#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #40 on: June 04, 2018, 03:05:17 PM »
I mean, so far all you've demonstrated is a lack of understanding of the two forces involved.

Consider the following: If on either model you stand on top of a scale, it will tell you your mass. If I now approach you from behind, give you a good ol' cuddle and start lifting you up (not quite strongly enough to actually lift you off the ground, mind you, I'm rather weak and frail), you will notice that your measured mass will reduce. Does that mean that the Earth's gravitation became weaker? No. There's an additional force in the mix that you have to consider.

Many confusions here that i think i can help explain/resolve

first, you say mass - you mean weight.  weight is determine by the gravity (or acceleration in UA) and your mass.  mass isnt changing i think we can all agree?

Using your example on RET, a good one for our discussion by the way, my weight (again due to gravity as defined by newton/einstein) on the scale would reduce when you cuddled me and tried to lift me up...but YOUR weight would increase by the same amount mine did (if you were also standing on a scale).  this is all well described by gravitational forces.  you have applied a minor force to offset the gravitational force.   this force is balanced out.  good.

now lets use the other reality of UA for your same example.  I weigh a certain amount because of my mass and the upward acceleration of 9.81 m/s2 being applied to me.  if you were suspended above me (or stood next to me, doesnt matter) and applied a small force to me and it wasnt enough to physically lift me off the ground (per your example), well then my acceleration has not been decreased and therefore my weight hasnt been impacted.  This is because acceleration is the square of velocity, not a force.  my velocity has not changed relative to the earth.  the force is the mystery force being applied to the earth to accelerate it upward.

Does this explain the conflict in UA more clearly?
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### Tumeni

• 3110
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #41 on: June 04, 2018, 03:39:59 PM »
"UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2."

Is this an assertion that the Earth is (just) moving at 9.81 metres per second, or
Constantly accelerating at 9.81 metres per second, per second?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #42 on: June 04, 2018, 03:45:01 PM »
"UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2."

Is this an assertion that the Earth is (just) moving at 9.81 metres per second, or
Constantly accelerating at 9.81 metres per second, per second?

in order to mimic gravity, it would have to be constantly accelerating.   static velocity would not produce the equivalence.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15326
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #43 on: June 04, 2018, 05:39:27 PM »
first, you say mass - you mean weight.
No, I do not. The scale you're standing on does not provide an output in Newtons. Sure, it does achieve it by simply dividing the measured force by a constant, but it nonetheless attempts to measure mass.

Using your example on RET, a good one for our discussion by the way, my weight (again due to gravity as defined by newton/einstein) on the scale would reduce when you cuddled me and tried to lift me up...but YOUR weight would increase by the same amount mine did (if you were also standing on a scale).  this is all well described by gravitational forces.
Correct, but irrelevant. I'm not standing on the scale, and neither is celestial gravitation.

well then my acceleration has not been decreased and therefore my weight hasnt been impacted.  This is because acceleration is the square of velocity, not a force.
This directly contravenes the equivalence principle.

Does this explain the conflict in UA more clearly?
No. I can see that you're missing something, but you're too busy trying to explain why you think you're right for it to be particularly clear.

I think this may be your mistake: You assume that if an object falling towards a mountain top is accelerating downwards more slowly than the same object at sea level, then the mountaintop itself is also accelerating upwards more slowly. This is simply not the case. If we use the Earth as the frame of reference, there are two forces here - one downward one, which will be identical in both cases, and one upward one (celestial gravitation), which will be greater at high altitudes.

Moving back to an external frame of reference: it is not the case that the Earth is accelerating upwards more slowly in these places. The object in question is also accelerating upwards (at a greatly reduced rate) due to celestial gravitation. Therein lies the difference.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 05:43:29 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #44 on: June 04, 2018, 06:22:06 PM »
first, you say mass - you mean weight.
No, I do not. The scale you're standing on does not provide an output in Newtons. Sure, it does achieve it by simply dividing the measured force by a constant, but it nonetheless attempts to measure mass.

Using your example on RET, a good one for our discussion by the way, my weight (again due to gravity as defined by newton/einstein) on the scale would reduce when you cuddled me and tried to lift me up...but YOUR weight would increase by the same amount mine did (if you were also standing on a scale).  this is all well described by gravitational forces.
Correct, but irrelevant. I'm not standing on the scale, and neither is celestial gravitation.

well then my acceleration has not been decreased and therefore my weight hasnt been impacted.  This is because acceleration is the square of velocity, not a force.
This directly contravenes the equivalence principle.

Does this explain the conflict in UA more clearly?
No. I can see that you're missing something, but you're too busy trying to explain why you think you're right for it to be particularly clear.

I think this may be your mistake: You assume that if an object falling towards a mountain top is accelerating downwards more slowly than the same object at sea level, then the mountaintop itself is also accelerating upwards more slowly. This is simply not the case. If we use the Earth as the frame of reference, there are two forces here - one downward one, which will be identical in both cases, and one upward one (celestial gravitation), which will be greater at high altitudes.

Moving back to an external frame of reference: it is not the case that the Earth is accelerating upwards more slowly in these places. The object in question is also accelerating upwards (at a greatly reduced rate) due to celestial gravitation. Therein lies the difference.

first bold item - of course you are standing on a scale, its earth, and the forces are transferred.  i.e. you have removed weight from me and that force is directly applied to you, resulting in more weight.  conservation of energy.

second bold item - this does not contravene the equivalence principle, you are incorrectly trying to use it to prove more than it is.  equivalence principle just says constant 1G accelleration is indistinguishable from 1G of gravity force for an observer that cannot see the outside world.  it does not have anything to do with changing forces.  in fact a change in acceleration would allow the observer inside to realize he was not standing on earth in 1G, thus being in conflict with the principle

for the last part, you are trying to apply how gravity works to the UA model of constant acceleration.  These are not the same thing.  You are trying to cancel out base acceleration (for lack of better words) with an upward gravitational force.  If we were talking gravity i would agree with your premise, but UA is talking about actual, physical acceleration....not perceived acceleration (i.e. gravity per the equivalence principle).   UA is literally saying the entire planet is upward accelerating, as in everything at the same constant acceleration.   You cant switch between the two mechanisms.  Acceleration is a measured quantity of distance per time squared  while gravity is a force and magnitude of this field creates the appropriate acceleration.

that last paragraph was not as greatly worded as i had written in my head, let me know if you get what i am saying.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 06:24:31 PM by Round Eyes »
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15326
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #45 on: June 04, 2018, 06:28:04 PM »
first bold item - of course you are standing on a scale, its earth, and the forces are transferred.
No, I assure you that the sum of all other celestial bodies is not resting on the Earth's surface.

equivalence principle just says constant 1G accelleration is indistinguishable from 1G of gravity force for an observer that cannot see the outside world.
That is all I'm saying.

it does not have anything to do with changing forces.
By that logic, a simple act of jumping would break the Equivalence Principle. This is not the case.

that last paragraph was not as greatly worded as i had written in my head, let me know if you get what i am saying.
I can see what you're saying, but it is you who's conflating the terms. The variation is not in the physical acceleration of the Earth - it is in the acceleration you (or your measurement instrument of choice) will perceive while on (or close to) the Earth.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #46 on: June 04, 2018, 06:31:40 PM »
first bold item - of course you are standing on a scale, its earth, and the forces are transferred.
No, I assure you that the sum of all other celestial bodies is not resting on the Earth's surface.

equivalence principle just says constant 1G accelleration is indistinguishable from 1G of gravity force for an observer that cannot see the outside world.
That is all I'm saying.

it does not have anything to do with changing forces.
By that logic, a simple act of jumping would break the Equivalence Principle. This is not the case.

that last paragraph was not as greatly worded as i had written in my head, let me know if you get what i am saying.
I can see what you're saying, but it is you who's conflating the terms. The variation is not in the physical acceleration of the Earth - it is in the acceleration you (or your measurement instrument of choice) will perceive while on (or close to) the Earth.
Thanks for the back and forth Pete, its always fun to discuss physics with people.  i think we both put some real effort into explaining each other's views and not resorting to some of the typical personal tangents that most threads on here seem to devolve into, but i think we just have to agree to disagree on this, not sure more discussion will really change either's views.  Have a great day, i'm sure we will "tangle" again soon.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #47 on: June 04, 2018, 06:34:19 PM »
I just read the Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration and have several questions but I will post them one at a time.

and sorry for hijacking your thread!
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15326
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #48 on: June 04, 2018, 06:36:51 PM »
Thanks for the back and forth Pete, its always fun to discuss physics with people. [...]
That's fair. Agree to disagree it is.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

#### Tumeni

• 3110
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #49 on: June 04, 2018, 06:41:12 PM »
"UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2."

Is this an assertion that the Earth is (just) moving at 9.81 metres per second, or
Constantly accelerating at 9.81 metres per second, per second?

in order to mimic gravity, it would have to be constantly accelerating.   static velocity would not produce the equivalence.

So, after 1 second, Earth was moving at 19.6m/s, after two at 29.4m/s, after three at 39.2m/s, etc. ... ?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15326
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #50 on: June 04, 2018, 07:14:28 PM »
So, after 1 second, Earth was moving at 19.6m/s, after two at 29.4m/s, after three at 39.2m/s, etc. ... ?
Relative to something that was stationary relative to the Earth at the minus first second, and which is not accelerating relative to an external observer (the same observer as the one observing the Earth as accelerating upwards), yes.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 07:16:24 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

#### Tumeni

• 3110
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #51 on: June 04, 2018, 07:58:39 PM »
So, after 1 second, Earth was moving at 19.6m/s, after two at 29.4m/s, after three at 39.2m/s, etc. ... ?
Relative to something that was stationary relative to the Earth at the minus first second, and which is not accelerating relative to an external observer (the same observer as the one observing the Earth as accelerating upwards), yes.

So ...how long do you reckon Earth has been doing this?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15326
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #52 on: June 04, 2018, 08:33:46 PM »
So ...how long do you reckon Earth has been doing this?
Long enough for you to make your next statement. However, before you do so, make sure you familiarise yourself with basic Special Relativity, most importantly the Lorentz transformation.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #53 on: June 04, 2018, 08:35:17 PM »
So ...how long do you reckon Earth has been doing this?
Long enough for you to make your next statement. However, before you do so, make sure you familiarise yourself with basic Special Relativity, most importantly the Lorentz transformation.

just curious how long does FET believe Earth has existed?  i did a quick search and didnt find anything.  not going down the speed of light road
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### Tumeni

• 3110
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #54 on: June 04, 2018, 11:06:52 PM »
So ...how long do you reckon Earth has been doing this?
Long enough for you to make your next statement.

I've made no statements in this thread, simply asked questions
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9962
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #55 on: June 05, 2018, 02:45:00 AM »
So ...how long do you reckon Earth has been doing this?
Long enough for you to make your next statement.

I've made no statements in this thread, simply asked questions

Let me suggest that you get to the point of what you want to "ask," then. And if you have more than one question on the same topic, go ahead and ask them in one post.

#### Tumeni

• 3110
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #56 on: June 05, 2018, 04:00:07 AM »
Let me suggest that you get to the point of what you want to "ask," then. And if you have more than one question on the same topic, go ahead and ask them in one post.

Subsequent questions will depend on the answers to the two (2) that I posted above, though...

That's the nature of conversation, isn't it?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9962
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #57 on: June 05, 2018, 04:53:00 AM »
Let me suggest that you get to the point of what you want to "ask," then. And if you have more than one question on the same topic, go ahead and ask them in one post.

Subsequent questions will depend on the answers to the two (2) that I posted above, though...

That's the nature of conversation, isn't it?

It is also a popular habit of people who think they’re clever and attempt to trap someone by asking a series of leading questions and ending with a “gotcha.” Apologies if that isn’t the case, but it sure looks like it, and I’m not the only one picking up on the possibility.

#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #58 on: June 05, 2018, 07:08:26 AM »
So ...how long do you reckon Earth has been doing this?
Long enough for you to make your next statement. However, before you do so, make sure you familiarise yourself with basic Special Relativity, most importantly the Lorentz transformation.

The equivalence principle, gravity, acceleration and so on are all part of general relativity. Special relativity only deals with reference systems that have relative velocity regarding each other.

The term "general relativity" was introduced to point out, that this includes also accelerated relative motions.

The equivalence principle was introduced by Einstein as an attempted to at least locally use the concept of special relativity in a gravitational field. It was never meant as way to replace gravity by acceleration on a planetary scale. If you're confined in a small region without any reference to the surrounding you cannot distinguish at a given point in spacetime if you are under the influence of a gravitational field or accelerated by another force because the laws of physics behave in the same manner.

But gravitational fields are not homogeneous, they are gradient fields, therefor the acceleration is not constant and the equivalence principle is not valid within an entire gravitational field.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15326
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #59 on: June 05, 2018, 10:58:46 AM »
[lots of rambling]

But gravitational fields are not homogeneous, they are gradient fields, therefor the acceleration is not constant and the equivalence principle is not valid within an entire gravitational field.
Isn't it just fantastic that we're not considering just an acceleration, then? It would be preferable if, in the future, you could try to stay on topic.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية