The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: J. Lovell on February 03, 2011, 02:33:33 PM
-
If we are constantly accelerating their will come a point when we will reach the speed of light. When this happens (truly before it does) we will atomize do to the fact the the faster you go the more energy you need to accelerate the mass assuming it remains constant (the mass of the earth increase over time due to space debris but this is just more evidence that we will atomize sooner). Its simple fundamental Physics
-
If we are constantly accelerating their will come a point when we will reach the speed of light.
No, we won't.
-
Yes we will i don't know where you learned physics but ask for your money back. Please explain why we wont, acceleration is the chance in velocity per time for ex. 9.8 meters per second per second. Every one second we will be going 9.8 meters per second faster. This is how gravity and Acceleration works their is no denying this.
edit: sorry misspelled Where
-
If by 'simple fundamental physics' you are referring to Newtonian physics, you should be mindful that it breaks down when dealing with objects approaching the speed of light.
-
Yes peach you are right but this does not dis prove what I am saying. It is true that time slows relative to the speed of light however the fact that as you approach the speed of light you need more exponentially more energy is true and is not Newtonian physics. as an object travels faster it becomes heaver explaining why it needs more energy. Also Physics never "breaks down" we just need to look at it in different ways it different situations. I know my physics trust me (like you blindly trust others)
-
Peach i should have stated its simple not fundamental. and a word to the slowing of time. It is all relative to the view point but the amount of energy used over this time fast of slow will remain constant.
this is a Kinematic equation V2^2=V1^2+Acceleration*time
V2 is final velocity
V1 is initial velocity
^ is exponential
* is multiplication
[2.9*10^8]^2(aprox. speed of light)=0^2+9.8*X(we are looking for this)
this becomes
8.5*10^15=9.8X
we then divide
8.4*10^16=X
9.8
this gives us
8.5*10^15 seconds
1.4^14 minutes
2.3^12 hours
9.9^10 days
272,121,786 years
As we all know (with the exception of new earth creationists) the World flat or round is much older than this. we should have reached this speed along time ago.
-
*sigh* You may want to brush up on your special relativity.
http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
-
I know all this already and that sight is not completely accurate and im not sure how this disproves me the equation i used doesn't need Mass. But were not talking about rockets here were talking about this flat earth that magically accelerates defying all physics
-
*sigh* You may want to brush up on your special relativity.
http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
-
the equation i used doesn't need Mass.
You're using the wrong equation and the wrong type of relativity.
-
I know all this already and that sight is not completely accurate and im not sure how this disproves me the equation i used doesn't need Mass. But were not talking about rockets here were talking about this flat earth that magically accelerates defying all physics
Your equation does not take into account relativistic effects as you approach the speed of light.
-
I'm going to assume that the point you are attempting to make (and failing miserably to do so) is similar to a discussion in a previous thread; there simply isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate the Earth (much less everything else in the universe) forever as UA would suggest. Please tell me that is what you meant and that you simply don't know about relativity. My faith in humanity is low enough as is.
-
I'm going to assume that the point you are attempting to make (and failing miserably to do so) is similar to a discussion in a previous thread; there simply isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate the Earth (much less everything else in the universe) forever as UA would suggest. Please tell me that is what you meant and that you simply don't know about relativity. My faith in humanity is low enough as is.
Yeah, because SR totally postulates on the total sum of energy in the universe. Seriously though, you believe that mass spontaneously generates infinite gravitational energy, is one inexplicable energy source really more far fetched than everything with mass doing it? inb4 pedantry about spacetime distortion and other dimensions, that's more hypothetical than even the craziest dinosaur-boat madness you'll find here.
-
I'm going to assume that the point you are attempting to make (and failing miserably to do so) is similar to a discussion in a previous thread; there simply isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate the Earth (much less everything else in the universe) forever as UA would suggest.
Who says that the earth will accelerate forever?
-
I'm going to assume that the point you are attempting to make (and failing miserably to do so) is similar to a discussion in a previous thread; there simply isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate the Earth (much less everything else in the universe) forever as UA would suggest.
Who says that the earth will accelerate forever?
Didn't you say, and I quote, "I believe that the earth always was. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45724.msg1129337#msg1129337)" Isn't that Newtonian belief, that the world has no beginning and no ending? So if the Earth will not accelerate forever and that "it always was," are we to believe that the acceleration will stop at some point in the future? That implication is huge, Tom. I urge you rethink what you are trying to say here.
-
one inexplicable energy source
We may not know the exact mechanics of its workings, but at least gravity is not inexplicable.
-
Didn't you say, and I quote, "I believe that the earth always was. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45724.msg1129337#msg1129337)"
Suggesting that the earth always was does not suggest that the earth always will be.
Isn't that Newtonian belief, that the world has no beginning and no ending? So if the Earth will not accelerate forever and that "it always was," are we to believe that the acceleration will stop at some point in the future? That implication is huge, Tom. I urge you rethink what you are trying to say here.
Furthermore, if the earth stopped accelerating it does not suggest that the earth will cease to be; just that life will.
-
Didn't you say, and I quote, "I believe that the earth always was. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45724.msg1129337#msg1129337)"
Suggesting that the earth always was does not suggest that the earth always will be.
Actually, it does.
The steady state theory asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its appearance over time (the perfect cosmological principle); it has no beginning and no end.
-
Didn't you say, and I quote, "I believe that the earth always was. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45724.msg1129337#msg1129337)"
Suggesting that the earth always was does not suggest that the earth always will be.
Actually, it does.
The steady state theory asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its appearance over time (the perfect cosmological principle); it has no beginning and no end.
I didn't say anything about Steady State Theory.
-
Didn't you say, and I quote, "I believe that the earth always was. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45724.msg1129337#msg1129337)"
Suggesting that the earth always was does not suggest that the earth always will be.
Actually, it does.
The steady state theory asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its appearance over time (the perfect cosmological principle); it has no beginning and no end.
I didn't say anything about Steady State Theory.
Sadly, there is no retort to Tom's statements. He never cited any outside sources or theories. He simply tailored his beliefs to what suited him, like everything else he says, regardless of what the rest of the world, the rest of the FEW, or even logic, says.
-
I'm going to assume that the point you are attempting to make (and failing miserably to do so) is similar to a discussion in a previous thread; there simply isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate the Earth (much less everything else in the universe) forever as UA would suggest.
Who says that the earth will accelerate forever?
Let's try again. If UA does not suggest eternal acceleration, then does it implies that the acceleration must eventually (finite duration of time) stop? Would you tell me about your thoughts on UA? I want to hear what a true FE believer think of the UA in this regard.
-
Let's try again. If UA does not suggest eternal acceleration, then does it implies that the acceleration must eventually (finite duration of time) stop? Would you tell me about your thoughts on UA? I want to hear what a true FE believer think of the UA in this regard.
It's called the Universal Accelerator, not the Eternal Accelerator. There is nothing in the name which suggest that acceleration will continue eternally. The size of an event does not indicate the length of an event.
-
one inexplicable energy source
We may not know the exact mechanics of its workings, but at least gravity is not inexplicable.
It's not inexplicable, you just can't explain it?
-
one inexplicable energy source
We may not know the exact mechanics of its workings, but at least gravity is not inexplicable.
It's not inexplicable, you just can't explain it?
We have equations and observed correlations. We may not know its exact workings, but we know how it behaves and can make falsifiable predictions. UA, while very similar to gravity in terms of an "inexplicable energy source," has problems with common phenomena and therefore suffers from greater holes in its theory than gravity. On top of that, gravity is largely consistent with the heavens. You, on the other hand, add another magical system called celestial gears, which has no substantial merit. It follows the same circular logic as bendy light where it exists because it has to exist for FE to work, not because of math or specifically observable phenomena. You want truly inexplicable, you should look at FET more closely.
-
one inexplicable energy source
We may not know the exact mechanics of its workings, but at least gravity is not inexplicable.
It's not inexplicable, you just can't explain it?
We have equations and observed correlations. We may not know its exact workings, but we know how it behaves and can make falsifiable predictions. UA, while very similar to gravity in terms of an "inexplicable energy source," has problems with common phenomena and therefore suffers from greater holes in its theory than gravity. On top of that, gravity is largely consistent with the heavens. You, on the other hand, add another magical system called celestial gears, which has no substantial merit. It follows the same circular logic as bendy light where it exists because it has to exist for FE to work, not because of math or specifically observable phenomena. You want truly inexplicable, you should look at FET more closely.
I'm not saying it wouldn't work or that it's internally inconsistent, I'm saying that it's inexplicable and you can easily prove me wrong by explaining it. So please do.
-
one inexplicable energy source
We may not know the exact mechanics of its workings, but at least gravity is not inexplicable.
It's not inexplicable, you just can't explain it?
We have equations and observed correlations. We may not know its exact workings, but we know how it behaves and can make falsifiable predictions. UA, while very similar to gravity in terms of an "inexplicable energy source," has problems with common phenomena and therefore suffers from greater holes in its theory than gravity. On top of that, gravity is largely consistent with the heavens. You, on the other hand, add another magical system called celestial gears, which has no substantial merit. It follows the same circular logic as bendy light where it exists because it has to exist for FE to work, not because of math or specifically observable phenomena. You want truly inexplicable, you should look at FET more closely.
I'm not saying it wouldn't work or that it's internally inconsistent, I'm saying that it's inexplicable and you can easily prove me wrong by explaining it. So please do.
Fine, so its exact workings are inexplicable. There are still fewer holes with gravity than there are UA and everything related to it, so yes, gravity is more believable, to answer your original question.
-
one inexplicable energy source
We may not know the exact mechanics of its workings, but at least gravity is not inexplicable.
It's not inexplicable, you just can't explain it?
We have equations and observed correlations. We may not know its exact workings, but we know how it behaves and can make falsifiable predictions. UA, while very similar to gravity in terms of an "inexplicable energy source," has problems with common phenomena and therefore suffers from greater holes in its theory than gravity. On top of that, gravity is largely consistent with the heavens. You, on the other hand, add another magical system called celestial gears, which has no substantial merit. It follows the same circular logic as bendy light where it exists because it has to exist for FE to work, not because of math or specifically observable phenomena. You want truly inexplicable, you should look at FET more closely.
I'm not saying it wouldn't work or that it's internally inconsistent, I'm saying that it's inexplicable and you can easily prove me wrong by explaining it. So please do.
Fine, so its exact workings are inexplicable. There are still fewer holes with gravity than there are UA and everything related to it, so yes, gravity is more believable, to answer your original question.
Are there? How is everything with mass creating infinite energy more believable than one source of infinite energy?
-
How is everything with mass creating infinite energy more believable than one source of infinite energy?
Who says that everything with mass creates infinite energy?
-
It's called the Universal Accelerator, not the Eternal Accelerator. There is nothing in the name which suggest that acceleration will continue eternally. The size of an event does not indicate the length of an event.
I think you totally skipped my question by focusing at the terminology.
My question was "Does [Universal Accelerator] implies that the acceleration must eventually (in finite duration of time) stop?"
Your response only tell me that it will not accelerate eternally, but it didn't tell me whether or not it will stop accelerating eventually. In RET, gravity exists as long as the universe does. I am just trying to see how different it is in FET.
-
Cant you see that they will not respond directly to any question?
-
one inexplicable energy source
We may not know the exact mechanics of its workings, but at least gravity is not inexplicable.
It's not inexplicable, you just can't explain it?
We have equations and observed correlations. We may not know its exact workings, but we know how it behaves and can make falsifiable predictions. UA, while very similar to gravity in terms of an "inexplicable energy source," has problems with common phenomena and therefore suffers from greater holes in its theory than gravity. On top of that, gravity is largely consistent with the heavens. You, on the other hand, add another magical system called celestial gears, which has no substantial merit. It follows the same circular logic as bendy light where it exists because it has to exist for FE to work, not because of math or specifically observable phenomena. You want truly inexplicable, you should look at FET more closely.
I'm not saying it wouldn't work or that it's internally inconsistent, I'm saying that it's inexplicable and you can easily prove me wrong by explaining it. So please do.
Fine, so its exact workings are inexplicable. There are still fewer holes with gravity than there are UA and everything related to it, so yes, gravity is more believable, to answer your original question.
Are there? How is everything with mass creating infinite energy more believable than one source of infinite energy?
-
Your response only tell me that it will not accelerate eternally, but it didn't tell me whether or not it will stop accelerating eventually.
What's the difference? ???