shootingstar

Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2019, 02:33:21 PM »
Same direction w.r.t the centre of the Earth (which can be assume to be a point source for purposes of measurement) but opposite directions in space.  Question remains though what is the Earth accelerating through since I didn't think that flat Earthers believe there is such as thing as outer space in the same way that round Earthers do.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9003
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« Reply #21 on: January 22, 2019, 06:08:49 PM »
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the earth, the people on it, and the heavenly bodies are all attracted to one another gravitationally, by the virtue of them all having mass.  You yourself (and many FE folks) have acknowledged this.  So, what keeps the earth from colliding with these celestial bodies?  The earth is accelerating upward toward them after all.  Are they also subject to UA?  In fact, the celestial bodies must actually be experiencing greater UA since they are able to outrun the earth's gravitational pull.  And if they're accelerating faster, they are bound to move away over time.
It would be very helpful if you familiarised yourself with the basics prior to debating.

This brings me to a point I forgot to mention earlier: if all observed gravitational acceleration on earth was the result of UA, the earth absolutely would rip itself apart as it rose.
Haven't I already addressed this in this thread? Twice? Am I missing some nuance to your question that differentiates it from seemingly identical statements from others?

[...] It's possible to believe in a model that just adds another entity to explain any stray phenomena, and you can do this ad infinitum and still have a valid theory.  The theory wouldn't be "wrong" in any way.  My question to you is: does that theory look like truth?
It's the closest I've gotten thus far. Is it complete? No. Is it likely that everything I currently believe is true? No. As such, I can't answer your question with a simple "yes" or "no". It's somewhere in between.

In the end, we're free to believe whatever we want, but know that Globe theorists have the unique advantage of (copious) evidence.  I'm unclear why you would bet on any other horse if you were looking for truth.
RE'ers like to say that. They pretend they've never heard of the many discrepancies and anomalies that (for example) GR introduces. Of course, if they paid attention in high school, then they should be well aware of the issues. But it's easier to block that out, or get defensive about just how much worse UA is in their mind.
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*

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« Reply #22 on: January 22, 2019, 08:05:58 PM »
Universal Acceleration would require the entirety of the Universe to speed up and pass the Earth doing cartwheels around us, correct?  We know stars have 2 celestial axis, Not just a north centered axis.  If it was just North then the star trails would be very different and UA model would be much easier.  The power source to selectively speed up or slow down in different directions would be something cyclical that rotated itself, like a second shell around the stars applying upward force on halftime stars and downward force on the other half.  Clarification on UA that matches observation of the movement of the stars is needed.

*

Offline TannerDalen

  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • "I'd rather be unintelligent than ignorant"
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2019, 07:29:35 AM »
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the earth, the people on it, and the heavenly bodies are all attracted to one another gravitationally, by the virtue of them all having mass.  You yourself (and many FE folks) have acknowledged this.  So, what keeps the earth from colliding with these celestial bodies?  The earth is accelerating upward toward them after all.  Are they also subject to UA?  In fact, the celestial bodies must actually be experiencing greater UA since they are able to outrun the earth's gravitational pull.  And if they're accelerating faster, they are bound to move away over time.

This brings me to a point I forgot to mention earlier: if all observed gravitational acceleration on earth was the result of UA, the earth absolutely would rip itself apart as it rose.  You said that you see no reason why this would occur, but this is a basic property of acceleration.  Different acceleration by definition means that over time points on the surface will achieve unequal velocities, and unequal velocities implies that the two points will not stay near each other as time advances, ergo the earth would need to tear apart to accomodate all these differently accelerating points.

As for the final matter, I greatly respect and admire your desire to discover the truth.  The relationship between scientific inquiry and truth has a long and messy history, and is probably best left to minds greater than ours.  The greatest quagmire seems to be that no amount of positive evidence can ever, with certainty, prove a theory true.  Of course, it is comparably easy to disprove a theory-- all that's needed is a counterexample.  Hence the scientific method: the aim is always to disprove a null hypothesis, rather than to prove a true one.  There is confirmatory and contrary evidence for both FE and GE, and depending on who you ask, both theories are capable of dealing with the contrary evidence (I'm granting you a huge concession here by the way).  The only real difference is that GE is a very simple explanation, and has amazing predictive power, and FE theory is extremely complicated and has not yet advanced to having the capabilities to make solid predictions (of the sort made by GR).  Most conversations I've had with flat earthers that got this far resulted in a stunning rejection of the premise that FE theory was "extremely complicated," but this is exactly the case.  At first, it seems much simpler, but then you have to factor in something that explains the movement of the stars, and gravity, and the ether, and jovian moon orbits, and seasons, and whatever science discovers next year, etc.  And you can do it, don't get me wrong.  It's possible to believe in a model that just adds another entity to explain any stray phenomena, and you can do this ad infinitum and still have a valid theory.  The theory wouldn't be "wrong" in any way.  My question to you is: does that theory look like truth?

