« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Please elaborate on the UA

  • 102 Replies
  • 14933 Views
?

alexhall

  • 31
  • +0/-0
Please elaborate on the UA
« on: April 05, 2013, 06:38:04 AM »
From the FAQ:

"The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared)...It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind. This acceleration does not violate physics and according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, we can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light."

Well, quite blatantly, no. Yes, we can accelerate forever, but asymptotically. We would approach the speed of light more and more slowly. We cannot accelerate forever at 9.8 meters per second squared. By a simple calculation:

365*24*60*60*9.8 = 309,052,800 > 3*10^8

it's clear that after a year of accelerating at a constant rate of g=9.8 ms^-2, we would exceed the speed of light. So we have a contradiction. I assume this is not hard to see and that the FAQ meant something else. Please explain, and perhaps remedy the FAQ?

Anyway, how do you envision this UA? Is it a force pushing the plane of the earth from beneath? If so, why is the air not pushed aside by the earth moving upwards? If the answer is that the earth and the atmosphere extend infinitely (i.e. the atmosphere stretches out forever in all directions and is uniformly thick everywhere, otherwise it would flatten out till it was), doesn't that mean that the earth together with the atmosphere has infinite mass? How does the UA accelerate this?

Or, if the UA is a force permeating the entire universe that pushes everything, why aren't we pushed with it, thereby not experiencing any gravity?
Logged
?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2013, 06:58:22 AM »
According to the FAQ Special Relativity forbids reaching the speed of light yet you can still accelerate indefinitely. But I think you are right that the acceleration would either have to taper off, or you'd need an exponentially increasing amount of energy to maintain the rate.

I haven't yet seen any explanation of what UA is, how it operates, and why it seems to accelerate things selectively. So far the "best" I've seen is that the Earth blocks the Aetheric Wind (which pushes the Earth from underneath) so that things on the surface are not pushed up. Also this wind spills past the edge of the Earth creating a vortex which pushes up the earth and moon and also accounts for their movements. Of course there are no details that would allow you to work out whether this could really work to explain all observations.

I wish you luck and have fun!
Logged
Quote from: sceptimatic on July 29, 2014, 06:00:17 AM
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?
?

alexhall

  • 31
  • +0/-0
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2013, 07:08:16 AM »
Quote from: Shmeggley on April 05, 2013, 06:58:22 AM
the Earth blocks the Aetheric Wind (which pushes the Earth from underneath) so that things on the surface are not pushed up. Also this wind spills past the edge of the Earth

I suppose the spilling could explain why the atmosphere doesn't fall away, so I can accept that.
Logged
?

muggsybogues1

  • 591
  • +0/-0
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2013, 07:19:13 AM »
"Atheric Wind" is non-sense. I think it was Pongo who started it, but it's certainly not a recognized theory. The UA is a force that acts on the bottom of the Earth, generates heat, and propels the Earth forward. Because of relativity, we will obviously never exceed the speed of light in our reference frame.
Logged
?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2013, 07:40:14 AM »
Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 05, 2013, 07:19:13 AM
"Atheric Wind" is non-sense. I think it was Pongo who started it, but it's certainly not a recognized theory. The UA is a force that acts on the bottom of the Earth, generates heat, and propels the Earth forward. Because of relativity, we will obviously never exceed the speed of light in our reference frame.

I agree it's nonsense, along with any form of UA. For example, what holds the sun and moon above the Earth? What about all the other objects in the sky that keep up with us? How does the UA operate on Jupiter and it's moons for example?
Logged
Quote from: sceptimatic on July 29, 2014, 06:00:17 AM
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?
?

muggsybogues1

  • 591
  • +0/-0
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2013, 07:45:32 AM »
Quote from: Shmeggley on April 05, 2013, 07:40:14 AM
How does the UA operate on Jupiter and it's moons for example?
It doesn't.
Logged
?

jason_85

  • 645
  • +0/-0
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2013, 07:50:17 AM »
Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 05, 2013, 07:19:13 AM
"Atheric Wind" is non-sense. I think it was Pongo who started it, but it's certainly not a recognized theory. The UA is a force that acts on the bottom of the Earth, generates heat, and propels the Earth forward. Because of relativity, we will obviously never exceed the speed of light in our reference frame.

