21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 11, 2020, 12:43:34 AM »

You can consider any situation from any FoR.

That’s true, but from whatever inertial frame of reference you perceive the earth, its relative acceleration will always be 9.81 m/s2  .  The earth’s acceleration will always be 9.81 m/s2, from its own FoR.  Acceleration in any inertial frame will always be zero from it’s own FoR.  From any inertial frame, earth will always be accelerating at 9.81 m/s2  .  And from earth, an inertial frame will always be accelerating at zero.

A friendly reminder that no part of the Wiki refers to proper acceleration.

If FET did not consider earth’s acceleration to be proper acceleration, there could not be any “gravity” caused by UA. Proper acceleration is the “physical acceleration (i.e., measurable acceleration as by an accelerometer) experienced by an object.”   If the earth wasn’t physically experiencing proper acceleration of 9.81 m/s2  , there  could not the physical effect of “gravity” caused by the acceleration. 

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 10, 2020, 05:56:09 PM »

Indeed. I take it you've realised your error, then?

This as is as simple as I can make it…if you don’t understand this, there is not any more I can say.

An accelerometer is a device that measures proper acceleration. If the earth always, at every single moment, for every infinitesimal duration, has a proper acceleration of 9.81 m/s2, an accelerometer will read 9.81 m/s2 at every single moment for every infinitesimal duration.

An inertial frame always has a proper acceleration of zero at every single moment, for every infinitesimal duration, so an accelerometer will always read zero at every single moment, for every infinitesimal duration.

Therefore the “relative” proper acceleration between the earth and an inertial observer will always be 9.81 m/s2 at every single moment, for every infinitesimal duration and an inertial observer will observe it accelerating at 9.81 m/s2  for every single, moment, for every infinitesimal duration.

The Earth’s proper acceleration is absolute, it doesn’t change as perceived from an inertial frame. Earth’s acceleration is objective.  It can be determined from within its own frame of reference, all you need to do is look at an accelerometer.

Earth is always in accelerating frame of reference, according to FET. 

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 08, 2020, 03:32:55 PM »

Well, no, it doesn't. It says that "In infinitesimal small durations there is always one inertial frame, which momentarily has the same velocity as the accelerated body, and in which the Lorentz transformation holds."

Saying that velocity is momentarily the same is not the same thing as saying that the rate of acceleration is momentarily the same.  Two cars can both be going 20mph at any given moment when one is accelerating at 10mph and the other at 5mph.

What’s more …an inertial observer always has a proper acceleration of zero.  Are you suggesting that there is some infinitesimal small duration of time, in some inertial frame where Earth’s acceleration is zero?

You claim that it is velocity that's decreasing as it approaches c.

You’re right, I should have been more precise and said that its velocity is decreasing relative the rate of acceleration.

It sounds to me like you've made a lot of assumptions about what's being proposed.

I’m just reading the wiki text and the way I read it says that the earth can have a proper acceleration of 1g forever and not reach c because from an inertial frame of reference the proper acceleration will appear to decrease at increasing rates and therefore an inertial observer will never see earth’s velocity reach the speed of light.

Is that a correct interpretation?  If it is, that explanation is wrong.  The reason an inertial observer never sees earth’s velocity reach the speed of light is because it never reaches the speed of light in the accelerating frame, even though it continues to accelerate at the same rate.  How and why that can be true is clearly explained, even simplistically, in the sources I cited. Because the formula for adding velocities must take time dilation into account, an object can accelerate ad infinitum without the total velocity ever exceeding c.  IOW, accelerating 100,000 mph will add less than 100,000 mph to the total velocity. Check the formula for yourself and see how it works out if you doubt it.

If that’s the correct interpretation, it also means that even though the proper acceleration will appear to decrease from an initial observer, it doesn’t decrease within the earth’s frame of reference, as measured by an accelerometer, and within its own frame, Earth would reach c.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 07, 2020, 03:20:40 AM »

In other words, that is the opposite of what mainstream physics states

Mainstream physics says that proper acceleration is Lorentz Invariant (says it right on the wiki page you linked), which by definition means it is the same in any and every inertial frame of reference.

Ah, of course. As the velocity approaches c, the velocity decreases. And how does it approach c while decreasing?

The short answer is that relativistic velocities can’t be added in the classical sense.

What this shows is that the principle of relativity prohibits us adding velocities in the usual way. We cannot add velocities by the ordinary rule 100,000 + 100,000 = 200,000. More generally, the classical rule for the composition of velocities fails…

In its place we need a new rule for the composition of velocities. It ought to look like the ordinary rule as long as velocities are small--we do know that the ordinary rule works for slow moving things like cars on freeways and trains. But it must look very different at high speeds. If we use it to add two velocities close to light, we must get a resultant that is still less than the velocity of light. Einstein found that the principle of relativity forces a particular rule. For the case of velocities oriented in the same direction in space, the relativistic rule for composition of velocities is: velocity of A with respect to C =Velocity of A with respect to B+Velocity of B with respect to C / reduction factor. Click here to see the complete formula.

The full explanation can be found here https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_adding/index.html, but the conclusion is

The total speed of the last boosted machine increases as we proceed along the sequence "I,""II," etc. But the increases become smaller and smaller…. No matter how often we add 100,000 miles per second, we never get past the speed of light--here set at exactly 186,000 miles per second. We get closer and closer to it. But never past it.

IOW, when the proper formula is used to add relativistic velocities, the rate of acceleration can remain constant, but the increases in velocity gets smaller.

Hopefully, a book written by a Distinguished Professor at the University of Pittsburg, who is considered an authority on Einstein and highly regarded in his field is mainstream enough for you. If not, there is a good, but more technical explanation, starting on page 106 of the standard text Space Time Physics, cowritten by Archibald Wheeler and Edwin Taylor. If their credentials aren’t good enough for you…there’s not much more I can say. You can download the book here.  I can’t cut and paste excerpts from it and it is simply too much information to try and condense.
http://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/0000_spacetime_physics.pdf

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 06, 2020, 01:40:46 PM »

[quote[Your failure, and one you could have once again solved by reading Wikipedia, is that you assume that there is one inertial frame of reference with regard to which you can consider FE's acceleration for an extended period of time. This is incorrect, and was pointed out to you time and time again by FE'ers and RE'ers alike. At any point in time, you can identify an inertial FoR with regard to which the acceleration will be 9.81ms^-2 for an infinitesimal length of time. That is to say, the Earth would not be immediately moving relative to that frame. A moment later, this would no longer hold. Yet your objection continues to assume that it would.[/quote]

And in every single one of those inertial frames, for any length of time, the acceleration will be the same.  Proper acceleration is Lorentz-Invariant...the same in all inertial frames of reference.

You are confusing and velocity and acceleration.  That same confusion is evident in your wiki.

 

Relative to an inertial observer in the universe, however, the Earth's acceleration decreases as the its velocity approaches c.

It isn't the acceleration that decreases, it is the velocity.  Somebody needs to learn how to add relativistic velocities, then they would understand that in SR, every interval of acceleration increases the velocity a little less. The rate of acceleration remains the same, but the velocity will never reach c. The conclusion on the wiki is correct, but the reasoning behind it is wrong. 

According to FET, gravity and acceleration are the same thing.  We have objectively quantified gravity...so by FET's own definition, we have objectively quantified its rate of acceleration.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 05, 2020, 09:55:40 PM »

Yes, that is the problem, as usual. You took an article which explains that proper acceleration is measured relative to a well-defined FoR and chose to "translate" it into "well uhh duh it agrees with me". You then did your all-time classic of spamming questionable sources that you think agree with you because they used a word you like while ignoring their meaning.

“ It is thus acceleration relative to a free-fall, or inertial, observer who is momentarily at rest relative to the object being measured”…your “gotcha” is nothing more than a different way of stating my exact point.

If an inertial observer were to see the earth accelerating upwards in FET…what rate of acceleration would he perceive?  What rate of acceleration would the people on earth perceive? They both would perceive 9.8 m/s2.

And since the whole point of SR is that any experiment performed in any inertial frame of reference will have the same results….in every single inertial frame of reference, the earth’s acceleration will always be measured as 9.8 m/s2…and it will always measure the same as within the earth’s frame.  That is what makes it absolute.  It doesn’t change dependent on the FoR.

In SR, acceleration of earth will always equal 9.8 m/s2 in any inertial frame.  In SR, Acceleration of earth with it's own frame will always equal 9.8 m/s2.  Therefore in, SR, the acceleration of earth is not frame dependent.  It would behoove you to think through logical inferences and use some critical thinking skills before you jump to conclusions about the point I am making.  Then I wouldn’t have to translate.

I’m not sure that a paper published on a respected university’s website, written by a Distinguished Professor of that University, should be considered “questionable”…but whatever.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 04, 2020, 10:14:56 PM »

But of course it's relative to something. There is no such thing as an objective frame of reference. Any statement that implies otherwise is a non-starter. I'll just refer you to Wikipedia, since we already know you're an obvious troll. You only need to go in as deep as two sentences to correct your error, but I do suggest you read on.

Wikipedia says “Proper acceleration contrasts with coordinate acceleration, which is dependent on choice of coordinate systems and thus upon choice of observers.”
I’ll translate for you.  Proper acceleration is different than coordinate acceleration.  Coordinate acceleration is relative, proper acceleration is not.

Don’t really see how that is different from “only coordinate acceleration is relative.  Proper acceleration is always absolute”, which is what I said.

The reason for this is that an observer can always tell what their acceleration is without referring to anything external. All you have to do is drop something and see what happens. If you're not accelerating the dropped object will just hover next to you. If you are accelerating then the dropped object will accelerate away from you

The acceleration measured in this way is called the proper acceleration and is an important concept in general relativity. All observers everywhere will agree on the value of your proper acceleration, making it an absolute not a relative quantity.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/366301/is-acceleration-relative-in-classical-physics

In his special theory of relativity, the relativity of motion is implemented only for inertial motions. It does not extend to accelerated motions. They are motions that change their speed or direction or both. We can still say that something accelerates without adding a further qualification "with respect to...". Thus, acceleration is an absolute for Einstein's special theory.

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_principles/

This chapter focuses on acceleration, which, unlike velocity, can be detected by a body in motion and measured within the moving system. Acceleration is also more fundamental; it is absolute, whereas velocity is relative and depends on the frame of reference chosen

http://physics.gu.se/~f3aamp/edu/acceleration.html

In FET, in earth’s frame of reference, acceleration creates “gravity”.   We can objectively determine within our own frame that earth is accelerating because “gravity” exists.  What some other person, in some other frame of reference perceives doesn’t change our perception that the earth is accelerating because “gravity” exists.  Therefore, earth's frame of reference is objective with respect to its acceleration.

Or are you arguing that in FET “gravity” only exists on earth if some other person, in some other frame of reference perceives the earth to be accelerating?

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 03, 2020, 07:51:45 PM »

There is no such thing as an objective frame of reference

That is only true in GR. In SR acceleration in absolute.  And even in GR, only coordinate acceleration is relative.  Proper acceleration is always absolute. It isn’t necessary to relate your acceleration to some outside reference.  An accelerometer within your own reference would show acceleration or not.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 03, 2020, 05:15:30 AM »

I’m going to attempt to rectify your broken rhetoric, icanactuallythink...

I think what you are saying is that if the reference frame is to be held at a constant velocity (inertial change of zero), and an acceleration occurs, then the body under some constant or varying acceleration in one direction will not have the same velocity in two different points, as the UA theory seems to indicate?

I believe a FE response, if I understand UA well enough hopefully, is that the reference frame is also accelerating with the earth in time, allowing the earth to net zero inertial energy by accelerating within the accelerating reference frame. Pete, correct me if I‘m wrong.

All this talk about frame of reference is irrelevant. Yes, in SR you can accelerate ad infinitum without ever reaching c…but it has nothing to do with frame of reference.  Yes, an outside observer in an inertial FoR will see the object slow and contract.   But the object will never reach c whether there is an inertial outside observer or not. It won’t reach c in the accelerating frame of reference either.  In no frame of reference will anybody ever see anything exceed c...at least with current technology.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 01, 2020, 05:33:05 PM »

The muons are accelerating, the earth is not.

The muons are not accelerating, the Earth and the muons are in inertial frames of reference.

Yes, you are correct...got my self turned around.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 01, 2020, 05:31:28 PM »

The Earth is not in an inertial frame of reference under RET or the UA FET this thread is about.

In RE, earth is considered inertial as a practical matter.  Any inertial effects on the surface are minor enough not to be considered and the center of the earth would be considered inertial in GR because it is in freefall.

If the earth is accelerating in FET, then by definition, it is not inertial.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 01, 2020, 02:37:06 PM »

Watch the video I posted, it explains how two observers can BOTH see the other as being slower, each measuring the other and both coming up with different results, both being correct from THEIR frame of reference.

 

That is only true if both clocks are in an inertial reference frame, then special relativity applies. If one clock is accelerating and the other isn’t, the accelerating clock will run slower relative to the inertial clock, but both clocks will not run slower relative to one another. In the twin paradox, the traveling twin comes back younger. The traveling twin accelerates, the earth twin does not.

You said this is not what is observed but that's exactly what happens in the quote you provided. From Earth's frame of reference, the Muons are moving close to the speed of light, and time is running slower for them, letting more of them reach the surface than they should

The muons are accelerating, the earth is not.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: March 30, 2020, 11:30:42 PM »

It's astounding how poorly you understand the thing you are arguing about. The earth can be constantly accelerating in its own frame of reference. Which is to say, an object situated on its surface could experience a constant 9.8m/s² downward force perpetually.

Why is this the hill so many people choose to die on? There is nothing in Relativity that suggests any object could not undergo constant acceleration forever. If you disagree, please show your work.

You are arguing what you said went against physics...that the Earth's frame of reference is preferred.

If the earth is constantly accelerating in it's own frame of reference resulting in objects situated on its surface experiencing a constant 9.8m/s² downward force , then according to the math Icanactuallythink already showed you, in it's own frame of reference, the earth should have reached the point at which acceleration slows and objects on its surface would begin experience something less than 9.8m/s² downward force.

I don't think that is happening.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: March 30, 2020, 10:34:20 PM »

You're asserting that there is a preferred frame of reference. That is in disagreement with modern physics where the consensus is that there is no preferred FoR. How would you back up your position?

If you accept there is no preferred FoR, then there really isn't an issue with something undergoing constant acceleration indefinitely. This is quite literally the worst argument against UA there could be.

Constant acceleration with respect to what ?  You can’t have it both ways.  If an earth slowing its rate of acceleration assumes a preferred FOR, so does an earth that is increasing its rate.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain meteors

« on: March 04, 2020, 09:38:25 PM »

A growing industry is trying to track more space rocks in order to predict a potential catastrophic event and be more prepared for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Fence


I have been involved in this project.  Spent some time in Kwaj. I guess I am part of the conspiracy now. 

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flat earth

« on: March 03, 2020, 01:07:41 AM »

What we do know is that moonlight, while generally similar to the sunlight..., shifts a bit towards the infrared...This makes moonlight not just a less intense version of sunlight—it is somewhat qualitatively different, too.

Any body when reflecting light will absorb some wavelengths and reflect others. That is literally how we see colours. There is no inherent "redness" about things we perceive as red, they simply absorb other wavelengths and reflect red ones. So yes, the light coming from the moon will have a different spectrum to that coming from the sun because of the wavelengths which the moon absorbs.

You are simply describing a less intense version of sunlight; exactly what the article specifically points out is 'not' the reason for their results. They are adamant that their findings are due to the light of the moon; not some gravitational effect, nor any less intense version of reflected sunlight.

What AATW is describing is the shift towards the infrared that the authors describe.  The light my red shirt reflects from the sun “shifts to the infrared”.  It is qualitatively different, but is still a reflection. It absorbs most wavelengths and reflects back red.

Also note the quote says moonlight isn’t “just” less intense...implying that it isnt only less intense sunlight but alsoqualitatively different...because it shifts to the infrared.

And gravity does effect plant growth.  It’s called gravitropisim

https://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2018/04/more-on-how-to-tell-up-and-down.html

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Terminal Velocity?

« on: February 06, 2020, 06:19:26 PM »

Drag force is not a constant, buddy. The whole point of terminal velocity is that eventually it will be equal 9.8m/s²

You've been given plenty of chances. This is your last. Behave or begone.
[/quote]

Why would you know that, when your own wiki says otherwise?

In the Round Earth model, terminal velocity happens when the acceleration due to gravity is equal to the acceleration due to drag. In the Flat Earth model, however, there are no balanced forces: terminal velocity happens when the upward acceleration of the person is equal to the upward acceleration of the Earth

.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Terminal Velocity?

« on: February 06, 2020, 06:06:01 PM »

Solve it relative to the Earth and it becomes quite simple.

Fine..I can do that.

I’ll use a 5 lb. sphere 10 in2 in area.

In both RE and FE, we can use all the same variables, except for “acceleration due to gravity”.  In FE, we have to use “acceleration due to UA” and from the FoR of the earth, the sphere wouldn’t be accelerating toward the earth at 9.8m/s2.  It would be accelerating at the relative acceleration between the sphere and the earth.  I don't know exactly what that is because I have no way of knowing how much the atmowhateveryouwanttocallit is accelerating the sphere, beyond your description of "a little bit". However, I do know that it would be something less than 9.8 m/s2 (if it wasn’t the distance would never decrease).  So, let’s say the relative acceleration of the sphere is half of 9.8 m/s2. in FE…4.9 m/s2.

A 5lb. sphere with a drag coefficient of .5, (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/drag-coefficient-d_627.html) average air density of 1.275 kg/m3 (https://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/444/), area of 10 in2 and accelerating at 9.8m/s2, has a TV of 103.96 m/s.

A 5lb. sphere with a drag coefficient of .5, average air density of 1.275 kg/m3, area of 10 in2 and accelerating at 4.9 m/s2, has a TV of 73.511 m/s.

Clearly, the same formula from the same FoR, gives different speeds for FE and RE.  Of course, the FE number is meaningless anyway because it represents the speed at which the forces are balanced, and we know that in FE TV, the forces are not balanced.

The EP has nothing to do with it.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Terminal Velocity?

« on: February 06, 2020, 02:43:59 PM »

Sorry, they're not wrong. As I explained before, you're confusing yourself by choosing a FoR you don't find intuitive. Solve it relative to the Earth and it becomes quite simple.

FoR has nothing to do with it.  The same formula is used no matter what the FoR, and no matter the FoR, the formula indicates the velocity at which the forces are balanced.  Changing the frame of reference doesn’t change the forces from balanced to unbalanced.

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Terminal Velocity?

« on: February 06, 2020, 12:27:14 AM »

And what would be the formula for determining terminal velocity under that model?

So, when others explained to you that this would be no different than under RET, they meant it. Further questions will be pretty boring for everyone involved.

And "they" are wrong.  It wouldn't be the same formula for a couple of different reasons.  First, the RE formula is designed to calculate the point at which the forces are balanced.  In FE version of terminal velocity, the forces are unbalanced.  You would be solving for something entirely different.

Second, you can't include the effect of gravity in the formula because obviously, there is none.  Any effect that an accelerating earth would have is already accounted for in the drag coefficient.  In RE, the velocity of the object moving through the air is the number used in the formula.  In FE, it would need to be the relative velocity since the diver and the earth are moving towards one another.