Explain me these two words

  • 133 Replies
  • 26104 Views
Explain me these two words
« on: September 15, 2008, 08:27:00 PM »
Terminal Velocity.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2008, 08:38:44 PM »
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22253.0

Direct me to a specific post. The first page isn't related to terminal velocity in the slightest.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2008, 08:44:12 PM »
It starts 5 or 6 pages in.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2008, 09:43:31 PM »
It starts 5 or 6 pages in.

And should have ended shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, some people just don't want to admit to being wrong.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2008, 09:46:36 PM »



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: Explain me these two words
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2008, 10:20:59 PM »
/\    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.


Small problem. They are accelerating in opposite directions with no inverse relationship to each other... That makes no sense at all.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2008, 10:22:54 PM »
Small problem. They are accelerating in opposite directions with no inverse relationship to each other... That makes no sense at all.

Expalin in more detail.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2008, 08:03:56 PM »
Small problem. They are accelerating in opposite directions with no inverse relationship to each other... That makes no sense at all.

Expalin in more detail.

Terminal velocity isn't possible when there is nothing pushing from the top, and unless I'm reading the quote from "the engineer" wrong, then by his model it isn't possible either.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2008, 08:07:55 PM »
I'm not getting into it again from the beginning.  Find something specific that you think is wrong with our arguement and we can go from there.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2008, 08:12:13 PM »
I'm not getting into it again from the beginning.  Find something specific that you think is wrong with our arguement and we can go from there.

Okay.

After what I have read so far (albeit not that much) I do not believe that terminal velocity is possible in the FE theory, as there is nothing to push the ball down, so once it hit friction, it would free-fall after its peak, as if in a vacuum, because no force would be pushing down on it.

I don't think I can make it much more simple than that.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2008, 08:21:49 PM »
The air beneath you is being accelerated by the earth, which is slowing your relative acceleration until relative velocity is zero. 
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2008, 08:21:51 PM »
Okay.

After what I have read so far (albeit not that much) I do not believe that terminal velocity is possible in the FE theory, as there is nothing to push the ball down, so once it hit friction, it would free-fall after its peak, as if in a vacuum, because no force would be pushing down on it.

I don't think I can make it much more simple than that.

That makes no sense at all.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2008, 08:26:19 PM »
The air beneath you is being accelerated by the earth, which is slowing your relative acceleration until relative velocity is zero. 

The air beneath the object creates drag, we got that. But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2008, 08:28:12 PM »
The air beneath the object creates drag, we got that. But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.

I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2008, 08:30:24 PM »
But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.

So what is the opposite of drag?
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2008, 08:34:51 PM »
The air beneath the object creates drag, we got that. But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.
In FE, without the force of gravity, there are no balanced forces. The "falling" object will continue to accelerate due to the passing air (drag) until it reaches g relative to the Earth's acceleration. Net acceleration between the two becomes 0 and relative velocity becomes constant. That's terminal velocity, as quoted in the diagram.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2008, 10:56:23 PM »
It starts 5 or 6 pages in.

This is what I was talking about before.

This forum makes it possible to link to a single post Robbyj. Tom does it all the time when it suits him. Link to your cited reference if you reference a thread. Don't make people hunt for it.

As to the math here, yeah, not going to touch that. Well maybe only in passing and partial coherence...
The air beneath the object creates drag, we got that. But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.
In FE, without the force of gravity, there are no balanced forces. The "falling" object will continue to accelerate due to the passing air (drag) until it reaches g relative to the Earth's acceleration. Net acceleration between the two becomes 0 and relative velocity becomes constant. That's terminal velocity, as quoted in the diagram.

I tried to run the mountain top argument for a while, and getting just the party line, gave up. The mountain top argument is that you weigh less on a mountain top, so how can upward acceleration be constant? The party line is that the celestial bodies pull upward with some kind of I don't know, gravitational force maybe? While minimal the apparent G force in RE decreases with elevation, but G forces have little to do with Terminal Velocity AFAIK, at least inside the denser gaseous parts of the atmosphere/atmolayer.  With the almost unbelievable heights that extreme skydivers can reach nowadays you would expect a noticeable upward pull on downward acceleration and therefore sliding scale for terminal velocity based on starting elevation.

Lacking that FET should still be able to show that the starting fall acceleration of a body at the elevation of say Everest, or a body half that height even would be measurably slower than the starting fall acceleration of a body at sea level due to upward celestial pull.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2008, 10:59:22 PM by AmateurAstronomer »
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2008, 11:02:13 PM »
This is what I was talking about before.

This forum makes it possible to link to a single post Robbyj. Tom does it all the time when it suits him. Link to your cited reference if you reference a thread. Don't make people hunt for it.

They can utilize the search function just as easily as I can.

Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2008, 11:12:07 PM »
The air beneath you is being accelerated by the earth, which is slowing your relative acceleration until relative velocity is zero. 

The air beneath the object creates drag, we got that. But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.
The earth is accelerating up to you at exactly 9.81 m/s/s. That is free fall in a vacuum. The air is accelerating up towards you also. Causing you to accelerate upwards. The earth is still accelerating towards you faster than the drag from the air. Eventually, you are going so fast relative to the air that it is canceling out the acceleration from gravity, leaving you simply at a constant velocity towards the earth.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2008, 11:55:41 PM »
This is what I was talking about before.

This forum makes it possible to link to a single post Robbyj. Tom does it all the time when it suits him. Link to your cited reference if you reference a thread. Don't make people hunt for it.

They can utilize the search function just as easily as I can.

That was your 666'th post...  :o

You cited a thread. By your own admission the action didn't start till 5-6 pages in. Linking to the post where the action starts isn't that hard, and isn't a lot to ask. Maybe we're all search function retarded. Did you ever think of that?

A lot to ask would be asking you to, I don't know, argue the points you espouse as genuine because you have a link to a thread where people have espoused them as genuine before you. I know how hard that is though, so I would never demand it.

The air beneath you is being accelerated by the earth, which is slowing your relative acceleration until relative velocity is zero. 

The air beneath the object creates drag, we got that. But without something pushing the object down, then it doesn't matter because drag would never come into play.
The earth is accelerating up to you at exactly 9.81 m/s/s. That is free fall in a vacuum. The air is accelerating up towards you also. Causing you to accelerate upwards. The earth is still accelerating towards you faster than the drag from the air. Eventually, you are going so fast relative to the air that it is canceling out the acceleration from gravity, leaving you simply at a constant velocity towards the earth.

What about starting fall speed? Is it still 9.81 m/s/s regardless of starting elevation? what about at 2000 miles elevation? If the heavens are 5000 miles up the upward celestial pull should be visible somewhere along the line if it can really influence terrestrial bodies.

RE bodies in space can move faster than TV anyway. They either slow in the atmosphere, or burn up.

Where was the free fall in a vacuum measured anyway? Was it measured at a distance approximating sea level?
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #21 on: September 17, 2008, 12:04:51 AM »
When the object jumps off a plane, the object starts accelerating upward due to drag. It continues to accelerate until it reaches g (9.8m/s2).

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #22 on: September 17, 2008, 12:09:29 AM »
A lot to ask would be asking you to, I don't know, argue the points you espouse as genuine because you have a link to a thread where people have espoused them as genuine before you.

44 pages of argueing the same point is about my limit.

Quote
What about starting fall speed? Is it still 9.81 m/s/s regardless of starting elevation? what about at 2000 miles elevation? If the heavens are 5000 miles up the upward celestial pull should be visible somewhere along the line if it can really influence terrestrial bodies.

There are differring opinions.  Some say it's celestial influence, some instrument error, etc.

Quote
RE bodies in space can move faster than TV anyway. They either slow in the atmosphere, or burn up.

Difference in air density.

Quote
Where was the free fall in a vacuum measured anyway? Was it measured at a distance approximating sea level?

It's been measured several places and the differences have been in the thousandths range.  No idea what the highest altitude measured is though.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2008, 12:13:51 AM »
I'm lost in the calculations. But it seams if you where to jump from a plane over FE that you would fall back to the planet at a max speed of 1g since FE is accelerating upward at 1g. As soon as you jump from that plan you are basically suspended in air. You have a slight pull to wards the sky from gravity and your just waiting for FE to catch up to you. Then you take into account the drag of the air being pushed up at you and you would think the speed at which you are "falling" back to the surface would be no worse then if you had jumped off a 3 foot tall box. With FE having no gravity to pull you down there is no danger in jumping from high places.

With gravity isn't there an increasing acceleration involved? As in the closer you get to the object the stronger gravities pull becomes causing you to accelerate even faster. Well the 1g upward movement of FE is enough to explain a constant weight and your ideas of gravity from the sky accounting for weight differences at various elevations sounds good. But they don't cover the effects of free fall. Technically speaking you can't fall on flat earth. You just wait till it comes up and smacks into you. Also with the gravitational pull of the sky affection your weight on a mountain it would seam that if you where to rocket an object up high enough that it could in fact be suspended between the sky and FE. Where the gravity of the objects in the sky is pulling hard enough to keep that object suspended over FE and constantly moving at 1G. Thus making space travel and satellites possible. According to FE it seam that the higher an object gets the easier it is for it to move even further upward.

Please correct me if i'm wrong and try not to look at it as if i'm trying to prve FE wrong. I like to remain objective about things. Weather its rigth or wrong doesn't really matter. Its all about keeping an open mind and thinking out side the box. These kinds of discussions are great.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2008, 12:15:33 AM »
I stopped reading at "max speed of 1g".
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #25 on: September 17, 2008, 12:20:28 AM »
But it seams if you where to jump from a plane over FE that you would fall back to the planet at a max speed of 1g since FE is accelerating upward at 1g.
You don't fall. You accelerate up.

As soon as you jump from that plan you are basically suspended in air. You have a slight pull to wards the sky from gravity and your just waiting for FE to catch up to you.
You are not pulled to the sky. Gravity does not exist.

With FE having no gravity to pull you down there is no danger in jumping from high places.
There is. Jump off a 10 story building and see what happens.

I stopped reading at "max speed of 1g".
I was gonna post that.

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #26 on: September 17, 2008, 12:30:41 AM »
I can't believe I'm actually taking the side of FE here, but when are people going to stop arguing the differences of gravity vs. UA? In the context of this discussion both are equally plausible, because both would produce the same percieved acceleration of 1g toward the Earth, along with the same rules of aerodynamics that keeps aircraft in the sky. This topic has been done to death by RE'ers that have succeeded in nothing more than making themselves look like complete morons.

So please, can we just move along now?
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #27 on: September 17, 2008, 12:32:16 AM »
So please, can we just move along now?

Something tells me it isn't going to be that easy.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #28 on: September 17, 2008, 12:33:17 AM »
A lot to ask would be asking you to, I don't know, argue the points you espouse as genuine because you have a link to a thread where people have espoused them as genuine before you.

44 pages of arguing the same point is about my limit.
True... I'm right brain stupid so I stay out of those threads. Every peek I took was over my head. If that's your territory, then Godspeed.

When the object jumps off a plane, the object starts accelerating upward due to drag. It continues to accelerate until it reaches g (9.8m/s2).

What? are you sure you proofread that?

But it seams if you where to jump from a plane over FE that you would fall back to the planet at a max speed of 1g since FE is accelerating upward at 1g.
You don't fall. You accelerate up.

Still? I accelerate up, and that's why I fall down?

That just made me think of something. If you jumped out of a plane that was accelerating upward and was at an elevation of say 20 miles, where the air is thin or non-existent, why would you even fall downward? The Earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s, you're accelerating upward, at least at that time, at greater than 9.8m/s. There's almost no air to influence anything. You're following the same path as the Earth is following, and not orbiting it in any way... So what pulls you back down? Don't tell me I'm accelerating down and that's why I'd fly up...
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #29 on: September 17, 2008, 12:33:47 AM »
I'll see your 2 pages and I raise you 42.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?