Universal Acceleration

I already understand that with UA we won't ever reach Lightspeed,
but one Thing still doesn't make Sense to me.
Does it Just Push on the "Bottom" of the Earth or does it accelerate everything ?
And what does the Universal in Universal Acceleration stand for ?

With the standard UA approach, the highly selective universal accelerator accelerates everything in the universe, with the sole exception of things just above Earth that are not directly connected to Earth.
So this would include Earth, the sun and other stars, the moon and the planets. But it wouldn't include things like people in the air.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921458#msg1921458

With the standard UA approach, the highly selective universal accelerator accelerates everything in the universe, with the sole exception of things just above Earth that are not directly connected to Earth.
So this would include Earth, the sun and other stars, the moon and the planets. But it wouldn't include things like people in the air.

It doesn't accelerate the air either, because there's less air pressure when you climb a mountain or go up in a plane that loses cabin pressure.

Earth magically blocks the ua.
All objects in the earths shaodw feel the ua indirectly.
Requiring the edge of earth to be indestructable from the shear force.

Earth magically blocks the ua.
All objects in the earths shaodw feel the ua indirectly.
Requiring the edge of earth to be indestructable from the shear force.

That explains earth quakes. The earth is fracturing under the force, and one day will break into a million pieces.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 11, 2019, 11:26:26 AM

Earth magically blocks the ua.
All objects in the earths shaodw feel the ua indirectly.
Requiring the edge of earth to be indestructable from the shear force.

That explains earth quakes. The earth is fracturing under the force, and one day will break into a million pieces.

I thought it was the great god Umm that would eat us all up at the end of days, and it was because we all continually say his name that we delay that day.

With the standard UA approach, the highly selective universal accelerator accelerates everything in the universe, with the sole exception of things just above Earth that are not directly connected to Earth.
So this would include Earth, the sun and other stars, the moon and the planets. But it wouldn't include things like people in the air.

But things on earth are still pulled by the gravitational forces of the sun and moon, right?

Quote from: JackBlack on March 10, 2019, 02:17:39 PM

With the standard UA approach, the highly selective universal accelerator accelerates everything in the universe, with the sole exception of things just above Earth that are not directly connected to Earth.
So this would include Earth, the sun and other stars, the moon and the planets. But it wouldn't include things like people in the air.

But things on earth are still pulled by the gravitational forces of the sun and moon, right?

they (FE) always have an answer except when it comes time for numbers.
A close earth and close moon to be held aloft by UA would require what angle of shadow?
So, if you were to fly up near the "southern" region you could exit the gravity/ UA shadow and enter into the UA and be ejected up.
ha!
pff...

Earth magically blocks the ua.

Out of all the objections to UA, you go for the 'the giant honking disc gets in the way! Magic!' approach, seriously?

I'm still trying to work my way through the speed of light and stuff here.

I've drawn a diagram. It shows two rocketships racing along parallel. It also shows more faintly where they will be at a point in the future.

We know that light takes time to travel.
We know that if the left hand rocketship shoots a laser cannon at the right hand ship, the target will have moved by the time the light arrives at his old position.
Doesn't it stand to reason that the left hand rocketship must lead on the target and shoot to where the target is going to be by the time the light arrives?

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 11, 2019, 11:26:26 AM

Earth magically blocks the ua.

Out of all the objections to UA, you go for the 'the giant honking disc gets in the way! Magic!' approach, seriously?

Yes
There are plenty reasons to reject UA.
What does it matter which issue i pick?

I'm still trying to work my way through the speed of light and stuff here.

I've drawn a diagram. It shows two rocketships racing along parallel. It also shows more faintly where they will be at a point in the future.

We know that light takes time to travel.
We know that if the left hand rocketship shoots a laser cannon at the right hand ship, the target will have moved by the time the light arrives at his old position.
Doesn't it stand to reason that the left hand rocketship must lead on the target and shoot to where the target is going to be by the time the light arrives?

Yes but that applies to firing on any moving target:

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS: MOVING TARGET ENGAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
(1)  Lead:  Lead is the distance in advance of the target that is required to engage the target when it is moving.  Your shooter must use the proper points of aim to determine the correct lead to be placed on a moving target.

But in the case of the laser cannon there is an additional complication.
The "time of flight" is the same as the time it took for the image of the target to reach the left hand rocketship.

And matters get more complicated if the rocketships are travelling at velocities appreciable with the velocity of light.
This has a very practical application when it comes to laser ranging the distance to the moon, moving at about 1 km/sec.

Quote from: Jane on March 11, 2019, 02:15:56 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 11, 2019, 11:26:26 AM

Earth magically blocks the ua.

Out of all the objections to UA, you go for the 'the giant honking disc gets in the way! Magic!' approach, seriously?

Yes
There are plenty reasons to reject UA.
What does it matter which issue i pick?

You could pick one that makes the slightest bit of sense. Personally speaking I'd be more surprised if an arbitrary accelerator went unaffected by the massive planet-sized lump of rock in the way.

Doesn't it stand to reason that the left hand rocketship must lead on the target and shoot to where the target is going to be by the time the light arrives?

Not quite.
As a simple analogy, assume you are travelling in a train with a friend, sitting on opposite sides.
You go to throw a ball to your friend. Do you throw the ball directly towards where they are or do you throw it forwards?

From someone inside the train, including yourself, you appear to throw it directly to your friend. But to someone outside, the ball is already moving forwards and you just deflect it so it moves forwards at an angle.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 11, 2019, 11:26:26 AM

Earth magically blocks the ua.

Out of all the objections to UA, you go for the 'the giant honking disc gets in the way! Magic!' approach, seriously?

The issue is that it only magically blocks the UA very close to Earth, just a few thousand km away (not large compared to Earth), it is magically back.

If it was a case of literally everything above Earth not experiencing the UA, or at least everything for 10s of thousands of km, then it wouldn't be so magical.

Quote from: Jane on March 11, 2019, 02:15:56 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 11, 2019, 11:26:26 AM

Earth magically blocks the ua.

Out of all the objections to UA, you go for the 'the giant honking disc gets in the way! Magic!' approach, seriously?

The issue is that it only magically blocks the UA very close to Earth, just a few thousand km away (not large compared to Earth), it is magically back.

If it was a case of literally everything above Earth not experiencing the UA, or at least everything for 10s of thousands of km, then it wouldn't be so magical.

What is your justification for saying the accelerator should take '10s of thousands of km' to recombine?

What is your justification for saying the accelerator should take '10s of thousands of km' to recombine?

The size of Earth and lack of any massive currents trying to push things towards the centre when close to the surface.

Quote from: Jane on March 11, 2019, 04:45:10 PM

What is your justification for saying the accelerator should take '10s of thousands of km' to recombine?

The size of Earth and lack of any massive currents trying to push things towards the centre when close to the surface.

Again, how does that translate to '10s of thousands of km' as opposed to just a few hundred? You wouldn't expect anything like that close to the surface then either.

Where are you getting your figures for the arc at which the flow would travel in terms of the size of the Earth from?

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 11, 2019, 03:11:10 PM

Doesn't it stand to reason that the left hand rocketship must lead on the target and shoot to where the target is going to be by the time the light arrives?

Not quite.
As a simple analogy, assume you are travelling in a train with a friend, sitting on opposite sides.
You go to throw a ball to your friend. Do you throw the ball directly towards where they are or do you throw it forwards?

From someone inside the train, including yourself, you appear to throw it directly to your friend. But to someone outside, the ball is already moving forwards and you just deflect it so it moves forwards at an angle.

Well, yes, you inherently lead on the target when you throw a ball across a moving traincar: you hand is moving forward and a forward component will be inherently imparted to the ball. The ball has mass and will leave your hand with the same transverse velocity as it had in your hand - i.e. the moving train.

But that's not my point. Let me ask this:

Let's say you are on a train, and you throw the ball to your friend, straight across, and he catches it.
Let's say the ball travels 1 meter to from you hand to his hand, and during the time the ball was in flight, the train also moved forward one meter.

We can assume for the sake of argument that the ball was neutrally buoyant and didn't rise or sink so traveled a straight path:

How far did the ball travel?

How far did the ball travel?

In which reference frame, that of the train or that of a figure outside?

Again, how does that translate to '10s of thousands of km' as opposed to just a few hundred?

Again, SIZE OF EARTH!
Large regions of shadow are observed behind all other objects. Why should it magically be different for the UA?
Sure the UA is pure magic, but this is just adding to it, which makes the objection quite rational, not stupid like you pretend.

Let's say you are on a train, and you throw the ball to your friend, straight across, and he catches it.
Let's say the ball travels 1 meter to from you hand to his hand, and during the time the ball was in flight, the train also moved forward one meter.

We can assume for the sake of argument that the ball was neutrally buoyant and didn't rise or sink so traveled a straight path:

How far did the ball travel?

In the reference frame of an outside observer, sqrt(2) m.
In the reference frame of someone on the train, 1 m. At the same time, everything outside the train moved 1 m backwards.
In the reference frame of the ball, 0 m. At the same time everything inside the train moved 1 m to the side and everything outside the train moved sqrt(2) m backwards and to the side.

The same applies to light but you can no longer use Newtonian relativity/Galilean relativity due to the high velocities involved.

Quote from: Jane on March 11, 2019, 04:53:00 PM

Again, how does that translate to '10s of thousands of km' as opposed to just a few hundred?

Again, SIZE OF EARTH!
Large regions of shadow are observed behind all other objects. Why should it magically be different for the UA?
Sure the UA is pure magic, but this is just adding to it, which makes the objection quite rational, not stupid like you pretend.

No all of a sudden justifiable numbers are required?
Come on jane.
Where has an fe theory ever produced a number?
The near sun and near moon are hekd aloft by the ua - therefore the shadow recombines at an angle from the edge to the "equatoral orbit". 
Figure out what value youd like us to use and then draw that angle.

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 11, 2019, 05:17:02 PM

Let's say you are on a train, and you throw the ball to your friend, straight across, and he catches it.
Let's say the ball travels 1 meter to from you hand to his hand, and during the time the ball was in flight, the train also moved forward one meter.

We can assume for the sake of argument that the ball was neutrally buoyant and didn't rise or sink so traveled a straight path:

How far did the ball travel?

In the reference frame of an outside observer, sqrt(2) m.
In the reference frame of someone on the train, 1 m. At the same time, everything outside the train moved 1 m backwards.
In the reference frame of the ball, 0 m. At the same time everything inside the train moved 1 m to the side and everything outside the train moved sqrt(2) m backwards and to the side.

The same applies to light but you can no longer use Newtonian relativity/Galilean relativity due to the high velocities involved.

OK Thank you.

So if the earth is accelerating upward at 15,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 meters per second, and you shine a flashlight across a room at 300,000,000 m/s, how far does the light travel?

For that not to be a problem there obviously has to be aether which is the medium in which radio waves and light propagate and the aether has to be accelerating also at 9.8ms^2.

And I don't think we've even demonstrated aether except that it is the needed duct tape for UA.

I already did the cavendish experiment and I got a strange weak attraction between my lead weights.  I gotta have some serious sense before I buy into UA.

Obviously the aether permiates vacuum, solids, liquids, gasses, so it's not contained by the earth, and yet the earth is pushing it up? or is it pushing the earth up? or pulling the earth up?

Am I legitimately wide-eyed here?

Who forbids the UA earth goes beyond the speed of light? No one. So the show must go on.~

So if the earth is accelerating upward at 15,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 meters per second, and you shine a flashlight across a room at 300,000,000 m/s, how far does the light travel?

Grr. That's not how things work.

Quote from: Jane on March 11, 2019, 04:53:00 PM

Again, how does that translate to '10s of thousands of km' as opposed to just a few hundred?

Again, SIZE OF EARTH!
Large regions of shadow are observed behind all other objects. Why should it magically be different for the UA?
Sure the UA is pure magic, but this is just adding to it, which makes the objection quite rational, not stupid like you pretend.

Because it is different depending on what casts the shadow. Viscosity of a fluid, if it's caused by something in that category, for example.
It's not magic, it's a principle that already gets observed. Yelling 'size of the Earth' doesn't make a difference unless you can provide evidence for why the accelerator would take longer.

No all of a sudden justifiable numbers are required?

By the person making the claim, yep. I'd expect FEers to do the same if they were trying to convince me of FET, so I'll expect an REer to do it if they're expecting to convince anyone of their claim. Kinda how this whole evidence thing works.

There's no issue with UA continually accelerating the Flat Earth until it reaches the speed of light. Duh!

Everybody knows the process resets and starts from zero every night while everyone is asleep.

 

Who forbids the UA earth goes beyond the speed of light? No one. So the show must go on.~

I'm not saying that anybody forbids the UA earth to not exceed the speed of light.
I'm just saying that if the earth is racing upwards, the speed of light crosswise would be affected unless light can only exist in a medium and that medium was also accelerating upward.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 11, 2019, 08:45:10 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 11, 2019, 04:53:00 PM

Again, how does that translate to '10s of thousands of km' as opposed to just a few hundred?

Again, SIZE OF EARTH!
Large regions of shadow are observed behind all other objects. Why should it magically be different for the UA?
Sure the UA is pure magic, but this is just adding to it, which makes the objection quite rational, not stupid like you pretend.

Because it is different depending on what casts the shadow. Viscosity of a fluid, if it's caused by something in that category, for example.
It's not magic, it's a principle that already gets observed. Yelling 'size of the Earth' doesn't make a difference unless you can provide evidence for why the accelerator would take longer.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 11, 2019, 09:17:51 PM

No all of a sudden justifiable numbers are required?

By the person making the claim, yep. I'd expect FEers to do the same if they were trying to convince me of FET, so I'll expect an REer to do it if they're expecting to convince anyone of their claim. Kinda how this whole evidence thing works.

The only "math" ive seen so far is from sando.
Everyone else is from "feelings".