#### I am Seeker of Truth

##### Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« on: June 02, 2018, 10:32:08 PM »
I just read the Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration and have several questions but I will post them one at a time.

The TFES Wiki entry states:

"Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.

This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".

The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.
"

Further down it states:

The phenomenon we observe everyday when falling is currently substantiated in modern physics by what is called "The Equivalence Principle".

The Equivalence Principle is part of General Relativity which the author, at the top of the page, says is incompatible with the flat earth model.

Is the author simply picking those parts of General Relativity he or she feels are valid for his purposes, and ignoring the rest or is the author unaware that General Relativity includes the Equivalence Principle?

The following is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is any of several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

As the saying goes: You can't  have it both ways.

How can the author say that General Relativity does not apply to the flat earth but pulls a part of General Relativity out to prove the validity of his or hers idea of Universal Acceleration being what earth's gravity really is?

Are we to simply ignore gross errors like this in the flat earth idea?

If so, how convenient for the flat earthers who insist upon every being absolutely accurate when present with statements disproving the flat earth.

Make even on error of typo and they will be all over you.

And -  once again, why is there no agreed upon map of the flat earth. If we just date the flat earth idea from 1865 Parallax/Rowbotham first published  "ZETETIC ASTRONOMY EARTH NOT A GLOBE!" that's 153 years for the flat earthers to get their act together and have a map of the flat earth as well as answers to such basic question such as:

What is the diameter of the flat earth - ice barrier to ice barrier, through the North Pole?

What are meteors and how do you account for meteorites?

Those are just a few of the questions which flat earthers should be able to answer these 153 years after Rowbotham but don't seem to be able to.

If FEs truly believe the earth is flat, 153 years is surely enough time for them to get together and begin to record agreed upon "facts" about the flat earth such as the diameter of the flat earth; what holds the sun and moon up, what process cause the luminosity of the sun,etc.

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2018, 11:14:59 PM »
whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

one thing the do have correct in that UA article is that if a "flat" earth was being accellerated at 9.8 m/s2 we would not feel any difference at all.  so that part is correct.  of course UA would not account for the fact that we can measure different accelleration/gravity at different elevations.  this is a fact and easily verified.  if the entire earth was being accelerated, then it would be constant at all elevations.

the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9237
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2018, 02:00:44 AM »
the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

Whoever made the above comment has a very poor understanding of physics...

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible

Yeah, I think you have some homework to do...

#### Turret OP

• 8
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2018, 02:17:04 AM »
whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

one thing the do have correct in that UA article is that if a "flat" earth was being accellerated at 9.8 m/s2 we would not feel any difference at all.  so that part is correct.  of course UA would not account for the fact that we can measure different accelleration/gravity at different elevations.  this is a fact and easily verified.  if the entire earth was being accelerated, then it would be constant at all elevations.

the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible

You will not have a higher mass with speed, but in fact, will carry more energy. However, the acceleration towards the ground should indeed be equal no matter of your elevation, while on the mt Everest, the acceleration towards the ground is slightly lower than the 9.81 m/s² we have at the sea level. I am still waiting for an answer from flat earthers about this one. Btw, I also want to be answered about that ^^'
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9856.msg154387

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2018, 02:21:55 AM »
the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

Whoever made the above comment has a very poor understanding of physics...

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible

Yeah, I think you have some homework to do...

so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

relative mass is easy to determine if you know a velocity.  its initial mass divided by the square root of 1 minus v2/c2...once v = c, then you are dividing your initial mass by zero...

the wiki provides a horrible example why an object cant reach the speed of light.  i agree, it cant reach C, but not because of the speed based on an observer outside of the earth.  the speed an outside observer sees is not the proper speed to object is going

i noticed you glossed over the question in my post, even though you managed to quote pretty much the rest of it, I will repost for clarity....that is why do we observe/measure different gravity/acceleration based on height on a flat earth?
« Last Edit: June 03, 2018, 02:32:56 AM by Round Eyes »
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2018, 02:26:25 AM »
whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

one thing the do have correct in that UA article is that if a "flat" earth was being accellerated at 9.8 m/s2 we would not feel any difference at all.  so that part is correct.  of course UA would not account for the fact that we can measure different accelleration/gravity at different elevations.  this is a fact and easily verified.  if the entire earth was being accelerated, then it would be constant at all elevations.

the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible

You will not have a higher mass with speed, but in fact, will carry more energy. However, the acceleration towards the ground should indeed be equal no matter of your elevation, while on the mt Everest, the acceleration towards the ground is slightly lower than the 9.81 m/s² we have at the sea level. I am still waiting for an answer from flat earthers about this one. Btw, I also want to be answered about that ^^'
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9856.msg154387

no, relative mass increases with velocity compared to initial mass.   this of course requires a specific amount of energy based on the mass/velocity.  This really doesnt have anything to do with my question on varying values of gravity measured, was to point out the flawed understanding of why UA would not allow earth to reach C...
« Last Edit: June 03, 2018, 02:31:12 AM by Round Eyes »
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9237
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2018, 02:36:44 AM »
so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration? For someone who gives off the impression of having a solid grasp on physics, I would expect more... UA is not without its problems, but I assure you this is not one of them.

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2018, 02:43:42 AM »
so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration? For someone who gives off the impression of having a solid grasp on physics, I would expect more... UA is not without its problems, but I assure you this is not one of them.

thanks again for the non-answer, very productive post/reply.   if it makes the conversation move forward, fine i will "admit" i was totally incorrect on anything i said about the physics and errors of UA, so we can avoid the redirecting of the real question....just provide an answer why we observe/measure different acceleration/gravity at different elevations on flat earth?
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### Tom Bishop

• Moderator
• 7524
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2018, 02:46:46 AM »
so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration? For someone who gives off the impression of having a solid grasp on physics, I would expect more... UA is not without its problems, but I assure you this is not one of them.

thanks again for the non-answer, very productive post/reply.   if it makes the conversation move forward, fine i will "admit" i was totally incorrect on anything i said about the physics and errors of UA, so we can avoid the redirecting of the real question....just provide an answer why we observe/measure different acceleration/gravity at different elevations on flat earth?

As suggested in the Wiki, the stars have a slight gravitational pull.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9237
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2018, 02:48:06 AM »
thanks again for the non-answer, very productive post/reply.
This is typically the reply of the ignorant round earth logician. All hostility, no humility.

just provide an answer why we observe/measure different acceleration/gravity at different elevations on flat earth?
I'd suggest reading the wiki/FAQ and doing a simple forum search. It actually isn't all that hard.

#### I am Seeker of Truth

##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2018, 02:50:50 AM »
whoever wrote that wiki article has a very poor understanding of physics, including einstein's general relativity and  special relativity.

one thing the do have correct in that UA article is that if a "flat" earth was being accellerated at 9.8 m/s2 we would not feel any difference at all.  so that part is correct.  of course UA would not account for the fact that we can measure different accelleration/gravity at different elevations.  this is a fact and easily verified.  if the entire earth was being accelerated, then it would be constant at all elevations.

the other major flaw with UA is their explanation on why we would never reach the speed of light.  first, again correct that an object of mass cannot reach the speed of light (C).  but the reason given is way off.  the issue with accellerating and object with mass is that as you increase velocity the mass increases, and by multiplying its resting mass by the lorenz transformation.  the closer you get to C, the faster this occurs.  An object accellerated to C would have an infinite mass, which obviously isnt possible

The other factor needed to accellerate a mass if force, i.e. F=ma.   as the mass increases you need more force to continue accelleration.  and since the mass is increasing as you get closer to speed to be infinite (as noted above) you would also require an infinite amount of force.  again impossible

What about their selective acceptance of part of one part of General Relativity (Equivalence Principle) and saying that General Relativity is not relevant to the a flat earth?

#### I am Seeker of Truth

##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2018, 02:54:59 AM »
No one addressed my specific question:

How can the Wiki author accept the Equivalence Principle, a part of General Relativity, and say that General Relativity does not apply to a flat earth?

Can't anyone read and answer questions without starting arguments about issues that the question does not raise?

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2018, 02:55:04 AM »
thanks again for the non-answer, very productive post/reply.
This is typically the reply of the ignorant round earth logician. All hostility, no humility.

just provide an answer why we observe/measure different acceleration/gravity at different elevations on flat earth?
I'd suggest reading the wiki/FAQ and doing a simple forum search. It actually isn't all that hard.

just found that info and saw Tom's response as well, will respond there
« Last Edit: June 03, 2018, 03:01:31 AM by Round Eyes »
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2018, 03:00:14 AM »
so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration? For someone who gives off the impression of having a solid grasp on physics, I would expect more... UA is not without its problems, but I assure you this is not one of them.

thanks again for the non-answer, very productive post/reply.   if it makes the conversation move forward, fine i will "admit" i was totally incorrect on anything i said about the physics and errors of UA, so we can avoid the redirecting of the real question....just provide an answer why we observe/measure different acceleration/gravity at different elevations on flat earth?

