One more querstion - where are we moving "up" from

Quote from: "DonutGuard"

Didn't you basically say, that everything is accelerating at the same velocity

No, because that makes no sense.

You makes no sense.

Quote from: "DonutGuard"

Didn't you basically say, that everything is accelerating at the same velocity

No, because that makes no sense.

Well then why aren't we catching up with, or falling behind the Sun, Moon, and the shadow object?

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "Smartimus Prime"

I see no answer, BOG... are you telling me you don't HAVE a logical answer, instead of an "I'm going to shoot you down without explanation"?

Had you known to what I was referencing, you would have admitted defeat.

Stephen Hawking once said that the universe was infinite yet finite - much like the surface of a sphere.  You could walk around it forever (making it appear to be infinite in size), but it's really not.

Tell me, where's the midpoint in an infinitely large universe?

Didn't you basically say, that everything is accelerating at the same velocity, going in the same direction?

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

You're basically saying with this argument, that if you walk around a sphere it could make it appear infinite in size, but we're traveling in ONE direction CONSTANTLY at ALL TIMES.  Either the universe is infinite, or it is expanding directly upwards to make way for us and our entourage.  But you've already stated that the Universe is a sphere so I guess there's not much room here for you to say anything.  Unless you want to just forget all that and say something else, or come up with yet another hairbrained excuse.

Um, no.  I'm saying that the universe could look like it's infinitely large, but really is finite, because one would go in really large circles.

*EDIT*

Quote

DonutGuard, you are the 5,000,000th person to present that argument, and will be the 5,000,000th person to realize that you are wrong. Do a search.

Oh is that so?  Okay then smart guy, explain it to me right now.  No FAQ, no links, just you and your wits.  Don't keep me waiting, and don't you dare disappoint me with some one lined run around.

Very well - but I'm going to need to call upon Relativity; you ok with that?

Since acceleration is the time derivative of velocity, and because of Lorentz velocity transformations, we will never accelerate past the speed of light.

a = d(v)/dt = d²(p)(dt)²

V_x' = (V_x - u)/(1 - V_x * u/c²)

Get it now?

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "Smartimus Prime"

I see no answer, BOG... are you telling me you don't HAVE a logical answer, instead of an "I'm going to shoot you down without explanation"?

Had you known to what I was referencing, you would have admitted defeat.

Stephen Hawking once said that the universe was infinite yet finite - much like the surface of a sphere.  You could walk around it forever (making it appear to be infinite in size), but it's really not.

Tell me, where's the midpoint in an infinitely large universe?

DonutGuard, you are the 5,000,000th person to present that argument, and will be the 5,000,000th person to realize that you are wrong.  Do a search.

Halfway between the starting point, and the starting point.

Tell me, where's the starting point on an infinitely long number line?

Ah, okay so that means at some point we STOP accelerating.  

Good, you just proved your own theory wrong.  Thanks!

faggity fag fag, douche baggery, fag fag fag?

I agree.

Quote from: "NarmaK"

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "Smartimus Prime"

I see no answer, BOG... are you telling me you don't HAVE a logical answer, instead of an "I'm going to shoot you down without explanation"?

Had you known to what I was referencing, you would have admitted defeat.

Stephen Hawking once said that the universe was infinite yet finite - much like the surface of a sphere.  You could walk around it forever (making it appear to be infinite in size), but it's really not.

Tell me, where's the midpoint in an infinitely large universe?

DonutGuard, you are the 5,000,000th person to present that argument, and will be the 5,000,000th person to realize that you are wrong.  Do a search.

Halfway between the starting point, and the starting point.

Tell me, where's the starting point on an infinitely long number line?

Ever changing. Though it still exists.
Youz iz stupid.

Ah, okay so that means at some point we STOP accelerating.  

Good, you just proved your own theory wrong.  Thanks!

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

faggity fag fag, douche baggery, fag fag fag?

I agree.

Your inability to respond with anything that remotely makes sense/isn't an ad hominem is incredibly funny.

Ever changing. Though it still exists.
Youz iz stupid.

 :lol:   That makes no sense - it's like saying that 9 is sometimes equal to 10, 11, 34, and 895.

mommy hurt my corn hole

That sucks.
Call the police.

I give up.

I will only resort to ad hominems, for you are the superior debator.

I'm glad to see that you've conceeded; DonutGuard, you're next.

Quote from: "NarmaK"

Ever changing. Though it still exists.
Youz iz stupid.

 :lol:   That makes no sense - it's like saying that 9 is sometimes equal to 10, 11, 34, and 895.

