Energy.

  • 72 Replies
  • 12638 Views
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Energy.
« Reply #30 on: August 30, 2008, 08:38:09 PM »
Obviously not.


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

?

Iruleuall4

  • 15
  • +0/-0
Re: Energy.
« Reply #31 on: August 30, 2008, 08:39:54 PM »
Global Moderators are so smart!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Energy.
« Reply #32 on: August 30, 2008, 08:40:59 PM »
Global Moderators are so smart!
Well, I can't speak for the others, but I certainly am.


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

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Energy.
« Reply #33 on: August 30, 2008, 08:41:01 PM »
Global Moderators are so smart!

But you aren't.

?

Iruleuall4

  • 15
  • +0/-0
Re: Energy.
« Reply #34 on: August 30, 2008, 08:41:56 PM »

?

fearfulone

  • 27
  • +0/-0
Re: Energy.
« Reply #35 on: August 30, 2008, 08:42:15 PM »
...I was told you were good at physics, too. Good argument, I'll remember that one for my dissertation...


?

Iruleuall4

  • 15
  • +0/-0
Re: Energy.
« Reply #37 on: August 30, 2008, 08:43:56 PM »
Global Moderators are so smart!

But you aren't.
Prove it.

Ok.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=15398;sa=showPosts
If I wanted a link to my recent posts, I would have asked for it; however, I asked for you to prove that I'm not smart. At this point in time, you have failed to do so.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Energy.
« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2008, 08:45:15 PM »
No, I proved it all right. I am sure others will agree.

?

fearfulone

  • 27
  • +0/-0
Re: Energy.
« Reply #39 on: August 30, 2008, 08:45:47 PM »
Erm...in the name of science, could I ask you two to...take it outside? You threatened us with bans for doing the same thing.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Energy.
« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2008, 08:47:15 PM »
What do you call this then?

Please leave moderation to the one's that are actually moderators.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Energy.
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2008, 08:47:42 PM »
Another thing is, if the earth were accelerating, isn't that saying that the first second the Earth existed, it was going 9.8m/s. The second second the Earth would be going 19.6m/s. By this time, the Earth would be going so incredibly fast, it's not even fathomable.
Less than the speed of light is most certainly fathomable.


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

?

fearfulone

  • 27
  • +0/-0
Re: Energy.
« Reply #42 on: August 30, 2008, 08:50:05 PM »
Aaah, sorry. I didn't realize you were a tyrant kind of mod. "These are the rules I don't have to follow," and all that. Go ahead. But remember your SS badge next time, to save confusion.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 08:54:14 PM by fearfulone »

?

fearfulone

  • 27
  • +0/-0
Re: Energy.
« Reply #43 on: August 30, 2008, 08:53:24 PM »
And it's "ones" not "one's". Leave the oppresion to the Grammar Nazis

?

Iruleuall4

  • 15
  • +0/-0
Re: Energy.
« Reply #44 on: August 30, 2008, 08:54:01 PM »
Another thing is, if the earth were accelerating, isn't that saying that the first second the Earth existed, it was going 9.8m/s. The second second the Earth would be going 19.6m/s. By this time, the Earth would be going so incredibly fast, it's not even fathomable.
Less than the speed of light is most certainly fathomable.
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be moving at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.

EDIT: This is assuming that the space the Earth was moving through is a vacuum.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 08:57:32 PM by Iruleuall4 »

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Energy.
« Reply #45 on: August 30, 2008, 08:57:16 PM »
Another thing is, if the earth were accelerating, isn't that saying that the first second the Earth existed, it was going 9.8m/s. The second second the Earth would be going 19.6m/s. By this time, the Earth would be going so incredibly fast, it's not even fathomable.
Less than the speed of light is most certainly fathomable.
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.

EDIT: This is assuming that the space the Earth was moving through is a vacuum.

You haven't taken relativity into effect.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Energy.
« Reply #46 on: August 30, 2008, 08:59:03 PM »
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be moving at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.
High school physics would lead you to believe this.  Fortunately, the earth does not adhere to said physics.


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

?

Iruleuall4

  • 15
  • +0/-0
Re: Energy.
« Reply #47 on: August 30, 2008, 08:59:42 PM »
Another thing is, if the earth were accelerating, isn't that saying that the first second the Earth existed, it was going 9.8m/s. The second second the Earth would be going 19.6m/s. By this time, the Earth would be going so incredibly fast, it's not even fathomable.
Less than the speed of light is most certainly fathomable.
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.

EDIT: This is assuming that the space the Earth was moving through is a vacuum.

You haven't taken relativity into effect.
Even then, would the G-force not be unbearable by the time it reached maximum velocity?

?

Iruleuall4

  • 15
  • +0/-0
Re: Energy.
« Reply #48 on: August 30, 2008, 09:02:09 PM »
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be moving at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.
High school physics would lead you to believe this.  Fortunately, the earth does not adhere to said physics.
How can you prove this?

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Energy.
« Reply #49 on: August 30, 2008, 09:02:21 PM »
Sure it would. We only experience 1g at all times. But we are accelerating with the earth as well. Why would you think that as the earth accelerates at 1g, that we would experience 1g on itself exponentially? I don't feel any heavier than I did an hour ago.