As suggested in the Wiki, the stars have a slight gravitational pull.

Tom, now i am totally confused.  So the moon and stars have a gravitational pull that affects the earth, but the earth has no gravity?  And what you are saying with this explanation given the premise that the earth is constantly accelerating upward, is that somehow the mountain top is accelerating slower than at ground level?  that explanation opens even more serious consequences for the validity of UA.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2018, 03:02:48 AM by Round Eyes »
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### Tumeni

• 2375
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #14 on: June 03, 2018, 04:18:02 AM »
You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration?

Well ... yes.  You're the one saying he's wrong, it's now encumbent upon you to state why, surely?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9237
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #15 on: June 03, 2018, 04:24:41 AM »
You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration?

Well ... yes.  You're the one saying he's wrong, it's now encumbent upon you to state why, surely?

Turns out I actually already stated it (it also turns out you even quoted it). If you find yourself struggling I would suggest going back and reading the thread again to clear up any misunderstanding on your part.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 11958
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #16 on: June 03, 2018, 01:43:30 PM »
No one addressed my specific question:

How can the Wiki author accept the Equivalence Principle, a part of General Relativity, and say that General Relativity does not apply to a flat earth?

Can't anyone read and answer questions without starting arguments about issues that the question does not raise?
You fundamentally missed the point. One does not have to accept GR piecemeal to point out that GR itself accepts that the equivalence would be there. To flip it on its head: you are telling us that your gravitational model would be identical to the one we're experiencing. We merely choose to take your word for it.

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #17 on: June 03, 2018, 04:22:32 PM »
so what errors have i made?  i would love to see your math on this.

this is pretty basic physics problem so i would love to see where i messed up that mass has to be infinite as well as force causing the acceleration.

You want me to teach you the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration? For someone who gives off the impression of having a solid grasp on physics, I would expect more... UA is not without its problems, but I assure you this is not one of them.

i seem to be the one who understands the theory here, all you have done is try to confuse terms to avoid the obvious errors in UA.  We are talking about proper acceleration  as the discussion was about the earth reaching C, and thus the mysterious force that is accelerating the earth (acting upon it), that has to increase exponentially as its velocity/mass continues to increase.  Why bring coordinate acceleration into this discussion, other than to throw out a buzz word to try and deflect?  we are not talking about perceived acceleration from some outside observer?  But why would i expect a FET person to understand GR and SR, if you understood the theory and math involved then you would not be able to believe in a flat earth.

If you dont understand why the energy/force and mass have to reach infinity in order for an object of mass to reach C, i can provide you some links to physics books with the full proof if you would like.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### Round Eyes

• 457
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #18 on: June 03, 2018, 04:28:52 PM »
No one addressed my specific question:

How can the Wiki author accept the Equivalence Principle, a part of General Relativity, and say that General Relativity does not apply to a flat earth?

Can't anyone read and answer questions without starting arguments about issues that the question does not raise?
You fundamentally missed the point. One does not have to accept GR piecemeal to point out that GR itself accepts that the equivalence would be there. To flip it on its head: you are telling us that your gravitational model would be identical to the one we're experiencing. We merely choose to take your word for it.

GR was established under the principle of equivalence, it is the beginning building block of the GR.

The gravitation/acceleration model is indeed accurate as to what we feel and how things behave, but GR provides the math that shows why gravity is less at the top of a mountain than at sea level.  This is possible because gravity is based on the mass and distance from the center of mass.  UA is explicit saying the earth is accelerating upward, thus there is NO way to give an explanation on lower acceleration at the top of a mountain than at sea level.  this is observed and a fact that FET is not denying, but in doing so you are saying that there are two accelerations, which would have to imply the top of the mountain is going up slower and there would be contraction in the mountain itself as the ground would be catching up to it.  obviously this isnt happening.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9237
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #19 on: June 03, 2018, 05:19:41 PM »
i seem to be the one who understands the theory here...
It sure doesn't sound like it.

more rambling (exhibiting a first year uni level of physics), with an ad hominem at the end...
Yeah, you have some work to do. Instead of telling everyone how smart you are, maybe put in a little effort instead of hand waving away the bits you don't understand.

If you dont understand why the energy/force and mass have to reach infinity in order for an object of mass to reach C, i can provide you some links to physics books with the full proof if you would like.
You should probably take a look at the physics books first before offering them to someone else. You might also want to even put in a little time researching before replying again. This will help prevent you from looking as foolish as you do here. Best of luck, friend!