Debunking the idea the earth accelerates upward

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 27, 2016, 11:19:35 PM

Now, let's compare that with Universal Acceleration.

UA explains exactly one phenomenon. Local gravity on earth. That's it. And already, it doesn't explain it well. There are numerous seemingly random deviations from the expected value. So already, we have to invent "celestial gravitation" to account for these seemingly random deviations. Already, we have to invent UA's version of "dark matter" to correct UA's predictions for the only thing it has to explain. That is the very definition of a weak theory.

Furthermore, as it turns out, these "random deviations" aren't so random after all. If you look at a map of the deviations, you will notice a correspondence between the deviations and mountain ranges and ocean basins on earth. Sure, the correspondence isn't perfect, and there are certainly exceptions, but it is hard to deny that the correspondence isn't there. This gives us a hint that gravity is somehow related to the mass of the earth, which is the exact thing UA is trying to avoid.

So yeah, even if you accept that the earth is flat, and nothing is beyond the firmament, UA is still an extremely flimsy theory. "Absurd" seems like a fairly reasonable adjective to me.

I see, thanks.

Now that I think about it more.  The fact that gravity starts to drop the higher you go in altitude is also a big problem for UA.  I think ski mentioned the inverse square law to explain this but I'm familiar with this law and this is an inappropriate application of it.

So UA doesn't really work without at least conceding some ground to gravity. 

Which leads me to my next, also possibly moronic, question, this time directed at ski.  Why is gravity incompatible with FET?  I realize our understanding of gravity is incomplete to say the least but throwing out a theory that has incomplete explanatory power for one that has demonstrably much less explanatory power seems, unwise.  You're already comfortable throwing out the sun, moon, stars, planets and satellites.  In FET couldn't you just assume that this flat world is dense enough to keep our feet planted on the ground?  What obvious thing am I missing here?

Its a good point. But once you are comfortable throwing out basically the entire universe, chucking gravity out seems like a small deal.

UA has many, many problems, not the least of which is the utter lack of any evidence of any kind. But relativistic velocities is still a very, very big problem. It would affect our interactions with everything  outside of our frame of reference. For starters, stars would move... rapidly. The 4 light years we are away from our nearest start would change on a daily basis.

The whole point of UA is that the stars, and everything else that we observe, is accelerating along with us. Good luck proving that they aren't.

Sure, it would be easy to dismiss UA under normal circumstances. But given the flat earther constraints of: all space exploration based evidence is fake, all astronomical related evidence is blindly dismissed as perspective/aether, any experiment that they can't repeat for themselves is faked, etc... it becomes a bit more difficult.

Edit:

Which leads me to my next, also possibly moronic, question, this time directed at ski.  Why is gravity incompatible with FET? 

Must...resist...answering...

Through indomitable willpower, I will leave this answer for Ski.

Quote from: fliggs on August 28, 2016, 12:29:03 AM

UA has many, many problems, not the least of which is the utter lack of any evidence of any kind. But relativistic velocities is still a very, very big problem. It would affect our interactions with everything  outside of our frame of reference. For starters, stars would move... rapidly. The 4 light years we are away from our nearest start would change on a daily basis.

The whole point of UA is that the stars, and everything else that we observe, is accelerating along with us. Good luck proving that they aren't.

Sure, it would be easy to dismiss UA under normal circumstances. But given the flat earther constraints of: all space exploration based evidence is fake, all astronomical related evidence is blindly dismissed as perspective/aether, any experiment that they can't repeat for themselves is faked, etc... it becomes a bit more difficult.

Edit:

Quote from: crutonius on August 28, 2016, 12:36:46 AM

Which leads me to my next, also possibly moronic, question, this time directed at ski.  Why is gravity incompatible with FET? 

Must...resist...answering...

Through indomitable willpower, I will leave this answer for Ski.

I should qualify that request better.  I'd prefer a real flat earther or ski or anyone willing to play FE advocate without the standard mocking impersonation.

I didn't mean to imply ski wasn't a real flat earther.  Although I do have access to the shill payroll data ;}

Speaking of payroll data, where did Teach  go after he berated us for daring to question him?

Which leads me to my next, also possibly moronic, question, this time directed at ski.  Why is gravity incompatible with FET?

I don't know that gravitation is incompatible with FET. John has forwarded two seperate coherent gravitational models. I frankly believe that if something similar to GR is true, then the earth must exhibit some gravitation as it contributes to the SEM tensor.

Speaking of payroll data, where did Teach  go after he berated us for daring to question him?

He doesn't have the personality to skulk away or admit defeat graciously.  I predict he will return to haughtily claim victory again. Perhaps he is simply busy.  I'm frequently busy and uninvolved and have to read people gloating that I'm avoiding them, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't know that gravitation is incompatible with FET. John has forwarded two seperate coherent gravitational models. I frankly believe that if something similar to GR is true, then the earth must exhibit some gravitation as it contributes to the SEM tensor.

I see, thanks.

So let me see if I can sum this up and correct me if I'm wrong.  What we have here is a 10 page thread discussing a conjecture that nobody participating in actually takes seriously but everyone keeps contributing to for the sole purpose of making one particular member of this forum look like an ass?

It seems to me that one member seems determined to make an ass of himself, but we needn't quibble over interpretation, I suppose.
I am, however, an advocate of universal acceleration (as are many globularists, though of another sort of alleged acceleration).

It is true that few actually believe in UA - and almost none are outside of these forums. Ski and jroa are among those that do. There are more at the other Society that broke away from us. They also have some other views such as "celestial gears" that may appeal to those that believe in UA.

As an effort to move back towards some of the work of Johnson and Shenton we as a Society have changed our 'official position' on UA, which is to say our FAQ. This also helps us since the view and ourselves as a Society were both unfairly labelled as "controlled opposition."

As a home to free-thinkers and flatists of any kind UA and UA believers will not be censored on our forums and we have no actual "official position" other than we are pro-flat. Any flatist is welcome to discuss their views here so long as they don't conflict with our rules. In-so-far as we do have an official position, we have went on the record stating opposition to the idea on one of our most heavily visited pages.

All that said, if we are discussing UA and someone tries to claim it would reach the speed of light which breaks Relativity, I will voice that this isn't the case.