Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I think you are misinterpreting his words. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he's saying he wishes FE would embrace scientific advances and incorporate them more into their models, as opposed to saying they are part of a hoax or conspiracy.For all the flaws I see in it, based on my background, EA is actually a great example of exactly the kind of efforts i would want to see: bring in understanding from recent advances, rather than dismissal as pseudoscience.
The problem here is that it's hard not to dismiss as pseudoscience what is obviously pseudoscience.
Then indulge an poor sap who'd like to know more and explain just a little of that. Where, first, does the 8500 year figure come from?Well, from you, it was your math. Although I have to admit my mistake when I misread "hours" for "years" so apologies. 8503.4 hours, you said.
Secondly, since there is no preferred frame of reference, please explain how the people in your rocket ship can be said to have an instantaneous velocity of zero while continuing to accelerate at 1G. I really would like to know this, so gnomic pronouncements or sneering from others just won't cut it: I'll take your own words or you can supply links or reading material.Let's do this by way of analogy first. Imagine you are in a boat (I'd have gone with a car, but shifting gears makes for a separate issue so a boat it is), moving in reverse, and fairly quickly at that. The driver decides to suddenly change direction and try to move forward instead. You feel the boat decelerating, let's just say that's at a constant 1G for fun. It continues to decelerate with respect to the land underneath the boat, and for an instant, it's at rest with respect to the land underneath the boat, and then it begins accelerating forward with respect to the land underneath the boat. At all times, it was applying a steady 1G acceleration as felt by the passenger on the boat, but that boat's velocity changed from negative to zero to positive with respect to the ground below the boat. For a moment, it was accelerating at 1G, and its instantaneous velocity was 0 with respect to the sand and rocks underneath it.
The speed of light is 300,000,000ms-1 so at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 it takes 300,000,000/9.8 = 30,612,244.9 seconds to reach light speed, c.You made a blunder, in that you fundamentally are misunderstanding how relativity works. Let's take the shape of the Earth out of the equation, and just talk about a rocket accelerating through space at 1G. By your math, after about 8500 years, the people on board that rocket would measure their instantaneous velocity to be 99.99% (with probably a fair few more 9's added on, I'm not going to bother working it out because it's meaningless) of c. Yet, what relativity tells us is that the people on board that ship will measure their velocity to still be 0% of c. Because there is no such thing as a preferred frame of reference, you can always pick a frame where that rocket has an instantaneous velocity of 0m/s while still accelerating at 1G for a completely arbitrary amount of time, and the people in that ship would be feeling that steady 1G acceleration the whole time. The people in the rocket ship from this example would be much like people standing on a UA version of the FE, in that they are moving with the accelerating object. An observer on that FE would never exceed c, nor would the FE, because it can never itself move any faster than 0% of c as measured by an observer standing on that FE (since, you know, it's invariant).
Divide this by 60 to get 510,204.082 minutes.
Divide again by 60 to get 8503.4 hours
Finally, divide for a last time by 24 to get 354.3 days to reach light speed from a standing start at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 which is less than a year.
This is why UA is nonsense: according to it the Earth reached light speed millenia ago and has continued accelerating at 9.8ms-2 ever since, even though the speed of light cannot be reached by anything with mass.
Please check the arithmetic in case I made a blunder.
I think I am the only one on FES currently playing the game lmao...My copy arrives later today. I'm a little concerned about the reports that it has some serious bugs on the console versions right now though.
My county we rarely wear masks and have some of the lowest numbers of fake fluThat philosophy always works, until it doesn't.
theflatearthsociety.orgHow dare you sir.
Don't worry Pete. Americans see right through the Democrats.Last I checked, the Venn diagram showing Americans and Democrats had a pretty substantial overlap.
I just want to play Baldur’s Gate 3 and Cyberpunk. Both will be on XboneAre you sure about that? I certainly hope Baldur's Gate 3 hits Xbox One, but last I saw they only confirmed it will be on PC and Stadia. That might change the moment the Series X finally hits the scene, but if they made an official announcement I must have missed it.
Basically, the post count is a variable that goes up when you post and down when you remove a post. Except not always, because SMF. The value is never cross-checked against how many posts you've actually made, unless this is triggered manually by the admin. Parsifal can also set my post count to -69, and it'll just carry on incrementing/decrementing from there.Oh yes, I'm well aware, I was just simplifying to communicate the concept. And in concept, I like the OP's idea, just because personally it seems intuitive that a smaller number would relate to an older post. That is, of course, unless the numbers are just gotten rid of altogether as Parsifal mentioned.