Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

  • 541 Replies
  • 181757 Views
Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #120 on: February 08, 2007, 08:17:03 PM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
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.


Once again, I already know this, simple simple simple relativity. I just added that little bit in for some rediculous facts. However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and forever increasing and we would of course be going back in time. So the energy the universal accelerator needs would be is incredible and would be continiously increasing rapidly, beyond imagiantion, unless the accelerator itself were traveling...somehow without a force. This still doesn't disprove all my other evidence which clearly shows how FE theory is false.
...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 #121 on: February 08, 2007, 08:23:13 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #122 on: February 08, 2007, 08:31:37 PM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.


No you havn't been paying attention. Since the entire universe is moving uniformly, the only inertial frame of reference is the accelerator. Now if Earth's rate of acceleration were continiously decreasing eventually we would have an acceleration of zero...which would cause the universe to go into free fall. If the universe then began to accelerate again we would feel the inertia from the change in velocity. How long then before, relative to the accelerator, the universe begins to have a negative acceleration, because once the force from the accelerator ceases, there will be a moment of inertia felt in the universe and then acceleration will cease, again leading to free fall...
...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 #123 on: February 08, 2007, 08:35:49 PM »
Wrong-o. The only inertial reference frame is something not accelerating. Like the pen I just dropped.

?

RenaissanceMan

Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #124 on: February 08, 2007, 08:36:51 PM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.


Are you sure? Anyone who could SEE Earth would be an inertial observer. In the realm of relativity.... if you can see a thing, you can measure a thing. If you can measure a thing's velocity... you are an inertial observer.

There are trillions of objects observable from earth. Stars, Galaxies, freaky gas balls. You name it, if we can see them, they can see us.

ALL of these objects are 'Inertial observers' in relation to us because they have a point of reference from which to measure our velocity.

Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #125 on: February 08, 2007, 08:37:14 PM »
with a negative acceleration we would have totally different gravitational effect also, even moving uniformly it would be easy for someone to jump and notice the difference due to the persons acceleration relative to the rest of the universe.
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3793
  • We are as one.
Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #126 on: February 08, 2007, 08:37:53 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.


Are you sure? Anyone who could SEE Earth would be an inertial observer.


Hence why he said ON.

Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #127 on: February 08, 2007, 08:38:54 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.


Are you sure? Anyone who could SEE Earth would be an inertial observer. In the realm of relativity.... if you can see a thing, you can measure a thing. If you can measure a thing's velocity... you are an inertial observer.

There are trillions of objects observable from earth. Stars, Galaxies, freaky gas balls. You name it, if we can see them, they can see us.

ALL of these objects are 'Inertial observers' in relation to us because they have a point of reference from which to measure our velocity.

Wrong, see thats NOT an interial observer, an inertial observer cannot
a) be accelerating at the same rate as the thing its observing or
b) be observing itself

These points are outlined by Newton himself...see thats where i think a lot of confusion is coming from...people dont know what an interial observer it. Anything within the FE theory universe cannot be an initial observer as they are uniformely accelerating
...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 #128 on: February 08, 2007, 08:40:37 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Since the entire universe is moving uniformly, the only inertial frame of reference is the accelerator.


This statement is obviously false. This is easily demonstrated by...dropping something. It "falls", therefore it is obviously not accelerating along with Earth.

Quote
Now if Earth's rate of acceleration were continuously decreasing eventually we would have an acceleration of zero.


First off, Earth's acceleration is only decreasing relative to an inertial observer, and we don't really care what an inertial observer thinks.
Second, the acceleration would never reach 0. Earth would constantly accelerate, with it's speed constantly approaching (yet never reaching) c, and it's rate of acceleration constantly approaching (yet never reaching) 0. (this is assuming the energy accelerating Earth remains constant)
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #129 on: February 08, 2007, 08:46:58 PM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Since the entire universe is moving uniformly, the only inertial frame of reference is the accelerator.


This statement is obviously false. This is easily demonstrated by...dropping something. It "falls", therefore it is obviously not accelerating along with Earth.

Quote
Now if Earth's rate of acceleration were continuously decreasing eventually we would have an acceleration of zero.


First off, Earth's acceleration is only decreasing relative to an inertial observer, and we don't really care what an inertial observer thinks.
Second, the acceleration would never reach 0. Earth would constantly accelerate, with it's speed constantly approaching (yet never reaching) c, and it's rate of acceleration constantly approaching (yet never reaching) 0.


Exactly, but it would be easy for an observer to see that the earths gravitation pull is not 9.8m/s/s if it is not continiously increasing at such a rate. as soon as the Earth accelerates at less than 9.8m/s/s all someone would have to do is jump and feel the effects. Remember everything in the universe is accelerating but any change in acceleration, by a car, a bird anything, would be able to provide us with an inertial frame of reference. Mass/time/length can be negated because they are travelling so fast neway a slight change wont matter. It would easily be detectable by objects moving within the universe that the acceleration was not uniformed if it was not constantly 9.8m/s/s.

Quote
First off, Earth's acceleration is only decreasing relative to an inertial observer, and we don't really care what an inertial observer thinks.


lol unbelievable, what they see is what matters
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #130 on: February 08, 2007, 08:51:21 PM »
People still havn't disproved me yet, you simply can't u can argue all u like about special relativity all you want, its the weakest point i put forth, but still noone has been able to disprove Quantum Mechanics or general relativity, thermodynamics etc etc
...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 #131 on: February 08, 2007, 08:53:35 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Exactly, but it would be easy for an observer to see that the earths gravitation pull is not 9.8m/s/s if it is not continiously increasing at such a rate.


It's only not 9.8m/s^2 relative to them though. To someone to whom Earth is not nearing near c (such as us) the acceleration is constant.

Quote
It would easily be detectable by objects moving within the universe that the acceleration was not uniformed if it was not constantly 9.8m/s/s.


Again, this is only to an inertial observer. The acceleration is constant from the FoR of someone to whom Earth is not approaching c.

Quote
lol unbelievable, what they see is what matters


Only to them. What they see is not any more accurate than what we see. We do not care what they see. What they see has no bearing on what we see.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #132 on: February 08, 2007, 08:59:13 PM »
Acceleration is RELATIVE!!


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

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3793
  • We are as one.
Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #133 on: February 08, 2007, 08:59:40 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Acceleration is RELATIVE!!


As are my relatives.

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #134 on: February 08, 2007, 08:59:41 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
People still havn't disproved me yet, you simply can't u can argue all u like about special relativity all you want, its the weakest point i put forth, but still noone has been able to disprove Quantum Mechanics or general relativity, thermodynamics etc etc


We don't particularly care about GR. We admit that it might very well apply to objects other than Earth, but Earth itself does not generate a gravitational field, and therefore is not subject to GR.
I didn't attempt to disprove your argument about Quantum Mechanics because I know absolutely nothing about Quantum Mechanics. I'm leaving that up to one of the smart people.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #135 on: February 08, 2007, 09:02:21 PM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Exactly, but it would be easy for an observer to see that the earths gravitation pull is not 9.8m/s/s if it is not continiously increasing at such a rate.


It's only not 9.8m/s^2 relative to them though. To someone to whom Earth is not nearing near c (such as us) the acceleration is constant.

Quote
It would easily be detectable by objects moving within the universe that the acceleration was not uniformed if it was not constantly 9.8m/s/s.


Again, this is only to an inertial observer. The acceleration is constant from the FoR of someone to whom Earth is not approaching c.

Quote
lol unbelievable, what they see is what matters


Only to them. What they see is not any more accurate than what we see. We do not care what they see. What they see has no bearing on what we see.


No see, it doesn't matter what speed we are at, FoR are the same at light speesd as they are at 1m/s. Ok so everyone in the universe is just existing, we have no idea at what speed we are travelling. However we MUST continue to accelerate at 9.8m/s/s to keep gravity normal. eventually we would have been accelerating for so long that we will approach c? This is obvious. Now we have one of two options...the universe can slow down as NOT TO PASS THE SPEED OF LIGHT, which is fine, but the negative acceleration would be noticable by anyone on earth as a weakening of the pulling force toward the ground. Our second option is to defy Einstein and travel faster than the speed of light, which is possible for photons as its been proven...However. to continue accelerating we would relative to the accelerator, be gaining mass which means this universal accelerator would need infinite energy to accommodate for the increase in mass which it observed. Ok great so we can defy Einstein with a bit of imagination...what about the other points i put forward, lets see u disprove those with some imagination. I seem to be the only Spherical Earth supporter here but none of u can disprove me?
...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 #136 on: February 08, 2007, 09:06:30 PM »
Velocity does not add linearly in relativity.  An object undergoing constant acceleration will approach the speed of light asymptotically, never reaching it.  To someone in an inertial frame, the acceleration is decreasing, but the velocity is still increasing.  

Velocity adds like this:

w=u*v/(1+u*v/c^2)  

Now, keep adding 9.81 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.


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

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #137 on: February 08, 2007, 09:06:40 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Ok so everyone in the universe is just existing, we have no idea at what speed we are travelling. However we MUST continue to accelerate at 9.8m/s/s to keep gravity normal. eventually we would have been accelerating for so long that we will approach c?


Nope. The Earth never moves faster than 0m/s from our frame of reference (unless we jump in the air), even though we can tell it's accelerating. Just like sitting in a car going around a corner. You can tell the car is accelerating by the fact that you are pushed into the wall, even though it never moves faster than 0m/s relative to you.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #138 on: February 08, 2007, 09:08:57 PM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
People still havn't disproved me yet, you simply can't u can argue all u like about special relativity all you want, its the weakest point i put forth, but still noone has been able to disprove Quantum Mechanics or general relativity, thermodynamics etc etc


We don't particularly care about GR. We admit that it might very well apply to objects other than Earth, but Earth itself does not generate a gravitational field, and therefore is not subject to GR.
I didn't attempt to disprove your argument about Quantum Mechanics because I know absolutely nothing about Quantum Mechanics. I'm leaving that up to one of the smart people.


Ohhh Idiot, GR applies on Earth as well, what about clocks slowing down at points of higher gravity. We know the gravity of the Earth is not uniformed, you can go stand in Kakadu National Australiapark above the Uranium deposits and measure acceleration higher than the average force due to gravity. This causes atomic clocks to run slower above points of higher gravitational pull due to a more intense bending of space time at these points
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

?

RenaissanceMan

Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #139 on: February 08, 2007, 09:09:37 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.


Are you sure? Anyone who could SEE Earth would be an inertial observer. In the realm of relativity.... if you can see a thing, you can measure a thing. If you can measure a thing's velocity... you are an inertial observer.

There are trillions of objects observable from earth. Stars, Galaxies, freaky gas balls. You name it, if we can see them, they can see us.

ALL of these objects are 'Inertial observers' in relation to us because they have a point of reference from which to measure our velocity.

Wrong, see thats NOT an interial observer, an inertial observer cannot
a) be accelerating at the same rate as the thing its observing or
b) be observing itself

These points are outlined by Newton himself...see thats where i think a lot of confusion is coming from...people dont know what an interial observer it. Anything within the FE theory universe cannot be an initial observer as they are uniformely accelerating


No... I don't think so. An Inertial Observer is within the inertial frame of the observed. Anything else would be completely stupid! What... you think think that an inertial observer cannot see the observed since it cannot be in the same inertial frame? Not!

If you can see a thing... you can measure a thing. If you can measure a thing, you are an inertial observer of that thing.

If you are in a freakish accelerating universe... (Like the FE one) and you can measure your acceleration in relation to another body... then you are an inertial observer to that object.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #140 on: February 08, 2007, 09:11:35 PM »
An inertial observer is an observer that is at rest with respect to an inertial reference frame. In the context of relativity, an inertial reference frame is one that drifts in gravity-free space without undergoing rotation or being accelerated.


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

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #141 on: February 08, 2007, 09:13:11 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Ohhh Idiot, GR applies on Earth as well, what about clocks slowing down at points of higher gravity. We know the gravity of the Earth is not uniformed, you can go stand in Kakadu National Australiapark above the Uranium deposits and measure acceleration higher than the average force due to gravity. This causes atomic clocks to run slower above points of higher gravitational pull due to a more intense bending of space time at these points


I have never noticed any slowing down of clocks when I move denser material, therefore I am not particularly inclined to believe you that this happens.

Anyhoo, I'm off to bed. Night all. Don't have too much fun Engineer.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #142 on: February 08, 2007, 09:13:18 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Velocity does not add linearly in relativity.  An object undergoing constant acceleration will approach the speed of light asymptotically, never reaching it.  To someone in an inertial frame, the acceleration is decreasing, but the velocity is still increasing.  

Velocity adds like this:

w=u*v/(1+u*v/c^2)  

Now, keep adding 9.81 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.


Well done sherlock holmes, im aware of this, so we are going to follow Einsteins relativity model then...so we can say that still relative to our accelerator...the mass is increasing, as it goes further away so...im just curious...how does this accelerator work. It defies all laws of physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed...but for something to have infinite energy, as this accelerator must have...it pretty much must just be god right?
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #143 on: February 08, 2007, 09:14:07 PM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Ohhh Idiot, GR applies on Earth as well, what about clocks slowing down at points of higher gravity. We know the gravity of the Earth is not uniformed, you can go stand in Kakadu National Australiapark above the Uranium deposits and measure acceleration higher than the average force due to gravity. This causes atomic clocks to run slower above points of higher gravitational pull due to a more intense bending of space time at these points


I have never noticed any slowing down of clocks when I move denser material, therefore I am not particularly inclined to believe you that this happens.

Anyhoo, I'm off to bed. Night all. Don't have too much fun Engineer.


lol because u dont know anything, u need an atomic clock to see it, I assume u have one of those at home
...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 #144 on: February 08, 2007, 09:17:26 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"

Well done sherlock holmes, im aware of this

You sure of that?
Quote
the universe can slow down as NOT TO PASS THE SPEED OF LIGHT, which is fine, but the negative acceleration would be noticable by anyone on earth as a weakening of the pulling force toward the ground.


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

Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #145 on: February 08, 2007, 09:22:09 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
However it is incredible that the energy can continuously increase, because relative to the accelerator the mass would be insanely large and we would of course be going back in time.


You haven't been paying attention. The energy is not continuously increasing, which is why an inertial observer (i.e someone not on Earth) sees Earth's rate of acceleration continuously decreasing.


Are you sure? Anyone who could SEE Earth would be an inertial observer. In the realm of relativity.... if you can see a thing, you can measure a thing. If you can measure a thing's velocity... you are an inertial observer.

There are trillions of objects observable from earth. Stars, Galaxies, freaky gas balls. You name it, if we can see them, they can see us.

ALL of these objects are 'Inertial observers' in relation to us because they have a point of reference from which to measure our velocity.

Wrong, see thats NOT an interial observer, an inertial observer cannot
a) be accelerating at the same rate as the thing its observing or
b) be observing itself

These points are outlined by Newton himself...see thats where i think a lot of confusion is coming from...people dont know what an interial observer it. Anything within the FE theory universe cannot be an initial observer as they are uniformely accelerating


No... I don't think so. An Inertial Observer is within the inertial frame of the observed. Anything else would be completely stupid! What... you think think that an inertial observer cannot see the observed since it cannot be in the same inertial frame? Not!

If you can see a thing... you can measure a thing. If you can measure a thing, you are an inertial observer of that thing.

If you are in a freakish accelerating universe... (Like the FE one) and you can measure your acceleration in relation to another body... then you are an inertial observer to that object.


My god you FE people...check what an Inertial frame of reference is...you dont know...THIS IS NOT WHAT AN INTERIAL FRAME OF REFERENCE IS...It must not be accelerating at the same rate as what it is observing. Ok 2 rocket ships flying side by side both with acceleration zero. How can velocity be determined as they would both be traveling side by side, unaware of their, or each others velocity/acceleration. However..if they both looked at a stationary star, they could calculate their velocity based on the distance to that star/time/how far they travel. If one rocket is moving slower than the other rocket, u cans et one rocket as the inertial frame of refernce...its acceleration is therefor by definition of an inertial frame of reference, zero. It is then possible to determine the other rockets acceleration and velocity. Objects in uniform motion with each other can not be reference points for one another
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #146 on: March 25, 2007, 04:58:10 AM »
-- in particular, she will measure it to be g/γ^3, where γ = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).


I know nothing about special relativity, but understand the mathematics used. Where does this acceleration come from and where does the equation for Y come from?

Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #147 on: March 25, 2007, 06:29:59 AM »
Wtf does this have to do with the shape of Earth really? It's pretty obvious we're not sitting on a giant accelerating disk so who gives a shit about equivalence principle and relativity?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #148 on: March 25, 2007, 08:44:03 AM »
I know nothing about special relativity, but understand the mathematics used. Where does this acceleration come from and where does the equation for Y come from?
From a man named Lorenz, who derived the equation after the Michelson-Morley experiment.


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

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #149 on: March 25, 2007, 11:19:57 AM »
I know nothing about special relativity, but understand the mathematics used. Where does this acceleration come from and where does the equation for Y come from?

In the specific case of my typing it, it came from eq. 2 on p. 37 of Introducing Einstein's Relativity by Dr. Ray d'Inverno.  He derived it from the Lorenz transform for acceleration in the case where an object at rest in one reference frame is undergoing a constant acceleration in another (turns out, physicists don't believe that that contradicts relativity).

The equation for γ can be derived by a variety of fairly elegant methods from the definition of "distance" in spacetime (being the composite of three dimensions of space and one of time).  That definition is, in turn, indirectly based on the assumption that the speed of light is the same regardless of what emitted the light and who's measuring it.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?