# Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

• 541 Replies
• 140284 Views

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #90 on: February 08, 2007, 06:49:55 AM »
Acceleration is relative.  No two observers traveling at different speeds will measure acceleration to be the same.

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

?

#### phaseshifter

• 841
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #91 on: February 08, 2007, 07:20:35 AM »
Quote
As far as the source of the force, a nuclear reaction would be what would seem the most plausible to me. We'd be losing mass astronomically, but who's to place a limit on how much we start out with?

Actually, the limit would probably be a bit under the total amount of matter in our universe. But as the required energy output would increase exponentially, even that would not last long (as far as the universe is concerned). If you consider that everything is being accelerated and not just the earth, I doubt we could even interpret the result we got if we got around to finding it out.

But I think we can rule out anti-matter as we are at a loss to find out where the heck it went since the big bang.

Does the UA predate the big bang in FE?
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

?

#### il0vepez

##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #92 on: February 08, 2007, 08:11:38 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
This can be solved by making the Earth a big cylinder, by making it (or the ocean in which it (maybe) floats) infinitely wide, or making it accelerate upwards.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Where do you get the idea that the Earth has infinite mass?

Well, things that have a finite density but an infinite volume have an infinite mass.

You're an ass.

?

#### Rick_James

• The Elder Ones
• 4311
• Rick <3 Gayer
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #93 on: February 08, 2007, 01:37:22 PM »
Quote from: "il0vepez"
Quote from: "Erasmus"
This can be solved by making the Earth a big cylinder, by making it (or the ocean in which it (maybe) floats) infinitely wide, or making it accelerate upwards.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Where do you get the idea that the Earth has infinite mass?

Well, things that have a finite density but an infinite volume have an infinite mass.

You're an ass.

?

#### Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #94 on: February 08, 2007, 05:33:07 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
But as the required energy output would increase exponentially,

Since the required acceleration is constant in the Earth's reference frame, the required energy output is constant in the Earth's reference frame, unless it turns out that some material fuel is being expended to provide thrust for the Earth, in which case the total mass of the system is decreasing, which means that the required energy output is also decreasing.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

#### Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
##### Re: fe and relativity
« Reply #95 on: February 08, 2007, 05:34:26 PM »
Quote from: "Grigori Rasputin"
Yes, this would be the case if everything (universe) around the platform (flat Earth) wasn't accelerating as well. But what if everything around the platform was also accelerating at 9.8m/s2?

Lots of stuff wouldn't be accelerating without the help of the Earth or some celestial body.  This is why we feel a force from the ground.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

#### Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #96 on: February 08, 2007, 05:38:11 PM »
Quote from: "Uzor"
1) you're wrong
2) we're right
3) the earth's speed it constant, its acceleration is not(read: its acceleration is 0).

(1) and (2) are the same thing.  Replace (2) with "the measured acceleration of an object depends on the relative velocity of the observer and the object.

Quote
I think you have no idea what acceleration really means.

Pretty presumptuous, no?

Quote
So for the ball to just suddenly stop dead in its track, it requires a force pushit it the opposite way it was going.

Right... but irrelevant to the subject at hand.  I don't believe that "stopped" is meaningful except relative to another object.  I'm also not claiming at any point that anything stops dead in its tracks.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

#### Quarrior

• 280
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #97 on: February 08, 2007, 06:27:07 PM »
We seem to be sidestepping the evidence which would conclusively disprove this flat earth gravitational substitute. All areas of physics point to the existence of gravity over this ridiculous mystic force created by the acceleration of the flat earth (and somehow the entire universe) upwards. I will provide evidence from a variety of different, and widely accepted theories as well as proven laws to show why gravity exists…I can’t believe I just made that statement.

First of all the theories of special relativity and general relativity both disprove what I will label the flat earth’s “mystic gravity”. General Relativity states that
“…gravitation is not due to a force but rather is a manifestation of curved space and time, with this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the space-time. General relativity is distinguished from other metric theories of gravitation by its use of the Einstein field equations to relate space-time content and space-time curvature…”
General Relativity (GR) is used to bridge Newton’s law of gravitation with special relativity. To visualize this, space-time as a large flat piece of fabric that runs all the way through the universe. This fabric can be bent, curved, whatever you will. This is caused by “mass-energy” and momentum. The simplest example of this is mass, where by a celestial body will actually curve the space-time continuum, creating an indent in the fabric of space-time.

