Flat Earth moves upwards?

Quote from: Crustinator on May 08, 2010, 07:36:11 AM

Because you're either very confused or are deliberately confusing two issues.

There was confusion on both sides. When I first stated that UA and gravity follow the same principle in that there are no experiments capable of differentiating gravity from acceleration in our reference frame, Lorddave responded with the Cavendish experiment. Either he was confused with my statement or he tried to argue that there is an experiment that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration. Anyone who has seen General Relativity would notice that there is no falsehood in my statement, so I thought he was confused. However, when I made the statement "in no way does the Cavendish experiment differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference," he and Ellipsis replied against it.

Fine. I asked him how does the experiment distinguish between the two, and you came with [this post] as a response. Thus, I asked you too, and you replied with your interpretation of the experiment. There could be three reasons for this: you were confused with what I was saying, you knew what I was saying but you intended to contest my claim just to be a nuisance, or you simply failed to clarify that you were not contesting my claim but merely trying to make a distinction between the Equivalence Principle and the Cavendish experiment.

How would acceleration explain this?  If you tie a string between two points and pull it tight, the string is level.  However, move the points closer together, and the string sags in the middle.  If it's the ground moving up to meet a NON-MOVING object, why does the string sag and not stay at the same level?  Even if the string is being forced against itself, what stops it from moving sideways?

Here's an image for reference.

Quote from: James on May 08, 2010, 04:07:58 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 08, 2010, 08:00:01 AM

You could just dismiss any evidence I posted as being "part of the conspiracy" so why bother?

I learned that when calculating the gravitational force on an object, you only include the mass out from the center of the planet to a radius of where the object is. In fact one of the more painful problems I had on a final exam in advanced mechanics was to calculate the path of an object dropped through a chord drilled straight through a planet. You had to include differential gravitation and everything, it was tough.

So would I be correct in saying that FE'ers deny that your acceleration goes down as you descend into the earth?

So the sum total of your evidence for the previous claim is that you were told so by globularist academics? What's more, what you were told was openly presented as the result of a purely hypothetical thought-experiment which presupposes the existence of gravity? Why do you expect anybody to find this convincing?

Wasn't trying to be convincing. I haven't performed any underground gravity measurements myself, so I doubt you would believe anything I said anyway.

In fact, I was kind of hoping that Deceiver who seems to be the guru of all things underground could help me out in that area.

So just for the record, do you deny that there would be any changes in acceleration (gravity or UA) measured deep underground?

Honestly, I can't tell you from personal experience. Senior year of my undergrad, I did a homework set that dealt with this (and I hated it). Haven't touched the equations since then. But according to our textbooks and theory, sure. The problem though (which we ended up finding in the problem set) is that you have to dig very deep to notice anything measurable. Even a depth of 10km below the surface (the radius of the earth is roughly 6,200km) would yield a change of much less than one percent, which due to topography variances, and especially uneven densities and regional differences in earth materials, makes any sort of interpretation about the gravity value and the earth near useless.

Things get excruciatingly complicated when you factor in the densities of the core, outer core, lower mantle... upper mantle... widespread thermal anomalies and an overall poorly behaving earth!

A geophysicist might say differently, or perhaps there have been improvements in ability to measure, model, and interpret such things, but since I mostly deal with geochemistry, can't add much more than that. Not helpful, I know, so here's a fun picture I found!

Quote from: Jack on May 08, 2010, 04:13:15 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on May 08, 2010, 07:36:11 AM

Because you're either very confused or are deliberately confusing two issues.

There was confusion on both sides. When I first stated that UA and gravity follow the same principle in that there are no experiments capable of differentiating gravity from acceleration in our reference frame, Lorddave responded with the Cavendish experiment. Either he was confused with my statement or he tried to argue that there is an experiment that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration. Anyone who has seen General Relativity would notice that there is no falsehood in my statement, so I thought he was confused. However, when I made the statement "in no way does the Cavendish experiment differentiate gravity from acceleration in our frame of reference," he and Ellipsis replied against it.

