Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

  • 541 Replies
  • 181766 Views
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #360 on: May 03, 2008, 05:24:23 PM »
When the speed of light was reached.
How long would that take?

Quote
You don't have a degree in Physics, do you?
I have a degree in...

wait for it...

wait...

ENGINEERING!!!


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

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #361 on: May 03, 2008, 05:26:36 PM »
Engineering is based on some book a guy wrote over a hundred years ago. Physics too.

You can take that rubbish elsewhere.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #362 on: May 03, 2008, 05:27:29 PM »
Engineering is based on some book a guy wrote over a hundred years ago.
Sure is.


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

?

The Great Mighty Poo

  • 88
  • That's me, and the Hydra is my Bitch.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #363 on: May 03, 2008, 05:28:20 PM »
Engineering is based on some book a guy wrote over a hundred years ago. Physics too.

You can take that rubbish elsewhere.

LOL.

Hypocritical statement of the evening, I think.
Possibly too good for his own trousers? Yeah.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #364 on: May 03, 2008, 05:28:42 PM »


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

Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #365 on: May 03, 2008, 05:31:12 PM »
Bah, completely ignored ::)

?

The Great Mighty Poo

  • 88
  • That's me, and the Hydra is my Bitch.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #366 on: May 03, 2008, 05:32:17 PM »
I told you already.

If a body is accelerating uniformly at a rate of 9.8m/s/s, then no Einsteinian mathematics are required to work it out.

approx. 30,000 seconds.

Please explain this "adjustment" that must be made for relativity. There has been much talk of it, but little detail given but slander.
Possibly too good for his own trousers? Yeah.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #367 on: May 03, 2008, 05:33:48 PM »
If a body is accelerating uniformly at a rate of 9.8m/s/s, then no Einsteinian mathematics are required to work it out.
How do you figure that no 'Einsteinian mathematics' are needed?


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

?

The Great Mighty Poo

  • 88
  • That's me, and the Hydra is my Bitch.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #368 on: May 03, 2008, 05:41:10 PM »
Because you simply asked me how long it would take an object to reach 300,000 m/s if it was always accelerating at 9.8m/s/s. That's simple maths, as presumably you insist on the existence of some unknown way of overcoming the increase in mass, and presuming it is in a perfect vacuum.

Of course, this would be relativistic, i.e. timed by a an observer on the accelerating body, in this case, us.

Tell me how I'm wrong.

Do explain.
Possibly too good for his own trousers? Yeah.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #369 on: May 03, 2008, 05:45:17 PM »
Tell me how I'm wrong.
1) Because you think Relativity does not need to be taken into account. 
2) Because it is not 300,000m/s.


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

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #370 on: May 03, 2008, 05:46:41 PM »
Oh, this poor guy. Good luck trying to discount physics Mighty Poo.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

The Great Mighty Poo

  • 88
  • That's me, and the Hydra is my Bitch.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #371 on: May 03, 2008, 05:57:08 PM »
Oh fuck shit it's 300,000,000 m/s

Cock!
Possibly too good for his own trousers? Yeah.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #372 on: May 03, 2008, 05:59:18 PM »
Tell me how I'm wrong.
1) Because you think Relativity does not need to be taken into account. 
2) Because it is not 300,000m/s.


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

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #373 on: May 03, 2008, 06:00:42 PM »
Hey, he's half way there... Should we drop clues for the other half, or just let him research it on his own?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

The Great Mighty Poo

  • 88
  • That's me, and the Hydra is my Bitch.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #374 on: May 03, 2008, 06:01:45 PM »
Tell me how I'm wrong.
1) Because you think Relativity does not need to be taken into account. 

.. For god's sake.

I have already asserted that it does.

However, when you ask how long it will take a body that ALWAYS accelerates at 9.8m/s/s to reach 300,000,000 m/s (my bad) you imply that the increase in mass is negated: when you state that it always accelerates at 9.8m/s

you calculate it, engineer.
taking relativity into account.
Possibly too good for his own trousers? Yeah.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #375 on: May 03, 2008, 06:03:35 PM »
you calculate it, engineer.
taking relativity into account.
Ok.

