Acceleration of the Earth

Quote from: cbarnett97 on December 12, 2007, 12:29:25 AM

Here is a paper that is about what I am talking about

http://newton.umsl.edu/run//traveler.html

use the correct math

So, you are now saying that an object can accelerate to a velocity that is greater than that of light?

so after doing a fair bit of math you will end up with the equation
alpha=1/{1-(v/c)²}
which we can relate in a more classical sense using F=ma so that will become F=m(alpha) which will give us
F=m*alpha

see what happens to your acceleration as your velocity increases

It...decreases.

lol.

It...decreases.

So would that not mean according to the FE model everyday we would weigh a bit less due to the fact that our acceleration is decreasing, and even if today the acceleration was 9.8m/s^2 then it would be less tomorrow.

tl;dr

It isnt algebra, it takes more than a sentence to explain the concept.

Quote from: TheEngineer on December 12, 2007, 12:40:41 AM

It...decreases.

So would that not mean according to the FE model everyday we would weigh a bit less due to the fact that our acceleration is decreasing, and even if today the acceleration was 9.8m/s^2 then it would be less tomorrow.

No.

So would that not mean according to the FE model everyday we would weigh a bit less due to the fact that our acceleration is decreasing, and even if today the acceleration was 9.8m/s^2 then it would be less tomorrow.

Not in our frame of reference.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on December 12, 2007, 12:42:48 AM

Quote from: TheEngineer on December 12, 2007, 12:40:41 AM

It...decreases.

So would that not mean according to the FE model everyday we would weigh a bit less due to the fact that our acceleration is decreasing, and even if today the acceleration was 9.8m/s^2 then it would be less tomorrow.

No.

How would it not if our weight is caused by the acceleration of the FE and that acceleration is decreasing then why would our weight remain constant?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on December 12, 2007, 12:42:48 AM

So would that not mean according to the FE model everyday we would weigh a bit less due to the fact that our acceleration is decreasing, and even if today the acceleration was 9.8m/s^2 then it would be less tomorrow.

Not in our frame of reference.

to properly solve this problem it needs to be frame invariant, so try again.

solving the problem with frame invariance still wouldn't make a difference to our frame of reference.

solving the problem with frame invariance still wouldn't make a difference to our frame of reference.

yes it will
that is the definition of frame invariant

no it wouldn't.

Frame Invariant is a principle of relativity which states that the fundamental laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames
So when you solve it correctly you get a much different answer then what the FE states

also if you notice my solution does hold true to your guys solution, so in a small way you are correct but where you are wrong is that the same diminishing acceleration witnessed by the "observer" would also be felt by the "traveler"

Frame Invariant is a principle of relativity which states that the fundamental laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames

Which means that there is no preferred or privileged frame of reference.  Which is exactly, for some reason, what you are trying to find.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on December 12, 2007, 12:52:32 AM

Frame Invariant is a principle of relativity which states that the fundamental laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames

Which means that there is no preferred or privileged frame of reference.  Which is exactly, for some reason, what you are trying to find.

exactly

So we agree you are looking for something that does not exist.

So we agree you are looking for something that does not exist.

nope. just solving the problem correctly, see I use the laws set forth to solve. just because I do not like the answer does not mean I can just change my FoR to make me correct

That's the whole point about frames of reference.

nope. just solving the problem correctly, see I use the laws set forth to solve. just because I do not like the answer does not mean I can just change my FoR to make me correct

That's the point of Relativity.  No one frame is preferred over another.  In an external frame, the acceleration is decreasing, yet in our frame the acceleration is constant.  They are both correct.  Just because you don't like the answer does not mean you get to change physics.

This is what my method achieves: when introduced as part of a non-coordinate time/velocity pair in pre-transform special relativity, proper velocity allows us to introduce relativistic momentum, time-dilation, and frame-invariant relativistic acceleration in context of a single inertial frame. Moreover, through use of proper velocity many relationships (including post-transform relationships like velocity addition which require consideration of multiple frames) are made simpler and sometimes more useful.

My god... this site should rename as "The Relativity Society".

My god... this site should rename as "The Relativity Society".

hah true

Quote from: Quarrior on December 09, 2007, 10:50:56 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.

Quote from: Quarrior on December 09, 2007, 10:50:56 PM

If I knew the answer to this question I would be a god.

Took you long enough to admit that.

I said it in my original statement, its a shame that a moron like you can't read.

Then don't say you did explain it. It's much easier if you just admit your wrongdoings.

Where was I wrong?
Where were you right?

Where was I wrong?

Where you said you explained in a way how mass curve space-time.

Where were you right?

What did I say that makes you think is not right?

What the, the...  Would somebody please explain to me how the fuck this thread got to 9 pages?  Somebody else ban cbarnett for continuing to do the same stupid shit while they're at it.

What the, the...  Would somebody please explain to me how the fuck this thread got to 9 pages?  Somebody else ban cbarnett for continuing to do the same stupid shit while they're at it.

And what stupid shit would that be? Math?