[Mr. Blackwell]

Hi, I don't know anything about flat earth theory so I hope this question hasn't already been asked or addressed a million times. If it has, please accept my apology and point me in the right direction. 

I think I have a vague understanding of how the earth rotates on it's axis according to round earth theory. How it tilts a little and wobbles.

I guess I have two questions about the flat earth.

1. Does it rotate like a frisbie or like a coin being flipped?

2. Is everything on one side or is there something on the other side?

Here is a short video which illustrated my current understanding of how the earth moves through the galaxy based on being a roundish sphere falling into the suns gravitational well.

[Ghost of V]

1. The Earth does not rotate. It is not a globe, and it is not orbiting anything. The Sun and Moon discs, however, do circle above the Earth in what could be called a rotation.

2) Human civilization is on one side. What's on the other side is still inconclusive.  The Earth is actually accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/s^2), making life on the other side probably impossible because there is no gravitational pull (as you know it), and the Earth would simply float off above something below it.

[Mr. Blackwell]

I visualize the earth as falling down, not moving up....is there a significant difference between how the force of momentum would keep us firmly rooted on the ground between up vs. down? Right vs. left or any other direction?

Is there a graphic to illustrate how the flat earth moves through the galaxy or how the sun and moon move around the earth? Is every large celestial body a disk? I am a visual learner. Since I am new to this I will naturally have a bazillion questions. Thank you for answering the first two.

They really didn't make much sense to me but I don't expect much here will...that's not a slam against flat earth theory mind you, I also do not have a great understanding of the currently accepted model either.

Fair warning, I am not smart enough to debunk anyone and won't be trying to prove anything. All my questions are born from natural curiosity. I don't often engage in dialectics. 

[Ghost of V]

All your questions have been answered in our extensive wiki. Here is a link to the basic FAQs, from there you can find many diagrams showing how the Flat Earth works. Keep in mind that our community is not entirely in agreement about how every detail works, so you will encounter many theories depending on who's answering the questions.

I visualize the earth as falling down, not moving up....is there a significant difference between how the force of momentum would keep us firmly rooted on the ground between up vs. down? Right vs. left or any other direction? 

I'm not sure what you're asking here. The Earth moves up at 9.8m/s^2, which emulates what you know of as 'gravity'. Round Earth science teaches that gravity is what holds us to the Earth, but it's really an upward momentum that holds us down. We know this to be true because the speed of an object falling freely near the Earth's surface will increase by about 9.81 metres (32.2 ft) per second every second. The Earth only moves upward. It does not move sideways, downward, diagonally, etc.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Thank you, I will check out the link.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. The Earth moves up at 9.8m/s^2, which emulates what you know of as 'gravity'. Round Earth science teaches that gravity is what holds us to the Earth, but it's really an upward momentum that holds us down. We know this to be true because the speed of an object falling freely near the Earth's surface will increase by about 9.81 metres (32.2 ft) per second every second.

I guess what I am asking is a matter of perspective. If we are only on one side of the earth and the force of the earth moving is what holds us to the ground then to me it doesn't seem to be very important which direction the earth is actually moving just so long as our back are against the wall and facing the direction in which the earth happens to be moving. I guess I am thinking of something like centrifugal force. Or like the feeling you get whenever you are in a car that has a lot of horse power which can take off at a high rate of speed...as the car accelerates forward it is moving faster than your body at that moment, you feel your body being pressed against the seat.



So to me, lets say if the earth wasn't moving up and we jumped...then we would never "fall" because the earth would not be moving to catch up with us. In my mind it works the same way if we are facing down. The downward moment of the earth moving faster than our own body after we jump would be the same wouldn't it?

I don't know if I am explaining my question clearly. I just don't understand why the earth necessarily must be moving up.

[Ghost of V]

I think I understand. It is a matter of perspective entirely. There is no up and down in space. We could technically be moving sideways, upwards, and downwards all at the same time because it is all relative in space. I agree that it doesn't make a difference.

[Lemmiwinks]

1. The Earth does not rotate. It is not a globe, and it is not orbiting anything. The Sun and Moon discs, however, do circle above the Earth in what could be called a rotation.

2) Human civilization is on one side. What's on the other side is still inconclusive.  The Earth is actually accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/s^2), making life on the other side probably impossible because there is no gravitational pull (as you know it), and the Earth would simply float off above something below it.

So if the world is flat, and the sun rotates around in the sky, it would be clearly visible from anywhere on the planet at all times, I know the cop out on this is then a spot light sun, but then explain why you can't see the sun at all times using infrared imaging.

If the Earth is constantly accelerating then at this point we must be closing in on the speed of light, why have we not seen any side affects of this due to time dilation?

[Ghost of V]

So if the world is flat, and the sun rotates around in the sky, it would be clearly visible from anywhere on the planet at all times, I know the cop out on this is then a spot light sun, but then explain why you can't see the sun at all times using infrared imaging.

It would not be visible from everywhere on Earth. The light bends due to the magnetic force of the heavens. This is called Bendy Light Theory, I suggest you look it up in our wiki.

If the Earth is constantly accelerating then at this point we must be closing in on the speed of light, why have we not seen any side affects of this due to time dilation?

http://wiki.tfes.org/UA

Please see: "Why doesn't the Earth's velocity reach the speed of light?"

[Lemmiwinks]

So if the world is flat, and the sun rotates around in the sky, it would be clearly visible from anywhere on the planet at all times, I know the cop out on this is then a spot light sun, but then explain why you can't see the sun at all times using infrared imaging.

It would not be visible from everywhere on Earth. The light bends due to the magnetic force of the heavens. This is called Bendy Light Theory, I suggest you look it up in our wiki.

If the Earth is constantly accelerating then at this point we must be closing in on the speed of light, why have we not seen any side affects of this due to time dilation?

http://wiki.tfes.org/UA

Please see: "Why doesn't the Earth's velocity reach the speed of light?"

If the magnetic field is strong enough to bend light at such extreme angles then why doesnt it bend light under all circumstances. It should be observable across all aspects of reality.

Ok, garbage equations arent needed to disprove to UA. Hear me out. Lets do this like a geometry proof.

UA theory says Earth is constantly accelerating to maintain the gravity like effects.
Speed of light is constant.
Dark energy apparently doesnt have the juice to make the Earth reach light speed.
Then earth cannot continuously accelerate since dark energy cannot continue to accelerate it.
UA theory falls apart.

The only way you can say that works is if the speed of light increases constantly.

[Ghost of V]

Just because you don't understand the equations doesn't mean they're "garbage equations". Maybe do a bit of research then come back?

[Lemmiwinks]

Just because you don't understand the equations doesn't mean they're "garbage equations". Maybe do a bit of research then come back?

Just going to ignore the proof I see.

I don't need to understand an equation that purports to explain everything when I can simply think through the theory and show its impossible. To maintain the gravitational constant under your UA theory the earth must continue to accelerate at a constant speed.

That equation you say answers it just states what Einstein already said, the closer you get to the speed of light the energy needed to get there approaches infinity which means the mass of the object approaches infinity. Only now it says that obviously duh, its because dark energy cant reach infinity.

The fallacy of UA theory is in its own efforts to describe itself. Hiding that fallacy behind a made up equation doesn't change the massive logic holes in it.

[Ghost of V]

Just because you don't understand the equations doesn't mean they're "garbage equations". Maybe do a bit of research then come back?

Just going to ignore the proof I see.

I don't see any proof of anything. Care to elaborate on how you came to this conclusion about dark energy? Are you a physicist? Have you done the math? Do you even understand the frankly elementary formulas displayed in the UA wiki page?

Just because you say "Dark energy isn't powerful enough to push the Earth" doesn't make it so. You need supporting evidence. Please come back when you've done the math.

And yes, you need to understand an equation to disprove it.

[Lemmiwinks]

Just because you don't understand the equations doesn't mean they're "garbage equations". Maybe do a bit of research then come back?

Just going to ignore the proof I see.

I don't see any proof of anything. Care to elaborate on how you came to this conclusion about dark energy? Are you a physicist? Have you done the math? Do you even understand the frankly elementary formulas displayed in the UA wiki page?

Just because you say "Dark energy isn't powerful enough to push the Earth" doesn't make it so. You need supporting evidence. Please come back when you've done the math.

And yes, you need to understand an equation to disprove it.

Sure, check out this site, someone here gave it to me, look at the last sentence.

http://wiki.tfes.org/UA#Why_doesn.27t_the_Earth.27s_velocity_reach_the_speed_of_light.3F

Let me quote it for you.

As you can see, it is impossible for dark energy to accelerate the Earth past the speed of light.

I guess maybe you should check your FAQ as well? Maybe do a little research?

See how now my proof does disprove the theory without having to wade through a bullshit equation?

[Ghost of V]

There's still no proof or evidence of anything in your posts. You're making assumptions and statements. Congrats.

Dark energy (also known as aether, or aetheric wind) is powerful enough to accelerate the Earth upward. However, it is not powerful enough to reach the speed of light. What is so hard to understand here? It is impossible for dark energy to reach the speed of light. It is possible for dark energy to accelerate the Earth upward. I don't know how to dumb it down further than that.

But it seems like you know something we don't know...