Fine. I asked him how does the experiment distinguish between the two, and you came with [this post] as a response. Thus, I asked you too, and you replied with your interpretation of the experiment. There could be three reasons for this: you were confused with what I was saying, you knew what I was saying but you intended to contest my claim just to be a nuisance, or you simply failed to clarify that you were not contesting my claim but merely trying to make a distinction between the Equivalence Principle and the Cavendish experiment.

How would acceleration explain this?  If you tie a string between two points and pull it tight, the string is level.  However, move the points closer together, and the string sags in the middle.  If it's the ground moving up to meet a NON-MOVING object, why does the string sag and not stay at the same level?  Even if the string is being forced against itself, what stops it from moving sideways?

Here's an image for reference.

Because the object is moving the whole time.  Everything is moving "up" at the same rate.  Why does the string sag? 
Air pressure mixed with the fact that the posts were moving upwards miliseconds prior to the string (since the posts have a direct line to the ground and the string relies on the air pushing it down).

Best bet is to prove gravity exists (like I did) and have FEers invent the "gravity nullifying field".

Yes, everything which is firmly attached to the Earth is moving upwards at all times. Sagging is caused when something becomes less firmly attached to something which is firmly attached to the Earth.

Yes, everything which is firmly attached to the Earth is moving upwards at all times. Sagging is caused when something becomes less firmly attached to something which is firmly attached to the Earth.

It certainly couldn't be an unseen force pulling it down, could it?

Quote from: James on May 08, 2010, 06:17:34 PM

Yes, everything which is firmly attached to the Earth is moving upwards at all times. Sagging is caused when something becomes less firmly attached to something which is firmly attached to the Earth.

It certainly couldn't be an unseen force pulling it down, could it?

As Jack said, since there's no way to distinguish an acceleration due to a force upwards due to UA and an acceleration downwards due to gravity from this frame of reference, it very well could be.
Assuming, of course, you start off with the neutral standpoint that the shape of the Earth is unknown.

PS. There are experiments which can distinguish gravity and acceleration, as you know.

This.

"the strength of Earth's apparent gravity varies with latitude, altitude, local topography and geology"

It makes zero sense that Earth can experience uneven acceleration at ground level. UA is dead. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

"a force due to gravitational attraction between masses exists."

"Therefore any force experienced while falling is in part or wholly due to this attraction."

Look up General Relativity and you will notice that these two statements are not necessarily true.

Given this fact, the "accelerating earth" in FET becomes largely irrelevant. What FET now needs to do is counter the gravitational force with some kind of anti-gravity in order to maintain the hovering position of the moon, sun, stars etc.

It does not need to. The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.

PS. There are experiments which can distinguish gravity and acceleration, as you know.

Again, there are no experiments that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference, where the gravitational field is uniform and tidal effects are neglected. There is no falsehood in this statement. In the macroscopic level where tidal effects are considered (non-uniform gravitational field), there will be a noticeable distinction between the two.

How would acceleration explain this?  If you tie a string between two points and pull it tight, the string is level.  However, move the points closer together, and the string sags in the middle.  If it's the ground moving up to meet a NON-MOVING object, why does the string sag and not stay at the same level?  Even if the string is being forced against itself, what stops it from moving sideways?

The string sags by inertia, in the same way you get pushed back toward your seat by inertia when hitting the accelerator. When the string is pulled tight, it accelerates upward along with the posts due to tension support. When you move the posts closer to each other, the string loses tension support and gets overwhelmed by inertia relative to the accelerating posts.

"the strength of Earth's apparent gravity varies with latitude, altitude, local topography and geology"

It makes zero sense that Earth can experience uneven acceleration at ground level. UA is dead.

The gravitational field of the stars causes uneven acceleration. Since the variations are barely noticeable in our local frame of reference, they do not contradict UA. You should know that this wiki quote is considered at the macroscopic level (for instance, when you drop two objects on opposite sides of the RE).

Why do the gravitational variations remain in the same places when the stars move?

