Massive Confusion

Hmm, then why are Galilean transformations incorrect at high speeds?

Hmm, then why are Galilean transformations incorrect at high speeds?

You corrected me on a pointless point, I explained myself.  You read relativity and thought Einstein's relativity.

It is not my fault you read what you want instead of what is written.

Drop it.  Stay on topic.

Planet Earth is under constant acceleration at near light speed in the direction normal to the surface of the Earth.(I'm pretty sure you've made that clear).

I disagree with this statement.  This near light-speed is relative to what?

Quote from: "il0vepez"

Planet Earth is under constant acceleration at near light speed in the direction normal to the surface of the Earth.(I'm pretty sure you've made that clear).

I disagree with this statement.  This near light-speed is relative to what?

Ask Tom Bishop.  I was summarizing the responses to my questions, and then interpruting the CMB data based on those responses as assumptions.

I will edit my post, if you don't mind, to include this.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Hmm, then why are Galilean transformations incorrect at high speeds?

You corrected me on a pointless point, I explained myself.  You read relativity and thought Einstein's relativity.

It is not my fault you read what you want instead of what is written.

Drop it.  Stay on topic.

Dumbass, relativity (as it is known now) was created in 1905 and 1916.  Galilean Relativity was modifed into Special and General Relativity.  We use Special/General Relativity today, which includes Galilean Relativity.  You should have said "Relativity started over four hundred years ago".

Quote from: "il0vepez"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Hmm, then why are Galilean transformations incorrect at high speeds?

You corrected me on a pointless point, I explained myself.  You read relativity and thought Einstein's relativity.

It is not my fault you read what you want instead of what is written.

Drop it.  Stay on topic.

Dumbass, relativity (as it is known now) was created in 1905 and 1916.  Galilean Relativity was modifed into Special and General Relativity.  We use Special/General Relativity today, which includes Galilean Relativity.  You should have said "Relativity started over four hundred years ago".

Now, I haven't been reading this thread because there's enough huge discussions as it is so I wait for mine to get responses, but why are people arguing about relativity? :?

It seems relatively stupid to me :wink:    8-) (sorry, I had to do that, but seriously, answer my question)

Ask Tom Bishop.  I was summarizing the responses to my questions, and then interpruting the CMB data based on those responses as assumptions.

I will edit my post, if you don't mind, to include this.

I'm not going to ask Tom.  Frankly, I don't think he knows what he is saying.  But that's just like my opinion, man.  

I'm afraid I'm not very experienced with astrophysics, so I can't really grasp what you're doing in that post.  What is Hubble Shift?  is that due to acceleration instead of velocity?  I'll just google it sometime.  What is your conclusion based on those assumptions?  

I don't mind if you edit your post.

 You should have said "Relativity started over four hundred years ago".

At which point relativity was at least 400 years old.

I apologize for your confusion.  In the future I will run my word order by you.

Now, I haven't been reading this thread because there's enough huge discussions as it is so I wait for mine to get responses, but why are people arguing about relativity? :?

It seems relatively stupid to me :wink:    8-) (sorry, I had to do that, but seriously, answer my question)

Because they can't explain data from the CMB radiation.  Basically, this guy owned a lot TV stations, and had this crap in the background.  At the same time, this other guy thought the big bang should have made an echo.

Basically, the results are interpreted under round earth theory that the universe is expanding.  This means that old light is more red than new light.

In the flat earth model, things get very hairy very quickly when you try to explain the data.

For starters, the data exists in an angular map of the sky.  So, you have 360deg in one direction, and 180deg in the orthogonal direction.  This alone is impossible in the flat earth.

More importantly, in order to explain "gravity" in the flat earth, you need to employ some serious craziness that contradicts the CMB, or makes the expansion of the unvierse similar to wetting one of those little gel caps with a sponge T-rex inside.

Quote from: "LSUTiger1712"

Now, I haven't been reading this thread because there's enough huge discussions as it is so I wait for mine to get responses, but why are people arguing about relativity? :?

It seems relatively stupid to me :wink:    8-) (sorry, I had to do that, but seriously, answer my question)

Because they can't explain data from the CMB radiation.  Basically, this guy owned a lot TV stations, and had this crap in the background.  At the same time, this other guy thought the big bang should have made an echo.

Basically, the results are interpreted under round earth theory that the universe is expanding.  This means that old light is more red than new light.

In the flat earth model, things get very hairy very quickly when you try to explain the data.

For starters, the data exists in an angular map of the sky.  So, you have 360deg in one direction, and 180deg in the orthogonal direction.  This alone is impossible in the flat earth.

More importantly, in order to explain "gravity" in the flat earth, you need to employ some serious craziness that contradicts the CMB, or makes the expansion of the unvierse similar to wetting one of those little gel caps with a sponge T-rex inside.

Wait, how does that relate to the expansion of the universe? FE rules the abscence of gravity to be local ( reguardless of how stupid it is).

Quote from: "il0vepez"

Ask Tom Bishop.  I was summarizing the responses to my questions, and then interpruting the CMB data based on those responses as assumptions.

I will edit my post, if you don't mind, to include this.

I'm not going to ask Tom.  Frankly, I don't think he knows what he is saying.  But that's just like my opinion, man.  

I'm afraid I'm not very experienced with astrophysics, so I can't really grasp what you're doing in that post.  What is Hubble Shift?  is that due to acceleration instead of velocity?  I'll just google it sometime.  What is your conclusion based on those assumptions?  

I don't mind if you edit your post.

Ive stated this a billion times before. Relative to the universal Accelerator. Remember it is outside of the universe powering the UA from below. Relative to it, our universe would be, forever accelerating but never reaching C, and mass would be increasing, requiring ever increasing amounts of energy.

I also made the point relevant to thermodynamics about the energy being put into the universe by the accelerator defying thermodynamics as il0vepez stated earlier.

FE simply is incorrect. It also fails to explain the Earths Magnetic field which I have discussed here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1361&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75

However im not sure about il0vepez's physics background, he seems to be confusing Relativity with Newtons laws about inertial frames of reference, they are very different things.

I believe everyone is very confused about the expansion of the universe.  It is theoretically possible that nothing in the universe ever moved, ever (not in our Universe, an imaginary Universe).  Nothing had kinetic energy.  Still, everything could move apart from everything else, without accelerating.  No acceleration.  Ever.  Just expansion.  Expansion =/ acceleration.  The two occur seperately of each other.

DoplerShift:Acceleration::HubbleShift:Expansion

Dopler Shift occurs because of relative motion between two objects.

Hubble Shift occurs because space has become more vast in between the emission of the photon and your observing the photon.

I admit, my comments on relativity were confused.  It is difficult to understand how someone could rejct Newtonian Mechanics and yet accept General Relativity.  I understand now that this is a matter of convenience  for the debate, and has nothing to do with theoretical understanding.  Someone should outline which branches of physics need to be denied in order to allow a flat earth.

I believe everyone is very confused about the expansion of the universe.  It is theoretically possible that nothing in the universe ever moved, ever (not in our Universe, an imaginary Universe).  Nothing had kinetic energy.  Still, everything could move apart from everything else, without accelerating.  No acceleration.  Ever.  Just expansion.  Expansion =/ acceleration.  The two occur seperately of each other.

dude, if something expands, AKA; moving apart, they are moving away from each other at [X] speed. As they ARE MOVING, and NOT in the same direction, wouldnt this be relative acceleration?