# Acceleration is not constant on Earth

• 453 Replies
• 21776 Views

#### sokarul

• 18133
• Discount Chemist
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #240 on: August 02, 2019, 06:40:59 AM »
The laws of inertia say that in order to push or pull a body through space, that body must be subject to inertial resistance. A greater body has more inertial resistance than a smaller body. It is easy to push a marble down the road and much more difficult to push a car in neutral down the street. Yet a bowling ball and a feather 'fall' at the same rate.

How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?
I don't know about how any "smart people" might explain how gravity "knows" but I'd try to explain it this way.

In Newtonian gravitation the force due to gravity is given by: force = g × mass but acceleration = force/mass .
So acceleration = (g × mass)/mass and the mass cancels. Hence for all unconstrained objects the acceleration = g.
Hence, unless constrained for example by air-resistance, the feather and the bowling ball will accelerate at the same rate.

Einstein recognised that objects in free-fall experience no force and after some years of work this lead to his Theory of General Relativity.

The end result is that any force due to gravitation is an inertial force as a result of preventing an object from following a geodesic in curved spacetime, where a geodesic in curved spacetime is the equivalent of a straight line in Euclidean (non-curved) space.

But there are better people than I at explaining GR.
There's little point in most people bothering with GR because in most calculations Newtonian Laws are perfectly adequate.

And how does gravity know that it needs to impart more energy on an elephant vs a book to get them to accelerate at the same rate and nullify inertial resistance?

Gravity does’t impart energy. Rather spacetime is bent. Objects then follow the bent spacetime.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### sokarul

• 18133
• Discount Chemist
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #241 on: August 02, 2019, 06:48:15 AM »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### John Davis

• Secretary Of The Society
• 16568
• Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #242 on: August 02, 2019, 11:38:19 AM »
How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?
From a simple view, the same way the electrostatic force "knows" to impart the necessary amount of energy on each charged object to accelerate them through space at a rate based upon their charge and inertial mass.
The only way in which gravity is different is that the "charge" is the same as the inertial mass.

The more complex understanding is that space-time itself is bent such that objects merely follow geodesics through space time.
How does gravity communicate this information to a vacuum?

I'll save you some time. Magic. At some point all discussions of round earth gravity must rely on what is essentially magic for them to function. You will find any unbounded recursion into how gravity works eventually ends up with a hearty shrug.

Several flat earth models however avoid this nonsense. No; its not turtles all the way down.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

#### Themightykabool

• 3757
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #243 on: August 02, 2019, 11:51:48 AM »
The mechanism unknown but repeatibly measureable.
Refraction and fall rate and eclispes and other such measureable and predictable things.

Unlike fe sunsets, winter-summer, how big australia is, rises to eye level, looks flat, how big antartica is, star trails, ice walls, nasa's ability to keep a 100,000yr old secret...

?

#### Unconvinced

• 1632
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #244 on: August 02, 2019, 12:38:45 PM »

How does gravity communicate this information to a vacuum?

I'll save you some time. Magic. At some point all discussions of round earth gravity must rely on what is essentially magic for them to function. You will find any unbounded recursion into how gravity works eventually ends up with a hearty shrug.

Several flat earth models however avoid this nonsense. No; its not turtles all the way down.

Which flat earth “models” rely less on unexplained magics than the heliocentric model?

#### Macarios

• 2074
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #245 on: August 02, 2019, 12:49:43 PM »
How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?
From a simple view, the same way the electrostatic force "knows" to impart the necessary amount of energy on each charged object to accelerate them through space at a rate based upon their charge and inertial mass.
The only way in which gravity is different is that the "charge" is the same as the inertial mass.

The more complex understanding is that space-time itself is bent such that objects merely follow geodesics through space time.
How does gravity communicate this information to a vacuum?

I'll save you some time. Magic. At some point all discussions of round earth gravity must rely on what is essentially magic for them to function. You will find any unbounded recursion into how gravity works eventually ends up with a hearty shrug.

