Observations/Upward rising earth

Upward rising earth

The Upward rising earth theory is based on experiments that have been interpreted as proof of an upward rising earth due to the fact we can see or measure physical downward acceleration of objects when they fall. This theory is based on the fact that the theory of gravity is desperately needing to be replaced.

Physics?

People who believe in this upward rising earth theory also acknowledge that 95% of flat earthers believe in a stationary plane. They claim that physics is being "ignored" by the stationary flat earth "model", making this 5% a "special" group of people that realizes something the rest don't understand.

However, "Physics" says that an object at rest remains at rest until a force is acting upon it. Yet the claim here is that there is a constant force is acting on EVERYTHING ALWAYS at an EXACT rate of 9.8m/sec^2... but 9.8m/sec^2 is just the AVERAGE rate of objects falling in a vacuum. Vacuums don't exist in nature, which is why the concept of space does not exist in physical nature.

Is this a conspiracy theory?

The upward rising earth is considered by many, a fact - not a theory. They claim that the experiments they've done have proven that things don't fall, rather the earth rises up to meet the floating object.

As flat earthers are already accustomed to being labeled as conspiracy theorists, whenever they see a theory that is being labeled as ridiculous or a "Psyop", it often makes them stop and scratch their heads, as this often means it's time to investigate further. However, this investigation found it's way into the Flat earth society's website, and that nearly marked the end of the upward rising earth theory as being legitimate.

However, if you search from the Flat earth society's main page, you will see references to they're also claiming a stationary earth in some sections. Upward rising earth channels do not like finding that the Flat earth society's wiki actually says otherwise. We took an image of the page, just incase these upward rising earthers are able to update the Flat earth society's wiki to remove this reference.

In the Flat Earth model, "gravity", rather than being a force, is the upward acceleration of the Earth. The Earth always accelerates upward at 1g, which is equivalent to the gravitational acceleration in the Round Earth model. Like the force of gravity, the Earth's acceleration causes several commonly observed phenomena in our daily lives.

Rather than a downward pull due to the presence of mass, the theory of "Universal Acceleration" (Upward moving earth) asserts that the roughly disk-shaped Earth is accelerating upward at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".
-Flat Earth Society Wiki

Terminal Velocity:
In the Round Earth model, terminal velocity happens when the acceleration due to gravity is equal to the acceleration due to drag. In the Flat Earth model, however, there are no balanced forces: terminal velocity happens when the upward acceleration of the person is equal to the upward acceleration of the Earth.
-Flat Earth Society Wiki

Upward Rising Earth Claims

Here's a list of claims upward earthers have as reasons the earth must be moving upward.

• Acceleration of a contained system, without displacement of gas and liquids doesn't exist, proving that objects don't accelerate down in free fall.
• Buoyancy requires a pressure gradient (push), which requires a contained system that's in motion. That's measurable, testable, and repeatable. That's what physical reality demonstrates.
• An Object at “rest” doesn’t mean it’s motionless. If you put a scale under a brick, you will get a constant weight measurement - which means there’s pressure - which means there’s motion or a force.
• When you have a water bottle with an enclosed air bubble, the air bubble will always be displaced in any direction you accelerate the bottle. That is what you would call "buoyancy", which is an effect of motion that’s measurable, testable and repeatable.
• Motionless flat earthers and globe earthers claim that in free fall the bottle accelerates without any effects of motion like pressure or buoyancy. The air bubble freezes when it’s being accelerated which is the opposite of what physics shows.
• Globbers and stationary flat earthers both have a bias to defend acceleration without displacement, which contradicts our reality and understanding of basic physics.

Just because we don't know the exact speed or trajectory of the motion, that doesn't mean it's not moving.
-Levelheaded William

Experiments

Link	Experiment Title
YouTube	Buoyancy Proves The Earth is NOT A Motionless Plane
YouTube	Acceleration Vs Free Fall Experiment - No Acceleration Detected In Free Fall
YouTube	Weight and Buoyancy Experiment - No Effects of Motion Detected In Free Fall
YouTube	Motion Experiment - What's Accelerating? - The Box Or The Ruler?
YouTube	Buoyancy Experiment With a Helium Balloon
YouTube	Weight Experiment Using a Rock And 2 Springs
YouTube	Water Pressure Gradient Experiment
YouTube	2 Density and Buoyancy Experiments

See this reference to jump to this playlist of videos showing these "upward earth" experiments done:

What "Most" flat earthers think

Flat earth society (disinformation website) claims earth is rising upward at a constant rate.

For many years the Flat Earth community at large was in agreement that the world is a level motionless plane as evidenced by our common sense, everyday experience, and countless scientific experiments including the Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Sagnac, Airy's Failure, and observable realities such as perfectly circular star trails around a stationary Pole Star, and the constellations remaining in their relative positions to one another for all of recorded history.

Recently, however, several Flat Earthers have revived Leo Ferrari's old Flat Earth Society claim that the world is not in fact a level motionless plane, but rather a constantly upwards rising plane. These people cite experiments such as a helium balloon moving forward in an accelerating car, or a cork inside a dropped bottle of water momentarily ceasing its descent while mid-air as proof positive that Earth cannot be a stationary plane. They claim the only possible way to explain these results is to assume Earth to be constantly rising at 9.8 meters per second or approximately 22 miles per hour straight upwards. There is some debate amongst them regarding whether this upward motion is a constant velocity or an acceleration, but these new "upward rising Earthers" have all recently come into agreement that our flat Earth can no longer be stationary...

No serious flat earther believes in the notion that the flat earth disc is accelerating upward to account for gravity, FE’ers laugh at that and use it as a marker for NASA shills or the like, a weeder even amongst the FE’ers (the controlled opposition).

Is upward rising earth "compatible" with scriptures?

when bringing up that scriptures say the earth is not moving, upward rising earthers be like:

How can the earth be moving "up" when the Scriptures say the earth is not moving?

After being treated like a troll for asking this question, and having to explain that you are simply curious to know about the upward moving earth theory, the following explanation was given:

Earths upward motion is like a roller coaster on a track - The roller coaster is stationary on the track - in that it doesn't leave the track and the track is stationary, but at the same time the roller coaster is moving.

Don't accidentally misquote the Bible and use the word "stationary", they will tear you up for claiming that word. The bible actually says "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (1 Chronicles 16:30).

So far it seems the conclusion here is: so "not moving" is "moving", "motionless" is "motion", and "not stationary" is "stationary", got it.

This argument reminds me of Job 38:4-6 which says "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?...", as in, how can we assume what the earth sits on or assume we understand the mechanisms here?

I guess when Revelation 6:13, where it says "And the stars of the sky fell to the earth..." - that must really mean: the stars just stopped moving up and rising earth just caught up to where they are floating.

What causes the earth to rise?

There are articles written by people who think that all flat earthers believe in an upward rising earth. The title of these articles are "The absurd Claims Of Modern Flat Earth Conspiracy Theorists". These articles tell us that that this "Upward rising earth theory" is seen as absurd, kinda leaving a stain on the truth that's already labeled a conspiracy theory.

Since a flat Earth wouldn’t adhere to the laws of gravitation, it stands to someone’s idea of reason that gravity doesn’t exist. Instead, we have Universal Acceleration (UA).

Universal Acceleration (UA) says that the "flat disc" of Earth is constantly accelerating upward, like a big rocket ship. The effect, in principle, is the same. If you jump, you’ll land again. But instead of you falling back to Earth, the Earth is rising up to meet you.

So what causes it? This is where the waters transition from muddy to septic. One theory is that the acceleration is caused by a blanket of "dark energy" rising up under the Earth. But again, nobody knows how that’s supposed to work or why things that fly, like birds, why don’t they just plummet to the ground? It’s not like they constantly fly upward just to escape a giant Frisbee chasing them.

Kinematics & Dynamics

Is the earth upward accelerating, or is the earth stationary and there's a downward vector caused by some unknown force to provide the acceleration that we see when objects fall?

Could falling objects be an illusion?
The Objects could have relative deceleration to an upward acceleration that's constant or the Earth can be stationary and the object could just be falling to the ground.

Physics has broken into two major parts: Kinematics and Dynamics.

• Kinematics means measurement and prediction of motion without regard for causal mechanism. The equations that govern kinematics are strictly acceleration, the x coordinate, and constant acceleration. (so what they're doing is just making future predictions of motion based on the information that you have on the system right now.)

For example someone throws a ball at you you're immediately calculating its trajectory its speed and time.  You're not concerned with how much air friction there is, as you know how much resistance the ball is experiencing as it's traveling towards you.  none of those factors are what's being accounted for that section of the calculation.

• Dynamics is when you introduce actual forces to make predictions of future motion. When you get into the dynamic analysis of a system you then have to understand what forces are you going to account for / what's going to be negligible.

For example you're estimate how far can I throw that baseball right based on its weight, based on how much force I'm putting into the throw, and based on how much wind or air resistance there is (whatever media it's it's going through, there's going to be friction to account for).

Kinematics and Dynamics are distinctly two separate parts of physics: measurements and predictions with no causal mechanism and secondly predictions of future motion based on actual forces.

When you drop a water bottle with liquids in it and an air bubble or when you're moving it horizontally, you're disturbing the density gradient. In kinematics relative motion is always true.

For example: Observer on the side of the road and a car coming towards the observer in kinematics, you can say that the car is accelerating towards the Observer.  Or you could say that the Observer is moving towards the stationary car.  Obviously when you apply Dynamic forces to that analysis you can quickly tell that the Observer isn't moving towards the car.  It's not an equivalent in the forces, so to make them equivalent, you would have to introduce pseudo forces to make the stationary frame have the equivalence of the moving frame.

