[Curiosity File]

"That means it is being driven by a force acting from underneath effectively." " What is causing that force??

Aw yes the million dollar question. Since FES members, the believer in FET, don't seem to want offer much help, rather want us to research their wiki I've been doing so. However I have not found anything that answers that question, yet.

I would point out that "the force" also is pushing the moon stars and sun, apparently. While everything on the surface of the flat earth is immune to "the force".
Once we find out what this force is the next question would be, "why are we immune to it?"
There are more questions for another extension of this line of questioning we'll save for another time.

I don't think this is a fair criticism of FE. You could equally say "what is causing gravity" or any of the 4 forces of gravity.
These forces are just properties of the universe, in the FE world the force which causes UA is a property of that universe.
As for why we are immune to it, we aren't. It's just that the earth itself acts as a barrier. Imagine a wind tunnel pointing upwards, like one of those things you can do indoor skydiving in. If you put a disc in one of them it would be pushed upwards by the wind current, but a small object on top of the disc wouldn't directly feel the wind, it would be pushed up by the disc but not feel the wind. At some point above the disc the wind current going around the disc would meet - in the FE world this is where the sun and stars are so they are pushed upwards in the current too.

Something like this:

That's actually an interesting concept that at first glance gets ones attention. However after giving it some thought it sounds quite fantastic or chimerical in nature.
Like the wind over a wing there would  be observable effects on many things in the sky like balloons, high altitude aircraft, rockets, etc. that you would think would be easily noticed and detected by instruments on said crafts.  Also at some degree, easy or otherwise measurable. No such thing has ever been measured that I'm aware of, nor have I heard any plans to set up an experiment to detect and attempt to measure such a thing.   

[Curiosity File]

I am trying to look at this from the FE point of view. In conventional RET it is all easy and straightforward. FE Wiki says that the Earth has a diameter of 25,000 miles in accordance with their interpretation of Eratosthenes shadow experiment. Lets put further discussion about that aside for now here as it has been more than adequately debated elsewhere.

So we have this 25,000 mile diameter disk accelerating at 9.8m/s through what exactly? If the answer is space then up means nothing as there are no real directions in space.  Constant acceleration in a circle is fine since any change in speed or direction constitutes acceleration.  But the only way UA would work to simulate the same effect as weight on Earth is if the disk of Earth is moving along a direction perpendicular to its surface. That means it is being driven by a force acting from underneath effectively.  What is causing that force?

This isn't evidence of the force but evidence of what the force of UA causes according to FET published in FES wiki

"Mountains are created over long periods of time by tremendous forces within the Flat Earth. Below the crust there is tremendous pressure due to acceleration,..."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Formation_of_Mountains_and_Volcanoes

[RonJ]

The whole idea of UA is impossible in this case.  If you want to replace gravity with UA at the stated rate for a minimum of 5000 years then the earth will be very, very close to the speed of light.  In order to continue that acceleration will require a push from some some of 'dark energy' that will have to have both mass and velocity.  That mass and velocity will have to be given up to the earth on a continuous basis to maintain the acceleration as a replacement for gravity.  Since the earth is already so very, very close to the speed of light and nothing can exceed the speed of light then the dark energy can not have sufficient relative velocity to provide the force necessary to maintain the stated acceleration rate.  Therefore the whole theory of UA has to be revised as it just can't work as stated.  There's never been any stated mass for the earth under FET.  The theory is supposed to be much older than RET, but the people working on it must still be in the stone age and no one has ever come up with any specifications for even the earth.  How can anyone believe what is stated here when the purveyors of the theory haven't the skills to even publish a viable recipe?  I was at the local mall a little earlier.  If there was a merchant there who was trying to sell their merchandise but kept everything covered up, would you buy it?  That's what's happening here.  UA is on sale, but the merchandise is being kept mostly covered up.  Please reveal to the buyers the mass of the earth under acceleration and some details of how the dark energy can exceed the speed of light to provide the force necessary to keep the acceleration rate up to hold everything on the surface.

[Spingo]

I am trying to look at this from the FE point of view. In conventional RET it is all easy and straightforward. FE Wiki says that the Earth has a diameter of 25,000 miles in accordance with their interpretation of Eratosthenes shadow experiment. Lets put further discussion about that aside for now here as it has been more than adequately debated elsewhere.

So we have this 25,000 mile diameter disk accelerating at 9.8m/s through what exactly? If the answer is space then up means nothing as there are no real directions in space.  Constant acceleration in a circle is fine since any change in speed or direction constitutes acceleration.  But the only way UA would work to simulate the same effect as weight on Earth is if the disk of Earth is moving along a direction perpendicular to its surface. That means it is being driven by a force acting from underneath effectively.  What is causing that force?

This isn't evidence of the force but evidence of what the force of UA causes according to FET published in FES wiki

"Mountains are created over long periods of time by tremendous forces within the Flat Earth. Below the crust there is tremendous pressure due to acceleration,..."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Formation_of_Mountains_and_Volcanoes

I think you have illustrated one key aspect of FE thinking, the monumental changes in established knowledge required. UA for example would require a different universe with quite different physical laws. Just not this one. UA requires not only different laws regarding, planetary formation, movement of planets, motion in general, but is also calls for the overturning of all the earth sciences. It not only contradicts the basic tenants of physics but also calls for the re-writing of earth tectonics and geology at large.

If you did an online search for scientific papers on plate tectonics, mountain formation, planetary movement, gravity.....etc how may hits do you think it would throw up? My guess would be in the thousands. These would be scientific papers backed by hard research. Of course not all of them would be on the money, not all research comes up with the goods, but it does eventually show the way. If it didn’t yield anything, I wouldn’t be typing on this tablet connected to a world wide network.

Now do a search on scientific papers on UA in relation to planetary or mountain formation and how many hits might you get, other than references to their own Wiki? The answer would be none! There has been no research, they have no evidence. What they do instead is talk about it as though it’s on par with main stream scientific concepts, which its most certinally not. It’s no more than wishful thinking and as real as a flat earth map. Not a flat map, as all maps are flat, but a flat earth map derived from flat earth data.

Why do you think there are no flat earth physicists, geologists, cartographers, metarologists.....etc? All they have is Tom Bishop and his two books.

What they appear to forget is how interlinked the world and knowledge is. They approach it as though it’s discrete non interacting components. Which of course it’s not, change one fundemental thing like gravity and the knock on effect is immense.

One interesting point to note is the figure Pete quoted earlier for UA. Look familiar? I wonder where he came by that number? Perhaps he could share the FE experiment from which that number was derived.