The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: StinkyOne on November 08, 2017, 12:14:52 AM
-
Claim: The effects of gravity are actually caused by the Earth accelerating upward. There is no actual gravity.
Experiment setup: Had daughter stand on chair and jump off. A cloth was held beside her as a control.
Results: When she jumped, her hair and dress flew up as she jumped off.
If the was no gravity, my daughter would have simply hovered in air until the ground rushed up to meet here. Instead, she clearly accelerated downward as proven by the fact that her hair and skirt did not stay in the same position. Her downward acceleration along with air resistance caused her hair and skirt to rise. The control cloth did not move, proving there was no sudden upward rush of air.
Thanks go to Tom for giving me this idea when he claimed something along the lines of jumping off a chair proved UA. Ironically, it proved that UA fails to describe reality.
-
Excellent, you have proved Einstein wrong. I'm sure your Nobel Prize is waiting for you as we speak.
-
Yeah, I don't get it. Wouldn't the act of jumping, and going from 1g+ of acceleration to zero cause the hair and fabric to rebound? Wouldn't the air accelerating upward past her continue this?
I can't tell if you're serious or not.
-
Yes, StinkyOne, what makes you think that you are smarter than Einstein?
-
More to the point, you Wiki quotes Einstein's theory of relativity as the explanation for why UA doesn't exceed the speed of light. However, Einstein's theories explain gravity as a distortion space/time. This only work with a spherical earth, and explains why the earth is spherical, why the atmosphere doesn't get sucked into space, why the water doesn't fall off the south pole, etc. Why are you 'cherry picking' the parts of his theories that suit you, but are ignoring the parts you don't like.
-
More to the point, you Wiki quotes Einstein's theory of relativity as the explanation for why UA doesn't exceed the speed of light. However, Einstein's theories explain gravity as a distortion space/time. This only work with a spherical earth, and explains why the earth is spherical, why the atmosphere doesn't get sucked into space, why the water doesn't fall off the south pole, etc. Why are you 'cherry picking' the parts of his theories that suit you, but are ignoring the parts you don't like.
Junker and I are referencing Einstein's Equivelence Principle.
-
I debunked universal acceleration with this experiment:
- Lift a book into the air
- Let go
- It falls to the floor, unless you're in space, or underwater
This is clear and empirical proof of Aristotle's natural place (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_physics#Natural_place) theory.
smarter than Einstein confirmed
//
anyway Mark raises an excellent point.
Einstein's special relativity is what the wiki cites (https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Why_doesn.27t_the_Earth.27s_velocity_reach_the_speed_of_light.3F) in reference to the speed of the Earth, and how it will never reach the speed of light. (incidentally, y'all should really cite wikipedia. plagiarism bad)
so you like the equivalence principal and special relativity, but because gravity is incompatible with your flat Earth belief, general relativity is right out.
you must think you're smarter than Einstein
-
I debunked universal acceleration with this experiment:
- Lift a book into the air
- Let go
- It falls to the floor, unless you're in space, or underwater
This is clear and empirical proof of Aristotle's natural place (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_physics#Natural_place) theory.
smarter than Einstein confirmed
//
anyway Mark raises an excellent point.
Einstein's special relativity is what the wiki cites (https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Why_doesn.27t_the_Earth.27s_velocity_reach_the_speed_of_light.3F) in reference to the speed of the Earth, and how it will never reach the speed of light. (incidentally, y'all should really cite wikipedia. plagiarism bad)
so you like the equivalence principal and special relativity, but because gravity is incompatible with your flat Earth belief, general relativity is right out.
you must think you're smarter than Einstein
Einstein openly admitted that an upward accelerating earth would provide the same effect as his other gravity theory. Look into the Equivalence Principle.
-
No, he did not 'openly admit' to anything of the sort. In your quest to confirm your beliefs, you have willfully misconstrued the equivalence principle - but not even really that, you've misinterpreted the layperson-level explanations of it. Here is the sort of math you're glossing over. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity))
Also, it is a mistake to think that special relativity can somehow be true without gravity existing. Gravity is well defined in terms of special relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#The_relativistic_mass_concept). You're basically asserting that nothing has mass (no gravity), but special relativity still works. The point of it being 'special' instead of 'general' is that the reference frame is not changing its acceleration - not that it doesn't have acceleration in the first place. Read: acceleration without force = gravity, the whole point of equivalence.
-
actually, special relativity exists entirely outside the realm of gravitation. general relativity deals with gravitation.
