Qustion to FE'ers

I have a few questions, how do you explain the earths acceleration rate through space?  I know the FAQ says that it is caused by dark energy but that isn't possible because dark matter of dark energy doesn't interact with regular mattter or energy it only imposes gravitational affects.  Dark matter and dark energy comprise 96% of the univers's overall mass.  Since the earth occupies space like all other objects in space it is subject to the same laws of physics, this is true even in a religious sense because if the universe was a created by a single all powerful deity then it would be logical to assume that be would make the entire universe subject to all laws that he set forth, both spiritual and physical.  Btw is there any physicist or astronomer (that has a degree) that publicly has any proof about the theories raised by u guys?  I mean besides the one guy that is spoken of in the FAQ, the ONE guy!  LOL, what a joke.  Einsteins theory of relativity explains how all things are relative especially according to your position,  so I would agree that while standing on a plane that someone would think the earth is flat,  If u were in the middle of the ocean u would then assume that the planet is made entirely of water.

You're going all over the place. What point are you trying to make?

Well I am asking questions based on the FAQ, my point is that in order to have a solid theory you have to cover all the angles with physical evidence not just crap that someone made up, I could just as easily say that the earth is donut shaped and b just as right as tv FEers if I ignore the physical evidence and make up some theories

Drop a ball. In your frame of reference, can you tell whether the ball is accelerating down or the Earth is accelerating up? Since General Relativity states that the ball is not accelerating but you are, the Earth must be accelerating you up. Therefore, it is evident that Universal Acceleration does exist on Earth, which accounts why free-falling objects appear to be accelerating relative to non-inertial observers.

You also can't tell whether the Earth is flat or round in your frame of reference. Since the space photos are faked (see lunar hoax landing), we can safely conclude that the Earth is not round. According to Earth: Not a Globe, Samuel Rowbotham has conducted several experiments disproving the roundness of the Earth. This further strengthens the flat Earth idea.

Drop a ball. In your frame of reference, can you tell whether the ball is accelerating down or the Earth is accelerating up? Since General Relativity states that the ball is not accelerating but you are, the Earth must be accelerating you up. Therefore, it is evident that Universal Acceleration does exist on Earth, which accounts why free-falling objects appear to be accelerating relative to non-inertial observers.

You also can't tell whether the Earth is flat or round in your frame of reference. Since the space photos are faked (see lunar hoax landing), we can safely conclude that the Earth is not round. According to Earth: Not a Globe, Samuel Rowbotham has conducted several experiments disproving the roundness of the Earth. This further strengthens the flat Earth idea.

Umm, you went from not being able to tell if you are accelerating to you are definitely accelerating.

General Relativity does not state that the ball is not accelerating, only that it might not be accelerating. So it is not "evident" that Universal Acceleration is occurring.

However, this Equivalence Principal only applies of you don't change your frame of reference, and only if you are in the same frame of reference as the Observer (the ball or the Earth in this case). As soon as either of this conditions are voided, it becomes possible to tell the difference. Experiments done like this have conclusively proven that the Earth is not accelerating upwards, hence UA is "evidently" (ie based on evidence) not true. We are not Accelerating upwards.

If the Earth is accelerating upwards, then we will soon hurt the moon and the sun! What a nonsense theory.

Umm, you went from not being able to tell if you are accelerating to you are definitely accelerating.

Uh, no. I said, in your FoR, you cannot tell whether the free-falling object is accelerating down or the Earth accelerating up to it.

General Relativity does not state that the ball is not accelerating, only that it might not be accelerating. So it is not "evident" that Universal Acceleration is occurring.

So GR states that free-fall, motion along geodesic, is not an inertial motion?

However, this Equivalence Principal only applies of you don't change your frame of reference, and only if you are in the same frame of reference as the Observer (the ball or the Earth in this case).

My FoR is non-inertial. The ball's FoR is inertial. The ball accelerates relative to me. Sure doesn't seem like the same FoR to me.

As soon as either of this conditions are voided, it becomes possible to tell the difference. Experiments done like this have conclusively proven that the Earth is not accelerating upwards, hence UA is "evidently" (ie based on evidence) not true. We are not Accelerating upwards.

Yes we are. According to GR, the Earth applies an upward force on us, causing us to accelerate upwards. Thus, Newton was wrong, because he assumed we are at rest.

If the Earth is accelerating upwards, then we will soon hurt the moon and the sun! What a nonsense theory.

DE accelerates all objects in the universe at the same rate. We will not crash.

DE accelerates all objects in the universe at the same rate. We will not crash.

Except for the occasional meteor or comet that seems to defy the UA.

Well first of all jack you are confusing general relativity with special relativity, also special relativity states that gravity is not a force but rather an effect of bent space due to the mass of the earth, or anything else in space.  Another thing it is impossible mathematically to accelerate at the same rate because yes u will hit the speed of light which as we know is impossible for anything with mass.  Mathematically the only way to accelerate and infinately approach the speed of light is to reduce your acceleration in half infinately, this completely blows the 9.8m/s^2 universal acceleration constant out of the water.

Drop a ball. In your frame of reference, can you tell whether the ball is accelerating down or the Earth is accelerating up? Since General Relativity states that the ball is not accelerating but you are, the Earth must be accelerating you up. Therefore, it is evident that Universal Acceleration does exist on Earth, which accounts why free-falling objects appear to be accelerating relative to non-inertial observers.

You also can't tell whether the Earth is flat or round in your frame of reference. Since the space photos are faked (see lunar hoax landing), we can safely conclude that the Earth is not round. According to Earth: Not a Globe, Samuel Rowbotham has conducted several experiments disproving the roundness of the Earth. This further strengthens the flat Earth idea.

if i'm reading this right you are saying if i dropped a ball that the ball isn't falling but the earth is actually accelerating up to the ball.  so drop a ball in one hand and a feather in the other, if what you say is correct the earth should accelerate up to them both at the exact same time so they will hit the ground at the exact same time.

Well first of all jack you are confusing general relativity with special relativity, also special relativity states that gravity is not a force but rather an effect of bent space due to the mass of the earth, or anything else in space.

Special Relativity does not deal with gravity, or non-Euclidean geometry for that matter. Educate yourself before making an argument.

Another thing it is impossible mathematically to accelerate at the same rate because yes u will hit the speed of light which as we know is impossible for anything with mass.  Mathematically the only way to accelerate and infinately approach the speed of light is to reduce your acceleration in half infinately, this completely blows the 9.8m/s^2 universal acceleration constant out of the water.

Now you're going in circles. First, relative to a non-inertial observer, two objects can "accelerate" at the same rate as long as drag is neglected. Second, the Earth can accelerate forever and never reach the speed of light.

your right about relativity, I confused myself I apologize, but an object cannot accelerate at the same rare forever without going the speed of light, this simply is not mathematically possible, because a constant acceleration would b a linear progression, the acceleration rate would have to reduce it's value by half indefinately in order to indefinately approach the speed of light, do the math and you will find I'm right, and because of this that would mean that the gravitational constant would have have to b reduced by half indefinately as well

your right about relativity, I confused myself I apologize, but an object cannot accelerate at the same rare forever without going the speed of light, this simply is not mathematically possible,

Let me stop you right there.  It's impossible for an object to accelerate at the same rate forever (it's an absurd concept), so the fact that the earth will never reach the speed of light breaks no rules.

That's my point, the FE theory relies on earth to accelerate at a constant 9.8m/s2 or 1G to simulate gravity, so if the earth is not accelerating atnthe same rate forever it would not have the gravity in the way thAt the FE theory claims

Please forgive the typos, I'm doing this from my iPhone and it is rather difficult to type on this thing

That's my point, the FE theory relies on earth to accelerate at a constant 9.8m/s2 or 1G to simulate gravity, so if the earth is not accelerating atnthe same rate forever it would not have the gravity in the way thAt the FE theory claims

It doesn't have to be accelerating at the same rate forever.  It just has to maintain a constant acceleration.  How much time do you think it would take FE to reach the speed of light, if it's constantly accelerating?

I understand what you r saying but it would still have to accelerate at a constant rate to maintain the gravitational constant there is no other way around it. And it doesn't matter how long it will take because the closer to the speed of light that you approach the amount of energy needed goes up exponentially, eventuaally the energy will become infinate, which is also impossible because there is a finite amount of energy in the universe

I understand what you r saying but it would still have to accelerate at a constant rate to maintain the gravitational constant there is no other way around it. And it doesn't matter how long it will take because the closer to the speed of light that you approach the amount of energy needed goes up exponentially, eventuaally the energy will become infinate, which is also impossible because there is a finite amount of energy in the universe

You say "eventually the energy will become infinite".  After how much time, exactly?

Well at an acceleration of 9.8m/s2 it will take an hour to reach around three quarters of the speed of light, at the point the the effective mass of the earth and the energy requirements would be incalcuable

your right about relativity, I confused myself I apologize, but an object cannot accelerate at the same rare forever without going the speed of light, this simply is not mathematically possible, because a constant acceleration would b a linear progression, the acceleration rate would have to reduce it's value by half indefinately in order to indefinately approach the speed of light, do the math and you will find I'm right, and because of this that would mean that the gravitational constant would have have to b reduced by half indefinately as well

There's no such thing as an absolute frame of reference. Relative to me, the Earth's acceleration remains at 9.8m/s². Relative to an inertial observer in the universe, the Earth's acceleration decreases as it approaches the speed of light asymptote.

This is true, bug relativity was not meant to b taken this way, the speed of light would only b a graphically asymtote if your acceleration was actually decreasing by 50% every second, furthermore the closer you would approach the asymtote the amount of energy required to accelerate would approach infinity

This is true, bug relativity was not meant to b taken this way

Except it was based on special relativity.

the speed of light would only b a graphically asymtote if your acceleration was actually decreasing by 50% every second, furthermore the closer you would approach the asymtote the amount of energy required to accelerate would approach infinity

Relative to an inertial observer in the universe, the Earth's acceleration decreases as it approaches the speed of light asymptote.

As many times as u copy and paste those quotes it doesn't change the fact that it is impossible, I can have an open mind about a disc shaped earth but not a about a planet that is accelerated indefinately through space propelled by dark energy, whenever the existence of dark energy cannot b confirmed because it does not interact with regular matter or energy

I never said there could be infinite energy to accelerate the Earth forever. The Earth would eventually stop accelerating and undergo inertial motion.

you don't have to, the earth has well surpassed the threshold at which it could accelerate, since the earth is around 300 million years old we should b traveling several billion times the speed of light right now, either way this accelerating earth thing is a bunch of crap, gravity is a result of bent space time due to an objects mass, not a result of acceleration

Well at an acceleration of 9.8m/s2 it will take an hour to reach around three quarters of the speed of light, at the point the the effective mass of the earth and the energy requirements would be incalcuable

Okay.  Incalcuable, check (not that we'd notice any difference from here).  How long before it becomes infinite? 

you don't have to, the earth has well surpassed the threshold at which it could accelerate, since the earth is around 300 million years old we should b traveling several billion times the speed of light right now

No, we shouldn't, because relativity prevents such speeds from ever being reached.  We can only get closer and closer to the speed of light.

you don't have to, the earth has well surpassed the threshold at which it could accelerate, since the earth is around 300 million years old we should b traveling several billion times the speed of light right now, either way this accelerating earth thing is a bunch of crap, gravity is a result of bent space time due to an objects mass, not a result of acceleration

You haven't been listening, have you?

According to special relativity, a constant acceleration looks like this:

I have been listening, but it doesn't matter, that's still impossible dipshit, too much energy would b required to attain that speed

I have been listening, but it doesn't matter, that's still impossible dipshit, too much energy would b required to attain that speed

Watch your language. Even RE'ers don't know the universe very well. Dark Energy/Dark Matter could easily supply enough energy.

Quote from: Ultimateskeptic on January 02, 2009, 10:29:30 AM

I have been listening, but it doesn't matter, that's still impossible dipshit, too much energy would b required to attain that speed

Watch your language. Even RE'ers don't know the universe very well. Dark Energy/Dark Matter could easily supply enough energy.

Explain to me how and I'll listen, considering that dark matter and de do not interact with regular matter in any way, this could b why it's called dark matter?  Hmmm or maybe I'm just stupid, you FE people just make wild claims all over the place with no evidence to support it, and tell me to watch my language, I don't live with my parents any more like you ok