#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9691
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2019, 02:51:17 PM »
Just because we may or may not have had this discussion before, that doesn't necessarily mean that I ever got a satisfactory answer out of you.
Indeed. Now, please do stay on topic and take your amateurish trolling attempts to the lower echelons.

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### Snoopy

• 37
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2019, 11:20:17 PM »
But it is plausible for it to be hurtling 'upwards' at c (or 1000's x c)?
It was already explained to you that this is not even remotely the case. Read up on Special Relativity.

I have had grad level physics courses in relativity.  If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days.  The earth is older.
So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.

You need to get educated on basic Newtonian mechanics
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 8692
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2019, 11:31:10 PM »
Doubtful.

If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days.
No, you would not.

So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.
No.

Anyway, with SR you can accelerate constantly forever and never reach c (you will asymptotically approach c). I am not sure why you would invoke Newtonian mechanics for this. Someone with grad-level knowledge of relativity would certainly understand.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

#### Snoopy

• 37
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2019, 11:52:39 PM »
Doubtful.

If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days.
No, you would not.

So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.
No.

Anyway, with SR you can accelerate constantly forever and never reach c (you will asymptotically approach c). I am not sure why you would invoke Newtonian mechanics for this. Someone with grad-level knowledge of relativity would certainly understand.

You doubt the globe earth, so not a good arbitrator of physics knowledge.

32.17 ft/sec^2 x 365 days/yr x 24 hrs/day x 60 min/hr x 60 sec/min / 5280 ft/mile = 192e3 mile/sec
So 353/365 x 192e3 ~ 186e3 ~ c
The earths mass and all on it would approach infinity and dimensions would approach 0
That is not happening

Lorenz

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 3758
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2019, 12:29:01 AM »
Just because we may or may not have had this discussion before, that doesn't necessarily mean that I ever got a satisfactory answer out of you.
Indeed. Now, please do stay on topic and take your amateurish trolling attempts to the lower echelons.
Sure thing Pete.

Would anyone else care to explain why an active upwards acceleration lasting for many, many years should be more plausible than a relatively passive phenomenon like gravity/gravitation?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2019, 12:30:41 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 8692
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2019, 01:26:10 AM »
You doubt the globe earth, so not a good arbitrator of physics knowledge.
Says the person with grad-level physics knowledge who doesn't know how to apply SR...

32.17 ft/sec^2 x 365 days/yr x 24 hrs/day x 60 min/hr x 60 sec/min / 5280 ft/mile = 192e3 mile/sec
So 353/365 x 192e3 ~ 186e3 ~ c
Excellent, you can do basic arithmetic. Did you have another point to make?

The earths mass and all on it would approach infinity and dimensions would approach 0
That is not happening

Lorenz
At least you are somewhat giving it a try here. Very lazily, but a try nonetheless.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 8692
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2019, 02:15:31 AM »
Just because we may or may not have had this discussion before, that doesn't necessarily mean that I ever got a satisfactory answer out of you.
Indeed. Now, please do stay on topic and take your amateurish trolling attempts to the lower echelons.
Sure thing Pete.

Would anyone else care to explain why an active upwards acceleration lasting for many, many years should be more plausible than a relatively passive phenomenon like gravity/gravitation?

Why would an infinite upward acceleration be any less plausible than an infinite inward acceleration? Both seem to be active rather than passive.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

#### stack

• 1238
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2019, 02:34:04 AM »
Doubtful.

If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days.
No, you would not.

So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.
No.

Anyway, with SR you can accelerate constantly forever and never reach c (you will asymptotically approach c). I am not sure why you would invoke Newtonian mechanics for this. Someone with grad-level knowledge of relativity would certainly understand.

You doubt the globe earth, so not a good arbitrator of physics knowledge.

32.17 ft/sec^2 x 365 days/yr x 24 hrs/day x 60 min/hr x 60 sec/min / 5280 ft/mile = 192e3 mile/sec
So 353/365 x 192e3 ~ 186e3 ~ c
The earths mass and all on it would approach infinity and dimensions would approach 0
That is not happening

Lorenz

A super basic question. If you're accelerating upward at 32.17 ft/sec^2, as a constant, am I not just simply driving down a highway at, say, 55 mph, steady as she goes, 55 mph, and never, I guess, exponentially accumulating speed? After 2000 miles at a constant 55 mph I was never doing more than 55 mph. Isn't UA the same thing? The earth is moving up at a constant, but not accumulating compounding velocity? Again, super basic question.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 3758
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2019, 03:26:25 AM »
Why would an infinite upward acceleration be any less plausible than an infinite inward acceleration? Both seem to be active rather than passive.
Well, for one thing, upwards acceleration requires a nigh infinite energy source.  Where is the source of that all that energy?  Does the distance squared rule apply?  On the other hand, warping space-time is an innate property of matter and energy.

For another thing, acceleration implies that the FE and the accompanying visible universe is going somewhere.  Where is the FE universe going and what will happen when it gets there?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 8692
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #29 on: July 24, 2019, 03:58:40 AM »
On the other hand, warping space-time is an innate property of matter and energy.
That seems like a convenient way to avoid explaining how gravity gets to be an infinite attractive 'force (acceleration).

For another thing, acceleration implies that the FE and the accompanying visible universe is going somewhere.  Where is the FE universe going and what will happen when it gets there?
I fail to see that implication.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 3758
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #30 on: July 24, 2019, 01:15:07 PM »
On the other hand, warping space-time is an innate property of matter and energy.
That seems like a convenient way to avoid explaining how gravity gets to be an infinite attractive 'force (acceleration).
As opposed to just ignoring the source of the UA?

BTW, according to Einstein, gravity/gravitation is not a force.  It's simply the natural movement of an object through warped space-time.

For another thing, acceleration implies that the FE and the accompanying visible universe is going somewhere.  Where is the FE universe going and what will happen when it gets there?
I fail to see that implication.
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity.  Velocity is speed in a direction.  Speed is the rate of change of distance per unit time.  If the FE is accelerating upwards, then it must be moving upwards.  Again, where is the FE universe going is such a hurry?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 8692
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #31 on: July 24, 2019, 03:09:32 PM »
As opposed to just ignoring the source of the UA?
I am not trying to do that. It needs to be addressed as well. I was simply responding to your question regarding the plausibility of gravity because you asked someone to. I certainly don't have all the answers.

BTW, according to Einstein, gravity/gravitation is not a force.  It's simply the natural movement of an object through warped space-time.
Yes, I know/agree. I meant to type the word in quotes for context or to imply a psuedo-force, but I see it made things more confusing.

For another thing, acceleration implies that the FE and the accompanying visible universe is going somewhere.  Where is the FE universe going and what will happen when it gets there?
I fail to see that implication.
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity.  Velocity is speed in a direction.  Speed is the rate of change of distance per unit time.  If the FE is accelerating upwards, then it must be moving upwards.  Again, where is the FE universe going is such a hurry?
[/quote]
Yes, and I am not disagreeing. I am just failing to see the implication that there is any sort of destination to reach.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

#### ChrisTP

• 397
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #32 on: July 24, 2019, 03:34:34 PM »
Please elaborate.  To which "inconsistency with observed reality" are you referring?
You and I have had this discussion many times before. I see no reason to repeat myself if you're not even going to bother trying to remember.
For the sake of readers who haven't had this discussion with you, could you at the very least copy/paste your response to this? I'm curious too in relation to this thread.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

#### Snoopy

• 37
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #33 on: July 24, 2019, 07:06:35 PM »
You doubt the globe earth, so not a good arbitrator of physics knowledge.
Says the person with grad-level physics knowledge who doesn't know how to apply SR...

32.17 ft/sec^2 x 365 days/yr x 24 hrs/day x 60 min/hr x 60 sec/min / 5280 ft/mile = 192e3 mile/sec
So 353/365 x 192e3 ~ 186e3 ~ c
Excellent, you can do basic arithmetic. Did you have another point to make?

The earths mass and all on it would approach infinity and dimensions would approach 0
That is not happening

Lorenz
At least you are somewhat giving it a try here. Very lazily, but a try nonetheless.

Says the flat earther

It's more than you can do

100 yrs at 1 g
V = 0.999999999999999999+ c
Mass x billions
Size / billions
Density bil x bil

Yes, the earth is travel~ c and not 18 mi/sec

Lol

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 8692
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #34 on: July 24, 2019, 07:34:15 PM »
Says the flat earther

It's more than you can do

100 yrs at 1 g
V = 0.999999999999999999+ c
Mass x billions
Size / billions
Density bil x bil

Yes, the earth is travel~ c and not 18 mi/sec

Lol

You are going to have to attempt coherent sentences if you want anyone to talk to you. I get that you don't understand the topic, but spattering gibberish is rather lazy. I won't warn you for low-content since I was attempting to engage with you, but this is very much lazy and low-effort posting.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 143
• That's no beaver
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2019, 10:24:23 PM »
I have had grad level physics courses in relativity.  If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days.  The earth is older.
So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.
Oh dear god. Were you asleep? Did you accidentally attend biology lectures for the whole semester?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

• 28
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #36 on: August 09, 2019, 06:37:08 PM »
But it is plausible for it to be hurtling 'upwards' at c (or 1000's x c)?
It was already explained to you that this is not even remotely the case. Read up on Special Relativity.

I have had grad level physics courses in relativity.  If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days.  The earth is older.
So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.

You need to get educated on basic Newtonian mechanics

Hey, I took grad-level SR, too! Still my all-time favorite course.

But you're missing something here. In your own frame of reference, you absolutely can accelerate forever, and paradoxically, you'll never hit c. The faster you go, the more you experience time dilation, which you'd never notice. To you, your acceleration is continuing as normal, but to the outside observer, your acceleration is getting slower and slower the closer you get to c.

Think of it this way - You're in your car travelling at 50 mph. You can step on the gas and feel acceleration, right? But if a cosmic ray were to pass you in the other direction going 99.999999% c, to it, you're already going nearly the speed of light and it might say to you there's no way you can accelerate another 25 mph because you'd pass c. Obviously, that's ridiculous. You can accelerate regardless of how fast you seem to that cosmic ray, just as you can accelerate regardless of how fast you seem to any other point in the universe.

Likewise, the flat Earth could be under a constant acceleration forever without ever reaching c. C is a limit of how fast you can observe another frame of reference, not your own.

That said, the idea of universal acceleration utterly falls apart for a variety of other reasons. This just isn't one of the reasons.

#### newhorizons

• 93
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2019, 08:36:23 AM »
From Reer, earlier in the discussion...
Quote
On the surface of the earth, where the gravitational acceleration is about 9.8m/s2 the "weight" of an object is the same as its mass, i.e. a person with a mass of 100 kg will weigh 100 kg.

That is not quite true. Mass is simply the amount of matter contained in a body or object. So a person on Earth or anywhere in the Universe does not weigh any number of kg because kg is the standard SI unit of mass. A person of mass 100kg on the surface of the Earth will feel a force due to gravity of 100kg x 9.81ms/2 = 981N where the Newton is the SI unit of force. 1N is the force necessary to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1ms/2. In the case of weight, that force is acceleration due to gravity.

A person of mass 100kg will have the same mass regardless of their position in the Universe. So they would have the same mass if they were standing on the surface of the Moon but they would only have one 6th of the weight, i.e. 981N/6 = 163.5N
RET seeks the truth as it actually is. FET seeks the truth as some would like it to be.