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.


Messages - Pete Svarrior

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 321  Next >
41
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: December 29, 2021, 05:36:12 PM »

Alas, stupid voters are why [insert name of any democratic nation] is in decline.
To very differing extents. Surely you're not going to act as if the US was your average democracy?

42
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: December 29, 2021, 04:00:21 PM »
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.


I think the problem here is that you decided to read my comment as a personal insult or challenge. As a result, you rushed to reassert that you are righteous and just, and neglected to think that perhaps some basic knowledge of a subject would be helpful before you formed an opinion on it.

What I meant is only what I wrote, and nothing more: You've jumped into the middle of a discussion on UA without understanding what UA is, and you assumed a universal frame of reference which doesn't exist*. Don't do that.

If you feel insulted by your errors, try not to make them again.

* - n.b. I was wrong about this part, and I'm taking this opportunity to correct myself. I thought you simply assumed classical mechanics, but instead you chose to define a FoR that can't exist in UA, and which you could never hope to identify even if UA were false. A mistake "equally daft" to the one I suspected, but a distinct one still.

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.

Nonetheless, you are of course wrong about your gravitational model being workable. RE'ers commonly assume that this is what we propose (you're not the first person to make things up on the spot and assume that it's what we think), so pop-sci outlets did a good job at ripping it to shreds.

43
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: December 28, 2021, 09:44:04 PM »
The real poor choice of wording was the Democrats saying "vote for us and we'll get COVID under control". The fact that this was always impossible is not an excuse for them. On the contrary, it's something that should have informed voters' decisions in advance.

Alas, stupid voters are why America is in decline.

44
Because in reality mass does not exist in the natural observable world.
Ignoring the fact that this is complete nonsense for a second, mass isn't a vector at all. It's a scalar. So, coming back to your asserion - why do you think the vector is 2-dimensional?

You said it yourself: a zero-dimensional mass times a 2-dimensional vector. It's pretty clear nobody is asking about the mass (yet).

45
Well don't forget that we have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector
Sorry, what makes you think the vector is 2-dimensional?

46
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: December 27, 2021, 10:36:21 PM »
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 "approaching relativistic velocities". Somewhere north of 0.999 c by my back of the envelope calcs.
Oh. Oh dear.

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.

You can feasibly have an observer that's in relative proximity to the Earth, in which case they'll observe the Earth accelerating towards them together with the atmolayer until they reach terminal velocity. This will also not last anywhere near a year 100 years(?!), because falling is usually a rather temporary affair.

You can also have an observer that's outside of the Earth's area of influence, and thus affected by UA. From their perspective, the Earth is not accelerating.

Your hypothetical does make sense from a physics standpoint (a breath of fresh air, honestly), but it simply isn't very relevant to what's being discussed. It's like saying that if I somehow managed to propel myself to relativistic speeds relative to the Round Earth, I'd observe time dilation. Sure, I would. So what?

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.

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 us
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.

47
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: December 27, 2021, 06:38:01 PM »
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.

48
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: December 27, 2021, 04:51:42 PM »
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.

49
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: December 27, 2021, 11:18:54 AM »
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.html
Right, 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 with
Unfortunately, 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 stated
Of course I did! You're just not a particularly attentive reader. Observe!

That’s how you calculate relative velocity in relativity
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.

You already agreed with me that you're happy to use the velocity addition formula by linking to an (oversimplified) explanation of how to perform these calculations. As you can see, if you had simply paid attention, you'd have saved yourself a lot of time. ;)

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:
  • Drag - as the falling observer gains momentum relative to Earth, the air resistance increases in magnitude. Eventually, the two reach an equilibrium, and the falling observer ceases to accelerate.
  • Time - if you somehow eliminated drag from the equation, you'd still be stuck with the fact that "falling" is usually not sustained. In your scenario of someone jumping off a chair, we can safely assume this will not take longer than a few seconds. Let's say 1 second (wowee, that's a tall chair!) and let's assume an acceleration of 10m/s^2 for simplicity of calculations. Can you, the reader, figure out what the velocity of the falling observer will be just before they touch the ground? Can you compare that number to c?

50
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: December 25, 2021, 12:56:04 PM »
So where is it wrong?
China.

Why has no one ever noticed a problem with the distances?
Your premise is false. It's rather common knowledge.

51
Technology & Information / Re: I Hate Linux Distros
« on: December 25, 2021, 12:03:32 PM »
What kind of work are you looking for in the long term, Fortuna?

52
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: December 23, 2021, 08:02:24 PM »
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.

Also, what unit is that in? 0.999 what? Not that I'm foreshadowing anything hilarious here. Oh, wait...

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.

Do remember that I'm still giving you a chance to drop the transparent troll. Will you give it a go, or should we move on?

53
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: December 23, 2021, 09:37:51 AM »
You're still mixing up your FoR's. Yes, you desperately want to consider a scenario in which something is moving at 0.8c. As before, you forgot to define the observer, or the frame of reference in relation which said something is moving at 0.8c.

Clyde Frog hit the nail on the head a whole ago - you keep acting as if some objective FoR existed. It doesn't. That's the "relativity" part of "relativity".

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.

54
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Opportunity for Texas FEs
« on: December 22, 2021, 09:08:12 AM »
Similarly, FE wants to be considered equal or superior to basically the same people. The idea is to dismiss experts in favor of one's belief. Just like FE.
Do not shitpost in the upper. If you cannot discuss your disagreements like an adult, then do not discuss them at all. "Boo-hoo, FE is so terrible and I am so very smart" posts go in AR/CN.

Don't you think it would be a huge step forward to have FE in public schools?
As I just finished explaining, while you were too busy rambling about your perceived superiority to read, we're already "in public schools". I also just finished explaining how this may be a net negative. Perhaps once you've found it in your heart to read the post you're arguing against, we can continue?

55
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Opportunity for Texas FEs
« on: December 21, 2021, 03:34:14 PM »
Personally, I'm not sure what value this law brings to anyone. We already work with schools and other educational groups to help them discuss FE and better understand the world around them through critical inquiry. Over-regulating this through laws is only likely to result in a more forced, and ultimately worse, approach.

56
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: December 21, 2021, 02:46:36 PM »
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.

I'd suggest to begin with not using milliseconds as a unit of velocity, and instead deciding on one of the three units you've been using interchangeably.

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.

Finally, a few smaller issues, e.g. someone that jumps off a chair will not be falling for 5 minutes, and they will not be accelerating at break-neck ratios long past their terminal velocity.

Once you've done all that, we can plug the corrected numbers into the calculator you found online and which you don't understand to find out that the actual measured difference in time would be imperceptible, and, very importantly, identical to what would be measured under RET assumptions. Best of luck! :)

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.

And no, Lorentz Transformations aren't "about what people observe". You're just going to have to learn the basics of relativity before you can discuss it in any meaningful way.

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.
https://www.toppr.com/guides/physics-formulas/time-dilation-formula/
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?

57
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: December 21, 2021, 08:46:33 AM »
So far, I've encountered 2 active members on this forum. Both apparent zealots for Globe Earth.
What makes you think this forum would be exclusively populated by FE'ers? The whole point of a discussion forum is to have two sides for a discussion.

If you're looking for a FE echo chamber, Twitter is the way to go. Unfortunately, you'll only get the worst FE has to offer that way.

58
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The ISS - Who Should I believe?
« on: December 20, 2021, 10:05:31 PM »

... we have Flat Earth 2, Globetards 1.
Just FYI, using terms like that reduces your credibility more than it does those you intend to insult.
I agree, and I'd like to reinforce the fact that "no personal attacks" is rule 1 here. CathInfo, please tone it down.

59
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: December 20, 2021, 08:38:10 AM »
I asked what the relative velocity between the objects and the earth was at the time the jumper was hovering
Indeed. 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.

The fact that you don't know how to work with reference frames illustrates the harm of that approach, but hey, good enough for high school I guess.

In the case of many RE'ers here, it becomes crucial to ask the question, because they get confused by the existence of multiple FoR's. They do not undersrand what it means for the Earth to be accelerating with regard to a local inertial observer who's just left the Earth's surface. They're the type that concludes that such an acceleration is impossible because the Earth would approach the speed of light. In short, high school assumptions mean they default to the "outer space" scenario, and they don't know what to do with the fact that a FoR has been specified.

In your case, it becomes crucial to ask the question at every step, because your FoR's are a complete mess. Like, fucked beyond repair. You simultaneously act as if the Earth was accelerating and as if it wasn't, and the same goes for the jumper. You also imply the existence of a universal FoR, which will net you a Nobel prize as soon as you're ready to prove its existence. You're mixing your FoR's up constantly because you neglect to decide on what you're actually considering. It's the same problem as your units. You flip between mph, km/s, m/s, and milliseconds (for some reason) without adjusting the numbers when you do so. You also measure acceleration in units of velocity at times. The problem isn't that your argument is wrong - the problem is that you haven't even approached making a coherent argument. For all I know, you could just be spitting words out of GPT-3 and pasting them here.

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 them
Of 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 frame
Always, 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.

For example, in Clyde's scenario (which you failed to calculate, but hey ho), the jumper is falling at 10m/s relative to the Earth. However, if we took your approach, we'd be getting 0m/s-0m/s=0m/s. In fact, your approach would always lead to the same calculation, which makes it rather useless for anything that happens to be in motion.

That’s how you calculate relative velocity in relativity
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.

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.

60
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: December 19, 2021, 11:02:33 AM »
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.

He has a weird obsession with UA, but he really doesn't know how to tackle it. Nonsensical numbers with no explanation, meaningless units, and a complete lack of understanding of mechanics are all part of his MO.

My favourite of his arguments was about how spirit levels wouldn't work under UA. He did not know how spirit levels work, and thought that the reason the bubble moves is due to different gravitational forces being applied to each end if the tool isn't level. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15343.0

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 321  Next >