Ultimate FE Discussion Thread

  • 59 Replies
  • 5318 Views
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #30 on: December 26, 2007, 12:42:07 PM »
Why doesn't the Earth have gravity if everything else does?

Nothing has gravity because gravity doesn't exist.

I'm afraid FEers who find themselves trying to concede the existence of gravity for the celestial bodies or for anything else have plunged themselves into a miserable subterfuge of mistakenness.
"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

Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #31 on: December 29, 2007, 07:07:02 AM »
Why doesn't the Earth have gravity if everything else does?

Nothing has gravity because gravity doesn't exist.

I'm afraid FEers who find themselves trying to concede the existence of gravity for the celestial bodies or for anything else have plunged themselves into a miserable subterfuge of mistakenness.

So what is keeping us in contact with the Earth? Please don't say Universal Acceleration.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #32 on: December 29, 2007, 07:07:50 AM »
So what is keeping us in contact with the Earth?

The accelerating Earth...
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #33 on: December 29, 2007, 07:26:15 AM »
So what is keeping us in contact with the Earth?

The accelerating Earth...

This is seriously messing with my head.

?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #34 on: December 29, 2007, 11:48:10 AM »
So what is keeping us in contact with the Earth?

The accelerating Earth...

This is seriously messing with my head.

That's because you've been trained to believe that the Earth is round.  Fact is, Universal Acceleration would produced mostly the exact same effects as gravity would.  Have you read the topic on UA?
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #35 on: December 29, 2007, 02:26:24 PM »
Plus, the gravity is balanced out, as the Earth is a cylinder.
This makes no sense. Cylinders don't balance out their gravity except at the very center of the cylinder.
-David
E pur si muove!

Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #36 on: December 29, 2007, 07:40:33 PM »
So what is keeping us in contact with the Earth?

The accelerating Earth...

This is seriously messing with my head.

That's because you've been trained to believe that the Earth is round.  Fact is, Universal Acceleration would produced mostly the exact same effects as gravity would.  Have you read the topic on UA?

I have. But if the Earth is accelerating at 9.8ms-2, and it's been doing so for 4.5 billion years, shouldn't it be moving at near light speed by now?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #37 on: December 29, 2007, 07:44:11 PM »
Yes, it would be near light speed. 


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

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #38 on: December 29, 2007, 08:16:21 PM »
It all depends on your frame of reference. The whole point of relativity is that there is no meaning to the question "how fast is object x moving" unless a specific frame of reference is specified. According to some reference frames the earth in the FE model would be moving up, in others it would be moving down, in others it would be moving sideways, and in others it would be standing still (although not for long in any inertial reference frame because it is accelerating.) However, the question "how fast is object x accelerating" does have a meaning in special relativity, because if the acceleration is nonzero in one inertial frame, it will be nonzero in every frame. What the model says is that in the inertial frame in which the earth is stationary at a given instant, it is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2.
-David
E pur si muove!

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #39 on: December 29, 2007, 11:38:57 PM »
one problem with an ever-accelerating earth that i haven't seen addressed, is the problem of time dilation.  unless you believe in a steady-state infinitely old universe, you cannot accelerate forever.  at relativistic speeds, time dilation becomes so severe that we would very quickly reach the end of the universe.  depending on which hypothesis of "the end of everything" holds true, that is variously hypothesized to "only" be about 200 billion years.  which would go by very quickly - after a year of acceleration, we would already be at relativistic speeds, and from our point of view, the cosmos would quickly burn out and die (or collapse).

which then begs the question, "relative to what?"  in the scenario i specified, the earth is accelerating relative to the cosmos or some averaged "reality", which is what will someday collapse or cool to near absolute zero.  but the fe argument would be, i would guess, that the entirety of existence is accelerating along with the earth.  which begs other questions, but in and of itself at least "resolves" the problem of already having exceeded the lifetime of the universe since i was born.

i don't pretend to have a working intimacy with the math of str, so i am basing these arguments on my own extrapolations of the thought experiments einstein laid out, and others have done since.  (e.g. the common illustration of being able to circumnavigate the known universe at near-light speed, several times in a single lifetime...however there would be no earth or possibly even milky way galaxy as we knew it to return to after just one trip around...)

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #40 on: December 30, 2007, 12:10:53 AM »
What makes you think the universe has an ending in the FE model? Or that the timeframe is anything like what RE-blinded conspiracy supporting lackwit scientists say it is?
-David
E pur si muove!

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #41 on: December 30, 2007, 12:32:05 AM »
what makes you think i think that?  more accurately, i didn't assert one model (e.g. steady state) was superior to the other (e.g. collapse).  even though i do have an opinion on that.  i even pointed out that some may subscribe to the notion that the universe won't end, which if true would render my primary point moot.  even if you just believe it won't end, that is enough to render my point moot - mainly because i don't have the time or inclination to dig up the references and argue about the end of the universe.

but your implicit message is probably right; things that subtle and theoretical just aren't worth arguing here.  not when there are bigger issues, such as whether it is the north, or south pole surrounded by an ice wall.  or if the sun is flat or a sphere.  or how the sun and moon are held up.  or why we only see one side of the moon.  etc., etc.

these more conceptual arguments inevitably de-evolve into trading flames over the terms "gravity" vs. "gravitation", and heated spelling corrections.  in the process, they wind up being domintated by a few people who think they are clever and witty because they can anonymously argue for a viewpoint they don't themselves subscribe to.  that's when my "tedious" meter starts rising, and i find another thread.

Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #42 on: December 30, 2007, 06:29:16 AM »
So, is this UA stuff the best theory regarding gravity? Because it doesn't work.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #43 on: December 30, 2007, 06:32:44 AM »
So, is this UA stuff the best theory regarding gravity?

What?

Because it doesn't work.

Oh ya, how so?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #44 on: December 30, 2007, 06:39:38 AM »
So, is this UA stuff the best theory regarding gravity?

What?

Because it doesn't work.

Oh ya, how so?

Because, the acceleration would work initially, but eventually the Earth would get to a speed near light-speed, where it can't go any faster, because it is impossible for any object with mass to reach light-speed, so how could it accelerate from there? And yes, it would have reached that speed by now. Accelerating at 9.8ms-2, for 4.5 billion years, it'd be at that speed probably sometime early in the first year.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #45 on: December 30, 2007, 06:47:21 AM »
Because, the acceleration would work initially, but eventually the Earth would get to a speed near light-speed, where it can't go any faster, because it is impossible for any object with mass to reach light-speed, so how could it accelerate from there? And yes, it would have reached that speed by now. Accelerating at 9.8ms-2, for 4.5 billion years, it'd be at that speed probably sometime early in the first year.

Probably one of the most common issues brought up and misunderstood.

From Trekky's FAQ:

Q: Why hasn't the Earth reached the speed of light if it's accelerating?

A: Contrary to popular belief, acceleration is not linear.  In Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, there is an equation for adding vectors in the form of a recursive formula:

         v + w
u =              
    (1 + vw) c2


In which u is your velocity, v is you rate of acceleration, w is your previous velocity, and c is the speed of light.
And if you were to work it out, you would find that it would take forever to reach the speed of light.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #46 on: December 30, 2007, 06:50:08 AM »
Because, the acceleration would work initially, but eventually the Earth would get to a speed near light-speed, where it can't go any faster, because it is impossible for any object with mass to reach light-speed, so how could it accelerate from there? And yes, it would have reached that speed by now. Accelerating at 9.8ms-2, for 4.5 billion years, it'd be at that speed probably sometime early in the first year.

Probably one of the most common issues brought up and misunderstood.

From Trekky's FAQ:

Q: Why hasn't the Earth reached the speed of light if it's accelerating?

A: Contrary to popular belief, acceleration is not linear.  In Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, there is an equation for adding vectors in the form of a recursive formula:

         v + w
u =              
    (1 + vw) c2


In which u is your velocity, v is you rate of acceleration, w is your previous velocity, and c is the speed of light.
And if you were to work it out, you would find that it would take forever to reach the speed of light.

If it's acceleration is recursive, then what happens when it decelerates, wouldn't there be an effect opposite to gravity occurring?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #47 on: December 30, 2007, 06:56:24 AM »
If it's acceleration is recursive, then what happens when it decelerates, wouldn't there be an effect opposite to gravity occurring?

It's not really recursive, that's just an error on Trekky's part. But that equation and dealing with the adding of velocities is still the same. You will not reach the speed of light.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #48 on: December 30, 2007, 06:58:11 AM »
If it's acceleration is recursive, then what happens when it decelerates, wouldn't there be an effect opposite to gravity occurring?

It's not really recursive, that's just an error on Trekky's part. But that equation and dealing with the adding of velocities is still the same. You will not reach the speed of light.

Well what is the pattern then?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #49 on: December 30, 2007, 07:00:15 AM »
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #50 on: December 30, 2007, 07:01:14 AM »
Well what is the pattern then?

For?

For this equation. How does it maintain constant acceleration without approaching light-speed?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #51 on: December 30, 2007, 07:04:48 AM »
One of the claims was that the Earth moves with constant acceleration but it doesn't reach the speed of light. Please some one explain how this is possible.
Relativity states that no object can accelerate to the speed of light.  Velocity does not add linearly in Relativity.  It will reach an asymptote, the speed of light, and can be seen in the equations.  Therefore, an object can accelerate at a constant rate and never reach the speed of light.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #52 on: December 30, 2007, 07:07:36 AM »
One of the claims was that the Earth moves with constant acceleration but it doesn't reach the speed of light. Please some one explain how this is possible.
Relativity states that no object can accelerate to the speed of light.  Velocity does not add linearly in Relativity.  It will reach an asymptote, the speed of light, and can be seen in the equations.  Therefore, an object can accelerate at a constant rate and never reach the speed of light.

Well that shut me up.

Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #53 on: December 30, 2007, 07:22:08 AM »
Well JHole, it's good to see that something shut you up besides Lord Scrotum's--well let's not go there.  Enough about you.  Otherwise, you will become so transfixed with the attention being showered on you that you will either forget to change yourself or be late to your job flipping hamburgers.  Neither is a good way to start the new year.  Now back to the topic at hand.  Inquiring Ballsters want to know, if the earth is flat and accelerating, why it wouldn't fly just like a frisbee in a curved direction and eventually bump into something like the moon.  Seems that would be a likely outcome.  Just a thought.  HB

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #54 on: December 30, 2007, 12:31:19 PM »
Well JHole, it's good to see that something shut you up besides Lord Scrotum's--well let's not go there.  Enough about you.  Otherwise, you will become so transfixed with the attention being showered on you that you will either forget to change yourself or be late to your job flipping hamburgers.  Neither is a good way to start the new year.  Now back to the topic at hand.  Inquiring Ballsters want to know, if the earth is flat and accelerating, why it wouldn't fly just like a frisbee in a curved direction and eventually bump into something like the moon.  Seems that would be a likely outcome.  Just a thought.  HB

Well Ball Licker, looks like I've got some time before anyone posts anything to the new site, so I figure what the hell, give the prick a proper hello! Since you hail from the realm of sufficient Ball Lickers I figure you're no stranger to having some Hair stuck in your teeth now and again - so I won't entirely blame you for being an outright jackass to everyone here considering how uncomfortable that must be. I'd try to sympathise, but I have no experience with which to show you any empathy. Ever since you shaved your own balls I realize you've never felt the same, but go easy on the tenderhearts eh? Let the hair grow back before you ramble at people. Just a thought. OP

Dyslexics are teople poo!

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #55 on: December 30, 2007, 01:26:27 PM »
Because, the acceleration would work initially, but eventually the Earth would get to a speed near light-speed, where it can't go any faster, because it is impossible for any object with mass to reach light-speed, so how could it accelerate from there? And yes, it would have reached that speed by now. Accelerating at 9.8ms-2, for 4.5 billion years, it'd be at that speed probably sometime early in the first year.

Probably one of the most common issues brought up and misunderstood.

From Trekky's FAQ:

Q: Why hasn't the Earth reached the speed of light if it's accelerating?

A: Contrary to popular belief, acceleration is not linear.  In Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, there is an equation for adding vectors in the form of a recursive formula:

         v + w
u =              
    (1 + vw) c2


In which u is your velocity, v is you rate of acceleration, w is your previous velocity, and c is the speed of light.
And if you were to work it out, you would find that it would take forever to reach the speed of light.

That bit of Trekky's FAQ has a few mistakes, as I pointed out here.
-David
E pur si muove!

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #56 on: December 30, 2007, 06:17:22 PM »
You'll find me as one of the more polite people in here. You on the other hand are proving yourself otherwise rather quickly. Anyway, enough time wasted on you. Have a good one.

- Optimus
Dyslexics are teople poo!

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #57 on: December 31, 2007, 08:29:57 AM »
So what is keeping us in contact with the Earth? Please don't say Universal Acceleration.

Well that's exactly what I was going to say, because that's what's keeping us on the Earth.

What's 2 + 2? AND DON'T SAY 4!
"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

Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #58 on: December 31, 2007, 11:41:24 PM »
So what is keeping us in contact with the Earth? Please don't say Universal Acceleration.

Well that's exactly what I was going to say, because that's what's keeping us on the Earth.

What's 2 + 2? AND DON'T SAY 4!

Lol. I've had it explained to me now anyway. Not to quote Nineteen Eighty-Four or anything, but 2 + 2 = 5(?)...

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Ultimate FE Discussion Thread
« Reply #59 on: January 03, 2008, 08:43:30 AM »
frayms of riffirans.

to an outsyid obsrvr, wii appr to bii dclrating. But in our own for, wii do not.

It's qyuit simpl rally.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 09:02:57 AM by Lord Z, Th Purpl »
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness