[rabinoz]

You dont even need Occams Razor here. UA is demonstrably false and hopelessly unprovable while gravity is the complete opposite. It might also be why no actually university trained scientist supports UA.

That's a cool opinion, but you've provided no evidence to support your claim. Feel free to do that anytime.

Touché.
Just as you have never shown any actual evidence for Universal Acceleration, other than not liking gravitation, go guessing that is must be something else.

Which might be why quite a few flat earthers are desperately looking for a better "solution":
         "Aether push" - Sandokhan.
         "Aether something or other", JRowesceptic.
         "Denspressure" - sceptimatic (Sceppy) and quite a few others.
         "Things just have a natural propensity to fall down" - a few have actually claimed this.
         "Newtonian Gravity over an infinite flat earth" - John Davis.

And more ideas? You are "free thinkers" after all?
Of course, I am forgetting the thoughtful fantasiser, farolero.
         "gravity is just centrifugal force"
         "gravity is just inflation" just a perverted version UA.

But all is not happy in the UA camp.

You've failed to make any actual point here, or even put forth an actual argument. Your conjecture about what others believe is irrelevant. Maybe try having a discussion instead of the strawman you've constructed here.

You claim about figgs "That's a cool opinion, but you've provided no evidence to support your claim. Feel free to do that anytime."
And I claim that "you have never shown any actual evidence for Universal Acceleration, other than not liking gravitation, go guessing that is must be something else."
and you say "You've failed to make any actual point here, or even put forth an actual argument."

That is a bit rich from someone who has "never shown any actual evidence for Universal Acceleration"!
And, no it is not "conjecture about what others believe", but actual posts and threads they have made.

As I said not only is there no "actual evidence for Universal Acceleration", but "all is not happy in the UA camp". Many FEers are scratching around for something more plausible to explain what we call gravity.

Sure, you might like debating by the rules, while I would like to see the facts come out.

[juner]

You dont even need Occams Razor here. UA is demonstrably false and hopelessly unprovable while gravity is the complete opposite. It might also be why no actually university trained scientist supports UA.

That's a cool opinion, but you've provided no evidence to support your claim. Feel free to do that anytime.

Touché.
Just as you have never shown any actual evidence for Universal Acceleration, other than not liking gravitation, go guessing that is must be something else.

Which might be why quite a few flat earthers are desperately looking for a better "solution":
         "Aether push" - Sandokhan.
         "Aether something or other", JRowesceptic.
         "Denspressure" - sceptimatic (Sceppy) and quite a few others.
         "Things just have a natural propensity to fall down" - a few have actually claimed this.
         "Newtonian Gravity over an infinite flat earth" - John Davis.

And more ideas? You are "free thinkers" after all?
Of course, I am forgetting the thoughtful fantasiser, farolero.
         "gravity is just centrifugal force"
         "gravity is just inflation" just a perverted version UA.

But all is not happy in the UA camp.

You've failed to make any actual point here, or even put forth an actual argument. Your conjecture about what others believe is irrelevant. Maybe try having a discussion instead of the strawman you've constructed here.

You claim about figgs "That's a cool opinion, but you've provided no evidence to support your claim. Feel free to do that anytime."
And I claim that "you have never shown any actual evidence for Universal Acceleration, other than not liking gravitation, go guessing that is must be something else."
and you say "You've failed to make any actual point here, or even put forth an actual argument."

That is a bit rich from someone who has "never shown any actual evidence for Universal Acceleration"!
And, no it is not "conjecture about what others believe", but actual posts and threads they have made.

As I said not only is there no "actual evidence for Universal Acceleration", but "all is not happy in the UA camp". Many FEers are scratching around for something more plausible to explain what we call gravity.

Sure, you might like debating by the rules, while I would like to see the facts come out.

I'd suggest stepping off a small chair for some first hand evidence of acceleration.

[rabinoz]

I'd suggest stepping off a small chair for some first hand evidence of acceleration.

due to gravity.

[Boots]

I'd suggest stepping off a small chair for some first hand evidence of acceleration.

A long walk off a short pier would work as well. 

[fliggs]

Quite simply, gravity is by far the easiest and most consistent explanation for our universal observations

Except for the part where the scientific consensus acknowledges that it's not consistent, and that a the model needs to be improved before it can be considered accurate. But hey, let's not let that get in the way of your beliefs.

not consistent?  This must be where you talk about Dark Matter while thinking you know anything about it at all. Dark Matter is a GALACTIC LEVEL issue that will in time modify the galactic level gravity equations but which here on earth are PERFECT.

You really dont know much about the scientific method or how science routinely modifies and improves on its understanding without throwing it all away.

Flat Earth explains nothing while being provably debunked by satelites, aircraft, anyone with a telscope or an education.

[rabinoz]

Quite simply, gravity is by far the easiest and most consistent explanation for our universal observations

Except for the part where the scientific consensus acknowledges that it's not consistent, and that a the model needs to be improved before it can be considered accurate. But hey, let's not let that get in the way of your beliefs.

As far as I know, all "Laws" have a limited scope where they are known to be accurate.
     The gas "laws" fail at extremely low and high temperatures and pressures.
     Newton's "laws of motion" fail at extreme velocities (approaching "c" - UA would be deeper doo-doo without it).
     Neither Newtonian gravitation nor GR fits into Quantum Mechanics.
I don't doubt there are numerous other cases.

In other words essentially all of the "Laws of Physics" have a limited range of validity.

So, Newtonian Gravitation or even General Relativity may not be applicable on a very huge or very small scales.

Both, however, explain gravitation very accurately in our local environment and even over the whole of the solar system any corrections are minute.

But, and this is the crux of the whole matter, you would have no idea about these "discrepancies" if they were not publicised by these scientists that you claim are so dishonest!

So, what about sticking to
     the here (let's say earth, Solar System and the "nearby stars") and leave cosmology to the cosmologists, and
     the now (say recorded history), and leave the origins to those who like delving into the dusty past.

[fliggs]

Quite simply, gravity is by far the easiest and most consistent explanation for our universal observations

Except for the part where the scientific consensus acknowledges that it's not consistent, and that a the model needs to be improved before it can be considered accurate. But hey, let's not let that get in the way of your beliefs.

As far as I know, all "Laws" have a limited scope where they are known to be accurate.
     The gas "laws" fail at extremely low and high temperatures and pressures.
     Newton's "laws of motion" fail at extreme velocities (approaching "c" - UA would be deeper doo-doo without it).
     Neither Newtonian gravitation nor GR fits into Quantum Mechanics.
I don't doubt there are numerous other cases.

In other words essentially all of the "Laws of Physics" have a limited range of validity.

So, Newtonian Gravitation or even General Relativity may not be applicable on a very huge or very small scales.

Both, however, explain gravitation very accurately in our local environment and even over the whole of the solar system any corrections are minute.

But, and this is the crux of the whole matter, you would have no idea about these "discrepancies" if they were not publicised by these scientists that you claim are so dishonest!

So, what about sticking to
     the here (let's say earth, Solar System and the "nearby stars") and leave cosmology to the cosmologists, and
     the now (say recorded history), and leave the origins to those who like delving into the dusty past.

Sounds very reasonable so will of course, be completely rejected!

[juner]

Sounds very reasonable so will of course, be completely rejected!

Please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. This is your last warning.

[andruszkow]

There are a million and one objections to UA the first of which is that it is plain nuts. another is what happens to the rest of the universe which must also be undergoing the same UA or we would disappear out of our solar system in a day and out of our own galaxy in our lifetime.

Occams Razor was made for times like this. Gravity works and explains everything.

That's not how it works at all. You really should inform yourself better before making such assertions so you don't look so foolish.

It's also apparent that you don't understand Occam's Razor, either.

Occams razor was BUILT for arguments like this. Gravity is simple, consistent, measurable and simply works perfectly in explaining our observations. UA however is very complex, unexplainable, totally inconsistent and doesnt explain many observations at all while being contrary to most.

You dont even need Occams Razor here. UA is demonstrably false and hopelessly unprovable while gravity is the complete opposite. It might also be why no actually university trained scientist supports UA.

That's a cool opinion, but you've provided no evidence to support your claim. Feel free to do that anytime.

Touché.
Just as you have never shown any actual evidence for Universal Acceleration, other than not liking gravitation, go guessing that is must be something else.

Which might be why quite a few flat earthers are desperately looking for a better "solution":
         "Aether push" - Sandokhan.
         "Aether something or other", JRowesceptic.
         "Denspressure" - sceptimatic (Sceppy) and quite a few others.
         "Things just have a natural propensity to fall down" - a few have actually claimed this.
         "Newtonian Gravity over an infinite flat earth" - John Davis.

And more ideas? You are "free thinkers" after all?
Of course, I am forgetting the thoughtful fantasiser, farolero.
         "gravity is just centrifugal force"
         "gravity is just inflation" just a perverted versiob UA.

But all is not happy in the UA camp.

You've failed to make any actual point here, or even put forth an actual argument. Your conjecture about what others believe is irrelevant. Maybe try having a discussion instead of the strawman you've constructed here.

Ahhhh, man, change the record please! Add something instead of this crap junker, nobody is falling for that.

You and sexwarrior might be dumbest "smart" people I've ever experienced. Being eloquent does not change that, at all. It actually makes it worse. You're such obvious trolls, it's hard to understand just how much time you spend here.

So long.

[juner]

Ahhhh, man, change the record please! Add something instead of this crap junker, nobody is falling for that.

You and sexwarrior might be dumbest "smart" people I've ever experienced. Being eloquent does not change that, at all. It actually makes it worse. You're such obvious trolls, it's hard to understand just how much time you spend here.

So long.

Please refrain from making low content posts in the upper fora. Warned.