Explain me these two words

• 133 Replies
• 30977 Views
?

Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2008, 12:37:32 AM »
Still? I accelerate up, and that's why I fall down?

You accelerate up, but at a slower rate than the earth until your acceleration equals earth making your relative velocity to the earth zero due to "reverse drag" caused by air friction, which is what... everyone say it with me... that's right, lift.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

mpman

• 6
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #31 on: September 17, 2008, 12:39:11 AM »
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...

Eactly what i was saying. You can put an objust over FE and have it stay there. So it is possible that NASA is putting satalites and crafts up there even though everyone here knows they are not.

AmateurAstronomer

• 234
• Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #32 on: September 17, 2008, 12:40:36 AM »
Still? I accelerate up, and that's why I fall down?

You accelerate up, but at a slower rate than the earth until your acceleration equals earth making your relative velocity to the earth zero due to "reverse drag" caused by air friction, which is what... everyone say it with me... that's right, lift.

Lift requires air. Answer my non-existant air question from the same post you just quoted.
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 #33 on: September 17, 2008, 12:41:12 AM »
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...

Eactly what i was saying. You can put an objust over FE and have it stay there. So it is possible that NASA is putting satalites and crafts up there even though everyone here knows they are not.

As soon as you jump out of the plane you are no longer accelerating.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Jack

• 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #34 on: September 17, 2008, 12:41:55 AM »
Quote
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?
Yes.

Still? I accelerate up, and that's why I fall down?
There is a difference between your acceleration and the Earth's acceleration.

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?
Because the Earth accelerates up towards you.

The Earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s, you're accelerating upward, at least at that time, at greater than 9.8m/s.
You accelerate due to drag until you reach g.

There's almost no air to influence anything.
Yes, there is.

So what pulls you back down?
Nothing pulls you down in FE. When you leave the Earth, you are no longer accelerating, assuming there is no drag.

AmateurAstronomer

• 234
• Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #35 on: September 17, 2008, 12:44:57 AM »
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...

Eactly what i was saying. You can put an objust over FE and have it stay there. So it is possible that NASA is putting satalites and crafts up there even though everyone here knows they are not.

As soon as you jump out of the plane you are no longer accelerating.

True, but you are still moving at a constant speed greater than the UA. What stops that acceleration and draws you back down? Keep in mind there's no air to cause friction or influence things in any way.
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

• 735
• Resistor is fubar!
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #36 on: September 17, 2008, 12:45:25 AM »
You guys do realize that g is not a "maximum acceleration" that you can simply escape by accelerating upward for a while (unless you reach orbit in RE, but that's a different topic)? It's a force that is affecting you constantly. By accelerating upward (i.e. by jumping from the ground, flying upward etc.) you are not "escaping" or "nullifying" g, you're just working against it. As soon as you are no longer accelerating away from the Earth, you will begin accelerating toward it at 1g (relatively and simplistically speaking). Of course, air friction will slow you down, but the fact remains that this force is still working on you, regardless of whether it is caused by gravitiy or UA.

Acceleration != speed.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

AmateurAstronomer

• 234
• Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #37 on: September 17, 2008, 12:52:30 AM »
You guys do realize that g is not a "maximum acceleration" that you can simply escape by accelerating upward for a while (unless you reach orbit in RE, but that's a different topic)? It's a force that is affecting you constantly. By accelerating upward (i.e. by jumping from the ground, flying upward etc.) you are not "escaping" or "nullifying" g, you're just working against it. As soon as you are no longer accelerating away from the Earth, you will begin accelerating toward it at 1g (relatively and simplistically speaking). Of course, air friction will slow you down, but the fact remains that this force is still working on you, regardless of whether it is caused by gravitiy or UA.

Acceleration != speed.

Does that apply to a constant upward accelerating body as equally as it does to RE dynamics? If not don't rub it in our faces. We're arguing FET right now. They don't have our fancy gravitation.
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 #38 on: September 17, 2008, 12:55:30 AM »
True, but you are still moving at a constant speed greater than the UA. What stops that acceleration and draws you back down? Keep in mind there's no air to cause friction or influence things in any way.

For the sake of arguement, let's say the plane and the earth are accelerating at the same rate, 1g.  When you jump out, as soon as your feet no longer touch the plane, you are no longer accelerating, but traveling at a constant velocity.  The earth, however, is still undergoing constant acceleration and it's velocity starts increasing while yours remains the same causing it to "catch up".  A lack of air has no effect on this.  Once the air density starts increasing as the earth gets closer to you, however, a lift effect would be produced causing you to accelerate until eventually you would either match the earth's acceleration or hit the ground, whichever comes first.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #39 on: September 17, 2008, 12:58:12 AM »
They don't have our fancy gravitation.

Your fancy gravitation says gravitation and acceleration are indistinguishable from one another.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

• 735
• Resistor is fubar!
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #40 on: September 17, 2008, 12:58:18 AM »
You guys do realize that g is not a "maximum acceleration" that you can simply escape by accelerating upward for a while (unless you reach orbit in RE, but that's a different topic)? It's a force that is affecting you constantly. By accelerating upward (i.e. by jumping from the ground, flying upward etc.) you are not "escaping" or "nullifying" g, you're just working against it. As soon as you are no longer accelerating away from the Earth, you will begin accelerating toward it at 1g (relatively and simplistically speaking). Of course, air friction will slow you down, but the fact remains that this force is still working on you, regardless of whether it is caused by gravitiy or UA.

Acceleration != speed.

Does that apply to a constant upward accelerating body as equally as it does to RE dynamics? If not don't rub it in our faces. We're arguing FET right now. They don't have our fancy gravitation.

Whether the Earth is constantly accelerating upward at 1g or gravity pulls us toward it at 1g, we would always percieve ourselves as accelerating "downward" at 1g. There would be no percievable difference, which is why FE'ers consider UA to be a full substitution for gravity that fits into the FE model.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's total bull just as much as you do. But arguing against it by making false assumptions about it makes people look foolish. It is after all called "upward acceleration" not "constant upward speed". If the FET Earth were considered to be moving upward at constant speed, sure you could "overtake" it if you accelerated enough. As it stands, that theory is about as much nonsense as UA itself.
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 #41 on: September 17, 2008, 01:34:54 AM »
Does that apply to a constant upward accelerating body as equally as it does to RE dynamics? If not don't rub it in our faces. We're arguing FET right now. They don't have our fancy gravitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

AmateurAstronomer

• 234
• Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #42 on: September 17, 2008, 02:15:13 AM »
Still? I accelerate up, and that's why I fall down?
There is a difference between your acceleration and the Earth's acceleration.
Why? Can't aircraft match the acceleration provided they have lift? Can't balloons reach high elevations and stay there? Even Tom said they can. Why doesn't the Earth accelerate into them? The atmosphere? Is the space above the atmosphere constantly being compressed so that bodies cannot occupy it?

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?
Because the Earth accelerates up towards you.
It always was, and at a constant acceleration that my body matched and exceeded. Without something to slow it it should continue out-pacing the earth. What is making my body slow down, assuming there is no air?

The earth is moving up, and the atmosphere is moving up both at a relative constant speed. My body has the benefit of that upward acceleration, matches and exceeds it. Both the earth and my body are sharing that acceleration, but my body has a bit more acceleration. What strips my body of the acceleration it shared with the Earth to make the Earth outlap it?

The Earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s/s, you're accelerating upward, at least at that time, at greater than 9.8m/s/s.
You accelerate due to drag until you reach g.

I'm beyond drag. That was the whole point of my post. If 20 miles isn't far enough, make it 100 miles and consider it again. There is no air in this example...

Does that apply to a constant upward accelerating body as equally as it does to RE dynamics? If not don't rub it in our faces. We're arguing FET right now. They don't have our fancy gravitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
"So the original equivalence principle, as described by Einstein, concluded that free-fall and inertial motion were physically equivalent. This form of the equivalence principle can be stated as follows. An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space."

True, but you are still moving at a constant speed greater than the UA. What stops that acceleration and draws you back down? Keep in mind there's no air to cause friction or influence things in any way.

For the sake of argument, let's say the plane and the earth are accelerating at the same rate, 1g.  When you jump out, as soon as your feet no longer touch the plane, you are no longer accelerating, but traveling at a constant velocity.  The earth, however, is still undergoing constant acceleration and it's velocity starts increasing while yours remains the same causing it to "catch up".  A lack of air has no effect on this.  Once the air density starts increasing as the earth gets closer to you, however, a lift effect would be produced causing you to accelerate until eventually you would either match the earth's acceleration or hit the ground, whichever comes first.
Your plane would have to exceed the Earths acceleration for it to take off, let alone do this experiment. Even if a plane got lift and was flying, if it was a secular non-earth body by your calculations the earth accelerating at it at 9.8m/s/s it would collide in a millisecond or less at standard aviation elevations. You explain this away by saying the plane shares the earths UA, as well as having lift, enableing it to go up.

In the same vein I'm saying my body has upward momentum, as well as sharing the UA. As the craft my body recently vacated on it's upward passage shared UA, my body has both UA and a greater upward acceleration than the Earth. My body at motion should tend to stay at motion. If my body was in a craft at the same elevation flying horizontally you'd argue that the UA was still influencing. What causes UA influence on my body to stop influencing and my upward speed to drop below that of the UA influenced Earth?
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

Parsifal

• Official Member
• 36118
• Bendy Light specialist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #43 on: September 17, 2008, 02:17:12 AM »
"So the original equivalence principle, as described by Einstein, concluded that free-fall and inertial motion were physically equivalent. This form of the equivalence principle can be stated as follows. An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space."

If you think tidal effects have a significant impact on the way you would fall to the Earth from a plane, your understanding of physics is hopelessly malformed.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #44 on: September 17, 2008, 02:23:10 AM »
Your plane would have to exceed the Earths acceleration for it to take off

To take off and reach cruising altitude, yes.  To maintain altitude it would only have to match it.

Quote
Even if a plane got lift and was flying, if it was a secular non-earth body by your calculations the earth accelerating at it at 9.8m/s/s it would collide in a millisecond or less at standard aviation elevations.

Nope.

Quote
You explain this away by saying the plane shares the earths UA, as well as having lift, enableing it to go up.

Nope.

Quote
In the same vein I'm saying my body has upward momentum, as well as sharing the UA. As the craft my body recently vacated on it's upward passage shared UA, my body has both UA and a greater upward acceleration than the Earth. My body at motion should tend to stay at motion. If my body was in a craft at the same elevation flying horizontally you'd argue that the UA was still influencing. What causes UA influence on my body to stop influencing and my upward speed to drop below that of the UA influenced Earth?

I never said anything about the UA affecting anything.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

AmateurAstronomer

• 234
• Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #45 on: September 17, 2008, 03:07:39 AM »
"So the original equivalence principle, as described by Einstein, concluded that free-fall and inertial motion were physically equivalent. This form of the equivalence principle can be stated as follows. An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space."

If you think tidal effects have a significant impact on the way you would fall to the Earth from a plane, your understanding of physics is hopelessly malformed.
That's not my opinion, it's directly from the link you gave me. Go ahead and re-read it if you want. I chose that passage to allude to the fact that the spaceship idea in general won't work for too long, even with your super special FE math and dynamics, because there are too many loopholes.

I also said that math isn't my thing so please leave physics out of it. I don't want to, and in all reality can't go there.

Robbyj, you didn't answer the roots of my questions in anything I'd consider adequate, so I'm not going to respond. Most of those were directed a E.Jack anyway, so I'll wait to see if his response is more verbose than "Nope".

