# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Projects => Topic started by: I am Seeker of Truth on June 02, 2018, 10:32:08 PM

Title: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: I am Seeker of Truth on June 02, 2018, 10:32:08 PM
I just read the Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration and have several questions but I will post them one at a time.

The TFES Wiki entry states:

"Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.

This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".

The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.
"

Further down it states:

The phenomenon we observe everyday when falling is currently substantiated in modern physics by what is called "The Equivalence Principle".

The Equivalence Principle is part of General Relativity which the author, at the top of the page, says is incompatible with the flat earth model.

Is the author simply picking those parts of General Relativity he or she feels are valid for his purposes, and ignoring the rest or is the author unaware that General Relativity includes the Equivalence Principle?

The following is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle)

In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is any of several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

As the saying goes: You can't  have it both ways.

How can the author say that General Relativity does not apply to the flat earth but pulls a part of General Relativity out to prove the validity of his or hers idea of Universal Acceleration being what earth's gravity really is?

Are we to simply ignore gross errors like this in the flat earth idea?

If so, how convenient for the flat earthers who insist upon every being absolutely accurate when present with statements disproving the flat earth.

Make even on error of typo and they will be all over you.

And -  once again, why is there no agreed upon map of the flat earth. If we just date the flat earth idea from 1865 Parallax/Rowbotham first published  "ZETETIC ASTRONOMY EARTH NOT A GLOBE!" that's 153 years for the flat earthers to get their act together and have a map of the flat earth as well as answers to such basic question such as:

What is the diameter of the flat earth - ice barrier to ice barrier, through the North Pole?

What are meteors and how do you account for meteorites?

Those are just a few of the questions which flat earthers should be able to answer these 153 years after Rowbotham but don't seem to be able to.

If FEs truly believe the earth is flat, 153 years is surely enough time for them to get together and begin to record agreed upon "facts" about the flat earth such as the diameter of the flat earth; what holds the sun and moon up, what process cause the luminosity of the sun,etc.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 02, 2018, 11:14:59 PM
whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

one thing the do have correct in that UA article is that if a "flat" earth was being accellerated at 9.8 m/s2 we would not feel any difference at all.  so that part is correct.  of course UA would not account for the fact that we can measure different accelleration/gravity at different elevations.  this is a fact and easily verified.  if the entire earth was being accelerated, then it would be constant at all elevations.

the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: junker on June 03, 2018, 02:00:44 AM
the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

Whoever made the above comment has a very poor understanding of physics...

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible

Yeah, I think you have some homework to do...
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Turret OP on June 03, 2018, 02:17:04 AM
whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

one thing the do have correct in that UA article is that if a "flat" earth was being accellerated at 9.8 m/s2 we would not feel any difference at all.  so that part is correct.  of course UA would not account for the fact that we can measure different accelleration/gravity at different elevations.  this is a fact and easily verified.  if the entire earth was being accelerated, then it would be constant at all elevations.

the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible

You will not have a higher mass with speed, but in fact, will carry more energy. However, the acceleration towards the ground should indeed be equal no matter of your elevation, while on the mt Everest, the acceleration towards the ground is slightly lower than the 9.81 m/s² we have at the sea level. I am still waiting for an answer from flat earthers about this one. Btw, I also want to be answered about that ^^'
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9856.msg154387
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 03, 2018, 02:21:55 AM
the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

Whoever made the above comment has a very poor understanding of physics...

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible

Yeah, I think you have some homework to do...

so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

relative mass is easy to determine if you know a velocity.  its initial mass divided by the square root of 1 minus v2/c2...once v = c, then you are dividing your initial mass by zero...

the wiki provides a horrible example why an object cant reach the speed of light.  i agree, it cant reach C, but not because of the speed based on an observer outside of the earth.  the speed an outside observer sees is not the proper speed to object is going

i noticed you glossed over the question in my post, even though you managed to quote pretty much the rest of it, I will repost for clarity....that is why do we observe/measure different gravity/acceleration based on height on a flat earth?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 03, 2018, 02:26:25 AM
whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

one thing the do have correct in that UA article is that if a "flat" earth was being accellerated at 9.8 m/s2 we would not feel any difference at all.  so that part is correct.  of course UA would not account for the fact that we can measure different accelleration/gravity at different elevations.  this is a fact and easily verified.  if the entire earth was being accelerated, then it would be constant at all elevations.

the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible

You will not have a higher mass with speed, but in fact, will carry more energy. However, the acceleration towards the ground should indeed be equal no matter of your elevation, while on the mt Everest, the acceleration towards the ground is slightly lower than the 9.81 m/s² we have at the sea level. I am still waiting for an answer from flat earthers about this one. Btw, I also want to be answered about that ^^'
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9856.msg154387

no, relative mass increases with velocity compared to initial mass.   this of course requires a specific amount of energy based on the mass/velocity.  This really doesnt have anything to do with my question on varying values of gravity measured, was to point out the flawed understanding of why UA would not allow earth to reach C...
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: junker on June 03, 2018, 02:36:44 AM
so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration? For someone who gives off the impression of having a solid grasp on physics, I would expect more... UA is not without its problems, but I assure you this is not one of them.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 03, 2018, 02:43:42 AM
so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration? For someone who gives off the impression of having a solid grasp on physics, I would expect more... UA is not without its problems, but I assure you this is not one of them.

thanks again for the non-answer, very productive post/reply.   if it makes the conversation move forward, fine i will "admit" i was totally incorrect on anything i said about the physics and errors of UA, so we can avoid the redirecting of the real question....just provide an answer why we observe/measure different acceleration/gravity at different elevations on flat earth?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 03, 2018, 02:46:46 AM
so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration? For someone who gives off the impression of having a solid grasp on physics, I would expect more... UA is not without its problems, but I assure you this is not one of them.

thanks again for the non-answer, very productive post/reply.   if it makes the conversation move forward, fine i will "admit" i was totally incorrect on anything i said about the physics and errors of UA, so we can avoid the redirecting of the real question....just provide an answer why we observe/measure different acceleration/gravity at different elevations on flat earth?

As suggested in the Wiki, the stars have a slight gravitational pull.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: junker on June 03, 2018, 02:48:06 AM
This is typically the reply of the ignorant round earth logician. All hostility, no humility.

just provide an answer why we observe/measure different acceleration/gravity at different elevations on flat earth?
I'd suggest reading the wiki/FAQ and doing a simple forum search. It actually isn't all that hard.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: I am Seeker of Truth on June 03, 2018, 02:50:50 AM
whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

one thing the do have correct in that UA article is that if a "flat" earth was being accellerated at 9.8 m/s2 we would not feel any difference at all.  so that part is correct.  of course UA would not account for the fact that we can measure different accelleration/gravity at different elevations.  this is a fact and easily verified.  if the entire earth was being accelerated, then it would be constant at all elevations.

the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible

What about their selective acceptance of part of one part of General Relativity (Equivalence Principle) and saying that General Relativity is not relevant to the a flat earth?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: I am Seeker of Truth on June 03, 2018, 02:54:59 AM
No one addressed my specific question:

How can the Wiki author accept the Equivalence Principle, a part of General Relativity, and say that General Relativity does not apply to a flat earth?

Can't anyone read and answer questions without starting arguments about issues that the question does not raise?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 03, 2018, 02:55:04 AM
This is typically the reply of the ignorant round earth logician. All hostility, no humility.

just provide an answer why we observe/measure different acceleration/gravity at different elevations on flat earth?
I'd suggest reading the wiki/FAQ and doing a simple forum search. It actually isn't all that hard.

just found that info and saw Tom's response as well, will respond there
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 03, 2018, 03:00:14 AM
so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration? For someone who gives off the impression of having a solid grasp on physics, I would expect more... UA is not without its problems, but I assure you this is not one of them.

thanks again for the non-answer, very productive post/reply.   if it makes the conversation move forward, fine i will "admit" i was totally incorrect on anything i said about the physics and errors of UA, so we can avoid the redirecting of the real question....just provide an answer why we observe/measure different acceleration/gravity at different elevations on flat earth?

As suggested in the Wiki, the stars have a slight gravitational pull.

Tom, now i am totally confused.  So the moon and stars have a gravitational pull that affects the earth, but the earth has no gravity?  And what you are saying with this explanation given the premise that the earth is constantly accelerating upward, is that somehow the mountain top is accelerating slower than at ground level?  that explanation opens even more serious consequences for the validity of UA.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tumeni on June 03, 2018, 04:18:02 AM
You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration?

Well ... yes.  You're the one saying he's wrong, it's now encumbent upon you to state why, surely?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: junker on June 03, 2018, 04:24:41 AM
You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration?

Well ... yes.  You're the one saying he's wrong, it's now encumbent upon you to state why, surely?

Turns out I actually already stated it (it also turns out you even quoted it). If you find yourself struggling I would suggest going back and reading the thread again to clear up any misunderstanding on your part.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2018, 01:43:30 PM
No one addressed my specific question:

How can the Wiki author accept the Equivalence Principle, a part of General Relativity, and say that General Relativity does not apply to a flat earth?

Can't anyone read and answer questions without starting arguments about issues that the question does not raise?
You fundamentally missed the point. One does not have to accept GR piecemeal to point out that GR itself accepts that the equivalence would be there. To flip it on its head: you are telling us that your gravitational model would be identical to the one we're experiencing. We merely choose to take your word for it.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 03, 2018, 04:22:32 PM
so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration? For someone who gives off the impression of having a solid grasp on physics, I would expect more... UA is not without its problems, but I assure you this is not one of them.

i seem to be the one who understands the theory here, all you have done is try to confuse terms to avoid the obvious errors in UA.  We are talking about proper acceleration  as the discussion was about the earth reaching C, and thus the mysterious force that is accelerating the earth (acting upon it), that has to increase exponentially as its velocity/mass continues to increase.  Why bring coordinate acceleration into this discussion, other than to throw out a buzz word to try and deflect?  we are not talking about perceived acceleration from some outside observer?  But why would i expect a FET person to understand GR and SR, if you understood the theory and math involved then you would not be able to believe in a flat earth.

If you dont understand why the energy/force and mass have to reach infinity in order for an object of mass to reach C, i can provide you some links to physics books with the full proof if you would like.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 03, 2018, 04:28:52 PM
No one addressed my specific question:

How can the Wiki author accept the Equivalence Principle, a part of General Relativity, and say that General Relativity does not apply to a flat earth?

Can't anyone read and answer questions without starting arguments about issues that the question does not raise?
You fundamentally missed the point. One does not have to accept GR piecemeal to point out that GR itself accepts that the equivalence would be there. To flip it on its head: you are telling us that your gravitational model would be identical to the one we're experiencing. We merely choose to take your word for it.

GR was established under the principle of equivalence, it is the beginning building block of the GR.

The gravitation/acceleration model is indeed accurate as to what we feel and how things behave, but GR provides the math that shows why gravity is less at the top of a mountain than at sea level.  This is possible because gravity is based on the mass and distance from the center of mass.  UA is explicit saying the earth is accelerating upward, thus there is NO way to give an explanation on lower acceleration at the top of a mountain than at sea level.  this is observed and a fact that FET is not denying, but in doing so you are saying that there are two accelerations, which would have to imply the top of the mountain is going up slower and there would be contraction in the mountain itself as the ground would be catching up to it.  obviously this isnt happening.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: junker on June 03, 2018, 05:19:41 PM
i seem to be the one who understands the theory here...
It sure doesn't sound like it.

more rambling (exhibiting a first year uni level of physics), with an ad hominem at the end...
Yeah, you have some work to do. Instead of telling everyone how smart you are, maybe put in a little effort instead of hand waving away the bits you don't understand.

If you dont understand why the energy/force and mass have to reach infinity in order for an object of mass to reach C, i can provide you some links to physics books with the full proof if you would like.
You should probably take a look at the physics books first before offering them to someone else. You might also want to even put in a little time researching before replying again. This will help prevent you from looking as foolish as you do here. Best of luck, friend!
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 03, 2018, 07:09:41 PM
i seem to be the one who understands the theory here...
It sure doesn't sound like it.

more rambling (exhibiting a first year uni level of physics), with an ad hominem at the end...
Yeah, you have some work to do. Instead of telling everyone how smart you are, maybe put in a little effort instead of hand waving away the bits you don't understand.

If you dont understand why the energy/force and mass have to reach infinity in order for an object of mass to reach C, i can provide you some links to physics books with the full proof if you would like.
You should probably take a look at the physics books first before offering them to someone else. You might also want to even put in a little time researching before replying again. This will help prevent you from looking as foolish as you do here. Best of luck, friend!

very information first post above.  on the second, you are directly quoting me on something that i didnt type and is no where on this thread, thats interesting. third, i dont think anyone other that you and maybe a few other FET folks think i am coming off foolish.   I have used actual GR/SR mathematics as my background.

i have proved my point on UA and the different values of gravity not being possible with UA, and i will accept that you wont be providing anything to the conversation as again you conveniently neglect to address it

Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2018, 07:17:19 PM
i have proved my point on UA and the different values of gravity not being possible with UA
Have you? That's strange. How did you prove that celestial gravitation is "not possible" in conjunction with UA?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: I am Seeker of Truth on June 03, 2018, 07:20:24 PM
i have proved my point on UA and the different values of gravity not being possible with UA
Have you? That's strange. How did you prove that celestial gravitation is "not possible" in conjunction with UA?

You said, in another thread, that you have done private experiments to prove the flat earth but you won't share them.

Why do you feel you can ask Round Eyes to provide you with proof of something when you refuse to share what you claim is proof of a flat earth?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2018, 07:25:29 PM
Why do you feel you can ask Round Eyes to provide you with proof of something when you refuse to share what you claim is proof of a flat earth?
My understanding is that he claims to have proven something in this thread. Thus, I'm asking him to clarify.

The thread you're referring to involved your team prying at what I do with my free time. It's rather different.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: I am Seeker of Truth on June 03, 2018, 08:21:08 PM
No one addressed my specific question:

How can the Wiki author accept the Equivalence Principle, a part of General Relativity, and say that General Relativity does not apply to a flat earth?

Can't anyone read and answer questions without starting arguments about issues that the question does not raise?
You fundamentally missed the point. One does not have to accept GR piecemeal to point out that GR itself accepts that the equivalence would be there. To flip it on its head: you are telling us that your gravitational model would be identical to the one we're experiencing. We merely choose to take your word for it.

Sorry, you are missing the points involved here.

Your statements do not change the fact that General Relativity first stated the Equivalence Principle for accelerating frames of reference.

I did not ask you to accept anything. I quoted the UA Wiki entry and ask how it can say that General Relativity does not apply ot a flat earth but then it accepts the Equivalence Principle for accelerating frames of reference as true.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: I am Seeker of Truth on June 03, 2018, 08:26:20 PM
i seem to be the one who understands the theory here...
It sure doesn't sound like it.

more rambling (exhibiting a first year uni level of physics), with an ad hominem at the end...
Yeah, you have some work to do. Instead of telling everyone how smart you are, maybe put in a little effort instead of hand waving away the bits you don't understand.

If you dont understand why the energy/force and mass have to reach infinity in order for an object of mass to reach C, i can provide you some links to physics books with the full proof if you would like.
You should probably take a look at the physics books first before offering them to someone else. You might also want to even put in a little time researching before replying again. This will help prevent you from looking as foolish as you do here. Best of luck, friend!

What part of physics gooks should he look at?

You are forever telling people to research this and research that and you never tell them what to research nor do you give any links or book names to research.

I'm asking you - point blank, what parts of physics books should he look at and what information,secifically is he looking for?

You imply (state?) that people do not know what they are talking about but instead of information to rebut him, you say 'research it yourself'

Another way to wiggle out of having to actually provide information, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: I am Seeker of Truth on June 03, 2018, 08:27:21 PM
i have proved my point on UA and the different values of gravity not being possible with UA
Have you? That's strange. How did you prove that celestial gravitation is "not possible" in conjunction with UA?

How do you prove it is possible?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: I am Seeker of Truth on June 03, 2018, 08:28:24 PM
Why do you feel you can ask Round Eyes to provide you with proof of something when you refuse to share what you claim is proof of a flat earth?
My understanding is that he claims to have proven something in this thread. Thus, I'm asking him to clarify.

The thread you're referring to involved your team prying at what I do with my free time. It's rather different.

But if you have experimental results which will further the flat earth idea, why not share them with us?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 03, 2018, 09:04:31 PM
i have proved my point on UA and the different values of gravity not being possible with UA
Have you? That's strange. How did you prove that celestial gravitation is "not possible" in conjunction with UA?
strange is that the following statement was in reply to your previous post, see below:

The gravitation/acceleration model is indeed accurate as to what we feel and how things behave, but GR provides the math that shows why gravity is less at the top of a mountain than at sea level.  This is possible because gravity is based on the mass and distance from the center of mass.  UA is explicit saying the earth is accelerating upward, thus there is NO way to give an explanation on lower acceleration at the top of a mountain than at sea level.  this is observed and a fact that FET is not denying, but in doing so you are saying that there are two accelerations, which would have to imply the top of the mountain is going up slower and there would be contraction in the mountain itself as the ground would be catching up to it.  obviously this isnt happening.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: I am Seeker of Truth on June 04, 2018, 02:39:12 AM
Why do you feel you can ask Round Eyes to provide you with proof of something when you refuse to share what you claim is proof of a flat earth?
My understanding is that he claims to have proven something in this thread. Thus, I'm asking him to clarify.

The thread you're referring to involved your team prying at what I do with my free time. It's rather different.

Just more smoke and mirrors. Find anything, no matter how minuscule to fault a poster for and then ignore the actual questions raised. What someone says in one thread has nothing to do with what they say in another thread? Wow, what fraudulent way to do things.

the fact is that you have said that you did experiments and "No, I will not be showing them to you." albeit in another thread - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9814.msg154235#msg154235 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9814.msg154235#msg154235)

Does the material in a given thread stand totally alone? If so, that's a neat trick, but it is also just a way to wiggle out of actually answering questions.

All smoke and mirrors, no reality.

And, as I said in my original reply to you - how can you ask for proof for something when you won't offer any such thing youself???
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2018, 08:12:05 AM
UA is explicit saying the earth is accelerating upward, thus there is NO way to give an explanation on lower acceleration at the top of a mountain than at sea level
But there is a way, and it was already provided to you. As your altitude increases, so does celestial gravitation, which in turn causes you to perceive less of the Earth's acceleration.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 04, 2018, 12:58:39 PM
UA is explicit saying the earth is accelerating upward, thus there is NO way to give an explanation on lower acceleration at the top of a mountain than at sea level
But there is a way, and it was already provided to you. As your altitude increases, so does celestial gravitation, which in turn causes you to perceive less of the Earth's acceleration.

this incredibly important aspect of UA, and its two whole lines in the wiki:

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

I love how the description is basically saying its gravity, but not its not gravity.  I mean, this is a pretty significant detail to be left to two lines of text.  Putting aside that you guys are using gravity to debunk gravity...it doesnt resolve the issue of differential observed gravity values that i have brought up.

