Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

How does one navigate a ball of lightning without direct control and direct visual?

Was tesla in a plane with a remote control?  Because if he was, he wouldn't have needed any size information on the Earth.


Also:
What does this have to do with the topic?

There is another thread for this, where you will not find an answer to anything, but at least you will be able to restart this thread.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56216.0.html

I'm proud sad to say I read through this whole thread. Only to have it derailed at the end.

There has been a lot of talk about frames of reference in this thread. The FE'ers insist that in "our" FOR we can accelerate at 9.8 m/s/s for as long as we like. They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.

Something that was brought up, but not given enough consideration, is the energy required to accelerate the FE. And this is where the FET of acceleration breaks down. FE theorists say that from their FOR, they do not need infinite amounts of energy to continually accelerate. In fact, they do need infinite amounts of energy, even in their own FOR, to continually accelerate.

Consider this analogy, oft used, but here for a different purpose: A rocket takes off and accelerates at 9.8 m/s/s. For this analogy, we don't care about who is observing whom, how long it takes to get to c, or any of the other problems posed in this forum. We are concerned with the fuel (energy) aboard the rocket. The rocket must either carry all the energy it will use, or collect it from the space around it. If it carries the energy, it must have a finite amount, no matter how large an amount it begins with. This infers that it will, at some point in the future (probably soon, but we can't be sure) run out of energy. When that happens it will cease to accelerate and will continue at a constant velocity until acted upon by another force. Everyone observing this rocket will notice this; both the people aboard and an inertial observer.

Let's consider the other hand. We assume the rocket collects its energy from the space around it. In this case, we find that to continually accelerate, we must continually input energy. If at any time we stop collecting energy, we cease accelerating. Thus, we must collect an infinite amount of energy to maintain the acceleration. Again, this is observed by everyone watching. The rate of collecting energy changes from observer to observer, but the fact that we need infinite energy is the same for all FOR.

So this model really depends on whether there exists some method to harness infinite amounts of energy. Because there is no evidence that a FE is either using stored energy nor is it collecting energy, it seems to me that it would be very difficult for us to be continually accelerating. That fact that we don't know what powers the UA isn't a viable response, for we should be able to detect something that would tell us energy is being used or collected. Absent this evidence, I would have to conclude the generally accepted view of gravity fits the available data much better and is the best current description of our universe. It follows from that, the best description of our earth is that it is round, not flat.

There has been a lot of talk about frames of reference in this thread. The FE'ers insist that in "our" FOR we can accelerate at 9.8 m/s/s for as long as we like. They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.

Something that was brought up, but not given enough consideration, is the energy required to accelerate the FE. And this is where the FET of acceleration breaks down. FE theorists say that from their FOR, they do not need infinite amounts of energy to continually accelerate. In fact, they do need infinite amounts of energy, even in their own FOR, to continually accelerate.

Only if it were accelerating for an infinite amount of time.

Quote from: FlatulencE Theory on November 29, 2012, 09:31:49 AM

There has been a lot of talk about frames of reference in this thread. The FE'ers insist that in "our" FOR we can accelerate at 9.8 m/s/s for as long as we like. They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.

Something that was brought up, but not given enough consideration, is the energy required to accelerate the FE. And this is where the FET of acceleration breaks down. FE theorists say that from their FOR, they do not need infinite amounts of energy to continually accelerate. In fact, they do need infinite amounts of energy, even in their own FOR, to continually accelerate.

Only if it were accelerating for an infinite amount of time.

Until such time as you claim the earth has ceased acceleration, we can safely consider constant acceleration as acceleration for an infinite amount of time. Since you have used this acceleration to describe a force that is always non-zero, and is required for life (at the very least, all life would float off the FE without it), you are assuming it will always accelerate. You must consider it to accelerate for an infinite amount of time, else it has no meaning.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 29, 2012, 06:39:22 PM

Quote from: FlatulencE Theory on November 29, 2012, 09:31:49 AM

There has been a lot of talk about frames of reference in this thread. The FE'ers insist that in "our" FOR we can accelerate at 9.8 m/s/s for as long as we like. They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.

Something that was brought up, but not given enough consideration, is the energy required to accelerate the FE. And this is where the FET of acceleration breaks down. FE theorists say that from their FOR, they do not need infinite amounts of energy to continually accelerate. In fact, they do need infinite amounts of energy, even in their own FOR, to continually accelerate.

Only if it were accelerating for an infinite amount of time.

Until such time as you claim the earth has ceased acceleration, we can safely consider constant acceleration as acceleration for an infinite amount of time. Since you have used this acceleration to describe a force that is always non-zero, and is required for life (at the very least, all life would float off the FE without it), you are assuming it will always accelerate. You must consider it to accelerate for an infinite amount of time, else it has no meaning.

Why?  That we observe it accelerating at this rate now does not mean that it always accelerated at this rate, or that it always will.  It could be slowing down, just very slowly.  Or, it may indeed be accelerating constantly at the same rate, and perhaps even indefinitely (though I seriously doubt it), due to some force we don't understand, perhaps one that like the magical gravity doesn't require energy for its indefinite (for all intents and purposes) accelerations to occur.

We really don't know.  Perhaps future research will give us an answer.  But all we can zetetically conclude is that at this time, the Earth is being constantly accelerated at a rate of approximately 9.8 m/s².  Frankly I'm not sure we can even conclude that with any certainty, and I have had my doubts that the Earth is anything but a stationary plane.  But it really doesn't matter, because even if the Earth did keep accelerating at the same rate forever, it would never actually reach the speed of light.

They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.

No, it would not decelerate even to an outside observer. Where are you getting this from?

In fact, they do need infinite amounts of energy, even in their own FOR, to continually accelerate.

One would need infinite amounts of energy to accelerate an infinite amount of time yes. Why would you assume that the earth will accelerate for an infinite amount of time?

That fact that we don't know what powers the UA isn't a viable response, for we should be able to detect something that would tell us energy is being used or collected.

Well, that's asinine. We detect acceleration, ergo energy is being used or collected. Dark Energy in the Orthodox Cosmology comprises the greater portion of the calculated universe, and not a single scientist has the slightest hint of what it actually is. It is inferred.

Quote from: FlatulencE Theory on November 29, 2012, 09:31:49 AM

They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.

No, it would not decelerate even to an outside observer. Where are you getting this from?

This entire thread. Multiple FE believers have stated this.

Quote

In fact, they do need infinite amounts of energy, even in their own FOR, to continually accelerate.

One would need infinite amounts of energy to accelerate an infinite amount of time yes. Why would you assume that the earth will accelerate for an infinite amount of time?

My above answer remains. The gravity/acceleration FE claims is necessary for life. Therefore, the FE would have been accelerating for as long as the earth is currently old. For your model to make sense, you must assume infinite acceleration. Another way to look at it is that to say 'constantly accelerating' (and more so to say the entire universe accelerates along with the earth) is to say infinite acceleration. You can say we haven't observed that yet, since we haven't been her for an infinite amount of time, but that's really just a cop out to excuse the problem with your model.

If the entire universe is accelerating with the FE, you've made constant acceleration a law, upon which the entire universe is dependent. Everything you observe then, is dependent on the acceleration existing. It'd be rather short sited to claim that everything might, at some point in the future, cease to be how we observe it; don't you think? You have to then claim the entire universe might, at some point in the future, cease to exist to get around infinite time and energy. I suppose FET is free to do so, but it is a special pleading fallacy if so.

Quote

That fact that we don't know what powers the UA isn't a viable response, for we should be able to detect something that would tell us energy is being used or collected.

Well, that's asinine. We detect acceleration, ergo energy is being used or collected. Dark Energy in the Orthodox Cosmology comprises the greater portion of the calculated universe, and not a single scientist has the slightest hint of what it actually is. It is inferred.

Can you conclusively say you're detecting acceleration, though? Here's the thing: gravity and acceleration are, at times, indistinguishable. What FE believers typically say is, "gravity doesn't exist, therefore acceleration does." However, no one would say acceleration doesn't exist, there for gravity does. The fact that you make acceleration the only viable option does not mean you are detecting acceleration. 

Every other (than those caused by gravity, which you dismiss anyway) acceleration we detect has a detectable energy source. And, more accurately, it is because of the consumption of the energy that we know there is acceleration.

This is an important point: Throughout this thread it has been said that in the FOR of someone on the FE acceleration really isn't noticeable. But, they say, if we were to drop a golf ball over the side of the FE we'd see t the acceleration. Until such time that this experiment is conducted, you have no real measurement that you are accelerating. You might, just as easily, be being held down by a force above the FE. Thus, when you jump, you are pushed back to the FE.