You make it sound so sensible...
Logged
Quote from: New Earth on April 23, 2013, 02:23:47 AM
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2013, 07:54:27 AM »
Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 05, 2013, 07:19:13 AM
"Atheric Wind" is non-sense. I think it was Pongo who started it, but it's certainly not a recognized theory. The UA is a force that acts on the bottom of the Earth, generates heat, and propels the Earth forward. Because of relativity, we will obviously never exceed the speed of light in our reference frame.

And the canopy is somehow physically connected to the disc of the Earth so that it too accelerates?
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
?

muggsybogues1

  • 591
  • +0/-0
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2013, 07:55:33 AM »
Quote from: Rama Set on April 05, 2013, 07:54:27 AM
Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 05, 2013, 07:19:13 AM
"Atheric Wind" is non-sense. I think it was Pongo who started it, but it's certainly not a recognized theory. The UA is a force that acts on the bottom of the Earth, generates heat, and propels the Earth forward. Because of relativity, we will obviously never exceed the speed of light in our reference frame.

And the canopy is somehow physically connected to the disc of the Earth so that it too accelerates?
To or beyond the Great Ice Wall.
Logged
?

jason_85

  • 645
  • +0/-0
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2013, 07:58:42 AM »
And what is causing the acceleration in the UA? How does it work if not by the aether?

Logged
Quote from: New Earth on April 23, 2013, 02:23:47 AM
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.
?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2013, 08:00:45 AM »
Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 05, 2013, 07:45:32 AM
Quote from: Shmeggley on April 05, 2013, 07:40:14 AM
How does the UA operate on Jupiter and it's moons for example?
It doesn't.

We've already discussed this. If the planets etc. are not accelerating at the same rate the earth is, then we would be moving away from them. Also, you have said yourself that the "canopy" of stars must be accelerating also. So how does this happen? If the UA force is equal everything, than how can the acceleration be the same on different masses? If it's not equal, why does the accel always the same for every mass?
Logged
Quote from: sceptimatic on July 29, 2014, 06:00:17 AM
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?
?

muggsybogues1

  • 591
  • +0/-0
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2013, 08:06:47 AM »
Quote from: jason_85 on April 05, 2013, 07:58:42 AM
And what is causing the acceleration in the UA? How does it work if not by the aether?
Dark Energy.
Logged
?

jason_85

  • 645
  • +0/-0
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2013, 08:09:04 AM »
Logged
Quote from: New Earth on April 23, 2013, 02:23:47 AM
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.
?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2013, 09:08:48 AM »
Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 05, 2013, 08:06:47 AM
Quote from: jason_85 on April 05, 2013, 07:58:42 AM
And what is causing the acceleration in the UA? How does it work if not by the aether?
Dark Energy.

Do you realize that although we don't know what Dark energy is exactly, we do know what it does? And that it has nothing to do with accelerating the Earth? Or are you making up your own Dark Energy that's different from the one used in Cosmology? Because you do sound like you are talking out of your ass again.
Logged
Quote from: sceptimatic on July 29, 2014, 06:00:17 AM
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?
?

muggsybogues1

  • 591
  • +0/-0
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2013, 09:09:58 AM »
Quote from: Shmeggley on April 05, 2013, 09:08:48 AM
Do you realize that although we don't know what Dark energy is exactly, we do know what it does? And that it has nothing to do with accelerating the Earth? Or are you making up your own Dark Energy that's different from the one used in Cosmology? Because you do sound like you are talking out of your ass again.
If you don't believe me, look up UA on the wiki.
Logged
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2013, 09:15:34 AM »
Oh, an unsourced and one sentence long description of what the FES believes DE does.  Thanks for the illuminating advice.
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2013, 09:48:18 AM »
Even better, I checked out the Dark Energy Model FAQ:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Dark_Energy_Model:_FAQ

