[basdhasdfasdsfa]

if the earth is flat and it accelerate with 9.8 m/s^2  then it means we are traveling with a very big speed up , wich is much bigger than the speed of ligh wich cant be  hit so it doenst make any sense  , and why are we accelerating ?

quote from wiki:Due to special relativity, this is not the case. At this point, many readers will question the validity of any answer which uses advanced, intimidating-sounding physics terms to explain a position. However, it is true. The relevant equation is v/c = tanh (at/c). One will find that in this equation, tanh(at/c) can never exceed or equal 1. This means that velocity can never reach the speed of light, regardless of how long one accelerates for and the rate of the acceleration.


this doesnt make any sense

[Pete Svarrior]

this doesnt make any sense

I'm sorry that well-accepted mainstream physics makes no sense to you. I guess you're even more of a conspiracy nutjob than we are

[3DGeek]

Sadly, I have to side with the FE'ers here.

Einsteins' special relativity says that nothing can go faster than the speed of light RELATIVE TO SOME OTHER THING.

When considering relativity you always have to consider which frame of reference you are in.

In the hypothetical frame of reference of an "outside observer" - watching the Earth hurtle past - they would see the Earth accelerating by less and less as time goes on - never *quite* reaching the speed of light - they would also observe that the passage of time aboard the Earth would be slowing down more and more.

From the perspective of people ON the Earth - time slowing down for us would seem exactly like time elsewhere in the universe running faster and faster...but acceleration could continue indefinitely.

These two (seemingly contradictory) observations are actually 100% equivalent.

So - while I believe that FE theory is bunkum - you can't use relativity to argue that it can't keep accelerating forever - sorry, but Einstein doesn't prevent this.

HOWEVER: What does prove that "universal acceleration" thing is untrue is that gravity is slightly more at the poles and slightly less at the equator...and less at the tops of mountains.   The difference is about 0.7% - not massive - but enough to measure with simple equipment.  It's an easy measurement to make.

In RE theory, it's explained by the earth not being perfectly spherical (so at the poles you're closer to the center of gravity than at the equator).   There is an additional reduction in what things weigh at the equator due to the centrifugal force of the planet's rotation.

In FE theory - universal acceleration would produce absolutely uniform "fake" gravity everywhere.   Things would weigh exactly the same on top of mountains, at the poles and at the equator...since that's clearly not the case - FE theory is busted.

So...please don't use the "relativity" argument - that's NOT a flaw in FE theory...which I hate having to defend...but "intellectual honesty" matters here.

The REAL argument against FE theory is the variability of the weights of objects at different places on the Earth...for which there appears to be no plausible explanation.

[Pete Svarrior]

The REAL argument against FE theory is the variability of the weights of objects at different places on the Earth...for which there appears to be no plausible explanation.

We do not believe that universal gravitation is completely absent. Our explanation is somewhat similar yours. See this Q/A on tides.

[3DGeek]

The REAL argument against FE theory is the variability of the weights of objects at different places on the Earth...for which there appears to be no plausible explanation.

We do not believe that universal gravitation is completely absent. Our explanation is somewhat similar yours. See this Q/A on tides.

So a mix of true gravity (the attraction of masses to other masses) and "universal acceleration"?

This is at least the fourth different explanation I've seen on this forum alone for the phenomena of "weight" and "objects fall when you drop them"!  Not one of them explains all of the following three easily tested phenomena:  (a) Gravity decreases as you get closer to the equator,  (b) Gravity is less on top of tall mountains, (c) Gravity varies depending on the nature of the rocks in the ground beneath you and even bends a little from the vertical near large deposits of denser rock and near large mountain ranges.   In RE theory, these things are obviously true from the physics of Sir Isaac Newton  (law of gravity + laws of motion).

FE theorists are clearly struggling to get this "right" in FET - which is probably why so many of the 'off the cuff' answers (such as the ridiculous one about air pressure) are easily proven false.

The "Davis model" math is kinda impenetrable to the layperson - but it's seems to be mathematically sound.   What is crucial here is that in FET "gravity" can work if the flat earth is truly infinite in extent.   If not, then gravity would pull people in the outlying southerly regions toward the center of the disk.

The tidal "FAQ" does absolutely *nothing* to explain tides. eg:

1) "Why are there TWO high tides and TWO low tides every day?" - this is a subtle explanation in RET that relies on centrifugal force on the side of the earth opposite the moon - but in FET, it's quite impossible.   Compare tidal charts and moon position for any coastal town and this problem for FET is writ large...yet never mentioned anywhere.

2) "Why does the sun have so much less effect on the tides than the moon does?" - in FET, sun and moon are equal in size and distance - so there should be a high 'solar' tide at noon every single day...and there isn't.   In RET, tidal effects are far greater when two objects are close together - and the moon (although much smaller than the sun) is much closer.

The FAQ's explanation for "Terminal velocity" (which really doesn't need explaining) talks about the "acceleration due to air resistance" - which is meaningless babble...the RET explanation talks about the FORCE of gravity being balanced by the FORCE of aerodynamic drag.   If you get your language right - the explanation is identical to that in FET and RET so there is really no need to provide an explanation...unless you're denying both gravity AND universal acceleration...which (most) people here aren't.