Because we can calculate this downward force on us is 9.8 m/s/s, the same rate FET detects acceleration, FET can't actually say we are detecting acceleration. Its just one way of looking at the forces at work. Until you can either show an energy source being used or collected to power the acceleration, or drop a golf ball off the edge, you can't be sure you're accelerating.

My above answer remains. The gravity/acceleration FE claims is necessary for life. Therefore, the FE would have been accelerating for as long as the earth is currently old. For your model to make sense, you must assume infinite acceleration.

Can you kindly explain how the part in blue necessarily implies the part in red?  All I can confidently assume at this time is that you don't understand the nature of infinity.

Another way to look at it is that to say 'constantly accelerating' (and more so to say the entire universe accelerates along with the earth) is to say infinite acceleration.

No, that doesn't help.

You can say we haven't observed that yet, since we haven't been her for an infinite amount of time, but that's really just a cop out to excuse the problem with your model.

Just show me where there's a problem with the model.

If the entire universe is accelerating with the FE, you've made constant acceleration a law, upon which the entire universe is dependent. Everything you observe then, is dependent on the acceleration existing. It'd be rather short sited to claim that everything might, at some point in the future, cease to be how we observe it; don't you think?

Would it?  So I assume you believe (from a RE perspective) that the Earth will be orbiting the sun forever?

You have to then claim the entire universe might, at some point in the future, cease to exist to get around infinite time and energy. I suppose FET is free to do so, but it is a special pleading fallacy if so.

Again, it appears that you just don't understand the concept of infinity.  You do realize that we will never get there, no matter how long the Earth continues to accelerate, right?

I'll also reiterate my point from above.  We've only been measuring the acceleration of the Earth for a finite amount of time, and we've had the instruments to truly measure it accurately for even less time.  Just because it's accelerating at approx 9.8 m/s² now doesn't mean it was always accelerating at that rate or will continue accelerating at that rate forever.  Also, (again to reiterate) gravity doesn't require energy for its endless accelerations to occur so I think it's rather special pleading for you to insist that UA must.

I'll also reiterate my point from above.  We've only been measuring the acceleration of the Earth for a finite amount of time, and we've had the instruments to truly measure it accurately for even less time.  Just because it's accelerating at approx 9.8 m/s² now doesn't mean it was always accelerating at that rate or will continue accelerating at that rate forever.  Also, (again to reiterate) gravity doesn't require energy for its endless accelerations to occur so I think it's rather special pleading for you to insist that UA must.

Actually, gravity does require energy. I was hoping you would mention this. Before I inferred that the consumption of energy as it relates to gravity is not detectable, which is only partially true. Gravity is proportional to mass. Every object with mass experiences the force of gravity. The size of the mass determines the amount of the force, which is why a ping pong ball has a negligible effect on a mustard seed. We know from E=MC² that mass is energy. Therefore, the energy powering gravity is the mass of the objects themselves. To detect gravity's effects we use the amount of mass of two objects.

Compare that to constant acceleration due to the UA. You can only measure the effect of the UA. Which I have shown may not even be acceleration. It could just as easily be a downward force pushing on us as acceleration upwards.

Until you can show some evidence of energy being used, regardless of whether we understand the energy source, you can't even say we are accelerating constantly at 9.8m/s/s. Thus, it is special pleading to put forth the model of CA due to UA without any idea how it happens or measurable results that can be duplicated. Its like you are riding in a space ship and can't see outside to observe the rocket engines or whatever, can't go into the engine room to observe the fuel tanks, but claim you are accelerating, don't know how or by what energy source.

RET explains all of this. FET has to keep inventing things it can't observe or explain. CA is an interesting theory, it just doesn't match up.

Actually, gravity does require energy. I was hoping you would mention this. Before I inferred that the consumption of energy as it relates to gravity is not detectable, which is only partially true. Gravity is proportional to mass. Every object with mass experiences the force of gravity. The size of the mass determines the amount of the force, which is why a ping pong ball has a negligible effect on a mustard seed. We know from E=MC² that mass is energy. Therefore, the energy powering gravity is the mass of the objects themselves. To detect gravity's effects we use the amount of mass of two objects.

Well then problem solved.  It could very well be that much like the magical force of gravity UA is powered by the mass of the Earth itself.

Just out of curiosity, in RET when the Earth is constantly accelerating toward the sun in its orbit, how much mass (energy) is depleted as a direct result of the acceleration?  Let's say, per year.  Am I losing mass right now due to the Earth's exertion of gravity on me (or my exertion of gravity on the Earth and the things around me)?  Does a lead ball weigh less a year after it's formed due to its constantly depleting mass (energy) from the force of gravity?  You've gotten me all inquisitive.

No. You're mistaking the consumption of energy with the effect of gravity on mass. I rather think you understand this, but are just making a point.

Mass is a measure of energy in a different form. Gravity is proportional to the mass of an object. In this way gravity can be measured. Energy would not be actually released until the objects collide. On large scales, yes they then lose mass as a result of the collision as a result of the gravity. On smaller scales, the same thing may happen (I am not versed enough to know if tiny, tiny amounts of matter are lost when you fall on your face. I don't think it's out of the question that this does happen on the molecular level). However, energy lost or consumed due to gravity does not require said energy to be in the form of mass.

Well then problem solved.  It could very well be that much like the magical force of gravity UA is powered by the mass of the Earth itself.

No. Gravity is a force with respect to two or more objects with mass. It is not powered by the mass of the earth alone. If you are making this argument, there should be a really, really massive object somewhere in the path of the FE (above our heads) attracting the earth to itself. Have you observed such an object?

See, we (RE proponents) understand this "magical" force of gravity enough to predict how it works and its effects on objects. We might not know why it works; that's another topic. FET doesn't understand the UA, can't predict how it works, nor measure its effect on objects (see my above argument for why it could be a downward force and not even acceleration).

If the FE is constantly accelerating, please provide a prediction that can be verifiable (either now or in the future). That is, if this is true, what would we experience that proves it? So far, FET's constant acceleration theory due to UA is full of holes FET has trouble explaining.

 

No. You're mistaking the consumption of energy with the effect of gravity on mass. I rather think you understand this, but are just making a point.

Mass is a measure of energy in a different form. Gravity is proportional to the mass of an object. In this way gravity can be measured. Energy would not be actually released until the objects collide. On large scales, yes they then lose mass as a result of the collision as a result of the gravity. On smaller scales, the same thing may happen (I am not versed enough to know if tiny, tiny amounts of matter are lost when you fall on your face. I don't think it's out of the question that this does happen on the molecular level). However, energy lost or consumed due to gravity does not require said energy to be in the form of mass.

Quote

Well then problem solved.  It could very well be that much like the magical force of gravity UA is powered by the mass of the Earth itself.

No. Gravity is a force with respect to two or more objects with mass. It is not powered by the mass of the earth alone. If you are making this argument, there should be a really, really massive object somewhere in the path of the FE (above our heads) attracting the earth to itself. Have you observed such an object?

See, we (RE proponents) understand this "magical" force of gravity enough to predict how it works and its effects on objects. We might not know why it works; that's another topic. FET doesn't understand the UA, can't predict how it works, nor measure its effect on objects (see my above argument for why it could be a downward force and not even acceleration).

If the FE is constantly accelerating, please provide a prediction that can be verifiable (either now or in the future). That is, if this is true, what would we experience that proves it? So far, FET's constant acceleration theory due to UA is full of holes FET has trouble explaining.

Don't forget special relativity!!

Mass and energy are equivalent. Gravity will 'act' on either in the same way.

Also Gravity is not a force in general relativity.

Quote from: FlatulencE Theory on December 05, 2012, 08:30:12 AM

No. You're mistaking the consumption of energy with the effect of gravity on mass. I rather think you understand this, but are just making a point.

Mass is a measure of energy in a different form. Gravity is proportional to the mass of an object. In this way gravity can be measured. Energy would not be actually released until the objects collide. On large scales, yes they then lose mass as a result of the collision as a result of the gravity. On smaller scales, the same thing may happen (I am not versed enough to know if tiny, tiny amounts of matter are lost when you fall on your face. I don't think it's out of the question that this does happen on the molecular level). However, energy lost or consumed due to gravity does not require said energy to be in the form of mass.

