The flat earth theory is complete hogwash, proof 4

OK, so you guys say that earth is accelerating upward at 9.8 m/s/s, and that, would have similar effects to what us spherical earthers call gravity. This is not the case, for a number of reasons.

1. If it was the earth moving toward falling objects, instead of of the other way around, then all objects would fall down at the same acceleration. Although this is theoretically the case in the absence of outside forces, outside forces like fluid friction are present, and this is why paper falls to the ground more slowly than say, metal. If earth was the one moving, and not the objects, fluid friction would not make a difference in the acceleration of something falling.

2. If it was the earth moving toward objects that are falling, and earth was always accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s, then day by day, objects would start falling faster and faster. The speed of falling would increase noticeably in just an hour.

3. If earth was moving toward objects that are supposedly falling back to earth, then any object at any given moment in time would be falling at the same speed. This is not the case, because fluid friction slows the rate of falling of many objects. Also, an object that has been falling for longer is travelling faster than one that has just been dropped. If earth was moving toward the objects, this would not be the case.

For those three reasons, your theory on what could replace gravity is false.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how it works. Objects are stationary in relation to the earth when they are touching it.

That is beside the point. They are not stationary relative to earth when they are falling toward it, and that is what I am describing.

Google 'equivalence principle'

The local effects of motion in a curved space (gravitation) are indistinguishable from those of an accelerated observer in flat space, without exception.
Although they are indistinguishable this does not in any way mean they are the same thing. Or caused by eachother.

One sec, let me see if any of my generic responses work for this.

EDIT: Nope. I'll have to type it out. Oh well.

No, they aren't the same thing. This is obvious. However, this is irrelevant. The point of having you learn about the equivalence principle was that I'd hoped you would infer the answer yourself, but this is apparently not the case. On a flat Earth, the effect of the air moving up replaces the effect of the object moving down, resulting in air resistance.

Also, I think you missed the part about constant acceleration.

Unfortunately veeman8, they are right.  Not about flat earth, but about the affect that a constant rate of acceleration would have.  For example if you are in an accelerating space craft, such as the space shuttle, the g forces are strongest just after take off, where they are accelerating faster than at any other point in the journey.  Once the acceleration tapers off, even though they are still accelerating, the g forces drop off.  Once teh acceleration reaches a constant rate (not speed, but accleration ie" increase in speed at a constant rate), the g force will settle down to a stable figure.  So for example if the earth were accelerating at a constant 9.8m/s/s we would experience a constant gravitational force.  All objects that are in contact with the earth will also be imparted with that force (their momentum).  When they are separated from the earth ie thrown in the air, they lose the acceleration imparted by the earth and continue travelling at the speed the Earth was travelling when they separated from the earth.  Because the earth continues to accelerate, while the objects continues to travel at a constand speed, the earth eventually captures up with the object.

Wind resistance of course comes into play, but plays the exact same role as it does on a round earth with gravity.  The air resistance, the particles of air being pushed infront of the earth, also assist to push the object forward (up) as well, but not fast enough to match the increasing speed of the earth.  So therefore in a UA theory as well as in a gravity theory, an object thrown in the air falls back to earth, but it's shape determines to what extent wind resistance slows it's return to earth.

There are many flaws in the UA theory, but this issue of falling objects is actually one of the, actually the only, elegant facets of the UA theory.

Haha if ua were right we would be currently traveling 1.85x10^18 m/s 6.1 billion times the speed of light. Oh wait I'm feeling generous the earth only had to be accelerating since life started. Then we r going 6.18x10^17. M/s 2 billion times the speed of light. Wait I'm Rly Rly generous today there only needed to be gravity for people. Pshhh life doesn't need gravity to start. (sarcasm). Then we r going 6.18x10^14. m/s. 2 million times the speed of light. Nah we only needed gravity in the last year. We still would be going. 9 million m/s faster than light. UA is a fail

Haha if ua were right we would be currently traveling 1.85x10^18 m/s 6.1 billion times the speed of light. Oh wait I'm feeling generous the earth only had to be accelerating since life started. Then we r going 6.18x10^17. M/s 2 billion times the speed of light. Wait I'm Rly Rly generous today there only needed to be gravity for people. Pshhh life doesn't need gravity to start. (sarcasm). Then we r going 6.18x10^14. m/s. 2 million times the speed of light. Nah we only needed gravity in the last year. We still would be going. 9 million m/s faster than light. UA is a fail

While I agree that UA is a failed theory, the reason you gave is not why it is incorrect. One of the postulates of relativity is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. In fact, the closer something gets to the speed of light, the more energy is takes to continue accelerating it.

Consider this, you are standing on the side of a road with a radar-gun measuring the speed of car. The car starts from rest and, exerting a constant force, accelerates away from you at 9.8 m/s^2. While the car is traveling much slower than light, the velocity of the car is proportional to its force. However, as the car goes faster and faster, approaching the speed of light, the velocity begins to be inversely proportional to the square root of the force.

So from your (stationary) point of view, the car is getting closer and closer to the speed of light but will never reach it. From someone in the car's point of view, they have experiences a constant acceleration the entire time and it is YOU who are approaching the speed of light in the opposite direction.

What bothers me is that FEers claim gravity is nonsense but then think they can use general relativity whenever it will suite their purpose.

That's why I was saying it's failed because 2nillion times the speed of light insanely violates relativity

"Ever seeing, but not comprehending..."

That's why I was saying it's failed because 2nillion times the speed of light insanely violates relativity

I'm afraid my analogy wasn't clear... if you accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 for any length of time, lets say a few billion years, you'll still be going slower than the speed of light. It's the same reason a particle in an accelerator can undergo millions of g's of acceleration for an extended period of time without surpassing the speed of light.

Haha if ua were right we would be currently traveling 1.85x10^18 m/s 6.1 billion times the speed of light. Oh wait I'm feeling generous the earth only had to be accelerating since life started. Then we r going 6.18x10^17. M/s 2 billion times the speed of light. Wait I'm Rly Rly generous today there only needed to be gravity for people. Pshhh life doesn't need gravity to start. (sarcasm). Then we r going 6.18x10^14. m/s. 2 million times the speed of light. Nah we only needed gravity in the last year. We still would be going. 9 million m/s faster than light. UA is a fail

By general relativity, one can accelerate to eternity and never reach light speed.

Quote from: logicalskeptic on September 20, 2011, 01:45:31 PM

Haha if ua were right we would be currently traveling 1.85x10^18 m/s 6.1 billion times the speed of light. Oh wait I'm feeling generous the earth only had to be accelerating since life started. Then we r going 6.18x10^17. M/s 2 billion times the speed of light. Wait I'm Rly Rly generous today there only needed to be gravity for people. Pshhh life doesn't need gravity to start. (sarcasm). Then we r going 6.18x10^14. m/s. 2 million times the speed of light. Nah we only needed gravity in the last year. We still would be going. 9 million m/s faster than light. UA is a fail

By general relativity, one can accelerate to eternity and never reach light speed.

The added bonus is, if you rely on general relativity to fix problems in UA, you ultimately disprove UA. You can't pick just one aspect of general relativity and toss the rest. You either use all of it, or none of it.

The theory of relativity says that mass warps space-time to create the gravitation between objects. If this is so, the mass of the Earth would could it to collapse into a sphere, and hence the Earth is round.

Obviously because you believe the Earth is flat, you cannot make use of general relativity. If you can't use relativity, then UA doesn't work...

Haha if ua were right we would be currently traveling 1.85x10^18 m/s 6.1 billion times the speed of light. Oh wait I'm feeling generous the earth only had to be accelerating since life started. Then we r going 6.18x10^17. M/s 2 billion times the speed of light. Wait I'm Rly Rly generous today there only needed to be gravity for people. Pshhh life doesn't need gravity to start. (sarcasm). Then we r going 6.18x10^14. m/s. 2 million times the speed of light. Nah we only needed gravity in the last year. We still would be going. 9 million m/s faster than light. UA is a fail

UA is a fail, but the relativity argument is nonsense, and shows you lack understanding of special RELATIVITY. RELATIVITY being in caps, because there is no absolute reference frame in RELATIVITY. It is all RELATIVE. If you have enough fuel, you can accelerate as long as you like at a constant acceleration.

The real place UA fails is at conservation of momentum, since earth is gaining speed in the positive z direction, but nothing we know is accelerating in the negative z direction, breaking conservation of momentum.

Sorry but I call bullshit from whoever I see it from. That is wrong you cannot accelerate indefinitely and never reach the speed of light. The reason you won't reach the speed of light is as you approach the speed of light the energy required to accelerate approaches infinite. You can't continuously accelerate and never reach the speed of light eventually you would not have enough energy to accelerate anymore. You would stop accelerating. Any object with mass will reach a point where it stops accelerating. Shown by my example we would have reached that point long ago so ua fails.

Please look up relativity. Nobody really disputes it.

This is something I've always found strange, as there's essentially no evidence for it when you assume a flat Earth model.

Sorry but I call bullshit from whoever I see it from. That is wrong you cannot accelerate indefinitely and never reach the speed of light. The reason you won't reach the speed of light is as you approach the speed of light the energy required to accelerate approaches infinite. You can't continuously accelerate and never reach the speed of light eventually you would not have enough energy to accelerate anymore. You would stop accelerating. Any object with mass will reach a point where it stops accelerating. Shown by my example we would have reached that point long ago so ua fails.

there are many reasons UA fails, not least of which is direct observation of the planet's spherical nature (UA only works on a flat earth) and celetsial orbits, which despite the celestial gears hypothesis are not explained under FET.  However you can keep accelerating and never reach the speed of light.  As you approach the speed of light, time slows down but you don't notice this, time still seems normal to you.  Then you look out at someone in another frame of reference where you notice they're time frame is moving much quicker than yours.  They are getting old, dying and whole generations passing in the blink of one of your seconds.  Meanwhile you are still accelerating.  Speed, and acceleration, are a function of time.  So if your time frame is slowing down, then your rate of acceleration, relative to an outside observer, slows down also.  But for you, your rate of acceleration is maintained at a constant rate.

The faster you get, and the closer to the speed of light, the slower your time passes relative to an outside observer.  Eventually 1 second takes billions of years to pass.

And that's how you can accelerate for billions of (your) years without actually reaching the speed of light.  To anyone outside your frame of reference, your rate of acceleration appears to be slowing until it doesn't seem like you are accelerating at all.  So either for you, or for someone outside your frame of reference, you never reach the speed of light. 

The upshot of this is that the celestial bodies, if they are unaffected by UA, must be billions upon billions of years old. This brings in all kinds of issues, not the least of which is how do they maintain their position in our skies, and what the hell is redshift.

So UA works for relativity, if you isolate the earth from the rest of the universe, but kind of falls apart when you try to fit it in with all the other discoveries that have been made since Galileo first pointed a couple of pieces of glass at the heavens.

Sorry but I call bullshit from whoever I see it from. That is wrong you cannot accelerate indefinitely and never reach the speed of light. The reason you won't reach the speed of light is as you approach the speed of light the energy required to accelerate approaches infinite. You can't continuously accelerate and never reach the speed of light eventually you would not have enough energy to accelerate anymore. You would stop accelerating. Any object with mass will reach a point where it stops accelerating. Shown by my example we would have reached that point long ago so ua fails.

Research time dilation.

Quote from: Tausami on September 20, 2011, 06:35:30 PM

Quote from: logicalskeptic on September 20, 2011, 01:45:31 PM

Haha if ua were right we would be currently traveling 1.85x10^18 m/s 6.1 billion times the speed of light. Oh wait I'm feeling generous the earth only had to be accelerating since life started. Then we r going 6.18x10^17. M/s 2 billion times the speed of light. Wait I'm Rly Rly generous today there only needed to be gravity for people. Pshhh life doesn't need gravity to start. (sarcasm). Then we r going 6.18x10^14. m/s. 2 million times the speed of light. Nah we only needed gravity in the last year. We still would be going. 9 million m/s faster than light. UA is a fail

By general relativity, one can accelerate to eternity and never reach light speed.

The added bonus is, if you rely on general relativity to fix problems in UA, you ultimately disprove UA. You can't pick just one aspect of general relativity and toss the rest. You either use all of it, or none of it.

The theory of relativity says that mass warps space-time to create the gravitation between objects. If this is so, the mass of the Earth would could it to collapse into a sphere, and hence the Earth is round.

Obviously because you believe the Earth is flat, you cannot make use of general relativity. If you can't use relativity, then UA doesn't work...

