Gravitational confusion.

Okay then, correct me if I'm wrong. But in the model proposed by the FAQ "gravity" is being provided by a continual upwards acceleration, correct? If this is the case then the Earth must be continually accelerating, as after initial acceleration momentum is no longer felt. If this is the case then the Earth cannot be more than a year old.

As light speed (C) is 299,792,458 m/s and 1g acceleration (G) is 9.8 m/s^2

So
C/G = 30591067.142 = number of seconds constant acceleration at 1g to reach light speed.
30591067.142 / 60 = 509851.119 = number of minutes constant acceleration to reach light speed.
509851.119 / 60 = 8497.518 = number of hours constant acceleration to reach light speed.
8497.518 / 24 = 354.063 = number of days constant acceleration needed to reach light speed.

354.063 which is decidedly less than the 365.25 days in a year.

Maybe flat-earthers practice Last Tuesdayisim as well?

I think there's someone who has already thought of this, and there's a link to the discussion in the FAQ's(although it wouldn't work for me)

To the OP:

You're absolutely correct.

You're correct, if you've been transported from the past by a time machine. In the 20th century, a man by the name of Albert Einstein introduced relativistic physics.

There's about  10-20 topics on this site explaining the acceleration matter through relativistic physics, search for it.

(BTW, I know that time and mass are not constants in the universe, because I've seen, with my own eyes, an experiment that proves it, therefore proving the relativistic theory.)

According to relativity, wouldn't we be getting heavier? weight = acceleration*mass. Speed ^ = Mass ^, according to relativity. Even if we don't hit light, we'd have been pancakes.

Umm...

you're analogy is null.

First of all, if I remember correctly, our mass is inverse proportional to velocity, but that too doesn't matter, since our mass is changing relative to the universe, not ourselves.

Sigh...I'll have to find the good ol' physics book.

I think there's someone who has already thought of this, and there's a link to the discussion in the FAQ's(although it wouldn't work for me)

Sorry about that. When we made the switch to SimpleMachines apparently all the links were broken.
Anyway, here's a working link: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=3152.msg28574#msg28574

Quote from: EIRD on February 27, 2007, 05:46:14 AM

I think there's someone who has already thought of this, and there's a link to the discussion in the FAQ's(although it wouldn't work for me)

Sorry about that. When we made the switch to SimpleMachines apparently all the links were broken.
Anyway, here's a working link: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=3152.msg28574#msg28574

Wow, a ton of reading but thanks.

Well, all I really have to ask, in referance to the link, is, what makes our speed different from where you are? I understand different people, different perspective bits. What I don't get, is the apparent "No one is there to hear the tree, so it didn't fall" Mindset.

Well, all I really have to ask, in referance to the link, is, what makes our speed different from where you are? I understand different people, different perspective bits. What I don't get, is the apparent "No one is there to hear the tree, so it didn't fall" Mindset.

I'm not sure if I understood the question right, but, that which makes our speed different for ourselves then for the whole universe, is relativity.

Well, all I really have to ask, in referance to the link, is, what makes our speed different from where you are? I understand different people, different perspective bits. What I don't get, is the apparent "No one is there to hear the tree, so it didn't fall" Mindset.

What I get from it is that we are moving faster than the speed of light but it can't be seen like that because we are all seeing the earth from the perspective of moving with it.

No, we are not moving faster than light.  Velocity does not add linearly.  As seen in the equations of relativity, velocity would approach c asymptotically, never reaching it.  Relative to us, the earth is stationary, therefore, we will never notice any gain in mass.  Also, since acceleration is relative, someone outside the earth will see it's acceleration slow, while here on the earth, it will never change.

What I get from it is that we are moving faster than the speed of light but it can't be seen like that because we are all seeing the earth from the perspective of moving with it.

Right. The thing is, to US, we aren't moving. Though, from the Earth's "Perspective", We're really hauling ass. The other thing, and what I meant by the mass comment, is that if you're strapped to a rocket, blazing at a good clip of C, your mass will increase. Same general theory. You may not be able to tell, from where you are that you're going 0.6C and climbing, but, anyone else will. The thing about relativity is, if you can't even SEE someone going 1.1C, then I HIGHLY doubt you'd be able to do it, lacking observation. EX. Particle, in an accelerator, going 0.7C. It's mass has increased. Smack it into something, you can tell. Relativity is fine and good, but C is, well, C. And, the earth, object of acceleration, has that perspective.

Addendum: Why would we not notice the change? If velocity is not added linearly, and acceleration is a change in velocity, then we would notice. Again, the earth has the perspective here. We don't particularly matter.

Edit: Here's a nice, simple test. By now, we should be upwards of .5C, correct? (Even non-linear, 1 year of Acceleration = C. We have AT LEAST 3000, much closer to billions of years.) Particle acceleration, upward. Once it breaks about .5C, we should lose it. Remember, we inherit velocity. We've been going this fast, so we don't notice, but we're still hauling ass. Fire a particle, it breaks C, and we don't see it.

Acceleration is relative.  To us on the earth, we will measure the acceleration to be 9.8m/s^2, but someone in an inertial frame may measure the acceleration to only be .6m/s^2. 

Edit: Here's a nice, simple test. By now, we should be upwards of .5C, correct? (Even non-linear, 1 year of Acceleration = C. We have AT LEAST 3000, much closer to billions of years.) Particle acceleration, upward. Once it breaks about .5C, we should lose it. Remember, we inherit velocity. We've been going this fast, so we don't notice, but we're still hauling ass. Fire a particle, it breaks C, and we don't see it.

As I said, velocity does not add linearly.  If we travel at .5c, and fire a particle up at .5c, we will see it to be traveling at .8c.

Quote

What I get from it is that we are moving faster than the speed of light but it can't be seen like that because we are all seeing the earth from the perspective of moving with it.

Right. The thing is, to US, we aren't moving. Though, from the Earth's "Perspective", We're really hauling ass. The other thing, and what I meant by the mass comment, is that if you're strapped to a rocket, blazing at a good clip of C, your mass will increase. Same general theory. You may not be able to tell, from where you are that you're going 0.6C and climbing, but, anyone else will. The thing about relativity is, if you can't even SEE someone going 1.1C, then I HIGHLY doubt you'd be able to do it, lacking observation. EX. Particle, in an accelerator, going 0.7C. It's mass has increased. Smack it into something, you can tell. Relativity is fine and good, but C is, well, C. And, the earth, object of acceleration, has that perspective.

Addendum: Why would we not notice the change? If velocity is not added linearly, and acceleration is a change in velocity, then we would notice. Again, the earth has the perspective here. We don't particularly matter.

Edit: Here's a nice, simple test. By now, we should be upwards of .5C, correct? (Even non-linear, 1 year of Acceleration = C. We have AT LEAST 3000, much closer to billions of years.) Particle acceleration, upward. Once it breaks about .5C, we should lose it. Remember, we inherit velocity. We've been going this fast, so we don't notice, but we're still hauling ass. Fire a particle, it breaks C, and we don't see it.

No, it's not just us not noticing, it's differenet, in relativity, time and space change, a person out of our inertial frame does not see the earth as smaller, to him, the earth IS smaller.

Apparently my understanding of Relativity is incomplete. I'm much more of a quantum physics person... (Most things, such as relativity, newtons laws, most everything, actually, start falling apart at those levels.)

Probably made an idiot out of myself, but hey, it can't be helped.

Apparently my understanding of Relativity is incomplete. I'm much more of a quantum physics person... (Most things, such as relativity, newtons laws, most everything, actually, start falling apart at those levels.)

Probably made an idiot out of myself, but hey, it can't be helped.

Not really, as I understand it, quantum physics and classic and modern physics are connected.

But then again, electrical laws are my field, so what the hell .

To make a long story short, if you fell off the edge of the earth, yu wouldn't even have time to see the earth move away from you.

To make a long story short, if you fell off the edge of the earth, yu wouldn't even have time to see the earth move away from you.

Actually, you would see it move away from you, you would fall off earth moving at the speed earth is currently moving, but you wouldn't accelerate, you would move with a constant velocity, while the earth would keep accelerating.

Some laws in all large scale theories actually do break down at that distance, Quantum Mechanics basically has a whole different rule book. Some rules still apply, but those are mostly from cardinal fields. (Strong, Weak, EM, and occasionally, Gravity. In some instances, fields even combine. I.E, Electroweak.) But a lot of stuff goes on that directly contradicts other laws... Teleportation, particle "cloning", so to speak (Quantum Entanglement, if I have my terms aligned), among others, that tend to shred the conventional rules. (I.E, entangled particles "know" what happened to the other instantly. In some cases (most, actually.) Faster than light.

But it's moving at a speed just a tad below lightspeed, right?
So your family won't even have time to hear you say "Oh shit"

But it's moving at a speed just a tad below lightspeed, right?
So your family won't even have time to hear you say "Oh shit"

So are you when you fall off earth.

Like I said before, velocity is inherited. Think, if you jump out of a car, you're still going however fast the car was, until you hit the ground - air resistance. You don't suddenly shed velocity jumping off of earth, you keep it. The earth just keeps accelerating. Besides, if you suddenly lost ~.9C of motion, it'd be a lot like hitting a brick wall at that speed. Messy.