Please Explain the Earth's "Acceleration"

Are you trying to say that the only thing GR talks about is gravitation? GR and SR help to explain eachother. Einstein needed one to fills the unexplained pieces in the other, and vice versa. I've been trying to explain to you why it doesn't make any sense to use SR to explain something that breaks the fundamentals of SR. If you keep accelerating at any rate forever, you will reach the speed of light. I don't need to be a physicist to know that. All I need is a basic understanding of mathematics.

However, you cannot reach the speed of light. Therefore, at some point, the acceleration has to slow. It is inevitable. It is common sense. My five year old son could understand this if I explained it to him. Time dilation, mass dilation, what the variable "c" stands for, none of this makes a difference, as in reality, eventually the UA would have to slow it's acceleration, as the mass it is pushing would be exerting more force back on it than it was was exerting on the mass. The forces would reach equilibrium. Then speed would remain constant. We may not realize, in our frame of reference, that this is happening... at first. Eventually, noticeable "gravitational" changes would happen. And eventually, I don't know how long, doesn't really matter either, gravity would "disappear" and everything would begin to float away. You can't claim to understand the laws of physics and continue to deny this. It's basic physics. I learned this shit in high school, I was seventeen years old!

Are you trying to say that the only thing GR talks about is gravitation? GR and SR help to explain eachother. Einstein needed one to fills the unexplained pieces in the other, and vice versa. I've been trying to explain to you why it doesn't make any sense to use SR to explain something that breaks the fundamentals of SR. If you keep accelerating at any rate forever, you will reach the speed of light. I don't need to be a physicist to know that. All I need is a basic understanding of mathematics.

And I already told you that the fundamentals of SR state that one will never reach the speed of light and gave you the proper equation for doing the math yourself :/

However, you cannot reach the speed of light.

Correct, as the equations show.

Therefore, at some point, the acceleration has to slow. It is inevitable. It is common sense.

Here's where you're wrong. Only an outside observer sees a slowing of the acceleration. In this frame of reference, one continues to accelerate at 9.8m/s/s indefinitely.

My five year old son could understand this if I explained it to him. Time dilation, mass dilation, what the variable "c" stands for, none of this makes a difference...

For someone trying to teach us all about SR, you're doing an exceptionally poor job...   

You can't claim to understand the laws of physics and continue to deny this. It's basic physics. I learned this shit in high school, I was seventeen years old!

Well, they clearly didn't teach SR at your high school.

SR does not state that time STOPS for, what you say is, our frame of reference. It says time slows down. Which means your statement

In this frame of reference, one continues to accelerate at 9.8m/s/s indefinitely.

is not correct. Eventually, we would start to decelerate. Even in our frame of reference. One cannot have something happen to them and not even know it. It's impossible. Even due to time dilation. If it happens, it happens, we just experience it much slower. It wouldn't last forever. Just a much longer period of time.

I honestly have no idea what you are on about. 

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 13, 2012, 05:58:18 AM

Are you trying to say that the only thing GR talks about is gravitation? GR and SR help to explain eachother. Einstein needed one to fills the unexplained pieces in the other, and vice versa. I've been trying to explain to you why it doesn't make any sense to use SR to explain something that breaks the fundamentals of SR. If you keep accelerating at any rate forever, you will reach the speed of light. I don't need to be a physicist to know that. All I need is a basic understanding of mathematics.

And I already told you that the fundamentals of SR state that one will never reach the speed of light and gave you the proper equation for doing the math yourself :/

Quote

However, you cannot reach the speed of light.

Correct, as the equations show.

Quote

Therefore, at some point, the acceleration has to slow. It is inevitable. It is common sense.

Here's where you're wrong. Only an outside observer sees a slowing of the acceleration. In this frame of reference, one continues to accelerate at 9.8m/s/s indefinitely.

Quote

My five year old son could understand this if I explained it to him. Time dilation, mass dilation, what the variable "c" stands for, none of this makes a difference...

For someone trying to teach us all about SR, you're doing an exceptionally poor job...   

Quote

You can't claim to understand the laws of physics and continue to deny this. It's basic physics. I learned this shit in high school, I was seventeen years old!

Well, they clearly didn't teach SR at your high school.

They certainly did not teach it in my school.... I later had to have my Engineering husband explain the equations and concepts to me it all to me some time ago.... Its not something mainstream in school....so i highly doubt you learned it in high-school. 

But that's beside the point.....

In my school, there was a physics class where we could learn the basics of general a special relativity. It was only the basics, but it provided a foundation.

I honestly have no idea what you are on about. 

Then you don't understand relativity. Stop using it as a crutch for the flat earth model when the flat earth model breaks the crutch.

The problem with your argument, ThinkingMan, is that you assume light is a constant velocity in all inertial reference frames. It is not. Light is accelerating as well.

SR does not state that time STOPS for, what you say is, our frame of reference. It says time slows down.

The acceleration, to an outside observer, keeps getting smaller and smaller.  It gets infinitesimally small, but there's still acceleration there.  And the earth never reaches the speed of light.

This article might be of some help in understanding the concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote

For us on earth, time never has to actually stop, just keep getting slower and slower as the acceleration, to an outside observer, gets smaller and smaller.  It never needs to stop.  This can all go on for billions of years and time will never stop and the earth will never reach the speed of light.

Regardless, as the acceleration slows, the gravity should drop in intensity as well.

Regardless, as the acceleration slows, the gravity should drop in intensity as well.

No, because the acceleration doesn't appear to slow on earth.  This is because time is getting slower.

And yet time does not stop. Eventually the effects would... how do I put it... catch up with us.

And yet time does not stop. Eventually the effects would... how do I put it... catch up with us.

Nope, you fail at understanding yet again.  This is getting sad and tiresome.

What you're saying does not fit with what I learned. I understand what you're saying. I learned it in the terms of space travel, that's how they put it to me. If they their acceleration, they would feel the change. If they decelerated, they would feel the change. Either way, this bickering has gone on for like two or three pages, can we not just agree to disagree, I'm just as tired of it as you all are.

Let's go back to the UA. How does it work? What is it made of? Where does its "pushing force" come from?

It can't just work "because it does". It needs an insane output of energy to push something with the mass of Earth at a rate of 9.8m/s². Where does it get this energy?

can we not just agree to disagree, I'm just as tired of it as you all are.

No, because you're wrong.  I will agree that you're wrong and continue from there, though.

I'll also note that no deceleration is going on.  Deceleration would mean the earth is slowing down.  Even to an outside observer it's always accelerating, just in smaller and smaller amounts.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 13, 2012, 12:06:55 PM

And yet time does not stop. Eventually the effects would... how do I put it... catch up with us.

Nope, you fail at understanding yet again.  This is getting sad and tiresome.

Sweet fancy Moses, CET and I are on the same page for once.

The acceleration does not change in their frame of reference. Only for an outside observer.

sorry to butt in. I have been reading this and slowly starting to understand. Correct me if I am wrong, but if the Earth and everyone on it suddenly slowed down no one would know? because we have no reference point to say that we slowed down? Did I understand that right?

I guess in a way I am imagining a patrol where I am below deck and the vessel I am on went from 30 knots to 25. I do not know that we slowed down until I go up and look at the speed log because I had no previous reference to judge the change?

No, the earth isn't slowing down in UA.  It's always going faster, accelerating.

The acceleration is getting smaller and smaller, though, because the earth can never reach the speed of light.

The frames of reference thing is important because the speed of light is always constant.  On earth under UA, we would be going close to the speed of light, yet light must always appear to be going the speed of light.

To an outside observer, a beam of light would just barely be crawling ahead of us, but to us it would still appear to be traveling at the speed of light away from us.  This is accomplished by having us experience less time, as if we're watching a movie and more and more frames are being taken out of the picture.

This also makes the acceleration of the earth appear to be larger than it appears to an outside observer not on the earth.  By this point we should barely be accelerating at all since we'd be quite close to the speed of light.  Since we experience less time here on earth, though, that tiny acceleration feels much larger, and in fact appears to remain constant at 9.8 m/s²

This is the best I can do at explaining all this relativity stuff.  I'm not physicist so I can't get into any of the math behind it all.

No, he's saying the Earth doesn't slow down, it just doesn't speed up as much, and you don't notice it. It would be like being in the back of a car, not being able to see out the windows. The driver is accelerating enough to press you into the seat. They're saying when the driver (UA) slows it's acceleration (not slows down, just isn't speeding up so fast) that you're not feeling it. I hope I put that in layman's terms well. I tried.

I really stopped caring though. It doesn't matter. Really, whether there would or wouldn't be a noticeable change, I would probably not feel it in my lifetime anyway.

Let's go back to the UA. How does it work? What is it made of? Where does its "pushing force" come from?

It can't just work "because it does". It needs an insane output of energy to push something with the mass of Earth at a rate of 9.8m/s². Where does it get this energy?

Hmmm?

No, the earth isn't slowing down in UA.  It's always going faster, accelerating.

The acceleration is getting smaller and smaller, though, because the earth can never reach the speed of light.

The frames of reference thing is important because the speed of light is always constant.  On earth under UA, we would be going close to the speed of light, yet light must always appear to be going the speed of light.

To an outside observer, a beam of light would just barely be crawling ahead of us, but to us it would still appear to be traveling at the speed of light away from us.  This is accomplished by having us experience less time, as if we're watching a movie and more and more frames are being taken out of the picture.

This also makes the acceleration of the earth appear to be larger than it appears to an outside observer not on the earth.  By this point we should barely be accelerating at all since we'd be quite close to the speed of light.  Since we experience less time here on earth, though, that tiny acceleration feels much larger, and in fact appears to remain constant at 9.8 m/s²

This is the best I can do at explaining all this relativity stuff.  I'm not physicist so I can't get into any of the math behind it all.

Wait... You mean that time actually effects what actually goes on in our... what the hell do you call that a time zone? The time dilation effects what is physically happening in our frame of reference?

Time is relative to the observer.

Wait... You mean that time actually effects what actually goes on in our... what the hell do you call that a time zone? The time dilation effects what is physically happening in our frame of reference?

I'm not sure what you mean.  If we experience time at a different rate it will affect how we perceive the acceleration of the earth, is that what you mean?

No, that's what I've been saying lol. I'm asking if you mean that the dilation will effect what is LITERALLY happening, not how we percieve the time passing. Even if the time passes slower... ugh I've said it like 10 time I'm not going to again. I thought you were tired of this? It's making my brain hurt.

Time dilation is tricky, and yes it makes my head hurt too.  If you really want to make your head hurt, imagine a beam of light is heading towards the earth.  It has to appear to go the speed of light, too, the same as the beam of light heading away from the earth.  And that's the point where my grasp of time dilation falls apart.

Anyway, I find it mysterious that there are FEers who accept time dilation, considering that the experimental evidence in favor of it has mostly come from atomic clocks orbiting the earth in space.

Here is a thought, if two objects in space are traveling at near the speed of light would the speed at witch they move apart from one another be greater then the speed of light?

also if we are traveling on Earth at nearly the speed of light and our time is slowed, objects that are moving independently of us outside our atmosphere would appear to move differently then they actually are correct? I do not believe in the UA model just fun to think about.

CET, I really wasn't trying to argue with you, I actually only vaguely remember how this all got started. I've just been trying to tell the guy not to use SR as an argument for something by which it is broken. Do you see my point?

No, that's what I've been saying lol. I'm asking if you mean that the dilation will effect what is LITERALLY happening, not how we percieve the time passing.

What we are experiencing is what is literally happening. There is no privileged frame of reference.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 13, 2012, 01:28:16 PM

No, that's what I've been saying lol. I'm asking if you mean that the dilation will effect what is LITERALLY happening, not how we percieve the time passing.

What we are experiencing is what is literally happening. There is no privileged frame of reference.

Which means if what is happening changes, then our experience will change. Yes?

9.8 ms is an example of another way you can feel gravity,if you want proof that moving up increases the feeling of gravity,simply get on an elevator.As you go up,drop something,the object should hit the floor faster(9.8ms+speed of elevator),go down(9.8ms-speed). Repeat many times until results are satisfied.This proves that the two feelings(gravity,going up/down) are the same (physically and mathematically).This of course is not proof that the Earth itself is moving up,but all science starts somewhere.Although many scientist do think we are flying through space(so flying 'upward' is very logical,and does happen regardless,FYI)
 I think what you are forgetting is that for 500-2000+ years that people have believed the earth was a sphere etc without any tangible proof.
The 'moving up' is only a theory,or possibility,to replace the feeling of gravity.I for one don't care much for it since it has nothing to do with a round or flat earth... Gravity is an attraction between mass,which can curve space/time.So whether or not the Earth is a sphere or flat.... it is still the largest(&closet) body of mass,hence we are all pulled toward it.

~Issac Newton concluded that the apple DOES NOT fall down from a tree.   

Here is a thought, if two objects in space are traveling at near the speed of light would the speed at witch they move apart from one another be greater then the speed of light?

Relative to who?

also if we are traveling on Earth at nearly the speed of light and our time is slowed, objects that are moving independently of us outside our atmosphere would appear to move differently then they actually are correct? I do not believe in the UA model just fun to think about.

Again, "than they actually are" doesn't mean anything in this context.

CET, I really wasn't trying to argue with you, I actually only vaguely remember how this all got started. I've just been trying to tell the guy not to use SR as an argument for something by which it is broken. Do you see my point?

I guess.  I was just trying to explain how the earth could always seem to accelerate at 9.8 m/s² without reaching the speed of light or having time stop.  It's theoretically possible, although an energy source that could somehow constantly accelerate the earth doesn't make much sense or seem very likely.  We've certainly never seen anything like that in the real world, and it doesn't seem very zetetic to assume its existence.