Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #20 on: October 23, 2018, 06:06:51 PM »
If the moon is orbiting above us, affected by UA, why does the distance to the moon change periodically as seen from its size in the sky easily measurable throughout the year.  What is causing it to move farther and closer to us?  This is of course ignoring the phases of the moon as seen from the entire planet which destroy this near moon orbiting over the flat earth idea entirely. 

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9939
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2018, 06:11:07 PM »
Its orbit could well be inclined, although that's just one possibility for why it would appear larger at times.
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*

MattyWS

Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2018, 06:12:00 PM »
Of course if you threw the ball hard enough it would disappear off the earth's edge and I have no idea what would happen to it next.
Of course, the problem here is we can prove gravity and round earth with evidence to back it all up while with this idea of flat earth no one seems to have any idea how or why it's flat, people seem fixated on the idea that the earth is flat simply because they want it to be. FES ignores so much evidence in order to claim that it's flat.

You only really need to watch the stars at night from different locations in the planet to know we're on a spinning ball.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2018, 06:13:55 PM by MattyWS »

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2018, 06:16:00 PM »
Its orbit could well be inclined, although that's just one possibility for why it would appear larger at times.

That would explain a daily change in distance, but it’s size changes in a longer time frame over months to years.  Why would this happen?

Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2018, 09:14:09 PM »
That wasn't what the theory would say either.
No, that's precisely what it says. If you want to jump up so high that you become weightless, you'd have to jump into the field affected by UA. Also known as outer space.
But you wouldn't be weightless, you'd be pushed upwards at 9.8/s/s by UA.
You'd be stationary with respect to the earth because you're being accelerated at the same rate as it, but you'd feel the force of that acceleration, no?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #25 on: October 23, 2018, 09:15:37 PM »
The fact that it's Universal Acceleration means the frame of reference is universal. The stars are accelerating along with the Earth's disc, so there is no blue-shift or red-shift that can be caused by UA.
But we do observe red-shift, so what is the cause of that? UA claims that the stars are stationary, with respect to the earth.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Mysfit

Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2018, 09:30:54 PM »
The fact that it's Universal Acceleration means the frame of reference is universal. The stars are accelerating along with the Earth's disc, so there is no blue-shift or red-shift that can be caused by UA.
But we do observe red-shift, so what is the cause of that? UA claims that the stars are stationary, with respect to the earth.
I think I know this one. Stars have different molecules and are different colours because of this.
The posters from that thread admit that the chemical redshift and blueshift could be possible if the stars were made up of molecules rather than single free-floating atoms:

We find that molecules have been found in stars:

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

It does raise the problem of the stars being so hot.

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #27 on: October 23, 2018, 10:11:17 PM »
The topic at hand is disproving UA with your bare eyes.   The easiest way to do this to me is just by looking at the stars, their trails through the sky, the paths of the planets, and the paths of the Sun and Moon, moon phases then add a little geometry to account for those observations.

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

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

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

No math required, just common sense, some observations with our eyes.

Offline Pinky

  • *
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #28 on: October 24, 2018, 08:56:02 AM »
The stars are travelling at negligible velocities and independently from Flat Earth.

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

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





4. Can you prove anything you just said? I presented a hypothesis, what is to be expected if we were to do an experiment. Your counter depends on the existence of something nobody has ever seen.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9939
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #29 on: October 24, 2018, 11:45:15 AM »
1. This is not what your Wiki says what UAT is.
You may want to pay more attention while reading.

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

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

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #30 on: October 24, 2018, 06:19:49 PM »
1. This is not what your Wiki says what UAT is.
You may want to pay more attention while reading.

