The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Pinky on October 23, 2018, 01:40:46 PM

Title: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pinky on October 23, 2018, 01:40:46 PM
According to UA,FE accelerates upwards at 9.81 m/s². That means, it would have reached relativistic velocity within less than a year and we are currently travelling very close to light-speed.

The stars are travelling at negligible velocities and independently from Flat Earth. That means, when the photons enter our moving frame of reference, they will get a blue-shift.
1. Element-specific spectral lines of the stars, of our Sun, of gas-lamps in the lamp, they would all be different from each other (bc blueshift) if UA were true. Except they are identical.
2. The blueshift would mean that starlight coming from directly above would be blue or violet. As we are moving close to light-speed, it is reasonable to assume, that the blue-shift has already shifted starlight beyond the visible range. Accordingly, if UA were true, there would be no starlight coming from directly above.



Could you please update your wiki? Thx.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 23, 2018, 01:43:23 PM
The stars are travelling at negligible velocities and independently from Flat Earth.
This is in direct contradiction with UAT. (Well, depending on frame of reference, but we all know what you meant)
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Rushy on October 23, 2018, 01:57:47 PM
The stars are travelling at negligible velocities and independently from Flat Earth.

It's called Universal Acceleration, not "Earth's Disc Acceleration". The stars are accelerating, along with the rest of the universe.

1. Element-specific spectral lines of the stars, of our Sun, of gas-lamps in the lamp, they would all be different from each other (bc blueshift) if UA were true. Except they are identical.
2. The blueshift would mean that starlight coming from directly above would be blue or violet. As we are moving close to light-speed, it is reasonable to assume, that the blue-shift has already shifted starlight beyond the visible range. Accordingly, if UA were true, there would be no starlight coming from directly above.

The fact that it's Universal Acceleration means the frame of reference is universal. The stars are accelerating along with the Earth's disc, so there is no blue-shift or red-shift that can be caused by UA.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: MattyWS on October 23, 2018, 02:11:41 PM
If the whole universe is accelerating why aren't individual people and objects on earth also accelerating with it? We are after all a part of the universe.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Rushy on October 23, 2018, 02:20:48 PM
If the whole universe is accelerating why aren't individual people and objects on earth also accelerating with it? We are after all a part of the universe.

We are accelerating with it, upwards, at about 9.81 m/s/s. If you're asking why we're not accelerating at precisely the same instant as the rest of the universe, well, that's because the Earth's disc is between us and the Davis Plane.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: RonJ on October 23, 2018, 02:37:22 PM
Constant acceleration requires a constant force.  It is said that the earth is being accelerated by a force from unspecified dark energy on the bottom of the disk.  You can easily see with your own eyes the moon and sun.  Those objects are said to be roughly 3000 miles above the earth's surface.  Since the sun & moon can always be seen above the earth they must also be in constant acceleration as well.  The question now is what is causing that acceleration?  Is it the same dark energy?  That dark energy would have to be present between the earth and the moon. The dark energy would have to cause the same constant acceleration independent of surface area and mass.  If that dark energy is present between the earth's surface and the sun & moon why doesn't anyone on earth experience that force as well?  Airplanes above the earth should feel it.  It should be measurable.  We all should be high jump champions. 
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Rushy on October 23, 2018, 02:50:01 PM
Constant acceleration requires a constant force.  It is said that the earth is being accelerated by a force from unspecified dark energy on the bottom of the disk.  You can easily see with your own eyes the moon and sun.  Those objects are said to be roughly 3000 miles above the earth's surface.  Since the sun & moon can always be seen above the earth they must also be in constant acceleration as well.  The question now is what is causing that acceleration?  Is it the same dark energy?  That dark energy would have to be present between the earth and the moon. The dark energy would have to cause the same constant acceleration independent of surface area and mass.  If that dark energy is present between the earth's surface and the sun & moon why doesn't anyone on earth experience that force as well?  Airplanes above the earth should feel it.  It should be measurable.  We all should be high jump champions.

The flows of force wrap around the Earth's disc, putting the Earth and its inhabitants in a sort of "bubble".

Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: RonJ on October 23, 2018, 03:34:41 PM
If the flow of force wraps around the edge of the flat earth, it would be significant.  Such a force would have to be felt by everything in the bubble, just like you said.  That force has the power to accelerate the sun and moon at the same rate as the earth.  Aircraft don't seem to feel that force.  If they did you could fly off the surface of the earth and just cut back radically on your engines.  The only force you would need would be to keep you going horizontally against the friction of the air.  The dark energy force would then accelerate your aircraft upward and support you just like it does with the sun and moon.  High altitude balloons should also be supported.  You wouldn't need to depend on the buoyancy of the atmosphere anymore.   If the dark force somehow flows around the edges of the earth like water around a disk in a pipe, I would expect a lot of turbulence as the forces recombine at the top of the earth.  That turbulence would cause the sun and moon to bounce around quite a bit in their orbits.  Since that isn't observable then I would expect a very smooth flow of that energy thru the earth and to the sun & moon. That should also affect everyone anywhere.  You should be able to jump up and then just hang there because the dark force would support you.  So far I can't make that work.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 23, 2018, 03:59:18 PM
Such a force would have to be felt by everything in the bubble, just like you said.
Yes. This force is conventionally known as weight.

