We should probably relocate this to debate rather than keep it in general discussion..
What are you looking for then? The derivative relationship of acceleration and velocity?
Yes.
Ok then. This seems rather elementary... but anyways:
Velocity is the distance an object travels divided by the time it takes it to do so. (with direction)
Acceleration is the derivative of velocity meaning the change in velocity over time, or distance over time squared. If you have taken a Calculus class, (I'm pretty sure you have) acceleration is the slope of the graph of velocity and time, where velocity is a function of time.
All thats left is plugging in the lowest estimation of the age of the universe and assuming that the Earth's original velocity was nearly the speed of light straight down. (To allow for the greatest time duration of constant acceleration before reaching the speed of light in the opposite direction)
The earth is accelerating up to him at 9.8m/s^2, so in order for him to maintain his altitude, he must produce an upwards acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 via lift. I fail to see the complication. Perhaps you should brush up on the Equivalence Principle.
The equivalence principle applies to standing on the ground and feeling the same effect the if a force is applied. A person in free fall doesn't feel any force but that doesn't necessarily mean one isn't acting on him. (we only detect force by different portions of our bodies accelerating differently than others. For instance, eyes become the primary sensors of movement for astronauts (if you believe in astronauts lol). More to the point, I believe problems arise when you say that the Earth is accelerating at 9.8 m/sē and also claim that that acceleration causes warping of space that attracts objects. Might I ask, how is an object that's in the air not relatively accelerating towards the Earth the full 9.8 m/sē plus additional attraction from the gravitation (from acceleration) of the Earth? Both influences would compound the effect and the object would appear to be more attracted would it not?
Ah, dark energy: the hypothetical power source for an expanding universe. That's relevant specifically to RE.
Right. So what about the massive amount of energy?
I wasn't serious when I said it was relevant or that it was specific to the shape of the Earth. RE theory doesn't depend on dark energy like FE depends on the UA. [sarcasm]
Next time I'll use sarcasm tags.[/sarcasm]
-wonders if L0gic will admit his faults-
I have no problem admitting my mistakes, because I know I'm not infallible nor omniscient. Should I come to a conclusion that your theory does have explanations for my thoughts then I will admit it. Besides, carrying an idea further and BS'ing it to death would only prove Narberry and I have something in substantial common. Quite frankly, I rather die.
I would like your thoughts here and here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17436.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17759.0