The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: semperround on July 05, 2006, 06:16:41 AM

Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: semperround on July 05, 2006, 06:16:41 AM
FE believers, correct me if i'm wrong, but the way I have seen how you describe gravity is that the earth is accelerating upward at a rate of 9.8m/sec^2. This, in theory, creates the gravity affect as it applies to us on the so called earth disc. If this is true, and the earth is constantly accelerating at the 9.8m/sec^2 rate, then by my calculations Earth would reach the speed of light at day 354 since it started falling and has been acclerating ever since. Was einstein wrong about the relativity thing? Please explain.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on July 05, 2006, 01:09:40 PM
Hi.  I'm going to sticky/lock this topic, because it's a pretty frequently-asked question that demands an explanation that is too long for the FAQ.

If you measure the speed of the Earth, you will notice it to be always zero.  That is, it's not getting any closer to you or farther from you, and it's not moving around in a circle.  If you're standing on the Earth, the Earth appears to be quite stationary.

Similarly, if you are in an automobile that is driving around a sharp turn, you will feel yourself pressed to one wall (the wall opposite the turn).  From your perspective, the automobile is stationary -- but, from your perspective, you can still tell that it is accelerating (or, equivalently, that it is generating a gravitational field).

On the other hand, as measured from somebody not in the car, the car is zipping around the turn -- i.e., moving and accelerating.  Similarly, the Flat Earth can be observed by others not on the Earth to be accelerating and moving upwards.  If you are worried that the Earth might eventually be going faster than the speed of light, you are only worried about it going faster than the speed of light as those observers measure it, not as we on the Earth measure it.

So, let's consider what happens from the perspective of one such observer -- call her Alice.  In particular, let's suppose Alice jumps over the ice wall into empty space (or whatever's there).  Since the Earth is no longer pushing her, she stops accelerating.  From her perspective, she is now at rest, and at the instant she jumps, the Earth is also at rest.  However, the Earth continues to accelerate upwards.

Let's say Bob stayed behind on Earth.  He measures the Earth's acceleration to be g = 9.8 m/s^2 -- the same way you might measure the accleration of the automobile going around the curve.  According to special relativity, Alice will measure a different acceleration -- in particular, she will measure it to be g/γ^3, where γ = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).  In other words, we have the following differential equation for the velocity v of the Earth:  dv/dt = g/γ^3.

The solution to this equation is v = gt / sqrt( 1 + g^2t^2 / c^2 ), or v = g / sqrt(1/t^2 + g^2/c^2).  We are interested in the infinite time limit of v -- i.e. what happens to v as we wait an arbitrarily long time.  As t --> ∞, v --> g / sqrt(g^2/c^2) = c.

In other words, from Bob's perspective, the Earth is always stationary (we are Bob), but undergoing constant acceleration.  From Alice's perspective, the Earth moves at an ever increasing rate, but the acceleration is not constant -- it decreases over time in such a way that the Earth never surpasses the speed of light.

For more information, especially on the derivation and solution of the differential equation I presented, see p. 37 of "Introducing Einstein's Relativity" by Ray D'Inverno, in particular section 3.8.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: troubadour on July 07, 2006, 03:49:55 AM
Erasmus, you gave me the same explaination before for the time i asked the same question. And while you gave a wonderful explanation of the correctness of observers(they are all correct), I think you missed the point. Einstein also recognizes the existance of absolute spacetime. Meaning if the earth was constantly accellerating in a certain direction, it would come up against that nasty light-speed barrier through which matter cannot penetrate because it would be moving relative to SPACETIME. There are occurences of objects moving faster then the speed of light however. You are familar with the expanding universe and how the farther objects are, the faster they are moving away? It is possible for a galaxy to move away at faster then the speed of light. Picture the ballon analogy that I gave in another thread. Replace the dots, with pennies, it makes for a more accurate analogy as the forces inside the galaxies overcome the expansion of spacetime and stay together. As the ballon expands, the pennies get farther away from each other. blow it up to twice it's original size, and pennies that were 1cm apart are now 2cm apart. Pennies that were 10cm apart are now 20cm apart. The velocity at which the pennies move away from each other is proportional to their distance. Now apply to the actual universe. We see the same thing. Objects that are farther, are moving away faster. Doesn't this mean if an object is far enough, it CAN be moving away from us at FASTER then the speed of light. Yes it does.
The pennies aren't moving on the surface of the ballon, the ballon itself is expanding. We are only limited to less-then-light-speed travel as we move THROUGH space. This does not apply if space itself is expanding and causing the percieved velocity. Of course ontop of this space-time expansion our galaxy has excess velocity where it is actually moving through spacetime. And yes, there is a way to find exactly our excess velocity relative through spacetime.
The background radiation that permiates space from everywhere is incrediblly equal in all directions(meaning that we came from a very very low entropy big-bang). Much like how we can tell how fast distant galaxies are moving from us via analyzing the light of their emitted stars and factoring in the doppler effect, we can do the same for us and the background radiation. We actually DO receive higher frequency background radiation on one side of the earth while getting lower frequency radiation on the other. All scientists do is factor in the doppler effect and figure out what direction and velocity we would have to move in for it to be equal from all sides. From this we can figure out our excess velocity. Also from this, and more importantly the point of this post, we can figure out a theoretical absolute state of rest in relation to spacetime in the universe.

The point is that there is infact an absolute to be moving in reference too when talking about motion. And there is a way to determine it. If the earth was accellerating "upwards" at 9.8m/s/s then at some point it would come up against the barrier of lightspeed and it's mass would get larger and larger and it would enter into a period of ever-increasing decellerating-accelleration as it cannot cross that barrier. Meaning after a year of accellerating at 9.8m/s/s the preceived gravity would become less and less. And no, since you must be accellerating through spacetime to experience gravity, one cannot somehow hijack the expanding spacetime model and change it into the reasoning behind why the earth can travel at a constant 9.8m/s/s.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on July 07, 2006, 10:50:00 AM
I'm so fervently opposed to this notion of "relative to spacetime" that I absolutely insist on references.  Your claims of "absolute rest" seem to violate the very foundational postulates of relativity theory.

That said, I never claimed that the Earth would go faster than the speed of light relative to anything.  The entire gist of my post was to reproduce a proof that a constant acceleration (and linearly increasing velocity) in one frame of reference translates to asympotitic acceleration (and asymptotic velocity with asymptote at v = c) in any inertial frame of reference.  Which part of that do you disagree with?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: troubadour on July 07, 2006, 07:38:42 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
I'm so fervently opposed to this notion of "relative to spacetime" that I absolutely insist on references.  Your claims of "absolute rest" seem to violate the very foundational postulates of relativity theory.

That said, I never claimed that the Earth would go faster than the speed of light relative to anything.  The entire gist of my post was to reproduce a proof that a constant acceleration (and linearly increasing velocity) in one frame of reference translates to asympotitic acceleration (and asymptotic velocity with asymptote at v = c) in any inertial frame of reference.  Which part of that do you disagree with?



I disagree with your notion that the earth could travel at 9.8m/s/s forever through spacetime. It would eventually hit the light-speed barrier. Unless the earth has no mass, it cannot cross into this velocity.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: 6strings on July 07, 2006, 08:02:16 PM
Quote
I disagree with your notion that the earth could travel at 9.8m/s/s forever through spacetime. It would eventually hit the light-speed barrier. Unless the earth has no mass, it cannot cross into this velocity.

...There is no light-speed barrier...

From reading your posts on the speed of light in the thread "faster than light", your notion of "absolute spacetime" seems to be rooted in the fact tht something always has a velocity of 300,000 m/s in space and time, and thus, logically, can not surpass said velocity.  

This seems to be a simple misunderstanding, though.  You see, in reality, people will always measure their velocity through spacetime to be the speed of light.  An object, that, in its own frame of reference, is at rest, will meaure it's velocity through space to be 0 m/s and through time, be 300,000 m/s, whereas an observer from an outside frame of reference will measure it differently, in the manner described by Erasmus, in the case of an accelerating object.

Of course, I'm merely basing this off your posts in another thread, and what I believe to be your position, feel free to tell my if I've constructed a strawman.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: troubadour on July 08, 2006, 07:06:31 AM
Quote from: "6strings"
Quote
I disagree with your notion that the earth could travel at 9.8m/s/s forever through spacetime. It would eventually hit the light-speed barrier. Unless the earth has no mass, it cannot cross into this velocity.

...There is no light-speed barrier...

From reading your posts on the speed of light in the thread "faster than light", your notion of "absolute spacetime" seems to be rooted in the fact tht something always has a velocity of 300,000 m/s in space and time, and thus, logically, can not surpass said velocity.  

This seems to be a simple misunderstanding, though.  You see, in reality, people will always measure their velocity through spacetime to be the speed of light.  An object, that, in its own frame of reference, is at rest, will meaure it's velocity through space to be 0 m/s and through time, be 300,000 m/s, whereas an observer from an outside frame of reference will measure it differently, in the manner described by Erasmus, in the case of an accelerating object.

Of course, I'm merely basing this off your posts in another thread, and what I believe to be your position, feel free to tell my if I've constructed a strawman.


Yes but for the sake for this arguement I am ignoring the effects of time when travelling through spacetime. They aren't important to the issue at hand. It just seems that Erasmus has overlooked Einstein's notion of absolute spacetime. Yes it may be dynamic and changing to objects within it, but it still is an absolute. And e=mc2 also. meaning if you accellerate in a direction, you will feel the effects of it at some point(you could of been moving or accellerating in the other direction to start) And you are also completely leaving out Higgs fields. The electroweak higgs field(sometimes referred to as the Higgs Ocean) is the theoretical field that gives objects their mass. They have been predicted mathmatically and it is just a matter for the next generation of atom smashers to find them in the real world (2007). If they do exist, then we would know that there would be a field (much like the old notion of the aether) that objects do infact travel through. Making the idea that the earth travels through it an accellerating 9.8m/s/s impossible according to physics.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on July 08, 2006, 08:45:18 AM
Troubadour: you seem to be jumping all over the place.  You also have not given references to this absolute spacetime / light-barrier notion.

I have provided an explanation as to how an object can in one reference frame undergo a constant acceleration, and in another reference frame undergo an ever-decreasing acceleration.  In both frames, the object in question is shown never to travel past the speed of light.

As far as "speed relative to spacetime" is concerned, there is no such thing as linear acceleration.  When you consider spacetime as a unified geometric space, "speed" has no meaning, but any massive object has a four-velocity which is a vector tangent to its world-line.  This vector always has magnitude 1 (or c, depending on your units), and so in that sense velocity in spacetime is constant.

When we talk about "velocity" we are referring only to rate of travel through space, or, the projection of an object's four-velocity onto the spacelike coordinates.

As such, your statement
Quote from: "troubadour"
I disagree with your notion that the earth could travel at 9.8m/s/s forever through spacetime. It would eventually hit the light-speed barrier. Unless the earth has no mass, it cannot cross into this velocity.
is totally without meaning.  "9.8 m/s/s" is not a rate at which one can travel through spacetime.  I also never claimed that the Earth would, in any reference frame, ever be travelling at the speed of light; I spoke only in terms of limits.  Lastly, I don't at all understand
Quote
I am ignoring the effects of time when travelling through spacetime
, nor do I understand how "E = mc^2" is relevant, nor do I see how the hypothetical Higgs field is relevant, nor do I know what you mean by Einstein's notion of absolute spacetime (I thought I did, but I feel like we don't agree on what that means).

In any case, I don't feel you have addressed the argument I've made -- finding the Lorentz transformation of a constantly accelerating object -- which came straight out of a rather rigorous text on relativity.  I am fairly convinced that this view of relativity theory is correct and that yours is flawed; please either read the reference I have provided, or provide references supporting your own position.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: troubadour on July 08, 2006, 08:03:44 PM
So you are saying that the Flat Earth theory of earth's simulated gravity picks and chooses what it wants from relativity. Let me jump to a better defense of my position then the relativity one. I will come back to that later. Right now I will defend my absolute  spacetime notion.
2 spaceships start right next to each other. They are sufficently away from any large bodies gravity so it is just the 2 spaceships alone in empty(empty is accually misleading) space. They both star accellerating away from each other at the rate of 9.8 Meters Per second, every second. Meaning at 1 second, they have moved 9.8 meters from their original position. at 2 seconds they will be 29.4 Meters from their original position as they will of accellerated an additional 9.8 meters from the first second, putting their velocity from the starting point at 19.6m/s. Of course from spaceship 1, spaceship 2 is getting farther and farther, but a rate that is equal to it's own distance from the starting point x 2, as it's accellerating at the same rate spaceship 1 is in the opposite direction. got all this so far?
Let's say these spaceships were shaped like towers and they had both started with their bottoms to each other, one mirroring the other. They all have floors and such like a building also. The people in spaceship 1 will be experiencing a pull down to the "floor" equal to earth's as they are accellerating at 9.8m/s/s. The people in spaceship 2 will also be experiencing earthlike pull to the floor as they will be accellerating at 9.8m/s/s. But, to spaceship 1, spaceship 2 is accellerating away at 19.6m/s/s. So if we were on spaceship 1, we could say that the people on spaceship 2 should be experiencing 2 Gs, but they aren't. They are experiencing 1G. This shows the universe obviously isn't derived from the observations of spaceship 1. We can figure this out because spaceship 1 is experiencing a G itself from accelleration. So we can figure out that ship 2 is getting 1 G. But here is the bigger question. What is causing the people in the ship to be drawn to the floor? What causes the resistance to accelleration? Doesn't the very fact that there is a resistance to accelleration prove that there is some kind of medium that matter is moving through? Meaning that even with no other objects to be in reference too, you WILL feel forces from accelleration and be subject to the same laws of the universe, and there are situation where one observer can be incorrect of it's observations of another.


to be continued.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on July 08, 2006, 11:21:35 PM
Quote
The people in spaceship 2 will also be experiencing earthlike pull to the floor as they will be accellerating at 9.8m/s/s. But, to spaceship 1, spaceship 2 is accellerating away at 19.6m/s/s.


No it isn't.  You're begging the question here: accelerations don't add the way they do in Galilean relativity.

Imagine the buildings aren't accelerating.  Instead, suppose you and I are floating (inertially) out in space and the two buildings pass by us in opposite directions, each with speed 0.75 c.  You're not going to suggest that, as measured by the people in one building, the people in the other building are going at velocity 1.5 c, are you?

Of course not, because you can't just add velocities in special relativity.  Similarly, you cannot just add accelerations.  Just because (back in the accelerating-building scenario) to an inertial observer, the two buildings are each accelerating at 1g, it doesn't imply that to an observer in one building, the people in the other building are accelerating away at 2g.

If anybody's picking and choosing which bits of relativity they want to use, it's you, who believes that you can add velocities willy-nilly without taking into account the Lorentz transformations between observers.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: troubadour on July 09, 2006, 07:56:38 AM
For the speeds and velocities I am talking about, there is no need to bother with the Lorentz transformations. Much like how as long as I'm not talking about very fast speeds or very large gravitational fields, newtonian physics works just fine for predictions. And here, from the GSU physics site on lorentz transformations:

Quote from: "GSU Physics(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/ltrans.html)"

c as Speed Limit

The speed of light c is said to be the speed limit of the universe because nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light with respect to you. A common way of describing this situation is to say that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases and more force must be exerted to produce a given acceleration. There are difficulties with the "changing mass" perspective, and it is generally preferrable to say that the relativistic momentum and relativistic energy approach infinity at the speed of light. Since the net applied force is equal to the rate of change of momentum and the work done is equal to the change in energy, it would take an infinite time and an infinite amount of work to accelerate an object to the speed of light. (Sorry, Captain Kirk. We can't give you warp speed!)

A common resistance to the speed limit is to suggest that you just accelerate two different objects to more than half of the speed of light and point them toward each other, giving a relative speed greater than c. But that doesn't work! Time and space are interwoven in such a way that no one observer ever sees another object moving toward them at greater than c. The Einstein velocity addition deals with the transformation of velocities, always yielding a relative velocity less than c. It doesn't agree with your common sense, but it appears to be the way the universe works.


Matter cannot move faster then the speed of light through spacetime. The point at which I've been trying to get at this entire time. I say through spacetime because there exist in theory distant galaxies which could be moving away from us faster then the speed of light due to the expansion of spacetime(ballon analogy). The light from these galaxies will never be able to reach us however, so we cannot observe them. It would only take a year before the Earth's velocity in said FE theory would be nearing the speed of light, meaning it would not be able to maintain a 9.8m/s/s accelleration as it got closer and closer to the speed of like. It would start slowing it's decelleration. It could keep doing this for infinity if you like, getting closer and closer to the speed of light, but never quite reaching it. But it would not be able to travel as fast as light itself(or faster). This means it could not maintain a 9.8m/s/s accelleration needed to simulate gravity for very long.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on July 09, 2006, 10:11:09 AM
Quote from: "troubadour"
For the speeds and velocities I am talking about, there is no need to bother with the Lorentz transformations.


Obviously not, since we both agree that eventually the Earth/buildings/whatever will be going at least near the speed of light.

As for your reference:

Quote from: "GSU Physics(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/ltrans.html)"

The speed of light c is said to be the speed limit of the universe because nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light with respect to you.


Emphasis added by me.  Note that it says "with respect to you", not "with respect to spacetime".

Furthermore,

Quote
it would take an infinite time and an infinite amount of work to accelerate an object to the speed of light.


Which is exactly what I describe in my original post -- the behavior of the Earth in the limit of infinite time.

Quote
A common resistance to the speed limit is to suggest that you just accelerate two different objects to more than half of the speed of light and point them toward each other, giving a relative speed greater than c. But that doesn't work!


Again, exactly what I stated above.  If you tried this two-buildings-accelerating thing, neither of them would observe the other to be moving faster than light, ever.

Quote from: "troubadour"
Matter cannot move faster then the speed of light through spacetime. The point at which I've been trying to get at this entire time.


And which, I'm telling you, reflects a misunderstanding of the word "relative".  All objects have the same speed in spacetime (a statement I've made repeatedly) and this this speed never ever changes for any object under any circumstances.

Quote
... meaning it would not be able to maintain a 9.8m/s/s accelleration as it got closer and closer to the speed of like. It would start slowing it's decelleration.


That's true, from the perspective of an inertial observer.

Quote
It could keep doing this for infinity if you like, getting closer and closer to the speed of light, but never quite reaching it. But it would not be able to travel as fast as light itself(or faster). This means it could not maintain a 9.8m/s/s accelleration needed to simulate gravity for very long.


Only from the viewpoint of somebody not on the Earth.  From the viewpoint of somebody on the Earth, this acceleration can continue indefinitely.  The Lorentz transformation nicely converts constant acceleration in one frame to asymptotically decreasing acceleration in another.  Did you read anything I posted?

Look, if you're confident in your interpretation of SR, why don't you give a quantitative description of exactly what will happen in the accelerating-Earth model, both in the reference frame of an inertial observer A and in the reference frame of some accelerating observer B on the Earth?  These little discussions are great but it would be interesting to see if you could take the theorems of relativity and use them to rigorously demonstrate what you're claiming would happen.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: troubadour on July 09, 2006, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"

Again, exactly what I stated above. If you tried this two-buildings-accelerating thing, neither of them would observe the other to be moving faster than light, ever.


I never claimed that the buildings could view each other as moving at the speed of light, ever. I did mention previously that via the expansion of the universe, it is possible for objects to move away from each other (or toward each other) at or greater then the speed of light. think ballon analogy. if the pennies are sufficiently far away from each other, they CAN move away from each other at the speed of light because the farther they are, the faster they are moving apart. The pennies however are not moving, the space is just expanding around them, so there is no interference with relativity.

I'm working on the large and more well defined idea of what i'm proposing. But I work for a living, and you want me to start using equations, so it will take me some time.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: troubadour on July 10, 2006, 10:27:35 PM
I sent an e-mail last night to a distinguished professor(Robert B. Hallock, graduate of UMASS, masters and Ph.D at Stanford) that I spoke with on campus a few months ago describing my view of what would happen to an object with a constant accelleration.

I simply said I was having a debate with someone about an object that is accellerating at a constant rate of 9.8m/s/s through a vacuum. I said that they claimed it could accellerate forever and simulate the earth's gravity, and that I said that it would eventually enter into a period of ever-decellerating accelleration as it neared the speed of light and the effects of the percieved gravity would diminish. Here is what he said.

Quote from: "Prof. Hallock"

According to the classical newton universe, the object will accellerate forever as long as no other forces act upon it. So your friend would be correct if this was the way the universe worked. But lucky for you it is not.
Taking General Relativity into account, nothing can travel faster then c, or the speed of light in a vacuum. We have to ignore the source of the accelleration for the object because to propel even single particles to near the speed of light requires an incredible amount of energy. But ignoring that no, in General Relativity you could not exceed c, nor could you maintain a 9.8m/s accelleration forever.  As the object approaches c, the accelleration would decrease exponentially. The object will never reach c, but it will get closer and closer to it. As the accelleration decreased, so would the effects of the push to anything on the surface of the object. You can tell your friend that he is incorrect.


There is no need for me to talk any further about this as I have been confirmed by an actual physicist. Sorry FE theory. You'll have to come up with another reason for earth's gravity.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on July 11, 2006, 12:05:05 AM
Thanks for the reference.  I'm a little worried that you may have misrepesented the hypothesis, but I'll just assume you did not.  In any case, Dr. Hallock and I agree that as measured from an inertial frame, the Earth's velocity would only asymptotically approach c.  We only disagree on what would happen in the frame of reference of the ship.

As a thought experiment, consider what would happen if the Earth (spaceship, whatever) suddenly stopped accelerating.  Now it's inertial again, meaning it's at rest again, meaning it should be able to accelerate from 0 all over again, because all inertial reference frames are equivalent.  If you are right, then upon starting to accelerate again, the passengers on the ship would not feel the same artificial gravity that they felt the first time the ship starts accelerating, which would give them an experiment to test for "absolute rest", which is a glaring contradiction to the principle of relativity.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: troubadour on July 11, 2006, 12:28:05 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Thanks for the reference.  I'm a little worried that you may have misrepesented the hypothesis, but I'll just assume you did not.  In any case, Dr. Hallock and I agree that as measured from an inertial frame, the Earth's velocity would only asymptotically approach c.  We only disagree on what would happen in the frame of reference of the ship.

As a thought experiment, consider what would happen if the Earth (spaceship, whatever) suddenly stopped accelerating.  Now it's inertial again, meaning it's at rest again, meaning it should be able to accelerate from 0 all over again, because all inertial reference frames are equivalent.  If you are right, then upon starting to accelerate again, the passengers on the ship would not feel the same artificial gravity that they felt the first time the ship starts accelerating, which would give them an experiment to test for "absolute rest", which is a glaring contradiction to the principle of relativity.


If it stopped accellerating, it would still have it's remaining velocity.

Also, there is a state of absolute rest in any frame and can be determined. I mentioned using the background radiation as a way to find a state of rest before. Here is a better explanation I found from Edward J. Barlow's (recipient of NASA public service award) General Relativity section in his introduction into cosmology (http://www.cosmologymodels.com/index2.html).

Quote from: "Barlow"

While in special relativity there is no standard of rest and no preferred reference frame, in general relativity the situation is somewhat different. A rest frame for any particular region of space can be defined as the frame which is not rotating compared to the background of distant stars and for which the cosmic microwave background radiation, CMBR, has the same spectrum in all directions and so the concept of local motion in that frame is meaningful. In another region of space, there would also be a rest frame for which the CMBR is the same in all directions, but the two rest frames are moving with respect to each other so there is no preferred frame of that type for the universe as a whole and no center of the universe. We can however, define a comoving rest frame for the universe as a whole for which the requirement of the CMBR being the same in all directions and there being a standard of rotation based on the distant stars is met at all locations.


Also, you threw me way off with the lorentz transformations. I didn't see how they applied to what I was proposing and thought you figured out something I didn't. Turns out I think you just misunderstood me the entire time.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on July 11, 2006, 12:17:51 PM
So your conclusion then is that the Principle of Relativity -- that all inertial observers are equivalent -- is wrong?

The primary statement of yours that supports this conclusion is

Quote from: "troubadour"
If it stopped accellerating, it would still have it's remaining velocity.


Remember that there are two inertial reference frames.  The ship started off at rest in S, then accelerated for a while, then stopped accelerating, so that it is now at rest in inertial frame S'.  According to SR, S and S' ought to be equivalent.  Do you disagree with this?

As for the CMBR -- the exact way in which this information affects the notion of absolute reference frame is not clear to me.  For example, what happens if I enclose my ship in a sphere that blocks this radiation?  Then, whenever I measure this radiation, I find the spectrum to be the same in all directions.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on July 14, 2006, 04:34:47 PM
Quote from: "troubadour"
Also, there is a state of absolute rest in any frame and can be determined. I mentioned using the background radiation as a way to find a state of rest before.


Just out of curiosity, what's the Earth's velocity with respect to the CMBR?  Also, what makes the CMBR a preferred reference frame?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Aralith on July 14, 2006, 05:28:14 PM
Well, did any of you know that science has now proven two things: 1. That a light pulse can travel faster than light (since light is both a particle, and a wave, this might suggest that objects can too) and 2. that said light pulse actually arrived before it left when it traveled faster than light. This means, that it essentially travelled back in time. This notion may seem ridiculous, but I have provided a link to the article (http://www.iitk.ac.in/infocell/Archive/dirjuly3/science_light.html). This suggests that it might be possible for matter to break the light speed barrier under very specific conditions. So, let's say the earth is flat (but it's not). And then let's say that these specific conditions are met somehow, and the earth starts travelling upwards at a speed faster than the speed of light. Well, then we would all be travelling backwards in time, which we know is not true. Therefore, the earth cannot be constantly gaining speed (not only because it can't travel faster than light without travelling back in time, but also because of the obvious reason that there is nothing propelling it upwards) because, as was stated in the beginning of this thread, the earth would have broken the light speed barrier by day 354. Well, the earth has obviously been around much longer than that, so it would already be travelling faster than light, which can't be possible, or we would be moving backwards in time. Hope this settles the gravity factor once and for all, but I'm expecting a bunch of conspiracy claims, so it probably won't.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: 6strings on July 14, 2006, 05:35:20 PM
That is only because the object in question has been accelerated to a velocity exceding c with respect to us.  

Do you think that we're at complete rest on our planet, regardless of whether you believe in RE or FE?  Because your argument would only hold any amount of water if that were the case, but it isn't.  We are hurtling through space at enormous velocities, so according to your own logic, we should not be able to accelerate things past (the speed of light-our own velocity through space) before they go back in time...
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Aralith on July 14, 2006, 05:37:53 PM
What? I don't understand your post at all 6strings. Please elaborate. Also, I agree that we're moving through space, but we're not accelerating. The earth rotates on its axis at a constant speed. The earth moves around the sun at a constant speed. What acceleration are you talking about? According to RE theory, we're not accelerating, but staying at a constant speed.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: 6strings on July 14, 2006, 05:59:27 PM
Alright, you are taking the speed of light, c, as an absolute value, and if an object is accelerated to a velocity exceeding c, it goes back in time.  The reality of the matter is that c is defined in relation to you, that is to say, the effects of greater-than-light-speed travel only come into effect if an object exceeds c in relation to you.  

Such is demonstrated by the fact that we still needed to accelerate the particles to 3.0*10^8 m/s (approximating c to 3.0*10^8 m/s), even though, according to RE, we are hurtling through space at high velocities.  Hypothetically, if nothing could go faster than c anywhere, we would only have to accelerate the paraticles to the velocity expressed by:
c-(whatever the speed we are moving at, of which I am woefully ignorant).

In any case, the point remains that it is merely movements at speeds approaching c, in relation to us, that we must concern ourselves with.

Furthermore, if you have any more issues with this, feel free to use the search function to find more threads that have adressed this issue, or PM me (don't start a speed of light thread, because we've had to many already).  I feel bad about highjacking this thread, as it was supposed to be a definitive resolution to the issue.  Erasmus, or any other mod, feel free to delete these posts from the thread if you feel they're cluttering up space.
Title: --
Post by: Ubuntu on July 14, 2006, 06:08:34 PM
Erasmus, what place do you have debating science when it's all a government conspiracy anyways? Einstein must have been part of the conspiracy too, so how can you trust him?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: troubadour on July 14, 2006, 11:55:22 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "troubadour"
Also, there is a state of absolute rest in any frame and can be determined. I mentioned using the background radiation as a way to find a state of rest before.


Just out of curiosity, what's the Earth's velocity with respect to the CMBR?  Also, what makes the CMBR a preferred reference frame?


The CMBR's source is the big bang, the beginning of space and time. If you get to the point where it is even in all directions (no red or blue shift), then you are at rest in relation to spacetime.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: troubadour on July 15, 2006, 12:12:10 AM
Quote from: "Aralith"
Well, did any of you know that science has now proven two things: 1. That a light pulse can travel faster than light (since light is both a particle, and a wave, this might suggest that objects can too) and 2. that said light pulse actually arrived before it left when it traveled faster than light. This means, that it essentially travelled back in time. This notion may seem ridiculous, but I have provided a link to the article (http://www.iitk.ac.in/infocell/Archive/dirjuly3/science_light.html). This suggests that it might be possible for matter to break the light speed barrier under very specific conditions. So, let's say the earth is flat (but it's not). And then let's say that these specific conditions are met somehow, and the earth starts travelling upwards at a speed faster than the speed of light. Well, then we would all be travelling backwards in time, which we know is not true. Therefore, the earth cannot be constantly gaining speed (not only because it can't travel faster than light without travelling back in time, but also because of the obvious reason that there is nothing propelling it upwards) because, as was stated in the beginning of this thread, the earth would have broken the light speed barrier by day 354. Well, the earth has obviously been around much longer than that, so it would already be travelling faster than light, which can't be possible, or we would be moving backwards in time. Hope this settles the gravity factor once and for all, but I'm expecting a bunch of conspiracy claims, so it probably won't.


Black Holes emit raditation, which is against classical physics as nothing should be able to escape. But since in quantum mechanics, there are no 0 probabilites for particles in a quantum state (IE before the collaspe of the wave function), there are potentials for particles to travel faster then the speed of light just long enough to travel out of the black hole. Thereby causeing radiation. Of course this has been explained another way.

Imagine in space 2 photons collide with enough force to produce an electron and it's anti-matter twin, a positron(they are always created in pairs like this). Imagine the electron as a particle travelling forward through time, and the positron as the same electron, but travelling backwards in time. So when the electron travels forward through time, it appears as an electron. When it travels backwards through time, it is a positron. It the electron get's trapped inside of a black hole, then it would be possible for the positron to travel backwards through time out of the black hole. This also works in the reverse. The positron could fall into the black hole. So then at some point, that electron that was previously travelling back through time as a positron into the black hole, can travel forward through time out of the black hole.

And there is yet another theory involving the theoretical electroweak higgs field, the field that gives all particles their mass. This field becomes so disrupted inside the black hole, that it allows particles to become massless and be able to travel faster then light out of the black hole.

Hawking has a theory that as black holes radiate away energy, they loose their mass and slowly dissolve away until they loose the critical mass size to stay black holes. All he needs to prove this theory is to find an aging black hole. But it is thought that it might take billions and billions of years for this to happen to even smaller black holes. And since the universe has only been around for about 15 billion years, it's unlikely he will find a black hole of the appropriate age.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on July 15, 2006, 11:27:14 PM
Quote from: "troubadour"
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Just out of curiosity, what's the Earth's velocity with respect to the CMBR?  Also, what makes the CMBR a preferred reference frame?


The CMBR's source is the big bang, the beginning of space and time. If you get to the point where it is even in all directions (no red or blue shift), then you are at rest in relation to spacetime.


Um, obviously all that means is that you're at rest relative to the CMBR.

So what about the Earth's velocity w.r.t. the CMBR?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Jenks on July 17, 2006, 08:33:18 AM
If gravity is the earth accelerating upwards, then does that mean FEers don't believe gravity has a relation to mass? And if so this would mean the moon doesn't have 'gravity' as we know it, so what creates the tides on our seas?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on July 17, 2006, 09:25:35 AM
Quote from: "Jenks"
If gravity is the earth accelerating upwards, then does that mean FEers don't believe gravity has a relation to mass?


There are several kinds of mass: inertial, passive gravitational (for reacting to gravitational fields), and active gravitational (for generating gravitational fields).  In Newtonian theory, it is purely coincidental that these are equal.  In FE, it is not assumed that they are universally equal for all materials.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: CrimsonKing on July 17, 2006, 09:39:40 AM
As for the tides, one of the major ideas is that the earth has a slight seesaw effect.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: troubadour on July 17, 2006, 10:16:39 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "troubadour"
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Just out of curiosity, what's the Earth's velocity with respect to the CMBR?  Also, what makes the CMBR a preferred reference frame?


The CMBR's source is the big bang, the beginning of space and time. If you get to the point where it is even in all directions (no red or blue shift), then you are at rest in relation to spacetime.


Um, obviously all that means is that you're at rest relative to the CMBR.

So what about the Earth's velocity w.r.t. the CMBR?


WTR?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: CrimsonKing on July 17, 2006, 11:13:33 PM
Should this thread really be stickied, it doesnt seem like it should be in my opinion, possibly a modified locked thread in which the ideas discussed herein are updated, but this one seems much too long and varied
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on July 18, 2006, 12:09:05 AM
Quote from: "CrimsonKing"
Should this thread really be stickied, it doesnt seem like it should be in my opinion, possibly a modified locked thread in which the ideas discussed herein are updated, but this one seems much too long and varied


Originally I had locked the thread, and I'm probably going to relock it fairly soon.  For a while I've felt that a concise and complete answer to the whole speed-of-light thing is needed, since it represented at least a third of the questions we were being asked.  Since this thread has been stickied, I haven't heard the question asked at all.

My current plan is to wait a bit longer, and then lock the thread and split the discussion bits.  The resulting discussion will not be stickied or locked.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on July 18, 2006, 12:10:35 AM
Quote from: "troubadour"
Quote from: "Erasmus"
So what about the Earth's velocity w.r.t. the CMBR?


WTR?


"W.r.t" or "wrt", not "WTR".  It stands for "with respect to", and mathematicians use it a lot because it's annoying to write "with respect to" over and over again.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: troubadour on July 18, 2006, 08:51:54 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "troubadour"
Quote from: "Erasmus"
So what about the Earth's velocity w.r.t. the CMBR?


WTR?


"W.r.t" or "wrt", not "WTR".  It stands for "with respect to", and mathematicians use it a lot because it's annoying to write "with respect to" over and over again.


Sorry, i'm not a mathematician. What about the earth's velocity with respect to the CMBR?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on July 18, 2006, 09:28:55 AM
Quote from: "troubadour"
Sorry, i'm not a mathematician.


Sorry to have been presumptuous.

Quote
What about the earth's velocity with respect to the CMBR?


I'm just curious as to what it is.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: troubadour on July 18, 2006, 07:54:54 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "troubadour"
Sorry, i'm not a mathematician.


Sorry to have been presumptuous.

Quote
What about the earth's velocity with respect to the CMBR?


I'm just curious as to what it is.


I actually did not know the absolute value, only that it was moving. A quick google search yielded a result from the University of Tennessee Physics site, from an Astronomy 162 course. (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html)

Quote from: "UT-Physics"

The indication of the above image is that the local group of galaxies, to which the Earth belongs, is moving at about 600 km/s with respect to the background radiation. It is not know why the Earth is moving with such a high velocity relative to the background radiation.


There were some diagrams, but they were in flash format so I can't put them in this post. Check out the page.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on August 19, 2006, 12:10:45 PM
A thought about the Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation: general relativity permits us to interpret the asymmetry in the spectrum of this radiation as being due to a uniform gravitational field permeating the entire universe (not to be confused with a local gravitational field emitted by the Earth).

This is exactly how general relativity resolves the so-called "twin paradox".  Time is dilated differently for the moving twin because she is momentarily subject to a uniform gravitational field.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: irishpeter on August 31, 2006, 11:48:36 AM
A theoretical physicist at CERN gave me an insight into this, from a completely different query about massless particles.

As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases. Therefore a force acting on it will have to increase to continue the acceleration. The formula for the extra mass of an object in motion is given by some constant divided by the speed of light less the speed at which the object is moving. This is why nothing can exceed the speed of light, as its mass will reach an infinite value, and it will require an infinite force to maintain any acceleration.

I asked about the Doppler effect, and objects moving away from each other, and he said that there is a datum point which all velocities can be measured with regard to. This is evidenced by the fact that some objects are moving away from the earth at relative speeds approaching that of light, but we can see from their effects on the objects around them, moving at lower speeds, that they do not have the gravitational properties of bodies with near-infinite mass.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: killervenom47 on September 04, 2006, 12:13:17 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
In other words, from Bob's perspective, the Earth is always stationary (we are Bob), but undergoing constant acceleration.  From Alice's perspective, the Earth moves at an ever increasing rate, but the acceleration is not constant -- it decreases over time in such a way that the Earth never surpasses the speed of light.
How does the accelleration decrease without us noticing?
If the accelleration decreased, the gravity of earth would decrease as well, wouldn't it?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: EnragedPenguin on September 04, 2006, 02:07:55 PM
Quote from: "killervenom47"
How does the accelleration decrease without us noticing?


It's not decelerating relative to us. Earth is only approaching the speed of light relative to someone not on its surface; consequently, Earth's acceleration only changes to someone outside of Earth's Frame of reference.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: dysfunction on September 04, 2006, 04:51:56 PM
EP, please don't confuse him the way you totally confused me (for 12 pages!). What the Earth does relative to us is irrelevant, the Earth and all objects at rest on it may be considered a single object for the purposes of this scenario.
I believe what you meant to say is that, while the Earth's acceleration is decreasing relative to an object moving very slowly, say 10m/s, it's acceleration is NOT decreasing relative to an object moving very quickly, i.e., near lightspeed. If we feel 9.8m/s/s worth of simulated gravity, then when we measure our acceleration relative to an object moving at a constant velocity that has the same velocity as the Earth at the moment the measurement is made, the acceleration relative to that object will be 9.8m/s/s, even though our acceleration may be much lower relative to an object with a much smaller velocity.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: EnragedPenguin on September 04, 2006, 06:40:26 PM
Quote from: "dysfunction"
EP, please don't confuse him the way you totally confused me (for 12 pages!). What the Earth does relative to us is irrelevant.


Well, what it does relative to us is relevant in the sense that it does nothing relative to us. That is, it doesn't move.

Quote
I believe what you meant to say is that, while the Earth's acceleration is decreasing relative to an object moving very slowly, say 10m/s, it's acceleration is NOT decreasing relative to an object moving very quickly, i.e., near lightspeed.


I think that's pretty much exactly what I said.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: irishpeter on September 05, 2006, 02:02:58 AM
Has this ever been scientifically proven though? The way I see it, the theory is based on our inertia in relation to a constantly accelerating earth. Surely this acceleration would have to be with respect to an inertial reference frame?

If you can provide me with a link to a reputable site telling me this is possible, I'll take your word for it, and leave you alone!!
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: dysfunction on September 05, 2006, 08:20:24 AM
Here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=129832
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on September 16, 2006, 10:19:28 AM
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=129832


Hm, I wish I had noticed this when it was first brought up!  I'm confused as to exactly why the mods locked that thread but I'm sure they had their reasons.
Title: fe and relativity
Post by: mrscience on September 17, 2006, 10:06:50 AM
Okay, I just happened to be reading this forum out of curiosity, because I was looking up "flat earthers" on the internet.  I was reading on creationism, which led me to geocentrists and flat-earthers also.  I was shocked enough to learn that flat earthers and geocentrists even exist(creationists are surprising enough.)  
 
In any event, I was even more shocked to see someone attack a flat earther with a flawed argument, and a flat earther defend his position with a valid response(even if it was not articulated well enough for the attacker to understand.)  I simply couldn't resist trying to clarify the issue.  

The position was that a flat platform could be continuously accelerating at a constant rate to simulate a gravitation of 9.8 m/s2 indefinilely.  This is ideally possible, even if it is logistically unlikely.  Someone incorrectly pointed out that this would lead to the light barrier being breached.  This is not true.  I am a physics graduate student, with a Bachelor of Science in Physics Reserch, so I hope I will be able to articulate the issue.  

First of all, there is an apparent contradiction in language, because people have referred to a person on the platform as being accelerating constantly in his own frame.  Technically, if his frame of reference is the platform, he is always at rest.  However, at any given instant, an inertial(nonaccelerating) observer who is at rest with respect to the platform at that instant will see him as accelerating at 9.8 m/s2.  

Suppose that I hold a golf ball over the edge of the platform.  While the ball is in my hand, it is not an inertial observer, because it is accelerating up with me and the platform.  Now, if I let it go, my and the platform's acceleration will no longer be transmitted to the golf ball, and hence it will stop accelerating up with me, and become an inertial observer.  I will percieve the ball to begin accelerating downward at 9.8 m/s2, and it will see me as accelerating upward at the same rate.  At the very instant that I let it go, it will be at rest with respect to me, but it will no longer be accelerating with me.  

