[SylvanCyborg]

UA is an attempt to align relativity with FE. But if you follow the logic, it turns out to be another pointless mathematical model that has no meaning in reality.

If you believe relativity, you believe we are in a reference frame from which all observation will be defined. Meaning, you cannot look outside your reference frame to see what the external frame would see when it observes your reference frame.

Therefore, we could be moving at any speed in the external reference frame, and not know it. I realize UA theorizes that the speed is ever increasing, and I have no argument against that point.

It may well be ever increasing, and we have no means to confirm or deny that point. The very fact that it cannot be tested in any way is itself the problem. Why should we assume that being pulled down necessarily means that UA is the only explanation?

For example, the outer reference frame could be moving at any constant or increasing speed within yet another external reference frame. We could be in a Russian doll of infinite reference frames. These mathematical models offer infinite possibilities, none of which can be experienced by humans ever.

The appropriate answer to why we are pulled down is "I don't know, but as soon as we can create a compelling experiment, we'll let you know".

Creating more mathematical models that inherently cannot be tested is just as useless as the RE theories.

[Frocious]

UA is an attempt to align relativity with FE. But if you follow the logic, it turns out to be another pointless mathematical model that has no meaning in reality.

If you believe relativity, you believe we are in a reference frame from which all observation will be defined. Meaning, you cannot look outside your reference frame to see what the external frame would see when it observes your reference frame.

Therefore, we could be moving at any speed in the external reference frame, and not know it. I realize UA theorizes that the speed is ever increasing, and I have no argument against that point.

It may well be ever increasing, and we have no means to confirm or deny that point. The very fact that it cannot be tested in any way is itself the problem. Why should we assume that being pulled down necessarily means that UA is the only explanation?

For example, the outer reference frame could be moving at any constant or increasing speed within yet another external reference frame. We could be in a Russian doll of infinite reference frames. These mathematical models offer infinite possibilities, none of which can be experienced by humans ever.

The appropriate answer to why we are pulled down is "I don't know, but as soon as we can create a compelling experiment, we'll let you know".

Creating more mathematical models that inherently cannot be tested is just as useless as the RE theories.

So why would we feel the Earth rotating?

[SylvanCyborg]

UA is an attempt to align relativity with FE. But if you follow the logic, it turns out to be another pointless mathematical model that has no meaning in reality.

If you believe relativity, you believe we are in a reference frame from which all observation will be defined. Meaning, you cannot look outside your reference frame to see what the external frame would see when it observes your reference frame.

Therefore, we could be moving at any speed in the external reference frame, and not know it. I realize UA theorizes that the speed is ever increasing, and I have no argument against that point.

It may well be ever increasing, and we have no means to confirm or deny that point. The very fact that it cannot be tested in any way is itself the problem. Why should we assume that being pulled down necessarily means that UA is the only explanation?

For example, the outer reference frame could be moving at any constant or increasing speed within yet another external reference frame. We could be in a Russian doll of infinite reference frames. These mathematical models offer infinite possibilities, none of which can be experienced by humans ever.

The appropriate answer to why we are pulled down is "I don't know, but as soon as we can create a compelling experiment, we'll let you know".

Creating more mathematical models that inherently cannot be tested is just as useless as the RE theories.

So why would we feel the Earth rotating?

Because rotation is not the same thing as moving in one direction. In addition, changes in the speed of rotation are also not the same as moving in one direction.

Put it this way: I know I am being pulled down at a specific speed, I can feel that. If people want to call that UA, fine, but to me an answer that inherently cannot be tested is useless.

[Frocious]

UA is an attempt to align relativity with FE. But if you follow the logic, it turns out to be another pointless mathematical model that has no meaning in reality.

If you believe relativity, you believe we are in a reference frame from which all observation will be defined. Meaning, you cannot look outside your reference frame to see what the external frame would see when it observes your reference frame.

Therefore, we could be moving at any speed in the external reference frame, and not know it. I realize UA theorizes that the speed is ever increasing, and I have no argument against that point.

It may well be ever increasing, and we have no means to confirm or deny that point. The very fact that it cannot be tested in any way is itself the problem. Why should we assume that being pulled down necessarily means that UA is the only explanation?

For example, the outer reference frame could be moving at any constant or increasing speed within yet another external reference frame. We could be in a Russian doll of infinite reference frames. These mathematical models offer infinite possibilities, none of which can be experienced by humans ever.

The appropriate answer to why we are pulled down is "I don't know, but as soon as we can create a compelling experiment, we'll let you know".

Creating more mathematical models that inherently cannot be tested is just as useless as the RE theories.

So why would we feel the Earth rotating?

Because rotation is not the same thing as moving in one direction. In addition, changes in the speed of rotation are also not the same as moving in one direction.

Put it this way: I know I am being pulled down at a specific speed, I can feel that. If people want to call that UA, fine, but to me an answer that inherently cannot be tested is useless.

But you are moving in one direction -- the direction the Earth spins.

[SylvanCyborg]

UA is an attempt to align relativity with FE. But if you follow the logic, it turns out to be another pointless mathematical model that has no meaning in reality.

If you believe relativity, you believe we are in a reference frame from which all observation will be defined. Meaning, you cannot look outside your reference frame to see what the external frame would see when it observes your reference frame.

Therefore, we could be moving at any speed in the external reference frame, and not know it. I realize UA theorizes that the speed is ever increasing, and I have no argument against that point.

It may well be ever increasing, and we have no means to confirm or deny that point. The very fact that it cannot be tested in any way is itself the problem. Why should we assume that being pulled down necessarily means that UA is the only explanation?

For example, the outer reference frame could be moving at any constant or increasing speed within yet another external reference frame. We could be in a Russian doll of infinite reference frames. These mathematical models offer infinite possibilities, none of which can be experienced by humans ever.

The appropriate answer to why we are pulled down is "I don't know, but as soon as we can create a compelling experiment, we'll let you know".

Creating more mathematical models that inherently cannot be tested is just as useless as the RE theories.

So why would we feel the Earth rotating?

Because rotation is not the same thing as moving in one direction. In addition, changes in the speed of rotation are also not the same as moving in one direction.

Put it this way: I know I am being pulled down at a specific speed, I can feel that. If people want to call that UA, fine, but to me an answer that inherently cannot be tested is useless.

But you are moving in one direction -- the direction the Earth spins.

I disagree that these are the same thing. I also disagree that the changes in speed at different places on the earth are the same thing.

Why would my acceptance of the fact that I'm being pulled down necessitate the belief that there are any other directions in which I am moving that I cannot feel?

I will be watching to see if anyone wants to comment about UA, but I will ignore further attempts to make me believe the earth is spinning.

[JohnAdams1145]

UA is not here to preserve the idea of relativity; it is simply the FE explanation for the "downward" force we feel. To be honest, there's not much else that explains it as well, except (of course) the real gravity. Most of the other hypotheses are just as magical and contrived as FE claims gravity is.

Also, your hypotheses should be consistent with special relativity, because otherwise you get a ton of contradictions. Special relativity mathematically (=logically) follows from only two assertions:
1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames.
2. The speed of light is constant regardless of the inertial reference frame picked.

The first of these is exactly what we experience in everyday life, corresponding to the intuitive notion of "relative speed," and have no reason to discredit. The second has been demonstrated in numerous experiments. It's not a pretty reality, but reality is what it is.

If you claim that the results of special relativity is false, you are logically claiming one of:
1. The logic of special relativity is wrong (nope, you'll have to point to a very specific step in the derivation)
2. The assumptions of special relativity are wrong (nope, they've been tested)

Not to mention that you'll also have to claim that the experiments validating the predictions of special relativity are all flawed... That's far worse than whatever you think of mathematics because you don't understand it.