UA

While there has been much debate on this forum about gravity there has been very little on its flat earth counterpart, UA.

With UA being one of the cornerstones of FE belief it would be interesting to find our why FE believers gravitate toward that explanation of why things fall.

In the FE Wiki on UA, which appears to spend most of its time discussing gravity rather than providing any evidence for UA, provides little or no evidence to convince the reader of the validity of UA.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#The_Basics

According to the WIki:

The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct.

I have to make clear the typo is on the Wiki and not due to my carelessness. The Wiki admits that there is no single explanation for UA and on exploring the Wiki there appears to be nothing in the way of supporting evidence. Though they do include these two experiments that we can all carry out at home!

Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. The feeling of free-fall is the feeling of weightlessness. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that the earth accelerates upwards to meet your feet. Take note of any graviton puller particles or bending space that you observe during the experiment.

Experiment 2: Now find a ball and raise it into the air with your hand and let it go into free-fall. As it does this, as well as before and after, you should simultaneously feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet. This tells us that we are being pushed to be in the frame of reference of the earth, as the earth runs into the ball. Again, take note of any observed graviton puller particles or bending of space that you observe in this experiment.


......and Tom Bishop complains and nit picks the 200 odd precision experiments carried out under laboratory conditions to find the gravitational constant! While he presents jumping off a chair or throwing a ball as a way to prove UA!

It strikes me that the main argument for UA is based not on any evidence that may support it, as there is none, but rather on the grey areas that still exist in relation to gravity, which I am sure you would all agree is a rather feeble starting point.

The question is with so much evidence around to support gravity, why do flat earthers still reject it in favour of  its evidence free counterpart UA? Could it be due to the simple fact that gravity as we know it would  be impossible on a flat world, while UA Is a better fit  with their FE world?

Please discuss.

Thought experiment:

Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.

Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?

UA conflicts with the main premise: "Earth is static".

They complain about "mind blowing" speeeds presented by modern cosmology:
30 km/s around the Sun" and 250 km/s with the Sun around the galactic core.

But little less than 300 000 km/s that was reached by now under UA was somehow "much less disturbing".

And through what is Earth accelerationg?

The premise of this thread is flawed to begin with. Most of the FE here do not promote UA. We can't be expected to answer for things written on the other site. If you have an issue with something in their wiki, take it up with them.

UA conflicts with the main premise: "Earth is static".

They complain about "mind blowing" speeeds presented by modern cosmology:
30 km/s around the Sun" and 250 km/s with the Sun around the galactic core.

But little less than 300 000 km/s that was reached by now under UA was somehow "much less disturbing".

And through what is Earth accelerationg?

Velocity doesn't mean anything unless you also consider what an object is moving relative to. Even in UA, for the observer on the Earth, the Earth isn't moving anywhere close to c. This is an old and tired attack on an old and tired idea.

Quote from: Macarios on July 07, 2019, 05:23:49 AM

UA conflicts with the main premise: "Earth is static".

They complain about "mind blowing" speeeds presented by modern cosmology:
30 km/s around the Sun" and 250 km/s with the Sun around the galactic core.

But little less than 300 000 km/s that was reached by now under UA was somehow "much less disturbing".

And through what is Earth accelerationg?

Velocity doesn't mean anything unless you also consider what an object is moving relative to. Even in UA, for the observer on the Earth, the Earth isn't moving anywhere close to c. This is an old and tired attack on an old and tired idea.

"Velocity doesn't mean anything" (by itself) - agreed.

"for the observeron the Earth, the Earth isn't moving anywhere close to c." - For the observer on the Earth the Earth isn't moving at all,
whichever model describes it in cosmic refernces. However, the UA would require the Earth to constantly approach c, due to the Relativity theory.
Without that after the Biblical 6000 years under the accelreration of 9.81 m/s² we would move even faster:

31 556 925 sec x 6000 years = 1.89 x 10¹¹ s
1.89 x 10¹¹ s x 9.81 m/s² = 1.86 x 10¹² m/s
1.86 x 10¹² m/s / 3 x 10⁸ m/s = 620 c

"old and tired attack on an old and tired idea" - also agreed. The idea is old and debunked thoroughly by old attacks,
but what other replacement was offered to "gravity deniers"?

Quote from: boydster on July 07, 2019, 05:55:21 AM

Quote from: Macarios on July 07, 2019, 05:23:49 AM

UA conflicts with the main premise: "Earth is static".

They complain about "mind blowing" speeeds presented by modern cosmology:
30 km/s around the Sun" and 250 km/s with the Sun around the galactic core.

But little less than 300 000 km/s that was reached by now under UA was somehow "much less disturbing".

And through what is Earth accelerationg?

Velocity doesn't mean anything unless you also consider what an object is moving relative to. Even in UA, for the observer on the Earth, the Earth isn't moving anywhere close to c. This is an old and tired attack on an old and tired idea.

"Velocity doesn't mean anything" (by itself) - agreed.

"for the observeron the Earth, the Earth isn't moving anywhere close to c." - For the observer on the Earth the Earth isn't moving at all,
whichever model describes it in cosmic refernces. However, the UA would require the Earth to constantly approach c, due to the Relativity theory.
Without that after the Biblical 6000 years under the accelreration of 9.81 m/s² we would move even faster:

31 556 925 sec x 6000 years = 1.89 x 10¹¹ s
1.89 x 10¹¹ s x 9.81 m/s² = 1.86 x 10¹² m/s
1.86 x 10¹² m/s / 3 x 10⁸ m/s = 620 c

"old and tired attack on an old and tired idea" - also agreed. The idea is old and debunked thoroughly by old attacks,
but what other replacement was offered to "gravity deniers"?

It should be obvious you are making a flawed argument when you get a result greater than c. And you also aren't stating what the Earth is moving relative to, making the whole thing meaningless to begin with.

In the UA model, the fact that the Earth accelerates constantly would be taken as axiomatic - a fundamental property of the universe. That constant acceleration is not at odds with Relativity.

I see and feel the earth moving and pushing  against me. I don't see any spooky invisible action-at-a-distance effects.

Did you catch a glimpse of Jupiter with it's moons last month?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/06/jupiter-opposition-planet-and-its-moons-visible-binoculars/1366972001/

It should be obvious you are making a flawed argument when you get a result greater than c.

Ofcourse.

That's why I say:

However, the UA would require the Earth to constantly approach c, due to the Relativity theory.
Without that...

And you also aren't stating what the Earth is moving relative to, making the whole thing meaningless to begin with.

You correctly noticed the reason why I asked "Through what?"

In the UA model, the fact that the Earth accelerates constantly would be taken as axiomatic - a fundamental property of the universe.

Also agreed. Fundamental property of the Universe gives two main possibilities:
- acceleration through movement
- acceleration through "some kind of attraction field or spacetime distortion"

Is there third option?

Acceleration through movement requires enough room for that movement.
(Again that question "Through what?", or as you rephrased it as "what the Earth is moving relative to".)

Acceleration through "attraction or distortion" is in RE model named "gravity".

If there is that third option now is a good place to mentiom it.

Can you?

That constant acceleration is not at odds with Relativity.

Yes, that is why the Relativity is there, to explain why the c is not exceeded.

Acceleration through movement requires enough room for that movement.
(Again that question "Through what?", or as you rephrased it as "what the Earth is moving relative to".)

This send to be the only relevant question to address. For Universal Acceleration, the idea is that everything is accelerating constantly. The thing it's accelerating through would likely be hypothesized to be a higher dimensional space. But it really doesn't matter. What matters is the observation that things fall to the Earth, and from there, arriving at a mechanism that would cause things to fall in that manner. UA does that. And it's got some issues that haven't been addressed in this thread. Going "620c" and having to explain how the Earth would be moving mind-bogglingly fast are not along those issues.

Does UA presume that the whole universe is accelerating in the same direction at the same rate? (I guess so otherwise it would just be called "the A")

Is the bit of the universe "behind us" empty as everything has accelerated out of it? Is there plenty of empty universe in front of us?

Is the FE universe expanding as it is in RE physics? If it is, is the origin point of the big bang the centre of "pushing from" for the UA?

Going "620c" and having to explain how the Earth would be moving mind-bogglingly fast are not along those issues.

We already established that twice, but you do have your right to repeat it.

~~~~~

Ok, I respect your
"Most of the FE here do not promote UA."

But your later comments made me wonder, do you think that in UA model:
- Earth accelerates towards falling objects, or
- falling objects accelerate towards the Earth?

I see and feel the earth moving and pushing  against me. I don't see any spooky invisible action-at-a-distance effects.

Ok, is the Earth static or not?
What Rowbotham says about it?

I see and feel the earth moving and pushing  against me. I don't see any spooky invisible action-at-a-distance effects.

Tom, you're the one who loves accurate experiments to demonstrate if an idea or theory holds water, as you are, I think, a proponent of UA why not explain to everyone some of the experiments that you or other people have conducted and published that demonstrate the possible validity of UA. So far all we have from you is a bunch of words and a rather biased critique of gravity. I don't think the experiment of throwing a ball or standing on a chair demonstrates the necessary scientific rigour.

The premise of this thread is flawed to begin with. Most of the FE here do not promote UA. We can't be expected to answer for things written on the other site. If you have an issue with something in their wiki, take it up with them.

I didn't realise that some FE beliefs were off limit here. If that's the case why?

Thought experiment:

Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.

Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?

I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.

Gravity, as we all know, has some pretty robust experiments that support it, as well as systems whose functions operate in according to its laws, but as far as I am aware UA has nothing other than a few people who have thought that it might help to explain another idea, the flat earth, that too has no hard evidence to support it. Currently, it looks like flat earth believers have one unsupported idea trying to support another.

Many Flat Earthers such as Tom Bishop use the problems that exist around the theory of gravity as some way of supporting their belief in UA, which to my mind makes no sense whatsoever. If you believe in something like UA then the idea should be able to stand on its own. Currently, I see nothing that supports it.

Sooner or later if you have an idea that is at odds with a well-supported one you have to offer even better evince to support your new claim. The ball is very firmly in the UA believers corner and nit picking gravity does their cause no good whatsoever.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on July 07, 2019, 03:06:16 AM

Thought experiment:

Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.

Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?

I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.

Well, you could at least try to answer the thought experiment, you might find it enlightening. You might even find it gives some credence to UA. Aside from the calibration in empty space, it is a practical experiment.

It's said Einstein was very keen on thought experiments. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

Quote from: boydster on July 07, 2019, 05:47:21 AM

The premise of this thread is flawed to begin with. Most of the FE here do not promote UA. We can't be expected to answer for things written on the other site. If you have an issue with something in their wiki, take it up with them.

I didn't realise that some FE beliefs were off limit here. If that's the case why?

Well, UA is not a cornerstone of FE belief for most of the active FE posters here. That's why I said your premise is flawed. From your OP:

With UA being one of the cornerstones of FE belief it would be interesting to find our why FE believers gravitate toward that explanation of why things fall.

For reference, you gave a link to the other site's wiki. At the other site, they are much more pro-UA. I suspect that is where your thread will get the attention it deserves.

For the current speed of the earth, the so called 'light speed' is like a dust, even tinier.

With exception of hitting something, there is no limitation and prohibition for a body to accelerate continously.

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 07, 2019, 12:41:18 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on July 07, 2019, 03:06:16 AM

Thought experiment:

Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.

Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?

I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.

Well, you could at least try to answer the thought experiment, you might find it enlightening. You might even find it gives some credence to UA. Aside from the calibration in empty space, it is a practical experiment.

It's said Einstein was very keen on thought experiments. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

Firstly while thought experiments can be useful to help visualise an idea, for it to have any real value the the elements within the thought experiment should be known to the thinker and based on some previous work. What you are suggestion is not a thought experiment, it’s more idle speculation.
