Debunking universal acceleration theory

  • 221 Replies
  • 21703 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #180 on: August 23, 2020, 12:33:57 AM »
has a radius of curvature of 31km
Remember, the key part isn't if it has a radius of curvature somewhere that matches it. The key part is what is the maximum radius of curvature which is really asking what is the minimum curvature, and this is a case where sign is important.

It is not even the shape of the dome itself, but simply a counterexample to the nonsense posted by the RE
You mean it is just a way for you to try and escape your repeated failings?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #181 on: August 23, 2020, 12:34:49 AM »
Each amateur rocket/balloon has a GPS device aboard. You cannot estimate anything about altitude, based on visual inspection, unless you know the indices of refraction of the various ether layers.

That is why the claims made by amateur rocket/balloon launchers participants are armchair pipe dreams.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83972.150

By the way, you seem to be implying that the surface of the Earth is curved.

Can you explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere?

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #182 on: August 23, 2020, 12:59:57 AM »
Can you explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere?

Where else would the water go? What would pull those trilion billion liters of water away from the Earth?
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.

*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #183 on: August 23, 2020, 01:00:55 AM »
Can you explain to your readers
Can you explain to your readers what magic you use to link the spherical caps together which doesn't violate the minimum required curvature, rather than continuing to deflect?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #184 on: August 23, 2020, 01:18:08 AM »
Each amateur rocket/balloon has a GPS device aboard. You cannot estimate anything about altitude, based on visual inspection, unless you know the indices of refraction of the various ether layers.

That is why the claims made by amateur rocket/balloon launchers participants are armchair pipe dreams.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83972.150

Hilarious. Now you have the sun at 10 km high. It gets better everyday.
Well, with the sun at 10 km and my regular cross country flights cruising altitude at 38k’, (11.5km), I have literally flown above the sun many times. And, I didn’t burst into flames.
Let us know when you would like to rejoin reality.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #185 on: August 23, 2020, 01:42:53 AM »
and my regular cross country flights

Altitude of your flights? Perhaps 7km at most. And those regular cross country flights must take place above a flat surface of the Earth, since you have not explained how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere. You want to be flying over oceans, seas and lakes, above a curved, spherical surface right? Sure you do. Then, you have some explaining to do; otherwise, I am going to claim immediately that the surface of the Earth is flat.

Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #186 on: August 23, 2020, 09:03:50 AM »
Sandokhan, you are saying that planes fly almost two times less than we are told and no one noticed until you came along? This conspiracy is just too big

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #187 on: August 23, 2020, 09:38:11 AM »
"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."

Since ZPE is real, then the radius of curvature of the universe is 31km.

"The governmental institution known as NASA is a department of the Executive
Branch, ultimately answerable solely to the President of the United States, an Agency
created through the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958."

Original NASA Charter:

"Sec. 305... (i) The [National Aeronautics and Space] Administration shall be
considered a defense agency of the United States for the purpose of Chapter 17, Title 35 of the United States Code..."

"Sec. 205... (d) No [NASA] information which has been classified for reasons of national
security shall be included in any report made under this section [of the Act]..."


The real space program (of any country) cannot be revealed to the public, irrespective of any FE vs RE debate. It is a state secret. That is why, by design, any and all Nasa space missions, disclosed to the public, are completely fake.

To the military, the civilians are always the enemy (they come and go).

All of the major airlines work closely with the military. None of the real data (including actual flight altitude) will be revealed to the public, under any circumstances. This is irrespective of any FE vs RE debate.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #188 on: August 23, 2020, 11:25:03 AM »
All of the major airlines work closely with the military. None of the real data (including actual flight altitude) will be revealed to the public, under any circumstances. This is irrespective of any FE vs RE debate.

Again, hilarious. The 100's of thousands of people that work in the airline industry, from plane designers/engineers, aerodynamic experts to maintenance workers, to pilots, to Air Traffic Control, all are designing, maintaining, flying and navigating the world's planes at altitudes that are actually unknown to them. All because one person, you, says so, without evidence. Not to mention you have them flying so close to the sun, just 3 KM away, all of the planes of the world would be on fire mid-flight and just 24 km shy of the edge of the Universe.

