[TheHyperionite]

It has been said by many flat earth believers that gravity is not responsible for the objects falling to the ground. It's explained by them that in fact the earth is going upwards, and from our perspective it looks like those objects are descending. I assume that they mean these objects are "frozen" in space, only moving when earth pushes them.
Now, if the earth is going up, that means that every point of the planet is moving exactly at the same speed, so that the earth can move upwards without suffering any deformations. So, since every part of the planet would be going up at the same speed, we would see every object falling exactly at the same speed: even if we dropped a feather and an anvil from a certain height, we'd expect to see them falling at the same speed. But we don't. What causes this?

[kopfverderber]

Objects fall at the same speed regardless of how heavy they are. This was demonstrated by astronauts on the moon.

What make some objects fall faster than others on earth is air resistance.

[TheHyperionite]

And how would that work according to this theory? Is the air surrounding the earth going up too, along with the earth?

[kopfverderber]

There are multiple explanations as far as I know. Some believe that the earth has a dome, so the atmosphere would be enclosed within the dome. Others might say that the ice wall contains the air and so on.

[dirtysnowball]

It is these sort of 'explanations' that to my mind make the whole concept of flat Earth theory so fascinating. And imaginative or should that be inventive. What is the belief based on?

I agree that the sky gives the perception of being a dome overhead. That's why planetariums are dome shaped. But we all know there isn't really a dome up there.

[TheHyperionite]

Well, I just thought of 2 things.

1- If the earth is really going up and pushing the air with it, wouldn't we have a much more concentrated layer of air at the surface of the earth?

2- If earth was indeed going upwards at about 9,8m/s², we would feel it. We would feel no difference if the earth was not moving or if it was going up at a constant speed, but with an acceleration we would definitely feel it.

[Snoopy]

Well, I just thought of 2 things.

1- If the earth is really going up and pushing the air with it, wouldn't we have a much more concentrated layer of air at the surface of the earth?

2- If earth was indeed going upwards at about 9,8m/s², we would feel it. We would feel no difference if the earth was not moving or if it was going up at a constant speed, but with an acceleration we would definitely feel it.

It is denser at sea level and decreases with altitude

We do feel it, it's our 'weight' pressing us down
Constant speed we would not feel it

[Astronomer]

A constantly accelerating earth would almost match what we observe in reality. The fact that a feather falls more slowly than something more dense would be caused by the same phenomenon, air resistance, because as I understand this hypothesis, yes the air is moving with the earth in an enclosed dome.

As I said though, it would only ALMOST match what we observe in reality. The one glaring piece of evidence that comes to mind is the fact that gravity at the poles is stronger (AKA accelerating faster in flat earth hypothesis) and the closer you get to the equator, the weaker (slower in FE) it gets.
This difference is quite small, roughly .5% difference between the poles and the equator, so you wouldn't notice it just walking around (you would notice the different weather though, LOL). A 200lb person at the north pole would roughly weigh 199lbs at the equator. Elevation also plays a role, albeit a more minor one. Higher elevations tend to have weaker gravity than the surrounding lower elevations.
This may not be noticeable in day to day life, but it is however not an insignificant difference. For the various FE models that claim earth is accelerating, it spells disaster. It doesn't take long at all for the earth to rip itself apart under these varying forces.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50838

EDIT:
As a side note. The notion of an accelerating earth as touted by many FE'rs doesn't seem to line up with zeteticism.

[TheHyperionite]

We do feel it, it's our 'weight' pressing us down
Constant speed we would not feel it

It's not your weight. When you're touching the ground you don't feel like you're constantly accelerating upwards.

Also, if the earth is moving upwards at about 9,8m/s², meaning that every second its speed increases by 9,8m/s, the speed of the earth going upwards would just get bigger and bigger and at one point reach the speed of light and even go beyond.

[Astronomer]

We do feel it, it's our 'weight' pressing us down
Constant speed we would not feel it

It's not your weight. When you're touching the ground you don't feel like you're constantly accelerating upwards.

Also, if the earth is moving upwards at about 9,8m/s², meaning that every second its speed increases by 9,8m/s, the speed of the earth going upwards would just get bigger and bigger and at one point reach the speed of light and even go beyond.

You aren’t understanding the physics. When you are touching the ground, you are experiencing the same force as you would if you were in free fall. The only difference is that the ground would be exerting an equal and opposite force against you.
You need to learn about special relativity, but first I highly recommend learning Newtonian physics.

[Snoopy]

We do feel it, it's our 'weight' pressing us down
Constant speed we would not feel it

It's not your weight. When you're touching the ground you don't feel like you're constantly accelerating upwards.

Also, if the earth is moving upwards at about 9,8m/s², meaning that every second its speed increases by 9,8m/s, the speed of the earth going upwards would just get bigger and bigger and at one point reach the speed of light and even go beyond.

It is your weight = mg
If the ground gave way you would fall
In an accelerating upward elevator does your weight increase?
Would not the same occur on an upward accelerating earth vs a stationary or constant velocity one?

It's about the inertial reference frame

I already made that point
You would reach c in 353 days

[juner]

You would reach c in 353 days

No, you would not. I would suggest taking a minute to learn something new instead of just posting something incorrect over and over.

[Snoopy]

You would reach c in 353 days

No, you would not. I would suggest taking a minute to learn something new instead of just posting something incorrect over and over.

If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?

Others have said c in not an absolute limit

I suggest you grab concepts instead of parsing minutia and missing the point

[Snoopy]

We do feel it, it's our 'weight' pressing us down
Constant speed we would not feel it

It's not your weight. When you're touching the ground you don't feel like you're constantly accelerating upwards.

Also, if the earth is moving upwards at about 9,8m/s², meaning that every second its speed increases by 9,8m/s, the speed of the earth going upwards would just get bigger and bigger and at one point reach the speed of light and even go beyond.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle.html

[juner]

If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?

Close, but less than c. Let me know if you need help with this.

Others have said c in not an absolute limit

Who are 'others.'

I suggest you grab concepts instead of parsing minutia and missing the point

I suggest you take my earlier suggestion.

[Snoopy]

If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?

Close, but less than c. Let me know if you need help with this.

Others have said c in not an absolute limit

Who are 'others.'

I suggest you grab concepts instead of parsing minutia and missing the point

I suggest you take my earlier suggestion.

Not sure a flat earther is a physics reference lol
Help me: how close? 50%, 90% ?
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% ?

Flat earthers in similar threads

I suggest you address tooics you have a clue about
That really narrows it down

[juner]

Not sure a flat earther is a physics reference lol
Help me: how close? 50%, 90% ?
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% ?

Flat earthers in similar threads

I suggest you address tooics you have a clue about
That really narrows it down

Okay, do me a favor and refrain from posting in the upper fora if all you have are lazy, low-effort posts and insults. Have a warning.

[Tim Alphabeaver]

If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?

This is like undergrad relativity, lecture 0. Maybe picking up a textbook is a good idea, rather than telling other people that they don't have a clue, hmm?

[Astronomer]

Let us not forget that variations measured in the earth’s gravitational field utterly debunks UA.

[Tom Bishop]

Let us not forget that variations measured in the earth’s gravitational field utterly debunks UA.

Debatable. I have three pages on this:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity
https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude
https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry