Relativity on FE.

• 24 Replies
• 2396 Views
?

Wolfwood

• 2328
Relativity on FE.
« on: February 12, 2007, 05:26:21 AM »
Ok as many know, I'm no genius. I can pass off as one compared to average people but that's not much.

My question concerns Time Dilation on the FE model compared to the RE model.

On the FE model, gravity is applied to all points of the flat earth equally. IF the FE spins as Tom suggestions, Time Dilation would have to apply to various points of the FE model (unless I'm completely fucking up the entire theory).

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

Essentially, Bill and Joe are twins. Bill ships out to become an Ice Wall Guard while Joe moves to the North Pole to study snow. Both bring with them Atomic Clocks that are completely synched together. After 3 years of service on the Ice Wall, Bill returns to visit Joe.

According to Time Dilation and Relativity, Bill's clock would appear to have somehow sped up during his 3 year service and then seemingly slowed down after returning to Joe correct?

Basically, if the FE model spins, would we not experience vastly differing time changes based on how far from the center we were?

Someone hit me with a bat if this is stupid :p
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one

midgard

• 1300
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2007, 06:09:49 AM »
My understanding is it's the same on a round world, the effects would be there but so extremely minute as to make them practically unnoticeable. The way I understand it if I want to add approximately a millionth of a second (or was that a billionth... or trillionth, I worked it out once) onto my life all I have to do is get a V8 supercar and travel from Canberra to Sydney doing 300km/h all the way.

Also, if Bill is on the Ice Wall and the earth is spinning then Bill would be going faster so time for him would be going slower. However, as I already mentioned, the effect would be extremely minute.

?

EnragedPenguin

• The Elder Ones
• 1004
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2007, 06:41:56 AM »
Quote from: "Wolfwood"
Essentially, Bill and Joe are twins. Bill ships out to become an Ice Wall Guard while Joe moves to the North Pole to study snow. Both bring with them Atomic Clocks that are completely synched together. After 3 years of service on the Ice Wall, Bill returns to visit Joe.

According to Time Dilation and Relativity, Bill's clock would appear to have somehow sped up during his 3 year service and then seemingly slowed down after returning to Joe correct?

Bill only experiences time dilation relative to Joe if he's moving relative to Joe.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

?

Wolfwood

• 2328
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2007, 07:28:31 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Wolfwood"
Essentially, Bill and Joe are twins. Bill ships out to become an Ice Wall Guard while Joe moves to the North Pole to study snow. Both bring with them Atomic Clocks that are completely synched together. After 3 years of service on the Ice Wall, Bill returns to visit Joe.

According to Time Dilation and Relativity, Bill's clock would appear to have somehow sped up during his 3 year service and then seemingly slowed down after returning to Joe correct?

Bill only experiences time dilation relative to Joe if he's moving relative to Joe.

But he is not.

He is at the edge of the FE, Joe is at the center.

Joe remains motionless (except for the upward acceleration)

Bill spins in a circular motion as well as moves upwards.
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one

dysfunction

• The Elder Ones
• 2261
Relativity on FE.
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2007, 07:53:38 AM »
How is this a problem for FE? The same effect would occur between a person at the equator and a person at the North Pole in RE, and either way it would be so small as to be unnoticeable.
the cake is a lie

?

EnragedPenguin

• The Elder Ones
• 1004
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2007, 08:03:22 AM »
Quote from: "Wolfwood"
But he is not.

He is at the edge of the FE, Joe is at the center.

Joe remains motionless (except for the upward acceleration)

Bill spins in a circular motion as well as moves upwards.

Bill isn't spinning in any motion relative to Joe. Bill may be moving faster relative to someone outside of Earth's FoR, but from Joes's FoR he's not moving (except for when he made the trip down to Antarctica in the first place).
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

?

Quarrior

• 280
Relativity on FE.
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2007, 08:03:54 AM »
This subject ahs been debated many many times over. I'm totally smashed so here goes...
First of all I'm a RE'er

Neither would experience time dialation relative to each other due to the fact that they are both in uniform/unfiorm circular motion. Although they are both accelerating upwards in FE theory, neither are accelerating during the circular motion fo the FE and so cannot be references against each other. If you took a reference outside of the universe the time dialation would be visable, however no such observer would exist in the FE model and it would be therefore impossible to detect.

FE theory is a joke but this can't actually disprove it.
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

?

trig

• 2240
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2007, 08:21:29 AM »
Quote from: Wolfwood
Ok as many know, I'm no genius. I can pass off as one compared to average people but that's not much.

My question concerns Time Dilation on the FE model compared to the RE model.

It is true, time dilation will occur and it changes depending on where on Earth you live. But the effect is so small at the speed the Earth rotates and moves that only the best equipment will ever measure it, even if accumulated over your lifetime.

In an experiment I read about two atomic clocks were synchronized and then one of them was placed in a plane that traveled at near supersonic speed for some hours, The effect was minuscule but measurable.

To make this effect important, the difference in speed between the two observers would have to be near the speed of light, measured in thousands of kilometers per second, not hundreds of kilometers per hour. The Earth should be millions of kilometers in size or rotate a full "day" in less than a second. Of course, in any case it would self-destruct.

?

Quarrior

• 280
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2007, 08:27:36 AM »
Quote from: "trig"
Quote from: "Wolfwood"
Ok as many know, I'm no genius. I can pass off as one compared to average people but that's not much.

My question concerns Time Dilation on the FE model compared to the RE model.

It is true, time dilation will occur and it changes depending on where on Earth you live. But the effect is so small at the speed the Earth rotates and moves that only the best equipment will ever measure it, even if accumulated over your lifetime.

In an experiment I read about two atomic clocks were synchronized and then one of them was placed in a plane that traveled at near supersonic speed for some hours, The effect was minuscule but measurable.

To make this effect important, the difference in speed between the two observers would have to be near the speed of light, measured in thousands of kilometers per second, not hundreds of kilometers per hour. The Earth should be millions of kilometers in size or rotate a full "day" in less than a second. Of course, in any case it would self-destruct.

I am familiar with this experiment and FE theory accounts for this. See the plane, relative to the observer clock, was moving much much faster. The obeserver clock was the inertial frame of reference moving at 0m/s whilst the plane was moving much faster at Mach 2.
For the FE theory, both humans on the ground are in identical uniform circular motion and cannot be inertial points of reference for each other. Even if Jim was at the North pole and Bill at the edge of the FE, they both move at the same speed, just Bill would be undergoing more revolutions per second (which means nothing) due to his shorter proximity to the centre of circular motion. There acceleration would be the same...
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

?

Wolfwood

• 2328
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2007, 09:19:21 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Wolfwood"
But he is not.

He is at the edge of the FE, Joe is at the center.

Joe remains motionless (except for the upward acceleration)

Bill spins in a circular motion as well as moves upwards.

Bill isn't spinning in any motion relative to Joe. Bill may be moving faster relative to someone outside of Earth's FoR, but from Joes's FoR he's not moving (except for when he made the trip down to Antarctica in the first place).

Ok Penguin you have satisfied my curiousity first. (In a way that I could understand!)

Now I'd like to drill your head for another question.

Suppose the Earth was round. Bill journeyed to the center of the Earth and Joe stayed on the surface. Would Bill experience any form of Time Dilation? Or would they still be experiencing the same time?
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2007, 01:55:24 PM »
Quote from: "Wolfwood"
would we not experience vastly differing time changes

Just to get an idea of time dilation of everyday velocities:

T = To/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

T is the time of someone not moving.
To is proper time, as measured by the object moving.
v is velocity.
c is the speed of light.

Let's say someone flew at 500mph for 50 years (in their frame).  How much older would their twin be at the end of those 50 years?

deltaT= 50/sqrt(1-(500^2/(670.6*10^6)^2) - 50 = 2.8*10^-11 years, or .8 milliseconds.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

Rick_James

• The Elder Ones
• 4311
• Rick <3 Gayer
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2007, 05:01:04 PM »
Quote from: "Wolfwood"

Joe remains motionless (except for the upward acceleration)

Bill spins in a circular motion as well as moves upwards.

Wouldn't Joe be spinning as well? I didn't realise the North pole remained stationary while the rest of the earth rotated around it.

EvilToothpaste

• 2461
• The Reverse Engineer
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2007, 05:23:53 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "Wolfwood"

Joe remains motionless (except for the upward acceleration)

Bill spins in a circular motion as well as moves upwards.

Wouldn't Joe be spinning as well? I didn't realise the North pole remained stationary while the rest of the earth rotated around it.

You're right Rick.  Nice physics chops!

?

Quarrior

• 280
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2007, 05:44:16 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "Wolfwood"
would we not experience vastly differing time changes

Just to get an idea of time dilation in everyday velocities:

T = To/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

T is the time on someone not moving.
To is proper time, as measured by the object moving.
v is velocity.
c is the speed of light.

Let's say someone flew at 500mph for 50 years (in their frame).  How much older would their twin be at the end of those 50 years?

deltaT= 50/sqrt(1-(500^2/(670.6*10^6)^2) - 50 = 2.8*10^-11 years,
or .8 milliseconds.

Using time in years and velocity in hours might make this calculation conflict.
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

?

EnragedPenguin

• The Elder Ones
• 1004
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2007, 05:57:58 PM »
Quote from: "Wolfwood"
Suppose the Earth was round. Bill journeyed to the center of the Earth and Joe stayed on the surface. Would Bill experience any form of Time Dilation? Or would they still be experiencing the same time?

Well, gravity causes time dilation (the stronger the gravitational field, the slower time passes), so if Bill is at the center of Earth where there is no gravity (assuming he's at the exact center) then from his FoR, time will be passing more slowly for Joe.

But don't take my word for it- I haven't got the slightest idea what I'm talking about. Ask someone who's smart.

Quote from: "Rick_James"
Wouldn't Joe be spinning as well? I didn't realise the North pole remained stationary while the rest of the earth rotated around it.

Yes, but I think Wolfwood was thinking about tangential velocity, not rotational velocity.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2007, 06:15:01 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"

Using time in years and velocity in hours might make this calculation conflict.

Nope.  v^2/c^2 is a dimensionless quantity.  How else would you be able to subtract it from 1?

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

Quarrior

• 280
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2007, 06:26:44 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "Quarrior"

Using time in years and velocity in hours might make this calculation conflict.

Nope.  v^2/c^2 is a dimensionless quantity.  How else would you be able to subtract it from 1?

Yes you are right the dimensions will cancel, got ahead of myself a bit there.
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

?

Wolfwood

• 2328
Relativity on FE.
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2007, 08:46:05 PM »
So anyone else want to answear the center of the RE question?

No I'm not trying to disprove anything.
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one

?

trig

• 2240
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2007, 08:56:39 PM »
Quote from: Quarrior

I am familiar with this experiment and FE theory accounts for this. See the plane, relative to the observer clock, was moving much much faster. The obeserver clock was the inertial frame of reference moving at 0m/s whilst the plane was moving much faster at Mach 2.
For the FE theory, both humans on the ground are in identical uniform circular motion and cannot be inertial points of reference for each other. Even if Jim was at the North pole and Bill at the edge of the FE, they both move at the same speed, just Bill would be undergoing more revolutions per second (which means nothing) due to his shorter proximity to the centre of circular motion. There acceleration would be the same...

You missed the point completely. The problem with this story has to do with the enormous speed required between the two observers, not with the shape of the earth. Time dilation does matter in the discussion on the shape of the earth, but for a completely different reason: observed deviations in the orbit of Mercury can only be explained through the theory of relativity, but the model of a sun hovering over Earth makes the speed of Mercury far too small to have any relativistic effect on the orbit of Mercury.

But, of course, you cannot expect a Flat Earther to go buy a telescope and make some measurements, since they know in advance there is a myriad ways to disprove their hypothesis just by making a few measurements. You cannot expect them to make very precise measurements that require years to complete.

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
Relativity on FE.
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2007, 09:51:03 PM »
Quote from: "Wolfwood"
So anyone else want to answear the center of the RE question?

Yes, the greater the gravitational potential, the greater the time dilation.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2007, 10:08:39 PM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"
For the FE theory, both humans on the ground are in identical uniform circular motion and cannot be inertial points of reference for each other. Even if Jim was at the North pole and Bill at the edge of the FE, they both move at the same speed, just Bill would be undergoing more revolutions per second (which means nothing) due to his shorter proximity to the centre of circular motion. There acceleration would be the same...

That isn't true at all.  If Bill is standing on a fixed-to-the-Earth point near the Ice wall and Jim is fixed at the centre, and the Earth is spinning, then Bill is accelerating towards Jim (regardless of any upward acceleration of the Earth).  Objects in rotating reference frames experience gravitational time dilation as a function of their distance from the axis of rotation.

But, as was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it would not be noticeable to the average person.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Quarrior

• 280
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2007, 04:46:39 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"

That isn't true at all.  If Bill is standing on a fixed-to-the-Earth point near the Ice wall and Jim is fixed at the centre, and the Earth is spinning, then Bill is accelerating towards Jim (regardless of any upward acceleration of the Earth).  Objects in rotating reference frames experience gravitational time dilation as a function of their distance from the axis of rotation.

But, as was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it would not be noticeable to the average person.

But bill isn't accelerating at all, he's in uniform circular motion, unless the rotational velocity of the earth is also increasing. However yes Bill would expereince time dialation.
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2007, 07:38:39 AM »
Quote from: "Quarrior"

But bill isn't accelerating at all, he's in uniform circular motion,

Circular motion is acceleration.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

EnragedPenguin

• The Elder Ones
• 1004
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2007, 02:03:03 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
That isn't true at all.  If Bill is standing on a fixed-to-the-Earth point near the Ice wall and Jim is fixed at the centre, and the Earth is spinning, then Bill is accelerating towards Jim (regardless of any upward acceleration of the Earth).  Objects in rotating reference frames experience gravitational time dilation as a function of their distance from the axis of rotation.

Darn you Erasmus! I had my perfectly dandy little theory cooked up, and you had to come in and make everything all confusing.

I warned you Wolfwood, never listen to me, I haven't got the slightest idea what I'm talking about.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

?

Wolfwood

• 2328
Re: Relativity on FE.
« Reply #24 on: February 13, 2007, 07:08:43 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Quarrior"
For the FE theory, both humans on the ground are in identical uniform circular motion and cannot be inertial points of reference for each other. Even if Jim was at the North pole and Bill at the edge of the FE, they both move at the same speed, just Bill would be undergoing more revolutions per second (which means nothing) due to his shorter proximity to the centre of circular motion. There acceleration would be the same...

That isn't true at all.  If Bill is standing on a fixed-to-the-Earth point near the Ice wall and Jim is fixed at the centre, and the Earth is spinning, then Bill is accelerating towards Jim (regardless of any upward acceleration of the Earth).  Objects in rotating reference frames experience gravitational time dilation as a function of their distance from the axis of rotation.

But, as was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it would not be noticeable to the average person.

Right if it was, people would fear flying on jets.
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one