upwards acceleration

Quote

Why do you think the relative acceleration of the earth is caused by a force acting on the earth and not the falling object?

Because for something to pull me down to the earth requires hypothetical undiscovered "graviton particles" to grab a hold of my body and pull me downwards. Whereas in the Flat Earth model the earth is moving upwards and the phenomenon which keeps us pinned to the earth is the function of a mechanical process.

Flat Earth Theory provides the simpler explanation.
...
...
...
My example demonstrates directly that the earth is accelerating upwards. It's direct evidence of an accelerating earth. There was nothing in there to suggest "gravitons" or "gravity waves" or whatever.

To summarise you are saying "we don't know what causes gravity, therefore it doesn't exist".

PSEUDOSCIENCE ALERT !!!

13. Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Many pseudoscientists base their claims on incompleteness of information about nature, rather than on what is known at present. But no claim can possibly be supported by lack of information. The fact that people don't recognize what they see in the sky means only that they don't recognize what they saw. This fact is not evidence that flying saucers are from outer space. The statement "Science cannot explain" is common in pseudoscience literature. In many cases, science has no interest in the supposed phenomena because there is no evidence it exists; in other cases, the scientific explanation is well known and well established, but the pseudoscientist doesn't know this or deliberately ignores it to create mystery.

To summarise you are saying "we don't know what causes gravity, therefore it doesn't exist".

PSEUDOSCIENCE ALERT !!!

Actually "we don't know what causes gravity, therefore it does exist" would be the pseudoscience.

Round Earth Theory has been pseudoscience from day one.

Quote

To summarise you are saying "we don't know what causes gravity, therefore it doesn't exist".

PSEUDOSCIENCE ALERT !!!

Actually "we don't know what causes gravity, therefore it does exist" would be the pseudoscience.

Round Earth Theory has been pseudoscience from day one.

What is pushing the earth upwards Tom?

Quote

To summarise you are saying "we don't know what causes gravity, therefore it doesn't exist".

PSEUDOSCIENCE ALERT !!!

Actually "we don't know what causes gravity, therefore it does exist" would be the pseudoscience.

Round Earth Theory has been pseudoscience from day one.

No, no Tom.  "we don't know what causes gravity, but nevertheless it still exists.

-The two facts are not dependant I'm afraid.  Science does not use a lack of understanding as evidence for existence.  

An more pseudo-science from you today?

No, no Tom.  "we don't know what causes gravity, but nevertheless it still exists.

-The two facts are not dependant I'm afraid.  Science does not use a lack of understanding as evidence for existence.

That's like saying "we can't detect Dark Matter, nor do we know a thing about it, but it exists none the less!" Total rubbish.

In order for a phenomenon to be valid there must be empirical evidence for that phenomenon. A pile of hypotheticals does not make a theory. It make a hypothesis. Gravity is a hypothesis. There is nothing what-so-ever which demonstrates the existence of Graviton particles. Gravity cannot tell us how galaxies stay together, nor can it predict the next lunar eclipse (it's predicted by cycles).

No one knows the first thing about Gravity. No one knows how it works, nor can anyone use the equations to predict anything. It's pseudoscience.

F=G(m1m2/r2) is pretty good evidence of gravity.

Because for something to pull me down to the earth requires hypothetical undiscovered "graviton particles" to grab a hold of my body and pull me downwards. Whereas in the FE model the earth is moving upwards and the phenomenon which keeps us pinned to the earth is the function of a mechanical process.

I'm not asking which theory's explanation is simpler, but perhaps we can debate that in another thread soon. For a force to be acting on falling objects does not require "graviton particles" as you claim. Gravitation doesn't even require "graviton particles". Gravitation isn't even required for a force to act on falling objects to make them accelerate towards earth. You apparently believe there is some other force causing this relative acceleration. Regardless of what this force is, why do you assume it acts on the earth, and not the falling objects?

The earth is being pushed upwards. Whatever is pushing the earth is obviously below it and cannot be seen and studied.

I am aware of your belief, I was asking the reason you believe this mystery force is acting on the earth and not falling objects.

Unfortunately you guys have no scientific evidence what-so-ever for "gravitons." I have all the direct observational and experiential evidence I need to see that the earth is accelerating upwards.

Since acceleration is relative, you can only observe acceleration of one object relative to another. Just because you observe a relative acceleration between two objects doesn't mean you can observe which of the objects a force is acting upon.

My example demonstrates directly that the earth is accelerating upwards. It's direct evidence of an accelerating earth. There was nothing in there to suggest "gravitons" or "gravity waves" or whatever.

We all know the earth is accelerating upwards relative to falling objects! Now stop trying to change the subject to gravitons, and answer the question.

Quote

Even if he doesn't believe in gravitation, and thinks the relative acceleration between the earth and a falling object is caused by some other force, that still doesn't explain why he thinks the force acts on the earth and not the falling object. He is trying to avoid answering my question by starting a debate about gravity.

The earth is being pushed upwards. Whatever is pushing the earth is obviously below it and cannot be seen and studied.

Which means that it's just as hypothetical as the graviton and space-time warping.

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 11, 2009, 05:28:56 AM

No, no Tom.  "we don't know what causes gravity, but nevertheless it still exists.

-The two facts are not dependant I'm afraid.  Science does not use a lack of understanding as evidence for existence.

That's like saying "we can't detect Dark Matter, nor do we know a thing about it, but it exists none the less!" Total rubbish.

In order for a phenomenon to be valid there must be empirical evidence for that phenomenon. A pile of hypotheticals does not make a theory. It make a hypothesis. Gravity is a hypothesis. There is nothing what-so-ever which demonstrates the existence of Graviton particles. Gravity cannot tell us how galaxies stay together, nor can it predict the next lunar eclipse (it's predicted by cycles).

No one knows the first thing about Gravity. No one knows how it works, nor can anyone use the equations to predict anything. It's pseudoscience.

What are you talking about? ? ? Dark matter is theorised to exist.  It's not a phenomenon (something observed).

In order for a phenomenon to be valid...

A phenomenon is something observed, not an explanation.  Gravity (G) is the observed attraction of objects towards the Earth at 9.8m/s².

Because the precise mechanism is unknown, you (Tom Bishop) have concluded that the mechanism is the Earth physically accelerating upwards.  You are supporting your claim of an accelerating Earth with a lack of evidence for the Graviton.   That is a logical fallacy (i.e. an argument from ignorance).

The existence (or not) of the graviton has no bearing on the existence of gravity.  Your argument is incoherent at best.

In reference to the original question.

Where is the flat earth going up into?

In round (spheroid) earth theory we have the universe and space which the earth is moving through in an orbit relative to the sun but by the sounds of flat earth (32 mile diameter sun etc) space must be tiny in comparison to the stars but be huge to be moving at the speed of gravity constantly?

No one knows the first thing about Gravity. No one knows how it works, nor can anyone use the equations to predict anything. It's pseudoscience.

The equations are used to predict many everyday occurrences. I use them (or guesswork that would be found to be similar to the equations) to do things like jump over walls, go down stairs, and many other things.

Forget about gravity, gravitons, dark matter, phenomena, predictions, and pseudoscience for a moment. An object that falls to the earth is accelerating downward relative to the earth. There is obviously some force causing this relative acceleration by acting on the falling object and/or the earth. According to FET, this is the result of some force we cannot know anything about accelerating a flat earth "upwards". Why? How do you know it isn't some force (gravity or not) accelerating the falling object back to earth (flat or round)?

Stand up on a chair and walk off its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. You will see that the earth accelerates upwards to you.

I don't think you understand his question. Assuming there is a force that is "pushing" the earth upwards, why doesn't it "push" me upwards too?

Ok what happens if I launch a helium balloon that goes up will the earth go up to meet it?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2009, 08:53:06 AM

Stand up on a chair and walk off its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. You will see that the earth accelerates upwards to you.

I don't think you understand his question. Assuming there is a force that is "pushing" the earth upwards, why doesn't it "push" me upwards too?

As long as you are in physical contact with the earth, then the earth is pushing you upwards at a rate of approximately 9.8m/s² (standard earth gravity).  Once you step off the chair, you are no longer in contact with the earth.  Therefore, you are hanging motionless (weightless, free fall, whatever you want to call it) until the earth catches up to your position.  For more information, look up the equivalence principle.

having earth being made of different gravity-less material than the celestial objects that do show such signs of attractive force seems to me more complicated.  Especially since its been proven (without venturing into space) what the objects in space are composed of.

I would assume from the very size of the earth that it would in fact be easier to move a smaller object, in this case me, than move the larger object (the earth). Have you every tried lifting a house and then lifting a golf ball?
The golf ball is a lot easier to lift due to its smaller mass.

From this assumption I decide that it is me moving towards the earth caused by a force (gravity) and not the other way round. Anyone thinking the opposite should be killed due to the fact that they are wasting air and adding to global warming.

I would assume from the very size of the earth that it would in fact be easier to move a smaller object, in this case me, than move the larger object (the earth). Have you every tried lifting a house and then lifting a golf ball?
The golf ball is a lot easier to lift due to its smaller mass.

This is irrelevant. They being forced into the Earth. The Earth isn't. Have you ever tried to pick up the Earth?

Is anyone going to answer my question, or is one of the basic principles in FET purely a guess?

F=G(m1m2/r2) is pretty good evidence of gravity.

Actually, that's a disproved Newtonian equation.

I'm not asking which theory's explanation is simpler, but perhaps we can debate that in another thread soon. For a force to be acting on falling objects does not require "graviton particles" as you claim. Gravitation doesn't even require "graviton particles". Gravitation isn't even required for a force to act on falling objects to make them accelerate towards earth. You apparently believe there is some other force causing this relative acceleration. Regardless of what this force is, why do you assume it acts on the earth, and not the falling objects?

When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which allows them to accelerate my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?

I am aware of your belief, I was asking the reason you believe this mystery force is acting on the earth and not falling objects.

An accelerating earth is observed. Gravitons are not. I can see directly that the earth accelerates upwards. I cannot see gravitons coming out of the earth and telling bodies which direction to accelerate in.

Since acceleration is relative, you can only observe acceleration of one object relative to another. Just because you observe a relative acceleration between two objects doesn't mean you can observe which of the objects a force is acting upon.

I can consider the options and come to the most reasonable conclusion. Either we are pinned to the earth by the upward movement of the earth, or we are pinned to the earth by graviton particles.

The upwards movement of the earth pinning bodies to its surface is a known mechanical action. The upward movement of the earth is the simplest answer.

Any phenomenon which comes out of the earth and pulls something down towards it invokes the unknown and is extraordinary. We are under no obligation to consider the extraordinary. If we were we'd also have to consider "intelligent falling" and "invisible fairies did it". Gravitons are an extraordinary explanation and thus cannot be considered as a reasonable conclusion.

When you have evidence for the unknown and extraordinary maybe Gravity can be considered. As it is, an accelerating body can occur through known mechanisms, and therefore an accelerating earth is the best explanation for observable occurrences.

An accelerating earth is observed. Gravitons are not. I can see directly that the earth accelerates upwards?  I cannot see gravitons coming out of the earth and telling bodies which direction to accelerate in.

What on earth has the accepted lack of understanding about gravitons got to do with conclusion that the earth is physically accelerating upwards?  So again, I'm afraid, it's another.........

...PSEUDOSCIENCE ALERT !!!

13. Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Many pseudoscientists base their claims on incompleteness of information about nature, rather than on what is known at present. But no claim can possibly be supported by lack of information. The fact that people don't recognize what they see in the sky means only that they don't recognize what they saw. This fact is not evidence that flying saucers are from outer space. The statement "Science cannot explain" is common in pseudoscience literature. In many cases, science has no interest in the supposed phenomena because there is no evidence it exists; in other cases, the scientific explanation is well known and well established, but the pseudoscientist doesn't know this or deliberately ignores it to create mystery.

I cannot see gravitons coming out of the earth and telling bodies which direction to accelerate in.

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, Tom.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

*edit* Rats, Moon squiter beat me to it.

What on earth has the accepted lack of understanding about gravitons got to do with conclusion that the earth is physically accelerating upwards?  So again, I'm afraid, it's another.........

