# Universal Accelerator - how it works?

• 257 Replies
• 17779 Views

#### getrealzommb

• 894
• We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #240 on: January 26, 2016, 03:34:08 PM »
You need to take Relativity into account.  You are talking relativistic velocities, so you can't use Newtonian mechanics.

It would take an infinite amount of time for the FE, accelerating at a constant rate, to reach the speed of light.  From an inertial observer's point of view, the FE's acceleration would be decreasing, but those on the FE would only experience a constant acceleration.
,
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 in my frame of reference FE would be suddenly hit me before I had seen it coming. Skydivers dont die from splatting the ground before it was due so this is not occurring. UA is wrong

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #241 on: January 26, 2016, 04:02:08 PM »
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.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

#### rabinoz

• 24925
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #242 on: January 26, 2016, 07:33:23 PM »
Mind you I think UA is "flat wrong", but that's another story.

rabinoz finally has said something halfway intelligent.  I think someone is starting to do some research.
If I believe someone misrepresents your "theories", I will try to correct it.

But, on quite a few occasions I have argued that UA is quite inapplicable as a replacement for "gravity".  Why are those posts in general ignored?

Now what about acknowledging the numerous times I shot down UA!

#### getrealzommb

• 894
• We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #243 on: January 27, 2016, 03:28:56 PM »
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.

« Last Edit: January 27, 2016, 03:58:02 PM by getrealzommb »

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #244 on: January 27, 2016, 06:03:52 PM »
On the contrary fine fellow. I never claimed Inertial means stopped.
Quote
In my example, the laboratory is the observer, he has no velocity, he is simply awaiting the disk to catch up.
Lol.  Want to try that again, Mr. Special Relativity?

Quote
How you can even assume Equivalence principal can even start to describe any observations or calculations on a FE model is quite frankly, absurd.
Only because you obviously don't understand it.

Quote
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.
Oh, you mean the one you cowardly tried to derail in which you believe Special Relativity is false?  That one?  'Cause I'm still waiting on an answer over in that thread.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

#### getrealzommb

• 894
• We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #245 on: January 27, 2016, 06:13:20 PM »

My quotes in context.

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).

On the contrary fine fellow. I never claimed Inertial means stopped.
Quote
In my example, the laboratory is the observer, he has no velocity, he is simply awaiting the disk to catch up.
Lol.  Want to try that again, Mr. Special Relativity?

Quote
How you can even assume Equivalence principal can even start to describe any observations or calculations on a FE model is quite frankly, absurd.
Only because you obviously don't understand it.

Quote
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.
Oh, you mean the one you cowardly tried to derail in which you believe Special Relativity is false?  That one?  'Cause I'm still waiting on an answer over in that thread.

Debate over. You have proved yourself unfit/unwilling to answer, and lacking in knowledge. I gave you a good chance to prove UA, but you can't. I am not wasting any more of my time on your trolling and derailing. Mr. fraud.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2016, 07:55:02 PM by getrealzommb »

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #246 on: January 27, 2016, 07:02:50 PM »
On the contrary fine fellow. I never claimed Inertial means stopped.
Quote
In my example, the laboratory is the observer, he has no velocity, he is simply awaiting the disk to catch up.
Lol.  Want to try that again, Mr. Special Relativity?

Quote
How you can even assume Equivalence principal can even start to describe any observations or calculations on a FE model is quite frankly, absurd.
Only because you obviously don't understand it.

Quote
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.
Oh, you mean the one you cowardly tried to derail in which you believe Special Relativity is false?  That one?  'Cause I'm still waiting on an answer over in that thread.

Debate over, You have proved yourself unfit/unwilling to answer, and lacking in knowledge.  I am not wasting any more of my time on your trolling and derailing. Mr. fraud.
Typical.  You can't stand by your own statements, so you run away.  Isn't that the cowardly thing to do? That thing you accused me of?

Oh, and I am not the one lacking in knowledge, Mr. Special Relativity.  You are wrong.  I am right.  I would love to continue with this debate on Relativity, as it's one of my favorite subjects.  I would even be more than willing to help you see the light (pun intended).

Maybe next time, don't get all uppity and claim to be so well educated that you are going to destroy someone's argument and call them a coward if they don't respond within seconds of you expecting them to.  That is a tact that uneducated RE'ers often use on this site.  It doesn't go well for them, as it has not gone well for you.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### pax

• 61
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #247 on: January 27, 2016, 10:30:55 PM »
On the contrary fine fellow. I never claimed Inertial means stopped.
Quote
In my example, the laboratory is the observer, he has no velocity, he is simply awaiting the disk to catch up.
Lol.  Want to try that again, Mr. Special Relativity?

Quote
How you can even assume Equivalence principal can even start to describe any observations or calculations on a FE model is quite frankly, absurd.
Only because you obviously don't understand it.

Quote
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.
Oh, you mean the one you cowardly tried to derail in which you believe Special Relativity is false?  That one?  'Cause I'm still waiting on an answer over in that thread.

Debate over, You have proved yourself unfit/unwilling to answer, and lacking in knowledge.  I am not wasting any more of my time on your trolling and derailing. Mr. fraud.
Typical.  You can't stand by your own statements, so you run away.  Isn't that the cowardly thing to do? That thing you accused me of?

Oh, and I am not the one lacking in knowledge, Mr. Special Relativity.  You are wrong.  I am right.  I would love to continue with this debate on Relativity, as it's one of my favorite subjects.  I would even be more than willing to help you see the light (pun intended).

Maybe next time, don't get all uppity and claim to be so well educated that you are going to destroy someone's argument and call them a coward if they don't respond within seconds of you expecting them to.  That is a tact that uneducated RE'ers often use on this site.  It doesn't go well for them, as it has not gone well for you.

No, he's right, you've played an avoidance game, and badly at that.

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #248 on: January 27, 2016, 10:33:39 PM »
What did I avoid?

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### pax

• 61
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #249 on: January 27, 2016, 10:37:58 PM »

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #250 on: January 27, 2016, 10:40:26 PM »

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### pax

• 61
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #251 on: January 27, 2016, 10:41:59 PM »

Keep guessing.

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #252 on: January 27, 2016, 10:56:14 PM »

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### pax

• 61
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #253 on: January 27, 2016, 10:58:01 PM »

Nailed it; I clearly can't read.

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #254 on: January 27, 2016, 11:01:54 PM »
Glad we got that cleared up.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

#### rabinoz

• 24925
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #255 on: January 28, 2016, 01:08:40 AM »

Nailed it; I clearly can't read.

You clearly haven't "nailed" TheEngineer yet?
He never says anything, but he says it with perfect accuracy!
Slight exaggeration, I have seen a couple of things he did say!

#### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37820
• I have artificial intelligence
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #256 on: January 28, 2016, 01:16:32 AM »

Nailed it; I clearly can't read.

You clearly haven't "nailed" TheEngineer yet?
He never says anything, but he says it with perfect accuracy!
Slight exaggeration, I have seen a couple of things he did say!

Please make meaningful contributions when you post in the upper forum.  Thanks.

#### rabinoz

• 24925
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Universal Accelerator - how it works?
« Reply #257 on: January 28, 2016, 04:19:56 AM »
You clearly haven't "nailed" TheEngineer yet?
He never says anything, but he says it with perfect accuracy!
Slight exaggeration, I have seen a couple of things he did say!
Please make meaningful contributions when you post in the upper forum.  Thanks.
Sorry, I will rectify that.

The Universal Accelerator is not a valid substitute for gravity, as it provides a Uniform Acceleration over the whole of the earth's surface and the observed acceleration is not uniform.

Much more detail can be found in http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65228.msg1751651#msg1751651.

Put simply the measured effective acceleration that is normally ascribed to gravity varies with latitude, altitude [nb]Jack has indicated that the variation with altitude might be due to relativistic effects, but has made no attempt to justify this by correlating the predicted change in apparent acceleration with measured values.[/nb] and to a smaller extent the proximity to massive ore bodies.

To me, unless there is some proven mechanism explaining these variations, UA cannot be a valid substitute for gravity.