Downward acceleration

I did a quick search and it didn't seem like this has been touched on very much.

In FET, what are the major flaws in the idea that the Earth could be accelerating downwards versus upwards? I have never taken a physics class, but it seems that this would lead to more logical explanations of such things like airplanes not crashing into the Earth's surface.

Serious question...yes I give in...

If the Earth were accelerating downwards, we would all be falling up, including the air around us.

Well of course....but, hypothetically, wouldn't that make more sense since we're able to see things suspended in air like hummingbirds and helicopters? I mean, if the Earth were accelerating upwards, than it hasn't caused any detrimental effects on our existence. Given it's theorized speed rate, we're able to survive, so I don't think it's too absurd to think that maybe (what am I saying....) we are accelerating downwards.

I mean, there are obviously major, major flaws in FET, so I was just wondering, from a physics standpoint, what the most obvious flaws are in "DA" for lack of a better way to put it...

Well of course....but, hypothetically, wouldn't that make more sense since we're able to see things suspended in air like hummingbirds and helicopters? I mean, if the Earth were accelerating upwards, than it hasn't caused any detrimental effects on our existence. Given it's theorized speed rate, we're able to survive, so I don't think it's too absurd to think that maybe (what am I saying....) we are accelerating downwards.

I mean, there are obviously major, major flaws in FET, so I was just wondering, from a physics standpoint, what the most obvious flaws are in "DA" for lack of a better way to put it...

The obvious flaw is that it's completely contrary to observation, and totally preposterous to even hypothesise about. Things which are suspended in air are kept aloft by their own thrust, not by the Earth's acceleration.

The obvious flaw is that it's completely contrary to observation, and totally preposterous to even hypothesise about.

Hahaha....man, I'm trying here...You have to understand that I know that the Earth is round....

I got an experiment for you, though. Tape a frisbee to your hand and swing it downwards and observe the wind flowing over your hand. While I'm not able to write in equation as to why this happens, it does. The wind doesn't just flow straight up and down, it reacts and is attracted towards the center.

Hahaha....man, I'm trying here...You have to understand that I know that the Earth is round....

No you don't. Lurk moar.

I got an experiment for you, though. Tape a frisbee to your hand and swing it downwards and observe the wind flowing over your hand. While I'm not able to write in equation as to why this happens, it does. The wind doesn't just flow straight up and down, it reacts and is attracted towards the center.

I understand the effect you are talking about, and that is all to do with fluid mechanics. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about, which is concerned with relativity and the equivalence principle.

I respect that.

And as far as lurking more, I did make sure to search this topic before posting.

But,

If the Earth were accelerating downwards, we would all be falling up, including the air around us.

This is what I was arguing when I mentioned the frisbee experiment. We still have air to keep us grounded.

This can't be more far-fetched than the whole idea of FE itself.

And as far as lurking more, I did make sure to search this topic before posting.

My "lurk moar" comment was specifically related to you saying you know that the Earth is round, not to the thread itself.

But,

Quote from: Parsifal on September 21, 2009, 03:38:36 AM

If the Earth were accelerating downwards, we would all be falling up, including the air around us.

This is what I was arguing when I mentioned the frisbee experiment. We still have air to keep us grounded.

This can't be more far-fetched than the whole idea of FE itself.

If air was what was keeping us grounded, in the manner that you suggest, then:

a) we would expect there to be air in space, and
b) objects in a vacuum, or in a static medium such as the ocean, would appear to rise instead of fall, and
c) the Earth's weather systems would consist of gale-force winds blowing from south to north.

Do you have any evidence that any of these phenomena have been observed?

Well, come on, of course I don't have evidence that this happens...hahaha....*face palm*

I just think this could be an alternate theory that replaces the current idea that "gravity doesn't exist" and what keeps things suspended in air.

a) we would expect there to be air in space

I'm not trying to ignore B and C, but firstly, let's talk about this. *I just realized this might be addressed in the almighty FAQ....*

And I might be wrong, but doesn't the 'fact' that there is air in space support your idea that UA keeps us grounded?

And you're right, saying: "You have to understand that I know that the Earth is round...." is irrelevant in this conversation. I apologize.

I just think this could be an alternate theory that replaces the current idea that "gravity doesn't exist" and what keeps things suspended in air.

I don't. Quite apart from anything else, there's no reason why the air flow would push things down; it would only push things north, and subsequently up.

I'm not trying to ignore B and C, but firstly, let's talk about this. *I just realized this might be addressed in the almighty FAQ....*

And I might be wrong, but doesn't the 'fact' that there is air in space support your idea that UA keeps us grounded?

How would air being in space support the idea that the Earth accelerating up keeps us grounded? Air has nothing to do with it, and there probably isn't air in space anyway because we don't observe any sort of drag on the heavenly bodies.

Well, isn't the North Pole your epicenter of the FE model? Perhaps, instead of the current popular tectonic plate shift theory, we could say that everything has been continuously been drawn towards the center due to the immense air pressure caused by the flat Earth accelerating downwards?

*Damn, this is some good LSD....*

Well, isn't the North Pole your epicenter of the FE model? Perhaps, instead of the current popular tectonic plate shift theory, we could say that everything has been continuously been drawn towards the center due to the immense air pressure caused by the flat Earth accelerating downwards?

*Damn, this is some good LSD....*

I'd say you've stopped making sense, but you haven't really made any at all in this thread yet.

Well first you have to understand that I don't think any of this makes sense either. I'm just asking for realistic answers to my original question which was, "what are the major flaws in the downward acceleration theory?". See, my young little God fearing boy, I don't think that the Earth is flying upwards either. Well, simply because there's a plethora of inconsistencies in this ideal.

I would really like someone that, while not actually believing the Earth is flat, but arguing for the FE side, to talk to me.

Go back to bed, young sinner. And remember to repent for the faggotry.

*Sorry mods, I believe I was arguing respectively until this point...*

I'm just asking for realistic answers to my original question which was, "what are the major flaws in the downward acceleration theory?".

And I answered it. If you'll recall, a few posts back I said:

If the Earth were accelerating downwards, we would all be falling up, including the air around us.

If the earth were accelerating upwards, wouldn't we all get smashed to the earth then?

Also, if it were accelerating in ANY direction, the speed would always be increasing. Wouldn't we approach and pass stars all the time?

I read the FAQ and it said that stars are about the same width of the US, only away from the planet.

I know, dude, but falling up doesn't make sense. If we had the potential to fall 'up', then surely, at the same rate upwards, we'd have issues with things like airplanes and mid-air suspension with things like helicopters.

See? I've already said these things, too. But, the problem is that I don't have a physics background at all. I have read posts from some extremely intelligent people here that argue the FET that do, though. And, to be honest, no offense, I would much rather hear from them.

*EDIT- Directed toward Parsifal

FEers answer for helicopters and airplanes is in the FAQ. They disregard inertia.

If the earth were accelerating upwards, wouldn't we all get smashed to the earth then?

Also, if it were accelerating in ANY direction, the speed would always be increasing. Wouldn't we approach and pass stars all the time?

Precisely. The act of acceleration is either growing or slowing speed. The UA is already contradictory because it promotes the idea that Earth is moving at a constant rate. But that's neither here nor there because that's already been mentioned numerous times on this board.

If the earth were accelerating upwards, wouldn't we all get smashed to the earth then?

Go jump off a tall building, or out of an aeroplane, and tell me whether or not you get smashed to the Earth.

Also, if it were accelerating in ANY direction, the speed would always be increasing. Wouldn't we approach and pass stars all the time?

I read the FAQ and it said that stars are about the same width of the US, only away from the planet.

The FAQ also says that the stars are accelerating with the Earth.

I know, dude, but falling up doesn't make sense. If we had the potential to fall 'up', then surely, at the same rate upwards, we'd have issues with things like airplanes and mid-air suspension with things like helicopters.

No we wouldn't. The equivalence principle states that an accelerating frame of reference is indistinguishable from one in a uniform gravitational field. If we would have problems with aeroplanes on an Earth which is accelerating up, we would also have problems with them on a round Earth with a gravitational field. The laws of physics that allow aircraft to remain aloft on a round Earth work perfectly well on an upward-accelerating flat Earth too.

See? I've already said these things, too. But, the problem is that I don't have a physics background at all. I have read posts from some extremely intelligent people here that argue the FET that do, though. And, to be honest, no offense, I would much rather hear from them.

What exactly do you consider to be a "physics background"?

FEers answer for helicopters and airplanes is in the FAQ. They disregard inertia.

Please explain.

Precisely. The act of acceleration is either growing or slowing speed. The UA is already contradictory because it promotes the idea that Earth is moving at a constant rate. But that's neither here nor there because that's already been mentioned numerous times on this board.

No, the UA theory proposes that the Earth has constant acceleration, not constant speed.

What exactly do you consider to be a "physics background"?

I apologize (again) for being vague, but I meant I haven't studied physics.....thanks for being unnecessarily condescending....

No, the UA theory proposes that the Earth has constant acceleration, not constant speed.

Okay, but you're completely derailing my thread, Holmes. Either way, that's completely ridiculous. I think there's some very good arguments for FET, but this isn't one of them.

I apologize (again) for being vague, but I meant I haven't studied physics.....thanks for being unnecessarily condescending....

You were implying that I did not have a physics background. As a second year physics student at the University of Sydney, I was just wondering what level of physics education is required before you will listen to somebody on this subject.

Okay, but you're completely derailing my thread, Holmes. Either way, that's completely ridiculous. I think there's some very good arguments for FET, but this isn't one of them.

I'm not derailing anything. I answered your original question, and for some reason you don't want to accept my answer.

IDK if inertia was the right choice, and I don't really understand the whole UA thing, but if the stars are moving with the earth, how can we set up a camera to track their movements through the sky? How would constellations work, noting that we can't see them all all the time? What happens when they go to they other side of the earth, which I'm assuming means they would go UNDER the UA?

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but can SOMEONE explain the UA to me? And don't reference me to a website, I want a person to tell me something.

But try this with a helium filled balloon, okay? get in your car and have it tied to a seat or something, so it's ALMOST hitting the top of the car. Now, go forward. The balloon will stay in a fixed place compared to the car, until the ribbon is taut.

Also, you say that the UA affects everything, not just the earth. So if EVERYTHING is accelerating upwards, what's stopping the atmosphere (atmoplane for FE?) from falling off? Instead of what would happen with downward accelration (air forced to northpole) it'd do the opposite (air forced south, to the edge) and what would stop it? An ice wall only a few hundred miles tall?


I'm not going to get into what sort of device could force EVERYTHING UPWARDS, and instead comment that gravity isn't meant to be magic, and HORIZONTAL gravity between particles has been observed. (Waits to be asked for a link, when it could be googled.) As a second year physics student, you should've seen reports on this.

I'm not taking anything away from your post supahlova, because you're right on target.


But, I'm gonna try and keep this on topic and only take your balloon example. How would helium work with UA? Wouldn't it make more sense if the Earth were moving downwards?

Oops, accidentally used something from RE in a FE example.

IDK if inertia was the right choice, and I don't really understand the whole UA thing, but if the stars are moving with the earth, how can we set up a camera to track their movements through the sky? How would constellations work, noting that we can't see them all all the time? What happens when they go to they other side of the earth, which I'm assuming means they would go UNDER the UA?

The stars are accelerating with the Earth vertically. However, they orbit about the north celestial pole in the horizontal plane; this is why they are visible from different parts of the Earth at different times. It is not possible for something to go "under" the UA, which is a universal force that has no corporeal form.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but can SOMEONE explain the UA to me? And don't reference me to a website, I want a person to tell me something.

The UA is a universal force which accelerates the Earth and celestial bodies upwards at approximately 9.8 m s^-2.

But try this with a helium filled balloon, okay? get in your car and have it tied to a seat or something, so it's ALMOST hitting the top of the car. Now, go forward. The balloon will stay in a fixed place compared to the car, until the ribbon is taut.

Yes, it will. You have just demonstrated the equivalence principle, which is what makes FET work with an upward-accelerating Earth.

Also, you say that the UA affects everything, not just the earth. So if EVERYTHING is accelerating upwards, what's stopping the atmosphere (atmoplane for FE?) from falling off? Instead of what would happen with downward accelration (air forced to northpole) it'd do the opposite (air forced south, to the edge) and what would stop it? An ice wall only a few hundred miles tall?

