[Spycrab]

From what I understand of the FET, the reason we aren't held on by gravity is because actually, the world is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator, the power of which manages to accelerate the world at near light-speed forever. Despite constantly rising at 9.8m/s requiring nearly infinite energy, that's not what I am posting to dispute. The planets above are also pushed up by this force/mechanism/whatever at an equal speed, correct? How does the Universal Accelerator decide what to push and what not to? The reason we feel gravity is because the earth is accelerating and we are not, along with everything else on the earth, so why? It can't be just because they aren't connected to the ground, as the planets accelerate too, so what does it? Excited for a response.

[Curious Squirrel]

I don't recall seeing a definitive/TFES endorsed answer, but I have seen a few.
I've seen suggested UA is like the Aetheric wind idea, and so it only accelerates objects made of/with a certain material. The bottom of the Earth and the planets/sun/stars/moon all have this material in them.
There's also the idea of 'celestial gears' taking some in this. Works best with the dome hypothesis, as everything is connected to the dome, which rests on the Earth, so everything accelerates together like a snow globe.
Another is about the most fantastical, that being the sun and moon are actually on giant poles coming up out of the North Pole. This accounts for their movement in the sky, and their acceleration. This was suggested along with the dome idea, so the stars and planets are simply dragged along like the prior one.
I'm betting there's some others about, and I'd love to hear if any of our resident FEers have their own ideas, or if perhaps this is one they've filed into 'we don't know'.

[Parallax]

Gravity is real, even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove it. But the way it works, the earth is flat so instead of pulling down from a 'core', it pulls downwards all along the underside of the planet, proving that earth cannot be a globe.

[Curious Squirrel]

Gravity is real, even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove it. But the way it works, the earth is flat so instead of pulling down from a 'core', it pulls downwards all along the underside of the planet, proving that earth cannot be a globe.

Standard theory of gravity applied to a flat Earth would result in a pull that is more and more horizontal the further one goes from the center, unless one assumes an endless (or near endless) plane of finite thickness. If you have evidence that suggests there is something wrong with this, I suggest documenting it and presenting it for peer review. Otherwise UA is your option for a flat, finite size Earth, and standard gravity works for a flat, infinite plane Earth. But you cannot have normal gravity upon a finite sized flat Earth.

[Frocious]

Gravity is real, even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove it. But the way it works, the earth is flat so instead of pulling down from a 'core', it pulls downwards all along the underside of the planet, proving that earth cannot be a globe.

Standard theory of gravity applied to a flat Earth would result in a pull that is more and more horizontal the further one goes from the center, unless one assumes an endless (or near endless) plane of finite thickness. If you have evidence that suggests there is something wrong with this, I suggest documenting it and presenting it for peer review. Otherwise UA is your option for a flat, finite size Earth, and standard gravity works for a flat, infinite plane Earth. But you cannot have normal gravity upon a finite sized flat Earth.

This is, to the best of my knowledge, why the idea of UA came to be in the first place. A flat earth does disprove gravity, and it would do so more and more dramatically the further one moves from the center.

[Parallax]

Gravity is real, even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove it. But the way it works, the earth is flat so instead of pulling down from a 'core', it pulls downwards all along the underside of the planet, proving that earth cannot be a globe.

Standard theory of gravity applied to a flat Earth would result in a pull that is more and more horizontal the further one goes from the center, unless one assumes an endless (or near endless) plane of finite thickness. If you have evidence that suggests there is something wrong with this, I suggest documenting it and presenting it for peer review. Otherwise UA is your option for a flat, finite size Earth, and standard gravity works for a flat, infinite plane Earth. But you cannot have normal gravity upon a finite sized flat Earth.

Gravity pulls down underneath the earth, not just from the centre. Even if I did provide a paper for peer review, it would be dismissed out of hand because it challenges the norm.

[Frocious]

Gravity is real, even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove it. But the way it works, the earth is flat so instead of pulling down from a 'core', it pulls downwards all along the underside of the planet, proving that earth cannot be a globe.

Standard theory of gravity applied to a flat Earth would result in a pull that is more and more horizontal the further one goes from the center, unless one assumes an endless (or near endless) plane of finite thickness. If you have evidence that suggests there is something wrong with this, I suggest documenting it and presenting it for peer review. Otherwise UA is your option for a flat, finite size Earth, and standard gravity works for a flat, infinite plane Earth. But you cannot have normal gravity upon a finite sized flat Earth.

Gravity pulls down underneath the earth, not just from the centre. Even if I did provide a paper for peer review, it would be dismissed out of hand because it challenges the norm.

I can assure you that a well-researched paper that contains well-documented and repeatable experiments would not be dismissed out of hand. It might be easily disproved, though.

And if you are right -- your claims can't be disputed, they're backed up by tested science -- you would be a shoo-in for a Nobel prize, you would have a worldwide audience to market books/interviews/whatever you want to and would be able to live out the rest of your life in supreme comfort. As well as setting up a few more generations for success.

[AATW]

Gravity is real, even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove it. But the way it works, the earth is flat so instead of pulling down from a 'core', it pulls downwards all along the underside of the planet, proving that earth cannot be a globe.

Why doesn't it make all the planets and sun and moon fall on us then?

[Curious Squirrel]

Gravity is real, even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove it. But the way it works, the earth is flat so instead of pulling down from a 'core', it pulls downwards all along the underside of the planet, proving that earth cannot be a globe.

Standard theory of gravity applied to a flat Earth would result in a pull that is more and more horizontal the further one goes from the center, unless one assumes an endless (or near endless) plane of finite thickness. If you have evidence that suggests there is something wrong with this, I suggest documenting it and presenting it for peer review. Otherwise UA is your option for a flat, finite size Earth, and standard gravity works for a flat, infinite plane Earth. But you cannot have normal gravity upon a finite sized flat Earth.

Gravity pulls down underneath the earth, not just from the centre. Even if I did provide a paper for peer review, it would be dismissed out of hand because it challenges the norm.

Gravity pulls equally from all things of similar mass. Because there is more mass in the center of the Earth, the pull would end up being strongest there. As you venture away from the center, you would have more mass located to one side of you, thus creating gravitational effects more akin to going up or down a hill than walking on a flat surface. What you are describing amounts to a claim that there is something far more massive located underneath the Earth, that is somehow equalizing the gravitational pull. Which you couldn't prove even if you tried.

Also, if you have verifiable and repeatable evidence that our understanding of how gravity works is incorrect, you would be the next Nobel Prize winner and more. Stop lying about this 'dismissed out of hand' BS. Conclusively proving a current theory wrong is the holy grail of science. (Note I'm using theory here how I do across the forums, in it's scientifically accepted meaning NOT the colloquial one)

[Rama Set]

Gravity on an infinite disc behaves the same as on a globe but saying that we live on an infinite disc is about as big an ask as the special pleading of UA.

[Macarios]

Gravity on an infinite disc behaves the same as on a globe but saying that we live on an infinite disc is about as big an ask as the special pleading of UA.

Gravity on infinite disc doesn't change with altitude, while on globe does.

According to (4), gravitational acceleration g on infinite flat Earth doesn't change with altitude.

On real Earth it does. At altitude of 100km g is 9.75, and at 1000km is 7.33 m/s².

---------------------------------------