[OrigamiBoy]

The flat-earthers seem to have some nice theories about how the sun in the moon floating in the sky, and the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s.
Their theory looks like this :

One problem, how do they stay in the sky... why don't the fall back down to earth if they are so close...
And, what is causing the earth to accelerate upwards, it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.
Please debunk me with known facts

[Curious Squirrel]

Generally: The celestial bodies are also affected by UA, which is why they continue to accelerate with the Earth. There was one rather interesting posit that they are actually upon two poles coming up out of the North Pole, but that's not an idea held by most of the community.

As for what is accelerating the Earth, I don't believe they claim to know. Just as RE isn't 100% positive what causes gravity.

[juner]

And, what is causing the earth to accelerate upwards

Please see the wiki and FAQ.

it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.

Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.

[OrigamiBoy]

And, what is causing the earth to accelerate upwards

Please see the wiki and FAQ.

it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.

Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.

Please leave a link to where it specifically says what is causing the earth to accelerate instead of just saying "check wiki"

Please also explain why we can see the moon during the day, but can never see the sun during the night, on the flat earth model does not show anything that would obstruct our vision or the light from the sun.

Also, I suggest YOU do some research on acceleration and ACTUALLY debunk me.

[Tom Haws]

Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.

Please don't tell me that FE requires me to dismantle both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Or are you contemplating a non-gravity induced centripetal acceleration toward some anchoring Center Object?

[juner]

Please leave a link to where it specifically says what is causing the earth to accelerate instead of just saying "check wiki"

It is a few clicks. If you are that lazy, I am not going to indulge you.

Also, I suggest YOU do some research on acceleration and ACTUALLY debunk me.

Why would I when it is you that is clearly struggling with the concept?

Please don't tell me that FE requires me to dismantle both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Or are you contemplating a non-gravity induced centripetal acceleration toward some anchoring Center Object?

I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration. I am not making any claims as to some new phenomenon.

[Tom Haws]

I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration. I am not making any claims as to some new phenomenon.

Well, you taught an old engineer something (proper and coordinate acceleration) today. Interesting.

[ScienceFirst]

And, what is causing the earth to accelerate upwards

Please see the wiki and FAQ.

it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.

Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.

if the question is about the acceleration and the hole in the theory is that it would require a lot of energy, and you are saying 'possibly, but not necessarily', would you not want to back up that statement with evidence for why its possible and yet not necessary? That statement alone doesn't really answer the question, and in a for-and-against discussion the point of responding is to answer the opposing question! I'm curious to see the scientific reason you think its possible but not necessary! Thanks!

[OrigamiBoy]

Please leave a link to where it specifically says what is causing the earth to accelerate instead of just saying "check wiki"

It is a few clicks. If you are that lazy, I am not going to indulge you.

Also, I suggest YOU do some research on acceleration and ACTUALLY debunk me.

Why would I when it is you that is clearly struggling with the concept?

Please don't tell me that FE requires me to dismantle both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Or are you contemplating a non-gravity induced centripetal acceleration toward some anchoring Center Object?

I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration. I am not making any claims as to some new phenomenon.

Been reading the wiki and FAQ for a while now, haven't seen anything about how the earth is acceleration itself :/ a simple link would be nice.

"Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration."

Also, PLEASE back up your claims with SOME information, cite your sources, it would help people like me understand your theories more.

[Mora]

I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration. I am not making any claims as to some new phenomenon.

Then why didn't you explicit say so instead of being wishywashy? I mean really, how can you talk to others of laziness when you can't even be bothered to at least mention proper and coordinate acceleration in your original post?

An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by some other force.

Clearly the hypothesis that the Earth is constantly accelerating implies that there is some driving force. Analogously, I might exert energy to slide an object across the floor, but the object doesn't continue to accelerate long after I let go. Acceleration stops as soon as I let go, and friction brings the object to a halt. If you believe any of this to not be the case, please enlighten us.

[ghostopia]

Please leave a link to where it specifically says what is causing the earth to accelerate instead of just saying "check wiki"

It is a few clicks. If you are that lazy, I am not going to indulge you.

Also, I suggest YOU do some research on acceleration and ACTUALLY debunk me.

Why would I when it is you that is clearly struggling with the concept?

Please don't tell me that FE requires me to dismantle both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Or are you contemplating a non-gravity induced centripetal acceleration toward some anchoring Center Object?

I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration. I am not making any claims as to some new phenomenon.

Been reading the wiki and FAQ for a while now, haven't seen anything about how the earth is acceleration itself :/ a simple link would be nice.

"Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration."

Also, PLEASE back up your claims with SOME information, cite your sources, it would help people like me understand your theories more.

Actually I found it from the wiki.

Dark Energy
This model proposes that the disk of our Earth is lifted by dark energy, an unknown form of energy which, according to globularist physicists, makes up about 70% of the universe. The origin of this energy is unknown.

The only problem with this is that it does not make sense. Flat Earthers dismiss GPS and other distance calculating means saying it had originated based on Round Earth theory, but somehow they accept the concept of Dark Energy...

Also junker, constant acceleration require CONSTANT energy input. How can something accelerate without any additional energy?

[OrigamiBoy]

Dark energy... that is the vaguest answer ever I would barely even consider it prof

[Mora]

Also junker, constant acceleration require CONSTANT energy input. How can something accelerate without any additional energy?

It can't. Constant acceleration increases kinetic energy. If this constant acceleration is given "for free", then it cannot be that energy is conserved, and that's a huge contradiction with everything that we've ever observed.

Dark energy... that is the vaguest answer ever I would barely even consider it prof

To be fair, dark energy is a thing that scientists are talking about. Dark energy could be a potential explanation, but only because we don't know anything about it. We don't know what we don't know.

[ghostopia]

Dark energy... that is the vaguest answer ever I would barely even consider it prof

To be fair, dark energy is a thing that scientists are talking about. Dark energy could be a potential explanation, but only because we don't know anything about it. We don't know what we don't know.

What I intended to say is that FE'ers are cherry-picking. They reject any idea from science that contradicts with Flat Earth saying it does not work because it is based on Round Earth model. But when they find some idea that matches with their theory they just use it as proof.

[juner]

I see most of you have a minimal grasp of acceleration.

It isn’t up to me to teach you various models of acceleration that would apply in either RET or FET. For those of you still having trouble, I’d suggest going back and reading the thread again to clear up your apparent misunderstanding.

I also have no desire to get into conversations I’ve had dozens or hundreds of times over the years. I’ll point you in a direction to try to help you, but I’m not going to bother trying to convince you of something since no one so far has shown the capacity to think beyond what they think they already know.

[IHaveSeveralQuestions]

junker, you have not given any examples of how you believe acceleration should work, you've just told people to look at the FAQ. The only thing I could find there was the the Earth is accelerating and "dark energy is involved." This is obviously a very skimpy explanation and we're asking you for elaboration. But if you've couldn't explain it to all those people over the years, I couldn't expect you to do it now.

[OrigamiBoy]

junker, explain, do some research, cite some sources, AND DEBUNK US

STOP telling us to do some research, do some your self and ACTUALLY DEBUNK US

don't just say "check wiki/FAQ"

[Mora]

I see most of you have a minimal grasp of acceleration.

It isn’t up to me to teach you various models of acceleration that would apply in either RET or FET. For those of you still having trouble, I’d suggest going back and reading the thread again to clear up your apparent misunderstanding.

I also have no desire to get into conversations I’ve had dozens or hundreds of times over the years. I’ll point you in a direction to try to help you, but I’m not going to bother trying to convince you of something since no one so far has shown the capacity to think beyond what they think they already know.

I'm sorry, but 'you're ignorant, and I'm not," is not a valid argument. If we all sincerely are so desperately ignorant, proving us wrong should be trivial, especially for a master of the universe, such as yourself. Surely my BS Applied Mathematics degree with a focus on Physics is no match for your holier-than-thou physical intuition. If you fail to adress my points, I'll be forced to conclude that It's because you've got nothing.

If you truly have no desire to repeat the same conversations, then how is it that you manage to continually get tangled up in them? If you don't wish to discuss a subject, simply don't post? But look who I'm talking to. If this discussion really has happened countless times as you have said (of which I have no doubt), perhaps you could link to a post where you soundly defended your assertion. Then you have an effortless reply ready everytime new members join with the same question. Or better yet, why not merge all of these threads into one single UA Discussion Thread, giving new members no reason to post the same question over and over again? As moderator, you have the power to do this and the responsibility to aid in discussion, not hinder it.

[Tom Bishop]

junker, you have not given any examples of how you believe acceleration should work, you've just told people to look at the FAQ. The only thing I could find there was the the Earth is accelerating and "dark energy is involved." This is obviously a very skimpy explanation and we're asking you for elaboration. But if you've couldn't explain it to all those people over the years, I couldn't expect you to do it now.

The mechanism is unknown. What is hard to understand about that?

[OrigamiBoy]

Please explain why we can see the moon during the day, but can never see the sun during the night, on the flat earth model does not show anything that would obstruct our vision or the light from the sun.