[Pete Svarrior]

Is there anything in the wiki on this?

Yes, it's described in the "The Basics" paragraph of the UA page. Universal Acceleration is, well, universal.  The main (but likely not only) reason for objects immediately above the Earth not being affected by it is that the Earth's mass shields us from the effect. Once you're sufficiently far away, you will have escaped the Earth's "gravitational" effect, or the nullification thereof.

For other factors, you could consult the Variations in Gravity page.

[Groit]

Yes, it's described in the "The Basics" paragraph of the UA page. Universal Acceleration is, well, universal.  The main (but likely not only) reason for objects immediately above the Earth not being affected by it is that the Earth's mass shields us from the effect. Once you're sufficiently far away, you will have escaped the Earth's "gravitational" effect, or the nullification thereof.

So would i be right in saying that when you reach a certain height above the Earth's surface, then you will start to feel the effects of universal acceleration?

[Stagiri]

A much more interesting flaw of the FET is the Eötvös effect.

[ExplorerJade]

The FE term "Dark Energy" is not to be confused with dark energy as defined within astronomy. While both refer to a largely unknown force, they are not one and the same.

Then can you explain to me, with proof, as to what is 'dark energy' in the FE theory?

[Pete Svarrior]

So would i be right in saying that when you reach a certain height above the Earth's surface, then you will start to feel the effects of universal acceleration?

Yes, you would be right in repeating what I just said. But before you jump to your next "gotcha!", you might want to familiarise yourself with the resources I linked you to.

Then can you explain to me, with proof, as to what is 'dark energy' in the FE theory?

No, I cannot explain to you what an unknown force is. If I could, it wouldn't be described as unknown.

[iamcpc]

It sounds to me like you misunderstood what I said previously. You can certainly feel your own weight. Lie down on your back and you can feel your back pressing against the floor (and vice versa). Sit in an accelerating car* and you can feel the car seat press against your back. That's all that "feeling acceleration" is in everyday scenarios.

What you felt when you fell was a brief experience of weightlessness/free-fall. This, too, can be colloquially described as "feeling acceleration", but it's a wholly distinct phenomenon. It sounds to me that by using an ambiguous term, you accidentally drew an equivalence between the two.

In the free-fall scenario, it follows from Einstein's Equivalence Principle that you cannot tell the difference between yourself falling down and yourself being perfectly still in an ever-accelerating body of air.

I did some research and found this video which explains this in great detail. Would there be any benefit to having this video on the wiki? It clearly demonstrates how it would be impossible to tell the difference between acceleration and a gravitational field.

[ExplorerJade]

So would i be right in saying that when you reach a certain height above the Earth's surface, then you will start to feel the effects of universal acceleration?

Yes, you would be right in repeating what I just said. But before you jump to your next "gotcha!", you might want to familiarise yourself with the resources I linked you to.

Then can you explain to me, with proof, as to what is 'dark energy' in the FE theory?

No, I cannot explain to you what an unknown force is. If I could, it wouldn't be described as unknown.

Okay, then can you submit proof that the said force exists?

[Clyde Frog]

So would i be right in saying that when you reach a certain height above the Earth's surface, then you will start to feel the effects of universal acceleration?

Yes, you would be right in repeating what I just said. But before you jump to your next "gotcha!", you might want to familiarise yourself with the resources I linked you to.

Then can you explain to me, with proof, as to what is 'dark energy' in the FE theory?

No, I cannot explain to you what an unknown force is. If I could, it wouldn't be described as unknown.

Okay, then can you submit proof that the said force exists?

On a disc-shaped FE, the proof would be that things fall down. A force that makes things fall down on Earth exists. The shape of the Earth will put some parameters around what that force might be and how it might work.

[iamcpc]

This analogy is not appropriate. In order to correctly simulate this, you'd have to find a way to switch gravity/UA off and on on demand. Bungee cords, platforms, or any other form of suspension won't do it.

Unfortunately, it is you who will have to "contend" with physics to make your claim work. Namely, the Equivalence Principle. If you find a way to disprove this principle, you will have completely destroyed the foundations of the Round Earth Theory. Aside from being an own goal, I somehow doubt your chances of success.

Your anecdote on the inner ear makes things even more complicated. You're no longer just discussing free-fall (which was already too complex for you to appropriately work with), but you are now introducing additional momenta and rotation. If you want to rely on that particular sensation, you'll have to adjust your experiment to include those factors. Notably, this is another case of abusing ambiguous terms - falling over is not free-fall, but you chose to refer to both as "falling".

This discussion will be useless unless you choose a scenario and describe it accurately. Mixing them up, or picking and choosing from completely different scenarios, is not going to help you understand the physics here.

Note that none of this touches on FET, not yet. We're just discussing high school physics.

I agree. After researching this the below video really clarified this for me.




After researching the Equivalence principle this makes a lot more sense. Thank you so much Pete! I understand now that a humans sense of acceleration vs our feeling of a gravitational field could not tell the difference. I love how people are able to make these things more clear.

