gravity

the FAQ says Dark Energy is accelerating the Earth upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s2 which is why we assume objects fall at that acceleration.  so if i let go of a ball it is actually floating there and the Earth moves up to it at a rate of 9.8m/s2.  so why then if i let go of a ball in one hand and a feather in the other the earth doesn't move up to them at the same rate so they appear to fall at the same rate.  i dont see how air resistance can be a factor if the feather is just sitting there in mid air waiting on the earth to move up.

you should really be asking how FEers explain air resistance at all, because if the earth is moving through the ether at an ever accelerating rate, then the atmosphere would easily be blown away, there's no reason for it to sit on a flying disc. 

well maybe one of them will explain that on here too but i wouldn't hold my breath.  they are better at dodging questions that answering them.

i dont see how air resistance can be a factor if the feather is just sitting there in mid air waiting on the earth to move up.

Due to air resistance, the feather will not be sitting in mid air. Since the Earth is also accelerating the air, the force of drag will accelerate the feather up relative to the Earth's acceleration. The objects will not fall at the same rate.

Quote from: Bob28 on January 01, 2009, 03:47:11 PM

i dont see how air resistance can be a factor if the feather is just sitting there in mid air waiting on the earth to move up.

Due to air resistance, the feather will not be sitting in mid air. Since the Earth is also accelerating the air, the force of drag will accelerate the feather up relative to the Earth's acceleration. The objects will not fall at the same rate.

yes i'm well aware of Newtons second law, i just didn't know how this is accounted for in FET.  i understand the concept now though, still dont believe it but i understand why a feather falls slower now

Moreover, if it is the Earth that is accelerating upwards (not the object that is falling down), then how is it possible to lose balance while my feet are touching the ground? According to FET, my head and my feet are accelerating upwards at the same rate, thus if I am thinking like a FE believers, it is not logical to lose balance!

Moreover, if it is the Earth that is accelerating upwards (not the object that is falling down), then how is it possible to lose balance while my feet are touching the ground? According to FET, my head and my feet are accelerating upwards at the same rate, thus if I am thinking like a FE believers, it is not logical to lose balance!

...the same way you lose balance on RE.  That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen.  RE gravity doesn't change to make you lose balance.  Good gawd.

Quote from: grifoli on January 02, 2009, 04:59:01 PM

Moreover, if it is the Earth that is accelerating upwards (not the object that is falling down), then how is it possible to lose balance while my feet are touching the ground? According to FET, my head and my feet are accelerating upwards at the same rate, thus if I am thinking like a FE believers, it is not logical to lose balance!

...the same way you lose balance on RE.  That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen.  RE gravity doesn't change to make you lose balance.  Good gawd.

Losing balance on RE is logical if you believe that the Earth is pulling you down. I've never made a statement that g is changing.

Quote from: grifoli on January 02, 2009, 04:59:01 PM

Moreover, if it is the Earth that is accelerating upwards (not the object that is falling down), then how is it possible to lose balance while my feet are touching the ground? According to FET, my head and my feet are accelerating upwards at the same rate, thus if I am thinking like a FE believers, it is not logical to lose balance!

...the same way you lose balance on RE.  That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen.  RE gravity doesn't change to make you lose balance.  Good gawd.

Oh ok I think I understand how it can happen. hehe my bad

I would like to explain my point of view regarding the debate concerning whether we are experiencing gravity or the earth is moving upward.

FET (Flat Earth Theory) states that the Earth is moving upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2. This means that the earth would have to be in constant upward acceleration. Here is the reason why. If someone was to stand on top of a 50 foot building and let go of an apple, the speed at which the earth approaches the apple would have to increase in order to explain why an apple smashes into many pieces when dropped from 50 feet and why it suffers only a small bruise when dropped from 2 feet. According to FET, when the apple is let go, the apple is floating and the Earth eventually impacts the apple because the Earth is moving upward.

On the other hand, if the earth was traveling upward at a fixed rate, like perhaps 25 MPH, then the damage to the apple would be the same from 50 feet or 2 feet because the speed of the Earth at impact would be the same for both distances. It wouldnt matter if you let go of the apple from 50 feet or 2 feet because there would always be a 25 MPH Earth running into it. Therefore, it is not possible for the Earth to be traveling upward at a fixed rate.

So, deductive reasoning tells us that the only remaining possibility is an Earth with constant upward acceleration.

So heres the problem. How can the Earth be constantly accelerating upwards if falling objects have a terminal velocity? No terminal velocity would exist if the Earth was constantly accelerating upward. The forces of wind resistance would change as the Earths rate of acceleration increased, and alter the rate of terminal velocity.

Also, if the Earth was in constant acceleration upward, dont you think that our bodies would eventually lose the ability to stand? Wouldnt we eventually become forced to the ground and smashed like pancakes?

I believe that these ideas prove that the Earth cannot be moving upward or accelerating upward. I am however, open to the possibility that the Earth may be flat or round.

FET (Flat Earth Theory) states that the Earth is moving upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2. This means that the earth would have to be in constant upward acceleration.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

So heres the problem. How can the Earth be constantly accelerating upwards if falling objects have a terminal velocity? No terminal velocity would exist if the Earth was constantly accelerating upward. The forces of wind resistance would change as the Earths rate of acceleration increased, and alter the rate of terminal velocity.

Terminal velocity would be exactly the same.  There is a 30+ page thread on the subject.

Also, if the Earth was in constant acceleration upward, dont you think that our bodies would eventually lose the ability to stand? Wouldnt we eventually become forced to the ground and smashed like pancakes?

Once again, you are confusing velocity and acceleration.

I believe that these ideas prove that the Earth cannot be moving upward or accelerating upward.

Not quite.

I am however, open to the possibility that the Earth may be flat or round.

That's the spirit.

Gravy, I'm not a FE belivers, but what you said is wrong. Acceleration and velocity are not the same thing. Let's suppose you are at the top of a building, and I am on the ground at the bottom of the building. If you throw yourself down the building at free fall, in your frame of reference, you will see the Earth accelerating upwards. But in my frame of reference, I will see you accelerating downwards.

Therefore, it is impossible from this experiment to say if the Earth is accelerating upwards, or if gravity pull things downwards.

RE and FE theory both get the same results.

Quote from: Gravy on January 21, 2009, 02:49:06 AM

FET (Flat Earth Theory) states that the Earth is moving upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2. This means that the earth would have to be in constant upward acceleration.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

And thank you Captain Arrogant. There is nothing wrong with explaining this. Newbs can understand my point of view if they have not read any other threads around here. Also, it proves to the readers that I have done a little research before posting. It informs the regulars around here that they do not have to explain things that I already understand.

Quote from: Gravy on January 21, 2009, 02:49:06 AM

Also, if the Earth was in constant acceleration upward, dont you think that our bodies would eventually lose the ability to stand? Wouldnt we eventually become forced to the ground and smashed like pancakes?

Once again, you are confusing velocity and acceleration.

I am not confused. Acceleration is the rate at which speed increases. Velocity is speed.

Let me give you another example.

Suppose that you are put into an elevator that has no limit as to how far it can travel upward. You then push the UP button and the elevator begins to travel upward. The elevator travels upward starting at 1 MPH and gradually increases at an even rate of acceleration so that the speed is doubled every minute. This means that after 12 minutes the elevator would pass through a speed of 4096 MPH while still accelerating! Do you not think that would have some kind of negative effect upon your body? The G Forces would become unbearable and you would be smashed to the floor of the elevator like a pancake.

Another example of how acceleration negatively affects people is when NASA rockets take off from Cape Canaveral with astronauts on the inside. As the rocket accelerates, the astronauts are squished to their chairs and forced to endure nearly unbearable G Forces. Well, what would happen to the astronauts if the rocket never stopped accelerating? They would die a horrible, slow and painful death by G Force. Fortunately, the rocket eventually stops accelerating.

So how does FET explain that these G Forces do not effect humans as the Earth has been constantly accelerating for thousands of years? Surely, at some point, the Earth would have reached and passed through a speed of 4096 MPH, creating deadly G Forces.

Gravy, I'm not a FE belivers, but what you said is wrong. Acceleration and velocity are not the same thing.

I never gave any indication that velocity and acceleration were the same thing. In fact, I provided two very clear and concise examples explaining both.

Let's suppose you are at the top of a building, and I am on the ground at the bottom of the building. If you throw yourself down the building at free fall, in your frame of reference, you will see the Earth accelerating upwards. But in my frame of reference, I will see you accelerating downwards.

Therefore, it is impossible from this experiment to say if the Earth is accelerating upwards

But, it does prove that the Earth cannot be traveling upward at a fixed rate of speed like perhaps 25 MPH. If it was, then an apple would suffer the same damage if it was dropped from a height of 50 feet or 2 feet because there would always be a 25 MPH Earth traveling up to it.

Therefore, that leaves only two other alternatives.
1. The Earth is accelerating upwards
2. The Earth is stationary and not moving upwards or downwards.

Alternative #2 cannot be possible. If it was, then when you let go of the apple, it would just float in mid air.

Therefore, we are left with only one alternative.
1. The Earth is accelerating upwards.

This alternative cannot be possible. If it was, then our bodies would be destroyed by G Forces, just like an astronaut would be if his rocket did not stop accelerating.

It is obvious that FET does not realistically address or recognize G Forces from acceleration.

I am not going to go over everything but the simple answer is this, gravity is just an acceleration. and according to the Equivalence Princple you cannot tell the difference between gravity and another type of acceleration on a local level meaning that if you test for gravity in a sufficiently small area where the acceleration of gravity would not change then there is no way to conclusively say that gravity was the cause. And to your rocket analogy the acceleration is constant it is not increasing so if we are not squished not then we never will be

I am not going to go over everything but the simple answer is this, gravity is just an acceleration. and according to the Equivalence Princple you cannot tell the difference between gravity and another type of acceleration on a local level meaning that if you test for gravity in a sufficiently small area where the acceleration of gravity would not change then there is no way to conclusively say that gravity was the cause.

Again....this does not address G Forces.

And to your rocket analogy the acceleration is constant it is not increasing so if we are not squished not then we never will be

But none the less....ITS STILL ACCELERATING! Who cares if its constant or increasing? FET thinks that the Earth is accelerating upward at a rate of 32 Feet per second, per second! Over thousands of years, what kind of G Forces do you think the Earth would be generating?? It would be deadly.

Again....these explanations do not realistically address G Forces.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 21, 2009, 02:01:51 PM

I am not going to go over everything but the simple answer is this, gravity is just an acceleration. and according to the Equivalence Princple you cannot tell the difference between gravity and another type of acceleration on a local level meaning that if you test for gravity in a sufficiently small area where the acceleration of gravity would not change then there is no way to conclusively say that gravity was the cause.

Again....this does not address G Forces.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 21, 2009, 02:01:51 PM

And to your rocket analogy the acceleration is constant it is not increasing so if we are not squished not then we never will be

But none the less....ITS STILL ACCELERATING! Who cares if its constant or increasing? FET thinks that the Earth is accelerating upward at a rate of 32 Feet per second, per second! Over thousands of years, what kind of G Forces do you think the Earth would be generating?? It would be deadly.

Again....these explanations do not realistically address G Forces.

if at this moment you are accelerating at 32ft/s² and you did not get squished, then why would you get squished later on? the force does not change F=ma if "a" does not change why would the force change?

the force does not change F= ma if "a" does not change why would the force change?

Thanks for explaining that to me. Now it makes sense. G Force changes only when acceleration increases.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 21, 2009, 02:01:51 PM

the force does not change F= ma if "a" does not change why would the force change?

Thanks for explaining that to me. Now it makes sense. G Force changes only when acceleration increases.

Exactly.  Sorry if I came off as a dick, I was tired.

Quote from: Gravy on January 21, 2009, 03:54:28 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 21, 2009, 02:01:51 PM

the force does not change F= ma if "a" does not change why would the force change?

Thanks for explaining that to me. Now it makes sense. G Force changes only when acceleration increases.

Exactly.  Sorry if I came off as a dick, I was tired.

Its cool man. No worries. 

Did you see my post in General Discussion about the man who sailed around Antarctica? Im trying to convince people around here that Antarctica does exist as a continent and that its not part of a great wall of ice.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26224.0

I posted a really nice map of Antarctica and the route he took. Evidentially, every year there is a sailing race where several boats sail around Antarctica. The map is pretty cool actually.