#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #60 on: June 05, 2018, 12:56:24 PM »
[lots of rambling]

But gravitational fields are not homogeneous, they are gradient fields, therefor the acceleration is not constant and the equivalence principle is not valid within an entire gravitational field.
Isn't it just fantastic that we're not considering just an acceleration, then? It would be preferable if, in the future, you could try to stay on topic.

The starting point of my post was your false reference to special relativity. You're borrowing a concept of general relativity and as an advice to understand your concept you refer to special relativity...

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9749
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #61 on: June 05, 2018, 03:43:09 PM »
The starting point of my post was your false reference to special relativity. You're borrowing a concept of general relativity and as an advice to understand your concept you refer to special relativity...
No, I'm not. Whether or not UA can be locally distinguished from RET-style gravity and whether or not the Earth should exceed the speed of light under UA are two separate arguments, with two separate answers, directed at two distinct individuals. Trying to treat them as one is extremely unproductive of you.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 03:47:04 PM by Pete Svarrior »

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2407
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #62 on: June 05, 2018, 03:48:13 PM »
Pop quiz, hotshot.
I think I've seen you say that the earth sits on an infinite plane?
Ergo it has infinite mass?
So no amount of "dark energy" will accelerate it at all, let alone at 9.8m/s/s
F=ma, and if m is infinite then a = F/infinity...and it doesn't really matter how big the F is then.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 8710
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #63 on: June 05, 2018, 03:53:38 PM »
Pop quiz, hotshot.
Don't do that.

I think I've seen you say that the earth sits on an infinite plane?
Ergo it has infinite mass?
So no amount of "dark energy" will accelerate it at all, let alone at 9.8m/s/s
F=ma, and if m is infinite then a = F/infinity...and it doesn't really matter how big the F is then.
I may be mistaken about the model Pete prefers, but typically those who support the infinite plane model do not support UA.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9749
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #64 on: June 05, 2018, 05:47:33 PM »
Pop quiz, hotshot.
Sorry, I'm not gonna entertain that.

I think I've seen you say that the earth sits on an infinite plane?
I hope not. It's not my position, and as junker pointed out, infinite plane models usually propose GR-style gravitation.

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### QED

• 863
• As mad as a hatter.
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #65 on: August 19, 2018, 03:38:27 AM »
The starting point of my post was your false reference to special relativity. You're borrowing a concept of general relativity and as an advice to understand your concept you refer to special relativity...
No, I'm not. Whether or not UA can be locally distinguished from RET-style gravity and whether or not the Earth should exceed the speed of light under UA are two separate arguments, with two separate answers, directed at two distinct individuals. Trying to treat them as one is extremely unproductive of you.

I think this is very important to point out: they are indeed separate claims in the FE model, by necessity.

In fairness, however, I do see how hexagon coupled them. General Relativity is commensurate with Special Relativity (in the RET). What I mean is that Einstein developed special relativity and then extended it (generalized it) years later into general relativity. Separated, they do not make sense in RET, and it is precise to treat them identically in RET arguments. The answers will always be the same, if the correct limits are taken.

Is this useful? Please let me know, and I will adjust.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

#### Bastian Baasch

• 127
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #66 on: January 10, 2019, 11:58:34 PM »
Not sure if this is the right place to post questions about the wiki (it seems like the right place), but I was recently reading through the Evidence of UA wiki entry and most of the evidence hinged on the equivalence principle and how it's a big coincidence that inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass. Just because a lot of sources and people point out this coincidence doesn't tip the scales in favor, you need more substantive proof, the equivalence test still works, which means flat UA and gravity are still possibilities, not spotting EP violations while odd to scientists doesn't rule out gravity.

In addition, I think the "Russian Academy of Sciences" evidence subsection should be removed, I can't find anything on Prof. A Zielinski (Google yields nothing) except for this on the RAS's website, which doesn't lead to anything. http://www.ras.ru/CSearchResults.aspx?SearchString=Zielinksi I also don't speak Russian, so potentially any info on him I might not be able to find (it would be nice if someone could, Google translate is not very good). Until we can find further information on Prof. A Zielinski, his credentials, other papers he published, etc. it should be removed, otherwise it's just a blatant appeal to authority (even that can't be established without credentials on this guy) because flat earthers heard what they wanted.

Lastly, the empirical reasoning section, like seriously, is that a joke? In Experiment 1, you could just as equally say you're accelerating toward the earth. It's just a matter of interpreting what you see to what you want to see. In Experiment 2, let me just ask you, do basketball players feel the earth pushing up on their feet every time they dribble the ball? Or if you and a friend just moved some heavy furniture and set it down, do you feel like the earth is pushing your feet? Both these experiments don't really confirm UA.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 03:17:09 AM by Tom Bishop »
We are smarter than those scientists.
I see multiple contradicting explanations. You guys should have a pow-wow and figure out how your model works.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9749
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #67 on: January 11, 2019, 12:27:34 AM »
I was recently reading through the Evidence of UA wiki entry
It sounds like you're looking for this thread.

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### Tom Bishop

• Moderator
• 6475
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #68 on: January 11, 2019, 02:29:08 AM »
The article says "Prof. Zielinski conducts research in the field of quantum electrodynamics. He is an active member of the Russian Academy of Science and is ambassador of the International Scientists Club with its headquarters at St. Petersburg, Russia." The author of the article is "Prof. A. Zielinski."

Here he is listed on one of those committees as a professor:

Quote
p.1

International Scientists' Club
Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Saint-Petersburg Department of Physical Society
International Academy of Information Communication and Control
Saint-Petersburg Mining Engineers' Society
Russian Geological Society
Russian Geographical Society

...

p.2

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE OF THE CONGRESS-2004

Zielinski A.          Prof.            Germany

Quote
Lastly, the empirical reasoning section, like seriously, is that a joke? In Experiment 1, you could just as equally say you're accelerating toward the earth. It's just a matter of interpreting what you see to what you want to see. In Experiment 2, let me just ask you, do basketball players feel the earth pushing up on their feet every time they dribble the ball? Or if you and a friend just moved some heavy furniture and set it down, do you feel like the earth is pushing your feet? Both these experiments don't really confirm UA.

It's a comparison of mechanisms. We can see the upwardly accelerating earth, but we can't see the mechanism of any other gravitational theory. Why wouldn't that be evidence?

You can say that you are accelerating towards the earth but then you need to invent something invisible to pull you. This is in contrast to the upwardly accelerating earth which can be directly observed as a pusher mechanism.

Also, it's not odd at all that bodies of different masses fall at the same rate despite the laws of inertia saying that it takes more force to push objects with larger masses?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 06:29:47 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### WellRoundedIndividual

• 605
• Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #69 on: January 11, 2019, 01:00:12 PM »
Tom,

F = m*a for inertia, correct?  Newton developed the equation for the acceleration or force of gravity which is F = G*(m1*m2/r^2).

Equating the two cancels out the mass for the first object.  Mass is therefore irrelevant in determining how fast an object will fall - until the surface area of the object becomes an impediment to that, aka drag force.

I think I saw mention earlier in the post or maybe in another post that the force of gravity is not constant and changes with altitude, and that was a point of concern. Well, according to the Fgravity equation, that is not an issue.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 01:41:06 PM by Tom Bishop »
BobLawBlah.

#### Tom Bishop

• Moderator
• 6475
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #70 on: January 11, 2019, 02:46:09 PM »
You are citing an equation, not an explanation. Why should it be that all bodies fall towards the earth at the same rate towards the earth if the inertial laws say that it takes more force to move a heavier object through space?

"Just because it does, look at this equation" is not a sufficiant answer.

#### WellRoundedIndividual

• 605
• Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #71 on: January 11, 2019, 02:52:06 PM »
Yes, it is sufficient. That's how basic engineering works.  You develop two equations based off observations (inertial and gravitational) based on Force, then you equate the two.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 02:56:37 PM by Tom Bishop »
BobLawBlah.

#### Tom Bishop

• Moderator
• 6475
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #72 on: January 11, 2019, 02:58:36 PM »
Yes, it is sufficient. That's how basic engineering works.  You develop two equations based off observations (inertial and gravitational) based on Force, then you equate the two.

I apologize for editing your post. The quote button is right near the modify button.

The matter needs to be explained. Citing or creating an equation for the average number of doves released into the air during a magician's magic show is not an explanation of anything.

#### WellRoundedIndividual

• 605
• Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #73 on: January 11, 2019, 03:16:47 PM »
You are asking me to explain why mass gets to double dip.  This is explained by Einsteins theory of general relativity and the bending of space time.  But what you want me to really say is that Einstein posited that gravity isnt actually a force but an acceleration, which gives credit to your theory of UA.  In reality though, UA is not dependent on mass, and is some unknown aether that has no evidence of existing and cannot be connected to general relativity.
BobLawBlah.

#### WellRoundedIndividual

• 605
• Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #74 on: January 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM »
Also, from rereading the earlier posts in this topic, I want to try and further understand UA. Not trying to discredit the theory. But there seems to be information missing from the Wiki. Unless I misread the wiki.

UA is a universal acceleration. It is not dependent on anything related to the objects it is acting upon.  Thats what I gather. Because if it did depend on the size and mass of the object, we would have RE gravity. And we would have things moving at different speeds. Given that, if we reach a high enough altitude or go into outer space itself, would we ourselves not be subject to UA? Why is it explained as celestial gravitation (aka other bodies having gravitational pull, but not the earth)?

But then we have to consider this "dome" that supposedly covers the earth. Does that prevent the UA from acting upon us? Or is it more of a boundary layer effect as in fluid mechanics where the current of the UA doesnt fully wrap around the edges of the flat earth? If it prevents the UA from acting upon us due to a literal dome, why would celestial gravitation have an effect on us at different altitudes? Didn't I read somewhere that rockets dont actually go into space, that they just hit the dome?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 04:04:32 PM by WellRoundedIndividual »
BobLawBlah.

#### RonJ

• 786
• ACTA NON VERBA
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #75 on: January 11, 2019, 03:37:20 PM »
Heavier objects need need more force to accelerate at a given rate, but are provided with that additional force by additional gravity (they weight more).
Lighter objects don't need as much force to accelerate at a given rate, but don't get as much gravitational force either (they weigh less).
The end result is that all objects only get the force needed by gravity to accelerate at a particular rate, like magic.

The equations explicitly EXPLAIN the magical relationships between the forces and masses.

Don't believe it?  Just provide any example where the equations aren't true.

For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

#### Bastian Baasch

• 127
##### Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« Reply #76 on: January 11, 2019, 11:50:26 PM »
The article says "Prof. Zielinski conducts research in the field of quantum electrodynamics. He is an active member of the Russian Academy of Science and is ambassador of the International Scientists Club with its headquarters at St. Petersburg, Russia." The author of the article is "Prof. A. Zielinski."

Here he is listed on one of those committees as a professor:

Quote
p.1

International Scientists' Club
Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Saint-Petersburg Department of Physical Society
International Academy of Information Communication and Control
Saint-Petersburg Mining Engineers' Society
Russian Geological Society
Russian Geographical Society

...

p.2

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE OF THE CONGRESS-2004

Zielinski A.          Prof.            Germany

Quote
Lastly, the empirical reasoning section, like seriously, is that a joke? In Experiment 1, you could just as equally say you're accelerating toward the earth. It's just a matter of interpreting what you see to what you want to see. In Experiment 2, let me just ask you, do basketball players feel the earth pushing up on their feet every time they dribble the ball? Or if you and a friend just moved some heavy furniture and set it down, do you feel like the earth is pushing your feet? Both these experiments don't really confirm UA.

It's a comparison of mechanisms. We can see the upwardly accelerating earth, but we can't see the mechanism of any other gravitational theory. Why wouldn't that be evidence?

You can say that you are accelerating towards the earth but then you need to invent something invisible to pull you. This is in contrast to the upwardly accelerating earth which can be directly observed as a pusher mechanism.

Also, it's not odd at all that bodies of different masses fall at the same rate despite the laws of inertia saying that it takes more force to push objects with larger masses?

I know what the article says, do you think I can't read, what I asked for was his credentials, like what degrees he has. All it says is he's a researcher at the RAS, a prof., and he's a member of some clubs and committees. It doesn't even say what his degree is in. Also, he says Mi Mo was wrong because they didn't try it vertically but then gives no results or references to vertical Mi Mo experiments to back up his claims. He talks about how "Consequent experiments and observations were so coherent that the existence of aether could not be ignored any longer" so he could continue his QED research, but shows nothing to back up his claims. The whole article is basically one guy's love of aether with zero substantiation to his claims. Classic case of flat earthers finding what they want to hear.

On the empirical reasoning part, you literally regurgitated what the wiki said. But let me ask you this, you say gravity is proven wrong because we have to invent something invisible to pull us and because we can see the earth accelerating up, but don't you likewise have to invent something invisible causing the earth to accelerate upwards, something has to be pushing the earth up, that force had to come from somewhere.

Different masses accelerating the same rate is odd, but it can be explained. WRI and RonJ already did, but I'll add in my two cents anyways. A common example is an elephant and a book accelerating at the same rate. Since the masses are so disparate, FErs I guess see some kind of paradox. But if you look at Fsubg = mg, with g the gravitational field strength (in N/kg), g = Fsubg/m, it's a ratio of force to mass, which is why it works for disparate masses, the Fsubgs are proportional to the mass. The gravitational field strength, when we sub in Fsubg into the Universal Law of Gravitation gives us GM/r^2,(r being distance from the center of the earth to the center of the mass), showing that g is unaffected by the mass in question. On the other hand, accelerations in general aren't tied like g is to something else, they are related to the force applied and the mass it's applied to, which is why more force is required to move more mass, they don't have the proportionality of g in Fsubg = mg.
We are smarter than those scientists.
I see multiple contradicting explanations. You guys should have a pow-wow and figure out how your model works.