Speed of Light?

Hey guys. If the earth's gravity really is created by the ground accelerating with 9.8 m/s^2, I find it difficult to make sense of general relativity wich states that objects with mass can not reach the speed of light, here is my reason:

since the earth has existed for (4.54 × 10^9 years ± 1%) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth)
in seconds it will be: (4,54*10^9)y*(365d/y)*(24h/d)*(60m/h)*(60s/m) = 1.4317344e+17 or about 1,4*10^17 seconds old.

if we want to find the minimum speed which earth is traveling through space, we can simply multiply the numbers toghether:

(9.8m/s^2)*(1,4*10^17s) = 1.4030997e+18 m/s

this is really fast, in fact light speed is approximately 3*10^8 m/s which is kind of slow compared to earth's speed.
compared:

1.4030997e+18/3*10^8 = 4.68023682 × 10^9

this is huge because it implies that the earth is traveling about 4 billion times faster that the speed of light.

Is general relativity wrong? sorry about my grammar, english is not my first language. Thanks for reading!

The Earth is round, but your reasoning is inaccurate. I don't know how well the theory's understood at this point, but you can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light: high speeds make spacetime alter. If you have a stationary clock, and another clock moving at high speeds, if they're synced at the start, they will end up showing different times. If the time passing alters, then the speed alters subjectively.
Though something, from an external perspective, may appear to be accelerating at or beyond the speed of light, the way time passes in the vicinity of the accelerating object keeps its speed limited.

I see, because you can never reach the speed of light. If you try to accelerate close to c, the force aplied will only contribute to the slowing of spacetime, right? Our planet is a sphere, no doubt. But i would like to read a flat-earther's answer on this topic, because one of them once used this argument against me during a debate on gravity. Can you accelerate without adding a force? and if not, where does this force come from?
and please don't say: ''The force is a energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.'' haha

  But i would like to read a flat-earther's answer on this topic, because one of them once used this argument against me during a debate on gravity.

But your post count is 2?

Special Relativity tells us that you can accelerate at a constant rate and never reach the speed of light.  Perhaps you think you are smarter than Einstein?  Or, perhaps you are pretending to know something about SR, yet you are trying to prove it using Newtonian calculations? 

Nope, i am dumber than alot of people. and i am not very familiar with special relativity.  I am simply trying understand how something can accelerate by 9.8 for several billion years, even if you can never reach c, you would get pretty close. which means that time will slow down and your mass will increase magnificently. The argument does have some serious implications. From our perspective, the time for the universe as we observe it from our near light speed moving disc would slow down. why do we see thing happening at the same rate of time?

Locally, things would not change.  You would seem to go about your everyday life.  It is only to an outside observer that things would appear to change.

Also, if you don't believe me that you can accelerate forever and never reach the speed of light, here is the SR velocity formula.  Plug in any numbers for time and acceleration and let me know when you have found a combination that give a result that is equal to or greater than 1C. 

v = c tanh(aT/c)

v=velocity in m/s
c=the speed of light
tanh is hyperbolic tangent
a=acceleration in m/s^2
T=time is seconds

Actually you will reach the speed of light exactly if you accelerate forever, but thats not the point. Thanks for the equations anyway:) but to your statement: aren't we an outside observer to the universe? and since things seem to be happening at normal speed of time, and the speed of light must be the same for all observers, it means the entire universe must be accelerating by the same rate and direction earth is. which is stupid.

Locally, things would not change.  You would seem to go about your everyday life.  It is only to an outside observer that things would appear to change.

Also, if you don't believe me that you can accelerate forever and never reach the speed of light, here is the SR acceleration formula.  Plug in any numbers for time and velocity and let me know when you have found a combination that give a result that is equal to or greater than 1C. 

v = c tanh(aT/c)

v=velocity in m/s
c=the speed of light
tanh is hyperbolic tangent
a=acceleration in m/s^2
T=time is seconds

Holy crap, a flat earther is understanding relativity without thinking that it's a lie or refusing to learn.  Did someone put drugs in my drink or something?  Holy crap.

Actually you will reach the speed of light exactly if you accelerate forever, but thats not the point. Thanks for the equations anyway:) but to your statement: aren't we an outside observer to the universe? and since things seem to be happening at normal speed of time, and the speed of light must be the same for all observers, it means the entire universe must be accelerating by the same rate and direction earth is. which is stupid.

Which numbers did you plug into the equation to get v=1C?  Does your calculator have an infinity button?  lol

If the entire universe is accelerating at more or less the same speed, then every thing to us would look normal because we are accelerating too.  You would have to be stationary and watching the entire universe speed past you in order to notice anything weird going on.  Let me know when you pull that off, lol. 

I hate to break it to you sircool, bot Jroa is actually right.  I believe that Earth is round and Jroa clearly understands relativity rather well, unlike some flat earthers who think that it's all a hoax without even any evidence.  An object constantly accelerating will never reach the speed of light, that's why it is impossible.  It would literally take infinite time and energy to do it.

jroa thats exactly what im saying. we are stationary (relatively) and the universe is not speeding past us.

mikeman i know you will never actually reach the speed of light. think of it in an abstract way, if you accelerate for an infinite amount of time. its a thought experiment.

I'm not very well versed on the more complicated field of relativity.

This is just a comment on the speed of light.

It seems there is agreement as the speed of light on this particular thread.

But I remember on my first post regarding the distance from the earth to the moon that there were some posts that either there was no such thing as the speed of light or there was a great variance in the speed of light between the earth and the moon and that was the reason my figures for the distance were inaccurate. This was in reference to the "Moon Bounce" Operations of how amateur radio operators "bounced" radio signals off the moon, measured the time required for the signals to return to the earth and computed the distance using the speed of radio waves (which is close to the speed of light)to get the distance. I will admit the remarks by some flat earthers were rather insane but I hope they did not reflect on the intelligence of most persons on this forum.

Just an aside, and maybe admittedly off topic, but just wanted to mention it.Insofar as the speed of light is concerned.

It seems this topic is being treated in a more intelligent manner than mine was. It finally got so bad the moderators locked the thread long ago.

Of course, the moot point is that the earth is a globe. But it is interesting to read these topics to see what ideas flat earthers put forth. "From viewers like us . Thank You. From all of us to all of you. Have a great week."

If photons have no mass how can the gravity of objects like massive dense stars bend light, and why does the star not increase the velocity of the photon with a slingshot type of effect (add energy to the photon)

If photons have no mass how can the gravity of objects like massive dense stars bend light, and why does the star not increase the velocity of the photon with a slingshot type of effect (add energy to the photon)

Massive objects bend space-time and light simply follows a straight line across curved space giving the effect of bent light.

I think the answer is that photons have energy, and since mass and energy is closely related by E=mc^2, they behave in a similar pattern. correct me if i'm wrong

photons are born at the speed of light, they can never accelerate or slow down. any particle with no mass will behave like this.

I know that this is a complex subject and is not easy to explain in ordinary language.
If a photon travels from A to B in a straight line, it will take x amount of time. If the same photon travels from the same A to B but in a curve will it take the photon a longer time than the staight x amount of time. Or a massive object slows down time but the photon travels at the same speed.

Photons always travel in a straight line: it's just the medium they travel in that gets curved. For example, if you take a ribbon, stretch it out straight, and draw a straight line from one end to another, that line is straight: however, you can curl up the ribbon, making the straight line seem curved.

(An aside: photons move in a straight line due to interference. As quantum objects, they also appear as a wave: and if you have a wavelength V, and a wavelength W, where W appears the same as V only shifted half a wavelength so that the shape that goes above the line in V is underneath it in W, when V and W meet, they cancel each other out.
Photons take every possible path from A to B, but when one goes one way, one can go the other way in the exact same way and deviating only half a wavelength: one would be V, and one would be W. A similar path can be found for every single wavelength that goes for any more than the minimum possible distance from A to B: that minimum can only be achieved one way, so it can't be cancelled out, and that one way is clearly a straight line).

This is very complex, sorry. I don't know if this has been formalized in this time, it's a consequence of the relationship between the medium light moves in, and the strings of the spatial dimension.

photons are born at the speed of light, they can never accelerate or slow down. any particle with no mass will behave like this.

Only relative to one outside observer. 

I know that this is a complex subject and is not easy to explain in ordinary language.
If a photon travels from A to B in a straight line, it will take x amount of time. If the same photon travels from the same A to B but in a curve will it take the photon a longer time than the staight x amount of time. Or a massive object slows down time but the photon travels at the same speed.

Good question, and I will need to ponder this for a while. 

It's actually an easy question.

Question:
Do photons not obey the laws of relativity because they have no mass.
Is it only objects that have mass that become infinitely long, that time slows down till it stops, and the objects become frozen on an event horizon when they reach the speed of light.
Photons (with no mass) are not pulled into a black hole by its gravitational force, they travel along the warped curved space into the black hole.

It's actually an easy question.

Well, then, answer the question, mister theoretical physicist.  Or pee checker, or oven watcher, or what ever you claim to be today. 

Quote from: sokarul on August 31, 2015, 05:20:29 PM

It's actually an easy question.

Well, then, answer the question, mister theoretical physicist.  Or pee checker, or oven watcher, or what ever you claim to be today.

As much as I want to show up a GED bearing pretend engineer, I'll let you answer it.
We are waiting.

Question:
Do photons not obey the laws of relativity because they have no mass.
Is it only objects that have mass that become infinitely long, that time slows down till it stops, and the objects become frozen on an event horizon when they reach the speed of light.
Photons (with no mass) are not pulled into a black hole by its gravitational force, they travel along the warped curved space into the black hole.

1. Photons do obey the laws of relativity.
2. Objects moving seem to get shorter, not longer.
3. I believe it is said photons do not "age"
4. Warped spacetime is gravitation, so they cannot escape if they are past the event horizon. Everything follows bent spacetime.

Quote from: magnolia on August 31, 2015, 04:16:40 PM

I know that this is a complex subject and is not easy to explain in ordinary language.
If a photon travels from A to B in a straight line, it will take x amount of time. If the same photon travels from the same A to B but in a curve will it take the photon a longer time than the staight x amount of time. Or a massive object slows down time but the photon travels at the same speed.

Good question, and I will need to ponder this for a while.

Figure it out yet?

1. Photons do obey the laws of relativity.

Really?  You sure know more than all of the physicists on the planet who only speculate on what photons do. 

2. Objects moving seem to get shorter, not longer.

What does this statement have to do with anything?

3. I believe it is said photons do not "age"

What the F***K?  Who asked if photons age?

4. Warped spacetime is gravitation, so they cannot escape if they are past the event horizon. Everything follows bent spacetime.

lol, warped space-time is one theory for Gravity, not Gravitation.  You really are this dumb, are you not? 

Really?  You sure know more than all of the physicists on the planet who only speculate on what photons do. 

Then those must be some seriously incompetent physicists.  Light has been well understood since relativity and quantum mechanics were discovered.  It's been quite a while since then and physics don't seem to have changed.

Really?  You sure know more than all of the physicists on the planet who only speculate on what photons do. 

One of the main constituents for relativity is that photons always travel at the speed of light, no matter what. Do you know how many equations use the speed of light? Yeah, you may want to look up stuff before you talk.

What does this statement have to do with anything?

Hey jroa look, look, hey look. You aren't looking.

Is it only objects that have mass that become infinitely long

Did you look? Think that is it?

Is it only objects that have mass that become infinitely long

Is it only objects that have mass that become infinitely long

Is it only objects that have mass that become infinitely long

Is it only objects that have mass that become infinitely long

Pay attention.

What the F***K?  Who asked if photons age?

I used age in quotation marks as it's not real. I'm claiming that if a photon had a wrist watch, it wouldn't move if seen from an outside observer. I'm not 100 percent sure that is correct, I didn't look it up. Just trying to remember what people who "never seen a rocket" teach.

lol, warped space-time is one theory for Gravity, not Gravitation.  You really are this dumb, are you not?

Actually it is gravitation. If a scientist was using gravity and gravitation, he would say gravity is newton's idea and gravitation is Einstein's idea. But just out of curiosity, what is "Gravitation"?  Followed by wtf, are you dumb? He is clearly asking about gravitation and bent spacetime ideas.

I'll help you out, just leave this thread, it's clearly above you.