[theEdgyOne]

so i have observed that the general consensus on gravity on this forum is the plane is moving up at 9.81 meters per second which we observe as gravity

my question is on newtons first law, inertia, wouldn't we just normalize without gravity if inertia was true, as we would maintain the planes 9.81 meters per second when we jumped, as we where in motion and would still be in motion.

and it is not as if Newtons first law is not true as we observe it every day with balls and toy cars rolling until friction overcomes them.

at first i thought that the plane would be accelerating upwards, not just going up with a constant rate, but if you think about it the logistics the earth would be moving upwards at a rate well past the speed of light, and one of our main arguments is "we would feel it if we were on a 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pound ball traveling at 67,000 miles per hour rotating at 1000 miles per hour", well we would feel it if we were going past the speed of light as well

I wan't to believe the earth is flat, I wan't the past couple of years of my life to have been worth it, but i just don't understand

[QED]

so i have observed that the general consensus on gravity on this forum is the plane is moving up at 9.81 meters per second which we observe as gravity

my question is on newtons first law, inertia, wouldn't we just normalize without gravity if inertia was true, as we would maintain the planes 9.81 meters per second when we jumped, as we where in motion and would still be in motion.

and it is not as if Newtons first law is not true as we observe it every day with balls and toy cars rolling until friction overcomes them.

at first i thought that the plane would be accelerating upwards, not just going up with a constant rate, but if you think about it the logistics the earth would be moving upwards at a rate well past the speed of light, and one of our main arguments is "we would feel it if we were on a 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pound ball traveling at 67,000 miles per hour rotating at 1000 miles per hour", well we would feel it if we were going past the speed of light as well

I wan't to believe the earth is flat, I wan't the past couple of years of my life to have been worth it, but i just don't understand

I’ve always wondered that too: how the idea that we are hurdling through space at thousands of mph is so unpalatable, when we’d be moving even faster than that on a FE.

As for normalization, no I don’t think so. We are moving with the plane, and once we jump we no longer benefit from the plane’s acceleration - are moving upwards at the speed we have from that acceleration at the moment we jump (+ the speed we get from the jump itself) and the earth comes up to meet us.

In other words, only the surface of the earth is accelerating.

Which is a huuuge problem!!!

Because if only the earth’ surface is accelerating, how come we don’t feel a wind from the atmosphere rushing down onto us? So the atmosphere (the environment above the plane MUST ALSO be accelerating). But if that is true, how come we fall back down when we jump?

I always get banned when I bring this point up - hope you get a chance to read it before it gets erased.

[juner]

I always get banned when I bring this point up - hope you get a chance to read it before it gets erased.

Well that simply isn't true. No need to lie to the new users. You're free to criticize FE. You were banned in the past for being an insufferable jerk whilst doing so.

Anyway, the U in UA matters. But I think most proponents of that theory realize the other flaws it brings to the table.

[Tom Bishop]

Can the criticism of "we should feel the wind" be restated? If the fluid of the atmosphere is contained in some manner, like water in a bowl, then we should feel greater weight of the atmosphere at lower altitudes than at higher altitudes. Which we do, as per atmospheric weight and barometers. The weight of the atmosphere at sea level is about 14.7 lb/square inch.

Per the speed of light: Frames of reference and relative motion are concepts which long predate Einstein's flavor of it. I believe that there are existing experiments in literature which suggest that frames of reference are independent of each other, and which form the basis for the current theories about it, but it would be a research project to collect them.

[QED]

Can the criticism of "we should feel the wind" be restated? If the fluid of the atmosphere is contained in some manner, like water in a bowl, then we should feel greater weight of the atmosphere at lower altitudes than at higher altitudes. Which we do. See: Atmospheric weight, barometers.

Per the speed of light: Frames of reference and relative motion are concepts which long predate Einstein's flavor of it. I believe that there are existing experiments in literature which suggest that frames of reference are independent of each other, and which form the basis for the current theories about it, but it would be a research project to collect them.

Yes, and that pressure should be an increasing function of time. But it isn’t, so the atmosphere must be coupled to the plane’s acceleration, which means the environment above the plane is coupled. So once we jump, and enter this environment why do we fall back down?

