« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Universal Excelerashon

  • 26 Replies
  • 5931 Views
?

I Am God

Universal Excelerashon
« on: November 20, 2007, 05:05:36 PM »
How fast are we traveling right now. Approximately.
Logged
?

[][][]

  • 554
  • +0/-1
  • Man of science.
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2007, 05:10:27 PM »
We are approaching 3*10^8 m/s.

edited (my mistake on the unit)
« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 05:15:32 PM by The Dedicated Theist »
Logged
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2007, 05:14:26 PM »
Quote from: The Dedicated Theist on November 20, 2007, 05:10:27 PM
We are approaching 3*10^8 km/s.
Um, that's m/s.

So, yes, we are currently traveling at a velocity less than the speed of light.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

I Am God

Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2007, 05:15:13 PM »
Assuming we've been traveling for how long? Oh and what % of the speed of light is this?
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2007, 05:17:30 PM »
waaaaay past 90%
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2007, 05:18:01 PM »
Uh, say four and a half billion years or so.  Let's say the speed is at about .99999999c.  Give or take a few nines.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

I Am God

Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2007, 06:41:27 PM »
But we can't actually hit the speed of light right? Einstein showed that.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2007, 06:44:02 PM »
Right.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

Guns N. Roses

  • 55
  • +0/-0
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2007, 06:49:59 PM »
I'm not up on all my physics, but since we are accelerating at a constant speed won't we eventually serpass the speed of light?
Logged
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2007, 06:52:41 PM »
Quote from: Jack- on November 20, 2007, 04:33:02 PM
Special Relativity forbids an object from ever reaching the speed of light.

w =     (u + v)     
        (1 + u*v/c2)



Where w is the new velocity, u (or 0m/s in this case) is the initial velocity, and v is the final velocity (or 9.8m/s for 1 second from universal acceleration). Now, after you find the w, plug it into the u on the new equation. Keep doing it until you reach 299,792,458m/s. Good luck.
Logged
?

Guns N. Roses

  • 55
  • +0/-0
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2007, 06:59:01 PM »
As an equation I'm sure that makes sense (I trust you because I've seen that equation before). But how does that apply physically. The graph  of the velocity should be exponential but with that equation it has an asymptote right at y=the speed of light, right? Then the derivative, the acceleration, is not 9.8 m/s^2 but is decreasing. What am I missing.
Logged
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2007, 07:00:28 PM »
Right, which is why the velocity curve will take infinite time to reach its asymptote.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2007, 08:00:04 PM »
Quote from: Guns N. Roses on November 20, 2007, 06:59:01 PM
As an equation I'm sure that makes sense (I trust you because I've seen that equation before). But how does that apply physically. The graph  of the velocity should be exponential but with that equation it has an asymptote right at y=the speed of light, right? Then the derivative, the acceleration, is not 9.8 m/s^2 but is decreasing. What am I missing.
The acceleration is decreasing in a frame of reference that is not accelerating, i.e. the universe.  To us, the acceleration is constant.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2007, 04:23:11 AM »
I tend to argue that since no fixed point of reference exists outside the acceleration, the Earth has only a hypothetical speed which is completely unimportant.

We can only talk in terms of "speed" if we have a fixed reference - we don't. The only declarable variable is the acceleration itself.
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
?

Brennan

  • 144
  • +0/-0
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2007, 04:58:47 AM »
This Forum should be renamed the "No we don't ever,ever,ever go faster than the speed of light, please see the FAQ" Forum.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop
tell me how your model explains why deep-dripping Russian geologists found an impenetrable layer of turtle shell when attempting to breach the crust of the earth.
?

Guns N. Roses

  • 55
  • +0/-0
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2007, 08:47:01 AM »
So we aren't actually accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, we just feel like it right?



This is making more sense now.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2007, 09:13:09 AM »
Quote from: Guns N. Roses on November 21, 2007, 08:47:01 AM
So we aren't actually accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, we just feel like it right?
As far as we know, we are accelerating at 9.8m/s^2.  According to the universe, we are not.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

SparteX

  • 411
  • +0/-0
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2007, 09:28:42 AM »
But according to the apparent acceleration of earth we'd hit light speed in under a year :S
Logged
?

Gigano

  • 58
  • +0/-0
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2007, 09:34:18 AM »
Anything approaching the speed of light, like the FEer said we are doing, mass becomes infinite. Seeing that we're still holding our atoms together already suggests the impossibility of universal acceleration.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2007, 09:40:07 AM »
Quote from: SparteX on November 21, 2007, 09:28:42 AM
But according to the apparent acceleration of earth we'd hit light speed in under a year :S
No, we would never reach the speed of light.  It is not possible.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2007, 09:40:24 AM »
Quote from: Gigano on November 21, 2007, 09:34:18 AM
Anything approaching the speed of light, like the FEer said we are doing, mass becomes infinite.
Not in our frame of reference.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

Brennan

  • 144
  • +0/-0
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2007, 09:44:09 AM »
We never hit Light Speed.

To an observer watching us from a constant inertial frame of reference (i.e. standing still watching us accelerate off at 9.8 m/s/s) our velocity asymptotically approaches c. What happens is that as we approach c the rate at which we experience the passage of time changes (time dilation - have you heard of the twin paradox?) and our measurement of distances is also changed (length contraction). So we measure our velocity and acceleration differently to our stationary observer.

IOW the you can't pass LS rule is not an arbitrary speed limit, it is the practical result of the warping of spacetime around a body with a lot of relativistic energy.

Experiments with atomic clocks and a plane demonstrate this effect. Put a clock on a plane and fly it around the world and it when it returns will have experienced the passage of (minutely) less time than a clock left stationary at the start point. (Yes this has been done.)

Read 'Tau Zero' by Poul Anderson for a good story based entirely around this principle.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop
tell me how your model explains why deep-dripping Russian geologists found an impenetrable layer of turtle shell when attempting to breach the crust of the earth.
?

Guns N. Roses

  • 55
  • +0/-0
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2007, 08:23:53 AM »
So when we are 1 m/s from light speed we...?
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #23 on: November 22, 2007, 09:09:30 AM »
Quote from: Guns N. Roses on November 22, 2007, 08:23:53 AM
So when we are 1 m/s from light speed we...?
Are 1m/s from the speed of light.   ???
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #24 on: November 22, 2007, 09:09:48 AM »
we accelerate by 9.8m/s relative to ourselves, but not to a relative observer.
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
?

SparteX

  • 411
  • +0/-0
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #25 on: November 22, 2007, 09:15:40 AM »
So we'd hit the speed of light in no time :S

hey and how come if we're accellerating so fast, we haven't hit the sun which is apparently directly above us?
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Universal Excelerashon
« Reply #26 on: November 22, 2007, 09:18:14 AM »
no, we'd never hit the speed of light. Not ever. End of.

The sun is accelerating as well, because of the DEF, or photelectric suspension effect, if you believe Dogplatters model.
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »