Please Explain the Earth's "Acceleration"

Frequently Flat-Earthers compensate for the lack of a traditional means of gravity by using an "accelerating-earth" theory in which the earth constantly accelerates upwards at 9.8m/s/s to produce the effects of what we know as gravity. My question is, what is the evidence for this? How can you conclusively say that we are accelerating up without real, tangible, concise, hard evidence? How can you believe this without credible proof? It seems to me impossible to prove and therefor a null argument. 
I'm looking for some serious proof right now - not a bunch of fabricated BS. Thanks.

Stand on a chair and jump off, you will feel the Earth rush upwards to meet your feet.

 That is not tangible evidence. That is your unproven interpretation of the phenomena.
As far as I'm concerned, what you described is the effect of gravity, not an accelerating earth.

That is not tangible evidence. That is your unproven interpretation of the phenomena.
As far as I'm concerned, what you described is the effect of gravity, not an accelerating earth.

When given two magical forces, you pick gravity, I pick UA. There is no difference between the two on magnitude of evidence.

While I have my own reasons for believing in gravity (as do many) I realize arguing that is futile as we will never get anywhere with it, and was not the point of my question to begin with. I want to know what factual evidence exists to support an accelerating earth...

...other than what you said, because that is  infactual and indecisive. You cannot argue your claim with that.

Hello eoulogy.

I believe if you learned UA in school that is what you believe today.
It took me a long time to overcome some of the things I was taught.
But as you open your mind and look to the Zetetic ways of thought,m I believe you will question what was taught to you as well.

Could you just answer my question? And I would be happy to believe whatever is the most correct and backed with evidence in my mind, and so far there are too many holes in FET for my to soundly believe it. So if you would like me to consider changing my views - prove me wrong with some tangible evidence.

Stand on a chair and jump off, you will feel the Earth rush upwards to meet your feet.

That could be used to defend both gravity and UA, as someone who believes in gravity would argue that you are moving down to meet the Earth. That point is thus invalid.

When given two magical forces, you pick gravity, I pick UA. There is no difference between the two on magnitude of evidence.

This point appears to make your side even less creditable as you are saying that UA has no proof. You literally described it as being akin to a magical force, so it's great to know where you stand.

It turns out that being Zetetic doesn't give you an answer in this case. Both gravity and UA seem to be equally likely, except for the fact that virtually all scientists believe in gravity rather than UA.

There really isn't any evidence for either case, so this thread is null:

The Earth is round so gravity exists because the Earth is round.

The Earth is flat so UA exists because the Earth is flat.


No party will get anywhere.

Just to fix that last thing:

If the Earth is a spheroid, gravity exists because all objects with mass attract all other objects.

If the Earth is flat, UA exists because apparently everything in the universe has exactly the same amount of force being applied to it (the stars, the moon, the planets, the Sun, and the Earth) and thus accelerate at the same rate, except for the objects ON Earth.

If I'm grasping UA wrong, then please elaborate, because the FAQ's didn't help me in that respect.

Just to fix that last thing:

If the Earth is a spheroid, gravity exists because all objects with mass attract all other objects.

If the Earth is flat, UA exists because apparently everything in the universe has exactly the same amount of force being applied to it (the stars, the moon, the planets, the Sun, and the Earth) and thus accelerate at the same rate, except for the objects ON Earth.

If I'm grasping UA wrong, then please elaborate, because the FAQ's didn't help me in that respect.

Correct, for more information on UA try searching "aetheric wind" under the user name "Tausami"

Irushwithcvs, gravity is not magical. It is a known property of the universe that is heavily backed by evidence and scientists all over the world...
But you still haven't answered my question! How funny. Youre just dodgining it. Do you have an answer to it or not?

Explain acceleration.

Irushwithcvs, gravity is not magical.

What causes gravity?

It is a known property of the universe that is heavily backed by evidence and scientists all over the world...

Ad populum and incorrect all in one sentence. Fascinating.

But you still haven't answered my question! How funny. Youre just dodgining it. Do you have an answer to it or not?

Explain acceleration.

I already have. Perhaps you should take the time to read your own thread before making such condescending comments.

Well what's your answer? "jump off a chair"? That explains nothing. I want an explanation not bs. What have you explained exactly?

Aaaaalright, here we go. This question has been asked and asked and asked. I know this, and I've only been a member of this forum for... what two weeks? I also know that rushy here likes to troll people that ask questions that are to the point of overkill, which most of the questions are. He has a rather firm elementary grasp of the fundamentals of physics. I've seen him go at it.

But Eulogy, I will ask you, how does gravity work?

Because our planets are ball shaped (even though you may think not) there is a force that pushes them on all sides to make them ball shaped- this is gravity. That's why they aren't unintelligible hunks of rock. We rotate around the sun because of the sun's gravitational pull - likewise with other revolving bodies.
But I'm not here to argue that, I'm here to understand why the earth goes upward and what evidence supports it? I believe things with evidence.

