Gravity, UA, and why they can't get along.

Redacted.

Unfortunately UA defies General Relativity, which is why most FE'ers try to avoid the subject altogether. General Relativity states no object may reach the speed of light. No, this does not mean an object can accelerate indefinitely at a constant rate. This means once an object becomes near the speed of light it reaches a sort of universal speed bump. The object can continue to go faster, but only at the expense of serious amounts of energy and at a rate of acceleration that would for experimental purposes be null.

I agree with your position, but disagree with your interpretation of GR...

Imagine that there are two people, one is in rocket and the other is on the ground next to it. They are both initially at rest.

Earth frame of reference:
The rocket launches upward and has a constant thrust (force). As the rocket gets faster and faster, the thrust remains constant but the acceleration of the rocket decreases. As time goes on, the velocity approaches the speed of light asymptotically and likewise the acceleration approaches zero.

Rocket frame of reference:
Because the rocket has a constant thrust, its acceleration is also constant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration#Acceleration_in_.281.2B1.29D

My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.

Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.

My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.

Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.

I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.

An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.

I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 10, 2011, 01:50:34 PM

My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.

Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.

I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.

An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.

I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.

This thread was made before that discussion. Think of the speed of light as 10 and I'm approaching it infinitely, I would reach 9.999999 and have 9's continually added, therefore I would never actually get to 10.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 10, 2011, 01:50:34 PM

My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.

Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.

I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.

An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.

I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.

The external energy comes from the Aether.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 02:17:43 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 10, 2011, 01:50:34 PM

My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.

Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.

I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.

An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.

I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.

The external energy comes from the Aether.

Care to explain how this works?

Quote from: Tausami on December 10, 2011, 03:12:21 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 02:17:43 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 10, 2011, 01:50:34 PM

My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.

Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.

I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.

An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.

I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.

The external energy comes from the Aether.

Care to explain how this works?

The Aether is the thrust.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 02:17:43 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 10, 2011, 01:50:34 PM

My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.

Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.

I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.

An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.

I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.

The external energy comes from the Aether.

So where does the Aether get more energy than a human can comprehend? More is needed to accelerate the FE in the next microsecond then has ever been recorded or inferred in the entire Universe throughout its entire life. Do you have any experiment that would falsify the Aether and the thrust it provides to the Universe?

More is needed to accelerate the FE in the next microsecond then has ever been recorded or inferred in the entire Universe throughout its entire life.

Given that the mass of the FE is unknown, this claim is unverifiable.

Given that we have not observed, recorded, measured or inferred the entire Universe, much less throughout its entire life, this claim is inconsequential.

Please make an argument instead of spouting baseless claims that wouldn't matter a damn even if they were true.

Quote from: Tausami on December 10, 2011, 03:12:21 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 02:17:43 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 10, 2011, 01:50:34 PM

My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.

Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.

I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.

An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.

I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.

The external energy comes from the Aether.

So where does the Aether get more energy than a human can comprehend? More is needed to accelerate the FE in the next microsecond then has ever been recorded or inferred in the entire Universe throughout its entire life.

Aether is the Superstring Plasma. It has so much energy that the superstrings unravel. It moves past the Earth, filling up the infinite vacuum, and hits it like a wind, accelerating it.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 03:43:39 PM

Quote from: Tausami on December 10, 2011, 03:12:21 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 02:17:43 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 10, 2011, 01:50:34 PM

My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.

Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.

I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.

An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.

I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.

The external energy comes from the Aether.

So where does the Aether get more energy than a human can comprehend? More is needed to accelerate the FE in the next microsecond then has ever been recorded or inferred in the entire Universe throughout its entire life.

Aether is the Superstring Plasma. It has so much energy that the superstrings unravel. It moves past the Earth, filling up the infinite vacuum, and hits it like a wind, accelerating it.

1) What evidence do you have that super-string plasma exists?

2) Shouldn't the density of the plasma be decreasing by the cube of the distance? If so, why aren't accelerating at a gradually slower rate?

3) If it interacts with matter so readily, why can't be observe it flying past the Earth?

Answer those and you'll have a legitimate theory.

Quote from: Tausami on December 10, 2011, 03:53:51 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 03:43:39 PM

Quote from: Tausami on December 10, 2011, 03:12:21 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on December 10, 2011, 02:17:43 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 10, 2011, 01:50:34 PM

My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.

Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.

I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.

An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.

I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.

The external energy comes from the Aether.

So where does the Aether get more energy than a human can comprehend? More is needed to accelerate the FE in the next microsecond then has ever been recorded or inferred in the entire Universe throughout its entire life.

Aether is the Superstring Plasma. It has so much energy that the superstrings unravel. It moves past the Earth, filling up the infinite vacuum, and hits it like a wind, accelerating it.

1) What evidence do you have that super-string plasma exists?

2) Shouldn't the density of the plasma be decreasing by the cube of the distance? If so, why aren't accelerating at a gradually slower rate?

3) If it interacts with matter so readily, why can't be observe it flying past the Earth?

Answer those and you'll have a legitimate theory.

1) Evidence by requirement. It's good enough for the rest of hypothetical science (quantum and theoretical physics, etc).

2) The strings are majorly independent of each other (clumped into groups about the size of an atom) and do not interact with each other

3) First of all, it is matter. Just to clear thing up. And for the same reason you can't see the wind going by.

If you so readily believe that hypothetical particles exist just because modern physics says so, why don't you accept the graviton's theoretical existence?

Things "rush" into a vacuum because of a pressure difference. There are more things pushing on one side than the other and as a result it spreads out until the pressure is more or less equal on all sides.If the strings don't interact with each other, then they will not exert a force on one another (i.e. no pressure), and will therefore not feel a force going from high density to low density. This pretty much invalidates your vacuum idea.

If you so readily believe that hypothetical particles exist just because modern physics says so, why don't you accept the graviton's theoretical existence?

Thing "rush" into a vacuum because of a pressure difference. There are more things pushing on one side than the other and as a result it spreads out until the pressure is more or less equal on all sides.If the strings don't interact with each other, then they will not exert a force on one another (i.e. no pressure), and will therefore not feel a force going from high density to low density. This pretty much invalidates your vacuum idea.

I believe that gravity does exist, but not to the same extent that it does in RET. It's the most logical reason for the gravitational differences from place to place. As for your first point, it wouldn't make sense to say that they never collide. I was speaking in reference to inter-molecular forces such as Hydrogen bonds and London Dispersal Forces. The plasma has to be far more fluid than a gas, so by extension it is not bound by the same forces. But atomic collisions are elastic, so they don't matter regarding energy displacement.

Quote from: jraffield1 on December 10, 2011, 05:30:11 PM

If you so readily believe that hypothetical particles exist just because modern physics says so, why don't you accept the graviton's theoretical existence?

Thing "rush" into a vacuum because of a pressure difference. There are more things pushing on one side than the other and as a result it spreads out until the pressure is more or less equal on all sides.If the strings don't interact with each other, then they will not exert a force on one another (i.e. no pressure), and will therefore not feel a force going from high density to low density. This pretty much invalidates your vacuum idea.

I believe that gravity does exist, but not to the same extent that it does in RET. It's the most logical reason for the gravitational differences from place to place. As for your first point, it wouldn't make sense to say that they never collide. I was speaking in reference to inter-molecular forces such as Hydrogen bonds and London Dispersal Forces. The plasma has to be far more fluid than a gas, so by extension it is not bound by the same forces. But atomic collisions are elastic, so they don't matter regarding energy displacement.

Let's start from scratch here... the force exerted by a stream of particle (in this case strings) on an object (the Earth) is proportional to the surface area of the object and the density of the flow. As the flow spreads out (either linearly or in 3D) the density of the flow will decrease and so to will the force exerted by it. If the strings are expanding into 3D space (no reason why it shouldn't), then the density will decrease with the cube of the distance. This would mean that the acceleration felt by the Earth is constantly decreasing. If the value of g were decreasing over time, we would be able to measure it.

Quote from: Tausami on December 10, 2011, 06:08:41 PM

Quote from: jraffield1 on December 10, 2011, 05:30:11 PM

If you so readily believe that hypothetical particles exist just because modern physics says so, why don't you accept the graviton's theoretical existence?

Thing "rush" into a vacuum because of a pressure difference. There are more things pushing on one side than the other and as a result it spreads out until the pressure is more or less equal on all sides.If the strings don't interact with each other, then they will not exert a force on one another (i.e. no pressure), and will therefore not feel a force going from high density to low density. This pretty much invalidates your vacuum idea.

I believe that gravity does exist, but not to the same extent that it does in RET. It's the most logical reason for the gravitational differences from place to place. As for your first point, it wouldn't make sense to say that they never collide. I was speaking in reference to inter-molecular forces such as Hydrogen bonds and London Dispersal Forces. The plasma has to be far more fluid than a gas, so by extension it is not bound by the same forces. But atomic collisions are elastic, so they don't matter regarding energy displacement.

Let's start from scratch here... the force exerted by a stream of particle (in this case strings) on an object (the Earth) is proportional to the surface area of the object and the density of the flow. As the flow spreads out (either linearly or in 3D) the density of the flow will decrease and so to will the force exerted by it. If the strings are expanding into 3D space (no reason why it shouldn't), then the density will decrease with the cube of the distance. This would mean that the acceleration felt by the Earth is constantly decreasing. If the value of g were decreasing over time, we would be able to measure it.

If the strings are unwound, then they would be constantly multiplying. The rate of decrease and increase would eventually reach equilibrium.

Quote from: jraffield1 on December 10, 2011, 06:33:26 PM

Quote from: Tausami on December 10, 2011, 06:08:41 PM

Quote from: jraffield1 on December 10, 2011, 05:30:11 PM

If you so readily believe that hypothetical particles exist just because modern physics says so, why don't you accept the graviton's theoretical existence?

Thing "rush" into a vacuum because of a pressure difference. There are more things pushing on one side than the other and as a result it spreads out until the pressure is more or less equal on all sides.If the strings don't interact with each other, then they will not exert a force on one another (i.e. no pressure), and will therefore not feel a force going from high density to low density. This pretty much invalidates your vacuum idea.

I believe that gravity does exist, but not to the same extent that it does in RET. It's the most logical reason for the gravitational differences from place to place. As for your first point, it wouldn't make sense to say that they never collide. I was speaking in reference to inter-molecular forces such as Hydrogen bonds and London Dispersal Forces. The plasma has to be far more fluid than a gas, so by extension it is not bound by the same forces. But atomic collisions are elastic, so they don't matter regarding energy displacement.

Let's start from scratch here... the force exerted by a stream of particle (in this case strings) on an object (the Earth) is proportional to the surface area of the object and the density of the flow. As the flow spreads out (either linearly or in 3D) the density of the flow will decrease and so to will the force exerted by it. If the strings are expanding into 3D space (no reason why it shouldn't), then the density will decrease with the cube of the distance. This would mean that the acceleration felt by the Earth is constantly decreasing. If the value of g were decreasing over time, we would be able to measure it.

If the strings are unwound, then they would be constantly multiplying. The rate of decrease and increase would eventually reach equilibrium.

What does it mean for a string to unwind and multiply?

Quote from: Tausami on December 12, 2011, 12:05:10 PM

Quote from: jraffield1 on December 10, 2011, 06:33:26 PM

Quote from: Tausami on December 10, 2011, 06:08:41 PM

Quote from: jraffield1 on December 10, 2011, 05:30:11 PM

If you so readily believe that hypothetical particles exist just because modern physics says so, why don't you accept the graviton's theoretical existence?

Thing "rush" into a vacuum because of a pressure difference. There are more things pushing on one side than the other and as a result it spreads out until the pressure is more or less equal on all sides.If the strings don't interact with each other, then they will not exert a force on one another (i.e. no pressure), and will therefore not feel a force going from high density to low density. This pretty much invalidates your vacuum idea.

I believe that gravity does exist, but not to the same extent that it does in RET. It's the most logical reason for the gravitational differences from place to place. As for your first point, it wouldn't make sense to say that they never collide. I was speaking in reference to inter-molecular forces such as Hydrogen bonds and London Dispersal Forces. The plasma has to be far more fluid than a gas, so by extension it is not bound by the same forces. But atomic collisions are elastic, so they don't matter regarding energy displacement.

Let's start from scratch here... the force exerted by a stream of particle (in this case strings) on an object (the Earth) is proportional to the surface area of the object and the density of the flow. As the flow spreads out (either linearly or in 3D) the density of the flow will decrease and so to will the force exerted by it. If the strings are expanding into 3D space (no reason why it shouldn't), then the density will decrease with the cube of the distance. This would mean that the acceleration felt by the Earth is constantly decreasing. If the value of g were decreasing over time, we would be able to measure it.

If the strings are unwound, then they would be constantly multiplying. The rate of decrease and increase would eventually reach equilibrium.

What does it mean for a string to unwind and multiply?

Research super-strings. I'm really not qualified to explain them.

...
If the strings are unwound, then they would be constantly multiplying. The rate of decrease and increase would eventually reach equilibrium.

and...

Research super-strings. I'm really not qualified to explain them.

So you make the claim that unwinding strings multiply, but can't explain how you know that?

Okay, let me try that....

• The Earth is a globe because the Jabberwocky has claws that clutch.

and...

• Research the Jabberwocky. I'm really not qualified to explain it.

I guess you've provided the basis for the ultimate argument for RET. Thanks to you RET has won.

Quote from: Tausami on December 12, 2011, 12:05:10 PM

...
If the strings are unwound, then they would be constantly multiplying. The rate of decrease and increase would eventually reach equilibrium.

and...

Quote from: Tausami on December 12, 2011, 01:10:41 PM

Research super-strings. I'm really not qualified to explain them.

So you make the claim that unwinding strings multiply, but can't explain how you know that?

Okay, let me try that....

• The Earth is a globe because the Jabberwocky has claws that clutch.

and...

• Research the Jabberwocky. I'm really not qualified to explain it.

I guess you've provided the basis for the ultimate argument for RET. Thanks to you RET has won.

I can know things about superstrings without being qualified to teach about them.

...
I can know things about superstrings without being qualified to teach about them.

And what is your point? Did I say that you didn't know 'things' about superstrings?

I guess you've provided the basis for the ultimate argument for RET. Thanks to you RET has won.

Check me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Tausami was using superstrings to explain FET gravity, not RET gravity.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 12, 2011, 01:24:03 PM

I guess you've provided the basis for the ultimate argument for RET. Thanks to you RET has won.

Check me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Tausami was using superstrings to explain FET gravity, not RET gravity.

Yes, but I used his technique to prove the superstrings multiply when they unwind to prove RET, understand?

Quote from: markjo on December 12, 2011, 02:49:11 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on December 12, 2011, 01:24:03 PM

I guess you've provided the basis for the ultimate argument for RET. Thanks to you RET has won.

Check me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Tausami was using superstrings to explain FET gravity, not RET gravity.

Yes, but I used his technique to prove the superstrings multiply when they unwind to prove RET, understand?

When did he say that he proved anything?  There is a difference between explaining something and proving something.

Yeah. My proof continues to be proof by necessity, the same thing that theoretical and quantum physicists use.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 12, 2011, 02:55:07 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 12, 2011, 02:49:11 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on December 12, 2011, 01:24:03 PM

I guess you've provided the basis for the ultimate argument for RET. Thanks to you RET has won.

Check me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Tausami was using superstrings to explain FET gravity, not RET gravity.

Yes, but I used his technique to prove the superstrings multiply when they unwind to prove RET, understand?

When did he say that he proved anything?  There is a difference between explaining something and proving something.

Sorry, I guess there's a difference that I don't understand. He says "I know that A causes B and I don't have to explain it". I say that "C causes D and I don't have to explain it". I'd say both his statement and mine are equally worthy (or unworthy) of being called a proof, or an explanation.
Here:

• A=strings unwinding
• B=string multiply
• C=the Jabberwocky has claws
• D=the Earth is round

So I'll rephrase for you: Yes, but I used his technique to explain how he knew that superstrings multiply when they unwind to explain how I know RE to be correct, understand?

Sorry, I guess there's a difference that I don't understand. He says "I know that A causes B and I don't have to explain it".

The way I read it was more like " I know that A causes B but I can't properly explain why.  However, there are smarter people out there that are working on it and can explain it better than I can."  Maybe it's just me. 

Quote from: ClockTower on December 12, 2011, 07:55:57 PM

Sorry, I guess there's a difference that I don't understand. He says "I know that A causes B and I don't have to explain it".

The way I read it was more like " I know that A causes B but I can't properly explain why.  However, there are smarter people out there that are working on it and can explain it better than I can."  Maybe it's just me. 

I have no problem at all with your reading. I would just expect that you can't know something and not be able to explain why something is true. At least reference the smarter people who can explain, not just a "go research it" cop-out.

I don't know how the more advanced map projections work, but I did provide a link to Wolfram Research that did start to explain and provided references to anyone wishing to fully understand the science involved.

Quote from: markjo on December 12, 2011, 08:11:08 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on December 12, 2011, 07:55:57 PM

Sorry, I guess there's a difference that I don't understand. He says "I know that A causes B and I don't have to explain it".

The way I read it was more like " I know that A causes B but I can't properly explain why.  However, there are smarter people out there that are working on it and can explain it better than I can."  Maybe it's just me. 

I have no problem at all with your reading. I would just expect that you can't know something and not be able to explain why something is true. At least reference the smarter people who can explain, not just a "go research it" cop-out.

I don't know how the more advanced map projections work, but I did provide a link to Wolfram Research that did start to explain and provided references to anyone wishing to fully understand the science involved.

It's common knowledge that acid+base=water+salt, but before this year I couldn't have told you why.