The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Josef on August 16, 2008, 03:01:54 PM

Lets see if I got this right. I bet I dont.. :)
The earth is accelerated. This means its moving. Because it has been accelerating with around 9.8 meters per second for a very long time it means it now moves really fast. It cant move faster than light. So it moves almost as fast as light. Moving mass affects spacetime and warps it. So earth warps spacetime. A lot.
Does this mean that we on earth experience; Both the acceleration, AND the massive gravitational effect from the warped spacetime? What is the total effect?

gravitation is acceleration.
Imagine rolling a ball down a hill that gets steeper and steeper

gravitation is acceleration.
Imagine rolling a ball down a hill that gets steeper and steeper
What does that change? The ball would eventually go near lightspeed..

Whats wrong with a ball going lightspeed? You have something against balls?

Whats wrong with a ball going lightspeed? You have something against balls?
:)

Whats wrong with a ball going light speed? You have something against balls?
errr... because an object cannot hit light speed

It would go near lightspeed alright but as it got closer and closer to lightspeed its mass would increase so it would need more and more energy to continue to accelerate

gravitation is acceleration.
Imagine rolling a ball down a hill that gets steeper and steeper
Sorry, gravitation is not acceleration. That argument was owned.
Also, people are starting to not like this statment.
It would go near lightspeed alright but as it got closer and closer to lightspeed its mass would increase so it would need more and more energy to continue to accelerate

gravitation is acceleration.
Imagine rolling a ball down a hill that gets steeper and steeper
Sorry, gravitation is not acceleration. That argument was owned.
Also, people are starting to not like this statment.
It would go near lightspeed alright but as it got closer and closer to lightspeed its mass would increase so it would need more and more energy to continue to accelerate
Just because they do not like it does not make it any less true. And gravitation is acceleration, but acceleration is not gravitation

gravitation is acceleration.
Imagine rolling a ball down a hill that gets steeper and steeper
Sorry, gravitation is not acceleration. That argument was owned.
Also, people are starting to not like this statment.
It would go near lightspeed alright but as it got closer and closer to lightspeed its mass would increase so it would need more and more energy to continue to accelerate
Just because they do not like it does not make it any less true. And gravitation is acceleration, but acceleration is not gravitation
here
E=gmc^2
g=gamma
I can rearrange the equation to
E=mgc^2
now as velocity increases, the speed of light squared increases, mass stays the same.
Seriously, gravitation is not acceleration. Gravitation causes objects to accelerate.

gravitation is acceleration.
Imagine rolling a ball down a hill that gets steeper and steeper
Sorry, gravitation is not acceleration. That argument was owned.
Also, people are starting to not like this statment.
It would go near lightspeed alright but as it got closer and closer to lightspeed its mass would increase so it would need more and more energy to continue to accelerate
Just because they do not like it does not make it any less true. And gravitation is acceleration, but acceleration is not gravitation
here
E=gmc^2
g=gamma
I can rearrange the equation to
E=mgc^2
now as velocity increases, the speed of light squared increases, mass stays the same.
Seriously, gravitation is not acceleration. Gravitation causes objects to accelerate.
Mass does indeed increase: m= m_{0}/[sqrt(1v^{2}/c^{2})]=(lambda)m_{0}
Where m_{0} is the rest mass
the only equation that I can think of off the top of my head that would use gamma is the formula for calculating the Kinetic energy of an object, but the reason that the mass does not change in that equation is because you only use the rest mass in it
And to keep it simple gravitation is acceleration if people want to nitpick that is up to them but I will stick with what is simple to think about

gravitation is acceleration.
Imagine rolling a ball down a hill that gets steeper and steeper
Sorry, gravitation is not acceleration. That argument was owned.
Also, people are starting to not like this statment.
It would go near lightspeed alright but as it got closer and closer to lightspeed its mass would increase so it would need more and more energy to continue to accelerate
Just because they do not like it does not make it any less true. And gravitation is acceleration, but acceleration is not gravitation
here
E=gmc^2
g=gamma
I can rearrange the equation to
E=mgc^2
now as velocity increases, the speed of light squared increases, mass stays the same.
Seriously, gravitation is not acceleration. Gravitation causes objects to accelerate.
Mass does indeed increase: m= m_{0}/[sqrt(1v^{2}/c^{2})]=(lambda)m_{0}
Where m_{0} is the rest mass
the only equation that I can think of off the top of my head that would use gamma is the formula for calculating the Kinetic energy of an object, but the reason that the mass does not change in that equation is because you only use the rest mass in it
And to keep it simple gravitation is acceleration if people want to nitpick that is up to them but I will stick with what is simple to think about
The equation you quoted is from E=gammamc^2. Some people use M to equal gamma*m.
gamma= 1/sqr(1(v^2/C^2) which is what you posted.