However, if I look down at the golf ball with a telescope, and continue to watch it for a long enough time, I will observe that it will not continue to accelerate at 9.8 m/s2.  How could it?  If a falling body in the earth's gravitational field accelerated constantly indefinitely, it would exceed the light barrier.  Similarly, the golf ball will not see my platform as accelerating at a constant rate, but as slowly approaching the constant speed of light with ever decreasing acceleration.  

Now, is my acceleration really changing? NO.  What is changing is my relative speed with respect to the inertial observer in question.  If I now drop a second golf ball, this golf ball will initially see me as accelerating at 9.8 m/s2, just as the first one originally did.  Thus, the two inertial observers will disagree about my acceleration.  Because, at any given instant, a 'recently dropped' golf ball will see me as accelerating at 9.8 m/s2, I will always experience a force equivalent to the earth's gravity.  

I will never exceed the light barrier from the perspective of another observer, but I will continue to 'accelerate  constantly' indefinitely.  The apparent contradiction is a result of attempting to apply Newtonian(in which acceleration is invariant) thinking to a relativistic situation.  

As far as the so called professor who contradicted this view, I can only assume that the professor did not fully understand the question.  The person who posted the professor's response must not have phrased the question to the professor in quite the same way as it was claimed here.

(I hope that makes it esier to read.  Sorry about the lack of spaces on the original post, I usually do not post mesages so long.)
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on September 17, 2006, 10:54:59 AM
Could you maybe put some paragraph breaks in your post so that its legibility coefficient takes non a nonnegative value?  Thanks.
Title: Re: fe and relativity
Post by: dysfunction on September 17, 2006, 11:30:14 AM
Quote from: "mrscience"
As far as the so called professor who contradicted this view, I can only assume that the professor did not fully understand the question.  The person who posted the professor's response must not have phrased the question to the professor in quite the same way as it was claimed here.


That was my interpretation as well. While your demonstration of the point is eloquent and concise, could you please put in some line breaks to aid in legibility?
Title: Re: fe and relativity
Post by: Erasmus on September 17, 2006, 11:35:06 AM
Quote from: "dysfunction"
That was my interpretation as well. While your demonstration of the point is eloquent and concise, could you please put in some line breaks to aid in legibility?


Wow, ten points for out-diplomacying me.  Yeah, sorry if I was harsh -- you (mrscience) do raise some good points but I was finding it hard to get through your whole post.
Title: Re: fe and relativity
Post by: beast on September 17, 2006, 11:40:16 AM
Okay, I just happened to be reading this forum out of curiosity, because I was looking up "flat earthers" on the internet.  I was reading on creationism, which led me to geocentrists and flat-earthers also.  I was shocked enough to learn that flat earthers and geocentrists even exist(creationists are surprising enough.)  

In any event, I was even more shocked to see someone attack a flat earther with a flawed argument, and a flat earther defend his position with a valid response(even if it was not articulated well enough for the attacker to understand.)  I simply couldn't resist trying to clarify the issue.  

The position was that a flat platform could be continuously accelerating at a constant rate to simulate a gravitation of 9.8 m/s2 indefinilely.  This is ideally possible, even if it is logistically unlikely.  Someone incorrectly pointed out that this would lead to the light barrier being breached.  This is not true.  I am a physics graduate student, with a Bachelor of Science in Physics Reserch, so I hope I will be able to articulate the issue.  

First of all, there is an apparent contradiction in language, because people have referred to a person on the platform as being accelerating constantly in his own frame.  Technically, if his frame of reference is the platform, he is always at rest.  However, at any given instant, an inertial(nonaccelerating) observer who is at rest with respect to the platform at that instant will see him as accelerating at 9.8 m/s2.  

Suppose that I hold a golf ball over the edge of the platform.  While the ball is in my hand, it is not an inertial observer, because it is accelerating up with me and the platform.  Now, if I let it go, my and the platform's acceleration will no longer be transmitted to the golf ball, and hence it will stop accelerating up with me, and become an inertial observer.  I will percieve the ball to begin accelerating downward at 9.8 m/s2, and it will see me as accelerating upward at the same rate.  At the very instant that I let it go, it will be at rest with respect to me, but it will no longer be accelerating with me.  However, if I look down at the golf ball with a telescope, and continue to watch it for a long enough time, I will observe that it will not continue to accelerate at 9.8 m/s2.  How could it?  If a falling body in the earth's gravitational field accelerated constantly indefinitely, it would exceed the light barrier.  Similarly, the golf ball will not see my platform as accelerating at a constant rate, but as slowly approaching the constant speed of light with ever decreasing acceleration.  Now, is my acceleration really changing? NO.  What is changing is my relative speed with respect to the inertial observer in question.  

If I now drop a second golf ball, this golf ball will initially see me as accelerating at 9.8 m/s2, just as the first one originally did.  Thus, the two inertial observers will disagree about my acceleration.  Because, at any given instant, a 'recently dropped' golf ball will see me as accelerating at 9.8 m/s2, I will always experience a force equivalent to the earth's gravity.  I will never exceed the light barrier from the perspective of another observer, but I will continue to 'accelerate  constantly' indefinitely.  

The apparent contradiction is a result of attempting to apply Newtonian(in which acceleration is invariant) thinking to a relativistic situation.  As far as the so called professor who contradicted this view, I can only assume that the professor did not fully understand the question.  The person who posted the professor's response must not have phrased the question to the professor in quite the same way as it was claimed here.

---

Not my post, just reposted with paragraphs so people can read it better :)
Title: Re: fe and relativity
Post by: Erasmus on September 17, 2006, 11:46:57 AM
Quote from: "mrscience"
(I hope that makes it esier to read.  Sorry about the lack of spaces on the original post, I usually do not post mesages so long.)


Hey no worries.  Now that I've read the whole thing I agree that your exposition of the situation is pretty clear.

Do you have any input on the CMBR issue?  It was claimed that the CMBR is a preferred frame of reference, and so we can determine our absolute velocity and acceleration by observing it.  I disagree; I do not  think that you can just pick any reference frame and call it preferred.
Title: Re: fe and relativity
Post by: mrscience on September 17, 2006, 01:27:49 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"

Do you have any input on the CMBR issue?  It was claimed that the CMBR is a preferred frame of reference, and so we can determine our absolute velocity and acceleration by observing it.  I disagree; I do not  think that you can just pick any reference frame and call it preferred.


Yes, I do.  You are correct that there is no absolute frame of motion.  The reason why cosmic backround radiation was brought up is because of a misunderstanding in how it is used in the literature.

The universe is not like the earth in that it is not an object of constant volume, and a clear, definable path of motion.  Ordinarily, when determining the age of an object, (such as the earth), we use the object's 'proper frame of reference', that is, the frame of motion in which that object is considered at rest.  (Because motion affects how we measure time).

In the case of the universe, this presents a problem.  The universe is expanding, with different galaxies moving in different directions, at different speeds.  So what do we do?  Physicists who want to express the age of the universe use CMBR as a way of defining an agreed upon reference frame from which to judge the age of the universe.  

The point is, however, that the laws of physics DO NOT recognize any frame of motion as prefered. CMBR is something that HUMANS have chosen as a convienient sort of 'cosmic clock'.  I hope that this clarifies the issue.
Title: Re: fe and relativity
Post by: Erasmus on September 17, 2006, 01:33:43 PM
Quote from: "mrscience"
The point is, however, that the laws of physics DO NOT recognize any frame of motion as prefered. CMBR is something that HUMANS have chosen as a convienient sort of 'cosmic clock'.  I hope that this clarifies the issue.


This really does clarify the issue; thanks.  I agree that the CMBR is useful for descriptions of the universe on cosmological scales.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Curious on September 25, 2006, 10:25:24 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Hi.  ....


Where to start?

How do you get  v = g / sqrt(1/t^2 + g^2/c^2)  from gt / sqrt( 1 + g^2t^2 / c^2 )?

Starting with gt / sqrt( 1 + g^2t^2 / c^2 )
I can see simplifying to gt / sqrt( 1/t^2 + (g^2/ c^2) * t^2 )
But when you try to factor out the T  you get:
g / (sqrt( 1/t^2 + (g^2/ c^2) * t^2 ))/T  

You can not simplify the t^2 by saying Sqrt (t^2)/T = 1 because the value (g^2/ c^2) * t^2 ) is added to another value within the square root function.  Try substitutingg some real numbers fo T and you should see what I mean.

Likewise, you remove the time factor from your description of relative motion.  Acceleration is change of velocity over time.  To use your description of why you don't exceed light speed, Starting velocity is zero, final velocity is zero.  There is no acceleration, therefore no gravity like effect.  

Another way of looking at it is the acceleration is an increase of kinetic energy.   By accelerating the entire system, you are increasing the kinetic energy in the system.  So the comparative kinetic energy is not increased because the earth and the object on it are increasing kinetic energy at the same rate, due to your acceleration.  Inertia causes object not directly acted upon by your "Dark Energy" to experience the gravitational affect.

They absorb some of the energy, and if acceleration were to stop they would equalize and no longer experience gravity.  But their kinetic energy would stay the same.  If you accelerate again, you start to add to the kinetic energy again.   In a relativistic sense the speed of light barrier sets a maximum Kinetic energy that an object can be imparted with.  

Relativity also shows that as you approach C, the amount of energy needed to increase kinetic energy in an object increases.  The faster you go, the less linear.  Theoretically you would reach a point where a person on the earth could not lift anything because you would be so close to C that a couple of fps increase of velocity would require extraordinary energy.


Enough for now, I'll try to compose my other objections in the next few days.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: beast on September 25, 2006, 10:44:14 AM
You don't get drunk smoking weed.

edit: don't I look stupid when I comment on a troll and then his post is deleted :P
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: dysfunction on September 25, 2006, 10:58:46 AM
Quote from: "beast"
You don't get drunk smoking weed.


Maybe you can't.  :lol:
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RenaissanceMan on September 25, 2006, 11:08:14 AM
Hmm... I wonder if you could ferment weed... thus making 'dopeahol' that you could get drunk AND high off of at the same time.

Problem... it would still be illegal.

Solution! Ferment tobacco to make 'Nicahol' It would probably taste like crap, but it would be very addictive...
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Nomad on September 25, 2006, 11:13:13 AM
If you use natural tobacco you grow yourself, it probably won't be half as addicting without the massive amount of nicotene that the corporations put in their cigarettes.

Anyway, BACK ON TOPIC!  (Not that I have anything to add to it either.)
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: EnragedPenguin on September 25, 2006, 11:13:47 AM
Quote from: "Curious"
Theoretically you would reach a point where a person on the earth could not lift anything because you would be so close to C that a couple of fps increase of velocity would require extraordinary energy.


Kinetic energy is relative. From our frame of reference we will never reach a point where a person can't lift an object because the energy required to lift it will never change.



Edit: trying to get my signature to work
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on September 25, 2006, 11:54:39 AM
Quote from: "Curious"
How do you get  v = g / sqrt(1/t^2 + g^2/c^2)  from gt / sqrt( 1 + g^2t^2 / c^2 )?


Algebra.  Pretty straightforward:

Code: [Select]

             g t            1/t                  g                       g
v = --------------------  * --- =  -------------------------- = ---------------------
     sqrt( 1 + g²t²/c² )    1/t     1/t * sqrt( 1 + g²t²/c² )    sqrt( 1/t² + g²/c² )


The first = is justified by the fact that I multiplied the right-hand side by (1/t) / (1/t), which is 1.  The second = is justified by cancelling out t and 1/t in the numerator.  The third = is justified by the fact that a sqrt(b) = sqrt(a²b), q.e.d.

Quote
Likewise, you remove the time factor from your description of relative motion.


No I don't.  That's what the "t" is for.

Quote
Another way of looking at it is the acceleration is an increase of kinetic energy.


What EP said.  Don't forget that this analysis is done from the perspective of an inertial observer.  To him, the Earth's speed increases asymptotically, as does its kinetic energy.

*edit* math alignment fixed
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Curious on September 25, 2006, 01:06:38 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Curious"
Theoretically you would reach a point where a person on the earth could not lift anything because you would be so close to C that a couple of fps increase of velocity would require extraordinary energy.


Kinetic energy is relative. From our frame of reference we will never reach a point where a person can't lift an object, because the energy required to lift it will never change.


You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it does.

Consider:  Observer A is "observing" rocket B which is traveling at (C - 1fps).  Remembering that in special relativity, the rules of physics apply equally.

Rocket b flies to a planet that is 1 light year from observer A.  
Receives a message, replies and Rocket B turns around and flies back to Observer A.

For simplicities sake let's ignore acceleration. And assume that observer A is relatively motionless to the Target.

Now Observer A wants to send a message to rocket B and have it arrive at the target 5 minutes after the rocket lands.

So he calculates that he must send it 5 minute after take off plus the difference in the ships velocity and the speed of light over the year of travel ( ok in rough math that means he needs to give the rocket a 5554 mile head start (about .03 seconds) plus the 5 minutes).

The time line for observer A is 1 year flight out + about .03 seconds (the difference in time for light to travel 1 light year and the ship to travel the same) + 5 minutes wait + 1 year for the ships reply and .03 second till the ship lands.  From the viewpoint of observer A his expectation is that those onboard the ship have only experienced less than one second of travel time (due to time dilation at near light speed).  

On board the ship, they see observer A travel at near light speed relatively, and expect the same.  They also see their target as moving at near light speed, so they can calculate that less than 1 second should pass on the target's time line.  

They get their message, send their reply and return home to observer A.

How much time has passed for the timeline on board the spaceship?

If time, mass, velocity and all are all relative, and that means that relativistic affects can be "zeroed out" locally;

Then the ship traveling at zero should experience 2 + years for the entire trip, and that Observer A and the Target experience 5 minutes+.

And Likewise to the Observer 2+ years have passed, and he expects 5 Minutes+ to pass for the travelers.

This should seem to say that your version of Special Relativity is contrary to Special relativity.

When the trip is complete and the travelers and observer are on the same frame of reference, how should their watches compare?  If you are right than both should say 2+ years passed.  If I am, then Observer A's expect ions are what should be resolved.

We know from particle acceleration experiments that A particle with a known half life accelerated to near C has does not decay at the expected rate, and does no "recover" the time difference when it is no longer accelerated.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on September 25, 2006, 01:26:50 PM
Quote from: "Curious"
Consider:  Observer A is "observing" rocket B which is traveling at (C - 1fps).  Remembering that in special relativity, the rules of physics apply equally.


Remember that in special relativity, this is only true for inertial observers.

Quote
For simplicities sake let's ignore acceleration. And assume that observer A is relatively motionless to the Target.


The twin paradox proves that you can't ignore acceleration.  The fact that Observer B changed his direction of travel is enough to invalidate your entire argument.  Observer B's world line is objectively longer than Observer A's.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Curious on September 25, 2006, 02:10:45 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Curious"
Consider:  Observer A is "observing" rocket B which is traveling at (C - 1fps).  Remembering that in special relativity, the rules of physics apply equally.


Remember that in special relativity, this is only true for inertial observers.

Quote
For simplicities sake let's ignore acceleration. And assume that observer A is relatively motionless to the Target.


The twin paradox proves that you can't ignore acceleration.  The fact that Observer B changed his direction of travel is enough to invalidate your entire argument.  Observer B's world line is objectively longer than Observer A's.

What I mean by ingnoring acceleration is that I'm not factoring in the time it takes to reach speed.  

Why should direction of travel make any difference.  Since to rocket ship, by your argument, they have no direction of travel relative to themselves.

How is B(the Rocket) 's world line longer? On the spacial dimensions, it has a longer "Line" but in the temporeal dimention the line is much shorter.  The length only appears different if you "Veiw" it in two or three dimentions, since it is a four (at least) dimentional figure.

But in terms of the example, Which part do you disagree with?  The time dialation for observer B?  That Observer B's observation of dialated time due to relativity for Observer "A" collapses upon reentering A's frame of reference?

The "Twin Paradox" is not a paradox in four dimentional space.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on September 25, 2006, 11:45:41 PM
Quote from: "Curious"
What I mean by ingnoring acceleration is that I'm not factoring in the time it takes to reach speed.


What I'm saying is, you do have to factor it in.

Quote
How is B(the Rocket) 's world line longer?


It's longer in the sense that if you draw the spacetime diagram, it's longer:

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f287/PraiseOfFolly/Flat%20Earth%20Society/twin-paradox.png)

(thick lines are worldlines of timelike particles; thin lines are light cones)

Quote
But in terms of the example, Which part do you disagree with?


I disagree with your belief that the two frames of reference are equally valid.  One is inertial; the other is not.

Quote
The "Twin Paradox" is not a paradox in four dimentional space.


What?  It certainly is -- at least until you admit that the inertial frame of reference is preferred.  I don't know where you got that idea.  Dimensionality ihas nothing to do with it -- the metric has everything to do with it.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Curious on September 26, 2006, 08:47:48 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Curious"
What I mean by ignoring acceleration is that I'm not factoring in the time it takes to reach speed.


Quote
What I'm saying is, you do have to factor it in.


Exactly!

Quote
But in terms of the example, Which part do you disagree with?


Quote
I disagree with your belief that the two frames of reference are equally valid.  One is inertial; the other is not.


Perfect, now by applying your own argument you will see why you can not ignore the velocity of your flat earth and keep saying it is zero, if you are also claiming to be under acceleration to give you gravity.  

Quote
The "Twin Paradox" is not a paradox in four dimensional space.

Quote
How is B(the Rocket) 's world line longer?


Quote
It's longer in the sense that if you draw the spacetime diagram, it's longer:

What?  It certainly is -- at least until you admit that the inertial frame of reference is preferred.  I don't know where you got that idea.  Dimensionality has nothing to do with it -- the metric has everything to do with it.


Yes, and again you show why you can not accept the acceleration and deny the velocity.

The world "line" is a projection of four Dimensional space.

Observer A "travels" almost entirely through time at C, with little X,y, or Z displacement. Observer B is accelerating through space (x,y,z) at nearly C, and therefore has little movement through time.  

The two are equivalent, but movement is on different coordinates.  There is no paradox.

What I have attempted to do is reconstruct some of the earlier arguments against special relativity, in part they are the reason Einstein worked on General Relativity.  

The problem with your model is that for all frames of reference to be valid, the universe has to be infinite and isotropic.  

You are creating a model the is not inertial for the purpose of accumulating velocity, but is inertial for the purpose of acceleration.  Your "universe" is moving with you, so is not isotropic, and since it is all being acted upon by a single energy source causing your "acceleration" it is not infinite.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on September 26, 2006, 10:14:03 AM
Quote from: "Curious"
The world "line" is a projection of four Dimensional space.


What does that mean?

Quote
The two are equivalent, but movement is on different coordinates.  There is no paradox.


The two are not equivalent.  One is accelerating, the other is not.  I'm not gonna say it again.

Quote
You are creating a model the is not inertial for the purpose of accumulating velocity, but is inertial for the purpose of acceleration.


Um, no I'm not?
Title: cause of gravitation
Post by: steveo on November 13, 2006, 12:29:24 PM
So let me get this straight.  FE theory purports that the Earth's gravity is due to a 1g acceleration upwards, along with everything else in the universe.  So what causes this acceleration?  I'm fine with your explanation of the relativity aspects of it.  If it pushes on everything in the universe, then it must push on us as well unless you have a force that pushes on everything except what's on the Earth...which would be far more mysterious than anything in modern science.  But if it pushed on us, then the 1g acceleration of the proposed Flat Earth would be exactly matched by the force accelerating us (as with the Sun, Moon, stars, etc...) upwards and we wouldn't perceive the acceleration of the Earth as gravity.  

How do you propose that this mystery acceleration apply to everything in the universe and not to objects on the Earth?

Steve-O
Title: Re: cause of gravitation
Post by: Erasmus on November 13, 2006, 12:54:29 PM
Quote from: "steveo"
How do you propose that this mystery acceleration apply to everything in the universe and not to objects on the Earth?


I don't.  Maybe it's as simple as: the force that's accelerating us is below the Earth, and we're above it.  The stuff in the sky is ridigly attached to the Earth in some way that still allows them to move in set paths, so the Earth pushes up on them just as it pushes up on us.

Anyway, this thread's purpose is to present an argument that assuming that the mechanism for this acceleration exists, it would be indistinguishable from gravity from somebody standing on the surface of the Earth with resources available to the common man, and that there would be no "speed of light violations".
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Zim Foamy Fan on November 13, 2006, 03:52:14 PM
First of all, I would like to point out something that discredits the balloon theory. The universe is not as massive as the critical mass needed to expand forever, and the actual shape of the universe has been figured out.

Second, if the whole earth were accelerating at 9 m/s^2, then the gas on the earth would surely fall off the earth, as it would experience high pressure and would escape to lower pressure, or as in outer space.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on November 14, 2006, 04:04:42 AM
Quote from: "Zim Foamy Fan"
First of all, I would like to point out something that discredits the balloon theory. The universe is not as massive as the critical mass needed to expand forever, and the actual shape of the universe has been figured out.


This paragraph indicates confusion.  The critical mass is not needed to expand forever, but to be stable.  If the universe is "not as massive" as that, it stands to reason that it will expand forever.

The balloon theory is not really discredited by this point.  Furthermore, the balloon theory does not really apply to the FE model of gravity.

Quote
Second, if the whole earth were accelerating at 9 m/s^2, then the gas on the earth would surely fall off the earth, as it would experience high pressure and would escape to lower pressure, or as in outer space.


The pressure on a given volume of gas is only dependent on the gas above it.  At the boundary between the atmosphere and empty space, if such a boundary exists, there is no air above, so the gas at the boundary itself is not under any pressure.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: mrscience on November 26, 2006, 09:21:13 PM
Wow.  I thought that this issue had been resolved, because I couldn't find it.  It just occured to me to search for my own posts.

A couple of points:  Kinetic energy.  As was said, once our hypothetical platform reached near light speeds (wrt some inertial observer), we would have enormous kinetic energy FROM THE PERSPECTIVE of that observer.  

It would therefore seem impossible for that observer to see me lift a 20-lb dumbell over my head (around 6') in a split second.  But, he wouldn't see me doing that.  Remember lenght contraction and time dilation?  To him, I wouldn't be 6', I'd be miniscule in height.  From his perspective it would also take an enormous amount of time for the dumbell to reach my head, even if it only took a split second for me.

So, to him, I wouldn't be lifting a 20-lb dumbell 6' in a split second, I'd be lifting it a microscopic height, in a decade's time.

Second, the twin paradox:

Okay, there are two ways of explaining this, the special relativity one and the general relativity one.  First, the special.  The twin who travels to the other planet starts out in his own reference frame, where he will say that his friend on earth is aging slower than he.  Each observer is entitled to say that the other is aging slower from his frame of motion.  Fair enough?

Now, rocket boy makes a stop at the other planet, TURNS AROUND, and starts traveling in the opposite direction.  He's changed his frame of reference.  Then, he stops again, landing on earth, and entering earth's frame of reference.(which we approximate as inertial for simplicity's sake.)

Because he is now in earth's frame of reference, his perception of time must conform to that reference frame, which says that he was moving at near light speed for the last year or so of his trip.  His time will therefore be dilated.

Now, the general relativity explanation.  Rocket boy is entitled to say that he was at rest for the entire time, and that at two points in time (his turning around, and his landing on earth) there was a sudden gravitational field that everyone experienced.  At first, the earth was moving away from him at constant speed.

Now, the earth accelerates from this field, while he is held in place by his rocket engine.  The field ceases to exist, but the earth is now moving toward him, from its brief acceleration.  His friend on earth is still aging slower, at this point.  

Now, just as the earth is about to reach him, a second gravitational field comes into existence.  Again, he's held in place by his rocket engine, whild the earth accelerates to a stop.  Once the earth is at rest, the field dissapears, and he is on earth.  

So why has his terrestrial friend aged so fast?  Gravitational fields alter the rate of time passage, and earth boy's aging process has been accelerated by the two momentary gravitational fields, giving him a couple of "growth spurts" throughout an otherwise sluggish aging process.

That's all for today.  Hope this clarifies some stuff.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Curious on November 27, 2006, 08:36:06 AM
Quote from: "mrscience"

So why has his terrestrial friend aged so fast?  Gravitational fields alter the rate of time passage, and earth boy's aging process has been accelerated by the two momentary gravitational fields, giving him a couple of "growth spurts" throughout an otherwise sluggish aging process.

That's all for today.  Hope this clarifies some stuff.


No, if increrased gravity decreases the rate of time passage to an external observer, how can it spped up the passage of time in the way you describe?

And As I've asked in a couple of places, if the energy required for acceleration is internal to the earth and bodies being accelerating, where can it be coming from, since in the FE model presented, the mass and volume of what we perceive is limited.

If it is external, then you have all the problems of relative motion between the accelerating earth and the source and the effects of entropy in the energy transfer to the two.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on November 27, 2006, 08:51:07 AM
Quote from: "Curious"
No, if increrased gravity decreases the rate of time passage to an external observer, how can it spped up the passage of time in the way you describe?


At the point of turnaround, when the travelling twin fires his engines to accelerate himself towards the Earth, he must be allowed to continue to treat himself as stationary.  This is where gravity -- the pretend force -- comes into play: he is allowed to assume that a uniform gravitational field has pervaded the entire universe and is oriented in the direction opposite that of the force applied by his rocket engine.  Thus, the Earth is now "above" him in the gravitational sense.

This puts him at a lower gravitational potential, and clocks at lower gravitational potentials run more slowly.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: mrscience on November 27, 2006, 07:55:46 PM
Quote from: "Curious"


And As I've asked in a couple of places, if the energy required for acceleration is internal to the earth and bodies being accelerating, where can it be coming from, since in the FE model presented, the mass and volume of what we perceive is limited.

If it is external, then you have all the problems of relative motion between the accelerating earth and the source and the effects of entropy in the energy transfer to the two.


I don't know how the hypothetical scenario is supposed to explain the source of the acceleration.  A giant rocket engine at the underside of our flat earth?  Maybe it gets its fuel from ambient hydrogen atoms in space.  Not very likely from a logistical standpoint, but it still doesn't contradict relativity.  

I'm not really sure what you mean by problems of relative motion between the the source of the force, or where entropy comes into play.

Here's another question.  Why bother with an accelerating platform?  A giant platfom with a uniform density would produce an "ordinary" gravitational field, as long as one did not get close to the edges(which are supposed to be shielded by a wall of ice if I'm right?)
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: mrscience on November 27, 2006, 08:05:15 PM
Quote from: "Curious"
No, if increrased gravity decreases the rate of time passage to an external observer, how can it spped up the passage of time in the way you describe?


I'll assume that you were referring to my original example of the inertial observer with the dumbell lifting.  Threre is no gravity from the inertial observer's perspective.  He sees my time as being dilated because of our relative velocities.  He also sees my length as being contracted, which is something that a (uniform) gravitational field cannot do.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on November 27, 2006, 11:49:34 PM
Quote from: "mrscience"
Here's another question.  Why bother with an accelerating platform?  A giant platfom with a uniform density would produce an "ordinary" gravitational field, as long as one did not get close to the edges(which are supposed to be shielded by a wall of ice if I'm right?)


If the platform is not very very thick (in other words, if it's not a long cylinder), the direction towards the Earth's centre of mass will be very noticeably not straight down.  This can be solved by making the Earth a big cylinder, by making it (or the ocean in which it (maybe) floats) infinitely wide, or making it accelerate upwards.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: skeptical scientist on November 28, 2006, 12:03:25 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "mrscience"
Here's another question.  Why bother with an accelerating platform?  A giant platfom with a uniform density would produce an "ordinary" gravitational field, as long as one did not get close to the edges(which are supposed to be shielded by a wall of ice if I'm right?)


If the platform is not very very thick (in other words, if it's not a long cylinder), the direction towards the Earth's centre of mass will be very noticeably not straight down.  This can be solved by making the Earth a big cylinder, by making it (or the ocean in which it (maybe) floats) infinitely wide, or making it accelerate upwards.

Two things:
1) The direction gravity pulls you is not necessarily directly toward the center of mass. This is true for spherical objects, but not all objects, and not for cylinders.

2) He was implying a very wide cylinder, with all of the area inside the ice wall near the center. Not quite infinite, but not very easily distinguishable either. Gravity would not pull you straight down, but it would be very difficult to detect the deviation, even if the cylinder were very thin.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on November 28, 2006, 12:25:28 AM
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Two things:
1) The direction gravity pulls you is not necessarily directly toward the center of mass. This is true for spherical objects, but not all objects, and not for cylinders.


Interesting.  I have never heard this claim and would, of course, like to hear / be referred to some justification.

Quote
2) He was implying a very wide cylinder, with all of the area inside the ice wall near the center. Not quite infinite, but not very easily distinguishable either. Gravity would not pull you straight down, but it would be very difficult to detect the deviation, even if the cylinder were very thin.


Well, if you are on the surface of such a cylinder, you can, to a very good approximation, ignore the gravitational pull from all the material whose distance from the centre of the Earth is greater than your distance from the centre of the Earth.  This is true for the RE as well -- assuming the Earth to be of uniform density, if you're beneath the surface of the Earth, the material in the "shell" outside your position exerts no net gravitational force on you.

I figure I'm telling you stuff you already know here -- but the same effect would occur on a cylinder, except the "outer" material would be an annulus rather than a shell.  Thus, for all intents and purposes, you are always near the rim of the cylinder, no matter where you are -- it's just a smaller cylinder if you're in closer.  Oh, this means the force of gravity should change as well, in a way that's not clear to me put is probably linear with distance from the centre.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: skeptical scientist on November 28, 2006, 01:12:47 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Two things:
1) The direction gravity pulls you is not necessarily directly toward the center of mass. This is true for spherical objects, but not all objects, and not for cylinders.


Interesting.  I have never heard this claim and would, of course, like to hear / be referred to some justification.

Quote from: "Wikipedia"
If the bodies in question have spatial extent (rather than being theoretical point masses), then the gravitational force between them is calculated by summing the contributions of the notional point masses which constitute the bodies. In the limit, as the component point masses become "infinitely small", this entails integrating the force (in vector form, see below) over the extents of the two bodies.

In this way it can be shown that an object with a spherically-symmetric distribution of mass exerts the same gravitational attraction on external bodies as if all the object's mass were concentrated at a point at its centre. (This is not generally true for non-spherically-symmetrical bodies.)

(Found at the Wikipedia page for Newton's law of universal gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Bodies_with_spatial_extent).) I'm not sure what sort of an answer you'd get if you used relativity instead of Newtonian gravity, but it can't be that different. Of course in practical applications when you actually calculate gravitational forces, you are almost always doing so between objects which are spheres, or objects which are very far apart relative to their size, so this almost never comes up.

Quote
Quote
2) He was implying a very wide cylinder, with all of the area inside the ice wall near the center. Not quite infinite, but not very easily distinguishable either. Gravity would not pull you straight down, but it would be very difficult to detect the deviation, even if the cylinder were very thin.


Well, if you are on the surface of such a cylinder, you can, to a very good approximation, ignore the gravitational pull from all the material whose distance from the centre of the Earth is greater than your distance from the centre of the Earth.

This is also false, for a similar reason. If you actually perform the integral in question over the material you say you can ignore, you will get a nonzero result. I'm not sure if you've ever read Larry Niven's novel Ringworld or its sequels, but this is why the Ringworld is unstable.

Quote
This is true for the RE as well -- assuming the Earth to be of uniform density, if you're beneath the surface of the Earth, the material in the "shell" outside your position exerts no net gravitational force on you.

This is true, but it is because of a very special property of spheres, and is not equally true for cylinders or rings.

Quote
I figure I'm telling you stuff you already know here -- but the same effect would occur on a cylinder, except the "outer" material would be an annulus rather than a shell.  Thus, for all intents and purposes, you are always near the rim of the cylinder, no matter where you are -- it's just a smaller cylinder if you're in closer.

No.

Quote
Oh, this means the force of gravity should change as well, in a way that's not clear to me put is probably linear with distance from the centre.

If you were to take a very wide (but not infinite) and thin cylindrical disc of some uniform density and perform the integral to determine the exact force it applies to a person standing near (but not exactly at) the center, you'll get a force which is approximately straight down. If the density and thickness are right, it will impart an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s. The force will not vary much with distance from the center, assuming the distance from the center is small relative to the radius of the disk (I'm not sure how small 'small' is in this case without actually doing the integral, which I really don't want to do. These integrals get very messy very quickly being done in three dimensions, so mistakes are probable, and locating them is extremely time consuming. Even writing down the integral can take some work.)
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Curious on November 28, 2006, 07:42:38 AM
Quote from: "mrscience"
I don't know how the hypothetical scenario is supposed to explain the source of the acceleration.  A giant rocket engine at the underside of our flat earth?  Maybe it gets its fuel from ambient hydrogen atoms in space.  Not very likely from a logistical standpoint, but it still doesn't contradict relativity.  

I'm not really sure what you mean by problems of relative motion between the the source of the force, or where entropy comes into play.

Here's another question.  Why bother with an accelerating platform?  A giant platfom with a uniform density would produce an "ordinary" gravitational field, as long as one did not get close to the edges(which are supposed to be shielded by a wall of ice if I'm right?)


1) Since all observable space is supposed to be accelerating with us, there would be no new supply of fuel, plus now you have external mass racting with the accelerated mass of the earth, the relative velocities being nearly light speed, even the mass of a hydrogen atom would have significant effect.

2) If the source of the force is not accelerating and the object is, then due to relativist mass, the amount of energy needed to accelerate the object must continually increase at a rate greater than just the newtonian acceleration.

And Entropy can be expressed as
Quote from: "http://www.2ndlaw.com/entropy.html"
All kinds of energy spontaneously spread out from where they are localized to where they are more dispersed, if they're not hindered from doing so

So not only does Relativity increase the energy requirements, but since enery must be lost in any system, Entropy also increases the energy requirements.  And where does this "lost" energy go?  If I push on an object, a small amount of my force is transfered into heat, the greater the push the greater the heat. The earth would burn up from the "lost" energy, as well as from the friction of any non-accelerated matter in it's path.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: mrscience on December 02, 2006, 08:58:12 PM
Quote from: Curious
Quote from: "http://www.2ndlaw.com/entropy.html"
erating with us, there would be no new supply of fuel, plus now you have external mass racting with the accelerated mass of the earth, the relative velocities being nearly light speed, even the mass of a hydrogen atom would have significant effect.

2) If the source of the force is not accelerating and the object is, then due to relativist mass, the amount of energy needed to accelerate the object must continually increase at a rate greater than just the newtonian acceleration.

And Entropy can be expressed as
Quote from: "http://www.2ndlaw.com/entropy.html"
All kinds of energy spontaneously spread out from where they are localized to where they are more dispersed, if they're not hindered from doing so

So not only does Relativity increase the energy requirements, but since enery must be lost in any system, Entropy also increases the energy requirements.  And where does this "lost" energy go?  If I push on an object, a small amount of my force is transfered into heat, the greater the push the greater the heat. The earth would burn up from the "lost" energy, as well as from the friction of any non-accelerated matter in it's path.


I don't see how the source of the force affects the argument.  From an inertial perspective, the acceleration is approaching zero.  As far as collisions with captured hydrogen atoms slowing the ship down, I hadn't thought of that.  

As far as entropy is concerned, if I'm understanding your argument, the only relevance this has is that not all of the energy is going to be used because some of it will go into heat.  As the ship heats up, the only way for it to cool down would be to come into contact with cooler surroundings, which would further hinder it, (and probably generate more heat from the collisions).  The only way around this that I can think of is heat loss through radiation, which would be pretty insignificant.

While you do bring up some good points, these are basically engineering barriers (probably insurmountable ones.)  The laws of relativity don't strictly rule the scenario out.  True, no one's ever designed a machine that could do such a thing, but if you're willing to believe that the earth's really flat and that we're surrounded by a huge wall of ice....
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: mrscience on December 02, 2006, 09:10:24 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "mrscience"
Here's another question.  Why bother with an accelerating platform?  A giant platfom with a uniform density would produce an "ordinary" gravitational field, as long as one did not get close to the edges(which are supposed to be shielded by a wall of ice if I'm right?)


If the platform is not very very thick (in other words, if it's not a long cylinder), the direction towards the Earth's centre of mass will be very noticeably not straight down.  This can be solved by making the Earth a big cylinder, by making it (or the ocean in which it (maybe) floats) infinitely wide, or making it accelerate upwards.


If a surface (disk, rectangle, whatever) is exremely large compared to the beings on it, it can be approximated as being infinite, and you're always at the center of an infinite platform.  No, you wouldn't literally be at the center of a huge finite disk, but the edges would be so far off that any distance from the center would be insignificant.

If you use the principle of symmetry, it's easy to see why an infinite sheet of mass would generate a field straight down.  There's an equal amount of mass on the left as there is on the right, and so any forces in either direction would cancel out, and only the downward components of your attraction to all parts of the sheet would be left.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on December 02, 2006, 10:47:10 PM
Quote from: "mrscience"
If a surface (disk, rectangle, whatever) is exremely large compared to the beings on it, it can be approximated as being infinite, and you're always at the center of an infinite platform.


I'm not sure about this.  My not-sureness relates to the point on which skeptical scientist and I don't exactly agree: can the gravitational attraction from points whose distance from the centre is greater than yours be ignored?  My belief is that it can, and I'm currently in the process of checking up on this.  If it is the case, then only the hubwards material exerts a force on you, so you're always near the "rim", so you always feel a non-downward force.  

In any case, even if my belief is wrong, some math needs to be done to show that indeed the angle of the force is indistinguishable from straight down.

Quote
If you use the principle of symmetry, it's easy to see why an infinite sheet of mass would generate a field straight down.


Agreed.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: skeptical scientist on December 03, 2006, 05:50:24 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"

I'm not sure about this.  My not-sureness relates to the point on which skeptical scientist and I don't exactly agree: can the gravitational attraction from points whose distance from the centre is greater than yours be ignored?  My belief is that it can, and I'm currently in the process of checking up on this.  If it is the case, then only the hubwards material exerts a force on you, so you're always near the "rim", so you always feel a non-downward force.  

In any case, even if my belief is wrong, some math needs to be done to show that indeed the angle of the force is indistinguishable from straight down.

You are indeed right that some math needs to be done to show this is the case. The best way would be to actually write down the integral and do it. For an observer inside a sphere of radius r, density p (measured in mass/area, not mass/volume so we don't need to consider the sphere's thickness, which we assume to be negligible compared to the distances), and centered at 0, the total force on an object of mass m at point x is the integral of Gmp(x-ru)/|x-ru|^3 dA, where u ranges over all unit vectors in 3-space, and dA is area measure on the unit sphere. (Bold quantities are vectors.) This turns out to be zero, as we already know.

A good way of seeing that this is zero without calculating the integral is the following picture:
(http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/6809/gravityspheresuu7.jpg)
To determine that the total force on an observer inside the sphere is zero, we perform the cancellation as follows: compare the forces from opposing cones: the amount of area inside the cone at distance d goes up as the distance squared, and the force is proportional to mass/d^2, so the two opposite sides cancel. Of course this is only approximate, but if you imagine the code infinitely narrow, the material inside the cone is all the same distance away in the same direction, and the cancellation is exact. This is all very hand-wavy, but it agrees with what you get when you look it up in a physics textbook, or with what you get when you integrate.

Now lets look at the force from a ring of uniform density p (now in mass/length along the circle) and radius r centered at 0 on an observer of mass m at point x. Again, the most rigorous and unambiguous way of doing this is performing the integral: Gmp(x-ru)/|x-ru|^3 dL (where u ranges over unit vectors in the plane, and dL is length measure on the unit circle). If we assume x=(x,0) is on the x-axis, this is equal to Gmp/r^2 times the integral from 0 to 2pi of ((x/r,0)-(cos w,sin w))/|(x/r,0)-(cos w,sin w)|^3 dw. Since the picture is vertically symmetric, the net force in the y direction is 0, and the net force in the x direction is:
Gmp/r^2 times the integral from 0 to 2pi of (x/r-cos w)/((x/r-cos w)^2+(sin w)^2)^(3/2) dw. If someone has a good symbolic integrator and wants to figure out what this is, be my guest. For x/r bigger than 0 and smaller than 1, it should give a nonzero force in the positive x direction.

We can also see why the force is nonzero, and what direction it is in a similar manner as for the sphere by looking at the following picture:
(http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/4669/gravitycirclesla3.jpg)
We again consider cones from the observer in opposite directions. The distances to the ring in opposite directions are ra and rb, and the masses of the red-colored portions of the ring are proportional to ra and rb, respectively. Again, gravity is a 1/r^2 force, so the forces from the two portions go as 1/ra and 1/rb, so B exerts a greater force on the object than does A. You could do this in any pair of opposite directions, with the resultant force always pointing towards the nearer side of the ring. The end result is that the force on an observer in the middle of a ring is nonzero and points towards the nearest part of the ring.

If you consider an observer standing on a large disk, the disk-shaped portion closer that the center than him pulls him down and towards the center of the disk. The ring-shaped portion further from the center than him pulls him down, and towards the nearest point to him on the ring - i.e. directly away from the center of the disk. Thus the resultant force is down and towards the center of the disk, but the magnitude of the force in the horizontal direction gets smaller as the radius of the disk gets larger, tending towards zero as the size of the disk approaches infinity. So a thin very wide disk with gravity could be a good FE model if the entire habitable surface extending to the ice wall were near the center of the disk.

