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.

Messages - Pete Svarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 266  Next >
Mainstream physics says that proper acceleration is Lorentz Invariant (says it right on the wiki page you linked), which by definition means it is the same in any and every inertial frame of reference.
Well, no, it doesn't. It says that "In infinitesimal small durations there is always one inertial frame, which momentarily has the same velocity as the accelerated body, and in which the Lorentz transformation holds."

Infinitesimal durations. There is always [at least] one. This directly contradicts your claim that it holds at any time in any inertial frame.

Even then, your fixation with proper acceleration is simply useless here. Sure, you might like to frame things in that way, and perhaps it's intuitive to you, but that's not what our contributors chose when writing an easy-to-digest description for laymen. Shockingly, it works quite well for most readers.

The short answer is that relativistic velocities can’t be added in the classical sense.
Oh, not at all. That would explain why the rate of change of velocity (what do we call that?) is decreasing. You claim that it is velocity that's decreasing as it approaches c.

Let me spell this out for you. Consider an object whose velocity is less than c in a FoR of your choice. We know that the body's velocity is approaching c. Please explain how you can claim that it's velocity is decreasing, as you just did.

Once again, it doesn't matter how many authorities you appeal to when you use them to say things that make no sense. You (pretend to) struggle to understand the text you're reading, and your interpretation of it is not the same as what these authorities are telling you.

It isn't the acceleration that decreases, it is the velocity.
And what do we call a decrease in velocity?

every interval of acceleration increases the velocity a little less
lol, it's almost as if your trolling got even more transparent.

And in every single one of those inertial frames, for any length of time, the acceleration will be the same.
That is the opposite of what "being true for only an infitniesimal length of time" means. In other words, that is the opposite of what mainstream physics states. As with your previous failures, your disagreement is fundamentally with the model you're supposed to champion.

Relative to an inertial observer in the universe, however, the Earth's acceleration decreases as the its velocity approaches c.

It isn't the acceleration that decreases, it is the velocity.
Ah, of course. As the velocity approaches c, the velocity decreases. And how does it approach c while decreasing?

your “gotcha” is nothing more than a different way of stating my exact point.
You describe simple physics as "gotchas" and "your exact point" is that something stops being relative when it's relative to a specific FoR. Nobody is going to fall for it.

If an inertial observer were to see the earth accelerating upwards in FET…what rate of acceleration would he perceive?  What rate of acceleration would the people on earth perceive? They both would perceive 9.8 m/s2.
This continues to be a completely incorrect assumption. We've explained this to you many times. I do not believe for a moment that you've failed to understand it, given that your main schtick here is pretending not to understand English.

Your failure, and one you could have once again solved by reading Wikipedia, is that you assume that there is one inertial frame of reference with regard to which you can consider FE's acceleration for an extended period of time. This is incorrect, and was pointed out to you time and time again by FE'ers and RE'ers alike. At any point in time, you can identify an inertial FoR with regard to which the acceleration will be 9.81ms^-2 for an infinitesimal length of time. That is to say, the Earth would not be immediately moving relative to that frame. A moment later, this would no longer hold. Yet your objection continues to assume that it would.

The problem with trying to rely solely on academic papers is that it requires the reader to be able to follow what's being said. You can't (or, rather, pretend not to be able to) follow the basics of how a spirit level works, so you desperately cling to keywords which you think help your case.

Stop trying to derail this thread with some of the most transparent trolling this forum has seen in its decades of operation. This is the last time I will ask so politely.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« on: April 05, 2020, 09:42:00 AM »
Saddam, how do you feel about Cuphead's tutorial level?

You asked the original question and then I replied to help clarify.
I didn't. I haven't asked any questions here that weren't rhetorical.

And, now it seems your annoyed with my reply.
You mistake pointing out a glaring hole in your argument for an expression of annoyance. Try to separate ideas and beliefs from emotions, it will help you along here.

I know that I will likely get a warning or get kicked off the site for saying this (and am ok with it)... but Pete, your only part of this FE movement because it makes you feel important and special as a moderator. But otherwise, you really don't bring much to the table. While I dont agree with Tom, I do have respect for him in that at least he joins in debates in a constructive manner. Your approach to a debate is you always seem annoyed and angry, too thin-skinned. You tend to nit pick questions as a kind of way to distract from the debate flow.

You always seem kind of angry.
I assure you I rarely am angry when I post here (or, rather, that I normally avoid posting here if something upsets me). I don't dance around subjects, and when you say stupid things, I simply point it out. After 10 years of hearing RE'ers raise the same non-starter issues while thinking they're original, responding to them becomes a bit robotic for many of us. Try to read my posts in a matter-of-fact tone - it might help.

As to what I bring to the table, you haven't been here long enough to really be able to assess that. You're welcome to dislike my posts (but please express that in the appropriate board, and not in the middle of other threads), but there's much more to my work here than forum posting. I'd argue that this is the source of your confusion - you're trying to judge me by solely looking at a task I consider low priority.

That said, this place has some rules, and it's also my job to enforce them. If you want to make personal comments, take it to CN/AR. You're on three warnings, so mods will be able to issue short bans at their discretion now. I want to be super clear here: you are completely welcome to talk about how terrible I am and how much you think you're wItNeSsInG DK or whatever. But you are expected to do so in the right place, without disrupting an existing discussion thread. If you need help understanding the rules, drop me or one of the other mods a message, and we'll clarify.

When you try to mock people for their education, make sure you're not too revealing about your own shortcomings.

So is Batchelor of "I Was Taught This", better or worse than Doctor of "I Researched This Myself from Source Material".
Let's start by helping you understand what a doctorate actually is. Reading source material is rarely research, except maybe in the humanities. Research is about generating new knowledge in a highly specialist area, and a PhD is an entry-level qualification in doing that within academia. It is not "better" or "worse" than other career choices, as far as education goes. There are people with doctorates whose level of education is lower than that of people without doctorates. As such, using a PhD as a level of education isn't very useful.

Don’t really see how that is different from “only coordinate acceleration is relative.  Proper acceleration is always absolute”, which is what I said.
Yes, that is the problem, as usual. You took an article which explains that proper acceleration is measured relative to a well-defined FoR and chose to "translate" it into "well uhh duh it agrees with me". You then did your all-time classic of spamming questionable sources that you think agree with you because they used a word you like while ignoring their meaning.

But we already know you're trolling, so we won't be wasting time here. Your error has been corrected. Better luck next time.

I'm sorry Pete, but if the Earth is accelerating in a straight line like FET states, then it's in a non-inertial frame.
You can be sorry all you want, but this statement continues to be nonsensical, to the point where you can't call it true or false. You can consider any physical scenario in any frame of reference. That's pretty much the point of relativity. Now, it may be more intuitive for you to consider it in a non-inertial FoR (and I'd be inclined to agree), but you're immediately going to run into issues with fellas like pricesspearl who will then mix up multiple frames to make their point.

You might also mean that the Earth is a non-intertial FoR, or that it is stationary with regard to a non-inertial FoR rather than that it is in one. Those statements make some sense, and are true, but is largely useless.

I can't help you here. You're gonna have to brush up on basic physics. This is not a FE vs RE issue.

You can't have it both ways Pete, it doesn't work like that.
It absolutely does. I strongly suggest that you familiarise yourself with how you can transform between frames of reference. It's absolutely essential knowledge for this debate, and something that was likely explained to you in high school.

Proper acceleration is always absolute.
But of course it's relative to something. There is no such thing as an objective frame of reference. Any statement that implies otherwise is a non-starter. I'll just refer you to Wikipedia, since we already know you're an obvious troll. You only need to go in as deep as two sentences to correct your error, but I do suggest you read on.

How can Flat Earthers state this as a fact if to your point there is the aspect of unverifiable nature?
I dunno, but I once met a RE'er who constantly mixed up velocity and acceleration. How can Round Earthers claim to be serious when they make such simple mistakes?!

To spell my point out to you: you're trying to project the views of an indivudual onto a movement, and demand that others defend those views. It's not gonna happen. If you have a problem with something TL said, take it up with TL.

13 one is willing to put their academic reputation on the line to back the FE theory?  Or, perhaps, there is no one who is highly educated that believes the FE theory?
Alternatively, exactly what I said is the case, with no hidden meanings or clauses. That said, you might want to pay attention to the fact that a PhD is a research qualification, not a level of education.

So, in FET, is the Earth in an inertial frame or a non-inertial frame?
This question is nonsensical, and reveals an elementary misunderstanding of what frames of reference are.

There is no such thing as an objective frame of reference - you can consider either, usually whichever one makes your calculations easier at the time.

What direct knowledge or fact-based evidence do flat Earthers have that pictures from space showing a round earth are fake?
You are not paying attention to what I'm saying. I told you in my first response here (and twice more afterwards) that this presumption of yours is false.

If you don't read my words, I won't waste my time writing them out for you. Show some basic courtesy, or be prepared to receive none back.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates
« on: April 01, 2020, 03:42:57 AM »
Pangaea is an urban myth?

"The Flat Earth's crust is made up of huge slabs called plates, which fit together like a jigsaw puzzle."
Continents and tectonic plates are not one and the same. The question, specifically, asserted that South America and Africa "can be put one aside the other fitting like a jigsaw puzzle". This is not the case.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Flat Earth a Movement or a Theory?
« on: April 01, 2020, 03:27:59 AM »
In other shocking news, the communist party is not the same as communism.

Flat Earth is not "referred to" as a movement or theory. There exists a movement and a theory which refer to Flat Earth. You're trying too hard to "gotcha" us, and it's not working out.

So are a number of other endeavours, none of which seem to find a lack of acceptance from the FE community.
That's a nice unqualified assertion you've made there. It happens to be completely false.

I trust your question of "why are space photos hard to verify?" has been answered to your satisfaction, given you had no objections that actually pertained to my point. I will ask once more, politely for now, that you stop wasting everyone's time.

Zetetic Council members
Don't use terms you don't understand. It's a bad look for you. If you want to say Tom, just say Tom. And probably direct your question to him instead of being vague.

But, at the same time, guilty of posting or leveraging photos / images / etc.. from the internet to support and help back the Flat Earth theory.
Anyone who does that is being silly, regardless of which tribe they happen to support. I'm not sure what else I could do to help you on that front.

Please explain, either here or there, why you think it is "hard" to verify them...
Because going to space as a private citizen is hard.

Tumeni, you've been here a while. These entry-level questions are an obvious attempt at obstruction from you. Crawl back into your cave and let others have a discussion.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Half-Life: Alyx. Thoughts?
« on: March 30, 2020, 11:40:23 AM »
Welp, I did predict I would postpone this. It's a shame I didn't predict the meme plague being the cause, or I could have made a tidy fortune.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 266  Next >