Throwing a ball in the air.

If the earth is acceleration at 1 g and you toss a ball up in the air at 10 mph. The ball would be traveling at 1 g plus 10mph. If that was the case the ball is traveling faster than the flat earth by 10 mph. Then to ball would travel upwards forever!! Answer this!!

1g is an acceleration, not a velocity.  You can't add acceleration directly to a velocity.  They are different units of measure.

1g is an acceleration, not a velocity.  You can't add acceleration directly to a velocity.  They are different units of measure.

Yes but at any moment the earth is traveling at a certain speed. It could be close to the speed of light but it has speed. If the earth is traveling a one million mph and the ball would be traveling 1 million and hour plus 10 mph. Wouldn't the ball keep on going farther and farther. It is like a car passing you on the highway. The car gets further and further.

Quote from: jroa on February 28, 2014, 07:40:21 AM

1g is an acceleration, not a velocity.  You can't add acceleration directly to a velocity.  They are different units of measure.

Yes but at any moment the earth is traveling at a certain speed. It could be close to the speed of light but it has speed. If the earth is traveling a one million mph and the ball would be traveling 1 million and hour plus 10 mph. Wouldn't the ball keep on going farther and farther. It is like a car passing you on the highway. The car gets further and further.

If you think this then it shows how valid your other thoughts are.

At the instant the ball leaves your hand, it would be traveling faster than the Earth.  The Earth, however, would immediately begin to catch up.  The ball would appear to slow down and then reverse direction, when in fact the Earth simply accelerated until it caught up to the ball. 

At the instant the ball leaves your hand, it would be traveling faster than the Earth.  The Earth, however, would immediately begin to catch up.  The ball would appear to slow down and then reverse direction, when in fact the Earth simply accelerated until it caught up to the ball.

You are right. The ball has to have a constant energy to make it accelerate like the earth to keep on going. I ask the question to see how and who would have the knowledge to explain it.

At the instant the ball leaves your hand, it would be traveling faster than the Earth.  The Earth, however, would immediately begin to catch up.  The ball would appear to slow down and then reverse direction, when in fact the Earth simply accelerated until it caught up to the ball.

That explanation is not correct. Your gravitational hypothesis about the Earth accelerating upward has been proven false. Please find a different explanation for it.

Maybe you could actually provide evidence that proves me wrong?

I answered a question.  I did not propose anything.  Maybe you are not reading the threads that you post in? 

Maybe you could actually provide evidence that proves me wrong?

There's loads of it around..

here..

http://bit.ly/Tc065Z

This place goes something like this:

The moon is made of cheese.

No, it is not.

Prove me wrong.

haha yes I know.. infuriating but amusing at the same time..

makes good stories to tell friends.

I answered a question.  I did not propose anything.  Maybe you are not reading the threads that you post in?

Correction:  yes you did.

Your proposition?  "At the instant the ball leaves your hand, it would be traveling faster than the Earth."

It's therefore up to you—the proponent of an idea—to prove your proposition.  It's not the task of your opponents to disprove it.  That's a standard prescript in the process of logical reasoning.
 

 

If the Earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 32 feet/sec/sec, then, would the Earth not eventually catch up to the ball?  What exactly is your problem with this statement? 

If the Earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 32 feet/sec/sec, then, would the Earth not eventually catch up to the ball?  What exactly is your problem with this statement?

Why do you believe the earth is accelerating upwards?

You are attempting to derail this thread.  However, I will bite.  We can deduce that the Earth is accelerating upwards by the material evidence that shows that it is. 

You are attempting to derail this thread.  However, I will bite.  We can deduce that the Earth is accelerating upwards by the material evidence that shows that it is.

No Im not.

How did you come to that conclusion?  And where did you first learn of it?

Are you saying that Gravity is not an acceleration? 

Are you saying that Gravity is not an acceleration?

How about you answer the question....

How about you stay on topic?

How about you stay on topic?

Again, if the Earth would be accelerating upwards, then explain the difference in gravitational accelerations around the globe. A ball at the north pole, in a vacuum, falls faster with 0.5% than where you stand right now.
It's simple to prove: You need a ball, a vacuumed tube, and some basic sensors, and measure the time it takes for the ball to fall through the tube in two different locations. There will be slight differences in gravitational acceleration.
That means that, if what you're saying is true, then different parts of the Earth are accelerating at different rates. That means that the Earth would be ripped in pieces.

And does your "gravitational claim" says that the Earth is accelerating with 9.81 m/s/s? Does that mean that 30 million seconds, or 0.951 years since the Earth started accelerating , it will be traveling with the speed of light, if it supposedly started accelerating from 0, which would rip matter apart.
We know the Earth has an age of about 4.7 billion years. We should be travelling with 4 900 000 000 (almost 5 billion) times the speed of light right now. Don't you see how absurd is your claim?
And even if you're a creationist (I have to assume this. You seem the creationist type), we would be travelling with about 6000 times the speed of light, which is physically impossible and stupid.

And if you claim that Earth is traveling with a constant speed, then it does not have acceleration, and the way a ball falls would be different. It would be like it's falling in slow motion, with a constant speed, or if its speed is greater than the Earth's, then it would continue going upward forever.
The REAL ball trajectory is only possible if something is stopping it from going upward (AKA Gravity). The ball has a -9.81 m/s/s acceleration -approximately- that makes it slow down, and come back towards the Earth.

Conclusion: The universal accelerator hypothesis is proven false. Please find a different FE explanation for gravity.

And again, as long as you don't prove the evidence wrong, there's no reason for me to assume it is wrong. And no, it doesn't work the other way around: Scientists proved it right. And if you're gonna throw the conspiracy claim, you have no proof for it, so it's invalid. And you can't prove the ball trajectory argument wrong (can you??).



Your turn, jroa.

Special Relativity tells us that something can maintain a constant acceleration and never reach the speed of light. 

Special Relativity tells us that something can maintain a constant acceleration and never reach the speed of light.

Yes, because time dilates so much, that you will never reach the point of having the speed of light, but your acceleration would still be "constant".

I don't think we're all moving in slow motion right now, nor are we in a near timeless state.

Special Relativity does not tell us that time would slow down in your frame of reference. 

Special Relativity does not tell us that time would slow down in your frame of reference.

Special relativity does not apply to accelerating bodies.

Special relativity includes only the special case (hence the name) where the motion is uniform. The motion it explains is only if you’re traveling in a straight line at a constant speed. As soon as you accelerate or curve — or do anything that changes the nature of the motion in any way — special relativity ceases to apply. That’s where Einstein’s general theory of relativity comes in, because it can explain the general case of any sort of motion.

You should check out that site more.

Special relativity does not apply to accelerating bodies.

It is a common misconception that Special Relativity cannot handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames.

Maybe you should do more research on the subject?

Also, maybe you should not go to www.dummies.com to learn about Special Relativity? 

Quote from: abaaaabbbb63 on February 28, 2014, 10:26:10 PM

Special relativity does not apply to accelerating bodies.

Quote from: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html

It is a common misconception that Special Relativity cannot handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames.

Maybe you should do more research on the subject?

So what you're saying is that time only exists on Earth, and that outside of it, time almost stopped, due to the fact that the Earth is travelling with 99.99999999% of the speed of light?

I don't think you understand how all of these work, or how "frames of reference" work. For my "frame of reference" to be valid, I would have to not be on Earth, and to not move with the same speed the Earth is moving. The Earth and I are moving at the same speed. Time flows equally for both. One second for me is one second for Earth. If I can move freely, and accelerate, then the Earth can do it too.

For the Earth to not go over the speed of light, time would have to stop for it. So time would stop for me too.

And again, if Earth would be traveling with 99.99999999% of the speed of light, and slowly increasing, our masses would also increase exponentially.

Oh, and I was using dummies.com for you, not for me.

Time is relative.  If I was traveling at 99.99999% of the speed of light in a car, and I turned on my headlights, the light leaving the lamps would be traveling at approx. 3X10^8m/s. 

Time is relative.  If I was traveling at 99.99999% of the speed of light in a car, and I turned on my headlights, the light leaving the lamps would be traveling at approx. 3X10^8m/s.

Yes, but that's entirely hypothetical. You don't know what would happen. Yes, light would behave as normal. Yes, you will be *fine* in the car, but factors like space and time dilatation would alter the world around you completely.