[Tom Bishop]

I found a video of Brian Cox discussing the Flat Earth Society. He says that he doesn't believe in FE, but says that one of the things TFES got right is that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards. See this two minute segment from about 1:07:25 to 1:09:25:



Brian Cox describes the idea of the Earth's surface  accelerating upward as "bang on" and "actually right", and that in RE it is explained by spacetime curvature. What's particularly revealing is how Round Earth proponents must resort to abstract metaphysical concepts like "spacetime curvature" to explain what the Flat Earth model explains directly and intuitively.

I note that one thing that the Flat Earth has going for it is that it isn't perpetually exploding apart from itself. It is rising upwards, just as the experiments show. There are a plethora of Equivalence Principle experiments which directly suggest that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards. This doesn't work in RE, so space curvature is invoked. The Round Earth Theory weirdly explains the results of these experiments with metaphysics which invoke unseen mechanics from a hidden realm of existence. In RET the round earth is apparently exploding outwards, but this effect is oddly only manifested locally and in laboratory experiments.

Rather than acknowledging the upward acceleration of the earth's surface from direct experiment, mainstream science creates increasingly abstract mathematical models to preserve their spherical earth paradigm. When this topic has been discussed in the past, instead of RE proponents justifying their absurd theory with clear and direct evidence, we see indirect evidence and pivots to wanting to talk about why they think FE is wrong. This deflection reveals the fragility of their position when core assumptions are questioned. I strongly predict that the same will occur in this thread.

Cox's acknowledgment represents a rare moment of honesty from the scientific establishment about the validity of a central aspect of the Flat Earth Society's cosmology.

[Tom Bishop]

Brian Cox appears to be enamored with the idea. During the same lecture on his history of gravity portion, Brian Cox explains that the earth is accelerating upwards:

https://twitter.com/ThatGuyM77/status/1763294353496137999

[AATW]

Some explanation about what’s really going on here. Interesting stuff.

[Tom Bishop]

That video actually goes through the evidence and affirms that the physical reality is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards. Upwards acceleration of the earth's surface doesn't work if the Earth is a ball, so unseen realms of existence are invented where mechanics are occurring beyond our perception. All of the curved space metaphysics are an effort to explain the results of laboratory experiments which say that the surface is accelerating, upwards under a round earth mindset.

The reason why we always just see Brian Cox or others merely explaining what it is, but we never see direct defense of the upward acceleration of the earth's surface through space time, is because it is ridiculous beyond words and practically indefensible. These unseen realms exist because they must exist. The wider proofs for relativity, such as the relativity solar system fix to the retrograde motion of Mercury, are hardly sufficient to tell us that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards in an unseen realm, and the Mercury proof has been alleged to be tweaked to get that result.

This issue with gravity is enough on its own to settle the matter for me and overshadows everything else. If you believe in the truth to the motion of bodies, then you must believe in Flat Earth. If you are willing to believe in weird metaphysics in unseen realms where things can appear to be moving but are not moving, then you can believe in the Round Earth. Any other topic diversions and wuddabouts will leave open the issue that there is practically no evidence for the absurd notion that the earth's surface is accelerating upwards through space time. We are expected to believe in an absurdity to the concept of motion, on blind faith alone.

[AATW]

That video actually goes through the evidence and affirms that the physical reality is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards.

lol. He literally doesn’t use the word physical or physically once. He explains quite well how the acceleration is not physical.

Upwards acceleration of the earth's surface doesn't work if the Earth is a ball, so unseen realms of existence are invented where mechanics are occurring beyond our perception.

Also not true. He also explains how this explains gravitational red shift and time dilation. Both of these things have been verified experimentally and he mentions how time dilation is taken in to account in GPS satellites. This isn’t blind faith, these are predictions of Einstein’s theories and have been observed to be true.

The reason why we always just see Brian Cox or others merely explaining what it is, but we never see direct defense of the upward acceleration of the earth's surface through space time, is because it is ridiculous beyond words

As a wise man once said (see my sig)
“Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."



