Hi to all. This is my first post, but I have been reading through the discussions on the site on and off for a year or so and like most RETers I have a problem with the whole Universal Accelerator thing. To be clear, I am not debating the existence of dark energy as it has its own place in RET also but, obviously, not in the same fashion.
To keep things simple I am going by the FAQ on the subject; since a lot of FETer answers simply refer us noobs to the FAQ I think this is a fair stance to take.
Q: "What about gravity?"
A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.
I have real problems with this hypothesis. I am the first to admit that my math and physics skills aren’t great (high school education with two years of college, but that was for media so would be of little use here), so if the following can be explained in a way by FET that is agreeable (from a strictly hypothetical stance, of course) by at least one RETer I am willing to concede the point, as with any point made in any debate.
Firstly if the UA pushes everything up at a constant rate, including things above the world such as the celestial bodies, then if I jump should I not also be subject to this force and remain in mid-air? Unless the force is negated by the blockage of the world and only kicks back in at a certain altitude as it moves back into the space the world has blocked it from, but if that is the case then the atmosplane would be conical in shape, or at least a bit pointy, rather than the dome as claimed by many FETers.
Then there is the problem of sustained space flight. According to the FAQ:
… sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites cannot orbit the Earth. The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites. However, temporary space-flight is possible.
It then goes on to state:
Q: "What would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"
A: You would become directly affected by UA as the Earth is, creating the illusion that you are standing next to it.
Only one of these statements can be true as I understand them. If the UA pushes all things upward at a constant rate then the shuttles and/or satellites originally sent into space should have had no problem with sustained space flight as they would simply need to rest on the (for want of a better term) gravitational cushion provided by the UA, especially when considering:
The celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull. Furthermore, a non-inertial relativistic object experiences different rates of acceleration along its length according to Special Relativity, as it is impossible for both ends to accelerate at the same rate without FTL communication between them. The front end accelerates at a lower rate than the rear end. This is why g decreases at higher altitude.
Should this not make sustained space flight not only possible but easier to achieve than in RET? Just break the atmosplane and rest on the UA until you wish to return, at which point you point your ship at the planar earth and hit the thrusters just enough to take you back into the atmosplane and land as normal. Unless of course the gravitational pull of the celestial bodies is too great and would pull us further and further from our lovely flat home, in which case would it not also pull away the outer layers of our atmosplane?
Plus (this is where my lack of physics and maths may come in), what about the differing masses of the earth cylinder and the celestial bodies? Should the UA not affect some more than others? As in the UA has a constant value of force, stated above, which acts on all things. To give an example (which may be a complete misunderstanding of some basic principle, I don’t know, school was a long time ago), if I apply a given force to an object, let’s say a car, I could push it along slowly at first and accelerating as I go. Now let’s say I apply the same force to something smaller, a bicycle maybe. I would be able to start pushing faster and accelerate to my top speed faster then the car allowed. Does this example apply here? Is so how does FET account for it?
Then there is:
A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.
Now this response to the question of gravity does not mention the UA acting on celestial bodies. I am not sure if this omission is because there is no need to repeat the hypothetical fact or if it means that within this model the UA acts only on the planar world and nothing else. If the former is true then I refer again to my above objections, if it is the latter however we have real problems. If the UA acts only on our home cylinder then we should have accelerated beyond these celestial bodies a really long time ago.
As I say the omission in A2 could be taken either way so this is just nit-picking really. I would, however, greatly appreciate help resolving in myself the problems I pointed out before this.
Sorry if this has been raised before, but I’m sure there are more proponents on each side of the debate now than there was then who would also like a crack at it.
Also sorry for the long post, thanks for sticking with me (unless you didn’t, in which case you don‘t know what I said so you can‘t answer).
Show Posts