Quote

Well then problem solved.  It could very well be that much like the magical force of gravity UA is powered by the mass of the Earth itself.

No. Gravity is a force with respect to two or more objects with mass. It is not powered by the mass of the earth alone. If you are making this argument, there should be a really, really massive object somewhere in the path of the FE (above our heads) attracting the earth to itself. Have you observed such an object?

See, we (RE proponents) understand this "magical" force of gravity enough to predict how it works and its effects on objects. We might not know why it works; that's another topic. FET doesn't understand the UA, can't predict how it works, nor measure its effect on objects (see my above argument for why it could be a downward force and not even acceleration).

If the FE is constantly accelerating, please provide a prediction that can be verifiable (either now or in the future). That is, if this is true, what would we experience that proves it? So far, FET's constant acceleration theory due to UA is full of holes FET has trouble explaining.

Don't forget special relativity!!

Mass and energy are equivalent. Gravity will 'act' on either in the same way.

Also Gravity is not a force in general relativity.

Yes, I understand. the point I was trying to make to him is that we wouldn't see a loss in mass because of gravity moving objects like we would see a consumption of energy in other accelerations.

And yes, gravity is not a force per se, but it can be useful to use those words we understand the best while debating.

Quote from: Ski on November 30, 2012, 10:26:43 PM

Quote from: FlatulencE Theory on November 29, 2012, 09:31:49 AM

They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.

No, it would not decelerate even to an outside observer. Where are you getting this from?

This entire thread. Multiple FE believers have stated this.

Where?   

For your model to make sense, you must assume infinite acceleration.

Well, that's nonsense. Who knows at what rate if any the earth has been accelerating in the past or will in the future?

This is an important point: Throughout this thread it has been said that in the FOR of someone on the FE acceleration really isn't noticeable.

Uhm, it's very noticeable.   

Quote from: FlatulencE Theory on December 03, 2012, 08:39:47 AM

Quote from: Ski on November 30, 2012, 10:26:43 PM

Quote from: FlatulencE Theory on November 29, 2012, 09:31:49 AM

They say that to an inertial observer the flat earth would accelerate for a while, then as it approached c, it would begin to decelerate, thus never reaching c.

No, it would not decelerate even to an outside observer. Where are you getting this from?

This entire thread. Multiple FE believers have stated this.

Where?   

Quote

For your model to make sense, you must assume infinite acceleration.

Well, that's nonsense. Who knows at what rate if any the earth has been accelerating in the past or will in the future?

Quote

This is an important point: Throughout this thread it has been said that in the FOR of someone on the FE acceleration really isn't noticeable.

Uhm, it's very noticeable. 

This war has already been waged and it pinpoints one of the perrenial features of flat earth "theory": deny anything that contradicts FE, even if it is an integral component of a theory and would render the whole theory falsified, yet keep the theory (or the parts of it) that back up or are neutral on the question of FE vs RE.

Ski(et al)'s  "frame of reference" theory (which he has yet to put in a coherent form) is wholly different from the theory prepounded in GR. Yeah, I admit it borrows some conecpts to make it sound plausible, but I doubt it has a quadrillioth the efficacy, evidence and beauty that GR has.

Ski(et al)'s  "frame of reference" theory (which he has yet to put in a coherent form) is wholly different from the theory prepounded in GR.

Probably because it is not my "frame of reference" theory, and it is nearly universally accepted by even Scientific Orthodoxy. 
It is also completely different from the theory "prepounded" in GR, because GR has nothing to do with the concepts being discussed. It is, on the otherhand, completely and wholly consistent with SR, which is what we are discussing.

Yeah, I admit it borrows some conecpts to make it sound plausible, but I doubt it has a quadrillioth the efficacy, evidence and beauty that GR has.

Again, we aren't discussing the failings of GR at the moment. We are discussing the properties of SR. If you don't understand even the appellations denominating the subject, I am not surprised that you are having difficulty following the conversation.

Quote from: burt on December 05, 2012, 07:33:29 PM

Ski(et al)'s  "frame of reference" theory (which he has yet to put in a coherent form) is wholly different from the theory prepounded in GR.

Probably because it is not my "frame of reference" theory, and it is nearly universally accepted by even Scientific Orthodoxy. 
It is also completely different from the theory "prepounded" in GR, because GR has nothing to do with the concepts being discussed. It is, on the otherhand, completely and wholly consistent with SR, which is what we are discussing.