The Earth shields matter on its surface from the UA, in the same way that a brick wall can shield you from a strong wind.

I'm not going to get into what sort of device could force EVERYTHING UPWARDS, and instead comment that gravity isn't meant to be magic, and HORIZONTAL gravity between particles has been observed. (Waits to be asked for a link, when it could be googled.) As a second year physics student, you should've seen reports on this.

I am well aware of the effects of gravitation. Now, can you explain to me the cause of it?

But, I'm gonna try and keep this on topic and only take your balloon example. How would helium work with UA? Wouldn't it make more sense if the Earth were moving downwards?

No. Consider the RE model for a moment; a helium balloon is being pulled downwards by the Earth, yet it still rises upwards due to the buoyancy force from the air it is suspended in. The same fluid mechanics that govern buoyancy work in the accelerating frame of reference of FET, in accordance with the equivalence principle.

Oops, accidentally used something from RE in a FE example.

  I sometimes get confused, too. Up, down, left, North, round.....

Quote from: SupahLovah on September 21, 2009, 07:48:12 AM

Also, you say that the UA affects everything, not just the earth. So if EVERYTHING is accelerating upwards, what's stopping the atmosphere (atmoplane for FE?) from falling off? Instead of what would happen with downward accelration (air forced to northpole) it'd do the opposite (air forced south, to the edge) and what would stop it? An ice wall only a few hundred miles tall?

The Earth shields matter on its surface from the UA, in the same way that a brick wall can shield you from a strong wind.

Then what makes downward acceleration force all the air north? And I'm not saying the UA would make the atmoplane come off. If the earth shielded the atmoplane from the UA, what else is shielded from it? And if the earth DID sheild the atmoplane from the UA, it WOULDN'T be accelerating upwards, and would be forced off the FE from the FE accelerating upwards, past it. The only way having the FE shielding the atmoplane from the UA would work is with downward acceleration, hopefully pulling the atmoplane with it.

Quote from: SupahLovah on September 21, 2009, 07:48:12 AM

I'm not going to get into what sort of device could force EVERYTHING UPWARDS, and instead comment that gravity isn't meant to be magic, and HORIZONTAL gravity between particles has been observed. (Waits to be asked for a link, when it could be googled.) As a second year physics student, you should've seen reports on this.

I am well aware of the effects of gravitation. Now, can you explain to me the cause of it?

Gravity is an attraction of mass. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

No. Consider the RE model for a moment; a helium balloon is being pulled downwards by the Earth, yet it still rises upwards due to the buoyancy force from the air it is suspended in. The same fluid mechanics that govern buoyancy work in the accelerating frame of reference of FET, in accordance with the equivalence principle.

Okay, I just don't know about the properties of helium, so you have to consider this question as legitimate: In the FE model, is helium a lot more dense? I mean are the known properties completely off??? And again, I'm trying really hard to not sound stupid...hahaha

Quote from: Parsifal on September 21, 2009, 08:06:47 AM

No. Consider the RE model for a moment; a helium balloon is being pulled downwards by the Earth, yet it still rises upwards due to the buoyancy force from the air it is suspended in. The same fluid mechanics that govern buoyancy work in the accelerating frame of reference of FET, in accordance with the equivalence principle.

Okay, I just don't know about the properties of helium, so you have to consider this question as legitimate: In the FE model, is helium a lot more dense? I mean are the known properties completely off??? And again, I'm trying really hard to not sound stupid...hahaha

Helium, like everything else in RE, is pulled down toward earth. I was using the balloon as an example of stars, which are NOT TOUCHING earth. Does the UA just effect everywhere exactly the same amount?

The UA is a universal force which accelerates the Earth and celestial bodies upwards at approximately 9.8 m s^-2.

Also, the FAQs say the UA is a real, physical thing. Maybe read them sometime?

ALSO,  hope I get this in in time...

If the UA forces EVERYTHING upwards, right, then I'm constantly accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2? Everything would be? So if I jumped, I'd be, for a second, going faster than that. Then what makes the earth catch up to me, which I would percieve as falling, does the UA stop working on me?