« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Light?

  • 31 Replies
  • 5598 Views
?

J. Lovell

  • 11
  • +0/-0
Light?
« on: February 03, 2011, 02:33:33 PM »
If we are constantly accelerating their will come a point when we will reach the speed of light. When this happens (truly before it does) we will atomize do to the fact the the faster you go the more energy you need to accelerate the mass assuming it remains constant (the mass of the earth increase over time due to space debris but this is just more evidence that we will atomize sooner). Its simple fundamental Physics
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Light?
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2011, 02:35:57 PM »
Quote from: J. Lovell on February 03, 2011, 02:33:33 PM
If we are constantly accelerating their will come a point when we will reach the speed of light.

No, we won't.
Logged
?

J. Lovell

  • 11
  • +0/-0
Re: Light?
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2011, 02:58:46 PM »
Yes we will i don't know where you learned physics but ask for your money back. Please explain why we wont, acceleration is the chance in velocity per time for ex. 9.8 meters per second per second. Every one second we will be going 9.8 meters per second faster. This is how gravity and Acceleration works their is no denying this.

edit: sorry misspelled Where
« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 03:00:41 PM by J. Lovell »
Logged
?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6229
  • +0/-0
Re: Light?
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2011, 03:01:39 PM »
If by 'simple fundamental physics' you are referring to Newtonian physics, you should be mindful that it breaks down when dealing with objects approaching the speed of light.
Logged
?

J. Lovell

  • 11
  • +0/-0
Re: Light?
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2011, 03:08:18 PM »
Yes peach you are right but this does not dis prove what I am saying. It is true that time slows relative to the speed of light however the fact that as you approach the speed of light you need more exponentially more energy is true and is not Newtonian physics. as an object travels faster it becomes heaver explaining why it needs more energy. Also Physics never "breaks down" we just need to look at it in different ways it different situations. I know my physics trust me (like you blindly trust others)
Logged
?

J. Lovell

  • 11
  • +0/-0
Re: Light?
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2011, 03:38:23 PM »
Peach i should have stated its simple not fundamental. and a word to the slowing of time. It is all relative to the view point but the amount of energy used over this time fast of slow will remain constant.

this is a Kinematic equation V2^2=V1^2+Acceleration*time

V2 is final velocity
V1 is initial velocity
^ is exponential
* is multiplication

[2.9*10^8]^2(aprox. speed of light)=0^2+9.8*X(we are looking for this)
this becomes
8.5*10^15=9.8X
we then divide

8.4*10^16=X
 9.8
this gives us
8.5*10^15 seconds
1.4^14 minutes
2.3^12 hours
9.9^10 days
272,121,786 years

As we all know (with the exception of new earth creationists) the World flat or round is much older than this. we should have reached this speed along time ago.

« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 03:41:28 PM by J. Lovell »
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45172
  • +98/-138
Re: Light?
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2011, 03:50:47 PM »
*sigh*  You may want to brush up on your special relativity.
http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
Logged
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.
?

J. Lovell

  • 11
  • +0/-0
Re: Light?
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2011, 03:58:33 PM »
I know all this already and that sight is not completely accurate and im not sure how this disproves me the equation i used doesn't need Mass. But were not talking about rockets here were talking about this flat earth that magically accelerates defying all physics
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Light?
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2011, 04:17:45 PM »
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Light?
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2011, 04:21:49 PM »
Quote from: J. Lovell on February 03, 2011, 03:58:33 PM
the equation i used doesn't need Mass.

You're using the wrong equation and the wrong type of relativity.
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45172
  • +98/-138
Re: Light?
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2011, 04:33:49 PM »
Quote from: J. Lovell on February 03, 2011, 03:58:33 PM
I know all this already and that sight is not completely accurate and im not sure how this disproves me the equation i used doesn't need Mass. But were not talking about rockets here were talking about this flat earth that magically accelerates defying all physics

Your equation does not take into account relativistic effects as you approach the speed of light.
Logged
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.
?

