[shootingstar]

I would like to know what actual evidence is there that the UA is what keeps us on the ground as opposed to conventional gravity.  Since both would have the same effect why should we favour UA over gravity. Or is it a case of the UA has simply been created to make the effect of gravity work for a flat Earth model?

[Tom Bishop]

https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration

https://wiki.tfes.org/Torsion_Balance_Experiments

https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment

[shootingstar]

Would prefer some other evidence/info outside of FEW Tom if you dont mind. All the links you have listed are from FE Wiki and therefore somewhat biased. And presumably written by you.

[Tom Bishop]

Would refer some other evidence/info outside of FEW Tom if you dont mind. All the links you have listed are from FE Wiki and therefore somewhat biased. And presumably written by you.

You think that I wrote the litany of books and sources referenced, filmed that video, and conducted all of those experiments myself? 

[Bad Puppy]

"The Universal Accelerator answers this long-standing mystery, which has baffled generations of scientists, by positing that the earth is accelerating upwards. "

Which scientists, if any, have accepted this assumption as fact?

I also find it interesting that the wiki quotes Professor Cox.  Here's an interesting quote from him, too.  Perhaps this can also be added to the wiki:

"If I pick up a snowball, it's not spherical - it's kind of an irregular shape.
"But as I start adding mass to it, the gravitational pull becomes bigger.
"So I'll get to a point where this snowball will be so massive that the gravitational pull on its surface will be so strong that it will start to squash the material out of which it's made - in this case, snow. Or in the case of a planet or moon - the rock."


One more nice quote from the wiki:
"Why should something that is allegedly all around us be undetectable by all of science?"

A quick answer to this is that we haven't advanced that far scientifically.  You can go back in time in the early 1800s and ask the same question of radiation.  It doesn't make it any less real.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

"One of the primary proofs for the Universal Accelerator is the unexplained coincidence that Inertial Mass is exactly equal to Gravitational Mass...The Universal Accelerator answers this long-standing mystery, which has baffled generations of scientists, by positing that the earth is accelerating upwards."

Having an unexplained coincidence and positing that the earth is actually accelerating upwards is not evidence. That's merely an attempt to answer the conundrum.

"It makes more sense if the earth is accelerating upwards." That is a claim. That is not evidence. You cannot state that just because there are coincidences in general relativity that Einstein said, oh that's curious, it's as if its accelerating upwards. That's not evidence. That's the same inane claim made by round earthers when they say, it makes more sense that the earth is round.

[AATW]

There is no evidence for UA. But if the earth is flat then gravity is a problem so something has to be made up to replace it. This is a bit like lunar eclipses. In the real world it’s the earth’s shadow which causes them. Obviously if the earth is flat and the sun and moon are circling above it then that can’t be the explanation so they make up the “shadow object”. There’s no evidence it exists, it has never been detected, but lunar eclipses happen so it’s another fudge used to explain something.

The reasoning is always
The earth is flat
This phenomenon doesn’t make sense with a flat earth.
We’ll make up a mechanism which we have no evidence for to explain it.

There’s a bit of circular reasoning in there because when you say there’s no evidence for the mechanism they use the phenomenon the mechanism has been invented to explain as the evidence.

It’s like me saying that magnetism doesn’t exist and when people point out that certain bits of metal attract or repel claiming that there are invisible pixies that pull them together or push them apart. When the people point out I have no evidence for the pixies I can say “but the pieces of metal attract or repel...”

Celestial gravitation is another example as is EA.

What is never done is to consider that a phenomenon which doesn’t make sense on a flat earth may indicate that the earth isn’t flat...

[edby]

The measurement of acceleration across different parts of the earth was discussed extensively in this thread.

It is crucial to the UA theory that observed acceleration at ground level is the same at all points of the flat earth. However, scientific measurements indicate considerable differences, which standard gravitational theory explains very well, but for FE theory has absolutely no model.

Tom raised many objections. Here (Nov 22nd) he cites a paper apparently showing a massive departure from the value predicted by the standard model, and thereby showing (in his opinion) that the measuring equipment is defective. However, as I showed here, that number is an obvious typographical error.

In this post, Tom argues that gravimeters measure noise, rather than any true underlying effect. However the papers he cites are about the effect of measuring acceleration on moving objects such as ships. I uploaded some research of mine showing how tiny the noise is compared to the change caused by change in latitude.

Later he argued that there were unexplained ‘gravitational anomalies’ in the scientific data. I explained what an anomaly actually was, etc.

Measurement of gravitational acceleration is another nice case of where Science attempts to explain observations by means of models that try to predict them. For example, we take the many thousands of observed accelerations at different latitudes and different heights. Then we construct a mathematical model (see e.g. my post here) that attempts to explain these observations, then make a statistical comparison. The model we use happens to be consistent with a roughly spherical earth.

Tom finally objected that the differences could also be explained by other effects (e.g. Dark Matter). That is true. It could also be explained by unicorns or magic pixie dust. But the unicorn hypothesis is completely arbitrary, whereas the hypothesis of universal gravitation takes a single underlying formula to explain observations wherever they are made.

[shootingstar]

There is no evidence for UA. But if the earth is flat then gravity is a problem so something has to be made up to replace it. This is a bit like lunar eclipses. In the real world it’s the earth’s shadow which causes them. Obviously if the earth is flat and the sun and moon are circling above it then that can’t be the explanation so they make up the “shadow object”. There’s no evidence it exists, it has never been detected, but lunar eclipses happen so it’s another fudge used to explain something.

This is my point exactly. For FET to become more popular or more widely accepted it has to provide evidence for aspects of FET such as UA that provides a better explanation for real world experience than gravity does for RET. The magnitude of the force of gravity depends on mass of bodies. Being more massive than the Earth the Sun has a stronger gravitational field. Mars is less massive than Earth and so its acceleration due to gravity is less than that of Earth.  Whereas Universal Acceleration is very vague in both name and definition.

Acceleration due to gravity is a function of mass and the distance between masses.  That has been proved (and there is plenty of evidence for that). What has been proved to cause the acceleration force in UA?  So far UA is only a hypothesis of what causes the same effect as gravity in FET.

[edby]

For FET to become more popular or more widely accepted it has to provide evidence for aspects of FET such as UA that provides a better explanation for real world experience than gravity does for RET.

Example, 'free air correction', i.e. the difference in observed acceleration due to height. Newtonian theory gives the following prediction of gravity at sea level.

g  =  (G M ) / R^2

where G is the gravitational constant = 6.67408 × 10^-11
M is mass of earth = 5.972 × 10^24 kg
R is radius of earth = 6,371 km

If you multiply out these numbers you get 9.81965. Simple calculus gives the derivative of g with respect to radius

dg/dR  =  -2g/R  = -3.0826 x 10^-6

And this number agrees closely with observable measurements of gravitational acceleration at different heights above sea level.

Of course FE will object that this is merely an assumption (or as Science says, an hypothesis). Of course. The gravitational constant is a massive assumption. But as I argued in this thread, that’s exactly how Science works. Take a simple model, and the simpler the better, and see how accurately it predicts the experimental observations.

Our simple model to predict the effect of height on observed acceleration explains the effect very well (to an order of millionths of the gravitational acceleration observed at sea level). That doesn’t mean it is true or correct, only that it predicts the world very well.

FE postulates that the same effect is caused by ‘celestial gravitation’. But it has absolutely no model to predict observations. So Science prefers RE to FE for this reason (and for many other reasons, such as predictions of lighthouse visibility).