#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10690
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: August 28, 2018, 02:45:41 AM »
On reading through the FAQ and the Universal Accelerator pages I have come to realize that we are seemingly haphazardly proposing that the earth is accelerating upwards without really explaining why. We should provide background to this deduction process.

In my view, the earth is accelerating upwards simply because that is what we observe it to be doing.

Consider the following:

Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that the earth accelerates upwards to meet your feet.

Experiment 2: Now find a ball and raise it into the air with your hand and let it go into free-fall. As it does this this you should simultaneously feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet. This tells us that we are being pushed to be in the frame of reference of the earth, as the earth runs into the ball.

While the "graviton puller particles" and "bendy space" versions of gravity in Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity provide equivalent explanations to the results of the above experiments, those things are are completely undiscovered, and so, are decidedly less empirical. We can see that the earth moves upwards, while we have to imagine that there are hypothetical undiscovered puller particles or odd properties to space.

We can imagine many explanations for the phenomenon of gravity, but they will be completely hypothetical and frivolous. None are as strong as something we can directly observe and experience.

Per the question of where the energy for comes from; since it is beneath the earth and inaccessible that is a question easily left as unknown. While we can directly see and experience the mechanical action of the earth's upward movement, we are ignorant of the energy source below. The phenomenon of "gravity" is as equally deficient in its explanation for where all of the energy comes from for matter to pull matter, and that usually gets glossed over.

Furthermore, and as another point, in order for "gravity" to exist, entirely new and untestable physics must be created for that construct. The phenomenon of pushing is well established and long known to science. After all, the phenomenon of push can occur with existing physics, whereas pulling particles or bendy space requires new physics. This favors the concept of upwards acceleration.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 02:22:58 AM by Tom Bishop »

• 219
• Belief does not make something a theory.
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2018, 03:11:13 AM »
Wait, I'm confused now.  Tom, I just tried experiment 1.  When I stepped off the edge of my chair, my hair went up along with the earth.  Why, if I'm not actually moving, did my hair move?  I have to go buy a ball to try experiment 2.  I'll get back to you with my findings.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?

#### stack

• 3583
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2018, 05:32:45 AM »
In my view, the earth is accelerating upwards simply because that is what we observe it to be doing.

I think you’re going to have a really hard time making an explanation of UA simple and digestible. Not that it can’t be made so, just that gravity, whether someone moderately understands the mechanics or not, is so fundamentally ingrained, it will be very difficult to snap. Take your experiments for example, 99.9% of people will immediately re-write/counter them in their heads from a gravity perspective:

Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that you accelerate downwards toward the earth. In other words, it’s called “falling down”.

Experiment 2: Now find a ball and raise it into the air with your hand and let it go into free-fall. As it does this you should also feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet. No I don’t, why would the act of dropping a ball suddenly make me feel like the earth is pressing up or even that I’m pressing down on my feet? This tells us that we are being pushed to be in the frame of reference of the earth, as the earth runs into the ball. No it doesn’t, it’s called “dropping” something.

Furthermore, and as another point, in order for "gravity" to exist, entirely new and untestable physics must be created for that construct. The phenomenon of pushing is well established and long known to science. The phenomenon of push can occur with existing physics, whereas pulling particles or bendy space requires new physics. This favors the concept of upwards acceleration.

Same premise as above. It’s way too easy for the lay person to simply counter with, “This UA you speak of is the thing that is entirely new and untestable physics must be created for that construct. As I'm sure because gravity is, well, you know, gravity, there's nothing new to construct with it and there's lots of physics involved that I'm sure have been tested, I read about that Newton guy in grade school..."

I’m not writing this from a debate perspective, just from one where I think UA is as large of a theory as FET itself and requires a lot of explanation that simple observations don’t cover well enough to be able to dispense with gravity in the minds of the vast vast majority. It’s large enough to almost warrant it’s own movement, “The Universal Acceleration Society”.

#### AATW

• 6531
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2018, 08:40:45 AM »
Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that the earth accelerates upwards towards you.

Experiment 2: Now find a ball and raise it into the air with your hand and let it go into free-fall. As it does this this you should also feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet. This tells us that we are being pushed to be in the frame of reference of the earth, as the earth runs into the ball.
Dude, come on!
Those two experiments contradict one another in terms of what you observe.
In the first you "observe" the earth rushing towards you, in the second you observe (I note you have not mentioned this) the ball falling away from you towards the earth. Which is exactly what everyone else observed in the first experiment, they saw you falling towards earth. And yes, you feel pressure on your feet. That tells you there is a force acting on them. Can you guess what that force is called?
All you have demonstrated in those two experiments is different frames of reference cause you to observe different things.

You spent a couple of paragraphs saying you just have to "imagine" bendy space or gravitons but conveniently ignore the fact that you are "imagining" some "dark energy" or somesuch which powers UA which you concede the cause of which is unknown. You claim you can "see" that the earth moves upwards but that is only true in one very specific scenario - that of you falling. In every other experiment where things fall you observe a static earth and an object falling towards it because of the force you feel keeping you on the ground.

I don't know what you mean by "new and untestable physics" being needed for gravity, some forces attract, others repel. Take two magnets and align them in one way and they will stick together, align them in another and they will push apart. The strong nuclear force also "pulls", it's what keeps the nucleus of atoms together.

This is another example of something we are talking about in the thread about senses. All we know is that objects fall to earth and we feel pressure on our feet which stops us floating away. That is the observation. The explanation for that observation could be a force which attracts objects to one another or it could be that the whole earth is accelarating upwards which would produce equivalent results in certain experiments. This is where our senses are limited, they cannot determine which of those it is as it would feel the same, we would observe the same things. This is where experiments like the Cavendish one step in and help us determine which explanation is correct:

You need to debunk that before an alternative explanation like UA can be taken seriously.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

#### edby

• 1214
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2018, 08:44:59 AM »
Quote
On reading through the FAQ and the Universal Accelerator pages I have come to realize that we are seemingly haphazardly proposing that the earth is accelerating upwards without really explaining why.

In my view, the earth is accelerating upwards simply because that is what we observe it to be doing.

That's an interesting 'because'. A true explanation would be to show why this is happening at all, and what its general nature is. What forces is pushing the earth? Does it act upon small part of the earth, or all of the earth. If all of the earth, why doesn't it affect people? If part of the earth, why doesn't the earth break up under the massive stress? Why doesn't EA violate conservation of energy?

Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that the earth accelerates upwards towards you.
False. I observe that I am accelerating downwards towards the earth.

« Last Edit: August 28, 2018, 08:50:12 AM by edby »

• 219
• Belief does not make something a theory.
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2018, 01:27:40 PM »
Experiment 2: Now find a ball and raise it into the air with your hand and let it go into free-fall. As it does this this you should also feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet. This tells us that we are being pushed to be in the frame of reference of the earth, as the earth runs into the ball.

I couldn't find a ball.  So, for the purpose of this experiment I used my cell phone.  I held it up in the air, then let it go.  I felt no difference in the pressure against my feet as the phone fell.  I then tried a heavier object to see if it would make a difference.  I took a 55 lb dumbbell, held it up in the air.  When I let it go, I felt the opposite effect.  I actually felt that the earth was pushing less on me after I let go.  Why did I not feel the earth pressing down (up?) on me as the weight free-falled(-fell)?

I think you need to explain this phenomenon in much greater detail, Tom.

Furthermore, and as another point, in order for "gravity" to exist, entirely new and untestable physics must be created for that construct. The phenomenon of pushing is well established and long known to science. The phenomenon of push can occur with existing physics, whereas pulling particles or bendy space requires new physics. This favors the concept of upwards acceleration.

So, you don't believe in creating entirely new and untested physics for a phenomenon to exist?  Your electromagnetic accelerator requires dark energy to exist, which is currently theoretical, and is being tested for in space....a place the flat earthers claim we've never been.

So, how can you dismiss gravity, where your own theory of EA involves results detected by instruments that cannot possibly exist.  If they did, they'd be in space.  Tom, how do you know dark matter - required by the Bishop Constant - is real?  Detected by NASA equipment!

If you see gravity pulling particles and creating bendy space as improbable due to new physics, then you should also see the fallacy in accepting that EA is bending light due to some phenomenon detected by non-existent space instruments owned by space conspirators.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1337
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2018, 01:33:14 PM »
AATW already pointed it out some, but I just wanted to plainly lay out how UA is the absolute best example of your cognitive dissonance when it comes to FE. You bemoan the 'puller particles' of gravity that we have never observed. Claiming because we can't see the root cause of gravity, it in some manner makes gravity the more complicated idea. Yet the force that fulfills the same role in UA (creating the effect of bringing Earth an you back together when you jump) has never been observed either, and in many finite FE models it would be impossible to see it at all! UA doesn't have an advantage in this regard unless you ignore the log in it's eye for the speck in gravity. Attraction of masses has been shown within a lab setting a number of times over the years. Even ignoring them in favor of some nutjob blogger leaves you with the exact same problem of being unable to see the core mechanism for both systems. To attempt to claim one has an advantage here is rather dishonest.

#### HorstFue

##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2018, 08:04:33 PM »
In my view, the earth is accelerating upwards simply because that is what we observe it to be doing.
Sorry, what do You observe? You observe things accelerating towards each other: a man, a ball and the earth. But you cannot decide, which of these is moving and which is at rest.
E.g., I was sitting in a train at the station, waiting for departure. Looking out the window, I suddenly had the impression, the train departs but accelerates in the wrong direction. A few moments later I noticed, my carriage was still at rest, it was the other train on the neighbor track moving out of the station.

