# Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

• 541 Replies
• 141694 Views
?

#### RAmenBrother

• 97
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #150 on: March 25, 2007, 08:30:45 PM »
One thing that everybody seems to forget about the FE acceleration of earth is the very nature of acceleration.

You start with displacement, e.g. the distance from point A to point B. The first derivative of that is velocity, the speed at which you get from point A to point B. The second derivative is acceleration, the constant change of velocity, or the constant increase in the speed moving from point A to point B.

I also disagree on the notion of a universal rest point. And no, Einstein does not support such an idea. In fact, absolutely everything is dependent on a frame of reference. For example, if everything relative to you is stationary, you are technically at zero velocity, as your position is fixed relative to your frame of reference. Therefore, moving a billion miles per hour and not moving at all through empty space, with no frame of reference and no change in direction or speed, are one and the same. By extension, it has been suggested that if you have no frame of reference, then you cannot be sure that you are even rotating, which is something you inherently feel if you stand up and spin around in circles.

So, on to Earth accelerating. it is a fallacy to describe the earth as accelerating by any means without a valid frame of reference. And since FE'ers believe unquestioningly that Earth is accelerating, that means there is some frame of reference to make those claims. The frame of reference is us, since we are not accelerating, at least not on our own volition. We are exerting a force right back at the earth (the natural force), though because it is less than whatever force is keeping us glued to the ground, we do not float away.

My main point is this: Since making the claim of acceleration requires a frame of reference, you must infer that you would eventually reach the light barrier, which you cannot pass. The FE claim that there is no frame of reference, thus no light barrier, is a misunderstanding of basic vector physics. Also, since you are accelerating (again, requiring a frame of reference) you then require an exponentially increasing source of energy to maintain that constant acceleration, which is easily described as a parabolic graph.

The statement, then, that earth is undergoing constant acceleration is due to a lack of full knowledge of vector physics, and is in itself a fallacy. Thusly, a new theory is required to explain the force of gravitation, as this one no longer (and never really did) holds water.
I wish my lawn was emo so it'd cut itself.

narcberry's token douchebag score: 4

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #151 on: March 25, 2007, 08:40:37 PM »
One thing that everybody seems to forget about the FE acceleration of earth is the very nature of acceleration.

You start with displacement, e.g. the distance from point A to point B. The first derivative of that is velocity, the speed at which you get from point A to point B. The second derivative is acceleration, the constant change of velocity, or the constant increase in the speed moving from point A to point B.
No, I'm pretty sure we know the nature of acceleration.  Thank you, though.

Quote
So, on to Earth accelerating. it is a fallacy to describe the earth as accelerating by any means without a valid frame of reference. And since FE'ers believe unquestioningly that Earth is accelerating, that means there is some frame of reference to make those claims. The frame of reference is us, since we are not accelerating, at least not on our own volition.
We observe another FOR accelerating relative to our own.

Quote
We are exerting a force right back at the earth (the natural force), though because it is less than whatever force is keeping us glued to the ground, we do not float away.
Uh, ok...

Quote
My main point is this: Since making the claim of acceleration requires a frame of reference, you must infer that you would eventually reach the light barrier, which you cannot pass.
How would one infer that?  I sure don't.

Quote
The statement, then, that earth is undergoing constant acceleration is due to a lack of full knowledge of vector physics, and is in itself a fallacy. Thusly, a new theory is required to explain the force of gravitation, as this one no longer (and never really did) holds water.
Your statement that the earth cannot be undergoing constant acceleration and not pass the speed of light is due to a lack of any knowledge of Special Relativity.  Thusly, you need to read up on it, so to as not make a fool of yourself in the future.

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

?

#### Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #152 on: March 25, 2007, 08:44:10 PM »
So, on to Earth accelerating. it is a fallacy to describe the earth as accelerating by any means without a valid frame of reference.

Pretending for a second that somebody actually made that claim, I'll simply answer by saying: pick an arbitrary inertial reference frame.  In this frame, the Earth will be measured to be accelerating.  K?
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

#### RAmenBrother

• 97
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #153 on: March 25, 2007, 08:53:16 PM »
Don't try and infer that my knowledge of any branch of physics is lesser to yours, Engineer. I have proven my point if anything because you have no counterstatement other than a glib retort back at me using my own words. Nice try, though.

