Questions on FE gravitation

It is a consequence of relativity that the energy of a particle of rest mass m moving with speed v is given by

E = mc2/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)

We need to be clear what we mean by continuous acceleration at 1g.  The acceleration must be measured at any given instant in a non-accelerating frame of reference travelling at the same instantaneous speed. The proper time as measured by us here on earth (i.e. how old we are) will be denoted by T.

v = c th(aT/c) = at / sqrt[1 + (at/c)2]

where th is the tanh function (th x = sh x/ch x, where sh x = (ex - e-x)/2 and ch x = (ex + e-x)/2).

Insert, say 12 (twelve) years and and we would be traveling at 0,99999999996 times the speed of light. How much would a kilogram weight? We start by calculating it's energy.

E = c2/sqrt(1 - v2/c2) = 1.0062e+022 J

So it's mass is

E = 0.5mv^2 => m = 2E/v^2 = 2.2361e+005 kg

Over 220 tons! Just 1 kg! After 12 yrs?!?! These numbers increase exponentially so imagine what Jesus fucking Christ at 70 kg 2000 years ago would weight today. Let alone solid rock constituting our earth 4.5 billion years ago (age of earth)? You cannot dismiss these numbers!

As the speed approaches the speed of light, the particle's mass approaches infinity. This example was after TWELVE YEARS (or the numbers would have gotten inconveniently big). So we are back at questioning a practically infinitely large fuel source. This is regardless of time dilation, length contraction and relativistic velocity addition.

I did it! lol! I actually proved it. Your theory on gravity is WRONG.

Your FAQ and gravity/gravitation sticky cites General Relativity among their sources so I'm convinced FET acknowledge GR.

One inertial frame of reference cannot travel at the speed of light relative to another. So if the earth is accelerating for an infinite amount of time, it will approach the speed of light relative to another inertial frame of reference regardless of which in the universe you choose at some point in time. Thus earth becomes infinitely heavier and would have to be propelled by a force infinitely powerful.

So the question is, what constitutes the force, and more importantly, what fuels the force?

Edit: spelling.

I did not claim this, the FET does.

Read the FAQ then luark.

lol!

I did not claim this, the FET does.

Read the FAQ then luark.

lol!

these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever

Quote

these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever

Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 12, 2008, 02:33:48 PM

Quote

these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever

Right... so where does it say that the earth is accelerating for an infinite amount of time? 

Jesus fucking christ.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 12, 2008, 02:35:21 PM

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 12, 2008, 02:33:48 PM

Quote

these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever

Right... so where does it say that the earth is accelerating for an infinite amount of time? 

Jesus fucking christ.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 12, 2008, 02:35:21 PM

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 12, 2008, 02:33:48 PM

Quote

these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever

Right... so where does it say that the earth is accelerating for an infinite amount of time? 

Whether or not the Earth is supposed to be accelerating infinitely or not is immaterial. At a constant acceleration of 9.8m/s² the Earth would have approached light speed within a year.

Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object from accelerating to the speed of light.  Due to this restriction, these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever, and never reach the speed of light.

Are you going to quote the FAQ saying the earth is accelerating for an infinite amount of time or not?

It has to, or FET theory predicts gravity numerically decrease which I have yet to come across.

Quote from: MadDogX on August 12, 2008, 02:39:15 PM

Whether or not the Earth is supposed to be accelerating infinitely or not is immaterial. At a constant acceleration of 9.8m/s² the Earth would have approached light speed within a year.

Whoops, relativity proves that wrong. 

Quote

Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object from accelerating to the speed of light.  Due to this restriction, these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever, and never reach the speed of light.

It has to, or FET theory predicts gravity numerically decrease which I have yet to come across.

I said approached, not reached or surpassed. Regardless, the constant acceleration would still require enormous amounts of energy. Any ideas where that energy is supposed to be coming from?

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 12, 2008, 02:41:24 PM

Quote

Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object from accelerating to the speed of light.  Due to this restriction, these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever, and never reach the speed of light.

It has to, or FET theory predicts gravity numerically decrease which I have yet to come across.

Who's to say it's not numerically decreasing at a rate we haven't been able to detect?

EDIT: Actually, the observation that g does not change is a problem for RE too, because the mass of the earth is always increasing from cosmic debris raining down on it.

Quote from: MadDogX on August 12, 2008, 02:44:43 PM

I said approached, not reached or surpassed. Regardless, the constant acceleration would still require enormous amounts of energy. Any ideas where that energy is supposed to be coming from?

We call it dark energy.  The exact mechanism is unknown.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 12, 2008, 02:47:29 PM

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 12, 2008, 02:41:24 PM

Quote

Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object from accelerating to the speed of light.  Due to this restriction, these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever, and never reach the speed of light.

It has to, or FET theory predicts gravity numerically decrease which I have yet to come across.

Who's to say it's not numerically decreasing at a rate we haven't been able to detect?

EDIT: Actually, the observation that g does not change is a problem for RE too, because the mass of the earth is always increasing from cosmic debris raining down on it.

Quote from: MadDogX on August 12, 2008, 02:44:43 PM

I said approached, not reached or surpassed. Regardless, the constant acceleration would still require enormous amounts of energy. Any ideas where that energy is supposed to be coming from?

We call it dark energy.  The exact mechanism is unknown.

I call it bullshit. The exact mechanism resembles a cow's ass.

EDIT: Actually, the observation that g does not change is a problem for RE too, because the mass of the earth is always increasing from cosmic debris raining down on it.

Come on robosteve. You are smarter than to call me ignorant and stop replying.

We are not discussing the earth relative to its starting point or anything. We look at any inertial frame of reference that keeps accelerating relative to any other. If a FOR has to sustain 9.81 m/s^-2 relative to another for 4.5 billion years (age of earth) it would require a force you cannot account for. Let alone its fuel source.

Quote

EDIT: Actually, the observation that g does not change is a problem for RE too, because the mass of the earth is always increasing from cosmic debris raining down on it.

Wrong. The right question (trajectory-wise anyway) would be: "Does this dust change the speed/velocity of Earth in any way?", because velocity is the thing that really defines trajectory.

And the answer is no.

Quote from: MadDogX on August 12, 2008, 02:51:08 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 12, 2008, 02:47:29 PM

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 12, 2008, 02:41:24 PM

Quote

Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object from accelerating to the speed of light.  Due to this restriction, these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever, and never reach the speed of light.

It has to, or FET theory predicts gravity numerically decrease which I have yet to come across.

Who's to say it's not numerically decreasing at a rate we haven't been able to detect?

EDIT: Actually, the observation that g does not change is a problem for RE too, because the mass of the earth is always increasing from cosmic debris raining down on it.

Quote from: MadDogX on August 12, 2008, 02:44:43 PM

I said approached, not reached or surpassed. Regardless, the constant acceleration would still require enormous amounts of energy. Any ideas where that energy is supposed to be coming from?

We call it dark energy.  The exact mechanism is unknown.

I call it bullshit. The exact mechanism resembles a cow's ass.

Many here feel the same way about gravity, since the mechanism is unknown for that as well.

Wrong. The right question (trajectory-wise anyway) would be: "Does this dust change the speed/velocity of Earth in any way?", because velocity is the thing that really defines trajectory.
And the answer is no.

Come on robosteve. You are smarter than to call me ignorant and stop replying.

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 12, 2008, 02:54:30 PM

Come on robosteve. You are smarter than to call me ignorant and stop replying.

My apologies. I am very tired at the moment, and so rather irritable and lacking in patience. I'll try to explain what's in my mind, though:

Consider the Earth at arbitrary time t = t₀. Call an inertial frame of reference with velocity equal to the Earth at t₀ "FOR₀", which is moving at velocity v = v₀.

Now, consider the Earth at t = t₁ = t₀ + dt. Its velocity will, of course, be equal to v₁ = v₀ + dv, where dv = g dt (since a = g = dv/dt). This corresponds to "FOR₁".

Consider the next infinitesimal increase in t, which will result in "FOR₂" having velocity v₂ = v₁ + g dt. According to Newtonian mechanics, one would expect that FOR₂ is moving at v₀ + 2g dt, but this is not the case.

Using the velocity addition formula, we can calculate v₂ in terms of v₀, as follows:

v₂ - v₀ = (2 g dt) / (1 + (g dt/c)^2)

Now, since t₀ is an arbitrary starting point, we can generalise:

v_n = v_n-2 + ( (2 g dt) / (1 + (g dt/c)^2) )

And, using recursion:

v_n = v₀ + ( (ng dt) / (1 + (g dt/c)^2) )

I'm too tired to check for errors in this working, and to take the limit as n approaches infinity, but it should come out as v_n = v₀ + c, such that with constant acceleration, the velocity approaches, but never reaches, the speed of light.