What makes the earth accelerate in a FE model?

Just throwing something else out there;

Assuming that the UA is accelerating, what purpose does it serve to fulfill in the FE model? If the UA is real, then it itself requires some other hitherto unexplained mechanism to cause it to accelerate. How do we know this unknown phenomenon isn't accelerating the earth itself?

If you call that other mechanism UA, then why bother with all this "fluid" stuff? It doesn't really help to explain anything? After all, wasn't that the purpose of the UA proposition in the first place?

In such a scenario, the "fluid stuff" isn't really the UA. Personally, I think the "fluid stuff" has promise for explaining the seasons and the movements of the celestial bodies. Whether or not it is correct or not is really beyond my knowing. John could be correct and there could be no UA at all, for instance.

In such a scenario, the "fluid stuff" isn't really the UA. Personally, I think the "fluid stuff" has promise for explaining the seasons and the movements of the celestial bodies. Whether or not it is correct or not is really beyond my knowing. John could be correct and there could be no UA at all, for instance.

I don't understand how the fluid could explain seasons. Can you give me a link or summarise it?

How the incorrect hypothesis called the UA acceleration got started:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,38959.msg971069.html#msg971069

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1086655.html#msg1086655


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,38959.msg976795.html#msg976795 (Newton and pressure gravity)

Correct me if I am wrong and sorry if I sound like a broken record. But I need to understand your logic behind UA.

Is UA the most appropriate model to explain the force that keeps pulling us down? If so, why do people still prefer UA although the empirical evidence easily shows the contrary. Observation shows that the pulling force is NOT universal on earth. The word "Universal" in UA is clearly misleading. How can this non universal force fit into the UA model?

Interesting. Will read.

Cartesian, you'll have to be more specific; do you mean centripetal forces increasing at the equator?

Cartesian, you'll have to be more specific; do you mean centripetal forces increasing at the equator?

Empirical observation shows that the force at the equator is less than at the poles. In RE world, this is due to the centrifugal force which pushes us outward. The nearest you are to the equator, the less heavy you will be (more efficient than any diet program I know). But in FE world, how do you explain this empirical evidence? UA cannot even be classified as hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. And the observation shows that the force is not uniform throughout the face of earth.

Quote from: jason_85 on April 11, 2013, 06:31:34 AM

Cartesian, you'll have to be more specific; do you mean centripetal forces increasing at the equator?

Empirical observation shows that the force at the equator is less than at the poles. In RE world, this is due to the centrifugal force which pushes us outward. The nearest you are to the equator, the less heavy you will be (more efficient than any diet program I know). But in FE world, how do you explain this empirical evidence? UA cannot even be classified as hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. And the observation shows that the force is not uniform throughout the face of earth.

They'd probably claim it's due to the effects of the UA, like the aether or something affecting wind flows. If you want to bother with the long, arduous road of proving why that's complete bollocks you're welcome to try.

If you want to bother with the long, arduous road of proving why that's complete bollocks you're welcome to try.

Or more precisely, if I want to talk to myself and simply be ignored... FEers don't seem to talk much.

An upwardly moving earth is a simpler explanation than "graviton" puller particles or a "bending" of space which no one can see.

If I get up on a chair and step off the side I can see directly that the earth is accelerating upwards to me as I fall. I've never seen "gravitons" or bends in space.

An upwardly moving earth is a simpler explanation than "graviton" puller particles or a "bending" of space which no one can see.

If I get up on a chair and step off the side I can see directly that the earth is accelerating upwards to me as I fall. I've never seen "gravitons" or bends in space.

Tom, in creating this thread I explicitly asked for people not to attempt to change the subject to gravity. The purpose of this thread was to attempt to get an answer regarding the functioning of the UA.

In the OP you asked what zetetic reason we have to believe that the UA exists at all.

When I step off my chair I can see that the earth rises upwards. This is a direct observation. I cannot see gravitons or the bends in space which are said to exist. A direct observation is far more empirical than an invisible explanation.

As per the functioning of the UA, the matter is unknown and immaterial to our experiences.

In the OP you asked what zetetic reason we have to believe that the UA exists at all.

When I step off my chair I can see that the earth rises upwards. This is a direct observation. I cannot see gravitons or the bends in space which are said to exist. A direct observation is far more empirical than an invisible explanation.

As per the functioning of the UA, the matter is unknown and immaterial to our experiences.

It seems to me like you don't agree with the equivalence principle. Is this a fair observation?

UA is not the most demonstrable cause of phenomena in this case.

Simple experiments have been performed that indicate that the same object has a different weight depending on its location.

One such experiment is detailed here.

It is far more likely that there is a force similar to magnetism at work.

The idea that the whole of creation careening through the heavens sounds disturbingly Copernican.

An upwardly moving earth is a simpler explanation than "graviton" puller particles or a "bending" of space which no one can see.

If I get up on a chair and step off the side I can see directly that the earth is accelerating upwards to me as I fall. I've never seen "gravitons" or bends in space.

Hi Tom, nice to see again here

The problem with UA is that it cannot explain why the force which pulls you downward is different depending on where you are. UA concept assumes that the pulling force is uniform throughout the face of earth. But unfortunately, in reality this force is not always 9.81 m/s². For example, you are heavier at the poles than at the equator because the pulling force at the equator is smaller than at the poles. Some of us have discussed that in another thread called What's Wrong With Gravity? (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58237.0.html). FE model cannot explain why the pulling force is not uniform everywhere on earth. RE model can. Many documents are publicly available. One of them is provided by Rama below. Not only it is well documented but, as usual, you can also verify it yourself too (which only requires you to spend some holiday in a tropical country).

http://www.calpoly.edu/~gthorncr/ME236/documents/AccuracyofGravity.pdf

Just a question if the UA is causing Earth to accelerate upwards at 9.81 meter per second per second what keeps us from reaching the speed of light?

Just a question if the UA is causing Earth to accelerate upwards at 9.81 meter per second per second what keeps us from reaching the speed of light?

We are accelerating from within a local reference frame, speed from an external observer is limited as per lorentz transformations (see "special relativity" for more on this)

In the OP you asked what zetetic reason we have to believe that the UA exists at all.

When I step off my chair I can see that the earth rises upwards. This is a direct observation. I cannot see gravitons or the bends in space which are said to exist. A direct observation is far more empirical than an invisible explanation.

As per the functioning of the UA, the matter is unknown and immaterial to our experiences.

Besides getting technical with you, you're saying you dont get that falling feeling?

lol