Let me leave you with this Robbyj; 2 cars are driving down the road. They both have the same constant speed. Without any change being made to either car or the road, and both cars not changing velocity, could you cite reference for either car overtaking the other? Why?

If this is not a fitting allegory explain to me why. Remember that there is no air to "drag".
« Last Edit: September 17, 2008, 03:11:04 AM 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 #46 on: September 17, 2008, 03:13:10 AM »
If this is not a fitting allegory explain to me why. Remember that there is no air to "drag".

Because the earth will be accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and you will be accelerating at 0 after you jump out of the plane.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Jack

• 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #47 on: September 17, 2008, 03:22:21 AM »
There is a difference between your acceleration and the Earth's acceleration.
Why? Can't aircraft match the acceleration provided they have lift? Can't balloons reach high elevations and stay there? Even Tom said they can. Why doesn't the Earth accelerate into them? The atmosphere? Is the space above the atmosphere constantly being compressed so that bodies cannot occupy it?
If I'm accelerating up at 1.6m/s2 and the Earth is accelerating up at g, the Earth will eventually catch up to me sooner or later. Reread my quote.

It always was, and at a constant acceleration that my body matched and exceeded. Without something to slow it it should continue out-pacing the earth. What is making my body slow down, assuming there is no air?
If there is no air, you will enter an inertial frame of reference once you leave the surface of the Earth. The Earth accelerates up to you in a fashion similar to free-falling in RE.

The earth is moving up, and the atmosphere is moving up both at a relative constant speed. My body has the benefit of that upward acceleration, matches and exceeds it. Both the earth and my body are sharing that acceleration, but my body has a bit more acceleration. What strips my body of the acceleration it shared with the Earth to make the Earth outlap it?
I think you are talking past the point. We are talking about Terminal Velocity, where you accelerat up due to drag (air resistance) until you reach g relative to the Earth's g. Refer to my diagram.

I'm beyond drag. That was the whole point of my post. If 20 miles isn't far enough, make it 100 miles and consider it again. There is no air in this example...
If there is no air, then the Earth accelerates up to you with no change in overall net acceleration. Why can't you understand this?

AmateurAstronomer

• 234
• Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #48 on: September 17, 2008, 03:37:52 AM »
I'm beyond drag. That was the whole point of my post. If 20 miles isn't far enough, make it 100 miles and consider it again. There is no air in this example...
If there is no air, then the Earth accelerates up to you with no change in overall net acceleration. Why can't you understand this?

If I'm moving at the same speed as the Earth or greater, how can it accelerate up to me with no change in overall net acceleration. That's the part I'm having problems with.

If this is not a fitting allegory explain to me why. Remember that there is no air to "drag".

Because the earth will be accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and you will be accelerating at 0 after you jump out of the plane.
Why for Christs sake? What is the dynamic that arrests your momentum? Can you honestly say the plane the body jumped out of wasn't sharing the earth's 9.8m/s/s acceleration? If that plane was moving in strong enough of an upward direction when you jump you'd still be moving up faster than UA post exit. I'm getting tired of arguing this, so this is your last chance. What relegates the jettisoned body to non-UA status? WHAT IS THE DAMN FORCE THAT REMOVES MY BODY'S UA? It was there a second ago in the ship, where did it go?
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

Jack

• 5179
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #49 on: September 17, 2008, 03:46:05 AM »
If I'm moving at the same speed as the Earth or greater, how can it accelerate up to me with no change in overall net acceleration. That's the part I'm having problems with.
You mean "accelerating", not moving. If I, by some kind of mechanism, were to accelerate up greater than the Earth's acceleration, yes it will not reach me. That's how planes take off in FE.

However, your previous post mentioned me at some place 100 miles high above the Earth with no air. I assumed you were asking me to clarify if the Earth still eventually catches up to me if I fall. Yes, it will due to 9.8m/s2 up in overall net acceleration.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2008, 03:51:36 AM by E.Jack »

• 735
• Resistor is fubar!
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #50 on: September 17, 2008, 03:46:38 AM »
I'm beyond drag. That was the whole point of my post. If 20 miles isn't far enough, make it 100 miles and consider it again. There is no air in this example...
If there is no air, then the Earth accelerates up to you with no change in overall net acceleration. Why can't you understand this?

If I'm moving at the same speed as the Earth or greater, how can it accelerate up to me with no change in overall net acceleration. That's the part I'm having problems with.

Acceleration != speed. Once you stop accelerating, you are no longer gaining speed. The Earth on the other hand is constantly gaining speed (according to FET of course). Therefore it will inevitably "catch up with you".

If this is not a fitting allegory explain to me why. Remember that there is no air to "drag".

Because the earth will be accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and you will be accelerating at 0 after you jump out of the plane.
Why for Christs sake? What is the dynamic that arrests your momentum? Can you honestly say the plane the body jumped out of wasn't sharing the earth's 9.8m/s/s acceleration? If that plane was moving in strong enough of an upward direction when you jump you'd still be moving up faster than UA post exit. I'm getting tired of arguing this, so this is your last chance. What relegates the jettisoned body to non-UA status? WHAT IS THE DAMN FORCE THAT REMOVES MY BODY'S UA? It was there a second ago in the ship, where did it go?

Again: Speed is not the same as acceleration. You cannot "move faster than acceleration" because they are two different things. You can gain as much momentum as you want, but that will put you at a constant relative velocity - i.e. you are no longer accelerating. Since (flat) Earth is still accelerating and therefore constantly gaining speed at 9,8m/s per second, it will catch up with you. It is exactly the same principle as gravity, but basically in reverse.

In both FE and RE, if you wanted to gain enough speed to exit the Earth in a straight line without continuously accelerating, you would need to reach escape velocity.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

?

Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #51 on: September 17, 2008, 03:57:52 AM »
Speed is not the same as acceleration. You cannot "move faster than acceleration" because they are two different things. You can gain as much momentum as you want, but that will put you at a constant relative velocity - i.e. you are no longer accelerating. Since (flat) Earth is still accelerating and therefore constantly gaining speed at 9,8m/s per second, it will catch up with you. It is exactly the same principle as gravity, but basically in reverse.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

• 625
• Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #52 on: September 17, 2008, 04:05:00 AM »
I'm beyond drag. That was the whole point of my post. If 20 miles isn't far enough, make it 100 miles and consider it again. There is no air in this example...
If there is no air, then the Earth accelerates up to you with no change in overall net acceleration. Why can't you understand this?

If I'm moving at the same speed as the Earth or greater, how can it accelerate up to me with no change in overall net acceleration. That's the part I'm having problems with.

If this is not a fitting allegory explain to me why. Remember that there is no air to "drag".

Because the earth will be accelerating at 9.8m/s2 and you will be accelerating at 0 after you jump out of the plane.
Why for Christs sake? What is the dynamic that arrests your momentum? Can you honestly say the plane the body jumped out of wasn't sharing the earth's 9.8m/s/s acceleration? If that plane was moving in strong enough of an upward direction when you jump you'd still be moving up faster than UA post exit. I'm getting tired of arguing this, so this is your last chance. What relegates the jettisoned body to non-UA status? WHAT IS THE DAMN FORCE THAT REMOVES MY BODY'S UA? It was there a second ago in the ship, where did it go?

The UA accelerates the earth. The earth pushes the atmosphere. As the plane travels through this atmosphere its wings generate lift (e.g. upwards acceleration - the same in RET). For the plane to increase in altitude the lift (upwards acceleration) has to be greater than 9.8m/s2 (the same in RET). If the plane wants to remain at a constant altitude its lift just has to be equal to 9.8m/s2 (the same as in RET).

