Why the UA cannot work

Hello fellows round earthers and flat earthers ! To those who don't know me, I'm a french engineering student, so I apologize in advance for any spelling or grammar mistake. I'm not a native english speaker.
Today, we'll talk about relativistic physics and Universal Acceleration, the mechanism used to explain gravity in flat earth theory. So according to the wiki and FAQ, the earth is constantly accelerated at a rate of 9.8 m.s^-2, and this is what explain gravity. It does not violate the laws of physics, as in Einstein's special relativity it is stated that one can accelerate indefinitely without ever reaching the speed of light. In the earth reference frame, we would still experience a constant acceleration, but an outside observer would see the speed of the earth slowly approaching the speed of light.
That is great, but here's the trick : FE'ers just forgot about a crucial part of special relativity : the mass/energy relationship. To put it simply, in special relativity, if you cannot exceed light speed, there's no limit to the kinetic energy of a moving body, it just tends toward infinity as the body approaches the speed of light (we'll call it c for the rest of the discussion). And if the energy of the body rises and tends toward infinity, so does the inertial mass of the body, thanks to the famous equation E=mc² ! That's no good for FE, because we see everyday that our masse doesn't increase as times goes. But hey, let's calculate how it would be to live on a accelerating, relativistic flat earth !

We will consider the following system (sorry about my paint skills):

The system Bob+flat earth has a rest mass m0 and is submitted to an acceleration g by the UA. In the reference frame of the flat earth, g is constant. We will calculate the speed of the system in the universe reference frame and we will deduce the increase in mass of the system function of the time.

This webpage was quite handy : (sorry, it's in french, and there is no similar page in the english version):http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculs_relativistes#Le_mouvement_uniform.C3.A9ment_acc.C3.A9l.C3.A9r.C3.A9

It give us the formula for calculating the speed of a uniformingly accelerating relativistic body :



Here, V is the speed of the flat earth in the universe reference frame. Now, let's use the relativistic formula of energy to find the variation of mass of our system !



gamma is the Lorenz coefficient, m is the total mass of the system and m_0 is the rest mass. By expressing the Lorenz coefficient and simplifying our formula, we find the following expression :



Now we're getting somewhere ! let's inject the expression of V in this formula :



We simplify it, and there we are : the expression of the mass of the system function of time !



So what does this function looks like ? Well, it is not good for FE, as it clearly tends toward infinity, and bob would feel the effects of the increase in mass on the long term. Lets make a chronology !

t=0s : the flat earth is not moving, bob float in the air.

from t=0 to t=6 months : the earth accelerate upward at 9.8 m.s^-2  ! Bob is happy ! The relativistic effects are still to tiny to notice.

from t=6 months to t=13 months : Bob noticed that something was wrong, as he gained 50% mass in 7 months without getting fat.

from t=13 months to t=3 years : during this period, Bob would not be able to walk, as at the end of the 3 years, his mass will have tripled. Breathing should be difficult. On the flat earth, every trees and buildings would have collapsed. I didn't calculated the effects on the atmospheric pressure, but it would definitely affect it.

 from t= 3 years to t=10 years : everything is 9 times heavier. Bob dies, as his heart is not able anymore to pump blood to his brain.

After this, if the earth continues accelerating, the athmosphere will likely be compressed enough to start nuclear fusion, and the earth will become the first pancake-star ever.

Sorry FE'rs. The UA is a myth.

Well, it is strange that when someone starts talking about some serious physics that disprove FET, every FE'er stays mysteriously silent. I wonder why, frankly.

made up formulas based on round earther bs aren't worth our time.

made up formulas based on round earther bs aren't worth our time.

Problem is, this is Einstein's special relativity. You need special relativity to explain UA, damn, you even use it in the wiki and mention it in the FAQ. If you reject special relativity, you reject UA.
Either way, UA is seriously screwed.

made up formulas based on round earther bs aren't worth our time.

Instead of displaying your ignorance of these formulas why don't you actually point out what's wrong with them.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 21, 2015, 06:24:10 AM

made up formulas based on round earther bs aren't worth our time.

Instead of displaying your ignorance of these formulas why don't you actually point out what's wrong with them.

Don't put the standard too high, his brain mus have melted when he read about the Lorenz coefficient. Man, there is a root square and two fractions in it !

He was probably just confused there's numbers mixed with letters.

Seriously though, the concepts in this aren't impossibly challenging so hopefully some of the FE-ers will be able to understand it,

Now we're getting somewhere ! let's inject the expression of V in this formula :



We simplify it, and there we are : the expression of the mass of the system function of time !

To be fair, it took me a little while to figure out this step. For anyone wondering, this is how the denominator changes. Hopefully smaller steps make it clearer:



Also, for non-mathsy people, the reason it tends to infinity is that c and m_0 are both constants: they're not going to change. I study maths, not physics, so I don't know offhand whether g is taken to be the acceleration, or if it is the g-force. Either it's constant, or increasing: either way, the fraction on the bottom left will, eventually, tend to zero as t (and possibly g) get larger than c squared.
As that happens, the denominator becomes just 1+0, so we get 1-(1/1) which is obviously zero: so m as a whole is getting closer to something divided by zero.

