The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: BulldogBlues on September 30, 2010, 08:59:48 PM

Title: Simple Test
Post by: BulldogBlues on September 30, 2010, 08:59:48 PM
First of all, I have to apologize to everyone (including myself) for wasting their time.  No one is going to change their mind as a result of my post.  Conspiracy theorists will always be conspiracy theorists.  Google "social justification theory".

Also, I have to laugh at the "requirements" that I agreed to to be able to post in forum, as I am not allowed to post anything "false" or "inaccurate":-D

Anyway, as a physicist, I have to say you've done a decent job at creating a solid batch of pseudoscience.  To the uneducated eye, quite a bit of it is believable.  The piece about gravity being a "fictional force" is particularly good, in that actual science technically supports the denotation you've chosen, if not the connotation.  But I would like to point out two glaring errors that anyone with a college course in physics can see.  First, Special Relativity explicitly rejects infinite acceleration.  As gamma approaches c, the speed of light, it requires exponentially increasing energy to achieve the same amount of acceleration (an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light).  Therefore, you should slightly modify your propaganda to qualify infinite power input, not acceleration.  Second, the theory of dark energy relates to the expansion of the universe, NOT anything to do with a wall of mountains at the edge of the earth.  You show me that derivation mathematically and I'll kiss my own flat ass.

OK, so now I have that out of my system.  Here's my (relatively) simple test.  (Besides the fact that I have personal friends who have been to antarctica.)  Walk to your local weather station.  Ask them for the power distribution of their sonar.  Ask them why they can't accurately view weather patterns after a certain distance.  They will tell you it is because the curvature of the earth gets in the way of the signal.  Note that the sonar system must be ground-based for this to be true.  This experiment can also be duplicated with a long-range dipole antenna.  The signal will dissipate long before it mathematically should based on a normal power distribution.  A laser would also work, although it would be hard to correct for landscape changes.

Oh!  One more.  Get a spectrometer and point it at the sun.  The wavelength emission spectrum will tell you that it's much too hot to be only 3000 miles away based on blackbody radiation and not burning us to a crisp.  Even if you correct for the emissivity constant of the sun.

Now tell me that all weather-people, all scientists that use blackbody radiation equations every day, and all members of higher education and academia are in The Conspiracy:-)
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Lorddave on September 30, 2010, 09:05:58 PM
According to FEers, all that data is faked by 40 people who then send it to scientists and such. Yes it makes no sense. Welcome to the Forums.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on September 30, 2010, 09:27:29 PM
First of all, I have to apologize to everyone (including myself) for wasting their time.  No one is going to change their mind as a result of my post.  Conspiracy theorists will always be conspiracy theorists.  Google "social justification theory".

Also, I have to laugh at the "requirements" that I agreed to to be able to post in forum, as I am not allowed to post anything "false" or "inaccurate":-D

Anyway, as a physicist, I have to say you've done a decent job at creating a solid batch of pseudoscience.  To the uneducated eye, quite a bit of it is believable.  The piece about gravity being a "fictional force" is particularly good, in that actual science technically supports the denotation you've chosen, if not the connotation.  But I would like to point out two glaring errors that anyone with a college course in physics can see.  First, Special Relativity explicitly rejects infinite acceleration.  As gamma approaches c, the speed of light, it requires exponentially increasing energy to achieve the same amount of acceleration (an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light).  Therefore, you should slightly modify your propaganda to qualify infinite power input, not acceleration.  Second, the theory of dark energy relates to the expansion of the universe, NOT anything to do with a wall of mountains at the edge of the earth.  You show me that derivation mathematically and I'll kiss my own flat ass.

OK, so now I have that out of my system.  Here's my (relatively) simple test.  (Besides the fact that I have personal friends who have been to antarctica.)  Walk to your local weather station.  Ask them for the power distribution of their sonar.  Ask them why they can't accurately view weather patterns after a certain distance.  They will tell you it is because the curvature of the earth gets in the way of the signal.  Note that the sonar system must be ground-based for this to be true.  This experiment can also be duplicated with a long-range dipole antenna.  The signal will dissipate long before it mathematically should based on a normal power distribution.  A laser would also work, although it would be hard to correct for landscape changes.

Oh!  One more.  Get a spectrometer and point it at the sun.  The wavelength emission spectrum will tell you that it's much too hot to be only 3000 miles away based on blackbody radiation and not burning us to a crisp.  Even if you correct for the emissivity constant of the sun.

Now tell me that all weather-people, all scientists that use blackbody radiation equations every day, and all members of higher education and academia are in The Conspiracy:-)
I have some concerns with this post. A physicist would most certainly spell SONAR correctly. The comment about infinite acceleration being denied by ST is just wrong. I'm pretty sure that weather stations use RADAR, not SONAR. Signals of which he or she posts wouldn't dissipate because of the curvature. They just return uninteresting data as they pass over the weather systems.

The grammar is on par with most physicists. There are a few errors that could be just a bit of laziness. But there are enough tough concepts in the grammar that he or she gets right to conclude he or she has an advanced education.

I conclude that there are reasons to suspect that BulldogBlues is not a physicist. I do, however, concur that the weather RADAR systems and their limitations are great evidence for RET.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Rado1193 on September 30, 2010, 09:32:02 PM
I think it's a stupid idea to tell someone that his scientific beliefs are flawed when he makes grammar or spelling mistakes.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on September 30, 2010, 09:33:22 PM
I think it's a stupid idea to tell someone that his scientific beliefs are flawed when he makes grammar or spelling mistakes.
I agree. Did I do that? If so, tell me where, so I can fix my error. Thanks.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2010, 10:25:12 PM
Quote
First, Special Relativity explicitly rejects infinite acceleration.  As gamma approaches c, the speed of light, it requires exponentially increasing energy to achieve the same amount of acceleration (an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light).  Therefore, you should slightly modify your propaganda to qualify infinite power input, not acceleration

1. The earth will never reach the speed of light if it accelerated upwards continuously.

2. "Infinite energy" is not necessary. It is not implied that the earth will continue to accelerate forever. One day the acceleration may very well stop and all life will come to an end.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on September 30, 2010, 10:32:22 PM
Quote
First, Special Relativity explicitly rejects infinite acceleration.  As gamma approaches c, the speed of light, it requires exponentially increasing energy to achieve the same amount of acceleration (an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light).  Therefore, you should slightly modify your propaganda to qualify infinite power input, not acceleration

1. The earth will never reach the speed of light if it accelerated upwards continuously.

2. "Infinite energy" is not necessary. It is not implied that the earth will continue to accelerate forever. One day the acceleration may very well stop and all life will come to an end.
Given your best guesses for the mass of the FE and the age of the FE, how many watts from dark energy are needed in the next second to keep us alive?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Johannes on September 30, 2010, 11:27:45 PM
Quote
First, Special Relativity explicitly rejects infinite acceleration.  As gamma approaches c, the speed of light, it requires exponentially increasing energy to achieve the same amount of acceleration (an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light).  Therefore, you should slightly modify your propaganda to qualify infinite power input, not acceleration

1. The earth will never reach the speed of light if it accelerated upwards continuously.

2. "Infinite energy" is not necessary. It is not implied that the earth will continue to accelerate forever. One day the acceleration may very well stop and all life will come to an end.
Given your best guesses for the mass of the FE and the age of the FE, how many watts from dark energy are needed in the next second to keep us alive?
A watt isn't a unit of energy, moron.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on September 30, 2010, 11:51:10 PM
First, Special Relativity explicitly rejects infinite acceleration.

If you actually were a phycisist you would find SR allows infinite acceleration.

It's due to Special Relativity, the restrictions placed on objects traveling at velocities that are substantial fractions of the speed of light, and the fact that the speed of light is invariant, thus is the upper bound of the speed of information transfer.  All things travel through the four dimensions we are familiar with at the speed of light.

Taking a few equations of SR involving time, distance and the Lorenz transformation, we arrive at what is known as the velocity addition formula of SR:

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

Where u is the proper velocity of object A, v is the proper velocity of object B, c is the speed of light and w is the resultant velocity seen by an observer at rest, or in an inertial frame.

The problem in using this equation for the FE's acceleration, is that Special Relativity is only valid for objects moving inertially, that is, not accelerating.  General Relativity extends SR to include all frames of reference, those accelerating, included.  However, the equations of GR are quite complex, so we would like a trick to use so that SR can be used for an accelerating frame of reference. 

Thus, v, in the above equation, is taken to be the velocity an object would have by accelerating from rest for one second.  This allows us to use a constant acceleration and iterate it in one second intervals.  For the FE, v would be 9.8m/s, the velocity gained by accelerating for one second at 9.8m/s^2.

Notice that when velocities are very small, relative to the speed of light, the familiar and intuitive velocity addition formula of

w = u+v

is obtained.  Thus, Newton's laws are a low speed approximation.  To be accurate in all circumstances, one would use the velocity addition formula of SR when adding velocities.

There is another, more complicated explanation that leads to the same answer using a different acceleration substitution, written by Erasmus, linked to in the FAQ



Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: markjo on October 01, 2010, 08:13:40 AM
Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

How much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9991c to .9992 c?  Then, how much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9992c to .9993c?  I'll give you a hint, the second answer will be bigger than the first.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Raist on October 01, 2010, 08:37:30 AM
First of all, I have to apologize to everyone (including myself) for wasting their time.  No one is going to change their mind as a result of my post.  Conspiracy theorists will always be conspiracy theorists.  Google "social justification theory".

Also, I have to laugh at the "requirements" that I agreed to to be able to post in forum, as I am not allowed to post anything "false" or "inaccurate":-D

Anyway, as a physicist, I have to say you've done a decent job at creating a solid batch of pseudoscience.  To the uneducated eye, quite a bit of it is believable.  The piece about gravity being a "fictional force" is particularly good, in that actual science technically supports the denotation you've chosen, if not the connotation.  But I would like to point out two glaring errors that anyone with a college course in physics can see.  First, Special Relativity explicitly rejects infinite acceleration.  As gamma approaches c, the speed of light, it requires exponentially increasing energy to achieve the same amount of acceleration (an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light).  Therefore, you should slightly modify your propaganda to qualify infinite power input, not acceleration.  Second, the theory of dark energy relates to the expansion of the universe, NOT anything to do with a wall of mountains at the edge of the earth.  You show me that derivation mathematically and I'll kiss my own flat ass.

