[mcraent]

well thinking the earth is going up with a acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 (what Flat earthers call universal acceleration) is just an assumption while we have a reason for that called gravity. that is why on the moon, mars or any other celestial body with a mass m we all have a different gravity constants g. and last but not least i hope you know what acceleration means, right. it is the increase of speed over a timeperiod. so 9.81m/s^2 means that the speed of the upwards moving earth would increase with 9,81 m/s per second(9.81m/s/s=9.81m/s^2 just to clearify). this would mean that since the beginning of the earth (or whatever flat earthers regard as the beginning of the earth) its speed would keep increasing to an infinitely fast speed what would never stop increasing. this speed would soon go faster then the speed of light which is the upperlimit of speed for anything that carries information(mass). so it just isnt possible that the earth moves up with with that acceleration.

[BigGuyWhoKills]

well thinking the earth is going up with a acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 (what Flat earthers call universal acceleration) is just an assumption while we have a reason for that called gravity. that is why on the moon, mars or any other celestial body with a mass m we all have a different gravity constants g. and last but not least i hope you know what acceleration means, right. it is the increase of speed over a timeperiod. so 9.81m/s^2 means that the speed of the upwards moving earth would increase with 9,81 m/s per second(9.81m/s/s=9.81m/s^2 just to clearify). this would mean that since the beginning of the earth (or whatever flat earthers regard as the beginning of the earth) its speed would keep increasing to an infinitely fast speed what would never stop increasing. this speed would soon go faster then the speed of light which is the upperlimit of speed for anything that carries information(mass). so it just isnt possible that the earth moves up with with that acceleration.

There are two few things wrong here.  In science, acceleration is defined as "the rate of change of velocity per unit of time".  So slowing down is technically acceleration.  So it turning.  Not terribly important for this example, but it's worth pointing out.

Next, using Einstein's special relativity, we conclude that as you approach the speed of light, it takes more and more force to achieve the same result.  Think of it like an asymptote: the closer you get to the speed of light, the more energy is required to get the same increase in speed.  So from a standstill, 9.8 m/s gains you 9.8 m/s for the first second, and slightly less the second second, even less the third second, and so on.  As you approach the speed of light, adding the same energy that used to give you 9.8 m/s might only gain you 1 femtometer per century.

So the FE UA does not break relativity.  You really ought to read the Wiki before posting.  I believe the UA to be total hogwash, but we are playing in their sandbox, and should play by their rules.

[mcraent]

First of all i know acceleration also is the term of slowing down but it was not relevant as you said. Secondly if you were right and the acceleration would hit an asymtote then the force exerted on our feet by the earth would also decease proportionally with the actual acceleration. So if the earth moved 1 femtometer in 1 century(numbers given by the first reply as example) viewing from an inertial point outside the earth, that would mean that the actual accaleration (1femtometer/1century^2) would  be as good as zero which would render us weightless. The actual acc. is what counts not the energy what is put into a unknown energy. Imagine this: you are standing in an elevator and there are no forces that exert a force on you so you are just floating around. Then the elevator starts to accelerate at a speed of 9.81 m/s^2. This would feel like if you were just on earth. But eventually you will reach the lightspeed and faster as that isnt possible so the elevator stops accelerating and you start to float again. This ofcourse doesnt work so you said that the accaleration would slow down. So the elevator keeps lowering its acc. In other words the floor exerts less force onto your feet which leads to having a lower weight and the constant g wouldnt be constant anymore but decreasing over time. So this concept of universal acceleration is simple not possible. I would also like to mention that the force you are talking about has to be something from the fourth or higher dimention because for example u cant push yourself with your arms while standing still. This is because off newtons law every reaction has an equal opposite reaction like you probably already knew. So the same is for the universe because the whole universe moves with the earth. This is just a conceptual little fact just as a brain experiment.

It is a long texts so i thank you for reading it.

[BigGuyWhoKills]

McRaent, in special relativity, you do not add velocities directly like you do with general relativity.  I am not a teacher, and this is a topic that I BARELY grasp.
 I think this will explain it better than I can.  You should only need to read the first section of that paper to get the gist of it.

[DocHolliday]

In fact, there is no essential reason why you could not continue accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 for a very long time. You would approach the speed of light but never go beyond it, according to Special Relativity, which has proven to be very real. You would feel the same acceleration today as people did four thousand (or 4 million depending on what science you believe) years ago.

