Hey Gunner,

First off, Best of the Season to You, and (I note lately) Yours.

These gravity detectors you mentioned, and I realize your wildcatting
days were some time back........Do you recall the sort of readings you
were getting. I mean, was it in pounds per something, or just some
sort of a scale thing. What would be a "large' variation. Did it
seem to follow the magnetic variations you'd see on an aeronautical or
navigational chart? Why would it influence what you were doing?

Sounds interesting, though for no specific reason..

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:47:29 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 05:57:11 GMT, Mark
wrote:



Ian Stirling wrote:

Given a homogenous spherical earth.


Which does not exist. Which is your point.


At the equator there is centrifugal force which isn't a factor at the
poles, and there is a land mass under the south pole the north pole
doesn't have. Then there's the thing about the earth actually being an oval.

And then there's the thing about densities of the earths crust. And the
thickness. And the turbulent nature of what lies 40 miles down. What
about 2 miles? 3,4,5,6 miles? It all adds up and just how many decimals
does someone want to carry it out to in order to prove their answer?

?

You choose your point on the earths surface, mayhaps I'll find another.

It's a black hole argument. That is, it can suck up any answer without
resolution. Unless we involve a geologist who will tell what spot on
earth has the highest gravimetric verses centrifugal force.



These types of threads are masturbatory.

When I was exploring for oil and gas, we had Gravity Detectors, which
measured the local gravity pull in a given area. Significant
differences in some areas. No idea how they worked.

Gunner

'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'"
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.