Quote from: Crustinator on May 08, 2010, 04:34:07 PM

"a force due to gravitational attraction between masses exists."

"Therefore any force experienced while falling is in part or wholly due to this attraction."

Look up General Relativity and you will notice that these two statements are not necessarily true.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 08, 2010, 04:34:07 PM

Given this fact, the "accelerating earth" in FET becomes largely irrelevant. What FET now needs to do is counter the gravitational force with some kind of anti-gravity in order to maintain the hovering position of the moon, sun, stars etc.

It does not need to. The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 08, 2010, 04:34:07 PM

PS. There are experiments which can distinguish gravity and acceleration, as you know.

Again, there are no experiments that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference, where the gravitational field is uniform and tidal effects are neglected. There is no falsehood in this statement. In the macroscopic level where tidal effects are considered (non-uniform gravitational field), there will be a noticeable distinction between the two.

Quote from: Sliver on May 08, 2010, 04:50:59 PM

How would acceleration explain this?  If you tie a string between two points and pull it tight, the string is level.  However, move the points closer together, and the string sags in the middle.  If it's the ground moving up to meet a NON-MOVING object, why does the string sag and not stay at the same level?  Even if the string is being forced against itself, what stops it from moving sideways?

The string sags by inertia, in the same way you get pushed back toward your seat by inertia when hitting the accelerator. When the string is pulled tight, it accelerates upward along with the posts due to tension support. When you move the posts closer to each other, the string loses tension support and gets overwhelmed by inertia relative to the accelerating posts.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 08, 2010, 07:37:42 PM

"the strength of Earth's apparent gravity varies with latitude, altitude, local topography and geology"

It makes zero sense that Earth can experience uneven acceleration at ground level. UA is dead.

The gravitational field of the stars causes uneven acceleration. Since the variations are barely noticeable in our local frame of reference, they do not contradict UA. You should know that this wiki quote is considered at the macroscopic level (for instance, when you drop two objects on opposite sides of the RE).

If anything were to cause the UA to become uneven, the Earth would wobble, over time the wobble would get worse, and you can imagine what this would do.  Do you see how hard it is to make all of the bullshit puzzle pieces fit together? 

Also, just how much inertia are we talking about here?  Because 9 m/s is only about 20.5 mph.

Hate to play devil's advocate here but according to them, we're traveling almost the speed of light. And the string example is kind of weak and doesn't really prove anything, you may as well drop it.

If anything were to cause the UA to become uneven, the Earth would wobble, over time the wobble would get worse, and you can imagine what this would do.  Do you see how hard it is to make all of the bullshit puzzle pieces fit together? 

Why would the UA become uneven?

Why would the UA become uneven?

It would have to in order to explain why gravity seems to be weaker at the equator than at the poles.  Then again, Jack is trying to wave this away by saying the gravity of stars is creating an illusion.

The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.

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?

Quote from: Jack

The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.

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 far as I understand, the UA doesn't affect anything on or near the Earth's surface (up to the edge of the atmosphere).  This is to ensure that questions like that can be answered.

Look up General Relativity and you will notice that these two statements are not necessarily true.

No, not really. 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.

It does not need to. The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.

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.

Again, there are no experiments that can distinguish between gravity and acceleration in our frame of reference, where the gravitational field is uniform and tidal effects are neglected.

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

Quote from: Jack on May 08, 2010, 08:53:40 PM

In the macroscopic level where tidal effects are considered (non-uniform gravitational field), there will be a noticeable distinction between the two.

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

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 08, 2010, 11:05:52 PM

Quote from: Jack

The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.

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 far as I understand, the UA doesn't affect anything on or near the Earth's surface (up to the edge of the atmosphere).  This is to ensure that questions like that can be answered.

You have an absurdly misconceived notion of Universal Acceleration, which may explain why you have such difficulty accepting it. Saying that the UA doesn't affect things on the Earth's surface is like saying that if I have a table with a plate on it, and on that plate is a fried egg, the table is not affecting the egg. In one sense it's true-ish, but it's misleading. The egg is where it is because it's on the plate, and the plate is being held up by the table. 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.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2010, 12:14:29 AM

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 08, 2010, 11:05:52 PM

Quote from: Jack

The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.

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 far as I understand, the UA doesn't affect anything on or near the Earth's surface (up to the edge of the atmosphere).  This is to ensure that questions like that can be answered.

You have an absurdly misconceived notion of Universal Acceleration, which may explain why you have such difficulty accepting it. Saying that the UA doesn't affect things on the Earth's surface is like saying that if I have a table with a plate on it, and on that plate is a fried egg, the table is not affecting the egg. In one sense it's true-ish, but it's misleading. The egg is where it is because it's on the plate, and the plate is being held up by the table. 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.

That's what I said. The UA doesn't directly push a table it only pushes the Earth. The Earth then pushes everything else. The UA then pushes the sun,  moon, planets, and stars.
Which means that it stops at the Earth and starts again after the atmolayer. If it didn't then the UA wold directly accelerate people up at 9.8m/s

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

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2010, 12:14:29 AM

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 08, 2010, 11:05:52 PM

Quote from: Jack

The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.

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 far as I understand, the UA doesn't affect anything on or near the Earth's surface (up to the edge of the atmosphere).  This is to ensure that questions like that can be answered.

You have an absurdly misconceived notion of Universal Acceleration, which may explain why you have such difficulty accepting it. Saying that the UA doesn't affect things on the Earth's surface is like saying that if I have a table with a plate on it, and on that plate is a fried egg, the table is not affecting the egg. In one sense it's true-ish, but it's misleading. The egg is where it is because it's on the plate, and the plate is being held up by the table. 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.

That's what I said. The UA doesn't directly push a table it only pushes the Earth. The Earth then pushes everything else. The UA then pushes the sun,  moon, planets, and stars.
Which means that it stops at the Earth and starts again after the atmolayer. If it didn't then the UA wold directly accelerate people up at 9.8m/s

No, the UA pushes whatever is touching it, which is where my second example comes into its own. The UA does not function at a distance - it can no more push things which are above it that my table can keep birds flying.

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.

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.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2010, 06:51:29 AM

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

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2010, 12:14:29 AM

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 08, 2010, 11:05:52 PM

Quote from: Jack

The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.

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 far as I understand, the UA doesn't affect anything on or near the Earth's surface (up to the edge of the atmosphere).  This is to ensure that questions like that can be answered.

You have an absurdly misconceived notion of Universal Acceleration, which may explain why you have such difficulty accepting it. Saying that the UA doesn't affect things on the Earth's surface is like saying that if I have a table with a plate on it, and on that plate is a fried egg, the table is not affecting the egg. In one sense it's true-ish, but it's misleading. The egg is where it is because it's on the plate, and the plate is being held up by the table. 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.

That's what I said. The UA doesn't directly push a table it only pushes the Earth. The Earth then pushes everything else. The UA then pushes the sun,  moon, planets, and stars.
Which means that it stops at the Earth and starts again after the atmolayer. If it didn't then the UA wold directly accelerate people up at 9.8m/s

No, the UA pushes whatever is touching it, which is where my second example comes into its own. The UA does not function at a distance - it can no more push things which are above it that my table can keep birds flying.

James,

Using your table analogy... why would the various parts of the table have less support than say, the middle, or edges? Stick a grain of sand anywhere on a real table... and it will have the exact same support regardless of location or leg placement.

Now.. applying this to the earth... why would the center of the earth (flat disk now) referring to the north pole region, consistently have less acceleration than the equatorial region. Likewise, why would the equatorial region have consistently greater acceleration than the outer rim?

If parts of the earth had gravity anomolies that fluctuated to a mean value of 9.8m/s then the UA idea would make sense... but the acceleration doesn't show any such fluctuations.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2010, 06:51:29 AM

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

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2010, 12:14:29 AM

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 08, 2010, 11:05:52 PM

Quote from: Jack

The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.

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 far as I understand, the UA doesn't affect anything on or near the Earth's surface (up to the edge of the atmosphere).  This is to ensure that questions like that can be answered.

You have an absurdly misconceived notion of Universal Acceleration, which may explain why you have such difficulty accepting it. Saying that the UA doesn't affect things on the Earth's surface is like saying that if I have a table with a plate on it, and on that plate is a fried egg, the table is not affecting the egg. In one sense it's true-ish, but it's misleading. The egg is where it is because it's on the plate, and the plate is being held up by the table. 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.

That's what I said. The UA doesn't directly push a table it only pushes the Earth. The Earth then pushes everything else. The UA then pushes the sun,  moon, planets, and stars.
Which means that it stops at the Earth and starts again after the atmolayer. If it didn't then the UA wold directly accelerate people up at 9.8m/s

No, the UA pushes whatever is touching it, which is where my second example comes into its own. The UA does not function at a distance - it can no more push things which are above it that my table can keep birds flying.

So you're saying that the planets, moon, sun, and stars are moving by... what?  What keeps them above us?
Then what p

So you're saying that the planets, moon, sun, and stars are moving by... what?  What keeps them above us?
Then what p

Photoelectric suspension. 

That's one of the things that makes it tricky debating FE'ers.  Different FE'ers have different explanations for the same phenomena, such as UA/gravitation.

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.

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

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2010, 06:51:29 AM

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

Quote from: Lorddave on May 09, 2010, 12:14:29 AM

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 08, 2010, 11:05:52 PM

Quote from: Jack

The Earth does not exert its own gravitational field; it is only accelerated upward by UA. The UA keeps the celestial bodies above the Earth by accelerating them at the same rate.

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 far as I understand, the UA doesn't affect anything on or near the Earth's surface (up to the edge of the atmosphere).  This is to ensure that questions like that can be answered.

You have an absurdly misconceived notion of Universal Acceleration, which may explain why you have such difficulty accepting it. Saying that the UA doesn't affect things on the Earth's surface is like saying that if I have a table with a plate on it, and on that plate is a fried egg, the table is not affecting the egg. In one sense it's true-ish, but it's misleading. The egg is where it is because it's on the plate, and the plate is being held up by the table. 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.

That's what I said. The UA doesn't directly push a table it only pushes the Earth. The Earth then pushes everything else. The UA then pushes the sun,  moon, planets, and stars.
Which means that it stops at the Earth and starts again after the atmolayer. If it didn't then the UA wold directly accelerate people up at 9.8m/s

No, the UA pushes whatever is touching it, which is where my second example comes into its own. The UA does not function at a distance - it can no more push things which are above it that my table can keep birds flying.

James,

Using your table analogy... why would the various parts of the table have less support than say, the middle, or edges? Stick a grain of sand anywhere on a real table... and it will have the exact same support regardless of location or leg placement.

Now.. applying this to the earth... why would the center of the earth (flat disk now) referring to the north pole region, consistently have less acceleration than the equatorial region. Likewise, why would the equatorial region have consistently greater acceleration than the outer rim?

If parts of the earth had gravity anomolies that fluctuated to a mean value of 9.8m/s then the UA idea would make sense... but the acceleration doesn't show any such fluctuations.

This example is not true, in fact, the table will sag slightly in the middle.

If two things have different accelerations, they don't stay together for very long. Acceleration is simply the rate of change in velocity. If one part of the earth gains velocity faster than another part, it would shoot up into space before long because its velocity would be higher.

All parts of a sagging table have the same acceleration, which is why it stays together.

Try again.

If two things have different accelerations, they don't stay together for very long. Acceleration is simply the rate of change in velocity. If one part of the earth gains velocity faster than another part, it would shoot up into space before long because its velocity would be higher.

All parts of a sagging table have the same acceleration, which is why it stays together.

Try again.

No, if a table sags, the middle of the table is accelerating less fast than the outer edges of the table until it reachs an equilibrium.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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