Ok great, space-time can be bent, but what does this mean?
Basically, thinking in Newtonian physics, fallings objects are caused by the force we call gravity, which is true. What Einstein says is that this force is actually just a curvature in space-time resulting from a mass-energy disturbance. Say when we are held to the surface of the earth, it is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration caused by the mechanical resistance of the surface on which they are standing. Whether you find this ridiculous or not, it has some interesting effects on light.

Light, by definition travels in a straight line through space-time. When space-time is bent, light follows the curvature of space-time. This has been proven since 1919 when Sir Arthur Eddington photographed a distant star, the night before and during an eclipse. The position of the star seemed to move during the eclipse, due to the light emitted by that star bending around the curvature caused by the sun. Now, since your “mystic gravity” theory states that all objects are moving at a constant acceleration, you cannot claim that the star naturally changed position because relative to the earth the star would have an inertial velocity of zero.
How is this bending of light not possible, without this concept of gravity, in no way does your mystic gravity account for this

Special Relativity equally disproves the existence of this mystic gravitation. If what you say is true, and the entire universe is accelerating at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s/s upwards then we have some serious issues. Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light. If faster than light travel were possible, we know that it would lead to travel backward through time.

So ok, say that were the case and we were just traveling ever more rapidly backwards through space-time, I mean, who would notice, the mystic force says that everyone would be doing the same thing so no-one would notice?. The same can be said about length, no-one would notice the decrease in the distance being traveled because we are all within the same inertial point of reference.

Fair enough, but what about the ever increasing mass, and therefore the ever increasing energy required to move that mass. Even at .99999999C the mass of an electron (9.109x10^-31kg) or a neutrino or other small sub-atomic particles would have the mass of 4.5x10^-21 so imagine the mass increase for everything else in the universe. To continue to accelerate this mass at a constant speed the force would have to increase ridiculously the further the universe moved away from the source. What kind of force INCREASES in strength continuously the further you move away from it.

I’m getting tired already, so I am going to introduce a final point based on Quantum Mechanics, Unified String Theory for those who understand it and the idea of the universal force. I’ll quickly give some background into the idea. Basically String theory is the theory we currently use to describe the way matter acts on the quantum level. It completes the notions of Quantum Mechanics which has been around for the past 80 years. String theory basically tries to unify Einstein’s Quantum Theory and Quantum Mechanics, since both models of the universe are true but are completely different. Quantum Theory creates a universe which is smooth and ordered, while the universe of quantum mechanics is dysfunctional and random. Both are true for their part. String theory bridges the gap and one such way is by unifying the forces of Gravity, Electro-Magnetism, Weak Nuclear and Strong Nuclear. String theory is very difficult to prove as it requires the existence of more than 12 dimensions but it can be shown to some extent. If you want to research further into String theory, please do so yourself. I will only outline the area which disproves the mystic gravitation.
One area of String theory where proof exists is the in the unification of Gravity and Strong Nuclear.
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/NGFT_Chapter_11.htm
The Strong nuclear force is caused by the interactions between Gluons (sub-atomic particles known as bosons) in the nucleus. Gluons are responsible for the binding of Neutrons and Protons within the nuclei of atoms.
It is now understood that this binding of protons and neutrons in the nucleus is the same force that holds us to the ground. It is however incredibly strong within the nucleus and much weaker on a macro sized scale.
Gravity, known for causing space time compression (see above) happens within the atomic radius of atoms. The actual size of an atom would be much larger if it were not for the effect of gravity. The explanation can be found from the above link but basically we know that gravity is NOT constant, but infact depends on the sub-atomic structure of the material inducing the gravity. This is what allows the strong nuclear and gravity to be unified.
The gravity is determined by the “binding energy per nucleon” which is a result of gluon interaction. Nucleons (protons and neutrons) at the surface of the nucleus are much more weakly bound due to the limited interaction gluons have with the more central nucleons. Note that the strong nuclear – gravity strength is at its strongest (incredibly strong 10^15N) at the distance equivalent to the diameter of a proton/neutron and then gets significantly weaker which explains why gravity is so weak over such vast distances. It also provides more evidence to explain why some materials have a higher refractive index than others.
Also as I said above, atoms experience space time compression, much in the same way the universe does from gravity. This is due again to the “binding energy per nucleon”. Atoms that have all their ground state proton energy levels filled will have the strongest space-time compression and the smallest atomic radius as a result of having their protons and neutrons more tightly bound, also known as the proton “magic” numbers. “Double Magic” atoms are atoms that have all their neutron and proton ground state energy levels filled and have an even tighter pact nucleus and greater space-time compression. Atoms which have more or less protons or neutrons than these magic numbers (the magic number can be found in the above link) have their outer protons less tightly bound and undergo decay, as well as having a much weaker space-time compression.
HOW DOES "MYSTIC GRAVITY EXPLAIN THIS"…I put it to you all…

The above theories are now widely accepted and are all pieces now used by physicists as they try to understand the puzzle which is our universe. Do not claim these theories to be untrue, there is evidence I have provided you with some, if you feel it is insufficient, research it yourself. I don’t want some response saying…these theories are a loud of crap because they are not especially when we are sitting here talking about flat earth theory.
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

?

#### Quarrior

• 280
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #98 on: February 08, 2007, 06:42:35 PM »
Also, how does this Mysitc Gravity explain simple things like tides? We all know that tidal changes are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. but without such a force...why do we have tides?
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

#### EvilToothpaste

• 2461
• The Reverse Engineer
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #99 on: February 08, 2007, 07:23:10 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
If what you say is true, and the entire universe is accelerating at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s/s upwards then we have some serious issues. Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light.

Yes, this is all true relative to some observer not on the Earth, not accelerating, and ignoring the relativistic effects you've been pushing all along.  But what good is that to us here on Earth?

?

#### RenaissanceMan

##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #100 on: February 08, 2007, 07:31:17 PM »
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
If what you say is true, and the entire universe is accelerating at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s/s upwards then we have some serious issues. Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light.

Yes, this is all true relative to some observer not on the Earth, not accelerating, and ignoring the relativistic effects you've been pushing all along.  But what good is that to us here on Earth?

So, there are no observers not on the earth? Every object in the cosmos visible from earth (And there are BILLIONS of them) must be accellerating along with us... if we can see them, they can see us. Galaxies thousands of light years away... freakishly accelerating along with us. And this makes sense to.... who?

?

#### Quarrior

• 280
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #101 on: February 08, 2007, 07:32:43 PM »
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
If what you say is true, and the entire universe is accelerating at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s/s upwards then we have some serious issues. Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light.

Yes, this is all true relative to some observer not on the Earth, not accelerating, and ignoring the relativistic effects you've been pushing all along.  But what good is that to us here on Earth?

Oh my god, moron, I already accommodated for such an response in my post. I just knew someone would say that so i saved them the time. Disprove the other points please...show me evidence that all the theories of man kind and all the factual evidence that have been provided to support them are wrong.
FE theory also goes against the LAWS of themodynamics, how is that possible? The three laws of thermodynamics CAN NOT be disproven. Enthopically, the universe must lose energy, but the FE theory states that it is forever gaining energy...Enrtopically the universe should be moving towards dissorderment...but the FE theory universe is ordered and never changes...how is this possible?
FE theory
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #102 on: February 08, 2007, 07:33:50 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

So, there are no observers not on the earth? Every object in the cosmos visible from earth (And there are BILLIONS of them) must be accellerating along with us... if we can see them, they can see us. Galaxies thousands of light years away... freakishly accelerating along with us. And this makes sense to.... who?

And therefore, they are not inertial observers.

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

?

#### Quarrior

• 280
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #103 on: February 08, 2007, 07:34:20 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
If what you say is true, and the entire universe is accelerating at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s/s upwards then we have some serious issues. Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light.

Yes, this is all true relative to some observer not on the Earth, not accelerating, and ignoring the relativistic effects you've been pushing all along.  But what good is that to us here on Earth?

So, there are no observers not on the earth? Every object in the cosmos visible from earth (And there are BILLIONS of them) must be accellerating along with us... if we can see them, they can see us. Galaxies thousands of light years away... freakishly accelerating along with us. And this makes sense to.... who?

Its the rediculous notion of FE theory my friend, they have no claim, none watsoever only hearsay, everything they say is not possibly provable, but we should all disregard the evidence we have of our current universe, FE theory is clearly more accurate
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #104 on: February 08, 2007, 07:34:26 PM »
Quote
Special Relativity equally disproves the existence of this mystic gravitation.