While the Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity gravity explanations of "graviton puller particles" and "bendy space" provide equivalent explanations to the results of the above experiments, those things are are completely undiscovered, and so, are decidedly less empirical.

What's not empirical on the effect of gravity? It has been measured, observed and tested in various experiments.
What's missing is a theory for the "reason" of gravity. You don't need to cite latest physical theories to explain your experiments. The effect of gravity alone, as empirical verified, can explain your observations.

Per the question of where the energy for comes from; that is a question easily left as unknown.
If You accuse the gravity model, that physicist still searching for the "reason", than I accuse FET not providing the "reason" for the acceleration of earth.

The phenomenon of pushing is well established and long known to science. The phenomenon of push can occur with existing physics, whereas pulling particles or bendy space requires new physics.
Ahem ... "push" can occur for electromagnetic forces, between equal polarized charges or magnetic fields.
These forces can also "pull" when differently polarized.
Other "fundamental interactions" or forces: Gravity, strong and weak nuclear force, I would attribute a "pull" only.

#### ichoosereality

• 307
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2021, 01:07:12 AM »
Furthermore, and as another point, in order for "gravity" to exist, entirely new and untestable physics must be created for that construct. The phenomenon of pushing is well established and long known to science. After all, the phenomenon of push can occur with existing physics, whereas pulling particles or bendy space requires new physics. This favors the concept of upwards acceleration.
The curvature of space by mass not only is testable it has been tested.  Starting in 1919 a mere four years after General Relativity was published, the images of stars were seen to shift when our view shows them very close to the sun (during a total eclipse). See Testing General Relativity .  This experiment has been done many times since with the same result.  More recently gravitational lensing is the same phenomenon.  The curvature was measured directly with the amazing Gravity Probe B .  Space being curved by the presence of mass also explains the motion we see all over the cosmos and how planets, stars, mons, and galaxies form.  Finally your fantasied "upwards acceleration" only would work for a flat earth, and we know with certainty that the earth is not flat so your claim that it is simpler than GR is irrelevant.
The contents of the GPS NAV message is the time of transmission and the orbital location of the transmitter at that time. If the transmitters are not where they claim to be GPS would not work.  Since it does work the transmitters must in fact be in orbit, which means the earth is round.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10690
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2021, 01:16:59 AM »
Dr. Edward Dowdye says that the medium of the Solar Corona bends light, not gravity. And the observations further away from the edge of the sun fails to match prediction.

http://beyondmainstream.org/nasa-scientist-says-coronas-bend-light-not-gravity/

« Last Edit: December 15, 2021, 01:22:19 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10690
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2021, 01:26:28 AM »

You need to debunk that before an alternative explanation like UA can be taken seriously.

Actually, that experiment is inconsistent and it is admitted that the results are primarily caused by effects which are not gravity. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment
« Last Edit: December 15, 2021, 01:28:24 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### ichoosereality

• 307
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2021, 01:53:03 AM »
Dr. Edward Dowdye says that the medium of the Solar Corona bends light, not gravity. And the observations further away from the edge of the sun fails to match prediction.

http://beyondmainstream.org/nasa-scientist-says-coronas-bend-light-not-gravity/
So what?  Anyone can "say" anything.  Did he publish anything on this in any peer reviewed journal?  Not that I can find.  His bio from his own site  (https://einsteinwrong.com/site/dr-edward-dowdye/) says:
`"The member is a Laser Optics Physicist and Electronics Engineer (retired) at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Dr. Dowdye is independent researcher in the area of pure classical electromagnetism and gravitation, not related to his occupation at NASA. He disputes the finding that gravity bends light but claims instead, that light is bent in the corona of suns, not because of space-time."`

More properly "was" since he passed away in 2020.  The fact that he was working on laser optics and electronics for NASA does not make him an expert on general relativity.  The way science works, the way we have made such amazing progress is by scientists publishing their work so as to make their case to other scientists, not to gullible lay people.

I notice you had no comment on the results of Gravity Probe B.
The contents of the GPS NAV message is the time of transmission and the orbital location of the transmitter at that time. If the transmitters are not where they claim to be GPS would not work.  Since it does work the transmitters must in fact be in orbit, which means the earth is round.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 16104
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2021, 02:14:06 AM »
gullible lay people
A friendly reminder that if you don't behave, you don't post. We'll see you in a couple weeks.

If we are not speculating then we must assume

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10690
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2021, 03:00:20 AM »
Dr. Edward Dowdye says that the medium of the Solar Corona bends light, not gravity. And the observations further away from the edge of the sun fails to match prediction.

http://beyondmainstream.org/nasa-scientist-says-coronas-bend-light-not-gravity/
So what?  Anyone can "say" anything.  Did he publish anything on this in any peer reviewed journal?  Not that I can find.

If you can show beyond reasonable doubt that the journals are unbiased I'll consider your argument.

See this quote:

"Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by a journal today, you will run against a paradigm and the editors will turn it down." -- Fred Hoyle, British Mathematician and Astronomer

Fred Hoyle thought that journals were biased and unwilling to publish certain topics.

I also don't see that any journal has refuted and contradicted him.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2021, 08:10:42 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### Rog

• 69
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2021, 01:13:41 PM »
Quote
Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that the earth accelerates upwards to meet your feet.

Here’s an experiment.  Jump from the same chair 5 minutes apart.  If the time it takes to meet the floor is not less on the second attempt, then the earth is not accelerating up and increasing in velocity.

The curvature has also been directly measured.

http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/12/27/measuring-the-curvature-of-spacetime-with-the-geodetic-effect/

#### Iceman

• 1825
• where there's smoke there's wires
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2021, 01:15:07 PM »
Journals publish articles with completely conflicting interpretations all the time. Those interpretations are (supposed to be) weighted against the evidence that supports them by reviewers and associate editors. If there is insufficient evidence to support claims/interpretations, a paper will be rejected.

Is it more difficult to go against the grain and publish ideas that question the status quo? Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

Example topics just from the field of Quaternary Geology include Carolina Bays, the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, forcing a of the 8.2ka cold event, origin of mega-scale glacial lineations on the Antarctic continental shelf, the volume and extent of the Laurentide Ice Sheet over the last glacial cycle (particularly during MIS3).

#### WTF_Seriously

• 1334
• Nobody Important
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2021, 02:51:01 PM »
Here’s an experiment.  Jump from the same chair 5 minutes apart.  If the time it takes to meet the floor is not less on the second attempt, then the earth is not accelerating up and increasing in velocity.

Would you be so kind as to humor an old codger and show me the physics behind this statement.
I hope you understand we're maintaining a valuable resource here....

#### Rog

• 69
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2021, 08:03:36 PM »
Here’s an experiment.  Jump from the same chair 5 minutes apart.  If the time it takes to meet the floor is not less on the second attempt, then the earth is not accelerating up and increasing in velocity.

Would you be so kind as to humor an old codger and show me the physics behind this statement.

I was being a bit facetious.  I don’t think you could such an experiment from a chair, at least not without some unrealistically sensitive measuring equipment but it stands to reason.

Since we are talking relativistic velocities, a clock on a dropped object (which would be in an inertial reference frame) and a clock on the ground (presumably in an accelerating reference frame at close to c) would read differently.  Each would perceive the other as going slower (this is ignoring any gravitational time dilation that might happen) and the difference would increase as the velocity of the clock on the ground increases relative to the clock on the inertial object.

Drop tower experiments are performed all over the world everyday.  You’d think somebody would’ve noticed that the time it takes to perform the same experiment is different at different times and/or depending on whose clock you are looking at.  Not to mention that a skydiver’s watch would read differently than an observer on the ground.  They’d have two different measurements for how long it took the skydiver to “fall”.

Quote
Dr. Edward Dowdye says that the medium of the Solar Corona bends light, not gravity. And the observations further away from the edge of the sun fails to match prediction.

I’m not sure why you’d reject the idea that light bends around the sun.  It bends in an upwardly accelerating elevator on earth, so according to the equivalence principle, why couldn’t it bend around the sun if the earth is accelerating upwards?

#### WTF_Seriously

• 1334
• Nobody Important
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2021, 10:07:08 PM »

Since we are talking relativistic velocities, a clock on a dropped object (which would be in an inertial reference frame) and a clock on the ground (presumably in an accelerating reference frame at close to c) would read differently.  Each would perceive the other as going slower (this is ignoring any gravitational time dilation that might happen) and the difference would increase as the velocity of the clock on the ground increases relative to the clock on the inertial object.

Drop tower experiments are performed all over the world everyday.  You’d think somebody would’ve noticed that the time it takes to perform the same experiment is different at different times and/or depending on whose clock you are looking at.  Not to mention that a skydiver’s watch would read differently than an observer on the ground.  They’d have two different measurements for how long it took the skydiver to “fall”.

Yes.  But aren't the relative velocities of the earth and and object prior to being dropped zero always?
I hope you understand we're maintaining a valuable resource here....

#### Rog

• 69
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2021, 11:10:08 PM »
Quote
Yes.  But aren't the relative velocities of the earth and object prior to being dropped zero always?

Assuming the object is supported by the earth, the relative velocity would be zero,  and the clocks would be synchronized before it is dropped.  But once the object is dropped, they would become unsynchronized. When the object hits the ground, the clocks would start keeping time at the same rate again, but they still wouldn’t agree unless they were synchronized again.