Why cant RE exist?

No. It would take an infinitely long time to accelerate to the speed of light because as the earth accelerates, it gains mass, therefore requiring more energy to accelerate it at the same rate. If it accelerated to the speed of light, it would have infinite mass, therefore requiring an infinite amount of energy which is just plain silly

Quote from: "DrPoodle"

Quote from: "irishpeter"

In all fairness, it  has been proved that atoms attract each other, so the RE version of gravity does work. We don't understand exactly how it works, so what? We don't understand exactly why oppositely charged particles attract each other either, or why the strong nuclear force completely disappears beyond a certain limit. It isn't evidence the earth is flat!

And Crimsonking- the way it has been since this forum was set up is that REers say "But what about...", and the FEers explain that which fits in with their theories, and conveniently ignore that which doesn't

Its how all conspiracy theories go. They start off pretty cool, making people say "wow, I never thought of that before, I suppose it could happen" etc. Then of course someone comes up with a scientific way of proving a part of the theory wrong, and the conspiracy theorists have to make stuff up to keep it all alive.

I mean, genetically engineered penguins from a 1960's lab....Ice Wall Guardians...a flat sun and moon...and the Earth accelerating without breaking the speed of light??? Talk about far fetched...that is just pure idiocy!

can you give me a link to the penguin thread, ive got to read that

Right here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=23512#23512

God that was a great thread, back when I argued exclusively RE,

ITS ALL CRAZY THE EARTH IZ ROUND
AND PEGUINS WEREN'T CREATED

good god that man is using caps...he must b right

Well, apparently we'd still feel like the earth was accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 even if it was accelerating slower, because of the way Newtonian physics warps close to the speed of light.

We don't have to worry about physics close to the speed of light, because we're nowhere near the speed of light. In fact, we're about as far from the speed of light as you can get; specifically, 0 m/s.

Its better than the 'Flat Earth' theory of the Earth constantly accelerating upwards. How do we maintain our place in the solar system then? Do all the other planets and the sun follow us?

How is your unexplained, illogical phenomenon any "better" than our unexplained, illogical phenomenon?

tell me how gravity works, not what it does, but how it works.


Sorry for stealing your thunder Engineer,

It's a good one, so I don't mind.

any more things that RE doent answer?

Gravity wasn't enough for you?  Something so fundamental and you can't explain what it is?

The FE acceleration is flawed anyway, seeing as a constantly accelerating body will eventually hit light-speed, something which is impossible.

A constantly accelerating body would approach c asymptotically.  It would never reach c even as time goes to infinity.

Quote from: "DrPoodle"

The FE acceleration is flawed anyway, seeing as a constantly accelerating body will eventually hit light-speed, something which is impossible.

A constantly accelerating body would approach c asymptotically.  It would never reach c even as time goes to infinity.

Nevertheless, the effect of a constantly accelerating force would be visible today. The "push" force acting down on us would be getting increasingly stronger, but as far as history tells us, this force has stayed exactly the same.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "DrPoodle"

The FE acceleration is flawed anyway, seeing as a constantly accelerating body will eventually hit light-speed, something which is impossible.

A constantly accelerating body would approach c asymptotically.  It would never reach c even as time goes to infinity.

Nevertheless, the effect of a constantly accelerating force would be visible today. The "push" force acting down on us would be getting increasingly stronger, but as far as history tells us, this force has stayed exactly the same.

Uh, no.  The acceleration is constant.  Specifically 9.81 m/s^2.  I can do an experiment right now and then again in an hour and the acceleration will be the same.

what experiment is that?

Rig up an electromagnet in a vacuum, 1 metre above a switch. Rig up a time so it starts when the electromagnet is switched off and the switch closed. Switch the magnet on and attach a steel ball to it. Close the switch. The timer is not running. Turn off the electromagnet, the timer starts to run. The ball falls and hits the switch, stopping the timer. Therefore we have the time taken for the ball to fall 1 metre. Using the equations of motion we can work out its acceleration

Alternatively use a simple pendulum, and use the equation T=2pi*sqrt(l/g) to work out g

ok i get it.

doing it now, and then again in an hour is not proof that its not changing.  indeed it could take a million years for it to disinctively show a change,  how can you be sure that it hasnt been changing in the past simply at a much slower rate than that of a single humans life expectancy?  if indeed it will take infinity to reach lightspeed then surely one hour isnt going to show a note worthy change.

I know, I'm a hardcore REer, I was just outlining the experiments you could use.

And how is the earth moving at 0 m/s? It is moving at several kilometres a second through space.

An interesting observation is that Mercury gains mass as it orbits the sun, because as it approaches the closest point ot the sun in its orbit, its velocity increases, causing it to increase in mass. This causes very slight anomalies in its orbit, which caused early astronomers to think another planet ("Vulcan") existed between Mercury and the sun.

And how is the earth moving at 0 m/s? It is moving at several kilometres a second through space.

Relative to what? The sun? Well surely the sun isn't stationary; it is moving through the galaxy. Relative to what? The center of the galaxy? Well surely the center of the galaxy isn't stationary; it is moving through the universe. Relative to what? The center of the universe? Well surely that isn't stationary, it's got to be moving in relation to something.

You can pick all the arbitrary frames of reference you want, but to us, and all the things on earth, the earth isn't moving. The velocity of earth (relative to me) is defined as V(earth absolute) - V(me absolute). Ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as absolute velocity, that fact remains that the earth and I are moving at the same speed, so V(earth relative to me) will always be zero.

If I throw a baseball at 20 m/s, then the velocity of the earth is 20 m/s relative to the baseball. At 20 m/s, we aren't going to be experiencing a noticeable increase in mass or anything.

If I throw the baseball at (.8)C, then we are moving at (.8)C relative to the baseball. The baseball is going to think we gained a hell of a lot of mass, because (.8)C is well into the "crazy physics" region.

To me, however, the earth is going just as fast as it was before I threw the baseball; that is to say, it's not moving at all. Since the Earth isn't moving at all for me, it won't have gained any mass for me.

The baseball, however, will look pretty damn heavy.

But the universe has an inertial reference frame, it is not velocity relative to other objects that determines the increase in mass of an object, or how it travels through time.

Quote from: "DrPoodle"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "DrPoodle"

The FE acceleration is flawed anyway, seeing as a constantly accelerating body will eventually hit light-speed, something which is impossible.

A constantly accelerating body would approach c asymptotically.  It would never reach c even as time goes to infinity.

Nevertheless, the effect of a constantly accelerating force would be visible today. The "push" force acting down on us would be getting increasingly stronger, but as far as history tells us, this force has stayed exactly the same.

Uh, no.  The acceleration is constant.  Specifically 9.81 m/s^2.  I can do an experiment right now and then again in an hour and the acceleration will be the same.

If the acceleration is constant, then the speed of the Earth (upwards through space) is increasing at this acceleration.

The faster you get, the more push down on the Earth there will be, and the greater the force that is "pushing" you down.

Think about it. If you cycle a bike at a slow speed (say 10km/h) then you don't feel much in the way of air-resistance. Accelerate constantly to say "x" km/h, and you will feel the air-resistance increasing at the same rate.

The faster you get, the more push down on the Earth there will be, and the greater the force that is "pushing" you down.

There is no force "pushing down" on you. Your rate of acceleration, not your speed, is what determines the effects you feel.

Think about it. If you cycle a bike at a slow speed (say 10km/h) then you don't feel much in the way of air-resistance. Accelerate constantly to say "x" km/h, and you will feel the air-resistance increasing at the same rate.

Air resistance increases with speed because you start hitting more air molecules in less time. This is a completely different issue.

It is not velocity relative to other objects that determines the increase in mass of an object, or how it travels through time.

Yes it is. The objects mass only increases due to the objects velocity, and its velocity can only be measured relative to other objects.

But the increase in mass depends on the velocity with respect to the inertial reference frame of the universe, even if we can't measure this.

Irishpeter, you seem to be thinking mass is absolute; it is not. Mass is just as relative as velocity or acceleration or time.

Back to my baseball analogy: if I throw the baseball at (.8)C, the baseball will appear - to me - to be very much heavier than it was at rest. To the baseball, the baseball will be at rest mass, because V(baseball) - V(baseball) = 0 m/s.

RE has an explanation for most everything FEers can bring against it - the RE explanations just seem less plausible.

For example:

Why is it that objects fall towards the ground?

RE: A mystical, unseen force called gravity, produced by an unobservable, theoretical subatomic particle called the Graviton, causes everything in the universe to move towards everything else in the universe for reasons not understood by mankind..

FE: Objects on Earth are held in place by simple inertia as the Universe accelerates upwards.

ok i get it.

doing it now, and then again in an hour is not proof that its not changing.  indeed it could take a million years for it to disinctively show a change,  how can you be sure that it hasnt been changing in the past simply at a much slower rate than that of a single humans life expectancy?  if indeed it will take infinity to reach lightspeed then surely one hour isnt going to show a note worthy change.

Newton measured it three hundred years ago.  I measured it this morning.  It was still at 9.8m/s^2.

The faster you get, the more push down on the Earth there will be, and the greater the force that is "pushing" you down.

Think about it. If you cycle a bike at a slow speed (say 10km/h) then you don't feel much in the way of air-resistance. Accelerate constantly to say "x" km/h, and you will feel the air-resistance increasing at the same rate.

Sorry, DrPoodle, but this is about the funniest thing I've heard all day...

RE has an explanation for most everything FEers can bring against it - the RE explanations just seem less plausible.

No, they don't:

For example:

Why is it that objects fall towards the ground?

RE: A mystical, unseen force called gravity, produced by an unobservable, theoretical subatomic particle called the Graviton, causes everything in the universe to move towards everything else in the universe for reasons not understood by mankind..

But gravity is observed.

FE: Objects on Earth are held in place by simple inertia as the Universe accelerates upwards.

By an engine of unthinkable proportions which has never been observed. The difference between the two is that gravity is observed, while such an acceleration is not, nor is the accelerator. Simply the fact that we don't totally understand how gravity works does not change the fact that we know it does work.

But gravity is observed.

I don't think so. The effects of gravity have been observed, but "Gravity" isn't little balls of red string reaching out and grabbing stuff. Gravity can't be observed any more than wind by a kid in a corn field, but he can readily see its effects.

Quote

FE: Objects on Earth are held in place by simple inertia as the Universe accelerates upwards.

By an engine of unthinkable proportions which has never been observed. The difference between the two is that gravity is observed, while such an acceleration is not,

Gravity is an acceleration. Both of them are the same thing. You see the effect of gravity. The exact same thing you see is also the effect of FE acceleration.

nor is the accelerator.

Again, the same statement is equally applicable to gravity. We can see the acceleration, but not the accelerator.

Simply the fact that we don't totally understand how gravity works does not change the fact that we know it does work.

And simply because we don't know what causes the acceleration of the FE doesn't change the fact that we know it does accelerate.

Quote

The faster you get, the more push down on the Earth there will be, and the greater the force that is "pushing" you down.

Think about it. If you cycle a bike at a slow speed (say 10km/h) then you don't feel much in the way of air-resistance. Accelerate constantly to say "x" km/h, and you will feel the air-resistance increasing at the same rate.

Sorry, DrPoodle, but this is about the funniest thing I've heard all day...

Damn you space air, foiling gravity!

But gravity is observed.

yah... but there is no proof.
There is just as much proof that teh earth is accelerating upwards, creating the illusion of gravity.

We have proof, observable proof that there is something is accelerating at an observable and constant rate toward the ground,

and lets Occams Razor this, as all the RErs love to do

theory 1:never-observed particles act to create a field in which all matter is pulled toward it, you know this crap, I dont need to repeat it

theory 2: we are constantly accelerating, ereby having the things not falling, but having the earth catch up with them.


Theory 2 wins, less confusing, much more simple

Voila!

We have proof, observable proof that there is something is accelerating at an observable and constant rate toward the ground,

and lets Occams Razor this, as all the RErs love to do

theory 1:never-observed particles act to create a field in which all matter is pulled toward it, you know this crap, I dont need to repeat it

theory 2: we are constantly accelerating, ereby having the things not falling, but having the earth catch up with them.


Theory 2 wins, less confusing, much more simple

Voila!

simpler when you do it like that.  science isnt always simple, hypothesise built on hypothesise to make theories.

Occams razor is used for RELIGIOUS debates, not science.