Falling objects?

I've been searching through the wiki but didn't find anything usefull.

According to the Flat Earth Model, the Earth is moving upward at a constant acceleration. Obviating relativistic effects, how can we experience that acceleration and the orbiting Sun and Moon don't?

And if they do, what is keeping them up there?
Is it because of dark energy and dark matter?
If that's the case, shouldn't we be getting further away from the Sun and the Moon at a constant rate?

Also, how is posible they follow a certain path over the flat Earth?
why doesn't the Sun orbit above the Arctic or above England or another place with a different orbit?

The trueth is, if that level of acceleration was sustained, we'd have reached the speed of light a long, long time ago.  If the earth is 4.543 billion years old, then our current speed would be 2,808,053,740,800,000,000 m/s.  If the earth is even just 6000 years old, our current speed would be 3,708,633,600,000 m/s.  The speed of light, 299,792,458 m/s.  For us to not have reached the speed of light, at that proposed rate of acceleration some FE people suggest, the world would have to be no more then 485 years old.

The trueth is, if that level of acceleration was sustained, we'd have reached the speed of light a long, long time ago.  If the earth is 4.543 billion years old, then our current speed would be 2,808,053,740,800,000,000 m/s.  If the earth is even just 6000 years old, our current speed would be 3,708,633,600,000 m/s.  The speed of light, 299,792,458 m/s.  For us to not have reached the speed of light, at that proposed rate of acceleration some FE people suggest, the world would have to be no more then 485 years old.

Incorrect.

Fair enough.  How? 

Actually, I'll just make it easier.

So, there are a few constants we have to agree on. 

1)  60 seconds in 1 minute
2)  60 minutes in 1 hour
3)  24 hours in 1 day
4)  365 days in 1 year
5)  Speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s

If you don't agree with these constants then I know you have no idea what you are talking about, and can thus ignore you completely.  Do you dispute any of these constants?

Incorrect.

Fair enough.  How?
[/quote]

Relativity.  It's best not to focus on this point too much, because it's the only one flat earthers have that makes sense. 

Quote from: Katdoral on May 29, 2016, 03:02:09 PM

Incorrect.

Fair enough.  How?

Relativity.  It's best not to focus on this point too much, because it's the only one flat earthers have that makes sense.
[/quote]

Acceleration is still acceleration.  Relativity would only apply if gravity was an accepted force, since they don't accept gravity as a force, I don't see where relativity has any bearing on acceleration at all.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on May 29, 2016, 03:25:33 PM

Quote from: Katdoral on May 29, 2016, 03:02:09 PM

Incorrect.

Fair enough.  How?

Relativity.  It's best not to focus on this point too much, because it's the only one flat earthers have that makes sense.

Acceleration is still acceleration.  Relativity would only apply if gravity was an accepted force, since they don't accept gravity as a force, I don't see where relativity has any bearing on acceleration at all.
[/quote]

The speed of light remains constant for any observer.  You can never exceed it no matter how much you accelerate. 

UA still doesn't explain satellites or orbits. 

Fair enough.  How? 

Actually, I'll just make it easier.

So, there are a few constants we have to agree on. 

1)  60 seconds in 1 minute
2)  60 minutes in 1 hour
3)  24 hours in 1 day
4)  365 days in 1 year
5)  Speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s

If you don't agree with these constants then I know you have no idea what you are talking about, and can thus ignore you completely.  Do you dispute any of these constants?

You need to research special relativity. Also, there are tons of threads discussing it on this forum, but most of them turn into nasty fights and I don't feel like wading through them to find a good one for you. You can search for "universal acceleration" or "special relativity" yourself, if you want. 

PLUS, there is another theory that doesn't involve universal acceleration at all.

Sorry, I shouldn't have just posted "incorrect" earlier. It was jokey and this is serious business! 

Ahh, well, just off the top of my head, i can already see one problem with the UA.  It stipulates that nothing with mass can move at the speed of light.  But that's not what special relativity tells us.  It tells us that the energy requirements to accelerate something with mass to the speed of light would be infinite.  That's why photons can move at the speed of light, because they have a resting mass of 0, which means the energy requirements are also 0.

Hold on...I may need some time to decipher the davis hypothesis.