-
I debunked universal acceleration with this experiment:
- Lift a book into the air
- Let go
- It falls to the floor, unless you're in space, or underwater
If all you are going to do is troll in the upper fora, then don't bother posting. Seeing as you are already on three warnings, have a few days of to review the rules.
-
Excellent, you have proved Einstein wrong. I'm sure your Nobel Prize is waiting for you as we speak.
Why are you taking this stance in the debate? Every UA believer claims to be smarter than Cavendish, Copernicus and Newton like it's nothing, but Einstein is the limit of who you cannot be smarter than?
-
No, he did not 'openly admit' to anything of the sort. In your quest to confirm your beliefs, you have willfully misconstrued the equivalence principle - but not even really that, you've misinterpreted the layperson-level explanations of it. Here is the sort of math you're glossing over. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity))
Also, it is a mistake to think that special relativity can somehow be true without gravity existing. Gravity is well defined in terms of special relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#The_relativistic_mass_concept). You're basically asserting that nothing has mass (no gravity), but special relativity still works. The point of it being 'special' instead of 'general' is that the reference frame is not changing its acceleration - not that it doesn't have acceleration in the first place. Read: acceleration without force = gravity, the whole point of equivalence.
This guy gets it.
The other point I was going to point out when they jumped all over this is that they willingly accept at face value any theory that fits their world view. You accept some things Einstein proposed with zero proof, and yet deny other parts of his theory that are actually in real world use. (frame dragging)
If you hold the view that equivalence precludes this silly experiment, then you also must admit that there is no experiment that can prove UA. There are, on the other hand, experiments that confirm gravity. (Cavendish's experiment, LIGO detecting gravitational waves) If you're going to be intellectually honest, you have to admit that your theory of UA is in serious question.
-
If you are going 1g then accelerate upwards, then why don't you keep going up? Is air resistance that strong?
-
I debunked universal acceleration with this experiment:
- Lift a book into the air
- Let go
- It falls to the floor, unless you're in space, or underwater
If all you are going to do is troll in the upper fora, then don't bother posting. Seeing as you are already on three warnings, have a few days of to review the rules.
If the book is going the same speed as eath it won't go anywhere (relatively)
-
If the book is going the same speed as eath it won't go anywhere (relatively)
Definitely not true. The air below the book cannot exert enough force on the book to keep it in it's current position. It instead moves out of the way and around the book as "the earth accelerates towards it."
Same as with gravity.
-
You've missed my point. Your Wiki quotes Einstein's theories of relativity and special relativity as the reason why the earth does not exceed the speed of light under the UA theory. However, these theories are intertwined with Einstein's theories about gravity. You can't have one without the other. Therefore, either Einstein is correct, and gravity exists, or Einstein is wrong and there is no gravity, but then the speed of light is no longer a constant. And we know from observations that the speed of light is a constant.
I'd be interested to hear a clear explanation.
More to the point, you Wiki quotes Einstein's theory of relativity as the explanation for why UA doesn't exceed the speed of light. However, Einstein's theories explain gravity as a distortion space/time. This only work with a spherical earth, and explains why the earth is spherical, why the atmosphere doesn't get sucked into space, why the water doesn't fall off the south pole, etc. Why are you 'cherry picking' the parts of his theories that suit you, but are ignoring the parts you don't like.
Junker and I are referencing Einstein's Equivelence Principle.
-
Bah - Einstein didn't know beans.
Dr. Henry Eyring was teaching chemistry at the university of Utah. He and Einstein were colleagues. As they walked together they noted an unusual plant growing along a garden walk. Eyring asked Einstein if he knew what the plant was. Einstein did not, and together they consulted a gardener. The gardener indicated the plant was green beans and forever afterwards Eyring said Einstein didn't know beans.
Point being - Einstein was very smart at what he was very smart at - but he wasn't a universal expert on everything. It is therefore easily possible to be smarter than Einstein in some matters - while also be less smart in others.
You really can't tell whether people are smarter than Einstein. His IQ was never formally tested - but it's estimated to be around 160. The most you can get on a standard test is 165. Worse still, the VERY smartest people get worse scores on the test than less smart people because they can see possible answers that even the people who set up the test didn't envisage. Then they have multiple possible answers and they are forced to imagine which answer the person setting the test would have considered to be the most obvious. Hence, you require the most intelligent people to be able to put themselves into the minds of less intelligent people.
This renders scores over about 150 somewhat "iffy".
So there comes a point when "sufficiently smart" to question Einstein is entirely plausible.
What ISN'T so easy is to claim that his physics is incorrect - because most of it (but not all) has been tested more rigorously than most other scientific facts.
-
Yes, StinkyOne, what makes you think that you are smarter than Einstein?
Shh, Einstein is the smartest being ever to walk the planet. Unbelievable insight without ever performing any experiment to come up with his conclusions. A man way stronger than those walking the earth today. Hopefully nobody will disrespect my Einstein again.
-
If the book is going the same speed as eath it won't go anywhere (relatively)
Definitely not true. The air below the book cannot exert enough force on the book to keep it in it's current position. It instead moves out of the way and around the book as "the earth accelerates towards it."
Same as with gravity.
The air is going the same speed. How come people don suffocate if the air is pushed up?
-
and what keeps the sun up ? If the air pressure isn't enough to hold up a book, it's not going to be enough to hold up the sun !
-
and what keeps the sun up ? If the air pressure isn't enough to hold up a book, it's not going to be enough to hold up the sun !
Plus the FE'ers claim that the sun is 3,000 miles up. There is no appreciable amount of air above 100 miles.
I suppose you could claim that there is air all the way up to the sun - but that wouldn't explain the drop in cabin pressure in airplanes, how barometric altimeters work, how there is so little air at the top of Mount Everest, etc.
I don't think may FE'ers on this site would agree that air pressure holds up the sun. I think they claim that universal acceleration applies to sun, moon and stars just as it does to the Earth.
It's not clear why it applies to some asteroids and not to the ones that plunge to Earth as meteors...but that's another question.
-
So UA applies to the earth, sun & moon, but not all the loose objects on the surface of the earth (like people !)
I'm eagerly awaiting an explanation for that one !!
-
So UA applies to the earth, sun & moon, but not all the loose objects on the surface of the earth (like people !)
I'm eagerly awaiting an explanation for that one !!
I would suggest you take a few minutes to think through it again...
-
So UA applies to the earth, sun & moon, but not all the loose objects on the surface of the earth (like people !)
I'm eagerly awaiting an explanation for that one !!
I would suggest you take a few minutes to think through it again...
I understand it can be difficult to understand that not everyone thinks the same as you do, but it's very helpful to just say what one means as opposed to making vague statements that can be interpreted as implying one is smarter than someone else.
UA is accelerating the sun, the moon, and the bottom of the Earth (which thus accelerates the Earth). At least from what I understand. So how does it know to apply to the sun and moon, but not the upper parts of the Earth, or those upon the Earth? Magic? Or is there something wrong in the understanding being presented?
-
I understand it can be difficult to understand that not everyone thinks the same as you do, but it's very helpful to just say what one means as opposed to making vague statements that can be interpreted as implying one is smarter than someone else.
Nah, I don't purport to be smarter than anyone. But I don't see much value in explaining things to (presumably) adults as if they were children.
UA is accelerating the sun, the moon, and the bottom of the Earth (which thus accelerates the Earth). At least from what I understand. So how does it know to apply to the sun and moon, but not the upper parts of the Earth, or those upon the Earth? Magic? Or is there something wrong in the understanding being presented?
What do you mean by "the upper parts of earth?" I feel like you are being intentionally obtuse to string this along, because from what I have seen I know you are smart enough to know the difference. UA may have flaws, but this certainly is not one of them.
-
I understand it can be difficult to understand that not everyone thinks the same as you do, but it's very helpful to just say what one means as opposed to making vague statements that can be interpreted as implying one is smarter than someone else.
Nah, I don't purport to be smarter than anyone. But I don't see much value in explaining things to (presumably) adults as if they were children.
UA is accelerating the sun, the moon, and the bottom of the Earth (which thus accelerates the Earth). At least from what I understand. So how does it know to apply to the sun and moon, but not the upper parts of the Earth, or those upon the Earth? Magic? Or is there something wrong in the understanding being presented?
What do you mean by "the upper parts of earth?" I feel like you are being intentionally obtuse to string this along, because from what I have seen I know you are smart enough to know the difference. UA may have flaws, but this certainly is not one of them.
If I dig up a chunk of Earth and lift it up, it falls back down does it not? This happens to any Earth we dig up. So it stands to reason it's not accelerating the upper parts of the Earth directly, but rather transmitting the acceleration that is being applied to the bottom of the Earth. Right? "Upper parts" was just shorter to say than "all of the Earth not in direct contact with whatever is applying the force accelerating it" and I thought still conveyed the meaning well enough.
-
Excellent, you have proved Einstein wrong. I'm sure your Nobel Prize is waiting for you as we speak.
