Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.

  • 103 Replies
  • 19244 Views
?

TheJackel

  • 1269
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #60 on: August 15, 2010, 07:54:45 PM »
It's not terribly wrong at all.

Nice job. That was extremely insightful as to what he said. You defended your statements flawlessly.

That pertained to the math.. The only difference is that he was talking about a constant 9.8 meters of steady acceleration, and I was talking about how that would be impossible if you take in consideration of the age of the Earth. Steady acceleration isn't going to erase the problem I have shown above even though it would provide steady amount of force. Hence actual velocity matters.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2010, 08:03:09 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #61 on: August 15, 2010, 09:13:21 PM »
That pertained to the math.. The only difference is that he was talking about a constant 9.8 meters of steady acceleration, and I was talking about how that would be impossible if you take in consideration of the age of the Earth. Steady acceleration isn't going to erase the problem I have shown above even though it would provide steady amount of force. Hence actual velocity matters.

His math was correct when saying the thing you are dropping wouldn't fall as fast as you said because before it was dropped it was moving as fast as everything else.

The time we have been accelerating is irrelevant.
Lrn2specialrelativity.

?

TheJackel

  • 1269
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #62 on: August 15, 2010, 09:28:17 PM »
That pertained to the math.. The only difference is that he was talking about a constant 9.8 meters of steady acceleration, and I was talking about how that would be impossible if you take in consideration of the age of the Earth. Steady acceleration isn't going to erase the problem I have shown above even though it would provide steady amount of force. Hence actual velocity matters.

His math was correct when saying the thing you are dropping wouldn't fall as fast as you said because before it was dropped it was moving as fast as everything else.

The time we have been accelerating is irrelevant.
Lrn2specialrelativity.

Provided of course his estimation of 9.8m's a sec is correct.. And I was basing that notion on the idea that there was still another attractor other than velocity.. But yes he would be correct in that sense. I did a crappy job writing that post. However, I have pointed out that 9.8 meters a second and how old Earth is doesn't make any sense. Hence, Earths actual total velocity would be impossible regardless of the 9.8 meters a second steady acceleration. I hope this clears up where we were both coming from :)
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #63 on: August 15, 2010, 10:13:15 PM »
That pertained to the math.. The only difference is that he was talking about a constant 9.8 meters of steady acceleration, and I was talking about how that would be impossible if you take in consideration of the age of the Earth. Steady acceleration isn't going to erase the problem I have shown above even though it would provide steady amount of force. Hence actual velocity matters.

His math was correct when saying the thing you are dropping wouldn't fall as fast as you said because before it was dropped it was moving as fast as everything else.

The time we have been accelerating is irrelevant.
Lrn2specialrelativity.

Provided of course his estimation of 9.8m's a sec is correct.. And I was basing that notion on the idea that there was still another attractor other than velocity.. But yes he would be correct in that sense. I did a crappy job writing that post. However, I have pointed out that 9.8 meters a second and how old Earth is doesn't make any sense. Hence, Earths actual total velocity would be impossible regardless of the 9.8 meters a second steady acceleration. I hope this clears up where we were both coming from :)

How exactly would steady acceleration and how old the Earth is not make sense?  ???

If you are getting at that eventually we would reach the speed of light and that is not possible, my answer is lrn2specialrelativity.

?

TheJackel

  • 1269
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #64 on: August 15, 2010, 10:18:17 PM »
That pertained to the math.. The only difference is that he was talking about a constant 9.8 meters of steady acceleration, and I was talking about how that would be impossible if you take in consideration of the age of the Earth. Steady acceleration isn't going to erase the problem I have shown above even though it would provide steady amount of force. Hence actual velocity matters.

His math was correct when saying the thing you are dropping wouldn't fall as fast as you said because before it was dropped it was moving as fast as everything else.

The time we have been accelerating is irrelevant.
Lrn2specialrelativity.

Provided of course his estimation of 9.8m's a sec is correct.. And I was basing that notion on the idea that there was still another attractor other than velocity.. But yes he would be correct in that sense. I did a crappy job writing that post. However, I have pointed out that 9.8 meters a second and how old Earth is doesn't make any sense. Hence, Earths actual total velocity would be impossible regardless of the 9.8 meters a second steady acceleration. I hope this clears up where we were both coming from :)

How exactly would steady acceleration and how old the Earth is not make sense?  ???

Take 9.8 meters a second and times it by 60 X 60 X 24 X 365 X 3,000,000,000 to get an impossible total velocity, especially concerning things with mass. The particle physics wouldn't allow it. This is why I asked him about time particle dilation, and mass energy equivalence. And I won't even go into evidence that suggest Earth to be almost 4 billion years old. Hence, you need to consider how long something has been accelerating for.

