Flat Earth moves upwards?

Then congratulations, you have failed to understand a concept as simple as acceleration! Read a book on basic mechanics and try again.

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me. I have read many books about science.

The Celestial bodies are suspended above the Earth by photoelectric suspension, not by the Universal Accelerator.

Of course.

If the universal accelerator only acts on one thing, then why is it called "universal"?

Quote from: General Disarray on May 09, 2010, 03:33:39 PM

Then congratulations, you have failed to understand a concept as simple as acceleration! Read a book on basic mechanics and try again.

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me. I have read many books about science.

I just did, but you still "didn't see why this is an issue".

I can't continue to argue with someone who doesn't have a grasp of basic scientific principles. Educate yourself a bit if you would like to continue this discussion.

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 02:51:59 PM

The Celestial bodies are suspended above the Earth by photoelectric suspension, not by the Universal Accelerator.

Of course.

If the universal accelerator only acts on one thing, then why is it called "universal"?

It acts on all things which are on it.

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 03:37:30 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 09, 2010, 03:33:39 PM

Then congratulations, you have failed to understand a concept as simple as acceleration! Read a book on basic mechanics and try again.

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me. I have read many books about science.

I just did, but you still "didn't see why this is an issue".

I can't continue to argue with someone who doesn't have a grasp of basic scientific principles. Educate yourself a bit if you would like to continue this discussion.

No, no, I am happy for you to concede that you are unable to defeat me in argument. You may at any time attempt to continue, but I do not hold out much hope for your success!

It acts on all things which are on it.

And how many things are on it?

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 03:51:21 PM

It acts on all things which are on it.

And how many things are on it?

It depends what you mean by "things" ...?

Quote from: Crustinator on May 09, 2010, 08:43:32 AM

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 06:34:12 AM

To give you and understanding of why the UA doesn't affect things BEYOND the atmolayer either, ask yourself whether my kitchen table would affect a bird which was flying over it. The answer is no.

The answer is yes. Albeit in small way given the small mass of the table.

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 08:19:09 AM

The UA does not function at a distance

Except it can, because it can "push" both the earth and the sun, moon, stars etc.

Strange.

The Celestial bodies are suspended above the Earth by photoelectric suspension, not by the Universal Accelerator.

I just read the "theory of photoelectric suspension"....

Wow... just... Wow...
So you're saying that there is a giant Electric field between the Sun, Moon, and Earth that has equal charge of the same polarity and that keeps the Sun and Moon from crashing into the Earth?

Quote from: Crustinator on May 09, 2010, 03:54:44 PM

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 03:51:21 PM

It acts on all things which are on it.

And how many things are on it?

It depends what you mean by "things" ...?

No, it depends on what you mean by "things"...!

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 03:55:51 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on May 09, 2010, 03:54:44 PM

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 03:51:21 PM

It acts on all things which are on it.

And how many things are on it?

It depends what you mean by "things" ...?

No, it depends on what you mean by "things"...!

Well I used a universal quantifier in my sentence, which means I don't need to supply a number. But if you want to know how many things there are on the UA, we will have to be more specific about the bounds of a thing.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 09, 2010, 08:43:32 AM

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 06:34:12 AM

To give you and understanding of why the UA doesn't affect things BEYOND the atmolayer either, ask yourself whether my kitchen table would affect a bird which was flying over it. The answer is no.

The answer is yes. Albeit in small way given the small mass of the table.

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 08:19:09 AM

The UA does not function at a distance

Except it can, because it can "push" both the earth and the sun, moon, stars etc.

Strange.

The Celestial bodies are suspended above the Earth by photoelectric suspension, not by the Universal Accelerator.

How did you reach this conclusion?

Well I used a universal quantifier in my sentence, which means I don't need to supply a number.

But you've also previously stressed that the effect is not universal, ie it does not act on the sun, moon and presumably all heavenly bodies.

That's why I'm seeking clarification.

But if you want to know how many things there are on the UA, we will have to be more specific about the bounds of a thing.

I do, so go right ahead and be specific about the bounds of a thing.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 09, 2010, 03:43:31 PM

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 02:51:59 PM

The Celestial bodies are suspended above the Earth by photoelectric suspension, not by the Universal Accelerator.

Of course.

If the universal accelerator only acts on one thing, then why is it called "universal"?

It acts on all things which are on it.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 09, 2010, 03:47:58 PM

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 03:37:30 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 09, 2010, 03:33:39 PM

Then congratulations, you have failed to understand a concept as simple as acceleration! Read a book on basic mechanics and try again.

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me. I have read many books about science.

I just did, but you still "didn't see why this is an issue".

I can't continue to argue with someone who doesn't have a grasp of basic scientific principles. Educate yourself a bit if you would like to continue this discussion.

No, no, I am happy for you to concede that you are unable to defeat me in argument. You may at any time attempt to continue, but I do not hold out much hope for your success!

It's like playing a game with a child. You know you can beat them, but they don't know enough about the game so you feel sorry for them and just let them think they are superior. Good luck with your ignorance.

Also, I just don't feel like repeating myself anymore. I explained it to you in very clear detail but you (by your own admission) didn't see what the issue was.

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 04:12:56 PM

Well I used a universal quantifier in my sentence, which means I don't need to supply a number.

But you've also previously stressed that the effect is not universal, ie it does not act on the sun, moon and presumably all heavenly bodies.

That's why I'm seeking clarification.

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 04:12:56 PM

But if you want to know how many things there are on the UA, we will have to be more specific about the bounds of a thing.

I do, so go right ahead and be specific about the bounds of a thing.

Well there are several possible answers. Is an atom a thing? If so, there are millions of things on the Universal Accelerator. If a molecule is a thing, there are fewer, but still quite a lot. Do you see the problem here?

Do you see the problem here?

No. It's your definition. You define it.

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 04:32:48 PM

Do you see the problem here?

No. It's your definition. You define it.

In that case there are millions of things on it.

In that case there are millions of things on it.

But all of those "things" are bonded and collectively identified as the earth. Is that correct?

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 04:35:24 PM

In that case there are millions of things on it.

But all of those "things" are bonded and collectively identified as the earth. Is that correct?

Not necessarily. "Earth" is a poorly defined concept. Is the Ice Wall part of the Earth? Is the ice beyond the Ice Wall part of the Earth?

Again, these are your definitions, so he's asking you to clarify them.

Not necessarily. "Earth" is a poorly defined concept.

Not in my world. Strange.

Is the Ice Wall part of the Earth?

You tell me. Why wouldn't it be? Is there a void between the ice wall and the earth?

Is the ice beyond the Ice Wall part of the Earth?

You tell me. Is there a void between the ice and the ice wall?

Then why am I not weightless?  Surely if UA affects things like the Earth, the sun, the moon, and every last one of those countless stars, why doesn't it affect us?  What makes us special?

As stated in the FAQ, the DEF acts as a containment which shields us from UA and holds the atmolayer in place. The celestial bodies are free from this containment of the Earth. The DEF only applies to the standard model; it does not apply to other flat earth models.

While a single mass accelerating alone can "feel" a force which is indistinguishable from gravity, if there is another mass involved then part of that force it feels can, and must, be attributable to gravitational attraction.

No. All masses simply move along geodesics in curved space-time; they do not feel or experience any gravitational forces. Einstein argued that the Newton's force of gravity is false because it violates the universal speed limit. As I said, read General Relativity.

All mass exerts a gravitational field. You can't wish it away. It makes me worry when you insist people read Einstein while having yet to get to grips with more basic elements of physics yourself.

This is essentially why I said there is something which negates the Earth's ability to exert its own gravitational field.

By demanding a uniform gravitational field with zero tidal effects you are suppressing the evidence against your argument.

That is because you need to distinguish between a local reference frame and a macroscopic reference frame, and you cannot use experiments conducted in a macroscopic reference frame to contradict the Equivalence Principle because it does not apply to such reference frame. In our frame of reference, the variations are so small that they are neglected. For example, you can barely notice any variations by dropping two balls few meters apart. This is where the Equivalence Principle applies.

Then there are experiments to distinguish the two. We got there in the end didn't we?

I said, "there are no experiments that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference." Do you not understand the bold part?

Then it's a good thing we are able to make measurements across the Earth, and not just in our own backyards. Big shock, humans are able to use technology to make macroscopic measurements.

This is essentially why I said there is something which negates the Earth's ability to exert its own gravitational field.

We're getting to the heart of the matter now!

Tell me more about this "something".

Quote from: Crustinator on May 09, 2010, 04:44:03 AM

By demanding a uniform gravitational field with zero tidal effects you are suppressing the evidence against your argument.

That is because you need to distinguish between a local reference frame and a macroscopic reference frame, and you cannot use experiments conducted in a macroscopic reference frame to contradict the Equivalence Principle because it does not apply to such reference frame. In our frame of reference, the variations are so small that they are neglected. For example, you can barely notice any variations by dropping two balls few meters apart. This is where the Equivalence Principle applies.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 09, 2010, 04:44:03 AM

Then there are experiments to distinguish the two. We got there in the end didn't we?

