Upward Acceleration of the Earth

Hi everyone, this will be my first post on your forums. My name is Evan.

I am your average everyday, what-you-would-call-globularist. I recently stumbled across your forums, have been going through some of your press releases, and find myself fascinated by the physical explanations you've devised here to explain a flat-world model. Clearly the stereotypes of flatists as uneducated and ignorant are simply not true. While I remain unconvinced, I respect the extremes you've gone to in pursuing one of the most fundamental principles of science, questioning everything. In the interest of intellectual honesty, I'd like to know more about your stance.

I'm particularly intrigued by the school of thought completely rejecting the idea of gravity, instead postulating an upward acceleration of earth at 9.8 m/s^2. Gravity always did strike me as kind of an oddball among the four fundamental forces in modern physics. We can identify the fundamental particles involved in the strong/weak nuclear forces and in electromagnetism, but not gravity. To date, we have not yet found any sort of "graviton".

I'll get to my point now. I was reading your FAQ and came across this:

"The earth isn't pulled into a sphere because the force known as gravity doesn't exist or at least exists in a greatly diminished form than is commonly taught. The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind. This acceleration does not violate physics and according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, we can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light."

Okay, so Socratic method here: unless I'm misunderstanding you or physics, I'm not sure I'm really buying the "constant acceleration" bit. Sure, according to relativity, you can accelerate indefinitely without reaching the speed of light, but you can't accelerate at a CONSTANT rate of 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, could you? Your acceleration would have to decrease eventually as you get closer to the speed of light? Would this not eventually reduce the perceived weight of humans standing on Earth's surface?

They say you could accelerate indefinitely at constant rate.

But they have much bigger problem that that.

At poles g is 9.832 m/s², at equator is 9.78, at the top of Mount
Everest is 9.77, at the altitude of 1000 kilometers is 7.33.

On top of that, there are further variations of g of up to
plus or minus 300 mGal based on ground configuration.

Upward acceleration would give uniform g .

Unless you sneak gravity back to the model in the form of "celestial gravity".

 Ah yes I misunderstood relativity. Admittedly, my understanding of physics is a bit rusty. From an Earth frame of reference, the acceleration would be constant, but to a stationary observer, it would asymptotically approach c, varying. I think.

To your point though SpJunk, I hadn't thought of that, that G varies by physical location on the Earth.

In global theory, the Earth pulls at you, and that variation makes sense. But in flat theory, or at least the version I'm referring to, the whole object that is Earth is hypothetically accelerating as one unit to replace gravity. So those variations shouldn't be possible, if I'm understanding you correctly.

I have yet to notice my weight being different at the poles than at the equator or at the top of mount Everest or even 1000 km in altitude.  I am quite sure you have not either, mr. SpJunk.  You are just spouting off some little information that you heard and take in faith for absolute truth.  You are no better than the religious fanatics that take every word in scripture as absolute fact out of faith.  Perhaps you could keep your religious dogma out of this serious "reality" discussion?

I actually easuredyself atop a mountain (mount crested butte) and I was 3 pounds lighter then the day before, and this wasnafter eating a pretty big meal. Not very scientific, but it is more evidence.

You honestly expect us to belief that you weighed 3 pounds lighter on top of a mountain?  This must be a really huge mountain, considering you should weigh only a couple of milligrams lighter at the top of mount Everest.

Edit:  Oh, I see now that it was satire.  I did not catch the "mount crested butte" at first. 

Well, I suppose weighing your own body at the poles/equator wouldn't really be a good indicator anyway... there are a ton of other factors going on like water weight fluctuations of an individual and weight loss through excretion that would invalidate the reliability of that method.

Though if you took an object of constant weight... like a dumbbell or something, for example.

In a globular model with the framework for gravitation, it should weigh differently based on your position on the planet.

Again, my understanding of the flat-world model is that the notion of gravity is replaced by the upward acceleration of the Earth disc. Since we're doing away with gravity, we in turn don't need to concern ourselves with a "center of gravity" of Earth that exerts force on an object on its surface. So for the purpose of this thought experiment, I guess it also doesn't matter whether you subscribe to the infinite horizontal plane model of flat Earth that bisects the Universe (which even with gravity, would have no center of gravity), or the finite-sized disc rimmed by Antarctica (which with gravity, would have its center of gravity duh at the center, pulling on objects with greater force the closer to the center you are, the least pull towards the center being at Antarctica). Either way, I suppose you would expect an object to weigh the same regardless of your physical location on the structure, right?

So if that object's weight does vary then based on your position, that would pose an interesting problem?

I know jroa, which is why I said it wasn't very scientific.

If you would be alright with spending some money, you could order two scales. One from a country near any of the poles (northern countries are closer to the north pole that southern are to the south pole, so probably a northern country) and one from an equatorial country. Then weigh the same object in both scales. They should be calibrated differently, so you should get slightly different readings. Assuming there is no globular conspiracy by scale-manufacturers, and that you choose two scales of reasonable quality, this would be pretty good evidence that gravitational strength varies across the earth.

I have yet to notice my weight being different at the poles than at the equator or at the top of mount Everest or even 1000 km in altitude. 

You really get around, don't you?   

Shalom and welcome to the trenches.

I have yet to notice my weight being different at the poles than at the equator or at the top of mount Everest or even 1000 km in altitude.  I am quite sure you have not either, mr. SpJunk.  You are just spouting off some little information that you heard and take in faith for absolute truth.  You are no better than the religious fanatics that take every word in scripture as absolute fact out of faith.  Perhaps you could keep your religious dogma out of this serious "reality" discussion?

Nice little prayer, Mr Jroa.

Gravimeter can show you the difference in g at any altitude.

Now, does each of us has to buy own personal gravimeter?
Or we can exchange information?

hello there i am flat earther and the earth is not accelerating upwards...... that is a shill lie to dissuade people from looking into the flat earth...... why things fall and what not is because the simple laws of buoyancy and density...... and before you say "if the flat earth society are shill why are on their forums" and i say cause it is the most active forums to post flat earth info and news......

hello there i am flat earther and the earth is not accelerating upwards...... that is a shill lie to dissuade people from looking into the flat earth...... why things fall and what not is because the simple laws of buoyancy and density...... and before you say "if the flat earth society are shill why are on their forums" and i say cause it is the most active forums to post flat earth info and news......

What is pulling dense matter under buoyant?
Or dense mater just goes there on its own?
How dense matter overcomes inertia?

Quote from: jroa on September 14, 2016, 07:29:11 PM

I have yet to notice my weight being different at the poles than at the equator or at the top of mount Everest or even 1000 km in altitude.  I am quite sure you have not either, mr. SpJunk.  You are just spouting off some little information that you heard and take in faith for absolute truth.  You are no better than the religious fanatics that take every word in scripture as absolute fact out of faith.  Perhaps you could keep your religious dogma out of this serious "reality" discussion?

Nice little prayer, Mr Jroa.

Gravimeter can show you the difference in g at any altitude.

Now, does each of us has to buy own personal gravimeter?
Or we can exchange information?

I am sure that is what they would like for you to believe. 

Are you trying to say that things "sink" in the air because they are denser than air? And that things lighter than air rise due to buoyancy?

You realize that both of these behaviors in classic physics still rely on the concept of gravity?

After some Googling -- Formula Buoyancy Force (B) = ρ V g Where, ρ = Density of Fluid. V = Displaced Volume. g = 9.8 (gravity). When an object weighs less than the total volume of fluid it can displace, it will settle down until the upward buoyant force equals the weight and floats partially submerged.

So if you want to explain this using buoyancy and density, then you must also accept the reality of gravity. But, once you accept the reality of gravity, you have a new problem: gravity tends to produce roughly spherical objects. If gravity is real, then the earth would naturally be rounded.

Prepare to facepalm..

I honestly never hated the theory. And I thought the people were educated and scientists...

But no, they're everyday people with their reasoning more as an excuse to break away the fact they are wrong. Until people fly a rocket and prove wrong. I'll be more than happy to become a flat earther and save the white flag

One of the main issues with the upward acceleration is that it does not explain the geoid; differences of gravity over the surface of the earth. If the moon would not exist, the surface of the ocean would be pretty bumpy on the large scale. Take a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid

Are you trying to say that things "sink" in the air because they are denser than air? And that things lighter than air rise due to buoyancy?

You realize that both of these behaviors in classic physics still rely on the concept of gravity?

After some Googling -- Formula Buoyancy Force (B) = ρ V g Where, ρ = Density of Fluid. V = Displaced Volume. g = 9.8 (gravity). When an object weighs less than the total volume of fluid it can displace, it will settle down until the upward buoyant force equals the weight and floats partially submerged.

So if you want to explain this using buoyancy and density, then you must also accept the reality of gravity. But, once you accept the reality of gravity, you have a new problem: gravity tends to produce roughly spherical objects. If gravity is real, then the earth would naturally be rounded.

they do not rely on gravity you are just told they are and you believe cause your a sheeple.......

Or we believe it because we can scientifically prove it. Your choice.

Or we believe it because we can scientifically prove it. Your choice.

where is the proof?

Gravitometers. You can literally measure gravity.

Quote from: Evan on September 19, 2016, 04:12:34 AM

Are you trying to say that things "sink" in the air because they are denser than air? And that things lighter than air rise due to buoyancy?

You realize that both of these behaviors in classic physics still rely on the concept of gravity?

After some Googling -- Formula Buoyancy Force (B) = ρ V g Where, ρ = Density of Fluid. V = Displaced Volume. g = 9.8 (gravity). When an object weighs less than the total volume of fluid it can displace, it will settle down until the upward buoyant force equals the weight and floats partially submerged.

So if you want to explain this using buoyancy and density, then you must also accept the reality of gravity. But, once you accept the reality of gravity, you have a new problem: gravity tends to produce roughly spherical objects. If gravity is real, then the earth would naturally be rounded.

they do not rely on gravity you are just told they are and you believe cause your a sheeple.......

If you really want people to take you seriously, start with correct spelling.

You mean correct grammar?

Yes indeed. Spelling "your" instead of "you're", must be addressed if one wants to be taken seriously.

Yes indeed. Spelling "your" instead of "you're", must be addressed if one wants to be taken seriously.

i dont care if your immature fuck ugly penguin....

A lot of posters here speak english as a second or third language for that reason I try to judge posts on content rather than grammar.

FE scientist watch the personal attacks on the upper fora.

Quote from: IonSpen on September 19, 2016, 04:11:10 PM

Yes indeed. Spelling "your" instead of "you're", must be addressed if one wants to be taken seriously.

i dont care if your immature fuck ugly penguin....

If my immature fuck ugly penguin does what? You didn't finish the sentence.

Hi everyone, this will be my first post on your forums. My name is Evan.

The Upward Acceleration of the Earth Lie(tm) is bullshit promoted by liars, shills and controlled opposition to discredit serious inquiry and to make honest people look crazy. 

Do I need to read the rest of your opening post??  Did I miss anything?