How birds fly and defeating the gravity

Up-down force & attracting force are debunked by paralel objects (especially in vacuum) with different masses that hit the earth at the same time.

You mean proven?

>> the lighter object is supposed to first hit the earth.

Only according to your pathetic strawmen.

It's not the objects that fall.
It's the earth that hit the objects.

But why is Earth accelerating and not the objects?

But why is Earth accelerating and not the objects?

Yeah, there has been continous store of fixed energy that produces constant 1g acceleration till now.
We call it "LIGHT MATTER". 
And we also call it "MYSTERY" 

So it means either gravity doesn’t exists or earth speed is Zero!!!

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 29, 2018, 01:52:03 AM

Quote from: Danang on April 28, 2018, 08:06:00 PM

UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION. 

What creates it?
Does it mean the earth is accelerating upwards?
If that is the case, then try calculating its current speed just over the last 2000 years.
You will see why most flat earthers are heading towards boyancy and weight for their logic.

6000 years if counted from Adam.
There is unknown era before Adam.
The current speed is unimaginable. Some trillions km/s is too slow.

Up-down force & attracting force are debunked by paralel objects (especially in vacuum) with different masses that hit the earth at the same time.
>> the lighter object is supposed to first hit the earth.

It's not the objects that fall.
It's the earth that hit the objects.

If there is actually something as a universal accelerator, how come falling objects speed up until reaching terminal velocity?

If everything is fixed together and moving “up” at the same time, a falling object would have no acceleration whatsoever ... it would reach terminal velocity from the moment it started falling.

It’s ironic that your “universal acceleration” doesn’t describe acceleration at all.

Quote from: Danang on April 29, 2018, 02:36:08 AM

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 29, 2018, 01:52:03 AM

Quote from: Danang on April 28, 2018, 08:06:00 PM

UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION. 

What creates it?
Does it mean the earth is accelerating upwards?
If that is the case, then try calculating its current speed just over the last 2000 years.
You will see why most flat earthers are heading towards boyancy and weight for their logic.

6000 years if counted from Adam.
There is unknown era before Adam.
The current speed is unimaginable. Some trillions km/s is too slow.

Up-down force & attracting force are debunked by paralel objects (especially in vacuum) with different masses that hit the earth at the same time.
>> the lighter object is supposed to first hit the earth.

It's not the objects that fall.
It's the earth that hit the objects.

If there is actually something as a universal accelerator, how come falling objects speed up until reaching terminal velocity?

If everything is fixed together and moving “up” at the same time, a falling object would have no acceleration whatsoever ... it would reach terminal velocity from the moment it started falling.

It’s ironic that your “universal acceleration” doesn’t describe acceleration at all.

For "how does X in uniform gravity work if the Earth is flat and accelerating," see "general relativity"..

Quote from: Danang on April 29, 2018, 02:36:08 AM

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 29, 2018, 01:52:03 AM

Quote from: Danang on April 28, 2018, 08:06:00 PM

UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION. 

What creates it?
Does it mean the earth is accelerating upwards?
If that is the case, then try calculating its current speed just over the last 2000 years.
You will see why most flat earthers are heading towards boyancy and weight for their logic.

6000 years if counted from Adam.
There is unknown era before Adam.
The current speed is unimaginable. Some trillions km/s is too slow.

Up-down force & attracting force are debunked by paralel objects (especially in vacuum) with different masses that hit the earth at the same time.
>> the lighter object is supposed to first hit the earth.

It's not the objects that fall.
It's the earth that hit the objects.

If there is actually something as a universal accelerator, how come falling objects speed up until reaching terminal velocity?

If everything is fixed together and moving “up” at the same time, a falling object would have no acceleration whatsoever ... it would reach terminal velocity from the moment it started falling.

It’s ironic that your “universal acceleration” doesn’t describe acceleration at all.

Universal acceleration is basically 1 directional constant gravity, so it would act the same except it would not change depending on distance, and would conform to the flat earth. The weird part is that either the earth is accelerating up without an explanation as to how, or the universe is accelerating down and somehow not affecting the earth.

Quote from: Danang on April 28, 2018, 08:06:00 PM

UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION. 

If that is the case, then try calculating its current speed just over the last 2000 years.

Then it's super fast now. Never saw a problem with that. How fast absolutely are we going in the RE model anyway?

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 29, 2018, 01:52:03 AM

Quote from: Danang on April 28, 2018, 08:06:00 PM

UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION. 

If that is the case, then try calculating its current speed just over the last 2000 years.

Then it's super fast now. Never saw a problem with that. How fast absolutely are we going in the RE model anyway?

Speed is relative in the RE model, as in you need a reference point.
2 trains traveling in opposite directions are travelling their respective speed relative to the surface of the earth, they are also travelling faster relative to each other, and the passengers are not moving relative to their trains unless they move in their train.

We have no universal reference point to calculate and measure an absolute speed from. But we can calculate our speed relative to any other object.

So it means either gravity doesn’t exists or earth speed is Zero!!!

Why zero?
If so all creatures couldn't stand/walk/run properly.

Quote from: Danang on April 29, 2018, 02:36:08 AM

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 29, 2018, 01:52:03 AM

Quote from: Danang on April 28, 2018, 08:06:00 PM

UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION. 

What creates it?
Does it mean the earth is accelerating upwards?
If that is the case, then try calculating its current speed just over the last 2000 years.
You will see why most flat earthers are heading towards boyancy and weight for their logic.

6000 years if counted from Adam.
There is unknown era before Adam.
The current speed is unimaginable. Some trillions km/s is too slow.

Up-down force & attracting force are debunked by paralel objects (especially in vacuum) with different masses that hit the earth at the same time.
>> the lighter object is supposed to first hit the earth.

It's not the objects that fall.
It's the earth that hit the objects.

If there is actually something as a universal accelerator, how come falling objects speed up until reaching terminal velocity?

If everything is fixed together and moving “up” at the same time, a falling object would have no acceleration whatsoever ... it would reach terminal velocity from the moment it started falling.

It’s ironic that your “universal acceleration” doesn’t describe acceleration at all.

Terminal velocity: I have explained this stuff before.

It's Ascending Air that drives up the 'falling' object a while (1s, less, or more) AFTER detachment.
Firstly the detached object goes up by velocity while there is initial accumulation of force by air -for some time- till the air can really make the 'falling' objects start to accelerate upwards by 1g. This means terminal velocity is starting.
It's like (not really apple to apple though) when you blow a ball by mouth. The blowing force is increased till the ball start to move by acceleration.

Sorry, so is it Weightlessness or Zero Gravity auch as in elevator?

Quote from: Lamaface on April 29, 2018, 03:29:02 AM

Quote from: Danang on April 29, 2018, 02:36:08 AM

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 29, 2018, 01:52:03 AM

Quote from: Danang on April 28, 2018, 08:06:00 PM

UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION. 

What creates it?
Does it mean the earth is accelerating upwards?
If that is the case, then try calculating its current speed just over the last 2000 years.
You will see why most flat earthers are heading towards boyancy and weight for their logic.

6000 years if counted from Adam.
There is unknown era before Adam.
The current speed is unimaginable. Some trillions km/s is too slow.

Up-down force & attracting force are debunked by paralel objects (especially in vacuum) with different masses that hit the earth at the same time.
>> the lighter object is supposed to first hit the earth.

It's not the objects that fall.
It's the earth that hit the objects.

If there is actually something as a universal accelerator, how come falling objects speed up until reaching terminal velocity?

If everything is fixed together and moving “up” at the same time, a falling object would have no acceleration whatsoever ... it would reach terminal velocity from the moment it started falling.

It’s ironic that your “universal acceleration” doesn’t describe acceleration at all.

Terminal velocity: I have explained this stuff before.

It's Ascending Air that drives up the 'falling' object a while (1s, less, or more) AFTER detachment.
Firstly the detached object goes up by velocity while there is initial accumulation of force by air -for some time- till the air can really make the 'falling' objects start to accelerate upwards by 1g. This means terminal velocity is starting.
It's like (not really apple to apple though) when you blow a ball by mouth. The blowing force is increased till the ball start to move by acceleration.

I’m terribly sorry but I don’t think I understand what you’re explaining. Are you saying falling objects start falling up after a while?

6000 years if counted from Adam.
There is unknown era before Adam.
The current speed is unimaginable. Some trillions km/s is too slow.

Up-down force & attracting force are debunked by paralel objects (especially in vacuum) with different masses that hit the earth at the same time.
>> the lighter object is supposed to first hit the earth.

It's not the objects that fall.
It's the earth that hit the objects.

So, if this UA accelerates the earth, then it must also accelerate sun, moon, planets, stars, comets. You say “the lighter object is supposed to first hit the earth”; that means, objects with different mass are therefore accelerated differently by the UA, right? Otherwise, you could fly by just jumping into the air, correct?

But that also has the consequence, that sun, moon, planets, stars, comets, etc. all have the same mass. Otherwise, they would all crash into earth or accelerate away from it. So you have lots of super-dense objects near earth. Let’s hope that a meteoroid or asteroid, that normally circles the sun, never crashes into earth again.

And the sun should stop radiating light, because it loses mass that way and earth will sooner or later crash into it.

And each crash would make earth heavier which would increase its speed. Then earth crashes into moon, planets, stars, comets, etc.

What about satellites? Do they always have to accelerate away from earth, because they are lighter? With that fuel requirement, they would not stay one day in space. According to you, no FEer has satellite TV, uses any kind of GPS device for navigation (including Google Maps), never flies in a plane, never travels long distances with a ship, etc.

Also rockets and spaceships won’t last long in space, which is sad, because you would have 1g on them (at the cost of lots of fuel, though), And also on the planets, but only on the side away from earth.

If objects with more mass are faster than lighter objects, are two comets, which are connected somehow faster than individually? If no, why not? If yes, could we use them (or more) as propulsion system for space travel?

Then it's super fast now. Never saw a problem with that. How fast absolutely are we going in the RE model anyway?

With RET you are also escaping from distant galaxies faster than light. These are now outside the observable universe. The assumption is, that this is caused by dark energy. It inflated the universe by about factor 3 than with speed of light and time alone.

With the FET universal accelerator of 9.81 m/(s^2) you would reach speed of light in under one year and would have traveled the distance of the observable universe in 200’000 years.

You would be moving now at that high speed (in relation to any object that is lighter than earth) that you have to pray that nothing is in your path of travel. The universe has to be really empty. Except of earth, and all the stuff that travels somehow with it (sun, moon, planets and moons, stars, asteroids, meteroids, comets, etc.) and keeps miraculously its distance at that high speed. Although it has different and/or changes mass and therefore shouldn’t.

Sorry, so is it Weightlessness or Zero Gravity auch as in elevator?

According to Danang, there is no weightlessness in space. If you are lighter than earth, earth will sooner or later smash in your back. You either need lots of fuel or lots of mass to keep always the same distance to earth to have the illusion of “weightlessness”.

Variations in the measured force of gravity at different locations on the Earth mean that UA really can't be an answer. Otherwise, the Earth would break into many many pieces in very short order. And even if it were somehow elastic enough not to break, the landscape would look pretty alarming with rapidly growing cliffs in some places.

Variations in the measured force of gravity at different locations on the Earth mean that UA really can't be an answer. Otherwise, the Earth would break into many many pieces in very short order. And even if it were somehow elastic enough not to break, the landscape would look pretty alarming with rapidly growing cliffs in some places.

Therefore, the universal accelerator is not a replacement for gravity.

There might be a universal accelerator in the form of dark energy, but then it is really universal (instead of unidirectional as in FET) and it is far weaker (instead of the 9.81 m/(s^2) as in FET).

So it means either gravity doesn’t exists or earth speed is Zero!!!

No. It can also mean gravity is real.
There is no reason to think it is fake. We just know universal acceleration is BS.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 29, 2018, 03:01:47 AM

But why is Earth accelerating and not the objects?

Yeah, there has been continous store of fixed energy that produces constant 1g acceleration till now.
We call it "LIGHT MATTER". 
And we also call it "MYSTERY" 

Notice how you completely failed to even address the question?

Quote from: Danang on April 29, 2018, 02:36:08 AM

It's not the objects that fall.
It's the earth that hit the objects.

So, if this UA accelerates the earth, then it must also accelerate sun, moon, planets, stars, comets. You say “the lighter object is supposed to first hit the earth”; that means, objects with different mass are therefore accelerated differently by the UA, right? Otherwise, you could fly by just jumping into the air, correct?

But that also has the consequence, that sun, moon, planets, stars, comets, etc. all have the same mass. Otherwise, they would all crash into earth or accelerate away from it. So you have lots of super-dense objects near earth. Let’s hope that a meteoroid or asteroid, that normally circles the sun, never crashes into earth again.
. . . . . .

The sun, moon, etc. are suspended in the Aetheral Whirlpool above the Earth's surface.   

There, the Oracle hath spoken!

Then there is this post about UA. It is a bit long and not all relevant, but I left some in for "entertainment value" - like how kookie can a FEer get?

Quote from: Jveritas8

1. I probably have not read up enough on the FE model, but the stuff I have said, is that the Moon and the Sun are the same size (explaining why they have the same angular size in the sky), and that they orbit x number of miles above the flat Earth. Now, do the other planets do this also? Again, I probably haven't researched this enough so I really don't know. Well okay ignore that, just read something. You say they are two-dimensional correct? What does this mean... From what I am understanding,  do you believe in the celestial model? Like, all of the other planets and stars are just dots at the top of it. Again, I may been just misinterpreting what I've read. Do the planets move? How do you explain the different positions in the sky, and can you explain retrograde motion? What are the moons that orbit the other planets?

The Planets are much, much further than the Sun and Moon (and bigger). Like the Earth, they are "riding" on a constantly accelerating blanket of dark matter - the Universal Accelerator. Many probably have their own Suns and Moons (or equivalents). Their motion is as a result of actual movement on the UA. I don't know what retrograde motion is.

Quote from: Jveritas8

2. Why does the Sun move? And the Moon? If these are questions answered elsewhere I apologize, and don't answer them if that is the case.

This is still under debate. I believe the Sun and Moon are both subject to the Earth's magnetic field (which suspends them) and the rotating core of the Earth, which governs their position.

Quote from: Jveritas8

4. It is unknown what is under the earth according to the FE model. Does the earth have a core? Are there tectonic plates and molten rock deep under the earth? Or this is simply unknown regarding the FE model. Do you believe below the earth's crust it is hotter than above? Volcanoes obviously exemplifiy this.

It is not unknown. Yes, the Earth clearly has a core and so on. Underneath the actual Earth, the FE concensus is that the Earth is resting, by interia, on a (possibly infinite) layer of invisible matter which constantly accelerates upwards at 9.8 m/s2, creating the illusion of gravity.

Quote from: Jveritas8

5. What are shooting stars? Where do the meteors and asteroids come from that penetrate the earth's atmosphere. (Do you believe there is one?).

They're probably conspiracy aircraft. Yes, there's an atmosphere, but there's nothing "in space" in the conventional sense, which would ever penetrate it.

Quote from: Jveritas8

6. This I can probably answer. It's a weak point supporting earth's roundness, but when ships sail away, they disappear to the apparent curve of the earth. I am guessing this is explained by it's just getting farther and farther away correct?

Spot on. We all know, and can see, the law of Natural Perspective. Objects going into the distance appear to get smaller (giving part of the illusion). There's a complimentary law which doesn't have a name, but can roughly be explained as "the further something away is, the more likely it is that fluctuations in whatever surface it's on will obscure the lower parts of it". A ship's hull will be obscured by waves before its mast.

...

Oh, well. It is frustrating:
- one says the universal accelerator is dark energy; another says it is dark matter; again another says it is light matter
- one says there is no gravity, only a universal accelerator; another says the majority of FEers does not believe in the universal accelerator
- one says the planets are small and orbit the sun; another says they are larger than sun and moon, but farther away
- one says sun and moon are suspended in an ethereal whirlpool; another says sun and moon are suspended in earth’s magnetic field
- one says everything south of the equator circle is fiction; another says everything north of the equator circle is fiction

They should know that several cooks spoil the porridge. This way they will never get a believable theory together. Currently, it is uncontrolled pre-alpha speculative braindumping.

This makes a debate impossible.

It needs patience to comprehend UA.

A detached object goes velocity for a while till it accelerates by 1g.
The earth & the air always increases the velocity. This makes a detached object gets pushed by growing energy of air till it accelerate upwards.

First stage: S=Vo*t.
2nd stage: S=Vo.t + 0.5*g*t^2

This will give sight of "falling object":
1st stage: S=0.5*g*t^2
2nd S=Vo*t

"The sun goes soo fast encircling the galaxy while planets are accompanying the sun with encircling paths".

And pysicists keep on mentioning "centrifugal".

Hellooo

Quote from: Macarios on April 28, 2018, 10:43:47 AM

Quote from: FaKaN on April 28, 2018, 01:34:33 AM

Quote from: TP@A on April 28, 2018, 01:22:58 AM

The air in the helium balloon is lighter than the air around it so the air around the helium balloon goes down and at the same time pushes the air pushes balloon up.

But its not the same with satellites I think 
and in your answer you didn’t mention where is the gravity factor!! So in this case gravity = Zero!!

Satellites are out of the air, above it.
They stay in orbit because of centrifugal force that keeps them there.
Every curved trajectory is curved because of external force (gravity) and inertia is opposing gravity with centrifugal force.
F = m v² / r .

Is it really called centrifugal force when its the objects speed providing the opposing force?
I always thought you needed an external object providing the speed for centrifugal force, so I've never seen it defined as anything other than trajectory and orbit.

To every process can be assigned more than one frame of reference.
In some frames centrifugal force is not needed, and some teachers insist on those frames because they can't figure out more than that.
Or because they aren't skillful enough to explain switching between two or more frames of reference.

(Different example of "frames" will be optimization of digital circuits by switching between positive and negative logic
from one to another blocks and modules, but not all designers are capable of free flow between the two.)

Words "centripetal" and "centrifugal" are simply latin names for "center-pulling" and "center-fleeing" terms.
Inertia is tendency to keep object at straight trajectory.
External force will curve that trajectory, and inertia will oppose that force, in accordance to "Law of Action and Reaction", by own, inertial force.

Some teachers are trying to avoid inertial forces, trying to declare them "pseudo forces".
Those "pseudo" (or "virtual") forces will not make "pseudo" ("virtual") cracks on too fast spinning rotors, flywheels or propellers.
Cracks and shatters will be real and students have to learn to respect inertial forces same as all forces.

EVERY force is mathematical representation of interactions.
"Contact" forces are also mathematical representation, because molecules of two objects also never get into real contact.
Every molecule of one surface interacts with close enough molecules of another surface, contact force is resultant of those interactions.

Every "action" happens through force fields, whether at short or long distances.
But when you try to explain it (or anything else), you must know exactly what are you talking about.
And why.

It needs patience to comprehend UA.

No, it is quite easy to comprehend it and realise it is BS.

The earth & the air always increases the velocity. This makes a detached object gets pushed by growing energy of air till it accelerate upwards.

WHY?
Why does this apply to Earth, the stars, the planets and so on, but not to objects above Earth like people?
Why would it magically help birds fly?

Is it really called centrifugal force when its the objects speed providing the opposing force?
I always thought you needed an external object providing the speed for centrifugal force, so I've never seen it defined as anything other than trajectory and orbit.

The centrifugal force is not real, it is merely a convenient representation to use for rotating systems.
For example, in a centrifuge, you don't have any force pushing anything outwards. Instead (at least when it is at constant speed) the only force is pushing inwards and the reaction force for that.
While it is convenient to think of a force pushing the heavier bits to the outside, in reality it is the base of the container pushing it inwards.

External force will curve that trajectory, and inertia will oppose that force, in accordance to "Law of Action and Reaction", by own, inertial force.

No. There is no inertial force, just inertia, which is a fancy way of saying mass (at least for most objects).
It has nothing to do with the law of action and reaction.
Instead, when discussing satellite orbits, the law of action and reaction says that Earth also orbits the satellite (at least when done as a simple 2 body problem), more technically the satellite's mass exerts a gravitational influence on Earth.

No centrifugal forces are required to explain orbits.
The simplest way for a perfect circular orbit is that the object is undergoing uniform circular motion which requires an inwards acceleration (centripetal), and thus a force. Gravity provides this force to accelerate the object. (although it is debatable as to if gravity is a real force or pseudo force).

Some teachers are trying to avoid inertial forces, trying to declare them "pseudo forces".

They are not inertial forces.
They are pseudo forces, because they only appear in non-inertial reference frames.
They are not real forces, they are just there to explain motion in these non-inertial reference frames.

Those "pseudo" (or "virtual") forces will not make "pseudo" ("virtual") cracks on too fast spinning rotors, flywheels or propellers.
Cracks and shatters will be real and students have to learn to respect inertial forces same as all forces.

No, they don't.
They can analyse the crack formation using real forces, completely ignoring pseudo forces.

EVERY force is mathematical representation of interactions.

And the pseudo forces are mathematical representations of non-inertial reference frames; not of interactions.

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 28, 2018, 01:37:39 PM

Is it really called centrifugal force when its the objects speed providing the opposing force?
I always thought you needed an external object providing the speed for centrifugal force, so I've never seen it defined as anything other than trajectory and orbit.

The centrifugal force is not real, it is merely a convenient representation to use for rotating systems.
For example, in a centrifuge, you don't have any force pushing anything outwards. Instead (at least when it is at constant speed) the only force is pushing inwards and the reaction force for that.
While it is convenient to think of a force pushing the heavier bits to the outside, in reality it is the base of the container pushing it inwards.

I know its not a primary force (gravity, magnetism, strong and weak force), never said that. Its an effect which stems from speed and it is only called a force, like pressing your hand on a table provides a force on the table (and your hand).
I was just wanting to know if the effect of gravity on a speeding/orbiting object could be defined as a centrifugal force, as he mentioned.

I know its not a primary force (gravity, magnetism, strong and weak force), never said that. Its an effect which stems from speed and it is only called a force, like pressing your hand on a table provides a force on the table (and your hand).
I was just wanting to know if the effect of gravity on a speeding/orbiting object could be defined as a centrifugal force, as he mentioned.

It is quite different to the force between your hand and a table.

If you view the orbit in a rotating reference frame then there is the force due to gravity pulling it down and the centrifugal pseudoforce pulling it up.
All rotating systems have that force.
Gravity isn't being described as the centrifugal force, it is balancing it by providing the centripetal acceleration required for the circular motion.

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 30, 2018, 05:08:26 AM

I know its not a primary force (gravity, magnetism, strong and weak force), never said that. Its an effect which stems from speed and it is only called a force, like pressing your hand on a table provides a force on the table (and your hand).
I was just wanting to know if the effect of gravity on a speeding/orbiting object could be defined as a centrifugal force, as he mentioned.

It is quite different to the force between your hand and a table.

If you view the orbit in a rotating reference frame then there is the force due to gravity pulling it down and the centrifugal pseudoforce pulling it up.
All rotating systems have that force.
Gravity isn't being described as the centrifugal force, it is balancing it by providing the centripetal acceleration required for the circular motion.

Thank you, and that was simply what I wanted to figure out. I've never heard it be used in the context of gravity before, so now I know it can be used =)

Macarios also explained it, but using much different terms. So I thank you both.

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 28, 2018, 01:37:39 PM

Is it really called centrifugal force when its the objects speed providing the opposing force?
I always thought you needed an external object providing the speed for centrifugal force, so I've never seen it defined as anything other than trajectory and orbit.

The centrifugal force is not real, it is merely a convenient representation to use for rotating systems.
For example, in a centrifuge, you don't have any force pushing anything outwards. Instead (at least when it is at constant speed) the only force is pushing inwards and the reaction force for that.
While it is convenient to think of a force pushing the heavier bits to the outside, in reality it is the base of the container pushing it inwards.

... while they don't react and push the same container back (because action and reaction doesn't apply here).

As I said, some people won't like it and will try to limit your wy of thinking to their limits.