The very first thing I noticed in reading your forums was the excessive use of the phrase "I don't have to prove anything, you have to prove it to me." This statement is entirely false. You are trying to defend your belief's, which makes this a debate, and the inability, or lack of desire, to provide evidence to your cause only lends strength to the argument of your opponent.
The largest contribution to your argument consists, overwhelmingly, of the "conspiracy" theory. Which, if I have read it properly, indicates that you believe that the government's of every country, and all the organization's that have anything to do with traversing the Earth, are trying to mislead the public into believing the Earth is round when it is indeed flat. The organization's in question include, but are not limited to, the airline industry, the shipping industry, any naval vessel, map makers, and the space industry. This is representative of a very large number of people. You would think that in the entire time this conspiracy has supposedly been in effect that some few of these people would come forward and admit to it, after their careers were over. Or perhaps that a disgruntled employee would come forward with the "facts". Even alien visits to our planet have had their share of government officials coming forward to lend evidence to the cause.
Several of your posts indicate the belief that the rest of the universe is how it is portrayed in science, but that the Earth itself is different. This is quite impossible since the Earth, as an entity in this universe, is constrained by the laws of the universe. The laws which you so pointedly go to in your theory of gravitation using the statement "Gravity cannot move faster than light." Showing not only your lack of understanding in the theory of gravity, but your dependence on the laws you so vehemently deny exist.
As far as personal experiences go, if you have ever sat in the window seat of an airplane, and looked out on a clear sky, at cruising altitudes, you can distinctly see the slow, smooth curvature of the Earth.
I've traveled around the world, and seen first hand from a ship the distance between Australia and San Diego. Distances your own maps say are impossible.
The Global climate itself indicates a round planet. How would we have seasons of summer and winter if the Earth didn't tilt one hemisphere closer or farther from the sun. How do the arctic and antarctic maintain temperatures of such rigid cold, while the tropics are warm, when, according to your theory, the sun is farthest away from the Tropics, and closest to the arctic. And finally, how does a compass always point north when there is indeed infinite norths. Navigation and weather would be useless on a flat Earth.
The laws which you so pointedly go to in your theory of gravitation using the statement "Gravity cannot move faster than light." Showing not only your lack of understanding in the theory of gravity, but your dependence on the laws you so vehemently deny exist.Are you claiming that gravitation propagates at superluminal speeds?
The transfer of force is not moving at any speed.I know, there is no force.
The very first thing I noticed in reading your forums was the excessive use of the phrase "I don't have to prove anything, you have to prove it to me." This statement is entirely false. You are trying to defend your belief's, which makes this a debate, and the inability, or lack of desire, to provide evidence to your cause only lends strength to the argument of your opponent.
You came to us. The burden on proof is on you.QuoteThe largest contribution to your argument consists, overwhelmingly, of the "conspiracy" theory. Which, if I have read it properly, indicates that you believe that the government's of every country, and all the organization's that have anything to do with traversing the Earth, are trying to mislead the public into believing the Earth is round when it is indeed flat. The organization's in question include, but are not limited to, the airline industry, the shipping industry, any naval vessel, map makers, and the space industry. This is representative of a very large number of people. You would think that in the entire time this conspiracy has supposedly been in effect that some few of these people would come forward and admit to it, after their careers were over. Or perhaps that a disgruntled employee would come forward with the "facts". Even alien visits to our planet have had their share of government officials coming forward to lend evidence to the cause.
If we had evidence for the conspiracy, it wouldnt be much of a conspiracy, would it? And no one is saying that the "shipping industry" is in on it.QuoteSeveral of your posts indicate the belief that the rest of the universe is how it is portrayed in science, but that the Earth itself is different. This is quite impossible since the Earth, as an entity in this universe, is constrained by the laws of the universe. The laws which you so pointedly go to in your theory of gravitation using the statement "Gravity cannot move faster than light." Showing not only your lack of understanding in the theory of gravity, but your dependence on the laws you so vehemently deny exist.
Gravity doesnt exist. Really.QuoteAs far as personal experiences go, if you have ever sat in the window seat of an airplane, and looked out on a clear sky, at cruising altitudes, you can distinctly see the slow, smooth curvature of the Earth.
You cannot see curvature from the height at which a commercial jet flies. Maybe you think you can see it, but its not there.QuoteI've traveled around the world, and seen first hand from a ship the distance between Australia and San Diego. Distances your own maps say are impossible.
Did you measure the distance yourself?QuoteThe Global climate itself indicates a round planet. How would we have seasons of summer and winter if the Earth didn't tilt one hemisphere closer or farther from the sun. How do the arctic and antarctic maintain temperatures of such rigid cold, while the tropics are warm, when, according to your theory, the sun is farthest away from the Tropics, and closest to the arctic. And finally, how does a compass always point north when there is indeed infinite norths. Navigation and weather would be useless on a flat Earth.
Read the FAQ.
Nothing can carry information faster than c
Uhm, I'm sorry to correct you seeing you are an RE'er and all, but information can actually travel faster than light.Useful information can not.
TheEngineer - I'm sorry, but I don't see how that is a response to my argument about force. I ceded no points, rather came back with a logical explanation, and you respond with "There is no Force".There is no force between objects due to gravitation. The force you think is there is due to you believing you are at rest when you are in contact with the Earth, directly or otherwise, when you are actually accelerating.
Uhm, I'm sorry to correct you seeing you are an RE'er and all, but information can actually travel faster than light.Useful information can not.
Personally I don't believe I'm at rest, I believe that the entire Earth is moving through space, accelerating and deccelerating.That is not the acceleration I am talking about.
And The force I'm talking about is between the objects and space, not the objects and each other.What force is that?
I can link to wikipedia articles too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement).That's a neat trick. But can you read them?
I can link to wikipedia articles too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement).That's a neat trick. But can you read them?
TheEngineer - I know what acceleration you were talking about, which is impossible, due to Einstein's theory of relativity.Uh, General Relativity relies on this acceleration. ???
I read the "proof" that it was possible under relativity, but as I said, in relativity the speed of light is a constant no matter what plane you are observing from so accelerating past the speed of light in any plane is impossible.Right. That is why it would take an infinite amount of time for an object to accelerate to the speed of light.
And the force is mass.What about things without mass, then?
I understand how the closer you accelerate to the speed of light the slower time is supposed to appear to you,No, you would experience proper time, and thus you would not notice any slowing of time.
but I don't see how it relies on acceleration, it doesn't say that everything is accelerating.I assume you are talking about GR. GR states that us on the surface of the earth are experiencing a continual upwards acceleration.
But the speed of light is constant, so if we were constantly accelerating, we would eventually hit the speed of light, from another plane relative to our ownNo, that plane would see our acceleration slow, taking an infinite amount of time to reach the speed of light.
And all matter has mass, theory says all matter has gravity, I don't see a problem here.What about things without matter?
I've never heard of GR stating anything about constant upward acceleration, only perpetual freefallWell, perhaps you should study up a little.
But the special relativity also depends on gravitySpecial Relativity has nothing to do with gravity.
Acceleration and gravitation are indistinguishable from each other.
I've never heard of GR stating anything about constant upward acceleration, only perpetual freefallWell, perhaps you should study up a little.
-The burdon of proof is upon you, round earth is the accepted theory(which means it's fully proved). So you have to disprove it(that's how it owrks in the scientific community)
-Same as the first one (gravity)
-If you can't see the curvate, you are either willingfull ignorant or you're blind/wear glasses or you haven't been in a plane yet.
http://static.flickr.com/59/177373136_b989aaab0b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/63/190152302_23a08265ba.jpg?v=0
No, I think he has a point. Could you elaborate, please.When you are in contact with the earth, directly or indirectly, you are being accelerated upwards at 9.8m/s^2. In the RE.
-The burdon of proof is upon you, round earth is the accepted theory(which means it's fully proved). So you have to disprove it(that's how it owrks in the scientific community)
But this isnt the "scientific community", nor has RE been "fully proved" as far as this website is concerned. The default stance here is that the earth is flat. Its up to you to convince us otherwise. If you dont like that, then leave.
theres nothing but proof.. go search for it.
Call me nuts, but it kind of seems like FE'ers can barely convince themselves nevermind convince the rest of the world.
It seems that you want us to do all giving, and all you do is TAKE.Actually I don't think they want anything from you at all. You came here and posted. They didn't knock on your door handing out literature.
So this is a debate forum that you don't want to debate on... ???
No, I think he has a point. Could you elaborate, please.When you are in contact with the earth, directly or indirectly, you are being accelerated upwards at 9.8m/s^2. In the RE.
No, it is correct.No, to cancel out ones acceleration the earth would actually apply a force.
General relativity says that gravity is nothing more than an inertial force. This was called the equivalence principle by Einstein. Since the gravitational force on the Earth points downward, it follows that we must be constantly accelerating upward as we stand on the surface of the Earth!
http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node61.html (http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node61.html)
General relativity says that gravity is nothing more than an inertial force. This was called the equivalence principle by Einstein. Since the gravitational force on the Earth points downward, it follows that we must be constantly accelerating upward as we stand on the surface of the Earth!
http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node61.html (http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node61.html)
I find all these discussions about general relativity to be pretty far off topic.
And I just read the FAQ, and I have a couple questions about that.1. Point of direction & rotation size? Sorry, what are you asking?
1. How does the sun change it's point of direction and rotation size exactly proportional to the flat Earth?
2. How do you account for the fact that the length of a day at the summer equinox and the length of a day at winter equinox would be very different. (I'm not talking about length of daylight, I'm talking about actual length of time it takes the sun to go all the way around 24 hours normally)
Why is it when I push on the wall next to me it doesn't move?
I guess not posting anything is better than posting an incomplete sentence. Why is it when I push on the wall next to me it doesn't move?Mechanical resistance. But I fail to see how this is a relevant question.
No, it is correct.No, to cancel out ones acceleration the earth would actually apply a force.
No, it is correct.
I guess not posting anything is better than posting an incomplete sentence. Why is it when I push on the wall next to me it doesn't move?Mechanical resistance. But I fail to see how this is a relevant question.
How does an acceleration cancel out a force?
Right, so I'm not sure what theengineer is arguing. It almost looks like he is holding the RET to the EP and then saying the earth is accelerating upwards like the FET.How does an acceleration cancel out a force?
It doesn't.
Right, so I'm not sure what theengineer is arguing. It almost looks like he is holding the RET to the EP and then saying the earth is accelerating upwards like the FET.
No. In RE you experience an acceleration towards the core of the earth. That is downward acceleration, not upwards. Also, could you please point out to me which part of GR incorporates constant upwards acceleration?I'm afraid not. The RE is imparting an upwards acceleration to you when you stand on it.
Right, so I'm not sure what theengineer is arguing. It almost looks like he is holding the RET to the EP and then saying the earth is accelerating upwards like the FET.I never said the Earth is accelerating upwards in RE. I said you are. Please learn to read.
I never said the Earth is accelerating upwards in RE. I said you are. Please learn to read.
I find all these discussions about general relativity to be pretty far off topic.
I think they're the very best thing on the forum.
Right, so I'm not sure what theengineer is arguing. It almost looks like he is holding the RET to the EP and then saying the earth is accelerating upwards like the FET.I never said the Earth is accelerating upwards in RE. I said you are. Please learn to read.
I think a lot of missunderstandings on this forum is caused by linguistic issues. In every day life, and between laymen, Gravity and Gravitation means the same thing. It means the effect fex mass have on fex mass. Its in more scientific circles that Gravity means a force.You are correct.
Am I wrong?
And, does it really matter what we call things? Mostly people mean the same with different words..
You said the person is accelerating upwards for some magical reason.The person is accelerating because of the mechanical resistance of the Earth.
Please point out how "General relativity says that gravity is nothing more than an inertial force. This was called the equivalence principle by Einstein. Since the gravitational force on the Earth points downward, it follows that we must be constantly accelerating upward as we stand on the surface of the Earth!" is correct.Simply applying some of that 'college' education you claim to have would show you this is true.
Please note it must stand true for all objects not just people.Of course it is.
Resistance isn't acceleration. It would be a force. An equal and opposite force is needed to negate another force.You said the person is accelerating upwards for some magical reason.The person is accelerating because of the mechanical resistance of the Earth.
Simply applying some of that 'college' education you claim to have would show you this is true.I use what I learn to not apply the EP incorrectly.
Of course it is.So, it I have an undersea cable that spans from America to Europe, one acceleration isn't going to accomplish anything.
Resistance isn't acceleration. It would be a force. An equal and opposite force is needed to negate another force.What causes a force?
I use what I learn to not apply the EP incorrectly.So you are saying that this is too difficult for you?
So, it I have an undersea cable that spans from America to Europe, one acceleration isn't going to accomplish anything.It's attached to the Earth somehow, right?
I believe its calledResistance isn't acceleration. It would be a force. An equal and opposite force is needed to negate another force.What causes a force?
I do not apply the EP to non local FOR.
So you are saying that this is too difficult for you?
Yes, gravitation is accelerating it into the earth.
It's attached to the Earth somehow, right?
I believe its calledWhat?"nuclear force", maybe the weak one.electromagnetic force.
I do not apply the EP to non local FOR.So again, you can't figure out the experiment?
Yes, gravitation is accelerating it into the earth.No, the Earth is accelerating it up.
The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces. Its what causes the equal and opposite force when I push on the wall or stand on the ground.
What?
What are you even talking about now?
So again, you can't figure out the experiment?
No.
No, the Earth is accelerating it up.
The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces. Its what causes the equal and opposite force when I push on the wall or stand on the ground.Right.
What are you even talking about now?
Please point out how "General relativity says that gravity is nothing more than an inertial force. This was called the equivalence principle by Einstein. Since the gravitational force on the Earth points downward, it follows that we must be constantly accelerating upward as we stand on the surface of the Earth!" is correct.Simply applying some of that 'college' education you claim to have would show you this is true.
Maybe we are tlaking about two different events or something.Or, maybe, you are an idiot.
The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces. Its what causes the equal and opposite force when I push on the wall or stand on the ground.Right.
So I can end here because you just proved me right. An acceleration cannot equal out a force. I am accelerating down and since I have mass, there is a force. It's called weight. The earth applies a force to me so I remain stationary.If you are accelerating down, why is the force you feel also down?
So I can end here because you just proved me right. An acceleration cannot equal out a force. I am accelerating down and since I have mass, there is a force. It's called weight. The earth applies a force to me so I remain stationary.If you are accelerating down, why is the force you feel also down?
I see the point you are trying to make, but shouldn't terminal velocity of a body falling downward be overcome by the constant acceleration of the upward moving earth?No.
Kinda in the FE. Although in the fe objects never reach terminal velocity.Uh, they sure as hell do.
Theengineer is claiming I have an upwards acceleration as I sit in this chair in the RE. He can't explain why so he just keeps asking questions.I told you already:
Because a force is a vector in the same direction as acceleration, which is also a vector.
If I jump off a cliff, do I accelerate down or up?
What we should be asking is that if we use the FE model to predict the terminal velocity of an object, objects with same air resistance but different masses should have the same terminal velocity but in reality they do not.Uh, no.
FOR, in the FET terminal velocity means the objects acceleration matches the earths. These are obviously accelerating.
Uh, they sure as hell do.
I told you already:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0)
Can't you read?
So if someone jumps off a cliff they will accelerate back to the surface of the earth in the FE model?What we should be asking is that if we use the FE model to predict the terminal velocity of an object, objects with same air resistance but different masses should have the same terminal velocity but in reality they do not.Uh, no.
What we should be asking is that if we use the FE model to predict the terminal velocity of an object, objects with same air resistance but different masses should have the same terminal velocity but in reality they do not.Uh, no.
FOR, in the FET terminal velocity means the objects acceleration matches the earths. These are obviously accelerating.Where is the complication?
So once again, you apply the EP wrong and now can't back it up. Typical you, pseudoengineer.I didn't apply the EP in that post. Perhaps you should read it before you make an ass out of yourself. Oh, wait, it's way too late for that.
So if someone jumps off a cliff they will accelerate back to the surface of the earth in the FE model?Terminal velocity. Do you know what it means?
And according to the FE model how would someone reach their terminal velocity?So if someone jumps off a cliff they will accelerate back to the surface of the earth in the FE model?Terminal velocity. Do you know what it means?
Mr Engineer, the way more mass = more gravity is not magic. Think of space as a giant blanket stretched out. If you drop a baseball in the middle of a blanket its going to sink into it, and anything that gets close to the dip made y the basemall will sink into it.So, tell me: What is the mechanism by which space knows how and by how much to distort, based on its distance from an object with mass?
The bigger the object on the blanket, the deeper the dip and the wider area effected, say then if you put a bowling ball on the blanket.
This is what keeps us on the Earths surface. we, with the Earth are literally in its dip, and if we jump, we fall down back onto the Earth, (unless of course we acclerate with such a velocity as to ecape the effect of the Earth's gravity, in essence going up and out of the dip)
And according to the FE model how would someone reach their terminal velocity?Acceleration of the person = acceleration of the FE
what accelerates the person?And according to the FE model how would someone reach their terminal velocity?Acceleration of the person = acceleration of the FE
Air resistance.is that it
Unless he is wearing a rocket pack...so how will that give you the same result as the RE model
How will it not?what is his acceleration relative to
Guy jumps out of plane, stops accelerating. Relative velocity = 0. Relative acceleration = 9.8m/s^2.
As FE keeps accelerating, the air resistance on guy increases. Relative velocity = less than terminal. Relative acceleration = less than 9.8m/s^2.
Air resistance continues to increase until the guy's acceleration equals that of the FE. Relative velocity = terminal. Relative acceleration = 0.
The Earth. That should have been obvious. :-\I thought that was what you menat but I fail to see how a unconnected body can accelerate the diver? maybe you should look at your force diagram again and get back to us
Air resistance.
Mr Engineer, the way more mass = more gravity is not magic. Think of space as a giant blanket stretched out. If you drop a baseball in the middle of a blanket its going to sink into it, and anything that gets close to the dip made y the basemall will sink into it.So, tell me: What is the mechanism by which space knows how and by how much to distort, based on its distance from an object with mass?
The bigger the object on the blanket, the deeper the dip and the wider area effected, say then if you put a bowling ball on the blanket.
This is what keeps us on the Earths surface. we, with the Earth are literally in its dip, and if we jump, we fall down back onto the Earth, (unless of course we acclerate with such a velocity as to ecape the effect of the Earth's gravity, in essence going up and out of the dip)
What do you mean what mechanism? There is no "mechanism" if you do the experiment i mentioned in my post and drop a baseball or bowling ball in a out stretched blanket, (youd prolly have to have 2 people to hold the blanket up while stretching it out) the amount of distortion and dip isnt based on a "mechanism" it is purely by the mass of the bowling ball or base ball what ever you choose.Except your experiment is nothing more than circular reasoning. It requires 'gravity' to already exist.
Space doesnt "choose" the distortion amount, the dip and distortion is a reaction based purely on how massive said object is.So a transfer of information is not needed?
what do you mean transfer of information? this isnt a mechanism.What do you mean what mechanism? There is no "mechanism" if you do the experiment i mentioned in my post and drop a baseball or bowling ball in a out stretched blanket, (youd prolly have to have 2 people to hold the blanket up while stretching it out) the amount of distortion and dip isnt based on a "mechanism" it is purely by the mass of the bowling ball or base ball what ever you choose.Except your experiment is nothing more than circular reasoning. It requires 'gravity' to already exist.QuoteSpace doesnt "choose" the distortion amount, the dip and distortion is a reaction based purely on how massive said object is.So a transfer of information is not needed?
BTW, what about objects without mass? Why are you leaving them out?
You left out a major part in the FE diagram. This is the same thing you left out the last time we had this argument, in which you were told, by many of your RE peers, that you were incorrect.Then show me, since you just said yourself as to what accelerates a person in the FE model
Air resistance.
You forgot to put in the acceleration of the FE. Like you did last time. When everyone called you an idiot.then show me the correct equation using the model not what we see in reality and remember I have already taken into account for the acceleration of the FE in mine
what do you mean transfer of information? this isnt a mechanism.Sure it is. How does space know how and by how much to distort?
In the example i cited, would you say the baseball or bowlingball transfers information to the blanket?Yes it does.
No it doesnt, the blanket merely reacts based on the amount of mass.Due to a reaction based on a transfer of information.
when you lay on your matress and it indents, does your body transfer information to the matress?Yes it does.
The world is not a giant computer program where information needs to transfer to do everything.Uh, yes, information is required for every interaction.
as far as objects without any mass (which the only thing truly without mass is light, so wow i left light out) and object without mass will not create a distortion in space time.You may want to educate yourself on that point.
then show me the correct equation using the model not what we see in reality and remember I have already taken into account for the acceleration of the FE in mineNo, you sure didn't.
as far as objects without any mass (which the only thing truly without mass is light, so wow i left light out) and object without mass will not create a distortion in space time.Mass isn't the only source of a gravitational field.
According to the FE model the person will just sit there. now how about my questionthen show me the correct equation using the model not what we see in reality and remember I have already taken into account for the acceleration of the FE in mineNo, you sure didn't.
Take the air out. Perform this same thing in a vacuum. What will the results be?
According to the FE model the person will just sit there.Relative to what? Not the Earth, I hope.