Are you privy to the full understanding of the workings of dark energy? If so, please enlighten us. Please explain exactly how dark energy works, what it's composed of, and how it interacts with space/time.

Thank you.

[Lemmiwinks]

There's still no proof or evidence of anything in your posts. You're making assumptions and statements. Congrats.

Dark energy (also known as aether, or aetheric wind) is powerful enough to accelerate the Earth upward. However, it is not powerful enough to reach the speed of light. What is so hard to understand here? It is impossible for dark energy to reach the speed of light. It is possible for dark energy to accelerate the Earth upward. I don't know how to dumb it down further than that.

But it seems like you know something we don't know...

Are you privy to the full understanding of the workings of dark energy? If so, please enlighten us. Please explain exactly how dark energy works, what it's composed of, and how it interacts with space/time.

Thank you.

I see your debate style. Got it.

Ok instead of giving ammo for you to use to skirt what I say and repeat your points, I'll jump straight to the meat.

To maintain 1 gravity, the earth under UA must constantly accelerate at an ever increasing rate.

To maintain that acceleration the earth must constantly be going faster

speed of light is a constant, a hard wall.

Faster means it must eventually reach the speed of light.

Since we both agree that going the speed of light is impossible, then the earth must then slow down. Its acceleration must decrease to zero and it will hit a constant speed.

Gravity effect, goes poof.

Did I miss something here?

[Ghost of V]

You did miss something. Special relativity.

According to the Special theory of Relativity, the Earth can accelerate forever without reaching or passing the speed of light.  Relative to Earth observers, the Earth's acceleration will always be 1g. Relative to an inertial observer outside of the flatmosphere: the Earth's acceleration decreases as its velocity approaches c (speed of light). It all depends on our frame of reference to measure and explain the Earth's motion. Thus, despite what most people think, there is no absolute velocity of the Earth.

If you're going to argue against this then you're arguing against Albert Einstein himself.

[jroa]

To maintain 1 gravity, the earth under UA must constantly accelerate at an ever increasing rate.

No, it would only need to be a constant rate.   

[Lemmiwinks]

You did miss something. Special relativity.

According to the Special theory of Relativity, the Earth can accelerate forever without reaching or passing the speed of light.  Relative to Earth observers, the Earth's acceleration will always be 1g. Relative to an inertial observer outside of the flatmosphere: the Earth's acceleration decreases as the its velocity approaches c (speed of light). It all depends on our frame of reference to measure and explain the Earth's motion. Thus, despite what most people think, there is no absolute velocity of the Earth.

If you're going to argue against this then you're arguing against Albert Einstein himself.

That works until you take everything about approaching the speed of light into account. If we are all on one side of this disc, and approaching the speed of light, we would see every star as blue shifted, eventually just fading to black. However, there is an even scattering of blue and red shifted celestial objects through out the sky.

The relevant formula is:



                cos(Theta) +  (V/c)
Cos(Theta') =  ---------------------
                1 + (V/c)cos(Theta)

Where V is the velocity of the spaceship, Theta is the angle between the star and the direction of travel when the spacecraft is at rest, and Theta is the same angle measured when the spacecraft is in motion.

What happens is that as you look in the direction of travel, the star images shift to smaller angles, Theta, in the direction of travel. At 75 percent the speed of light, the stars that are 90 degrees from the direction of motion have now shifted to a position 41 degrees from the direction of motion in the sky. At even higher speeds, all of the stars in the forward hemisphere will shift to positions within a degree or less of the direction of travel. At ultra-relativistic speeds, all the stars will merge together into one 'star-like' object located directly ahead of you. Because of the Doppler effect, the light will become increasingly blue-shifted and the 'star' will appear blindingly white. Because the dominant source of radiation in the universe is in the cosmic background radiation, it is this blue-shifted light that will dominate what you see over the light from individual stars.

Traveling at a constant 1 gravity of acceleration means we would reach near light speed in about 12 years. So we can go ahead and assume that the earth is now traveling at 99.999999999999999999999999998...% of the speed of light by now.

What is seen does not match what special relativity predicts will happen.

And youre right jroa. Howdy by the way!

[Ghost of V]

The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. Therefore, they are moving upward with the Earth. This explains why they do not 'blue shift', as you say. And yes, the stars are much smaller than you believe.

[Lemmiwinks]

The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. Therefore, they are moving upward with the Earth. This explains why they do not 'blue shift', as you say. And yes, the stars are much smaller than you believe.

So over a hundred billion stars, each with a few planets each we think now, so a few hundred billion planets, including the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, each with their own hundred billion stars and hundreds of billions of planets and the galactic filaments those things comprise? What is forcing this much mass to stick to such a tiny disk?

Hell, even if the stars are microscopic the mass of the stars all orbiting around us for no reason would be staggering.