Yes it is. It’s just that either :
a) you don’t understand it,
b) you’re trying to shill me or
c) relativity works differently on a flat earth (which would require a different universe).
In any event, congratulations for picking up something so complicated using only Zetetics.
Your postulations are irrelevant. Let's deal with facts and figures, shall we?
Let’s get this clear – the FE is ALWAYS accelerating at 9.81m/s2 in order to replace gravity, but you cannot accelerate and be stationary in the same “frame of reference”.
Incorrect. You can be stationary -- that is, have a velocity of zero -- at one instant in time while accelerating in a given inertial frame of reference. A short time before, you would be moving one way, and a short time after, you would be moving the other, but in between you have acceleration but no velocity. It is perfectly valid to consider what is happening at the instant for which you are stationary using special relativity.
At any given instant, there is an inertial frame of reference in which the Earth is stationary, and it is in that frame of reference that it has an acceleration of 9.8 m s
-2. This is why only the rest mass is relevant.
Now, to perform a complete analysis involving the passage of time, we need to consider that the Earth is really in a
non-inertial frame of reference, which is a case explicitly excluded from special relativity. Fortunately, we do not need to complicate our analysis in this way. It is sufficient to note that in this non-inertial frame of reference, we observe a proper acceleration (also known as "gravity") of 9.8 m s
-2, which means that that is the Earth's rate of acceleration within an inertial frame of reference in which it is stationary at any given instant.
The energy need to accelerate the FE is always proportional to its total mass. At a standstill it has only rest mass, but as it accelerates it gains inertial mass. Total mass=rest mass+inertial mass.
This is nonsense. "Inertial mass" is not something you gain by accelerating. What you mean to say is that at non-zero velocities, your relativistic mass exceeds your rest mass, which is true. However, it fails to do anything to counter my point. Indeed, it is an axiom upon which my point rests.
That's the wrong way round. Assuming you mean the beginning of the acceleration, the only mass of the Flat Earth would be its rest mass (although it could still be very heavy). Acceleration would be at 9.81 m/s2 in your own time frame, and I agree as I watch you from my frame on Round Earth. However, within a few years I see you still accelerating, but much much less as the Universe stops you reaching the speed of light by adding inertial mass. And slowing down time, etc.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. You start out by saying I have things the wrong way round, and spend the rest of your paragraph repeating my argument (using incorrect terminology, but nobody's perfect). I appreciate the support, but was hoping you would have some more substance to your asserted disagreement.
No, acceleration in your frame of reference remains at 9.81m/s2, otherwise your “gravity” would alter.
Correct, but we're not talking about our current frame of reference, we're talking about the frame of reference we were in 4 billion years ago. More precisely, we are talking about the inertial frame of reference in which the Earth was stationary 4 billion years ago, but I skimmed over that distinction for brevity. Perhaps I overestimated your inferential abilities.
However the Universe is ganging up on you by making your mass increase ( thereby needing more energy), time slow down (so instead of 9.81 m per second every second, it’s 9.81 m per 2 seconds, every two seconds – and increasing) and distances foreshorten (ie 9.81m becomes 8m then 7 …)
Yes, exactly. This happens as measured by an
inertial observer. However, we are not inertial -- if you'll recall, the whole premise here is that we are accelerating -- so we would not expect to observe this.
Rejoice! As distances foreshorten, the Flat Earth gets even flatter - even Round Earth becomes disc-shaped
You are still accelerating, but “meters”, “kilograms” and “seconds” have changed. In my frame of reference, not yours; you can’t zetetically detect anything unusual because it’s happening to everything in your frame of reference.
Everything looks normal to you, as you whizz through the Universe at 99.99999999999999999999999999% of the speed of light, but I see you as short and squashed - you're only a few inches tall. The second hands on rour clocks are barely crawling around their faces, as far as I'm concerned. If you hold a 12" ruler and point it to the ceiling, to me it seems maybe 2" high. But when you point it to the wall, at 90degrees to your acceleration, i see it magically stretch to its full length.
You don't need to explain all this to me. I understand special relativity, apparently better than you do.
Thus the energy requirement for UA goes off the scale. Einstein tells you why you can't exceed the speed of light, but that doesn't mean you can't keep accelerating. That's what your own wiki says; it just seems to stop short of considering the implications.
You've just spent your entire post explaining why this is wrong. To an inertial observer, the energy requirement (or more precisely, the
power requirement, that is energy per unit time) does not increase. Instead, the acceleration decreases.
Meanwhile, to us non-inertial observers on the Flat Earth, the Earth's mass remains its rest mass, and the acceleration remains 9.8 m s
-2.
If you need further clarification, I recommend reading your own post again. It contains all the answers you need.