#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 13680
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #40 on: July 29, 2019, 05:03:19 PM »
Okay, then please use that frame of reference to calculate how fast the flat earth would be traveling after 5000 years of accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2.
Non-applicable. The observer would collide with the Earth much sooner than that.

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 5869
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #41 on: July 29, 2019, 05:33:03 PM »
Okay, then please use that frame of reference to calculate how fast the flat earth would be traveling after 5000 years of accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2.
Non-applicable. The observer would collide with the Earth much sooner than that.
Since this is a math problem, the observer is just an arbitrary reference point, so colliding with the flat earth isn't an issue.  It's the changing velocity of the FE as it approaches, meets and then moves beyond that reference point that's relevant.  In this case, it's a question of how fast the FE would be moving 5000 years after passing that arbitrary reference point.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 13680
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #42 on: July 29, 2019, 05:35:14 PM »
Since this is a math problem, the observer is just an arbitrary reference point, so colliding with the flat earth isn't an issue.
I'm not interested in hypothetical thought experiments. There exists no observable frame of reference in which your supposed contradiction would present itself. Until you can negotiate that issue, your objection is a non-starter.

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 5869
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #43 on: July 29, 2019, 05:49:47 PM »
Since this is a math problem, the observer is just an arbitrary reference point, so colliding with the flat earth isn't an issue.
I'm not interested in hypothetical thought experiments.
Interesting, because much of SR and GR are built on insights gained from hypothetical thought experiments, not the least of which being the equivalence principle which FE'ers often use as evidence supporting Universal Acceleration.

There exists no observable frame of reference in which your supposed contradiction would present itself. Until you can negotiate that issue, your objection is a non-starter.
I'm sorry but I didn't realize that I supposedly contradicted anything.  I'm simply trying to establish a frame of reference from which the speed of the accelerating flat earth can be calculated.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 218
• That's no beaver
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #44 on: July 29, 2019, 10:39:30 PM »
I'm not interested in hypothetical thought experiments.
Then why engage in a discussion about a hypothetical thought experiment?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 13680
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2019, 06:05:06 AM »
markjo, a friendly reminder that you're currently in the upper

Then why engage in a discussion about a hypothetical thought experiment?
I didn't. The objection I addressed was that it would be impossible for the velocity of the Earth to continuously increase at a constant rate for an extended period of time, and thus UA is impossible.

Pointing out that this is not required or even implied under UA is absolutely essential. There exists no actual location in which the requirements of this argument would be met.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2019, 06:10:39 AM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 218
• That's no beaver
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2019, 08:35:22 PM »
Then why engage in a discussion about a hypothetical thought experiment?
I didn't. The objection I addressed was that it would be impossible for the velocity of the Earth to continuously increase at a constant rate for an extended period of time, and thus UA is impossible.

Pointing out that this is not required or even implied under UA is absolutely essential. There exists no actual location in which the requirements of this argument would be met.
It seems to me like this whole discussion started from Zonk's comment, If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?. It sounds to me like this whole discussion is about a thought experiment.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

#### rgr331

• 32
##### Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« Reply #47 on: August 04, 2019, 11:52:50 PM »
Okay, then please use that frame of reference to calculate how fast the flat earth would be traveling after 5000 years of accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2.
Non-applicable. The observer would collide with the Earth much sooner than that.
Since this is a math problem, the observer is just an arbitrary reference point, so colliding with the flat earth isn't an issue.  It's the changing velocity of the FE as it approaches, meets and then moves beyond that reference point that's relevant.  In this case, it's a question of how fast the FE would be moving 5000 years after passing that arbitrary reference point.

She won’t answer.  But the answer is nearly 5155 times the speed of light.