Why do RE'ers struggle with the UA of earth, but accept the UA of the universe?

  • 150 Replies
  • 7014 Views
I also said the observable universe.  I suppose I should have clarified that things that appear to be falling are not accelerating, but I thought you would be able to figure that out for yourself.

Sokarul: "Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?"
jroa: "It accelerates everything equally in the known universe."

Yes, normally I would assume that things that appear to be falling are exempt. But given the context of your original answer to Sokarul, it seemed like you were specifically saying that nothing is exempt. If that ISN'T what you are saying, that's fine. But that brings us back to Sokarul's original question: "Why are some things exempt from UA?"

When I said everything, I meant everything that does not appear to be falling.  You are not exempt unless you are falling.  Somethings, such as the Earth and celestial bodies, are directly affected by the Universal Accelerator.  Other things, such as you and me and everything else on Earth are indirectly affected.  But, ultimately, the UA affects everything.

Good grief. Yes, I gathered that. Which brings us back to Sokural's original question: why are some things, such as you and me, exempt from UA?

I already explained to you that if there is a sail between you and the wind, you won't feel the wind, but you can still travel with the ship.  I am not sure what you are having so much trouble understanding.  This really is a basic concept, but you treat the question as if it is rocket science.  Do I need to draw you a picture?

My apologies, I misunderstood your analogy at first. In my defense, you didn't explain yourself very clearly.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8646
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
I did think of something new though. If matter stops the UA, why isn't the sun or any other "soft" body deformed?

This is oddly contributive from you. Good work and good question. Should we expect the sun or moon to distort under 9.8m/s/s acceleration?

You are not exposed to the Universal Accelerator. You are shielded by the earth's surface.
But the sun and moon are not?
Correct.
But are they not above the earth?
Yes, but we are in the separation bubble delineated by nonlaminar flow behind a flat plate. Celestial bodies are not.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

I did think of something new though. If matter stops the UA, why isn't the sun or any other "soft" body deformed?

This is oddly contributive from you. Good work and good question. Should we expect the sun or moon to distort under 9.8m/s/s acceleration?

You are not exposed to the Universal Accelerator. You are shielded by the earth's surface.
But the sun and moon are not?
Correct.
But are they not above the earth?
Yes, but we are in the separation bubble delineated by nonlaminar flow behind a flat plate. Celestial bodies are not.

Perhaps the separation bubble isn't perfect? Perhaps there is some turbulent spillage of whatever is causing UA over the edge of the earth. This would result in small variations in the strength of gravity on the surface. I dub this Totes' SuperCoolTheory. You may use this theory to replace celestial gravitation, but you MUST keep the name. You are welcome.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Yes, but we are in the separation bubble delineated by nonlaminar flow behind a flat plate. Celestial bodies are not.
So you DO have an idea of how the accelerator works? Why didn't you say that in the other thread, when I asked you?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8646
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
I had considered it briefly a few years ago, but rejected it as the turbulence of that nature would, by definition, not be stable. But I am sure there is room in FET for a TSCT of some nature. Haha
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
So, I assume the flow is accelerating as well. This would actually explain orbits (somewhat, still a lot of problems if you accept the existence of satellites) as well. The earth blocks the accelerating flow, and around the edges the pressure would force the flow to speed up temporarily. After having passed the edges, the flow now expands inwards. The force vector would be such that it accelerates objects at the normal accelerator acceleration in the upwards direction, but also accelerate them inwards. So for an object like the sun or the moon that moves, the inwards acceleration will cause them to move in a circle.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

sokarul

  • 18328
  • Discount Chemist
I did think of something new though. If matter stops the UA, why isn't the sun or any other "soft" body deformed?

This is oddly contributive from you. Good work and good question. Should we expect the sun or moon to distort under 9.8m/s/s acceleration?

If they were pushed by a physical force that stops at the surface, yes.
If they are moved by a gravitational field, no.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
See subject.
What does  "UA of the universe" have to do with the shape of the earth?

The Globe was the accepted shape for over 2,400 years before there was any thought of an expanding universe.

So think again.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8646
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Yes, but we are in the separation bubble delineated by nonlaminar flow behind a flat plate. Celestial bodies are not.
So you DO have an idea of how the accelerator works? Why didn't you say that in the other thread, when I asked you?
There are several dozen active threads on any given day. I really don't get to read them all. I try with what time I have. Sometimes its more and sometimes it's less. Or sometimes,  like this afternoon I read one of TR's posts and wanted to respond, but wasn't going to be able to in the couple minutes I had available so ignored it for later. Sometimes I forget when I return to the forum and it doesn't show "new". Sometimes I just get exasperated explaining something for the n-billionth time. Sometimes I just ignore a certain poster for awhile because it seems like a waste of time because they are being obtuse or belligerent.  There are a lot of reasons I might not have responded to a particular post, sorry.
I'm not paid to tutor flat earth theory in my free time. Perhaps I'll set up a paypal plan for you ;) Timely answers guaranteed haha
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8646
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
I did think of something new though. If matter stops the UA, why isn't the sun or any other "soft" body deformed?

This is oddly contributive from you. Good work and good question. Should we expect the sun or moon to distort under 9.8m/s/s acceleration?

If they were pushed by a physical force that stops at the surface, yes.
If they are moved by a gravitational field, no.
Why?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
There are several dozen active threads on any given day. I really don't get to read them all. I try with what time I have. Sometimes its more and sometimes it's less. Or sometimes,  like this afternoon I read one of TR's posts and wanted to respond, but wasn't going to be able to in the couple minutes I had available so ignored it for later. Sometimes I forget when I return to the forum and it doesn't show "new". Sometimes I just get exasperated explaining something for the n-billionth time. Sometimes I just ignore a certain poster for awhile because it seems like a waste of time because they are being obtuse or belligerent.  There are a lot of reasons I might not have responded to a particular post, sorry.
I'm not paid to tutor flat earth theory in my free time. Perhaps I'll set up a paypal plan for you ;) Timely answers guaranteed haha
You did answer. But you just wrote "some exotic mechanism", and then you got strangely obsessed with dark matter.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Assuming this acceleration theory is correct, then we would either expect a constant acceleration and direction of acceleration all over the earth. This, however, is not what we observe.

Go read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

I had considered it briefly a few years ago, but rejected it as the turbulence of that nature would, by definition, not be stable. But I am sure there is room in FET for a TSCT of some nature. Haha

Drat. RIP sweet brainchild. It's for the best, honestly. Next time I'll make sure the acronym is more catchy. I'm thinking "Totes' Overly Orchestrated Theory".

Assuming this acceleration theory is correct, then we would either expect a constant acceleration and direction of acceleration all over the earth.

I'll go ahead and save some flat earther the trouble. Usually, some form of weakened Newtonian-style gravitation coming from either the land or celestial objects ("Celestial Gravitation") is posited that causes the variations that we see.

Next, you will say something like "doesn't that explanation seem a bit ad-hoc?", to which Ski will respond with "dark matter", after which a long argument will occur regarding the merits of dark matter as a theory and during which Ski will use the word "Orthodoxy" alot. Here is my general response to it the whole thing. Hope that helped. :)

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Doesn't the presence of any kind of gravitation exerting force on the earth, mess up the whole idea of flat earth?
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

Doesn't the presence of any kind of gravitation exerting force on the earth, mess up the whole idea of flat earth?

Eh, not really. The original reason to avoid gravity is because

A) It tends to pull stuff into the shape of a sphere.
B) The direction of gravity wouldn't make sense on a non-infinite flat earth.

If you rely on mass-based gravity merely to explain the small variations, these become less of an issue. It's a super weak theory and would get shredded to ribbons by Occam's razor, but it is vaguely plausible. Sort of. And let's be honest, "vaguely plausible" is a mark of distinction among most flat earth theories.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2016, 12:36:54 PM by TotesReptilian »

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Well Occam's razor is by no means a scientific method. Anyway isn't A) and B) exactly what's going on if you need another force, besides the acceleration, to explain the observations?
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

Well Occam's razor is by no means a scientific method. Anyway isn't A) and B) exactly what's going on if you need another force, besides the acceleration, to explain the observations?

As long as the mass of the earth extends outward a decent way beyond what man can reach, and as long as UA is an order of magnitude stronger than mass-based gravitation, then I don't think the direction of gravity would be much of an issue.

Of course, isn't possible to map the density of the earth below ground based on local variations in gravity? That would kind of kill this whole idea.

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Do you mean something like this?

AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

Do you mean something like this?



No, that's just a straightforward map of the gravitational variations. (I assume)

The kicker would be if you can draw accurate conclusions about below ground density based on those variations.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8646
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
As long as the mass of the earth extends outward a decent way beyond what man can reach, and as long as UA is an order of magnitude stronger than mass-based gravitation, then I don't think the direction of gravity would be much of an issue.
I think the breadth should not much matter as long as the cross section is more or less homogeneous.  The depth,  however, of the CoM needs to be sufficiently deep to make any horizontal component insignificant enough to be lost in the noise.

Quote
Of course, isn't possible to map the density of the earth below ground based on local variations in gravity? That would kind of kill this whole idea.
To what depth and how reliably? I've frequently seen it posted that gravimetry is used in gas exploration, but having spoken to an operator, the results seem to be of varied consistency. The difficulty is in separating the (alleged) variations attributed to gas/oil deposits from the kinetic accelerations experienced in flight.
My understanding is that the surveys are used solely to select potential sites for more reliable seismic surveys and tests. The person I spoke to was unaware of any sites that were drilled solely on gravimetric data. That doesn't mean one does not exist, just that he was unaware of one. He also admitted that seismic data sometimes falsifies gravimetric data.  Or I suppose arguably falsifies the inferences of the data. He maintained the service was useful to downselect potential sites for more thorough surveying (though I'd expect an employee to say that!). Now he was just a pilot and not a proper boffin or pilot/boffin, but I have no reason to believe he was unfamiliar with the field.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

As long as the mass of the earth extends outward a decent way beyond what man can reach, and as long as UA is an order of magnitude stronger than mass-based gravitation, then I don't think the direction of gravity would be much of an issue.
I think the breadth should not much matter as long as the cross section is more or less homogeneous.  The depth,  however, of the CoM needs to be sufficiently deep to make any horizontal component insignificant enough to be lost in the noise.

Common misconception: gravity always points towards the center of mass. It doesn't. For a sphere it does. However, for an earth with a depth much greater than it's breadth, gravity along the surface would point towards some point between the center of mass and the top edge. I can show you the math if you want.

So yeah, the breadth needs to be significantly greater than what we can explore if we want to avoid sideways pointing gravity.

Quote
Quote
Of course, isn't possible to map the density of the earth below ground based on local variations in gravity? That would kind of kill this whole idea.
To what depth and how reliably? I've frequently seen it posted that gravimetry is used in gas exploration, but having spoken to an operator, the results seem to be of varied consistency. The difficulty is in separating the (alleged) variations attributed to gas/oil deposits from the kinetic accelerations experienced in flight.
My understanding is that the surveys are used solely to select potential sites for more reliable seismic surveys and tests. The person I spoke to was unaware of any sites that were drilled solely on gravimetric data. That doesn't mean one does not exist, just that he was unaware of one. He also admitted that seismic data sometimes falsifies gravimetric data.  Or I suppose arguably falsifies the inferences of the data. He maintained the service was useful to downselect potential sites for more thorough surveying (though I'd expect an employee to say that!). Now he was just a pilot and not a proper boffin or pilot/boffin, but I have no reason to believe he was unfamiliar with the field.

No argument here. My source comes from the theoretical side of things, so I have no idea how accurate the implementation is.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8646
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Again, it may well be that someone has spudded a well based on gravimetry, I am just unaware of one and so was the single person I talked to. I'm welcome to evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to the contrary.

Re: CoM, with a width much greater than depth, would we not observe an ever decreasing vertical acceleration and increasing (proportionate) horizontal vector farther from the center of a homgeneous disc? I think depth relative to known surface is the key variable to be determined.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

sokarul

  • 18328
  • Discount Chemist
I did think of something new though. If matter stops the UA, why isn't the sun or any other "soft" body deformed?

This is oddly contributive from you. Good work and good question. Should we expect the sun or moon to distort under 9.8m/s/s acceleration?

If they were pushed by a physical force that stops at the surface, yes.
If they are moved by a gravitational field, no.
Why?
Don't play dumb. I thought you were better than that.
If solids can stop the UA it's not a field. The unbalanced force on a soft object will lead to deformations.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?

It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe.

Umm... then why aren't we weightless?

If you are on a ship and on the leeward side of a sail, you would not feel the wind pushing on you but would still be traveling at the same speed as the ship.

You explicitly claimed "It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe",

Then you claim that things on the earth are shielded, but surely "eveything equally in the known universe" includes the "things on the earth".

And if these things "on the earth" are shielded, how high does this shielding go.

Polaris is not that far above the earth (3,000, 4,000 who knows) and is around 12,400 miles from the "edge" (but where is the edge?), so how is it shielded by the earth.

Seems all a bit hit and miss as to what gets "shielded" especially as no-one has any idea what sort of a force could push on the earth and push on the objects above the earth, providing exactly the same acceleration (not force) to each.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?

It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe.

Umm... then why aren't we weightless?

If you are on a ship and on the leeward side of a sail, you would not feel the wind pushing on you but would still be traveling at the same speed as the ship.

You explicitly claimed "It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe",

Then you claim that things on the earth are shielded, but surely "eveything equally in the known universe" includes the "things on the earth".

And if these things "on the earth" are shielded, how high does this shielding go.

Polaris is not that far above the earth (3,000, 4,000 who knows) and is around 12,400 miles from the "edge" (but where is the edge?), so how is it shielded by the earth.

Seems all a bit hit and miss as to what gets "shielded" especially as no-one has any idea what sort of a force could push on the earth and push on the objects above the earth, providing exactly the same acceleration (not force) to each.

I know you have a hard time understanding a lot of things about physics.  Probably the same for big words, like "leeward side."  Perhaps you should simply leave the scientific discussions to the grownups and go play in the lower fora?  We will let you know when dinner is ready.   :D

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
You are not exposed to the Universal Accelerator. You are shielded by the earth's surface.
But the sun and moon are not?
Correct.

Why and how?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

sokarul

  • 18328
  • Discount Chemist
Why does the UA pick and choose what it accelerates?

It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe.

Umm... then why aren't we weightless?

If you are on a ship and on the leeward side of a sail, you would not feel the wind pushing on you but would still be traveling at the same speed as the ship.

You explicitly claimed "It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe",

Then you claim that things on the earth are shielded, but surely "eveything equally in the known universe" includes the "things on the earth".

And if these things "on the earth" are shielded, how high does this shielding go.

Polaris is not that far above the earth (3,000, 4,000 who knows) and is around 12,400 miles from the "edge" (but where is the edge?), so how is it shielded by the earth.

Seems all a bit hit and miss as to what gets "shielded" especially as no-one has any idea what sort of a force could push on the earth and push on the objects above the earth, providing exactly the same acceleration (not force) to each.

I know you have a hard time understanding a lot of things about physics.  Probably the same for big words, like "leeward side."  Perhaps you should simply leave the scientific discussions to the grownups and go play in the lower fora?  We will let you know when dinner is ready.   :D
Strange, you ran away from my question.

Why doesn't the UA deform soft objects?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Strange, you ran away from my question.

Why doesn't the UA deform soft objects?

You already received an answer in the form of a question that you apparently ignored. 

Should we expect the sun or moon to distort under 9.8m/s/s acceleration?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8646
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Don't play dumb. I thought you were better than that.
If solids can stop the UA it's not a field. The unbalanced force on a soft object will lead to deformations.

Solids "stop" fields all the time.  More properly they redirect fields and significantly weaken them, I suppose we should say.

Further, "soft" objects like stars accelerated by Orthodox "dark energy", are they not? Are they deformed by such?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

sokarul

  • 18328
  • Discount Chemist
Strange, you ran away from my question.

Why doesn't the UA deform soft objects?

You already received an answer in the form of a question that you apparently ignored. 

Should we expect the sun or moon to distort under 9.8m/s/s acceleration?
Yes and then I answered.

It's ok, ski will do all the work. You can go play in the lowers.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.