Universal Acceleration

Quote from: Danang on March 12, 2019, 03:22:26 AM

Who forbids the UA earth goes beyond the speed of light? No one. So the show must go on.~

I'm not saying that anybody forbids the UA earth to not exceed the speed of light.
I'm just saying that if the earth is racing upwards, the speed of light crosswise would be affected unless light can only exist in a medium and that medium was also accelerating upward.

Nothing exceeds c, RE or FE, UA or not UA. Stop saying that. It's silly.

Quote from: Danang on March 12, 2019, 03:22:26 AM

Who forbids the UA earth goes beyond the speed of light? No one. So the show must go on.~

I'm not saying that anybody forbids the UA earth to not exceed the speed of light.
I'm just saying that if the earth is racing upwards, the speed of light crosswise would be affected unless light can only exist in a medium and that medium was also accelerating upward.

There is no such thing as an objective frame of reference. If you are stationary or if you're moving at a constant speed a hair's breadth away from c isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to you, only your speed relative to other objects would.

So if the earth is accelerating upward at 15,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 meters per second, and you shine a flashlight across a room at 300,000,000 m/s, how far does the light travel?

Firstly, Earth can't be accelerating upwards at x m/s. Acceleration is m/s² or equivalent.
If you meant travelling at that velocity, the question is almost meaningless and entirely pointless as an accelerating object cannot exceed the speed of light in any reference frame (except possibly the reference frame of tachyons if they exist).


If you instead drop it to a more reasonably 0.99999999 c to some outside observer, then you still wont have an issue due to time and length distortion.
If you had the same setup as before with the objects 1 m apart for the observers in the moving frame, they would determine the light travels 1 m, in a small fraction of a second (3.3356410 ns).
For the outside observer you can no longer do simple addition to work it out.
This small fraction of a second will appear to take longer to an outside observer, where if Excel has done the math right it is 23.586543 us.
In this time, the people have moved 7071.0677 m.
This means the total travel path of the light will be 7071.0678 m.
This means the speed of light will be observed as 299792458 m/s, i.e. the speed of light.

No aether is needed.

Because it is different depending on what casts the shadow.

Yes, a nice streamlined object can allow the flow to reform much closer. A blunt object (like a disc) will have a much longer distance.

Viscosity of a fluid

Yes, viscosity of a fluid can also be an issue.
If it is a low viscosity fluid it will reform a significant distance after the object and have difficultly moving an object as it more flows around the object rather than pushing it (and typically have a large turbulent region). A high viscosity allows it to reform much sooner, and has far more significant sideways forces.

By the person making the claim

So the person claiming the flow will magically be blocked by Earth and then magically reform after it, but only after allowing people to fall?

And yes, it is magic, because you have no basis for any of the claimed characteristics and are just forcing it to work.

So the person claiming the flow will magically be blocked by Earth and then magically reform after it, but only after allowing people to fall?

And yes, it is magic, because you have no basis for any of the claimed characteristics and are just forcing it to work.

If 'giant honking disc gets in the way' is the equivalent of magic to you then this is a waste of time.
Ditto for 'and then the flow reforms.'

Are you seriously struggling that much for an argument against UA that you need to act like those are anywhere near unreasonable traits? That's on you if so.

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 11, 2019, 10:44:29 PM

So if the earth is accelerating upward at 15,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 meters per second, and you shine a flashlight across a room at 300,000,000 m/s, how far does the light travel?

Firstly, Earth can't be accelerating upwards at x m/s. Acceleration is m/s² or equivalent.

Yeah, I meant "moving" not "accelerating."

No aether is needed.

(Note: I'm using c=300,000,000 for the sake of simplicity here.)

Well what if it's way below the speed of light?
Two rockets, traveling at 300m/s, 300,000,000 meters apart, parallel, and side by side.
One  fires a laser cannon at the other.
It takes the light one second to reach the target. But during that second, the target has moved forward 300 meters.
So wouldn't the left-hand rocket have to lead on the target and fire his laser cannon at a point 300 meters ahead of the target?
And wouldn't the light travel a slightly longer path and take slightly longer than a second?
Remember, neither one's going even close to the speed of light.
But the path that the light takes is clearly the hypotenuse of a right triangle with the two sides of 300 and 300,000,000.

In fact, what if the right-hand rocket had a mirror on it, the first rocket would get a reflection of his laser pulse after he'd traveled a little over 600 meters after firing, right?

First of all, you are ignoring a fundamental piece of information that would be required if you want to address relativistic velocities, which is what are you measuring the rockets' velocity relative to? Second, it appears you want to start the conversation using very small velocities where relativistic effects aren't really noticeable. Third, an object can accelerate at a constant rate door an arbitrarily long time and never exceed c in any frame of reference.

If 'giant honking disc gets in the way' is the equivalent of magic to you then this is a waste of time.
Ditto for 'and then the flow reforms.'

Again, I have already addressed that.
It isn't a simple case of giant honking disc getting in the way.
It is that giant honking disc magically getting in the way, but only for things extremely close to it.
Likewise it isn't that the flow reforms, it is that it reforms so close to the object.

Are you seriously struggling that much for an argument against UA

How many times must it be explained to you?
Supporting one argument doesn't mean there are no others.
People can have multiple arguments against the one topic.

I'm not saying this is the only argument. I am just saying your ridicule was unwarranted.

Well what if it's way below the speed of light?
Two rockets, traveling at 300m/s, 300,000,000 meters apart, parallel, and side by side.
One  fires a laser cannon at the other.
It takes the light one second to reach the target. But during that second, the target has moved forward 300 meters.
So wouldn't the left-hand rocket have to lead on the target and fire his laser cannon at a point 300 meters ahead of the target?
And wouldn't the light travel a slightly longer path and take slightly longer than a second?
Remember, neither one's going even close to the speed of light.
But the path that the light takes is clearly the hypotenuse of a right triangle with the two sides of 300 and 300,000,000.

In fact, what if the right-hand rocket had a mirror on it, the first rocket would get a reflection of his laser pulse after he'd traveled a little over 600 meters after firing, right?

They key issue you are ignoring is time dilation and how the right angle triangle works
When you have speeds very close to c, the time dilation is very significant and results in massively different times.
When you have very small speeds, then the time dilation is quite small, but so is the extra distance.
You now have a right angle triangle with one side length of 1, and another with a side length of 1 million. The hypotenuse is basically the same as that 1 million. The square of the hypotenuse is 1 trillion and 1, i.e. 1000000000001. The hypotenuse is less than 1 million and 5 ten millionths.
This difference is tiny, and the tiny time dilation can take care of it.

In fact, we can see this with approximations.
For small angles, sin(x) can be approximated as x, which equates to our speed as a fraction of the speed of light. (this part is important as it establishes the angle and velocity are effectively the same).
cos(x) can be approximated as 1-x^2/2
The key factor involved in time dilation and the like is sqrt(1-x^2), which can also be approximated as 1-x^2/2 for small x.


For the full one, using the appropriate values we have our rockets separated by 299792458 m, travelling at 299.792458 m/s.
The light for them takes 1 second, and they end up with the speed of light for light.
For an observer outside, there is still time dilation. Now it takes a staggering 1.0000000000005 s (approximately, excel struggles to calculate it due to rounding errors).
This means the rockets have travelled 299.79245800015 m, and thus the total path length of the light is 299792458.00015 m (again, rounding errors, excel doesn't have enough precision to calculate all the extra digits) which again gives the speed of light for light.

The full process would be something like:
Determine time taken for light in their frame (t=d/c =>d=t c).
Calculate time dilation to determine how long it would take the outside observer to observe the light path, (t'=t/sqrt(1-(v/c)²))
Calculate how far they have travelled in that time (l=t' v)
Calculate total path length (d'=sqrt(d²+l²))
Calculate speed of light for outside observer c'=d'/t'

Trying to stick that all into one equation:
Note firstly that I will let y=sqrt(1-(v/c)²) and thus t'=t/y
c'=d'/t'
=sqrt(d²+l²)/(t/y)
=y*sqrt((t c)²+(t' v)²)/t
=y*sqrt((t c)²+(t v/y)²)/t
=y*sqrt(c²+(v/y)²)
=c*sqrt(y²+(v/c)²)
=c*sqrt(1-(v/c)²+(v/c)²)
=c*sqrt(1)
=c.

As such, regardless of what velocity you put in (as long as it is physically possible) and how far apart you make them, both observers see light travelling at the speed of light.

Just like throwing a ball on a train, to the outside observer you will appear to throw it partly forwards, but to people on the train/in the rocket, you will appear to shine the light directly out.

It is that giant honking disc magically getting in the way, but only for things extremely close to it.
Likewise it isn't that the flow reforms, it is that it reforms so close to the object.

Aside from how that's obviously not what you just said, stop acting like that's more than one thing. Your sole objection is that the flow recombines comparatively quickly; that's all that's needed to respond to 'both' those statements. And when pushed to actually justify why that's any kind of serious problem, you don't.
You should be happy. This nets you a property of the accelerator. Weren't you just complaining that it's too poorly defined?

I am just saying your ridicule was unwarranted.

Really isn't.

Aside from how that's obviously not what you just said

Really?
So when I said

The issue is that it only magically blocks the UA very close to Earth, just a few thousand km away (not large compared to Earth), it is magically back.

It meant something completely different to the issue being that that "giant honking disc" blocking the UA only when extremely close to Earth with it reforming still quite close?

They sure seem to be the same.
That has always been a key objection to the UA, that is is highly selective, accelerating Earth and objects in the sky relatively close to Earth, while not accelerating objects directly above.
Like I said, if it didn't accelerate objects above Earth at all, or only after a very long distance, or it accelerated everything, that wouldn't be an issue.
It is the highly selective nature of this "universal" accelerator that is the issue.

You should be happy. This nets you a property of the accelerator. Weren't you just complaining that it's too poorly defined?

Not really.
It isn't defining it. It is just magically saying it works.
Would what be defining it is describing the path clearly, such as saying exactly how the flow reforms and where to allow people to test it and also test the impact on the atmosphere.
Or describing how it actually accelerates the object such that completely different objects are accelerated the same (but that is a different but related issue).

Quote

I am just saying your ridicule was unwarranted.

Really isn't.

Then why are you unable to justify it other than by saying it works?

Quote from: Jane on March 12, 2019, 03:08:50 PM

You should be happy. This nets you a property of the accelerator. Weren't you just complaining that it's too poorly defined?

Not really.
It isn't defining it. It is just magically saying it works.

That puts it on the same level as round earth gravity.

Quote from: Jane on March 12, 2019, 03:08:50 PM

Aside from how that's obviously not what you just said

Really?
So when I said

Quote from: JackBlack on March 11, 2019, 04:34:13 PM

The issue is that it only magically blocks the UA very close to Earth, just a few thousand km away (not large compared to Earth), it is magically back.

It meant something completely different to the issue being that that "giant honking disc" blocking the UA only when extremely close to Earth with it reforming still quite close?

So you opt to go back all the way back there rather than look at the immediate vicinity? Otherwise you might've stumbled onto:

So the person claiming the flow will magically be blocked by Earth and then magically reform after it, but only after allowing people to fall?

Mm hmm. That's how adjectives work. When you say 'magically blocking' you are saying that the blocking is magical, rather than the recombining flow going unexplained. Does this seriously need saying?

And for yet another thing that shouldn't need explaining, but whatever. You make post 1, I make post 2, you make post 3, I say that post 3 was not what you were just saying. A smart person would look at the post you made immediately preceding that rather than going for reply 14 rather than reply 33, but hey.

Quote from: Jane on March 12, 2019, 03:08:50 PM

You should be happy. This nets you a property of the accelerator. Weren't you just complaining that it's too poorly defined?

Not really.
It isn't defining it. It is just magically saying it works.
Would what be defining it is describing the path clearly, such as saying exactly how the flow reforms and where to allow people to test it and also test the impact on the atmosphere.
Or describing how it actually accelerates the object such that completely different objects are accelerated the same (but that is a different but related issue).

How do you think properties of anything are determined? You assume that's the governing model, you get the values from that. The end. By the same token I could just as easily say 'you're just masgically saying it doesn't work.'

That puts it on the same level as round earth gravity.

Nope. Far below.
Round Earth gravity has a formula which can be used to calculate the force/acceleration on the object.
It also has been tested at many different scales.
So far, the UA has only been "observed" for the universe and people with no formulas at all.

So you opt to go back all the way back there rather than look at the immediate vicinity?

You mean I go back to what started you attacking me?
Wow, what a surprise.
Are you suggesting I should have just been extremely dishonest and completely ignored the context of the discussion?

No thanks.

you are saying that the blocking is magical

So your objection is my use of the word magic?
And you think that means I am saying something completely different.
Until an explanation is provided or you have many tests to check it works, I will dismiss it as magic.

How do you think properties of anything are determined? You assume that's the governing model, you get the values from that. The end. By the same token I could just as easily say 'you're just masgically saying it doesn't work.'

By measuring and performing various tests to establish a theory.
So far none of that has been done for UA.

Someone has never been to the wind or water tunnel...






How many billions of kilometers should this be exactly?

Well this was a waste of time.

Feel free to do your usual claim the last word I'm beyond done.

Someone has never been to the wind or water tunnel...

How many billions of kilometers should this be exactly?

The absolute size isn't what matters, the relative size is.
If we ignore that this isn't perpendicular to the flow, we can note that the flow is only mostly reformed roughly the width of the object after the object, so for Earth that would be 40 000 km and mean the sun and moon wouldn't be held up by the UA.

And you determined the Reynolds number of spacetime/aether/space/UA how?

Quote from: JackBlack on March 12, 2019, 02:26:21 PM

It is that giant honking disc magically getting in the way, but only for things extremely close to it.
Likewise it isn't that the flow reforms, it is that it reforms so close to the object.

Aside from how that's obviously not what you just said, stop acting like that's more than one thing. Your sole objection is that the flow recombines comparatively quickly; that's all that's needed to respond to 'both' those statements. And when pushed to actually justify why that's any kind of serious problem, you don't.
You should be happy. This nets you a property of the accelerator. Weren't you just complaining that it's too poorly defined?

Quote

I am just saying your ridicule was unwarranted.

Really isn't.

Its not the SOLE objection.
Its one i chose to pick.
You and i already had a thorough run through of UA inexpanables...

But either way.

Give me a height of the sun and ill take it from the estimated distance between the southern rim and eqautor.

Its not the SILE objection.
Its one i chose to pick.
You and i already had a thorough run through of UA inexpanables...

And the fact you chose it is my issue. Seriously, how many times is this going to bear repeating? Ski put it pretty well.

And you determined the Reynolds number of spacetime/aether/space/UA how?

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 13, 2019, 05:22:17 AM

Its not the SILE objection.
Its one i chose to pick.
You and i already had a thorough run through of UA inexpanables...

And the fact you chose it is my issue. Seriously, how many times is this going to bear repeating? Ski put it pretty well.

Quote from: Ski on March 12, 2019, 08:55:16 PM

And you determined the Reynolds number of spacetime/aether/space/UA how?

I dont care about reynolds or the viscous properites or the quantum mechanics of gravity (to johnD point)
I care about observed outcome.
If the sun is held aloft by ua and the height of sun is estimated and we can estimate the edge of the earth then a basic straight line would give us the estimated places-elevation we can touch the ua.
Nasa would save a lot of fuel if they launched out of argentina.

So give me an estimated hieght of sun-moon and i can give you a number - lack of number - isnt that what started the 2nd subtopic of debate?

Since you are "not" a fe then you know there is no such thing and that you will never be able to produce a number for something that doesnt exist.
So relax yourself and your answer should be - "but its not real so i cant give you a number."
Instead you get all huffy.

Since you are "not" a fe then you know there is no such thing and that you will never be able to produce a number for something that doesnt exist.
So relax yourself and your answer should be - "but its not real so i cant give you a number."
Instead you get all huffy.

I 'get huffy' because amazingly I like it when discussions are fun, rather than when you try to get in the way of anything remotely interesting.

Tell you what. You go get the number. After all, you have access to the same basic resources as every FEer out there, it'd be as easy for you. Let us know what you come up with!

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 13, 2019, 07:55:02 AM

Since you are "not" a fe then you know there is no such thing and that you will never be able to produce a number for something that doesnt exist.
So relax yourself and your answer should be - "but its not real so i cant give you a number."
Instead you get all huffy.

I 'get huffy' because amazingly I like it when discussions are fun, rather than when you try to get in the way of anything remotely interesting.

Tell you what. You go get the number. After all, you have access to the same basic resources as every FEer out there, it'd be as easy for you. Let us know what you come up with!

True.
Its only fun when you get mad.
Haha

I found a 3,000mi high sun number.
Is that a good number?

Rounding:

4,800km high sun.
10,000km equator to south pole.
~45degree angle.
If a plane were to fly at 10km high, at <20km from south pole they would start to feel the ua.

Could this be why no planes can fly to the south pole?

Faulkland island is ~4,250km to SP.
Brisbane ~7,000km to SP.
Would need to fly 2,000-4,000km up to find ua.

I concede it will tkae a super high flyer to find the ua.

Quote from: John Davis on March 12, 2019, 03:36:47 PM

That puts it on the same level as round earth gravity.

Nope. Far below.
Round Earth gravity has a formula which can be used to calculate the force/acceleration on the object.
It also has been tested at many different scales.
So far, the UA has only been "observed" for the universe and people with no formulas at all.

Except any differences in the formula and the actuality led to instead assuming the problem was the mass distribution at particular areas or other anomalies that remain unexplained.

This is ludicrous and just goes to show how little falsification matters to the round earth.

And still, we have no real explanation for what causes this in the first place. Having a formula that predicts it (poorly) says nothing to the cause. We could just as easily steal the formula and say "its magic" and be well within our rights to say thats just simply how things fall.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 12, 2019, 03:58:45 PM

Quote from: John Davis on March 12, 2019, 03:36:47 PM

That puts it on the same level as round earth gravity.

Nope. Far below.
Round Earth gravity has a formula which can be used to calculate the force/acceleration on the object.
It also has been tested at many different scales.
So far, the UA has only been "observed" for the universe and people with no formulas at all.

Except any differences in the formula and the actuality led to instead assuming the problem was the mass distribution at particular areas or other anomalies that remain unexplained.

This is ludicrous and just goes to show how little falsification matters to the round earth.

And still, we have no real explanation for what causes this in the first place. Having a formula that predicts it (poorly) says nothing to the cause. We could just as easily steal the formula and say "its magic" and be well within our rights to say thats just simply how things fall.

Well hold on.
The quantum mechanics of it all can be a mystery but the large bod measurbale effects are quite measureable and predictable.

Why does ice expand when forzen?
Dont know but it does.
What does a CO2 molecule look like?
Dont know but i die when i have too much.

And you determined the Reynolds number of spacetime/aether/space/UA how?

Who says I determined any of that?
I am simply making comparisons of other objects.
Yes, you can have it be pure magic and have magical reynolds numbers, along with all its other magical properties.
That doesn't mean pointing out this magic isn't valid.

I 'get huffy' because amazingly I like it when discussions are fun

You mean when you get to pretend you are the smartest person in the world and ridicule all the "mean REers making fun of the FEers"?
That might be fun for you, but not for others.

Except any differences in the formula and the actuality led to instead assuming the problem

You mean when we had discrepancies between the matter we thought was there and the gravitational force we conclude is acting there?
You know, where we have incomplete information and can't perform any reliable test?

As opposed to the tests on and near Earth, where we can perform reliable test?

Compared to UA, which has no tests.

And still, we have no real explanation for what causes this in the first place.

Just like all the fundamental forces, and you never will as any attempt at an explanation will just push the problem back.

We could just as easily steal the formula and say "its magic" and be well within our rights to say thats just simply how things fall.

Except for the finite FE that would lead to Earth being round. So go ahead and steal it.

Why does ice expand when forzen?
Dont know but it does.

It is one of a class of negative thermal expansion materials. (at least over this small range).
As ice, it is locked into a rigid crystal structure which has significant voids and 4 hydrogen bonds per molecule.
When it melts the average number of hydrogen bonds reduces and this allows the molecule to move around and fill the voids.
The smaller/fewer voids results in a greater density.

But this just pushes it back to why does water form hydrogen bonds, which pushes it back to why do atoms have charge, and so on.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 13, 2019, 10:09:19 AM

Why does ice expand when forzen?
Dont know but it does.

It is one of a class of negative thermal expansion materials. (at least over this small range).
As ice, it is locked into a rigid crystal structure which has significant voids and 4 hydrogen bonds per molecule.
When it melts the average number of hydrogen bonds reduces and this allows the molecule to move around and fill the voids.
The smaller/fewer voids results in a greater density.

But this just pushes it back to why does water form hydrogen bonds, which pushes it back to why do atoms have charge, and so on.

Haha
That was my point...
Jackb must go through keyboards like my shitty car goes through oil changes.

Now to be fair, do we really know relativity is right in the first place and we wouldn't reach the speed of light? It "clearly" has enough error that it fails to account for the 95% of the universe of matter that needs to be invented to continue "our" current beliefs of a round earth due to the outer rotational speeds of certain galaxies.