More questions on Aircraft.

Your concept is correct.  And TheEngineer, I have that exact diagram (but drawn up a bit) in my physics textbook.

So he didn't draw it himself?! That's it! I give up liking Engy Baby, he is dead to me now!

No no no.  You're missunderstanding.  There is a very good chance he did draw it.  In my physics text, the picture is with a railroad car and a guy with a flashlight and another guy watching him.  theEngineer's is drawn down to the basics, so it's the general diagram for understanding, and he just remade it for you.

Oh....right. My apologies to Engy Baby then. Though the picture in your physics textbook sounds better.

Well, I now understand how UA is possible without ever reaching the speed of light.  It doesn't make any sense unless I think about it mathematically, but I get it. 

It doesn't make any sense to me no matter what way I think about it but I've come to accept that Engy Baby is smarter than me in that kind of stuff (but way dumber at spelling) so I'm just gonna trust him I guess.

Well, nice to know someone new makes their own special sense of it all.  Unlike that Gayer...

We need a super-physics RE advocate. Anyone wanna take a degree in it for us? We could probably sponsor you about £6.50

We need a super-physics RE advocate. Anyone wanna take a degree in it for us? We could probably sponsor you about £6.50

Sponser me more and I will. Though I'll fail the degree..

And it's not my fault I'm too stupid to understand crazy talk Mr. Ireland! And the Stella don't help neither...

Well, nice to know someone new makes their own special sense of it all.  Unlike that Gayer...

Meh.  It still doesn't make sense when I think about it simply.  My math (which you've claimed to be correct) contradicts my own logic.  I'm clearly very screwed up, so my opinion shouldn't count on whether it makes sense or not.

You know your sponsor is shit when you raise 1000x more money for yourself then they sponsor you for.  And Gayer, it's not crazy talk.  I gave the run-down shit explanation that uses incorrect terms which makes sense to normal people and you didn't get it.  I think it may be you.

Meh.  It still doesn't make sense when I think about it simply.  My math (which you've claimed to be correct) contradicts my own logic.  I'm clearly very screwed up, so my opinion shouldn't count on whether it makes sense or not.

The only thing that matters is that you can understand in your own way how you can't pass the speed of light.

You know your sponsor is shit when you raise 1000x more money for yourself then they sponsor you for.  And Gayer, it's not crazy talk.  I gave the run-down shit explanation that uses incorrect terms which makes sense to normal people and you didn't get it.  I think it may be you.

I said it was me, pay attention

Well, I mean to say it IS your fault.  My bad, wrong wording.

I think I may have found a way to explain the complexity that is oging on in my mind.  With time and Velocity inversely proportionate, the time factor would have to be a negative for the velocity factor to be greater than the speed of light.  And since it is impossible to have a negative factor of time, it is equally impossible to have a speed greater than the speed of light.

Here's hoping that makes asm uch sense written as it does in my mind.

I think I may have found a way to explain the complexity that is oging on in my mind.  With time and Velocity inversely proportionate, the time factor would have to be a negative for the velocity factor to be greater than the speed of light.  And since it is impossible to have a negative factor of time, it is equally impossible to have a speed greater than the speed of light.

Here's hoping that makes asm uch sense written as it does in my mind.

Replace negative time with stopped time, and you're good.  But negative time is also (thought to be, can't be proven I don't think) not possible.

Here is another way of thinking about our movement through spacetime. 

Take two cars having a race.  The track is 100 miles long, and each car crosses the start doing exactly 100mph.  The first car has all of it's motion in the direction of the track.  The second car travels diagonally across the track, while still going 100mph.  Therefore, it covers less distance down the track than the first car in the same amount of time, thereby losing the race.



The same can be said about our movement through spacetime.  When we are moving in any direction (like car 2), we are covering less ground in time (car 1).  So, the closer you get to the speed of light, the slower you travel through time.

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on May 09, 2007, 03:54:00 PM

Your concept is correct.  And TheEngineer, I have that exact diagram (but drawn up a bit) in my physics textbook.

So he didn't draw it himself?! That's it! I give up liking Engy Baby, he is dead to me now!

How dare you!

When he wants to, TheEngineer is a good explainer.

But he so rarely wants to.... 

When he wants to, TheEngineer is a good explainer.

But he so rarely wants to.... 

I promised Gayer she would have pictures to explain Relativity.

I'm really and truly not trying to pick fights, but TheEngineer's pictures and explanations confuse me.  I thought I had a grasp of it, and now his picture lost me again.

Circle the part that shows spacetime bending. 

Where did I say there was?

They don't fall, the earth catches up to them.

Er, nope, guess again.

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 08, 2007, 11:14:31 PM

They don't fall, the earth catches up to them.

I daresay you have missed his point entirely.  I understand what he is saying, I think.  In fact, the same applies for simply jumping.

With the theory of universal acceleration, I am currently moving at 9.8m/s^2, correct?  No matter what, correct?  So if I jump off the ground, I'd still be moving that fast, I'd just be moving slightly above the Earth.  With nothing to slow me down in effect (no tension in midair, no gravity on FE), I'd be moving at 9.8m/s^2 no matter what I did.  So it would never catch up to me because I'd still be moving the same speed as it, just slightly above it. 

HOW does it catch up?  Right now, both myself and the Earth are moving at 9.8m/s^2.  So what slows me down enough for it to catch me when I jump?

Thankyou, I am glad somebody understood my point.

Quote from: Mongrelman... Or so I'm told... on May 09, 2007, 01:19:27 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 08, 2007, 11:14:31 PM

They don't fall, the earth catches up to them.

I daresay you have missed his point entirely.  I understand what he is saying, I think.  In fact, the same applies for simply jumping.

With the theory of universal acceleration, I am currently moving at 9.8m/s^2, correct?  No matter what, correct?  So if I jump off the ground, I'd still be moving that fast, I'd just be moving slightly above the Earth.  With nothing to slow me down in effect (no tension in midair, no gravity on FE), I'd be moving at 9.8m/s^2 no matter what I did.  So it would never catch up to me because I'd still be moving the same speed as it, just slightly above it. 

HOW does it catch up?  Right now, both myself and the Earth are moving at 9.8m/s^2.  So what slows me down enough for it to catch me when I jump?

Thankyou, I am glad somebody understood my point.

So, you also don't know what the difference is between acceleration and velocity...

Nope, I stick to my argument. It's right one way or the other, I just havent worked out the details yet.

Nope, I stick to my argument. It's right one way or the other, I just havent worked out the details yet.

Then please read up on Newton's Laws of Motion and what the difference is between acceleration and velocity, then post again.

I know the difference between acceleration and gravity. I am just wondering what effect this would have on the atmosphere and the laws of aerodynamics.

Acceleration and velocity.  They are different.

Yes, you are confused with acceleration and velocity.

The Earth is travelling at 9.8m/s^2. When you jump, you are travelling at a constant velocity.