Literally two words long so I will quote:

"Under Construction"

As of July June 2012.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 10:18:33 AM by Shmeggley »
Logged
Quote from: sceptimatic on July 29, 2014, 06:00:17 AM
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?
?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2013, 09:54:31 AM »
Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 05, 2013, 09:09:58 AM
Quote from: Shmeggley on April 05, 2013, 09:08:48 AM
Do you realize that although we don't know what Dark energy is exactly, we do know what it does? And that it has nothing to do with accelerating the Earth? Or are you making up your own Dark Energy that's different from the one used in Cosmology? Because you do sound like you are talking out of your ass again.
If you don't believe me, look up UA on the wiki.

I did. It took less than ten seconds because there is basically no information there.

Now look at what Dark Energy actually is and what it is supposed to do.

http://www.space.com/6619-dark-energy.html

Note that Dark Energy is postulated to explain the expansion of space, nowhere does it mention that it can accelerate masses. Just because its nature is unknown does not mean that it can just do whatever you want it to do.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 10:19:20 AM by Shmeggley »
Logged
Quote from: sceptimatic on July 29, 2014, 06:00:17 AM
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?
?

alexhall

  • 31
  • +0/-0
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2013, 09:58:55 AM »
Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 05, 2013, 07:55:33 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on April 05, 2013, 07:54:27 AM
Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 05, 2013, 07:19:13 AM
"Atheric Wind" is non-sense. I think it was Pongo who started it, but it's certainly not a recognized theory. The UA is a force that acts on the bottom of the Earth, generates heat, and propels the Earth forward. Because of relativity, we will obviously never exceed the speed of light in our reference frame.

And the canopy is somehow physically connected to the disc of the Earth so that it too accelerates?
To or beyond the Great Ice Wall.

To say that the Earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8ms^-2 is to say that it is accelerating in some reference frame, even if from our perspective we feel still. To some outside observer, the speed of the earth is constantly increasing. The speed cannot constantly increase forever, it would reach the speed of light.

What do you mean by the canopy?
Logged
?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #19 on: April 05, 2013, 10:16:28 AM »
No, according to relativity it would asymptotically approach the speed of light without reaching it. Not that that makes such acceleration possible.

Supposedly, according to some flatsies, the stars are attached to to the inside of a canopy or dome above the sun and moon which revolves around us.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 10:22:52 AM by Shmeggley »
Logged
Quote from: sceptimatic on July 29, 2014, 06:00:17 AM
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?
?

alexhall

  • 31
  • +0/-0
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2013, 10:28:26 AM »
Quote from: Shmeggley on April 05, 2013, 10:16:28 AM
No, according to relativity it would asymptotically approach the speed of light without reaching it.

Which wouldn't produce a constant impression of gravity.

If the stars are attached to the canopy, why do we observe some stars moving slightly over the course of the year? In RET this is an effect of parallax. Also, it sounds like stars in this theory are not giant balls of gas. So why do some new stars briefly appear at times (supernovae)?
Logged
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2013, 10:38:49 AM »
The impression of constant acceleration would remain due to time dilation and length contraction. These effects would only be observable outside our Frame of Reference. Within it, we would appear to continue our acceleration at the same rate.
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2013, 11:17:19 AM »
Quote from: alexhall on April 05, 2013, 10:28:26 AM
Quote from: Shmeggley on April 05, 2013, 10:16:28 AM
No, according to relativity it would asymptotically approach the speed of light without reaching it.

Which wouldn't produce a constant impression of gravity.

If the stars are attached to the canopy, why do we observe some stars moving slightly over the course of the year? In RET this is an effect of parallax. Also, it sounds like stars in this theory are not giant balls of gas. So why do some new stars briefly appear at times (supernovae)?
According to the Equivalence Principle acceleration would be indistinguishable from gravity. The problem is how can you constantly accelerate light that, it would take exponentially greater amounts of energy. Look at the amount of energy it takes to accelerate a few protons to near light speed!

I had a big discussion about this with muggsybogues1 in a Parallax thread a few days ago. The best he could come up with is the canopy was "non-uniform", like the stars were sticking out on stalks or something like that.

Since many think the stars are only about 3100 miles away, they don't tend to agree about the stars being huge gas balls. On supernovae, The most likely answer would be something like "we don't really know what the stars are, but they do that sometimes" - I hope that FE'rs will please correct me if this is properly explained somewhere.
Logged
Quote from: sceptimatic on July 29, 2014, 06:00:17 AM
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?
?

muggsybogues1

  • 591
  • +0/-0
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2013, 11:51:18 AM »
Quote from: Shmeggley on April 05, 2013, 11:17:19 AM
On supernovae, The most likely answer would be something like "we don't really know what the stars are, but they do that sometimes".
They are similar to "shooting stars" in this respect. Also, comets.
Logged
?

alexhall

  • 31
  • +0/-0
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2013, 11:53:17 AM »
Quote from: Rama Set on April 05, 2013, 10:38:49 AM
The impression of constant acceleration would remain due to time dilation and length contraction. These effects would only be observable outside our Frame of Reference. Within it, we would appear to continue our acceleration at the same rate.

I'm not great with relativity. Can someone verify this please? Maybe with some actual equations?

Isn't it strange that the stars which appear to move about on this non-uniform canopy do so in perfect unison with our seasons?  :P

How is this canopy shaped? If it was a sphere centred around the north pole you'd get that the top is 12430 miles above it (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=north+pole+to+the+south+pole+in+miles), right? There seems to be a division by 4 somewhere. What have I missed?
Logged
?

alexhall

  • 31
  • +0/-0
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #25 on: April 05, 2013, 11:57:02 AM »
Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 05, 2013, 11:51:18 AM
Quote from: Shmeggley on April 05, 2013, 11:17:19 AM
On supernovae, The most likely answer would be something like "we don't really know what the stars are, but they do that sometimes".
They are similar to "shooting stars" in this respect. Also, comets.

Do you mean that you don't know what shooting stars and comets are, or that supernovae are caused by a similar phenomenon?
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2013, 10:29:55 PM »
Quote from: alexhall on April 05, 2013, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on April 05, 2013, 10:38:49 AM
The impression of constant acceleration would remain due to time dilation and length contraction. These effects would only be observable outside our Frame of Reference. Within it, we would appear to continue our acceleration at the same rate.
I'm not great with relativity. Can someone verify this please? Maybe with some actual equations?

v = (a + w) / (1 + aw ÷ c^2)

V is the velocity
a is the objects acceleration
and W is the object's previous speed

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.."
?

Puttah

  • 1860
  • +0/-0
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2013, 04:26:42 AM »
Quote from: Ski on April 07, 2013, 10:29:55 PM

v = (a + w) / (1 + aw ÷ c^2)

V is the velocity
a is the objects acceleration
and W is the object's previous speed

Could you either derive or link me to a site that derives this equation? I'm not familiar with it, and it seems very wrong.

edit: Scratch that, you're just trolling.
Logged
Quote from: Tausami on July 01, 2013, 12:31:58 PM
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.
?

muggsybogues1

  • 591
  • +0/-0
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2013, 08:06:43 AM »
Quote from: alexhall on April 05, 2013, 11:57:02 AM
Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 05, 2013, 11:51:18 AM
Quote from: Shmeggley on April 05, 2013, 11:17:19 AM
On supernovae, The most likely answer would be something like "we don't really know what the stars are, but they do that sometimes".
They are similar to "shooting stars" in this respect. Also, comets.

Do you mean that you don't know what shooting stars and comets are, or that supernovae are caused by a similar phenomenon?
I know what I can observe.
Logged
?

alexhall

  • 31
  • +0/-0
Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2013, 08:14:48 AM »
Surely it's clear that shooting stars are falling rocks since many make it to the ground? Surely you can't deny the existence of meteorites. The whole of Russia would have to be part of the conspiracy.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
« previous next »