My Problem with Universal Acceleration

Okay, my problem with Universal acceleration is, if the Earth is acceleration at 9.81m/s², then wouldn't it be accelerating towards/away from something!? For example if we are accelerating at 9.81m/s² then we would be moving away from/towords other celestial bodies at 9.81m/s². So if the sun is x distance away we will be moving closer/farther from it at an incredibly great speed (not sure how old the FE's say the Earth is), therefore the intensity of the light from the sun will greatly increase/decrease over a short period of time. But if the whole solar system/galaxy/universe/whatever were moving at 9.81m/s² then we would not fall back to the Earth when we jumped, disproving the FE theory of gravitation. To sum my problem up, FE provide a geometrical model of our solar system with direction of acceleration?

A mechanism for a universal accelerator has yet to be revealed by any flat earther. I directly questioned it and was given no answers. It's simply a matter of the fact that there is no mechanism, there is no universal accelerator, and it is an idea that has not been very well thought out.

Tom has given a model for the UA that even round-earthers have yielded as a potential working model.

I wasn't able to find anything Tom posted that was serious. Nor was any model ever offered when I asked for one.

I wasn't able to find anything Tom posted that was serious. Nor was any model ever offered when I asked for one.

Search for dark matter, Tom has an excellent model.

Quote from: Lorcan on August 13, 2007, 02:11:06 PM

I wasn't able to find anything Tom posted that was serious. Nor was any model ever offered when I asked for one.

Search for dark matter, Tom has an excellent model.

Don't bother. It's a stupid model, arguing for infinite buoyancy of the FE in ... wait for it ... the vacuum of space.

I will in just a moment. However, I just re-read the FAQ on the UA and found this more than likely intentionally amusing tidbit:

Hopefully this might help a few people "get it" with Universal Acceleration. It's not a force. It's matter, accelerating upwards. It's really that simple.

Haha. No, not a force at all. Just accelerating matter! There are no forces involved! Priceless.

Quote from: narcberry on August 13, 2007, 02:13:54 PM

Quote from: Lorcan on August 13, 2007, 02:11:06 PM

I wasn't able to find anything Tom posted that was serious. Nor was any model ever offered when I asked for one.

Search for dark matter, Tom has an excellent model.

Don't bother. It's a stupid model, arguing for infinite buoyancy of the FE in ... wait for it ... the vacuum of space.

This is the type of shallow thinking that would be expected from an RE'er.

Tom has given a model for the UA that even round-earthers have yielded as a potential working model.

Can you link to this model?? Im looking for some sort of FE version of...

Something like that is out there. However it takes you as much energy to find it as me, so I elect you find it.

A mechanism for a universal accelerator has yet to be revealed by any flat earther.

How about a mechanism for 'gravity'?  I've been asking RE'ers for one, yet, no takers.

Okay, my problem with Universal acceleration is, if the Earth is acceleration at 9.81m/s², then wouldn't it be accelerating towards/away from something!? For example if we are accelerating at 9.81m/s² then we would be moving away from/towords other celestial bodies at 9.81m/s². So if the sun is x distance away we will be moving closer/farther from it at an incredibly great speed (not sure how old the FE's say the Earth is), therefore the intensity of the light from the sun will greatly increase/decrease over a short period of time. But if the whole solar system/galaxy/universe/whatever were moving at 9.81m/s² then we would not fall back to the Earth when we jumped, disproving the FE theory of gravitation. To sum my problem up, FE provide a geometrical model of our solar system with direction of acceleration?

The universe itself is not accelerating, just the stuff in it.  I fail to see how that would keep stuff from 'falling' back to earth.

How about a mechanism for 'gravity'?  I've been asking RE'ers for one, yet, no takers.

How about 'mass or a similar concentration of energy creates a curvature in spacetime'?

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 13, 2007, 02:50:35 PM

How about a mechanism for 'gravity'?  I've been asking RE'ers for one, yet, no takers.

How about 'mass or a similar concentration of energy creates a curvature in spacetime'?

How about "What is the mechanism?"

Quote from: Brennan on August 13, 2007, 03:01:37 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 13, 2007, 02:50:35 PM

How about a mechanism for 'gravity'?  I've been asking RE'ers for one, yet, no takers.

How about 'mass or a similar concentration of energy creates a curvature in spacetime'?

How about "What is the mechanism?"

As seen on TV:

Quote from: socrates on August 13, 2007, 01:54:05 PM

The universe itself is not accelerating, just the stuff in it.  I fail to see how that would keep stuff from 'falling' back to earth.

But is all the stuff accelerating? Is the sun accelerating? The Moon? The stars?  Or just the earth? Also acceleration is known as a vector quantity, so it has a magnitude (9.81m/s²) and a direction. Where is it acclerating? Please be specific.

Quote from: Lorcan on August 13, 2007, 02:05:31 PM

A mechanism for a universal accelerator has yet to be revealed by any flat earther.

How about a mechanism for 'gravity'?  I've been asking RE'ers for one, yet, no takers.

....A little off topic methinks.

How about "What is the mechanism?"

Space is distorted around energy, more so around large concentrations of energy. Why? because it is: that's the nature of the universe.

But is all the stuff accelerating? Is the sun accelerating? The Moon? The stars?  Or just the earth? Also acceleration is known as a vector quantity, so it has a magnitude (9.81m/s²) and a direction. Where is it acclerating? Please be specific.

Yes, all the stuff we can see, is accelerating.  And it's all accelerating in a direction normal to the planar surface of the Earth. 

Space is distorted around energy, more so around large concentrations of energy.

So, how does space know how, and by how much, to distort, based on its distance from an object with mass? 

Why? because it is: that's the nature of the universe.

So I can say:  Why is the earth accelerating?  Because it is;  That's the nature of the universe.

You can indeed. But then you have to show that it is true. Which is where you fall down.

#1

Quote from: Brennan on August 13, 2007, 03:30:13 PM

Space is distorted around energy, more so around large concentrations of energy.

So, how does space know how, and by how much, to distort, based on its distance from an object with mass? 

#2

Quote

Why? because it is: that's the nature of the universe.

So I can say:  Why is the earth accelerating?  Because it is;  That's the nature of the universe.

Now that's not fair. Your answer to #2 could be used by RE'ers for #1.

So I can say:  Why is the earth accelerating? Because of the universal accelerator.

Correct, but you can only keep claiming it is true so long as it stands up to observation. Which it doesn't.

You can indeed. But then you have to show that it is true. Which is where you fall down.

So you have no mechanism, then, huh?  No information transfer?  It just magically happens? 


Nice.

Correct, but you can only keep claiming it is true so long as it stands up to observation. Which it doesn't.

There is as much evidence for gravity as there is for the UA. You ask for observational scrutiny without realizing what you imply to have provided for your own model yet have failed to do so.

The gravitational field around every quanta of energy is permanently present. Gather a large amount together and you merely add together what is already there.

The gravitational field around every quanta of energy is permanently present. Gather a large amount together and you merely add together what is already there.

So, no mechanism then?

Correct, but you can only keep claiming it is true so long as it stands up to observation. Which it doesn't.

Hold a pen in your hand.  Let it go.  What did you witness?  Acceleration?  Thought so.

So, no mechanism then?

That's bogus. I give you the mechanism and you say 'how?'

Saying it's permanently there gives the mechanism?

The UA is permanently present.  Does that answer your question?

Fine, what causes UA? I have stated that gravity is a distortion is spacetime near concentrations of matter and energy. I rather think that's a little more detailed than 'UA exists'...