[Iactuallycanthink]

STATEMENTS MADE by Flat Earth Theory Wiki
Gravity does not exist ... that Equivalancy can produce the same effect
That Universal acceleration of the earth does not mean the earth will accelerate past the speed of light

I have shown simply below that  Universal acceleration using the equations that were use to prove that  the earth would not accelerate past the speed of light would mean this  acceleration MUST  reach near 0 making it impossible for  euqivalancy to be a possible explanation for  gravitational effect after  the speed of the earth reachs speeds near speed of light

I have NEVER MENTIONED FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR A REASON.
A ) YOU CANNOT DETERMINE THE MOTION OF THE FRAME OF REFERENCE FROM WITHIN THE FRAME OF REFERENCE
B)  i DONT CARE WHAT THE FRAME OF REFERENCE IS  .. i AM NOT THE ONE SAYING THE EARTH  TRAVELS AT A CONSTANT ACCELERATION FOREVER..

c )i AM NOT STUPID  ..  MY TOTAL  ARGUEMENT IS YOU  cannot have a constant acceleration  greater than 0 of the frame of the EARTH  with  NO SPEED CHANGE AND NO DIRECTION CHANGE .. THIS IS BASIC  DEFINITION OF  ACCELERATION..

UNFORTUNATELY   ALL THE PEOPLE GO ON AND ON ABOUT FRAME OF REFERENCE  sorry you dont know  what that means and i am not going into detail about it .. with you as  just the SIMPLE  TOPIC  THAT AN EQUATION  GIVEN AS PROOF  that the earth would  not  go above   the speed of light   cant be comprehended  by  closed minded people

some tenants of  RELATIVITY  for those who THINK  they can tell me they have to teach me things
The maximum speed of anything  with mass is the just under the speed of light  ..this is a given
with this as a given it means that  the object that was accelerating  when it reaches near c MUST be slowing  its acceleration  to 0 WHEN IT  reaches the maximum speed  TheREALDAVE  said there was nothing in relativity that said something cannot accelerate forever    HAVING A MAX SPEED  means you cannot exceed said speed and therefore your acceleration MUST drop to 0

for all those fixated on picking a FRAME OF REFERENCE TELL ME WHAT FRAME  of reference allows the earth TO   accelerate  and have constant speed at the  SAME TIME

simply put 

as i stated before  FET  equation for   acceleration is     UA  = g / L^3

where L = sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)  being the lorentz equation  .. im sorry you cant understand  .. that  there is no need to reference frames   

this equation cant be simplified  to  UA = g * (1 - v^2/c^2)^(3/2)

the  FET  stipulated on this website says  that    the max velocity of the earth  is  c   and that  if the earth is accelerating at  1 g for  a limited time  will eventually  reach   the speed of  c

just before  it reaches c  say    c - 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

the UA will be   = g * (1 - (c - 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001)^2/c^2)^(3/2)

which  you can see will be  approx  by   g* (1 - c^2/c^2)^(3/2) with any  normal accuracy

notice how   UA = g* 0^(3/2)

notice HOW   UA = 0 actually so close it wont even matter it will be like   UA = 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001

WHEN  the  speed  reaches near to  c

I appologize if you dont get math ..its   not my job to   teach everyone when something applies  and when it doesnt..

there is  NO FRAME OF REFERENCE VARIATION   that you can come up with where there can be  a  MEASURED ACCELERATION OF  NEAR   g

or even  1/10 g  .. when the  velocity is NEAR  C   of any object    period  thank you for  your  endliess  bs  about  FOR  = frames of reference 

they do not apply to this   

ps  SAYING   frames of reference  affects it and NOT GIVING A SINGLE EXAMPLE    .. of course i am ignoring  TheRealDaves .. bogus  example where   the earth  can miraculously  accelerate   while it keeps a  velocity of  0 as FICTION  not fact



The purpose of this post is to show the lack of knowledge regarding  acceleration and velocity

FET on this webpage asserts that  an object can accelerate forever because the limit in speed is  c the speed of light

this is INCORRECT .. because as it gets closer to the speed of light the acceleration SLOWS and thus  eventually in the limit as I have shown in the equations below drops to 0 if UA drops to 0 when  the speed of the earth is  near C then universal accleration cant be a reason for the feeling of gravity

one thing follows another

unlike  DAVE the Donkey   I know about frames of reference ..i know that if an object is travelling at the maximum speed it can its acceleration is 0 and that  any  AND I DO MEAN  ANY ...