In essence, you're saying that you alone are right without evidence and all of these people are wrong:



A laughable notion and completely deluded and not even in the realm of reality.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2020, 11:42:11 AM by Stash »

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #189 on: August 23, 2020, 11:29:55 AM »
The real space program (of any country) cannot be revealed to the public, irrespective of any FE vs RE debate. It is a state secret. That is why, by design, any and all Nasa space missions, disclosed to the public, are completely fake.

A random, incoherent conspiracy theory has appeared.

Everything is fake, sure.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #190 on: August 23, 2020, 11:45:47 AM »
"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."

Since ZPE is real, then the radius of curvature of the universe is 31km.

All of those people you mentioned rely on GPS data to tell them about the altitude airplanes reach.

The same GPS satellites that do not register the 333ns required for the missing orbital Sagnac effect.

You must be really gullible.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #191 on: August 23, 2020, 01:22:43 PM »
"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."

Since ZPE is real, then the radius of curvature of the universe is 31km.

All of those people you mentioned rely on GPS data to tell them about the altitude airplanes reach.

The same GPS satellites that do not register the 333ns required for the missing orbital Sagnac effect.

You must be really gullible.

Like I said, 100's of thousands of people are wrong and have no idea what they are designing/building, flying or navigating according to you and you alone, with no evidence.
In the US alone, "Every day, FAA's Air Traffic Organization (ATO) provides service to more than 44,000 flights and 2.7 million airline passengers across more than 29 million square miles of airspace."

Yep, all of those folks have no idea where they are above the ground. And yes, it would be extremely gullible of me to actually think they do know where they are and that somehow 2.7 million airline passengers get from points A to B safely and accurately every day. Must be voodoo.

Conversely, we have you, just you, with no evidence, saying the Sun is 10 KM above us and the Universe ends 21 KM above that. Everyone can read that out loud and decide for themselves who is right versus who is wrong. Really, is it I who is gullible or you who is insane and not even remotely in touch with observable reality? The people can decide.

*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #192 on: August 23, 2020, 02:16:33 PM »
"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."
Yes, that is your claim, and a conclusion which contradicts reality and is rejected by the very scientists that cling to it because they knew the universe is larger than that.

That would mean that ZPE cannot be real.
It doesn't magically mean reality is false.

A universe with a maximum radius of curvature due to a minimum curvature of 1/(31 km) simple cannot be that big.

Again, if you wish to claim it can, you need to provide this magical shape.
If you want to appeal to your spherical caps, you need to tell us what magically connects them without violating the curvature constraint.

Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #193 on: August 23, 2020, 05:50:46 PM »
and my regular cross country flights

Altitude of your flights? Perhaps 7km at most. And those regular cross country flights must take place above a flat surface of the Earth, since you have not explained how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere. You want to be flying over oceans, seas and lakes, above a curved, spherical surface right? Sure you do. Then, you have some explaining to do; otherwise, I am going to claim immediately that the surface of the Earth is flat.

 in one word GRAVITY
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17934
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #194 on: August 23, 2020, 08:00:01 PM »
in one word GRAVITY

Gravity: A Very Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton

https://books.google.com/books?id=FFQjDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT34&lpg=PT34&dq=%22earth+pushing+you%22&source=bl&ots=MV9ROmx5Eu&sig=ACfU3U17gR2YnIJbxFhEuRhKz2cR-mVBgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaoLf6xMHiAhUPpFkKHTqqAMwQ6AEwDXoECB0QAQ#v=onepage&q=%22earth%20pushing%20you%22&f=false

Quote
Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs!

The surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time in RE. lol

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #195 on: August 23, 2020, 09:20:54 PM »
Like I said, 100's of thousands of people are wrong and have no idea what they are designing/building, flying or navigating according to you and you alone, with no evidence.
In the US alone, "Every day, FAA's Air Traffic Organization (ATO) provides service to more than 44,000 flights and 2.7 million airline passengers across more than 29 million square miles of airspace."

Yep, all of those folks have no idea where they are above the ground.


You nutcase, it is the military which has provided the GPS system which determines the altitude. The same GPS which is missing the 333ns which are supposed to be recorded if the Earth is orbiting the Sun.

Conversely, we have you, just you, with no evidence, saying the Sun is 10 KM above us and the Universe ends 21 KM above that.

Not me, but Wolfgang Pauli.

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."

As for insanity, you are the dementia patient, remember?


A few years back I was in the hospital and had a not necessarily uncommon reaction to the anesthesia (It was a ketamine cocktail of some sort). In short, I was a hallucinating quite a bit. I could be having a normal conversation with you sitting beside me and also carry on a conversation with the person sitting next you who wasn't there. As well thinking we were all at a ski resort in Switzerland, could see the white tipped Alps outside the windows, etc. (I was in the States, palm trees out my window). Anyway, I was repeatedly given those tests. The effects of my temporary dementia lessened and lessened over the course of about 5 days - The tests on each of those days went from confusing to normal. Thankfully, not the other way around.

You were in a hospital, being diagnosed with dementia.

 And those regular cross country flights must take place above a flat surface of the Earth, since you have not explained how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere. You want to be flying over oceans, seas and lakes, above a curved, spherical surface right? Sure you do. Then, you have some explaining to do; otherwise, I am going to claim immediately that the surface of the Earth is flat.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #196 on: August 23, 2020, 09:44:00 PM »
This is what happens when a true scientist discovers that the accepted observational justification of an expanding Universe is fatally flawed.

The Picture that Won’t Go Away

"Only in the rarest instances has a single picture altered the direction of a scientific discipline. But in the case of the galaxy NGC 7319 and the "misplaced" quasar in front of it, the message is inescapable: its presence threatened to shatter one of the most cherished themes of mainstream astronomy, the Big Bang.

The rationale for the Big Bang rests substantially on an interpretation of a well-known phenomenon called “redshift”. The term refers to the shift of light from distant galaxies toward red on the light spectrum.

Many years ago, astronomers decided that redshifted objects must be moving away from the observer, stretching out their lightwaves. This “Doppler interpretation” of redshift enabled astronomers, based on the degree of redshift, to calculate both the distances and velocities of the objects. From these calculations, certain conclusions were inescapable. If all redshifted objects are moving farther away, the universe must be expanding. If the universe is expanding, the expansion must have had a starting point—an unimaginable explosion producing a universe of galaxies receding in every direction from the observer.

Then came the Hubble photograph, taken on October 3, 2003. The picture showed a galaxy (NGC 7319) known for its dense clouds that obstruct all objects behind its core. In front of the galaxy's core is a strongly redshifted quasar. In fact, under the prevailing assumptions, the redshift of the quasar would put it more than 90 times farther away from us than the big galaxy behind it."



A higher magnification image of the quasar shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar:




http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp


The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215.pdf


Published in the Astrophysical Journal

Geoffrey Burbidge, a professor of physics and astronomer at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences

"The quasar was found embedded in the galaxy NGC 7319 only 8 arc sec from its centre. According to the Hubble law the galaxy NGC 7319, with a redshift of 0.022, is at a distance of about 360 million light-years. Therefore these objects could not be physically connected to each other if this was true."


At the meeting of the American Astronomical Society held in Texas in 2004, Professor Margaret Burbidge presented a paper that she had co-authored with Arp and several other leading astronomers, including her husband [subsequently published in the Astrophysical Journal]. It detailed the discovery of a high redshift quasar close to a low redshift galaxy. This time, though, the alignment was different in every significant way.

This time, no one could argue. You see, the high redshift [more distant] quasar lay in front of the [less distant redshift] galaxy NGC 7319! There was no longer occasion to debate the veracity of [Arp’s] matter bridge [connecting galaxies with quasars]. The quasar was in the foreground [the galaxy in the background]. In that impressive gathering of astronomy’s who’s who, you could have heard a pin drop. It was a deafening silence.”

“The significance of this discovery is huge. We have direct, irrefutable, empirical evidence that the Hubble law stands on feet of clay, that the observational justification of an expanding Universe is fatally flawed.”