What do you mean by independent of each other? If we are tied together by a rope and twisting in a circular path in outer space, then our frames of reference are most certainly not independent. Once you cut the rope, then they would be. I do not understand the relevance of this to the present conversation.

[Tom Bishop]

Consider the following analogy: The earth is flat and accelerating upwards with a contained atmolayer. The atmolayer, rather than being composed of individual molecules, is composed of marbles... the "marblelayer." There are two people; one buried at the bottom of the marbles and another person buried one layer deep at the top. A person at the bottom is being pushed up into more marbles than a person who is only buried one layer deep. The person at the bottom will encounter more inertial resistance to the mass of marbles above him, as the earth accelerates upwards and pushes him into the marbles.

The person at the bottom of the mass of marbles perishes in this scenario, but one should see the gist. Atmosphere is heavier on the surface of the earth than at higher altitudes... we do feel it and it doesn't need to be coupled. We are just used to the atmosphere's sea level weight of 14.7 lb/square inch, as measured by the barometer, which is a weight scale for the atmosphere.

Yes, and that pressure should be an increasing function of time. But it isn’t, so the atmosphere must be coupled to the plane’s acceleration, which means the environment above the plane is coupled. So once we jump, and enter this environment why do we fall back down?

I don't entirely see what you are conveying and would ask for some clarification. Why would the pressure increase if the acceleration is constant? In the above analogy the weight of the marbles would not continually increase over time at either the bottom of the mass of marbles or at the top of it.

As per the equivalence principle, a rocket filled with marbles and accelerating upwards at 1g through space would behave the same as a rocket filled with marbles that is sitting on a launch pad and being pulled down by gravity at 1g. The weight of the marbles on the floor of the rocket would not become increasingly heavier over time in either scenario, as far as I am aware.

[QED]

Consider the following analogy: The earth is flat and accelerating upwards with a contained atmolayer. The atmolayer, rather than being composed of individual molecules, is composed of marbles... the "marblelayer." There are two people; one buried at the bottom of the marbles and another person one layer deep at the top. A person at the bottom is being pushed up into more marbles than a person who is only buried one layer deep. The person at the bottom will encounter more inertial resistance to the mass of marbles above him, as the earth accelerates upwards and pushes him into the marbles.

The person at the bottom of the mass of marbles perishes in this scenario, but one should see the gist. Atmosphere is heavier on the surface of the earth than at higher altitudes... we do feel it and it doesn't need to be coupled. We are just used to the atmosphere's sea level weight of 14.7 lb/square inch, as measured by the barometer, which is a weight scale for the atmosphere.

Yes, and that pressure should be an increasing function of time. But it isn’t, so the atmosphere must be coupled to the plane’s acceleration, which means the environment above the plane is coupled. So once we jump, and enter this environment why do we fall back down?

I don't entirely see what you are conveying and would ask for some clarification. Why would the pressure increase if the acceleration is constant? In the above analogy the weight of the marbles would not continually increase over time at either the bottom of the mass of marbles or at the top of it.

As per the equivalence principle, a rocket filled with marbles and accelerating upwards at 1g through space would behave the same as a rocket filled with marbles that is sitting on a launch pad and being pulled down by gravity at 1g. The weight of the marbles on the floor of the rocket would not become increasingly heavier over time in either scenario, as far as I am aware.

Yes Tom, I get it. And you describing what would happen if the earth were moving upwards at constant speed and the marbles were not. But the earth is accelerating - so the pressure we see at the bottom should increase.

The marbles are not getting heavier, we are colliding with them at larger and larger speeds.

The only other option is that the marbles are moving with the earth.

This is freshman mechanics we’re talking about here.

[Tom Bishop]

Yes Tom, I get it. And you describing what would happen if the earth were moving upwards at constant speed and the marbles were not. But the earth is accelerating - so the pressure we see at the bottom should increase.

I am talking about acceleration. If a rocket were moving upwards at constant speed through space everything inside of a rocket would just quickly become weightless once the speed is matched, not pinned to the floor of a rocket. To keep things pinned to the floor of a rocket (or rocket ship earth) acceleration is required.

