Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
There's a well-known paradox in special relativity involving two rockets connected by a string, accelerating constantly with equal proper acceleration.* In an inertial frame relative to the rockets, they maintain a constant distance apart.
The only place "the ua" is defined in the entire internet is the wiki? And I was supposed to guess that just from a single mention of "the ua" in the op?I don't believe I said anything about a wiki page. What are you talking about?You're in a thread about one - it's where UA is defined. I suggest you failed to read it before posting. It sounds like I didn't go nearly far enough.
I really don't understand why we have so many people here discussing a wiki page they blatantly haven't read. Aren't you RE'ers supposed to be the enlightened intellectuals in the room? Wouldn't it have been prudent to read the document you're debating before declaring what you "know"?
My question is whether there is a FE model with multiple frames, or is the frame relativity theory wrong/nonexistent, or what?As far as I know most flat eathers reject relativity, and gravity altogether. They kind of have to - a physics simulation of a flat earth using standard ideas of gravity just wouldn't match what people actually experience on the surface of the earth.
If he banned mental Olympics, the flat eathers would be very upset.This is the best thing Trump has done since he has been in office.But not men's sports?
Also, how does the president have authority to control sporting association rules? What, can he ban women's sports next? Maybe ban mixed sports?
Yet we see many with relatively horizontal Eastwards paths for the same duration.
One of my issues with him, other than him being a narcissistic self-serving bigot, is he seems to base his opinions on gut feel and hunch. Or what he sees on social media or TV - which is all heavily filtered because of the channels he chooses to watch which all pander to his worldview.
I think sandokhan may be making the mistake of interpreting the movement of surface features in a linear manner, as on a disc, rather than on a rotating 3-dimensional orb, and assessing the angles accordingly?
The angle featured in the video on the rotation of Mars is at least 60 degrees, where even 46 degrees could not be explained at all.
But one thing to note is that because the earth is rotating you're not looking at Mars from a fixed point, I guess that must have some effect in what we observe.I think the effect would be immeasurably small (or maybe just on the edge of measurably small). Imagine drawing a line from the observers point on the surface of earth to the center of Mars at 8am, and then draw that line again from the observers point at 8pm. Those two lines will be different, certainly, but the angle distance between them will be miniscule. Less than a percent of a degree I reckon. I don't think our point of view of Mars would change drastically over the course of the day (until of course it's hidden entirely - that's a pretty big change)
Right, I was being as generous as possible with my eyeballing if the rotation, I gave a range. I did not say "this is definitely how fast mars is spinning".QuoteThe Martian rotation is increasing by 4 milliarcseconds per year squared. That means the Martian day is shortening by a fraction of a millisecond per year.
60 degrees in 3 hours = 480 degrees in 24 hours, a gain of 33% in the rotational speed.
Of course, in FET it is the layers of clouds which are rotating, not the planet itself.
