Literally just gave the explanation. You literally just replied to and acknowledged the explanation.
No, you didn't give an explanation you merely pretended there was one. I pointed out why it isn't one.
So can you provide an explanation?
As for why what we see accelerates at basically the same rate, easy: the stuff that didn't is long gone.
That is not an explanation. That is why we don't see things which don't. It doesn't give any explanation for why the things we do see do.
So can you tell us why all these different objects accelerate at the same rate?
No, it's a placeholder term, hence calling it a placeholder.
It is a term which already has meaning.
Using it as a placeholder is no better than saying potato.
The problem with going faster than the speed of light is crossing the lightspeed barrier.
No, the problem is that it would require Earth and everything on it to be going faster than the speed light.
makes assumptions about the shape of the exclusion zone but oh well. Of no significance. The Earth's big, no reason to think Antarctica is right at the edge
Really?
Dismiss something which shows the explanation to be pure garbage as "of no significance."
That is the best you have?
Yes, it makes reasonable assumptions, comparable to how wind works.
Earth being bigger doesn't help your case.
The sun and moon and stars are close compared to the size of Earth and likely would fall into the exclusion zone, and thus "fall" to Earth.
A magical exclusion zone is pure nonsense.
Wondered if you'd changed while I was gone, but apparently not. Goodbye again!
No, I haven't changed and thus will still be pointing out crap.
If you don't like, stop pretending there are explanations when there are not.
Why would we move upwards independently? People don't start moving in the absence of any force to make them move. Celestial bodies are affected by the accelerator, like the Earth is, I literally just said that.
And that is the issue, you just assert it.
Why does the accelerator effect Earth and celestial bodies, but not us.
If Earth blocks it's action on us it should also block it's actions on bodies above Earth such as the sun and moon.
It's universal acceleration
If it was, it would accelerate us.
What is so hard to understand about that?
How it magically doesn't affect us but affects Earth and all celestial objects, accelerating them at the same rate.
Why is this "universal" accelerator so selective and perfectly matched?
Again, it isn't a simple case of Earth blocking it as if it was the sun and moons stars should fall as well.
Then, and this is to both of you, focus on asking after evidence rather than wasting everybody's time with nonsense like this.
[snip]
don't immediately back down and move the goalposts to "It could work, but give me evidence!"
You mean like maybe starting off with an opening post which closes with:
So, what is keeping the sun and moon from crashing into that earth? What forces keep the sun and moon at that constant altitude above the earth? What is your evidence for that?
Where they ask for how it works and asks for evidence of it? Something you have completely failed to provide.
It is completely pointless to bring up mechanisms if you ar egoing to refuse to discuss them.
We are willing to discuss them, the issue is that you are not.
You just assert they are there and are fine to explain it, with no justification at all.
When we point out issues, you dismiss them as not being significant.
It is pointless to bring up mechanisms if you are going to refuse to discuss them or justify them.
Follow your own advice.