The marbles are not getting heavier, we are colliding with them at larger and larger speeds.

The only other option is that the marbles are moving with the earth.

This is freshman mechanics we’re talking about here.

According to the equivalence principle a rocket filled with marbles and accelerating upwards at 1g through space would behave the same as a rocket filled with marbles that is sitting on a launch pad and being pulled down by gravity at 1g.

Why would a sensor on the floor of the rocket react, or feel, anything differently in either scenario?

Change it to air, water, etc, and the result will be the same. An assertion that there should be a difference seems to violate the equivalence principle.

[QED]

Yes Tom, I get it. And you describing what would happen if the earth were moving upwards at constant speed and the marbles were not. But the earth is accelerating - so the pressure we see at the bottom should increase.

I am talking about acceleration. If a rocket were moving upwards at constant speed through space everything inside of a rocket would just quickly become weightless once the speed is matched, not pinned to the floor of a rocket. To keep things pinned to the floor of a rocket (or rocket ship earth) acceleration is required.

The marbles are not getting heavier, we are colliding with them at larger and larger speeds.

The only other option is that the marbles are moving with the earth.

This is freshman mechanics we’re talking about here.

According to the equivalence principle a rocket filled with marbles and accelerating upwards at 1g through space would behave the same as a rocket filled with marbles that is sitting on a launch pad and being pulled down by gravity at 1g.

Why would a sensor on the floor of the rocket react, or feel, anything differently in either scenario?

Change it to air, water, etc, and the result will be the same. An assertion that there should be a difference seems to violate the equivalence principle.

Indeed you are correct - the  equivalence principle cannot be violated. The space ship filled with marbles, which is sitting in outer space, begins to accelerated. What happens? All the marbles get pushed to the rear. And they stay there! But here the analogy fails, because marbles are not compressible. A gas is. So a spaceship filled with compressible marbles which begins to accelerate will result in all the marbles pushed to the back and compressing, thereby raising the marble density for as long as the ship accelerates.

As you have noted, this is precisely how it would happen on earth as well, if the plane was accelerating upwards.

But this doesn’t happen. So the marbles are accelerating with the plane.

I really don’t know how to make this any more simple for you. What don’t you get here, man?

[Tom Bishop]

You are describing a violation of the equivalence principle. A container filled with gas will behave the same under gravity or under upwards acceleration. Gradually increase the size of that container and it behaves the same. There isn't a point where it suddenly violates the equivalence principle.

[QED]

You are describing a violation of the equivalence principle. A container filled with gas will behave the same under gravity or under upwards acceleration. Gradually increase the size of that container and it behaves the same. There isn't a point where it suddenly violates the equivalence principle.

I agree. But a RE is not a container like a spaceship. It is also rotating, and so one must account for the effects of rotational drag, which is precisely why we have weather!

What I am saying is that on a FE, we would not have this rotation, and so the equivalence principle would indeed be violated - because we do not feel increasing pressure like we would on a space ship.

[rodriados]

Also, if the Earth is accelerating upwards, what is the force causing this acceleration? Where does this force come from?

Too many questions unanswered.

[olivergreenday]

Also, if the Earth is accelerating upwards, what is the force causing this acceleration? Where does this force come from?

Too many questions unanswered.

Can I ask someone to explain the gravity conundrum, if there isn’t gravity what is keeping us to the ground?

[spherical]

Also, if the Earth is accelerating upwards, what is the force causing this acceleration? Where does this force come from?

Too many questions unanswered.

Who told you that?
Earth is not accelerating upwards.
The space bent due Earth's mass causes you and any other mass to be pushed down.  The better term is "slide" down.
Without Earth present, you will be steady in space, instantly include Earth beneath you, you will be pushed down, so, it is not the Earth that is moving.

Post Edit:
Sorry by that, driving on I-4 it came to my mind, you were saying (Earth accelerates upwards) about the supposed gravity acceleration on the FE model...  Yes, that is crazy, doesn't work, it will reach a critical impossible speed.  Except for one little possibility, if the whole FE world is sit over an inside wall of a gigantic cylinder rotating in space, where artificial gravity could be produced and sky will be floating in the middle. But shushhh, don't tell FE believers that, they may start to believe on it, because it makes sense... 

[Clyde Frog]

Yes, that is crazy, doesn't work, it will reach a critical impossible speed.

Well I, for one, am excited to hear what "critical impossible speed" you think would be reached. It can't be c, because you know, relativity, and how any massive object in its own reference frame is always precisely 0% of the way to c, so I'm really interested to see what this impossible speed is.

[QED]

Yes, that is crazy, doesn't work, it will reach a critical impossible speed.

Well I, for one, am excited to hear what "critical impossible speed" you think would be reached. It can't be c, because you know, relativity, and how any massive object in its own reference frame is always precisely 0% of the way to c, so I'm really interested to see what this impossible speed is.

It is c, and relativity doesn’t work that way.

“any massive object in its own reference frame is always precisely 0% of the way to c”

Reference frames don’t work that way either. The speed of light is alway c in any reference frame.

You cannot accelerate an object indefinitely without infinite energy. If a flat earth had been accelerating at g for this entire time, then we’d be so goddamn relativistic that we’d be pair-producing like crazy.

So you see, the fact that we don’t observe a near continuous stream of particles generated from our enormous kinetic energy is direct observational evidence that the Earth is not accelerating to simulate a gravitational field.

This is why FET has to attempt to disprove the the vast majority of physics - because the vast majority of it would yield direct observations that we don’t see, thus contradicting FET’s basic premise.

[Clyde Frog]

A UA flat Earth is never ever going to reach c. That's what spherical seems to be implying.

And yes, things can accelerate indefinitely without requiring infinite energy, if that acceleration is due to an inherent property of nature. See the current accelerating expansion of the universe for an example.

Also, we ARE moving at a huge percentage of c from literally an infinite number of reference frames. And since there is no preferred frame, you can't pretend the one we currently are sitting on the surface of is something all that special.

As for this "stream of particles," I think the "U" in "UA" might account for that.

There are myriad issues with UA. But relativistic effects, exceeding c, and getting bombarded with particles from above are not really among them.

[QED]

A UA flat Earth is never ever going to reach c. That's what spherical seems to be implying.

And yes, things can accelerate indefinitely without requiring infinite energy, if that acceleration is due to an inherent property of nature. See the current accelerating expansion of the universe for an example.

Also, we ARE moving at a huge percentage of c from literally an infinite number of reference frames. And since there is no preferred frame, you can't pretend the one we currently are sitting on the surface of is something all that special.

As for this "stream of particles," I think the "U" in "UA" might account for that.

There are myriad issues with UA. But relativistic effects, exceeding c, and getting bombarded with particles from above are not really among them.

No, we are not moving at a huge percentage of c except in the rest frame of objects that ARE.

There is no preferred frame, but frames have consequences - especially when they are non-inertial frames.

Relativistic effects is the salient problem with UA. If you accelerate for thousands of years, then you main problem is relativity. In order to change to a reference frame that would not be relativistic, you would need to perform what we call a boost, and so saying that “all things are relative” (which essentially is your argument) is wrong. These things have consequences.

Exceeding c is not a problem. I agree. That was SR says.

Bombarded by particles from above? You mean the atmosphere? Two options:

1. Surrounding environment does not experience UA

2. Surrounding environment does.

If 1 is true, then you bet your ass you’d feel one hell of a wind from above.

If 2 is true, then if you jump into the air and become part of the surrounding environment - how come you fall back down?

These items are the current discussion.

[EarthNotFlat]

Not only that, the concept of "Earth's surface" is very arbitrary, do buildings count as part of the Earth's surface?

If they do, then we should be able to build all the way up until the "dome", since no pressure would be felt as they are accelerating just as fast as the Earth.

But Earth's surface itself shouldn't feel any force on it, since its ALL accelerating up at the same rate, this would mean that there is no pressure, which goes against evidence collected from rock samples down below Earth's surface, and if ONLY the surface experiences UA and things under it don't, then these rocks should fall endlessly through space and Earth would be an arbitrarily thin layer, which is obviously wrong. This isn't definitive proof that the UA is false, but I do have some definitive proof in my ISS discussion