You should be able to jump up and then just hang there because the dark force would support you.  So far I can't make that work.
I'm not particularly fit. Hell, I'm very unfit. But somehow I doubt that any human on Earth is capable of jumping into outer space.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: MattyWS on October 23, 2018, 04:29:55 PM
If the whole universe is accelerating why aren't individual people and objects on earth also accelerating with it? We are after all a part of the universe.

We are accelerating with it, upwards, at about 9.81 m/s/s. If you're asking why we're not accelerating at precisely the same instant as the rest of the universe, well, that's because the Earth's disc is between us and the Davis Plane.
What exactly is the Davis Plane? A google search yields nothing.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Baby Thork on October 23, 2018, 04:35:48 PM
It could be that the earth, stars etc are all stationary ... and it is the universe rushing past.

Think of a wind tunnel. It exactly simulates the wing of an aircraft travelling through the air. But the wing is actually still and the air rushes past instead.

So maybe the earth is fixed ... and there is some kind of cosmic draught or etheric wind pinning things to the floor. And we call this gravity.

Or, if we were circling an intergalactic drain we'd get faster and faster and faster until we finally get flushed down the plug hole.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: JCM on October 23, 2018, 04:37:28 PM
Wouldn’t the stars revolving the earth in a circle above and below us indicate they are not in UA?  I am trying to picture the entire universe doing cartwheels around the earth while accelerating upwards...   How would that be possible?  Why are they slowing down then speeding up to go below us then above us with perfect timing?
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Baby Thork on October 23, 2018, 04:39:06 PM
Wouldn’t the stars revolving the earth in a circle above and below us indicate they are not in UA?  I am trying to picture the entire universe doing cartwheels around the earth while accelerating upwards...   How would that be possible?  Why are they slowing down then speeding up to go below us then above us with perfect timing?

Space (the vacuum) moves, the things in it don't? The consequence is gravity.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: JCM on October 23, 2018, 04:40:23 PM
It could be that the earth, stars etc are all stationary ... and it is the universe rushing past.

Think of a wind tunnel. It exactly simulates the wing of an aircraft travelling through the air. But the wing is actually still and the air rushes past instead.

So maybe the earth is fixed ... and there is some kind of cosmic draught or etheric wind pinning things to the floor. And we call this gravity.

Or, if we were circling an intergalactic drain we'd get faster and faster and faster until we finally get flushed down the plug hole.

If the earth is stationary then the stars are moving around us with perfect angular momentum maintaining their distances.  You can’t have a stationary Earth and stationary stars, or are you suggesting the Earth is rotating?
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: JCM on October 23, 2018, 04:42:09 PM
Except the same stars are rising and setting, nothing is “rushing” past us.  It is periodic in nature.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: RonJ on October 23, 2018, 04:48:46 PM
I don't think anyone could jump into outer space as well.  That wasn't what the theory would say either.  If a dark force were accelerating the earth and was flowing around the edge and enveloping everyone and everything in a bubble, then that force should be felt on the surface of the earth.  Anything with mass would also be accelerated by the dark force at the same rate as the earth.   In that case, since everything and everyone is being accelerated at the same rate as the earth you wouldn't need the acceleration of the earth to keep you on the surface.  The only way the proposed theory would work would be if the earth was being accelerated by the dark force and everything else on the surface was not.  That way the earth would be the thing that would be accelerating up and transferring that force of acceleration to every mass on the surface.  Then everything would have weight and if you jumped up, you would come down again.  Of course, the dark force could flow around the edge of the earth and recombine somewhere above the surface of the earth and not produce any acceleration of anything on the surface.  The question then becomes, just where does that happen?  Would airplanes or high altitude balloons ever get into the flow of the dark force?  The dark force would also have to have the property that everything regardless of mass or surface area be accelerated at the same rate.  Otherwise the sun & moon would either fly off into space, or come crashing down to the earth's surface.  Either event wouldn't be nice.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 23, 2018, 04:55:59 PM
That wasn't what the theory would say either.
No, that's precisely what it says. If you want to jump up so high that you become weightless, you'd have to jump into the field affected by UA. Also known as outer space.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: RonJ on October 23, 2018, 05:29:31 PM
I would then presume that the moon is in the field affected by UA.  Otherwise the distance between the earth and moon would change.  Now, if you are on the moon's surface facing the earth, and in the field, you would be weightless on the moon.  Both you and the moon would be in the same UA field and would experience the same acceleration and baring any outside force remain the same relative distance away.  You could then float above the surface of the moon.   Now, if the moon would have a little gravity then an astronaut could then actually walk on the surface.  But then if the moon had some gravity it would tend to crash down to the surface of the earth.  That could be prevented only if the UA force had a larger effect on the moon's mass than on the earth's mass.  Things are starting to get complicated.  You need some kind of equations that explain all the forces, just like you have with the gravity paradigm.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: MattyWS on October 23, 2018, 05:47:13 PM
I think I understand now, FES are mistaking gravity for magnetism.

Objects like the moon wouldn't come crashing down to the earth because it's orbiting. To put it as simply as possible, if you could throw a baseball so hard toward the horizon that by the time is starts falling back to the ground, it had already started to leave the planet, it's still going to fall to the planet... This is where it gets interesting, it falls to the ground but the ground is also constantly curving down (away from the ball) relatively to the ball. So the ball cannot catch up with the ground. This is basically orbit. A constant orbit is basically the same as an object falling toward something but being slung away at the same time's

It's the same as those charity coin collecting boxes where you throw the coin in and watch it whirl around that hole in the middle. Obviously the coin eventually falls into the hole because it's also being affected by earth's gravity as well as the force you gave it.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: RonJ on October 23, 2018, 05:53:51 PM
With the flat earth model the moon doesn't orbit around the earth, it orbits above it.  The same goes for the sun.  It's not gravity that keeps everything on the earth, it's the constant acceleration of the earth.  The effects of throwing a baseball would be exactly the same with gravity or universal acceleration.  Of course if you threw the ball hard enough it would disappear off the earth's edge and I have no idea what would happen to it next. 
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: JCM on October 23, 2018, 06:06:51 PM
If the moon is orbiting above us, affected by UA, why does the distance to the moon change periodically as seen from its size in the sky easily measurable throughout the year.  What is causing it to move farther and closer to us?  This is of course ignoring the phases of the moon as seen from the entire planet which destroy this near moon orbiting over the flat earth idea entirely. 
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 23, 2018, 06:11:07 PM
Its orbit could well be inclined, although that's just one possibility for why it would appear larger at times.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: MattyWS on October 23, 2018, 06:12:00 PM
Of course if you threw the ball hard enough it would disappear off the earth's edge and I have no idea what would happen to it next.
Of course, the problem here is we can prove gravity and round earth with evidence to back it all up while with this idea of flat earth no one seems to have any idea how or why it's flat, people seem fixated on the idea that the earth is flat simply because they want it to be. FES ignores so much evidence in order to claim that it's flat.

You only really need to watch the stars at night from different locations in the planet to know we're on a spinning ball.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: JCM on October 23, 2018, 06:16:00 PM
Its orbit could well be inclined, although that's just one possibility for why it would appear larger at times.

That would explain a daily change in distance, but it’s size changes in a longer time frame over months to years.  Why would this happen?
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 23, 2018, 09:14:09 PM
That wasn't what the theory would say either.
No, that's precisely what it says. If you want to jump up so high that you become weightless, you'd have to jump into the field affected by UA. Also known as outer space.
But you wouldn't be weightless, you'd be pushed upwards at 9.8/s/s by UA.
You'd be stationary with respect to the earth because you're being accelerated at the same rate as it, but you'd feel the force of that acceleration, no?
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 23, 2018, 09:15:37 PM
The fact that it's Universal Acceleration means the frame of reference is universal. The stars are accelerating along with the Earth's disc, so there is no blue-shift or red-shift that can be caused by UA.
But we do observe red-shift, so what is the cause of that? UA claims that the stars are stationary, with respect to the earth.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Mysfit on October 23, 2018, 09:30:54 PM
The fact that it's Universal Acceleration means the frame of reference is universal. The stars are accelerating along with the Earth's disc, so there is no blue-shift or red-shift that can be caused by UA.
But we do observe red-shift, so what is the cause of that? UA claims that the stars are stationary, with respect to the earth.
I think I know this one. Stars have different molecules and are different colours because of this.
The posters from that thread admit that the chemical redshift and blueshift could be possible if the stars were made up of molecules rather than single free-floating atoms:

We find that molecules have been found in stars:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecules_in_stars
I've shortened the quote for neatness.

It does raise the problem of the stars being so hot.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: JCM on October 23, 2018, 10:11:17 PM
The topic at hand is disproving UA with your bare eyes.   The easiest way to do this to me is just by looking at the stars, their trails through the sky, the paths of the planets, and the paths of the Sun and Moon, moon phases then add a little geometry to account for those observations.

1.  Stars revolve around a north and south axis, taking nearly 24 hours, encircling the Earth.  This 1 fact I think makes UA impossible as the stars would have to decellerate to get under us, then speed up to get over us if they were to orbit us in a shell of stars. 

2. The planets clearly behave differently then the stars with vastly different apparent motions so UA is less then Universal... 

3.  UA requires a near sun and moon orbiting in a circle above the North Pole.  This is demonstrably impossible by observing the moons phases.  The entire Earth sees 1 phase of the moon.  This is easily the best way to prove the Moon is NOT near to us and neither is the Sun obviously. 

No math required, just common sense, some observations with our eyes.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pinky on October 24, 2018, 08:56:02 AM
The stars are travelling at negligible velocities and independently from Flat Earth.

It's called Universal Acceleration, not "Earth's Disc Acceleration". The stars are accelerating, along with the rest of the universe.
1. This is not what your Wiki says what UAT is. https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Explanations_for_Universal_Acceleration
2. If the stars were accelerating, we would measure stellar Synchrotron-radiation. If the stars were accelerating uniformly into one direction, we would measure stellar Synchrotron-radiation at the horizon but not from right above.

That gives me an idea:
3. If Earth were flat, the angular intensity of Synchrotron-sources here on Earth would depend on how the particle-accelerator is oriented with respect to the up-down axis of FE. Guess what? Scientists use Synchrotron-radiation all the time to do EXAFS-spectroscopy of chemical samples. If something were wrong with the Synchrotron-radiation, we would know.





4. Can you prove anything you just said? I presented a hypothesis, what is to be expected if we were to do an experiment. Your counter depends on the existence of something nobody has ever seen.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 24, 2018, 11:45:15 AM
1. This is not what your Wiki says what UAT is.
You may want to pay more attention while reading.

Quote from: https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA.

2. If the stars were accelerating, we would measure stellar Synchrotron-radiation. If the stars were accelerating uniformly into one direction, we would measure stellar Synchrotron-radiation at the horizon but not from right above.
Only to an observer who's been external to UA for an extended period of time. In other words, your hypothesis is untestable.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: stack on October 24, 2018, 06:19:49 PM
1. This is not what your Wiki says what UAT is.
You may want to pay more attention while reading.

Quote from: https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA.

Here's a point of confusion about UA for me. If "all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2" and they are above earth and the "mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA" then how are we not crashing into them? If earth is shielding them from the UA force, how do they have the UA force?
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: RonJ on October 24, 2018, 09:06:42 PM
The dark energy that's accelerating the earth seems to push it along like wind in a sail.  It has been said that the earth's mass shields the dark energy and keeps everything on the earth in place so all you feel is the upward acceleration of the earth at your feet.  Then it seems that the dark energy bends around the earth, recombines, and pushes on the sun and moon.  The earth, sun, and moon must have some characteristic in common relative to the dark energy because the effects of the dark energy on all three bodies are the same.  Otherwise, you would see with your bare eyes either the sun and moon crashing down to the earth, or departing slowly to parts unknown.  You could hypothesize that the sun, moon, and earth all have the same mass, and it's the mass of a body that determines how much push it receives from the dark energy.  That would mean that all the bodies would have to have different densities and all those densities would have to be exactly right for the system to work.  You can see that the area just won't work at all.  Then you have to conservation of energy question.  If the dark energy is pushing on the earth, it will be giving up energy and loose some of it's potential to push on the sun and moon.  If you take a couple of magnets and turn them so they repel each other then you can push one along with the other. However you will have to be providing a force with the one magnet.  What is the dark energy pushing against on the other side?  Any action will produce and equal and opposite reaction.  Maybe that law will have to be thrown out as well.  Also the sun seems to change orbits in the different seasons.  If you want to change an orbit to a smaller one you will have to do two things.  Number one is to provide a force on the outside of the moon to tighten up the orbit, and another, slow the sun down.  A smaller circle will require a slower speed to keep the orbit time constant.  Is the dark energy also providing all these services? 
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: JCM on October 24, 2018, 10:26:02 PM
Then of course the sun with its smaller circle (FE map) problem is the sun travels the same speed through the sky year around.  So...  not only is UA not very supportable, neither is a near sun.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: RonJ on October 25, 2018, 12:12:41 AM
There's another problem with the sun.  The sun can't really be using the standard fusion model.  That model requires that the sun have gravity and a mass & size more than 100 times that of the earth.  Without a source of compression (supplied by gravity), the atoms of hydrogen just won't start the fusion reaction.  So just what is the source of energy that's supplied by the sun?  The folks in the solar panel business have a nominal figure that they use to estimate how much energy you can get per square foot of panel.  The source of energy would have to be capable of supplying at least that well known amount at a distance of 3000 miles.  You can also measure the temperature of the moon from the earth.  I have a hand held heat gun that works the same way.  Any energy source would also have to match what the measured temperature of the moon appears to be.  An estimate of the temperature of the sun is known as well.  How can all these requirements be met without using the fusion paradigm?
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pinky on October 25, 2018, 10:36:06 AM
Quote from: https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA.
Wait... are you saying that Flat Earth has gravity AND is accelerating upwards?

Quote
2. If the stars were accelerating, we would measure stellar Synchrotron-radiation. If the stars were accelerating uniformly into one direction, we would measure stellar Synchrotron-radiation at the horizon but not from right above.
Only to an observer who's been external to UA for an extended period of time. In other words, your hypothesis is untestable.

It is only untestable if we assume the unproven existence of the UA.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 25, 2018, 12:36:27 PM
Wait... are you saying that Flat Earth has gravity AND is accelerating upwards?
I am not currently saying that, no.

It is only untestable if we assume the unproven existence of the UA.
Which is an absolute necessity for your proposed disproof.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: JCM on October 25, 2018, 02:58:46 PM
What specifically is UA affecting?

1. Just the Earth?
2. Earth, Sun, and Moon?
3. Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars?
4. Everything?

How do we disprove something which has a different definition?  That can be said for FE in general as well, but more specifically UA. 

And are we just having a thought experiment here? In high school we had debate club where we just argued a position for arguments sake, belief in one's position wasn't needed.   In forums like this, this UA subject will just fade away and the very same things will be said a hundred more times over the next year by some of the very same people.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: RonJ on October 25, 2018, 03:15:04 PM
You can see with your bare eyes that the universal acceleration must be accelerating at least the Earth, Moon, and Sun.  Otherwise the Moon and Sun would either come crashing down to the Earth's surface, or would drift off into space somewhere. 
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 25, 2018, 03:19:17 PM
I think it's 3. But that means the stars would be stationary with respect to us - maybe rotating above the plane of the earth in some way, but in terms of distance they stay the same because they are being accelerated upwards like the earth is. We are not because we are shielded from that acceleration by the earth itself.
BUT, we observe red-shift which indicates the stars ARE moving away from us. And parallax observations indicate they are distant, not close.
And there has been no comment on the assertion that you would be weightless in space. If you're high enough above the flat earth that you are being affected by UA then you would remain at a constant distance from the earth without any propulsion, for the same reason the stars do, but you would feel that acceleration so you'd be as heavy as you are on earth.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: RonJ on October 25, 2018, 03:58:14 PM
Following the same logical sequence, you should be weightless on the side of the moon that faces the earth.  Both you and the moon would be exposed to the same force of UA.  Then, if you walked around to the 'dark side of the moon' that faces away from the earth, you could expect to weigh the same as you do on earth because of the shielding of the dark force by the mass of the moon.  Of course, if you did videos of all that it would be deemed to be totally factual because it would support all the suppositions of FET.  None of these assumptions would answer another question.  For each action, you must have and equal and opposite action.  If the dark force is pushing on and accelerating the Earth, Moon, and Sun, what fixed object is the dark force pushing back against?  Maybe what will be needed is a Flat Galaxy Theory.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: edby on October 25, 2018, 05:32:56 PM
If you're high enough above the flat earth that you are being affected by UA then you would remain at a constant distance from the earth without any propulsion, for the same reason the stars do, but you would feel that acceleration so you'd be as heavy as you are on earth.
Are you sure? You only feel acceleration in a car or plane because just one part of your body is being accelerated by surface contact. But if every part is affected, you would feel nothing. Just as we feel nothing in free fall, because the effect (whether of UA or gravity) is on every part of us.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 25, 2018, 09:20:41 PM
What specifically is UA affecting?

1. Just the Earth?
2. Earth, Sun, and Moon?
3. Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars?
4. Everything?
None of these answers are correct. It affects everything that finds itself in the current of Dark Energy. That happens to cover most things external to Earth, but that's merely a consequence rather than the definition.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: RonJ on October 25, 2018, 09:29:53 PM
On the flat earth the earth is being pushed by the dark force from the bottom side, but you are being shielded by the earths mass.  That means that the dark force is pushing on the earth and the earth is pushing on you.  That way you feel the force on your feet due to the acceleration imparted by the earth to you.  In space where you are being influenced by the same dark force, you would indeed maintain a constant distance from the earth without propulsion, just like you said.  Yes, you technically would be just as heavy as you are on the earth, only you would have no way of telling as you would just be floating around without touching anything.  My contention is that on the side of the moon that faces the earth, you would be weightless.  On the opposite side of the moon you would weigh the same as on the earth since the mass of the moon would shield you from the dark force.  In the same manner, if you could actually travel to the opposite side of the earth, you would be weightless there as well.  Time to build an elevator, it would make a great place for a vacation, but bring an oxygen mask.   
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: stack on October 25, 2018, 11:39:43 PM
What specifically is UA affecting?

1. Just the Earth?
2. Earth, Sun, and Moon?
3. Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars?
4. Everything?
None of these answers are correct. It affects everything that finds itself in the current of Dark Energy. That happens to cover most things external to Earth, but that's merely a consequence rather than the definition.

Isn't this kind of semantics at a certain point? Would a better phrasing be: What specifically is the consequence of UAT? Does it consequentially impact:

1. Just the Earth?
2. Earth, Sun, and Moon?
3. Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars?
4. Everything?

If the consequence of UAT is that the earth is pushed upward, then why don't we crash into the moon and sun?
If the consequence of UAT is that the earth, sun and moon are being pushed upward, then why don't we crash into the stars and planets?
If the consequence of UAT is that the earth, sun, moon, stars and planets are being pushed upward, then that's sort of everything?

We're trying to get at what the consequence of UAT is which requires a smidge of specificity. Seems that a theory is obliged to be defined and scrutinized in order to be examined.


Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: RonJ on October 26, 2018, 01:11:36 AM
Things with UA are even worse.  You have to consider that the earth is being pushed on by a dark force field, along with at least the Sun and Moon.  I suppose that some of the stars are also being pushed, but there are other observed bodies that are moving at a different velocity relative to the earth.  You can see this with the red shift.  It can't really be a 'universal force' if other objects are effected differently.  All this because the concept of gravity is being abandoned for the earth.  The Earth's mass somehow shields the things on the top surface from the force of UA.    Gravity is an attractive force.  A very large object, like a star, keeps a much smaller object, like a planet in orbit because of the constant force of gravity is accelerating the planet.  Remember that acceleration is a vector and can either be a change in velocity, or a change in direction, or both.  The much larger object, like a star, is also being accelerated by the much smaller force of the orbiting planet. In fact astronomers have found the evidence of planets around distant stars because of the small perturbations of the star.  Also the planet Pluto was found because of the noticed perturbations of the orbits of Neptune and Uranus.  Yes, I know that if gravity is actually brought back in FET then there would be another problem.  Namely on a flat earth everything is attracted to the center of mass.  That would mean that at the edge of the planet, like near the South Pole the pull of gravity would not be anywhere near vertical.  The FET folks say they don't have to explain anything because that theory was the first.  It would be nice if a few workable equations were derived to explain all the anomalies that currently exist and can be seen and measured in observatories all over the world. Since the flat earth theory has been around longer, you would think that the equations and theories would be a lot more advanced.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 26, 2018, 07:04:16 AM
If you're high enough above the flat earth that you are being affected by UA then you would remain at a constant distance from the earth without any propulsion, for the same reason the stars do, but you would feel that acceleration so you'd be as heavy as you are on earth.
Are you sure? You only feel acceleration in a car or plane because just one part of your body is being accelerated by surface contact. But if every part is affected, you would feel nothing. Just as we feel nothing in free fall, because the effect (whether of UA or gravity) is on every part of us.
Hmm. I'm not certain but I'm pretty sure you would feel it. You feel nothing in free-fall because the forces balance.
It's a common misconception that there is no gravity in space. In fact the force of gravity in low earth orbit isn't much different to that on the ground.
When astronauts are in orbit though the forces balance. They are going fast enough in a circle that: centripetal force = gravity
The forces balance so they are effectively weightless.

But if you were being accelerated upwards by UA then there is no other balancing force so I'm pretty sure you'd feel that.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 26, 2018, 12:04:19 PM
Isn't this kind of semantics at a certain point?
No.

Would a better phrasing be: What specifically is the consequence of UAT? Does it consequentially impact:

1. Just the Earth?
2. Earth, Sun, and Moon?
3. Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars?
4. Everything?
None of the answers you provided are correct.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 26, 2018, 12:16:40 PM
None of the answers you provided are correct.
Dude, come on. I know we're bff's now and everything but if one of the usual suspects had posted that you'd have moved it for "shit posting" and warned them.
What does that reply add to the discussion?
If none of those answers is correct then what is the correct answer in your view? If you state that then the debate can advance. Just saying "Nuh-uh" adds nothing.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 27, 2018, 08:48:27 AM
Dude, come on. I know we're bff's now and everything but if one of the usual suspects had posted that you'd have moved it for "shit posting" and warned them.
What does that reply add to the discussion?
If none of those answers is correct then what is the correct answer in your view? If you state that then the debate can advance. Just saying "Nuh-uh" adds nothing.
I already answered that question, and stack tried running away with it. If you failed to read my answer the first time around, is me repeating myself at all likely to help?

Ah well, have a quote.

None of these answers are correct. It affects everything that finds itself in the current of Dark Energy. That happens to cover most things external to Earth, but that's merely a consequence rather than the definition.

If you take my clarification of why 1-4 are all incorrect and ask "So is it 1, 2, 3 or 4?", there really is little I can do to help.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 27, 2018, 09:20:36 AM
I already answered that question, and stack tried running away with it. If you failed to read my answer the first time around, is me repeating myself at all likely to help?
Well, it did help because it reminded me of your answer.

And fair enough, I’ll give you this one. You had already answered the question, I either missed it or forgot about it.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: edby on October 27, 2018, 09:26:19 AM
Would a better phrasing be: What specifically is the consequence of UAT? Does it consequentially impact:

1. Just the Earth?
2. Earth, Sun, and Moon?
3. Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars?
4. Everything?
None of the answers you provided are correct.
Since none is correct, i.e. all are false, logically this implies

1. UA does not affect just the Earth
2. UA does not affect Earth, Sun, and Moon
3. UA does not affect Earth, Sun, and Moon and stars
4. UA does not affect everything.

Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: edby on October 27, 2018, 09:33:20 AM
But if you were being accelerated upwards by UA then there is no other balancing force so I'm pretty sure you'd feel that.
No. With what sense organ would you feel it? Suppose we had an accelerometer consisting of a spring and a weight. When you are accelerated by point contact (and not action at a distance), the spring stretches because it is acting on the weight, and the weight resists.

But UA is an action-at-a-distance type force, so it affects the weight and the spring equally. So the spring would not stretch.

I can’t think of any sensor that could distinguish the weightlessness caused by orbit, from the weightlessness caused by UA.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 27, 2018, 10:15:03 AM
But if you were being accelerated upwards by UA then there is no other balancing force so I'm pretty sure you'd feel that.
No. With what sense organ would you feel it? Suppose we had an accelerometer consisting of a spring and a weight. When you are accelerated by point contact (and not action at a distance), the spring stretches because it is acting on the weight, and the weight resists.

But UA is an action-at-a-distance type force, so it affects the weight and the spring equally. So the spring would not stretch.

I can’t think of any sensor that could distinguish the weightlessness caused by orbit, from the weightlessness caused by UA.
Interesting. That’s a bit counter intuitive but from this

https://www.quora.com/Why-can-humans-feel-acceleration-but-not-constant-speed

It sounds like you’re right.
So if you were on this side of the moon you’d be weightless because you’re accelerating at the same rate as the moon.
On the dark side of the moon, if the moon shields you from UA like the earth does, then you’d weigh the same as you do on earth. Right?
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 27, 2018, 10:53:15 AM
Since none is correct, i.e. all are false, logically this implies

1. UA does not affect just the Earth
2. UA does not affect Earth, Sun, and Moon
3. UA does not affect Earth, Sun, and Moon and stars
4. UA does not affect everything.
If the world around you is Boolean, sure. Unfortunately, that's not how human communication works at all.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: edby on October 27, 2018, 11:09:54 AM
So if you were on this side of the moon you’d be weightless because you’re accelerating at the same rate as the moon.
On the dark side of the moon, if the moon shields you from UA like the earth does, then you’d weigh the same as you do on earth. Right?
I think so. If there were such a thing.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: edby on October 27, 2018, 11:10:57 AM
Since none is correct, i.e. all are false, logically this implies

1. UA does not affect just the Earth
2. UA does not affect Earth, Sun, and Moon
3. UA does not affect Earth, Sun, and Moon and stars
4. UA does not affect everything.
If the world around you is Boolean, sure. Unfortunately, that's not how human communication works at all.
You are trying to say that you meant something else. So what did you mean?
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 27, 2018, 12:33:20 PM
You are trying to say that you meant something else. So what did you mean?
Precisely what I already said, and what I restated to AATW. For God's sake, read people's points prior to responding to them!
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: edby on October 27, 2018, 12:59:26 PM
You are trying to say that you meant something else. So what did you mean?
Precisely what I already said, and what I restated to AATW. For God's sake, read people's points prior to responding to them!
But what you said was that all those statements were false. Then you implied you didn't mean they were false, because you said 'world not Boolean'. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 27, 2018, 01:25:40 PM
But what you said was that all those statements were false.
Indeed.

Then you implied you didn't mean they were false, because you said 'world not Boolean'.
No. A statement can be false without its exact opposite being true. This is because the real world is not always well-represented by oversimplified Boolean logic. For your model to work, you'd have to deconstruct a claim into a series of binary decisions, and then analyse those one by one.

So I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Well, I guess I'll quote my quote for you. Apparently that helps.

Ah well, have a quote.

None of these answers are correct. It affects everything that finds itself in the current of Dark Energy. That happens to cover most things external to Earth, but that's merely a consequence rather than the definition.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: edby on October 27, 2018, 01:44:52 PM
Then you implied you didn't mean they were false, because you said 'world not Boolean'.
No. A statement can be false without its exact opposite being true. This is because the real world is not always well-represented by oversimplified Boolean logic. For your model to work, you'd have to deconstruct a claim into a series of binary decisions, and then analyse those one by one.
Oh right, you are denying Excluded Middle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle) then. No point in arguing with someone who doesn’t believe in standard logic.

Note you are confusing a contrary (‘opposite’) with a contradictory, i.e. a negation. ‘Not the case that p’ includes absolutely every case where p is false, without remainder, so one or the other has to be true. Thus ‘No A is B’ contradicts ‘some A is B’. Contraries (‘No A is B’ / ‘every A is B’) can both be false of course.

So Flat earth even has a different logic? Interesting. But as I say, without logic, no meaningful discussion is to be had.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: junker on October 27, 2018, 01:48:09 PM
Then you implied you didn't mean they were false, because you said 'world not Boolean'.
No. A statement can be false without its exact opposite being true. This is because the real world is not always well-represented by oversimplified Boolean logic. For your model to work, you'd have to deconstruct a claim into a series of binary decisions, and then analyse those one by one.
Oh right, you are denying Excluded Middle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle) then. No point in arguing with someone who doesn’t believe in standard logic.

Note you are confusing a contrary (‘opposite’) with a contradictory, i.e. a negation. ‘Not the case that p’ includes absolutely every case where p is false, without remainder, so one or the other has to be true. Thus ‘No A is B’ contradicts ‘some A is B’. Contraries (‘No A is B’ / ‘every A is B’) can both be false of course.

So Flat earth even has a different logic? Interesting. But as I say, without logic, no meaningful discussion is to be had.

It is actually very clear what Pete meant, and you are now derailing the thread by being intentionally obtuse. Have a warning, and I suggest you get back on topic if you are going to continue posting.

Edit, also you have a ton of warnings and previous bans already. Next one will be a month vacation.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: QED on October 30, 2018, 01:43:32 AM
"A statement can be false without its exact opposite being true."

I have to respectfully disagree with this point. Given a well-defined logical statement, either A or not A is true. There is no other option. If you believe there is, may I ask you for an example of a logical statement that violates this?

Certainly, one can have ambiguous statements within a certain framework. "This statement is false," for example, has no truth value. But it is not a logical statement, because it is self-referencing. I claim that any logical statement whose truth value is well-defined must either be true or false.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 30, 2018, 08:35:56 AM
I have to respectfully disagree with this point. Given a well-defined logical statement, either A or not A is true.
You're not disagreeing with me, you just forgot to read the rest of my statement:

"For your model to work, you'd have to deconstruct a claim into a series of binary decisions, and then analyse those one by one."

edby failed to construct a "well-defined logical statement" or (per his own Wikipedia link) a proposition. The language used in this conversation was entirely colloquial, until edby suddenly decided to pretend that we're exchanging Boolean logic statements. This breaks down easily in everyday use since, as you rightly point out, it's easy to construct a statement without a clear truth value.

Specifically, edby's statement fails because he assumes that my denial of (say) option 3 must mean that UA doesn't affect the bodies mentioned (rather than the correct interpretation of option 3 not being correct due to being incomplete).

Without any context, you could argue that my assumptions were flawed, and that I should consider incomplete answers to be true (by virtue of them not being strictly false). But this is why I followed up with a qualifying statement, removing any possible ambiguity.

You could adjust the terms of this conversation into sensible logical statements, at which point they could clearly be answered formally. But this hasn't happened thus far, and I honestly don't think it's particularly necessary.
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: JCM on October 30, 2018, 01:41:01 PM
This thread made it to page 4 and is dying to, wait for it, arguing about arguing.  This is like dinner table at the holidays back home. 

If you are going to have a “theory” then it needs a definition or at least a mostly-working-definition so it can be defended and used to explain some simple observation.  UA is yet another ambiguous theory with no definition, so It is basically MAGIC.  It affects what it would need to affect to have the outcome that works with our observations, and doesn’t affect which doesn’t fit and we have no explanation for those. 

Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: QED on October 30, 2018, 03:11:53 PM
I have to respectfully disagree with this point. Given a well-defined logical statement, either A or not A is true.
You're not disagreeing with me, you just forgot to read the rest of my statement:

"For your model to work, you'd have to deconstruct a claim into a series of binary decisions, and then analyse those one by one."

edby failed to construct a "well-defined logical statement" or (per his own Wikipedia link) a proposition. The language used in this conversation was entirely colloquial, until edby suddenly decided to pretend that we're exchanging Boolean logic statements. This breaks down easily in everyday use since, as you rightly point out, it's easy to construct a statement without a clear truth value.

Specifically, edby's statement fails because he assumes that my denial of (say) option 3 must mean that UA doesn't affect the bodies mentioned (rather than the correct interpretation of option 3 not being correct due to being incomplete).

Without any context, you could argue that my assumptions were flawed, and that I should consider incomplete answers to be true (by virtue of them not being strictly false). But this is why I followed up with a qualifying statement, removing any possible ambiguity.

You could adjust the terms of this conversation into sensible logical statements, at which point they could clearly be answered formally. But this hasn't happened thus far, and I honestly don't think it's particularly necessary.

Yes, you are right. I agree with all of your statements here, but do wonder why you think it is unnecessary to re-draw the conversation into its logical import. Wouldn't that clarify matters?
Title: Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 30, 2018, 06:28:01 PM
Yes, you are right. I agree with all of your statements here, but do wonder why you think it is unnecessary to re-draw the conversation into its logical import. Wouldn't that clarify matters?
I don't think it's a bad thing to do, just that everyday conversational standards should have been enough here. In any case I'm not opposed to doing that if my meaning is still unclear to edby or others.