The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: tun on May 14, 2018, 12:23:52 PM
-
as the title says, why do objects with different mass fall at different rates?
if the earth is accelerating upwards then all objects would 'fall' (as we call it) at the same rate. why is this not true?
-
What makes you think objects with different mass fall at different rates? Have you measured it yourself, or are you taking someone else's word for it?
Why would that be a piece of evidence that a FE would think valid, given all the other evidence that FE routinely claim is fabricated?
-
What makes you think objects with different mass fall at different rates? Have you measured it yourself, or are you taking someone else's word for it?
Why would that be a piece of evidence that a FE would think valid, given all the other evidence that FE routinely claim is fabricated?
hahaha love the copy and paste. but yes, we can all measure it for ourselves right now. i think you know that, but im just clarifying for others.
-
... but yes, we can all measure it for ourselves right now. ...
I think that would be an excellent place for you to start.
-
as the title says, why do objects with different mass fall at different rates?
if the earth is accelerating upwards then all objects would 'fall' (as we call it) at the same rate. why is this not true?
The rate at which any given object fall depends greatly on its density and coefficient of drag (wind resistance).
-
as the title says, why do objects with different mass fall at different rates?
if the earth is accelerating upwards then all objects would 'fall' (as we call it) at the same rate. why is this not true?
The rate at which any given object fall depends greatly on its density and coefficient of drag (wind resistance).
the density is directly related to the mass, it is mass per volume, and we can measure this ourselves right now. you can potentially match drag too if you have the right objects, but the difference is minimal anyway.
-
Objects with different masses fall at the same rate in a vacuum.
-
I am not arguing from either side of the debate, but if you can remove air resistance as a factor by performing the experiment in a vacuum chamber or using identically shaped enclosures(like a water bottle filled 1/4 and on full) Everything hits the floor at pretty much the same time which means falling at the same rate.
Also, whether by centrifical, acceleration upwards or gravity accelerating downwards, the objects would essentially react identically. Gravity supporters point out some measurable but absolutely microscopic differences determined on ground density and altitude that needs to be explained better than what it has been so far. Like I said, I am not trying to argue from a side but someone will take offense to that more than likely.
-
as the title says, why do objects with different mass fall at different rates?
if the earth is accelerating upwards then all objects would 'fall' (as we call it) at the same rate. why is this not true?
Other than the variation in gravity across Earth, gravity is equivalent to Earth accelerating upwards.
In a vacuum all objects fall at the same rate.
In a medium, buoyancy provides an upwards force making objects accelerate at different rates.
For most objects that difference is negligible.
Wind resistance also effects it.
-
I am not arguing from either side of the debate, but if you can remove air resistance as a factor by performing the experiment in a vacuum chamber or using identically shaped enclosures(like a water bottle filled 1/4 and on full) Everything hits the floor at pretty much the same time which means falling at the same rate.
Also, whether by centrifical, acceleration upwards or gravity accelerating downwards, the objects would essentially react identically. Gravity supporters point out some measurable but absolutely microscopic differences determined on ground density and altitude that needs to be explained better than what it has been so far. Like I said, I am not trying to argue from a side but someone will take offense to that more than likely.
You can clearly see that gravity is the effect in play and that the earth is not accelerating upwards. The idea of constant acceleration at a steady rate with no force behind it is asinine.
-
as the title says, why do objects with different mass fall at different rates?
if the earth is accelerating upwards then all objects would 'fall' (as we call it) at the same rate. why is this not true?
The rate at which any given object fall depends greatly on its density and coefficient of drag (wind resistance).
the density is directly related to the mass, it is mass per volume, and we can measure this ourselves right now. you can potentially match drag too if you have the right objects, but the difference is minimal anyway.
You said that all objects should fall at the same rate. You didn't say anything about similar densities or coefficients of drag. Perhaps you should think your premise through a little better before you start making questionable claims.
-
I am not arguing from either side of the debate, but if you can remove air resistance as a factor by performing the experiment in a vacuum chamber or using identically shaped enclosures(like a water bottle filled 1/4 and on full) Everything hits the floor at pretty much the same time which means falling at the same rate.
Also, whether by centrifical, acceleration upwards or gravity accelerating downwards, the objects would essentially react identically. Gravity supporters point out some measurable but absolutely microscopic differences determined on ground density and altitude that needs to be explained better than what it has been so far. Like I said, I am not trying to argue from a side but someone will take offense to that more than likely.
You can clearly see that gravity is the effect in play and that the earth is not accelerating upwards. The idea of constant acceleration at a steady rate with no force behind it is asinine.
Ah, you speak of Ylva. The great energy source of the earth's underside. I fear if we ever see the day where Ylva energy is exhausted and life as we know it ceases to exist.
As for current conditions: I have tested this subject thoroughly.
An easy example: I go to the local farmers market on Sundays in the summer and I like to buy large bulbous eggplants. I noticed one day that when I accidentally dropped all of the local product which I was carrying...the foods hit the ground at approximately the same time. I then picked up mandarin oranges and one of the biggest, firmest eggplant bulbs, and held my arms straight out. To my astonishment, the oranges hit the ground at the same time as the eggplant. Now, I had ruined my beautiful purple specimen doing so but it demonstrated to me that the earth's acceleration did not lead to unique outcomes for the fruit.
However, the shape of objects and their composition can be effected differently by our atmosphere. It is not strictly related to mass though!
-
You can clearly see that gravity is the effect in play and that the earth is not accelerating upwards. The idea of constant acceleration at a steady rate with no force behind it is asinine.
- Who said that there is "no force behind it"? Have you been under the earth to check it out?
- Maybe "it is asinine", but could you offer some evidence that "it is asinine"?
Just asking!
-
Universal acceleration??
What would bring us back to Earth, were we to, for some unknown reason, jump into the air?
Yep... Asinine!
-
Universal acceleration??
What would bring us back to Earth, were we to, for some unknown reason, jump into the air?
Because "Universal acceleration" is, according to FE theory, not quite "Universal acceleration".
The earth and the stellar objects (sun, moon, planets and stars) are all being accelerated but objects on the earth (including us) and the atmosphere and objects near earth (birds, aircraft and balloons etc) are not accelerated.
So all of these appear to behave (nearly) as they would under gravitation.
Yep... Asinine!
-
What would bring us back to Earth, were we to, for some unknown reason, jump into the air?
Nothing. Earth speeds up and catches up with us.
-
What would bring us back to Earth, were we to, for some unknown reason, jump into the air?
Nothing. Earth speeds up and catches up with us.
So, if I attend a basketball game, I should feel fluctuations in my "weight" every time a player jumps? Or even throws the ball?
I can feel very slight changes in acceleration while riding in a car.
-
These slight changes in acceleration are caused by something called inertia, causing objects to ''lag'' when a forces tries to tug at them.
(I may be wrong on this, I don't know what kind of changes are you experiencing)
On the other side, IF there is a force pushing Earth upwards and the Earth doesn't have a core, why haven't we EVER managed to drill down to below Earth?
Don't tell me ''Because God would smite U with some kind of lightning, as shown in the tower of babel thingy.''
-
What would bring us back to Earth, were we to, for some unknown reason, jump into the air?
Nothing. Earth speeds up and catches up with us.
So, if I attend a basketball game, I should feel fluctuations in my "weight" every time a player jumps? Or even throws the ball?
I can feel very slight changes in acceleration while riding in a car.
Why would there be changes? I guess you were saying the acceleration would change per person jumping or something like that but its not. Constant acceleration, as in unchanging, at 9.8 meters per second per second. It isn't something that reacts to each person, but continues to accelerate as a complete thing with each objector person riding on top of it. Also, you jump into the air, but what would continue to accelerate you faster than the acceleration of the Earth moving up to you when you jump.
-
Why would I not continue accelerating just as the Earth does, only 4 feet above the ground?
Have you redefined "universal"?
-
Why would I not continue accelerating just as the Earth does, only 4 feet above the ground?
Because as soon as your feet leave the ground you stop accelerating but the flat earth doesn't.
Universal refers to the flat earth and the celestial objects that make up the universe. It does not include objects on or near the flat earth.
-
Why would I not continue accelerating just as the Earth does, only 4 feet above the ground?
Have you redefined "universal"?
Semantics are not a valid argument, Just because you wish to play silly with someone else's use of the term universal acceleration doesn't excuse your intentional ignorance of constant acceleration.
-
Why would I not continue accelerating just as the Earth does, only 4 feet above the ground?
Have you redefined "universal"?
Semantics are not a valid argument, Just because you wish to play silly with someone else's use of the term universal acceleration doesn't excuse your intentional ignorance of constant acceleration.
It's not a thing
Just like flat earth is not a thing.
This is ALL silly!
-
So, if I attend a basketball game, I should feel fluctuations in my "weight" every time a player jumps? Or even throws the ball?
No you shouldn't as you are nowhere near sensitive enough (and that is the same with gravity and RE).
Also, you seem to be misunderstanding.
Earth doesn't just sit there then speed up when someone jumps.
In this model Earth is constantly accelerating.
When you jump you lose connection to Earth and stop accelerating, allowing Earth to catch up to you.
-
as the title says, why do objects with different mass fall at different rates?
if the earth is accelerating upwards then all objects would 'fall' (as we call it) at the same rate. why is this not true?
The rate at which any given object fall depends greatly on its density and coefficient of drag (wind resistance).
the density is directly related to the mass, it is mass per volume, and we can measure this ourselves right now. you can potentially match drag too if you have the right objects, but the difference is minimal anyway.
You said that all objects should fall at the same rate. You didn't say anything about similar densities or coefficients of drag. Perhaps you should think your premise through a little better before you start making questionable claims.
i just did say that. perhaps you should read before you reply
-
as the title says, why do objects with different mass fall at different rates?
if the earth is accelerating upwards then all objects would 'fall' (as we call it) at the same rate. why is this not true?
You said. Above quote for reference. All objects with different mass fall at different rates. This is completely false. If you remove all external forces other than gravity, all object DO fall at the same rate regardless of the mass.
Markjo pointed out that you changed your argument after he pointed it out earlier. Below quote for clarity
as the title says, why do objects with different mass fall at different rates?
if the earth is accelerating upwards then all objects would 'fall' (as we call it) at the same rate. why is this not true?
The rate at which any given object fall depends greatly on its density and coefficient of drag (wind resistance).
the density is directly related to the mass, it is mass per volume, and we can measure this ourselves right now. you can potentially match drag too if you have the right objects, but the difference is minimal anyway.
You said that all objects should fall at the same rate. You didn't say anything about similar densities or coefficients of drag. Perhaps you should think your premise through a little better before you start making questionable claims.
i just did say that. perhaps you should read before you reply
Perhaps, you should remember what you typed before complaining that someone can't read what you typed.
Again though, your premise is incorrect. When you say something dumb and someone points it out, just do one of two things, admit it or be quiet. Otherwise you just look more dumb.
-
Tun, I would encourage you to carry out a similar procedure to mine at a farmer's market. You can even do it in a private corner of your local grocer as long as no one is looking! Pick out two vegetables or fruit with different masses. Hold them at the same height, and release them.
There is something quite exhilarating about grasping a large cucumber in one hand and a baby banana in the other, holding them to the same level, having a simultaneous release, and hearing them hit the floor at the same time.
-
Gravitational attraction is proportional to mass. Also, the force that it takes to accelerate an object is proportional to mass. Those effects exactly cancel each other out leading to constant acceleration for all falling objects (air resistance aside).
-
What would bring us back to Earth, were we to, for some unknown reason, jump into the air?
Nothing. Earth speeds up and catches up with us.
Then how do planes fly straight? The Earth should pretty much catch up to them if they stay straight for more than a minute.
Do you realise that if the Earth kept speeding up, at 9.8 m/s^2 we would have reached the speed of light already. (That would mean our atoms wouldn't manage to stick together and we would vaporize)
-
What would bring us back to Earth, were we to, for some unknown reason, jump into the air?
Nothing. Earth speeds up and catches up with us.
Then how do planes fly straight? The Earth should pretty much catch up to them if they stay straight for more than a minute.
Do you realise that if the Earth kept speeding up, at 9.8 m/s^2 we would have reached the speed of light already. (That would mean our atoms wouldn't manage to stick together and we would vaporize)
It always surprises me to see people speak so confidently about something they don't understand in the slightest. Planes would fly just fine, because they would still generate lift in exactly the same way, because a gravitational field is no different than a constantly accelerating frame of reference. Google "Equivalence Principle."
And while you are at it, ask Google if something can accelerate forever WITHOUT reaching the speed of light.
Your know-it-all post is entirely wrong.
-
What would bring us back to Earth, were we to, for some unknown reason, jump into the air?
Nothing. Earth speeds up and catches up with us.
Then how do planes fly straight? The Earth should pretty much catch up to them if they stay straight for more than a minute.
Do you realise that if the Earth kept speeding up, at 9.8 m/s^2 we would have reached the speed of light already. (That would mean our atoms wouldn't manage to stick together and we would vaporize)
It always surprises me to see people speak so confidently about something they don't understand in the slightest. Planes would fly just fine, because they would still generate lift in exactly the same way, because a gravitational field is no different than a constantly accelerating frame of reference. Google "Equivalence Principle."
And while you are at it, ask Google if something can accelerate forever WITHOUT reaching the speed of light.
Your know-it-all post is entirely wrong.
It is so convenient to use science whenever you need it and deny it when you don't like it, isn't it?
-
Are you trying to take a dig at me? Don't get upset with me just because you misunderstand some basic concepts and felt like being condescending. It didn't work out this time. Because you were wrong.
-
Misunderstanding basic concepts such as... gravity for example? It's a pretty long shot from "earth attracts us" to "earth is being pushed into us"
-
Misunderstanding basic concepts such as... gravity for example? It's a pretty long shot from "earth attracts us" to "earth is being pushed into us"
See, you are deflecting again. You misunderstood the Equivalence Principle and how acceleration works at relativistic speeds. Frankly, I'd be willing to bet discussing things like frame of reference would probably be a little outside your comfort zone. Yet you brought up the Earth going faster than c as if you knew what you were talking about.
You can lead a horse to water.
-
as the title says, why do objects with different mass fall at different rates?
if the earth is accelerating upwards then all objects would 'fall' (as we call it) at the same rate. why is this not true?
They don't.
-
Then how do planes fly straight? The Earth should pretty much catch up to them if they stay straight for more than a minute.
The same way they are able to fly straight on a round Earth. Their wings generate lift which results in them accelerating upwards.
Any argument you present against UA, which doesn't focus on why it happens or why there are variations is equally effective against gravity.
Do you realise that if the Earth kept speeding up, at 9.8 m/s^2 we would have reached the speed of light already. (That would mean our atoms wouldn't manage to stick together and we would vaporize)
You do realise all speeds are relative, and that we wouldn't be going at the speed of light in any reference frame?