Wouldn't all the oceans flow south?

again, for the last time, the reason relativity prevents speeds from exceeding the speed of light is because as you approach the speed of light you require increasing amounts of energy to maintain constant accelleration. In fact if an infinite power source were availible we could reach the speed of light. Just saying the word relativity to answer my argument without understanding how it works is quite foolish. Conservation of energy prevents the earth from perpetually accelating.
You are proposing the infamous perpetual motion machine which is impossible therefore your theory is false.
QED

Did you read my post? There is not a single observation that this directly contradicts. It's true that we've never observed a violation of the conservation of energy, but that doesn't make it impossible that certain effects which we have never observed violate it. Furthermore, it is possible that there is an energy source (dark energy, universal accelerator, or whatever you want to call it) that provides the energy for this acceleration, and so we're not violating anything. Have you been to the underside of the earth and observed the cause of our acceleration? I think not.

As for relativity, check out the thread "FE gravity as it relates to the speed of light" further down on this page, as it already has been quite well explained.

As Skeptical already said there's already a post discussing acceleration and the speed of light.

 :idea: We have already reached and surpassed the speed of light (having an infinite power source on the other side of Flat Earth) and are now travelling backwards in time, this is why you can see what's happened and not what's going to happen (thanks TP).

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"

As for relativity, check out the thread "FE gravity as it relates to the speed of light" further down on this page, as it already has been quite well explained.

As Skeptical already said there's already a post discussing acceleration and the speed of light.

 :idea: We have already reached and surpassed the speed of light (having an infinite power source on the other side of Flat Earth) and are now travelling backwards in time, this is why you can see what's happened and not what's going to happen (thanks TP).

wtf are you talking about.  Sorry, stupid question.  You obviously don't know.

Things can accelerate at the same rate forever and will never reach the speed of light.  Einstein demonstrated this.

Things can accelerate at the same rate forever and will never reach the speed of light.  Einstein demonstrated this.

 :lol: You take yourself way too seriously.

Funny, I thought that Einstein demonstrated that no matter what speed you are travelling light light will always travel from your perspective at the same speed... No wait, that was a phenomenon that was discovered previous to Einstein.

Einstein came up with relativity, that explained the above phenomenon. Now it is true that if you're the one accelerating then the speed of light will still be travelling at the same speed (the basis of FE refutes towards the whole acceleration/speed of light argument). This means that from the particle's perspective inside a particle accelator the speed of light will be just as fast as it is was when it was travelling slower (due to time distortion). If we had an infinite power source (needed because the faster that particle goes the more mass it has and the harder it becomes to accelerate) then we could get that little sucker to accelerate to the speed of light (and time would stop for it).

The way I understand Flat Earth theory is this: If somebody jumped off the Ice Wall and watched the Flat Earth go wizzing by they would not see it continue to accelerate at 9.8m/s/s - it will continue to accelerate but the rate of acceleration will decrease (at a curved rate that never stops accerating). Due to relativity from the Flat Earth perspective, it will still be accelerating at 9.8m/s/s.

I don't have a problem with the above explanation - hence why I don't bother arguing with it.

As for the travelling back in time, that's just ripping off Terry Pratchett. His trolls have a belief that because you can see what's happened but you can't see what's going to happen that means you're actually travelling backwards through time.

And, for your information, Flat Earthers have a collective grasp on pretty much any concept you want to throw at us.

BORG.

Quote from: "FlatBrain"

So we will lose our gravity? Are we slowing down right now? Was gravity stronger in the past?

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.

who named you the expert flat earth man?

I never claimed to be.

again, for the last time, the reason relativity prevents speeds from exceeding the speed of light is because as you approach the speed of light you require increasing amounts of energy to maintain constant accelleration.

It's good that this is the last time you're saying that, because you wouldn't want to keep saying something that's incorrect.

We're at the centre of the universe.  We're not moving.  Everything else is moving around us.  We don't have to worry about going faster than light, because if we shine a flashlight straight up, we will always measure the light to be moving at the speed of light.  So we don't have to worry about the energy that it takes to accelerate us is getting larger, because it isn't, because we're moving at a constant speed (zero).

You are proposing the infamous perpetual motion machine which is impossible therefore your theory is false.
QED

Not really.  Nobody's saying that we'll be accelerating forever.  Eventually the acceleration might die off and we'd all start floating around.  The theory describes what's happening now, not what will be happning in some speculative future.

To someone not being accelerated with the earth (meaning someone in space, moving at a constant velocity) the acceleration of the earth will be decreasing

The effect you describe here is called Time Dilation, an effect of travelling at relativistic velocities. An observer would see the earth appear to slow down as it approached the speed of light. However, to a person on Earth, time would still be progressing normally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Also, as the velocity approaches the speed of light, the mass of the earth would increase, requiring a larger force to accelerate it. Assuming the force on the earth is constant, the acceleration would decrease, causing the effect of "gravity" to be reduced, and we would all float away.

If the acceleration remained constant, the velocity WOULD eventually reach the speed of light.

I also remember a post stating that at a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s/s earth would reach the speed of light after 354 days.

In summary, either we NEVER reach the speed of light, AND the effect of gravity decreases with time. OR the acceleration remains constant and we DO reach the speed of light, at which point there would be no further acceleration (as the mass would be infinite). Either way, we would lose the effect of gravity after 354 days (roughly)

Edit: For someone that explicity stated he knew very little of mathematics and was not a qualified "physician" (he means physicist), Erasmus still seems to think he can argue with the laws of physics. This, I assert, is a foolish strategy.

The theory describes what's happening now, not what will be happning in some speculative future.

If it can't make predictions about what will happen in the future, its not a valid scientific theory.

The effect you describe here is called Time Dilation, an effect of travelling at relativistic velocities. An observer would see the earth appear to slow down as it approached the speed of light. However, to a person on Earth, time would still be progressing normally.

If the acceleration remained constant, the velocity WOULD eventually reach the speed of light.

I also remember a post stating that at a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s/s earth would reach the speed of light after 354 days.

We would never reach the speed of light because of time dilation. You said it yourself, to somebody on the earth the time would progress as normal. The acceleration of 9.8m/s/s is based from earth.

To an outside observer the acceleration of the Earth will decrease as it nears the speed of light (note: acceleration will decrease is not the earth will slow down). To an outside observer eventually the Earth will appear to reach a constant speed (such as 0.99999999999999C) and could possibly measure the earth accelerating (from their perspective) at 0.000000000000000000000000000001m/s/s. (Note: figures are made up for an example purpose only). This tiny minute acceleration will still be 9.8m/s/s on Earth because the Earth will be travelling so close to the speed of light the affects of time dilation will have a great impact.

Also, as the velocity approaches the speed of light, the mass of the earth would increase, requiring a larger force to accelerate it. Assuming the force on the earth is constant, the acceleration would decrease, causing the effect of "gravity" to be reduced, and we would all float away.

As I stated the earth doesn't accelerate at a constant speed, it only feels like it does from the perspective of someone on earth. Nor is the earth slowing down. As the Earth will never reach the speed of light it will never require an infinite ammount of energy to accelerate it.

If the acceleration remained constant, the velocity WOULD eventually reach the speed of light.

I also remember a post stating that at a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s/s earth would reach the speed of light after 354 days.

In summary, either we NEVER reach the speed of light, AND the effect of gravity decreases with time. OR the acceleration remains constant and we DO reach the speed of light, at which point there would be no further acceleration (as the mass would be infinite). Either way, we would lose the effect of gravity after 354 days (roughly)

The whole point of relativity is that the observer experiences different things depending on reference frame. You can't state that the acceleration of the earth is any given value without specifying which reference frame you are observing from, since the measured value depends on the observer's frame of reference. What the FEers are saying is that the the acceleration at any given moment is 9.8 m/s/s when measured in an inertial reference frame in which the velocity of the earth is, at that moment, zero. So it isn't constant in any inertial reference frame, but only in this particular non-inertial reference frame in which we live. In an inertial reference frame, the acceleration is decreasing over time.

So yes, it is entirely consistent with relativity that we experience constant acceleration in our reference frame, that our acceleration is constantly decreasing in an inertial reference frame, and that we never reach the speed of light (in the reference frame of any possible observer). The force of gravity would not disappear after 354 days, or any other time period, as long as whatever causes the Earth to (hypothetically) accelerate continues to do so.

Edit: For someone that explicity stated he knew very little of mathematics and was not a qualified "physician" (he means physicist), Erasmus still seems to think he can argue with the laws of physics. This, I assert, is a foolish strategy.

What ones background is is irrelevant. What matters is whether the physics is well-explained and correct. In Erasmus's case, it is both. And who ever mistook 'physician' for 'physicist'?

An inertial reference frame cannot be accelerating. That contradicts the definition of an inertial reference frame.

Who ever mistook "physician" for "physicist"?

Erasmus did.

if I understand correctly the earth disk is spinning which would cause a centrifugal force on the oceans. Could someone explain why they don't?

Its the power of the pink bunny.. Check the forum with the Pictures of earth for more info.

An inertial reference frame cannot be accelerating. That contradicts the definition of an inertial reference frame.

Thanks for stating the obvious, but I never implied it could.

Quote

Who ever mistook "physician" for "physicist"?

Erasmus did.

Reference please? Xargo said something like this, but Erasmus never did (although since Xargo stole Erasmus's avatar, I can understand how you might have been confused).

Most of the post which I quote has been covered by others, but I wanted to specifically address

Also, as the velocity approaches the speed of light, the mass of the earth would increase, requiring a larger force to accelerate it. Assuming the force on the earth is constant, the acceleration would decrease, causing the effect of "gravity" to be reduced, and we would all float away.

Again, it's a question of reference frames.  Just like velocity, acceleration, mass, energy, charge, etc., force is also relative.  Force can be constant in our reference frame, but variable in another.

One way to look at this is to consider reaction mass (an explanation I will keep brief, since I am not an engineer).  If you admit that the Earth's mass is increasing as its velocity increases, then you must also admit that, if the force that propels the Earth is rocket-like, the reaction mass (by which I mean the matter that is propelled "downwards" so that, by Newton's laws, the Earth must be propelled "upwads") should also increase in mass.  Propulsion by a greater reaction mass at a given velocity produces greater thrust, which is balanced by the greater mass of the Earth.

The other way I like to look at it is to keep in mind that there ought to be no experiment that can determine my "absolute velocity".  If you are correct -- in that our gravity should lessen as we accelerate, then I propose the following experiment: get in a rocket with no windows and accelerate upwards for a while with respect an inertial launch pad.  After time ΔT, turn off the engines.  You are now not accelerating and are therefore inertial.  Since you are inertial, you are free to conclude that you are not moving at all, and that it is the launch pad which is moving away from you.  Now turn the engines back on; you are effectively starting from zero velocity.  Repeat this procedure as often as you like; in each instance, you should experience a force of pseudogravity.  If you are correct, then after many instances, the pseudogravity ought to decrease because you have added up many accelerations and are getting closer to the speed of light.  But this obviously violates the laws of special relativity: the "intermediate" inertial reference frames that you occassionally put yourself into by turning off your engine is "just as good" as the launch pad's reference frame.  Thus we can conclude that we should be able to repeat this procedure indefinitely and never lose pseudogravity.  In particular, we can let ΔT→0, and we essentially have the Flat Earth scenario (in which our "breaks" between accelerations have infinitesimal duration).

In sum: if you were right, relativity would be wrong.

Fantastic explanation there, pity you pulled half of it out your ass.

If the force propelling the earth is "rocket like", expelling mass from the underside it would have to expend "fuel", if there is infinite fuel, then the earth must have infinite mass, and therefore would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it. Since the fuel must be expended in finite quantities, the earth could never be accelerated.

The second explanation makes more sense, however.

A thought occured to me earlier. Midgard explained the speed of light thing pretty well (wrt time dilation) in a previous post. Would I be correct in thinking that by his reckoning, everything else in the observable universe would appear to be accelerating. If so, then that would provide a very interesting explanation for "Dark Energy", the mysterious force that appears to be causing the universe to expand in an accelerating fashion. Right?

If the force propelling the earth is "rocket like", expelling mass from the underside it would have to expend "fuel", if there is infinite fuel, then the earth must have infinite mass, and therefore would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it. Since the fuel must be expended in finite quantities, the earth could never be accelerated.

Not necessarily.  There is any number of ways to acquire new fuel "during the trip."  The first two that come to mind is that it could scoop hydrogen from space, or contain a white hole.

Additionally, I'm not claiming that the Earth has been around forever, or that it will be around forever, which are the only two circumstances that would create a demand for infinite fuel.

Would I be correct in thinking that by his reckoning, everything else in the observable universe would appear to be accelerating. If so, then that would provide a very interesting explanation for "Dark Energy", the mysterious force that appears to be causing the universe to expand in an accelerating fashion. Right?

Maybe.  Midgard's explanation is not really known to me.  In any case, the RE universe is expanding at an accelerating rate in the sense that everything is moving away from everything else.  The FE acceleration is different in that it all happens in the same direction ("up").