Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)

  • 883 Replies
  • 107148 Views
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #840 on: September 02, 2008, 02:22:22 PM »
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #841 on: September 02, 2008, 06:25:02 PM »
OK.

I SHALL BE BACK!
where is the proof? it should be easy
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #842 on: September 02, 2008, 10:22:50 PM »
I am not sure you are the one trying to apply it
Right, and I say it will apply.  You are saying it won't.  You are wrong.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #843 on: September 03, 2008, 01:19:51 AM »
Since an object moving through air will not truly be in "free fall" because of air resistance we cannot apply the EP

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Gravity and acceleration are always equivalent, whether there are additional accelerations in effect or not.  In fact, your argument is completely meaningless - in both the FE and RE cases there is the 'equivalent' acceleration of the gravitation of the Earth/the UA, and then additionally the effects of drag in the air.

I have explained this in at least 3 ways now - read my posts and then say why you don't agree. Aerodynamic drag does not destroy the equivalence principle, it just means that there are additional forces acting on the system in question.

Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #844 on: September 03, 2008, 02:02:56 AM »
To barnet,



From Engy and Robbyj:
/\    acceleration of the earth.  /\     acceleration of the person
|                                          |
|                                          |
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.

|
\/  Acceleration of the person.  /\  Acceleration due to air resistance.
                                           |
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.


V=at regardless of FE or RE.

Anet=AEarth-AObject

There is a terminal velocity. Once Anet=0 the relative velocity will be constant which is the same as terminal velocity.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #845 on: September 04, 2008, 01:15:30 PM »
To barnet,



From Engy and Robbyj:
/\    acceleration of the earth.  /\     acceleration of the person
|                                          |
|                                          |
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.

|
\/  Acceleration of the person.  /\  Acceleration due to air resistance.
                                           |
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.


V=at regardless of FE or RE.

Anet=AEarth-AObject

There is a terminal velocity. Once Anet=0 the relative velocity will be constant which is the same as terminal velocity.
so show the math that shows the accelerations are of equal magnitude at t=2, since it is such a simple concept it should be very easy
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #846 on: September 04, 2008, 03:29:23 PM »
so show the math that shows the accelerations are of equal magnitude at t=2, since it is such a simple concept it should be very easy

An accelerometer does not measure the '1g' of the Earth until you are at terminal velocity in either the RE or FE model. By definition free fall (without air resistance) is a relative state of rest (objects following geodesics), so if it could measure 'absolute acceleration' then you would have a means of figuring out the 'preferred rest frame' of the Universe, which is forbidden in relativity.

To clarify, an accelerometer would read (in the vertical axis, with '+' meaning 'upwards'):

1) stationary on the runway
 RE : +1g (9.81ms-2) contact acceleration
 FE : +1aUA (9.81ms-2) contact acceleration

2) climbing to drop altitude
 RE : +1g + (vertical acceleration of aircraft)
 FE : +1aUA + (vertical acceleration of aircraft)

3) level at drop alitutude
 RE : +1g - (small correction for altitude (g drops as 1/r2 from surface of Earth))
 FE : +1aUA - (small correction for altitude (source depends on your 'flavour' of FE))

4) the instant that Tom Bishop jumps out horizontally from the door
 RE : zero
 FE : zero

5) before reaching terminal velocity
 RE : zero + (air resistance as fall towards Earth at 1g acceleration [acceleration as measured from the ground])
 FE : zero + (air resistance as fall towards Earth at 1aUA acceleration [acceleration as measured from the ground])

6) terminal velocity
 RE : +1g
 FE : +1aUA

As you can see, the two are identical at all points. Neither accelerates faster than the other and neither 'feels' any different at any point (so long as you have a reasonable physical explanation for g dropping off with altitude, which FE provides a few alternative theories for). If I'm wrong at any point here, feel free to explain why.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #847 on: September 04, 2008, 09:44:55 PM »
so show the math that shows the accelerations are of equal magnitude at t=2, since it is such a simple concept it should be very easy

An accelerometer does not measure the '1g' of the Earth until you are at terminal velocity in either the RE or FE model. By definition free fall (without air resistance) is a relative state of rest (objects following geodesics), so if it could measure 'absolute acceleration' then you would have a means of figuring out the 'preferred rest frame' of the Universe, which is forbidden in relativity.

To clarify, an accelerometer would read (in the vertical axis, with '+' meaning 'upwards'):

1) stationary on the runway
 RE : +1g (9.81ms-2) contact acceleration
 FE : +1aUA (9.81ms-2) contact acceleration

2) climbing to drop altitude
 RE : +1g + (vertical acceleration of aircraft)
 FE : +1aUA + (vertical acceleration of aircraft)

3) level at drop alitutude
 RE : +1g - (small correction for altitude (g drops as 1/r2 from surface of Earth))
 FE : +1aUA - (small correction for altitude (source depends on your 'flavour' of FE))

4) the instant that Tom Bishop jumps out horizontally from the door
 RE : zero
 FE : zero

5) before reaching terminal velocity
 RE : zero + (air resistance as fall towards Earth at 1g acceleration [acceleration as measured from the ground])
 FE : zero + (air resistance as fall towards Earth at 1aUA acceleration [acceleration as measured from the ground])

6) terminal velocity
 RE : +1g
 FE : +1aUA

As you can see, the two are identical at all points. Neither accelerates faster than the other and neither 'feels' any different at any point (so long as you have a reasonable physical explanation for g dropping off with altitude, which FE provides a few alternative theories for). If I'm wrong at any point here, feel free to explain why.
now you just need to understand the models better, then you can try and show that the magnitudes of acceleration are the same in both models.
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #848 on: September 04, 2008, 10:45:37 PM »
I seem to remember posting a set of equations that proved the models were identical.  Plus, the whole EP thing.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #849 on: September 04, 2008, 10:47:58 PM »
If only it were ethical to ban people for being stupid.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #850 on: September 04, 2008, 10:59:13 PM »
cbarnett and sokarul would have been gone long ago.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #851 on: September 04, 2008, 11:34:47 PM »


Curvature of the earth,no?

On the new Burj Dubai building.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #852 on: September 04, 2008, 11:36:41 PM »
No.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #853 on: September 04, 2008, 11:40:29 PM »
Why not? You can't just state "no", your statement is simply useless.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #854 on: September 04, 2008, 11:43:47 PM »
It's a fish eye lens massively distorting the image.
Quote from: General Douchebag[/quote
If Eminem had actually died, I would feel the force realign.
Quote from: ghazwozza
Of course it doesn't make sense, it's Tom Bishop's answer.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #855 on: September 04, 2008, 11:44:35 PM »
I can state 'no' because you are an idiot if you really think that picture shows the true curvature of the Earth.

Take your trolling somewhere else, noob.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #856 on: September 04, 2008, 11:53:31 PM »
Ironic isn't it, that I wasn't actually attacking you and yet you decide that because you're the "global moderator" you can attack me through the internet. Aren't you amazing.  ::)

Go to the beach, you can see the slow curvature of the earth when you look out to sea. However, if you've racked up 13,000 posts on a.....flat earth.. forum there can't be much hope of that can there?


Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #857 on: September 04, 2008, 11:56:04 PM »
I seem to remember posting a set of equations that proved the models were identical.  Plus, the whole EP thing.
show that the EP is valid for all times then since it is so simple
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #858 on: September 05, 2008, 01:21:43 AM »
show that the EP is valid for all times then since it is so simple

This also applies to our little discussion about acceleration. The equivalence principle always applies - that is simple, elementary relativity. But don't just take my word for it:

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
In the physics of relativity, the equivalence principle refers to several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

Quote from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/grel.html
Experiments performed in a uniformly accelerating reference frame with acceleration a are indistinguishable from the same experiments performed in a non-accelerating reference frame which is situated in a gravitational field where the acceleration of gravity = g = -a = intensity of gravity field.

Quote from: Albert Einstein, quoted in 'Gravity' by James B. Hartle
"Then occurred to me the happiest thought of my life, in the following form. The gravitational field has only a relative existence... Because for an observer falling freely from the roof of a house there exists - at least in his immediate surroundings - no gravitational field....(in this consideration air resistance is, of course, ignored)."

So, as everyone who knows anything about relativity will confirm, the FE and RE models in this example give the same results. Just accept it and move on, you're really not doing yourself any favours by hanging on to this misconception of yours.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #859 on: September 05, 2008, 02:36:09 AM »
Go to the beach, you can see the slow curvature of the earth when you look out to sea.
No. You can't. And if you did a quick search of these forums you'd see that has been posted many times before. Please, lurk moar. Search and read the forums.
Quote from: General Douchebag[/quote
If Eminem had actually died, I would feel the force realign.
Quote from: ghazwozza
Of course it doesn't make sense, it's Tom Bishop's answer.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #860 on: September 06, 2008, 05:59:09 PM »
Quote from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/grel.html
Experiments performed in a uniformly accelerating reference frame with acceleration a are indistinguishable from the same experiments performed in a non-accelerating reference frame which is situated in a gravitational field where the acceleration of gravity = g = -a = intensity of gravity field.
and air resistance is not a uniformly accelerating field so therefore the EP can not be applied until it is uniform, ie. net acceleration with the air is zero

Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #861 on: September 06, 2008, 06:07:50 PM »
This has just gone too far.

The EP is all about reference frames.  In FE, the reference frame we choose goes with the Earth.  It accelerates at 9.8 m/s^2 upwards.  This is the reference frame in which we do all of our experiments.  By the EP, any experiment we do in this reference frame is equivalent to any we do in a gravitational field of -9.8m/s^2.  It's that simple.  Really.

Quote
and air resistance is not a uniformly accelerating field so therefore the EP can not be applied until it is uniform, ie. net acceleration with the air is zero

We are not working in the frame of object which falls through the air.  We are working in the frame of the Earth.  The EP applies.

If you disagree with this, you disagree with General Relativity, because it also states that we are accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2008, 06:10:57 PM by Euclid »
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #862 on: September 06, 2008, 07:30:27 PM »
Hah, a new person also tells cbarnett he is wrong.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #863 on: September 07, 2008, 02:47:08 AM »
Victory, at last...

Let's see if he even touches this thread again.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #864 on: September 07, 2008, 04:20:39 AM »
I really can't put it any more plainly than I already have. Einstein, wiki, hyperphysics - they all say barnet is wrong but he just doesn't get it.  He just can't figure out what the equivalence principle is.  I've tried and failed, I've only got myself to blame. :'(
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #865 on: September 07, 2008, 04:34:38 AM »
Let's keep Matrix away from the kids, as he wouldn't be a good teacher. :D
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #866 on: September 07, 2008, 06:12:27 AM »
Lol... I can handle teaching undergrads since you can tell them to piss off and learn some physics at some level (which, paradoxically, they seem to appreciate more than being spoon-fed everything), but doesn't work so well for younger kids :)
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #867 on: September 07, 2008, 10:19:04 PM »
Uh, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

Um.. no matter what side I agree with... quoting a wiki page just discredited your entire argument... Yikes!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #868 on: September 07, 2008, 11:14:23 PM »
I'm, sorry, who are you, again?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #869 on: September 08, 2008, 02:20:13 AM »
This has just gone too far.

The EP is all about reference frames.  In FE, the reference frame we choose goes with the Earth.  It accelerates at 9.8 m/s^2 upwards.  This is the reference frame in which we do all of our experiments.  By the EP, any experiment we do in this reference frame is equivalent to any we do in a gravitational field of -9.8m/s^2.  It's that simple.  Really.

Quote
and air resistance is not a uniformly accelerating field so therefore the EP can not be applied until it is uniform, ie. net acceleration with the air is zero

We are not working in the frame of object which falls through the air.  We are working in the frame of the Earth.  The EP applies.

If you disagree with this, you disagree with General Relativity, because it also states that we are accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2.
That is not a valid reference frame, so it looks like you are disagreeing with relativity, try getting your education from a different source that is not wiki
and then also learn how to make a free body diagram and resolve the forces actin upon the body
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.