In my view, the earth is accelerating upwards simply because that is what we observe it to be doing.
Furthermore, and as another point, in order for "gravity" to exist, entirely new and untestable physics must be created for that construct. The phenomenon of pushing is well established and long known to science. The phenomenon of push can occur with existing physics, whereas pulling particles or bendy space requires new physics. This favors the concept of upwards acceleration.
Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that the earth accelerates upwards towards you.Dude, come on!
Experiment 2: Now find a ball and raise it into the air with your hand and let it go into free-fall. As it does this this you should also feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet. This tells us that we are being pushed to be in the frame of reference of the earth, as the earth runs into the ball.
On reading through the FAQ and the Universal Accelerator pages I have come to realize that we are seemingly haphazardly proposing that the earth is accelerating upwards without really explaining why.
In my view, the earth is accelerating upwards simply because that is what we observe it to be doing.
Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that the earth accelerates upwards towards you.False. I observe that I am accelerating downwards towards the earth.
Experiment 2: Now find a ball and raise it into the air with your hand and let it go into free-fall. As it does this this you should also feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet. This tells us that we are being pushed to be in the frame of reference of the earth, as the earth runs into the ball.
Furthermore, and as another point, in order for "gravity" to exist, entirely new and untestable physics must be created for that construct. The phenomenon of pushing is well established and long known to science. The phenomenon of push can occur with existing physics, whereas pulling particles or bendy space requires new physics. This favors the concept of upwards acceleration.
In my view, the earth is accelerating upwards simply because that is what we observe it to be doing.Sorry, what do You observe? You observe things accelerating towards each other: a man, a ball and the earth. But you cannot decide, which of these is moving and which is at rest.
While the Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity gravity explanations of "graviton puller particles" and "bendy space" provide equivalent explanations to the results of the above experiments, those things are are completely undiscovered, and so, are decidedly less empirical.
Per the question of where the energy for comes from; that is a question easily left as unknown.If You accuse the gravity model, that physicist still searching for the "reason", than I accuse FET not providing the "reason" for the acceleration of earth.
The phenomenon of pushing is well established and long known to science. The phenomenon of push can occur with existing physics, whereas pulling particles or bendy space requires new physics.Ahem ... "push" can occur for electromagnetic forces, between equal polarized charges or magnetic fields.
Furthermore, and as another point, in order for "gravity" to exist, entirely new and untestable physics must be created for that construct. The phenomenon of pushing is well established and long known to science. After all, the phenomenon of push can occur with existing physics, whereas pulling particles or bendy space requires new physics. This favors the concept of upwards acceleration.The curvature of space by mass not only is testable it has been tested. Starting in 1919 a mere four years after General Relativity was published, the images of stars were seen to shift when our view shows them very close to the sun (during a total eclipse). See Testing General Relativity (https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/testing-general-relativity) . This experiment has been done many times since with the same result. More recently gravitational lensing is the same phenomenon. The curvature was measured directly with the amazing Gravity Probe B (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb) . Space being curved by the presence of mass also explains the motion we see all over the cosmos and how planets, stars, mons, and galaxies form. Finally your fantasied "upwards acceleration" only would work for a flat earth, and we know with certainty that the earth is not flat so your claim that it is simpler than GR is irrelevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE)
You need to debunk that before an alternative explanation like UA can be taken seriously.
Dr. Edward Dowdye says that the medium of the Solar Corona bends light, not gravity. And the observations further away from the edge of the sun fails to match prediction.So what? Anyone can "say" anything. Did he publish anything on this in any peer reviewed journal? Not that I can find. His bio from his own site (https://einsteinwrong.com/site/dr-edward-dowdye/) says:
http://beyondmainstream.org/nasa-scientist-says-coronas-bend-light-not-gravity/
"The member is a Laser Optics Physicist and Electronics Engineer (retired) at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Dr. Dowdye is independent researcher in the area of pure classical electromagnetism and gravitation, not related to his occupation at NASA. He disputes the finding that gravity bends light but claims instead, that light is bent in the corona of suns, not because of space-time."
gullible lay peopleA friendly reminder that if you don't behave, you don't post. We'll see you in a couple weeks.
Dr. Edward Dowdye says that the medium of the Solar Corona bends light, not gravity. And the observations further away from the edge of the sun fails to match prediction.So what? Anyone can "say" anything. Did he publish anything on this in any peer reviewed journal? Not that I can find.
http://beyondmainstream.org/nasa-scientist-says-coronas-bend-light-not-gravity/
Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that the earth accelerates upwards to meet your feet.
Here’s an experiment. Jump from the same chair 5 minutes apart. If the time it takes to meet the floor is not less on the second attempt, then the earth is not accelerating up and increasing in velocity.
Here’s an experiment. Jump from the same chair 5 minutes apart. If the time it takes to meet the floor is not less on the second attempt, then the earth is not accelerating up and increasing in velocity.
Would you be so kind as to humor an old codger and show me the physics behind this statement.
Dr. Edward Dowdye says that the medium of the Solar Corona bends light, not gravity. And the observations further away from the edge of the sun fails to match prediction.
Since we are talking relativistic velocities, a clock on a dropped object (which would be in an inertial reference frame) and a clock on the ground (presumably in an accelerating reference frame at close to c) would read differently. Each would perceive the other as going slower (this is ignoring any gravitational time dilation that might happen) and the difference would increase as the velocity of the clock on the ground increases relative to the clock on the inertial object.
Drop tower experiments are performed all over the world everyday. You’d think somebody would’ve noticed that the time it takes to perform the same experiment is different at different times and/or depending on whose clock you are looking at. Not to mention that a skydiver’s watch would read differently than an observer on the ground. They’d have two different measurements for how long it took the skydiver to “fall”.
Yes. But aren't the relative velocities of the earth and object prior to being dropped zero always?
QuoteYes. But aren't the relative velocities of the earth and object prior to being dropped zero always?
Assuming the object is supported by the earth, the relative velocity would be zero, and the clocks would be synchronized before it is dropped. But once the object is dropped, they would become unsynchronized. When the object hits the ground, the clocks would start keeping time at the same rate again, but they still wouldn’t agree unless they were synchronized again.
(https://i.imgur.com/2UOWWJz.png)
The biggest impossibility with Universal Acceleration is that you'd reach relativistic speeds within the month, and hit the speed of light within a year. From an initial velocity of 0, a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s would mean that the Flat Earth would reach the speed of light in 11.6 months. So UA needs an entirely different physics paradigm, because depending on the age of the Earth, we would currently be experiencing a velocity that is trillions of times the speed of light.
On p.306 of the book Unified Field Mechanics II we find a paper (https://books.google.com/books?id=W4RIDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA307&pg=PA307#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Physicist José R. Croca, Ph.D. (bio (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=pt&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20200421184900%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fcfcul.fc.ul.pt%2Fequipa%2Fjcroca.php&sandbox=1)), where we see:
“ Since the realization of this [Sagnac] experiment, which has been done with photons [25], electrons [26] and neutrons [27], many trials have been made to interpret the observed results seen, for instance, Selleri [28]. Indeed, Sagnac utilized the habitual linear additive rule and with that he was able to correctly predict the observed results. Still, since his prediction lead to velocities greater than c and consequently are against relativity which claims that the maximal possible velocity is c this raised a large amount of arguing. In fact, many authors tried to explain the results of the experiment in the framework of relativity which assumed that the maximal possible velocity is c. As can be seen in the literature, there are almost as many explanations as the authors that have tried to explain the results in the framework of relativity. In some cases the same author [29] presents even more than one possible explanation. The complexity of the problem stems mainly from the fact that the experiment is done in a rotating platform. In such case, there may occur a possible accelerating effect leading the explanation of the experiment to fall in the framework of general relativity.
This controversy, whether Sagnac experiment is against or in accordance with relativity, was settled recently by R. Wang et al. [30] with a very interesting experimental setup they called linear Sagac interferometer. In this case the platform is still, what moves is a single mode optical fiber coil, Fig. 12.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/4/47/Wang-diagram.png/450px-Wang-diagram.png)
They did the experiment with a 50 meter length linear interferometer with wheels of 30 cm. The observed relative phase shift difference for the two beams of light following in opposite directions along the optical fiber was indeed dependent only on the length of the interferometer and consequently independent of the angular velocity of the wheels. From the experimental results obtained with the linear Sagnac interferometer one is lead to conclude that in this particular case the linear additive rule applies. Consequently we may have velocities greater than c, which clearly shows that relativity is not adequate to describe this specific physical process. ”
a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s[^2, presumably]Relative to what? You can't talk about "relativistic speeds" in such a cavallier manner, only to then ignore relativity.
I understand that. What I'm questioning is how the scenario would change 5 minutes from now if in both cases the relative velocities of the two are zero. That was the premise of your original statement. The situation would be different because the earth under acceleration would be traveling at a different speed. But the clock would also have accelerated the same amount during that 5 minutes so at the time it's dropped the relative velocities are still zero which result in the time jumping of the chair to be the same 5 minutes later.
If the earth is moving at 200,000 mphRelative to what? It sounds like you're talking about the jumper. If so, how did the jumper manage to exceed terminal velocity by three orders of magnitude? How, exactly, did they manage to start falling at 200,000mph?
Five minutes later and the earth is moving at 250,000.How did the jumper manage to remain in the air for five minutes? Why are they still accelerating relative to Earth's surface when they're already massively exceeding terminal velocity (in either the km/s or the mph scenario)? They should be decelerating rapidly, and probably burning to a crisp in the atmolayer. Did you eliminate air resistance from your example? Were they subject to UA at the time?
And that measurement will change over time as the earth accelerates and increases velocityRelative to what? For someone who just complained about not taking frames of reference into account, this looks to be a critical omission.
The biggest impossibility with Universal Acceleration is that you'd reach relativistic speeds within the month, and hit the speed of light within a year. From an initial velocity of 0, a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s would mean that the Flat Earth would reach the speed of light in 11.6 months. So UA needs an entirely different physics paradigm, because depending on the age of the Earth, we would currently be experiencing a velocity that is trillions of times the speed of light.This is wildly wrong, even if you take the shape of the Earth out of the conversation and replace it with a ship accelerating constantly at 1G. The observer on the ship always measures their velocity with respect to c to be 0m/s, because light moves away from them at c. This is a pretty foundational principle according to the funny-haired guy that wrote it all down originally. The hypothetical ship could accelerate at a steady 1G forever (assuming it had fuel to do so, but that's an engineering problem not a physics issue) and according to anyone on that ship it would never even begin to approach anything like c. And an outside observer is going to see that ship asymptotically approaching c, never exceeding it.
If the earth is moving at 200,000 mphRelative to what? It sounds like you're talking about the jumper. If so, how did the jumper manage to exceed terminal velocity by three orders of magnitude? How, exactly, did they manage to start falling at 200,000mph?
...Or 200,000km/s for that matter - your screenshots are inconsistent with what you wrote by a facor of ~2237. That would, of course, make things much worse - you're now either off by about 7 orders of magnitude for the jumper's velocity compared to their terminal velocity (assuming km/s), or your calculations are completely irrelevant (assuming you wanted mph). I'll consider both scenarios in remaining parts of the post.Five minutes later and the earth is moving at 250,000.How did the jumper manage to remain in the air for five minutes? Why are they still accelerating relative to Earth's surface when they're already massively exceeding terminal velocity (in either the km/s or the mph scenario)? They should be decelerating rapidly, and probably burning to a crisp in the atmolayer. Did you eliminate air resistance from your example? Were they subject to UA at the time?
There is also a fundamental problem in how you calculated a ∆v of 50,000 of any unit.
If you meant to use km/s, even if we ignore all relativistic effects and assume no drag, the maximum you should arrive at would be 9.8m/s^2 * 300s = 2,940m/s = 2.94km/s. A far cry from the 50,000 you got.
If you did mean to use mph, the maximum becomes 6,577mph. This, again, is not 50,000.
What an absolute train wreck.And that measurement will change over time as the earth accelerates and increases velocityRelative to what? For someone who just complained about not taking frames of reference into account, this looks to be a critical omission.
Out of curiosity: what are your views on spirit levels?
Obviously, I didn’t set up the paramters clearly enough. T0 is the earth (or an observer on earth). “T” is the jumper.I'm not sure you know how to set up initial parameters at all based on this. The initial velocity between the jumper and the Earth should be 0 m/s, shouldn't it? After all, isn't the jumper at a fixed distance above the Earth, relative to the Earth, when they jump?
If the relative velocity between them is 200000km/s (IOW, if the earth (and the observer) is accelerating up at 200000ms and the jumper is inertial with no velocity) and T0 records an elapsed time of 1s from the time T leaves the surface of the chair and meets the ground, T will record an elapsed time of 1.34s.
If the relative velocity between them is 200000km/s (IOW, if the earth (and the observer) is accelerating up at 200000ms and the jumper is inertial with no velocity)OK, so, a few things here:
When, after meeting the ground, T climbs back onto the chair, say 5 minutes later, the relative velocity between T0 and T has increased to 250000msNo, it didn't, both because milliseconds are not a unit of velocity, and because a person standing on a chair on Earth is not moving relative to the Earth. If they were, they'd be phasing through the chair, or phasing through the Earth together with the chair. In other words, their velocity relative to the Earth is 0m/s.
T isn’t falling so terminal velocity and drag isn’t relevantThat, too, is incorrect. Terminal velocity is the velocity at which which the forces of drag and gravity (imaginary as it may be) are in equilibrium. A free-falling body whose velocity exceeds its terminal velocity will decelerate, not accelerate, as time progresses. The act of "falling" is just motion, and motion is relative. If the Earth is moving upwards relative to the jumper, then the jumper is falling relative to the Earth. The two are inseparable, because they're one and the same. That, in a nutshell, is the cornerstone of relativity.
some common sense and logicConsidering the many posts you've made on previous accounts here in which you demonstrated not to understand anything about the world that surrounds you, you really are not in the position to talk about common sense.
I'm not sure you know how to set up initial parameters at all based on this. The initial velocity between the jumper and the Earth should be 0 m/s, shouldn't it? After all, isn't the jumper at a fixed distance above the Earth, relative to the Earth, when they jump?
You’re going to have to try again, but also a lot harder I thinkQuoteI'm not sure you know how to set up initial parameters at all based on this. The initial velocity between the jumper and the Earth should be 0 m/s, shouldn't it? After all, isn't the jumper at a fixed distance above the Earth, relative to the Earth, when they jump?
While the jumper is on the chair, he would be accelerated at the same rate with the same velocity as the earth and the relative velocity would be zero.
But once he jumps, he is no longer being accelerated. There is no force on him, no acceleration, no velocity. He's just hanging there inert. But the earth is still accelerating while he is hanging there, so the relative velocity between the jumper and the earth would be whatever the velocity the earth is moving relative to the jumper.
But once he jumps, he is no longer being accelerated. There is no force on him, no acceleration, no velocity.Velocity relative to what? And, assuming it's not the Earth, how do you reconcile this magical disappearance of velocity with the law of conservation of momentum?
ms is not a unit of acceleration, it's a unit of time. It’s also an expression of velocity.
Ignoring your lack of understanding of units, you also just said that velocity is "in other words" an acceleration. This is not the case, and RE'ers failing to distinguish between the two is a running joke around here.
If the relative velocity between a jumper and the Earth is 200,000km/s, you've got a lot of explaining to do. How did they reach this scenario? Why did the jumper not disintegrate while smashing themselves into the atmolayer? Do you have even the faintest of ideas of the magnitude of 200,000km/s?
No, it didn't, both because milliseconds are not a unit of velocity, and because a person standing on a chair on Earth is not moving relative to the Earth. If they were, they'd be phasing through the chair, or phasing through the Earth together with the chair. You seem not to understand even the very basics of motion.
Velocity relative to what? And, assuming it's not the Earth, how do you reconcile this magical disappearance of velocity with the law of conservation of momentum?
Also, what makes you think that a free-falling body is not subject to any forces or acceleration?
It’s also an expression of velocity.No, it is not.
A body that is accelerating, by definition, has velocityThis is incorrect. It is perfectly possible for a body to have a velocity of 0m/s and to be accelerating at the same moment in time.
and is accelerating “with a velocity”.That's not even wrong, it's just nonsensical. An acceleration leads to a change in velocity, but it is meaningless to be "accelerating 'with a velocity'".
“ is accelerating up and has a velocity of 200000ms.” Is that better?No, it isn't, because ms is still still not a unit of velocity, and none of the valid units you hinted at so far (km/s, m/s, mph) make any sense for a person that's falling down from a chair at 200,000 of that unit. Try, something like 10m/s instead of 200,000 and you might have a realistic scenario.
Since this is a hypothetical on how it would work on a flat earth, I think those are questions that someone on the FE side needs to answer.Not at all. You presented a hypothetical scenario that's entirely impossible for a number of reasons. Those were explained to you. If your scenario came to pass, it would create more problems for RE than FE (though only by a small margin). But it can't come to pass, because it relies on discarding basic physics.
I thought it was obvious I meant that the relative velocity had changed during the jump time, while the jumper is not on the chair.No, you made certain this was not the case when you specified that the change in velocity would take place over the course of five minutes. I defy you to find a chair it would take you five minutes to fall from.
When T is no longer in contact with the chair, the relative velocity between T and T0 has increased from the previous jumpIncreased? How? Relative to what?
because T0 has acceleratedRelative to what?
and T0’s velocity has increasedHow? Why? How do you reconcile this with conservation of momentum?
whereas T’s velocity while he is not on the chair has not changed from the previous jump.Relative to what?
The Jumper “T” has no velocity relative to the earth because T has no force to create velocityYou are once again mistaking velocity for acceleration. There is no direct link between force and velocity. The presence of a force would affect acceleration, which in turn is the rate of change of velocity.
While in the air T has no momentumMomentum is a function of mass and velocity. As long as we agree that the jumper has a mass, we have to assume that you suggest the jumper has no velocity relative to the Earth. Since velocity is the rate of change of distance, and this rate is 0 by your allegation, the distance between the jumper and the Earth is not changing. In other words, you believe that someone who jumped off the chair will never fall to the surface - they will hover.
A free falling body on RE isn’t subject to any forceThis, of course, is also incorrect, but you already know that.
This jumper isn't subject to momentum magically somehow? Let's think about this for a second. Let's pretend he's standing on a platform that's, oh, say 30 meters (-ish) above this disc that's accelerating ever upwards at 10m/s/s (-ish, again, for funsies, ok?). The disc has been accelerating for <who the fuck really cares it doesn't matter but let's have fun> 1 hour. The jumper does a trust fall from the platform he was standing on. Once he's in a "free fall" state, after 1 second has transpired, and ignoring air resistance, how fast do you figure that jumper sees the ground approaching him? In other words, what's the relative velocity between the disc and the jumper? Hint: It's not 200000ms.QuoteI'm not sure you know how to set up initial parameters at all based on this. The initial velocity between the jumper and the Earth should be 0 m/s, shouldn't it? After all, isn't the jumper at a fixed distance above the Earth, relative to the Earth, when they jump?
While the jumper is on the chair, he would be accelerated at the same rate with the same velocity as the earth and the relative velocity would be zero.
But once he jumps, he is no longer being accelerated. There is no force on him, no acceleration, no velocity. He's just hanging there inert. But the earth is still accelerating while he is hanging there, so the relative velocity between the jumper and the earth would be whatever the velocity the earth is moving relative to the jumper.
No, you made certain this was not the case when you specified that the change in velocity would take place over the course of five minutes. I defy you to find a chair it would take you five minutes to fall from.
When, after meeting the ground, T climbs back onto the chair 5 minutes later, the relative velocity between T0 and T has increased to 250000ms. When T jumps again, T0 will record 1s elapsed time from leaving the chair to meeting the ground and T will record 1.8s.
In other words, you believe that someone who jumped off the chair will never fall to the surface - they will hover.
This, of course, is also incorrect, but you already know that.
This jumper isn't subject to momentum magically somehow? Let's think about this for a second. Let's pretend he's standing on a platform that's, oh, say 30 meters (-ish) above this disc that's accelerating ever upwards at 10m/s/s (-ish, again, for funsies, ok?). The disc has been accelerating for <who the fuck really cares it doesn't matter but let's have fun> 1 hour. The jumper does a trust fall from the platform he was standing on. Once he's in a "free fall" state, after 1 second has transpired, and ignoring air resistance, how fast do you figure that jumper sees the ground approaching him? In other words, what's the relative velocity between the disc and the jumper? Hint: It's not 200000ms
I checked, and in not part of your response to Pete did you answer the questions I asked.QuoteThis jumper isn't subject to momentum magically somehow? Let's think about this for a second. Let's pretend he's standing on a platform that's, oh, say 30 meters (-ish) above this disc that's accelerating ever upwards at 10m/s/s (-ish, again, for funsies, ok?). The disc has been accelerating for <who the fuck really cares it doesn't matter but let's have fun> 1 hour. The jumper does a trust fall from the platform he was standing on. Once he's in a "free fall" state, after 1 second has transpired, and ignoring air resistance, how fast do you figure that jumper sees the ground approaching him? In other words, what's the relative velocity between the disc and the jumper? Hint: It's not 200000ms
Clyde, refer to my response to Pete and see if that clarifies things for you.
This jumper isn't subject to momentum magically somehow? Let's think about this for a second. Let's pretend he's standing on a platform that's, oh, say 30 meters (-ish) above this disc that's accelerating ever upwards at 10m/s/s (-ish, again, for funsies, ok?). The disc has been accelerating for <who the fuck really cares it doesn't matter but let's have fun> 1 hour. The jumper does a trust fall from the platform he was standing on. Once he's in a "free fall" state, after 1 second has transpired, and ignoring air resistance, how fast do you figure that jumper sees the ground approaching him? In other words, what's the relative velocity between the disc and the jumper? Hint: It's not 200000m
Did you miss this? I’m talking about 2 separate jumps 5 minutes apart.Indeed. However, that's inconsistent with your claim that the relative velocity between the jumper and the Earth has increased. If the jumps are separate, then the velocity at the start of each jump is 0. You know, the lack of motion.
No, that’s not what I believe but according to numerous statements in the wiki, that is what the FE position is.I am reliably informing you that it's not.
Or do I misunderstand that the FE position is that an object doesn’t “fall”, but that the earth comes up to meet it?The two are one and the same from a physics standpoint. You cannot have one and not the other. So, yes, you are misunderstanding not only the FE position, but also the most basic physics behind any physical model, Round Earth or Flat.
What does that object do during the time it takes for the earth to meet it (in a vacuum)?Laymen would call it "falling".
The scenario I’ve described is conceptually the same as the bowling ball/feathers video that is in the wiki.It emphatically is not, because regardless of which units you settle on (you still haven't answered that), your numbers are a complete mess.
“At the moment of release the feathers cease being accelerated upwards, are inert in space”. Synonyms for “inert” are “motionless”, “unmoving”, “stationary”Yes. In other words, their velocity is not 200,000m/s, km/s, mph, or anything. Their velocity, relative to the Earth, is 0m/s.
(is this where I am supposed to ask “motionless”, “unmoving”, “stationary” relative to what”?)Indeed, you catch on quickly! It's a shame you didn't think to ask yourself that before you lunged into this diatribe.
I think “hover” would be an applicable synonym as well since it means to be motionless in the air.For an infitesimally short period of time, this would be correct, but that does not make hovering and falling one and the same. Immediately after release, the distinction between falling and hovering would become rather apparent. In one scenario, you start with a velocity of 0m/s and an acceleration of 9.81m/s^2. In the other, the initial velocity is 0m/s and the acceleration is 0m/s^2. Relative to the Earth, of course.
1) when you perform the experiment the first time on a flat earth with UA, would a clock on the bowling ball and feathers show them meeting the ground in the same amount of time as a clock that is being accelerated on the ground?No - there would be a marginal, almost unobservable difference. The same is true for RET and gravity. Indeed, there would be no observable difference between the RET and FET scenario. This would become apparent if you used numbers that aren't nonsense.
One also has to wonder why the bowling ball and feathers didn’t disintegrate while smashing into the atmolayer.Because, unlike your assertion, they do not suddenly start yeeting themselves into the air at 200,000 of some unspecified unit. They start at 0m/s relative to Earth, and accelerate until they reach terminal velocity, or until stopped by some other force. It comes down to your numbers being complete nonsense again. Fix those, and you'll start making sense of a lot of things.
2) Second question is if you perform the same experiment a second time, say 5 minutes later, would a clock on the bowling ball and feathers measure the same amount of time to meet the ground as it measured the first time?Indeed - the two drops would be exactly the same from an earthly observer's frame of reference. You forgot to ask yourself my favourite question - relative to what?.
Again, the answer is no because during the intervening 5 minutes, the accelerating flat earth has increased its velocityRelative to what?
but the clock on the bowling ball and feathers is just as inert (motionless, unmoving, stationary and still hovering) for the second experiment as it was for the first.Relative to what? And no, a bowling ball that's been dropped is not hovering, it's falling. You can test this yourself. Try dropping a bowling ball over your foot. Will you see it hover, or is your foot in imminent danger?
That means the relative velocity between the earth and the bowling ball and feathers is different for the first and second experimentImpossible - as you just stated, in both scenarios the bowling ball starts motionless. In other words, its velocity relative to the Earth is 0m/s.
Nope, its a basic principle of GRYou have no grasp of basic classical mechanics (see above), and are in no position to even get started with GR.
I didn’t answer your question because it has nothing to do with the concept that is being discussed. How fast the jumper sees the ground approaching him is irrelevant.Of course it's relevant. Your argument presupposes the impossible. Between that and your fast and loose approach to numbers, it renders everything you say incoherent.
What does matter is that if jumper’s clock objectivelymeasures one second to hit the ground, then a clock on the ground will objectively measure 1.3s to hit the ground.For this to be the case, the diver would have to be approaching the Earth at ludicrous speeds. He is not. And that's why the relative speed matters. As Clyde rightly pointed out, it is not 200,000ms. So, now you just need to actually calculate it, and then plug the results into the calculator you found online without understanding what it does. This time, with correct units.
For an infitesimally short period of time, this would be correct,
You have no grasp of basic classical mechanics (see above), and are in no position to even get started with GR.
In general relativity, gravity can be regarded as not a force but a consequence of a curved spacetime geometry where the source of curvature is the stress–energy tensor (representing matter, for instance
By the way, I'm giving you a chance here. This is like your umpteenth troll account. You can drop the act, or you can join your other pricelessalts. We won't have fake RE'ers sully the reputation of what is already the losing side
And in that infinitesimal moment when the jumper/ball and feathers are inert and motionless and hovering, what is the relative velocity between the objects and the earth?0 m/s
So for the first and second experiments, what is the relative velocity between the jumper/feathers and bowling ball and the earth in that infinitesimal moment of hovering? (remember we are in a vacuum)That would be 0 m/s, and whether or not we're in a vacuum (we're not) does not affect this answer. After all, you did just specify motionlessness, so no other answer is possible. You are, quite literally, asking "if the velocity of an object is 0 m/s, then what is its velocity?" Hint: it will not be 200,000ms.
That’s really all that matters. Can you answer that? I don’t expect an exact number, but is it close to c?It is not close to c. It is approximately c away from c.
I'm pretty sure at this point that Rog thinks there's some preferred FoR where clocks have some default rate of ticking. That's the only way I can imagine this terrible argument not coming from a place of trolling.He has a long history of similarly terrible arguments coming from previous accounts, and he's been permabanned over obvious trolling on most of these, because usually he starts digging up countless old threads and spamming them all with the same argument. This account is probably going to join unless he suddenly improves.
That would be 0 m/s, and whether or not we're in a vacuum (we're not) does not affect this answer. After all, you did just specify motionlessness, so no other answer is possible. You are, quite literally, asking "if the velocity of an object is 0 m/s, then what is its velocity?" Hint: it will not be 200,000ms.
Relative velocity is a measurement of velocity between two objects as determined in a single coordinate system. Relative velocity is fundamental in both classical and modern physics, since many systems in physics deal with the relative motion of two or more particles. In Newtonian mechanics, the relative velocity is independent of the chosen inertial reference frame. This is not the case anymore with special relativity in which velocities depend on the choice of reference frame. If an object A is moving with velocity vector v and an object B with velocity vector w, then the velocity of object A relative to object B is defined as the difference of the two velocity vectors .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity
Per the question of where the energy for comes from; since it is beneath the earth and inaccessible that is a question easily left as unknown. While we can directly see and experience the mechanical action of the earth's upward movement, we are ignorant of the energy source below. The phenomenon of "gravity" is as equally deficient in its explanation for where all of the energy comes from for matter to pull matter, and that usually gets glossed over.There isn’t any energy necessary for the perception of gravity to occur. Nothing has been ‘glossed’ over. It’s well known that mass influences relative time. If you step off the chair your clock moves a bit faster, and you traverse thru spacetime just a bit quicker than the earth does and very quickly you close the distance between you and the earth and your mass and the mass of the earth try to occupy the same place at the same time. This is the point where you feel the force on your feet. That force is what makes your journey thru space time, with your faster clock, the same as the earth as per the well know formula F=MA. Therefore, inertial mass, and your measured mass are identical because you are effectively measuring the same thing. If you want to solve a mystery why not think about how mass can slow down time relative to another clock on a different smaller mass?
I asked what the relative velocity between the objects and the earth was at the time the jumper was hoveringIndeed. And, since you once again said "hovering", the answer is 0m/s.
IOW, the relative velocity between A and B is the difference between their velocities as measured within their own reference frames. The rate of change of the position of the object within its own frame as a function of time within its own frame, and the direction of that change within its own frame.That's an extremely and needlessly convoluted way of representing it, keeping in mind that speed is relative. Nonetheless, since the two bodies are stationary relative to each other, there exists no frame of reference (or, indeed, a set of FoR's) in which their relative velocity will be anything other than 0m/s.
This means that it is perfectly appropriate to speak of velocity with respect to a single reference frame and in relativity, you don’t have to qualify the word “velocity” with the phrase “with respect to what” because it is understood to be within its own reference frame unless you are specifically talking about relative velocity wrt another frame.So, the actual reason you normally don't have to be very pedantic about reference frames is that they can be assumed to be obvious. For example, in scenarios that take place on Earth, we would normally assume the frame of reference to be the Earth. For problems set in outer space, we would often assume an external inertial observer.
There is no way to determine the relative velocity without first defining an independent velocity in the individual frames since the relative velocity is the difference between themOf course there is. You just need a basic grasp of how mechanics works.
This means that it is perfectly appropriate to speak of velocity with respect to a single reference frame and in relativity, you don’t have to qualify the word “velocity” with the phrase “with respect to what” because it is understood to be within its own reference frame unless you are specifically talking about relative velocity wrt another frame.No, that's complete nonsense. Every body's velocity in its own reference frame is always 0m/s, because no body is moving away from itself. Also, it is relativity that strictly requires you to define your frames of reference.
So I’ll ask another way. What is the velocity of our jumper’s clock within in his own reference frameAlways, invariably, 0m/s. This is because a body's own frame of reference refers to points on the body, and those will never move away from themselves.
Just subtract whatever you think the velocity of the ground clock in its reference frame (a close approximation is fine) at the time the jumper is hovering and the velocity of the jumper’s clock in its reference frame at the time the jumper is hovering (I assume it is zero) and that should give you the number you believe should be the relative velocity between them.No - this defies physics, since you failed to transform your measures into a singular frame of reference. Subtracting two velocities without standardising them first will lead you to wildly spurious results.
That’s how you calculate relative velocity in relativityIt really, really, really isn't. What you're looking for is Lorentz transformations and the velocity addition formula. In this case, since the bodies aren't moving at relativistic speeds relative to each other, the Galilean approach will yield a very good estimate with much less effort.
I'll assume anything other than actual numbers as an inability or unwillingness to answer.I already provided you with these numbers while making fun of you before. I am shocked, truly shocked that you haven't read my responses.
It’s also worth noting that If our jumper starts with 0 velocity in his own reference frame, in that infinitesimal moment he is inert and ends with 0 velocity 1s later, he hasn’t moved within his own reference frame and has not “fallen”, in any meaningful sense of the word.Indeed, he would not fall away from himself. This is why using the body itself as a reference frame for a 1-body system is useless. However, he likely did fall in a meaningful sense of the word, as long as you pick a reference frame that makes a modicum of sense.
1s*0 velocity is 0 distance.Indeed. You are beginning to understand the problem with your approach.
No - this defies physics, since you failed to transform your measures into a singular frame of reference. Subtracting two velocities without standardising them first will lead you to wildly spurious results
Indeed, he would not fall away from himself. This is why using the body itself as a reference frame for a 1-body system is useless. However, he likely did fall in a meaningful sense of the word, as long as you pick a reference frame that makes a modicum of sense.
You don’t use the LT when figuring time dilation.We're not discussing time dilation yet - you haven't made it that far. We can't do so until you've corrected your nonsensical velocities. Before we can discuss the consequences of your scenario, you need to make your scenario consistent with basic physics. You have a long laundry list of errors to work through, but you haven't made a start yet.
In addition to that, time dilation is measured by clocks, not by people. The LT is about what people observe, not about how clocks keep time. What the clock measures is in no way effected by what one observer perceives the other observer's velocity to be, or what they observe the velocity of the clocks to be.Find out what an "observer" is in physics. You might notice that your own "helpful" article refers to observers and observer time. It does so for a reason.
As explained above, it is only in the reference frame of the jumper that you can correctly measure his change in position over time.On the contrary, it is the only frame of reference in which the jumper will never move, and his change in position will always be 0m. This is because the jumper will never move relative to himself. He will not become more distant, nor less distant, from himself. You either don't understand what a frame of reference is, or what it means for something to "move". I assume the former.
You might find this helpful. And also note, that at no time is the reader instructed to “standardize” velocities.Of course. After all, it only uses one velocity - there is nothing to standardise, because an apporpriate FoR was already chosen for you. Care to guess what that singular velocity is in your scenario, and how you could define it?
https://www.toppr.com/guides/physics-formulas/time-dilation-formula/
Then, you need to define your FoR's, this time correctly; and understand that the velocity of someone standing on the Earth relative to the Earth will always be zero, because as long as they're standing there, they are not moving relative to the Earth. Similarly, their velocity relative to themselves will always be zero - if you do not understand that a body can't move away from itself, well, we've got more fundamental issues than relativity or mechanics to work thorugh.
But according to the LT, there should be about 22s of time dilation.Which Lorentz Transformation would that be? You're mixing up terms again.
Transforming the velocities makes the whole concept of time dilation moot. Shouldn’t exist in any significant way.You've cracked the case. In the scenario you specified, assuming either an observer standing on the Earth (jumper falling as in RET) or the observer being your jumper (Earth accelerating upwards), time dilation is a moot point! The two clocks would need to move at relativistic speeds relative to one another, but, in your scenario, they simply don't. You defined the scenario. Only you can fix it.
You've cracked the case. In the scenario you specified, assuming either an observer standing on the Earth (jumper falling as in RET) or the observer being your jumper (Earth accelerating upwards), time dilation is a moot point! The two clocks would need to move at relativistic speeds relative to one another, but, in your scenario, they simply don't. You defined the scenario. Only you can fix it.
Time dilation wouldn't exist at all even if two clocks are moving at relativistic speeds.Relative to what? I said nothing about two clocks moving. I specified the velocity of one relative to the other.
If both clocks are moving at .999, then their "transformed relative velocity" is -.999.Velocity is a vector, not a scalar, so your "transformation" doesn't make an ounce of sense.
If you use that number for time dilation formula, there is still no time dilation.Yes, if something is moving at just under 1km/s, as you showed in your screenshot, time dilation will indeed be imperceptible. This is because 0.999km/s is very small compared to relativistic speeds.
At the very limit of c, according to you, TD doesn't exist.You've "mistaken" 1km/s for c. You're off by a factor of 300,000, in true keeping with your previous gargantuan errors.
You've "mistaken" 1km/s for c. You're off by a factor of 300,000, in true keeping with your previous gargantuan errors.
In non-relativistic mechanics the velocities are simply added and the answer is that A is moving with a velocity w = u+v relative to C. But in special relativity the velocities must be combined using the formula
u + v
w = ---------
1 + uv/c2
This change in the velocity addition formula from the non-relativistic to the relativistic theory is not due to making measurements without taking into account light-travel times, or the Doppler effect. Rather, it is what is observed after such effects have been accounted for. It is an effect of special relativity which cannot be accounted for using newtonian mechanics.
To go from the reference frame of A to the reference frame of B, we must apply a Lorentz transformation on co-ordinates in the following way (taking the x-axis parallel to the direction of travel and the spacetime origins to coincide):Note that the required Lorentz transformations are already baked into the formula. No further transformations are necessary. This formula is for parallel velocities, but can be rearranged to calculate the relative velocity of objects moving in opposite directions.
xB = γ(v)( xA - v tA )
tB = γ(v)( tA - v/c2 xA )
γ(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v2/c2)
To go from the frame of B to the frame of C you must apply a similar transformation
xC = γ(u)( xB - u tB )
tC = γ(u)( tB - u/c2 xB )
These two transformations can be combined to give a transformation which simplifies to
xC = γ(w)( xA - w tA )
tC = γ(w)( tA - w/c2 xA)
u + v
w = ---------
1 + uv/c2
This gives the correct formula for combining parallel velocities in special relativity.
The formula can also be applied to velocities in opposite directions by simply changing signs of velocity values, or by rearranging the formula and solving for v. In other words, If B is moving with velocity u relative to C and A is moving with velocity w relative to C then the velocity of A relative to B is given bySo assigning A as the jumper, B as the earth and C as a stationary observer on the ground, the formula looks like this. (using the 200,000 km/s we started with)
w-u
v = ---------
1–wu/c2
You’re right. I miscalculated that.Yes. It's just one of many such "miscalculations", where you just completely ignored units and assumed they'd work out. The moment you fix all of these, your results will start making more sense. :)
I am beginning to suspect that misunderstand how relative velocity is calculated. To be fair, it’s not just you. There seems to be some misunderstanding for a lot people on this site, even those on the RE side. So maybe we need to go back to basics.Ah, another close brush with self-awareness! Let's just recall that you thoroughly documented your understanding of velocities in this thread, and that it contradicts your new findings. Don't get me wrong, it's good that you're learning, but you could be honest about it.
I think the explanation given on this site is as clear as I’ve seen. https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.htmlRight, but you're once again assuming relativistic speeds, because of your previous collossal errors. None of your examples to date necessitate any of this, and a classical mechanics approach will yield perfectly fine results. Sure, you can use the velocity addition formula (which I already referred you to - good job you've looked at it) if you really want. It'll make an immaterial difference to your calculations.
using the 200,000 km/s we started withUnfortunately, we can't use that. 200,000km/s is an absolutely ludicrous velocity for a jumper, measured relative to the Earth. Until you've corrected your previous errors - either by correcting the calculations that got you here or correctly defining your FoR's, we're stuck in the Nonsense Zone.
The relative velocity of the jumper and the earth is 200,000km/s. I am left to wonder why the jumper doesn't vaporize when he meets the earth.Because you defined an impossible scenario and decided to roll with it. This is exactly why you need to fix it. :)
I have no idea how you think the relative velocity should be calculated because you have never explicitly statedOf course I did! You're just not a particularly attentive reader. Observe!
That’s how you calculate relative velocity in relativityIt really, really, really isn't. What you're looking for is Lorentz transformations and the velocity addition formula. In this case, since the bodies aren't moving at relativistic speeds relative to each other, the Galilean approach will yield a very good estimate with much less effort.
I gather you think there is some other step somewhere in the process where LT needs to be calculated, but shown above, the LT is already accounted for in the relative velocity that is inputted into the time dilation calculator.You don't know what "LT" is. Find out.
But it doesn't really matter how you think the relative velocity should be calculated or what you think it should be.Ahhh, another brush with self-awareness! So blissful!
Figure it however you want. As long as it is consistent with relativistic speeds, there will always be some observed time dilation.Indeed. As soon as you find a scenario in which two bodies are moving at relativistic speeds relative to one another, you'll be able to meaningfully consider time dilation. It's just that, so far, you haven't. Furthermore, I propose you will not be able to come up with an earthly scenario in which the speeds would even remotely approach relativistic speeds, but I'm happy for you to try.
why an observer on the ground doesn't measure a fall time differently than a "falling observer"Because the falling observer's velocity relative to the Earth will generally not exceed their terminal velocity. For a human, that would be something to the tune of 200km/h, or roughly 0.0000002c
or why that difference doesn't increase over time if the earth is accelerating.It does, to a point. To answer the question of why they won't accelerate to the ridiculous speeds you really want, the answer is twofold:
At a constant acceleration of 9.81 m/s2 over a single year we'd approach a significant fraction of the speed of light.Right. So you've jumped into the middle of an in-depth discussion on relativity just to tell us you haven't read about UA, and that you don't understand the differences between classical mechanics and special relativity.
At a constant acceleration of 9.81 m/s2 over a single year we'd approach a significant fraction of the speed of light.Right. So you've jumped into the middle of an in-depth discussion on relativity just to tell us you haven't read about UA, and that you don't understand the differences between classical mechanics and special relativity.
Don't do that.
I'd be objecting to breaking the light barrier or something equally daft.Yes, while you stopped short of repeating the "breaking the light barrier" cliché, you did go for something equally daft - "approaching relativistic velocities" without even defining the FoR you're talking about. That's why you got told off.
So now that we have that out of the way perhaps you can explain how constant acceleration over any significant amount of time doesn't land you at a velocity where relativistic effects become horrifyingly obvious by way of being horrifyingly deadly.That's not how any of this works. You'll have to present a hypothetical observer from whose perspective the Earth would "land you" at relativistic velocities for us to even begin considering it. I will not "explain" why something you haven't defined hasn't been defined.
I'd be objecting to breaking the light barrier or something equally daft.Yes, while you stopped short of repeating the "breaking the light barrier" cliché, you did go for something equally daft - "approaching relativistic velocities" without even defining the FoR you're talking about. That's why you got told off.
So now that we have that out of the way perhaps you can explain how constant acceleration over any significant amount of time doesn't land you at a velocity where relativistic effects become horrifyingly obvious by way of being horrifyingly deadly.That's not how any of this works. You'll have to present a hypothetical observer from whose perspective the Earth would "land you" at relativistic velocities for us to even begin considering it. I will not "explain" why something you haven't defined hasn't been defined.
I thought that the FoR was obvious from the discussion of an accelerating Earth.Oh, thank the Lord! You wouldn't believe how often people get these completely wr-
One observer on Earth looking outward from horizon to zenith. The observer is accelerating at 9.81 m/s2 by virtue of being pushed along by the accelerating Earth as per UA. The observer is accelerating relative to the background starfield with both observer and starfield at v = 0 at t0. tnow being no less than 100 years after t0, the observer's vnow relative to the starfield should be "Oh. Oh dear.approachingrelativistic velocities". Somewhere north of 0.999 c by my back of the envelope calcs.
Honestly Pete, this is so basic I shouldn't have to explain.I agree, and I was honestly excited when you seemed to know your stuff, but, alas, you managed to cock it up.
The background starfield begins as stationary relative to usThis incorrect assumption is at the core of your misunderstanding. There is no magical "background" that's unaffected by UA; Universal Acceleration is... universal. So, for your FoR to make sense, you have to introduce a hypothetical observer. One that, from an Earthly perspective, has unprecedented energy that somehow allows it to defy the nature of our universe. You will have to prove the existence of such an object before we can discuss its relevancy, but if such an object exists and you can slap a time-measuring device on it, then, by all means, I agree, you'd measure significant time dilation there.
So, this is why reading about UA would have been helpful. Sure, hypothetically, an observer that's somehow not subject to UA would see the Earth zoom away at ludicrous speeds after a year of somehow not being affected by UA. However, the "U" in "UA" is a bit of an issue there.
This incorrect assumption is at the core of your misunderstanding. There is no magical "background" that's unaffected by UA; Universal Acceleration is... universal. So, for your FoR to make sense, you have to introduce a hypothetical observer. One that, from an Earthly perspective, has unprecedented energy that somehow allows it to defy the nature of our universe. You will have to prove the existence of such an object before we can discuss its relevancy, but if such an object exists and you can slap a time-measuring device on it, then, by all means, I agree, you'd measure significant time dilation there.
What saddens me particularly about your contribution here is that we just finished talking about why your observer isn't relevant. You said you've done your reading, but this turns out to have been untrue. You should have done so much better.
My incorrect assumption was that UA was supposed to work. If you accelerate everything universally and equally then it's indistinguishable from no effect whatsoever. If you and I and the Earth are all being accelerated at the same rate then the Earth doesn't exert any force at all, g = 0 m/s2, and we drift off into space. It's like being in a falling elevator.
My incorrect assumption was that UA was supposed to work. If you accelerate everything universally and equally then it's indistinguishable from no effect whatsoever. If you and I and the Earth are all being accelerated at the same rate then the Earth doesn't exert any force at all, g = 0 m/s2, and we drift off into space. It's like being in a falling elevator.
I think the deal with UA is that whatever U force that is pushing up everything is shielded by the Earth...Up to a certain altitude. So picture the force like the wind, pushing upward from below the Earth. The wind pushes upward past the edges of the flat Earth disk and then curls inward to continue to push everything upwards over the entirety of the flat Earth disk somewhere below all celestial objects. That way, the earth is pushed up, the celestial bodies are pushed up along with it, yet we on terra firma are not pushed up if our feet leave the ground. We are shielded from the wind, so to speak.
My incorrect assumption was that UA was supposed to work. If you accelerate everything universally and equally then it's indistinguishable from no effect whatsoever.You forget that motion is relative. The UA article, which you should have read, explains what this acceleration is relative to.
If you and I and the Earth are all being accelerated at the same rate then the Earth doesn't exert any force at all, g = 0 m/s2, and we drift off into space. It's like being in a falling elevator.Yes. Luckily, that's not what UA postulates.
Simpler to go with gravitation on a disk. You wouldn't even notice edge effects until you were well into the Antarctic rim.Ah, the classic RE'er approach. We're not looking for things that are "simple". We're looking for things which are true.
Hoyle had no problems getting his ground breaking work on stellar nucleosynthesis published (in 1956). But he simply did not make a good case for the steady state theory or that flu was carried on particles in space and came to earth via solar winds. Statements like Hoyle's are invariably from folks who did not get their favored items published.Dr. Edward Dowdye says that the medium of the Solar Corona bends light, not gravity. And the observations further away from the edge of the sun fails to match prediction.So what? Anyone can "say" anything. Did he publish anything on this in any peer reviewed journal? Not that I can find.
http://beyondmainstream.org/nasa-scientist-says-coronas-bend-light-not-gravity/
If you can show beyond reasonable doubt that the journals are unbiased I'll consider your argument.
See this quote:
"Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by a journal today, you will run against a paradigm and the editors will turn it down." -- Fred Hoyle, British Mathematician and Astronomer
Fred Hoyle thought that journals were biased and unwilling to publish certain topics.
I also don't see that any journal has refuted and contradicted him.Contradicted him on what, his opinion that journals are biased for not publishing his pet paper? It would be extremely unusual (at least) for the editors of a journal to accept a paper countering an (unpublished) opinion.
It really, really, really isn't. What you're looking for is Lorentz transformations and the velocity addition formula. In this case, since the bodies aren't moving at relativistic speeds relative to each other, the Galilean approach will yield a very good estimate with much less effort.
Indeed. As soon as you find a scenario in which two bodies are moving at relativistic speeds relative to one another, you'll be able to meaningfully consider time dilation. It's just that, so far, you haven't. Furthermore, I propose you will not be able to come up with an earthly scenario in which the speeds would even remotely approach relativistic speeds, but I'm happy for you to
Because the falling observer's velocity relative to the Earth will generally not exceed their terminal velocity. For a human, that would be something to the tune of 200km/h, or roughly 0.0000002c
John Norton has a really good explanation of it.You don't need to look for more explanations. We all get what you're saying - RE'ers and FE'ers alike. It's just that what you said is ludicrously wrong, and you won't be able to progress until you've fixed your errors.
I did. The earth is moving at a relativistic speed relative to our jumper.Just stating it isn't enough. You're starting with a false assumption, which is why your reasoning breaks down.
C= Stationary observerStationary relative to what?
Eventually he’s going to realize he keeps confounding relative velocity and relativistic speed, and/or that they can’t just be used interchangeably.Unlikely. He's been doing this for a very long time. He's actually done the whole "falling isn't a thing that happens, because time is the same as acceleration which is the same as velocity" schtick a few times before.
Stationary relative to what?
Put into words, the velocity of A with respect to C is equal to the velocity of A with respect to B plus the velocity of B with respect to C.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relmot.html
If I asked you what the relative velocity of two cars, one going 50mph and one going 30mph, would you ask me relative to what? I don’t think so because it is understood the 50mph and 30 mph are relative to the ground.I already addressed this argument (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10576.msg253963#msg253963) before you made it, and explained why you can't make this assumption during this discussion. If you simply paid attention, you'd save yourself a lot of futile typing.
To calculate the relative velocity of the cars, you use the velocity each car as measured (I) within their own reference frame(/i).This continues to be nonsense. A car is not moving relative to itself. This has been explained to you before - just repeating the error isn't going to progress you.
Go ahead and use it with whatever values you want.I already did. It's just that reasonable values are in the ballpark of hundreds of metres per second tops, and not 0.99c. Therein lies your tragic error.
Sorry, none of the bodies you specified are moving at anywhere close to c relative to any of them. It's great that you are now finally using the correct formula, but you can't just pull 0.99c out of your posterior and use it. You need to show your workings.
It is not close to c. It is approximately c away from c.
An observer standing on the surface of the Earth is moving at 0.99c with respect to the surface of the Earth while still just simply standing on the surface of the Earth? That's an amazing thing to say. I have to be missing something here
The .99 comes from your own admission that the velocity of the earth would be “approximately, away from c”Read what you wrote in quotation marks, and the quote you included immediately afterwards. They are not the same thing. I said "c away from c". c-c=0QuoteIt is not close to c. It is approximately c away from c.
I interpreted that to mean almost c, but not quite. If it means something else, please clarify.
Again, the whole discussion can be put to rest and you can very easily prove me wrong by providing the velocity that the ground would approach a jumper according to an external observer and providing justification for that number.I already did. At the time of the jumper leaving the chair, it would be 0. This is because they would (briefly) not be moving relative to the Earth, and consequently they would not be moving relative to any observer stood on the Earth. From that point onward, the jumper will accelerate over time until he reaches terminal velocity (or meets the ground).
whatever velocity the ground is moving as measured within it's own reference frameThis is still nonsense, no matter how many times you mindlessly repeat that phrase. Once again: the ground is not moving relative to itself. Measuring the velocity of anything relative to itself is a meaningless endeavour - you will always reach the answer of 0.
Velocity quite literally only has a definition as one body WITH RESPECT TO another body.Thanks for the insight. Can you please just answer a simple question?