Sun

You're just afraid to be wrong.

Perhaps you're just afraid of learning the truth.

Um, really? Model how that works, please.

I've already told you how it works.

On a spheroid Earth, wouldn't the pendulum rotate clockwise in one hemisphere, and counter-clockwise in the other?

Yes.

Seems to me that if this were the case, it would be easy enough to verify by having someone north of the equator and someone south of the equator visit local museums and observe the pendulums.

Feel free.

Tom, what do you believe the speed of light to be?

The same as in RE.

Explain what you mean that the suns speed (or is it movement) doesn't allow all persons of the earth to see the sun at once.

The sun is low to the earth and acts as a spotlight.

if the earth is rotating as Tom suggests, then there is no possibility for life on th outer surfaces. centripetal force=M*V^2/R. V being tangential velocity. This means that the centripetal force needed to remain stationary on earth would be SIGNIFICANT. for ANY model witha 24 hour day and a reasonably sized earth, the equator (FE velocities will vary) has to be traveling at just around 1000 mi/h. (I'm using 24k miles, a reasonable circumnavigation by airplane, it's slightly smaller on the ground but you do get the point). This means that standing here on earth we would readily be able to feel which way south is because we would constantly be pulled that way.

The Round Earth model is also rotating at 1000 miles per hour at the equator. Yet we are not being thrown off the face of the planet due to centripetal forces, are we?

Additionally the Round Earth model is orbiting the sun at a speed greater than 10,000 miles per hour. By your logic we should be pancaked into the earth during the day, and be pulled off into space at night.

And one more thing. Relativity is irrelevant between the sun and Earth in the FE model. This is because they are in the same reference frame, and have no velocity relative to one another (in the vertical sense).

Once light leaves the sun it is in a reference frame parallel to the speed of light. Since the sun and earth are not traveling at the speed of light the light from the sun will seem to curve over a distance from a terrestrial viewpoint. This curvature is so slight that one would not be able to see the effect from a regular light bulb in the kitchen.

This curvature of light over long distance may also explain the sinking boat over the horizon effect.

Quote

if the earth is rotating as Tom suggests, then there is no possibility for life on th outer surfaces. centripetal force=M*V^2/R. V being tangential velocity. This means that the centripetal force needed to remain stationary on earth would be SIGNIFICANT. for ANY model witha 24 hour day and a reasonably sized earth, the equator (FE velocities will vary) has to be traveling at just around 1000 mi/h. (I'm using 24k miles, a reasonable circumnavigation by airplane, it's slightly smaller on the ground but you do get the point). This means that standing here on earth we would readily be able to feel which way south is because we would constantly be pulled that way.

The Round Earth model is also rotating at 1000 mile per hour at the equator. Yet we are not being thrown off the face of the planet, are we?

Quote

And one more thing. Relativity is irrelevant between the sun and Earth in the FE model. This is because they are in the same reference frame, and have no velocity relative to one another (in the vertical sense).

Once light leaves the sun it is in a reference frame parallel to the speed of light. Since the sun and earth are not traveling at the speed of light it will seem to curve over a long distance from a terrestrial viewpoint. This curvature is so slight that one would not be able to see the effect from a regular light bulb.

This curvature of light over long distance may also explain the sinking boat over the horizon effect.

[/quote]

Yes, the spherical earth is rotating at 1000 mi/hr, but gravity is a much stronger force than the centripetal acceleration needed to hold down a human.  the radial acceleration in both cases is .0477883 ft/sec^2.  The difference is that in the spherical case, gravity opposes this force, and so it isn't an issue.  However, on a FE, it results in an unopposed force that would have to be accounted for in all buildings, and even our daily lives.  Everything would have to lean north to accommodate the constant southward acceleration.

As for what you're stating about relativity, it's just plain wrong.  light always travels at the speed of light relative to the viewer. PERIOD.  NO EXCEPTIONS.

Yes, the spherical earth is rotating at 1000 mi/hr, but gravity is a much stronger force than the centripetal acceleration needed to hold down a human.

Gravity may be an acceptable answer. But it does not explain why we do not feel the centripetal force while the earth orbits the sun at over 10,000 miles per hour. We should be pancaked into the earth during the day and pulled off of it at night.

As for what you're stating about relativity, it's just plain wrong.  light always travels at the speed of light relative to the viewer. PERIOD.  NO EXCEPTIONS.

I doubt anyone has traveled at relativistic speeds to study the curvature of light from other objects traveling at relativistic speeds.

Tom, do us all a favour  and shut up.

Quote from: "Ambassadork"

On a spheroid Earth, wouldn't the pendulum rotate clockwise in one hemisphere, and counter-clockwise in the other?

Yes.

Quote from: "Ambassadork"

Seems to me that if this were the case, it would be easy enough to verify by having someone north of the equator and someone south of the equator visit local museums and observe the pendulums.

Feel free.

I like how you completely evaded

If this is found to be the case, how can FET explain this phenomenon?

Oh, that's right. It can't. Best to just forget I even brought that bit up...  :roll:

Once light leaves the sun it is in a reference frame parallel to the speed of light. Since the sun and earth are not traveling at the speed of light the light from the sun will seem to curve over a distance from a terrestrial viewpoint. This curvature is so slight that one would not be able to see the effect from a regular light bulb in the kitchen.

This curvature of light over long distance may also explain the sinking boat over the horizon effect.

Dude...exactly how stoned are you?

Quote

Yes, the spherical earth is rotating at 1000 mi/hr, but gravity is a much stronger force than the centripetal acceleration needed to hold down a human.

Gravity may be an acceptable answer. But it does not explain why we do not feel the centripetal force while the earth orbits the sun at over 10,000 miles per hour. We should be pancaked into the earth during the day and pulled off of it at night.

Quote

As for what you're stating about relativity, it's just plain wrong.  light always travels at the speed of light relative to the viewer. PERIOD.  NO EXCEPTIONS.

I doubt anyone has traveled at relativistic speeds to study the curvature of light from other objects traveling at relativistic speeds.

Man, you just don't get it, do you??   M V^2/R   the radius of our path is 1 AU.  that's HUGE.  93,000,000 miles to be exact.  the acceleration due to Earth's orbit around the sun is Roughly 4.38*10^-4 ft/sec^2   gravity is 32.2 ft/sec^2.  That's about 1/100,000 g.  You couldn't notice that except with the best of measurements.

And, are you aware of the fundamental principle of the theory of relativity?  Light goes the same speed in ALL reference frames.  hence the term RELATIVITY.  ALL LIGHT everywhere right now is ALL traveling at c relative to your frame.  some at you, some away, some at all sorts of angles, but all at c.  If you argue this you're arguing with Einstein and ALL OF MODERN PHYSICS.  (hint: you're wrong)

Oh, that's right. It can't. Best to just forget I even brought that bit up...

On my next trip to Antarctica I'll be sure to bring a Foucault Pendulum.

Man, you just don't get it, do you?? M V^2/R the radius of our path is 1 AU. that's HUGE. 93,000,000 miles to be exact.

The round earth is traveling at 10,000+ miles per hour around the sun any way you look at it. 10,000+ miles per hour is pretty fast, if you haven't realized.

I don't feel as if I'm being pulled off the earth at 10,000+ miles per hour at night. Do you?

And, are you aware of the fundamental principle of the theory of relativity? Light goes the same speed in ALL reference frames. hence the term RELATIVITY. ALL LIGHT everywhere right now is ALL traveling at c relative to your frame. some at you, some away, some at all sorts of angles, but all at c. If you argue this you're arguing with Einstein and ALL OF MODERN PHYSICS.

Incorrect. Light can seem warped and curved for all sorts of reasons.

Quote

Oh, that's right. It can't. Best to just forget I even brought that bit up...

On my next trip to Antarctica I'll be sure to bring a Foucault Pendulum.

Quote

Man, you just don't get it, do you?? M V^2/R the radius of our path is 1 AU. that's HUGE. 93,000,000 miles to be exact.

365 days in a year times 24 hours in a day = 8,760 hours in a year.

93,000,000 miles around the sun divided by 8,760 hours =  10,615 miles per hour

The earth is traveling at 10,615 miles per hour any way you look at it. 10,615 miles per hour is pretty fast, if you haven't realized.

I don't feel as if I'm being pushed into the earth at 10,615 miles per hour during the day. Do you?

Quote

And, are you aware of the fundamental principle of the theory of relativity? Light goes the same speed in ALL reference frames. hence the term RELATIVITY. ALL LIGHT everywhere right now is ALL traveling at c relative to your frame. some at you, some away, some at all sorts of angles, but all at c. If you argue this you're arguing with Einstein and ALL OF MODERN PHYSICS.

Incorrect. Light is warped around you when traveling at relativistic speeds.

You might just be the dumbest person I've ever heard of.  Velocity exerts NO FORCE on the body.  Accelerations are caused by an exerted force.  You can go 10,000 mph for as long as you want and never feel any effects as long as you aren't speeding up or slowing down.  the radial acceleration due to our circling the earth is what I stated above.  DO THE MATH.  I used a speed even higher than yours because you don't even know what the circumference of a circle is!!!!!!!! We're traveling 66,705 mph.  HOWEVER the only acceleration going on is that which maintains the orbit.  remember that space is a VACUUM.  btw, my number was slightly off earlier, accurate acceleration due to solar orbit, THE FORCE THAT YOU FEEL is only .0195 ft/s^2.  gravity is 32.2 ft/s

just so you know something: the circumference of a circle is 2*pi*radius
here you go:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/astronomical_unit

It's been proven that light travels at the speed of light in all reference frames.

If you are traveling  through space at the speed of light, and you shine a flashlight in front of you, that light will travel at the speed of light, relative to you, and would appear the exact same speed as if you were standing still.

Light is the only "object" we know of that is not affected by relativity, and time, since time is also a relativistic attribute.

You might just be the dumbest person I've ever heard of.  Velocity exerts NO FORCE on the body.  Accelerations are caused by an exerted force.  You can go 10,000 mph for as long as you want and never feel any effects as long as you aren't speeding up or slowing down.

That would be correct if you were going in a straight line. But the round earth is traveling in a circle around the sun. Thus, centripetal applies

We're traveling 66,705 mph.

Then RE Theory is even more absurd.

It's been proven that light travels at the speed of light in all reference frames.

The speed of light travels at the speed of light in the FE model. No FE proponent ever said that it didn't. It just curves due to acceleration.

If you are traveling through space at the speed of light.

I must have been on vacation when they invented vehicles that travel at the speed of light.

Quote

You might just be the dumbest person I've ever heard of.  Velocity exerts NO FORCE on the body.  Accelerations are caused by an exerted force.  You can go 10,000 mph for as long as you want and never feel any effects as long as you aren't speeding up or slowing down.

That would be correct if you were going in a straight line. But the round earth is traveling in a circle around the sun. Thus, centripetal force should apply.

Quote

We're traveling 66,705 mph.

Then RE Theory is more absurd than I imagined.

CAN YOU READ?   I calculated the centripetal force exerted on you   SEE it?   I calculated it!!!! IT's a NUMBER  It's SMALL.....READ IT   .0195 ft/s^2.  STOP IGNORING THAT PART OF THE POST.

(in case you missed it: .0195 ft/s^2)

the V in V^2/R is tangential velocity.

Quote

And, are you aware of the fundamental principle of the theory of relativity? Light goes the same speed in ALL reference frames. hence the term RELATIVITY. ALL LIGHT everywhere right now is ALL traveling at c relative to your frame. some at you, some away, some at all sorts of angles, but all at c. If you argue this you're arguing with Einstein and ALL OF MODERN PHYSICS.

Incorrect. Light can seem warped and curved for all sorts of reasons.

Reading comprehension. He didn't say light always traveled in a straight line. He said it always travels at c. Jeebus.

But you see, Tom, Centripetal Force does apply.

The gravitic force that we have on earth is strong enough to hold exerting on it, because of our size in relation to it, referencing back to the cavandish experiment. So we don't feel that force.

We also don't feel the earth hurtling through space due to inertia. Our bodies are "at rest" relative to the earth. We've simply caught up to it in a sense. (Think of sitting in an accelerating car and then staying steady at a certain speed, you no longer feel the yourself getting smushed into your seat.)

Mercury, according to FE, is a sphere, as well as all the planets with the exception of earth apparently. It travels around the sun at 107,107.56MPH. Venus travels at 78,339.74MPH. The earth travels at a more accurate 66,640.23MPH. So how is it more absurd?

Also, If the sun is so close to the earth to act as a spotlight, how do the other planets orbit the sun? Does FE deny them orbiting it?

The speed of light travels at the speed of light in the FE model. No FE proponent ever said that it didn't. It just curves due to acceleration.

It cannot curve due to acceleration. It can only curve due to gravity. Unless that acceleration you are referring to is the AU.

I must have been on vacation when they invented vehicles that travel at the speed of light.

1) Sarcasm makes you look ignorant and helps to discredit you.
2) Anything can be a vehicle. Light itself can be a vehicle of information.
3) The easiest way to think of this is as the following: If your car is traveling at Mach 1 (just pretend ok?), and you turn your headlights on, the light is not traveling Mach 1 slower (700MPH slower), it still traveling at exactly c, relative to all reference frames. That includes the car.

The easiest way to think of this is as the following: If your car is traveling at Mach 1 (just pretend ok?), and you turn your headlights on, the light is not traveling Mach 1 slower (700MPH slower), it still traveling at exactly c, relative to all reference frames. That includes the car.

Psssst...I don't think Tom is capable of pretending, otherwise he wouldn't have tried the sarcasum angle. :wink:

Here's something that I've never been able to understand about the speed of light, Hara, and I'm not blowing smoke up your ass or anything like that. I'm honestly asking because I really don't get it, and I'm hoping you can clear this up for me.

If the source of light is traveling at Mach 1, why doesn't the light that comes from the source travel at C+M1? Presuming, of course, that the light source is pointing in the direction of travel.

I used to wonder that as well, up until a few days ago actually. I was doing a little research into wormholes, and it mentioned something about light always traveling at c in all reference frames.

In essence, yes, it probably does travel at C+M1. Since the main reference point would be the car, the light will travel at C relative to the car.

If the reference frame becomes outside the car, both car may appear to be stopped, since now relativistic effects come into play. I'm not totally sure what happens at this point, but I think light would continue to travel at C and experience no relativistic effects?

Oh, and I know that Tom is incapable of pretending. Seems he is incapable of anything.

I used to wonder that as well, up until a few days ago actually. I was doing a little research into wormholes, and it mentioned something about light always traveling at c in all reference frames.

In essence, yes, it probably does travel at C+M1. Since the main reference point would be the car, the light will travel at C relative to the car.

If the reference frame becomes outside the car, both car may appear to be stopped, since now relativistic effects come into play. I'm not totally sure what happens at this point, but I think light would continue to travel at C and experience no relativistic effects?

Oh, and I know that Tom is incapable of pretending. Seems he is incapable of anything.

Yeah, that's what I meant, C+M1 ralative to that which is outside the car.

That sounds interesting though, you explination, I mean. You don't happen to recall where you read that, do you?

I think it was something about wormholes, it was a few days ago actually.

Ah! Found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole#Wormholes_and_faster-than-light_travel

Special relativity only applies locally. Wormholes allow superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by ensuring that the speed of light is not exceeded locally at any time. While traveling through a wormhole, subluminal (slower-than-light) speeds are used. If two points are connected by a wormhole, the time taken to traverse it would be less than the time it would take a light beam to make the journey if it took a path through the space outside the wormhole. However, a light beam traveling through the wormhole would always beat the traveler. As an analogy, running around to the opposite side of a mountain at maximum speed may take longer than walking through a tunnel crossing it. You can walk slowly while reaching your destination more quickly because the length of your path is shorter

I think it was something about wormholes, it was a few days ago actually.

Ah! Found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole#Wormholes_and_faster-than-light_travel

Quote from: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole#Wormholes_and_faster-than-light_travel"

Special relativity only applies locally. Wormholes allow superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by ensuring that the speed of light is not exceeded locally at any time. While traveling through a wormhole, subluminal (slower-than-light) speeds are used. If two points are connected by a wormhole, the time taken to traverse it would be less than the time it would take a light beam to make the journey if it took a path through the space outside the wormhole. However, a light beam traveling through the wormhole would always beat the traveler. As an analogy, running around to the opposite side of a mountain at maximum speed may take longer than walking through a tunnel crossing it. You can walk slowly while reaching your destination more quickly because the length of your path is shorter

So, in essence, the actual speed of light is purely relative to the possition of the observer of said light. Do I get it?

Sounds about right.

Einstein had to be a stoner. :lol:  No way could someone who can't do long division come up with that concept without smoking something.  :wink:

They say that all genius' were crazy at some point.

Shit... we better watch Tom more closely...

They say that all genius' were crazy at some point.

Shit... we better watch Tom more closely...

Crazy and stupid aren't the same thing. In fact, it's my understanding that you have to have a certain degree of intellegence to be capable of going insane.

Hahaha, pwnt.

Oh, and I was doing some quick reading on good ol' Einey, and there's no mention of any of his inabilities aside from a language delay and the inability to be fluent until 9.

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

I'm actually an Aero major, and we have to take some relativity (it's useless, but they want us to know it), so here's the deal, and yes, it's hard to get your head around.  light tracels at c.  whatever reference frame you view it at, it's going at c, so if you're outside, standing still, and a car goes by at mach 1 with headlights on, the light from the headlights, as measured by you will be going EXACTLY C.  However, if someone was out infront of the car going mach one, he, too would measure the light as going C.  I know it's weird, and it defies a lot of the logic you've been presented, but it really is the way light and time and space work.

pwnt?

I have no idea where I read it that about Einey *snicker*, but what I recall of it was that he had a lot of trouble with the lesser maths when he was in grade school. Basically, it was a case of it being too simple for him to pick up easily. He did learn the lower maths, but they came as a struggle and his teachers thought he was mentally retarded because of it.

I'm actually an Aero major, and we have to take some relativity (it's useless, but they want us to know it), so here's the deal, and yes, it's hard to get your head around.  light tracels at c.  whatever reference frame you view it at, it's going at c, so if you're outside, standing still, and a car goes by at mach 1 with headlights on, the light from the headlights, as measured by you will be going EXACTLY C.  However, if someone was out infront of the car going mach one, he, too would measure the light as going C.  I know it's weird, and it defies a lot of the logic you've been presented, but it really is the way light and time and space work.

Yeah, I was confused as to whether it was still exactly C to the outside observer or if it was M1+C.

And that would also explain why light from it's point of reference would then never be affected by time.

I have no idea where I read it that about Einey *snicker*, but what I recall of it was that he had a lot of trouble with the lesser maths when he was in grade school. Basically, it was a case of it being too simple for him to pick up easily. He did learn the lower maths, but they came as a struggle and his teachers thought he was mentally retarded because of it.

Ah yeah, I see now. The article outlined that when he took that test at 16, he failed because he didn't comprehend the general knowledge sections, but excelled at the scientific parts.

I'm actually an Aero major, and we have to take some relativity (it's useless, but they want us to know it), so here's the deal, and yes, it's hard to get your head around.  light tracels at c.  whatever reference frame you view it at, it's going at c, so if you're outside, standing still, and a car goes by at mach 1 with headlights on, the light from the headlights, as measured by you will be going EXACTLY C.  However, if someone was out infront of the car going mach one, he, too would measure the light as going C.  I know it's weird, and it defies a lot of the logic you've been presented, but it really is the way light and time and space work.

Yeesh...my head hurts. It's rather like trying to imagine infinity.

I did have a laugh imagining how incredibly flattened that observer in front of the car would wind up. :lol:

We also don't feel the earth hurtling through space due to inertia. Our bodies are "at rest" relative to the earth. We've simply caught up to it in a sense. (Think of sitting in an accelerating car and then staying steady at a certain speed, you no longer feel the yourself getting smushed into your seat.)

But the RE is in constant acceleration, so your example doesn't work.

It cannot curve due to acceleration. It can only curve due to gravity. Unless that acceleration you are referring to is the AU.

Light cannot be affected by gravity.  It can only be affected by acceleration.