lots of energy needed for accelerating the earth

Quote from: trig on January 27, 2009, 06:47:01 PM

That acceleration is so subtle that only now we are accumulating evidence that it exists at all. And it will be decades, at least, until we have a good idea of the magnitude of this acceleration.

While there are many unknowns in current cosmology, there are no models without verified predictions, like the "FE models". And there are no objects accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s forever.

The entire visible universe (which is much larger than the visible FE universe) is accelerating away from itself at speeds you claim aren't known. Then you claim there are no objects accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 forever, when in fact every galaxy may in fact be accelerating well above that rate.

The redshift of many stars and galaxies has been measured for decades, and changes are insignificant or non measurable in that time frame. If there were any objects accelerating at anything close to 9.8 m/s^2 we would see it in the change of redshift or position in less than a day. Your argument is like saying that because you do not know how fast the San Andreas fault is moving, maybe it is moving at supersonic speeds and nobody has noticed.

The reasons for knowing that the whole universe is not accelerating at this rate, all in the same direction, is not this argument of energy just by itself, but anyone can see there is a lot of explaining to do if you say we are in a Saturn V kind of a rocket billions, trillions or maybe quadrillions of times the size of your known Earth.

The entire visible universe (which is much larger than the visible FE universe) is accelerating away from itself at speeds you claim aren't known.

I don't quite get that sentence. Accelerating away from itself at speeds?

Quote from: Ski on January 27, 2009, 07:27:40 PM

Quote from: trig on January 27, 2009, 06:47:01 PM

That acceleration is so subtle that only now we are accumulating evidence that it exists at all. And it will be decades, at least, until we have a good idea of the magnitude of this acceleration.

While there are many unknowns in current cosmology, there are no models without verified predictions, like the "FE models". And there are no objects accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s forever.

The entire visible universe (which is much larger than the visible FE universe) is accelerating away from itself at speeds you claim aren't known. Then you claim there are no objects accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 forever, when in fact every galaxy may in fact be accelerating well above that rate.

The redshift of many stars and galaxies has been measured for decades, and changes are insignificant or non measurable in that time frame. If there were any objects accelerating at anything close to 9.8 m/s^2 we would see it in the change of redshift or position in less than a day. Your argument is like saying that because you do not know how fast the San Andreas fault is moving, maybe it is moving at supersonic speeds and nobody has noticed.

The reasons for knowing that the whole universe is not accelerating at this rate, all in the same direction, is not this argument of energy just by itself, but anyone can see there is a lot of explaining to do if you say we are in a Saturn V kind of a rocket billions, trillions or maybe quadrillions of times the size of your known Earth.

It seems that a simpler explanation would be that they are all accelerating in one direction.  Away from earth.

Except for the ones that are accelerating towards us, like Andromeda.

Except for the ones that are accelerating towards us, like Andromeda.

Right, opps.

Quote from: trig on January 28, 2009, 02:36:00 AM

Quote from: Ski on January 27, 2009, 07:27:40 PM

Quote from: trig on January 27, 2009, 06:47:01 PM

That acceleration is so subtle that only now we are accumulating evidence that it exists at all. And it will be decades, at least, until we have a good idea of the magnitude of this acceleration.

While there are many unknowns in current cosmology, there are no models without verified predictions, like the "FE models". And there are no objects accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s forever.

The entire visible universe (which is much larger than the visible FE universe) is accelerating away from itself at speeds you claim aren't known. Then you claim there are no objects accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 forever, when in fact every galaxy may in fact be accelerating well above that rate.

The redshift of many stars and galaxies has been measured for decades, and changes are insignificant or non measurable in that time frame. If there were any objects accelerating at anything close to 9.8 m/s^2 we would see it in the change of redshift or position in less than a day. Your argument is like saying that because you do not know how fast the San Andreas fault is moving, maybe it is moving at supersonic speeds and nobody has noticed.

The reasons for knowing that the whole universe is not accelerating at this rate, all in the same direction, is not this argument of energy just by itself, but anyone can see there is a lot of explaining to do if you say we are in a Saturn V kind of a rocket billions, trillions or maybe quadrillions of times the size of your known Earth.