Besides, that doesn't have to do with relativity, which you completely ignored.

?

Iruleuall4

  • 15
  • +0/-0
Re: Energy.
« Reply #50 on: August 30, 2008, 09:05:09 PM »
Sure it would. We only experience 1g at all times. But we are accelerating with the earth as well. Why would you think that as the earth accelerates at 1g, that we would experience 1g on itself exponentially? I don't feel any heavier than I did an hour ago.

Besides, that doesn't have to do with relativity, which you completely ignored.
Anyways.

A semi-off-topic question: What lead you to believe the Earth was flat? When did you start believe the world was flat?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Energy.
« Reply #51 on: August 30, 2008, 09:05:55 PM »
Even then, would the G-force not be unbearable by the time it reached maximum velocity?
Uh, no, the acceleration is constant.


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

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Energy.
« Reply #52 on: August 30, 2008, 09:06:58 PM »
Sure it would. We only experience 1g at all times. But we are accelerating with the earth as well. Why would you think that as the earth accelerates at 1g, that we would experience 1g on itself exponentially? I don't feel any heavier than I did an hour ago.

Besides, that doesn't have to do with relativity, which you completely ignored.
Anyways.

A semi-off-topic question: What lead you to believe the Earth was flat? When did you start believe the world was flat?

Look out your window.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Energy.
« Reply #53 on: August 30, 2008, 09:07:40 PM »
How can you prove this?
See: Special Relativity.


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

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11833
  • +0/-0
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Energy.
« Reply #54 on: August 30, 2008, 09:09:39 PM »
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be moving at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.
High school physics would lead you to believe this.  Fortunately, the earth does not adhere to said physics.

Oh Oh...my favorite topic.

Your number is a little off.  Its about 340 days.  At which point we did exceed the speed of light.  Do we slap high fives now?  Quantum tunneling Its neat.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45131
  • +90/-135
Re: Energy.
« Reply #55 on: August 30, 2008, 09:46:24 PM »
Global Moderators are so smart!
Well, I can't speak for the others, but I certainly am.
And modest too.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • +0/-0
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Energy.
« Reply #56 on: September 01, 2008, 03:34:36 AM »
I understand, by the read FE'ers arguments, that "accelerating" means "mantaining" the velocity of elevation constantly, anyway, I'm gonna talk about the posts in the first page.
Big bang theory is not valid, most of the scientists don't believe the energy of the big bang is ethernal, for them everytime we are expanding slower, 'til a point where we'll stop/break in pieces/or will get all together again, unfortunately there ain't a clear theory about this. So you cannot use the big bang to explain an infinity force of movement, because it was an explosion, and the strength will become weaker with time. So although you are FE'er if you believe in big bang, you have to look for a better explanation.
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Energy.
« Reply #57 on: September 01, 2008, 04:38:49 AM »
I understand, by the read FE'ers arguments, that "accelerating" means "mantaining" the velocity of elevation constantly, anyway, I'm gonna talk about the posts in the first page.
Big bang theory is not valid, most of the scientists don't believe the energy of the big bang is ethernal, for them everytime we are expanding slower, 'til a point where we'll stop/break in pieces/or will get all together again, unfortunately there ain't a clear theory about this. So you cannot use the big bang to explain an infinity force of movement, because it was an explosion, and the strength will become weaker with time. So although you are FE'er if you believe in big bang, you have to look for a better explanation.

I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • +0/-0
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Energy.
« Reply #58 on: September 01, 2008, 05:12:55 PM »
Read the first page, if not, ask me direct questions; will be easier for both of us.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 05:18:07 PM by Kira-SY »
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

?

o0mofo0o

  • 25
  • +0/-0
Re: Energy.
« Reply #59 on: September 01, 2008, 08:29:50 PM »
The energy expelled from the Big Bang, we just haven't run out yet, and probably won't for a long time to come.  And whose to say when it does run out the FE wont flip over and begin accelerating back to its starting point?

Hi this is my first post here. My brother Philip Marfuta is a grad student at Princeton University, you'll be seeing posts from him soon :), and he would tell you otherwise. See, him and his fiancee, Judy M Lau, worked on this thing called the YMAP. What's YMAP you may ask? Well it pretty much mapped the universe by using the background radiation from the Big Bang, albeit the map shows a younger version. Anyways, YMAP also showed, don't ask me how Wiki it or check princeton.org, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate because of dark energy. The reason for this is because the Big Bang was caused by Dark Energy and the gravitational forces caused by matter and dark matter. When the universe was young the univser would expand really slowly, but basically, as the universe expanded the Dark Energy would gain the advantage. Gravity is stronger the more matter there is, so as the matter spread out gravitational forces weakened. This explains the accelerating expansion of the universe. The problem is we don't know what in the world Dark matter is, even worse is that we don't know what Dark Energy is, besides the points i just explained.

My point is, the only reason i would see FE accelerating upwards, is because of Dark Energy pushing it, causing a gravitational effect on us, which could work and not work at the same time its odd.

TL;DR

Dark energy makes the universe expand at an accelerating rate, which could possibly allow FE's acceleration upwards.



Edit fixed quote.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 08:37:47 PM by o0mofo0o »