The issue is that UA is based on the earth accelerating upward a 1G.  The acceleration has the same affect of gravity per the equivalence principle.  i agree with this 100%, there would be no difference.  the issue is that we are not talking gravity, if we were, then the negative gravitational (celestial) would indeed act to cancel out some of the gravitation affects and you would observe lower than 1G at higher elevations as you approach the heavenly bodies.

But hold on, we are not discussing gravity, UA is saying the earth is physically accelerating upwards.  You have two accellerations, for giggles lets just use the following math:

sea level; elevation 0 meters; 1G (9.807 m/s2)
Top of mount everest = elevation 4,900 meters = gravity is 9.773 m/s2

that is a difference of 0.034 m/s2  which is the catch-up acceleration that the bottom of the mountain would be 'chasing' the top...

simple kinematics would show that over the course of a year, the top of the mountain would of decreased by 22,338 meters...yeah, kind of an issue.

X = x0 + vot + 0.5at2

of course the gravitational difference would be decreasing as the the top of the mountain lowered and this would eventually equalize so i know the 22,338m is not accurate...but it proves the point that you cant have two different accelerations on earth, as acceleration is related to MOTION....you can have two different gravity (FORCE) values however, and thats very easily defined based on distance from the center of the mass.

you cant interchange and state that gravity or "celestial gravition" has an impact of physical acceleration.  its impossible.  UA is debunked.

Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2018, 01:01:35 PM
you guys are using gravity to debunk gravity...
No one is trying to debunk gravity.

But hold on, we are not discussing gravity
We are. We are also discussing gravitation, which counteracts it to some extent.

you cant interchange and state that gravity or "celestial gravition" has an impact of physical acceleration.  its impossible.
Hold on. You're making this sound as if the acceleration caused by gravitation (in either RET or FET - pick your favourite) is something else than "physical". What is it?

sea level; elevation 0 meters; 1G (9.807 m/s2)
Top of mount everest = elevation 4,900 meters = gravity is 9.773 m/s2

that is a difference of 0.034 m/s2  which is the catch-up acceleration that the bottom of the mountain would be 'chasing' the top...
That's not how any of this works. The entire Earth is accelerating uniformly. However, your weight will be a component of the force of the Earth pushing you up and celestial gravitation. You seem to be under the impression that different parts of the Earth accelerate at different rates, which is patently not the case.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 04, 2018, 01:04:23 PM
you guys are using gravity to debunk gravity...
No one is trying to debunk gravity. [/b]

But hold on, we are not discussing gravity
We are. We are also discussing gravitation, which counteracts it to some extent.

you cant interchange and state that gravity or "celestial gravition" has an impact of physical acceleration.  its impossible.
Hold on. You're making this sound as if the acceleration caused by gravitation (in either RET or FET - pick your favourite) is something else than "physical". What is it?

i wouldnt expect any different reply from you Pete.

yes, UA is debunking gravity, its saying gravity doesnt exist on earth, its just acceleration.  i have shown how that cannot be.

i have already explained in detail why gravity cant 'counteract' this acceleration, its quite simple.

i dont expect you to agree with me and that UA does not work, no point in going on.  i have provided the proof, and its all in my above reply.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 04, 2018, 01:06:15 PM
That's not how any of this works. The entire Earth is accelerating uniformly. However, your weight will be a component of the force of the Earth pushing you up and celestial gravitation. You seem to be under the impression that different parts of the Earth accelerate at different rates, which is patently not the case.

interesting being that we observe different G values on earth, and easily calculated.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2018, 01:07:43 PM
yes, UA is debunking gravity, its saying gravity doesnt exist on earth, its just acceleration.  i have shown how that cannot be.
No, that's not what UA is saying.

i have already explained in detail why gravity cant 'counteract' this acceleration, its quite simple.
I mean, so far all you've demonstrated is a lack of understanding of the two forces involved.

Consider the following: If on either model you stand on top of a scale, it will tell you your mass. If I now approach you from behind, give you a good ol' cuddle and start lifting you up (not quite strongly enough to actually lift you off the ground, mind you, I'm rather weak and frail), you will notice that your measured mass will reduce. Does that mean that the Earth's gravitation became weaker? No. There's an additional force in the mix that you have to consider.

interesting being that we observe different G values on earth, and easily calculated.
Yes, the composite of these two forces will differ in different places on Earth.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 04, 2018, 01:33:04 PM
yes, UA is debunking gravity, its saying gravity doesnt exist on earth, its just acceleration.  i have shown how that cannot be.
No, that's not what UA is saying.

i have already explained in detail why gravity cant 'counteract' this acceleration, its quite simple.
I mean, so far all you've demonstrated is a lack of understanding of the two forces involved.

Consider the following: If on either model you stand on top of a scale, it will tell you your mass. If I now approach you from behind, give you a good ol' cuddle and start lifting you up (not quite strongly enough to actually lift you off the ground, mind you, I'm rather weak and frail), you will notice that your measured mass will reduce. Does that mean that the Earth's gravitation became weaker? No. There's an additional force in the mix that you have to consider.

interesting being that we observe different G values on earth, and easily calculated.
Yes, the composite of these two forces will differ in different places on Earth.

i cant continue a debate with someone that doesnt exhibit intellectual honesty.  we can disagree on math, theory, etc, but you cannot change the entire premise of the debate, which is UA specifically is a model created to say gravity doesnt exist.  from the wiki on UA:

The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.

According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity is not the main force keeping us on the ground. Instead, there is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as "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

Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2018, 01:41:45 PM
i cant continue a debate with someone that doesnt exhibit intellectual honesty.
I can't force you to talk to me, but I will ask you not to resort to personal insults in the upper fora.

The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.

According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity is not the main force keeping us on the ground. Instead, there is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as "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

This does not contradict what I'm saying. You've fixated yourself on an interpretation that you believe to be correct, and are outright refusing clarifications from one of the people who helped write it down.

Gravitation is indeed not the main force keeping us on the ground. Celestial gravitation is indeed somewhat different from the traditional model (it is much weaker). But none of that means that gravitation is altogether absent.

I'm sorry, but you simply misunderstood what was being said. You're welcome to refuse to accept this, but at that point you're just arguing against your own imagination, and no one else.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tontogary on June 04, 2018, 02:42:33 PM

Consider the following: If on either model you stand on top of a scale, it will tell you your mass. If I now approach you from behind, give you a good ol' cuddle and start lifting you up (not quite strongly enough to actually lift you off the ground, mind you, I'm rather weak and frail), you will notice that your measured mass will reduce. Does that mean that the Earth's gravitation became weaker? No. There's an additional force in the mix that you have to consider.

