41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon wax and wane direction

« on: November 12, 2020, 09:41:44 AM »

Hi mate, and welcome!  Full transparency, I'm in the round Earth camp, and I would advise you to read the Wiki before asking any more pointed questions like this.  Having read it myself now, it answers a lot of how flat Earth theory (FET) addresses some of the observations we see.  In this case, anything to do with the Moon and inversion is pretty much accounted for by the following:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

In a nutshell, this "bendy light" due to an as-yet unexplained force accounts for a number of phenomenon, including why the Sun behaves like a spotlight on Earth, and also why the Moon appears inverted in different hemispheres.

42

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Should we extend all jail sentences by a year due to COVID-19?

« on: November 12, 2020, 09:25:26 AM »

Are you suggesting that we should give prisoners a choice as to whether or not they want to remain in prison? That doesn't sound like a good idea.

How did you come up with that interpretation?! 

Obviously not.  I simply said, “If I had to choose...”, which in clear contextual use means that two situations are being presented, and one of those situations is clearly more favourable to me than the other.  Nothing more, nothing less.

You posted the question about prisoners having an extra year added to their sentences because you think they aren’t missing out on much relative to those of us in lockdown due to COVID-19.  I gave plenty of examples of things they are missing out on.  So, to make it really clear to you, no, I don’t think prisoners should have an extra year added to their sentences.  The reason being that I don’t consider life in lockdown to be anywhere near as bad as being locked up in prison.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vendée Globe

« on: November 11, 2020, 03:35:01 PM »

Two days ago, 33 sailors have set sail from Les Sables d'Olonne, France. The Vendée Globe is a solo non-stop round-the-world race, along the Clipper route.

On a flat bipolar Earth, this kind of circumnavigation is not possible. On a flat monopole Earth, it could be possible, but the southern part along the roaring forties would be much longer.

Are these sailors and the race organization part of a conspiracy?

I can only see three viable options here:

• The sailors and the race organisation are all part of a big global conspiracy to make everybody else think that the Earth is round
• The sailors and the race organisation are simply victims (like we are) of a big global conspiracy by using technology that has been engineered to make it seem like the Earth is round
• The sailors and the race organisation are not part of any conspiracy, and they are simply circumnavigating the Earth which we know to be a globe with known distances between land masses

Per the thread talking about the burden of proof, which of the above sounds the most ludicrous?  The more ludicrous it sounds, the more it lends credibility to the opposing view.

Having said that, the race is about 21,600 miles long, so it would probably be in the region of 60,000 miles if the Earth were flat and they just travelled around it in a circle.  Just like the land masses and known distances between them, FET cannot account for the massive discrepancies we get, especially involving the "southern hemisphere".

44

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Should we extend all jail sentences by a year due to COVID-19?

« on: November 11, 2020, 02:48:45 PM »

Also, this thread is not about how we should get more people into jail. The question is whether we should keep them there for longer, given that they're currently not missing out on much, and the point is for them to miss out on things.

But they are missing out on things.  I know UK is in Lockdown 2 at the moment, but we can still go for a walk at any time to anywhere reasonable for exercise, we can watch TV/YouTube/Netflix whenever we like, we can play video games, we can go to the shops and buy whatever food we want to prepare nice meals whenever we want, we can talk on the phone to anybody we want whenever we want, we can have meaningful sex with our partners whenever the mood fancies (although if you're gay and in prison, that might work for you there too!), we can still go out for a scenic drive out in the car with music playing to blow the cobwebs off, and we can still "bubble" with one household.  If I had to choose between a year of being in prison or a year in lockdown like we are, I know what I'd pick!

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?

« on: November 11, 2020, 11:29:07 AM »

I think I get where you are coming from, and nor do I profess to have it all worked out either.  I'm not thick, but I do have limits and gaps!  What's obvious though, reading what you've said and from elsewhere, is that you cannot just take the Equivalence Principle as refined and twist it around to fit the UA narrative - just doesn't work.

It would explain why water is "level" on a flat Earth per the subject, but doesn't explain tides because they shot themselves in the foot by rejecting gravity so need an alternative theory for that.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 10, 2020, 05:19:04 PM »

@james38, fair comments mate, duly noted, and I agree with your "Reductio ad absurdum" statement.  In my opinion, two millennia of science, uncovering of physical laws, tested theories and observation, all being either falsified or covered up by NASA, related organisations and all of academia is heavily skewed toward absurdity.  When you also factor in that it's not just large organisations, but thousands of small, independent companies carrying out research and even individuals in their own back gardens making their own observations and measurements...at what point do the scales tip?  I know the focus here is now largely on proof related to space travel, but we mustn't discount the proof that relates to what we observe from down here as well.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?

« on: November 10, 2020, 01:09:30 PM »

I've done a bit more digging and reading as the thought experiment is genuinely fascinating, if hard to wrap your head around because as you say, we live with the effect of gravity as part of our daily lives so to think differently literally means thinking outside the dome.  Ultimately it only applies to a small region of space and time, but it does state that gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent, even if not strictly correct as per the video I linked to below.

I think I got my head around most of it, but I must admit, I can't quite grasp the concept of something sliding "up" a slope under UA.  Let's imagine I'm on a flat Earth cliff edge in space, with two boxes at my feet, one "on the ground" and one "over the edge", with no upwards acceleration at all.  I'm sure we both agree that in this scenario, this is equivalent to free-fall on Earth.  We are all weightless and both boxes just stay put.  Now somebody flicks the UA switch and we all start accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s^2.  Both myself and the box on the top of the cliff now have inertial mass because we are in direct contact with the object that is accelerating us, and we experience that force as weight.  Being at the top, the box just stays where it is.  However, the other box over the edge is still weightless.  The Earth accelerates up towards that box, but to my frame of reference it has fallen to the ground.  To an external observer outside of the Earth, the falling box didn't really move at all, it was the Earth moving up to meet it.

This represents the two extremes - either the box doesn't move relative to me at all, or the box falls to the bottom of the cliff.  It never goes up relative to me, and surely can't go up in the absence of any other force or acceleration acting on it?  Now replace the cliff with an incline, where let's say the force of UA is greater than the friction forces between the box and the surface caused by inertial mass.  The steeper the incline, the faster it will reach the bottom.  Perhaps I'm completely missing something really simple, but another analogy here on Earth could be a wooden ruler held at an incline with a pencil rubber on it.  At some angle it will still stay put due to friction.  However, if I were to suddenly be accelerated upwards holding the ruler (creating my own "local UA" if you like) that rubber would appear to slide down the ruler from my perspective.  To somebody else stood on the ground, it will appear as though the rubber essentially stayed still, and in fact saw the ruler sliding up the rubber.  Just depends on your frame of reference.  That's how I see things anyway, but the realities could be very different.

I found this page and video interesting though, and it pretty much sums up FET in a nutshell - takes existing science and facts, extracts the bits that fit, warps the rest and skews the consequences accordingly.  It does kinda' make sense why on the bigger scale the Equivalence Principle doesn't work in the flat Earth model interpretation of it:

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/08/what-is-equivalence-principle.html

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 10, 2020, 09:54:35 AM »

That's just it Iceman2020, there are things in this world that FET supporters have to irrefutably acknowledge because they can see it with their own two eyes, like our own existence for example.  Happy to acknowledge that an organic lifeform can be conceived, develop into a grown adult with its own life, and that person hop onto an aeroplane to get from A to B or get in a car and drive somewhere and be guided by Sat Nav systems.  Happy to acknowledge that the internet exists and computers exist, because it does and they do, despite maybe not knowing exactly how they work at a macro, micro, nano or quantum level.  Yet, they can't comprehend that something as simple as space exists, or that we've ever been there?  Just doesn't stack up.  Or it does, but only because such evidence proves that the Earth is in fact a globe.

I've seen plenty of videos of people in space and on the ISS and just find it extremely hard to believe that for 2,500 years, scientists the world over have been a part of one huge, massive lie to hide the shape of the Earth, faking videos and photos even before we had CGI capabilities.  The sheer amount of paperwork and money to uphold that would be just as, if not more immense than actual, tangible published research.  It would mean that every single piece of technology ever developed to circumnavigate the Earth, or anything related to it, has to have been been rigged to make it feel/appear like we are travelling around a globe, but are in fact just going around in circles (pun intended) on a flat Earth.  Every single book, paper, article, web site, and app ever written would need to be fabricated around a lie or misconception.  Now, I'm not going to turn around and say some things aren't kept from the public or lied about in the interests of national security and whatnot, but celebrated space travel and the shape of the Earth...come on.

At the time of writing SciManDan had published a new video in response to people claiming that space doesn't exist and that we have never been there:

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 09, 2020, 08:21:11 AM »

Sounds to me like you are stumped. You don't have the means or the knowledge to challenge anything I said.

Well you seem to think space suits are depressurised to just 5-6 KPa, or are you going to claim that’s just a typo now as you frantically copied the wrong numbers and units out of a quick Google search?  I’m also really not sure what knowledge we need to challenge what you’ve said.  The videos of astronauts on board exist, the photos of the Earth from space exist.  Retroreflectors are on the surface of the Moon so that laser light can be bounced back to Earth.  How did they get there?  If you think it’s all conspiracy and fake, per the thread, the burden is on you to provide actual evidence that they are fake, not just your own interpretation of how they could be faked based on your own limited knowledge.  On top of that, why would they fake it all?  What purpose does it serve?  You’re happy to use sat nav and other things that rely on satellites orbiting the Earth, but aren’t willing to accept we’ve been into space.  Or do you think sat nav works some other way than what we’ve been told?

Regarding the video, I too can’t really see what is supposedly being grabbed at, other than one astronaut reaching out to stabilise his colleague.  Not the first one I’ve seen where people claim that wires and harnesses were used but have no actual proof of the fact.  Thing is, when you think that something is true, like the Earth being flat, and something comes along that absolutely proves that it’s not, the easiest thing to do is just dismiss it and say it’s all conspiracy and fake.  Never mind that all the photos and videos from space do is confirm what people have worked out for over 2,500 years.  Humanity has already provided its proof.  It’s up to the Flat Earth Society and its supporters to provide counter-evidence that videos are fake, photos are fake, curvature tests are flawed, and that all known laws of science and motion in relation to Earth and its surroundings are all wrong.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I need an answer about this

« on: November 07, 2020, 02:32:08 PM »

The quoted text is in a clear block above your text, doesn’t need colouring, but each unto their own.

You keep asking me to read to get answers.  Answers to what?  I’m not asking questions about god or religion, or what stories have been written about the observed Earth at the time they were written.  I understand why people claim the Earth is flat, and I’m more interested in the alternative scientific theories and counter-evidence put forward to defend that position, relating it to the real world and what we know and see around us.  With much respect, I have absolutely no desire to read religious texts any more than you have the desire to understand fundamental scientific principles and carry out your own experiments.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I need an answer about this

« on: November 07, 2020, 01:34:32 PM »

Its all connected to each other , Try reading the Quran which is the holy book of muslims , give it a shot.

Changing the colour to purple doesn’t solidify your statement either, and I beg to differ.  The shape of the Earth has absolutely ZERO to do with beliefs, and everything to do with what we can scientifically observe, verify, model and prove.  The only loose connection is the belief that NASA and any other influential body is a conspiracy to hide things from us.  See here’s the thing - in one thread you’ve mentioned freemasonry, satanism, god, Qur’an, where the latter didn’t believe everything written before so they came up with yet another belief system.  There are multiple different religions all believing the same thing for different reasons, different things for the same reasons, and different things for different reasons.  Just like Flat Earth Theory they cannot agree on one single explanation, and they cannot all be right, except to just believe the Earth is flat.  Yet, here in the majority, we have one model that explains everything we see and experience.  We can no more or less understand the true beginnings than anybody else, but at least the science is there to back up the theories.  Religion just says god made it, with no evidence to back it up, because it’s a belief, and by definition beliefs are unknowns until proven as being true.  Only then does it become knowledge.

If you took all of the books and written knowledge on Earth and destroyed it all, and wiped people’s minds free from bias, and started again, what do you think would happen?  All of the science books and laws as we understand them would be back, perhaps in a different language and over a different time frame, but science would repeat what we know now.  Anything to do with what we call religion would be different, because it’s all based on myth, stories and belief.  Just like nursery rhymes would be different, so would religions of the world.

It’s all well and good asking me to read this and that, but unless you’re prepared to read about scientific theory in return, there is no real discussion to be had, just arguing back and forth.  You believe the Earth is flat, I know it is not flat.  End of debate, right?  Except that’s not why I’m here, I’m here to educate myself and hopefully educate others too.  Not to change people’s views, but at least respect them more.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I need an answer about this

« on: November 07, 2020, 12:54:48 PM »

In either case, your original question has been answered, which was around why Sun doesn’t illuminate the entire flat surface under FET.  You didn’t actually say to me (prior to actually saying you said to me) about water falling off a round Earth and spinning off, you just added it as part of your statement of belief  You also went on a rather deep tangent around freemasonry, satanism and religion.  There is a separate board for Philosophy, Religion and Society if you want to take your actual agenda there.  This board relates to Flat Earth Theory.  If you’d like to discuss the answer provided (Electromagnetic Acceleration) or have any questions on what the implications of it might be with respect to a flat Earth, then great, ask away and let’s discuss.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 07, 2020, 11:25:04 AM »

Well said james38, and I agree, I have a new found respect for those who support FET.   There is a lot of thought put into the equivalence theories and things that show there is more than one way to skin a cat (awful saying, but hey ho!). The “offensive stupid” thing wasn’t a direction at anyone, just repeating back what I’ve seen written because I actually believed the very statement itself to be the same.

Regarding the whole thing being a cult, I guess it could be considered offensive, but if you consider a cult just being a group of individuals who share a common commitment to a particular ideology, it’s not so derogatory really.  I think where it starts to become derogatory is when FET supporters go out of their way to simply state that RET supporters are wrong and that we have all been fed lies, yet provide no rationale.  That’s when some in the majority will consider FET a cult.

It’s interesting because I don’t consider RET as a cult or faith either.  For most people, it’s just accepted as being what it is, part of daily life and background noise.  We don’t necessarily go around attesting that the Earth is a globe.  The fact that people do so only happens because of FET, which again could fuel people into looking at it as a cult.  I know the opposites could apply here, but I think you get my point.

The burden of proof, therefore, lies squarely with FET in my opinion as it is that which is challenging 2,500 years of science and advancement through observation and knowledge.  I’m not saying I have all of the answers either, not at all.  But, when somebody just says to me, “Earth can’t be round because water would fall off the bottom” or “Earth can’t be spinning because water would fly off”, it just shows a level of ignorance and complete lack of understanding or willingness to understand, even if they ultimately don’t subscribe to the idea.  This is what I’m trying to do - understand, and part of that will be by challenging things.  I just need to follow some of my own advice as well along the journey.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I need an answer about this

« on: November 07, 2020, 10:57:44 AM »

Writing comments entirely in red does not make your point more prominent, just makes it harder to read.

Yes, gravity is a weak force, but the Earth is huge. We can jump off the surface but we fall back down.  The oceans on its surface are tiny in comparison to the overall volume of the Earth.  They don’t fly off into space for the same reason water doesn’t fly off a soaking wet tennis ball if you rotate it at a rate of 0.25 degrees every minute.  Just because the surface of the Earth is moving at 1000mph at the equator doesn’t mean that water just flies off.   There is a massive difference between angular rotation and speed, and those videos that show water flying off a tennis ball are ridiculous because they are mimicking Earth as though its day lasted less than a second.

Also, what is “up”?  It’s just a relative direction.  I throw something up and to me it looks like it falls down.  To the ball itself, it looks like the Earth is going down and then rising up.  When somebody in Australia does the same, their up is my down from my frame of reference.  They throw the ball down and it falls up.  In space there is no up or down, so I’m not sure what you are getting at.

Look, unless somebody says something to me personally offensive, I’ll respect anybody regardless of religion and faith.  I am what you would call an agnostic atheist.  I don’t believe in the concept of a deity you call god who created us, and maintain that there is no proof one existed, or does exist.  You might think you know it to be true, but that’s only logical to you.  It’s not logical to me.  The analogy that Apple made this tablet I’m using right now must lead one to conclude that some entity also made the Earth and everything we see is a perfectly good religious standpoint, but not a good scientific one with all of the knowledge we now have about the universe around us.  But, religion selectively dismisses most of that in an endeavour to seek its own truth, which is fine, but ultimately that’s not always scientific and logical.  If you follow evidence and proof, please provide the proof that the Earth is flat.  Proof does not mean “it looks flat therefore the experiments like the Rainy Lake Experiment must be bunk”.  Proof does not mean “oceans would fly off a spinning Earth” while completely ignoring the science behind why it wouldn’t.  Try to see both sides.

I would suggest, as I was advised, that you lurk around the forums for a bit, read the Wiki and the threads, and then you might find some more answers to questions on both sides of the fence and have a better appreciation.  I certainly do having done the same.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?

« on: November 07, 2020, 10:15:27 AM »

I spoke to a colleague of mine last night who used to be a physics teacher and had this discussion with him.  As a hypothetical thought experiment, he agrees that under the equivalence principle, and assuming equivalent atmospheric pressure, there would be absolutely no difference to how a rollercoaster would behave on the surface of a massive body like Earth, and how it would behave inside a constantly accelerating reference frame as per UA.

Under UA, we all accelerate upwards and are effectively “pushed” into the surface of the Earth, but the surface stops us falling through.  Using your hill analogy, the hill is part of the Earth.  You’re not, you can move independently, just like the rollercoaster car can move freely with respect to the track. The reason you don’t fall down a steep hill is because of high friction between the soles of your shoes and the surface of the Earth.  If you were to suddenly remove the hill from the equation, you’d be in mid air.  You wouldn’t just keep on accelerating upwards, you’d slow down because the Earth is no longer pushing you.  The Earth would accelerate up towards you and you’d appear to fall.  If you took the same scenario but instead of removing the hill, you swapped it with smooth ice, this is more analogous to the rollercoaster scenario.  Yes you are still being slightly accelerated upwards because now you’re on the surface still, but this time the acceleration forces are enough to overcome the friction forces and so you slide down the hill.

Stuff moving sideways is all explained by the same forces and vectors which have a direction and magnitude.  On a horizontal surface the box wouldn’t move.  On a slight incline, the box may or many not move depending on how much friction there is, but let’s say it does move, albeit slowly.  The steeper the incline, the faster the box slides.  At vertical, the box is in free fall.  UA would account for this because it’s directly analogous to gravity on Earth pulling us down.

Honestly, I know it’s hard to wrap your head around, but if the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s^2, neglecting all the other complications/contradictions that the Wiki tries to explain, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between that, and the attractive force of gravity on Earth as we know it.  Things would rise and fall and behave exactly as they do now.

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I need an answer about this

« on: November 07, 2020, 09:25:02 AM »

@SatanistsAreEvil, appreciate your reply and respect your views.  History is history, and while I’m not going to disagree that there are powers that control the global economy and who have a skewed control over the distribution/ownership of finances, I just take it for what it is, chiefly because I have no interest in politics and related.  As an individual, my life is unaffected either way.  May be considered narrow minded by some, but just like the Earth - regardless of its actual shape, will it change the time you get up in a morning and change how you go get to work or fly to your next holiday destination?  Nope.

Freemasonry, whether the accepted terms is fraternity/cult/religion, is fine.  Anything that brings a group of people together with a common belief and who live better lives for it is good with me as long as everybody is nice about it.  I’m not religious, don’t believe in a supreme being or immortality of the soul.  For me, those things push it from the realm of reality to the real of fantasy.  Such subscribers will often tell everyone they are being lied to and to not believe everything you are told, a little bit like those who subscribe to the flat Earth theory.  Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely agree.  Don’t always believe what you hear, do your own research, make your own observations and keep an open mind, just not so much that your brains fall out.  It’s OK to question things you don’t understand, but not OK to outright dismiss things because of it.

Regarding flat Earth and your comments...

Why do you say gravity isn’t proven?  I experience it every day, and if by unproven you mean “makes no sense to you”, fair enough, but then a flat Earth constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s^2 with a dome over it holding in the atmosphere makes no sense to me, especially with no evidence for it, but that’s what other threads here are for otherwise every thread turns into the same discussion.  Suffice to say, it’s all about scale and perspective.  No, you can’t see the Earth curve when stood on the surface, it’s too big.  It “looks flat”, but to conclude it must be flat because of that is absurd.  Look up the Rainy Lake Experiment for objective evidence of the curvature, including explanations of how light behaves, refraction coefficients etc.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?

« on: November 06, 2020, 04:31:55 PM »

Perhaps my understanding of the Equivalence Principle is incorrect as well, which is eminently possible (and I know there are weak, Einsteinian, and strong versions which complicate things further!).  I thought it was the inability to distinguish between being stood on the surface of a massive body, and being inside an accelerated frame of reference - the key word there being "accelerated".

I do get what you are saying, and I considered the whole "all moving as one thing", but like I said, the key word is "accelerated".  A similar analogy could be a ball on the floor of a train.  At a constant velocity, the ball, the train, me, the whole system is traveling at the same rate so everything just stays in the same relative position, doesn't matter what the velocity is.  We can't feel constant motion.  As the train accelerates we are all subject to the same acceleration, I feel the effect of that acceleration but I'm fixed in my seat so I don't move - I'm essentially part of the train.  The ball is not fixed to the floor, it's free to move, and so relative to my direction of travel it appears to roll backwards away from me (falls, in effect).

Is that not the same as your rollercoaster example?  Under UA, everything - the Earth, the rollercoaster, the rollercoaster car, the people strapped in the car are all moving upwards as one system.  If the Earth were just moving up at a constant velocity, in the absence of any other force your last statement would be correct - there would no reason for the riders at the top of the hill to change their position relative to it.  However, if the Earth were accelerating and changing its velocity over time, the car is free to move relative to the track which is fixed to the Earth.  Riders strapped into the car at the top would now effectively roll downhill.  It's the acceleration of the Earth upwards that gives rise to the apparent force acting on the car, i.e. gravity.  This is why they are equivalent, and this is why flat Earth theory uses it in its sub-theory of Universal Acceleration...is my understanding anyway!

I dunno' mate, I might have it all wrong, it's really interesting stuff nevertheless.  It's certainly easier to wrap your head around an accelerating body giving rise to the "effect" of gravity I'll give them that!

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inquiries about Flat Earth theory of the firmament.

« on: November 06, 2020, 03:20:40 PM »

Yeah, I think the association of the word suction with vacuum is what causes a lot of confusion for people as they assume that means space must somehow behave like a giant vacuum cleaner!  Mind you, even if it did actually "suck", wouldn't it do so equally in all directions and hence the net effect would be zero anyway?  Hmm...lol

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inquiries about Flat Earth theory of the firmament.

« on: November 06, 2020, 02:38:50 PM »

Cheers @Iceman2020, gotcha', although the minimal gradient at altitude isn't the cause of our atmosphere being bound to our planet.  It's the very fact that our atmosphere is bound to our planet by gravity in the first place that causes the minimal gradient at altitude, eventually fading to nothing.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?

« on: November 06, 2020, 02:25:56 PM »

@fisherman, maybe my understanding of UA isn't correct, but doesn't the Equivalence Principle go something like as follows:

• In a rocket in space, not moving, I feel weightless.  The equivalent to being in freefall on Earth.
• In a rocket accelerating upwards, I feel weight.  The equivalent to standing on the surface of the Earth with gravity.

Neglecting wind resistance and other complexities of where the ground is, in the first example, if I had a glass of water and slowly tried to pour it out, it would pretty much just stay in the glass or at least stay relative to my position.  In the second example, the water would pour out onto the surface beneath me.  If Universal Acceleration is considered actual constant upwards acceleration of the Earth (much like the rocket) wouldn't water in a sloping pipe just flow as we expect anyway?