You don't need to know why it happens, only that it happens. If more massive objects attracts less massive ones, if it is something observable, it is so. If I can play video games, I don't need to know how they are made or anything to understand I can play video games or that they exist. Your theory states that the Earth goes up, but such thing is not observable.
Correlation does not imply causation. This is tantamount to saying that global warming is caused by the diminishing amounts of piracy in the world.
Not only is it observable, but it is calculable.
UA is just as observable as gravitation. I can observe the Earth rising to meet me when I jump off my chair.
I can't see the Earth rising to meet the waterfall. The cliff is still and the water doesn't jump.
Yet electromagnetism was discovered before the protons and electrons.
Incorrect. Protons were known about before the theory of Electromagnetism was developed. Please try again.
Yet you don't need a theory to know about something. You don't need a theory to observe physics phenomenon. In fact, the theory is there to explain the phenomenon, and there is a long way from the initial discovery to the actual theory. Lighting was there before the theory was written, people knew about those forces more than a thousand years before the theory was written. Please Try again.
But I thought you didn't believe in all that conspiracy bullshit, that sustained space flight never existed and such? But then, we're talking about extremes here, there's still things we don't know about science which may change things about high velocities and masses but not for the rest. It's not because we have not perfect understanding of something that everything about it is false, it can only be incomplete. If those discrepancies were true, that would mean gravitation is true, since those discrepancies could only be observed if it was such.
Are you even listening to the logic you are using?
"Gravity exists. If there things in nature that directly contradict gravity, then this proves gravity exists."
What?
You are not even making sense! If there are discrepancies, that means that gravity cannot exist, or what we believe it is, is false. Otherwise these discrepancies would not exist.
Huh? Have you read the page you linked? For them to be observed, sustained space flights HAVE to be possible. Some of the discrepancies were in regards to some things not working as intended with a spacecraft. But if spacecrafts are not possible, the discrepancy can't exist - if spaceflights can't exist, how can you observe a spacecraft not responding as predicted with gravity? I mean, if you think spaceflight is a conspiracy, that means the discrepancy is also a work of that conspiracy, right? So how is that even proof?
Spaceflights is said to be possible while considering gravity exists, since the spacecraft has to exit the Earth's gravity or be subject to it, so while preparing spaceflights you have to take that gravity part in the equation. If gravity has nothing to do with spaceflight, those discrepancies in the link would be useless since there would be far more important ones.
I mean, it's like you say spaceflight is impossible and that gravity doesn't exist. But then, to prove gravity does not exist, you come up with discrepancies which imply spaceflights exists. What kind of logic is that? You try to prove something with something you believe isn't true and which goes against what you are trying to prove. That's just ridiculous.
I did. Universal Acceleration states that the Earth goes up, so if you jump the Earth catches you up. But if your feet are still on the floor, your whole body is taken up at the same speed, right? So why your blood goes down if you stay still on the floor? According to Universal Acceleration, the blood should stay at the same place, since gravity doesn't exist. If the blood went down, it would mean the Earth is catching it up, right? Then why does it only catches up your blood, but not your head? Your head isn't hitting the floor, so the Earth can't be catching up your head, so it can't be catching up your blood. But that's not what is observed. What would be observed is that your blood goes down (or tries to stay at the same place) when your head is heading upwards at the same speed of the Earth. So if I follow the Universal Acceleration thing, if your blood is not going down, why is it going up when I stand still and doesn't it go up when my head is upside down? Or is there something else to explain that particular case?
It rushes to your head because it is being accelerated. This is no different than if you slammed on the gas pedal while driving. As the car accelerates forward, you get pushed in the opposite direction into your seat.
I'd need some clarifications:
-If the Earth accelerates up, wouldn't that mean that the Earth would always catches me up when I jump at increasing speeds? That is not what is observed. When I jump, and then jump using the same energy, the Earth always catches me up at the same speed. Yet if the Earth is constantly moving faster, it should constantly catch me up faster when I jump.
-It would half-work to explain why I constantly drop faster when jumping high, but if I redid the jump, it would take a shorter time since the Earth would constantly accelerate up.