The problem with UA

First the basics and some FE'r can coorrect me if I'm wrong.

UA is a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s².  With no counter force acting in the opposite direction the Earth's speed is constantly increasing.  UA does not directly affect anything on Earth which is why if you hold and release a rock or ball or if you trip it gives the appearance of the object/person falling to the Earth.


If that is correct then UA is it's own worse enemy.  With increasing speed the force of the impact with a stationary object would be greater in the future than it is now.   

Take a tennis ball to a flat surface such as a basketball court.  Hold it at a measured height above the court and release it noting how high it bounces.  That distance would be based on the impact of the stationary ball being hit by the moving Earth.  Now repeat the same experiment with the same ball in the same place on the same court releasing it from the same height above the court.  Notice again the height of the bounce.  It should be greater because the speed of the Earth would have increased over that weeks time.

Take a 5 pound stone outside and release it over dirt.  Measure the impression it leaves in the ground.  Repeat the experiment 1 month later then compare the depth of the impressions you recorded both times.  The second impression should be much deeper because the speed of the Earth would have increased in that month making the impact greater.  In fact over time the rock should become so deeply embedded in the ground you would not be able to retrieve it without equipment to excavate it.

Now look at the injuries a person who is standing still receives when they are hit by a car.  The faster the car is going, the greater the impact and the more serious the injuries.  Since the Earth has been constantly accelerating since day one, it's speed is so many more times faster than a car that the impact with a person whose feet have gone out from under them and who we say is falling should be so great as to pulverize them on the spot.

You are confusing acceleration and speed.  If you hold a basket ball at a certain height and release it, at the moment you release the ball it is not stationary, according to the flat earth theory.  It is traveling at the speed that the earth was traveling when the ball was released.  Let's say that the ball fell for 1 second.  When it makes contact with the earth, the ball is still traveling the same speed but the earth is traveling 9.8 m/s faster that it was when the ball was dropped.  A week later, the same experiment would give the same results, the earth will still be moving 9.8 m/s faster than the ball when they make contact.

I am not a flat earther, I am just pointing out the flaws in your proposal.

I'm a junior physicist working with a university in Melbourne, Australia. I'm afraid universal expansion due to dark energy does not function in any way like the mechanism hinted at on this website. Dark energy causes expansion of the universe in every direction at the same rate. This effectively causes a zero net force on any individual body.  As such it does not accelerate objects within the universe. Dark energy, a yet undetermined mechanism, is reverse gravity in the sense that the boundaries of the universe are being repelled. It can not, however, replace gravity and is not, and in science a direct claim of incorrect is not used lightly, responsible for the gravitational force applied by the Earth to bodies on its surface. The arguments you raise are vaguely valid but to be honest you don't need to argue, universal acceleration does not work the way it is being portrayed. Most of the science discussed on this site is wrong. The most dangerous inaccuracy occurs in discussions on the bending of light in a vacuum, a purely gravitational phenomena. Do not believe anything on this site, always do your own research and feel free to email me, i will always provide peer reviewed, published supporting evidence for any personally addressed question.

It has never been stated that it is the same Dark Energy as in the RET model. The name is just to give a common person the basic idea of how it behaves. Instead of pulls, it pushes. In RET gravity is the unsupported theory in which objects are attracted to one another in some fields of physics and in other fields (like Quantum) does not exist at all. In FET, there is a similarly supported theory in which there is a force that accelerates objects.

@ The OP

jroa is correct in his explanation

For more information, look up "The Equivalence Principle"

In quantum mechanics gravity is not a non existent force. Gravity is a force with a  fundamental operating energy of around 9TeV (a unit of energy measurement, a very large energy). In experiments conducted at CERN using the LHC these energies are obtained and gravity has quantum mechanical effects that will help explain multidimensional explanations of reality. Gravity is misquoted as not existing in quantum mechanics because it is often only a trivially small force that can be neglected mathematically, it is still there regardless. Gravity is often described poorly as unsubstantiated but it is an indisputable force, fundamental to the universe. No system is gravity independent and all bodies are subject to it. There is no field of physics that does not accept that gravity exists and the models used to describe it are very accurate. Perhaps the most reliable theory in the history of science are the twin pillars of Eienstien special and general relativity, both of which predict accurately physical phenomena based on  gravity.

Gravitational dynamics have been used from calculating rocket trajectories to explaining the grand designs of galactic super-clusters. It is difficult to say gravity is a theory that is wrong. The Earth has a gravity. This is why it sits where it does in the solar system, it is why the sun orbits it and why we are held to it. The effects of gravity are used in every field of engineering and are fundamentally important to modern society. The Earth accelerating upwards violates energy conservation, an energy source of immense magnitude would be required to accelerate an object the size and density of the Earth for even a second. There is also the issue that the Earth would be approaching the speed of light if it was constantly accelerating since it was formed. This would have tremendous physical consequences. If the fact it can not reach these speeds is ignored, this would not change the fact it would eventually reach maximum speed (nothing can travel faster then light) and hence things would not fall and the 'gravity like effect' would stop.

Welcome Anthony,
      I appreciate your earnestness although I do not share your opinions.

The Earth accelerating upwards violates energy conservation, an energy source of immense magnitude would be required to accelerate an object the size and density of the Earth for even a second.

It would, indeed, require an enormous amount of energy to sustain the acceleration.

There is also the issue that the Earth would be approaching the speed of light if it was constantly accelerating since it was formed. This would have tremendous physical consequences.

Only to an outside frame of reference. Here, earthbound, we are blissfully unaware of any change.

If the fact it can not reach these speeds is ignored, this would not change the fact it would eventually reach maximum speed (nothing can travel faster then light) and hence things would not fall and the 'gravity like effect' would stop.

The earth may accelerate indefinitely without reaching the speed of light. I'm sure that you will find this, if you look deeper into Special Relativity.

The name "Dark Energy" was chosen merely as a placeholder name to explain the phenomenon. The actual mechanism is not understood (much like "Dark Energy/Matter" et al in standard cosmology).

I hope I do not sound arrogant but i have a very firm understanding of special relativity. I am currently working in Hubble expansion and its implications on the rotational width of active galactic nuclei. This is effectively my area of expertise. You are correct, a mass body cannot reach luminal speeds under classical acceleration, however, uniform acceleration over astronomical time scales (such as the lifetime of the Earth) can be approximated as doing so. In practicality as an object accelerates it gains mass. This is a consequence of the mass energy duality as postulated by Einstein (E=mc^2). As such as it accelerates it becomes harder and harder to accelerate further. A key issue with physical uniform acceleration is that to occur the force applicator has to modulate the force with time. For this scenario it means that more energy needs to be applied as the system evolves. It is energetically impossible to maintain acceleration of this scale over such time periods. The reason for this is at 9.91ms^-2, starting from rest, it would take only 0.96972 years to mathematically approach the speed light. As such in less than a year the mass of the Earth would approach infinity, as a consequence of relativistic mass. This results in a need for effectively infinite energy after a cosmically trivial time period. Frame of reference has no bearing on energy requirement and there is no way to justify energy use on such a scale.

Our frame of reference is accelerating. This means that the laws of special relativity are not simple. Conventional relativity only applies in non accelerating frames of reference (see inertial reference frames). As the earth 'plane' is described by FET as accelerating then we cannot pretend to be a stationary frame of reference.

As such as it accelerates it becomes harder and harder to accelerate further. A key issue with physical uniform acceleration is that to occur the force applicator has to modulate the force with time. For this scenario it means that more energy needs to be applied as the system evolves.

I agree; it is taking astonishing amounts of power. The vast amount (ever increasing in magnitude) is fully inexplicable. This is why we have provided it with a place holder name. In this way, the infinite plane is perhaps more elegant than the accelerating disc, but I don't know that I am prepared to accept an infinite plane as fact.

But why debate the existence of inwardly pulling gravity? It has been modelled successfully and explains every observed physical system except for the rotation of galactic sources, which is my area of research and I certainty don't see it as disproving gravity. Gravity is so fundamentally correct that I have never met anyone working in astrophysics who has ever considered it flawed.

I don't understand how you could say this. Globularism has invented some 95% of the make up of their cosmology to account for discrepancies in common "gravitation". That tells me (and any right thinking man) that gravitation is fundamentally flawed, not fundamentally correct.

I'm afraid you're going to need to be more specific, I am unfamiliar with the term globularism. In my work every problem I have come across incorporates gravity and the laws governed by it explain essentially everything observed in the heavens. New sciences such as evolutionary cosmology and the dark matter halo composition of SO to spiral galaxies are only recently being developed and they all modify the less well understood aspects of the theory but that does not disprove the theory. Misunderstanding of the scientific process and the evolution of scientific theory is very frustrating amognst researchers. Gravity has proven to be valid within its domain of validity countless times. We can even explain it at ultra high energies and relativistically. Relativity is fundamentally dependent on gravity as a force. I have utterly no intention of being rude but the research team I am apart of works on a large amount of material that is moving into realms we do not understand and although we can't explain some problems there is no evidence to support that gravitational theory is wrong on any of the scales relevant to FET, it may have problems on hyper galactic scales but this is simply because scientists have only began to delve into it and do not yet understand. We certainty do not make up data. We want to understand the universe. It is not a conspiracy, we try very hard to explain what we observe and the modern fields of cosmology and relativity are the culmination of our best minds. At no point has the existence of gravity ever been up for debate. It has been proved independently in relativity, particle physics, quantum chromodynamics, stellar astrophysics, galactic evolutionary physics, Lagrangian mechanics and basic astronomical observations and is needed to unify the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion for the orbits of every single body about the sun.

The earth may accelerate indefinitely without reaching the speed of light. I'm sure that you will find this, if you look deeper into Special Relativity.

This is an issue I have with the flat Earth model. Relativity is always used to justify the endless acceleration, however most evidence for Relativity becomes useless or false when taken under the assumption of a flat Earth.

If you are interested in reading this peer-reviewed journal by Erik Verlinde, I think you would actually find that the existence of gravity is a subject of debate among physicists!

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

No, the existence of gravity is not a debate.

The gravity model works perfectly well, for instance, with the Sun and the planets.

Physicists debate on the nature of gravity, why it is so weak compared to other forces ie, and they are still looking for a better theory to explain the infinitely small and infinetly large.

Silly me, I forgot to add the link! There it is.

Yeah, one guy!

He is one of the most respect physicists in his field, and he is hardly one of the only people that share this view. Face it, people just don't know what to make of gravity, and the more deeply physics evolves, the more its existence is doubted.

I can't quite tell if Anthony is an actual physicist. Unlike the last one, he only claims to be a junior physicist, as opposed to one of the leading ones in the field, so that certainly lends credibility to him, but as a rule I don't trust random people on the internet claiming to be colleagues (not sure if the term applies, but I'm using it anyway) of mine.

Anyway, Anthony, what you must understand is that we don't really have a singular theory, and what we say tends to be somewhat simplified for the layman to read. For instance, DE. Obviously it isn't dark energy in the scientific sense, but we call it that so that Joe the Plumber might understand slightly better. And we understand that scientists are not conspirators. Many of us are scientists, or are at least related to it in some way. The belief is essentially that science in general is based around the mistaken assumption that the Earth is round.

If you are interested in reading this peer-reviewed journal by Erik Verlinde, I think you would actually find that the existence of gravity is a subject of debate among physicists!

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

This is a very interesting article. For one, it does not debate the existence of gravity. For another, look at this nice little quote:

(from the conclusion)
We identified a cause, a mechanism, for gravity.

Isn't that the very opposite of what every FE'er has said in this forum? Are you quoting this particular article because you are accepting that gravity exists and a mechanism for is has been found?

I have no intention of publishing my credentials on this forum so feel free to muse about my authenticity. I also respect Tausami's statement and although I personally do not agree with your views I am not going to attempt to debunk them. However, in regards to gravity there is no debate. Emperor Zark is correct entirely when he says the existence of gravity has never been debated. There is a large amount of debate between particle physicists who see gravity as a force transferred between mass particles by a boson called the graviton. On the other side of the fence mathematicians and relativistic astrophysicists see gravity as a consequence of space time curvature and as not a force. The effects of both models is the same and is what gravity is accepted as within the scientific community.

The last link posted above, the Wikipedia reference to anomalies, falls squarely within my area of expertise. The image shown in this link is of a spiral galaxy rotation curve. These show that the rotational profile of galaxies does not behave as expected under Newtonian gravitational dynamics. The result has lead to the contentious development of dark matter theory. This theory has support and flaws as does all modern physical theories. The search for dark matter is underway in modern physics and it may be proven or debunked. Regardless gravitational dynamics is not being questioned. The domain of validity for classical gravity is local galactic and like all laws breaks down as it is expanded beyond this. We are trying to refine and improve the theory, just as quantum mechanics refined and improved our understanding of electromagnetism.

In science the breakdown of a law at orders of magnitudes above its domain is not evidence that it is invalid. It is a human defect to listen to the vast, vast minority of people who disagree with consensus. This does not imply an ignorant mass of scientists either. Paradigms shift when evidence supports a different model. At present, all evidence suggests that gravity works as modeled under general relativity by Einstein. The dark matter problem may prove the need for modified newtonian dynamics if it is shown in the next decade to not exist. However, this model uses the same principles and supports the same understandings we have now.

In science the breakdown of a law at orders of magnitudes above its domain is not evidence that it is invalid.

Well said. This has been brought up time and time again but some on this site choose to ignore its implications.

Anthony, you can kill UA much more simply by pointing out that the force of gravity is not constant across the earth's surface. With UA, it would have to be.

Incorrect. The gravitational pull from some of the celestial bodies causing a slight net loss in acceleration addresses this.

Incorrect. The gravitational pull from some of the celestial bodies causing a slight net loss in acceleration addresses this.

Either gravity exists or it doesn't exist, I wish you'd make up your mind. If gravity exists, then yes the celestial bodies can have slight influences on the Earth, but you must also concede that gravity would cause the Earth to collapse into a sphere. Since you are completely convinced that the Earth cannot be a sphere, then you must concede that gravity doesn't exist. Either way, you can't win.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 06, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Incorrect. The gravitational pull from some of the celestial bodies causing a slight net loss in acceleration addresses this.

Either gravity exists or it doesn't exist, I wish you'd make up your mind. If gravity exists, then yes the celestial bodies can have slight influences on the Earth, but you must also concede that gravity would cause the Earth to collapse into a sphere. Since you are completely convinced that the Earth cannot be a sphere, then you must concede that gravity doesn't exist. Either way, you can't win.

Who said anything about the Earth having gravity? I said the celestial bodies.

Quote from: jraffield1 on October 06, 2011, 12:51:25 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 06, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Incorrect. The gravitational pull from some of the celestial bodies causing a slight net loss in acceleration addresses this.

Either gravity exists or it doesn't exist, I wish you'd make up your mind. If gravity exists, then yes the celestial bodies can have slight influences on the Earth, but you must also concede that gravity would cause the Earth to collapse into a sphere. Since you are completely convinced that the Earth cannot be a sphere, then you must concede that gravity doesn't exist. Either way, you can't win.

Who said anything about the Earth having gravity? I said the celestial bodies.

Until you present a reasonable theory that makes predictions about what does and does not have gravity, and the effects thereof, your claim remains baseless.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 06, 2011, 01:05:29 PM

Quote from: jraffield1 on October 06, 2011, 12:51:25 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 06, 2011, 12:21:32 PM

Incorrect. The gravitational pull from some of the celestial bodies causing a slight net loss in acceleration addresses this.

Either gravity exists or it doesn't exist, I wish you'd make up your mind. If gravity exists, then yes the celestial bodies can have slight influences on the Earth, but you must also concede that gravity would cause the Earth to collapse into a sphere. Since you are completely convinced that the Earth cannot be a sphere, then you must concede that gravity doesn't exist. Either way, you can't win.

Who said anything about the Earth having gravity? I said the celestial bodies.

Until you present a reasonable theory that makes predictions about what does and does not have gravity, and the effects thereof, your claim remains baseless.

This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

Incorrect. The gravitational pull from some of the celestial bodies causing a slight net loss in acceleration addresses this.

Incorrect. The celestial bodies do not remain in the same place relative to earth's surface. The gravitational variations do. Troll harder.

And gravitational measurements in the same place vary hour-to-hour. Troll harder.