OK, so now I have that out of my system.  Here's my (relatively) simple test.  (Besides the fact that I have personal friends who have been to antarctica.)  Walk to your local weather station.  Ask them for the power distribution of their sonar.  Ask them why they can't accurately view weather patterns after a certain distance.  They will tell you it is because the curvature of the earth gets in the way of the signal.  Note that the sonar system must be ground-based for this to be true.  This experiment can also be duplicated with a long-range dipole antenna.  The signal will dissipate long before it mathematically should based on a normal power distribution.  A laser would also work, although it would be hard to correct for landscape changes.

Oh!  One more.  Get a spectrometer and point it at the sun.  The wavelength emission spectrum will tell you that it's much too hot to be only 3000 miles away based on blackbody radiation and not burning us to a crisp.  Even if you correct for the emissivity constant of the sun.

Now tell me that all weather-people, all scientists that use blackbody radiation equations every day, and all members of higher education and academia are in The Conspiracy:-)

You are thinking of infinite acceleration from an outside observers perspective. The increase in energy required to accelerate it corresponds directly with the time dilation caused by the velocity. This means constant acceleration is acheived within the FOR of the accelerating object with constant energy.


This is freshmen year stuff, well as long as you actually understood the concepts and didn't just cram for your final lol.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: John Davis on October 01, 2010, 09:16:04 AM
An infinite plane could cause infinite acceleration of a Cambridge-like earth.  Obviously it would need some sort of gravitational shielding.  I believe Feynman as well as several others before him have talked about such shielding while talking of alternatives to traditional gravity.The end result would be the same - the end of earth.  Unless it started an infinite distance away or the other plane is moving also. 
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 01, 2010, 09:42:35 AM
Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

How much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9991c to .9992 c?  Then, how much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9992c to .9993c?  I'll give you a hint, the second answer will be bigger than the first.

First try and calculate how long, if ever, we would reach .9991c.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 09:48:42 AM
Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

How much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9991c to .9992 c?  Then, how much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9992c to .9993c?  I'll give you a hint, the second answer will be bigger than the first.

First try and calculate how long, if ever, we would reach .9991c.
At what velocity and at what time did FE first become affected by UA? Has the force of the UA been constant since that time?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 01, 2010, 09:59:26 AM
Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

How much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9991c to .9992 c?  Then, how much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9992c to .9993c?  I'll give you a hint, the second answer will be bigger than the first.

First try and calculate how long, if ever, we would reach .9991c.
At what velocity and at what time did FE first become affected by UA? Has the force of the UA been constant since that time?

Just start at zero for both and assume that we have indeed been constantly accelerating at a steady 9.8m/s^2 for the sake of argument.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 11:23:17 AM
Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

How much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9991c to .9992 c?  Then, how much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9992c to .9993c?  I'll give you a hint, the second answer will be bigger than the first.

First try and calculate how long, if ever, we would reach .9991c.
At what velocity and at what time did FE first become affected by UA? Has the force of the UA been constant since that time?

Just start at zero for both and assume that we have indeed been constantly accelerating at a steady 9.8m/s^2 for the sake of argument.
Easy enough. Reference: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html).
v = c tanh(aT/c) where c is the speed of light, a = g = 1.03 lyr/yr2 here, v = .9991c. Solve for T.

tanh(aT/c) = v/c
aT/c = atanh(v/c)
T = c atanh(v/c) / a
T = 1 lyr/yr atanh(v') / 1.03 lyr/yr2 where v' is the portion of the speed of light the FE is traveling
T = atanh(v')/1.03 years
Here: T = atanh(.9991)/1.03 years = 3.7 years.

Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 01, 2010, 11:33:55 AM
Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

How much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9991c to .9992 c?  Then, how much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9992c to .9993c?  I'll give you a hint, the second answer will be bigger than the first.

First try and calculate how long, if ever, we would reach .9991c.
At what velocity and at what time did FE first become affected by UA? Has the force of the UA been constant since that time?

Just start at zero for both and assume that we have indeed been constantly accelerating at a steady 9.8m/s^2 for the sake of argument.
Easy enough. Reference: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html).
v = c tanh(aT/c) where c is the speed of light, a = g = 1.03 lyr/yr2 here, v = .9991c. Solve for T.

tanh(aT/c) = v/c
aT/c = atanh(v/c)
T = c atanh(v/c) / a
T = 1 lyr/yr atanh(v') / 1.03 lyr/yr2 where v' is the portion of the speed of light the FE is traveling
T = atanh(v')/1.03 years
Here: T = atanh(.9991)/1.03 years = 3.7 years.



Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 11:38:47 AM
Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.
How is a reference and worked example a straw-man? Why would I have to use the SR equation quoted by TheEngineer? Do try to make at least a little sense. Are you so stupid that you can't follow the math? Are you so stupid that you can't follow the citation? Are are you just a troll?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 01, 2010, 11:50:55 AM
Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.
How is a reference and worked example a straw-man? Why would I have to use the SR equation quoted by TheEngineer? Do try to make at least a little sense. Are you so stupid that you can't follow the math? Are you so stupid that you can't follow the citation? Are are you just a troll?


How about because the equations I posted were being discussed, and when I said start at zero and see where it takes you, you just started at zero on a completely different equation and claimed victory. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are really this dense not to realize that you just completely used a strawman.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 11:59:33 AM
Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.
How is a reference and worked example a straw-man? Why would I have to use the SR equation quoted by TheEngineer? Do try to make at least a little sense. Are you so stupid that you can't follow the math? Are you so stupid that you can't follow the citation? Are are you just a troll?


How about because the equations I posted were being discussed, and when I said start at zero and see where it takes you, you just started at zero on a completely different equation and claimed victory. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are really this dense not to realize that you just completely used a strawman.
So because you posted a formula I have to use. You really are arrogant, aren't you? How about you use that equation, which by the way the reference does if you'll read it, to check my work.

It is not a straw-man. It's a faster way to get to the right answer. The work is cited and explained. Can you follow it or not? If you need more education in physics or math, I'm sure we can wait while you get some help.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 01, 2010, 12:09:11 PM
Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.
How is a reference and worked example a straw-man? Why would I have to use the SR equation quoted by TheEngineer? Do try to make at least a little sense. Are you so stupid that you can't follow the math? Are you so stupid that you can't follow the citation? Are are you just a troll?


How about because the equations I posted were being discussed, and when I said start at zero and see where it takes you, you just started at zero on a completely different equation and claimed victory. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are really this dense not to realize that you just completely used a strawman.
So because you posted a formula I have to use. You really are arrogant, aren't you? How about you use that equation, which by the way the reference does if you'll read it, to check my work.

It is not a straw-man. It's a faster way to get to the right answer. The work is cited and explained. Can you follow it or not? If you need more education in physics or math, I'm sure we can wait while you get some help.

Wait wait wait, so I make a claim, and then provide an equation with an explanation to back it up. Then while we are discussing it, you come in and don't even address it. You instead post an entirely different equation, and then demand that I use it instead of the one we were talking about? Stopping derailing this thread troll.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 12:15:44 PM

Wait wait wait, so I make a claim, and then provide an equation with an explanation to back it up. Then while we are discussing it, you come in and don't even address it. You instead post an entirely different equation, and then demand that I use it instead of the one we were talking about? Stopping derailing this thread troll.
It is not an entirely different equation. Read the citation. It's right from the Lorentz Transformation. It's straight-forward. Any first-year college physics student knows these equations. Do catch up.

If you claim that someone can use just TheEngineer's post to answer the question, I challenge you to do so now. Be sure to show your work and not to use any other equation at any point. I know you can't.

Until then, REers have answered the question, elegantly. Let's see FEers do the same.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 01, 2010, 12:18:14 PM

Wait wait wait, so I make a claim, and then provide an equation with an explanation to back it up. Then while we are discussing it, you come in and don't even address it. You instead post an entirely different equation, and then demand that I use it instead of the one we were talking about? Stopping derailing this thread troll.
If you claim that someone can use just TheEngineer's post to answer the question, I challenge you to do so now. Be sure to show your work and not to use any other equation at any point. I know you can't.

Lurk moar. People have used his equations and showed work many times to prove this point.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 12:19:56 PM

Wait wait wait, so I make a claim, and then provide an equation with an explanation to back it up. Then while we are discussing it, you come in and don't even address it. You instead post an entirely different equation, and then demand that I use it instead of the one we were talking about? Stopping derailing this thread troll.
If you claim that someone can use just TheEngineer's post to answer the question, I challenge you to do so now. Be sure to show your work and not to use any other equation at any point. I know you can't.

Lurk moar. People have used his equations and showed work many times to prove this point.
So you can't answer the challenge. How typical.

By the way, they are not his equations. Lorenz started the fire, and it's the same fire I used. Do catch up.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 01, 2010, 12:21:03 PM

Wait wait wait, so I make a claim, and then provide an equation with an explanation to back it up. Then while we are discussing it, you come in and don't even address it. You instead post an entirely different equation, and then demand that I use it instead of the one we were talking about? Stopping derailing this thread troll.
If you claim that someone can use just TheEngineer's post to answer the question, I challenge you to do so now. Be sure to show your work and not to use any other equation at any point. I know you can't.

Lurk moar. People have used his equations and showed work many times to prove this point.
So you can't answer the challenge. How typical.

Your laziness does not prove my failure, only your own.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 12:24:02 PM

Wait wait wait, so I make a claim, and then provide an equation with an explanation to back it up. Then while we are discussing it, you come in and don't even address it. You instead post an entirely different equation, and then demand that I use it instead of the one we were talking about? Stopping derailing this thread troll.
If you claim that someone can use just TheEngineer's post to answer the question, I challenge you to do so now. Be sure to show your work and not to use any other equation at any point. I know you can't.

Lurk moar. People have used his equations and showed work many times to prove this point.
So you can't answer the challenge. How typical.

Your laziness does not prove my failure, only your own.
What laziness would that be? Just because you're not smart enough to understand how the equations are the same, I'm not lazy. I've got an defensible answer. You don't. You fail. I win.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: markjo on October 01, 2010, 12:33:53 PM
Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.
How is a reference and worked example a straw-man? Why would I have to use the SR equation quoted by TheEngineer? Do try to make at least a little sense. Are you so stupid that you can't follow the math? Are you so stupid that you can't follow the citation? Are are you just a troll?


How about because the equations I posted were being discussed, and when I said start at zero and see where it takes you, you just started at zero on a completely different equation and claimed victory. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are really this dense not to realize that you just completely used a strawman.

The velocity addition formula that you posted is not appropriate for acceleration.  In fact, as near as I can tell, the velocity addition formula is for calculating the relative velocity of 2 different objects, not for a single object accelerating.  So it seems that FE'ers have been using the wrong formula all this time.  Hmmm...  Who's strawman is it really?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: zork on October 01, 2010, 12:43:59 PM
Your laziness does not prove my failure, only your own.
Your failure to use the formula which you itself provided makes ClockTower lazy?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 01, 2010, 01:19:08 PM
Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.
How is a reference and worked example a straw-man? Why would I have to use the SR equation quoted by TheEngineer? Do try to make at least a little sense. Are you so stupid that you can't follow the math? Are you so stupid that you can't follow the citation? Are are you just a troll?


How about because the equations I posted were being discussed, and when I said start at zero and see where it takes you, you just started at zero on a completely different equation and claimed victory. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are really this dense not to realize that you just completely used a strawman.

The velocity addition formula that you posted is not appropriate for acceleration.  In fact, as near as I can tell, the velocity addition formula is for calculating the relative velocity of 2 different objects, not for a single object accelerating.  So it seems that FE'ers have been using the wrong formula all this time.  Hmmm...  Who's strawman is it really?

If you read the entire post, TheEngineer quite clearly explains how the two objects are actually the same object. U is the velocity at a given time, and V is the increase in velocity in the next frame of time. (Since it 9.8m/s^2 it is in frames of 1 sec) W is the the new speed in that frame of time, and you would then use that number as U when you plug it into the next equation. I'll show a few calculations since everyone wants to see them so badly. (They are going to be in meters)

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

Lets say we we are moving at 1/3 the speed of light.

So the U is 99,930,819.3m/s
V is 9.8m/s

w=(99,930,819.3m/s+9.8m/s)/(1+99,930,819.39m/s*9.8m/s/c^2)

w= 99,930,828m/s

If you notice, as the Earth's velocity approaches the speed of light, it's acceleration actually starts to slow down.

The different between U and W is now 8.7m/s instead of 9.8m/s

Now lets say we are 2/5 the speed of light.

U is 119,916,983m/s

V is 9.8m/s

w=(119,916,983m/s+9.8m/s)/(1+119,916,983m/s*9.8m/s/c^2)

w=119,916,991m/s

As we are even closer to the speed of light, now the difference between U and W has dropped to 8m/s instead of what should be 9.8m/s

As we get closer and closer, our increase in velocity over time exponentially decreases due to Special Relativity despite constant acceleration.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: markjo on October 01, 2010, 01:27:29 PM
I'm sorry but there are no variables for acceleration or time in that formula, so asking how long it would take to accelerate to a certain velocity is not possible using that formula.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: zork on October 01, 2010, 01:30:31 PM
 My thoughts were exactly the same. You do your math but were is the time?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: trig on October 01, 2010, 01:44:37 PM
Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

How much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9991c to .9992 c?  Then, how much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9992c to .9993c?  I'll give you a hint, the second answer will be bigger than the first.

First try and calculate how long, if ever, we would reach .9991c.
At what velocity and at what time did FE first become affected by UA? Has the force of the UA been constant since that time?

Just start at zero for both and assume that we have indeed been constantly accelerating at a steady 9.8m/s^2 for the sake of argument.

For those of you that are too lazy to do this calculation, here you have a spreadsheet:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/6a60348rh4qk0hs/acceleration.ods (http://www.mediafire.com/file/6a60348rh4qk0hs/acceleration.ods)

It calculates day by day the increased speed, then corrects for special relativity effects.

And there you can see that in day number 1365 the 0.9991c speed is achieved. (about 3.7 years).

And in about 2600 days we reach about 0.999999c, and that is about what you can calculate with confidence with just any spreadsheet. (some 7 years)

Also, by changing the increase in speed per period (cell B2) you can change the length in time of every calculation step, so you can check that the incremental period is small enough that for the approximation to be close to the exact answer. In this case, by multiplying the value in cell B2 by 10 the speed of 0.9991c is achieved in 136 periods, so the accuracy of the approximation is guaranteed to be very good.

But EnglshGentleman already knew the answer to his question is around 4 years, since it has been said several times in this forum. This was just another attempt at rhetoric.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 01:45:01 PM
If you read the entire post, TheEngineer quite clearly explains how the two objects are actually the same object. U is the velocity at a given time, and V is the increase in velocity in the next frame of time. (Since it 9.8m/s^2 it is in frames of 1 sec) W is the the new speed in that frame of time, and you would then use that number as U when you plug it into the next equation. I'll show a few calculations since everyone wants to see them so badly. (They are going to be in meters)

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

Lets say we we are moving at 1/3 the speed of light.

So the U is 99,930,819.3
V is 9.8

w=(99,930,819.3+9.8)/(1+99,930,819.39*9.8/c^2)

w= 99,930,828

If you notice, as the Earth's velocity approaches the speed of light, it's acceleration actually starts to slow down.

The different between U and W is now 8.7 instead of 9.8

Now lets say we are 2/5 the speed of light.

U is 119,916,983

V is 9.8


w=(119,916,983+9.8)/(1+119,916,983*9.8/c^2)

w=119,916,991

As we are even closer to the speed of light, now the difference between U and W has dropped to 8 instead of what should be 9.8

As we get closer and closer, our increase in velocity over time exponentially decreases due to Special Relativity despite constant acceleration.

Units of measure are wrong. Conclusion violates SR. Conclusion does not answer the question (When will the FE be travelling at .9991c. assuming an initial velocity of 0 and a constant acceleration of g in the correct direction?) And that's what I see wrong in just five minutes of review. How sad.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 01, 2010, 02:01:19 PM
I'm sorry but there are no variables for acceleration or time in that formula, so asking how long it would take to accelerate to a certain velocity is not possible using that formula.

Fixed for you.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 02:04:34 PM

If you read the entire post, TheEngineer quite clearly explains how the two objects are actually the same object. U is the velocity at a given time, and V is the increase in velocity in the next frame of time. (Since it 9.8m/s^2 it is in frames of 1 sec) W is the the new speed in that frame of time, and you would then use that number as U when you plug it into the next equation. I'll show a few calculations since everyone wants to see them so badly. (They are going to be in meters)

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

Lets say we we are moving at 1/3 the speed of light.

So the U is 99,930,819.3m/s
V is 9.8m/s^2

w=(99,930,819.3m/s+9.8m/s^2)/(1+99,930,819.39m/s*9.8m/s^2/c^2)

w= 99,930,828m/s

If you notice, as the Earth's velocity approaches the speed of light, it's acceleration actually starts to slow down.

The different between U and W is now 8.7m/s^2 instead of 9.8m/s^2

Now lets say we are 2/5 the speed of light.

U is 119,916,983m/s

V is 9.8m/s^2


w=(119,916,983m/s+9.8m/s^2)/(1+119,916,983m/s*9.8m/s^2/c^2)

w=119,916,991m/s

As we are even closer to the speed of light, now the difference between U and W has dropped to 8m/s^2 instead of what should be 9.8m/s^2

As we get closer and closer, our increase in velocity over time exponentially decreases due to Special Relativity despite constant acceleration.

It's clear that you're ignorant. V cannot have unit of measure m/s^2. It's a velocity, not an acceleration. You can't add U and V. Really adding a velocity to an acceleration? How ignorant can you be?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 01, 2010, 02:06:03 PM
Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

How much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9991c to .9992 c?  Then, how much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9992c to .9993c?  I'll give you a hint, the second answer will be bigger than the first.

First try and calculate how long, if ever, we would reach .9991c.
At what velocity and at what time did FE first become affected by UA? Has the force of the UA been constant since that time?

Just start at zero for both and assume that we have indeed been constantly accelerating at a steady 9.8m/s^2 for the sake of argument.

For those of you that are too lazy to do this calculation, here you have a spreadsheet:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/6a60348rh4qk0hs/acceleration.ods (http://www.mediafire.com/file/6a60348rh4qk0hs/acceleration.ods)

I do not see any equations there, just long lists of numbers.

@ClockTower Fixed. Simple mistake, just habitual to type 9.8m/s^2 here.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 02:12:45 PM
Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.
How is a reference and worked example a straw-man? Why would I have to use the SR equation quoted by TheEngineer? Do try to make at least a little sense. Are you so stupid that you can't follow the math? Are you so stupid that you can't follow the citation? Are are you just a troll?


How about because the equations I posted were being discussed, and when I said start at zero and see where it takes you, you just started at zero on a completely different equation and claimed victory. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are really this dense not to realize that you just completely used a strawman.

The velocity addition formula that you posted is not appropriate for acceleration.  In fact, as near as I can tell, the velocity addition formula is for calculating the relative velocity of 2 different objects, not for a single object accelerating.  So it seems that FE'ers have been using the wrong formula all this time.  Hmmm...  Who's strawman is it really?

If you read the entire post, TheEngineer quite clearly explains how the two objects are actually the same object. U is the velocity at a given time, and V is the increase in velocity in the next frame of time. (Since it 9.8m/s^2 it is in frames of 1 sec) W is the the new speed in that frame of time, and you would then use that number as U when you plug it into the next equation. I'll show a few calculations since everyone wants to see them so badly. (They are going to be in meters)

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

Lets say we we are moving at 1/3 the speed of light.

So the U is 99,930,819.3m/s
V is 9.8m/s

w=(99,930,819.3m/s+9.8m/s)/(1+99,930,819.39m/s*9.8m/s/c^2)

w= 99,930,828m/s

If you notice, as the Earth's velocity approaches the speed of light, it's acceleration actually starts to slow down.

The different between U and W is now 8.7m/s instead of 9.8m/s

Now lets say we are 2/5 the speed of light.

U is 119,916,983m/s

V is 9.8m/s

w=(119,916,983m/s+9.8m/s)/(1+119,916,983m/s*9.8m/s/c^2)

w=119,916,991m/s

As we are even closer to the speed of light, now the difference between U and W has dropped to 8m/s instead of what should be 9.8m/s

As we get closer and closer, our increase in velocity over time exponentially decreases due to Special Relativity despite constant acceleration.

You still very ignorant of physics. You cannot use V = 9.8 m/s. You must deal with the continuous case, not some discrete set of every second. Do you have any physics background.

And you still haven't answered the question you posed. How much longer do you need? This is really sad. Isn't there any FEer who understands SR enough to do this exercise?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 01, 2010, 02:15:49 PM
If you paid attention earlier, the formula works in single frames of time. Therefore it is appropriate to do a case for every second.

Now how about you try and figure out how long it takes us to reach the speed of lights starting at u=0.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 02:27:54 PM
If you paid attention earlier, the formula works in single frames of time. Therefore it is appropriate to do a case for every second.

Now how about you try and figure out how long it takes us to reach the speed of lights starting at u=0.
No, the formula does not work in single frames of time, and it is not appropriate to do a case for every second. Please cite a source that says that it is.

 No, I'm not going to do your math for you.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: trig on October 01, 2010, 03:18:45 PM

I do not see any equations there, just long lists of numbers.