Several flat earth models however avoid this nonsense. No; its not turtles all the way down.

Not "to a vacuum".
It is "through a vacuum".

The same question goes for electrostatic field.
The same question goes for magnetic field.

Which Flat model "avoids this 'nonsense' " ?

Once we comprehend the true meaning of "fourth dimension" (and the higher ones)
we will be able to observe and understand some things we can't grasp now.
In those higher dimensions the Earth could have shape that we don't even know exists...

Reverting the knowledge 3000 years backwards and masking progress won't help.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17587
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #246 on: August 02, 2019, 02:26:04 PM »
Evidence gravity varies by altitude.

Video summary.

I don't see anything about that. Quote it.

The abstract from the GREAT experiment just says that they improved on the Equivalence Principle measurement of Gravity Probe A rocket:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070519300271

" We present the result of the analysis of the GREAT (Galileo gravitational Redshift test with Eccentric sATellites) experiment. An elliptic orbit induces a periodic modulation of the fractional frequency difference between a ground clock and the satellite clock, partly due to the gravitational redshift, while the good stability of Galileo clocks allows one to test this periodic modulation to a high level of accuracy. GSAT0201 and GSAT0202, with their large eccentricity and on-board H-maser clocks, are perfect candidates to perform this test. Satellite laser ranging data allows us to partly decorrelate the orbit perturbations from the clock errors. By analyzing several years of Galileo tracking data, we have been able to improve the Gravity probe A test (1976) of the gravitational redshift by a factor of 5.6, providing, to our knowledge, the first reported improvement since more than 40 years. "
« Last Edit: August 02, 2019, 02:37:51 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### JackBlack

• 13783
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #247 on: August 02, 2019, 03:09:14 PM »
How does gravity communicate this information to a vacuum?
How does the electrostatic force communicate this information?
The same issues apply for all the fundamental forces.
With all fundamental forces there is always another question that can be asked any time an actual explanation is provided.

Several flat earth models however avoid this nonsense. No; its not turtles all the way down.
BS.
Everything has this "nonsense".
FE cannot explain what is causing the acceleration of Earth.
But unlike gravity, there is no justification for this magically acceleration being a fundamental force.

So the main difference is that FE resorts to this nonsense much earlier.

#### sokarul

• 18133
• Discount Chemist
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #248 on: August 02, 2019, 03:22:27 PM »
Evidence gravity varies by altitude.

Video summary.

I don't see anything about that. Quote it.

The abstract from the GREAT experiment just says that they improved on the Equivalence Principle measurement of Gravity Probe A rocket:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070519300271

" We present the result of the analysis of the GREAT (Galileo gravitational Redshift test with Eccentric sATellites) experiment. An elliptic orbit induces a periodic modulation of the fractional frequency difference between a ground clock and the satellite clock, partly due to the gravitational redshift, while the good stability of Galileo clocks allows one to test this periodic modulation to a high level of accuracy. GSAT0201 and GSAT0202, with their large eccentricity and on-board H-maser clocks, are perfect candidates to perform this test. Satellite laser ranging data allows us to partly decorrelate the orbit perturbations from the clock errors. By analyzing several years of Galileo tracking data, we have been able to improve the Gravity probe A test (1976) of the gravitational redshift by a factor of 5.6, providing, to our knowledge, the first reported improvement since more than 40 years. "

It’s right there in the abstract.

The video explains it starting around 2:15 mark. Overall the distance from apogee to perigee is 9,000 km. So the difference in gravitation can be seen in the onboard clock.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17587
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #249 on: August 02, 2019, 04:19:48 PM »
Evidence gravity varies by altitude.

Video summary.

I don't see anything about that. Quote it.

The abstract from the GREAT experiment just says that they improved on the Equivalence Principle measurement of Gravity Probe A rocket:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070519300271

" We present the result of the analysis of the GREAT (Galileo gravitational Redshift test with Eccentric sATellites) experiment. An elliptic orbit induces a periodic modulation of the fractional frequency difference between a ground clock and the satellite clock, partly due to the gravitational redshift, while the good stability of Galileo clocks allows one to test this periodic modulation to a high level of accuracy. GSAT0201 and GSAT0202, with their large eccentricity and on-board H-maser clocks, are perfect candidates to perform this test. Satellite laser ranging data allows us to partly decorrelate the orbit perturbations from the clock errors. By analyzing several years of Galileo tracking data, we have been able to improve the Gravity probe A test (1976) of the gravitational redshift by a factor of 5.6, providing, to our knowledge, the first reported improvement since more than 40 years. "

It’s right there in the abstract.

The video explains it starting around 2:15 mark. Overall the distance from apogee to perigee is 9,000 km. So the difference in gravitation can be seen in the onboard clock.

What you referenced says that the clocks were mismatched, but that's expected in Einstein's Equivalence Principle. The Gravity Probe A rocket experiment is a verification of the Equivalence Principle which says that clocks at the bottom will tick slower than clocks at the top. The upwards acceleration through space causes one at a lower position to perceive the signals from the higher clock at a faster and faster rate, as the lower position is accelerating into that broadcaster information. The Gravity Probe A experiment found that the clocks at two extreme positions were mismatched exactly how Einstein predicts in his Equivalence Principle of upwards acceleration.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#Gravitational_Time_Dilation

Quote
The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity
By Fred C. Adams, PhD and Prof. Greg Laughlin

On p.116 of The Five Ages of the Universe (Archive), its authors describe gravitational time dilation by giving an analogy of an upwardly accelerating rocket in space which contains a clock attached to the ceiling and an astronaut sitting on the floor of the rocket with another clock. The astronaut on the floor first observes his own clock, and then observes the ceiling clock:

“ however, he observes that the ceiling clock is running faster. The ceiling clock sends a tone (in the form of a radio wave) down to the floor. Because the floor is accelerating upwards, it intercepts the radio wave sooner than if the rocket were merely coasting along. If the acceleration continues, subsequent tones also arrive earlier than expected. In the viewpoint of the astronaut on the floor, the ceiling clock is broadcasting its time intervals at an increased rate, and is running fast compared to the floor clock.

According to the equivalence principle, the phenomenon of mismatched clock rates, which occurs in response to the acceleration of a rocket, also occurs in a uniform gravitational field. The equivalence principle therefore insists on a seemingly bizarre conclusion. Two clocks at different heights above Earth's surface must measure the flow of time at different rates. This strange behavior is an intrinsic feature of gravity. The variation of the flow of time within a gravitational field is entirely independent of the mechanism used to measure time. Atomic clocks, quartz watches, and biological rhythms all experience the passage of time to be dilated or compressed in the same manner. ”

The authors explain that time dilation should be a natural consequence in an upwardly accelerating rocket, and acknowledge that its application to gravity on earth is "strange" and "bizarre".

Time dilation at different altitudes has been confirmed in the laboratory. See: Optical Clocks and Relativity (Archive)

If this other experiment just improved on precision of the Gravity Probe A experiment, which claimed to confirm the Equivalence Principle when comparing a high altitude clock and a low altitude clock, then it did nothing to contradict the Equivalence Principle and only confirmed it. Show us from the official documentation on this experiment where it contradicts the Equivalence Principle of uniform upwards acceleration.

From the Gravity Probe A wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A

Quote
The experiment was thus able to test the equivalence principle. Gravity Probe A confirmed the prediction that deeper in the gravity well the time flows slower,[4] and the observed effects matched the predicted effects to an accuracy of about 70 parts per million.

Clocks mismatched in the way Einstein predicts with his Equivalence Principle.