While you are on the plane you are undergoing the same acceleration as the plane. When you jump out of the plane there isn't a hard floor beneath you that you can't fall through, there is air. You can fall through air. We'll ignore the effects of the air for a moment (I'll come back to that at the end), and focus on momentum and acceleration. As you are no longer in the plane there is no force acting on you any more and you will maintain your velocity without any acceleration - your momentum. Meanwhile, the earth is still accelerating at 9.8m/s2 due to the UA and the plane is still accelerating at 9.8m/s2 due to the lift generated by the plane's wings. Let's say that your speed at the time you jump out of the plane is X, after one second the plane's velocity and the earth's velocity will be X+9.8m/s, after two seconds the velocities will be X+19.6m/s and so on.

Now for the air. As the air is accelerating past you it will create drag, the faster it is travelling past you the more drag it is creating. Think about a windy day and how a really strong wind can knock you off your feet where as a little wind will just mess up your hair. The faster the wind is moving past you the more drag is created, that is the more the air accelerates you. Eventually the air will 'accelerate' you at 9.8m/s2. At this point the difference between your velocity and the earth's velocity will remain the same but because it's taken time to reach this balanced state the earth's velocity is already greater than yours. Let's just say it only took 2 seconds to reach this balance and we'll call your velocity X. The earth's velocity will be X+19.6m/s and as you are both now accelerating at 9.8m/s2 that difference in velocity will not change and the earth will get closer to you by 19.6 metres every second. In this hypothetical your terminal velocity would be 19.6m/s.

• 735
• Resistor is fubar!
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #53 on: September 17, 2008, 04:10:31 AM »
I would like to commend Pretentious Twat at this point for his enjoyably eloquent explanation of terminal velocity.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

AmateurAstronomer

• 234
• Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #54 on: September 17, 2008, 04:35:38 AM »
If I'm moving at the same speed as the Earth or greater, how can it accelerate up to me with no change in overall net acceleration. That's the part I'm having problems with.
You mean "accelerating", not moving. If I, by some kind of mechanism, were to accelerate up greater than the Earth's acceleration, yes it will not reach me. That's how planes work in FE.

However, your previous post mentioned me at some place 100 miles high above the Earth with no air. I assumed you were asking me to clarify if the Earth still eventually catches up to me if I fall. Yes, it will due to 9.8m/s/s in overall net acceleration.
That's not what I mean at all. What I mean is if you jumped out of a plane that had cleared any part of the the atmosphere that still had air and was still traveling upward, your relative motion including the UA would exceed that of the Earth, and FET dynamics can't adequately explain to me why the momentum of the bodies exiting that craft would be arrested to the point that the Earth would catch up to it. Seriously, I've been going on for like the past page and a half about this.

Quote
If I'm moving at the same speed as the Earth or greater, how can it accelerate up to me with no change in overall net acceleration. That's the part I'm having problems with.
Acceleration != speed. Once you stop accelerating, you are no longer gaining speed. The Earth on the other hand is constantly gaining speed (according to FET of course). Therefore it will inevitably "catch up with you".

As I've said, without bodies being able to match the 9.8m/s/s acceleration of the Earth planes wouldn't be able to leave the ground, let alone people being able to stand up.

And as I've said my body in this example still had upward momentum equaling and exceeding UA. And by that I mean it shared the upward acceleration that the earth had, and exceeded it. If a body is matching the UA for even a segment of it's existance, how can you assert that that matching would stop and it would lose all of it's momentum in an instant for some obtuse reason?

A body the size of the flat earth moving at 9.8m/s/s constant at an object moving 0mph wouldn't simulate free fall anyway, it would unleash all hell. Big boom, big crater. You don't see that every day.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2008, 04:47:14 AM by AmateurAstronomer »
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

• 625
• Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #55 on: September 17, 2008, 05:00:17 AM »
That's not what I mean at all. What I mean is if you jumped out of a plane that had cleared any part of the the atmosphere that still had air and was still traveling upward, your relative motion including the UA would exceed that of the Earth, and FET dynamics can't adequately explain to me why the momentum of the bodies exiting that craft would be arrested to the point that the Earth would catch up to it. Seriously, I've been going on for like the past page and a half about this.

Momentum = Speed/Velocity. Speed/Velocity != Acceleration.

Pay attention twit. When you stop having a force applied to you (e.g. you jump out of a rocket that's beneath your ass) you STOP accelerating. You maintain the same speed/velocity/momentum, what happens it the earth is still accelerating, this means the earth's velocity will become greater than your velocity and it will catch you.

As I've said, without bodies being able to match the 9.8m/s/s acceleration of the Earth planes wouldn't be able to leave the ground, let alone people being able to stand up.

Which is exactly the same on RET as it is in FET. If a plane wants to fly in RET it's wings must generate lift greater than 9.8m/s2.

And as I've said my body in this example still had upward momentum equaling and exceeding UA.

Momentum != Acceleration. Momentum is Speed/Velocity. The earth is not moving at 9.8m/s it is accelerating at 9.8m/s2.

How dense are you?

And by that I mean it shared the upward acceleration that the earth had, and exceeded it.

As soon as you stop having a force applied to you, you cease to accelerate. Momentum is speed/velocity, not acceleration.

If a body is matching the UA for even a segment of it's existance, how can you assert that that matching would stop and it would lose all of it's momentum in an instant for some obtuse reason?

You wouldn't lose your momentum. Momentum is speed, not acceleration (hopefully if I repeat it enough, you'll understand). What happens is the earth continues to accelerate and it's velocity becomes greater than yours and eventually catches you.

A body the size of the flat earth moving at 9.8m/s/s constant at an object moving 0mph wouldn't simulate free fall anyway, it would unleash all hell. Big boom, big crater.

For a start there's no such thing as an absolute 0mph. There's only 0mph relative to other things. Secondly, this happens all the time in RET without big booms and big craters, if the object is human it usually goes splat.

AmateurAstronomer

• 234
• Rouge Scholar
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #56 on: September 17, 2008, 05:16:38 AM »
Quote from: AmateurAstronomer
Blah blah blah

Alright smart guy. I have a craft that is moving horizontally well above the atmosphere. It's using hydrogen or benzene fuel to do this remarkable feat. There's no lift, there's no drag... Why doesn't the Earth rise up and smite it? Craft can do this in RE, explain it in FE.

Also, you're an asshole. If you were nicer I wouldn't need to say that, but there it is...
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

• 735
• Resistor is fubar!
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #57 on: September 17, 2008, 05:25:29 AM »
Quote from: AmateurAstronomer
Blah blah blah

Alright smart guy. I have a craft that is moving horizontally well above the atmosphere. It's using hydrogen or benzene fuel to do this remarkable feat. There's no lift, there's no drag... Why doesn't the Earth rise up and smite it? Craft can do this in RE, explain it in FE.

Also, you're an asshole. If you were nicer I wouldn't need to say that, but there it is...

In RE these craft are still subject to Earth's gravity, but because there is little atmospheric drag in space, they can remain in constant free-fall around the planet if they have enough momentum perpendicular to the direction in which gravity is pulling them. Objects don't just magically float in space, not even in RE.

In FE, what you are describing isn't possible in the first place because the flat Earth is not spherical (duh), so an object moving perpendicular to the UA would inevitably re-enter the atmosphere. That's the whole reason why FE'ers deny the possibility of sustained space flight.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

• 625
• Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #58 on: September 17, 2008, 05:36:42 AM »
Quote from: AmateurAstronomer
Blah blah blah

Alright smart guy. I have a craft that is moving horizontally well above the atmosphere. It's using hydrogen or benzene fuel to do this remarkable feat. There's no lift, there's no drag... Why doesn't the Earth rise up and smite it? Craft can do this in RE, explain it in FE.

Also, you're an asshole. If you were nicer I wouldn't need to say that, but there it is...

I'd rather be an asshole than an idiot.

divito the truthist

• The Elder Ones
• 6903
• Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Explain me these two words
« Reply #59 on: September 17, 2008, 05:44:43 AM »
Wow, all the respect I had for AA has been lost in these three pages. This is like, fairly basic math.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good