The speed of the earth moving towards us?

  • 4 Replies
  • 1529 Views
?

qenzaf

The speed of the earth moving towards us?
« on: November 05, 2010, 01:53:58 PM »
So, if the earth is 1 billion years old, we're moving faster, way faster than light.

9.8^(1000000000*365.25*24*60) = 10^(10^14.71712543498929) m/s
aka
1.8482947273348471606822003811370874602622656043049... × 10^521345 million km/h

light is 0.299792458 million km/h

faster than light.

So can things move faster than light? By that much?

Doesn't the law of conservation of energy state that energy cannot be created or destroyed? So where does this energy come from?

If you tell me, I'd be glad to harvest this universal accelerator.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 02:00:26 PM by qenzaf »

Re: The speed of the earth moving towards us?
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2010, 02:04:20 PM »
So, if the earth is 1 billion years old, we're moving faster, way faster than light.

9.8^(1000000000*365.25*24*60) = 10^(10^14.71712543498929) m/s^2

faster than light.

So can things move faster than light?
Sorry, but no.
1) The "speed" between 'us' and the FE is usually zero.
2) You've used Newton math and need to adjust for the Lorentz Effect. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation.
3) Rest assured though, you're right in a larger sense. The amount of energy required to accelerate the FE at this time is far beyond human imagining. Reference: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42967.msg1065054#msg1065054.

Thanks to the OP for letting us say this again: The UA is dead.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: The speed of the earth moving towards us?
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2010, 10:35:02 PM »
So, if the earth is 1 billion years old, we're moving faster, way faster than light.

9.8^(1000000000*365.25*24*60) = 10^(10^14.71712543498929) m/s^2

faster than light.

So can things move faster than light?
Sorry, but no.
1) The "speed" between 'us' and the FE is usually zero.
2) You've used Newton math and need to adjust for the Lorentz Effect. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation.
3) Rest assured though, you're right in a larger sense. The amount of energy required to accelerate the FE at this time is far beyond human imagining. Reference: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42967.msg1065054#msg1065054.

Thanks to the OP for letting us say this again: The UA is dead.

Here's something thats been bothering me.  How is it that the energy level has always increased in proportion to keep us at a constant acceleration of 1 G?  The closer to the speed of light we get the more energy is required correct?  How does this balance out that we have been at a fairly constant 1G for - well a long time.

Berny
Lorentz gives me headaches
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

Re: The speed of the earth moving towards us?
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2010, 10:50:28 PM »
So, if the earth is 1 billion years old, we're moving faster, way faster than light.

9.8^(1000000000*365.25*24*60) = 10^(10^14.71712543498929) m/s^2

faster than light.

So can things move faster than light?
Sorry, but no.
1) The "speed" between 'us' and the FE is usually zero.
2) You've used Newton math and need to adjust for the Lorentz Effect. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation.
3) Rest assured though, you're right in a larger sense. The amount of energy required to accelerate the FE at this time is far beyond human imagining. Reference: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42967.msg1065054#msg1065054.

Thanks to the OP for letting us say this again: The UA is dead.

Here's something thats been bothering me.  How is it that the energy level has always increased in proportion to keep us at a constant acceleration of 1 G?  The closer to the speed of light we get the more energy is required correct?  How does this balance out that we have been at a fairly constant 1G for - well a long time.

Berny
Lorentz gives me headaches
It's straight forward, but not intuitive.

First we know that the FE would be traveling at such a high percentage of c that no modern calculator can tell us how little the difference is. (It's just too small.)

Second the relativistic mass of the FE increases exponentially with that speed, as gamma * rest mass. So here we have for all of the accuracy we can muster infinite mass. (gamma is 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), so its denominator is for all of the accuracy we can muster, zero, so gamma has grown without upper bound.)

Third, F=mg. Here m is relativistic mass, so the force required is for all of the accuracy we can muster infinite.

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

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: The speed of the earth moving towards us?
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2010, 11:48:55 PM »
Basically we experience a constant acceleration in our frame of reference relative to the Earth. Some energy source is accelerating the Earth (although we are magically shielded from this energy). The Earth is moving away from this source at near the speed of light, and the source does not observe any significant acceleration due to the force it exerts, but we relative to the Earth still feel an acceleration.
The only reason we would experience any acceleration at all is if the Earth is being accelerated by this source (the UA) and not us. To me this is the main problem with the UA, because it is really not "universal". It accelerates the Earth and the visible stars, but not anything else on the Earth that we can observe! Even when airplanes fly high into the atmosphere they experience gravitation the same and thus must still be shielded form this UA.
We can speculate that some semi-infinite energy source could be accelerating the Earth relative to some reference frame that we are moving away from at near the speed of light, this is in a way similar to the proposition of Dark Energy. The real kicker is the requirement that this dark energy be selective and ignore pretty much every other piece of relevant local matter around the Earth that we can observe, which kills its credibility.
Don't diss physics until you try it!