You continue to conflate “I don’t understand this” with “this is not possible”. And curiously you do so while cherry picking parts of mainstream science where it suits your agenda. There’s no crime in being ignorant, but it’s a little silly to base a whole worldview on that ignorance.

[Tom Bishop]

That video actually goes through the evidence and affirms that the physical reality is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards.

lol. He literally doesn’t use the word physical or physically once. He explains quite well how the acceleration is not physical.

Actually, he does say that the upwards acceleration manifests as physical phenomena. At around the 5:50 mark he explains:

this means when the light travels
up its frequency reduces and in light
when the frequency reduces it goes
towards red end of the Spectrum in other
words we get a red shift due to gravity
this is something that Newton did not
predict so if Einstein is indeed right
we should see gravitational red shift
and we saw it you can Google pound rebka
experiment for more details

Light shifts red, indicating that the ceiling of the building is accelerating away. The Newtonian theory of bodies falling "down" does not predict this. It is using the same mechanism of a policeman's radar gun which uses the red or blue shift of light to determine acceleration. When cars are accelerating away from the policeman, the light redshifts. In this experiment the doppler shift is coined as "gravitational redshift", and in the opposite direction towards the ground light blueshifts as the earth accelerates into it, all expected physical effects on an upwardly accelerating surface. This is one of many experiments which tells us that the earth is accelerating upwards.

Direct experiments on the earth's surface tell us that the earth is accelerating upwards. Bending space and physics in unseen dimensions are used to explain this as an illusion of a metaphysical realm where the earth is not exploding apart from itself. The evidence itself of the surface's upward acceleration is undeniable as far as experimentation is concerned, and "bending space" is the resulting cope mechanism.

Upwards acceleration of the earth's surface doesn't work if the Earth is a ball, so unseen realms of existence are invented where mechanics are occurring beyond our perception.

Also not true.

Have you seen the earth's surface accelerating upwards through bending space? If not, then it is unseen. You are talking about unseen physics in unseen realms, which is nonsense to say the least.

The reason why we always just see Brian Cox or others merely explaining what it is, but we never see direct defense of the upward acceleration of the earth's surface through space time, is because it is ridiculous beyond words

As a wise man once said (see my sig)
“Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

That's not the only part of the argument. The other part is that there is a lack of evidence that the earth's surface is accelerating upwards through space time or bending space.

You continue to conflate “I don’t understand this” with “this is not possible”. And curiously you do so while cherry picking parts of mainstream science where it suits your agenda. There’s no crime in being ignorant, but it’s a little silly to base a whole worldview on that ignorance.

Actually this thread shows that mainstream science is cherry picking what to accept. It can't accept an upwardly accelerating earth, so here you are mumbling on their behalf about alternate dimensions that you can't show us.

[Longtitube]

Direct experiments on the earth's surface tell us that the earth is accelerating upwards.

The OP and the relevant wiki articles all frequently and approvingly refer to the Equivalence Principle when discussing UA, but the EP states that acceleration of the Earth and gravitational acceleration are experimentally indistinguishable. How then can experiments on the Earth’s surface tell us that it’s the Earth physically accelerating upwards, not gravity pulling us towards Earth?

The OP has some explaining to do before rubbishing general relativity.

[AATW]

Actually, he does say that the upwards acceleration manifests as physical phenomena. At around the 5:50 mark he explains

I won't bother re-quoting the part you quoted in which he doesn't say it's a physical phenomenon at all.
He very carefully explains that it's the time dilation which causes the shift. Nothing physical at all. With the cones he explains how the ground can be accelerating upwards on different sides of the earth without the earth expanding. Not sure why you are ignoring that.
The cherry picked quote doesn't even say what you claim.

It is using the same mechanism of a policeman's radar gun which uses the red or blue shift of light to determine acceleration. When cars are accelerating away from the policeman, the light redshifts.

