Acceleration Due to Gravity

It is a known fact that acceleration due to gravity decreases as you increase your altitude on the round earth. This has been tested and proven scientifically. It is also something that you could calculate on your own using a pendulum.
On your flat earth model, acceleration due to gravity would not decrease as you increase your altitude, and therein lies a major flaw.
a=(G*(mass of earth))/(r^2)
r is the distance from the center of the earth.
G is the gravitational constant.
m is the mass of the object.

I actually have a mathematical proof of why gravity and an infinite disc cannot coexist, like the Davis Model suggests.  For that matter, the section of the Davis Model in "Universal Acceleration" uses faulty math.  The flux of a constant non-zero force downward through an infinite plane is infinite

Objects become more affected by celestial gravitation at altitude.

While I don't think John's infinite plane is true, there is nothing wrong with his math.

Objects become more affected by celestial gravitation at altitude.

While I don't think John's infinite plane is true, there is nothing wrong with his math.

Do you have any math to back that up?

Yes, but you won't believe me anyway apparently. Construct a gaussian pillbox and satisfy yourself.

Yes, but you won't believe me anyway apparently. Construct a gaussian pillbox and satisfy yourself.

How close, massive, and plentiful are these celestial bodies in flat earth faith?

Gaussian pillboxes are not celestial bodies  What on earth are you talking about? 

Gaussian pillboxes are not celestial bodies  What on earth are you talking about?

You said that objects get more affected by celestial gravitation with altitude.

Look outside. Celestial objects are abundant. 

Look outside. Celestial objects are abundant. 

I wanted you to give me distances and approximate masses so I could substitute them into the equation and see if it fits.

What you'd really need is how much they contribute to the SEM tensor not their mass.

So you have universal acceleration and gravity too?

No. I hold a combination of universal acceleration and celestial gravitation to best describe the cosmos.

In Aetheric Wind Theory, a small amount of aether penetrates the Earth's atmosphere causing a small amount of upwards pull. The amount of aetheric penetration increases as one increases altitude, thereby decreasing the effect of UA.

No. I hold a combination of universal acceleration and celestial gravitation to best describe the cosmos.

That is kind of like... No. Yes. (if you were answering my question)

So you have universal acceleration and gravity too?

I recommend that you read the FAQ if this conundrum confuses you.

Quote from: robertotrevor on December 09, 2012, 09:09:51 PM

So you have universal acceleration and gravity too?

I recommend that you read the FAQ if this conundrum confuses you.

I did, it says nothing about gravity besides universal acceleration, unless there are more than one faq.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on December 10, 2012, 08:50:38 AM

Quote from: robertotrevor on December 09, 2012, 09:09:51 PM

So you have universal acceleration and gravity too?

I recommend that you read the FAQ if this conundrum confuses you.

I did, it says nothing about gravity besides universal acceleration, unless there are more than one faq.

Look again. It is near the bottom portion of the "physics" section.

In Aetheric Wind Theory, a small amount of aether penetrates the Earth's atmosphere causing a small amount of upwards pull. The amount of aetheric penetration increases as one increases altitude, thereby decreasing the effect of UA.

Don't you mean Aetheric Wind Hypothesis?

Quote from: Ski on December 09, 2012, 09:19:41 PM

No. I hold a combination of universal acceleration and celestial gravitation to best describe the cosmos.

That is kind of like... No. Yes. (if you were answering my question)

The answer is "no" because you were prattling on about gravity and not gravitation.

Quote from: robertotrevor on December 10, 2012, 08:42:55 AM

Quote from: Ski on December 09, 2012, 09:19:41 PM

No. I hold a combination of universal acceleration and celestial gravitation to best describe the cosmos.

That is kind of like... No. Yes. (if you were answering my question)

The answer is "no" because you were prattling on about gravity and not gravitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation You could also explain yourself instead of making emphasis in the use of two words that mean practically the same

They mean two very different things, actually.

They mean two very different things, actually.

Thanks for the information, now I know they mean two very different things, actually.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on December 10, 2012, 10:04:16 AM

They mean two very different things, actually.

Thanks for the information, now I know they mean two very different things, actually.

You are very welcome. Long are the days in which you thought they were practically the same.

I think we can probably leave SEM tensors and associated beasties out of this. We know from measurements that time dilation in Earths gravitational field is well approximated by what I call 'half-way house' theories. The exact equation depends on exactly how you wish to view the Earth whatever your viewpoint your expresssions are kindly provided by,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation (FE'ers yours is the top one, REers your is the bottom one (more or less)). The bottom one does use tensors, sorry, but you don't have to follow the working.

Therefore due to the construction of FET of the Earth as a flat plate with a small surrounding cosmos relativity/gravitation is of no use. In my mind I picture the FET universe as a snow globe with a blanket over the top (accelerating upwards). Unfortunately relativity has now been tested to sufficient precision that no further discoveries are really going to change that. Even if the EP is an imperfect symmetry, that imperfection will be of little use here.

This still provides some useful information - there is no aether. Time dilation shows there is no universal frame of reference which kills the aether as defined by physics. FET is of course at liberty to revive it in a different context but will have to define it and frame it accordingly into relativity. The big problems for FET are the variation in g on the Earth's surface, much less at altitude. The big one for me is the space outside of our snowglobe, we know it is bizarre, it seems to allow nothing through - absolutely nothing.

Also it's good that the difference between gravity and gravitation is being appreciated, if patchily.

If there is time dilation on the accelerating earth/universe/whatever, it is because of the SEM tensor. How can we leave it out?

i dont dispute the fact that you need non-flat space time in general. in the case of the earth you can pretty close with an accelerating rocket in minkowski space as locally its pretty close to flat.

Quote from: Tausami on December 10, 2012, 07:11:29 AM

In Aetheric Wind Theory, a small amount of aether penetrates the Earth's atmosphere causing a small amount of upwards pull. The amount of aetheric penetration increases as one increases altitude, thereby decreasing the effect of UA.

Don't you mean Aetheric Wind Hypothesis?

Actually, I mean model. But let's not get bogged down in tedious semantics, an issue which is far too common on these forums.

On a different tack, if the disc of the earth is continually moving upwards ad infinitum, why do the gasses that we breathe not spill over the side? the ice wall does not go as high as these gasses, so the accelleraton would force some over the sides, then the syphonic effect would gradually suck the rest of the gasses with it and we'd all die of suffocation and explosion as happens when you put a goldfish in a vacuum. (Not to be repeated.)

Also a continuous increase in speed means a continuous increase in energy and we all know that energy is finite in the universe, so eventually we are going to use up all the energy in the universe and as such the universe will collapse and we will all die. A massive problem is given that accelleration is a squared value, this will exponentially increase and every second we must be sucking in more and more energy. I think we may only have days left.
That is unfortunate.

Sadly something similar will happen in Round Earth Theory also, just not as fast as entropy reaches 1, time will stop and everything will cease to exist as you need time to exist. Bleak but hey ho. It will take much longer in Round Earth Theory.
Since Flat Earth Theory is all about pretending the bad stuff (or stuff that proves them wrong) doesn't exist or is just wrong because, it's maybe time for them to start believing in Round Earth Theory, at least that way we have longer to exist.

Can anyone answer this? I am very interested to know.