Could there be an Earth 2?

 OK, FES declares that all the other celestial bodies are spheres, but not Earth. But Earth is possibly 9,000km(?) in depth so is closer to being a semi circle than a flat disc, unless it resembles a hockey puck? And it was created by a deity who saw fit to fling it through space, infinitely accelerating? Has it ever been considered that what we live on, if FES is true, is a mistake? That it was also a sphere, like the other 32mile diameter planets, but a crack appeared, perhaps at the point of the explosive event that caused it to launch through space on its improbable and impossible infinite acceleration and that, somewhere ahead of us, on the same trajectory, is the other half of the sphere? That our half lags beind because the cracking event robbed it of a small amount of initial velocity?

I know, utterly ludicrous, isn't it?

It all depends on if the original release of Earth did well enough. If it did, we'll see an Earth 2, if not, then it's probably straight to DVD in a bin at Wal-Mart.

What happens if we catch up with it, though? We're currently all residing on the wrong side if we do. Hurtling through space at infinite velocity, infinitely accelerating is dangerous at the best of times, hell a fly hitting your face at 90mph is bad enough on a motorbike, imagine hitting a space bee with your mouth open....but if we do catch up with Earth 2, we're about to be the jam in a particularly large space doughnut....

I'm with you man, I'm feeling this one, maybe earth was sliced up like an egg into about 6 or 7 pieces, and that's why we're stood on a disc world

What happens if we catch up with it, though? We're currently all residing on the wrong side if we do. Hurtling through space at infinite velocity, infinitely accelerating is dangerous at the best of times, hell a fly hitting your face at 90mph is bad enough on a motorbike, imagine hitting a space bee with your mouth open....but if we do catch up with Earth 2, we're about to be the jam in a particularly large space doughnut....

It is called Universal Acceleration, not Earth Acceleration.

Also, we aren't moving at an infinite velocity.

Also, we aren't moving at an infinite velocity.

correct, we're orbiting the sun at approx 67,000 miles per hour

It all depends on if the original release of Earth did well enough. If it did, we'll see an Earth 2, if not, then it's probably straight to DVD in a bin at Wal-Mart.

I watched most of the first series on the Discovery channel, it was pretty good.

It is called Universal Acceleration, not Earth Acceleration.

Also, we aren't moving at an infinite velocity.

FE says we are continually accelerating at 9.8ms-2, yes? Unless we stop accelerating, the speed we reach is infinite.

The Earth is 5 billion years old. So the speed we are currently travelling at is 1.54628937 × 10 to the power 18 m / s. Light travels at 299792458 meters per second. So we are currently travelling 5.15786615 × 10 to the 9 times faster than the speed of light. FE is just awesome, in that case. 

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 03, 2011, 10:42:16 AM

It is called Universal Acceleration, not Earth Acceleration.

Also, we aren't moving at an infinite velocity.

FE says we are continually accelerating at 9.8ms-2, yes? Unless we stop accelerating, the speed we reach is infinite.

I suggest you read up on Special Relativity.

how the feck can you possibly quote normal mainstream physics in support of your deeply flawed and ridiculous theory that even an educated chimp could pick unanswerable fact holes in? do you even understand how quantum mechanics work? relativity is not your friend.

It's a shame you're not better friends with relativity. As you get closer and closer to the speed of light, relativistic effects come into play, and you have to start counting your toes differently:

In non-relativistic mechanics the velocities are simply added and the answer is that A is moving with a velocity w = u+v relative to C.  But in special relativity the velocities must be combined using the formula

               u + v
         w =  ---------
              1 + uv/c²

I am closer to relativity than you can possibly imagine, which gives me a unique insight into your thinking and theorising.


you have posted a fancy looking equation that is meant to make you look like you understand it, which you don't, otherwise you'd have typed it up and explained it yourself, and have left it there as if it proves a point you where making, which it doesn't as you haven't successfully linked it to the assertion you were trying to prove wrong. in short, you're trying to blind people with science who are more intelligent than you.

so, just to be clear, can you define your argument and explain how your equation on special relativity proves it, please?

I am closer to relativity than you can possibly imagine, which gives me a unique insight into your thinking and theorising.

Yet you don't seem to recognize the velocity addition formula from special relativity. 

you assume I don't recognize it (you FE'ers seem to assume and make up an awful lot btw) I never even implied such a thing, I am simply asking for someone who quoted it to put it into context, to actually use it instead of flashing it to look clever, now stop trying to look smart, I've lurked here for longer than you know..

There could. We don't know about it.

My guess is no to another Earth.
Part of what makes Earth so special is it is the only celestial object known to be a giant disc
Beyond the barrier although there is other world(s).
This land is where the mammoths roam with the smallest of creatures possibly, a Utopia.
Other worlds may exist beyond as well, each having their own star(s).

Our section of Earth, sadly may be what Christians call Hell.

I am closer to relativity than you can possibly imagine, which gives me a unique insight into your thinking and theorising.


you have posted a fancy looking equation that is meant to make you look like you understand it, which you don't, otherwise you'd have typed it up and explained it yourself, and have left it there as if it proves a point you where making, which it doesn't as you haven't successfully linked it to the assertion you were trying to prove wrong. in short, you're trying to blind people with science who are more intelligent than you.

so, just to be clear, can you define your argument and explain how your equation on special relativity proves it, please?

Sorry karl, but if you look closely you'll notice that there is a hyperlink above the equation I quoted, which will lead you to the source it was taken from. It contains a detailed explanation which should be more than sufficient. If you have any further questions of this kind, check out the link below:


www.rif.org

That's all very well for speeds "approaching" the speed of light. Basing the speed calculations purely on the age of the Earth, we're currently travelling at 5.15786615 × 10`9 TIMES the speed of light based on your theory. This is, obviously, beyond absurd, unless your going to pull some creationist nonsense about the Earth only being 6,000 years old. If the universal acceleration you are talking about resulted from the Big Bang then we are currently travelling at and even more  than 1.41325533 x 10^10 times the speed of light. An impressive feat, or a bloody stupid theory?

There will be an Earth 2 in that this planet will experience at least one devastating incident within it's next ~4 billion years of life.

Otherwise, no. The Sun will eventually die, shrink, and our solar system will slowly fade.

It is called Universal Acceleration, not Earth Acceleration.

Wait, what?  So if everything is accelerating, isn't that redundant?  I can't wrap my head around that.

I thought (only) the Earth accelerated upwards to explain why we don't float away.

That's all very well for speeds "approaching" the speed of light. Basing the speed calculations purely on the age of the Earth, we're currently travelling at 5.15786615 × 10`9 TIMES the speed of light based on your theory. This is, obviously, beyond absurd, unless your going to pull some creationist nonsense about the Earth only being 6,000 years old. If the universal acceleration you are talking about resulted from the Big Bang then we are currently travelling at and even more  than 1.41325533 x 10^10 times the speed of light. An impressive feat, or a bloody stupid theory?

Which just goes to show that you don't understand special relativity and the velocity addition formula.  SR says that you can accelerate forever and approach the speed of light but never exceed it.

Quite the opposite, you're using special relativity in completely the wrong context. Special relativity only applies to constant motion in a straight line and ceases to apply if you introduce acceleration. You are postulating that the Earth maintains gravity, which you refuse to call gravity, by accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s. Your introduction of acceleration voids your use of special relativity. My argument still stands that the speeds you postulate are completely impossible and the theory is a nonsense.

Ahem.  The velocity addition formula put forth in SR deals with changes in velocity.  Another term for change in velocity is acceleration.

Yeah, what did you think adding velocity meant?

In non-relativistic mechanics the velocities are simply added and the answer is that A is moving with a velocity w = u+v relative to C.  But in special relativity the velocities must be combined using the formula

               u + v
         w =  ---------
              1 + uv/c²

I take it neither of you realise the velocity addition formula has been invalidated?

http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Einstein’s%20Special%20Relativity%20Velocity%20Addition%20Invalidated.htm

I take it neither of you realise the velocity addition formula has been invalidated?

http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Einstein’s%20Special%20Relativity%20Velocity%20Addition%20Invalidated.htm

One of the few external links discussing your source lists them here:


http://www.crank.net/einstein.html


As far as I can tell, these guys are far from mainstream.

Could there be an Earth 2?

Yes.

NEEEEXT!

Quote from: Great A Tuin on May 04, 2011, 08:50:31 AM

I take it neither of you realise the velocity addition formula has been invalidated?

http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Einstein’s%20Special%20Relativity%20Velocity%20Addition%20Invalidated.htm

One of the few external links discussing your source lists them here:


http://www.crank.net/einstein.html


As far as I can tell, these guys are far from mainstream.

Nor are you. Nor was Einstein. Follow the proof through and you'll see their point.

This is fantastic. At first he denies that such a formula is of Special Relativity. He is proved wrong.

Then he says that we are using it wrong. He is proved wrong.

Now he is saying that all of the above doesn't matter, since it is invalid anyways. He then goes and cites a source in which the author uses himself as a reference.

You say "proven wrong". In your own bizarre cult's words "prove it". Because I see no proof at all. I see a lot of children playing parlour games and skirting round the issues that the formula you claim to be using a) shouldn't be applied to your preposterous theory, and b)that the modification you claim justifies it has recently been invalidated. Read the mathematical proof, then reply. Or do you not actually understand it and are just repeating age old arguments verbatim?

Feel free to click on even more links and denounce them as not worthy of your attentions:

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/sgift/special_relativity.pdf

http://physics.wikia.com/wiki/EINSTEIN’S_WRONG_ASSUMPTIONS_IN_SPECIAL_RELATIVITY

http://physicsessays.org/resource/1/phesem/v23/i2/p258_s1?isAuthorized=no

http://www.wbabin.net/jr/joseph.pdf

http://www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.html

I could go on. Relativity, and specifically Special Relativity, are long overdue a thorough review and the inconsistencies have been known for two decades.

Mind you, regardless of the merits of Special Relativity, your FE theory is still beyond moronic.