[Curious Squirrel]

junker, you have not given any examples of how you believe acceleration should work, you've just told people to look at the FAQ. The only thing I could find there was the the Earth is accelerating and "dark energy is involved." This is obviously a very skimpy explanation and we're asking you for elaboration. But if you've couldn't explain it to all those people over the years, I couldn't expect you to do it now.

The mechanism is unknown. What is hard to understand about that?

If the mechanism is unknown, I'm curious as to why that is thought to be the explanation for gravity? If I said that the Sun is a flat circle because a flat circle is what we see in the sky, and said the reasons for that are unknown, would you accept that as a valid argument?
Again, I don't mean to be rude. I myself have some opinions that differ from the majority (not in terms of the earth's shape but in other aspects) and so I respect the importance of questioning why we believe in things, and discussing them. But the basis of discussing something that is against popular belief is to try to explain to other people why you believe what you do, because at the end of the day that is the reason this forum has been made, and this site has been made- to propagate your belief of what is correct science, isn't it? So if there is a question that so many people have, be it acceleration or whatever, providing an explanation for why your opinion differs from everyone should be something you are happy to do! And if it's getting repetitive, maybe adding it to the FAQ might be a good idea? Rather than questioning the competence of those who are interested enough in your theories and science to register on here and comment without being rude!
We learn the basics of physics and why the earth is round in high school. Surely there can be simple explanations for atleast the basis of the evidence for your theory?
I am new here and I feel like I have been asking the same questions again and again with no answer, so I would appreciate some respect to my curiosity rather than being assumed as stupid.

Tom's empirical evidence for UA: When I step off a chair, the Earth rises up to me.

Thus they need a mechanism for how the Earth is accelerating upwards, so they throw in Dark matter/energy because it works about as well here as it does in RE. Which is to say it fills in holes that otherwise can't be filled. It should also be noted that a lack of funding has been noted/sourced as the reason much of this has been left with so little working experiments/testing. Which is fine, and valid honestly. Perhaps the wiki should reflect the uncertainty a bit more, but I thought it had in some of the opening pages.

[StinkyOne]

The long and short of it is, FEH has no explanation for this hypothetical acceleration. Where it comes from, how it interacts with matter, how it must continually increase in strength. It is all just made up because gravity destroys a flat Earth. They needed some method to explain the pull of gravity, so someone came up with UA. That is how things seem to go with FEH. You should ask them about celestial gravity. It's gravity, but it isn't.

Tom is good to debate with, but he is the only one that seems to try. Junker is only good at banning people and saying look at the wiki. The wiki is a useless mess of statements with no backing. They can't seem to figure out that it is inadequate.

[juner]

The long and short of it is, FEH has no explanation for this hypothetical acceleration...

So FE is on par with gravity in that regard, good to know. The funny thing is you can recreate acceleration and observe it literally whenever you’d like. Not the same for gravity. I’m sorry if that bothers you.

[StinkyOne]

The long and short of it is, FEH has no explanation for this hypothetical acceleration...

So FE is on par with gravity in that regard, good to know. The funny thing is you can recreate acceleration and observe it literally whenever you’d like. Not the same for gravity. I’m sorry if that bothers you.

A) the theory you cherry picked explains gravity and how the force is formed. It has been proven accurate numerous times.
B) We live in a gravitational field our entire lives. I can throw a ball and see gravity pull it to the ground. (sorry, UA is fake) And even if I couldn't observe it, it wouldn't make it false. I can't observe a virus, but I don't doubt their existence.
You should stick to moderation.

[juner]

I can throw a ball and see gravity pull it to the ground.

I can't wait to see your empirical evidence for this one. I have a feeling a Nobel prize is waiting for you.

You should stick to moderation.

I would love to, but you morons can't stop being wrong about everything, so I end up having to interject. I am truly sorry that you all have such minimal understanding of your own model. You should stick to pretending you know what that is, instead of trying to get into conversations on topics you are absolutely ignorant of. But, knowing round earth logicians, being wrong doesn't bother you one bit.

[ghostopia]

Junker, I tried to figure out where my misunderstanding was stemming from by googling, but the answer I receive from it says for acceleration, you need energy input. So I figured that for constant acceleration to happen, there need to be constant energy supply. There an I wrong Junker? You said we do not understand the concept of acceleration, so which part is wrong?

[StinkyOne]

I can throw a ball and see gravity pull it to the ground.

I can't wait to see your empirical evidence for this one. I have a feeling a Nobel prize is waiting for you.

You should stick to moderation.

I would love to, but you morons can't stop being wrong about everything, so I end up having to interject. I am truly sorry that you all have such minimal understanding of your own model. You should stick to pretending you know what that is, instead of trying to get into conversations on topics you are absolutely ignorant of. But, knowing round earth logicians, being wrong doesn't bother you one bit.

I'm sorry you're stuck defending a model that people 3000 years ago figured out was wrong. I'd love to know what I am ignorant of, but I'm doubting you have much of a clue and are just tossing out the usual "you don't know what you're talking about" defense. Maybe try some content next time?

[OrigamiBoy]

The "constant input force" they have is dark energy... the lousiest explanation ever

[ghostopia]

The "constant input force" they have is dark energy... the lousiest explanation ever

I guess that works... The problem I have with it is that in the wiki it is stated as if it is true and says it is from the Round Earth theory. Flat Earthers should clarify that this is a possible hypothesis for the energy source. Also remove the dark energy being based on Round Earth theory because you had rejected almost all evidences we throw at you saying it is not true because it is based on Round Earth theory How come you accept this concept. STOP CHERRY-PICKING!

Also Junker had been mentioning that we Round Earthers do not understand the mechanism of acceleration. I wanted to see which part he considers wrong.

[juner]

I'm sorry you're stuck defending a model that people 3000 years ago figured out was wrong. I'd love to know what I am ignorant of, but I'm doubting you have much of a clue and are just tossing out the usual "you don't know what you're talking about" defense. Maybe try some content next time?

Nice deflection. Also, what model am I defending? I am just pointing out your ignorance, which is independent of the shape of the earth. If you are still struggling with that, I'd suggest you go back and read the thread again.

Also Junker had been mentioning that we Round Earthers do not understand the mechanism of acceleration. I wanted to see which part he considers wrong.

I never said anything about the mechanism of acceleration. I said that roundies (at least most of them) don't understand acceleration at all (or at least not beyond a high school physics class). I also said I am not going to be the one to teach them, because most of them are entitled, arrogant douches who seem to think I owe them something.

However, several round earth proponents have been polite, and I will tend to help them where I can.

[StinkyOne]

Nice deflection. Also, what model am I defending? I am just pointing out your ignorance, which is independent of the shape of the earth. If you are still struggling with that, I'd suggest you go back and read the thread again.

There was nothing to deflect. This is your sole contribution to this whole thread: "I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration." Beyond that you've resorted to the same type of name calling that you would warn people about. Personally, I couldn't care less, but it is pretty hypocritical.

I know you guys want to dance around the edges of relativity because you think it lends an air of legitimacy to your claims. I've read the wiki, I'm familiar with the Lorentz transformations(you haven't seen me say "why haven't we hit the speed of light yet??"), still waiting for some contribution. If you just going to be a jerk and call me a moron again, you can save yourself some time. Your opinion of me means nothing.

[juner]

There was nothing to deflect. This is your sole contribution to this whole thread: "I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration."

Fantastic! You finally took a little advice and went back to read the thread. You are making progress, and that is good. Now you have a little more work to do and maybe you will actually be able to post on this topic without showcasing your ignorance for everyone to see. I am looking forward to it.

If you just going to be a jerk and call me a moron again, you can save yourself some time. Your opinion of me means nothing.

You keep replying, so my opinion seems to mean something to you.

[ScienceFirst]

I'm sorry you're stuck defending a model that people 3000 years ago figured out was wrong. I'd love to know what I am ignorant of, but I'm doubting you have much of a clue and are just tossing out the usual "you don't know what you're talking about" defense. Maybe try some content next time?

Nice deflection. Also, what model am I defending? I am just pointing out your ignorance, which is independent of the shape of the earth. If you are still struggling with that, I'd suggest you go back and read the thread again.

Also Junker had been mentioning that we Round Earthers do not understand the mechanism of acceleration. I wanted to see which part he considers wrong.

I never said anything about the mechanism of acceleration. I said that roundies (at least most of them) don't understand acceleration at all (or at least not beyond a high school physics class). I also said I am not going to be the one to teach them, because most of them are entitled, arrogant douches who seem to think I owe them something.

However, several round earth proponents have been polite, and I will tend to help them where I can.

Ive been polite and am waiting for a reply! Thanks!

[StinkyOne]

There was nothing to deflect. This is your sole contribution to this whole thread: "I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration."

Fantastic! You finally took a little advice and went back to read the thread. You are making progress, and that is good. Now you have a little more work to do and maybe you will actually be able to post on this topic without showcasing your ignorance for everyone to see. I am looking forward to it.

If you just going to be a jerk and call me a moron again, you can save yourself some time. Your opinion of me means nothing.

You keep replying, so my opinion seems to mean something to you.

Nope, I love pointing out your bald-faced hypocrisy. Everyone is ignorant and yet you have nothing to offer. We know, you're so far advanced on the topic of acceleration. lol, Ok... Later

[juner]

There was nothing to deflect. This is your sole contribution to this whole thread: "I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration."

Fantastic! You finally took a little advice and went back to read the thread. You are making progress, and that is good. Now you have a little more work to do and maybe you will actually be able to post on this topic without showcasing your ignorance for everyone to see. I am looking forward to it.

If you just going to be a jerk and call me a moron again, you can save yourself some time. Your opinion of me means nothing.

You keep replying, so my opinion seems to mean something to you.

Nope, I love pointing out your bald-faced hypocrisy. Everyone is ignorant and yet you have nothing to offer. We know, you're so far advanced on the topic of acceleration. lol, Ok... Later

What you’re doing now is called projection. Maybe try getting back on the topic, friend.

[RocketSauce]

One problem I've always had with the Flat Earth Theory is the Earth Plane... is it finite or infinite... Obviously there is a wall which is the cut off point of how far we can explore.

But I always pictured the Flat Earth as a phonograph record, with a bubble (like a bubble wrap bubble) in the middle which would be us... Too me, such a small bubble surrounded by an infinity wide record is wasteful to say the least.

Because I'm not a fan of "Only One"

I found it much easier to imagine this phonograph record with multiple bubbles all over it (like bubble wrap) each being their own earthly existence. I think this makes more sense from a religious standpoint as well. An all powerful God/Creator watching over multiple realities, like a scientist over his lab full of bacteria cultures... A scientist wouldn't only have one, and I don't think a Creator would only have one either. It makes more sense for the wall as well, because then we as creatures of this bubble, would be contained from the others. Who knows, obviously it is just a thought. Getting to the wall and traveling to a point where we could absolutely confirm an edge or not is always going to be difficult. 

[OrigamiBoy]

The Moon and Sun are opposite in magnetic polarity to the earth.  That is how they stay afloat.  The round earth deep state flies large balloons to to block out the Sun or Moon as needed.  It is not a perfect system as sometimes you DO see the moon during daylight hours.  Satellites are just solar powered air craft that provide for cell/GPS, etc.  Easy.

Becuase this satellite is super aerodynamic...

Also, If the sun and the moon were held in the air with essentially magnets, the magnetic field produced by the earth would have to be extremely strong. A field that stong would be essentially a permanent EMP and continuously knock out electronics

[Mora]

it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.

Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.

Let's not forget this jewel as evidence of junker's extensive knowledge on acceleration, where he claims that constant acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy. If this was somehow a misstatement of what he was intending to say, then the window to provide clarification has long since passed. First let us consider that the property of requiring energy is binary. It either does or it does not require energy. The answer is not neither. It is not in a superposition of both needing and not needing energy. So automatically, a response of "possibly, but not necessarily" demonstrates he doesn't know what he is talking about. It is not that acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy, it is that he doesn't know which.

In response to being called out on this, he offers as an explanation but fails to explain it adequately, proper vs coordinate acceleration. I can only assume from the thoroughness of his post that he means that the requirement of energy for constant acceleration is dependent upon your frame of reference, which is ridiculous because changing between reference frames does not in any way alter the fundamental laws of physics, hence why the concept of reference frames in physics is so vital to begin with. Our choice of coordinate systems is completely arbitrary and has absolutely no bearing on physical reality. If it did, then that implies that the laws of physics are not constant, and a law not held constant is the epitome of an oxy-moron. But what do I know, I'm completely ignorant and not fit to share the (flat) earth upon which junker walks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[juner]

it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.

Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.

Let's not forget this jewel as evidence of junker's extensive knowledge on acceleration, where he claims that constant acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy. If this was somehow a misstatement of what he was intending to say, then the window to provide clarification has long since passed. First let us consider that the property of requiring energy is binary. It either does or it does not require energy. The answer is not neither. It is not in a superposition of both needing and not needing energy. So automatically, a response of "possibly, but not necessarily" demonstrates he doesn't know what he is talking about. It is not that acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy, it is that he doesn't know which.

In response to being called out on this, he offers as an explanation but fails to explain it adequately, proper vs coordinate acceleration. I can only assume from the thoroughness of his post that he means that the requirement of energy for constant acceleration is dependent upon your frame of reference, which is ridiculous because changing between reference frames does not in any way alter the fundamental laws of physics, hence why the concept of reference frames in physics is so vital to begin with. Our choice of coordinate systems is completely arbitrary and has absolutely no bearing on physical reality. If it did, then that implies that the laws of physics are not constant, and a law not held constant is the epitome of an oxy-moron. But what do I know, I'm completely ignorant and not fit to share the (flat) earth upon which junker walks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That was a long-winded post for you just to confirm your ignorance. Also good to see you’re the arbiter of how long I’m allowed to have to engage or disengage in a topic.

I’d suggest spending more time brushing up on your own knowledge, and less time displaying your ignorance to the world. Best of luck!

[ShowmetheProof]

I’ll point you in a direction to try to help you, but I’m not going to bother trying to convince you of something since no one so far has shown the capacity to think beyond what they think they already know.

Science is not where we think beyond what we already know.  It is where we use what we already know to think beyond what we already know!  We can't confirm the Flat Earth, as it does not use any current proof or any proof of their own.