Accelerating to the Speed of Light?

Well technically if the earth was constantly accelerating we would feel gravity. Only if it stayed at the same speed would the relative speed be zero. So, according to the FEers the earth is moving up faster and faster in ever increasing speed?

I wonder how soon we go faster than light and the whole world goes dark?

Please don't bump old threads. New topic made for you.

Well technically if the earth was constantly accelerating we would feel gravity. Only if it stayed at the same speed would the relative speed be zero. So, according to the FEers the earth is moving up faster and faster in ever increasing speed?

I wonder how soon we go faster than light and the whole world goes dark?

I "think" the constant acceleration is really a constant speed that the Flat Earth moves at. I believe the speed is 9.something m/s. I positive its in the FAQ. Give me a few minutes.

EDIT: Assuming you are referring to the DE model. Here's what the FAQ states:

 "In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle."

So, If I'm correct (big IF) the the Earth is accelerated to a constant 9.81m/s2. So, it will never reach the speed of light.

Well technically if the earth was constantly accelerating we would feel gravity. Only if it stayed at the same speed would the relative speed be zero. So, according to the FEers the earth is moving up faster and faster in ever increasing speed?

I wonder how soon we go faster than light and the whole world goes dark?

The FAQ tells us (And proves mathematically) that earth cannot go faster than the speed of light. I am pleased about that because  relativity tells us that even though you continue to feel 1 g acceleration, you just keep getting closer and closer to the speed of light without ever getting there.

The relevant equation is v/c = tanh (at/c). Since tanh(at/c) is always less than 1, you can never reach the speed of light.

According to the theory of special relativity, earth accelerating at one standard gravity (9.80665 m/s²) will have the speeds shown in the table below.

T (days), v/c
10, 0.028255
20, 0.056465
30, 0.084586
40, 0.112572
50, 0.140380
60, 0.167969
70, 0.195298
80, 0.222326
90, 0.249017
100, 0.275335
110, 0.301246
120, 0.326721
130, 0.351729
140, 0.376245
150, 0.400245
160, 0.423708
170, 0.446617
180, 0.468954
190, 0.490707
200, 0.511865
210, 0.532420
220, 0.552366
230, 0.571698
240, 0.590416
250, 0.608520
260, 0.626012
270, 0.642895
280, 0.659176
290, 0.674862
300, 0.689961
310, 0.704482
320, 0.718437
330, 0.731836
340, 0.744692
350, 0.757019
360, 0.768829
1 year, 0.774818
400, 0.811193
500, 0.888158
600, 0.934877
700, 0.962469
2 years, 0.968315
800, 0.978500
900, 0.987726
1000, 0.993007
3 years, 0.995924
4 years, 0.999482
5 years, 0.999934

We will get closer and closer, but never get there. So its nice to say for a change, that one is water tight. The FAQ hasn't made a mess of things. Flat Earth stands.

Quote from: Uberrod on October 20, 2010, 01:49:38 PM

Well technically if the earth was constantly accelerating we would feel gravity. Only if it stayed at the same speed would the relative speed be zero. So, according to the FEers the earth is moving up faster and faster in ever increasing speed?

I wonder how soon we go faster than light and the whole world goes dark?

The FAQ tells us (And proves mathematically) that earth cannot go faster than the speed of light. I am pleased about that because  relativity tells us that even though you continue to feel 1 g acceleration, you just keep getting closer and closer to the speed of light without ever getting there.

The relevant equation is v/c = tanh (at/c). Since tanh(at/c) is always less than 1, you can never reach the speed of light.

According to the theory of special relativity, earth accelerating at one standard gravity (9.80665 m sec?²) will have the speeds shown in the table below.

T (days), v/c
10, 0.028255
20, 0.056465
30, 0.084586
40, 0.112572
50, 0.140380
60, 0.167969
70, 0.195298
80, 0.222326
90, 0.249017
100, 0.275335
110, 0.301246
120, 0.326721
130, 0.351729
140, 0.376245
150, 0.400245
160, 0.423708
170, 0.446617
180, 0.468954
190, 0.490707
200, 0.511865
210, 0.532420
220, 0.552366
230, 0.571698
240, 0.590416
250, 0.608520
260, 0.626012
270, 0.642895
280, 0.659176
290, 0.674862
300, 0.689961
310, 0.704482
320, 0.718437
330, 0.731836
340, 0.744692
350, 0.757019
360, 0.768829
1 year, 0.774818
400, 0.811193
500, 0.888158
600, 0.934877
700, 0.962469
2 years, 0.968315
800, 0.978500
900, 0.987726
1000, 0.993007
3 years, 0.995924
4 years, 0.999482
5 years, 0.999934

We will get closer and closer, but never get there. So its nice to say for a change, that one is water tight. The FAQ hasn't made a mess of things. Flat Earth stands.

Yahhh.......I'm going to let Clock take this one so I don't make a complete fool out of myself.

I never bung numbers in if they aint right. That much ClockTower will tell you.

Yahhh.......I'm going to let Clock take this one so I don't make a complete fool out of myself.

I never bung numbers in if they aint right. That much ClockTower will tell you.

Yeah the whole speed of light thing throws me for a loop sometimes.  Every time I get I throw something about lasers and speed of light something about the lorenze theory gets thrown back - and I check it up on wikipedia and all I get is


Stare at that long enough and even Brazil starts to make sense.
Berny
Hates physics.

I never bung numbers in if they aint right. That much ClockTower will tell you.

Those numbers are correct. Indeed I believe that I pointed to the article that provided them first in these forums. The problem here is the energy required to continue to accelerate the FE after 4.6 billion years is beyond imagining.

To Thork, where is the increase of energy coming from? (see post above)

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:14:31 PM

I never bung numbers in if they aint right. That much ClockTower will tell you.

Those numbers are correct. Indeed I believe that I pointed to the article that provided them first in these forums. The problem here is the energy required to continue to accelerate the FE after 4.6 billion years is beyond imagining.

Dark Energy is hard to imagine. It needs more research from the FE scientists. The FAQ explains dark energy.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 20, 2010, 02:25:36 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:14:31 PM

I never bung numbers in if they aint right. That much ClockTower will tell you.

Those numbers are correct. Indeed I believe that I pointed to the article that provided them first in these forums. The problem here is the energy required to continue to accelerate the FE after 4.6 billion years is beyond imagining.

Dark Energy is hard to imagine.

It would certainly have to be to explain the acceleration. Give me just the next second of that energy and I'd be the practical equivalent of God.

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:28:21 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 20, 2010, 02:25:36 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:14:31 PM

I never bung numbers in if they aint right. That much ClockTower will tell you.

Those numbers are correct. Indeed I believe that I pointed to the article that provided them first in these forums. The problem here is the energy required to continue to accelerate the FE after 4.6 billion years is beyond imagining.

Dark Energy is hard to imagine.

It would certainly have to be to explain the acceleration. Give me just the next second of that energy and I'd be the practical equivalent of God.

Mmmmmm. As far as this thread goes though, its an FE victory. It you would like to start another on Dark Energy, be my guest.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 20, 2010, 02:31:35 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:28:21 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 20, 2010, 02:25:36 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:14:31 PM

I never bung numbers in if they aint right. That much ClockTower will tell you.

Those numbers are correct. Indeed I believe that I pointed to the article that provided them first in these forums. The problem here is the energy required to continue to accelerate the FE after 4.6 billion years is beyond imagining.

Dark Energy is hard to imagine.

It would certainly have to be to explain the acceleration. Give me just the next second of that energy and I'd be the practical equivalent of God.

Mmmmmm. As far as this thread goes though, its an FE victory. It you would like to start another on Dark Energy, be my guest.

I won't deny "Victory" but this was more of a question in the first place, not a debate. Now who will start the Dark Energy battle?

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:37:00 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 20, 2010, 02:31:35 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:28:21 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 20, 2010, 02:25:36 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:14:31 PM

I never bung numbers in if they aint right. That much ClockTower will tell you.

Those numbers are correct. Indeed I believe that I pointed to the article that provided them first in these forums. The problem here is the energy required to continue to accelerate the FE after 4.6 billion years is beyond imagining.

Dark Energy is hard to imagine.

It would certainly have to be to explain the acceleration. Give me just the next second of that energy and I'd be the practical equivalent of God.

Mmmmmm. As far as this thread goes though, its an FE victory. It you would like to start another on Dark Energy, be my guest.

I won't deny "Victory" but this was more of a question in the first place, not a debate. Now who will start the Dark Energy battle?

New thread my over-eager friend. This one belongs to FE now.

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:37:00 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 20, 2010, 02:31:35 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:28:21 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 20, 2010, 02:25:36 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:14:31 PM

I never bung numbers in if they aint right. That much ClockTower will tell you.

Those numbers are correct. Indeed I believe that I pointed to the article that provided them first in these forums. The problem here is the energy required to continue to accelerate the FE after 4.6 billion years is beyond imagining.

Dark Energy is hard to imagine.

It would certainly have to be to explain the acceleration. Give me just the next second of that energy and I'd be the practical equivalent of God.

Mmmmmm. As far as this thread goes though, its an FE victory. It you would like to start another on Dark Energy, be my guest.

I won't deny "Victory" but this was more of a question in the first place, not a debate. Now who will start the Dark Energy battle?

No need. We already won that debate thread. Thanks.

Quote from: Danukenator123 on October 20, 2010, 02:42:42 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:37:00 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 20, 2010, 02:31:35 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:28:21 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 20, 2010, 02:25:36 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 20, 2010, 02:14:31 PM

I never bung numbers in if they aint right. That much ClockTower will tell you.

Those numbers are correct. Indeed I believe that I pointed to the article that provided them first in these forums. The problem here is the energy required to continue to accelerate the FE after 4.6 billion years is beyond imagining.

Dark Energy is hard to imagine.

It would certainly have to be to explain the acceleration. Give me just the next second of that energy and I'd be the practical equivalent of God.

Mmmmmm. As far as this thread goes though, its an FE victory. It you would like to start another on Dark Energy, be my guest.

I won't deny "Victory" but this was more of a question in the first place, not a debate. Now who will start the Dark Energy battle?

No need. We already won that debate thread. Thanks.

Having the last word when everyone else is tired of debating a flogged to death subject, does not constitute a victory.

Having the last word when everyone else is tired of debating a flogged to death subject, does not constitute a victory.

We appreciate your concession. Thanks.