Do you really mean Mass?

Lifting someone up will not alter their mass. The mass of a person on earth or somewhere else with a difference force acting upon them will be the same.
The mass of someone at sea level and then on top of Everest is the same. Their weight is not.

You are referring to weight surely?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2018, 02:55:37 PM
Do you really mean Mass?
I didn't say mass. I said "measured mass". A scale infers your mass from the force acting upon it - assumed to be weight. The moment you introduce additional forces, the measurement changes. It is, of course, no longer a true mass, since the assumptions are no longer met.

Lifting someone up will not alter their mass. The mass of a person on earth or somewhere else with a difference force acting upon them will be the same.

You are referring to weight surely?
Not strictly, no. I'm referring to the product of weight, my additional force, and the way in which the scale will process it to output a measurement of mass.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 04, 2018, 03:05:17 PM
I mean, so far all you've demonstrated is a lack of understanding of the two forces involved.

Consider the following: If on either model you stand on top of a scale, it will tell you your mass. If I now approach you from behind, give you a good ol' cuddle and start lifting you up (not quite strongly enough to actually lift you off the ground, mind you, I'm rather weak and frail), you will notice that your measured mass will reduce. Does that mean that the Earth's gravitation became weaker? No. There's an additional force in the mix that you have to consider.

Many confusions here that i think i can help explain/resolve

first, you say mass - you mean weight.  weight is determine by the gravity (or acceleration in UA) and your mass.  mass isnt changing i think we can all agree?

Using your example on RET, a good one for our discussion by the way, my weight (again due to gravity as defined by newton/einstein) on the scale would reduce when you cuddled me and tried to lift me up...but YOUR weight would increase by the same amount mine did (if you were also standing on a scale).  this is all well described by gravitational forces.  you have applied a minor force to offset the gravitational force.   this force is balanced out.  good.

now lets use the other reality of UA for your same example.  I weigh a certain amount because of my mass and the upward acceleration of 9.81 m/s2 being applied to me.  if you were suspended above me (or stood next to me, doesnt matter) and applied a small force to me and it wasnt enough to physically lift me off the ground (per your example), well then my acceleration has not been decreased and therefore my weight hasnt been impacted.  This is because acceleration is the square of velocity, not a force.  my velocity has not changed relative to the earth.  the force is the mystery force being applied to the earth to accelerate it upward.

Does this explain the conflict in UA more clearly?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tumeni on June 04, 2018, 03:39:59 PM
"UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2."

Is this an assertion that the Earth is (just) moving at 9.81 metres per second, or
Constantly accelerating at 9.81 metres per second, per second?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 04, 2018, 03:45:01 PM
"UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2."

Is this an assertion that the Earth is (just) moving at 9.81 metres per second, or
Constantly accelerating at 9.81 metres per second, per second?

in order to mimic gravity, it would have to be constantly accelerating.   static velocity would not produce the equivalence.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2018, 05:39:27 PM
first, you say mass - you mean weight.
No, I do not. The scale you're standing on does not provide an output in Newtons. Sure, it does achieve it by simply dividing the measured force by a constant, but it nonetheless attempts to measure mass.

Using your example on RET, a good one for our discussion by the way, my weight (again due to gravity as defined by newton/einstein) on the scale would reduce when you cuddled me and tried to lift me up...but YOUR weight would increase by the same amount mine did (if you were also standing on a scale).  this is all well described by gravitational forces.
Correct, but irrelevant. I'm not standing on the scale, and neither is celestial gravitation.

well then my acceleration has not been decreased and therefore my weight hasnt been impacted.  This is because acceleration is the square of velocity, not a force.
This directly contravenes the equivalence principle.

Does this explain the conflict in UA more clearly?
No. I can see that you're missing something, but you're too busy trying to explain why you think you're right for it to be particularly clear.

I think this may be your mistake: You assume that if an object falling towards a mountain top is accelerating downwards more slowly than the same object at sea level, then the mountaintop itself is also accelerating upwards more slowly. This is simply not the case. If we use the Earth as the frame of reference, there are two forces here - one downward one, which will be identical in both cases, and one upward one (celestial gravitation), which will be greater at high altitudes.

Moving back to an external frame of reference: it is not the case that the Earth is accelerating upwards more slowly in these places. The object in question is also accelerating upwards (at a greatly reduced rate) due to celestial gravitation. Therein lies the difference.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 04, 2018, 06:22:06 PM
first, you say mass - you mean weight.
No, I do not. The scale you're standing on does not provide an output in Newtons. Sure, it does achieve it by simply dividing the measured force by a constant, but it nonetheless attempts to measure mass.

Using your example on RET, a good one for our discussion by the way, my weight (again due to gravity as defined by newton/einstein) on the scale would reduce when you cuddled me and tried to lift me up...but YOUR weight would increase by the same amount mine did (if you were also standing on a scale).  this is all well described by gravitational forces.
Correct, but irrelevant. I'm not standing on the scale, and neither is celestial gravitation.

well then my acceleration has not been decreased and therefore my weight hasnt been impacted.  This is because acceleration is the square of velocity, not a force.
This directly contravenes the equivalence principle.

Does this explain the conflict in UA more clearly?
No. I can see that you're missing something, but you're too busy trying to explain why you think you're right for it to be particularly clear.

I think this may be your mistake: You assume that if an object falling towards a mountain top is accelerating downwards more slowly than the same object at sea level, then the mountaintop itself is also accelerating upwards more slowly. This is simply not the case. If we use the Earth as the frame of reference, there are two forces here - one downward one, which will be identical in both cases, and one upward one (celestial gravitation), which will be greater at high altitudes.

Moving back to an external frame of reference: it is not the case that the Earth is accelerating upwards more slowly in these places. The object in question is also accelerating upwards (at a greatly reduced rate) due to celestial gravitation. Therein lies the difference.

first bold item - of course you are standing on a scale, its earth, and the forces are transferred.  i.e. you have removed weight from me and that force is directly applied to you, resulting in more weight.  conservation of energy.

second bold item - this does not contravene the equivalence principle, you are incorrectly trying to use it to prove more than it is.  equivalence principle just says constant 1G accelleration is indistinguishable from 1G of gravity force for an observer that cannot see the outside world.  it does not have anything to do with changing forces.  in fact a change in acceleration would allow the observer inside to realize he was not standing on earth in 1G, thus being in conflict with the principle

for the last part, you are trying to apply how gravity works to the UA model of constant acceleration.  These are not the same thing.  You are trying to cancel out base acceleration (for lack of better words) with an upward gravitational force.  If we were talking gravity i would agree with your premise, but UA is talking about actual, physical acceleration....not perceived acceleration (i.e. gravity per the equivalence principle).   UA is literally saying the entire planet is upward accelerating, as in everything at the same constant acceleration.   You cant switch between the two mechanisms.  Acceleration is a measured quantity of distance per time squared  while gravity is a force and magnitude of this field creates the appropriate acceleration.

that last paragraph was not as greatly worded as i had written in my head, let me know if you get what i am saying.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2018, 06:28:04 PM
first bold item - of course you are standing on a scale, its earth, and the forces are transferred.
No, I assure you that the sum of all other celestial bodies is not resting on the Earth's surface.

equivalence principle just says constant 1G accelleration is indistinguishable from 1G of gravity force for an observer that cannot see the outside world.
That is all I'm saying.

it does not have anything to do with changing forces.
By that logic, a simple act of jumping would break the Equivalence Principle. This is not the case.

that last paragraph was not as greatly worded as i had written in my head, let me know if you get what i am saying.
I can see what you're saying, but it is you who's conflating the terms. The variation is not in the physical acceleration of the Earth - it is in the acceleration you (or your measurement instrument of choice) will perceive while on (or close to) the Earth.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 04, 2018, 06:31:40 PM
first bold item - of course you are standing on a scale, its earth, and the forces are transferred.
No, I assure you that the sum of all other celestial bodies is not resting on the Earth's surface.

equivalence principle just says constant 1G accelleration is indistinguishable from 1G of gravity force for an observer that cannot see the outside world.
That is all I'm saying.

it does not have anything to do with changing forces.
By that logic, a simple act of jumping would break the Equivalence Principle. This is not the case.

that last paragraph was not as greatly worded as i had written in my head, let me know if you get what i am saying.
I can see what you're saying, but it is you who's conflating the terms. The variation is not in the physical acceleration of the Earth - it is in the acceleration you (or your measurement instrument of choice) will perceive while on (or close to) the Earth.
Thanks for the back and forth Pete, its always fun to discuss physics with people.  i think we both put some real effort into explaining each other's views and not resorting to some of the typical personal tangents that most threads on here seem to devolve into, but i think we just have to agree to disagree on this, not sure more discussion will really change either's views.  Have a great day, i'm sure we will "tangle" again soon.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 04, 2018, 06:34:19 PM
I just read the Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration and have several questions but I will post them one at a time.

Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2018, 06:36:51 PM
Thanks for the back and forth Pete, its always fun to discuss physics with people. [...]
That's fair. Agree to disagree it is.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tumeni on June 04, 2018, 06:41:12 PM
"UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2."

Is this an assertion that the Earth is (just) moving at 9.81 metres per second, or
Constantly accelerating at 9.81 metres per second, per second?

in order to mimic gravity, it would have to be constantly accelerating.   static velocity would not produce the equivalence.

So, after 1 second, Earth was moving at 19.6m/s, after two at 29.4m/s, after three at 39.2m/s, etc. ... ?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2018, 07:14:28 PM
So, after 1 second, Earth was moving at 19.6m/s, after two at 29.4m/s, after three at 39.2m/s, etc. ... ?
Relative to something that was stationary relative to the Earth at the minus first second, and which is not accelerating relative to an external observer (the same observer as the one observing the Earth as accelerating upwards), yes.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tumeni on June 04, 2018, 07:58:39 PM
So, after 1 second, Earth was moving at 19.6m/s, after two at 29.4m/s, after three at 39.2m/s, etc. ... ?
Relative to something that was stationary relative to the Earth at the minus first second, and which is not accelerating relative to an external observer (the same observer as the one observing the Earth as accelerating upwards), yes.

So ...how long do you reckon Earth has been doing this?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2018, 08:33:46 PM
So ...how long do you reckon Earth has been doing this?
Long enough for you to make your next statement. However, before you do so, make sure you familiarise yourself with basic Special Relativity, most importantly the Lorentz transformation.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Round Eyes on June 04, 2018, 08:35:17 PM
So ...how long do you reckon Earth has been doing this?
Long enough for you to make your next statement. However, before you do so, make sure you familiarise yourself with basic Special Relativity, most importantly the Lorentz transformation.

just curious how long does FET believe Earth has existed?  i did a quick search and didnt find anything.  not going down the speed of light road  :)
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tumeni on June 04, 2018, 11:06:52 PM
So ...how long do you reckon Earth has been doing this?
Long enough for you to make your next statement.

Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: junker on June 05, 2018, 02:45:00 AM
So ...how long do you reckon Earth has been doing this?
Long enough for you to make your next statement.

Let me suggest that you get to the point of what you want to "ask," then. And if you have more than one question on the same topic, go ahead and ask them in one post.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tumeni on June 05, 2018, 04:00:07 AM
Let me suggest that you get to the point of what you want to "ask," then. And if you have more than one question on the same topic, go ahead and ask them in one post.

Subsequent questions will depend on the answers to the two (2) that I posted above, though...

That's the nature of conversation, isn't it?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: junker on June 05, 2018, 04:53:00 AM
Let me suggest that you get to the point of what you want to "ask," then. And if you have more than one question on the same topic, go ahead and ask them in one post.

Subsequent questions will depend on the answers to the two (2) that I posted above, though...

That's the nature of conversation, isn't it?

It is also a popular habit of people who think they’re clever and attempt to trap someone by asking a series of leading questions and ending with a “gotcha.” Apologies if that isn’t the case, but it sure looks like it, and I’m not the only one picking up on the possibility.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: hexagon on June 05, 2018, 07:08:26 AM
So ...how long do you reckon Earth has been doing this?
Long enough for you to make your next statement. However, before you do so, make sure you familiarise yourself with basic Special Relativity, most importantly the Lorentz transformation.

The equivalence principle, gravity, acceleration and so on are all part of general relativity. Special relativity only deals with reference systems that have relative velocity regarding each other.

The term "general relativity" was introduced to point out, that this includes also accelerated relative motions.

The equivalence principle was introduced by Einstein as an attempted to at least locally use the concept of special relativity in a gravitational field. It was never meant as way to replace gravity by acceleration on a planetary scale. If you're confined in a small region without any reference to the surrounding you cannot distinguish at a given point in spacetime if you are under the influence of a gravitational field or accelerated by another force because the laws of physics behave in the same manner.

