#### AFlat

• 5
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #60 on: December 27, 2021, 06:34:28 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.

I didn't. I'm new to this forum but I assure you that I have read about UA and understand the differences between classical Newtonian mechanics and special relativity. If I didn't I'd hardly be invoking an zenith-oriented Lorentz contraction and blue-shift of the starfield as a problem. I'd be objecting to breaking the light barrier or something equally daft.

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. While you're at it, perhaps you can explain what's accelerating Earth, because dark energy isn't going to do the trick unless you're invoking some very strange interactions.

As I see it, classic gravitation on a disk is simpler, more elegant, and a better fit to the observed data.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15517
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #61 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.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2021, 06:43:55 PM by Pete Svarrior »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### AFlat

• 5
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #62 on: December 27, 2021, 07:41:13 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.

I thought that the FoR was obvious from the discussion of an accelerating Earth. 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.

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.

Honestly Pete, this is so basic I shouldn't have to explain. You, I, and everybody else on the Earth are non-hypothetical observers, all accelerating as per UA. The background starfield begins as stationary relative to us, so after even a year we should be able to perceive some pretty extreme relativistic distortions of the starfield, Assuming there was anybody left alive to observe anything.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15517
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #63 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.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2021, 10:51:14 PM by Pete Svarrior »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### AFlat

• 5
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #64 on: December 29, 2021, 06:01:06 AM »
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.

Ironically, you have no idea how right you are.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

Sorry, I clearly overestimated you and failed to understand how fundamentally broken UA was. But hey, kudos for adding epicycles that do nothing and being condescending throughout such an epic failure.

#### stack

• 3427
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #65 on: December 29, 2021, 06:39:45 AM »
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.

#### AFlat

• 5
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #66 on: December 29, 2021, 11:12:04 AM »
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.

That'd work, but it's implausable that a force that pervades the universe, accelerating everything from subatomic particles to galaxies, is going to even notice a little rock in its way. It rules out dark energy immediately as that stuff doesn't even slow down for ordinary matter. You're left with a mysterious force that accelerates everything uniformly except us, and does so regardless of distance.

There aren't any good candidates for that. Simpler to go with gravitation on a disk. You wouldn't even notice edge effects until you were well into the Antarctic rim.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15517
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #67 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.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2021, 04:16:17 PM by Pete Svarrior »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### ichoosereality

• 216
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #68 on: December 30, 2021, 03:41:09 PM »
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.

http://beyondmainstream.org/nasa-scientist-says-coronas-bend-light-not-gravity/
So what?  Anyone can "say" anything.  Did he publish anything on this in any peer reviewed journal?  Not that I can find.

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.
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.

On the other hand he certainly did NOT think the earth was flat.  There in lies the problem with appearling to an individual as your authority.  Why accept his opinion on journals but reject his view of the standard model of our solar system and the galaxy?  What is your basis for picking one but rejecting the other?

Journals are refereed by humans and humans are imperfect and biased so of course bias CAN influence what gets published.  As Iceman points out, it is certainly more difficult to get published the more you are going against the current consensus view.  But if that did not happen routinely, the consensus view would not have changed so much over the last 100 years.  The better your data and analysis the easier it is.  The increasing expansion of the universe made it in in record time due to their undeniable data. But even things with that are purely theoretical (e.g. string theory) can get in if they keep after it (the initial string theory papers were rejected for years but now it is widely though perhaps not univerally, accepted).  Or continental drift or DNA based heredity and on and on.

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.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2021, 07:44:01 PM by ichoosereality »
If "bendy light" were real the spot shape and power output of large solid-state lasers would vary depending on their orientation relative to the surface of the earth, but this is not observed thus bendy light is not real.

#### Rog

• 69
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #69 on: December 31, 2021, 06:56:43 AM »
Quote
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.

That is the velocity addition formula that I used. Just rearranged (as explained in the link) to calculate objects moving in different directions.

The only real difference  in the velocity addition formulas for relativistic and non-relativistic velocities  is that you have to use the reduction factor for relativistic speeds to keep from exceeding c.  And I already showed in the link I provided how the Lorentz Transformation is embedded into the reduction factor. You can use the relativistic formula for non-relativistic speeds and get the same result, because the reduction factor will just be 1 (or very close to it).