Just in case the lack of replies is due to lack of mathematical understanding rather than inability, a little more explanation never hurts.

Also, you might want to consider learning LaTeX or some mathematical language: paint is awkward to try and do formulae in.

Just in case the lack of replies is due to lack of mathematical understanding rather than inability, a little more explanation never hurts.

Also, you might want to consider learning LaTeX or some mathematical language: paint is awkward to try and do formulae in.

Thanks for the mathematical explanation. When you have your head shoved inside maths or physics, you tend to forget that not everybody has studied it. Although the purely computational part that I skipped is completely feasible by any highschooler, I think.
As for the g in the equation, it is the acceleration, as in p=mg. It is a constant, of course.
And I should definitely try some LateX, but we are not exactly encouraged to do so in France. Most of our assignments and tests are due on a good ol' sheet of paper. And you can't bring your laptop for a lecture.

EDIT : Ho god, the more time passes, the more I am ashamed of this paint drawing. What have I done ?

Thanks Bijane, I admittedly didn't completely understand why the final products tends towards infinity.

I can't see anyway around the conclusion Castlebravo reached. The FE-ers will try find some way around it (undoubtedly involving the magical, solve-everything aether) but it seems pretty certain that UA is infeasible.

I wish this thread would be pinned, but that isn't going to happen.

And if anyone wants to view the page that Castlebravo referenced, google has a "translate this page" option.

I was under the impression that any change in relativistic mass is not perceived from one's own frame of reference but only in an outside frame of reference.

EDIT : Ho god, the more time passes, the more I am ashamed of this paint drawing. What have I done ?

Do you want me to write it up in LaTeX? I'll PM you image links so you can slip them into the first post.

Quote from: Castlebravo on February 21, 2015, 08:12:11 AM

EDIT : Ho god, the more time passes, the more I am ashamed of this paint drawing. What have I done ?

Do you want me to write it up in LaTeX? I'll PM you image links so you can slip them into the first post.

Definitely ! Thank you very much. It'll be way cleaner that this scrawling that I commited on paint.

Quote from: BiJane on February 21, 2015, 09:17:23 AM

Quote from: Castlebravo on February 21, 2015, 08:12:11 AM

EDIT : Ho god, the more time passes, the more I am ashamed of this paint drawing. What have I done ?

Do you want me to write it up in LaTeX? I'll PM you image links so you can slip them into the first post.

Definitely ! Thank you very much. It'll be way cleaner that this scrawling that I commited on paint.

Ok! Give me a few minutes, just need to finish off a proof.

I was under the impression that any change in relativistic mass is not perceived from one's own frame of reference but only in an outside frame of reference.

I quote from this page http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity
 "General relativity postulates that physical laws should appear the same to all observers (an accelerating frame of reference being equivalent to one in which a gravitational field acts)"

EDIT: I looked over the qoute and it doesn't really answer your question. Spoke too soon, I guess.

I was under the impression that any change in relativistic mass is not perceived from one's own frame of reference but only in an outside frame of reference.

Good question, in fact. It indeed depend on your frame or reference for time and space dilatation, but i can't find much about relativistic mass. I'm going to do some more research about it, because that could likely screw up my explanation.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 21, 2015, 09:17:03 AM

I was under the impression that any change in relativistic mass is not perceived from one's own frame of reference but only in an outside frame of reference.

Good question, in fact. It indeed depend on your frame or reference for time and space dilatation, but i can't find much about relativistic mass. I'm going to do some more research about it, because that could likely screw up my explanation.

And this is why UA is still a working model. Good try.

I respect your bravado, though. It was a good show. You've had your 2 minutes of internet-fame. Now please leave.

Quote from: Castlebravo on February 21, 2015, 09:37:34 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 21, 2015, 09:17:03 AM

I was under the impression that any change in relativistic mass is not perceived from one's own frame of reference but only in an outside frame of reference.

Good question, in fact. It indeed depend on your frame or reference for time and space dilatation, but i can't find much about relativistic mass. I'm going to do some more research about it, because that could likely screw up my explanation.

And this is why UA is still a working model. Good try.

I respect your bravado, though. It was a good show. You've had your 2 minutes of internet-fame. Now please leave.

No no. UA does not work. But it is not because of SR, although even that might not be true. There is still no model explaining why the moon is affected by the UA, but a plane is not.

Quote from: Vauxhall on February 21, 2015, 09:48:22 AM

Quote from: Castlebravo on February 21, 2015, 09:37:34 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 21, 2015, 09:17:03 AM

I was under the impression that any change in relativistic mass is not perceived from one's own frame of reference but only in an outside frame of reference.

Good question, in fact. It indeed depend on your frame or reference for time and space dilatation, but i can't find much about relativistic mass. I'm going to do some more research about it, because that could likely screw up my explanation.

And this is why UA is still a working model. Good try.

I respect your bravado, though. It was a good show. You've had your 2 minutes of internet-fame. Now please leave.

No no. UA does not work. But it is not because of SR, although even that might not be true. There is still no model explaining why the moon is affected by the UA, but a plane is not.

I don't understand your point here. A plane is affected by UA. Everything on Earth is affected by UA. This causes the illusion of gravity.

No, if a plane was being universally accelerated identically to the Earth then it would have no apparent motion towards the Earth ergo it is not affected by the UA. The moon has no apparent falling motion towards the Earth and so is affected by the UA.

No, if a plane was being universally accelerated identically to the Earth then it would have no apparent motion towards the Earth ergo it is not affected by the UA. The moon has no apparent falling motion towards the Earth and so is affected by the UA.

Yes, Rama Set! Basic aeronautics. The moon itself does not move, does not produce lift or drag, etc.

The lift force accelerates the plane up relative to the acceleration of the Earth. When the upward acceleration of the plane equals to the acceleration of the Earth, the plane can maintain altitude. And no, it wouldn't crash into the Earth as it "rises to meet it". This is because wings produce lift, which, when their rate of upward acceleration equals that of 'gravity's' pull downwards, causes them to remain at a constant altitude.

Planes work on the Flat Earth model. I don't understand why you think otherwise.

Well, indeed, relativistic mass depend on your frame of reference. I should have thought about it, since it directly depends of your kinetic energy. But... SR still disproves FE, and for two reasons : the relativistic doppler effect and the interstellar medium. My research was not in vain.
The first one states that if you are travelling at a relativistic speed compared to a reference frame, all the lightsources in this reference frame will seems to gather together in the same point of your field of view, as demonstrated here :

At an high relativistic speed, this point would be a deadly source of gamma ray, as the doppler effect shorten all the wavelenghs.
Since obviously, we do not experience this, it seems that we are not moving at a relativistic speed.

The second element is simply that if we are travelling at a relativistic speed in the interstellar medium, any atom or sand grain in this medium would become a deadly projectile launched at us with the same speed as we travel. As we are constantly accelerating, each encounter with a mote of dust would become more and more dangerous -as their relative velocity become more and more important- until we encounter a larger rock, that would destroy the earth, or that the total energy deposited by the relativistic collisions heats up the atmosphere, until the point when it become plasma and kill us all. We do not experience this, hence we are not travelling at a relativistic speed.

Gosh, it's like writing xkcd's "What if ?". We should ask Randall Munroe "What if the earth was flat and accelerating upward at 9.8 m.s^-2 ?", it could be fun.

Yes I understand why a plane can stay in the air but the moment it ceases producing sufficient lift it falls back to Earth, or rather the Earth rises to meet it. So when I said it was not subject to the not-so-UA I was correct. And sorry why does the moon stay in the air?  Why does it appear to produce lift like an airplane? 

So my contention is not that planes do not work, it is that there is evidently a lot of special pleading involved to make UA work.

OK, so UA debunked. What now? Gravity wouldn't work, as the earth would form a sphere. What else is there?

OK, so UA debunked. What now? Gravity wouldn't work, as the earth would form a sphere. What else is there?

I propose "the stellar merry-go-round" theory. in fact, the earth is rotating in a giant, stellar centrifuge, and it is the centripetal forces that pushes us on the surface of the flat earth.
That would be so cool.

That was proposed but it requires the Earth to be a tube I think.

That was proposed but it requires the Earth to be a tube I think.

Or... a ring.

I'm starting The Ring Earth Society.Right. Now. That is too f****** cool.

I'm starting The Ring Earth Society.Right. Now. That is too f****** cool.

Dinosaur Neil is a proponent of Torus Earth Theory, you should talk with him.

Quote from: BiJane on February 21, 2015, 07:55:35 AM

Just in case the lack of replies is due to lack of mathematical understanding rather than inability, a little more explanation never hurts.

Also, you might want to consider learning LaTeX or some mathematical language: paint is awkward to try and do formulae in.

Thanks for the mathematical explanation. When you have your head shoved inside maths or physics, you tend to forget that not everybody has studied it. Although the purely computational part that I skipped is completely feasible by any highschooler, I think.
As for the g in the equation, it is the acceleration, as in p=mg. It is a constant, of course.
And I should definitely try some LateX, but we are not exactly encouraged to do so in France. Most of our assignments and tests are due on a good ol' sheet of paper. And you can't bring your laptop for a lecture.

EDIT : Ho god, the more time passes, the more I am ashamed of this paint drawing. What have I done ?

its good to see you have , so you should be up to date with the speed of light not being constant & the theory of relativity has been proven to be wrong, quantum physics has demonstrated that to be the case .

]its good to see you have , so you should be up to date with the speed of light not being constant & the theory of relativity has been proven to be wrong, quantum physics has demonstrated that to be the case .

It never gets old.