*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #197 on: August 23, 2020, 11:05:34 PM »
The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215.pdf

And in the paper you cite above they talk about NGC 7319 and it's distance from Earth, some 360 Million Light Years away. That seems just a bit more than your 31 Km, wouldn't you say?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #198 on: August 23, 2020, 11:11:35 PM »
"The redshift (averaged) is z = 0.0224, and this can be compared with the redshift of the centroid of this galaxy, z = 0.0225 (NED)."

They used the redshift calculations which have been shown to be erroneous.

The ZPE barrier slows down greatly any light signal, this effect then is attributed to "redshift" computations.

The quasar clearly is located next to the galaxy; as such, the redshift calculation of 2.114 is worthless. But then, so is the redshift figure of 0.022 used for the galaxy itself.


*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #199 on: August 23, 2020, 11:41:33 PM »
"The redshift (averaged) is z = 0.0224, and this can be compared with the redshift of the centroid of this galaxy, z = 0.0225 (NED)."

They used the redshift calculations which have been shown to be erroneous.

The ZPE barrier slows down greatly any light signal, this effect then is attributed to "redshift" computations.

The quasar clearly is located next to the galaxy; as such, the redshift calculation of 2.114 is worthless. But then, so is the redshift figure of 0.022 used for the galaxy itself.

There's nothing in the literature about "ZPE barrier slows down greatly any light signal."

If their claims are to be believed, still a few million light years away, not less than 31 km.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #200 on: August 24, 2020, 12:48:10 AM »
From the very start (1929), Dr. Fritz Zwicky (CalState) suggested another mechanism to explain the observed red-shift where photons lose energy as they propagate through space.

Using the incomplete Einstein equations, Friedman and Lemaitre thought that the universe is expanding.

"The beginning of this change and clearest illustration of the trend for me, however, goes back to 1977 when Jayant Narlikar3 solved the field equations for particle masses as a function of time, i.e. m = m(t). Friedmann in 1922 had made the approximation m = constant in the differential equations before he solved them. His expanding space-time solutions were then not general. Of course, after the more general solution the approximation m = constant can be made locally to obtain all the usual tests of relativity. But in the realm of the galaxies, the non physical invention of curved space was needed to accomodate the supposed observational data that the universe was expanding.

This brings us to the conventional assumption of extragalactic redshifts as representing large recessional velocities versus the evidence for their being an intrinsic property of young matter. The key here is the rock upon which science is founded - the observations. Large redshifts differences are observed between whole extragalactic objects which are at the same distance.

M 87 is just one example but there are now dozens of galaxy/quasar/redshift observations which tell the same story. The cry that has always gone up is that there is no viable theory to explain the redshift anomalies. But more than 20 years ago I left my office at Santa Barbara St. and went down to campus to ask Dick Feynman his opinion. After a considerable talk, not all of which I understood, he summed up by saying: The Hoyle-Narlikar theory is a complete theory and is not contradicted in any respect. But we do not need it because our present theory explains everything. There is always the chance he was putting me on a bit but I feel strongly that he could see the evidence today he would say we need it.

At any rate, again decades ago, I gave a lecture to the astronomers at Cornell about my observational findings. At the end Carl Sagan stood up and said, Well I have heard of people who did not believe in religion and other things, but you don’t believe in anything! Everyone had a good natured laugh and as we filed out Tommy Gold took me aside and said, We cannot have low mass electrons floating around in the universe because we would detect them in our laboratories. The best answer I could give was, All the particles in our galaxy would be the same age so I would expect very few intergalactic ones. And added, Also perhaps we have detected some, but have not realized it.

