#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### 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?

#### Pinky

• 88
##### 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.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9672
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### 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 Twitter and Facebook!

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### 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!

#### Macarios

##### 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?

#### Pinky

• 88
##### 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.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9672
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### 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 Twitter and Facebook!

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### 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 »

#### spherical

• 214
##### Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2019, 05:55:27 PM »
To make it easy to visualize, I can imagine a 40 thousand km diameter air blower nozzle blowing air underneath FE, pushing it up.  Only the lower layer is being affected by such force, but for such force to act upon Sun, Moon, all the planets, stars, etc, the nozzle must be larger than 40,000 km, so the air flow leaks all around the ice wall, converge and act upon thousands of miles above FE surface.  Yes, I can imagine it inside a wind tunnel.

There are few problems here.

First, this seems to be an accelerating force, so the blower is not stationary somewhere in the empty universe, it must accompany the FE movement in order to accelerate it - like a blower inside a ship, blowing air to the sails.

Second, FE is pretty massy, heavy, imagine PI*20000km²*T where T is thickness, lets imagine T ~= 1000km, = PI * 4E8 * 1E3 = 1.256E12 cubic km, lets consider 1m3 of basalt rock = 3 Ton, lets average with water and other lighter elements, to 2Ton per cubic meter.  A cubic km has 1E9 cubic meter, so 2E12 kg per cubic km, times 1.256E12 = 2.56E24 kg would be the assumed mass of FE.

That was a wild pretty good guess, looking now at wikipedia, the spherical planet has a mass of 5.97E24 kg, I missed by half.  Then, I wolder the UA force to accelerate such mass at 9.8m/s².  Newton's Second Law of Motion states Force is mass times acceleration, so the UA force will be 2.5E25 Newtons.

Third, the Saturn V engines could generate a trust of 2.5E7 Newtons, and that was the most powerful thing humans could produce to date.  UA would be 1E18 times stronger than a Saturn V (1,000,000,000,000,000,000, a billion billion Saturn V rockets).  Dividing rockets per square km of the FE, it will be approximate ONE HUNDRED MILLION Saturn V rockets per km², that is pretty amazing energy, and we have no idea where this energy comes from or what it is composition. Interesting.

Fourth, the energy leaking, brushing and flowing up all around the ice wall should be astonishing magnificent, and nobody ever try to use that, that would be the best place to install a rocket launching platform, right? Zero G all the way up and beyond!

Fifth, I wonder how the edge of the ice wall stand such energy pressure/friction without being broken to pieces and pushed up to the atmosphere.  There is no other way, such force must leak all around the ice wall, if not, if it is more concentrated to the center part of the bottom FE, such huge force in the center and huge mass to the edge not being pushed up, would break up the FE.

Sixth, the actual SUN produces 3.86E26 Watts of energy, one Newton m/s = 15 Watts, so the Sun produces an equivalent force of 2.57 E25 Newtons, the UA energy to push FE up at 9.8m/s² is 1/10E6 of the Sun's power.  So, the UA power plant should be an amazing mini star, producing such cold energy equivalent to a billion billion Saturn V, not melting the ice wall, and the only thing keeping FE to ice cold completely is a tinny puny Sun of 48 km in diameter, at 4800km in altitude.

I don't know about you, but for me it is much more simpler and physically possible for gravity to be as we know it, and deform space/time as predicted and confirmed so many times.

#### Uetzicle

• 15
##### Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2019, 10:45:48 PM »
I don't see the need for UA to explain the downward force on an FE. Is it really any more fantastical to just say there's a giant 'artificial gravity generator', like something from Star Trek? UA describes a quasi-plausible scenario, but still requires an unknown power source and a designed origin...something purposely built and put into motion. Why not 'artificial gravity'? Accepting that is not even an extra step, just a slightly different path.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2335
##### Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2019, 10:43:19 AM »
I don't see the need for UA to explain the downward force on an FE. Is it really any more fantastical to just say there's a giant 'artificial gravity generator', like something from Star Trek? UA describes a quasi-plausible scenario, but still requires an unknown power source and a designed origin...something purposely built and put into motion. Why not 'artificial gravity'? Accepting that is not even an extra step, just a slightly different path.
Agree up to an extent. I've seen it argued on here that we shouldn't believe in gravity if we don't understand its mechanism but that's nonsense. People believed in rainbows before they understood the way light travelled through water droplets to cause the effect. Understanding the mechanism for a phenomenon is not a prerequisite for believing in it although understandng it is always desirable.

But when it comes to Gravity vs UA, aside from what is "powering" UA there are other reasons to believe gravity is the better explanation. Gravity doesn't just explain why we don't fall off the "bottom" of the globe, it explains variations in gravity across the globe. It explains variations with altitude. It explains how the moon orbits us, how we (and the other planets) orbit the sun.
The Canvendish Experiment is a test of gravity. Neptune was discovered because the understanding of gravity indicated there was something else pulling on bodies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune

This is where gravity (and thus the globe/heliocentric model) wins. It has explanatory and predictive power. In FE other mechanisms have to be invoked to explain why UA doesn't affect the celestial bodies and what makes them move around each other.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2019, 04:31:09 PM »
I don't see the need for UA to explain the downward force on an FE. Is it really any more fantastical to just say there's a giant 'artificial gravity generator', like something from Star Trek? UA describes a quasi-plausible scenario, but still requires an unknown power source and a designed origin...something purposely built and put into motion. Why not 'artificial gravity'? Accepting that is not even an extra step, just a slightly different path.

I agree with this completely. Gravity with an unknown source is no worse than UA with an unknown source. Adding UA simply adds a layer of needless complication. It explains literally nothing that "Gravity pulls stuff down" doesn't already explain, and instead it introduces new questions.

Gravity with an unknown source could easily have unknown sources of variation. This makes it far inferior to Newtonian gravity, but it's better than UA already because of this.

I am forced to suggest once more that just MAYBE the person who came up with UA was trolling. Why come up with that in the first place? It explains nothing, but adds complications. The wiki doesn't say who originated the idea. Maybe we should look into that.

#### spherical

• 214
##### Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2019, 04:24:06 PM »
As it is not listed on Wiki, I previously calculated; the UA force to accelerate the FE mass to 9.8m/s² is equivalent to 1 billion billion Saturn-V rocket engines trust.
AFAIR from the calculation, it is equivalent to 100 thousand Saturn V rockets per km² of FE area.
It would be 1 rocket per each 10m², it would not even physically fit.
I wonder the source of this unimaginable continuous energy flow for eons, a star that comes along?

There is a huge difference between Gravity and UA;  Gravity doesn't need huge forces or energy, UA requires huge amounts of energy to accelerate mass.

Want some comparison?

Try to hold a 100kg block of steel hanging from the ceiling, just using strong neodymium magnets bolt to the ceiling, then, try to do the same using electromagnets.  The later will require constant energy to create the strong magnetic field to hold the steel block, while the neodymium magnets will do the job for years without consuming any extra energy at all.

#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2019, 05:13:36 PM »
As it is not listed on Wiki, I previously calculated; the UA force to accelerate the FE mass to 9.8m/s² is equivalent to 1 billion billion Saturn-V rocket engines trust.
AFAIR from the calculation, it is equivalent to 100 thousand Saturn V rockets per km² of FE area.
It would be 1 rocket per each 10m², it would not even physically fit.
I wonder the source of this unimaginable continuous energy flow for eons, a star that comes along?

There is a huge difference between Gravity and UA;  Gravity doesn't need huge forces or energy, UA requires huge amounts of energy to accelerate mass.

Want some comparison?

Try to hold a 100kg block of steel hanging from the ceiling, just using strong neodymium magnets bolt to the ceiling, then, try to do the same using electromagnets.  The later will require constant energy to create the strong magnetic field to hold the steel block, while the neodymium magnets will do the job for years without consuming any extra energy at all.

I argue that you are being unfair. Simply because we do not know where the energy comes from, it doesn't mean we can't see the energy. For example, before we understood nuclear fusion, we had no idea what powered the Sun, but we were pretty darn sure that the Sun was generating a metric boat load of energy. From more modern times, what powers the expansion of the Universe? We call it "dark energy" because we don't know what it is. Just because we don't know where it comes from, it doesn't mean we say the observations are false.

Here are my thoughts on the subject. I'd love to have you participate.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6454
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2019, 06:04:14 PM »
On the Weight Variation by Latitude see: https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

This experiment is uncontrolled. Can you reference where these experiments have been conducted in vacuum chambers?

#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2019, 06:08:05 PM »
On the Weight Variation by Latitude see: https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

This experiment is uncontrolled. Can you reference where these experiments have been conducted in vacuum chambers?
You are right. I really should have shown that page along with the altitude one.

#### spherical

• 214
##### Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2019, 09:06:24 PM »
Interesting.

A spring (torsion) scale measures the deformation of such spring to indicate weight.  The deformation is based on the mass over the spring, compressing it by the gravity pull.  "Calibration" means to use a standard known weight over the spring, and adjust the dial to show exactly the value of such mass.  Other intermediary standard weights are used to make sure the scale indication still correct after calibration.   Industrial and lab scales are supplied with calibration weights and more precise ones could be bought to produce frequent calibrations.  No industry or "pharmacy" would use a scale that is out of calibration according to procedures stated and followed.  It is imperative for an industry to calibrate their equipment very often, they may be losing money by not doing so, it worth the calibration cost.  Some equipment can not even be calibrated in the field, some need to be sent to calibration labs, where they use super-standards based on NIST, and even those super-standards calibrators need calibration also.   So, you can be sure, an industrial or lab calibrated scale located anywhere in the globe would indicate the same weight for the same pound of mass.  No doubt about that.  Thinking differently is just demonstrating not knowing about how this things work.   A 499g piece of stainless steel will not change its mass based on temperature, humidity, air pressure, it must show 499g on the Equator or on the Poles.  Some electronic scales has self-calibrating features, they do pretty good within certain range.  In the past I worked with load cells, when you work with those you start to understand about all other scales, since they are also used to measure force of deformation in general, bridges steel beams, arcs, building floor beams, vehicles long frames like long trucks, trains, even rockets structures - pounds related to nothing is the most common measurements on those, just related to deformation of resting state.

#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2019, 07:14:47 AM »
I'm curious about the origin of the UA concept. Is this one of Rowbotham's inventions? Does anyone know?

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6454
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2019, 03:11:22 PM »
Albert Einstein was the probably proginator of the idea of an upwardly accelerating Earth. See the first video on https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration He used it in his thought experiments to explain Gravity and later adopted it into the Round Earth model with GR.

As for the person who integrated that concept into the Flat Earth discussions and models, no one seems to know. We searched the other theflatearthsociety.org forum which was started in 2007 and the UA concept was already part of FET since the beginning of that forum's creation. It's not a concept in Earth Not a Globe.

It seems to not be a concept discussed by Shenton or Johnson in their materials, which is to be expected since theirs were more biblical and wouldn't have a moving earth. My guess is that it is either from old flat earth discussions on Usenet or possibly the Zetetic Society or Universal Zetetic Society which existed between the mid 1800's to the early 1900's, which was much larger in numbers than any of the post-1950's societies up to present, were philosophically diverse, and would have existed at a time when Einstein came up his Equivalence Principle.

Unfortunately much of the materials of the old Zetetic socities were scattered or lost around the time of World War I and World War II when those societies died out and it is difficult to compile their research.

Dionysios might know where it comes from.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2019, 03:37:34 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### spherical

• 214
##### Re: Clarifications on UA
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2019, 03:50:01 PM »
Wow, so UA is just a story someone created to try to justify FE mass attraction without using general gravity? without any known origins?  So, we are discussing here something without any reasonable scientific or proven experiences?

Based on that, then UA is merely an idea, an attempt to justify, so I can create my own ideas of FE attraction of matter.
UA creates more problems than solve, it is a bad assumption.

I have a good one for FE, if you think about it makes more sense than UA, I call it GPA (General Polarized Gravity).

For general gravity to work on FE, the waves need to be polarized vertically.  The polarization reduces drastically the horizontal attraction, even so it exists at some level, keeping all the FE together.  Being stronger vertically, it works nicely, without pulling all large masses into a ball format. The assumption of how polarization is build, is based on mass - itself try to attract each other, but more mass in one direction creates perpendicular polarization (magnetic & electric waves fields are also perpendicular), thus, flat things, even the universe. My observation of proof is that you are not being attracted horizontally by FE gravity, only vertically. You are not attracted to a building wall, but to its floor.  Right?  Being polarized, it can even neutralize itself at certain distance, this is why after few thousand miles gravity attraction disappears, and more, it reverses polarity, even pushing things away.   What we see in sky, Sun, Moon, stars, etc, are at the right altitude (floating zone) where gravity is not pushing, nor pulling.   Little droplets of water (most vapor) has the ability to refract gravity polarization, this is why they float and even go up to the clouds, where they form larger droplets and stay afloat until they become larger and lose the ability to refract gravity, so the rain falls.  Also, the reversing of gravity polarization on the "floating zone" started by chance a turn in western direction, it creates torsion right over the North Pole, with a constant pushing for the Sun/Moon/etc to keep rotating over FE.   Also, the Sun is made of material that can convert such polarization turn energy into heat and light, this is the Sun's energy source.  Also, when Sun/Moon/etc interact with the floating zone, they reflects gravity back, you can see its effect on ocean tides.  See how easy? not only eliminate lots of old theory problems, also explains better how things work on FE.

Think about it, and remember, you heard first about Polarized Gravity here from Spherical, based on a symmetric trace free 2x2 tensor, it comes from the Flat Universe assumption.

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.022008

But of course, you can ignore my new (GPA) gravity idea and keep UA as a strong headache.