The sky isn't falling?

  • 47 Replies
  • 8043 Views
The sky isn't falling?
« on: July 20, 2018, 03:06:32 AM »
On the heliocentric model, everything in the solar system revolves around the sun. The planets and moon don't crash into each other or into the sun because of gravitation pull and momentum. The planets move in a constant motion that misses the sun but still remains pulled in by gravity.

However, according to flat-earthers, there is no gravity. The explanation for why things fall downwards is because of the density and weight of those objects.

So, by that logic, the sun and moon, both of which FEers believe are much closer than they really, should be falling towards the earth. The sun and moon move right above the earth, each of these objects has density and weight yet they both remain above the earth at a constant height.

According to the flat earth model, the sun and moon, remain above the earth at a constant elevation, yet, according to flat-earthers, gravity doesn't exist and things with density and weight fall.

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?
If the answer is so clear and simple, I don't see why it takes all of this back and forth nonsense. Just give an answer with valid proof behind it.

*

THEREALDILL23

  • 76
  • A dreamer and a logical powerhouse
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2018, 09:58:30 AM »
On the heliocentric model, everything in the solar system revolves around the sun. The planets and moon don't crash into each other or into the sun because of gravitation pull and momentum. The planets move in a constant motion that misses the sun but still remains pulled in by gravity.

However, according to flat-earthers, there is no gravity. The explanation for why things fall downwards is because of the density and weight of those objects.

So, by that logic, the sun and moon, both of which FEers believe are much closer than they really, should be falling towards the earth. The sun and moon move right above the earth, each of these objects has density and weight yet they both remain above the earth at a constant height.

According to the flat earth model, the sun and moon, remain above the earth at a constant elevation, yet, according to flat-earthers, gravity doesn't exist and things with density and weight fall.

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?

According to your logic, if gravity is what mainstream science state it is; their should be no clouds in the sky. They would all fall to the earth. Most flat earthers believe their is an electromagnetic field that essentially powers the sun and moon or something similar through the aether.
Not you or me or nobody hits harder than life, but its not about how hard you can hit; it about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. Take the punches and keep moving forward. THAT"S HOW WINNING IS DONE!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2018, 03:36:28 PM »
According to your logic, if gravity is what mainstream science state it is; there should be no clouds in the sky. They would all fall to the earth.
No! That is still just as wrong as it was all the other times it was explained to you.

So please desist with your "according to your logic" claims, when they are nothing more than your failure to understand basic physical "Laws"[1].

Quote from: Douglas Wesley
Why do clouds float when they have tons of water in them?
Douglas Wesley, a senior meteorologist in the Cooperative Program for Operational Meteorology, Education and Training (COMET) at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, explains:
Clouds are composed primarily of small water droplets and, if it's cold enough, ice crystals. The vast majority of clouds you see contain droplets and/or crystals that are too small to have any appreciable fall velocity. So the particles continue to float with the surrounding air. For an analogy closer to the ground, think of tiny dust particles that, when viewed against a shaft of sunlight, appear to float in the air.

Indeed, the distance from the center of a typical water droplet to its edge--its radius--ranges from a few microns (thousandths of a millimeter) to a few tens of microns (ice crystals are often a bit larger). And the speed with which any object falls is related to its mass and surface area--which is why a feather falls more slowly than a pebble of the same weight. For particles that are roughly spherical, mass is proportional to the radius cubed (r3); the downward-facing surface area of such a particle is proportional to the radius squared (r2). Thus, as a tiny water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important than its shape and the droplet falls faster. Even a large droplet having a radius of 100 microns has a fall velocity of only about 27 centimeters per second (cm/s). And because ice crystals have more irregular shapes, their fall velocities are relatively smaller.

Upward vertical motions, or updrafts, in the atmosphere also contribute to the floating appearance of clouds by offsetting the small fall velocities of their constituent particles. Clouds generally form, survive and grow in air that is moving upward. Rising air expands as the pressure on it decreases, and that expansion into thinner, high-altitude air causes cooling. Enough cooling eventually makes water vapor condense, which contributes to the survival and growth of the clouds. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. In both cases, though, the atmospheric ascent is sufficient to negate the small fall velocities of cloud particles.

