What proof do you need to believe the earth is a sphere?

Quote from: "texta"

Oh lol.

It's Special Relativity that says you can't go faster than the speed of light. But it doesn't say you can't accelerate forever, just that as you approach the speed of light weird stuff starts happening from the point of view of people watching.

i wouldn't have thought it possible to view anything at/close to the speed of light.

I can see light fairly well...

Quote from: "mjk"

Quote from: "texta"

Oh lol.

It's Special Relativity that says you can't go faster than the speed of light. But it doesn't say you can't accelerate forever, just that as you approach the speed of light weird stuff starts happening from the point of view of people watching.

i wouldn't have thought it possible to view anything at/close to the speed of light.

I can see light fairly well...

har har

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Uh, we were talking about Relativity, not thermodynamics.  But, whatever, which part are you refering to?

You cant accelerate indefinatly and not exeed the speed of light.

Yes, you can.  Velocity does not add linearly in relativity.  Take this equation:
v = (v1+v2) / (1+v2*v2/c^2)  
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity. Keep adding 9.8 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.

Quote from: "Yardstick2006"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Uh, we were talking about Relativity, not thermodynamics.  But, whatever, which part are you refering to?

You cant accelerate indefinatly and not exeed the speed of light.

Yes, you can.

No, you cant. Indefinatly means forever, that means that you are getting faster and faster and faster untill you hit lightspeed.

So there.

Have you ever taken an algebra class?  Ever heard of an asymptote?  A function can approach an asymptote and never reach it.  Even if you go on for infinity.

Have you ever taken an algebra class?  Ever heard of an asymptote?

Isnt that the cartoon show with the fat guy that eats the donuts?

Algebra =

cartoon show with the fat guy that eats the donuts

That explains a lot about you Yardstick.

Some points:

1.  TheEngineer is correct.  You can keep accelerating and never go faster than the speed of light.  Hell, you can keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started.

2.  It does not take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the Earth for a finite period of time, just like it doesn't take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a rocket ship for a finite period of time.

3.  http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3152.

While he might have believe he lived on a round earth, his theory of relativity has nothing to do with the shape of the planet

True, but it did pertain to the speed of light, where he would've had to have taken into account on what perception of relativity he was experimenting on. In a FE model, everything is relative to the Earth, you see, not some invisible, indistinguishable dot somewhere off in "space."


~D-Draw

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "Yardstick2006"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Uh, we were talking about Relativity, not thermodynamics.  But, whatever, which part are you refering to?

You cant accelerate indefinatly and not exeed the speed of light.

Yes, you can.

No, you cant. Indefinatly means forever, that means that you are getting faster and faster and faster untill you hit lightspeed.

So there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

Einstein disagrees.

Some points:

1.  TheEngineer is correct.  You can keep accelerating and never go faster than the speed of light.  Hell, you can keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started.

2.  It does not take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the Earth for a finite period of time, just like it doesn't take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a rocket ship for a finite period of time.

For fucks sake! You cant accelarate forever and not reach lightspeed dumbass that is impossible.

Erasmus wrote:
Some points:

1. TheEngineer is correct. You can keep accelerating and never go faster than the speed of light. Hell, you can keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started.

2. It does not take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the Earth for a finite period of time, just like it doesn't take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a rocket ship for a finite period of time.

Physics for beginners states the following:

Knowing the definition of acceleration, if an object is experiencing a constant (nonzero) acceleration, does that mean the object's velocity is also constant? Well, since acceleration is defined as the change in velocity over time, the only way an object's velocity can be constant is if the object is not experiencing any acceleration. In other words, the only way an object's velocity can be constant is if its acceleration is zero.

You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".

well...yes and no...

E=mc^2 afterall, and as such it would supposedly take a shitload of energy to make u go faster than light...

neways, point is, engineer is right, bibicul is incorrect but on the right track

You're missing the point.
I'm not talking about reaching the speed of light, I am saying that you can't keep accelerating and not increase your velocity (which is what Erasmus was arguing for incorectly), since acceleration is by definition the change in velocity over time.
This statement (available on the physics for beginners website) is pretty stright-forward: "the only way an object's velocity can be constant is if its acceleration is zero".

You're missing the point.
I'm not talking about reaching the speed of light, I am saying that you can't keep accelerating and not increase your velocity (which is what Erasmus was arguing for incorectly), since acceleration is by definition the change in velocity over time.
This statement (available on the physics for beginners website) is pretty stright-forward: "the only way an object's velocity can be constant is if its acceleration is zero".

How about this:  Simple Physics for Bibicul.  Acceleration is a vector.  Velocity is a vector.  If you change your direction, you have changed your velocity and acceleration.  Circular motion is a constant change in acceleration, without a change in speed.  Therefore, you can accelerate for ever and never change your speed.

For fucks sake! You cant accelarate forever and not reach lightspeed dumbass that is impossible.

Well, Einstien says you're an idiot.

You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".

If you are accelerating in a direction perpendicular to the direction in which you are moving, then the speed at which you are moving is not changing.

I said velocity, not speed.

Circular motion is accelerated even though the speed is constant, because the velocity of the moving object is constantly changing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_motion)
Velocity is a vector measurement of the rate of change of displacement from a fixed point. The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is speed.

What I said in my post is:

You're missing the point.
I'm not talking about reaching the speed of light, I am saying that you can't keep accelerating and not increase your velocity (which is what Erasmus was arguing for incorectly), since acceleration is by definition the change in velocity over time.
This statement (available on the physics for beginners website) is pretty stright-forward: "the only way an object's velocity can be constant is if its acceleration is zero".

Where in there do you see speed? Speed does not take into account direction. TheEngineer was talking about velocity; now you're all talking about speed... nothing more to say I guess.

Hell, you can keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started.

That's what Erasmus said.  This was your reply:

You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".

You said nothing about a velocity.  However you showed your ignorance by this post:

I am saying that you can't keep accelerating and not increase your velocity (which is what Erasmus was arguing for incorectly)

Erasmus was absolutely correct in his statement.  You are the one who got it wrong.

TheEngineer was talking about velocity

I was talking about the speed of light, not the velocity of light.

now you're all talking about speed

That's what Erasmus and I were talking about all along.

Yardstick2006 wrote:
TheEngineer wrote:
Uh, we were talking about Relativity, not thermodynamics. But, whatever, which part are you refering to?


You cant accelerate indefinatly and not exeed the speed of light.

Yes, you can. Velocity does not add linearly in relativity. Take this equation:
v = (v1+v2) / (1+v2*v2/c^2)
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity. Keep adding 9.8 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.

You were referring to velocity here, and how it adds in relativity. Clearly you did talk about velocity.

You said nothing about a velocity

I only talked about velocity; no mention of speed whatsoever. Since the initial post in this thread was referring to the earth's movement "upwards" in the universe (see "upwards" written by phaseshifter and "up" written by some other guy before him - that's a direction), that's what I was referring to. I, for one, was talking in context. You were not.

Now, if you and your friend Erasmus want to make pointless statements about the speed of light and speed in general, which I did not even mention, that's your problem. Funny that you call me ignorant when you don't even remember what the conversation was about.

Quote

Yardstick2006 wrote:
TheEngineer wrote:
Uh, we were talking about Relativity, not thermodynamics. But, whatever, which part are you refering to?


You cant accelerate indefinatly and not exeed the speed of light.

Yes, you can. Velocity does not add linearly in relativity. Take this equation:
v = (v1+v2) / (1+v2*v2/c^2)
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity. Keep adding 9.8 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.

You were referring to velocity here, and how it adds in relativity. Clearly you did talk about velocity.

Clearly I was talking about the magnitude of the velocity, or speed, as it is not very useful to compare a vector and a scalar.

Quote

You said nothing about a velocity

I only talked about velocity; no mention of speed whatsoever.

You made this statement:

You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".

This is obviously wrong.  You absolutely can constantly accelerate and never go any faster.  You sure do a lot of backpeddling.

I'm not talking about reaching the speed of light, I am saying that you can't keep accelerating and not increase your velocity (which is what Erasmus was arguing for incorectly)

Erasmus said nothing about velocity.

Now, if you and your friend Erasmus want to make pointless statements about the speed of light and speed in general, which I did not even mention, that's your problem. Funny that you call me ignorant when you don't even remember what the conversation was about.

The conversation was about acceleration and surpassing the speed of light.  That is clearly what Erasus and I were talking about.  How is that not on topic?

You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".

That statment is correct. If an object is constantly accelerating, then any point at which you measure it's speed will give you a different value. And any value obtained will be greater than the one that preceded it.

Acceleration is exponential, which means that you cannot get measurements of the same value at different times. Even after 1/1000th of a second, the object will have a higher velocity then when the first measurement was taken.

That's the whole concept of acceleration

In physics or physical science, acceleration (symbol: a) is defined as the rate of change (or derivative with respect to time) of velocity

Thus, if your speed remains the same, there is no acceleration involved.

Have you not been paying attention?

If an object is constantly accelerating, then any point at which you measure it's speed will give you a different value. And any value obtained will be greater than the one that preceded it.

No it won't.  Circular motion is a change in dirention, which is a change in velocity, which is a change in acceleration.  However, the speed has not changed, just the direction of motion.  
Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity not speed.

Quote

Quote

TheEngieneer said:
Velocity does not add linearly in relativity. Take this equation:
v = (v1+v2) / (1+v2*v2/c^2)
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity. Keep adding 9.8 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.

You were referring to velocity here, and how it adds in relativity. Clearly you did talk about velocity.

 
Clearly I was talking about the magnitude of the velocity, or speed, as it is not very useful to compare a vector and a scalar.

This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity.

velocity in relativity.

velocity

You said "velocity" yourself. What the heck are you arguing here? Where in your post did you say "magnitude of velocity"? There's a big difference between the "magnitude of velocity" (i.e. speed) and velocity. You said velocity and I pasted your statement. You're not making any sense.

TheEngineer said:
Circular motion is a change in dirention, which is a change in velocity, which is a change in acceleration. However, the speed has not changed, just the direction of motion.

Why are you talking about circular motion when that has nothing to do with what everyone was referring to in this thread? Everyone was talking about the earth moving "upwards" - upwards being a direction - go back and read the posts mate. If you take direction into account, then you are not talking about speed, but velocity. You are clearly taking things out of context to defend a statement that you and Erasmus made and which had nothing to do with the topic discussed. Circular motion is not relevant to the discussion since nobody here said that the earth was moving around in circles.

biblicul, how about reading the whole thing:

Velocity does not add linearly in relativity. Take this equation:
v = (v1+v2) / (1+v2*v2/c^2)
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity. Keep adding 9.8 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.

You see that right there?  That's called a scalar.  That's the magnitude of the velocity.  

Circular motion is not relevant to the discussion since nobody here said that the earth was moving around in circles.

Consider this statement made by yourself:

You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".

This is obviously wrong, as you can in circular motion.  That is why this was brought up.  Try and keep up with the adults, ok?

Fact.

There is no circular motion involved with flat earth.

What is your point?

"Scientific" studies. If I ever want some nameless lab coat telling me that due to some microbiological reason, the Earth has to be flat, I'll be sure to call you back here.

What about the guy who proved the earth is flat. He did "experiments" to prove it was flat. Isn't that the same thing as mentioned above?

biblicul, how about reading the whole thing:

Quote:
Velocity does not add linearly in relativity. Take this equation:
v = (v1+v2) / (1+v2*v2/c^2)
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity. Keep adding 9.8 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.

You see that right there? That's called a scalar. That's the magnitude of the velocity.

This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity.

velocity in relativity.

velocity

Yeah... too bad you didn't specify "magnitude of velocity". Open up your physics books mate. You can get failed in a physics class in which you say "velocity" when you're actually referring to "speed".
Here's your complete statement again (of course, with no mention of "magnitude of velocity"):

Velocity does not add linearly in relativity. Take this equation:
v = (v1+v2) / (1+v2*v2/c^2)
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity. Keep adding 9.8 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.

Consider this statement made by yourself:
Quote:
You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".

This is obviously wrong, as you can in circular motion. That is why this was brought up. Try and keep up with the adults, ok?

Oh that's so witty and biting - especially that last sentence! Thanks for giving me an example related to circular motion when everyone in this thread was talking about the movement of the earth "upwards" as you and your friends suggested in "FE theory". You're definitely talking in context, just like every other time.  

Bibicul, no one ever said you could accelerate without changing your velocity. Erasmus said

Hell, you can keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".

Faster obviously referring to "speed."
If you had replied to this with something like "You can't keep accelerating without your velocity changing" it would have been correct, although irrelevant to what Erasmus said. Instead, you replied with:
 

You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".

Which is incorrect..

So I would suggest you follow your own advice to TheEngineer and "Open up your physics books mate. You can get failed in a physics class in which you say "speed" when you're actually referring to "velocity."