The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Snoopy on July 13, 2019, 01:47:27 AM
-
Assume a 100 lb person
Case 1 Ascending 8 ft/sec^2
2 Ascending stopping decel same
3 Descending same
4 Descending stopping decel same
All accel decel times 2.5 sec
Person is standing on a scale
Case 1 the scale reads 125 lbs while accel
2 75 lbs
3 75 lbs
4 125 lbs
Correct?
Does the persons density (mass/volume) change?
What causes the changes in weight?
What does the scale read after 2.5 sec at constant speed of ~20 ft/sec?
-
Your calculations are correct, but your subsequent questions need some explanation. I'll base my answer on standard Round Earth physics. FEers can give their own explanation if they want.
You need to remember that mass and weight are not the same. Mass is something that is inherent to an object. Weight is a force, which depends on both mass and acceleration, with F=ma (Newton's second law).
On the surface of the earth, where the gravitational acceleration is about 9.8m/s2 the "weight" of an object is the same as its mass, i.e. a person with a mass of 100 kg will weigh 100 kg. However, on the moon, where the gravitational acceleration is 1.6 m/s2 they would weigh only 16.3 kg. To avoid the confusion of having kg (or lb) used for both mass and force, in the SI metric system kg is the unit of mass, but force is measured in Newtons (N). 1 N is the force needed to accelerate 1 kg with 1 m/s2. Hence a person with a mass of 100 kg will have a weight of 9800 N on earth, but 1600 N on the moon.
Because the imperial system does not distinguish between mass and weight, I felt I had to give the above explanation in metric units. If you do want talk in imperial units, multiply every instance of kg in the above paragraph by 0.454 and multiply every m by 0.305 to convert to ft.
Now for your questions.
1. No, the person's density does not change, because neither their mass nor their volume changes.
2. As explained above, a change in weight is not the same as a change in mass. In this case it is simply the acceleration that changes the weight, while the mass stays constant.
3. When going at constant speed there is no acceleration. Hence on earth the scale will read 100. On the moon the same scale will only read 16.3
Trivial fact: there used to be a minor difference (about 1/63000) between the British and US inch. That was finally sorted out when both countries agreed that one inch is exactly 25.4 mm. In other words, they agreed on a metric definition of the inch!
-
Mass is a quantity of matter
Weight W is a force, in this case generated by gravity
F (lbf) = m x a
Mass m in this case = W (lb)/g in slugs
And a = g ~32 ft/sec^2
g cancels so F = W
My point is density can't explain this phenomenon.
-
Mass is a quantity of matter
Weight W is a force, in this case generated by gravity
F (lbf) = m x a
Mass m in this case = W (lb)/g in slugs
And a = g ~32 ft/sec^2
g cancels so F = W
My point is density can't explain this phenomenon.
You start by saying weight is a force, and end up stating weight is a force (W=F). Obviously.
Where does density come into the equation? The weight changes because the acceleration changes. When you are accelerating in earth's gravity field, your acceleration is added to the gravitational acceleration of the earth. That has nothing to do with density. Your error is where you say a=g. That is only true if you are not accelerating. When you are accelerating with an acceleration of x, the equation becomes a=g+x.
-
My point is density can't explain this phenomenon.
You're in the wrong place for this. Practically nobody here believes that density is a suitable explanation for the sensation of gravity. This is also why our other newcomer friend has no idea what you're talking about.
I'd recommend that you familiarise yourself with the basics, starting with the FAQ and Wiki, as originally advised in READ BEFORE POSTING: Welcome to Flat Earth Theory! (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10088.0)
-
Mass is a quantity of matter
Weight W is a force, in this case generated by gravity
F (lbf) = m x a
Mass m in this case = W (lb)/g in slugs
And a = g ~32 ft/sec^2
g cancels so F = W
My point is density can't explain this phenomenon.
You start by saying weight is a force, and end up stating weight is a force (W=F). Obviously.
