# Questions about upward moving plane / gravity

• 7 Replies
• 2037 Views
?

#### vert032

• 17
##### Questions about upward moving plane / gravity
« on: May 01, 2006, 07:38:28 AM »
I have been reading the FAQ regarding gravity, and find that it is unable to answer a few simple questions I have regarding FE theories regarding gravity.

The standard theory that I repeatedly see is that the earth is moving upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 (which would accelerate it past the speed of light in roughly a year, but I won't force you to explain that unexplainable point).  I also hear that the lower gravity at altitude is caused by the stars, sun, and moon's gravity providing a slight upwards tug to anyone who is at said altitude.

The question that I wish to ask is why does the earth not have gravity?  The torsion bar test proves that all matter has gravity, and I have not seen anyone state that this flat earth is not made of matter.  Nor have I seen anyone state that the matter composing the stars, moon, and sun has different properties than the matter that composes earth.  If the earth does not have gravity, what changes the physical properties of its matter to prevent it from having gravity?  What is the mechanism dark matter uses to accelerate the earth upwards at 9.8 m/s^2?  Also, if the earths matter does have gravity but simply is of insufficient mass to provide this 9.8 m/s^2 force, why are we unaware of lateral (and uneven outside of the center of said flat earth) gravitational forces from the mass around us?  Gravity is measurably similar (and straight down) at all points on the earth, however under FE theory as you approached the ice wall there would be a measurable lateral force pulling all objects towards the center.  The only explination I could think of would be that the earth is very thin and of insignificant mass, however even the easily provable depths human mining and drilling have reached the combined mass of the earth would be significant enough for a noticable lateral force to be pulling all objects sideways and towards the center.

Also, are the sun, moon, and stars also accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2?  If so, please provide a mechanism  that explains how these other bodies, unattached to earth, are accellerating upwards.  Also, please explain how these stellar bodies remain spherical while accelerating upwards, as this upwards acceleration would result in asymetrical bodies (teardrop shaped).  If gravity is not holding these bodies together, please provide a theory that keeps the sun, moon, and stars in a spherical shape.  Finally, explain how this force acts, consistently across all these bodies regardless of mass, density, size, etc.

Finally, although it has been stated that the earth does not have gravity but is merely accelerating upward, it is also stated that the gravity of stellar bodies is the cause of slower acceleration at higher altitudes.  If this is the case, why is gravity measurably consistent across the earth and decreases at a rate almost entirely dependent on altitude (terrain, tidal forces, etc are insignificant compared to the changes based on altitude and can be discounted) despite the sun, moon, and stars moving around the sky?  Where do these lateral gravitational forces go?

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, just a quick recap.  I don't expect any proofs, but please provide cohesive, coherent theories.

Q1:  Why does the earth NOT have gravity when all other matter does?  Why?
Q2:  What is the (theoretical) mechanism dark matter uses to maintain a constant 9.8m/s^2 acceleration for the earth, as well as the moon, sun, stars, etc?
Q3:  Under this upward acceleration, how do the stellar bodies maintain a spherical shape?
Q4:  Why is what RE's call gravity constantly downward at 9.8m/s^2 (barring explained variations) without any unaccountable lateral force depending on geographic position or position of stellar bodies?

I believe strongly in the currently accepted theories of a round earth, helio-centric solar system, and standard model of galaxies and stellar motion, however I do not wish to discount any theory based upon what I feel is a lack of merit (opinion).  Although my experiences in airline travel, sailing and celestial navigation, satellite communications, signals & remote sensing, physics & mathematics, etc have provided me with what I consider undeniable proof, and other sources have continually affirmed that proof, I will not simply discount any theory.  I believe open discourse, rather than ridicule, is the answer.

Edited first paragraph to more accurately define post after completed.

?

#### astronomy101

• 297
##### Re: Questions about upward moving plane / gravity
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2007, 05:55:26 AM »
I like the lack of answers to this post.
This person brings up good points.
Tom Bishop, take it away...
It already has over 100 views, and no replies?!?!?
Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.

?

#### astronomy101

• 297
##### Re: Questions about upward moving plane / gravity
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2007, 06:15:10 AM »
I like the lack of answers to this post.
This person brings up good points.
Tom Bishop, take it away...
It already has over 100 views, and no replies?!?!?
100 views... but how many by re'ers and visitors?

Equivalence Principle
Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.

?

• 231
##### Re: Questions about upward moving plane / gravity
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2007, 07:11:46 AM »
Well, when you start asking for exact mechanisms for how the UA works etc., you're just begging an FE proponent to ask you the exact mechanism for gravity...

#### Pyrochimp

• 577
• Senator Awesome
##### Re: Questions about upward moving plane / gravity
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2007, 07:19:05 AM »
In before TheEngineer and someone else (likely the OP) have a four-page debate about "gravity = acceleration"
Some people are ****ing stupid! ~ George Carlin

Mathematical proof of the flat Earth:
[{(Diameter of Earth)*(tan[distance from Earth to sun/distance from North pole to equator])}2]/0

#### Mr. Ireland

• 14993
##### Re: Questions about upward moving plane / gravity
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2007, 08:59:31 AM »
I have been reading the FAQ regarding gravity, and find that it is unable to answer a few simple questions I have regarding FE theories regarding gravity.

The standard theory that I repeatedly see is that the earth is moving upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 (which would accelerate it past the speed of light in roughly a year, but I won't force you to explain that unexplainable point).

Apparently the world moving past the speed of light issue has been explained.

?

#### Kasroa Is Gone

• 6869
##### Re: Questions about upward moving plane / gravity
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2007, 12:42:50 PM »
Some good points, some bad points.

?

#### RESOCR

• 416
• I argue for stress relief!
##### Re: Questions about upward moving plane / gravity
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2007, 12:49:36 PM »
I have been reading the FAQ regarding gravity, and find that it is unable to answer a few simple questions I have regarding FE theories regarding gravity.

The standard theory that I repeatedly see is that the earth is moving upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 (which would accelerate it past the speed of light in roughly a year, but I won't force you to explain that unexplainable point).

Apparently the world moving past the speed of light issue has been explained.

I can answer his question with a good solid 'maybe'. Last one of these debates I was part of said that relativity would require less acceleration for the same effect (I'm still not perfectly convinced of this, but I'll believe it if it works) but when we got down to the 'lowest possible increment' we met some trouble over whether it can be divisible by 2.
Quote from: ice wall gard 469320
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Atmosphere gets thinner with altitude
And so does your theory