Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

No I'm not trying again. I've already explained it to you several times in a lot of detail. I think on some matters here we may be talking past each other. But you are certainly wrong about some issues, such as them measuring the same acceleration for Bob.

No I'm not trying again. I've already explained it to you several times in a lot of detail. I think on some matters here we may be talking past each other. But you are certainly wrong about some issues, such as them measuring the same acceleration for Bob.

So you're saying that Alice will ignore that she knows that Bob has accelerated and not her and fail to account for the difference in his felt acceleration vice his apparent acceleration. That's just like an FEer to ignore facts and stick to his position regardless of the truth--oh wait, I expected more from you. Shame.

Quote from: emailking on September 24, 2007, 08:52:36 PM

No I'm not trying again. I've already explained it to you several times in a lot of detail. I think on some matters here we may be talking past each other. But you are certainly wrong about some issues, such as them measuring the same acceleration for Bob.

So you're saying that Alice will ignore that she knows that Bob has accelerated and not her and fail to account for the difference in his felt acceleration vice his apparent acceleration. That's just like an FEer to ignore facts and stick to his position regardless of the truth--oh wait, I expected more from you. Shame.

It doesn't matter if Alice knows Bob measures 9/8 m/s^2 in his own reference frame. Alice is in HER reference frame.

You could say the same silly argument about two objects in relative motion and say that time is not relative because each can calculate how fast it is passing for the other person. The fact remains that Alice sees the rate of change in Bob's velocity decrease with time. Therefore, she measures an ever decreasing acceleration for Bob. Period.

Quote from: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 08:57:00 PM

Quote from: emailking on September 24, 2007, 08:52:36 PM

No I'm not trying again. I've already explained it to you several times in a lot of detail. I think on some matters here we may be talking past each other. But you are certainly wrong about some issues, such as them measuring the same acceleration for Bob.

So you're saying that Alice will ignore that she knows that Bob has accelerated and not her and fail to account for the difference in his felt acceleration vice his apparent acceleration. That's just like an FEer to ignore facts and stick to his position regardless of the truth--oh wait, I expected more from you. Shame.

It doesn't matter if Alice knows Bob measures 9/8 m/s^2 in his own reference frame. Alice is in HER reference frame.

You could say the same silly argument about two objects in relative motion and say that time is not relative because each can calculate how fast it is passing for the other person. The fact remains that Alice sees the rate of change in Bob's velocity decrease with time. Therefore, she measures an ever decreasing acceleration for Bob. Period.

No. Relativity means we can't tell the difference regardless of the FoR. With acceleration, we can. We know what Bob will measure in his FoR, in Alice's FoR. They get the same result for the measurement.

So you're saying that even though Bob's speed continually decreases relative to her, she should always consider his acceleration to be 9.8 m/s^2?

So you're saying that even though Bob's speed continually decreases relative to her, she should always consider his acceleration to be 9.8 m/s^2?

No. I'm saying that she agrees that Bob measures his acceleration of 1g, and that Bob agrees that Alice measures his acceleration as asymptotically decreasing.

Quote from: emailking on September 25, 2007, 10:21:52 AM

So you're saying that even though Bob's speed continually decreases relative to her, she should always consider his acceleration to be 9.8 m/s^2?

No. I'm saying that she agrees that Bob measures his acceleration of 1g, and that Bob agrees that Alice measures his acceleration as asymptotically decreasing.

Then what are we arguing about?

If spaceship A travelling at .75 the speed of light passes another spaceship travelling the opposite direction at .75 the speed of light their relative speed is 1.5 the speed of light. But is either travelling faster than the speed of light? Answer NO. If I was in spaceship A and as the ships passed I turned on a torch then would the beam of light hit ship B? the answer is YES. The speed or acceleration of an object is measurable only as an affect on the gravitational affect it has on the universe. In the above argument, to say spaceship A is travelling .75 the speed of light means what, relative to what, it has to be relative to the gravitational force of the universe or for any instant a position in the universe where gravity is equal in all directions. Relative to this point nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. In the case of the discussion where we are to believe the earth is accelerating upward constantly and  can do so for ever because the universe is accelerating with the earth all sounds good but it means that I am now removed from the universe somehow because whenever I jump the earth and its associated universe keeps bumping into me. As stated by FE theory, if I could step off the edge of the earth I would either see the earth move away at 1 g or miraculously accelerate with the earth. Why the options, why should stepping of the earth change the way I behave in the universe? If the earth and the whole universe is constantly accelerating together then what is the reference point? It must be me, I always thought I was the centre of the universe.
 

The thing is nothing can accelerate at a constant velocity forever, it would wind up taking infinite energy.

Now we have to look at an RE model but this is just an example and the fact that it assumes the Earth is RE is really not important to the point it makes, it is just an easy way to make an analogy.

Now for arguments sake we are going to take a trip to perfect physics land, a wonderful place were friction doesn't screw up every calculation, in other words the atmosphere of this planet is a PURE vacuum.

Now lets pretend this planet has an infinitely large and equalized gravitational field with a gravitational force of 1000 meters per second per second.  Now we will pretend a marble that is 50 Ym (Ym= 1 septillion meters) away is dropped toward the surface.  Now let us ask the question, if it is going at a constant acceleration won't it surpass the speed of light, the answer is that it will, but because it cannot do this it won't, and therefore constant acceleration is impossible.

Now eventually, I don't feel like doing the calculations to figure out the exact time, the marble will approach light speed.  At this time it's acceleration will slowly go down and finally it will stop accelerating at a speed that is just short of the speed of light.  This is because for it to at that point continuing to accelerate would require infinite energy which is impossible.

Another way to think of it is to put Alice an extremely far distance above FE.
Eventually if FE has constant acceleration she will discover that due to the dopler effect making the lights wavelength so amazingly small it heats her until she turns into pure energy because of being hit by infinitely high energy gamma radiation that would make matter unthinkable above FE, therefore we would have no moon or sun in FE. 




Two words...
Boo
Yah

The thing is nothing can accelerate at a constant velocity forever, it would wind up taking infinite energy.

You can't accelerate at a constant velocity, period.  Velocity and acceleration are not the same thing.

Now let us ask the question, if it is going at a constant acceleration won't it surpass the speed of light, the answer is that it will, but because it cannot do this it won't, and therefore constant acceleration is impossible.

Right, it cannot surpass the speed of light, so it won't do this, therefore, constant acceleration is possible.

Now eventually, I don't feel like doing the calculations to figure out the exact time, the marble will approach light speed.  At this time it's acceleration will slowly go down and finally it will stop accelerating at a speed that is just short of the speed of light.

It will never stop accelerating.  Hence the whole constant acceleration thing.

  This is because for it to at that point continuing to accelerate would require infinite energy which is impossible.

It would require an infinite amount of time in order for infinite energy to be required.

Another way to think of it is to put Alice an extremely far distance above FE.
Eventually if FE has constant acceleration she will discover that due to the dopler effect making the lights wavelength so amazingly small it heats her until she turns into pure energy because of being hit by infinitely high energy gamma radiation that would make matter unthinkable above FE, therefore we would have no moon or sun in FE. 

Except the Moon and Sun are also accelerating along with us.

I'd really love to stop and point out the hilarious amounts of references to scientific theories which have clearly been completely misconstrued, but sadly this in itself would require infinite energy.

Care to point out some?

Very well, I shall.

All this nonsense about constant acceleration. The very notion of this is idiotic, a 14 year old could carefully explain the concept of inertia, that according to Newton's First Law of Motion a net force is required to change the velocity of an object. Therefore you FE'ers have decided to create an entirely new force. !?!??!!?!?.

Not only this, but the constant references to Newton's law of Special Relativity:

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 15, 2008, 11:12:51 PM

Quote

Now let us ask the question, if it is going at a constant acceleration won't it surpass the speed of light, the answer is that it will, but because it cannot do this it won't, and therefore constant acceleration is impossible.

Right, it cannot surpass the speed of light, so it won't do this, therefore, constant acceleration is possible.

Quote

Now eventually, I don't feel like doing the calculations to figure out the exact time, the marble will approach light speed.  At this time it's acceleration will slowly go down and finally it will stop accelerating at a speed that is just short of the speed of light.

It will never stop accelerating.  Hence the whole constant acceleration thing.

Quote

  This is because for it to at that point continuing to accelerate would require infinite energy which is impossible.

It would require an infinite amount of time in order for infinite energy to be required.

(Took out a lot of the unrelated stuff)

This insistance that Special Relativity stipulates that you can accelerate at 9.8m/s/s forever and never reach the speed of light, due to some random restriction, is simply not true. The impossibility in reaching the speed of light lies in the fact that velocity and mass are linked. The greater the velocity of an object, the larger it's mass becomes. At the speed of light the mass of the travelling object would become infinate, therefore the amount of energy required to accelerate it further would be infinite.
[E=Mc^2, therefore mass is simply "concentrated" energy, and KE=1/2mv^2. So as velocity increases so does energy, an explaination which has been simplified horrendously in order to convey a complex concept.]
Therefore an object cannot accelerate forever and not reach the speed of light, it is bound by an increase in the energy required to stimulate such acceleration.
So this "Dark energy" accelerating the flat earth would have to be infinate.
The use of such a model is therefore mathmatically impossible.

This insistance that Special Relativity stipulates that you can accelerate at 9.8m/s/s forever and never reach the speed of light, due to some random restriction, is simply not true. The impossibility in reaching the speed of light lies in the fact that velocity and mass are linked. The greater the velocity of an object, the larger it's mass becomes. At the speed of light the mass of the travelling object would become infinate, therefore the amount of energy required to accelerate it further would be infinite.

But if the mass never reaches the speed of light (it doesn't), there is no need for either the mass or the energy to be infinite.

Yeah, but it will do if it always accelerates.

Yeah, but it will do if it always accelerates.

Why?

Because the speed of light has a finite value. It's not some crazy magical number, its just 300,000 m/s. If i accelerated at 9.8 m/s/s for about 30,000 seconds i'd eventually reach it. Just in the same way as if you accelerated at a rate of 1m/s/s for 10 seconds you'd reach a speed of 10m/s. The problem is the energy required to do so.

No actually, it is impossible to accelerate to that, no matter what, because you'd need continuously more time with a finite energy source... At any rate, there is a severe problem...where the heck is all this energy coming from? And why can't we borrow it?

Because the speed of light has a finite value. It's not some crazy magical number, its just 300,000 m/s. If i accelerated at 9.8 m/s/s for about 30,000 seconds i'd eventually reach it. Just in the same way as if you accelerated at a rate of 1m/s/s for 10 seconds you'd reach a speed of 10m/s. The problem is the energy required to do so.

From the equations of Relativity:

w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s, due to the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second, c is the speed of light, and w is the new velocity, to be used as u in the next iteration.  Start at u=0 and let me know how long it takes us to reach the speed of light.

Or, as it has been established that it is impossible to constantly accellerate at a rate of 9.8m/s/s, it is perfectly adequate to stick with stick with good old, managable, classical physics and apply the formula a=v(t+Δt)-v(t)/Δt. Which can be simplified to a=Δv/t. Presuming the it is only the speed of the flat earth which is changing, you can rearrange the formula so t=Δv/a, insert values
t=300,000/9.8
t=30612.24 seconds.
Therefore the flat earth would take about 8hours 30 minutes to reach the speed of light, and, as explained before, infinate "dark energy", which is somehow undetectable.

Or, as it has been established that it is impossible to constantly accellerate at a rate of 9.8m/s/s, it is perfectly adequate to stick with stick with good old, managable, classical physics and apply the formula a=v(t+Δt)-v(t)/Δt. Which can be simplified to a=Δv/t. Presuming the it is only the speed of the flat earth which is changing, you can rearrange the formula so t=Δv/a, insert values
t=300,000/9.8
t=30612.24 seconds.
Therefore the flat earth would take about 8hours 30 minutes to reach the speed of light, and, as explained before, infinate "dark energy", which is somehow undetectable.

Wow, noob.  If you don't understand special relativity and the effect it has on classical physics, maybe you shouldn't be passing judgment on others for being uneducated. 

And the surface of the earth is accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s from our frame of reference, so there goes your initial premise.

So, I take it you dislike relativity? If you think Newtonian physics over-rules relativity, why is there a limit at 3*10^9 m/s?

Wow, noob.  If you don't understand special relativity and the effect it has on classical physics, maybe you shouldn't be passing judgment on others for being uneducated. 

And the surface of the earth is accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s from our frame of reference, so there goes your initial premise.

Ah dear. Roundy. Firstly, I have already carefully explained the implications of velocity on mass, as dictated by special relativity. You simply asked me to calculate the amount of time it would take to reach the speed of light at a constant acceleration of 9.8m/s/s. Kindly explain my heinous misdemeanor and what implications special relativity would have on my calculations?
But yeah I agree, I should probably curb some of that arrogance.

The earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s/s from our "frame of reference"? What you mean to say is that, relative to us, the earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s/s? Go outside, it's not. Relative to us the earth is stationary. Acceleration is not one of the four forces. We are under the influence of 9.8N/kg of force, due to gravitation. If this is caused by acceleration I would be happy for you to explain how the inverse square law applies, not to mention the entire, undiscussed notion of General Relativity and the curvature of spacetime(the effects of which, unlike those of "Dark Energy", have been observed).

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 03, 2008, 12:54:00 PM

Wow, noob.  If you don't understand special relativity and the effect it has on classical physics, maybe you shouldn't be passing judgment on others for being uneducated. 

And the surface of the earth is accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s from our frame of reference, so there goes your initial premise.

Ah dear. Roundy. Firstly, I have already carefully explained the implications of velocity on mass, as dictated by special relativity. You simply asked me to calculate the amount of time it would take to reach the speed of light at a constant acceleration of 9.8m/s/s. Kindly explain my heinous misdemeanor and what implications special relativity would have on my calculations?
But yeah I agree, I should probably curb some of that arrogance.

The earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s/s from our "frame of reference"? What you mean to say is that, relative to us, the earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s/s? Go outside, it's not. Relative to us the earth is stationary. Acceleration is not one of the four forces. We are under the influence of 9.8N/kg of force, due to gravitation. If this is caused by acceleration I would be happy for you to explain how the inverse square law applies, not to mention the entire, undiscussed notion of General Relativity and the curvature of spacetime(the effects of which, unlike those of "Dark Energy", have been observed).

1)Special relativity forbids a particle with mass from ever reaching the speed of light.  It's a fairly well-known implication; certainly one doesn't need a physics degree to be familiar with the principle.

2)Go jump off a cliff and tell me that the earth is stationary in relation to you.  If that's the case, this should be a perfectly safe experiment. 

1)Special relativity forbids a particle with mass from ever reaching the speed of light.  It's a fairly well-known implication; certainly one doesn't need a physics degree to be familiar with the principle.

2)Go jump off a cliff and tell me that the earth is stationary in relation to you.  If that's the case, this should be a perfectly safe experiment. 

Jesus Roundy.
Do i have to explain it a thousand times. Do i have to? I already told you all why a particle with mass cannot reach the speed of light. I explained it all! All! That ALONE disproves this sordid little flat earth theory. GAH!
I'll explain it simply.
You can't approach the speed of light because your mass will increase as your velocity increases. that is not to say that you can accelerate as much as you want.
And when you are on the earth's surface, the earth is stationary relative to you.
Acceleration isn't a force. Therefore explain to me how the inverse square law works! How has space time curvature been observed?
How Roundy?
Explain to me how your little flat earth theory doesn't crumble when exposed to all this?
Explain it now! Or abandon your knavish ways!

What does space time curvature have to do with force? 

You haven't disproved anything. 

From our frame of reference, the earth is accelerating upwards at a constant rate of 9.8m/s/s.  This is a FACT.  If you don't understand that and think the earth is stationary in relation to you then you are in no position to be arguing physics.

Roundy! ARGH! There's no hope for you!

ok.

the whole flat earth presumption is based almost entirely upon the fact that the earth is accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s ALL THE TIME.

But, according to Special Relativity, this is impossible because you would eventually reach the speed of light AS IT HAS A FINITE VALUE. But this would require infinite energy as you would reach infinite mass. I have explained this time and time again and you still cannot seem to understand it.

The Earth is not accelerating at 9.8m/s/s relative to us, when we are on the surface. If it were, IT WOULD BE ROARING INTO THE DISTANCE.







Imagine you are sitting in a car, accelerating at 9.8m/s/s. Relative to you, the car is stationary. If you get out, the car will be travelling at 9.8m/s/s RELATIVE TO YOU.

The force in the opposite direction to the acceleration is due to your INERTIA.



How old are you Roundy? Because I'm 15 and i'm having you everywhere.

the whole flat earth presumption is based almost entirely upon the fact that the earth is accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s ALL THE TIME.

Right.

But, according to Special Relativity, this is impossible because you would eventually reach the speed of light AS IT HAS A FINITE VALUE.

Wrong.

But this would require infinite energy as you would reach infinite mass.

Right.

I have explained this time and time again and you still cannot seem to understand it.

The Earth is not accelerating at 9.8m/s/s relative to us, when we are on the surface. If it were, IT WOULD BE ROARING INTO THE DISTANCE.

We are the one's doing the accelerating.

The force in the opposite direction to the acceleration is due to your INERTIA.

Right.  That is the point.

The speed of light does have a finite value.

300,000 m/s.

You couldn't accelerate forever and not reach that.

It's not magic.


And if it's inertia why does attraction decrease with time.



I'm right. You're all wrong.

ha
ha
h

shit. i meant distance.