Imagine my reaction when reading a book review in Physics Today I caught a glimpse of the words low mass electrons. It turned out to be "Selectivity and Discord" a book by Allan Franklin 7 about controversial experiments some of which were ultimately accepted and some of which were rejected. The introduction to the chapter on low mass electron-positron states read: . . . the earliest results were all thought to be in sufficient agreement to support the existence of the electron-positron states . . . . Eventually the results were shown to be incorrect. The consensus is that there are no low mass electron-positron states. Franklin shows enough of the observed peaks observed in high energy heavy element collisions in accelerators to indicate the strength of the evidence. Some of them fit ratios of quasar redshift peaks. I can only remark that low mass electrons from nearby galaxies or quasars would be expected to show peaks at certain preferred values. Low mass electrons from higher redshift objects would have displaced peaks. In addition, this younger material is ejected intermittently in different directions from notoriously variable centers. I wonder why it was not possible just to say we do not have an explanation for these laboratory observations but perhaps it will become clearer as time goes on. Somehow I am reminded of the remark that some scientists would rather be wrong than uncertain. It seemed like a rather bitter controversy with damage done to some participants.

I am also bemused by the fact that neither I nor my astronomical colleagues knew about this rather hot conflict.

The problem seems to be about approval and fear of disapproval, jockeying for power and position. One thing seems observationally clear, lasting changes come slowly."

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ed0f/a75022287d1e57ca2d37e521a17d3ec35212.pdf

THE REDSHIFT AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY

“Thus, redshift does not really have anything to do with velocities at all in cosmology. The redshift is a … dimensionless number which … tells us the relative distance between galaxies when the light was emitted compared with that distance now. It is a great pity that Hubble multiplied z by c. I hope we will eventually get rid of the c.”

Then cosmology ran into the most baffling paradox: the vacuum catastrophe problem.

So, where does the problem lie? Exactly!

Astronomers are using the wrong equations, the Heaviside-Lorentz censored/modifed Maxwell equations.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.05472.pdf


In a significant development, a paper proving that the original J.C. Maxwell equations are invariant under Galilean transformations has been published by the IOP (Institute of Physics).

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2267461#msg2267461

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #201 on: August 24, 2020, 04:52:39 AM »
in one word GRAVITY

Gravity: A Very Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton

https://books.google.com/books?id=FFQjDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT34&lpg=PT34&dq=%22earth+pushing+you%22&source=bl&ots=MV9ROmx5Eu&sig=ACfU3U17gR2YnIJbxFhEuRhKz2cR-mVBgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaoLf6xMHiAhUPpFkKHTqqAMwQ6AEwDXoECB0QAQ#v=onepage&q=%22earth%20pushing%20you%22&f=false

Quote
Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs!

The surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time in RE. lol

The only LOL here is Tom yet again proving he can't understand simple concepts, and has no reading comprehension.

The fact that Tom thinks this proves UA is pretty solid proof of his lack of intellectual abilities, or honesty. Likely both. 

Tom, you do realize that the book you quoted refers to the Earth as a sphere and a globe and orbiting the Sun, don't you? Why didn't you quote that part?

Yet again you post a source that clearly contradicts a geocentric flat earth. Why do you keep debunking yourself? Stop debunking yourself! :)

*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #202 on: August 24, 2020, 05:17:50 AM »
You nutcase, it is the military which has provided the GPS system which determines the altitude. The same GPS which is missing the 333ns which are supposed to be recorded if the Earth is orbiting the Sun.
You sure do love spamming the same off topic lies everywhere don't you?

Why don't you stop with the spam and provide the magical which joins your spherical caps and keeps the curvature in check?

Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #203 on: August 24, 2020, 07:51:57 AM »
The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215.pdf

And in the paper you cite above they talk about NGC 7319 and it's distance from Earth, some 360 Million Light Years away. That seems just a bit more than your 31 Km, wouldn't you say?

He uses Heliocentric/globe math to disprove globe, like globers try to use math (like polaris's position on sky) to disprove FE.

Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #204 on: August 24, 2020, 07:54:40 AM »
You nutcase, it is the military which has provided the GPS system which determines the altitude. The same GPS which is missing the 333ns which are supposed to be recorded if the Earth is orbiting the Sun.
You sure do love spamming the same off topic lies everywhere don't you?

Why don't you stop with the spam and provide the magical which joins your spherical caps and keeps the curvature in check?

It is counter example, he doesn't belive  dome is shaped that way. He said it sereval times

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #205 on: August 24, 2020, 08:32:55 AM »
The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215.pdf

And in the paper you cite above they talk about NGC 7319 and it's distance from Earth, some 360 Million Light Years away. That seems just a bit more than your 31 Km, wouldn't you say?

He uses Heliocentric/globe math to disprove globe, like globers try to use math (like polaris's position on sky) to disprove FE.

Actually, no he's not using Heliocentric/globe math to disprove globe. He's using papers by some folks who are not big bang advocates and believe that the Universe is not expanding. Has nothing to do with a Heliocentric/globe earth or not. And these folks are also not contesting that the galaxy NGC 7319 is 350 million light years away, they are saying that the redshift measurements of a nearby quasar are incorrect leading to the notion that the Universe is not expanding. That's all.

So the folks he is citing are talking about celestial objects 100's of millions of light years away in direct contradiction to his 31 KM Universe, a 31 km Universe which is absurd. Just as absurd as his 10 KM sun. And just as absurd that airliners fly 3 km from the sun and the 10's of thousands of planes in the sky across the planet at any given moment have no idea what their altitude really is nor where they are going. Absurd.

And globers don't need to use math regarding Polaris position in the sky as a disproof of FE. The shear fact alone that Polaris disappears below the horizon the farther you go below the equator is evidence enough. No math required.

If you have a refutation at least read the papers involved first and don't just puke up uninformed comments that waste people's time.

*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #206 on: August 24, 2020, 02:04:08 PM »
He uses Heliocentric/globe math to disprove globe
No, he blatantly misrepresents science or uses non-science, to pretend that there is a problem for the RE.

It is counter example, he doesn't belive  dome is shaped that way. He said it sereval times
It is a failed counterexample, just like his prior ones, some complete with outright lies, which he refuses to defend.

He knows the universe is larger than a sphere of radius 31 km, so he needs to invent some way to allow that. So he repeatedly comes up with failed counterexamples which he will keep as vague as possible to have the maximum chance (but still 0) of working. If he actually said that specifically was the way it was, then when it is refuted he can't escape.

Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #207 on: September 05, 2020, 01:39:12 PM »
If the earth was accelerating at 1G:

We would see the Doppler of things near the northern stars get more an more blue shifted, relative to the objects to the side of the motion. We are not seeing that.
We do see the shift from our 66,000 MPH around the sun, up to a 20 arc second shift, depending on where you measure it, and where you are relative to the sun, during our orbit.

Also at one G just after 25 or so years, we would be really close to the speed of light. So we would notice events in deep space speeding up greatly, we are not seeing that.
Also we would approach those stars to the north, a low as 10 years.

We are seeing us going around the galaxy, Doppler motions up to plus and minus 200,000 MPH. We also see the Doppler on other spinning galaxies.

Also what is driving the acceleration?

So we cannot measure the acceleration, and have no theory on what moves it.

It's easier to have a globe in a solar system, all going around the galaxy.
Astronomer, photographer, and astro-photographer for 51 years. Satellite observer for 3 years, satellite builder in the 80's. Telescope maker and familiar with optical theory and designs. Machinists and machine tool programmer.

Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #208 on: September 05, 2020, 02:41:44 PM »
UA is caused by a huge rocket engine under the flat earth pushing us upwards at 1G.

The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« Reply #209 on: September 06, 2020, 12:54:30 AM »
If the earth was accelerating at 1G:

We would see the Doppler of things near the northern stars get more an more blue shifted, relative to the objects to the side of the motion. We are not seeing that.
We do see the shift from our 66,000 MPH around the sun, up to a 20 arc second shift, depending on where you measure it, and where you are relative to the sun, during our orbit.

Also at one G just after 25 or so years, we would be really close to the speed of light. So we would notice events in deep space speeding up greatly, we are not seeing that.
Also we would approach those stars to the north, a low as 10 years.

We are seeing us going around the galaxy, Doppler motions up to plus and minus 200,000 MPH. We also see the Doppler on other spinning galaxies.

Also what is driving the acceleration?

So we cannot measure the acceleration, and have no theory on what moves it.

It's easier to have a globe in a solar system, all going around the galaxy.

Not if they are too accelerating. Some FE models say stars and planets are in dome, and dome is fixed to the egde, so it too does accelerate