The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: belwyrm on August 15, 2008, 09:42:39 AM

Title: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: belwyrm on August 15, 2008, 09:42:39 AM
I believe that every person should believe whatever they want to believe. However, that being said, I'm always up for a good argument, and having read through quite a few of your forums, and reading the debate from both sides, I find your entire argument lacking.

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. I find it strange that flat Earth has not.

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. If you have ever spent any time at sea you would recognize the way land masses such as mountains seem to rise up out of the ocean as you move toward them. Very indicative of a round 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.

I look forward to hearing intelligent responses, please, if you are going to just give me small trivial answers, follow the rules of your own forums and keep silent.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Sir_Drainsalot on August 15, 2008, 09:48:58 AM
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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

Gravity doesnt exist. Really.

Quote
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.

You cannot see curvature from the height at which a commercial jet flies. Maybe you think you can see it, but its not there.

Quote
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.

Did you measure the distance yourself?

Quote
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.

Read the FAQ.


Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: belwyrm on August 15, 2008, 10:56:06 AM
The name of the forum is debate and discussion, which means the burden of truth is on both parties. We're having a debate, regardless of who the initiator is.

There are plenty of Conspiracy theories with proof. Having evidence in no way disproves a conspiracy, it actually makes it more plausible, and the shipping industry would have to be in on it. Travel time and distances on a flat Earth would be extremely different than they are on a round Earth, so shipping times would have to be accounted for.

This is one of those short answers I was talking about. I've seen and read the proofs of gravity. I understand how it would work and why. Your theory of the upward moving Earth has a major hole in it. Einstein's theory of special relativity uses the speed of light as a constant, so if the Earth accelerated to the speed of light from any point of view it would be breaking the rule.

In the theory of Flat Earth you couldn't see curvature from any height, though since we can't show pictures we'll throw this out, instead argue the rising land mass.

I did not, in fact, measure the distance, though I did measure the speed, and the travel time, and can come to some pretty good guesses about distance from that.

And I just read the FAQ, and I have a couple questions about that.

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)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 11:01:10 AM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: belwyrm on August 15, 2008, 11:11:13 AM
Nope, I didn't make any references to Gravitation "propagates" anything. I said that you were miscontstrued in your statement that gravity (as it is in theory) does anything at the speed of light. The theory says that the mass of an object bends the space around it causing smaller objects in that space to be drawn toward it.There would be nothing moving at the speed of light, since the force acting upon the smaller bodies would be the space around them, meaning there was no distance, therefore speed is not an issue.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 11:16:29 AM
Propagation speed is an issue.  Information transfer at FTL speeds is prohibited.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: belwyrm on August 15, 2008, 11:32:36 AM
The transfer of force is not moving at any speed. The force is transferred by by contact, which is zero distance, Distance / speed = time. Zero divided by anything is equal to zero, so the speed is irrelevant. The larger mass transfers the force to space by touch, space transfers the force to the smaller mass by touch. There is zero distance travelled in the transfer of force.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 15, 2008, 11:41:33 AM
A distortion in space-time propagates at the speed of light - there are experiments (I believe involving the moons of Jupiter) which have demonstrated this. Nothing can carry information faster than c, and the location of massive bodies as defined by their gravitational interactions is information just like any other, therefore the 'speed of gravitation' is the space-time constant, c, which also happens to be the speed of light in vacuum.

If you try to argue for instantaneous action at a distance you will be torn to pieces in short order on these forums...

EDIT: I may have misinterpreted this thread - sorry, I was in a hurry...  :-\
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: belwyrm on August 15, 2008, 11:48:26 AM
LOL I can't tell which side you're arguing for Matrix.....Good argument whichever side it's for  ;D
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 15, 2008, 11:51:46 AM
I tip my second hat to you, sir.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 11:54:59 AM
The transfer of force is not moving at any speed.
I know, there is no force.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: FELUNATIC on August 15, 2008, 11:58:59 AM
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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

Gravity doesnt exist. Really.

Quote
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.

You cannot see curvature from the height at which a commercial jet flies. Maybe you think you can see it, but its not there.

Quote
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.

Did you measure the distance yourself?

Quote
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.

Read the FAQ.




-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
-The FAQ doesn't fully explain it
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Kasper Marstal on August 15, 2008, 12:01:39 PM
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. Admitted, this is completely new stuff.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: belwyrm on August 15, 2008, 12:05:32 PM
Thank you Matrix

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". While this type of argument may work rather well inside your own mind, it does not stand up theoretically. So unless you can come up with something startlingly better, I will consider the point ceded and we can move on to any other points you wish to discuss, logically.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 12:08:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 12:10:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Trekky0623 on August 15, 2008, 12:14:42 PM
Acceleration and gravitation are indistinguishable from each other.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Kasper Marstal on August 15, 2008, 12:19:18 PM
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.

Uhm, yes. http://www.physorg.com/news137937526.html (http://www.physorg.com/news137937526.html).
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 12:21:49 PM
Uh, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: belwyrm on August 15, 2008, 12:25:25 PM
Personally I don't believe I'm at rest, I believe that the entire Earth is moving through space, accelerating and deccelerating. And The force I'm talking about is between the objects and space, not the objects and each other.

I'm not saying Gravity is like a magnet, where the two objects are attracted to one another and move closer, I'm saying that the larger object bends space, and the smaller object hits this bend in space and is automatically drawn toward the center, which is the larger object. I saw a wonderful post about an experiment with a tennisball, a basketball, and a sheet you can do yourself.Think of the sheet as space, the basketball as the sun and the tennisball as the earth, stretch the sheet out tight, put the basketball in the center, then put the tennisball on the edge, the tennisball is pulled towards the basketball, regardless of any attraction.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Kasper Marstal on August 15, 2008, 12:27:02 PM
I can link to wikipedia articles too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement).
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 12:29:17 PM
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. 

Quote
And The force I'm talking about is between the objects and space, not the objects and each other.
What force is that?

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 12:30:34 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: belwyrm on August 15, 2008, 12:35:27 PM
LMAO what started as a discussion on flat Earth and Round Earth has developed nicely into a study on quantum physics, who wants to discuss String Theory......

But as I was originally saying

TheEngineer - I know what acceleration you were talking about, which is impossible, due to Einstein's theory of relativity. 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.

And the force is mass. Sheer Weight affects the space around it. Like you affect a trampoline when you get on it. Same concept on a much larger scale.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Kasper Marstal on August 15, 2008, 12:40:17 PM
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?

Hehe.

Granted, this is new stuff so I would not bet my life on it.

Although it seems to me that two scientists could agree on beforehand fx that one touch himself if anything happens to the other's particle. They each take a particle and walk a given distance apart. One alters A and the other observes B is altered. Thus scientist B knows A is touching himself. That could be useful.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 12:40:50 PM
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.   ???

Quote
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.

Quote
And the force is mass.
What about things without mass, then?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: belwyrm on August 15, 2008, 12:52:46 PM
I understand how the closer you accelerate to the speed of light the slower time is supposed to appear to you, but I don't see how it relies on acceleration, it doesn't say that everything is accelerating. 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 own, regardless of time relative to us. Which is impossible. And all matter has mass, theory says all matter has gravity, I don't see a problem here.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 12:56:25 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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 own
No, that plane would see our acceleration slow, taking an infinite amount of time to reach the speed of light.

Quote
And all matter has mass, theory says all matter has gravity, I don't see a problem here.
What about things without matter?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: belwyrm on August 15, 2008, 01:11:40 PM
Oops...lol you're right, your time wouldn't change....

I've never heard of GR stating anything about constant upward acceleration, only perpetual freefall

And I cede the point on infinite acceleration.

But the special relativity also depends on gravity, which way back at the beginning of this argument was the point, that it exists, and special relativity takes energy and momentum densities into account (energy has no mass) in it's calculation of gravity.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Sprocker on August 15, 2008, 01:23:18 PM
FE'ers claim that the conspiracy theory is for NASA's benefit....

What about before there was NASA????

The realization that the Earth was round was long before there was any thought of NASA?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 02:31:48 PM
I've never heard of GR stating anything about constant upward acceleration, only perpetual freefall
Well, perhaps you should study up a little.

Quote
But the special relativity also depends on gravity
Special Relativity has nothing to do with gravity.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 15, 2008, 02:36:03 PM
Acceleration and gravitation are indistinguishable from each other.

Locally
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: kainedamo on August 15, 2008, 03:28:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Kasper Marstal on August 15, 2008, 04:05:52 PM
I've never heard of GR stating anything about constant upward acceleration, only perpetual freefall
Well, perhaps you should study up a little.

No, I think he has a point. Could you elaborate, please.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Sir_Drainsalot on August 15, 2008, 04:23:28 PM

-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.




Quote
-Same as the first one (gravity)

Gravity doesnt exist. And this has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Quote
-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

Do you really think those pictures show curvature? All I see is the camera lens causing a fisheye effect. If that was real curvature, then the earth would have a radius of maybe 1000 miles, tops. And Im an REr who has been in a plane plenty of times.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 06:04:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: kainedamo on August 15, 2008, 06:52:43 PM

-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.

Cop out.

This is a debate forum.  And as far as I've seen, no evidence that the RE can offer seems to be good enough.  It seems that you want us to do all giving, and all you do is TAKE.  How about a little give and take?  An exchange of different evidence on both sides?  Usually debates have something resembling just that.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Pastafarian on August 15, 2008, 07:00:23 PM
theres nothing but proof.. go search for it.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: kainedamo on August 15, 2008, 07:05:23 PM
theres nothing but proof.. go search for it.

Whom are you addressing?  If you're an FE, surely you'd be passionate enough about the topic you'd have a dilluge of links and sources at hand to add merit to the theories of flat earth and give evidence to the worldwide conspiracy.  Why does it seem to me like FE'ers are flat out lazy??  Call me nuts, but it kind of seems like FE'ers can barely convince themselves nevermind convince the rest of the world.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 15, 2008, 07:11:44 PM
Call me nuts, but it kind of seems like FE'ers can barely convince themselves nevermind convince the rest of the world.

You came here, we didn't come knocking on your door.  No one, other than the RE'ers, here is trying to convince anyone of anything.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Fletch on August 15, 2008, 07:13:29 PM
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.

ETA: Snap Robbyj
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: CV on August 15, 2008, 07:16:37 PM
So this is a debate forum that you don't want to debate on...  ???
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: kainedamo on August 15, 2008, 07:19:01 PM
Seriously guys, from the pathetic replies to some very basic questions I've seen and asked myself around this forum, the only conclusion I can come to is this - very few of you, if any of you, are actually serious about being flat earthers.

I ask (among many obvious questions in my thread) why no one is willing to go to the ice wall.  I get the pathetic cop out answer "because I know what I would find".  That's stupid.  You would think you guys would be more eager about proving your theories.  There are many more examples.  There are threads FE'ers haven't touched, because you obviously just don't have the answers.  You dodge so many questions.  You lay all the burden of proof on the other side while proclaiming all of it as fake and never providing proof yourselfs.  It's a DEBATE sub forum and you're all horrible debaters.  If it were just one or two of you, but no.  None of you can answer the most simple of questions.  We say, "prove there is a conspiracy".  You simply say "the earth is flat, therefore conspiracy".  That is a child's argument.  You have to see why that isn't good enough, and we've explained why that isn't good enough and when I asked "okay, what OTHER proof is there of conspiracy?" I get yet more cop out answers.

Nobody, not one person, seems to be able to actually answer these questions directly.

You have to see it from my point of view.  From the outside looking in, it looks like a joke.  It looks like you guys aren't serious about being flat earthers.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: kainedamo on August 15, 2008, 07:19:42 PM
So this is a debate forum that you don't want to debate on...  ???

Exactly my point.  They might as well just delete the debate sub forum.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Pastafarian on August 15, 2008, 08:58:22 PM
its simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

there are no FEers posting on this site..those claiming to believe in FET, don't. quite entertaining to be honest. i have had fun since ive been posting here.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 15, 2008, 09:04:12 PM
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.

Negative. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 09:25:42 PM
No, it is correct.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 15, 2008, 09:36:55 PM
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)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 15, 2008, 11:14:29 PM
No, it is correct.
No, to cancel out ones acceleration the earth would actually apply a force. 

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 15, 2008, 11:33:17 PM
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)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: oldsoldier on August 15, 2008, 11:34:36 PM
I find all these discussions about general relativity to be pretty far off topic.

First of all, if the only thing us RE'ers can come up with to poke holes in FE is general relativity, then we're pretty bad. I feel certain 1800s physics can also poke holes in FE and do it with much less noise that always seems to be generated when a discussion about GR starts.

The strongest line in the sand FE has drawn is that they believe in conspiracy theories. Consequently they will not accept the results of any experiment they can not do for themselves. I know of no "General Relativity Home Experimenter's Kit" so again, I think arguments in this vein are doomed to fail to convince FE'ers. I think us RE'ers have much more fruitful paths we can pursue.

One small part of belwyrm's original post was about gravity and within 24 hours 3 pages of this thread were created the majority of it devoted to gravity.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 15, 2008, 11:42:24 PM
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 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? 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Mrs. Peach on August 15, 2008, 11:46:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Fletch on August 15, 2008, 11:54:01 PM
To look at some other questions that have been asked ...
And I just read the FAQ, and I have a couple questions about that.

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)
1. Point of direction & rotation size? Sorry, what are you asking?

2. Obviously if a day is still 24 hours (approx) during any season of the year, the sun's speed during it's orbit must increase/decrease compared to the distance it travels.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 16, 2008, 12:10:04 AM
Why is it when I push on the wall next to me it doesn't move? 

For the same reason when you are pushed into the ground that the earth doesn't move.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 12:15:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Kasper Marstal on August 16, 2008, 05:02:12 AM
No, it is correct.
No, to cancel out ones acceleration the earth would actually apply a force. 

The earth is applying a force. Both in RE and FE. While in your chair you are not experiencing a downward acceleration so the chair is applying an upward force of exactly 9.82 m*s^-2 times your mass that cancels out the gravitational field.

No, it is correct.

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?

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 07:59:36 AM
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.

The wall actually applies an equal and opposite force. 
How does an acceleration cancel out a force? 

Also, please use the EP correctly. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 16, 2008, 08:01:40 AM
How does an acceleration cancel out a force?

It doesn't.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 08:13:17 AM
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.   
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 16, 2008, 08:16:20 AM
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.   

That is correct.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 10:14:48 AM
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. 

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 10:15:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 16, 2008, 10:55:54 AM
I never said the Earth is accelerating upwards in RE.  I said you are.  Please learn to read.

Isn't the Earth accelerating upwards too? Or rather, outwards?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: oldsoldier on August 16, 2008, 12:40:41 PM
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.

Thanks, Mrs Peach, I was beginning to think my posts were being ignored.

Anyway... I can see the fun you're having, but it does seem rather tedious to me.
It looks like about 1/2 of the RE posters understand gravity correctly and also understand what FE is trying to say about gravity.
About 1/2 of the RE posters do not and ask the same "off-topic" questions over and over again.
Similarly, about 1/2 of the FE posters don't understand either what FE says about gravity or the legitimate questions the "scientifically correct" RE posters are asking
and, about 1/2 of the FE'ers do.

If this thread had consisted only of REers who knew what they were talking about and FEers who were willing to listen and capable of understanding then we'd make progress. As it is as soon as one of the misinformed (on either side) makes a mistake the other side pounces on it and claims it as a victory for them. All rather pointless to me.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 12:51:18 PM
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.

You said the person is accelerating upwards for some magical reason. 
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.  Please note it must stand true for all objects not just people. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Josef on August 16, 2008, 01:12:06 PM
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.
Am I wrong?
And, does it really matter what we call things? Mostly people mean the same with different words..
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 01:20:30 PM
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.
Am I wrong?
And, does it really matter what we call things? Mostly people mean the same with different words..
You are correct.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 03:40:14 PM
You said the person is accelerating upwards for some magical reason. 
The person is accelerating because of the mechanical resistance of the Earth.

Quote
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.

Quote
Please note it must stand true for all objects not just people.
Of course it is. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 04:14:24 PM
You said the person is accelerating upwards for some magical reason. 
The person is accelerating because of the mechanical resistance of the Earth.
Resistance isn't acceleration. It would be a force.  An equal and opposite force is needed to negate another force. 

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.   
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 04:21:41 PM
Resistance isn't acceleration. It would be a force.  An equal and opposite force is needed to negate another force. 
What causes a force?

Quote
I use what I learn to not apply the EP incorrectly. 
So you are saying that this is too difficult for you?

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 04:25:21 PM
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 believe its called "nuclear force", maybe the weak one.  electromagnetic force.

Quote

So you are saying that this is too difficult for you?
I do not apply the EP to non local FOR. 

Quote

It's attached to the Earth somehow, right?
Yes, gravitation is accelerating it into the earth. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 04:48:15 PM
I believe its called "nuclear force", maybe the weak one.  electromagnetic force.
What?

Quote
I do not apply the EP to non local FOR. 
So again, you can't figure out the experiment?

Quote
Yes, gravitation is accelerating it into the earth.
No, the Earth is accelerating it up.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 04:56:49 PM

What?
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. 

Quote

So again, you can't figure out the experiment?
What are you even talking about now? 

Quote

No, the Earth is accelerating it up.
No.


Maybe we are tlaking about two different events or something. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 05:02:35 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Maybe we are tlaking about two different events or something.
Or, maybe, you are an idiot.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: quazar83 on August 16, 2008, 05:06:32 PM
If you're looking for an intelligent argument you won't find one!  FE's have absolutely no proof.  All you will hear is "it's an optical illusion, it's a lie, it's a conspiracy," and on and on and on.  They have no evidence of an FE while an RE has been completely proven to exist.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on August 16, 2008, 05:16:46 PM
Engy says it best in his sig. Mass = Gravity.  I'm not sure what the magic part is in his equation, so lets just throw it out. 

Win for RE.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 05:25:52 PM
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. 

Gravitation is causing me to accelerate down, what's causing me to accelerate up? 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 06:00:05 PM
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? 

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 06:38:55 PM
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? 



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?   
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: oka nieba on August 16, 2008, 06:44:53 PM



[/quote]

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?   
[/quote]

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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 06:50:47 PM




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?   
[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

Kinda in the FE.  Although in the fe objects never reach terminal velocity.  Objects in the Fe never fall down.   
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.   
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 09:07:13 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 09:09:25 PM
Kinda in the FE.  Although in the fe objects never reach terminal velocity.   
Uh, they sure as hell do.

Quote
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: 
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0)
Can't you read?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 09:16:49 PM
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?   

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?
[/quote]

Kinda in the FE.  Although in the fe objects never reach terminal velocity.  Objects in the Fe never fall down.   
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.   
[/quote]
According to the FE model if you jump off a cliff you do not accelerate up or down your acceleration is zero and the earth keeps accelerating and it catches up to you.

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 09:24:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 09:45:28 PM

Uh, they sure as hell do.
FOR, in the FET terminal velocity means the objects acceleration matches the earths.  These are obviously accelerating. 
Quote

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 once again, you apply the EP wrong and now can't back it up.  Typical you, pseudoengineer. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 09:56:39 PM
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.
So if someone jumps off a cliff they will accelerate back to the surface of the earth in the FE model?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 16, 2008, 10:20:42 PM
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.


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.
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)

          Well same thing for space and the fabric of space time. think of Earth as a baseball and Jupiter as bowling ball.
 This is the same reason a black hole distorts space time, because it is ultra massive and its area of effect is wide and vast
Gravity is only magic to those who dont understand
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 10:59:36 PM
FOR, in the FET terminal velocity means the objects acceleration matches the earths.  These are obviously accelerating. 
Where is the complication?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:00:09 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 11:01:14 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:01:37 PM
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.
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)
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:02:22 PM
And according to the FE model how would someone reach their terminal velocity?
Acceleration of the person = acceleration of the FE
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 11:03:04 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:03:32 PM
Air resistance.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 11:03:52 PM
Air resistance.
is that it
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:06:03 PM
Unless he is wearing a rocket pack...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 11:06:59 PM
Unless he is wearing a rocket pack...
so how will that give you the same result as the RE model
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:12:34 PM
How will it not?

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 11:14:19 PM
How will it not?

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.
what is his acceleration relative to
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:16:49 PM
The Earth.  That should have been obvious.   :-\
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 11:18:08 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:19:22 PM
Air resistance.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 16, 2008, 11:20:14 PM
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.
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)
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?

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.
The amount distorted is directly related to the amount of mass in the object.
The more massive the object the more distortion. try it. The baseball will not dip and distort the blanket as much as the bowling ball.
Space doesnt "choose" the distortion amount, the dip and distortion is a reaction based purely on  how massive said object is.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:23:35 PM
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.

Quote
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?
BTW, what about objects without mass?  Why are you leaving them out?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 11:28:23 PM
the FE model
(http://i37.tinypic.com/2wncj9i.gif)

The RE model
(http://i35.tinypic.com/2dgj521.gif)


So tell me how they are equal?

Which will give you

FE = R
RE = mg-R
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:32:42 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 16, 2008, 11:35:50 PM
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.

Quote
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?
BTW, what about objects without mass?  Why are you leaving them out?
what do you mean transfer of information? this isnt a mechanism.
In the example i cited, would you say the baseball or bowlingball transfers information to the blanket? No it doesnt, the blanket merely reacts  based on the amount of mass.
when you lay on your matress and it indents, does your body transfer information to the matress? no it doesnt. it reacts based on you.
The world is not a giant computer program where information needs to transfer to do everything.
for every action, there is a reaction.

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 11:36:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:37:16 PM
You forgot to put in the acceleration of the FE.  Like you did last time.  When everyone called you an idiot.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 11:38:30 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:40:37 PM
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?

Quote
In the example i cited, would you say the baseball or bowlingball transfers information to the blanket?
Yes it does.

Quote
No it doesnt, the blanket merely reacts  based on the amount of mass.
Due to a reaction based on a transfer of information.

Quote
when you lay on your matress and it indents, does your body transfer information to the matress?
Yes it does.

Quote
The world is not a giant computer program where information needs to transfer to do everything.
Uh, yes, information is required for every interaction.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:41:40 PM
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
No, you sure didn't. 

Take the air out.  Perform this same thing in a vacuum.  What will the results be?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 16, 2008, 11:43:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 11:44:22 PM
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
No, 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. now how about my question
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:46:10 PM
According to the FE model the person will just sit there.
Relative to what?  Not the Earth, I hope.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 16, 2008, 11:46:39 PM
According to the FE model the person will just sit there. now how about my question
No, the FE accelerates toward the person with no drag under this experiment.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 16, 2008, 11:48:30 PM
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?

Quote
In the example i cited, would you say the baseball or bowlingball transfers information to the blanket?
Yes it does.

Quote
No it doesnt, the blanket merely reacts  based on the amount of mass.
Due to a reaction based on a transfer of information.

Quote
when you lay on your matress and it indents, does your body transfer information to the matress?
Yes it does.

Quote
The world is not a giant computer program where information needs to transfer to do everything.
Uh, yes, information is required for every interaction.

Quote
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.




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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 11:49:15 PM
According to the FE model the person will just sit there.
Relative to what?  Not the Earth, I hope.
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 velocity
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 16, 2008, 11:50:39 PM
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.
No, you left out energy/momentum/stress-energy tensor.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dark Knight on August 16, 2008, 11:54:46 PM
Ok, simple question,  Gravitation is caused by our constante Acceleration, and I read in another foram that air resistance and contact with the earth hold us in place.  Then wouldn't it be really really windy?  Or since we have a dome over us holding the air in then, if I were to let a balloon float, wouldn't it come crashing down since the earth accelerated into it?  How come we don't fly into the moon?  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.  Was the 12 year old that sailed around the world in on this conspiricy?  Is the entire universe accelerating in the same direction and at the same speed?  What is behind us as we Fly in the direction we are going.  And my 8 year old wants to know if you have any pictures of the 150 foot Ice walls that are around the entire world and how deep do these sheets of Ice go.  Wouldn't currents cause some ice to jam up on the sides?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 16, 2008, 11:55:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:56:26 PM
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?

Quote
The blanket is not alive and intelligent therefore it can not process "information"
What?

Quote
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?

Quote
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
Wow, that is amazing.  You must not have ever taken a class in physics.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:57:32 PM
the model predicts the objects acceleration would be zero
Relative to what?

Quote
how about answering my question as it pertains to terminal velocity
I'm working up to that.  I have found that you require painful detail before you can understand anything.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 11:58:58 PM
the model predicts the objects acceleration would be zero
Relative to what?

Quote
how about answering my question as it pertains to terminal velocity
I'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 words
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 17, 2008, 12:02:19 AM
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? 

You said the acceleration would be zero.  I just want to know: Zero relative to what? 

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 12:06:35 AM
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? 

You said the acceleration would be zero.  I just want to know: Zero relative to what? 


I asked you a question first so how about you either answer it or admit you do not know
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 17, 2008, 12:06:59 AM
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?

Quote
The blanket is not alive and intelligent therefore it can not process "information"
What?

Quote
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?

Quote
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
Wow, that is amazing.  You must not have ever taken a class in physics.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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 Blanket DOESN'T "know" the base ball is on it
Just as the chair Im sitting in doesnt "know" im sitting on it.
the effects of these are purely reactions.
and no, an object without mas produces no distortions. Can you name one instance?

that wouldnt work.
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.


Im using hard science and equations. Your trying to use conjecture and word play on the word "know"

That blanket example shows you right there how gravity works
Think of the blanket as space and the baseball as Earth. it is the exact same thing, accept for on a much much larger scale.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 12:11:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 17, 2008, 12:12:02 AM
I asked you a question first so how about you either answer it or admit you do not know
I answered the question already.  The two instances are indistinguishable. 

Now, let's get back to our little experiment.
We have two big vacuum chambers, one on the RE and the other on the FE.
Both contain a mass at a mere 1m above the ground.
Both masses are released at the same time.
What happens to each mass?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 17, 2008, 12:14:16 AM
The Blanket DOESN'T "know" the base ball is on it
Then how can the blanket distort?

Quote
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.

Quote
and no, an object without mas produces no distortions. Can you name one instance?
Photons.

Quote
that wouldnt work.
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.
Explain gravitational lensing, using your 'gravity'.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 12:15:13 AM
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
I am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topics

Your failure to answer is just demonstrating you lack of knowledge here
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 17, 2008, 12:22:28 AM
I am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topics
I'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.

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 17, 2008, 12:29:00 AM
The Blanket DOESN'T "know" the base ball is on it
Then how can the blanket distort?

Quote
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.

Quote
and no, an object without mas produces no distortions. Can you name one instance?
Photons.

Quote
that wouldnt work.
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.
Explain gravitational lensing, using your 'gravity'.

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.

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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 12:33:00 AM
I am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topics
I'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.


well you almost answered the question, I know the question was confusing but here it goes again
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 12:36:00 AM
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".
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 17, 2008, 12:45:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 01:30:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on August 17, 2008, 01:31:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 01:32:49 AM
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.

Get smarter.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 17, 2008, 01:34:31 AM
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.
No, you left out energy/momentum/stress-energy tensor.
energy /momentum/stress arent even all in the same class
Momentum is a force a word to describe a reaction, energy does have mass
because energy is e=Mc2  if mass was 0 the equation would be 0.
try again.

gravity will effect anything within its field.

But only things with mass produce gravity

E=mc2 :) try again ahahah.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 01:35:09 AM
What about black holes?  Serious question.
What about them?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 17, 2008, 01:35:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on August 17, 2008, 01:36:22 AM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 01:47:56 AM
energy /momentum/stress arent even all in the same class
They aren't. They are sources of a gravitational field.

Momentum is a force a word to describe a reaction, energy does have mass
Huh, momentum is what again?

because energy is e=Mc2  if mass was 0 the equation would be 0.
try again.
You forgot E = pc.

gravity will effect anything within its field.
Except light, of course. There goes your argument.

But only things with mass produce gravity
For gravity, yes. For gravitation, nope.

E=mc2 :) try again ahahah.
You used the wrong equation. Of course, you wrote the equation wrong, too...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 17, 2008, 01:55:59 AM
energy /momentum/stress arent even all in the same class
They aren't. They are sources of a gravitational field.

Momentum is a force a word to describe a reaction, energy does have mass
Huh, momentum is what again?

because energy is e=Mc2  if mass was 0 the equation would be 0.
try again.
You forgot E = pc.

gravity will effect anything within its field.
Except light, of course. There goes your argument.

But only things with mass produce gravity
For 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.
E = MC squared.

and that is the correct equation for energy, because all matter contains energy.
The atom bomb works by converting matter into energy.

and again your wrong about light.

Because gravity warps space time, and light has to travel through said space time, therefore light is effected by gravity. again, nice try.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 02:08:01 AM
I didnt right the equation wrong, i just dont know the button to type suoer script.
E = MC squared.
Still wrong.

and that is the correct equation for energy, because all matter contains energy.
The atom bomb works by converting matter into energy.
So? This is irrelevant. You use E = pc.

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: wikipedia
According to general relativity, mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result.

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 recommend you to stop posting to avoid getting pwned more.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 17, 2008, 02:11:25 AM
I didnt right the equation wrong, i just dont know the button to type suoer script.
E = MC squared.
Still wrong.

and that is the correct equation for energy, because all matter contains energy.
The atom bomb works by converting matter into energy.
So? This is irrelevant. You use E = pc.

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: wikipedia
According to general relativity, mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result.

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 recommend you to stop posting to avoid getting pwned more.

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. Nice try their buddy. PWNED.

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. you just PWNed yourself, and explained rgavitational lensing, using RE fact, at the same time. Nice try jack.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 02:21:56 AM
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.

Quote
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.

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".
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 17, 2008, 02:24:32 AM
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.

Quote
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.

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. period
 
E=MC squared is not wrong. your saying Einstein was wrong?

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 02:28:40 AM
Gravity bends space time.  this distorts light. period
Nope.

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 02:36:25 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 02:40:51 AM
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.

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.
Light can be assigned a mass though, replace one of the masses with the equation: h(nu)/c2 and you will get your result
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 02:43:08 AM
I am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topics
I'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.


well you almost answered the question, I know the question was confusing but here it goes again
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

So no equations yet?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 02:43:44 AM
Light can be assigned a mass though, replace one of the masses with the equation: h(nu)/c2 and you will get your result

We are discussing whether Newton's theory of gravity agrees with General Relativity. The equivalence of mass and energy was not fully understood until 218 years after Newton published his thoughts on gravitation.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 03:11:10 AM
Light can be assigned a mass though, replace one of the masses with the equation: h(nu)/c2 and you will get your result
But photons are massless.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 03:22:02 AM
Light can be assigned a mass though, replace one of the masses with the equation: h(nu)/c2 and you will get your result
But photons are massless.
they can be given a relativistic mass through that equation
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 03:24:37 AM
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 equation
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
You mean this?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dark Knight on August 17, 2008, 03:41:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Fletch on August 17, 2008, 04:33:19 AM
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.
Secondly, Brit and Russian are established and acceptable words. Jap is slang and derogatory.
Lastly, Asian is the race you're thinking of. Oriental refers to a location (the Orient) in the same way that Japanese refers to Japan.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 17, 2008, 08:03:32 AM
So no equations yet?
FE = ma - R
RE = mg - R

Wow, look at that! 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 08:12:58 AM
FOR, in the FET terminal velocity means the objects acceleration matches the earths.  These are obviously accelerating. 
Where is the complication?

Quote
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.

Stop hiding from the question.  Why is the guy in your sig accelerating upwards?  I know you can't answer that. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 17, 2008, 08:29:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 08:33:08 AM
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.
He is still not accelerating upwards.  He is being held down by a physical acceleration.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on August 17, 2008, 09:21:38 AM
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?

I feel so ignored.  :-[
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 09:28:34 AM
1 Gravitation, unlike gravity, can affect light.
2 Black hole has gravitation, not gravity.
3 The gravitational field of a black hole is too great.
-----
4 Therefore, light cannot escape from a black hole.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on August 17, 2008, 09:36:36 AM
Isn't gravitation caused by gravity?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on August 17, 2008, 09:37:57 AM
Gravity - The gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface (2): a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation, gravitational force
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: divito the truthist on August 17, 2008, 09:41:12 AM
Isn't gravitation caused by gravity?

No.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on August 17, 2008, 09:48:12 AM
Not according to the definition posted.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 09:57:29 AM
Apparently, the dude who wrote that definition probably knew nothing about General Relativity. Or, the definition is wrong.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 10:10:39 AM
So no equations yet?
FE = ma - R
RE = mg - R

Wow, look at that! 
Wow you need to work on your coordinate system that is just really sad, all that time and that is the best you can do
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 10:11:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 10:14:07 AM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 10:25:24 AM
Nope

So you don't believe that General Relativity is correct?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 10:36:34 AM
Nope

So you don't believe that General Relativity is correct?

GR does not make such claims. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 10:40:17 AM
GR does not make such claims. 

I am quite certain that it does, however as my knowledge on the subject is too limited to justify this position further, I shall leave it to those more educated (such as TheEngineer) to illuminate your stupidity from here onward.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 10:45:00 AM
Quote
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
So free fall is no longer an inertial motion?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 11:17:55 AM
Quote
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
So free fall is no longer an inertial motion?

Nope to the "No, he is accelerating upwards." part. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:19:26 AM
Nope to the "No, he is accelerating upwards." part. 

So when you are in freefall, you are both inertial and accelerating?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 11:25:59 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:28:17 AM
When in freefall you are accelerating only due to gravitation. 

You didn't answer my question.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 11:31:03 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:35:49 AM
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)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 11:40:04 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:45:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 11:50:58 AM
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.
mg-R
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:56:06 AM
mg-R

That is not a free body diagram.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:06:22 PM
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.

There are no forces acting on someone in free fall(in a vacuum). 


Are you claiming there are forces? 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 12:18:40 PM
Are you claiming there are forces? 

No, you are.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:19:30 PM
Are you claiming there are forces? 

No, you are.
Nope, never did. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 12:30:09 PM
Nope, never did. 

How can there be acceleration without a force?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:31:35 PM
Nope, never did. 

How can there be acceleration without a force?
Einstein answers this question the best.  I will simply say bent spacetime. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 12:37:17 PM
Einstein answers this question the best.  I will simply say bent spacetime. 

Einstein never said there could be acceleration with no force.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:39:33 PM
Einstein answers this question the best.  I will simply say bent spacetime. 

Einstein never said there could be acceleration with no force.

WHAT?  Please learn GR. 
Quote
In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force.

Now please leave and go research.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 12:47:34 PM
Einstein never said there could be acceleration with no force.

WHAT?  Please learn GR. 
Quote
In 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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:48:19 PM
Einstein never said there could be acceleration with no force.

WHAT?  Please learn GR. 
Quote
In 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? 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 12:50:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:52:57 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 12:55:37 PM
One of the effects of gravitation is acceleration. 

No it isn't.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:57:44 PM
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? 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 01:01:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 17, 2008, 01:02:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 01:05:48 PM
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?

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.

I know  what I am talking about, he does not.  As I sated before, I have seen SR and some GR in college. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 01:08:51 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 01:11:22 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 01:18:26 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 01:25:28 PM
How would a sky diver hit the ground if he never accelerated?

The ground accelerates up to meet the skydiver.

I know  what I am talking about, he does not.  As I sated before, I have seen SR and some GR in college. 

No amount of education will get those cogs in your head spinning.

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

No it isn't. It holds true for both models.

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. 

Of course if they aren't in a vacuum, they will accelerate due to friction (unless the medium that they are in is moving at the same velocity).

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.

You have the correct interpretation of freefall. One of the strange consequences of relativity is that you are accelerating up, falling objects are not accelerating down.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 02:01:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 02:03:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on August 17, 2008, 02:04:36 PM
This holds true in RET too. It's difficult to understand, but so are a lot of Einstein's ideas.

Especially the ones that are inaccurate.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 02:21:05 PM
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..
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 02:23:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 02:33:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 02:40:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 02:52:38 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 02:54:47 PM
What you said is true only for the FET. 

Anytime you feel like moving past the year 1914 is fine by me.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 02:57:12 PM
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.
In the RET I could pick a FOR that is inertial, and see a person in freefall accelerating towards the earth. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 02:57:22 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 02:59:47 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on August 17, 2008, 03:02:55 PM
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?

Sometimes it is.  The transfer between apogee and perigee around the sun.  Between perigee and apogee is should be decelerating.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on August 17, 2008, 03:04:57 PM
Oops thats the moon term

Earths term in relation to the sun is perihelion and aphelion.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 03:07:38 PM
In the RET I could pick a FOR that is inertial, and see a person in freefall accelerating towards the earth. 

No you couldn't. Not if you were close enough to see them at all, anyway.

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

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!
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 03:08:48 PM
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.

Yes, but its not accelerating up. Up in RE is outwards.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 03:09:02 PM
But in RE the earth is not accelerating. Have I missed something?

It is accelerating. It is accelerating outwards from its centre of mass. As I said, it is a difficult concept to get one's head around, but that's modern physics for you.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 03:12:48 PM
If you were in a vacuum then the diagram would look different. In that case you can use the EP because nothing changes(assuming a constant gravitational acceleration). But in the real world what I provided will prove accurate enough to verify which model is correct

And if you have a better free body diagram I would love to see it
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 03:13:38 PM


No you couldn't. Not if you were close enough to see them at all, anyway.

Yes I could.  




Quote
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!

A person in a space suit free falling in a vacuum will not feel a force or acceleration.  
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 03:16:54 PM
And if you have a better free body diagram I would love to see it

Here:

(http://i36.tinypic.com/jrv1he.gif)

Quote
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!

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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 03:19:21 PM
And if you have a better free body diagram I would love to see it

Here:

(http://i36.tinypic.com/jrv1he.gif)

Quote
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!

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 ???
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 03:22:32 PM

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. 

They can accelerate without feeling it, as there is no force involved. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 03:24:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 03:25:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 03:26:11 PM
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.
Now where does your F=ma come from?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 03:26:43 PM
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.

Bent spacetime will cause acceleration. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 03:29:20 PM
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)

Bent spacetime will cause acceleration. 

No it won't.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 03:31:55 PM
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)

I understand the concept of the equation but how did you pull that force out of this?

(http://i36.tinypic.com/jrv1he.gif)

Quote
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 03:34:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 03:36:24 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 03:40:03 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 03:41:42 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 03:43:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 03:45:51 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 03:47:45 PM
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

So a force is applied to an object but doesn't cause it to accelerate?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 03:50:38 PM
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

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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 03:56:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 17, 2008, 03:58:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 03:59:21 PM
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.

That quote proves nothing but your ignorance of basic physics.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 04:00:38 PM
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.
So show me how you would calculate the terminal velocity of an object using the FE model
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 04:05:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 04:08:09 PM

No it won't.

It will. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 04:09:06 PM
It will. 

It really won't.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 04:11:25 PM
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.
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 04:12:53 PM
It will. 

It really won't.

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? 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 04:14:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 04:15:37 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 04:17:34 PM
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.
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?  
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 04:19:50 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 04:26:50 PM
Just curious if you understood your model correctly

I'm not the one saying there is no such thing as terminal velocity.

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?  

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.

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 not familiar with calculations involving air resistance, however I can very easily spot the error in your equation. Acceleration is caused by force, not the other way around. The net force vector is always equal to the product of the acceleration vector and the mass scalar. You cannot add -.5CpAv2 to one side of the equation and not the other.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 04:36:29 PM


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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 04:41:08 PM
I don't expect you to know what I am getting at.

Okay.

The twin paradox shows who has the effects of velocity.

I am aware of that, terribly worded as it is.

When I throw a ball I first must accelerate it.

Obviously.

This is non inertial.

Even more obviously.

Once again, there are FORs in the RE that show gravitation causing acceleration. 

No there aren't.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 04:44:45 PM

No there aren't.
Post evidence.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 17, 2008, 04:45:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 05:17:54 PM
Just curious if you understood your model correctly
I'm not the one saying there is no such thing as terminal velocity.
Neither am I but the FE model sure as hell states it

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
The 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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 17, 2008, 06:12:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 07:42:47 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 17, 2008, 08:40:42 PM
Which is what I said.  Lots of pages ago.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 09:54:54 PM
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.
Really it looks like you said the opposite. Lots of pages ago
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 17, 2008, 09:58:02 PM
No, I said that in reality, there is no difference.

Note:
Air resistance.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 10:01:12 PM
In case you misunderstood what you said here it is again
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 17, 2008, 10:01:37 PM
Air resistance.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 10:15:17 PM
Here are your Free body diagrams

The FE model:
(http://i36.tinypic.com/jrv1he.gif)
Where is the acceleration of FE?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 10:27:21 PM
Here are your Free body diagrams

The FE model:
(http://i36.tinypic.com/jrv1he.gif)
Where is the acceleration of FE?
Why would we include the acceleration of the FE?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 10:40:28 PM
Because you included gravitation in your other RE model.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 10:41:28 PM
Because you included gravitation in your other RE model.
That is because the model tells us that it does
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 10:43:21 PM
You do know that the acceleration of FE is what mimics the effects of gravitation, right?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 10:44:21 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dark Knight on August 17, 2008, 10:45:11 PM
Thank you for the spelling quiz, Well if you were offended I am sorry, but I will continue to use Jap as it is not being used in a derogatory manner but thank you for the spelling lesson.  It isn't the issue here anyways.  
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 10:47:34 PM
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...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 10:48:07 PM
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 go
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 10:51:25 PM
there you go
What?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 10:55:15 PM
there you go
What?
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 object
Hint: It should look like this
(http://i36.tinypic.com/jrv1he.gif)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 11:03:58 PM
Doesn't drag also accelerate the person?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 11:07:50 PM
Doesn't drag also accelerate the person?
yes that is what R denotes.

R=1/2CpAv2

Where C is the Coefficient of drag, p(roh) is the air density and A is the cross sectional area of the object
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 11:18:18 PM
So you believe the force of gravity exists in the RE model?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 11:20:26 PM
So you believe the force of gravity exists in the RE model?
F=ma

And what would be the acceleration toward the ground in the RE model? Could it be g?

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 17, 2008, 11:48:02 PM
F=ma
Right, 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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 11:49:07 PM
F=ma
Right, 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 force
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 18, 2008, 12:03:54 AM
The "acceleration due to gravity"?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 18, 2008, 12:05:51 AM
The "acceleration due to gravity"?
and when you couple that with an objects mass what do you get?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 18, 2008, 12:10:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 18, 2008, 12:21:38 AM
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?

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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 18, 2008, 12:39:28 AM
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?
???
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 18, 2008, 12:41:03 AM
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 calculations
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 18, 2008, 01:01:12 AM
Free-falling of the person = Acceleration from drag

                                     |
                                     v
                          Terminal Velocity
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 18, 2008, 01:03:10 AM
Free-falling of the person = Acceleration from drag

                                     |
                                     v
                          Terminal Velocity
So what is the Terminal velocity of a smooth ball, and let us see the math
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 18, 2008, 01:06:17 AM
So what is the Terminal velocity of a smooth ball, and let us see the math
So basically, you're trying to argue that mg is valid even though its refuted completely by GR.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 18, 2008, 01:09:43 AM
So what is the Terminal velocity of a smooth ball, and let us see the math
So 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<<C


Remember we are past the "Wiki" level of physics here
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 03:40:02 AM
This is funny. Anyway:

Post evidence.

No. You are the one arguing the affirmative side; it is up to you to 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.

So, using the equation in the quote in my sig (density = mass x volume), two litres of pure water will be four times denser than one litre of pure water? ???
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 18, 2008, 06:23:50 AM
I am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topics
I'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.


Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 18, 2008, 07:33:03 AM


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.
 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 07:36:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 18, 2008, 07:40:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 07:46:10 AM
To bad it's not false.

Making true assertions does not constitute evidence, either. So your response was inadequate either way.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 18, 2008, 07:47:49 AM
To bad it's not false.

Making true assertions does not constitute evidence, either. So your response was inadequate either way.
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Crudblud on August 18, 2008, 07:51:40 AM


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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 07:52:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 18, 2008, 07:54:55 AM


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 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 pick the FOR of the earth, o look, objects accelerate towards me.  According to you this is impossible, but a last you are wrong. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: divito the truthist on August 18, 2008, 07:57:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 18, 2008, 08:01:20 AM
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.

1. Some teachers teach more than just what books say.
2. Plagiarism 
3.  I was getting that robosteve goes the extra distance to make stuff up, not you. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 08:01:53 AM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 18, 2008, 08:05:50 AM
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?
I'm sorry, please use your brain before you speak.  Why is the earth a non inertial FOR?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Crudblud on August 18, 2008, 08:07:12 AM


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 too hasty in posting, but I notice that you seem to be having serious problems responding to my second point.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 18, 2008, 08:08:35 AM


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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: divito the truthist on August 18, 2008, 08:09:30 AM
1. Some teachers teach more than just what books say.

And how do those teachers compare to several books, other teachers, and online sources?

2. Plagiarism

Communicating information that you've learned/"know" does not constitute plagiarism.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 18, 2008, 08:11:49 AM
1. Some teachers teach more than just what books say.

And how do those teachers compare to several books, other teachers, and online sources?
Usually pretty well as they have doctorates and conduct research while they teach. 

Quote

Communicating information that you've learned/"know" does not constitute plagiarism.
Yes, but stealing it and claiming it as your own does. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 08:13:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: divito the truthist on August 18, 2008, 08:14:20 AM
Usually pretty well as they have doctorates and conduct research while they teach. 

Oh, so the doctorates and other achievements of the book-writers, the other teachers, and those of the online sources don't count?

Yes, but stealing it and claiming it as your own does. 

Besides the illogical nature of the question, what information have I claimed as my own?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Crudblud on August 18, 2008, 08:15:51 AM


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. 

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 08:19:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 18, 2008, 08:23:37 AM
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: wiki
Free fall is motion with no acceleration other than that provided by gravity.

You can change gravity to gravitation. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 18, 2008, 08:26:34 AM
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.

I am talking about the whole earth.  There is a FOR that is the whole earth. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 08:27:52 AM
Gravitation causes objects to accelerate towards the earth.  End of story.

You are really beginning to irritate me. You cannot simply make that assertion and expect people to accept it without providing any evidence.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 08:29:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Crudblud on August 18, 2008, 08:40:29 AM
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: wiki
Free fall is motion with no acceleration other than that provided by gravity.

You can change gravity to gravitation. 

No. Gravity is not gravitation.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Lord Wilmore on August 18, 2008, 08:48:32 AM
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: wiki
Free fall is motion with no acceleration other than that provided by gravity.

You can change gravity to gravitation. 

sokarul, I have discovered a site you may find useful:


www.rif.org
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dark Knight on August 18, 2008, 09:08:12 AM
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?   
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Lord Wilmore on August 18, 2008, 09:12:58 AM
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?   

As far as I know, no-one here is making any money through this site or the theories espoused here. There are no ads here, and no one here is selling anything.


Unlike NASA and the other globu-cronies you RE'ers are so in love with, we're not in it for the money.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dark Knight on August 18, 2008, 09:30:10 AM
How come your administrator is promoting a book right on your home page?  Maybe you should as Danial?


News: The Flat Earth Society forums are back up!  I apologise for the downtime.  The problem has been resolved and won't happen again.  Also, the FES will be opening for official membership (complete with certificates and individually-numbered medals!) in the next few weeks.  Stay tuned!         

    Home    Help  Search  Profile  My Messages  Members  Logout   

theflatearthsociety.org > Flat Earth Discussion > Flat Earth Debate & Discussion > New Flat Earth book being released!
Pages: [1]  « previous next »
  Notify  |  Mark unread  |  Send this topic  |  Print   
 
  Author Topic: New Flat Earth book being released!  (Read 3682 times) 

Daniel
Administrator

Posts: 311


 
      New Flat Earth book being released!
« on: April 13, 2007, 07:35:31 AM » 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been in contact with an author named Christine Garwood for the past couple of years because she's been working on a book about the history of the Flat Earth concept and the people connected to it.  It's being released on April 20th and I wanted to give it a bit of promotion.  Christine was kind enough to send me an advance copy (signed, no less!) of the book and I received it yesterday.  I haven't read the entire thing yet, but I'm working on it and I have to say that I'm very impressed so far.  It's a fascinating read and very well-researched to boot.  I encourage everyone to give it a read: Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea.     

 
 
 Report to moderator    Logged 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 18, 2008, 02:01:35 PM
I am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topics
I'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 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 math
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 18, 2008, 05:13:46 PM
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 in other words, like Einstein said, gravitation causes acceleration.  Good to know.   Glad to see you finally saw how wrong you are. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 18, 2008, 06:06:13 PM
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 math
So, 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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 18, 2008, 06:52:29 PM
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 math
So, 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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on August 18, 2008, 07:26:54 PM
A. I can't help but notice the premise of burden of proof got shifted away once again quite easily.
Perhaps approaching the question differently would help explain why we ask what we ask in simplistic proof form.

Point 1: It is illogical to arrive at a conclusion without evidence to support the conclusion.
Point 2: You have come to a conclusion of a Flat Earth.
Point 3: If you use logic and reasoning you must have evidence.

I can see no reason why such evidence can't readily be shared with us, under such premises. I do not believe FE'rs are correct in suggesting the public supported and common view should disprove every deviant view, but that argument aside, is it a lack of evidence or laziness on your behalf that prevents FE'ers from presenting the reasons they side with FE?

B. This simplified proof also begs questions with 'the conspiracy'. You believe in it yet readily admit to not having witnessed a shred of evidence for it. The only reply I have ever seen suggests the conspiracy because it makes sense with FE. If this is the case, the logical structure is incomplete due to its dependence on part A of my post. The only other alternatives I see is that the conspiracy is purely faith-based or logic was once again again abandoned.

I await your response.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 12:50:32 AM
Bump... Still waiting on an answer
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: zork on August 19, 2008, 01:59:49 AM
 I am also in need for intelligent argument which proofs that earth is not round. Because, if I look at engineering books, which talk about leveling and surveying, for example:
Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Introductory Surveying: Teora y problemas
By James R. Wirshing, Roy H. Wirshing - pg 92
http://books.google.com/books?id=IwXpY5lOsXYC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=earth+levelling+curvature&source=web&ots=fGeNXGquzg&sig=h0ualvQOMbbtI7Gd1M9GecVtZFM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA92,M1

Plane Surveying. By A M Chandra - pg 118
http://books.google.com/books?id=hqFcPbmmxC4C&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=levelling+curvature&source=web&ots=F7x6aGkVQU&sig=CFe3eA4KHfCIyg5YmmKOKMNEyRs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA118,M1

 They take account earth curvature in their calculations. Also they take account refraction of light in atmosphere which bends light downward, not upward like FET'ers believe. How do you explain that all their calculations, which take account earth curvature and light bending downward, are correct and give quite precise results? Because if earth is flat and light bends upward then their calculations must be quite wrong and if they are wrong it must be seen somewhere where these calculations are used. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 04:23:04 AM
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. 

Reading comprehension harder.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 19, 2008, 04:42:48 AM
To everyone:

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/GEODESIC_001.jpg)

What is the direction of the person's acceleration?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 04:59:22 AM
What is the direction of the person's acceleration?

Up, obviously.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 19, 2008, 05:08:51 AM
The force you've drawn there is a contact force, so yes the acceleration due to the contact force must be 'up'. (The acceleration due to gravity would be 'down' in this case.)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 05:20:03 AM
(The acceleration due to gravity would be 'down' in this case.)

Or would be, if gravity existed.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 19, 2008, 05:25:54 AM
(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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 05:32:42 AM
That's why I implicitly qualified that statement.

Oh. Carry on, then.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 19, 2008, 05:46:08 AM
I was done, just chipping in my two cents in response to the diagram... ensuring that I wasn't being misunderstood!
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 19, 2008, 07:15:48 AM
Therefore, there is no downward acceleration under GR. I asked that question on purpose to erase any confusion.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 19, 2008, 07:33:35 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 07:36:59 AM
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 

You are stupid.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 19, 2008, 07:38:16 AM
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 

You are stupid.

Quote
Examples of objects not in free fall:

Standing on the ground: the gravitational acceleration is counteracted by the normal force from the ground.


So what are you trying to say, you have no idea what you are talking about or I read the picture wrong? 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 19, 2008, 07:45:20 AM
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 
Uh, you sure?

Quote from: wikipedia
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 07:45:25 AM
So what are you trying to say, you have no idea what you are talking about or I read the picture wrong? 

I am trying to say this:

You are stupid.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 19, 2008, 07:49:13 AM
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 
Uh, you sure?

Quote from: wikipedia
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.

Yup

Quote from: wiki
Examples of objects not in free fall:

Standing on the ground: the gravitational acceleration is counteracted by the normal force from the ground.


Quote from: wiki
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 07:52:18 AM
high school dropout

Lolwut.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 19, 2008, 07:54:12 AM
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 
Uh, you sure?

Quote from: wikipedia
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.

To add to my last post, what part of the quote says objects on the earth are in free fall? 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 19, 2008, 08:05:33 AM
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 
Uh, you sure?

Quote from: wikipedia
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.

Yup
Do you know what "motion along geodesic" (or geodesic, for starters) is?

Quote from: wiki
Examples of objects not in free fall:

Standing on the ground: the gravitational acceleration is counteracted by the normal force from the ground.


Quote from: wiki
Free fall is motion with no acceleration other than that provided by gravity.
Then GTFO of Newtonian physics.

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.

Quote from: wikipedia
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 19, 2008, 08:10:42 AM
Remember what frame you're arguing in - the rest frame of the ground, I presume?

EDIT: additionally, are we in agreement that GR is a reasonable description of the interaction of masses, since otherwise discussing geodesics is going to cause problems very quickly...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 19, 2008, 08:15:37 AM

Do you know what "motion along geodesic" (or geodesic, for starters) is?
Yes I do.  Locally straight paths through curved spacetime.  

Quote
Then GTFO of Newtonian physics.
You can substitute gravitation in there.  

Quote
The dude on the chair.

Quote from: wikipedia
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.
He was following a geodesics until he hit the earth, he was in free fall until he touched the earth.

Please explain how a guy sitting in a chair on earth is the same thing as a astronaut feeling weightless in orbit.    
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: MyNutsAreFlat on August 19, 2008, 08:30:06 AM
my dog just peed on the rug.  it really tied the room together
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 19, 2008, 08:40:00 AM
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.    
Quote
There is an upward force in the dude's chair
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 08:47:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 19, 2008, 11:46:12 AM


Yes I do.  Locally straight paths through curved spacetime. 
You haven't completely answered my question.
I did.  You haven’t answered my attacks. 

Quote
Are you trying to argue that GR says gravitation causes downward acceleration?
It causes acceleration which can be downwards. 

Quote
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.   
Quote
There is an upward force in the dude's chair

Astronauts are free of forces.  Not even close to the same thing. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Josef on August 19, 2008, 01:24:00 PM
So whats the point of calling it falling?

In my language:
Yes = a dishwashin soap
I = in
my = A name
are = Another name
is = ice
fall = case or rope to set sail with or to fall
not = note
dog = died
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 02:01:36 PM
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.
Wrong, but good job showing the RE model. now if it is possible go ahead and show the FE model
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 04:20:51 PM
Wrong, but good job showing the RE model. now if it is possible go ahead and show the FE model
That 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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 04:34:52 PM
Wrong, but good job showing the RE model. now if it is possible go ahead and show the FE model
That 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.
so you are saying that the object is accelerating in the opposite direction of the Air resistance in the FE model
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 07:52:23 PM
Uh, no.  Can't you do simple algebra?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 07:57:43 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 08:01:06 PM
Net acceleration = 0.  Please learn how to do math and physics. 

Then maybe you can come play in my league, kid.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 08:04:11 PM
Net acceleration = 0.  Please learn how to do math and physics. 

Then maybe you can come play in my league, kid.
I am speechless at how unbelievably ignorant you are, I mean my god I actually am starting to feel sad for you.

Here let me help show me the free body diagram that you did and maybe we can find out where you went wrong
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 08:05:36 PM
Do the derivation.  It's simple, remember?  They do teach you to do simple reasoning in your middle school, right?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 08:10:19 PM

(http://i36.tinypic.com/jrv1he.gif)
Here you go now let us see the one you did that has the person acclerating toward the earth
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 09:14:46 PM
Here you go now let us see the one you did that has the person acclerating toward the earth
The person is not accelerating towards the Earth.  He is accelerating away from it.

Free body diagram:

    ^ Fd
    |
    |
Person
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 09:23:00 PM
Here you go now let us see the one you did that has the person acclerating toward the earth
The 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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 09:25:38 PM
I have not made an error.  I'm still waiting for you to do the derivation, with your super awesome understanding of middle school physics.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 09:28:16 PM
So do you see your error yet?

I don't think there is an error for him to see.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 09:37:48 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 09:43:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 09:50:20 PM
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.
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 09:54:14 PM

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 not zero.  I guess I gave you way too much credit in assuming you could derive the equation.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 09:54:57 PM
If you need help look at the engineers freebody diagram to help resolve the forces acting upon the body
Perhaps you should take your own advice and realize your error.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 09:57:41 PM
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 not moving relative to the air.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 09:58:23 PM
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.
and what is the air always doing according to the FE model?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 10:06:40 PM

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 not zero.  I guess I gave you way too much credit in assuming you could derive the equation.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 10:07:06 PM
and what is the air always doing according to the FE model?

Accelerating upwards at 9.8 m s-2.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:09:39 PM
and what is the air always doing according to the FE model?

Accelerating upwards at 9.8 m s-2.
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 10:10:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:13:32 PM
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 figures
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 10:16:48 PM
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?

Velocity is not a force. Please reword your post such that you are not equating two completely different physical quantities.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:19:22 PM
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?

Velocity is not a force. Please reword your post such that you are not equating two completely different physical quantities.
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 accelerated
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 10:19:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:21:01 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 10:21:26 PM
you 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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 10:25:15 PM
look at you freebody diagram again
There 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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:28:02 PM
you 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.
that is because the FE model is so screwed up
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:28:50 PM
look at you freebody diagram again
There 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.
if your free body diagram is good then go ahead and rework your equations again

and after you find out that the body does not stop increasing its acceleration until it reaches an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s go ahead and tell me when it lands.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 10:30:24 PM
I don't need to rework them.  They were correct the first time.

Just ask for help and I will put an end to your pathetic attempt to act intelligent and to 'put me in my place'.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:31:36 PM
I don't need to rework them.  They were correct the first time.

Just ask for help and I will put an end to your pathetic attempt to act intelligent and to 'put me in my place'.
so when does the object land
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 10:34:27 PM
Uh, there are lots of things that need to be defined first.

But, let's not get ahead of ourselves.  I'm still waiting for you to catch up with the rest of us.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:39:03 PM
Uh, there are lots of things that need to be defined first.

But, let's not get ahead of ourselves.  I'm still waiting for you to catch up with the rest of us.
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 10:40:43 PM
So you accept my equation as correct?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 10:42:54 PM
that is because the FE model is so screwed up

I thought we were discussing RET? ???
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:44:13 PM
that 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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 10:49:41 PM
I 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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:50:42 PM
I 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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 10:52:28 PM
Uh, no the accelerations are in opposite directions in RE while in FE they are in the same direction

What accelerations?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:53:43 PM
Uh, no the accelerations are in opposite directions in RE while in FE they are in the same direction

What accelerations?
the acceleration from the gravitational field and the acceleration of the FE earth.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 10:57:34 PM
So you agree that my equation is correct?


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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:58:26 PM
So you agree that my equation is correct?


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. 
I will bite let us see your derivation and reasoning on why it is exactly the same as the RE model
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 11:01:32 PM
the acceleration from the gravitational field and the acceleration of the FE earth.

So in RET, the person is accelerating in two directions at once? ???
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 11:02:14 PM
the acceleration from the gravitational field and the acceleration of the FE earth.

So in RET, the person is accelerating in two directions at once? ???
no 1 acceleration but it is a net acceleration
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 11:06:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 11:11:32 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 11:15:29 PM
It applies, but no, I did not invoke the EP in my derivation.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 11:37:06 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 11:39:46 PM
My equation would indicate that you are wrong.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 11:51:15 PM
My equation would indicate that you are wrong.
THe only thing a wrong equation proves is that you fail
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 19, 2008, 11:53:39 PM
But my equation is correct.   ???

Perhaps you should use your middle school education to derive it.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 20, 2008, 12:15:04 AM
But my equation is correct.   ???

Perhaps you should use your middle school education to derive it.
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 20, 2008, 12:17:00 AM
no 1 acceleration but it is a net acceleration

Really? So what provides the downward force?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 20, 2008, 12:18:40 AM
no 1 acceleration but it is a net acceleration

Really? So what provides the downward 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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 20, 2008, 12:19:19 AM
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
Did you forget the part where I said that I derived it according to the FE model?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 20, 2008, 12:19:51 AM
I did.  You haven’t answered my attacks. 
Really?
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 20, 2008, 12:20:28 AM
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
Did you forget the part where I said that I derived it according to the FE model?
then you need to get a better understanding of the FE model
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 20, 2008, 12:22:17 AM
I understand it perfectly well.  You are the one that needs to get a better understanding of physics. 

All you have to do is ask me for help and I will give you the derivation.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 20, 2008, 12:26:19 AM
I understand it perfectly well.  You are the one that needs to get a better understanding of physics. 

All you have to do is ask me for help and I will give you the derivation.
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 20, 2008, 12:29:05 AM
Relative to the Earth?  When your upwards acceleration equals the acceleration of the Earth.

But, I've said this already.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 20, 2008, 12:30:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 20, 2008, 08:49:25 AM
Gravitation is not a force. It does not cause one to accelerate.

Gravitation most certainly causes objects to accelerate. 

just bringing this to the top.


Yes I do.  Locally straight paths through curved spacetime. 
You haven't completely answered my question.
I did.  You haven’t answered my attacks. 

Quote
Are you trying to argue that GR says gravitation causes downward acceleration?
It causes acceleration which can be downwards. 

Quote
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.   
Quote
There is an upward force in the dude's chair

Astronauts are free of forces.  Not even close to the same thing. 

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 20, 2008, 09:03:27 AM
Scroll up.

I did.  You haven’t answered my attacks. 
Really?
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: joelwyland on August 20, 2008, 10:41:46 AM
I'm always up for a good argument,

Then you've come to the wrong site. This is a satirical website.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 20, 2008, 12:21:50 PM
Oh, you had already responded. 

Quote
Do you know what "motion along geodesic" is?
Yes. 
Quote
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?
I understand it, you cannot understand that he is no longer in free fall because he is in contact with the earth. 

Quote
Obviously. 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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 20, 2008, 10:11:06 PM
Quote
Do you know what "motion along geodesic" is?
Yes. 
Then what is it?

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 21, 2008, 12:48:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 21, 2008, 01:00:00 AM
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.

I don't agree.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 21, 2008, 05:28:59 AM
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
(http://i37.tinypic.com/smef00.jpg)
(http://i34.tinypic.com/3346c1v.jpg)

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 21, 2008, 07:51:38 AM

Then what is it?
I don't know what answer you are looking for. 

Quote
So he is no longer following the geodesics in spacetime?
Yes.  He is still trying to, thus the physical acceleration he has. 

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 21, 2008, 08:16:13 AM
Your second equation isn't right.  Can you post your free body diagram?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 21, 2008, 08:52:46 AM
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.
Quote
He 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.


Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 21, 2008, 09:07:21 AM
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:

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.   
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 21, 2008, 09:08:04 AM
Made this using LaTex and I forgot to resize the page so sorry

Your second equation is exactly the same as your first one except that you have an extra 2 in it. If, as I suspect, this discrepancy is error on your part, then you have simply shown that the two models predict exactly the same thing.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 21, 2008, 09:09:20 AM
I don't know what answer you are looking for. 
It's inertial motion; free-fall.
One can follow geodesics while not being in free fall. 

Quote
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.
Quote
He 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.




Ok, so now you see why its wrong to say a guy sitting in a chair is in free fall.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 21, 2008, 09:18:30 AM
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.
Quote
He still is falling, or following the geodesics, indirectly.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 21, 2008, 09:53:44 AM
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
Your 'FE' equation is wrong.  Since you let us all have a good laugh, I'll go ahead and post the derivation for you.

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 21, 2008, 01:12:37 PM
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
Your 'FE' equation is wrong.  Since you let us all have a good laugh, I'll go ahead and post the derivation for you.

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.

Learn how to do a freebody diagram and get back to us
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 21, 2008, 01:15:45 PM
One can follow geodesics while not being in free fall. 
Then show me the sources.
See GR.  Also jump in the air.  Congrats you followed them without being in free fall. 

Quote
Quote
He still is falling, or following the geodesics, indirectly.
Still doesn't mean he is in free fall as he is still not free from external forces. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 21, 2008, 01:21:18 PM
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:

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.   
what is being accelerated in the FE model the person or the air?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 21, 2008, 01:23:49 PM
Both.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 21, 2008, 01:30:47 PM
Both.
and what is causing the person to be accelerated
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 21, 2008, 01:38:48 PM
The accelerating air for the same reason that air slows your acceleration normally, just in reverse.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 21, 2008, 01:38:54 PM
Learn how to do a freebody diagram and get back to us
We 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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 21, 2008, 01:49:52 PM
Learn how to do a freebody diagram and get back to us
We 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 reality
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 21, 2008, 01:51:04 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 21, 2008, 01:52:25 PM
Personally, I would use the term "resists".
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 21, 2008, 01:52:41 PM
Also jump in the air.  Congrats you followed them without being in free fall. 

Hahaha. When one jumps in the air, one is in freefall until one lands on the ground. Ignoring air resistance, of course.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 21, 2008, 01:55:11 PM
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 reality
I'm still waiting for you to use your madd middle skool skilz to show me my error.


Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 21, 2008, 01:57:43 PM
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 reality
I'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"
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 21, 2008, 01:59:48 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 21, 2008, 02:01:43 PM
The latter.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 21, 2008, 02:03:14 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 21, 2008, 02:08:03 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 21, 2008, 02:14:27 PM
He would still land because the earth would have more velocity, he would just land slower than without drag.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 21, 2008, 02:15:12 PM
to quote another member on this forum known for their in depth responses
Uh, no.



Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 21, 2008, 02:15:41 PM
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
And 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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 21, 2008, 02:19:25 PM
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
And 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=13
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 21, 2008, 02:19:53 PM
to quote another member on this forum known for their in depth responses
Uh, no.
Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black
I assume this means you can't refute the evidence. 

Figures.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 21, 2008, 02:28:07 PM
I see where you are trying to go with this, but there is air causing drag above you as well.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 21, 2008, 05:01:08 PM
I see where you are trying to go with this, but there is air causing drag above you as well.
???
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Holy crap!?! on August 21, 2008, 07:24:19 PM
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"?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 21, 2008, 07:41:13 PM
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"?

Yes.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 21, 2008, 08:23:55 PM
I see where you are trying to go with this, but there is air causing drag above you as well.
???
I'm still waiting for your refutation of my equation.  I even labeled each step for easy reference.  Show me where my mistake is.

In fact, I pose this to everyone:  Is my equation correct?  cbarnett has not really listened to the number of people telling him he has been wrong before, but hey, maybe this time he will. 

Let's get some independent feedback.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 21, 2008, 09:06:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 21, 2008, 10:06:29 PM
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.

FUCKING LEARN THE DEFINITION OF FREE FALL.


Quote
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 21, 2008, 10:26:15 PM
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
Your 'FE' equation is wrong.  Since you let us all have a good laugh, I'll go ahead and post the derivation for you.

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.

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 see
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 21, 2008, 10:50:41 PM
Your bold and arrow is nice and all, but you forgot to explain why (8) is wrong.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 21, 2008, 11:29:53 PM
FUCKING LEARN THE DEFINITION OF FREE FALL.
Says the person who knows nothing about geodesic motion, let alone the mechanics of GR.

Quote
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.
Quote
Then GTFO of Newtonian physics.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 22, 2008, 05:07:57 AM
Your bold arrow is nice and all, but you forgot to explain why (8) is wrong.

If 7 is right, then 8 is right as well.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 07:52:47 AM
FUCKING LEARN THE DEFINITION OF FREE FALL.
Says the person who knows nothing about geodesic motion, let alone the mechanics of GR.

Quote
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.
Quote
Then GTFO of Newtonian physics.

GIVE IT UP.  My pinky finger knows more about GR and SR then you ever will.  This has nothing to do with Newtonian physics.  The proof is right in front of you. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 22, 2008, 08:06:04 AM
GIVE IT UP.  My pinky finger knows more about GR and SR then you ever will. 
Yo,
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 08:13:34 AM
GIVE IT UP.  My pinky finger knows more about GR and SR then you ever will. 
Yo,
Quote
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.     
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 22, 2008, 08:19:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 08:21:01 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 22, 2008, 08:22:06 AM
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.

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 08:23:13 AM
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.



Give.it.up.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 22, 2008, 08:24:12 AM
Quote
Yo,
Quote
1 = -1
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 08:25:45 AM
Quote
Yo,
Quote
1 = -1

So you gave up.  Good job.  Learn from your mistakes. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 22, 2008, 08:30:44 AM
So you gave up.  Good job. Learn from your mistakes. 
Fantasy != Reality
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 08:32:19 AM
And people say I never back up my arguments. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 22, 2008, 08:34:17 AM
It's true.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 08:34:44 AM
It's true.

I don't see you proving me wrong. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 22, 2008, 08:35:33 AM
Quote
O wait I did. You just can't read.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 08:38:55 AM
Quote
O wait I did. You just can't read.

Going against physics does not prove your point.  I'm still waiting for an answer, how is a person in free fall when he is not free from forces? 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 22, 2008, 09:00:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 22, 2008, 12:16:50 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 12:16:53 PM
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.

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.  
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 12:19:32 PM
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?

That’s what I am getting at.  He for some reason thinks that because the guy is trying to follow geodesics it some how means the guy is free of forces. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: divito the truthist on August 22, 2008, 12:20:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 22, 2008, 12:44:10 PM
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...?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 12:52:56 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 22, 2008, 01:02:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 01:08:50 PM
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.

Then yes you are correct.  The problem is Potentiall has no idea what he is talking about.  The only thing he knows about GR is what he has read on here. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 22, 2008, 05:25:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 05:30:43 PM
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 is cancel out by said acceleration from gravitation.  Otherwise we would accelerate off the earth. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 22, 2008, 05:41:05 PM
Uh, no, our path along the geodesic is canceled out by our acceleration.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 05:42:37 PM
Uh, no, our path along the geodesic is canceled out by our acceleration.

That's what I said. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 22, 2008, 05:43:29 PM
No, it is not:
Which is cancel out by said acceleration from gravitation. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 05:44:09 PM
No, it is not:
Which is cancel out by said acceleration from gravitation. 


And how does gravitation cause acceleration? 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 22, 2008, 05:45:17 PM
English, please.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 05:46:48 PM
English, please.
I could actually believe you couldn't comprehend that.  I took off the "s" for you. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 22, 2008, 06:01:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 22, 2008, 06:04:09 PM
This is a debate forum.  And as far as I've seen, no evidence that the RE can offer seems to be good enough.

Exactly.  I'm glad you recognize that REers tend to just embarrass themselves again and again.  They should really just stop trying, ya mean?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 22, 2008, 07:56:43 PM
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.

So I ask, why did you say no to a true statement? 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 22, 2008, 08:15:14 PM
You made a true statement?  That's got to be a first...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 22, 2008, 08:15:56 PM
I refuse to believe it.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 22, 2008, 09:12:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 23, 2008, 12:05:46 AM
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.

Both of you have no idea what is going on. 
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 
Uh, you sure?

Quote from: wikipedia
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.
A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 

You are stupid.

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 23, 2008, 12:07:26 AM
Is this win?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 23, 2008, 12:10:28 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 12:12:39 AM
You made a true statement?  That's got to be a first...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 23, 2008, 12:14:05 AM
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. 
Quote
Fantasy != Reality
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 23, 2008, 12:14:11 AM
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.  
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 12:16:40 AM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: divito the truthist on August 23, 2008, 05:46:50 AM
I wonder what it's like to be sokarul, when everyone else is wrong and he's the only one who is right.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 23, 2008, 07:52:41 AM
Quote from: Joshua
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 08:42:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 23, 2008, 08:49:01 AM
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?

Because you were spoon fed it and didn't actually know what it meant. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 08:55:12 AM
I wonder what it's like to be sokarul, when everyone else is wrong and he's the only one who is right.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 23, 2008, 08:56:51 AM
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. 

This has to be the single most ironic statement I've seen on this site yet.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 23, 2008, 08:59:00 AM
Of course, he's a perpetual engine of ironies.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 23, 2008, 09:08:41 AM
Such leg humpers. 

I know what I am talking about.  Thats why I don't make stupid claims like "A guy sitting in a chair is in free fall."
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 09:11:48 AM
Like this?
Or those forces that cause water to spin opposite directs, in toilets   
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 23, 2008, 09:15:41 AM
Like this?
Or those forces that cause water to spin opposite directs, in toilets   


Yes like that.  Lots of people are spoon fed myths. 
Its funny reading the posts under that one.  You still answer questions with questions. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 09:18:50 AM
Yes like that.  Lots of people are spoon fed myths. 
So you admit that your post was ironic?  That is very big of you.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 23, 2008, 09:21:35 AM
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...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 23, 2008, 09:29:34 AM
Of course, he's a perpetual engine of ironies.

He's like a perfect storm of ironies.

He even did it again after I posted that:
I know what I am talking about.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 05:35:32 PM
Here are the correct figures for the FE model of an objects "terminal Velocity"

t   Velocity Of Object   Acceleration
1   1.925523968   1.925523968
2   12.52899752   6.264498762
3   17.14577418   5.71525806
4   39.068657   9.76716425

So as you can see it still takes longer to reach an acceleration of 9.81/s2, twice as long actually and the objects velocity is almost twice that of the object in the RE model.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 05:38:23 PM
Acceleration should go down with respect to time.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 05:39:13 PM
Acceleration should go down with respect to time.
nope
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 05:41:59 PM
Here we go again...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 05:47:42 PM
Here we go again...
My bad but an extra number in excel when it ran so here are the numbers

Δt   Velocity Of Object   Acceleration
1   1.925523968   1.925523968
2   12.52899752   6.264498762
3   27.07947648   9.026492161
4   38.81887951   9.704719877
5   48.9886285   9.7977257
6   58.85158707   9.808597845
7   68.66888146   9.809840209
8   78.47985436   9.809981795
9   88.28998133   9.809997926
10   98.09999764   9.809999764
11   107.9099997   9.809999973
12   117.72                9.809999997
13          127.53                9.81

So you can still see the predictions of the FE model still differ from the RE model so that should be easy to test
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 23, 2008, 05:50:24 PM
To save me from digging through this argument, can someone post the equivalent equations for RE and FE and I'll get Mathematica to make some pretty graphs for everyone.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 05:55:33 PM
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
(http://i37.tinypic.com/smef00.jpg)
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 obviously
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 06:34:18 PM
Once again, acceleration will go down with respect to time.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 06:38:53 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 06:42:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 06:45:38 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 06:48:06 PM
and if you want to calculate tha object velocity in respect to the earth then its velocity would only be around 10 m/s which is half that of the RE prediction
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 07:07:00 PM
I got 0 m/s2 relative acceleration at t=2.26
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 07:11:10 PM
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
Your 'FE' equation is wrong.  Since you let us all have a good laugh, I'll go ahead and post the derivation for you.

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.

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 07:11:31 PM
I got 0 m/s2 relative acceleration at t=2.26
let us see the math
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 07:12:47 PM
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
Your 'FE' equation is wrong.  Since you let us all have a good laugh, I'll go ahead and post the derivation for you.

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.

Nice try but learn what the FE model states and then maybe you can contribute to the Conversation
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 07:16:01 PM
You seem to have forgotten to tell us all the part where my derivation is wrong. 


How can you be confident in your numbers when I have shown them to be wrong already?  Besides, your RE equation is wrong.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 07:16:46 PM
Anet=AE-AD=9.8-.02(2.26*9.8 )2=0

0.02 is all the stated variables other than v simplified.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 07:30:33 PM
You seem to have forgotten to tell us all the part where my derivation is wrong. 


How can you be confident in your numbers when I have shown them to be wrong already?  Besides, your RE equation 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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 07:31:06 PM
Anet=AE-AD=9.8-.02(2.26*9.8)2=0

0.02 is all the stated variables other than v simplified.
can you show a bit more detail please
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 07:31:42 PM
Stupid smiley faces, that is supposed to be 9.8 )
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 07:32:49 PM
Stupid smiley faces, that is supposed to be 9.8 )
Yeah I figured as much
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 07:33:09 PM
That isn't a constant, it is v=at at t=2.26.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 07:35:49 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 07:36:05 PM
Strange, I also get vt at 2.26s.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: divito the truthist on August 23, 2008, 07:37:12 PM
It seems that cbarnett suffers from sokarulitis as well; everyone else is wrong, and he is right.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 07:37:46 PM
It seems that cbarnett suffers from sokarulitis as well; everyone else is wrong, and he is right.
no just 2 people are wrong
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 23, 2008, 07:38:38 PM
It seems that cbarnett suffers from sokarulitis as well; everyone else is wrong, and he is right.

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 07:44:07 PM
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

V=at regardless of FE or RE.

Anet=AEarth-AObject

What, in your opinion am I missing?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 07:46:03 PM
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.

Well, apparently in sokarul's world, it is retarded for alien eskimo farmhands to pose as mexicans.  Go figure.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 07:46:36 PM
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

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 point
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 07:49:03 PM
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

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 point

But we are using the same equation you used in your model.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 07:51:32 PM
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

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 point

But we are using the same equation you used in your model.
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 07:52:06 PM
reverse drag
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 07:53:30 PM
reverse drag
any thing else
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 07:54:50 PM
I am assuming you are going to tell me...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 07:59:10 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 08:01:25 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 08:02:25 PM
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
go read wiki some more, grownups are talking
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 08:03:08 PM
So you can't fault my argument?  Figures.  Go back to eighth grade, kid.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 08:04:17 PM
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

Not in the equation I used, no.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 08:09:29 PM
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

Not in the equation I used, no.
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 earth
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 08:10:41 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 08:11:44 PM
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
go read wiki some more, grownups are talking
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 08:14:32 PM
So you can't fault my argument?  Figures.  Go back to eighth grade, kid.
I'm waiting.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 08:15:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 08:18:29 PM
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)

so to base your calculations by using the RE model is incorrect
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 08:20:07 PM
My calculations were based on the FE model and my derived equations.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 08:22:15 PM
My calculations were based on the FE model and my derived equations.
Well then your failure is complete
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 08:26:16 PM
There is a terminal velocity. Once Anet=0 the relative velocity will be constant which is the same as terminal velocity.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 10:33:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 10:46:26 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 10:50:36 PM
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.
Your equations have been shown to be correct with regard to the RE and ver incorrect with regards to the FE
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 10:54:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 10:56:34 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 10:58:55 PM
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

I used the same equation you did.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 11:00:58 PM
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

I used the same equation you did.
a=sqrt(cdpAv2)/2m

Where v is the velocity of the air passing the object
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 11:09:52 PM
Now where did your square root come from?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 23, 2008, 11:16:12 PM
so acceleration caused by gravity is the equivalent to acceleration caused by air, wow that is new to me
Equal, yes.  No wonder you have failed so badly in this thread...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 23, 2008, 11:22:42 PM
so acceleration caused by gravity is the equivalent to acceleration caused by air, wow that is new to me
Equal, yes.  No wonder you have failed so badly in this thread...
Irony.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 23, 2008, 11:32:12 PM
Now where did your square root come from?
disregard the square root but everything else is correct
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Robbyj on August 23, 2008, 11:39:22 PM
Now where did your square root come from?
disregard the square root but everything else is correct

Then that is what I used.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 25, 2008, 08:18:26 AM
Since none of my equations have been shown to be incorrect, I now declare:

A victory for FE!
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 25, 2008, 08:20:15 AM
Cheers!
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 26, 2008, 08:06:23 AM
Well, it's been three days and cbarnett and the other RE'ers seem to have run away. 

I now declare this issue settled and this thread linkable for future questions of this sort.


Victory for FE!
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 26, 2008, 08:08:53 AM
All the debating went on overnight for me, plus I just couldn't handle the infinite quotes within quotes. Yep, I fail.

Meh. Oh well.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Sir_Drainsalot on August 26, 2008, 08:52:07 AM
Yet another thread demonstrates victory for FE!
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 27, 2008, 12:31:05 PM
Since none of my equations have been shown to be incorrect, I now declare:

A victory for FE!
Learn how numerical model then you will learn how to properly solve the equation.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 27, 2008, 12:33:50 PM
so acceleration caused by gravity is the equivalent to acceleration caused by air, wow that is new to me
Equal, yes.  No wonder you have failed so badly in this thread...
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Josef on August 27, 2008, 02:24:58 PM
Ive just dived into this thread. Havent read the whole thing. I dont really think I can give intelligent arguments but one can try..

FE: Its about acceleration. DE accelerates earth. But more than fex stuff on earth, like people. Thats why earth accelerates into us when where in air. When "falling" we actually just decrease our speed upwards thus it feels like falling. Ok that is clear.

So here is my first question. How does DE affect mass differently? I guess that it affects more mass more. Earth is obviously more mass than water, air, schooners and so on. So the power of acceleration must be at largest.. yes where?

Which leads to the second question. How is the underside of earth, kept in place? Why isnt it torn apart downwards? Or maybe it does but slowly? Or made of really strong material at the bottom? Or the bottom is the most dense part, so thats where accelerating force is strongest?

Look ma, no math!
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 27, 2008, 03:38:17 PM
Since none of my equations have been shown to be incorrect, I now declare:

A victory for FE!
Learn how numerical model then you will learn how to properly solve the equation.
So you spent three days trying to break my equations and found that you still can't? 

Victory for FE!
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 27, 2008, 07:02:52 PM
Since none of my equations have been shown to be incorrect, I now declare:

A victory for FE!
Learn how numerical model then you will learn how to properly solve the equation.
So you spent three days trying to break my equations and found that you still can't? 

Victory for FE!

Why is it a victory for the FE?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 27, 2008, 07:40:44 PM
Because it clearly is.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 27, 2008, 10:04:27 PM
Since none of my equations have been shown to be incorrect, I now declare:

A victory for FE!
Learn how numerical model then you will learn how to properly solve the equation.
So you spent three days trying to break my equations and found that you still can't? 

Victory for FE!

Why is it a victory for the 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 victory
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 27, 2008, 10:17:21 PM
That's quite ironic from someone that can't break a 'simple algebra' equation.  We are still waiting for you to impress us with your middle school math skills and show my equation to be wrong.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 27, 2008, 10:19:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 27, 2008, 10:35:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Josef on August 28, 2008, 11:17:51 AM
Try to break this equation:
1 = 1

Win for RE!!
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 28, 2008, 12:44:43 PM
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

Cd = Known
p = Known
A = Known
v = aet = Known
m = Known
a = Unknown


So why would you solve for a known?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 28, 2008, 04:11:05 PM
I'm sorry, what known am I solving for?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 28, 2008, 05:43:53 PM
I'm sorry, what known am I solving for?
you would solve for an unknown
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 28, 2008, 08:26:17 PM
That's what I did.  You said I am solving for a known.  What known am I solving for?  Do you even know how to read an equation?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 28, 2008, 08:37:58 PM
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.
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 equation
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 28, 2008, 08:43:54 PM
This is hilarious.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 28, 2008, 09:01:22 PM
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.

Quote
As well as pluggin in values that do not belong in the equation, but it was a good job of writing down the RE equation
Which variables don't belong in the equation?  Oh, did you forget about the derivation that I provided?  It clearly shows the FE derivation.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 28, 2008, 09:22:33 PM
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.

Quote
As well as pluggin in values that do not belong in the equation, but it was a good job of writing down the RE equation
Which 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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 28, 2008, 09:35:10 PM
Terminal velocity is not known.  That is what we are solving for.

In case you forgot:

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 28, 2008, 09:56:57 PM
in the FE model v is a known

What is its value, then?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 29, 2008, 02:44:41 AM
in the FE model v is a known

What is its value, then?
its value is,
v=aet
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 29, 2008, 04:13:17 AM
its value is,
v=aet

Why isn't the person accelerating? ???
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 29, 2008, 07:16:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 29, 2008, 11:52:00 AM
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.
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 29, 2008, 11:57:16 AM
Are you really that stupid?

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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 29, 2008, 12:06:29 PM
Are you really that stupid?

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?
so a terminal velocity is no longer a velocity?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 29, 2008, 12:07:46 PM
That is probably the dumbest thing you have ever posted.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 29, 2008, 12:08:52 PM
That is probably the dumbest thing you have ever posted.
well that is the claim you are making
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 29, 2008, 12:10:32 PM
Uh, no I am not.  In fact:
The t subscript indicates terminal velocity
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 29, 2008, 12:11:57 PM
Uh, no I am not.  In fact:
The t subscript indicates terminal velocity
so you just added the term into the equation and then removed a known quantity?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 29, 2008, 12:13:40 PM
No, the terminal velocity is not known nor did it replace a known.


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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 29, 2008, 12:17:37 PM
No, the terminal velocity is not known nor did it replace a known.


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.
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 29, 2008, 12:19:08 PM
Do you not understand what terminal velocity is?


What grade are you in, again?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 29, 2008, 12:39:36 PM
Do you not understand what terminal velocity is?


What grade are you in, again?
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: divito the truthist on August 29, 2008, 01:28:58 PM
It seems cbarnett is trying to swap terminal velocity for his own "terminal acceleration." Even though they are the same thing...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 29, 2008, 01:32:14 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 29, 2008, 05:31:04 PM
They will show the same outcome, as I have already mathematically proven.  You have yet to break my equations. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 29, 2008, 06:10:12 PM
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.
So what you are trying to do is apply the equations incorrectly by including items that do not exist in your model
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 29, 2008, 06:12:02 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 29, 2008, 06:33:57 PM
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
So like I said, you don't know what terminal velocity means.  Well, that is something you should work on. 

What grade are you in?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 29, 2008, 06:36:02 PM
how are they the same thing? If an object is accelerating how is its velocity constant?
First question:

A plane must create an upwards acceleration equal to that of 'gravity' so that it will maintain altitude, correct?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 29, 2008, 06:40:37 PM
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
So 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.

Since you are obviously an expert tell me how we can include the accleration of an object that is not in the system in our equations?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 29, 2008, 06:45:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 29, 2008, 06:47:06 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 29, 2008, 09:15:30 PM
An unbalanced force.


First question:

A plane must create an upwards acceleration equal to that of 'gravity' so that it will maintain altitude, correct?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 29, 2008, 10:57:46 PM
I sometimes wonder how people with so little intelligence can work out where to plug the ethernet cable into the back of their computer.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 29, 2008, 11:35:26 PM
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?

not the same problem
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 29, 2008, 11:47:06 PM
Good God, he's still trying.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 29, 2008, 11:50:54 PM
I think someone needs to change the thread title, because this is far from an intelligent argument.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 29, 2008, 11:55:37 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 29, 2008, 11:56:10 PM
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

 ::)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 12:09:26 AM
So if you have an unbalanced force what is the result you get?
An acceleration...   :-\

Quote

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
No, but it may aid in your understanding.  Answer it.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 12:19:01 AM
So if you have an unbalanced force what is the result you get?
An acceleration...   :-\

Quote

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
No, but it may aid in your understanding.  Answer it.
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 12:29:55 AM
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?

Quote
in that problem we are trying to maintain a distance between 2 objects,
So that must mean the the accelerations are...equal.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 12:33:15 AM
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?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 12:36:30 AM
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
Not a constant altitude, but a constant velocity.  Relative velocity.  Relative acceleration. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 01:12:03 AM
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
Not 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.
or specifically:
aobject=CdpA{(aairt)-vobject}2/2m

From there you can use calculus or numerical modeling to calculate when the objects acceleration stops increasing(in this case when it reaches 9.81m/s2). only after this can you then relate that to the earth.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 30, 2008, 02:41:05 AM
Is this Gulliverism...?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 30, 2008, 03:14:15 AM
Wake me up when someone wins...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 30, 2008, 03:20:06 AM
Wake me up when someone wins...

You're going to be Rip Van Winkle then. ;)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 30, 2008, 03:22:40 AM
You're going to be Rip Van Winkle then. ;)

Huh? What? I'm for King George!

That's still right, right?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 07:12:24 AM
it is not relative to anything though
It's relative to the earth.  :-\

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 02:41:01 PM
it is not relative to anything though
It's relative to the earth.  :-\

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?
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 02:48:29 PM
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?

Quote
what known am I solving for?
Acceleration.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 02:55:51 PM
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?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 03:04:40 PM
What?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 03:17:45 PM
let us take a step back then.

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 05:00:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 05:13:07 PM
Quote
what known am I solving for?
Acceleration.
You seem to have missed this part.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 05:17:09 PM
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.
relative to the air not to the surface of the earth, which is why it takes longer to reach his terminal acceleration
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 05:23:52 PM
I've already shown that to be untrue.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 05:31:54 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 05:36:55 PM
Well, my math is correct.  I've posted it for you to disprove, but you have still failed to do so. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 05:49:02 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 05:53:31 PM
You've stated that I am solving for a known.  I am not.  You claimed one equation was wrong.  It was not.  Your examples are meaningless without support.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 06:20:07 PM
v=aeartht is somehow not known?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 06:44:10 PM
Terminal velocity is not known.  Which is what we are solving for.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 06:47:57 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 07:15:58 PM
Terminal velocity is not known.  And it remains that way until we solve for it.  Then it becomes a known.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 30, 2008, 08:53:41 PM
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?

This is my favourite part.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 09:07:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 09:09:02 PM


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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 09:14:36 PM


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 correct
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 09:26:33 PM
Do you know what terminal velocity is?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cmdshft on August 30, 2008, 09:27:07 PM
Not this shit again...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 09:27:47 PM
I thought it was settled already, too.   :-\
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 09:31:28 PM
Do you know what terminal velocity is?
Do you know what the FE model is?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 09:33:33 PM
Yes, I do.  Now answer my question.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 09:35:18 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 09:40:21 PM
Answer the question.  What is terminal velocity?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 10:14:56 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 10:19:43 PM
Terminal velocity is reached when the acceleration relative to the Earth is zero. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 10:32:37 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 30, 2008, 10:52:01 PM
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... :-\
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 11:48:35 PM
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... :-\
Uh no unless you want to claim that the acceleration due to gravity is the same as including the earth  ???
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Stabler12 on August 31, 2008, 01:54:41 AM
Force of gravity (driving force) is equal to the force of drag...(in RE terms)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 31, 2008, 02:05:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 31, 2008, 02:08:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Stabler12 on August 31, 2008, 02:14:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 31, 2008, 02:16:11 AM
I concur.  I never took physics, but I find it educational.

Provided you realise that everything cbarnett97 is saying is garbage of the highest standard, then continue to be educated.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Stabler12 on August 31, 2008, 02:29:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 31, 2008, 02:30:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Stabler12 on August 31, 2008, 02:33:24 AM
be that as it may, I still find it educational.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 02:46:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 31, 2008, 02:52:13 AM
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.

I believe what TheEngineer says because he happens to be right.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 02:54:01 AM
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.

I believe what TheEngineer says because he happens to be right.
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 reality
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 02:57:54 AM
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

and you will also notice theengineer skipped right over this post... interesting
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 31, 2008, 03:12:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 03:30:52 AM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 31, 2008, 03:36:11 AM
so 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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 03:41:28 AM
so 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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 31, 2008, 03:48:22 AM
Show us the math for the accleration of the object

aobject=CdpA{(aairt)-vobject}2/2m
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 03:50:07 AM
now show that it is the same as the RE model
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 31, 2008, 03:55:15 AM
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)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 03:59:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 31, 2008, 04:02:29 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 04:35:51 AM
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.

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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 31, 2008, 04:36:52 AM
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

The velocity of the air relative to what?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 31, 2008, 08:22:02 AM
I just see the engineer only repeating one thing over and over
Because that is the thing that proves me correct and you wrong.  But you don't seem to understand it.

Quote
, 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
I posted the derivation.  I did it so that a high schooler could follow it.  It clearly demonstrates that I am correct.

Quote
I mean just look at his free body diagram, first he says that when you resolve the forces you get an unbalanced force
Right.  Which leads to an acceleration.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 31, 2008, 08:23:57 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 31, 2008, 10:08:15 AM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 31, 2008, 10:15:33 AM
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.

And another retarded claim in this thread that somehow FE wins.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 31, 2008, 10:26:04 AM
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?

That assumption is correct, yes. The acceleration is only indirectly applied to the air, aeroplane and skydiver through the electrostatic repulsion between atoms in the Earth and atoms in the air, and similarly between atoms in the air and atoms in airborne objects.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 31, 2008, 10:49:23 AM
(Request permission to post 1.5 A4 pages in .gif to demonstrate simple solution to this problem...)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Parsifal on August 31, 2008, 10:52:22 AM
(Request permission to post 1.5 A4 pages in .gif to demonstrate simple solution to this problem...)

Post away, sir. GIF files are very small, so there shouldn't be a problem.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 31, 2008, 11:08:32 AM
OK here goes, I apologise if this comes out massive...

(http://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq149/Matrix-ftw/FE_skydive_0001.gif)
(http://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq149/Matrix-ftw/FE_skydive_0002.gif)

Hopefully that's come out ok. Basically this aims to show that a skydiver cannot use terminal velocity to differentiate between the UA and gravitation in an FE model where the body under UA does not gravitate.

This last part is the biggest problem for me, but that doesn't mean that as a model the maths doesn't work out for this problem.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Trekky0623 on August 31, 2008, 11:11:01 AM
What are we arguing about?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Jack on August 31, 2008, 11:15:16 AM
Terminal velocity of FE.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 31, 2008, 11:15:42 AM
So, basically, my derivation is correct.  And much less messy.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 31, 2008, 11:21:27 AM
Chill out Engy - if there was a way to stick TeX straight in here I'd just do that, but as far as I know (tell me otherwise, please!!) there isn't, so I went for the pen and scanner option. Sorry if it hurts your eyes.

Secondly, surely you can appreciate the argument on here wasn't going anywhere. Without external intervention it was never going to end - as entertaining as it is to check in occasionally I couldn't help but feel it had gone on long enough.

Thirdly, yes, my (intentionally simplistic) derivation shows that you are correct in that in a non-gravitating, UA-based, FE model will give the same terminal velocity as a gravitating RE model.  Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 31, 2008, 11:25:04 AM
My reply contained no malice.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Trekky0623 on August 31, 2008, 11:32:29 AM
There's terminal velocity in FE.

As the air rushes past a person falling out of an airplane (air which is resting upon the FE and is therefore also being accelerated at 9.8 m/s2, the air resistance will eventually start to accelerate the person at a rate, and the person will continue to accelerate at that slower rate and fall at a constant velocity, aka terminal velocity.

FE wins.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 31, 2008, 11:34:26 AM
Trekky, did you actually read my post? Or any of Engy's?

Engy - my bad, misread your first post as bitchy so decided to patronise you in response, just to show what a big man I am.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Trekky0623 on August 31, 2008, 11:36:07 AM
I'm assuming you, Engy, and I are arguing the same thing, and cbarnett doesn't get it.

Correct?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (And Terminal Velocity of FE)
Post by: Dr Matrix on August 31, 2008, 11:38:40 AM
Pretty much. C'est la vie.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on August 31, 2008, 11:46:49 AM
Quite correct.  My derivation is a few pages back if you wish to take a look at it Trekky.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: sokarul on August 31, 2008, 01:25:30 PM
So, basically, my derivation is correct.  And much less messy.

You are an engineer and you think his scans are messy?  That's funny. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: TheEngineer on August 31, 2008, 02:40:55 PM
You are an engineer and you think his scans are messy?  That's funny. 
I don't get it.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 03:20:53 PM
(http://i34.tinypic.com/2is6p0y.jpg)
(http://i35.tinypic.com/2j4bjva.jpg)
(http://i35.tinypic.com/9hkm0y.jpg)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEarthIsRoundForever on August 31, 2008, 03:27:11 PM
Um, I hope for your sake that this is a joke. But if not, let me let you in on something. Um, the earth is...ROUND!

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Trekky0623 on August 31, 2008, 04:17:32 PM
That doesn't change the fact that there will still be a terminal velocity in FE.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Trekky0623 on August 31, 2008, 04:19:12 PM
RE Free Body Diagram

/\ - Air resistance
O
|
\/ - Gravitation


FE Free Body Diagram

/\ - Air resitance
O

/\ - UA
|___________ FE
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 05:27:09 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Trekky0623 on August 31, 2008, 06:13:25 PM
How would you measure it?  Speed relative to Earth will be the same, and so will felt force.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 06:58:19 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Trekky0623 on August 31, 2008, 07:09:18 PM
Same in RE and in FE.  At terminal velocity, acceleration is 0 relative to earth and air.  Your point?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 07:13:41 PM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Trekky0623 on August 31, 2008, 09:31:04 PM
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.

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.

There is absolutely no difference.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 09:36:56 PM
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.

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.[/color]
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.[/color]
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.
(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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Jack on August 31, 2008, 09:54:44 PM
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.

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.

There is absolutely no difference.
Even my little brother gets that (he's only 10).
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 09:57:51 PM
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.

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.

There is absolutely no difference.
Even my little brother gets that (he's only 10).
of course, if you do not understand the science behind it then it makes perfect sense
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on August 31, 2008, 10:00:12 PM
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. 

Quote
(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.
And like I said already, there is no balancing force.  Therefore there is a constant acceleration. 

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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 31, 2008, 10:03:42 PM
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. 

Quote
(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.
And like I said already, there is no balancing force.  Therefore there is a constant acceleration. 

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?
so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: A Humble Vaudevillian on August 31, 2008, 10:50:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: FETftw on August 31, 2008, 10:52:20 PM
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.
the turtles and elephants part is a joke.
the BoP is on you guys. youre the ones that dont believe.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Jack on September 01, 2008, 01:19:50 AM
of course, if you do not understand the science behind it then it makes perfect sense
That's what you're doing in this thread right now.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 01:23:20 AM
since you understand the model so well go ahead and take a shot at this
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. 

Quote
(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.
And like I said already, there is no balancing force.  Therefore there is a constant acceleration. 

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?
so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Jack on September 01, 2008, 01:30:08 AM
How can you deny this? It's just some freshman physics...

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.

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.

There is absolutely no difference.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 01:35:06 AM
How can you deny this? It's just some freshman physics...

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.

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.

There is absolutely no difference.
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 model
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Fletch on September 01, 2008, 01:41:39 AM
so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2
What is an accelerometer and how does it work?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Jack on September 01, 2008, 01:42:32 AM
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 model
Why are we solving for the acceleration?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 01:43:23 AM
so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2
What is an accelerometer and how does it work?
basically it measures acceleration. it is big in safety tests to test the amount of force delivered to objects.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 01:44:53 AM
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 model
Why are we solving for the acceleration?
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Jack on September 01, 2008, 01:47:56 AM
Here we go again...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 01:50:17 AM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Jack on September 01, 2008, 01:51:40 AM
Sorry I didn't have time to go over this "argument", but when did they claim that?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Fletch on September 01, 2008, 01:54:09 AM
so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2
What is an accelerometer and how does it work?
basically it measures acceleration. it is big in safety tests to test the amount of force delivered to objects.
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 01:55:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 01:56:46 AM
so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2
What is an accelerometer and how does it work?
basically it measures acceleration. it is big in safety tests to test the amount of force delivered to objects.
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?
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 acceleration
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Jack on September 01, 2008, 02:07:25 AM
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.
But they say there are no balancing forces. There is only a constant upwards acceleration relative to the Earth's.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Fletch on September 01, 2008, 02:23:12 AM
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 acceleration
So in RE, when you jump from your plane, what/how is it measuring?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 01, 2008, 03:13:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 03:49:48 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Fletch on September 01, 2008, 04:03:35 AM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 04:08:56 AM
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.
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. Another type of MEMS-based accelerometer contains a small heater at the bottom of a very small dome, which heats the air inside the dome to cause it to rise. A thermocouple on the dome determines where the heated air reaches the dome and the deflection off the center is a measure of the acceleration applied to the sensor.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 01, 2008, 05:12:42 AM
cbarnett - you can remove the parts in bold and my statement remains valid.  You have ignored the whole point of my post, but I will frame it in the context of yours in the interests of civil discussion.

You are correct that accelerometers are essentially cantilevers or springs (either macroscopic of MEMS, that part is irrelevant to everything other than their accuracy and size). Are you trying to say that in vacuum free fall an accelerometer can measure gravity? This is completely untrue - as I said if this were possible then an accelerometer would be all you would need to determine an absolute Universal rest frame, which is forbidden by relativity.  Even if you allow such a frame to exist, an accelerometer doesn't have some magic mass bound to that frame to measure against.

An accelerometer can not measure gravity in free fall. It can measure the acceleration caused by drag, but in vacuum free fall it will show exactly zero acceleration, even if you are in orbit.

If you don't believe me, then wiki also supports this line of reasoning:

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Fletch on September 01, 2008, 05:27:20 AM
an accelerometer measure acceleration relative to itsself.
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.
Wow, is there no end to man's ingenuity.

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 01, 2008, 05:34:00 AM
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

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.

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).

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.

Yep, spot on (at all times).
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Fletch on September 01, 2008, 05:39:39 AM
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.

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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Parsifal on September 01, 2008, 05:50:19 AM
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?

9.8 m s-2 upwards. It is measuring its own acceleration.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 01, 2008, 05:50:42 AM
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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: divito the truthist on September 01, 2008, 05:55:34 AM
I like how even Matrix is trying to tell him he's wrong now, and he's an REer.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 01, 2008, 05:59:24 AM
Hey, nobody's perfect! ;)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Fletch on September 01, 2008, 07:38:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 01, 2008, 07:49:08 AM
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).
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Parsifal on September 01, 2008, 08:32:06 AM
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).

Off-topic question, but this thread doesn't have anything too important in it to begin with: does the strong nuclear force ever actually decrease to zero, or does it just act very weakly across large distances?

(I am aware that there is a point where it reduces to zero between its attractive and repulsive modes. I am referring to what happens as one increases the distance between two quarks to infinity.)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 01, 2008, 08:43:40 AM
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.

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?

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Parsifal on September 01, 2008, 08:46:44 AM
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.

1g = 9.8 m s-2.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 01, 2008, 08:49:14 AM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Parsifal on September 01, 2008, 08:50:35 AM
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

It's like arguing about whether a car is moving at fifty miles per hour or eighty kilometres per hour. They mean the same thing.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 01, 2008, 08:52:16 AM
Just admit im right.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Parsifal on September 01, 2008, 08:53:44 AM
Just admit im right.

You are right. I am also right.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 01, 2008, 08:55:44 AM
We can't have a winner to the debate if we are both right.

Does that mean win for FE?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: FETftw on September 01, 2008, 08:58:24 AM
our acft dont have an m/s^2 gauge either...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Parsifal on September 01, 2008, 09:05:00 AM
Does that mean win for FE?

Sure.

our acft dont have an m/s^2 gauge either...

That doesn't change the fact that it's measuring something for which the SI unit is m s-2.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 01, 2008, 09:19:59 AM
Is there no limit to the amount of fail cbarnett is capable of?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 01, 2008, 09:51:43 AM
our acft dont have an m/s^2 gauge either...

What do you fly?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: FETftw on September 01, 2008, 09:56:11 AM
our acft dont have an m/s^2 gauge either...

What do you fly?
ch47 chinook
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 01, 2008, 10:05:25 AM
Ft Campbell?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: FETftw on September 01, 2008, 10:16:23 AM
Ft Campbell?
no, much worse. fort drum. :(
i was stationed at campbell from 98-00 though and loved it. trying to get back over there.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 01:54:53 PM
Is there no limit to the amount of fail cbarnett is capable of?
how about you answer my question
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: FETftw on September 01, 2008, 01:55:56 PM
im sorry - there was a question?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 02:01:29 PM
im sorry - there was a question?
oh yeah there was, but it is funny how theengineer skips over questions that show he is wrong
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Trekky0623 on September 01, 2008, 02:06:21 PM
Or that you fail to grasp simple physics.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Trekky0623 on September 01, 2008, 02:09:55 PM
Yeah, I don't see the question.  You were making statements two pages back, but no questions.

Restate.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 02:10:27 PM
Or that you fail to grasp simple physics.
then it should be a no brainer for him to show me.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 02:11:21 PM
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. 

Quote
(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.
And like I said already, there is no balancing force.  Therefore there is a constant acceleration. 

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?
so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 01, 2008, 02:15:55 PM
A little under 9.8m/s^2.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where my derivation is wrong.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 02:16:43 PM
A little under 9.8m/s^2.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where my derivation is wrong.

I have shown you many many times so how about doing a little math and showing me what it should read
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 01, 2008, 02:17:34 PM
You have not shown it to be even once.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Trekky0623 on September 01, 2008, 02:33:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 02:35:14 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Tim Bishop on September 01, 2008, 02:35:29 PM
All the answers are in the FAQ, check.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 01, 2008, 02:38:56 PM
no it will not calculate the acceleration on the object and you will see that it is not the same
Then 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. 
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 02:40:24 PM
no it will not calculate the acceleration on the object and you will see that it is not the same
Then 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 before
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 01, 2008, 02:42:17 PM
Congratulations on making the dumbest post of the day.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Trekky0623 on September 01, 2008, 02:42:58 PM
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

Okay, let's take this one step at a time.

On FE:

1. You drop an object.

2. The Earth begins to accelerate towards the object, pushing air with it.

3. Though the object initially had an acceleration of 0 m/s2, it will now begin to accelerate due to air resistance.

4. The object reaches 9.8 m/s2.  It is now going a constant speed.

Now, this conforms exactly with the equivalence principle.  The only thing changed in this scenario compared to RE is our perspective.

On RE:

1. You drop an object.

2. The object begins to accelerate at 9.8 m/s2 towards the Earth.

3. As it encounters air, friction builds until the object begins to decelerate.

4. The object now has an acceleration of 0 m/s2 and is going a constant speed.

Besides our perspective, there is NOTHING different between the two scenarios.

Now I ask you, what IN THE WORLD would change the acceleration or anything between the two scenarios?

no it will not calculate the acceleration on the object and you will see that it is not the same
Then 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 before

WTF?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 02:46:34 PM
you can not relate it to the earth only to the air passing by it. that is why you can't apply the EP to the 2
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Trekky0623 on September 01, 2008, 02:48:23 PM
Okay then.

1. Object sitting still

2. Air rushing past at g.

3. Object begins to accelerate.

4. Object reaches g.

Tahdah!  No Earth.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 02:50:26 PM
now using that show what the accleration will be at t=2 and then show that it will be the same as the RE model and if you want to still claim the EP then proove that the equations are the same
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Trekky0623 on September 01, 2008, 02:57:02 PM
OK.

I SHALL BE BACK!
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 01, 2008, 03:16:35 PM
if you want to still claim the EP then proove that the equations are the same
vt = sqrt(2*m*ae/(rho*A*Cd)

I seem to have done that already.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Trekky0623 on September 01, 2008, 03:38:31 PM
*Peeks from behind bunker*

Is the war over?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 01, 2008, 03:39:59 PM
The war has been over for 15 pages now.  We are all just waiting for cbarnett to catch up.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 03:40:46 PM
if you want to still claim the EP then proove that the equations are the same
vt = sqrt(2*m*ae/(rho*A*Cd)

I seem to have done that already.
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 down
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 01, 2008, 03:43:44 PM
Great!  You finally admit you were wrong!  This is a joyous day!
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 03:48:32 PM
Great!  You finally admit you were wrong!  This is a joyous day!
how about solving the problem at hand.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Trekky0623 on September 01, 2008, 03:53:11 PM
Why would the equivalence principle change depending on circumstances?

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 06:31:21 PM
Why would the equivalence principle change depending on circumstances?

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.
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Trekky0623 on September 01, 2008, 09:02:29 PM
Why would the equivalence principle change depending on circumstances?

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.
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

(http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2746/tempid9.gif)

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Jack on September 01, 2008, 09:28:27 PM
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.
But they say there are no balancing forces. There is only a constant upwards acceleration relative to the Earth's.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 01, 2008, 09:35:09 PM
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.

Quote
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
Ok, 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?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 01, 2008, 09:48:58 PM
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.

Quote
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
Ok, 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 EP
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 02, 2008, 12:02:20 AM
But their accelerations will be different.  How can we apply the EP?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 02, 2008, 01:03:16 AM
barnet, you're wrong.  I'm sorry but you just are.  Your objection was based around what an accelerometer reads a few pages ago, and I have decisively shown that your interpretation is flawed.  FE and RE in this instance give the same results - just please read what I said before about the operation of an accelerometer:

Quote from: Matrix and his best pal, Einstein
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.

The equivalence principle applies at all times - it wouldn't be much of a principle otherwise.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Parsifal on September 02, 2008, 02:56:27 AM
Am I the only one who gets a headache from trying to understand cbarnett97's posts?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Jack on September 02, 2008, 02:57:41 AM
Who doesn't?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 02, 2008, 11:05:19 AM
But their accelerations will be different.  How can we apply the EP?
I am not sure you are the one trying to apply it
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 02, 2008, 11:21:23 AM
Why would the equivalence principle change depending on circumstances?

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.
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

(http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2746/tempid9.gif)

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
Here is what the EP states:
1) The forces of gravitation and acceleration are equivalent, and "free fall", orbital motion, and "coasting" cause both to vanish: we deduce from this:
2) the force of gravity is actually the convergent, accelerated motion of spacetime, explaining the equivalence of gravitational weight and inertial mass;
3) Free fall, orbit, (or "coasting") is the condition of co-moving with the metric field, whether accelerated or not;
4) Since all falling, orbiting, (or "coasting") objects are co-movers with the metric field of spacetime, they are also co-movers with each other (or at rest relative to each other), explaining the fact that all objects fall with the same acceleration in a gravitational field.

Since an object moving through air will not truly be in "free fall" because of air resistance we cannot apply the EP
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Parsifal on September 02, 2008, 02:22:22 PM
(http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2746/tempid9.gif)

He said what we were all thinking.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 02, 2008, 06:25:02 PM
OK.

I SHALL BE BACK!
where is the proof? it should be easy
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 02, 2008, 10:22:50 PM
I am not sure you are the one trying to apply it
Right, and I say it will apply.  You are saying it won't.  You are wrong.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 03, 2008, 01:19:51 AM
Since an object moving through air will not truly be in "free fall" because of air resistance we cannot apply the EP

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Gravity and acceleration are always equivalent, whether there are additional accelerations in effect or not.  In fact, your argument is completely meaningless - in both the FE and RE cases there is the 'equivalent' acceleration of the gravitation of the Earth/the UA, and then additionally the effects of drag in the air.

I have explained this in at least 3 ways now - read my posts and then say why you don't agree. Aerodynamic drag does not destroy the equivalence principle, it just means that there are additional forces acting on the system in question.

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Jack on September 03, 2008, 02:02:56 AM
To barnet,

(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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 04, 2008, 01:15:30 PM
To barnet,

(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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 04, 2008, 03:29:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 04, 2008, 09:44:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 04, 2008, 10:45:37 PM
I seem to remember posting a set of equations that proved the models were identical.  Plus, the whole EP thing.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Parsifal on September 04, 2008, 10:47:58 PM
If only it were ethical to ban people for being stupid.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 04, 2008, 10:59:13 PM
cbarnett and sokarul would have been gone long ago.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: fruitkills on September 04, 2008, 11:34:47 PM
(http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/8817/burjuw8.jpg)

Curvature of the earth,no?

On the new Burj Dubai building.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 04, 2008, 11:36:41 PM
No.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: fruitkills on September 04, 2008, 11:40:29 PM
Why not? You can't just state "no", your statement is simply useless.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Fletch on September 04, 2008, 11:43:47 PM
It's a fish eye lens massively distorting the image.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 04, 2008, 11:44:35 PM
I can state 'no' because you are an idiot if you really think that picture shows the true curvature of the Earth.

Take your trolling somewhere else, noob.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: fruitkills on September 04, 2008, 11:53:31 PM
Ironic isn't it, that I wasn't actually attacking you and yet you decide that because you're the "global moderator" you can attack me through the internet. Aren't you amazing.  ::)

Go to the beach, you can see the slow curvature of the earth when you look out to sea. However, if you've racked up 13,000 posts on a.....flat earth.. forum there can't be much hope of that can there?

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 04, 2008, 11:56:04 PM
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
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 05, 2008, 01:21:43 AM
show that the EP is valid for all times then since it is so simple

This also applies to our little discussion about acceleration. The equivalence principle always applies - that is simple, elementary relativity. But don't just take my word for it:

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
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.

Quote from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/grel.html
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.

Quote from: Albert Einstein, quoted in 'Gravity' by James B. Hartle
"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)."

So, as everyone who knows anything about relativity will confirm, the FE and RE models in this example give the same results. Just accept it and move on, you're really not doing yourself any favours by hanging on to this misconception of yours.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Fletch on September 05, 2008, 02:36:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 06, 2008, 05:59:09 PM
Quote from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/grel.html
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.
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

Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Euclid on September 06, 2008, 06:07:50 PM
This has just gone too far.

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.

Quote
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

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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: divito the truthist on September 06, 2008, 07:30:27 PM
Hah, a new person also tells cbarnett he is wrong.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Jack on September 07, 2008, 02:47:08 AM
Victory, at last...

Let's see if he even touches this thread again.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 07, 2008, 04:20:39 AM
I really can't put it any more plainly than I already have. Einstein, wiki, hyperphysics - they all say barnet is wrong but he just doesn't get it.  He just can't figure out what the equivalence principle is.  I've tried and failed, I've only got myself to blame. :'(
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: divito the truthist on September 07, 2008, 04:34:38 AM
Let's keep Matrix away from the kids, as he wouldn't be a good teacher. :D
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 07, 2008, 06:12:27 AM
Lol... I can handle teaching undergrads since you can tell them to piss off and learn some physics at some level (which, paradoxically, they seem to appreciate more than being spoon-fed everything), but doesn't work so well for younger kids :)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
Post by: Xander on September 07, 2008, 10:19:04 PM
Uh, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem)

Um.. no matter what side I agree with... quoting a wiki page just discredited your entire argument... Yikes!
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: TheEngineer on September 07, 2008, 11:14:23 PM
I'm, sorry, who are you, again?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 08, 2008, 02:20:13 AM
This has just gone too far.

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.

Quote
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

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.
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
and then also learn how to make a free body diagram and resolve the forces actin upon the body
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 08, 2008, 02:52:23 AM
cbarnett97 - care to reply to the post I gave, which included a quote from Einstein on this exact problem? Why do you keep coming back to air resistance/drag as a reason that the equivalence principle is not valid? What is it about my previous arguments that you disagree with?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Euclid on September 08, 2008, 01:47:49 PM
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn291/gary2914458/Airresistance-2.png)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 08, 2008, 02:34:06 PM
Nice work Euclid! Let's see what happens next...
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: cbarnett97 on September 09, 2008, 01:45:36 PM
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn291/gary2914458/Airresistance-2.png)
to say it as clearly as theengineer:  Uh, no
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Parsifal on September 09, 2008, 01:47:39 PM
Christ... :-\
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Euclid on September 09, 2008, 01:48:52 PM
Please point out my error then.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 09, 2008, 02:15:51 PM
You see, Euclid, barnet clearly thinks that by imitating behaviour that he finds annoying in others, he will somehow stop them from doing it in the future.  What he doesn't realise is that everyone who's ever been pissed off with Engy has done the same thing, and lo and behold he's still the Engy we know and love/hate (as applicable).

barnet will most likely carry on doing this, since he doesn't know any better.  In the face of an entire forum of people saying he's wrong he'll resort to trying to be clever and failing miserably.  Oh well, nice try!
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Jack on September 09, 2008, 09:18:57 PM
to say it as clearly as theengineer:  Uh, no
Where is the mistake?
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: divito the truthist on September 10, 2008, 05:26:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 17, 2008, 08:26:46 AM
cbarnett has truly given up, it would seem!
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: divito the truthist on September 17, 2008, 09:13:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Jack on September 18, 2008, 01:00:02 AM
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/TOP_10.jpg)
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Robbyj on September 18, 2008, 01:22:35 AM
Nice
Title: Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
Post by: Dr Matrix on September 18, 2008, 01:26:46 AM
...and he still didn't get it