Radius of the Earth proves spherical

hello another slightly off topic point here i hope someone can sort out.  FE theory states that the reason things dissappear on the horizon is because they just get so small we cannot see them!  if this is the case when i got myself and my brother both to watch a boat sailing off to france (i am english) i had a high powered pair of binoculars he had his eyes we both saw the boat dissappear at the same time?

hello another slightly off topic point here i hope someone can sort out.  FE theory states that the reason things dissappear on the horizon is because they just get so small we cannot see them!  if this is the case when i got myself and my brother both to watch a boat sailing off to france (i am english) i had a high powered pair of binoculars he had his eyes we both saw the boat dissappear at the same time?

Shadow object.

yeah FE people seem to hide behind that alot and relitivity even tho they are horribly misquoting the theory!

relitivity even tho they are horribly misquoting the theory!

What part of Relativity have I 'misquoted'?

Quote from: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 09:55:24 AM

relitivity even tho they are horribly misquoting the theory!

What part of Relativity have I 'misquoted'?

The bit about da shadow object:

"Ich bin homosexual, MY GOD DERE IZ DA SHADOW OBJECT!!!" - Einstein.

i didnt say you had i said some FE theorists had! in another thread good old tom was trying to persuade me that the fact with mathmatics you can PROVE 1=0 was only because i did not understand relitivity! also if we are indeed acelerating at a constant rate of 9.81m/s2 for the last 4.5ish billion years we would be moving at 47000000 times the speed of light relitivity has nothing to do with that!

also if we are indeed acelerating at a constant rate of 9.81m/s2 for the last 4.5ish billion years we would be moving at 47000000 times the speed of light relitivity has nothing to do with that!

Relativity has everything to do with it.

i do joint physics and chem at uni and as far as i know relitivity deals pretty much totally with the warping and bending of time when things start to move close to the speed of light! please quote me the exact part saying it is to do with if u are accelerating at a constant acceleration how you can not whizz straight past the speed of light

The exact part?  How about the part where it says that nothing can accelerate past the speed of light?  Or how about the EQUATIONS of Relativity!  You need to study a little bit harder over there at your 'Uni'.

The exact part?  How about the part where it says that nothing can accelerate past the speed of light?  Or how about the EQUATIONS of Relativity!  You need to study a little bit harder over there at your 'Uni'.

valid point but in that case the earth cannot be accelerating at a constant rate it must have slowed down or else it would have done what relitivity bans!

valid point but in that case the earth cannot be accelerating at a constant rate it must have slowed down or else it would have done what relitivity bans!

Except that those EQUATIONS of Relativity allow for a constant acceleration without ever exceeding the speed of light.

ok i accept that i might not have learnt that or merely forgotten it but i cannot find anything at the precise moment about this could you please show me these equations

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

please define terms

w is the new velocity

U is the current velocity

v is the additional velocity (due to acceleration)

c is the speed of light

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

ok simplifying it down cause you have a fraction over a fraction we get w=(u+v)*c^2/(1+(u*v)) assuming we let something fall from stop for one second at and acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 it will go from 0m/s to 9.81m/s.  by your formulea w=((0+9.81)*3*10^8/)1+0=2943000000m/s........ a slight anomoly

That's because you don't know how to do algebra.

well please do tell me where i went wrong

How did you get the c^2 into the numerator?

because you have term1/term2/c^2a fraction over a fraction so we can view it as term1/1 * c^2/term2. for an example of this 1/2/1/4=2

No, I have term1/(term2 +term3/c^2).  Not quite the same thing.

No, I have term1/(term2 +term3/c^2).  Not quite the same thing.

sorry miss understanding on the writing of it so...w=(u+v/1) + (v*u/c^2)??

No, it's:

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

because you have term1/term2/c^2a fraction over a fraction so we can view it as term1/1 * c^2/term2. for an example of this 1/2/1/4=2

1/2 = 0.5/1 = 0.5/4 = 0.125?

for an example of this 1/2/1/4=2

Wow.  Are you sure you are at a university?

Quote from: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 11:43:41 AM

for an example of this 1/2/1/4=2

Wow.  Are you sure you are at a university?

0.5/0.25 = 2. Don't you understand fractions?

0.5/0.25 = 2. Don't you understand fractions?

Don't you understand the order of operations?
1/2/1/4 is not (1/2)/(1/4).

even moobs workered dis 1 out.

Quote from: Francois Tremblay on March 12, 2007, 12:46:50 PM

0.5/0.25 = 2. Don't you understand fractions?

Don't you understand the order of operations?
1/2/1/4 is not (1/2)/(1/4).

It was obviously a fraction, not a series of divisions. Don't obfuscate the issue.

It sure looks like a series of divisions.  It is not obviously a fraction.  Math is precise.