Empirical Evidence for Universal Acceleration

There are still Flat Earth theories going around which speculate that there is some phenomena which pulls or pushes objects towards the ground. Electromagnetism, Aether, and Buoyancy FE gravity theories all propose that that the Earth is stationary and that there is a phenomenon which accelerates bodies through space down towards the surface of the Earth. All of the alternatives theories have a stationary Earth and some kind of phenomenon which accelerates bodies towards it.

Empirical evidence for the upwards acceleration of the Earth can be found in an accelerometer. An accelerator is a simple device which provides a fundamental truth. This device detects acceleration on its internal springs or components. When an accelerometer is accelerated through space it will be able to feel and detect that acceleration.

An accelerometer in a jet can detect when the jet accelerates at 1g:



It stands that if there is some phenomena pushing or pulling objects through space towards the Earth then, like the accelerometer in the jet, an accelerometer should feel itself being accelerated though space and towards the Earth while it is in free fall. However, the truth is that when an accelerometer is in free fall it feels no acceleration.

From a paper by an RE'er - http://gravityprobe.org/GravityProbe%20Links/Galileo-Undone-Mar-10-2020.pdf





There is no acceleration detected by the accelerometer in free-fall because the body in free fall is not accelerating. The Earth is accelerating upwards into the bodies. Any theory of gravity which physically accelerates bodies through space and towards the ground would necessarily cause the accelerometer to feel that acceleration. The fact that the accelerometer does not feel acceleration while in free fall is direct, empirical, and mechanical evidence against those theories.

Here is another clue that something else must be going on: a spring in free fall will register no weight at all, as would a body in free fall.

A motion of a body in free fall is completely different than the horizontal acceleration of an airplane.

The first physicist to notice that a body in free fall will acquire kinetic energy from an external source was Charles Brush in 1911:

http://www.rexresearch.com/brush/brush.htm

Now, if an object undergoes TORSION/ROTATION during free fall, its weight will decrease, a proof of the existence of ether.

http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html (experiment carried out by the team of researchers which worked with Dr. Bruce DePalma)

Gyro Drop Experiment

In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity. The elapsed time taken to fall a measured distance of 10.617 feet was measured, with the rotor stopped and also with the rotor spinning at approximately 15,000 RPM.

Data was gathered on a Chronometrics Digital Elapsed Dime Clock measuring 1/10,000 second, actuated by two phototransistor sensors placed in the paths of two light beams which were consecutively interrupted by the edge of the casing of the falling gyroscope.

A fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.



Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.


You, the UAFE, are discarding the existence of ether much too easily, and instead are proposing a contraption which boggles the mind: the earth is moving upwards at a certain speed, without the slightest explanation of the source of energy required for this SF trip, or without the slightest consideration for the shape of such an orbit which must be either circular or elliptical since now it has been proven that the universe does have an outer edge or boundary.

If the ether does exist, then the UA is discarded immediately: and there plenty of proofs for the existence of the ether.

You, the UAFE, discard the existence of terrestrial gravitation, and yet, you resort to attractive gravitation (of all possible things) to explain the movements/orbits of the planets. What does this tell you?

Here is the empirical evidence for electrogravity, the Weyl-Ivanov formulas:





The first upward (using + sign) antigravitational acceleration formula counteracts the downward g force. Since g_z is derived using electrogravity, the g force is also related to electrogravity.

Biefeld-Brown effect empirical evidence:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065

Nipher electrogravitational experiments:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852840#msg1852840

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Both g_force and g_z are electrogravitational forces.

Now, here is the most direct and important proof that the g force is electrogravitational in nature: g_z can ALSO be directed downwards (the capacitor will gain weight, becoming heavier), with the - sign, no need to have the Earth move upwards at all. g_-z and g_force are both directed downwards, both are electrogravitational forces.

More empirical evidence.

Increase in weight of a spinning top

"According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.

A spinning top weights more than the same top standing still. However, according to Einstein's theory, the difference is negligible. It should be so small that we shouldn't even be capable of measuring it. But now scientists from the European Space Agency have actually measured it. At first they couldn't believe the result.

"We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement."

This may be the first empiric clue for how to merge together quantum mechanics and general theory of relativity in a single unified theory.

Although the acceleration produced by the spinning superconductor was 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, it is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts. Thus, the spinning top generated a much more powerful gravitomagnetic field than expected."

http://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Discovery_and_Preparation/Towards_a_new_test_of_general_relativity

The results, obtained in the framework of an ESA contract, were presented at a one-day conference at ESA's European Space and Technology Research Centre (ESTEC), in the Netherlands, 21 March 2006.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf

For the first time, non-Newtonian gravitational and gravitomagnetic fields of
measurable magnitude were observed in a laboratory environment.

The existence of the gravitational Faraday law was shown.


The authors of the experiment should know that there also exists a magnetic Biefeld-Brown effect formula whose effects should be compared against the data of their own findings:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

Sandokhan, the accelerometer is an truthful instrument. It is a mechanical device tells which us what is accelerating. The readings of this device are an absolute physical fact.

Your quotes about spinning tops gaining mass are interesting, but may be unconnected to any particular theory of gravity. Those effects might occur for a reason which has nothing to do with the phenomenon which causes the effect of gravity.

The fact is that if there is a phenomenon which is accelerating bodies towards the Earth (or in any direction), the accelerometer should feel itself being accelerated through space:



Above: The accelerometer is accelerated towards the Earth with an invisible mechanism. The accelerometer feels itself being accelerated downwards through space and this reading is reflected on its output.

Yet, in reality, the reading is zero while in free fall.



Reality: The Accelerometer reads Zero Acceleration while in Free Fall

You are assuming that there must be "something" which causes the reading of an accelerometer to read as zero while in free fall, despite that it is being accelerating through space towards the Earth with your assumed mechanism. This is a denial of physical reality.

The horizontal ether waves drift will no longer be able to connect with the absorbing wormholes of the object in free fall: zero weight. However, the constant shower of subquarks will still impart the downward motion to the object itself, this will register as the g force.

Your quotes about spinning tops gaining mass are interesting, but may be unconnected to any particular theory of gravity.

It doesn't work like that.

You have been presented two proofs: one is experimental, the other one is represented by a formula.

An object in rotation will fall faster than the same object which does not rotate. This alone puts an end to UA.

g_-z will produce an increase in weight of the object, a downard acceleration; this formula alone will nullify the UA.

But you are not here to listen to proofs. For the past 13 years you've had ample space and a huge opportunity to present the UA. Not one, not two, but three FE websites, all of which showcased ONLY your hypothesis.

In fact, the UA has become more important than the FET itself: hence the accusation by the RE and some FE that this is a psyop, even controlled opposition. Has there ever been an instance where you were able to convince anyone (RE or FE) of the correctness of the UA? Not even once, right? Yet, you persist with this hypothesis. Does it make any sense at all to suppose that the Earth is moving upwards at a certain speed, just because 13 years ago no one in the FES had any knowledge of ether theory, and this was the "best" they could come up with regarding an explanation for terrestrial gravity?

Lets imagine that there is "some reason" the accelerometer feels zero acceleration while in free fall, despite its acceleration downwards. Maybe the invisible pulling phenomena is pulling all atoms in the device down at the same acceleration, preventing it from giving an accurate reading of acceleration.

Whatever the explanation for that, this still does not explain why when sitting on the surface of the Earth the accelerometer feels itself being pushed upwards like was quoted in the diagrams from that paper in my OP. We saw diagrams like this:



Above: While resting on the Earth the accelerometer now feels itself being accelerated upwards, not pulled downwards

An accelerometer can, of course, detect which way it is being accelerated, like an accelerometer in a jet can know which direction the jet is accelerating. In this case, when resting on the Earth it feels itself being accelerated upwards through space.

Yet another piece of evidence that the Earth is accelerating upwards. You have all of this working against your idea that bodies are being pulled and accelerated downwards through space towards the Earth. Not only this, but many Equivalence Principle experiments as well. This one is just incredibly obvious. You simply cannot accept physical reality and resort to explanations about "absorbing wormholes" and such, among other things, to maintain your stationary earth.

These are all physical faces that you have to "explain". Don't you see the problem with that? Reality says one thing and you need to find ways to explain it away.

"Ignore all this flying through the air stuff. Inside the accelerometer is a proof mass. It is a little piece of metal that is suspended with springs. The accelerometer measures the distance this proof mass is displaced.

Ignoring gravity, if you were to move the accelerometer upwards, the proof mass will be displaced towards the bottom of the accelerometer (because its inertia wants to keep it where it is). The accelerometer is programmed to interpret this as an acceleration in the upward direction.

When the accelerometer is resting on the table, gravity is pulling the proof mass towards the bottom of the accelerometer, similar to above, so it interprets that as an acceleration in the upward direction."

Now, apply the ether theory I have just detailed.

Your accelerometer is not helping your case at all.

You have all of this working against your idea that bodies are being pulled and accelerated downwards through space towards the Earth.


RE = pulling

AFET = receptive/emissive aether wormholes

The absorbing wormhole theory is a proven fact of science.

So you think you can play with me...

Vertical SAGNAC EFFECT experiment:



The technology used in Doug Marrett's vertical Sagnac interferometer is the most advanced so far.

It uses a fiber-optic gyroscope (FOG).

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Sagnac/SagnacEarth.html

The experiment detected the CORIOLIS EFFECT, just like Michelson and Gale did.

BUT NOT THE SAGNAC EFFECT.

The vertical MMX or SGX does not record the SAGNAC EFFECT AT ALL.

Two very different formulas.

Here is the Coriolis effect formula:

Δt = 4AΩ/c^2

It is a physical effect, and it is directly proportional to the area of the interferometer.

By contrast, the Sagnac effect formula is an electromagnetic effect, and is directly proportional to the velocity.



This means that the Earth does not move in a vertical direction at all.

The GPS satellites do not register any orbital SAGNAC EFFECT at all (missing 333ns).