Ahh, well, just off the top of my head, i can already see one problem with the UA.  It stipulates that nothing with mass can move at the speed of light.  But that's not what special relativity tells us.  It tells us that the energy requirements to accelerate something with mass to the speed of light would be infinite.

Yes and that's the only reason why

nothing with mass can move at the speed of light.

Theoretically you can accelerate a plane the size of the earth with g ( 9,81 m/s2 ) billions of
years, yet it would never be faster than light.

Theoretically you can accelerate a plane the size of the earth with g ( 9,81 m/s2 ) billions of
years, yet it would never be faster than light.

Well, yes and no. You see, trying to use rockets or similar means to accelerate a massive body would require an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light but there's a catch.

A reason is given when you see the Universe expanding and that is of an unknown type of matter called dark matter, this element is used to explained the constant expantion of the Universe without converging into a point due to gravity interactions.

Dark matter is able to create space, literally space between galaxies and that's why no matter in which direction we see, if we look back in time (light from the first moments of the Universe) we see the Big Bang ocurring everywhere in space.

We also know that there are galaxies that we won't never reach because they will accelerate to a speed greater than the speed of light from our point of view because of dark matter.

It's a very complicated topic but hopefully I got it right.

Quote from: FalseProphet on May 29, 2016, 04:36:52 PM

Theoretically you can accelerate a plane the size of the earth with g ( 9,81 m/s2 ) billions of
years, yet it would never be faster than light.

Well, yes and no. You see, trying to use rockets or similar means to accelerate a massive body would require an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light but there's a catch.

A reason is given when you see the Universe expanding and that is of an unknown type of matter called dark matter, this element is used to explained the constant expantion of the Universe without converging into a point due to gravity interactions.

Dark matter is able to create space, literally space between galaxies and that's why no matter in which direction we see, if we look back in time (light from the first moments of the Universe) we see the Big Bang ocurring everywhere in space.

We also know that there are galaxies that we won't never reach because they will accelerate to a speed greater than the speed of light from our point of view because of dark matter.

It's a very complicated topic but hopefully I got it right.

You confuse dark matter with dark energy.

My only point was, to point out, why the assumption in your OP was wrong.

Gravity varies over the surface of the earth, there is nothing universal about it.

That's UA falsified.  No further argument required.

Quote from: Katdoral on May 29, 2016, 04:15:10 PM

Ahh, well, just off the top of my head, i can already see one problem with the UA.  It stipulates that nothing with mass can move at the speed of light.  But that's not what special relativity tells us.  It tells us that the energy requirements to accelerate something with mass to the speed of light would be infinite.

Yes and that's the only reason why

Quote

nothing with mass can move at the speed of light.

Theoretically you can accelerate a plane the size of the earth with g ( 9,81 m/s2 ) billions of
years, yet it would never be faster than light.

With all due respect, you can't have it both ways.  Either it is in a constant state of acceleration, which would, in universal time, quickly lead to an infinate amount of energy being expended, or it's not in a constant state of acceleration.  The very concept of the UA proves itself false, since there is obviously and observably, still energy.

I'd like to remind folks that the FE does not accept gravity as a force, which is why I am intentionally ignoring the effects of temporal distortion, since that is a product, in general terms, of space-time...Which requires gravity as a force to function. 

This is relativity we are talking about, you can have things both ways if you look at it from different reference frames.
 
In special relativity you can't just add velocities normally, because imagine you have an object A and two ships, both moving away from A at 70% of the speed of light, but in opposite directions, what speed are the two ships moving away from each other, it's not 140% of the speed of light. The correct formula to add velocitys is (u+v)/(1+(uv/c*c)).
Now this formula means that you can't add two velocities below c and get something above c, now since the UA model says the earth is accelerating at 9.81ms-2, this means that each second the speed is being increased by a value below c, and as you can see from the formula that if you increase the speed of an object by an amount less than c, it will never end up larger than c.
To sum up, something can be constantly accelerating and never get faster than c because adding velocities is weird.

Now if you want a real flaw, considered the fact that gravity varies across the planet, so acceleration upwards has to vary, meaning the planet would of teared apart.

This is relativity we are talking about, you can have things both ways if you look at it from different reference frames.
 
In special relativity you can't just add velocities normally, because imagine you have an object A and two ships, both moving away from A at 70% of the speed of light, but in opposite directions, what speed are the two ships moving away from each other, it's not 140% of the speed of light. The correct formula to add velocitys is (u+v)/(1+(uv/c*c)).
Now this formula means that you can't add two velocities below c and get something above c, now since the UA model says the earth is accelerating at 9.81ms-2, this means that each second the speed is being increased by a value below c, and as you can see from the formula that if you increase the speed of an object by an amount less than c, it will never end up larger than c.
To sum up, something can be constantly accelerating and never get faster than c because adding velocities is weird.

Now if you want a real flaw, considered the fact that gravity varies across the planet, so acceleration upwards has to vary, meaning the planet would of teared apart.

One other thing that bothers me with UA is "time dilation". After not many years the earth is almost at the speed of light and time on earth passes much more slowly than time "outside".
 
According to the Relativistic Star Ship Calculator^[1], when only about 40 years have passed on earth, about one billion years would have elapsed in an inertial reference frame outside earth. Some have said it does matter as there may not be an inertial reference frame, but then others claim an ether wind slipstream holding up the sun, moon, etc.

Whatever, the numbers of years outside earth get positively ridiculous if you try to get a reasonably "old" earth, even 6,020 years. Have a go with the  Relativistic Star Ship Calculator. Maybe this is why "The Flat Earth Society" is giving up on UA.

[1] I tried checking the figures, but disagreed by a factor of 2, but in numbers like this - who cares!

This is relativity we are talking about, you can have things both ways if you look at it from different reference frames.
 
In special relativity you can't just add velocities normally, because imagine you have an object A and two ships, both moving away from A at 70% of the speed of light, but in opposite directions, what speed are the two ships moving away from each other, it's not 140% of the speed of light. The correct formula to add velocitys is (u+v)/(1+(uv/c*c)).
Now this formula means that you can't add two velocities below c and get something above c, now since the UA model says the earth is accelerating at 9.81ms-2, this means that each second the speed is being increased by a value below c, and as you can see from the formula that if you increase the speed of an object by an amount less than c, it will never end up larger than c.
To sum up, something can be constantly accelerating and never get faster than c because adding velocities is weird.

Now if you want a real flaw, considered the fact that gravity varies across the planet, so acceleration upwards has to vary, meaning the planet would of teared apart.

In the real world, I absolutely agree with you.  But this is the UA we're refering to here, where only select parts of special relativity are considered valid, and not only that, but the underpinning effects of spacetime itself are gutted.  In their model, where the force everyone else considers gravity is caused by acceleration and not mass, would allow for speeds to reach c...that's the biggest flaw, at least in my opinion. 

Quote from: Empirical on May 31, 2016, 03:29:10 AM

This is relativity we are talking about, you can have things both ways if you look at it from different reference frames.
 
In special relativity you can't just add velocities normally, because imagine you have an object A and two ships, both moving away from A at 70% of the speed of light, but in opposite directions, what speed are the two ships moving away from each other, it's not 140% of the speed of light. The correct formula to add velocitys is (u+v)/(1+(uv/c*c)).
Now this formula means that you can't add two velocities below c and get something above c, now since the UA model says the earth is accelerating at 9.81ms-2, this means that each second the speed is being increased by a value below c, and as you can see from the formula that if you increase the speed of an object by an amount less than c, it will never end up larger than c.
To sum up, something can be constantly accelerating and never get faster than c because adding velocities is weird.

Now if you want a real flaw, considered the fact that gravity varies across the planet, so acceleration upwards has to vary, meaning the planet would of teared apart.

In the real world, I absolutely agree with you.  But this is the UA we're refering to here, where only select parts of special relativity are considered valid, and not only that, but the underpinning effects of spacetime itself are gutted.  In their model, where the force everyone else considers gravity is caused by acceleration and not mass, would allow for speeds to reach c...that's the biggest flaw, at least in my opinion.

You must distinguish between Special Relativity and General Relativity. In Special Relativity gravitational effects are excluded, it does not work with a bent spacetime. In SR gravity does not occur at all. So they do not "select parts" or "gut underpinning effects".  And one last time: YOU NEVER RE$ACH C, NO MATTER HOW LONG YOU ACCELERATE!! That's the whole point of SR.