[FlatEarther2000]

In your wiki it says, that the earth is accelerating upwards with 9.81m/s². But the problem with this is that after about 1 year, the earth would have accelerated to the speed of light. In the article it said that it won't accelerate anymore when it reaches the speed of light, but rather have a constant velocity.

This wouldn't be possible, because as we all know, things accelerate when falling down, so in this concept the earth would still have to accelerate. If it would rise with constant speed, then falling objects wouldn't fall, but levitate, until the friction of air is superior and decreases the velocity of the object. Only with a constant rising earth objects could fall faster and faster.

So the concept of UA can't work and hence gravity must exist.


EDIT: Sorry I posted this in the wrong topic. If a mod could move this thread, that'd be nice

[Boots]

In your wiki it says, that the earth is accelerating upwards with 9.81m/s². But the problem with this is that after about 1 year, the earth would have accelerated to the speed of light. In the article it said that it won't accelerate anymore when it reaches the speed of light, but rather have a constant velocity.

This wouldn't be possible, because as we all know, things accelerate when falling down, so in this concept the earth would still have to accelerate. If it would rise with constant speed, then falling objects wouldn't fall, but levitate, until the friction of air is superior and decreases the velocity of the object. Only with a constant rising earth objects could fall faster and faster.

So the concept of UA can't work and hence gravity must exist.



EDIT: Sorry I posted this in the wrong topic. If a mod could move this thread, that'd be nice

I had the same question. I got a pretty good answer here. Basically time and distance are not the constants they appear to be, and this becomes more apparent as you approach the speed of light. In a nutshell, the earth would continue to accelerate but as it approached the speed of light time would dilate and distance would contract.

Not that I believe in the FE theory of UA. It's just that it seems this is not a particularly strong argument against it.

[FlatEarther2000]

Just so you know, I doubt that this site is anyhow a valid source for anything. Give me some proof from a legit website one can trust.

[Boots]

Just so you know, I doubt that this site is anyhow a valid source for anything. Give me some proof from a legit website one can trust.

Fair enough. Here are some other sites which you may deem more trustworthy:

http://www.perkel.com/nerd/relativity.htm

http://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html

[FlatEarther2000]

Even if the earth would "accelerate" more (which it doesn't Because accelerating means an increase in velocity), then what would it look like from the outside? Would the earth stand still or move with constant speed? The possibility of acceleration is not given, because from the outside it would look like the earth is moving past the speed of light.

Even if it would change the space, the earth would have to gain velocity to get faster.

Relativity is making this whole concept of a flat earth falling apart.

Flat earthers need to accept the earth is a sphere. There are no logical arguments that would support a flat earth

[juner]

Even if the earth would "accelerate" more (which it doesn't Because accelerating means an increase in velocity), then what would it look like from the outside? Would the earth stand still or move with constant speed? The possibility of acceleration is not given, because from the outside it would look like the earth is moving past the speed of light.

Even if it would change the space, the earth would have to gain velocity to get faster.

Relativity is making this whole concept of a flat earth falling apart.

Flat earthers need to accept the earth is a sphere. There are no logical arguments that would support a flat earth

You're showing a severe lack of understanding of the concepts being discussed here.

You're still trying to apply Newtonian mechanics to this case of SR. You should try asking questions instead of making proclamations about a topic you don't really understand.

You can, in fact, accelerate constantly and asymptotically approach the speed of light without ever reaching it.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Even if the earth would "accelerate" more (which it doesn't Because accelerating means an increase in velocity), then what would it look like from the outside? Would the earth stand still or move with constant speed? The possibility of acceleration is not given, because from the outside it would look like the earth is moving past the speed of light.

Even if it would change the space, the earth would have to gain velocity to get faster.

Relativity is making this whole concept of a flat earth falling apart.

No. Here are a few things to understand about special relativity:

1. Absolute velocity doesn't matter. All that matters is how fast you are moving relative to other objects. If everything else is accelerating along with you, then there is absolutely no way to know how fast you are going, and frankly, it doesn't matter how fast you are going.
2. You can't combine two velocities by adding them. The difference in velocity between any two objects asymptotically approaches the speed of light as they accelerate away from each other. It gets closer and closer to the speed of light but never reaches it, even under constant acceleration.

For example, let's say Bob, Joe, and Pam are all travelling in the same direction. Bob is travelling at 10 m/s, Joe is travelling 10 m/s faster than Bob, and Pam is travelling at 10 m/s faster than Joe. Does this mean that Pam is travelling 20 m/s faster than Bob? Nope! Pam's actual speed relative to Bob is something like 19.9999 m/s. Velocity addition is not linear.

then what would it look like from the outside? Would the earth stand still or move with constant speed?

If the earth were accelerating at a constant rate, and you were not, this is what it would look like:

1. The earth would appear to move at an accelerating rate away from you. This acceleration would appear to decrease as the earth approaches the speed of light relative to you.
2. The earth would appear to be getting flatter in the direction it is accelerating.
3. The people on earth would appear to age slower from your point of view. Clocks would appear to move slower and slower.
4. Light reaching you from the earth would appear red-shifted, assuming the earth is moving away from you. Everything would look reddish, and then eventually infrared.

According to someone on the earth, everything on earth would still look and behave normally. However, looking back at you, they would say that YOU are the one who is slowing down, becoming flatter, redder, etc.

Flat earthers need to accept the earth is a sphere. There are no logical arguments that would support a flat earth

Well yeah. That's why there are hardly any flat earthers willing to participate in debate left on this site. But special relativity isn't a great argument against it.

[CableDawg]

1. Absolute velocity doesn't matter. All that matters is how fast you are moving relative to other objects. If everything else is accelerating along with you, then there is absolutely no way to know how fast you are going, and frankly, it doesn't matter how fast you are going.

What reference did/do FE supporters use to determine the acceleration of FE?  The sun and moon are supposedly attached to FE via some firmament and I can only assume that the other planets of the solar system and the visible stars are attached to the same.  From the inside looking out, if all were attached to the firmament and being dragged along, FE supporters would have no point of reference to determine the velocity of FE.  Has someone actually made it to the edge of FE?  Have they found a way to see past the firmament holding the sun, moon, planets and stars?  Have they seen something outside of the firmament?

It may not be a successful endeavor to directly apply special relativity to FET as FE2000 attempted but looking at FET through the lens of SR still chips away at, if not disproves, FET.

[TotesNotReptilian]

1. Absolute velocity doesn't matter. All that matters is how fast you are moving relative to other objects. If everything else is accelerating along with you, then there is absolutely no way to know how fast you are going, and frankly, it doesn't matter how fast you are going.

What reference did/do FE supporters use to determine the acceleration of FE?

The earth's. There is nothing preventing us from measuring our own acceleration.

The sun and moon are supposedly attached to FE via some firmament and I can only assume that the other planets of the solar system and the visible stars are attached to the same.  From the inside looking out, if all were attached to the firmament and being dragged along, FE supporters would have no point of reference to determine the velocity of FE. Has someone actually made it to the edge of FE?  Have they found a way to see past the firmament holding the sun, moon, planets and stars?  Have they seen something outside of the firmament?

Exactly. The assumption is that all celestial objects are being accelerated along with the earth. Which means we don't have anything to measure velocity relative to. Which means our velocity is meaningless. We might as well be standing still. It doesn't matter.

It may not be a successful endeavor to directly apply special relativity to FET as FE2000 attempted but looking at FET through the lens of SR still chips away at, if not disproves, FET.

I don't understand how you are coming to this conclusion. Your previous statement showed exactly why SR can't be used to disprove UA. There are certainly other issues with UA. (What is causing the acceleration? What is causing the slight variation in gravity?) But SR isn't one of them.

Incidentally, my very first post on this forum was in response to you (CableDawg) about this exact same topic. How nostalgic!

[FlatEarther2000]

You Explained to me the Doppler-effect, in which the Object behind us would Look redish. But shouldn't the Object in Front of us loom green-ish?

[TotesNotReptilian]

You Explained to me the Doppler-effect, in which the Object behind us would Look redish. But shouldn't the Object in Front of us loom green-ish?

An object moving towards us would be blue-shifted, yes.

[fliggs]

There are a million and one objections to UA the first of which is that it is plain nuts. another is what happens to the rest of the universe which must also be undergoing the same UA or we would disappear out of our solar system in a day and out of our own galaxy in our lifetime.

Occams Razor was made for times like this. Gravity works and explains everything.

[juner]

There are a million and one objections to UA the first of which is that it is plain nuts. another is what happens to the rest of the universe which must also be undergoing the same UA or we would disappear out of our solar system in a day and out of our own galaxy in our lifetime.

Occams Razor was made for times like this. Gravity works and explains everything.

That's not how it works at all. You really should inform yourself better before making such assertions so you don't look so foolish.

It's also apparent that you don't understand Occam's Razor, either.

[fliggs]

There are a million and one objections to UA the first of which is that it is plain nuts. another is what happens to the rest of the universe which must also be undergoing the same UA or we would disappear out of our solar system in a day and out of our own galaxy in our lifetime.

Occams Razor was made for times like this. Gravity works and explains everything.

That's not how it works at all. You really should inform yourself better before making such assertions so you don't look so foolish.

It's also apparent that you don't understand Occam's Razor, either.

Occams razor was BUILT for arguments like this. Gravity is simple, consistent, measurable and simply works perfectly in explaining our observations. UA however is very complex, unexplainable, totally inconsistent and doesnt explain many observations at all while being contrary to most.

You dont even need Occams Razor here. UA is demonstrably false and hopelessly unprovable while gravity is the complete opposite. It might also be why no actually university trained scientist supports UA.

[juner]

There are a million and one objections to UA the first of which is that it is plain nuts. another is what happens to the rest of the universe which must also be undergoing the same UA or we would disappear out of our solar system in a day and out of our own galaxy in our lifetime.

Occams Razor was made for times like this. Gravity works and explains everything.

That's not how it works at all. You really should inform yourself better before making such assertions so you don't look so foolish.

It's also apparent that you don't understand Occam's Razor, either.

Occams razor was BUILT for arguments like this. Gravity is simple, consistent, measurable and simply works perfectly in explaining our observations. UA however is very complex, unexplainable, totally inconsistent and doesnt explain many observations at all while being contrary to most.

You dont even need Occams Razor here. UA is demonstrably false and hopelessly unprovable while gravity is the complete opposite. It might also be why no actually university trained scientist supports UA.

That's a cool opinion, but you've provided no evidence to support your claim. Feel free to do that anytime.

[rabinoz]

There are a million and one objections to UA the first of which is that it is plain nuts. another is what happens to the rest of the universe which must also be undergoing the same UA or we would disappear out of our solar system in a day and out of our own galaxy in our lifetime.

Occams Razor was made for times like this. Gravity works and explains everything.

That's not how it works at all. You really should inform yourself better before making such assertions so you don't look so foolish.

It's also apparent that you don't understand Occam's Razor, either.

Occams razor was BUILT for arguments like this. Gravity is simple, consistent, measurable and simply works perfectly in explaining our observations. UA however is very complex, unexplainable, totally inconsistent and doesnt explain many observations at all while being contrary to most.

You dont even need Occams Razor here. UA is demonstrably false and hopelessly unprovable while gravity is the complete opposite. It might also be why no actually university trained scientist supports UA.

That's a cool opinion, but you've provided no evidence to support your claim. Feel free to do that anytime.

Touché.
Just as you have never shown any actual evidence for Universal Acceleration, other than not liking gravitation, go guessing that is must be something else.

Which might be why quite a few flat earthers are desperately looking for a better "solution":
         "Aether push" - Sandokhan.
         "Aether something or other", JRowesceptic.
         "Denspressure" - sceptimatic (Sceppy) and quite a few others.
         "Things just have a natural propensity to fall down" - a few have actually claimed this.
         "Newtonian Gravity over an infinite flat earth" - John Davis.

And more ideas? You are "free thinkers" after all?
Of course, I am forgetting the thoughtful fantasiser, farolero.
         "gravity is just centrifugal force"
         "gravity is just inflation" just a perverted versiob UA.

But all is not happy in the UA camp.

[juner]

There are a million and one objections to UA the first of which is that it is plain nuts. another is what happens to the rest of the universe which must also be undergoing the same UA or we would disappear out of our solar system in a day and out of our own galaxy in our lifetime.

Occams Razor was made for times like this. Gravity works and explains everything.

That's not how it works at all. You really should inform yourself better before making such assertions so you don't look so foolish.

It's also apparent that you don't understand Occam's Razor, either.

Occams razor was BUILT for arguments like this. Gravity is simple, consistent, measurable and simply works perfectly in explaining our observations. UA however is very complex, unexplainable, totally inconsistent and doesnt explain many observations at all while being contrary to most.

You dont even need Occams Razor here. UA is demonstrably false and hopelessly unprovable while gravity is the complete opposite. It might also be why no actually university trained scientist supports UA.

That's a cool opinion, but you've provided no evidence to support your claim. Feel free to do that anytime.

Touché.
Just as you have never shown any actual evidence for Universal Acceleration, other than not liking gravitation, go guessing that is must be something else.

Which might be why quite a few flat earthers are desperately looking for a better "solution":
         "Aether push" - Sandokhan.
         "Aether something or other", JRowesceptic.
         "Denspressure" - sceptimatic (Sceppy) and quite a few others.
         "Things just have a natural propensity to fall down" - a few have actually claimed this.
         "Newtonian Gravity over an infinite flat earth" - John Davis.

And more ideas? You are "free thinkers" after all?
Of course, I am forgetting the thoughtful fantasiser, farolero.
         "gravity is just centrifugal force"
         "gravity is just inflation" just a perverted versiob UA.

But all is not happy in the UA camp.

You've failed to make any actual point here, or even put forth an actual argument. Your conjecture about what others believe is irrelevant. Maybe try having a discussion instead of the strawman you've constructed here.

[fliggs]

There are a million and one objections to UA the first of which is that it is plain nuts. another is what happens to the rest of the universe which must also be undergoing the same UA or we would disappear out of our solar system in a day and out of our own galaxy in our lifetime.

Occams Razor was made for times like this. Gravity works and explains everything.

That's not how it works at all. You really should inform yourself better before making such assertions so you don't look so foolish.

It's also apparent that you don't understand Occam's Razor, either.

Occams razor was BUILT for arguments like this. Gravity is simple, consistent, measurable and simply works perfectly in explaining our observations. UA however is very complex, unexplainable, totally inconsistent and doesnt explain many observations at all while being contrary to most.

You dont even need Occams Razor here. UA is demonstrably false and hopelessly unprovable while gravity is the complete opposite. It might also be why no actually university trained scientist supports UA.

That's a cool opinion, but you've provided no evidence to support your claim. Feel free to do that anytime.

Touché.
Just as you have never shown any actual evidence for Universal Acceleration, other than not liking gravitation, go guessing that is must be something else.

Which might be why quite a few flat earthers are desperately looking for a better "solution":
         "Aether push" - Sandokhan.
         "Aether something or other", JRowesceptic.
         "Denspressure" - sceptimatic (Sceppy) and quite a few others.
         "Things just have a natural propensity to fall down" - a few have actually claimed this.
         "Newtonian Gravity over an infinite flat earth" - John Davis.

And more ideas? You are "free thinkers" after all?
Of course, I am forgetting the thoughtful fantasiser, farolero.
         "gravity is just centrifugal force"
         "gravity is just inflation" just a perverted versiob UA.

But all is not happy in the UA camp.

You've failed to make any actual point here, or even put forth an actual argument. Your conjecture about what others believe is irrelevant. Maybe try having a discussion instead of the strawman you've constructed here.

It's not a strawman at all. All you ever do is make wild unsupported claims and then expect everyon else to simply believe and accept it as truth. Just as Rab has said, you never prove ANYTHING.  Quite simply, gravity is by far the easiest and most consistent explanation for our universal observations while UA and all the rest of the ludicrous FE delusions faile at every single point.  If you are to give the scientific method even the slightest touch, none of your assertions pass.

Im happy for a full and detailed discussion but the point is that you need to provide DETAILS. Actual detailed explanations of your silly hypotheses and see if they can survive the heat of actual debate and scientific rigour.

But we all know what you will do.... complain about strawmen, people you dont like. NASA etc

[Pete Svarrior]

Quite simply, gravity is by far the easiest and most consistent explanation for our universal observations

Except for the part where the scientific consensus acknowledges that it's not consistent, and that a the model needs to be improved before it can be considered accurate. But hey, let's not let that get in the way of your beliefs.

[juner]

It's not a strawman at all.

Yes, it is. It is attacking an argument no one has made. It literally fits the definition.

All you ever do is make wild unsupported claims and then expect everyon else to simply believe and accept it as truth.

Please point out an example where I have done what you are claiming.

Just as Rab has said, you never prove ANYTHING.

I don't think you understand what it means to prove something.

Quite simply, gravity is by far the easiest and most consistent explanation for our universal observations

Fantastic. Feel free to provide some evidence for this claim. Maybe also check SexWarrior's post right above this one. You seem to be the only making unsupported claims here.

while UA and all the rest of the ludicrous FE delusions faile at every single point. 

Are you sure about that? Do you know how acceleration works? It seems you are lacking the knowledge to make such a claim. Feel free to substantiate your superior understanding, though.

If you are to give the scientific method even the slightest touch, none of your assertions pass.

Good thing no one is talking about the scientific method, then. That isn't how Zetetics roll.

Im happy for a full and detailed discussion but the point is that you need to provide DETAILS. Actual detailed explanations of your silly hypotheses and see if they can survive the heat of actual debate and scientific rigour.

So far it seems you aren't interested in a "detailed discussion." It seems you just want to throw out unsubstantiated claims. If you need to better understand the basics of UA, I would suggest looking at the FAQ and wiki.

But we all know what you will do.... complain about strawmen, people you dont like. NASA etc

It's hard not to point out your strawmen. You even had to literally construct another one right here...