Would it be a good idea to put this video on the wiki?

[Tom Bishop]

Thanks. That would be a good resource link for the equivalence principle section.

It also explains why multiple objects of different masses fall without exhibiting the inertial resistance which normally occurs when bodies are pulled or pushed through space. It takes more force to roll a bowling ball across the floor than a marble. So it is curious how 'gravity' knows how to equalize the inertial resistance all bodies naturally exhibit when they are pulled or pushed through space so they fall at the same rate.

[Stagiri]

(...) It takes more force to roll a bowling ball across the floor than a marble. So it is curious how 'gravity' knows how to equalize the inertial resistance all bodies naturally exhibit when they are pulled or pushed through space so they fall at the same rate.

It's not curious at all, it's interesting at most. Yes, it takes more force to accelerate a heavier object. On the other hand, since it's heavier, the gravitational force is also greater.

If
F = the force affecting an object
m = the mass of the object
a = the acceleration of the object
M = the mass of the Earth
then according to the Newton's law:



So, the difference cancels out, i. e. the acceleration of an object in a gravity field does not depend on the mass of said object, just on the mass of what's attracting it.

[Tom Bishop]

Really? Gravity cancels out exactly with inertial resistance by pulling harder for heavier objects?

What about on another planet like the conventional Saturn where, assuming that it had a surface that you could stand on, g is stronger? The inertial resistance of a body stays the same throughout the universe (on Earth, in weightless space, on Saturn), but g can change.

Why should the Earth be so special that gravity exactly cancels out with inertial resistance on Earth to a very high precision but not on any other planet or environment?

[Stagiri]

Really? Gravity cancels out exactly with inertial resistance by pulling harder for heavier objects?
(...)

Yes, exactly. Inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing, mass, so of course that while the inertia is bigger so is the intensity of the force.

(...)
What about on another planet like the conventional Saturn where, assuming that it had a surface that you could stand on, g is stronger? The inertial resistance of a body stays the same throughout the universe (on Earth, in weightless space, on Saturn), but g can change.
(...)

The g is the same thing as the a from the equations above, i. e. the gravitational acceleration of objects. As you can see from said equations, it is proportional to the mass M of the planet and not dependant on the mass of an object. Having greater mass M, Saturn attracts any object much more than Earth does, hence the greater g / a.

Why should the Earth be so special that gravity exactly cancels out with inertial resistance on Earth to a very high precision but not on any other planet or environment?

It isn't special. The mass of an object is the mass of an object, it does not depend on what planet you are closer to. It cancels out with itself the same way 2/2, 3/3, n/n cancels out to 1. You can see that from the equations above (or you can, you know, google it as you are supposed to).

[Tom Bishop]

Sorry, can you clarify? You appear to be claiming that a body's inertial mass and inertial resistance changes when under different levels of gravity.

Can you clarify this? Why is the inertial force of a bullet or bowling ball approaching you the same in weightless space and on Earth? According to that logic inertial resistance should disappear in a weightless environment far from gravitational fields.

If a bowling ball is in vertical free fall towards the surface of Saturn, are you claiming that it would take more force to move it sideways horizontally during its downwards descent than on Earth, since the bowling ball now has a greater inertial mass? And if not, why should the force to move that object sideways horizontally be the same as on Earth or in weightless space?

[Stagiri]

Sorry, can you clarify? You appear to be claiming that a body's inertial mass and inertial resistance changes when under different levels of gravity.

Can you clarify this? Why is the inertial force of a bullet or bowling ball approaching you the same in weightless space and on Earth? According to that logic inertial resistance should disappear in a weightless environment far from gravitational fields.

If a bowling ball is in vertical free fall towards the surface of Saturn, are you claiming that it would take more force to move it sideways horizontally during its downwards descent than on Earth, since the bowling ball now has a greater inertial mass? And if not, why should the force to move that object sideways horizontally be the same as on Earth or in weightless space?

Sorry, perhaps I've expressed it poorly but I am not claiming that a body's mass changes. It stays the same.

F = m*a. F is the force applied to a body, m its mass and a its acceleration. From that, you can see that a = F/m, that is that the acceleration of a body is proportional to the force applied to it divided by its mass.

Suppose we have an object A and a two times heavier object B. The same force will accelerate B less (by a half) because it has two times greater mass. Alternatively, a two times greater force has to be applied to B if you want both objects to accelerate the same way. So far so good?

Now, let's take the Newton's law of gravity F_g = k*m*M/r^2. F_g is the gravitational force, k is a constant, m and M are masses of two bodies and r is the distance between them. If the distance increases the gravitational force decreases. If one (or both) of the masses increases the gravitational force increases too.

Let's return to objects A and B and let's drop them on the Earth's surface. Object A has a mass m and is accelerated towards the Earth by gravitational force F, so it achieves acceleration a. Object B has a mass 2m so it's two times harder to accelerate. At the same time, object B has mass 2m so the gravitational force between object B and the Earth is 2F. It's two times harder to accelerate object B but the force accelerating it towards the Earth is two times greater as well. So, 2F/2m = F/m = the same acceleration a towards the Earth. In conclusion, A and B are accelerated identically towards the Earth.

Now, let's take objects A and B to Saturn and drop them there. Object A has the same mass m but Saturn's mass is much greater than Earth's mass. So, the gravitational force is greater, not because object A's mass m would be different but because the planet's mass M is greater. So on Saturn, object A achieves much larger gravitational acceleration a (or g) than on Earth. Nevertheless, the same that applied to the relation between objects A and B on Earth applies on Saturn. Object B still has the same mass 2m so it's still two times harder to accelerate. At the same time, object B still has the same mass 2m so the gravitational force between object B and Satrun is again twice greater. It's two times harder to accelerate object B but the force accelerating it towards Saturn's core is two times greater as well. In conclusion, A and B are accelerated identically even when on Saturn.

The same goes for any planet/star/whatever. Bodies with different mass are harder (or easier) to accelerate but at the same time the gravitational force between a body and the planet/star/... is greater(/smaller). So in conclusion, all the bodies on the same planet/star/... are acceleratde the same way, none, every has the same acceleration g. However, the particular value of acceleration depends on the mass of the planet/star/... so different planets/stars/... have different gs, different values of acceleration of bodies on their surface.

Is it clearer now?

[Groit]

However, Equivalence Theory is unrelated to either school of thought.

This is untrue. The consequences of the physics behind EP are essential for either model to work. If you prove that it doesn't actually work, you've disproved RET.

Why would it disprove RET?
If there are any subtle flaws within the Equivalence Principle then we could use this to determine whether we are accelerating due to gravity or UA. It would actually prove on or the other. 

[Bikini Polaris]

I also have some doubts over the Universal accelerator. If the earth were really accelerating constantly at approximately 9.8 meters per second^2, then from a halt it would reach the speed of light in just under a year. Does this mean that FET denies the speed of light as a universal speed limit? I know that there is some disagreement in the community over this, but this is a problem that has to be avoided somehow.

As far as I understand no, the speed of light is a limit only in relativistic terms, but from your own perspective it's not. I.e., on your own spaceship with infinite energy you can accelerate to a speed much faster than light and reach a destination whose distance has been covered faster than light. *But* for someone watching you from Earth, you aren't going faster than light. The trick here is that you will age at a slower rate than those people on Earth, so from their perspective it indeed took you the "right slower than speed of light" time to reach your destination. See here:  https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-accelerate-at-a-constant-rate-until-reaching-the-speed-of-light

Once you're sufficiently far away, you will have escaped the Earth's "gravitational" effect, or the nullification thereof.

That's at odds with the fact that the flat surface we would be on is now travelling upwards at quite a fast speed (incredibly greater than the speed of light).

[Pete Svarrior]

Why would it disprove RET?

Well, if you declare a central tenet of your model to be false, that necessarily requires you to decline the model in its current form. It's really not much more profound than that - if you conclude that RET is false, then you conclude that RET is false.

If there are any subtle flaws within the Equivalence Principle

We are not discussing "subtle flaws" here. The contention is whether or not the Equivalence Principle should be discarded. I propose that it shouldn't.

That's at odds with the fact that the flat surface we would be on is now travelling upwards at quite a fast speed (incredibly greater than the speed of light).

Please complete your assertion by answering the following question: Relative to what frame of reference?
Once your assertion has been made complete and coherent, please explain: How have you concluded this?

[Regicide]

I'll say it again slowly. Equivalence Theory is not a central part of either model. It isn't a central part of Flat Earth Theory. It is a central part of Round Earth Theory. I overestimated my knowledge of relativity and made a mistake, I have now abandoned that trail of reason because it is fruitless. FET requires Equivalence Theory in order to work. RET does not, but the existence of Equivalence Theory. I'm not going to attempt to disprove Equivalence Theory because Equivalence Theory is a tried and tested theory based of the scientific method. I concede my mistake.

However.

I find it odd that FET states that the effects of the universal accelerator begin to take effect as one gets further away from Earth. It's almost as if as someone moved further away from the earth they would begin to experience some sort of difference in their attraction to Earth. Almost some sort of weightlessness...

[Groit]

According to the 'Equivalence Principle' light will be blue or redshifted in an accelerating frame, and the wiki shows this with a diagram of the The Pound-Rebka Experiment:



So, according to the diagram light moving downwards will be blueshifted.
In FET all celestial bodies are accelerating at the same rate, but at the same time the stars and all those smudges of light that we call galaxies also rotate around the Earth. So if we were to observe the stars (and those smudges of light) when they are directly above us, according to EP, they should all be blueshifted, because the time from light emitted to it reaching our eyes the Earth has accelerated and thus the light will be blueshifted.

So how come we don't observe this?! in fact most of those smudges of light that we call galaxies are actually redshifted!
How does FET explain this? please don't tell me its to do with bendy light