But gravitational fields are not homogeneous, they are gradient fields, therefor the acceleration is not constant and the equivalence principle is not valid within an entire gravitational field.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 05, 2018, 10:58:46 AM
[lots of rambling]

But gravitational fields are not homogeneous, they are gradient fields, therefor the acceleration is not constant and the equivalence principle is not valid within an entire gravitational field.
Isn't it just fantastic that we're not considering just an acceleration, then? It would be preferable if, in the future, you could try to stay on topic.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: hexagon on June 05, 2018, 12:56:24 PM
[lots of rambling]

But gravitational fields are not homogeneous, they are gradient fields, therefor the acceleration is not constant and the equivalence principle is not valid within an entire gravitational field.
Isn't it just fantastic that we're not considering just an acceleration, then? It would be preferable if, in the future, you could try to stay on topic.

The starting point of my post was your false reference to special relativity. You're borrowing a concept of general relativity and as an advice to understand your concept you refer to special relativity...
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 05, 2018, 03:43:09 PM
The starting point of my post was your false reference to special relativity. You're borrowing a concept of general relativity and as an advice to understand your concept you refer to special relativity...
No, I'm not. Whether or not UA can be locally distinguished from RET-style gravity and whether or not the Earth should exceed the speed of light under UA are two separate arguments, with two separate answers, directed at two distinct individuals. Trying to treat them as one is extremely unproductive of you.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 05, 2018, 03:48:13 PM
Pop quiz, hotshot.
I think I've seen you say that the earth sits on an infinite plane?
Ergo it has infinite mass?
So no amount of "dark energy" will accelerate it at all, let alone at 9.8m/s/s
F=ma, and if m is infinite then a = F/infinity...and it doesn't really matter how big the F is then.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: junker on June 05, 2018, 03:53:38 PM
Pop quiz, hotshot.
Don't do that.

I think I've seen you say that the earth sits on an infinite plane?
Ergo it has infinite mass?
So no amount of "dark energy" will accelerate it at all, let alone at 9.8m/s/s
F=ma, and if m is infinite then a = F/infinity...and it doesn't really matter how big the F is then.
I may be mistaken about the model Pete prefers, but typically those who support the infinite plane model do not support UA.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 05, 2018, 05:47:33 PM
Pop quiz, hotshot.
Sorry, I'm not gonna entertain that.

I think I've seen you say that the earth sits on an infinite plane?
I hope not. It's not my position, and as junker pointed out, infinite plane models usually propose GR-style gravitation.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: QED on August 19, 2018, 03:38:27 AM
The starting point of my post was your false reference to special relativity. You're borrowing a concept of general relativity and as an advice to understand your concept you refer to special relativity...
No, I'm not. Whether or not UA can be locally distinguished from RET-style gravity and whether or not the Earth should exceed the speed of light under UA are two separate arguments, with two separate answers, directed at two distinct individuals. Trying to treat them as one is extremely unproductive of you.

I think this is very important to point out: they are indeed separate claims in the FE model, by necessity.

In fairness, however, I do see how hexagon coupled them. General Relativity is commensurate with Special Relativity (in the RET). What I mean is that Einstein developed special relativity and then extended it (generalized it) years later into general relativity. Separated, they do not make sense in RET, and it is precise to treat them identically in RET arguments. The answers will always be the same, if the correct limits are taken.

Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Bastian Baasch on January 10, 2019, 11:58:34 PM
Not sure if this is the right place to post questions about the wiki (it seems like the right place), but I was recently reading through the Evidence of UA wiki entry and most of the evidence hinged on the equivalence principle and how it's a big coincidence that inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass. Just because a lot of sources and people point out this coincidence doesn't tip the scales in favor, you need more substantive proof, the equivalence test still works, which means flat UA and gravity are still possibilities, not spotting EP violations while odd to scientists doesn't rule out gravity.

In addition, I think the "Russian Academy of Sciences" evidence subsection should be removed, I can't find anything on Prof. A Zielinski (Google yields nothing) except for this on the RAS's website, which doesn't lead to anything. http://www.ras.ru/CSearchResults.aspx?SearchString=Zielinksi I also don't speak Russian, so potentially any info on him I might not be able to find (it would be nice if someone could, Google translate is not very good). Until we can find further information on Prof. A Zielinski, his credentials, other papers he published, etc. it should be removed, otherwise it's just a blatant appeal to authority (even that can't be established without credentials on this guy) because flat earthers heard what they wanted.

Lastly, the empirical reasoning section, like seriously, is that a joke? In Experiment 1, you could just as equally say you're accelerating toward the earth. It's just a matter of interpreting what you see to what you want to see. In Experiment 2, let me just ask you, do basketball players feel the earth pushing up on their feet every time they dribble the ball? Or if you and a friend just moved some heavy furniture and set it down, do you feel like the earth is pushing your feet? Both these experiments don't really confirm UA.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2019, 12:27:34 AM
I was recently reading through the Evidence of UA wiki entry
It sounds like you're looking for this thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11397.0).
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2019, 02:29:08 AM
The article says "Prof. Zielinski conducts research in the field of quantum electrodynamics. He is an active member of the Russian Academy of Science and is ambassador of the International Scientists Club with its headquarters at St. Petersburg, Russia." The author of the article is "Prof. A. Zielinski."

Here he is listed on one of those committees as a professor:

Quote
p.1

International Scientists' Club
Saint-Petersburg Department of Physical Society
International Academy of Information Communication and Control
Saint-Petersburg Mining Engineers' Society
Russian Geological Society
Russian Geographical Society

...

p.2

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE OF THE CONGRESS-2004

Zielinski A.          Prof.            Germany

Quote
Lastly, the empirical reasoning section, like seriously, is that a joke? In Experiment 1, you could just as equally say you're accelerating toward the earth. It's just a matter of interpreting what you see to what you want to see. In Experiment 2, let me just ask you, do basketball players feel the earth pushing up on their feet every time they dribble the ball? Or if you and a friend just moved some heavy furniture and set it down, do you feel like the earth is pushing your feet? Both these experiments don't really confirm UA.

It's a comparison of mechanisms. We can see the upwardly accelerating earth, but we can't see the mechanism of any other gravitational theory. Why wouldn't that be evidence?

You can say that you are accelerating towards the earth but then you need to invent something invisible to pull you. This is in contrast to the upwardly accelerating earth which can be directly observed as a pusher mechanism.

Also, it's not odd at all that bodies of different masses fall at the same rate despite the laws of inertia saying that it takes more force to push objects with larger masses?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on January 11, 2019, 01:00:12 PM
Tom,

F = m*a for inertia, correct?  Newton developed the equation for the acceleration or force of gravity which is F = G*(m1*m2/r^2).