Where does density come into the equation? The weight changes because the acceleration changes. When you are accelerating in earth's gravity field, your acceleration is added to the gravitational acceleration of the earth. That has nothing to do with density. Your error is where you say a=g. That is only true if you are not accelerating. When you are accelerating with an acceleration of x, the equation becomes a=g+x.
You are stating the obvious
You are mistaken and misunderstand the point
Density has nothing to do with it
-
My point is density can't explain this phenomenon.
You're in the wrong place for this. Practically nobody here believes that density is a suitable explanation for the sensation of gravity. This is also why our other newcomer friend has no idea what you're talking about.
I'd recommend that you familiarise yourself with the basics, starting with the FAQ and Wiki, as originally advised in READ BEFORE POSTING: Welcome to Flat Earth Theory! (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10088.0)
So what do you attribute g to?
Can't be the fe's mass or it would be non-uniform over its surface.
Is it the earth being accelerated towards another much larger mass? Or just accelerating thru a gravity field? Or the earth is stationary and the field is moving over the earth?
Curious
-
I'd recommend that you familiarise yourself with the basics, starting with the FAQ and Wiki, as originally advised in READ BEFORE POSTING: Welcome to Flat Earth Theory! (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10088.0)
-
So the earth is accelerating, thanks
At 32.2 ft/sec^2 it would be traveling at c (speed of light) in 353 days.
In the last 100 years 100c
-
So the earth is accelerating, thanks
At 32.2 ft/sec^2 it would be traveling at c (speed of light) in 353 days.
In the last 100 years 100c
The standard model of Special Relativity allows for continual acceleration without reaching c. Frames of reference and lack of absolute coordinates.
If we discard SR due to experimental evidence which seems to contradict it, then there is no speed limit.
It's not really a problem either way.
-
So the earth is accelerating, thanks
At 32.2 ft/sec^2 it would be traveling at c (speed of light) in 353 days.
In the last 100 years 100c
You realise that this is literally the next question in the FAQ, right?
-
So the earth is accelerating, thanks
At 32.2 ft/sec^2 it would be traveling at c (speed of light) in 353 days.
In the last 100 years 100c
The standard model of Special Relativity allows for continual acceleration without reaching c. Frames of reference and lack of absolute coordinates.
If we discard SR due to experimental evidence which seems to contradict it, then there is no speed limit.
It's not really a problem either way.
If v can't exceed c then a must approach 0, no gravity
If it can we would be traveling age of earth in years x c
v = a t
t is increasing
v = c
a = constant 32.2
So at t = 353 days a must go to 0 for v to be limited to c
No gravity is a problem
Conservation of momentum
If v is limitless, ie limit to infinity and
p = m v
Mass limit goes to 0 for p to be constant
Or the rest of the system must lose p
On top of that kinetic energy
E = 1/2 m v^2 would increase faster
It would consume all energy in the universe or creat some lol
Both cases are a problem
-
This raises more ???'s
What is the source of the force attracting (repelling) the earth?
If we get closer (further) does it change? Will we hit the source?
How far away is it?
If earth limited to v = c and we shine a flashlight up why does it work?
The light beam must be > c!?
This proves c is not the limit!
So therefore a (g in this case) has propelled us to 5000 x c in the last 5000 years
93e7 or 0.93 billion miles/sec
3.35 trillion mph
-
One argument used to dismiss the earth orbiting the sun is that it is ridiculous to assume the earth is moving ~18.4 mi/sec
But it is plausible for it to be hurtling 'upwards' at c (or 1000's x c)?
-
But it is plausible for it to be hurtling 'upwards' at c (or 1000's x c)?
It was already explained to you that this is not even remotely the case. Read up on Special Relativity.
-
But it is plausible for it to be hurtling 'upwards' at c (or 1000's x c)?
It was already explained to you that this is not even remotely the case. Read up on Special Relativity.
Regardless of the actual velocity, UA theory says that the some mysterious force has been actively accelerating the flat earth upwards for a very, very long time. How is that more plausible than the more or less a passive phenomenon commonly referred to as gravity?
-
Regardless of the actual velocity, UA theory says that the some mysterious force has been actively accelerating the flat earth upwards for a very, very long time. How is that more plausible than the more or less a passive phenomenon commonly referred to as gravity?
Presumably you mean gravitation; in which case UA is a superior possibility because it doesn't share gravitation's inconsistency with observed reality.
-
Regardless of the actual velocity, UA theory says that the some mysterious force has been actively accelerating the flat earth upwards for a very, very long time. How is that more plausible than the more or less a passive phenomenon commonly referred to as gravity?
Presumably you mean gravitation; in which case UA is a superior possibility because it doesn't share gravitation's inconsistency with observed reality.
Please elaborate. To which "inconsistency with observed reality" are you referring? Are you suggesting that UA doesn't have its own "inconsistency with observed reality"?
-
Please elaborate. To which "inconsistency with observed reality" are you referring?
You and I have had this discussion many times before. I see no reason to repeat myself if you're not even going to bother trying to remember.
-
Please elaborate. To which "inconsistency with observed reality" are you referring?
You and I have had this discussion many times before. I see no reason to repeat myself if you're not even going to bother trying to remember.
Just because we may or may not have had this discussion before, that doesn't necessarily mean that I ever got a satisfactory answer out of you.
-
Just because we may or may not have had this discussion before, that doesn't necessarily mean that I ever got a satisfactory answer out of you.
Indeed. Now, please do stay on topic and take your amateurish trolling attempts to the lower echelons.
-
But it is plausible for it to be hurtling 'upwards' at c (or 1000's x c)?
It was already explained to you that this is not even remotely the case. Read up on Special Relativity.
I have had grad level physics courses in relativity. If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days. The earth is older.
So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.
You need to get educated on basic Newtonian mechanics
-
I have had grad level physics courses in relativity.
Doubtful.
If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days.
No, you would not.
So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.
No.
Anyway, with SR you can accelerate constantly forever and never reach c (you will asymptotically approach c). I am not sure why you would invoke Newtonian mechanics for this. Someone with grad-level knowledge of relativity would certainly understand.
-
I have had grad level physics courses in relativity.
Doubtful.
If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days.
No, you would not.
So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.
No.
Anyway, with SR you can accelerate constantly forever and never reach c (you will asymptotically approach c). I am not sure why you would invoke Newtonian mechanics for this. Someone with grad-level knowledge of relativity would certainly understand.
You doubt the globe earth, so not a good arbitrator of physics knowledge.
32.17 ft/sec^2 x 365 days/yr x 24 hrs/day x 60 min/hr x 60 sec/min / 5280 ft/mile = 192e3 mile/sec
So 353/365 x 192e3 ~ 186e3 ~ c
The earths mass and all on it would approach infinity and dimensions would approach 0
That is not happening
Lorenz
-
Just because we may or may not have had this discussion before, that doesn't necessarily mean that I ever got a satisfactory answer out of you.
Indeed. Now, please do stay on topic and take your amateurish trolling attempts to the lower echelons.
Sure thing Pete.
Would anyone else care to explain why an active upwards acceleration lasting for many, many years should be more plausible than a relatively passive phenomenon like gravity/gravitation?
-
You doubt the globe earth, so not a good arbitrator of physics knowledge.
Says the person with grad-level physics knowledge who doesn't know how to apply SR...
32.17 ft/sec^2 x 365 days/yr x 24 hrs/day x 60 min/hr x 60 sec/min / 5280 ft/mile = 192e3 mile/sec
So 353/365 x 192e3 ~ 186e3 ~ c
Excellent, you can do basic arithmetic. Did you have another point to make?
The earths mass and all on it would approach infinity and dimensions would approach 0
That is not happening
Lorenz
At least you are somewhat giving it a try here. Very lazily, but a try nonetheless.
-
Just because we may or may not have had this discussion before, that doesn't necessarily mean that I ever got a satisfactory answer out of you.
Indeed. Now, please do stay on topic and take your amateurish trolling attempts to the lower echelons.
Sure thing Pete.
Would anyone else care to explain why an active upwards acceleration lasting for many, many years should be more plausible than a relatively passive phenomenon like gravity/gravitation?
Why would an infinite upward acceleration be any less plausible than an infinite inward acceleration? Both seem to be active rather than passive.
-
I have had grad level physics courses in relativity.
Doubtful.
If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days.
No, you would not.
So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.
No.
Anyway, with SR you can accelerate constantly forever and never reach c (you will asymptotically approach c). I am not sure why you would invoke Newtonian mechanics for this. Someone with grad-level knowledge of relativity would certainly understand.
You doubt the globe earth, so not a good arbitrator of physics knowledge.
32.17 ft/sec^2 x 365 days/yr x 24 hrs/day x 60 min/hr x 60 sec/min / 5280 ft/mile = 192e3 mile/sec
So 353/365 x 192e3 ~ 186e3 ~ c
The earths mass and all on it would approach infinity and dimensions would approach 0
That is not happening
Lorenz
A super basic question. If you're accelerating upward at 32.17 ft/sec^2, as a constant, am I not just simply driving down a highway at, say, 55 mph, steady as she goes, 55 mph, and never, I guess, exponentially accumulating speed? After 2000 miles at a constant 55 mph I was never doing more than 55 mph. Isn't UA the same thing? The earth is moving up at a constant, but not accumulating compounding velocity? Again, super basic question.
-
Why would an infinite upward acceleration be any less plausible than an infinite inward acceleration? Both seem to be active rather than passive.
Well, for one thing, upwards acceleration requires a nigh infinite energy source. Where is the source of that all that energy? Does the distance squared rule apply? On the other hand, warping space-time is an innate property of matter and energy.
For another thing, acceleration implies that the FE and the accompanying visible universe is going somewhere. Where is the FE universe going and what will happen when it gets there?
-
On the other hand, warping space-time is an innate property of matter and energy.
That seems like a convenient way to avoid explaining how gravity gets to be an infinite attractive 'force (acceleration).
For another thing, acceleration implies that the FE and the accompanying visible universe is going somewhere. Where is the FE universe going and what will happen when it gets there?
I fail to see that implication.
-
On the other hand, warping space-time is an innate property of matter and energy.
That seems like a convenient way to avoid explaining how gravity gets to be an infinite attractive 'force (acceleration).
As opposed to just ignoring the source of the UA?
BTW, according to Einstein, gravity/gravitation is not a force. It's simply the natural movement of an object through warped space-time.
For another thing, acceleration implies that the FE and the accompanying visible universe is going somewhere. Where is the FE universe going and what will happen when it gets there?
I fail to see that implication.
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. Velocity is speed in a direction. Speed is the rate of change of distance per unit time. If the FE is accelerating upwards, then it must be moving upwards. Again, where is the FE universe going is such a hurry?
-
As opposed to just ignoring the source of the UA?
I am not trying to do that. It needs to be addressed as well. I was simply responding to your question regarding the plausibility of gravity because you asked someone to. I certainly don't have all the answers.
BTW, according to Einstein, gravity/gravitation is not a force. It's simply the natural movement of an object through warped space-time.
Yes, I know/agree. I meant to type the word in quotes for context or to imply a psuedo-force, but I see it made things more confusing.
For another thing, acceleration implies that the FE and the accompanying visible universe is going somewhere. Where is the FE universe going and what will happen when it gets there?
I fail to see that implication.
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. Velocity is speed in a direction. Speed is the rate of change of distance per unit time. If the FE is accelerating upwards, then it must be moving upwards. Again, where is the FE universe going is such a hurry?
[/quote]
Yes, and I am not disagreeing. I am just failing to see the implication that there is any sort of destination to reach.
-
Please elaborate. To which "inconsistency with observed reality" are you referring?
You and I have had this discussion many times before. I see no reason to repeat myself if you're not even going to bother trying to remember.
For the sake of readers who haven't had this discussion with you, could you at the very least copy/paste your response to this? I'm curious too in relation to this thread.
-
You doubt the globe earth, so not a good arbitrator of physics knowledge.
Says the person with grad-level physics knowledge who doesn't know how to apply SR...
32.17 ft/sec^2 x 365 days/yr x 24 hrs/day x 60 min/hr x 60 sec/min / 5280 ft/mile = 192e3 mile/sec
So 353/365 x 192e3 ~ 186e3 ~ c
Excellent, you can do basic arithmetic. Did you have another point to make?
The earths mass and all on it would approach infinity and dimensions would approach 0
That is not happening
Lorenz
At least you are somewhat giving it a try here. Very lazily, but a try nonetheless.
Says the flat earther
It's more than you can do
100 yrs at 1 g
V = 0.999999999999999999+ c
Mass x billions
Size / billions
Density bil x bil
Yes, the earth is travel~ c and not 18 mi/sec
Lol
-
Says the flat earther
It's more than you can do
100 yrs at 1 g
V = 0.999999999999999999+ c
Mass x billions
Size / billions
Density bil x bil
Yes, the earth is travel~ c and not 18 mi/sec
Lol
You are going to have to attempt coherent sentences if you want anyone to talk to you. I get that you don't understand the topic, but spattering gibberish is rather lazy. I won't warn you for low-content since I was attempting to engage with you, but this is very much lazy and low-effort posting.
-
I have had grad level physics courses in relativity. If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days. The earth is older.
So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.
Oh dear god. Were you asleep? Did you accidentally attend biology lectures for the whole semester?
-
But it is plausible for it to be hurtling 'upwards' at c (or 1000's x c)?
It was already explained to you that this is not even remotely the case. Read up on Special Relativity.
I have had grad level physics courses in relativity. If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days. The earth is older.
So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.
You need to get educated on basic Newtonian mechanics
Hey, I took grad-level SR, too! Still my all-time favorite course.
But you're missing something here. In your own frame of reference, you absolutely can accelerate forever, and paradoxically, you'll never hit c. The faster you go, the more you experience time dilation, which you'd never notice. To you, your acceleration is continuing as normal, but to the outside observer, your acceleration is getting slower and slower the closer you get to c.
Think of it this way - You're in your car travelling at 50 mph. You can step on the gas and feel acceleration, right? But if a cosmic ray were to pass you in the other direction going 99.999999% c, to it, you're already going nearly the speed of light and it might say to you there's no way you can accelerate another 25 mph because you'd pass c. Obviously, that's ridiculous. You can accelerate regardless of how fast you seem to that cosmic ray, just as you can accelerate regardless of how fast you seem to any other point in the universe.
Likewise, the flat Earth could be under a constant acceleration forever without ever reaching c. C is a limit of how fast you can observe another frame of reference, not your own.
That said, the idea of universal acceleration utterly falls apart for a variety of other reasons. This just isn't one of the reasons.
-
From Reer, earlier in the discussion...
On the surface of the earth, where the gravitational acceleration is about 9.8m/s2 the "weight" of an object is the same as its mass, i.e. a person with a mass of 100 kg will weigh 100 kg.
That is not quite true. Mass is simply the amount of matter contained in a body or object. So a person on Earth or anywhere in the Universe does not weigh any number of kg because kg is the standard SI unit of mass. A person of mass 100kg on the surface of the Earth will feel a force due to gravity of 100kg x 9.81ms/2 = 981N where the Newton is the SI unit of force. 1N is the force necessary to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1ms/2. In the case of weight, that force is acceleration due to gravity.
A person of mass 100kg will have the same mass regardless of their position in the Universe. So they would have the same mass if they were standing on the surface of the Moon but they would only have one 6th of the weight, i.e. 981N/6 = 163.5N