Simple Test

  • 139 Replies
  • 17772 Views
?

BulldogBlues

Simple Test
« on: September 30, 2010, 08:59:48 PM »
First of all, I have to apologize to everyone (including myself) for wasting their time.  No one is going to change their mind as a result of my post.  Conspiracy theorists will always be conspiracy theorists.  Google "social justification theory".

Also, I have to laugh at the "requirements" that I agreed to to be able to post in forum, as I am not allowed to post anything "false" or "inaccurate":-D

Anyway, as a physicist, I have to say you've done a decent job at creating a solid batch of pseudoscience.  To the uneducated eye, quite a bit of it is believable.  The piece about gravity being a "fictional force" is particularly good, in that actual science technically supports the denotation you've chosen, if not the connotation.  But I would like to point out two glaring errors that anyone with a college course in physics can see.  First, Special Relativity explicitly rejects infinite acceleration.  As gamma approaches c, the speed of light, it requires exponentially increasing energy to achieve the same amount of acceleration (an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light).  Therefore, you should slightly modify your propaganda to qualify infinite power input, not acceleration.  Second, the theory of dark energy relates to the expansion of the universe, NOT anything to do with a wall of mountains at the edge of the earth.  You show me that derivation mathematically and I'll kiss my own flat ass.

OK, so now I have that out of my system.  Here's my (relatively) simple test.  (Besides the fact that I have personal friends who have been to antarctica.)  Walk to your local weather station.  Ask them for the power distribution of their sonar.  Ask them why they can't accurately view weather patterns after a certain distance.  They will tell you it is because the curvature of the earth gets in the way of the signal.  Note that the sonar system must be ground-based for this to be true.  This experiment can also be duplicated with a long-range dipole antenna.  The signal will dissipate long before it mathematically should based on a normal power distribution.  A laser would also work, although it would be hard to correct for landscape changes.

Oh!  One more.  Get a spectrometer and point it at the sun.  The wavelength emission spectrum will tell you that it's much too hot to be only 3000 miles away based on blackbody radiation and not burning us to a crisp.  Even if you correct for the emissivity constant of the sun.

Now tell me that all weather-people, all scientists that use blackbody radiation equations every day, and all members of higher education and academia are in The Conspiracy:-)

*

Lorddave

  • 16782
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2010, 09:05:58 PM »
According to FEers, all that data is faked by 40 people who then send it to scientists and such. Yes it makes no sense. Welcome to the Forums.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2010, 09:27:29 PM »
First of all, I have to apologize to everyone (including myself) for wasting their time.  No one is going to change their mind as a result of my post.  Conspiracy theorists will always be conspiracy theorists.  Google "social justification theory".

Also, I have to laugh at the "requirements" that I agreed to to be able to post in forum, as I am not allowed to post anything "false" or "inaccurate":-D

Anyway, as a physicist, I have to say you've done a decent job at creating a solid batch of pseudoscience.  To the uneducated eye, quite a bit of it is believable.  The piece about gravity being a "fictional force" is particularly good, in that actual science technically supports the denotation you've chosen, if not the connotation.  But I would like to point out two glaring errors that anyone with a college course in physics can see.  First, Special Relativity explicitly rejects infinite acceleration.  As gamma approaches c, the speed of light, it requires exponentially increasing energy to achieve the same amount of acceleration (an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light).  Therefore, you should slightly modify your propaganda to qualify infinite power input, not acceleration.  Second, the theory of dark energy relates to the expansion of the universe, NOT anything to do with a wall of mountains at the edge of the earth.  You show me that derivation mathematically and I'll kiss my own flat ass.

OK, so now I have that out of my system.  Here's my (relatively) simple test.  (Besides the fact that I have personal friends who have been to antarctica.)  Walk to your local weather station.  Ask them for the power distribution of their sonar.  Ask them why they can't accurately view weather patterns after a certain distance.  They will tell you it is because the curvature of the earth gets in the way of the signal.  Note that the sonar system must be ground-based for this to be true.  This experiment can also be duplicated with a long-range dipole antenna.  The signal will dissipate long before it mathematically should based on a normal power distribution.  A laser would also work, although it would be hard to correct for landscape changes.

Oh!  One more.  Get a spectrometer and point it at the sun.  The wavelength emission spectrum will tell you that it's much too hot to be only 3000 miles away based on blackbody radiation and not burning us to a crisp.  Even if you correct for the emissivity constant of the sun.

Now tell me that all weather-people, all scientists that use blackbody radiation equations every day, and all members of higher education and academia are in The Conspiracy:-)
I have some concerns with this post. A physicist would most certainly spell SONAR correctly. The comment about infinite acceleration being denied by ST is just wrong. I'm pretty sure that weather stations use RADAR, not SONAR. Signals of which he or she posts wouldn't dissipate because of the curvature. They just return uninteresting data as they pass over the weather systems.

The grammar is on par with most physicists. There are a few errors that could be just a bit of laziness. But there are enough tough concepts in the grammar that he or she gets right to conclude he or she has an advanced education.

I conclude that there are reasons to suspect that BulldogBlues is not a physicist. I do, however, concur that the weather RADAR systems and their limitations are great evidence for RET.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Rado1193

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2010, 09:32:02 PM »
I think it's a stupid idea to tell someone that his scientific beliefs are flawed when he makes grammar or spelling mistakes.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2010, 09:33:22 PM »
I think it's a stupid idea to tell someone that his scientific beliefs are flawed when he makes grammar or spelling mistakes.
I agree. Did I do that? If so, tell me where, so I can fix my error. Thanks.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2010, 10:25:12 PM »
Quote
First, Special Relativity explicitly rejects infinite acceleration.  As gamma approaches c, the speed of light, it requires exponentially increasing energy to achieve the same amount of acceleration (an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light).  Therefore, you should slightly modify your propaganda to qualify infinite power input, not acceleration

1. The earth will never reach the speed of light if it accelerated upwards continuously.

2. "Infinite energy" is not necessary. It is not implied that the earth will continue to accelerate forever. One day the acceleration may very well stop and all life will come to an end.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2010, 10:32:22 PM »
Quote
First, Special Relativity explicitly rejects infinite acceleration.  As gamma approaches c, the speed of light, it requires exponentially increasing energy to achieve the same amount of acceleration (an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light).  Therefore, you should slightly modify your propaganda to qualify infinite power input, not acceleration

1. The earth will never reach the speed of light if it accelerated upwards continuously.

2. "Infinite energy" is not necessary. It is not implied that the earth will continue to accelerate forever. One day the acceleration may very well stop and all life will come to an end.
Given your best guesses for the mass of the FE and the age of the FE, how many watts from dark energy are needed in the next second to keep us alive?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2010, 11:27:45 PM »
Quote
First, Special Relativity explicitly rejects infinite acceleration.  As gamma approaches c, the speed of light, it requires exponentially increasing energy to achieve the same amount of acceleration (an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light).  Therefore, you should slightly modify your propaganda to qualify infinite power input, not acceleration

1. The earth will never reach the speed of light if it accelerated upwards continuously.

2. "Infinite energy" is not necessary. It is not implied that the earth will continue to accelerate forever. One day the acceleration may very well stop and all life will come to an end.
Given your best guesses for the mass of the FE and the age of the FE, how many watts from dark energy are needed in the next second to keep us alive?
A watt isn't a unit of energy, moron.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2010, 11:51:10 PM »
First, Special Relativity explicitly rejects infinite acceleration.

If you actually were a phycisist you would find SR allows infinite acceleration.

It's due to Special Relativity, the restrictions placed on objects traveling at velocities that are substantial fractions of the speed of light, and the fact that the speed of light is invariant, thus is the upper bound of the speed of information transfer.  All things travel through the four dimensions we are familiar with at the speed of light.

Taking a few equations of SR involving time, distance and the Lorenz transformation, we arrive at what is known as the velocity addition formula of SR:

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

Where u is the proper velocity of object A, v is the proper velocity of object B, c is the speed of light and w is the resultant velocity seen by an observer at rest, or in an inertial frame.

The problem in using this equation for the FE's acceleration, is that Special Relativity is only valid for objects moving inertially, that is, not accelerating.  General Relativity extends SR to include all frames of reference, those accelerating, included.  However, the equations of GR are quite complex, so we would like a trick to use so that SR can be used for an accelerating frame of reference. 

Thus, v, in the above equation, is taken to be the velocity an object would have by accelerating from rest for one second.  This allows us to use a constant acceleration and iterate it in one second intervals.  For the FE, v would be 9.8m/s, the velocity gained by accelerating for one second at 9.8m/s^2.

Notice that when velocities are very small, relative to the speed of light, the familiar and intuitive velocity addition formula of

w = u+v

is obtained.  Thus, Newton's laws are a low speed approximation.  To be accurate in all circumstances, one would use the velocity addition formula of SR when adding velocities.

There is another, more complicated explanation that leads to the same answer using a different acceleration substitution, written by Erasmus, linked to in the FAQ



Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42015
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2010, 08:13:40 AM »
Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

How much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9991c to .9992 c?  Then, how much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9992c to .9993c?  I'll give you a hint, the second answer will be bigger than the first.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #10 on: October 01, 2010, 08:37:30 AM »
First of all, I have to apologize to everyone (including myself) for wasting their time.  No one is going to change their mind as a result of my post.  Conspiracy theorists will always be conspiracy theorists.  Google "social justification theory".

Also, I have to laugh at the "requirements" that I agreed to to be able to post in forum, as I am not allowed to post anything "false" or "inaccurate":-D

Anyway, as a physicist, I have to say you've done a decent job at creating a solid batch of pseudoscience.  To the uneducated eye, quite a bit of it is believable.  The piece about gravity being a "fictional force" is particularly good, in that actual science technically supports the denotation you've chosen, if not the connotation.  But I would like to point out two glaring errors that anyone with a college course in physics can see.  First, Special Relativity explicitly rejects infinite acceleration.  As gamma approaches c, the speed of light, it requires exponentially increasing energy to achieve the same amount of acceleration (an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light).  Therefore, you should slightly modify your propaganda to qualify infinite power input, not acceleration.  Second, the theory of dark energy relates to the expansion of the universe, NOT anything to do with a wall of mountains at the edge of the earth.  You show me that derivation mathematically and I'll kiss my own flat ass.

OK, so now I have that out of my system.  Here's my (relatively) simple test.  (Besides the fact that I have personal friends who have been to antarctica.)  Walk to your local weather station.  Ask them for the power distribution of their sonar.  Ask them why they can't accurately view weather patterns after a certain distance.  They will tell you it is because the curvature of the earth gets in the way of the signal.  Note that the sonar system must be ground-based for this to be true.  This experiment can also be duplicated with a long-range dipole antenna.  The signal will dissipate long before it mathematically should based on a normal power distribution.  A laser would also work, although it would be hard to correct for landscape changes.

Oh!  One more.  Get a spectrometer and point it at the sun.  The wavelength emission spectrum will tell you that it's much too hot to be only 3000 miles away based on blackbody radiation and not burning us to a crisp.  Even if you correct for the emissivity constant of the sun.

Now tell me that all weather-people, all scientists that use blackbody radiation equations every day, and all members of higher education and academia are in The Conspiracy:-)

You are thinking of infinite acceleration from an outside observers perspective. The increase in energy required to accelerate it corresponds directly with the time dilation caused by the velocity. This means constant acceleration is acheived within the FOR of the accelerating object with constant energy.


This is freshmen year stuff, well as long as you actually understood the concepts and didn't just cram for your final lol.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16862
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #11 on: October 01, 2010, 09:16:04 AM »
An infinite plane could cause infinite acceleration of a Cambridge-like earth.  Obviously it would need some sort of gravitational shielding.  I believe Feynman as well as several others before him have talked about such shielding while talking of alternatives to traditional gravity.The end result would be the same - the end of earth.  Unless it started an infinite distance away or the other plane is moving also. 
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 10:25:26 AM by Username »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2010, 09:42:35 AM »
Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

How much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9991c to .9992 c?  Then, how much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9992c to .9993c?  I'll give you a hint, the second answer will be bigger than the first.

First try and calculate how long, if ever, we would reach .9991c.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #13 on: October 01, 2010, 09:48:42 AM »
Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

How much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9991c to .9992 c?  Then, how much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9992c to .9993c?  I'll give you a hint, the second answer will be bigger than the first.

First try and calculate how long, if ever, we would reach .9991c.
At what velocity and at what time did FE first become affected by UA? Has the force of the UA been constant since that time?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2010, 09:59:26 AM »
Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

How much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9991c to .9992 c?  Then, how much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9992c to .9993c?  I'll give you a hint, the second answer will be bigger than the first.

First try and calculate how long, if ever, we would reach .9991c.
At what velocity and at what time did FE first become affected by UA? Has the force of the UA been constant since that time?

Just start at zero for both and assume that we have indeed been constantly accelerating at a steady 9.8m/s^2 for the sake of argument.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2010, 11:23:17 AM »
Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

How much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9991c to .9992 c?  Then, how much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9992c to .9993c?  I'll give you a hint, the second answer will be bigger than the first.

First try and calculate how long, if ever, we would reach .9991c.
At what velocity and at what time did FE first become affected by UA? Has the force of the UA been constant since that time?

Just start at zero for both and assume that we have indeed been constantly accelerating at a steady 9.8m/s^2 for the sake of argument.
Easy enough. Reference: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html.
v = c tanh(aT/c) where c is the speed of light, a = g = 1.03 lyr/yr2 here, v = .9991c. Solve for T.

tanh(aT/c) = v/c
aT/c = atanh(v/c)
T = c atanh(v/c) / a
T = 1 lyr/yr atanh(v') / 1.03 lyr/yr2 where v' is the portion of the speed of light the FE is traveling
T = atanh(v')/1.03 years
Here: T = atanh(.9991)/1.03 years = 3.7 years.

Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2010, 11:33:55 AM »
Start with u=0 and tell me how long it will take us to reach the speed of light.

How much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9991c to .9992 c?  Then, how much energy does it take to accelerate the universe from .9992c to .9993c?  I'll give you a hint, the second answer will be bigger than the first.

First try and calculate how long, if ever, we would reach .9991c.
At what velocity and at what time did FE first become affected by UA? Has the force of the UA been constant since that time?

Just start at zero for both and assume that we have indeed been constantly accelerating at a steady 9.8m/s^2 for the sake of argument.
Easy enough. Reference: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html.
v = c tanh(aT/c) where c is the speed of light, a = g = 1.03 lyr/yr2 here, v = .9991c. Solve for T.

tanh(aT/c) = v/c
aT/c = atanh(v/c)
T = c atanh(v/c) / a
T = 1 lyr/yr atanh(v') / 1.03 lyr/yr2 where v' is the portion of the speed of light the FE is traveling
T = atanh(v')/1.03 years
Here: T = atanh(.9991)/1.03 years = 3.7 years.



Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2010, 11:38:47 AM »
Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.
How is a reference and worked example a straw-man? Why would I have to use the SR equation quoted by TheEngineer? Do try to make at least a little sense. Are you so stupid that you can't follow the math? Are you so stupid that you can't follow the citation? Are are you just a troll?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2010, 11:50:55 AM »
Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.
How is a reference and worked example a straw-man? Why would I have to use the SR equation quoted by TheEngineer? Do try to make at least a little sense. Are you so stupid that you can't follow the math? Are you so stupid that you can't follow the citation? Are are you just a troll?


How about because the equations I posted were being discussed, and when I said start at zero and see where it takes you, you just started at zero on a completely different equation and claimed victory. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are really this dense not to realize that you just completely used a strawman.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2010, 11:59:33 AM »
Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.
How is a reference and worked example a straw-man? Why would I have to use the SR equation quoted by TheEngineer? Do try to make at least a little sense. Are you so stupid that you can't follow the math? Are you so stupid that you can't follow the citation? Are are you just a troll?


How about because the equations I posted were being discussed, and when I said start at zero and see where it takes you, you just started at zero on a completely different equation and claimed victory. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are really this dense not to realize that you just completely used a strawman.
So because you posted a formula I have to use. You really are arrogant, aren't you? How about you use that equation, which by the way the reference does if you'll read it, to check my work.

It is not a straw-man. It's a faster way to get to the right answer. The work is cited and explained. Can you follow it or not? If you need more education in physics or math, I'm sure we can wait while you get some help.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #20 on: October 01, 2010, 12:09:11 PM »
Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.
How is a reference and worked example a straw-man? Why would I have to use the SR equation quoted by TheEngineer? Do try to make at least a little sense. Are you so stupid that you can't follow the math? Are you so stupid that you can't follow the citation? Are are you just a troll?


How about because the equations I posted were being discussed, and when I said start at zero and see where it takes you, you just started at zero on a completely different equation and claimed victory. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are really this dense not to realize that you just completely used a strawman.
So because you posted a formula I have to use. You really are arrogant, aren't you? How about you use that equation, which by the way the reference does if you'll read it, to check my work.

It is not a straw-man. It's a faster way to get to the right answer. The work is cited and explained. Can you follow it or not? If you need more education in physics or math, I'm sure we can wait while you get some help.

Wait wait wait, so I make a claim, and then provide an equation with an explanation to back it up. Then while we are discussing it, you come in and don't even address it. You instead post an entirely different equation, and then demand that I use it instead of the one we were talking about? Stopping derailing this thread troll.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #21 on: October 01, 2010, 12:15:44 PM »

Wait wait wait, so I make a claim, and then provide an equation with an explanation to back it up. Then while we are discussing it, you come in and don't even address it. You instead post an entirely different equation, and then demand that I use it instead of the one we were talking about? Stopping derailing this thread troll.
It is not an entirely different equation. Read the citation. It's right from the Lorentz Transformation. It's straight-forward. Any first-year college physics student knows these equations. Do catch up.

If you claim that someone can use just TheEngineer's post to answer the question, I challenge you to do so now. Be sure to show your work and not to use any other equation at any point. I know you can't.

Until then, REers have answered the question, elegantly. Let's see FEers do the same.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #22 on: October 01, 2010, 12:18:14 PM »

Wait wait wait, so I make a claim, and then provide an equation with an explanation to back it up. Then while we are discussing it, you come in and don't even address it. You instead post an entirely different equation, and then demand that I use it instead of the one we were talking about? Stopping derailing this thread troll.
If you claim that someone can use just TheEngineer's post to answer the question, I challenge you to do so now. Be sure to show your work and not to use any other equation at any point. I know you can't.

Lurk moar. People have used his equations and showed work many times to prove this point.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #23 on: October 01, 2010, 12:19:56 PM »

Wait wait wait, so I make a claim, and then provide an equation with an explanation to back it up. Then while we are discussing it, you come in and don't even address it. You instead post an entirely different equation, and then demand that I use it instead of the one we were talking about? Stopping derailing this thread troll.
If you claim that someone can use just TheEngineer's post to answer the question, I challenge you to do so now. Be sure to show your work and not to use any other equation at any point. I know you can't.

Lurk moar. People have used his equations and showed work many times to prove this point.
So you can't answer the challenge. How typical.

By the way, they are not his equations. Lorenz started the fire, and it's the same fire I used. Do catch up.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2010, 12:21:03 PM »

Wait wait wait, so I make a claim, and then provide an equation with an explanation to back it up. Then while we are discussing it, you come in and don't even address it. You instead post an entirely different equation, and then demand that I use it instead of the one we were talking about? Stopping derailing this thread troll.
If you claim that someone can use just TheEngineer's post to answer the question, I challenge you to do so now. Be sure to show your work and not to use any other equation at any point. I know you can't.

Lurk moar. People have used his equations and showed work many times to prove this point.
So you can't answer the challenge. How typical.

Your laziness does not prove my failure, only your own.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2010, 12:24:02 PM »

Wait wait wait, so I make a claim, and then provide an equation with an explanation to back it up. Then while we are discussing it, you come in and don't even address it. You instead post an entirely different equation, and then demand that I use it instead of the one we were talking about? Stopping derailing this thread troll.
If you claim that someone can use just TheEngineer's post to answer the question, I challenge you to do so now. Be sure to show your work and not to use any other equation at any point. I know you can't.

Lurk moar. People have used his equations and showed work many times to prove this point.
So you can't answer the challenge. How typical.

Your laziness does not prove my failure, only your own.
What laziness would that be? Just because you're not smart enough to understand how the equations are the same, I'm not lazy. I've got an defensible answer. You don't. You fail. I win.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42015
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2010, 12:33:53 PM »
Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.
How is a reference and worked example a straw-man? Why would I have to use the SR equation quoted by TheEngineer? Do try to make at least a little sense. Are you so stupid that you can't follow the math? Are you so stupid that you can't follow the citation? Are are you just a troll?


How about because the equations I posted were being discussed, and when I said start at zero and see where it takes you, you just started at zero on a completely different equation and claimed victory. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are really this dense not to realize that you just completely used a strawman.

The velocity addition formula that you posted is not appropriate for acceleration.  In fact, as near as I can tell, the velocity addition formula is for calculating the relative velocity of 2 different objects, not for a single object accelerating.  So it seems that FE'ers have been using the wrong formula all this time.  Hmmm...  Who's strawman is it really?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2010, 12:43:59 PM »
Your laziness does not prove my failure, only your own.
Your failure to use the formula which you itself provided makes ClockTower lazy?
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2010, 01:19:08 PM »
Nice strawman. How about using the SR equations as quoted by TheEngineer.
How is a reference and worked example a straw-man? Why would I have to use the SR equation quoted by TheEngineer? Do try to make at least a little sense. Are you so stupid that you can't follow the math? Are you so stupid that you can't follow the citation? Are are you just a troll?


How about because the equations I posted were being discussed, and when I said start at zero and see where it takes you, you just started at zero on a completely different equation and claimed victory. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are really this dense not to realize that you just completely used a strawman.

The velocity addition formula that you posted is not appropriate for acceleration.  In fact, as near as I can tell, the velocity addition formula is for calculating the relative velocity of 2 different objects, not for a single object accelerating.  So it seems that FE'ers have been using the wrong formula all this time.  Hmmm...  Who's strawman is it really?

If you read the entire post, TheEngineer quite clearly explains how the two objects are actually the same object. U is the velocity at a given time, and V is the increase in velocity in the next frame of time. (Since it 9.8m/s^2 it is in frames of 1 sec) W is the the new speed in that frame of time, and you would then use that number as U when you plug it into the next equation. I'll show a few calculations since everyone wants to see them so badly. (They are going to be in meters)

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

Lets say we we are moving at 1/3 the speed of light.

So the U is 99,930,819.3m/s
V is 9.8m/s

w=(99,930,819.3m/s+9.8m/s)/(1+99,930,819.39m/s*9.8m/s/c^2)

w= 99,930,828m/s

If you notice, as the Earth's velocity approaches the speed of light, it's acceleration actually starts to slow down.

The different between U and W is now 8.7m/s instead of 9.8m/s

Now lets say we are 2/5 the speed of light.

U is 119,916,983m/s

V is 9.8m/s

w=(119,916,983m/s+9.8m/s)/(1+119,916,983m/s*9.8m/s/c^2)

w=119,916,991m/s

As we are even closer to the speed of light, now the difference between U and W has dropped to 8m/s instead of what should be 9.8m/s

As we get closer and closer, our increase in velocity over time exponentially decreases due to Special Relativity despite constant acceleration.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 02:06:57 PM by EnglshGentleman »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42015
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2010, 01:27:29 PM »
I'm sorry but there are no variables for acceleration or time in that formula, so asking how long it would take to accelerate to a certain velocity is not possible using that formula.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.