To bgamelson,
You are totally ignorant.
I am honored that my logic has reduced you to childish name calling.
I assumed that you might know a bit of modern physics, but I was wrong.
Your problem is you want to twist and contort modern physics.
You do not know what has changed in physics since the age of rationalism and the beginning of the 19th century.
In the 19th century sir, it has been proved the earth is round.
I really cannot reason with you, since you keep spouting the same crap at a constant rate.
Talk about irony, you are describing yourself. You keep denying science in favor of your twisted logic and you have yet to bring forth any evidence that will support a FE. None.
I am fine with your intention to be a close-minded idiot.
Yes, since you cannot win an debate with me, all you have left is name calling.
You cannot even read your own sources,
My sources support a round earth. Your sources support a round earth, yet you want me to believe your sources mean somethig other than what they say.
and you are willing to ignore the relativity part of your source on Newton's law of gravity.
Yet on the very next breath you will deny gravity exists and claim it is somehow "fictitious."
That part is absolutely consistent with my argument.
No it is not. That is the problem. Your sources do not support your argument.
You think somehow Newton's theory became a law and therefore unfalsifiable or cannot be disproved.
That is correct, and I haver brought out scientific links, not Wikipedia, scientific links that prove Newtow's LAW of gravity and you will stare the sun in the face and claim it is not shining. Totally unbelievable.
You stated, "a theory cannot prove a law incorrect." That's the biggest bullshit I've ever heard.
That is because you don't know the difference between a theory and a law.
Do you know what falsifiability means?
Yes. Do you know what "Law" means?
Any theory or law that is unfalsifiable is pseudoscience, which is something that can't be tested or falsified.
WRONG!!
A pseudoscience is a belief or process which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms; it is often known as fringe- or alternative science. The most important of its defects is usually the lack of the carefully controlled and thoughtfully interpreted experiments which provide the foundation of the natural sciences and which contribute to their advancement.
This describes your ignorant theory of a flat earth because no current science or scientific experiments have supprted this twisted belief. Pseudoscience is claiming science says one thing but means another. This is exactly what you have been attempting by claiming gravity does not exist and instead the earth accelerates.
Then you refuse to answer simple questions that would totally destroy your FE theory because you simply don't want to face the truth.
Your own source says that Newton's three laws are only approximately correct when accounting relativistic speeds, as shown by Special Relativity. See, there is an error in Newton's laws. I do not care if you are not willing the accept the fact that Einstein already saw a huge error in Newton's theory when accounting large gravitational fields and relativistic effects. For example, Newton's theory cannot accurately calculate Mercury's perihelion shift, while Einstein's theory can. It was the one of the first few experiments to verify General Relativity. There, Newton's theory or "law" is falsified. That is real science.
There you go! It does not means Newton's law is falsified. It means there was more information available and Newton didn't have the equipment to study this. It does not mean Newton was totally wrong and it does not mean gravity does not exist and it does not mean the earth is flat.
In addition, you're still clueless
Words of a troll.
When it has been shown that the upward force is what gives us 1g according to an accelerometer,
WRONG!! This has not been shown to be an upward force. This is your twisted logic and your attempts to conclude that science says one thing but actually means another. There is absolutely NO science that shows an upward force of the earth. None. These are merely your words inserted into an already existing science. Then I bring out a scientific link that explains that this 1 g idication must be eliminated in order to measure acceleration by motion alone and you instantly deny that and claim it really means the earth is accelerating when it doesn't say this anywhere. Do you know what "eliminated" means? It means the 1 g must be read as zero acceleration since GRAVITY is what give us the 1 g indication.
you stated that it's just gravity. Do you have anymore bullshits that you can show us?
No, I have scientif links which you flatly deny. calling them "bullshit" in favor of your twisted logic which cannot be supported by any scientific link.
No accelerometers can measure or sense the force of gravity directly! An accelerometer can only measure acceleration relative to an inertial frame of reference.
According to the gravitational force of the earth which is different than the gravitational force of the moon. In this case, an accelerometer would have to either be recalibrated or 1/3 g read as 1 g. Any more science lessons, teacher?
When we accelerate downward by the force of gravity, we accelerate at the same rate as the accelerometer. The reason why an accelerometer can detect the upward force is because the ground is pushing against us, preventing us from accelerating downward further.
This makes absolutely no sense at all and is not supported by any scientific facts. None. This is merely your made up crap that you can't support.
As we fall, the force of drag accelerates us up.
WRONG!! When we fall, we fall down, not up.
There is an acceleration relative to free-fall: the mass at the end of the spring continues to fall, while we accelerate up.
WRONG!! When we fall, we fall down, not up.
However, it has been shown by General Relativity that free-fall is actually an inertial frame. In RE, when an object free-falls, it just follows geodesics or straight lines in space-time. No acceleration or downward force is present in this scenario.
There you go! You claim science says one thing but means another.
When we're talking about FE, the objects undergo constant velocity the moment they leave the surface, and the Earth accelerates up to catch them, just as Einstein's theory predicted.
The big problem is, Einstein's theory did not predict this. No science you can bring forth can support this either.
Spend less time on the internet and more time on your high school work.
I graduated from High School in 1977. It is also a fact that my spelling and grammar is far superior than yours
Now then, would you like to discuss radio waves? So far you have refused to touch onto that subject, or to attempt to explain how they make it around the earth.