Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)

Right, so I'm not sure what theengineer is arguing. It almost looks like he is holding the RET to the EP and then saying the earth is accelerating upwards like the FET.   

That is correct.

No. In RE you experience an acceleration towards the core of the earth. That is downward acceleration, not upwards. Also,  could you please point out to me which part of GR incorporates constant upwards acceleration?

I'm afraid not.  The RE is imparting an upwards acceleration to you when you stand on it. 

Right, so I'm not sure what theengineer is arguing. It almost looks like he is holding the RET to the EP and then saying the earth is accelerating upwards like the FET.   

I never said the Earth is accelerating upwards in RE.  I said you are.  Please learn to read.

I never said the Earth is accelerating upwards in RE.  I said you are.  Please learn to read.

Isn't the Earth accelerating upwards too? Or rather, outwards?

Quote from: oldsoldier on August 15, 2008, 11:34:36 PM

I find all these discussions about general relativity to be pretty far off topic.

I think they're the very best thing on the forum.

Thanks, Mrs Peach, I was beginning to think my posts were being ignored.

Anyway... I can see the fun you're having, but it does seem rather tedious to me.
It looks like about 1/2 of the RE posters understand gravity correctly and also understand what FE is trying to say about gravity.
About 1/2 of the RE posters do not and ask the same "off-topic" questions over and over again.
Similarly, about 1/2 of the FE posters don't understand either what FE says about gravity or the legitimate questions the "scientifically correct" RE posters are asking
and, about 1/2 of the FE'ers do.

If this thread had consisted only of REers who knew what they were talking about and FEers who were willing to listen and capable of understanding then we'd make progress. As it is as soon as one of the misinformed (on either side) makes a mistake the other side pounces on it and claims it as a victory for them. All rather pointless to me.

Quote from: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 08:13:17 AM

Right, so I'm not sure what theengineer is arguing. It almost looks like he is holding the RET to the EP and then saying the earth is accelerating upwards like the FET.   

I never said the Earth is accelerating upwards in RE.  I said you are.  Please learn to read.

You said the person is accelerating upwards for some magical reason. 
Please point out how "General relativity says that gravity is nothing more than an inertial force. This was called the equivalence principle by Einstein. Since the gravitational force on the Earth points downward, it follows that we must be constantly accelerating upward as we stand on the surface of the Earth!" is correct.  Please note it must stand true for all objects not just people. 

I think a lot of missunderstandings on this forum is caused by linguistic issues. In every day life, and between laymen, Gravity and Gravitation means the same thing. It means the effect fex mass have on fex mass. Its in more scientific circles that Gravity means a force.
Am I wrong?
And, does it really matter what we call things? Mostly people mean the same with different words..

I think a lot of missunderstandings on this forum is caused by linguistic issues. In every day life, and between laymen, Gravity and Gravitation means the same thing. It means the effect fex mass have on fex mass. Its in more scientific circles that Gravity means a force.
Am I wrong?
And, does it really matter what we call things? Mostly people mean the same with different words..

You are correct.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0

You said the person is accelerating upwards for some magical reason. 

The person is accelerating because of the mechanical resistance of the Earth.

Please point out how "General relativity says that gravity is nothing more than an inertial force. This was called the equivalence principle by Einstein. Since the gravitational force on the Earth points downward, it follows that we must be constantly accelerating upward as we stand on the surface of the Earth!" is correct. 

Simply applying some of that 'college' education you claim to have would show you this is true.

Please note it must stand true for all objects not just people.

Of course it is. 

Quote from: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 12:51:18 PM

You said the person is accelerating upwards for some magical reason. 

The person is accelerating because of the mechanical resistance of the Earth.

Resistance isn't acceleration. It would be a force.  An equal and opposite force is needed to negate another force. 

Simply applying some of that 'college' education you claim to have would show you this is true.

I use what I learn to not apply the EP incorrectly. 

Of course it is. 

So, it I have an undersea cable that spans from America to Europe, one acceleration isn't going to accomplish anything.   

Resistance isn't acceleration. It would be a force.  An equal and opposite force is needed to negate another force. 

What causes a force?

I use what I learn to not apply the EP incorrectly. 

So you are saying that this is too difficult for you?

So, it I have an undersea cable that spans from America to Europe, one acceleration isn't going to accomplish anything.

It's attached to the Earth somehow, right?

Quote from: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 04:14:24 PM

Resistance isn't acceleration. It would be a force.  An equal and opposite force is needed to negate another force. 

What causes a force?

I believe its called "nuclear force", maybe the weak one.  electromagnetic force.

So you are saying that this is too difficult for you?

I do not apply the EP to non local FOR. 

It's attached to the Earth somehow, right?

Yes, gravitation is accelerating it into the earth. 

I believe its called "nuclear force", maybe the weak one.  electromagnetic force.

What?

I do not apply the EP to non local FOR. 

So again, you can't figure out the experiment?

Yes, gravitation is accelerating it into the earth.

No, the Earth is accelerating it up.

What?

The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces.  Its what causes the equal and opposite force when I push on the wall or stand on the ground. 

So again, you can't figure out the experiment?

What are you even talking about now? 

No, the Earth is accelerating it up.

No.


Maybe we are tlaking about two different events or something. 

The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces.  Its what causes the equal and opposite force when I push on the wall or stand on the ground. 

Right.

What are you even talking about now? 

Quote from: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 12:51:18 PM

Please point out how "General relativity says that gravity is nothing more than an inertial force. This was called the equivalence principle by Einstein. Since the gravitational force on the Earth points downward, it follows that we must be constantly accelerating upward as we stand on the surface of the Earth!" is correct. 

Simply applying some of that 'college' education you claim to have would show you this is true.

Maybe we are tlaking about two different events or something.

Or, maybe, you are an idiot.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0

If you're looking for an intelligent argument you won't find one!  FE's have absolutely no proof.  All you will hear is "it's an optical illusion, it's a lie, it's a conspiracy," and on and on and on.  They have no evidence of an FE while an RE has been completely proven to exist.

Engy says it best in his sig. Mass = Gravity.  I'm not sure what the magic part is in his equation, so lets just throw it out. 

Win for RE.

Quote from: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 04:56:49 PM

The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces.  Its what causes the equal and opposite force when I push on the wall or stand on the ground. 

Right.

So I can end here because you just proved me right.  An acceleration cannot equal out a force.  I am accelerating down and since I have mass, there is a force. It's called weight.  The earth applies a force to me so I remain stationary. 

Gravitation is causing me to accelerate down, what's causing me to accelerate up? 

So I can end here because you just proved me right.  An acceleration cannot equal out a force.  I am accelerating down and since I have mass, there is a force. It's called weight.  The earth applies a force to me so I remain stationary. 

If you are accelerating down, why is the force you feel also down? 

Quote from: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 05:25:52 PM

So I can end here because you just proved me right.  An acceleration cannot equal out a force.  I am accelerating down and since I have mass, there is a force. It's called weight.  The earth applies a force to me so I remain stationary. 

If you are accelerating down, why is the force you feel also down? 

Because a force is a vector in the same direction as acceleration, which is also a vector.
If I jump off a cliff, do I accelerate down or up?   

[/quote]

Because a force is a vector in the same direction as acceleration, which is also a vector.
If I jump off a cliff, do I accelerate down or up?   
[/quote]

I see the point you are trying to make, but shouldn't terminal velocity of a body falling downward be overcome by the constant acceleration of the upward moving earth?

Because a force is a vector in the same direction as acceleration, which is also a vector.
If I jump off a cliff, do I accelerate down or up?   
[/quote]

I see the point you are trying to make, but shouldn't terminal velocity of a body falling downward be overcome by the constant acceleration of the upward moving earth?
[/quote]

Kinda in the FE.  Although in the fe objects never reach terminal velocity.  Objects in the Fe never fall down.   
Theengineer is claiming I have an upwards acceleration as I sit in this chair in the RE.  He can't explain why so he just keeps asking questions.   

I see the point you are trying to make, but shouldn't terminal velocity of a body falling downward be overcome by the constant acceleration of the upward moving earth?

No. 

Kinda in the FE.  Although in the fe objects never reach terminal velocity.   

Uh, they sure as hell do.

Theengineer is claiming I have an upwards acceleration as I sit in this chair in the RE.  He can't explain why so he just keeps asking questions.

I told you already: 
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0
Can't you read?

Because a force is a vector in the same direction as acceleration, which is also a vector.
If I jump off a cliff, do I accelerate down or up?   

I see the point you are trying to make, but shouldn't terminal velocity of a body falling downward be overcome by the constant acceleration of the upward moving earth?
[/quote]

Kinda in the FE.  Although in the fe objects never reach terminal velocity.  Objects in the Fe never fall down.   
Theengineer is claiming I have an upwards acceleration as I sit in this chair in the RE.  He can't explain why so he just keeps asking questions.   
[/quote]
According to the FE model if you jump off a cliff you do not accelerate up or down your acceleration is zero and the earth keeps accelerating and it catches up to you.

What we should be asking is that if we use the FE model to predict the terminal velocity of an object,  objects with same air resistance but different masses should have the same terminal velocity but in reality they do not.

What we should be asking is that if we use the FE model to predict the terminal velocity of an object,  objects with same air resistance but different masses should have the same terminal velocity but in reality they do not.

Uh, no.

Uh, they sure as hell do.

FOR, in the FET terminal velocity means the objects acceleration matches the earths.  These are obviously accelerating. 

I told you already: 
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0
Can't you read?

So once again, you apply the EP wrong and now can't back it up.  Typical you, pseudoengineer. 

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 09:16:49 PM

What we should be asking is that if we use the FE model to predict the terminal velocity of an object,  objects with same air resistance but different masses should have the same terminal velocity but in reality they do not.

Uh, no.

So if someone jumps off a cliff they will accelerate back to the surface of the earth in the FE model?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 09:16:49 PM

What we should be asking is that if we use the FE model to predict the terminal velocity of an object,  objects with same air resistance but different masses should have the same terminal velocity but in reality they do not.

Uh, no.

Mr Engineer, the way more mass = more gravity is not magic.  Think of space as a giant blanket stretched out. If you drop a baseball in the middle of a blanket its going to sink into it, and anything that gets close to the dip made y the basemall will sink into it.
The bigger the object on the blanket, the deeper the dip and the wider area effected, say then if you put a bowling ball on the blanket.
This is what keeps us on the Earths surface. we, with the Earth are literally in its dip, and if we jump, we fall down back onto the Earth, (unless of course we acclerate with such a velocity as to ecape the effect of the Earth's gravity, in essence going up and out of the dip)

          Well same thing for space and the fabric of space time. think of Earth as a baseball and Jupiter as bowling ball.
 This is the same reason a black hole distorts space time, because it is ultra massive and its area of effect is wide and vast
Gravity is only magic to those who dont understand

FOR, in the FET terminal velocity means the objects acceleration matches the earths.  These are obviously accelerating. 

Where is the complication?

So once again, you apply the EP wrong and now can't back it up.  Typical you, pseudoengineer.

I didn't apply the EP in that post.  Perhaps you should read it before you make an ass out of yourself.  Oh, wait, it's way too late for that.