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

Here's a point of confusion about UA for me. If "all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2" and they are above earth and the "mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA" then how are we not crashing into them? If earth is shielding them from the UA force, how do they have the UA force?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #31 on: October 24, 2018, 09:06:42 PM »
The dark energy that's accelerating the earth seems to push it along like wind in a sail.  It has been said that the earth's mass shields the dark energy and keeps everything on the earth in place so all you feel is the upward acceleration of the earth at your feet.  Then it seems that the dark energy bends around the earth, recombines, and pushes on the sun and moon.  The earth, sun, and moon must have some characteristic in common relative to the dark energy because the effects of the dark energy on all three bodies are the same.  Otherwise, you would see with your bare eyes either the sun and moon crashing down to the earth, or departing slowly to parts unknown.  You could hypothesize that the sun, moon, and earth all have the same mass, and it's the mass of a body that determines how much push it receives from the dark energy.  That would mean that all the bodies would have to have different densities and all those densities would have to be exactly right for the system to work.  You can see that the area just won't work at all.  Then you have to conservation of energy question.  If the dark energy is pushing on the earth, it will be giving up energy and loose some of it's potential to push on the sun and moon.  If you take a couple of magnets and turn them so they repel each other then you can push one along with the other. However you will have to be providing a force with the one magnet.  What is the dark energy pushing against on the other side?  Any action will produce and equal and opposite reaction.  Maybe that law will have to be thrown out as well.  Also the sun seems to change orbits in the different seasons.  If you want to change an orbit to a smaller one you will have to do two things.  Number one is to provide a force on the outside of the moon to tighten up the orbit, and another, slow the sun down.  A smaller circle will require a slower speed to keep the orbit time constant.  Is the dark energy also providing all these services? 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #32 on: October 24, 2018, 10:26:02 PM »
Then of course the sun with its smaller circle (FE map) problem is the sun travels the same speed through the sky year around.  So...  not only is UA not very supportable, neither is a near sun.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #33 on: October 25, 2018, 12:12:41 AM »
There's another problem with the sun.  The sun can't really be using the standard fusion model.  That model requires that the sun have gravity and a mass & size more than 100 times that of the earth.  Without a source of compression (supplied by gravity), the atoms of hydrogen just won't start the fusion reaction.  So just what is the source of energy that's supplied by the sun?  The folks in the solar panel business have a nominal figure that they use to estimate how much energy you can get per square foot of panel.  The source of energy would have to be capable of supplying at least that well known amount at a distance of 3000 miles.  You can also measure the temperature of the moon from the earth.  I have a hand held heat gun that works the same way.  Any energy source would also have to match what the measured temperature of the moon appears to be.  An estimate of the temperature of the sun is known as well.  How can all these requirements be met without using the fusion paradigm?
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline Pinky

  • *
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #34 on: October 25, 2018, 10:36:06 AM »
Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA.
Wait... are you saying that Flat Earth has gravity AND is accelerating upwards?

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

It is only untestable if we assume the unproven existence of the UA.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9939
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #35 on: October 25, 2018, 12:36:27 PM »
Wait... are you saying that Flat Earth has gravity AND is accelerating upwards?
I am not currently saying that, no.

It is only untestable if we assume the unproven existence of the UA.
Which is an absolute necessity for your proposed disproof.
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*

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #36 on: October 25, 2018, 02:58:46 PM »
What specifically is UA affecting?

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

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

And are we just having a thought experiment here? In high school we had debate club where we just argued a position for arguments sake, belief in one's position wasn't needed.   In forums like this, this UA subject will just fade away and the very same things will be said a hundred more times over the next year by some of the very same people.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #37 on: October 25, 2018, 03:15:04 PM »
You can see with your bare eyes that the universal acceleration must be accelerating at least the Earth, Moon, and Sun.  Otherwise the Moon and Sun would either come crashing down to the Earth's surface, or would drift off into space somewhere. 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #38 on: October 25, 2018, 03:19:17 PM »
I think it's 3. But that means the stars would be stationary with respect to us - maybe rotating above the plane of the earth in some way, but in terms of distance they stay the same because they are being accelerated upwards like the earth is. We are not because we are shielded from that acceleration by the earth itself.
BUT, we observe red-shift which indicates the stars ARE moving away from us. And parallax observations indicate they are distant, not close.
And there has been no comment on the assertion that you would be weightless in space. If you're high enough above the flat earth that you are being affected by UA then you would remain at a constant distance from the earth without any propulsion, for the same reason the stars do, but you would feel that acceleration so you'd be as heavy as you are on earth.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #39 on: October 25, 2018, 03:58:14 PM »
Following the same logical sequence, you should be weightless on the side of the moon that faces the earth.  Both you and the moon would be exposed to the same force of UA.  Then, if you walked around to the 'dark side of the moon' that faces away from the earth, you could expect to weigh the same as you do on earth because of the shielding of the dark force by the mass of the moon.  Of course, if you did videos of all that it would be deemed to be totally factual because it would support all the suppositions of FET.  None of these assumptions would answer another question.  For each action, you must have and equal and opposite action.  If the dark force is pushing on and accelerating the Earth, Moon, and Sun, what fixed object is the dark force pushing back against?  Maybe what will be needed is a Flat Galaxy Theory.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.