Acceleration of the Earth

  • 258 Replies
  • 58190 Views
*

Mr. Ireland

  • 14986
  • +0/-0
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #60 on: December 06, 2007, 03:12:34 PM »
I'm a troll, I'll come in here and talk about purple.

Yea!

Sorry.

?

Quarrior

  • 280
  • +0/-0
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #61 on: December 06, 2007, 03:40:56 PM »
Oh heaven forbid. You did not understand a word I said. I never said Special Relativity was about gravitation. I said that the limit to Special Relativity before General Relativity was his theory on Gravitation, but he linked Gravitation and Special Relativity with his theory on General Relativity

You're black hole analysis is not what I hope for, far too brief. I'll post my actual report within the next couple of days, I'm off to visit my parents in about half an hour. I expected something of the following length at least.

Commoners? I used Force with inverted commors to suggest that it is a psuedo force for god sake son. How many times do I have to explain this. DO you know what Pseudo means? maybe go look it up in a dictionary now. Oh god you are so stupid I'm not going to continue with this pointless banter

"because the psuedo Newtonian Gravity is simply caused by objects falling towards the centre of mass of heavier objects (and the heavier objects have a much slighter pull towards the lighter ones)."

simply caused by objects with mass that "fall toward each other" or "pulled together"

How does mass cause the curvature of space time?

Again I have to explain it to you but this should suffice, I hope you can understand that it is a fundamental description of the universe. No-one knows exactly why it happens, thats why they are developing theories such as Quantum Gravity and Loop Quantum Gravity, M-Theory, String Theory etc. This is to explain gravity on a MORE funamental Quantum level. However due to its fundamental nature i.e. "Mass creating a curvature in space-time is a fundamental property of the universe" by Einstein's theory there is no direct explanation to why this happens. General relativity explains the actions of objects and light within the universe through the fundamental obervation that mass curves space-time. This observation is backed up by much experimental evidence. The observed curvature is also explained mathematically through Einstein's 10 field equations which have the general form:

 R[xy] - 1/2 * R*g[xy] = T[xy]8*pi*G/(c^4)

Where R[xy] is the Ricci tensor, a vector which describes the relationship between Riemannian metric [this is a type of differential associated with the geomtry of the spacial curvature] and classical space.

R is the Ricci scalar, which is a simple determinant for the volumetric changes of the curvature. Simply put, a positive ricci scalar suggests that a small sphere  within the area influenced of the curvature will have a different (smaller) volume. It's position is not defined within the curvature...This is taking so long. I'm not going to bother with the rest of the field queation you can look them up yourself. Just know that g[xy] is the metric tensor, the Reimann value describing the actual space time curvature. T[xy] is the stress to energy tensor (a mathematical matrix description for the gravitational source of the curvature), pi is archimedes constant, G the gravitational constant and c the speed of light. I'll now get to what I think you wanted to know.

I think the question you really wanted to ask was "How does space time curvature work"; given the fundamental property that mass curves space time. We know that light always wants to travel in a straight line, and that the shortest path between two points (in terms of distance) is a straight line. However, given that space time can curve, the path the object or light must follow, the curvature of space-time as it is the shortest possible path to follow. This is called a geodesic pathway. If you think of the curvature of space-time as the Spherical Earth, assuming you can not go underground the shortest point between the North and South Poles is a semi circle around it. For objects moving through the space-time continiuum will always move in a straight line. When they reach a gravitational curvature they will continue to move in a straight line, but to inertial frames of reference, that motion appears to be curved.

Because in Einstein's theories we exist in a universe of 4 dimensions and not three, the curvature of of space-time obviously effects both space (x,y,z) and time (t). Consider a a pulse of light from an origin o. Observers standing at o would see that pulse emit as a spherical shell. If we consider the event on a two dimensional level, as the fabric of space time is often represented, with the light emitting in a circle. If we define the z-axis to represent time, we would see that the light would emit in he shape of a cone. In 4 dimensional space-time a hyper-cone would form.

If space and time are one in the same, and a curvature of space-time effects "space" how doesit effect "time"?
We know from experiments that gravitational fields create time dilations. We also know that s one accelerates toward the speed of light, time dilates, as stated in special relativity and proven via experimentation with atomic clocks on jets. Time dialation in gravitational fields is made manifest by the existance of the equivalence principle, i.e. that the notion of gravity, and acceleration are one in the same. We know this because lets say, someone inside a rocket accelerating in free space at g would feel the same downward pull as someone standing on the surface of the Earth. This means that someone accelerating toward the speed of light experiences the same time dilation as someone standing within a gravitational field (as seen by an inertial observer). The greater the gravitational potential (more acceleration due to gravity) the greater the dilation.

I hope my understanding of general relativity meets your community college standards


Don't bother breaking down the above text one sentance at a time, it just shows how stupid you are, people write things as a whole, no one sentance is not mutually exclusie of the greater whole, so if you want to comment just discuss any problems in the above "singular text" method.
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #62 on: December 06, 2007, 03:43:25 PM »
Me first.


tl;dr.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #63 on: December 06, 2007, 06:11:20 PM »
Oh heaven forbid. You did not understand a word I said. I never said Special Relativity was about gravitation. I said that the limit to Special Relativity before General Relativity was his theory on Gravitation, but he linked Gravitation and Special Relativity with his theory on General Relativity
Nope, you never said anything about limitation. Don't use my own words, please.

You're black hole analysis is not what I hope for, far too brief. I'll post my actual report within the next couple of days, I'm off to visit my parents in about half an hour. I expected something of the following length at least.
I'll wait for that.

Commoners? I used Force with inverted commors to suggest that it is a psuedo force for god sake son. How many times do I have to explain this. DO you know what Pseudo means? maybe go look it up in a dictionary now. Oh god you are so stupid I'm not going to continue with this pointless banter
Except gravity as a force is incorrect and you keep using that terminology.

"because the psuedo Newtonian Gravity is simply caused by objects falling towards the centre of mass of heavier objects (and the heavier objects have a much slighter pull towards the lighter ones)."

simply caused by objects with mass that "fall toward each other" or "pulled together"
If gravity is caused by that, then what's the point of gravity? I'm sorry, but "gravity" is what causes objects to fall towards each other, not the other way around. This is the definition of Newtonian gravity.

Quote
How does mass cause the curvature of space time?

Again I have to explain it to you but this should suffice, I hope you can understand that it is a fundamental description of the universe. No-one knows exactly why it happens, thats why they are developing theories such as Quantum Gravity and Loop Quantum Gravity, M-Theory, String Theory etc. This is to explain gravity on a MORE funamental Quantum level. However due to its fundamental nature i.e. "Mass creating a curvature in space-time is a fundamental property of the universe" by Einstein's theory there is no direct explanation to why this happens. General relativity explains the actions of objects and light within the universe through the fundamental obervation that mass curves space-time. This observation is backed up by much experimental evidence. The observed curvature is also explained mathematically through Einstein's 10 field equations which have the general form:

 R[xy] - 1/2 * R*g[xy] = T[xy]8*pi*G/(c^4)

Where R[xy] is the Ricci tensor, a vector which describes the relationship between Riemannian metric [this is a type of differential associated with the geomtry of the spacial curvature] and classical space.

R is the Ricci scalar, which is a simple determinant for the volumetric changes of the curvature. Simply put, a positive ricci scalar suggests that a small sphere  within the area influenced of the curvature will have a different (smaller) volume. It's position is not defined within the curvature...This is taking so long. I'm not going to bother with the rest of the field queation you can look them up yourself. Just know that g[xy] is the metric tensor, the Reimann value describing the actual space time curvature. T[xy] is the stress to energy tensor (a mathematical matrix description for the gravitational source of the curvature), pi is archimedes constant, G the gravitational constant and c the speed of light. I'll now get to what I think you wanted to know.
That's nice, but you still haven't answered the question: How does mass distort space-time?


I think the question you really wanted to ask was "How does space time curvature work"
Uh, no. I'm asking how does mass curve space-time, like mass have what mechanism to do this.

; given the fundamental property that mass curves space time. We know that light always wants to travel in a straight line, and that the shortest path between two points (in terms of distance) is a straight line. However, given that space time can curve, the path the object or light must follow, the curvature of space-time as it is the shortest possible path to follow. This is called a geodesic pathway. If you think of the curvature of space-time as the Spherical Earth, assuming you can not go underground the shortest point between the North and South Poles is a semi circle around it. For objects moving through the space-time continiuum will always move in a straight line. When they reach a gravitational curvature they will continue to move in a straight line, but to inertial frames of reference, that motion appears to be curved.

Because in Einstein's theories we exist in a universe of 4 dimensions and not three, the curvature of of space-time obviously effects both space (x,y,z) and time (t). Consider a a pulse of light from an origin o. Observers standing at o would see that pulse emit as a spherical shell. If we consider the event on a two dimensional level, as the fabric of space time is often represented, with the light emitting in a circle. If we define the z-axis to represent time, we would see that the light would emit in he shape of a cone. In 4 dimensional space-time a hyper-cone would form.
You still haven't answered the question: How does mass distort space-time?

If space and time are one in the same, and a curvature of space-time effects "space" how doesit effect "time"?
We know from experiments that gravitational fields create time dilations. We also know that s one accelerates toward the speed of light, time dilates, as stated in special relativity and proven via experimentation with atomic clocks on jets. Time dialation in gravitational fields is made manifest by the existance of the equivalence principle, i.e. that the notion of gravity, and acceleration are one in the same. We know this because lets say, someone inside a rocket accelerating in free space at g would feel the same downward pull as someone standing on the surface of the Earth. This means that someone accelerating toward the speed of light experiences the same time dilation as someone standing within a gravitational field (as seen by an inertial observer). The greater the gravitational potential (more acceleration due to gravity) the greater the dilation.
Yes, I know all of these. What's the point of connecting the dots again?


I hope my understanding of general relativity meets your community college standards
Thanks, but I'm not looking for summaries about GR; I'm looking for an answer to my question.

Don't bother breaking down the above text one sentance at a time, it just shows how stupid you are, people write things as a whole, no one sentance is not mutually exclusie of the greater whole, so if you want to comment just discuss any problems in the above "singular text" method.
I don't waste my time on the Internets. After all, all those explanations you made are still nonsensical to the main point of our argument. Either you answer my question or just say, "sorry, I give up, as I can't answer it".

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #64 on: December 06, 2007, 11:07:20 PM »
tl;dr
If you ,can't argue both sides, you understand keither

?

JohnDavidson

  • 51
  • +0/-0
  • I'm sitting on the fence and it hurts my...
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #65 on: December 07, 2007, 07:22:17 AM »

Oh my god...I can't believe that because a ludicrous flat earth theory can explain one aspect of our universe that your willing to accept this entirely bull shit theory.

How the hell does the universe power this acceleration?

If the universe is accelerating in one direction and Gravity is a pseudo term given to the force we feel due to this acceleration (as it pretty much already is) how do we account for the concept of Black Holes, is this extreme pull caused by some SUPER universal acceleration occuring within the immidiate vicinity and directly towards the black hole?

I mean John surely you can't be so easily convinced, if you're truely a debater you suck pretty badly.

First of all, i'm a very open minded person. I'm willing to accept the opinions and knowledge of others. It's not really that I believe in a FE, or is it the fact I believe in a RE. The two have extremely strong arguments. The FEer's show a very strong argument. More so, I believe, than an RE. Therefore, it my decision on whose beliefs I choose to debate on.

The only reason you don't believe in a flat earth is because the whole of your life you have been taught about an RE. Thing is, you need to understand that science itself, is an extremely vulnerable subject. It leaves itself so many doors open so that scrutiny can pass through and attack.  The best scientists are those willing to listen to the opinions/beliefs of other scientists. Being narrow minded will amount to anything.


?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #66 on: December 07, 2007, 07:49:47 PM »
I'm a troll, I'll come in here and talk about purple.

Yea!

Sorry.

Yeah, you purple thief.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Mr. Ireland

  • 14986
  • +0/-0
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #67 on: December 08, 2007, 06:03:41 AM »

?

tommo

  • 505
  • +0/-0
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #68 on: December 08, 2007, 12:11:03 PM »
might have been said before but ill post it anyway.


Let's just suppose Earth is flying through space in order to hold us down. That seems reasonable, but this theory lacks one substantial concept. Earth would need to be constantly accelerating.

Example. When you are driving down the highway at cruising speed, are you constantly pressed back into your seat? No. This is because you have stopped accelerating and are merely coasting. For any additional inertia to be applied to your body, you must accelerate, turn, or decelerate.
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #69 on: December 08, 2007, 12:17:34 PM »
Let's just suppose Earth is flying through space in order to hold us down. That seems reasonable, but this theory lacks one substantial concept. Earth would need to be constantly accelerating.
How long have you been here?  That's what is stated:  The FE is undergoing a constant 9.8m/s^2 acceleration. 


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

?

tommo

  • 505
  • +0/-0
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #70 on: December 08, 2007, 12:20:27 PM »
Let's just suppose Earth is flying through space in order to hold us down. That seems reasonable, but this theory lacks one substantial concept. Earth would need to be constantly accelerating.
How long have you been here?  That's what is stated:  The FE is undergoing a constant 9.8m/s^2 acceleration. 

yea i thought so just couldn't remember
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #71 on: December 08, 2007, 12:21:16 PM »
So why is this lacking?


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

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #72 on: December 08, 2007, 03:21:32 PM »
So why is this lacking?
He'll bring up the noobish speed of light argument.

?

Quarrior

  • 280
  • +0/-0
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #73 on: December 09, 2007, 10:50:56 PM »

That's nice, but you still haven't answered the question: How does mass distort space-time?

I actually did, in a way. Einstein never explained how mass curved space time, he said it was a fundamental property of the universe. Why mass curves space time has been the cause of much of the problems with finding a unification theory. If I knew the answer to this question I would be a god.
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #74 on: December 09, 2007, 11:36:09 PM »
I actually did, in a way
Uh, you gave me an equation which only explains the curvature itself and not how mass curves space-time.

If I knew the answer to this question I would be a god.
Took you long enough to admit that.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2007, 12:03:38 AM by Jack. »

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #75 on: December 10, 2007, 12:15:10 AM »

That's nice, but you still haven't answered the question: How does mass distort space-time?

I actually did, in a way. Einstein never explained how mass curved space time, he said it was a fundamental property of the universe.

In flat earth theory the Universal Accelerator is considered a fundamental property of the universe.  The prevailing theory is that dark energy (or dark matter according to Dogplatter) is responsible for the effect of gravitation.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #76 on: December 10, 2007, 03:35:07 AM »
Its been a couple days, where is your essay?
If you ,can't argue both sides, you understand keither

?

Darren

  • 14
  • +0/-0
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #77 on: December 10, 2007, 01:50:27 PM »
I dont know whether this has been brought up yet or not, but the talk of terminal velocity of earth is a bit farfetched.

Terminal velocity, where the force caused by the acceleration of an object is equal to the opposing force. This is easy to explain in the respect of an object falling to the surface of the earth, as the gravitational force F = ma is equal to the force of any wind resistance, and will therefore no longer accelerate.

Now in the respect of earths terminal velocity, what other forces are there to oppose the force of the earths acceleration. As there are no particles in space in which to oppose the earths acceleration, it is entirely possible for the earth to continue accelerating at its rate of 9.81ms-2.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #78 on: December 10, 2007, 03:05:35 PM »
The terminal velocity of any object is the speed of light.


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

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #79 on: December 11, 2007, 04:53:36 AM »
As there are no particles in space in which to oppose the earths acceleration, it is entirely possible for the earth to continue accelerating at its rate of 9.81ms-2.
Just a note:
Space is not a true vacuum. Compared to hypothetical vacuums or true vacuums (true vacuum is impossible to achieve) space is rather abundent with particals.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

Darren

  • 14
  • +0/-0
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #80 on: December 11, 2007, 12:11:51 PM »
Whats the generally accepted reason for the acceleration of the earth, I have heard 2, acceleration as caused by the "big bang", or the FE is being acclerated on the back of a giant turtle and four elephants.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #81 on: December 11, 2007, 12:50:43 PM »
the FE is being acclerated on the back of a giant turtle and four elephants.
That's a throwback to an ancient Hindu belief.


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

?

Spacew00t

  • 16
  • +0/-0
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #82 on: December 11, 2007, 08:37:00 PM »
I know this sort of topic has been brought up and (badly) explained so I'd like a proper answer.

If the Earth is accelerating upwards at a speed of 9.8m/s^2 we will feel the "effects" of gravity. A nice explanation on behalf of the Flat earthers.
But as a lot of people know, if an object keeps travelling at a constant acceleration it will get closer and closer to the speed of light BUT will never reach it. The effects of this are a massive increase in mass and the object will slow and become to a halt acceleration wise. The result is that the earth will be moving at a tremendous velocity but the velocity will be constant. So do we say goodbye to gravity then? Cos we're pretty much screwed if we reach our terminal velocity wouldn't you say?

Feel free to explain in terms of special relativity, but make sure you know what your talking about ;)

Good man, yes this obviously discredits the flat earth... flat out, no pun intended. Actually assuming that the Earth has been accelerating since it's creation 6000 years ago (not my personal belief mind you) you can easily calculate the Earth's current speed clocked at an astounding 6955 times the speed of light. Experiments have shown that no matter how fast the observer travels light will always travel at the same speed away/towards you. This therefore disproves that anything can travel faster than the speed of light.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #83 on: December 11, 2007, 09:11:43 PM »
We can accelerate forever and never reach the speed of light.  Your calculations are wrong.


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

?

Spacew00t

  • 16
  • +0/-0
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #84 on: December 11, 2007, 09:25:58 PM »
We can accelerate forever and never reach the speed of light.  Your calculations are wrong.
How does that even work though? A continually accelerating object must eventually reach the speed of light just as sure as a ball dropped into a pit will eventually hit the bottom. Lets break it down for you, I'll do the children's' version with big font and pictures.

Hours in a day = 24
Multiply that by 60 and you get,
Minutes in a day = 1,440
Then multiply that by 60 to get,
Seconds in a day = 86,400
And then multiply that by 356.25 to get,
Seconds in a year = 31,557,600
So then you must multiply that by 6,000 (Average believed age of biblical universe) to get,
Seconds in 6,000 years = 189,345,600,000
Then you multiply that by 9.8m/s/s (Acceleration of your disk world, aka gravity) to get,
Speed in meters per second of Earth after accelerating for 6,000 years = 1,855,586,880,000
Divide that by 299,792,458 (the speed of light) to get,
How many times the speed of light the Earth is traveling = 6,955

Theres the math, you can have a good look over it.


*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #85 on: December 11, 2007, 09:27:55 PM »
You used the wrong equation.  You forgot about Relativity.


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

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #86 on: December 11, 2007, 09:35:07 PM »
Why is it that on earth our mass does not increase as we continue to accelerate?
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #87 on: December 11, 2007, 09:37:00 PM »
It's our frame of reference.


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

?

Spacew00t

  • 16
  • +0/-0
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #88 on: December 11, 2007, 09:46:16 PM »
Relativity, if you actually knew what it was, states that no object can travel faster than the speed of light, for the closer you get to it the more massive you get. Hence, on reaching the speed of light you will have obtained infinite mass to which you will have become a black hole on which no light can escape. Effectively destroying any life that exists on earth. Also not to mention that as your mass increases so would your density and gravity making time dilate in the immediate area surrounding earth, so the sun and moon would start to appear as if they were moving faster and faster along with the stars. Even though I used the big bad gravity word you guys don't like, the original problem still occurs.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Acceleration of the Earth
« Reply #89 on: December 11, 2007, 09:51:42 PM »
If you knew what Relativity was, you would not have used the wrong equation.  Relativity provides you with the correct one.  Since you claim to know about Relativity, you should use it.


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