Ok... For silly reasons, I'm on the FLAT EARTH forums polishing my debate skills...

I'm actually having some fun... these people are serious nuts... heh. Anyway, This guy posited a 'proof' demonstrating his assertion is that a particle can accelerate forever without exceeding the speed of light. Here is his proof:

Proof. Consider a particle moving along a line so that its speed as measured by observer A at time t is given by v(t) = c-c/t. Initially, the particle is at rest with respect to A. The derivative of v(t) is c/t^2, so the function c-c/t is always increasing, so the particle is always accelerating. However, this function will never be greater than c, since for t>0, 0 < c/t < c. Thus, the particle will never be moving faster than light, but will be accelerating forever.


Here is my reply:

How is observer A relevant at all?

What, you think I'm an idiot? the definitive equasion (t>0, 0 < c/t < c) is not related to the velocity at all. In addition, c/t can't be higher than c unless time is negative.

Nice try, dumbass.


Analysis please. Did I miss something?

if V(t) = c-c/t then by definition he is simply accelerating up to some speed c, which he will approach asymptotically.

Taking the derivative of his V(t) is bogus anyway because he is using the wrong units. IF c is a velocity (meters/sec) then c/t has units of acceleration (meters/sec^2)). That means he doesn't even understand high school mechanics and is therefore unlikely to be smarter than Einstein.

What a fucking loser.
.

Yes! That's it! thank you choob... he almost threw me with his derivative bullshit... c is certainly a velocity.

I bow and scrape before the mightyness of the choob. .... But not in a wierd way...

This should further clarify the matter:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1...atshitlord.jpg

The choobus works in weird ways........

My god, look at the velocity. He's definitely moving near shitspeed. It's almost shitativistic.

he's gonna blow cap'n

Oh No! There is NO LEARNING CURVE... Check out this exchange between me and someone called "The Engineer" This is still about the body in acceleration thing...
Note: 'RE' means 'Round Earth' while FE means 'Flat Earth'


The Engineer: I thought I would point out that even in the RE, the earth has been accelerating for billions of years. An orbit is an acceleration.


Me: No, it's in equlibrium. The acceleration towards the sun is offset by the centripetal acceleration created by the planet's velocity.
It's called 'Being in orbit'.
Study physics.


The Engineer: Wow, you need to study physics. Circular motion is an acceleration. Velocity is a vector, which has both a magnitude and a direction. If you change either one, you have changed your velocity. Acceleration is defined as a change in velocity over a change in time. The earth is constantly changing its direction as it orbits the sun, therefore it is always accelerating. Time to take a physics class RenaissanceMan...


Me: Are you drunk? Or stupid?
An object in orbit is in EQUILIBRIUM between the gravitational force of acceleration pulling it TOWARDS the mass and the centripetal force of acceleration pushing it AWAY from the mass.


Personally? I'm disapointed that someone calling themself "The Engineer" does this badly in an intelectual debate.

I hate to tell you this RM, but spunksucker is right. Acceleration occurs when velocity changes. Velocity is a vector, so even if the MAGNITUDE of your velocity stays the same (as it does for uniform circular motion) the direction is always changing. That means you are accelerating. In that case the acceleration is centripedal, and is directed torareds the central point of revolution. (assuming there is no tangential component, in which case the direction of the total acceleration vector will be different

Yeah! He got me on that one... The discussion was about an object in constant acceleration in a single direction... no orbits. My point was that it would eventually approach the speed of light... Eventually hell, at 9.81 meters per second per second... it could get there before next christmas (assuming an unlimited source of energy)

The circular acceleration of an orbit actually has nothing to do with the conversation... he just threw it in the confuse me... and it worked. I got off on a tangent.

A little background on that...

See, the flat earth model works not through gravity... the earth has no gravity in the flat earth model. Rather, it, and the entire rest of the universe... (except for you, me, the water, and the air) are being accelerated upward at 9.81 meters per second per second.

We 'feel' the force of gravity because the ground is being accelerated towards us.

My point was two fold... that within a year the planet would be approaching relativistic velocity, and that if the planet, the sun, the moon, and the rest of the cosmos were being mysteriously accelerated... Why weren't we?

And I got called a nerd awhile back for my statistical observation on xtians being asked if they are down with the syndrome. :D That graph is a classic! Is it copyrighted? Can I share that with some buds at work with impunity?

How do they explain the fact that acceleration due to gravity isn't exactly the same all over the surface of the Earth? It actually varies between 9.79 m/s^2 (near the equator) and 9.82 m/s^2 (near the poles) due to the Earth's rotation and the equatorial bulge (which is also caused by the Earth's rotation).

I'm no scientist, RM, but how do they explain lunar eclipses?

They don't. They don't explain seasons either.

What they DO do, is utilize diversion and misrepresentation in all arguments. It's extremely annoying, it's like listening to Kent Hovind 'debate' evolution. Basically, all argument is spent tearing down 'Round Earthism' and never explaining how the flat earth model can possibly work.

Basically, they're delusional nuts akin to YECs. The rationalization process seems the same.

The site is currently down, apparently... I guess the spam attacks from the Star Wars fans pushed their bandwidth over the limit.