LOgic is back

Right.  And there is your problem.  A = dv/dt is a low speed approximation.  The FE is not low speed.  You need to take relativistic effects into account.  Doing so, means an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever, and never reach the speed of light.  Point to FE.

The Equivalence Principle applies locally, everywhere.  It doesn't matter if you are standing on the ground or hanging from a tree swing.  There is no local experiment, observation or thought example, that is explained by 'gravity' that can not be explained by acceleration.  Thanks be to the Equivalence Principle.

The 9.8m/s^2 acceleration is due to the acceleration of the FE, as the FET holds that the earth does not create a gravitational field.

Quote from: L0gic

I wasn't serious when I said it was relevant or that it was specific to the shape of the Earth. RE theory doesn't depend on dark energy like FE depends on the UA.

So?  You stated the RE does not have a massive energy source.  Dark Energy is one such source.  You get to have one, but the FET can't?

btw, I would like your thoughts here and here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17436.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17759.0

NOTE: To save you reading, it appears the 4th page isn't filled with anything useful... so far.

Ah, you're referring to Lorenz transformations again. This debate is an old one. All I want from you is to show me evidence that it can be used to declare that constant acceleration approaches the speed of light asymptotically. Then I'll be happy .

Does it not state that the effects on the under goer are the same? Even though reality of accelerating floor and gravity are different? How is that not one's perception?

Whoa whoa whoa. The FE explanation for the Sun and Moon orbiting each other was that their acceleration caused gravitational fields. The explanation for weight change at altitude was gravitational fields by stars. When I was still discerning the difference between gravity and gravitation I thought gravity was being used selectively. It was clarified that gravitation exists because the stars are accelerating. Acceleration means gravitation. Was this a miscommunication? ...or is the Earth an exception? 

A better way to state what I meant was RET doesn't imply the use of massive energy sources. FET uses a universal accelerator in order to function, whereas dark matter is a mystery with no impact on the shape of the planet. After all, these forums are dedicated to RE vs. FE. (Dark matter remains irrelevant)

Quote from: L0gic on October 30, 2007, 03:49:41 PM

Ah, you're referring to Lorenz transformations again. This debate is an old one. All I want from you is to show me evidence that it can be used to declare that constant acceleration approaches the speed of light asymptotically. Then I'll be happy .

Perhaps you should have paid attention in those old debates, as this is the 50th(?) time or so I'm posted this same equation:
w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)
where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s (from the FE accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second), c is the speed of light and w is the new velocity to be used as u in the following iterations.

I'm glad you are happy now.

Quote

Does it not state that the effects on the under goer are the same? Even though reality of accelerating floor and gravity are different? How is that not one's perception?

Obviously the effects are the same, as it states that 'gravity' and acceleration are locally indistinguishable.

A person in free fall doesn't feel any force but that doesn't necessarily mean one isn't acting on him.

Quote

Whoa whoa whoa. The FE explanation for the Sun and Moon orbiting each other was that their acceleration caused gravitational fields. The explanation for weight change at altitude was gravitational fields by stars. When I was still discerning the difference between gravity and gravitation I thought gravity was being used selectively. It was clarified that gravitation exists because the stars are accelerating. Acceleration means gravitation. Was this a miscommunication? ...or is the Earth an exception? 

The FAQ states that just earth may be gravitationally neutral, but that does not imply the other celestial bodies are also.

Quote

A better way to state what I meant was RET doesn't imply the use of massive energy sources. FET uses a universal accelerator in order to function, whereas dark matter is a mystery with no impact on the shape of the planet. After all, these forums are dedicated to RE vs. FE. (Dark matter remains irrelevant)

So like I said, the RE gets to have a massive energy source, but the FE does not.  That seems fair.

If a train travels at 0.75c, and a man runs along the top of the train at 0.75c, then he should be travelling relative to a fixed poistion on the ground at 1.5c. This is an example of simply adding velocities, wheras, at reletavistic speeds, this simple addition no longer applies. So, another equation must be used.

Is the Earth made out of mass? 
Yes.

Do both theories have this dilemma?
Yes, that was the point.

Dark Energy is theorized to be the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe.  So like I said, the RE gets to have a massive energy source, but it's not allowed when the FE wants one.

I said the RE not the RET.
Now, how about a response to the original argument?

So like I said, you get to have a massive energy source, but the FE can't have one?  That's not very fair.

Why do you get to have a massive energy source, but the FE theory does not?

This really is not that complicated.  You complain about the UA being a massive energy source, therefore, it is stated that it can not possibly exist.  Dark Energy is a massive energy source, yet there is no problem there...

1. Who said I get a massive energy source? For all you know, I don't believe in Dark Energy. A Round Earth does not imply Dark Energy. By that chain of logic, you could state something like "atheists aren't moral".

I think your assuming all RE'ers believe in Dark Energy. Because Dark energy is a massive power source, you feel compelled to compare it to UA to explain how both are similar in nature in an attempt to convince us of the UA being possible.

Quote from: L0gic on November 01, 2007, 11:25:52 PM

1. Who said I get a massive energy source? For all you know, I don't believe in Dark Energy. A Round Earth does not imply Dark Energy. By that chain of logic, you could state something like "atheists aren't moral".

A flat Earth doesn't imply Dark Energy either. People ask for an energy source, and hey look, there is this hypothesized one known as Dark Energy that could work.

Quote from: L0gic on November 01, 2007, 11:25:52 PM

I think your assuming all RE'ers believe in Dark Energy. Because Dark energy is a massive power source, you feel compelled to compare it to UA to explain how both are similar in nature in an attempt to convince us of the UA being possible.

It's not compared to the UA.

A flat Earth does imply a UA though. FET should explain this, because it depends on it.

Compared in the sense that its a massive energy source. Not really beyond that though.

A flat Earth does imply a UA though.

Quote from: L0gic on November 02, 2007, 12:40:14 AM

A flat Earth does imply a UA though.

No, it does not.  Why would it?

Quote from: Username on November 02, 2007, 02:48:55 PM

Quote from: L0gic on November 02, 2007, 12:40:14 AM

A flat Earth does imply a UA though.

No, it does not.  Why would it?

Sorry, I meant to say this site's version of a Flat Earth. Your FE implies the UA. It's how you explain acceleration like RE's gravity, no? I'm just saying this FET uses the UA and therefore is relevant to discussion and investigation.