According to the FE model the person will just sit there. now how about my questionNo, the FE accelerates toward the person with no drag under this experiment.
what do you mean transfer of information? this isnt a mechanism.Sure it is. How does space know how and by how much to distort?QuoteIn the example i cited, would you say the baseball or bowlingball transfers information to the blanket?Yes it does.QuoteNo it doesnt, the blanket merely reacts based on the amount of mass.Due to a reaction based on a transfer of information.Quotewhen you lay on your matress and it indents, does your body transfer information to the matress?Yes it does.QuoteThe world is not a giant computer program where information needs to transfer to do everything.Uh, yes, information is required for every interaction.Quoteas far as objects without any mass (which the only thing truly without mass is light, so wow i left light out) and object without mass will not create a distortion in space time.You may want to educate yourself on that point.
Your full of it. the baseball does not transfer ifnormation to the blanket. The blanket is not alive and intelligent therefore it can not process "information"
Space does not need to know how much to distort because space is not alive. it cannot "know"
the word "know" is meant for something that is capable of storing knowledge of some type, be it a living being, or a computer. Since space itelf is neither, it can not "know" anything
It is a direct reaction.
Like the baseball reaction listed. and like I said, the amount of distortion that poccurs is directly related to the mass!
So the more mass you have, the more distortion will occur
The amount of distortion is DIRECTLY a result of said mass.
If you take two planets with the exact same mass they will distort the exact same amount of spacetime
so there is no magic in gravity. it is only magic to those who dont know.
The equations for this can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations
oh and about without mass, if you want to count gluons, sure count those two. But like i said it doesnt matter as anything without mass does not cause any sort of distortion.
So objects without mass are of no consequence as far as gravity is concerned.
Things without mass such as light, can be effected by another body's gravity but produce no distortion or gravity of their own.
the model predicts the objects acceleration would be zero, now if you want to calculate how long it would take an object to fall back to the ground we can discuss that later but how about answering my question as it pertains to terminal velocityAccording to the FE model the person will just sit there.Relative to what? Not the Earth, I hope.
But like i said it doesnt matter as anything without mass does not cause any sort of distortion.No, you left out energy/momentum/stress-energy tensor.
So objects without mass are of no consequence as far as gravity is concerned.
Things without mass such as light, can be effected by another body's gravity but produce no distortion or gravity of their own.
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.No racism.
Your full of it. the baseball does not transfer ifnormation to the blanket.Then tell me, how does the blanket know the baseball is on it?
The blanket is not alive and intelligent therefore it can not process "information"What?
Space does not need to know how much to distort because space is not alive. it cannot "know"Then how can space distort based on mass if it does not need to know about it?
the word "know" is meant for something that is capable of storing knowledge of some type, be it a living being, or a computer. Since space itelf is neither, it can not "know" anythingWow, that is amazing. You must not have ever taken a class in physics.
Like the baseball reaction listed. and like I said, the amount of distortion that poccurs is directly related to the mass!So, how does the blanket know how much mass is on it?
so there is no magic in gravity. it is only magic to those who dont know.You don't know about the need for a mechanism. So that is magic, by definition.
oh and about without mass, if you want to count gluons, sure count those two. But like i said it doesnt matter as anything without mass does not cause any sort of distortion.They sure can. You may want to educate yourself prior to arguing with me.
the model predicts the objects acceleration would be zeroRelative to what?
how about answering my question as it pertains to terminal velocityI'm working up to that. I have found that you require painful detail before you can understand anything.
so no answer yet? or does the answer require you to write more than 5 wordsthe model predicts the objects acceleration would be zeroRelative to what?Quotehow about answering my question as it pertains to terminal velocityI'm working up to that. I have found that you require painful detail before you can understand anything.
I don't understand why you won't answer the question. Is it because you see the error in you way? Is this some sort of way for you to try to save face?I asked you a question first so how about you either answer it or admit you do not know
You said the acceleration would be zero. I just want to know: Zero relative to what?
Your full of it. the baseball does not transfer ifnormation to the blanket.Then tell me, how does the blanket know the baseball is on it?QuoteThe blanket is not alive and intelligent therefore it can not process "information"What?QuoteSpace does not need to know how much to distort because space is not alive. it cannot "know"Then how can space distort based on mass if it does not need to know about it?Quotethe word "know" is meant for something that is capable of storing knowledge of some type, be it a living being, or a computer. Since space itelf is neither, it can not "know" anythingWow, that is amazing. You must not have ever taken a class in physics.QuoteLike the baseball reaction listed. and like I said, the amount of distortion that poccurs is directly related to the mass!So, how does the blanket know how much mass is on it?Quoteso there is no magic in gravity. it is only magic to those who dont know.You don't know about the need for a mechanism. So that is magic, by definition.Quoteoh and about without mass, if you want to count gluons, sure count those two. But like i said it doesnt matter as anything without mass does not cause any sort of distortion.They sure can. You may want to educate yourself prior to arguing with me.
If one of the masses was 0, the result would be 0, and thus no gravitation.
No, you left out energy/momentum/stress-energy tensor.
I asked you a question first so how about you either answer it or admit you do not knowI answered the question already. The two instances are indistinguishable.
The Blanket DOESN'T "know" the base ball is on itThen how can the blanket distort?
Just as the chair Im sitting in doesnt "know" im sitting on it.But the chair does. You are applying a force to it. A force is a transfer of information.
and no, an object without mas produces no distortions. Can you name one instance?Photons.
that wouldnt work.Explain gravitational lensing, using your 'gravity'.
F = GMm/R²
This equation calculates the graitational equation between 2 objects
F is the force of attraction between two objects
G is the universal gravitational constant; G = 6.67*10-11 N-m²/kg². The units of G can be stated as Newton meter-squared per kilogram-squared or Newton square meter per square kilogram.
M and m are the masses of the two objects
R is the distance between the objects, as measured from their centers
GMm/R² is G times M times m divided by R-squared
If one of the masses was 0, the result would be 0, and thus no gravitation.
Therefore, you are wrong.
I need to get an education? your the one who thinks the Earth is flat.
But i have de-mystified the magic behind gravity, and even given you a link to gravities mastr equation.
then show me the correct equation using the model not what we see in reality and remember I have already taken into account for the acceleration of the FE in mineI am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topics
I am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topicsI'm not on another topic. :-\
The Blanket DOESN'T "know" the base ball is on itThen how can the blanket distort?QuoteJust as the chair Im sitting in doesnt "know" im sitting on it.But the chair does. You are applying a force to it. A force is a transfer of information.Quoteand no, an object without mas produces no distortions. Can you name one instance?Photons.Quotethat wouldnt work.Explain gravitational lensing, using your 'gravity'.
F = GMm/R²
This equation calculates the graitational equation between 2 objects
F is the force of attraction between two objects
G is the universal gravitational constant; G = 6.67*10-11 N-m²/kg². The units of G can be stated as Newton meter-squared per kilogram-squared or Newton square meter per square kilogram.
M and m are the masses of the two objects
R is the distance between the objects, as measured from their centers
GMm/R² is G times M times m divided by R-squared
If one of the masses was 0, the result would be 0, and thus no gravitation.
Therefore, you are wrong.
I need to get an education? your the one who thinks the Earth is flat.
But i have de-mystified the magic behind gravity, and even given you a link to gravities mastr equation.
well you almost answered the question, I know the question was confusing but here it goes againI am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topicsI'm not on another topic. :-\
/\ acceleration of the earth. /\ acceleration of the person
| |
| |
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.
|
\/ Acceleration of the person. /\ Acceleration due to air resistance.
|
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.
Does that help? I tried to make it so simple a 6th grader could understand. But I may be giving you too much credit.
then show me the correct equation using the model not what we see in reality and remember I have already taken into account for the acceleration of the FE in mine
photons are light and do not produce a gravitationl distortion. gravity can distort light but not the other way around. I just showed you the equation, which proves it.Photons have energy and momentum. Thus, they can distort spacetime.
As fa as gravitational lensing, easy.
Gravity from a supermassive object will distort spacetime including light from a background source, altering the amount of time it takes to reach on observer due to taking a bent path instead of a straight one.
Just like an optical lens will cause light to bend.
for more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing
photons are light and do not produce a gravitationl distortion. gravity can distort light but not the other way around. I just showed you the equation, which proves it.Photons have energy and momentum. Thus, they can distort spacetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_energy_tensor
Do you feel stupid now?As fa as gravitational lensing, easy.
Gravity from a supermassive object will distort spacetime including light from a background source, altering the amount of time it takes to reach on observer due to taking a bent path instead of a straight one.
Just like an optical lens will cause light to bend.
for more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing
Your argument is refuted
1 Photons are massless.
2 Your version of gravity only affects objects with mass.
3 Your version of gravity cannot affect photons; their paths are not distorted.
---
4 Therefore, gravitational lensing is impossible under your "gravity".
EHH wrong.
I said only objects with mass distort space time and produce gravity!I guess you dont read very well.
But the force of gravity can effect light, through lensing.
nice try.
No, it doesn't. Gravity only affects things with mass. Photons are massless. Light composes of photons. Gravity can't affect light.
Get smarter.
EHH wrong.You can open your eyes now.
I said only objects with mass distort space time and produce gravity!I guess you dont read very well.Which is why I proved your "gravity" wrong. Not only mass can distort space-time: we have energy, momentum, and stress-energy tensor. It's called gravitation. You ignored two of my posts and did not read the links I just provided. You seem to be naive.
But the force of gravity can effect light, through lensing.No, it doesn't. Gravity only affects things with mass. Photons are massless. Light composes of photons. Gravity can't affect light.
energy /momentum/stress arent even all in the same classBut like i said it doesnt matter as anything without mass does not cause any sort of distortion.No, you left out energy/momentum/stress-energy tensor.
So objects without mass are of no consequence as far as gravity is concerned.
Things without mass such as light, can be effected by another body's gravity but produce no distortion or gravity of their own.
What about black holes? Serious question.What about them?
EHH wrong.
I said only objects with mass distort space time and produce gravity!I guess you dont read very well.
But the force of gravity can effect light, through lensing.
nice try.
Now you're confusing Newtonian gravity with Einsteinian gravitation.
No, it doesn't. Gravity only affects things with mass. Photons are massless. Light composes of photons. Gravity can't affect light.
Get smarter.
What about black holes? Serious question.
energy /momentum/stress arent even all in the same classThey aren't. They are sources of a gravitational field.
Momentum is a force a word to describe a reaction, energy does have massHuh, momentum is what again?
because energy is e=Mc2 if mass was 0 the equation would be 0.You forgot E = pc.
try again.
gravity will effect anything within its field.Except light, of course. There goes your argument.
But only things with mass produce gravityFor gravity, yes. For gravitation, nope.
E=mc2 :) try again ahahah.You used the wrong equation. Of course, you wrote the equation wrong, too...
energy /momentum/stress arent even all in the same classThey aren't. They are sources of a gravitational field.Momentum is a force a word to describe a reaction, energy does have massHuh, momentum is what again?because energy is e=Mc2 if mass was 0 the equation would be 0.You forgot E = pc.
try again.gravity will effect anything within its field.Except light, of course. There goes your argument.But only things with mass produce gravityFor gravity, yes. For gravitation, nope.E=mc2 :) try again ahahah.You used the wrong equation. Of course, you wrote the equation wrong, too...
I didnt right the equation wrong, i just dont know the button to type suoer script.Still wrong.
E = MC squared.
and that is the correct equation for energy, because all matter contains energy.So? This is irrelevant. You use E = pc.
The atom bomb works by converting matter into energy.
and again your wrong about light.Again, I was right. Your brain is just too small to realize it.
Because gravity warps space time, and light has to travel through said space time, therefore light is effected by gravity. again, nice try.Gravity (force) can't affect objects without mass, nevermind light. Gravitation can, however. Gravitation affects light's path, bending it. Thus, gravitational lensing occurs.
According to general relativity, mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result.I recommend you to stop posting to avoid getting pwned more.
In general relativity, gravity is not construed as a force; hence, if the net force of non-gravitational interactions is negligible, the law that describes motion is Newton's First Law rather than Newton's Second Law. Newton's First Law models position as a function of time in non-relativistic mechanics, but in general relativity the law is rewritten to demand motion along a space-time geodesic. This curvature of space-time causes the path of even a massless particle like a photon to deviate from the straight lines expected from Euclidean intuition; and, in particular, the path is observed to curve in exactly the same way as the geodesics predicted by general relativity.
I didnt right the equation wrong, i just dont know the button to type suoer script.Still wrong.
E = MC squared.and that is the correct equation for energy, because all matter contains energy.So? This is irrelevant. You use E = pc.
The atom bomb works by converting matter into energy.and again your wrong about light.Again, I was right. Your brain is just too small to realize it.Because gravity warps space time, and light has to travel through said space time, therefore light is effected by gravity. again, nice try.Gravity (force) can't affect objects without mass, nevermind light. Gravitation can, however. Gravitation affects light's path, bending it. Thus, gravitational lensing occurs.Quote from: wikipediaAccording to general relativity, mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result.I recommend you to stop posting to avoid getting pwned more.
In general relativity, gravity is not construed as a force; hence, if the net force of non-gravitational interactions is negligible, the law that describes motion is Newton's First Law rather than Newton's Second Law. Newton's First Law models position as a function of time in non-relativistic mechanics, but in general relativity the law is rewritten to demand motion along a space-time geodesic. This curvature of space-time causes the path of even a massless particle like a photon to deviate from the straight lines expected from Euclidean intuition; and, in particular, the path is observed to curve in exactly the same way as the geodesics predicted by general relativity.
actually you just proved what i was saying. The gravity itself didnt directly effect the photo, as it cant it has no mass, but the curvature of Space time itself cause light to deviate from its path.You can't read, right? Nevermind that, you didn't read the whole section I just quoted.
In general relativity, gravity is not construed as a force. Mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result. This curvature of space-time causes the path of even a massless particle like a photon to deviate from the straight lines expected from Euclidean intuition; and, in particular, the path is observed to curve in exactly the same way as the geodesics predicted by general relativity.
Nice try their buddy. PWNED.You don't even know who is pwning who. Pity.
if their is a train on its tracks, i cant directly effect the train, but if i change the path of the tracks it travels on, it will be effected indirectly by my actions.Except your analogy is wrong, just like your own created "E = MC squared".
actually you just proved what i was saying. The gravity itself didnt directly effect the photo, as it cant it has no mass, but the curvature of Space time itself cause light to deviate from its path.You can't read, right? Nevermind that, you didn't read the whole section I just quoted.QuoteIn general relativity, gravity is not construed as a force. Mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result. This curvature of space-time causes the path of even a massless particle like a photon to deviate from the straight lines expected from Euclidean intuition; and, in particular, the path is observed to curve in exactly the same way as the geodesics predicted by general relativity.
Gravitation, the curved spacetime which affects both mass and massless objects, bends light. Gravity, the force which cannot affect massless objects, cannot bend light. I suggest you to study more and spend less time on the internets.Nice try their buddy. PWNED.You don't even know who is pwning who. Pity.if their is a train on its tracks, i cant directly effect the train, but if i change the path of the tracks it travels on, it will be effected indirectly by my actions.Except your analogy is wrong, just like your own created "E = MC squared".
Gravity bends space time. this distorts light. periodNope.
E=MC squared is not wrong. your saying Einstein was wrong?Einstein was right, but you ruined his good name. You don't capitalize M or C. There is a reason why he wrote it as mc2.
this is the forumla used to calculate the amount of energy in any given mass. meaning if you converted x amount of matter to energy it would yield E.That's why you don't use it on photons, like I've just said before. Glad that you finally realize your error.
EHH wrong.
I said only objects with mass distort space time and produce gravity!I guess you dont read very well.
But the force of gravity can effect light, through lensing.
nice try.
Now you're confusing Newtonian gravity with Einsteinian gravitation.
No Im not. the two agree.
Einstein only built upon the foundation that Newton had laid.
Light can be assigned a mass though, replace one of the masses with the equation: h(nu)/c2 and you will get your resultEHH wrong.
I said only objects with mass distort space time and produce gravity!I guess you dont read very well.
But the force of gravity can effect light, through lensing.
nice try.
Now you're confusing Newtonian gravity with Einsteinian gravitation.
No Im not. the two agree.
Einstein only built upon the foundation that Newton had laid.
Okay.
Using the equation (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/3/0/a30b71b8e68c511e480ac4700751c788.png), what is the gravitational force on a photon (which has zero mass, in case you've forgotten already) at the surface of the Earth? Now tell me if this agrees with General Relativity.
well you almost answered the question, I know the question was confusing but here it goes againI am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topicsI'm not on another topic. :-\
/\ acceleration of the earth. /\ acceleration of the person
| |
| |
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.
|
\/ Acceleration of the person. /\ Acceleration due to air resistance.
|
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.
Does that help? I tried to make it so simple a 6th grader could understand. But I may be giving you too much credit.then show me the correct equation using the model not what we see in reality and remember I have already taken into account for the acceleration of the FE in mineSo no equations yet?
Light can be assigned a mass though, replace one of the masses with the equation: h(nu)/c2 and you will get your result
Light can be assigned a mass though, replace one of the masses with the equation: h(nu)/c2 and you will get your resultBut photons are massless.
they can be given a relativistic mass through that equationLight can be assigned a mass though, replace one of the masses with the equation: h(nu)/c2 and you will get your resultBut photons are massless.
they can be given a relativistic mass through that equation
It is rather simple, you first need to find the energy of the photon and you do this by taking Planck's constant(h) and multiplying it by the frequency of the wave(nu) then you set it equal to Einsteins equationYou mean this?
Like this
1)E=h(nu)
2)E=mc2
then put them together
h(nu)=mc2
the only unknown you will end up with will be the mass so you solve for "m"
now you have the mass of a photon and you can calculate gravitational fields with it all you want
Racism? Thats an abreviation, ok The Japanees. but if you want to blow off the question and call it racism then thats fine. If I call a person from Britian a Brit or a person from russia a russian, that isn't racist. Jap is short for Japanees and that doesn't reference a race, Japan is a country. Oriental is the race.Firstly, it's spelt Japanese.
So no equations yet?FE = ma - R
FOR, in the FET terminal velocity means the objects acceleration matches the earths. These are obviously accelerating.Where is the complication?QuoteSo once again, you apply the EP wrong and now can't back it up. Typical you, pseudoengineer.I didn't apply the EP in that post. Perhaps you should read it before you make an ass out of yourself. Oh, wait, it's way too late for that.
Stop hiding from the question. Why is the guy in your sig accelerating upwards? I know you can't answer that.He is accelerating upwards because he is in contact with the Earth. He wants to follow an inertial path through space, but is not being allowed to.
He is still not accelerating upwards. He is being held down by a physical acceleration.Stop hiding from the question. Why is the guy in your sig accelerating upwards? I know you can't answer that.He is accelerating upwards because he is in contact with the Earth. He wants to follow an inertial path through space, but is not being allowed to.
Please, next time, read the links.
No, it doesn't. Gravity only affects things with mass. Photons are massless. Light composes of photons. Gravity can't affect light.
Get smarter.
What about black holes? Serious question.
Arent black holes so dense that the gravity is so great that not even light can escape?
Isn't gravitation caused by gravity?
Wow you need to work on your coordinate system that is just really sad, all that time and that is the best you can doSo no equations yet?FE = ma - R
RE = mg - R
Wow, look at that!
He is still not accelerating upwards. He is being held down by a physical acceleration.
He is still not accelerating upwards. He is being held down by a physical acceleration.
No, he is accelerating upwards. If you want to experience an inertial frame of reference, jump off a cliff. You'll have a good few seconds to appreciate the freefall.
Nope
Nope
So you don't believe that General Relativity is correct?
GR does not make such claims.
So free fall is no longer an inertial motion?QuoteNo, he is accelerating upwards. If you want to experience an inertial frame of reference, jump off a cliff. You'll have a good few seconds to appreciate the freefall.
Nope
So free fall is no longer an inertial motion?QuoteNo, he is accelerating upwards. If you want to experience an inertial frame of reference, jump off a cliff. You'll have a good few seconds to appreciate the freefall.
Nope
Nope to the "No, he is accelerating upwards." part.
Nope to the "No, he is accelerating upwards." part.
So when you are in freefall, you are both inertial and accelerating?
When in freefall you are accelerating only due to gravitation.
When in freefall you are accelerating only due to gravitation.
You didn't answer my question.
Yes, for free fall only. Me accelerating in my car is still non inertial.
Yes, for free fall only. Me accelerating in my car is still non inertial.
You may be interested in this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference#Non-inertial_reference_frames)
I already had that open. Now tell me where is says the acceleration is in the up direction.
mg-RI already had that open. Now tell me where is says the acceleration is in the up direction.
Please draw a free body diagram of all forces acting on a person in freefall.
mg-R
I already had that open. Now tell me where is says the acceleration is in the up direction.
Please draw a free body diagram of all forces acting on a person in freefall.
Are you claiming there are forces?
Nope, never did.Are you claiming there are forces?
No, you are.
Nope, never did.
Einstein answers this question the best. I will simply say bent spacetime.Nope, never did.
How can there be acceleration without a force?
Einstein answers this question the best. I will simply say bent spacetime.
Einstein answers this question the best. I will simply say bent spacetime.
Einstein never said there could be acceleration with no force.
In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force.
Einstein never said there could be acceleration with no force.
WHAT? Please learn GR.QuoteIn general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force.
Now please leave and go research.
Einstein never said there could be acceleration with no force.
WHAT? Please learn GR.QuoteIn general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force.
Now please leave and go research.
Please point out where the word "acceleration" appears in that quote, my clumsy vision seems to have missed it.
There. Do I need to point out what the effects of gravitation are?
There. Do I need to point out what the effects of gravitation are?
I think it more likely that you need them pointed out to you.
One of the effects of gravitation is acceleration.
One of the effects of gravitation is acceleration.
No it isn't.
umm wow. I'm not sure if I even know what to say to this. How is acceleration not an effect from gravitation?
umm wow. I'm not sure if I even know what to say to this. How is acceleration not an effect from gravitation?
Bodies in freefall do not accelerate.
It may be worth stating if we're dealing with point-like observers or extended objects at this point - remember that every point observer sees locally flat (Minkowski) spacetime...
Also - all forces/accelerations/velocities/masses have to be measured relative to something - I think one of the problems you guys are having is that the problem is not well defined enough. State a specific example (neurtron orbiting the Earth - basically pointlike observer, or Moon/Earth - perturbative, extended observer) and go from there.
Bodies in freefall do not accelerate.This is what I am talking about with the engineer it is a major testable flaw in the FE model
Bodies in freefall do not accelerate.This is what I am talking about with the engineer it is a major testable flaw in the FE model
umm wow. I'm not sure if I even know what to say to this. How is acceleration not an effect from gravitation?
Bodies in freefall do not accelerate.
How would a sky diver hit the ground if he never accelerated?
I know what I am talking about, he does not. As I sated before, I have seen SR and some GR in college.
Bodies in freefall do not accelerate.This is what I am talking about with the engineer it is a major testable flaw in the FE model
Bodies in free fall accelerate in both the RET and the FET.(assuming not in a vacuum)
There was a thread where skydivers came up. Map out the acceleration of a skydiver in the FE and RE and you will see.
You seem very smart robosteve. Thats why my brain is melting right now.
Am I missintepretating 'freefall'? As in skydiver (before counteracted by airresistance)? As in throwing a ball up and then catches it when it comes back?
I know youre going to give a challenged answer.
One of the strange consequences of relativity is that you are accelerating up, falling objects are not accelerating down.
One of the strange consequences of relativity is that you are accelerating up, falling objects are not accelerating down.
Damn. Im thinking RE all the time. Its very hard to get into the FE mindset, but Ill get there.
This holds true in RET too. It's difficult to understand, but so are a lot of Einstein's ideas.
One of the strange consequences of relativity is that you are accelerating up, falling objects are not accelerating down.
Damn. Im thinking RE all the time. Its very hard to get into the FE mindset, but Ill get there.
This holds true in RET too. It's difficult to understand, but so are a lot of Einstein's ideas.
I know, but the point of view is different. It all depends where you are, and how you THINK you are moving..
I know, but the point of view is different. It all depends where you are, and how you THINK you are moving..
That is essentially the underlying principle behind relativity. The point is that we feel the upwards acceleration, except that we misinterpret it as a downwards pull.
Thats my point. You cant say "No. Skydivers arent accelerating". Cause it depends. Both views are correct.
One of the strange consequences of relativity is that you are accelerating up, falling objects are not accelerating down.
Damn. Im thinking RE all the time. Its very hard to get into the FE mindset, but Ill get there.
This holds true in RET too. It's difficult to understand, but so are a lot of Einstein's ideas.
What you said is true only for the FET.
In the RET I could pick a FOR that is inertial, and see a person in freefall accelerating towards the earth.Thats my point. You cant say "No. Skydivers arent accelerating". Cause it depends. Both views are correct.
Well, not really. Velocity is relative, acceleration isn't. It is technically incorrect to measure acceleration from a non-inertial (that is, accelerating) frame of reference. So to measure acceleration correctly, you would have to be in freefall, observing the accelerating object.
Thats my point. You cant say "No. Skydivers arent accelerating". Cause it depends. Both views are correct.
Well, not really. Velocity is relative, acceleration isn't. It is technically incorrect to measure acceleration from a non-inertial (that is, accelerating) frame of reference. So to measure acceleration correctly, you would have to be in freefall, observing the accelerating object.
Thats my point. You cant say "No. Skydivers arent accelerating". Cause it depends. Both views are correct.
Well, not really. Velocity is relative, acceleration isn't. It is technically incorrect to measure acceleration from a non-inertial (that is, accelerating) frame of reference. So to measure acceleration correctly, you would have to be in freefall, observing the accelerating object.
But in RE the earth is not accelerating. Have I missed something?
In the RET I could pick a FOR that is inertial, and see a person in freefall accelerating towards the earth.
Here are your Free body diagrams
The FE model:
(http://i36.tinypic.com/jrv1he.gif)
and the RE model:
(http://i38.tinypic.com/i3xc9d.gif)
So you can see these hold true for each respective model
But in RE the earth is not accelerating. Have I missed something?Sometimes it is. The transfer between apogee and perigee around the sun. Between perigee and apogee is should be decelerating.
But in RE the earth is not accelerating. Have I missed something?
No you couldn't. Not if you were close enough to see them at all, anyway.
Okay, so assuming one is in freefall in a vacuum, the only force in the second (erroneous, but for the sake of argument I shall pretend that it is not) free body diagram is acting downwards.
Now, say the person falling is holding a hypothetical box that no force can penetrate, and inside this box is a mouse that has no idea what is going on outside it. Using your free body diagram, then, the mouse will feel a fictitious force upwards as the person is pulled down, thus proving that - if your diagram is correct - a person in freefall is in a non-inertial frame of reference. Congratulations, you just disproved Einstein!
And if you have a better free body diagram I would love to see it
QuoteOkay, so assuming one is in freefall in a vacuum, the only force in the second (erroneous, but for the sake of argument I shall pretend that it is not) free body diagram is acting downwards.
Now, say the person falling is holding a hypothetical box that no force can penetrate, and inside this box is a mouse that has no idea what is going on outside it. Using your free body diagram, then, the mouse will feel a fictitious force upwards as the person is pulled down, thus proving that - if your diagram is correct - a person in freefall is in a non-inertial frame of reference. Congratulations, you just disproved Einstein!
A person in a space suit free falling in a vacuum will not feel a force or acceleration.
When in freefall you are accelerating only due to gravitation.
Tell you what go to your roof and drop 2 different masses off of it with the same parachute and see which one hits first and tell me if your freebody diagram is accurateAnd if you have a better free body diagram I would love to see it
Here:
(http://i36.tinypic.com/jrv1he.gif)QuoteOkay, so assuming one is in freefall in a vacuum, the only force in the second (erroneous, but for the sake of argument I shall pretend that it is not) free body diagram is acting downwards.
Now, say the person falling is holding a hypothetical box that no force can penetrate, and inside this box is a mouse that has no idea what is going on outside it. Using your free body diagram, then, the mouse will feel a fictitious force upwards as the person is pulled down, thus proving that - if your diagram is correct - a person in freefall is in a non-inertial frame of reference. Congratulations, you just disproved Einstein!
A person in a space suit free falling in a vacuum will not feel a force or acceleration.
Make up your mind.When in freefall you are accelerating only due to gravitation.
A person in a space suit free falling in a vacuum will not feel a force or acceleration.
Make up your mind.When in freefall you are accelerating only due to gravitation.
Tell you what go to your roof and drop 2 different masses off of it with the same parachute and see which one hits first and tell me if your freebody diagram is accurate
and by your response I guess you have issues with the validity of F=ma ???
They can accelerate without feeling it, as there is no force involved.
Now where does your F=ma come from?Tell you what go to your roof and drop 2 different masses off of it with the same parachute and see which one hits first and tell me if your freebody diagram is accurate
If I could get onto my roof, I would. However, here is my prediction of what would happen:
F = -R
F = ma
Therefore:
a = -R / m
Thus, the upward acceleration is inversely proportional to the mass, and the larger mass will accelerate upwards away from the Earth more slowly to make contact with it first.and by your response I guess you have issues with the validity of F=ma ???
I don't know where you got that idea.
They can accelerate without feeling it, as there is no force involved.
A nonzero net force is the only thing that can cause acceleration. We have been through this.
Now where does your F=ma come from?
Bent spacetime will cause acceleration.
I understand the concept of the equation but how did you pull that force out of this?Now where does your F=ma come from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_second_law:_law_of_resultant_force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_second_law:_law_of_resultant_force)
(http://i36.tinypic.com/jrv1he.gif)Quote
I understand the concept of the equation but how did you pull that force out of this?
so where is the F=ma in the freebody diagram that allows you to enter it into the equation to make that relationship?I understand the concept of the equation but how did you pull that force out of this?
That force (F) causes an acceleration (a), and the relationship between the two is given by the constant of proportionality m.
so where is the F=ma in the freebody diagram that allows you to enter it into the equation to make that relationship?
Lets make a step back then; what accelerates according to the FE model, the object released of the earth?so where is the F=ma in the freebody diagram that allows you to enter it into the equation to make that relationship?
So now I have to declare Newton's second law of motion in every freebody diagram I draw before I can use it?
Lets make a step back then; what accelerates according to the FE model, the object released of the earth?
exactly so we would have F=ma-R but according to the FE model the acceleration of the object is zero, so taking that into account we have:Lets make a step back then; what accelerates according to the FE model, the object released of the earth?
Ignoring air resistance, the Earth. Allowing for air resistance, both.
exactly so we would have F=ma-R but according to the FE model the acceleration of the object is zero, so taking that into account we have:
F=m(0)-R which leads us to F=-R
it accelerates but at a different rate than in the RE model and the acceleration is dependent on the Air resistance so that is why 2 object with different masses would have the same terminal velocity if their air resistance was the sameexactly so we would have F=ma-R but according to the FE model the acceleration of the object is zero, so taking that into account we have:
F=m(0)-R which leads us to F=-R
So a force is applied to an object but doesn't cause it to accelerate?
it accelerates but at a different rate than in the RE model and the acceleration is dependent on the Air resistance so that is why 2 object with different masses would have the same terminal velocity if their air resistance was the same
it accelerates but at a different rate than in the RE model and the acceleration is dependent on the Air resistance so that is why 2 object with different masses would have the same terminal velocity if their air resistance was the same
No, the rate of acceleration would be the same in RE as in FE. And terminal velocity doesn't have anything to do with it if we're talking about a drop from a rooftop; what matters is how long it takes to reach that state of equilibrium.
Why are you using my quote as a signature, that quote disproved FEG when you tried to use the density of the RE sun in a FEG sun calculation.
So show me how you would calculate the terminal velocity of an object using the FE modelit accelerates but at a different rate than in the RE model and the acceleration is dependent on the Air resistance so that is why 2 object with different masses would have the same terminal velocity if their air resistance was the same
No, the rate of acceleration would be the same in RE as in FE. And terminal velocity doesn't have anything to do with it if we're talking about a drop from a rooftop; what matters is how long it takes to reach that state of equilibrium.
So show me how you would calculate the terminal velocity of an object using the FE model
No it won't.
It will.
So the FE model uses gravity now?So show me how you would calculate the terminal velocity of an object using the FE model
It would simply be the point at which the falling object is accelerating at the same rate as the Earth is below it; that is to say, the point at which -R = -mg (incidentally, it probably wasn't a good idea to pick down as positive, since all the forces we are working with in the FE model go up). Assuming that R is a linear function of v such that R = kv, then one would simply evaluate v = mg / k.
It will.
It really won't.
So the FE model uses gravity now?
or should it just look like this v= sqrt(2ma/(CpA) but of course the object is not accelerating so therefore you will just end up with zero
So that tell us that there is no Terminal velocity
If I throw a ball up in the air, how does it come back down? Or for that matter, how does it slow on the way up?
Just curious if you understood your model correctlySo the FE model uses gravity now?
or should it just look like this v= sqrt(2ma/(CpA) but of course the object is not accelerating so therefore you will just end up with zero
So that tell us that there is no Terminal velocity
What was the point of asking me to show how I would calculate terminal velocity if you were going to ignore my solution and draw your own idiotic conclusions anyway?If I throw a ball up in the air, how does it come back down? Or for that matter, how does it slow on the way up?
It doesn't. You accelerate up to it.
So you like non inertial FOR, cool. I am of course talking about the RE but you already knew that.So the FE model uses gravity now?
or should it just look like this v= sqrt(2ma/(CpA) but of course the object is not accelerating so therefore you will just end up with zero
So that tell us that there is no Terminal velocity
What was the point of asking me to show how I would calculate terminal velocity if you were going to ignore my solution and draw your own idiotic conclusions anyway?If I throw a ball up in the air, how does it come back down? Or for that matter, how does it slow on the way up?
It doesn't. You accelerate up to it.
Just curious if you understood your model correctly
So you like non inertial FOR, cool. I am of course talking about the RE but you already knew that.
Have you ever heard of the twin paradox? Do you know what the solution to the twin paradox is?
Let us look at all the terms here
F=ma-.5CpAv2
m=Mass of object
a= acceleration of object
C=Drag coefficient
p= Denisty of air
A= cross sectional area of object
v= velocity of air passing by object
So tell me where the error is
I am talking about both models. Because of the equivalence principle, what I have said is valid for both FET and RET.
Yes I have heard of the twin paradox, and yes I am aware of its solution. I don't see how it is relevant to this discussion, however.
I don't expect you to know what I am getting at.
The twin paradox shows who has the effects of velocity.
When I throw a ball I first must accelerate it.
This is non inertial.
Once again, there are FORs in the RE that show gravitation causing acceleration.
Post evidence.
No there aren't.
Why are you using my quote as a signature, that quote disproved FEG when you tried to use the density of the RE sun in a FEG sun calculation.a RE and FE sun have different masses and volumes therefore you cant mix the numbers.
So you trying to do so, trying to use the RE density n a FE equation makes no senseand shows your ignorant.
Neither am I but the FE model sure as hell states itJust curious if you understood your model correctlyI'm not the one saying there is no such thing as terminal velocity.
Let us look at all the terms hereThe Error is in the model when you solve that equation you end up with something equal to zero not to mention that the velocity is already known which supports the fact that there is no terminal velocity, the object just keeps accelerating with no counter force to equalize it
F=ma-.5CpAv2
m=Mass of object
a= acceleration of object
C=Drag coefficient
p= Denisty of air
A= cross sectional area of object
v= velocity of air passing by object
So tell me where the error is
That is exactly the point. The object continuously accelerates upwards. When the acceleration of the object reaches 9.8m/s^2, it is no longer accelerating relative to the earth, thereby having reached its terminal velocity.So like I said it is entirely dependent upon the air resistance
Really it looks like you said the opposite. Lots of pages agoWhat we should be asking is that if we use the FE model to predict the terminal velocity of an object, objects with same air resistance but different masses should have the same terminal velocity but in reality they do not.Uh, no.
Air resistance.
Uh, no.Not sure how it could be misunderstood since you responses are so well thought out and your point is always so easy to understand
Air resistance.
Here are your Free body diagramsWhere is the acceleration of FE?
The FE model:
(http://i36.tinypic.com/jrv1he.gif)
Why would we include the acceleration of the FE?Here are your Free body diagramsWhere is the acceleration of FE?
The FE model:
(http://i36.tinypic.com/jrv1he.gif)
Because you included gravitation in your other RE model.That is because the model tells us that it does
You do know that the acceleration of FE is what simulates the effects of gravitation, right?while we are touching the ground yes, but what does the FE model state; we fall back to the earth or the earth accelerates back up to us?
while we are touching the ground yes, but what does the FE model state; we fall back to the earth or the earth accelerates back up to us?The FE accelerates to us...
there you gowhile we are touching the ground yes, but what does the FE model state; we fall back to the earth or the earth accelerates back up to us?The FE accelerates to us...
there you goWhat?
knowing that the earth accelerates up to the object and not the other way around draw a freebody diagram and resolve the forces acting upon the objectthere you goWhat?
(http://i36.tinypic.com/jrv1he.gif)
Doesn't drag also accelerate the person?yes that is what R denotes.
So you believe the force of gravity exists in the RE model?F=ma
F=maRight, it becomes a fictitious force in a non-inertial frame of reference.
And what would be the acceleration toward the ground in the RE model? Could it be g?Free-falling along the geodesics to the center of the Earth. The chair you're sitting right now does not allow that to happen; it applies an upward force. This way, there is no downward force. Motions along geodesics are inertial. This is why free-fall is classified as an inertial motion.
and it needs to be resolved does it not? Or can we just disegard the acceleration because we do not like to use the term forceF=maRight, it becomes a fictitious force in a non-inertial frame of reference.And what would be the acceleration toward the ground in the RE model? Could it be g?Free-falling along the geodesics to the center of the Earth. The chair you're sitting right now does not allow that to happen; it applies an upward force. This way, there is no downward force. Motions along geodesics are inertial. This is why free-fall is classified as an inertial motion.
The "acceleration due to gravity"?and when you couple that with an objects mass what do you get?
and when you couple that with an objects mass what do you get?Technically, it's an object's inertial mass. You get F=ma, which is invalid in non-inertial reference frame.
So your contention is that in the RE model we only need to calculate the objects air resistance to find it terminal velocity?and when you couple that with an objects mass what do you get?Technically, it's an object's inertial mass. You get F=ma, which is invalid in non-inertial reference frame.
So your contention is that in the RE model we only need to calculate the objects air resistance to find it terminal velocity?Uh, no.
So if I drop a plastic ball and a steel ball from some height you would not care which one hit you as long as their R value was the same????
but you do not want to use mg even though after you do all of the math it will always break down to that for purposes of our calculationsSo your contention is that in the RE model we only need to calculate the objects air resistance to find it terminal velocity?Uh, no.So if I drop a plastic ball and a steel ball from some height you would not care which one hit you as long as their R value was the same????
Free-falling of the person = Acceleration from dragSo what is the Terminal velocity of a smooth ball, and let us see the math
|
v
Terminal Velocity
So what is the Terminal velocity of a smooth ball, and let us see the mathSo basically, you're trying to argue that mg is valid even though its refuted completely by GR.
mg the way newton described it is not valid. But if you want to do a whole bunch of math with GR you will find that it will reduce to mg as far as objects on earth are concerned. When v<<CSo what is the Terminal velocity of a smooth ball, and let us see the mathSo basically, you're trying to argue that mg is valid even though its refuted completely by GR.
Post evidence.
a RE and FE sun have different masses and volumes therefore you cant mix the numbers.
So you trying to do so, trying to use the RE density n a FE equation makes no senseand shows your ignorant.
I am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topicsI'm not on another topic. :-\
/\ acceleration of the earth. /\ acceleration of the person
| |
| |
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.
|
\/ Acceleration of the person. /\ Acceleration due to air resistance.
|
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.
Does that help? I tried to make it so simple a 6th grader could understand. But I may be giving you too much credit.
No. You are the one arguing the affirmative side; it is up to you to post evidence.
I have already told you:
1. Gravitation causes acceleration.
2. A free falling object can accelerate towards the earth.
I have already told you:
1. Gravitation causes acceleration.
2. A free falling object can accelerate towards the earth.
Making false assertions does not constitute evidence.
To bad it's not false.
I have already proved me point. You just have no idea what you are talking about. You are just like another Divito. You only know what you have read or stolen, but you go the extra distance to make stuff up. See your new gravitation thread in AS.To bad it's not false.
Making true assertions does not constitute evidence, either. So your response was inadequate either way.
No. You are the one arguing the affirmative side; it is up to you to post evidence.
I have already told you:
1. Gravitation causes acceleration.
2. A free falling object can accelerate towards the earth.
I have already proved me point. You just have no idea what you are talking about. You are just like another Divito. You only know what you have read or stolen, but you go the extra distance to make stuff up. See your new gravitation thread in AS.
No. You are the one arguing the affirmative side; it is up to you to post evidence.
I have already told you:
1. Gravitation causes acceleration.
2. A free falling object can accelerate towards the earth.
1. Gravitation is acceleration.
2. The term 'free fall' by definition removes any possibility of the object in question accelerating.
I pick the FOR of the earth, o look, objects accelerate towards me. According to you this is impossible, but a last you are wrong.I have already proved me point. You just have no idea what you are talking about. You are just like another Divito. You only know what you have read or stolen, but you go the extra distance to make stuff up. See your new gravitation thread in AS.
I see you are not to be removed from your Newtonian comfort zone. Very well then, I can attempt to reason with you no further.
I have already proved me point. You just have no idea what you are talking about. You are just like another Divito. You only know what you have read or stolen, but you go the extra distance to make stuff up. See your new gravitation thread in AS.
I have already proved me point. You just have no idea what you are talking about. You are just like another Divito. You only know what you have read or stolen, but you go the extra distance to make stuff up. See your new gravitation thread in AS.
1. How is knowing what I've read any different than being taught the information? This also ignores the information I've also been taught.
2. How does one steal public information?
3. Name something I've made up; you've made up more things than I have.
I pick the FOR of the earth, o look, objects accelerate towards me. According to you this is impossible, but a last you are wrong.
I'm sorry, please use your brain before you speak. Why is the earth a non inertial FOR?I pick the FOR of the earth, o look, objects accelerate towards me. According to you this is impossible, but a last you are wrong.
Congratulations on picking a non-inertial frame of reference. You do know that one of the features of a non-inertial frame of reference is a fictitious force, don't you? I wonder what force you might have invented to compensate for the effect of your acceleration?
No. You are the one arguing the affirmative side; it is up to you to post evidence.
I have already told you:
1. Gravitation causes acceleration.
2. A free falling object can accelerate towards the earth.
1. Gravitation is acceleration.
2. The term 'free fall' by definition removes any possibility of the object in question accelerating.
GRAVITATION IS NOT ACCELERATION. SEARCH FOR THAT TERM AND SEE HOW MANY RESULTS YOU GET. I already know from the last time they tried to argue that. You will get around 4 results.
No. You are the one arguing the affirmative side; it is up to you to post evidence.
I have already told you:
1. Gravitation causes acceleration.
2. A free falling object can accelerate towards the earth.
1. Gravitation is acceleration.
2. The term 'free fall' by definition removes any possibility of the object in question accelerating.
GRAVITATION IS NOT ACCELERATION. SEARCH FOR THAT TERM AND SEE HOW MANY RESULTS YOU GET. I already know from the last time they tried to argue that. You will get around 4 results.
I realise that my first point was a little ambiguous, I was perhaps a little to hasty in posting, but I notice that you seem to be having serious problems responding to my second point.
1. Some teachers teach more than just what books say.
2. Plagiarism
Usually pretty well as they have doctorates and conduct research while they teach.1. Some teachers teach more than just what books say.
And how do those teachers compare to several books, other teachers, and online sources?
Yes, but stealing it and claiming it as your own does.
Communicating information that you've learned/"know" does not constitute plagiarism.
I'm sorry, please use your brain before you speak. Why is the earth a non inertial FOR?
Usually pretty well as they have doctorates and conduct research while they teach.
Yes, but stealing it and claiming it as your own does.
No. You are the one arguing the affirmative side; it is up to you to post evidence.
I have already told you:
1. Gravitation causes acceleration.
2. A free falling object can accelerate towards the earth.
1. Gravitation is acceleration.
2. The term 'free fall' by definition removes any possibility of the object in question accelerating.
GRAVITATION IS NOT ACCELERATION. SEARCH FOR THAT TERM AND SEE HOW MANY RESULTS YOU GET. I already know from the last time they tried to argue that. You will get around 4 results.
I realise that my first point was a little ambiguous, I was perhaps a little to hasty in posting, but I notice that you seem to be having serious problems responding to my second point.
umm, I agree free falling objects accelerate towards the earth.
I'm sorry, please use your brain before you speak. Why is the earth a non inertial FOR?
Sorry, I misinterpreted your post. I thought you meant the frame of reference as you stand on the Earth; I was lead astray by your use of the first person.
To correct said misinterpretation, things don't accelerate towards you.
I'm sorry, please use your brain before you speak. Why is the earth a non inertial FOR?
Sorry, I misinterpreted your post. I thought you meant the frame of reference as you stand on the Earth; I was lead astray by your use of the first person.
To correct said misinterpretation, things don't accelerate towards you.
That isn't what I said, I said the the term 'free fall' has nothing to do with acceleration, and that the object that is 'free falling' is not accelerating at all.
Free fall is motion with no acceleration other than that provided by gravity.
I'm sorry, please use your brain before you speak. Why is the earth a non inertial FOR?
Sorry, I misinterpreted your post. I thought you meant the frame of reference as you stand on the Earth; I was lead astray by your use of the first person.
To correct said misinterpretation, things don't accelerate towards you.
To expand further, I shall assume that by "the frame of reference of the Earth" you mean "the frame of reference of the centre of mass of the Earth", as the Earth itself is not in a single frame of reference.
Gravitation causes objects to accelerate towards the earth. End of story.
I am talking about the whole earth. There is a FOR that is the whole earth.
I'm sorry, please use your brain before you speak. Why is the earth a non inertial FOR?
Sorry, I misinterpreted your post. I thought you meant the frame of reference as you stand on the Earth; I was lead astray by your use of the first person.
To correct said misinterpretation, things don't accelerate towards you.
Gravitation causes objects to accelerate towards the earth. End of story.
That isn't what I said, I said the the term 'free fall' has nothing to do with acceleration, and that the object that is 'free falling' is not accelerating at all.
Apparently I wasn't paying attention.
Does this help?Quote from: wikiFree fall is motion with no acceleration other than that provided by gravity.
You can change gravity to gravitation.
I'm sorry, please use your brain before you speak. Why is the earth a non inertial FOR?
Sorry, I misinterpreted your post. I thought you meant the frame of reference as you stand on the Earth; I was lead astray by your use of the first person.
To correct said misinterpretation, things don't accelerate towards you.
Gravitation causes objects to accelerate towards the earth. End of story.
That isn't what I said, I said the the term 'free fall' has nothing to do with acceleration, and that the object that is 'free falling' is not accelerating at all.
Apparently I wasn't paying attention.
Does this help?Quote from: wikiFree fall is motion with no acceleration other than that provided by gravity.
You can change gravity to gravitation.
I think the FE's are the conspirators, How much money do you guys make off of this farse? Who is selling the books and making money off of this?
So you already gave up on your equations then, good for you. I will put the question to you also, using the FE model calculate the terminal velocity of a smooth ball and I want to see the mathI am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topicsI'm not on another topic. :-\
/\ acceleration of the earth. /\ acceleration of the person
| |
| |
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.
|
\/ Acceleration of the person. /\ Acceleration due to air resistance.
|
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.
Does that help? I tried to make it so simple a 6th grader could understand. But I may be giving you too much credit.
So in other words, like Einstein said, gravitation causes acceleration. Good to know. Glad to see you finally saw how wrong you are.I am talking about the whole earth. There is a FOR that is the whole earth.
No there isn't. The surface of the Earth at one end is accelerating at 9.8 m s-2 in one direction, and on the other side it is accelerating at the same rate in the opposite direction. These are not the same frame of reference, and they are both non-inertial in any case. The only inertial frame of reference that fits what you are trying to describe is that of the Earth's centre of mass.
So you already gave up on your equations then, good for you. I will put the question to you also, using the FE model calculate the terminal velocity of a smooth ball and I want to see the mathSo, I must assume you admit your colossal failure. It was a good attempt to act smart, but it ended up blowing up in your face. Just like all your other attempts to act intelligent.
You can side step the question all you want but since you have such a clear understanding of the FE model it should be a no brainer to calculate the Terminal velocity of a smooth ball. It is only simple algebra after all. Should be pretty easy to show the equations and the result. The only problem I see is that the respone may require a few sentences and we all know how hard that is for you to do in 1 post.So you already gave up on your equations then, good for you. I will put the question to you also, using the FE model calculate the terminal velocity of a smooth ball and I want to see the mathSo, I must assume you admit your colossal failure. It was a good attempt to act smart, but it ended up blowing up in your face. Just like all your other attempts to act intelligent.
No there isn't. The surface of the Earth at one end is accelerating at 9.8 m s-2 in one direction, and on the other side it is accelerating at the same rate in the opposite direction. These are not the same frame of reference, and they are both non-inertial in any case. The only inertial frame of reference that fits what you are trying to describe is that of the Earth's centre of mass.So in other words, like Einstein said, gravitation causes acceleration. Good to know. Glad to see you finally saw how wrong you are.
What is the direction of the person's acceleration?
(The acceleration due to gravity would be 'down' in this case.)
(The acceleration due to gravity would be 'down' in this case.)
Or would be, if gravity existed.
That's why I implicitly qualified that statement.
To everyone:
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/GEODESIC_001.jpg)
What is the direction of the person's acceleration?
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth.
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth.
You are stupid.
Examples of objects not in free fall:
Standing on the ground: the gravitational acceleration is counteracted by the normal force from the ground.
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth.Uh, you sure?
A person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic (free fall towards the center of the Earth), but the chair applies an external upwards force preventing the person from falling. In this way, general relativity explains the daily experience of gravity on the surface of the Earth not as the downwards pull of a gravitational force, but as the upwards push of external forces which deflect bodies on the Earth's surface from the geodesics they would otherwise follow.
So what are you trying to say, you have no idea what you are talking about or I read the picture wrong?
You are stupid.
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth.Uh, you sure?Quote from: wikipediaA person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic (free fall towards the center of the Earth), but the chair applies an external upwards force preventing the person from falling. In this way, general relativity explains the daily experience of gravity on the surface of the Earth not as the downwards pull of a gravitational force, but as the upwards push of external forces which deflect bodies on the Earth's surface from the geodesics they would otherwise follow.
Examples of objects not in free fall:
Standing on the ground: the gravitational acceleration is counteracted by the normal force from the ground.
Free fall is motion with no acceleration other than that provided by gravity.
You are stupid.I don't even know what to say. A 19 year old high school dropout is trying to show me up.
high school dropout
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth.Uh, you sure?Quote from: wikipediaA person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic (free fall towards the center of the Earth), but the chair applies an external upwards force preventing the person from falling. In this way, general relativity explains the daily experience of gravity on the surface of the Earth not as the downwards pull of a gravitational force, but as the upwards push of external forces which deflect bodies on the Earth's surface from the geodesics they would otherwise follow.
Do you know what "motion along geodesic" (or geodesic, for starters) is?A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth.Uh, you sure?Quote from: wikipediaA person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic (free fall towards the center of the Earth), but the chair applies an external upwards force preventing the person from falling. In this way, general relativity explains the daily experience of gravity on the surface of the Earth not as the downwards pull of a gravitational force, but as the upwards push of external forces which deflect bodies on the Earth's surface from the geodesics they would otherwise follow.
Yup
Then GTFO of Newtonian physics.Quote from: wikiExamples of objects not in free fall:
Standing on the ground: the gravitational acceleration is counteracted by the normal force from the ground.Quote from: wikiFree fall is motion with no acceleration other than that provided by gravity.
To add to my last post, what part of the quote says objects on the earth are in free fall?The dude on the chair.
A person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic (free fall towards the center of the Earth), but the chair applies an external upwards force preventing the person from falling. In this way, general relativity explains the daily experience of gravity on the surface of the Earth not as the downwards pull of a gravitational force, but as the upwards push of external forces which deflect bodies on the Earth's surface from the geodesics they would otherwise follow.
Yes I do. Locally straight paths through curved spacetime.
Do you know what "motion along geodesic" (or geodesic, for starters) is?
Then GTFO of Newtonian physics.You can substitute gravitation in there.
The dude on the chair.He was following a geodesics until he hit the earth, he was in free fall until he touched the earth.Quote from: wikipediaA person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic (free fall towards the center of the Earth), but the chair applies an external upwards force preventing the person from falling. In this way, general relativity explains the daily experience of gravity on the surface of the Earth not as the downwards pull of a gravitational force, but as the upwards push of external forces which deflect bodies on the Earth's surface from the geodesics they would otherwise follow.
Remember what frame you're arguing in - the rest frame of the ground, I presume?Well, what is a free-fall basically?
Yes I do. Locally straight paths through curved spacetime.You haven't completely answered my question.
You can substitute gravitation in there.Are you trying to argue that GR says gravitation causes downward acceleration?
He was following a geodesics until he hit the earth, he was in free fall until he touched the earth.He is always following a geodesic in spacetime, with the Earth acting as a mechanical resistance countering that. Thus, he is always in free fall. There is an upward force in the dude's chair.
Please explain how a guy sitting in a chair on earth is the same thing as a astronaut feeling weightless in orbit.
There is an upward force in the dude's chair
Bump... Still waiting on an answer
I did. You haven’t answered my attacks.Yes I do. Locally straight paths through curved spacetime.You haven't completely answered my question.
Are you trying to argue that GR says gravitation causes downward acceleration?It causes acceleration which can be downwards.
He is always following a geodesic in spacetime, with the Earth acting as a mechanical resistance countering that. Thus, he is always in free fall. There is an upward force in the dude's chair.He is not falling, nor is he free of external forces. It is impossible for him to be in free fall.
Please explain how a guy sitting in a chair on earth is the same thing as a astronaut feeling weightless in orbit.
There is an upward force in the dude's chair
Wrong, but good job showing the RE model. now if it is possible go ahead and show the FE modelBump... Still waiting on an answer
vt=sqrt(2*ae*m/(Cd*A*rho))
Where ae is the acceleration of the FE, m is the mass of the object, Cd is the coefficient of drag, A is the projected area of the object, and rho is the density of the medium
I can provide the derivation if you want it. But your 'intellegence' should allow you to do it yourself.
Wrong, but good job showing the RE model. now if it is possible go ahead and show the FE modelThat is the FE model. ???
so you are saying that the object is accelerating in the opposite direction of the Air resistance in the FE modelWrong, but good job showing the RE model. now if it is possible go ahead and show the FE modelThat is the FE model. ???
You should be able to derive it very quickly. As you said, "It's simple algebra." Unless, of course, you can't do simple algebra.
Let me know if it is too difficult for you to do and I will show you the derivation.
Uh, no. Can't you do simple algebra?Go ahead and so a free body diagram of the object in the air and then go ahean and show me how your net force can equal F=ma-R=ma, then we can discuss your algebra skills
Net acceleration = 0. Please learn how to do math and physics.I am speechless at how unbelievably ignorant you are, I mean my god I actually am starting to feel sad for you.
Then maybe you can come play in my league, kid.
Here you go now let us see the one you did that has the person acclerating toward the earth
(http://i36.tinypic.com/jrv1he.gif)
Here you go now let us see the one you did that has the person acclerating toward the earthThe person is not accelerating towards the Earth. He is accelerating away from it.
So do you see your error yet?Here you go now let us see the one you did that has the person acclerating toward the earthThe person is not accelerating towards the Earth. He is accelerating away from it.
Free body diagram:
^ Fd
|
|
Person
So do you see your error yet?
It is there.So do you see your error yet?
I don't think there is an error for him to see.
It is there.
Fd=ma
a needs to be zero so we get Fd=0
now solve for the Velocity and tell me what you get and how it compares to the RE model
exactly, now when is the velocity zero in the FE model (as in no acceleration)?It is there.
Fd=ma
a needs to be zero so we get Fd=0
now solve for the Velocity and tell me what you get and how it compares to the RE model
Acceleration is zero when velocity is zero, as one would expect in both models.
Acceleration is not zero. I guess I gave you way too much credit in assuming you could derive the equation.
It is there.
Fd=ma
a needs to be zero so we get Fd=0
now solve for the Velocity and tell me what you get and how it compares to the RE model
If you need help look at the engineers freebody diagram to help resolve the forces acting upon the bodyPerhaps you should take your own advice and realize your error.
exactly, now when is the velocity zero in the FE model (as in no acceleration)?
If you need help look at the engineers freebody diagram to help resolve the forces acting upon the body
and what is the air always doing according to the FE model?exactly, now when is the velocity zero in the FE model (as in no acceleration)?
If you need help look at the engineers freebody diagram to help resolve the forces acting upon the body
The velocity is zero when the person is moving at the same speed as the air.
Acceleration is not zero. I guess I gave you way too much credit in assuming you could derive the equation.
It is there.
Fd=ma
a needs to be zero so we get Fd=0
now solve for the Velocity and tell me what you get and how it compares to the RE model
and what is the air always doing according to the FE model?
So is it your contention that the FE model shows that terminal velocity is whatever force is required to accelerate the body to 9.8m/s/s?and what is the air always doing according to the FE model?
Accelerating upwards at 9.8 m s-2.
Bump... Still waiting on an answer
vt=sqrt(2*ae*m/(Cd*A*rho))
Where ae is the acceleration of the FE, m is the mass of the object, Cd is the coefficient of drag, A is the projected area of the object, and rho is the density of the medium
I can provide the derivation if you want it. But your 'intellegence' should allow you to do it yourself.
The stupidity there is so great that I am not sure if I should laugh at you or buy you a helmet, like you said this is very very basic physics. but of course wiki may not cover this subject too much so I guess that it is no suprise you are failing to grasp the way a freebody diagram works, or how to resolve forces or how to properly derive an equation based upon those figuresBump... Still waiting on an answer
vt=sqrt(2*ae*m/(Cd*A*rho))
Where ae is the acceleration of the FE, m is the mass of the object, Cd is the coefficient of drag, A is the projected area of the object, and rho is the density of the medium
I can provide the derivation if you want it. But your 'intellegence' should allow you to do it yourself.
So is it your contention that the FE model shows that terminal velocity is whatever force is required to accelerate the body to 9.8m/s/s?
so is it your contention that you are no longer accelerating once you reach an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s so your terminal velocity would be based upon the time that you acceleratedSo is it your contention that the FE model shows that terminal velocity is whatever force is required to accelerate the body to 9.8m/s/s?
Velocity is not a force. Please reword your post such that you are not equating two completely different physical quantities.
But I did properly derive my equations. I did do a free body diagram. I derived the formula specific to the situation in the FE. It was quite simple. The fact that you can not derive it tells me quite a bit. Like I said before, all you have to do is ask me for help and I will provide you with the derivation. I can probably even get it down to a middle school level for you.look at you freebody diagram again then try and derive that equation again without adding in features that are non existent in you diagram or rework your diagram to account for all of the features in your final equation
you are no longer accelerating once you reach an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s
look at you freebody diagram againThere is nothing wrong with my free body diagram. All you have to do is ask me for help and I will derive the formula for you.
that is because the FE model is so screwed upyou are no longer accelerating once you reach an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s
If possible, this makes even less sense than equating velocity and force.
if your free body diagram is good then go ahead and rework your equations againlook at you freebody diagram againThere is nothing wrong with my free body diagram. All you have to do is ask me for help and I will derive the formula for you.
I don't need to rework them. They were correct the first time.so when does the object land
Just ask for help and I will put an end to your pathetic attempt to act intelligent and to 'put me in my place'.
Uh, there are lots of things that need to be defined first.I am right with you, let us just say a 2kg smooth ball from 5000m up after it reaches its acceleration of 9.8m/s/s so its velocity with respect to the earth is constant when will it hit the ground?
But, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm still waiting for you to catch up with the rest of us.
that is because the FE model is so screwed up
I have no issues the the RE model since it worksthat is because the FE model is so screwed up
I thought we were discussing RET? ???
I have no issues the the RE model since it works
Uh, no the accelerations are in opposite directions in RE while in FE they are in the same directionI have no issues the the RE model since it works
Apparently you do. TheEngineer's free body diagram applies to RET as well as FET. If we are discussing it in the context of one, so are we in the context of the other.
Uh, no the accelerations are in opposite directions in RE while in FE they are in the same direction
the acceleration from the gravitational field and the acceleration of the FE earth.Uh, no the accelerations are in opposite directions in RE while in FE they are in the same direction
What accelerations?
So you agree that my equation is correct?I will bite let us see your derivation and reasoning on why it is exactly the same as the RE model
Any interested party my pm me for the derivation of the equation (an agreement of nondisclosure will be assumed by the act of the pm). I think it's going to be a while before cbarnett will admit his knowledge is lacking.
the acceleration from the gravitational field and the acceleration of the FE earth.
no 1 acceleration but it is a net accelerationthe acceleration from the gravitational field and the acceleration of the FE earth.
So in RET, the person is accelerating in two directions at once? ???
I will bite let us see your derivation and reasoning on why it is exactly the same as the RE model"I will bite" Classic.
You just hold your breath for that and hang on as tight as possible to your EP because I am guessing that is where you are going to run to.I will bite let us see your derivation and reasoning on why it is exactly the same as the RE model"I will bite" Classic.
I am looking more for "TheEngineer, I need help. I don't know what it is I am doing."
Or something to that effect.
It applies, but no, I did not invoke the EP in my derivation.The you fail at understanding the model you are trying to defend, it is really sad
My equation would indicate that you are wrong.THe only thing a wrong equation proves is that you fail
But my equation is correct. ???your equation is correct with real life results but it does not relfect the FE model states. so when I ask you about the FE model you are so very wrong
Perhaps you should use your middle school education to derive it.
no 1 acceleration but it is a net acceleration
if you are talking about the FE model there is no force other than the acceleration caused by the air resistance in the RE model the downward force is in the gravitational acceleration and the objects massno 1 acceleration but it is a net acceleration
Really? So what provides the downward force?
your equation is correct with real life results but it does not relfect the FE model states. so when I ask you about the FE model you are so very wrongDid you forget the part where I said that I derived it according to the FE model?
I did. You haven’t answered my attacks.Really?
Do you know what "motion along geodesic" is?
He is not falling, nor is he free of external forces. It is impossible for him to be in free fall.He is moving along geodesics (free fall), but the mechanical resistance of the Earth (or his chair) disallows that. Is this really that hard for you to understand?
Astronauts are free of forces. Not even close to the same thing.Obviously. However, we aren't, because there is an upward force under us due to mechanical resistance.
then you need to get a better understanding of the FE modelyour equation is correct with real life results but it does not relfect the FE model states. so when I ask you about the FE model you are so very wrongDid you forget the part where I said that I derived it according to the FE model?
I understand it perfectly well. You are the one that needs to get a better understanding of physics.Let me see, you jump out of an airplane and the air accelerating up from the surface of the earth is accelerating at a rate of 9.8m/s/s, hits your body causing a resistive force that causes you to accelerate up, so at what point does your velocity stop increasing?
All you have to do is ask me for help and I will give you the derivation.
if you are talking about the FE model there is no force other than the acceleration caused by the air resistance in the RE model the downward force is in the gravitational acceleration and the objects mass
Gravitation is not a force. It does not cause one to accelerate.
I did. You haven’t answered my attacks.Yes I do. Locally straight paths through curved spacetime.You haven't completely answered my question.QuoteAre you trying to argue that GR says gravitation causes downward acceleration?It causes acceleration which can be downwards.QuoteHe is always following a geodesic in spacetime, with the Earth acting as a mechanical resistance countering that. Thus, he is always in free fall. There is an upward force in the dude's chair.He is not falling, nor is he free of external forces. It is impossible for him to be in free fall.Please explain how a guy sitting in a chair on earth is the same thing as a astronaut feeling weightless in orbit.QuoteThere is an upward force in the dude's chair
Astronauts are free of forces. Not even close to the same thing.
I did. You haven’t answered my attacks.Really?QuoteDo you know what "motion along geodesic" is?He is not falling, nor is he free of external forces. It is impossible for him to be in free fall.He is moving along geodesics (free fall), but the mechanical resistance of the Earth (or his chair) disallows that. Is this really that hard for you to understand?Astronauts are free of forces. Not even close to the same thing.Obviously. However, we aren't, because there is an upward force under us due to mechanical resistance.
I'm always up for a good argument,
QuoteDo you know what "motion along geodesic" is?Yes.QuoteHe is moving along geodesics (free fall), but the mechanical resistance of the Earth (or his chair) disallows that. Is this really that hard for you to understand?I understand it, you cannot understand that he is no longer in free fall because he is in contact with the earth.QuoteObviously. However, we aren't, because there is an upward force under us due to mechanical resistance.Then stop saying we are in free fall while standing on the earth.
Then what is it?QuoteDo you know what "motion along geodesic" is?Yes.
I understand it, you cannot understand that he is no longer in free fall because he is in contact with the earth.So he is no longer following the geodesics in spacetime?
Then stop saying we are in free fall while standing on the earth.I never said they both are the same. Just because we're standing on Earth doesn't mean we're not in free-fall (or following the geodesics). If we aren't, we wouldn't be touching the ground nor there would be any upward force exerted underneath us.
If you want to very particular you can call it 'gravitational potential' if it makes you happy but for what we are analyizing here, we can consider it to be a force.if you are talking about the FE model there is no force other than the acceleration caused by the air resistance in the RE model the downward force is in the gravitational acceleration and the objects mass
Gravitation is not a force. It does not cause one to accelerate.
If you want to very particular you can call it 'gravitational potential' if it makes you happy but for what we are analyizing here, we can consider it to be a force.
Relative to the Earth? When your upwards acceleration equals the acceleration of the Earth.Made this using LaTex and I forgot to resize the page so sorry
But, I've said this already.
I don't know what answer you are looking for.
Then what is it?
So he is no longer following the geodesics in spacetime?Yes. He is still trying to, thus the physical acceleration he has.
I never said they both are the same. Just because we're standing on Earth doesn't mean we're not in free-fall (or following the geodesics). If we aren't, we wouldn't be touching the ground nor there would be any upward force exerted underneath us.Free fall and following the geodesics are not the same thing. Free fall is defined as an object free of forces and accelerating only due to gravitation.
I don't know what answer you are looking for.It's inertial motion; free-fall.
Yes. He is still trying to, thus the physical acceleration he has.He still is falling, or following the geodesics, indirectly.
Free fall and following the geodesics are not the same thing.They are equivalent. How can you deny that? Geodesic motion = Inertial motion. Free fall = Inertial motion. When you are free-falling, you are following the geodesics, the straightest lines possible. Since the lines are curved in space-time, inertially moving objects (free-falling) accelerate towards each other. That's why the curvature of space-time causes acceleration.
Free fall is defined as an object free of forces and accelerating only due to gravitation.
He still is falling, or following the geodesics, indirectly.
Made this using LaTex and I forgot to resize the page so sorry
One can follow geodesics while not being in free fall.I don't know what answer you are looking for.It's inertial motion; free-fall.
Yes. He is still trying to, thus the physical acceleration he has.He still is falling, or following the geodesics, indirectly.Free fall and following the geodesics are not the same thing.They are equivalent. How can you deny that? Geodesic motion = Inertial motion. Free fall = Inertial motion. When you are free-falling, you are following the geodesics, the straightest lines possible. Since the lines are curved in space-time, inertially moving objects (free-falling) accelerate towards each other. That's why the curvature of space-time causes acceleration.Free fall is defined as an object free of forces and accelerating only due to gravitation.QuoteHe still is falling, or following the geodesics, indirectly.
1 Gravitation keeps a person on the ground.
2 Gravitation is the curvature of spacetime.
3 The curvature of spacetime is composed of geodesics.
---
4 Therefore, for gravitation to keep a person on the ground, he/she must follow the geodesics in curved space-time. This also explains why objects undergoing inertial motion accelerate towards each other.
One can follow geodesics while not being in free fall.Then show me the sources.
Ok, so now you see why its wrong to say a guy sitting in a chair is in free fall.
He still is falling, or following the geodesics, indirectly.
Your 'FE' equation is wrong. Since you let us all have a good laugh, I'll go ahead and post the derivation for you.Relative to the Earth? When your upwards acceleration equals the acceleration of the Earth.Made this using LaTex and I forgot to resize the page so sorry
But, I've said this already.
Learn how to do a freebody diagram and get back to usYour 'FE' equation is wrong. Since you let us all have a good laugh, I'll go ahead and post the derivation for you.Relative to the Earth? When your upwards acceleration equals the acceleration of the Earth.Made this using LaTex and I forgot to resize the page so sorry
But, I've said this already.
The drag force on a body in a fluid is given by
F = .5*Cd*v2*A*rho (1)
where Cd is the drag coefficient, v is the velocity of the object, A is the cross sectional area of the object and rho is the density of the fluid.
We know from Newton's Second Law of Motion that
F = m*ao (2)
where F is force, m is the mass of the object and ao is the acceleration of the object. Rearranging (2) gives us
ao = F/m (3)
Combining (3) and (1) gives
ao = Cd*v2*A*rho/(2*m) (4)
Now, an object that has reached terminal velocity, vt, has no relative acceleration to the Earth. Applying this to the FE, that means that the object must have an upwards acceleration equal to that of the Earth's. It follows then, that
ae - ao = 0 (5)
where ae is the acceleration of the Earth and ao is the acceleration of the object.
Rearranging (5) gives
ae = ao (6)
which, by examination, is correct for all objects whose height is not changing relative to the Earth (aircraft for example).
Combining (6) and (4) leaves us with the equation
ae = Cd*vt2*A*rho/(2*m) (7)
Performing simple algebra on (7) yields the equation
vt = sqrt(2*ae*m/(Cd*A*rho) (8)
which can easily been seen to be the exact same equation as the one for the RE, with the exception that ae refers to the acceleration of the Earth and a in the RE equation refers to the acceleration due to gravity.
Using your numbers, we see that the terminal velocity on the FE is 22.1426 m/s.
p.s. Your RE equation is wrong.
See GR. Also jump in the air. Congrats you followed them without being in free fall.One can follow geodesics while not being in free fall.Then show me the sources.
Still doesn't mean he is in free fall as he is still not free from external forces.QuoteHe still is falling, or following the geodesics, indirectly.
Cbarnett97, your equation basically says drag=ma which isn't right. The numerical model you created would be the difference in acceleration due to drag. So the correct model would be:what is being accelerated in the FE model the person or the air?
T1=9.8-0.115=9.685 V=9.685
T2=9.8-0.462=9.338 V=19.023
T3=9.8-1.039=8.761 V=27.784
Which would put you at 22.117m/s at 2.26s.
Both.and what is causing the person to be accelerated
Learn how to do a freebody diagram and get back to usWe have a perfectly derived equation and that is the best you can do? Wow, you really do suck at this stuff. I suggest you go back to school, learn some more high school physics, then try to prove me wrong. Because your middle school knowledge of physics is not going to cut it.
Your understanding of the FE model is sickening I suggest you learn how to read and then go ahead and show that it is perfectly ok to add items into your equation that do not exist for that system and how you can make a known magically become an unknown and then you can work on the ability to solve something based upon a model instead of trying to force it to fit realityLearn how to do a freebody diagram and get back to usWe have a perfectly derived equation and that is the best you can do? Wow, you really do suck at this stuff. I suggest you go back to school, learn some more high school physics, then try to prove me wrong. Because your middle school knowledge of physics is not going to cut it.
The accelerating air for the same reason that air slows your acceleration normally, just in reverse.so the acceleration of the air stops while you are falling?
Also jump in the air. Congrats you followed them without being in free fall.
Your understanding of the FE model is sickening I suggest you learn how to read and then go ahead and show that it is perfectly ok to add items into your equation that do not exist for that system and how you can make a known magically become an unknown and then you can work on the ability to solve something based upon a model instead of trying to force it to fit realityI'm still waiting for you to use your madd middle skool skilz to show me my error.
I am waiting for you to tell me "I need your help because I am unable to properly understand the problem at hand"Your understanding of the FE model is sickening I suggest you learn how to read and then go ahead and show that it is perfectly ok to add items into your equation that do not exist for that system and how you can make a known magically become an unknown and then you can work on the ability to solve something based upon a model instead of trying to force it to fit realityI'm still waiting for you to use your madd middle skool skilz to show me my error.
Personally, I would use the term "resists".so 3ft away from you the air is no longer accelerating by you or is the constantly accelerating at 9.81m/s/s which would mean that the velocity of the air is constantly increasing by 9.81m/s/s
I am waiting for you to tell me "I need your help because I am unable to properly understand the problem at hand"I understand it perfectly. You however, do not. I have provided you with the derivation of the equation. It you feel like something is incorrect with it, please address it in the best way you can. Simply stating, "It is wrong" is not helping your cause. In fact it is just illustrating your ignorance to everyone.
The latter.Now this is where the mistake usually happens, the FE model dictates that when you jump out of an airplane your accleration goes to zero(if you had no air resistance) the only thing that causes your acceleration is this air that accelerates by you. so you are accelerated in the same direction of the air due to your air resistance, now air resistance is dependent upon you velocity through it so if the velocity of the air is always in creasing the force from air resistance wil always be increasing hence your acceleration up will always be increasing so after a period of time your accleration will be 9.81m/s/s and if we take that and then relate it to the earth you would see that the skydiver would never land if he was high up enough to start with
Uh, no.
Now this is where the mistake usually happens, the FE model dictates that when you jump out of an airplane your accleration goes to zero(if you had no air resistance) the only thing that causes your acceleration is this air that accelerates by you. so you are accelerated in the same direction of the air due to your air resistance, now air resistance is dependent upon you velocity through it so if the velocity of the air is always in creasing the force from air resistance wil always be increasing hence your acceleration up will always be increasing so after a period of time your accleration will be 9.81m/s/s and if we take that and then relate it to the earth you would see that the skydiver would never land if he was high up enough to start withAnd that is where your mistake is. Since the skydiver started accelerating from zero and the Earth was accelerating at 9.8m/s^2, the skydiver is going at a slower velocity than the Earth. Even when the skydiver's acceleration is equal to the Earth's his velocity relative to the Earth's is slower. Hence the terminal velocity thing. I hope this illustrates your inability to understand the problem at hand.
model the acceleration of the object and let me know what his acceleration is at t=13Now this is where the mistake usually happens, the FE model dictates that when you jump out of an airplane your accleration goes to zero(if you had no air resistance) the only thing that causes your acceleration is this air that accelerates by you. so you are accelerated in the same direction of the air due to your air resistance, now air resistance is dependent upon you velocity through it so if the velocity of the air is always in creasing the force from air resistance wil always be increasing hence your acceleration up will always be increasing so after a period of time your accleration will be 9.81m/s/s and if we take that and then relate it to the earth you would see that the skydiver would never land if he was high up enough to start withAnd that is where your mistake is. Since the skydiver started accelerating from zero and the Earth was accelerating at 9.8m/s^2, the skydiver is going at a slower velocity than the Earth. Even when the skydiver's acceleration is equal to the Earth's his velocity relative to the Earth's is slower. Hence the terminal velocity thing. I hope this illustrates your inability to understand the problem at hand.
to quote another member on this forum known for their in depth responsesI assume this means you can't refute the evidence.Uh, no.Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black
I see where you are trying to go with this, but there is air causing drag above you as well.???
When you jump out of the plane you're stationary while the earth speeds up towards you correct? Then the air rushing past you must be moving at the same rate as the earth in order for us to feel it's "resistance"?
I'm still waiting for your refutation of my equation. I even labeled each step for easy reference. Show me where my mistake is.I see where you are trying to go with this, but there is air causing drag above you as well.???
See GR.Back it up; give me a quote from GR that supports your claim that one can follow geodesics without free-fall.
Also jump in the air. Congrats you followed them without being in free fall.The moment he jumps, the moment he is free-falling in the opposite direction.
Still doesn't mean he is in free fall as he is still not free from external forces.Still is, indirectly. He has to follow the geodesics indirectly, due to the mechanical resistance, to stay on the ground.
See GR.Back it up; give me a quote from GR that supports your claim that one can follow geodesics without free-fall.Also jump in the air. Congrats you followed them without being in free fall.The moment he jumps, the moment he is free-falling in the opposite direction.Still doesn't mean he is in free fall as he is still not free from external forces.Still is, indirectly. He has to follow the geodesics indirectly, due to the mechanical resistance, to stay on the ground.
Examples of objects in free fall include:
A spacecraft (in space) with its rockets off (e.g. in a continuous orbit, or going up for some minutes, and then down)
The Moon orbiting around the Earth.
An object dropped in a drop tower for a physics demonstration at NASA's Zero-G Research Facility
Examples of objects not in free fall:
Standing on the ground: the gravitational acceleration is counteracted by the normal force from the ground.
Flying horizontally in an airplane: the wings' lift is also providing an acceleration.
Jumping from an airplane: there is a resistance force provided by the atmosphere.
And you are right When I ran the math through excel I must have entered it wrong because the Acceleration should be greater than I showed. Also to be more accurate I should have calculated the velocity of the object to relate it to the velocity of the air, I will rerun the numbers maybe tomorrow if I have time, but I am still confident they will show a difference between the 2 models but who knows we will seeYour 'FE' equation is wrong. Since you let us all have a good laugh, I'll go ahead and post the derivation for you.Relative to the Earth? When your upwards acceleration equals the acceleration of the Earth.Made this using LaTex and I forgot to resize the page so sorry
But, I've said this already.
The drag force on a body in a fluid is given by
F = .5*Cd*v2*A*rho (1)
where Cd is the drag coefficient, v is the velocity of the object, A is the cross sectional area of the object and rho is the density of the fluid.
We know from Newton's Second Law of Motion that
F = m*ao (2)
where F is force, m is the mass of the object and ao is the acceleration of the object. Rearranging (2) gives us
ao = F/m (3)
Combining (3) and (1) gives
ao = Cd*v2*A*rho/(2*m) (4)
Now, an object that has reached terminal velocity, vt, has no relative acceleration to the Earth. Applying this to the FE, that means that the object must have an upwards acceleration equal to that of the Earth's. It follows then, that
ae - ao = 0 (5)
where ae is the acceleration of the Earth and ao is the acceleration of the object.
Rearranging (5) gives
ae = ao (6)
which, by examination, is correct for all objects whose height is not changing relative to the Earth (aircraft for example).
Combining (6) and (4) leaves us with the equation
ae = Cd*vt2*A*rho/(2*m) (7)
Performing simple algebra on (7) yields the equation
vt = sqrt(2*ae*m/(Cd*A*rho) (8) <--------This is where you messed up
which can easily been seen to be the exact same equation as the one for the RE, with the exception that ae refers to the acceleration of the Earth and a in the RE equation refers to the acceleration due to gravity.
Using your numbers, we see that the terminal velocity on the FE is 22.1426 m/s.
p.s. Your RE equation is wrong.
FUCKING LEARN THE DEFINITION OF FREE FALL.Says the person who knows nothing about geodesic motion, let alone the mechanics of GR.
QuoteExamples of objects in free fall include:
A spacecraft (in space) with its rockets off (e.g. in a continuous orbit, or going up for some minutes, and then down)
The Moon orbiting around the Earth.
An object dropped in a drop tower for a physics demonstration at NASA's Zero-G Research Facility
Examples of objects not in free fall:
Standing on the ground: the gravitational acceleration is counteracted by the normal force from the ground.
Flying horizontally in an airplane: the wings' lift is also providing an acceleration.
Jumping from an airplane: there is a resistance force provided by the atmosphere.
Then GTFO of Newtonian physics.
Your bold arrow is nice and all, but you forgot to explain why (8) is wrong.
FUCKING LEARN THE DEFINITION OF FREE FALL.Says the person who knows nothing about geodesic motion, let alone the mechanics of GR.QuoteExamples of objects in free fall include:
A spacecraft (in space) with its rockets off (e.g. in a continuous orbit, or going up for some minutes, and then down)
The Moon orbiting around the Earth.
An object dropped in a drop tower for a physics demonstration at NASA's Zero-G Research Facility
Examples of objects not in free fall:
Standing on the ground: the gravitational acceleration is counteracted by the normal force from the ground.
Flying horizontally in an airplane: the wings' lift is also providing an acceleration.
Jumping from an airplane: there is a resistance force provided by the atmosphere.QuoteThen GTFO of Newtonian physics.
GIVE IT UP. My pinky finger knows more about GR and SR then you ever will.Yo,
1 = -1
This has nothing to do with Newtonian physics. The proof is right in front of you.It's Newtonian physics (gravitational acceleration counteracted by normal force) and it's not even a proof.
That has nothing to do with Newtonian physics. Also way to copy wiki word for word. A guy sitting in a chair is not if free fall. End of story.GIVE IT UP. My pinky finger knows more about GR and SR then you ever will.Yo,Quote1 = -1This has nothing to do with Newtonian physics. The proof is right in front of you.It's Newtonian physics (gravitational acceleration counteracted by normal force) and it's not even a proof.
That has nothing to do with Newtonian physics.Open your eyes now.
A guy sitting in a chair is not if free fall. End of story.If only you knew some GR. End of story.
That has nothing to do with Newtonian physics. Also way to copy wiki word for word. A guy sitting in a chair is not if free fall. End of story.If only you knew some GR. End of story.
Prove me wrong. O wait you can't. Otherwise you would of. The guy in a chair is neither free of forces or falling.O wait I did. You just can't read.
Prove me wrong. O wait you can't. Otherwise you would of. The guy in a chair is neither free of forces or falling.O wait I did. You just can't read.
Yo,Quote1 = -1
QuoteYo,Quote1 = -1
So you gave up. Good job. Learn from your mistakes.Fantasy != Reality
It's true.
O wait I did. You just can't read.
QuoteO wait I did. You just can't read.
Going against physics does not prove your point.Irony.
I'm still waiting for an answer, how is a person in free fall when he is not free from forces?I said the person, on the ground, follows the geodesics indirectly.
I said the person, on the ground, follows the geodesics indirectly.
Going against physics does not prove your point.Irony.I'm still waiting for an answer, how is a person in free fall when he is not free from forces?I said the person, on the ground, follows the geodesics indirectly.
I said the person, on the ground, follows the geodesics indirectly.
At the risk of getting sucked into this quote/flamewar... I think it would be fair to say that a person on the ground would follow a geodesic into the core of the Earth, were it not for the inter-atomic forces preventing him from doing so. As a result, someone on the ground feels a contact force resisting the gravitation of the Earth.
Is that what you're both trying to get at, or have I missed the point here?
I think it would be fair to say that a person on the ground would follow a geodesic into the core of the Earth, were it not for the inter-atomic forces preventing him from doing so.
He is following a geodesic.
He is following a geodesic.
My understanding of a geodesic is that it's the path that a particle under no acceleration follows through space-time (curved or otherwise). If we agree that a man on the surface of the Earth feels a force from the ground, then he cannot be following a geodesic any more than a hovering helicopter can be said to be following a geodesic.
Is the problem that we have different definitions of what a geodesic is...?
Its the path with no force applied. Acceleration is involved.
Its the path with no force applied. Acceleration is involved.
I should have specified no external acceleration (=> force), sorry, getting sloppy in my old age.
We are all trying to follow the geodesics into the Earth. However, the Earth, due to mechanical resistance, prevents us from doing this, which results in our continual physical upwards acceleration.
Uh, no, our path along the geodesic is canceled out by our acceleration.
Which is cancel out by said acceleration from gravitation.
No, it is not:Which is cancel out by said acceleration from gravitation.
English, please.I could actually believe you couldn't comprehend that. I took off the "s" for you.
No, it is not:Which is cancel out by said acceleration from gravitation.
And how does gravitation cause acceleration?
We are all trying to follow the geodesics into the Earth. However, the Earth, due to mechanical resistance, prevents us from doing this, which results in our continual physical upwards acceleration.
This is a debate forum. And as far as I've seen, no evidence that the RE can offer seems to be good enough.
Any chance I get to make fun of your mastery of English is a moment of pure elation.No, it is not:Which is cancel out by said acceleration from gravitation.
And how does gravitation cause acceleration?We are all trying to follow the geodesics into the Earth. However, the Earth, due to mechanical resistance, prevents us from doing this, which results in our continual physical upwards acceleration.
Which still couldn't be further from proving your point. Try again. How is a guy sitting in a chair free falling? Keep in mind you need to explain how he is free of forces.Read what I said.
Which still couldn't be further from proving your point. Try again. How is a guy sitting in a chair free falling? Keep in mind you need to explain how he is free of forces.Read what I said.
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth.Uh, you sure?Quote from: wikipediaA person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic (free fall towards the center of the Earth), but the chair applies an external upwards force preventing the person from falling. In this way, general relativity explains the daily experience of gravity on the surface of the Earth not as the downwards pull of a gravitational force, but as the upwards push of external forces which deflect bodies on the Earth's surface from the geodesics they would otherwise follow.
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth.
You are stupid.
Is this win?Yes, for me. I have clearly showed how you have no idea what you are talking about. A guy sitting in a chair is not in free fall.
You made a true statement? That's got to be a first...
Yes, for me. I have clearly showed how you have no idea what you are talking about. A guy sitting in a chair is not in free fall.
Fantasy != Reality
You made a true statement? That's got to be a first...
Its actually quite funny. You know so little you didn't even know what you said is the same thing as what I had just said.If I know so little, how did I say something that was correct?
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
I wonder what it's like to be sokarul, when everyone else is wrong and he's the only one who is right.That is quite possibly the greatest thing I have heard, ever.
Its actually quite funny. You know so little you didn't even know what you said is the same thing as what I had just said.If I know so little, how did I say something that was correct?
I wonder what it's like to be sokarul, when everyone else is wrong and he's the only one who is right.
If I know so little, how did I say something that was correct?
Because you were spoon fed it and didn't actually know what it meant.
Or those forces that cause water to spin opposite directs, in toilets
Like this?Or those forces that cause water to spin opposite directs, in toilets
Yes like that. Lots of people are spoon fed myths.So you admit that your post was ironic? That is very big of you.
It's only ironic if its true so...Yes like that. Lots of people are spoon fed myths.So you admit that your post was ironic? That is very big of you.
Of course, he's a perpetual engine of ironies.
I know what I am talking about.
Acceleration should go down with respect to time.nope
Here we go again...My bad but an extra number in excel when it ran so here are the numbers
The only mistake on this page is that you need to take the velocity of the object into account when calculating the FE model. So instead of having Vair we should have the (Vair-Vobject) and the acceleration of the object must equal the accleration of the earth so the aceleration needs to be 9.81 obviouslyRelative to the Earth? When your upwards acceleration equals the acceleration of the Earth.Made this using LaTex and I forgot to resize the page so sorry
But, I've said this already.
(http://i37.tinypic.com/smef00.jpg)
Once again, acceleration will go down with respect to time.No acceleration will go up in the FE model until it equals the acceleration of the air
Nevermind, we are essentially saying the same thing. The object's acceleration will go up, which is what you are talking about, and the delta acceleration will go down which is what I was talking about. I still don't agree with your numbers though.I was just going to bring that up, and I am confident in my numbers, the air resistance is dependent upon the acceleration of the air by the object so if the air is accelerating then after every second the velocity increases but every second the force of the air resitance gives the object a velocity as well so it needs to subtracted to calculate the velocity of the air moving by the object
Your 'FE' equation is wrong. Since you let us all have a good laugh, I'll go ahead and post the derivation for you.Relative to the Earth? When your upwards acceleration equals the acceleration of the Earth.Made this using LaTex and I forgot to resize the page so sorry
But, I've said this already.
The drag force on a body in a fluid is given by
F = .5*Cd*v2*A*rho (1)
where Cd is the drag coefficient, v is the velocity of the object, A is the cross sectional area of the object and rho is the density of the fluid.
We know from Newton's Second Law of Motion that
F = m*ao (2)
where F is force, m is the mass of the object and ao is the acceleration of the object. Rearranging (2) gives us
ao = F/m (3)
Combining (3) and (1) gives
ao = Cd*v2*A*rho/(2*m) (4)
Now, an object that has reached terminal velocity, vt, has no relative acceleration to the Earth. Applying this to the FE, that means that the object must have an upwards acceleration equal to that of the Earth's. It follows then, that
ae - ao = 0 (5)
where ae is the acceleration of the Earth and ao is the acceleration of the object.
Rearranging (5) gives
ae = ao (6)
which, by examination, is correct for all objects whose height is not changing relative to the Earth (aircraft for example).
Combining (6) and (4) leaves us with the equation
ae = Cd*vt2*A*rho/(2*m) (7)
Performing simple algebra on (7) yields the equation
vt = sqrt(2*ae*m/(Cd*A*rho) (8)
which can easily been seen to be the exact same equation as the one for the RE, with the exception that ae refers to the acceleration of the Earth and a in the RE equation refers to the acceleration due to gravity.
Using your numbers, we see that the terminal velocity on the FE is 22.1426 m/s.
p.s. Your RE equation is wrong.
I got 0 m/s2 relative acceleration at t=2.26let us see the math
Nice try but learn what the FE model states and then maybe you can contribute to the ConversationYour 'FE' equation is wrong. Since you let us all have a good laugh, I'll go ahead and post the derivation for you.Relative to the Earth? When your upwards acceleration equals the acceleration of the Earth.
But, I've said this already.
Made this using LaTex and I forgot to resize the page so sorry
The drag force on a body in a fluid is given by
F = .5*Cd*v2*A*rho (1)
where Cd is the drag coefficient, v is the velocity of the object, A is the cross sectional area of the object and rho is the density of the fluid.
We know from Newton's Second Law of Motion that
F = m*ao (2)
where F is force, m is the mass of the object and ao is the acceleration of the object. Rearranging (2) gives us
ao = F/m (3)
Combining (3) and (1) gives
ao = Cd*v2*A*rho/(2*m) (4)
Now, an object that has reached terminal velocity, vt, has no relative acceleration to the Earth. Applying this to the FE, that means that the object must have an upwards acceleration equal to that of the Earth's. It follows then, that
ae - ao = 0 (5)
where ae is the acceleration of the Earth and ao is the acceleration of the object.
Rearranging (5) gives
ae = ao (6)
which, by examination, is correct for all objects whose height is not changing relative to the Earth (aircraft for example).
Combining (6) and (4) leaves us with the equation
ae = Cd*vt2*A*rho/(2*m) (7)
Performing simple algebra on (7) yields the equation
vt = sqrt(2*ae*m/(Cd*A*rho) (8)
which can easily been seen to be the exact same equation as the one for the RE, with the exception that ae refers to the acceleration of the Earth and a in the RE equation refers to the acceleration due to gravity.
Using your numbers, we see that the terminal velocity on the FE is 22.1426 m/s.
p.s. Your RE equation is wrong.
You seem to have forgotten to tell us all the part where my derivation is wrong.Think a bit harder about your understanding of the model, I know it will be tough because you can not look it up on wiki
How can you be confident in your numbers when I have shown them to be wrong already? Besides, your RE equation is wrong.
Anet=AE-AD=9.8-.02(2.26*9.8)2=0can you show a bit more detail please
0.02 is all the stated variables other than v simplified.
Stupid smiley faces, that is supposed to be 9.8 )Yeah I figured as much
That isn't a constant, it is v=at at t=2.26.but you cannot just the RE answer and show that it is the same in FE you need to show why it is the same
It seems that cbarnett suffers from sokarulitis as well; everyone else is wrong, and he is right.no just 2 people are wrong
It seems that cbarnett suffers from sokarulitis as well; everyone else is wrong, and he is right.
That isn't a constant, it is v=at at t=2.26.but you cannot just the RE answer and show that it is the same in FE you need to show why it is the same
I've noticed that. I wonder if he lives in the same little world as sokarul or if they each have their own little worlds to live in.
You are messing up with regards to the acceleration of the object, which is of course my whole pointThat isn't a constant, it is v=at at t=2.26.but you cannot just the RE answer and show that it is the same in FE you need to show why it is the same
V=at regardless of FE or RE.
Anet=AEarth-AObject
What, in your opinion am I missing?
You are messing up with regards to the acceleration of the object, which is of course my whole pointThat isn't a constant, it is v=at at t=2.26.but you cannot just the RE answer and show that it is the same in FE you need to show why it is the same
V=at regardless of FE or RE.
Anet=AEarth-AObject
What, in your opinion am I missing?
but you are calculating the acceleration on the object incorrectly, Do this do not think about what happens in reality think about what the model states, and then ask yourself what is causing the acceleration on the object.You are messing up with regards to the acceleration of the object, which is of course my whole pointThat isn't a constant, it is v=at at t=2.26.but you cannot just the RE answer and show that it is the same in FE you need to show why it is the same
V=at regardless of FE or RE.
Anet=AEarth-AObject
What, in your opinion am I missing?
But we are using the same equation you used in your model.
reverse dragany thing else
I am assuming you are going to tell me...No I am asking you if there are any other forces before we move on to the next step
As stated before:go read wiki some more, grownups are talking
ae - ao = 0 (1)
ao = vt/t (by definition) (2)
ae - vt/t =0 (3)
t = vt/ae (4)
t = (22.1426m/s)/(9.8 m/s2) (5)
t = 2.26 s
I am assuming you are going to tell me...No I am asking you if there are any other forces before we move on to the next step
Ok so the only thing accelerating the object is the air accelerating past it. so it is in a state of equalibrium when its acceleration is the same as the acceleration of the air. So at t=1 the velocity of the air flowing past the object is 9.81 at t=2 it will be (9.81+9.81)- the velocity gained by the object and so on, so if you want, go 2 seconds out and calculate the objects acceleration and see if it is 9.81 otherwise it is not in equalibrium so its velocity is no longer constant if you were to compare it to the earthI am assuming you are going to tell me...No I am asking you if there are any other forces before we move on to the next step
Not in the equation I used, no.
As stated before:
ae - ao = 0 (1)
ao = vt/t (by definition) (2)
ae - vt/t =0 (3)
t = vt/ae (4)
t = (22.1426m/s)/(9.8 m/s2) (5)
t = 2.26 s
As stated before:go read wiki some more, grownups are talking
ae - ao = 0 (1)
ao = vt/t (by definition) (2)
ae - vt/t =0 (3)
t = vt/ae (4)
t = (22.1426m/s)/(9.8 m/s2) (5)
t = 2.26 s
So you can't fault my argument? Figures. Go back to eighth grade, kid.I'm waiting.
I wasn't talking about t=2, I was talking about t=2.26 which =(9.8+9.8+9.8(.26)) which when squared and multiplied by .02 gives you 9.81.You must remember that in the FE model there is no terminal velocity, there is a terminal acceleration, so you need to calculate that first before you can then relate it to other objects (ie. the earth)
My calculations were based on the FE model and my derived equations.Well then your failure is complete
Yet, you can't dispute my equations. So the failure must be yours. But I am sure you are used to that.My calculations were based on the FE model and my derived equations.Well then your failure is complete
There is a terminal velocity. Once Anet=0 the relative velocity will be constant which is the same as terminal velocity.Yes but how you get to that number is different and that is the difference between the 2 models
Your equations have been shown to be correct with regard to the RE and ver incorrect with regards to the FEYet, you can't dispute my equations. So the failure must be yours. But I am sure you are used to that.My calculations were based on the FE model and my derived equations.Well then your failure is complete
Have they been shown to be so? I don't remember them being shown so. Perhaps you can quote the post in which this showing took place? Because, as far as I can tell, my equations have been shown to be correct for the FE.so acceleration caused by gravity is the equivalent to acceleration caused by air, wow that is new to me
There is a terminal velocity. Once Anet=0 the relative velocity will be constant which is the same as terminal velocity.Yes but how you get to that number is different and that is the difference between the 2 models
a=sqrt(cdpAv2)/2mThere is a terminal velocity. Once Anet=0 the relative velocity will be constant which is the same as terminal velocity.Yes but how you get to that number is different and that is the difference between the 2 models
I used the same equation you did.
so acceleration caused by gravity is the equivalent to acceleration caused by air, wow that is new to meEqual, yes. No wonder you have failed so badly in this thread...
Irony.so acceleration caused by gravity is the equivalent to acceleration caused by air, wow that is new to meEqual, yes. No wonder you have failed so badly in this thread...
Now where did your square root come from?disregard the square root but everything else is correct
Now where did your square root come from?disregard the square root but everything else is correct
Since none of my equations have been shown to be incorrect, I now declare:Learn how numerical model then you will learn how to properly solve the equation.
A victory for FE!
So if I have 2 carts on a table and with one I accelerate it by dropping a mass off the side of the table and the other cart I accelerate it by turning on a fan that keeps blowing faster and faster the 2 carts will accelerate at the same rate?so acceleration caused by gravity is the equivalent to acceleration caused by air, wow that is new to meEqual, yes. No wonder you have failed so badly in this thread...
So you spent three days trying to break my equations and found that you still can't?Since none of my equations have been shown to be incorrect, I now declare:Learn how numerical model then you will learn how to properly solve the equation.
A victory for FE!
So you spent three days trying to break my equations and found that you still can't?Since none of my equations have been shown to be incorrect, I now declare:Learn how numerical model then you will learn how to properly solve the equation.
A victory for FE!
Victory for FE!
you must remeber how the FE operates, they destroy the laws of math and science and then bury their heads in the ground so they can claim a victorySo you spent three days trying to break my equations and found that you still can't?Since none of my equations have been shown to be incorrect, I now declare:Learn how numerical model then you will learn how to properly solve the equation.
A victory for FE!
Victory for FE!
Why is it a victory for the FE?
Learn how numerical model then you will learn how to properly solve the equation.Now you may need to look it up on wiki to learn what the term is. If for some reason it is not there let me know and I will explain it to you.
I've been waiting all this time for you to explain how my equations are wrong. If you need to post pictures from your 8th grade math book, go ahead.1/2CdpAv2=ma
I'm sorry, what known am I solving for?you would solve for an unknown
in case you forgot, here is where you solve for a known. As well as pluggin in values that do not belong in the equation, but it was a good job of writing down the RE equationBump... Still waiting on an answer
vt=sqrt(2*ae*m/(Cd*A*rho))
Where ae is the acceleration of the FE, m is the mass of the object, Cd is the coefficient of drag, A is the projected area of the object, and rho is the density of the medium
I can provide the derivation if you want it. But your 'intellegence' should allow you to do it yourself.
in case you forgot, here is where you solve for a known.Uh, vt is not known. That is your issue, in case you forgot.
As well as pluggin in values that do not belong in the equation, but it was a good job of writing down the RE equationWhich variables don't belong in the equation? Oh, did you forget about the derivation that I provided? It clearly shows the FE derivation.
in the FE model v is a known putting a little subscript next to it does not change it into an unknown, as well as you can not plug in the accerleration of the earth in the equation, if you think you can go back and read up on free body diagrams. the acceleration of the air, which is in the system is used to find the velocity.in case you forgot, here is where you solve for a known.Uh, vt is not known. That is your issue, in case you forgot.QuoteAs well as pluggin in values that do not belong in the equation, but it was a good job of writing down the RE equationWhich variables don't belong in the equation? Oh, did you forget about the derivation that I provided? It clearly shows the FE derivation.
The drag force on a body in a fluid is given by
F = .5*Cd*v2*A*rho (1)
where Cd is the drag coefficient, v is the velocity of the object, A is the cross sectional area of the object and rho is the density of the fluid.
We know from Newton's Second Law of Motion that
F = m*ao (2)
where F is force, m is the mass of the object and ao is the acceleration of the object. Rearranging (2) gives us
ao = F/m (3)
Combining (3) and (1) gives
ao = Cd*v2*A*rho/(2*m) (4)
Now, an object that has reached terminal velocity, vt, has no relative acceleration to the Earth. Applying this to the FE, that means that the object must have an upwards acceleration equal to that of the Earth's. It follows then, that
ae - ao = 0 (5)
where ae is the acceleration of the Earth and ao is the acceleration of the object.
Rearranging (5) gives
ae = ao (6)
which, by examination, is correct for all objects whose height is not changing relative to the Earth (aircraft for example).
Combining (6) and (4) leaves us with the equation
ae = Cd*vt2*A*rho/(2*m) (7)
Performing simple algebra on (7) yields the equation
vt = sqrt(2*ae*m/(Cd*A*rho) (8)
which can easily been seen to be the exact same equation as the one for the RE, with the exception that ae refers to the acceleration of the Earth and a in the RE equation refers to the acceleration due to gravity.
Using your numbers, we see that the terminal velocity on the FE is 22.1426 m/s.
in the FE model v is a known
its value is,in the FE model v is a known
What is its value, then?
its value is,
v=aet
Do you know what the difference is between your v and my vt? I would guess not.its value is,in the FE model v is a known
What is its value, then?
v=aet
you put a litttle t next to the v, are you trying to tell us that we can put a subscript next to a known quantity and that will magically change it into an unknown?Do you know what the difference is between your v and my vt? I would guess not.its value is,in the FE model v is a known
What is its value, then?
v=aet
Are you really that stupid?so a terminal velocity is no longer a velocity?
The t subscript indicates terminal velocity. Which is what we are are trying to find out, which, by definition, makes it an unknown.
What grade are you in?
That is probably the dumbest thing you have ever posted.well that is the claim you are making
The t subscript indicates terminal velocity.
Uh, no I am not. In fact:so you just added the term into the equation and then removed a known quantity?The t subscript indicates terminal velocity.
No, the terminal velocity is not known nor did it replace a known.there is no termnal velocity in the FE model, there is only a terminal acceleration, maybe you should go back and really look at the model you are defending. And if you are truly understanding your model then your knowledge of physics are laughable, but then again we are in a realm where you can not look this stuff up on Wiki so I understand if it is difficult for you to understand.
BTW, I am serious about the inquiry into what grade you are in. I think your limited view of physics is what is causing you to fail.
Do you not understand what terminal velocity is?do you not understand the model you are defending? you read english right? I am sure it can be translated to another if you are having difficulty
What grade are you in, again?
It seems cbarnett is trying to swap terminal velocity for his own "terminal acceleration." Even though they are the same thing...they are not the same thing the models dictate different outcomes theengineer is just trying as hard as he can to make the FE model fit reality
They will show the same outcome, as I have already mathematically proven. You have yet to break my equations.You are wrong because you assert that the velocity of the object will reach a point where it no longer increases and the FE model says that is not possible, the RE model on the other hand says that at one point your velocity will stop increasing.
It seems cbarnett is trying to swap terminal velocity for his own "terminal acceleration." Even though they are the same thing...how are they the same thing? If an object is accelerating how is its velocity constant?
You are wrong because you assert that the velocity of the object will reach a point where it no longer increases and the FE model says that is not possibleSo like I said, you don't know what terminal velocity means. Well, that is something you should work on.
how are they the same thing? If an object is accelerating how is its velocity constant?First question:
well when you learn what a free-body shows and then learn how to set one up maybe you will see that Wiki can not teach you everything. Oh wait you are supposed to be an engineer of some sort so you should know how to do one by now.You are wrong because you assert that the velocity of the object will reach a point where it no longer increases and the FE model says that is not possibleSo like I said, you don't know what terminal velocity means. Well, that is something you should work on.
What grade are you in?
well when you learn what a free-body shows and then learn how to set one up maybe you will see that Wiki can not teach you everything. Oh wait you are supposed to be an engineer of some sort so you should know how to do one by now.There is this thing they teach us in engineering school: Critical thinking. You kind of need it in the real world where there are no textbook examples and the answers are not in the back of the book. Look at my equations. They are perfectly set up for the situation at hand. I know it is probably too much for an eighth grader to understand, but try.
what does a free body diagram show?well when you learn what a free-body shows and then learn how to set one up maybe you will see that Wiki can not teach you everything. Oh wait you are supposed to be an engineer of some sort so you should know how to do one by now.There is this thing they teach us in engineering school: Critical thinking. You kind of need it in the real world where there are no textbook examples and the answers are not in the back of the book. Look at my equations. They are perfectly set up for the situation at hand. I know it is probably too much for an eighth grader to understand, but try.
First question:
A plane must create an upwards acceleration equal to that of 'gravity' so that it will maintain altitude, correct?
An unbalanced force.So if you have an unbalanced force what is the result you get?
First question:
A plane must create an upwards acceleration equal to that of 'gravity' so that it will maintain altitude, correct?
Good God, he's still trying.Yes I am patient I will help him all I can. If someone is going to defend a model they should at least understand that model
Good God, he's still trying.Yes I am patient I will help him all I can. If someone is going to defend a model they should at least understand that model
So if you have an unbalanced force what is the result you get?An acceleration... :-\
No, but it may aid in your understanding. Answer it.
First question:
A plane must create an upwards acceleration equal to that of 'gravity' so that it will maintain altitude, correct?
not the same problem
Of course it will but that is not the same thing, in that problem we are trying to maintain a distance between 2 objects, we are not looking at an object and trying to figure out what happens. You are basically trying to show that we need to take the acceleration of the FE into account when we calculate the lift generated by the wing.So if you have an unbalanced force what is the result you get?An acceleration... :-\QuoteNo, but it may aid in your understanding. Answer it.
First question:
A plane must create an upwards acceleration equal to that of 'gravity' so that it will maintain altitude, correct?
not the same problem
Of course it will
It seems cbarnett is trying to swap terminal velocity for his own "terminal acceleration." Even though they are the same thing...how are they the same thing? If an object is accelerating how is its velocity constant?
in that problem we are trying to maintain a distance between 2 objects,So that must mean the the accelerations are...equal.
but that is what we are solving for in that problem, in what we have been talking about we are not looking for it to maintain a constant altitude we are wondering what happens to the object, like I said before, your argument is implying that we need to take the acceleration of the FE into account to calculate the lift of the wing.Of course it willIt seems cbarnett is trying to swap terminal velocity for his own "terminal acceleration." Even though they are the same thing...how are they the same thing? If an object is accelerating how is its velocity constant?Quotein that problem we are trying to maintain a distance between 2 objects,So that must mean the the accelerations are...equal.
but that is what we are solving for in that problem, in what we have been talking about we are not looking for it to maintain a constant altitudeNot a constant altitude, but a constant velocity. Relative velocity. Relative acceleration.
it is not relative to anything though after we figure out the acceleration of the object then we can relate that to the acceleration of the earth, but not before.but that is what we are solving for in that problem, in what we have been talking about we are not looking for it to maintain a constant altitudeNot a constant altitude, but a constant velocity. Relative velocity. Relative acceleration.
Wake me up when someone wins...
You're going to be Rip Van Winkle then. ;)
it is not relative to anything thoughIt's relative to the earth. :-\
after we figure out the acceleration of the object then we can relate that to the acceleration of the earthSo why are you solving for a known?
it is not relative to anything thoughIt's relative to the earth. :-\
after we figure out the acceleration of the object then we can relate that to the acceleration of the earth
So why are you solving for a known?what known am I solving for?
It is not relative to anything, that is like saying i measured my velocity at 60mph by looking at the freeway, then measure it at 500mph by looking at aircraft then measuring it stationary by looking at a building, which one is right?They are all right. Before this goes on any longer, what is the definition of terminal velocity?
what known am I solving for?Acceleration.
since they are all right I choose a FoR that shows that the earth is accelerating less and less which shows that we can not be accelerating at 9.8m/s/s congrats you just proved the earth can not be accelerating.It is not relative to anything, that is like saying i measured my velocity at 60mph by looking at the freeway, then measure it at 500mph by looking at aircraft then measuring it stationary by looking at a building, which one is right?They are all right. Before this goes on any longer, what is the definition of terminal velocity?Quotewhat known am I solving for?Acceleration.
And as you can see at no time can that person relate what is happening to him with the surface of the earth.So? He will still reach a terminal velocity.
You seem to have missed this part.Quotewhat known am I solving for?Acceleration.
relative to the air not to the surface of the earth, which is why it takes longer to reach his terminal accelerationAnd as you can see at no time can that person relate what is happening to him with the surface of the earth.So? He will still reach a terminal velocity.
I've already shown that to be untrue.I can do math incorectly also to "prove" things but that does not mean that it is true
Well, my math is correct. I've posted it for you to disprove, but you have still failed to do so.I have shown you many times and every time it is shown to you, you just ignore it so go back and read through the posts and you will find many examples of how your math is wrong
Terminal velocity is not known. Which is what we are solving for.so you take a known and somehow turn it into an unknown? or do you put a new velocity into the equation
since they are all right I choose a FoR that shows that the earth is accelerating less and less which shows that we can not be accelerating at 9.8m/s/s congrats you just proved the earth can not be accelerating.
What?
Terminal velocity is not known. And it remains that way until we solve for it. Then it becomes a known.so you aolved for the accleration of the object first then related that to the earth could you show all that math because it lookes like you just copied the derivation for the RE model.
The drag force on a body in a fluid is given by
F = .5*Cd*v2*A*rho (1)
where Cd is the drag coefficient, v is the velocity of the object, A is the cross sectional area of the object and rho is the density of the fluid.
We know from Newton's Second Law of Motion that
F = m*ao (2)
where F is force, m is the mass of the object and ao is the acceleration of the object. Rearranging (2) gives us
ao = F/m (3)
Combining (3) and (1) gives
ao = Cd*v2*A*rho/(2*m) (4)
Now, an object that has reached terminal velocity, vt, has no relative acceleration to the Earth. Applying this to the FE, that means that the object must have an upwards acceleration equal to that of the Earth's. It follows then, that
ae - ao = 0 (5)
where ae is the acceleration of the Earth and ao is the acceleration of the object.
Rearranging (5) gives
ae = ao (6)
which, by examination, is correct for all objects whose height is not changing relative to the Earth (aircraft for example).
Combining (6) and (4) leaves us with the equation
ae = Cd*vt2*A*rho/(2*m) (7)
Performing simple algebra on (7) yields the equation
vt = sqrt(2*ae*m/(Cd*A*rho) (8)
which can easily been seen to be the exact same equation as the one for the RE, with the exception that ae refers to the acceleration of the Earth and a in the RE equation refers to the acceleration due to gravity.
Using your numbers, we see that the terminal velocity on the FE is 22.1426 m/s.
as I have said your mistake is in your velocity. you can not just have v there it should be vair-vobject. you are trying to skip steps to make the FE model correctThe drag force on a body in a fluid is given by
F = .5*Cd*v2*A*rho (1)
where Cd is the drag coefficient, v is the velocity of the object, A is the cross sectional area of the object and rho is the density of the fluid.
We know from Newton's Second Law of Motion that
F = m*ao (2)
where F is force, m is the mass of the object and ao is the acceleration of the object. Rearranging (2) gives us
ao = F/m (3)
Combining (3) and (1) gives
ao = Cd*v2*A*rho/(2*m) (4)
Now, an object that has reached terminal velocity, vt, has no relative acceleration to the Earth. Applying this to the FE, that means that the object must have an upwards acceleration equal to that of the Earth's. It follows then, that
ae - ao = 0 (5)
where ae is the acceleration of the Earth and ao is the acceleration of the object.
Rearranging (5) gives
ae = ao (6)
which, by examination, is correct for all objects whose height is not changing relative to the Earth (aircraft for example).
Combining (6) and (4) leaves us with the equation
ae = Cd*vt2*A*rho/(2*m) (7)
Performing simple algebra on (7) yields the equation
vt = sqrt(2*ae*m/(Cd*A*rho) (8)
which can easily been seen to be the exact same equation as the one for the RE, with the exception that ae refers to the acceleration of the Earth and a in the RE equation refers to the acceleration due to gravity.
Using your numbers, we see that the terminal velocity on the FE is 22.1426 m/s.
Do you know what terminal velocity is?Do you know what the FE model is?
Yes, I do. Now answer my question.I know exactly what terminal velocity is, the problem is you are trying to relate the velocity of the object to the earth before you calculate the behavior of the object. it is like you are calculating how fast a car can go just by looking at it
Answer the question. What is terminal velocity?it is when your velocity remains constant. so without relating it to the earth because that is not allowed in this model when is the object velocity constant?
Terminal velocity is reached when the acceleration relative to the Earth is zero.so the FE model is a special case that must include the earth?
That applies to the RE as well... :-\Terminal velocity is reached when the acceleration relative to the Earth is zero.so the FE model is a special case that must include the earth?
Uh no unless you want to claim that the acceleration due to gravity is the same as including the earth ???That applies to the RE as well... :-\Terminal velocity is reached when the acceleration relative to the Earth is zero.so the FE model is a special case that must include the earth?
Ok... If this crap continues, I might have to lock this thread and declare FE as the winner. This dude (cbarnett97) just don't get it.
Ok... If this crap continues, I might have to lock this thread and declare FE as the winner. This dude (cbarnett97) just don't get it.
Don't. It's entertaining.
I concur. I never took physics, but I find it educational.
Never said which side i was leaning towards. Both sides of the argument open the mind to possibilities, no matter your position on the subject.
really everyone else? I just see the engineer only repeating one thing over and over, but if he is trying to teach me something then he has had many opportunities to use his vast knowledge of physics to properly teach me, since he has not done that it demonstrates he knows that he is wrong and he is just going to hang on to the one thing that makes him seem right to everyone else. I mean just look at his free body diagram, first he says that when you resolve the forces you get an unbalanced force then he magically adds the acceleration of the earth to balance it? that is not how it works. So if you want to believe theengineer then go ahead but at least understand what you are believing.Never said which side i was leaning towards. Both sides of the argument open the mind to possibilities, no matter your position on the subject.
It isn't so much an argument as it is cbarnett97 being wrong and everyone else trying to teach him how physics works.
really everyone else? I just see the engineer only repeating one thing over and over, but if he is trying to teach me something then he has had many opportunities to use his vast knowledge of physics to properly teach me, since he has not done that it demonstrates he knows that he is wrong and he is just going to hang on to the one thing that makes him seem right to everyone else. I mean just look at his free body diagram, first he says that when you resolve the forces you get an unbalanced force then he magically adds the acceleration of the earth to balance it? that is not how it works. So if you want to believe theengineer then go ahead but at least understand what you are believing.
Prove it then, or are you going to take his route and just ask about terminal velocity and then try to add in factors that are not in the system to try and force it to fit realityreally everyone else? I just see the engineer only repeating one thing over and over, but if he is trying to teach me something then he has had many opportunities to use his vast knowledge of physics to properly teach me, since he has not done that it demonstrates he knows that he is wrong and he is just going to hang on to the one thing that makes him seem right to everyone else. I mean just look at his free body diagram, first he says that when you resolve the forces you get an unbalanced force then he magically adds the acceleration of the earth to balance it? that is not how it works. So if you want to believe theengineer then go ahead but at least understand what you are believing.
I believe what TheEngineer says because he happens to be right.
A person is flown to an altitude above the earth that is totally covered by clouds and given an accelerometer and an airspeed indicator and he jumps out of the plane to determine the model. so when he jumps out he notices that the accelerometer shows an acceleration of 9.81m/s/s then it gradually goes to zero while his airspeed increases then remains static, so now he must ask himself either a) he was accelerated down while air resistance counteracted that until he reached a state of equalibrium or b) he remained stationary until the force from air resistance accelerated him up until he reached a state of equalibrium. from there he would need to test to see which one is correct. And as you can see at no time can that person relate what is happening to him with the surface of the earth. the acceleration of the earth is not in this system only the velocity of the air.So please show me where the acceleration of the FE is known in this system so it can be included
So please show me where the acceleration of the FE is known in this system so it can be included
so why can we assume that is the case based upon the infomation given. and what would an accelerometer show?So please show me where the acceleration of the FE is known in this system so it can be included
Assuming the weather is calm and there are no other local variations in the movement of the air, the air is accelerating at the same rate as the Earth beneath it.
so why can we assume that is the case based upon the infomation given.
and what would an accelerometer show?
Show us the math for the accleration of the objectso why can we assume that is the case based upon the infomation given.
If you really need that explained to you, your understanding of physics is even more hopelessly underdeveloped than I had supposed.and what would an accelerometer show?
Zero acceleration to begin with, gradually increasing to 9.8 m s-2 when the observer reaches terminal velocity.
Show us the math for the accleration of the object
aobject=CdpA{(aairt)-vobject}2/2m
now show that it is the same as the RE model
Try again. but this time do not run to wiki, think about what the model states.now show that it is the same as the RE model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle)
Try again. but this time do not run to wiki, think about what the model states.
EP will not work because that would only apply to what the person saw, the predictive power of a model is an entirely different matter.
nope in the RE model the velocity of the air is dependent upon the motion of the object, while in the FE model the velocity of the air is independent of the objectTry again. but this time do not run to wiki, think about what the model states.
EP will not work because that would only apply to what the person saw, the predictive power of a model is an entirely different matter.
In both cases, the air is accelerating at 9.8 m s-2 upwards, with its initial velocity relative to the observer being zero. Assuming there is enough distance between the person and the ground for them to reach terminal velocity, their motion will be the same in both models.
nope in the RE model the velocity of the air is dependent upon the motion of the object, while in the FE model the velocity of the air is independent of the object
I just see the engineer only repeating one thing over and overBecause that is the thing that proves me correct and you wrong. But you don't seem to understand it.
, but if he is trying to teach me something then he has had many opportunities to use his vast knowledge of physics to properly teach me, since he has not done that it demonstrates he knows that he is wrongI posted the derivation. I did it so that a high schooler could follow it. It clearly demonstrates that I am correct.
I mean just look at his free body diagram, first he says that when you resolve the forces you get an unbalanced forceRight. Which leads to an acceleration.
then he magically adds the acceleration of the earth to balance it?I did not add the acceleration of the Earth to balance it, but to equate it.
So if you want to believe theengineer then go ahead but at least understand what you are believing.I think they all do understand. You are the one that does not understand why you are wrong. Despite all my teachings.
EP will not work because that would only apply to what the person saw, the predictive power of a model is an entirely different matter.The EP applies perfectly in this situation. This is not a case of non locality, as tidal forces are unimportant.
Ok... If this crap continues, I might have to lock this thread and declare FE as the winner. This dude (cbarnett97) just don't get it.
Is the problem (still) being debated that there is some supposed discrepancy between the FE model and the RE model for someone jumping out of an aeroplane (for instance)? If it is then I will attempt to derive both cases side by side, in the interests of helping something get resolved - first I just need to be sure I understand the FE model in question - from the nature of the question I assume that the UA only applies to the Earth itself, and not to the air, aeroplane or skydiver?
(Request permission to post 1.5 A4 pages in .gif to demonstrate simple solution to this problem...)
So, basically, my derivation is correct. And much less messy.
You are an engineer and you think his scans are messy? That's funny.I don't get it.
That doesn't change the fact that there will still be a terminal velocity in FE.yes but how it gets to its terminal velocity is different and that is a quantity that can be measured
How would you measure it? Speed relative to Earth will be the same, and so will felt force.no it will not, only the felt acceleleration relative to the air will felt to be zero
Same in RE and in FE. At terminal velocity, acceleration is 0 relative to earth and air. Your point?The rate of acceleration is different. Or are you arguing that since a formula 1 car can go 100kph and a Bmw 1series can go 100kph that they will get to that velocity at the same time?
RE 1. Jump out airplane. 2. Start to fall towards Earth at 9.8 m/s 2. 3. Air continues to accelerate past you, increasing air resistance. 4. Air resistance causes person to accelerate at 0 m/s2. 5. You reach terminal velocity. | FE 1. Jump out airplane. 2. Earth moves toward you at 9.8 m/s 2. 3. Air continue to accelerate past you, increasing air resistance. 4. Air resistance causes person to accelerate at 0 m/s2. 5. You reach terminal velocity. |
It is the same. Air is rushing past you at the same speed in RE and FE. Air resistance will be the same, you will reach terminal velocity in the same amount of time as in RE.that is the mistake theengineer is making and everyone is following his lead, you can not relate it to the earth until you have reached your point of equalibrium.
1. Jump out airplane.
2. Start to fall towards Earth at 9.8 m/s 2.
3. Air continues to accelerate past you, increasing air resistance.
4. Air resistance causes person to accelerate at 0 m/s2.
5. You reach terminal velocity.[/color]
1. Jump out airplane.
2. Earth moves toward you at 9.8 m/s 2.
3. Air continue to accelerate past you, increasing air resistance.
4. Air resistance causes person to accelerate at 0 m/s2.
5. You reach terminal velocity.[/color]
(http://i35.tinypic.com/2j4bjva.jpg)if it is not in the box, then it can not be looked at until you finish resolving all the forces. the whole idea of doing a free body diagram is to look at the forces acting on the body. If I took an accelerometer up in a plane with me what would the accelerations be at the different times. The accelerometer knows nothing about the behavior of the earth, so how can it be taken into account when I am resolving all the forces
It is the same. Air is rushing past you at the same speed in RE and FE. Air resistance will be the same, you will reach terminal velocity in the same amount of time as in RE.Even my little brother gets that (he's only 10).
1. Jump out airplane.
2. Start to fall towards Earth at 9.8 m/s 2.
3. Air continues to accelerate past you, increasing air resistance.
4. Air resistance causes person to accelerate at 0 m/s2.
5. You reach terminal velocity.
1. Jump out airplane.
2. Earth moves toward you at 9.8 m/s 2.
3. Air continue to accelerate past you, increasing air resistance.
4. Air resistance causes person to accelerate at 0 m/s2.
5. You reach terminal velocity.
There is absolutely no difference.
of course, if you do not understand the science behind it then it makes perfect senseIt is the same. Air is rushing past you at the same speed in RE and FE. Air resistance will be the same, you will reach terminal velocity in the same amount of time as in RE.Even my little brother gets that (he's only 10).
1. Jump out airplane.
2. Start to fall towards Earth at 9.8 m/s 2.
3. Air continues to accelerate past you, increasing air resistance.
4. Air resistance causes person to accelerate at 0 m/s2.
5. You reach terminal velocity.
1. Jump out airplane.
2. Earth moves toward you at 9.8 m/s 2.
3. Air continue to accelerate past you, increasing air resistance.
4. Air resistance causes person to accelerate at 0 m/s2.
5. You reach terminal velocity.
There is absolutely no difference.
that is the mistake theengineer is making and everyone is following his lead, you can not relate it to the earth until you have reached your point of equalibrium.It's equilibrium, kid.
And like I said already, there is no balancing force. Therefore there is a constant acceleration.(http://i35.tinypic.com/2j4bjva.jpg)the whole idea of doing a free body diagram is to look at the forces acting on the body.
so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2that is the mistake theengineer is making and everyone is following his lead, you can not relate it to the earth until you have reached your point of equalibrium.It's equilibrium, kid.QuoteAnd like I said already, there is no balancing force. Therefore there is a constant acceleration.(http://i35.tinypic.com/2j4bjva.jpg)the whole idea of doing a free body diagram is to look at the forces acting on the body.
I believe this is too complicated for you to follow. I thought my derivation was simple enough for you. Apparently, I gave you too much credit. We are only interested in the velocity at a certain acceleration. Is that simple enough for you?
Why is it that every topic I enter, FE'ers never give a good debate? I'm beginning to think the whole website is a joke.
the turtles and elephants part is a joke.Why is it that every topic I enter, FE'ers never give a good debate? I'm beginning to think the whole website is a joke.
It is a joke. Some think the earth is held up by turtles and elephants.
It's like the LBC.
of course, if you do not understand the science behind it then it makes perfect senseThat's what you're doing in this thread right now.
so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2that is the mistake theengineer is making and everyone is following his lead, you can not relate it to the earth until you have reached your point of equalibrium.It's equilibrium, kid.QuoteAnd like I said already, there is no balancing force. Therefore there is a constant acceleration.(http://i35.tinypic.com/2j4bjva.jpg)the whole idea of doing a free body diagram is to look at the forces acting on the body.
I believe this is too complicated for you to follow. I thought my derivation was simple enough for you. Apparently, I gave you too much credit. We are only interested in the velocity at a certain acceleration. Is that simple enough for you?
It is the same. Air is rushing past you at the same speed in RE and FE. Air resistance will be the same, you will reach terminal velocity in the same amount of time as in RE.
1. Jump out airplane.
2. Start to fall towards Earth at 9.8 m/s 2.
3. Air continues to accelerate past you, increasing air resistance.
4. Air resistance causes person to accelerate at 0 m/s2.
5. You reach terminal velocity.
1. Jump out airplane.
2. Earth moves toward you at 9.8 m/s 2.
3. Air continue to accelerate past you, increasing air resistance.
4. Air resistance causes person to accelerate at 0 m/s2.
5. You reach terminal velocity.
There is absolutely no difference.
How can you deny this? It's just some freshman physics...In the FE model the acceleration of the earth is not in the system so it can not be accounted for. after you obtain the behavior of the object you can then relate that to the surface of the earth, so how about you go ahead and show me the accleration of the object a t=2 using the FE modelIt is the same. Air is rushing past you at the same speed in RE and FE. Air resistance will be the same, you will reach terminal velocity in the same amount of time as in RE.
1. Jump out airplane.
2. Start to fall towards Earth at 9.8 m/s 2.
3. Air continues to accelerate past you, increasing air resistance.
4. Air resistance causes person to accelerate at 0 m/s2.
5. You reach terminal velocity.
1. Jump out airplane.
2. Earth moves toward you at 9.8 m/s 2.
3. Air continue to accelerate past you, increasing air resistance.
4. Air resistance causes person to accelerate at 0 m/s2.
5. You reach terminal velocity.
There is absolutely no difference.
so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2What is an accelerometer and how does it work?
In the FE model the acceleration of the earth is not in the system so it can not be accounted for. after you obtain the behavior of the object you can then relate that to the surface of the earth, so how about you go ahead and show me the accleration of the object a t=2 using the FE modelWhy are we solving for the acceleration?
basically it measures acceleration. it is big in safety tests to test the amount of force delivered to objects.so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2What is an accelerometer and how does it work?
that is what is changing in the FE model, if it will make you happy you can calculate the velocity of the object at t=2, I just thought i would save you a step since you would need to calculate the acceleration first.In the FE model the acceleration of the earth is not in the system so it can not be accounted for. after you obtain the behavior of the object you can then relate that to the surface of the earth, so how about you go ahead and show me the accleration of the object a t=2 using the FE modelWhy are we solving for the acceleration?
Here we go again...the reason we are going again is because theengineer and his little minions look at the end behavior and then assume that everything from start to finish is exactly the same in both models, like I said before just because 2 cars can both go 60 mph does not mean that they get to that 60mph the same way
Beyond basically though, how does it measure acceleration? As you jump out of a plane, what is it measuring? Sorry, I mean how is it measuring it?basically it measures acceleration. it is big in safety tests to test the amount of force delivered to objects.so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2What is an accelerometer and how does it work?
Sorry I didn't have time to go over this "argument", but when did they claim that?by relating the entire acceleration to the surface of the earth because the end result of the object should be 9.81m/s/s.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but if I remember correctly it basically measures a force from a known mass then gets the acceleration from that. F=mass x accelerationBeyond basically though, how does it measure acceleration? As you jump out of a plane, what is it measuring? Sorry, I mean how is it measuring it?basically it measures acceleration. it is big in safety tests to test the amount of force delivered to objects.so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2What is an accelerometer and how does it work?
But they say there are no balancing forces. There is only a constant upwards acceleration relative to the Earth's.Sorry I didn't have time to go over this "argument", but when did they claim that?by relating the entire acceleration to the surface of the earth because the end result of the object should be 9.81m/s/s.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but if I remember correctly it basically measures a force from a known mass then gets the acceleration from that. F=mass x accelerationSo in RE, when you jump from your plane, what/how is it measuring?
An accelerometer does not measure the '1g' of the Earth until you are at terminal velocity in either the RE or FE model. By definition free fall (without air resistance) is a relative state of rest (objects following geodesics), so if it could measure 'absolute acceleration' then you would have a means of figuring out the 'preferred rest frame' of the Universe, which is forbidden in relativity.close but the bolded parts are not allowed as they are not in the system also when you jump out of the airplane the acceleration in the RE model will still be 9.81m/s/s only in the FE will it be zero.
To clarify, an accelerometer would read (in the vertical axis, with '+' meaning 'upwards'):
1) stationary on the runway
RE : +1g (9.81ms-2) contact acceleration
FE : +1aUA (9.81ms-2) contact acceleration
2) climbing to drop altitude
RE : +1g + (vertical acceleration of aircraft)
FE : +1aUA + (vertical acceleration of aircraft)
3) level at drop alitutude
RE : +1g - (small correction for altitude (g drops as 1/r2 from surface of Earth))
FE : +1aUA - (small correction for altitude (source depends on your 'flavour' of FE))
4) the instant that Tom Bishop jumps out horizontally from the door
RE : zero
FE : zero
5) before reaching terminal velocity
RE : zero + (air resistance as fall towards Earth at 1g acceleration [acceleration as measured from the ground]) FE : zero + (air resistance as fall towards Earth at 1aUA acceleration [acceleration as measured from the ground])
6) terminal velocity
RE : +1g
FE : +1aUA
As you can see, the two are identical at all points. Neither accelerates faster than the other and neither 'feels' any different at any point (so long as you have a reasonable physical explanation for g dropping off with altitude, which FE provides a few alternative theories for). If I'm wrong at any point here, feel free to explain why.
close but the bolded parts are not allowed as they are not in the system also when you jump out of the airplane the acceleration in the RE model will still be 9.81m/s/s only in the FE will it be zero.Compared to what? That's why I'm trying to find out how an acceleromator works? What/how is it measuring?
an accelerometer measure acceleration relative to itsself.close but the bolded parts are not allowed as they are not in the system also when you jump out of the airplane the acceleration in the RE model will still be 9.81m/s/s only in the FE will it be zero.Compared to what? That's why I'm trying to find out how an acceleromator works? What/how is it measuring?
Conversely, the device's output will be zero during free fall, where the acceleration exactly follows gravity. This includes use in an earth orbiting spaceship, but not a (non-free) fall with air resistance, where drag forces reduce the acceleration until terminal velocity is reached, at which point the device would once again indicate the 1 g vertical offset.
an accelerometer measure acceleration relative to itsself.Wow, is there no end to man's ingenuity.
this is how the majority of them are set up. The have a cantilever beam with a proof mass (also known as seismic mass) and some type of deflection sensing circuitry. Under the influence of gravity or acceleration the proof mass deflects from its neutral position. The deflection is measured in an analog or digital manner.
In that case, in FET all the worlds accelerometers are set to read an upwards acceleration of 9.8ms/s as Zero acceleration. Therefore the accelerometer in the airplane, assuming the plane is at a constant height above sea level, is accelerating up at 9.8ms/s with the plane/with the atmosphere/with the earth, and therefore reads 0.
Then you leap out of the plane with it and you/it stops accelerating up, and instead continue to travel up at the velocity the plane/the atmosphere/the earth was traveling at the moment you left the plane. The accelometer would therefore register the change of acceleration as (-) 9.8ms/s because it is no longer accelerating in the "up" direction. The plane/atmosphere/earth continue to accelerate "up" at 9.8ms/s and the accelerometer continues to read a downward acceleration of 9.8ms/s
Then you can take into account the wind resistance and terminal velocities, etc, but the fact is it reads the same in both RET and FET.
The accelerometer will read as I have described in my previous post. It will change from reading the acceleration due to gravitation/UA in the plane (flying at constant altitude) to reading zero when you leave the plane. It then registers a gradual increase until, at terminal velocity, it measures the same as when you were on the ground/in the plane.I've obviously misinterpreted barnets post. If we're travelling in a plane at a constant speed at a constant height above Sea Level, what is the reading on the acclerometer? And what is it measuring?
The key is to remember that the accelerometer cannot 'see' the ground, it only has internal workings to go on. This explains why it can't sense gravitation in free-fall, only the effects of drag (which, at terminal velocity, are the same as the contact acceleration on the ground).
I've obviously misinterpreted barnets post. If we're travelling in a plane at a constant speed at a constant height above Sea Level, what is the reading on the acclerometer? And what is it measuring?
I've obviously misinterpreted barnets post. If we're travelling in a plane at a constant speed at a constant height above Sea Level, what is the reading on the acclerometer? And what is it measuring?
Yes. Barnets post said that it measures acceleration in relation to itself, so I thought that meant it registered changes in acceleration and when travelling at a constant velocity it registered 0.I've obviously misinterpreted barnets post. If we're travelling in a plane at a constant speed at a constant height above Sea Level, what is the reading on the acclerometer? And what is it measuring?
It's OK, it gets a bit confusing if you start including calibrating it to read zero on the ground and so on. I am assuming that on the ground/in the plane (constant altitude), the accelerometer is measuring the acceleration due to the contact force of you standing on the floor. What is happening, essentially, is that a test mass is 'falling' towards the ground on one end of a spring. The other end of the spring is attached to you, which can not fall since you are standing on the ground, therefore it measures an extension of the spring and outputs an acceleration.
Now imagine you have just jumped out of the plane. Now the weight on the spring is falling towards the ground, but so are you (at exactly the same rate). The spring does not extend and so no acceleration is measured. This will be the same in orbit or anywhere else where you are in free fall. Once you are out of the plane, the drag from the air will start to increase, which means the accelerometer can start to extend again (giving a reading) until you reach terminal velocity and the reading is the same as on the ground.
Does this make sense?
Yes. Barnets post said that it measures acceleration in relation to itself, so I thought that meant it registered changes in acceleration and when travelling at a constant velocity it registered 0.
Either way, FE and RE would yield the same reading.
Yeah, that was my point - barnet's only real mistake was assuming that an accelerometer could measure local gravitational field strength (local g) while in free fall. Pretty much everything else stemmed from that. Hopefully that's resolved now (we'll have to wait for his next post to see).
The accelerometer will read as I have described in my previous post. It will change from reading the acceleration due to gravitation/UA in the plane (flying at constant altitude) to reading zero when you leave the plane. It then registers a gradual increase until, at terminal velocity, it measures the same as when you were on the ground/in the plane.I've obviously misinterpreted barnets post. If we're travelling in a plane at a constant speed at a constant height above Sea Level, what is the reading on the acclerometer? And what is it measuring?
The key is to remember that the accelerometer cannot 'see' the ground, it only has internal workings to go on. This explains why it can't sense gravitation in free-fall, only the effects of drag (which, at terminal velocity, are the same as the contact acceleration on the ground).
No accelerometer in a plane that I've have ever seen is measured in m/s^2. What it does say is 1g. Because as you stand in the plane or sit your butt in the seat it feels no different than if your sitting your butt or standing on the ground.
But that is not what the gauge reads. Which is what he asked.
I know they equal each other. But when we go into 2g and 3g turns you have to be able to measure the Gs for structural limits. Which are listed in Gs not m/s^2
Just admit im right.
Does that mean win for FE?
our acft dont have an m/s^2 gauge either...
our acft dont have an m/s^2 gauge either...
ch47 chinookour acft dont have an m/s^2 gauge either...
What do you fly?
Ft Campbell?no, much worse. fort drum. :(
Is there no limit to the amount of fail cbarnett is capable of?how about you answer my question
im sorry - there was a question?oh yeah there was, but it is funny how theengineer skips over questions that show he is wrong
Or that you fail to grasp simple physics.then it should be a no brainer for him to show me.
so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2that is the mistake theengineer is making and everyone is following his lead, you can not relate it to the earth until you have reached your point of equalibrium.It's equilibrium, kid.QuoteAnd like I said already, there is no balancing force. Therefore there is a constant acceleration.(http://i35.tinypic.com/2j4bjva.jpg)the whole idea of doing a free body diagram is to look at the forces acting on the body.
I believe this is too complicated for you to follow. I thought my derivation was simple enough for you. Apparently, I gave you too much credit. We are only interested in the velocity at a certain acceleration. Is that simple enough for you?
A little under 9.8m/s^2.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where my derivation is wrong.
At t=2, your acceleration will be the same as on RE. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. NOTHING IS CHANGED EXCEPT THE METHOD IN WHICH GRAVITATION WORKS. Terminal velocity will be the same. Everything will be the same. STFU, GTFO.no it will not calculate the acceleration on the object and you will see that it is not the same
no it will not calculate the acceleration on the object and you will see that it is not the sameThen you have just proved the EP to be incorrect. Congratulations. Arguing the exact same point with you page after page, even though numerous other independent posters have shown you to be wrong is getting very old. And annoying.
the EP can only be applied after it reaches 9.81 m/s/s not beforeno it will not calculate the acceleration on the object and you will see that it is not the sameThen you have just proved the EP to be incorrect. Congratulations. Arguing the exact same point with you page after page, even though numerous other independent posters have shown you to be wrong is getting very old. And annoying.
At t=2, your acceleration will be the same as on RE. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. NOTHING IS CHANGED EXCEPT THE METHOD IN WHICH GRAVITATION WORKS. Terminal velocity will be the same. Everything will be the same. STFU, GTFO.no it will not calculate the acceleration on the object and you will see that it is not the same
the EP can only be applied after it reaches 9.81 m/s/s not beforeno it will not calculate the acceleration on the object and you will see that it is not the sameThen you have just proved the EP to be incorrect. Congratulations. Arguing the exact same point with you page after page, even though numerous other independent posters have shown you to be wrong is getting very old. And annoying.
if you want to still claim the EP then proove that the equations are the samevt = sqrt(2*m*ae/(rho*A*Cd)
your reading skills are amazing so how about showing that the EP is valid for t=2 since there is no argument that the EP can be applied to the end results as far as you would be unable to tell if you were moving up or downif you want to still claim the EP then proove that the equations are the samevt = sqrt(2*m*ae/(rho*A*Cd)
I seem to have done that already.
Great! You finally admit you were wrong! This is a joyous day!how about solving the problem at hand.
Why would the equivalence principle change depending on circumstances?the EP does not change depending on the Circumstances it either can be applied or it cant. The EP is used to explain identical accelerating frames which is why an accelerating FE can equate the effect of gravitation but it can only be applied to a local FoR that is sufficiently small enough that nothing changes. Now when we relate it to our problem at hand the EP can not be applied because the objects will accelerate at different rates based upon the model. We can apply the EP to describe the behavior after it reaches its terminal velocity because they will be accelerating with the same magnitude
It doesn't. Otherwise acceleration and gravitation would not be equivalent and it would be pretty useless.
Find a source that says that the equivalence principle is not valid until such and such acceleration and then I'll continue arguing.
Otherwise, I find your stupidity insulting.
Why would the equivalence principle change depending on circumstances?the EP does not change depending on the Circumstances it either can be applied or it cant. The EP is used to explain identical accelerating frames which is why an accelerating FE can equate the effect of gravitation but it can only be applied to a local FoR that is sufficiently small enough that nothing changes. Now when we relate it to our problem at hand the EP can not be applied because the objects will accelerate at different rates based upon the model. We can apply the EP to describe the behavior after it reaches its terminal velocity because they will be accelerating with the same magnitude
It doesn't. Otherwise acceleration and gravitation would not be equivalent and it would be pretty useless.
Find a source that says that the equivalence principle is not valid until such and such acceleration and then I'll continue arguing.
Otherwise, I find your stupidity insulting.
But they say there are no balancing forces. There is only a constant upwards acceleration relative to the Earth's.Sorry I didn't have time to go over this "argument", but when did they claim that?by relating the entire acceleration to the surface of the earth because the end result of the object should be 9.81m/s/s.
the EP does not change depending on the Circumstances it either can be applied or it cant. The EP is used to explain identical accelerating frames which is why an accelerating FE can equate the effect of gravitation but it can only be applied to a local FoR that is sufficiently small enough that nothing changes.The EP only applies to a local FoR because of tidal forces. In this case, tidal forces are of no consequence, so the EP can be applied as is.
Now when we relate it to our problem at hand the EP can not be applied because the objects will accelerate at different rates based upon the model. We can apply the EP to describe the behavior after it reaches its terminal velocity because they will be accelerating with the same magnitudeOk, so let's take air resistance out of the equation. Let's drop the balls in a vacuum chamber. Since the balls will never reach terminal velocity, we can't us the EP? What are the varying accelerations these balls will see, according to you?
then we can apply the EP with no air resistance. the accleration that is caused by air resistance is why we can not apply the EP. tidal forces get looked at second, after we look to see if the 2 different accelerations are equal in magnitude, if they are then we look at tidal forces, then we can apply the EP, which is why after both objects stop accelerating in reference to the air we can apply the EP but until that point they accelerations are different so hence no EPthe EP does not change depending on the Circumstances it either can be applied or it cant. The EP is used to explain identical accelerating frames which is why an accelerating FE can equate the effect of gravitation but it can only be applied to a local FoR that is sufficiently small enough that nothing changes.The EP only applies to a local FoR because of tidal forces. In this case, tidal forces are of no consequence, so the EP can be applied as is.QuoteNow when we relate it to our problem at hand the EP can not be applied because the objects will accelerate at different rates based upon the model. We can apply the EP to describe the behavior after it reaches its terminal velocity because they will be accelerating with the same magnitudeOk, so let's take air resistance out of the equation. Let's drop the balls in a vacuum chamber. Since the balls will never reach terminal velocity, we can't us the EP? What are the varying accelerations these balls will see, according to you?
What is happening, essentially, is that a test mass is 'falling' towards the ground on one end of a spring. The other end of the spring is attached to you, which can not fall since you are standing on the ground, therefore it measures an extension of the spring and outputs an acceleration.
Now imagine you have just jumped out of the plane. Now the weight on the spring is falling towards the ground, but so are you (at exactly the same rate). The spring does not extend and so no acceleration is measured. This will be the same in orbit or anywhere else where you are in free fall. Once you are out of the plane, the drag from the air will start to increase, which means the accelerometer can start to extend again (giving a reading) until you reach terminal velocity and the reading is the same as on the ground.
But their accelerations will be different. How can we apply the EP?I am not sure you are the one trying to apply it
Here is what the EP states:Why would the equivalence principle change depending on circumstances?the EP does not change depending on the Circumstances it either can be applied or it cant. The EP is used to explain identical accelerating frames which is why an accelerating FE can equate the effect of gravitation but it can only be applied to a local FoR that is sufficiently small enough that nothing changes. Now when we relate it to our problem at hand the EP can not be applied because the objects will accelerate at different rates based upon the model. We can apply the EP to describe the behavior after it reaches its terminal velocity because they will be accelerating with the same magnitude
It doesn't. Otherwise acceleration and gravitation would not be equivalent and it would be pretty useless.
Find a source that says that the equivalence principle is not valid until such and such acceleration and then I'll continue arguing.
Otherwise, I find your stupidity insulting.
(http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2746/tempid9.gif)
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
(http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2746/tempid9.gif)
OK.where is the proof? it should be easy
I SHALL BE BACK!
I am not sure you are the one trying to apply itRight, and I say it will apply. You are saying it won't. You are wrong.
Since an object moving through air will not truly be in "free fall" because of air resistance we cannot apply the EP
/\ acceleration of the earth. /\ acceleration of the person
| |
| |
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.
|
\/ Acceleration of the person. /\ Acceleration due to air resistance.
|
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.
V=at regardless of FE or RE.
Anet=AEarth-AObject
There is a terminal velocity. Once Anet=0 the relative velocity will be constant which is the same as terminal velocity.
To barnet,so show the math that shows the accelerations are of equal magnitude at t=2, since it is such a simple concept it should be very easy
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/FE_Terminal_Velocity.jpg)
From Engy and Robbyj:/\ acceleration of the earth. /\ acceleration of the person
| |
| |
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.
|
\/ Acceleration of the person. /\ Acceleration due to air resistance.
|
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.V=at regardless of FE or RE.
Anet=AEarth-AObject
There is a terminal velocity. Once Anet=0 the relative velocity will be constant which is the same as terminal velocity.
so show the math that shows the accelerations are of equal magnitude at t=2, since it is such a simple concept it should be very easy
An accelerometer does not measure the '1g' of the Earth until you are at terminal velocity in either the RE or FE model. By definition free fall (without air resistance) is a relative state of rest (objects following geodesics), so if it could measure 'absolute acceleration' then you would have a means of figuring out the 'preferred rest frame' of the Universe, which is forbidden in relativity.
To clarify, an accelerometer would read (in the vertical axis, with '+' meaning 'upwards'):
1) stationary on the runway
RE : +1g (9.81ms-2) contact acceleration
FE : +1aUA (9.81ms-2) contact acceleration
2) climbing to drop altitude
RE : +1g + (vertical acceleration of aircraft)
FE : +1aUA + (vertical acceleration of aircraft)
3) level at drop alitutude
RE : +1g - (small correction for altitude (g drops as 1/r2 from surface of Earth))
FE : +1aUA - (small correction for altitude (source depends on your 'flavour' of FE))
4) the instant that Tom Bishop jumps out horizontally from the door
RE : zero
FE : zero
5) before reaching terminal velocity
RE : zero + (air resistance as fall towards Earth at 1g acceleration [acceleration as measured from the ground])
FE : zero + (air resistance as fall towards Earth at 1aUA acceleration [acceleration as measured from the ground])
6) terminal velocity
RE : +1g
FE : +1aUA
As you can see, the two are identical at all points. Neither accelerates faster than the other and neither 'feels' any different at any point (so long as you have a reasonable physical explanation for g dropping off with altitude, which FE provides a few alternative theories for). If I'm wrong at any point here, feel free to explain why.
now you just need to understand the models better, then you can try and show that the magnitudes of acceleration are the same in both models.so show the math that shows the accelerations are of equal magnitude at t=2, since it is such a simple concept it should be very easyAn accelerometer does not measure the '1g' of the Earth until you are at terminal velocity in either the RE or FE model. By definition free fall (without air resistance) is a relative state of rest (objects following geodesics), so if it could measure 'absolute acceleration' then you would have a means of figuring out the 'preferred rest frame' of the Universe, which is forbidden in relativity.
To clarify, an accelerometer would read (in the vertical axis, with '+' meaning 'upwards'):
1) stationary on the runway
RE : +1g (9.81ms-2) contact acceleration
FE : +1aUA (9.81ms-2) contact acceleration
2) climbing to drop altitude
RE : +1g + (vertical acceleration of aircraft)
FE : +1aUA + (vertical acceleration of aircraft)
3) level at drop alitutude
RE : +1g - (small correction for altitude (g drops as 1/r2 from surface of Earth))
FE : +1aUA - (small correction for altitude (source depends on your 'flavour' of FE))
4) the instant that Tom Bishop jumps out horizontally from the door
RE : zero
FE : zero
5) before reaching terminal velocity
RE : zero + (air resistance as fall towards Earth at 1g acceleration [acceleration as measured from the ground])
FE : zero + (air resistance as fall towards Earth at 1aUA acceleration [acceleration as measured from the ground])
6) terminal velocity
RE : +1g
FE : +1aUA
As you can see, the two are identical at all points. Neither accelerates faster than the other and neither 'feels' any different at any point (so long as you have a reasonable physical explanation for g dropping off with altitude, which FE provides a few alternative theories for). If I'm wrong at any point here, feel free to explain why.
I seem to remember posting a set of equations that proved the models were identical. Plus, the whole EP thing.show that the EP is valid for all times then since it is so simple
show that the EP is valid for all times then since it is so simple
In the physics of relativity, the equivalence principle refers to several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.
Experiments performed in a uniformly accelerating reference frame with acceleration a are indistinguishable from the same experiments performed in a non-accelerating reference frame which is situated in a gravitational field where the acceleration of gravity = g = -a = intensity of gravity field.
"Then occurred to me the happiest thought of my life, in the following form. The gravitational field has only a relative existence... Because for an observer falling freely from the roof of a house there exists - at least in his immediate surroundings - no gravitational field....(in this consideration air resistance is, of course, ignored)."
Go to the beach, you can see the slow curvature of the earth when you look out to sea.No. You can't. And if you did a quick search of these forums you'd see that has been posted many times before. Please, lurk moar. Search and read the forums.
and air resistance is not a uniformly accelerating field so therefore the EP can not be applied until it is uniform, ie. net acceleration with the air is zeroQuote from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/grel.htmlExperiments performed in a uniformly accelerating reference frame with acceleration a are indistinguishable from the same experiments performed in a non-accelerating reference frame which is situated in a gravitational field where the acceleration of gravity = g = -a = intensity of gravity field.
and air resistance is not a uniformly accelerating field so therefore the EP can not be applied until it is uniform, ie. net acceleration with the air is zero
Uh, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem)
This has just gone too far.That is not a valid reference frame, so it looks like you are disagreeing with relativity, try getting your education from a different source that is not wiki
The EP is all about reference frames. In FE, the reference frame we choose goes with the Earth. It accelerates at 9.8 m/s^2 upwards. This is the reference frame in which we do all of our experiments. By the EP, any experiment we do in this reference frame is equivalent to any we do in a gravitational field of -9.8m/s^2. It's that simple. Really.Quoteand air resistance is not a uniformly accelerating field so therefore the EP can not be applied until it is uniform, ie. net acceleration with the air is zero
We are not working in the frame of object which falls through the air. We are working in the frame of the Earth. The EP applies.
If you disagree with this, you disagree with General Relativity, because it also states that we are accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2.
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn291/gary2914458/Airresistance-2.png)to say it as clearly as theengineer: Uh, no
to say it as clearly as theengineer: Uh, noWhere is the mistake?
Please point out my error then.
Please point out my error then.
I doubt he will. He never showed how TheEngineer was wrong, so I don't see why that would change. If he knows it is wrong somehow, it should be easy to prove us all otherwise. The longer this goes on with him and his lack of mathematical rebuttals, makes it seem like he's just plain wrong.