AFFECTS of that acceleration  like the feeling of being pulled down  disappear

any OBJECT moving at a constant speed in space   without some other force acting on it  the person inside that object or on that object will experience 0 effects

It would be nice if the website  runners actually  fix the FALSE math  regarding  UA but that is  wishful thinking as  they have defenders LIKE  DAVE THE DONKEY ..  who has provided  0   ACTUAL work  ... he just says  my assertion is incorrect

damn    but he wants me to show my WORK WHICH I DID  AT LEAST THREE TIMES

DAVE SAYS without actually showing proof that the earth can accelerate in its own frame of reference

a BOX ..  can move with respect to itself

thats is what MOTION IS

IF   E is here

then   later  E is here

with respect to itself  it has not MOVED SO ITS ACCELERATION IS 0

WASNT IT  you DAVE  the DONKEY who said with respect to what  trying to discredit me  with your astute statement



dv/dt = acceleration

your explanation that  with relativity you are limited to a speed of  c  is  very simple minded

if the velocity at one moment is  c and the velocity a second later is  c

dv/dt = (c - c)/1 =  0/1 = 0

this means that when the object gets close to c it starts to not ACCELERATE SO FAST

and eventually STOPS  accelerating..
this can be shown by your equation 

dv/dt = g/L^3

where  L is lorentz factor

the reciprical of the lorentz factor   gets closer and closer to 0

since 1/L gets close to 0

1/L^3 must get really close to 0

[Clyde Frog]

this means that when the object gets close to c it starts to slow down

and eventually STOPS  accelerating..

Slows down and stops accelerating with respect to what?

[Iactuallycanthink]

this means that when the object gets close to c it starts to slow down

and eventually STOPS  accelerating..

Slows down and stops accelerating with respect to what?

the statement that  FLAT EARTH PEOPLE  say is that the earth  ACCELERATES  forever .. but  that  it NEVER EXCEEDS   the speed of light due to their missapplying the  equations of relativity

I am just showing that when the   speed of  the earth  nears c which they say is the limit that   

by the same equations they give the  earth MUST SLOW  its acceleration and  cannot keep acceleration at   10 m/s

they say the earth is  MOVING  ACCELERATING ALWAYS  WITH RESPECT TO THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE

[Groit]

this means that when the object gets close to c it starts to slow down

and eventually STOPS  accelerating..

Slows down and stops accelerating with respect to what?

With respect to the 'comoving' Galaxy. All comoving objects move with the expansion of space, not through space. An accelerating Earth would be moving through space relative to the comoving Galaxy, and matter cannot accelerate through space to the speed of light, the energy needed would go to infinity.

[Clyde Frog]

this means that when the object gets close to c it starts to slow down

and eventually STOPS  accelerating..

Slows down and stops accelerating with respect to what?

the statement that  FLAT EARTH PEOPLE  say is that the earth  ACCELERATES  forever .. but  that  it NEVER EXCEEDS   the speed of light due to their missapplying the  equations of relativity

I am just showing that when the   speed of  the earth  nears c which they say is the limit that   

by the same equations they give the  earth MUST SLOW  its acceleration and  cannot keep acceleration at   10 m/s

they say the earth is  MOVING  ACCELERATING ALWAYS  WITH RESPECT TO THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE

You're asserting that there is a preferred frame of reference. That is in disagreement with modern physics where the consensus is that there is no preferred FoR. How would you back up your position?

If you accept there is no preferred FoR, then there really isn't an issue with something undergoing constant acceleration indefinitely. This is quite literally the worst argument against UA there could be.

[pricelesspearl]

You're asserting that there is a preferred frame of reference. That is in disagreement with modern physics where the consensus is that there is no preferred FoR. How would you back up your position?

If you accept there is no preferred FoR, then there really isn't an issue with something undergoing constant acceleration indefinitely. This is quite literally the worst argument against UA there could be.

