As objects above the disk are not influenced by UA, if I was to jump out of a plane at high altitude I would become an inertial observer, waiting for the disk to catch me up (FE equivalent to gravity).In my frame it would be traveling faster than C
Ha, ha, ha, ha, lol. Inertial does not mean stopped, Mr. Special Relativity. Plus, if you knew anything about the Equivalence Principle (the basis for General Relativity) you would know your example is wrong. I guess you should get back to studying. You apparently need it.
On the contrary fine fellow. I never claimed Inertial means stopped. However that frame can be measured in x,y,z, and is not undergoing acceleration, therefor qualifies. Whats more it differs from the accelerating frame that is the; UA accelerated FE disk and everything else that is accelerated along with it.
Secondly, I should have no use for Equivalence principal in a FE environment, but just in case;
1. The strong equivalence principle suggests the laws of gravitation (of which there is none to be considered anyway on a FE model) are independent of velocity and location.
2. The gravitational motion of a small test body depends only on its initial position in spacetime and velocity, and not on its constitution. (as no gravity is present on FE, we can ignore that gravitational motion too.)
3. The outcome of any local experiment, in a freely falling laboratory is independent of the velocity of the laboratory (In my example, the laboratory is the observer, he has no velocity, he is simply awaiting the disk to catch up.) If the observer had any velocity in x or z dimensions, the results would not show variation. No acceleration is occurring along Y, due to UA not affecting things above the disk).
All these things are satisfied. With what I have put forward; I am happy that my "UA is wrong claim" stands.
How you can even assume Equivalence principal can even start to describe any observations or calculations on a FE model is quite frankly, absurd.
I see your "Ha, ha, ha, ha, lol. bla bla bla, Mr. Special Relativity" and think to myself, "How can i take this idiot seriously when he wants to use maths that have G (gravity) in them to describe a world where there is none existent on a FE model" same with Newtonian laws.... Go get your own theories and stop vandalizing ours. Samuel Rowbotham's work might be a good start, did he have any accepted theories?
How can a concept dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass be used to calculate anything,when FE gravity dose not exist?
As you are aware, I have put forward some Questions to you in another thread, we can get as detailed as you like and prove one way or the other if UA works according to special relativity.
Here it is again to remind you....
I'm glad you are up for this, I was disappointed when I thought you had cowardly declined to respond.
Please, without dodging or neglecting to any part of these questions, answer them fully complete with necessary equations or alternate explanations.
You claim that Universal Acceleration Is constantly accelerating everything in the known universe along y at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, with exception of objects directly above the FE disk. This means that we have 2 frames of reference that it is possible to observe as a human on FE.
1. a non-inertial reference frame that is the universe, including FE undergoing upward acceleration at 9.8m/s^2.
If I am firmly on the ground on FE, this would be my frame of reference.
(t1′,x1′,y1′,z1′) ( t2'x2'y2'z2')
2. a inertial frame that would be an observer above the disk that the disk has not yet hit. (This makes a downward force the replaces G possible) This would be an observer in a state of (what on a globe, we refer to as) free fall, but on FE is just awaiting the disk to accelerate toward them. (t,x,y,z)
None of these frames are rotating frames of reference, and all of these frames are determined to be Euclidean, and effectively free from obvious gravitational fields. (as no gravity exists on FE)
Are you happy that these 2 FOR exist?
My first few questions are aimed at determining a few perimeters we can base our equations off later.
When do you propose that acceleration started? (Nearest 100 millennium is fine, If you cannot answer we shall use 500 million years for simplicity.)
What is the currant velocity of FE if the above is true? (nearest whole round number in the nearest millennium is fine)
The globe Earth has an estimated mass of 5.97 × 10^24 kg, What Is the estimated mass of FE?
Ps. I think you may have a faulty monitor or something as you cannot seem to read the above quote in the other tread.