What is wrong in this Picture ?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 25, 2015, 10:01:35 PM

No, actually, UA is based on the premise that the entire Earth is accelerating toward you. Equivalence principle and all that.

Please explain more of this new relativity you've formed with a preferred frame.

Quote

Can you explain what you think the correct formula for velocity is? We can move on to frames of reference after this if you still want.

I thought we were talking about relativistic speeds. Can you explain why you believe that is the correct formula?

Quote

Right, because of the "relativistic velocity" or something....

No, we haven't even gotten into relativistic effects yet. Since velocity v = at, after one day, the slower-accelerating equatorial regions are traveling

v_equator = 9.7755 m/sec² * 86400 sec
 = 844,603.2 m/sec
 = 844.6 km/sec

This is still well below relativistic velocity (the speed of light is about 300,000 km/sec). After a few weeks, however...

You are not using the correct formula for velocity

I haven't seen your "correct" formula for velocity yet. Would you mind providing it?

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2015, 10:04:44 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 25, 2015, 10:01:35 PM

No, actually, UA is based on the premise that the entire Earth is accelerating toward you. Equivalence principle and all that.

Please explain more of this new relativity you've formed with a preferred frame.

Quote

Can you explain what you think the correct formula for velocity is? We can move on to frames of reference after this if you still want.

I thought we were talking about relativistic speeds. Can you explain why you believe that is the correct formula?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 25, 2015, 08:51:58 PM

Quote

Right, because of the "relativistic velocity" or something....

No, we haven't even gotten into relativistic effects yet. Since velocity v = at, after one day, the slower-accelerating equatorial regions are traveling

v_equator = 9.7755 m/sec² * 86400 sec
 = 844,603.2 m/sec
 = 844.6 km/sec

This is still well below relativistic velocity (the speed of light is about 300,000 km/sec). After a few weeks, however...

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2015, 09:43:54 PM

You are not using the correct formula for velocity

I haven't seen your "correct" formula for velocity yet.

That doesn't surprise me. Nor does it surprise me that you still manage to feel it appropriate to "educate" me.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 26, 2015, 08:00:29 AM

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2015, 10:04:44 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 25, 2015, 10:01:35 PM

No, actually, UA is based on the premise that the entire Earth is accelerating toward you. Equivalence principle and all that.

Please explain more of this new relativity you've formed with a preferred frame.

Quote

Can you explain what you think the correct formula for velocity is? We can move on to frames of reference after this if you still want.

I thought we were talking about relativistic speeds. Can you explain why you believe that is the correct formula?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 25, 2015, 08:51:58 PM

Quote

Right, because of the "relativistic velocity" or something....

No, we haven't even gotten into relativistic effects yet. Since velocity v = at, after one day, the slower-accelerating equatorial regions are traveling

v_equator = 9.7755 m/sec² * 86400 sec
 = 844,603.2 m/sec
 = 844.6 km/sec

This is still well below relativistic velocity (the speed of light is about 300,000 km/sec). After a few weeks, however...

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2015, 09:43:54 PM

You are not using the correct formula for velocity

I haven't seen your "correct" formula for velocity yet.

That doesn't surprise me. Nor does it surprise me that you still manage to feel it appropriate to "educate" me.

What doesn't surprise you?

I'm still waiting for your "correct" formula for velocity. Can you provide it, please? You were the one who said my formula was wrong. Remember?

Is 844.6 km/sec (less than 0.3% the speed of light) relativistic?

I'm the one waiting to be educated.

That doesn't surprise me. Nor does it surprise me that you still manage to feel it appropriate to "educate" me.

Seems to me your the one in dire need of some education. 

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 26, 2015, 08:00:29 AM

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2015, 10:04:44 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 25, 2015, 10:01:35 PM

No, actually, UA is based on the premise that the entire Earth is accelerating toward you. Equivalence principle and all that.

Please explain more of this new relativity you've formed with a preferred frame.

Quote

Can you explain what you think the correct formula for velocity is? We can move on to frames of reference after this if you still want.

I thought we were talking about relativistic speeds. Can you explain why you believe that is the correct formula?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 25, 2015, 08:51:58 PM

Quote

Right, because of the "relativistic velocity" or something....

No, we haven't even gotten into relativistic effects yet. Since velocity v = at, after one day, the slower-accelerating equatorial regions are traveling

v_equator = 9.7755 m/sec² * 86400 sec
 = 844,603.2 m/sec
 = 844.6 km/sec

This is still well below relativistic velocity (the speed of light is about 300,000 km/sec). After a few weeks, however...

Quote from: Ski on June 25, 2015, 09:43:54 PM

You are not using the correct formula for velocity

I haven't seen your "correct" formula for velocity yet.

That doesn't surprise me. Nor does it surprise me that you still manage to feel it appropriate to "educate" me.

You desperately need to be educated.

That doesn't surprise me. Nor does it surprise me that you still manage to feel it appropriate to "educate" me.

Well considering you're displaying profound ignorance to physics and logic, you really do need to be educated.

Quote from: Techros on June 14, 2015, 08:14:17 AM

Quote from: WBimmer on June 14, 2015, 07:05:22 AM

News flash: The real world isn't all bubble gum and rainbows. Physics is complicated. Not everything is going to conform to your perfect view of the universe because you want it to, it's going to continue to be complicated. Any student who has taken a high school physics class can tell you that.


Or maybe the likes of Newton, Einstein and Hawking where purposely employed to make physics complicated so that the average person couldn't see through the lie, when in actual fact it is all very simple. 

Then why teach physics in school if they don't want anyone to understand it?

Because that is how they keep reinforcing the program and ensuring people believe in the lie.  You have to keep passing on the lie to generation after generation, otherwise it looses it's effect on control.

Let's imagine for fun that school didn't teach physics and all of the other subjects and just taught people the earth is flat and the centre of the universe.  Regardless of whether or not this is true, you'd have everyone believing the world is flat and nobody would question it, as they don't question anything today either.

School is simply a system to indoctrinate and program the young mind into believing and accepting the rules and beliefs of society and making them into good subjects to move into the corporate world to participate in the corporate game, to support the elite in their own agendas, whatever they may be.

Thinking back to my childhood and adolescence, i learned nothing in school of any value and all of my valued learnings came from my own personal experiences.  As a kid playing on the swings and roundabouts taught me more about physics than any high school class did.  Climbing trees and jumping off roofs gave me plenty of lessons about how heavy objects like to fall down and the higher you go, the higher the impact.  I do not care about the math of why this is, i just know it exists and that's all that matters. 

Experience trumps knowledge and theory.

Not only do we know that the higher you fall from, the harder the fall, but we can use mathematics to determine exactly how hard the fall is. These are the same mathematics that we use to construct airplanes, skyscrapers. These things were not built with intuition or experience. The only reason we were able to build these things is because of the precision and predictive capabilities of maths and physics, precision and predictive capabilities that intuition simply does not provide. We can not expect to get far as a society technologically if our scientists and engineers base their models on intuition instead of maths.