Whats half of 2?
1.
3?
1.5
FUCKING REPEAT FOR INFINITY AND YOU HAVE THE HALFWAY POINT OF AN INFINITELY EXPANDING NUMBER!

Quote from: "DonutGuard"

Ah, okay so that means at some point we STOP accelerating.  

Good, you just proved your own theory wrong.  Thanks!

Quote from: "NarmaK"

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

faggity fag fag, douche baggery, fag fag fag?

I agree.

Your inability to respond with anything that remotely makes sense/isn't an ad hominem is incredibly funny.

Umm, you just basically said that because of the theory of relativity, we cannot accelerate past the speed of light correct?

we will never accelerate past the speed of light.

Well if that's so, and at some point we STOP accelerating... but for the acceleration theory to work, we must ALWAYS be accelerating CONTINUALLY.  That means your theory of acceleration keeping us on the ground is soundly debunked because we have stopped accelerating.  What's keeping us on the ground if we've stopped accelerating?  Magic?

I masturbate in public!

ME TOO!
LET'S START A CLUB!

NarmaK, you came into this forum to make fun of people because you thought you knew something they didn't.

Against ALL odds, and I really do mean ALL odds, they have picked apart your arguments, insulted your intelligence and shown up your knowledge of science. You've kept coming back for more.

You've made yourself look like a massive idiot, more than any FEer could ever look.

So please shut up with the pathetic insults, it only shows how much you've been driven into the ground.

Regards,

David F.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "NarmaK"

Ever changing. Though it still exists.
Youz iz stupid.

 :lol:   That makes no sense - it's like saying that 9 is sometimes equal to 10, 11, 34, and 895.

Whats half of 2?
1.
3?
1.5
fucking REPEAT FOR INFINITY AND YOU HAVE THE HALFWAY POINT OF AN INFINITELY EXPANDING NUMBER!

Last I checked, I wanted the starting point, not the halfway point (which is zero, by the way - dumbass).

Tell me, where's the starting point on an infinitely long number line?

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

I masturbate in public!

ME TOO!
LET'S START A CLUB!

Shit, I'll join what the hell.  At least we won't look as dumb as these guys.

So, EiZ, you admit that FE'ers are, in fact, idiots?  Thanks for saving me the trouble. ^^

Relative to us, our acceleration will be constant.  Relative to someone in an inertial frame, our acceleration will be decreasing.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "DonutGuard"

Ah, okay so that means at some point we STOP accelerating.  

Good, you just proved your own theory wrong.  Thanks!

Quote from: "NarmaK"

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

faggity fag fag, douche baggery, fag fag fag?

I agree.

Your inability to respond with anything that remotely makes sense/isn't an ad hominem is incredibly funny.

Umm, you just basically said that because of the theory of relativity, we cannot accelerate past the speed of light correct?

Quote

we will never accelerate past the speed of light.

Well if that's so, and at some point we STOP accelerating... but for the acceleration theory to work, we must ALWAYS be accelerating CONTINUALLY.  That means your theory of acceleration keeping us on the ground is soundly debunked because we have stopped accelerating.  What's keeping us on the ground if we've stopped accelerating?  Magic?

No, because our relative velocity (according to someone at "rest", relative to our frame) will diminish, yet we will feel no change.

NarmaK, you came into this forum to make fun of people because you thought you knew something they didn't.

Against ALL odds, and I really do mean ALL odds, they have picked apart your arguments, insulted your intelligence and shown up your knowledge of science. You've kept coming back for more.

You've made yourself look like a massive idiot, more than any FEer could ever look.

So please shut up with the pathetic insults, it only shows how much you've been driven into the ground.

Regards,

David F.

<3

Quote from: "NarmaK"

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "NarmaK"

Ever changing. Though it still exists.
Youz iz stupid.

 :lol:   That makes no sense - it's like saying that 9 is sometimes equal to 10, 11, 34, and 895.

Whats half of 2?
1.
3?
1.5
fucking REPEAT FOR INFINITY AND YOU HAVE THE HALFWAY POINT OF AN INFINITELY EXPANDING NUMBER!

Last I checked, I wanted the starting point, not the halfway point (which is zero, by the way - dumbass).

Quote from: "I"

Tell me, where's the starting point on an infinitely long number line?

1

NarmaK, you came into this forum to make fun of people because you thought you knew something they didn't.

Against ALL odds, and I really do mean ALL odds, they have picked apart your arguments, insulted your intelligence and shown up your knowledge of science. You've kept coming back for more.

You've made yourself look like a massive idiot, more than any FEer could ever look.

So please shut up with the pathetic insults, it only shows how much you've been driven into the ground.

Regards,

David F.

That's okay, I have money. I can do whatever I want and I still have more self esteem than Dick Cheney.
So fuck you! Haha!

1

If "1" is the starting point, what about all of the negative numbers?  In order to be the starting point, this has to be true:

If x is the starting point on a number line, and if y is any other number on that number line, then x < y.

Quote from: "NarmaK"

1

If "1" is the starting point, what about all of the negative numbers?  In order to be the starting point, this has to be true:

If x is the starting point on a number line, and if y is any other number on that number line, then x < y.

A circle doesn't have a starting point.
An object moving along a circle does.
This starting point is known as 1.

What was your straw man again?
I wasn't paying attention.
Honestly, I'm jerking off right now.

No, because our relative velocity (according to someone at "rest", relative to our frame) will diminish, yet we will feel no change.

Well if our velocity diminishes, that means we are no longer accelerating, and the force exerted on us will diminish as well.  Eventually we will be moving at a constant speed, and no longer accelerating.  That means A: We would not be able to go upwards because we, along with the Earth are at the point where acceleration is no longer possible.  That means if you stand up, your body is now accelerating past the speed of light.  and B: since we are no longer accelerating or we are now accelerating at a lower rate, that means the force that keeps us planted here on the earth, are no longer existant, or greatly diminished.

The theory of relativity basically said that if I were to be standing at one point, and you were to be moving at the speed of light away from that point, then time to me would seem to pass by much more quickly than it does for you.  One second to you would seem like years to me.

Why is that?  Well, atoms vibrate because they have heat, and things that have heat, vibrate.  Now let's assume that one particular atom we're looking at is vibrating exactly perpendicular to the direction we're traveling.  (just for the sake of making this nice and simple)

Start
Stop

It takes that Atom very little time to do that action.  Now if that atom is put into motion at such a velocity that it starts out in a different place than it stops, then it takes little more time for it to catch up with the starting point.

Start_________________________________________________Stop

Try this with a ball, bounce it directly up and down, and then take that same ball, and then bounce it from on spot to another at the same speed down and up as it did when you did it directly up and down.  Even though the ball is traveling up and down the same amount (one foot let's say) at the same speed (let's say one inch per second) because it's also now making a forward motion, it is taking longer to cover the same up and down motion.

I'm seriously disappointed.  You proved your own theory wrong.  With a little help from me of course.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "NarmaK"

1

If "1" is the starting point, what about all of the negative numbers?  In order to be the starting point, this has to be true:

If x is the starting point on a number line, and if y is any other number on that number line, then x < y.

A circle doesn't have a starting point.
An object moving along a circle does.
This starting point is known as 1.

What was your straw man again?
I wasn't paying attention.
Honestly, I'm jerking off right now.

Come back when you figure out the topic at hand.

Tell me, where's the starting point on an infinitely long number line?

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

No, because our relative velocity (according to someone at "rest", relative to our frame) will diminish, yet we will feel no change.

Well if our velocity diminishes, that means we are no longer accelerating, and the force exerted on us will diminish as well.

Our velocity does not diminish, and acceleration is relative.  The rest of your post did nothing to 'disprove' the FE like you said it did.

Not to mention you have no idea how relativity works.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

No, because our relative velocity (according to someone at "rest", relative to our frame) will diminish, yet we will feel no change.

Well if our velocity diminishes, that means we are no longer accelerating, and the force exerted on us will diminish as well.

Reference frames, dammit!  To us (in the accelerating reference frame) our acceleration is constant, but to someone outside of our reference frame sees us slow down when we come near the speed of light.  Get it now?  Or do I have to beat you with my physics textbook?

Eventually we will be moving at a constant speed, and no longer accelerating.

What part of "asymptote at the speed of light" don't you understand?

Special Relativity (aka the Theory of relativity) explained

I see no point where it says that relative to an observer, acceleration ceases, but to the object moving, acceleration is constant.  Because if that were true, and acceleration were constant to the object, that means it would continue gaining speed, yet it is not.  It states that time appears to move at different speeds, and that objects are distorted in shape due to speed.  Somebody traveling at the speed of light would appear to be enlongated to an observer standing still, and time for the observer would pass by much more quickly.

Objects in rear view mirror may be closer than they appear.

Because if that were true, and acceleration were constant to the object, that means it would continue gaining speed, yet it is not.

Do you know how an asmptote works?