Gravity Explaination Debunked

When you jump off a building you had the momentum of the Earth spiraling upwards already, so it takes time for the acceleration to then catch up to you. It's not a 'constant' 9.8 m/s, it's an acceleration of 9.8 m/s per second.

Quote from: Jet Fission on August 13, 2015, 02:11:22 PM

When you jump off a building you had the momentum of the Earth spiraling upwards already, so it takes time for the acceleration to then catch up to you. It's not a 'constant' 9.8 m/s, it's an acceleration of 9.8 m/s per second.

But in the FAQ it says constant rate.

Quote from: robertzaccour on August 13, 2015, 02:22:08 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on August 13, 2015, 02:11:22 PM

When you jump off a building you had the momentum of the Earth spiraling upwards already, so it takes time for the acceleration to then catch up to you. It's not a 'constant' 9.8 m/s, it's an acceleration of 9.8 m/s per second.

But in the FAQ it says constant rate.

"The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared)."

Quote from: Jet Fission on August 13, 2015, 02:31:06 PM

Quote from: robertzaccour on August 13, 2015, 02:22:08 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on August 13, 2015, 02:11:22 PM

When you jump off a building you had the momentum of the Earth spiraling upwards already, so it takes time for the acceleration to then catch up to you. It's not a 'constant' 9.8 m/s, it's an acceleration of 9.8 m/s per second.

But in the FAQ it says constant rate.

"The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared)."

Oh, so the rate of the upward spiral depends on how high you are falling from. Got it. See, the law of gravity does debunk the upward spiraling. Can't dispute science haha.

Quote from: robertzaccour on August 13, 2015, 02:35:30 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on August 13, 2015, 02:31:06 PM

Quote from: robertzaccour on August 13, 2015, 02:22:08 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on August 13, 2015, 02:11:22 PM

When you jump off a building you had the momentum of the Earth spiraling upwards already, so it takes time for the acceleration to then catch up to you. It's not a 'constant' 9.8 m/s, it's an acceleration of 9.8 m/s per second.

But in the FAQ it says constant rate.

"The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared)."

Oh, so the rate of the upward spiral depends on how high you are falling from. Got it. See, the law of gravity does debunk the upward spiraling. Can't dispute science haha.

I don't think you understand; they say the disc is constantly accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2. Technically we'd be moving faster than the speed of light at this point with that acceleration. So when you jump off a building, since the disc is accelerating upwards towards you, you will begin to fall at that 9.8m/s^2.

The upward spiral theory makes 0 sense because I would die from jumping off my couch. And somehow the earth disc doesn't run through the floating clouds.

The first portion of your post had little relevance to the original question. We're not going to argue real round Earth science.

Quote from: robertzaccour on August 13, 2015, 02:48:00 PM

The upward spiral theory makes 0 sense because I would die from jumping off my couch. And somehow the earth disc doesn't run through the floating clouds.

Again you clearly don't understand what one means by acceleration. If you jump off your couch and flat Earth hypothesis were correct, you would fall at the same rate if you fell on a round Earth. You would fall off your couch, and then begin to accelerate. It's not instant, and none of their explanation would suggest it.
That still makes no sense. The height one falls from wouldn't change the rate of acceleration beyond the rules of gravity. It would be like saying the impact a car hits you at 120 mph varies depending on how far away it started moving toward you. In simple car logic I would be dead regardless of where it started. If the earth is travining upward at the speed of light that is.

The height one falls from wouldn't change the rate of acceleration beyond the rules of gravity.

Technically we'd be moving faster than the speed of light at this point with that acceleration.

I was reading the FAQ and it says that there is no gravity, that the earth is constantly spiraling upward at a rate of 32 feet per second. WRONG! The terminal velocity of "gravity" is 177 feet per second, and it's not a constant rate. If the earth is spiraling upward at a constant rate, how come if I jumped off a building I don't reach terminal velocity right away? The further away from the ground the faster I would fall on the way to the ground until I reached 177 feet per second. I'm not gonna die jumping off of my couch.

Quote from: Jet Fission link=topic=64271.msg171uh1400#msg1711400 date=1439501991

Technically we'd be moving faster than the speed of light at this point with that acceleration.

With classical physics you are right, but relativity ensures that it's impossible because space and time change the definition of meters and seconds to ensure that even a constantly accelerating object never reaches light speed.

Quote from: robertzaccour on August 13, 2015, 02:05:39 PM

I was reading the FAQ and it says that there is no gravity, that the earth is constantly spiraling upward at a rate of 32 feet per second. WRONG! The terminal velocity of "gravity" is 177 feet per second, and it's not a constant rate. If the earth is spiraling upward at a constant rate, how come if I jumped off a building I don't reach terminal velocity right away? The further away from the ground the faster I would fall on the way to the ground until I reached 177 feet per second. I'm not gonna die jumping off of my couch.

Have you ever heard of the equivalence principal?  It states that standing on a planet with gravity and being an an accelerating object in space are impossible to distinguish with any experiment, other then measuring tidal forces caused by the spherical nature of a planet's gravitational field which is a tiny effect.  In this explanation flat earthers actually got something right for once.  The reason terminal velocity exists is because of air resistance, and apart from Earth's curvature everything does behave just as it would on an accelerating object.

And that exactly is the reason why the flat earth can't work. By now, the Earth's mass would be infinite, the force required to accelerate it would be infinite, and time would have stopped for us. Anything that is still (like something that has fallen off the edge of a planet or something before our speed got ridiculous) would be much larger. Basically, according to relativity, we would have either stopped accelerating or reached a paradox. Apparently, some flat earthers seem to accept special and general relativity. I don't see how they can miss its obvious consequences on the flat earth model.

Quote from: Jet Fission on August 13, 2015, 02:39:51 PM

Technically we'd be moving faster than the speed of light at this point with that acceleration.

With classical physics you are right, but relativity ensures that it's impossible because space and time change the definition of meters and seconds to ensure that even a constantly accelerating object never reaches light speed.

mikeman is correct for a change.  I think he is finally learning a thing or two about theoretical physics.  :-)

mikeman is correct for a change.  I think he is finally learning a thing or two about theoretical physics.  :-)

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 13, 2015, 03:52:49 PM

And that exactly is the reason why the flat earth can't work. By now, the Earth's mass would be infinite, the force required to accelerate it would be infinite, and time would have stopped for us. Anything that is still (like something that has fallen off the edge of a planet or something before our speed got ridiculous) would be much larger. Basically, according to relativity, we would have either stopped accelerating or reached a paradox. Apparently, some flat earthers seem to accept special and general relativity. I don't see how they can miss its obvious consequences on the flat earth model.

Actually there would be no noticeable change because general relativity states that every reference frame is as valid as ever other.  Assuming flat Earth uses thrusters to accelerate  it would notice no change, however everything flying past the Earth would spear squished in the direction of travel and moving through time slowly just as we would see if Earth were stationary and a fast object went past us.

Flat earthers obviously don't know this and the theory is still crap, but that particular proof is false.  Just trying to be intellectually honest here.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 13, 2015, 04:10:57 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 13, 2015, 03:52:49 PM

And that exactly is the reason why the flat earth can't work. By now, the Earth's mass would be infinite, the force required to accelerate it would be infinite, and time would have stopped for us. Anything that is still (like something that has fallen off the edge of a planet or something before our speed got ridiculous) would be much larger. Basically, according to relativity, we would have either stopped accelerating or reached a paradox. Apparently, some flat earthers seem to accept special and general relativity. I don't see how they can miss its obvious consequences on the flat earth model.

Actually there would be no noticeable change because general relativity states that every reference frame is as valid as ever other.  Assuming flat Earth uses thrusters to accelerate  it would notice no change, however everything flying past the Earth would spear squished in the direction of travel and moving through time slowly just as we would see if Earth were stationary and a fast object went past us.

Flat earthers obviously don't know this and the theory is still crap, but that particular proof is false.  Just trying to be intellectually honest here.

Thrusters? Well, that's a first. I know all that, but I considered an external force, exerted by something that is not on the body that is being accelerated or something similar. If that was the case, then the force that thing exerts, if it wanted to keep the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s, would have to increase and then become infinite. Flat earthers aren't very specific on what universal acceleration is and what it is caused by, so I just assumed that it was a gravity-like force that only attracts or repulses specific materials (?) or something? Shouldn't they be a little bit more specific? I didn't know they were willing to go as far as thrusters... What the hell... A valid question would be to ask if there is anything "stationary". Then weird stuff would happen, because we would be getting gramma radiation from its blue shift, and we would see weird things. From a stationary viewpoint, we would look squashed, exactly the way it would look to us. I don't really want to consider how weird all that would be. Another question would be what exactly counts as being "qualified" to be accelerated, and what kind of force keeps things rotating when seen from Earth. We can go as far as UA, but that just seems absurd.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 13, 2015, 05:33:23 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 13, 2015, 04:10:57 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 13, 2015, 03:52:49 PM

And that exactly is the reason why the flat earth can't work. By now, the Earth's mass would be infinite, the force required to accelerate it would be infinite, and time would have stopped for us. Anything that is still (like something that has fallen off the edge of a planet or something before our speed got ridiculous) would be much larger. Basically, according to relativity, we would have either stopped accelerating or reached a paradox. Apparently, some flat earthers seem to accept special and general relativity. I don't see how they can miss its obvious consequences on the flat earth model.

Actually there would be no noticeable change because general relativity states that every reference frame is as valid as ever other.  Assuming flat Earth uses thrusters to accelerate  it would notice no change, however everything flying past the Earth would spear squished in the direction of travel and moving through time slowly just as we would see if Earth were stationary and a fast object went past us.

Flat earthers obviously don't know this and the theory is still crap, but that particular proof is false.  Just trying to be intellectually honest here.

Thrusters? Well, that's a first. I know all that, but I considered an external force, exerted by something that is not on the body that is being accelerated or something similar. If that was the case, then the force that thing exerts, if it wanted to keep the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s, would have to increase and then become infinite. Flat earthers aren't very specific on what universal acceleration is and what it is caused by, so I just assumed that it was a gravity-like force that only attracts or repulses specific materials (?) or something? Shouldn't they be a little bit more specific? I didn't know they were willing to go as far as thrusters... What the hell... A valid question would be to ask if there is anything "stationary". Then weird stuff would happen, because we would be getting gramma radiation from its blue shift, and we would see weird things. From a stationary viewpoint, we would look squashed, exactly the way it would look to us. I don't really want to consider how weird all that would be. Another question would be what exactly counts as being "qualified" to be accelerated, and what kind of force keeps things rotating when seen from Earth. We can go as far as UA, but that just seems absurd.

Actually an external object would still have to apply a set force to make the Earth accelerate at a set velocity.  It would take infinite energy to make the Earth constantly accelerate from a stationary frame of reference, but from the Earth's frame of reference the definitions of time and space change such that it will always feel the same acceleration.  From a stationary frame of reference the Earth will appear to accelerate slower and slower but relativity ensures that it's not like that for the Earth.

Physics has nothing against infinitely accelerating disks other then conservation of energy.  Then again, physics has nothing against unicorns either.  Flat Earth theory is still absurd, it's just that this doesn't prove it.

As far as I understand Einstein if you travel 90% the speed of light you will be 50% heavier and as such need exponentially more energy to propel you even faster. At low speeds you can expend reasonable amounts off energy to gain considerable amounts of speed. At really high speeds this changes. If you need to accelerate from 95% to 96% will will need tremendous amounts of energy to achieve this and to reach the speed of light you need infinite energy. This is not possible. And why the flat earth acceleration model can't work.

At 90% speed of light time will slow down by half and time will stand still for the object traveling at light speed. By now we should be getting younger, as we are traveling faster than light.

Quote from: Pavarotti on August 14, 2015, 02:21:50 AM

As far as I understand Einstein if you travel 90% the speed of light you will be 50% heavier and as such need exponentially more energy to propel you even faster. At low speeds you can expend reasonable amounts off energy to gain considerable amounts of speed. At really high speeds this changes. If you need to accelerate from 95% to 96% will will need tremendous amounts of energy to achieve this and to reach the speed of light you need infinite energy. This is not possible. And why the flat earth acceleration model can't work.

At 90% speed of light time will slow down by half and time will stand still for the object traveling at light speed. By now we should be getting younger, as we are traveling faster than light.

You are right, from a stationary frame of reference that is.  According to relativity, no frame of reference is better then any other, including the near speed of light Earth.  From Earth's frame of reference all you discribed would apply to all stationary objects.  Acceleration is a function of distance/time², both of which change with time, so with a set force the Earth will always accelerate at the same rate irregardless of relativistic effects.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on August 14, 2015, 07:51:21 AM

Quote from: Pavarotti on August 14, 2015, 02:21:50 AM

As far as I understand Einstein if you travel 90% the speed of light you will be 50% heavier and as such need exponentially more energy to propel you even faster. At low speeds you can expend reasonable amounts off energy to gain considerable amounts of speed. At really high speeds this changes. If you need to accelerate from 95% to 96% will will need tremendous amounts of energy to achieve this and to reach the speed of light you need infinite energy. This is not possible. And why the flat earth acceleration model can't work.

At 90% speed of light time will slow down by half and time will stand still for the object traveling at light speed. By now we should be getting younger, as we are traveling faster than light.

You are right, from a stationary frame of reference that is.  According to relativity, no frame of reference is better then any other, including the near speed of light Earth.  From Earth's frame of reference all you discribed would apply to all stationary objects.  Acceleration is a function of distance/time², both of which change with time, so with a set force the Earth will always accelerate at the same rate irregardless of relativistic effects.

Wow, your explanation is absolutely spot on and easy to follow too. I wonder if the flat earthers who believe in this accelerating disc theory understand special theory of relativity as well as you do, or at all...

so with a set force the Earth will always accelerate at the same rate irregardless of relativistic effects.

Ok I need to make sure I understand. Are you saying in a flat earth model where the flat earth accelerates at a constant rate, it won't need more energy to accelerate the faster it go's? It only needs a set force of energy?

I understand that the observer on earth won't notice time slowing down, or noticed that his mass increased. But you still need to get energy from somewhere and the faster you go the more you will need exponentially.
It takes a lot more energy to accelerate from 90% to 95% than say from 10% to 80%. I thumb sucked these numbers, it's just to illustrate.

Quote from: Pavarotti on August 14, 2015, 09:51:25 AM

Ok I need to make sure I understand. Are you saying in a flat earth model where the flat earth accelerates at a constant rate, it won't need more energy to accelerate the faster it go's? It only needs a set force of energy?

I understand that the observer on earth won't notice time slowing down, or noticed that his mass increased. But you still need to get energy from somewhere and the faster you go the more you will need exponentially.
It takes a lot more energy to accelerate from 90% to 95% than say from 10% to 80%. I thumb sucked these numbers, it's just to illustrate.

Acceleration is a function of distance/time² and so relativity ensures that not everyone will agree on acceleration.  If a constant force is applied to the Earth then a stationary observer would see accekeration get slower and slower while in Earth it will seem constant.