John Norton has a really good explanation of it.
Quote
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

I did.  The earth is moving at a relativistic speed relative to our jumper.

If A= Earth B=Jumper C= Stationary observer the velocity addition formula  will give you the velocity of the earth relative to the jumper. The velocity of the jumper to the earth would be the same magnitude, just opposite direction, so both are relativistic speeds if the earth has been accelerating at g for however long. So use either formula you want, but it would be nice to see some actual calculations.

If  FE didn’t  acknowledge that the earth was moving at relativistic speeds relative to an observer close to the surface of the earth  there would be no need to explain how it is that an accelerating earth can never exceed c.  While it is true that using the relativistic velocity addition formula will reduce the perceived velocity so that it doesn’t exceed c, it doesn’t reduce it to the point that a jumper wouldn’t be vaporized when he meets the ground.  (While we are on the subject, the formula used in the wiki is the wrong formula.  It should be be velocity addition formula, not the Lorentz Factor.  And even that is calculated wrong). Also, time dilation occurs and has been measured at less than relativistic speeds.  GPS has to take it into account. The Hafele–Keating experiment didn’t involve relativistic speeds.

Quote
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

The ‘falling observer” has no velocity.  He begins inert (according to your own admission) for an “infinitesimal moment” but he he can’t acquire any velocity after that moment unless a force is applied.  A body at rest stays at rest unless a force is applied.  Also, remember, the point I made about being in a vacuum?  That’s because I knew you would eventually bring this argument up.  There is no drag or terminal velocity in a vacuum.

#### Clyde Frog

• 1043
• [kʰlaɪ̯d fɹɒg]
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #70 on: December 31, 2021, 02:43:53 PM »
The jumper is moving at a relativistic velocity with respect to the Earth?? How do you figure?

#### Iceman

• 1823
• where there's smoke there's wires
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #71 on: December 31, 2021, 02:59:13 PM »
Because, in The Book of Rog, when you’re standing on a chair you’re stationary, but as you step off it, the earth’s acceleration brings it to your feet at relativistic speeds, instantly vaporizing any soul unfortunate enough to do so.

Eventually he’s going to realize he keeps confounding relative velocity and relativistic speed, and/or that they can’t just be used interchangeably.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15517
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #72 on: December 31, 2021, 03:35:45 PM »
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 already gave you a list. You just need to work through it.

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 observer
Stationary 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2021, 03:42:55 PM by Pete Svarrior »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Rog

• 69
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #73 on: January 02, 2022, 11:59:23 PM »
Quote
Stationary relative to what?

Just as I thought/  You really don’t understand how relative velocity works.
Quote
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

That’s the velocity addition formula, the very same one you said was the correct formula to use.  You want to try and make it work somehow just using the relative velocity of the ground and the jumper, without an external reference frame but that’s not how the formula works.  Not in relativistic or non-relativistic scenarios.

If A and C are the ground and the jumper, B would be an observer stationary relative to the earth. (standing on the ground) .  I explained this in an earlier post. The velocity of the ground relative to jumper=the velocity of the ground relative to the observer + the velocity of the observer relative to the jumper. Using, j, g and o as subscripts:
Vgj=Vgo+Voj=0+.99c
Vgj=.99c

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. The ground would be the “stationary observer”.  But since the ground is one of the actors in our scenario, we have to introduce another external reference frame, that is independent of both moving objects.

To calculate the relative velocity of the cars, you use the velocity each car as measured (I) within their own reference frame(/i).  You’d do the same with the jumper and the ground.  There is no difference in the formulas for relativistic and non-relativistic scenarios so you would still use the velocity each observer measures within their own reference frame. except that for relativistic situations, you have to use the Lorentz Factor to prevent exceeding c.  The jumper measures his velocity as zero in his own reference frame and the ground’s velocity according to FE is .99 (or something close to it) in its reference frame.

The “reduction factor” is just the Lorentz Factor. It will reduce the relative velocity so that it doesn’t exceed c, but it doesn’t reduce it to anything close to what would be considered “normal velocities”,  Anytime dilation aside,  anything meeting the ground would be vaporized.

This calculator uses the velocity addition formula with the Lorentz Factor the very same formula you said was the correct one  Go ahead and use it with whatever values you want. It should be very easy to prove me wrong by doing and showing the calculations yourself, but so far you refuse to do so.  I wonder why.

Note the symbols used “Let Vb be the be the velocity as seen by an external reference frame.  That would be our “stationary observer”.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel2.html#c1

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15517
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #74 on: January 03, 2022, 12:19:51 AM »
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.

Alternatively, consider a thought experiment: jump off a chair. In your estimation, did you suddenly start turbozooming through the air at 0.99c relative to a friend that's observing you?

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 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.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2022, 12:33:17 AM by Pete Svarrior »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Clyde Frog

• 1043
• [kʰlaɪ̯d fɹɒg]
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #75 on: January 03, 2022, 12:38:36 AM »
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.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15517
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #76 on: January 03, 2022, 12:43:40 AM »
No, no, Voj is likely the velocity of the observer relative to the jumper. The jumper just became ludicrously fast for, y'know, reasons.

I suspect he's confused by conservation of momentum. It seems that he thinks that the moment the jumper stops touching the Earth, his momentum reverts to what it was the last time he wasn't touching the Earth. In his mind, any acceleration that happened in between jumps just gets undone, so the jumper instantly vapourises in the atmolayer. Try reading through his posts again with that assumption in mind. A lot of it suddenly falls into place.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2022, 12:49:25 AM by Pete Svarrior »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Rog

• 69
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #77 on: January 03, 2022, 01:12:01 AM »
Quote
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.

The .99 comes from your own admission that the velocity of the earth would be “approximately, away from c”
Quote
It 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.

Quote
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

You are missing alot. Read it again  I’ll translate.  The velocity of the ground relative to the jumper=the velocity of the ground relative to the observer, which is zero plus the velocity of the observer relative to the jumper which is some undetermined number Pete is keeping secret, therefore the velocity of the ground relative to the jumper is Pete’ secret number.

Vgj=Vgo+Voj=0+ PSN
Vgj= PSN

I don’t understand why it is so difficult to answer the question “The external observer would see the ground approaching the jumper at X velocity (or close approximation) and this is why”.

I would answer that question by saying the external observer would see the ground approaching the jumper at whatever velocity the ground is moving as measured within it's own reference frame, provided it will always remain below c.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15517
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #78 on: January 03, 2022, 01:17:45 AM »
The .99 comes from your own admission that the velocity of the earth would be “approximately, away from c”
Quote
It 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.
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=0

I also said it is not close to c. How did you get "almost c, but not quite" from that?

In the same post, just before my remark on the fact that the number is not close to c, I explicitly stated it's 0m/s. You know, a figure that's not 0.99c. There really was little room for misinterpretation there.

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 frame
This 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.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2022, 01:30:11 AM by Pete Svarrior »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Clyde Frog

• 1043
• [kʰlaɪ̯d fɹɒg]
##### Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« Reply #79 on: January 03, 2022, 01:50:35 AM »
Rog this is an amazingly wonderful fail so please take a second to breathe and read. Velocity quite literally only has a definition as one body WITH RESPECT TO another body. If there is a person standing at a suspended elevation above a disc, or a giant ball, or on the top of a balcony on a space ship, or anywhere at all really where there is any sort of perceived downwards force acting on them in a gravity-like fashion, the velocity of both the Earth and the person in their own FoR is 0m/s. Neither body is moving at any percentage of c. In fact, they measure their instantaneous velocity to be exactly 0% of c, because light still moves away from them at exactly c. It doesn't matter how much time has passed. It doesn't matter how old the universe is. The velocity they measure between themselves (the observer on Earth and the one suspended above, about to jump) as 0/ms, while light continues to move away at c.

It seems weird. It's a wild thing to wrap your brain around. I mean, no matter how fast a car is driving, another car can always drive a little bit faster and notice that they are catching up with the driver in front of them. But no matter how fast any of those cars drive, every single driver always measures light moving exactly c away from them. None of them make any headway in trying to get closer to driving anywhere near as close as the light can move away from them, even in a hypothetical car that can accelerate at 10m/s/s forever. That weird car, even with its crazy infinite acceleration ability, would have a driver that would STILL always measure light moving away from them at exactly c.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2022, 01:53:23 AM by Clyde Frog »