Does it now?

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

?

#### Quarrior

• 280
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #105 on: February 08, 2007, 07:35:33 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote
Special Relativity equally disproves the existence of this mystic gravitation.

Does it now?

I think its funny that you FE can say "does it now..." all you want but still not disprove what I have written, how does FE theory explain how light bends through space curved by mass, or how the newtonian gravity is present in nucleii?? Thermodynamics, disprove that...i pity the fool
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #106 on: February 08, 2007, 07:38:17 PM »
I did. How does Relativity deny the existence of the graviton?

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

?

#### RenaissanceMan

##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #107 on: February 08, 2007, 07:38:27 PM »

?

#### Quarrior

• 280
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #108 on: February 08, 2007, 07:42:32 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
I did. How does Relativity deny the existence of the graviton?

Ohhh man im tired of this...
I never denied the existance of the gravitron, i said GRAVITATION....read carefully i said special relativity disproves the existance of the "mysitc gravitation" which is what i named the rediculous force that FE theory says is the gravity effect we feel due to the uniformed acceleration of the universe at 9.8m/s/s. READ CAREFULLY
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

?

#### GeoGuy

##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #109 on: February 08, 2007, 07:43:25 PM »
Quote
i said special relativity disproves the existance of the "mysitc gravitation"

Does it?!

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #110 on: February 08, 2007, 07:44:56 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote
i said special relativity disproves the existance of the "mysitc gravitation"

Does it?!

Well said!

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

?

#### Quarrior

• 280
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #111 on: February 08, 2007, 07:45:43 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
We seem to be sidestepping the evidence which would conclusively disprove this flat earth gravitational substitute. All areas of physics point to the existence of gravity over this ridiculous mystic force created by the acceleration of the flat earth (and somehow the entire universe) upwards. I will provide evidence from a variety of different, and widely accepted theories as well as proven laws to show why gravity exists…I can’t believe I just made that statement.

First of all the theories of special relativity and general relativity both disprove what I will label the flat earth’s “mystic gravity”. General Relativity states that
“…gravitation is not due to a force but rather is a manifestation of curved space and time, with this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the space-time. General relativity is distinguished from other metric theories of gravitation by its use of the Einstein field equations to relate space-time content and space-time curvature…”
General Relativity (GR) is used to bridge Newton’s law of gravitation with special relativity. To visualize this, space-time as a large flat piece of fabric that runs all the way through the universe. This fabric can be bent, curved, whatever you will. This is caused by “mass-energy” and momentum. The simplest example of this is mass, where by a celestial body will actually curve the space-time continuum, creating an indent in the fabric of space-time.

Ok great, space-time can be bent, but what does this mean?
Basically, thinking in Newtonian physics, fallings objects are caused by the force we call gravity, which is true. What Einstein says is that this force is actually just a curvature in space-time resulting from a mass-energy disturbance. Say when we are held to the surface of the earth, it is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration caused by the mechanical resistance of the surface on which they are standing. Whether you find this ridiculous or not, it has some interesting effects on light.

Light, by definition travels in a straight line through space-time. When space-time is bent, light follows the curvature of space-time. This has been proven since 1919 when Sir Arthur Eddington photographed a distant star, the night before and during an eclipse. The position of the star seemed to move during the eclipse, due to the light emitted by that star bending around the curvature caused by the sun. Now, since your “mystic gravity” theory states that all objects are moving at a constant acceleration, you cannot claim that the star naturally changed position because relative to the earth the star would have an inertial velocity of zero.
How is this bending of light not possible, without this concept of gravity, in no way does your mystic gravity account for this

Special Relativity equally disproves the existence of this mystic gravitation. If what you say is true, and the entire universe is accelerating at a uniform rate of 9.8m/s/s upwards then we have some serious issues. Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light. If faster than light travel were possible, we know that it would lead to travel backward through time.

So ok, say that were the case and we were just traveling ever more rapidly backwards through space-time, I mean, who would notice, the mystic force says that everyone would be doing the same thing so no-one would notice?. The same can be said about length, no-one would notice the decrease in the distance being traveled because we are all within the same inertial point of reference.

