Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)

Quote from: sokarul on August 18, 2008, 08:26:34 AM

I am talking about the whole earth.  There is a FOR that is the whole earth. 

No there isn't. The surface of the Earth at one end is accelerating at 9.8 m s^-2 in one direction, and on the other side it is accelerating at the same rate in the opposite direction. These are not the same frame of reference, and they are both non-inertial in any case. The only inertial frame of reference that fits what you are trying to describe is that of the Earth's centre of mass.

So in other words, like Einstein said, gravitation causes acceleration.  Good to know.   Glad to see you finally saw how wrong you are. 

So you already gave up on your equations then, good for you. I will put the question to you also, using the FE model calculate the terminal velocity of a smooth ball and I want to see the math

So, I must assume you admit your colossal failure.  It was a good attempt to act smart, but it ended up blowing up in your face.  Just like all your other attempts to act intelligent.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 18, 2008, 02:01:35 PM

So you already gave up on your equations then, good for you. I will put the question to you also, using the FE model calculate the terminal velocity of a smooth ball and I want to see the math

So, I must assume you admit your colossal failure.  It was a good attempt to act smart, but it ended up blowing up in your face.  Just like all your other attempts to act intelligent.

You can side step the question all you want but since you have such a clear understanding of the FE model it should be a no brainer to calculate the Terminal velocity of a smooth ball. It is only simple algebra after all. Should be pretty easy to show the equations and the result. The only problem I see is that the respone may require a few sentences and we all know how hard that is for you to do in 1 post.

A. I can't help but notice the premise of burden of proof got shifted away once again quite easily.
Perhaps approaching the question differently would help explain why we ask what we ask in simplistic proof form.

Point 1: It is illogical to arrive at a conclusion without evidence to support the conclusion.
Point 2: You have come to a conclusion of a Flat Earth.
Point 3: If you use logic and reasoning you must have evidence.

I can see no reason why such evidence can't readily be shared with us, under such premises. I do not believe FE'rs are correct in suggesting the public supported and common view should disprove every deviant view, but that argument aside, is it a lack of evidence or laziness on your behalf that prevents FE'ers from presenting the reasons they side with FE?

B. This simplified proof also begs questions with 'the conspiracy'. You believe in it yet readily admit to not having witnessed a shred of evidence for it. The only reply I have ever seen suggests the conspiracy because it makes sense with FE. If this is the case, the logical structure is incomplete due to its dependence on part A of my post. The only other alternatives I see is that the conspiracy is purely faith-based or logic was once again again abandoned.

I await your response.

Bump... Still waiting on an answer

 I am also in need for intelligent argument which proofs that earth is not round. Because, if I look at engineering books, which talk about leveling and surveying, for example:
Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Introductory Surveying: Teora y problemas
By James R. Wirshing, Roy H. Wirshing - pg 92
http://books.google.com/books?id=IwXpY5lOsXYC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=earth+levelling+curvature&source=web&ots=fGeNXGquzg&sig=h0ualvQOMbbtI7Gd1M9GecVtZFM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA92,M1

Plane Surveying. By A M Chandra - pg 118
http://books.google.com/books?id=hqFcPbmmxC4C&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=levelling+curvature&source=web&ots=F7x6aGkVQU&sig=CFe3eA4KHfCIyg5YmmKOKMNEyRs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA118,M1

 They take account earth curvature in their calculations. Also they take account refraction of light in atmosphere which bends light downward, not upward like FET'ers believe. How do you explain that all their calculations, which take account earth curvature and light bending downward, are correct and give quite precise results? Because if earth is flat and light bends upward then their calculations must be quite wrong and if they are wrong it must be seen somewhere where these calculations are used. 

Quote from: Robosteve on August 18, 2008, 08:29:41 AM

No there isn't. The surface of the Earth at one end is accelerating at 9.8 m s^-2 in one direction, and on the other side it is accelerating at the same rate in the opposite direction. These are not the same frame of reference, and they are both non-inertial in any case. The only inertial frame of reference that fits what you are trying to describe is that of the Earth's centre of mass.

So in other words, like Einstein said, gravitation causes acceleration.  Good to know.   Glad to see you finally saw how wrong you are. 

Reading comprehension harder.

To everyone:



What is the direction of the person's acceleration?

What is the direction of the person's acceleration?

Up, obviously.

The force you've drawn there is a contact force, so yes the acceleration due to the contact force must be 'up'. (The acceleration due to gravity would be 'down' in this case.)

(The acceleration due to gravity would be 'down' in this case.)

Or would be, if gravity existed.

Quote from: Matrix on August 19, 2008, 05:08:51 AM

(The acceleration due to gravity would be 'down' in this case.)

Or would be, if gravity existed.

That's why I implicitly qualified that statement.

That's why I implicitly qualified that statement.

Oh. Carry on, then.

I was done, just chipping in my two cents in response to the diagram... ensuring that I wasn't being misunderstood!

Therefore, there is no downward acceleration under GR. I asked that question on purpose to erase any confusion.

To everyone:



What is the direction of the person's acceleration?

A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 

A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 

You are stupid.

Quote from: sokarul on August 19, 2008, 07:33:35 AM

A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 

You are stupid.

Examples of objects not in free fall:

Standing on the ground: the gravitational acceleration is counteracted by the normal force from the ground.

So what are you trying to say, you have no idea what you are talking about or I read the picture wrong? 

A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 

Uh, you sure?

A person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic (free fall towards the center of the Earth), but the chair applies an external upwards force preventing the person from falling. In this way, general relativity explains the daily experience of gravity on the surface of the Earth not as the downwards pull of a gravitational force, but as the upwards push of external forces which deflect bodies on the Earth's surface from the geodesics they would otherwise follow.

So what are you trying to say, you have no idea what you are talking about or I read the picture wrong? 

I am trying to say this:

You are stupid.

Quote from: sokarul on August 19, 2008, 07:33:35 AM

A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 

Uh, you sure?

Quote from: wikipedia

A person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic (free fall towards the center of the Earth), but the chair applies an external upwards force preventing the person from falling. In this way, general relativity explains the daily experience of gravity on the surface of the Earth not as the downwards pull of a gravitational force, but as the upwards push of external forces which deflect bodies on the Earth's surface from the geodesics they would otherwise follow.

Yup

Examples of objects not in free fall:

Standing on the ground: the gravitational acceleration is counteracted by the normal force from the ground.

Free fall is motion with no acceleration other than that provided by gravity.

You are stupid.

I don't even know what to say.  A 19 year old high school dropout is trying to show me up. 

high school dropout

Lolwut.

Quote from: sokarul on August 19, 2008, 07:33:35 AM

A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 

Uh, you sure?

Quote from: wikipedia

A person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic (free fall towards the center of the Earth), but the chair applies an external upwards force preventing the person from falling. In this way, general relativity explains the daily experience of gravity on the surface of the Earth not as the downwards pull of a gravitational force, but as the upwards push of external forces which deflect bodies on the Earth's surface from the geodesics they would otherwise follow.

To add to my last post, what part of the quote says objects on the earth are in free fall? 

Quote from: Jack. on August 19, 2008, 07:45:20 AM

Quote from: sokarul on August 19, 2008, 07:33:35 AM

A person is not in free fall on the surface of the earth. 

Uh, you sure?

Quote from: wikipedia

A person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic (free fall towards the center of the Earth), but the chair applies an external upwards force preventing the person from falling. In this way, general relativity explains the daily experience of gravity on the surface of the Earth not as the downwards pull of a gravitational force, but as the upwards push of external forces which deflect bodies on the Earth's surface from the geodesics they would otherwise follow.

Yup

Do you know what "motion along geodesic" (or geodesic, for starters) is?

Quote from: wiki

Examples of objects not in free fall:

Standing on the ground: the gravitational acceleration is counteracted by the normal force from the ground.

Quote from: wiki

Free fall is motion with no acceleration other than that provided by gravity.

Then GTFO of Newtonian physics.

To add to my last post, what part of the quote says objects on the earth are in free fall? 

The dude on the chair.

A person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic (free fall towards the center of the Earth), but the chair applies an external upwards force preventing the person from falling. In this way, general relativity explains the daily experience of gravity on the surface of the Earth not as the downwards pull of a gravitational force, but as the upwards push of external forces which deflect bodies on the Earth's surface from the geodesics they would otherwise follow.

Remember what frame you're arguing in - the rest frame of the ground, I presume?

EDIT: additionally, are we in agreement that GR is a reasonable description of the interaction of masses, since otherwise discussing geodesics is going to cause problems very quickly...

Do you know what "motion along geodesic" (or geodesic, for starters) is?

Yes I do.  Locally straight paths through curved spacetime.  

Then GTFO of Newtonian physics.

You can substitute gravitation in there.  

The dude on the chair.

Quote from: wikipedia

A person sitting on a chair is trying to follow a geodesic (free fall towards the center of the Earth), but the chair applies an external upwards force preventing the person from falling. In this way, general relativity explains the daily experience of gravity on the surface of the Earth not as the downwards pull of a gravitational force, but as the upwards push of external forces which deflect bodies on the Earth's surface from the geodesics they would otherwise follow.

He was following a geodesics until he hit the earth, he was in free fall until he touched the earth.

Please explain how a guy sitting in a chair on earth is the same thing as a astronaut feeling weightless in orbit.    

my dog just peed on the rug.  it really tied the room together

Remember what frame you're arguing in - the rest frame of the ground, I presume?

Well, what is a free-fall basically?

Yes I do.  Locally straight paths through curved spacetime.  

You haven't completely answered my question.

You can substitute gravitation in there.  

Are you trying to argue that GR says gravitation causes downward acceleration?

He was following a geodesics until he hit the earth, he was in free fall until he touched the earth.

He is always following a geodesic in spacetime, with the Earth acting as a mechanical resistance countering that. Thus, he is always in free fall. There is an upward force in the dude's chair.

Please explain how a guy sitting in a chair on earth is the same thing as a astronaut feeling weightless in orbit.    

There is an upward force in the dude's chair

Bump... Still waiting on an answer

v_t=sqrt(2*a_e*m/(C_d*A*rho))

Where a_e is the acceleration of the FE, m is the mass of the object, C_d is the coefficient of drag, A is the projected area of the object, and rho is the density of the medium

I can provide the derivation if you want it.  But your 'intellegence' should allow you to do it yourself.

Quote from: sokarul on August 19, 2008, 08:15:37 AM

Yes I do.  Locally straight paths through curved spacetime. 

You haven't completely answered my question.

I did.  You haven’t answered my attacks. 

Are you trying to argue that GR says gravitation causes downward acceleration?

It causes acceleration which can be downwards. 

He is always following a geodesic in spacetime, with the Earth acting as a mechanical resistance countering that. Thus, he is always in free fall. There is an upward force in the dude's chair.

He is not falling, nor is he free of external forces.  It is impossible for him to be in free fall. 

Please explain how a guy sitting in a chair on earth is the same thing as a astronaut feeling weightless in orbit.   

There is an upward force in the dude's chair

Astronauts are free of forces.  Not even close to the same thing.