Actually, you told me what gravity's effect is, not how it works. Also, if there was no gravity, there would be no "unintelligible hunks of rock", just elementary particles. Or maybe The Big Bang itself would not have occurred. Who knows? With gravity being the foundation of the universe and our understanding of it. Or perhaps it's all caused by acceleration?

Can you please try to explain gravity again eulogy?

When an object has mass, it "bends" the space-time fabric (see Einstein) and planets/other objects revolve around it. That effectively is gravity.
So can you give me a reason to accept acceleration?

When an object has mass, it "bends" the space-time fabric (see Einstein) and planets/other objects revolve around it.

Do you have any tangible evidence that this occurs?

How does it bend space time? What is space time made of?

Perhaps this acceleration is cause by a compression of space-time behind earth, and an expansion in front? See Alcubierre.

"Relatiativity", says the First Universal Kinetic-Cybernetic-Ultramicro programmer, "does not compute."

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52049.msg1277081.html#msg1277081

Eulogy. You're search fu is unworthy. if you had searched "explain acceleration", this is right on top. tsk tsk.

Frequently Flat-Earthers compensate for the lack of a traditional means of gravity by using an "accelerating-earth" theory in which the earth constantly accelerates upwards at 9.8m/s/s to produce the effects of what we know as gravity. My question is, what is the evidence for this? How can you conclusively say that we are accelerating up without real, tangible, concise, hard evidence?

If one places an accelerometer on the ground it reads 9.8m/s/s.  If we drop the accelerometer from a height, the accelerometer in free fall reads "zero".  This proves to me that the earth is accelerating to meet the falling object and disproves the notion that the object is accelerating "down" to meet the earth.

Quote from: eulogy on July 11, 2012, 08:27:07 AM

Frequently Flat-Earthers compensate for the lack of a traditional means of gravity by using an "accelerating-earth" theory in which the earth constantly accelerates upwards at 9.8m/s/s to produce the effects of what we know as gravity. My question is, what is the evidence for this? How can you conclusively say that we are accelerating up without real, tangible, concise, hard evidence?

If one places an accelerometer on the ground it reads 9.8m/s/s.  If we drop the accelerometer from a height, the accelerometer in free fall reads "zero".  This proves to me that the earth is accelerating to meet the falling object and disproves the notion that the object is accelerating "down" to meet the earth.

Then you have to review the definition of proof and make your own.

There really isn't any evidence for either case, so this thread is null:

The Earth is round so gravity exists because the Earth is round.

The Earth is flat so UA exists because the Earth is flat.


No party will get anywhere.

Except that you can see for yourself that gravity exists with the Cavendish experiment, or one of the updates and variations of it.

If you were actually seeking knowledge you could measure, on your own, the attractive force between the balls in the experiment.  How very zetetic.

You could even use different materials to verify that this force exists for all matter.  But we all know that this won't ever happen.

Quote from: eulogy on July 11, 2012, 08:27:07 AM

Frequently Flat-Earthers compensate for the lack of a traditional means of gravity by using an "accelerating-earth" theory in which the earth constantly accelerates upwards at 9.8m/s/s to produce the effects of what we know as gravity. My question is, what is the evidence for this? How can you conclusively say that we are accelerating up without real, tangible, concise, hard evidence?

If one places an accelerometer on the ground it reads 9.8m/s/s.  If we drop the accelerometer from a height, the accelerometer in free fall reads "zero".  This proves to me that the earth is accelerating to meet the falling object and disproves the notion that the object is accelerating "down" to meet the earth.

I'd be quite surprised if an object was accelerating after reaching its terminal velocity, which happens during free fall.  This is whether on a flat earth with UA or a round earth with gravity.  In fact, the accelerometer should behave the same in both  cases.

Where UA and gravity don't agree is differing values for the acceleration on different parts of the earth.

Please do try to not be insultingly stupid.  It makes the FES look bad, especially considering that you're a mod.

The zero measurement during free fall has absolutely nothing to do with terminal velocity. Do yourself a favour and follow your own advice there at the end.


*Edit:  In fact, at terminal velocity, the accelerometer would read 9.8m/s/s. So while you continue being "quite surprised" and showing us all exactly how much you don't know, may the rest of us resume our polite discussion?

acceleration is a change in speed. At terminal velocity, speed does not change. Therefore the accelerometer would read zero. Thank you.

The zero measurement during free fall has absolutely nothing to do with terminal velocity. Do yourself a favour and follow your own advice there at the end.


*Edit:  In fact, at terminal velocity, the accelerometer would read 9.8m/s/s. So while you continue being "quite surprised" and showing us all exactly how much you don't know, may the rest of us resume our polite discussion?

Accelerometer readings at rest, initial free-fall, and at terminal velocity would all be the same under gravity or UA scenarios.  If this wasnt the case one theory could be quickly disproven. 

As CET said, that doesn't account for the variation with location and altitude.  Which, if believed, supports gravity over UA.

But an accelerometer at rest or dropped would give the same readings with UA or gravity.

If the accelerometer is calibrated properly, it should actually read zero at rest, so that it doesn't confuse stupid people.