In the case of what's being done when with stratification of liquids and dropping things and moving things in a van all of those things make the same prediction that would be made for a stationary Earth with a downward Vector provided by electrostatics or ether or unicorn farts it literally doesn't matter. The only thing we have is the acceleration that that's measured. So the way that you analyze that, we have a downward vector. When we have objects that are experiencing resistance to that Vector, stratification inside of a bottle for example so like a density layer bottle or a density tower bottle is going to be orientated a certain way where the heaviest stuff is at the bottom and the lightest stuff is at the top.

When that bottle is on your desk it's experiencing that downward vector so it's contents are going to be sorted in that orientation.

When you pick up and you drop and that bottle, that bottle is now moving with the vector it's not experiencing any net force on, so it's going to invert stratification in the direction of motion.

Now what you can take that as it must mean the causal mechanism for the original stratification was upward acceleration, and that's a valid hypothesis, it's not wrong, it's not something that you can hand-wave dismiss.

However, there's a direct equivalent so when you're experiencing Vector subtraction, when you're moving with the vector the stratification will flip in the direction of motion. The same prediction is made when you're moving orthogonal/perpendicular to the vector.

So when you do an experiment or a measurement, and when you do that orthogonal to that vector, the stratification will again be displaced in the direction of motion. So we all make the same prediction, but the assertion here is the causal mechanism; because all we're measuring is the effect the acceleration. We don't know what's causing it.

The Royal Society got together with Cavendish noticed these balls are oscillating when we have them hung from a torsion wire. If we take that angle in conjunction with the mass we can figure out how much force is being applied and we could say that that's big "G", and we can assert that as the causal mechanism for little "g".

All they did was use the mass of the Spheres which already inherently in it, has little G baked in for a downward acceleration, because that's all they're accounting for. It's just an acceleration which you can derive with height, time of drop, how long it takes to hit the ground, and you're basically good to go.

All they're doing is making a ratio based off of the 9.8 meters per second squared = acceleration, then they just asserted that is the causal mechanism.

Later on, that was experimentally falsified through Aries failure and Michelson and Morley, where they went to go measure the velocity that was supposed to be produced by those forces and they didn't get the numbers that they expected, which shows that the that the dynamic cause of what they're asserting Mass attracting Mass doesn't work.

So in the same respect here, we're in the earth system, and we can't get outside of it to verify either one of these claims. So if you're presenting kinematics and you take the position that the Earth is upward accelerating your position is entirely valid.

If you want to get into further analysis of the system and get into Dynamics, well you're going to find out that you're going to need an an inertial frame to start doing that right.

I've heard some of the rhetoric for the upward acceleration is that we're not in an inertial frame, and that the Earth is a non-inertial frame. That's not true. You can go back to Newton's bucket, which people still haven't figured out. So where do the laws of physics apply? they apply where they were derived: "here", on Earth, the lab frame stationary frame, which always makes the correct prediction for the laws of physics.

If you're in a rotating frame (I.E the rotating bucket), and you you think you're stationary and the world's moving around you you will make the wrong prediction for the convexity of the water in the bucket, based on your motion because your motion will be zero in your frame.

Everything's moving around you but yet the water is bending, you'd have to introduce centripetal forces and forces to bend that water. You would have to introduce a counter pseudo Force to balance that out, which would be your centripetal.

So they tell us on Earth that we're experiencing centrifugal acceleration and that there's a opposing force that creates equilibrium called "centripetal acceleration" (Otherwise known as gravity). And it just magically pops out there to counterbalance, to make our frame appear inertial.

So if you're an upward accelerating earther at the end of the day when you get into Dynamics analysis, your position will be that the Earth the stationary, regardless if you agree with that or not, because you when you get into the analysis of the math, you're going to have to make it that way, because that's the only way any predictions of future motion works.

In short, in a roundabout way, to simulate and emulate the like the default position that we already have. Look into Kinematics and Dynamics, as they are the "missing piece of the puzzle" in physics. It's the source of all this confusion and craziness where people do calculations and feel they must be right because our math is right. But they don't realize that they canceled out the dynamic force of it.

The positions are equivalent with the measurements given and you cannot definitively say which one is correct, although when you get into Dynamic analysis, it does Trend towards one way.

Questions for Upward rising earthers

• Why do helium balloons rise faster than earth rises?
• Why does steam rise faster than earth does?
• When arguing against electrostatics, sure we agree electrostatics does not by itself replace downward acceleration, but what about the mixture of all the potential causes together: Electrostatics, density, pressure mediation, buoyancy, and displacement.
• Do birds constantly have to fly upward faster than earth is rising?
• How fast is earth moving up?
• Is earth constantly accelerating faster and faster, or it this rising rate constant?

See Also

• Flat Earth Society
• Kinematics
• Dynamics
• Scriptures: Geocentric and stationary
• Rumble: Is Earth Rising Upward?? Of course not.