Fair enough, but what about the ever increasing mass, and therefore the ever increasing energy required to move that mass. Even at .99999999C the mass of an electron (9.109x10^-31kg) or a neutrino or other small sub-atomic particles would have the mass of 4.5x10^-21 so imagine the mass increase for everything else in the universe. To continue to accelerate this mass at a constant speed the force would have to increase ridiculously the further the universe moved away from the source. What kind of force INCREASES in strength continuously the further you move away from it.

I’m getting tired already, so I am going to introduce a final point based on Quantum Mechanics, Unified String Theory for those who understand it and the idea of the universal force. I’ll quickly give some background into the idea. Basically String theory is the theory we currently use to describe the way matter acts on the quantum level. It completes the notions of Quantum Mechanics which has been around for the past 80 years. String theory basically tries to unify Einstein’s Quantum Theory and Quantum Mechanics, since both models of the universe are true but are completely different. Quantum Theory creates a universe which is smooth and ordered, while the universe of quantum mechanics is dysfunctional and random. Both are true for their part. String theory bridges the gap and one such way is by unifying the forces of Gravity, Electro-Magnetism, Weak Nuclear and Strong Nuclear. String theory is very difficult to prove as it requires the existence of more than 12 dimensions but it can be shown to some extent. If you want to research further into String theory, please do so yourself. I will only outline the area which disproves the mystic gravitation.
One area of String theory where proof exists is the in the unification of Gravity and Strong Nuclear.
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/NGFT_Chapter_11.htm
The Strong nuclear force is caused by the interactions between Gluons (sub-atomic particles known as bosons) in the nucleus. Gluons are responsible for the binding of Neutrons and Protons within the nuclei of atoms.
It is now understood that this binding of protons and neutrons in the nucleus is the same force that holds us to the ground. It is however incredibly strong within the nucleus and much weaker on a macro sized scale.
Gravity, known for causing space time compression (see above) happens within the atomic radius of atoms. The actual size of an atom would be much larger if it were not for the effect of gravity. The explanation can be found from the above link but basically we know that gravity is NOT constant, but infact depends on the sub-atomic structure of the material inducing the gravity. This is what allows the strong nuclear and gravity to be unified.
The gravity is determined by the “binding energy per nucleon” which is a result of gluon interaction. Nucleons (protons and neutrons) at the surface of the nucleus are much more weakly bound due to the limited interaction gluons have with the more central nucleons. Note that the strong nuclear – gravity strength is at its strongest (incredibly strong 10^15N) at the distance equivalent to the diameter of a proton/neutron and then gets significantly weaker which explains why gravity is so weak over such vast distances. It also provides more evidence to explain why some materials have a higher refractive index than others.
Also as I said above, atoms experience space time compression, much in the same way the universe does from gravity. This is due again to the “binding energy per nucleon”. Atoms that have all their ground state proton energy levels filled will have the strongest space-time compression and the smallest atomic radius as a result of having their protons and neutrons more tightly bound, also known as the proton “magic” numbers. “Double Magic” atoms are atoms that have all their neutron and proton ground state energy levels filled and have an even tighter pact nucleus and greater space-time compression. Atoms which have more or less protons or neutrons than these magic numbers (the magic number can be found in the above link) have their outer protons less tightly bound and undergo decay, as well as having a much weaker space-time compression.
HOW DOES "MYSTIC GRAVITY EXPLAIN THIS"…I put it to you all…

The above theories are now widely accepted and are all pieces now used by physicists as they try to understand the puzzle which is our universe. Do not claim these theories to be untrue, there is evidence I have provided you with some, if you feel it is insufficient, research it yourself. I don’t want some response saying…these theories are a loud of crap because they are not especially when we are sitting here talking about flat earth theory.

I already accommodated for such an response in my post. I just knew someone would say that so i saved them the time. Disprove the other points please...show me evidence that all the theories of man kind and all the factual evidence that have been provided to support them are wrong.
FE theory also goes against the LAWS of themodynamics, how is that possible? The three laws of thermodynamics CAN NOT be disproven. Enthopically, the universe must lose energy, but the FE theory states that it is forever gaining energy...Enrtopically the universe should be moving towards dissorderment...but the FE theory universe is ordered and never changes...how is this possible?

You Flat Earth Theorists have nothing, all u say is "does it" and "well said" cmooon disprove mee
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #112 on: February 08, 2007, 07:48:13 PM »
You do realize that gravity and gravitation are different things right?  Relativity denies gravity, not gravitation.

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

?

#### Quarrior

• 280
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #113 on: February 08, 2007, 07:51:31 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
You do realize that gravity and gravitation are different things right?  Relativity denies gravity, not gravitation.

Oh u totally missed the point... i Said "Mystic Gravitation" it is a Pro-Noun which i gave to your ludicrous FE theory...call it what you want, disprove me

Gravitation - Physics. a. the force of attraction between any two masses. Compare law of gravitation.
b. an act or process caused by this force.

Gravity - 1. the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth.
2. heaviness or weight.
3. gravitation in general.
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #114 on: February 08, 2007, 07:53:37 PM »
You do realize that relativity does not deny the 'mystic gravitation', right?

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

?

#### Quarrior

• 280
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #115 on: February 08, 2007, 07:55:41 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
You do realize that relativity does not deny the 'mystic gravitation', right?

TheEngineer, you do realise that Special Relativity disproves your FE theory of gravity?
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #116 on: February 08, 2007, 07:59:26 PM »
Does it?  Please explain.

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

?

#### GeoGuy

##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #117 on: February 08, 2007, 07:59:51 PM »
No it doesn't.

?

#### Quarrior

• 280
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #118 on: February 08, 2007, 08:01:30 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Ok great, space-time can be bent, but what does this mean?
Basically, thinking in Newtonian physics, fallings objects are caused by the force we call gravity, which is true. What Einstein says is that this force is actually just a curvature in space-time resulting from a mass-energy disturbance. Say when we are held to the surface of the earth, it is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration caused by the mechanical resistance of the surface on which they are standing. Whether you find this ridiculous or not, it has some interesting effects on light.

Light travels in a straight line through space-time. When space-time is bent, light follows the curvature of space-time. This has been proven since 1919 when Sir Arthur Eddington photographed a distant star, the night before and during an eclipse. The position of the star seemed to move during the eclipse, due to the light emitted by that star bending around the curvature caused by the sun. Now, since your “mystic gravity” theory states that all objects are moving at a constant acceleration, you cannot claim that the star naturally changed position because relative to the earth the star would have an inertial velocity of zero.
How is this bending of light not possible, without this concept of gravity, in no way does your mystic gravity account for this

I have already...read the whole post there is loads more evidence in the same post
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

?

#### EnragedPenguin

• The Elder Ones
• 1004
##### Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #119 on: February 08, 2007, 08:09:35 PM »
All right, I guess if I must. I know nothing about this topic, and all I ever manage to do is confuse everyone. But I enjoy it, so...

Quote

Whether you feel that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, or not this is simply physically IMPOSSIBLE. Once again, the most conservative estimates of human existence is about 6000 years, but, lets just to simplify that to 5000 as it’s a nicer number. If we have been accelerating for 5000 years at 9.8m/s/s we would currently have the velocity of 1.5379x10^11 which is much faster than the speed of light. If faster than light travel were possible, we know that it would lead to travel backward through time.

You are absolutely correct that according to special relativity we cannot move faster than the speed of light. The reason for this being that as your speed increases, your relativistic mass increases as well. If you want to keep accelerating at the same rate, you have to keep adding energy. The faster you go, the more energy you have to add. If you do not keep adding energy, your rate of acceleration will decrease. Your mass will keep increasing (and thus your acceleration decreasing) at such a rate that to pass c you would need an infinite amount of energy. (Engineer, stop me if any of this is wrong. This is just my very basic understanding)

Now of course, at this point you're likely to saying to yourself "Aha! The acceleration is decreasing, therefore the acceleration of "gravity" must be decreasing as well! This isn't happening, therefore the theory is false!"
The reason you are saying this of course, is because you didn't pay attention. Had you paid attention you would have noticed I said "relativistic mass". Your mass increase is relative. To someone to whom you are not moving near c relative to, your mass is equal to your rest mass, therefore the energy required to accelerate you hasn't increased.
To someone here on Earth, Earth's speed never increases, therefore Earth's relativistic mass never increases, and therefore the energy required to accelerate Earth never increases. Assuming the "universal accelerator" never runs out, relative to us Earth will accelerate at a constant rate indefinitely without ever approaching c, much less passing it.

P.S Note my liberal use of the word "therefore". I think this word looks important, and I like that; therefore I will be peppering and salting it throughout my posts in the future.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.