Equating the two cancels out the mass for the first object.  Mass is therefore irrelevant in determining how fast an object will fall - until the surface area of the object becomes an impediment to that, aka drag force.

I think I saw mention earlier in the post or maybe in another post that the force of gravity is not constant and changes with altitude, and that was a point of concern. Well, according to the Fgravity equation, that is not an issue.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2019, 02:46:09 PM
You are citing an equation, not an explanation. Why should it be that all bodies fall towards the earth at the same rate towards the earth if the inertial laws say that it takes more force to move a heavier object through space?

"Just because it does, look at this equation" is not a sufficiant answer.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on January 11, 2019, 02:52:06 PM
Yes, it is sufficient. That's how basic engineering works.  You develop two equations based off observations (inertial and gravitational) based on Force, then you equate the two.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2019, 02:58:36 PM
Yes, it is sufficient. That's how basic engineering works.  You develop two equations based off observations (inertial and gravitational) based on Force, then you equate the two.

I apologize for editing your post. The quote button is right near the modify button.

The matter needs to be explained. Citing or creating an equation for the average number of doves released into the air during a magician's magic show is not an explanation of anything.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on January 11, 2019, 03:16:47 PM
You are asking me to explain why mass gets to double dip.  This is explained by Einsteins theory of general relativity and the bending of space time.  But what you want me to really say is that Einstein posited that gravity isnt actually a force but an acceleration, which gives credit to your theory of UA.  In reality though, UA is not dependent on mass, and is some unknown aether that has no evidence of existing and cannot be connected to general relativity.
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on January 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM
Also, from rereading the earlier posts in this topic, I want to try and further understand UA. Not trying to discredit the theory. But there seems to be information missing from the Wiki. Unless I misread the wiki.

UA is a universal acceleration. It is not dependent on anything related to the objects it is acting upon.  Thats what I gather. Because if it did depend on the size and mass of the object, we would have RE gravity. And we would have things moving at different speeds. Given that, if we reach a high enough altitude or go into outer space itself, would we ourselves not be subject to UA? Why is it explained as celestial gravitation (aka other bodies having gravitational pull, but not the earth)?

But then we have to consider this "dome" that supposedly covers the earth. Does that prevent the UA from acting upon us? Or is it more of a boundary layer effect as in fluid mechanics where the current of the UA doesnt fully wrap around the edges of the flat earth? If it prevents the UA from acting upon us due to a literal dome, why would celestial gravitation have an effect on us at different altitudes? Didn't I read somewhere that rockets dont actually go into space, that they just hit the dome?
Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: RonJ on January 11, 2019, 03:37:20 PM
Heavier objects need need more force to accelerate at a given rate, but are provided with that additional force by additional gravity (they weight more).
Lighter objects don't need as much force to accelerate at a given rate, but don't get as much gravitational force either (they weigh less).
The end result is that all objects only get the force needed by gravity to accelerate at a particular rate, like magic.

The equations explicitly EXPLAIN the magical relationships between the forces and masses.

Don't believe it?  Just provide any example where the equations aren't true.

Title: Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
Post by: Bastian Baasch on January 11, 2019, 11:50:26 PM
The article says "Prof. Zielinski conducts research in the field of quantum electrodynamics. He is an active member of the Russian Academy of Science and is ambassador of the International Scientists Club with its headquarters at St. Petersburg, Russia." The author of the article is "Prof. A. Zielinski."

Here he is listed on one of those committees as a professor:

Quote
p.1

International Scientists' Club
Saint-Petersburg Department of Physical Society
International Academy of Information Communication and Control
Saint-Petersburg Mining Engineers' Society
Russian Geological Society
Russian Geographical Society

...

p.2

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE OF THE CONGRESS-2004

Zielinski A.          Prof.            Germany

Quote
Lastly, the empirical reasoning section, like seriously, is that a joke? In Experiment 1, you could just as equally say you're accelerating toward the earth. It's just a matter of interpreting what you see to what you want to see. In Experiment 2, let me just ask you, do basketball players feel the earth pushing up on their feet every time they dribble the ball? Or if you and a friend just moved some heavy furniture and set it down, do you feel like the earth is pushing your feet? Both these experiments don't really confirm UA.

It's a comparison of mechanisms. We can see the upwardly accelerating earth, but we can't see the mechanism of any other gravitational theory. Why wouldn't that be evidence?

You can say that you are accelerating towards the earth but then you need to invent something invisible to pull you. This is in contrast to the upwardly accelerating earth which can be directly observed as a pusher mechanism.

Also, it's not odd at all that bodies of different masses fall at the same rate despite the laws of inertia saying that it takes more force to push objects with larger masses?

I know what the article says, do you think I can't read, what I asked for was his credentials, like what degrees he has. All it says is he's a researcher at the RAS, a prof., and he's a member of some clubs and committees. It doesn't even say what his degree is in. Also, he says Mi Mo was wrong because they didn't try it vertically but then gives no results or references to vertical Mi Mo experiments to back up his claims. He talks about how "Consequent experiments and observations were so coherent that the existence of aether could not be ignored any longer" so he could continue his QED research, but shows nothing to back up his claims. The whole article is basically one guy's love of aether with zero substantiation to his claims. Classic case of flat earthers finding what they want to hear.

On the empirical reasoning part, you literally regurgitated what the wiki said. But let me ask you this, you say gravity is proven wrong because we have to invent something invisible to pull us and because we can see the earth accelerating up, but don't you likewise have to invent something invisible causing the earth to accelerate upwards, something has to be pushing the earth up, that force had to come from somewhere.

Different masses accelerating the same rate is odd, but it can be explained. WRI and RonJ already did, but I'll add in my two cents anyways. A common example is an elephant and a book accelerating at the same rate. Since the masses are so disparate, FErs I guess see some kind of paradox. But if you look at Fsubg = mg, with g the gravitational field strength (in N/kg), g = Fsubg/m, it's a ratio of force to mass, which is why it works for disparate masses, the Fsubgs are proportional to the mass. The gravitational field strength, when we sub in Fsubg into the Universal Law of Gravitation gives us GM/r^2,(r being distance from the center of the earth to the center of the mass), showing that g is unaffected by the mass in question. On the other hand, accelerations in general aren't tied like g is to something else, they are related to the force applied and the mass it's applied to, which is why more force is required to move more mass, they don't have the proportionality of g in Fsubg = mg.