So the FAQ is a mess...it needs sorting out.

[Pete Svarrior]

So a mix of true gravity (the attraction of masses to other masses) and "universal acceleration"?

I'll ignore the snark this time, but please try to keep it to a minimum. We have better things to do than deal with your edgy teen attitude.

This is at least the fourth different explanation I've seen on this forum alone for the phenomena of "weight" and "objects fall when you drop them"!

I'm shocked to hear you've only heard so few differing views. Perhaps you should heed my advice and do some reading before you spam Q&A.

Not one of them explains all of the following three easily tested phenomena:  (a) Gravity decreases as you get closer to the equator,  (b) Gravity is less on top of tall mountains, (c) Gravity varies depending on the nature of the rocks in the ground beneath you and even bends a little from the vertical near large deposits of denser rock and near large mountain ranges.   In RE theory, these things are obviously true from the physics of Sir Isaac Newton  (law of gravity + laws of motion).

My answer addresses all three of these phenomena.

FE theorists are clearly struggling to get this "right" in FET

See above.

such as the ridiculous one about air pressure

Have you actually found an FE'er who claims that? RE'ers love to talk about how these people are oh-so-stupid, but as far as I can tell they either don't exist or are obvious trolls.

The "Davis model" math is kinda impenetrable to the layperson - but it's seems to be mathematically sound.   What is crucial here is that in FET "gravity" can work if the flat earth is truly infinite in extent.   If not, then gravity would pull people in the outlying southerly regions toward the center of the disk.

I'd suggest you bring that up with Davis, not us.

1) "Why are there TWO high tides and TWO low tides every day?"

Sorry, what about this confuses you? I swear I've already explained this to you.

2) "Why does the sun have so much less effect on the tides than the moon does?"

Because they're completely different bodies, vastly varying in mass and other properties.

The FAQ's explanation for "Terminal velocity" (which really doesn't need explaining) talks about the "acceleration due to air resistance" - which is meaningless babble...

I see. You believe air resistance doesn't produce an acceleration. Well, I'll certainly be interested in hearing your disproof of Newtonian physics.

the RET explanation talks about the FORCE of gravity being balanced by the FORCE of aerodynamic drag.   If you get your language right

Ah, so your problem isn't with physics, it's with the English language. Well, let's see...

In fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called air resistance, a type of friction, or fluid resistance, another type of friction or fluid friction)

Gosh darn those FAQ authors, how very dare they have different mannerisms from you! Truly outrageous, that one. I fully support you in your endeavours to convince SexWarrior to correct this post-haste! Oh, wait, I don't.

So, now that we've taught you a little bit about the synonyms of "drag", the remaining contention is that we talk about acceleration, where you'd rather talk about force. This, at least, is not as moronic as your previous objection, so it deserves a proper response. You see, the FAQ is written with a target audience in mind. In this case, it's the general public. Since F=ma and since the mass in this case is constant, it's not a particularly grievous crime to simplify things for the sake of common understanding. If you think that's oh-so-terrible, ah well, we can't please them all.

the explanation is identical to that in FET and RET so there is really no need to provide an explanation

Once again, your problem is that you do not understand the purpose of the FAQ. The question is frequently asked, so it's been answered. Nobody gives a rat's ass whether or not you think the answer is obvious.

So the FAQ is a mess...it needs sorting out.

As it stands, I remain unconvinced. Your arguments boil down to:

• You don't like some of the answers you've heard, but are unable to adequately describe your confusion.
• You're one of those guys who just can't get it through their skulls that different users of the English language may use slightly different terminology here and there.
• You don't understand that the FAQ is not your personal laundry list, and just because you find a question easy does not mean other visitors with

Summarising: It's not the FAQ that's a mess in need of sorting out. It's your mindset.

[3DGeek]

So a mix of true gravity (the attraction of masses to other masses) and "universal acceleration"?

I'll ignore the snark this time, but please try to keep it to a minimum. We have better things to do than deal with your edgy teen attitude.

I'm sorry if that came across as snarky - I didn't mean it that way (PS. I'm 61 years old!)

This is at least the fourth different explanation I've seen on this forum alone for the phenomena of "weight" and "objects fall when you drop them"!

I'm shocked to hear you've only heard so few differing views. Perhaps you should heed my advice and do some reading before you spam Q&A.

I've read everything I can find from the Wiki and the other documents present here - truly, honestly.   So if there is something I missed, please take a moment to point it out.

Not one of them explains all of the following three easily tested phenomena:  (a) Gravity decreases as you get closer to the equator,  (b) Gravity is less on top of tall mountains, (c) Gravity varies depending on the nature of the rocks in the ground beneath you and even bends a little from the vertical near large deposits of denser rock and near large mountain ranges.   In RE theory, these things are obviously true from the physics of Sir Isaac Newton  (law of gravity + laws of motion).

My answer addresses all three of these phenomena.

How?

You linked to this: https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Tidal_Effects
Which says just this: "In the FE universe, gravitation (not gravity) exists in other celestial bodies. The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth.
Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."

