From what's I've heard, everything is accelerating so there is no frame of reference to determine your speed.
From what's I've heard, everything is accelerating so there is no frame of reference to determine your speed.
As in everything in our universe is accelerating?
Edit: In the same direction*
From what's I've heard, everything is accelerating so there is no frame of reference to determine your speed.
As in everything in our universe is accelerating?
Edit: In the same direction*
Apparently.
The common understanding of the heliocentric worldview is that the universe is expanding in an inexplicable exponential speed. We have no natural laws to explain how this could be happening, so it's really no less or more bizarre than this universal acceleration mechanism in terms of uncertainty. What is powering this expansion, or upward acceleration?
Okay so there is no frame of reference to measure our velocity from, however undoubtably if a body accelerates at a constant rate of 9.8ms^-2 in one direction, it's velocity will be roughly 300,000,000ms^-1 different from what it was a year ago, over the course of just 100 years, that's a change of 30,000,000,000ms^-1 which falls far out of the range of the speed of light.
From what's I've heard, everything is accelerating so there is no frame of reference to determine your speed.
As in everything in our universe is accelerating?
Edit: In the same direction*
Apparently.
The common understanding of the heliocentric worldview is that the universe is expanding in an inexplicable exponential speed. We have no natural laws to explain how this could be happening, so it's really no less or more bizarre than this universal acceleration mechanism in terms of uncertainty. What is powering this expansion, or upward acceleration?
Many believe it's to do with dark energy I think, but that's a whole other topic and much research is needed into it.
Okay so there is no frame of reference to measure our velocity from, however undoubtably if a body accelerates at a constant rate of 9.8ms^-2 in one direction, it's velocity will be roughly 300,000,000ms^-1 different from what it was a year ago, over the course of just 100 years, that's a change of 30,000,000,000ms^-1 which falls far out of the range of the speed of light.
The theory of Special Relativity says that we would not reach the speed of light. Instead time would dilate. Here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5524.msg107576#msg107576) is a post that I thought explained it quite well. You can also look up Special Relativity on Youtube or just google it.
I think the general FET theory is that the varying acceleration rates at different altitudes are caused by gravitational pull by other celestial bodies.
In reply to boots:The theory of Special Relativity says that we would not reach the speed of light. Instead time would dilate. Here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5524.msg107576#msg107576) is a post that I thought explained it quite well. You can also look up Special Relativity on Youtube or just google it.
I think the general FET theory is that the varying acceleration rates at different altitudes are caused by gravitational pull by other celestial bodies.
Boots gets it.
From what's I've heard, everything is accelerating so there is no frame of reference to determine your speed.
As in everything in our universe is accelerating?
Edit: In the same direction*
Apparently.
The common understanding of the heliocentric worldview is that the universe is expanding in an inexplicable exponential speed. We have no natural laws to explain how this could be happening, so it's really no less or more bizarre than this universal acceleration mechanism in terms of uncertainty. What is powering this expansion, or upward acceleration?
Many believe it's to do with dark energy I think, but that's a whole other topic and much research is needed into it.
Okay so there is no frame of reference to measure our velocity from, however undoubtably if a body accelerates at a constant rate of 9.8ms^-2 in one direction, it's velocity will be roughly 300,000,000ms^-1 different from what it was a year ago, over the course of just 100 years, that's a change of 30,000,000,000ms^-1 which falls far out of the range of the speed of light.
The theory of Special Relativity says that we would not reach the speed of light. Instead time would dilate. Here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5524.msg107576#msg107576) is a post that I thought explained it quite well. You can also look up Special Relativity on Youtube or just google it.
I think the general FET theory is that the varying acceleration rates at different altitudes are caused by gravitational pull by other celestial bodies.
In reply to boots:The theory of Special Relativity says that we would not reach the speed of light. Instead time would dilate. Here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5524.msg107576#msg107576) is a post that I thought explained it quite well. You can also look up Special Relativity on Youtube or just google it.
I think the general FET theory is that the varying acceleration rates at different altitudes are caused by gravitational pull by other celestial bodies.
Boots gets it.
I gave the post a scan as well as google, it seems very complicated! I'll be sure to read about special relativity more to gain a better understanding.
In response to the varying acceleration rates: If these changes are caused by the gravitational pull of other celestial bodies, does that mean flat earthers believe gravity as a concept is an actual thing?
From what's I've heard, everything is accelerating so there is no frame of reference to determine your speed.And no known source of the massive energy needed to cause that acceleration, but heck who cares about practical details like that?
In reply to junker:
That is fair enough, newton mechanics don't apply at such velocitys. I haven't covered much in special relativity so I can't say I know much about it, however I do believe the reason objects asymptotically converge to the speed of light is because their mass is believed to shoot up to infinity and due to this mass increase, their acceleration converges towards 0, meaning we wouldn't feel a downward force constantly once we reached this stage and our mass is and forever will be increasing. But then again I don't know for sure.
In reply to boots:The theory of Special Relativity says that we would not reach the speed of light. Instead time would dilate. Here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5524.msg107576#msg107576) is a post that I thought explained it quite well. You can also look up Special Relativity on Youtube or just google it.
I think the general FET theory is that the varying acceleration rates at different altitudes are caused by gravitational pull by other celestial bodies.
Boots gets it.
I gave the post a scan as well as google, it seems very complicated! I'll be sure to read about special relativity more to gain a better understanding.
In response to the varying acceleration rates: If these changes are caused by the gravitational pull of other celestial bodies, does that mean flat earthers believe gravity as a concept is an actual thing?
Newton's Universal Law of gravitation is rejected by most in the FES. What is commonly referred to as gravity on earth is attributed to UA as has been discussed. However, it is accepted by many that gravitation does exist in other celestial bodies. I don't know much more about it than that.
Here is a link to a wiki page about this topic. (http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration)
In reply to junker:
That is fair enough, newton mechanics don't apply at such velocitys. I haven't covered much in special relativity so I can't say I know much about it, however I do believe the reason objects asymptotically converge to the speed of light is because their mass is believed to shoot up to infinity and due to this mass increase, their acceleration converges towards 0, meaning we wouldn't feel a downward force constantly once we reached this stage and our mass is and forever will be increasing. But then again I don't know for sure.
You are assuming a constant force is being applied from an outside reference frame, which isn't necessarily true. You can indeed accelerate at a constant rate and never reach the speed of light.
The simple explanation is that velocities aren't additive.
2 m/s + 2 m/s =/= 4 m/s
I'm unsure how gravitation can exist in other celestial bodies but not exist for the earth. What causes this gravitation force?
"Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object."
So going back to a previous point I stated, in that a body's accelaration depends on its altitude. (Example 9.81ms^-2 at sea level and 9.79^-2 at 10,000 ft, roughly). If this change was caused by the gravitation force from other celestial bodies -
"I think the general FET theory is that the varying acceleration rates at different altitudes are caused by gravitational pull by other celestial bodies" - Quote, Boots.
- then going back to newtons 3rd law, the force exerted on a body from the gravitation pull of celestial bodies is equal to the gravitation force that the body exerts of the celestial bodies.
So how can a body on earth exert a gravitation force on a celestial body when the general theory of gravity isn't accepted in the FES? Is the force cause by the mass of the object? If so how come the mass of the earth (I'm guessing it's undetermined in the FES) doesn't cause a gravitation force on objects on the earth?
Seperate question, based on some research, i've found out the FES society believe the earth is a vast, infinite plane. Give this, does that mean it's mass is also infinite?
Please get back to us on this!
Long post!
Edit: Spelling correcting
Actually, if you look at the FAQs on this very website, you will find that the FES believes that the earth is stationary...And that the "gravity" illusion can be attributed to pressure and density formulas and simple mechanics
Actually, if you look at the FAQs on this very website, you will find that the FES believes that the earth is stationary...And that the "gravity" illusion can be attributed to pressure and density formulas and simple mechanics
The earth is stationary?
Surely that and that fact that it's accelerating all the time can't be possible, or have I misunderstood?
Could you shoot me a link to the formulas as well, couldn't find them myself.
Thanks
Here are two direct passages from the Flat Earth Society's website:
What Is Gravity?
Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall.
In the flat earth community there are several theories as to why this happens. Some attempt to explain this with use of mechanics like electromagnetism, density, or pressure. Others make use of traditional mathematics, such as the infinite plane model, and others a new look at the problem - such as the non-euclidean model.
What is certain is sphere earth gravity is not tenable in any way shape or form.
Is the Earth is accelerating upwards?
No. This is popular theory among some small groups to explain gravity, but it is problematic at best. The Earth Is Stationary. We are not whizzing about in space at 67,000 miles/hour or at speeds accelerating towards the speed of light.
Source:https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/faq
Actually, if you look at the FAQs on this very website, you will find that the FES believes that the earth is stationary...And that the "gravity" illusion can be attributed to pressure and density formulas and simple mechanics
The earth is stationary?
Surely that and that fact that it's accelerating all the time can't be possible, or have I misunderstood?
Could you shoot me a link to the formulas as well, couldn't find them myself.
Thanks
http://www.if.ufrj.br/~pef/producao_academica/artigos/2014_preprint_tort_1.pdfOne little problem (sorry massive problem). That calculation is fine for for the centre of the flat earth (the "north pole"), but as you head towards the "rim" the gravitational field tilts in towards the middle.
I found this paper on Gauss' Law of gravitational pulll on a flat earth very interesting. Although the author doesn't promote the FET, he explains how Gauss' Law would work well on a flat earth.
Okay,The trouble is that calculation of the gravitational field at the centre of a disk or cylinder is relatively easy to do (but, please don't ask me to do it),
It was my understanding that Gauss' Law is used to find out if large objects like the earth had a different shape (in this case flat). Which would show that spheres and point masses have 1/r^2 behavior, cylinders have 1/r behavior, and flat objects would have a uniform, constant force of gravity.
Which would validate Gauss' Law on the flat earth.