The issue here, whether the OP realizes it or not, is that UA affects the air in a room homogenously but a person jumping off a chair is somehow completely immune to UAs effect.
-
The issue here, whether the OP realizes it or not, is that UA affects the air in a room homogenously but a person jumping off a chair is somehow completely immune to UAs effect.
The air is not effected by the UA in the sense it is accelerating itself, the air is being accelerated up by the floor which is also accelerated by the accelerating underside of the earth.
-
The issue here, whether the OP realizes it or not, is that UA affects the air in a room homogenously but a person jumping off a chair is somehow completely immune to UAs effect.
The air is not effected by the UA in the sense it is accelerating itself, the air is being accelerated up by the floor which is also accelerated by the accelerating underside of the earth.
Then I would expect there always to be significant turbulence in the air as the air accelerated by the Earth collides with the air above and that this urbulence would be greatest at ground level. I personally do not experience this, do you? Or do you see a problem with this analysis?
-
Then I would expect there always to be significant turbulence in the air as the air accelerated by the Earth collides with the air above and that this urbulence would be greatest at ground level. I personally do not experience this, do you? Or do you see a problem with this analysis?
I see a problem with this analysis. If it were correct, we would experience the same phenomenon in every elevator. We do not.
-
Then I would expect there always to be significant turbulence in the air as the air accelerated by the Earth collides with the air above and that this urbulence would be greatest at ground level. I personally do not experience this, do you? Or do you see a problem with this analysis?
I see a problem with this analysis. If it were correct, we would experience the same phenomenon in every elevator. We do not.
Sorry, by ground level I meant next to the ground, regardless of elevation. Furthermore, this should be noticeable anywhere that atmospheric effects, such as wind, are negligible; in a sealed room, for example.
-
Then I would expect there always to be significant turbulence in the air as the air accelerated by the Earth collides with the air above and that this urbulence would be greatest at ground level. I personally do not experience this, do you? Or do you see a problem with this analysis?
I see a problem with this analysis. If it were correct, we would experience the same phenomenon in every elevator. We do not.
Sorry, by ground level I meant next to the ground, regardless of elevation. Furthermore, this should be noticeable anywhere that atmospheric effects, such as wind, are negligible; in a sealed room, for example.
Sorry RS, but I think your view on how the atmosphere should behave is wrong... Basically, there should be no difference between a FE with gravity (even if that sounds crazy) and a FE with UA. Of course, at the beginning of Time, when God for the first time has imparted his FE with an acceleration of 9.81m/s/s, the atmosphere has got a lot of trouble! but since that memorable event, it has had sufficient time to relax (in the technical meaning of this word) and has reached a thermo-hydrodynamical state of equilibrium, the same as we see today on our (round) earth. The effect of gravity or UA (it's equivalent) can only be traced to the pression/density profile of the atmosphere with elevation.
-
So then the FE must assume that it is either infinite or that there is something containing it. Otherwise the Earth would have pushed past the atmosphere a long time ago. Are people supposed to take these assumptions on faith?
-
So then the FE must assume that it is either infinite or that there is something containing it. Otherwise the Earth would have pushed past the atmosphere a long time ago. Are people supposed to take these assumptions on faith?
It seems so. I cann't speak on behalf of the FEers, but I remember having seen somewhere (in the wiki or in the fora) these two possibilities presented as solutions for the problem you are pointing out. Whether these solutions are satisfactory is of course another question...
-
According to their wiki, there is a 3rd alternative. The atmosphere is held in by a dark energy field. However, there are two flaws (at least) with that hypothesis. We can detect dark energy directly as it doesn’t appear to interact with normal matter, and hence doesn’t interact with air. We only know of the existence of dark energy because the universe is expanding faster than Gravity should allow.
-
This thread REALLY needs to be put to bed.
This is a case when most of the RE'ers here are talking bullshit.
(Of course, what the FE'ers are talking is also bullshit - but that's a given.)
FACT #1: Einstein's theory of GENERAL relativity (not "SPECIAL") says that there is no possible way to tell the difference between a uniform acceleration and a uniform gravitational field. This is true - it's been proven a hundred different ways. The FE'ers are correct...and a majority of the RE'ers who say otherwise are wrong(!!).
FACT #2: The FE'ers claim that the flat earth is accelerating upwards at a uniform 9.8 m/s/s would indeed produce EXACTLY the same effect as a uniform gravitational field is also correct.
FACT #3: The Earth's gravitational field is NOT uniform...so facts #1 and #2 are not 100% applicable to the real world. How do we know this? We know that things weigh less at the equator than at the poles. We know that things weigh less at the tops of tall mountains than at sea level. We know that things weigh more in areas where there are concentrations of dense rocks (granite, for example) and less over rocks like volcanic pumice.
FACT #4: We clearly observe that tides are caused by the moon being overhead - AND by being overhead 12 time zones away (choosing my words carefully here!)...and to a lesser degree by the sun being overhead and overhead 12 times zones away. This fits the RE claim that the sun and moon are both sources of gravity...and as a direct result of this, the total gravitational field here on Earth's surface is not uniform.
FACT #5: If the Earth's gravitational field is NOT uniform - then Universal Acceleration (which MUST be uniform) cannot adequately explain the effects we see in FACT #3 and #4 without some modifications...because General Relativity doesn't apply on larger scales - only in small situations where the gravitational field is so nearly uniform as to not matter.
So, what do the FE'ers do to try to fix this?
* They (mostly) claim that UA affects some unknown "thing" deep underground that is pushing upwards on the Earth's crust, and on the sun, moon, stars and planets.
* I've seen others claim that there is also some "celestial attraction" (CA) force pulling UPWARDS on sun/moon/stars/planets instead. It really doesn't matter which they claim if CA is a uniform field like UA - the end results would be identical - the total of (UA-CA) is the same as just having a slightly smaller UA. So this concept is only meaningful if CA is not a uniform field...it would need to be like gravity (stronger as you go upwards) in order to keep the sun/moon/stars/planets in place.
* Yet others claim that air pressure is responsible for the weight of objects and that they fall when you drop them. This is so clearly nonsensical - one hardly knows where to start with it! Put an object inside a bell-jar, pump out all of the air, does it float around inside the jar? No, it doesn't. Theory **BUSTED**.
* The UA-but-not-CA'ers also claim that earthly objects (your body, rocks, dirt, air, ocean, tables, airplanes)...are NOT being pushed upwards by UA - which is why a rock falls to the ground when you drop it. It's a bit arbitrary to have a force that affects some things but not others - but it's their theory - so we can allow it if it works.
* The UA plus CA'ers can claim that only the Earth itself is being accelerated upwards - and that everything else is affected by CA.
But this doesn't explain the changes in the weights of objects at the equator and on tall mountains or over denser rocks. It also doesn't explain the two lunar tides we clearly see every day (or the two small additional effects from tides caused by the sun). It also doesn't explain why asteroids sometimes fall to earth as meteors...are they affected by UA/CA or not? The mathematics behind how CA increases with altitude could also bear investigation...but I'm OK with it.
Hence they need to modify their claims a bit to try to "fix" these problems in their theories.
* Some FE'ers claim that the sun and moon DO have "gravitation" (although for some bizarre reason they refuse to use the simpler word "gravity"?!?!?)...which they claim explains the tides and the reduction in the weight of objects at the tops of mountains.
* Some have claimed that "celestial attraction" is pulling upwards more strongly on objects at the tops of mountains than at sea level - which explains the reduction in weight for objects at the tops of mountains.
* Some have claimed that the reduction in air pressure at the tops of mountains explains the reduction in weight of objects there...but that's ridiculous...air pressure pushes equally in all directions - not predominantly downwards...so this is B.S.
Trouble is - not one of these "explanations" explains the fact that there are TWO lunar tides per day. If the moon pulls up on things because of gravity...er..."gravitation"...then there would only be one high tide per day...not two. When the moon is 12 time zones away - it might pull the water sideways - but that would only reduce the water levels where I'm standing - it couldn't increase it. Ditto for the additional effect of solar tides.
So the pile of wobbly/iffy FE claims CANNOT simply be dismissed by asking about people jumping off of chairs or digging up rocks.
That makes this thread STUPID because BOTH sides are missing the key points of the argument.
RE'ers: The ONLY things you can say to dismiss UA are relating to non-uniform gravitational fields - which you can't see in "room-sized" experiments because the gravitational field on that scale is so very close to being uniform. You have to address things on large scales like poles versus equator or mountains versus sea level or tides. Your attempts to "disprove" FET using small scale arguments will fail...and rightly so.
FE'ers - you still can't explain two tides per day or different weights of objects at poles and equator...so your arguments fail too...and rightly so.
-
According to their wiki, there is a 3rd alternative. The atmosphere is held in by a dark energy field. However, there are two flaws (at least) with that hypothesis. We can detect dark energy directly as it doesn’t appear to interact with normal matter, and hence doesn’t interact with air. We only know of the existence of dark energy because the universe is expanding faster than Gravity should allow.
UA, by itself, perfectly explains why the air stays glued to the ground and decreases in pressure with altitude. They don't need to invoke "dark energy" or invent new theories.
What they have already is perfect. Adding more uneccessary bullshit to it just makes their case worse!
Actually, I can't think of any good reason why they need UA either. If the Flat Earth is infinite (claimed in a bunch of places) then good old fashioned gravity works just fine for the Flat Earth...that's by far the simplest explanation and results in the fewest problems for their cause. Heck, we can even explain the reduction in gravity at the tops of mountains perfectly if they do that.
The only reason you need UA is if the Flat Earth isn't infinite...but it doesn't even have to be totally infinite - it can just be much larger than the part we've explored.
I think the FE'ers tend to over-compensate for things that they don't think their hypothesis explains - when really it does just fine.
-
I agree, UA explains air pressure just as well as gravity does. In the infinite plane model they don’t need anything else. However, in the finite plane, they need something to stop the atmosphere spilling over the edge.
-
I agree, UA explains air pressure just as well as gravity does. In the infinite plane model they don’t need anything else. However, in the finite plane, they need something to stop the atmosphere spilling over the edge.
Actually, they have the same problem with an infinite plane.
If the disk is infinite (or even very large) then, as the Wiki helpfully explains - the sun's rays will never illuminate the further reaches beyond the ice wall. And (as the Wiki also helpfully points out) the temperature will drop to close to absolute zero.
What the Wiki fails to explain is that in that case, the air would first liquify, then freeze. That would reduce the air pressure at some distance beyond the ice wall to zero. This would result in the air pressure in sunlit areas forcing the atmosphere outwards towards the zone of perpetual darkness (ZoPD)...where it would freeze.
Hence in not many hours - the entire atmosphere would have flowed out into the ZoPD...and then there is no air for us to breathe. Then the oceans would boil, the resulting water vapor would also rush out towards the ZoPD and it too would freeze. Pretty soon we have no air and no oceans.
So it doesn't matter whether the disk is infinite or finite - there could still be no air (or water) in the habitable part.
Finding holes in FET is like shooting fish in a barrel! But more entertaining!
-
So it doesn't matter whether the disk is infinite or finite - there could still be no air (or water) in the habitable part.
Actually no, there would be infinite air there as well.
Infinite space, infinite mass, pushed to near light speed an infinite force, this is the only place where finite exists and only finite exists.
-
Have to agree with both points. For an encore, let’s ask them why the planets are spherical if there’s no such thing as gravity ?
-
According to their wiki, there is a 3rd alternative. The atmosphere is held in by a dark energy field. However, there are two flaws (at least) with that hypothesis. We can detect dark energy directly as it doesn’t appear to interact with normal matter, and hence doesn’t interact with air. We only know of the existence of dark energy because the universe is expanding faster than Gravity should allow.
UA, by itself, perfectly explains why the air stays glued to the ground and decreases in pressure with altitude. They don't need to invoke "dark energy" or invent new theories.
What they have already is perfect. Adding more uneccessary bullshit to it just makes their case worse!
Actually, I can't think of any good reason why they need UA either. If the Flat Earth is infinite (claimed in a bunch of places) then good old fashioned gravity works just fine for the Flat Earth...that's by far the simplest explanation and results in the fewest problems for their cause. Heck, we can even explain the reduction in gravity at the tops of mountains perfectly if they do that.
The only reason you need UA is if the Flat Earth isn't infinite...but it doesn't even have to be totally infinite - it can just be much larger than the part we've explored.
I think the FE'ers tend to over-compensate for things that they don't think their hypothesis explains - when really it does just fine.
The infinite disc gravitational field also creates a convergence of bending light beams directly above its center, so it is not a perfect solution.
-
So it doesn't matter whether the disk is infinite or finite - there could still be no air (or water) in the habitable part.
Actually no, there would be infinite air there as well.
Infinite space, infinite mass, pushed to near light speed an infinite force, this is the only place where finite exists and only finite exists.
But then it would take infinite energy to keep it all from freezing...and all you have in one puny 31 mile diameter sun.
Nope - doesn't matter how much air there is - all of it freezes.
-
An interesting link that talks about horizons and gravity on an infinite flat Earth.
http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/08/q-if-earth-was-flat-would-there-be-the-horizon-if-so-what-would-it-look-like-if-the-earth-was-flat-and-had-infinite-area-would-that-change-the-answer/