Hurray for doing a lot of non-trivial physics and then using it to provide a possible model for a flat earth! What the hell was I thinking?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on December 03, 2006, 12:18:15 PM
Hm, okay, I believe you.  I had forgotten that the spherical shell scenario was based on the delicate balance between the 1/r^2 force and the r^2 mass.

Anyway, I evaluated your integral in Maple.  The result was given in terms of some annoying special functions, but the plot was what you'd expect:

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f287/PraiseOfFolly/Flat%20Earth%20Society/disc-gravity.gif)

The horizontal axis is signed normalized distance from the centre; the vertical axis is signed strength of the gravitational force.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Curious on December 05, 2006, 07:15:43 AM
Quote from: "mrscience"


I don't see how the source of the force affects the argument.  From an inertial perspective, the acceleration is approaching zero.  


Acceleration approaches Zero, but Mass approaches infinite.

Quote
As far as entropy is concerned, if I'm understanding your argument, the only relevance this has is that not all of the energy is going to be used because some of it will go into heat.
 

And the greater the energy applies, the greater the lost energy, and therefore the "Waste Heat".  The energy being applied must continue to increase, and appears to only affect the bottom layer of the earth, otherwise a rock, when dropped would not fall, but would continue to be accelerated by this mysterious force.

The force must be applied perfectly evenly, and the increase in energy must perfectly match both the increased energy required for the increase of mass due to relativity, and any external resistance applied to the system, such as friction with interstellar dust, or gravity.

Also, another aspect of entropy is that the further the object is from the energy source the more energy is lost.  If the force causing the acceleration is not moving, even the most conservative estimates say we've been around for more than 6,000 years, and traveling at near light speed ever since the first year or so, meaning that we are at least 6000 light years from the source, and if you are not a creationist, it's more like 4,540,000,000 light years away.  That's a long way to focus this incredible force.  And if it is not focused, that just increases the energy requirements by unbelievable amounts, ever increasing.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: mrscience on December 13, 2006, 09:51:33 PM
Yeah, okay, I understand your point.  I never said that it was a realistic possibility.  I initially entered the discussion to show that it didn't strictly violate the laws of relativity (nor does it technically violate any laws.)

As far as the source of the force, a nuclear reaction would be what would seem the most plausible to me.  We'd be losing mass astronomically, but who's to place a limit on how much we start out with?  Matter-antimatter conversion would be the most compact form of energy, if it could be harnessed.

 As far as how much we'd need to start out with in order to stay accelerating up until today, 4.5 thousand million years, and compensate for heat loss, drag, and all that, I have no idea.  An increadible amount, to be sure.
Title: Re: fe and relativity
Post by: Grigori Rasputin on February 08, 2007, 04:03:57 AM
Quote from: "mrscience"

Suppose that I hold a golf ball over the edge of the platform.  While the ball is in my hand, it is not an inertial observer, because it is accelerating up with me and the platform.  Now, if I let it go, my and the platform's acceleration will no longer be transmitted to the golf ball, and hence it will stop accelerating up with me, and become an inertial observer.  I will percieve the ball to begin accelerating downward at 9.8 m/s2, and it will see me as accelerating upward at the same rate.


Yes, this would be the case if everything (universe) around the platform (flat Earth) wasn't accelerating as well. But what if everything around the platform was also accelerating at 9.8m/s2?

Now, related to the above, a question to FE'ers: does the FE theory use a geocentric model, i.e. is the FE surrounded by the universe? Or is the FE at the bottom of the universe pushing everything up as it accelerates?

(mods: feel free to split this question to another thread if you feel that it doesn't belong to this one)
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Uzor on February 08, 2007, 05:49:50 AM
Quote

In other words, from Bob's perspective, the Earth is always stationary (we are Bob), but undergoing constant acceleration. From Alice's perspective, the Earth moves at an ever increasing rate, but the acceleration is not constant -- it decreases over time in such a way that the Earth never surpasses the speed of light.

Care explaining how the earth can undergo constant acceleration, while not being constant, and by constantly decreasing its speed?

I sense contradiction.

Because if its decreasing its speed so that it doesn't surpass the speed of light, that means its decreasing its speed with the same ammount it accelerates in. Which means its not changing its speed at all.

Which means one of 3 things

1) you're wrong
2) we're right
3) the earth's speed it constant, its acceleration is not(read: its acceleration is 0).

case 3 may very  well be the case. If earth had a constant speed, you'd still feel the "gravitational pull" you're exlaining. Sadly, that's not what your theory is about. So you're wrong either way.

 I think you have no idea what acceleration really means.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Uzor on February 08, 2007, 05:53:59 AM
Quote


Suppose that I hold a golf ball over the edge of the platform. While the ball is in my hand, it is not an inertial observer, because it is accelerating up with me and the platform. Now, if I let it go, my and the platform's acceleration will no longer be transmitted to the golf ball, and hence it will stop accelerating up with me, and become an inertial observer. I will percieve the ball to begin accelerating downward at 9.8 m/s2, and it will see me as accelerating upward at the same rate.

That's not how acceleration works.

If something accelerates, and then the acceleratino reaches 0, it will continue with the same speed unless something stops it. Thus, if you let go of the ball, it would keep going with the same speed untill somethig stops it.

In space, there is nothing to stop it. Thus, things continue with the same speed untill they hit something.

So for the ball to just suddenly stop dead in its track, it requires a force pushit it the opposite way it was going.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on February 08, 2007, 06:49:55 AM
Acceleration is relative.  No two observers traveling at different speeds will measure acceleration to be the same.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: phaseshifter on February 08, 2007, 07:20:35 AM
Quote
As far as the source of the force, a nuclear reaction would be what would seem the most plausible to me. We'd be losing mass astronomically, but who's to place a limit on how much we start out with?


Actually, the limit would probably be a bit under the total amount of matter in our universe. But as the required energy output would increase exponentially, even that would not last long (as far as the universe is concerned). If you consider that everything is being accelerated and not just the earth, I doubt we could even interpret the result we got if we got around to finding it out.

But I think we can rule out anti-matter as we are at a loss to find out where the heck it went since the big bang.

Does the UA predate the big bang in FE?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: il0vepez on February 08, 2007, 08:11:38 AM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
This can be solved by making the Earth a big cylinder, by making it (or the ocean in which it (maybe) floats) infinitely wide, or making it accelerate upwards.


Quote from: "Erasmus"

Where do you get the idea that the Earth has infinite mass?


Well, things that have a finite density but an infinite volume have an infinite mass.

You're an ass.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Rick_James on February 08, 2007, 01:37:22 PM
Quote from: "il0vepez"
Quote from: "Erasmus"
This can be solved by making the Earth a big cylinder, by making it (or the ocean in which it (maybe) floats) infinitely wide, or making it accelerate upwards.


Quote from: "Erasmus"

Where do you get the idea that the Earth has infinite mass?


Well, things that have a finite density but an infinite volume have an infinite mass.

You're an ass.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on February 08, 2007, 05:33:07 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
But as the required energy output would increase exponentially,


Since the required acceleration is constant in the Earth's reference frame, the required energy output is constant in the Earth's reference frame, unless it turns out that some material fuel is being expended to provide thrust for the Earth, in which case the total mass of the system is decreasing, which means that the required energy output is also decreasing.
Title: Re: fe and relativity
Post by: Erasmus on February 08, 2007, 05:34:26 PM
Quote from: "Grigori Rasputin"
Yes, this would be the case if everything (universe) around the platform (flat Earth) wasn't accelerating as well. But what if everything around the platform was also accelerating at 9.8m/s2?


Lots of stuff wouldn't be accelerating without the help of the Earth or some celestial body.  This is why we feel a force from the ground.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on February 08, 2007, 05:38:11 PM
Quote from: "Uzor"
1) you're wrong
2) we're right
3) the earth's speed it constant, its acceleration is not(read: its acceleration is 0).


(1) and (2) are the same thing.  Replace (2) with "the measured acceleration of an object depends on the relative velocity of the observer and the object.

Quote
I think you have no idea what acceleration really means.


Pretty presumptuous, no?

Quote
So for the ball to just suddenly stop dead in its track, it requires a force pushit it the opposite way it was going.


Right... but irrelevant to the subject at hand.  I don't believe that "stopped" is meaningful except relative to another object.  I'm also not claiming at any point that anything stops dead in its tracks.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 06:27:07 PM
We seem to be sidestepping the evidence which would conclusively disprove this flat earth gravitational substitute. All areas of physics point to the existence of gravity over this ridiculous mystic force created by the acceleration of the flat earth (and somehow the entire universe) upwards. I will provide evidence from a variety of different, and widely accepted theories as well as proven laws to show why gravity exists…I can’t believe I just made that statement.

First of all the theories of special relativity and general relativity both disprove what I will label the flat earth’s “mystic gravity”. General Relativity states that
“…gravitation is not due to a force but rather is a manifestation of curved space and time, with this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the space-time. General relativity is distinguished from other metric theories of gravitation by its use of the Einstein field equations to relate space-time content and space-time curvature…”
General Relativity (GR) is used to bridge Newton’s law of gravitation with special relativity. To visualize this, space-time as a large flat piece of fabric that runs all the way through the universe. This fabric can be bent, curved, whatever you will. This is caused by “mass-energy” and momentum. The simplest example of this is mass, where by a celestial body will actually curve the space-time continuum, creating an indent in the fabric of space-time.

 

Ok great, space-time can be bent, but what does this mean?
Basically, thinking in Newtonian physics, fallings objects are caused by the force we call gravity, which is true. What Einstein says is that this force is actually just a curvature in space-time resulting from a mass-energy disturbance. Say when we are held to the surface of the earth, it is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration caused by the mechanical resistance of the surface on which they are standing. Whether you find this ridiculous or not, it has some interesting effects on light.

Light, by definition travels in a straight line through space-time. When space-time is bent, light follows the curvature of space-time. This has been proven since 1919 when Sir Arthur Eddington photographed a distant star, the night before and during an eclipse. The position of the star seemed to move during the eclipse, due to the light emitted by that star bending around the curvature caused by the sun. Now, since your “mystic gravity” theory states that all objects are moving at a constant acceleration, you cannot claim that the star naturally changed position because relative to the earth the star would have an inertial velocity of zero.
How is this bending of light not possible, without this concept of gravity, in no way does your mystic gravity account for this

Special Relativity equally disproves the existence of this mystic gravitation. If what you say is true, and the entire universe is accelerating at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s/s upwards then we have some serious issues. Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light. If faster than light travel were possible, we know that it would lead to travel backward through time.

So ok, say that were the case and we were just traveling ever more rapidly backwards through space-time, I mean, who would notice, the mystic force says that everyone would be doing the same thing so no-one would notice?. The same can be said about length, no-one would notice the decrease in the distance being traveled because we are all within the same inertial point of reference.

Fair enough, but what about the ever increasing mass, and therefore the ever increasing energy required to move that mass. Even at .99999999C the mass of an electron (9.109x10^-31kg) or a neutrino or other small sub-atomic particles would have the mass of 4.5x10^-21 so imagine the mass increase for everything else in the universe. To continue to accelerate this mass at a constant speed the force would have to increase ridiculously the further the universe moved away from the source. What kind of force INCREASES in strength continuously the further you move away from it.

I’m getting tired already, so I am going to introduce a final point based on Quantum Mechanics, Unified String Theory for those who understand it and the idea of the universal force. I’ll quickly give some background into the idea. Basically String theory is the theory we currently use to describe the way matter acts on the quantum level. It completes the notions of Quantum Mechanics which has been around for the past 80 years. String theory basically tries to unify Einstein’s Quantum Theory and Quantum Mechanics, since both models of the universe are true but are completely different. Quantum Theory creates a universe which is smooth and ordered, while the universe of quantum mechanics is dysfunctional and random. Both are true for their part. String theory bridges the gap and one such way is by unifying the forces of Gravity, Electro-Magnetism, Weak Nuclear and Strong Nuclear. String theory is very difficult to prove as it requires the existence of more than 12 dimensions but it can be shown to some extent. If you want to research further into String theory, please do so yourself. I will only outline the area which disproves the mystic gravitation.
One area of String theory where proof exists is the in the unification of Gravity and Strong Nuclear.
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/NGFT_Chapter_11.htm
The Strong nuclear force is caused by the interactions between Gluons (sub-atomic particles known as bosons) in the nucleus. Gluons are responsible for the binding of Neutrons and Protons within the nuclei of atoms.
It is now understood that this binding of protons and neutrons in the nucleus is the same force that holds us to the ground. It is however incredibly strong within the nucleus and much weaker on a macro sized scale.
Gravity, known for causing space time compression (see above) happens within the atomic radius of atoms. The actual size of an atom would be much larger if it were not for the effect of gravity. The explanation can be found from the above link but basically we know that gravity is NOT constant, but infact depends on the sub-atomic structure of the material inducing the gravity. This is what allows the strong nuclear and gravity to be unified.
The gravity is determined by the “binding energy per nucleon” which is a result of gluon interaction. Nucleons (protons and neutrons) at the surface of the nucleus are much more weakly bound due to the limited interaction gluons have with the more central nucleons. Note that the strong nuclear – gravity strength is at its strongest (incredibly strong 10^15N) at the distance equivalent to the diameter of a proton/neutron and then gets significantly weaker which explains why gravity is so weak over such vast distances. It also provides more evidence to explain why some materials have a higher refractive index than others.
Also as I said above, atoms experience space time compression, much in the same way the universe does from gravity. This is due again to the “binding energy per nucleon”. Atoms that have all their ground state proton energy levels filled will have the strongest space-time compression and the smallest atomic radius as a result of having their protons and neutrons more tightly bound, also known as the proton “magic” numbers. “Double Magic” atoms are atoms that have all their neutron and proton ground state energy levels filled and have an even tighter pact nucleus and greater space-time compression. Atoms which have more or less protons or neutrons than these magic numbers (the magic number can be found in the above link) have their outer protons less tightly bound and undergo decay, as well as having a much weaker space-time compression.
HOW DOES "MYSTIC GRAVITY EXPLAIN THIS"…I put it to you all…

The above theories are now widely accepted and are all pieces now used by physicists as they try to understand the puzzle which is our universe. Do not claim these theories to be untrue, there is evidence I have provided you with some, if you feel it is insufficient, research it yourself. I don’t want some response saying…these theories are a loud of crap because they are not especially when we are sitting here talking about flat earth theory.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 06:42:35 PM
Also, how does this Mysitc Gravity explain simple things like tides? We all know that tidal changes are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. but without such a force...why do we have tides?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: EvilToothpaste on February 08, 2007, 07:23:10 PM
Quote from: "Quarrior"
If what you say is true, and the entire universe is accelerating at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s/s upwards then we have some serious issues. Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light.

Yes, this is all true relative to some observer not on the Earth, not accelerating, and ignoring the relativistic effects you've been pushing all along.  But what good is that to us here on Earth?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RenaissanceMan on February 08, 2007, 07:31:17 PM
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
If what you say is true, and the entire universe is accelerating at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s/s upwards then we have some serious issues. Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light.

Yes, this is all true relative to some observer not on the Earth, not accelerating, and ignoring the relativistic effects you've been pushing all along.  But what good is that to us here on Earth?


So, there are no observers not on the earth? Every object in the cosmos visible from earth (And there are BILLIONS of them) must be accellerating along with us... if we can see them, they can see us. Galaxies thousands of light years away... freakishly accelerating along with us. And this makes sense to.... who?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 07:32:43 PM
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
If what you say is true, and the entire universe is accelerating at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s/s upwards then we have some serious issues. Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light.

Yes, this is all true relative to some observer not on the Earth, not accelerating, and ignoring the relativistic effects you've been pushing all along.  But what good is that to us here on Earth?


Oh my god, moron, I already accommodated for such an response in my post. I just knew someone would say that so i saved them the time. Disprove the other points please...show me evidence that all the theories of man kind and all the factual evidence that have been provided to support them are wrong.
FE theory also goes against the LAWS of themodynamics, how is that possible? The three laws of thermodynamics CAN NOT be disproven. Enthopically, the universe must lose energy, but the FE theory states that it is forever gaining energy...Enrtopically the universe should be moving towards dissorderment...but the FE theory universe is ordered and never changes...how is this possible?
FE theory
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on February 08, 2007, 07:33:50 PM
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

So, there are no observers not on the earth? Every object in the cosmos visible from earth (And there are BILLIONS of them) must be accellerating along with us... if we can see them, they can see us. Galaxies thousands of light years away... freakishly accelerating along with us. And this makes sense to.... who?


And therefore, they are not inertial observers.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 07:34:20 PM
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
If what you say is true, and the entire universe is accelerating at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s/s upwards then we have some serious issues. Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light.

Yes, this is all true relative to some observer not on the Earth, not accelerating, and ignoring the relativistic effects you've been pushing all along.  But what good is that to us here on Earth?


So, there are no observers not on the earth? Every object in the cosmos visible from earth (And there are BILLIONS of them) must be accellerating along with us... if we can see them, they can see us. Galaxies thousands of light years away... freakishly accelerating along with us. And this makes sense to.... who?


Its the rediculous notion of FE theory my friend, they have no claim, none watsoever only hearsay, everything they say is not possibly provable, but we should all disregard the evidence we have of our current universe, FE theory is clearly more accurate
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on February 08, 2007, 07:34:26 PM
Quote
Special Relativity equally disproves the existence of this mystic gravitation.

Does it now?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 07:35:33 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote
Special Relativity equally disproves the existence of this mystic gravitation.

Does it now?

Read the post...
I think its funny that you FE can say "does it now..." all you want but still not disprove what I have written, how does FE theory explain how light bends through space curved by mass, or how the newtonian gravity is present in nucleii?? Thermodynamics, disprove that...i pity the fool
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on February 08, 2007, 07:38:17 PM
I did. How does Relativity deny the existence of the graviton?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RenaissanceMan on February 08, 2007, 07:38:27 PM
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 07:42:32 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
I did. How does Relativity deny the existence of the graviton?

Ohhh man im tired of this...
I never denied the existance of the gravitron, i said GRAVITATION....read carefully i said special relativity disproves the existance of the "mysitc gravitation" which is what i named the rediculous force that FE theory says is the gravity effect we feel due to the uniformed acceleration of the universe at 9.8m/s/s. READ CAREFULLY
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: GeoGuy on February 08, 2007, 07:43:25 PM
Quote
i said special relativity disproves the existance of the "mysitc gravitation"

Does it?!
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on February 08, 2007, 07:44:56 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote
i said special relativity disproves the existance of the "mysitc gravitation"

Does it?!

Well said!
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 07:45:43 PM
Quote from: "Quarrior"
We seem to be sidestepping the evidence which would conclusively disprove this flat earth gravitational substitute. All areas of physics point to the existence of gravity over this ridiculous mystic force created by the acceleration of the flat earth (and somehow the entire universe) upwards. I will provide evidence from a variety of different, and widely accepted theories as well as proven laws to show why gravity exists…I can’t believe I just made that statement.

First of all the theories of special relativity and general relativity both disprove what I will label the flat earth’s “mystic gravity”. General Relativity states that
“…gravitation is not due to a force but rather is a manifestation of curved space and time, with this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the space-time. General relativity is distinguished from other metric theories of gravitation by its use of the Einstein field equations to relate space-time content and space-time curvature…”
General Relativity (GR) is used to bridge Newton’s law of gravitation with special relativity. To visualize this, space-time as a large flat piece of fabric that runs all the way through the universe. This fabric can be bent, curved, whatever you will. This is caused by “mass-energy” and momentum. The simplest example of this is mass, where by a celestial body will actually curve the space-time continuum, creating an indent in the fabric of space-time.

 

Ok great, space-time can be bent, but what does this mean?
Basically, thinking in Newtonian physics, fallings objects are caused by the force we call gravity, which is true. What Einstein says is that this force is actually just a curvature in space-time resulting from a mass-energy disturbance. Say when we are held to the surface of the earth, it is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration caused by the mechanical resistance of the surface on which they are standing. Whether you find this ridiculous or not, it has some interesting effects on light.

Light, by definition travels in a straight line through space-time. When space-time is bent, light follows the curvature of space-time. This has been proven since 1919 when Sir Arthur Eddington photographed a distant star, the night before and during an eclipse. The position of the star seemed to move during the eclipse, due to the light emitted by that star bending around the curvature caused by the sun. Now, since your “mystic gravity” theory states that all objects are moving at a constant acceleration, you cannot claim that the star naturally changed position because relative to the earth the star would have an inertial velocity of zero.
How is this bending of light not possible, without this concept of gravity, in no way does your mystic gravity account for this

Special Relativity equally disproves the existence of this mystic gravitation. If what you say is true, and the entire universe is accelerating at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s/s upwards then we have some serious issues. Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light. If faster than light travel were possible, we know that it would lead to travel backward through time.

So ok, say that were the case and we were just traveling ever more rapidly backwards through space-time, I mean, who would notice, the mystic force says that everyone would be doing the same thing so no-one would notice?. The same can be said about length, no-one would notice the decrease in the distance being traveled because we are all within the same inertial point of reference.

Fair enough, but what about the ever increasing mass, and therefore the ever increasing energy required to move that mass. Even at .99999999C the mass of an electron (9.109x10^-31kg) or a neutrino or other small sub-atomic particles would have the mass of 4.5x10^-21 so imagine the mass increase for everything else in the universe. To continue to accelerate this mass at a constant speed the force would have to increase ridiculously the further the universe moved away from the source. What kind of force INCREASES in strength continuously the further you move away from it.

I’m getting tired already, so I am going to introduce a final point based on Quantum Mechanics, Unified String Theory for those who understand it and the idea of the universal force. I’ll quickly give some background into the idea. Basically String theory is the theory we currently use to describe the way matter acts on the quantum level. It completes the notions of Quantum Mechanics which has been around for the past 80 years. String theory basically tries to unify Einstein’s Quantum Theory and Quantum Mechanics, since both models of the universe are true but are completely different. Quantum Theory creates a universe which is smooth and ordered, while the universe of quantum mechanics is dysfunctional and random. Both are true for their part. String theory bridges the gap and one such way is by unifying the forces of Gravity, Electro-Magnetism, Weak Nuclear and Strong Nuclear. String theory is very difficult to prove as it requires the existence of more than 12 dimensions but it can be shown to some extent. If you want to research further into String theory, please do so yourself. I will only outline the area which disproves the mystic gravitation.
One area of String theory where proof exists is the in the unification of Gravity and Strong Nuclear.
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/NGFT_Chapter_11.htm
The Strong nuclear force is caused by the interactions between Gluons (sub-atomic particles known as bosons) in the nucleus. Gluons are responsible for the binding of Neutrons and Protons within the nuclei of atoms.
It is now understood that this binding of protons and neutrons in the nucleus is the same force that holds us to the ground. It is however incredibly strong within the nucleus and much weaker on a macro sized scale.
Gravity, known for causing space time compression (see above) happens within the atomic radius of atoms. The actual size of an atom would be much larger if it were not for the effect of gravity. The explanation can be found from the above link but basically we know that gravity is NOT constant, but infact depends on the sub-atomic structure of the material inducing the gravity. This is what allows the strong nuclear and gravity to be unified.
The gravity is determined by the “binding energy per nucleon” which is a result of gluon interaction. Nucleons (protons and neutrons) at the surface of the nucleus are much more weakly bound due to the limited interaction gluons have with the more central nucleons. Note that the strong nuclear – gravity strength is at its strongest (incredibly strong 10^15N) at the distance equivalent to the diameter of a proton/neutron and then gets significantly weaker which explains why gravity is so weak over such vast distances. It also provides more evidence to explain why some materials have a higher refractive index than others.
Also as I said above, atoms experience space time compression, much in the same way the universe does from gravity. This is due again to the “binding energy per nucleon”. Atoms that have all their ground state proton energy levels filled will have the strongest space-time compression and the smallest atomic radius as a result of having their protons and neutrons more tightly bound, also known as the proton “magic” numbers. “Double Magic” atoms are atoms that have all their neutron and proton ground state energy levels filled and have an even tighter pact nucleus and greater space-time compression. Atoms which have more or less protons or neutrons than these magic numbers (the magic number can be found in the above link) have their outer protons less tightly bound and undergo decay, as well as having a much weaker space-time compression.
HOW DOES "MYSTIC GRAVITY EXPLAIN THIS"…I put it to you all…

The above theories are now widely accepted and are all pieces now used by physicists as they try to understand the puzzle which is our universe. Do not claim these theories to be untrue, there is evidence I have provided you with some, if you feel it is insufficient, research it yourself. I don’t want some response saying…these theories are a loud of crap because they are not especially when we are sitting here talking about flat earth theory.

I already accommodated for such an response in my post. I just knew someone would say that so i saved them the time. Disprove the other points please...show me evidence that all the theories of man kind and all the factual evidence that have been provided to support them are wrong.
FE theory also goes against the LAWS of themodynamics, how is that possible? The three laws of thermodynamics CAN NOT be disproven. Enthopically, the universe must lose energy, but the FE theory states that it is forever gaining energy...Enrtopically the universe should be moving towards dissorderment...but the FE theory universe is ordered and never changes...how is this possible?



You Flat Earth Theorists have nothing, all u say is "does it" and "well said" cmooon disprove mee
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on February 08, 2007, 07:48:13 PM
You do realize that gravity and gravitation are different things right?  Relativity denies gravity, not gravitation.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 07:51:31 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
You do realize that gravity and gravitation are different things right?  Relativity denies gravity, not gravitation.


Oh u totally missed the point... i Said "Mystic Gravitation" it is a Pro-Noun which i gave to your ludicrous FE theory...call it what you want, disprove me

Gravitation - Physics. a. the force of attraction between any two masses. Compare law of gravitation.  
b. an act or process caused by this force.  

Gravity - 1. the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth.  
2. heaviness or weight.  
3. gravitation in general.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on February 08, 2007, 07:53:37 PM
You do realize that relativity does not deny the 'mystic gravitation', right?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 07:55:41 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
You do realize that relativity does not deny the 'mystic gravitation', right?


TheEngineer, you do realise that Special Relativity disproves your FE theory of gravity?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on February 08, 2007, 07:59:26 PM
Does it?  Please explain.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: GeoGuy on February 08, 2007, 07:59:51 PM
No it doesn't.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 08:01:30 PM
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Ok great, space-time can be bent, but what does this mean?
Basically, thinking in Newtonian physics, fallings objects are caused by the force we call gravity, which is true. What Einstein says is that this force is actually just a curvature in space-time resulting from a mass-energy disturbance. Say when we are held to the surface of the earth, it is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration caused by the mechanical resistance of the surface on which they are standing. Whether you find this ridiculous or not, it has some interesting effects on light.

Light travels in a straight line through space-time. When space-time is bent, light follows the curvature of space-time. This has been proven since 1919 when Sir Arthur Eddington photographed a distant star, the night before and during an eclipse. The position of the star seemed to move during the eclipse, due to the light emitted by that star bending around the curvature caused by the sun. Now, since your “mystic gravity” theory states that all objects are moving at a constant acceleration, you cannot claim that the star naturally changed position because relative to the earth the star would have an inertial velocity of zero.
How is this bending of light not possible, without this concept of gravity, in no way does your mystic gravity account for this


I have already...read the whole post there is loads more evidence in the same post
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: EnragedPenguin on February 08, 2007, 08:09:35 PM
All right, I guess if I must. I know nothing about this topic, and all I ever manage to do is confuse everyone. But I enjoy it, so...

Quote

Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light. If faster than light travel were possible, we know that it would lead to travel backward through time.


You are absolutely correct that according to special relativity we cannot move faster than the speed of light. The reason for this being that as your speed increases, your relativistic mass increases as well. If you want to keep accelerating at the same rate, you have to keep adding energy. The faster you go, the more energy you have to add. If you do not keep adding energy, your rate of acceleration will decrease. Your mass will keep increasing (and thus your acceleration decreasing) at such a rate that to pass c you would need an infinite amount of energy. (Engineer, stop me if any of this is wrong. This is just my very basic understanding)

Now of course, at this point you're likely to saying to yourself "Aha! The acceleration is decreasing, therefore the acceleration of "gravity" must be decreasing as well! This isn't happening, therefore the theory is false!"
The reason you are saying this of course, is because you didn't pay attention. Had you paid attention you would have noticed I said "relativistic mass". Your mass increase is relative. To someone to whom you are not moving near c relative to, your mass is equal to your rest mass, therefore the energy required to accelerate you hasn't increased.
To someone here on Earth, Earth's speed never increases, therefore Earth's relativistic mass never increases, and therefore the energy required to accelerate Earth never increases. Assuming the "universal accelerator" never runs out, relative to us Earth will accelerate at a constant rate indefinitely without ever approaching c, much less passing it.

P.S Note my liberal use of the word "therefore". I think this word looks important, and I like that; therefore I will be peppering and salting it throughout my posts in the future.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 08:17:03 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
All right, I guess if I must. I know nothing about this topic, and all I ever manage to do is confuse everyone. But I enjoy it, so...

Quote

Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light. If faster than light travel were possible, we know that it would lead to travel backward through time.


You are absolutely correct that according to special relativity we cannot move faster than the speed of light. The reason for this being that as your speed increases, your relativistic mass increases as well. If you want to keep accelerating at the same rate, you have to keep adding energy. The faster you go, the more energy you have to add. If you do not keep adding energy, your rate of acceleration will decrease. Your mass will keep increasing (and thus your acceleration decreasing) at such a rate that to pass c you would need an infinite amount of energy. (Engineer, stop me if any of this is wrong. This is just my very basic understanding)

Now of course, at this point you're likely to saying to yourself "Aha! The acceleration is decreasing, therefore the acceleration of "gravity" must be decreasing as well! This isn't happening, therefore the theory is false!"
The reason you are saying this of course, is because you didn't pay attention. Had you paid attention you would have noticed I said "relativistic mass". Your mass increase is relative. To someone to whom you are not moving near c relative to, your mass is equal to your rest mass, therefore the energy required to accelerate you hasn't increased.
To someone here on Earth, Earth's speed never increases, therefore Earth's relativistic mass never increases, and therefore the energy required to accelerate Earth never increases. Assuming the "universal accelerator" never runs out, relative to us Earth will accelerate at a constant rate indefinitely without ever approaching c, much less passing it.

P.S Note my liberal use of the word "therefore". I think this word looks important, and I like that; therefore I will be peppering and salting it throughout my posts in the future.


Once again, I already know this, simple simple simple relativity. I just added that little bit in for some rediculous facts. However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and forever increasing and we would of course be going back in time. So the energy the universal accelerator needs would be is incredible and would be continiously increasing rapidly, beyond imagiantion, unless the accelerator itself were traveling...somehow without a force. This still doesn't disprove all my other evidence which clearly shows how FE theory is false.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: EnragedPenguin on February 08, 2007, 08:23:13 PM
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 08:31:37 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.


No you havn't been paying attention. Since the entire universe is moving uniformly, the only inertial frame of reference is the accelerator. Now if Earth's rate of acceleration were continiously decreasing eventually we would have an acceleration of zero...which would cause the universe to go into free fall. If the universe then began to accelerate again we would feel the inertia from the change in velocity. How long then before, relative to the accelerator, the universe begins to have a negative acceleration, because once the force from the accelerator ceases, there will be a moment of inertia felt in the universe and then acceleration will cease, again leading to free fall...
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: GeoGuy on February 08, 2007, 08:35:49 PM
Wrong-o. The only inertial reference frame is something not accelerating. Like the pen I just dropped.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RenaissanceMan on February 08, 2007, 08:36:51 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.


Are you sure? Anyone who could SEE Earth would be an inertial observer. In the realm of relativity.... if you can see a thing, you can measure a thing. If you can measure a thing's velocity... you are an inertial observer.

There are trillions of objects observable from earth. Stars, Galaxies, freaky gas balls. You name it, if we can see them, they can see us.

ALL of these objects are 'Inertial observers' in relation to us because they have a point of reference from which to measure our velocity.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 08:37:14 PM
with a negative acceleration we would have totally different gravitational effect also, even moving uniformly it would be easy for someone to jump and notice the difference due to the persons acceleration relative to the rest of the universe.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on February 08, 2007, 08:37:53 PM
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.


Are you sure? Anyone who could SEE Earth would be an inertial observer.


Hence why he said ON.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 08:38:54 PM
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.


Are you sure? Anyone who could SEE Earth would be an inertial observer. In the realm of relativity.... if you can see a thing, you can measure a thing. If you can measure a thing's velocity... you are an inertial observer.

There are trillions of objects observable from earth. Stars, Galaxies, freaky gas balls. You name it, if we can see them, they can see us.

ALL of these objects are 'Inertial observers' in relation to us because they have a point of reference from which to measure our velocity.

Wrong, see thats NOT an interial observer, an inertial observer cannot
a) be accelerating at the same rate as the thing its observing or
b) be observing itself

These points are outlined by Newton himself...see thats where i think a lot of confusion is coming from...people dont know what an interial observer it. Anything within the FE theory universe cannot be an initial observer as they are uniformely accelerating
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: EnragedPenguin on February 08, 2007, 08:40:37 PM
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Since the entire universe is moving uniformly, the only inertial frame of reference is the accelerator.


This statement is obviously false. This is easily demonstrated by...dropping something. It "falls", therefore it is obviously not accelerating along with Earth.

Quote
Now if Earth's rate of acceleration were continuously decreasing eventually we would have an acceleration of zero.


First off, Earth's acceleration is only decreasing relative to an inertial observer, and we don't really care what an inertial observer thinks.
Second, the acceleration would never reach 0. Earth would constantly accelerate, with it's speed constantly approaching (yet never reaching) c, and it's rate of acceleration constantly approaching (yet never reaching) 0. (this is assuming the energy accelerating Earth remains constant)
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 08:46:58 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Since the entire universe is moving uniformly, the only inertial frame of reference is the accelerator.


This statement is obviously false. This is easily demonstrated by...dropping something. It "falls", therefore it is obviously not accelerating along with Earth.

Quote
Now if Earth's rate of acceleration were continuously decreasing eventually we would have an acceleration of zero.


First off, Earth's acceleration is only decreasing relative to an inertial observer, and we don't really care what an inertial observer thinks.
Second, the acceleration would never reach 0. Earth would constantly accelerate, with it's speed constantly approaching (yet never reaching) c, and it's rate of acceleration constantly approaching (yet never reaching) 0.


Exactly, but it would be easy for an observer to see that the earths gravitation pull is not 9.8m/s/s if it is not continiously increasing at such a rate. as soon as the Earth accelerates at less than 9.8m/s/s all someone would have to do is jump and feel the effects. Remember everything in the universe is accelerating but any change in acceleration, by a car, a bird anything, would be able to provide us with an inertial frame of reference. Mass/time/length can be negated because they are travelling so fast neway a slight change wont matter. It would easily be detectable by objects moving within the universe that the acceleration was not uniformed if it was not constantly 9.8m/s/s.

Quote
First off, Earth's acceleration is only decreasing relative to an inertial observer, and we don't really care what an inertial observer thinks.


lol unbelievable, what they see is what matters
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 08:51:21 PM
People still havn't disproved me yet, you simply can't u can argue all u like about special relativity all you want, its the weakest point i put forth, but still noone has been able to disprove Quantum Mechanics or general relativity, thermodynamics etc etc
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: EnragedPenguin on February 08, 2007, 08:53:35 PM
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Exactly, but it would be easy for an observer to see that the earths gravitation pull is not 9.8m/s/s if it is not continiously increasing at such a rate.


It's only not 9.8m/s^2 relative to them though. To someone to whom Earth is not nearing near c (such as us) the acceleration is constant.

Quote
It would easily be detectable by objects moving within the universe that the acceleration was not uniformed if it was not constantly 9.8m/s/s.


Again, this is only to an inertial observer. The acceleration is constant from the FoR of someone to whom Earth is not approaching c.

Quote
lol unbelievable, what they see is what matters


Only to them. What they see is not any more accurate than what we see. We do not care what they see. What they see has no bearing on what we see.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on February 08, 2007, 08:59:13 PM
Acceleration is RELATIVE!!
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on February 08, 2007, 08:59:40 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Acceleration is RELATIVE!!


As are my relatives.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: EnragedPenguin on February 08, 2007, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: "Quarrior"
People still havn't disproved me yet, you simply can't u can argue all u like about special relativity all you want, its the weakest point i put forth, but still noone has been able to disprove Quantum Mechanics or general relativity, thermodynamics etc etc


We don't particularly care about GR. We admit that it might very well apply to objects other than Earth, but Earth itself does not generate a gravitational field, and therefore is not subject to GR.
I didn't attempt to disprove your argument about Quantum Mechanics because I know absolutely nothing about Quantum Mechanics. I'm leaving that up to one of the smart people.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 09:02:21 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Exactly, but it would be easy for an observer to see that the earths gravitation pull is not 9.8m/s/s if it is not continiously increasing at such a rate.


It's only not 9.8m/s^2 relative to them though. To someone to whom Earth is not nearing near c (such as us) the acceleration is constant.

Quote
It would easily be detectable by objects moving within the universe that the acceleration was not uniformed if it was not constantly 9.8m/s/s.


Again, this is only to an inertial observer. The acceleration is constant from the FoR of someone to whom Earth is not approaching c.

Quote
lol unbelievable, what they see is what matters


Only to them. What they see is not any more accurate than what we see. We do not care what they see. What they see has no bearing on what we see.


No see, it doesn't matter what speed we are at, FoR are the same at light speesd as they are at 1m/s. Ok so everyone in the universe is just existing, we have no idea at what speed we are travelling. However we MUST continue to accelerate at 9.8m/s/s to keep gravity normal. eventually we would have been accelerating for so long that we will approach c? This is obvious. Now we have one of two options...the universe can slow down as NOT TO PASS THE SPEED OF LIGHT, which is fine, but the negative acceleration would be noticable by anyone on earth as a weakening of the pulling force toward the ground. Our second option is to defy Einstein and travel faster than the speed of light, which is possible for photons as its been proven...However. to continue accelerating we would relative to the accelerator, be gaining mass which means this universal accelerator would need infinite energy to accommodate for the increase in mass which it observed. Ok great so we can defy Einstein with a bit of imagination...what about the other points i put forward, lets see u disprove those with some imagination. I seem to be the only Spherical Earth supporter here but none of u can disprove me?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on February 08, 2007, 09:06:30 PM
Velocity does not add linearly in relativity.  An object undergoing constant acceleration will approach the speed of light asymptotically, never reaching it.  To someone in an inertial frame, the acceleration is decreasing, but the velocity is still increasing.  

Velocity adds like this:

w=u*v/(1+u*v/c^2)  

Now, keep adding 9.81 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: EnragedPenguin on February 08, 2007, 09:06:40 PM
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Ok so everyone in the universe is just existing, we have no idea at what speed we are travelling. However we MUST continue to accelerate at 9.8m/s/s to keep gravity normal. eventually we would have been accelerating for so long that we will approach c?


Nope. The Earth never moves faster than 0m/s from our frame of reference (unless we jump in the air), even though we can tell it's accelerating. Just like sitting in a car going around a corner. You can tell the car is accelerating by the fact that you are pushed into the wall, even though it never moves faster than 0m/s relative to you.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 09:08:57 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
People still havn't disproved me yet, you simply can't u can argue all u like about special relativity all you want, its the weakest point i put forth, but still noone has been able to disprove Quantum Mechanics or general relativity, thermodynamics etc etc


We don't particularly care about GR. We admit that it might very well apply to objects other than Earth, but Earth itself does not generate a gravitational field, and therefore is not subject to GR.
I didn't attempt to disprove your argument about Quantum Mechanics because I know absolutely nothing about Quantum Mechanics. I'm leaving that up to one of the smart people.


Ohhh Idiot, GR applies on Earth as well, what about clocks slowing down at points of higher gravity. We know the gravity of the Earth is not uniformed, you can go stand in Kakadu National Australiapark above the Uranium deposits and measure acceleration higher than the average force due to gravity. This causes atomic clocks to run slower above points of higher gravitational pull due to a more intense bending of space time at these points
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RenaissanceMan on February 08, 2007, 09:09:37 PM
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.


Are you sure? Anyone who could SEE Earth would be an inertial observer. In the realm of relativity.... if you can see a thing, you can measure a thing. If you can measure a thing's velocity... you are an inertial observer.

There are trillions of objects observable from earth. Stars, Galaxies, freaky gas balls. You name it, if we can see them, they can see us.

ALL of these objects are 'Inertial observers' in relation to us because they have a point of reference from which to measure our velocity.

Wrong, see thats NOT an interial observer, an inertial observer cannot
a) be accelerating at the same rate as the thing its observing or
b) be observing itself

These points are outlined by Newton himself...see thats where i think a lot of confusion is coming from...people dont know what an interial observer it. Anything within the FE theory universe cannot be an initial observer as they are uniformely accelerating


No... I don't think so. An Inertial Observer is within the inertial frame of the observed. Anything else would be completely stupid! What... you think think that an inertial observer cannot see the observed since it cannot be in the same inertial frame? Not!

If you can see a thing... you can measure a thing. If you can measure a thing, you are an inertial observer of that thing.