I had a philosophy professor who used to insist that he believed that instead of gravity, matter in the universe was pushed around by invisible gremlins.  It is, as we learned, impossible to disprove this, especially when the interlocutor is free to speculatively invent new pieces to the theory (ie, something that explains gravitational waves) as he goes.  It's pretty clear to me that although this model "works," it is almost certainly not true, simply because it is equally as likely as any other model for gravity which lacks evidence (UA).  In the end, we're free to believe whatever we want, but know that Globe theorists have the unique advantage of (copious) evidence.  I'm unclear why you would bet on any other horse if you were looking for truth.
I am only quoting this because I think it needs to be read quite a few times.

Jimmy McGill

Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2019, 09:22:09 AM »
Here’s the deal. Scientists have a very good understanding of how gravity works. So much so that we can accurately predict the motion of the celestial bodies and slingshot spacecraft past them to get a speed boost.

Space-time curves. This has evidence to back it up. Real evidence. This curvature is due to mass. This has evidence to support it, real evidence.
This is not to say that there aren’t hypothetical problems with general relativity, there are. But it’s the best we have came up with so far, and it’s scary accurate.

Now, some people say because GR has a few problems, they’d rather believe that the earth is accelerating upward at ~9.8m/s squared?
This, to me, is absolutely unacceptable if you’re actually searching for the truth. The tiny holes in GR pale in comparison to the gaping canyons that UA has. Even defending UA by saying it’s somehow equivalent to GR in that they’re both flawed is silly and shows bias, which is anathema to real science.

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2019, 06:31:21 PM »
I'm getting a bit lost in all the abbreviations so just to make it clear: does "GR" stand for the RET gravity? If that's the case, I'd like to remind you that in the RET, gravity has only one source - mass.
General Relativity. And no, you can't act like all celestial bodies (or, indeed, all bodies with a mass) are one and the same source. You're looking at multiple forces, pulling in different directions. Sure, the principle behind these forces is the same, but that is neither here nor there.
Thank you for the clarification. Multiple sources but one universal principle - that's exactly what I meant (and I'm sorry if I put it unclearly before).
I'm a bit confused by the last sentence, though. Are the principles behind UA and CG the same or have I misunderstood what you are saying?
Ok, I see. So, could you, please, remind me of how the CG (or the UA) explains the Eötvös effect? Thank you.
I can't, because I don't know the answer, and I do not wish to speculate on something I haven't personally investigated.
Thank you for your response.
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9003
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2019, 06:42:04 PM »
I'm a bit confused by the last sentence, though. Are the principles behind UA and CG the same or have I misunderstood what you are saying?
You did misunderstand, but that's probably my fault. Let me try to unwrap what I meant.

The original objection was that GR has a single source, where UA has many. I disagree with that objection - the sources of RET gravitation are multiple, each object with a mass having its own pull. The fact that they all follow the same principle is not relevant.
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*

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2019, 07:05:42 PM »
I'm a bit confused by the last sentence, though. Are the principles behind UA and CG the same or have I misunderstood what you are saying?
You did misunderstand, but that's probably my fault. Let me try to unwrap what I meant.

The original objection was that GR has a single source, where UA has many. I disagree with that objection - the sources of RET gravitation are multiple, each object with a mass having its own pull. The fact that they all follow the same principle is not relevant.

Ok, I see. Sorry for wasting your time. Thank you  ;)
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 774
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2019, 10:38:30 PM »
Here’s the deal. Scientists have a very good understanding of how gravity works. So much so that we can accurately predict the motion of the celestial bodies and slingshot spacecraft past them to get a speed boost.

This isn’t the kind of evidence that will convince a group in which many believe that all space flight is faked.  (Yes, I know there are a few who have reconciled satellites and FE, but that is far from a majority opinion).  Better, in my opinion, to focus on measured phenomena like the Eötvös effect and why it supports the mainstream understanding of gravity while being difficult to explain in a UA model.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6076
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2019, 11:36:35 PM »
We have a Wiki page on the Eötvös effect now. The matter is related to Gravimetry.