the acceleration theory

If we were constantly accelerating wouldn't gravity be getting harsher and harsher?

Also if you interpret acceleration to mean it changes directions then wouldn't the days get shorter/longer?

If we were constantly accelerating wouldn't gravity be getting harsher and harsher?

Why would "gravity" be getting harsher?

Also if you interpret acceleration to mean it changes directions then wouldn't the days get shorter/longer?

The Earth is always accelerating up.

If we were constantly accelerating wouldn't gravity be getting harsher and harsher?

No.

Also if you interpret acceleration to mean it changes directions then wouldn't the days get shorter/longer?

Not if the sun changed directions with it, but it does not change directions, it only goes up.

If we were constantly accelerating wouldn't gravity be getting harsher and harsher?

F=am or something

Why did you move this? It wasn't intended as a question about the FET, more of a challenge to what I believe to be a flaw.

Like, if what you said is true, wouldn't this happen?

Now to explain:

Acceleration is getting faster right? So if the gravity is determined by the amount of force being pushed down on us from the upward acceleration, then wouldn't the amount of force be getting stronger and stronger, considering we are getting faster and faster?

Sorry if this isn't how stuff like this works I'm no scientist. 

Force = Mass * Acceleration ; not velocity.

Acceleration is getting faster right? So if the gravity is determined by the amount of force being pushed down on us from the upward acceleration, then wouldn't the amount of force be getting stronger and stronger, considering we are getting faster and faster?

No, the acceleration is not getting faster.

Shades, to answer your question;

As the Earth accelerates upwards, so also does the atmosphere, so also do you. However since we ourselves are not pushed upwards directly by the Dark Energy, the acceleration of the Earth is 9.81m/s? faster than you. You are being pushed upwards by the acceleration of the Earth. If the earth were to stop moving upwards you would be launched into space like so much floating debris.

However since the Earth is constantly accelerated upwards, we by default are also being accelerated upwards as well. Since the change in speed is a constant increase, our bodies feel what seems to be a push downwards when actually the face of the planet is moving up towards us.

Why does this affect all things equally? Because the Earth is flat and all of it is moving upwards at the same rate.

For those of you wondering why feathers and such do not fall as fast? Wind resistance.

Hope this answers your questions.

Shades, to answer your question;

As the Earth accelerates upwards, so also does the atmosphere, so also do you. However since we ourselves are not pushed upwards directly by the Dark Energy, the acceleration of the Earth is 9.81m/s? faster than you. You are being pushed upwards by the acceleration of the Earth. If the earth were to stop moving upwards you would be launched into space like so much floating debris.

However since the Earth is constantly accelerated upwards, we by default are also being accelerated upwards as well. Since the change in speed is a constant increase, our bodies feel what seems to be a push downwards when actually the face of the planet is moving up towards us.

Why does this affect all things equally? Because the Earth is flat and all of it is moving upwards at the same rate.

For those of you wondering why feathers and such do not fall as fast? Wind resistance.

Hope this answers your questions.

I believe the confusion is the choice of word. Acceleration in Physics is defined as an object speeding up or slowing down. If the Earth is traveling up at a constant rate, it's technically not 'accelerating'.

Feathers are not appropriate in this discussion. As we all know; feathers are fake and regulated under the conspiracy.

Birds, however, are real. Just not visible over the horizon due to the immense density in the air. When birds fly "south " for the winter, they're actually flying towards the edge of the Earth. Which is Toronto.

Shade, to answer your question;

If the earth were constantly accelerating at 9.8m/s² we'd have been obliterated long ago when we hit the speed of light.

According to the FAQ and the odd post here and there, you can accelerate forever and never reach this point. They've cited an equation from special relativity to back up their claim, which is not only wrong but is by itself incomplete and only an element of a much larger theory which is totally incompatible with FET.

However, like every thread on this site, once someone points out a flaw like this, the FE believers stop responding and the RE believers get bored. Very few questions posted on this site end up getting answered properly.

I believe the confusion is the choice of word. Acceleration in Physics is defined as an object speeding up or slowing down. If the Earth is traveling up at a constant rate, it's technically not 'accelerating'.

If the earth is travelling at a constant speed then the effect would not be the same as gravtiy, for example when travelling at a constant speed in a car, one is neither pushed into the seat, or toward the windscreen. Thus to have a psuedo theory like FET the earth must be accelerating. Unfortunatley it does raise more questions than it answers, but it gives people something to do at lunchtime I guess.

Shade, to answer your question;

If the earth were constantly accelerating at 9.8m/s² we'd have been obliterated long ago when we hit the speed of light.

*sigh* lrn2specialrelativity

If the earth were constantly accelerating at 9.8m/s² we'd have been obliterated long ago when we hit the speed of light.

Why?

Quote

I believe the confusion is the choice of word. Acceleration in Physics is defined as an object speeding up or slowing down. If the Earth is traveling up at a constant rate, it's technically not 'accelerating'.

