Additional weight? and other questions :)

So, im thinking, why this constant acceleration of 9.8ms²?
What happens if the earth gains any additional weight and why is it that all objects in the universe are all accelerating upwards at the same weight?
When i say additional weight i do not mean more poeple being born as this would just be recycling the normal weight of the earth. But general gain from outer space, i.e. meteor impacts, outer space particles colliding with particles coming in the opposite direction would slow  us significantly over time.
If the other objects in space exert a gravitational pull on us why do we not accelerate beyond the 9.8ms^-2 depending on seasons due to the sun apparently moving closer and farther away? ANd if the earth is apparently not affected by this gravity how come other parts are such as the water and us, which can all become one with the earth and we would thus be exerting an upwards pressure on the earth.
On the subject of acceleration, why would be accelerating rather than moving at a constant speed?
If we are gaining energy from the sun, how come when we jump we do not exert a downward pressure on the earth, again slowing it down? That is the conservation of momentum for you. The energy we use to exert this downward pressure is not from the earth it is originally from the sun.

Other questions i would like answering are:

 -  How do you explain the big bang? I presume as the earth is different in some way, you are promoting intelligent design?


 - Why is it impossible to see the ice wall with a telescope? If you say the ice wall dissapear on the horizon, why can we not go up in a plane and see the ice wall with a telescope?

 - Why is one of your theories based on discworld by terry pratchett. I.e. the idea of the world balancing on a 4/5 elephants balancing on a turtle?


 - This may seem an obvious question but why is it impossible to fly over the  150 ft wall of ice?


 - How can you explain my personal experience of seeing a shuttle taking off?

 - Why is it possible to see the landing rovers on the moon?

 - Is the universe cylindrical or is it spherical? for example when an interstellar object cruises past the earth is it gone from sight forever?

 - Is the sun not a star? as apaprently all other stars are not spotlights? What about black holes if all stars are spotlights, how are there black holes? or neutron stars or white dwarves or red giants for that matter.

 - How can you define hot and cold light? one from the sun and one from the moon?
Presumably you somehow dont believe in electromagnetic radiation of any other form? or that visible light is somehow different form other electromagnetic radiation.


You dont have to answer all of these questions at once btw
Its just some of your theories sound so ridiculous, but feel free to attempt to brainwash me in the 'right' way.

(im sure ill come up with some more possible flaws later on)

If you can articulate yourself better, and ask questions one at a time, they will be easier to answer. We get a lot of people who ask the same sort of questions, so try to think about which questions you have that may not have been asked before, and spend more time articulating those. Most of what you have asked has been answered many times before, and if you search for it you will find a lot of information. That post is very messy, and I'm sure nobody here is going to read through it the whole way.

ban him 

ban him 

Why? He/she isn't doing anything against the rules.

Pedant alert!!!!


I'd like to say, in partial response to the OP, that the Earth wouldn't actually gain weight, as weight is dependant upon gravity, instead it would gain mass.

Plus constant acceleration would mean that the earth would be getting faster and faster so unknownalias is correct in mentioning that DE is pushing the earth at a constant speed.

I know that's not very helpful in answering any of the questions - sorry!

Plus constant acceleration would mean that the earth would be getting faster and faster so unknownalias is correct in mentioning that DE is pushing the earth at a constant speed.

 

Quote from: TheCat on September 19, 2008, 09:29:09 AM

Plus constant acceleration would mean that the earth would be getting faster and faster so unknownalias is correct in mentioning that DE is pushing the earth at a constant speed.

 

What did I do wrong?

Well yes i apolagised that it is very messy, i have alot of questions all at once. I would hate to topic spam and ask them all in seperate topics.
Takes quite a while to find whether all my questions have been answered before, and i have only just joined, yet i don't think my questions are blatantly obvious and  cant have been asked that many times before. Though im not sure how well known this website it.

I did mean mass when i said weight, as to accelerate more mass it requires more energy and if the energy is a constant input, it will be accelerating a higher mass less. Similarily you could consider the idea that alot of mass is constantly cast into space, evaporation, atmosphere and such. So either the losses and the gains match or, the earth would be increasing or decreasing in acceleration leading to a varying gravity?...

What did I do wrong?

The Earth must be accelerating in conventional FET to explain gravitation.

Well yes i apolagised that it is very messy, i have alot of questions all at once. I would hate to topic spam and ask them all in seperate topics.
Takes quite a while to find whether all my questions have been answered before, and i have only just joined, yet i don't think my questions are blatantly obvious and  cant have been asked that many times before. Though im not sure how well known this website it.

I did mean mass when i said weight, as to accelerate more mass it requires more energy and if the energy is a constant input, it will be accelerating a higher mass less. Similarily you could consider the idea that alot of mass is constantly cast into space, evaporation, atmosphere and such. So either the losses and the gains match or, the earth would be increasing or decreasing in acceleration leading to a varying gravity?...

I don't think the increase in the Earth's mass would be significant compared to its total mass. But yes, we would probably feel very slightly lighter now than people did a few thousand years ago.

I also happened to think about the constant speed idea rather than acceleration, it would have to be acceleration if a person were to accelerate when he is falling. Apparently this is explained by there being no possible way to accelerate to the speed of light.

But thinking sensibly about that, it would not work that way, if the earth was accelerating rather than the person accelerating downwards.

We supposedly know the speed of light and so if this limit is constantly being reset by the speed of the earth how can it be measured.

I can think of vague counter arguaments to what i am saying here, yet maybe someone could explain.

I don't think the increase in the Earth's mass would be significant compared to its total mass. But yes, we would probably feel very slightly lighter now than people did a few thousand years ago.

Yes i suppose even on a round earth my arguament could be applied. As losing mass  will quite likely affect the gravity on our planet. You make  a good point

I also happened to think about the constant speed idea rather than acceleration, it would have to be acceleration if a person were to accelerate when he is falling. Apparently this is explained by there being no possible way to accelerate to the speed of light.

But thinking sensibly about that, it would not work that way, if the earth was accelerating rather than the person accelerating downwards.

We supposedly know the speed of light and so if this limit is constantly being reset by the speed of the earth how can it be measured.

I can think of vague counter arguaments to what i am saying here, yet maybe someone could explain.

Einstein explained. A hundred years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

I also happened to think about the constant speed idea rather than acceleration, it would have to be acceleration if a person were to accelerate when he is falling. Apparently this is explained by there being no possible way to accelerate to the speed of light.

But thinking sensibly about that, it would not work that way, if the earth was accelerating rather than the person accelerating downwards.

We supposedly know the speed of light and so if this limit is constantly being reset by the speed of the earth how can it be measured.

I can think of vague counter arguaments to what i am saying here, yet maybe someone could explain.

Quote

I don't think the increase in the Earth's mass would be significant compared to its total mass. But yes, we would probably feel very slightly lighter now than people did a few thousand years ago.

Yes i suppose even on a round earth my arguament could be applied. As losing mass  will quite likely affect the gravity on our planet. You make  a good point

I had a friend try and postulate this with me once.  It has to be acceleration in our view, meaning the FE must be moving faster each and every day of it's existence.  We saw it like this, if the earth is moving at this rate and that is the only force acting against us, when we jump we are adding speed to ourselves, since we are already traveling at that speed we would not slow down.  We would simply float away, adding speed to our already existing speed.  A couple of people got on and tried to clarify it, but they simply told me to jump up out of my chair and see for myself that I landed back on the ground.  then the whole thing snowballed into a discussion of how gravity works.

So, im thinking, why this constant acceleration of 9.8ms²?
What happens if the earth gains any additional weight and why is it that all objects in the universe are all accelerating upwards at the same weight?
When i say additional weight i do not mean more poeple being born as this would just be recycling the normal weight of the earth. But general gain from outer space, i.e. meteor impacts, outer space particles colliding with particles coming in the opposite direction would slow  us significantly over time.
If the other objects in space exert a gravitational pull on us why do we not accelerate beyond the 9.8ms^-2 depending on seasons due to the sun apparently moving closer and farther away? ANd if the earth is apparently not affected by this gravity how come other parts are such as the water and us, which can all become one with the earth and we would thus be exerting an upwards pressure on the earth.
On the subject of acceleration, why would be accelerating rather than moving at a constant speed?
If we are gaining energy from the sun, how come when we jump we do not exert a downward pressure on the earth, again slowing it down? That is the conservation of momentum for you. The energy we use to exert this downward pressure is not from the earth it is originally from the sun.

Other questions i would like answering are:

• How do you explain the big bang? I presume as the earth is different in some way, you are promoting intelligent design?
  
  
  • Why is it impossible to see the ice wall with a telescope? If you say the ice wall dissapear on the horizon, why can we not go up in a plane and see the ice wall with a telescope?
  
  
  • Why is one of your theories based on discworld by terry pratchett. I.e. the idea of the world balancing on a 4/5 elephants balancing on a turtle?
  
  
  • This may seem an obvious question but why is it impossible to fly over the  150 ft wall of ice?
  
  
  
  • How can you explain my personal experience of seeing a shuttle taking off?
  • Why is it possible to see the landing rovers on the moon?
  • Is the universe cylindrical or is it spherical? for example when an interstellar object cruises past the earth is it gone from sight forever?
  
  
  
  • Is the sun not a star? as apaprently all other stars are not spotlights? What about black holes if all stars are spotlights, how are there black holes? or neutron stars or white dwarves or red giants for that matter.
  • How can you define hot and cold light? one from the sun and one from the moon?
    Presumably you somehow dont believe in electromagnetic radiation of any other form? or that visible light is somehow different form other electromagnetic radiation.
  You dont have to answer all of these questions at once btw
  Its just some of your theories sound so ridiculous, but feel free to attempt to brainwash me in the 'right' way.
  
  (im sure ill come up with some more possible flaws later on)
  ps. i really messed up the bullet points -_-

i blame fast food

I had a friend try and postulate this with me once.  It has to be acceleration in our view, meaning the FE must be moving faster each and every day of it's existence.

Uh, yea, that's the general idea. 

Quote from: C-Ray on September 19, 2008, 10:03:24 AM

I had a friend try and postulate this with me once.  It has to be acceleration in our view, meaning the FE must be moving faster each and every day of it's existence.

Uh, yea, that's the general idea. 

So if it's getting faster each day, how can it be constant at 9.8 ms2 (sorry, can't work out how to get the 2 smaller and up a bit!)?

Acceleration deals with changes in velocity, not constant speed and direction (velocity)

You can't really say "constant acceleration" if you mean it's getting faster and faster all the time - you should, in that case say continuous acceleration. And then, if that is the case you can't quote 9.8ms2 because this figure will get bigger (ooooh! That rhymes!!!)

Well constant acceleration is possible. The rate change of speed is the same. So the speed would look like this:

time : speed
0 : 9.8m/s
1 : 19.6m/s
2 : 29.4m/s
3 : 39.2m/s
4 : 49 m/s

and so on. After a few millenia we'd be going at a fair rate. No wonder I feel queazy.

But FE stuff tells us that we'll be accelerating at a constant 9.8 ms2 which doesn't actually make sense - does it

Quote from: goldstein on September 20, 2008, 01:02:25 PM

Well constant acceleration is possible. The rate change of speed is the same. So the speed would look like this:

time : speed
0 : 9.8m/s
1 : 19.6m/s
2 : 29.4m/s
3 : 39.2m/s
4 : 49 m/s

and so on. After a few millenia we'd be going at a fair rate. No wonder I feel queazy.

But FE stuff tells us that we'll be accelerating at a constant 9.8 ms2 which doesn't actually make sense - does it

Yes, if you understand what's meant by accelerating at a constant rate of 9.8m/s².

It has been observed in FE/RE irrelevant studies that the expansion of the universe is clearly increasing, so it looks like RET's gonna need a UA soon, like wot we have. And where's this Dark Energy shit coming from? You're the only one who mentions it.

I had a feeling that's what you meant, but you keep referring to them separately, and seem to enjoy making shit up.

So if it's getting faster each day, how can it be constant at 9.8 ms2 (sorry, can't work out how to get the 2 smaller and up a bit!)?

Acceleration != velocity.

Acceleration deals with changes in velocity, not constant speed and direction (velocity)

Why not you go ahead and correct your previous statement.

You can't really say "constant acceleration" if you mean it's getting faster and faster all the time - you should, in that case say continuous acceleration. And then, if that is the case you can't quote 9.8ms2 because this figure will get bigger (ooooh! That rhymes!!!)

Again, acceleration != velocity.

Yup, we accelerate at a near constant rate, but can anybody from the FET side say what speed we are going? One way or another, speed does/will have an effect on our planet if it is flat. Most likely crushing it into a ball if anything.

but can anybody from the FET side say what speed we are going?

Somewhere less than the speed of light.

Since it has been accelerating for quite a while and it takes less than a year to pass c using some classical linear equations, I say it's approaching c using Special Relativity, which is ~99%.

That should be easily verifiable.

From a 100m high emmitter tower, fire a beam of light perpendicular to the (assumed) direction of travel. At a reciever tower, 100 meters away, record it's strike position.

If we're travelling at 99% the speed of light then a 100m high emitter tower will result in the strike being recorded about 1m off the ground.

(Cool this must mean I can see over tall buildings! I rock!)

If you can't distinguish your frame of reference from the Earth's, you need to stop refuting.

Question: Only using classroom equipment, try to repeat this experiment in your own time. Can the conclusion be verified? If not then what does this tell us about the assumed speed of the observer made in the experiment. (40 min)

All you need is a pen and a stop watch. Drop it and record the Earth's acceleration and velocity under your frame of reference.

No that's not enough. We're talking about measuring our speed as relative to the speed of light.

Yeah, in which frame of reference?

Can you stand 100m away from a 100m building and look straight ahead and see the people at the top of the building?

Yes, in my frame of reference.

In the observers frame of reference.

Which observer?

Eh? You're talking out of your hind quarters man.

Right, how far is 100 meters again?

can anybody from the FET side say what speed we are going?

No.

Yes.

Oh, you know exactly how long it's been since the Earth was created?

Y'see what I'm doing here. Why do I need to argue with you when I can pitch you against each other?

1. It's "pit."
2. There's nothing really wrong about what he said, but we still can't get the speed.

Quote from: divito the truthist on September 21, 2008, 05:17:21 AM

Quote from: MessiahOfFire on September 21, 2008, 01:20:42 AM

can anybody from the FET side say what speed we are going?

No.

Yes:...

Quote from: E.Jack on September 21, 2008, 03:43:23 AM

Since it has been accelerating for quite a while and it takes less than a year to pass c using some classical linear equations, I say it's approaching c using Special Relativity, which is ~99%.

I said nothing about the current speed of the FE.

About 300 feet. Step it out. Take your time.

**Done**

What's your point?