It seems that a simpler explanation would be that they are all accelerating in one direction.  Away from earth.

Since the OP is about the energy needed to accelerate Earth, then I guess we now have to ask where does the energy to accelerate them come from. And how they accelerate without any detectable output of energy.

Quote from: Mr. Davis on January 28, 2009, 12:37:36 PM

Quote from: trig on January 28, 2009, 02:36:00 AM

Quote from: Ski on January 27, 2009, 07:27:40 PM

Quote from: trig on January 27, 2009, 06:47:01 PM

That acceleration is so subtle that only now we are accumulating evidence that it exists at all. And it will be decades, at least, until we have a good idea of the magnitude of this acceleration.

While there are many unknowns in current cosmology, there are no models without verified predictions, like the "FE models". And there are no objects accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s forever.

The entire visible universe (which is much larger than the visible FE universe) is accelerating away from itself at speeds you claim aren't known. Then you claim there are no objects accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 forever, when in fact every galaxy may in fact be accelerating well above that rate.

The redshift of many stars and galaxies has been measured for decades, and changes are insignificant or non measurable in that time frame. If there were any objects accelerating at anything close to 9.8 m/s^2 we would see it in the change of redshift or position in less than a day. Your argument is like saying that because you do not know how fast the San Andreas fault is moving, maybe it is moving at supersonic speeds and nobody has noticed.

The reasons for knowing that the whole universe is not accelerating at this rate, all in the same direction, is not this argument of energy just by itself, but anyone can see there is a lot of explaining to do if you say we are in a Saturn V kind of a rocket billions, trillions or maybe quadrillions of times the size of your known Earth.

It seems that a simpler explanation would be that they are all accelerating in one direction.  Away from earth.

Since the OP is about the energy needed to accelerate Earth, then I guess we now have to ask where does the energy to accelerate them come from. And how they accelerate without any detectable output of energy.

IF the earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s^2
we could say that the speed of the earth is very close to the speed of light (1)

E=F*d (2)
F=m*a (3)
m=m(0)/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2)  (4)

v=c (1)
=> m=infinite (4, m(0) exists and is more than zero)
=> F=infinite (3, a is acceleration = 9.81m/s^2)
=> E=infinite (2, d>0: earth is moving => in one second the earth has traveled a certain distance)

even for accelerating the earth only one second you'll need an infinite amount of energy (IF FET is correct, .... NOT)

Quote from: trig on January 28, 2009, 02:22:12 PM

Quote from: Mr. Davis on January 28, 2009, 12:37:36 PM

Quote from: trig on January 28, 2009, 02:36:00 AM

Quote from: Ski on January 27, 2009, 07:27:40 PM

Quote from: trig on January 27, 2009, 06:47:01 PM

That acceleration is so subtle that only now we are accumulating evidence that it exists at all. And it will be decades, at least, until we have a good idea of the magnitude of this acceleration.

While there are many unknowns in current cosmology, there are no models without verified predictions, like the "FE models". And there are no objects accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s forever.

The entire visible universe (which is much larger than the visible FE universe) is accelerating away from itself at speeds you claim aren't known. Then you claim there are no objects accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 forever, when in fact every galaxy may in fact be accelerating well above that rate.

The redshift of many stars and galaxies has been measured for decades, and changes are insignificant or non measurable in that time frame. If there were any objects accelerating at anything close to 9.8 m/s^2 we would see it in the change of redshift or position in less than a day. Your argument is like saying that because you do not know how fast the San Andreas fault is moving, maybe it is moving at supersonic speeds and nobody has noticed.

The reasons for knowing that the whole universe is not accelerating at this rate, all in the same direction, is not this argument of energy just by itself, but anyone can see there is a lot of explaining to do if you say we are in a Saturn V kind of a rocket billions, trillions or maybe quadrillions of times the size of your known Earth.

It seems that a simpler explanation would be that they are all accelerating in one direction.  Away from earth.

Since the OP is about the energy needed to accelerate Earth, then I guess we now have to ask where does the energy to accelerate them come from. And how they accelerate without any detectable output of energy.

IF the earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s^2
we could say that the speed of the earth is very close to the speed of light (1)

E=F*d (2)
F=m*a (3)
m=m(0)/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2)  (4)

v=c (1)
=> m=infinite (4, m(0) exists and is more than zero)
=> F=infinite (3, a is acceleration = 9.81m/s^2)
=> E=infinite (2, d>0: earth is moving => in one second the earth has traveled a certain distance)

even for accelerating the earth only one second you'll need an infinite amount of energy (IF FET is correct, .... NOT)

Thats some pretty hokey math right there.

IF the earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s^2
we could say that the speed of the earth is very close to the speed of light (1)

E=F*d (2)
F=m*a (3)
m=m(0)/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2)  (4)

v=c (1)
=> m=infinite (4, m(0) exists and is more than zero)
=> F=infinite (3, a is acceleration = 9.81m/s^2)
=> E=infinite (2, d>0: earth is moving => in one second the earth has traveled a certain distance)

even for accelerating the earth only one second you'll need an infinite amount of energy (IF FET is correct, .... NOT)

There is a mistake in the use of "infinite" in your argument; you should change all those to "huge beyond anything anyone can explain".

None the less, if there is an energy source in whatever location where Earth started accelerating and that source is the one pushing us at 9.8 m/s/s, your argument is almost right. Here on Earth we accelerate a few subatomic particles using enough energy to supply a small city, and we do not get even near the 99.99999999% of c or so that the FE model requires.

Quote from: GeertD on January 28, 2009, 02:46:18 PM

IF the earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s^2
we could say that the speed of the earth is very close to the speed of light (1)

E=F*d (2)
F=m*a (3)
m=m(0)/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2)  (4)

v=c (1)
=> m=infinite (4, m(0) exists and is more than zero)
=> F=infinite (3, a is acceleration = 9.81m/s^2)
=> E=infinite (2, d>0: earth is moving => in one second the earth has traveled a certain distance)

even for accelerating the earth only one second you'll need an infinite amount of energy (IF FET is correct, .... NOT)

There is a mistake in the use of "infinite" in your argument; you should change all those to "huge beyond anything anyone can explain".

None the less, if there is an energy source in whatever location where Earth started accelerating and that source is the one pushing us at 9.8 m/s/s, your argument is almost right. Here on Earth we accelerate a few subatomic particles using enough energy to supply a small city, and we do not get even near the 99.99999999% of c or so that the FE model requires.

Indeed, my poit was just that it isn't possible to get that amount of energy and infinity is very close to it but "huge beyond anything anyone can explain" is indeed a exacter way to say it.

Quote from: trig on January 30, 2009, 10:08:12 AM

Quote from: GeertD on January 28, 2009, 02:46:18 PM

IF the earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s^2
we could say that the speed of the earth is very close to the speed of light (1)

E=F*d (2)
F=m*a (3)
m=m(0)/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2)  (4)

v=c (1)
=> m=infinite (4, m(0) exists and is more than zero)
=> F=infinite (3, a is acceleration = 9.81m/s^2)
=> E=infinite (2, d>0: earth is moving => in one second the earth has traveled a certain distance)

even for accelerating the earth only one second you'll need an infinite amount of energy (IF FET is correct, .... NOT)

There is a mistake in the use of "infinite" in your argument; you should change all those to "huge beyond anything anyone can explain".

None the less, if there is an energy source in whatever location where Earth started accelerating and that source is the one pushing us at 9.8 m/s/s, your argument is almost right. Here on Earth we accelerate a few subatomic particles using enough energy to supply a small city, and we do not get even near the 99.99999999% of c or so that the FE model requires.

Indeed, my poit was just that it isn't possible to get that amount of energy and infinity is very close to it but "huge beyond anything anyone can explain" is indeed a exacter way to say it.

Infinity is not "very close" to any number.  "Huge beyond anything anyone can explain" applies as much to the energy required for the universe to constantly expand outwards at an accelerating rate as it does to the earth accelerating upwards (in fact, more, seeing as the universe in RE is trillions of times the size of the known universe in FE).  Why can RE have these big unexplained unfathomable amounts of energy but such a thing in FE makes the theory ridiculous? 

In RET the earth is also always accelerating. This does not sway people from believing RET, why should it in FET?

Infinity is not "very close" to any number.  "Huge beyond anything anyone can explain" applies as much to the energy required for the universe to constantly expand outwards at an accelerating rate as it does to the earth accelerating upwards (in fact, more, seeing as the universe in RE is trillions of times the size of the known universe in FE).  Why can RE have these big unexplained unfathomable amounts of energy but such a thing in FE makes the theory ridiculous? 

Make some models and some predictions instead of whining, and your models will be the ones that make your requirements sensible.

When the kind of energy that is put into whole galaxies or groups of galaxies to accelerate them slightly is supposedly put by FE'rs against one small Earth we are quite entitled to call that ridiculous. Of course, you can make the model where you show how that kind of energy is put into Earth and how all those predictions from modern science are repeatable on a flat Earth, and you will sound a lot less ridiculous.

The argument of the amount of energy is not enough by itself to debunk the efforts of FE'rs at models, but we really want to know how Earth is supposed to be pushed by a force that is untold times stronger than any nuclear powered force we know. Till then, even "ridiculous" is an understatement.

When the kind of energy that is put into whole galaxies or groups of galaxies to accelerate them slightly is supposedly put by FE'rs against one small Earth we are quite entitled to call that ridiculous.

Why?  I don't follow the logic.

Of course, you can make the model where you show how that kind of energy is put into Earth and how all those predictions from modern science are repeatable on a flat Earth, and you will sound a lot less ridiculous.

We've made a model that explains the phenomenon adequately enough, and there's even a foolproof experiment you can conduct to confirm the upward acceleration that's infinitely repeatable.  What more do we need to produce?

Quote from: trig on February 03, 2009, 10:32:11 PM

When the kind of energy that is put into whole galaxies or groups of galaxies to accelerate them slightly is supposedly put by FE'rs against one small Earth we are quite entitled to call that ridiculous.

Why?  I don't follow the logic.

Quote

Of course, you can make the model where you show how that kind of energy is put into Earth and how all those predictions from modern science are repeatable on a flat Earth, and you will sound a lot less ridiculous.

We've made a model that explains the phenomenon adequately enough, and there's even an foolproof inconclusive experiment you can conduct to confirm the upward acceleration that's infinitely repeatable.  What more do we need to produce?

Fixed that for you.

In RET the earth is also always accelerating. This does not sway people from believing RET, why should it in FET?

In RET the earth is indeed accelerating but the direction of acceleration is not always the same like in is in FET (upwards). If you look always in the same direction the earth is some times accelerating and sometimes slowing down. In FET there is only acceleration in one direction this would mean that the speed always gets higher and that isn't possible.

Quote from: grogberries on February 03, 2009, 08:59:22 PM

In RET the earth is also always accelerating. This does not sway people from believing RET, why should it in FET?

In RET the earth is indeed accelerating but the direction of acceleration is not always the same like in is in FET (upwards). If you look always in the same direction the earth is some times accelerating and sometimes slowing down. In FET there is only acceleration in one direction this would mean that the speed always gets higher and that isn't possible.

What? 

Quote from: GeertD on March 16, 2009, 04:09:27 AM

Quote from: grogberries on February 03, 2009, 08:59:22 PM

In RET the earth is also always accelerating. This does not sway people from believing RET, why should it in FET?

In RET the earth is indeed accelerating but the direction of acceleration is not always the same like in is in FET (upwards). If you look always in the same direction the earth is some times accelerating and sometimes slowing down. In FET there is only acceleration in one direction this would mean that the speed always gets higher and that isn't possible.

What? 

The velocity of the Earth is always changing, is what he is getting at.

From our frame of reference the acceleration is always from the same direction.

From our frame of reference the acceleration is always from the same direction.

I don't think you get it:
the acceleration is always in the same direction => speed is getting bigger all the time (witch is impossible). This is what FET says.

the acceleration is not always in the same direction (always towards the sun but this isn't the same direction because the earth is rotation around the sun) => speed is changing but doesn't getting bigger all the time, actually is mostly the direction of speed that is changing (witch is possible). This is what RET says.

=>

• FET=impossible
• RET=possible

speed is changing but doesn't getting bigger all the time, actually is mostly the direction of speed that is changing (witch is possible).

Please, go back to high school and take Physics 101. While you're at it, enrol in some English courses, too.

Quote from: GeertD on March 17, 2009, 04:48:04 AM

speed is changing but doesn't getting bigger all the time, actually is mostly the direction of speed that is changing (witch is possible).

Please, go back to high school and take Physics 101. While you're at it, enrol in some English courses, too.

i know my English isn't that good but what's wrong with: "speed is changing but doesn't getting bigger all the time, actually is mostly the direction of speed that is changing (witch is possible)"?

i know my English isn't that good but what's wrong with: "speed is changing but doesn't getting bigger all the time, actually is mostly the direction of speed that is changing (witch is possible)"?

If you really don't know, then you shouldn't be arguing Physics. At least not in English.

Quote from: GeertD on March 17, 2009, 06:31:33 AM

i know my English isn't that good but what's wrong with: "speed is changing but doesn't getting bigger all the time, actually is mostly the direction of speed that is changing (witch is possible)"?

If you really don't know, then you shouldn't be arguing Physics. At least not in English.

I know that you think I'm wrong but what should it be?
- I know the earth is rotating around the sun and the acceleration of the earth is towards the sun so than we can conclude that the acceleration doesn't have always the same direction so if you project it on one ax you can say that the acceleration is changing between two values (one positive and the other negative).
- I know that if you have an acceleration your speed is changing. If this acceleration is changing in direction all the time your speed will also changes in direction. Here the same as above: If we project that speed again on one ax you will see a speed that is changing between two real values (also one positive and one negative).
- If the speed is changing between two real values it doesn't become infinity.

I know that you think I'm wrong but what should it be?
- I know the earth is rotating around the sun and the acceleration of the earth is towards the sun so than we can conclude that the acceleration doesn't have always the same direction so if you project it on one ax you can say that the acceleration is changing between two values (one positive and the other negative).
- I know that if you have an acceleration your speed is changing. If this acceleration is changing in direction all the time your speed will also changes in direction. Here the same as above: If we project that speed again on one ax you will see a speed that is changing between two real values (also one positive and one negative).
- If the speed is changing between two real values it doesn't become infinity.

Speed is a scalar quantity; it does not possess direction.

Quote from: GeertD on March 17, 2009, 08:32:29 AM

I know that you think I'm wrong but what should it be?
- I know the earth is rotating around the sun and the acceleration of the earth is towards the sun so than we can conclude that the acceleration doesn't have always the same direction so if you project it on one ax you can say that the acceleration is changing between two values (one positive and the other negative).
- I know that if you have an acceleration your speed is changing. If this acceleration is changing in direction all the time your speed will also changes in direction. Here the same as above: If we project that speed again on one ax you will see a speed that is changing between two real values (also one positive and one negative).
- If the speed is changing between two real values it doesn't become infinity.

Speed is a scalar quantity; it does not possess direction.

You almost give me a hearth attack. Where did you learned physics?

You almost give me a hearth attack. Where did you learned physics?

I am currently a second year physics student at the University of Sydney. Why do you ask?

Also, off topic, but are you Dutch?

Quote from: GeertD on March 17, 2009, 09:25:42 AM

You almost give me a hearth attack. Where did you learned physics?

I am currently a second year physics student at the University of Sydney. Why do you ask?

Also, off topic, but are you Dutch?

Ok I've found my error there is a difference between speed and velocity (in dutch you only have one word for those two)

PS I'm Belgian

Ok I've found my error there is a difference between speed and velocity (in dutch you only have one word for those two)

PS I'm Belgian

Ah, good. So you know more than you seemed to in that post.

Anyway, relativistic effects mean that velocity does not approach infinity in FET.

Have you seen that video of that Romanian truck driver dancing around in his truck while driving on a Belgian autosnelweg?

Anyway, relativistic effects mean that velocity does not approach infinity in FET.

In the explanation they gave to me about this they keep changing their frame of reference.

Have you seen that video of that Romanian truck driver dancing around in his truck while driving on a Belgian autosnelweg?

I've seen that video