1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator

« on: December 29, 2021, 11:12:04 AM »

My incorrect assumption was that UA was supposed to work. If you accelerate everything universally and equally then it's indistinguishable from no effect whatsoever. If you and I and the Earth are all being accelerated at the same rate then the Earth doesn't exert any force at all, g = 0 m/s², and we drift off into space. It's like being in a falling elevator.

I think the deal with UA is that whatever U force that is pushing up everything is shielded by the Earth...Up to a certain altitude. So picture the force like the wind, pushing upward from below the Earth. The wind pushes upward past the edges of the flat Earth disk and then curls inward to continue to push everything upwards over the entirety of the flat Earth disk somewhere below all celestial objects. That way, the earth is pushed up, the celestial bodies are pushed up along with it, yet we on terra firma are not pushed up if our feet leave the ground. We are shielded from the wind, so to speak.

That'd work, but it's implausable that a force that pervades the universe, accelerating everything from subatomic particles to galaxies, is going to even notice a little rock in its way. It rules out dark energy immediately as that stuff doesn't even slow down for ordinary matter. You're left with a mysterious force that accelerates everything uniformly except us, and does so regardless of distance.

There aren't any good candidates for that. Simpler to go with gravitation on a disk. You wouldn't even notice edge effects until you were well into the Antarctic rim.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator

« on: December 29, 2021, 06:01:06 AM »

So, this is why reading about UA would have been helpful. Sure, hypothetically, an observer that's somehow not subject to UA would see the Earth zoom away at ludicrous speeds after a year of somehow not being affected by UA. However, the "U" in "UA" is a bit of an issue there.

Ironically, you have no idea how right you are.

This incorrect assumption is at the core of your misunderstanding. There is no magical "background" that's unaffected by UA; Universal Acceleration is... universal. So, for your FoR to make sense, you have to introduce a hypothetical observer. One that, from an Earthly perspective, has unprecedented energy that somehow allows it to defy the nature of our universe. You will have to prove the existence of such an object before we can discuss its relevancy, but if such an object exists and you can slap a time-measuring device on it, then, by all means, I agree, you'd measure significant time dilation there.

My incorrect assumption was that UA was supposed to work. If you accelerate everything universally and equally then it's indistinguishable from no effect whatsoever. If you and I and the Earth are all being accelerated at the same rate then the Earth doesn't exert any force at all, g = 0 m/s², and we drift off into space. It's like being in a falling elevator.

What saddens me particularly about your contribution here is that we just finished talking about why your observer isn't relevant. You said you've done your reading, but this turns out to have been untrue. You should have done so much better.

Sorry, I clearly overestimated you and failed to understand how fundamentally broken UA was. But hey, kudos for adding epicycles that do nothing and being condescending throughout such an epic failure.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator

« on: December 27, 2021, 07:41:13 PM »

I'd be objecting to breaking the light barrier or something equally daft.

Yes, while you stopped short of repeating the "breaking the light barrier" cliché, you did go for something equally daft - "approaching relativistic velocities" without even defining the FoR you're talking about. That's why you got told off.

I thought that the FoR was obvious from the discussion of an accelerating Earth. One observer on Earth looking outward from horizon to zenith. The observer is accelerating at 9.81 m/s² by virtue of being pushed along by the accelerating Earth as per UA. The observer is accelerating relative to the background starfield with both observer and starfield at v = 0 at t₀. t_now being no less than 100 years after t₀, the observer's v_now relative to the starfield should be "approaching relativistic velocities". Somewhere north of 0.999 c by my back of the envelope calcs.

So now that we have that out of the way perhaps you can explain how constant acceleration over any significant amount of time doesn't land you at a velocity where relativistic effects become horrifyingly obvious by way of being horrifyingly deadly.

That's not how any of this works. You'll have to present a hypothetical observer from whose perspective the Earth would "land you" at relativistic velocities for us to even begin considering it. I will not "explain" why something you haven't defined hasn't been defined.

Honestly Pete, this is so basic I shouldn't have to explain. You, I, and everybody else on the Earth are non-hypothetical observers, all accelerating as per UA. The background starfield begins as stationary relative to us, so after even a year we should be able to perceive some pretty extreme relativistic distortions of the starfield, Assuming there was anybody left alive to observe anything.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator

« on: December 27, 2021, 06:34:28 PM »

At a constant acceleration of 9.81 m/s² over a single year we'd approach a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Right. So you've jumped into the middle of an in-depth discussion on relativity just to tell us you haven't read about UA, and that you don't understand the differences between classical mechanics and special relativity.

Don't do that.

I didn't. I'm new to this forum but I assure you that I have read about UA and understand the differences between classical Newtonian mechanics and special relativity. If I didn't I'd hardly be invoking an zenith-oriented Lorentz contraction and blue-shift of the starfield as a problem. I'd be objecting to breaking the light barrier or something equally daft.

So now that we have that out of the way perhaps you can explain how constant acceleration over any significant amount of time doesn't land you at a velocity where relativistic effects become horrifyingly obvious by way of being horrifyingly deadly. While you're at it, perhaps you can explain what's accelerating Earth, because dark energy isn't going to do the trick unless you're invoking some very strange interactions.

As I see it, classic gravitation on a disk is simpler, more elegant, and a better fit to the observed data.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator

« on: December 27, 2021, 04:04:35 PM »

I must be missing something here because all of this seems needlessly complicated. Take a simple disc and add basic gravity. Unless you're near the edge then all the lateral forces cancel each other and you're left with a net downward force. If you were near the edge then you'd experience a radial inward force. The closer you got to the edge the stronger this unchecked radial pull would become, so "falling off the edge"  would be no easier than climbing a mountain. This agrees well with the circumferential ice caps and mountain ranges that we see bounding the antarctic oceans. It's no coincidence that all the circumference is free of liquid water.

UA seems loaded with problems, including the need for an accelerating force and the rapid increase in velocity. At a constant acceleration of 9.81 m/s² over a single year we'd approach a significant fraction of the speed of light. This would cause some pretty spectacular distortions where all the stars near the zenith would end up blue-shifted and moved a lot closer to the horizon. Anything that the Earth struck would arrive at relativistic velocities, and even pebbles would pack the punch of an atomic weapon. Happily, this isn't happening.