FE also doesn't explain what force is driving the acceleration.

BTW, what form of special relativity are you trying to invoke here when it comes to acceleration and velocity? Last time I checked the FE theory isn't riding on top of a space time wave, or bending space and traveling through a wormhole.. None of these will change the above argument either.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2010, 10:56:16 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #65 on: August 15, 2010, 11:25:32 PM »

Take 9.8 meters a second and times it by 60 X 60 X 24 X 365 X 3,000,000,000 to get an impossible total velocity, especially concerning things with mass. The particle physics wouldn't allow it. This is why I asked him about time particle dilation, and mass energy equivalence. And I won't even go into evidence that suggest Earth to be almost 4 billion years old. Hence, you need to consider how long something has been accelerating for.

FE also doesn't explain what force is driving the acceleration.

BTW, what form of special relativity are you trying to invoke here when it comes to acceleration and velocity? Last time I checked the FE theory isn't riding on top of a space time wave, or bending space and traveling through a wormhole.. None of these will change the above argument either.

From the equations of Relativity:

w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s, due to the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second, c is the speed of light, and w is the new velocity, to be used as u in the next iteration.  Start at u=0 and let me know how long it takes us to reach the speed of light.

Wow, it must suck to be you guys right about now.

?

TheJackel

  • 1269
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #66 on: August 16, 2010, 12:27:35 AM »

Take 9.8 meters a second and times it by 60 X 60 X 24 X 365 X 3,000,000,000 to get an impossible total velocity, especially concerning things with mass. The particle physics wouldn't allow it. This is why I asked him about time particle dilation, and mass energy equivalence. And I won't even go into evidence that suggest Earth to be almost 4 billion years old. Hence, you need to consider how long something has been accelerating for.

FE also doesn't explain what force is driving the acceleration.

BTW, what form of special relativity are you trying to invoke here when it comes to acceleration and velocity? Last time I checked the FE theory isn't riding on top of a space time wave, or bending space and traveling through a wormhole.. None of these will change the above argument either.

From the equations of Relativity:

w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s, due to the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second, c is the speed of light, and w is the new velocity, to be used as u in the next iteration.  Start at u=0 and let me know how long it takes us to reach the speed of light.

Wow, it must suck to be you guys right about now.

So now you are saying that Earth didn't accelerate at the same rate and is increasing in acceleration rate? So tell me how long it took you to get to 9.8 meters a second, and where is your evidence to support that? Do you have any geological data to support the notion?

However if you are accelerating at 9.8 meters per second starting at zero, your next second from zero would be 9.8 meters, unless of course you are trying to argue that acceleration speed is slowly increasing over time. I don't think geology, and geological history is going to agree with you here considering Earth's rotation is slowing, and show's Earth to have had more gravitational force in it's past. The loss of rotation is about 2.2 seconds every 100,000 years. The "centrifugal force" was stronger when the planet was very young, the the Geology supports that, and so do the tides, and the history of these tidal forces. How does FE account for this?


http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q395.html
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/reviews/reviews_21_2_storetvedt.pdf

The other problem is weight difference do to density for example. How would vertical velocity show difference in weights if everything is traveling at the same speed or velocity and accelerating at the same speed and velocity?
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 01:42:43 AM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

MrBoB

  • 134
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #67 on: August 16, 2010, 07:36:15 AM »
That pertained to the math.. The only difference is that he was talking about a constant 9.8 meters of steady acceleration, and I was talking about how that would be impossible if you take in consideration of the age of the Earth. Steady acceleration isn't going to erase the problem I have shown above even though it would provide steady amount of force. Hence actual velocity matters.

His math was correct when saying the thing you are dropping wouldn't fall as fast as you said because before it was dropped it was moving as fast as everything else.

The time we have been accelerating is irrelevant.
Lrn2specialrelativity.

Provided of course his estimation of 9.8m's a sec is correct.. And I was basing that notion on the idea that there was still another attractor other than velocity.. But yes he would be correct in that sense. I did a crappy job writing that post. However, I have pointed out that 9.8 meters a second and how old Earth is doesn't make any sense. Hence, Earths actual total velocity would be impossible regardless of the 9.8 meters a second steady acceleration. I hope this clears up where we were both coming from :)

I never estimated that. This is BS big time. Analysis helps, hope ameripenguins learn some in school.
velocity is measured in meters per second, acceleration however is measured in meters per second-squared. This is your first mistake, and you go on using that forever. Im not usually that picky but this is actually important.
Then, I agree with english gentlemen: lrn2specialrelativity.

Im not going to give you a formula, he did already anyway, but I will explain:
To accelerate you need a force and that needs energy. Agree? But a little part of this energy is not being used for acceleration, it seems to just get lost. Instead, to an observer standing in the initial position of the body with initial velocity of the body, the accelerated body seems to gain mass and contract (seems to become less long - kinda squeezed). to someone on this body, there is no notable effect, but instead that distant observer, who one is seemingly travelling further and further away, seems to gain mass and contract.

Now, the greater your speed becomes in relation to your starting point (the observer), the more of the energy seems so just get lost, the more mass one seems to have when observed by the observer in the old starting position and the more your length is being contracted. Hence first of all, you need to define "constant acceleration". If you mean constant to that distant observer, then after some time you will need to put in every bit of energy of the universe and still you will not reach the speed of light, because just before you reach it, 99.9999999999999999% of any more extra energy put in will account for the effects discribed above, instead of acceleration.
If you only want to "feel an acceleration of 9,8m/s²" on the accelerating body however, be aware that this is indeed possible. Because in each moment, the velocity you have will be your frame of reference and when accelerating, you only accelerate a little bit away from that frame of reference, you will not feel any relativistic effects. However just because you, being on this body, feel an acceleration of 9,8m/s², this doesnt mean that a guy standing in the starting position will see you accelerating at the same rate. Instead, for him you will be moving really fucking fast after billions of years and a lot of the energy you use will - to him - seems to "just get lost" due to mass gain and length contraction, and your actual acceleration relative to him will be really small, but you yourself will think that all energy goes into acceleration only and your acceleration relative to the point where you would have been if you didnt accelerate in that moment will be the same as always and you can keep going on like this forever.
For somebody (I guess like you) who doesn't understand the principles of relativity - I don't think anybody understands it perfectly (einstein once said: "Nobody really understands physics/relativity, we just get used to it!"), but still - this seems rather unintuitive. But if you lrn2specialrelativity you will find this is whats going to happen. Hence, your calculations are terribly wrong.
Q.E.D.

/edit:
To put it back into a discussion aber UA:
For it to work even as a simple concept, from the above the UA would have to not only accelerate the earth but itself, too, at the same rate, so the earth and the UA will share the same frame of reference. But even then this is magical thinking and quite ridiculous. More so, if the UA didnt move with the earth, the entire energy of the whole universe would be used up quite fast.
I dont understand how FETishists who believe in UA believe how UA works. Please elaborate.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 07:41:03 AM by MrBoB »
English is not my mother tongue, please consider this when reading my posts.
Quote from: anteater7171
Quote
Why is australia excluded?
Because it is a lie propagated by the conspiracy (like gravity or sustained spaceflight).
I lived a lie

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #68 on: August 16, 2010, 10:08:59 AM »

Take 9.8 meters a second and times it by 60 X 60 X 24 X 365 X 3,000,000,000 to get an impossible total velocity, especially concerning things with mass. The particle physics wouldn't allow it. This is why I asked him about time particle dilation, and mass energy equivalence. And I won't even go into evidence that suggest Earth to be almost 4 billion years old. Hence, you need to consider how long something has been accelerating for.

FE also doesn't explain what force is driving the acceleration.

BTW, what form of special relativity are you trying to invoke here when it comes to acceleration and velocity? Last time I checked the FE theory isn't riding on top of a space time wave, or bending space and traveling through a wormhole.. None of these will change the above argument either.

From the equations of Relativity:

w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s, due to the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second, c is the speed of light, and w is the new velocity, to be used as u in the next iteration.  Start at u=0 and let me know how long it takes us to reach the speed of light.

Wow, it must suck to be you guys right about now.

So now you are saying that Earth didn't accelerate at the same rate and is increasing in acceleration rate? So tell me how long it took you to get to 9.8 meters a second, and where is your evidence to support that? Do you have any geological data to support the notion?


This posts convinces me you have no clue what you are talking about, nor any clue what special relativity is.

?

TheJackel

  • 1269
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #69 on: August 16, 2010, 02:21:34 PM »

Take 9.8 meters a second and times it by 60 X 60 X 24 X 365 X 3,000,000,000 to get an impossible total velocity, especially concerning things with mass. The particle physics wouldn't allow it. This is why I asked him about time particle dilation, and mass energy equivalence. And I won't even go into evidence that suggest Earth to be almost 4 billion years old. Hence, you need to consider how long something has been accelerating for.

FE also doesn't explain what force is driving the acceleration.

BTW, what form of special relativity are you trying to invoke here when it comes to acceleration and velocity? Last time I checked the FE theory isn't riding on top of a space time wave, or bending space and traveling through a wormhole.. None of these will change the above argument either.