...
...
...
An infinite amount of time.


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

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #376 on: May 03, 2008, 06:04:27 PM »
Hey, he's half way there... Should we drop clues for the other half, or just let him research it on his own?

Looks like he still doesn't get it. You're welcome to drop more.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

The Great Mighty Poo

  • 88
  • That's me, and the Hydra is my Bitch.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #377 on: May 03, 2008, 06:04:39 PM »
Fuck's sake.

You Fe'ers are just idiots.

you calculate it, engineer.
taking relativity into account.
Ok.

...
...
...
An infinite amount of time.

Possibly too good for his own trousers? Yeah.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #378 on: May 03, 2008, 06:05:33 PM »
Care to show me how I am wrong?



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

?

The Great Mighty Poo

  • 88
  • That's me, and the Hydra is my Bitch.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #379 on: May 03, 2008, 06:06:19 PM »
So the Earth can't be constantly accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s, even when time dilation is taken into account, because that is relativistic.

DDUDuuuduuuuuuuhhH!

Bloody spoons
Possibly too good for his own trousers? Yeah.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #380 on: May 03, 2008, 06:07:19 PM »
The suspense is killing me. I can't wait till he realizes how wrong he is.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #381 on: May 03, 2008, 06:07:26 PM »
It can from our frame of reference.


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

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #382 on: May 03, 2008, 06:11:35 PM »
*Cough* Lorentz....   No, not lozenge, Lorentz...
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #383 on: May 03, 2008, 06:12:28 PM »
Consider if the accelerating earth were in a box, and could not be observed.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #384 on: May 03, 2008, 06:14:35 PM »
So the Earth can't be constantly accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s, even when time dilation is taken into account, because that is relativistic.


That makes no sense.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

The Great Mighty Poo

  • 88
  • That's me, and the Hydra is my Bitch.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #385 on: May 03, 2008, 06:16:51 PM »
So you're saying that there is nothing that can be observed that is not accelerating at this velocity, or at one similar to it?
Possibly too good for his own trousers? Yeah.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #386 on: May 03, 2008, 06:17:37 PM »
So you're saying that there is nothing that can be observed that is not accelerating at this velocity, or at one similar to it?

What we're saying is that prior to the *possibility* of observation, we cannot quantify what happens inside the box.

?

The Great Mighty Poo

  • 88
  • That's me, and the Hydra is my Bitch.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #387 on: May 03, 2008, 06:21:46 PM »
So you're saying that there is nothing that can be observed that is not accelerating at this velocity, or at one similar to it?

What we're saying is that prior to the *possibility* of observation, we cannot quantify what happens inside the box.

narcberry. That's a reference to Schrödinger's cat.

Doesn't work if there isn't a decaying atomic nucleus.

The earth wasn't locked in a state of quantum uncertainty before it was observed, even the question of atomic uncertainty on an atomic level is in doubt.
Possibly too good for his own trousers? Yeah.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #388 on: May 03, 2008, 06:22:37 PM »
Narcberry, don't change the subject.  >:(

While it can be proven that at some time in the past, at least, the earth was flat, due to quantum mechanics, that argument has no place in this thread.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #389 on: May 03, 2008, 06:22:41 PM »
So you're saying that there is nothing that can be observed that is not accelerating at this velocity, or at one similar to it?

What we're saying is that prior to the *possibility* of observation, we cannot quantify what happens inside the box.

narcberry. That's a reference to Schrödinger's cat.

Doesn't work if there isn't a decaying atomic nucleus.

The earth wasn't locked in a state of quantum uncertainty before it was observed, even the question of atomic uncertainty on an atomic level is in doubt.

At what level is observation required? And I assure you, there are many decaying atomic nuclei in Earth.