Universal Acceleration questions

 Topic was hijacked and moved.

Some look at that see a fault in reaching the speed of light in a short time. Some counter with an argument regarding relativity.

That counter's not an FE-only phenomenon, it's an accepted part of science.



When you're far from the speed of light c, it's as simple as v₁+v₂, but the closer you get, the more you see the denominator increase. It limits you to below c.
The reason the speed of light is the absolute speed limit is because it's impossible to reach, and the reason why it's impossible to reach is, well, this. When you travel at high speeds spacetime warps specifically so your distance/time can't get as high as c when viewed from any non-accelerating reference frame, and consequences we'd predict from that have been observed. The famous such experiment is comparing the times on atomic clocks when one was stationary, and one was placed on a particularly fast jet. You'd expect them to stay synchronised, but instead the results were consistent with the theory of relativity.

The Universal Acceleration portion of FE theory supposes a constant acceleration over time.

Some look at that see a fault in reaching the speed of light in a short time. Some counter with an argument regarding relativity.

1) What is the issue with accelerating past the speed of light?
2) Why is it necessary to rely on an unobservable effect to counter this?

So actually you can't accelerate past the speed of light. The problem is that there is universal acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 on Earth. This is where the Flat Earth Flipper Theory comes into play.

The Flat Earth Flipper Theory is such that the Earth accelerates relatively "up" at 9.8m/s^2 until it almost hits light speed, at which point it flips around 180 degrees and starts the cycle over again, this time going "down", but flipped. This cycle explains a lot actually, especially things traditional FE theory cannot.

When the Earth flips, it creates a lot of friction and heat, and this heat remains in the planet for a very long time. Over time, however, the planet starts to cool, and it keeps doing so until the next flip. Coincidentally, the same time it flips is usually around the time of an Ice Age. We are currently somewhere in between these two stages, so no need to be worried.

One can even say the dinosaurs were made extinct due to a great flip, and only smaller animals survived. As well, Pangaea split due to a great flip as well.

If you are interested in the Flat Earth Flipper Theory, there was a general thread made a few months ago where this and a lot more (seasons, sun/moon physically staying up in the sky, solar & lunar eclipses, etc.) explained in greater detail. Hope this helped!

Quote from: Jane on December 29, 2017, 10:49:42 AM

That counter's not an FE-only phenomenon, it's an accepted part of science.



When you're far from the speed of light c, it's as simple as v₁+v₂, but the closer you get, the more you see the denominator increase. It limits you to below c.
The reason the speed of light is the absolute speed limit is because it's impossible to reach, and the reason why it's impossible to reach is, well, this. When you travel at high speeds spacetime warps specifically so your distance/time can't get as high as c when viewed from any non-accelerating reference frame, and consequences we'd predict from that have been observed. The famous such experiment is comparing the times on atomic clocks when one was stationary, and one was placed on a particularly fast jet. You'd expect them to stay synchronised, but instead the results were consistent with the theory of relativity.

That's a very pretty equation.

Where does it come from?

Also a very confusing explanation.

"The speed of light is the absolute speed limit because it's impossible to reach, and the reason is when you travel at high speeds spacetime warps specifically to prevent it."

That's not a very satisfying answer.

Regarding the jet experiment, since it can't have gotten anywhere near the speed of light, any conclusions are just a supposition, extrapolating a hypothesis from an observation made at, what, 1/1,000,000th the speed of light? Doesn't seem particularly convincing.

I'll rephrase my questions, then.

1) Why can't one accelerate past the speed of light?
2) All the counters to this seem to rely on the dictum "Because you can't" or some formula (or some low speed experiment done by scientists). Any observable proofs from those making the claim?

it's rocket science. 

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

That's a very pretty equation.

Where does it come from?

The Theory of Relativity. I could drag out my old notes on Lorentz transformations if you really want but I doubt a bunch of matrices and tensors would clear this up.

Regarding the jet experiment, since it can't have gotten anywhere near the speed of light, any conclusions are just a supposition, extrapolating a hypothesis from an observation made at, what, 1/1,000,000th the speed of light? Doesn't seem particularly convincing.

It's pretty impressive if you think about it. Long before the flight took place there was a mathematical model for what it is we'd expect to see, specific numerical predictions for what the effect of time dilation would be. And when the experiment was run, we observed exactly what that model predicted, when no other model predicted anything similar.
It doesn't have to get near the speed of light to demonstrate the effect a high speed can have on spacetime. You can extrapolate easily what a much higher speed would do; the effect plainly increases given we only observe it at higher speeds.
If you drop a hardback on your foot, you can easily conclude it'd be worse to drop a bookshelf there even without running that test. It's a natural conclusion when you increase the relevant variable (in this case weight, for the experiment, velocity).
As a result of the experiment, we know that there will be a great distortion of spacetime at high velocities. How could we not?

"We know that there will be a great distortion of spacetime at high velocities. How could we not?" That may be true. But to extrapolate from that to the conclusion that travel faster than the speed of light is impossible is quite a leap. An unbelievable one, frankly.

Wait, are you arguing that FEers shouldn't accept the existence of a universal speed limit?
That doesn't follow. You don't need to prove that it's the speed of light to demonstrate that relativistic velocity addition isn't as simple as u+v.

As far as the rest goes, motivation and thought process varies based on FEer, there's no one catch-all explanation. Some claim they're refining science; that observations are accurate (except generally, of course, for space travel which is faked for the benefit of money/power) just misinterpreted.
The strict zetetic Rowbotham approach tends to be brought up by REers way more than it is by FEers.
Plenty I'm sure have rejected the idea of relativity and the speed of light as a limit. Others don't approach it with the thought process you've provided.

The Universal Acceleration portion of FE theory supposes a constant acceleration over time.

Some look at that see a fault in reaching the speed of light in a short time. Some counter with an argument regarding relativity.

1) What is the issue with accelerating past the speed of light?
2) Why is it necessary to rely on an unobservable effect to counter this?

As an object with mass accelerates toward the velocity of light, it's relative mass increases. The energy needed to accelerate that object increases in kind. In modern particle accelerators, Individual particles accelerated to near light speed had masses greater than Volkswagen busses.

So assuming that the Earth has mass, then as Earth approaches the speed of light, the amount of energy necessary to maintain a uniform acceleration approaches infinite. Assuming there is no such thing as infinite energy, the Earth will eventually stop accelerating just before surpassing the speed of light. And possess near infinite mass within its frame of reference.

It is also worth noting that near, at or beyond the speed of light, it gets very difficult to see anything beyond your immediate frame of reference.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on December 29, 2017, 08:44:19 AM

Some look at that see a fault in reaching the speed of light in a short time. Some counter with an argument regarding relativity.

That counter's not an FE-only phenomenon, it's an accepted part of science.



When you're far from the speed of light c, it's as simple as v₁+v₂, but the closer you get, the more you see the denominator increase. It limits you to below c.
The reason the speed of light is the absolute speed limit is because it's impossible to reach, and the reason why it's impossible to reach is, well, this. When you travel at high speeds spacetime warps specifically so your distance/time can't get as high as c when viewed from any non-accelerating reference frame, and consequences we'd predict from that have been observed. The famous such experiment is comparing the times on atomic clocks when one was stationary, and one was placed on a particularly fast jet. You'd expect them to stay synchronised, but instead the results were consistent with the theory of relativity.

This is based on the relative frame of reference of an outside observer. This is just a clarification, not a critique. Your statement is correct, but refers to an effect, not a cause.

How does frame of reference work?
Wouldn't the clock traveling 'fast' believe it is stationary and see the other as traveling 'fast'?

Quote from: Jane on December 29, 2017, 07:23:48 PM

Wait, are you arguing that FEers shouldn't accept the existence of a universal speed limit?

No. I am, however, asking that a critical eye be taken as to why they do, and what evidence they have for it to be c. Seems that a lot of people just repeat something they read in a book or were told, without a second thought. "It's impossible to go faster than the speed of light" seems to have taken on the status of a religious mantra, unquestioningly believed.

Perhaps you can answer my question . . .

How does frame of reference work?
Wouldn't the clock traveling 'fast' believe it is stationary and see the other as traveling 'fast'?

How does frame of reference work?
Wouldn't the clock traveling 'fast' believe it is stationary and see the other as traveling 'fast'?

Something like that, yes. One off the basic premises of relativity is that all frame of references are subjective. To build off your question, take time dilation as an example. Imagine a pair of identical twins. One of them becomes an astronaut and pilots a spacecraft to the nearest star and back(Alpha Centaur I at about 4.6 light years away). His spacecraft can travel at .99C. At that speed, time will dilate. The astronaut will only notice that the round trip will take him a mere six weeks from his perspective. But when he returns to Earth, his identical twin in now nine years older than he is.

What does this mean for us? Well, as Jane's formula shows, even if something would seem like it would have to go faster than light(like light from the headlight of a high speed train) from the frame of reference of an outside observer, the relative nature of time, space and mass causes the cosmic speed limit to remain unbroken.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 29, 2017, 08:41:52 PM

As an object with mass accelerates toward the velocity of light, it's relative mass increases. The energy needed to accelerate that object increases in kind. In modern particle accelerators, Individual particles accelerated to near light speed had masses greater than Volkswagen busses.

Not something I've personally observed. Have you?

Yes I've been a participant in particle accelerator projects.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 29, 2017, 09:29:33 PM

How does frame of reference work?
Wouldn't the clock traveling 'fast' believe it is stationary and see the other as traveling 'fast'?

Something like that, yes. One off the basic premises of relativity is that all frame of references are subjective. To build off your question, take time dilation as an example. Imagine a pair of identical twins. One of them becomes an astronaut and pilots a spacecraft to the nearest star and back(Alpha Centaur I at about 4.6 light years away). His spacecraft can travel at .99C. At that speed, time will dilate. The astronaut will only notice that the round trip will take him a mere six weeks from his perspective. But when he returns to Earth, his identical twin in now nine years older than he is.

What does this mean for us? Well, as Jane's formula shows, even if something would seem like it would have to go faster than light(like light from the headlight of a high speed train) from the frame of reference of an outside observer, the relative nature of time, space and mass causes the cosmic speed limit to remain unbroken.

The question is which observer gets to claim 'stationary'?

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 29, 2017, 09:49:47 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 29, 2017, 09:29:33 PM

How does frame of reference work?
Wouldn't the clock traveling 'fast' believe it is stationary and see the other as traveling 'fast'?

Something like that, yes. One off the basic premises of relativity is that all frame of references are subjective. To build off your question, take time dilation as an example. Imagine a pair of identical twins. One of them becomes an astronaut and pilots a spacecraft to the nearest star and back(Alpha Centaur I at about 4.6 light years away). His spacecraft can travel at .99C. At that speed, time will dilate. The astronaut will only notice that the round trip will take him a mere six weeks from his perspective. But when he returns to Earth, his identical twin in now nine years older than he is.

What does this mean for us? Well, as Jane's formula shows, even if something would seem like it would have to go faster than light(like light from the headlight of a high speed train) from the frame of reference of an outside observer, the relative nature of time, space and mass causes the cosmic speed limit to remain unbroken.

The question is which observer gets to claim 'stationary'?

Both? Neither?

Dunno. There's probably no such thing.

I've been a participant in particle accelerator projects.

Which ones?

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 29, 2017, 09:52:44 PM

I've been a participant in particle accelerator projects.

Which ones?

My college farmed out some of their solid state physics students to Fermilab for a semester to crunch numbers for component upgrades. At the time, it was tedious and uninteresting work that ended up being one of the reasons why I abandoned the field for less tedious work. I love physics. But done properly, it's mostly boring as hell.

Anyhoo, 2 years after that spring, they discovered the Top Quark. So there's that.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 29, 2017, 10:11:55 PM

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 29, 2017, 09:52:44 PM

I've been a participant in particle accelerator projects.

Which ones?

My college farmed out some of their solid state physics students to Fermilab for a semester to crunch numbers for component upgrades. At the time, it was tedious and uninteresting work that ended up being one of the reasons why I abandoned the field for less tedious work. I love physics. But done properly, it's mostly boring as hell.

Anyhoo, 2 years after that spring, they discovered the Top Quark. So there's that.

That is the most ambiguous claim to fame I have ever seen.
Perhaps the reason you dropped out is because you can't explain relativity?

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 29, 2017, 10:28:52 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 29, 2017, 10:11:55 PM

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 29, 2017, 09:52:44 PM

I've been a participant in particle accelerator projects.

Which ones?

My college farmed out some of their solid state physics students to Fermilab for a semester to crunch numbers for component upgrades. At the time, it was tedious and uninteresting work that ended up being one of the reasons why I abandoned the field for less tedious work. I love physics. But done properly, it's mostly boring as hell.

Anyhoo, 2 years after that spring, they discovered the Top Quark. So there's that.

That is the most ambiguous claim to fame I have ever seen.
Perhaps the reason you dropped out is because you can't explain relativity?

Claim to fame? lol I was a lab drone. I'm no Stephen Hawking. Though I do have more muscular calves.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 29, 2017, 09:49:47 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on December 29, 2017, 09:29:33 PM

How does frame of reference work?
Wouldn't the clock traveling 'fast' believe it is stationary and see the other as traveling 'fast'?

Something like that, yes. One off the basic premises of relativity is that all frame of references are subjective. To build off your question, take time dilation as an example. Imagine a pair of identical twins. One of them becomes an astronaut and pilots a spacecraft to the nearest star and back(Alpha Centaur I at about 4.6 light years away). His spacecraft can travel at .99C. At that speed, time will dilate. The astronaut will only notice that the round trip will take him a mere six weeks from his perspective. But when he returns to Earth, his identical twin in now nine years older than he is.

What does this mean for us? Well, as Jane's formula shows, even if something would seem like it would have to go faster than light(like light from the headlight of a high speed train) from the frame of reference of an outside observer, the relative nature of time, space and mass causes the cosmic speed limit to remain unbroken.

The question is which observer gets to claim 'stationary'?

The non-accelerated one. See http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/Twins.1.html.

While we are asking universal acceleration questions:

What keeps the Sun and Moon away?

While we are asking universal acceleration questions:

What keeps the Sun and Moon away?

That one's easy. There's an 'exclusion field' over the Earth where there's a lack of the accelerator. It's why we stay on the Earth's surface rather than being pushed up ourselves.
When you get to a sufficient altitude, the accelerator closes in again so everything up there is being accelerated at the same rate. that includes the Sun, moon, stars etc.

That one's easy. There's an 'exclusion field' over the Earth where there's a lack of the accelerator. It's why we stay on the Earth's surface rather than being pushed up ourselves.
When you get to a sufficient altitude, the accelerator closes in again so everything up there is being accelerated at the same rate. that includes the Sun, moon, stars etc.

And what Zetetic observation led you to that conclusion?

To me, it seems more like total guesswork and as far from Zetecism as one could get.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 30, 2017, 08:12:17 AM

While we are asking universal acceleration questions:

What keeps the Sun and Moon away?

That one's easy. There's an 'exclusion field' over the Earth where there's a lack of the accelerator. It's why we stay on the Earth's surface rather than being pushed up ourselves.
When you get to a sufficient altitude, the accelerator closes in again so everything up there is being accelerated at the same rate. that includes the Sun, moon, stars etc.

Why is there an exclusion field?

Why is there an exclusion field?

The general gist is just that the Earth gets in the way. One thing I've seen before is to use as an analogy those water tunnels that try to measure drag:


The force (there, the ink) hits an object, and for a short distance past said object you're still waiting for the force to return (there, the area around the number plate).

Universal Accelerator (UA) may or may not be the reason why the Earth sees downward acceleration withn own frame.

But UA doesn't explain why the acceleration is not uniform.
It also doesn't explain why, after years of differently accelerated different parts, the Earth is not heavily distorted.
Approaching speed of light won't reduce traveled distances.

Acceleration at poles is 9.82 and at Equator 9.77 m/s².
Difference of 0.05 m/s².
In one day poles travel 4320 meters per second faster than Equator.
During that second North Pole becomes mountain 4320 meters higher than Equator.
Is that mountain after one more second 8640 meters high?

How high is that mountain after one hour?
(Mount Everest is 8850 meters.)

You can approach speed of light and acceleration will less and less increase the speed of ground, but it won't shorten the traveled distances. Won't reduce Pole mountain.

---------------------------

If you doubt measured accelerations and differences, it is easy to use long pendulum and stopwatch and measure accelerations yourself.
It is easy to find description and formula on the Internet.
Just gogle for "how to measure 'g' with pendulum".
One example would be http://www.pstcc.edu/departments/natural_behavioral_sciences/Web%20Physics/Experiment%2004web.htm .

The Universal Acceleration portion of FE theory supposes a constant acceleration over time.

Some look at that see a fault in reaching the speed of light in a short time. Some counter with an argument regarding relativity.

1) What is the issue with accelerating past the speed of light?
2) Why is it necessary to rely on an unobservable effect to counter this?

The entire universe is accelerating. The speed of light is how fast light travels in the medium that comprises the universe if you'd like. The theories of relatively apply to occurrences within the universe, so there's no reason the entire universe couldn't be going any velocity you'd like.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on December 29, 2017, 08:44:19 AM

The Universal Acceleration portion of FE theory supposes a constant acceleration over time.

Some look at that see a fault in reaching the speed of light in a short time. Some counter with an argument regarding relativity.

1) What is the issue with accelerating past the speed of light?
2) Why is it necessary to rely on an unobservable effect to counter this?

The entire universe is accelerating. The speed of light is how fast light travels in the medium that comprises the universe if you'd like. The theories of relatively apply to occurrences within the universe, so there's no reason the entire universe couldn't be going any velocity you'd like.

Acceleration changes velocity.
If acceleration is not uniform, velocities at different points change differently.
Different velocities make differences in traveled distances.
Differences in traveled distances create distortions.

If Earth is flat, and if gravity doesn't exist, then objects don't fall. Ground is getting to them from below instead.
Universal Accelerator is atempt to explain it.
At the surface of Earth accelerations are different at different places. Measured values differ.
It means different parts of Earth accelerate diferently up.
It means their speeds are different with the pass of time.
In that case, different parts of Flat Earth travel diferent distances and Earth gets distorted.

On the other hand, if there is Universe, then there are planets.
If other planets are globes, why Earth would have any other shape?
Same forces that keep other planets together would keep Earth together too.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 30, 2017, 04:09:43 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on December 29, 2017, 08:44:19 AM

The Universal Acceleration portion of FE theory supposes a constant acceleration over time.

Some look at that see a fault in reaching the speed of light in a short time. Some counter with an argument regarding relativity.

1) What is the issue with accelerating past the speed of light?
2) Why is it necessary to rely on an unobservable effect to counter this?

The entire universe is accelerating. The speed of light is how fast light travels in the medium that comprises the universe if you'd like. The theories of relatively apply to occurrences within the universe, so there's no reason the entire universe couldn't be going any velocity you'd like.

On the other hand, if there is Universe, then there are planets.
If other planets are globes, why Earth would have any other shape?
Same forces that keep other planets together would keep Earth together too.

Right, the old "I've only ever seen gray bird so all birds must be gray" methodology. Works flawlessly every time.

The entire universe is accelerating.

Don't you mean your hypothesise that "The entire universe is accelerating" to hide your refusal to accept gravitation.
Even though gravitation has been demonstrated and directly measured hundreds of times.

Yet you still try to foist on us your pure guesses with no supporting evidence.

Come up with some explanation for the observed variations in effective g with:

• Latitude: The effective g is lowest near the equator and highest near poles.
  
  
• Altitude: The effective g decreases as altitude increases.
  
  
• East-west velocity (the Eötvös effect): The effective g decreases with west->east movement and decreases with east->west movement.

And then try again, but if your hypothesis cannot explain observed effects it is deficient in some way.

We'll get onto what holds the sun, moon, planets up there next.

Quote from: Macarios on December 30, 2017, 04:28:42 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 30, 2017, 04:09:43 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on December 29, 2017, 08:44:19 AM

The Universal Acceleration portion of FE theory supposes a constant acceleration over time.

Some look at that see a fault in reaching the speed of light in a short time. Some counter with an argument regarding relativity.

1) What is the issue with accelerating past the speed of light?
2) Why is it necessary to rely on an unobservable effect to counter this?

The entire universe is accelerating. The speed of light is how fast light travels in the medium that comprises the universe if you'd like. The theories of relatively apply to occurrences within the universe, so there's no reason the entire universe couldn't be going any velocity you'd like.

On the other hand, if there is Universe, then there are planets.
If other planets are globes, why Earth would have any other shape?
Same forces that keep other planets together would keep Earth together too.

Right, the old "I've only ever seen gray bird so all birds must be gray" methodology. Works flawlessly every time.

Or "I've only ever seen dense  lead so all lead must be dense".