Do you believe in just about evry astronomical definition, law, or anythign evr?

You cant read can you.  I'm saying the Moon has the same acceleration as the Earth yet it has less gravity.  You claim the Earth accelerates upwards at 9/8m/s/s, so the moon would be doing the same.  Still with me?  So that would make the moon have 9.8m/s/s of gravity. Yes?  So why does the moon actually have less gravity then the Earth?

The moon would only experience the 9.8m/s^2 on the surface which was 'seen' by it's direction of travel.  The rest of the moon would have less gravitation.

So the surface has an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s on the surface?  But in reality it doesn't.  Explain without asking a question.  You are still sidestepping.

I answered the question.

Well then you answered it wrong.  The inside of the moon and Earth have the same gravity as the outside according to the FE model.  I know you know you are wrong.

The inside?  What are you talking about?

Well then you answered it wrong.  The inside of the moon and Earth have the same gravity as the outside according to the FE model.  I know you know you are wrong.

Are you aware that you're arguing physics with a mechanical engineer?

The moon would only experience the 9.8m/s^2 on the surface which was 'seen' by it's direction of travel.  The rest of the moon would have less gravitation.

You said right here the surface of the moon has 9.8m/s/s of gravity.  Yet thats wrong.  And you said the rest has less, which would have to be inside the moon.  Are you still lost?  Do I still need to explain what you said? 

Quote from: sokarul on March 05, 2007, 08:59:09 PM

Well then you answered it wrong.  The inside of the moon and Earth have the same gravity as the outside according to the FE model.  I know you know you are wrong.

Are you aware that you're arguing physics with a mechanical engineer?

Yeah I am, I'm also aware he thinks the Earth is flat.

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 05, 2007, 08:05:23 PM

The moon would only experience the 9.8m/s^2 on the surface which was 'seen' by it's direction of travel.  The rest of the moon would have less gravitation.

You said right here the surface of the moon has 9.8m/s/s of gravity.  Yet thats wrong.  And you said the rest has less, which would have to be inside the moon.  Are you still lost?  Do I still need to explain what you said? 

No, but maybe I was going to fast for you.  Let me slow it down.  If the moon is spherical, then the only part of the moon that will have a 1g acceleration at the surface will be at the point in which a vector normal to the sphere is in the same direction as the moon's travel.  All other points will have less than 1g of acceleration normal to the surface due to the moon's movement.  The moon itself will have a gravitation associated with all other points on it's surface, lower than 1g.

And the moon rocks dont fall off because?   

Gravitation.

wow just wow. 

Do you have something against gravitation?

Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.

 

About the earths gravity...

I still feel that you have not fully answered my question. You see right i do realise that general relativity took the place of newtonian physics, but i read somewhere that even Nasa scientist use newtonian physics to work out things such as the trajectories of shuttles and other complex calculations.
It is still a law of physics that applies if you put the right values in, or else they would not still be teaching it/ using it still. And general relativity is a way of explaining how newtonian physics works and the reason why objects attract each other. But at the end of the day newtonian physics still works and should be considered in your FE model.

**before i go on, to avoid 20 posts on nasa being a fraud i would like to say, even if you think Nasa is one big conspiracy, newtonian physics still applies and is an accurate way of predicting the movement of bodies, regardless.

Now, here comes the in-escapable question that you will eventually have to answer.

The earth has a mass, therefore it has a gravitational field... or it bends "time space" if you like.
But at the end of the day, it still attracts other masses (i.e. the moon and the sun) in newtonian physics and in Einstiens theory of general relativity.

Therefore the sun and the moon will eventually be pulled towards the earth due to gravity or the bending of time space. How do FE-ers explain this??

Steven Hawkings: What do these elephants rest on?

Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.

Clouds aren't "outside" of the earth.  They are within the atmosphere so what holds them up there on a RE would do the same for them on a FE.

Quote from: lucky on March 06, 2007, 04:19:17 AM

Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.

Clouds aren't "outside" of the earth.  They are within the atmosphere so what holds them up there on a RE would do the same for them on a FE.

In the RE model of the earth the reason for the atmosphere staying on the earth is because of the very shape of the earth, a rough sphere. The denser elements are drawn towards the core of the earth (dense iron core), and the lighter elements are in the atmosphere, the outer sphere of the earth. They are prevented from going into space because of the earths gravity.

FE-ers cannot use this explaination, 1 because they do not believe in gravity on the earth and 2, if they do believe the earth has gravity, the very nature of the earth accelerating upwards would mean that the atmosphere would just be left behind in space, and the fact the believe the earth is flat would mean that the atmosphere would only exist in the middle of thier earth (the nort pole) anyway.. if there was no acceleration.

I have told you my truth, now you tell me yours. FE-ers i mean.

Quote from: sokarul on March 05, 2007, 08:59:09 PM

Well then you answered it wrong.  The inside of the moon and Earth have the same gravity as the outside according to the FE model.  I know you know you are wrong.

Are you aware that you're arguing physics with a mechanical engineer?

Yeah you're always going to come up against problems when you argue Physics with a non-physicist. Especially Engineers who think they know physics.

Especially Engineers who think they know physics.

Do you realize that physics is the entirety of engineering?


Find something I have said that is not consistent with physics as we know it.

Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.

How do airplanes fly when there is clearly no force acting on them, making them accelerate upwards?

Quote from: lucky on March 06, 2007, 04:19:17 AM

Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.

How do airplanes fly when there is clearly no force acting on them, making them accelerate upwards?

The force is called lift, it is due to the different pressures of air that flow under and over the wing. Surely an "Engineer" would know that?

i guess you didn't do a degree in aeronautical engineering...

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 06, 2007, 07:53:22 AM

Quote from: lucky on March 06, 2007, 04:19:17 AM

Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.

How do airplanes fly when there is clearly no force acting on them, making them accelerate upwards?

The force is called lift, it is due to the different pressures of air that flow under and over the wing. Surely an "Engineer" would know that?

i guess you didn't do a degree in aeronautical engineering...

But you said that the clouds can't be accelerating as there is no visible force acting on them.  How can you believe that airplanes fly, as there is no visible force acting on them?

Quote from: lucky on March 06, 2007, 08:11:25 AM

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 06, 2007, 07:53:22 AM

Quote from: lucky on March 06, 2007, 04:19:17 AM

Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.

How do airplanes fly when there is clearly no force acting on them, making them accelerate upwards?

The force is called lift, it is due to the different pressures of air that flow under and over the wing. Surely an "Engineer" would know that?

i guess you didn't do a degree in aeronautical engineering...

But you said that the clouds can't be accelerating as there is no visible force acting on them.  How can you believe that airplanes fly, as there is no visible force acting on them?

Please don't play on words, if you want the force that accelerates a plane to be visible go to any wind tunnel with a model aeroplane. Its basic aerodynamics, however being able to accelerate individual particles that make up the atmosphere, is neither visible or explain-able in the FE model.. unless you care to enlighten me...

I still feel that you have not fully answered my question. You see right i do realise that general relativity took the place of newtonian physics, but i read somewhere that even Nasa scientist use newtonian physics to work out things such as the trajectories of shuttles and other complex calculations.
It is still a law of physics that applies if you put the right values in, or else they would not still be teaching it/ using it still. And general relativity is a way of explaining how newtonian physics works and the reason why objects attract each other. But at the end of the day newtonian physics still works and should be considered in your FE model.

Newtonian physics are inaccurate.  While his three laws of motion are still used today and are the basis for most of modern science, they become increasingly wrong as velocities increase.  At slow speeds, Newton's laws are simple to use and the error is very small.  As velocities approach fractions of c, the errors become extreme.  SR is always accurate, and is sometimes used in place of Newton's works, even though the math of SR is much more complicated.

Lucyk I'm not sure what you expect the air to do other than be pushed by the Earth?

however being able to accelerate individual particles that make up the atmosphere, is neither visible or explain-able in the FE model.. unless you care to enlighten me...

How am I able to breathe in an airplane that is taking off?  According to you, the aircraft can not accelerate the air inside, so everyone should suffocate.

Quote from: lucky on March 06, 2007, 08:23:27 AM

however being able to accelerate individual particles that make up the atmosphere, is neither visible or explain-able in the FE model.. unless you care to enlighten me...

How am I able to breathe in an airplane that is taking off?  According to you, the aircraft can not accelerate the air inside, so everyone should suffocate.

Sorry, i am not quite sure what you mean by this. The air inside most aeroplanes is pressurised anyway...

but why would air need to be accelerated so that you can breathe? its the pressure that matters.

The aircraft I fly are not pressurized. According to you, the aircraft cannot accelerate the air inside, so as I increase the throttle, all the air in the aircraft should be left behind, leaving me nothing to breathe.

The aircraft I fly are not pressurized. According to you, the aircraft cannot accelerate the air inside, so as I increase the throttle, all the air in the aircraft should be left behind, leaving me nothing to breathe.

Ok, say you fly unpressurised air craft... you accelerate leaving air behind you, but what do you accerate into?? more air right?



I mean 100 years ago, they thought if you went faster then 30 mph you would suffocate, seriously.... and now...

Ok, say you fly unpressurised air craft... you accelerate leaving air behind you, but what do you accerate into?? more air right?

So why is it not windy in airplanes or cars?  I would be lucky if I didn't crash due to being in a 200mph air stream.