Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10902
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2020, 02:35:49 PM »
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.

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Groit

• 74
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #41 on: April 03, 2020, 04:52:49 PM »
You can't have it both ways Pete, it doesn't work like that. It's like saying "the shape of the Earth is round and flat"

pricelesspearl

• 180
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #42 on: April 03, 2020, 07:51:45 PM »
Quote
There is no such thing as an objective frame of reference

That is only true in GR. In SR acceleration in absolute.  And even in GR, only coordinate acceleration is relative.  Proper acceleration is always absolute. It isn’t necessary to relate your acceleration to some outside reference.  An accelerometer within your own reference would show acceleration or not.

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10902
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #43 on: April 04, 2020, 05:58:13 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2020, 07:02:27 PM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Groit

• 74
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #44 on: April 04, 2020, 08:22:51 PM »
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.

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. In order to make the frame inertial then you would need to account for the 'Fictitious force' which would be f = -ma.

And since the scientists don't need to compensate for any 'Fictitious forces' when measuring the muons that reach the surface of the Earth, then we know that the Earth is not accelerating and our frame of reference is inertial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force

Quote
Detection of non-inertial reference frame

Observers inside a closed box that is moving with a constant velocity cannot detect their own motion; however, observers within an accelerating reference frame can detect that they are in a non-inertial reference frame from the fictitious forces that arise. For example, for straight-line acceleration Vladimir Arnold presents the following theorem:[12]

In a coordinate system K which moves by translation relative to an inertial system k, the motion of a mechanical system takes place as if the coordinate system were inertial, but on every point of mass m an additional "inertial force" acted: F = −ma, where a is the acceleration of the system K.

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10902
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #45 on: April 04, 2020, 08:27:58 PM »
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's own FoR 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.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2020, 09:28:02 AM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

pricelesspearl

• 180
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #46 on: April 04, 2020, 10:14:56 PM »
Quote
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.

Wikipedia says “Proper acceleration contrasts with coordinate acceleration, which is dependent on choice of coordinate systems and thus upon choice of observers.”
I’ll translate for you.  Proper acceleration is different than coordinate acceleration.  Coordinate acceleration is relative, proper acceleration is not.

Don’t really see how that is different from “only coordinate acceleration is relative.  Proper acceleration is always absolute”, which is what I said.

Quote
The reason for this is that an observer can always tell what their acceleration is without referring to anything external. All you have to do is drop something and see what happens. If you're not accelerating the dropped object will just hover next to you. If you are accelerating then the dropped object will accelerate away from you

The acceleration measured in this way is called the proper acceleration and is an important concept in general relativity. All observers everywhere will agree on the value of your proper acceleration, making it an absolute not a relative quantity.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/366301/is-acceleration-relative-in-classical-physics

Quote
In his special theory of relativity, the relativity of motion is implemented only for inertial motions. It does not extend to accelerated motions. They are motions that change their speed or direction or both. We can still say that something accelerates without adding a further qualification "with respect to...". Thus, acceleration is an absolute for Einstein's special theory.

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_principles/

Quote
This chapter focuses on acceleration, which, unlike velocity, can be detected by a body in motion and measured within the moving system. Acceleration is also more fundamental; it is absolute, whereas velocity is relative and depends on the frame of reference chosen

http://physics.gu.se/~f3aamp/edu/acceleration.html

In FET, in earth’s frame of reference, acceleration creates “gravity”.   We can objectively determine within our own frame that earth is accelerating because “gravity” exists.  What some other person, in some other frame of reference perceives doesn’t change our perception that the earth is accelerating because “gravity” exists.  Therefore, earth's frame of reference is objective with respect to its acceleration.

Or are you arguing that in FET “gravity” only exists on earth if some other person, in some other frame of reference perceives the earth to be accelerating?

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10902
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #47 on: April 05, 2020, 09:12:58 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2020, 09:14:31 AM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

pricelesspearl

• 180
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #48 on: April 05, 2020, 09:55:40 PM »
Quote
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.

“ It is thus acceleration relative to a free-fall, or inertial, observer who is momentarily at rest relative to the object being measured”…your “gotcha” is nothing more than a different way of stating my exact point.

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.

And since the whole point of SR is that any experiment performed in any inertial frame of reference will have the same results….in every single inertial frame of reference, the earth’s acceleration will always be measured as 9.8 m/s2…and it will always measure the same as within the earth’s frame.  That is what makes it absolute.  It doesn’t change dependent on the FoR.

In SR, acceleration of earth will always equal 9.8 m/s2 in any inertial frame.  In SR, Acceleration of earth with it's own frame will always equal 9.8 m/s2.  Therefore in, SR, the acceleration of earth is not frame dependent.  It would behoove you to think through logical inferences and use some critical thinking skills before you jump to conclusions about the point I am making.  Then I wouldn’t have to translate.

I’m not sure that a paper published on a respected university’s website, written by a Distinguished Professor of that University, should be considered “questionable”…but whatever.

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10902
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #49 on: April 06, 2020, 10:23:12 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2020, 10:35:12 AM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

pricelesspearl

• 180
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #50 on: April 06, 2020, 01:40:46 PM »
[quote[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.[/quote]

And in every single one of those inertial frames, for any length of time, the acceleration will be the same.  Proper acceleration is Lorentz-Invariant...the same in all inertial frames of reference.

You are confusing and velocity and acceleration.  That same confusion is evident in your wiki.

Quote
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.  Somebody needs to learn how to add relativistic velocities, then they would understand that in SR, every interval of acceleration increases the velocity a little less. The rate of acceleration remains the same, but the velocity will never reach c. The conclusion on the wiki is correct, but the reasoning behind it is wrong.

According to FET, gravity and acceleration are the same thing.  We have objectively quantified gravity...so by FET's own definition, we have objectively quantified its rate of acceleration.

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10902
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #51 on: April 06, 2020, 09:27:11 PM »
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.

Quote
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?
« Last Edit: April 06, 2020, 10:11:11 PM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

pricelesspearl

• 180
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #52 on: April 07, 2020, 03:20:40 AM »
Quote
In other words, that is the opposite of what mainstream physics states

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.

Quote
Ah, of course. As the velocity approaches c, the velocity decreases. And how does it approach c while decreasing?

The short answer is that relativistic velocities can’t be added in the classical sense.

Quote
What this shows is that the principle of relativity prohibits us adding velocities in the usual way. We cannot add velocities by the ordinary rule 100,000 + 100,000 = 200,000. More generally, the classical rule for the composition of velocities fails…

In its place we need a new rule for the composition of velocities. It ought to look like the ordinary rule as long as velocities are small--we do know that the ordinary rule works for slow moving things like cars on freeways and trains. But it must look very different at high speeds. If we use it to add two velocities close to light, we must get a resultant that is still less than the velocity of light. Einstein found that the principle of relativity forces a particular rule. For the case of velocities oriented in the same direction in space, the relativistic rule for composition of velocities is: velocity of A with respect to C =Velocity of A with respect to B+Velocity of B with respect to C / reduction factor. Click here to see the complete formula.

The full explanation can be found here https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_adding/index.html, but the conclusion is

Quote
The total speed of the last boosted machine increases as we proceed along the sequence "I,""II," etc. But the increases become smaller and smaller…. No matter how often we add 100,000 miles per second, we never get past the speed of light--here set at exactly 186,000 miles per second. We get closer and closer to it. But never past it.

IOW, when the proper formula is used to add relativistic velocities, the rate of acceleration can remain constant, but the increases in velocity gets smaller.

Hopefully, a book written by a Distinguished Professor at the University of Pittsburg, who is considered an authority on Einstein and highly regarded in his field is mainstream enough for you. If not, there is a good, but more technical explanation, starting on page 106 of the standard text Space Time Physics, cowritten by Archibald Wheeler and Edwin Taylor. If their credentials aren’t good enough for you…there’s not much more I can say. You can download the book here.  I can’t cut and paste excerpts from it and it is simply too much information to try and condense.
http://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/0000_spacetime_physics.pdf

« Last Edit: April 07, 2020, 03:28:15 AM by pricelesspearl »

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10902
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #53 on: April 07, 2020, 10:47:31 AM »
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.

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 its 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.

Finally, could you outline your objection to our wiki? The transformations are clearly written out for three-acceleration, not proper acceleration, yet for some reason you're only focusing on butchering the latter. It sounds to me like you've made a lot of assumptions about what's being proposed. Again.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2020, 11:10:46 AM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

JSS

• 463
• Math is math!
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #54 on: April 07, 2020, 11:07:59 AM »
I'm not going to get into the argument over velocity vs acceleration but did wand to point out a thought I had.

One of the sad things about Einsteins theories is it seems to make FTL travel impossible, mostly due to time-travel as a side effect no matter how you travel.

But Flat Earth + Universal Acceleration has an advantage here, in that you can simply set the Earth as a preferred frame of reference which solves all kinds of problems and limitations, including allowing FTL.

Nothing in general or special relativity prohibits having a preferred frame of reference, there just isn't any reason to pick one point in the universe over another in mainstream physics.

But if the Earth is the center of the universe and special in FE theory, then it seems like an obvious choice to make it the preferred reference frame too.

Seems like a good fit to me, and thought I'd make the suggestion.

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10902
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #55 on: April 07, 2020, 11:12:10 AM »
That wouldn't make it FTL in any FoR, still...

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Groit

• 74
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #56 on: April 07, 2020, 11:47:19 AM »
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."

The length of time for the muons to decay is approx 2.2 x 10^-6 s (or 2.2 us). Are you saying that during this short time period, In FET, the Earth is in an inertial frame where SR holds?

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10902
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #57 on: April 07, 2020, 01:00:58 PM »
Are you saying that during this short time period, In FET, the Earth is in an inertial frame where SR holds?
No.

Once again, you need to find out what frames of reference are. The Earth isn't "in" one - that would imply the existence of an objective FoR. You can frame any physical situation in any frame of reference.

You should also not attribute Wikipedians words to me, unless I specifically wrote them. It's a disservice to their contributors.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2020, 01:28:11 PM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

JSS

• 463
• Math is math!
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #58 on: April 07, 2020, 03:08:32 PM »
That wouldn't make it FTL in any FoR, still...

It wouldn't directly allow it, no.  You would still need wormholes, warp drive, hyperspace or some other unknown method to get to FTL in the first place. All of which are still very theoretical (if not outright based on some questionable math) anyway.

Having a special reference frame would however allow you to eliminate any relativity based time travel paradoxes that any FTL method would introduce, as you could resolve them by that preferred reference frame acting as a resolver of any conflicts.

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10902
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT
« Reply #59 on: April 08, 2020, 12:52:58 PM »
Having a special reference frame would however allow you to [do stuff]
That is absolutely not how frames of reference work. You cannot create a FoR in which the laws of physics are miraculously broken. A FoR is just a frame from which you observe a [hypothetical] scenario. It does not change the scenario.