So "The gravitational pull of the stars...causes observable tidal effects on Earth" ?!?!  How does that explain two high and two low tides per day?   The stars are always up there - if they pull on the water - then there would be no tides at all...if the moon pulls on the water, you get one tide per day (roughly) when the moon is overhead.  How does this explain the tides?

Then - I could understand how the gravity of the stars might explain how gravity is weaker on mountain tops - but this doesn't explain weaker gravity along the equator and stronger gravity at the north pole.  Your "mixed" explanation of gravity plus universal acceleration might explain variable gravity due to different rock formations - but, again, can't explain the equatorial versus polar gravity differences.

I do truly want to understand how this is explained...but your link doesn't clarify anything.

FE theorists are clearly struggling to get this "right" in FET

See above.

such as the ridiculous one about air pressure

Have you actually found an FE'er who claims that? RE'ers love to talk about how these people are oh-so-stupid, but as far as I can tell they either don't exist or are obvious trolls.
[/quote]

I don't think I've seen anyone on this forum using the air pressure argument - but check out this thread on the "other" flat earth society forum:

     https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62317.0

So, while I agree that people here are more rational than that - it's undeniable that SOME flat-earth believers subscribe to the atmospheric pressure theory.

The "Davis model" math is kinda impenetrable to the layperson - but it's seems to be mathematically sound.   What is crucial here is that in FET "gravity" can work if the flat earth is truly infinite in extent.   If not, then gravity would pull people in the outlying southerly regions toward the center of the disk.

I'd suggest you bring that up with Davis, not us.

Well, it's quoted in the Wiki - so I presume it's intended to convey something meaningful.   Anyway - so long as the earth plane is infinite - everything works out OK.

1) "Why are there TWO high tides and TWO low tides every day?"

Sorry, what about this confuses you? I swear I've already explained this to you.

Not as far as I can tell.  Could you either copy-paste your response here - or point me to where you made it?  I must have missed it somehow.

2) "Why does the sun have so much less effect on the tides than the moon does?"

Because they're completely different bodies, vastly varying in mass and other properties.

OK - that's kinda what I assumed.   So the sun has less gravitational pull on the waters of the Earth than the moon.  OK.   (I apologize - sometimes we RE'ers have a hard time getting our heads around the idea that the sun isn't 1000 times larger than anything else in the solar system...doesn't mean we're correct - just that it's tough to make the mental adjustment!)

The FAQ's explanation for "Terminal velocity" (which really doesn't need explaining) talks about the "acceleration due to air resistance" - which is meaningless babble...

I see. You believe air resistance doesn't produce an acceleration. Well, I'll certainly be interested in hearing your disproof of Newtonian physics.

Acceleration (according to Newton) is the result of (1) Summing all of the forces - in this case, gravitational force+air resistance and then (2) applying F=ma ...rearranged to a=F/m to compute the resulting acceleration.   The terminology in the FAQ is confusing.

the RET explanation talks about the FORCE of gravity being balanced by the FORCE of aerodynamic drag.   If you get your language right

Ah, so your problem isn't with physics, it's with the English language. Well, let's see...

In fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called air resistance, a type of friction, or fluid resistance, another type of friction or fluid friction)

Gosh darn those FAQ authors, how very dare they have different mannerisms from you! Truly outrageous, that one. I fully support you in your endeavours to convince SexWarrior to correct this post-haste! Oh, wait, I don't.

So, now that we've taught you a little bit about the synonyms of "drag", the remaining contention is that we talk about acceleration, where you'd rather talk about force. This, at least, is not as moronic as your previous objection, so it deserves a proper response. You see, the FAQ is written with a target audience in mind. In this case, it's the general public. Since F=ma and since the mass in this case is constant, it's not a particularly grievous crime to simplify things for the sake of common understanding. If you think that's oh-so-terrible, ah well, we can't please them all.

Yeah - I suppose I have to give you that one...I don't think it's a very well written FAQ - but it suffices to convey the general idea.

the explanation is identical to that in FET and RET so there is really no need to provide an explanation

Once again, your problem is that you do not understand the purpose of the FAQ. The question is frequently asked, so it's been answered. Nobody gives a rat's ass whether or not you think the answer is obvious.

OK - fair enough.  It's just that it doesn't seem necessary for the FAQ to discuss things that aren't different between FET and RET - but you're right - if it's frequently asked, then there should be a FAQ entry.

So the FAQ is a mess...it needs sorting out.

As it stands, I remain unconvinced. Your arguments boil down to:

• You don't like some of the answers you've heard, but are unable to adequately describe your confusion.
• You're one of those guys who just can't get it through their skulls that different users of the English language may use slightly different terminology here and there.
• You don't understand that the FAQ is not your personal laundry list, and just because you find a question easy does not mean other visitors with

Summarising: It's not the FAQ that's a mess in need of sorting out. It's your mindset.

That's certainly possible!

But I really would like to understand your explanation for the tides - and I can't find where you explained it - so if you'd be kind enough to point me to it I'd love to be able to cross that off my list of seeming FET discrepancies.