[Tom Bishop]

Yet anyone else watching would clearly see you falling to the floor. Or a ball you drop falls to the floor. I see lots more empirical evidence suggesting things fall to Earth rather than the Earth rises up to meet things.

If you bring another observer into it, that adds in more variables. Does he feel the earth pressing upwards against his feet while he is observing you? When you act an an observer and drop a ball, that also brings in more variables. Do you feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet when you drop a ball?

If someone is watching you fall to the floor, that is second hand evidence. When you step off the chair and observe the effect directly that is first hand evidence. First hand evidence is more empirical than second hand evidence for a number of reasons.

No need to get into the how at present, just what happens and that is that everything falls to Earth from any perspective but the single one you have cherry picked. Looks to me like empirical evidence suggests something is pulling (or pushing) things to the surface of the Earth, not that the Earth is moving towards those things.

There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.

So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics?  Please.

Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.

Since this has never been shown in a laboratory experiment it should be dismissed, right?  Your rules as I recall.

Experiments have shown that energy in any system is limited and not perpetual. I can reference a perpetual motion experiment if you wish.

[TomInAustin]

Yet anyone else watching would clearly see you falling to the floor. Or a ball you drop falls to the floor. I see lots more empirical evidence suggesting things fall to Earth rather than the Earth rises up to meet things.

If you bring another observer into it, that adds in more variables. Does he feel the earth pressing upwards against his feet while he is observing you?

If someone is watching you fall to the floor, that is second hand evidence compared to your first hand evidence. First hand evidence is more empirical than second hand evidence for a number of reasons.

No need to get into the how at present, just what happens and that is that everything falls to Earth from any perspective but the single one you have cherry picked. Looks to me like empirical evidence suggests something is pulling (or pushing) things to the surface of the Earth, not that the Earth is moving towards those things.

There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth rises up to meet me.

So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics?  Please.

Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.

Since this has never been shown in a laboratory experiment it should be dismissed, right?  Your rules as I recall.

Experiments have shown that energy in any system is limited and not perpetual. I can reference a perpetual motion experiment if you wish.

But universal acceleration has not. 

[inquisitive]

Yet anyone else watching would clearly see you falling to the floor. Or a ball you drop falls to the floor. I see lots more empirical evidence suggesting things fall to Earth rather than the Earth rises up to meet things.

If you bring another observer into it, that adds in more variables. Does he feel the earth pressing upwards against his feet while he is observing you? When you act an an observer and drop a ball, that also brings in more variables. Do you feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet when you drop a ball?

If someone is watching you fall to the floor, that is second hand evidence. When you step off the chair and observe the effect directly that is first hand evidence. First hand evidence is more empirical than second hand evidence for a number of reasons.

No need to get into the how at present, just what happens and that is that everything falls to Earth from any perspective but the single one you have cherry picked. Looks to me like empirical evidence suggests something is pulling (or pushing) things to the surface of the Earth, not that the Earth is moving towards those things.

There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.

So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics?  Please.

Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.

Since this has never been shown in a laboratory experiment it should be dismissed, right?  Your rules as I recall.

Experiments have shown that energy in any system is limited and not perpetual. I can reference a perpetual motion experiment if you wish.

Very clever writing.  We observe relative to the ground, if I jump off a chair we say I go down, not the rest of the world goes up.

If I walk do I say everything is moving towards me?

[mtnman]

I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.

Has anyone in the world on seeing something dropped, had a first instinct to say, hey look at the Earth rising up to meet the dropped object? Lunacy.

What is the scope of the universal acceleration? I read mentions of it as the Earth constantly accelerating. But wouldn't everything we see in the sky have to be accelerating also? I assume UA isn't bringing us rapidly closer to the sun, moon, planets and stars. So you propose that something hidden from us below the disk Earth is accelerating us, and something between us and the objects in the sky that is invisible to us is accelerating them also?

If you want to make the case for something below the flat Earth, obviously it can't be seen. But if something is also accelerating the sun and moon, what visible and empirical evidence do you have for this force?

[StinkyOne]

There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.

Bullsh*t!! Ever had the sensation of falling? That feeling in your stomach that makes roller coasters so fun? I have fallen a time or two, I am not inert. There is a definite sensation of falling.

[Curious Squirrel]

There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.

Bullsh*t!! Ever had the sensation of falling? That feeling in your stomach that makes roller coasters so fun? I have fallen a time or two, I am not inert. There is a definite sensation of falling.

This is a good point. I'll go looking tomorrow, but as I recall this sensation is a product of inertia, where you begin to go down, but parts of your body essentially 'run into' the parts accelerating. Thus that slightly strange (and sometimes vomit inducing) sensation from being on a rollercoaster or jumping out of an airplane.
Not quite as definitive as I thought, but: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/05/16/good-question-why-does-your-stomach-drop-on-a-roller-coaster

I also feel you're just making things up with your 'degrees of empirical' but again I must look more tomorrow. Both are interesting thoughts. Your answers also give an interesting look into your worldview, and I think I'm starting to get ideas.....

[TomInAustin]

There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.

Bullsh*t!! Ever had the sensation of falling? That feeling in your stomach that makes roller coasters so fun? I have fallen a time or two, I am not inert. There is a definite sensation of falling.

This is a good point. I'll go looking tomorrow, but as I recall this sensation is a product of inertia, where you begin to go down, but parts of your body essentially 'run into' the parts accelerating. Thus that slightly strange (and sometimes vomit inducing) sensation from being on a rollercoaster or jumping out of an airplane.
Not quite as definitive as I thought, but: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/05/16/good-question-why-does-your-stomach-drop-on-a-roller-coaster

I also feel you're just making things up with your 'degrees of empirical' but again I must look more tomorrow. Both are interesting thoughts. Your answers also give an interesting look into your worldview, and I think I'm starting to get ideas.....

Actually jumping out of an airplane does not give that feeling of falling.  The airplane is moving 90+ mph (round earth MPH) and you transition to 120ish down in 9 seconds.   A 30mph acceleration in 9 seconds is pretty tame.  Now out of a helicopter or hot air balloon yes.

[Curious Squirrel]

There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.

Bullsh*t!! Ever had the sensation of falling? That feeling in your stomach that makes roller coasters so fun? I have fallen a time or two, I am not inert. There is a definite sensation of falling.

This is a good point. I'll go looking tomorrow, but as I recall this sensation is a product of inertia, where you begin to go down, but parts of your body essentially 'run into' the parts accelerating. Thus that slightly strange (and sometimes vomit inducing) sensation from being on a rollercoaster or jumping out of an airplane.
Not quite as definitive as I thought, but: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/05/16/good-question-why-does-your-stomach-drop-on-a-roller-coaster

I also feel you're just making things up with your 'degrees of empirical' but again I must look more tomorrow. Both are interesting thoughts. Your answers also give an interesting look into your worldview, and I think I'm starting to get ideas.....

Actually jumping out of an airplane does not give that feeling of falling.  The airplane is moving 90+ mph (round earth MPH) and you transition to 120ish down in 9 seconds.   A 30mph acceleration in 9 seconds is pretty tame.  Now out of a helicopter or hot air balloon yes.

My apologies, I've never personally done any of those, but I had some buddies in college who did them all (well airplane and heli, I recall some odd difficulty in the hot air balloon attempt but don't remember what). My memory must have jumbled them all up some, so thank you for that.

If you bring another observer into it, that adds in more variables. Does he feel the earth pressing upwards against his feet while he is observing you? When you act an an observer and drop a ball, that also brings in more variables. Do you feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet when you drop a ball?

If someone is watching you fall to the floor, that is second hand evidence. When you step off the chair and observe the effect directly that is first hand evidence. First hand evidence is more empirical than second hand evidence for a number of reasons.

I'm not sure just what you're getting at in the first bit here still Tom. As for the second, you appear to be treading into Solipsism some. When you trip do you also say "The ground rose up to hit me"? Do you not fall, but instead "Wait for the ground to catch up"? When you go from your house to the water and look at your infamous beach, do you move the Earth around you with your steps? Just curious.

[devils advocate]

If someone is watching you fall to the floor, that is second hand evidence. When you step off the chair and observe the effect directly that is first hand evidence. First hand evidence is more empirical than second hand evidence for a number of reasons.

First hand evidence may be more empirical but that doesn't mean it is in ANY way a better representation of truth. If something hits you on your back and you turn around and see three similar objects on the floor you will not know if it was one of these that hit you and certainly not which one. If I am watching the event from behind you then my view of what happens to you is of much greater value in ascertaining the truth. In this example your empirical evidence is redundant whilst my second hand evidence is the best one to use.