I said, "there are no experiments that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference." Do you not understand the bold part?

He essentially seems to be arguing that small scale experiments can't disprove the equivalence principle, which is an entirely separate issue from being able to perform experiments  at all to determine if the earth is being accelerated by gravity or something else. So it can be done, but he is sticking to an irrelevant argument as a means of defense.

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 02:51:59 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on May 09, 2010, 08:43:32 AM

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 06:34:12 AM

To give you and understanding of why the UA doesn't affect things BEYOND the atmolayer either, ask yourself whether my kitchen table would affect a bird which was flying over it. The answer is no.

The answer is yes. Albeit in small way given the small mass of the table.

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 08:19:09 AM

The UA does not function at a distance

Except it can, because it can "push" both the earth and the sun, moon, stars etc.

Strange.

The Celestial bodies are suspended above the Earth by photoelectric suspension, not by the Universal Accelerator.

How did you reach this conclusion?

Answer please.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 09, 2010, 03:23:30 PM

Quote from: James on May 09, 2010, 03:19:18 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 09, 2010, 03:16:15 PM

Facepalm.

Let's try this again. Say I have 2 objects accelerating at different rates, one at 1 m/s/s and the other at 2 m/s/s. At t=0, they are in the same spot. At t=1 second, the first object is 1 meter away, and the second is 2 meters away. At t=2 seconds, the first is 3 meters away, and the second is 6 meters away, and so on.

If 2 objects have different accelerations for any length of time, they move away from each other. This is a simple fact.

Applying this to a theoretical flat earth, we measure different rates of "gravitational" acceleration on different spots on the earth. These measurements are consistent at each spot. So there are 2 possibilities:
1. The acceleration is due to gravity and the objects will stay where they are.
2. That point on the surface of the flat earth is accelerating at a different rate than other parts of the earth, and will move away from them.

It can only be one or the other, which is it?

Neither of these things is true. You are presenting a false dichotomy to attempt to make your claims appear stronger, but I have unmasked it.

Blast, foiled again! I forgot that every bit of simple physics I ever learned was wrong!

I don't suppose you'd like to enlighten me as to where I was wrong and why?

The Earth is accelerating at the same rate as itself. Obviously if there is a heavy object on the Earth the Earth will sag an incredibly tiny amount from the compression of the object. I don't see why this is an issue.

This would cause the object being accelerated to become imbalanced.  This imbalance would result in wobble.  Kind of like loading your washing machine too heavily on one side.  This wobble would eventually tear the Earth apart.

I'd imagine places like Beijing and New York to have quite the wobbly effect on FE.


Also, if FE is infinitely wide and finitely deep, this just makes it worse.

I'd imagine places like Beijing and New York to have quite the wobbly effect on FE.


Also, if FE is infinitely wide and finitely deep, this just makes it worse.

Actually, I think the Pacific ocean would be the killer!

Neither of these things is true. You are presenting a false dichotomy to attempt to make your claims appear stronger, but I have unmasked it.

I don't suppose you'd like to enlighten me as to where I was wrong and why?

Imagine two cars. One is accelerating at 5m/sec^2, and the other is accelerating at 5.01m/sec^2. The car with the greater constant acceleration is going to increase its distance with the other car until the end of time.

Back to the earth.
Specifically, the middle of the disk would slowly sink, the equator region of the disk would rise relative to the rest of the earth, and the regions outside the equator area would also be sinking. It would look exactly like an negative (upside down) cosine function. Over time, the difference in acceleration would have the effect of increasing the amplitude. Eventually, the disk finally rips itself apart.

If this doesn't make sense James, then there is truly no hope for you! Drug rehabilitation being a possible exception.

You should probably just give up. He knows he's wrong and doesn't have any way to refute it, so he's trying to insult my intelligence.

We've already established that uneven acceleration (which has been measured) would cause a flat earth to fly apart, so that's that.

And by the way, if you're referring to acceleration above, the units are meters/(seconds^2), or m/s/s.

I think the crux of this issue, is the varying degree of accelaration on the earths surface. If the earth truelly was accelarating upwards, then certain parts of the world would be slower than other parts. This would result in some passrts sinking into the earth while others stretch outwards.

This does not occur.

If you fail to understand this, watch a drag race. One car accelarates faster than the other it therefore is ahead of the slower accelarating one.

Apply the principle to the earth.