Assuming there is anything outside of the Dome that FE's assume is our entire universe, that would be theoretically possible. What we are accelerating towards would be a huge question. On the other hand, if there is something outside the dome, then the amount of radiation impinging on the dome would be extraordinary at this point because even the tiniest particles could be striking it at near light speed, bombarding it or us with immense energy.

Of course, where we are accelerating too, and why create a disk that is constantly accelerating to create apparent gravity is a mystery. The entire UA theory causes more problems then it proposes to solve. Much easier to believe that Mass is causing a field which creates an apparent attraction between objects, which we call gravity. It's simpler and has been much easier to model and prove the existence of than UA. General Relativity (Gravitation) accurately predicts the movements of objects we see in the sky, so why create new theories that answer very little, and leaves more problems.

[timterroo]

Of course, where we are accelerating too, and why create a disk that is constantly accelerating to create apparent gravity is a mystery. The entire UA theory causes more problems then it proposes to solve. Much easier to believe that Mass is causing a field which creates an apparent attraction between objects, which we call gravity. It's simpler and has been much easier to model and prove the existence of than UA. General Relativity (Gravitation) accurately predicts the movements of objects we see in the sky, so why create new theories that answer very little, and leaves more problems.

The problem with gravity is that it doesn't allow an object the size of earth to be flat. Or if it did, there must be some other mass involved in the equation that prevents earth from being squeezed into a ball.

The other problem with gravity and flat earth is that the further you go from the center of mass, the stronger the gravitational pull; the force of gravity would increase and you would start feeling like you are walking up a hill that gets steeper and steeper the further you get from the center.

[QED]

First of all i know acceleration also is the term of slowing down but it was not relevant as you said. Secondly if you were right and the acceleration would hit an asymtote then the force exerted on our feet by the earth would also decease proportionally with the actual acceleration. So if the earth moved 1 femtometer in 1 century(numbers given by the first reply as example) viewing from an inertial point outside the earth, that would mean that the actual accaleration (1femtometer/1century^2) would  be as good as zero which would render us weightless. The actual acc. is what counts not the energy what is put into a unknown energy. Imagine this: you are standing in an elevator and there are no forces that exert a force on you so you are just floating around. Then the elevator starts to accelerate at a speed of 9.81 m/s^2. This would feel like if you were just on earth. But eventually you will reach the lightspeed and faster as that isnt possible so the elevator stops accelerating and you start to float again. This ofcourse doesnt work so you said that the accaleration would slow down. So the elevator keeps lowering its acc. In other words the floor exerts less force onto your feet which leads to having a lower weight and the constant g wouldnt be constant anymore but decreasing over time. So this concept of universal acceleration is simple not possible. I would also like to mention that the force you are talking about has to be something from the fourth or higher dimention because for example u cant push yourself with your arms while standing still. This is because off newtons law every reaction has an equal opposite reaction like you probably already knew. So the same is for the universe because the whole universe moves with the earth. This is just a conceptual little fact just as a brain experiment.

It is a long texts so i thank you for reading it.

This is almost exactly correct. You have clearly taken physics courses. The acceleration would have to continuously increase in order for us to feel the same weight. The amount it would need to increase is prohibitive -- the energy needed to maintain the acceleration approaches infinity.

What is remarkable is recognizing that WE would have that energy too! We are, after all, moving at incredible speed in the UA model. At such high energies, it would not be possible for atoms to stay unionized. Our bodies would literally disintegrate into elementary particles.

The UA model is a spectacular failure, and FEers need a new one to champion.

[juner]

First of all i know acceleration also is the term of slowing down but it was not relevant as you said. Secondly if you were right and the acceleration would hit an asymtote then the force exerted on our feet by the earth would also decease proportionally with the actual acceleration. So if the earth moved 1 femtometer in 1 century(numbers given by the first reply as example) viewing from an inertial point outside the earth, that would mean that the actual accaleration (1femtometer/1century^2) would  be as good as zero which would render us weightless. The actual acc. is what counts not the energy what is put into a unknown energy. Imagine this: you are standing in an elevator and there are no forces that exert a force on you so you are just floating around. Then the elevator starts to accelerate at a speed of 9.81 m/s^2. This would feel like if you were just on earth. But eventually you will reach the lightspeed and faster as that isnt possible so the elevator stops accelerating and you start to float again. This ofcourse doesnt work so you said that the accaleration would slow down. So the elevator keeps lowering its acc. In other words the floor exerts less force onto your feet which leads to having a lower weight and the constant g wouldnt be constant anymore but decreasing over time. So this concept of universal acceleration is simple not possible. I would also like to mention that the force you are talking about has to be something from the fourth or higher dimention because for example u cant push yourself with your arms while standing still. This is because off newtons law every reaction has an equal opposite reaction like you probably already knew. So the same is for the universe because the whole universe moves with the earth. This is just a conceptual little fact just as a brain experiment.

It is a long texts so i thank you for reading it.

This is almost exactly correct. You have clearly taken physics courses. The acceleration would have to continuously increase in order for us to feel the same weight. The amount it would need to increase is prohibitive -- the energy needed to maintain the acceleration approaches infinity.

What is remarkable is recognizing that WE would have that energy too! We are, after all, moving at incredible speed in the UA model. At such high energies, it would not be possible for atoms to stay unionized. Our bodies would literally disintegrate into elementary particles.

The UA model is a spectacular failure, and FEers need a new one to champion.

Just wait until you learn about coordinate acceleration, and then realize what is wrong with your post. It will blow your mind.

[Rushy]

The acceleration would have to continuously increase in order for us to feel the same weight.

Uhh, no. Weight is a linear function of acceleration. Increasing your acceleration would simply increase your weight. Weight is just a force, and F = ma. Therefore, increasing the acceleration while keeping your mass the same increases the force. You learn this in primary school science courses, it's not even a physics-specific idea. No need to bring up relativity when you don't even understand classical mechanics.

The amount it would need to increase is prohibitive -- the energy needed to maintain the acceleration approaches infinity.

What is remarkable is recognizing that WE would have that energy too! We are, after all, moving at incredible speed in the UA model. At such high energies, it would not be possible for atoms to stay unionized. Our bodies would literally disintegrate into elementary particles.

The UA model is a spectacular failure, and FEers need a new one to champion.

This is very interesting. Do you have any examples of what happens to a person, or any large object really, when accelerated when close to the speed of light? I'm not aware of any close-to-light experiments that don't involve just a few particles at a time.

[QED]

The acceleration would have to continuously increase in order for us to feel the same weight.

Uhh, no. Weight is a linear function of acceleration. Increasing your acceleration would simply increase your weight. Weight is just a force, and F = ma. Therefore, increasing the acceleration while keeping your mass the same increases the force. You learn this in primary school science courses, it's not even a physics-specific idea. No need to bring up relativity when you don't even understand classical mechanics.

The amount it would need to increase is prohibitive -- the energy needed to maintain the acceleration approaches infinity.

What is remarkable is recognizing that WE would have that energy too! We are, after all, moving at incredible speed in the UA model. At such high energies, it would not be possible for atoms to stay unionized. Our bodies would literally disintegrate into elementary particles.

The UA model is a spectacular failure, and FEers need a new one to champion.

This is very interesting. Do you have any examples of what happens to a person, or any large object really, when accelerated when close to the speed of light? I'm not aware of any close-to-light experiments that don't involve just a few particles at a time.

Thank you for your reply. Weight is NOT a linear function of acceleration. It approximates this behavior in the limit that the speed is small compared to the speed of light. The actual formula is:

F=\gamma*m*a, where \gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is the Lorentz factor. If you expand this relation in a taylor series, you will see that when v<<c, F /approx_equal ma.

However, when we approach the speed of light, this is not the case. We are now in the regime of special relativity. And the high school physics we learned is no longer an accurate description of reality.

Finally, we actually DO have examples of Lorentz contraction using macroscopic objects. Using very precise, synchronized clocks, we have been able to accelerate one of the pair for an extended period of time and observe that the time dilation accords with Einstein's formulas.

Edit: accidentally modded this post instead of replying my bad

[QED]

First of all i know acceleration also is the term of slowing down but it was not relevant as you said. Secondly if you were right and the acceleration would hit an asymtote then the force exerted on our feet by the earth would also decease proportionally with the actual acceleration. So if the earth moved 1 femtometer in 1 century(numbers given by the first reply as example) viewing from an inertial point outside the earth, that would mean that the actual accaleration (1femtometer/1century^2) would  be as good as zero which would render us weightless. The actual acc. is what counts not the energy what is put into a unknown energy. Imagine this: you are standing in an elevator and there are no forces that exert a force on you so you are just floating around. Then the elevator starts to accelerate at a speed of 9.81 m/s^2. This would feel like if you were just on earth. But eventually you will reach the lightspeed and faster as that isnt possible so the elevator stops accelerating and you start to float again. This ofcourse doesnt work so you said that the accaleration would slow down. So the elevator keeps lowering its acc. In other words the floor exerts less force onto your feet which leads to having a lower weight and the constant g wouldnt be constant anymore but decreasing over time. So this concept of universal acceleration is simple not possible. I would also like to mention that the force you are talking about has to be something from the fourth or higher dimention because for example u cant push yourself with your arms while standing still. This is because off newtons law every reaction has an equal opposite reaction like you probably already knew. So the same is for the universe because the whole universe moves with the earth. This is just a conceptual little fact just as a brain experiment.

It is a long texts so i thank you for reading it.

This is almost exactly correct. You have clearly taken physics courses. The acceleration would have to continuously increase in order for us to feel the same weight. The amount it would need to increase is prohibitive -- the energy needed to maintain the acceleration approaches infinity.

What is remarkable is recognizing that WE would have that energy too! We are, after all, moving at incredible speed in the UA model. At such high energies, it would not be possible for atoms to stay unionized. Our bodies would literally disintegrate into elementary particles.

The UA model is a spectacular failure, and FEers need a new one to champion.

Just wait until you learn about coordinate acceleration, and then realize what is wrong with your post. It will blow your mind.

Dear Junker,

It seems as though you have simply said: "you are wrong because I said so," without supplying any evidence for this claim. According to Pete, this is against forum rules, and I wonder if equitable treatment is applied to moderators.

Do educate me on coordinate acceleration, at your convenience. I am happy to learn new things, and you have the benefit of speaking to a professional physicist. Which means you don't have to pull any punches. Gimme the full treatment, I am excited to learn about coordinate acceleration.

[Pete Svarrior]

No, he hasn't. He told you exactly what you're missing. Your concern trolling is extremely transparent, and trying to game the system rarely pays off. It's time to start behaving like an adult. Second warning.

[QED]

No, he hasn't. He told you exactly what you're missing. Your concern trolling is extremely transparent, and trying to game the system rarely pays off. It's time to start behaving like an adult. Second warning.

Not really. He only named a term, this "coordinate acceleration," but gave no indication of what it is or how it might be relevant. He suggested that knowledge of it will "blow my mind" without offering any details or context. It is a low content post which does not propel the conversation forward.

I do look forward to a robust discussion with Junker about this coordinate acceleration, which is a term sometimes used in general relativity circles. You see, we can discuss dynamic properties of spacetime in a fashion that is independent of coordinates. To achieve this, we use collections of covariant derivatives in mathematical objects called Christoffel symbols.

Unfortunately for Junker's claim, this is entirely irrelevant to the present discussion. The reason is because in the low-field limit there is no difference in the result you would obtain. That is, general relativity is commensurate with Minkowski metrics in conditions experienced on Earth.

It is odd to observe that one cannot even develop an understanding of coordinate acceleration without first assuming gravitation. Hence, it is quite suspicious that Junker would even suggest it in a discussion where he purposes to replace gravity with a new idea.

So you see, Pete, I am quite familiar with these things, and am not "missing" anything. And I enjoy engaging in these discussions in an adult-like fashion, but am not familiar with the term "concern trolling."

[juner]

It is odd to observe that one cannot even develop an understanding of coordinate acceleration without first assuming gravitation.

Who doesn't assume gravitation?

[HorstFue]

This is almost exactly correct. You have clearly taken physics courses. The acceleration would have to continuously increase in order for us to feel the same weight. The amount it would need to increase is prohibitive -- the energy needed to maintain the acceleration approaches infinity.

As far as I remember from my physic lessons, Relativity goes this way, that an observer in the same reference system as the 'accelerating' earth, would see no difference due to the actual speed, this reference system is moving. So also no change in acceleration; no ionized atoms; no infinite weight.
Only an external observer would see the acceleration decreasing, or nearly stopping; Or the other way round, would see more and more energy needed to sustain the same acceleration.

