[juner]

Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.

I really have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who acts like a condescending prick. Especially when they don't understand the topic they are being condescending about. If at any point you want to have an actual discussion and can act like a reasonably mature adult, I will be around.

[BCGreenwood]

Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.

I really have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who acts like a condescending prick. Especially when they don't understand the topic they are being condescending about. If at any point you want to have an actual discussion and can act like a reasonably mature adult, I will be around.

lol
I think you've worked out where this is going, congratulations. You've earned that biscuit, even though it means you believe in something stupid.

In simple terms flat earthers are trying to argue that the Earth is travelling close to the speed of light.
E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth is ridiculously huge.

In even simpler terms flat earthers believe they have more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.

I really have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who acts like a condescending prick. Especially when they don't understand the topic they are being condescending about. If at any point you want to have an actual discussion and can act like a reasonably mature adult, I will be around.

lol
I think you've worked out where this is going, congratulations. You've earned that biscuit, even though it means you believe in something stupid.

In simple terms flat earthers are trying to argue that the Earth is travelling close to the speed of light.
E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth is ridiculously huge.

In even simpler terms flat earthers believe they have more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.

When you put it that way, special relativity sounds pretty fucking stupid. I know my hand existgs, but can you tell me when a black hole has every actually been proven to exist?

[juner]

Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.

I really have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who acts like a condescending prick. Especially when they don't understand the topic they are being condescending about. If at any point you want to have an actual discussion and can act like a reasonably mature adult, I will be around.

lol
I think you've worked out where this is going, congratulations. You've earned that biscuit, even though it means you believe in something stupid.

In simple terms flat earthers are trying to argue that the Earth is travelling close to the speed of light.
E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth is ridiculously huge.

In even simpler terms flat earthers believe they have more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.

Again, that is not how it works. Inertial mass in acceleration within the context of SR refers to the energy required to keep accelerating an object, not that you literally gain mass. You are not applying E=mc² properly. I would suggest you read the resource I provided as well as reading this:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91974/increase-in-mass-with-velocity

and this:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1686/why-does-the-relativistic-mass-of-an-object-increase-when-its-speed-approaches

You will see that there is not an absolute answer to the question at hand and you are grossly oversimplifying the situation.

[BCGreenwood]

Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.

I really have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who acts like a condescending prick. Especially when they don't understand the topic they are being condescending about. If at any point you want to have an actual discussion and can act like a reasonably mature adult, I will be around.

lol
I think you've worked out where this is going, congratulations. You've earned that biscuit, even though it means you believe in something stupid.

In simple terms flat earthers are trying to argue that the Earth is travelling close to the speed of light.
E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth is ridiculously huge.

In even simpler terms flat earthers believe they have more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.

Again, that is not how it works. Inertial mass in acceleration within the context of SR refers to the energy required to keep accelerating an object, not that you literally gain mass. You are not applying E=mc² properly. I would suggest you read the resource I provided as well as reading this:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91974/increase-in-mass-with-velocity

and this:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1686/why-does-the-relativistic-mass-of-an-object-increase-when-its-speed-approaches

You will see that there is not an absolute answer to the question at hand and you are grossly oversimplifying the situation.

Interesting that you direct me to a comments page.

"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed - the higher the speed, the higher the mass. This effect is crucial for anyone operating a high-energy particle accelerator in which elementary particles are accelerated to speeds near that of light. "
http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/emc

That's from Einstein online if you want to read up on it.

[juner]

Interesting that you direct me to a comments page.

Yes, a discussion among people who research and study physics. I've provided you several resources thus far. You've added absolutely nothing to the conversation, other than repeating the same thing that has been demonstrated to be inaccurate.

"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed - the higher the speed, the higher the mass. This effect is crucial for anyone operating a high-energy particle accelerator in which elementary particles are accelerated to speeds near that of light. "
http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/emc

That's from Einstein online if you want to read up on it.

Alright, I've given up on assuming you have any understanding of the concept. It is blatantly obvious that you do not. Let's focus on the quote you posted first:

"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed

Looking more closely:

the inertial mass

As specific as it gets:

inertial mass

The link you posted literally says the same thing. I have to assume you are just trolling at this point. No one is this dense.

[BCGreenwood]

Interesting that you direct me to a comments page.

Yes, a discussion among people who research and study physics. I've provided you several resources thus far. You've added absolutely nothing to the conversation, other than repeating the same thing that has been demonstrated to be inaccurate.

"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed - the higher the speed, the higher the mass. This effect is crucial for anyone operating a high-energy particle accelerator in which elementary particles are accelerated to speeds near that of light. "
http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/emc

That's from Einstein online if you want to read up on it.

Alright, I've given up on assuming you have any understanding of the concept. It is blatantly obvious that you do not. Let's focus on the quote you posted first:

"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed

Looking more closely:

the inertial mass

As specific as it gets:

inertial mass

The link you posted literally says the same thing. I have to assume you are just trolling at this point. No one is this dense.

Interesting that you think the statement has been demonstrated to be inaccurate, the one written by the Max Planck Institute for gravitational physics.
But I shouldn't distract you, you seem to be a one thought at a time kinda person.

So simply my question is:
Does the intertial mass of a body increase as it's speed increases?

[BlueMoon]

Interesting that you direct me to a comments page.

Yes, a discussion among people who research and study physics. I've provided you several resources thus far. You've added absolutely nothing to the conversation, other than repeating the same thing that has been demonstrated to be inaccurate.

"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed - the higher the speed, the higher the mass. This effect is crucial for anyone operating a high-energy particle accelerator in which elementary particles are accelerated to speeds near that of light. "
http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/emc

That's from Einstein online if you want to read up on it.

Alright, I've given up on assuming you have any understanding of the concept. It is blatantly obvious that you do not. Let's focus on the quote you posted first:

"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed

Looking more closely:

the inertial mass

As specific as it gets:

inertial mass

The link you posted literally says the same thing. I have to assume you are just trolling at this point. No one is this dense.

Interesting that you think the statement has been demonstrated to be inaccurate, the one written by the Max Planck Institute for gravitational physics.
But I shouldn't distract you, you seem to be a one thought at a time kinda person.

So simply my question is:
Does the intertial mass of a body increase as it's speed increases?

BCGreenwood, ease off a bit.  In this one narrow regard, they're right.  There is no absolute speed, so you could accelerate forever, and c would remain constant. 


Mind you, universal acceleration doesn't account for the measurable difference in gravitational acceleration at different latitudes (which we know is caused by the oblateness and spin of the earth) or what's keeping planets and satellites accelerating at nearly the same rate as everything else instead of falling to earth.  There are plenty of other areas where FEF falls apart, so let them have this one. 

[TotesNotReptilian]

As far as I'm concerned, this thread concluded with nametaken graciously accepting Rounder's explanation of relative motion in space. But to clear up the argument that cropped up afterwards...

In simple terms flat earthers are trying to argue that the Earth is travelling close to the speed of light.
E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth is ridiculously huge.

In even simpler terms flat earthers believe they have more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.

If you want to talk about velocity, length contraction, and relativistic mass, you need to establish the frame of reference of the observer.

Let's call the observer Bob. Bob can survive in space. Bob is moving at .99 c relative to earth. Bob is pretty darn bored, because he doesn't get Netflix in space, but I digress...

According to Bob, the earth is indeed experiencing length contraction. The earth also has a ridiculously high relativistic mass.

According to the good citizens of earth, Bob is the one experiencing length contraction. Bob is the one with ridiculously high relativistic mass.

According to the good citizens of earth, the earth is not experiencing length contraction, and its total mass is just its normal everyday rest mass.

In conclusion, no one is implying that anyone is holding a black hole in their hand.

BCGreenwood: I don't mind people being wrong. I myself am wrong all the time. Heck, there is a chance I'm wrong about this. But being smug and insulting is a one-way ticket to no-respect land.
junker: You are generally correct about this topic as far as I can tell. But at least try to explain to the poor guy why he is being wrong, instead of being smug and dismissive about everything he says... its no wonder this thread was going nowhere.

[Rounder]

I suspect that theoretical physicists who truly understand the subjects of Special and General Relativity would get a good laugh at the attempts (both the RE and the FE attempts) to expound upon it here.

[BCGreenwood]

As far as I'm concerned, this thread concluded with nametaken graciously accepting Rounder's explanation of relative motion in space. But to clear up the argument that cropped up afterwards...

In simple terms flat earthers are trying to argue that the Earth is travelling close to the speed of light.
E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth is ridiculously huge.

In even simpler terms flat earthers believe they have more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.

If you want to talk about velocity, length contraction, and relativistic mass, you need to establish the frame of reference of the observer.

Let's call the observer Bob. Bob can survive in space. Bob is moving at .99 c relative to earth. Bob is pretty darn bored, because he doesn't get Netflix in space, but I digress...

According to Bob, the earth is indeed experiencing length contraction. The earth also has a ridiculously high relativistic mass.

According to the good citizens of earth, Bob is the one experiencing length contraction. Bob is the one with ridiculously high relativistic mass.

According to the good citizens of earth, the earth is not experiencing length contraction, and its total mass is just its normal everyday rest mass.

In conclusion, no one is implying that anyone is holding a black hole in their hand.

BCGreenwood: I don't mind people being wrong. I myself am wrong all the time. Heck, there is a chance I'm wrong about this. But being smug and insulting is a one-way ticket to no-respect land.
junker: You are generally correct about this topic as far as I can tell. But at least try to explain to the poor guy why he is being wrong, instead of being smug and dismissive about everything he says... its no wonder this thread was going nowhere.

You've missed one important detail about the whole thing though, the twins paradox.
Yes Bob and Earth appear to each other to be moving very fast but only 1 of them is and that's the point I'm making.
Any observer would have to be travelling close to the speed of light for Earth to appear "normal".

Oh and Totesnotreptilian, I noticed you mentioned this on my other post I just couldn't be bothered to reply. You said 3 or 4 times that I didn't mention  that it was to an outside observer. To be honest, I thought it was kinda obvious.

[TotesNotReptilian]

You've missed one important detail about the whole thing though, the twins paradox.
Yes Bob and Earth appear to each other to be moving very fast but only 1 of them is and that's the point I'm making.

Either could be said to be moving, unless you accept the premise of an absolute frame of reference.

Unlike the twins' age, length contraction and relativistic mass are dependent only on the current relative velocity. They are independent of the path taken.

Any observer would have to be travelling close to the speed of light for Earth to appear "normal".

No, any observer would have to be travelling close to 0 m/s relative to the Earth for Earth to appear "normal". Forget about Bob. Bob's frame of reference is arbitrary and unimportant. If you want to measure the relativistic mass or length contraction of an object from our point of view, then the only frame of reference that matters is the Earth's.

You said 3 or 4 times that I didn't mention  that it was to an outside observer. To be honest, I thought it was kinda obvious.

My apologies. I like to be repetitive. I like to be repetitive. I like to be repetitive.

[Rounder]

Unless I've missed something, I really think all this discussion of relativistic effects is moot for the simple reason that if UA really is Universal, it means that all matter is subject to it, and there basically is no "outside" from which to observe, nor for us "inside" to make observations of.  Length contraction, increase in mass, all of it: those things only matter if there are two different frames of reference.  With nothing outside the accelerating frame of reference, we on the inside cannot say one way or the other if those effects are happening.  Going back to Einstein's thought experiments, his 'man in an elevator' subject could have been travelling at 99.9999c and subject to immense length and mass changes, but he himself would not know that unless he could observe something outside his own frame of reference and compare himself to it.

[Round fact]

Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.

You're claiming you know why the flat earth can accelerate continuously and never reach the speed of light.
Do you understand that the flat earth is travelling at over 99.9% of the speed of light?

How do you know that the flat earth is traveling 99.9% of the speed of light.
How do you know how long the flat earth has been traveling?
How do you know the speed of light?
How does being a condescending prick work out for you in the real world bud?

There's some questions for you, try not to dodge them.

Point 1. Math. If one is accelerating at 1g in order to maintain 1g you are mathematically required to gain speed. But other things are going during the acceleration. Too much so to go into detail here which has been proved by both sides; FE and RE alike.

Point 2. Pick a starting year. 4.8 billion years ago or 6020 years ago or any year you personally think the Earth was created, and plug in the numbers for 1g acceleration. The web is full of calculators that are a great help with doing the math for you. Or you can copy the formula and plug in the numbers yourself to get the answer.

Point 3. I am tempted to just respond with; Seriously? I honestly don't know where to begin. Radio, TV, Microwave, Cell phones, computers, wifi, everything electronic, you flashlight even. The speed of light is as well understood as basic checkbook accounting.

Point 4. Well you didn't address that to me specifically, and I won't answer for him except to say, I have seen the same behavior from you a few times on these boards. Not judging mind you, just pointing out an observation. 

Set in my ways? My will tell you, "HELL YEAH he is." But she'll also tell you that I have taken the time to learn enough to have that strong opinion. AND she'll tell you that when it is proved that my opinion is wrong, I'll swallow my pride and admit I was wrong.

That is why I trust the math and geometry. Each has had thousands of years of checks and proofs under their belts. It is also why I trust science, it changes when proofs are provided.  Einstein was castigated for GR and SR math. But when science started understanding and proofs were discovered it gained acceptance. And when another Einstein comes along, and there WILL be another Einstein, the castigation will happen again and as understanding and proofs are discovered it will be accepted. Live and learn is not a bad way to live, all you have to do is be willing to let go of you fantasies and accept what is plainly proved with math and science.

[TotesNotReptilian]

How do you know that the flat earth is traveling 99.9% of the speed of light.
How do you know how long the flat earth has been traveling?
How do you know the speed of light?
How does being a condescending prick work out for you in the real world bud?

There's some questions for you, try not to dodge them.

Point 1. Math. If one is accelerating at 1g in order to maintain 1g you are mathematically required to gain speed. But other things are going during the acceleration. Too much so to go into detail here which has been proved by both sides; FE and RE alike.

The whole point of the last few comments of this thread has been that claiming that "the earth is traveling at ____ speed" is completely pointless. You could declare the earth to be moving at absolutely any speed less than c, and be completely correct, depending on what you define as your frame of reference. (See Rounder's post. He gets it.)

Your other points stand.

[Round fact]

How do you know that the flat earth is traveling 99.9% of the speed of light.
How do you know how long the flat earth has been traveling?
How do you know the speed of light?
How does being a condescending prick work out for you in the real world bud?

There's some questions for you, try not to dodge them.

Point 1. Math. If one is accelerating at 1g in order to maintain 1g you are mathematically required to gain speed. But other things are going during the acceleration. Too much so to go into detail here which has been proved by both sides; FE and RE alike.

The whole point of the last few comments of this thread has been that claiming that "the earth is traveling at ____ speed" is completely pointless. You could declare the earth to be moving at absolutely any speed less than c, and be completely correct, depending on what you define as your frame of reference. (See Rounder's post. He gets it.)

Your other points stand.

Pease re-read my point again. You should find that we both agree with Rounder.

[rabinoz]

Unless I've missed something, I really think all this discussion of relativistic effects is moot for the simple reason that if UA really is Universal, it means that all matter is subject to it, and there basically is no "outside" from which to observe, nor for us "inside" to make observations of.  Length contraction, increase in mass, all of it: those things only matter if there are two different frames of reference.  With nothing outside the accelerating frame of reference, we on the inside cannot say one way or the other if those effects are happening.  Going back to Einstein's thought experiments, his 'man in an elevator' subject could have been travelling at 99.9999c and subject to immense length and mass changes, but he himself would not know that unless he could observe something outside his own frame of reference and compare himself to it.

I had not noticed your little 'man in an elevator' bit earlier. One thing that seems to kill UA is that the 'elevator' is minute compared to the earth. Einstein's Equivalence Principle is only valid for a region of space with a uniform acceleration due to gravitation. This is clearly not satisfied over the whole earth. Even on the "Flat Earth" we know that apparent "g" varies quite significantly with latitude, altitude and the proximity to massive bodies (particularly high density ores). On the Globe even the direction of "g" changes - it is always directed (almost) to the centre of the earth. The reference http://Einstein Online, Equivalence Principle looks at these cases where these "tidal forces" become significant. The "massive elevator" on the right illustrates this (though with the Globe). Objects in the elevator are subjected to gravitational forces in different directions and so we cannot apply Einstein's EP to the whole elevator.

Spacer

In the TFES "the Wiki" tries to explain this away with its "Celestial Gravitation",

Celestial Gravitation
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

There there seem numerous reasons to question this. Not the least is the illogicality of the tiny celestial objects having a gravitational effect on the objects on earth, yet the almost infinitely more massive earth  has no effect  .

As far as I am concerned this completely invalidates Einstein's Equivalence Principle as a justification for "Universal Acceleration".