You think the cars have to be accelerating for them to work? That would be very inefficient, they'd never catch anyone speeding who is going at a constant speed. They do work by Doppler shift, usually of radar not visible light. Some use lasers and they also use the time taken for the signal to return to the device.

That's not the only part of the argument. The other part is that there is a lack of evidence that the earth's surface is accelerating upwards through space time or bending space.

The evidence is the observations and experiments. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts these things, Newton's doesn't. Multiple experiments have been done which observe the things Einstein predicted. That's how we know that Einstein's model of gravity is better than Newton's. Although Newton's works fine in most circumstances. As I said, GPS satellites take Relativistic effects into account in order for it to work accurately
https://www.gpsworld.com/inside-the-box-gps-and-relativity/

Actually this thread shows that mainstream science is cherry picking what to accept. It can't accept an upwardly accelerating earth

Another one of your "no u" arguments.
You literally started this thread by citing Brian Cox explaining how earth is accelerating upwards. My video also says that, but it also explains that it is not a physical acceleration - again, the cone thing. It's an acceleration through spacetime. The weird thing is on this Wiki page you use Relativity to explain why UA doesn't accelerate the earth beyond the speed of light:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light

This is another example of your cherry picking. You use Relativity to explain things when it suits you, you dismiss it as some magical mystical thing which can't be true when it doesn't suit you.

[Tom Bishop]

Direct experiments on the earth's surface tell us that the earth is accelerating upwards.

The OP and the relevant wiki articles all frequently and approvingly refer to the Equivalence Principle when discussing UA, but the EP states that acceleration of the Earth and gravitational acceleration are experimentally indistinguishable. How then can experiments on the Earth’s surface tell us that it’s the Earth physically accelerating upwards, not gravity pulling us towards Earth?

The OP has some explaining to do before rubbishing general relativity.

The problem is that you read a sentence about gravity from physicists and think that it's talking about Newtonian Gravity because that is the topic in dispute here. Those the same physicists also say that General Relativity succeeded Newtonian Gravity long ago. The gravity they are talking about is General Relativity. They are saying that upwards acceleration of the earth's surface and the General Relativity theory of gravity are experimentally indistinguishable in laboratory experiments. You will also find that those sentences of indistinguishability appear in articles about the history and advantages of Einsteinian gravity, giving additional context to which gravity it is talking about.

Newtonian Gravity where things fall "down" has a litany of problems, such as not predicting the redshifting of light when pointed at a ceiling, as mentioned above.

Another problem is that Newtonian Gravity actually predicts that objects with twice the mass will fall twice as fast, and this fixed with ad-hoc bandaid mechanisms. A Space.com article Relativity: The Thought Experiments Behind Einstein's Theory by astrophysicist Paul Sutter explains that under a plain interpretation of how Newtonian Gravity pulls on objects, a body with twice the mass of another should fall faster. Newtonian Gravity requires a separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence for bodies to fall equally. It is suggested in this article that this is an ad-hoc mechanism to explain physical phenomena.

“ Einstein's first insight into the nature of gravity was to put a new twist on an old idea. In Isaac Newton's original mathematical description of gravity ("OG"?), there's an odd coincidence when it comes to the concept of "mass." In one famous equation, F = ma, mass is your inertia — how much oomph it takes to shove you along. In Newton's other equation on gravity, mass is more like gravitational charge — the level of attraction you might feel toward the Earth, for example.

Objects with twice the mass feel twice the attraction toward the Earth, and should therefore fall twice as quickly. But years back, Galileo Galilei had conclusively shown that they don't: Neglecting air resistance, all objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass.

Thus for Newton's theory to work, inertial mass had to be the same as gravitational mass, but only by sheer coincidence: there was no reason for this equality to hold. For an object with twice the mass, the Earth may pull on it twice as strongly, but this is perfectly canceled out by the fact that it's now twice as hard to get the object moving. Inertial and gravitational masses move in perfect lockstep.

