The discussion centers on the feasibility of experiencing constant gravitational acceleration (9.8 m/s²) indefinitely in a flat spacetime scenario, as posited by some flat Earth theorists. It is established that while one can theoretically maintain constant proper acceleration in flat spacetime, this requires an inexhaustible energy source, which is not physically plausible. The conversation also highlights the inconsistencies in the flat Earth model when considering relativity, particularly regarding energy requirements and spacetime curvature. Ultimately, the consensus is that under general relativity, infinite energy is necessary to sustain constant acceleration, which leads to contradictions.
PREREQUISITESPhysicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the implications of acceleration and gravity within the framework of general relativity.
Yup. It's even described in mtw for special relativity in chapter 6, I believe. Basically you asymptotically approach the speed of light and follow a hyperbolic path in space time.Dale said:You guys are getting too bogged down in technical details. There is no finite limit to how long you can accelerate in your own frame of reference. And there is no need to restrict yourself to rockets that carry all of their fuel as payload.
It is fine to say that yes it is possible to accelerate forever in your frame.
Granted, this is a "B" level thread, but I still think it's worth pointing out the distinction between idealized models and what can actually be physically realized under what conditions.Dale said:You guys are getting too bogged down in technical details.
Yes, but in post 13 the OP basically asked to focus on the idealized model, which is a perfectly reasonable request and which we have done a rather poor job of now.PeterDonis said:Granted, this is a "B" level thread, but I still think it's worth pointing out the distinction between idealized models and what can actually be physically realized under what conditions.
I think @Ibix in post #24 summed things up pretty well.
Sort of. The "idealized model" he was proposing was inconsistent. See my response in the first paragraph of post #15. Sometimes the best response to a question is to point out issues with the question rather than to just provide an answer as it is asked.Dale said:in post 13 the OP basically asked to focus on the idealized model