awblain
Just admit it, you can't actually find anything wrong with Dr Greaves' model and so you are waffling.
And meanwhile
That headline should be "Well-known gravity variations mapped on much finer scales than before"
If you'd actually read that New Scientist article that Tourist linked to you would've seen this quote:
"
Mount Nevado Huascarán in Peru has the lowest gravitational acceleration, at 9.7639 m/s2, while the highest is at the surface of the Arctic Ocean, at 9.8337 m/s2. These differences mean that in the unlikely event that you found yourself falling from a height of 100 metres at each point, you would hit the surface in Peru about 16 milliseconds later than in the Arctic."
16milliseconds difference in just 100 meters! To my mind that is clearly worth considering if one is developing a model such as Dr Greaves'. However, you say of such variations:
They don't matter. Period. If anyone really sticks them into a model of falling debris, then they're casting doubt upon the quality of other bits in their model.
In the end it comes down to your opinion against the published work of experts in the field.
Based upon that choice of words, I would not read his paper.
Yes, it would have helped if you HAD read it before deciding that his model was no good.