Relativity disproves accellerating Earth

Yes, we get all that, we're not reaching the speed of light. What is making the Earth move 9.8m/s^2, thus causing things to fall down?

You can't say it's Gravity, and we're going in a circle around the universe and  is keeping us going at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, because that would mean we are in orbit around the universe, and that would have to use gravity, and isn't that the whole point of a flat earth? No gravity? So what is making the earth move at 9.8m/s^2?

The mechanism is unknown, but has been given the place holder name of dark energy, or sometimes, UA.

... this is starting to sound more like faith. Everything about your theory revolves, no pun intended, on the fact that the Earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s^2.  

You are believing in a theory that cannot be proven. I mean, I guess you can if you were to go to the ice wall or were to explore the other side of the earth, but in the end, the math just doesn't add up.

And to have something at the very core of your theory, and then not know how it is done, it's more like a religion rather than science. You believe the Earth is flat. Although you can't prove the very core of it. Again, no pun intended.

So if you really want others to believe, go to the ice-wall and take pictures with the kids. Otherwise, you guys are just blindly following. How come there's not one picture of the ice-wall? We can get pictures of naked celebrities on the beach, we can go deep under water and take pictures of creatures that live in the dark, but you can't take a picture of a giant wall of ice?

OK, Dark force or UA does technically answer my question, but it does not seem to fit with the Zetetic priciples of analysis.

So what I can grasp so far is:

1) Gravity cannot coexist with Flat Earth Theory becuase with it comes obits, spheres and the classical understanding of the universe.

2) Accelleration is the only other thing that could explain our experiences here on Earth and as we know, no experiment can distinguish between gravity and acceleration.

On a side note, are there any threads on this forum that show photos of reproductions of some of the experiments conducted by Samuel Birley Rowbotham?  It seems they would be easy to reproduce and even easier to photograph.

And to have something at the very core of your theory, and then not know how it is done, it's more like a religion rather than science.

What is the core of our theory?

The very core of your theory is that the Earth is flat. The reason why things don't wall off the Earth is because it is accelerating at the rate of 9.8m/s^2. Now you tell me that the mechanism of why the Earth is accelerating is unknown, and has been given a place holder name of dark energy.

Is that not accurate?

This is why a an old concept (flat earth) and a relatively new Theory of Relativity (formed after the earth was scientifically proven to be round) don't really mix.

People use the curvature of the earth as an analogy to the curvature of space caused by a massive object--specified by relativity

Suppose you are in Ithaca, New York (home of Cornell University) and want to travel to Rome, Italy, which is approximately due east of Ithaca and a quarter of the way around the globe. You might think the best way to get there is to start off heading east and keep going straight until you reach Rome, as shown in the red path on this map:
Map of the Earth, with an east-west path between Ithaca and Rome marked in red, and a "curved" path from Ithaca to Africa marked in blue

In fact, though, if you start off heading east and continue to go straight, carefully putting one foot in front of the other, you will wind up taking the blue path; by the time you're as far east as Rome, you'll be somewhere in western Africa, near the equator!

To explain

According to Einstein, gravity is not a force which pulls on things; rather, it is a curvature of space and time caused by the presence of a nearby massive object (like the Earth). When something comes along and moves past the massive object, it will appear to be pulled towards it, but in reality, it isn't being pulled at all. It is actually moving along the same straight line that it was moving along in empty space, but this straight line will now look like it is curved, due to gravity's warping of the underlying "space-time" continuum.

So, stop using relativity to explain things, especially when trying to prove archaic concepts.

Source

why does the earth have to be accelerating for us to feel a gravitational force causing an acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2

You see, the flat earth people do not believe in gravity. They now encountered the puzzle of why things fall to the ground if you let go of them.

 So instead of gravity, they now say the earth is moving at the rate of 9.8m/s^2 straight up. This way, its not gravity pulling the object to the floor, its the earth coming up to hit it becuase  it is constantly moving up.  

(This is where the arguement came up with the whole if its always accelerating, we must be reaching the speed of light, which isn't possible according to einstin.)

Anyway, there are holes in this theory. The easiest ones to point out are the source of what is making the whole earth move constantly at the rate of 9.8m/s^2.

It can't be anything gravity related, cause they don't believe in that.

Another one is how is the atmosphere able to stay on the earth if there is no gravity? Wouldn't it just blow away since nothing is holding it to the earth?

They also believe the sun and moon are spotlights, the sun being a really hot one.
I don't really get that because their explination involves orbits, and we all know they don't believe in gravity, so it kinda contradicts itself somewhat.

This is why a an old concept (flat earth) and a relatively new Theory of Relativity (formed after the earth was scientifically proven to be round) don't really mix.

People use the curvature of the earth as an analogy to the curvature of space caused by a massive object--specified by relativity
...
So, stop using relativity to explain things, especially when trying to prove archaic concepts.

You are saying that because the spherical Earth has been used as an analogy for Relativity that an argument against the spherical Earth cannot use Relativity.  Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Anyway, there are holes in this theory. The easiest ones to point out are the source of what is making the whole earth move constantly at the rate of 9.8m/s^2.

There are holes in the RE.  The easiest one to point out is the mechanism for 'gravity'.

What is the flaw with gravity?

What causes it?  What's the mechanism for this 'force'?

Quote from: "teken894"

This is why a an old concept (flat earth) and a relatively new Theory of Relativity (formed after the earth was scientifically proven to be round) don't really mix.

People use the curvature of the earth as an analogy to the curvature of space caused by a massive object--specified by relativity
...
So, stop using relativity to explain things, especially when trying to prove archaic concepts.

You are saying that because the spherical Earth has been used as an analogy for Relativity that an argument against the spherical Earth cannot use Relativity.  Correct me if I'm mistaken.

My statement, not argument:
No, that's not my argument. There is no point in argument.

I was stating that Relativity is a fairly modern concept. Flat Earth, on the other hand, is an old notion.

I should've tried--in my previous post--to reverse the analogy:
Using the analogy that explains relativity by using the curvature of the earth. One can use relativity, the curvature of space, as an analogy to explain the curvature of the earth as well.



Relativity explains gravity. Why use it to explain why the earth can't reach the speed of light, etc, using relativity...when FE theory assumes that there is no gravity. Relativity is then invalid according to FE, and proving FE using Relativity.......

The very core of your theory is that the Earth is flat. The reason why things don't wall off the Earth is because it is accelerating at the rate of 9.8m/s^2. Now you tell me that the mechanism of why the Earth is accelerating is unknown, and has been given a place holder name of dark energy.

Is that not accurate?

many modern scientists believe that the universe is expanding, and accelerating while doing so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe).

These scientists also have given the mechanism of their expansion as "dark energy".  Let your average human try to understand that one.

I don't think you actually understand what produces gravity or dark energy, or how it is created.  You are just spent 3 minutes reading the articles on wikipedia about the accelerating universe and dark energy, and spat out 2 things that you "understood"

wikipedia says in the dark energy article, "the effect of such a negative pressure[from dark energy] is qualitatively similar to a force acting in opposition to gravity at large scales", took you a lot of research and learning to say that line, huh?


Lastly, I didn't say that the expansion of the universe and an movement of the earth were the same kind of acceleration, I was trying to make the point that both kinds of acceleration are governed by highly theoretical and not well-understood phenomena

I don't think you actually understand what produces gravity

Do you?

No I don't, but I would like to see someone tell me they totally understand why and in what way it is produced

No I don't, but I would like to see someone tell me they totally understand why and in what way it is produced

That's my point.