Just look at the formulas in every cell. Are you totally ignorant about the use of spreadsheets?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: trig on October 01, 2010, 03:48:47 PM
If you paid attention earlier, the formula works in single frames of time. Therefore it is appropriate to do a case for every second.

Now how about you try and figure out how long it takes us to reach the speed of lights starting at u=0.
No, the formula does not work in single frames of time, and it is not appropriate to do a case for every second. Please cite a source that says that it is.

 No, I'm not going to do your math for you.
I can help you a little bit with the mathematical problem here. Inside a humongous mass of garbage, EnglshGentleman did get one little bit of correct maths in this post.

Although there is an error introduced when you add the speeds u and v since the object is accelerating, (in this case, a flat Earth), the speed w is correct in the limit where the length of the time lapse tends to zero. And you can get an approximation by doing the calculation with a few values for the time lapse. What I found is that the convergence of this formula is very fast, so the result given here by TheEngineer (if there are no mistakes, I did not check the details) is about right.

If you check the spreadsheet I posted, you can see that Earth will approach 0.9991c in less than 4 years, which means that the energy required to keep Earth accelerating was humongous even then. You can either calculate what is necessary to carry under a flat Earth to accelerate it (about three Hiroshima bombs exploding every day under every square meter of Earth's bottom, assuming perfect efficiency) or what is necessary to push Earth from its original place of creation (at least all the energy created by man to push every subatomic particle on Earth, but maybe much, much more).

Either way, pretending that Earth is moving at more than  0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c and that it is no deal is totally brain dead.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 04:13:33 PM
where v' is the portion of the speed of light the FE is traveling
T = atanh(v')/1.03 years where T is the time required to reach v' from the FoR of the FE.

v' = tanh(1.03 T)

So lets say 4.6 billion years for T.

I cannot find a calculator that can handle the needed precision. The velocity would be so close to the c that 64-bit arithmetic can't measure the difference.

So the amount of energy required to accelerate the FE at 1g at this time would be greater that the total energy of all of the mass of the Universe by 100s of orders of magnitude.

Let's just say... Tilt. It can't be imagined.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: deathsink on October 01, 2010, 04:17:41 PM
where v' is the portion of the speed of light the FE is traveling
T = atanh(v')/1.03 years where T is the time required to reach v' from the FoR of the FE.

v' = tanh(1.03 T)

So lets say 4.6 billion years for T.

I cannot find a calculator that can handle the needed precision. The velocity would be so close to the c that 64-bit arithmetic can't measure the difference.

So the amount of energy required to accelerate the FE at 1g at this time would be greater that the total energy of all of the mass of the Universe by 100s of orders of magnitude.

Let's just say... Tilt. It can't be imagined.

In reality, you are only going to get 2 significant figures.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 04:23:58 PM
where v' is the portion of the speed of light the FE is traveling
T = atanh(v')/1.03 years where T is the time required to reach v' from the FoR of the FE.

v' = tanh(1.03 T)

So lets say 4.6 billion years for T.

I cannot find a calculator that can handle the needed precision. The velocity would be so close to the c that 64-bit arithmetic can't measure the difference.

So the amount of energy required to accelerate the FE at 1g at this time would be greater that the total energy of all of the mass of the Universe by 100s of orders of magnitude.

Let's just say... Tilt. It can't be imagined.

In reality, you are only going to get 2 significant figures.
Of course. But I can't even imagine the number in the exponent in scientific notation. It's beyond googleplex.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: trig on October 01, 2010, 05:07:54 PM
where v' is the portion of the speed of light the FE is traveling
T = atanh(v')/1.03 years where T is the time required to reach v' from the FoR of the FE.

v' = tanh(1.03 T)

So lets say 4.6 billion years for T.

I cannot find a calculator that can handle the needed precision. The velocity would be so close to the c that 64-bit arithmetic can't measure the difference.

So the amount of energy required to accelerate the FE at 1g at this time would be greater that the total energy of all of the mass of the Universe by 100s of orders of magnitude.

Let's just say... Tilt. It can't be imagined.

In reality, you are only going to get 2 significant figures.
One way or another, when you are already at more than 0.999 of c in just 4 years, and you continue accelerating for billions of years, you will get to the point where you need to write pages of nines to be exact. Whether the 1.03 is just an approximation or exact, that will not change the fact that we are talking about a small percentage of the width of a subatomic particle per hour less than c. That is what the 64 digits of ClockTower's calculator did show clearly.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: General Disarray on October 01, 2010, 05:13:58 PM
And another model of FET is disproved! Now I just wish John Davis would properly explain his because, though he keeps its details a secret, it seems to be the only possibly viable one left.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 01, 2010, 05:25:17 PM
I do not see how it would be disproved. It seems to be common consensus that A) We can continue to accelerate without ever reaching the speed of light, and B) It is would require large amounts of energy. This doesn't disprove it, just means that it is unlikely.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 05:27:17 PM
And another model of FET is disproved! Now I just wish John Davis would properly explain his because, though he keeps its details a secret, it seems to be the only possibly viable one left.
Actually, I think that we've got JD on the run. Since the g toward the infinite FE would be constant regardless of the distance, He can't keep the Sun in the sky.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: General Disarray on October 01, 2010, 05:29:29 PM
It seems to be common consensus that A) We can't continue to accelerate without ever reaching the speed of light, because B) It is would require impossible amounts of energy.

Fix'd.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: General Disarray on October 01, 2010, 05:31:55 PM
And another model of FET is disproved! Now I just wish John Davis would properly explain his because, though he keeps its details a secret, it seems to be the only possibly viable one left.
Actually, I think that we've got JD on the run. Since the g toward the infinite FE would be constant regardless of the distance, He can't keep the Sun in the sky.

It's hard to say, because he refuses to give out the details of his model.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 01, 2010, 05:36:00 PM
I do not see how it would be disproved. It seems to be common consensus that A) We can continue to accelerate without ever reaching the speed of light, and B) It is would require large amounts of energy. This doesn't disprove it, just means that it is unlikely.
If you can tell us FE gets the energy that beyond imagining, we'll listen. But if you had enough anti-matter to combined with all of the Universe's matter you couldn't even handle the next second of the FE's acceleration. With that much energy at his or her disposal anyone could create a whole new solar system to match the RET.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 02, 2010, 12:26:47 AM
Either way, pretending that Earth is moving at more than  0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c and that it is no deal is totally brain dead.
By the way, I fired up Mathematica 7.0 and asked for 10^60 digits of precision and still received '1'. So that's more than .9999999 ... 10^60 times... c.

I was able to get an answer for the speed after 10,000 years with 20 digits of precision that filled the output buffer with nines and a final line of gibberish. So Mathematica, renown for precision, says that after 10,000 years it can't tell the difference.

I think we can pronounce the UA deader than a doornail.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 02, 2010, 05:43:39 PM
I do not see how it would be disproved. It seems to be common consensus that A) We can continue to accelerate without ever reaching the speed of light, and B) It is would require large amounts of energy. This doesn't disprove it, just means that it is unlikely.
If you can tell us FE gets the energy that beyond imagining, we'll listen. But if you had enough anti-matter to combined with all of the Universe's matter you couldn't even handle the next second of the FE's acceleration. With that much energy at his or her disposal anyone could create a whole new solar system to match the RET.

So you admit that it is just unlikely, not impossible.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Raist on October 02, 2010, 08:10:34 PM
Either way, pretending that Earth is moving at more than  0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c and that it is no deal is totally brain dead.
By the way, I fired up Mathematica 7.0 and asked for 10^60 digits of precision and still received '1'. So that's more than .9999999 ... 10^60 times... c.

I was able to get an answer for the speed after 10,000 years with 20 digits of precision that filled the output buffer with nines and a final line of gibberish. So Mathematica, renown for precision, says that after 10,000 years it can't tell the difference.

I think we can pronounce the UA deader than a doornail.

I don't get the pointt of your post. Are you implying that accelerating an object would eventually lead it to reaching the speed of light?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: zork on October 03, 2010, 01:21:53 AM
I don't get the point of your post. Are you implying that accelerating an object would eventually lead it to reaching the speed of light?
  No, it's just so close to the speed of light that even this would be impossible to achieve. Or do you imply that there is no problem to achieve the speed where there is some hundreds of millions or more nines after comma?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 03, 2010, 02:20:07 AM
Either way, pretending that Earth is moving at more than  0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c and that it is no deal is totally brain dead.
By the way, I fired up Mathematica 7.0 and asked for 10^60 digits of precision and still received '1'. So that's more than .9999999 ... 10^60 times... c.

I was able to get an answer for the speed after 10,000 years with 20 digits of precision that filled the output buffer with nines and a final line of gibberish. So Mathematica, renown for precision, says that after 10,000 years it can't tell the difference.

I think we can pronounce the UA deader than a doornail.

I don't get the pointt of your post. Are you implying that accelerating an object would eventually lead it to reaching the speed of light?
No, I'm saying the energy required to accelerate the FE is too large to be accepted.

At this point in time, if every proton in the Universe each contributed all of the energy currently being provided by all sources in the Universe toward the acceleration for one nanosecond of a single proton in the FE, you'd still need more than a trillion times that energy to handle just that one proton for that one nanosecond.

The UA is false.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 03, 2010, 05:58:36 AM
No, I'm saying the energy required to accelerate the FE is too large to be accepted.

At this point in time, if every proton in the Universe each contributed all of the energy currently being provided by all sources in the Universe toward the acceleration for one nanosecond of a single proton in the FE, you'd still need more than a trillion times that energy to handle just that one proton for that one nanosecond.

The UA is false.
Ah, no support. Typical. Do try again.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: John Davis on October 03, 2010, 06:26:22 AM
I've already discussed why the sun stays in the sky.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: zork on October 03, 2010, 06:37:41 AM
No, I'm saying the energy required to accelerate the FE is too large to be accepted.

At this point in time, if every proton in the Universe each contributed all of the energy currently being provided by all sources in the Universe toward the acceleration for one nanosecond of a single proton in the FE, you'd still need more than a trillion times that energy to handle just that one proton for that one nanosecond.

The UA is false.
Ah, no support. Typical. Do try again.
You fail to make a point. Support for what? That the energy needed to accelerate the earth to the almost speed of the light must be humongous or even in impossible scale?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 03, 2010, 08:16:28 AM
Support for what?
The numbers, of course. What else do you think could need support there? I could have missed something.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: markjo on October 03, 2010, 08:57:20 AM
Support for what?
The numbers, of course. What else do you think could need support there? I could have missed something.
Yes, I think you missed that fact that there comes a point when it takes more energy to accelerate the FE than exists in the universe and that point only takes a relatively short time to reach.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 03, 2010, 09:13:09 AM
An infinite plane implies an infinite universe. An infinite universe implies infinite energy.
I claim it'd take a relatively long time to exceed that.
Still awaiting support of ClockTower's post.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: markjo on October 03, 2010, 09:19:39 AM
Unfortunately, infinity doesn't make much sense when you plug it into F=ma.  Infinite force and infinite mass resulting in finite acceleration?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 03, 2010, 09:24:55 AM
Unfortunately, infinity doesn't make much sense when you plug it into F=ma.  Infinite force and infinite mass resulting in finite acceleration?
I'm not sure where you got this from.
Infinite mass multiplied by finite acceleration equals infinite force. Why did you attempt to make it Fm=a?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: zork on October 03, 2010, 09:34:04 AM
Support for what?
The numbers, of course. What else do you think could need support there? I could have missed something.
You can't fit such numbers here. You mentioned infinity and there is no such thing as infinite energy source. It's not even the thing which has probability, it's a thing which is impossible.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 03, 2010, 09:36:49 AM
Support for what?
The numbers, of course. What else do you think could need support there? I could have missed something.
You can't fit such numbers here. You mentioned infinity and there is no such thing as infinite energy source. It's not even the thing which has probability, it's a thing which is impossible.
Which is great, but also irrelevant. ClockTower was very specific about the numbers, and I'd like him to either support or withdraw them.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: zork on October 03, 2010, 10:10:06 AM
You can't fit such numbers here. You mentioned infinity and there is no such thing as infinite energy source. It's not even the thing which has probability, it's a thing which is impossible.
Which is great, but also irrelevant. ClockTower was very specific about the numbers, and I'd like him to either support or withdraw them.
No, he wasn't. You are very specific with numbers. ClockTowers only point was that the numbers are too large. It rather seems to me that you are the one who must justify your belief to energy resource which generates infinite amount of energy or at least amount of energy which is more than there is in the universe.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: markjo on October 03, 2010, 10:14:21 AM
Unfortunately, infinity doesn't make much sense when you plug it into F=ma.  Infinite force and infinite mass resulting in finite acceleration?
I'm not sure where you got this from.
Infinite mass multiplied by finite acceleration equals infinite force. Why did you attempt to make it Fm=a?
In order to calculate acceleration, it would be a=F/m.  Infinite force divided by infinite mass = indeterminate acceleration.  Again, plugging infinity into such formulas give you answers that don't make any sense.  This is just one of the obvious problems with the UA in an infinite plane model.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Parsifal on October 04, 2010, 02:08:40 AM
In order to calculate acceleration, it would be a=F/m.  Infinite force divided by infinite mass = indeterminate acceleration.  Again, plugging infinity into such formulas give you answers that don't make any sense.  This is just one of the obvious problems with the UA in an infinite plane model.

Infinity is best thought of as a limit in this case. What would make more sense is this:

F = pA
m = ρAT
a = pA/ρAT = p/ρT

Where:

a = acceleration
A = surface area of one side of the Flat Earth
p = pressure from UA (i.e. force per unit Earth area)
ρ = mean mass density of Earth
T = mean thickness of Earth

This equation is equivalent to a = F/m for finite values of A, but taking the limit of a as A approaches infinity gives us the finite value of p/ρT.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: zork on October 04, 2010, 02:28:25 AM
 How do you calculate that? Only know value is acceleration. Others variables don't have even presumable values.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Parsifal on October 04, 2010, 02:29:35 AM
How do you calculate that? Only know value is acceleration. Others variables don't have even presumable values.

Irrelevant.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 04, 2010, 03:12:21 AM
In order to calculate acceleration, it would be a=F/m.  Infinite force divided by infinite mass = indeterminate acceleration.  Again, plugging infinity into such formulas give you answers that don't make any sense.  This is just one of the obvious problems with the UA in an infinite plane model.

Infinity is best thought of as a limit in this case. What would make more sense is this:

F = pA
m = ?AT
a = pA/?AT = p/?T

Where:

a = acceleration
A = surface area of one side of the Flat Earth
p = pressure from UA (i.e. force per unit Earth area)
? = mean mass density of Earth
T = mean thickness of Earth

This equation is equivalent to a = F/m for finite values of A, but taking the limit of a as A approaches infinity gives us the finite value of p/?T.
A sophomoric mistake to use Newtonian equations when at relativistic values. For shame!
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Parsifal on October 04, 2010, 03:15:05 AM
A sophomoric mistake to use Newtonian equations when at relativistic values.

1. Relativistic values of what?
2. That equation describes a force being applied to the Earth. What about this scenario necessitates a relativistic value of the answer to question 1?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 04, 2010, 03:18:18 AM
A sophomoric mistake to use Newtonian equations when at relativistic values.

1. Relativistic values of what?
2. That equation describes a force being applied to the Earth. What about this scenario necessitates a relativistic value of the answer to question 1?
If you have to ask then you don't understand. Mass varies with velocity. That's high school physics!
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Parsifal on October 04, 2010, 03:24:27 AM
If you have to ask then you don't understand. Mass is varies with velocity. That's high school physics!

If you cannot answer my questions, please do not presume to clutter this thread with the fetid juices of your Palaeozoic mind.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 04, 2010, 03:26:08 AM
If you have to ask then you don't understand. Mass is varies with velocity. That's high school physics!

If you cannot answer my questions, please do not presume to clutter this thread with the fetid juices of your Palaeozoic mind.
1) I'm under no obligations to answer your questions.
2) The answer is in the very quote you copied.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Parsifal on October 04, 2010, 03:30:19 AM
1) I'm under no obligations to answer your questions.

I have not suggested otherwise.

2) The answer is in the very quote you copied.

I asked two questions, which implies that two answers are required. I see neither in your earlier post.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 04, 2010, 03:31:51 AM
1) I'm under no obligations to answer your questions.

I have not suggested otherwise.

2) The answer is in the very quote you copied.

I asked two questions, which implies that two answers are required. I see neither in your earlier post.
Then you need to look harder.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Parsifal on October 04, 2010, 03:33:22 AM
Then you need to look harder.

It is much more probable that the answers simply are not there.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 04, 2010, 03:35:44 AM
Then you need to look harder.

It is much more probable that the answers simply are not there.
Nope.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: zork on October 04, 2010, 03:48:10 AM
How do you calculate that? Only know value is acceleration. Others variables don't have even presumable values.

Irrelevant.
Irrelevant or not, what use the formula has if anyone can't use it? Or your formula itself is irrelevant here then because we are looking to get some numbers other than infinity and your formula can't give them.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: markjo on October 04, 2010, 06:29:40 AM
How do you calculate that? Only know value is acceleration. Others variables don't have even presumable values.

The other variables (or mass, at least) are presumed to be infinity.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 04, 2010, 12:34:50 PM
No, he wasn't.
Yes, he was. Did you read his post? If not, here's a good opportunity:

At this point in time, if every proton in the Universe each contributed all of the energy currently being provided by all sources in the Universe toward the acceleration for one nanosecond of a single proton in the FE, you'd still need more than a trillion times that energy to handle just that one proton for that one nanosecond.
The emboldened parts indicate specific numbers. If we carry on with your logic and assume that we're supposed to just ignore the numbers, this is what remains:
If protons contributed energy from sources toward the acceleration, you'd still need more to handle it.
Either way, it's a baseless assumption.

Then you need to look harder.

It is much more probable that the answers simply are not there.
Nope.
We now find out that, once again, you've been dishonest. So, still no evidence? Typical.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: markjo on October 04, 2010, 12:47:44 PM
At this point in time, if every proton in the Universe each contributed all of the energy currently being provided by all sources in the Universe toward the acceleration for one nanosecond of a single proton in the FE, you'd still need more than a trillion times that energy to handle just that one proton for that one nanosecond.
The emboldened parts indicate specific numbers. If we carry on with your logic and assume that we're supposed to just ignore the numbers, this is what remains:
If protons contributed energy from sources toward the acceleration, you'd still need more to handle it.
Either way, it's a baseless assumption.
So you don't believe relativity when it says that you need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a finite amount of mass to the speed of light?  Or don't you believe that a flat earth accelerating at 9.8m/s2 for several hundred years would achieve a speed that is a such a large fraction of the speed of light that it would take an inconceivable amount of energy to continue accelerating it?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Raist on October 04, 2010, 06:23:35 PM
I don't get the point of your post. Are you implying that accelerating an object would eventually lead it to reaching the speed of light?
  No, it's just so close to the speed of light that even this would be impossible to achieve. Or do you imply that there is no problem to achieve the speed where there is some hundreds of millions or more nines after comma?

I'm not seeing why that would be a problem. Given constant acceleration that should happen by definition.

There is no rule against an object going very close to the speed of light.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 04, 2010, 06:37:44 PM
I don't get the point of your post. Are you implying that accelerating an object would eventually lead it to reaching the speed of light?
  No, it's just so close to the speed of light that even this would be impossible to achieve. Or do you imply that there is no problem to achieve the speed where there is some hundreds of millions or more nines after comma?

I'm not seeing why that would be a problem. Given constant acceleration that should happen by definition.

There is no rule against an object going very close to the speed of light.
Tell us please the amount of energy required to accelerate one kilogram of the FE at g after accelerating the it with the rest of the FE for 4.6 billion years from an initial velocity of zero. I'm only interested in the order of magnitude of the number of zeros in the exponent of your answer.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 04, 2010, 06:58:35 PM
I don't get the point of your post. Are you implying that accelerating an object would eventually lead it to reaching the speed of light?
  No, it's just so close to the speed of light that even this would be impossible to achieve. Or do you imply that there is no problem to achieve the speed where there is some hundreds of millions or more nines after comma?

I'm not seeing why that would be a problem. Given constant acceleration that should happen by definition.

There is no rule against an object going very close to the speed of light.
Tell us please the amount of energy required to accelerate one kilogram of the FE at g after accelerating the it with the rest of the FE for 4.6 billion years from an initial velocity of zero. I'm only interested in the order of magnitude of the number of zeros in the exponent of your answer.

Irrelevant.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Parsifal on October 04, 2010, 07:00:28 PM
Tell us please the amount of energy required to accelerate one kilogram of the FE at g after accelerating the it with the rest of the FE for 4.6 billion years from an initial velocity of zero. I'm only interested in the order of magnitude of the number of zeros in the exponent of your answer.

Irrelevant.

It's worse than irrelevant, the request as written does not even make sense.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Raist on October 04, 2010, 07:02:08 PM
I don't get the point of your post. Are you implying that accelerating an object would eventually lead it to reaching the speed of light?
  No, it's just so close to the speed of light that even this would be impossible to achieve. Or do you imply that there is no problem to achieve the speed where there is some hundreds of millions or more nines after comma?