not what I posted but you are getting closer to calculating the KE of an object, just add in the rest mass multiplied by c^{2} before you divide and you are most of the way there

not what I posted but you are getting closer to calculating the KE of an object, just add in the rest mass multiplied by c^{2} before you divide and you are most of the way there
KE is not total energy. KE=1/2mv^2. No rest mass involved.
What you stated is what I said it was, relativistic mass.

not what I posted but you are getting closer to calculating the KE of an object, just add in the rest mass multiplied by c^{2} before you divide and you are most of the way there
KE is not total energy. KE=1/2mv^2. No rest mass involved.
What you stated is what I said it was, relativistic mass.
So you are out to prove that an objects rest mass stays the same? why go to the trouble
And check your substitutions there
You should end up with E=gc^{2}
Which says the same thing, mass increases. You are just now using the relativistic mass term instead of the rest mass where is the confusion?

not what I posted but you are getting closer to calculating the KE of an object, just add in the rest mass multiplied by c^{2} before you divide and you are most of the way there
KE is not total energy. KE=1/2mv^2. No rest mass involved.
What you stated is what I said it was, relativistic mass.
So you are out to prove that an objects rest mass stays the same? why go to the trouble
And check your substitutions there
You should end up with E=gc^{2}
Which says the same thing, mass increases. You are just now using the relativistic mass term instead of the rest mass where is the confusion?
What????????
E=gammamc^2 is the equation. For low speeds, gamma is 1. 1*2=2*1 so I can rearrange it to E=mgc^2 if I wanted. E=gc^2 isn't an equation.

not what I posted but you are getting closer to calculating the KE of an object, just add in the rest mass multiplied by c^{2} before you divide and you are most of the way there
KE is not total energy. KE=1/2mv^2. No rest mass involved.
What you stated is what I said it was, relativistic mass.
So you are out to prove that an objects rest mass stays the same? why go to the trouble
And check your substitutions there
You should end up with E=gc^{2}
Which says the same thing, mass increases. You are just now using the relativistic mass term instead of the rest mass where is the confusion?
What????????
E=gammamc^2 is the equation. For low speeds, gamma is 1. 1*2=2*1 so I can rearrange it to E=mgc^2 if I wanted. E=gc^2 isn't an equation.
How do you just add terms to one side of the equation and not to the other side?

man the earth is round. stfu

Ok, simple question, Gravitation is caused by our constante Acceleration, and I read in another foram that air resistance and contact with the earth hold us in place. Then wouldn't it be really really windy? Or since we have a dome over us holding the air in then, if I were to let a balloon float, wouldn't it come crashing down since the earth accelerated into it? How come we don't fly into the moon? How did the Jap's in world war 2 use the jetstream to float high altitude balloons to fly east to drop bombs onto the US. Was the 12 year old that sailed around the world in on this conspiricy? Is the entire universe accelerating in the same direction and at the same speed? What is behind us as we Fly in the direction we are going. And my 8 year old wants to know if you have any pictures of the 150 foot Ice walls that are around the entire world and how deep do these sheets of Ice go. Wouldn't currents cause some ice to jam up on the sides?

It would go near lightspeed alright but as it got closer and closer to lightspeed its mass would increase so it would need more and more energy to continue to accelerate
That is my concern. Wouldn't the earths warp of timespace by now be pretty intense?

The idiocy in this thread is overwhelming. I think we just overtook Myspace as the dumbest place on the World Wide Web.

The idiocy in this thread is overwhelming. I think we just overtook Myspace as the dumbest place on the World Wide Web.
Wow a true statement from a FE'er..
a FE website being the dumbest place on the net...you and I do agree there Robosteve

The idiocy in this thread is overwhelming. I think we just overtook Myspace as the dumbest place on the World Wide Web.
So why are you here?

Ok, simple question, Gravitation is caused by our constante Acceleration, and I read in another foram that air resistance and contact with the earth hold us in place. Then wouldn't it be really really windy? Or since we have a dome over us holding the air in then, if I were to let a balloon float, wouldn't it come crashing down since the earth accelerated into it? How come we don't fly into the moon? How did the Jap's in world war 2 use the jetstream to float high altitude balloons to fly east to drop bombs onto the US. Was the 12 year old that sailed around the world in on this conspiricy? Is the entire universe accelerating in the same direction and at the same speed? What is behind us as we Fly in the direction we are going. And my 8 year old wants to know if you have any pictures of the 150 foot Ice walls that are around the entire world and how deep do these sheets of Ice go. Wouldn't currents cause some ice to jam up on the sides?
WTF? No.
Earth accelerates and pushes everything up, including air. FUCK. Come on, it's not that hard. When you're in a car, is the air inside the car windy? NO. As for the balloon, balloons float because of bouyancy. The balloon will float in air and accelerate though the air upwards. Read up on the Equivalence Principle. Acceleration and Gravitation are indistinguishable.

not what I posted but you are getting closer to calculating the KE of an object, just add in the rest mass multiplied by c^{2} before you divide and you are most of the way there
KE is not total energy. KE=1/2mv^2. No rest mass involved.
What you stated is what I said it was, relativistic mass.
So you are out to prove that an objects rest mass stays the same? why go to the trouble
And check your substitutions there
You should end up with E=gc^{2}
Which says the same thing, mass increases. You are just now using the relativistic mass term instead of the rest mass where is the confusion?
What????????
E=gammamc^2 is the equation. For low speeds, gamma is 1. 1*2=2*1 so I can rearrange it to E=mgc^2 if I wanted. E=gc^2 isn't an equation.
How do you just add terms to one side of the equation and not to the other side?
I never added terms.

How about the massive warp? Why aren't we turning into a black hole?

Why aren't we turning into a black hole?
Because our mass isn't large enough.

Why aren't we turning into a black hole?
Because our mass isn't large enough.
So, we aren't moving at near lightspeed?

Yes, we are.

Yes, we are.
Relative to what?

Yes, we are.
Relative to what?
Anything moving at near light speed relative to us. This applies to the RE model, too.

Yes, we are.
Relative to what?
Anything moving at near light speed relative to us. This applies to the RE model, too.
Anything moving at near light speed relative to us would make us not moving at all?

Relative to what?
Relative to a stationary observer outside of our Earth's accelerating reference frame.

Relative to what?
Relative to a stationary observer outside of our Earth's accelerating reference frame.
Hmmm...so how fast is the earth moving right now if we have been accelerating for 4.5 billion years? Using your same reference point.

Very fast, under the speed of light.

Interesting. How about this question using the same reference point how far have we traveled in those 4.5 billion years?

Very far from where we started accelerating.

Very far indeed.

Approximately ct.

Many of you guys know a lot more about these things than I do, thats why Im asking..
Is the Earth causing massive timespace warp or not?

Ok I spot the obvious flaw in many threads that people come in with "Facts";
'nothing can go faster than light'
'this mathematical formula says'
'physics says this' 'Einstein said'
..... and so on.
Well what do you say? Stop trying to wrap RE theories around FE  It don't fit, there is your problem :)
Mathematics is not real, it was made to fit a model, that model is wrong. Start again with new formulas that fit FE and you'll see they fit.

Many of you guys know a lot more about these things than I do, thats why Im asking..
Is the Earth causing massive timespace warp or not?
Yes
Traveling at relativistic speeds for the age of the Earth, it's probably that the universe outside our frame of reference has experienced heat death. Time dilation.

Yes but you can do that with anything, you can fit a model around a theory that earth is shaped like dean martin's face and if people read it, it will make sense. . . .

you can call us dumb or whatever but you are the guys that think that the world it flat. I mean really, you honestly think this. What is holding the atmosphere on this flying flat disc? I keep asking about simple things like how come the water isn't pushed away from the center and too the sides from all this acceleration and you keep saying that if I was in a car and it was moving the air around me is moving too, so a balloon wouldn't move to the back of the car. Well this flat earth isn't in a car it is flying through space, if everything is going the same direction at the exact same speed, why do we have meteor showers, they should be moving the same speed in the same direction too.
Why haven't all the water in the oceans been pushed up against the outsides of the flat earth and we should have a huge dry land mass in the middle.
If the mass of the moon and sun are different then the mass of the earth, and their mass increase as they speed towards the speed of light, shouldn't the variance cause one to slow down? Wouldn't there be some sort of visual difference that would occur quite quickly and on a regular basis?
How do comets work if they appear to come towards us, then away again, and then turn around and come back in a very predictable orbit. They should be going the same direction as we are and be in the same position.
How does the space station stay in orbit? I can go out in my back yard and see it through my telescope all the time. I have taken photos of it, with the shuttle attached to it and without. Again, not trying to tick anybody off because this is entertaining, but come on.

this is entertaining
Agreed.

you are the guys that think that the world it flat. I mean really, you honestly think this.
Naah. I think most FE'ers just choose to stay in that universe, to explore it and have fun..

Many of you guys know a lot more about these things than I do, thats why Im asking..
Is the Earth causing massive timespace warp or not?
Yes
Traveling at relativistic speeds for the age of the Earth, it's probably that the universe outside our frame of reference has experienced heat death. Time dilation.
Cool..

ok guys!
Physicists have 'solved' mystery of levitation (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1559579/Physicistshave%27solved%27mysteryoflevitation.html)
meaning, as i see it, that gravity is a quality of matter not a force caused by mass or spin. So the earth may well be flat :O