This odd correspondence had long been a puzzle in gravitational circles, but in 1907, Einstein took it one step further. The physicist imagined what would happen if you were to fall from a great height. Again neglecting air resistance, your inertial and gravitational masses would cancel, making you feel perfectly weightless, as if there were no gravity at all. But zero-gravity environments are precisely the playground of Special Relativity, the theory he had cooked up just a couple years prior that wove our conceptions of space and time into the unified fabric of spacetime.

To Einstein, this was a major clue. Lurking in the shadows of gravity was his precious special relativity and the essential concept of space-time, and what made that realization possible was the elevation of the equivalence between inertial and gravitational masses into a fundamental principle, rather than the awkward afterthought it had been. ”

As mentioned above, it is a sheer coincidence that they are equal. For example, if the gravity field of the earth were stronger it would increase the 'gravitational mass' of the object. It would no longer match the inertial resistance of an object. It is incredible that the earth is a special planet where the gravity field exactly matches what is necessary to cause this weightless effect.

This weightless effect where bodies of differing masses fall together is so absurd that Einstein recognized it for what it is, the upwards acceleration of the Earth's surface. In another video about bodies which fall together, Brian Cox explains:

"The reason, why the bowling ball and the feather, fall together is because they are not falling! They are standing still! There is no force acting on them at all! He (Einstein) reasoned, that if you couldn't see the background, the'd be no way of knowing, that the ball and and the feathers are being accelerated towards the Earth - so he concluded ... they weren't"

Brian Cox seems to be in love with this idea of the earth accelerating upwards, that he can't help but bring it up again and again and again, throwing this absurdity in our face and celebrating how weird physics is that it is this way.

[markjo]

It appears that one should be wary of which YouTube physicist's explanation you should believe.  It seems that space-time diagrams showing curvature have been mistaken for space-time curvature causing some confusion as to the actual cause of gravity.

[Longtitube]

Direct experiments on the earth's surface tell us that the earth is accelerating upwards.

The OP and the relevant wiki articles all frequently and approvingly refer to the Equivalence Principle when discussing UA, but the EP states that acceleration of the Earth and gravitational acceleration are experimentally indistinguishable. How then can experiments on the Earth’s surface tell us that it’s the Earth physically accelerating upwards, not gravity pulling us towards Earth?

The OP has some explaining to do before rubbishing general relativity.

The problem is that you read a sentence about gravity from physicists and think that it's talking about Newtonian Gravity because that is the topic in dispute here. Those the same physicists also say that General Relativity succeeded Newtonian Gravity long ago. The gravity they are talking about is General Relativity. They are saying that upwards acceleration of the earth's surface and the General Relativity theory of gravity are experimentally indistinguishable in laboratory experiments. You will also find that those sentences of indistinguishability appear in articles about the history and advantages of Einsteinian gravity, giving additional context to which gravity it is talking about.

Remarkable. I'll be blunt then, which experiments on Earth's surface tell us it's the Earth physically accelerating upwards, not gravity pulling us towards Earth?

Your difficulties with Brian Cox are at least partly accounted for by his mischievous nature – in the original video you referenced, he's already mocked people calling him a paid NASA shill by claiming that's how he can afford to stay in the Raffles Hotel, Singapore, lol. General Relativity builds on the work of Special Relativity by developing a means of relating different frames of reference where acceleration and/or rotation are involved. The mathematical methods of accomplishing this are indeed very high-level, but they allow us to consider a reference frame with the Earth moving upwards through space if that suits the case we want to analyse. Cox and others enjoy provoking the viewer's interest by citing just such a case, as well as having a dig at those who believe the Earth is physically accelerating upwards. Protesting about "metaphysical mathematics" only shows no appreciation of the breadth and scope of the subject – it's beyond my pay grade too, but you might at least try. On the other hand, UA is easily dismantled with some experimental evidence and schoolboy physics.

Should anyone's interest be piqued, Einstein himself wrote a more accessible book on both SR and GR. https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf

[Tom Bishop]

Remarkable. I'll be blunt then, which experiments on Earth's surface tell us it's the Earth physically accelerating upwards, not gravity pulling us towards Earth?