It also says that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. Your theory falls apart there.

The real place UA fails is at conservation of momentum, since earth is gaining speed in the positive z direction, but nothing we know is accelerating in the negative z direction, breaking conservation of momentum.

So you're saying that just because we don't know what it is, it must not exist. Interesting. I presume America didn't exist in the X century, then?

Quote from: jraffield1 on September 20, 2011, 09:53:37 PM

Quote from: Tausami on September 20, 2011, 06:35:30 PM

Quote from: logicalskeptic on September 20, 2011, 01:45:31 PM

Haha if ua were right we would be currently traveling 1.85x10^18 m/s 6.1 billion times the speed of light. Oh wait I'm feeling generous the earth only had to be accelerating since life started. Then we r going 6.18x10^17. M/s 2 billion times the speed of light. Wait I'm Rly Rly generous today there only needed to be gravity for people. Pshhh life doesn't need gravity to start. (sarcasm). Then we r going 6.18x10^14. m/s. 2 million times the speed of light. Nah we only needed gravity in the last year. We still would be going. 9 million m/s faster than light. UA is a fail

By general relativity, one can accelerate to eternity and never reach light speed.

The added bonus is, if you rely on general relativity to fix problems in UA, you ultimately disprove UA. You can't pick just one aspect of general relativity and toss the rest. You either use all of it, or none of it.

The theory of relativity says that mass warps space-time to create the gravitation between objects. If this is so, the mass of the Earth would could it to collapse into a sphere, and hence the Earth is round.

Obviously because you believe the Earth is flat, you cannot make use of general relativity. If you can't use relativity, then UA doesn't work...

It also says that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. Your theory falls apart there.

You're leaving out a key piece of general relativity, gravity is locally indistinguishable from acceleration. By the reasoning of relativity, UA holds for small regions of the Earth but gravity holds for the entirety of the Earth.

Quote from: momentia on September 20, 2011, 09:58:56 PM

The real place UA fails is at conservation of momentum, since earth is gaining speed in the positive z direction, but nothing we know is accelerating in the negative z direction, breaking conservation of momentum.

So you're saying that just because we don't know what it is, it must not exist. Interesting. I presume America didn't exist in the X century, then?

Nope:

To maintain a steady force, UA particles hitting the earth would have to to have constantly increasing momentum, and must do so perfectly, since the momentum of the same particles relative to us is smaller as we accelerate, so they can't impart as much force.
The best analogy I have is a light sail powered by a laser beam. For the light sail to accelerate constantly indefinitely, the frequency of the laser light in the source frame would have to increase, so that the frequency, and thus momentum, and thus force (dp/dt), in the light sail's frame would remain the same. So, in any rest frame, UA would have to be gaining momentum. Which does not make much sense.

UA particles

What in God's name is a UA particle? Is it like a graviton?

Quote from: momentia on September 21, 2011, 02:52:42 PM

UA particles

What in God's name is a UA particle? Is it like a graviton?

Yes, I'm surprised you didn't know this.

So far, the best way to describe the interaction of the fundamental forces, or combinations of those forces, is with a field theory. We have discovered field theories that accurately describe electromagnetic interactions, weak interactions, and strong interactions. At the heart of a field theory are particles that transmit force, known in The Standard Model as gauge bosons. Photons convey the electromagnetic force, gluon convey the strong force, and W and Z bosons transmit the weak force. Because every interaction can be understood in terms of field theories, it stands to reason that other forces should as well.

UA particles

Not according to my theory. In mine, UA is attributed to the Aetheric Wind, Aether being a state of matter similar to the gaseous state. It is  brought about by incredibly high pressure which cannot be reached by man (such as the conditions of the pre-big bang universe). It is not affected by London Dispersal forces (or Van der Waals forces), and therefore is quite nearly friction-less. It moves up because it is drawn towards the infinite vacuum.

Quote from: momentia on September 21, 2011, 02:52:42 PM

UA particles

Not according to my theory. In mine, UA is attributed to the Aetheric Wind, Aether being a state of matter similar to the gaseous state. It is  brought about by incredibly high pressure which cannot be reached by man (such as the conditions of the pre-big bang universe). It is not affected by London Dispersal forces (or Van der Waals forces), and therefore is quite nearly friction-less. It moves up because it is drawn towards the infinite vacuum.

And what is Aetheric Wind made up of? If it is indeed a state of matter, then it itself must be made of matter. Matter is composed of particles, and suddenly you get... UA particles.

Quote from: Tausami on September 22, 2011, 05:39:21 PM

Quote from: momentia on September 21, 2011, 02:52:42 PM

UA particles

Not according to my theory. In mine, UA is attributed to the Aetheric Wind, Aether being a state of matter similar to the gaseous state. It is  brought about by incredibly high pressure which cannot be reached by man (such as the conditions of the pre-big bang universe). It is not affected by London Dispersal forces (or Van der Waals forces), and therefore is quite nearly friction-less. It moves up because it is drawn towards the infinite vacuum.

And what is Aetheric Wind made up of? If it is indeed a state of matter, then it itself must be made of matter. Matter is composed of particles, and suddenly you get... UA particles.

No, you get normal particles that happen to be high energy, and are not Oxygen, Nitrogen, or Fluorine. A UA particle would be its own type of particle, much like the Higgs boson or gravitron, and as there is no evidence to suggest such a particle exists, it would be unscientific to assume it does without good reason.

Quote from: jraffield1 on September 23, 2011, 06:42:19 AM

Quote from: Tausami on September 22, 2011, 05:39:21 PM

Quote from: momentia on September 21, 2011, 02:52:42 PM

UA particles

Not according to my theory. In mine, UA is attributed to the Aetheric Wind, Aether being a state of matter similar to the gaseous state. It is  brought about by incredibly high pressure which cannot be reached by man (such as the conditions of the pre-big bang universe). It is not affected by London Dispersal forces (or Van der Waals forces), and therefore is quite nearly friction-less. It moves up because it is drawn towards the infinite vacuum.

And what is Aetheric Wind made up of? If it is indeed a state of matter, then it itself must be made of matter. Matter is composed of particles, and suddenly you get... UA particles.

No, you get normal particles that happen to be high energy, and are not Oxygen, Nitrogen, or Fluorine. A UA particle would be its own type of particle, much like the Higgs boson or gravitron, and as there is no evidence to suggest such a particle exists, it would be unscientific to assume it does without good reason.

I agree, and I respect your lateral thinking on the issue, however it does seem unzetetic to postulate such a particle when particle accelerators have seen no sign of it.

Not that I personally have a problem with that, just saying it's no more or less outlandish than postulating a graviton, and indeed a graviton is in keeping with Occam's razer, whereas the "Tausamiton" to coin a word, is a fairly big stretch of imagination.

Quote from: Tausami on September 23, 2011, 12:26:22 PM

Quote from: jraffield1 on September 23, 2011, 06:42:19 AM

Quote from: Tausami on September 22, 2011, 05:39:21 PM

Quote from: momentia on September 21, 2011, 02:52:42 PM

UA particles

Not according to my theory. In mine, UA is attributed to the Aetheric Wind, Aether being a state of matter similar to the gaseous state. It is  brought about by incredibly high pressure which cannot be reached by man (such as the conditions of the pre-big bang universe). It is not affected by London Dispersal forces (or Van der Waals forces), and therefore is quite nearly friction-less. It moves up because it is drawn towards the infinite vacuum.

And what is Aetheric Wind made up of? If it is indeed a state of matter, then it itself must be made of matter. Matter is composed of particles, and suddenly you get... UA particles.

No, you get normal particles that happen to be high energy, and are not Oxygen, Nitrogen, or Fluorine. A UA particle would be its own type of particle, much like the Higgs boson or gravitron, and as there is no evidence to suggest such a particle exists, it would be unscientific to assume it does without good reason.

I agree, and I respect your lateral thinking on the issue, however it does seem unzetetic to postulate such a particle when particle accelerators have seen no sign of it.

Not that I personally have a problem with that, just saying it's no more or less outlandish than postulating a graviton, and indeed a graviton is in keeping with Occam's razer, whereas the "Tausamiton" to coin a word, is a fairly big stretch of imagination.

Perhaps you misunderstand. We basically just said the same thing. I consider the term 'UA particle' to be incorrect because it implies that it is it's own particle, which it is not.