From the equations of Relativity:

w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s, due to the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second, c is the speed of light, and w is the new velocity, to be used as u in the next iteration.  Start at u=0 and let me know how long it takes us to reach the speed of light.

Wow, it must suck to be you guys right about now.

So now you are saying that Earth didn't accelerate at the same rate and is increasing in acceleration rate? So tell me how long it took you to get to 9.8 meters a second, and where is your evidence to support that? Do you have any geological data to support the notion?


This posts convinces me you have no clue what you are talking about, nor any clue what special relativity is.

I never claimed to.. And I do believe that I had stated that I was not a physicist in another thread ;) Plus I asked for clarity.

MrBoB,

Thanks for the insight, that makes a lot more sense.  8)
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #70 on: August 16, 2010, 03:37:37 PM »

Take 9.8 meters a second and times it by 60 X 60 X 24 X 365 X 3,000,000,000 to get an impossible total velocity, especially concerning things with mass. The particle physics wouldn't allow it. This is why I asked him about time particle dilation, and mass energy equivalence. And I won't even go into evidence that suggest Earth to be almost 4 billion years old. Hence, you need to consider how long something has been accelerating for.

FE also doesn't explain what force is driving the acceleration.

BTW, what form of special relativity are you trying to invoke here when it comes to acceleration and velocity? Last time I checked the FE theory isn't riding on top of a space time wave, or bending space and traveling through a wormhole.. None of these will change the above argument either.

From the equations of Relativity:

w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s, due to the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second, c is the speed of light, and w is the new velocity, to be used as u in the next iteration.  Start at u=0 and let me know how long it takes us to reach the speed of light.

Wow, it must suck to be you guys right about now.

So now you are saying that Earth didn't accelerate at the same rate and is increasing in acceleration rate? So tell me how long it took you to get to 9.8 meters a second, and where is your evidence to support that? Do you have any geological data to support the notion?


This posts convinces me you have no clue what you are talking about, nor any clue what special relativity is.

I never claimed to.. And I do believe that I had stated that I was not a physicist in another thread ;) Plus I asked for clarity.

MrBoB,

Thanks for the insight, that makes a lot more sense.  8)

If you don't know what you are talking about or understand basic relativity, then you should not go around the fora claiming that UA isn't possible when it is SR that makes it possible.

?

MrBoB

  • 134
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #71 on: August 16, 2010, 03:54:06 PM »

Take 9.8 meters a second and times it by 60 X 60 X 24 X 365 X 3,000,000,000 to get an impossible total velocity, especially concerning things with mass. The particle physics wouldn't allow it. This is why I asked him about time particle dilation, and mass energy equivalence. And I won't even go into evidence that suggest Earth to be almost 4 billion years old. Hence, you need to consider how long something has been accelerating for.

FE also doesn't explain what force is driving the acceleration.

BTW, what form of special relativity are you trying to invoke here when it comes to acceleration and velocity? Last time I checked the FE theory isn't riding on top of a space time wave, or bending space and traveling through a wormhole.. None of these will change the above argument either.

From the equations of Relativity:

w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s, due to the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second, c is the speed of light, and w is the new velocity, to be used as u in the next iteration.  Start at u=0 and let me know how long it takes us to reach the speed of light.

Wow, it must suck to be you guys right about now.

So now you are saying that Earth didn't accelerate at the same rate and is increasing in acceleration rate? So tell me how long it took you to get to 9.8 meters a second, and where is your evidence to support that? Do you have any geological data to support the notion?


This posts convinces me you have no clue what you are talking about, nor any clue what special relativity is.

I never claimed to.. And I do believe that I had stated that I was not a physicist in another thread ;) Plus I asked for clarity.

MrBoB,

Thanks for the insight, that makes a lot more sense.  8)

If you don't know what you are talking about or understand basic relativity, then you should not go around the fora claiming that UA isn't possible when it is SR that makes it possible.

Well, to his defence, UA actually isnt possible and disproven by evidence, so he may keep lurking telling everybody this insight. His reasons, of course, were invalid.

Jackel, no problem, and I am happy to see you can withdraw from disproven positions. FETishist - even in details of their theory - seem to often not be able to do so.
English is not my mother tongue, please consider this when reading my posts.
Quote from: anteater7171
Quote
Why is australia excluded?
Because it is a lie propagated by the conspiracy (like gravity or sustained spaceflight).
I lived a lie

?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #72 on: August 16, 2010, 04:28:22 PM »
SR that makes it possible.

Anything is "possible". It's "possible" for me to roll a dice 100 times and get a 6 every time.

Let's stick with reality.

I'm just wondering where the conspiracy finds the infinite amount of energy to accelerate the earth through space.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #73 on: August 16, 2010, 04:39:39 PM »
SR that makes it possible.

Anything is "possible". It's "possible" for me to roll a dice 100 times and get a 6 every time.

Let's stick with reality.

I'm just wondering where the conspiracy finds the infinite amount of energy to accelerate the earth through space.

Why would the conspiracy be charge of running UA?  ???

?

TheJackel

  • 1269
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #74 on: August 16, 2010, 05:51:57 PM »

Take 9.8 meters a second and times it by 60 X 60 X 24 X 365 X 3,000,000,000 to get an impossible total velocity, especially concerning things with mass. The particle physics wouldn't allow it. This is why I asked him about time particle dilation, and mass energy equivalence. And I won't even go into evidence that suggest Earth to be almost 4 billion years old. Hence, you need to consider how long something has been accelerating for.

FE also doesn't explain what force is driving the acceleration.

BTW, what form of special relativity are you trying to invoke here when it comes to acceleration and velocity? Last time I checked the FE theory isn't riding on top of a space time wave, or bending space and traveling through a wormhole.. None of these will change the above argument either.

From the equations of Relativity:

w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s, due to the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second, c is the speed of light, and w is the new velocity, to be used as u in the next iteration.  Start at u=0 and let me know how long it takes us to reach the speed of light.

Wow, it must suck to be you guys right about now.

So now you are saying that Earth didn't accelerate at the same rate and is increasing in acceleration rate? So tell me how long it took you to get to 9.8 meters a second, and where is your evidence to support that? Do you have any geological data to support the notion?


This posts convinces me you have no clue what you are talking about, nor any clue what special relativity is.

I never claimed to.. And I do believe that I had stated that I was not a physicist in another thread ;) Plus I asked for clarity.

MrBoB,

Thanks for the insight, that makes a lot more sense.  8)

If you don't know what you are talking about or understand basic relativity, then you should not go around the fora claiming that UA isn't possible when it is SR that makes it possible.

Well, to his defence, UA actually isnt possible and disproven by evidence, so he may keep lurking telling everybody this insight. His reasons, of course, were invalid.

Jackel, no problem, and I am happy to see you can withdraw from disproven positions. FETishist - even in details of their theory - seem to often not be able to do so.

I had withdrawn because you actually explained things accurately to which is what I was looking for. Hence, I wasn't thinking in the same terms or perspective. I also failed to notice that you had squared 9.8 meters a second for measuring the velocity, my bad entirely in regards to that. So I am more than willing to concede when I make mistakes.

As for UA, I would still required evidence for it's viability. So Englishman, if you could be so kind to show how exactly UA would work?
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #75 on: August 16, 2010, 06:13:44 PM »

Take 9.8 meters a second and times it by 60 X 60 X 24 X 365 X 3,000,000,000 to get an impossible total velocity, especially concerning things with mass. The particle physics wouldn't allow it. This is why I asked him about time particle dilation, and mass energy equivalence. And I won't even go into evidence that suggest Earth to be almost 4 billion years old. Hence, you need to consider how long something has been accelerating for.

FE also doesn't explain what force is driving the acceleration.

BTW, what form of special relativity are you trying to invoke here when it comes to acceleration and velocity? Last time I checked the FE theory isn't riding on top of a space time wave, or bending space and traveling through a wormhole.. None of these will change the above argument either.

From the equations of Relativity:

w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s, due to the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second, c is the speed of light, and w is the new velocity, to be used as u in the next iteration.  Start at u=0 and let me know how long it takes us to reach the speed of light.

Wow, it must suck to be you guys right about now.

So now you are saying that Earth didn't accelerate at the same rate and is increasing in acceleration rate? So tell me how long it took you to get to 9.8 meters a second, and where is your evidence to support that? Do you have any geological data to support the notion?


This posts convinces me you have no clue what you are talking about, nor any clue what special relativity is.

I never claimed to.. And I do believe that I had stated that I was not a physicist in another thread ;) Plus I asked for clarity.

MrBoB,

Thanks for the insight, that makes a lot more sense.  8)

If you don't know what you are talking about or understand basic relativity, then you should not go around the fora claiming that UA isn't possible when it is SR that makes it possible.

Well, to his defence, UA actually isnt possible and disproven by evidence, so he may keep lurking telling everybody this insight. His reasons, of course, were invalid.

Jackel, no problem, and I am happy to see you can withdraw from disproven positions. FETishist - even in details of their theory - seem to often not be able to do so.

I had withdrawn because you actually explained things accurately to which is what I was looking for. Hence, I wasn't thinking in the same terms or perspective. I also failed to notice that you had squared 9.8 meters a second for measuring the velocity, my bad entirely in regards to that. So I am more than willing to concede when I make mistakes.

As for UA, I would still required evidence for it's viability. So Englishman, if you could be so kind to show how exactly UA would work?

It accelerates the universe upward at 9.8m/s^2. The mechanism behind it is unknown, but that isn't much different than gravity now is it?

?

TheJackel

  • 1269
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #76 on: August 16, 2010, 10:19:14 PM »

Take 9.8 meters a second and times it by 60 X 60 X 24 X 365 X 3,000,000,000 to get an impossible total velocity, especially concerning things with mass. The particle physics wouldn't allow it. This is why I asked him about time particle dilation, and mass energy equivalence. And I won't even go into evidence that suggest Earth to be almost 4 billion years old. Hence, you need to consider how long something has been accelerating for.

FE also doesn't explain what force is driving the acceleration.

BTW, what form of special relativity are you trying to invoke here when it comes to acceleration and velocity? Last time I checked the FE theory isn't riding on top of a space time wave, or bending space and traveling through a wormhole.. None of these will change the above argument either.

From the equations of Relativity:

w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s, due to the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second, c is the speed of light, and w is the new velocity, to be used as u in the next iteration.  Start at u=0 and let me know how long it takes us to reach the speed of light.

Wow, it must suck to be you guys right about now.

So now you are saying that Earth didn't accelerate at the same rate and is increasing in acceleration rate? So tell me how long it took you to get to 9.8 meters a second, and where is your evidence to support that? Do you have any geological data to support the notion?


This posts convinces me you have no clue what you are talking about, nor any clue what special relativity is.

I never claimed to.. And I do believe that I had stated that I was not a physicist in another thread ;) Plus I asked for clarity.

MrBoB,

Thanks for the insight, that makes a lot more sense.  8)

If you don't know what you are talking about or understand basic relativity, then you should not go around the fora claiming that UA isn't possible when it is SR that makes it possible.

Well, to his defence, UA actually isnt possible and disproven by evidence, so he may keep lurking telling everybody this insight. His reasons, of course, were invalid.

Jackel, no problem, and I am happy to see you can withdraw from disproven positions. FETishist - even in details of their theory - seem to often not be able to do so.

I had withdrawn because you actually explained things accurately to which is what I was looking for. Hence, I wasn't thinking in the same terms or perspective. I also failed to notice that you had squared 9.8 meters a second for measuring the velocity, my bad entirely in regards to that. So I am more than willing to concede when I make mistakes.

As for UA, I would still required evidence for it's viability. So Englishman, if you could be so kind to show how exactly UA would work?

It accelerates the universe upward at 9.8m/s^2. The mechanism behind it is unknown, but that isn't much different than gravity now is it?

So the entire universe is accelerates upwards? Which way is up and away from the universe? And how does existence move up if it's the sum total of everything? And you have no mechanism to speak of, you can not establish that it's moving up at all. Thus your answer is insufficient. Do you have any data that can verify any of your claims? 
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 10:21:22 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #77 on: August 16, 2010, 10:26:19 PM »
Upwards is just for a frame of reference so you can picture how it works. Look towards the sky. That is the direction everything in the universe is accelerating. If I cannot describe the mechanism and exactly what it's properties are, that means it doesn't exist? What? By that logic gravity doesn't exist in RE since the mechanism behind it is yet too be explained.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #78 on: August 16, 2010, 10:32:07 PM »
So the entire universe is accelerates upwards? Which way is up and away from the universe? And how does existence move up if it's the sum total of everything? And you have no mechanism to speak of, you can not establish that it's moving up at all. Thus your answer is insufficient. Do you have any data that can verify any of your claims? 
Yes, in FE virtually the entire Universe accelerates constantly in one direction. That direction, opposite to gravity's effect, is defined as Up.

Acceleration, unlike velocity, is not relative. You can tell when you're accelerating. Your history forms FoRs that permit you to realize that you've accelerated.

If the UA were true (and we know it's not), then in some limited fashion the UA would fit a good portion of the observational evidence. However, the UA is easily falsified with two good accelerometer readings. The USGS takes such reading regularly and publishes its data. The second daily tide, even with the "submoon" conjecture, also falsifies the UA.

Since the UA is false and since SR does seem to address the basics of UA anyways, why don't we concentrate on another issue?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #79 on: August 16, 2010, 10:38:01 PM »
why don't we concentrate on another issue?

Welcome to The Flat Earth Society, you must be new here.

Gravity is of the more popular topics new people bring up. Either let us have a discussion about it each time, or don't bitch when we say, "See FAQ.".

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #80 on: August 16, 2010, 10:41:19 PM »
why don't we concentrate on another issue?

Welcome to The Flat Earth Society, you must be new here.

Gravity is of the more popular topics new people bring up. Either let us have a discussion about it each time, or don't bitch when we say, "See FAQ.".
I complain about the poor quality and lack of information in the FAQ. If it were decent, and it's not, then I'd be happy to see you refer people to the FAQ.

I'm encouraging TJ to move on. Please stay in the threads on gravity as long as you like though.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #81 on: August 16, 2010, 10:45:48 PM »
why don't we concentrate on another issue?

Welcome to The Flat Earth Society, you must be new here.

Gravity is of the more popular topics new people bring up. Either let us have a discussion about it each time, or don't bitch when we say, "See FAQ.".
I complain about the poor quality and lack of information in the FAQ. If it were decent, and it's not, then I'd be happy to see you refer people to the FAQ.

I'm encouraging TJ to move on. Please stay in the threads on gravity as long as you like though.

Fair enough.  :)

?

TheJackel

  • 1269
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #82 on: August 17, 2010, 12:43:12 AM »
So the entire universe is accelerates upwards? Which way is up and away from the universe? And how does existence move up if it's the sum total of everything? And you have no mechanism to speak of, you can not establish that it's moving up at all. Thus your answer is insufficient. Do you have any data that can verify any of your claims? 
Yes, in FE virtually the entire Universe accelerates constantly in one direction. That direction, opposite to gravity's effect, is defined as Up.

Acceleration, unlike velocity, is not relative. You can tell when you're accelerating. Your history forms FoRs that permit you to realize that you've accelerated.

If the UA were true (and we know it's not), then in some limited fashion the UA would fit a good portion of the observational evidence. However, the UA is easily falsified with two good accelerometer readings. The USGS takes such reading regularly and publishes its data. The second daily tide, even with the "submoon" conjecture, also falsifies the UA.

Since the UA is false and since SR does seem to address the basics of UA anyways, why don't we concentrate on another issue?

Yes direction is relative, so we can not state up vs down because any direction can be up. I agree you can acknowledge that you are moving in a direction we can label as up. I wasn't disagreeing with acceleration vs velocity but rather that direction is subjective. Hence another observer could perceive you moving down, left, or right. Hence, I can do a headstand and reverse the relative direction of up. But this was just being nit picky of me and really isn't relevant.

Now when I asked him how an infinite volume or the entire sum total of existence is moving up or accelerating up wards, I didn't get an answer how infinity can move as a whole. Hence, what position is it moving away from? This of course is provided that there is only 1 universe. So I am only asking for further clarification here.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 12:46:25 AM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #83 on: August 17, 2010, 03:08:10 AM »
why don't we concentrate on another issue?

Welcome to The Flat Earth Society, you must be new here.

Gravity is of the more popular topics new people bring up. Either let us have a discussion about it each time, or don't bitch when we say, "See FAQ.".
I complain about the poor quality and lack of information in the FAQ. If it were decent, and it's not, then I'd be happy to see you refer people to the FAQ.

I'm encouraging TJ to move on. Please stay in the threads on gravity as long as you like though.

In that case we have a wiki and a search function, which is usually what we advise after people find that the FAQ doesn't fully prove every answer.

So the entire universe is accelerates upwards? Which way is up and away from the universe? And how does existence move up if it's the sum total of everything? And you have no mechanism to speak of, you can not establish that it's moving up at all. Thus your answer is insufficient. Do you have any data that can verify any of your claims? 
Yes, in FE virtually the entire Universe accelerates constantly in one direction. That direction, opposite to gravity's effect, is defined as Up.

Acceleration, unlike velocity, is not relative. You can tell when you're accelerating. Your history forms FoRs that permit you to realize that you've accelerated.

If the UA were true (and we know it's not), then in some limited fashion the UA would fit a good portion of the observational evidence. However, the UA is easily falsified with two good accelerometer readings. The USGS takes such reading regularly and publishes its data. The second daily tide, even with the "submoon" conjecture, also falsifies the UA.

Since the UA is false and since SR does seem to address the basics of UA anyways, why don't we concentrate on another issue?

Yes direction is relative, so we can not state up vs down because any direction can be up. I agree you can acknowledge that you are moving in a direction we can label as up. I wasn't disagreeing with acceleration vs velocity but rather that direction is subjective. Hence another observer could perceive you moving down, left, or right. Hence, I can do a headstand and reverse the relative direction of up. But this was just being nit picky of me and really isn't relevant.

Now when I asked him how an infinite volume or the entire sum total of existence is moving up or accelerating up wards, I didn't get an answer how infinity can move as a whole. Hence, what position is it moving away from? This of course is provided that there is only 1 universe. So I am only asking for further clarification here.

We can state a conclusive up because on FE, direction is absolute. Up is up is up. We can also use the RE definition "the opposite direction to the way "gravity" pulls us", and that's absolute in FE. If someone observes us as moving down then they are upside down.

I also don't recall any claims that the universe is infinite. As for other universes, there's very little we can say without dipping into unbacked conjecture (something RE astronomers have no qualms about, it seems), but there may be other universes, they may have flat earths and/or round ones and we'll probably never know if they exist or not.

No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

?

TheJackel

  • 1269
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #84 on: August 17, 2010, 04:19:08 AM »
Quote
We can state a conclusive up because on FE, direction is absolute. Up is up is up. We can also use the RE definition "the opposite direction to the way "gravity" pulls us", and that's absolute in FE. If someone observes us as moving down then they are upside down.

That would be false if you still live in a 3D+1 existence. Hence, there is no way for you to claim that there isn't another planet or universe to which would view you as sideways, or even upside down. You may even be on a collision course. If you state Earth is an infinite plane, I would like to know how you measured that to verify that it is indeed an infinite plane.  However, both RE and FE can conclusively label a direction as up according to their own perspective and relative position. 

Quote
I also don't recall any claims that the universe is infinite. As for other universes, there's very little we can say without dipping into unbacked conjecture (something RE astronomers have no qualms about, it seems), but there may be other universes, they may have flat earths and/or round ones and we'll probably never know if they exist or not.

The assumptions is based on a pretty simple basis that -1 spacial capacity is impossible to exist, and is thus infinite. So unless you can provide us with an example of a negative spatial space (provide us a sample of  literal existing non-existence), your argument might have been valid here. And yes there might be other universes. In this sense FE can not claim to be an infinite plane as it would be sharing it. 

And btw, I consider existence as a whole as a single universe. Hence the universal universe of all universes. And my point is that FE can't claim to be moving up if it's claiming to be the sum total of everything, or infinite.

Anyways in regards to Earths actual shape, I had done a pretty good job of showing why Earth is a sphere in the Earthquakes thread. So I am only poking at this topic to dive into areas of physics to which I am not exactly familiar with.


FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #85 on: August 17, 2010, 04:24:47 AM »
Why would the conspiracy be charge of running UA?  ???

We know that The Conspiracy is all powerful. In fact we have no idea of the true extent of The Conspiracy. Given this fact I see no reason to rule it out at this moment.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #86 on: August 17, 2010, 06:04:35 AM »
I also don't recall any claims that the universe is infinite.
Lurk more.

John Davis states explicitly that the FE is infinite in his model. Tom Bishop has he doesn't know if the FE is finite or infinite. I'd think by now you'd know this.

By the way with the UA falsified, no finite FE works.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #87 on: August 17, 2010, 06:08:43 AM »
why don't we concentrate on another issue?

Welcome to The Flat Earth Society, you must be new here.

Gravity is of the more popular topics new people bring up. Either let us have a discussion about it each time, or don't bitch when we say, "See FAQ.".
I complain about the poor quality and lack of information in the FAQ. If it were decent, and it's not, then I'd be happy to see you refer people to the FAQ.

I'm encouraging TJ to move on. Please stay in the threads on gravity as long as you like though.

In that case we have a wiki and a search function, which is usually what we advise after people find that the FAQ doesn't fully prove every answer.
The FEW is even worse. It's quality and accuracy are very low. You might review the critiques we've posted on three of the topics here lately.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #88 on: August 17, 2010, 10:07:00 AM »
I also don't recall any claims that the universe is infinite.
Lurk more.

John Davis states explicitly that the FE is infinite in his model. Tom Bishop has he doesn't know if the FE is finite or infinite. I'd think by now you'd know this.

By the way with the UA falsified, no finite FE works.

Reread the thread. We are not talking John Davis' infinite plane model.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Im a skydiver... I think I understand gravity pretty well.
« Reply #89 on: August 17, 2010, 11:35:40 AM »
I also don't recall any claims that the universe is infinite.
Lurk more.

John Davis states explicitly that the FE is infinite in his model. Tom Bishop has he doesn't know if the FE is finite or infinite. I'd think by now you'd know this.

By the way with the UA falsified, no finite FE works.

Reread the thread. We are not talking John Davis' infinite plane model.
Reread GD's post. We are talking about whether there has been a claim that the Universe is infinite.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards