[Rama Set]

Fair game. The Cavendish Experiment shows UA to be a big bag of baloney. FE theory should really explore a modified gravity theory where the particles that make up the Earth are a heretofore Uncatalogued type not captured in the standard model and are gravitationally inactive. It makes much more sense than UA.

[TomInAustin]

I have read the Wiki and FAQ; (UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2)

But am struggling to find either a reason why or proof that the earth IS accelerating at 9.8 metres per second:

Wiki states: "The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct."

I was hoping that a FE could explain why this theory exists without this reasoning and evidence? Why does it make sense to you and how did this exact speed come about? As for the several explanations for UA; what are they please as I could not see them listed anywhere?

many thanks

Has there been an answer to the OP?   Why is the Earth accelerating at 9.8 metres per second? 

[Ga_x2]

I have read the Wiki and FAQ; (UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2)

But am struggling to find either a reason why or proof that the earth IS accelerating at 9.8 metres per second:

Wiki states: "The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct."

I was hoping that a FE could explain why this theory exists without this reasoning and evidence? Why does it make sense to you and how did this exact speed come about? As for the several explanations for UA; what are they please as I could not see them listed anywhere?

many thanks

Has there been an answer to the OP?   Why is the Earth accelerating at 9.8 metres per second?

tbh the first part of the question is kind of a non issue. FE proponents can simply say it's a basic property of the universe, just as I understand gravity is. The second part, where he asks how you get that number and the reasoning behind it, hasn't been answered in detail, beside stating that's indistinguishable from gravity. But you're starting from the assumption that the A in Q&A stands for answer.

[3DGeek]

The topic of the thread is "Why is the Earth accelerating at 9.8 metres per second?" - it's VERY clear (to both FE'ers and RE'ers that the premise of the question is flawed).

So to answer it in any useful way, it's really necessary to point out that:

a) It's not doing that (because: tides, Cavendish, equatorial-vs-poles, mountain-tops, etc).
b) Even if it was, then there would need to be an infinite energy source to power it (because: F=ma, W=Fs and E=W) - which is (at best) implausible.

So either the answer is either "It isn't" or "UA is not a viable hypothesis to explain it"...and that's the thing we need to discuss in order to fully answer the question.

If you're going to ban topic derailment - then it would be intellectually honest to ban a bunch of Tom's derailments...he's the king of derailment...and quite a few of your own.

So if there is a clear policy that all answers that do not DIRECTLY respond to the precise question are inappropriate - then so be it - but I'd hope you'd stick by that rule when I point out both your and Tom's infractions of it.

IMHO, that's not the policy I've seen enforced here.  For rational debate to proceed, a certain measure of topic-wandering is inevitable and not entirely undesirable.

[juner]

a) It's not doing that (because: tides, Cavendish, equatorial-vs-poles, mountain-tops, etc).

All of which are addressed in the wiki/FAQ and in various threads on these very fora. You may disagree, or they may be flawed and you may want to debate them, but it doesn't change the fact that they exist. This thread initially started in Q&A. I know it is hard for round earth logicians to read forum descriptions, but what this thread quickly changed into is not appropriate for Q&A. It is for FE questions and answers, not for RE to point out something they disagree with. Instead of locking the thread, I moved it here (which was apparently a mistake). I suppose I can just be more strict about enforcing rules, but then many of you will complain about that, too.

b) Even if it was, then there would need to be an infinite energy source to power it

False.

If you're going to ban topic derailment - then it would be intellectually honest to ban a bunch of Tom's derailments...he's the king of derailment...and quite a few of your own.

If I see them, or they get reported, then sure. You are also quite good at derailing yourself.

So if there is a clear policy that all answers that do not DIRECTLY respond to the precise question are inappropriate - then so be it - but I'd hope you'd stick by that rule when I point out both your and Tom's infractions of it.

No one ever said that was the policy. I'd suggest you stop building a strawman to continue your soapbox.

IMHO, that's not the policy I've seen enforced here.  For rational debate to proceed, a certain measure of topic-wandering is inevitable and not entirely undesirable.

Yes, and that is allowed to an extent. It is also apparent to anyone who has posted here for a while.

[TomInAustin]

a) It's not doing that (because: tides, Cavendish, equatorial-vs-poles, mountain-tops, etc).

All of which are addressed in the wiki/FAQ and in various threads on these very fora. You may disagree, or they may be flawed and you may want to debate them, but it doesn't change the fact that they exist. This thread initially started in Q&A. I know it is hard for round earth logicians to read forum descriptions, but what this thread quickly changed into is not appropriate for Q&A. It is for FE questions and answers, not for RE to point out something they disagree with. Instead of locking the thread, I moved it here (which was apparently a mistake). I suppose I can just be more strict about enforcing rules, but then many of you will complain about that, too.

b) Even if it was, then there would need to be an infinite energy source to power it

False.

Please expand on your answer.  It seems to be that in infinite power source would have to be present or we risk the energy running out and the acceleration ends.

What is the source of this energy in your opinion?

[Ga_x2]

a) It's not doing that (because: tides, Cavendish, equatorial-vs-poles, mountain-tops, etc).

Cavendish doesn't disprove UA. It simply demonstrate that there are factors that need to be taken into account when calculating the value of said UA. I.e. the second part of the question. But junker said it ain't on topic and who am I to protest.

[3DGeek]

a) It's not doing that (because: tides, Cavendish, equatorial-vs-poles, mountain-tops, etc).

All of which are addressed in the wiki/FAQ and in various threads on these very fora. You may disagree, or they may be flawed and you may want to debate them, but it doesn't change the fact that they exist. This thread initially started in Q&A. I know it is hard for round earth logicians to read forum descriptions, but what this thread quickly changed into is not appropriate for Q&A. It is for FE questions and answers, not for RE to point out something they disagree with. Instead of locking the thread, I moved it here (which was apparently a mistake). I suppose I can just be more strict about enforcing rules, but then many of you will complain about that, too.

b) Even if it was, then there would need to be an infinite energy source to power it

False.

Please expand on your answer.  It seems to be that in infinite power source would have to be present or we risk the energy running out and the acceleration ends.

What is the source of this energy in your opinion?

Think about it though - Energy is force times distance through which it's applied.   Force is mass times acceleration.

So we know the acceleration - and we can calculate the distance (assuming the force has been applied at about the same rate at least throughout recorded history).

The other thing is the mass.   What is the mass of the Flat Earth?   Mass is volume times density.  We know the area of the Flat Earth is infinite (Yes, I read the Wiki) and the thickness is greater than zero - and the density is greater than zero...and therefore the force required is infinite and if the Earth moves by even one millimeter then the energy required to move it is also infinite.

Too many infinities.

[TomInAustin]

a) It's not doing that (because: tides, Cavendish, equatorial-vs-poles, mountain-tops, etc).

All of which are addressed in the wiki/FAQ and in various threads on these very fora. You may disagree, or they may be flawed and you may want to debate them, but it doesn't change the fact that they exist. This thread initially started in Q&A. I know it is hard for round earth logicians to read forum descriptions, but what this thread quickly changed into is not appropriate for Q&A. It is for FE questions and answers, not for RE to point out something they disagree with. Instead of locking the thread, I moved it here (which was apparently a mistake). I suppose I can just be more strict about enforcing rules, but then many of you will complain about that, too.

b) Even if it was, then there would need to be an infinite energy source to power it

False.

Please expand on your answer.  It seems to be that in infinite power source would have to be present or we risk the energy running out and the acceleration ends.

What is the source of this energy in your opinion?

Think about it though - Energy is force times distance through which it's applied.   Force is mass times acceleration.

So we know the acceleration - and we can calculate the distance (assuming the force has been applied at about the same rate at least throughout recorded history).

The other thing is the mass.   What is the mass of the Flat Earth?   Mass is volume times density.  We know the area of the Flat Earth is infinite (Yes, I read the Wiki) and the thickness is greater than zero - and the mass is greater than zero...and therefore the force required is infinite and if the Earth moves by even one millimeter then the energy required to move it is also infinite.

Too many infinities.

Good catch, it would have to be an infinite source of power.

[Curious Squirrel]

a) It's not doing that (because: tides, Cavendish, equatorial-vs-poles, mountain-tops, etc).

All of which are addressed in the wiki/FAQ and in various threads on these very fora. You may disagree, or they may be flawed and you may want to debate them, but it doesn't change the fact that they exist. This thread initially started in Q&A. I know it is hard for round earth logicians to read forum descriptions, but what this thread quickly changed into is not appropriate for Q&A. It is for FE questions and answers, not for RE to point out something they disagree with. Instead of locking the thread, I moved it here (which was apparently a mistake). I suppose I can just be more strict about enforcing rules, but then many of you will complain about that, too.

b) Even if it was, then there would need to be an infinite energy source to power it

False.

Please expand on your answer.  It seems to be that in infinite power source would have to be present or we risk the energy running out and the acceleration ends.

What is the source of this energy in your opinion?

Think about it though - Energy is force times distance through which it's applied.   Force is mass times acceleration.

So we know the acceleration - and we can calculate the distance (assuming the force has been applied at about the same rate at least throughout recorded history).

The other thing is the mass.   What is the mass of the Flat Earth?   Mass is volume times density.  We know the area of the Flat Earth is infinite (Yes, I read the Wiki) and the thickness is greater than zero - and the mass is greater than zero...and therefore the force required is infinite and if the Earth moves by even one millimeter then the energy required to move it is also infinite.

Too many infinities.

Good catch, it would have to be an infinite source of power.

Not quite. UA FE doesn't have a infinite plane (from my understanding) infinite plane FE uses normal gravity. UA only applies to FE's with finite dimension, though what those are are of course unknown.

[JHelzer]

Not quite. UA FE doesn't have a infinite plane (from my understanding) infinite plane FE uses normal gravity. UA only applies to FE's with finite dimension, though what those are are of course unknown.

I once read somewhere on here that if you got to the edge of the flat Earth and jumped off you might step outside Earth's shielding from UE.  That would mean that UE would start acting on you and you'd accelerate at 9.8 m/s along with the edge of the flat Earth right next to you.  That is an experiment someone should try.

[3DGeek]

a) It's not doing that (because: tides, Cavendish, equatorial-vs-poles, mountain-tops, etc).

All of which are addressed in the wiki/FAQ and in various threads on these very fora. You may disagree, or they may be flawed and you may want to debate them, but it doesn't change the fact that they exist. This thread initially started in Q&A. I know it is hard for round earth logicians to read forum descriptions, but what this thread quickly changed into is not appropriate for Q&A. It is for FE questions and answers, not for RE to point out something they disagree with. Instead of locking the thread, I moved it here (which was apparently a mistake). I suppose I can just be more strict about enforcing rules, but then many of you will complain about that, too.

b) Even if it was, then there would need to be an infinite energy source to power it

False.

Please expand on your answer.  It seems to be that in infinite power source would have to be present or we risk the energy running out and the acceleration ends.

What is the source of this energy in your opinion?

Think about it though - Energy is force times distance through which it's applied.   Force is mass times acceleration.

So we know the acceleration - and we can calculate the distance (assuming the force has been applied at about the same rate at least throughout recorded history).

The other thing is the mass.   What is the mass of the Flat Earth?   Mass is volume times density.  We know the area of the Flat Earth is infinite (Yes, I read the Wiki) and the thickness is greater than zero - and the mass is greater than zero...and therefore the force required is infinite and if the Earth moves by even one millimeter then the energy required to move it is also infinite.

Too many infinities.

Good catch, it would have to be an infinite source of power.

Not quite. UA FE doesn't have a infinite plane (from my understanding) infinite plane FE uses normal gravity. UA only applies to FE's with finite dimension, though what those are are of course unknown.

That would be quite logical - but it's not what the Wiki says - and not what the FE'ers on this forum seem to be claiming.

There are four possibilities here:

* Infinite disk + UA has the "infinite energy" problem - but it's what most TFES.org people are saying.
* Infinite disk + Gravity would be an easier proposition to defend.
* Finite disk + UA is more plausible than with an infinite disk...although it's still not easy.
* Finite disk + Gravity really doesn't work because you'd be walking uphill anytime you're far from the center.

[Pete Svarrior]

* Infinite disk + UA has the "infinite energy" problem - but it's what most TFES.org people are saying.

Why must you insist on misrepresenting our position? No one is falling for it.

[xenotolerance]

No one is falling for you evading the issue, either. This is the point:

* Infinite disk + UA has the "infinite energy" problem.
* Infinite disk + Gravity would be an easier proposition to defend.
* Finite disk + UA is more plausible than with an infinite disk...although it's still not easy.
* Finite disk + Gravity really doesn't work because you'd be walking uphill anytime you're far from the center.

The wiki posits the third option, the finite disk moved by universal acceleration, but individual flat Earth believers variously believe in different things. The debate can split or otherwise adapt to any of these or other sub-topics.

[Revel]

If Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s/s that means in 24 hours Earth would have accelerated by:
60s/min x 60 min/hr x 24hr/day x 9.8 m/s/s = 846,720 m/s/s per day.
Which means within 360 days the earth would have accelerated by 846,720 x 360 = 304,819,200 m/s/s.
Which means each year Earth would have accelerated beyond the speed of light. Relativity tells us this is impossible so what is the solution to this dilemma? Alternatively what is the source of energy driving the continued acceleration of Earth?

    Acceleration is a measurement of the rate of change in velocity. Jerk is a measurement of acceleration's rate of change. You are treating acceleration as changing with itself: acceleration in two seconds is not 9.8m/s^2, but it sure as hell is not 19.2 m/s^2. Look: Acceleration doesn't change by its initial value, but by the value of jerk. There is a way to calculate the rate of change in acceleration, but acceleration is NOT the rate of change of acceleration, but VELOCITY. Acceleration, for all intents and purposes, remains at 9.8m/s^2, since adding jerk to the fold will complicate things to take into account the smallest margin of error. For the purpose of simplification, acceleration is constant. After two seconds, at an acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2, the VELOCITY is 19.2m/s. And by the way, the speed of light has a set value of ~299,792,458 meters per second. This is assuming that it is not influenced by any outer force, like gravity. This is assuming there is no acceleration, in the same constant pretext that you presented with the "acceleration" of light. You don't know what you're saying, user Horhang.

[TomInAustin]

a) It's not doing that (because: tides, Cavendish, equatorial-vs-poles, mountain-tops, etc).

All of which are addressed in the wiki/FAQ and in various threads on these very fora. You may disagree, or they may be flawed and you may want to debate them, but it doesn't change the fact that they exist. This thread initially started in Q&A. I know it is hard for round earth logicians to read forum descriptions, but what this thread quickly changed into is not appropriate for Q&A. It is for FE questions and answers, not for RE to point out something they disagree with. Instead of locking the thread, I moved it here (which was apparently a mistake). I suppose I can just be more strict about enforcing rules, but then many of you will complain about that, too.

b) Even if it was, then there would need to be an infinite energy source to power it

False.

Please expand on your answer.  It seems to be that in infinite power source would have to be present or we risk the energy running out and the acceleration ends.

What is the source of this energy in your opinion?

Think about it though - Energy is force times distance through which it's applied.   Force is mass times acceleration.

So we know the acceleration - and we can calculate the distance (assuming the force has been applied at about the same rate at least throughout recorded history).

The other thing is the mass.   What is the mass of the Flat Earth?   Mass is volume times density.  We know the area of the Flat Earth is infinite (Yes, I read the Wiki) and the thickness is greater than zero - and the mass is greater than zero...and therefore the force required is infinite and if the Earth moves by even one millimeter then the energy required to move it is also infinite.

Too many infinities.

Good catch, it would have to be an infinite source of power.

Not quite. UA FE doesn't have a infinite plane (from my understanding) infinite plane FE uses normal gravity. UA only applies to FE's with finite dimension, though what those are are of course unknown.

Sigh, it's very hard to keep all the delusions separated.   But I have yet to see an answer to the OP, "Why is the Earth accelerating at 9.8 metres per second?"

[TomInAustin]

* Infinite disk + UA has the "infinite energy" problem - but it's what most TFES.org people are saying.

Why must you insist on misrepresenting our position? No one is falling for it.

Becuase you don't have a collective position,  a huge reason why no one is falling for it.   But since you said that, how about you tell us what your thoughts are on the OP?  "Why is the Earth accelerating at 9.8 metres per second?"

[pszemoI]

I confess I'm a bit puzzled as to why FE'ers do this.

If the Earth is an infinite disk, of decent thickness - then regular "per Isaac Newton" gravity is a reasonable explanation.

No, it is not. Do you know Isaac Newton gravity depends on the mass of the objects?
Infinite disk would have to have infinite mass, and infinite gravity. Sounds stupid? It does.

[Rama Set]

I confess I'm a bit puzzled as to why FE'ers do this.

If the Earth is an infinite disk, of decent thickness - then regular "per Isaac Newton" gravity is a reasonable explanation.

No, it is not. Do you know Isaac Newton gravity depends on the mass of the objects?
Infinite disk would have to have infinite mass, and infinite gravity. Sounds stupid? It does.

Calculations have been done and an infinite disc made of earth like materials would have gravity approximately the same as the Earth. There is another problem that rules this out though: light would bend and reach a focal point directly above an observer where images would be highly distorted. We don't see this, ergo, the Earth is almost certainly not an infinite disc.

[xenotolerance]

Calculations have been done and an infinite disc made of earth like materials would have gravity approximately the same as the Earth. There is another problem that rules this out though: light would bend and reach a focal point directly above an observer where images would be highly distorted. We don't see this, ergo, the Earth is almost certainly not an infinite disc.

Calculations like this one.

If the disk has infinite diameter it is nothing but an infinite plane. For any finite thickness we can consider a layer of mass whose superficial density is σσ. Moreover, if the plane is infinite it does not matter if you are one meter or one kilometer away from the plane. Wherever you look at the plane you will see the same structure. So the gravitational field cannot depend on the distance from the plane. It must be uniform and their lines must be perpendicular to the plane.