Constant acceleration with respect to what ?  You can’t have it both ways.  If an earth slowing its rate of acceleration assumes a preferred FOR, so does an earth that is increasing its rate.

[Clyde Frog]

It's astounding how poorly you understand the thing you are arguing about. The earth can be constantly accelerating in its own frame of reference. Which is to say, an object situated on its surface could experience a constant 9.8m/s² downward force perpetually.

Why is this the hill so many people choose to die on? There is nothing in Relativity that suggests any object could not undergo constant acceleration forever. If you disagree, please show your work.

[pricelesspearl]

It's astounding how poorly you understand the thing you are arguing about. The earth can be constantly accelerating in its own frame of reference. Which is to say, an object situated on its surface could experience a constant 9.8m/s² downward force perpetually.

Why is this the hill so many people choose to die on? There is nothing in Relativity that suggests any object could not undergo constant acceleration forever. If you disagree, please show your work.

You are arguing what you said went against physics...that the Earth's frame of reference is preferred.

If the earth is constantly accelerating in it's own frame of reference resulting in objects situated on its surface experiencing a constant 9.8m/s² downward force , then according to the math Icanactuallythink already showed you, in it's own frame of reference, the earth should have reached the point at which acceleration slows and objects on its surface would begin experience something less than 9.8m/s² downward force.

I don't think that is happening.

[Iactuallycanthink]

It's astounding how poorly you understand the thing you are arguing about. The earth can be constantly accelerating in its own frame of reference. Which is to say, an object situated on its surface could experience a constant 9.8m/s² downward force perpetually.

Why is this the hill so many people choose to die on? There is nothing in Relativity that suggests any object could not undergo constant acceleration forever. If you disagree, please show your work.

REALLY.. SO IF I AM IN A ROCKET SHIP  and it accelerates at 10 m/s^2  does  IT CAN  keep on going fore ever

that MEANS THAT THE EQUATION IS FALSE 
MAN YOU PEOPLE  just dont get it

you say that  the limit of speed is  c
this ONLY happens if the acceleration slows as the speed of  light is reached

dv/dt = g * (1/L)^3

since L = 1/sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)

then  dv/dt = g * sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)^3

in the limit as v > c

1 - v^2/c^2 = 0

when you want to tell ME  or any scientist that  something can accelerate forever you are a moron

after  1 year  without  using  relativity the speed  reaches c
and therefore the acceleration reaches 0


You are arguing what you said went against physics...that the Earth's frame of reference is preferred.

If the earth is constantly accelerating in it's own frame of reference resulting in objects situated on its surface experiencing a constant 9.8m/s² downward force , then according to the math Icanactuallythink already showed you, in it's own frame of reference, the earth should have reached the point at which acceleration slows and objects on its surface would begin experience something less than 9.8m/s² downward force.

I don't think that is happening.

[Clyde Frog]

It's astounding how poorly you understand the thing you are arguing about. The earth can be constantly accelerating in its own frame of reference. Which is to say, an object situated on its surface could experience a constant 9.8m/s² downward force perpetually.

Why is this the hill so many people choose to die on? There is nothing in Relativity that suggests any object could not undergo constant acceleration forever. If you disagree, please show your work.

You are arguing what you said went against physics...that the Earth's frame of reference is preferred.

No, I'm not. Maybe you need to study the subject a little more. This is why FoR matters. If you are standing on the Earth and it's a disc traveling upwards at g, the Earth's velocity in your FoR is always 0 m/s, but you feel the force of g holding you down. If you are floating in space at t=0 and see the Earth fly by you at 9.8m/s/s the moment it passes you and it continues accelerating as it gets further away, you see it slow down as it approaches c, but GUESS WHAT? For the person on the Earth, they can still keep experiencing g standing on the surface. And 1 year after the Earth has passed the first person, another person floating in space (moving quite fast as compared to the first person we enountered) sees the Earth fly by them at 9.8m/m/s and continue accelerating as it gets further away. They see the Earth slow down as it continues approaching c from their FoR. But the first person sees the Earth moving much slower than the second. Now extrapolate over n observers as n approaches infinity. The n-1 observer still just sees the Earth fly by them at 9.8m/s/s.

I'm not even FE. You are just poorly informed.

[Iactuallycanthink]

It's astounding how poorly you understand the thing you are arguing about. The earth can be constantly accelerating in its own frame of reference. Which is to say, an object situated on its surface could experience a constant 9.8m/s² downward force perpetually.

Why is this the hill so many people choose to die on? There is nothing in Relativity that suggests any object could not undergo constant acceleration forever. If you disagree, please show your work.

ive shown the work you HAVE NOT

WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND PERSON FLOATING IN SPACE

dv/dt of the earth after ONE YEAR WOULD BE  0

THAT MEANS THE earth would be  CONSTANTLY MOVING AT C

IT IS  you that cant understand the relationship between acceleration and velocity
if there is no speed change ore direction change there is no velocity

thats why  scientists who want a gravitation environment forever in space use a  ROTATIONAL SYSTEM  because rotation can go on forever

You are arguing what you said went against physics...that the Earth's frame of reference is preferred.

No, I'm not. Maybe you need to study the subject a little more. This is why FoR matters. If you are standing on the Earth and it's a disc traveling upwards at g, the Earth's velocity in your FoR is always 0 m/s, but you feel the force of g holding you down. If you are floating in space at t=0 and see the Earth fly by you at 9.8m/s/s the moment it passes you and it continues accelerating as it gets further away, you see it slow down as it approaches c, but GUESS WHAT? For the person on the Earth, they can still keep experiencing g standing on the surface. And 1 year after the Earth has passed the first person, another person floating in space (moving quite fast as compared to the first person we enountered) sees the Earth fly by them at 9.8m/m/s and continue accelerating as it gets further away. They see the Earth slow down as it continues approaching c from their FoR. But the first person sees the Earth moving much slower than the second. Now extrapolate over n observers as n approaches infinity. The n-1 observer still just sees the Earth fly by them at 9.8m/s/s.

I'm not even FE. You are just poorly informed.

[Iactuallycanthink]

this means that when the object gets close to c it starts to slow down

and eventually STOPS  accelerating..

Slows down and stops accelerating with respect to what?

the statement that  FLAT EARTH PEOPLE  say is that the earth  ACCELERATES  forever .. but  that  it NEVER EXCEEDS   the speed of light due to their missapplying the  equations of relativity

I am just showing that when the   speed of  the earth  nears c which they say is the limit that   

by the same equations they give the  earth MUST SLOW  its acceleration and  cannot keep acceleration at   10 m/s

they say the earth is  MOVING  ACCELERATING ALWAYS  WITH RESPECT TO THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE

You're asserting that there is a preferred frame of reference. That is in disagreement with modern physics where the consensus is that there is no preferred FoR. How would you back up your position?

If you accept there is no preferred FoR, then there really isn't an issue with something undergoing constant acceleration indefinitely. This is quite literally the worst argument against UA there could be.

if you are a NON FLAT EARTHER   you  are not in science

first of all I NEVER STATE THE EARTH IS MOVING .. i say if the  earth is ACCELERATING IN A STRAIGHT LINE AS FLAT EARTHERS SAY

AND  that  the equations  THEY USE  to prove that  the earth  WOULD not exceed  the speed of C  also show  that the  ACCELERATION  the earth experiences  will eventually  be 0

Dont assume what you cant understand ..

i know no object with mass can ever move faster with respecty to any other object  faster than the speed of light

the argument  that flat earthers says

the earth is moving with respect to the rest of space

doesnt matter   any frame of reference CANNOT   keep moving at a high acceleration before eventually reaching the speed of C

TWO

THEY SAY THAT EVENTUALLY THE EARTH  REACHES THE SPEED OF C

THEN  by the basic definition of   ACCELERATION   dv/dt   if the velocity  DOES NOT CHANGE   the  acceleration is  0

YOU PICKED A PROPER SYMBOL FOR YOUR FACE

[Iactuallycanthink]

this means that when the object gets close to c it starts to slow down

and eventually STOPS  accelerating..

Slows down and stops accelerating with respect to what?

With respect to the 'comoving' Galaxy. All comoving objects move with the expansion of space, not through space. An accelerating Earth would be moving through space relative to the comoving Galaxy, and matter cannot accelerate through space to the speed of light, the energy needed would go to infinity.

IF SOMETHING CANT EXCEED A SPEED IT   reaches what is its acceleration
dv/dt = (c - c)/1 = 0/1 = 0

this is  SIMPLE RELATION

[Iactuallycanthink]

It's astounding how poorly you understand the thing you are arguing about. The earth can be constantly accelerating in its own frame of reference. Which is to say, an object situated on its surface could experience a constant 9.8m/s² downward force perpetually.

Why is this the hill so many people choose to die on? There is nothing in Relativity that suggests any object could not undergo constant acceleration forever. If you disagree, please show your work.

You are arguing what you said went against physics...that the Earth's frame of reference is preferred.

No, I'm not. Maybe you need to study the subject a little more. This is why FoR matters. If you are standing on the Earth and it's a disc traveling upwards at g, the Earth's velocity in your FoR is always 0 m/s, but you feel the force of g holding you down. If you are floating in space at t=0 and see the Earth fly by you at 9.8m/s/s the moment it passes you and it continues accelerating as it gets further away, you see it slow down as it approaches c, but GUESS WHAT? For the person on the Earth, they can still keep experiencing g standing on the surface. And 1 year after the Earth has passed the first person, another person floating in space (moving quite fast as compared to the first person we enountered) sees the Earth fly by them at 9.8m/m/s and continue accelerating as it gets further away. They see the Earth slow down as it continues approaching c from their FoR. But the first person sees the Earth moving much slower than the second. Now extrapolate over n observers as n approaches infinity. The n-1 observer still just sees the Earth fly by them at 9.8m/s/s.

I'm not even FE. You are just poorly informed.

IF a object is in space and  the earth approaches at near the speed of light

1 second later the speed of light cant change because this is the limit of speed of an object with mass  according to RELATIVITY

I understand more than you can imagine  DAVE

THE BASIC TENANT OF RELATIVITY IS there is no absolute  frame of reference

if someone ON THE EARTH  without gravity

AND THIS EARTH IS GOING AT A CONSTANT LINEAR  VELOCITY

it will experience 0 acceleration

F = ma = m*0 = 0 force

so a person on the earth that is moving at a constant velocity of  C  will experience  0 force and feel no pull down toward the earth from NON EXISTANT UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION

[Clyde Frog]

I can't hold your hand through understanding Relativity. Clearly you aren't grasping one of the pillars of the theory, which is that in any FoR, an observer in said frame measures the same value for c. Even if that observer is accelerating with respect to another observer. And there is no law that prevents something from undergoing constant acceleration indefinitely. The hypothetical object that is constantly accelerating never exceeds c from its own frame. It is only from outside frames that relativistic effects on its observed velocity would be observed. You need to come to terms with how this all works before you start an argument that is nonsense.

[Iactuallycanthink]

It's astounding how poorly you understand the thing you are arguing about. The earth can be constantly accelerating in its own frame of reference. Which is to say, an object situated on its surface could experience a constant 9.8m/s² downward force perpetually.

Why is this the hill so many people choose to die on? There is nothing in Relativity that suggests any object could not undergo constant acceleration forever. If you disagree, please show your work.

FALSE

i am not stipulating any frame of reference

the FE model states that   scientists are incorrect when it is stated that UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION  will exceed the speed of light

i have simply shown with the same equations that  the  FE'S  use THAT THE earths acceleration drops to 0  WITH RESPECT TO ANY OBJECT  or frame of reference  and when it drops to 0  the  force felt by someone on the earth therefore has to drop to 0

I have MADE NO ASSUMPTIONS 

[Clyde Frog]

You aren't accounting for FoR though, which is where your argument fails. Because there is no preferred FoR, you can't say anything about how fast the Earth is moving unless you are also stating from which FoR you are measuring from. And that matters IMMENSELY. In UA, the Earth is always moving at 0 m/s at any moment from its own reference frame so it can't possibly exceed c. And from an outside frame, it hardly matters, because the person feeling the effects of gravity on Earth is obviously not in said outside frame.

[Iactuallycanthink]

I can't hold your hand through understanding Relativity. Clearly you aren't grasping one of the pillars of the theory, which is that in any FoR, an observer in said frame measures the same value for c. Even if that observer is accelerating with respect to another observer. And there is no law that prevents something from undergoing constant acceleration indefinitely. The hypothetical object that is constantly accelerating never exceeds c from its own frame. It is only from outside frames that relativistic effects on its observed velocity would be observed. You need to come to terms with how this all works before you start an argument that is nonsense.

I dont need HAND HOLDING

you  DONT UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY

p1      E        p2

if E is accelerating always toward P2

then P1 sees E moving away at a constant acceleration of  10 m/s^2

but  E cant move faster than C  THIS IS  basic tenant of relativity .. i dont need to argue it it is 

so when the E reaches  the speed of C it is essentially NOT ACCELERATING

no ACCELERATION
 MEANS   no  FORCE DOWN

just moving at C does not create a force down sorrry

the reason  YOU FEEL A FORCE DOWN in an elevator is  BECAUSE THERE IS  gravity  which UNIVERSAL acceleration is supposed to  REPLACE

I HAVE ALSO SHOWN  that  with the equations  from RELATITIVITY THAT THE  FE'S  USE  to prove the validity of UA

that  dv/dt = g (1 - v^2/c^2)^(3/2)

notice that as  v approaches c  that   the  portion under the exponent is  near 0

a number near 0 to any power is a smaller number near 0

is that enough  bloody HAND HOLDING FOR YOU  MR DAVE THE DONKEY

[juner]

I can't hold your hand through understanding Relativity. Clearly you aren't grasping one of the pillars of the theory, which is that in any FoR, an observer in said frame measures the same value for c. Even if that observer is accelerating with respect to another observer. And there is no law that prevents something from undergoing constant acceleration indefinitely. The hypothetical object that is constantly accelerating never exceeds c from its own frame. It is only from outside frames that relativistic effects on its observed velocity would be observed. You need to come to terms with how this all works before you start an argument that is nonsense.

I dont need HAND HOLDING

you  DONT UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY

p1      E        p2

if E is accelerating always toward P2

then P1 sees E moving away at a constant acceleration of  10 m/s^2

but  E cant move faster than C  THIS IS  basic tenant of relativity .. i dont need to argue it it is 

so when the E reaches  the speed of C it is essentially NOT ACCELERATING

no ACCELERATION
 MEANS   no  FORCE DOWN

just moving at C does not create a force down sorrry

the reason  YOU FEEL A FORCE DOWN in an elevator is  BECAUSE THERE IS  gravity  which UNIVERSAL acceleration is supposed to  REPLACE

I HAVE ALSO SHOWN  that  with the equations  from RELATITIVITY THAT THE  FE'S  USE  to prove the validity of UA

that  dv/dt = g (1 - v^2/c^2)^(3/2)

notice that as  v approaches c  that   the  portion under the exponent is  near 0

a number near 0 to any power is a smaller number near 0

is that enough  bloody HAND HOLDING FOR YOU  MR DAVE THE DONKEY

Keep your whining rants in the Angry Ranting forum. See the forum rules if you need further details. Warned.

Also, if you are going to claim to understand relativity, in this case SR, then maybe you should try using the proper equation instead of sticking with classical mechanics. That, and learning how a FoR works, should help keep you from being as proudly ignorant as you are here. It is embarrassing to both you and your fellow RErs.

[Iactuallycanthink]

You aren't accounting for FoR though, which is where your argument fails. Because there is no preferred FoR, you can't say anything about how fast the Earth is moving unless you are also stating from which FoR you are measuring from. And that matters IMMENSELY. In UA, the Earth is always moving at 0 m/s at any moment from its own reference frame so it can't possibly exceed c. And from an outside frame, it hardly matters, because the person feeling the effects of gravity on Earth is obviously not in said outside frame.

EP

THIS is a Earth with a person on it

later ................   EP

with if as per your stipulation  DAVE THE EXPERT ON FOR

E VELOCITY AT THE beginning is 0
E velocity at the second point is  0

change in velocity  = 0 - 0 = 0

change in time    something

change in velocity / change in time  = 0 /something = 0 

damn  why do you figure that an object  can  have an acceleration inside its own frame of reference when its velocity never changes

and  two   the premise of relativity is that  there is NO WAY TO MEASURE  your  motion inside YOUR OWN FOR