"gravity decreasing"

I read the FAQ in which was stated that to never surpass the speed of light the earth was decreasing its acceleration
:In other words, from Bob's perspective, the Earth is always stationary (we are Bob), but undergoing constant acceleration.  From Alice's perspective, the Earth moves at an ever increasing rate, but the acceleration is not constant -- it decreases over time in such a way that the Earth never surpasses the speed of light."
and also
"A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object from accelerating to the speed of light.  Due to this restriction, these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever, and never reach the speed of light.  For an in depth explanation: Click here:"
If earths acceleration is slowing down, wouldnt the gravitational force be decreasing also?

Not in this example.  The acceleration is only slowing relative to an inertial observer, but in the reference frame of the earth acceleration would remain constant.

how can the acceleration of the earth remain constant to us, while to someone outside the earth not so?

The accelerating object and the space around it experiences time dilation and length contraction causing time to slow down and distances to get larger.  The effects are not felt by an observer not in the reference frame of the accelerating object which causes it to appear to be losing acceleration.

But anyway, according to Flat earth theory, we are travelling at, or so very close to, the speed of light.

But anyway, according to Flat earth theory, we are travelling at, or so very close to, the speed of light.

Close to, yes, at, no.

Quote from: user99 on February 25, 2009, 09:15:38 AM

But anyway, according to Flat earth theory, we are travelling at, or so very close to, the speed of light.

Close to, yes, at, no.

Uh huh. How close?

Quote from: Sir_Drainsalot on February 25, 2009, 09:24:45 AM

Quote from: user99 on February 25, 2009, 09:15:38 AM

But anyway, according to Flat earth theory, we are travelling at, or so very close to, the speed of light.

Close to, yes, at, no.

Uh huh. How close?

Im not here to do maths for you.

Quote from: user99 on February 25, 2009, 09:28:31 AM

Quote from: Sir_Drainsalot on February 25, 2009, 09:24:45 AM

Quote from: user99 on February 25, 2009, 09:15:38 AM

But anyway, according to Flat earth theory, we are travelling at, or so very close to, the speed of light.

Close to, yes, at, no.

Uh huh. How close?

Im not here to do maths for you.

Actually, these maths have already been done. The Earth is moving at a velocity of about 108,000km/h around the Sun.

Quote from: user99 on February 25, 2009, 09:28:31 AM

Quote from: Sir_Drainsalot on February 25, 2009, 09:24:45 AM

Quote from: user99 on February 25, 2009, 09:15:38 AM

But anyway, according to Flat earth theory, we are travelling at, or so very close to, the speed of light.

Close to, yes, at, no.

Uh huh. How close?

Im not here to do maths for you.

So you're able to say its near the speed of light, but other than that... nada?

Still keeping that space clear above your fireplace for that Nobel prize?

Uh huh. How close?

We are infinitely far away from the speed of light.

I don't see how you guys can defy 2000 years worth of science. Seriously, didn't you mothers give you enough attention? Is that why you have decided to act like fucking lunatics?

Anyways, as I study science, I ask oh so humbly to enlighten me on following subjects:

-Buoyancy. How would you explain buoyancy, if there is no gravity?

-Dark Matter. It is a scientific fact, that "dark matter" exists. There is also several theories, that indicates, that this dark matter is slowing our ever expanding universe down. I can, however, not see how you explain the presence of dark matter on our planet, as no such thing has been observed.

I am sure you have some great answers for these questions. Anyways, is there anything else that you don't believe in? The standard model? The Big Bang? An ever expanding universe? Electromagnetism? Well, I got news for you retards: SOME PEOPLE ALOT SMARTER THAN YOU, HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THESE THINGS EXIST! I therefore suggest that you stop acting like fucking retards. I also recommend that you go back to Wal-Mart, and that you continue to do your job at isle nr. 5. Seriously, get lost.

Buoyancy. How would you explain buoyancy, if there is no gravity?

Uh, wut?

-Dark Matter. It is a scientific fact, that "dark matter" exists. There is also several theories, that indicates, that this dark matter is slowing our ever expanding universe down.

As far as I know, the expansion of the Universe is speeding up.

On the subject of buoyancy:
A object under water, for example, appears lighter than it is, because the buoyancy is opposite the gravity. And by the way: How would you explain clusters of galaxies without gravity?

And now to the subject of dark matter:
You were right, I made a mistake there. The Universe is indeed speeding up, even though the gravity theoretically, should make it slow down. The factor that causes the universe to speed up, could perhaps be "dark matter". Dark matter is hypothetical matter, however, and there are no proofs that it exists.

On the subject of buoyancy:
A object under water, for example, appears lighter than it is, because the buoyancy is opposite the gravity.

And?

Dark matter is hypothetical matter, however, and there are no proofs that it exists.

It is a scientific fact, that "dark matter" exists.

LOL

Dark matter is hypothetical matter, however, and there are no proofs that it exists.

It is a scientific fact, that "dark matter" exists.

That's quality.

Christ RE, get your story straight. It might be easier to swallow.

Whatever. Like you would be open for any new ideas anyways.

Lets move away from cosmology, a topic that i obviously fuck up, and talk about buoyancy. I would really like for you to explain to me, how that would work without gravity.

The FE is accelerating, thus simulating 'gravity'.

Going upwards, I presume?

Well, lets make a experiment in our heads, then. Lets say that there is no gravity, thus no buoyancy. We then put a ping-pong ball into a glass of water, the balls sinks, and we move this glass upwards really, really fast. Do you think that the ping-pong ball would ascend to the surface?

What?  Bouyancy is not dependent on 'gravity'.

According to the law of Archimedes:
"The apparent loss in weight of a body immersed in a fluid is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid"
Note that the word "weight" is used. Not "mass". Weight is a measure of force, whereas mass is a measure for how heavy an object is. You find a weight by multiplying the mass of the object with the gravitational acceleration - 9,82 m/s^2. The acceleration depends on where you live, though.

On weight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

bouyance is indeed impossible without gravity becuase for something to float it has to be lighter than the water it replaces and to sink heavier than so. with no gravity no weight. if theres no gravity from earth the gravity would have to come from elsewhere, which in turn would be down "below" the earth and for the earth to rise it would have to be lighter than the matter around it, or it will have to have some sort of thrust which uses the law of action/reaction (cant remember the name, propably from newton) and besides giving the universe and up/down term would mean the bottom would be what everything is being pulled towards which would have to contain gravity

Quote from: user99 on February 25, 2009, 09:28:31 AM

Uh huh. How close?

We are infinitely far away from the speed of light.

By which I assume you mean we are infinitely far away from reaching the speed of light. That's not what I asked.

How close is our current speed to that of the speed of light? Is it 40% of the speed of light? 10%? 86%?

According to the law of Archimedes:
"The apparent loss in weight of a body immersed in a fluid is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid"
Note that the word "weight" is used. Not "mass". Weight is a measure of force, whereas mass is a measure for how heavy an object is. You find a weight by multiplying the mass of the object with the gravitational acceleration - 9,82 m/s^2. The acceleration depends on where you live, though.

On weight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

Right.  Like I said, the FE is accelerating.

How close is our current speed to that of the speed of light? Is it 40% of the speed of light? 10%? 86%?

I don't know, probably around 99.999999999999% or so.

Quote from: user99 on February 25, 2009, 12:28:57 PM

How close is our current speed to that of the speed of light? Is it 40% of the speed of light? 10%? 86%?

I don't know, probably around 99.999999999999% or so.

Does anyone know anything around here?

I don't know, probably around 99.999999999999% or so.

Why would you assume that?

bouyance is indeed impossible without gravity becuase for something to float it has to be lighter than the water it replaces and to sink heavier than so. with no gravity no weight. if theres no gravity from earth the gravity would have to come from elsewhere, which in turn would be down "below" the earth and for the earth to rise it would have to be lighter than the matter around it, or it will have to have some sort of thrust which uses the law of action/reaction (cant remember the name, propably from newton) and besides giving the universe and up/down term would mean the bottom would be what everything is being pulled towards which would have to contain gravity

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... oh wait, please stop... I can't breathe... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA.

Ahem.

Sorry, I think I'm OK now.

Phew.

In FE theory, you suppose that Earth is accelerating upwards (thus, if I throw myself out of a building, the Earth will meet me, right?).

Than why the hell would I feel that my body is accelerating? If I wasn't accelerating downwards, I would not feel something. I would only see the Earth coming towards me, without feeling nothing (until I crash on the Earth).

Did I miss something?