Quote (Wyrmvater @ Nov 2 2016 09:25am)

a constant same change in vector to me would seem linear, it's just added value to the vector. I'm sure top-end physicists know how to calculate the vector of a perfect sphere, and I doubt they would term it as constantly "accelerating". Idk, physics isn't my thing, but a simple change in vector would seem like taking it too literally, that it accelerates. It's a simple change in direction, must be an odd convention.

Quote (thesnipa @ Nov 2 2016 06:32pm)

could be wrong but i think you're missing that flat earth theorists hold that the earth is travelling upward constantly and that's what causes "gravity" which they believe doesn't exist.

Quote (Leevee @ Nov 2 2016 09:29am)

This does not make sense to me. The reason why objects fall towards Earth is because Earth attracts those objects through gravitational force. The direction of an object's velocity compared to the direction of Earth's velocity does not matter, as the object will undergo an additional acceleration towards Earth regardless.

Your analogy concerning cars and airplanes does not make sense either. Our body does not follow the plane/car's movement because of gravity; it does so because the car/plane seat pushes us forward with the same speed the airplane is traveling. Once our velocity equals that of the plane/car (which is almost immediately), the net acceleration of our body is zero, and we simply follow the plane/car without experiencing any force. No, scratch that; we do experience a force: a downwards one, towards Earth. Ta-dah, gravity.

But let's disregard that. If what you say is true, then why does gravity suddenly appear when Earth's movement vector does change?

Quote (russian @ Nov 2 2016 06:34pm)

I'm providing a counter-argument to the flat earth theory that gravity doesn't exist, and the reason objects fall is because our flat earth is moving upwards.

Quote (Knaapie @ Nov 2 2016 06:28am)

A constant change is what we see as a constant acceleration/deceleration in a certain constant (perpendicular) direction.

Quote (Leevee @ Nov 2 2016 09:33am)

Right, right, I see. Is russian a flat-Earthist? If so I should probably stop wasting my time.

Quote (russian @ Nov 2 2016 06:38am)

You'd need to read pages 38 and 39 to get the context. Card said that things fall because of Earth's upwards motion. Santara countered that it has to be acceleration, not just motion. I calculated that if the Earth is accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2, then we are breaking the speed of light by another multiple every year or so. Then card said that we ARE accelerating, but at 0 acceleration, which is still acceleration. The discussion devolved for several pages into whether or not 0 acceleration is still acceleration. Finally, I said it doesn't matter, because at 0 acceleration objects wouldn't fall anyway.

Quote (russian @ Nov 2 2016 04:38pm)

You'd need to read pages 38 and 39 to get the context. Card said that things fall because of Earth's upwards motion. Santara countered that it has to be acceleration, not just motion. I calculated that if the Earth is accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2, then we are breaking the speed of light by another multiple every year or so. Then card said that we ARE accelerating, but at 0 acceleration, which is still acceleration. The discussion devolved for several pages into whether or not 0 acceleration is still acceleration. Finally, I said it doesn't matter, because at 0 acceleration objects wouldn't fall anyway.

Quote (card_sultan @ 2 Nov 2016 17:38)

A constant change of zero is a constant change too, zero has value, zero is not nothing.