Another way to illustrate the relative lightness of clouds is to compare the total mass of a cloud to the mass of the air in which it resides. Consider a hypothetical but typical small cloud at an altitude of 10,000 feet, comprising one cubic kilometer and having a liquid water content of 1.0 gram per cubic meter. The total mass of the cloud particles is about 1 million kilograms, which is roughly equivalent to the weight of 500 automobiles. But the total mass of the air in that same cubic kilometer is about 1 billion kilograms--1,000 times heavier than the liquid!

So, even though typical clouds do contain a lot of water, this water is spread out for miles in the form of tiny water droplets or crystals, which are so small that the effect of gravity on them is negligible. Thus, from our vantage on the ground, clouds seem to float in the sky.

Answer originally posted May 31, 1999

Why do clouds float when they have tons of water in them?
Quote from: THEREALDILL23
Most flat earthers believe there is an electromagnetic field that essentially powers the sun and moon or something similar through the aether.
And most flat-earthers would be 100% wrong.
  • An electromagnetic field might transmit power (energy) cannot power anything unless there is a source of that energy. An electromagnetic field is not of itseff a source of energy.

  • Again, aether was postulated as a medium to eneble the transmission of "gravitational phenomena" (Le Sage's theory of gravitation) or "electromagnetic phenomena" (James Clerk Maxwell).
    But never as a source of energy.

[1]   I quote "laws" because we interpret a "scientific law" as something "set in stone".
We no longer regard Newton's "Laws" of Motion and Gravitation as "set in stone" because, even though they are very accurate in most situations, they become increasingly inaccurate at very high velocities and in the presence of huge masses (far larger than the earth's mass).
So for these extreme conditions Newton's "Laws" of Motion and Gravitation have been superceded by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
A theory is an explanation for observations that is accurate as far as is presently known but which could be superseded by a better "theory".

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2018, 05:19:27 PM »
According to your logic, if gravity is what mainstream science state it is; their should be no clouds in the sky.
Nope. The fundamental difference is there is an explanation for why the clouds stay up (at least until the droplets get large enough that they fall down to Earth, known as rain).

Most flat earthers believe their is an electromagnetic field that essentially powers the sun and moon or something similar through the aether.
That doesn't solve anything.
So you have a way of transmitting power.
What is using this power on the sun and moon to keep it up?
What is providing this power?

Are you sure you aren't thinking of something like electromagnetic or electrostatic or magnetic levitation?
If it was electrostatic, it would cause the sun and moon to explode from the charge.
If it was electromagnetic you need a continuously varying field, which then needs an origin, and should be detectable. Note: This isn't' from the sun, it is to induce a field in the sun.
If it was magnetic, as a set up simple repulsive magnets, then the sun could easily flip and fall. This only works when the motion is restricted.
If it was based upon diamagnetism, then you need a strong magnetic field (very strong) and a diamagnetic material. Plasma, such as the sun, is not diamagnetic and there is no strong enough field.

So that explanation doesn't work at all.

*

MrDebunk

  • 358
  • Chaotic good
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2018, 06:31:48 PM »
Most flat earthers believe their is an electromagnetic field that essentially powers the sun and moon or something similar through the aether.

With no proof of this. Instead of theories to fit observations, flat earthers often (frantically) make observations to fit theories (I call this the Fall-Flat Fallacy).
M R D E B U N K (the reboot)

Quote from: totallackofintelligence
You sound like shill.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2018, 07:09:24 PM »

If it was electrostatic, it would cause the sun and moon to explode from the charge.

Are you sure?

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2018, 11:06:16 PM »

Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2018, 12:28:09 AM »

According to your logic, if gravity is what mainstream science state it is; their should be no clouds in the sky. They would all fall to the earth. Most flat earthers believe their is an electromagnetic field that essentially powers the sun and moon or something similar through the aether.

The main problem with that answer is your lack of evidence. If you look at my previous post, you'll see that I explained how the moon's, earth's, and sun's movements are. My explanation is backed up by equations and working models that easily explain what we observe on the earth. What is needed from you is a working model and an explanation for how you answer works. Saying that "most flat-earthers believe" is not valid evidence of your answer being true.
If the answer is so clear and simple, I don't see why it takes all of this back and forth nonsense. Just give an answer with valid proof behind it.

Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2018, 12:56:51 AM »
I guess flat-earthers can't answer this
If the answer is so clear and simple, I don't see why it takes all of this back and forth nonsense. Just give an answer with valid proof behind it.

Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2018, 10:47:52 AM »
I guess flat-earthers can't answer this

Oh but they can. Just that answer usually will be in the order of "nu-hun" and "yeah-hun"

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2018, 10:50:25 AM »
However, according to flat-earthers, there is no gravity. The explanation for why things fall downwards is because of the density and weight of those objects.
I'm going to guess you came here from youtube rather than reading this site's FAQ?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2018, 02:36:43 PM »
However, according to flat-earthers, there is no gravity. The explanation for why things fall downwards is because of the density and weight of those objects.
I'm going to guess you came here from youtube rather than reading this site's FAQ?

And I'm going to guess you just accept explanations without thinking logically about them.

Unlike people who believe in the actual earth, flat-earthers do not believe in the exact same thing unanimously. Many flat-earthers have many different explains for the same observations.

Some flat-earthers believe "heavy" things fall and use words like density and buoyancy.

Other flat-earthers believe the earth is constantly moving upwards by some magical, invisible and undetectable force.

Either way, the question at hand still stands.
If "heavy" things fall, then what is keeping the sun and moon from falling?
If the earth is constantly moving upwards, what is keeping the sun and moon from crashing into the earth?

No matter how you flip it, the FE model doesn't explain how the sun, moon and other celestial bodies don't crash into each other.
If the answer is so clear and simple, I don't see why it takes all of this back and forth nonsense. Just give an answer with valid proof behind it.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2018, 03:09:15 PM »
Either way, the question at hand still stands.
If "heavy" things fall, then what is keeping the sun and moon from falling?
If the earth is constantly moving upwards, what is keeping the sun and moon from crashing into the earth?

No matter how you flip it, the FE model doesn't explain how the sun, moon and other celestial bodies don't crash into each other.
No, it just means there's a force acting on them, it's not nearly as dramatic as you're saying. In the UA models the force is ready made, the accelerator, hence why I brought it up.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2018, 03:16:19 PM »
No, it just means there's a force acting on them, it's not nearly as dramatic as you're saying. In the UA models the force is ready made, the accelerator, hence why I brought it up.

What is the force?

Link to this UA model?
If the answer is so clear and simple, I don't see why it takes all of this back and forth nonsense. Just give an answer with valid proof behind it.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2018, 04:00:45 PM »
No, it just means there's a force acting on them, it's not nearly as dramatic as you're saying. In the UA models the force is ready made, the accelerator, hence why I brought it up.

What is the force?

Link to this UA model?
Uh, didn't I literally just answer both of those? It is the accelerator in the UA model; that's the force and that's the link.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2018, 04:23:11 PM »
No, it just means there's a force acting on them, it's not nearly as dramatic as you're saying. In the UA models the force is ready made, the accelerator, hence why I brought it up.

What is the force?

Link to this UA model?
Uh, didn't I literally just answer both of those? It is the accelerator in the UA model; that's the force and that's the link.

I was unaware of UA meaning Universal Acceleration, next time just use the whole term. That idea still doesn't give a clear understanding of why what or how things are they way they are.

What powers this constant movement?
With RE, celestial bodies move the way they do due to gravitational pull and momentum.
How does that work with the FE?

How do you know planets are moving upwards?
Even if they are, why are we not moving upward independently from them?
Why do we counter that force and move downwards?
How are they maintaining their FE orbit while doing so?
Why do they even orbit in the first place?
If the answer is so clear and simple, I don't see why it takes all of this back and forth nonsense. Just give an answer with valid proof behind it.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2018, 04:31:27 PM »
What powers this constant movement?
With RE, celestial bodies move the way they do due to gravitational pull and momentum.
How does that work with the FE?
Dark energy's the common placeholder. Sometimes aether. My personal favourite theory's that it's made out of tachyons, hypothetical but entirely possible particles that'd in fact accelerate as they lose energy. Possibly a few issues, it's just cool.

Quote
How do you know planets are moving upwards?
Even if they are, why are we not moving upward independently from them?
Why do we counter that force and move downwards?
How are they maintaining their FE orbit while doing so?
Why do they even orbit in the first place?
Because the planets don't come crashing down into us.
The rest has one answer; we aren't moving down, we just aren't being accelerated. The Earth and the planets/stars etc are, because the Earth acts as a barrier to the force. Like taking shelter from the wind, if you're close to a barrier then you won't feel it, but if you're further away then you'll still be hit by it. In this case there's an 'exclusion zone' over the Earth from the accelerator, before the flow reforms above us.
The reason for orbit varies between models. Sometimes the flow reforming creates circular motion, likened to whirlpools. That's the one that follows easiest at least.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2018, 05:17:27 PM »
No, it just means there's a force acting on them, it's not nearly as dramatic as you're saying. In the UA models the force is ready made, the accelerator, hence why I brought it up.
Except they have no explanation for why it affects the sun and the moon, but not people above Earth.
There is also the question of why it manages to match so perfectly, with the sun moon and stars and Earth all accelerating at basically the same rate, especially while having significant variation in the observed value of g across Earth.
So no, the highly selective, non-universal accelerator isn't an explanation.

Dark energy's the common placeholder.
Which would just be expanding space rather than causing us to fall.

it's made out of tachyons
Which would require it to be going faster than the speed of light.

Like taking shelter from the wind, if you're close to a barrier then you won't feel it, but if you're further away then you'll still be hit by it.
And the commonly quoted 5000 km/3000 miles would constitute close to a barrier which is 40 000 km wide.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2018, 05:37:09 PM »
No, it just means there's a force acting on them, it's not nearly as dramatic as you're saying. In the UA models the force is ready made, the accelerator, hence why I brought it up.
Except they have no explanation for why it affects the sun and the moon, but not people above Earth.
There is also the question of why it manages to match so perfectly, with the sun moon and stars and Earth all accelerating at basically the same rate, especially while having significant variation in the observed value of g across Earth.
So no, the highly selective, non-universal accelerator isn't an explanation.
Literally just gave the explanation. You literally just replied to and acknowledged the explanation.
As for why what we see accelerates at basically the same rate, easy: the stuff that didn't is long gone.

Quote
Dark energy's the common placeholder.
Which would just be expanding space rather than causing us to fall.
No, it's a placeholder term, hence calling it a placeholder.

Quote
it's made out of tachyons
Which would require it to be going faster than the speed of light.
As I said, hypothetical particles. The problem with going faster than the speed of light is crossing the lightspeed barrier. Tachyons already go that fast, ergo that's why they can't slow.

Quote
Like taking shelter from the wind, if you're close to a barrier then you won't feel it, but if you're further away then you'll still be hit by it.
And the commonly quoted 5000 km/3000 miles would constitute close to a barrier which is 40 000 km wide.
Cool trivia, also 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 even if that figure were reliable.

Wondered if you'd changed while I was gone, but apparently not. Goodbye again!
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2018, 06:10:43 PM »
What powers this constant movement?
With RE, celestial bodies move the way they do due to gravitational pull and momentum.
How does that work with the FE?
Dark energy's the common placeholder. Sometimes aether. My personal favourite theory's that it's made out of tachyons, hypothetical but entirely possible particles that'd in fact accelerate as they lose energy. Possibly a few issues, it's just cool.

You can call it whatever you want to call it but until you give actual proof it can't be valid.

How do you know planets are moving upwards?
Even if they are, why are we not moving upward independently from them?
Why do we counter that force and move downwards?
How are they maintaining their FE orbit while doing so?
Why do they even orbit in the first place?
Because the planets don't come crashing down into us.
The rest has one answer; we aren't moving down, we just aren't being accelerated. The Earth and the planets/stars etc are because the Earth acts as a barrier to the force. Like taking shelter from the wind, if you're close to a barrier then you won't feel it, but if you're further away then you'll still be hit by it. In this case there's an 'exclusion zone' over the Earth from the accelerator, before the flow reforms above us.
The reason for orbit varies between models. Sometimes the flow reforming creates circular motion, likened to whirlpools. That's the one that follows easiest at least.

1. Saying "because the planets don't come crashing down into us" is not proof. That's like saying I will never be in a car crash because I haven't been in a car crash. On the RE we have actual reason and model to back it up. Your reason can't be "just because".
2. That is not an answer because you didn't give a reason how or why.
Why aren't we moving upwards, independently? What special force do celestial bodies have that we don't? Why do we need the earth to move upwards? If the earth weren't moving upwards, would we still be moving in a certain direction?
3. How does the earth act as a barrier? Is this barrier the "dome"? How do you know there is a barrier? Are you saying the celestial bodies are outside of this "dome"? Are the different levels of this barrier/


4. Most of all, where is your evidence?
If the answer is so clear and simple, I don't see why it takes all of this back and forth nonsense. Just give an answer with valid proof behind it.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2018, 06:19:31 PM »
The Earth and the planets/stars etc are, because the Earth acts as a barrier to the force. Like taking shelter from the wind, if you're close to a barrier then you won't feel it, but if you're further away then you'll still be hit by it. In this case there's an 'exclusion zone' over the Earth from the accelerator, before the flow reforms above us.
But stars can be seen when looking "south" from as far south as you can go on the earth. That indicates that these stars are right at or even past the "edge".
So what is shielding them?

Quote from: Jane
The reason for orbit varies between models. Sometimes the flow reforming creates circular motion, likened to whirlpools. That's the one that follows easiest at least.
Guess, guess, guess like all of the flat earth hypotheses.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2018, 08:18:38 PM »
You can call it whatever you want to call it but until you give actual proof it can't be valid.
Except it isn't a claim I'm making as fact, just a response to an argument you made.

Quote
1. Saying "because the planets don't come crashing down into us" is not proof. That's like saying I will never be in a car crash because I haven't been in a car crash. On the RE we have actual reason and model to back it up. Your reason can't be "just because".
2. That is not an answer because you didn't give a reason how or why.
Why aren't we moving upwards, independently? What special force do celestial bodies have that we don't? Why do we need the earth to move upwards? If the earth weren't moving upwards, would we still be moving in a certain direction?
3. How does the earth act as a barrier? Is this barrier the "dome"? How do you know there is a barrier? Are you saying the celestial bodies are outside of this "dome"? Are the different levels of this barrier/
4. Most of all, where is your evidence?
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 what does the dome have to do with anything? It's universal acceleration, some force pushes the Earth, and thus the Earth acts to block it because, well, it's a giant honking lump of rock, that's not nothing, the force can't just flow on unabated. What is so hard to understand about that?

Guess, guess, guess like all of the flat earth hypotheses.
Great. Then, and this is to both of you, focus on asking after evidence rather than wasting everybody's time with nonsense like this. If you are going to start with the argument that FET doesn't work because ___, don't immediately back down and move the goalposts to "It could work, but give me evidence!"
It is completely pointless to bring up mechanisms if you ar egoing to refuse to discuss them.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2018, 09:16:23 PM »
The Earth and the planets/stars etc are, because the Earth acts as a barrier to the force. Like taking shelter from the wind, if you're close to a barrier then you won't feel it, but if you're further away then you'll still be hit by it. In this case there's an 'exclusion zone' over the Earth from the accelerator, before the flow reforms above us.

But stars can be seen when looking "south" from as far south as you can go on the earth. That indicates that these stars are right at or even past the "edge".
So what is shielding them?
This is where I'm hung up too.  You went on further with:

It's universal acceleration, some force pushes the Earth, and thus the Earth acts to block it because, well, it's a giant honking lump of rock, that's not nothing, the force can't just flow on unabated. What is so hard to understand about that?


This seemingly implies that all celestial bodies are contained above within earth's flat diameter.  Otherwise, anything off to the sides of earth wouldn't be "blocked" and we would whiz right by them.  Am I missing something?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2018, 09:27:55 PM »
Guess, guess, guess like all of the flat earth hypotheses.
Great. Then, and this is to both of you, focus on asking after evidence.
OK, show us the evidence for the UA hypothesis.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2018, 09:28:34 PM »
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.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2018, 09:32:34 PM »
This seemingly implies that all celestial bodies are contained above within earth's flat diameter.  Otherwise, anything off to the sides of earth wouldn't be "blocked" and we would whiz right by them.  Am I missing something?
It would require the opposite.
Anything not blocked by Earth would be accelerated along with Earth (although there is absolutely no reason to think various objects would be accelerated at the same rate. As it clearly has something to do with interaction with a surface, small objects should accelerate much faster than large objects if they have the same density).
So this would mean the stars aren't getting the non-universal accelerator blocked by Earth or could only be slightly blocked.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2018, 10:05:35 PM »
Just reread some of the UA wiki stuff.  I get your explanation.  Thx JB

The theorizing of UA seems like, "I believe the world is not a spinning sphere and that it's flat.  But then that means gravity is bullocks.  Damn, hmmm, ok then the disc has to be moving up with the same force ratio those Newtonian dullards are always blathering on about.  So yeah, that's it, earth is being shoved upward at a rate of 9.8m/s/s.  Oh crikey, what's doing the shoving?  Hmmm, well something is otherwise this whole no gravity flat earth thing doesn't savvy.  Bingo, we'll just chuck a bunch of dark energy and tachyons at it an call it 'The Accelerator'! Done and done."

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2018, 10:43:08 PM »
The theorizing of UA seems like, "I believe the world is not a spinning sphere and that it's flat.  But then that means gravity is bullocks.  Damn, hmmm, ok then the disc has to be moving up with the same force ratio those Newtonian dullards are always blathering on about.  So yeah, that's it, earth is being shoved upward at a rate of 9.8m/s/s.  Oh crikey, what's doing the shoving?  Hmmm, well something is otherwise this whole no gravity flat earth thing doesn't savvy.  Bingo, we'll just chuck a bunch of dark energy and tachyons at it an call it 'The Accelerator'! Done and done."
Yep, that is pretty much the basis of all FET.
They start with the conclusion that Earth is flat, and then make up whatever excuses they can for any problems that arise, regardless of if it makes sense or not, is supported by evidence or not (or contradicted by it), and even if it contradicts something that is already part of their model.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #28 on: July 30, 2018, 04:16:03 AM »
Just reread some of the UA wiki stuff.  I get your explanation.  Thx JB

The theorizing of UA seems like, "I believe the world is not a spinning sphere and that it's flat.  But then that means gravity is bullocks.  Damn, hmmm, ok then the disc has to be moving up with the same force ratio those Newtonian dullards are always blathering on about.  So yeah, that's it, earth is being shoved upward at a rate of 9.8m/s/s.  Oh crikey, what's doing the shoving?  Hmmm, well something is otherwise this whole no gravity flat earth thing doesn't savvy.  Bingo, we'll just chuck a bunch of dark energy and tachyons at it an call it 'The Accelerator'! Done and done."
I mean, to be fair, that is literally how science works. Come up with a hypothesis, see if it matches observations. With the arguments FEers make against gravity, from their perspective it does legitimately make sense to have to look at an alternative. It's not like UA is the only option, and the accelerator is an unknown, but the underlying concept does make sense.

This seemingly implies that all celestial bodies are contained above within earth's flat diameter.  Otherwise, anything off to the sides of earth wouldn't be "blocked" and we would whiz right by them.  Am I missing something?
Nope, that's pretty much how it needs to be under the FE model. The Earth's width doesn't reach Antarctica and then stop after a couple of metres. The exact things that happen with stellar orbits around the rim are a whole issue in themselves.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: The sky isn't falling?
« Reply #29 on: July 30, 2018, 05:11:04 AM »
I mean, to be fair, that is literally how science works.
No, it is vastly different.
For science we reevaluate the initial hypothesis, especially when there are multiple competing hypotheses and attempt to find the one which best fits.

With FE, they conclude Earth is flat and then make up whatever ad-hoc excuses they can to make it work.
That is not science.
Science concluded Earth is not flat when that hypothesis failed to match observations.

With the arguments FEers make against gravity, from their perspective it does legitimately make sense
No it doesn't.
Their entire premise is on asserting Earth is flat.
What legitimately makes sense is for them to consider alternatives to Earth being flat.

the accelerator is an unknown, but the underlying concept does make sense.
Only at an extremely basic level (i.e. accelerating object is equivalent to gravity at the small scale)
As soon as you think about it for more than 5 seconds it makes no sense.
You have an extremely selective "universal" accelerator that manages to accelerate Earth, the sun, the moon, the planets, the stars, and so on all at the same rate so they don't collide or drift apart. Yet us and other objects extremely close to Earth manage to not be effected at all.
Then there are the variations in the observed value of g across Earth.

So no, it doesn't make sense for what they are trying to do.
Stop pretending it does. You aren't helping anyone by doing so.