[Tom Bishop]

A recent Globebusters episode had some discussion of the Universal Accelerator as held by the Flat Earth Society. They look at a PBS video which states that it was Albert Einstein who came up with the idea of an upwardly accelerating earth. We have made mention of this in the past, but here is a video. Watch the following video at the 3h4m16s mark for 15 minutes. Here is the video at that timestamp:



The video states that Einstein argued that the only way Newton's gravity makes sense is if the earth were flat and accelerating upwards. There are too many coincidences with Newton's gravity, Einstein says. Einstein ended up adapting his upwardly accelerating earth theory to the Round Earth model by making space bend, another way to make the earth accelerate, giving us General Relativity as we know it today.

[garygreen]

fwiw here's a link to the pbs video itself in case one wants to watch that first and then skip to the commentary in the op:

[LiqwdE]

Ok let me see if I can get my thoughts correct.

Newton's law of gravity will only work on a geometrically flat earth.

And Eistein law of general relativity of an upward acceleration will on work on a geometrically curved space?

Considering the shape of the earth ( whether you believe its is flat or round) is not GEOMETRICALLY flat I'm not sure of the point?

This would show the both models are not flat (geometrically speaking) which we know. But that gravity might not exists if space/time is curved. This doesnt proof of the earth is a globe or disc.

Can someone help me with this?

[Tom Bishop]

I don't think it has anything to do with the earth being "geometrically" flat. My interpretation of this is that Einstein's argument was that Newtonian Gravity is curious in that it operates as if the earth were accelerating upwards.

Firstly, Newton's gravity has all objects move at the same rate towards the earth uniformly. That is its defining feature, and this operation is suspiciously as if the earth were accelerating upwards.

Secondly, objects in free fall experience an opposite "fake" force of gravity of the same magnitude in which they are exactly weightless. An astronomical coincidence. Einstein says that the idea that the object is stationary and the earth is accelerating into it is the best conclusion and the best way to make sense of Newton's Gravity.

The Flat Earth concept comes in because it's not possible for the surface of the Round Earth model to accelerate upwards. An upwardly accelerating surface suggests that the earth is flat.

The video presenter appears to further suggest that seven years later the accelerating earth idea was adopted into General Relativity by using non-euclidean bending space to achieve the accelerating earth illusion of gravity on a Round Earth. The end of it says that Gravity is still an illusion in GR and bodies like basketballs make "straight line paths" to their destination. It is the environment that moves into the basketball with the bendy space physics.

Thus is how the Universal Accelerator came to be. No one really knows when it was adopted into the FE model. I believe that it pre-dates the modern Flat Earth Society revival. Maybe it was adopted around the time of the end of Rowbotham's Zetetic Society or sometime during Lady Blount's Universal Zetetic Society, which were in operation at around the time of General Relativity's development? A lot of their materials are still lost or undigitized. We can see that is not just something that was frivolously made up, and has an appropriate origin story.

If the concept was discussed by the old Zetetic Societies, it would be interesting to find their commentary on the matter.

[Tom Bishop]

According to Advance Search on the other forum the earliest references to "Universal Accelerator" appears in August 1st, 2006, and the Universal Accelerator is already part of the Flat Earth model, with commenters talking about it.

The earliest mention is by James:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1659.msg34051#msg34051

"I do not believe that UFOs are visitors from other planets. While interplanetary travel is actually possible (though has never been achieved by mankind), it would involve "riding" the universal accelerator rather than flying freely through space (which is simply impossible unless one can accelerate more than the UA itself). Any aliens visiting this planet would not appear in the sky, they would climb over the Antarctic wall."

If this is the very first message on the "Universal Accelerator" on the entire forum, it may be that Daniel's site lost old posts.

The earliest comment on "accelerating" in relation to an upwardly accelerating earth appears on On Dec 10, 2005:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=801.msg5476#msg5476

"I would be interested to learn how the flat-eathers believe that the Earth formed/was created and, if is accelerating upwards, where it was created."

[garygreen]

I don't think it has anything to do with the earth being "geometrically" flat. My interpretation of this is that Einstein's argument was that Newtonian Gravity is curious in that it operates as if the earth were accelerating upwards.

Firstly, Newton's gravity has all objects move at the same rate towards the earth uniformly. That is its defining feature, and this operation is suspiciously as if the earth were accelerating upwards.

Secondly, objects in free fall experience an opposite "fake" force of gravity of the same magnitude in which they are exactly weightless. An astronomical coincidence. Einstein says that the idea that the object is stationary and the earth is accelerating into it is the best conclusion and the best way to make sense of Newton's Gravity.

sort of.  you're getting a lot of the details wrong.

einstein's argument is simply that a free-falling frame of reference has the same properties as an inertial frame.  start the video at 8:00.  newton says that free-falling frames cannot be inertial because they accelerate with respect to one another.  einstein resolves this with general relativity: these objects are actually following straight line paths in a curved space.

einstein isn't making the argument that "lol gravity doesn't make sense, so it must be that the earth is accelerating."  he's arguing that two different frames (earth frame vs. free-fall frame) are actually equivalent.  the implication of this equivalence is that there is no "force" of gravity.  space itself is curved, and objects in free-fall are simply following straight lines embedded in a curved space.

[Tom Bishop]

I don't think it has anything to do with the earth being "geometrically" flat. My interpretation of this is that Einstein's argument was that Newtonian Gravity is curious in that it operates as if the earth were accelerating upwards.

Firstly, Newton's gravity has all objects move at the same rate towards the earth uniformly. That is its defining feature, and this operation is suspiciously as if the earth were accelerating upwards.

Secondly, objects in free fall experience an opposite "fake" force of gravity of the same magnitude in which they are exactly weightless. An astronomical coincidence. Einstein says that the idea that the object is stationary and the earth is accelerating into it is the best conclusion and the best way to make sense of Newton's Gravity.

sort of.  you're getting a lot of the details wrong.

einstein's argument is simply that a free-falling frame of reference has the same properties as an inertial frame.  start the video at 8:00.  newton says that free-falling frames cannot be inertial because they accelerate with respect to one another.  einstein resolves this with general relativity: these objects are actually following straight line paths in a curved space.

einstein isn't making the argument that "lol gravity doesn't make sense, so it must be that the earth is accelerating."  he's arguing that two different frames (earth frame vs. free-fall frame) are actually equivalent.  the implication of this equivalence is that there is no "force" of gravity.  space itself is curved, and objects in free-fall are simply following straight lines embedded in a curved space.

Watch at 6:13: https://youtu.be/NblR01hHK6U?t=6m13s

When bodies are in free-fall in Newtonian Gravity the downwards force exactly cancels out the fake upwards force, creating weightlessness. Einstein questions Newton on this astounding coincidence and wins the exchange with his upwards accelerating earth idea.

Seven years later Einstein develops the GR bendy space to get the upwards acceleration idea working in the Round Earth model.

[garygreen]

Watch at 6:13: https://youtu.be/NblR01hHK6U?t=6m13s

When bodies are in free-fall in Newtonian Gravity the downwards force exactly cancels out the fake upwards force, creating weightlessness. Einstein questions Newton on this astounding coincidence and wins the argument with his upwards accelerating earth idea.

that's not the crux of the argument.  newton and einstein are arguing about free-falling frames of reference.  einstein says that inertial frames and free-falling frames are the same.  a free-falling frame has all the properties of an inertial frame.  newton says no for the reasons at 8:00.  gravity must be a force.

einsteain resolves this by saying that the above is only true if space is geometrically flat.  if it is curved, then objects can travel in straight lines at a constant velocity because those lines are in a curved space.

watch the follow-up video.  pay attention to his summary of the first video at the beginning.

[Tom Bishop]

einsteain resolves this by saying that the above is only true if space is geometrically flat.  if it is curved, then objects can travel in straight lines at a constant velocity because those lines are in a curved space.

Incorrect. After Einstein won the argument with his accelerating earth concept, by pointing out the coincidence proposed by Newton, the narrator then says that seven years later Einstein develops the GR bendy space to get the upwards acceleration idea working in the Round Earth model. The upwardly accelerating earth was the seed to that model. That is the entire premise of the video from the very start.

You are linking us to videos about the bendy space theory he made seven years after steamrolling the Newtonians with the accelerating earth.

[garygreen]

After Einstein won the argument with his accelerating earth concept, the narrator then says that seven years later Einstein develops the GR bendy space to get the upwards acceleration idea working in the Round Earth model.

that's not even remotely close to what this video says.  or what einstein says.

you're taking the conceit of this video far too literally.  it wasn't an actual argument, and he's not laying things out in any kind of chronological order.  it's just a line of reasoning that you're stopping in the middle of for some reason.

newton and einstein are arguing about whether or not a free-falling frame of reference is inertial.  newton says that free-falling objects can accelerate with respect to one another, and with respect to the earth; therefore, gravity is a force.  einstein resolves this by saying that newton is right only if space is geometrically flat.  if space itself can curve, then free-falling frames can be inertial for the reasons given in videos two, three, and four.  therefore, gravity is not a force; it's just the curvature of space.

[Tom Bishop]

After Einstein won the argument with his accelerating earth concept, the narrator then says that seven years later Einstein develops the GR bendy space to get the upwards acceleration idea working in the Round Earth model.

that's not even remotely close to what this video says.  or what einstein says.

you're taking the conceit of this video far too literally.  it wasn't an actual argument, and he's not laying things out in any kind of chronological order.  it's just a line of reasoning that you're stopping in the middle of for some reason.

After the accelerating earth drama and Einstein winning the exchange with the Newtonians the narrator continues:

If, instead the world has non-eculidean and curved spacetime then straight lines and constant speed doesn't mean what you think it means. And it turns out that inertial frames in curved space time can basically do whatever they want. It took Einstein about seven years to realize that. But once he did, a beautiful model of the world emerged called General Relativity. One of the central precepts of General Relativity is that we inhabit curved space-time.

Einstein was not using his bendy space arguments against the Newtonians. He was using the accelerating earth argument, just as the narrator states. The upwardly accelerating earth is the premise of the video. The bendy space arguments did not come until later.

This is what the video literally says. If you want to make up your own version of the video and what happened, feel free. That is not what the astrophysicist says and how the situation is portrayed, however.

[Chris_Thompson]

After Einstein won the argument with his accelerating earth concept, the narrator then says that seven years later Einstein develops the GR bendy space to get the upwards acceleration idea working in the Round Earth model.

that's not even remotely close to what this video says.  or what einstein says.

you're taking the conceit of this video far too literally.  it wasn't an actual argument, and he's not laying things out in any kind of chronological order.  it's just a line of reasoning that you're stopping in the middle of for some reason.

newton and einstein are arguing about whether or not a free-falling frame of reference is inertial.  newton says that free-falling objects can accelerate with respect to one another, and with respect to the earth; therefore, gravity is a force.  einstein resolves this by saying that newton is right only if space is geometrically flat.  if space itself can curve, then free-falling frames can be inertial for the reasons given in videos two, three, and four.  therefore, gravity is not a force; it's just the curvature of space.

I agree with your conclusion, but disagree on the reasons. Newton claimed that acceleration is caused by a force. Period. The problem with this claim is that, depending on your coordinate system, you can infer "fictitious forces" which do not actually exist. Just think about two children (oppositely positioned) on a rotating carousel. If one throws a ball to the other, the ball will appear to curve. This curve is an acceleration hence a force must have caused it (we call this the Coriolis force, which does not really exist). They will have a different understanding of the cause of the motion than their parents who are standing beside the carousel.

Thus, Newton is incorrect even in Minkowski (flat) space -- the above example demonstrates this. Indeed, free-falling objects have a non-inertial reference frame, and that is the whole point. Einstein showed that one cannot distinguish between a non-inertial frame and an inertial frame that has a force. Thus, all forces must be "fictitious," and must simply be a disagreement about which coordinate system we are using. Of course, showing this mathematically is ridiculously difficult.

[Chris_Thompson]

After Einstein won the argument with his accelerating earth concept, the narrator then says that seven years later Einstein develops the GR bendy space to get the upwards acceleration idea working in the Round Earth model.

that's not even remotely close to what this video says.  or what einstein says.

you're taking the conceit of this video far too literally.  it wasn't an actual argument, and he's not laying things out in any kind of chronological order.  it's just a line of reasoning that you're stopping in the middle of for some reason.

After the accelerating earth drama and Einstein winning the exchange with the Newtonians the narrator continues:

If, instead the world has non-eculidean and curved spacetime then straight lines and constant speed doesn't mean what you think it means. And it turns out that inertial frames in curved space time can basically do whatever they want. It took Einstein about seven years to realize that. But once he did, a beautiful model of the world emerged called General Relativity. One of the central precepts of General Relativity is that we inhabit curved space-time.

Einstein was not using his bendy space arguments against the Newtonians. He was using the accelerating earth argument, just as the narrator states. The upwardly accelerating earth is the premise of the video. The bendy space arguments did not come until later.

This is what the video literally says. If you want to make up your own version of the video and what happened, feel free. That is not what the astrophysicist says and how the situation is portrayed, however.

The "bendy space" argument and the "accelerating" argument are identical. This is the whole point of general relativity. The reason something accelerates is because space is curved, and it is trying to follow the best straight line it can. When space is curved, that straight line is also, hence an acceleration manifests.

So I am very confused by your statement: "Einstein was not using his bendy space arguments against the Newtonians. He was using the accelerating earth argument." There is no difference between these two.

Sorry to jump in mid-conversation. I am just really interested in this topic and want to pick your brain. 

[garygreen]

After the accelerating earth drama and Einstein winning the exchange with the Newtonians the narrator continues:

It took Einstein about seven years to realize that.

notice that he doesn't say anything like "seven more years" or "seven years later" or "seven years after."  this isn't an actual argument that took place over some period of time.  he's just explaining einstein's position using an argument as a narrative device.  this isn't a chronological telling of a "winning exchange" between einstein on the one hand and newtonians on the other.  ffs i can't believe i even have to explain this to you. 

This is what the video literally says. If you want to make up your own version of the video and what happened, feel free. That is not what the astrophysicist says and how the situation is portrayed, however.

lol that's exactly what this video says.  that's what this whole argument is about: free-falling frames of reference.  you're just fixated on taking the narrative device completely literally and then stopping the middle for no reason.

Well, not so fast, says Einstein.  Maybe there is.  What about a frame that's in freefall?  Think about it.  If I put you in a box and drop you off a cliff, then in the frame of the box, everything just floats, weightless.  The falling frame of the box behaves just like a stationary inertial frame that's way out in intergalactic space where there's no gravity.  So why can't the box's frame be inertial?
...
Einstein says, look buddy, I'm just following your rules.  You established the test for what an inertial frame is-- release a force-free object and it stays put.  Stationary frames in intergalactic space pass that test. But freely-falling frames here on Earth also pass that test if your so-called gravity is fictitious.
...
This inability to distinguish freefall from lack of gravity has a name, by the way.  Einstein called it the equivalence principle, and if you buy it, then maybe the falling frames really are inertial.  If so, then it's the falling frames that establish the standard of non-acceleration, in which case, it's really the ground that's accelerating upward and what we've always been calling a gravitational force is an artifact of being in an accelerated frame of reference.

[Tom Bishop]

I believe you to be mistaken. The entire episode is about an accelerating earth. Einstein is talking about an accelerating earth, not "bendy space," in his argument to the Newtonians. He didn't come up with bendy space until seven years later.

This is literally what it says in the video. From the transcript:

Isaac Newton said that an Apple falls because a gravitational force  accelerates it toward the ground, but what if it's really the ground accelerating up to meet the Apple?

Suppose I drop an apple according to Isaac Newton the ground can be considered at rest Earth applies a gravitational force to the Apple and that force causes the Apple to accelerate downward but according to Einstein there's no such thing as a gravitational force instead it's more appropriate to think of the Apple as stationary and the ground along with everything on the ground as accelerating upward into the Apple.

Now what I just said sounds preposterous and maybe even moronic, but it's not sophistry. There's something substantive here, and today I'm going to clarify what exactly this point of view means why Einstein came to adopt it and how it planted the seeds for what would eventually become General Relativity.


...


Now, in Newtonian physics this is just an accounting trick that has no broader significance. Really, Dustin's car is accelerating and this extra backwards gravity is fake, but Einstein asked: Hold on, what if the so-called real downward gravity from Earth is also fake? A side effect generated because Earth's surface is really accelerating upward.

Now, you know what Newton would say. He'd say “that's crazy” and would remind us that inertial frames are the standard for measuring true acceleration. So you can only say earth is really accelerating upward if you can identify an inertial frame relative to which Earth's surface accelerates upward and there's obviously no inertial frame like that.

“Well, not so fast” says Einstein, maybe there is.

What about a frame that's in freefall? Think about it. If I put you in a box and drop you off a cliff, in the frame of the box everything just float weightless. The falling frame of the box behaves just like a stationary inertial frame that's way out in intergalactic space where there's no gravity. So why can't the box's frame be inertial as well?

Because, Newton says, that falling frame can't be inertial. It's really accelerating downward at 9.8 m/s^2. The interior just seems like zero-g because the downward acceleration acts like a fake extra upward gravitational field that, from the perspective of the box, just happens to exactly cancel the real downward gravitational field of Earth.

By coincidence.

Really Newton? Really?

Einstein says: Look buddy, I'm just following your rules. You established the test for what an inertial frame is. Release a object and it stays put. Stationary frames in intergalactic space passed that test, but freely falling frames here on earth also pass that test if your so-called gravity is fictitious.

More to the point, Newton, if you're inside the box there's no way for you to know that you're not in intergalactic space. This inability to distinguish free fall from lack of gravity has a name by the way. Einstein called it the Equivalence Principle. And if you buy it then maybe the falling frames really are inertial. If so, then it's the falling frames that establish the standard of non acceleration, in which case it's really the ground that's accelerating upward and what we've always been calling a gravitational force is an artifact of being in an accelerated frame of reference.

It's not different from the weird backward jolt that you experience on the train that you know perfectly well isn't being caused by anything, so why are you insisting that the downward jolt we experience every day on earth has a physical origin? Maybe gravity, just like that backward jolt on the train, is an illusion. Doesn't that point of view seem simpler?

Now, Newton says: Nice try Einstein, but you forgot something. Earth is round. Down isn't really down, it's radially inward, and this creates two problems with thinking about freely falling frames as inertial, or thinking about gravity as an illusion.

...

If, instead the world has non-eculidean and curved spacetime then straight lines and constant speed doesn't mean what you think it means. And it turns out that inertial frames in curved space time can basically do whatever you want. It took Einstein about seven years to realize that. But once he did, a beautiful model of the world emerged called General Relativity. One of the central precepts of General Relativity is that we inhabit curved space-time.

Einstein won the issue by calling gravity an illusion, and saying that an accelerating earth makes more sense. This is exactly what the narrator states. Do you know more about this than the author?

So no, the bendy space stuff wasn't dreamed up until later. Seven years later. This is what is literally stated. You are making a scenario up, imagining that Einstein was really using his bending space explanation all along and never thought of an accelerating earth or used that argument.

The story is in chronological order, indeed. The Equivalence Principal was developed long before General Relativity. You are trying your hardest to remove all references to an accelerating earth. This is factually incorrect to the content of the video.

Feel free to argue "The video is wrong!" and "The scientist is wrong" all you wish. This is what the video portrays and the counter argument of "well, he's wrong" is decidedly weak.

[garygreen]

Einstein won the issue by calling gravity an illusion, and saying that an accelerating earth makes more sense. This is exactly what the narrator states. Do you know more about this than the author?

i completely agree with the author.  however, your characterization of what the author is saying is wrong.

this whole debate is about inertial frames.  einstein argues that free-falling frames are inertial.  that's what the train/van stuff is about.  now newton "objects" by saying that free-falling frames are not inertial because they accelerate with respect to one another.  einstein resolves this by saying not if space itself is curved.

read the quotes you posted:

This inability to distinguish free fall from lack of gravity has a name by the way. Einstein called it the Equivalence Principle. And if you buy it then maybe the falling frames really are inertial. If so, then it's the falling frames that establish the standard of non acceleration, in which case it's really the ground that's accelerating upward and what we've always been calling a gravitational force is an artifact of being in an accelerated frame of reference.
...
[Newton objects]: Nice try Einstein, but you forgot something. Earth is round. Down isn't really down, it's radially inward, and this creates two problems with thinking about freely falling frames as inertial, or thinking about gravity as an illusion...

this is the "objection" it took einstein seven years to answer.  without answering it, he could not argue that "an accelerating earth makes more sense."  he answered it with curved space.

read the description of the first video by the second video:

We actually started this campaign in our "Is Gravity an Illustion?" episode.  In that episode we noted objections to Einstein's viewpoint...Now ultimately, the way around those objections is to realize that if the world is a curved spacetime, then the familiar meanings of terms like a constant velocity straight line and acceleration will become ambiguous.  We'll be forced to redefine them, and once we do there's no longer going to be an inconsistency with saying that falling frames are inertial, even though they accelerate relative to one another.

Our goal in this series of videos is to explain that last statement, and to explain how it lets you account for the motion we observe even if there's no Newtonian force of gravity.

so, the goal of these videos is to explain that, if space is curved, then there is no longer an inconsistency between falling frames and inertial frames, even though they accelerate with respect to one another.  which is exactly what i've been saying this whole time.

[QED]

I believe you to be mistaken. The entire episode is about an accelerating earth. Einstein is talking about an accelerating earth, not "bendy space," in his argument to the Newtonians. He didn't come up with bendy space until seven years later.

This is literally what it says in the video. From the transcript:

Isaac Newton said that an Apple falls because a gravitational force  accelerates it toward the ground, but what if it's really the ground accelerating up to meet the Apple?

Suppose I drop an apple according to Isaac Newton the ground can be considered at rest Earth applies a gravitational force to the Apple and that force causes the Apple to accelerate downward but according to Einstein there's no such thing as a gravitational force instead it's more appropriate to think of the Apple as stationary and the ground along with everything on the ground as accelerating upward into the Apple.

Now what I just said sounds preposterous and maybe even moronic, but it's not sophistry. There's something substantive here, and today I'm going to clarify what exactly this point of view means why Einstein came to adopt it and how it planted the seeds for what would eventually become General Relativity.


...


Now, in Newtonian physics this is just an accounting trick that has no broader significance. Really, Dustin's car is accelerating and this extra backwards gravity is fake, but Einstein asked: Hold on, what if the so-called real downward gravity from Earth is also fake? A side effect generated because Earth's surface is really accelerating upward.

Now, you know what Newton would say. He'd say “that's crazy” and would remind us that inertial frames are the standard for measuring true acceleration. So you can only say earth is really accelerating upward if you can identify an inertial frame relative to which Earth's surface accelerates upward and there's obviously no inertial frame like that.

“Well, not so fast” says Einstein, maybe there is.

What about a frame that's in freefall? Think about it. If I put you in a box and drop you off a cliff, in the frame of the box everything just float weightless. The falling frame of the box behaves just like a stationary inertial frame that's way out in intergalactic space where there's no gravity. So why can't the box's frame be inertial as well?

Because, Newton says, that falling frame can't be inertial. It's really accelerating downward at 9.8 m/s^2. The interior just seems like zero-g because the downward acceleration acts like a fake extra upward gravitational field that, from the perspective of the box, just happens to exactly cancel the real downward gravitational field of Earth.

By coincidence.

Really Newton? Really?

Einstein says: Look buddy, I'm just following your rules. You established the test for what an inertial frame is. Release a object and it stays put. Stationary frames in intergalactic space passed that test, but freely falling frames here on earth also pass that test if your so-called gravity is fictitious.

More to the point, Newton, if you're inside the box there's no way for you to know that you're not in intergalactic space. This inability to distinguish free fall from lack of gravity has a name by the way. Einstein called it the Equivalence Principle. And if you buy it then maybe the falling frames really are inertial. If so, then it's the falling frames that establish the standard of non acceleration, in which case it's really the ground that's accelerating upward and what we've always been calling a gravitational force is an artifact of being in an accelerated frame of reference.

It's not different from the weird backward jolt that you experience on the train that you know perfectly well isn't being caused by anything, so why are you insisting that the downward jolt we experience every day on earth has a physical origin? Maybe gravity, just like that backward jolt on the train, is an illusion. Doesn't that point of view seem simpler?

Now, Newton says: Nice try Einstein, but you forgot something. Earth is round. Down isn't really down, it's radially inward, and this creates two problems with thinking about freely falling frames as inertial, or thinking about gravity as an illusion.

...

If, instead the world has non-eculidean and curved spacetime then straight lines and constant speed doesn't mean what you think it means. And it turns out that inertial frames in curved space time can basically do whatever you want. It took Einstein about seven years to realize that. But once he did, a beautiful model of the world emerged called General Relativity. One of the central precepts of General Relativity is that we inhabit curved space-time.

Einstein won the issue by calling gravity an illusion, and saying that an accelerating earth makes more sense. This is exactly what the narrator states. Do you know more about this than the author?

So no, the bendy space stuff wasn't dreamed up until later. Seven years later. This is what is literally stated. You are making a scenario up, imagining that Einstein was really using his bending space explanation all along and never thought of an accelerating earth or used that argument.

The story is in chronological order, indeed. The Equivalence Principal was developed long before General Relativity. You are trying your hardest to remove all references to an accelerating earth. This is factually incorrect to the content of the video.

Feel free to argue "The video is wrong!" and "The scientist is wrong" all you wish. This is what the video portrays and the counter argument of "well, he's wrong" is decidedly weak.

"Einstein won the issue by calling gravity an illusion, and saying that an accelerating earth makes more sense. This is exactly what the narrator states. Do you know more about this than the author?"

Quite possibly, but that is difficult to evaluate. I am only saying that I do not think you understand what the author means.

Now that is quite a claim for me to make, so I better justify it with solid reasoning!

Gravity is an illusion, according to Einstein. What Newton called a force, Einstein demonstrated is a geometrical consequence of space. But wait, how does a curved space manifest as an acceleration? Well, objects follow the most direct path through space, we call this a geodesic, and we quantify such paths using mathematical objects called metrics. Relative to an external observer, an object moving through curved space will bend. Since its direction is changing, we perceive this as an acceleration.
So you see, Einstein was not really confirming that the Earth is accelerating upwards, what he was saying is that the Earth resides in a curved space-time, by virtue of the fact that it has mass.

Presently, you are drawing a distinction between special relativity and general relativity. The Equivalence Principle belonging to the former. I recommend that you not do this, however, because SR states that it is not possible for an object to accelerate for very long. The reason is because the energy needed to maintain the acceleration approaches infinity. The reason why the Earth is in an accelerating frame, according to Newton now, is because it is spinning. The reason why objects accelerate in the vicinity of Earth, according to Einstein, is because the mass of the Earth warps the space around it. This has nothing to do with SR at all, and it a GR concept.

[Tom Bishop]

"Einstein won the issue by calling gravity an illusion, and saying that an accelerating earth makes more sense. This is exactly what the narrator states. Do you know more about this than the author?"

Quite possibly, but that is difficult to evaluate. I am only saying that I do not think you understand what the author means.

Now that is quite a claim for me to make, so I better justify it with solid reasoning!

Gravity is an illusion, according to Einstein. What Newton called a force, Einstein demonstrated is a geometrical consequence of space. But wait, how does a curved space manifest as an acceleration? Well, objects follow the most direct path through space, we call this a geodesic, and we quantify such paths using mathematical objects called metrics. Relative to an external observer, an object moving through curved space will bend. Since its direction is changing, we perceive this as an acceleration.

You are incorrect in your chronology. This discussion was about the upward accelerating surface making more sense than Newtonian Gravity, due to the coincidences. Einstein didn't come up with the curved space stuff until 7 years later. The Equivalence Principle stuff happened way before the General Relativity stuff.

From Wikipedia:

"The equivalence principle was properly introduced by Albert Einstein in 1907, when he observed that the acceleration of bodies towards the center of the Earth at a rate of 1g (g = 9.81 m/s2 being a standard reference of gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface) is equivalent to the acceleration of an inertially moving body"

"General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and the current description of gravitation in modern physics."

read the quotes you posted:

This inability to distinguish free fall from lack of gravity has a name by the way. Einstein called it the Equivalence Principle. And if you buy it then maybe the falling frames really are inertial. If so, then it's the falling frames that establish the standard of non acceleration, in which case it's really the ground that's accelerating upward and what we've always been calling a gravitational force is an artifact of being in an accelerated frame of reference.
...
[Newton objects]: Nice try Einstein, but you forgot something. Earth is round. Down isn't really down, it's radially inward, and this creates two problems with thinking about freely falling frames as inertial, or thinking about gravity as an illusion...

this is the "objection" it took einstein seven years to answer.  without answering it, he could not argue that "an accelerating earth makes more sense."  he answered it with curved space.

Sure. It took Einstein seven years to make his "gravity is the upwards acceleration of the surface" idea work with the Round Earth Theory. I have no disagreement with that.

[AATW]

Einstein didn't come up with the curved space stuff until 7 years later.

Even if that is true...so what?
Why are you jumping into the middle of Einstein's train of thought rather than looking at his final model which is the one which has become accepted as it keeps on passing experimentatal tests.

Einstein may have done a thought experiment where he considered an accelerating earth but he knew the earth was a globe so he knew that isn't what was really happening. His model of curves space time resolved the issue and has become the accepted model, not one of a flat earth accelerating upwards.

It's disingenuous to jump into the middle of Einstein's train of thought and pretend that he ever really thought the earth was accelerating upwards or that UA existed.

[QED]

"Einstein won the issue by calling gravity an illusion, and saying that an accelerating earth makes more sense. This is exactly what the narrator states. Do you know more about this than the author?"

Quite possibly, but that is difficult to evaluate. I am only saying that I do not think you understand what the author means.

Now that is quite a claim for me to make, so I better justify it with solid reasoning!

Gravity is an illusion, according to Einstein. What Newton called a force, Einstein demonstrated is a geometrical consequence of space. But wait, how does a curved space manifest as an acceleration? Well, objects follow the most direct path through space, we call this a geodesic, and we quantify such paths using mathematical objects called metrics. Relative to an external observer, an object moving through curved space will bend. Since its direction is changing, we perceive this as an acceleration.

You are incorrect in your chronology. This discussion was about the upward accelerating surface making more sense than Newtonian Gravity, due to the coincidences. Einstein didn't come up with the curved space stuff until 7 years later. The Equivalence Principle stuff happened way before the General Relativity stuff.

From Wikipedia:

"The equivalence principle was properly introduced by Albert Einstein in 1907, when he observed that the acceleration of bodies towards the center of the Earth at a rate of 1g (g = 9.81 m/s2 being a standard reference of gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface) is equivalent to the acceleration of an inertially moving body"

"General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and the current description of gravitation in modern physics."

read the quotes you posted:

This inability to distinguish free fall from lack of gravity has a name by the way. Einstein called it the Equivalence Principle. And if you buy it then maybe the falling frames really are inertial. If so, then it's the falling frames that establish the standard of non acceleration, in which case it's really the ground that's accelerating upward and what we've always been calling a gravitational force is an artifact of being in an accelerated frame of reference.
...
[Newton objects]: Nice try Einstein, but you forgot something. Earth is round. Down isn't really down, it's radially inward, and this creates two problems with thinking about freely falling frames as inertial, or thinking about gravity as an illusion...

this is the "objection" it took einstein seven years to answer.  without answering it, he could not argue that "an accelerating earth makes more sense."  he answered it with curved space.

Sure. It took Einstein seven years to make his "gravity is the upwards acceleration of the surface" idea work with the Round Earth Theory. I have no disagreement with that.

We are in agreement about the chronology, I was just explaining this poorly earlier, and led you astray. Your stated chronology is correct, and I do not dispute this. What I am saying is that even though he stated the Equivalence Principle (EP) before he formalized GR, the EP is still as GR concept, not an SR one. In fact, it is the EP which led Einstein to develop GR. Indeed, GR is the solution to (or the consequence of) the EP.

I think what you are trying to do is use Einstein's EP to justify UA. A priori, there is no conflict in doing so. Of course, what you then need to do is strip off everything else that Einstein said later, because it directly refutes UA.

That is quite different than saying that Einstein claims an accelerating Earth makes more sense. He said nothing of this kind, and found a consistent theory which posits that Earth warps space around it by virtue of its mass, and it is this that causes the acceleration.

In fact, if you assume a flat Earth, then according to the EP, that Earth must be infinite. Otherwise the acceleration would not be constant for everyone. This is a fun problem to show the mathematics for. I will try to find the time to do this and post it for your analysis and critique.