Quote

Yeah, I admit it borrows some conecpts to make it sound plausible, but I doubt it has a quadrillioth the efficacy, evidence and beauty that GR has.

Again, we aren't discussing the failings of GR at the moment. We are discussing the properties of SR. If you don't understand even the appellations denominating the subject, I am not surprised that you are having difficulty following the conversation.

I am afraid that you'll find, in any discussion of acceleration, GR is the theory you should be talking about. Intertial frames of reference are abstracted so that they are all in constant interial motion. to swap between intertial frames of refernce and non-intertial frames of reference in a theoretical arguement that is meant to applied to a real world scenario is a dubious practice at best.

I'm afraid you'll find you have no idea what you're talking about. We're discussing SR in this context. The only person swapping coordinate systems is the RE'ers desperate to find the earth breaking the speed of light.

I'm afraid you'll find you have no idea what you're talking about. We're discussing SR in this context.

thereby missaplying it.

 The only person swapping coordinate systems is the RE'ers desperate to find the earth breaking the speed of light.
[/quote]

A flat earther has to say that the earth is both accelerating and not accelerating, to make the flat earth plausible. the reason that SR cannot cover this, is because it only deals in inertial frames of reference. but when you bring in GR it clearly states that an non-intertial fram of reference is acclerating no matter what. so therefore the Flatearth is accelerating, no matter wether you are on it, or looking at it from outside its coordinate system.

so is it acclerating or isn't it?

if it is not, how do we stay on the ground?

if it is, how do you account foe the mass increase, (and that we cannot feel it) does the UA increase its accelerative force in tandem with it, and if so by what mechanism does this happen?

This is an important point: Throughout this thread it has been said that in the FOR of someone on the FE acceleration really isn't noticeable.

Uhm, it's very noticeable. 
[/quote]

So you can notice the difference between accelerating upward and a downward force holding you to a FE? By what means?  Can you observe energy consumption that validates your constant acceleration?

To restate my question, and to state burt's questions differently, how do you know you're accelerating?

A flat earther has to say that the earth is both accelerating and not accelerating, to make the flat earth plausible.

No. It is always accelerating.

if it is, how do you account foe the mass increase, (and that we cannot feel it) does the UA increase its accelerative force in tandem with it, and if so by what mechanism does this happen?

Why would we feel a mass increase?    Our speed relative to the speed of light is zero. 

*And again, I don't think you've shown you have any clue what the differences between GR and SR are. It's small wonder you are having difficulty.

Quote

Quote

This is an important point: Throughout this thread it has been said that in the FOR of someone on the FE acceleration really isn't noticeable.

Uhm, it's very noticeable. 

To restate my question, and to state burt's questions differently, how do you know you're accelerating?

Feel free to place an accelerometer on the ground, if you don't believe yourself to be accelerating. Compare this data to the accelerometer in free fall.

Ski is correct. When one is stationary on the Earths surface an accelerometer will read 9.81 ms^-2. You can think of this by imagining your self in a box with no windows. On Earths surface you will feel your weight on your feet on the floor. If the box then accelerates into space you will feel heaver as the rocket accelerates upwards. As the rocket stops accelerating in space you will become weightless (much of this discussion one is familiar with from theme park rides). Heres the rub. If the rocket in space then accelerates at 9.81 ms^-2 you will feel EXACTLY as you would at rest on Earths surface. Hence one can not tell the difference between being at rest in a gravitational field and being in an accelerating frame of reference. That in a paragraph is general relativity for ten year olds and is called the equivalence principle. Well actually is not general relativity it's simply a statement of gravity's gauge symmetry.

So is the Earth accelerating upwards. Well, assuming that at some point it was stationary relative to some initial inertial reference frame. We apply a force in that frame which accelerates the Earth 'upwards'. Relative to the inertial reference frame in which we started the Earth will now appear more massive this is called the relativistic mass. The relativistic mass is the product of the starting mass of the Earth (presumeably what we measure as it's rest-mass) multiplied by the Lorentz factor. This is a number which increase without bound as a massive object accelerates close to the speed of light. However assuming it has been accelerating at this speed since the start of recorded human history the mass of the Earth as seen from it's initial frame is probably greater than the mass of the observable universe in regular physics. Actually this is a gross over simplification obviously the Earth is not gaining matter but the true reason is buried in the difference between Minkowski space and velocity has a hyperbolic space but that's another story.

Are there other solutions? The situation could be more classical it could simply be an applied pressure like pushing your finger on a table. This doesn't explain the variations in gravity over the Earths surface at different locations and altitudes, but then neither does the previous explanation. Its rather hard to explain torsion balance experiments without invoking gravitation.

Quote from: burt on December 05, 2012, 09:39:51 PM

A flat earther has to say that the earth is both accelerating and not accelerating, to make the flat earth plausible.

No. It is always accelerating.

Quote

if it is, how do you account foe the mass increase, (and that we cannot feel it) does the UA increase its accelerative force in tandem with it, and if so by what mechanism does this happen?

Why would we feel a mass increase?    Our speed relative to the speed of light is zero. 

It is not speed that determines Mass.

The reason Light can travel at  C is because it has no intrinisic mass, which is exactly why things with mass cannot reach C.

Quote from: Ski on December 06, 2012, 10:28:43 AM

Quote

if it is, how do you account foe the mass increase, (and that we cannot feel it) does the UA increase its accelerative force in tandem with it, and if so by what mechanism does this happen?

Why would we feel a mass increase?    Our speed relative to the speed of light is zero. 

It is not speed that determines Mass.

Uhm, no.   Many objects have mass without any relative velocity at all.   

Quote from: burt on December 06, 2012, 11:52:03 PM

Quote from: Ski on December 06, 2012, 10:28:43 AM

Quote

if it is, how do you account foe the mass increase, (and that we cannot feel it) does the UA increase its accelerative force in tandem with it, and if so by what mechanism does this happen?

Why would we feel a mass increase?    Our speed relative to the speed of light is zero. 

It is not speed that determines Mass.

Uhm, no.   Many objects have mass without any relative velocity at all.   

Your point is?

I'm trying to figure out why you think I'd disagree with your statement. Or why you think we would "feel" a mass increase.

So is the Earth accelerating upwards. Well, assuming that at some point it was stationary relative to some initial inertial reference frame. We apply a force in that frame which accelerates the Earth 'upwards'. Relative to the inertial reference frame in which we started the Earth will now appear more massive this is called the relativistic mass. The relativistic mass is the product of the starting mass of the Earth (presumeably what we measure as it's rest-mass) multiplied by the Lorentz factor. This is a number which increase without bound as a massive object accelerates close to the speed of light. However assuming it has been accelerating at this speed since the start of recorded human history the mass of the Earth as seen from it's initial frame is probably greater than the mass of the observable universe in regular physics. Actually this is a gross over simplification obviously the Earth is not gaining matter but the true reason is buried in the difference between Minkowski space and velocity has a hyperbolic space but that's another story.

This was my point. FE has to make certain assumptions that cannot be verified to claim the earth is constantly accelerating. RE'ers can look out our spacecraft's "window" and see that we are not accelerating upwards in reference to an inertial observer. FE says that everything in the universe is accelerating, thus the whole universe is their spacecraft. It follows then that FE can not say we are accelerating upwards at a constant velocity because an equally plausible solution to 9.8m/s/s is gravity. The refuse to look out their window to decide which is happening to us on the earth.

Bowler, correct me if I'm wrong, but theoretically we also wouldn't be able to tell the difference between gravity, acceleration, or a downward force acting in our FOR at a rate of 9.8m/s/s. My point here is that in the individual FOR (our spaceship with no windows) we wouldn't be able to ascertain which of the three of these "forces" is acting on us. The FE'ers in the thread have made a huge deal of our FOR, so wouldn't it be just as reasonable to invoke a mysterious downward force as a constant upward acceleration? 

I think I can see where the confusion has crept in.  In our frame of reference we do not experience an increase in mass as we are accelerating with the earth.  The really wired stuff in the fe idea comes from the point of view of anyone in a non-accelerating frame.

@flatulance - probably yes, FET relies upon us having no window as it were (as well as most of modern physics being bunkum). if you going to go FE it seems more logical to me for us to be pushed down. But this is all so poorly constructed its actually surprisingly hard to make a sensible statement. in some ways you just swap the problem to one above us and you still need  normal reaction from the earth and so the meaningless ramblings continue really.