Parachutes

Oh i get it. You are looking for a reason to run to your EP and I am not going to give it to you, so you need to be able to support your model with more than that.

Ok.  What will I weigh on the scale as I am in free fall?  I promise I won't bring up the EP. 

So once again how does FE Theory account for the lack of a downward force when looked at from the correct FoR

Why must there be one?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 25, 2007, 12:57:51 PM

So once again how does FE Theory account for the lack of a downward force when looked at from the correct FoR

Why must there be one?

well if there isnt any explaination then FE theory does not work because the forces do not resolve correctly to match reality so we can say that FE theory does not reflect what really happens

Yes, they do.  Did you read my prior explanation?

like I said when you look at it from the correct FoR, sorry you can not add items to your system to make sure you are correct

So, you didn't read it.

So, you didn't read it.

oh I read it and you are wrong.

Show me.

it was a very well thought out explaination however the problem is that you are applying RE theory to FE theory, In RE our weight comes from the gravitational attraction between us and the earth so no matter our altitiude there is stall a foce acting upon us. Now in FE the force that causes us to have weight is the acceleration of the ground under us which while we are on the ground will cause the exact same result as in the RE, but as soon as we leave the ground the earth is no longer pushing up on us so now we only have mass so in F=ma the force acting upon us is zero so in FE we would have no weight. Now I understan %100 that this does not reflect reality but that is my whole point FE theory does not reflect reality in this case, and since you guys are such fans of calulating things locally this should be pretty easy to see, the only force acting upon the parachutist on the FE is the wind resistance and nothing more so that would mean that he would be accelerated upward, does this mean he would never land? Given enough time he would not but I really do not want to take the time to set up a numerical modeling poblem to see how long it would take him to accelerate back up to 9.8m/s² but even if it would take 500 miles to get back to that acceleration we would still notice the effect as our relative velocity would continue to decrease as we fell back to earth, unlike what happens in reality where we reach a terminala velocity and maintain it

I am doing this from FE 'information'.  I think what you're not getting is air isn't a vacuum.  Let's remember, the earth is pushing up on the air, just like the UA is pushing on it, which means the air is also accelerating at 9.8m/s².  If you were able to 'walk on air', you would weigh just as much standing on air, as you did standing on the ground.  This is the part you're missing, that the effects of the UA are still being felt when you're in the air.  When a parachutist jumps out of a plane, it's the air that causes them to accelerate 'upwards' (but not as much as the earth, as they do make their way 'down' through the air at a velocity which takes away from their accelerating rate).  They accelerate upwards (and therefore have weight) because the air pushes up on them.  This is just like the wind blowing, pushing on things it hits.  Get the weight thing, now?  -prays-

The air would compress, you know.

The air would compress, you know.

The air does compress.  Notice how pressure changes between different altitudes.

I know tha, but just as I think about it, I feel theres a piece missing. A cup being accelerated upwards would create eddies in the air, a way both in and out. Shouldn't there be strange cross currents in the FE model? Verticle winds near the poles?

Your only experience with a cup accelerating upwards is in an air-filled environment.  Without that outside air to create currents in the cup, it should remain stable (I think).

Ya, now if it were a vacuum, the acceleration would have to be faster than air's natural tendancy to move toward a vacuum... and if that were greater than 9.81 m/s2, we'd run into a dilemma.

And we'd be screwed in the RE too, by that logic.

hmm, yer right

This goes back to one of my first posts, when you look at the parachutist and draw a free body diagram which is just a vector diagram of all of the forces involved you will get 2 different diagrams when you do one for RE and one for FE. In RE you will have on vector pointing down which will be the gravitational attraction to the earth "mg" and pointing in an opposite direction would be your air resistance "R=1/2DpAv²" so you would end up with the equation F=mg-1/2DpAv²
In FE you will have on vector pointing down which will be you inertial mass "I" and you will still have the vector pointing up as air resistance so you will get an equation of F=I -1/2DpAv² the only thing that the acceleration of the air would be used for is to compute the velocity of the air in the air resistance formula.

Well, first, your FE equation is very wrong.  Second, there is no downward force in the FE diagram.

Well, first, your FE equation is very wrong.  Second, there is no downward force in the FE diagram.

that is the equation for air resistance so how can it be very wrong, and yes there is no force pushing down but your inertial mass is like friction so it will always point opposite the applied force. So now that I think about it, My equations are accurate unless you want to bring in forces that are not involved in the system into play, but wait that would still be incorrect

So let me get this straight.  This topic is another one that disproves the fe?  It seems too.  And its a kinda major one. 

So let me get this straight.  This topic is another one that disproves the fe?  It seems too.  And its a kinda major one. 

No, cbarnett97 just can't understand why it isn't.  Gulliver agreed earlier that FE has this one.

F=I -1/2DpAv²

Check the units.

Quote from: sokarul on August 25, 2007, 09:07:30 PM

So let me get this straight.  This topic is another one that disproves the fe?  It seems too.  And its a kinda major one. 

No, cbarnett97 just can't understand why it isn't.  Gulliver agreed earlier that FE has this one.

I'm not agreeing though. 

A humans terminal velocity is 120 mph.  So a skydiver will hit this and then never accelerate anymore.  But he will still have a velocity and that velocity will take him into the earth.  A skydiver in the fe better also have a 120 mph terminal velocity.  This means he will never accelerate, and his velocity will not take him into the earth.  As it will be in the same direction as the earth.

Forgot to copypaste to openoffice. 

Quote from: CommonCents on August 25, 2007, 09:10:23 PM

Quote from: sokarul on August 25, 2007, 09:07:30 PM

So let me get this straight.  This topic is another one that disproves the fe?  It seems too.  And its a kinda major one. 

No, cbarnett97 just can't understand why it isn't.  Gulliver agreed earlier that FE has this one.

I'm not agreing though. 

A humnas terminal velocity is 120 mph.  So a skydiver will hit this and then never acceelerate anymore.  But he will still have a velocity and that velocity will take him into the earth.  A skydiver in the fe better also have a 120 mph terminal velocity.  This means he will never accelerate, and his velocity will not take him into the earth.  As it will be in the same direction as the earth.

Please read one of my earlier posts which explains this.

Quote from: CommonCents on August 25, 2007, 09:10:23 PM

Quote from: sokarul on August 25, 2007, 09:07:30 PM

So let me get this straight.  This topic is another one that disproves the fe?  It seems too.  And its a kinda major one. 

No, cbarnett97 just can't understand why it isn't.  Gulliver agreed earlier that FE has this one.

I'm not agreing though. 

A humnas terminal velocity is 120 mph.  So a skydiver will hit this and then never acceelerate anymore.  But he will still have a velocity and that velocity will take him into the earth.  A skydiver in the fe better also have a 120 mph terminal velocity.  This means he will never accelerate, and his velocity will not take him into the earth.  As it will be in the same direction as the earth.

If he has a terminal velocity of 120 mph, which means he's 'falling' towards the Earth at 120 mph, why wouldn't he hit the Earth?

The only way the air could prevent you from 'falling' is if it your air were a solid, or something else completely retarded.  You have weight and this weight allows you to slowly push your way 'down' through the air until you hit the ground END OF ARGUMENT.

kgm/s^2, what is wrong with newtons?

The only way the air could prevent you from 'falling' is if it your air were a solid, or something else completely retarded.  You have weight and this weight allows you to slowly push your way 'down' through the air until you hit the ground END OF ARGUMENT.

since when did air rovide no force? because those pesky hurricanes must be made of something other than air then

Quote from: CommonCents on August 25, 2007, 09:10:23 PM

Quote from: sokarul on August 25, 2007, 09:07:30 PM

So let me get this straight.  This topic is another one that disproves the fe?  It seems too.  And its a kinda major one. 

No, cbarnett97 just can't understand why it isn't.  Gulliver agreed earlier that FE has this one.

I'm not agreing though. 

A humnas terminal velocity is 120 mph.  So a skydiver will hit this and then never acceelerate anymore.  But he will still have a velocity and that velocity will take him into the earth.  A skydiver in the fe better also have a 120 mph terminal velocity.  This means he will never accelerate, and his velocity will not take him into the earth.  As it will be in the same direction as the earth.

That 120mph means the human is accelerating slower than the earth, so the earth is accelerating faster, and will therefore catch the human.

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on August 25, 2007, 09:19:21 PM

The only way the air could prevent you from 'falling' is if it your air were a solid, or something else completely retarded.  You have weight and this weight allows you to slowly push your way 'down' through the air until you hit the ground END OF ARGUMENT.

since when did air rovide no force? because those pesky hurricanes must be made of something other than air then

Uhh, what the hell are you talking about?  I'm not following.

kgm/s^2, what is wrong with newtons?

Your 'I' is not measured in newtons.

I used "I" for your inertial mass in this case which is a force so yes it is in newtons