Simple Test

  • 139 Replies
  • 15912 Views
?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2010, 01:30:31 PM »
 My thoughts were exactly the same. You do your math but were is the time?
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.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2010, 01:44:37 PM »
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.

For those of you that are too lazy to do this calculation, here you have a spreadsheet:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/6a60348rh4qk0hs/acceleration.ods

It calculates day by day the increased speed, then corrects for special relativity effects.

And there you can see that in day number 1365 the 0.9991c speed is achieved. (about 3.7 years).

And in about 2600 days we reach about 0.999999c, and that is about what you can calculate with confidence with just any spreadsheet. (some 7 years)

Also, by changing the increase in speed per period (cell B2) you can change the length in time of every calculation step, so you can check that the incremental period is small enough that for the approximation to be close to the exact answer. In this case, by multiplying the value in cell B2 by 10 the speed of 0.9991c is achieved in 136 periods, so the accuracy of the approximation is guaranteed to be very good.

But EnglshGentleman already knew the answer to his question is around 4 years, since it has been said several times in this forum. This was just another attempt at rhetoric.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2010, 01:45:01 PM »
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 99,930,819.3
V is 9.8

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

w= 99,930,828

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 8.7 instead of 9.8

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

U is 119,916,983

V is 9.8


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

w=119,916,991

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

As we get closer and closer, our increase in velocity over time exponentially decreases due to Special Relativity despite constant acceleration.

Units of measure are wrong. Conclusion violates SR. Conclusion does not answer the question (When will the FE be travelling at .9991c. assuming an initial velocity of 0 and a constant acceleration of g in the correct direction?) And that's what I see wrong in just five minutes of review. How sad.
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 #33 on: October 01, 2010, 02:01:19 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.

Fixed for you.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #34 on: October 01, 2010, 02:04:34 PM »

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^2

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

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

U is 119,916,983m/s

V is 9.8m/s^2


w=(119,916,983m/s+9.8m/s^2)/(1+119,916,983m/s*9.8m/s^2/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^2 instead of what should be 9.8m/s^2

As we get closer and closer, our increase in velocity over time exponentially decreases due to Special Relativity despite constant acceleration.

It's clear that you're ignorant. V cannot have unit of measure m/s^2. It's a velocity, not an acceleration. You can't add U and V. Really adding a velocity to an acceleration? How ignorant can you be?
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 #35 on: October 01, 2010, 02:06:03 PM »
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.

For those of you that are too lazy to do this calculation, here you have a spreadsheet:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/6a60348rh4qk0hs/acceleration.ods

I do not see any equations there, just long lists of numbers.

@ClockTower Fixed. Simple mistake, just habitual to type 9.8m/s^2 here.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 02:08:10 PM by EnglshGentleman »

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2010, 02:12:45 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.

You still very ignorant of physics. You cannot use V = 9.8 m/s. You must deal with the continuous case, not some discrete set of every second. Do you have any physics background.

And you still haven't answered the question you posed. How much longer do you need? This is really sad. Isn't there any FEer who understands SR enough to do this exercise?
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 #37 on: October 01, 2010, 02:15:49 PM »
If you paid attention earlier, the formula works in single frames of time. Therefore it is appropriate to do a case for every second.

Now how about you try and figure out how long it takes us to reach the speed of lights starting at u=0.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #38 on: October 01, 2010, 02:27:54 PM »
If you paid attention earlier, the formula works in single frames of time. Therefore it is appropriate to do a case for every second.

Now how about you try and figure out how long it takes us to reach the speed of lights starting at u=0.
No, the formula does not work in single frames of time, and it is not appropriate to do a case for every second. Please cite a source that says that it is.

 No, I'm not going to do your math for you.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #39 on: October 01, 2010, 03:18:45 PM »

I do not see any equations there, just long lists of numbers.

Just look at the formulas in every cell. Are you totally ignorant about the use of spreadsheets?

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #40 on: October 01, 2010, 03:48:47 PM »
If you paid attention earlier, the formula works in single frames of time. Therefore it is appropriate to do a case for every second.

Now how about you try and figure out how long it takes us to reach the speed of lights starting at u=0.
No, the formula does not work in single frames of time, and it is not appropriate to do a case for every second. Please cite a source that says that it is.

 No, I'm not going to do your math for you.
I can help you a little bit with the mathematical problem here. Inside a humongous mass of garbage, EnglshGentleman did get one little bit of correct maths in this post.

Although there is an error introduced when you add the speeds u and v since the object is accelerating, (in this case, a flat Earth), the speed w is correct in the limit where the length of the time lapse tends to zero. And you can get an approximation by doing the calculation with a few values for the time lapse. What I found is that the convergence of this formula is very fast, so the result given here by TheEngineer (if there are no mistakes, I did not check the details) is about right.

If you check the spreadsheet I posted, you can see that Earth will approach 0.9991c in less than 4 years, which means that the energy required to keep Earth accelerating was humongous even then. You can either calculate what is necessary to carry under a flat Earth to accelerate it (about three Hiroshima bombs exploding every day under every square meter of Earth's bottom, assuming perfect efficiency) or what is necessary to push Earth from its original place of creation (at least all the energy created by man to push every subatomic particle on Earth, but maybe much, much more).

Either way, pretending that Earth is moving at more than  0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c and that it is no deal is totally brain dead.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2010, 04:13:33 PM »
where v' is the portion of the speed of light the FE is traveling
T = atanh(v')/1.03 years where T is the time required to reach v' from the FoR of the FE.

v' = tanh(1.03 T)

So lets say 4.6 billion years for T.

I cannot find a calculator that can handle the needed precision. The velocity would be so close to the c that 64-bit arithmetic can't measure the difference.

So the amount of energy required to accelerate the FE at 1g at this time would be greater that the total energy of all of the mass of the Universe by 100s of orders of magnitude.

Let's just say... Tilt. It can't be imagined.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #42 on: October 01, 2010, 04:17:41 PM »
where v' is the portion of the speed of light the FE is traveling
T = atanh(v')/1.03 years where T is the time required to reach v' from the FoR of the FE.

v' = tanh(1.03 T)

So lets say 4.6 billion years for T.

I cannot find a calculator that can handle the needed precision. The velocity would be so close to the c that 64-bit arithmetic can't measure the difference.

So the amount of energy required to accelerate the FE at 1g at this time would be greater that the total energy of all of the mass of the Universe by 100s of orders of magnitude.

Let's just say... Tilt. It can't be imagined.

In reality, you are only going to get 2 significant figures.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #43 on: October 01, 2010, 04:23:58 PM »
where v' is the portion of the speed of light the FE is traveling
T = atanh(v')/1.03 years where T is the time required to reach v' from the FoR of the FE.

v' = tanh(1.03 T)

So lets say 4.6 billion years for T.

I cannot find a calculator that can handle the needed precision. The velocity would be so close to the c that 64-bit arithmetic can't measure the difference.

So the amount of energy required to accelerate the FE at 1g at this time would be greater that the total energy of all of the mass of the Universe by 100s of orders of magnitude.

Let's just say... Tilt. It can't be imagined.

In reality, you are only going to get 2 significant figures.
Of course. But I can't even imagine the number in the exponent in scientific notation. It's beyond googleplex.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #44 on: October 01, 2010, 05:07:54 PM »
where v' is the portion of the speed of light the FE is traveling
T = atanh(v')/1.03 years where T is the time required to reach v' from the FoR of the FE.

v' = tanh(1.03 T)

So lets say 4.6 billion years for T.

I cannot find a calculator that can handle the needed precision. The velocity would be so close to the c that 64-bit arithmetic can't measure the difference.

So the amount of energy required to accelerate the FE at 1g at this time would be greater that the total energy of all of the mass of the Universe by 100s of orders of magnitude.

Let's just say... Tilt. It can't be imagined.

In reality, you are only going to get 2 significant figures.
One way or another, when you are already at more than 0.999 of c in just 4 years, and you continue accelerating for billions of years, you will get to the point where you need to write pages of nines to be exact. Whether the 1.03 is just an approximation or exact, that will not change the fact that we are talking about a small percentage of the width of a subatomic particle per hour less than c. That is what the 64 digits of ClockTower's calculator did show clearly.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #45 on: October 01, 2010, 05:13:58 PM »
And another model of FET is disproved! Now I just wish John Davis would properly explain his because, though he keeps its details a secret, it seems to be the only possibly viable one left.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #46 on: October 01, 2010, 05:25:17 PM »
I do not see how it would be disproved. It seems to be common consensus that A) We can continue to accelerate without ever reaching the speed of light, and B) It is would require large amounts of energy. This doesn't disprove it, just means that it is unlikely.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #47 on: October 01, 2010, 05:27:17 PM »
And another model of FET is disproved! Now I just wish John Davis would properly explain his because, though he keeps its details a secret, it seems to be the only possibly viable one left.
Actually, I think that we've got JD on the run. Since the g toward the infinite FE would be constant regardless of the distance, He can't keep the Sun in the sky.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #48 on: October 01, 2010, 05:29:29 PM »
It seems to be common consensus that A) We can't continue to accelerate without ever reaching the speed of light, because B) It is would require impossible amounts of energy.

Fix'd.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #49 on: October 01, 2010, 05:31:55 PM »
And another model of FET is disproved! Now I just wish John Davis would properly explain his because, though he keeps its details a secret, it seems to be the only possibly viable one left.
Actually, I think that we've got JD on the run. Since the g toward the infinite FE would be constant regardless of the distance, He can't keep the Sun in the sky.

It's hard to say, because he refuses to give out the details of his model.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #50 on: October 01, 2010, 05:36:00 PM »
I do not see how it would be disproved. It seems to be common consensus that A) We can continue to accelerate without ever reaching the speed of light, and B) It is would require large amounts of energy. This doesn't disprove it, just means that it is unlikely.
If you can tell us FE gets the energy that beyond imagining, we'll listen. But if you had enough anti-matter to combined with all of the Universe's matter you couldn't even handle the next second of the FE's acceleration. With that much energy at his or her disposal anyone could create a whole new solar system to match the RET.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #51 on: October 02, 2010, 12:26:47 AM »
Either way, pretending that Earth is moving at more than  0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c and that it is no deal is totally brain dead.
By the way, I fired up Mathematica 7.0 and asked for 10^60 digits of precision and still received '1'. So that's more than .9999999 ... 10^60 times... c.

I was able to get an answer for the speed after 10,000 years with 20 digits of precision that filled the output buffer with nines and a final line of gibberish. So Mathematica, renown for precision, says that after 10,000 years it can't tell the difference.

I think we can pronounce the UA deader than a doornail.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2010, 12:52:41 AM by ClockTower »
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 #52 on: October 02, 2010, 05:43:39 PM »
I do not see how it would be disproved. It seems to be common consensus that A) We can continue to accelerate without ever reaching the speed of light, and B) It is would require large amounts of energy. This doesn't disprove it, just means that it is unlikely.
If you can tell us FE gets the energy that beyond imagining, we'll listen. But if you had enough anti-matter to combined with all of the Universe's matter you couldn't even handle the next second of the FE's acceleration. With that much energy at his or her disposal anyone could create a whole new solar system to match the RET.

So you admit that it is just unlikely, not impossible.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #53 on: October 02, 2010, 08:10:34 PM »
Either way, pretending that Earth is moving at more than  0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c and that it is no deal is totally brain dead.
By the way, I fired up Mathematica 7.0 and asked for 10^60 digits of precision and still received '1'. So that's more than .9999999 ... 10^60 times... c.

I was able to get an answer for the speed after 10,000 years with 20 digits of precision that filled the output buffer with nines and a final line of gibberish. So Mathematica, renown for precision, says that after 10,000 years it can't tell the difference.

I think we can pronounce the UA deader than a doornail.

I don't get the pointt of your post. Are you implying that accelerating an object would eventually lead it to reaching the speed of light?

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #54 on: October 03, 2010, 01:21:53 AM »
I don't get the point of your post. Are you implying that accelerating an object would eventually lead it to reaching the speed of light?
  No, it's just so close to the speed of light that even this would be impossible to achieve. Or do you imply that there is no problem to achieve the speed where there is some hundreds of millions or more nines after comma?
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.

Re: Simple Test
« Reply #55 on: October 03, 2010, 02:20:07 AM »
Either way, pretending that Earth is moving at more than  0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c and that it is no deal is totally brain dead.
By the way, I fired up Mathematica 7.0 and asked for 10^60 digits of precision and still received '1'. So that's more than .9999999 ... 10^60 times... c.

I was able to get an answer for the speed after 10,000 years with 20 digits of precision that filled the output buffer with nines and a final line of gibberish. So Mathematica, renown for precision, says that after 10,000 years it can't tell the difference.

I think we can pronounce the UA deader than a doornail.

I don't get the pointt of your post. Are you implying that accelerating an object would eventually lead it to reaching the speed of light?
No, I'm saying the energy required to accelerate the FE is too large to be accepted.

At this point in time, if every proton in the Universe each contributed all of the energy currently being provided by all sources in the Universe toward the acceleration for one nanosecond of a single proton in the FE, you'd still need more than a trillion times that energy to handle just that one proton for that one nanosecond.

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

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #56 on: October 03, 2010, 05:58:36 AM »
No, I'm saying the energy required to accelerate the FE is too large to be accepted.

At this point in time, if every proton in the Universe each contributed all of the energy currently being provided by all sources in the Universe toward the acceleration for one nanosecond of a single proton in the FE, you'd still need more than a trillion times that energy to handle just that one proton for that one nanosecond.

The UA is false.
Ah, no support. Typical. Do try again.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16714
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #57 on: October 03, 2010, 06:26:22 AM »
I've already discussed why the sun stays in the sky.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #58 on: October 03, 2010, 06:37:41 AM »
No, I'm saying the energy required to accelerate the FE is too large to be accepted.

At this point in time, if every proton in the Universe each contributed all of the energy currently being provided by all sources in the Universe toward the acceleration for one nanosecond of a single proton in the FE, you'd still need more than a trillion times that energy to handle just that one proton for that one nanosecond.

The UA is false.
Ah, no support. Typical. Do try again.
You fail to make a point. Support for what? That the energy needed to accelerate the earth to the almost speed of the light must be humongous or even in impossible scale?
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Simple Test
« Reply #59 on: October 03, 2010, 08:16:28 AM »
Support for what?
The numbers, of course. What else do you think could need support there? I could have missed something.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)