Questions on FE gravitation

Okay I will wade in here then. Time dilation is not a valid counter-argument.

Surely the very concept of relativistic mass implies that the definitions of how massive you are and how fast you are travelling are relative (presumably to some observer at infinity)...? Time dilation means that if you build a rocket which you can design to produce a constant force, then you sit on that rocket forever (assuming you can fuel it forever with some exotic energy source) and never disappear behind an event horizon, or become timelike in nature, or anything else.  To an external observer you will look like your rate of acceleration is slowing due to an increase in your relativistic mass (so by F=ma with F constant in your frame, you need to increase m to decrease a), but again it's all relative.

I point out at this point I am not an FE proponent, merely trying to forge a cohesive scientific test of FE - I am keen to hear, for example, the FE explanation of how an accelerating Universe (or Earth plane, depending on your preference) accounts for observed phenomena such as the cosmic background radiation dipole, if the whole plane of the Earth is moving in one direction.

What constitutes the force, and more importantly, what fuels the force?

It is true the energy requirements are phenomenal, but then the Universe has been observed to expand and even accelerate its expansion - the mechanism behind this is not understood but is accepted into the canon of cosmology as a 'working theory', so we cannot discount constant acceleration solely due to unexplained energy sources - we need real, experimentally verifiable (or already verified) facts (that cannot be refused by the infamous 'conspiracy' argument)...

You didn't state a single fact that contradicted me.

OK, you said time dilation wasn't good enough, I posted a response saying that when you realise that our own perception of time, acceleration and mass are all relative then you can argue that in principle you could accelerate at a constant rate as measured in your frame forever without violating relativity.

My further point was to say that we need evidence to show why this cannot be the case, such as the CMB dipole.  I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm saying that if you want to challenge FE then you have to back it up with 'non-conspiracy' evidence, as I did - if you feel my assessment of relativity is correct as you suggest, then we must accept that you can not dismiss 'perpetual acceleration of a given frame' based solely on continual velocity addition. That's all I was saying.

True. But it is more scientifically appealing to most, since it does not rely on energy requirements increasing ad infinitum.

Neither does FE. 

The mass of the Earth is increasing? That's new to me. I guess you derived that from the unverified assumption that the Earth is constantly accelerating, which is based on the unverified assumption that the Earth is flat.

Thin ice, Roundy. Wafer thin.

Uh, no.  I derive that from the fact that the earth is constantly being bombarded with extraterrestrial debris, and its mass is thus always increasing.  As I pointed out earlier in the thread.  I didn't pull this out of thin air. 

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

The felt gravitation does not decrease, but the Earth decelerates relative to another FoR.

Quote from: MadDogX on August 12, 2008, 02:58:00 PM

True. But it is more scientifically appealing to most, since it does not rely on energy requirements increasing ad infinitum.

Neither does FE. 

Quote from: MadDogX on August 12, 2008, 03:03:56 PM

The mass of the Earth is increasing? That's new to me. I guess you derived that from the unverified assumption that the Earth is constantly accelerating, which is based on the unverified assumption that the Earth is flat.

Thin ice, Roundy. Wafer thin.

Uh, no.  I derive that from the fact that the earth is constantly being bombarded with extraterrestrial debris, and its mass is thus always increasing.  As I pointed out earlier in the thread.  I didn't pull this out of thin air. 

Sorry, I must have overlooked that. Well, the mass of extraterrestrial debris is pretty miniscule compared to the total mass of the Earth, so the affect it would have on Earths gravity would be similarly small. Come to think of it, even if every single asteroid in the asteroid belt were to impact Earth, the affect would not be too big. Except that we'd all be dead, of course.

We look at any inertial frame of reference that keeps accelerating relative to any other.

Lol@inertial accelerating FoR.

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.

Except we would never notice.  Sucks you did all that work without thinking it through.

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

We look at any inertial frame of reference that keeps accelerating relative to any other.

Lol@inertial accelerating FoR.