If the earth is travelling at a constant speed then the effect would not be the same as gravtiy, for example when travelling at a constant speed in a car, one is neither pushed into the seat, or toward the windscreen. Thus to have a psuedo theory like FET the earth must be accelerating. Unfortunatley it does raise more questions than it answers, but it gives people something to do at lunchtime I guess.

I wasn't aware of that, good point. I'd like to see the FEs explain that.

People posting in this thread need to understand the following words:

"speed"
"acceleration"

and perhaps..

"relativity"

Gravity won't get harsher and harsher. It is felt just like any other force. In fact is arguably indistinguishable from any other force.

Gravity won't get harsher and harsher. It is felt just like any other force. In fact is arguably indistinguishable from any other force.

Wrong. Go to the moon or any other planet and then try to repeat what you just said.

Why did you move this? It wasn't intended as a question about the FET, more of a challenge to what I believe to be a flaw.

Like, if what you said is true, wouldn't this happen?

Now to explain:

Acceleration is getting faster right? So if the gravity is determined by the amount of force being pushed down on us from the upward acceleration, then wouldn't the amount of force be getting stronger and stronger, considering we are getting faster and faster?

Sorry if this isn't how stuff like this works I'm no scientist.  

If it wasn't accelerating, if we jumped up we would just float, because we would be going upward at the exact same speed(there is no gravity) the earth needs accelerate to come up to us.

Feathers are not appropriate in this discussion. As we all know; feathers are fake and regulated under the conspiracy.

Birds, however, are real. Just not visible over the horizon due to the immense density in the air. When birds fly "south " for the winter, they're actually flying towards the edge of the Earth. Which is Toronto.

Win.

Quote from: Turtles?Bah. on September 15, 2009, 04:16:50 AM

Feathers are not appropriate in this discussion. As we all know; feathers are fake and regulated under the conspiracy.

Birds, however, are real. Just not visible over the horizon due to the immense density in the air. When birds fly "south " for the winter, they're actually flying towards the edge of the Earth. Which is Toronto.

Win.

Exactly. I think this proves RET wrong forever. (If you don't get the sarcasm you fail)

Wrong. Go to the moon or any other planet and then try to repeat what you just said.

Well that would be a different planet and not the earth.

Incidentally, the gravity on the moon is a lot less than the earth's, on account of if having less mass.

Quote from: Tristan on September 15, 2009, 05:48:06 AM

If the earth were constantly accelerating at 9.8m/s² we'd have been obliterated long ago when we hit the speed of light.

Why?

I was wondering if anyone was going to call me on that.

Fair point, we could accelerate forever (within our own field of reference) and never hit the speed of light... if you apply certain laws of special relativity in a particular way.

A more interesting observation is why FET feels the need to account for it's acceleration in regards to the speed of light. The thing is, without the earth being in orbit around the sun, you don't need to account for things like mass-energy equivalence, Lorentz transformations or the Michelson-Morely experiments. Simply put... YOU DON'T HAVE GRAVITY!!! THE EARTH IS FRIGGIN' FLAT!!! IT CAN GO AS FAST AS IT DAMNED WELL LIKES!!!

Hello I'm new. This is my first post. Nice to mean you all.

I believe the earth is flat.
I have known about this site for a while but finally thought I'd join. Even though I truly believe it. I really enjoy telling people...it's just so heart warming to watch them do what I had done so many times before.
That "wow, this dude is weird" raise of the eyebrow and smile. I mean it really makes me happy. I can't say why really...but I love it. Maybe because I remember how they feel, but I also know that when they set their bias aside and open up to yourself, that it is crazy you would deny your senses for sciences and things no more then theory's for you're judgment with in you to see what is before yourself. I remember the day that burden lifted and that makes me smile. I smile hoping that burden of forced education, being told what to think instead of thinking for yourself and helping others with the mind you are generated in. I like that...

Anyway...Here's what I got.

Gravity by definition means weight.

I don't subscribe to the upward movement as a reason for Gravity. It makes no sense, rather seeing that all physical matter dependent upon density for weight of the given mass is subject to the same pressure of atmospheres, I would say it is pressure in a constant state unless agitated thus moving that pressure by the displacing of pressure in other parts of the dome creating wind, storms and various other phenomena by reason of the tides as demonstrated by a siphon. The concept of a heart. 2 Hemispheres, 4 chambers etc.

Mass has weight. Why must weight be determined by acceleration?

If you concentrate helium into a balloon, which is a less dense atomic structure (less dense then air) the pressure of the helium wants to rise and being concentrated within a boundary (the balloon) it will rise.

If we were moving up then any plane in the air would be crushed and nothing could ever jump. Once a plane takes off it is suspended not moving with the upward disk. It wouldn't be able to take off.

Mass, Density acted on by pressure. True in any aspect of life really...Problem, Size...Deadline...same same.

If in ratio the density of an atom is changed (Fussion/Fission) while remaining under the same pressure in ratio to density's change, you could transmute mass as a musical scale is transmuted. Mass becomes irrelative, because the base structure remains the same make up...like a fractal.

Anyway, my thoughts.

Peace

Gravity by definition means weight.

I don't subscribe to the upward movement as a reason for Gravity. It makes no sense, rather seeing that all physical matter dependent upon density for weight of the given mass is subject to the same pressure of atmospheres, I would say it is pressure in a constant state unless agitated thus moving that pressure by the displacing of pressure in other parts of the dome creating wind, storms and various other phenomena by reason of the tides as demonstrated by a siphon. The concept of a heart. 2 Hemispheres, 4 chambers etc.

Mass has weight. Why must weight be determined by acceleration?

If you concentrate helium into a balloon, which is a less dense atomic structure (less dense then air) the pressure of the helium wants to rise and being concentrated within a boundary (the balloon) it will rise.

If we were moving up then any plane in the air would be crushed and nothing could ever jump. Once a plane takes off it is suspended not moving with the upward disk. It wouldn't be able to take off.

Are you familiar with the equivalence principle?

Quote from: letthereaderunderstand on September 21, 2009, 09:34:00 PM

Gravity by definition means weight.

I don't subscribe to the upward movement as a reason for Gravity. It makes no sense, rather seeing that all physical matter dependent upon density for weight of the given mass is subject to the same pressure of atmospheres, I would say it is pressure in a constant state unless agitated thus moving that pressure by the displacing of pressure in other parts of the dome creating wind, storms and various other phenomena by reason of the tides as demonstrated by a siphon. The concept of a heart. 2 Hemispheres, 4 chambers etc.

Mass has weight. Why must weight be determined by acceleration?

If you concentrate helium into a balloon, which is a less dense atomic structure (less dense then air) the pressure of the helium wants to rise and being concentrated within a boundary (the balloon) it will rise.

If we were moving up then any plane in the air would be crushed and nothing could ever jump. Once a plane takes off it is suspended not moving with the upward disk. It wouldn't be able to take off.

Are you familiar with the equivalence principle?

Hello...forgive me I'm not, though I am educating myself as I type. Please give me a moment to review and gain reference, but I would love to hear what you have to say. Thanks for pointing me towards it, the principle. Talk with you soon. Thanks

Mass has weight. Why must weight be determined by acceleration?

*sigh* Because weight is defined as mass times acceleration.  How much does a 50 kilogram refrigerator weigh in zero gravity?  How much mass does it have? 

Quote from: letthereaderunderstand on September 21, 2009, 09:34:00 PM

Gravity by definition means weight.

I don't subscribe to the upward movement as a reason for Gravity. It makes no sense, rather seeing that all physical matter dependent upon density for weight of the given mass is subject to the same pressure of atmospheres, I would say it is pressure in a constant state unless agitated thus moving that pressure by the displacing of pressure in other parts of the dome creating wind, storms and various other phenomena by reason of the tides as demonstrated by a siphon. The concept of a heart. 2 Hemispheres, 4 chambers etc.

Mass has weight. Why must weight be determined by acceleration?

If you concentrate helium into a balloon, which is a less dense atomic structure (less dense then air) the pressure of the helium wants to rise and being concentrated within a boundary (the balloon) it will rise.

If we were moving up then any plane in the air would be crushed and nothing could ever jump. Once a plane takes off it is suspended not moving with the upward disk. It wouldn't be able to take off.

Are you familiar with the equivalence principle?

of course the equivalence principle can't be applied to the whole planet, because "gravity" varies both with altitude and geographic location.

of course the equivalence principle can't be applied to the whole planet, because "gravity" varies both with altitude and geographic location.

Did I say it could?

Gravity by definition means weight.

Weight is a direct measurement of the apparent force exerted presumably due to gravity or acceleration.

They are very closely related though not synonymous.

I don't subscribe to the upward movement as a reason for Gravity. It makes no sense, rather seeing that all physical matter dependent upon density for weight of the given mass is subject to the same pressure of atmospheres, I would say it is pressure in a constant state unless agitated thus moving that pressure by the displacing of pressure in other parts of the dome creating wind, storms and various other phenomena by reason of the tides as demonstrated by a siphon. The concept of a heart. 2 Hemispheres, 4 chambers etc.

Mass has weight. Why must weight be determined by acceleration?

If you concentrate helium into a balloon, which is a less dense atomic structure (less dense then air) the pressure of the helium wants to rise and being concentrated within a boundary (the balloon) it will rise.

If we were moving up then any plane in the air would be crushed and nothing could ever jump. Once a plane takes off it is suspended not moving with the upward disk. It wouldn't be able to take off.

When everything is being 'forced' in one direction density will still determine placement. A centrifuge works to separate fluids simply by using acceleration.
If you stand on a scale in an elevator, your apparent weight will briefly change when the elevator starts and stops. Your mass is not changing.

Quote from: Crustinator on September 23, 2009, 08:03:14 AM

of course the equivalence principle can't be applied to the whole planet, because "gravity" varies both with altitude and geographic location.

Did I say it could?

You're implying that yes.

You've also made the claim many, many times in the past.

Don't waste your troll skillz on me.