Universal Acceleration 101

Well, according to Gulliver, I am not allowed to help with that unless I believe in the model, so I guess you are S.O.L.

I've spent ages goint through this, and even as an FEer, this model doesn't make sense, and this is to try and explain things to skeptical REers?!

Well, according to Gulliver, I am not allowed to help with that unless I believe in the model, so I guess you are S.O.L.

Evidence?

Well, according to Gulliver, I am not allowed to help with that unless I believe in the model, so I guess you are S.O.L.

That's alright I'll wait to see what Dogplatter says then. 

Quote from: TheEngineer on June 11, 2007, 01:36:36 AM

Well, according to Gulliver, I am not allowed to help with that unless I believe in the model, so I guess you are S.O.L.

That's alright I'll wait to see what Dogplatter says then. 

We've asked and received an evasive reply. I don't believe that we'll ever get an answer.

Quote from: Chrissetti on June 08, 2007, 04:39:29 AM

can't you just explain the photoelectric theorem?

No, it's longwinded and I'd probably screw up the maths which is involved.

I told him that I don't feel like it it's too long is not an exceptional answer to such a glaring hole in his theory. If he isn't able to come up with a better reply then scientifically his theory is dead. So really it's up to him I suppose.

I told him that I don't feel like it it's too long is not an exceptional answer to such a glaring hole in his theory. If he isn't able to come up with a better reply then scientifically his theory is dead. So really it's up to him I suppose.

Well put. Thanks!

I told him that I don't feel like it it's too long is not an exceptional answer to such a glaring hole in his theory. If he isn't able to come up with a better reply then scientifically his theory is dead. So really it's up to him I suppose.

You're twisting my words beyond all recognition. I have genuine concern that I should represent, comprehensively and correctly, the complicated theory of solar photoelectric suspension, and this requires me to enlist the help of other Flat Earthers. Be patient.

Okay, now that you've told me you are taking the time to make up a decent explanation I will wait. I'm in no hurry. I was simply saying that if you want the theory to stay scientifically valid then you need to explain how it works. I didn't set any time limit. Just eventually.

Also I don't see how I am twisting your words. The only excuse you gave was that it was too longwinded and you thought you'd screw up the math. I didn't see anything about getting help and making a reply. So I assumed that was it, you weren't gonna comment further. Now that you've clarified I'll wait, I am patient.

Okay, now that you've told me you are taking the time to make up a decent explanation I will wait. I'm in no hurry. I was simply saying that if you want the theory to stay scientifically valid then you need to explain how it works. I didn't set any time limit. Just eventually.

It's not going to be "made up". There's already a decent essay written on the theory, which I have read in the past, and which I'm picking up from an associate in the near future and reproducing in this thread.

Also I don't see how I am twisting your words. The only excuse you gave was that it was too longwinded and you thought you'd screw up the math. I didn't see anything about getting help and making a reply. So I assumed that was it, you weren't gonna comment further. Now that you've clarified I'll wait, I am patient.

Well the fact that I need help presenting the theory is strongly linked with the idea that I'll probably screw up the math/physics notation. And yeah, I'll be posting it soon.

So, all the celestial bodies, including Earth, are being accelerated upward, right?  What's pushing them?  Or, are they just accelerating because.. it just is?

How is it that they all tend to accelerate, but we do not tend to accelerate?

You didn't even bother to read what was in this thread, did you?

So, all the celestial bodies, including Earth, are being accelerated upward, right?  What's pushing them?  Or, are they just accelerating because.. it just is?

How is it that they all tend to accelerate, but we do not tend to accelerate?

I made this thread SPECIFICALLY because people kept asking questions like this. Read the OP. Look at the diagrams. Realise why the UA does not directly accelerate us.

Geeze louise, way to bite my head off.  I read this entire thread and I couldn't wade through all the crap of ranting and petty arguments over word choice.

I did find the answer after reading again, though.  Dark matter.  What accelerates this dark matter?

Geeze louise, way to bite my head off.  I read this entire thread and I couldn't wade through all the crap of ranting and petty arguments over word choice.

I did find the answer after reading again, though.  Dark matter.  What accelerates this dark matter?

The big bang (it happened, just not in the way REers think).

The dark matter would have to have a force applied to it in order to be accelerating. A constant force...

Quote from: Ferruccio on June 16, 2007, 12:57:45 AM

Geeze louise, way to bite my head off.  I read this entire thread and I couldn't wade through all the crap of ranting and petty arguments over word choice.

I did find the answer after reading again, though.  Dark matter.  What accelerates this dark matter?

The big bang (it happened, just not in the way REers think).

I can see that accelerating it initially, but how does it keep accelerating it at a constant force?

I can see that accelerating it initially, but how does it keep accelerating it at a constant force?

Bear in mind that the Earth travels through a vacuum, what is there to decelerate it?

Nothing. But equally there is nothing to accelerate it (except the aforementioned constant force). Acceleration is not velocity.

Quote

I can see that accelerating it initially, but how does it keep accelerating it at a constant force?

Bear in mind that the Earth travels through a vacuum, what is there to decelerate it?

Please read up on Newton's first law of motion.

You're mixing up velocity with acceleration.  Acceleration, even in a vacuum, must be maintained by something else.  That is, a velocity that constantly increases.

Yes, velocity in a vacuum can be constant without the need for external influence.  Not acceleration, though.

Firstly, as far as I'm aware, FE'ers have no problem with the fact that space is not actually a perfect vacuum, so the FE does need a constant force acting upon in.

Secondly, why should the atmosphere thin the higher you go.   Under the laws of UA shouldn't it group evenly at the bottom of whatever holds it in, in the same manner as a liquid would in a glass?

Firstly, as far as I'm aware, FE'ers have no problem with the fact that space is not actually a perfect vacuum, so the FE does need a constant force acting upon in.

Secondly, why should the atmosphere thin the higher you go.   Under the laws of UA shouldn't it group evenly at the bottom of whatever holds it in, in the same manner as a liquid would in a glass?

On your second point and speaking as a Devil's Advocate (since I'm a REer) and ignoring the tidal forces as secondary, the acceleration hypothesis would result in the same atmosphere, replete with the varying temperatures and densities, as the gravity hypothesis. Now going further in analysis, the acceleration hypothesis must be rejected because it fails to account for observed tidal and rotational forces. For details, please reference the RE Primer through the link in my sig below. Thanks.

The FE theory is that acceleration causes the atmospheric density in the exact same way that gravity does.

Atmosphere is more dense at lower altitudes because it has more atmosphere on top of it squishing it down.  It doesn't have to do with gravity getting weaker at higher altitudes.  That is minuscule in all cases of a reasonably calculable atmosphere.

Fair enough

Anyone got a response to my first point about space not being a perfect vacuum?

I'd be especially interested to hear from any of the people who seem to believe that the FE is infinite in size since that would require an infinite force to keep it at a constant speed

I think if all of space as we knew it wasn't a vacuum, we'd have some serious high pressure problems, since we'd have a whole universe of gas pressing down on our tiny atmosphere.

I'm talking to the point of spontaneous nuclear fusion.  Densities enough to make hydrogen 1kg/dm^3

I think if all of space as we knew it wasn't a vacuum, we'd have some serious high pressure problems, since we'd have a whole universe of gas pressing down on our tiny atmosphere.

I'm talking to the point of spontaneous nuclear fusion.  Densities enough to make hydrogen 1kg/dm^3

It isn't a perfect vacuum.  Most of space consists of very low density plasma, we're talking a few molecules per cubic centimetre.  While this wouldn't slow a FE down much, it would eventually have a very large effect over billions of years, especially if the FE is very to infinitely big

Quote from: Ferruccio on July 04, 2007, 12:05:58 PM

I think if all of space as we knew it wasn't a vacuum, we'd have some serious high pressure problems, since we'd have a whole universe of gas pressing down on our tiny atmosphere.

I'm talking to the point of spontaneous nuclear fusion.  Densities enough to make hydrogen 1kg/dm^3

It isn't a perfect vacuum.  Most of space consists of very low density plasma, we're talking a few molecules per cubic centimetre.  While this wouldn't slow a FE down much, it would eventually have a very large effect over billions of years, especially if the FE is very to infinitely big

in RE, it isn't a perfect vacuum.

Who knows what FE thinks.  It would support their theory more to have a perfect vacuum.

Obviously there is a force that keeps the FE accelerating.  While the mechanism is under debate, the need for such a mechanism is not.

Obviously there is a force that keeps the FE accelerating.  While the mechanism is under debate, the need for such a mechanism is not.

There is nothing obvious about your assertion. The only reason for FE that I know about to explain the mechanism is to shore up its credibility.

Why is it not obvious?