1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion

« on: January 23, 2019, 07:29:35 AM »

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the earth, the people on it, and the heavenly bodies are all attracted to one another gravitationally, by the virtue of them all having mass.  You yourself (and many FE folks) have acknowledged this.  So, what keeps the earth from colliding with these celestial bodies?  The earth is accelerating upward toward them after all.  Are they also subject to UA?  In fact, the celestial bodies must actually be experiencing greater UA since they are able to outrun the earth's gravitational pull.  And if they're accelerating faster, they are bound to move away over time.

This brings me to a point I forgot to mention earlier: if all observed gravitational acceleration on earth was the result of UA, the earth absolutely would rip itself apart as it rose.  You said that you see no reason why this would occur, but this is a basic property of acceleration.  Different acceleration by definition means that over time points on the surface will achieve unequal velocities, and unequal velocities implies that the two points will not stay near each other as time advances, ergo the earth would need to tear apart to accomodate all these differently accelerating points.

As for the final matter, I greatly respect and admire your desire to discover the truth.  The relationship between scientific inquiry and truth has a long and messy history, and is probably best left to minds greater than ours.  The greatest quagmire seems to be that no amount of positive evidence can ever, with certainty, prove a theory true.  Of course, it is comparably easy to disprove a theory-- all that's needed is a counterexample.  Hence the scientific method: the aim is always to disprove a null hypothesis, rather than to prove a true one.  There is confirmatory and contrary evidence for both FE and GE, and depending on who you ask, both theories are capable of dealing with the contrary evidence (I'm granting you a huge concession here by the way).  The only real difference is that GE is a very simple explanation, and has amazing predictive power, and FE theory is extremely complicated and has not yet advanced to having the capabilities to make solid predictions (of the sort made by GR).  Most conversations I've had with flat earthers that got this far resulted in a stunning rejection of the premise that FE theory was "extremely complicated," but this is exactly the case.  At first, it seems much simpler, but then you have to factor in something that explains the movement of the stars, and gravity, and the ether, and jovian moon orbits, and seasons, and whatever science discovers next year, etc.  And you can do it, don't get me wrong.  It's possible to believe in a model that just adds another entity to explain any stray phenomena, and you can do this ad infinitum and still have a valid theory.  The theory wouldn't be "wrong" in any way.  My question to you is: does that theory look like truth?

I had a philosophy professor who used to insist that he believed that instead of gravity, matter in the universe was pushed around by invisible gremlins.  It is, as we learned, impossible to disprove this, especially when the interlocutor is free to speculatively invent new pieces to the theory (ie, something that explains gravitational waves) as he goes.  It's pretty clear to me that although this model "works," it is almost certainly not true, simply because it is equally as likely as any other model for gravity which lacks evidence (UA).  In the end, we're free to believe whatever we want, but know that Globe theorists have the unique advantage of (copious) evidence.  I'm unclear why you would bet on any other horse if you were looking for truth.

I am only quoting this because I think it needs to be read quite a few times.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Sun and Moon - Earth, not Pokemon

« on: January 22, 2019, 07:07:21 AM »

Hello again. My first thread became much more successful than I anticipated. I want to keep that conversation going, but also introduce some new questions that don't quite fit in with the banter going on in my other forum. Anywho, just a quick question:

First, some context.

Are you saying we can safely assume that UA is not the only source of gravity in the universe, or that we can safely assume that UA is not the only source of gravity in the universe that is affecting the Earth?

Both.

Here, Pete Svarrior says that UA and RET gravity (Newtonian Gravity) both exist, and that UA explains the earth's acceleration. In that case, I am going to assume that the sun and moon do not have UA because they are not earth.

1. How does FET explain the gravitational pull between the Sun and Moon?
2. How does FET explain the gravitational pull between the Sun and Earth?
3. If the Sun/Moonis not accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2 constantly with the earth, why doesn't the earth collide with those celestial bodies?
   OR
4. If the Sun/Moon is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2 with the earth, what is causing that upwards acceleration? The substructures beneath the earth's surface (that someone has yet to explain to me please), or something else?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion

« on: January 21, 2019, 09:42:03 PM »

This is where my confusion on the subject lies.

1. My claim is that there is one type of gravity, meaning that I can use specific equations with distinct variables to measure the gravitational force objects have on one another. That equation should not change or be discarded when talking about a specific body of mass. Why should the equation that can tell me the gravitational pull of Jupiter, Mars, or Pluto be any different than the equation we use for Earth? If Jupiter is a sphere, and GM/R^2 refers to the acceleration towards the center of Jupiter, why would it be any for us on earth. If you keep units, geometry, and variables the same in the equation, you can change all the numbers to fit Earth instead of Jupiter.

2. Still, my first problem was never addressed. If the substructures are pushing upwards with 9.8m/s^2 worth of acceleration, then the ground is also pushing on the substructures with equal force (not equal acceleration). This scenario would require objects, or substructures, to fall in the opposite direction of the UA in order to even HAVE a UA. It's that, or have a negative/infinite mass.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion

« on: January 21, 2019, 06:33:16 PM »

There are even more problems with the UA. The gravitational acceleration, for example, isn't the same at different places on Earth. So if the FE was being accelerated upwards, it would (quickly) tear apart.

Regarding the power source  - nobody would be able to actually "see" it, so the FEers can make any wild claims as they please. You know, dark matter, dark energy, ... (they usually choose something scientifically sounding so that their theories appear more plausible).

Firstly, you don't have to talk down to them and their argument like that. It immediately makes the other person feel like you are just going to ignore and insult them, which no one wants. But, I do agree with your argument wholeheartedly. And I want to dive deeper into that topic, shall we?

If the measurable gravity (or upward acceleration) is not 9.8m/s^2 everywhere on earth, meaning that different parts of the earth are accelerating upwards at different velocities, how does the ground not collapse on itself or shatter?

Links:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6074/do-we-take-gravity-9-8-m-s%C2%B2-for-all-heights-when-solving-problems-why-or-why
www.newscientist.com/article/dn24068-gravity-map-reveals-earths-extremes/

5

Flat Earth Theory / Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion

« on: January 21, 2019, 11:03:53 AM »

Hello! First off, let me say that I do not believe in a flat earth. I am here in the forums because I want to have an actual conversation and debate about this topic, which receives quite a bit of hate from the media and individuals alike. I can't say I blame them, after all this entire theory contradicts many thousands of years of scientific research. I know that there are arguments for many of the experiments in the past, but I'm not focusing on those quite yet. I'd like to have a conversation on the Power Source of Universal Acceleration (as stated in your overview section).

"The power source for the Universal Accelerator is beneath the earth and the earth's possible sub or super-structures, pushing it upwards, and is thus, not experienced. The power source for gravity, which allows mass to pull mass, however, should be all around us, and its mystery inexcusable." That is the quote directly from the Evidence for Universal Acceleration page.

Newton's 3rd Law states that with every force, there is an equal and opposite force. If there are sub-structures below the earth's surface pushing on the ground, subsequently pushing us upwards at 9.8m/s^2, wouldn't the ground be applying an equal and opposite force to the substructures?

I want to know all about the Flat Earth Society and their arguments. I don't want you to convince me, nor do I want to convince you. I just want to hear what arguments we can both give each other. Maybe we'll both learn something? Thank you!