If that isn't sigworthy, I don't know what is.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 12, 2008, 07:17:37 PM

Quote from: MadDogX on August 12, 2008, 02:58:00 PM

True. But it is more scientifically appealing to most, since it does not rely on energy requirements increasing ad infinitum.

Neither does FE. 

Quote from: MadDogX on August 12, 2008, 03:03:56 PM

The mass of the Earth is increasing? That's new to me. I guess you derived that from the unverified assumption that the Earth is constantly accelerating, which is based on the unverified assumption that the Earth is flat.

Thin ice, Roundy. Wafer thin.

Uh, no.  I derive that from the fact that the earth is constantly being bombarded with extraterrestrial debris, and its mass is thus always increasing.  As I pointed out earlier in the thread.  I didn't pull this out of thin air. 

Sorry, I must have overlooked that. Well, the mass of extraterrestrial debris is pretty miniscule compared to the total mass of the Earth, so the affect it would have on Earths gravity would be similarly small. Come to think of it, even if every single asteroid in the asteroid belt were to impact Earth, the affect would not be too big. Except that we'd all be dead, of course.

Exactly.  If the earth's gravity is increasing at a rate we can't detect according to RE, it's not so implausible that our acceleration is decreasing at a rate we can't detect in FE, is it?

OK, you said time dilation wasn't good enough, I posted a response saying that when you realise that our own perception of time, acceleration and mass are all relative then you can argue that in principle you could accelerate at a constant rate as measured in your frame forever without violating relativity.

My further point was to say that we need evidence to show why this cannot be the case, such as the CMB dipole.  I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm saying that if you want to challenge FE then you have to back it up with 'non-conspiracy' evidence, as I did - if you feel my assessment of relativity is correct as you suggest, then we must accept that you can not dismiss 'perpetual acceleration of a given frame' based solely on continual velocity addition. That's all I was saying.

The thing is the equation takes into account time differences! Look at it for christ sake! T = our time, t = reference inertial frame. CMB? This is well acounted for. This temperature variation is a simple velocity redshift and blueshift due to motion relative to the inertial frame of CMB. And yes, you could in principle accelerate forever... if you had an infinite foul source.

I'm saying that if you want to challenge FE then you have to back it up with 'non-conspiracy' evidence

General Relativity is non-conspiray evidence. FE cites GR itself.

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

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

The felt gravitation does not decrease, but the Earth decelerates relative to another FoR.

Divito this is just stupid. You've misinterpreted the entire concept. Wether you are FE'er og RE'er. Ask robosteve.

The thing is the equation takes into account time differences! Look at it for christ sake! T = our time, t = reference inertial frame. CMB? This is well acounted for. This temperature variation is a simple velocity redshift and blueshift due to motion relative to the inertial frame of CMB. And yes, you could in principle accelerate forever... if you had an infinite foul source.

Yes, you are correct, I was never implying your maths was wrong or incomplete.  At the end of the day, you can approximate a constantly accelerating frame to be an infinite series of Lorentz boosts and/or rotations (depending on the nature of acceleration) on an inertial frame.  You agree that, given some unknown fuel source for this acceleration, in that frame you will never have any problems applying an additional velocity kick and that is all that I was getting at. True, if the rest of the observable Universe wasn't being boosted along with you, you would see all sorts of horrific aberration effects within a very short space of time, so this further increases the amount of energy required to produce the observed effects. I'm not saying it's plausible, I'm just saying its possible and so should be proved incorrect by observable evidence.  I feel there is sufficient evidence to favour the RE model - so let's get on and present it!!

As for the CMB dipole - I know what it is, that's why I cited it as evidence.  What I said was I wanted to know how the FE guys explain it given that it only makes sense if you can see the 'underside' of the Earth - on a FE you can only see half of the sky (you can't see below the horizon) so the dipole would not look as it does in the RE model, which explains its appearance very nicely.

General Relativity is non-conspiray evidence. FE cites GR itself.

I agree, which is why I don't have any issues discussing relativity on these forums or using it to probe the FE view of the Universe.

EDIT: formatting

It seems I've misunderstood and that we agree on quite a bit. Good!

You agree that, given some unknown fuel source for this acceleration, in that frame you will never have any problems applying an additional velocity kick and that is all that I was getting at.

Agreed. So the question  must be whether or not that kick can stustain constant numerical value. According to GR the answer is no. The object must decrease its rate of acceleration or the object's speed will surpass that of light at some point in time. With constant acceleration its derivative will be a linear function. Linear functions do not alter  their slopes (sorry, but I need to make myself very clear now). Thus the velocity is straight line and when plotted goes to inifinity. So the accelerating inertial frame of reference cannot sustain a constant acceleration. This is indesputable high school math surely you cannot possibly disagree with me. 

General Relativity is non-conspiray evidence. FE cites GR itself.

Wait, what evidence is there in a FE for GR?

Wait, what evidence is there in a FE for GR?

The mechanics of every other massive body in the Universe (except for possibly the Sun and the Moon, depending on your flavour of FE)?

The mechanics of every other massive body in the Universe (except for possibly the Sun and the Moon, depending on your flavour of FE)?

I thought other bodies in the FE universe were little things about 3,000 miles above our heads?

So the question  must be whether or not that kick can stustain constant numerical value. According to GR the answer is no (...) So the accelerating inertial frame of reference cannot sustain a constant acceleration. This is indesputable high school math surely you cannot possibly disagree with me. 

I think our disagreement centres on our definition of time.  To an observer in an external, inertial frame, you are absolutely right in that the observed increase in velocity for a given instantaneous force will seem to decrease since otherwise the FE, rocket, whatever, would continue blasting linearly faster all the way through c, which is impossible. However, to someone in the accelerating frame they would measure that force (with their own Newton-meter, accelerometer, or whatever) to be the same as it was when they started.  If that force was initially measured to be 1g, then there is no reason that the accelerating observer cannot continue to measure that force to be the same forever (since their perception of time becomes ever more warped compared to that of the external observer, to the point where they experience almost no passage of subjective time). 

I appreciate your precision, so I will try to do the same.  Remember that to calculate (or measure) velocity (m/s) or acceleration (m/s²) you need to define what a second is. To take the example you gave of your straight-line function, it is only a straight line if the axes of the graph you plot it on are also linear - it's like plotting y = mx on a logarithmic scale (except in the case of relativity the scale stops at c, with the lines becoming infinitely finely spaced as you approach it) - you see an apparent curve if and only if you're an inertial observer making measurements of someone else accelerating.  As I was saying, it would have to be the whole observable Universe accelerating in one direction uniformally for us not to see the effects of this elsewhere (aberration of light from distant sources being the most obvious effect), so I find this an unpalatable solution which should produce a plethora of evidence against it (and I believe it does).

Does that make sense or do we still not see eye-to-eye on this?

I thought other bodies in the FE universe were little things about 3,000 miles above our heads?

I think it varies from FE'er to FE'er - I've seen people argue both for a 'celestial sphere' or 'celestial plane' in the literal sense as well as a more regular spacetime (but of varying topologies).  GR is completely incompatible with the idea of a fixed celestial sphere or plane without some pretty brutal alterations being made to it (we're talking way worse than a sleight-of-hand cosmological constant here...).

I see your point. But just because one experiences time dilation while undergoing acceleration does not mean that acceleration is the direct cause. If that were the case, then one would experience a constant rate of time dilation under constant acceleration (which you claim to be the case). However, GR says otherwise: the rate of time dilation only stays constant with constant velocity. In other words, time dilation and the constant acceleration do not cancel each other out.

Also, I have thought of another proof of the FET gravitation being wrong. One of the more interesting effects that we will notice as we experience constant acceleration is the event horizon following our trail. From our point of view, this occurs because the acceleration required to keep a constant distance from a fixed point in our frame of reference (for example the floor below your apartment) goes to infinity at a finite distance. If we drag a cord behind the earth, we would find that the cord would be pulled apart just above the event horizon, because the cord does not have the strength to produce the acceleration required to maintain a constant distance from us. Time at the end of this cord would slow until time passed imperceptibly, and light emitted from the cord end would be so severely redshifted that it would appear as low intensity radio waves. To us, objects dropped from the earth appear to come to a stop as they approach the event horizon. The event horizon is therefore a place where time stops and objects go dim; it is a wall of darkness following the earth. Acceleration equal to the average gravitational acceleration at Earth's surface places this wall about 0.3 parsecs behind our travelers. You can see WAY beyond 0.3 parsecs into space. So clearly, the earth is not accelerating.

Also, I do not believe that your post dismisses the fact that 1 kg turns to 220 tons.

Also, I have thought of another proof of the FET gravitation being wrong. One of the more interesting effects that we will notice as we experience constant acceleration is the event horizon following our trail. From our point of view, this occurs because the acceleration required to keep a constant distance from a fixed point in our frame of reference (for example the floor below your apartment) goes to infinity at a finite distance. If we drag a cord behind the earth, we would find that the cord would be pulled apart just above the event horizon, because the cord does not have the strength to produce the acceleration required to maintain a constant distance from us. Time at the end of this cord would slow until time passed imperceptibly, and light emitted from the cord end would be so severely redshifted that it would appear as low intensity radio waves. To us, objects dropped from the earth appear to come to a stop as they approach the event horizon. The event horizon is therefore a place where time stops and objects go dim; it is a wall of darkness following the earth. Acceleration equal to the average gravitational acceleration at Earth's surface places this wall about 0.3 parsecs behind our travelers. You can see WAY beyond 0.3 parsecs into space. So clearly, the earth is not accelerating.

What?

Also, I do not believe that your post dismisses the fact that 1 kg turns to 220 tons.

We would not notice such a thing.

What?

What do you mean what? Read some books on GR then we can start arguing. Argumenting is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition.

Also, I do not believe that your post dismisses the fact that 1 kg turns to 220 tons.

We would not notice such a thing.
[/quote]

Hehe. Yes we would.

Also, I do not believe that your post dismisses the fact that 1 kg turns to 220 tons.

We would not notice such a thing.

Hehe. Yes we would.

First of all, in our frame of reference nothing we can sense would change.  Secondly, if you're going to quote something, then quote it and don't try to pass it off as your own.  Also, in this example the spaceship is traveling faster than the speed of light which is not possible.

http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/specialrelativity/Accelerated.html

Of course, you are right. I apologise. It wont happen again. Nonetheless, the effect would be very noticable indeed to the force that would propel us. That was my point.

Nonetheless, the effect would be very noticable indeed to the force that would propel us.

If your point is that it would take an increasingly large amount of energy to accelerate constantly, then I agree.

If your point is that it would take an increasingly large amount of energy to accelerate constantly, then I agree.

Thanks, I'm glad you do! Maybe I have not made myself clear enough... couldn't have put it better myself than you just did.

So to all FE'ers following this splendid, rational debate, my question still stands: what constitutes the phenomena the propels the acceleration, and more importantly, what fuels it?

The same can be asked of the phenomena of dark energy and the force causing universal expansion theorized by mainstream science.

Also the mechanism for gravitation.

Also the mechanism for gravitation.

Neeman I've had enough of you. Study some basic GR and come back or at the very least start new thread.

The same can be asked of the phenomena of dark energy and the force causing universal expansion theorized by mainstream science.

Indeed. The mechanism can be questioned because it is not known yet, you are quite right. Nonetheless, dark energy has been observed and its existence is unquestionable, whereas the phenomena accelerating the earth is supported by no evidence other than posts on this forum.

whereas the phenomena accelerating the earth is supported by no evidence other than posts on this forum.

Along with the majority of FET.  Regardless, the two ideas are basically the same general concept, only in FET, what is visually apparent to us is all traveling in the same direction.

If I drop a pencil, the earth will accelerate upwards to meet it just as predicted by FET. You can try this experiment yourself.

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 14, 2008, 03:22:18 AM

Also the mechanism for gravitation.

Neeman I've had enough of you. Study some basic GR and come back or at the very least start new thread.

Oh, so you can explain why mass/energy warps space-time?