How did the accepted speed of 9.8 m/s^2 become accepted?

Hi! I'm new here and was trying to get a feel for things. There were some questions I had and found this page right here with it's ideas. I have individual questions found in my post separated by themselves (retyped for clarity), if you want to skip to those at the end.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,11211.0.html#.T-Y4kitYuoE

One thing I was wondering at the moment is how you accept the velocity of 9.8 m/s^2. There seems to be a general sense of distrust for the claimed authorities on certain scientific subjects

So how do you accept that rate? As I thought to understand it. it's not a constant velocity but a rate of acceleration. That is to say, as an object falls towards Earth, its velocity increases by the said rate above until it reaches terminal velocity, whatever it may be based upon how the object is composed. That is to say that a feather isn't going to accelerate like a bowling ball because of how the wind catches the feather of course.

And along the same lines, what seems confusing is the speed you believe the Earth is traveling at. How were you able to observe that the Earth is indeed increasing in velocity? And if I was to take an object, and hold it in the air, why won't it stay in the air? This thought comes from the observation of throwing a ball up while inside a car. The ball, though not directly sitting in the car, continues to accelerate at the same rate while it is still in the air. It didn't fly backwards.

They say that gravity warps space and causes objects to be "pulled" towards super masses like planets and stars, but your help guide disregards, to some degree, the accepted scientific thoughts on gravity.

• By what authority to you accept the proposed rate of acceleration?
• How have you all observed this rate of acceleration in order to know it's true?
• Why would the Earth's acceleration "push" objects back to the ground instead of allowing them to accelerate in the air?

Thanks for the forum!

Welcome!

So how do you accept that rate? As I thought to understand it. it's not a constant velocity but a rate of acceleration.

Well, I guess I didn't have to correct you on that mistake after all.

And along the same lines, what seems confusing is the speed you believe the Earth is traveling at. How were you able to observe that the Earth is indeed increasing in velocity?

Since some people on this forum believe the Earth is flat, they also needed an explanation for why we accelerate towards the ground, and gravity just doesn't work because the Earth wouldn't be flat if it existed, so they just took a guess and said that the Earth accelerates upwards at that rate. This would mean that the Earth must be constantly increasing in velocity since it's constantly accelerating upwards.

And if I was to take an object, and hold it in the air, why won't it stay in the air? This thought comes from the observation of throwing a ball up while inside a car. The ball, though not directly sitting in the car, continues to accelerate at the same rate while it is still in the air. It didn't fly backwards.

It won't stay in the air because the flat Earth is supposedly accelerating upwards, and similarly, it would fly backwards if the car if the car were accelerating during the toss.

They say that gravity warps space and causes objects to be "pulled" towards super masses like planets and stars, but your help guide disregards, to some degree, the accepted scientific thoughts on gravity.

Flat Earth theory (FET) disregards a whole lot more than just gravity. Consider this:
If the Earth were flat, and since the sun always shines on some part of the Earth at all times, the sun must hence always be above the flat Earth. But how could this be when we observe the sun to fall below the horizon?

This is just one of the many anomalies that FET fails to explain.

• By what authority to you accept the proposed rate of acceleration?
• How have you all observed this rate of acceleration in order to know it's true?

The rate of acceleration has been observed in various ways by actual scientists. The only difference is that mainstream science says it's gravity accelerating the mass towards Earth, while FEers have been forced to make up a new theory by claiming that the Earth accelerates towards the sky at that rate.

• Why would the Earth's acceleration "push" objects back to the ground instead of allowing them to accelerate in the air?

Newton's first law says that an object in motion that has no force applied to it will continue along its path. At any point in time, the Earth is moving upwards at some velocity v, and so is an object on the surface. The Earth is accelerating however, so it speeds up and manages to catch up to the object.

First, you're mixing up velocity and acceleration. Acceleration is the rate of change in velocity. I don't know how flat Earther's have come to accept the rate of acceleration on Earth, but it's simple enough to measure. Mind you most "Zetetics" on this forum are only skeptical when it comes to things that disagree with their opinion on the shape of the Earth, so I would guess they're just going by what they read.

As far as the ball thrown up in the car, no it won't fly back if the car is going at a constant velocity. It will fly back if the car is accelerating though.

The idea is that according to Einstein, on small scales acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity. Of course, the same theory also predicts that mass will warp space and cause a gravitational field. The way I see it FE'rs can't have it both ways, claiming the "equivalence principle" and denying gravity at the same time when they are both part of the same theory.

Hope that clarifies things.

Newton's first law says that an object in motion that has no force applied to it will continue along its path. At any point in time, the Earth is moving upwards at some velocity v, and so is an object on the surface. The Earth is accelerating however, so it speeds up and manages to catch up to the object.

Ah. And I sort of just thought how the air would just push out of the way rather than suspend the ball in the air, but why would the Earth be accelerating still? I always thought stuff in space continues moving at the speed it reaches unless something changes that speed. To say the Earth's velocity is ever increasing, you would have to believe some force is pushing the Earth to go faster. Right?

Oh, and this just popped into my head. Sorry, but I love math stuff! I wondered how long it would take for the Earth to reach the speed of light. So I performed this equation.

(speed of light / 9.8 m/s) seconds
( (299,792,458) m/s / (9.8 m/s) )

http://wolfr.am/147Cyme

This equation finds out how many times 9.8 m/s can go into the speed of light in meters per second, and then converts that answer into seconds. Given that, it would take less than a year for Earth to reach the speed of light, and since the Earth has been around a long time, wouldn't it be going many thousands of times faster than light? And if that was so, how could we even look down towards the Earth and see it since the light hitting it from the Sun wouldn't be able to bounce off the Earth into our eyes?

The only way we see matter is by radiation being absorbed by matter and then the matter giving off radiation back at us. Said radiation travels at the speed of light. If the Earth had already reached the speed of light or faster, then the matter of the Earth wouldn't be able to send the radiation back into our eyes since light can't travel any faster.

I think I just blew my mind in ways I didn't know I could :p

Your math is wrong. The earth will never reach the speed of light.

Your math is wrong. The earth will never reach the speed of light.

I was a little afraid it would come out wrong. I don't really understand the whole seconds squared deal. What did I miss? If you divide like so


299,792,458.0 (speed of light in meters / second)
/         9.8
-------------
 30,591,067.1
 
 30,591,067.1 seconds = 354 days


That's what I get. What's stopping the Earth from reaching the speed of light if space, as said in the help guide, is a vacuum with nothing to slow us down?

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2013, 10:14:33 AM

Your math is wrong. The earth will never reach the speed of light.

I was a little afraid it would come out wrong. I don't really understand the whole seconds squared deal. What did I miss? If you divide like so


299,792,458.0 (speed of light in meters / second)
/         9.8
-------------
 30,591,067.1
 
 30,591,067.1 seconds = 354 days


That's what I get. What's stopping the Earth from reaching the speed of light if space, as said in the help guide, is a vacuum with nothing to slow us down?

What you're missing is the effect that occurs when approaching the speed of light.  Space itself dialates to prevent the speed of light being passed.  You can continue to accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 but to an outside observer,  you are barely increasing speed.

Your math is wrong. The earth will never reach the speed of light.

Nor could it accelerate constantly forever.

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2013, 10:14:33 AM

Your math is wrong. The earth will never reach the speed of light.

Nor could it accelerate constantly forever.

No, he's kind of right. Earth would constantly accelerate forever, but would never reach the speed of light. But I doubt Ski knows why the math is wrong, so I digress.

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 25, 2013, 01:15:08 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2013, 10:14:33 AM

Your math is wrong. The earth will never reach the speed of light.

Nor could it accelerate constantly forever.

No, he's kind of right. Earth would constantly accelerate forever, but would never reach the speed of light. But I doubt Ski knows why the math is wrong, so I digress.

I know about the approaching light speed but never reaching, I think that's what Ski's referring to also. But the idea that you can accelerate something the size of the Earth that close to light speed and continue to do so doesn't make sense in terms of the energy you'd require. On Earth there's a limit to how close to light speed you can accelerate just a few protons in an accelerator.

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2013, 10:14:33 AM

Your math is wrong. The earth will never reach the speed of light.

Nor could it accelerate constantly forever.

More to the point here is the fact it can accelerate at 9.8m/s/s indefinitely and never reach the speed of light. The limiting factor on how long the earth can continue to accelerate is energy.

I know about the approaching light speed but never reaching, I think that's what Ski's referring to also. But the idea that you can accelerate something the size of the Earth that close to light speed and continue to do so doesn't make sense in terms of the energy you'd require. On Earth there's a limit to how close to light speed you can accelerate just a few protons in an accelerator.

Think of the amounts of energy required to accelerate billions of galaxies of astronomical (if you'll pardon my pun) size in Orthodoxy, yet the Priesthood assures us this is happening despite knowing the cause. The universe is filled with interesting phenomena.

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 25, 2013, 04:01:02 PM

I know about the approaching light speed but never reaching, I think that's what Ski's referring to also. But the idea that you can accelerate something the size of the Earth that close to light speed and continue to do so doesn't make sense in terms of the energy you'd require. On Earth there's a limit to how close to light speed you can accelerate just a few protons in an accelerator.

Think of the amounts of energy required to accelerate billions of galaxies of astronomical (if you'll pardon my pun) size in Orthodoxy, yet the Priesthood assures us this is happening despite knowing the cause. The universe is filled with interesting phenomena.

Check me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, the current theory doesn't so much say that the galaxies are accelerating away from each other, rather it's space-time itself that is expanding at an accelerating rate.

Where does the energy for this expansion and resultant acceleration come from, markjo?

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2013, 04:07:58 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 25, 2013, 04:01:02 PM

I know about the approaching light speed but never reaching, I think that's what Ski's referring to also. But the idea that you can accelerate something the size of the Earth that close to light speed and continue to do so doesn't make sense in terms of the energy you'd require. On Earth there's a limit to how close to light speed you can accelerate just a few protons in an accelerator.

Think of the amounts of energy required to accelerate billions of galaxies of astronomical (if you'll pardon my pun) size in Orthodoxy, yet the Priesthood assures us this is happening despite knowing the cause. The universe is filled with interesting phenomena.

Check me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, the current theory doesn't so much say that the galaxies are accelerating away from each other, rather it's space-time itself that is expanding at an accelerating rate.

In fact, it's allowed in relativity for space to expand faster than the speed of light, but not for objects to move through space faster than light.

Where does the energy for this expansion and resultant acceleration come from, markjo?

It's probably the same energy source that drives the UA.

Where does the energy for this expansion and resultant acceleration come from, markjo?

From all the stuff within it. The correct answer would be Dark Energy, but science calls it that because it doesn't know what it really is or how it's spread across the Universe.

We just know Dark Energy is really something that exists, and we know exactly how much of it has to exist, from the rate of acceleration of the Universe. But we have no clue what constitutes Dark Energy, and we can't detect it, which is why we just call it that. For now.

Think of the amounts of energy required to accelerate billions of galaxies of astronomical (if you'll pardon my pun) size in Orthodoxy, yet the Priesthood assures us this is happening despite knowing the cause. The universe is filled with interesting phenomena.

Where does the energy for this expansion and resultant acceleration come from, markjo?

I honestly do not see what you are insinuating here. Are you claiming the universe is not expanding? Or that it is expanding but concepts such as Dark Energy are fantastical and utterly implausible?

Have you ever once read the flat earth wikipedia? Shall I direct you to the topics such as: Celestial Gravitation, Electromagnetic Accelerator and UA, along with the ideas mentioned occasionally by Flat Earthers such as Bendy Light and the Celestial gears?

What I see here is the epitome of motivated reasoning. How do you find any of those ideas which I just listed flawless and perfectly credible yet attack the "priesthood" of science on concepts such as an expanding universe?

From all the stuff within it. The correct answer would be Dark Energy, but science calls it that because it doesn't know what it really is or how it's spread across the Universe.
... But we have no clue what constitutes Dark Energy, and we can't detect it, which is why we just call it that. For now.

It's fine to say you don't know.   But there would evidently be a damned lot of it, wouldn't there? I mean some seventy percent of a universe that is much larger than the perceived universe that I believe in. Is it so incredible that there might be an enormous amount of energy accelerating the smaller flat earth universe?

I honestly do not see what you are insinuating here. Are you claiming the universe is not expanding? Or that it is expanding but concepts such as Dark Energy are fantastical and utterly implausible?

I don't, frankly, believe the universe is expanding. But, my point here is that you find it easy to swallow an amount of mystical energy much larger, but think an unknown source to accelerate the smaller flat earth universe is pure fantasy and impossible.

What I see here is the epitome of motivated reasoning. How do you find any of those ideas which I just listed flawless and perfectly credible yet attack the "priesthood" of science on concepts such as an expanding universe?

I don't believe in half the things you listed. I'm not even attacking an expanding an expanding universe (though Arp's theory) as much as I am the hypocrisy.

It would not be infinite because there is no indication that the acceleration has occurred for an infinite period of time, nor has it reached the speed of light.

And there are plenty of globularists that don't share in the expanding universe theory. You use "proven" very lightly.

How long would what take? 


http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2009&q=Redshift+quantization&hl=en&as_sdt=1,3

I don't, frankly, believe the universe is expanding. But, my point here is that you find it easy to swallow an amount of mystical energy much larger, but think an unknown source to accelerate the smaller flat earth universe is pure fantasy and impossible.

You are making a false analogy. I find it easy to swallow a large amount of unknown energy is accelerating the expansion of the universe because the universe has been thoroughly and demonstrably shown to be expanding beyond doubt.

I do not find it easy to swallow the UA hypothesis however because the idea of a flat earth has yet to be properly substantiated as much as you'd like to moan it has; along with the fact an upwards accelerating flat disc would nullify all current known knowledge on topics such as the solar system, tides, gravity etc etc. And as i've already alluded to, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 

I don't believe in half the things you listed. I'm not even attacking an expanding an expanding universe (though Arp's theory) as much as I am the hypocrisy.

And there are plenty of globularists that don't share in the expanding universe theory. You use "proven" very lightly.

There are not plenty of cosmologists that do not share the expanding universe theory, there are essentially a handful and they are mostly very old now since their were part of the same group of cosmologists who pioneered research into the expanding universe and simply haven't be able to let go of their preconceived biases in the face of conflicting evidence.

Consensus is what is important.
If I was to claim that there are plenty of biologists who advocate the position of creationism instead of evolution, would that lend credence to creationism? Of course not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_redshift#Redshift_periodicity_and_intrinsic_redshifts

Goes over nicely the alternative explanations for cosmology, all ideas have been thoroughly laid to rest as new evidence has been gathered over the years. It would be intellectually dishonest of anybody, in my personal opinion, to peddle this nonsense any further than it already has been.

Consensus is what is important.

Consensus could hardly matter less. Consensus is where intelligence dies. Consensus is not (necessarily) a reflection of fact. Every new "fact" science learns has been nearly strangled by "consensus". Your assertion that consensus equals proven is absurd -- all the more ironic when you go on to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty!

I like you. I have not been around as much lately to contribute to the forum, but from what I've seen, you've certainly been more polite than most globularists, and are probably among the better educated, but good God, man -- think!

I don't, frankly, believe the universe is expanding. But, my point here is that you find it easy to swallow an amount of mystical energy much larger, but think an unknown source to accelerate the smaller flat earth universe is pure fantasy and impossible.

Do you believe that astronomers are measuring theredshifted light that is coming from distant galaxies? Do you agree that redshifted light happens because the distance between us and those distant galaxies is increasing? If this red shifting increases over time, do you agree that this means that the galaxy is accelerating away from us?

Stop me at the very point that the argument became illogical.

I don't, frankly, believe the universe is expanding. But, my point here is that you find it easy to swallow an amount of mystical energy much larger, but think an unknown source to accelerate the smaller flat earth universe is pure fantasy and impossible.

If you really want a comparison...
Like I said before, we don't know what Dark Energy really is. We haven't detected it, and it's a possibility we never will. But we know it exists in some form and it exists everywhere in the universe, because the energy density resulting from it is what is making the Universe expand, and we can measure the rate of expansion and its acceleration, therefore we can estimate the quantity of Dark Energy (whatever it may be) that's in it.

In comparison, UA is a directional effect that supposedly doesn't even work on everything, only on whatever FErs decide it should work on, and it is increasing in energy. Because, if you're pushing an object at relativistic speeds, you need more and more energy to maintain the same acceleration. How is it possible that UA is constantly increasing in energy, and specifically just at the right rate that its imparted acceleration is constant? This is not the realm of science-fiction, it's the realm of pointless idiocy.

The whole of FET is full of these idiotic theories to attempt to explain why our experiences are exactly as they would be if the Earth was spherical. Basically, the whole concept of FET is "The Earth seems spherical no matter how you look at it, but it's really an illusion and we say it's flat!"

Consensus could hardly matter less. Consensus is where intelligence dies. Consensus is not (necessarily) a reflection of fact. Every new "fact" science learns has been nearly strangled by "consensus". Your assertion that consensus equals proven is absurd -- all the more ironic when you go on to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty!

I think we are delving into more of the epistemological aspects of science now. And I also did not claim consensus = truth, I said it was important and is an imperative part of weighing up the plausibility and likelihood that an idea has merits.

Everybody cannot be an expert in all fields, esoteric or popular alike, therefore in my opinion it is then when we look to the consensus amongst scientists or researchers who work day in and day out in their designated fields for an answer.

If 99.86% of life and earth scientists regard the theory of evolution as the most likely theory that describes the progression of organisms on this planet, I will certainly not be advocating for the teaching of creationism in schools. Similarly with these alternative cosmological ideas, the over-riding consensus is that the universe IS expanding and that the Big Bang theory governed the evolution.

And as you said, if new evidence arises I will happily change my thinking, something that Halton Arp and the few other cosmologists who support these idiosyncratic alternative explanations are evidently incapable of doing.

If you really want a comparison...
Like I said before, we don't know what Dark Energy really is. We haven't detected it, and it's a possibility we never will. But we know it exists in some form and it exists everywhere in the universe, because the energy density resulting from it is what is making the Universe expandaccelerate, and we can measure the rate of expansion and its acceleration...

As I said, the hypocrisy is blatant if you would stop to think about what you are saying.

Because, if you're pushing an object at relativistic speeds, you need more and more energy to maintain the same acceleration.

The key here is "relativistic speeds." It is entire possible the earth is accelerated from within a frame that does not involve relativistic velocities.

How is it possible that UA is constantly increasing in energy, and specifically just at the right rate that its imparted acceleration is constant? This is not the realm of science-fiction, it's the realm of pointless idiocy.

Sounds oddly like Hubble flow to me... 

I think we are delving into more of the epistemological aspects of science now. And I also did not claim consensus = truth, I said it was important and is an imperative part of weighing up the plausibility and likelihood that an idea has merits.

I'm not sure how you can say that with a straight face. The rest of your post is a plea to ignore any interpretation of evidence that does not agree with the consensus and imply that the only people interpreting the evidence differently are somehow stubbornly incapable of good science because they disagree with Orthodoxy!

The key here is "relativistic speeds." It is entire possible the earth is accelerated from within a frame that does not involve relativistic velocities.

So some force is accelerating the Earth while simultaneously accelerating itself with the Earth? So in a way, it's kind of like gravity but with the added bonus of consuming huge amounts of energy from some source that travels with the Earth. I wonder what is being propelled out the bottom end such that the Earth is given the propulsion it needs?

I'm not sure how you can say that with a straight face. The rest of your post is a plea to ignore any interpretation of evidence that does not agree with the consensus and imply that the only people interpreting the evidence differently are somehow stubbornly incapable of good science because they disagree with Orthodoxy!

Your entire post is a straw man. As I have already mentioned, we cannot all be experts in all disciplines of science. So in our ignorance we have to look to what the experts are saying, those who have spent 20 years of their life researching and reading information from their field.

If an overwhelming percentage of those researchers are coming to one conclusion, it is very likely that one conclusion is the most suitable conclusion to be advocating at this current state of evidence that is available. It may not be the correct conclusion but the current evidence available points towards that conclusion.

How do I know there aren't some preconceived biases that are holding back the small percentage of those that disagree as with the case with evolution. The 0.14% of life and earth scientists that do not believe in evolution, do not because they are fundamentalist theists who cannot marry their religious beliefs with what is observed in nature, not because the evidence truly doesn't point towards evolution.

In some circumstances there is a bit more room for error in terms of consensus, for example, the current interpretations of quantum mechanics.



Should I advocate the position of the Copenhagen interpretation here? Probably not. (I don't anyways simply because I actually understand the opposing hypotheses).