From the GREAT abstract:

Quote
By analyzing several years of Galileo tracking data, we have been able to improve the Gravity probe A test (1976) of the gravitational redshift by a factor of 5.6, providing, to our knowledge, the first reported improvement since more than 40 years.

It says it just improved Gravity Probe A's results. Verification of the Equivalence Principle.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2019, 04:47:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### sokarul

• 18133
• Discount Chemist
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #250 on: August 02, 2019, 04:55:27 PM »
The authors of the paper are in the video. They claim the satellite provided evidence for general relativity by using gravitational redshift brought on by changes in gravitation from changes in altitude.
The equivalence principal is part of GR. Confirming the EP would confirm GR. The author states “We confirmed general relativity.”

You wanted evidence for gravitational changes by altitude, you got it.

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 40298
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #251 on: August 03, 2019, 09:12:25 AM »
How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?

Like this:
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

#### John Davis

• Secretary Of The Society
• 16568
• Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #252 on: August 03, 2019, 01:00:00 PM »
How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?

Like this:

Markjo, as you know that just begs the question: i.e. "Mass tells spacetime how to ..."

How does it tell spacetime? You've answered nothing.
Quantum Ab Hoc

#### John Davis

• Secretary Of The Society
• 16568
• Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #253 on: August 03, 2019, 01:01:22 PM »
How does gravity communicate this information to a vacuum?
How does the electrostatic force communicate this information?
The same issues apply for all the fundamental forces.
With all fundamental forces there is always another question that can be asked any time an actual explanation is provided.
In actual fact, this is true of any so called "scientific fact." It's almost like science has no ability to determine the cause of anything.
Quantum Ab Hoc

#### John Davis

• Secretary Of The Society
• 16568
• Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #254 on: August 03, 2019, 01:07:16 PM »
BS.
Everything has this "nonsense".
FE cannot explain what is causing the acceleration of Earth.
But unlike gravity, there is no justification for this magically acceleration being a fundamental force.

So the main difference is that FE resorts to this nonsense much earlier.
The question is what is the mechanism for gravity: we have answered this. Its acceleration. This is one step ahead of you lot. Well, as you admitted, infinitely many steps ahead of you.

You've said you have no explanation for fundamental forces. Clearly there is no explanation then for gravity. You can hand wave around the issue all you want, but round earth science can state nothing of fact.

I find it ridiculous for you to ask us to support our model, which you have admitted yours at its root lies on faith that at some point there will be some explanation - in spite of this being an open problem and fundamental flaw in the methodology you use to build your worldview.

Which is it? Do you know what causes gravity, or is it an unknown incomplete and at times incoherent theory?
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

#### Themightykabool

• 3757
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #255 on: August 03, 2019, 01:21:38 PM »
Hand wave nothing.
Whos behind?

RE logic:

Q1.Why do things fall?
A2.Its been shown that mass attracts mass, dunno why but it does and is an easily measureable phenomena.
Things fall "down" is because of gravity and mass and some space time PHd mumbo jumbo.

FE logic:
Q1.Why does UA go up?
A1.UA goss up because who knows.
Q2.Why does the earth block UA?
A2.Who knows.
Q3.Why are there variences in "weight" around the earth?
A3.Celestial gravity.
Q4.Oh how did gravity get into FE.
A4.To explain Q3.
Q5.So why cant the earth just have gravity?
A5.because a large flat plate would crush itself into a ball if given enough time.
Right...

#### sokarul

• 18133
• Discount Chemist
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #256 on: August 03, 2019, 01:28:58 PM »
How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?

Like this:

Markjo, as you know that just begs the question: i.e. "Mass tells spacetime how to ..."

How does it tell spacetime? You've answered nothing.
Figure that out and you win a Nobel Prize.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### John Davis

• Secretary Of The Society
• 16568
• Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #257 on: August 03, 2019, 01:39:10 PM »
Hand wave nothing.
Whos behind?

RE logic:

Q1.Why do things fall?
A2.Its been shown that mass attracts mass, dunno why but it does and is an easily measureable phenomena.
Things fall "down" is because of gravity and mass and some space time PHd mumbo jumbo.
RE Logic:

Q: Why Do Things Fall?
A: "Mass attracts mass... [blah blah] mumbo jumbo [magic]."
Q: All Mass?
A: We can't know that, but we'll say yes because we think we are so special we know about the entire universe based off a limited set of facts
Q: Isn't this against logic, and unprovable by logic?
A: Yes, as shown by every single one of our philosophers of science that have looked into it. They all have made their own rule that is also not based on logic that allows them to do this.
Q: Like a magic rule?
A: Yes.
Q: How does this force act at a distance with no carrier?
A: We invented a magic carrier for it. It travels in time. You can't see it. Its definitely not a fairy or a toaster, because we use those analogies to attack views that differ from ours anyways. We also made another magic theory which actually is contradictory to this carrier that says gravity bends space and time, rewriting geometry such that our methodology works.
Q: Doesn't that go against the idea that your particular point that we are so special we know about the entire universe based off locally experienced phenomena?
A: It does, but we ignore that too. Because science gives us microwaves.
Q: Why is it when we use the gravitational model that stems from your beliefs that we end up with a huge number of discrepancies and gravitational anomalies even when describing our own planet?
A: Yell umm.... This stuff has been repeatedly tested and falsified.
Q: I just gave instances of falsification. Can you really say something is falsified if you ignore all results to the contrary of its hypothesis? Would a batter not have a perfect average, if only his hits were recorded?

And so on.
Quantum Ab Hoc

#### Slemon

• Flat Earth Researcher
• 11690
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #258 on: August 03, 2019, 01:40:02 PM »
FE logic:
Q1.Why does UA go up?
A1.UA goss up because who knows.
Q2.Why does the earth block UA?
A2.Who knows.
Q3.Why are there variences in "weight" around the earth?
A3.Celestial gravity.
Q4.Oh how did gravity get into FE.
A4.To explain Q3.
Q5.So why cant the earth just have gravity?
A5.because a large flat plate would crush itself into a ball if given enough time.
Right...
I mean. A2: because it is a massive honking disc, I'd be more surprised if it didn't block a force.
As for A4, you realise you gave the evidence for gravity yourself right? Not all FEers object to the concept. Some like Bishop, sure, they seem to object to it on a fundamental level so I very much doubt he'd appeal to celestial gravitation. I'm pretty sure he's already said in this thread he doesn't accept the existence of variation with respect to altitude. Other FEers are not Tom Bishop, why would they agree with him by default? Jamming completely disparate points of view together and acting like you have a point only makes REers look desperate. We're really not.

#### John Davis

• Secretary Of The Society
• 16568
• Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #259 on: August 03, 2019, 01:40:25 PM »
How do those "smart people" explain how gravity knows how to impart the necessary amount of energy on each object to accelerate them through space at the same rate?

Like this:

Markjo, as you know that just begs the question: i.e. "Mass tells spacetime how to ..."

How does it tell spacetime? You've answered nothing.
Figure that out and you win a Nobel Prize.
A good point. Science is not impartial and is subject to the whims of grants, career advancement, fame and money.

Given that, how can you say the well is not tainted by "puzzle solvers" who simply push the envelope enough forward to set them up for life, and not chase actual truth - even if they are not intently doing this.
Quantum Ab Hoc

#### sokarul

• 18133
• Discount Chemist
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #260 on: August 03, 2019, 01:49:12 PM »
I can’t say some don’t.

But At least some try to find the truth.

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

#### JackBlack

• 13783
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #261 on: August 03, 2019, 01:54:14 PM »
Markjo, as you know that just begs the question: i.e. "Mass tells spacetime how to ..."
Yes, just like everything else, the difference being this is a fundamental force.

Again, how does the electrostatic interaction work?
How does one charge tell another charge to move?
How does it know to make it move just the right amount based upon its charge?

If you want to appeal to the electric field, then how does charge change the electric field?
How does the electric field make a charge move?

With UA, what causes Earth to accelerate?
With everything you will be able to just keep going down until you get to the answer.

The question is what is the mechanism for gravity: we have answered this.
No, the question is why do things fall.
We have the answer as gravity, a fundamental force observed between any 2 masses.
We even have a step further of explaining it as the curvature of space time.

On the other hand you have it as Earth magically accelerating upwards for no reason at all, with some variation thrown in for no reason at all.
That isn't one step ahead of us, it is one step behind, especially as an accelerating body is not a fundamental force.

RE Logic:
No, that is your FE strawman of RE logic.

Here is a corrected version:

Q: Why Do Things Fall?
A: "Mass attracts mass..., at a more technical level, energy (which includes mass) bends space-time with objects following a geodesic through space-time, and thus appearing to be attracted to each other.
Q: All Mass?
A: We can't know for sure, but so far all evidence points to it applying for all mass. A wide variety of masses have been tested and we are yet to find one which doesn't obey. So we take the simple, rational assumption that it would apply to all masses.
Q: Isn't this against logic, and unprovable by logic?
A: From a purely logical point of view, NOTHING is provable by logic, not even logic, as it relies upon assuming logic works.
So yes, as it isn't nothing, it is not provable by logic.
Q: How does this force act at a distance with no carrier?
A: Why should a force need a carrier? As Explained above, it is a distortion of space-time.
Q: Doesn't that go against the idea that your particular point that we are so special we know about the entire universe based off locally experienced phenomena?
A: No, that was your strawman, designed to make us look arrogant and stupid.
Q: Why is it when we use the gravitational model that stems from your beliefs that we end up with a huge number of discrepancies and gravitational anomalies even when describing our own planet?
A: Such as? Are you putting in every single piece of data about our planet?
Tell me, what is the density of Earth at a latitude of 35 degrees N and longitude of 145.7 degrees east 120.47 km below the surface?
Or perhaps expressed better, what is the uncertainty in the predicted value, and what is the anomaly?
Q: I just gave instances of falsification. Can you really say something is falsified if you ignore all results to the contrary of its hypothesis? Would a batter not have a perfect average, if only his hits were recorded?
A: No, you baselessly asserted a falsification, without any justification of it.

And so on.

?

#### JackBlack

• 13783
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #262 on: August 03, 2019, 01:59:41 PM »
I mean. A2: because it is a massive honking disc, I'd be more surprised if it didn't block a force.
You mean how it doesn't actually block it because the stars and planets and moon all manage to experience it and move up as well?

But no, as these objects which are widely different all seem to move up at the same rate, this indicates it is not an interaction based upon the surface.
If it was an interaction based upon a surface it would produce an acceleration dependent upon the area and the mass.
So a tiny object like the stars would likely accelerate very quickly and be blown away by the UA, while the much larger Earth moves much more slowly.

As it instead needs to impart enough momentum to keep all objects moving together, I would say it makes far more sense for it to permeate through all objects and effect everything, and thus not get blocked by a giant disc.

As for A4, you realise you gave the evidence for gravity yourself right?
Which would also apply to Earth, meaning Earth would exert gravity and then it either collapses into a sphere with no need for UA or it would be infinite to keep it stable and still not need UA.

?

#### Themightykabool

• 3757
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #263 on: August 03, 2019, 02:01:17 PM »
I got lucky and jackB has saved me the effort.
Whoopwhoop.

#### Slemon

• Flat Earth Researcher
• 11690
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #264 on: August 03, 2019, 02:17:07 PM »
I mean. A2: because it is a massive honking disc, I'd be more surprised if it didn't block a force.
You mean how it doesn't actually block it because the stars and planets and moon all manage to experience it and move up as well?
Because any force can be interrupted and never again reform. That's why people can take shelter from the wind anywhere so long as there's an object somewhere within a few miles in the direction the wind's coming from.
Plus you immediately follow that by demonstrating that the force on the stars etc would need to be significantly smaller than the force on the Earth so, y'know, keep on contradicting yourself because you only ever want to make arguments based on quantity over quality.

Quote

As for A4, you realise you gave the evidence for gravity yourself right?
Which would also apply to Earth, meaning Earth would exert gravity and then it either collapses into a sphere with no need for UA or it would be infinite to keep it stable and still not need UA.
Sure, how has it been demonstrated that all masses exert gravity under all conditions, rather than it being just one possible trait?

I got lucky and jackB has saved me the effort.
Whoopwhoop.

If you're relying on Jackblack, you are in a terrible position.

?

#### JackBlack

• 13783
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #265 on: August 03, 2019, 02:53:06 PM »
Because any force can be interrupted and never again reform. That's why people can take shelter from the wind anywhere so long as there's an object somewhere within a few miles in the direction the wind's coming from.
Sure, it just leaves a very tiny region blocked, that is why in order to use a building for protection from the wind you would need to be right up against it.

A rational approach would be to have the region protected be proportional to the size of the obstruction. A tree a mile away wouldn't protect  you from the wind, but a 10 m wide building still would protect you a few m from it.

Plus you immediately follow that by demonstrating that the force on the stars etc would need to be significantly smaller than the force on the Earth so, y'know, keep on contradicting yourself because you only ever want to make arguments based on quantity over quality.
It isn't just a case of the stars needing a force smaller than Earth, it is that they would need different forces from each other as well.
This means there is no reason to assume it is a surface effect, and thus no reason to assume Earth would block it.
It would be akin to saying an ordinary dinner plate should stop a magnet from attracting something on the other side.

But I notice you skipped over that part as it makes your case so much harder to prop up.

Also, people, being even smaller, would need even less force.

Sure, how has it been demonstrated that all masses exert gravity under all conditions, rather than it being just one possible trait?
In every test for it it has shown to happen, these are tests using objects from Earth, acting on other objects from Earth.

This is fundamentally incompatible with your highly selective celestial gravitation where the stars are made of magic and can exert gravity but not objects on Earth.

#### Slemon

• Flat Earth Researcher
• 11690
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #266 on: August 03, 2019, 03:10:25 PM »
This is fundamentally incompatible with your highly selective celestial gravitation where the stars are made of magic and can exert gravity but not objects on Earth.
So... when I point out that objects on Earth exert gravity and this can be detected... that means objects on Earth don't exert gravity. Sure, why not at this point? You don't even care about what you're saying do you?
Objects on Earth exerting gravity does not contardict FET, so long as the majority of the mass of the Earth itself is not exerting gravity. Understand the basics of what you are arguing against. You've been here long enough and you don't read a word do you? Jesus christ.

Quote
It isn't just a case of the stars needing a force smaller than Earth, it is that they would need different forces from each other as well.
This means there is no reason to assume it is a surface effect, and thus no reason to assume Earth would block it.

When you need to actively look for the situations where it doesn't work, that should be everything you need to know to realise you have a dumb argument.
Yep, the stars would need different forces, good thing they aren't all in the exact same location. The stars that aren't under the correct force would not be visible, they weren't made yesterday.

Earth blocks the accelerator - logical. It is not blocked forever - trivial. Some aspect of it affects the stars, but it isn't active significantly lower than that - trivial again.
You're arguing for the sake of arguing again.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17587
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #267 on: August 03, 2019, 03:15:49 PM »
The authors of the paper are in the video. They claim the satellite provided evidence for general relativity by using gravitational redshift brought on by changes in gravitation from changes in altitude.
The equivalence principal is part of GR. Confirming the EP would confirm GR. The author states “We confirmed general relativity.”

You wanted evidence for gravitational changes by altitude, you got it.

The Equivalence Principle says that gravity is like being on an upwardly accelerating platform or earth. Gravity Probe A and others claim to have confirmed the Equivalence Principle by comparing clock rates to clocks on the ground.

How could a detection of weak gravity at higher altitudes be a confirmation of the Equivalence Principle?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A

" The equivalence principle states that a reference frame in a uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from a reference frame that is under uniform acceleration. Further, the equivalence principle predicts that phenomenon of different time flow rates, present in a uniformly accelerating reference frame, will also be present in a stationary reference frame that is in a uniform gravitational field. "

It says that EP = Uniform Gravitational Field

" The objective of the Gravity Probe A experiment was to test the validity of the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle was a key component of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, and states that the laws of physics are the same regardless of whether you consider a uniformly accelerating reference frame or a reference frame that is acted upon by uniform gravitational field.

The equivalence principle can be understood by picturing a rocket ship in two scenarios. First, imagine a rocket ship that is at rest on the Earth's surface; objects in the rocket ship are being accelerated downward at 9.81 m/s˛. Now, imagine a rocket ship that has escaped Earth's gravitational field and is accelerating upwards at a constant 9.81 m/s˛ due to thrust from its rockets; objects in the rocket ship that are dropped will fall to the floor with an acceleration of 9.81 m/s˛. This example shows that a uniformly accelerating reference frame is indistinguishable from a gravitational reference frame. "

Again, EP = Uniform Gravitational Field.

" The experiment was thus able to test the equivalence principle. Gravity Probe A confirmed the prediction that deeper in the gravity well the time flows slower,[4] and the observed effects matched the predicted effects to an accuracy of about 70 parts per million. "

It says that the Gravity Probe A ballistic rocket is a confirmation of the Equivalence Principle which predicts a uniform gravitational field and the changing clock rates which should occur.

I am unable to find where the weakening of gravity is described.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2019, 03:37:03 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### Unconvinced

• 1632
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #268 on: August 03, 2019, 03:18:15 PM »
I mean. A2: because it is a massive honking disc, I'd be more surprised if it didn't block a force.
You mean how it doesn't actually block it because the stars and planets and moon all manage to experience it and move up as well?
Because any force can be interrupted and never again reform. That's why people can take shelter from the wind anywhere so long as there's an object somewhere within a few miles in the direction the wind's coming from.
Plus you immediately follow that by demonstrating that the force on the stars etc would need to be significantly smaller than the force on the Earth so, y'know, keep on contradicting yourself because you only ever want to make arguments based on quantity over quality.

Quote

As for A4, you realise you gave the evidence for gravity yourself right?
Which would also apply to Earth, meaning Earth would exert gravity and then it either collapses into a sphere with no need for UA or it would be infinite to keep it stable and still not need UA.
Sure, how has it been demonstrated that all masses exert gravity under all conditions, rather than it being just one possible trait?

I got lucky and jackB has saved me the effort.
Whoopwhoop.

If you're relying on Jackblack, you are in a terrible position.

I think the basic point is there’s so much unexplained stuff in the UA “model”, for example:

- What causes the acceleration.
- How the motions of sun, moon stars and planets works.
- Why what we actually observe doesn’t remotely match what those motions are supposed to be.

And then, if people want to put a little bit of gravity into the model, then that is no more explained under UA than heliocentrism.

So it’s a bit absurd for John to complain about the lack of a complete fundamental understanding of gravity in comparison to a model that has the same unknown, plus a whole load more.

Sneering at it being akin to magic makes no sense, when flat earth models require far more magic.

#### Slemon

• Flat Earth Researcher
• 11690
##### Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #269 on: August 03, 2019, 03:21:52 PM »
I think the basic point is there’s so much unexplained stuff in the UA “model”, for example:
'Certain users conveniently forgetting it every time they're told' is not the same thing as 'unexplained.' Only your third point there really even comes close to potentially unexplained, and that's more its own kind of argument than anything to do with UA.