Have you been into space? How do you know how an accelerometer would function in space, all you could do is guess, and it’s hardly a practical experiment.
I fail to see how this would throw any light on UA, but then again idle speculation is about all there is as far as flat earth experimentation goes.

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 07, 2019, 12:25:04 PM

Quote from: boydster on July 07, 2019, 05:47:21 AM

The premise of this thread is flawed to begin with. Most of the FE here do not promote UA. We can't be expected to answer for things written on the other site. If you have an issue with something in their wiki, take it up with them.

I didn't realise that some FE beliefs were off limit here. If that's the case why?

Well, UA is not a cornerstone of FE belief for most of the active FE posters here. That's why I said your premise is flawed. From your OP:

Quote

With UA being one of the cornerstones of FE belief it would be interesting to find our why FE believers gravitate toward that explanation of why things fall.

For reference, you gave a link to the other site's wiki. At the other site, they are much more pro-UA. I suspect that is where your thread will get the attention it deserves.

Is the flat earth they imagine different from the one you imagine, is so what are the differences. I was totally unaware that there was a schism within the flat earth community.
If you don’t support UA, what do you support?

Quote from: boydster on July 07, 2019, 02:23:02 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 07, 2019, 12:25:04 PM

Quote from: boydster on July 07, 2019, 05:47:21 AM

The premise of this thread is flawed to begin with. Most of the FE here do not promote UA. We can't be expected to answer for things written on the other site. If you have an issue with something in their wiki, take it up with them.

I didn't realise that some FE beliefs were off limit here. If that's the case why?

Well, UA is not a cornerstone of FE belief for most of the active FE posters here. That's why I said your premise is flawed. From your OP:

Quote

With UA being one of the cornerstones of FE belief it would be interesting to find our why FE believers gravitate toward that explanation of why things fall.

For reference, you gave a link to the other site's wiki. At the other site, they are much more pro-UA. I suspect that is where your thread will get the attention it deserves.

Is the flat earth they imagine different from the one you imagine, is so what are the differences. I was totally unaware that there was a schism within the flat earth community.
If you don’t support UA, what do you support?

On the Infinite FE, there is no upward acceleration, there is just simply a force very much like Gravity that makes things fall. JD showed the math for it. Some other ideas are density, pressure, scepti's denpressure, and I'm not sure what others there are. That's just a few off the top of my head that I have seen discussed more than UA. Ski used to argue for UA, but he not here much lately. Tom Bishop is here now, he can share his own thoughts on the matter.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on July 07, 2019, 02:01:36 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 07, 2019, 12:41:18 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on July 07, 2019, 03:06:16 AM

Thought experiment:

Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.

Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?

I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.

Well, you could at least try to answer the thought experiment, you might find it enlightening. You might even find it gives some credence to UA. Aside from the calibration in empty space, it is a practical experiment.

It's said Einstein was very keen on thought experiments. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

Firstly while thought experiments can be useful to help visualise an idea, for it to have any real value the the elements within the thought experiment should be known to the thinker and based on some previous work. What you are suggestion is not a thought experiment, it’s more idle speculation.
Have you been into space? How do you know how an accelerometer would function in space, all you could do is guess, and it’s hardly a practical experiment.
I fail to see how this would throw any light on UA, but then again idle speculation is about all there is as far as flat earth experimentation goes.

It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.

Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?

Firstly while thought experiments can be useful to help visualise an idea, for it to have any real value the the elements within the thought experiment should be known to the thinker and based on some previous work. What you are suggestion is not a thought experiment, it’s more idle speculation.
Have you been into space? How do you know how an accelerometer would function in space, all you could do is guess, and it’s hardly a practical experiment.
I fail to see how this would throw any light on UA, but then again idle speculation is about all there is as far as flat earth experimentation goes.

It is actually a fairly simple thought experiment based upon the fact that for a small area, gravity is equivalent to the ground accelerating upwards.
Accelerometers rather than directly measuring acceleration, measure a force being transmitted through the mechanism, which is calibrated to know the acceleration required to produce that force. (With the force itself being measured by some device, such as spring, with a known spring constant).

You also don't actually need to go to space.
Calibrate the accelerometer when it is sideways, so it isn't feeling gravity. Then turn it so it is vertical and it will report an acceleration of roughly 9.8 m/s² upwards.

A direct measurement of the "acceleration" of Earth using an accelerometer would yield a result indicating Earth is accelerating upwards and thus constitute a direct measure of this acceleration.
Some FEers choose this over gravity as that is what it feels like, that you are being pushed by Earth that is accelerating upwards, and that they don't feel themselves being pulled to Earth by gravity as it acts on the entire body at once, and they haven't done the experiments which demonstrate gravity over highly selective UA or the experiments which show issues with highly selective UA.

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 07, 2019, 02:35:11 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on July 07, 2019, 02:01:36 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 07, 2019, 12:41:18 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on July 07, 2019, 03:06:16 AM

Thought experiment:

Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.

Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?

I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.

Well, you could at least try to answer the thought experiment, you might find it enlightening. You might even find it gives some credence to UA. Aside from the calibration in empty space, it is a practical experiment.

It's said Einstein was very keen on thought experiments. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

Firstly while thought experiments can be useful to help visualise an idea, for it to have any real value the the elements within the thought experiment should be known to the thinker and based on some previous work. What you are suggestion is not a thought experiment, it’s more idle speculation.
Have you been into space? How do you know how an accelerometer would function in space, all you could do is guess, and it’s hardly a practical experiment.
I fail to see how this would throw any light on UA, but then again idle speculation is about all there is as far as flat earth experimentation goes.

It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.

Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?

Depends on exactly where on (or inside) the Earth you are.

What experiments show issue with UA?

These? https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

Or these? https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

What experiments show issue with UA?

These? https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

Or these? https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

I don’t think you understood the question Tom, these links you provided have nothing to do with experiments to support UA!..the first link you provided is about the variation in gravity due to latitude. The second link is again to do with variations in gravity due to factors such as elevation and rock density........nothing do do with UA.
The question was what experiments have been done to support UA?
Try again Tom.

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 07, 2019, 02:35:11 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on July 07, 2019, 02:01:36 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 07, 2019, 12:41:18 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on July 07, 2019, 03:06:16 AM

Thought experiment:

Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.

Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?

I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.

Well, you could at least try to answer the thought experiment, you might find it enlightening. You might even find it gives some credence to UA. Aside from the calibration in empty space, it is a practical experiment.

It's said Einstein was very keen on thought experiments. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

Firstly while thought experiments can be useful to help visualise an idea, for it to have any real value the the elements within the thought experiment should be known to the thinker and based on some previous work. What you are suggestion is not a thought experiment, it’s more idle speculation.
Have you been into space? How do you know how an accelerometer would function in space, all you could do is guess, and it’s hardly a practical experiment.
I fail to see how this would throw any light on UA, but then again idle speculation is about all there is as far as flat earth experimentation goes.

It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.

Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?

It would depend where you were standing, up a mountain, in a deep mine, at the poles or equator or in Canada where there is a large anomaly due to historic glacial melting.
Where would you like to stand?
As you could be standing anywhere I think this should cover everywhere.

But this has nothing to do with experiments that have been done to prove UA. Accelerometers confirm how gravity varies over the surface of the planet, and are one of the many factors that tend to disprove UA.

I’m asking what experiments have been done to prove UA other than standing on a chair or throwing a ball?


https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/04/110406-new-map-earth-gravity-geoid-goce-esa-nasa-science/

Gravimeters are seismometers. Gravimeters and gravity maps are discussed here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Evidence for UA is here and here:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity