The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: thewahls7 on September 15, 2008, 08:27:00 PM

Title: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 15, 2008, 08:27:00 PM
Terminal Velocity.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 15, 2008, 08:34:45 PM
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22253.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22253.0)
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 15, 2008, 08:38:44 PM
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22253.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22253.0)

Direct me to a specific post. The first page isn't related to terminal velocity in the slightest.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 15, 2008, 08:44:12 PM
It starts 5 or 6 pages in.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 15, 2008, 09:43:31 PM
It starts 5 or 6 pages in.

And should have ended shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, some people just don't want to admit to being wrong.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 15, 2008, 09:46:36 PM

(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: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 15, 2008, 10:20:59 PM
/\    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.


Small problem. They are accelerating in opposite directions with no inverse relationship to each other... That makes no sense at all.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 15, 2008, 10:22:54 PM
Small problem. They are accelerating in opposite directions with no inverse relationship to each other... That makes no sense at all.

Expalin in more detail.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 16, 2008, 08:03:56 PM
Small problem. They are accelerating in opposite directions with no inverse relationship to each other... That makes no sense at all.

Expalin in more detail.

Terminal velocity isn't possible when there is nothing pushing from the top, and unless I'm reading the quote from "the engineer" wrong, then by his model it isn't possible either.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 16, 2008, 08:07:55 PM
I'm not getting into it again from the beginning.  Find something specific that you think is wrong with our arguement and we can go from there.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 16, 2008, 08:12:13 PM
I'm not getting into it again from the beginning.  Find something specific that you think is wrong with our arguement and we can go from there.

Okay.

After what I have read so far (albeit not that much) I do not believe that terminal velocity is possible in the FE theory, as there is nothing to push the ball down, so once it hit friction, it would free-fall after its peak, as if in a vacuum, because no force would be pushing down on it.

I don't think I can make it much more simple than that.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 16, 2008, 08:21:49 PM
The air beneath you is being accelerated by the earth, which is slowing your relative acceleration until relative velocity is zero. 
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 16, 2008, 08:21:51 PM
Okay.

After what I have read so far (albeit not that much) I do not believe that terminal velocity is possible in the FE theory, as there is nothing to push the ball down, so once it hit friction, it would free-fall after its peak, as if in a vacuum, because no force would be pushing down on it.

I don't think I can make it much more simple than that.

That makes no sense at all.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 16, 2008, 08:26:19 PM
The air beneath you is being accelerated by the earth, which is slowing your relative acceleration until relative velocity is zero. 

The air beneath the object creates drag, we got that. But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 16, 2008, 08:28:12 PM
The air beneath the object creates drag, we got that. But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.

(http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2746/tempid9.gif)
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 16, 2008, 08:30:24 PM
But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.

So what is the opposite of drag?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 16, 2008, 08:34:51 PM
The air beneath the object creates drag, we got that. But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.
In FE, without the force of gravity, there are no balanced forces. The "falling" object will continue to accelerate due to the passing air (drag) until it reaches g relative to the Earth's acceleration. Net acceleration between the two becomes 0 and relative velocity becomes constant. That's terminal velocity, as quoted in the diagram.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 16, 2008, 10:56:23 PM
It starts 5 or 6 pages in.

This is what I was talking about before.

This forum makes it possible to link to a single post Robbyj. Tom does it all the time when it suits him. Link to your cited reference if you reference a thread. Don't make people hunt for it.

As to the math here, yeah, not going to touch that. Well maybe only in passing and partial coherence...
The air beneath the object creates drag, we got that. But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.
In FE, without the force of gravity, there are no balanced forces. The "falling" object will continue to accelerate due to the passing air (drag) until it reaches g relative to the Earth's acceleration. Net acceleration between the two becomes 0 and relative velocity becomes constant. That's terminal velocity, as quoted in the diagram.

I tried to run the mountain top argument for a while, and getting just the party line, gave up. The mountain top argument is that you weigh less on a mountain top, so how can upward acceleration be constant? The party line is that the celestial bodies pull upward with some kind of I don't know, gravitational force maybe? While minimal the apparent G force in RE decreases with elevation, but G forces have little to do with Terminal Velocity AFAIK, at least inside the denser gaseous parts of the atmosphere/atmolayer.  With the almost unbelievable heights that extreme skydivers can reach nowadays you would expect a noticeable upward pull on downward acceleration and therefore sliding scale for terminal velocity based on starting elevation.

Lacking that FET should still be able to show that the starting fall acceleration of a body at the elevation of say Everest, or a body half that height even would be measurably slower than the starting fall acceleration of a body at sea level due to upward celestial pull.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 16, 2008, 11:02:13 PM
This is what I was talking about before.

This forum makes it possible to link to a single post Robbyj. Tom does it all the time when it suits him. Link to your cited reference if you reference a thread. Don't make people hunt for it.

They can utilize the search function just as easily as I can.

Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Raist on September 16, 2008, 11:12:07 PM
The air beneath you is being accelerated by the earth, which is slowing your relative acceleration until relative velocity is zero. 

The air beneath the object creates drag, we got that. But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.
The earth is accelerating up to you at exactly 9.81 m/s/s. That is free fall in a vacuum. The air is accelerating up towards you also. Causing you to accelerate upwards. The earth is still accelerating towards you faster than the drag from the air. Eventually, you are going so fast relative to the air that it is canceling out the acceleration from gravity, leaving you simply at a constant velocity towards the earth.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 16, 2008, 11:55:41 PM
This is what I was talking about before.

This forum makes it possible to link to a single post Robbyj. Tom does it all the time when it suits him. Link to your cited reference if you reference a thread. Don't make people hunt for it.

They can utilize the search function just as easily as I can.

That was your 666'th post...  :o

You cited a thread. By your own admission the action didn't start till 5-6 pages in. Linking to the post where the action starts isn't that hard, and isn't a lot to ask. Maybe we're all search function retarded. Did you ever think of that?

A lot to ask would be asking you to, I don't know, argue the points you espouse as genuine because you have a link to a thread where people have espoused them as genuine before you. I know how hard that is though, so I would never demand it.

The air beneath you is being accelerated by the earth, which is slowing your relative acceleration until relative velocity is zero. 

The air beneath the object creates drag, we got that. But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.
The earth is accelerating up to you at exactly 9.81 m/s/s. That is free fall in a vacuum. The air is accelerating up towards you also. Causing you to accelerate upwards. The earth is still accelerating towards you faster than the drag from the air. Eventually, you are going so fast relative to the air that it is canceling out the acceleration from gravity, leaving you simply at a constant velocity towards the earth.

What about starting fall speed? Is it still 9.81 m/s/s regardless of starting elevation? what about at 2000 miles elevation? If the heavens are 5000 miles up the upward celestial pull should be visible somewhere along the line if it can really influence terrestrial bodies.

RE bodies in space can move faster than TV anyway. They either slow in the atmosphere, or burn up.

Where was the free fall in a vacuum measured anyway? Was it measured at a distance approximating sea level?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 17, 2008, 12:04:51 AM
When the object jumps off a plane, the object starts accelerating upward due to drag. It continues to accelerate until it reaches g (9.8m/s2).
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 17, 2008, 12:09:29 AM
A lot to ask would be asking you to, I don't know, argue the points you espouse as genuine because you have a link to a thread where people have espoused them as genuine before you.

44 pages of argueing the same point is about my limit.

Quote
What about starting fall speed? Is it still 9.81 m/s/s regardless of starting elevation? what about at 2000 miles elevation? If the heavens are 5000 miles up the upward celestial pull should be visible somewhere along the line if it can really influence terrestrial bodies.

There are differring opinions.  Some say it's celestial influence, some instrument error, etc.

Quote
RE bodies in space can move faster than TV anyway. They either slow in the atmosphere, or burn up.

Difference in air density.

Quote
Where was the free fall in a vacuum measured anyway? Was it measured at a distance approximating sea level?

It's been measured several places and the differences have been in the thousandths range.  No idea what the highest altitude measured is though.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: mpman on September 17, 2008, 12:13:51 AM
I'm lost in the calculations. But it seams if you where to jump from a plane over FE that you would fall back to the planet at a max speed of 1g since FE is accelerating upward at 1g. As soon as you jump from that plan you are basically suspended in air. You have a slight pull to wards the sky from gravity and your just waiting for FE to catch up to you. Then you take into account the drag of the air being pushed up at you and you would think the speed at which you are "falling" back to the surface would be no worse then if you had jumped off a 3 foot tall box. With FE having no gravity to pull you down there is no danger in jumping from high places.

With gravity isn't there an increasing acceleration involved? As in the closer you get to the object the stronger gravities pull becomes causing you to accelerate even faster. Well the 1g upward movement of FE is enough to explain a constant weight and your ideas of gravity from the sky accounting for weight differences at various elevations sounds good. But they don't cover the effects of free fall. Technically speaking you can't fall on flat earth. You just wait till it comes up and smacks into you. Also with the gravitational pull of the sky affection your weight on a mountain it would seam that if you where to rocket an object up high enough that it could in fact be suspended between the sky and FE. Where the gravity of the objects in the sky is pulling hard enough to keep that object suspended over FE and constantly moving at 1G. Thus making space travel and satellites possible. According to FE it seam that the higher an object gets the easier it is for it to move even further upward.

Please correct me if i'm wrong and try not to look at it as if i'm trying to prve FE wrong. I like to remain objective about things. Weather its rigth or wrong doesn't really matter. Its all about keeping an open mind and thinking out side the box. These kinds of discussions are great.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 17, 2008, 12:15:33 AM
I stopped reading at "max speed of 1g".
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 17, 2008, 12:20:28 AM
But it seams if you where to jump from a plane over FE that you would fall back to the planet at a max speed of 1g since FE is accelerating upward at 1g.
You don't fall. You accelerate up.

As soon as you jump from that plan you are basically suspended in air. You have a slight pull to wards the sky from gravity and your just waiting for FE to catch up to you.
You are not pulled to the sky. Gravity does not exist.

With FE having no gravity to pull you down there is no danger in jumping from high places.
There is. Jump off a 10 story building and see what happens.

I stopped reading at "max speed of 1g".
I was gonna post that.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: MadDogX on September 17, 2008, 12:30:41 AM
I can't believe I'm actually taking the side of FE here, but when are people going to stop arguing the differences of gravity vs. UA? In the context of this discussion both are equally plausible, because both would produce the same percieved acceleration of 1g toward the Earth, along with the same rules of aerodynamics that keeps aircraft in the sky. This topic has been done to death by RE'ers that have succeeded in nothing more than making themselves look like complete morons.

So please, can we just move along now?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 17, 2008, 12:32:16 AM
So please, can we just move along now?

Something tells me it isn't going to be that easy.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 17, 2008, 12:33:17 AM
A lot to ask would be asking you to, I don't know, argue the points you espouse as genuine because you have a link to a thread where people have espoused them as genuine before you.

44 pages of arguing the same point is about my limit.
True... I'm right brain stupid so I stay out of those threads. Every peek I took was over my head. If that's your territory, then Godspeed.

When the object jumps off a plane, the object starts accelerating upward due to drag. It continues to accelerate until it reaches g (9.8m/s2).

What? are you sure you proofread that?

But it seams if you where to jump from a plane over FE that you would fall back to the planet at a max speed of 1g since FE is accelerating upward at 1g.
You don't fall. You accelerate up.

Still? I accelerate up, and that's why I fall down?

That just made me think of something. If you jumped out of a plane that was accelerating upward and was at an elevation of say 20 miles, where the air is thin or non-existent, why would you even fall downward? The Earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s, you're accelerating upward, at least at that time, at greater than 9.8m/s. There's almost no air to influence anything. You're following the same path as the Earth is following, and not orbiting it in any way... So what pulls you back down? Don't tell me I'm accelerating down and that's why I'd fly up...
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 17, 2008, 12:33:47 AM
I'll see your 2 pages and I raise you 42.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 17, 2008, 12:37:32 AM
Still? I accelerate up, and that's why I fall down?

You accelerate up, but at a slower rate than the earth until your acceleration equals earth making your relative velocity to the earth zero due to "reverse drag" caused by air friction, which is what... everyone say it with me... that's right, lift.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: mpman on September 17, 2008, 12:39:11 AM
That just made me think of something. If you jumped out of a plane that was accelerating upward and was at an elevation of say 20 miles, where the air is thin or non-existent, why would you even fall downward? The Earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s, you're accelerating upward, at least at that time, at greater than 9.8m/s. There's almost no air to influence anything. You're following the same path as the Earth is following, and not orbiting it in any way... So what pulls you back down? Don't tell me I'm accelerating down and that's why I'd fly up...

Eactly what i was saying. You can put an objust over FE and have it stay there. So it is possible that NASA is putting satalites and crafts up there even though everyone here knows they are not. ;)
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 17, 2008, 12:40:36 AM
Still? I accelerate up, and that's why I fall down?

You accelerate up, but at a slower rate than the earth until your acceleration equals earth making your relative velocity to the earth zero due to "reverse drag" caused by air friction, which is what... everyone say it with me... that's right, lift.

Lift requires air. Answer my non-existant air question from the same post you just quoted.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 17, 2008, 12:41:12 AM
That just made me think of something. If you jumped out of a plane that was accelerating upward and was at an elevation of say 20 miles, where the air is thin or non-existent, why would you even fall downward? The Earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s, you're accelerating upward, at least at that time, at greater than 9.8m/s. There's almost no air to influence anything. You're following the same path as the Earth is following, and not orbiting it in any way... So what pulls you back down? Don't tell me I'm accelerating down and that's why I'd fly up...

Eactly what i was saying. You can put an objust over FE and have it stay there. So it is possible that NASA is putting satalites and crafts up there even though everyone here knows they are not. ;)

As soon as you jump out of the plane you are no longer accelerating.  
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 17, 2008, 12:41:55 AM
Quote
When the object jumps off a plane, the object starts accelerating upward due to drag. It continues to accelerate until it reaches g (9.8m/s2).
What? are you sure you proofread that?
Yes.

Still? I accelerate up, and that's why I fall down?
There is a difference between your acceleration and the Earth's acceleration.

If you jumped out of a plane that was accelerating upward and was at an elevation of say 20 miles, where the air is thin or non-existent, why would you even fall downward?
Because the Earth accelerates up towards you.   :-\

The Earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s, you're accelerating upward, at least at that time, at greater than 9.8m/s.
You accelerate due to drag until you reach g.

There's almost no air to influence anything.
Yes, there is.

So what pulls you back down?
Nothing pulls you down in FE. When you leave the Earth, you are no longer accelerating, assuming there is no drag.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 17, 2008, 12:44:57 AM
That just made me think of something. If you jumped out of a plane that was accelerating upward and was at an elevation of say 20 miles, where the air is thin or non-existent, why would you even fall downward? The Earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s, you're accelerating upward, at least at that time, at greater than 9.8m/s. There's almost no air to influence anything. You're following the same path as the Earth is following, and not orbiting it in any way... So what pulls you back down? Don't tell me I'm accelerating down and that's why I'd fly up...

Eactly what i was saying. You can put an objust over FE and have it stay there. So it is possible that NASA is putting satalites and crafts up there even though everyone here knows they are not. ;)

As soon as you jump out of the plane you are no longer accelerating. 

True, but you are still moving at a constant speed greater than the UA. What stops that acceleration and draws you back down? Keep in mind there's no air to cause friction or influence things in any way.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: MadDogX on September 17, 2008, 12:45:25 AM
You guys do realize that g is not a "maximum acceleration" that you can simply escape by accelerating upward for a while (unless you reach orbit in RE, but that's a different topic)? It's a force that is affecting you constantly. By accelerating upward (i.e. by jumping from the ground, flying upward etc.) you are not "escaping" or "nullifying" g, you're just working against it. As soon as you are no longer accelerating away from the Earth, you will begin accelerating toward it at 1g (relatively and simplistically speaking). Of course, air friction will slow you down, but the fact remains that this force is still working on you, regardless of whether it is caused by gravitiy or UA.

Acceleration != speed.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 17, 2008, 12:52:30 AM
You guys do realize that g is not a "maximum acceleration" that you can simply escape by accelerating upward for a while (unless you reach orbit in RE, but that's a different topic)? It's a force that is affecting you constantly. By accelerating upward (i.e. by jumping from the ground, flying upward etc.) you are not "escaping" or "nullifying" g, you're just working against it. As soon as you are no longer accelerating away from the Earth, you will begin accelerating toward it at 1g (relatively and simplistically speaking). Of course, air friction will slow you down, but the fact remains that this force is still working on you, regardless of whether it is caused by gravitiy or UA.

Acceleration != speed.

Does that apply to a constant upward accelerating body as equally as it does to RE dynamics? If not don't rub it in our faces. We're arguing FET right now. They don't have our fancy gravitation.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 17, 2008, 12:55:30 AM
True, but you are still moving at a constant speed greater than the UA. What stops that acceleration and draws you back down? Keep in mind there's no air to cause friction or influence things in any way.

For the sake of arguement, let's say the plane and the earth are accelerating at the same rate, 1g.  When you jump out, as soon as your feet no longer touch the plane, you are no longer accelerating, but traveling at a constant velocity.  The earth, however, is still undergoing constant acceleration and it's velocity starts increasing while yours remains the same causing it to "catch up".  A lack of air has no effect on this.  Once the air density starts increasing as the earth gets closer to you, however, a lift effect would be produced causing you to accelerate until eventually you would either match the earth's acceleration or hit the ground, whichever comes first.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 17, 2008, 12:58:12 AM
They don't have our fancy gravitation.

Your fancy gravitation says gravitation and acceleration are indistinguishable from one another.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: MadDogX on September 17, 2008, 12:58:18 AM
You guys do realize that g is not a "maximum acceleration" that you can simply escape by accelerating upward for a while (unless you reach orbit in RE, but that's a different topic)? It's a force that is affecting you constantly. By accelerating upward (i.e. by jumping from the ground, flying upward etc.) you are not "escaping" or "nullifying" g, you're just working against it. As soon as you are no longer accelerating away from the Earth, you will begin accelerating toward it at 1g (relatively and simplistically speaking). Of course, air friction will slow you down, but the fact remains that this force is still working on you, regardless of whether it is caused by gravitiy or UA.

Acceleration != speed.

Does that apply to a constant upward accelerating body as equally as it does to RE dynamics? If not don't rub it in our faces. We're arguing FET right now. They don't have our fancy gravitation.


Whether the Earth is constantly accelerating upward at 1g or gravity pulls us toward it at 1g, we would always percieve ourselves as accelerating "downward" at 1g. There would be no percievable difference, which is why FE'ers consider UA to be a full substitution for gravity that fits into the FE model.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's total bull just as much as you do. But arguing against it by making false assumptions about it makes people look foolish. It is after all called "upward acceleration" not "constant upward speed". If the FET Earth were considered to be moving upward at constant speed, sure you could "overtake" it if you accelerated enough. As it stands, that theory is about as much nonsense as UA itself.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 17, 2008, 01:34:54 AM
Does that apply to a constant upward accelerating body as equally as it does to RE dynamics? If not don't rub it in our faces. We're arguing FET right now. They don't have our fancy gravitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle)
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 17, 2008, 02:15:13 AM
Still? I accelerate up, and that's why I fall down?
There is a difference between your acceleration and the Earth's acceleration.
Why? Can't aircraft match the acceleration provided they have lift? Can't balloons reach high elevations and stay there? Even Tom said they can. Why doesn't the Earth accelerate into them? The atmosphere? Is the space above the atmosphere constantly being compressed so that bodies cannot occupy it?

If you jumped out of a plane that was accelerating upward and was at an elevation of say 20 miles, where the air is thin or non-existent, why would you even fall downward?
Because the Earth accelerates up towards you.   :-\
It always was, and at a constant acceleration that my body matched and exceeded. Without something to slow it it should continue out-pacing the earth. What is making my body slow down, assuming there is no air?

The earth is moving up, and the atmosphere is moving up both at a relative constant speed. My body has the benefit of that upward acceleration, matches and exceeds it. Both the earth and my body are sharing that acceleration, but my body has a bit more acceleration. What strips my body of the acceleration it shared with the Earth to make the Earth outlap it?

The Earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s/s, you're accelerating upward, at least at that time, at greater than 9.8m/s/s.
You accelerate due to drag until you reach g.

I'm beyond drag. That was the whole point of my post. If 20 miles isn't far enough, make it 100 miles and consider it again. There is no air in this example...

Does that apply to a constant upward accelerating body as equally as it does to RE dynamics? If not don't rub it in our faces. We're arguing FET right now. They don't have our fancy gravitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle)
"So the original equivalence principle, as described by Einstein, concluded that free-fall and inertial motion were physically equivalent. This form of the equivalence principle can be stated as follows. An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space."

True, but you are still moving at a constant speed greater than the UA. What stops that acceleration and draws you back down? Keep in mind there's no air to cause friction or influence things in any way.

For the sake of argument, let's say the plane and the earth are accelerating at the same rate, 1g.  When you jump out, as soon as your feet no longer touch the plane, you are no longer accelerating, but traveling at a constant velocity.  The earth, however, is still undergoing constant acceleration and it's velocity starts increasing while yours remains the same causing it to "catch up".  A lack of air has no effect on this.  Once the air density starts increasing as the earth gets closer to you, however, a lift effect would be produced causing you to accelerate until eventually you would either match the earth's acceleration or hit the ground, whichever comes first.
Your plane would have to exceed the Earths acceleration for it to take off, let alone do this experiment. Even if a plane got lift and was flying, if it was a secular non-earth body by your calculations the earth accelerating at it at 9.8m/s/s it would collide in a millisecond or less at standard aviation elevations. You explain this away by saying the plane shares the earths UA, as well as having lift, enableing it to go up.

In the same vein I'm saying my body has upward momentum, as well as sharing the UA. As the craft my body recently vacated on it's upward passage shared UA, my body has both UA and a greater upward acceleration than the Earth. My body at motion should tend to stay at motion. If my body was in a craft at the same elevation flying horizontally you'd argue that the UA was still influencing. What causes UA influence on my body to stop influencing and my upward speed to drop below that of the UA influenced Earth?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 17, 2008, 02:17:12 AM
"So the original equivalence principle, as described by Einstein, concluded that free-fall and inertial motion were physically equivalent. This form of the equivalence principle can be stated as follows. An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space."

If you think tidal effects have a significant impact on the way you would fall to the Earth from a plane, your understanding of physics is hopelessly malformed.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 17, 2008, 02:23:10 AM
Your plane would have to exceed the Earths acceleration for it to take off

To take off and reach cruising altitude, yes.  To maintain altitude it would only have to match it.

Quote
Even if a plane got lift and was flying, if it was a secular non-earth body by your calculations the earth accelerating at it at 9.8m/s/s it would collide in a millisecond or less at standard aviation elevations.

Nope.

Quote
You explain this away by saying the plane shares the earths UA, as well as having lift, enableing it to go up.

Nope.

Quote
In the same vein I'm saying my body has upward momentum, as well as sharing the UA. As the craft my body recently vacated on it's upward passage shared UA, my body has both UA and a greater upward acceleration than the Earth. My body at motion should tend to stay at motion. If my body was in a craft at the same elevation flying horizontally you'd argue that the UA was still influencing. What causes UA influence on my body to stop influencing and my upward speed to drop below that of the UA influenced Earth?

I never said anything about the UA affecting anything.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 17, 2008, 03:07:39 AM
"So the original equivalence principle, as described by Einstein, concluded that free-fall and inertial motion were physically equivalent. This form of the equivalence principle can be stated as follows. An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space."

If you think tidal effects have a significant impact on the way you would fall to the Earth from a plane, your understanding of physics is hopelessly malformed.
That's not my opinion, it's directly from the link you gave me. Go ahead and re-read it if you want. I chose that passage to allude to the fact that the spaceship idea in general won't work for too long, even with your super special FE math and dynamics, because there are too many loopholes.

I also said that math isn't my thing so please leave physics out of it. I don't want to, and in all reality can't go there.

Robbyj, you didn't answer the roots of my questions in anything I'd consider adequate, so I'm not going to respond. Most of those were directed a E.Jack anyway, so I'll wait to see if his response is more verbose than "Nope".

Let me leave you with this Robbyj; 2 cars are driving down the road. They both have the same constant speed. Without any change being made to either car or the road, and both cars not changing velocity, could you cite reference for either car overtaking the other? Why?

If this is not a fitting allegory explain to me why. Remember that there is no air to "drag".
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 17, 2008, 03:13:10 AM
If this is not a fitting allegory explain to me why. Remember that there is no air to "drag".

Because the earth will be accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and you will be accelerating at 0 after you jump out of the plane.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 17, 2008, 03:22:21 AM
There is a difference between your acceleration and the Earth's acceleration.
Why? Can't aircraft match the acceleration provided they have lift? Can't balloons reach high elevations and stay there? Even Tom said they can. Why doesn't the Earth accelerate into them? The atmosphere? Is the space above the atmosphere constantly being compressed so that bodies cannot occupy it?
If I'm accelerating up at 1.6m/s2 and the Earth is accelerating up at g, the Earth will eventually catch up to me sooner or later. Reread my quote.

It always was, and at a constant acceleration that my body matched and exceeded. Without something to slow it it should continue out-pacing the earth. What is making my body slow down, assuming there is no air?
If there is no air, you will enter an inertial frame of reference once you leave the surface of the Earth. The Earth accelerates up to you in a fashion similar to free-falling in RE.

The earth is moving up, and the atmosphere is moving up both at a relative constant speed. My body has the benefit of that upward acceleration, matches and exceeds it. Both the earth and my body are sharing that acceleration, but my body has a bit more acceleration. What strips my body of the acceleration it shared with the Earth to make the Earth outlap it?
I think you are talking past the point. We are talking about Terminal Velocity, where you accelerat up due to drag (air resistance) until you reach g relative to the Earth's g. Refer to my diagram.

I'm beyond drag. That was the whole point of my post. If 20 miles isn't far enough, make it 100 miles and consider it again. There is no air in this example...
If there is no air, then the Earth accelerates up to you with no change in overall net acceleration. Why can't you understand this?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 17, 2008, 03:37:52 AM
I'm beyond drag. That was the whole point of my post. If 20 miles isn't far enough, make it 100 miles and consider it again. There is no air in this example...
If there is no air, then the Earth accelerates up to you with no change in overall net acceleration. Why can't you understand this?

If I'm moving at the same speed as the Earth or greater, how can it accelerate up to me with no change in overall net acceleration. That's the part I'm having problems with.

If this is not a fitting allegory explain to me why. Remember that there is no air to "drag".

Because the earth will be accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and you will be accelerating at 0 after you jump out of the plane.
Why for Christs sake? What is the dynamic that arrests your momentum? Can you honestly say the plane the body jumped out of wasn't sharing the earth's 9.8m/s/s acceleration? If that plane was moving in strong enough of an upward direction when you jump you'd still be moving up faster than UA post exit. I'm getting tired of arguing this, so this is your last chance. What relegates the jettisoned body to non-UA status? WHAT IS THE DAMN FORCE THAT REMOVES MY BODY'S UA? It was there a second ago in the ship, where did it go?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 17, 2008, 03:46:05 AM
If I'm moving at the same speed as the Earth or greater, how can it accelerate up to me with no change in overall net acceleration. That's the part I'm having problems with.
You mean "accelerating", not moving. If I, by some kind of mechanism, were to accelerate up greater than the Earth's acceleration, yes it will not reach me. That's how planes take off in FE.

However, your previous post mentioned me at some place 100 miles high above the Earth with no air. I assumed you were asking me to clarify if the Earth still eventually catches up to me if I fall. Yes, it will due to 9.8m/s2 up in overall net acceleration.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: MadDogX on September 17, 2008, 03:46:38 AM
I'm beyond drag. That was the whole point of my post. If 20 miles isn't far enough, make it 100 miles and consider it again. There is no air in this example...
If there is no air, then the Earth accelerates up to you with no change in overall net acceleration. Why can't you understand this?

If I'm moving at the same speed as the Earth or greater, how can it accelerate up to me with no change in overall net acceleration. That's the part I'm having problems with.

Acceleration != speed. Once you stop accelerating, you are no longer gaining speed. The Earth on the other hand is constantly gaining speed (according to FET of course). Therefore it will inevitably "catch up with you".


If this is not a fitting allegory explain to me why. Remember that there is no air to "drag".

Because the earth will be accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and you will be accelerating at 0 after you jump out of the plane.
Why for Christs sake? What is the dynamic that arrests your momentum? Can you honestly say the plane the body jumped out of wasn't sharing the earth's 9.8m/s/s acceleration? If that plane was moving in strong enough of an upward direction when you jump you'd still be moving up faster than UA post exit. I'm getting tired of arguing this, so this is your last chance. What relegates the jettisoned body to non-UA status? WHAT IS THE DAMN FORCE THAT REMOVES MY BODY'S UA? It was there a second ago in the ship, where did it go?

Again: Speed is not the same as acceleration. You cannot "move faster than acceleration" because they are two different things. You can gain as much momentum as you want, but that will put you at a constant relative velocity - i.e. you are no longer accelerating. Since (flat) Earth is still accelerating and therefore constantly gaining speed at 9,8m/s per second, it will catch up with you. It is exactly the same principle as gravity, but basically in reverse.


In both FE and RE, if you wanted to gain enough speed to exit the Earth in a straight line without continuously accelerating, you would need to reach escape velocity.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 17, 2008, 03:57:52 AM
Speed is not the same as acceleration. You cannot "move faster than acceleration" because they are two different things. You can gain as much momentum as you want, but that will put you at a constant relative velocity - i.e. you are no longer accelerating. Since (flat) Earth is still accelerating and therefore constantly gaining speed at 9,8m/s per second, it will catch up with you. It is exactly the same principle as gravity, but basically in reverse.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Sean O'Grady on September 17, 2008, 04:05:00 AM
I'm beyond drag. That was the whole point of my post. If 20 miles isn't far enough, make it 100 miles and consider it again. There is no air in this example...
If there is no air, then the Earth accelerates up to you with no change in overall net acceleration. Why can't you understand this?

If I'm moving at the same speed as the Earth or greater, how can it accelerate up to me with no change in overall net acceleration. That's the part I'm having problems with.

If this is not a fitting allegory explain to me why. Remember that there is no air to "drag".

Because the earth will be accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and you will be accelerating at 0 after you jump out of the plane.
Why for Christs sake? What is the dynamic that arrests your momentum? Can you honestly say the plane the body jumped out of wasn't sharing the earth's 9.8m/s/s acceleration? If that plane was moving in strong enough of an upward direction when you jump you'd still be moving up faster than UA post exit. I'm getting tired of arguing this, so this is your last chance. What relegates the jettisoned body to non-UA status? WHAT IS THE DAMN FORCE THAT REMOVES MY BODY'S UA? It was there a second ago in the ship, where did it go?

The UA accelerates the earth. The earth pushes the atmosphere. As the plane travels through this atmosphere its wings generate lift (e.g. upwards acceleration - the same in RET). For the plane to increase in altitude the lift (upwards acceleration) has to be greater than 9.8m/s2 (the same in RET). If the plane wants to remain at a constant altitude its lift just has to be equal to 9.8m/s2 (the same as in RET).

While you are on the plane you are undergoing the same acceleration as the plane. When you jump out of the plane there isn't a hard floor beneath you that you can't fall through, there is air. You can fall through air. We'll ignore the effects of the air for a moment (I'll come back to that at the end), and focus on momentum and acceleration. As you are no longer in the plane there is no force acting on you any more and you will maintain your velocity without any acceleration - your momentum. Meanwhile, the earth is still accelerating at 9.8m/s2 due to the UA and the plane is still accelerating at 9.8m/s2 due to the lift generated by the plane's wings. Let's say that your speed at the time you jump out of the plane is X, after one second the plane's velocity and the earth's velocity will be X+9.8m/s, after two seconds the velocities will be X+19.6m/s and so on.

Now for the air. As the air is accelerating past you it will create drag, the faster it is travelling past you the more drag it is creating. Think about a windy day and how a really strong wind can knock you off your feet where as a little wind will just mess up your hair. The faster the wind is moving past you the more drag is created, that is the more the air accelerates you. Eventually the air will 'accelerate' you at 9.8m/s2. At this point the difference between your velocity and the earth's velocity will remain the same but because it's taken time to reach this balanced state the earth's velocity is already greater than yours. Let's just say it only took 2 seconds to reach this balance and we'll call your velocity X. The earth's velocity will be X+19.6m/s and as you are both now accelerating at 9.8m/s2 that difference in velocity will not change and the earth will get closer to you by 19.6 metres every second. In this hypothetical your terminal velocity would be 19.6m/s.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: MadDogX on September 17, 2008, 04:10:31 AM
I would like to commend Pretentious Twat at this point for his enjoyably eloquent explanation of terminal velocity.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 17, 2008, 04:35:38 AM
If I'm moving at the same speed as the Earth or greater, how can it accelerate up to me with no change in overall net acceleration. That's the part I'm having problems with.
You mean "accelerating", not moving. If I, by some kind of mechanism, were to accelerate up greater than the Earth's acceleration, yes it will not reach me. That's how planes work in FE.

However, your previous post mentioned me at some place 100 miles high above the Earth with no air. I assumed you were asking me to clarify if the Earth still eventually catches up to me if I fall. Yes, it will due to 9.8m/s/s in overall net acceleration.
That's not what I mean at all. What I mean is if you jumped out of a plane that had cleared any part of the the atmosphere that still had air and was still traveling upward, your relative motion including the UA would exceed that of the Earth, and FET dynamics can't adequately explain to me why the momentum of the bodies exiting that craft would be arrested to the point that the Earth would catch up to it. Seriously, I've been going on for like the past page and a half about this.

Quote
If I'm moving at the same speed as the Earth or greater, how can it accelerate up to me with no change in overall net acceleration. That's the part I'm having problems with.
Acceleration != speed. Once you stop accelerating, you are no longer gaining speed. The Earth on the other hand is constantly gaining speed (according to FET of course). Therefore it will inevitably "catch up with you".

As I've said, without bodies being able to match the 9.8m/s/s acceleration of the Earth planes wouldn't be able to leave the ground, let alone people being able to stand up.

And as I've said my body in this example still had upward momentum equaling and exceeding UA. And by that I mean it shared the upward acceleration that the earth had, and exceeded it. If a body is matching the UA for even a segment of it's existance, how can you assert that that matching would stop and it would lose all of it's momentum in an instant for some obtuse reason?

A body the size of the flat earth moving at 9.8m/s/s constant at an object moving 0mph wouldn't simulate free fall anyway, it would unleash all hell. Big boom, big crater. You don't see that every day.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Sean O'Grady on September 17, 2008, 05:00:17 AM
That's not what I mean at all. What I mean is if you jumped out of a plane that had cleared any part of the the atmosphere that still had air and was still traveling upward, your relative motion including the UA would exceed that of the Earth, and FET dynamics can't adequately explain to me why the momentum of the bodies exiting that craft would be arrested to the point that the Earth would catch up to it. Seriously, I've been going on for like the past page and a half about this.

Momentum = Speed/Velocity. Speed/Velocity != Acceleration.

Pay attention twit. When you stop having a force applied to you (e.g. you jump out of a rocket that's beneath your ass) you STOP accelerating. You maintain the same speed/velocity/momentum, what happens it the earth is still accelerating, this means the earth's velocity will become greater than your velocity and it will catch you.

As I've said, without bodies being able to match the 9.8m/s/s acceleration of the Earth planes wouldn't be able to leave the ground, let alone people being able to stand up.

Which is exactly the same on RET as it is in FET. If a plane wants to fly in RET it's wings must generate lift greater than 9.8m/s2.

And as I've said my body in this example still had upward momentum equaling and exceeding UA.

Momentum != Acceleration. Momentum is Speed/Velocity. The earth is not moving at 9.8m/s it is accelerating at 9.8m/s2.

How dense are you?

And by that I mean it shared the upward acceleration that the earth had, and exceeded it.

As soon as you stop having a force applied to you, you cease to accelerate. Momentum is speed/velocity, not acceleration.

If a body is matching the UA for even a segment of it's existance, how can you assert that that matching would stop and it would lose all of it's momentum in an instant for some obtuse reason?

You wouldn't lose your momentum. Momentum is speed, not acceleration (hopefully if I repeat it enough, you'll understand). What happens is the earth continues to accelerate and it's velocity becomes greater than yours and eventually catches you.

A body the size of the flat earth moving at 9.8m/s/s constant at an object moving 0mph wouldn't simulate free fall anyway, it would unleash all hell. Big boom, big crater.

For a start there's no such thing as an absolute 0mph. There's only 0mph relative to other things. Secondly, this happens all the time in RET without big booms and big craters, if the object is human it usually goes splat.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 17, 2008, 05:16:38 AM
Quote from: AmateurAstronomer
Blah blah blah

Alright smart guy. I have a craft that is moving horizontally well above the atmosphere. It's using hydrogen or benzene fuel to do this remarkable feat. There's no lift, there's no drag... Why doesn't the Earth rise up and smite it? Craft can do this in RE, explain it in FE.

Also, you're an asshole. If you were nicer I wouldn't need to say that, but there it is...
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: MadDogX on September 17, 2008, 05:25:29 AM
Quote from: AmateurAstronomer
Blah blah blah

Alright smart guy. I have a craft that is moving horizontally well above the atmosphere. It's using hydrogen or benzene fuel to do this remarkable feat. There's no lift, there's no drag... Why doesn't the Earth rise up and smite it? Craft can do this in RE, explain it in FE.

Also, you're an asshole. If you were nicer I wouldn't need to say that, but there it is...


In RE these craft are still subject to Earth's gravity, but because there is little atmospheric drag in space, they can remain in constant free-fall around the planet if they have enough momentum perpendicular to the direction in which gravity is pulling them. Objects don't just magically float in space, not even in RE.

In FE, what you are describing isn't possible in the first place because the flat Earth is not spherical (duh), so an object moving perpendicular to the UA would inevitably re-enter the atmosphere. That's the whole reason why FE'ers deny the possibility of sustained space flight.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Sean O'Grady on September 17, 2008, 05:36:42 AM
Quote from: AmateurAstronomer
Blah blah blah

Alright smart guy. I have a craft that is moving horizontally well above the atmosphere. It's using hydrogen or benzene fuel to do this remarkable feat. There's no lift, there's no drag... Why doesn't the Earth rise up and smite it? Craft can do this in RE, explain it in FE.

Also, you're an asshole. If you were nicer I wouldn't need to say that, but there it is...

see MadDogX's answer above.

I'd rather be an asshole than an idiot.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: divito the truthist on September 17, 2008, 05:44:43 AM
Wow, all the respect I had for AA has been lost in these three pages. This is like, fairly basic math.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 17, 2008, 05:54:21 AM
That's not what I mean at all. What I mean is if you jumped out of a plane that had cleared any part of the the atmosphere that still had air and was still traveling upward, your relative motion including the UA would exceed that of the Earth, and FET dynamics can't adequately explain to me why the momentum of the bodies exiting that craft would be arrested to the point that the Earth would catch up to it. Seriously, I've been going on for like the past page and a half about this.
I'm been saying this the whole time and I will say it again: as soon as you jump out of the plane, you are no longer accelerating. Your reference frame becomes inertial.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 17, 2008, 06:03:02 AM
Quote from: AmateurAstronomer
Blah blah blah

Alright smart guy. I have a craft that is moving horizontally well above the atmosphere. It's using hydrogen or benzene fuel to do this remarkable feat. There's no lift, there's no drag... Why doesn't the Earth rise up and smite it? Craft can do this in RE, explain it in FE.

Also, you're an asshole. If you were nicer I wouldn't need to say that, but there it is...


In RE these craft are still subject to Earth's gravity, but because there is little atmospheric drag in space, they can remain in constant free-fall around the planet if they have enough momentum perpendicular to the direction in which gravity is pulling them. Objects don't just magically float in space, not even in RE.

In FE, what you are describing isn't possible in the first place because the flat Earth is not spherical (duh), so an object moving perpendicular to the UA would inevitably re-enter the atmosphere. That's the whole reason why FE'ers deny the possibility of sustained space flight.

They didn't always deny it. They had theories, but none worked. Only when it became unexplainable did they deny satellites and other spacecraft. It doesn't take much to prove them wrong though.

I installed a satellite dish at my parents house 3 years ago. A parabolic dish can only get data from a very focused focal point. The dish is at @55 degrees inclination. If it was seeking an antenna the antenna would grow higher the greater the distance, and the greater the hight, the more visible it would become... I've seen no antennas nor heard reference of any thousand+ foot antenna towers in neighboring towns.

The alternative explanation of balloons doesn't hold air. At the lower elevations that FE would require the balloons to be at they could never hold steady enough to support a signal.

Wow, all the respect I had for AA has been lost in these three pages. This is like, fairly basic math.
I told you all I failed remedial math 3 years running in high school. I'm a fucking art major for Christs sake. I can't wrap my head around your constant acceleration model. What is it going about a trillion google billion google miles per second by now? I do know it breaks causality, even given your FAQ explanation.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Fletch on September 17, 2008, 06:22:25 AM
I can't wrap my head around your constant acceleration model. What is it going about a trillion google billion google miles per second by now? I do know it breaks causality, even given your FAQ explanation.
As I sit in this chair typing, it feels to me as though it travelled up about 9.8m in the last second.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: MadDogX on September 17, 2008, 06:23:14 AM
When you disregard the fact that constant acceleration of the Earth would require amounts of energy approaching infinity, aswell as the inconsistencies as to what is affected by the UA, the theory [of UA] isn't too bad. As long as we all remained within the same frame of reference as the Earth, we wouldn't even notice any causality effects. Sure, if we could see anything outside of that frame of reference, it would appear to be whizzing past us at near infinite velocity - but that obviously isn't the case.

As for satellites and everything that goes with them, I've never seen a sufficient "FExplanation" either. The fact that everybody within a very large area can point their dish in roughly the same direction and all recieve a signal from the same source should be a fairly clear indicator that it can't be coming from anything as close as FET would allow. But, since satellites and sat dishes are man-made objects, you can be pretty sure that the FExplanation will involve the word "conspiracy".

As I noted a while ago, the art of arguing for FET is to tilt the playing field in such a way that all your opponents are arguing up a hill, while you sit at the top and roll iron balls marked "conspiracy" and "bendy light" down at them every once in a while. Just learn to laugh at it, and you'll start having a fun time.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 17, 2008, 06:25:52 AM
The art of arguing for FET is to tilt the playing field in such a way that all your opponents are arguing up a hill, while you sit at the top and roll iron balls marked "conspiracy" and "bendy light" down at them every once in a while.

I would sig that if the earth was round.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Sean O'Grady on September 17, 2008, 07:04:57 AM
I can't wrap my head around your constant acceleration model. What is it going about a trillion google billion google miles per second by now? I do know it breaks causality, even given your FAQ explanation.

Learn about adding speeds with relativity. The constant acceleration of 9.8m/s2 is only from our frame of reference. We don't have any meaningful velocity.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 17, 2008, 08:20:02 AM
I also said that math isn't my thing so please leave physics out of it. I don't want to, and in all reality can't go there.

How does one leave physics out of a conversation about acceleration and drag? ???
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 08:48:25 AM
The air beneath you is being accelerated by the earth, which is slowing your relative acceleration until relative velocity is zero. 

The air beneath the object creates drag, we got that. But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.
The earth is accelerating up to you at exactly 9.81 m/s/s. That is free fall in a vacuum. The air is accelerating up towards you also. Causing you to accelerate upwards. The earth is still accelerating towards you faster than the drag from the air. Eventually, you are going so fast relative to the air that it is canceling out the acceleration from gravity, leaving you simply at a constant velocity towards the earth.

Wouldn't that create massive updrafts?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 17, 2008, 08:50:20 AM
Wouldn't that create massive updrafts?

Yes, commonly observed as the fact that air doesn't fall down because the ground is in the way.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 08:53:25 AM
That just made me think of something. If you jumped out of a plane that was accelerating upward and was at an elevation of say 20 miles, where the air is thin or non-existent, why would you even fall downward? The Earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s, you're accelerating upward, at least at that time, at greater than 9.8m/s. There's almost no air to influence anything. You're following the same path as the Earth is following, and not orbiting it in any way... So what pulls you back down? Don't tell me I'm accelerating down and that's why I'd fly up...

Eactly what i was saying. You can put an objust over FE and have it stay there. So it is possible that NASA is putting satalites and crafts up there even though everyone here knows they are not. ;)

As soon as you jump out of the plane you are no longer accelerating.  

I know what you mean, but that is misleading. According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right? No longer accelerating means you are at rest, or are suspended in the air.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Sean O'Grady on September 17, 2008, 08:55:46 AM
I know what you mean, but that is misleading. According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right? No longer accelerating means you are at rest, or are suspended in the air.

Except that the earth is rushing up to meet you (and pushing the air passed).

In other words, it's easy to assume that you're falling towards the earth when in reality the earth is accelerating up to you.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 08:56:48 AM
Wouldn't that create massive updrafts?

Yes, commonly observed as the fact that air doesn't fall down because the ground is in the way.

So you explain air being thinner at higher levels due to air being pushed down against the earth, therefore being more dense at sea level?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 08:57:41 AM
I know what you mean, but that is misleading. According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right? No longer accelerating means you are at rest, or are suspended in the air.

Except that the earth is rushing up to meet you (and pushing the air passed).

In other words, it's easy to assume that you're falling towards the earth when in reality the earth is accelerating up to you.

It isn't assumption. It is accepted in the scientific community, as well as society.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 17, 2008, 08:59:09 AM
According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right?

Acceleration in three dimensions is a vector. It cannot be negative.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 17, 2008, 08:59:50 AM
Did thewahls7 mean this?

Quote from: Wikipedia
An updraft or downdraft (air pocket) is the vertical movement of air as a weather related phenomenon. Commonly, one of two forces causes the air to move. Localized regions of warm or cool air will exhibit vertical movement. A pocket of warm air will typically be less dense than the surrounding region, and so will rise until it reaches air that is either warmer or less dense than itself. The converse will occur for a mass of cool air, and is known as subsidence. This movement of large volumes of air, especially when regions of hot, wet air rise, can create large clouds, and is the main cause of thunderstorms. Drafts can also be created by low or high pressure regions. A low pressure region will attract air from the surrounding area, which will move towards the center and then rise, creating an updraft. The reverse will naturally occur in a high pressure region, as air moves away from the high pressure center.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 17, 2008, 09:00:18 AM
So you explain air being thinner at higher levels due to air being pushed down against the earth, therefore being more dense at sea level?

No, it is explained by the fact that the Earth is pushing up on the air. The air doesn't stay put because the Earth is fairly solid.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 09:03:21 AM
According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right?

Acceleration in three dimensions is a vector. It cannot be negative.

If you face north, and walk north, you have positive acceleration.

If you face north, and walk backwards (south) you have negitive acceleration.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 09:04:39 AM
So you explain air being thinner at higher levels due to air being pushed down against the earth, therefore being more dense at sea level?

No, it is explained by the fact that the Earth is pushing up on the air. The air doesn't stay put because the Earth is fairly solid.

That is what I meant, pardon me.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Raist on September 17, 2008, 09:06:38 AM
According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right?

Acceleration in three dimensions is a vector. It cannot be negative.

If you face north, and walk north, you have positive acceleration.

If you face north, and walk backwards (south) you have negitive acceleration.
Actually, normal people walk with a constant velocity. Accelerating south is still a positive acceleration.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 09:07:45 AM
Did thewahls7 mean this?

Quote from: Wikipedia
An updraft or downdraft (air pocket) is the vertical movement of air as a weather related phenomenon. Commonly, one of two forces causes the air to move. Localized regions of warm or cool air will exhibit vertical movement. A pocket of warm air will typically be less dense than the surrounding region, and so will rise until it reaches air that is either warmer or less dense than itself. The converse will occur for a mass of cool air, and is known as subsidence. This movement of large volumes of air, especially when regions of hot, wet air rise, can create large clouds, and is the main cause of thunderstorms. Drafts can also be created by low or high pressure regions. A low pressure region will attract air from the surrounding area, which will move towards the center and then rise, creating an updraft. The reverse will naturally occur in a high pressure region, as air moves away from the high pressure center.

Yeah, that is what I was referring to earlier. I would believe that if the Earth was accelerating upwards, that you would be a lot more likely to see these.

Also, how many people believe the earth is flat, as opposed to the possibility of it being flat, or people that don't think it is flat, but just like to argue it? It wouldn't change my argument, but I am just wondering.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 17, 2008, 09:09:46 AM
If you face north, and walk backwards (south) you have negitive acceleration.

Thanks for that.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Sean O'Grady on September 17, 2008, 09:12:28 AM
According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right?

Acceleration in three dimensions is a vector. It cannot be negative.

If you face north, and walk north, you have positive acceleration.

If you face north, and walk backwards (south) you have negitive acceleration.
Actually, normal people walk with a constant velocity. Accelerating south is still a positive acceleration.

If you are moving 10m/s d where 'd' is any direction you want to give and you slow down or decelerate to 5m/s d (i.e. still travelling in the same direction) in 1 second this is an acceleration of -5m/s/s for 1 second. Tidah, negative acceleration.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 17, 2008, 09:17:19 AM
If you are moving 10m/s d where 'd' is any direction you want to give and you slow down or decelerate to 5m/s d (i.e. still travelling in the same direction) in 1 second this is an acceleration of -5m/s/s for 1 second. Tidah, negative acceleration.

No, it is an acceleration of 5 m s-2 in the direction -d.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Raist on September 17, 2008, 09:18:48 AM
According to flat earth theory, you would have negitive acceleration, right?

Acceleration in three dimensions is a vector. It cannot be negative.

If you face north, and walk north, you have positive acceleration.

If you face north, and walk backwards (south) you have negitive acceleration.
Actually, normal people walk with a constant velocity. Accelerating south is still a positive acceleration.

If you are moving 10m/s d where 'd' is any direction you want to give and you slow down or decelerate to 5m/s d (i.e. still travelling in the same direction) in 1 second this is an acceleration of -5m/s/s for 1 second. Tidah, negative acceleration.
5m/s/s-d, did you forget acceleration, being derived from velocity, has a direction?


nice ninja post robo. lol.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Sean O'Grady on September 17, 2008, 09:21:34 AM
So no Tidah?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Raist on September 17, 2008, 09:34:52 AM
So no Tidah?
nopes.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 06:48:02 PM
If you face north, and walk backwards (south) you have negitive acceleration.

Thanks for that.

Um... For those of you that say negative acceleration isn't real/possible.

http://selland.boisestate.edu/jbrennan/physics/notes/Motion/acceleration.htm
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 06:50:57 PM
This is for RobbyJ

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu5yAs9FIggkANVJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDhrMzdqBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=12o4sfeqp/EXP=1221788928/**http%3a//www.studyphysics.ca/2007/20/01_kinematics/10_acceleration.pdf

Quote
Example 3: Once you have been arrested, the officials start rolling the pickle back towards the starting
line so that Haans van der Winkle, the current champion from the Netherlands, can have a second try.
After pushing for 8.8s, they get the pickle rolling backwards (towards the startng line) at 4.31m/s.
                                                                                  i
Determine the acceleration of the pickle.
        In this example, they cause an object to speed up, but itís moving in the opposite direction. Since
        velocity is a vector, we can just put a minus sign in front of its speed and say that it is moving in
the negative direction.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 17, 2008, 08:23:26 PM
Um... For those of you that say negative acceleration isn't real/possible.

http://selland.boisestate.edu/jbrennan/physics/notes/Motion/acceleration.htm

If a is an acceleration, then -a is also an acceleration, just in the opposite direction. That does not make it negative.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 17, 2008, 08:24:30 PM
This is for RobbyJ

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu5yAs9FIggkANVJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDhrMzdqBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=12o4sfeqp/EXP=1221788928/**http%3a//www.studyphysics.ca/2007/20/01_kinematics/10_acceleration.pdf

Quote
Example 3: Once you have been arrested, the officials start rolling the pickle back towards the starting
line so that Haans van der Winkle, the current champion from the Netherlands, can have a second try.
After pushing for 8.8s, they get the pickle rolling backwards (towards the startng line) at 4.31m/s.
                                                                                  i
Determine the acceleration of the pickle.
        In this example, they cause an object to speed up, but it’s moving in the opposite direction. Since
        velocity is a vector, we can just put a minus sign in front of its speed and say that it is moving in
the negative direction.

Yes, in an arbitrary coordinate system when considering one component of the object's motion. You don't mean to tell me that you think there is some absolute definition of what constitutes a positive direction, do you?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 17, 2008, 08:25:20 PM
This is for RobbyJ

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu5yAs9FIggkANVJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDhrMzdqBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=12o4sfeqp/EXP=1221788928/**http%3a//www.studyphysics.ca/2007/20/01_kinematics/10_acceleration.pdf

Quote
Example 3: Once you have been arrested, the officials start rolling the pickle back towards the starting
line so that Haans van der Winkle, the current champion from the Netherlands, can have a second try.
After pushing for 8.8s, they get the pickle rolling backwards (towards the startng line) at 4.31m/s.
                                                                                  i
Determine the acceleration of the pickle.
        In this example, they cause an object to speed up, but itís moving in the opposite direction. Since
        velocity is a vector, we can just put a minus sign in front of its speed and say that it is moving in
the negative direction.

Yes, in an arbitrary coordinate system when considering one component of the object's motion. You don't mean to tell me that you think there is some absolute definition of what constitutes a positive direction, do you?

I'm not following...
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 17, 2008, 08:29:13 PM
I'm not following...

You wouldn't be, would you?

Okay, let's start from the beginning: what would you define a negative acceleration to be?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 18, 2008, 08:38:50 AM
I'm not following...

You wouldn't be, would you?

Okay, let's start from the beginning: what would you define a negative acceleration to be?

Decellerating mainly, but it could also be facing one direction, but going backwards, in theory.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 18, 2008, 09:25:32 AM
Decellerating mainly, but it could also be facing one direction, but going backwards, in theory.

Now, what would you define "decelerating" and "backwards" to be?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: thewahls7 on September 18, 2008, 04:58:13 PM
Decellerating mainly, but it could also be facing one direction, but going backwards, in theory.

Now, what would you define "decelerating" and "backwards" to be?

Eh, an example of decellerating could be using the break in a car, and I've already explained the going backwards thing about 4 times.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 18, 2008, 05:00:31 PM
Eh, an example of decellerating could be using the break in a car, and I've already explained the going backwards thing about 4 times.

A car that doesn't work any more is decelerating. Interesting.

And no, you haven't. Not in absolute terms, anyway.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: sokarul on September 18, 2008, 05:05:03 PM
This argument again?  Why is it that people can't understand negative velocity and acceleration are used to show direction all the time? 
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 18, 2008, 05:07:25 PM
This argument again?  Why is it that people can't understand negative velocity and acceleration are used to show direction all the time? 

This is coming from the guy who thinks that 1 = -1. I'm not taking any tips on negatives from you, thanks.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: sokarul on September 18, 2008, 05:08:58 PM
This argument again?  Why is it that people can't understand negative velocity and acceleration are used to show direction all the time? 

This is coming from the guy who thinks that 1 = -1. I'm not taking any tips on negatives from you, thanks.

I don't believe that.  I never did. 
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 18, 2008, 05:10:47 PM
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s

Are you saying that is wrong?   
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: sokarul on September 18, 2008, 05:14:47 PM
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s

Are you saying that is wrong?   

I'm saying it's wrong.  I already know what I did and I already explained it last time it was brought up. 

Funny thing is, that equation uses a negative velocity.  Kinda makes you look stupid. 
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Raist on September 18, 2008, 05:20:12 PM
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s

Are you saying that is wrong?   

I'm saying it's wrong.  I already know what I did and I already explained it last time it was brought up. 

Funny thing is, that equation uses a negative velocity.  Kinda makes you look stupid. 
That is actually a speed. Not a velocity.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 18, 2008, 05:26:21 PM
Funny thing is, that equation uses a negative velocity.  Kinda makes you look stupid. 

No, it uses a velocity which, when represented in an arbitrary coordinate system, has a negative sign. That does not make it a negative velocity. If you reversed the coordinate system, the other velocity would become negative.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Raist on September 18, 2008, 05:27:24 PM
Doesn't a velocity have a direction?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 18, 2008, 05:31:01 PM
Doesn't a velocity have a direction?

Yes, but if the directions of all velocities in a certain situation are parallel or differ by π, their direction may be represented as either +1 or -1.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: sokarul on September 18, 2008, 05:37:28 PM
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s

Are you saying that is wrong?   

I'm saying it's wrong.  I already know what I did and I already explained it last time it was brought up. 

Funny thing is, that equation uses a negative velocity.  Kinda makes you look stupid. 
That is actually a speed. Not a velocity.

Except it is a velocity as it has a direction.  v is used for velocity. 
Funny thing is, that equation uses a negative velocity.  Kinda makes you look stupid. 

No, it uses a velocity which, when represented in an arbitrary coordinate system, has a negative sign. That does not make it a negative velocity. If you reversed the coordinate system, the other velocity would become negative.

Once again, negative shows direction. 
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 18, 2008, 05:40:04 PM
Once again, negative shows direction. 

That doesn't make it a negative velocity.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: sokarul on September 18, 2008, 05:43:35 PM
Once again, negative shows direction. 

That doesn't make it a negative velocity.
Correct. 
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 18, 2008, 06:36:59 PM
Once again, negative shows direction. 

That doesn't make it a negative velocity.
Correct. 

Wasn't that what the entire arguement was about?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Trekky0623 on September 18, 2008, 06:41:29 PM
Decellerating mainly, but it could also be facing one direction, but going backwards, in theory.

Now, what would you define "decelerating" and "backwards" to be?

Eh, an example of decellerating could be using the break in a car, and I've already explained the going backwards thing about 4 times.

Going backwards is not decelerating.  You are continually increasing speed, just in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 18, 2008, 11:40:58 PM
I can't wrap my head around your constant acceleration model. What is it going about a trillion google billion google miles per second by now? I do know it breaks causality, even given your FAQ explanation.

Learn about adding speeds with relativity. The constant acceleration of 9.8m/s2 is only from our frame of reference. We don't have any meaningful velocity.
Doesn't the earth, heavens, and everything else in our reference frame need to be accelerating either towards or away from something though? If there's nothing else in our reference frame than those points I mentioned, and those points mentioned don't have any meaningful velocity, how can they have meaningful acceleration? Don't you need another point of reference for that?


I had another argument with a weather balloon that went up to the edge of the atmosphere planned, but it finally sunk in what you've all been hammering into me. It was my assumption that things on the UA-FE would share the upward acceleration of the Earth. That's not the case right?

Some things like the galaxies near us, the sun, the moon, the stars, the planets and other stellar bodies, and all their associated gears share the UA of the FE, right? It's just the little things that touch the earth, like water, air, rocks, and people that are just along for the ride.

(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo155/AmatureAstronomer/UAinfluence.jpg)

I can understand that now, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Why some bodies are influenced by whatever force is doing the upward accelerating, and others aren't is vague, or I missed it in my reading. I want to clarify a few things before I make any assertions.

Are smaller bodies less influenced by the UA and larger bodies more influenced?

Are the bodies resting on the earth intrinsically different from the earth in some way that could be realistically measured? The earths crust can be said to be mostly rock, but if I pick up a rock, does it take on properties different from the crustal earth that my lifting removed it from?

I'll wait for some citation from FE or RE proponents before arguing this further though, since I missed the point so horribly in my last posts. The argument I'm looking for is why UA would affect the things above us, and the things below us, but not affect the things within that frame of reference.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 19, 2008, 01:08:59 AM
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s

Are you saying that is wrong?   
I'm saying it's wrong.  I already know what I did and I already explained it last time it was brought up. 

Funny thing is, that equation uses a negative velocity.  Kinda makes you look stupid. 
Then you should write it as -1m/s next time.

1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s    WRONG

1kg*1m/s=-1kg*-1m/s   RIGHT

Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: MadDogX on September 19, 2008, 01:21:03 AM
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s

Are you saying that is wrong?   
I'm saying it's wrong.  I already know what I did and I already explained it last time it was brought up. 

Funny thing is, that equation uses a negative velocity.  Kinda makes you look stupid. 
Then you should either put in brackets or write it as -1m/s next time.

1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s    WRONG

1kg*1m/s=-1kg*-1m/s   RIGHT

1kg*1m/s=-(1kg*1m/s)  RIGHT




I'd been thinking about intervening but E.Jack beat me to it. Quoted for truth.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 19, 2008, 01:59:15 AM
(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo155/AmatureAstronomer/UAinfluence.jpg)

I can understand that now, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Why some bodies are influenced by whatever force is doing the upward accelerating, and others aren't is vague, or I missed it in my reading. I want to clarify a few things before I make any assertions.

Are smaller bodies less influenced by the UA and larger bodies more influenced?

Are the bodies resting on the earth intrinsically different from the earth in some way that could be realistically measured? The earths crust can be said to be mostly rock, but if I pick up a rock, does it take on properties different from the crustal earth that my lifting removed it from?

I'll wait for some citation from FE or RE proponents before arguing this further though, since I missed the point so horribly in my last posts. The argument I'm looking for is why UA would affect the things above us, and the things below us, but not affect the things within that frame of reference.
The DEF shields us from the effects (UA) of Dark Energy. The sun and moon is hovering above the DEF. The DEF holds our atmolayer.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 19, 2008, 02:25:56 AM
DEF? dark energy field?

Dark matter can not only be matter but a field as well?

It's my assertion that in RET dark matter is just the matter that scientists can't see and refuse to acknowledge. Scientists speculated about dark matter most notably when they refused to consider that other systems might have planets and dynamics similar to our own... It's been proven that other systems have planets. If you gave all other solar bodies their expected approximate planetary masses and Oort type clouds, and counted unseen gas masses the weight of our universe almost exceeds those of the formulas that required dark matter. They seriously never considered that the universe might have matter they couldn't see.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 19, 2008, 02:37:37 AM
1kg*1m/s=-(1kg*1m/s)  RIGHT

Why is this one correct? Aren't the parentheses just being used as grouping symbols?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 19, 2008, 02:37:56 AM
DEF? dark energy field?
Yes. The idea is from TheEngineer.

Dark matter can not only be matter but a field as well?
Dark energy...
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 19, 2008, 02:45:57 AM
1kg*1m/s=-(1kg*1m/s)  RIGHT

Why is this one correct? Aren't the parentheses just being used as grouping symbols?
I thought it was a plus sign ( -(1kg + 1m/s) ). Either way, it should be written as 1kg*1m/s=-1kg*-1m/s.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Parsifal on September 19, 2008, 02:48:53 AM
I thought it was a plus sign ( -(1kg + 1m/s) ). Either way, it should be written as 1kg*1m/s=-1kg*-1m/s.

lol @ adding together two different units. But thanks for clearing that up.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 19, 2008, 02:51:51 AM
DEF? dark energy field?
Yes. The idea is from TheEngineer.

Dark matter can not only be matter but a field as well?
Dark energy...

Can you cite any reference for a "dark energy field" that extends beyond this site? Lacking that can you cite what "TheEngineer" said that made you a believer of his dark energy theory? I doubt it could sway me, but I'm curious what sways a person such as yourself.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 19, 2008, 02:54:19 AM
Quoted for the new page...

I can't wrap my head around your constant acceleration model. What is it going about a trillion google billion google miles per second by now? I do know it breaks causality, even given your FAQ explanation.

Learn about adding speeds with relativity. The constant acceleration of 9.8m/s2 is only from our frame of reference. We don't have any meaningful velocity.
Doesn't the earth, heavens, and everything else in our reference frame need to be accelerating either towards or away from something though? If there's nothing else in our reference frame than those points I mentioned, and those points mentioned don't have any meaningful velocity, how can they have meaningful acceleration? Don't you need another point of reference for that?


I had another argument with a weather balloon that went up to the edge of the atmosphere planned, but it finally sunk in what you've all been hammering into me. It was my assumption that things on the UA-FE would share the upward acceleration of the Earth. That's not the case right?

Some things like the galaxies near us, the sun, the moon, the stars, the planets and other stellar bodies, and all their associated gears share the UA of the FE, right? It's just the little things that touch the earth, like water, air, rocks, and people that are just along for the ride.

(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo155/AmatureAstronomer/UAinfluence.jpg)

I can understand that now, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Why some bodies are influenced by whatever force is doing the upward accelerating, and others aren't is vague, or I missed it in my reading. I want to clarify a few things before I make any assertions.

Are smaller bodies less influenced by the UA and larger bodies more influenced?

Are the bodies resting on the earth intrinsically different from the earth in some way that could be realistically measured? The earths crust can be said to be mostly rock, but if I pick up a rock, does it take on properties different from the crustal earth that my lifting removed it from?

I'll wait for some citation from FE or RE proponents before arguing this further though, since I missed the point so horribly in my last posts. The argument I'm looking for is why UA would affect the things above us, and the things below us, but not affect the things within that frame of reference.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 19, 2008, 03:01:20 AM
lol @ adding together two different units.
Yeah, I had a little brain fart.

Can you cite any reference for a "dark energy field" that extends beyond this site? Lacking that can you cite what "TheEngineer" said that made you a believer of his dark energy theory?
Go to search and type "DEF". It should give you some quotes relating to that.

I believe the theory because I think it's more reasonable than believing that the ice wall holds the atmolayer. Plus, DEF comes from the DE (the mechanism behind the Earth's acceleration) due to bow shock, making it a relevant theory. The DEF is one of the effects of DE, which is as reasonable as gravitation is the effect of space-time curvature.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 19, 2008, 03:08:02 AM
Here is one of his old explanation on DEF.

The Dark Energy Field is a vector field.  It has a gradient that is smallest at the interaction of the atmosphere and the field, called the boundary layer.  The DEF interacts with the magnetic field of the earth at this boundary layer.  These vectors produce a force vector that is orthogonal to the other vectors in four dimensional space.  This force vector is always normal to the boundary layer, thus providing a type of forced containment for the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 19, 2008, 03:28:52 AM
Here is one of his old explanation on DEF.

The Dark Energy Field is a vector field.  It has a gradient that is smallest at the interaction of the atmosphere and the field, called the boundary layer.  The DEF interacts with the magnetic field of the earth at this boundary layer.  These vectors produce a force vector that is orthogonal to the other vectors in four dimensional space.  This force vector is always normal to the boundary layer, thus providing a type of forced containment for the atmosphere.
Those forces would still produce a planar force though. They would top it off but you'd still need walls to keep the atmolayer in. I would require TheEngineer to show proof of the more in-depth applications of his theory before I'd believe any interactions of his theory with the 4'th dimension.

I believe the theory because I think it's more reasonable than believing that the ice wall holds the atmolayer. Plus, DEF comes from the DE (the mechanism behind the Earth's acceleration) due to bow shock, making it a relevant theory. The DEF is one of the effects of DE, which is as reasonable as gravitation is the effect of space-time curvature.

For RE dynamics I could disregard Einsteins dynamics and go back to Newtonian dynamics with no noticeable loss on my end. As long as I did'nt try to track mercury to 1/600th of a degree of error per year or some shit I would be fine. If it's your assertion you could do the same for FET with dark energy dynamics, fine. It's not my job to judge... I think you're wrong though. Your DEF dynamics sound fabricated, even by FET standards.

Plus, do all FE'ers think dark energy is the mechanism behind the Earth's acceleration?
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 19, 2008, 03:56:35 AM
Those forces would still produce a planar force though. They would top it off but you'd still need walls to keep the atmolayer in.
That was just an explanation of the DEF's structure. The walls are not needed. The DEF forms a shape similar to a bow shock in front of the FE, acting as a lid for everything inside.

For RE dynamics I could disregard Einsteins dynamics and go back to Newtonian dynamics with no noticeable loss on my end.  As long as I did'nt try to track mercury to 1/600th of a degree of error per year or some shit I would be fine.
What noticeable loss?

If it's your assertion you could do the same for FET with dark energy dynamics, fine. It's not my job to judge... I think you're wrong though. Your DEF dynamics sound fabricated, even by FET standards.
It's way more reasonable than believing a gigantic ice wall holding the atmolayer. The current DEF is taken from the concepts of aerodynamics, where DE encounters an obstacle (Earth) and forms a "bow shock" in front of it. Perfectly reasonable. Plus, that wall can't even shield us from the effects of DE.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 19, 2008, 04:41:56 AM
Those forces would still produce a planar force though. They would top it off but you'd still need walls to keep the atmolayer in.
That was just an explanation of the DEF's structure. The walls are not needed. The DEF forms a shape similar to a bow shock in front of the FE, acting as a lid for everything inside.

For RE dynamics I could disregard Einsteins dynamics and go back to Newtonian dynamics with no noticeable loss on my end.  As long as I did'nt try to track mercury to 1/600th of a degree of error per year or some shit I would be fine.
What noticeable loss?
Don't worry about it... It's not important.

If it's your assertion you could do the same for FET with dark energy dynamics, fine. It's not my job to judge... I think you're wrong though. Your DEF dynamics sound fabricated, even by FET standards.
It's way more reasonable than believing a gigantic ice wall holding the atmolayer. The current DEF is taken from the concepts of aerodynamics, where DE encounters an obstacle (Earth) and forms a "bow shock" in front of it. Perfectly reasonable. Plus, that wall can't even shield us from the effects of DE.
I've grown used to FET and FE dynamics, but you and "TheEngineer" are just plain nuts... I'll let FET theorists get off with a lot of theorizing, but you seriously want me to take into account your world view of a world influenced at close quarters by some undiscovered energy? We should be able to confirm that. You or he or FET should be able to confirm that. Show me anything at all that would confirm that...
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 19, 2008, 04:47:02 AM
I'll let FET theorists get off with a lot of theorizing, but you seriously want me to take into account your world view of a world influenced at close quarters by some undiscovered energy? We should be able to confirm that. You or he or FET should be able to confirm that. Show me anything at all that would confirm that...

Dark energy is not mutually exclusive.  If you research it you will see that modern accepted RE science incorporates it as well.  The mechanics of it are still a mystery.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 19, 2008, 04:56:27 AM
I'll let FET theorists get off with a lot of theorizing, but you seriously want me to take into account your world view of a world influenced at close quarters by some undiscovered energy? We should be able to confirm that. You or he or FET should be able to confirm that. Show me anything at all that would confirm that...

Dark energy is not mutually exclusive.  If you research it you will see that modern accepted RE science incorporates it as well.  The mechanics of it are still a mystery.

Does modern accepted RE science say a wall of it is keeping our atmosphere in? Do at leasts 51 percent of FE theorists say a wall of it is keeping our atmosphere in? I reserve judgment for now.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 19, 2008, 05:04:10 AM
Does modern accepted RE science say a wall of it is keeping our atmosphere in?

No, but they do think it is the mechanism for accelerated universal expansion, which in FET would keep the atmosphere in.

Quote
Do at leasts 51 percent of FE theorists say a wall of it is keeping our atmosphere in?

If you mean accelerating the earth, thereby keeping the atmosphere in, then yes.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 19, 2008, 05:32:32 AM
Does modern accepted RE science say a wall of it is keeping our atmosphere in?

No, but they do think it is the mechanism for accelerated universal expansion, which in FET would keep the atmosphere in.

Quote
Do at leasts 51 percent of FE theorists say a wall of it is keeping our atmosphere in?

If you mean accelerating the earth, thereby keeping the atmosphere in, then yes.
#1 If the DEF is the force forming a bow shape above the earth, it can't realistically also be the force driving acceleration. You're giving your force unrealistic and almost godlike status.

#2 You're just one voice, and not many are speaking up for you. FET can survive without DEF dynamics, and will actually do better without them. They're ridiculous really. The only thing DEF dynamics are good at is explaining why the atmosphere has an ionosphere and a lesser charged particle layer without a ten thousand mile high ice wall to keep them in, and I think it fails at that because it's dynamics are unproven and you make and have made no attempts to prove them.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 19, 2008, 05:36:06 AM
I didn't say anything about a dark energy field. 
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on September 19, 2008, 05:57:33 AM
I didn't say anything about a dark energy field. 

Then talk about accelerated universal expansion, or whatever you want you Tom clone. I was responding to E.Jack originally. As is common here Flat earthers have drastically different views and you chose to hijack my comment and get offended when I differed from your view and stated the view of the person I originally responded to... I would get offended myself, but I've seen you and many like you do the same thing before. I'm going back to my original assertion now.

Do at leasts 51 percent of FE theorists say a wall of dark energy is keeping our atmosphere in? Or at least a do a majority of Flat Earthers believe this?

I mean in the sense of a wall, not a driving force or any chicanery. A stationary at the top of the atmosphere wall that don't let the ions out and shit...
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Robbyj on September 19, 2008, 06:19:13 AM
I wasn't offended, I was stating a fact.  Where did the Tom clone comment come from, I don't make shit up.
Title: Re: Explain me these two words
Post by: Jack on September 19, 2008, 08:46:50 PM
#1 If the DEF is the force forming a bow shape above the earth, it can't realistically also be the force driving acceleration. You're giving your force unrealistic and almost godlike status.
Imagine DE is a fluid.

#2 You're just one voice, and not many are speaking up for you. FET can survive without DEF dynamics, and will actually do better without them. They're ridiculous really. The only thing DEF dynamics are good at is explaining why the atmosphere has an ionosphere and a lesser charged particle layer without a ten thousand mile high ice wall to keep them in
Not my problem if you can't understand simple physics.

I think it fails at that because it's dynamics are unproven and you make and have made no attempts to prove them.
Just like you RE'ers can't even prove whether or not gravity exists.

Don't worry about it... It's not important.
So your previous statement was a strawman? I thought so.

I've grown used to FET and FE dynamics, but you and "TheEngineer" are just plain nuts... I'll let FET theorists get off with a lot of theorizing, but you seriously want me to take into account your world view of a world influenced at close quarters by some undiscovered energy? We should be able to confirm that. You or he or FET should be able to confirm that. Show me anything at all that would confirm that...
So, where is the graviton?

Do at leasts 51 percent of FE theorists say a wall of dark energy is keeping our atmosphere in? Or at least a do a majority of Flat Earthers believe this?

I mean in the sense of a wall, not a driving force or any chicanery. A stationary at the top of the atmosphere wall that don't let the ions out and shit...
Since the DEF is similar to the shape of a bow shock, it would be more of a dome above the Earth than a "wall".