Clarifications on UA
« on: May 13, 2019, 06:54:35 AM »
I'm researching UA at the moment, and I would like to ask for some clarification. Could anyone speak about this particular topic: "The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA."

If I understand this correctly, something is pushing the Earth upwards at 9.8 m/s2. We feel "gravity" because the Earth is being accelerated upwards. Whatever force that is, it doesn't hit us. If it did, we wouldn't feel "gravity" because we'd just be in freefall with the Earth.

But I believe I've read mentions that if you get up high enough over the Earth, that something will start pushing on you too. Am I correct to understand that this is the explanation for why the Sun, Moon, etc. do not come crashing down? They must be under the same influence of the something that the Earth is. Do I have this correct?

Offline Pinky

  • *
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2019, 08:56:25 AM »
I'm researching UA at the moment, and I would like to ask for some clarification. Could anyone speak about this particular topic: "The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA."

If I understand this correctly, something is pushing the Earth upwards at 9.8 m/s2. We feel "gravity" because the Earth is being accelerated upwards. Whatever force that is, it doesn't hit us. If it did, we wouldn't feel "gravity" because we'd just be in freefall with the Earth.

But I believe I've read mentions that if you get up high enough over the Earth, that something will start pushing on you too. Am I correct to understand that this is the explanation for why the Sun, Moon, etc. do not come crashing down? They must be under the same influence of the something that the Earth is. Do I have this correct?

For a supposedly simple explanation, UA is frustratingly confusing. FE is moving upwards, pushing us humans from below, so we perceive the counter-force as gravity. And we know why we don't sink into the ground when FE comus for from below: The Pauli-principle.

But that also means that there must be a repulsive force that keeps satellites and celestial bodies away from FE as it moves towards them.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9361
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2019, 09:58:30 PM »
But that also means that there must be a repulsive force that keeps satellites and celestial bodies away from FE as it moves towards them.
That would be the very same UA. Instead of complaining about how confused you are, you could simply read the Wiki page on the subject. Try to address your confusion instead of just whining about it. You'll find it very satisfying, I promise.

If you prefer, I recently provided this short summary:

I would be way more interested in hearing you expand on your thoughts.  That "sufficiently high above the ground" allows mass to be affected by UA.  How would that work?
I think you're approaching this backwards - the fact that an object is affected by an acceleration that's supposedly universal should not be surprising. It's "universal", after all.

Of course, that's a bit of a misnomer, since the entire point here is that objects on or slightly above the Earth are not affected by it, thus creating gravity. In essence, UA acts somewhat like a current, and the Earth shields its immediate surroundings from it.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2019, 04:02:44 AM »
Thanks Pete. I had read that brief summary. I think I've got the right idea.

It's like the Earth is a boat in a river - being pushed along by the current. We're in the boat, so the water isn't pushing us. If we could stick our hands out of the boat, we could reach the flow. The UA hypothesis suggests that perhaps satellites are like that - we fling them outside the safety of the boat - out into the flow where they are pushed along beside the boat. Sound right?

Assuming I've got that, I'd like to ask about this bit here: "Alternatively, it is possible that the force of UA can actually pass through objects, but its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects)."

I'm not clear on what is meant by this. There are 2 pieces of that I'm having trouble with:
1) Are we suggesting that the force of UA is perhaps proportional to the square of the mass (or something like that) so that it applies more force to massive objects than to lighter objects? If so, has anyone ever tried to dig into this further? What equation would the force of UA have to follow? Can we make any predictions from this hypothesis which we could test?
2) What is meant by "...gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects..."? It is my understanding that gravity is felt equally by objects of all sizes. Perhaps you are pointing out that we need one of the masses in the Gm1m2/d2 equation to be large to get a large result. Is that what is meant here? If so, could you offer any clarification for how UA is similar to that?

Thanks again!

Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2019, 07:50:17 AM »
So, if you cross the edge you will not fall down, the UA will push you up?
Including the constant replacement of the air lost over the Ice Wall?
During all these centuries?

Offline Pinky

  • *
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2019, 08:54:30 AM »
But that also means that there must be a repulsive force that keeps satellites and celestial bodies away from FE as it moves towards them.
That would be the very same UA. Instead of complaining about how confused you are, you could simply read the Wiki page on the subject. Try to address your confusion instead of just whining about it. You'll find it very satisfying, I promise.

That Wikipage explains precisely nothing.

UA is (at least) four speculations roled into one:
- that Earth accelerates upwards (not experimentally proven)
- that some bodies accelerate upwards as well (not experimentally proven)
- that some bodies are immune to UA (not experimentally proven)
- that whatever UA is, it is influenced by mass (not experimentally proven)

That's FOUR unproven assumptions being made to explain what we see in real life.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9361
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2019, 06:27:24 PM »
Thanks Pete. I had read that brief summary. I think I've got the right idea.
Judging by your description, yes, you've got it.

"Alternatively, it is possible that the force of UA can actually pass through objects, but its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects)."
This is a reference to a fairly old alternative hypothesis. We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way, so when the hypothesis was growing in popularity, it was included. Personally, I don't put much stock in it, and I don't think its implications make all that much sense. Sorry, I can't be much more help on that one.

That Wikipage explains precisely nothing.
It directly answers your question. If you want to ask FOUR unrelated questions (three of which based on false assumptions on your part), do so in appropriate threads ***after*** you've familiarised yourself with the basics. You're welcome to disagree with us, but your laziness and inability to read won't be met with sympathy.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2019, 06:31:08 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2019, 04:12:19 AM »
On the surface, the concept of UA seems to do a reasonable job of explaining the most basic observations. As a follower of the scientific method myself, it would be my inclination to try testing these hypotheses. However, I get the distinct impression that testing hypotheses isn't really a primary concern practiced by TFES. I'm still trying to fully understand how the zetetic method differs from the scientific method.

So first of all, is it fair to characterize TFES as officially supportive of the zetetic method?

Assuming so, from the wiki: "A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out."

I'm trying to apply this logic towards the question of UA. I can do this using the scientific method, and I'm trying to better understand how the zetetic method would approach this differently. Let me try, and if you don't mind, I'd appreciate being schooled on how I've got it wrong.

Scientific Method:
1) UA hypothesizes that the "gravity" force field drops with altitude because UA is flowing around the Earth.
2) This predicts that the force of "gravity" should drop more rapidly near the edges of the Earth and drop significantly less near the center of the Earth.
3) We could test this by measuring the affect of altitude on "gravity" at different places on the Earth.
4) Suppose we did this test and found nothing to indicate either an edge or center of the Earth from this... we might try another hypothesis... (Let me give you a freeby) Perhaps the presence of mass interferes with the UA force.
5) We'd head back up to a prediction and design a new test.
Standard, make a prediction, test the prediction, repeat.

Zetetic Method:
1) In what way does "gravity" vary with altitude and location on the Earth?
2) We'd do the same test described above.
3) We would now have a chart showing the data we collected.
4) We'd look at this chart and draw conclusions about what it's telling us. For example, maybe it could show us that gravity varies by +-0.3% with latitude and varies as an inverse-square with altitude measured from a 4000 mile offset. We'd look at that and draw a conclusion.
Question, observations, conclusion?

Do I have that about right?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2019, 04:14:31 AM by ICanScienceThat »