[HorstFue]

What is remarkable is recognizing that WE would have that energy too! We are, after all, moving at incredible speed in the UA model. At such high energies, it would not be possible for atoms to stay unionized. Our bodies would literally disintegrate into elementary particles.

I don't think that people in a spaceship running near light speed should disintegrate, provided the spaceship has a good shielding. But I see another question here:
What about the 'space' around "accelerating earth"?
Is it empty? Is it really empty? Not a single atom, not even a small photon emitted by background radiation?
At that speed "accelerating earth" must have obtained meanwhile, a single atom in the course of earth could have an impact like an atom bomb. The frequency of a photon emitted by background radiation could be shifted to ultra hard X-rays.

[HorstFue]

Artificial gravity:
I don't know, why in UA earth has to accelerate always linear, thus giving the problem, that now the speed must be something like 99.99999999999999999.....99999 of light speed.
A perpendicular force could also be generated by centrifugal forces, as this is proposed for space flights, using a rotating wheel. You could also just have 2 masses, the spacecraft and a counterbalance mass connected by a wire, rotating around each other.
Yes, there (on small scale) would be measurable effects like Coriolis. But if you choose a big enough radius, some million miles, maybe these effects can be neglected.

Or even better: The force now needed to accelerate earth linear, could be used to keep earth on a curved track, creating this centrifugal force.

[Rushy]

Thank you for your reply. Weight is NOT a linear function of acceleration. It approximates this behavior in the limit that the speed is small compared to the speed of light. The actual formula is:

F=\gamma*m*a, where \gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is the Lorentz factor. If you expand this relation in a taylor series, you will see that when v<<c, F /approx_equal ma.

However, when we approach the speed of light, this is not the case. We are now in the regime of special relativity. And the high school physics we learned is no longer an accurate description of reality.

Finally, we actually DO have examples of Lorentz contraction using macroscopic objects. Using very precise, synchronized clocks, we have been able to accelerate one of the pair for an extended period of time and observe that the time dilation accords with Einstein's formulas.

Weight is a linear function. You're confusing relativistic physics in regards to mass with how weight works. Relativistic mass theoretically changes as you approach the speed of light (this has never been confirmed with very large objects, e.g. something the size of earth). The reason F=ma changes into a more complex formula is because the mass is changing in a very strange way in regards to its velocity. This has nothing to do with how forces are measured. Force is always a linear function of mass and weight.

[QED]

Thank you for your reply. Weight is NOT a linear function of acceleration. It approximates this behavior in the limit that the speed is small compared to the speed of light. The actual formula is:

F=\gamma*m*a, where \gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is the Lorentz factor. If you expand this relation in a taylor series, you will see that when v<<c, F /approx_equal ma.

However, when we approach the speed of light, this is not the case. We are now in the regime of special relativity. And the high school physics we learned is no longer an accurate description of reality.

Finally, we actually DO have examples of Lorentz contraction using macroscopic objects. Using very precise, synchronized clocks, we have been able to accelerate one of the pair for an extended period of time and observe that the time dilation accords with Einstein's formulas.

Weight is a linear function. You're confusing relativistic physics in regards to mass with how weight works. Relativistic mass theoretically changes as you approach the speed of light (this has never been confirmed with very large objects, e.g. something the size of earth). The reason F=ma changes into a more complex formula is because the mass is changing in a very strange way in regards to its velocity. This has nothing to do with how forces are measured. Force is always a linear function of mass and weight.

There is no confusion. Relativistic physics is correct, and in the limit that v<<c, we recover Newtonian Mechanics. "The reason F=ma changes into a more complex formula" is backwards. The correct formula is the one I described. The the limit of slow speeds, a taylor expansion will result in the F=ma formula with corrections that are small. This is precisely what force is and it is what we would measure. Force is NEVER a linear function of acceleration and mass, but when the speed is small f=ma is a reasonable approximation.

[Pete Svarrior]

So you see, Pete, I am quite familiar with these things, and am not "missing" anything. And I enjoy engaging in these discussions in an adult-like fashion, but am not familiar with the term "concern trolling."

Third warning - there won't be a fourth. Stop derailing threads. Read the rules. If you don't know what a word means, Google it.