Evidence for Universal Acceleration
According to the model of the Universal Accelerator the earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared. We are pinned down to the surface of the earth as a mechanical function of this acceleration. This is what creates 'gravity' as experienced on earth.
There are numerous pieces of evidence that the earth is accelerating upwards. One of the primary proofs for the Universal Accelerator is the unexplained coincidence that Inertial Mass is exactly equivalent to Gravitational Mass. This coincidence has been called "one of the deepest, unsolved mysteries in fundamental physics" and is a question which has vexed science for hundreds of years. Not only are the laws of motion the same for Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass, but the strong form of the equivalence principle declares that all laws of physics are the same. Why does the physics of gravity behave exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards? The Universal Accelerator answers this confounding and long-standing mystery which has baffled generations of scientists by positing that the earth is accelerating upwards.
Other pieces of evidence range from the fact that, despite great effort, the mechanism of gravity has not been discovered, the point that the current theories of gravity cannot explain much, to empirical proofs.
Inertial Mass Exactly Equivalent to Gravitational Mass
We read the following from a paper on quantum mechanics:
"Imagine that you are stationary, and standing on the surface of the earth. Gravity feels like a force that is holding your gravitational mass to the earth’s surface. Yet when you are standing in a rocket undergoing accelerated motion (far from gravitational fields, moving with an acceleration of 1 g), the principle of equivalence tells us that there is an identical force exerted against the rocket floor by your inertial mass. However, this force is now caused by your dynamic accelerated motion through empty space. While standing on the earth, however, you were definitely not in motion. Why should there be such a deep connection between what appears to be two completely different physical phenomena: a static force of gravity with no apparent motion, and a dynamic force due to the accelerated motion of your mass? In other words, why should you weigh the same in the rocket as you do on the earth?
The principle of equivalence encompasses this strange ‘coincidence’, and is one of the founding postulates of general relativity theory. In it’s stronger form, it states that all the laws of physics are the same in the above thought experiment. When stated in it’s weaker form, it implies that objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a uniform gravity field, and that only laws of motion of physics are the same.
Equivalence also means that the inertial mass, i.e. the mass defined by Newton’s law of motion: mi = Fi / g is exactly equal to the gravitational mass, which is mass defined by a completely different law given by Newton’s universal gravitational law: mg = Fgr2 / GM (where mi and mg are the inertial and gravitational mass of an object, Fi and Fg are the inertial and gravitational forces exerted on the object, g is the acceleration of the object, M is the mass of the earth, r is the distance from earth’s center, and G is Newton’s universal gravitational constant). Newton was well aware of this coincidence of mass equivalence, which we refer to here as the Newtonian mass equivalence principle.
The equivalence principle demands that that mi = mg. Why should this be true in our universe? It has been about 85 years since the discovery of the Einstein equivalence principle, and hundreds of years since the discovery of Newton’s mass equivalence principle. Yet, it is still not understood why inertial mass exists in the first place, or why a mass opposes acceleration with a back acting inertial force. More importantly, it is also not known why there are two totally different physical definitions for inertial and gravitational mass (instead of just one).
Furthermore, masses can have different temperatures (and therefore different energy content), and may be composed of different materials like lead, wood, water. Again, why should mi = mg, no matter what the material composition and the energy content that a mass may contain? In short, the principle of equivalence is one of the deepest, unsolved mysteries that exists in fundamental physics today!"
PBS Equivalence Principle Video
A Globebusters episode discusses the Universal Accelerator as held by the Flat Earth Society. The team looks at a PBS video which states that it was Albert Einstein who came up with the idea of an upwardly accelerating earth. Watch the following video at the 3h4m16s mark for 15 minutes. Here is the video at that timestamp:
Einstein's argument was that Newtonian Gravity is curious in that it operates as if the earth were accelerating upwards. There are too many coincidences with Newton's gravity, Einstein says. It makes more sense if the earth is accelerating upwards. Einstein ends up adopting his upwardly accelerating earth theory to the Round Earth model by making space bend, another way to make the earth accelerate, giving us General Relativity as we know it today.
Video Summary Breakdown
Firstly, according to Newtonian Gravity, all objects move at the same rate towards the earth uniformly. That is its defining feature, and this operates suspiciously as if the earth were accelerating upwards.
Secondly, objects in free fall experience an opposite "fake" force of gravity of the same magnitude in which they are exactly weightless. An astronomical coincidence. Einstein says that the idea that the object is stationary and the earth is accelerating into it is the best conclusion and the best way to make sense of Newton's Gravity.
The Flat Earth concept comes in because it's not possible for the surface of the Round Earth model to continuously accelerate upwards. An upwardly accelerating surface suggests that the earth is flat.
The video presenter further states that seven years after coming up with the Equivalence Principle the accelerating earth idea was adopted into General Relativity by using non-euclidean bending space to achieve the accelerating earth illusion of gravity on a Round Earth. The end of the video says that Gravity is still an illusion in GR and bodies like basketballs make "straight line paths" to their destination. It is the environment that moves into the basketball with the space-bending physics of General Relativity.
New Scientist Article
A feature article from New Scientist declares that the mysterious equivalence principle coincidence is one of the primary problems holding back the progress of physics.
Sacrificing Einstein: Relativity’s keystone has to go
16 January 2013
"Our hopes of finding a theory of everything depend on upsetting a balance that Einstein cherished"
“ COINCIDENCE is not generally something scientists have much truck with. If two things are genuinely unrelated, there is little further of interest to be said. If the coincidence keeps turning up, however, there must be some deeper underlying link. Then it is the job of science to tease out what it is and so explain why there was no coincidence in the first place.
That makes it rather odd that a large chunk of modern physics is precariously balanced on a whopping coincidence.
This coincidence is essential to the way we view and define mass. It is so fundamental to the world’s workings that most of us encounter its consequences every day without giving them another thought. Yet it has vexed some of the best minds in physics for centuries. Galileo and Newton grappled with it, and ended up just accepting it, rather than understanding it. Einstein went one better: he declared it a principle of nature. He went on to use this “equivalence principle” as the fundament of his general theory of relativity, still our best stab at explaining the mysterious force of gravity.
But there is a problem. If we want to find some bigger, better theory that can unify gravity with the other forces that dictate the world’s workings, the equivalence principle cannot stay. We must either unmask this coincidence – or radically rethink how physics can progress from here. ”