I'm not seeing why that would be a problem. Given constant acceleration that should happen by definition.

There is no rule against an object going very close to the speed of light.
Tell us please the amount of energy required to accelerate one kilogram of the FE at g after accelerating the it with the rest of the FE for 4.6 billion years from an initial velocity of zero. I'm only interested in the order of magnitude of the number of zeros in the exponent of your answer.

Lots probably. Or none. How much energy does gravity use to accelerate objects?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 04, 2010, 07:19:00 PM
I don't get the point of your post. Are you implying that accelerating an object would eventually lead it to reaching the speed of light?
  No, it's just so close to the speed of light that even this would be impossible to achieve. Or do you imply that there is no problem to achieve the speed where there is some hundreds of millions or more nines after comma?

I'm not seeing why that would be a problem. Given constant acceleration that should happen by definition.

There is no rule against an object going very close to the speed of light.
Tell us please the amount of energy required to accelerate one kilogram of the FE at g after accelerating the it with the rest of the FE for 4.6 billion years from an initial velocity of zero. I'm only interested in the order of magnitude of the number of zeros in the exponent of your answer.

Lots probably. Or none. How much energy does gravity use to accelerate objects?
So you can't answer, huh? I guess that's typical of FEers.

Please be specific about the objects because the answer depends on those specifics.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Raist on October 04, 2010, 07:46:53 PM
I don't get the point of your post. Are you implying that accelerating an object would eventually lead it to reaching the speed of light?
  No, it's just so close to the speed of light that even this would be impossible to achieve. Or do you imply that there is no problem to achieve the speed where there is some hundreds of millions or more nines after comma?

I'm not seeing why that would be a problem. Given constant acceleration that should happen by definition.

There is no rule against an object going very close to the speed of light.
Tell us please the amount of energy required to accelerate one kilogram of the FE at g after accelerating the it with the rest of the FE for 4.6 billion years from an initial velocity of zero. I'm only interested in the order of magnitude of the number of zeros in the exponent of your answer.

Lots probably. Or none. How much energy does gravity use to accelerate objects?
So you can't answer, huh? I guess that's typical of FEers.

Please be specific about the objects because the answer depends on those specifics.

I see your question now. It would take exactly infinite energy to do so because it is impossible. Thankfully it would only be accelerated .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(assume a lot more zeros considering your calculations)1 m/s/s.

Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 04, 2010, 07:56:26 PM
I don't get the point of your post. Are you implying that accelerating an object would eventually lead it to reaching the speed of light?
  No, it's just so close to the speed of light that even this would be impossible to achieve. Or do you imply that there is no problem to achieve the speed where there is some hundreds of millions or more nines after comma?

I'm not seeing why that would be a problem. Given constant acceleration that should happen by definition.

There is no rule against an object going very close to the speed of light.
Tell us please the amount of energy required to accelerate one kilogram of the FE at g after accelerating the it with the rest of the FE for 4.6 billion years from an initial velocity of zero. I'm only interested in the order of magnitude of the number of zeros in the exponent of your answer.

Lots probably. Or none. How much energy does gravity use to accelerate objects?
So you can't answer, huh? I guess that's typical of FEers.

Please be specific about the objects because the answer depends on those specifics.

He did answer. There is a possibility that UA doesn't require a constant output of energy just like gravity doesn't.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 04, 2010, 07:57:49 PM

I see your question now. It would take exactly infinite energy to do so because it is impossible. Thankfully it would only be accelerated .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(assume a lot more zeros considering your calculations)1 m/s/s.


No, but that's an attempt. Please try again.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Parsifal on October 04, 2010, 07:58:54 PM
CrackToter, it is not possible to answer your question because your question makes no sense.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 04, 2010, 08:00:43 PM
He did answer. There is a possibility that UA doesn't require a constant output of energy just like gravity doesn't.
Do tell us about this magically possibility.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Raist on October 04, 2010, 08:05:41 PM

I see your question now. It would take exactly infinite energy to do so because it is impossible. Thankfully it would only be accelerated .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(assume a lot more zeros considering your calculations)1 m/s/s.


No, but that's an attempt. Please try again.

Considering your calculations led to "I was able to get an answer for the speed after 10,000 years with 20 digits of precision that filled the output buffer with nines and a final line of gibberish." I am going to ask you give me a real answer and not an attempt.

Also, I gave you a real answer, an infinite amount of energy. It is impossible to accelerate 9.86 m/s/s when you are less than 9.86 m/s away from c.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 04, 2010, 08:30:44 PM

I see your question now. It would take exactly infinite energy to do so because it is impossible. Thankfully it would only be accelerated .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(assume a lot more zeros considering your calculations)1 m/s/s.


No, but that's an attempt. Please try again.

Considering your calculations led to "I was able to get an answer for the speed after 10,000 years with 20 digits of precision that filled the output buffer with nines and a final line of gibberish." I am going to ask you give me a real answer and not an attempt.

Also, I gave you a real answer, an infinite amount of energy. It is impossible to accelerate 9.86 m/s/s when you are less than 9.86 m/s away from c.

Oh dear, another FEer that doesn't understand SR. It's like every time I turn around I have to teach SR to those silly enough to believe in something that a hour's thought would convince them is false.

Let's give you a precise answer: (e^(1.03*4.6 * 10^9) - e^-(1.03*4.6 * 10^0))/(e^(1.03*4.6 * 10^9) + e^-(1.03*4.6 * 10^0)) = v' where v' is the FE's velocity form the FE's reference as a fraction of c. I believe that any calculator with less than 200 digits of precision will return 1, though by inspection we know that the value is less than 1.

Then let's correct your misunderstanding. SR never prohibits the acceleration of any object for any acceleration less than c for any given time. The Lorzentz Transformation, assuming that EAT is indeed false, says that you do obtain a new velocity but it's not simple addition. You must consider the gamma of the two speed. Please reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation). Once you understand that reference, please stop back for further education.

Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 04, 2010, 08:43:27 PM
where v' is the portion of the speed of light the FE is traveling
T = atanh(v')/1.03 years where T is the time required to reach v' from the FoR of the FE.

v' = tanh(1.03 T)

So lets say 4.6 billion years for T.

I cannot find a calculator that can handle the needed precision. The velocity would be so close to the c that 64-bit arithmetic can't measure the difference.

So the amount of energy required to accelerate the FE at 1g at this time would be greater that the total energy of all of the mass of the Universe by 100s of orders of magnitude.

Let's just say... Tilt. It can't be imagined.

In reality, you are only going to get 2 significant figures.
I thought I corrected this, but alas I failed. Sorry.

Leading nines are not sig figs. Oddly enough when a mathematical expression is precise, like this one, you have to look at sister functions to get the sig figs. Here it's 1-v'. That expression have two sig figs. v''s sig figs come once the nines stop.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 04, 2010, 08:44:43 PM
Unfortunately, infinity doesn't make much sense when you plug it into F=ma.  Infinite force and infinite mass resulting in finite acceleration?
I'm not sure where you got this from.
Infinite mass multiplied by finite acceleration equals infinite force. Why did you attempt to make it Fm=a?
Sorry, I don't know where you got that either, and it's wrong. Newton's Laws do not apply for such numbers.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 04, 2010, 08:51:33 PM
He did answer. There is a possibility that UA doesn't require a constant output of energy just like gravity doesn't.
Do tell us about this magically possibility.

Typical RE'er, succumbing to an appeal to ridicule when he is backed into a corner using words like "magically".

Some of you RE'ers are getting quite pathetic lately.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: trig on October 04, 2010, 09:11:17 PM
It is impossible to accelerate 9.86 m/s/s when you are less than 9.86 m/s away from c.
I cannot believe you, who have been reading the explanations about Relativity in this forum for years, make such an obvious mistake.

Accelerating 9.86 m/s/s with respect to the frame of reference of the accelerated object is perfectly possible if you can find enough energy to do so, even if you are less than 1 millimeter per second under the speed of light with respect to the frame of reference that is static in this example. This comes from the very definition of Special Relativity.

On the other hand, we accelerate subatomic particles all the time in particle accelerators, and need all the energy that a small city uses, just to accelerate a few subatomic particles to a measly 0.90c or so. Accelerating to just 0.999c the whole flat Earth is already impossible without frying it, and that is just the first 3 years or so of the 4500000000 years that the flat Earth has been supposedly accelerating.

By the way, if you are going to say that Earth cannot continue to accelerate because it is already so close to the speed of light, you are killing your own hypothesis.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 04, 2010, 09:18:50 PM
No, I'm saying the energy required to accelerate the FE is too large to be accepted.

At this point in time, if every proton in the Universe each contributed all of the energy currently being provided by all sources in the Universe toward the acceleration for one nanosecond of a single proton in the FE, you'd still need more than a trillion times that energy to handle just that one proton for that one nanosecond.

The UA is false.
Ah, no support. Typical. Do try again.
Now for the concern that I haven't given precise numbers for the amount of energy required to accelerate the FE at this point in time. Let's go tackle that now. (I do have to say that those asking for this proof are ignorant of math, but, hey, educating FEers here is a full-time job.)

My claim:
No, I'm saying the energy required to accelerate the FE is too large to be accepted.

At this point in time, if every proton in the Universe each contributed all of the energy currently being provided by all sources in the Universe toward the acceleration for one nanosecond of a single proton in the FE, you'd still need more than a trillion times that energy to handle just that one proton for that one nanosecond.
Let's recall F=ma. Remember from SR that m is a function of v'. To get the mass we use the Lorentz transformation. Please reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity).

We get mrel = m/gamma.

Now we're in a position to start to estimate the number of zeros in the scientific notation of the Energy required...

First how many nines are there in the gamma? Well T=5,000,000 years, gave us 1,000,000 nines. Let's assume that we get 1,000,000 digits for each 5,000,000 years. Well 5,000,000 years goes into 4.6 billion years yielding 2,300. Each giving us much more than 1,000,000. That gives up 2, 300, 000, 000 zeros.

I assume that everyone agrees by now that this number is unimaginable, and we've ignored the exponential behavior. So let's start...

1) How many protons are there in the Universe? 10^78 Reference: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070803014221AAfMjgV (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070803014221AAfMjgV)
2) Total energy output of the Universe? Let's just use E=mc^2. or 2.0*10^90 (assuming 1 neutron for each proton and 1 kg for each hadron and adding in many OoM.)
3) The mass of a proton: much more than 10^-30.
4) The force required to accelerate one proton at 1 g for one nanosecond would have the order of magnitude of 2, 300, 000, 000 -30 -90 -9 -9 = 2, 300, 000, 000.

Do I need to say more?

The UA is dead. Get over it.

From the Mathematica Notebook:

In[10]:= vprime[x_] := (E^x - E^-x)/(E^x + E^-x) (ignoring the 1.03 multiplier)

In[48]:= N[vprime[5000000], 1000000]

Out[48]= 0.\
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999\
>above line repeats until we get to the last line:
9999985816131507`1000000.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: TheJackel on October 04, 2010, 10:39:15 PM
UA and EAT are both dead.. Parsifal even admitted that he has no working formula for his EAT.. Worse yet, EG kindly provided a "Bending light" article that still proved EAT hilariously out of touch with reality. And I'm not sure EG even realized it when he posted it. Saying RE'rs are being this or that is ridiculous, or a very bad way of saying that he knows he's wrong and is unable to admit it due to the religious rules of facts don't matter for the sake of clinging to an ideological failure. :/

Will FE ever have an accurate map with a coordinate system? NO
Will Parsifal or JD ever demonstrate and prove their mathematical fallacies? NO
Will FE ever prove the Earth is flat? NO
Will FE ever pass a Time, Speed, and Distance challenge? Nope!
Will FE ever have real data to support it? Nope!
How about a complete star map accurate to any coordinate location on an accurate FE map? Nope!

So where is the data that provides proof of UA? Ahh, it doesn't exist. So Sagan's Dragon is the best FE can provide in terms of explanation, rational, evidence, and argument. Plead much?

Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: zork on October 04, 2010, 11:37:34 PM
No, he wasn't.
Yes, he was. Did you read his post? If not, here's a good opportunity:

At this point in time, if every proton in the Universe each contributed all of the energy currently being provided by all sources in the Universe toward the acceleration for one nanosecond of a single proton in the FE, you'd still need more than a trillion times that energy to handle just that one proton for that one nanosecond.
The emboldened parts indicate specific numbers. If we carry on with your logic and assume that we're supposed to just ignore the numbers, this is what remains:
If protons contributed energy from sources toward the acceleration, you'd still need more to handle it.
Either way, it's a baseless assumption.
  I am just stunned. I can't think nothing else to say than www.rif.org

  No, it's just so close to the speed of light that even this would be impossible to achieve. Or do you imply that there is no problem to achieve the speed where there is some hundreds of millions or more nines after comma?

I'm not seeing why that would be a problem. Given constant acceleration that should happen by definition.

There is no rule against an object going very close to the speed of light.
But is there a rule which allows you to get infinite amount of energy from nowhere?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: John Davis on October 05, 2010, 06:34:02 AM
No, he wasn't.
Yes, he was. Did you read his post? If not, here's a good opportunity:

At this point in time, if every proton in the Universe each contributed all of the energy currently being provided by all sources in the Universe toward the acceleration for one nanosecond of a single proton in the FE, you'd still need more than a trillion times that energy to handle just that one proton for that one nanosecond.
The emboldened parts indicate specific numbers. If we carry on with your logic and assume that we're supposed to just ignore the numbers, this is what remains:
If protons contributed energy from sources toward the acceleration, you'd still need more to handle it.
Either way, it's a baseless assumption.
  I am just stunned. I can't think nothing else to say than www.rif.org

  No, it's just so close to the speed of light that even this would be impossible to achieve. Or do you imply that there is no problem to achieve the speed where there is some hundreds of millions or more nines after comma?

I'm not seeing why that would be a problem. Given constant acceleration that should happen by definition.

There is no rule against an object going very close to the speed of light.
But is there a rule which allows you to get infinite amount of energy from nowhere?
It would not require an infinite amount of energy to get very close to the speed of light.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 05, 2010, 07:10:23 AM
It would not require an infinite amount of energy to get very close to the speed of light.
You're right.

Now that we've dispensed with your stalking horse, can you tell us how many joules would be required to accelerate one proton of the FE after starting at 0 some 4.6 billion years ago at a constant acceleration of g for 1 nanosecond?

I figure much greater than 10^2,300,000 joules. See the posts above for the math.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: zork on October 05, 2010, 07:12:17 AM
It would not require an infinite amount of energy to get very close to the speed of light.
In pure theoretical sense, yes. In reality if it is not infinite then it surely is impossible. But I guess there is no word "impossible" in FE dictionary except when it is needed for explaining why the space flight is impossible.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: John Davis on October 05, 2010, 08:00:19 AM
It would not require an infinite amount of energy to get very close to the speed of light.
In pure theoretical sense, yes. In reality if it is not infinite then it surely is impossible. But I guess there is no word "impossible" in FE dictionary except when it is needed for explaining why the space flight is impossible.
Thats all I'm saying.  The Cambridge model is *possible*.  I myself disagree with it, but thats me.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 05, 2010, 08:11:34 AM
It would not require an infinite amount of energy to get very close to the speed of light.
In pure theoretical sense, yes. In reality if it is not infinite then it surely is impossible. But I guess there is no word "impossible" in FE dictionary except when it is needed for explaining why the space flight is impossible.
Thats all I'm saying.  The Cambridge model is *possible*.  I myself disagree with it, but thats me.
Do you understand that if the Cambridge model needs 10^2,300,000 joules for each proton of the FE each nanosecond it's ridiculous? If you grant me a "fiat" that large, I could make anything true in the human experience.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: John Davis on October 05, 2010, 08:33:49 AM
It would not require an infinite amount of energy to get very close to the speed of light.
In pure theoretical sense, yes. In reality if it is not infinite then it surely is impossible. But I guess there is no word "impossible" in FE dictionary except when it is needed for explaining why the space flight is impossible.
Thats all I'm saying.  The Cambridge model is *possible*.  I myself disagree with it, but thats me.
Do you understand that if the Cambridge model needs 10^2,300,000 joules for each proton of the FE each nanosecond it's ridiculous? If you grant me a "fiat" that large, I could make anything true in the human experience.
Its not that ridiculous. For the sake of argument, assume there is an infinite plane above the Earth accelerating it towards it at 9.8m/s/s. This exerts no energy. There is a lot of movement in the Euclidean universe without the expenditure of any energy. At least from our view.

Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 05, 2010, 08:43:18 AM
It would not require an infinite amount of energy to get very close to the speed of light.
In pure theoretical sense, yes. In reality if it is not infinite then it surely is impossible. But I guess there is no word "impossible" in FE dictionary except when it is needed for explaining why the space flight is impossible.
Thats all I'm saying.  The Cambridge model is *possible*.  I myself disagree with it, but thats me.
Do you understand that if the Cambridge model needs 10^2,300,000 joules for each proton of the FE each nanosecond it's ridiculous? If you grant me a "fiat" that large, I could make anything true in the human experience.
Its not that ridiculous. For the sake of argument, assume there is an infinite plane above the Earth accelerating it towards it at 9.8m/s/s. This exerts no energy. There is a lot of movement in the Euclidean universe without the expenditure of any energy. At least from our view.


OMG! You're much too intelligent to believe that. Accelerating a particle increases its velocity and its kinetic energy.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Parsifal on October 05, 2010, 10:41:07 AM
Now that we've dispensed with your stalking horse, can you tell us how many joules would be required to accelerate one proton of the FE after starting at 0 some 4.6 billion years ago at a constant acceleration of g for 1 nanosecond?

I figure much greater than 10^2,300,000 joules. See the posts above for the math.

You're probably correct. Fortunately, nobody -- at least, nobody with an understanding of special relativity -- is suggesting that is occurring.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 05, 2010, 10:54:42 AM
There is a possibility that UA doesn't require a constant output of energy just like gravity doesn't.

I'm going to send out a preemptive strike and say "Irrelevant" to Clocktower responding, "How does it work?".

We don't know how gravity works, why should the standard be any different for UA?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: zork on October 05, 2010, 11:59:23 AM
There is a possibility that UA doesn't require a constant output of energy just like gravity doesn't.

I'm going to send out a preemptive strike and say "Irrelevant" to Clocktower responding, "How does it work?".
How is not a problem, problem is that it is not even possible. You are talking clearly about magic.

We don't know how gravity works, why should the standard be any different for UA?
  It shouldn't be but as I said, the problem isn't "how".
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 05, 2010, 03:28:42 PM
I'm going to send out a preemptive strike and say "Irrelevant" to Clocktower responding, "How does it work?".

The how is not a problem, the problem is that it is not even possible. You are talking clearly about magic.

We don't know how gravity works, why should the standard be any different for UA?
It shouldn't be but as I said, the problem isn't "how".

Fix'd, I think?

Anyways, how would it be impossible? From what I gather the largest objections are against the energy it would require. If UA doesn't require energy just as gravity doesn't, there isn't a problem.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 05, 2010, 05:30:40 PM
I'm going to send out a preemptive strike and say "Irrelevant" to Clocktower responding, "How does it work?".

The how is not a problem, the problem is that it is not even possible. You are talking clearly about magic.

We don't know how gravity works, why should the standard be any different for UA?
It shouldn't be but as I said, the problem isn't "how".

Fix'd, I think?

Anyways, how would it me impossible? From what I gather the largest objects are against the energy it would require. If UA doesn't require energy just as gravity doesn't, there isn't a problem.
Do tell us how the UA doesn't require energy. How do you impart kinetic energy without imparting energy?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 05, 2010, 05:36:02 PM
Do tell us how the UA doesn't require energy. How do you impart kinetic energy without imparting energy?
I'm going to send out a preemptive strike and say "Irrelevant" to Clocktower responding, "How does it work?".

We don't know how gravity works, why should the standard be any different for UA?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: markjo on October 05, 2010, 06:45:09 PM
Do tell us how the UA doesn't require energy. How do you impart kinetic energy without imparting energy?
I'm going to send out a preemptive strike and say "Irrelevant" to Clocktower responding, "How does it work?".

We don't know how gravity works, why should the standard be any different for UA?
Because the UA is supposed to be a better explanation than gravity.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: trig on October 05, 2010, 07:42:04 PM
If UA doesn't require energy just as gravity doesn't, there isn't a problem.
Is this a joke, or just trolling? A planet orbiting a star consumes no energy (in real life)  because the mean displacement in all the axis is zero!!!. The mean displacement of the flat Earth is not even a constant you can calculate, because the flat Earth is accelerating all the time! And in the same direction!

Gravity is not a fountain of infinite energy. There is such a thing called potential energy, whereby an object can increase its energy moving close to a large object, but the fountain of energy can be milked just until the distance to the large object becomes zero.

On the other hand you are pretending that we are inside something like a particle accelerator, which has kept us accelerating for billions of years but without spending energy? Now, tell us, are you joking or trolling?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: EnglshGentleman on October 05, 2010, 07:45:37 PM
Do tell us how the UA doesn't require energy. How do you impart kinetic energy without imparting energy?

I'm going to send out a preemptive strike and say "Irrelevant" to Clocktower responding, "How does it work?".

We don't know how gravity works, why should the standard be any different for UA?

This worked out quite nicely.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Raist on October 05, 2010, 10:37:44 PM
It is impossible to accelerate 9.86 m/s/s when you are less than 9.86 m/s away from c.
I cannot believe you, who have been reading the explanations about Relativity in this forum for years, make such an obvious mistake.

Accelerating 9.86 m/s/s with respect to the frame of reference of the accelerated object is perfectly possible if you can find enough energy to do so, even if you are less than 1 millimeter per second under the speed of light with respect to the frame of reference that is static in this example. This comes from the very definition of Special Relativity.

On the other hand, we accelerate subatomic particles all the time in particle accelerators, and need all the energy that a small city uses, just to accelerate a few subatomic particles to a measly 0.90c or so. Accelerating to just 0.999c the whole flat Earth is already impossible without frying it, and that is just the first 3 years or so of the 4500000000 years that the flat Earth has been supposedly accelerating.

By the way, if you are going to say that Earth cannot continue to accelerate because it is already so close to the speed of light, you are killing your own hypothesis.

I never said that. You never claimed it was accelerating it the same amount within its own FOR. If that was your question, then here is my answer "The exact same amount of energy it took to accelerate it for the first second of its existence."
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: zork on October 05, 2010, 11:25:18 PM
Anyways, how would it me impossible? From what I gather the largest objects are against the energy it would require. If UA doesn't require energy just as gravity doesn't, there isn't a problem.
How do you know that gravity doesn't require energy? And just look at the effects which both of them should do. Gravity doesn't accelerate thousands of tons piece of rock constantly at 9.8 m/s/s but the UA does. So, there is quite a big difference how they work and there is no such a long period with acceleration and the speed near the light speed which can be achieved without any energy. Hell, you can't eve move your hand without spending some energy. In what bases do you claim then that moving the earth doesn't need any energy?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Raist on October 06, 2010, 12:13:41 AM
Actually gravity does accelerate a giant piece of rock constantly. It's called orbit.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: zork on October 06, 2010, 12:30:18 AM
Actually gravity does accelerate a giant piece of rock constantly. It's called orbit.
Really? Accelerates?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: TheJackel on October 06, 2010, 12:38:59 AM
Actually gravity does accelerate a giant piece of rock constantly. It's called orbit.

I will remember to make sure that I lose a day or two next year in the calender to compensate :P
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Parsifal on October 06, 2010, 02:20:54 AM
Actually gravity does accelerate a giant piece of rock constantly. It's called orbit.

I will remember to make sure that I lose a day or two next year in the calender to compensate :P

Why?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Kira-SY on October 06, 2010, 03:06:13 AM
I guess: Accelerates = Quicker = Less time to orbit = Less days.

Accelerates is a very bad word to use there.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Parsifal on October 06, 2010, 03:14:40 AM
I guess: Accelerates = Quicker = Less time to orbit = Less days.

No.

Accelerates is a very bad word to use there.

It is a bad choice of word in the context of general relativity, but not in the context of Newtonian gravitation and not for the reason you and TheJackel are suggesting.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: trig on October 06, 2010, 06:24:47 AM
It is impossible to accelerate 9.86 m/s/s when you are less than 9.86 m/s away from c.
I cannot believe you, who have been reading the explanations about Relativity in this forum for years, make such an obvious mistake.

Accelerating 9.86 m/s/s with respect to the frame of reference of the accelerated object is perfectly possible if you can find enough energy to do so, even if you are less than 1 millimeter per second under the speed of light with respect to the frame of reference that is static in this example. This comes from the very definition of Special Relativity.

On the other hand, we accelerate subatomic particles all the time in particle accelerators, and need all the energy that a small city uses, just to accelerate a few subatomic particles to a measly 0.90c or so. Accelerating to just 0.999c the whole flat Earth is already impossible without frying it, and that is just the first 3 years or so of the 4500000000 years that the flat Earth has been supposedly accelerating.

By the way, if you are going to say that Earth cannot continue to accelerate because it is already so close to the speed of light, you are killing your own hypothesis.

I never said that. You never claimed it was accelerating it the same amount within its own FOR. If that was your question, then here is my answer "The exact same amount of energy it took to accelerate it for the first second of its existence."
So, now we are not talking about a dark energy accelerating us up, but we are now some sort of rocket, pushing itself into whatever is "up". I agree with you that this is a better solution, if one impossible solution can be better than another.

In your new model you are not just placing a frame of reference in another place, you have to carry with your flat Earth all the mass that you will convert to kinetic energy and the device that will produce this conversion.

And a mighty device it is! I had calculated many months ago that, given a perfect device with a perfect efficiency, it would have to produce the equivalent of 3 Hiroshima-sized bombs per day for every square meter of the Earth's surface!

Now, as you can imagine, the amount of mass needed to fuel such an incredible sustained push for 4.5 billion years is enormous, and it has to be carried along with us, so your flat Earth was enormously heavier when it started. Your answer ("The exact same amount of energy it took to accelerate it for the first second of its existence") is just as bad as the previous one.

And the problems with your new "solution" keep mounting. How on Earth can we have a production of energy that is bigger than a star's just below us and not get fried by it? How can it be that there is not even a small leakage of all that energy in the upward direction, that we can detect? Why don't we see some huge halo all around the Ice Wall? Why would all that energy "choose" to dissipate in the "down" direction?

You see, science is not about fancy, unsupported mathematical games. You cannot just move a Frame of Reference to where you like it to be and recalculate the equations you want to recalculate. You have a complete model and you have to respect the whole model. Or do you really believe I can send a one kilogram rocket into space just by placing the fuel in my cellar and the Frame of Reference on the rocket?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: trig on October 06, 2010, 06:32:49 AM
Actually gravity does accelerate a giant piece of rock constantly. It's called orbit.
As I explained a few post before, This is acceleration, but the mean distance travelled is zero. The planet goes back to the exact same place with the exact same velocity after each orbit, so the total work done is zero.

Physics is about real models, and real maths. You are trying to make fancy word games sound like Physics.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: trig on October 06, 2010, 06:40:11 AM
I guess: Accelerates = Quicker = Less time to orbit = Less days.

Accelerates is a very bad word to use there.
Accelerates is the correct word, but you have to remember that acceleration is a 3-dimensional vector, not a scalar.

The total kinetic energy of the system of a planet and a star is constant, therefore there is no contradiction here, unlike in the case of UA.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Kira-SY on October 06, 2010, 07:04:06 AM
uhm, I think I get it.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 06, 2010, 07:05:25 AM
Actually gravity does accelerate a giant piece of rock constantly. It's called orbit.
Please reference that sticky on gravity. You've confused GR principles with Newtonian. It's an easy mistake, but in GR an orbit does not involve acceleration. The rock is traveling in a straight line and is not accelerated.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: zork on October 06, 2010, 07:45:20 AM
I guess: Accelerates = Quicker = Less time to orbit = Less days.

Accelerates is a very bad word to use there.
Accelerates is the correct word, but you have to remember that acceleration is a 3-dimensional vector, not a scalar.

The total kinetic energy of the system of a planet and a star is constant, therefore there is no contradiction here, unlike in the case of UA.
Just the "accelerates" may be the correct word but by default it instantly brings to the mind the increasing speed which is not the case for the orbiting object. I guess the more accurate would be if it was specified with the centripetal or some other word.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Eddy Baby on October 06, 2010, 07:49:21 AM
No it is the correct word. Acceleration means a change in velocity.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: John Davis on October 06, 2010, 07:51:36 AM
Actually gravity does accelerate a giant piece of rock constantly. It's called orbit.
Please reference that sticky on gravity. You've confused GR principles with Newtonian. It's an easy mistake, but in GR an orbit does not involve acceleration. The rock is traveling in a straight line and is not accelerated.
Clocktower is correct, however from our point of view, a Newtonian view like I was talking about earlier, it appears to us as it is accelerating.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: trig on October 06, 2010, 11:35:10 AM
Actually gravity does accelerate a giant piece of rock constantly. It's called orbit.
Please reference that sticky on gravity. You've confused GR principles with Newtonian. It's an easy mistake, but in GR an orbit does not involve acceleration. The rock is traveling in a straight line and is not accelerated.
Clocktower is correct, however from our point of view, a Newtonian view like I was talking about earlier, it appears to us as it is accelerating.
You are still beating a dead horse. In Newtonian Physics, which are perfectly good for this example, the total change in speed and in direction after one orbit is zero, and you can see that because the planet is back in the location and with the speed and with the direction of movement it had before the orbit.

The real issue here is that the UA "hypothesis" is completely different. The flat Earth is not on the same location or has the same speed as it had a second ago, ever again, and therefore it is changing kinetic energy every second. And that requires energy, which if you bother to calculate, is absolutely enormous.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Raist on October 06, 2010, 06:36:40 PM
I guess: Accelerates = Quicker = Less time to orbit = Less days.

Accelerates is a very bad word to use there.

Accelerate does not mean quicker. It means a change in velocity. Velocity contains a direction. Moving in a circle is constantly changing the direction of your velocity.

Therefore gravity is accelerating the Earth in RE theory. Have any of you taken even a basic physics course?
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: ClockTower on October 06, 2010, 06:54:59 PM
I guess: Accelerates = Quicker = Less time to orbit = Less days.

Accelerates is a very bad word to use there.

Accelerate does not mean quicker. It means a change in velocity. Velocity contains a direction. Moving in a circle is constantly changing the direction of your velocity.

Therefore gravity is accelerating the Earth in RE theory. Have any of you taken even a basic physics course?
I have to correct you here, Raist. In GR, gravity is not a force, and it does not require a force or energy. The Earth in FE moves in a straight line about the Sun, and its velocity doesn't change.
Title: Re: Simple Test
Post by: Raist on October 06, 2010, 06:56:51 PM
I guess: Accelerates = Quicker = Less time to orbit = Less days.

Accelerates is a very bad word to use there.

Accelerate does not mean quicker. It means a change in velocity. Velocity contains a direction. Moving in a circle is constantly changing the direction of your velocity.

Therefore gravity is accelerating the Earth in RE theory. Have any of you taken even a basic physics course?
I have to correct you here, Raist. In GR, gravity is not a force, and it does not require a force or energy. The Earth in FE moves in a straight line about the Sun, and its velocity doesn't change.

Using a non inertial frame of reference yes.