[Petrochemicals (OP)]

just enough to relieve the force on the surface.

I... am not sure what you mean by "relieve the force". Is the elevator accelerating or not? Acceleration is not relative in relativity. If it's sitting still on the Earth's surface, it's not accelerating.

Again kryptid, this contrary to frames of reference, to the person inside the elevator they are accelerating.

[Kryptid]

Again kryptid, this contrary to frames of reference

No, it isn't. Acceleration is absolute, not relative.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

It just seems that the regurgitation of established theories laid down long ago is doing nothing to explain away the point

[Kryptid]

It just seems that the regurgitation of established theories laid down long ago is doing nothing to explain away the point

Your point being, what?

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

It just seems that the regurgitation of established theories laid down long ago is doing nothing to explain away the point

Your point being, what?

Without a gravitational reference, if a force of 10 newtons can accelerate for the first second, why not the 2nd? If, like a pulse jet I accelerated in second intervals, without knowing my velocity,  would I be accellerating the same amount with each pulse?

[Kryptid]

As long as you are not approaching relativistic velocities, there's no reason that 10 newtons of force won't keep you accelerating at the same rate. The problem is maintaining those 10 newtons of force. As evan_au already pointed out, the power needed to maintain that acceleration as you go faster increases over time. It's because kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

As long as you are not approaching relativistic velocities, there's no reason that 10 newtons of force won't keep you accelerating at the same rate. The problem is maintaining those 10 newtons of force. As evan_au already pointed out, the power needed to maintain that acceleration as you go faster increases over time. It's because kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity.

As I said in the original post, maintaining the energy is difficult because you travel a greater distance thus have to maintain the force further.  But distance is within a reference frame.

[Kryptid]

But distance is within a reference frame.

That doesn't make it irrelevant.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

But distance is within a reference frame.

That doesn't make it irrelevant.

But within thatframe what if you accelerated at 10n per kg every other second, would you know your distance orentated velocity, why would it take more energy to accelerate ?

[wolfekeeper]

Because you're doing more work. Work = force x distance

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Because you're doing more work. Work = force x distance

In a bit more depth, vertically E=mgh on the surface of the earth is about the 10ms of gravity you are working against, thus gain potential gravitational energy.

Horizontally on earth, parallel to gravity, you do not gain gravitational potential energy, so potential energy conservation is not a factor, you do gain kinetic energy that is measured a static earth. If you go twice as fast you have 4 times the energy, but accellerating you cover more distance, so need more energy. If the earth and body are considered both moving the gravitational mass of earth comes into play in the system.

But the trouble is that both of these are measured against the earth and it's gravity. It is only the impact with earth that defines the energy. If you remove the earth from the equation,  distance and gravity cease to be a factor.

Effectively an object could be considered to be at rest from its view point, could have much energy from the viewpoint it is going to impact. An object static from its own position accellerated at 10ms2 for one second will believe it is at 10ms,  from an object already seeing it at a velociys of 10ms, for conservation of energy will see it at ~14~ms

In deep space what would resist the accelleration ? I feel it will be an answer something like hits boson field or gravitons etc.

[Kryptid]

It's "resisted" by the fact that kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity. So adding kinetic energy to an object at a constant rate will lead to a less-than-linear rate of speed increase.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

It's "resisted" by the fact that kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity. .

That is the observation. Not cause.

[Kryptid]

It's "resisted" by the fact that kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity. .

That is the observation. Not cause.

I'm not entirely sure it makes sense to ask why math works out the way it does. One could just as easily ask why the Pythagorean theorem  is the way it is or why two plus two equals four. I can say this much: if the equation was any different, conservation of momentum could be violated.

[wolfekeeper]

Effectively an object could be considered to be at rest from its view point, could have much energy from the viewpoint it is going to impact. An object static from its own position accellerated at 10ms2 for one second will believe it is at 10ms,  from an object already seeing it at a velociys of 10ms, for conservation of energy will see it at ~14~ms

In deep space what would resist the accelleration ? I feel it will be an answer something like hits boson field or gravitons etc.

Careful here. Newtonian physics isn't primarily about 'viewpoints' it's about inertial frames of reference. Provided you do your energy calculation from an inertial frame of reference it all works out easily. If you're trying to deal with gravity in Newtonian mechanics, you need to treat it as a force. If you're doing General Relativity, it's an accelerated reference frame, and that's far more complex.

[Kryptid]

This is an attempt to explain why kinetic energy increasing with the square of velocity is what should be expected in our world: https://www.askamathematician.com/2015/03/q-why-does-kinetic-energy-increase-as-velocity-squared/

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Effectively an object could be considered to be at rest from its view point, could have much energy from the viewpoint it is going to impact. An object static from its own position accellerated at 10ms2 for one second will believe it is at 10ms,  from an object already seeing it at a velociys of 10ms, for conservation of energy will see it at ~14~ms

In deep space what would resist the accelleration ? I feel it will be an answer something like hits boson field or gravitons etc.

Careful here. Newtonian physics isn't primarily about 'viewpoints' it's about inertial frames of reference. Provided you do your energy calculation from an inertial frame of reference it all works out easily. If you're trying to deal with gravity in Newtonian mechanics, you need to treat it as a force. If you're doing General Relativity, it's an accelerated reference frame, and that's far more complex.

Is this along the lines of it.?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging#:~:text=Frame-dragging%20is%20an%20effect,%E2%81%A0—%20rotating%2C%20for%20instance.

[wolfekeeper]

That's one type of accelerated reference frame.