Throwing a ball in the air.

I am not saying that time in my frame of reference would be the same as time in others frame of reference.  You are the one who claimed that time for me and people on Earth has to be the same.  I can quote you, if you wish. 

In fact, this is what you said.

One second for me is one second for Earth. If I can move freely, and accelerate, then the Earth can do it too.

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

Are you calling Einstein a liar?

Quote from: abaaaabbbb63 on February 28, 2014, 01:27:19 PM

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

Are you calling Einstein a liar?

Did Einstein say that the Earth is accelerating upward, at 99.99% of the speed of light, and time flows differently for it, and that's how gravity is formed?

He said it could.   

He said it could.

Could, not does.

How about you stay on topic?

Are you on crack?

It IS on topic!

Quote from: jroa on February 28, 2014, 10:29:50 PM

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.

I tried to explain that a while ago - just got ignored.. not really a surpirse.

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.

Relagtive to who?  The light leaving your lamps would travelling at the speed of light, regardless of how fast the car is going...

Quote from: jroa on February 28, 2014, 11:07:32 PM

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.

Relagtive to who?  The light leaving your lamps would travelling at the speed of light, regardless of how fast the car is going...

Yes, it does not matter how fast I am traveling.  Light will always travel at the speed of light. 

I think we might notice if the earth were travelling a hair's breath off the speed of light.  We would have left the galaxy while ago...

Even hitting a pebble at those velocities would unleash enough energy to destroy the planet. 

The fact that g varies on earth would also mean it would rip itself apart in nano-seconds.

The whole thing is silly beyond belief.  The FES dug itself into that one while desperately trying to deny gravity.

We can deduce that the Earth is accelerating upwards by the material evidence that shows that it is.

Can you clarify for us briefly what this "material evidence" consists of?

To be fair, what is everyone comparing the speed to? You can only determine speed from a relative position. If an object were accelerating at the same rate, but was constantly 20 m/s slower, than the flat earth would be traveling at 20 m/s relative to that object. How can one deduce the speed at any given time without a relative point?

To be fair, what is everyone comparing the speed to? You can only determine speed from a relative position. If an object were accelerating at the same rate, but was constantly 20 m/s slower, than the flat earth would be traveling at 20 m/s relative to that object. How can one deduce the speed at any given time without a relative point?

The speed of an object is defined as  the magnitude of its velocity.  Speed is a scalar property, and doesn't require any fixed point in order to define it.  Speed is usually measured in m/sec or km/hr.
 

Quote from: WesternDuval on March 06, 2014, 05:31:53 PM

To be fair, what is everyone comparing the speed to? You can only determine speed from a relative position. If an object were accelerating at the same rate, but was constantly 20 m/s slower, than the flat earth would be traveling at 20 m/s relative to that object. How can one deduce the speed at any given time without a relative point?

The speed of an object is defined as  the magnitude of its velocity.  Speed is a scalar property, and doesn't require any fixed point in order to define it.  Speed is usually measured in m/sec or km/hr.
 

Granted yes. But my point is how anyone would measure the speed at any given time, besides the fact that we know that v=at+y where v is the current speed, a is acceleration, t is time, and y is the initial speed.  It should take about 1.9 years then, for the earth to reach the speed of light, assuming that the starting speed was -c+1. So something weird would have to happen. I haven't taken physics yet, sadly, so i'm not too keen on relativity and the effects of approaching the speed of light on time for someone approaching that speed, or exactly all the weird things will occur when approaching that speed.

Granted yes. But my point is how anyone would measure the speed at any given time, besides the fact that we know that v=at+y where v is the current speed, a is acceleration, t is time, and y is the initial speed.  It should take about 1.9 years then, for the earth to reach the speed of light, assuming that the starting speed was -c+1. So something weird would have to happen. I haven't taken physics yet, sadly, so i'm not too keen on relativity and the effects of approaching the speed of light on time for someone approaching that speed, or exactly all the weird things will occur when approaching that speed.

Earth traveling with the speed of light is just stupid. They take special relativity, and use it in a wrong way.

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 07, 2014, 10:18:06 AM

Quote from: WesternDuval on March 06, 2014, 05:31:53 PM

To be fair, what is everyone comparing the speed to? You can only determine speed from a relative position. If an object were accelerating at the same rate, but was constantly 20 m/s slower, than the flat earth would be traveling at 20 m/s relative to that object. How can one deduce the speed at any given time without a relative point?

The speed of an object is defined as  the magnitude of its velocity.  Speed is a scalar property, and doesn't require any fixed point in order to define it.  Speed is usually measured in m/sec or km/hr.
 

Granted yes. But my point is how anyone would measure the speed at any given time, besides the fact that we know that v=at+y where v is the current speed, a is acceleration, t is time, and y is the initial speed.  It should take about 1.9 years then, for the earth to reach the speed of light, assuming that the starting speed was -c+1. So something weird would have to happen. I haven't taken physics yet, sadly, so i'm not too keen on relativity and the effects of approaching the speed of light on time for someone approaching that speed, or exactly all the weird things will occur when approaching that speed.

They think its Special Relativity that stops the earth breaking the speed of light limit - even though by some accounts we should be now flying at about 6,000,000,000 times the speak of light 

They mostly deny our science, except when they think it suits them to use it, such as in this case, but what they generally do is rape it first, re-write it and then they apply it.

Granted yes. But my point is how anyone would measure the speed at any given time, besides the fact that we know that v=at+y where v is the current speed, a is acceleration, t is time, and y is the initial speed.  It should take about 1.9 years then, for the earth to reach the speed of light, assuming that the starting speed was -c+1. So something weird would have to happen. I haven't taken physics yet, sadly, so i'm not too keen on relativity and the effects of approaching the speed of light on time for someone approaching that speed, or exactly all the weird things will occur when approaching that speed.

Special relativity tells us that the formula is actually v=c tanh(at/c).  Where v is the velocity in m/s, c is the speed of light (3x10^8 m/s), tanh is the hyperbolic tangent, a is the acceleration in m/s/s, and t is the time in s. 

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

Quote from: WesternDuval on March 07, 2014, 12:42:35 PM

Granted yes. But my point is how anyone would measure the speed at any given time, besides the fact that we know that v=at+y where v is the current speed, a is acceleration, t is time, and y is the initial speed.  It should take about 1.9 years then, for the earth to reach the speed of light, assuming that the starting speed was -c+1. So something weird would have to happen. I haven't taken physics yet, sadly, so i'm not too keen on relativity and the effects of approaching the speed of light on time for someone approaching that speed, or exactly all the weird things will occur when approaching that speed.

Special relativity tells us that the formula is actually v=c tanh(at/c).  Where v is the velocity in m/s, c is the speed of light (3x10^8 m/s), tanh is the hyperbolic tangent, a is the acceleration in m/s/s, and t is the time in s. 

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

So what speed are we at now?

So what speed are we at now?

Relative to what?

Quote from: inquisitive on March 07, 2014, 03:33:28 PM

So what speed are we at now?

Relative to what?

From a scalar point of view.. What's the speed? The scalar speed is not relative.

Quote from: WesternDuval on March 06, 2014, 05:31:53 PM

To be fair, what is everyone comparing the speed to? You can only determine speed from a relative position. If an object were accelerating at the same rate, but was constantly 20 m/s slower, than the flat earth would be traveling at 20 m/s relative to that object. How can one deduce the speed at any given time without a relative point?

The speed of an object is defined as  the magnitude of its velocity.  Speed is a scalar property, and doesn't require any fixed point in order to define it.  Speed is usually measured in m/sec or km/hr.

That's rather a nonsensical statement   Scalar A property of interval timing in which the probability of responding is a similar function of the proportion of time in the interval being timed, regardless of the actual duration of that interval. a fix point does exist with in the interval timing or you couldn't demonstrate the magnitude achieved in the interval.     

Quote from: jroa on March 07, 2014, 04:20:02 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on March 07, 2014, 03:33:28 PM

So what speed are we at now?

Relative to what?

From a scalar point of view.. What's the speed? The scalar speed is not relative.

What?  Of course speed is relative.

http://www.saburchill.com/physics/chapters/00045.html

http://www.saburchill.com/physics/chapters/00045.html

okok... so that's what you were referring to. Excuse me.

So, what's the Earth speed relative to.. let's say... a space object that's standing still?

The speed of the Earth is relative to whatever you want to compare it to.  You can compare it with a rocket, a meteor, the moon, anything. 

That's rather a nonsensical statement   Scalar A property of interval timing in which the probability of responding is a similar function of the proportion of time in the interval being timed, regardless of the actual duration of that interval. a fix point does exist with in the interval timing or you couldn't demonstrate the magnitude achieved in the interval.   

Oh dear... this convoluted reasoning is pitiful... really.

There is NO "interval" being "timed", nor any "duration" of an interval.  You obviously have no idea as to what defines a scalar property—such as speed.  For example, some other scalars are volume, charge, mass, time, electric potential, temperature etc. 

You're obviously confusing speed with velocity.  Velocity is not a scalar.

And your general knowledge of science in general, and physics and mathematics is, shall we say, a little light on.
 

What?  Of course speed is relative.

http://www.saburchill.com/physics/chapters/00045.html

Embarrassingly for you, you've misinterpreted your own citation LOL.

Do you not understand what this sentence means?  "This simple example illustrates that, in general, to find the relative speed of two bodies subtract their speeds relative to a third body".

See my post (above) about scalars.
 

Embarrassingly for you, the page right before my previous link also says this.

All measurements of position must be relative to a certain point or object and, since speed is a measure of rate of change of position, it should not be surprising to find that all speeds (or velocities) are also relative measurements.

Quote from: charles bloomington on March 08, 2014, 03:02:31 AM

That's rather a nonsensical statement   Scalar A property of interval timing in which the probability of responding is a similar function of the proportion of time in the interval being timed, regardless of the actual duration of that interval. a fix point does exist with in the interval timing or you couldn't demonstrate the magnitude achieved in the interval.   

Oh dear... this convoluted reasoning is pitiful... really.

There is NO "interval" being "timed", nor any "duration" of an interval.  You obviously have no idea as to what defines a scalar property—such as speed.  For example, some other scalars are volume, charge, mass, time, electric potential, temperature etc. 

You're obviously confusing speed with velocity.  Velocity is not a scalar.

And your general knowledge of science in general, and physics and mathematics is, shall we say, a little light on.

I tell you what's embarrassing is your knowledge of physics & mathematics you ass clown. time is synchronous Einstein theory of relativity has be proven to be  flawed. TIME IS SYNCHRONOUS     

I can see it's pointless arguing with people who think they know a lot more about science and mathematics than they do in reality.

You guys truly crack me up!

Thanks for the LULZ.