The force argument for accelerating the Earth doesn't work because of what FE predicts: the physical effects of UA disappear as you get away from Earth. So essentially what they're posing (in an unnecessarily roundabout way) is that the force that pulls things to the Flat Earth's surface is magically there.
As far as I could understand the Flat Earthers, "there is no escape".
There's nothing left or right from Ice Wall, everything that exists is above the ground (land or sea).
At whichever altitude object is, Earth will catch up by own acceleration.
In the case of free fall they just switch reference point to falling object, claiming that Earth actualy accelerates towards objects.
First of all, not all Flat Earthers support UA hypothesis.
Second, the main problem with UA is uniformity.
Earth will either have constant g at any point, or get heavily distorted very quickly in very short time.
And we know very well that g is not only variable with latitude, but with altitude as well.
What Flat Earthers are trying to do is to sweep under the carpet all those differences in g all over the place, and to skip the fact that g depends on distance from the Earth's center.
(And slightly from the local density of the ground.)
I already gave the example of different acceleration of poles and equator.
In only 30 minutes, if initial speed was zero, UA would make poles (North pole and Ice Wall) higher than the Equator for d = at
2 / 2, where a = g
pole - g
equator = 9.832 - 9.78 = 0.052 m/s
2.
So, d = 0.052 * 1800
2 / 2 = 84 240 m.
Does anyone see mountain 84 km high on North pole?
But let me repeat: not all FE-rs support UA.
Smarter ones are aware of two things:
- if Earth accelerates, it has to be "through something" which will allow existence of the Universe
- Universal Accelerator directly contradicts with "static, unmovable, firm" Earth.
Complaining about "mind-blowing 30 km/s around Sun" and "outrageous 230 km/s around galactic core" is counterproductive if your alternative is "lousy 99.99% of light speed (300 000 km/s)".