[LoveScience]

To quote again from FE Wiki...

The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared).

How do you arrive at this conclusion when there is no such thing as direction in space? Up relative to what?

[markjo]

In this context, up would be defined as the direction that the UA is accelerating the flat earth.  Remember that acceleration is a vector quantity (i.e. it has magnitude and direction).

[LoveScience]

Oh yes I am very well aware that acceleration is a vector quantity. But I'm still confused about how anyone can define which way is up in space. Obviously while you are standing on the surface of the Earth we arbitrarily designate the sky as up and the ground as down.


Now displace yourself from Earth and imagine you are somewhere in interplanetary or even interstellar space.  You would see stars all around you as if you were standing at the centre of a huge sphere.  Now which way is 'up'?

[RonJ]

Acceleration is a vector with magnitude and direction.  There's no indication of direction relative to anything else so the term doesn't have much meaning in this case.  Under FET the only reason for the acceleration is a replacement for gravity.  At the moment the earth must be traveling at 99.99....% the speed of light.  Also the sun, moon, planets, and the other navigation starts (at least) must all be doing the same thing.  If everything else were not also accelerating then their observed positions would also be changing relative to the earth.  The earth (allegedly) is being accelerated due to a force of dark energy on the bottom.  Nothing has ever been said about what is accelerating all the other visible objects.  The theory is rather obscure and ill defined regarding what is keeping the moon and sun above the earth and constantly rotating.  I would be rather interested in seeing the details on the size, mass, and the equations of motion of the moon under FET.  These facts have to remain unknown because if they were ever defined then FET would crash & burn.

[Curiosity File]

Acceleration is a vector with magnitude and direction.  There's no indication of direction relative to anything else so the term doesn't have much meaning in this case.  Under FET the only reason for the acceleration is a replacement for gravity.  At the moment the earth must be traveling at 99.99....% the speed of light.  Also the sun, moon, planets, and the other navigation starts (at least) must all be doing the same thing.  If everything else were not also accelerating then their observed positions would also be changing relative to the earth.  The earth (allegedly) is being accelerated due to a force of dark energy on the bottom.  Nothing has ever been said about what is accelerating all the other visible objects.  The theory is rather obscure and ill defined regarding what is keeping the moon and sun above the earth and constantly rotating.  I would be rather interested in seeing the details on the size, mass, and the equations of motion of the moon under FET.  These facts have to remain unknown because if they were ever defined then FET would crash & burn.

FES wiki describes it in "Aertheric Whirlpool" effect
https://wiki.tfes.org/Aetheric_Whirlpool

[LoveScience]

Dark energy is a big topic in modern day cosmology but that is a different thing entirely. In any case the expansion of the Universe as a whole is happening at rather more than 9.8 m/s. As for the dark energy they mention in FE Wiki, that belongs more in the dark ages!

[RonJ]

It's nice to know that the 'theory' of the Aertheric Wind is responsible for the movement of the Sun & Moon around the earth.  It's kind of like the earth being flushed down a toilet at near light speed.  The writers of the theory need to take (and pass) a couple of courses in fluid mechanics & dynamics and then try again.  Any idea that those kinds of things are happening above the earth and not being seen or measured are not credible.

[Curiosity File]

I take my hat off to you RonJ, perfect analogy, "earth being flushed down a toilet at near light speed."
So, this Whirlwind or  "Aertheric whirlpool" is based on the ancient, I think Greek, beliefs that there was a spiritual air, (Aertther) that was different from the air we breath, that the "Gods" Breath. Alchemists thought this "Aerther" was a spirit element in metal. Other beliefs include things like it being the substance that held the celestial bodies and the universe together.   
Aerther was born, died then resurrected several times throughout history and that term was used to explain many things.
It makes sense that FET would once again resurrect the term Aerther and FES would put it in their wiki and give it their own definition to explain many things in the natural FE world. Using it to explain UA or how the FE system works should come to no surprise.
 All the theories of what Aerther might be over millennia has died many times in the past. I see FES terminology of Aerther and Aertheric Whirlwind meeting the same fate.         

[Pete Svarrior]

Up relative to what?

An observer located on Earth.

[LoveScience]

If an observer is located on Earth Pete they are being carried along with it. So the observer and the Earth would be stationary with respect to one another.  In just the same way as a passenger on a train is stationary with respect to the train they are a passenger on.

FET specifically states that the Earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s. If we care talking about the Earth itself accelerating then everything on the Earth is irrelevant since net acceleration will be zero. So my question is 9.8m/s with respect to what and what is causing the acceleration in the first place?


"Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2" from the FW Wiki page.

[Curiosity File]

 LoveScience You're looking for a reference point to gauge the UA rate against?
Such as a man standing in his driveway(Point A) a boy riding a bike at X amount of speed(point B) to gauge the speed a car passes by point A and B.
In RE we have the sun for a reference point to gauge how fast the earth and other planets orbit the sun.
I don't see what FET could use for such a reference point?
In fact in FET all other celestial bodies must be accelerating in the same direction and same speed as the earth while spinning above it..

[RonJ]

Since the earth is in an Aetheric Whirlpool and is being accelerated at 9.81 m/s^2, just were is the 'whirl' part of the 'pool'?  Every time I've sent something down the drain and there was a whirlpool, things in it were rotating.  Now is the rotating earth back in, or is the Whirlpool thing back out?  That's just one of the interesting problems with the 'theory'.

[LoveScience]

I am trying to look at this from the FE point of view. In conventional RET it is all easy and straightforward. FE Wiki says that the Earth has a diameter of 25,000 miles in accordance with their interpretation of Eratosthenes shadow experiment. Lets put further discussion about that aside for now here as it has been more than adequately debated elsewhere.

So we have this 25,000 mile diameter disk accelerating at 9.8m/s through what exactly? If the answer is space then up means nothing as there are no real directions in space.  Constant acceleration in a circle is fine since any change in speed or direction constitutes acceleration.  But the only way UA would work to simulate the same effect as weight on Earth is if the disk of Earth is moving along a direction perpendicular to its surface. That means it is being driven by a force acting from underneath effectively.  What is causing that force?

[Pete Svarrior]

If an observer is located on Earth Pete they are being carried along with it. So the observer and the Earth would be stationary with respect to one another.

Indeed. However, this does not preclude them from otherwise experiencing their interaction with the Earth, which, by your own admission, defines the colloquial concepts of up and down.

Your failure is assuming that "up" is a standalone term, which needs to be separable from the human experience. It isn't. The direction of "up" just happens to be the direction in which the Earth is accelerating, and it's already well understood by anyone who interacted with their surroundings. If you prefer, you can simply think of it as an arbitrary direction which just happens to be perpendicular to the Earth's surface. It makes no difference how you choose to describe said direction, so long as we both know what it is. And, shockingly, we do.

[markjo]

FET specifically states that the Earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s. If we care talking about the Earth itself accelerating then everything on the Earth is irrelevant since net acceleration will be zero. So my question is 9.8m/s with respect to what and what is causing the acceleration in the first place?

Hold a tennis ball at arm's length and drop it.  From your frame of reference, the ball accelerates down towards the ground at a rate of 9.8 m/s².  However, from the ball's frame of reference, the ground accelerates up towards the ball at a rate of 9.8 m/s².  Both frames of reference are equally valid and gives us a reference for up and down.

[Curiosity File]

"That means it is being driven by a force acting from underneath effectively." " What is causing that force??

Aw yes the million dollar question. Since FES members, the believer in FET, don't seem to want offer much help, rather want us to research their wiki I've been doing so. However I have not found anything that answers that question, yet.

I would point out that "the force" also is pushing the moon stars and sun, apparently. While everything on the surface of the flat earth is immune to "the force".
Once we find out what this force is the next question would be, "why are we immune to it?"
There are more questions for another extension of this line of questioning we'll save for another time.

[LoveScience]

OK Pete. Lets forget all about Earth whether flat or otherwise. Just think of a person, spacecraft or whatever isolated and moving through space whether interplanetary or interstellar even. How would they be able to tell they were moving at all, let alone in what 'direction' they were travelling in?

The same principle applies to a flat disk with a 25,000 mile diameter travelling through space. Standing on the surface of the Earth we are used to having basic directions defined by our surroundings. But take those surroundings away and direction ceases to have any relevance.

[AATW]

"That means it is being driven by a force acting from underneath effectively." " What is causing that force??

Aw yes the million dollar question. Since FES members, the believer in FET, don't seem to want offer much help, rather want us to research their wiki I've been doing so. However I have not found anything that answers that question, yet.

I would point out that "the force" also is pushing the moon stars and sun, apparently. While everything on the surface of the flat earth is immune to "the force".
Once we find out what this force is the next question would be, "why are we immune to it?"
There are more questions for another extension of this line of questioning we'll save for another time.

I don't think this is a fair criticism of FE. You could equally say "what is causing gravity" or any of the 4 forces of gravity.
These forces are just properties of the universe, in the FE world the force which causes UA is a property of that universe.
As for why we are immune to it, we aren't. It's just that the earth itself acts as a barrier. Imagine a wind tunnel pointing upwards, like one of those things you can do indoor skydiving in. If you put a disc in one of them it would be pushed upwards by the wind current, but a small object on top of the disc wouldn't directly feel the wind, it would be pushed up by the disc but not feel the wind. At some point above the disc the wind current going around the disc would meet - in the FE world this is where the sun and stars are so they are pushed upwards in the current too.

Something like this:

[LoveScience]

I don't think this is a fair criticism of FE. You could equally say "what is causing gravity" or any of the 4 forces of gravity.

That is easy to answer. The mass of the Earth causes gravity.  Since the centre of mass is also the core that also acts as the centre of gravity which tries to pull everything towards it.  Hence we all feel the sensation of weight equally regardless of our position on it.  Only slight variations between the poles and the equator due to centripetal force but that can be ignored in every day experience.

I agree that the 4 forces of nature are just that. Without going into particle physics rather deeper than it is worth doing here the cause of these forces is down to the laws of physics.  Are FE believers declaring UA to be due to gravity or just giving the impression of gravity?  Either way the cause of UA has yet to be explained fully.

[Spingo]

If an observer is located on Earth Pete they are being carried along with it. So the observer and the Earth would be stationary with respect to one another.

Indeed. However, this does not preclude them from otherwise experiencing their interaction with the Earth, which, by your own admission, defines the colloquial concepts of up and down.

Your failure is assuming that "up" is a standalone term, which needs to be separable from the human experience. It isn't. The direction of "up" just happens to be the direction in which the Earth is accelerating, and it's already well understood by anyone who interacted with their surroundings. If you prefer, you can simply think of it as an arbitrary direction which just happens to be perpendicular to the Earth's surface. It makes no difference how you choose to describe said direction, so long as we both know what it is. And, shockingly, we do.

You made a statement that (a) you haven’t or can’t prove experimentally  (b) no physicist on planet Earth would agree with you.  That pretty much puts you and your case in a very difficult position. I think the best you can say is you imagine it to be the case.
I think saying someone else has failed is rather another bold statement to make especially when you yourself are in  no credible position to pass judgement.

You could change my mind and everyone else’s for that matter by offering a strong case backed by some hard experimental evidence rather than a few cobbled together words.