Why does no one seem to believe the wiki's explanation for gravity?

So I recently uploaded a video to YouTube

And I got a lot of people saying that "no one actually believes the earth is accelerating up at 9.81m/s^2". It honestly makes sense to me, it's one of the most logical flat earth hypotheses out there (after you throw in time dilation and whatnot). Why do no FEers believe this?

And I got a lot of people saying that "no one actually believes the earth is accelerating up at 9.81m/s^2". It honestly makes sense to me, it's one of the most logical flat earth hypotheses out there (after you throw in time dilation and whatnot). Why do no FEers believe this?

In the post referenced, I put both "the Wiki" and "the FAQ" entries on gravity and show how contradictory they are: Re: UA vs Denpressure « Reply #446 on: March 01, 2017, 08:58:43 PM ».
The explanations of why things "fall down" seems to range far and wide, from "they just do" through "Newtonian Gravitation, "Denpressure", etc to "Universal Acceleration".

So I recently uploaded a video to YouTube

And I got a lot of people saying that "no one actually believes the earth is accelerating up at 9.81m/s^2". It honestly makes sense to me, it's one of the most logical flat earth hypotheses out there (after you throw in time dilation and whatnot). Why do no FEers believe this?

There might be some that do, but the notion itself is so flawed that there shouldn't be any.

One major problem is that the acceleration of gravity varies measurably from place to place and decreases with altitude. If the earth accelerating upward were the cause of what we perceive as gravity, it would have to be accelerating at different rates in different places. Even though the differences are only a small percentage of the total acceleration (~0.5% from pole to equator at sea level), over time (and one week would be plenty) the differences in distance traveled would become huge. Mountains would have to get flattened out as the lowlands accelerated more strongly than their peaks.

There are other problems as well. It just doesn't work.

It honestly makes sense to me

So? That just means it's familiar, not that it's correct.

Stop judging things by how similar they are to RET, and start thinking about them as independent models.

Quote from: TimmyMcA on February 24, 2018, 01:22:32 PM

It honestly makes sense to me

So? That just means it's familiar, not that it's correct.

Stop judging things by how similar they are to RET, and start thinking about them as independent models.

Just how many models do you need to explain everything on the flat earth?

The Heliocentric Globe needs only ONE and that ONE works - and that's more than cna be said for these mant flat earth models!