It's mostly all the stuff you have already heard about.

- Light redshifts when pointed at a ceiling. This is predicted by the earth's upward acceleration, as the ceiling accelerates away from the light. It is not predicted by Newtonian Gravity.

- The perceived information from a clock speeds up as the clock increases in height above you. This is predicted by the upward acceleration of a surface, where the observer is accelerating into the broadcasted photons. It is not predicted by Newtonian Gravity.

- Bodies and particles of different masses fall together, despite that they have different inertial resistances and require different amounts of energy to be moved. This is predicted by an upwards accelerating earth, and requires an absurd coincidence in Newtonian Gravity, as described by the above space.com article.

- Bodies are weightless as they fall. A strand of hair or globule of water will have different parts of its atoms moving up and down weightlessly, when a downward pulling gravity should be pulling all atoms "down" together. If a flat falling rope or strand of hair is falling, pulled downwards at every atom, even at the same rate, it should not freely flex and bunch in every direction and deform as if in a weightless environment. In loosely connected matter such as water, a hair, or a rope, there should be resistance against the downwards pulling gravity if some atoms try to go upwards in relation to the rest.

The reason these phenomena are being pointed out with interest by physicists in the relativity articles is because it's not something Newtonian Gravity adequately predicts. The weightless absurdity is Einstein's "Happiest Thought", which led him to his Equivalence Principle. Why would he be so happy if it was something that was adequately explained for centuries? These phenomena are pointed out as wow amazing in the introduction to relativity texts because they go against intuition of a world where things are being pulled downwards, instead suggesting that the surface is being pushed upwards. If Newtonian Gravity predicted everything fine there would be no reason to replace it.

[Tom Bishop]

Your difficulties with Brian Cox are at least partly accounted for by his mischievous nature – in the original video you referenced, he's already mocked people calling him a paid NASA shill by claiming that's how he can afford to stay in the Raffles Hotel, Singapore, lol.

It's not only Brian Cox saying this, see these collected quotes from https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

Gravity: A Very Short Introduction

From Gravity: A Very Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton, we read:

“ Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs! ”

Why Is Spacetime Curved?

In a section titled Why Is Spacetime Curved? of the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe by John Richard Gott III, professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, we read:

“ A famous (perhaps apocryphal) story about Einstein describes one occasion when he fell into conversation with a man at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. During their chat, the man suddenly pulled a little book from his coat pocket and jotted something down. Einstein asked, “What is that?" “Oh,” the man answered, “it's a notebook I keep, so that any time I have a good idea I can write it down before I forget it.” “I never needed one of those," Einstein replied. “I only had three good ideas.”

One of them occurred to him in 1907—what he would later call the “happiest” idea of his life. Einstein noted that an observer on Earth and an observer on an accelerating spaceship in interstellar space would have the same sensations. Follow this chain of thought to see why. Galileo had shown that an observer dropping two balls of different mass on Earth sees them hit the floor at the same time. If an observer in an accelerating rocket in interstellar space performed the same experiment, dropping two balls of different mass, they would float motionless in space—but, since the rocket was firing, the floor of the spaceship would simply come up and hit both of them at once. Both observers thus should see the same thing. In one case, it is the result of gravity; in the other case, it is caused by an accelerating floor with no gravity involved. But then Einstein proposed something very bold—if the two situations looked the same, they must be the same. Gravity was nothing more than an accelerated frame-of-reference. Likewise, Einstein noted that if you get in an elevator on Earth and cut the cable, you and everything in the elevator will fall toward Earth at the same rate. (Galileo again—objects of different mass all fall at the same rate.) So, how do things look to you in the falling elevator? Any object you drop will float weightless in the elevator—because you, the object, and the elevator are all falling at the same rate together. This is exactly what you would see if you were in a spaceship floating in interstellar space. All the objects in the spaceship, including you, would be weightless. If you want to experience weightlessness just like an astronaut, all you have to do is get in an elevator and cut the cable. (This works, of course, only until the elevator hits bottom.)

Einstein's assertion that gravity and acceleration are, the same—which he called the equivalence principle—was influenced, no doubt, by his previous success in equating the situation of a stationary magnet and a moving charge with that of a stationary charge and a moving magnet. But if gravity and accelerated motion were the same, then gravity was nothing but accelerated motion. Earth's surface was simply accelerating upward. This explained why a heavy ball and a light ball, when dropped, hit the floor at the same time. When the balls are released, they just float there—weightless. The floor (Earth) simply comes up and hits them. What a remarkably fresh way of looking at things!

Still one must ask how Earth’s surface could be accelerating upward (away from Earth's center) if Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon. The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering spacetime to be curved.

Einstein proposed that mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. It took him 8 years of hard work to derive the equations governing this. He had to learn the abstruse geometry of curved higher dimensional spaces. He had to learn about the Riemannian curvature tensor—a mathematical monster with 256 components telling how spacetime could be curved. This was very difficult mathematics, and Einstein ran upon many false leads. But he didn't give up because he had great faith in the idea. ”

Relativity Visualized

“ Einstein’s view of gravity is that things don’t fall; the floor comes up! ”
                  —Epstein, Lewis Carroll: Relativity Visualized. (Insight Press, San Francisco, 1988) pp. 65 ff.

Tony Goldsmith

Tony Goldsmith, author of a mass-media book Space-time for Absolute Beginners and his Absolute Beginner book series, explains the Equivalence Principle as follows:

“ When you are in a lift you may be accelerated. Where is this coming from? It is the lift pushing you up.

Einstein said that the Earth does the same as a lift (which has an acceleration of g). The Earth isn't in the way; it is doing the pushing. This is his Equivalence Principle. ”

Why Gravity is NOT a Force

A popular science video by Veritasium with over 10 million views, Why Gravity is NOT a Force, explains at the 9:57 mark how in General Relativity you accelerate upwards without changing your spatial coordinates with the General Relativity equation:

“ But if I'm accelerating up and so is everyone else around the world and presumably the whole surface of the Earth, then shouldn't the whole earth be expanding?

No. It is possible for you to be accelerating even though your spatial coordinates are not changing. I will show you one equation from General Relativity...

(equation)

...so in curved space-time you have to accelerate just to stand still. ”

Inner Life of Numbers

In a book on how math relates to the universe One to Nine: The Inner Life of Numbers by mathematician Andrew Hodges, he describes that the earth's surface is accelerating upwards against your feet in the geometry of curved space-time:

“ Earth's mass curves the geometry of space-time in such a way that the Earth's surface is always accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/sec^2 and so presses on your feet. Weight doesn't exist, but the Earth's electromagnetic forces push harder on fat boys than on slim. This sounds crazy, but it is no crazier than the fact that if you steam straight ahead on a sphere you will end up back where you started. Such things are made possible by curvature. ”

Earth’s Surface Accelerates Up (and Out)

A physics student, Berry, came across this subject and made us a brief paper about what he learned in his upper level physics classes, showing the math on how in the globe model of gravity the surface of the earth is actually accelerating upwards.

“ This paper uses the Schwarzchild geometry utilized by the current globe Earth model to show that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards. ”

The video Markjo posted above also has the earth accelerating upwards at the twelve minute mark:

[Longtitube]

Remarkable. I'll be blunt then, which experiments on Earth's surface tell us it's the Earth physically accelerating upwards, not gravity pulling us towards Earth?

It's mostly all the stuff you have already heard about.

- Light redshifts when pointed at a ceiling. ...
- The perceived information from a clock speeds up as the clock increases in height above you....
- Bodies and particles of different masses fall together...
- Bodies are weightless as they fall...

The reason these phenomena are being pointed out with interest by physicists in the relativity articles is because it's not something Newtonian Gravity adequately predicts.

You are assuming I have objections to General Relativity as an explanation of gravity – incorrect, I have no particular difficulties with it, despite the mathematical challenges. However, none of the phenomena you have listed, or the many others referenced in the wiki, demonstrate that Earth is physically accelerating upwards. This is entirely consistent with the Equivalence Principle, that a person standing inside a closed box on Earth would be unable to distinguish his circumstances from being instead in a box in empty space being accelerated at 9.8ms^-2. You seem to think GR means a flat earth is forever physically accelerating upwards, but GR doesn't make that claim. It instead says that with a suitable reference frame, Earth can be considered as accelerating towards the apple. It's the same story Einstein repeatedly uses, that of the passenger on the train versus the observer on the railway embankment: to the passenger, the embankment can be regarded as moving relative to the train. He nowhere says the embankment must be moving and the train at rest.

If we confine the application of the theory to the case where the gravitational fields can be regarded as being weak, and in which all masses move with respect to the co-ordinate system with velocities which are small compared with the velocity of light, we then obtain as a first approximation the Newtonian theory. Albert Einstein

You'll find that quotation in the book I referred to above. Should you know of an experiment which clearly indicates Earth is physically accelerating upwards, I'd be delighted to hear of it.

[Tom Bishop]

That was your third post in this thread you have already abandoned Newtonian Gravity and the idea that objects fall "downwards." What will you abandon in another three posts? Will it be the insistence on unseen dimensions, metaphysical curvature, or perhaps the reliance on abstract mathematics that only serves to obscure the reality of the Earth's upward acceleration?

Things do not "fall" to the ground. The so-called "falling" is nothing more than the result of the Earth accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s², as evidenced by direct observations and experiments. The fact that reality is this way shows that the earth is flat, not that we must create abstract explanations to explain it. The flat earth model simply accepts what the evidence directly shows without requiring extra mathematical dimensions or "curvature" that nobody can see. Your theory of gravity, however, attempts to explain these phenomena by resorting to an interdimensional simulation of upward acceleration through curved spacetime. This is not only convoluted but also entirely unnecessary. Inventing bizarre physics to fit a Round Earth paradigm is the wrong approach.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the upwards acceleration of the surface as the  more direct explanation of physical reality. The upwards acceleration of a flat surface does not require the metaphysical gymnastics of curved spacetime or the invention of unseen realms. The earth is not continually exploding apart from itself interdimensionally in a desperate explanation of reality.  It relies on observable phenomena and empirical data, while your Round Earth model continually retreats into abstraction whenever its foundational assumptions are questioned.

You seem to think GR means a flat earth is forever physically accelerating upwards, but GR doesn't make that claim. It instead says that with a suitable reference frame, Earth can be considered as accelerating towards the apple.

The experiments show that there is clear physical evidence supporting the idea that the Earth is accelerating upwards. Yet you dismiss this as merely mathematical, claiming we can "consider" the Earth as accelerating upwards without it being physically real. This is outright denial of physical evidence and a refusal to engage with reality.

Let’s examine your position. How can the surface of the Earth be "accelerating upwards" in some unseen mathematical dimension while its physical effects, such as redshifts, time dilation, and weightlessness in free fall, are undeniably real and observable? If the effects are real and measurable, then why isn’t the mechanical process of upward acceleration also real?

Your response reveals the lengths to which defenders of this absurd theory must go to justify their position. By retreating into abstract, unseen models and redefining physical phenomena as "considerations," you sidestep the evidence at hand. This isn’t an argument grounded in science, it's an exercise in creating convoluted explanations to prop up an outdated paradigm.

When pressed to defend your position, you resort to nonsensical jargon and metaphysical abstractions, which only highlight the weaknesses in your argument. The most direct explanation, supported by experimentation and direct observation, is that the Earth is physically accelerating upwards; no unseen dimensions or "considerations" required.

[AATW]

Things do not "fall" to the ground. The so-called "falling" is nothing more than the result of the Earth accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s², as evidenced by direct observations and experiments.

Then why do your cherry-picked quotes not say that then. Literally the first one you quote says:

In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time

And:

That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

Once again you've quoted something which doesn't even say what you're trying to pretend it says.
And in your model why doesn't the acceleration mean the earth is now going faster than the speed of light? Don't worry, bro, special relativity has you covered:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Why_doesn.27t_the_Earth.27s_velocity_reach_the_speed_of_light.3F

Cherry picking again. You dismiss Special Relativity as some "abstract explanation" when it suits you, you accept and use it to explain other things when it suits you.
It's so intellectually dishonest. And once again you conflate "I don't understand this" with "this can't be true". The rest of your post is a box set of your arguments from incredulity. As a "wise" man once said:

Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument

[WTF_Seriously]

Inventing bizarre physics to fit a Round Earth paradigm is the wrong approach.

This statement from someone who postulates Electromagnetic Acceleration and even has a mathematical, as yet, undefined constant named for him is beyond comical.

[markjo]

Inventing bizarre physics to fit a Round Earth paradigm is the wrong approach.

This statement from someone who postulates Electromagnetic Acceleration and even has a mathematical, as yet, undefined constant named for him is beyond comical.

I'm curious about the bizarre physics that would be needed to uniformly accelerate the flat earth and all of the celestial objects.

[Tom Bishop]

Things do not "fall" to the ground. The so-called "falling" is nothing more than the result of the Earth accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s², as evidenced by direct observations and experiments.

Then why do your cherry-picked quotes not say that then. Literally the first one you quote says:

In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time

And:

That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

Once again you've quoted something which doesn't even say what you're trying to pretend it says.

The quotes I provided support the understanding that the surface of the Earth exhibits effects consistent with upward acceleration. While you continue to come up with an argument in favor of "space-time," the observable phenomena, gravitational redshift, time dilation, and weightlessness, are consistent with upward motion. The distinction between "mechanical" upward acceleration and the "space-time curvature" explanation hinges on interpretation, but the physical effects remain identical. My interpretation is based on direct observations rather than metaphysical constructs.

And in your model why doesn't the acceleration mean the earth is now going faster than the speed of light? Don't worry, bro, special relativity has you covered:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Why_doesn.27t_the_Earth.27s_velocity_reach_the_speed_of_light.3F

Cherry picking again. You dismiss Special Relativity as some "abstract explanation" when it suits you, you accept and use it to explain other things when it suits you.

Actually that section is addressing a believer in SR who believes that there is a speed of light limit. They are incorrect about what SR says. Special Relativity's limit on the speed of light is well-understood, and the explanation provided in the TFES Wiki shows why constant acceleration does not violate this principle. The velocity asymptotically approaches the speed of light due to relativistic effects, meaning it never exceeds it.

Your accusation of cherry-picking is unfounded. Whether Special Relativity is real, or whether it is entirely false and there is no light speed limit, what matters is that the observed phenomena for gravity align with upward acceleration.

It's so intellectually dishonest. And once again you conflate "I don't understand this" with "this can't be true". The rest of your post is a box set of your arguments from incredulity.

The argument is not based on incredulity but on the simplicity and directness of the evidence. The Flat Earth model accepts the observed upward acceleration without invoking unseen dimensions or speculative theories like space-time curvature. The incredulity lies in the need for such convoluted frameworks when the phenomena can be explained more intuitively.

[WTF_Seriously]

The flat Earth model accepts the observed upward acceleration without invoking unseen dimensions or speculative theories like space-time curvature. The incredulity lies in the need for such convoluted frameworks when the phenomena can be explained more intuitively.

What non-speculative theory explains how upward acceleration stops the second one steps off the earth until such a time that an object has acquired enough distance from the earth to cause it to accelerate upward at the same rate?

And, while you're at it, please explain what non-speculative theory explains the force causing this upward acceleration.

Then you can tell us what non-speculative theory explains why sunlight travels different distances across the surface of the flat earth.

I guess I already mentioned above that wonderful non-speculative theory that is EA.