Problems with FE's "gravity"

Yet, it still seems quite relative...

No.

Quote from: Gulliver on September 02, 2007, 10:19:18 AM

So, when FET says the FE is accelerating at a constant 1g, it's incorrect--according to both SR's rules on FoRs and to an outside observer. What FET should say is that the FE feels like it's accelerating at a constant rate to those on the surface of the FE.

Hold on a minute. You think feeling isn't relative?

Off the issue, but... no, in this sense, feeling is not relative.

On the issue, TheEngineer is wrong in saying that acceleration is relative.

Quote from: sokarul on September 12, 2007, 06:36:42 PM

Thats what I was thinking. 
The EP only works for uniform gravitational fields.  The EP does not say "Gravitation and acceleration are exactly equivalent."
Sonic, due try and keep up. 

Really, go back to highscool, that's basic stuff that you are confussed about...
I was talking about the question of this thread - how a plane that stops it's engines is falling towards Earth if is no gravity...
EP is not involved here as far I am concerned because gravitation doesn't exist... on Earth at least.
Try to keep it to the topic:

I'm not the one confused.  

Gulliver, the accelerating Earth does make sense.  I mean, it's weird how UA is selective, but if we are not forced to accelerate and the Earth is, we will feel a force downward.

Thats what I was thinking. 

The EP only works for uniform gravitational fields.  The EP does not say "Gravitation and acceleration are exactly equivalent."
Sonic, due try and keep up. 

No word from Tom.  I wounder if he saw his mistake and ran to hide under his parents bed. 

Yes, sure... do a spell check first.

Gulliver, the accelerating Earth does make sense.  I mean, it's weird how UA is selective, but if we are not forced to accelerate and the Earth is, we will feel a force downward.

I never said otherwise, did I? If so, I was wrong.

Gulliver, the accelerating Earth does make sense.  I mean, it's weird how UA is selective, but if we are not forced to accelerate and the Earth is, we will feel a force downward.

If the force is exercited UNDER the Earth and AGAINST the Earth (mechanically) that why is weird to be selective?
Here is Gullived disaproving the UA versus gravitation effects...

How lame can you be? That doesn't explain EP, not even close. You're sad.

Quote from: sokarul on September 12, 2007, 06:36:42 PM

Thats what I was thinking. 

The EP only works for uniform gravitational fields.  The EP does not say "Gravitation and acceleration are exactly equivalent."
Sonic, due try and keep up. 

No word from Tom.  I wounder if he saw his mistake and ran to hide under his parents bed. 

Yes, sure... do a spell check first.

You need to heed your own advice!

...
Really, go back to highscool, that's basic stuff that you are confussed about...
I was talking about the question of this thread - how a plane that stops it's engines is falling towards Earth if is no gravity...
EP is not involved here as far I am concerned because gravitation doesn't exist... on Earth at least.
Try to keep it to the topic:
...

I didn't pretend to be something that I am not... like others here.
College boys that spell at a 5 year emigrant level :p

Quote from: Trekky0623 on September 12, 2007, 08:06:02 PM

Gulliver, the accelerating Earth does make sense.  I mean, it's weird how UA is selective, but if we are not forced to accelerate and the Earth is, we will feel a force downward.

If the force is exercited UNDER the Earth and AGAINST the Earth (mechanically) that why is weird to be selective?
Here is Gullived disaproving the UA versus gravitation effects...

Quote from: Gulliver on September 12, 2007, 06:29:22 PM

How lame can you be? That doesn't explain EP, not even close. You're sad.

You need to work on reading comprehensive. Nothing in that quote shows my "disaproving" anything except you.

I didn't pretend to be something that I am not... like others here.

Right... You call someone on their spelling and then don't hold yourself to the same standard. I guess the word for you would be 'hypocrite'.

You need to work on reading comprehensive. Nothing in that quote shows my "disaproving" anything except you.

No, you're the confussed one... you did disaprove the effects of acceleration that was explained by me - is included in your quote.

Quote from: SoNic on September 12, 2007, 06:20:35 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 12, 2007, 05:57:12 PM

Why don't you use your knowledge of physics and teach Tom the EP. 

Ok, for you "college boy"...



PS: Ask for money back from your school (physics classes)...

How lame can you be? That doesn't explain EP, not even close. You're sad.

Since not EP was in discussion on the first post or in my post... what's your logical conclusion?

Quote from: Gulliver on September 12, 2007, 08:12:45 PM

You need to work on reading comprehensive. Nothing in that quote shows my "disaproving" anything except you.

No, you're the confussed one... you did disaprove the effects of acceleration that was explained by me - is included in your quote.

Quote from: Gulliver on September 12, 2007, 06:29:22 PM

Quote from: SoNic on September 12, 2007, 06:20:35 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 12, 2007, 05:57:12 PM

Why don't you use your knowledge of physics and teach Tom the EP. 

Ok, for you "college boy"...

PS: Ask for money back from your school (physics classes)...

How lame can you be? That doesn't explain EP, not even close. You're sad.

Since not EP was in discussion on the first post or in my post... what's your logical conclusion?

Nope. Show me where I said "disaprove" or its ilk anywhere in this thread.
You quoted Sokarul's challenge to explain EP and then didn't answer his challenge. I pointed that out to you. I'm not "confussed" at all.

Do try harder on the spelling and grammar. It's getting to the point that no one can determine what you're trying to say.

Then mayne yu should takl to sokarul olny...

If sokarul can explain EP than I would take that challenge. I might not live long enough thou...
The topic anyway was different - should I quote the first post again???

Then mayne yu should takl to sokarul olny...

If sokarul can explain EP than I would take that challenge. I might not live long enough thou...
The topic anyway was different - should I quote the first post again???

No need. We'll all convinced that you don't understand physics enough to even participate in this thread. Good luck with your studies.

I didn't pretend to be something that I am not... like others here.
College boys that spell at a 5 year emigrant level :p

Great someone that thinks the earth is flat is lecturing me.  I feel special. 

O and ask for your money back if you spend any on physics lessons.  Speed is not a vector.  Plus if you think that (in the FE) a falling plane has no acceleration, then as stated before, get your money back.  A falling plane has no acceleration at T₀ but then starts to gain acceleration. 

Quote from: SoNic on September 12, 2007, 08:11:35 PM

I didn't pretend to be something that I am not... like others here.
College boys that spell at a 5 year emigrant level :p

Great someone that thinks the earth is flat is lecturing me.  I feel special. 

O and ask for your money back if you spend any on physics lessons.  Speed is not a vector.  Plus if you think that (in the FE) a falling plane has no acceleration, then as stated before, get your money back.  A falling plane has no acceleration at T₀ but then starts to gain acceleration. 

What I think is so sad for SoNic is his prejudice. He just assumes that everyone's first language is English and that they live in an English speaking country. He's probably going to be shocked some day soon when he gets shipped off to fight a war in some other country.

Wait, there are some people that do not speak english as a first language?

LOLOMGWTFUJUSTBLEWMYDAMNMINDDOOD

Calling Sonic the Hedgehog, come in Sonic. 

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 12, 2007, 07:56:44 PM

Yet, it still seems quite relative...

No.

Relative to me it's one g, but relative to someone else, it's not. 
...
...
...
...How is that not relative, again?

Quote from: Gulliver on September 12, 2007, 07:59:07 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 12, 2007, 07:56:44 PM

Yet, it still seems quite relative...

No.

Relative to me it's one g, but relative to someone else, it's not. 
...
...
...
...How is that not relative, again?

Viewed from your frame, your acceleration is 1g. Viewed from someone else's frame, your acceleration is 1g.
...
...
...
...That's not relative.

O and ask for your money back if you spend any on physics lessons.  Speed is not a vector.  Plus if you think that (in the FE) a falling plane has no acceleration, then as stated before, get your money back.  A falling plane has no acceleration at T₀ but then starts to gain acceleration. 

Once again you should check the books before posting...
1. Speed can be represented as a vector.
2. In FE, that plane is keeping the unifom speed. The Earth is accelating towards it... Because is NO GRAVITATION to pull the plane towards Earth... but is UA that moves Earth upwards. Of course Gulliver knows that but I guess he likes you to much to point that.
3. Why I do engage in physics debates with a teenager with no basic understanding of motion ecuations???
Ok, the last one is rethorical only...

Quote from: sokarul on September 12, 2007, 08:28:35 PM

O and ask for your money back if you spend any on physics lessons.  Speed is not a vector.  Plus if you think that (in the FE) a falling plane has no acceleration, then as stated before, get your money back.  A falling plane has no acceleration at T₀ but then starts to gain acceleration. 

Once again you should check the books before posting...
1. Speed can be represented as a vector.
2. In FE, that plane is keeping the unifom speed. The Earth is accelating towards it... Because is NO GRAVITATION to pull the plane towards Earth... but is UA that moves Earth upwards. Of course Gulliver knows that but I guess he likes you to much to point that.
3. Why I do engage in physics debates with a teenager with no basic understanding of motion ecuations???
Ok, the last one is rethorical only...

Oh dear. Let me try to answer you in the spirit of educating you. I trust that you can open your mind enough to learn from your mistakes.
1. No. Speed is a scalar, the magnitude of velocity. Velocity is a vector with both direction and magnitude.
2. You guess incorrectly. I don't concentrate on the posts of other REers, but I will correct them when I notice a problem. I gave you a link to a thread where both sokarul and I argued extensively with cb. on this very topic. I corrected divito, another REer, just today in another thread. Please tell me what you believe that sokarul has said wrong in your opinion. If I agree with you, I'll work with you to explain the error to sokarul. However, at this point, you seem not to understand basic physics as I've explained in the point above.
3. You need to understand that sokarul has demonstrated a much greater understanding of motion equations than you have.

Quote from: SoNic on September 13, 2007, 04:29:06 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 12, 2007, 08:28:35 PM

O and ask for your money back if you spend any on physics lessons.  Speed is not a vector.  Plus if you think that (in the FE) a falling plane has no acceleration, then as stated before, get your money back.  A falling plane has no acceleration at T₀ but then starts to gain acceleration. 

Once again you should check the books before posting...
1. Speed can be represented as a vector.
2. In FE, that plane is keeping the unifom speed. The Earth is accelating towards it... Because is NO GRAVITATION to pull the plane towards Earth... but is UA that moves Earth upwards. Of course Gulliver knows that but I guess he likes you to much to point that.
3. Why I do engage in physics debates with a teenager with no basic understanding of motion ecuations???
Ok, the last one is rethorical only...

Oh dear. Let me try to answer you in the spirit of educating you. I trust that you can open your mind enough to learn from your mistakes.
1. No. Speed is a scalar, the magnitude of velocity. Velocity is a vector with both direction and magnitude.
2. You guess incorrectly. I don't concentrate on the posts of other REers, but I will correct them when I notice a problem. I gave you a link to a thread where both sokarul and I argued extensively with cb. on this very topic. I corrected divito, another REer, just today in another thread. Please tell me what you believe that sokarul has said wrong in your opinion. If I agree with you, I'll work with you to explain the error to sokarul. However, at this point, you seem not to understand basic physics as I've explained in the point above.
3. You need to understand that sokarul has demonstrated a much greater understanding of motion equations than you have.

Yeah that^^^^

3. I'm 22, that's not a teenager.  Get your physics right, and there will be no problems. 

The one 'g' acceleration is the felt acceleration on the FE, not the actual acceleration from a valid SR FoR. FET uses an infinite set of accelerated FoRs to examine Nature as seen on the FE. However, since the FE has accelerated out of that FoR, it's immediately invalid to do so. Now from an outside observer, the FE is not accelerating at 1g and does not increase in speed so much as to exceed the speed of light. To this observer, the FE's acceleration is not constant, but rather is constantly decreasing.

So, how is that not relative, again?

Plus if you think that (in the FE) a falling plane has no acceleration, then as stated before, get your money back.  A falling plane has no acceleration at T₀ but then starts to gain acceleration. 

From who? It's mommy? Because in FE there is no gravitational pull from Earth.
Just plain confussed... that's all.
A, and speed can be a noun for many different things, including the one you call velocity. Or a controlled substance.
Semantics doesn't change the basic fact that you have zero grasp about how physics work in FE.

What I think is so sad for SoNic is his prejudice. He just assumes that everyone's first language is English and that they live in an English speaking country. He's probably going to be shocked some day soon when he gets shipped off to fight a war in some other country.

You are really funny. I am not aware that there are people that have different first laguages than english???
And what's with the war dude? I cannot be drafted, but you eventually can... scarry for you (I guess since is no other reason to bring that here).

Quote from: sokarul on September 12, 2007, 08:28:35 PM

Plus if you think that (in the FE) a falling plane has no acceleration, then as stated before, get your money back.  A falling plane has no acceleration at T₀ but then starts to gain acceleration. 

From who? It's mommy? Because in FE there is no gravitational pull from Earth.
Just plain confussed... that's all.
A, and speed can be a noun for many different things, including the one you call velocity. Or a controlled substance.
Semantics doesn't change the basic fact that you have zero grasp about how physics work in FE.

Ok you see, the earth accelerating upwards accelerates the air which accelerates the plane.  How else could the plane reach terminal "velocity"?  In the FE for a plane to reach terminal velocity it has to match the earth acceleration. 

So who doesn't understand fe physics?  That's right, YOU!

A, and speed can be a noun for many different things, including the one you call velocity. Or a controlled substance.

While this is ultimately true, in physics, they are in essence two different things.

Ok you see, the earth accelerating upwards accelerates the air which accelerates the plane.  How else could the plane reach terminal "velocity"?  In the FE for a plane to reach terminal velocity it has to match the earth acceleration. 
So who doesn't understand fe physics?  That's right, YOU!

So... the air that pushes the plane UP increase the FALLING speed of the plane, down towards Earth... Ok, thank you.

Plus if you think that (in the FE) a falling plane has no acceleration, then as stated before, get your money back.  A falling plane has no acceleration at T₀ but then starts to gain acceleration. 

Yes, I still think that a falling plane (on FE) has no acceleration. Sure for a few seconds it will be some acceleration because of friction with the air, but that doesn't change the ultimate result.

Quote from: sokarul on September 13, 2007, 06:21:38 PM

Ok you see, the earth accelerating upwards accelerates the air which accelerates the plane.  How else could the plane reach terminal "velocity"?  In the FE for a plane to reach terminal velocity it has to match the earth acceleration. 
So who doesn't understand fe physics?  That's right, YOU!

So... the air that pushes the plane UP increase the FALLING speed of the plane, down towards Earth... Ok, thank you.

That make perfect SENSE.