Nope. Gravitons are the pseudoscience because it is completely hypothetical and there is no evidence for it what-so-ever.

Acceleration is a known action which occurs in the universe. An accelerating platform causing bodies to be pinned to its surface is a known effect. See Einstein's principle of equivalence for more information.

I can consider the options and come to the most reasonable conclusion. Either we are pinned to the earth by the upward movement of the earth, or we are pinned to the earth by graviton particles. The simplest explanation is that the earth is moving upwards.

Those other explanations can only be considered when evidence is presented demonstrating those ideas to have merit. We are under no obligation to consider the extraordinary. If we were we'd also have to consider "intelligent falling" and "invisible fairies did it". Gravitons and the bending of space-time are extraordinary explanations.

Either the earth is accelerating because it is being acted upon by some unknown force, or falling objects are acted upon specifically by graviton particles? When you observe the earth relative to yourself falling, those are the only possibilities you consider? Why can't an unknown force be acting on you, and not the earth?

Having an unknown force act on a falling object is just as extraordinary as having an unknown force act on the earth. You certainly aren't obligated to consider the extraordinary, you just choose to when it supports your belief that the earth is flat. Why dismiss the possibility of a force acting on falling objects (whether that force is gravitation or not) simply because the only explanations available seem extraordinary in your opinion while your alternative (the earth is accelerate by some force) has no explanation at all.

Quote

What on earth has the accepted lack of understanding about gravitons got to do with conclusion that the earth is physically accelerating upwards?  So again, I'm afraid, it's another.........

Nope. Gravitons are the pseudoscience because it is completely hypothetical and there is no evidence for it what-so-ever.

Acceleration is a known action which occurs in the universe. An accelerating platform causing bodies to be pinned to its surface is a known effect. See Einstein's principle of equivalence for more information.

I have a question, does the FEers have a mathematical model for this so called upwards acceleration and the FE version of the dark energy?

Either the earth is accelerating because it is being acted upon by some unknown force, or falling objects are acted upon specifically by graviton particles? When you observe the earth relative to yourself falling, those are the only possibilities you consider? Why can't an unknown force be acting on you, and not the earth?

Having an unknown force act on a falling object is just as extraordinary as having an unknown force act on the earth. You certainly aren't obligated to consider the extraordinary, you just choose to when it supports your belief that the earth is flat. Why dismiss the possibility of a force acting on falling objects (whether that force is gravitation or not) simply because the only explanations available seem extraordinary in your opinion while your alternative (the earth is accelerate by some force) has no explanation at all.

The difference is that the earth can accelerate through a known physical process.

"Gravitons" require an entirely new unknown branch of science to do what they do.  

What known process and by what means?

Quote from: Synapse on June 11, 2009, 05:49:17 AM

F=G(m1m2/r2) is pretty good evidence of gravity.

Actually, that's a disproved Newtonian equation.

Disproven by whom?

ope. Gravitons are the pseudoscience because it is completely hypothetical and there is no evidence for it what-so-ever.

You believe in electromagnatism and light correct?
If so you believe in the idea of photons which were, up until Einsteins work, theoretical particals. Obviously when and if gravitons are observed you will say ity is due to the conspiracy.

The difference is that the earth can accelerate through a known physical process, just as other bodies accelerate.

Yes, other bodies like the objects which fall to earth.

"Gravitons" require an entirely new unknown branch of science to do what they do.  

Except a force acting on falling objects does not require gravitons just as a force acting on earth does not, so that is irrelevant.

They theorize this upward acceleration even though they have no phsysical evidence or a mathematical model to suport their claims.

this theory is not taken seriously by the scientific community becouse it's not elaborated through science, but rather guessing.

Nope. Gravitons are the pseudoscience because it is completely hypothetical and there is no evidence for it what-so-ever.

Acceleration is a known action which occurs in the universe. An accelerating platform causing bodies to be pinned to its surface is a known effect. See Einstein's principle of equivalence for more information.

This is old stuff, Tom.  Gravitons are postulated to exist.  Their existence is not taken as red.

Concluding that the Earth is an accelerating platform because of our lack of understanding about gravity is PSEUDOSCIENCE.  Dragging Einstein into this just further proves the point.