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

Quote from: sokarul on October 13, 2016, 05:55:32 PM

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.

Maybe some. Gravitation, not so much.

Further, "soft" objects like stars accelerated by Orthodox "dark energy", are they not? Are they deformed by such?

Who says dark energy is providing a force?
Now enough miss directing. How does the UA not deform the sun? You claim the earth can stop the UA. So it most not pass through solids. So any soft object will experience unbalanced forces resulting in deformation, like when you throw a water balloon. But this isn't seen in the sun.

I'm sorry, so is dark energy a field? Is it distorting things? What is the mechanism for acceleration?

I'm not a theoretical physicist. Ask them. Wikipedia says dark energy may be a type of field. And space itself my be expanding.

Now I believe you have a question to answer.

I'm sorry, so is dark energy a field? Is it distorting things? What is the mechanism for acceleration?

Again, this is ridiculously off-topic, as it has absolutely no single connection to the shape of the earth.

 It may be a type of field.

Yes, but we are in the separation bubble delineated by nonlaminar flow behind a flat plate. Celestial bodies are not.

A "separation bubble" would seem as if it had to be in some medium outside "our universe". So presumably this medium is not moving with "our universe"?

Now elsewhere jroa was saying being a Zetetic he would not hypothesise on matters we could not observe, yet here you are postulating that there is some medium having a "separation bubble delineated by nonlaminar flow behind a flat plate".

Seems highly non Zetetic to me, pure guesswork in fact.

But back to the OP ,the heliocentric Globe does not depend on dark matter or dark energy, but UA seems to fall pretty flat^[1] without your dark energy.

Whether dark matter is present or not would not affect things within the solar system by a measurable amount.


[1] Sorry, no pun intended.

Quote from: RocksEverywhere on October 13, 2016, 01:38:37 PM

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.

This has been done.


Source: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0016-71692010000400008



Source: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-71062015000300002

Quote from: rabinoz on October 13, 2016, 06:29:51 PM

Quote from: jroa on October 12, 2016, 09:34:10 PM

Quote from: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 09:05:34 PM

Quote from: jroa on October 12, 2016, 07:33:54 PM

Quote from: sokarul on October 12, 2016, 07:18:10 PM

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.   

As I  said before it you asserted that "It does not.  It accellerates eveything equally in the known universe."

And, yes I obviously know what leeward (and, port, starboard etc) mean otherwise I would hardly have said that "Then you claim that things on the earth are shielded, but surely 'eveything equally in the known universe' includes the 'things on the earth'."

I am trying to find out why  eveything equally in the known universe somehow excludes these things "shielded" by your "sail".

To me everything equally in the known universe means everything equally in the known universe.

And, yes I understand physics quite well, even a few bits of optics.

To put it bluntly, you have no idea what you are talking about with this guess about what gets "shielded" from this mysterious "force".

Somehow you are postulating a "force" which has to be proportional to the mass of the objects acted on, otherwise they would not be accelerated by the same amount. It is almost like a version of "anti-gravity" (your dark force pushes, gravitation pushes).
But to the best of our knowledge nothing can be shielded from gravitation.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on October 13, 2016, 01:56:39 PM

Quote from: RocksEverywhere on October 13, 2016, 01:38:37 PM

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.

This has been done.


Source: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0016-71692010000400008



Source: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-71062015000300002

There's the kicker.

Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

RE has no testable theory to explain the acceleration of the universe, let alone any evidence towards those non-existent theories. FE on the otherhand has a solid, evidence based explanation for the UA that accelerates the earth.

Case closed.

this gave me the biggest laugh since joining this site

what an absolute nob narcberry is!

All this 'knowledge' but he doesn't understand the word 'debate'? awesome


EDIT - solid, evidence based explanation for the UA? PAHAHAHAHAAA!

there's not even flaky evidence for ANY of the flat earth theory!

quick question narcberry, if the evidence is so 'solid' and has 'evidence', why can so many FE's (not to mention RE's) disprove you?

Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Meh. Yes, I'd expect it to be deformed under this explanation of UA, but I couldn't say for sure considering we don't even know what the flat earth sun is made of. Which brings us to another problem... what could the sun possibly be made of to allow it to burn for so long in the absence of traditional gravity, and despite it's small size? Cue another "dark matter" explanation to add to the pile...

Nah we're gonna need a whole lot of light matter for that.

touché

Phlogiston. 

Phlogiston.

Is that your latest guess as to the energy source of UA? 
Sounds as plausible as any.

This has been done.

I'm lazy preoccupied (okay, both) at the moment, so I have not read the study, but was this conclusion verified by core samples because the depth of the cross section seems suspect to me, if so. If not, aren't we simply dealing with inference? I'm not discounting inferential evidence, but it seems bold to say you have verified the inference to be accurate based solely on the inference, wouldn't you agree?

Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Not at all. Stellar sources demonstrate every indication of being accelerated under accepted doctrines without any sort of deformation apart from bowshock.

Nah we're gonna need a whole lot of light matter for that.

Ha! 

Quote from: sokarul on October 14, 2016, 07:35:44 PM

Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Not at all. Stellar sources demonstrate every indication of being accelerated under accepted doctrines without any sort of deformation apart from bowshock.

Was this conclusion verified by actual measurements because your claim seems suspect to me, if so. If not, aren't we simply dealing with inference? I'm not discounting inferential evidence, but it seems bold to say you have demonstrated the inference to be accurate based solely on the inference, wouldn't you agree?

Quote from: Ski on October 15, 2016, 05:52:39 PM

Quote from: sokarul on October 14, 2016, 07:35:44 PM

Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Not at all. Stellar sources demonstrate every indication of being accelerated under accepted doctrines without any sort of deformation apart from bowshock.

Was this conclusion verified by actual measurements because your claim seems suspect to me, if so. If not, aren't we simply dealing with inference? I'm not discounting inferential evidence, but it seems bold to say you have demonstrated the inference to be accurate based solely on the inference, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I would agree that accepted doctrines of the Orthodoxy regarding universal acceleration is based solely on inferential evidence. Though I think bow shock is first order inferential evidence for some sort of acceleration.

Phlogiston.

Gesundheit.

Quote from: rabinoz on October 15, 2016, 07:23:13 PM

Quote from: Ski on October 15, 2016, 05:52:39 PM

Quote from: sokarul on October 14, 2016, 07:35:44 PM

Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Not at all. Stellar sources demonstrate every indication of being accelerated under accepted doctrines without any sort of deformation apart from bowshock.

Was this conclusion verified by actual measurements because your claim seems suspect to me, if so. If not, aren't we simply dealing with inference? I'm not discounting inferential evidence, but it seems bold to say you have demonstrated the inference to be accurate based solely on the inference, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I would agree that accepted doctrines of the Orthodoxy regarding universal acceleration is based solely on inferential evidence. Though I think bow shock is first order inferential evidence for some sort of acceleration.

Acceleration through what medium, surely even the existence of a medium is based solely on inferential evidence let alone any properties of it.

Quote from: sokarul on October 14, 2016, 07:35:44 PM

Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Not at all. Stellar sources demonstrate every indication of being accelerated under accepted doctrines without any sort of deformation apart from bowshock.

I'm not sure if you understand how bowshocks work.  For one thing, a bowshock would indicate that the FE is traveling through some sort of medium.

Quote from: Ski on October 15, 2016, 08:09:35 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on October 15, 2016, 07:23:13 PM

Quote from: Ski on October 15, 2016, 05:52:39 PM

Quote from: sokarul on October 14, 2016, 07:35:44 PM

Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Not at all. Stellar sources demonstrate every indication of being accelerated under accepted doctrines without any sort of deformation apart from bowshock.

Was this conclusion verified by actual measurements because your claim seems suspect to me, if so. If not, aren't we simply dealing with inference? I'm not discounting inferential evidence, but it seems bold to say you have demonstrated the inference to be accurate based solely on the inference, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I would agree that accepted doctrines of the Orthodoxy regarding universal acceleration is based solely on inferential evidence. Though I think bow shock is first order inferential evidence for some sort of acceleration.

Acceleration through what medium, surely even the existence of a medium is based solely on inferential evidence let alone any properties of it.

Some sort of stellar wind according to the Orthodox's brightest

Quote from: rabinoz on October 15, 2016, 08:35:32 PM

Quote from: Ski on October 15, 2016, 08:09:35 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on October 15, 2016, 07:23:13 PM

Quote from: Ski on October 15, 2016, 05:52:39 PM

Quote from: sokarul on October 14, 2016, 07:35:44 PM

Ok so we are all in agreement that if the UA was real, the sun would be deformed.

Not at all. Stellar sources demonstrate every indication of being accelerated under accepted doctrines without any sort of deformation apart from bowshock.

Was this conclusion verified by actual measurements because your claim seems suspect to me, if so. If not, aren't we simply dealing with inference? I'm not discounting inferential evidence, but it seems bold to say you have demonstrated the inference to be accurate based solely on the inference, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I would agree that accepted doctrines of the Orthodoxy regarding universal acceleration is based solely on inferential evidence. Though I think bow shock is first order inferential evidence for some sort of acceleration.

Acceleration through what medium, surely even the existence of a medium is based solely on inferential evidence let alone any properties of it.

Some sort of stellar wind according to the Orthodox's brightest

Please explain "according to the Orthodox's brightest".

Anyway, who invented / discovered this notion of accelerating flat earth? What is the story behind that? Some references?

Einstein.  Next question. 

Anyway, who invented / discovered this notion of accelerating flat earth? What is the story behind that? Some references?

I have not found the answer to that yet, so I don't know whether or not it was Rowbotham, but who needs universal acceleration or gravity when you have this sort of thing?

"The rate at which objects rise or fall depends on the resistance (or lack thereof) in the medium surrounding." ~ E. Dubay
Examples:
The submarine can use compressed air to ascend in water.
The hot-air-balloon can use hot air to ascend in the atmosflat.
The airplane can use pressure difference across its flying surfaces to gain lift.

There is no pulling. Only falling and rising. No force pulls down.

The theory of gravity was debunked by General Relativity. The theory of general relativity was debunked by Flat Earth.

What people think as Gravity could be seen as the electromagnetic attractive force that a dense mass of charged particles emits out on other electromagnetically charged masses of particle dense objects.
"Gravity is electromagnetism on a Flat Earth.  Density will increase electromagnetism.    So will heat.. pressure.. and friction.. Static interaction.. Sound..." - Thomas Jason Hannsz

Did you know when gravity was made up, electricity hadn't even been invented?

All from waykiwayki, Flat Earth: Gravity is a Hoax and it looks like "Wicky wacky" thinks UA is a hoax too! 

Mind you the same page has references to

After reading that I still have no idea if the author thinks "gravity" is caused by, what some call "denspressure", electro-magnetism or what.

Just some amusing reading to entertain you while I try to find the origin of Universal Acceleration. It beats comic books any day.


PS I'd like to know too.

Quote from: RocksEverywhere link=topic=68209.msg1830460#msg1830460

This has been done.

<snip>

I'm lazy preoccupied (okay, both) at the moment, so I have not read the study, but was this conclusion verified by core samples because the depth of the cross section seems suspect to me, if so. If not, aren't we simply dealing with inference? I'm not discounting inferential evidence, but it seems bold to say you have verified the inference to be accurate based solely on the inference, wouldn't you agree?

Not having read both papers properly myself either, I would not know how exactly that went, but the one of the two papers that you didn't quote the image of calculates the volume of a certain formation based on the gravity anomalies, compares it to previous work and models, and finds that it matches.

I linked these two papers because they are publicly available, most scientific journals are behind a paywall.