A question for the REers.

i'm aware it's something of an old horse, but the unexplained remainder is that all mass would be either be getting lighter, or we would have temporary spells of weightlessness.

The maths involved are consistent with relativity.

NO. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0.

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 14, 2008, 03:08:48 AM

The maths involved are consistent with relativity.

NO. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0.

I see, a link in which your lack of understanding of relativity was explained by FE'ers and RE'ers alike.

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 14, 2008, 03:15:47 AM

NO. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0.

I see, a link in which your lack of understanding of relativity was explained by FE'ers and RE'ers alike.

I think this has since been resolved - anyone else who thinks of saying "Oh FE is stupid because we'd soon be going faster than light" should read that thread first - it covers a lot of ground (and was quite fun to participate in)!  FE might have large inconsistencies with GR and observed cosmological evidence, but let's at least make sure that we don't end up running round in circles over time dilation and relativistic mass.

I still want to know how FE explains the cosmic background radiation dipole - something which only makes sense if you can see 'behind' you (ie - in FE accelerating upwards you would need to be able to see under the plane of the Earth to see the red-shifted CMB radiation).  There is another thread on solar neutrinos which remains unresolved as far as I can tell. Come on FE theorists, get a move on!!

Cosmology is, for me, the single biggest challenge facing FET today. The problem is that the kind of research and work needed will take decades, and probably significant funding.

I think the trick that FE guys will need to employ is that used by many independent researchers, and that is making predictions from their theories regarding experiments which are in the planning stages now.  Research groups will always publish their raw data (if not in the main paper, then on request) so you can use the big facilities to do your own research - you just can't decide what parameters they are run at and so on.

I'd like to see some FE guys write up their predictions properly with respect to upcoming space probes (SNAP and JWST would be two good ones, although they are involved with NASA so I suppose that may invalidate them as candidates by standard FE doctrine), or even predictions about what background noise ground based observatories should see, such as the Allan Array for SETI - big experiment, independently funded, will certainly publish raw data.  Without this sort of effort from the FE theorists, FET is never going to get any scientific credibility.

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 14, 2008, 03:15:47 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 14, 2008, 03:08:48 AM

The maths involved are consistent with relativity.

NO. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0.

I see, a link in which your lack of understanding of relativity was explained by FE'ers and RE'ers alike.

If that is your opinion I suggest you review it a second time.

Cosmology is, for me, the single biggest challenge facing FET today. The problem is that the kind of research and work needed will take decades, and probably significant funding.

Come on now, cartography is at least as big a problem as cosmology for FE.  You guys can't even agree if the FE is an infinite plane or a finite disc.   

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 14, 2008, 04:24:07 AM

Cosmology is, for me, the single biggest challenge facing FET today. The problem is that the kind of research and work needed will take decades, and probably significant funding.

Come on now, cartography is at least as big a problem as cosmology for FE.  You guys can't even agree if the FE is an infinite plane or a finite disc.   

I think Username's theory is certainly interesting, but I remain to be convinced. In any even, the problems facing the IP theory are the exactly same as those facing the UA model- namely, cosmology and mapping.

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 14, 2008, 03:35:58 AM

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 14, 2008, 03:15:47 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 14, 2008, 03:08:48 AM

The maths involved are consistent with relativity.

NO. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22120.0.

I see, a link in which your lack of understanding of relativity was explained by FE'ers and RE'ers alike.

If that is your opinion I suggest you review it a second time.

In what way did you prove it was not consistent with relativity?

You leave me no choice but to repeat myself.

"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.

Your theory on gravity is WRONG."

The formulas are derived by GR. The numbers you ca do yourself. Thus, my proof is consistent with GR. Your next move would be to try and disprove it.

In your own frame of reference, acceleration, force, and mass would be constant.  Use the 4 vector approach if you want to take into account relativistic effects. 

This might be a good read for you:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

The formulas are derived by GR. The numbers you ca do yourself. Thus, my proof is consistent with GR. Your next move would be to try and disprove it.

You don't understand Frames of References. Read Robbyj's link above.

The formulas are derived by GR. The numbers you ca do yourself. Thus, my proof is consistent with GR. Your next move would be to try and disprove it.

As I pointed out to you, your error has already been made clear by RE'ers and FE'ers alike, and the same has now occurred in this thread.

Quote

The formulas are derived by GR. The numbers you ca do yourself. Thus, my proof is consistent with GR. Your next move would be to try and disprove it.

You don't understand Frames of References. Read Robbyj's link above.

It is still somewhat valid becuase to properly solve the equations, they must be frame invariant ie t₀=t

I am abselutely thrilled to see you have joined the discussion Tom Bishop.

I think we are arguing on different sets of axioms on FE.  I assumed the phenomena to be cosmic. That is, I believed you claimed the phenomena to be another principle of nature (like photons or electricity whatever). That way there would be no difference between the phenomena in an inertial frame of reference and our frame of reference. You claim it only "feels" 1 kg as 1 kg regardsless of our velocity. Thus the phenomena only exists in our frame of reference and will have to be some kind of engine stuck the backside of earth that follows our position in space-time throughout the acceleration. If that is the case, you are all correct, the 1 kg would indeed only be 1 kg. But if this is the case, the engine will be of finite size. If it has to propel us forever, it would still require an infinit amount of energy and since and infinit amount of "fuel" cannot be cramped into a definite volume it would run out of fuel one way or another and not be able to sustain the acceleration.

If it has to propel us forever, it would still require an infinit amount of energy and since and infinit amount of "fuel" cannot be cramped into a definite volume it would run out of fuel one way or another and not be able to sustain the acceleration.

Why does the amount of energy have to be infinite?

I have a question for the more experienced members of this site:

As far as my knowledge of Physics extends, the energy that must be put into the Earth to accelerate it is equal to the work done, which is equal to the force applied multiplied by the distance travelled. Since, according to an inertial frame of reference, the force does not change but the velocity is always increasing, surely the power input must be increasing also?

I have a question for the more experienced members of this site:

As far as my knowledge of Physics extends, the energy that must be put into the Earth to accelerate it is equal to the work done, which is equal to the force applied multiplied by the distance travelled. Since, according to an inertial frame of reference, the force does not change but the velocity is always increasing, surely the power input must be increasing also?

That is correct.

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 15, 2008, 04:43:52 AM

If it has to propel us forever, it would still require an infinit amount of energy and since and infinit amount of "fuel" cannot be cramped into a definite volume it would run out of fuel one way or another and not be able to sustain the acceleration.

Why does the amount of energy have to be infinite?

Or the earth would not be able to sustain constant acceleration. I guess your next move is questioning how I can be sure it does not decrease. I know for certain it does indeed not within an accuracy of 5 decimal digits (10^-5*m*s^-2). Next you will say it does not require an infinite amount of fuel then. Regardless, I know for sure the earth has been accelerating with 9.80665+0.00001 m*s^-2 according to FET, for 4.5 billion years and so it would require a source of fuel practically infinite.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 13, 2008, 08:51:03 AM

So you have three separate models.

I can apply relativistic effects to my car but why would I? 

For the lolz of course!  for the LOLZ!

Next you will say it does not require an infinite amount of fuel then. Regardless, I know for sure the earth has been accelerating with 9.80665+0.00001 m*s^-2 according to FET, for 4.5 billion years and so it would require a source of fuel practically infinite.

There is no such thing as practically infinite; it's either infinite or finite. I don't think anyone here can claim they know which is powering the Earth, but there is no evidence that suggests it has to be infinite; the power could run out at any time.

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 15, 2008, 07:06:55 AM

Next you will say it does not require an infinite amount of fuel then. Regardless, I know for sure the earth has been accelerating with 9.80665+0.00001 m*s^-2 according to FET, for 4.5 billion years and so it would require a source of fuel practically infinite.

There is no such thing as practically infinite; it's either infinite or finite. I don't think anyone here can claim they know which is powering the Earth, but there is no evidence that suggests it has to be infinite; the power could run out at any time.

"Unimaginably large" then. I'm tired of splitting hairs you now what I mean.

the power could run out at any time

Can't argue with that lol. You can throw a stone a million times yet you cannot prove it will fall the next time. What does that prove? Still we would be accelerating with 9.80665+0.00001 m*s^-2 according to FET, for 4.5 billion years. The amount of fuel necessary would ridiculously outweigh earth. Also, given a finite amount of fuel, the rate of acceleration would increase as fuel is spent due to a constant force and earth+fuel getting lighter.

The only possibility would be a renewing souce then. Geothermal won't work, as the earth obviously is flat, and that just leaves solar power (wind is just solarpower in the beginning). However, the sun seems to be way to weak in your model. Do explain.

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 15, 2008, 04:43:52 AM

If it has to propel us forever, it would still require an infinit amount of energy and since and infinit amount of "fuel" cannot be cramped into a definite volume it would run out of fuel one way or another and not be able to sustain the acceleration.

Why does the amount of energy have to be infinite?

Some FE models have the FE as an infinite plane of an indeterminate thickness.  An infinite plane with thickness implies infinite mass.  Infinite mass would require infinite energy to accelerate it.

Aye, but E=mc^2 The more mass the more energy is it "worth" what if this UA somehow makes energy out of mass?

I'm on neither side atm.. I believe that the earth is round, but I like to see things from more than one point of view.

Aye, but E=mc^2 The more mass the more energy is it "worth" what if this UA somehow makes energy out of mass?

I'm on neither side atm.. I believe that the earth is round, but I like to see things from more than one point of view.

How big a force would you suggest it would require to accelerate an infinite amount of mass by 9.82 m*s^-2?

Infinitly.. which is extractable from infinite mass

So your saying an infinitely powerful force provides exactly enough thrust to propel an infinitely large and thus infinitely heavy plane by exactly 9.80665 m/s^-2?