My points are valid. The reason you cannot accept them, even for long enough to come up with a real rebuttle indicates that you simply are too stubborn to accept valid arguments or corrections to your misunderstandings of physics. I understand Special Relativity very well, thank you, and any inference otherwise only highlights your own stubborn ignorance to alternative points of view.

When I first started reading these posts, I was open to the items of proof you had of a flat earth. When I accepted them and posited my piece, you insult me (and don't contribute anything discrediting my supposition). This just shows your immaturity toward any kind of academic debate. After all, you know you're right, and it's only a matter of time before the whole (flat) earth agrees with you, right?

Oh, and your lack of knowledge of basic vectors relating to the natural force tells me you know less of what you are talking about than I previously thought. For example, acceleration means CHANGE IN VELOCITY. Since your value is a positive number, that means that it is increasing. Since by definition velocity must increase by 9.8 m every second, after several decades or so, you have have vastly exceeded the light barrier. And since the light barrier and the claim of acceleration both require a point of reference, then it simply cannot happen.
I wish my lawn was emo so it'd cut itself.

narcberry's token douchebag score: 4

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #154 on: March 25, 2007, 08:56:44 PM »
I can give you an equation from Special Relativity that proves you wrong, and therefore you have no idea what you are talking about.

Can you say the same?  Because I would love to see it.

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

?

#### RAmenBrother

• 97
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #155 on: March 25, 2007, 08:57:09 PM »
Ok, an arbitrary stationary point in space. Sounds good. Then earth is accelerating relative to that. However, what I'm trying to say is, eventually, according to that frame of reference, you will inexorably break the light barrier relative to that reference.

You will then say that there is no such frame of reference for the speed of light, therefore no light barrier. But you cannot say that, because then you cannot properly say that earth is undergoing acceleration. You see, in order to say earth is accelerating, you need a point of reference. Otherwise you cannot make that inference. Just as you cannot measure speed or direction without reference points, you cannot measure or claim acceleration without them.

So, that is why the accelerating earth model is flawed.

Now I would appreciate a real counter-argument, instead of "don't make a fool of yourself next time", as ironically you are only hurting yourself with those statements.
I wish my lawn was emo so it'd cut itself.

narcberry's token douchebag score: 4

?

#### RAmenBrother

• 97
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #156 on: March 25, 2007, 08:59:23 PM »
Sure, I'd appreciate as much math as you can throw at me.
I wish my lawn was emo so it'd cut itself.

narcberry's token douchebag score: 4

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #157 on: March 25, 2007, 09:02:57 PM »
w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

where u is the current velocity, v is the additional velocity due to acceleration, c is the speed of light, and w is the new velocity, used as u in successive calculations.

One simple equation.

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

?

#### RAmenBrother

• 97
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #158 on: March 25, 2007, 09:04:49 PM »
And therein lies my point. Since U equals current velocity, which does not exist in a reference-less space, the equation cannot be compiled. Because you have no U, you have no W, which means you have two unsolved variables in your equation. You can only fulfill the requirements of this equation if you have a solid point of reference.
I wish my lawn was emo so it'd cut itself.

narcberry's token douchebag score: 4

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #159 on: March 25, 2007, 09:06:31 PM »
Drop something.  There you go, your u, when you let go, is zero.  Have fun.

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

?

#### Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #160 on: March 25, 2007, 09:08:52 PM »
Ok, an arbitrary stationary point in space. Sounds good. Then earth is accelerating relative to that. However, what I'm trying to say is, eventually, according to that frame of reference, you will inexorably break the light barrier relative to that reference.

According to an observer stationary in an inertial frame of reference, the Earth is accelerating and asymptotically approaching, but never reaching or exceeding, the speed of light.

Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

#### RAmenBrother

• 97
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #161 on: March 25, 2007, 09:11:25 PM »
Engineer, you're colossally missing the point.

If I drop something, I have many valid points of reference. The word drop infers those references. You cannot "drop" something in empty space, with no observers or references.

*sigh* You accuse me of not understanding Special Relativity, when you don't even understand the Grade 9 physics you fed me (which is NOT special relativity). But you insist on having points of reference which aren't there, which then CREATES the light barrier, which you cannot exceed, which means... oh no, I've gone cross-eyed trying to explain the same thing over and over again.
I wish my lawn was emo so it'd cut itself.

narcberry's token douchebag score: 4

?

#### RAmenBrother

• 97
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #162 on: March 25, 2007, 09:12:45 PM »
That cannot be true, because 9.8m/s is not exponential, therefore eventually it'll march right past the light barrier. If it were asymptotic, then the gravitational constant wouldn't even BE a constant, but a function that explains the asymptotic approach to the light barrier.
I wish my lawn was emo so it'd cut itself.

narcberry's token douchebag score: 4

?

#### Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #163 on: March 25, 2007, 09:18:40 PM »
That cannot be true, because 9.8m/s is not exponential, therefore eventually it'll march right past the light barrier.

g is a constant in Earth's reference frame, but not constant in any inertial reference frame.

In an inertial reference frame, Earth's acceleration will appear to drop off hyperbolically.  Again, please look over the earlier posts for proof and references; it is all explained there in some detail.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

#### RAmenBrother

• 97
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #164 on: March 25, 2007, 09:20:54 PM »
I have read the earlier posts and the FAQ. That is precisely why I am saying that it doesn't make sense. We are exhibited on by a force of 9.8m/s squared, no question there. But your argument toward the force being caused by a constantly accelerating earth, as you have outlined it, does not work. It's not a matter of finding proof, it's that the math simply doesn't work.
I wish my lawn was emo so it'd cut itself.

narcberry's token douchebag score: 4

?

#### Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #165 on: March 25, 2007, 09:22:07 PM »
But your argument toward the force being caused by a constantly accelerating earth, as you have outlined it, does not work.

...

Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

#### RAmenBrother

• 97
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #166 on: March 25, 2007, 09:23:45 PM »
No, see that's the thing about a lot of the people who post dialogue here. The point is NOT settled, because you have not proven a thing. So far, I have successfully countered your point, and until you can fully back it up, it will remain untrue, and that will remain so no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

Anyways, I rather enjoyed this, but I'm going to bed now (it's 12:23 here). G'night.
I wish my lawn was emo so it'd cut itself.

narcberry's token douchebag score: 4

?

#### Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #167 on: March 25, 2007, 09:26:08 PM »
So far, I have successfully countered your point, and until you can fully back it up, it will remain untrue, and that will remain so no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

Thanks for giving up.  Good night.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

#### RAmenBrother

• 97
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #168 on: March 25, 2007, 09:27:20 PM »
Don't you worry your pretty little head, Erasmus. I haven't given anything up
I wish my lawn was emo so it'd cut itself.

narcberry's token douchebag score: 4

?

#### Darkfrog

• 106
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #169 on: March 25, 2007, 10:52:03 PM »
This seems to be coming up in a lot of different threads. The interesting thing is that the FEers seem to have the physics correct and the REers keep arguing about it.

For those that are having a hard time understanding this, google 1g spaceship. There are a lot of references to that proposed idea.  Basically, if you have a ship that you can get to accelerate constantly at 1g, that would be identical to the idea of the FE accelerating at 1g for as long as it has.

Here is what happens from the POV of the people in the ship. They would have normal gravity at the back of the ship (on the side opposite direction of travel) eliminating the need to spinning or other ways to induce earth gravity. They would always seen themselves as traveling at 9.8m/s^2. As they approach significant percentage of c where the relativistic effects come into play, the ONLY way they would see something odd is if they could see outside their FOR. Now for someone outside their FOR watching the ship, it would NOT continually be going 9.8m/s^2, it would appear to slow down, get shorter and more massive. As the ship gets even closer to c, it would appear to be not accelerating at all but just increasing in mass and decreasing length.

For the spaceship travelers, nothing would seem out of the ordinary. They would still measure their velocity as far away from c as when they first started since they could still measure the speed of light as c. They would still feel the 1g acceleration for as long as their thrust remained the same.

After 1 year, they would be traveling 0.77c, 2 years 0.97c, 5 years 0.99993, 12 year 99999999996c
So in theory you can travel across the galaxy in just 12 years of your own time but for the observer that stayed behind, 113,243 years will have past.

Motion in relativity is a relative concept not an absolute one. You can only move relative to something else, and that something else must have mass.

Suppose you are the only ship in the universe, nothing else but you, and you would accelerate for say 10 billion years. Then what is your motion in space-time? The answer is that there is no point in even asking that question, since you have no way to measure your motion against. That is the point that the FEers are saying, if all of what we see, the sun, moon, stars, etc. are all moving with us, there is absolutely no point in even discussing how fast we are moving, it is a pointless endeavor.

?

#### RAmenBrother

• 97
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #170 on: March 26, 2007, 05:02:04 AM »
That's mostly what I'm saying, physics aside. If what they say is correct, with the entire universe moving with us, then calling our motion "acceleration", or even trying to say we are undergoing motion, is a fallacy in its own right.
I wish my lawn was emo so it'd cut itself.

narcberry's token douchebag score: 4

?

#### Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #171 on: March 26, 2007, 08:31:45 AM »
That's mostly what I'm saying, physics aside. If what they say is correct, with the entire universe moving with us, then calling our motion "acceleration", or even trying to say we are undergoing motion, is a fallacy in its own right.

If you are replying to Darkfrog's post, I would suggest rereading it.  It seems to me to agree with the FE position in this thread.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

#### Darkfrog

• 106
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #172 on: March 26, 2007, 10:48:36 AM »
That's mostly what I'm saying, physics aside. If what they say is correct, with the entire universe moving with us, then calling our motion "acceleration", or even trying to say we are undergoing motion, is a fallacy in its own right.

If you are replying to Darkfrog's post, I would suggest rereading it.  It seems to me to agree with the FE position in this thread.
Erasmus is quite correct. I am not saying there is any fallacy in assuming we are accelerating. What I am saying is that without an outside observer from a different inertial frame of reference, then velocity is meaningless; acceleration is not. According to Einstein, there is absolutely no way to differentiate between acceleration and gravity. Now in RE physics, we are definitely in motion because there are other reference points to use, but in FE theory, everything is moving along with us so it makes it nice and tidy making it impossible to disprove.

?

#### Kasroa Is Gone

• 6869
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #173 on: March 26, 2007, 01:04:25 PM »
There are ways to differentiate between gravity and normal acceleration: Look out your window as Tom likes to say.

The equivalence principle isn't the be all and end all of everything. Sometimes a little common sense is needed. i.e. look through a telescope.

You don't even need to start talking about tidal forces..

?

#### RAmenBrother

• 97
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #174 on: March 26, 2007, 01:19:15 PM »
Actually, there is no real way to differentiate between gravitation and acceleration. They both act on matter in exactly the same way, for the most part.
I wish my lawn was emo so it'd cut itself.

narcberry's token douchebag score: 4

?

#### Kasroa Is Gone

• 6869
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #175 on: March 26, 2007, 01:31:42 PM »
If you live in some kind of thought-experiment-world yes, I agree.

?

#### Darkfrog

• 106
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #176 on: March 26, 2007, 01:33:33 PM »

The equivalence principle isn't the be all and end all of everything. Sometimes a little common sense is needed. i.e. look through a telescope.
If Relativity followed common sense, we wouldn't have had to wait until the 20th century to figure it out. We also wouldn't have had most of the scientific community resisting the theory for a number of years after it was published. If it was common sense, they would have said, "Damn, now why didn't I think of that?"

?

#### Kasroa Is Gone

• 6869
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #177 on: March 26, 2007, 01:38:22 PM »
I'm not sure what your point is there Darkfrog.

?

#### RAmenBrother

• 97
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #178 on: March 26, 2007, 01:43:22 PM »
He's saying that just because it doesn't readily appear so, doesn't mean it isn't. General and Special Relativity are so against the notions of common sense (two observers seeing two clearly different things -- and both being correct), that it did take some time for the community at large to accept it. Now, it is the pinnacle of our explanation of gravity and other branches of physics.

This is the same reason that some people thought the earth was flat -- because it really, really does look flat.

However, round earth theories have been around for some time, much longer than Columbus (which was fabricated byWashington Irving -- Columbus never circumnavigated the globe). Eratosthenes in the 2nd century BCE calculated the circumference of the Earth to within about 2 percent of today's accepted value, and aside from some theological challenges, much of the enlightened community believed in and understood a round earth.
I wish my lawn was emo so it'd cut itself.

narcberry's token douchebag score: 4

?

#### Kasroa Is Gone

• 6869
##### Re: Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light
« Reply #179 on: March 26, 2007, 01:46:53 PM »
I didn't say that relativity is not common sense I just said you can tell the difference between gravity and acceleration in real life by looking at other factors. It's bastardisation of relativity to use it as evidence for a Flat Earth. It was never meant to be used in that way in my opinion. I'm sure Einstein, Galleleo and others could use their common sense to see we're not on an accelerating disk.