What we as FE'ers need to do

In that case Universal Acceleration is a contradiction in terms. If it's  not actually universal, then think of a better name. And if it is above us, then it is clearly being accelerated at the same rate, otherwise it would either be below us or smashing into us.

Everything is accelerated it is universal, but not all things were created at the same time. Most matter has come from the supernova of a huge star. Earth being one such example. Now if the star from which our planet is born exploded 10 billion years ago, and a meteorite comes from a star that exploded only 2 billion years ago, it will clearly not have accelerated to the same speed. It will also be on a different trajectory as whatever sent the meteor in motion. So if it is 8 billion years younger than the primordial soup our earth came from but in front of us, we will catch it if we have been accelerating longer. It will then appear to be over head and indeed come crashing down as we accelerate into it having been set in motion longer.

I thought FE stars were positively tiny compared to RE ones.

I thought FE stars were positively tiny compared to RE ones.

They are, but they are not insubstantial.

 First of all, Thork, the mass of the Earth is not known in FE. Secondly, you calculate the needed energy with the E=mc²?
 In my knowledge you don't use that formula to calculate the energy needed to accelerate something to the near speed of light. Trig has posted about this subject many messages, for example. You may use the search function for more messages.

First of all, Thork, the mass of the Earth is not known in FE. Secondly, you calculate the needed energy with the E=mc²?
 In my knowledge you don't use that formula to calculate the energy needed to accelerate something to the near speed of light. Trig has posted about this subject many messages, for example. You may use the search function for more messages.

First thank you for the link and the constructive criticism. I will look into it now. There are dozens of threads saying all kinds of things. I linked 3 threads in my earlier post. Hopefully we can use this thread to pool together all the most accurate information we have, and they clarify the UA theory a bit better. I will research Trig's answer and come back to this.

On inspection Trig only says the energy needed is enormous. I concur and have quantified it earlier. But on a cosmological scale as I demonstrated the energy required isn't that much. Its actually quite feeble.

On inspection Trig only says the energy needed is enormous. I concur and have quantified it earlier. But on a cosmological scale as I demonstrated the energy required isn't that much. Its actually quite feeble.

Please lurk moar. I have demonstrated several time that the energy required is far beyond even cosmological scales.

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.

Your formula is to calculate time. I too linked the exact same version of the calc myself earlier, where I had done it. But you only go on to say the energy is immeasurable. I have calculated instantaneous force required to be  5.7493370862 * 10^26N. Do you disagree with my calculation and if not, please point out my mistake so we can get closer to a UA theory. If we can nail down everything in one thread, it is a single thread we can all refer to.

Quote from: HornPiper on October 26, 2010, 06:27:57 PM

Another legitimate question:
What tenets of RE are shaky?  I truly have never heard any.

Then you obviously haven't been here very long, or read up on FET any further than the FAQ.  Or both.

I read both, and I haven't found any weak spots in RET.  Would you kindly point a few out? (here's a hint: they RET isn't wrong because it's incompatible with FET, so don't mention inconsistencies between the two.  Rather, find observable phenomena that shouldn't actually work on a round Earth)

Your formula is to calculate time. I too linked the exact same version of the calc myself earlier, where I had done it. But you only go on to say the energy is immeasurable. I have calculated instantaneous force required to be  5.7493370862 * 10^26N. Do you disagree with my calculation and if not, please point out my mistake so we can get closer to a UA theory. If we can nail down everything in one thread, it is a single thread we can all refer to.

It doesn't matter what time you use, after 4.6 billion years. The energy required is unfathomable.

I see that you've already been pointed to one of your errors, you plugged in the mass of the RE to the energy equation. Choosing the RE mass is silly. But assuming that the acceleration energy at any time of the FE is solely dependent of the energy of its rest mass is just ludicrous. (They've gone to plaid.)

Quote from: Thork on October 27, 2010, 09:30:45 AM

Your formula is to calculate time. I too linked the exact same version of the calc myself earlier, where I had done it. But you only go on to say the energy is immeasurable. I have calculated instantaneous force required to be  5.7493370862 * 10^26N. Do you disagree with my calculation and if not, please point out my mistake so we can get closer to a UA theory. If we can nail down everything in one thread, it is a single thread we can all refer to.

It doesn't matter what time you use, after 4.6 billion years. The energy required is unfathomable.

I see that you've already been pointed to one of your errors, you plugged in the mass of the RE to the energy equation. Choosing the RE mass is silly. But assuming that the acceleration energy at any time of the FE is solely dependent of the energy of its rest mass is just ludicrous. (They've gone to plaid.)

You are looking at the energy over time for billions of years. No one looks at how much force the sun has due to gravity over millions of years - That number too would be incalcuable. What is important is the force it exerts on an object right now. UA is a constant, the same as gravity for RE. It is the instantaneous force that we must focus on as RE scientists do with gravity.

As for mass of earth, why may I not use the RET calculation? If the earth has a finite size and I am one who does not subscribe to infinite plain theory, then it must have a finite mass.

You complain that the energy required is enormous and E=mc^2. So mass must be a factor? If you are saying mass is irrelevant

But assuming that the acceleration energy at any time of the FE is solely dependent of the energy of its rest mass is just ludicrous.

How would you suggest we go about calculating this? What numbers would you be happy with? What mass should I use? If mass is irrelevant then F=ma becomes F=0*a so no force is required at all I must use a mass to calculate the Energy E=mc^2

Quote from: ClockTower on October 27, 2010, 09:42:12 AM

Quote from: Thork on October 27, 2010, 09:30:45 AM

Your formula is to calculate time. I too linked the exact same version of the calc myself earlier, where I had done it. But you only go on to say the energy is immeasurable. I have calculated instantaneous force required to be  5.7493370862 * 10^26N. Do you disagree with my calculation and if not, please point out my mistake so we can get closer to a UA theory. If we can nail down everything in one thread, it is a single thread we can all refer to.

It doesn't matter what time you use, after 4.6 billion years. The energy required is unfathomable.

I see that you've already been pointed to one of your errors, you plugged in the mass of the RE to the energy equation. Choosing the RE mass is silly. But assuming that the acceleration energy at any time of the FE is solely dependent of the energy of its rest mass is just ludicrous. (They've gone to plaid.)

You are looking at the energy over time for billions of years. No one looks at how much force the sun has due to gravity over millions of years - That number too would be incalcuable. What is important is the force it exerts on an object right now. UA is a constant, the same as gravity for RE. It is the instantaneous force that we must focus on as RE scientists do with gravity.

As for mass of earth, why may I not use the RET calculation? If the earth has a finite size and I am one who does not subscribe to infinite plain theory, then it must have a finite mass.

You complain that the energy required is enormous and E=mc^2. So mass must be a factor? If you are saying mass is irrelevant

You don't understand physics. Do go learn some.

Energy is dependent on force. Force required is dependent on relativistic mass. Relativistic mass is dependent of velocity. Velocity is dependent on acceleration history. Once you understand this, please post your next question.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 27, 2010, 09:42:12 AM

But assuming that the acceleration energy at any time of the FE is solely dependent of the energy of its rest mass is just ludicrous.

How would you suggest we go about calculating this? What numbers would you be happy with? What mass should I use? If mass is irrelevant then F=ma becomes F=0*a so no force is required at all I must use a mass to calculate the Energy E=mc^2

I suggest that you wait until you know the mass of the FE before plugging in a number. Go research and study your model.

Then I suggest that you just go with your mass as a known lower bound; call it the 'troll mass lower bound'. You'll still need to use the correct formula though. Here it's not E=mc².

You don't understand physics. Do go learn some.

Rude

Energy is dependent on force. Force required is dependent on relativistic mass. Relativistic mass is dependent of velocity. Velocity is dependent on acceleration history.

Useless.

I know its acceleration history, because that is unchanged. It is and has always been 9.81m/s^2.

Let me use an RE example. A ball with mass 1 kg is travelling at 500m/s from the sun directly at it and the sun's gravity is 274m/s^2. Can you work out how much force is on the ball to make it accelerate at that speed? Yes.
Earth with mass 'x' kg is travelling just under light speed and its force of UA is 9.81m/s^2. Can I work out how much force is on the earth? Yes

So if the mass is the problem that's not UA. UA is the theory. If the theory is robust, researching masses can be done later for accurate numbers. If the calc is the problem, be more specific.

The truth is sometimes unpleasant. Or perhaps you are just feigning ignorance on the subject?

Quote

You don't understand physics. Do go learn some.

Rude You might check your insults against me before complaining when I demonstrate your ignorance.

Quote

Energy is dependent on force. Force required is dependent on relativistic mass. Relativistic mass is dependent of velocity. Velocity is dependent on acceleration history.

Useless. You keep missing this point.

I know its acceleration history, because that is unchanged. It is and has always been 9.81m/s^2.

Let me use an RE example. A ball with mass 1 kg is travelling at 500m/s from the sun directly at it and the sun's gravity is 274m/s^2. Can you work out how much force is on the ball to make it accelerate at that speed? Yes.
Earth with rest mass 'x' kg is travelling just under light speed and its force of UA is 9.81m/s^2. Can I work out how much force is on the earth? Yes No

So if the mass is the problem that's not UA. UA is the theory. If the theory is robust, researching masses can be done later for accurate numbers. If the calc is the problem, be more specific.

I guess that you don't understand that relativistic mass is dependent on velocity. Please Google that and stop back when you understand the "No" above.

On inspection Trig only says the energy needed is enormous. I concur and have quantified it earlier. But on a cosmological scale as I demonstrated the energy required isn't that much. Its actually quite feeble.

I guess the search function sucks. Trig has mentioned it that he calculated but I didn't find it either. But the problem was the formula you used. E=mc². You can't get the correct result using that. Maybe you get with it the energy amount needed for the one time unit, second maybe. Because after the first second of acceleration you already have gained the mass and you need more energy to accelerate further and you must use the formula with the new m and so one after every second. So, your number is no way a total energy required to accelerate the Earth. It just one very-very-very small part of the total energy needed.
  There is analogous dicsusison, but about rocket in http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-45691.html and the formula for the speed of rocket at http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RocketEquation.html . And http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae235.cfm .

Quote from: Thork on October 27, 2010, 08:48:22 AM

On inspection Trig only says the energy needed is enormous. I concur and have quantified it earlier. But on a cosmological scale as I demonstrated the energy required isn't that much. Its actually quite feeble.

I guess the search function sucks. Trig has mentioned it that he calculated but I didn't find it either. But the problem was the formula you used. E=mc². You can't get the correct result using that. Maybe you get with it the energy amount needed for the one time unit, second maybe. Because after the first second of acceleration you already have gained the mass and you need more energy to accelerate further and you must use the formula with the new m and so one after every second. So, your number is no way a total energy required to accelerate the Earth. It just one very-very-very small part of the total energy needed.
  There is analogous dicsusison, but about rocket in http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-45691.html and the formula for the speed of rocket at http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RocketEquation.html . And http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae235.cfm .

Here's the post you were looking for: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42967.msg1065054#msg1065054

ClockTower, as I have already said you are calculating force over time-immemorial. That is akin to calculating the force gravity has exerted  on a rock for 4.5 Billion years. That is of no use to anyone. We are looking for time dependant force, the same way that one calculates gravity for RE. EG. Force required per second.

ClockTower, as I have already said you are calculating force over time-immemorial. That is akin to calculating the force gravity has exerted  on a rock for 4.5 Billion years. That is of no use to anyone. We are looking for time dependant force, the same way that one calculates gravity for RE. EG. Force required per second.

I am not calculating force over time-immemorial[sic]. I am calculating energy which requires that I calculate force which requires that I calculate relativistic mass that requires that I calculate velocity that requires that I integrate over time up to now of the constant acceleration. Now do you understand?

Force required per second.

And as the speed grows with every second the mass grows with every second and force required per second grows and energy required to produce the force grows every second.

Still wondering.

Quote from: jeffro12 on October 26, 2010, 06:29:30 PM

Quote from: HornPiper on October 26, 2010, 06:27:57 PM

Another legitimate question:
What tenets of RE are shaky?  I truly have never heard any.

Then you obviously haven't been here very long, or read up on FET any further than the FAQ.  Or both.

I read both, and I haven't found any weak spots in RET.  Would you kindly point a few out? (here's a hint: they RET isn't wrong because it's incompatible with FET, so don't mention inconsistencies between the two.  Rather, find observable phenomena that shouldn't actually work on a round Earth)

You complain that the energy required is enormous and E=mc^2. So mass must be a factor? If you are saying mass is irrelevant

Quote

But assuming that the acceleration energy at any time of the FE is solely dependent of the energy of its rest mass is just ludicrous.

How would you suggest we go about calculating this? What numbers would you be happy with? What mass should I use? If mass is irrelevant then F=ma becomes F=0*a so no force is required at all I must use a mass to calculate the Energy E=mc^2

Ehh, I just now read it. Mass isn't irrelevant, "rest mass" is. You using the Earth "rest mass" for your formula is really ludicrous. As I said, if you accelerate the Earth it gains mass and near the speed of light the Earths mass is quite unfathomable, not 5.9736 × 10²⁴ kg which is just the "rest mass".

Everything is accelerated it is universal, but not all things were created at the same time. Most matter has come from the supernova of a huge star. Earth being one such example. Now if the star from which our planet is born exploded 10 billion years ago, and a meteorite comes from a star that exploded only 2 billion years ago, it will clearly not have accelerated to the same speed. It will also be on a different trajectory as whatever sent the meteor in motion. So if it is 8 billion years younger than the primordial soup our earth came from but in front of us, we will catch it if we have been accelerating longer. It will then appear to be over head and indeed come crashing down as we accelerate into it having been set in motion longer.

Sorry it took me a couple of days to properly respond to this, I've got a lot on my plate. While this is true, something does not come from nothing. The meteor may not be as old as the earth, but what created the meteor is. Because what created the meteor is the same age as what created the earth (ultimately, and I'm not thinking about a God here), it has been accelerating for the same amount of time.

This thread is more FE BS that isn't proven. EG comes in and proves like always that he doesn't know anything, Thork comes in and pretty much says, "Congrats! You have realized that TFES hasn't backed anything they've ever posted. We might possibly one day have kind of an answer for you, but in reality the Earth is round and we'll never prove it otherwise. Thanks for your concern and craziness!" A mod came in and also helped back the idea without proving anything. The OP's answers were never really answered because TFES has lacked a LEGIT explanation as to why there's a conspiracy hiding the shape of the Earth, and until they do the entire idea is kind of mook.

Thork, until UA is proven, it's not proven and you cannot use it in a debate like other things that have been proven over and over again. I know TFES likes to say this is their grounds and the belief system here revolves around the Earth being flat, but if they ever want to be taken seriously they might want to provide a fact or two proving it for once. Until then nothing TFES provide is legit because on a REAL scientific basis it's wrong.

Thork, until UA is proven, it's not proven

Hmm. And FE does have proof, its theories are nothing but an attempt to show RE phenomena on a flat Earth (sometimes more successful than others).

Quote from: sillyrob on October 29, 2010, 04:25:25 AM

Thork, until UA is proven, it's not proven

Hmm. And FE does have proof, its theories are nothing but an attempt to show RE phenomena on a flat Earth (sometimes more successful than others).

It's not proven, it's merely the hypothesis of a bunch of crazy people on the internet. A theory in real life does not mean a theory in TFES. You need evidence for it to be a theory.

Quote from: Hazbollah on October 29, 2010, 06:27:07 AM

Quote from: sillyrob on October 29, 2010, 04:25:25 AM

Thork, until UA is proven, it's not proven

Hmm. And FE does have proof, its theories are nothing but an attempt to show RE phenomena on a flat Earth (sometimes more successful than others).

It's not proven, it's merely the hypothesis of a bunch of crazy people on the internet. A theory in real life does not mean a theory in TFES. You need evidence for it to be a theory.

Actually, a theory is still a theory even if there is no support for it. There isn't a need for evidence for someone to make a theory, although backing up its claims would definitely help its legitimacy, something FE'ers aren't actually good at.

But you're right, FE is just baseless speculation.