If you are in a freakish accelerating universe... (Like the FE one) and you can measure your acceleration in relation to another body... then you are an inertial observer to that object.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on February 08, 2007, 09:11:35 PM
An inertial observer is an observer that is at rest with respect to an inertial reference frame. In the context of relativity, an inertial reference frame is one that drifts in gravity-free space without undergoing rotation or being accelerated.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: EnragedPenguin on February 08, 2007, 09:13:11 PM
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Ohhh Idiot, GR applies on Earth as well, what about clocks slowing down at points of higher gravity. We know the gravity of the Earth is not uniformed, you can go stand in Kakadu National Australiapark above the Uranium deposits and measure acceleration higher than the average force due to gravity. This causes atomic clocks to run slower above points of higher gravitational pull due to a more intense bending of space time at these points


I have never noticed any slowing down of clocks when I move denser material, therefore I am not particularly inclined to believe you that this happens.

Anyhoo, I'm off to bed. Night all. Don't have too much fun Engineer.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 09:13:18 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Velocity does not add linearly in relativity.  An object undergoing constant acceleration will approach the speed of light asymptotically, never reaching it.  To someone in an inertial frame, the acceleration is decreasing, but the velocity is still increasing.  

Velocity adds like this:

w=u*v/(1+u*v/c^2)  

Now, keep adding 9.81 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.


Well done sherlock holmes, im aware of this, so we are going to follow Einsteins relativity model then...so we can say that still relative to our accelerator...the mass is increasing, as it goes further away so...im just curious...how does this accelerator work. It defies all laws of physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed...but for something to have infinite energy, as this accelerator must have...it pretty much must just be god right?
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 09:14:07 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Ohhh Idiot, GR applies on Earth as well, what about clocks slowing down at points of higher gravity. We know the gravity of the Earth is not uniformed, you can go stand in Kakadu National Australiapark above the Uranium deposits and measure acceleration higher than the average force due to gravity. This causes atomic clocks to run slower above points of higher gravitational pull due to a more intense bending of space time at these points


I have never noticed any slowing down of clocks when I move denser material, therefore I am not particularly inclined to believe you that this happens.

Anyhoo, I'm off to bed. Night all. Don't have too much fun Engineer.


lol because u dont know anything, u need an atomic clock to see it, I assume u have one of those at home
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on February 08, 2007, 09:17:26 PM
Quote from: "Quarrior"

Well done sherlock holmes, im aware of this

You sure of that?
Quote
the universe can slow down as NOT TO PASS THE SPEED OF LIGHT, which is fine, but the negative acceleration would be noticable by anyone on earth as a weakening of the pulling force toward the ground.
Title: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Quarrior on February 08, 2007, 09:22:09 PM
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.


Are you sure? Anyone who could SEE Earth would be an inertial observer. In the realm of relativity.... if you can see a thing, you can measure a thing. If you can measure a thing's velocity... you are an inertial observer.

There are trillions of objects observable from earth. Stars, Galaxies, freaky gas balls. You name it, if we can see them, they can see us.

ALL of these objects are 'Inertial observers' in relation to us because they have a point of reference from which to measure our velocity.

Wrong, see thats NOT an interial observer, an inertial observer cannot
a) be accelerating at the same rate as the thing its observing or
b) be observing itself

These points are outlined by Newton himself...see thats where i think a lot of confusion is coming from...people dont know what an interial observer it. Anything within the FE theory universe cannot be an initial observer as they are uniformely accelerating


No... I don't think so. An Inertial Observer is within the inertial frame of the observed. Anything else would be completely stupid! What... you think think that an inertial observer cannot see the observed since it cannot be in the same inertial frame? Not!

If you can see a thing... you can measure a thing. If you can measure a thing, you are an inertial observer of that thing.

If you are in a freakish accelerating universe... (Like the FE one) and you can measure your acceleration in relation to another body... then you are an inertial observer to that object.


My god you FE people...check what an Inertial frame of reference is...you dont know...THIS IS NOT WHAT AN INTERIAL FRAME OF REFERENCE IS...It must not be accelerating at the same rate as what it is observing. Ok 2 rocket ships flying side by side both with acceleration zero. How can velocity be determined as they would both be traveling side by side, unaware of their, or each others velocity/acceleration. However..if they both looked at a stationary star, they could calculate their velocity based on the distance to that star/time/how far they travel. If one rocket is moving slower than the other rocket, u cans et one rocket as the inertial frame of refernce...its acceleration is therefor by definition of an inertial frame of reference, zero. It is then possible to determine the other rockets acceleration and velocity. Objects in uniform motion with each other can not be reference points for one another
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: tylerthedruid on March 25, 2007, 04:58:10 AM
-- in particular, she will measure it to be g/γ^3, where γ = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).


I know nothing about special relativity, but understand the mathematics used. Where does this acceleration come from and where does the equation for Y come from?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 25, 2007, 06:29:59 AM
Wtf does this have to do with the shape of Earth really? It's pretty obvious we're not sitting on a giant accelerating disk so who gives a shit about equivalence principle and relativity?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on March 25, 2007, 08:44:03 AM
I know nothing about special relativity, but understand the mathematics used. Where does this acceleration come from and where does the equation for Y come from?
From a man named Lorenz, who derived the equation after the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on March 25, 2007, 11:19:57 AM
I know nothing about special relativity, but understand the mathematics used. Where does this acceleration come from and where does the equation for Y come from?

In the specific case of my typing it, it came from eq. 2 on p. 37 of Introducing Einstein's Relativity by Dr. Ray d'Inverno.  He derived it from the Lorenz transform for acceleration in the case where an object at rest in one reference frame is undergoing a constant acceleration in another (turns out, physicists don't believe that that contradicts relativity).

The equation for γ can be derived by a variety of fairly elegant methods from the definition of "distance" in spacetime (being the composite of three dimensions of space and one of time).  That definition is, in turn, indirectly based on the assumption that the speed of light is the same regardless of what emitted the light and who's measuring it.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 25, 2007, 08:30:45 PM
One thing that everybody seems to forget about the FE acceleration of earth is the very nature of acceleration.

You start with displacement, e.g. the distance from point A to point B. The first derivative of that is velocity, the speed at which you get from point A to point B. The second derivative is acceleration, the constant change of velocity, or the constant increase in the speed moving from point A to point B.

I also disagree on the notion of a universal rest point. And no, Einstein does not support such an idea. In fact, absolutely everything is dependent on a frame of reference. For example, if everything relative to you is stationary, you are technically at zero velocity, as your position is fixed relative to your frame of reference. Therefore, moving a billion miles per hour and not moving at all through empty space, with no frame of reference and no change in direction or speed, are one and the same. By extension, it has been suggested that if you have no frame of reference, then you cannot be sure that you are even rotating, which is something you inherently feel if you stand up and spin around in circles.

So, on to Earth accelerating. it is a fallacy to describe the earth as accelerating by any means without a valid frame of reference. And since FE'ers believe unquestioningly that Earth is accelerating, that means there is some frame of reference to make those claims. The frame of reference is us, since we are not accelerating, at least not on our own volition. We are exerting a force right back at the earth (the natural force), though because it is less than whatever force is keeping us glued to the ground, we do not float away.

My main point is this: Since making the claim of acceleration requires a frame of reference, you must infer that you would eventually reach the light barrier, which you cannot pass. The FE claim that there is no frame of reference, thus no light barrier, is a misunderstanding of basic vector physics. Also, since you are accelerating (again, requiring a frame of reference) you then require an exponentially increasing source of energy to maintain that constant acceleration, which is easily described as a parabolic graph.

The statement, then, that earth is undergoing constant acceleration is due to a lack of full knowledge of vector physics, and is in itself a fallacy. Thusly, a new theory is required to explain the force of gravitation, as this one no longer (and never really did) holds water.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on March 25, 2007, 08:40:37 PM
One thing that everybody seems to forget about the FE acceleration of earth is the very nature of acceleration.

You start with displacement, e.g. the distance from point A to point B. The first derivative of that is velocity, the speed at which you get from point A to point B. The second derivative is acceleration, the constant change of velocity, or the constant increase in the speed moving from point A to point B.
No, I'm pretty sure we know the nature of acceleration.  Thank you, though.

Quote
So, on to Earth accelerating. it is a fallacy to describe the earth as accelerating by any means without a valid frame of reference. And since FE'ers believe unquestioningly that Earth is accelerating, that means there is some frame of reference to make those claims. The frame of reference is us, since we are not accelerating, at least not on our own volition.
We observe another FOR accelerating relative to our own.

Quote
We are exerting a force right back at the earth (the natural force), though because it is less than whatever force is keeping us glued to the ground, we do not float away.
Uh, ok...

Quote
My main point is this: Since making the claim of acceleration requires a frame of reference, you must infer that you would eventually reach the light barrier, which you cannot pass.
How would one infer that?  I sure don't.

Quote
The statement, then, that earth is undergoing constant acceleration is due to a lack of full knowledge of vector physics, and is in itself a fallacy. Thusly, a new theory is required to explain the force of gravitation, as this one no longer (and never really did) holds water.
Your statement that the earth cannot be undergoing constant acceleration and not pass the speed of light is due to a lack of any knowledge of Special Relativity.  Thusly, you need to read up on it, so to as not make a fool of yourself in the future.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on March 25, 2007, 08:44:10 PM
So, on to Earth accelerating. it is a fallacy to describe the earth as accelerating by any means without a valid frame of reference.

Pretending for a second that somebody actually made that claim, I'll simply answer by saying: pick an arbitrary inertial reference frame.  In this frame, the Earth will be measured to be accelerating.  K?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 25, 2007, 08:53:16 PM
Don't try and infer that my knowledge of any branch of physics is lesser to yours, Engineer. I have proven my point if anything because you have no counterstatement other than a glib retort back at me using my own words. Nice try, though.

My points are valid. The reason you cannot accept them, even for long enough to come up with a real rebuttle indicates that you simply are too stubborn to accept valid arguments or corrections to your misunderstandings of physics. I understand Special Relativity very well, thank you, and any inference otherwise only highlights your own stubborn ignorance to alternative points of view.

When I first started reading these posts, I was open to the items of proof you had of a flat earth. When I accepted them and posited my piece, you insult me (and don't contribute anything discrediting my supposition). This just shows your immaturity toward any kind of academic debate. After all, you know you're right, and it's only a matter of time before the whole (flat) earth agrees with you, right?

Oh, and your lack of knowledge of basic vectors relating to the natural force tells me you know less of what you are talking about than I previously thought. For example, acceleration means CHANGE IN VELOCITY. Since your value is a positive number, that means that it is increasing. Since by definition velocity must increase by 9.8 m every second, after several decades or so, you have have vastly exceeded the light barrier. And since the light barrier and the claim of acceleration both require a point of reference, then it simply cannot happen.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on March 25, 2007, 08:56:44 PM
I can give you an equation from Special Relativity that proves you wrong, and therefore you have no idea what you are talking about. 

Can you say the same?  Because I would love to see it.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 25, 2007, 08:57:09 PM
Ok, an arbitrary stationary point in space. Sounds good. Then earth is accelerating relative to that. However, what I'm trying to say is, eventually, according to that frame of reference, you will inexorably break the light barrier relative to that reference.

You will then say that there is no such frame of reference for the speed of light, therefore no light barrier. But you cannot say that, because then you cannot properly say that earth is undergoing acceleration. You see, in order to say earth is accelerating, you need a point of reference. Otherwise you cannot make that inference. Just as you cannot measure speed or direction without reference points, you cannot measure or claim acceleration without them.

So, that is why the accelerating earth model is flawed.

Now I would appreciate a real counter-argument, instead of "don't make a fool of yourself next time", as ironically you are only hurting yourself with those statements.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 25, 2007, 08:59:23 PM
Sure, I'd appreciate as much math as you can throw at me.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on March 25, 2007, 09:02:57 PM
w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

where u is the current velocity, v is the additional velocity due to acceleration, c is the speed of light, and w is the new velocity, used as u in successive calculations.

One simple equation.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 25, 2007, 09:04:49 PM
And therein lies my point. Since U equals current velocity, which does not exist in a reference-less space, the equation cannot be compiled. Because you have no U, you have no W, which means you have two unsolved variables in your equation. You can only fulfill the requirements of this equation if you have a solid point of reference.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on March 25, 2007, 09:06:31 PM
Drop something.  There you go, your u, when you let go, is zero.  Have fun.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on March 25, 2007, 09:08:52 PM
Ok, an arbitrary stationary point in space. Sounds good. Then earth is accelerating relative to that. However, what I'm trying to say is, eventually, according to that frame of reference, you will inexorably break the light barrier relative to that reference.

According to an observer stationary in an inertial frame of reference, the Earth is accelerating and asymptotically approaching, but never reaching or exceeding, the speed of light.

Please read over the early posts in this thread, which give proof and references.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 25, 2007, 09:11:25 PM
Engineer, you're colossally missing the point.

If I drop something, I have many valid points of reference. The word drop infers those references. You cannot "drop" something in empty space, with no observers or references.

*sigh* You accuse me of not understanding Special Relativity, when you don't even understand the Grade 9 physics you fed me (which is NOT special relativity). But you insist on having points of reference which aren't there, which then CREATES the light barrier, which you cannot exceed, which means... oh no, I've gone cross-eyed trying to explain the same thing over and over again.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 25, 2007, 09:12:45 PM
That cannot be true, because 9.8m/s is not exponential, therefore eventually it'll march right past the light barrier. If it were asymptotic, then the gravitational constant wouldn't even BE a constant, but a function that explains the asymptotic approach to the light barrier.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on March 25, 2007, 09:18:40 PM
That cannot be true, because 9.8m/s is not exponential, therefore eventually it'll march right past the light barrier.

g is a constant in Earth's reference frame, but not constant in any inertial reference frame.

In an inertial reference frame, Earth's acceleration will appear to drop off hyperbolically.  Again, please look over the earlier posts for proof and references; it is all explained there in some detail.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 25, 2007, 09:20:54 PM
I have read the earlier posts and the FAQ. That is precisely why I am saying that it doesn't make sense. We are exhibited on by a force of 9.8m/s squared, no question there. But your argument toward the force being caused by a constantly accelerating earth, as you have outlined it, does not work. It's not a matter of finding proof, it's that the math simply doesn't work.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on March 25, 2007, 09:22:07 PM
But your argument toward the force being caused by a constantly accelerating earth, as you have outlined it, does not work.

...

Unless you know something you haven't already brought up, all your concerns have already been addressed.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 25, 2007, 09:23:45 PM
No, see that's the thing about a lot of the people who post dialogue here. The point is NOT settled, because you have not proven a thing. So far, I have successfully countered your point, and until you can fully back it up, it will remain untrue, and that will remain so no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

Anyways, I rather enjoyed this, but I'm going to bed now (it's 12:23 here). G'night.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on March 25, 2007, 09:26:08 PM
So far, I have successfully countered your point, and until you can fully back it up, it will remain untrue, and that will remain so no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

Thanks for giving up.  Good night.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 25, 2007, 09:27:20 PM
Don't you worry your pretty little head, Erasmus. I haven't given anything up  ;)
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Darkfrog on March 25, 2007, 10:52:03 PM
This seems to be coming up in a lot of different threads. The interesting thing is that the FEers seem to have the physics correct and the REers keep arguing about it.

For those that are having a hard time understanding this, google 1g spaceship. There are a lot of references to that proposed idea.  Basically, if you have a ship that you can get to accelerate constantly at 1g, that would be identical to the idea of the FE accelerating at 1g for as long as it has.

Here is what happens from the POV of the people in the ship. They would have normal gravity at the back of the ship (on the side opposite direction of travel) eliminating the need to spinning or other ways to induce earth gravity. They would always seen themselves as traveling at 9.8m/s^2. As they approach significant percentage of c where the relativistic effects come into play, the ONLY way they would see something odd is if they could see outside their FOR. Now for someone outside their FOR watching the ship, it would NOT continually be going 9.8m/s^2, it would appear to slow down, get shorter and more massive. As the ship gets even closer to c, it would appear to be not accelerating at all but just increasing in mass and decreasing length.

For the spaceship travelers, nothing would seem out of the ordinary. They would still measure their velocity as far away from c as when they first started since they could still measure the speed of light as c. They would still feel the 1g acceleration for as long as their thrust remained the same.

After 1 year, they would be traveling 0.77c, 2 years 0.97c, 5 years 0.99993, 12 year 99999999996c
So in theory you can travel across the galaxy in just 12 years of your own time but for the observer that stayed behind, 113,243 years will have past.

Motion in relativity is a relative concept not an absolute one. You can only move relative to something else, and that something else must have mass.

Suppose you are the only ship in the universe, nothing else but you, and you would accelerate for say 10 billion years. Then what is your motion in space-time? The answer is that there is no point in even asking that question, since you have no way to measure your motion against. That is the point that the FEers are saying, if all of what we see, the sun, moon, stars, etc. are all moving with us, there is absolutely no point in even discussing how fast we are moving, it is a pointless endeavor.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 26, 2007, 05:02:04 AM
That's mostly what I'm saying, physics aside. If what they say is correct, with the entire universe moving with us, then calling our motion "acceleration", or even trying to say we are undergoing motion, is a fallacy in its own right.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on March 26, 2007, 08:31:45 AM
That's mostly what I'm saying, physics aside. If what they say is correct, with the entire universe moving with us, then calling our motion "acceleration", or even trying to say we are undergoing motion, is a fallacy in its own right.

If you are replying to Darkfrog's post, I would suggest rereading it.  It seems to me to agree with the FE position in this thread.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Darkfrog on March 26, 2007, 10:48:36 AM
That's mostly what I'm saying, physics aside. If what they say is correct, with the entire universe moving with us, then calling our motion "acceleration", or even trying to say we are undergoing motion, is a fallacy in its own right.

If you are replying to Darkfrog's post, I would suggest rereading it.  It seems to me to agree with the FE position in this thread.
Erasmus is quite correct. I am not saying there is any fallacy in assuming we are accelerating. What I am saying is that without an outside observer from a different inertial frame of reference, then velocity is meaningless; acceleration is not. According to Einstein, there is absolutely no way to differentiate between acceleration and gravity. Now in RE physics, we are definitely in motion because there are other reference points to use, but in FE theory, everything is moving along with us so it makes it nice and tidy making it impossible to disprove.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 01:04:25 PM
There are ways to differentiate between gravity and normal acceleration: Look out your window as Tom likes to say.

The equivalence principle isn't the be all and end all of everything. Sometimes a little common sense is needed. i.e. look through a telescope.

You don't even need to start talking about tidal forces..
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 26, 2007, 01:19:15 PM
Actually, there is no real way to differentiate between gravitation and acceleration. They both act on matter in exactly the same way, for the most part.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 01:31:42 PM
If you live in some kind of thought-experiment-world yes, I agree.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Darkfrog on March 26, 2007, 01:33:33 PM

The equivalence principle isn't the be all and end all of everything. Sometimes a little common sense is needed. i.e. look through a telescope.
If Relativity followed common sense, we wouldn't have had to wait until the 20th century to figure it out. We also wouldn't have had most of the scientific community resisting the theory for a number of years after it was published. If it was common sense, they would have said, "Damn, now why didn't I think of that?"
So much about this world goes against what people would consider common sense.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 01:38:22 PM
I'm not sure what your point is there Darkfrog.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 26, 2007, 01:43:22 PM
He's saying that just because it doesn't readily appear so, doesn't mean it isn't. General and Special Relativity are so against the notions of common sense (two observers seeing two clearly different things -- and both being correct), that it did take some time for the community at large to accept it. Now, it is the pinnacle of our explanation of gravity and other branches of physics.

This is the same reason that some people thought the earth was flat -- because it really, really does look flat.

However, round earth theories have been around for some time, much longer than Columbus (which was fabricated byWashington Irving -- Columbus never circumnavigated the globe). Eratosthenes in the 2nd century BCE calculated the circumference of the Earth to within about 2 percent of today's accepted value, and aside from some theological challenges, much of the enlightened community believed in and understood a round earth.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 01:46:53 PM
I didn't say that relativity is not common sense I just said you can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration in real life by looking at other factors. It's bastardisation of relativity to use it as evidence for a Flat Earth. It was never meant to be used in that way in my opinion. I'm sure Einstein, Galleleo and others could use their common sense to see we're not on an accelerating disk.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Darkfrog on March 26, 2007, 01:49:38 PM
I didn't say that relativity is not common sense I just said you can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration in real life by looking at other factors.
Prove it. Tell me what other factors you can use? In a FE model, there is no other external reference points so it is identical to Einstein's proverbial elevator. You cannot use relativity to prove REism, period.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 01:50:31 PM
I really don't know what you're getting at most of the time Darkfrog.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Darkfrog on March 26, 2007, 03:01:42 PM
I really don't know what you're getting at most of the time Darkfrog.
Well, you said you can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration. I disagree, as would most physicists. If you can demonstrate to me how to distinguish the two, I'm reading.
I really don't know what you mean by the Equivalence Principle isn't the 'end all and be all,' when in fact it pretty much is.  You have yet to tell me any observation or experiment that will let me know whether I'm in a gravity field or an accelerated FOR.

The interesting thing is that as much as some of the RE people here like to bash the FEers, it seems they do a much better job with the complexities of relativity than some of you do.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 03:13:08 PM
You are not reading what I am posting.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Darkfrog on March 26, 2007, 05:25:04 PM
You are not reading what I am posting.
Well then quit being so cryptic and say what you mean.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 05:48:28 PM
Quote
The equivalence principle isn't the be all and end all of everything. Sometimes a little common sense is needed. i.e. look through a telescope.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Darkfrog on March 26, 2007, 05:54:40 PM
Quote
The equivalence principle isn't the be all and end all of everything. Sometimes a little common sense is needed. i.e. look through a telescope.
Oh, that's really helpful, repeating the exact same thing that I already asked you to expand upon. What does a telescope tell you about earth gravity?
I'll let someone else deal with you, I give up.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 05:55:41 PM
Well people used telescopes to work out we were not on an accelerating disk before relativity. That's my point.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Darkfrog on March 26, 2007, 06:17:57 PM
Well people used telescopes to work out we were not on an accelerating disk before relativity. That's my point.
Again, extremely non-specific answer, something I expect more from some of these FEers not REers.
How can I accept or refute what you are trying to say if you don't say it?

It has been asked before, HOW can you tell the difference between being in an accelerated FOR and a gravitational FOR by using a telescope if everything you can see is accelerating along with you?

As I said, if you continue with your half-answers, I'm done, it means you are hopeless.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 06:20:16 PM
I don't know how to further clarify what I'm saying. Erm...

Okay well imagine you're inside the typical equivalence principle sealed box in space. The one were you can walk around on the floor but you cannot prove if you are accelerating at g or you are sat on Earth. So far so equivalent.

It is now that you have to break free from the shackles of thought-experiment. Einstein did not explain all this stuff so he could proclaim that we do not know whether we are accelerating or not he explained it because gravity did no make sense. He discovered that gravity is just acceleration. Equivalence principle is a strong proof of this.

Equivalence principle however does not prevent us from distinguishing IF WE CAN CALL UPON EXTERNAL REFERENCES.

Okay so back to the box. Suddenly a shutter opens and there is a window behind it. You look out the window and see that you are in the middle of a field on Earth. Now you simply use common sense to work out that you're not accelerating through space at all but you are on a planet so what is causing you to be able to walk around is the acceleration due to the gravitation of the planet and not acceleration due to some kind of rocket booster under the room (Note that in this example we can assume for argument's sake that seeing Earth would indicate you are on a spherical planet and seeing empty space and rockets under the room would indicate you are accelerating through space).

I think you're reading too deeply into what I'm saying. I'm not trying to say anything controversial or contrary I'm simply saying that in the real world outside theoretical though-experiements it is sometimes possible to determine which type of acceleration you are experiencing.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 06:20:56 PM
You are way too lost in the definitions that is the problem.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 06:25:08 PM
Well people used telescopes to work out we were not on an accelerating disk before relativity. That's my point.
Again, extremely non-specific answer, something I expect more from some of these FEers not REers.
How can I accept or refute what you are trying to say if you don't say it?

It has been asked before, HOW can you tell the difference between being in an accelerated FOR and a gravitational FOR by using a telescope if everything you can see is accelerating along with you?

As I said, if you continue with your half-answers, I'm done, it means you are hopeless.



What if everything you could see was not accelerating with you? You're making up examples where it is not possible to differentiate and I am giving examples where it is possible. Of course it is impossible if you only ever give examples where it is not possible. However when we look through our telescopes we see a solar system. We see we are orbiting a star. We see we are spherical. We see so many things that indicate to us that we are not on a flat disk accelerating through space at 1 g for 5 billion years.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 06:35:41 PM
Also whenever you hear the example of the box, it is ALWAYS a windowless box because for the two accelerations to be indistinguishable you must not be able to use any external references.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on March 26, 2007, 09:36:59 PM
Okay so back to the box. Suddenly a shutter opens and there is a window behind it. You look out the window and see that you are in the middle of a field on Earth. Now you simply use common sense to work out that you're not accelerating through space at all but you are on a planet so what is causing you to be able to walk around is the acceleration due to the gravitation

The most awesome way in which you're wrong is that even in the RE universe, stuff falls to the ground because the Earth is accelerating towards it.  It's easy to see when you realize that spacetime is curved.  If objects on the Earth's surface were not accelerating away from the centre of the Earth, then they would be following timelike geodesics, by definition.  However, all the timelike geodesics in the viscinity of the Earth (in the RE universe) lead into the Earth, through its surface.  Because we're not sinking into the ground, we're not following timelike geodesics, so we're not inertial objects, so we must be accelerating.  The only force we feel is that of the ground on our feet, so it must be the case that the Earth is accelerating upwards (i.e. away from its centre).

Basically, you almost said it yourself:

Quote
You don't even need to start talking about tidal forces..

In fact, you do.  Talking about tidal forces is the only way to tell the difference between acceleration and "true" gravitation.  This is true not just in a play physics world -- it's true in our world (flat or round) too.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Darkfrog on March 27, 2007, 12:22:40 AM

What if everything you could see was not accelerating with you? You're making up examples where it is not possible to differentiate and I am giving examples where it is possible. Of course it is impossible if you only ever give examples where it is not possible. However when we look through our telescopes we see a solar system. We see we are orbiting a star. We see we are spherical. We see so many things that indicate to us that we are not on a flat disk accelerating through space at 1 g for 5 billion years.
I'm not making up examples, you're changing the rules. If you are going to attempt to disprove someone's theory like a FE, you have to accept EVERYTHING they are saying supports their theory. If you look through a telescope you cannot see 'we are spherical.' You are just saying things without supporting your comments as I keep explaining to you. You have to be specific, like HOW we can tell these things. There is no way to refute you except by just saying, "no we can't" and that just is argumentative. Quit being so vague and give specific examples.

The other thing you are doing is taking part of the FE theory and not all of it to try to disprove it. You are essentially cutting a window in the accelerating box which is cheating. The idea that all of the objects we see in the sky are accelerating with us is not mine but the foundation of the FEer's theory. It is on that basis that I am telling you it is impossible to disprove what they are saying. Why is this such a difficult concept for you? Being a RE believer, we do make assumptions, including distances to the sun, planets, moon, etc. You have to realize that much of what we "know" about our solar system and everything is based on the primary assumption that we are on a sphere. However, it is very similar to the Socratic method, the FEers are challenging your believe by giving counter examples that would be completely in line with known physics by changing some of those assumptions.
So, I will ask one more time. What specifically can you see with a telescope that 'proves' RE and disproves FE while still taking into account everything that they say is true about the world we can see?

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 27, 2007, 05:02:24 AM
Okay so back to the box. Suddenly a shutter opens and there is a window behind it. You look out the window and see that you are in the middle of a field on Earth. Now you simply use common sense to work out that you're not accelerating through space at all but you are on a planet so what is causing you to be able to walk around is the acceleration due to the gravitation

The most awesome way in which you're wrong is that even in the RE universe, stuff falls to the ground because the Earth is accelerating towards it.  It's easy to see when you realize that spacetime is curved.  If objects on the Earth's surface were not accelerating away from the centre of the Earth, then they would be following timelike geodesics, by definition.  However, all the timelike geodesics in the viscinity of the Earth (in the RE universe) lead into the Earth, through its surface.  Because we're not sinking into the ground, we're not following timelike geodesics, so we're not inertial objects, so we must be accelerating.  The only force we feel is that of the ground on our feet, so it must be the case that the Earth is accelerating upwards (i.e. away from its centre).

Basically, you almost said it yourself:

Quote
You don't even need to start talking about tidal forces..

In fact, you do.  Talking about tidal forces is the only way to tell the difference between acceleration and "true" gravitation.  This is true not just in a play physics world -- it's true in our world (flat or round) too.

You have the same problem as DarkFrog.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 27, 2007, 05:03:19 AM

What if everything you could see was not accelerating with you? You're making up examples where it is not possible to differentiate and I am giving examples where it is possible. Of course it is impossible if you only ever give examples where it is not possible. However when we look through our telescopes we see a solar system. We see we are orbiting a star. We see we are spherical. We see so many things that indicate to us that we are not on a flat disk accelerating through space at 1 g for 5 billion years.
I'm not making up examples, you're changing the rules. If you are going to attempt to disprove someone's theory like a FE, you have to accept EVERYTHING they are saying supports their theory. If you look through a telescope you cannot see 'we are spherical.' You are just saying things without supporting your comments as I keep explaining to you. You have to be specific, like HOW we can tell these things. There is no way to refute you except by just saying, "no we can't" and that just is argumentative. Quit being so vague and give specific examples.

The other thing you are doing is taking part of the FE theory and not all of it to try to disprove it. You are essentially cutting a window in the accelerating box which is cheating. The idea that all of the objects we see in the sky are accelerating with us is not mine but the foundation of the FEer's theory. It is on that basis that I am telling you it is impossible to disprove what they are saying. Why is this such a difficult concept for you? Being a RE believer, we do make assumptions, including distances to the sun, planets, moon, etc. You have to realize that much of what we "know" about our solar system and everything is based on the primary assumption that we are on a sphere. However, it is very similar to the Socratic method, the FEers are challenging your believe by giving counter examples that would be completely in line with known physics by changing some of those assumptions.
So, I will ask one more time. What specifically can you see with a telescope that 'proves' RE and disproves FE while still taking into account everything that they say is true about the world we can see?



Like banging my head against a brick wall.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 27, 2007, 05:06:12 AM
Can neither of you read? I am not disagreeing with equivalence principle. I know how fucking gravitation works for fuck's sake. I said we can distinguish which type of acceleration we are experiencing. Which we can given the right conditions...e.g. conditions such as not living in a windowless room.

My God how much more simple can I make it?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Darkfrog on March 27, 2007, 05:35:32 AM
Can neither of you read? I am not disagreeing with equivalence principle. I know how fucking gravitation works for fuck's sake. I said we can distinguish which type of acceleration we are experiencing. Which we can given the right conditions...e.g. conditions such as not living in a windowless room.

My God how much more simple can I make it?
And all we have been asking for you to give us SPECIFIC examples which you seem to refuse to do. Just for clarification, saying we can see things with a telescope is a general example. I will repeat what I said earlier, maybe you missed it or maybe you can't read well ---
By not being exactly clear WHAT you think we can see that tells us the EARTH is a sphere, there is no way to either agree with you or refute you.

Jeez, talking about banging you head against the wall, talking to you is about as bad as talking to a wall.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 27, 2007, 05:43:21 AM
I gave a specific example.

The Earth is a sphere, that is not part of this discussion; it need not be. I'm saying that given the a planet is a large spherical mass and large masses cause acceleration towards their own centre then if we can prove we live on a sphere (Which we can and did do hundreds of years ago) then we can prove what type of acceleration we are experiencing.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 27, 2007, 05:44:51 AM
I know Wiki quoting is not the best but I think we can all agree it has a pretty good description of equivalence principle and is well sourced. So have a read through this, you might see what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Darkfrog on March 27, 2007, 07:12:53 PM
I know Wiki quoting is not the best but I think we can all agree it has a pretty good description of equivalence principle and is well sourced. So have a read through this, you might see what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
You just aren't paying attention. I know the Equivalence Principle, probably better than you. That isn't in debate here. My whole point if you go back a read again from the beginning is in order to refute the idea of a FE, you have to refute it as a whole. My point is that their claims are impossible to refute if you take their whole argument. You can't argue only parts of their theory without taking into account all of their other explanation. IOW, all evidence we have for a RE is countered by some principle of theirs. Their idea of an accelerated earth ONLY works if the sun, moon, and stars are accelerating with us, making us in a single FOR, or the enclosed box. You say that I set impossible examples, but they aren't mine, they are the FE'ers ideas. You can't prove we aren't accelerating by using physics alone was my only point all along. Sure, if you want to point out we have been to space and all, I agree, but if you take their argument's against that, you go back to square one.
So to restate, using the FE theory, due to the EP, it is impossible to distinguish between gravitation and acceleration. And I challenge you to try to be specific again (you still haven't been able to do so) you need to give me an exact description of an experiment or some observation that shows that we are not accelerating but experiencing gravity. No links to the EP, that isn't the contention here. You are just not answering the questions that are put forth. You are talking in circles.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: WTF on March 27, 2007, 07:19:14 PM
I know Wiki quoting is not the best but I think we can all agree it has a pretty good description of equivalence principle and is well sourced. So have a read through this, you might see what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
You just aren't paying attention. I know the Equivalence Principle, probably better than you. That isn't in debate here. My whole point if you go back a read again from the beginning is in order to refute the idea of a FE, you have to refute it as a whole. My point is that their claims are impossible to refute if you take their whole argument. You can't argue only parts of their theory without taking into account all of their other explanation. IOW, all evidence we have for a RE is countered by some principle of theirs. Their idea of an accelerated earth ONLY works if the sun, moon, and stars are accelerating with us, making us in a single FOR, or the enclosed box. You say that I set impossible examples, but they aren't mine, they are the FE'ers ideas. You can't prove we aren't accelerating by using physics alone was my only point all along. Sure, if you want to point out we have been to space and all, I agree, but if you take their argument's against that, you go back to square one.
So to restate, using the FE theory, due to the EP, it is impossible to distinguish between gravitation and acceleration. And I challenge you to try to be specific again (you still haven't been able to do so) you need to give me an exact description of an experiment or some observation that shows that we are not accelerating but experiencing gravity. No links to the EP, that isn't the contention here. You are just not answering the questions that are put forth. You are talking in circles.

How about the fact that we aren't molten slag?  I doubt anyone would argue that the cosmic background radition is "accelerating with us" given the constancy of the speed of light from all reference frames.  It wouldn't take long at constant 1g acceleration before even the background radiation blue shifts to such extremes that it would melt the planet.  See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html) and http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html (http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html) for references which took 5 seconds to find.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on March 27, 2007, 08:52:26 PM
Neither the fact that we are not molten slag, nor the fact that you can see other planets and stars when you look through a telescope, is a measurement of tidal forces; therefore neither is evidence against the claim that the Earth is accelerating upwards and thus creating artificial gravity.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Darkfrog on March 27, 2007, 09:01:55 PM
I know Wiki quoting is not the best but I think we can all agree it has a pretty good description of equivalence principle and is well sourced. So have a read through this, you might see what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
You just aren't paying attention. I know the Equivalence Principle, probably better than you. That isn't in debate here. My whole point if you go back a read again from the beginning is in order to refute the idea of a FE, you have to refute it as a whole. My point is that their claims are impossible to refute if you take their whole argument. You can't argue only parts of their theory without taking into account all of their other explanation. IOW, all evidence we have for a RE is countered by some principle of theirs. Their idea of an accelerated earth ONLY works if the sun, moon, and stars are accelerating with us, making us in a single FOR, or the enclosed box. You say that I set impossible examples, but they aren't mine, they are the FE'ers ideas. You can't prove we aren't accelerating by using physics alone was my only point all along. Sure, if you want to point out we have been to space and all, I agree, but if you take their argument's against that, you go back to square one.
So to restate, using the FE theory, due to the EP, it is impossible to distinguish between gravitation and acceleration. And I challenge you to try to be specific again (you still haven't been able to do so) you need to give me an exact description of an experiment or some observation that shows that we are not accelerating but experiencing gravity. No links to the EP, that isn't the contention here. You are just not answering the questions that are put forth. You are talking in circles.

How about the fact that we aren't molten slag?  I doubt anyone would argue that the cosmic background radition is "accelerating with us" given the constancy of the speed of light from all reference frames.  It wouldn't take long at constant 1g acceleration before even the background radiation blue shifts to such extremes that it would melt the planet.  See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html) and http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html (http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html) for references which took 5 seconds to find.
We are not in a rocket ship, we are on a planet with an atmosphere and a magnetic field that shields us from all sorts of cosmic radiation. Even with those, some high intensity gamma rays still make it through but we still aren't cooked by them. Of course, if you consider the CBR isn't accelerating with us, then you have an external reference frame which of course the FE'ers would deny. If the sun, moon and even the stars are in the same reference plane as the earth, it only stands to reason everything we can see and measure, including the CBR is moving with us, so therefore your assumption is wrong.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: WTF on March 28, 2007, 05:25:01 PM
Quote
We are not in a rocket ship, we are on a planet with an atmosphere and a magnetic field that shields us from all sorts of cosmic radiation. Even with those, some high intensity gamma rays still make it through but we still aren't cooked by them.

.....as we accelerate the intensity of the radiation would increase.  Are you suggesting that the "atmosphere and magnetic field" has near unlimited capacity to shield us from radiation?  That is horribly, horribly incorrect.

 
Quote
Of course, if you consider the CBR isn't accelerating with us, then you have an external reference frame which of course the FE'ers would deny. If the sun, moon and even the stars are in the same reference plane as the earth, it only stands to reason everything we can see and measure, including the CBR is moving with us, so therefore your assumption is wrong.

How exactly can the CMB "accelerate with us"?  That doesn't even make sense.

Look at the very last paragraph from one of the links I included:
One major problem you would have to solve is the need for shielding.  As you approach the speed of light you will be heading into an increasingly energetic and intense bombardment of cosmic rays and other particles. After only a few years of 1g acceleration even the cosmic background radiation is Doppler shifted into a lethal heat bath hot enough to melt all known materials.[/b]

That's after only a few years.  I wonder what would happen after a few billion?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Darkfrog on March 28, 2007, 07:34:09 PM

How exactly can the CMB "accelerate with us"?  That doesn't even make sense.

I really don't know since I can't figure out how all of the stars and galaxies accelerate with us but it is FE theory and I am assuming that is what they would say. If the CMB is merely the echo of the BB which created all of the galaxies and stars, then it just makes sense that would be their position.
I have PM'd The Engineer to step in here and maybe clarify things. Hopefully he can comment on the microwaves. They might have a completely different explanation for it since I don't even know if they believe in the BB. It might be a conspiracy  :) :)
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on March 29, 2007, 01:13:31 AM
RE science confirms that the "CBR" is in fact "moving with us", whatever that is supposed to mean: it has been observed to be isotropic.  This means that its spectrum is the same in all directions; there is no observed blue- or redshift in any part of the sky (to my knowledge; this has been disputed but I have not seen any references).

Thus we can conclude that we are stationary with respect to the source of this radiation.  If you insist that it is meaningless to talk about this radiation "moving along with us", or some such thing, then you are essentially saying that the Earth is absolutely at rest.

If you don't believe in absolute rest, you must conclude that the CMBR is "moving with us", which explains why we aren't getting roasted alive by cosmic rays.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: WTF on March 29, 2007, 09:23:57 PM
RE science confirms that the "CBR" is in fact "moving with us", whatever that is supposed to mean: it has been observed to be isotropic.  This means that its spectrum is the same in all directions; there is no observed blue- or redshift in any part of the sky (to my knowledge; this has been disputed but I have not seen any references).

Um, yeah.  That part in bold means we aren't accelerating through the universe.  It makes no sense to state that the CMB is "accelerating" with us.  How exactly can background radiation "accelerate"?  Are you suggesting that the photons created at the surface of last scattering which are coming directly "toward" us somehow "slow down" at a rate of 1g?  That's nonsensical.  And considering that you invoke relativity in your defense of the FE "gravity", I'd suggest you not ignore the invariance of the speed of light.
We should see blueshift.  A hell of a lot of it.  We wouldn't expect to see it until we approach more significant fractions of the speed of light.  That's why we don't in the real world.  But at constant 1g we'd be at extremely high velocity very, very quickly.  For example we'd reach the moon in about 2.5 hours and the sun in about 2 days starting from rest at 1g acceleration.

What is the force which supposedly accelerates the earth anyway?  How exactly does it manage to accelerate us (and everything) at a constant 1g?  The faster we go, the more "oomph" is required to maintain that level of acceleration.
How does that work exactly?
Conventional theories of gravity, though they change, explain the universe pretty damn well.  The FE explanations tackle one bit at a time without any regard to the larger consequences.  The explanation of why we feel gravity (the constant acceleration of the earth through space) could explain the isolated observation of gravity on earth from the perspective of one person.
But what about planet and solar system formation?  What about black holes, how do they form?  What causes supernovae? What about stellar evolution?  FE theory falls silent because it's not created to attempt to explain the real word; it's created to attempt to explain one singular, isolated question.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Erasmus on March 30, 2007, 01:50:58 AM
Are you suggesting that etc.

Obviously not.

Quote
We should see blueshift.  A hell of a lot of it.  We wouldn't expect to see it until we approach more significant fractions of the speed of light.

More significant fractions of the speed of light with respect to....?

Quote
But at constant 1g we'd be at extremely high velocity very, very quickly.

I promised months ago to stop responding to such statements, but I guess it's been a while, so: WITH RESPECT TO WHAT PLEASE.

Quote
The faster we go, the more "oomph" is required to maintain that level of acceleration.
How does that work exactly?

That isn't true.  If you imagine, for example, that there's a rocket (or something analogous to it, that creates thrust via conservation of momentum by ejecting a reaction mass) propelling the Earth upward, then from the inertial reference frame that you've implicitly picked, the mass of the reaction mass would increase proportionally with the mass of the Earth, so the acceleration of the Earth would remain the same.

If, instead, you look from our perspective (which, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, is no less "true" than any other in the universe), you'll note that the Earth's velocity is zero, so it has no relativistic mass.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Tomonome on May 17, 2007, 10:22:20 PM
Did we ever answer the question of whether or not the entire universe is accelerating or not?  If it was then, without any other frame of reference other than the universe, the universe wouldn't be accelerating at all and a gravity like force would not be generated.  If it is just the Earth accelerating, then nevermind.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Trekky0623 on May 18, 2007, 07:27:58 AM
Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Mr. Ireland on May 18, 2007, 08:49:18 AM
It's just the earth accelerating.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 18, 2007, 09:08:26 AM
Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?
Something you drop.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Trekky0623 on May 18, 2007, 10:57:04 AM
But if the whole universe is accelerating, then we are in fact not accelerating relative to anything and the effect would be canceled.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 18, 2007, 11:06:48 AM
Drop something.  We are accelerating relative to that.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Trekky0623 on May 18, 2007, 07:28:36 PM
But what if nothing dropped?  We wouldn't be accelerating.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Mr. Ireland on May 18, 2007, 07:31:54 PM
But things do drop.  This isn't a what if, it's a what happens.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 18, 2007, 10:47:58 PM
But what if nothing dropped?  We wouldn't be accelerating.
The earth is accelerating relative to you as you stand on it.  The earth is accelerating relative to my house, to my car, and to the stop sign on the street corner. 
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sokarul on May 18, 2007, 10:48:50 PM
And the gravitation from mass is where?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 18, 2007, 11:15:55 PM
In the middle of your nearest busy street.  Go look for it.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sokarul on May 18, 2007, 11:17:25 PM
In the middle of your nearest busy street.  Go look for it.
lol

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on May 19, 2007, 04:14:38 AM
Oooo nice one!
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Mr. Ireland on May 19, 2007, 08:08:51 AM
In the middle of your nearest busy street.  Go look for it.

Oh, evil.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on May 19, 2007, 08:09:20 AM
Evil but funny, might nominate it
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Mr. Ireland on May 19, 2007, 08:12:37 AM
Will*  TheEngineer seems to be good at getting nominated.  He says the right things at the right times.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on May 19, 2007, 08:57:10 AM
Can't be arsed to nominate it
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on August 25, 2007, 04:22:46 PM
a general statement that says the earth "is" acclerating at 1g 9.8m s/s, is a decleration of truth, from some person, you can't then change your inertial view, and say no it's actually decreasing its acceleration, this is called a contradiction, rellativity states: alice is in space she sees a red blinking light getting larger she sees it belongs to bob who gets bigger and passers her, if we were to switch the view to bobs he would see it as alice getting closer. but, now this is the point, you cannot say either one is the one actually moving, until say bob decides he wants to catch up with alice, so he turns around and puts on his "rocket pack" at that moment he declares he is the   one in motion (not inertia as he was before) but alice still under inertia is stationery in bobs point of view.
therefore if you declare the earth is accelerating, you declare that it is not moving under just inertia but by some force, thus in no frame of reference can you say it is decreasing or not accelerating, you've already declared it IS accelerating.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on August 25, 2007, 04:50:34 PM
a general statement that says the earth "is" acclerating at 1g 9.8m s/s, is a decleration of truth, from some person, you can't then change your inertial view, and say no it's actually decreasing its acceleration, this is called a contradiction, rellativity states:
Actually, RELATIVITY states that it is -gasp- relative!
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on August 25, 2007, 04:52:50 PM
a general statement that says the earth "is" acclerating at 1g 9.8m s/s, is a decleration of truth, from some person, you can't then change your inertial view, and say no it's actually decreasing its acceleration, this is called a contradiction, rellativity states:
Actually, RELATIVITY states that it is -gasp- relative!

BLASPHEMY!!!
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on August 25, 2007, 04:54:02 PM
Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?
Something you drop.


"something you drop" an object? that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.

that's laughable, you seem to be saying that when i chuck the object up the earth slows down
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on August 25, 2007, 04:56:31 PM
Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?
Something you drop.


"something you drop" an object? that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.

that's laughable, you seem to be saying that when i chuck the object up the earth slows down

Well relative to what exactly? something on the object thrown could deduce either they are accelerating or the Earth is decelerating, it depends on viewpoint...
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on August 25, 2007, 04:58:04 PM
"something you drop" an object?
Uh, yes.

Quote
that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.
If you drop it it is not on the earth.  It will retain its momentum when you 'dropped' it, however.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on August 25, 2007, 04:59:35 PM
a general statement that says the earth "is" acclerating at 1g 9.8m s/s, is a decleration of truth, from some person, you can't then change your inertial view, and say no it's actually decreasing its acceleration, this is called a contradiction, rellativity states:
Actually, RELATIVITY states that it is -gasp- relative!

BLASPHEMY!!!

it is only relative in uniform motion "inertia" not when something is under constant acceleration "force" did you miss that point, why do think einstein had to postulate general relativity.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on August 25, 2007, 05:02:05 PM
say i don't drop anything, what is it accelerating in reference to?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on August 25, 2007, 05:04:10 PM
say i don't drop anything, what is it accelerating in reference to?

Whatever ISN'T moving outside the Earth
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on August 25, 2007, 05:05:32 PM
it is only relative in uniform motion "inertia" not when something is under constant acceleration "force" did you miss that point, why do think einstein had to postulate general relativity.
I have equations that prove you wrong.  Care to use some to prove me wrong?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on August 25, 2007, 05:07:58 PM
say i don't drop anything, what is it accelerating in reference to?

Whatever ISN'T moving outside the Earth

you said movement was relative, so how can you claim that something is moving or not?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on August 25, 2007, 05:09:25 PM
if two objects get further apart or closer together then SOMETHING is moving
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on August 25, 2007, 05:09:31 PM
you said movement was relative, so how can you claim that something is moving or not?
That's the point of RELATIVITY.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on August 25, 2007, 05:11:18 PM
maths does not prove anything, you can make any theory self-consistent in mathematics, einstien proved it tadA, with maths. i want empirical proof.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on August 25, 2007, 05:11:33 PM
"round and round the merry-go-'round"
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on August 25, 2007, 05:13:18 PM
you said movement was relative, so how can you claim that something is moving or not?
That's the point of RELATIVITY.
yes but his statement went against his wn interpratation of relativity
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on August 25, 2007, 05:14:49 PM
Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?
Something you drop.


"something you drop" an object? that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.

that's laughable, you seem to be saying that when i chuck the object up the earth slows down

Well relative to what exactly? something on the object thrown could deduce either they are accelerating or the Earth is decelerating, it depends on viewpoint...
Uh, no. Acceleration or deceleration is detectable and does not depend on viewpoint.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on August 25, 2007, 05:14:54 PM
"round and round the merry-go-'round"
yes, i'm glad you are starting to see the flaw in your reasoning
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on August 25, 2007, 05:16:07 PM
Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?
Something you drop.


"something you drop" an object? that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.

that's laughable, you seem to be saying that when i chuck the object up the earth slows down

Well relative to what exactly? something on the object thrown could deduce either they are accelerating or the Earth is decelerating, it depends on viewpoint...
Uh, no. Acceleration or deceleration is detectable and does not depend on viewpoint.
how? by dropping something-laughable
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on August 25, 2007, 05:18:26 PM
MY reasoning? I only joined in about 4 posts ago
Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?
Something you drop.


"something you drop" an object? that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.

that's laughable, you seem to be saying that when i chuck the object up the earth slows down

Well relative to what exactly? something on the object thrown could deduce either they are accelerating or the Earth is decelerating, it depends on viewpoint...
Uh, no. Acceleration or deceleration is detectable and does not depend on viewpoint.

*sigh* I'm tired, ok he was asking what we were accelerating in relation to, he didn't understand how this could be so, I explained. Probably badly but it's 1am here
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on August 25, 2007, 05:21:54 PM
excuses excuses, your obviously not an existentialist
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on August 25, 2007, 05:23:22 PM
Don't big words. I explained how it's 1am here, right?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on August 25, 2007, 05:25:03 PM
Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?
Something you drop.


"something you drop" an object? that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.

that's laughable, you seem to be saying that when i chuck the object up the earth slows down

Well relative to what exactly? something on the object thrown could deduce either they are accelerating or the Earth is decelerating, it depends on viewpoint...
Uh, no. Acceleration or deceleration is detectable and does not depend on viewpoint.
how? by dropping something-laughable

Easily. Yes, you could drop something. Yes, you could use an accelerometer.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on August 28, 2007, 04:28:47 AM
Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?
Something you drop.


"something you drop" an object? that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.

that's laughable, you seem to be saying that when i chuck the object up the earth slows down

Well relative to what exactly? something on the object thrown could deduce either they are accelerating or the Earth is decelerating, it depends on viewpoint...
Uh, no. Acceleration or deceleration is detectable and does not depend on viewpoint.
how? by dropping something-laughable

Easily. Yes, you could drop something. Yes, you could use an accelerometer.
i hope your being ironic...
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on August 28, 2007, 04:37:04 AM
Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?
Something you drop.


"something you drop" an object? that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.

that's laughable, you seem to be saying that when i chuck the object up the earth slows down

Well relative to what exactly? something on the object thrown could deduce either they are accelerating or the Earth is decelerating, it depends on viewpoint...
Uh, no. Acceleration or deceleration is detectable and does not depend on viewpoint.
how? by dropping something-laughable

Easily. Yes, you could drop something. Yes, you could use an accelerometer.
i hope you're being ironic...

fixed
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on August 28, 2007, 05:09:45 AM
...typed in haste...  ;)





p.s both times
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on August 28, 2007, 01:01:58 PM
Wait, what's wrong with dropping something?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: me25 on September 23, 2007, 04:14:20 PM
Well, did any of you know that science has now proven two things: 1. That a light pulse can travel faster than light (since light is both a particle, and a wave, this might suggest that objects can too) and 2. that said light pulse actually arrived before it left when it traveled faster than light. This means, that it essentially travelled back in time. This notion may seem ridiculous, but I have provided a link to the article (http://www.iitk.ac.in/infocell/Archive/dirjuly3/science_light.html). This suggests that it might be possible for matter to break the light speed barrier under very specific conditions. So, let's say the earth is flat (but it's not). And then let's say that these specific conditions are met somehow, and the earth starts travelling upwards at a speed faster than the speed of light. Well, then we would all be travelling backwards in time, which we know is not true. Therefore, the earth cannot be constantly gaining speed (not only because it can't travel faster than light without travelling back in time, but also because of the obvious reason that there is nothing propelling it upwards) because, as was stated in the beginning of this thread, the earth would have broken the light speed barrier by day 354. Well, the earth has obviously been around much longer than that, so it would already be travelling faster than light, which can't be possible, or we would be moving backwards in time. Hope this settles the gravity factor once and for all, but I'm expecting a bunch of conspiracy claims, so it probably won't.
I've been wondering that, what is supposedly pulling or pushing the Earth to make it constantly increase in vellocity?
and from the other side of the argument, about the going back in time thing, if you consider time to be the 4th dimension, then shouldn't it behave like the other dimensions in that it would be relative to ones perspective? ( If this is a stupid question, forgive me, I'm only in 8th grade)
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 23, 2007, 05:01:14 PM

Well, did any of you know that science has now proven two things: 1. That a light pulse can travel faster than light (since light is both a particle, and a wave, this might suggest that objects can too)

Light cannot travel faster than light. The effect that's been seen is a wave effect whereby the phase velocity can exceed the packet velocity. Nothing is traveling faster than light. You can make a shadow travel faster than light if the projection is far enough away. It doesn't mean anything actually move faster than light or that any information or communication crossed a distance at faster than light speed. That is impossible by special relativity.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 23, 2007, 05:03:42 PM

and from the other side of the argument, about the going back in time thing, if you consider time to be the 4th dimension, then shouldn't it behave like the other dimensions in that it would be relative to ones perspective? ( If this is a stupid question, forgive me, I'm only in 8th grade)

Indeed it is relative to one's perspective. For example, if you leave on a spaceship travelling 80% of the speed of light, you will see time pass on earth at 60% of its normal speed. Likewise, the people on earth will see your time pass at 60% of its normal speed.

Note: that's not a contradiction even if it sounds like one.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Brennan on September 24, 2007, 03:59:30 AM
Dumbass thread. 13 pages wtf?!?!

When you reach a high velocity you undergo time dilation due to this you are experiencing less time than a stationary observer so you measure your acceleration wrongly (your length perception will also be out).

To a stationary observer your velocity will asyptotically approach c.

Go read 'Tau Zero' by Poul Anderson for a good description/explanation.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 06:33:11 AM


When you reach a high velocity you undergo time dilation due to this you are experiencing less time than a stationary observer so you measure your acceleration wrongly (your length perception will also be out).

There is nothing "wrong" about the acceleration or length measurements from the high velocity observer. These measurements are relative. According to the observer, he is standing still and it is you that are approching the speed of light.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Brennan on September 24, 2007, 06:39:30 AM
When you reach a high velocity you undergo time dilation due to this you are experiencing less time than a stationary observer so you measure your acceleration wrongly (your length perception will also be out).

There is nothing "wrong" about the acceleration or length measurements from the high velocity observer. These measurements are relative. According to the observer, he is standing still and it is you that are approching the speed of light.
Ah, one of those posts that appears to argue, when it actually agrees.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 06:40:24 AM


When you reach a high velocity you undergo time dilation due to this you are experiencing less time than a stationary observer so you measure your acceleration wrongly (your length perception will also be out).

There is nothing "wrong" about the acceleration or length measurements from the high velocity observer. These measurements are relative. According to the observer, he is standing still and it is you that are approching the speed of light.
I disagree with the last sentence. Adding a few assumption such as initially relatively at the same speed, he observer, having felt acceleration, knows the he or she, not you, are (relatively) moving. Otherwise, I concur.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 08:43:45 AM
You can feel feel the pull yes. So you can measure the acceleration but not the speed. It's still relative. There is a co-moving intertial frame at any given moment in time. This has all the same time dilation and length contraction properties as the accelerated frame. And it exhibits an exact symmetry with the other observer.

And Brennan we may agree on the physics, but I don't think we agree on how to interpret the physics of this.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Brennan on September 24, 2007, 08:51:25 AM
You can feel feel the pull yes. So you can measure the acceleration but not the speed. It's still relative. There is a co-moving intertial frame at any given moment in time. This has all the same time dilation and length contraction properties as the accelerated frame. And it exhibits an exact symmetry with the other observer.

And Brennan we may agree on the physics, but I don't think we agree on how to interpret the physics of this.
I think we agree totally. You just think I said things I didn't.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 09:06:59 AM
You said an accelerated observer measures his acceleration "wrongly" because of length contraction and time dilation. I don't agree with this. An observer in a comoving inertail frame will measure the exact same acceleration as the accelerated observer. And this observer's measurement of the acceleration is just as valid as any other inertial observer's measurement of the acceleration. All speed is relative.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Brennan on September 24, 2007, 09:23:30 AM
You said an accelerated observer measures his acceleration "wrongly" because of length contraction and time dilation. I don't agree with this. An observer in a comoving inertail frame will measure the exact same acceleration as the accelerated observer. And this observer's measurement of the acceleration is just as valid as any other inertial observer's measurement of the acceleration. All speed is relative.
I know exactly what you mean. All I meant was his measurement would be 'wrong' from the POV of the stationary observer due to relative time dilation exerienced by the accelerating observer... I never mentioned anyone in a reference frame exactly the same as the accelerating person's.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 09:30:05 AM
It sounded like an absolute characterization in the original post so that's why I disputed it. Sorry. "Differently" would have been a better word.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Brennan on September 24, 2007, 09:44:57 AM
Sorry. "Differently" would have been a better word.
True. People aren't half pedantic round here. :)
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 09:55:02 AM
You can feel feel the pull yes. So you can measure the acceleration but not the speed. It's still relative. There is a co-moving intertial frame at any given moment in time. This has all the same time dilation and length contraction properties as the accelerated frame. And it exhibits an exact symmetry with the other observer.

And Brennan we may agree on the physics, but I don't think we agree on how to interpret the physics of this.
You can't scientifically omit the memory of acceleration.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 09:58:50 AM
We're starting to mix GR and SR when it really isn't needed. But if you think that is proof of motion then you just proved the UA hypothesis correct because I feel the ground pushing up against my body.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 10:05:26 AM
We're starting to mix GR and SR when it really isn't needed. But if you think that is proof of motion then you just proved the UA hypothesis correct because I feel the ground pushing up against my body.


You'll have to tell the reason you feel that I just proved that. Oh, and GR is a superset of SR, so I don't see how we're starting to mix them.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 10:23:00 AM
By mixing them, all I meant is we're starting to introudce, at your impetus, GR into an issue that can be resolved by SR alone. I think trying to consider accelerated reference frames is muddying the issue.

You had argued that you know you aren't standing still if you felt acceleration. Well you "feel" acceleration all the time just by living on the surface of the earth. It's no different than if the floor were racing up at you at 9.8 m/s^2 as the UA hypothesis contends. However, you are not accelerating along a radial direction of the earth. So just because you feel acceleration, that doesn't mean you aren't standing still.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 10:41:41 AM
By mixing them, all I meant is we're starting to introudce, at your impetus, GR into an issue that can be resolved by SR alone. I think trying to consider accelerated reference frames is muddying the issue.

You had argued that you know you aren't standing still if you felt acceleration. Well you "feel" acceleration all the time just by living on the surface of the earth. It's no different than if the floor were racing up at you at 9.8 m/s^2 as the UA hypothesis contends. However, you are not accelerating along a radial direction of the earth. So just because you feel acceleration, that doesn't mean you aren't standing still.
Yes, but just because the UA is correct in that small experiment doesn't mean that I've proven it correct. Indeed The RE Primer contains several real challenges to the UA.
We're starting to mix GR and SR when it really isn't needed. But if you think that is proof of motion then you just proved the UA hypothesis correct because I feel the ground pushing up against my body.



Now, I don't see that I've introduced the need for GR in my comments. I suggest that you confer the Twin Paradox. The acceleration of the traveling twin allows him or her to determine that the Earth-based twin is aging faster in real terms--and without the mechanics of GR. Likewise our FE-based twin would realize the he or she is moving and aging less than the "left-behind" twin not accelerated by the UA.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 11:15:39 AM
Special Relativity cannot handle an accelerated frame of reference. When the flight based twin turns around, his line of simultaneity with the earth based twin jumps. This jump could be thousands of years. If he calculates he earth based twin's rate of ageing at any point during the trip (either direction), it is always slower than his own. The whole thing you read in books about how the flight based twin accelerates and that breaks the symmetry is just hand waving. The best way to look at it is that the flight based twin jumps from one intertial reference frame to another.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 11:23:49 AM
Special Relativity cannot handle an accelerated frame of reference. When the flight based twin turns around, his line of simultaneity with the earth based twin jumps. This jump could be thousands of years. If he calculates he earth based twin's rate of ageing at any point during the trip (either direction), it is always slower than his own. The whole thing you read in books about how the flight based twin accelerates and that breaks the symmetry is just hand waving. The best way to look at it is that the flight based twin jumps from one intertial reference frame to another.
I really don't see a difference. The traveling twin can detect either acceleration or the jump in iFoRs. Either breaks the symmetry. I'm not using GR's set of accelerated iFoRs. Again, acceleration is not relative. The FE-based observer knows of his or her motion relative to the "left-behind" observer as the UA has accelerated the FE-based observer--and the FE-based observer knows it.

The bottom line for me is that the FE-based observers, us, know that, if FE is correct, then we know we're moving and moving fast relative to how we were moving even last year.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: me25 on September 24, 2007, 12:19:51 PM
When you reach a high velocity you undergo time dilation due to this you are experiencing less time than a stationary observer so you measure your acceleration wrongly (your length perception will also be out).

There is nothing "wrong" about the acceleration or length measurements from the high velocity observer. These measurements are relative. According to the observer, he is standing still and it is you that are approching the speed of light.
Ah, one of those posts that appears to argue, when it actually agrees.
yeah, it really depends on what you consider "wrong"
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 12:30:51 PM

I really don't see a difference. The traveling twin can detect either acceleration or the jump in iFoRs. Either breaks the symmetry. [/quote]

I agree the symmtry breaks. But it doesn't break because of the acceleration. It breaks because the reference frame jumps. i.e. you turn around.

Quote
I'm not using GR's set of accelerated iFoRs. Again, acceleration is not relative.

It most certainly *is* relative.

Let's say someone is moving 99% the speed of light relative to me and accelerating. He exerpeinces 1g of effective gravity in his own reference frame. Someone (an intertial observer) moving the same speed as him at that instant measures his acceleration to be 9.8 m/s^2. Yet I measure his acceleration to be much less than that.

Quote
The FE-based observer knows of his or her motion relative to the "left-behind" observer as the UA has accelerated the FE-based observer--and the FE-based observer knows it.

Are you talking at the start of the trip? because that acceleration is irrelevant. It's the turning around part that matters. It doesn't matter what you do or do not "know" either. I like the example of two streams going back and forth and observers synchonizing their clocks and such. No acceleration of any kind occurs in this example, yet you still have the twin apradox effect.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 01:20:42 PM

I really don't see a difference. The traveling twin can detect either acceleration or the jump in iFoRs. Either breaks the symmetry.

I agree the symmtry breaks. But it doesn't break because of the acceleration. It breaks because the reference frame jumps. i.e. you turn around.
Tell me the reason you contend that acceleration doesn't break the symmetry. We know that acceleration affects time dilation. Some two observers can tell by their clocks that symmetry is broken with nothing more than acceleration. Your frame jumps are off topic. We're dealing with constant acceleration.
Quote
Quote
I'm not using GR's set of accelerated iFoRs. Again, acceleration is not relative.

It most certainly *is* relative.

Let's say someone is moving 99% the speed of light relative to me and accelerating. He exerpeinces 1g of effective gravity in his own reference frame. Someone (an intertial observer) moving the same speed as him at that instant measures his acceleration to be 9.8 m/s^2. Yet I measure his acceleration to be much less than that.
You misunderstand what we mean by relativity. The observers all agree and come up with the same values for all observers. You know he's been under constant acceleration. You all know the effect on the FE-bound observer's time dilation. You calculate the same values accordingly. The knowledge exists to resolve who is moving and who is accelerating and who feels what acceleration. That means acceleration is not relative.
Quote
Quote
The FE-based observer knows of his or her motion relative to the "left-behind" observer as the UA has accelerated the FE-based observer--and the FE-based observer knows it.

Are you talking at the start of the trip? because that acceleration is irrelevant. It's the turning around part that matters. It doesn't matter what you do or do not "know" either. I like the example of two streams going back and forth and observers synchonizing their clocks and such. No acceleration of any kind occurs in this example, yet you still have the twin apradox effect.

I'm talking about the moment after the "left-behind" observer is left behind. No, it's not just the turning around part that matters. It most certainly does matter what you know. That's the basis of even the twin paradox. We know that they started at the same chronological age, for example.

BTW, I'm enjoying this. You're a credit to the field!
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 01:31:58 PM
"Tell me the reason you contend that acceleration doesn't break the symmetry. We know that acceleration affects time dilation. Some two observers can tell by their clocks that symmetry is broken with nothing more than acceleration. Your frame jumps are off topic. We're dealing with constant acceleration."

Ok there is a broken symmetry between the two when one accelerates, true. But it has nothing to do with the explanation for why the flight bound twin ends up younger. Even with constant acceleration the entire time, this is still true. The flight bound twin sees the earth bound twin age more slowly than him for the first 1/4 and last 1.4 of the trip. The middle half of the journey is just the turnaround stretched out.

"You misunderstand what we mean by relativity. The observers all agree and come up with the same values for all observers. You know he's been under constant acceleration. You all know the effect on the FE-bound observer's time dilation. You calculate the same values accordingly. The knowledge exists to resolve who is moving and who is accelerating and who feels what acceleration. That means acceleration is not relative."

That someone is accelerating is not relative in SR.

The value of the acceleration IS relative.

So yes, acceleration is relative.

"The observers all agree and come up with the same values for all observers."

But they don't. They may agree to do this, but it isn't possible. Yes with knowledge of SR you can work out what you think someone else is observing, but you observe what you observe


"I'm talking about the moment after the "left-behind" observer is left behind. No, it's not just the turning around part that matters. It most certainly does matter what you know. That's the basis of even the twin paradox. We know that they started at the same chronological age, for example."

I'm sorry but you're wrong on all counts there. The acceleration around the earth isn't relevant. Only the turnaround (or the acceleration involved with it if you strethc it out) is relevant here. The symmetry still exists for the first 1/4 of the trip for example, even though one twin has been accelerating the whole time. For that entire part of the trip, he sees the earth bound twin ageing more slowly than he ages.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 02:10:26 PM
Quote from: Gulliver
Tell me the reason you contend that acceleration doesn't break the symmetry. We know that acceleration affects time dilation. Some two observers can tell by their clocks that symmetry is broken with nothing more than acceleration. Your frame jumps are off topic. We're dealing with constant acceleration.

Ok there is a broken symmetry between the two when one accelerates, true. But it has nothing to do with the explanation for why the flight bound twin ends up younger. Even with constant acceleration the entire time, this is still true. The flight bound twin sees the earth bound twin age more slowly than him for the first 1/4 and last 1.4 of the trip. The middle half of the journey is just the turnaround stretched out.
Well, we've made progress. I don't need to have the twins meet to have the break in symmetry. The break, observed by both observers, is the crux of my argument. I believe that you'd agreed to that.
Quote
Quote from: Gulliver
You misunderstand what we mean by relativity. The observers all agree and come up with the same values for all observers. You know he's been under constant acceleration. You all know the effect on the FE-bound observer's time dilation. You calculate the same values accordingly. The knowledge exists to resolve who is moving and who is accelerating and who feels what acceleration. That means acceleration is not relative.

That someone is accelerating is not relative in SR.

The value of the acceleration IS relative.

So yes, acceleration is relative.
No. The values are the same. Each knows of the FE-based observer's acceleration.
Quote
Quote from: Gulliver
The observers all agree and come up with the same values for all observers.

But they don't. They may agree to do this, but it isn't possible. Yes with knowledge of SR you can work out what you think someone else is observing, but you observe what you observe
I sure have to agree with "you observe what you observe" statement; however, I argue, and I think well, that both observers observe the symmetry break and therefore calculate the same values.
Quote
Quote from: Gulliver

I'm talking about the moment after the "left-behind" observer is left behind. No, it's not just the turning around part that matters. It most certainly does matter what you know. That's the basis of even the twin paradox. We know that they started at the same chronological age, for example.

I'm sorry but you're wrong on all counts there. The acceleration around the earth isn't relevant. Only the turnaround (or the acceleration involved with it if you strethc it out) is relevant here. The symmetry still exists for the first 1/4 of the trip for example, even though one twin has been accelerating the whole time. For that entire part of the trip, he sees the earth bound twin ageing more slowly than he ages.


Huh? We just agreed that the acceleration breaks the symmetry. You also failed to address how I'm wrong regarding using what we know in the Twin Paradox. You argued that it's not what we know, but what we observe.

BTW, your intelligent responses are very intriguing.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: divito the truthist on September 24, 2007, 02:19:40 PM
"The issue in the general relativity solution is how the traveling twin perceives the situation during the acceleration for the turn-around. This issue is well described in Einstein's twin paradox solution of 1918[1]. In this solution it was noted that from the viewpoint of the traveller, the calculation for each separate leg equals that of special relativity, in which the Earth clocks age less than the traveller. For example, if the Earth clocks age 1 day less on each leg, the amount that the Earth clocks will lag behind due to speed alone amounts to 2 days. Now the accelerated frame is regarded as truly stationary, and the physical description of what happens at turn-around has to produce a contrary effect of double that amount: 4 days' advancing of the Earth clocks. Then the traveler's clock will end up with a 2-day delay on the Earth clocks, just as special relativity stipulates."

Isn't that relative?

Just because you can calculate for something doesn't mean it's magically not relative to individuals. Just because I can understand someone's motive for killing doesn't make the value the same for someone else trying to kill.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 02:34:33 PM
"The issue in the general relativity solution is how the traveling twin perceives the situation during the acceleration for the turn-around. This issue is well described in Einstein's twin paradox solution of 1918[1]. In this solution it was noted that from the viewpoint of the traveller, the calculation for each separate leg equals that of special relativity, in which the Earth clocks age less than the traveller. For example, if the Earth clocks age 1 day less on each leg, the amount that the Earth clocks will lag behind due to speed alone amounts to 2 days. Now the accelerated frame is regarded as truly stationary, and the physical description of what happens at turn-around has to produce a contrary effect of double that amount: 4 days' advancing of the Earth clocks. Then the traveler's clock will end up with a 2-day delay on the Earth clocks, just as special relativity stipulates."

Isn't that relative?

Just because you can calculate for something doesn't mean it's magically not relative to individuals. Just because I can understand someone's motive for killing doesn't make the value the same for someone else trying to kill.
No. But good effort.

Let's review. Relativity is a basic concept. It dates back to Galileo. Motion is relative. Given two observers, neither can tell who has the "proper" motive (who is "really" moving) (or both). SR emphasizes this by noting that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers (regardless of motion and then in GR or presence in a gravitational field).

When two observers note that one of them is accelerating. One feels the acceleration. The other does not. Each knows who is accelerating. This means that one has the same original iFoR with him or her, and one does not. Since there's a discernible and equally determinable difference, acceleration is not relative.

Now to your quote: No, that not relative acceleration. Each twin knows who is accelerated and who is not.

Make sense?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 03:00:10 PM
"No. The values are the same. Each knows of the FE-based observer's acceleration."

Yes, they both know of it. But they measure different values. Look, you can't accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 relative to an inertial observer forever. If you could, you'd get higher than the speed of light. Acceleration doesn't have some special definition in relativity. It's still the rate of change of velocity. The transformation becomes more complicated, but the values ar enot the same as would be the case in Newtonian mechanics.

Let me be clear about this. If you and I are inertial observers in 2 different inertial frames of reference we will measure DIFFERENT accelerations for some accelerating body.

"Huh? We just agreed that the acceleration breaks the symmetry. You also failed to address how I'm wrong regarding using what we know in the Twin Paradox. You argued that it's not what we know, but what we observe.

BTW, your intelligent responses are very intriguing."
 
Well I spent a lot of time as a teenager trying to understand this problem. As this debate has confirmed, even when you think you understand it, you may not. As for acceleration breaking the symmetry, yes this matters if you eventually slow down or turn around. If you just keep accelerating, there is no break in the symmetry. The earth based observer sees the spaceship come closer and closer to the speed of light with more and more time dilation. The flight based observer sees the earth get closer and closer to the speed of light with more and more time dilation. There is no break in the symmetry here. If the spaceship now magically decelerates down to 0, then yes all of a sudden the earth ages many years in an instant so that everyone now agrees on the ages. But before that, even though the spaceship may have been accelerating for 1000 years, both parties saw length contraction and time dilation in the other.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: narcberry on September 24, 2007, 03:01:31 PM
Quote
You're both right, except Gulliver.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 03:06:04 PM
By the way, in case it's not clear, when I use the word "see" I'm not referring to visuals. That's a whole different question (which does not involve such discontinuities). What I'm saying is that the line of simultaneity, i.e. the concept of "nowness," over such alrge distances can jump around like this.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 03:24:24 PM
Quote from: Gulliver
No. The values are the same. Each knows of the FE-based observer's acceleration.
Yes, they both know of it. But they measure different values. Look, you can't accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 relative to an inertial observer forever. If you could, you'd get higher than the speed of light. Acceleration doesn't have some special definition in relativity. It's still the rate of change of velocity. The transformation becomes more complicated, but the values ar enot the same as would be the case in Newtonian mechanics.

Let me be clear about this. If you and I are inertial observers in 2 different inertial frames of reference we will measure DIFFERENT accelerations for some accelerating body.
Why would you claim that the inertial observer would measure the acceleration greater than 9.8 ms-2? Both observers see and understand the "felt" acceleration on the FE remains at 1g. Neither believes that the FE is traveling faster than light. Neither believes that the FE accelerates at a constant 1g in any iFor. That's a sophomoric error about acceleration. Acceleration must certainly does have a special definition in relativity. Just consider that velocities don't add linearly and you'll see your error.
Quote from: Gulliver
Huh? We just agreed that the acceleration breaks the symmetry. You also failed to address how I'm wrong regarding using what we know in the Twin Paradox. You argued that it's not what we know, but what we observe.

BTW, your intelligent responses are very intriguing.

Well I spent a lot of time as a teenager trying to understand this problem. As this debate has confirmed, even when you think you understand it, you may not. As for acceleration breaking the symmetry, yes this matters if you eventually slow down or turn around. If you just keep accelerating, there is no break in the symmetry. The earth based observer sees the spaceship come closer and closer to the speed of light with more and more time dilation. The flight based observer sees the earth get closer and closer to the speed of light with more and more time dilation. There is no break in the symmetry here. If the spaceship now magically decelerates down to 0, then yes all of a sudden the earth ages many years in an instant so that everyone now agrees on the ages. But before that, even though the spaceship may have been accelerating for 1000 years, both parties saw length contraction and time dilation in the other.


[/quote]Let's back up. You said:
"Tell me the reason you contend that acceleration doesn't break the symmetry. We know that acceleration affects time dilation. Some two observers can tell by their clocks that symmetry is broken with nothing more than acceleration. Your frame jumps are off topic. We're dealing with constant acceleration."

Ok there is a broken symmetry between the two when one accelerates, true. ...
Let's be sure I understand you. Do you recant one of the above?

Oh, and before you reply please recall the Twin Paradox under the circle path at constant speed of .9c throughout. Even though they pass each other at .9c they see that their ages now differ, and differ yet again on each circuit.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 04:27:12 PM
"Why would you claim that the inertial observer would measure the acceleration greater than 9.8 ms-2? Both observers see and understand the "felt" acceleration on the FE remains at 1g. Neither believes that the FE is traveling faster than light. Neither believes that the FE accelerates at a constant 1g in any iFor. That's a sophomoric error about acceleration. Acceleration must certainly does have a special definition in relativity. Just consider that velocities don't add linearly and you'll see your error."

I never said it would be more than 9.8 m/s^2. In fact it's less. What aren't you getting about this? Do you agree a comoving observer with the accelerated frame always measures 9.8 m/s^2? Do you also agree if a non-accelerated observer always measured an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 that the object would eventually be traveling faster than light??

As an object gains speed (relative to say, me) it's mass increases. I can keep applying the same force, but the acceleration *I* observe will decrease. The acceleration observed by the object is always the same.

I understand how to add velocities. That's why it works this way, and not your way.

"Let's be sure I understand you. Do you recant one of the above?"

No I don't. They're referring to two different things. You're forcing me to admit there's a break in the symmetry the moment one accelerates and yes of course that's true. This is really more by the definition of symmetry than any useful physical insight. That "symmetry break", however, has nothing to do with the twin paradox effect or its resolution/explanation. The key point of symmetry breaking there is the turnaround.

"Oh, and before you reply please recall the Twin Paradox under the circle path at constant speed of .9c throughout. Even though they pass each other at .9c they see that their ages now differ, and differ yet again on each circuit."

It's the same problem formulated differently. The turnaround still constitutes the middle half of trip. Don't be confused by the constant speed overall. There is acceleration and deceleration along each direction.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 05:19:29 PM
Quote from: Gulliver
Why would you claim that the inertial observer would measure the acceleration greater than 9.8 ms-2? Both observers see and understand the "felt" acceleration on the FE remains at 1g. Neither believes that the FE is traveling faster than light. Neither believes that the FE accelerates at a constant 1g in any iFor. That's a sophomoric error about acceleration. Acceleration must certainly does have a special definition in relativity. Just consider that velocities don't add linearly and you'll see your error.

I never said it would be more than 9.8 m/s^2. In fact it's less. What aren't you getting about this? Nothing Do you agree a comoving observer with the accelerated frame always measures 9.8 m/s^2? Yes Do you also agree if a non-accelerated observer always measured an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 that the object would eventually be traveling faster than light?? Can't happen

As an object gains speed (relative to say, me) it's mass increases. I can keep applying the same force, but the acceleration *I* observe will decrease. The acceleration observed by the object is always the same.

I understand how to add velocities. That's why it works this way, and not your way.
You're right. My mistake. I don't know how I misread your statement. Sorry. I would like to know what you think my way of adding velocities is.
Quote

Quote from: Gulliver
Let's be sure I understand you. Do you recant one of the above?

No I don't. They're referring to two different things. You're forcing me to admit there's a break in the symmetry the moment one accelerates and yes of course that's true. This is really more by the definition of symmetry than any useful physical insight. That "symmetry break", however, has nothing to do with the twin paradox effect or its resolution/explanation. The key point of symmetry breaking there is the turnaround.
It's hard to keep track of what you're saying when I have to guess under what conditions your statements apply. I maintain that acceleration breaks the symmetry and allows both observers to know the proper acceleration. If there is a proper acceleration, then acceleration is not relative.
Quote
Quote from: Gulliver
Oh, and before you reply please recall the Twin Paradox under the circle path at constant speed of .9c throughout. Even though they pass each other at .9c they see that their ages now differ, and differ yet again on each circuit.
It's the same problem formulated differently. The turnaround still constitutes the middle half of trip. Don't be confused by the constant speed overall. There is acceleration and deceleration along each direction.
Actually it's at the .25 and .75 of a circuit. My point is that the Twin Paradox survives your inherent requirement of deceleration back to zero velocity relative to the non-traveling twin.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 05:27:01 PM
"You're right. My mistake. I don't know how I misread your statement. Sorry. I would like to know what you think my way of adding velocities is."

Well it may be correct if you just misread what I said. I had no idea how you were doing but I knew it had to be wrong because I was right. :)

"It's hard to keep track of what you're saying when I have to guess under what conditions your statements apply. I maintain that acceleration breaks the symmetry and allows both observers to know the proper acceleration. If there is a proper acceleration, then acceleration is not relative."

We're going to be talking past each other forever on this.

All I'm saying is that the initial acceleration and final deceleration are unimportant...they don't even have to occur. It's the turnaround that matters.

"Actually it's at the .25 and .75 of a circuit. My point is that the Twin Paradox survives your inherent requirement of deceleration back to zero velocity relative to the non-traveling twin."

I don't think you agree with me. (And I am right.) The part of the trip that matters is [0.25-0.75.]. During the first 1.4 and last 1/4 of the journey, the circling observer sees time dilation (not speedup) for the stationary observer. Just think of a straight and back trip. All you're doing is stretching it out along the perpendicular so that the overall speed can stay the same.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 05:30:20 PM
"My point is that the Twin Paradox survives your inherent requirement of deceleration back to zero velocity relative to the non-traveling twin."

No it doesn't. The speed along the diameter of the circle goes to zero halfway through the trip.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 06:15:04 PM
"My point is that the Twin Paradox survives your inherent requirement of deceleration back to zero velocity relative to the non-traveling twin."

No it doesn't. The speed along the diameter of the circle goes to zero halfway through the trip.
There is no "The" diameter of a circle, so you're not making sense.

Your point was that it was the turnaround that made the paradox work. I gave you an example where there is no point of turnaround. You haven't answered the challenge.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 06:38:18 PM
"You're right. My mistake. I don't know how I misread your statement. Sorry. I would like to know what you think my way of adding velocities is."

Well it may be correct if you just misread what I said. I had no idea how you were doing but I knew it had to be wrong because I was right. :)

"It's hard to keep track of what you're saying when I have to guess under what conditions your statements apply. I maintain that acceleration breaks the symmetry and allows both observers to know the proper acceleration. If there is a proper acceleration, then acceleration is not relative."

We're going to be talking past each other forever on this.

All I'm saying is that the initial acceleration and final deceleration are unimportant...they don't even have to occur. It's the turnaround that matters.

"Actually it's at the .25 and .75 of a circuit. My point is that the Twin Paradox survives your inherent requirement of deceleration back to zero velocity relative to the non-traveling twin."

I don't think you agree with me. (And I am right.) The part of the trip that matters is [0.25-0.75.]. During the first 1.4 and last 1/4 of the journey, the circling observer sees time dilation (not speedup) for the stationary observer. Just think of a straight and back trip. All you're doing is stretching it out along the perpendicular so that the overall speed can stay the same.
This point remains: The observers know which of them is accelerated. Acceleration is not relative. They can determine who has been accelerated, then they calculate the same values. Why would they do any differently? Surely, you're not suggesting that they lie to themselves, are you?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 06:49:23 PM
"My point is that the Twin Paradox survives your inherent requirement of deceleration back to zero velocity relative to the non-traveling twin."

No it doesn't. The speed along the diameter of the circle goes to zero halfway through the trip.
There is no "The" diameter of a circle, so you're not making sense.

Your point was that it was the turnaround that made the paradox work. I gave you an example where there is no point of turnaround. You haven't answered the challenge.

Gulliver I've answered everything you've brought up. You just don't understand the explanations.

"The" diameter I am referring to is the diameter that has an endpoint at the location of the stationary observer. I guess it would have helped to specify this.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 06:51:30 PM
"You're right. My mistake. I don't know how I misread your statement. Sorry. I would like to know what you think my way of adding velocities is."

Well it may be correct if you just misread what I said. I had no idea how you were doing but I knew it had to be wrong because I was right. :)

"It's hard to keep track of what you're saying when I have to guess under what conditions your statements apply. I maintain that acceleration breaks the symmetry and allows both observers to know the proper acceleration. If there is a proper acceleration, then acceleration is not relative."

We're going to be talking past each other forever on this.

All I'm saying is that the initial acceleration and final deceleration are unimportant...they don't even have to occur. It's the turnaround that matters.

"Actually it's at the .25 and .75 of a circuit. My point is that the Twin Paradox survives your inherent requirement of deceleration back to zero velocity relative to the non-traveling twin."

I don't think you agree with me. (And I am right.) The part of the trip that matters is [0.25-0.75.]. During the first 1.4 and last 1/4 of the journey, the circling observer sees time dilation (not speedup) for the stationary observer. Just think of a straight and back trip. All you're doing is stretching it out along the perpendicular so that the overall speed can stay the same.
This point remains: The observers know which of them is accelerated. Acceleration is not relative. They can determine who has been accelerated, then they calculate the same values. Why would they do any differently? Surely, you're not suggesting that they lie to themselves, are you?

*Because* it has no relevance until the situation changes. Theoretically, the fliught bound observer could accelerate off to infinity forever and he always always always sees a time-dilated earth bound twin. The earth observer sees the exact same thing. This symmetry is *never* broken.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 07:29:29 PM
"You're right. My mistake. I don't know how I misread your statement. Sorry. I would like to know what you think my way of adding velocities is."

Well it may be correct if you just misread what I said. I had no idea how you were doing but I knew it had to be wrong because I was right. :)

"It's hard to keep track of what you're saying when I have to guess under what conditions your statements apply. I maintain that acceleration breaks the symmetry and allows both observers to know the proper acceleration. If there is a proper acceleration, then acceleration is not relative."

We're going to be talking past each other forever on this.

All I'm saying is that the initial acceleration and final deceleration are unimportant...they don't even have to occur. It's the turnaround that matters.

"Actually it's at the .25 and .75 of a circuit. My point is that the Twin Paradox survives your inherent requirement of deceleration back to zero velocity relative to the non-traveling twin."

I don't think you agree with me. (And I am right.) The part of the trip that matters is [0.25-0.75.]. During the first 1.4 and last 1/4 of the journey, the circling observer sees time dilation (not speedup) for the stationary observer. Just think of a straight and back trip. All you're doing is stretching it out along the perpendicular so that the overall speed can stay the same.
This point remains: The observers know which of them is accelerated. Acceleration is not relative. They can determine who has been accelerated, then they calculate the same values. Why would they do any differently? Surely, you're not suggesting that they lie to themselves, are you?

*Because* it has no relevance until the situation changes. Theoretically, the fliught bound observer could accelerate off to infinity forever and he always always always sees a time-dilated earth bound twin. The earth observer sees the exact same thing. This symmetry is *never* broken.
So what if both observers note the same time-dilation for his or her twin? Your argument fails to be relevant. One feels the acceleration that is enough to break the symmetry. Without symmetry, relativity of acceleration is falsified.

Let's work a simple example. Alice and Bob are twins. They are capable of observing their surroundings.

Bob and Alice at time zero at the same location, traveling at the same speed.

As our experiment begins, the UA accelerates BoB at 9.8 ms-2 up. The UA never accelerates Alice.

After time t (absolute time, say based on the time in the iFoR of the starting point), Bob and Alice observe each other.

Alice notes that Bob's velocity has changed relative to hers and that she has not felt an acceleration.
Bob notes that Alice's velocity has changed relative to his and that he has felt an acceleration.

Alice and Bob both conclude that Bob was accelerated and that Alice was not.
Alice and Bob determine that Alice's velocity relative to their starting velocity remains the same.
Alice and Bob determine that Bob's velocity has changed by adding a positive up velocity of v=gt (non-relativistically, of course. The relativistic equation is too cumbersome to type here).

Since they agree on the change in velocity and in the elapsed time, they get the same value for the acceleration.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 07:33:37 PM
If you want me to admit that Bob concludes he's in an accelerated frame of reference and Alice claims she's in an inertial frame then fine. That's true. I said that before and don't ever remember saying otherwise.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 07:38:21 PM
If you want me to admit that Bob concludes he's in an accelerated frame of reference and Alice claims she's in an inertial frame then fine. That's true. I said that before and don't ever remember saying otherwise.
Do Alice and Bob determine the same acceleration for Bob?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 07:43:44 PM
Absolutely not. We already went over this, and you said I was right.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 07:51:30 PM
Absolutely not. We already went over this, and you said I was right.
Okay, where did I say you were right?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 24, 2007, 08:04:12 PM


I never said it would be more than 9.8 m/s^2. In fact it's less. What aren't you getting about this? Nothing Do you agree a comoving observer with the accelerated frame always measures 9.8 m/s^2? Yes Do you also agree if a non-accelerated observer always measured an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 that the object would eventually be traveling faster than light?? Can't happen

As an object gains speed (relative to say, me) it's mass increases. I can keep applying the same force, but the acceleration *I* observe will decrease. The acceleration observed by the object is always the same.

I understand how to add velocities. That's why it works this way, and not your way.
You're right. My mistake. I don't know how I misread your statement. Sorry.

There. At least I thought you were conceding the point. But read it again. A co-moving inertial observer will always measure an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 for Bob. (Bob himself of course measures no acceleration for himself as he does not move in his own reference frame.) Alice measures a constantly decreasing acceleration for Bob. If she didn't, his speed would eventually exceed c, which you agreed is impossible.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 08:13:15 PM


I never said it would be more than 9.8 m/s^2. In fact it's less. What aren't you getting about this? Nothing Do you agree a comoving observer with the accelerated frame always measures 9.8 m/s^2? Yes Do you also agree if a non-accelerated observer always measured an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 that the object would eventually be traveling faster than light?? Can't happen

As an object gains speed (relative to say, me) it's mass increases. I can keep applying the same force, but the acceleration *I* observe will decrease. The acceleration observed by the object is always the same.

I understand how to add velocities. That's why it works this way, and not your way.
You're right. My mistake. I don't know how I misread your statement. Sorry.

There. At least I thought you were conceding the point. But read it again. A co-moving inertial observer will always measure an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 for Bob. (Bob himself of course measures no acceleration for himself as he does not move in his own reference frame.) Alice measures a constantly decreasing acceleration for Bob. If she didn't, his speed would eventually exceed c, which you agreed is impossible.
That's not what my example deal with. Try again. I'm not talking about Bob's measurement without knowledge of his past. Alice and Bob know what has happened to them and can apply that knowledge to calculate what both should measure in their frames and come up with the same value.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 24, 2007, 08:57:00 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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 25, 2007, 06:16:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 25, 2007, 09:54:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Gulliver on September 25, 2007, 10:26:28 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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: emailking on September 25, 2007, 10:27:17 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?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: geoffr50 on October 22, 2007, 05:58:20 AM
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.
 
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: inuyashakusho on February 15, 2008, 09:01:57 PM
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
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on February 15, 2008, 11:12:51 PM
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.

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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 10:15:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 10:18:23 AM
Care to point out some?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 12:14:58 PM
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
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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 03, 2008, 12:19:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 12:22:30 PM
Yeah, but it will do if it always accelerates.


Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 03, 2008, 12:23:08 PM
Yeah, but it will do if it always accelerates.

Why?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 12:29:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: fshy94 on May 03, 2008, 12:32:15 PM
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?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 03, 2008, 12:33:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 12:50:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 03, 2008, 12:54:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: fshy94 on May 03, 2008, 01:05:26 PM
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?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 01:09:59 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).
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 03, 2008, 01:23:49 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. 
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 01:34:11 PM
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!

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 03, 2008, 01:39:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 01:50:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 02:44:00 PM
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.

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

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

Quote
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.

Quote
The force in the opposite direction to the acceleration is due to your INERTIA.
Right.  That is the point.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 02:57:40 PM
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
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 02:58:11 PM
shit. i meant distance.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 03:38:10 PM
The speed of light does have a finite value.
Right.

Quote
300,000 m/s.
Approximately, yes.

Quote
You couldn't accelerate forever and not reach that.
Right.

Quote
It's not magic.
Right.

Quote
I'm right.
Too bad you are using everything wrong.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 03:45:55 PM
You make no fucking sense at all.
Lulz.
Explain, kindly?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 03:48:36 PM
Pick a part you would like explained. 
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 03:59:07 PM
Explain how I am "wrong" in stating that you couldn't accelerate for ever?

Explain how it is plausable that the Earth could be doing this.

Explain this Dark Energy concept.

I want to know.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 03, 2008, 04:00:01 PM
Whoever said anything about the earth accelerating forever?  ???
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 04:00:55 PM
Explain how I am "wrong" in stating that you couldn't accelerate for ever?
It is not possible to accelerate forever.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 04:11:24 PM
Explain how I am "wrong" in stating that you couldn't accelerate for ever?
It is not possible to accelerate forever.

But according to FE the earth must always be accelerating at a speed of 9.8m/s/s, in order to explain the force of gravity.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 03, 2008, 04:15:03 PM
Explain how I am "wrong" in stating that you couldn't accelerate for ever?
It is not possible to accelerate forever.

But according to FE the earth must always be accelerating at a speed of 9.8m/s/s, in order to explain the force of gravity.



Why would the earth constantly accelerating at a speed of 9.8m/s/s require it to be accelerating forever?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 04:18:24 PM
But according to FE the earth must always be accelerating at a speed of 9.8m/s/s, in order to explain the force of gravity.
Right.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 04:20:40 PM
But according to FE the earth must always be accelerating at a speed of 9.8m/s/s, in order to explain the force of gravity.
Right.

Are you agreeing with me then, in saying that the Earth cannot be flat?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 04:22:25 PM
No, I am agreeing with you that the FE must be constantly accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 to produce what we call 'gravity'.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: CyborgJesus on May 03, 2008, 04:26:20 PM
Quote
300,000 m/s.
Approximately, yes.
What a minute? Did you get something wrong here?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 04:31:08 PM
Quote
300,000 m/s.
Approximately, yes.
What a minute? Did you get something wrong here?
Yea, like three decimal places.   :-[
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: CyborgJesus on May 03, 2008, 04:32:50 PM
Quote
300,000 m/s.
Approximately, yes.
What a minute? Did you get something wrong here?
Yea, like three decimal places.   :-[
I'm speechless.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 04:41:06 PM
You make no sense, engineer.
Explain how I am "wrong" in stating that you couldn't accelerate for ever?
It is not possible to accelerate forever.
No, I am agreeing with you that the FE must be constantly accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 to produce what we call 'gravity'.

Do you believe in a flat earth?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on May 03, 2008, 04:48:43 PM
Belief in something is independent of truth value. It either is or isn't. It doesn't matter how many people believe it.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 04:48:44 PM
Why am I not making any sense?  It would require infinite energy for something to accelerate forever. 
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 04:50:44 PM
I'm not making any sort of argument, simply asking the engineer if he believes in a Flat Earth.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 03, 2008, 04:51:31 PM
Why am I not making any sense?  It would require infinite energy for something to accelerate forever. 

Infinite energy isn't possible, right?  I'm assuming Alex knows this because it relates to classical physics, not Einsteinian which seems to go over his head.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Mr. Ireland on May 03, 2008, 05:01:53 PM
The Earth would be accelerating now at 9.8 m/s2, but that doesn't mean it will be accelerating forever at 9.8 m/s2.  The energy supply could run out at any time and we'd all end up being screwed over with this 'life' thing.  The Earth could also, if it wanted to, accelerate forever without ever reaching the speed of light due to relativistic effects.  This doesn't mean the Earth will be accelerating forever, just that it could.

Sorry if I ruined anyone's fun.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 05:08:41 PM
Why am I not making any sense?  It would require infinite energy for something to accelerate forever. 

Infinite energy isn't possible, right?  I'm assuming Alex knows this because it relates to classical physics, not Einsteinian which seems to go over his head.

You're the one with little grasp of relativity.

No, infinite energy is mathematically impossible.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 05:11:21 PM
No, infinite energy is mathematically impossible.
Right, so how can the FE need it?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 05:13:02 PM
Because constant acceleration requires infinite energy.
That's why.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 05:13:14 PM
You're the one with little grasp of relativity.
Oh, the irony!
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.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 05:13:50 PM
Because constant acceleration requires infinite energy.
That's why.
Why?

How long would it take before infinite energy was required?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 05:15:33 PM
You're the one with little grasp of relativity.
Oh, the irony!
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.

You realise that you're all talking bollocks?
I believe it was pne of you who asked me the time it would take for a body to reach the speed of light whilst accelerating uniformly at a rate of 9.8m/s/s

Would anyone care to correct me?

No.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 05:18:41 PM
I believe it was pne of you who asked me the time it would take for a body to reach the speed of light whilst accelerating uniformly at a rate of 9.8m/s/s

Would anyone care to correct me?
I would like to correct you.  It would take an infinite amount of time. 

So much for your understanding of relativity...
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on May 03, 2008, 05:18:58 PM
Because constant acceleration requires infinite energy.
That's why.
Why?

How long would it take before infinite energy was required?

Ok, wait. Can I help him out alittle? I know he's from Liverpool and all, but maybe he'll get it:

"An infinite amount of time, Herr Engineer?"
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 05:20:50 PM
Because constant acceleration requires infinite energy.
That's why.
Why?

How long would it take before infinite energy was required?

When the speed of light was reached.

We've been going round and round for hours. You said yourself that this would require infinite energy.
You don't have a degree in Physics, do you?
You make no sense, engineer.
Explain how I am "wrong" in stating that you couldn't accelerate for ever?
It is not possible to accelerate forever.
No, I am agreeing with you that the FE must be constantly accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 to produce what we call 'gravity'.

Do you believe in a flat earth?

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: narcberry on May 03, 2008, 05:22:16 PM
No, infinite energy is mathematically impossible.
Right, so how can the FE need it?


Both wrong. It has already been shown (not all at once, but several independant proofs) that you could create antimatter+matter and gain energy, you just also gain anti-energy. So you're correct everything balances to 0, but not that infinite energy is impossible.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 05:24:23 PM
When the speed of light was reached.
How long would that take?

Quote
You don't have a degree in Physics, do you?
I have a degree in...

wait for it...

wait...

ENGINEERING!!!
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: narcberry on May 03, 2008, 05:26:36 PM
Engineering is based on some book a guy wrote over a hundred years ago. Physics too.

You can take that rubbish elsewhere.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 05:27:29 PM
Engineering is based on some book a guy wrote over a hundred years ago.
Sure is.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 05:28:20 PM
Engineering is based on some book a guy wrote over a hundred years ago. Physics too.

You can take that rubbish elsewhere.

LOL.

Hypocritical statement of the evening, I think.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 05:28:42 PM
When the speed of light was reached.
How long would that take?

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Mr. Ireland on May 03, 2008, 05:31:12 PM
Bah, completely ignored ::)
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 05:32:17 PM
I told you already.

If a body is accelerating uniformly at a rate of 9.8m/s/s, then no Einsteinian mathematics are required to work it out.

approx. 30,000 seconds.

Please explain this "adjustment" that must be made for relativity. There has been much talk of it, but little detail given but slander.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 05:33:48 PM
If a body is accelerating uniformly at a rate of 9.8m/s/s, then no Einsteinian mathematics are required to work it out.
How do you figure that no 'Einsteinian mathematics' are needed?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 05:41:10 PM
Because you simply asked me how long it would take an object to reach 300,000 m/s if it was always accelerating at 9.8m/s/s. That's simple maths, as presumably you insist on the existence of some unknown way of overcoming the increase in mass, and presuming it is in a perfect vacuum.

Of course, this would be relativistic, i.e. timed by a an observer on the accelerating body, in this case, us.

Tell me how I'm wrong.

Do explain.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 05:45:17 PM
Tell me how I'm wrong.
1) Because you think Relativity does not need to be taken into account. 
2) Because it is not 300,000m/s.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: divito the truthist on May 03, 2008, 05:46:41 PM
Oh, this poor guy. Good luck trying to discount physics Mighty Poo.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 05:57:08 PM
Oh fuck shit it's 300,000,000 m/s

Cock!
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 05:59:18 PM
Tell me how I'm wrong.
1) Because you think Relativity does not need to be taken into account. 
2) Because it is not 300,000m/s.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on May 03, 2008, 06:00:42 PM
Hey, he's half way there... Should we drop clues for the other half, or just let him research it on his own?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 06:01:45 PM
Tell me how I'm wrong.
1) Because you think Relativity does not need to be taken into account. 

.. For god's sake.

I have already asserted that it does.

However, when you ask how long it will take a body that ALWAYS accelerates at 9.8m/s/s to reach 300,000,000 m/s (my bad) you imply that the increase in mass is negated: when you state that it always accelerates at 9.8m/s

you calculate it, engineer.
taking relativity into account.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 06:03:35 PM
you calculate it, engineer.
taking relativity into account.
Ok.

...
...
...
An infinite amount of time.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: divito the truthist on May 03, 2008, 06:04:27 PM
Hey, he's half way there... Should we drop clues for the other half, or just let him research it on his own?

Looks like he still doesn't get it. You're welcome to drop more.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 06:04:39 PM
Fuck's sake.

You Fe'ers are just idiots.

you calculate it, engineer.
taking relativity into account.
Ok.

...
...
...
An infinite amount of time.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 06:05:33 PM
Care to show me how I am wrong?

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 06:06:19 PM
So the Earth can't be constantly accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s, even when time dilation is taken into account, because that is relativistic.

DDUDuuuduuuuuuuhhH!

Bloody spoons
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: divito the truthist on May 03, 2008, 06:07:19 PM
The suspense is killing me. I can't wait till he realizes how wrong he is.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 06:07:26 PM
It can from our frame of reference.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on May 03, 2008, 06:11:35 PM
*Cough* Lorentz....   No, not lozenge, Lorentz...
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: narcberry on May 03, 2008, 06:12:28 PM
Consider if the accelerating earth were in a box, and could not be observed.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 03, 2008, 06:14:35 PM
So the Earth can't be constantly accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s, even when time dilation is taken into account, because that is relativistic.


That makes no sense.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 06:16:51 PM
So you're saying that there is nothing that can be observed that is not accelerating at this velocity, or at one similar to it?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: narcberry on May 03, 2008, 06:17:37 PM
So you're saying that there is nothing that can be observed that is not accelerating at this velocity, or at one similar to it?

What we're saying is that prior to the *possibility* of observation, we cannot quantify what happens inside the box.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 06:21:46 PM
So you're saying that there is nothing that can be observed that is not accelerating at this velocity, or at one similar to it?

What we're saying is that prior to the *possibility* of observation, we cannot quantify what happens inside the box.

narcberry. That's a reference to Schrödinger's cat.

Doesn't work if there isn't a decaying atomic nucleus.

The earth wasn't locked in a state of quantum uncertainty before it was observed, even the question of atomic uncertainty on an atomic level is in doubt.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 03, 2008, 06:22:37 PM
Narcberry, don't change the subject.  >:(

While it can be proven that at some time in the past, at least, the earth was flat, due to quantum mechanics, that argument has no place in this thread.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: narcberry on May 03, 2008, 06:22:41 PM
So you're saying that there is nothing that can be observed that is not accelerating at this velocity, or at one similar to it?

What we're saying is that prior to the *possibility* of observation, we cannot quantify what happens inside the box.

narcberry. That's a reference to Schrödinger's cat.

Doesn't work if there isn't a decaying atomic nucleus.

The earth wasn't locked in a state of quantum uncertainty before it was observed, even the question of atomic uncertainty on an atomic level is in doubt.

At what level is observation required? And I assure you, there are many decaying atomic nuclei in Earth.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Mr. Ireland on May 03, 2008, 06:23:58 PM
-cough-theequationyou'reusingtocalculatetimedoesnottakeintoaccountrelativisticeffects-cough-
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: narcberry on May 03, 2008, 06:24:28 PM
-cough-theequationyou'reusingtocalculatetimedoesnottakeintoaccountrelativisticeffects-cough-

Inside the box it does, but he doesn't understand Quantum Physics.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 06:24:36 PM
Care to show me how I am wrong?


Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on May 03, 2008, 06:25:16 PM
Narcberry, don't change the subject.  >:(

While it can be proven that at some time in the past, at least, the earth was flat, due to quantum mechanics, that argument has no place in this thread.

The sad thing is that our scatological friend was so close to mind blowing discovery and is now trudging away from the light (relatively)...
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: divito the truthist on May 03, 2008, 06:25:31 PM
Inside the box it does, but he doesn't understand Quantum Physics.

Or Special Relativity.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on May 03, 2008, 06:26:02 PM
-cough-theequationyou'reusingtocalculatetimedoesnottakeintoaccountrelativisticeffects-cough-

here, have a Lorentz...
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: narcberry on May 03, 2008, 06:26:20 PM
The suspense is killing me. I can't wait till he realizes how wrong he is.

...so much for suspense, amirite?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 06:28:59 PM
Newton's law of Special Relativity
This was pure gold!!
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: narcberry on May 03, 2008, 06:29:43 PM
Newton's law of Special Relativity
This was pure gold!!

YES! Poo, start there. Now think what would happen inside a box...
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: divito the truthist on May 03, 2008, 06:30:15 PM
Newton's law of Special Relativity
This was pure gold!!

ROFL. I don't think there is any hope for him now.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 06:31:15 PM
I am aware that it does not take time into account.




sigh.



I am aware of the effects of time dilation as velocity increases.

And I am aware that this time dilation would only be visible by an independent observer outside of the system, or vice versa.

But would it still not require an infinite energy, presuming that the energy utilised was inside the system of the accelerating earth?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 06:32:18 PM
Oh dear, I didn't say Newton's law of special relativity did i?

I meant Einstein.

I understand it perfectly well.

cut me some slack anyway, I'm a 15 year old boy.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 06:33:46 PM
I am aware that it does not take time into account.
What does not?

Quote
I am aware of the effects of time dilation as velocity increases.
That's nice.

Quote
And I am aware that this time dilation would only be visible by an independent observer outside of the system, or vice versa.
Again: that's nice.

Quote
But would it still not require an infinite energy, presuming that the energy utilised was inside the system of the accelerating earth?
Yes it would. 
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 06:35:41 PM
cut me some slack anyway, I'm a 15 year old boy.
That would explain why you have no idea what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on May 03, 2008, 06:36:35 PM
I understand it perfectly well.

cut me some slack anyway, I'm a 15 year old boy.

It would be easier to cut you some slack if you didn't enter a forum claiming superior knowledge and understanding while dismissing those who disagree with you. It's also much harder when after all this you demonstrate that your opposition has a better grasp of the subject material than you do.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 06:38:20 PM
I understand it perfectly well.

cut me some slack anyway, I'm a 15 year old boy.

It would be easier to cut you some slack if you didn't enter a forum claiming superior knowledge and understanding while dismissing those who disagree with you. It's also much harder when after all this you demonstrate that your opposition has a better grasp of the subject material than you do.

Well, you do deny most observable evidence and swear by a series of complex conspiracy theories with no evidence rooted in reality.

I'd say that does constitute some stupidity.

A shitload of stupidity.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on May 03, 2008, 06:38:57 PM
cut me some slack anyway, I'm a 15 year old boy.
That would explain why you have no idea what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on May 03, 2008, 06:39:51 PM
It would be easier to cut you some slack if you didn't enter a forum claiming superior knowledge and understanding while dismissing those who disagree with you. It's also much harder when after all this you demonstrate that your opposition has a better grasp of the subject material than you do.

Well, you do deny most observable evidence and swear by a series of complex conspiracy theories with no evidence rooted in reality.

I'd say that does constitute some stupidity.

A shitload of stupidity.
[/quote]


You carefully sidestepped any questions i raised and simply dismissed any studies and evidence aws "flawed" or ignored them completely.

Isn't this exactly what you've done? Dismissing ideas before you even understand the premise behind them?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: narcberry on May 03, 2008, 06:40:07 PM
I understand it perfectly well.

cut me some slack anyway, I'm a 15 year old boy.

It would be easier to cut you some slack if you didn't enter a forum claiming superior knowledge and understanding while dismissing those who disagree with you. It's also much harder when after all this you demonstrate that your opposition has a better grasp of the subject material than you do.

Well, you do deny most observable evidence and swear by a series of complex conspiracy theories with no evidence rooted in reality.

I'd say that does constitute some stupidity.

A shitload of stupidity.


We've humored you long enough, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: The Great Mighty Poo on May 03, 2008, 06:45:26 PM
Ah I was leaving anyway, narcberry.

I admit my incorrectness regarding the acceleration of a flat earth, but the broader picture remains.

You sordid Flat Earth advocates base your entire hypothesis upon random speculation

2000 mph jet streams, an infinite source of dark energy, massive global conspiracies this entire operation is a farce.

You're all pathetic, every one of you, for clinging to the battered remnants of an obsolete text by a foolish zealot.

You spit in the face of science and wonder why the world does not accept your theories.

Ice walls? Fuck off.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on May 03, 2008, 06:50:25 PM
Spoken like a true 15 year old from Liverpool. You didn't even ask for the proper equation to learn why you were wrong. No apology for calling every one else dim. You just assume right away everyone else is not as bright as you.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 03, 2008, 06:50:56 PM
an infinite source of dark energy

Didn't we just demonstrate that this is neither possible nor necessary?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on May 03, 2008, 06:52:38 PM
an infinite source of dark energy

Didn't we just demonstrate that this is neither possible nor necessary?

Listen, he understands all this perfectly well. He said so...
Besides he's only 15. It's ok to call everyone an idiot even if you don't understand the subject matter when you're that age.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: divito the truthist on May 03, 2008, 06:59:33 PM
The best part is that none of us believe in a flat Earth.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: narcberry on May 03, 2008, 07:03:51 PM
The best part is that none of us believe in a flat Earth.

I do
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: John Davis on May 04, 2008, 04:03:40 PM
As do I.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on May 05, 2008, 08:58:28 AM
Me too.


Last few pages here were brilliant. Don't leave pooface.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Silent Joe on August 10, 2008, 05:56:20 PM
Hello.

I recently encountered this web site on my wanderings about the internet, and needless to say am a bit curious about the entire premise of this site. Being a physics major about to enter another year of study, I was naturally drawn to this particular discussion.

This is a VERY long thread, and I read the first few pages (quite a bit), but then skipped to the end and read the last few to see where things stand. Even if I were to grant the Lorentz-based equations that were provided at the beginning of this thread were correct (I will have advanced far enough in math to check them myself by this winter), and accept that even though from an inertial frame of reference the Earth appears to have an exponentially decreasing acceleration that the Earth itself would still feel a constant acceleration, there is still a glaring question that comes to mind:

Where is the energy coming from?

As pointed out much earlier, getting to light speed from ANY frame of reference would require infinite time (good for the acceleration argument for Earth's gravity), but it also requires an infinite amount of energy.

In the real world, objects do not simply accelerate for no reason. Objects accelerate when they have a force exerted on them. The application of a force, any force, no matter the origin, on any given object for any period of time constitutes a transfer of energy. If an object is accelerating, then some kind of energy is being transformed into kinetic energy in the object.

So, granting any mechanism you want for the acceleration of not just the Earth-disk but also every observable celestial object, be it futuristic warp fields, giant rockets on the underside of the Earth-disk, or maybe just those turtles underneath there just running really fast (on what I can't imagine), there still remains the problem of the source of this enormous amount of energy.

Even though I didn't read it directly, I did see posts referencing Dark/Zero-point energy as a potential source. If someone could provide an explanation on how this energy is converted oh-so-conveniently into our forward motion, or point me to the post where this is stated, I would appreciate it.

Aside from the mechanism of transfer of energy, and why it is conveniently transferring it at just the right rate for a reasonable simulated-gravitational field for humans and the rest on life on this planet to live and evolve in, I would like to point out that most evidence points towards zero-point energy being vanishingly small, much too small to extract any useful work on the macro, or even the micro scale. You can read more in this Scientific American article here:

http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM.html
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Parsifal on August 10, 2008, 06:58:18 PM
the Earth appears to have an exponentially decreasing acceleration

Don't use the word "exponential" where it does not apply. Admittedly, it may well apply here, though I suspect that it does not.

The energy source is as unknown as that of the "Dark Energy" accelerating the expansion of the Universe in RET. Also, perhaps we evolved to suit this particular rate of acceleration, and not the other way around.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: TheEngineer on August 10, 2008, 09:02:46 PM
The mechanism that causes the acceleration is unknown. 

It just happens to be 9.8m/s^2 because otherwise we would not be around to notice the difference.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on February 06, 2009, 02:47:40 PM
Forgive me I'm bored... I skimmed and didn't see this posted...

-- in particular, she will measure it to be g/γ^3, where γ = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).


I know nothing about special relativity, but understand the mathematics used. Where does this acceleration come from and where does the equation for Y come from?

I hope I didn't miss this in the thread... 

Start with generic linear transformations for distance and time (ignore y and z directions because they are not relevant):

     t = at' + bx'

     x = mx' + nt'

In the Galilean transformation, a = m = 1, b = 0, and n = v.

Now, take differentials and find velocity, dx/dt (remember they are linear):

     dt = adt' + bdx'

     dx = mdx' + ndt'

     dx/dt = (mdx' + ndt')/(adt' + bdx')

and so

     dx/dt = (mdx'/dt' + n)/(a + bdx'/dt')


Now, here is the key, assume that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. Therefore, let c = dx/dt = dx'/dt'

     c = (mc + n)/(a + bc)

Just for kicks, solve for this: m = a + bc - n/c


now, go back to this:

     dx/dt = (mdx'/dt' + n)/(a + bdx'/dt')

Now, let dx'/dt' = 0 , solve for n:

     dx/dt = [m(0) + n]/[a + b(0)]

     dx/dt = n/a

     n = adx/dt
     ==>  n = av



Now, take advantage of the linearity of the system again and the equivalence of inertial frames and get dx'/dt' solved for:

     dx'/dt' = (mdx/dt - n)/ (a - bdx/dt)

now let dx'/dt' = 0

     0 = (mdx/dt - n)/(a - bdx/dt)

Substitute in m:

    0 = [ (a + bc - n/c)dx/dt - n]/ (a - bdx/dt)

Substitue dx/dt = v and n = av, and solve for b:

    0 = [ (a + bc - av/c)v - av]/ (a - bv)

    0 = (a + bc - av/c)v - av

    0 = av + bvc - av^2/c - av

    bvc = -av + av^2/c + av

    b = -a/c + av/c^2 + a/c

    b = av/c^2


Now, for convenience, let β = v/c

So n = aβc, and b = aβ/c







Now we have to find a


Start here with the time transformation: t = at' + bx' and multiply by c:

    ct = act' + bcx'

Now, plug in b = aβ/c. This gives

    ct = act' + aβ/c *cx'

    ct = act' + aβx'

factoring out a gives

    ct = a(ct' + βx')


Now do the distance transformation (subbing in b, n, and m):

    x = (a + a(β/c)c - aβc/c)x' + aβct'

    x = (a + aβ - aβ)x' + aβct'

    x = ax' + aβct'

factoring out a gives

    x = a(x' + βct')



Now, we will substitute t and x into the transformations from the other frame     

    ct' = a(ct - βx)

and

    x' = a(x - βct)


And solve for a:

    Substitute ct = a(ct + βx)

    ct' = a { a[ (ct' + βx') - βx] }

Now substitue x = a(x' + βct'). This gives

    ct' = a { a[ (ct' + βx') - β( a[x' + βct'] ) ] }

Now everything is in terms of ct' and x'. Distributing the a's within the { } gives

    ct' = a [ act' + aβx' - β(ax' + aβct') ]

Distributing the β in the term on the right within the [ ] gives

    ct' = a (act' + aβx' - βax' - aβ^2ct')

    ct' = a (act' - aβ^2ct')

Factoring out the ct' and the a's in the ( ) gives

    ct' = a^2ct' (1 - β^2)

Dividing both sides by ct' gives

    1 = a^2 (1 - β^2)

Solving for a gives

    a = 1/√(1 - β^2)

Considering that β = v/c, we have

    a = 1/√(1 - v^2/c^2)

which is the Lorentz factor

    a = γ = 1/√(1 - v^2/c^2)




So, then you do something similar to find the acceleration Lorentz transformation, but that one is about twice as tedious, so I think I'll go ahead and let you do it... 

oh! and you can't ignore the y and z directions in deriving the acceleration transformations!
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Taurondir on April 07, 2009, 09:49:10 PM
FE are doing here exactly what they try and do in all other threads, and that is confuse the issues with totally bogus data in the hope people will give up, and they do. I wait with baited breath for them to do it here.

Cant hide blue/red shift unless they invent yet another new term like "Light Auto-decelotrometry". By now, Earth/ the universe is going at 99.9(9999... etc) light speed, and light in the universe is still going at 1.0c, and hitting us from other suns/stars that are accellerating with us, in order to stay in our frame of reference, and we still measure the SAME red/blue shift as they did 100 years ago, as everything is moving at linear speeds, with no accelleration.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Euclid on April 07, 2009, 11:00:37 PM
FE are doing here exactly what they try and do in all other threads, and that is confuse the issues with totally bogus data in the hope people will give up, and they do. I wait with baited breath for them to do it here.

Cant hide blue/red shift unless they invent yet another new term like "Light Auto-decelotrometry". By now, Earth/ the universe is going at 99.9(9999... etc) light speed, and light in the universe is still going at 1.0c, and hitting us from other suns/stars that are accellerating with us, in order to stay in our frame of reference, and we still measure the SAME red/blue shift as they did 100 years ago, as everything is moving at linear speeds, with no accelleration.



I'm not sure what your point is.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 07, 2009, 11:11:34 PM
FE are doing here exactly what they try and do in all other threads, and that is confuse the issues with totally bogus data in the hope people will give up, and they do. I wait with baited breath for them to do it here.

Cant hide blue/red shift unless they invent yet another new term like "Light Auto-decelotrometry". By now, Earth/ the universe is going at 99.9(9999... etc) light speed, and light in the universe is still going at 1.0c, and hitting us from other suns/stars that are accellerating with us, in order to stay in our frame of reference, and we still measure the SAME red/blue shift as they did 100 years ago, as everything is moving at linear speeds, with no accelleration.


congratulations you just disproved relativity's.
Seriously though relativity deals with that problem. I can explain it for you if you want.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Taurondir on April 07, 2009, 11:39:33 PM

congratulations you just disproved relativity's.
Seriously though relativity deals with that problem. I can explain it for you if you want.
[/quote]

No I didnt. I do await your made-up explanation though. Might be funny.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 08, 2009, 12:19:23 PM

congratulations you just disproved relativity's.
Seriously though relativity deals with that problem. I can explain it for you if you want.

No I didn't. I do await your made-up explanation though. Might be funny.
[/quote]
red/blue shift is caused by differences in speed between the object that emits the photon and the thing that absorbs the photon. because we are accelerating at the same rate the difference between our speed and the speed of the sun when the photon left the surface of the sun would be the same.
Let say you are in a ship accelerating and you are looking at the light on top of the ceiling. You say you would have different blue shifts at different speeds.  However relativity says that it would be constant as long as the acceleration is constant. I mean that both objects are accelerating at the same pace not that one is accelerating and one is staying constant. In fact the blue shift should be the same as if you were in a gravity field that causes that acceleration. Otherwise you would be able to tell how fast you were going compared to space which relativity say is impossible, you would also be able to tell the difference between being in a box that is accelerating and a box that is on the surface of a planet that is generating gravity, which relativity says is impossible.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Euclid on April 09, 2009, 03:06:59 AM
By now, Earth/ the universe is going at 99.9(9999... etc) light speed,



.999...9c with respect to what?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: markjo on April 09, 2009, 10:12:13 AM
By now, Earth/ the universe is going at 99.9(9999... etc) light speed,



.999...9c with respect to what?

Perhaps the source of the UA that we are accelerating away from.  :-\
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 09, 2009, 10:18:16 AM
By now, Earth/ the universe is going at 99.9(9999... etc) light speed,



.999...9c with respect to what?
I assume the velocity we started at.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: FlatOrange on October 03, 2012, 10:23:19 AM
Flawed. You can't do analogies right. Why make the car travel in a circle when the earth is traveling straight? And just because Alice jumped off doesn't mean now the earth can slow down. Say 1 person jumped off every hour: now we have reference that guarantees constant acceleration.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on October 03, 2012, 11:03:19 AM
Flawed. You can't do analogies right. Why make the car travel in a circle when the earth is traveling straight? And just because Alice jumped off doesn't mean now the earth can slow down. Say 1 person jumped off every hour: now we have reference that guarantees constant acceleration.

Do not bump a three year old thread with no reference to what in the 22 previous pages you might happen to be referring to. There are plenty of more recent posts in the forum that deal with whatever difficulty you are having understanding relativity.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Solmyre on October 06, 2012, 10:17:14 PM
FE are doing here exactly what they try and do in all other threads, and that is confuse the issues with totally bogus data in the hope people will give up, and they do. I wait with baited breath for them to do it here.

Cant hide blue/red shift unless they invent yet another new term like "Light Auto-decelotrometry". By now, Earth/ the universe is going at 99.9(9999... etc) light speed, and light in the universe is still going at 1.0c, and hitting us from other suns/stars that are accellerating with us, in order to stay in our frame of reference, and we still measure the SAME red/blue shift as they did 100 years ago, as everything is moving at linear speeds, with no accelleration.



I'm not sure what your point is.

And there lies the problem.  If you never understand all the areas where a FE concept spirals out of control there is no way for someone to explain it is there?

Like explaining what the color orange looks like to someone that is color blind.  Good luck Taurondir.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on October 07, 2012, 12:04:59 AM
I'm open to constructive criticism, but I don't see the issue here outside of someone's misunderstanding of relativity.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Solmyre on October 07, 2012, 12:25:36 AM
I wouldn't call it an issue per say.

Taurondir is basically screwed.

He succinctly summed up a glaring issue with the accellerating planet theory that would be essentially impossible to explain away without creating a brand new theory.

FYI his 99.999999999999% is relative to the speed of light, period, ignoring frames of reference as they not required for his argument about red/blue shift or to word it differently they do not change his argument, to word it yet another way still, fine, pick any frame of reference you want, wait a year out from there, we are now 99.99etc.% of the speed of light to whatever frame of reference you previously picked that is not specifically this accellerating planet itself (with the exception of another planetary body accellerating at the exact same magnitude and vector).

The response to this is "I don't get why it matters".

Thus, in a nutshell, Taurondir isn't going to get very far.  You can proove anything, but if the person you are explaining it to responds with "what's your point"?  Where else is there to go from there?  It is a fundamental problem.  You can't explain to someone where their model falls apart if they don't understand where their model falls apart.  If they did understand where their model fell apart you wouldn't have to explain it to them.

Catch 22
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on October 07, 2012, 12:32:51 AM

.999...9c with respect to what?

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Solmyre on October 07, 2012, 01:15:05 AM
"FYI his 99.999999999999% is relative to the speed of light, period, ignoring frames of reference as they not required for his argument about red/blue shift or to word it differently they do not change his argument, to word it yet another way still, fine, pick any frame of reference you want, wait a year out from there, we are now 99.99etc.% of the speed of light to whatever frame of reference you previously picked that is not specifically this accellerating planet itself (with the exception of another planetary body accellerating at the exact same magnitude and vector)."

Lemme try this from one more angle, if you are always accellerating at a rate sufficient to achieve velocity close to the speed of light within a relatively short time span, then where you originally take a frame of reference to be unless it is always where you are now or on a location with identical accelleration characteristics, no longer matters as it is trivialized by your constant accelleration for purposes of his argument.

Off the top of my head I'm not sure how else to put it.  If that still doesn't make sense then I'm not sure what else to say.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on October 07, 2012, 01:25:04 AM
Observers on earth always observe light at traveling at c. The visible universe appears to be accelerating at the same rate as the earth; hence universal acceleration/accelerator (UA). An object that was not accelerating relative to the earth would also observe light traveling at c and the earth traveling at some speed subliminal velocity approaching c with time. To this outside observer, the earth (were it luminous) and the rest of the heavens would exhibit ever decreasing red-shift. To the observer on the earth no shift is observed from celestial light. 
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Solmyre on October 07, 2012, 01:35:20 AM
Ah, forgive my misunderstanding then.  I was unaware that the relative accelleration was theoretically being applied to the entire universe in the same vector and magnitude (relatively speaking).

In that case, yes, you are right.  There would be no observable change in the red/blue effect.


Though from this light, how would it make sense for the stars to change position in cycles relative to earth if everything is experiencing the same relative accelleration?  That would suggest (relative to us) that their vector would have an additional massively strong spiraling to its accelleration in order to keep the same (average) trajectory?  If you are one of the FE'rs that believes in the infinite plane model it can not be explained by the earth observer's plan tilting?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on October 07, 2012, 01:42:11 AM
I do not subscribe to the infinite plane theory despite it's elegance.

Celestial objects move about barycenters in addition to their acceleration "up".
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Solmyre on October 07, 2012, 01:50:09 AM
Given the distance from us to the celestial objects being considerable with respect to the cycling actions that would have to take place to adjust their viewable position from earth.  I would think that kind of dramatic movement about a barycenter would cause far too much inertial stress from centripetal and counter accelleration and tear them apart?

If this is getting too far off topic forgive me and feel free to point where this has already been explained elsewhere.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on October 07, 2012, 02:07:12 AM
The celestial objects are much closer than orthodoxy's cosmology places them.  Further, I don't see the stresses anything like the imaginings of the orthodoxy which places the earth revolving, first about its own axis at more than 1000 miles an hour, then off-axis about the sun at a fanciful rate over 67,000 miles an hour, which is itself traveling around a galaxy at a rate more than 550,000 mph, while the galaxy itself rotates about a local at an even greater rate, which moves about a "super cluster". I'd love to see a plot of the corkscrew motion our poor planet must be inscribing through space. It's "staggering" that one can stand without falling.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Solmyre on October 07, 2012, 08:54:24 AM
Nah,

I'd have to run the math on the difference in distance.  How far does your model place the stars away from us?


In regard to the strains on our own planet, it's all about the amount of centripetal accelleration generated.  If you consider that, then the ammount generated to us at the earth's surface is pretty trivial despite the high speed (magnitude) because the relative vector change is so small.

Take a model of the globe, put string with weights at the end and spin it slow enough to rotate 1 time per day.  Nothing is going to happen remotely exciting.

Ditto with it's orbital pattern.


Now having said that,

if the pattern that the stars must follow to reflect what is viewed from earth's surface are of sufficient distance away, then the magnitude and vector change they would have to experience would be litterally tearing them to shreds.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2012, 02:38:46 AM
solmyre, where did you learn physics?

You wrote:

Take a model of the globe, put string with weights at the end and spin it slow enough to rotate 1 time per day.  Nothing is going to happen remotely exciting.


From Galileo Was Wrong:

If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:

The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth’s surface is composed of similar materials.
Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles.

The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph.

Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:


If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.

There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.

There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.

The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.

Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach’s principle is still in effect, as always.

But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes – that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth – it defies either logic or observation.

If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.



solmyre, you should have studied this subject more thoroughly...


http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm (http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm)

Restoring Forces Paradox by Dr. Neville Jones, one of the most superb arguments for the fact that the Earth is actually stationary.


Here are Dr. Neville Jones' conclusions:

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.

If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).

Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.

Since there is no restoring field, the World and its associated atmosphere cannot be rotating about an axis. Observations of daily celestial motion in this case show that the universe must be geocentric, or else geobounded.



And you haven't done your homework on the Coriolis force paradox...

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg953747.html#msg953747 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg953747.html#msg953747)

G.B. Airy experiment, stellar parallax/aberration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580)
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2012, 02:43:13 AM
And your ignorance, solmyre, does not stop here.

Obviously, you have never heard of the greatest physics experiment performed in the 19th century...

This is the very best proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis, on the contrary, it is stationary. It also proves the existence of an energy layer (let us call it aether) confirming Newton's ideas on the circulating ether.


"Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun".

Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)


Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.


More details on the G.B. Airy experiment:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1231580.html#msg1231580 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1231580.html#msg1231580)
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2012, 04:47:38 AM
Dayton Miller ether drift results


http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)]http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm


"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.


"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)



(http://www.orgonelab.org/graphics/MILLER/MillerInt.jpg)


Dayton Miller's light-beam interferometer, at 4.3 meters across, was the largest and most sensitive of this type of apparatus ever constructed, with a mirror-reflected round-trip light-beam path of 64 meters. It was used in a definitive set of ether-drift experiments on Mt. Wilson, 1925-1926. Protective insulation is removed in this photograph, and windows were present all around the shelter at the level of the interferometer light-path.


Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.



While Miller had a rough time convincing some of his contemporaries about the reality of his ether-measurements, he clearly could not be ignored in this regard. As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein. His work employed light-beam interferometers of the same type used by Michelson-Morley, but of a more sensitive construction, with a significantly longer light-beam path. He periodically took the device high atop Mt. Wilson (above 6,000' elevation), where Earth-entrained ether-theory predicted the ether would move at a faster speed than close to sea-level. While he was alive, Miller's work could not be fundamentally undermined by the critics.


In his 1933 paper, Miller published the most comprehensive summary of his work, and the large quantity of data which supported his conclusions. A total of over 200,000 individual readings were made, from over 12,000 individual turns of the interferometer, undertaken at different months of the year, starting in 1902 with Edward Morley at Case School in Cleveland, and ending in 1926 with his Mt. Wilson experiments. These data do not include many rigorous control experiments undertaken at Case School Physics Department from 1922 to 1924. More than half of Miller's readings were made at Mt. Wilson using the most sophisticated and controlled procedures, with the most telling set of experiments in 1925 and 1926. By contrast, we can mention here, the original Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 involved only six hours of data collection over four days (July 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 1887), with a grand total of only 36 turns of their interferometer. Even so, as shown below, Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics. As stated by Michelson-Morley:

"...the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the earth's orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth. ... The experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided." (Michelson-Morley 1887)

Unfortunately, and in spite of all claims to the contrary, Michelson-Morley never undertook those additional experiments at the different seasonal configurations, to "avoid all uncertainty". However, Miller did.




Dayton Miller discovered, through carefully performed experiments, the existence of the telluric currents.


Einstein's Special Relativity theory demanded that the Michelson-Morley experiments must have been null!  The aether was not acceptable.  DeMeo reports (January 2001) that he has now found evidence that Einstein was more directly involved than he had thought.  Much new material has been added to his original paper, which concentrated on Shankland's 1955 report, written in consultation with Einstein.  (Shankland had been an assistant to Miller in 1932-3.)

As Miller said, in an article in a local paper:

The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature. (Cleveland Plain Dealer January 27, 1926.)

It was evidently a power struggle between the two, the odds tipped in favour of Einstein by the media-enhanced "victory" of his General Relativity theory after the 1919 eclipse.



And now, the most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html (http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html)


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm) (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html)



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm) (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RealScientist on October 08, 2012, 06:55:25 AM
And now, the most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html (http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html)

As I read the first sentences of this article, this is what I found:
Quote
What is particularly clear is that it is probable that Eddington fudged the data to make it conform to Einsteins work on general relativity.

So, who faked the data, Eddington or Einstein? And who convinced all scientists from 1919 to 2012 to fake the data once and again and again? Every time there is a total solar eclipse there are at least a few astronomers repeating what Eddington did, and everyone can gain fame and fortune by finding an anomaly. Why are all of them faking the data and staying in anonymity?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Dino on October 08, 2012, 12:02:21 PM
And now, the most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html (http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html)

As I read the first sentences of this article, this is what I found:
Quote
What is particularly clear is that it is probable that Eddington fudged the data to make it conform to Einsteins work on general relativity.

So, who faked the data, Eddington or Einstein? And who convinced all scientists from 1919 to 2012 to fake the data once and again and again? Every time there is a total solar eclipse there are at least a few astronomers repeating what Eddington did, and everyone can gain fame and fortune by finding an anomaly. Why are all of them faking the data and staying in anonymity?

That sent a chill down my spine.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 09, 2012, 12:19:57 AM
Here is the entire story of the fake data of the 1919/1922 eclipses.


With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article states:

In 1917, after more than two years of war, England enacted conscription for all able-bodied men. Eddington, who was 34, was eligible for draft. But as a devout Quaker, he was a conscientious objector; and it was generally known and expected that he would claim deferment from military service on that ground. Now the climate of opinion in England during the war was very adverse with respect to conscientious objectors: it was, in fact, a social disgrace to be even associated with one. And the stalwarts of Cambridge of those days Larmor (of the Larmor precession), Newall, and others felt that Cambridge University would be disgraced by having one of its distinguished members a declared conscientious objector.

They therefore tried through the Home Office to have Eddington deferred on the grounds that he was a most distinguished scientist and that it was not in the long-range interests of Britain to have him serve in the army... In any event, at Dyson's intervention as the Astronomer Royal, he had close connections with the Admiralty Eddington was deferred with the express stipulation that if the war should have ended by 1919, he should lead one of two expeditions that were being planned for the express purpose of verifying Einstein's prediction with regard to the gravitational deflection of light... The Times of London for November 7, 1919, carried two headlines: "The Glorious Dead, Armistice Observance. All Trains in the Country to Stop," and "Revolution in Science. Newtonian Ideas Overthrown."


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.


So now we find that the legend of Albert Einstein as the world's greatest scientist was based on the Mathematical Magic of Trimming and Cooking of the eclipse data to present the illusion that Einstein's general relativity theory was correct in order to prevent Cambridge University from being disgraced because one of its distinguished members was close to being declared a "conscientious objector"!


Many more details here:


http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html (http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html)
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 09, 2012, 07:15:06 AM
Quote
Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.

I always thought this had to do with air pressure and viscous friction.  As to why the atmosphere can move with the Earth at an incredible rate of speed and we can move against the atmosphere relatively easily, I think a good example would be a semi truck pulling a pool of water.  This water could be traveling at 60mph, but if we jumped in we could swim through it with ease as we're going the same speed.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RealScientist on October 09, 2012, 06:15:29 PM
Here is the entire story of the fake data of the 1919/1922 eclipses.

Who cares about the 1919 and 1922 eclipses? The measurements have been repeated every few years by several independent groups of astronomers who have much better equipment than Eddington. And none of them have denounced Relativity, even though they would earn Nobel prizes for demonstrating that Relativity is wrong.

I have heard stories about Eddington being wrong, possibly with his maths after the measurements, but science has no interest in the battle of personalities. If we give the most implacable critics every benefit of doubt and declare every observation by Eddington invalid we still have no way to dismiss the dozens of repetitions that have been made of the observations, in general with better equipment than Eddington ever had.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 10, 2012, 12:18:25 AM
"real"scientist, I told you to do your homework...

All experiments, prior to 1960, have received criticism. In the official science, the Einstein shift is said to have been verified by the Pound-Rebka experiment.


But Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html (http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html)



Dayton Miller's experimenta data proves clearly the existence of the telluric currents (see my previous messages here), also known as ether.


Einstein clearly agreed for the data to be falsified; certainly he knew what was going on, both in 1919 and in 1922.

Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.




Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RealScientist on October 10, 2012, 10:08:55 AM

But Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.
This is not a rebuttal of anything. If I say that the laws of physics are just so that the experiments give the results I want, but do not say what are the new laws are in such a way that most previous predictions are repeatable, I am just fooling myself.

It is absolutely true that some set of new theories will someday replace the current one (unless we have already reached the limits of human intellect). But saying that some change in these theories (in this case the speed of light) gives us a better theory, without saying what the new theory is, gives us nothing.

Real scientists are researching scenarios with variable speed of light, with variable gravitational constants, with and without strings, and so much more. But the existence of incipient hypothesis does not take away anything from the currently accepted theories.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 11, 2012, 02:20:44 AM
You are NO realscientist.

Here is the complete demolition of the "theory" of relativity (special/general).


There is no such thing as the space-time continuum.

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'


Tesla's aether is in fact a medium, 'a perfect fluid' that wets everything in which are immersed 'independent carriers'. It behaves as a solid to light (high frequency) and is transparent to matter, while it's effects can be felt through inertia. Tesla demonstrated how this aether could be 'polarized' and made 'rigid' through a particular high frequency alternator and single terminal coil (ex. 1892 lecture in London) and 2 metal plates which he 'suspended' in the air making the space between them rigid 'privately' on one another (ed. the tesla effect). In 1894, Tesla invented a special bulb (which was the ultimate result of his research in vacuum tubes; the unipolar 'targetless' bulb) which augmented this technology to create 'tubes of force' which could be used for motive power (what Tesla later cited as 'veritable ropes of air').


During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves, Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.

Speaking to his friends, Tesla often refuted some of Einstein’s statements, especially those which were related with curvature of space. He considered that it breaks the law of action and opposite reaction: “If curvature of space is formed due to strong gravitational fields, then it should become straight due to opposite reaction.”


G.F. Riemann introduced the additional variables as a supporting theory for his logarithm branch cuts, NOT ever to present time as a new variable.

(http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Riemann_surface_log.jpg/220px-Riemann_surface_log.jpg)

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html (http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html)

the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.

How was this done?

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...


Both Kozyrev and Barbour showed clearly that time cannot be represented by a single variable:

Kozyrev - Barbour theory, Non-uniform time:

http://physicoschronos.org/pdf/poliakov.pdf (http://physicoschronos.org/pdf/poliakov.pdf)]

http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Kozyrev/paper1a.txt (http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Kozyrev/paper1a.txt)

KOZYREV, TIME TORSION AND AETHER:

http://web.archive.org/web/20081010174600/http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=30 (http://web.archive.org/web/20081010174600/http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=30)


Julian Barbour - End of Time - Nows, time capsules

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/barbour/barbour_p1.html (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/barbour/barbour_p1.html)

http://www.acampbell.ukfsn.org/bookreviews/r/barbour.html (http://www.acampbell.ukfsn.org/bookreviews/r/barbour.html)

Julian Barbour - Killing Time documentary:

# (http://#)



On the concept of dimension used by Minkowsky:


http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/01Math/05Dim/04Z5Inconsis.html (http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/01Math/05Dim/04Z5Inconsis.html)

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/01Math/05Dim/04Z3Proof.html (http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/01Math/05Dim/04Z3Proof.html)


The grievious mistakes and errors committed by Lorentz, in the Lorentz transformations:


http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.html (http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.html)



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.


EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm)


REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html)




Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RealScientist on October 11, 2012, 06:13:10 AM
This whole wall of blabber deserves just one comment: It is a continuous, unending appeal to authority. It is not even worth reading.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 12, 2012, 02:50:39 AM
My previous message demonstrates quite clearly that the space-time continuum hypothesis is just a hoax.

Minkowsky used a simple sponge to erase the X4 variable in Riemann's multiple variable approach to his logarithm branch cut theory, and replaced it with T (time).

The comments made by Nikola Tesla are very pertinent:

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.


Moreover, Minkowsky had no idea what TIME actually is (a function of torsion, as we have seen from Kozyrev's experiments), and arbitrarily INVENTED a space-time continuum, with NO connection to reality.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



The very best works which show the monstruous, collossal, catastrophic mistakes committed by Einstein in deriving his GTR/STR.



EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic

http://users.scnet.rs/~mrp/contents.html (http://users.scnet.rs/~mrp/contents.html)


“it is difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity…. The special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions.”



ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf)

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor
Minkowski‟s cerebral and mathematical imagination.



In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results "the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." Miller's experiments produced
consistently positive results as we have seen here:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930)

Dayton Miller's extraordinary experiments proved clearly the existence of the telluric currents (ether drift), thus contradicting the disastrous concept of space-time continuum, which nobody can take seriously.



http://web.archive.org/web/20071010075248/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20071010075248/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html) (superb documentation)




EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm)


REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html)
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RealScientist on October 12, 2012, 06:39:13 AM
And yet another wall of blabber?

Everything you are saying is great if it gives us a new set of theories that explains most of what the current theories explain, and also solves anomalies in current theories.

If you can show that your debunking of current theories gives us a new and improved set of theories, then please show me the new set.

Otherwise, if all you are saying is that some people do not like some theories, both from Einstein and elsewhere, do not work so hard. We all know that good and bad physicists are trying to find new theories and will tell us about them when they demonstrate them. In the case of the bad physicists, they will fill us with blabber and you will parrot it, and we will still see walls of blabber and ignore them.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on October 12, 2012, 10:17:46 AM
Levee all you've done so far is waffle. I've seen no causal link to what your trying to say and the point you're trying to make.

I've read a few sentences of your last post and thought so what? And then stopped reading and skimmed the rest becuase it came up on my troll radar.

I don't agree, or can't agree, with what you've said because you've not actually explained anything properly.

As the famous quote goes.

“Any fool can make something complicated. It takes a genius to make it simple.”

― Woody Guthrie

Simplify what you're saying, if you can't do that then I find it hard to believe you understand what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Solmyre on October 13, 2012, 02:45:25 AM
This whole wall of blabber deserves just one comment: It is a continuous, unending appeal to authority. It is not even worth reading.

Unfortunately this is accurate.

Levee,

You would make a fantastic archetypical highschool policy debater where the general goal is to flood your opponent with dubious or unrelated information and try to link it together to something it doesn't actually link to, but so long as your opponent doesn't take the time to pull apart every single one of your ridiculous analogies you'll try to claim a solid victory. 

Most amature policy debaters could "link" anything you can think of to causing nuclear war through similar tactics as your posting habits.  It's not remotely true and no one sane is going to take the time to go over how many things Tesla got wrong and were proven to be so repeatably among other bits of your drivil as a more seasoned debater would simply blanket challenge the credability or the source and relevance and dismiss the random unlinked mess for what it is.

All we have to do is look at your immediate response:
______________________________________________

Levee:
solmyre, where did you learn physics?

I originally wrote:

Take a model of the globe, put string with weights at the end and spin it slow enough to rotate 1 time per day.  Nothing is going to happen remotely exciting.  (this specifically in response to Ski's concept of centripetal forces)

Levee:
From Galileo Was Wrong:

If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.
___________________________________________

So you take an obscure reference...and somehow try to twist it around and apply it to contradict simple laws of rotational kinetics which are easily observable and repeatable by anyone?  As if your following statements somehow apply or even have solid supporting evidence and controlled studies. 

Slinging insults while telling people to "do their homework" as you dig up random one-off articles from sources like "nexus magazine" that frequently have zero direct relevance and/or no repeatable studies etc. is laughable.

I am curious what you do for a living as you are more intent on theory crafting it seems than anything else.  I'm going to wager it doesn't involve designing things that actually have to work and behave correctly in the real world. 

I learned and was asked to tutor physics at the University of Minnesota...where did YOU learn physics?


Ski had the good grace not to deflect and walk off half cracked tangents when I asked how far away his FE model suggests the stars are (I say his only because there is not one model that all FErs ascribe to so I can not assume that Ski's FE model is the same as Thork's etc.).

You lack this ability and believe that loading a page with anything you can dig up makes for a strong case.

Yet despite your rambling blather you have yet to concisely or directly link, much less refute, practically anything. 

So please, specifically, explain to me how rotational kinetics, such as what the design of the flywheel of your car (assuming you have one) is based on, or any of the discussion of molecular kinetics (relating to general gas behavior), or chemical interactions described by myself or real scientist, or particle setteling behavior are innaccurate. 

If your response is to link another obscure reference to someone else's "work" that is either not directly related, from a completely ridiculous source, and/or covers no actual studies carried out beyond generic theory crafting (not unlike your own) then just like you choose to pretend standard laws of physics do not exist, I will come to understand that your ability to grasp the actual workings of the subject matter does not exist.

I'd also like you to answer the question that Ski did not.  How close are the other stars and planets according to your FE model?  Ski said they are much closer than modern astrology models paint them to be.  How close?  How was this determined?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2012, 12:22:25 AM
Please use the search function; you will find the photographs taken by Fred Bruenjes in Antarctica, and the ISS/ATLANTIS solar transit videos in my messages.

You (and the others) have not been able to bring a single argument to debate anything relating to what I have written.

My bibliographical references are the very best, as you should that realize by now; please inform us OF ANY mistakes Nikola Tesla ever made, you will not be able to find any, this alone shows your ignorance, the fact that my references took you by surprise and are unable to answer to the specific points.



In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results "the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." Miller's experiments produced
consistently positive results as we have seen here:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930)

Dayton Miller's extraordinary experiments proved clearly the existence of the telluric currents (ether drift), thus contradicting the disastrous concept of space-time continuum, which nobody can take seriously.



Again, solmyre, please do your homework, you obviously have no idea about the world you live in, consider yourself fortunate enough to find out and explore the very best bibliographical references you have chosen to ignore until now.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Solmyre on October 15, 2012, 01:18:20 AM
Please use the search function; you will find the photographs taken by Fred Bruenjes in Antarctica, and the ISS/ATLANTIS solar transit videos in my messages.

You (and the others) have not been able to bring a single argument to debate anything relating to what I have written.

My bibliographical references are the very best, as you should that realize by now; please inform us OF ANY mistakes Nikola Tesla ever made, you will not be able to find any, this alone shows your ignorance, the fact that my references took you by surprise and are unable to answer to the specific points.



In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results "the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." Miller's experiments produced
consistently positive results as we have seen here:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930)

Dayton Miller's extraordinary experiments proved clearly the existence of the telluric currents (ether drift), thus contradicting the disastrous concept of space-time continuum, which nobody can take seriously.



Again, solmyre, please do your homework, you obviously have no idea about the world you live in, consider yourself fortunate enough to find out and explore the very best bibliographical references you have chosen to ignore until now.

Some of your references are about as reliable as the national enquirer, its not that they are "surprising" just unsubstantiated.  People have stopped bothering debating what you are writing because you fail to apply it correctly or it simply doesn't relate to the topic at hand such as the example I gave.  What's the point of conversing with you when you can't actually converse correctly.  They make a comment on x and you come back with quotes and information about a b and c and claim therefore that x is wrong even though you're barking up any tree but the one discussed or simply get things wrong outright and refuse to acknowledge dead obvious errors when you are specifically called to question on it.


Tesla...you mean like his thoughts on x-rays that were grossly off the mark...or his multitude of failed projects?  He was a great person with brilliant insights, especially for the times he lived in.  But to claim he was infallable continues with your utterly juvenile approach to things.



You've had opportunities to clarify repeatedly or condense and focus to the topics at hand.  You refuse to do so and you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond what suits you personally.  This includes ignoring direct responses and then making claims that you were never responded to.  This makes you a waste of time and effort. 

The sad part of all this is, you've proven you don't even understand what I or the "others" are trying to explain to you and probably are rationalizing this somehow as a victory in your head.

Good luck at life.  I won't be wasting further words on you (short of a miraculous transformation in your approach to things). 
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RealScientist on October 15, 2012, 01:28:14 AM

In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results "the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." Miller's experiments produced
consistently positive results as we have seen here:

Once more, the only game you are playing is one of appeal to authority, and a very twisted one at that. Whether true or not, this comment from Einstein is worth nothing to Science. Science is made from experiments and observations, not from cult to figures of authority. And Miller's experiments are just some of many, almost all of them demonstrating Einstein's Relativity.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2012, 02:11:48 AM
Your analysis of Dr. Tesla's work is as reliable as the national enquirer.

There were NO FAILED projects, no off the mark comments on the x-ray subject.

OBVIOUSLY, as I said before, you have not done your homework.

Let me do it for you.

http://timelines.com/1887/4/nikola-tesla-begins-experimenting-with-x-rays (http://timelines.com/1887/4/nikola-tesla-begins-experimenting-with-x-rays)


An exceptional summary of Tesla's work:


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_tesla.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_tesla.htm)

http://www.tfcbooks.com/ (http://www.tfcbooks.com/)



Now, solmyre, would you care to inform us of the failed projects you were talking about?



A single photograph is ENOUGH to bring your overly inflated ego back to its proper size.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_o.jpg)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1394008.html#msg1394008 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1394008.html#msg1394008) (many more photographs here)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1394253.html#msg1394253 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1394253.html#msg1394253)

No 59 meter curvature, just a perfectly flat surface of Lake Ontario.


A single diagram is ENOUGH to shatter your illusions.


(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26171216.png)

We are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe.

There is no way anything could have been seen beyond a 400 km range in Tunguksa, on the morning of June 30, 1908.


Newspapers could be read at 0:15 in London; in Antwerp the glare of what looked like a huge bonfire rose twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches were clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers found they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of the night of June 30th.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1394260.html#msg1394260 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1394260.html#msg1394260)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1394432.html#msg1394432 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1394432.html#msg1394432)



You have not been able to debate on any points I made here so far, especially on the Airy experiment (for example), a clear proof that the Earth is completely stationary.



Dayton-Miller's experiments are no appeal to authority: his experiments still stand today as a definite proof of the existence of telluric currents.

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930)

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Flat Eric on October 16, 2012, 03:34:26 PM
nice photograph! since we don't know at which height it has been taken, we have to discard it.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: randomism on October 16, 2012, 05:11:39 PM
Careful guys. Argue with any of levee's beliefs and you're arguing with all of them, apparently.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2012, 11:52:53 PM
I included the necessary references for the altitude of the photographer.

Indeed, no curvature whatsoever across Lake Ontario (55 km distance to Vinemount Ridge, 213 m altitude, we will ascend to 240 m - 59 meter curvature absolutely does not exist) - bear in mind the photographs were taken from a lower altitude, we ascend to 240 meters so that no questions will remain.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_o.jpg)


(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg)

Photograph taken at Beamer Falls Conversation Area (some 45 meters in altitude - maximum height of cliffs some 110 meters - but we will ascend to 240 meters)


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1393829.html#msg1393829 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1393829.html#msg1393829)


No curvature whatsoever, across a distance of 55 km...
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 17, 2012, 08:55:49 AM
Not this again.  It's already been brought up at a height of 240 meters you can see a little over 55kms.   A drop of 59 meters over a distance of 55,000 meters is a grade of 0.1 percent.  What are you expecting to see here is the question?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 17, 2012, 11:54:28 PM
You cannot compare the distance with the CURVATURE itself.

The visual target can be seen in its entirety - with no ascending slope or midpoint curvature of 59 meters.

The surface of the lake is completely flat all the way to the other shore.

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG)

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/LakeViews/IMG_0734.JPG)

There is no curvature across lake Ontario.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Pongo on October 18, 2012, 12:06:45 AM
Okay, I don't say this often, but Levee is completely right.

Also Ski is too. Why you bumpin', these threads FlatOrange?  We all miss Semperround and his jams, but you have to have to keep it current.  Start a new thread and link the old one if you think it's relevant.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 18, 2012, 06:50:40 AM
My bad.  You said an altitude of 240m not a height.  Since the lake level is at about 75m that gives us a height difference of 165m.  Which would mean you could see about 46km out before your line of sight was obstructed by the curvature of the Earth.  Looking at google maps I see the distance is really closer to 53km than 55km between where this shot was taken and Toronto.  Still we should see some kind of obstruction of the buildings by the water. 

I know you're tired of hearing this but without some measurement of potential refraction this is still not an open and shut case.  I'd like to see this same shot taken in the winter and compare the difference.  We know these shots were taken in the spring or summer due to the green trees.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 18, 2012, 11:57:14 PM
Do not confuse altitude ABOVE SEA LEVEL (the 75 meters you mentioned) with our measurements.

Vinemount Ridge, for example is 213 meters above the lake level (itself at an altitude of 75 meters above sea level), Beamer Falls Conservation Area at some 45 meters, and so on...the numbers I provided are 100% correct.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 19, 2012, 12:54:24 PM
Well if you're talking a 240 meter height difference from the observer to the horizon then the shot from Vinemount Ridge looks exactly like we'd think it'd look using the RE model.  There would be no slope in the way.  You could see easily to the shoreline of Toronto with no curvature obstructing your view.  I can model this if you insist you should see something. 

The shot from Beamer Falls is more interesting, there should definitely be water blocking the view of the bottom of the buildings.  However we know there has to be some refraction going on.  The water that separates Grimsby and Toronto is some of the coldest of Lake Ontario, and the shot was taken in the summer.  So I'd expect thermal inversion to happen.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 23, 2012, 12:06:43 AM
On a spherical Earth there MUST be a slope, otherwise you agree the Earth is flat.

You cannot use thermal inversion when we have clear photographs taken from some 240 m in altitude. Thermal inversion (looming) can be used as an argument in the case of eyewitness accounts who are located on the beach/shoreline of the point of observation; in the case of clear photographs, thermal inversion cannot make a 59 meter curvature simply disappear.

We can see the shoreline of Toronto NOT in spite of a 59 meter curvature, but in the absence of such a visual obstacle.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_o.jpg)

No ascending slope whatsoever, just a perfectly flat surface of Lake Ontario; no midpoint curvature of 59 meters.


(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)

Same thing.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg)

No ascending slope whatsoever, none that can be seen; no 59 meter curvature in sight.


HOW would the surface of lake Ontario stay curved given the fact that there is no such thing as attractive gravity?

I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:

A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Those who believe in the concept of attractive gravity (you included) have NO competent faculty of thinking in the matters of science, according to Newton.


Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RealScientist on October 23, 2012, 04:32:43 AM
Well if you're talking a 240 meter height difference from the observer to the horizon then the shot from Vinemount Ridge looks exactly like we'd think it'd look using the RE model.  There would be no slope in the way.  You could see easily to the shoreline of Toronto with no curvature obstructing your view.  I can model this if you insist you should see something. 

The shot from Beamer Falls is more interesting, there should definitely be water blocking the view of the bottom of the buildings.  However we know there has to be some refraction going on.  The water that separates Grimsby and Toronto is some of the coldest of Lake Ontario, and the shot was taken in the summer.  So I'd expect thermal inversion to happen.
I like your posts but there is one issue I would like you do address differently: in Science you do not reach out and get the absolute maximum information out of a dubious source unless there is no other. In this case the photographs were taken for aesthetic or touristic purposes and there are no accurate measurements to rely on, and much better experiments and observations are easily available.

Levee could go and get his own photos, measuring accurately the height above the water and more importantly designing a good experiment overall, but has not bothered to do so. He just googled Lake Ontario and looked for anything he could rant about.

In Science, if you ignore the quality of the information you get, you get nothing useful from it. As we say, garbage in, garbage out.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 23, 2012, 05:45:42 AM
Quote
On a spherical Earth there MUST be a slope, otherwise you agree the Earth is flat.

You cannot use thermal inversion when we have clear photographs taken from some 240 m in altitude. Thermal inversion (looming) can be used as an argument in the case of eyewitness accounts who are located on the beach/shoreline of the point of observation; in the case of clear photographs, thermal inversion cannot make a 59 meter curvature simply disappear.

We can see the shoreline of Toronto NOT in spite of a 59 meter curvature, but in the absence of such a visual obstacle.

I'm not sure you get it.  At 240m there is no slope in the way.  There is still a slope for sure, but a line of sight calculation that can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation) says I can see over 55km from a height of 240m without the Earth's surface getting in the way.  If you're arguing you don't notice any downward slope, I'd argue of course you don't as It's too slight to notice. 

As far as the one taken from the lower altitude I don't know.  Like I said I'd like to see that picture taken again around the same area in winter and compare the results.  That'd remove the question of a looming effect.  As far as looming only occurring when you're on the shore line I'd say is false.  It's a matter of where the thermal inversion is taking place, and to what extent it's taking place.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 23, 2012, 06:05:35 AM
It is understood that from 240 meters there is no visual obsctacle (55 km) in the way, I never said anything else, or to the contrary.

What YOU do not get or understand, is that even from 240 meters, we MUST see an ascending slope, and a midpoint visual obstacle of some 59 meters, no such thing is present in the photographs.

You cannot erase a huge 59 meter curvature with your statements.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_o.jpg)

No ascending slope, a perfectly flat surface of the lake - the photograph does not show ANY midpoint curvature of 59 meters or any sign of curvature.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 23, 2012, 06:08:12 AM
Now, a 59 meter curvature would equal the actual height of some of the condominiums in the following photograph:

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG)

No ascending slope, no curvature whatsoever.


(http://www.weatherandsky.com/LakeViews/IMG_0734.JPG)

The boat in the picture is not part of any ascending slope, no midpoint curvature of 59 meters, a perfectly flat surface of Lake Ontario.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 23, 2012, 06:11:53 AM
Now let us go to Hamilton, some 60 km from Lakeshore Blvd. West:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream)


(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/487755017_df040421e8_o.jpg)

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/487726854_24a5c0559d_o.jpg)


(both photographs taken right on the beach, as can be seen in the captions, and in the rest of the photos)

No ascending slope, no visual obstacle of over 200 meters on the other side of the lake itself, no curvature whatsoever.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 23, 2012, 06:19:34 AM
Quote
What YOU do not get or understand, is that even from 240 meters, we MUST see an ascending slope, and a midpoint visual obstacle of some 59 meters, no such thing is present in the photographs.

No, we don't.  There would be no ascending slope at a distance of 55km.  There would be a downward slope only.  You're operating on false assumptions or bad math.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 23, 2012, 06:27:15 AM
(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG)

I'm not sure why you even use this image.  It's obvious there is a mirage effect here as the Toronto skyline doesn't look like this.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 23, 2012, 06:30:26 AM
You have tried one by one the following devices here:

A drop of 59 meters over a distance of 55,000 meters is a grade of 0.1 percent. 

You cannot compare the distance with the CURVATURE itself.


 You said an altitude of 240m not a height.  Since the lake level is at about 75m that gives us a height difference of 165m.  Which would mean you could see about 46km out before your line of sight was obstructed by the curvature of the Earth.  Looking at google maps I see the distance is really closer to 53km than 55km between where this shot was taken and Toronto.  Still we should see some kind of obstruction of the buildings by the water. 

Do not confuse altitude ABOVE SEA LEVEL (the 75 meters you mentioned) with our measurements.

Vinemount Ridge, for example is 213 meters above the lake level (itself at an altitude of 75 meters above sea level), Beamer Falls Conservation Area at some 45 meters, and so on.


Now, you are moving to this kind of bullshit:

 There would be no ascending slope at a distance of 55km.  There would be a downward slope only.

At a distance of 55 km, on a spherical earth we would see a midpoint (highest point) curvature obstacle of some 59 meters, following an ascending slope, and a descending slope to be complete.

Please show us where the ascending slope of the boat is in the following photograph:

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/LakeViews/IMG_0734.JPG)

Where is the midpoint maximum curvature of 59 meters? The downward slope you are looking for? Tricks do not work with me...


(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG)

Where is the midpoint maximum curvature of 59 meters, the downward slope all the way to the other shoreline? The area photographed is eastward of Toronto, as we can see clearly...

The same photographer did this one also:

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)

No curvature whatsoever; then she moves eastward to take the previous photograph...



Hamilton, Lake Ontario, 60 km from Lakeshore W. Blvd.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/487755017_df040421e8_o.jpg)

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/487726854_24a5c0559d_o.jpg)


http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream)

(both photographs taken right on the beach, as can be seen in the captions, and in the rest of the photos)


Would you care to show us where the descending slope might be? Or any curvature for that matter?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 23, 2012, 06:48:09 AM
I'm not trying to grasp at straws.  I'm trying to understand your argument.  It seems like it all relies on the quote below.  Please further explain this.

Quote
At a distance of 55 km, on a spherical earth we would see a midpoint (highest point) curvature obstacle of some 59 meters, following an ascending slope, and a descending slope to be complete.

Why at a height of 240m and a distance of 55km should I see a 59 meter hill?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 23, 2012, 06:51:04 AM
Grimsby - Toronto 53 km

Vinemount Ridge is some 2 km inland, but we will ascend to 240 meters.

For a distance of 55 km we have a curvature of 59 meters.

No such curvature can be seen in any of the photographs presented by me here; the surface of Lake Ontario is perfectly flat in each picture.


The curvature for a distance of 60 km, is over 60 meters. The photographs taken right on the beach (city of Hamilton) show no curvature whatsoever all the way to Lakeshore W. Blvd.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 23, 2012, 06:54:15 AM
Why at a height of 240m and a distance of 55km should I see a 59 meter hill?

On a spherical Earth we must see the 59 meter hill/visual obstacle right in the middle, with an ascending slope leading to it, and a descending slope all the way to the other shoreline.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_o.jpg)

No ascending slope, no visual obstacle of 59 meters, no descending slope, no curvature whatsoever.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 23, 2012, 07:08:39 AM
Another photograph from Beamer Falls C. Area:

(http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/132/f/8/toronto_from_grimsby_by_vmulligan-d3g5fn2.jpg)

http://vmulligan.deviantart.com/art/Toronto-from-Grimsby-208525934 (http://vmulligan.deviantart.com/art/Toronto-from-Grimsby-208525934)
(copyright vikram mulligan)

No ascending slope, no midpoint curvature whatsoever, no descending slope - a flat surface of lake Ontario.


Here is the original photograph in full view:

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/132/f/8/toronto_from_grimsby_by_vmulligan-d3g5fn2.jpg (http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/132/f/8/toronto_from_grimsby_by_vmulligan-d3g5fn2.jpg)


The other photograph from Beamer Falls:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd.jpg)
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 23, 2012, 07:12:46 AM
What's the calculation to get a 59 meter hill in front of an observer at a height of 240m looking over a distance of 55km?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RealScientist on October 23, 2012, 08:21:39 AM
What's the calculation to get a 59 meter hill in front of an observer at a height of 240m looking over a distance of 55km?
The problem is not with the the actual numbers. Everyone here more or less accepts that if you are 240 m above the lake you will pretty much see the shore on the other side unimpeded. The problem is a word game. Levee wants to see a hill, just like the one I am seeing right now by the side of my neighborhood. If you explain mathematics you will be asked to show something that looks like a mountain. If you show the shore on the other side you will be asked to show something that looks like a mountain. If you show that the shore can't be seen, it will be the same.

Words have no magical power. You do not say them in Latin to get snakes to appear, like in Harry Potter. You know that and I know that, but levee is another story.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 23, 2012, 08:34:56 AM
You're probably right in a sense, but he does mention the phrase 'visual obstacle' which to me sounds like he expects the hill to impede the view of buildings.  That can be mathematically disproven.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Lorddave on October 23, 2012, 09:40:45 AM
I remember this discussion. Same pictures too.

What levee doesn't tell you is that there's a whole series of blocks and buildings along the edge you can't see. The buildings you can see are at a slightly higher elevation than the lake.

12.192 meters to be exact. That's how much higher the cn tower is to the lake.

So yeah, you can totally see it. Especially with atmospheric refraction helping out a bit.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 24, 2012, 02:50:11 AM
But we can see everything in sight.

Especially in these photos:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_o.jpg)

No ascending slope, no midpoint maximum curvature of 59 meters...


(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)

Now, from the same spot as in the last photograph, Ms. Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn used a reflector telescope, at night, to capture this superb shot of the Toronto skyline:

(http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/5295/thor2h.jpg)

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto2.jpg (http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto2.jpg) (full image)


We can EVERYTHING IN SIGHT, no curvature whatsoever, no descending slope, JUST like in the photograph taken during daytime.


Let us now return to the Tunguska explosion.

(http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/maidment/grad/akmansoy/aral/webfiles/globe.jpg)

Eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle


Let us go over to Europe (the explosion took place at 7:15 - 7:20 local time, therefore it was 0:15- 0:20 am in London, at an elevation of 7 km):

The object, nearly "as bright as the Sun", caused the following reports from Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.

In Berlin, the New York Times of July 3rd reported unusual colors in the evening skies thought to be Northern Lights:

"Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens ... bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappears at dawn."

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm)

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html (http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html)

We are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Newspapers could be read at midnight in London, photographs could be taken outdoors in Stockholm without flash apparatus; no other meteorological/astronomical phenomenon occurred at that time in the world, no such records exist.

That is why this is the very best proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.


Amazingly, even the original trajectory of the ball lightning which caused the explosion, was seen all the way from London:

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.


Here is a diagram of what this would look like.  The large circle represents a  cutaway of a spherical Earth.  I divided the Earth into 24 evenly spaced time zones.  Point A represents an event happening.  Point B represents an observer 7 time zones away.  The line extending along the horizon at point B represents the line of view of the person at that point.  He would never see the event happen.

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26082347.png)



And no comments from you on these photographs...

(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/198/487755017_a114c05e50.jpg)

(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/232/487726854_181aa457da.jpg)


http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream)

Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto...
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 24, 2012, 06:52:09 AM
Regarding the Tunguska event.  It's well believed that the lights eyewitnesses were referring to were left over ice crystals in the upper atmosphere from the path of the meteorite.

"Soviet experiments performed in the mid-1960s, with model forests (made of matches on wire stakes) and small explosive charges slid downward on wires, produced butterfly shaped blast patterns strikingly similar to the pattern found at the Tunguska site. The experiments suggested that the object had approached at an angle of roughly 30 degrees from the ground and 115 degrees from north and had exploded in mid-air."

Since claims where that the light was coming from the north and not from the east and that it lasted for a few days seems to validate this theory.  So your 2D diagram is far far from accurate.  I'd draw something up myself but I feel that even typing this response is a waste of time.


Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RealScientist on October 24, 2012, 06:58:17 AM
But we can see everything in sight.

After reading this incredible feat of logic (called a tautology) why should we bother reading the rest of this wall of blabber?

I think you want to talk about Tunguska (that is the most I can get from a 5 second browsing of your wall) and you can start yet another thread about it.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Lorddave on October 24, 2012, 06:59:05 AM
Levee, I'm not sure what you think a round earth should look like with the "hill" thing. To those pics look correct. Can you show us pics or diagrams of what you mean by ascending slope or midpoint maximum?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RealScientist on October 24, 2012, 07:29:57 AM
Regarding the Tunguska event.  It's well believed that the lights eyewitnesses were referring to were left over ice crystals in the upper atmosphere from the path of the meteorite.

"Soviet experiments performed in the mid-1960s, with model forests (made of matches on wire stakes) and small explosive charges slid downward on wires, produced butterfly shaped blast patterns strikingly similar to the pattern found at the Tunguska site. The experiments suggested that the object had approached at an angle of roughly 30 degrees from the ground and 115 degrees from north and had exploded in mid-air."

Since claims where that the light was coming from the north and not from the east and that it lasted for a few days seems to validate this theory.  So your 2D diagram is far far from accurate.  I'd draw something up myself but I feel that even typing this response is a waste of time.
It is easy to fall in the trap of discussing this kind of event that was poorly researched when it happened, where the impact zone was not even found for many years, and the Soviet government was not interested and also would not let international expeditions go and look for several decades more. To top that, we do not have other similar events that might have happened where better research would ensue.

We do not know whether the glow that was seen from outside Russia was the explosion, or before the explosion, or after it. The only thing we know for sure is that the whole incident is not worth mentioning until (and if ever) there is a good scientific study that explains to us the whole event, including the before, the during and the after. Giving conclusions, as levee is doing, from such a flimsy recolection of the event is downright useless. As you say, even typing this response is a waste of time.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: randomism on October 24, 2012, 07:37:39 AM
levee brings up the Tunguska event a lot, from his posts he seems to regard that as the trump card of his flat earth arguments (so when he's arguing pretty much anything - it's all connected to him - he'll first bring up the Toronto pictures then finally Tunguska). When I tried to find more information on the event what stood out to me was that eye witnesses in Europe described the glow in the sky over a period of days. So unless levee or anyone else is willing to accept that the explosion lasted days it's pretty obvious that the glow had to be due to more than just the explosion.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 24, 2012, 07:55:17 AM
@RealScientist I was simply pointing out that the base assumption Levee is running with is wrong.  I stated the current theory pertaining to the lights people seen in the north from Europe during the Tunguska event.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RealScientist on October 24, 2012, 08:30:16 AM
@RealScientist I was simply pointing out that the base assumption Levee is running with is wrong.  I stated the current theory pertaining to the lights people seen in the north from Europe during the Tunguska event.
As an hypothesis being researched, I am (marginally) interested in what is being said, including the idea of ice crystals. My point is that a huge amount of information is missing so this is the kind of event that can be exploited by levee and others. This is the kind of logical argument that goes "there are no good explanations so my pet theory is the correct one". In this case, Europe and Western Asia were not ready to make proper scientific research on the strange lights and noises and did a very poor job investigating, so the Earth is flat.

In general, as people interested in Science, I think we should discuss the quality of the information available, not as a comment on each other but as part of any review of scientific articles.

This is really not worth our time.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 24, 2012, 11:21:50 AM
Quote
In general, as people interested in Science, I think we should discuss the quality of the information available, not as a comment on each other but as part of any review of scientific articles.

This is really not worth our time.

I completely agree, and will not argue this topic with Levee especially since he uses eye witness accounts I've never heard of before.  However it should be at least argued that to reject an idea you need to accurately represent the idea you're rejecting.  Making up ideas you can reject is a bit bizarre.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: jroa on October 24, 2012, 04:11:38 PM
It is easy to fall in the trap of discussing this kind of event that was poorly researched when it happened, where the impact zone was not even found for many years, and the Soviet government was not interested and also would not let international expeditions go and look for several decades more. To top that, we do not have other similar events that might have happened where better research would ensue.

None of this is relevant to the fact that the event was seen for over a quarter of the globe, yet was only 10 km over the Earth.  Do I need to make diagrams again?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 24, 2012, 04:40:09 PM
@RealScientist:  See what I mean?  They want to argue a point nobody is making invalid. 
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RealScientist on October 24, 2012, 05:27:16 PM
@RealScientist:  See what I mean?  They want to argue a point nobody is making invalid.
Yes, it is just like them to argue incessantly about an event that nobody knows what it was, or why it lasted for days, or what, exactly lasted for days either before of after the explosion.

It seems clear that some kind of explosion happened because the pattern of felled trees points to one, but we could write pages about the unknowns in this case. And yet, they have decided that "it" happened 10 km above the surface of the Earth. It is like the alien abductions. Nobody has a shred of evidence, there are a million inconsistencies in the stories, the witnesses who should have seen something never saw nothing, but "we know they were doing experiments with my sexual organs".
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 25, 2012, 12:31:11 AM
The event at Tunguska COULD NOT have been caused by a meteorite, comet or asteroid:

In 1983, astronomer Zdenek Sekanina published a paper criticizing the comet hypothesis. He pointed out that a body composed of cometary material, travelling through the atmosphere along such a shallow trajectory, ought to have disintegrated, whereas the Tunguska body apparently remained intact into the lower atmosphere.

The chief difficulty in the asteroid hypothesis is that a stony object should have produced a large crater where it struck the ground, but no such crater has been found.

Fesenkov (1962) claims, "According to all evidence, this meteorite moved around the Sun in a retrograde direction, which is impossible for typical meteorites...." Fesenkov notes that meteorites rarely hit the earth in the morning, because the morning side faces forward in the planet's orbit. Usually the meteorite overtakes the earth from behind, on the evening side.


The most startling evidence concerns the path of the object:

T.R. LeMaire, a science writer, continues this thought, by suggesting "The Tunguska blast's timing seems too fortuitous for an accident" (LeMaire 1980). He claims that a five-hour delay would make the target of destruction St. Petersburg, adding that a tiny change of course in space would have devastated populated areas of China or India.

LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).



Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



"It is clear that the Tungus cosmic body ... could not have been a comet," wrote the geophysicist A.V.
Zolotov, speaking for many of his fellow Soviet scientists. "Neither could it have been a normal ice,
stone, or iron meteorite. The Tungus body obviously represents a new yet unknown, much more
complicated phenomenon of nature than has been encountered up to this time."


The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.



We are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.



The explosion was seen instantaneously across Europe, moreover the trajectory itself was also observed/seen from London:

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.


The fact that the glow persisted for days, IS DUE to influence of the telluric currents which were activated (received more energy) from Tesla's ball lightning.

http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm (http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm)

As to projecting wave-energy to any particular region of the globe, I have given a clear description of the means in technical publications. Not only can this be done by the means of my devices, but the spot at which the desired effect is to be produced can be calculated very closely, assuming the accepted terrestrial measurements to be correct.  My wireless plant will enable me to determine it within fifty feet or less, when it will be possible to rectify many geodetical data and make such calculations as those referred to with greater accuracy.

Nikola Tesla, 1907



Here is a diagram of what this would look like.  The large circle represents a  cutaway of a spherical Earth.  I divided the Earth into 24 evenly spaced time zones.  Point A represents an event happening.  Point B represents an observer 7 time zones away.  The line extending along the horizon at point B represents the line of view of the person at that point.  He would never see the event happen.

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26082347.png)

Eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.


The most fantastic and extraordinary proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Lorddave on October 25, 2012, 03:15:38 AM
What does that event have to do with gravity and light speed?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RealScientist on October 25, 2012, 04:28:14 AM
The event at Tunguska COULD NOT have been caused by a meteorite, comet or asteroid:
You want to use the Tunguska Event to reach a definite conclusion, and you only know what it was not?

Please stop filling the thread with blabber that has nothing to do with the OP, and nobody is even reading anymore. If you start a thread for Tunguska you can see if anyone even cares.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: digimonkey on October 25, 2012, 05:34:48 AM
Yes if you really want to discuss this matter further make a new thread.  I won't be discussing it though because all modern evidence points to it being a comet or a chunk that fell off Comet Encke which was passing by at the time. 
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: randomism on October 25, 2012, 08:21:14 AM
I like how Tesla's wireless transmission technology required very precise knowledge of the diameter of the round earth:

"As to projecting wave-energy to any particular region of the globe, I have given a clear description of the means in technical publications. Not only can this be done by the means of my devices, but the spot at which the desired effect is to be produced can be calculated very closely, assuming the accepted terrestrial measurements to be correct. This, of course, is not the case. Up to this day we do not know a diameter of the globe within one thousand feet. My wireless plant will enable me to determine it within fifty feet or less, when it will be possible to rectify many geodetical data and make such calculations as those referred to with greater accuracy."

So this event he caused, this most fantastic proof that the earth is flat, intimately relied on measurements that are only correct for a round earth... That "attack" which came from thousands of miles away and was allegedly too conveniently positioned and navigated to be a coincidence sure did a good job using calculations that would have been grossly incorrect for a flat earth.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: markjo on October 25, 2012, 09:54:30 AM
Randomism, please provide links to the source of the quotes so that they can be properly verified and evaluated in context.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: randomism on October 25, 2012, 10:06:35 AM
Randomism, please provide links to the source of the quotes so that they can be properly verified and evaluated in context.

levee provided the link himself, but here it is: http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm (http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm)
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 26, 2012, 12:08:08 AM
The initial calculations FOR A SPHERICAL EARTH were indeed wrong...Tesla HAD TO MODIFY the trajectory of the ball lightning to reach the area of the explosion desired.

Read carefully.

LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.


We still do not understand how Tesla was able to realize the precise location of lake Baikal which he used as a reference point (perhaps the influence of the telluric currents over the lake itself was an indication on his readings of the movement of the ball lightning that a large quantity of water was present in the area, signaling the presence of lake Baikal).


What we know clearly is that the initial trajectory, based ON A SPHERICAL EARTH measurement, was WRONG, and Tesla had to modify the trajectory to reach the uninhabited area.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: sandokhan on October 26, 2012, 05:17:36 AM
Here is a precise map so that we can follow the path of the ball lightning created by Tesla:

(http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska_trajectory.gif)


The initial path approached Kezhma from the south - this constituted, most probably, the spherical earth measurement thought initially to be correct - but Tesla realized (see my previous message) that something is definitely wrong in relation to the actual readings given by the true location of lake Baikal (telluric currents/ether influence on the trajectory of the ball lightning)

Therefore the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.



LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide.


Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Lorddave on October 26, 2012, 09:38:29 AM
How does one navigate a ball of lightning without direct control and direct visual?

Was tesla in a plane with a remote control?  Because if he was, he wouldn't have needed any size information on the Earth.


Also:
What does this have to do with the topic?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: RealScientist on October 26, 2012, 11:41:52 AM
How does one navigate a ball of lightning without direct control and direct visual?

Was tesla in a plane with a remote control?  Because if he was, he wouldn't have needed any size information on the Earth.


Also:
What does this have to do with the topic?
There is another thread for this, where you will not find an answer to anything, but at least you will be able to restart this thread.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56216.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56216.0.html)
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on November 29, 2012, 09:31:49 AM
I'm proud sad to say I read through this whole thread. Only to have it derailed at the end.

There has been a lot of talk about frames of reference in this thread. The FE'ers insist that in "our" FOR we can accelerate at 9.8 m/s/s for as long as we like. They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.

Something that was brought up, but not given enough consideration, is the energy required to accelerate the FE. And this is where the FET of acceleration breaks down. FE theorists say that from their FOR, they do not need infinite amounts of energy to continually accelerate. In fact, they do need infinite amounts of energy, even in their own FOR, to continually accelerate.

Consider this analogy, oft used, but here for a different purpose: A rocket takes off and accelerates at 9.8 m/s/s. For this analogy, we don't care about who is observing whom, how long it takes to get to c, or any of the other problems posed in this forum. We are concerned with the fuel (energy) aboard the rocket. The rocket must either carry all the energy it will use, or collect it from the space around it. If it carries the energy, it must have a finite amount, no matter how large an amount it begins with. This infers that it will, at some point in the future (probably soon, but we can't be sure) run out of energy. When that happens it will cease to accelerate and will continue at a constant velocity until acted upon by another force. Everyone observing this rocket will notice this; both the people aboard and an inertial observer.

Let's consider the other hand. We assume the rocket collects its energy from the space around it. In this case, we find that to continually accelerate, we must continually input energy. If at any time we stop collecting energy, we cease accelerating. Thus, we must collect an infinite amount of energy to maintain the acceleration. Again, this is observed by everyone watching. The rate of collecting energy changes from observer to observer, but the fact that we need infinite energy is the same for all FOR.

So this model really depends on whether there exists some method to harness infinite amounts of energy. Because there is no evidence that a FE is either using stored energy nor is it collecting energy, it seems to me that it would be very difficult for us to be continually accelerating. That fact that we don't know what powers the UA isn't a viable response, for we should be able to detect something that would tell us energy is being used or collected. Absent this evidence, I would have to conclude the generally accepted view of gravity fits the available data much better and is the best current description of our universe. It follows from that, the best description of our earth is that it is round, not flat.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 29, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
There has been a lot of talk about frames of reference in this thread. The FE'ers insist that in "our" FOR we can accelerate at 9.8 m/s/s for as long as we like. They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.

Something that was brought up, but not given enough consideration, is the energy required to accelerate the FE. And this is where the FET of acceleration breaks down. FE theorists say that from their FOR, they do not need infinite amounts of energy to continually accelerate. In fact, they do need infinite amounts of energy, even in their own FOR, to continually accelerate.

Only if it were accelerating for an infinite amount of time.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on November 30, 2012, 07:34:26 AM
There has been a lot of talk about frames of reference in this thread. The FE'ers insist that in "our" FOR we can accelerate at 9.8 m/s/s for as long as we like. They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.

Something that was brought up, but not given enough consideration, is the energy required to accelerate the FE. And this is where the FET of acceleration breaks down. FE theorists say that from their FOR, they do not need infinite amounts of energy to continually accelerate. In fact, they do need infinite amounts of energy, even in their own FOR, to continually accelerate.

Only if it were accelerating for an infinite amount of time.

Until such time as you claim the earth has ceased acceleration, we can safely consider constant acceleration as acceleration for an infinite amount of time. Since you have used this acceleration to describe a force that is always non-zero, and is required for life (at the very least, all life would float off the FE without it), you are assuming it will always accelerate. You must consider it to accelerate for an infinite amount of time, else it has no meaning.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 30, 2012, 07:21:57 PM
There has been a lot of talk about frames of reference in this thread. The FE'ers insist that in "our" FOR we can accelerate at 9.8 m/s/s for as long as we like. They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.

Something that was brought up, but not given enough consideration, is the energy required to accelerate the FE. And this is where the FET of acceleration breaks down. FE theorists say that from their FOR, they do not need infinite amounts of energy to continually accelerate. In fact, they do need infinite amounts of energy, even in their own FOR, to continually accelerate.

Only if it were accelerating for an infinite amount of time.

Until such time as you claim the earth has ceased acceleration, we can safely consider constant acceleration as acceleration for an infinite amount of time. Since you have used this acceleration to describe a force that is always non-zero, and is required for life (at the very least, all life would float off the FE without it), you are assuming it will always accelerate. You must consider it to accelerate for an infinite amount of time, else it has no meaning.

Why?  That we observe it accelerating at this rate now does not mean that it always accelerated at this rate, or that it always will.  It could be slowing down, just very slowly.  Or, it may indeed be accelerating constantly at the same rate, and perhaps even indefinitely (though I seriously doubt it), due to some force we don't understand, perhaps one that like the magical gravity doesn't require energy for its indefinite (for all intents and purposes) accelerations to occur.

We really don't know.  Perhaps future research will give us an answer.  But all we can zetetically conclude is that at this time, the Earth is being constantly accelerated at a rate of approximately 9.8 m/s2.  Frankly I'm not sure we can even conclude that with any certainty, and I have had my doubts that the Earth is anything but a stationary plane.  But it really doesn't matter, because even if the Earth did keep accelerating at the same rate forever, it would never actually reach the speed of light.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on November 30, 2012, 10:26:43 PM
They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.
No, it would not decelerate even to an outside observer. Where are you getting this from?


Quote
In fact, they do need infinite amounts of energy, even in their own FOR, to continually accelerate.
One would need infinite amounts of energy to accelerate an infinite amount of time yes. Why would you assume that the earth will accelerate for an infinite amount of time?


Quote
That fact that we don't know what powers the UA isn't a viable response, for we should be able to detect something that would tell us energy is being used or collected.
Well, that's asinine. We detect acceleration, ergo energy is being used or collected. Dark Energy in the Orthodox Cosmology comprises the greater portion of the calculated universe, and not a single scientist has the slightest hint of what it actually is. It is inferred.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on December 03, 2012, 08:39:47 AM
They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.
No, it would not decelerate even to an outside observer. Where are you getting this from?
This entire thread. Multiple FE believers have stated this.

Quote
Quote
In fact, they do need infinite amounts of energy, even in their own FOR, to continually accelerate.
One would need infinite amounts of energy to accelerate an infinite amount of time yes. Why would you assume that the earth will accelerate for an infinite amount of time?
My above answer remains. The gravity/acceleration FE claims is necessary for life. Therefore, the FE would have been accelerating for as long as the earth is currently old. For your model to make sense, you must assume infinite acceleration. Another way to look at it is that to say 'constantly accelerating' (and more so to say the entire universe accelerates along with the earth) is to say infinite acceleration. You can say we haven't observed that yet, since we haven't been her for an infinite amount of time, but that's really just a cop out to excuse the problem with your model.

If the entire universe is accelerating with the FE, you've made constant acceleration a law, upon which the entire universe is dependent. Everything you observe then, is dependent on the acceleration existing. It'd be rather short sited to claim that everything might, at some point in the future, cease to be how we observe it; don't you think? You have to then claim the entire universe might, at some point in the future, cease to exist to get around infinite time and energy. I suppose FET is free to do so, but it is a special pleading fallacy if so.

Quote
Quote
That fact that we don't know what powers the UA isn't a viable response, for we should be able to detect something that would tell us energy is being used or collected.
Well, that's asinine. We detect acceleration, ergo energy is being used or collected. Dark Energy in the Orthodox Cosmology comprises the greater portion of the calculated universe, and not a single scientist has the slightest hint of what it actually is. It is inferred.
Can you conclusively say you're detecting acceleration, though? Here's the thing: gravity and acceleration are, at times, indistinguishable. What FE believers typically say is, "gravity doesn't exist, therefore acceleration does." However, no one would say acceleration doesn't exist, there for gravity does. The fact that you make acceleration the only viable option does not mean you are detecting acceleration. 

Every other (than those caused by gravity, which you dismiss anyway) acceleration we detect has a detectable energy source. And, more accurately, it is because of the consumption of the energy that we know there is acceleration.

This is an important point: Throughout this thread it has been said that in the FOR of someone on the FE acceleration really isn't noticeable. But, they say, if we were to drop a golf ball over the side of the FE we'd see t the acceleration. Until such time that this experiment is conducted, you have no real measurement that you are accelerating. You might, just as easily, be being held down by a force above the FE. Thus, when you jump, you are pushed back to the FE.

Because we can calculate this downward force on us is 9.8 m/s/s, the same rate FET detects acceleration, FET can't actually say we are detecting acceleration. Its just one way of looking at the forces at work. Until you can either show an energy source being used or collected to power the acceleration, or drop a golf ball off the edge, you can't be sure you're accelerating.

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 03, 2012, 03:37:14 PM
My above answer remains. The gravity/acceleration FE claims is necessary for life. Therefore, the FE would have been accelerating for as long as the earth is currently old. For your model to make sense, you must assume infinite acceleration.

Can you kindly explain how the part in blue necessarily implies the part in red?  All I can confidently assume at this time is that you don't understand the nature of infinity.

Quote
Another way to look at it is that to say 'constantly accelerating' (and more so to say the entire universe accelerates along with the earth) is to say infinite acceleration.

No, that doesn't help.

Quote
You can say we haven't observed that yet, since we haven't been her for an infinite amount of time, but that's really just a cop out to excuse the problem with your model.

Just show me where there's a problem with the model.

Quote
If the entire universe is accelerating with the FE, you've made constant acceleration a law, upon which the entire universe is dependent. Everything you observe then, is dependent on the acceleration existing. It'd be rather short sited to claim that everything might, at some point in the future, cease to be how we observe it; don't you think?

Would it?  So I assume you believe (from a RE perspective) that the Earth will be orbiting the sun forever?

Quote
You have to then claim the entire universe might, at some point in the future, cease to exist to get around infinite time and energy. I suppose FET is free to do so, but it is a special pleading fallacy if so.

Again, it appears that you just don't understand the concept of infinity.  You do realize that we will never get there, no matter how long the Earth continues to accelerate, right?

I'll also reiterate my point from above.  We've only been measuring the acceleration of the Earth for a finite amount of time, and we've had the instruments to truly measure it accurately for even less time.  Just because it's accelerating at approx 9.8 m/s2 now doesn't mean it was always accelerating at that rate or will continue accelerating at that rate forever.  Also, (again to reiterate) gravity doesn't require energy for its endless accelerations to occur so I think it's rather special pleading for you to insist that UA must.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on December 04, 2012, 09:43:02 AM
I'll also reiterate my point from above.  We've only been measuring the acceleration of the Earth for a finite amount of time, and we've had the instruments to truly measure it accurately for even less time.  Just because it's accelerating at approx 9.8 m/s2 now doesn't mean it was always accelerating at that rate or will continue accelerating at that rate forever.  Also, (again to reiterate) gravity doesn't require energy for its endless accelerations to occur so I think it's rather special pleading for you to insist that UA must.

Actually, gravity does require energy. I was hoping you would mention this. Before I inferred that the consumption of energy as it relates to gravity is not detectable, which is only partially true. Gravity is proportional to mass. Every object with mass experiences the force of gravity. The size of the mass determines the amount of the force, which is why a ping pong ball has a negligible effect on a mustard seed. We know from E=MC2 that mass is energy. Therefore, the energy powering gravity is the mass of the objects themselves. To detect gravity's effects we use the amount of mass of two objects.

Compare that to constant acceleration due to the UA. You can only measure the effect of the UA. Which I have shown may not even be acceleration. It could just as easily be a downward force pushing on us as acceleration upwards.

Until you can show some evidence of energy being used, regardless of whether we understand the energy source, you can't even say we are accelerating constantly at 9.8m/s/s. Thus, it is special pleading to put forth the model of CA due to UA without any idea how it happens or measurable results that can be duplicated. Its like you are riding in a space ship and can't see outside to observe the rocket engines or whatever, can't go into the engine room to observe the fuel tanks, but claim you are accelerating, don't know how or by what energy source.

RET explains all of this. FET has to keep inventing things it can't observe or explain. CA is an interesting theory, it just doesn't match up.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 04, 2012, 04:43:06 PM
Actually, gravity does require energy. I was hoping you would mention this. Before I inferred that the consumption of energy as it relates to gravity is not detectable, which is only partially true. Gravity is proportional to mass. Every object with mass experiences the force of gravity. The size of the mass determines the amount of the force, which is why a ping pong ball has a negligible effect on a mustard seed. We know from E=MC2 that mass is energy. Therefore, the energy powering gravity is the mass of the objects themselves. To detect gravity's effects we use the amount of mass of two objects.

Well then problem solved.  It could very well be that much like the magical force of gravity UA is powered by the mass of the Earth itself.

Just out of curiosity, in RET when the Earth is constantly accelerating toward the sun in its orbit, how much mass (energy) is depleted as a direct result of the acceleration?  Let's say, per year.  Am I losing mass right now due to the Earth's exertion of gravity on me (or my exertion of gravity on the Earth and the things around me)?  Does a lead ball weigh less a year after it's formed due to its constantly depleting mass (energy) from the force of gravity?  You've gotten me all inquisitive.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on December 05, 2012, 08:30:12 AM
No. You're mistaking the consumption of energy with the effect of gravity on mass. I rather think you understand this, but are just making a point.

Mass is a measure of energy in a different form. Gravity is proportional to the mass of an object. In this way gravity can be measured. Energy would not be actually released until the objects collide. On large scales, yes they then lose mass as a result of the collision as a result of the gravity. On smaller scales, the same thing may happen (I am not versed enough to know if tiny, tiny amounts of matter are lost when you fall on your face. I don't think it's out of the question that this does happen on the molecular level). However, energy lost or consumed due to gravity does not require said energy to be in the form of mass.

Quote
Well then problem solved.  It could very well be that much like the magical force of gravity UA is powered by the mass of the Earth itself.
No. Gravity is a force with respect to two or more objects with mass. It is not powered by the mass of the earth alone. If you are making this argument, there should be a really, really massive object somewhere in the path of the FE (above our heads) attracting the earth to itself. Have you observed such an object?

See, we (RE proponents) understand this "magical" force of gravity enough to predict how it works and its effects on objects. We might not know why it works; that's another topic. FET doesn't understand the UA, can't predict how it works, nor measure its effect on objects (see my above argument for why it could be a downward force and not even acceleration).

If the FE is constantly accelerating, please provide a prediction that can be verifiable (either now or in the future). That is, if this is true, what would we experience that proves it? So far, FET's constant acceleration theory due to UA is full of holes FET has trouble explaining.

 
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on December 05, 2012, 10:17:20 AM
No. You're mistaking the consumption of energy with the effect of gravity on mass. I rather think you understand this, but are just making a point.

Mass is a measure of energy in a different form. Gravity is proportional to the mass of an object. In this way gravity can be measured. Energy would not be actually released until the objects collide. On large scales, yes they then lose mass as a result of the collision as a result of the gravity. On smaller scales, the same thing may happen (I am not versed enough to know if tiny, tiny amounts of matter are lost when you fall on your face. I don't think it's out of the question that this does happen on the molecular level). However, energy lost or consumed due to gravity does not require said energy to be in the form of mass.

Quote
Well then problem solved.  It could very well be that much like the magical force of gravity UA is powered by the mass of the Earth itself.
No. Gravity is a force with respect to two or more objects with mass. It is not powered by the mass of the earth alone. If you are making this argument, there should be a really, really massive object somewhere in the path of the FE (above our heads) attracting the earth to itself. Have you observed such an object?

See, we (RE proponents) understand this "magical" force of gravity enough to predict how it works and its effects on objects. We might not know why it works; that's another topic. FET doesn't understand the UA, can't predict how it works, nor measure its effect on objects (see my above argument for why it could be a downward force and not even acceleration).

If the FE is constantly accelerating, please provide a prediction that can be verifiable (either now or in the future). That is, if this is true, what would we experience that proves it? So far, FET's constant acceleration theory due to UA is full of holes FET has trouble explaining.

Don't forget special relativity!!

Mass and energy are equivalent. Gravity will 'act' on either in the same way.

Also Gravity is not a force in general relativity.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on December 05, 2012, 11:29:55 AM
No. You're mistaking the consumption of energy with the effect of gravity on mass. I rather think you understand this, but are just making a point.

Mass is a measure of energy in a different form. Gravity is proportional to the mass of an object. In this way gravity can be measured. Energy would not be actually released until the objects collide. On large scales, yes they then lose mass as a result of the collision as a result of the gravity. On smaller scales, the same thing may happen (I am not versed enough to know if tiny, tiny amounts of matter are lost when you fall on your face. I don't think it's out of the question that this does happen on the molecular level). However, energy lost or consumed due to gravity does not require said energy to be in the form of mass.

Quote
Well then problem solved.  It could very well be that much like the magical force of gravity UA is powered by the mass of the Earth itself.
No. Gravity is a force with respect to two or more objects with mass. It is not powered by the mass of the earth alone. If you are making this argument, there should be a really, really massive object somewhere in the path of the FE (above our heads) attracting the earth to itself. Have you observed such an object?

See, we (RE proponents) understand this "magical" force of gravity enough to predict how it works and its effects on objects. We might not know why it works; that's another topic. FET doesn't understand the UA, can't predict how it works, nor measure its effect on objects (see my above argument for why it could be a downward force and not even acceleration).

If the FE is constantly accelerating, please provide a prediction that can be verifiable (either now or in the future). That is, if this is true, what would we experience that proves it? So far, FET's constant acceleration theory due to UA is full of holes FET has trouble explaining.

Don't forget special relativity!!

Mass and energy are equivalent. Gravity will 'act' on either in the same way.

Also Gravity is not a force in general relativity.

Yes, I understand. the point I was trying to make to him is that we wouldn't see a loss in mass because of gravity moving objects like we would see a consumption of energy in other accelerations.

And yes, gravity is not a force per se, but it can be useful to use those words we understand the best while debating.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on December 05, 2012, 07:15:48 PM
They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.
No, it would not decelerate even to an outside observer. Where are you getting this from?
This entire thread. Multiple FE believers have stated this.

Where?   ???



Quote
For your model to make sense, you must assume infinite acceleration.
Well, that's nonsense. Who knows at what rate if any the earth has been accelerating in the past or will in the future?



Quote
This is an important point: Throughout this thread it has been said that in the FOR of someone on the FE acceleration really isn't noticeable.

Uhm, it's very noticeable.  :-\ 
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on December 05, 2012, 07:33:29 PM
They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.
No, it would not decelerate even to an outside observer. Where are you getting this from?
This entire thread. Multiple FE believers have stated this.

Where?   ???



Quote
For your model to make sense, you must assume infinite acceleration.
Well, that's nonsense. Who knows at what rate if any the earth has been accelerating in the past or will in the future?



Quote
This is an important point: Throughout this thread it has been said that in the FOR of someone on the FE acceleration really isn't noticeable.

Uhm, it's very noticeable.  :-\

This war has already been waged and it pinpoints one of the perrenial features of flat earth "theory": deny anything that contradicts FE, even if it is an integral component of a theory and would render the whole theory falsified, yet keep the theory (or the parts of it) that back up or are neutral on the question of FE vs RE.

Ski(et al)'s  "frame of reference" theory (which he has yet to put in a coherent form) is wholly different from the theory prepounded in GR. Yeah, I admit it borrows some conecpts to make it sound plausible, but I doubt it has a quadrillioth the efficacy, evidence and beauty that GR has.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on December 05, 2012, 07:51:19 PM
Ski(et al)'s  "frame of reference" theory (which he has yet to put in a coherent form) is wholly different from the theory prepounded in GR.
Probably because it is not my "frame of reference" theory, and it is nearly universally accepted by even Scientific Orthodoxy.  :-\
It is also completely different from the theory "prepounded" in GR, because GR has nothing to do with the concepts being discussed. It is, on the otherhand, completely and wholly consistent with SR, which is what we are discussing.

Quote
Yeah, I admit it borrows some conecpts to make it sound plausible, but I doubt it has a quadrillioth the efficacy, evidence and beauty that GR has.
Again, we aren't discussing the failings of GR at the moment. We are discussing the properties of SR. If you don't understand even the appellations denominating the subject, I am not surprised that you are having difficulty following the conversation.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on December 05, 2012, 08:02:26 PM
Ski(et al)'s  "frame of reference" theory (which he has yet to put in a coherent form) is wholly different from the theory prepounded in GR.
Probably because it is not my "frame of reference" theory, and it is nearly universally accepted by even Scientific Orthodoxy.  :-\
It is also completely different from the theory "prepounded" in GR, because GR has nothing to do with the concepts being discussed. It is, on the otherhand, completely and wholly consistent with SR, which is what we are discussing.

Quote
Yeah, I admit it borrows some conecpts to make it sound plausible, but I doubt it has a quadrillioth the efficacy, evidence and beauty that GR has.
Again, we aren't discussing the failings of GR at the moment. We are discussing the properties of SR. If you don't understand even the appellations denominating the subject, I am not surprised that you are having difficulty following the conversation.

I am afraid that you'll find, in any discussion of acceleration, GR is the theory you should be talking about. Intertial frames of reference are abstracted so that they are all in constant interial motion. to swap between intertial frames of refernce and non-intertial frames of reference in a theoretical arguement that is meant to applied to a real world scenario is a dubious practice at best.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on December 05, 2012, 08:15:19 PM
I'm afraid you'll find you have no idea what you're talking about. We're discussing SR in this context. The only person swapping coordinate systems is the RE'ers desperate to find the earth breaking the speed of light.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on December 05, 2012, 09:39:51 PM
I'm afraid you'll find you have no idea what you're talking about. We're discussing SR in this context.

thereby missaplying it.

 The only person swapping coordinate systems is the RE'ers desperate to find the earth breaking the speed of light.
[/quote]

A flat earther has to say that the earth is both accelerating and not accelerating, to make the flat earth plausible. the reason that SR cannot cover this, is because it only deals in inertial frames of reference. but when you bring in GR it clearly states that an non-intertial fram of reference is acclerating no matter what. so therefore the Flatearth is accelerating, no matter wether you are on it, or looking at it from outside its coordinate system.

so is it acclerating or isn't it?

if it is not, how do we stay on the ground?

if it is, how do you account foe the mass increase, (and that we cannot feel it) does the UA increase its accelerative force in tandem with it, and if so by what mechanism does this happen?

Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on December 06, 2012, 08:52:33 AM
Quote
This is an important point: Throughout this thread it has been said that in the FOR of someone on the FE acceleration really isn't noticeable.

Uhm, it's very noticeable.  :-\
[/quote]

So you can notice the difference between accelerating upward and a downward force holding you to a FE? By what means?  Can you observe energy consumption that validates your constant acceleration?

To restate my question, and to state burt's questions differently, how do you know you're accelerating?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on December 06, 2012, 10:28:43 AM
A flat earther has to say that the earth is both accelerating and not accelerating, to make the flat earth plausible.
No. It is always accelerating.

Quote
if it is, how do you account foe the mass increase, (and that we cannot feel it) does the UA increase its accelerative force in tandem with it, and if so by what mechanism does this happen?
Why would we feel a mass increase?  :-\  Our speed relative to the speed of light is zero. 

*And again, I don't think you've shown you have any clue what the differences between GR and SR are. It's small wonder you are having difficulty.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on December 06, 2012, 10:32:48 AM
Quote
Quote
This is an important point: Throughout this thread it has been said that in the FOR of someone on the FE acceleration really isn't noticeable.

Uhm, it's very noticeable.  :-\

To restate my question, and to state burt's questions differently, how do you know you're accelerating?

Feel free to place an accelerometer on the ground, if you don't believe yourself to be accelerating. Compare this data to the accelerometer in free fall.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: bowler on December 06, 2012, 11:57:38 AM
Ski is correct. When one is stationary on the Earths surface an accelerometer will read 9.81 ms^-2. You can think of this by imagining your self in a box with no windows. On Earths surface you will feel your weight on your feet on the floor. If the box then accelerates into space you will feel heaver as the rocket accelerates upwards. As the rocket stops accelerating in space you will become weightless (much of this discussion one is familiar with from theme park rides). Heres the rub. If the rocket in space then accelerates at 9.81 ms^-2 you will feel EXACTLY as you would at rest on Earths surface. Hence one can not tell the difference between being at rest in a gravitational field and being in an accelerating frame of reference. That in a paragraph is general relativity for ten year olds and is called the equivalence principle. Well actually is not general relativity it's simply a statement of gravity's gauge symmetry.

So is the Earth accelerating upwards. Well, assuming that at some point it was stationary relative to some initial inertial reference frame. We apply a force in that frame which accelerates the Earth 'upwards'. Relative to the inertial reference frame in which we started the Earth will now appear more massive this is called the relativistic mass. The relativistic mass is the product of the starting mass of the Earth (presumeably what we measure as it's rest-mass) multiplied by the Lorentz factor. This is a number which increase without bound as a massive object accelerates close to the speed of light. However assuming it has been accelerating at this speed since the start of recorded human history the mass of the Earth as seen from it's initial frame is probably greater than the mass of the observable universe in regular physics. Actually this is a gross over simplification obviously the Earth is not gaining matter but the true reason is buried in the difference between Minkowski space and velocity has a hyperbolic space but that's another story.

Are there other solutions? The situation could be more classical it could simply be an applied pressure like pushing your finger on a table. This doesn't explain the variations in gravity over the Earths surface at different locations and altitudes, but then neither does the previous explanation. Its rather hard to explain torsion balance experiments without invoking gravitation.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on December 06, 2012, 11:52:03 PM
A flat earther has to say that the earth is both accelerating and not accelerating, to make the flat earth plausible.
No. It is always accelerating.

Quote
if it is, how do you account foe the mass increase, (and that we cannot feel it) does the UA increase its accelerative force in tandem with it, and if so by what mechanism does this happen?

Why would we feel a mass increase?  :-\  Our speed relative to the speed of light is zero. 

It is not speed that determines Mass.

The reason Light can travel at  C is because it has no intrinisic mass, which is exactly why things with mass cannot reach C.



Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on December 07, 2012, 12:11:43 AM
Quote
if it is, how do you account foe the mass increase, (and that we cannot feel it) does the UA increase its accelerative force in tandem with it, and if so by what mechanism does this happen?

Why would we feel a mass increase?  :-\  Our speed relative to the speed of light is zero. 

It is not speed that determines Mass.

Uhm, no. ???  Many objects have mass without any relative velocity at all.   :-\
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on December 07, 2012, 12:29:28 AM
Quote
if it is, how do you account foe the mass increase, (and that we cannot feel it) does the UA increase its accelerative force in tandem with it, and if so by what mechanism does this happen?

Why would we feel a mass increase?  :-\  Our speed relative to the speed of light is zero. 

It is not speed that determines Mass.

Uhm, no. ???  Many objects have mass without any relative velocity at all.   :-\


Your point is?
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on December 07, 2012, 12:52:45 AM
I'm trying to figure out why you think I'd disagree with your statement. Or why you think we would "feel" a mass increase.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: FlatulencE Theory on December 07, 2012, 08:17:53 AM
So is the Earth accelerating upwards. Well, assuming that at some point it was stationary relative to some initial inertial reference frame. We apply a force in that frame which accelerates the Earth 'upwards'. Relative to the inertial reference frame in which we started the Earth will now appear more massive this is called the relativistic mass. The relativistic mass is the product of the starting mass of the Earth (presumeably what we measure as it's rest-mass) multiplied by the Lorentz factor. This is a number which increase without bound as a massive object accelerates close to the speed of light. However assuming it has been accelerating at this speed since the start of recorded human history the mass of the Earth as seen from it's initial frame is probably greater than the mass of the observable universe in regular physics. Actually this is a gross over simplification obviously the Earth is not gaining matter but the true reason is buried in the difference between Minkowski space and velocity has a hyperbolic space but that's another story.

This was my point. FE has to make certain assumptions that cannot be verified to claim the earth is constantly accelerating. RE'ers can look out our spacecraft's "window" and see that we are not accelerating upwards in reference to an inertial observer. FE says that everything in the universe is accelerating, thus the whole universe is their spacecraft. It follows then that FE can not say we are accelerating upwards at a constant velocity because an equally plausible solution to 9.8m/s/s is gravity. The refuse to look out their window to decide which is happening to us on the earth.

Bowler, correct me if I'm wrong, but theoretically we also wouldn't be able to tell the difference between gravity, acceleration, or a downward force acting in our FOR at a rate of 9.8m/s/s. My point here is that in the individual FOR (our spaceship with no windows) we wouldn't be able to ascertain which of the three of these "forces" is acting on us. The FE'ers in the thread have made a huge deal of our FOR, so wouldn't it be just as reasonable to invoke a mysterious downward force as a constant upward acceleration? 
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: bowler on December 07, 2012, 08:19:07 AM
I think I can see where the confusion has crept in.  In our frame of reference we do not experience an increase in mass as we are accelerating with the earth.  The really wired stuff in the fe idea comes from the point of view of anyone in a non-accelerating frame.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: bowler on December 07, 2012, 08:30:49 AM
@flatulance - probably yes, FET relies upon us having no window as it were (as well as most of modern physics being bunkum). if you going to go FE it seems more logical to me for us to be pushed down. But this is all so poorly constructed its actually surprisingly hard to make a sensible statement. in some ways you just swap the problem to one above us and you still need  normal reaction from the earth and so the meaningless ramblings continue really.
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: burt on December 07, 2012, 02:23:14 PM
freefall adn uniform motion in space feel the same because as you accelerate towards earth you eventually stop accelerating this called terminal velocity, and is because the byouyancy of the atmosphere and the gravitaion accleration acting on your body cancel out.

If we assume that the FlatEarth is accelerating and we put a person outside it, 1 of two things would happen

1) the person might be in tandem with the flatearth , in which case they woudl feel thelelves accelerating (because of the UA), because there is no atmosphere to cancel it out
 or
2) they would see the Flatearth acclerating away from them, because they are not accelerating ( in this case you have to explain why the UA is not affecting them).
Title: Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
Post by: Ski on December 07, 2012, 03:04:38 PM
freefall adn uniform motion in space feel the same because as you accelerate towards earth you eventually stop accelerating this called terminal velocity, and is because the byouyancy of the atmosphere and the gravitaion accleration acting on your body cancel out.

In free fall you are not accelerating. As you approach terminal velocity, the drag/resistance/friction of the upwardly accelerating atmosphere begins to accelerate you upward. At terminal velocity you are being accelerated upward at 9.8m/s/s. You can check this with an accelerometer.
And where/why are you introducing buoyancy?



If we assume that the FlatEarth is accelerating and we put a person outside it, 1 of two things would happen

1) the person might be in tandem with the flatearth , in which case they woudl feel thelelves accelerating (because of the UA), because there is no atmosphere to cancel it out
 or
2) they would see the Flatearth acclerating away from them, because they are not accelerating ( in this case you have to explain why the UA is not affecting them).
[/quote]