Problems with FE's "gravity"

I am really sorry for you... so young, so...
Air accelerates the plane/falling object till it reaches a certain accelaration - of course smaller than Earth's because air is not a solid (to transmit 100% of the energy/acceleration). So the difference is the terminal velocity as in the equations above.
Actually if you would know math at high scool level you would look over the equations. I guess you can't...

Why can't you get it through your head that the plane has to be accelerated to 9.8m/s² to match the earths?  Air doesn't have to be solid to accelerate objects.  The thread you missed, I bought up indoor skydiving.  People are "accelerated" at 9.8m/s² to counter act gravitation. 

So Im going to ask again, how can a plane reach terminal velocity if the earth is accelerating towards it?

Quote from: Gulliver on September 14, 2007, 12:24:33 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 14, 2007, 12:21:54 PM

So you can't answer it then?

So you can't read the answer then?

I can't until it's provided.

So when are you going to prove your assertion that acceleration is relative. Einstein won a lot of praise for saying that velocity is relative and that acceleration is not. The world would just love to hear your wisdom overturn his ideas. Do tell.

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 14, 2007, 06:42:35 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on September 14, 2007, 12:24:33 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 14, 2007, 12:21:54 PM

So you can't answer it then?

So you can't read the answer then?

I can't until it's provided.

So when are you going to prove your assertion that acceleration is relative. Einstein won a lot of praise for saying that velocity is relative and that acceleration is not. The world would just love to hear your wisdom overturn his ideas. Do tell.

You need a question mark after your first sentence. Until this is remedied, I cannot stand to read a word you said.

Quote from: Gulliver on September 17, 2007, 10:30:21 AM

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 14, 2007, 06:42:35 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on September 14, 2007, 12:24:33 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 14, 2007, 12:21:54 PM

So you can't answer it then?

So you can't read the answer then?

I can't until it's provided.

So when are you going to prove your assertion that acceleration is relative. Einstein won a lot of praise for saying that velocity is relative and that acceleration is not. The world would just love to hear your wisdom overturn his ideas. Do tell.

You need a question mark after your first sentence. Until this is remedied, I cannot stand to read a word you said.

Score!

I love how FE'ers will try to use EP to prove they are right when EP can never be used as evidence. the only thing EP is good for was allowing Einstein to wonder if the model for gravity was 100% accurate, and even taking EP into account you had better believe that he made sure his model still fit in with what Newton said in his model. The reason that the FE'ers do this of course is to try and keep the massive holes in their model out of sight

I love how FE'ers will try to use EP to prove they are right when EP can never be used as evidence. the only thing EP is good for was allowing Einstein to wonder if the model for gravity was 100% accurate, and even taking EP into account you had better believe that he made sure his model still fit in with what Newton said in his model. The reason that the FE'ers do this of course is to try and keep the massive holes in their model out of sight

Very well put. Kudos.

Why can't you get it through your head that the plane has to be accelerated to 9.8m/s² to match the earths?  Air doesn't have to be solid to accelerate objects.  The thread you missed, I bought up indoor skydiving.  People are "accelerated" at 9.8m/s² to counter act gravitation. 

So Im going to ask again, how can a plane reach terminal velocity if the earth is accelerating towards it?

Dude you are....? By the same way you reach terminal veolocity in a vertical wind tunnel - air is pushed upwards by Earth (like a piston) so at some point the plane will reach 9.81 m/s² BUT at a latter momment than the Earth (air will take a while to get the plane there), so it will be a difference in their speeds (terminal velocity) that will allow Earth to catch up the plane. I guess you cannot follow simple math equations because you keep asking the same dumb question - that was answered already by those equations.
Go to school, learn about derivative of a function and come back...

Or special for you: in order to produce the plane accelartion of 9.81, the air MUST push with a certain force on the plane - as in F=m*a. In order to produce that force, the friction of the air on the lane MUST be equal with m*9.81 (m is plane mass). In order to maintan that force, since the air resistance is proportional with the speed, the air MUST flow by the plane with a certain speed. That speed is terminal speed... Doesn't matter if the air is PUSHED past the plane or the plane is ATTRACTED to the Earth, all that maters is that the air has a speed RELATIVE to the plane.

Quote from: sokarul on September 16, 2007, 05:32:04 PM

Why can't you get it through your head that the plane has to be accelerated to 9.8m/s² to match the earths?  Air doesn't have to be solid to accelerate objects.  The thread you missed, I bought up indoor skydiving.  People are "accelerated" at 9.8m/s² to counter act gravitation. 

So Im going to ask again, how can a plane reach terminal velocity if the earth is accelerating towards it?

Dude you are re******? By the same way you reach terminal veolocity in a vertical wind tunnel - air is pushed upwards by Earth (like a piston) so at some point the plane will reach 9.81 m/s² BUT at a latter momment than the Earth (air will take a while to get the plane there), so it will be a difference in their speeds (terminal velocity) that will allow Earth to catch up the plane. I guess you cannot follow simple math equations because you keep asking the same dumb question - that was answered already by those equations.
Go to school, learn about derivative of a function and come back...

Well, this one is interesting... It looks like I have to agree with both of you, but I have to give sokarul the higher score for accuracy.

You two are arguing about events from two different prespectives. Please note that I did not say two different FoRs! sokarul has chosen the FoR of an observer not on the FE and not accelerated by the UA. SoNic has chosen the perspective (not the FoR!) of an accelerated observer on the FE.

sokarul points out the plane does not reach terminal velocity in the FE model. The UA pushing on the FE pushing on the atmosphere manages to accelerate the plane at 1g so that the FE closes in on on the plane at terminal velocity--but the plane is not traveling at terminal velocity. This is correct. I would have preferred the sokarul have been clear about his choice of FoR though to his credit I believe his choice worthy.

SoNic points out the plane will appear to reach terminal velocity for the perspective of the FE observer, or an observer in the plane who considers the FE as a fix point of reference. This is correct. However, SoNic should realize that the FE as accelerated cannot be used as a valid FoR. There is a technique, well established and useful, that uses a set of accelerated FoRs to express his (or her) point. If SoNic had been clear that using that technique, I believe this debate would have been more to the point.

blablabla

Dude, there is no difference in those two scenarios... nobody can prove nothing. Except sokarul that proves that doesn't have the math skills for this discution.

Quote from: Gulliver on September 17, 2007, 01:53:41 PM

blablabla

Dude, there is no difference in those two scenarios... nobody can prove nothing. Except sokarul that proves that doesn't have the math skills for this discution.

You need to go back to class if you can't see the difference in the two "scenarios". sokarul has demonstrated superior understanding to yours in many cases. You may want to try humility, and a spell checker.

I'm all for making fun of pompousness, but not when they are learning the language. Bad form.

I'm all one for making fun of pompousness, but not when they are learning the language. Bad form.

Nah, he or she attacks other's skills. That makes his or her skills fair game.

(And shouldn't be it "I'm all for one making fun ..."? Maybe the colloquialism varies from my teachings though.)

"You're both right, except Gulliver."
-Narcberry 9/17/08

Quote from: SoNic on September 17, 2007, 02:01:00 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on September 17, 2007, 01:53:41 PM

blablabla

Dude, there is no difference in those two scenarios... nobody can prove nothing. Except sokarul that proves that doesn't have the math skills for this discution.

You need to go back to class if you can't see the difference in the two "scenarios". sokarul has demonstrated superior understanding to yours in many cases. You may want to try humility, and a spell checker.

You are (or pretended to be) retarded if you cannot understand such basic things and go on personal attacs about spelling (that you started first).
Air PUSHED up by the plane or plane ATRACTED down by gravitation - how are those different as per final effect - the friction force against the plane (that force will produce acceleration)?

Quote from: Gulliver on September 17, 2007, 02:05:21 PM

Quote from: SoNic on September 17, 2007, 02:01:00 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on September 17, 2007, 01:53:41 PM

blablabla

Dude, there is no difference in those two scenarios... nobody can prove nothing. Except sokarul that proves that doesn't have the math skills for this discution.

You need to go back to class if you can't see the difference in the two "scenarios". sokarul has demonstrated superior understanding to yours in many cases. You may want to try humility, and a spell checker.

You are or pretended to be retarded if you cannot understand such basic things and go on personal attacs about spelling (that you started first).
Air PUSHED up by the plane or plane ATRACTED down by gravitation - how are those different as per final effect - the friction force against the plane (that force will produce acceleration)?

Your memory is faulty. You started the personal attacks, but I really don't care.

Yes, they are different in final effect. The plane is traveling upwards at a higher velocity and accelerating upwards in the FE model. The plane is falling toward the ground and moving toward the Earth's surface at a constant velocity, accelerating with the Earth and the Earth's surface.

No there are IDENTICAL in the final effect. In the end plane will reach a constant speed RELATIVE to the Earth that will lead to the plane crashing on the Earth... That's the final effect that will be observable in ANY refference system.

No there are IDENTICAL in the final effect. In the end plane will reach a constant speed RELATIVE to the Earth that will lead to the plane crashing on the Earth... That's the final effect that will be observable in ANY refference system.

Nope. Draw a picture for yourself and tell us how far apart the crash sites are between the two models. Since it's not zero, they are not IDENTICAL.

Arguing with Gulliver is like fighting cancer. Either die, or lose your hair, vomit daily, then still die.

Your memory is faulty. You started the personal attacks, but I really don't care.

See who started? Check you reality circuit breaker... it is triped from overload.

Quote from: SoNic on September 06, 2007, 01:46:45 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 06, 2007, 12:24:29 PM

Actually object in orbit do "glide" forever.  But since there’s no air up there, they just fall forever. 

RE sais: Only if you have a certain speed you can orbit forever - it's the speed where the centripete force cancels tha gravitational pull. So even in RE, it's just a special situation, a space shuttle falls back to RE by reducing the speed...

You're not very good with phisics, even the RE one... easy target

Even I know its "says" not "sais".  Also "centripete" is also not a word. 
Ok now on to your argument.  I know all about orbit.  I said, "object in orbit do "glide" forever.  But since there’s no air up there, they just fall forever.".  So you can see objects in orbit will fall forever.  If the object loses orbit then it won't be in orbit and it wont fall forever. 

Nice try on trying to act like you know something. 

Quote from: Gulliver on September 17, 2007, 02:32:11 PM

Your memory is faulty. You started the personal attacks, but I really don't care.

See who started? Check you reality circuit breaker... it is triped from overload.

Quote from: sokarul on September 06, 2007, 03:58:10 PM

Quote from: SoNic on September 06, 2007, 01:46:45 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 06, 2007, 12:24:29 PM

Actually object in orbit do "glide" forever.  But since there’s no air up there, they just fall forever. 

RE sais: Only if you have a certain speed you can orbit forever - it's the speed where the centripete force cancels tha gravitational pull. So even in RE, it's just a special situation, a space shuttle falls back to RE by reducing the speed...

You're not very good with phisics, even the RE one... easy target

Even I know its "says" not "sais".  Also "centripete" is also not a word. 
Ok now on to your argument.  I know all about orbit.  I said, "object in orbit do "glide" forever.  But since there’s no air up there, they just fall forever.".  So you can see objects in orbit will fall forever.  If the object loses orbit then it won't be in orbit and it wont fall forever. 

Nice try on trying to act like you know something. 

Thanks for proving my point. I put your personal attack in bold font to help you with your recall. (You might consider reading what you post.)

(And shouldn't be it "I'm all for one making fun ..."? Maybe the colloquialism varies from my teachings though.)

Oops, I started writing one thing, and then began something else. The 'one' should be omitted.

Quote from: Gulliver on September 17, 2007, 02:20:13 PM

(And shouldn't be it "I'm all for one making fun ..."? Maybe the colloquialism varies from my teachings though.)

Oops, I started writing one thing, and then began something else. The 'one' should be omitted.

No problem. I was curious about the colloquialism. They are so hard to learn, especially between the English dialects. Thanks.

Thanks for proving my point. I put your personal attack in bold font to help you with your recall. (You might consider reading what you post.)

That was NOT a personal attack. It is the BARE TRUTH about sokarul - doesn't know physics or math worth a lick...
I think it is in high school somwhere at 11-th class (he cannot undestand a derivative), not at "college" as he pretends...
As for you... I begin to think that you are sokarul's lawyer or something. Don't worry, I won't bite him.
PS: I know that his maternal language is not english, even more I susspect it might be the same as mine (because of his nick). Therefore his attack at my typo/misspelling followed by major misspelings from his side was stupid - and I have pointed that at that time.

Consensus was declared dead. Didn't any of you get the memo?

Quote from: Gulliver on September 17, 2007, 02:47:11 PM

Thanks for proving my point. I put your personal attack in bold font to help you with your recall. (You might consider reading what you post.)

That was NOT a personal attack. It is the BARE TRUTH about sokarul - doesn't know physics or math worth a lick...
I think it is in high school somwhere at 11-th class (he cannot undestand a derivative), not at "college" as he pretends...
As for you... I begin to think that you are sokarul's lawyer or something. Don't worry, I won't bite him.
PS: I know that his maternal language is not english, even more I susspect it might be the same as mine (because of his nick). Therefore his attack at my typo/misspelling followed by major misspelings from his side was stupid - and I have pointed that at that time.

Oh, I see. When you don't like facing that you started the personal attacks, you change the definition. It's not a personal attack now whenever you believe it's true. You'd made the assumption that English is my maternal language.

As far as my relationship with sokarul, I understand your jealously. I've seen sokarul make wonderful arguments against the odds, across language, against the FE bias here, and against the "prima donna" and successfully improve the debate here. I consider him intelligent and honest and a friend. I can only hope that I've earned his friendship in return.

Maternal language? lol wut?

Maternal language? lol wut?

I had to look it up. It's the right phrase. I learned something for him. Darn.

That reminds me, time to go out to see my woman. Although she's cheap and bought some Lifestyles. It's all about brand loyalty.

Dude you are....? By the same way you reach terminal veolocity in a vertical wind tunnel - air is pushed upwards by Earth (like a piston) so at some point the plane will reach 9.81 m/s² BUT at a latter momment than the Earth (air will take a while to get the plane there),

Yes now you get it.  Why did you say the above doesn't happen in previous posts?  Maybe because you realized you were wrong. 

so it will be a difference in their speeds (terminal velocity)

Yes and no.  Difference in their speed is not terminal velocity.  Speed and velocity are different for one, and two, the earth in the fe never reaches terminal velocity.   

that will allow Earth to catch up the plane. I guess you cannot follow simple math equations because you keep asking the same dumb question - that was answered already by those equations.
Go to school, learn about derivative of a function and come back...

All this insulting when it was you that was wrong.  Lets look back.

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.

Wow its like you are going complete against what you said.

Or special for you: in order to produce the plane accelartion of 9.81, the air MUST push with a certain force on the plane - as in F=m*a. In order to produce that force, the friction of the air on the lane MUST be equal with m*9.81 (m is plane mass). In order to maintan that force, since the air resistance is proportional with the speed, the air MUST flow by the plane with a certain speed. That speed is terminal speed... Doesn't matter if the air is PUSHED past the plane or the plane is ATTRACTED to the Earth, all that maters is that the air has a speed RELATIVE to the plane.

I know, I already cover this in a thread a few weeks ago.  You don't know anything I don't.   However, I know that this thread just owned the fuck out of you.  So nice try and the save but you're to late.  You were already wrong, now you are trying to act like you are right.