Commerical Space Flight

Acceleration and gravity behave the same from our perspective, so nothing would be more difficult. Just though I'd get in before TheEngineer did. Velocity is irrelevant in general relativity, and an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s produces the same effects as gravity.

if we are constantly accelerating upwards and it would take so much energy to put a rocket into space then why is it so easy for a helium ballon to float and if you let it go it will magically out accelerate the earth??

Helium is lighter than air.

Helium is lighter than air.

But if the earth is accelerating then that would mean the balloon would need to accelerate upwards at more than 9.81 m/s^2 so if that is true where would it get the energy to do that??? It can not be just because it is lighter because if you drop a golf ball and a bowling ball off your roof they will fall at the same rate but it seems that by your argument they should fall at different rates because of their weight

Why?  Their acceleration is the same.

Yes, the balloon must have an upwards acceleration of more than 9.81m/s to gain altitude.

Quote from: TheEngineer on April 26, 2007, 05:24:29 PM

Helium is lighter than air.

But if the earth is accelerating then that would mean the balloon would need to accelerate upwards at more than 9.81 m/s^2 so if that is true where would it get the energy to do that??? It can not be just because it is lighter because if you drop a golf ball and a bowling ball off your roof they will fall at the same rate but it seems that by your argument they should fall at different rates because of their weight

Nope. I'm no FEer but it has to be said that the Earth's acceleration upwards at 9.8m/s/s makes a perfectly indistinguishable substitute for the Earth's mass-causing gravity in RE. At least in everyday situations.

Nope. I'm no FEer but it has to be said that the Earth's acceleration upwards at 9.8m/s/s makes a perfectly indistinguishable substitute for the Earth's mass-causing gravity in RE. At least in everyday situations.

Except for the fact that gravity has been proven to exist many times I will talk about the first one done which is the Cavendish experiment where he was able to determine the gravitational constant by using 2 masses and measuring the deflection caused by the gravitational attraction between them. now if the earth was accelerating upwards there would have never been an attraction. And this experiment was first done in 1798 so it is nothing new

I know, hence my belief in gravitation due to mass and thus RE. I'm just saying what FEers would say....

Except for the fact that gravity has been proven to exist many times

Too bad Einstein didn't believe in gravity.  The Cavendish proves acceleration, not gravity.

Einstein believed in gravity... what he did not believe was that gravity was an instantaneous force. and how would the experiment prove acceleration? if I am sliding across ice and i put 2 balls next to each other they will not move closer to each other they will both move in the same direction with the same velocity, while in the this experiment the smaller mass was attracted to the larger mass due to gravity. Even if the earth was accelerating at a constant velocity the fact that they were still attracted to each other proves gravity, and if gravity exists then it is highly unlikely that the earth is accelerating upwards while gravity also exists because then other celestial objects would affect our acceleration

Even if the earth was accelerating at a constant velocity...

I'll just point the error out before Gayer(TheEngineer) gets you on it.

Einstein believed in gravity...

He explicitly did not believe in gravity as a force at all. 

He still believed the end result was a force, he just disagreed with the exact cause what he came to believe was that an object warped the space around it which is what caused the attraction but it is still related to the mass of the object and it still produces an acceleration not the other way around

Oh if only Stephen Hawking would come down here and settle this endless GR crap.

Oh if only Stephen Hawking would come down here and settle this endless GR crap.

Or, if some people would just read something about GR.

Stephen Hawking would be more fun...

Sadly, as of late, his disease has been catching up with him.

 

There is no doubt a need for a scientific authority to show its face. Or for an REer with a PhD or something to come along and represent modern science properly.

There is no doubt a need for a scientific authority to show its face. Or for an REer with a PhD or something to come along and represent modern science properly.

I don't see why.  All the information is available on line.  If instead of arguing with me, RE'ers simply did a little research, these disagreements would end.

Relativity is difficult to understand, so I reckon we need someone on the RE side who can speak of it intuitively, as it were without thinking too hard. I tried to research it, but didn't feel on sure enough ground to make a confident post.

The crux of Einteins Theory was that instead of gravity actually moving the objects the Mass warped the space and time around it so in actuality the object follows a straight line similar to if 2 people walked in opposite directions from the north pole in a straight line their paths would eventually diverge. but from an outside reference point the object would seem to change direction.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on April 26, 2007, 05:55:52 PM

Even if the earth was accelerating at a constant velocity...

I'll just point the error out before Gayer(TheEngineer) gets you on it.

Yes! You're calling him Gayer!

And I'm going with Gin on relativity being difficult to understand, I can barely understand the simplest stuff you talk about here

Relativity is difficult to understand, so I reckon we need someone on the RE side who can speak of it intuitively, as it were without thinking too hard. I tried to research it, but didn't feel on sure enough ground to make a confident post.

The problem is that RE'ers think that what is being said by an 'FE'er' must be incorrect, simply because it is being said by an 'FE'er'. 

Hey don't tar us all with the same brush, I don't automatically assume something an FE'er says is wrong.

Not even when you first started posting here?

Ok to be honest I did when I first started, but I learnt my lesson

Ok to be honest I did when I first started, but I learnt my lesson

Now if everyone was as enlightened, there would be no need for these debates about things such acceleration, gravitation and Relativity, among others.

Yeah but all the people that have those debates are way smarter than me so they probably have a good reason for debating it beyond assuming FE'ers are wrong.

And I'm still waiting for someone to explain that stuff to me in a way I can understand. Like with pictures.

Yeah but all the people that have those debates are way smarter than me so they probably have a good reason for debating it beyond assuming FE'ers are wrong.

If they knew what they were talking about, there would be no debating, as we would all be in agreement.


BTW, what do you want pictures of?

Yeah but if there was no debating then this site would be a lot less fun, and you love the debate otherwise you wouldn't be here so quit your moaning

The crux of Einteins Theory was that instead of gravity actually moving the objects the Mass warped the space and time around it so in actuality the object follows a straight line similar to if 2 people walked in opposite directions from the north pole in a straight line their paths would eventually diverge. but from an outside reference point the object would seem to change direction.

That's how I was always taught about gravity/gravitation, I didn't know other thoeries existed (Other than UA and this fundamentalist christian's view that things get heavy beacause of sin)

Plus I never assumed everything a FEer had to say was wrong, a lot of FE makes sense if you take it out of context with the rest of the thoery