Ace of Spades

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: Light?
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2011, 05:25:11 PM »
I'm going to assume that the point you are attempting to make (and failing miserably to do so) is similar to a discussion in a previous thread; there simply isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate the Earth (much less everything else in the universe) forever as UA would suggest. Please tell me that is what you meant and that you simply don't know about relativity. My faith in humanity is low enough as is.
Logged
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Light?
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2011, 05:42:13 PM »
Quote from: Ace of Spades on February 03, 2011, 05:25:11 PM
I'm going to assume that the point you are attempting to make (and failing miserably to do so) is similar to a discussion in a previous thread; there simply isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate the Earth (much less everything else in the universe) forever as UA would suggest. Please tell me that is what you meant and that you simply don't know about relativity. My faith in humanity is low enough as is.

Yeah, because SR totally postulates on the total sum of energy in the universe. Seriously though,  you believe that mass spontaneously generates infinite gravitational energy, is one inexplicable energy source really more far fetched than everything with mass doing it? inb4 pedantry about spacetime distortion and other dimensions, that's more hypothetical than even the craziest dinosaur-boat madness you'll find here.
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Light?
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2011, 05:55:27 PM »
Quote from: Ace of Spades on February 03, 2011, 05:25:11 PM
I'm going to assume that the point you are attempting to make (and failing miserably to do so) is similar to a discussion in a previous thread; there simply isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate the Earth (much less everything else in the universe) forever as UA would suggest.

Who says that the earth will accelerate forever?
Logged
*

ipfo

  • 73
  • +0/-0
  • Hello, world.
Re: Light?
« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2011, 06:06:24 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2011, 05:55:27 PM
Quote from: Ace of Spades on February 03, 2011, 05:25:11 PM
I'm going to assume that the point you are attempting to make (and failing miserably to do so) is similar to a discussion in a previous thread; there simply isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate the Earth (much less everything else in the universe) forever as UA would suggest.

Who says that the earth will accelerate forever?

Didn't you say, and I quote, "I believe that the earth always was." Isn't that Newtonian belief, that the world has no beginning and no ending? So if the Earth will not accelerate forever and that "it always was," are we to believe that the acceleration will stop at some point in the future? That implication is huge, Tom. I urge you rethink what you are trying to say here.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 06:12:24 PM by ipfo »
Logged
?

Ace of Spades

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: Light?
« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2011, 06:33:04 PM »
Quote from: General Douchebag on February 03, 2011, 05:42:13 PM
one inexplicable energy source

We may not know the exact mechanics of its workings, but at least gravity is not inexplicable.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Light?
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2011, 07:18:51 PM »
Quote
Didn't you say, and I quote, "I believe that the earth always was."

Suggesting that the earth always was does not suggest that the earth always will be.

Quote
Isn't that Newtonian belief, that the world has no beginning and no ending? So if the Earth will not accelerate forever and that "it always was," are we to believe that the acceleration will stop at some point in the future? That implication is huge, Tom. I urge you rethink what you are trying to say here.

Furthermore, if the earth stopped accelerating it does not suggest that the earth will cease to be; just that life will.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45172
  • +98/-138
Re: Light?
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2011, 07:57:17 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2011, 07:18:51 PM
Quote
Didn't you say, and I quote, "I believe that the earth always was."

Suggesting that the earth always was does not suggest that the earth always will be.

Actually, it does.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
The steady state theory asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its appearance over time (the perfect cosmological principle); it has no beginning and no end.
Logged
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.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Light?
« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2011, 08:31:20 PM »
Quote from: markjo on February 03, 2011, 07:57:17 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2011, 07:18:51 PM
Quote
Didn't you say, and I quote, "I believe that the earth always was."

Suggesting that the earth always was does not suggest that the earth always will be.

Actually, it does.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
The steady state theory asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its appearance over time (the perfect cosmological principle); it has no beginning and no end.

I didn't say anything about Steady State Theory.
Logged
?

Ace of Spades

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: Light?
« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2011, 08:53:49 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2011, 08:31:20 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 03, 2011, 07:57:17 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2011, 07:18:51 PM
Quote
Didn't you say, and I quote, "I believe that the earth always was."

Suggesting that the earth always was does not suggest that the earth always will be.

Actually, it does.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
The steady state theory asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its appearance over time (the perfect cosmological principle); it has no beginning and no end.

I didn't say anything about Steady State Theory.

Sadly, there is no retort to Tom's statements. He never cited any outside sources or theories. He simply tailored his beliefs to what suited him, like everything else he says, regardless of what the rest of the world, the rest of the FEW, or even logic, says.
Logged
*

ipfo

  • 73
  • +0/-0
  • Hello, world.
Re: Light?
« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2011, 10:54:24 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 03, 2011, 05:55:27 PM
Quote from: Ace of Spades on February 03, 2011, 05:25:11 PM
I'm going to assume that the point you are attempting to make (and failing miserably to do so) is similar to a discussion in a previous thread; there simply isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate the Earth (much less everything else in the universe) forever as UA would suggest.

Who says that the earth will accelerate forever?

Let's try again. If UA does not suggest eternal acceleration, then does it implies that the acceleration must eventually (finite duration of time) stop? Would you tell me about your thoughts on UA? I want to hear what a true FE believer think of the UA in this regard.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 11:51:28 PM by ipfo »
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Light?
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2011, 01:04:14 AM »
Quote from: ipfo on February 03, 2011, 10:54:24 PM

Let's try again. If UA does not suggest eternal acceleration, then does it implies that the acceleration must eventually (finite duration of time) stop? Would you tell me about your thoughts on UA? I want to hear what a true FE believer think of the UA in this regard.

It's called the Universal Accelerator, not the Eternal Accelerator. There is nothing in the name which suggest that acceleration will continue eternally. The size of an event does not indicate the length of an event.
Logged
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Light?
« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2011, 06:23:57 AM »
Quote from: Ace of Spades on February 03, 2011, 06:33:04 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on February 03, 2011, 05:42:13 PM
one inexplicable energy source

We may not know the exact mechanics of its workings, but at least gravity is not inexplicable.

It's not inexplicable, you just can't explain it?
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
?

Ace of Spades

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: Light?
« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2011, 08:16:31 AM »
Quote from: General Douchebag on February 04, 2011, 06:23:57 AM
Quote from: Ace of Spades on February 03, 2011, 06:33:04 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on February 03, 2011, 05:42:13 PM
one inexplicable energy source

We may not know the exact mechanics of its workings, but at least gravity is not inexplicable.

It's not inexplicable, you just can't explain it?

We have equations and observed correlations. We may not know its exact workings, but we know how it behaves and can make falsifiable predictions. UA, while very similar to gravity in terms of an "inexplicable energy source," has problems with common phenomena and therefore suffers from greater holes in its theory than gravity. On top of that, gravity is largely consistent with the heavens. You, on the other hand, add another magical system called celestial gears, which has no substantial merit. It follows the same circular logic as bendy light where it exists because it has to exist for FE to work, not because of math or specifically observable phenomena. You want truly inexplicable, you should look at FET more closely.
Logged
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Light?
« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2011, 08:26:59 AM »
Quote from: Ace of Spades on February 04, 2011, 08:16:31 AM
Quote from: General Douchebag on February 04, 2011, 06:23:57 AM
Quote from: Ace of Spades on February 03, 2011, 06:33:04 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on February 03, 2011, 05:42:13 PM
one inexplicable energy source

We may not know the exact mechanics of its workings, but at least gravity is not inexplicable.

It's not inexplicable, you just can't explain it?

We have equations and observed correlations. We may not know its exact workings, but we know how it behaves and can make falsifiable predictions. UA, while very similar to gravity in terms of an "inexplicable energy source," has problems with common phenomena and therefore suffers from greater holes in its theory than gravity. On top of that, gravity is largely consistent with the heavens. You, on the other hand, add another magical system called celestial gears, which has no substantial merit. It follows the same circular logic as bendy light where it exists because it has to exist for FE to work, not because of math or specifically observable phenomena. You want truly inexplicable, you should look at FET more closely.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work or that it's internally inconsistent, I'm saying that it's inexplicable and you can easily prove me wrong by explaining it. So please do.
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
?

Ace of Spades

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: Light?
« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2011, 08:43:27 AM »
Quote from: General Douchebag on February 04, 2011, 08:26:59 AM
Quote from: Ace of Spades on February 04, 2011, 08:16:31 AM
Quote from: General Douchebag on February 04, 2011, 06:23:57 AM
Quote from: Ace of Spades on February 03, 2011, 06:33:04 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on February 03, 2011, 05:42:13 PM
one inexplicable energy source

We may not know the exact mechanics of its workings, but at least gravity is not inexplicable.

It's not inexplicable, you just can't explain it?

We have equations and observed correlations. We may not know its exact workings, but we know how it behaves and can make falsifiable predictions. UA, while very similar to gravity in terms of an "inexplicable energy source," has problems with common phenomena and therefore suffers from greater holes in its theory than gravity. On top of that, gravity is largely consistent with the heavens. You, on the other hand, add another magical system called celestial gears, which has no substantial merit. It follows the same circular logic as bendy light where it exists because it has to exist for FE to work, not because of math or specifically observable phenomena. You want truly inexplicable, you should look at FET more closely.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work or that it's internally inconsistent, I'm saying that it's inexplicable and you can easily prove me wrong by explaining it. So please do.

Fine, so its exact workings are inexplicable. There are still fewer holes with gravity than there are UA and everything related to it, so yes, gravity is more believable, to answer your original question.
Logged
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Light?
« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2011, 08:45:07 AM »
Quote from: Ace of Spades on February 04, 2011, 08:43:27 AM
Quote from: General Douchebag on February 04, 2011, 08:26:59 AM
Quote from: Ace of Spades on February 04, 2011, 08:16:31 AM
Quote from: General Douchebag on February 04, 2011, 06:23:57 AM
Quote from: Ace of Spades on February 03, 2011, 06:33:04 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on February 03, 2011, 05:42:13 PM
one inexplicable energy source

We may not know the exact mechanics of its workings, but at least gravity is not inexplicable.

It's not inexplicable, you just can't explain it?

We have equations and observed correlations. We may not know its exact workings, but we know how it behaves and can make falsifiable predictions. UA, while very similar to gravity in terms of an "inexplicable energy source," has problems with common phenomena and therefore suffers from greater holes in its theory than gravity. On top of that, gravity is largely consistent with the heavens. You, on the other hand, add another magical system called celestial gears, which has no substantial merit. It follows the same circular logic as bendy light where it exists because it has to exist for FE to work, not because of math or specifically observable phenomena. You want truly inexplicable, you should look at FET more closely.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work or that it's internally inconsistent, I'm saying that it's inexplicable and you can easily prove me wrong by explaining it. So please do.

Fine, so its exact workings are inexplicable. There are still fewer holes with gravity than there are UA and everything related to it, so yes, gravity is more believable, to answer your original question.

Are there? How is everything with mass creating infinite energy more believable than one source of infinite energy?
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45172
  • +98/-138
Re: Light?
« Reply #27 on: February 04, 2011, 09:27:09 AM »
Quote from: General Douchebag on February 04, 2011, 08:45:07 AM
How is everything with mass creating infinite energy more believable than one source of infinite energy?

Who says that everything with mass creates infinite energy?
Logged
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.
*

ipfo

  • 73
  • +0/-0
  • Hello, world.
Re: Light?
« Reply #28 on: February 04, 2011, 11:43:17 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 04, 2011, 01:04:14 AM
It's called the Universal Accelerator, not the Eternal Accelerator. There is nothing in the name which suggest that acceleration will continue eternally. The size of an event does not indicate the length of an event.

I think you totally skipped my question by focusing at the terminology.
My question was "Does [Universal Accelerator] implies that the acceleration must eventually (in finite duration of time) stop?"

Your response only tell me that it will not accelerate eternally, but it didn't tell me whether or not it will stop accelerating eventually. In RET, gravity exists as long as the universe does. I am just trying to see how different it is in FET.
Logged
?

rounder

  • 65
  • +0/-0
Re: Light?
« Reply #29 on: February 04, 2011, 01:03:44 PM »
Cant you see that they will not respond directly to any question?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »