[Trolltrolls]

Wouldn't the soil (at the bottom of the flat Earth) and thus everything get pulled apart because of the pseudoforce of acceleration?
Also, what causes this acceleration?

[JohnAdams1145]

No, because the soil and everything else is accelerating at the same rate (even at the particle level). It's sort of the same way with gravity and why accelerometers read 0 in free-fall, even if they're accelerating at 9.8 m / s^2. It's because gravity affects every single particle in the accelerometer, while if you stuck it in an accelerating car, the car would only push on the back of the accelerometer.

FE hasn't given a good reason for the acceleration. They claim they need more time. By the equivalence principle (which they invoke), their model is exactly the same as one that makes an invisible force on those residing on Earth's surface, except this force violates the isotropy of space and is in a preferred direction. So in reality, their model is no simpler than that of gravity. The real problem is that you wouldn't see spheres in space; you would see eggs in space, as the planets are compressed along the axis of universal acceleration.

[Trolltrolls]

No, because the soil and everything else is accelerating at the same rate (even at the particle level). It's sort of the same way with gravity and why accelerometers read 0 in free-fall, even if they're accelerating at 9.8 m / s^2. It's because gravity affects every single particle in the accelerometer, while if you stuck it in an accelerating car, the car would only push on the back of the accelerometer.

FE hasn't given a good reason for the acceleration. They claim they need more time. By the equivalence principle (which they invoke), their model is exactly the same as one that makes an invisible force on those residing on Earth's surface, except this force violates the isotropy of space and is in a preferred direction. So in reality, their model is no simpler than that of gravity. The real problem is that you wouldn't see spheres in space; you would see eggs in space, as the planets are compressed along the axis of universal acceleration.

I though accelerometer read 0 because the pseudoforce of acceleration balances the weight.
Let's take the lowermost soil particle of the flat Earth. It is just accelerating, which means it experiences a pseudoforce in the downward direction. Since nothing else is holding it, shouldn't it get stripped away from the flat Earth disc and do on until there's nothing left.

[JohnAdams1145]

No, because every part of that particle is experiencing a force forward. Imagine I have a crude linear accelerometer: | -----=====----- |. If I push ====>| -----=====----- |, then clearly the inside will compress. This is how the accelerometer measures acceleration (and indeed how any local experiment would measure it). But if I suspend it in a gravitational field, there's no more compression because every little piece inside is being attracted by the gravitational field, as opposed to just one plate. The same goes for the soil particle. Everything just... accelerates (for no good reason, but I addressed that in my second paragraph).

 

[Ratboy]

So if I go to a hill, all the soil is accelerating at the same rate by the same force so the soil on the bottom is not crushed.  But if I climb the hill and push some soil sideways, it falls down the hill because ... uhm, ... why again?  I guess all the soil is accelerating at the same rate so long as the soil particles are touching each other or rather so long as there are soil particles underneath them with sufficient cohesive strength to support them if there was such a thing as gravity.  I feel bad for the poor people with loved ones who have died when trenches dug into the soil collapse with them trapped inside since there should be no reason for the soil close to the edge of the wall to lose its ability to accelerate just like the soil farther from the edge.  I like the idea of a stack of turtles growing under the flat earth better than an UA concept that sort of accelerates everything unless it doesn't.  If there are turtles under the flat earth that are growing and pushing the earth up, at least that would explain why trenches collapse and I can kick dirt off the hill.

[JohnAdams1145]

Well, on a hill, and indeed anywhere on Earth's surface, the soil is compressed (and falls down, like everything else) because it's "shielded" by the rest of the Earth. The FE point is that the soil/rock touching space does not obey the same laws, because it is not shielded (since all of the mass is in front of it). I know, it's actually really dumb and hard to believe. In fact, it's as if there's a giant metal plate on the back of the Earth, and something's pushing it, but you have to remember that UA has to affect all particles in space, so the rock in the Earth itself is shielded by the layers "behind" it.

Indeed, the mathematics of how much things get "shielded" are impossible to work out because FE hasn't given anything close to that. Unfortunate. For their hypothesis to work, the shielding is only accomplished by matter "behind" the other matter, where the "behind" is with reference to the direction of universal acceleration.

The problem with this whole idea is the oblong planets, the replacement of one somewhat understandable force with many invisible, completely unquantified forces, and ad-hoc hypotheses that have not been observed/confirmed elsewhere, unlike gravity, which has been observed at laboratory scale.

[Ratboy]

Oh ya, when we look at the 4 of Jupiter's moons that we can easily see with any children's telescope, those moons are moving around Jupiter.  That is different than our moon, if we believe the FE'ers.  When I look at those moons circling Jupiter, there must be something that keeps them attached instead of flying away.  Gravity is a good model that explains what I see.  Why would our Moon be different from those moons?

[Jonathan_Smith]

The Earth is accelerating towards the Sun and things on the surface are accelerating to the core because of circular motion. The centrifugal pseudoforce is not only small if you run the centripetal force calculation, but is opposite in direction to gravity.

[JohnAdams1145]

The Earth is accelerating towards the Sun and things on the surface are accelerating to the core because of circular motion. The centrifugal pseudoforce is not only small if you run the centripetal force calculation, but is opposite in direction to gravity.

Yes, this is the conventional explanation. You're right that there is acceleration toward the center of the Sun because of gravity. However, in an FE context, people usually mean the garbage hypothesis of universal acceleration, where the Earth is a flat object accelerating in one, unchanging direction.

[juner]

The Earth is accelerating towards the Sun and things on the surface are accelerating to the core because of circular motion. The centrifugal pseudoforce is not only small if you run the centripetal force calculation, but is opposite in direction to gravity.

Yes, this is the conventional explanation. You're right that there is acceleration toward the center of the Sun because of gravity. However, in an FE context, people usually mean the garbage hypothesis of universal acceleration, where the Earth is a flat object accelerating in one, unchanging direction.

Can you stop derailing threads? Yes, you don't like FET, we get it. You have been given three warnings already for this type of posting within the last month. Have a few days off to review the rules.

[ShowmetheProof]

Can you stop derailing threads?

How is he derailing the thread?  What he said was completely on topic!  Also, can you give a real explanation for the energy source of UA without using logical fallacies?  You cannot keep telling every RE'er on the site that a RE is absurd, but using the most absurd proof for TFE!  So don't say "Well, it may be dark matter, because we don't know what dark matter could do!"  Give me and every RE'er an explanation.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
link to site for you to look at