[locke2200]

If we are accelerating at 9.8m/s^2, then our speed is increasing by 9.8m/s every second. The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s.

If you divide 299792458/9.8 you get 30,591,067.142857. That means that almost a year after the Earth started ‘accelerating’ (11.6404237513076865 months) it would have hit the speed of light.

I know the FAQ gives an explanation for it:
> ...v/c = tanh (at/c). One will find that in this equation, tanh(at/c) can never exceed or equal 1.

But you don’t have to bring random special relativity into this equation! Simple division is enough to tell that one of these statements is wrong:

• The earth accelerates at 9.8m/s^2
• The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s
• I am correct in my equations

[Pete Svarrior]

Fantastic logic. Your assumptions are "there's no need to consider reality if I can just divide numbers by one another".

Why not multiply them, instead? You'll be equally correct. Wait, no, let's add them! That will be fun!

Special Relativity is absolutely essential here. If you really want to identify which of your statements is wrong, it's the first one - because you didn't specify the frame of reference, and coincidentally happened to switcheroo between two of them throughout your reasoning.

[Round Eyes]

If we are accelerating at 9.8m/s^2, then our speed is increasing by 9.8m/s every second. The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s.

If you divide 299792458/9.8 you get 30,591,067.142857. That means that almost a year after the Earth started ‘accelerating’ (11.6404237513076865 months) it would have hit the speed of light.

I know the FAQ gives an explanation for it:
> ...v/c = tanh (at/c). One will find that in this equation, tanh(at/c) can never exceed or equal 1.

But you don’t have to bring random special relativity into this equation! Simple division is enough to tell that one of these statements is wrong:

• The earth accelerates at 9.8m/s^2
• The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s
• I am correct in my equations

first off, this only relates to the UA theory. 
second, dividing two numbers is not an "equation"
third, yes special relativity is essential here.

you are taking a second grader's approach to this and its not that simple.  Read thru some of einstein's theories and he very clearly states objects of mass can never reach C

[BlueMachine]

If we are accelerating at 9.8m/s^2, then our speed is increasing by 9.8m/s every second. The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s.

If you divide 299792458/9.8 you get 30,591,067.142857. That means that almost a year after the Earth started ‘accelerating’ (11.6404237513076865 months) it would have hit the speed of light.

I know the FAQ gives an explanation for it:
> ...v/c = tanh (at/c). One will find that in this equation, tanh(at/c) can never exceed or equal 1.

But you don’t have to bring random special relativity into this equation! Simple division is enough to tell that one of these statements is wrong:

• The earth accelerates at 9.8m/s^2
• The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s
• I am correct in my equations

first off, this only relates to the UA theory. 
second, dividing two numbers is not an "equation"
third, yes special relativity is essential here.

you are taking a second grader's approach to this and its not that simple.  Read thru some of einstein's theories and he very clearly states objects of mass can never reach C

I'm not agreeing with OP, but how can any of Einstein's work be correct/provable in a FE universe?

[Round Eyes]

I'm not agreeing with OP, but how can any of Einstein's work be correct/provable in a FE universe?

why wouldn't it??   who said FE doesnt follow many laws of physics?

[lookatmooninUKthenAUS]

Given how liberally FE theory attempts to co-opt the theories of Einstein I am imagining that there must be many on this forum familiar with how special relativity meshes with FE theory. Some questions need to be answered to clarify the FE position.

Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on the idea of observers and particularly which 'frame of reference' they are in.

Q1. How far away are the stars and galaxies in FE theory? The wiki makes absolutely no reference to galaxies. Do galaxies exist in FE theory or is the universe contained withing our own local galaxy, the milky way?

Q2. Which of the stars and galaxies are in our frame of reference, that is to say, accelerating with us? One assumes that the stars must be otherwise we would long ago have moved out of their sphere of influence.

Q3. Although no mass can ever reach the speed of light can we assume that the FE must now be travelling close to the speed of light and certainly beyond the 80% threshold where relativistic effects become measurable?

Q4. Q3 assumes that there is some outside 'observer' frame of reference. Does FE theory say such a frame exists? I am of course thinking of other galaxies.

Q5. Given that our speed on the FE should have long ago approached the speed of light does that not mean that our observations of any stellar object (galaxy etc) in an 'outside' frame of reference would be grossly affected by relativistic effects? That is to say, we would potentially look at all events outside our FE 'system' frozen in time due to the excessive time dilation effects.

These are just the first questions that occur to me.

[Round Eyes]

Given how liberally FE theory attempts to co-opt the theories of Einstein I am imagining that there must be many on this forum familiar with how special relativity meshes with FE theory. Some questions need to be answered to clarify the FE position.

Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on the idea of observers and particularly which 'frame of reference' they are in.

Q1. How far away are the stars and galaxies in FE theory? The wiki makes absolutely no reference to galaxies. Do galaxies exist in FE theory or is the universe contained withing our own local galaxy, the milky way?

Q2. Which of the stars and galaxies are in our frame of reference, that is to say, accelerating with us? One assumes that the stars must be otherwise we would long ago have moved out of their sphere of influence.

Q3. Although no mass can ever reach the speed of light can we assume that the FE must now be travelling close to the speed of light and certainly beyond the 80% threshold where relativistic effects become measurable?

Q4. Q3 assumes that there is some outside 'observer' frame of reference. Does FE theory say such a frame exists? I am of course thinking of other galaxies.

Q5. Given that our speed on the FE should have long ago approached the speed of light does that not mean that our observations of any stellar object (galaxy etc) in an 'outside' frame of reference would be grossly affected by relativistic effects? That is to say, we would potentially look at all events outside our FE 'system' frozen in time due to the excessive time dilation effects.

These are just the first questions that occur to me.

1.  stars exist in FE obviously, but they are not how RE discusses.  as far as distance, i am not sure on that, not my specialty.  but they are much smaller/closer.
2.  all of them are relatively same distance away, all moving with us (same frame of reference)
3.  reasonable assumption although cannot measure directly, as per response to #2 above
4.  yes, there would be, but we wouldnt be able to see outside our observable universe.  anything outside of that would be speculation.
5.  based on response to #2, no.  but as you note due to extreme dilation to any observable outsider, i agree and perhaps explains why we cant see anything outside of the view we have.

[Rounder]

I'm not agreeing with OP, but how can any of Einstein's work be correct/provable in a FE universe?

why wouldn't it??   who said FE doesnt follow many laws of physics?

Because Einstein’s work assumes that gravity is a real thing and is a property of mass, which is rejected by many FE.  In fact, the UA model is an attempt to explain how objects fall to earth explicitly without mass-attracts-mass gravity.  If UA is the true physics, its proponents cannot appeal to gravity for anything, and cannot use gravity-based science either.

[JRowe]

I'm not agreeing with OP, but how can any of Einstein's work be correct/provable in a FE universe?

why wouldn't it??   who said FE doesnt follow many laws of physics?

Because Einstein’s work assumes that gravity is a real thing and is a property of mass, which is rejected by many FE.  In fact, the UA model is an attempt to explain how objects fall to earth explicitly without mass-attracts-mass gravity.  If UA is the true physics, its proponents cannot appeal to gravity for anything, and cannot use gravity-based science either.

That is a huge mischaracterization. Einstein's work, as discussed here, dealt with the concept of the speed of light as an absolute limit, and what this means for high velocities. This was later generalised to general relativity and applied to acceleration. It was only after all of that when gravity even got a look-in, when he assumed its existence and, as forces cause acceleration, applied general relativity to it.
Everything preceding that, the vast majority of what people think of when they hear 'Einstein,' was entirely independent of gravity. The calculation limiting the addition of velocities to demonstrate that it can't reach the speed of light comes from special relativity, long before acceleration is accounted for and so long before gravity even could get involved. I don't accept UA, but I do accept Einstein. The theory of relativity only gives us a set of tools; they are tools misguided individuals have used to examine gravity, but that does not make gravity a required part of them.

[Round Eyes]

Because Einstein’s work assumes that gravity is a real thing and is a property of mass, which is rejected by many FE.  In fact, the UA model is an attempt to explain how objects fall to earth explicitly without mass-attracts-mass gravity.  If UA is the true physics, its proponents cannot appeal to gravity for anything, and cannot use gravity-based science either.

wow, try again.  you literally have no idea what you are talking about.  Einstein would agree with the aspect of UA that you absolutely could not tell the difference between gravity on earth vs a gravity-less earth being accelerated at 1g

[SphericalEarther]

Because Einstein’s work assumes that gravity is a real thing and is a property of mass, which is rejected by many FE.  In fact, the UA model is an attempt to explain how objects fall to earth explicitly without mass-attracts-mass gravity.  If UA is the true physics, its proponents cannot appeal to gravity for anything, and cannot use gravity-based science either.

wow, try again.  you literally have no idea what you are talking about.  Einstein would agree with the aspect of UA that you absolutely could not tell the difference between gravity on earth vs a gravity-less earth being accelerated at 1g

Gravity is a force, UA is a force, to an observer they behave the same.

BUT

The force of Gravity would change due to distance and due to other massive objects, while UA would always stay the same.
We have already easily measured the difference, so gravity is real.
Gravity would even be counteracted a little by the spin of the earth (which we have also measured and found to be true)

[Pete Svarrior]

The force of Gravity would change due to distance and due to other massive objects, while UA would always stay the same.

UA alone, perhaps, but the changes in perceived gravity (not to be confused with gravitation) are down to Celestial Gravitation, and not UA.

[Jon56]

The force of Gravity would change due to distance and due to other massive objects, while UA would always stay the same.

UA alone, perhaps, but the changes in perceived gravity (not to be confused with gravitation) are down to Celestial Gravitation, and not UA.

Hi folks new here and struggling to get a handle on this UA thing.
I’ve just read the FAQ and well it’s short and to the point which I like.
Gravity as described by Newton is now not a universally accepted model it kind of works for small scale maths but not on a scale of universal proportions.
Eisenstein and his theory of general relativity is all well and good and what we actually live in is a distortion in space time. It took a long time to get my head around gravitation lenses!
How does UA predictions stand up with reguards the bending of light due to mass and black holes?
Genuinely interested as I’ve just finished Stephen Hawkings’s books.

[SphericalEarther]

The force of Gravity would change due to distance and due to other massive objects, while UA would always stay the same.

UA alone, perhaps, but the changes in perceived gravity (not to be confused with gravitation) are down to Celestial Gravitation, and not UA.

As mentioned later, the spin of the earth also applies force, and this is also measurable as a difference of roughly 0.03m/s² between the poles and the equator.

Is there anything in FE to account for this difference when using any FE model?

If not, then simply being able to measure this would work against those models, and in favor of the globe.

[Pete Svarrior]

Is there anything in FE to account for this difference when using any FE model?

Again, CG. The correlation between latitude and measured discrepancies in gravity does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.

[Jon56]

Is there anything in FE to account for this difference when using any FE model?

Again, CG. The correlation between latitude and measured discrepancies in gravity does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.

Hi Pete sorry for jumping in on this discussion.
I've had a read of the FAQ and am struggling to understand UA and CG. Is there some kind of unification of these two theories or are they two separate things?
The way it seems to me is that we stick on this disk as we are accelerating at a constant velocity of 9.81 ms2 which gives us 1g. the rest of the universe is doing what at this time? I'm guessing accelerating with us. CG is the other kind of gravity that holds the rest of the universe together?

[SphericalEarther]

Is there anything in FE to account for this difference when using any FE model?

Again, CG. The correlation between latitude and measured discrepancies in gravity does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.

CG from what I can read, isn't really defined.
It says that celestial objects attract objects on earth causing things to happen, but that is like saying that wind happens because of the breath of the people. It explains it a little without explaining anything.

It doesn't explain the tides happening both under the moon and the other side of he earth.
It doesn't explain the latitude difference in gravity.

It feels like an excuse not to think.
You made it up, but all the unexplained phenomenon in it, and just left it as an unexplained answer to anyone questioning those phenomenon.

Wait, you basically do this with everything, adding properties to perspective because you can't explain them, and more.

[Pete Svarrior]

Hi Pete sorry for jumping in on this discussion.
I've had a read of the FAQ and am struggling to understand UA and CG. Is there some kind of unification of these two theories or are they two separate things?
The way it seems to me is that we stick on this disk as we are accelerating at a constant velocity of 9.81 ms2 which gives us 1g. the rest of the universe is doing what at this time? I'm guessing accelerating with us. CG is the other kind of gravity that holds the rest of the universe together?

That's pretty much it. Generally speaking, everything in the Flat Earth Model is affected by gravitation, much like it would in the round Earth model. The main difference is that it's a relatively weak force. While the brunt of the gravity we perceive comes from UA, precise measurements will reveal slight variances which are currently understood to be caused mainly by CG.

CG from what I can read, isn't really defined.

Spherical, you are essentially taking an issue with the fact that the Flat Earth Theory is a work in progress, and that there are still many unknowns. This, of course, is only normal in the pursuit of truth. We don't have all the answers, but an incomplete answer is vastly preferable to an incorrect one.

[SphericalEarther]

CG from what I can read, isn't really defined.

Spherical, you are essentially taking an issue with the fact that the Flat Earth Theory is a work in progress, and that there are still many unknowns. This, of course, is only normal in the pursuit of truth. We don't have all the answers, but an incomplete answer is vastly preferable to an incorrect one.

So your argument is that a completely vague theory is better than a theory which we can test and find to be incorrect?

I would argue that the scientific method is all about creating testable theories which we can validate or invalidate in search of truth. CG is basically just a word, where you put all the unknown force properties we can see and measure. Without any testable theory, it will be impossible to find truth.

[edby]

Generally speaking, everything in the Flat Earth Model is affected by gravitation, much like it would in the round Earth model. The main difference is that it's a relatively weak force. While the brunt of the gravity we perceive comes from UA, precise measurements will reveal slight variances which are currently understood to be caused mainly by CG.

The force between two (point) masses is the product of the gravational constant G and the two masses, divided by the square of the distance between them. Does the same law apply with ‘celestial gravitation’?

If it attracts everything on the Flat Earth, as you explicitly assert, does it attract the whole of the Flat Earth itself? The obvious question is why the Earth and the celestial objects do not draw close to each other. In RET, this will not happen because of orbital mechanics, i.e. the moon does not crash to earth because it is orbiting the earth. But in FET it is not orbiting right round, but rather circling.

Why this does not happen needs to be explained (or shown, or demonstrated).