would expect no net force pulling the plumb bob to any particular side. Once we bring the plumb bob near one wall, the electrostatic attraction is greater towards that nearest wall. So it is not just the repulsion between the like charged plumb bobs that matters, but the attraction between the plumb bobs and the oppositely charged walls.

The final picture is this: We have two plumb bobs, hooked by conducting wires to Earth's surface. We hang them deep down into the mine shaft, where charge changes with depth. At the bottom the bob's hang freely, or are suspended in an insulating oil. There is repulsive force between the like charged bobs, and also attraction of each bob to the nearest oppositely charged wall. Of course the bobs diverge. I wish we would have made that prediction in advance, but it is at any rate, exactly what we would expect in Charles Chandlers compressive ionization model.
celeste

Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

### Re: Earth's "Center of Gravity—Up or down?"

jtb wrote:There is no such thing as a straight line. “If there is no such thing as a "straight line" in this sense of the words, then are not all our measurements of astronomical distances based on initial error inherent in the incompatibility of angles and lines in a perpetually whirling "curved" electromagnetic field?”

Due to curvature of the universe, cosmic bodies are much closer than we believe. “Is it not true that the plumb lines are not straight at all, but follow a curve dictated by the lines of force of a whirling electromagnetic field? Is it true, that the sun is seen not via light coming to us in a straight line, but actually a gigantic curve dictated by the master vortex of the Solar Systems whirling electromagnetic field? Thus it would be considerably nearer than the 93,000,000 miles we believe its distance to be?”

This article in Science Magazine says that light is composed of many frequencies (every color is a different frequency) and that interference between frequencies while traveling causes light to curve causing optical illusions. The sun may be closer than 93,000,000 miles.
http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/04/light-bends-itself
jtb

Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

### Re: Earth's "Center of Gravity—Up or down?"

jtb wrote:
jtb wrote:There is no such thing as a straight line. “If there is no such thing as a "straight line" in this sense of the words, then are not all our measurements of astronomical distances based on initial error inherent in the incompatibility of angles and lines in a perpetually whirling "curved" electromagnetic field?”

Due to curvature of the universe, cosmic bodies are much closer than we believe. “Is it not true that the plumb lines are not straight at all, but follow a curve dictated by the lines of force of a whirling electromagnetic field? Is it true, that the sun is seen not via light coming to us in a straight line, but actually a gigantic curve dictated by the master vortex of the Solar Systems whirling electromagnetic field? Thus it would be considerably nearer than the 93,000,000 miles we believe its distance to be?”

This article in Science Magazine says that light is composed of many frequencies (every color is a different frequency) and that interference between frequencies while traveling causes light to curve causing optical illusions. The sun may be closer than 93,000,000 miles.
http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/04/light-bends-itself

How did you get from the article to your conclusion about the sun? The article states what if you use the correct instrumentation you can make the light waves seem as they are traveling in a curve by selectively cancelling out the EM-energy in the regions that are not part of the curve.

They even say this: ". In fact, he says, most of the light's power goes not toward the bright curve, but into the dim areas that have been cancelled out. "

The curvature is in other words engineered and it's probability of it naturally occurring in a statistically significant way is possibly close to 0.
Zendo

Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:57 pm