Flat Earthers will tell you the Earth is undergoing steady acceleration. Now, they will also tell you that there is actual gravity that keeps the moon and planets in orbit and affects the tides. They won't, however, tell you how this gravitational attraction doesn't cause the Sun and Moon to collide with Earth.
- Ok, so the earth is accelerating, that agrees with Physics. In Physics the Earth is constantly accelerating (constant speed but changing direction and therefore velocity hence accelerating). This is not quite the same as what I'm sure you meant though!... so moving on.
- I understand the equivalence principle postulated by Einstein, i.e. with no visual clues you could be moving at a constant speed or stationary equally (zero acceleration) and hence in conventional physics Earth can be rotating at a constant speed and yet we feel like we are stationary. This also applies to non-zero acceleration where with no visual clues, if you dropped an Apple (I♡Newton) 1) on ground in a gravitational field (Conventional Physics), or 2) whilst standing on ground, itself accelerating upward.... the force of 9.81 m/s2 or 9.81 N/kg would be the same on that apple and therefore have the same effect. It would "fall" to the ground. In case 1) it is "pulled" to the ground while in case 2) the ground moves up to meet the apple.
- Therefore I can accept that this is theoretically possible.
StinkyOne: You also seem to be correct that Celestial Gravitation says gravity is pulling Earth and all other objects with mass towards the stars(?).
StinkyOne: They won't, however, tell you how this gravitational attraction doesn't cause the Sun and Moon to collide with Earth.
I believe this is explain by my assumption that the Sun and Moon are effectively joined to the Earth and so they are also accelerating with it(?). Also
StinkyOne: Oh yeah, "celestial" gravity. LOL Gravity that works on everything but the Earth. It even attracts water, just not the Earth. Who comes up with this stuff??
I believe I also explained this one, their mass appears to be irrelevant, a = F/m doesn't seem to apply, as in regardless of mass their acceleration is the same so they accelerate WITH the Earth.
Q2) What about the planets?
Q3) Is this acceleration infinite? i.e. is the speed at which Earth is travelling infinite and therefore we just keep getting fater infinitely?
Q4) If so, a) are we going to hit the stars, or b) are they moving away from us, being pulled towards something else...? I can see no other option than those two.
Q5) why does the proven equation F=ma not apply to the stars pull on Earthly objects? Why don't heavier objects accelerate faster than lighter ones on a flat Earth?
I'm not sure about anyone else but this makes it sound like terminal velocity on a FE is when a person is suspended in midair not moving.
- From the explanation above, would an apple carried on a platform rising WITH the Earth (i.e. not increasing of decreasing in altitude)
not also be travelling at the same speed as the Earth AND being an object with mass and lower than the Sun/Moon therefore have the SAME initial acceleration as the Earth? Therefore once let go, without conventional gravity and accelerating upward due to the pull of the stars, the apple will simply continue to move upward with the Earth, thereby not losing nor gaining altitude. In order to "fall" to Earth in this situation the apple's acceleration would need to decrease in order for Earth's surface to catch it up, not only that but it's acceleration must decrease more and more with time as the apple has been shown to increase it's velocity towards Earth's surface. It's acceleration then needs to remain constant so the Earth can catch up with it at a constant speed, i.e. terminal velocity.
Q6) My logic in that argument seems correct (if not let me know) so 5a) what would cause the apple to accelerate less than everything around it? 5b) what would cause its acceleration to decrease at a steady rate if the stars pull it at a constant rate and Earth is accelerating towards it at a constant rate? 5c) what then causes its acceleration to stop decreasing and not continue decreasing to the point where it's "fall" actually begins to slows down (to eventually reach equilibrium acceleration and velocity with the Earth and then even start moving upward)?
TomInAustin: is special relativity a valid theory? And if so, why that and not other generally accepted science?
Relativity IS accepted science. There is nothing that contradicts it, Newton's Laws are also supported by it but this extends them. Therefore there is no other science to switch to.
Hold up, isn't it true we've (the Russians) only drilled into the earths surface just 7.62 miles? What's this imaginary gravity you speak of 4,000 miles deep? Pretty funny you can guess what's down there. No it's hysterical actually. Science can't even get 1% down into earth yet they know what the hell is down there.
We don't need to dig a hole to the center of the Earth to make very, VERY good inferences that gravity exists - just as you don't need to cut open your chest to infer that you have a heart.
A more appropriate analogy is that no one has ever seen the heart of another human or animal, and they are assumed to exist as well.
One thing at a time, I'm still on space! I'll deal with Earth and it's interior later. Also be aware that as a geophysicist I have seen the evidence used to interpret Earth's interior. However... I assume you would not accept my word as evidence, as with other scientists, so I will do my best to work with that knowledge.
I hope the conversation is proving interesting!